Blog: Paladin vs. Cleric, fight!

[grimslade]

In light of the latest Legend and Lore on Clerics design view, I think their will be plenty of customization of the paladin through themes and backgrounds from Galahad to Batman.
The paladin class will be a holy warrior, but what does that mean in game terms?
-poke-mount? spells? smite? evil radar? Lay on Hands? Protection from fear? Immune to disease natural and magical? turn undead?

I would like to see the 'mounted' portion go away. No more Poke-mount or horsey ally in the class. It is too campaign specific and a liability in dungeons. It is a perfect option for a theme.

I would like to see spell casting and spell lists go away for paladins. A paladin should have divine magic effects but not spells. Smite is a good example, a holy charged smack down of the paladins foe. Detect Evil should be toned down but is an iconic ability. Even if the paladin is broadened to many alignments like in 4E there should be a variant of Detect Opposite morality, neutral paladins can choose an opposite ethos to detect. Bonus to fear checks? Immunity or bonus to saves vs disease? Are these necessary? They are evocative of purity and bravery, but most adventurers are considered brave if a bit impure. I say dump them. Turn Undead? Only good reanimated corpse is a de-animated corpse via repeated contact with a sanctified weapon. No to turn undead, but perfect for the Undead Slayer theme. "The power of Vecna compels you!" heh.

So a paladin should fight as well as a fighter but use spell like or innate abilities to achieve this. Maybe they piggy back on both cleric and fighter systems. 1 martial maneuver and one spell ability. Lay on Hands and Detect EVIL!!!! are too iconic to drop.

 

[Sunseeker]

Within the timescale of an entire adventure, you can have the "better effect" happen once and be better, while the fighter is having their "lesser effect" every turn they have, all day long, in every combat that they're in.

"over the length of a campaign" is a poor way to balance classes. Campaigns end suddenly, often before their time, some campaigns are short, some campaigns are long. Some people run one-hour sessions with a single adventure.

But that isn't the point I was making. I'm not familiar with earlier clerics, but taking 3.5 or 4.0, we can make nearly every role in the party with just the cleric class. The Defender, the Caster, the Healer, the Support. As I said, it's nice to have versatility in a class, but being able to fill every aspect of the party is IMO, too much.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"over the length of a campaign" is a poor way to balance classes. Campaigns end suddenly, often before their time, some campaigns are short, some campaigns are long. Some people run one-hour sessions with a single adventure.

That's why I didn't say "campaign," I said "adventure." Let's not put words into my fingers.

Adventure, specifically, because you can fit at least one into a session, so that if you have a group who wants to each shine every time you meet, you can run adventures that are the size of your sessions (or slightly smaller) and get everyone to shine over the course of a single night.

But that isn't the point I was making. I'm not familiar with earlier clerics, but taking 3.5 or 4.0, we can make nearly every role in the party with just the cleric class. The Defender, the Caster, the Healer, the Support. As I said, it's nice to have versatility in a class, but being able to fill every aspect of the party is IMO, too much.

I think every party member should be able to baseline fill every combat role. Otherwise, you're back to the "we MUST have someone play the Healer or the Support, even if everyone wants to play the Caster." Which is only a little better than "someone MUST play the cleric." Balance by niche protection has this problem -- the niche must be filled.

But the real problem is making other party members feel like they are useless. And being able to do a big thing ONCE isn't going to make someone feel useless. Now, doing it over and over again, day in and day out, is a different story, but you can control for that without having to make everyone function on the same recharge spectrum.

 

[3catcircus]

I've always had some reservations about the cleric and paladin (and the monk in non-oriental campaigns), going back to 1e.

The Paladin fills the role of the martial cleric already. I'd prefer to split the Cleric and Paladin such that the Cleric no longer retains many of the "individual" combat-related divine spell, but would still keep stuff like Flamestrike and Implosion.

I see the Paladin as it's deity's "Avenging Angel" while the Cleric is the spreader of the faith and worker of the deity's miracles.

 

[ComputerSherpa]

There are two spells that I feel essentially describe the Paladin: Lay on Hands and Smite Evil.

In the recent column Cleric Design Goals, Mike Mearls wrote that "Divine powers are subtle and indirect", citing bless, cure light wounds, and neutralize poison as iconic divine spells. This is absolutely correct for the Cleric, but it's not right for the Paladin. Paladins are not subtle. They are the dramatic, heroic, hard-charging front-line warriors of the church.

