Help me understand this: "no difference between Paladin, Valor Bard, and War Cleric"

[mgshamster]

In another forum I came across the idea that the war cleric, the Valor bard, and the paladin are virtually identical. They all play nearly the exact same way, do the same thing every battle, and there's no real difference between them. Every combat, they'd cast a buff (which didn't really contribute that much), then take the same attack actions every round, and since they all used a longsword they did the same damage, and they all had the same chance to hit due to BA.

This is the impression someone got after playing two campaigns of 5e. The first from levels 1-5, where he was the cleric and another player the bard. And then a second camapgin from 1-7 where he was the paladin and the other player the cleric. He has admitted that they didn't know you could modify backgrounds, so they all took the sailor background in order to get perception.

Is this guy way off base or spot on? Do these three classes play virtually identical? What's your experience with these classes being played together?

[randomodo]

I can't speak for clerics, but between the huge smites of paladins and the spell selection that even valor bards have, they don't play the same...unless your players are just doing mostly basic attacks. (In my experience, valor bards are frequently better off casting more often than poking people with sharp metal things)

[mephnick]

In my experience the Paladin uses all his slots on Smites, the War Cleric uses Spiritual Weapon and Shield Guardians and attacks and the Valor Bard is still a Bard and as such concentrates on control spells while attacking some times. I guess they play similarly but if you dumb it down you could say that about every class. "All full spell casters just cast spells. Ugh."

[Caelic]

To be honest, I think beyond "They all swing weapons," there's virtually no similarity.

The paladin is going to blow the cleric and bard out of the water in terms of burst damage, but is also much more in danger of exhausting his resources. Essentially, a paladin is like a fully automatic weapon: you have to have fire discipline, or you're going to run dry well before the fight ends.

The bard and cleric both serve a support role. Both are capable healers. The bard, though, is going to emphasize crowd control, while the cleric emphasizes party support.

These are generalizations, of course, but yeah--there's quite a bit of difference between a Spiritual Guardians and Spiritual Weapon brandishing war cleric and a Hypnotic Pattern-wielding bard.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Yeah, this is either a case of someone being overly abstract or really unimaginative/conservative players. The war cleric is fairly similar to the paladin - that's kind of the point of them - but there's really no excuse for playing a bard like that.

[DarkKnightJin]

If you play 'em like a fairly standard Fighter, then... Yeah, they're not gonna feel very different from one another.

The fun is in seeing what sorta fun combo's of race, class, and background you can combine to make a character that you enjoy playing.

If they're just going to be whacking things with their Longsword, and maybe cast a buff that doesn't matter, for some reason or another..
They might as well be playing a Fighter.

Clerics and Bards are full casters, and have plenty of options for what they can do. Especially when they get more and more spell slots to use between Long Rests.
Paladin relies a bit more on their whackin' implement for damage because of no cantrips to fo all day long, and more limited spell slots to cast or Smite with.

[mgshamster]

In my experience the Paladin uses all his slots on Smites, the War Cleric uses Spiritual Weapon and Shield Guardians and attacks and the Valor Bard is still a Bard and as such concentrates on control spells while attacking some times. I guess they play similarly but if you dumb it down you could say that about every class. "All full spell casters just cast spells. Ugh."

Naw, he's not dumbing it down in that context.

He played the war cleric and the Valor bard in two different games. Both had armor and a long sword. Both used a buff, then attacked the rest of combat. Both had the same chance to it and the same damage. Therefore, they felt the same.

At the same time, his friend played a paladin and war cleric. Again, both did some buffs, then attacked. Both wore armor and used a long sword. They had the same chance to hit and the same damage.

Although his story keeps changing the more he posts. Now he says he used bardic inspiration until he was out, but it never felt that useful. (I compare this to my own players' use of the bard, who say bardic inspiration was one of their favorite abilities, so it seems odd to say it's useless).

He says he paladin would sometimes smite, but he prefered to save it for when the enemy was evil. When I've seen smite in play, it seem freaking awesome.

Well, here, you can read it for yourself. The debate starts here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz5s&page=3?Bounded-Accuracy-Isnt-Bad#118).

