Paladin Healer vs Cleric. Which is a better Support Character?

[Paladinatheart]

So I am joining a group and we will be playing level 6 characters, I am joining a group that has no healer: the group consists of a Monk, a Fighter, and a Wizard.

So they hinted very strongly that I should choose a cleric class (or support class) because the group has barely scraped by in the past one shot homebrews that their DM had them go through. Now I have only been DM for the past many years (mostly 3.5 e games but a few 5e games) but this is my first time to play in a long time and I am wanting to play as a Paladin because that is my favorite class (not that my profile name didnt hint at it).

So I am planning to create a Paladin Healer but the question is it better than Cleric as a support character?

Here is my comparison below, but I would like to know your thoughts or suggestions.

Lvl 6 Human Paladin with Healer and Inspiring Leadership feat: I can heal a little more while bringing back knocked out players and buff their Hit Points a bit. With Cure Wounds and Lay on Hands i can give some moderate healing (along with Healer feat). With spells like Aid and Bless I can buff the other players (along with Inspiring Leadership feat) and since I am level 6 Paladin I have Aura of Protection which also kind of "buffs" their saving throws, or at least the players near to me. But since I will be up in combat along with the Monk and the Fighter I chose Fighting Style Protection so I can give them some added "protection" with my reaction. I chose Oath of Devotion.
However, my best stats are in Cha and Con, so my Str13 isnt the best for landing attacks (+4 Attk Roll) and since I need my spell slots I have to forgo my Divine Smite. But if need be and I need to inflict some heavy damage then I can use the Sacred Weapon feature of Oath of Devotion Channel Divinity to better land a hit and use a Divine Smite.

Lvl 6 Cleric (not sure which race but prob Hill Dwarf) with Life Domain, I have a wider range of spells for healing and they are more effective. Plus, I have access to the same spell list that Paladin has and more. In addition I have more spell slots that can be used for healing or other spells. I still have spells like Aid and Bless to buff my players. I can still wear all types of Armor and use shields but limited to only simple weapons (unless I play as a Dwarf then I can Battle Axe, etc). I can still be up front in combat but i only get one attack and my damage output isnt as high as a paladin, but even if I play Paladin I wouldnt be dishing out much damage anyways.

So I dont know. Both would be good against undead and can heal. What are your guys suggestions and thoughts?

[ImproperJustice]

Thanks to resting and the difficulty of trying to be an in combat healer, I would suggest you play what you want.

My party is level 8, and we have never had a cleric or healer per say. The closest we had was an Alchemist with the Healer feat.

Instead, if everybody plays things they like and can kill stuff when the time comes, you should be fine.

[CTurbo]

I'd go Paladin for that group since there is no "face" character yet and the Monk had Wisdom covered. Inspiring Leader is a great feat and is as good as any healing. If you're starting with Point Buy or Standard Array, I'd bump Cha to at least 18 before taking any feat unless Variant Human. The Healer feat is good, but I wouldn't build your entire character concept around be "the healer"

I say build yourself a Paladin, but build it the way you want, not necessarily optimized for maximized healing. Paladin's can already heal decently, and the Inspiring Leader feat will help a lot more.

[Citan]

So I am joining a group and we will be playing level 6 characters, I am joining a group that has no healer: the group consists of a Monk, a Fighter, and a Wizard.

So they hinted very strongly that I should choose a cleric class (or support class) because the group has barely scraped by in the past one shot homebrews that their DM had them go through. Now I have only been DM for the past many years (mostly 3.5 e games but a few 5e games) but this is my first time to play in a long time and I am wanting to play as a Paladin because that is my favorite class (not that my profile name didnt hint at it).

So I am planning to create a Paladin Healer but the question is it better than Cleric as a support character?

Here is my comparison below, but I would like to know your thoughts or suggestions.

Lvl 6 Human Paladin with Healer and Inspiring Leadership feat: I can heal a little more while bringing back knocked out players and buff their Hit Points a bit. With Cure Wounds and Lay on Hands i can give some moderate healing (along with Healer feat). With spells like Aid and Bless I can buff the other players (along with Inspiring Leadership feat) and since I am level 6 Paladin I have Aura of Protection which also kind of "buffs" their saving throws, or at least the players near to me. But since I will be up in combat along with the Monk and the Fighter I chose Fighting Style Protection so I can give them some added "protection" with my reaction. I chose Oath of Devotion.
However, my best stats are in Cha and Con, so my Str13 isnt the best for landing attacks (+4 Attk Roll) and since I need my spell slots I have to forgo my Divine Smite. But if need be and I need to inflict some heavy damage then I can use the Sacred Weapon feature of Oath of Devotion Channel Divinity to better land a hit and use a Divine Smite.

