Change My View: Clerics and Paladins should be the same class

[R.Shackleford]

In different lore they are both direct agents of a deity, agent of an idea, or just a member of a church. Any piece of fluff can be applied to the other. No two classes have such similar fluff and lore, even the ranger and druid has reasons to be seperate on this account.

Their practical application is the same, to smite the enemies of their faith, heal their allies, and tank hits. Druids and rangers have very different practical applications, druids are primarily casters a d rangers are primarily battles, though they can step on each ither toes.

Side by side, most clerics and paladins will look rather similar. Armor, shield, and a weapon. Sometimes using a two handed weapon in place of sword and board. Going back to my example of Druids and Rangers, we see that side by side, they do not look all that similar. Their armor type and style would be different as they also carry different weapons and use them in vastly different ways.

The biggest difference between the two is when the cleric goes more on the caster side, clerics do make effective casters. However, this would be like if we split the druid into two classes, one that was mostly wildshaping and physical attacks and then a druid with wildshaping and also had more spells. Additionally, the cleric can be a caster and still be a Paladin in all but name.

I think mixing the Cleric and the Paladin class features and making them a half caster would bebthe right call. Have a subclass that improves casting (and allows for more higher level spells) or improves combat (no more spells, but you get smite spells and other goodies like fighting style). You could give this hybrid class the Warlock casting as they get their magic from powerful outsiders too.


Though, I could see an argument for the Warlock being a cleric too, they at least have different fluff and specialties.

Anyways, so yeah, there's no reason to split the Cleric and Paladin up into seperate classes.

[detro]

I think Clerics and Druids should be the same class as well. Honestly the entire spell list system is a sacred cow that needs to be gotten rid of. The class spell lists just comes across as WotC trying to tell you what your own character is and smacking your hand for having the audacity to think that a sorcerer can shoot an arrow of acid (while sorcerers have an entire archetype about chromatic dragons, of which black dragons are included)

[greenstone]

I disagree. I take a very classic AD&D approach.

The Cleric's role is to spread the worship of the faith.
The Paladin's role is to kill the enemies of the faith.

[Laserlight]

I think paladins and clerics should be different, but I also think paladins shouldn't be casters. Did Lancelot, Galahad, or Roland ever cast a spell? They really ought to be martial with Det Evil and Lou as class abilities.

[Jerrykhor]

I think paladins and clerics should be different, but I also think paladins shouldn't be casters. Did Lancelot, Galahad, or Roland ever cast a spell? They really ought to be martial with Det Evil and Lou as class abilities.

Then paladins would be no different from fighters.

[R.Shackleford]

I think Clerics and Druids should be the same class as well. Honestly the entire spell list system is a sacred cow that needs to be gotten rid of. The class spell lists just comes across as WotC trying to tell you what your own character is and smacking your hand for having the audacity to think that a sorcerer can shoot an arrow of acid (while sorcerers have an entire archetype about chromatic dragons, of which black dragons are included)


I can see that, but I do like a class system, though I do like a broad definition of said class (rogues are the best class in 5e because of this).

This doesn't change my view as Warden is just a Paladin druid.

Cleric = Paladin


I disagree. I take a very classic AD&D approach.

The Cleric's role is to spread the worship of the faith.
The Paladin's role is to kill the enemies of the faith.

This is the same thing, just with extra steps.

Plus Clerics totally kill the enemies of their faith, which is why they get all those yummy offensive spells and abilities.





I think paladins and clerics should be different, but I also think paladins shouldn't be casters. Did Lancelot, Galahad, or Roland ever cast a spell? They really ought to be martial with Det Evil and Lou as class abilities.

First, paladins have evolved past such basic notions of the class. Just like every class in the game. Even so, there's nothing that stops a LG Cleric from being different than a LG Paladin.

There's argument to be made that Lancelot wasn't exactly LG or a Paladin... I mean, he was a knight/fighter/whatever, but banging your king's wife behind his back isn't exactly Lawful or Good.

I've always been a proponent of barbarian (zealot), fighter (paladin), and rogue (avenger) having their own "cleric" subclasses.


Then paladins would be no different from fighters.

They do have vastly different fluff.

But I can see a fighter and cleric each sharing a subclass called "paladin".

[Waazraath]

Oh well, they could, definitely. Just as rangers and paladin's could be a fighter subclass, or rangers and druids could be a single class. Or Warlocks and Sorcerers, with some effort. Or a lot of other things. And the game would still work out fine.

But 'should'? Meh. There are base classes for decades now, in the lore. Are kept apart by quite a lot of characteristics. Cleric: wisdom, priest, full caster, protector. Pally: charisma, warrior, partial caster with extra's like Lay on Hands and a special warhorse, soldier of his deity or cause.

Of course they also overlap, but as someone who likes playing both these classes, I don't see the advantage of combining them.