(And I'll admit I was kind of a ****, but I've been really sick this week and haven't been as nice as I usually try to be).

[Theodoxus]

Gonna have to agree with Randomodo.

I'm in a game right now with a War Cleric and a Vengeance Paladin.

The Aasimar Paladin is using a greataxe, only uses her slots for smites, hits like a ton of bricks (in part thanks to GWF, she rolls a lot of 1s that suddenly become 10s and 11s) and is super selfish with her lay on hands. Two attacks per round is icing on the cake (especially when used with Vow of Enmity).

The Dwarven War Cleric is using a warhammer and shield, is constantly healing himself, and occasionally others, uses his War Priest ability to toss axes at ranged enemies and I don't recall him ever using his Channel Divinity. His AC is between 22 and 24 depending if he casts Shield of Faith, so he generally wades into a group, casts Spirit Guardians and just tanks the damage while the Paladin and I (playing a Hexblade) melee down the baddies while our wizards nuke from range.

I've yet to play with a Valor Bard, every bard save one I've rolled or played with was Lore for the spells and skills... the oddball was a College of Glamour, but that lasted only 2 sessions. But, given what I know of playing bards, Valor wouldn't do anything a War Cleric or Paladin would do - they don't have the heavy armor to tank, or the burst damage to burn down the opposition...

[mgshamster]

Yeah, this is either a case of someone being overly abstract or really unimaginative/conservative players. The war cleric is fairly similar to the paladin - that's kind of the point of them - but there's really no excuse for playing a bard like that.

True, but he claimed he was being insulted when he was called out on stuff like that.

[zinycor]

Naw, he's not dumbing it down in that context.

He played the war cleric and the Valor bard in two different games. Both had armor and a long sword. Both used a buff, then attacked the rest of combat. Both had the same chance to it and the same damage. Therefore, they felt the same.

At the same time, his friend played a paladin and war cleric. Again, both did some buffs, then attacked. Both wore armor and used a long sword. They had the same chance to hit and the same damage.

Although his story keeps changing the more he posts. Now he says he used bardic inspiration until he was out, but it never felt that useful. (I compare this to my own players' use of the bard, who say bardic inspiration was one of their favorite abilities, so it seems odd to say it's useless).

He says he paladin would sometimes smite, but he prefered to save it for when the enemy was evil. When I've seen smite in play, it seem freaking awesome.

Well, here, you can read it for yourself. The debate starts here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz5s&page=3?Bounded-Accuracy-Isnt-Bad#118).

(And I'll admit I was kind of a ****, but I've been really sick this week and haven't been as nice as I usually try to be).

OFC the three clases play the same. They are purposely playing them the same way!!!

EDIT: Having now read the post I have to say, you are going way too hard on this guy. For what I could tell he only has a couple of games on him, so of course he didn't grasp any depth on his game. He also played both games like a year ago, so he can't really recall the details, which is fair, I could not recall the details of a game I played (on a new system) a year ago either.

And... Damn! I gotta love how toxic the paizo forums seem, Brings back memories xD

[smcmike]

Yeah, cut the guy some slack. He played the game a couple of times a year or two ago, and had an overall negative impression. Nothing wrong with that. I would approach it from the perspective of my own, positive impression of 5e, rather than trying to “prove” him wrong. Like, he says the barbarian was a beast. I think that’s a pretty common reaction, particularly at low levels - there isn’t much that competes with a GWM barbarian in melee combat at the start of the game. This is a good thing! A barbarian SHOULD be better in melee than a bard or a cleric, and should be better in some ways than a paladin.

[mgshamster]

Yeah, cut the guy some slack. He played the game a couple of times a year or two ago, and had an overall negative impression. Nothing wrong with that. I would approach it from the perspective of my own, positive impression of 5e, rather than trying to “prove” him wrong. Like, he says the barbarian was a beast. I think that’s a pretty common reaction, particularly at low levels - there isn’t much that competes with a GWM barbarian in melee combat at the start of the game. This is a good thing! A barbarian SHOULD be better in melee than a bard or a cleric, and should be better in some ways than a paladin.

