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

[Coroc]

....

For me:
The 2E AD&D PHB shaped my conception of D&D, even though I didn't play it much. I found it interesting that it specifically mentioned the Knights Templar were listed as inspirations for the Cleric, not the Paladin. And the 2E DMG mentioned that Paladins are too rare for organisations to exist bigger than the Knights of the Round table.
.....

Which is quite logic because historically:

Knight Templar were not necessarily Lawful good, they often did consist of second or third sons because only the firstborn noble would inherit. They were obviously also a strong financial organization with materialistic goals which is diametral to a classic paladin.
It is questionable if they even had some heretic beliefs, be it from advanced knowledge or to form a stronger bond of "initiated", so they would eventually go along not so well with official church.

From 2e game mechanic:

Rolling attributes was the standard method. Even if you used systems different to 6x3d6 in a row the minimum scores needed for a paladin were quite rare to achieve. I do not recall the absolute probability but it was less than 1 in 100 chance or so depending on rolling method.
The knight Templars were a big organization, certainly more than paladinsavailable in a equivalent game world.


Round table is an excellent example for paladins. Their quests were really for idealism and to honor chivalric code.


edit: Uups someone resurrected this nevertheless quite interesting thread a few pages before my post.
Wasn't me

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Arnwolf666]

I always thought paladin was kind of a hybrid
Fighter/cleric class back in the day when humans could not multiclass. But it also filled the place to reward players trying to be a force for good and making the world a better place. Something most DM’s wish players would do. It’s much easier to get the Paladin to take the adventure hook and get the adventure started than some other character types.

 

[Undrave]

I don't think the distinction for the mechanics NEED to exist in the world. In 4e, for exemple, I had a Dragonborn Cleric who was, in story, a Paladin in the same order as the party's Paladin. He had, however, a different role, being a former drill sergeant who had escaped the destruction of the order's stronghold with a small group of rookies before rejoining the Paladin and a larger group of refugees. He also had that feat that gave him a once per encounter Divine Challenge for some marking.

I’ve no interest in ever playing any kind of Cleric, but every Cleric lover I know enjoys them in 5e, so...

I'm not a fan of the 5e Cleric. It's support aspect feels diluted and limited. There's no way for the Cleric to offer some type of support without a Spell Slot. And usually it's either a heal or Bless. Bless is good but also SUUUUPER boring. The Bard, for exemple, at least gets Vicious Mockery to offer some constant debuffs.

There's just not enough tactical levers for the Cleric to pull on.

All I'll say is this - clerics absolutely should have been conceptually reimagined in this edition much more than they were. This was a huge missed opportunity. They really were designed in a way that's too specific to a particular notion of what a cleric is and the concept should have been walked back into something more basic that could go in a lot more directions via subclasses.

Yes. I think the Cleric is too straight and basic for what it tries to be. The Melee Clerics don't get extra attack and Divine Strike only comes in later so from 5th to 8th level it's more efficient for them to be slinging Sacred Flame (and ONLY that because that's the only attack cantrip in the PHB) instead of using their Martial Weapons. Furthermore, the Domain entirely decides your play style.

I've been saying that the Cleric should have been more similar to the mix-and-match style of the Warlock where you pick your play style (melee or caster-blaster, maybe even adding a Divine Archer style later) and THEN pick your domain to add theming and flavour. I don't think the 5e Cleric is a BAD class, it's just not one I enjoy much and one I feel where they didn't push the design far enough.

So players are naturally a bit confused about the whole thing. People who want to play a "knight" tend to pick Paladin, whereas people who actually dig the priestly vibe go for Cleric but I think are actually often off-put by the heavy armour, shields and solid weaponry. An awful lot of players would rather play someone more magic-centered I think, in light or no armour, which 3E and 5E didn't really support and 4E only kinda did.

4e ended up with more support for the WIS Cleric than for the STR cleric (MAD Classes ended up a mistake in the long run really) but it also introduced the Invoker class, the robe-wearing Caster centric Divine Controller class for those who wanted to throw Divine Wrath and Radiant Lasers at enemies from a distance. Maybe 5e could have also split the warrior cleric and divine caster apart?

