Fighter vs. Paladin/Ranger (early levels)

[Human Paragon 3]

Context: I am playing in a pbp adventure right now as a 1st level paladin.


So, comparing the strength of fighter and paladin. At level 1, the fighter is much tougher and better at fighting. At first, I was worried that paladin would just be overshadowed since they get no combat abilities at all until level 2, but actually playing it, I am loving the differences between them.

My party's fighter is way more badass than the paladin, and really brought the hurt to the bandits in the first encounter, which was awesome. If I had been as proactive as her, I probably would have dropped one, too, but her ability to inflict damage is noticeably better.

However, the non-combat abilities of the paladin are really cool, and really go a long way to differentiate it from fighter as a warrior. Fighters are just the most accomplished warriors, that's a given, and finally they feel that way. Paladin is a holy warrior. Using the abilities of the paladin to heal and detect evil feel cool and unique, and useful without stepping on fighter's toes.

I have a feeling ranger will feel a lot like that, too.

Last, I'd like to point out the utility of lay on hands is fantastic. We had a situation with a 0HP enemy that we wanted to interrogate (he was dying) and I was able to spend 1 HP of my 5 HP lay on hands pool to revive him.

If I were a cleric, I would have had to waste one of my two healing spells to bring that guy back, and it would have been a really hard choice to make. I might not have done it. Instead, I was able to spend a very small resource (1 hp of my 5 hp pool) to bring this guy back, which is going to be really helpful, I hope. So Paladin feels awesome and useful compared to both fighter and cleric.

[T.G. Oskar]

Regarding Lay on Hands: the Cleric has access to Spare the Dying, which helps stabilize the target, and is usable at-will. The target can eventually recover. Still, happy to see that Lay on Hands was of utility.

That said: it all depends. The Fighter and the Paladin at the first two levels aren't so different: the Fighter gains its Fighting Style earlier (and gains more choices), but the Paladin gets some utility instead. At 2nd level, the Paladin gets its first spells (and Divine Smite), which boost its offensive potential; the Fighter gains Second Wind which improves its survivability, and retains Action Surge which is suitably awesome. However, for the most part, they deal roughly the same damage and have the same defensive potential: the amount of spells a Paladin gets are just enough to let them have an edge over the Fighter in one or two battles.

The Cleric, on the other hand, has more spells and access to its subclasses as early as 1st level. Depending on its choice, you could have a class with better spells and the same proficiencies as you (War domain) or someone who could use more support (Light, maybe?).

IMO, progression would be like this:
1st: War Cleric > Fighter > Paladin > Light Cleric
2nd: Fighter = Paladin > War Cleric > Light Cleric
3rd: War Cleric >= Paladin >= Fighter > Light Cleric

I could be wrong, but a War Cleric is quite good; it may lack the Fighting Style of a Paladin, but its spells edge ahead. It also depends on whether Short Rests are allowed, as Fighters rely a lot on these while Paladins don't (on the first two levels; then Channel Divinity kicks in and you get to benefit from them) and Clerics mostly rely on Long Rests to recover their spellcasting potential, while they benefit from Short Rests via their Channel Divinity options straight from 1st level. Thus, if Short Rests aren't allowed because of how long they are, the Fighter won't have access to Action Surge or Second Wind after some battles while the Cleric will lose its spells quickly and then force a Long Rest, making their advantage moot. Or, alternatively, the Fighter drags the Cleric into multiple fights and probably outlasts it, as the Cleric shifts to ranged damage through cantrips.

[Human Paragon 3]

The benefit of the fighting style at level 1 is a significant one in 5e. An extra 2 damage per attack, +2 to hit, or +1 AC gives fighters a pretty big mechanical edge. They don't have to put high ability scores in Cha either, so their Str, Dex, and Con should be better.

So on the topic of paladin vs cleric at level one, you brought up spare the dying vs. lay on hands.

Lay on Hands 5xlevel/day makes it pretty much at will if you use it just to bring people to 1hp. It's also much, much better to heal 1 HP than to stabilize a dying person, especially if you want to wake them up and interrogate them in the moment.

War domain cleric gets full proficiencies and 2-3 extra attacks per day, giving it the melee edge over paladin, oddly enough. So that's one check mark in the palladin column and one in the war domain cleric column. That just leaves divine sense (basically 2-3 1st level spells/day) vs. cleric's 2 1st level spells and their domain feature. Cleric strongly wins that match up.

The paladin's 2nd level features give it significant offensive advantages over war domain cleric, but at level 1, WD cleric is probably the combat equal of the rogue.

No other domain really has the melee power to be seriously compared to paladin.

Weirdly, I still think Paladin is a better healer than war domain cleric at level 1.

[andhaira]

Paladin gets a big boost at level 2. As you go up higher levels, the War Cleric cannot match the Paladin in melee combat, especially since the Paladin gets s second attack at 5th level and the Cleric does not. The War Cleric gets an ability that lets him spam attacks but only to a # equal to it's WIS mod. This can be very powerful if it uses these attacks all at once in the same combat, but then he is drained for the rest of the day.

Fighters get boosts when their extra attacks start kicking in. He gets an extra attack at level 11 that's one more than any other class. However, at that level the Paladin gets improved smite, which auto adds 1d8 damage to every hit, which given 2 attacks/round means the Paladin gets a 2d8 damage bonus total, without adding in smites and spell smites. The fighters final attack kicks in at level 20, at that level the Paladin gets his Oath capstones. It's debatable which is better in pure combat, Fighter has the edge, but don't underestimate the auto damage from Oath of Devotion, or the massive spell boost from Oath of Ancients. Avengers capstone is a bit underwhelming mechanically, but the fear aura might be useful.

Fighters get more feats/attribute bonuses. Paladin get versatility in the form of spells, however their spell list and spell slots are very limited, and they also need to burn slots to use divine smite.

Overall though, I think the Paladin, rightfully, comes out slightly on top combat wise at most levels after 1st. Though the Eldritch Knight subclass can be powerful if played properly too, with the right spells.

[Ferrin33]

Overall though, I think the Paladin, rightfully, comes out slightly on top combat wise at most levels after 1st. Though the Eldritch Knight subclass can be powerful if played properly too, with the right spells.

Excuse me, why do you think this, or is it a pun?