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

[Doug McCrae]

The classic cleric has three sources:
1) Medieval legends of blunt weapon-wielding martial clergy, such as Bishop Odo at the battle of Hastings.
2) The Hammer Horror version of Professor Van Helsing.
3) Spells derived from Bible stories, such as Raise Dead, Plague of Flies, Sticks to Snakes, and Tongues. This article argues, I think persuasively, that Gary used the Sunday School versions.

The classic paladin derives from:
1) Three Hearts and Three Lions, which is partly based on the legend of one of Charlemagne's paladins, Ogier the Dane.
2) Arthurian legend, particularly Sir Galahad.
3) The Bible (or Sunday School again) for lay on hands.
4) The D&D cleric, for turn undead and spellcasting (both present in AD&D 1e but not the original OD&D Greyhawk version).

What really stands out about these sources is the one unifying factor - Christianity. In Three Hearts and Three Lions, Law, which the hero champions, subsumes Christianity and Islam, against the pagan/communist forces of Chaos.

This is rather at odds with D&D's supposed polytheism but D&D isn't really polytheistic imo. Despite the 9-alignment system, D&D is a dualistic universe. The major conflict in default D&D is good vs evil - good gods vs evil gods, good or neutral PCs vs evil monsters. The good gods are analogous to Christianity, and the evil gods are Christianity's enemies. As with Three Hearts, the dualistic Cold War, preceded by the equally dualistic WWII, was no doubt a seedbed for the idea of D&D's world structure.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D is henotheistic. Most people have one main god, but recognize the divinity of many gods.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Another source for D&D's dualism is Chainmail and the inspiration for its fantasy supplement, a Tolkien wargame created by Leonard Patt. Chainmail's fantasy supplement contains many Tolkien references, as does OD&D.

Wargames are inherently strongly dualistic. Lord of the Rings presents a conflict between good and evil, powerfully informed by its author's Catholic beliefs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

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.)

Lol honestly with a preliminary response like that, I’m not interested in further discussion. Have a good one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.)

(Yeah, that's a little weak.) But, a Paladin can just reserve all his slots for Smite and be as DPR-focused as the fighter - until a given spell is just too useful to ignore. When they do, you can try to picture it more as prayer than casting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The classic cleric has three sources:
1) Medieval legends of blunt weapon-wielding martial clergy, such as Bishop Odo at the battle of Hastings.

Wow, that's an historical figure, who necessarily didn't cast spells, because, y'know, magic isn't real, and was depicted holding a 'club' (rod? scepter?) on the Bayeux tapestry, which noted, in Latin, that he didn't actually fight...

...heck, he was a Lazylord. ;P

2) The Hammer Horror version of Victor Van Helsing.

That's according to D&D history, fast becoming D&D legend, yes.

3) Spells derived from Bible stories, such as Raise Dead, Plague of Flies, Sticks to Snakes, and Tongues. This article argues, I think persuasively, that Gary used the Sunday School versions.

Part Water, Create Food & Drink, etc...
...criticized, by those not too busy crying "Satanism," and more cogently than them, too, as trivializing Biblical miracles.

The classic paladin derives from:
2) Arthurian myth, particularly Sir Galahad.

And Lancelot, the archetypal fallen Paladin.

1) Three Hearts and Three Lions, which is partly based on the legend of one of Charlemagne's paladins, Ogier the Dane.

Well, and the name 'Paladin.'

And, considering how pop-culture D&D was, I kinda think Have Gun, Will Travel was in there somewhere.

What really stands out about these sources is the one unifying factor - Christianity.

… I think that speaks more to the era & life experiences of the game's creators than anything else.

 

[Gladius Legis]

So you're telling me that a mere pool of HP is more Paladin flavor than literally sacrificing your own vigor to heal others?

I didn't specifically single out Lay on Hands. But, uh, 4e is the only version of Lay on Hands to do that sort of thing, so if you're going to rip 5e's Paladin LoH you have to rip all the earlier versions of the class, too. You know, the versions of the class that sort of established the whole Paladin identity to begin with.

And I didn't much care for LoH in 4e, by the way. At least 5e lets you cure status ailments.

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.)

You do realize that literally every Paladin power in 4e was basically a spell, right?

Also 4e Paladins had at-will attacks using Charisma instead of Strength. That's as "mystic handjive performer" as it gets.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You do realize that literally every Paladin power in 4e was basically a spell, right?

Literally none of them were.
Technically all of them were Prayers.
In a practical sense, the Implement (holy symbol, typically) attacks were more spell-like.

Also 4e Paladins had at-will attacks using Charisma instead of Strength. That's as "mystic handjive performer" as it gets.

Using implements instead of weapons gets you to 'mystic handjive' I think. However fancy or glowy the holy sword, the pointy end still goes into the other guy.
The Paladin had exactly zero implement at-wills. (Again, 4e not really goin' in much for the ranged defender thing). It had a few (OK, 40, out of 250 is more than a few) implement encounters & dailies, though, so still had a sense of 'casting spells.'
A given paladin might not actually choose any of them, of course, it depends on how you envision the character.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Literally none of them were.
Technically all of them were Prayers.
In a practical sense, the Implement (holy symbol, typically) attacks were more spell-like.

So, as much of a spellcaster as the 4e Cleric was, then. Whatever, semantics.

Even the Paladin's weapon attacks had blatant magic to them.

Using implements instead of weapons gets you to 'mystic handjive' I think. However fancy or glowy the holy sword, the pointy end still goes into the other guy.

But when you use Charisma instead of something physical to stick the pointy end in, it's clearly not martial skill. It's magic.

A given paladin might not actually choose any of them, of course, it depends on how you envision the character.

Right, just like in 5e you can use your spell slots on nothing but Smites. And all the spells you prepare are Smite spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, as much of a spellcaster as the 4e Cleric was, then. Whatever, semantics.

Not just semantics, keywords had definite meaning, and 'Implement' mapped to casting. And not as much an implement-user (caster). While the Cleric had more prayers than the Paladin, at almost 400, only had 50 or 60 that were weapon attacks, half of those in Divine Power.
(the Essentials War Priest about doubled that, again, though, being quite melee-oriented, another example of D&D blurring the lines between cleric & paladin, I suppose).

But when you use Charisma instead of something physical to stick the pointy end in, it's clearly not martial skill. It's magic.

Actually, it could just be a feat, 'Melee Training,' and a basic attack. Not Martial skill, since that's a Source, in it's own right, but mundane skill with a weapon.
Of course when a paladin mades a CHA attack using a weapon, it's probably a lot more about faith, and divine magic - but, it's still smiting the foes of his god with a weapon, not "mystic handjive" (and, really, that's pretty clearly S components). Besides, in 4e, how a power looked was explicitly left up to the player. You weren't getting away from the Divine keyword, for instance, and radiant damage'd still be radiant, but aside from provisos like that, your Paladin could run on sheer faith and not need be too overt about it.

Right, just like in 5e you can use your spell slots on nothing but Smites. And all the spells you prepare are Smite spells.

Not just like. In 4e, you could retrain a single prayer when you leveled up, so if you chose to be all-in weapon-using, you couldn't just back out of it one day. In 5e you can prep all different spells, every long rest and cast them or use them to smite, spontaneously - so you can 'break concept' at a day's notice, if not a moment's.