[R.Shackleford]

Oh well, they could, definitely. Just as rangers and paladin's could be a fighter subclass, or rangers and druids could be a single class. Or Warlocks and Sorcerers, with some effort. Or a lot of other things. And the game would still work out fine.

But 'should'? Meh. There are base classes for decades now, in the lore. Are kept apart by quite a lot of characteristics. Cleric: wisdom, priest, full caster, protector. Pally: charisma, warrior, partial caster with extra's like Lay on Hands and a special warhorse, soldier of his deity or cause.

Of course they also overlap, but as someone who likes playing both these classes, I don't see the advantage of combining them.

They don't just overlap, they are almost symmetrical. The Wizard and the Sorcerer have more things different than the Cleric and Paladin.

The fact that a War Cleric, and other cleric subclasses, partially a discount Paladin shows this (some clerics, like tempest even get their own smites)

Many of the other similar classes have mechanical or fluff differences that aren't so parrarel to the other. Sorcerers don't enter pacts with outsiders, their grandma/grandpa may have been screwed by one, but the sorcerer didn't do that.

I think you could have two holy classes and be different, cleric and druid work vastly different and are both divine casters with very seperate fluff. But cleric and paladin are more akin to class - subclass than class - class.

Also, Paladins protect better than clerics, what with their auras and all.

The advantage of combining both is having a class with features, that is flexible in the making, and you get rid one of the biggest redundancies in the book.

[Waazraath]

They don't just overlap, they are almost symmetrical. The Wizard and the Sorcerer have more things different than the Cleric and Paladin.

The fact that a War Cleric, and other cleric subclasses, partially a discount Paladin shows this (some clerics, like tempest even get their own smites)

Many of the other similar classes have mechanical or fluff differences that aren't so parrarel to the other. Sorcerers don't enter pacts with outsiders, their grandma/grandpa may have been screwed by one, but the sorcerer didn't do that.

I think you could have two holy classes and be different, cleric and druid work vastly different and are both divine casters with very seperate fluff. But cleric and paladin are more akin to class - subclass than class - class.

Also, Paladins protect better than clerics, what with their auras and all.

The advantage of combining both is having a class with features, that is flexible in the making, and you get rid one of the biggest redundancies in the book.

But I don't think the redundancy is that big. One is a divine warrior, the other a divine caster. We also have a nature warrior and a nature caster (ranger and druid). And an arcane caster and arcane warrior (wizard and eldritch knight). We even have a arcane caster that is also a bit of a warrior (bladesinger).

The pally has its own set of difined abilities (horse, lay on hand, aura of protection, smite, charisma based) that are around for long enough to justify a seperate class.

[Unoriginal]

In 5e, Clerics are mortals who are being powered by a deity, while Paladins are powered by their determination to follow an ideal and the Oath they swear to do so. In worlds outside of FR, Paladins don't even need gods.

Those things are not the same, at all. In fact they're pretty opposed: "being given power regardless of agency" vs "only getting power by intensively acting through your agency".

Where they started from isn't especially relevant to what they are now.

[HamsterKun]

I disagree. I take a very classic AD&D approach.

The Cleric's role is to spread the worship of the faith.
The Paladin's role is to kill the enemies of the faith.

One could argue.

[2097]

Then paladins would be no different from fighters.

Yes, that's what I want; pally as fighter subclass using tech similar to Cavalier or Eldritch Knight to get some spells, some smiting, some steed-riding etc.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, that's what I want; pally as fighter subclass using tech similar to Cavalier or Eldritch Knight to get some spells, some smiting, some steed-riding etc.

I'd hate to see a fighter with four attacks also smiting on each one. People complain enough about the Paladin doing it and he only gets two.

Just play a Cavalier with Magic Initiate for Booming Blade. Now you've got ace defensive skills, a bonus for being mounted and a smite like ability.

I don't very much like the idea that a class should be combined because they have overlap, there's a lot of overlap if you look hard enough. Ranger doesn't need to exist period, it could be a Druid or Fighter archetype. Bard doesn't need to exist, Rogue could do it (and vice versa).

[Laserlight]

I'd hate to see a fighter with four attacks also smiting on each one. People complain enough about the Paladin doing it and he only gets two.

Which is exactly why I said the paladin should be " a martial" not "a fighter". Of course, he COULD be a subclass of fighter, but I'd rather that he did a few big hits instead of a lot of little ones as a fighter does. I don't think they should be powered by spell slots, because I don't think he should have spell slots to begin with.

[hamishspence]

I think 4e did a bit to differentiate the paladin from the cleric - a paladin is a divine defender, whereas a cleric is a divine leader/healer.

[R.Shackleford]

In 5e, Clerics are mortals who are being powered by a deity, while Paladins are powered by their determination to follow an ideal and the Oath they swear to do so. In worlds outside of FR, Paladins don't even need gods.