Lvl 6 Cleric (not sure which race but prob Hill Dwarf) with Life Domain, I have a wider range of spells for healing and they are more effective. Plus, I have access to the same spell list that Paladin has and more. In addition I have more spell slots that can be used for healing or other spells. I still have spells like Aid and Bless to buff my players. I can still wear all types of Armor and use shields but limited to only simple weapons (unless I play as a Dwarf then I can Battle Axe, etc). I can still be up front in combat but i only get one attack and my damage output isnt as high as a paladin, but even if I play Paladin I wouldnt be dishing out much damage anyways.

So I dont know. Both would be good against undead and can heal. What are your guys suggestions and thoughts?
I'd actually go Cleric here, namely Knowledge or Nature or Tempest or Forge Cleric.
CTurbo provides some good arguments for Paladin, namely capability of being a party face and dealing decent sustained damage + nova damage...

But imo, the Aura of Protection is a false benefit since it would force your party to stay all close together (incentiving more traps/AOE in turn) whereas that party composition should instead encourage spread out (Wizard far in back, Fighter strong in front, Monk darting around).
Also, unless you'd go Crown Paladin, you will be lacking in control means, with only limited slot for Compelled Duel or Command (especially if you use Bless). Of course Wizard should have some control spells, but he may not learn ones that are adequate to any situation, or ones that don't risk to affect allies.

In comparison, a Cleric in clad-armor and turtling around with a shield can easily stand alongside a Fighter with a Spirit Guardians expanded, making direct targeting of Wizard behind more difficult. You could also use occasional Command (less strain on you), use cantrips or Healer feat while keeping people up with Healing Words as bonus action, or even combo Warding Bond + Sanctuary + Help to be a great sidekick to Fighter.

Because you wouldn't need strong physical stats barring CON, you could easily manage a 14 CHA to be pretty decent with skill proficiency, and still get Inspiring Leader if you wish. Cleric also has Enhance Ability so you could actually beat a pure Paladin as well as help anyone else succeeding on important checks.

After that...
- Knowledge would make you feel like a Bard (proficiency in anything twice per short rest, Suggestion),
- Nature would make you even better at supporting your friends (Plant Growth to near-immobilize a vast group of enemies, Spie Growth to pair with Fighter/Monk, Shillelagh to make you even SADder or Thorns Whip to catch a monster trying to reach/OA your Wizard/Monk pal), while also covering a whole aspect of social interactions nobody else could do (namely animals: spys, mounts, supports, guides, you have a great potential of subtle power).
- Tempest would bring some kind of big AOE capability to lighten Wizard's load a bit, while also providing Fog Cloud or Sleet Storm as other kind of control (while Nature brings movement-based control, Tempest brings vision-based control).
- Forge, although I find it less interesting, could still be worthy if you are not interested in the classic Cleric concentration spells: Heat Metal is great when appliable, Elemental Weapon could help your fighter, and next level Wall of Fire brings a mix of damage and control).

I'd personally pick Knowledge (be the skill monkey) or Nature (because of the most unique spells compared to what Wizard can get + the whole animal kingdom master thingy), but it none of those would be appealing to you, Tempest Cleric is a very solid package.

If you prefer Paladin, then I strongly recommand Crown simply for the "Mass Compelled Duel" on short rest (which you will probably want to take regularly between the Monk's full reliance on it, Wizard's short-rest Arcane Recovery, and Fighter's Action Surge and possibly Manoeuvers short-rest recovery).

Because in the end, you will need two people that can stand ground: Monk is ill-suited for it because it would drain resources you'd want him to spend on Stunning Strike attempts, Wizard is obviously not viable at that level, and even a turtling-optimized Fighter would *not* withstand a focus fire from enemies nor would he have any mean to keep more than 1-2 enemies around him.
Plus Warding Bond is underrated ^^.

[Sjappo]

I'm firmly in the "play what you want" camp. The best way to heal is prevent damage by ... oh, I don't know ... kill thing real quick by smithing them.

In combat healing is not viable most of the times since monsters out-damage your healing capacity. Re: kill things first.