Round table is an excellent example for paladins. Their quests were really for idealism and to honor chivalric code.

Kaamelott trumpets intensify

 

[Ashrym]

The Bard, for exemple, at least gets Vicious Mockery to offer some constant debuffs.

Lol, I skip vicious mockery a lot. It whiffs too often for it's effect due to low DC's at low levels to want it over utility like mage hand or minor illusion, and at higher levels spell alots are better.

 

[Undrave]

Lol, I skip vicious mockery a lot. It whiffs too often for it's effect due to low DC's at low levels to want it over utility like mage hand or minor illusion, and at higher levels spell alots are better.

It's the only Attack Cantrip the Bard gets in the PHB. It at least has an effect that matters.

 

[Ashrym]

It's the only Attack Cantrip the Bard gets in the PHB. It at least has an effect that matters.

True, but my attack cantrip tends to require two hands and has the loading property. It hits just as often at those levels but for 3 times the damage and frees up one of my two cantrips.

Vicious mockery can be a lot of fun but the effectiveness has left me feeling underwhelmed.

 

[Arnwolf666]

True, but my attack cantrip tends to require two hands and has the loading property. It hits just as often at those levels but for 3 times the damage and frees up one of my two cantrips.

Vicious mockery can be a lot of fun but the effectiveness has left me feeling underwhelmed.

handy in those situations when you want out of melee and their is a nasty barbarian tanking for you. But in general yes, use a weapon if you can.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Knight Templar were not necessarily Lawful good, they often did consist of second or third sons because only the firstborn noble would inherit. They were obviously also a strong financial organization with materialistic goals which is diametral to a classic paladin.

Individual members of the order couldn't own property, but the order itself could, as an organisation. I believe this was the case with all medieval monastic orders.

This is similar to the classic D&D paladin. While the paladin cannot own much property, the church or order with which they may be associated can, and could potentially become extremely wealthy as a result.

Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magical items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is necessary to maintain themselves, their men, and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions, i.e. not to some other character played in the game. - OD&D Book IV Greyhawk (1975)​

It's true that there is a tension between the templar knight/paladin's poverty and the order/church's wealth, but that tension, or contradiction, exists in both D&D world and our own history.

There's also an, in my view, fatal contradiction between the classic D&D paladin and XP for gold, unless the aim is to present the paladin as a hypocrite. The game compels the supposedly anti-materialist and virtuous paladin not only to constantly seek out riches, but to steal and murder in order to acquire them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I’m surprised. I find that the 5e Paladin is really really good at reflecting a Paladin in the mechanics.

Howso? Keep in mind that, if I'm being perfectly honest, I loathe spellcasting Paladins. Paladins are not, and should not ever be, "spellcasters" in my not-so-humble opinion. So...if your reasons the into the spells or the Smites that expend them (another mechanic I strongly dislike and which sounds not the least bit Paladinly to my ears), be prepared for that response.

The 5e Paladin is a damn sight better at reflecting "Paladin mechanics" than 4e's was. I recall the Paladin in 4e being a poorly designed mess with pretty much no gameplay identity whatsoever and being the weakest class by far mechanically in the PHB1.

So you're telling me that a mere pool of HP is more Paladin flavor than literally sacrificing your own vigor to heal others? Note that I am NOT saying that the 4e Paladin was mechanically stronger than the 5e Paladin is within each respective edition. It's pretty trivial to show that the 4e version was slightly mechanically flawed (hence the improvements in Divine Power), and likewise that the 5e Paladin is among the strongest non-full-caster classes in the game. But I specifically said that the 5e Paladin was "really good," as in mechanically very solid. But for me, the 5e Paladin is almost totally wedded to spellcasting, and I am utterly opposed to Paladins being mystic handjive performers. (Plus I REALLY hate it when designers turn important class features into elective spells; the Ranger is even worse for that than the Paladin, which is saying something.)