The Cleric, The Paladin, and Multisysteming

[GM Dave]

I'm not crazy sold on it. A paladin isn't just a fighter/cleric. A druid is not just (or even?!) a rogue/cleric. A ranger is not just (or even?) a fighter/rogue. They should be able to do their own things, in their own unique ways, without defining themselves as handy labels for multiclass options. ESPECIALLY if players disagree with their multiball categories.

What can a paladin do for me that a fighter/cleric can't? Because I think there should be paladins, and they should be unique as a class rather than just combos of other classes.

But, the paladin is, to a certain degree, a combo of fighter and cleric. It shouldn't be JUST that, though. Otherwise, why make it its own class?

I guess I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that something archetypically powerful enough to have its own class (like a paladin, but not like a mystic theurge) is probably worth a unique expression of that archetype, not just a kludged together amalgam of other classes.

It is funny that back when they were working on 4e, they had this similar confusion of what is a Paladin compared to other holy warriors.

Personally, I took the Paladin to be the 'Divine Champion' of a holy power. The Divine essence (even if it is a small fraction) invested in a mortal shell.

A prophet might speak the words for a the divine to give instruction but a Paladin/'Divine Champion' performs actions for the divine.

This is why in 3e they 'glowed' so much brighter than a Cleric who simply choose to work for a divine power. The Cleric chooses an association and performs the duties of that association. There are often hundreds of clerics/priests for every one paladin.

Look at the movie Van Helsing. There is a full organization of holy people willing to support Van Helsing but only one Van Helsing willing to take the fight into the monster's den.

Loot at the arthurian knights of the round table. There were many knights but only one of virtue to sit on the seat perilous and bring back the grail. Any other who would dare sit upon the seat perilous would be struck down by the divine for the afront.

Many a cleric goes their entire life without ever really being in contact with their patron God. They work without the assurance of the divine being there since they've never personally been touched by that spirit. They see their spells work but wizard spells work too. There are plenty of agencies like angels and outsiders that could be providing the power to make a spell work.

A paladin has that inner contact that tells them that the divine is with them even in the darkest and remotest moments of their life. A paladin 'falls' when they lose that thread of contact and it often drives them insane to lose that contact. They lose their moral compass and wonder as to where they can go afterwards after that moment.

---------------------------

Game wise, I'd have Paladins have more a 'miracle' feel instead of a 'spell' feel. Lay on Hands is the perfect example. It happens because of the divine contact without any pleading required. Paladins have plenty of things they should be able to do with just the will to do them. Paladins of a higher level should have angels coming to their aid because they are the 'heroes' of their gods (like a Perseus or Odysseus).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Maybe that's all they're talking about? The fighter has access to a large selection of combat exploits and maneuvers, just like the cleric has access to a large selection of prayers and spells. And rather have the paladin have his own completely different set of combat maneuvers and divine prayers (many of which do exactly the same as the fighter's and cleric's powers do)... he just has access to the same few of the ones the fighters and clerics also have. So he can also take Cleave and Bless, rather than completely invented "paladin" powers like "Sanctioned Cleaver Strike" or "Paladin's Blessing".

But just like every other class... the paladin still probably also gets 3 or so unique "class features" that no other class has. Smite Evil, Lay on Hands, and Paladin's Mount for example. And this is how the paladin maintains its place as its own class, without needing to invent an entire suite of "paladin-only" abilities.

Great. Then from there they need just one tiny little step to bring it all into clarity: Don't obsess on a set amount of unique or common for each class. If there is a power that belongs to the fighter, paladin, and ranger, let them have it. If there is a power that belongs only to the paladin, even though the paladin already has enough, throw it in as paladin-only anyway. And finally, if there is a class that has nothing unique--rethink the divisions or throw out that class.

I think the problems arise when preconceived assumptions that aren't questioned, mixed with an attempt to do what you said and I said, seem to prompt the removal of the fighter class. People start tying themselves into hoops over that, and pretty soon reasonable divisions are no longer an option.

 

[Incenjucar]

I look at it this way, if fighters get maneuvers and clerics get spells, and palidens get about 1/3 of the maneuvers and about 1/3 of the spells and few unque things (lay hands, aura, smite attacks) it would work out well

Then you hybrid paladin/cleric and multiclass fighter and... nothing happens.

 

[Scribble]

Then you hybrid paladin/cleric and multiclass fighter and... nothing happens.

That wouldn't be true.

The trade off for playing a paladin is it's both warrior and priest, but neither one to it's "fullest" ability.