Those things are not the same, at all. In fact they're pretty opposed: "being given power regardless of agency" vs "only getting power by intensively acting through your agency".

Where they started from isn't especially relevant to what they are now.

Devotion (cleric) and convictions (paladin) are basically synonyms.

Paladins gain spellcasting from their firm convictions, their firm beliefs. How is that different from the cleric? Without a cleric's beliefs, their devotion, the cleric wouldn't have their abilities.

Also, historically speaking, clerics could also be a cleric of a belief, a deity, or not have a deity at all. Paladins were forced to have a deity in the past just were clerics at some points.

I don't see why a paladin's convictions are any different that a cleric's devotion. You could change those two and get the exact same result.

Religious warriors that spread their faith and destroy their enemies with magic and might.


But I don't think the redundancy is that big. One is a divine warrior, the other a divine caster. We also have a nature warrior and a nature caster (ranger and druid). And an arcane caster and arcane warrior (wizard and eldritch knight). We even have a arcane caster that is also a bit of a warrior (bladesinger).

The pally has its own set of difined abilities (horse, lay on hand, aura of protection, smite, charisma based) that are around for long enough to justify a seperate class.

The cleric is very much a divine warrior in 5e. They even get Divine Strike.

Those paladin abilities would fit under the cleric just fine.

[Unoriginal]

Devotion (cleric) and convictions (paladin) are basically synonyms.

Paladins gain spellcasting from their firm convictions, their firm beliefs. How is that different from the cleric? Without a cleric's beliefs, their devotion, the cleric wouldn't have their abilities.

Also, historically speaking, clerics could also be a cleric of a belief, a deity, or not have a deity at all. Paladins were forced to have a deity in the past just were clerics at some points.

I don't see why a paladin's convictions are any different that a cleric's devotion. You could change those two and get the exact same result.

Religious warriors that spread their faith and destroy their enemies with magic and might.

Clerics are NOT devotion.

There are tons of devoted worshippers and priests that are not Clerics.

You're not a Cleric because you believe in a god. You're a Cleric because a god believes in you. Whether you like it or not.


The Paladin is devoted (as indicated by the Devotion Paladin), the Cleric is Chosen.

You're using conceptions of the classes that are not relevant to this edition, and ignoring what 5e made of them.

[Arkhios]

I'd hate to see a fighter with four attacks also smiting on each one. People complain enough about the Paladin doing it and he only gets two.

That's cutting corners. Obviously, as a fighter subclass, Paladin's Smite mechanic would have to be different as well, instead of being transferred as written.


Clerics are NOT devotion.

There are tons of devoted worshippers and priests that are not Clerics.

You're not a Cleric because you believe in a god. You're a Cleric because a god believes in you. Whether you like it or not.


The Paladin is devoted (as indicated by the Devotion Paladin), the Cleric is Chosen.

You're using conceptions of the classes that are not relevant to this edition, and ignoring what 5e made of them.

+1

100% this

...To clarify my opinion;

While Clerics and Paladins can certainly be viewed as two sides of one coin, that alone doesn't mean they'd have to be two aspects of one class.

It's (in my opinion) just this simple:
Paladins are, first and foremost, divine warriors.
Clerics are, first and foremost, divine spellcasters.

[Aussiehams]

Then you may as well combine fighters and rogues. They are both people that kill people via training and mundane weapons.
Just make rogue a fighter subclass and replace extra attacks with skills and abilities.

[Millstone85]

You're using conceptions of the classes that are not relevant to this edition, and ignoring what 5e made of them.Looking at the DMG p13 (Forces and Philosophies) and XGtE p18 (Serving a Pantheon, Philosophy, or Force), I think any divine spellcaster could be a god's chosen, in tune with nature, or the exemplar of an ideal, even if that is typically and respectively how clerics, druids and paladins work.

[Benny89]

I'd hate to see a fighter with four attacks also smiting on each one. People complain enough about the Paladin doing it and he only gets two.

Hasted PAM Vengeance Paladin after level 15 can already attack 5 times per turn his VoE target or 4 times his non-VoE target. If enemy closes distance first and PAM attack occure- that could potentially be 6 attacks per turn. Add 2 levels of Fighter and couple of levels of Sorc to not lose spell progress and you can with Action Surge and PAM Vengeance Paladin attack up to 8 times in one turn, smitting on each one.

It can already be done and it's not really that game-breaking.


As to Topic: I agree. Actually after playing Sorcadin Divine Soul and playing Divine Soul Sorlock who was support with Agonizing Blast as his DPR while his spells were mostly Cleric ones - I don't see a place for Clerics to do something those can't do (sure Turn Undead is cool, but it's very situational) and do better.