Out of combat healing is something PC's can do themselves. Re: short / long rest.

I'd probably prioritise STR over CHA over CON. If point buy see if you can get 16 / 14 / 14. +2 CHA is enough to get by. Some Paladin features key off of CHA but lot's of them don't. Just don't cast spells which require a save. +3 on hit and damage is enough to be effective. Plus you need STR 15 for full plate.

Use your lvl 4 ASI for +2 STR or maybe Shield Master. You seem to have al lot of melee PC's who would like the advantage.

Which leaves you with an able frontliner who can prevent damage with an reaction (protection style), spike damage when needed (smite) and emergency healing (lay on hands).

Anyway, that would be what I would do. Just play something which you think is fun. I've played healers and being ineffective a whole fight campaign just to heal those dumb asses that get clobbered all the time was no fun for me.

[Maxilian]

Cleric is going to, always, be a best healer than a Paladin, but you don't need a healer, as people have pointed out, the best healing, is preventing damage by killing your enemy fast, and Paladins are pretty good doing that, also taking the Healer feat and/or Inspiring feat should also give your team the "OH **** WE NEED HEALING" for those moments (the healer feat would be enough, but both work well, Inspiring feat is also quite good with Paladin, but both together may push your CHA and/or STR back, and that may not be that good in the long run).

Note: I have played in games where a Warlock was the main healer.... and she only healed herself (To be fair, if someone expect to survive based on the Warlock healing, is their own fault they died)

[Sception]

Ask the party/DM how their the party day/rest schedule generally goes. Do they usually see 5-6 encounters of varying difficulty per day, with the opportunity to short rest a couple times along the way? That's the default assumption of the system, and in a game that follows that assumption, in-combat healing is generally not worthwhile. Apart from one or two tough fights in a given day, characters are usually not going to risk dropping during a fight, and can instead heal up after battle via resting, or healing spells and abilities that are slower, but significantly more efficient. And even in those tougher fights, healing is generally not worth doing apart from getting someone up from zero, because in-combat heals usually aren't efficient enough to be worth the action you spend on them, let alone the spell slots. In such a normal campaign, a high cha paladin with a good charisma and the inspiring leader feat will typically be more than enough of a 'healer', though tbh you really want a better strength so you can hit things, too. If encounters are regularly dragging on longer than they should because you aren't helping end them, then you're going to be a liability to your party's HP reserves long term, regardless of your class or feat choices.


THAT SAID, in my experience a great many campaigns do not match this at all. For one, the limitations on short rests are really awkward. In 4e, short rests were, well, short, and the game safely assumed PCs would get one after every encounter. This allowed for clear delineations between 'all the time' abilities, per-encounter resources, and per-day resources. There were weaknesses to this system, but it was at the very least well structured, and relatively flexible, since the number of encounters per day could vary dramatically and you could still assume characters would be relatively topped off on HP and have a few 'big gun' abilities they could pull out in each and every encounter. It was hard hard to run wrong. In 5e, short rests are supposed to happen every 2 to 3 encounters, not every single encounter, so the designers made short rests take an hour. Theoretically short enough get a couple in during the day, but too long to do after every encounter. Unfortunally, that theory doesn't really hold up very well.

A lot of adventures, homebrew or otherwise, are not structured in a way that allows for multiple, hour-long breaks during the adventuring day. So a lot of games end up not having nearly enough short rests, and without short rests characters may as well not even have hit dice as reserve hp pools. In that sort of game, parties depend a lot more heavily on explicit healing abilities and spells, since each character's daily HP pool is effectively half of what the game assumes it should be. However, in-combat healing spells and abilities in these games is still less efficient than out out of combat healing, which puts healers in a really bad place from a gameplay perspective, hardly contributing during fights as they basically have to rely on cantrips, and putting all of their actual character resources into patching the party up between fights. It's not very engaging gameplay.



Even worse than campaigns that run many encounters without allowing room for short rests, though, many campaigns run too few encounters per day total, so daily resource attrition never becomes a problem. Because of that, encounters seem too easy, so in response the DM ratchets up the difficulty of each individual encounter, resulting in characters dropping left and right. In this sort of game, a dedicated *in-combat* healer, specifically one who can wake up multiple PCs in a single turn or who can burn high level spell slots on heals big enough for the target to actually take a another hit before going back down become much more important. Yeah, those spells aren't efficient uses of daily spell slots, but again in these campaigns efficiency of daily resource use matters a lot less than in-the-moment magnitude, because your adventuring 'days' are basically only a couple encounters long anyway.