Yeah, that's why I apologized to him this morning when I woke up.

Even with that, there were some oddities. Like he went back and edited his posts after someone else responded to him (edit: that site allows 1 hour to edit posts, but doesn't show when a post has been editted).

[zinycor]

Yeah, that's why I apologized to him this morning when I woke up.

Even with that, there were some oddities. Like he went back and edited his posts after someone else responded to him.

So? Let him. Nobody is going to convince him that his time with 5e as actually wonderful, nor is he going to convince you that 5e martial classes are all the same.

[mgshamster]

Yeah, you're totally right. I need to take a breather and walk away. I am being too harsh on him.

And it's so easy to get sucked into that mindset after spending just a few days there.

[zinycor]

Yeah, you're totally right. I need to take a breather and walk away. I am being too harsh on him.

And it's so easy to get sucked into that mindset after spending just a few days there.

It happens to the best of us (or maybe not, I don't know if I have met the best of us).

[bc56]

I'll say this.

I've DMed for groups where all any player would do is wade into melee and start swinging. That game had a rogue, paladin, barbarian, and fighter who all seemed the same.

But I also DM a game where each character is played uniquely and differently.
The sorcerer slings AOE spells from a distance
The rogue hides every turn to get sneak attack on his enemies
The paladin gets up close and personal, while blocking attacks that would hit his friends.

Both teams were cohesive and effective combatants, but the second one is a lot more fun to run for.

Overall, it just depends on the players.

[jaappleton]

I’m not going to be apologetic about this. At all.

Whomever said those three are identical, or close to being identical, are grossly misinformed, ignorant, or both.

It shows a complete lack of understanding of the classes and their mechanics, and you shouldn’t listen to anything that person has to say on the matter.

[A Fat Dragon]

Here’s how I view the three:

Valor Bard: Offensive-Support. You cast either CC/Buff spells, or use an appropriate cantrip, and then use your Bonus Action to either give an ally a bonus to damage, or stab them again.

Your role is to be up front, fighting alongside (or more like, alongside and a foot behind. You still don’t have the best HP, even with that moderate AC, remember?) the fighters and barbarians, while still supporting them, and making the enemy die faster.


War Cleric: You’re an Offensive Support (Emphasis on Offensive) hurrah! Clerics can be mildly adequate DPS, and you do just that, except you stand up front and hit things with a hammer of JUSTICE instead of standing back and dealing maximized lightning damage (because, why wouldn’t you choose to be able to do Melee and Maximized Lightning Damage, while being able to be Thor? But, that’s for another time)

As with all Clerics who take an offensive approach, you’ll still need to be their to heal your allies in a pinch, but, don’t expect yourself to be in the back-lines. You are right where the Valor Bard is: Right where the enemy can hit the fighter in front of you, but you can still wallop the enemy with your hammer.


Paladins: Defensive. Yep, you heard me. Paladins are tanks, which is what makes this one stand out the most between the other two. Your job isn’t to hide behind a teammate in melee range and use the power of your god or your dashingly good looks to bash and skewer your enemies. Your job is to be the one who stands in front of them.

Paladins get lots of auras, all supportive. Don’t get me wrong, Paladins can make relatively good healers in desperate times, but their role is to make sure that their allies take as little damage as possible. Whereas the Valor Bard makes fights finish faster, and War Clerics are DPS with the ability to reverse damage, your job is to make sure that damage doesn’t happen in the first place, either by finishing the fight quickly, preventing the enemy from doing anything, or simply being a literal wall. As a Paladin, you find threats to your team, and stand in front of them, and when the fight is over, you make sure that you’re all right, and that your team is doing well as well. You’re a leader, and it’s your job to be coordinating your team and making sure that everybody can work to their maximum efficiency.

[zinycor]

Here’s how I view the three:

Valor Bard: Offensive-Support. You cast either CC/Buff spells, or use an appropriate cantrip, and then use your Bonus Action to either give an ally a bonus to damage, or stab them again.