I think they should put Paladin and Cleric into one class, change it's name and make them subclasses.

But not before they fix Sorcerers.

[Unoriginal]

Looking at the DMG p13 (Forces and Philosophies) and XGtE p18 (Serving a Pantheon, Philosophy, or Force), I think any divine spellcaster could be a god's chosen, in tune with nature, or the exemplar of an ideal, even if that is typically and respectively how clerics, druids and paladins work.

A Cleric can be Chosen by Nature itself, but that still makes them a Cleric. A Druid isn't a Cleric of Nature.

Same way that a Cleric can be extremely devoted to the concept of redemption, and perhaps is even empowered by the universal principle of Redemption, but that does not make them a Redemption Paladin.

It's a distinction of source of power. A Paladin's power is internal, a Cleric's external. The Druid is kinda in-between, as they're using self-imposed duties and taboos and gain the collaboration of animistic forces.

Meanwhile, the Divine Soul Sorcerer and the Celestial Warlock (or Warlock in general) are the results of different ways that an external power can become internal.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Looking at the DMG p13 (Forces and Philosophies) and XGtE p18 (Serving a Pantheon, Philosophy, or Force), I think any divine spellcaster could be a god's chosen, in tune with nature, or the exemplar of an ideal, even if that is typically and respectively how clerics, druids and paladins work.

There's a key difference, other divine casters can be a deities chosen, Clerics are always chosen. This is of course, assuming the default setting.

It's right here in the Cleric's bio in the PHB

Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.

Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes.
...
Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods’ will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms.

Contrast this with the Paladin's bio

A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.

Clerics require the support of a god to cast their magic and be a Cleric. Paladin's don't require it, but many also happen to have the support of a god.

So I'll have to agree with the idea that an idea not present in 5E is being used to label Clerics and Paladins as wholey the same. They share many similarities, just like other classes do, but they also have distinctions about them that make them unique.

[hamishspence]

A Paladin's power is internal, a Cleric's external.

A paladin still has a Channel Divinity class feature. Since they themselves are not a divinity, doesn't that suggest that, just like a cleric, when they use a Channel Divinity attempt, they are channelling power that comes from outside them?

[Unoriginal]

A paladin still has a Channel Divinity class feature. Since they themselves are not a divinity, doesn't that suggest that, just like a cleric, when they use a Channel Divinity attempt, they are channelling power that comes from outside them?

It's not because something is not a god that it can't use divine powers.

Paladins have access to the Weave through the prism of their exceptional dedication, which is still called divine magic.

Channel Divinity is the same, except it goes beyond the Weave and directly in the raw magic that makes the universe work.

[Millstone85]

It's a distinction of source of power. A Paladin's power is internal, a Cleric's external.That's not how I see it.
In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction.
Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity.
A philosophy that only one person believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power on that person. A paladin's power isn't hers alone. There is collective magic at play.

[hamishspence]

Paladins have access to the Weave through the prism of their exceptional dedication, which is still called divine magic.

Channel Divinity is the same, except it goes beyond the Weave and directly in the raw magic that makes the universe work.

Using that logic - everything channels power from an external source - the Weave, or alternative "the raw magic that makes the universe work" from which the strands of the Weave are woven.

[Unoriginal]

That's not how I see it. A paladin's power isn't hers alone. There is collective magic at play.

The ideal isn't theirs alone. What is theirs alone is how they access it.

If no one believed in justice, it wouldn't be an ideal, and then a Paladin couldn't believe in justice enough to make a contract with themselves and the universe to uphold it as an ideal.

[R.Shackleford]

Clerics are NOT devotion.

There are tons of devoted worshippers and priests that are not Clerics.

You're not a Cleric because you believe in a god. You're a Cleric because a god believes in you. Whether you like it or not.


The Paladin is devoted (as indicated by the Devotion Paladin), the Cleric is Chosen.

You're using conceptions of the classes that are not relevant to this edition, and ignoring what 5e made of them.

Clerics are not chosen, clerics must choose to worship, to devote, to have conviction to a deity or cause.

You're using synonyms and trying to argue that the classes are different.


From the cleric...

The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity.

Edit again: So if a paladin is about devotion, as you say, and a cleric is about devotion, as the SRD says, how are they that different?

[Unoriginal]

Using that logic - everything channels power from an external source - the Weave, or alternative "the raw magic that makes the universe work" from which the strands of the Weave are woven.

If you want to be technical, then yes, it's true. But *what* gives them the capacity to channel that power?

For Clerics, that capacity is external: a deity or principle is giving them access to that power.

For Paladins, that capacity is internal: they're accessing it without intermediaries, only through the shape of their devotion.

Wizards spend years studying how to gain that capacity to access power.

[Unoriginal]

Clerics are not chosen, clerics must choose to worship, to devote, to have conviction to a deity or cause.