In that sort of campaign, having something like a life domain cleric or circle of dreams druid who spend all their slots and actions on healing might be much more necessary. But even then, it isn't what the system is designed for. Even such dedicated healers have difficulty keeping up in these situations, especially since each non-offensive character in the party makes fights last longer, and deadly fights punish that even more than attrition encounters. This tends to make playing 'the healer' in such games not just dull but downright frustrating.


Honestly, the whole role of 'the healer' is handled a lot more poorly in 5e than it was in 4e, which is a byproduct of 5e not wanting any particular 'party role' to be considered mandatory. That's an admirable aim, but the result is a return to the 3e paradigm, where 'healer' in general simply isn't a worthwhile combat role to begin with. But a lot of DMs don't get that. If the party doesn't need to heal during fights, they feel like the fight isn't challenging and needs to be made harder. There's a real disconnect there between the game 5e is & wants to be, and the game that a lot of DMs, not even just 4e holdovers, assume it's supposed to be.

'Buffer' is a worthwhile party role. Clerics can do that. So do paladins, honestly. Aura of Protection is an amazing ability, and layering Bless on top of that goes a long long way towards reducing the need for healing to begin with, which is where the mechanics of 5e really want you to be.


................

tldr, play what you want to play. If the party dies for lack of in-combat healing, that's on the DM for how encounters are structured and on the entire party, not just you, for how they respond to the those encounters. 5e isn't designed to need or even particularly want an in-combat healer, so if the party fails for lack of one then the problem is probably something else.

That said, +4 to hit is noticeably and painfully sub-par for a paladin of your level. the channel divinity helps, but that's a per short rest ability, and if the group thinks they need an in-combat healer then the chances are they aren't getting enough short rests to begin with. I'd strongly advise you to either rearrange your starting stats to get some more strength in there (it's honestly a higher priority than con), or else to dip hexblade at your next available opportunity so you can swing with your charisma instead. The latter option is probably better for you mechanically, but it might not fit at all with your character's thematic preferences, Hexblade doesn't exactly scream 'nice guy healer'.

[Citan]

THAT SAID, in my experience a great many campaigns do not match this at all. For one, the limitations on short rests are really awkward. In 4e, short rests were, well, short, and the game safely assumed PCs would get one after every encounter. This allowed for clear delineations between 'all the time' abilities, per-encounter resources, and per-day resources. There were weaknesses to this system, but it was at the very least well structured, and relatively flexible, since the number of encounters per day could vary dramatically and you could still assume characters would be relatively topped off on HP and have a few 'big gun' abilities they could pull out in each and every encounter. It was hard hard to run wrong. In 5e, short rests are supposed to happen every 2 to 3 encounters, not every single encounter, so the designers made short rests take an hour. Theoretically short enough get a couple in during the day, but too long to do after every encounter. Unfortunally, that theory doesn't really hold up very well.

100% agreed on that, +100 even. XD



tldr, play what you want to play. If the party dies for lack of in-combat healing, that's on the DM for how encounters are structured and on the entire party, not just you, for how they respond to the those encounters. 5e isn't designed to need or even particularly want an in-combat healer, so if the party fails for lack of one then the problem is probably something else.

Not necessarily. DM may have been harsh, but it may also be party being completely obtuse to hints, some back (or good, depending on view points XD) luck on either side's rolls, or party composition really unfit for an official campaign DM chose to follow (yeah, normally you never consider official material as written in stone and you adapt encounters, but this can be hard to do).

I also kinda disagree on your premice that 5E wouldn't want an in-combat healer, but that point would need a whole thread of its own so I won't speak here. ^^




That said, +4 to hit is noticeably and painfully sub-par for a paladin of your level. the channel divinity helps, but that's a per short rest ability, and if the group thinks they need an in-combat healer then the chances are they aren't getting enough short rests to begin with. I'd strongly advise you to either rearrange your starting stats to get some more strength in there (it's honestly a higher priority than con), or else to dip hexblade at your next available opportunity so you can swing with your charisma instead. The latter option is probably better for you mechanically, but it might not fit at all with your character's thematic preferences, Hexblade doesn't exactly scream 'nice guy healer'.
That's why Cleric is better here imo: either you completely ditch weapon attacks (you have a pretty good cantrip anyways, as well as sustainable spells like Spirit Guardians or Spiritual Weapon) or you can get Shillelagh to maintain your SADness.

