Paladin vs Fighter/Cleric (Previously: Is Turn Undead useful for a Paladin?)

[Hypersmurf]

Really, there are things that, while technically legal according to the game rules, ought not to be done. Horses initiating grapples is one of them.

Hey, you're trying to nerf the paladin!

-Hyp.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I have to admit, Paladins can gain some pretty strong mounts. I currently ride a Half-dragon Dire Lion. That is one tough mount even at 16th level.

I think a Paladin could beat a Fighter/Cleric in a standard start at the same time fight. If the Paladin gave the cleric time to fully buff up prior to the fight, then there might be a problem depending on the cleric build. One Righteous Might spell would be incredibly hard for a Paladin to beat due to the DR. A Paladin couldn't wield a weapon capable of punching through the cleric's DR. Righteous Might is alot more powerful than it used to be.

 

[FireLance]

OK, I've edited the thread title to match the current topic.

I think a Paladin could beat a Fighter/Cleric in a standard start at the same time fight. If the Paladin gave the cleric time to fully buff up prior to the fight, then there might be a problem depending on the cleric build. One Righteous Might spell would be incredibly hard for a Paladin to beat due to the DR. A Paladin couldn't wield a weapon capable of punching through the cleric's DR. Righteous Might is alot more powerful than it used to be.

Only if the Paladin is fighting a Good Fighter/Cleric, or a Neutral Fighter/Cleric that channels positive energy. An Evil Fighter/Cleric or a Neutral Fighter/Cleric that channels negative energy gets DR x/good, which any Paladin can punch through with a Bless Weapon or Holy Sword spell, a Holy Avenger, or a run-of-the-mill Holy weapon.

And there's nothing wrong with that, in my view. A Paladin ought to be optimised to fight Evil, not Good or Neutral characters.

 

[Number47]

I think the best test between the two characters, how does each contribute to a party, not who would win a fight. As a character, paladin just beats the pants off of cleric/fighter. It's little things that never get discussed in smackdown threads, like how a high charisma makes the paladin practically immune to level-appropriate magic. The mount kicks ass is there when you need it, unlike your mundane mount. Paladin spells are overall better for their level, a second level paladin spell is better than a second level cleric spell.

If all you are looking at is a one-on-one fight, it is the character with the most buffing and the time to do that buffing that will always win.

 

[Darklone]

I think the best test between the two characters, how does each contribute to a party, not who would win a fight. As a character, paladin just beats the pants off of cleric/fighter. It's little things that never get discussed in smackdown threads, like how a high charisma makes the paladin practically immune to level-appropriate magic. The mount kicks ass is there when you need it, unlike your mundane mount. Paladin spells are overall better for their level, a second level paladin spell is better than a second level cleric spell.

If all you are looking at is a one-on-one fight, it is the character with the most buffing and the time to do that buffing that will always win.

Yeah. One reason why I always saw the paladin as superior to the ftr/clr built was that in my group the paladin (with the weaker stats) always lasted longer as frontliner, while the ftr/clr as second line supporter (he saw himself that way, the others wanted him further ahead) always went down first.
And all these ftr/clr comparisons usually take three or four buff spells into acount... I don't wanna say it's not a viable character concept, but it has restrictions and is at the least in my campaigns (without buff and boot the door tactics) weaker than a full score paladin (who makes up for it with a lot of restrictions).

 

[reapersaurus]

Darklone - you never understood (or responded about) that many fights don't start within melee range.
If you manufacture the environment to have the Paladin be on his mount, and within charge distance vs the cleric (unmounted), than that isn't a comparison - you might as well give the Paladin a surprise round while you're at it.

So I think a fair comparison would include at least 1 round's prep, not to mention any long-running buffs that the cleric might have running.

And other than the spells, the real reason a ftr/clr will kick all over a paladin (mechanics only, guys- we're not comparing roleplay here) is because of the feats.
Whatever feat chain you think a paladin can take advantage of (Divine Might, Divine Shield/Shield Charge or Mounted Combat/Ride-By/Spirited Charge), a ftr/clr can take advantage of BETTER.

What does the paladin have instead? ooooh, a likely-useless Smite.
And the problematic Mount.

 

[Darklone]

Darklone - you never understood (or responded about) that many fights don't start within melee range.

I did. But last time someone came up with these comparisons, they considered 3 prep rounds for the level 1 cleric

If you manufacture the environment to have the Paladin be on his mount, and within charge distance vs the cleric (unmounted), than that isn't a comparison - you might as well give the Paladin a surprise round while you're at it.

Yeah, sure. He's so sneaky, you know

So I think a fair comparison would include at least 1 round's prep, not to mention any long-running buffs that the cleric might have running.

I don't know many long running buffs anymore... And I do not allow Persistent Spell as written, that may of course be a reason why I see usually the paladin as winner.
As for the round of preparation... No problem. The paladin might activate some boots of haste thing or his holy sword spell or shoot some arrows into the cleric. All of these don't really help the cleric to win the battle

And other than the spells, the real reason a ftr/clr will kick all over a paladin (mechanics only, guys- we're not comparing roleplay here) is because of the feats.
Whatever feat chain you think a paladin can take advantage of (Divine Might, Divine Shield/Shield Charge or Mounted Combat/Ride-By/Spirited Charge), a ftr/clr can take advantage of BETTER.

What does the paladin have instead? ooooh, a likely-useless Smite.
And the problematic Mount.

The Divine feat chains: Last time we considered these things, we agreed that a ftr/clr likely a higher Wis and the paladin a higher Cha. Strength and Con might easily be similar. If that's the case, then a paladin will usually benefit more.
Other feats: Sure, the ftr/clr will be ahead... will it help him against the typical one shot paladin built?

Useless Smite: I don't think we will see a paladin fighting clerics who are immune to his smite.

Mount: Well... As said above, it's a class ability. Probably one with Improved Evasion.

Final statement: I do think that a ftr/clr build can be interesting to play and is more versatile. But in a direct confrontation, a paladin will probably win (against an evil alignment, I don't really consider other cases).

 

[green slime]

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't agree about that "likely-useless" smite ability.

Of course it can be campaign specific, but IMC, the greatest damage has been dealt by the Str 18, Cha 22 Paladin, and not the Str 22 Ftr Dwarf. Even considering when the Dwarf criticals with his waraxe, the Paladin continues to deal the greatest amount of damage on a semi-regular basis (at least once per session he causes more than 50 damage).

Granted the dwarf does must of the ground work, but when a BBEG rears his head, the BBEG promptly gets it almost completely severed by a single attack from the Paladin.

Now I know naught about Ftr/Clr combinations, but I do know of other players that have played them to Epic levels, and complained about them being too weak! I guess different character concepts appeal to different player styles.

I feel that the Paladin definitely has a strong role to play in the party.