You're using synonyms and trying to argue that the classes are different.

No. Clerics are chosen. It says so explicitly in the PHB. It was quoted earlier in the thread.

Also you're the one who is using synonymes to try to argue the classes are similar. I was very specific that the Cleric's chosen status and the Paladin's devotion were NOT synonymous.

You're trying to hide the differences by affirming they are similar, when the text is clear they are not.

Nothing is forcing you to follow the default setting, but do not pretend it is something it is not.

[Wizard_Lizard]

someone in my party is playing a war cleric, and I keep forgetting that he isn't a paladin.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's not how I see it. A paladin's power isn't hers alone. There is collective magic at play.

A philosophy that only one person believes in isn't strong enough to bestow magical power on that person.

Well I suppose we can write vengeance paladin out of the PHB finally, seeking revenge on your personal worst enemy at all costs is a very singular philosophy.

Or perhaps, it's because there's the general philosophy of Vengeance (capital V) where justice should be delivered by any means necessary to those who deserve it. Or Devotion (capital D) the pursuit of honor and fair justice. Maybe even Redemption (capital R) where you live under the belief that anyone can be a force for good given the right motivation.

These are ideas present in our world, and in this fantasy world. A Knight, or even a Rogue, may believe in honor among their peers and justice for those deserving. A Paladin believes so strongly in those ideals that he becomes a paragon of them to enforce and/or spread that philosophy to others.

So yes, there's magic at work here but it's not discounting the fact that it's a very internal thing for the Paladin. They gained this power because of their strong beliefs, not because a God allowed them to wield it. This is what the functional purpose of the described tenants are, so long as you define your life by those tenants (it looks so easy on paper) your righteousness can become divine fury.

The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power—gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.
Paladin Oaths are inherently magical and sacred. You really have to embody those beliefs to draw on this font of power.


Clerics are not chosen, clerics must choose to worship, to devote, to have conviction to a deity or cause.

You're using synonyms and trying to argue that the classes are different.


From the cleric...

The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity.
Also from Cleric

The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.

They're explicitly chosen by the gods. They are also explicitly mentioned as being devoted to the god, to channel their magic effectively so the idea that they might not have had a choice in the matter isn't necessarily accurate.

[diplomancer]

Paladins are far closer to Fighters than to Clerics, both in historical myths, in D&D history, in actual mechanics, and in the role they play in combat.

Go far enough down this route and you will have 2 classes, Fighting Man (I suppose Fighting Person nowadays) and Magic-User. And Paladin will be a subclass of Fighting Person, while Cleric will be a subclass of Magic-User, so they still will not be the same class.

Better for the game to keep things as they are.

[Millstone85]

They're explicitly chosen by the gods. They are also explicitly mentioned as being devoted to the god, to channel their magic effectively so the idea that they might not have had a choice in the matter isn't necessarily accurate.I would say the PHB somewhat contradicts itself on the matter.
A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes.
Once you've chosen a deity, consider your cleric's relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes? Perhaps the idea is that they were already a true believer, maybe even a priest, but unprepared for the responsabilities of a cleric?

[Wizard_Lizard]

The real question is...
Cn there be an atheist cleric?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I would say the PHB somewhat contradicts itself on the matter. Perhaps the idea is that they were already a true believer, maybe even a priest, but unprepared for the responsabilities of a cleric?

That's what I get for skimming. Personally I think it makes a lot of sense for a "Chosen One" to run the risk of having it thrust on them against their will. It's a very common trope, it appeals to the fantasy that even a normal guy can be chosen for greatness.

[Millstone85]

The real question is...
Cn there be an atheist cleric?No, because the gods exist and regularly show up to prove it.
Unless they don't show up in that particular setting, and might in fact not exist, like on Eberron.
Or maybe the character views the "gods" as nothing more than sufficiently advanced wizards, similarly to the Planescape faction of the Athar.

Not to be confused with a cleric of an ideal. They could know the gods exist, recognize them as such, but rely on a more abstract power. Again, see DMG p13 and XGtE p18.

[Unoriginal]

I would say the PHB somewhat contradicts itself on the matter. Perhaps the idea is that they were already a true believer, maybe even a priest, but unprepared for the responsabilities of a cleric?

The PHB isn't contradicting itself.

Either you're already a believer, and are chosen by the god for X reason (ex: you're in the priesthood or a casual worshipper of Kord and one day he lets you cast spells) or you aren't a believer but get saddled with the power of a Chosen One regardless (ex: you're a bookish alchemist who doesn't think much about the gods, and one day Kord lets you cast spells). If you then choose to not use that power to accomplish the god's will, either by doing nothing (aka show no devotion) or going against your instinct if what the god wants, well, the god will probably give up an chose someone else.