Although, Devotion Paladin with Sacred Weapon is a very nice alternative as far as "dealing damage on mundane turn" goes, as long as you don't get into reach problems (hence why I'd strongly recommend a DEX build).
Aura of Protection is also great, but mainly for himself and, best case, one other teammate because staying too close all together is just asking people to rain down AOE effects on your group, or simply be easily surroundable.

As far as tanking goes, Cleric get several ways to help Fighter friend keep the lid on heat even when you're fairly outnumbered thanks to Spirit Guardians or Domain spells. On Paladin side, you can efficiently stall one enemy (smite spells), possibly two with OA threatening or occasional Command but you have a very limited magic pool (especially if you also want to keep some for smite on hit) and that also means these are turns in which you can't heal or damage.
As stated above, Crown Paladin shines here, but then you're not a Devotion so you have to cope with "only" a +3 or +4 bonus to hit from physical stat (although contrarily to you I think it's completely standard for a level 6 character but that's another matter ^^) and most probably a +3 on Aura (same comment).

So if you go Paladin, you can shine in either damage or tanking but not both, and resource management will be a concern fast if you want to do everything.
If you go Cleric, the easyness to reach SADness (meaning less harsh to grab a feat) and the variety of concentration|non-concentration, immediate/long-run, specialized|damage+control spells means you can more easily adapt to different situations. And you'll also be much more useful in non-combat situations too thanks to interchangeables rituals/utility spells (you don't want to let the Wizard take care of everything do you? ^^). :)

[SirGraystone]

The thing with Paladin is that you'll want to use some of your spell slots to smite, which leaves you less to heal or support the group. But another possibility is multiclassing, fighter 2 / cleric 4 give you a fighting style and action surge which let you cast 2 spells in the same round.

[Pex]

Paladin is fine.

Play Variant Human. Have 16 ST 14 CO 16 CH after racial modifiers. Take Healer feat.
4th level take Inspiring Leader feat
8th level bump ST to 18
12th level bump CH to 18

You can change up skills and tools from background. Whatever your background, be proficient in Herbalism kit. Now you can make healing potions to give the party a regular supply.

You won't need cast a healing spell but prepare Cure Wounds anyway just in case. You have Lay On Hands.

[Paladinatheart]

Ask the party/DM how their the party day/rest schedule generally goes. Do they usually see 5-6 encounters of varying difficulty per day, with the opportunity to short rest a couple times along the way? That's the default assumption of the system, and in a game that follows that assumption, in-combat healing is generally not worthwhile. Apart from one or two tough fights in a given day, characters are usually not going to risk dropping during a fight, and can instead heal up after battle via resting, or healing spells and abilities that are slower, but significantly more efficient. And even in those tougher fights, healing is generally not worth doing apart from getting someone up from zero, because in-combat heals usually aren't efficient enough to be worth the action you spend on them, let alone the spell slots. In such a normal campaign, a high cha paladin with a good charisma and the inspiring leader feat will typically be more than enough of a 'healer', though tbh you really want a better strength so you can hit things, too. If encounters are regularly dragging on longer than they should because you aren't helping end them, then you're going to be a liability to your party's HP reserves long term, regardless of your class or feat choices.


THAT SAID, in my experience a great many campaigns do not match this at all. For one, the limitations on short rests are really awkward. In 4e, short rests were, well, short, and the game safely assumed PCs would get one after every encounter. This allowed for clear delineations between 'all the time' abilities, per-encounter resources, and per-day resources. There were weaknesses to this system, but it was at the very least well structured, and relatively flexible, since the number of encounters per day could vary dramatically and you could still assume characters would be relatively topped off on HP and have a few 'big gun' abilities they could pull out in each and every encounter. It was hard hard to run wrong. In 5e, short rests are supposed to happen every 2 to 3 encounters, not every single encounter, so the designers made short rests take an hour. Theoretically short enough get a couple in during the day, but too long to do after every encounter. Unfortunally, that theory doesn't really hold up very well.