Your role is to be up front, fighting alongside (or more like, alongside and a foot behind. You still don’t have the best HP, even with that moderate AC, remember?) the fighters and barbarians, while still supporting them, and making the enemy die faster.


War Cleric: You’re an Offensive Support (Emphasis on Offensive) hurrah! Clerics can be mildly adequate DPS, and you do just that, except you stand up front and hit things with a hammer of JUSTICE instead of standing back and dealing maximized lightning damage (because, why wouldn’t you choose to be able to do Melee and Maximized Lightning Damage, while being able to be Thor? But, that’s for another time)

As with all Clerics who take an offensive approach, you’ll still need to be their to heal your allies in a pinch, but, don’t expect yourself to be in the back-lines. You are right where the Valor Bard is: Right where the enemy can hit the fighter in front of you, but you can still wallop the enemy with your hammer.


Paladins: Defensive. Yep, you heard me. Paladins are tanks, which is what makes this one stand out the most between the other two. Your job isn’t to hide behind a teammate in melee range and use the power of your god or your dashingly good looks to bash and skewer your enemies. Your job is to be the one who stands in front of them.

Paladins get lots of auras, all supportive. Don’t get me wrong, Paladins can make relatively good healers in desperate times, but their role is to make sure that their allies take as little damage as possible. Whereas the Valor Bard makes fights finish faster, and War Clerics are DPS with the ability to reverse damage, your job is to make sure that damage doesn’t happen in the first place, either by finishing the fight quickly, preventing the enemy from doing anything, or simply being a literal wall. As a Paladin, you find threats to your team, and stand in front of them, and when the fight is over, you make sure that you’re all right, and that your team is doing well as well. You’re a leader, and it’s your job to be coordinating your team and making sure that everybody can work to their maximum efficiency.

This has not been my experience with paladins, Paladins in my games are nuking swords. They use smites all the day and destroy whatever is on their way.

your description of defensive fits better on fighters and barbarians IMO.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Theoretically you could play all three of those characters the same way, but you'd be playing them very badly. I suspect that's what's going on here.

[Citan]

In another forum I came across the idea that the war cleric, the Valor bard, and the paladin are virtually identical. They all play nearly the exact same way, do the same thing every battle, and there's no real difference between them. Every combat, they'd cast a buff (which didn't really contribute that much), then take the same attack actions every round, and since they all used a longsword they did the same damage, and they all had the same chance to hit due to BA.

This is the impression someone got after playing two campaigns of 5e. The first from levels 1-5, where he was the cleric and another player the bard. And then a second camapgin from 1-7 where he was the paladin and the other player the cleric. He has admitted that they didn't know you could modify backgrounds, so they all took the sailor background in order to get perception.

Is this guy way off base or spot on? Do these three classes play virtually identical? What's your experience with these classes being played together?
The problem 100% lies with the player: if you choose to use always the same spells and tactics, obviously you will feel all the classes are the same.

That player clearly didn't play the strengths and specificities of each class. I'd daresay he didn't even try to actually, considering his feeling about "buff that didn't contribute that much".

But mechanically, they all have distinctive abilities, even barring spell selection. And fluff-wise, I don't see either how you could consider all are the same...

Maybe he just didn't have enough time then to really learn the ropes of each class in mechanics and fluff. Or maybe he had another idea of how these classes had to be played and as such got bored and didn't have the envy to try and adapt his playstyle to better fit the class's identity for whatever reason.

I'd suggest such as player to give each one of the class another chance, *but* having someone "prepare" his build for him to better suit his taste, and maybe give some tips on how to best use each class features and spells. ;)

[Darkseeker]

I was involved with this thread, the guy kept changing his story. Going so far as to edit out the entire paladin entry and changing the reasons why he never used smite. He also went from "we ran a game at level 7" to "We played a game from level 1-7". I was fine with chalking it up to them not knowing the rules or misreclling some stuff from a one shot. But if you played from 1-7, you should not need to change the story on why someone never did x. I mean who here would confuse "The paladin could not use it as most foes were not evil " and "He used bless so had no slots left" from game you played for 7 levels? And he did this kinda mistake and revised issue with all three listed classes