Dave the Fisherman may be invested with divine power, but then he has to show he's worth the investment.

The point is that gods can chose to empower people among their worshippers (and it's a safer investment) but they don't have to.

"I was Chosen by Lolth" would make a fun backstory. Or a fun sitcom.

[Arkhios]

someone in my party is playing a war cleric, and I keep forgetting that he isn't a paladin.

That's hardly neither the classes' or the player's fault, however. Being a Paladin in 5th edition means more than being able to wear heaviest of armor, a shield and/or a weapon, and to cast a few divine spells every now and then.

A War Cleric can't heal or remove diseases or neutralize poisons without spells.
A Cleric can't detect celestial, fiendish, or undead beings without spells.
A War Cleric is limited to just one attack each round, without expending a very limited resource.
A Paladin of 6th level and beyond is far more difficult nut to crack through spells than a Cleric is, thanks to their amazing aura.

[hamishspence]

The real question is...
Cn there be an atheist cleric?


No, because the gods exist and regularly show up to prove it.

Cadderley Bonaduce in R. A. Salvatore's Cleric Quintet was agnostic for a long period.

[R.Shackleford]

No. Clerics are chosen. It says so explicitly in the PHB. It was quoted earlier in the thread.

Also you're the one who is using synonymes to try to argue the classes are similar. I was very specific that the Cleric's chosen status and the Paladin's devotion were NOT synonymous.

You're trying to hide the differences by affirming they are similar, when the text is clear they are not.

Nothing is forcing you to follow the default setting, but do not pretend it is something it is not.

I'll quote the SRD...

"Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your cleric spells. The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity. "

Sorry, but a cleric must choose to be devoted to a deity. Unless you're saying that a cleric has no choice BUT to be devoted... Which in that case they wouldn't have free will and actually be devoted, now would they.

You said a paladin is devoted, well, so is the cleric.

[Prince Vine]

I definitely argue clerics and warlocks are indistinguishable in the fluff.

Both gain magical powers from their service to a higher power that bestows great wonders on them. I don't know which I'd fold into the other, but in my mind invocations would make great domain abilities.

[Unoriginal]

I'll quote the SRD...

"Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for your cleric spells. The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity. "

Sorry, but a cleric must choose to be devoted to a deity. Unless you're saying that a cleric has no choice BUT to be devoted... Which in that case they wouldn't have free will and actually be devoted, now would they.

You said a paladin is devoted, well, so is the cleric.

And now you're cherry-picking your quotes, when people have already quoted the parts that say the Cleric is chosen by the god several times.

Don't title a thread "change my views" when you don't want them changed even when faced with the evidences.

[Unoriginal]

I definitely argue clerics and warlocks are indistinguishable in the fluff.

Both gain magical powers from their service to a higher power that bestows great wonders on them. I don't know which I'd fold into the other, but in my mind invocations would make great domain abilities.

A Warlock gets a spark of power from an outside entity, generally through bargain but sometime through theft. But the power is theirs afterward.

A Cleric is granted power continuously, specifically by a deity, philosophy or ideal, but it's not theirs.

Kinda the difference between being given a somptuous car as part of a deal that may or may not have involved doing shady stuff, and being allowed to use one of your company's somptuous cars as part of your function's perks.

[HappyDaze]

TBH, I think I'd have preferred if Paladin were a type of Warlock. Oaths and Pacts can end up being very similar, and while the Warlock often has a flavor of someone that isn't wholly devoted to their master, it doesn't have to be that way. The Hexblade could even be the basis for the Paladin with some reflavoring of abilities, invocations, and spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And now you're cherry-picking your quotes, when people have already quoted the parts that say the Cleric is chosen by the god several times.

Don't title a thread "change my views" when you don't want them changed even when faced with the evidences.

Agreed.

As for my views--

Paladins are the sorcerer to a cleric's wizard. One's access to power is intrinsic, limited only by self. And it's only "divine" by virtue of the fact that that's how paladins view themselves. You could quite easily create an "Oath of the Weave" or "Spellknight" paladin who changes their list for a subset of the wizard list. They depend on Charisma for casting (in this case both force of will and conviction). To cast spells, they out-stubborn the universe, basically saying "no, it's this way" until the universe gives in and lets it be. Their limits flow from their self-concept--they are limited in those ways because they believe they are, and that belief and sacrifice (of autonomy) gives them power. They can lose power by losing conviction in their Oath and rejecting it. A paladin can be completely damned and still retain power. All they have to do is continue firm in the Oath they swore. Paladins are a law unto themselves, answering only to the Oath that they swore.