A lot of adventures, homebrew or otherwise, are not structured in a way that allows for multiple, hour-long breaks during the adventuring day. So a lot of games end up not having nearly enough short rests, and without short rests characters may as well not even have hit dice as reserve hp pools. In that sort of game, parties depend a lot more heavily on explicit healing abilities and spells, since each character's daily HP pool is effectively half of what the game assumes it should be. However, in-combat healing spells and abilities in these games is still less efficient than out out of combat healing, which puts healers in a really bad place from a gameplay perspective, hardly contributing during fights as they basically have to rely on cantrips, and putting all of their actual character resources into patching the party up between fights. It's not very engaging gameplay.



Even worse than campaigns that run many encounters without allowing room for short rests, though, many campaigns run too few encounters per day total, so daily resource attrition never becomes a problem. Because of that, encounters seem too easy, so in response the DM ratchets up the difficulty of each individual encounter, resulting in characters dropping left and right. In this sort of game, a dedicated *in-combat* healer, specifically one who can wake up multiple PCs in a single turn or who can burn high level spell slots on heals big enough for the target to actually take a another hit before going back down become much more important. Yeah, those spells aren't efficient uses of daily spell slots, but again in these campaigns efficiency of daily resource use matters a lot less than in-the-moment magnitude, because your adventuring 'days' are basically only a couple encounters long anyway.

In that sort of campaign, having something like a life domain cleric or circle of dreams druid who spend all their slots and actions on healing might be much more necessary. But even then, it isn't what the system is designed for. Even such dedicated healers have difficulty keeping up in these situations, especially since each non-offensive character in the party makes fights last longer, and deadly fights punish that even more than attrition encounters. This tends to make playing 'the healer' in such games not just dull but downright frustrating.


Honestly, the whole role of 'the healer' is handled a lot more poorly in 5e than it was in 4e, which is a byproduct of 5e not wanting any particular 'party role' to be considered mandatory. That's an admirable aim, but the result is a return to the 3e paradigm, where 'healer' in general simply isn't a worthwhile combat role to begin with. But a lot of DMs don't get that. If the party doesn't need to heal during fights, they feel like the fight isn't challenging and needs to be made harder. There's a real disconnect there between the game 5e is & wants to be, and the game that a lot of DMs, not even just 4e holdovers, assume it's supposed to be.

'Buffer' is a worthwhile party role. Clerics can do that. So do paladins, honestly. Aura of Protection is an amazing ability, and layering Bless on top of that goes a long long way towards reducing the need for healing to begin with, which is where the mechanics of 5e really want you to be.


................

tldr, play what you want to play. If the party dies for lack of in-combat healing, that's on the DM for how encounters are structured and on the entire party, not just you, for how they respond to the those encounters. 5e isn't designed to need or even particularly want an in-combat healer, so if the party fails for lack of one then the problem is probably something else.

That said, +4 to hit is noticeably and painfully sub-par for a paladin of your level. the channel divinity helps, but that's a per short rest ability, and if the group thinks they need an in-combat healer then the chances are they aren't getting enough short rests to begin with. I'd strongly advise you to either rearrange your starting stats to get some more strength in there (it's honestly a higher priority than con), or else to dip hexblade at your next available opportunity so you can swing with your charisma instead. The latter option is probably better for you mechanically, but it might not fit at all with your character's thematic preferences, Hexblade doesn't exactly scream 'nice guy healer'.

Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I have been playing DnD for the last 16 years and been DMing for the last 8 (3.5e and now recently 5e). I know these terms such as buffing, tanking, and healing really originate from WoW and I like the novel concept that no class is supposed to have a mandatory role as you pointed out. I really came to liking 5e even though I was avoided it for a while because I was a diehard fan of 3.5 but I have to say 5e is a better balanced system, especially at higher levels. I have DMed a few 5e games and where the characters went up to level 9 and it was much better to manage than with games in 3.5 at higher levels. I liked it alot.

But now I finally get to play as a character and not have to manage a game as a DM. I think I will take your advice and bring down the CON and increase the STR so I can take a more active role in combat if need be. Plus, with Aid and Inspiring Leader Feat my HP will go up a bit. But I will keep both the Inspiring Leader and Healer feats because I kind of like them. I like the idea of "buffing" and being a support character because I had a player who was a paladin who tried out this concept but he didnt carry it out really well. I feel like I could do it better.

The DM who is running the session likes to do large or endless battles where there are places for a short rest and then back into the mess of things. So this group has been scrapping by and really looking for a healer supposedly. But to be fair I feel that once in a while as a DM you should overwhelm your players with an insanely tough boss or group of enemies to force your players to work together. I dont know how this group has workin through things but I guess I will find out.