Clerics are support characters. They are tremendously powerful--sometimes even essential--in that role. Their main job is to heal and bolster their allies using magic, and they are also equipped to smack someone around with a mace should that become necessary.

Paladins are also support characters, but in a different way. The most essential piece of equipment for a cleric is their holy symbol; the most essential piece of gear for a paladin is his shield. Paladins are superb defenders: they're tough, they can heal themselves and their allies, and their spells earn them the fear of their enemies. When a paladin finds an enemy worthy of his smite evil spell, sh*t is going down.

Being a paladin isn't about riding on horseback. It's about protecting your friends until your last breath--not by standing behind them with a heal, but by standing in front of them with a stout shield and a dangerous look in your eye. And it's about putting the fear of God into your enemies by showing them the glorious power your deity grants unto his champions.

 

[Glade Riven]

I guess I've been playing it wrong, because my longest running character is a paladin and he never was relegated to "party support crew." Granted, his 4e version would probably be an Avenger (but not Pathfinder's Inquisitor's class).

Boosting and healing allies is the Cleric's job. The paladin's job is to bring down the holy pain with the might of his blessed sword.

 

[paladinm]

It may have been brought up before, but the paladin was originally Not a spell-casting class, nor could s/he turn undead. The class was basically the fighter class with some perks: Detect Evil, Dispel Evil (at-will!), lay-on hands, cure disease (1/day), immunity to disease, using a holy sword, improved saves, and calling a warhorse. I suppose the "smite evil" ability is an adaptation of the Dispel Evil?

If the paladin was limited to these abilities and Maybe turning undead (at 1/3 level, like in BECM) and Maybe a couple (but definitely Not all) abilities from Pathfinder, s/he could do without the spellcasting and thus be differentiated from a cleric?

 

[ProtoClone]

If you make the Paladin a defender class, won't that kind of be stepping on the Clerics toes?

I guess because of the Paladins abilities I always saw him as more then just a Knight or defender.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm really discouraged by all of the talk about smiting evil in the article. One of the things I loved about 4e was that it removed the stupid alignment restrictions from the classes. If Paladins go back to having to be Lawful Good, and having the game-breaking detect evil and smite evil powers, that may well be a deal-breaker for the next edition for me.

Pre-3e Paladins, thanks to their alignment restrictions and code of conduct were the ultimate problem players. I've had nothing but bad experiences playing with Paladins in pre-4e games, and do not care to go back to endless arguments about morality, chivalry and having a character in the party who is forced to be intolerant of non-good characters in the group. And as a DM, nothing ruins plots more than alignment detecting spells, especially when they're at will. 4e made great progress by eliminating all that crap. PLEASE, do not bring it back! Let the paladin be the crusader, knight, cavalier and divine champion for whatever deity, alignment or cause he chooses to defend!

 

[fuindordm]

The paladin is a tough nut to crack, both literally and from a design perspective. It does step on the cleric's toes, and there's no getting around it.

So what is a paladin? To answer that, look back to what has worked in the past.

Arcana Unearthed's Champion was, in many ways, a better paladin than the paladin.

Some sort of challenge or marking feature is better for the game than an X/day "Smite" attack. Let the paladin lock on to an opponent and get bonuses over the course of the duel.

Paladins are defenders, even more so than the fighter. They should be capable of standing between the enemy and their allies, if that is what the party needs. They need training and minor abilities to boost their AC in this situation and make it difficult for enemies to pass (e.g. the 3E Knight class). And since they are a supernatural class, I'm thinking Gandalf on the bridge--they should literally be able to hold evil at bay, at high levels.

Paladins don't need spells, but I don't mind if they get a few at high levels. However, some useful supernatural abilities would be better. I don't want to force paladins to have a specific god.

However, a paladin has a code of conduct. They may not know where their gifts come from, but they know the path they have to follow. One aspect of their service is to advertise their patron's ethos, becoming a living paragon of justice/freedom/slaughter/whatever. But the classical paladin exists, in part, to inspire folk to goodness.

Paladins are called, not trained. Jeanne d'Arc is one of the inspirations, after all. I think Charisma should power their key abilities, and I don't think they should be required to choose a god. Maybe they're just driven by instinct and circumstance to the turning point of a conflict. Another good example: the protagonist of Lawrence Watt-Evans' "Touched by the Gods".

Evil outsiders should feel a chill when a paladin enters the arena. Against ordinary foes, the paladin is just a competent, defensive fighter with a few useful abilities for the party, and I'm OK with that.