Clerics channel divine power and are in the service of a god because the god chose them. Whether or not they were devoted, now their power depends on their devotion. When they cast spells, their deity acts through them. They don't know spells, they channel spells. If they displease their god, they don't continue in power. This is true even if they still believe. A cleric of Bane who hobnobs with merciful people and opposes the will of Bane can lose power. Or not, depending on the whim of the deity at that moment. Clerics use Wisdom, because they have to be open to the will of the god moving through them. Clerics are agents of a being with a will and with independent thoughts.

Warlocks, like clerics, get power from extraplanar beings, but in a very different way. Warlocks get individual packets of power as contractual payment for services rendered (or to be rendered). Once granted, the grantor cannot take them back. While they may (or may not) have an ongoing relationship with their Patron, this is on a very different level than that of a cleric. Clerics can't conspire against or backstab their deity without losing power, while a warlock certainly can. Warlocks aren't agents of anyone.

Conceptually, they're very different power sources and the effects show in their class features. No, they're not overlapping more than any two classes will overlap.

[R.Shackleford]

And now you're cherry-picking your quotes, when people have already quoted the parts that say the Cleric is chosen by the god several times.

Don't title a thread "change my views" when you don't want them changed even when faced with the evidences.

Cherry picking rightnout of the SRD!

Your opinion can't change my mind when your opinion is factually wrong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Cherry picking rightnout of the SRD!

Your opinion can't change my mind when yout opinion is factually wrong.

Cherry picking isn't about the source, it's about the context (or lack there-of). Which is what you're omitting. You're anything but open minded on this matter, or at least you are coming across as anything but open minded.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I like having the option from a mechanical side, but I have to agree with R.Shackleford. There's really not enough meaningful distance between "martial Cleric" and "religious Fighter" to fit a base class-- not in 5e's paradigm.

Tradition certainly mandated there be one, and the designers did a great job of making it a mechanically fun and unique option, but it's conceptually pretty redundant. And I think their subclass design kinda reflects that. Most classes have at least a few options that significantly twist the base class' concept-- Moon Druids, Eldritch Knights, Beast Masters, Bladesingers, and so on. But Paladin Oaths? Not really. You're still a heavily armored holy knight with a code of behavior, and you always will be because it's a very narrow design space.

[Millstone85]

A Warlock gets a spark of power from an outside entity, generally through bargain but sometime through theft. But the power is theirs afterward.

A Cleric is granted power continuously, specifically by a deity, philosophy or ideal, but it's not theirs.I agree. The PHB p205 lists the warlock as an arcane spellcaster, which it defines as having direct access to the Weave.


Kinda the difference between being given a somptuous car as part of a deal that may or may not have involved doing shady stuff, and being allowed to use one of your company's somptuous cars as part of your function's perks.Great metaphor.

[Wizard_Lizard]

That's hardly neither the classes' or the player's fault, however. Being a Paladin in 5th edition means more than being able to wear heaviest of armor, a shield and/or a weapon, and to cast a few divine spells every now and then.

A War Cleric can't heal or remove diseases or neutralize poisons without spells.
A Cleric can't detect celestial, fiendish, or undead beings without spells.
A War Cleric is limited to just one attack each round, without expending a very limited resource.
A Paladin of 6th level and beyond is far more difficult nut to crack through spells than a Cleric is, thanks to their amazing aura.


he is only a first level PC so a lot of the differences have not begun to show yet. But from your list, it seems that paladinsare a lot better than war clerics.

[Unoriginal]

Cherry picking rightnout of the SRD!

Your opinion can't change my mind when yout opinion is factually wrong.


Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don't grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.


Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods' will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies.

PHB p. 56.

Do you wish to repeat how the information in the PHB is a "factually wrong" opinion?



Cherry picking isn't about the source, it's about the context (or lack there-of). Which is what you're omitting. You're anything but open minded on this matter, or at least you are coming across as anything but open minded.

Cherry picking is about selecting parts of a source to make it say what you want. Like taking the part that speak of a cleric's devotion without mentioning the part that explicitly says the gods don't empower all their devotees, only some chosen ones.

[hamishspence]

"Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world."

Since a paladin uses divine magic, it follows that, regardless of his method of accessing it (an oath) it's their power.



Which would make 5e paladins as basically somewhat nicer versions of 3.5 ur-priests - taking power from the gods without the gods granting them it.

[Unoriginal]

"Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world."

Since a paladin uses divine magic, it follows that, regardless of his method of accessing it (an oath) it's their power.



Which would make 5e paladins as basically somewhat nicer versions of 3.5 ur-priests - taking power from the gods without the gods granting them it.

Or the Paladins just make themselves divine through dedication and oaths.

Their Aura is something you usually see on outsiders or dragons, not often on humanoids.

[hamishspence]

Or the Paladins just make themselves divine through dedication and oaths.

So they're like very minor gods - demigods?

[Arkhios]

he is only a first level PC so a lot of the differences have not begun to show yet. But from your list, it seems that paladinsare a lot better than war clerics.