Thanks for your help!

[Mercurias]

Looking at the question, I’d probably go for a Life Cleric. They look like they have a strong healing/support focus that maximizes your resources.

I joined a lv 11 group as a stand-in support character, and I went as a lv 5 Hunter Ranger/6 Life Cleric. It was pretty awesome. I had plenty of healing, and any non-healing turns were spent picking off wounded enemies or disrupting with spells like Command and Hold Person.

Another extremely solid support caster would be a Druid. Their spell list is highly underrated.

[guachi]

Poster named Paladinatheart asks if he should play a paladin or cleric.

Uhh.... play a paladin.

[Citan]

Poster named Paladinatheart asks if he should play a paladin or cleric.

Uhh.... play a paladin.
I think this guy won the discussion. You cant fight against such a straightforward reason. Xd

[GreyBlack]

So I am joining a group and we will be playing level 6 characters, I am joining a group that has no healer: the group consists of a Monk, a Fighter, and a Wizard.

So they hinted very strongly that I should choose a cleric class (or support class) because the group has barely scraped by in the past one shot homebrews that their DM had them go through. Now I have only been DM for the past many years (mostly 3.5 e games but a few 5e games) but this is my first time to play in a long time and I am wanting to play as a Paladin because that is my favorite class (not that my profile name didnt hint at it).

So I am planning to create a Paladin Healer but the question is it better than Cleric as a support character?

Here is my comparison below, but I would like to know your thoughts or suggestions.

Lvl 6 Human Paladin with Healer and Inspiring Leadership feat: I can heal a little more while bringing back knocked out players and buff their Hit Points a bit. With Cure Wounds and Lay on Hands i can give some moderate healing (along with Healer feat). With spells like Aid and Bless I can buff the other players (along with Inspiring Leadership feat) and since I am level 6 Paladin I have Aura of Protection which also kind of "buffs" their saving throws, or at least the players near to me. But since I will be up in combat along with the Monk and the Fighter I chose Fighting Style Protection so I can give them some added "protection" with my reaction. I chose Oath of Devotion.
However, my best stats are in Cha and Con, so my Str13 isnt the best for landing attacks (+4 Attk Roll) and since I need my spell slots I have to forgo my Divine Smite. But if need be and I need to inflict some heavy damage then I can use the Sacred Weapon feature of Oath of Devotion Channel Divinity to better land a hit and use a Divine Smite.

Lvl 6 Cleric (not sure which race but prob Hill Dwarf) with Life Domain, I have a wider range of spells for healing and they are more effective. Plus, I have access to the same spell list that Paladin has and more. In addition I have more spell slots that can be used for healing or other spells. I still have spells like Aid and Bless to buff my players. I can still wear all types of Armor and use shields but limited to only simple weapons (unless I play as a Dwarf then I can Battle Axe, etc). I can still be up front in combat but i only get one attack and my damage output isnt as high as a paladin, but even if I play Paladin I wouldnt be dishing out much damage anyways.

So I dont know. Both would be good against undead and can heal. What are your guys suggestions and thoughts?

So my DM convinced me to run a cleric because no one else was interested in playing a support class. I have never regretted a class choice more.

Play whatever you want, the mechanics in 5e will allow you to balance out the lack of a dedicated (or even off-) healer. Things are more than forgiving enough to get by without it.

[CTurbo]

Clerics and Paladins are probably my favorite 5e classes so you can't go wrong with either

[Baad007]

I think this guy won the discussion. You cant fight against such a straightforward reason. Xd

Pretty much this. I have played a tempest cleric for the majority of my time playing 5e with the expectation that I can heal when I need to but its almost more efficient to just heal people when they hit 0 because ppl do just as much damage at 1 as they do at 100. With that being said, playing a paladin is fine and just Lay On Hands to pick people up when needed with the occasional Cure Wounds.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Poster named Paladinatheart asks if he should play a paladin or cleric.

Uhh.... play a paladin.
Seconded

So my DM convinced me to run a cleric because no one else was interested in playing a support class. I have never regretted a class choice more.

Play whatever you want, the mechanics in 5e will allow you to balance out the lack of a dedicated (or even off-) healer. Things are more than forgiving enough to get by without it.

Don’t feel forced to be the guy filling a party role.