I guess the difference between that, and multiclassing is that a multiclass gets each of the class abilities one at a time, whereas the hybrid gets a smaller amount of each at the same time.

The multiclass character has to decide which benefits it wants to increase each level, where the hybrid gets to increase both (but in a more limited fashion.)

It's a small distinction but I think it IS important.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then you hybrid paladin/cleric and multiclass fighter and... nothing happens.

Maybe, or maybe not.

My idea is a fighter/cleric and a paliden have alot of crosses over but still arediffrent

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Sure- but that's not what the article seemed to indicate.

The article linked to at the begining basically said they could take some fighter powers, and some cleric powers blend them together and voila... Paladin.

Sure, they "probably" just didn't mention unique Paladin powers that would be a part of the class but..

Well, I was answering someone's question about what should differentiate fighter/clerics from paladins to justify having them as a separate class. Whether WotC will differentiate them appropriately in 5e is another question, and things aren't looking good for the paladin right now.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The other thing to remember is that just because a Paladin might have access to martial maneuvers and divine prayers and a Fighter/Cleric multiclass might have access to martial maneuvers and divine prayers... doesn't mean they'd have access to the same maneuvers and prayers within each group.

We assume that if you have a large list of divine prayers... that the Cleric will have access to all of them (and thus, by extension, the Fighter/Cleric would have access to all of them). But what if that's not a given? What if the big list of divine prayers includes some that only the Paladin can take? Or some that only Clerics whose gods belong to a certain Domain can take? Or what if the list of divine prayers and the list of arcane spells (and primal evocations, if they exist) are actually one giant combined list of "magic"... and individual classes that use magic have their own individual list of the ones that they can access (through whatever their means of magic access is)?

So there would be no guarantee that the prayers that a Fighter/Cleric could access would be the same prayers a Paladin could access. Or heck... even the same list that a Paladin with the Avenger theme could access. Using spell lists and/or keywords on magical effects... you can separate which classes have access to which prayers/spells thereby assuring that the so-called "subclasses" and the multiclasses are not the same.

 

[Andor]

So there would be no guarantee that the prayers that a Fighter/Cleric could access would be the same prayers a Paladin could access. Or heck... even the same list that a Paladin with the Avenger theme could access. Using spell lists and/or keywords on magical effects... you can separate which classes have access to which prayers/spells thereby assuring that the so-called "subclasses" and the multiclasses are not the same.

Not only do I think this is possible, I think it's likely. This is similar to what Monte did in Arcana Unearthed, where you had a single universal spell list but some classes had easier access to some advanced spells and there were some spells which, while technically on everyone's list, didn't actually do anything unless you had a class feature like an athame or witchery.

I'm just saying I don't think it's enough all by itself. In 3e the fighter alone had access to a few feats. But that's a class feature you have to actively choose to employ and it comes at the permanent cost of losing other options. Not to mention that we then saw other classes start to count as fighters for the purposes of feats, and so even that minor unique class benefit was diluted.

I don't want the Paladin to be the fighter plus a magical pony plus a holy aura plus plus lay on hands plus a two-piece custom made pool cue. He should lose something to be a Paladin. It should not merely be a roleplaying effect. "Your hero must act heroic." is not such a penalty in my book. The fighter should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with a paladin and not be ashamed.

 

[Scribble]

I don't want the Paladin to be the fighter plus a magical pony plus a holy aura plus plus lay on hands plus a two-piece custom made pool cue. He should lose something to be a Paladin. It should not merely be a roleplaying effect. "Your hero must act heroic." is not such a penalty in my book. The fighter should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with a paladin and not be ashamed.

Wouldn't that be by default though?

I mean by this meathod it seems a paladin would not be as martially powerful as a fighter, and not priestly powerful as a cleric, but would be able (in theory) to stand toe to toe with either of them based on the combined power.

The trick I guess would be getting the power mix right.

 

[howandwhy99]

The difference between a Paladin and a Cleric, if you take away the common meaning of each term, becomes near indistinguishable when viewed within a single sphere of activity, in this case: combat. Both would be individuals in a skirmish battle who were incidentally dedicated to a deity.

Once different systems of the game are recognized as different spheres of play for each core class, then we get the major differences between classes. A Cleric becomes the major class which focuses on influencing creatures with culture. Paladins become warriors aligned with some of the Cleric's duties, and a good bit more including following only deities which are Lawful or LG only. They focus on combat primarily. Clerics focus primarily on their and others behavior.