D&D 5E Cleric vs Paladin: Concepts and Mechanical realisation

[Mirtek]

Let me chime in with a quote from an old issue of Dragon Magazine:

Dragon Magazine, Issue 52 (August 1981)
The cleric-adventurer is not a meek priest; he is a warrior who has spells and magical powers to aid him as he destroys the enemies of his god. Like Archbishop Turpin, he can use his powers to bless and support his comrades, and he is an able fighter in his own right, second only to a professional warrior in skill.
[...]
Clericadventurers are trained warriors; they fight better than trained men-at-arms, are comfortable with armor, and are bold enough to enter places no cynical mercenary would dare come near. They are warrior-priests, and it should show in their outlook. This warlike outlook is evident in a properly motivated cleric player character. Why does a cleric-adventurer go on adventures? Certainly not just to play medic; he could do that where it’s safe — people get hurt everywhere.
[...]
His motives are basically aggressive: he wants to destroy his god’s enemies, wrest away their wealth, and accumulate personal experience in a rapid but risky manner; and all for his god’s benefit. This is a cleric worthy of Turpin’s approval. After all, how meek can you expect a person who fights terrible monsters to be? Just descending into a dungeon is an act of uncommon boldness. The cleric-adventurer isn’t, and really can’t be, a meek healer. His purpose demands that he be a bold killer, a champion of his god.

Note that in 2e clerics had the second best THAC0 after the warriors, their's was better than than the rogue's.

Also when they did that one series of FR splatbooks they themed one Warrior's & Priests and the the other Wizard's & Rogues

 

[Xeviat]

I started playing D&D through Baldur's Gate, and ended up picking up 3E after BG2 was packaged with a character builder. Back then, I supported the notion of Bard, Paladin, and Ranger as Prestige classes. But, thinking back at Baldur's Gate, my paladins played differently than my clerics. Both were front line and hit with weapons, but clerics either started with buffing themselves or their party while Paladins would run in right away.

I began to support clerics being in robes, like Priests from World of Warcraft. The War Cleric would need to be tweaked, though, becoming less of a warrior themselves and doing a lot more blessing allies to be their champions.

But, switching Paladins to Oaths rather than Domains was a good way to go I think.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

This is an old thread.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Haven’t read the thread yet, but I wanted to simply reply to the OP.

I don’t care about origins of concepts except as inspiration for new takes on the concept, or simple academic curiosity.

So, for me, the fact the Cleric came first is meaningless. The fact they have always been warriors is meaningless. The history of Paladins having to be the Arthurian ideal is only interesting in terms of lore and maybe establishing in-world social expectations.


To me, the Paladin is the Knight of The Faith. The Sword In The Right Hand of God.

The Cleric is The Priest. The Chosen Voice of God.

Everything flows out from there, for me. And for the most part, DnD 5e does both of them well. I’ve no interest in ever playing any kind of Cleric, but every Cleric lover I know enjoys them in 5e, so...

I do think Paladins (along with Rangers and Warlocks) should have a Ritual Casting feature, and they can both certainly be part of a clergy if the player wants, but only the Cleric is a Priest.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Honestly I do think the archetypes are very muddied in 5e. To me, a cleric is a vessel for divine power, the Paladin...a sword honed by divine will.

The biggest "issue" to me are domains like the War Cleric. Realistically, those archetypes to me are really paladins, big armor and weapons, with holy power channeling through awesome attacks and impenetrable defenses. Whereas I think clerics are exemplified by spells like spiritual weapon and spirit guardians....clerics are not warriors, but they can wield the powers of great war gods.

I think the big armor cleric should just be a paladin, with the cleric being turned more into the "priest" concept...a person who doesn't need the big armor and weapons...because god is literally on his side.

I would support a Cleric with Unarmored Defense (Wisdom), tbh. And a cantrip or two that basically allow them to whack someone with a divinely guided strike and lay some radiant damage on top of it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The most interesting thing about necro’d thread you had posted in is to see your old posts and see if you were either spot on, or “what was I thinking?”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The most interesting thing about necro’d thread you had posted in is to see your old posts and see if you were either spot on, or “what was I thinking?”

Yes! Haha last time that happened to me I tried to give myself xp, and then realized it was my post.

 

[Charlaquin]

To answer the question though, the difference between Clerics and Paladins is about 2-3 centuries. The Cleric is a holy crusader who wears chainmail and a tabard and carries a shield and a one-handed weapon. In other words, a 13th century Knight. The Paladin is an oathbound champion of the realm who wears full plate and either carries a Greatsword or a lance. In other words, a 16th century knight.