You will hopefully be spending a ton of time with your character, so you should like him. Better than spending each game playing “I wish I was a [xxxx]”. Aside from 5e devaluing in combat healing, it also droes not have the paladins lose powers if the player can’t read the DM’s mind problem from 3.5 and earlier.

Paladin seems to be the choice for you.

But if in combat healing does turn out to be needed with this campaign, then a single dip of Life Cleric gives a significant boost to healing. A second level grants a second non spell slot healing ability. You’d be trading better spell casting at the cost of delaying Paladin abilities and ASI’s.

Paladin Cleric multiclass is fairly easy to qualify for.

[CTurbo]

So OP you mentioned having a 13 Str already. What are your stats and can they be re-arranged?

I'm not going to be making Str weapon attacks with a 13 Str.

[MeeposFire]

I always look at it as asking myself

DO I want to solve my problems primarily using spells or do I want to solve most of problems not using spells?

While not 100% the case clerics tend to use spells to do most of what they do. Paladins tend to use other abilities more due to having less spells and also using those few spell slots on using smite.

Both can heal and support so really how do you want to do it?

[MrStabby]

In terms of healing power they are not too far off in most games.

You spend a certain amount of time healing and a certain amount of time harming the enemy. When clerics are being effective against an enemy they are tending to use spell slots. Once you remove these spell slots you are left with a lot fewer resources to heal with. Paladins can generally do better at-will damage than clerics and can conserve spells a little more. Add to this that lay on hands is another resource and very efficient and you get good results. As you climb the levels paladins also get spells like aura of vitality, which can put them in prime healer territory.

If you want, you could also consider bard. They get a lot of support capability: song of rest, bardic inspiration but also healing spells, buff spells and with magical secrets you can pick up whatever you think you are missing.

But yeah, play what you want not what other people want you to play. It's your character.

[Paladinatheart]

So OP you mentioned having a 13 Str already. What are your stats and can they be re-arranged?

I'm not going to be making Str weapon attacks with a 13 Str.

Well I changed the stats after some of the discussions on this forum. I bumped Str up 2 and brought Con down 2.
Stats are Str14 (2), Dex10 (0), Con12 (1), Int8 (-1), Wis12 (1), Cha18 (4)

We did a point buyin system and the DM let me rearrange things again since he is fairly chill about it. I dont know if it really improved the attack bonus, been thinking of dropping Con to 10 and bummping Str to 16 to give a higher Attk bonus.

[CTurbo]

I would not lower Con any more. You'll be a terrible healer and support character if you're the first one killed.

Those stats seem even lower than normal point buy.

Honestly I think I'd put 14 in Dex and 10 in Str and just wear medium armor.

But with stats like that, I'd go Cleric all the way.

[ProseBeforeHos]

I'd suggest cleric, but not life domain (powerful, but boring).

Take something like light or tempest and do some blasting/cc also.

[Galadhrim]

I think you can fill this role with either, so if you heart is on Paladin, go for it. I am currently playing a Crown Paladin with inspiring leader feat in a campaign with a wizard, sorcerer, eldritch knight, and battle master. I provide all the support (healing, status removal, etc), and still have the firepower to stand in the front line and produce equal damage to my fighter counterparts. I do think of all of the archetypes, crown lends itself best to the role of support paladin, but you can pull it off with devotion no problem.

As others have said, you don't need to heal throughout a battle, just when the need is dire. At those times, Paladin's lay on hands is one of the best heals in the game because you can choose how much healing to give and do it all at once, so your action economy is not hampered too much. Add the staying power your provide with your protection fighting style and aura of protection, along with added damage from the entire party through bless, and you are mitigating damage superbly (even better than healing it back). In our campaign, I rarely have to resort to actual healing because there is so much damage mitigation going on. The one session I missed, everyone else burned through their stashes of potions they had been building the entire campaign.

If you like the concept, there is no problem going with the healer feat and Inspiring leader, but I'm not sure it's necessary to fulfill this role, and dropping healer will allow you to get your stats where you want them (Cha 18). Inspiring leader is very effective because it is whole party healing that takes no in combat actions to produce. Healer, on the other hand, takes your action each time you use it. That is costly in combat.


12 Con might be a bit low. Your Hp will be low, and you will drop you concentration more frequently. You didn't say what race you are playing (or I missed it). If you could start out 16 str, 14 con, 16 cha, that would be ideal. You can pull that off with a few different races including a variant human with inspiring leader feat.