To a certain length, absolutely. But those pointers should also be obvious to the topic itself, too. Clerics rely on their spells more than on anything else, to do what they do best. Paladins don't have to. Paladins have many abilities that work without casting a single spell. On top of that, Paladins are more capable warriors than Clerics, despite that War Domain manages to overcome some of the usual hindrances of Clerics' in that regard.

However, when it comes to spell casting, Cleric is far more superior.

[Unoriginal]

To a certain length, absolutely. But those pointers should also be obvious to the topic itself, too. Clerics rely on their spells more than on anything else, to do what they do best. Paladins don't have to. Paladins have many abilities that work without casting a single spell. On top of that, Paladins are more capable warriors than Clerics, despite that War Domain manages to overcome some of the usual hindrances of Clerics' in that regard.

However, when it comes to spell casting, Cleric is far more superior.

Yeah, a Cleric is a caster first, and they're good at it. It's like the difference between a Bladesinger and an Eldritch Knight: one is a caster with some martial, the other is a martial with some casting.

[R.Shackleford]

Cherry picking isn't about the source, it's about the context (or lack there-of). Which is what you're omitting. You're anything but open minded on this matter, or at least you are coming across as anything but open minded.

The context was the cleric gaining spells, the context is legit.

If you read the cleric entry it says that the cleric was devoted. Unoriginal just doesn't like their opinion being factually wrong.

So their argument needs to change to distract from that.

[Unoriginal]

Do you wish to repeat how the information in the PHB is a "factually wrong" opinion?




If you read the cleric entry it says that the cleric was devoted. Unoriginal just doesn't like their opinion being factually wrong.


You heard it here, folks: the PHB is a factually wrong opinion.

A Cleric's devotion doesn't make them Cleric. The god/philosophy/ideal choosing them is what makes them Cleric.

That they have to say "please [insert divinity] give me might as I am but an humble servant" to use their powers does not change that fact.

But whatever.

[Constructman]

The lot of you are brain-dead mongrels.


Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes.


Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don't grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.

It's BOTH. Read mother****ers, read!

[darknite]

They're cousins but not the same. Clerics are more like priests with a dash of warrior thrown in and paladins are like warriors with a dash of priest thrown in. 'Traditionally' paladins were based on pious knights like Lancelot and Roland. Clerics are more like Friar Tuck.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I like having the option from a mechanical side, but I have to agree with R.Shackleford. There's really not enough meaningful distance between "martial Cleric" and "religious Fighter" to fit a base class-- not in 5e's paradigm.

Tradition certainly mandated there be one, and the designers did a great job of making it a mechanically fun and unique option, but it's conceptually pretty redundant. And I think their subclass design kinda reflects that. Most classes have at least a few options that significantly twist the base class' concept-- Moon Druids, Eldritch Knights, Beast Masters, Bladesingers, and so on. But Paladin Oaths? Not really. You're still a heavily armored holy knight with a code of behavior, and you always will be because it's a very narrow design space.

I would argue that War Cleric is the Clerics significantly twisted subclass. Even the other cleric subclasses that gain Divine Strike (a feature that says "this is a martial style cleric") tend to have a majority of their features augment their spellcasting. War Cleric stands out as having a majority of it's features make you a better martial, which is unusual for clerics as they're presented in 5E.

I also disagree with the idea that Paladins are shoehorned into the "Heavily Armored Holy Knight" mold. Vengeance Paladin doesn't much sell the "Holy Knight" vibe so much as the "Dark Knight" vibe. Redemption Paladins also break the mold in that they are unusually prone to pacifism compared to other paladin oaths, most depictions (as well as the initial testing version) show them as unarmored. My Redemption Paladin had spent the majority of his career unarmored, even now he is only lightly armored out of necessity.

The tenants of most of the oaths are so interesting and varied, I think it's very diminishing of the classes appeal to discount that.

I think the largest part of my disagreement is how you've generalized Paladin's in the first sentence though. "Religious Fighter". Worship is optional for Paladins. Even in prior editions (the following quote is from the 3.5e PHB)

Religion: A Paladin need not devote herself to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough.

I hope this doesn't come off as too aggressive. I have pretty strong opinions on the Paladin class in general. To me, Clerics are very different.


The context was the cleric gaining spells, the context is legit.

If you read the cleric entry it says that the cleric was devoted. Unoriginal just doesn't like their opinion being factually wrong.

So their argument needs to change to distract from that.
And it also says very clearly that your cleric can be chosen against their will.

Once you’ve chosen a deity, consider your cleric’s relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes? How do the temple priests of your faith regard you: as a champion or a troublemaker? What are your ultimate goals? Does your deity have a special task in mind for you? Or are you striving to prove yourself worthy of a great quest?
We also have the line that I previously quoted, here

The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.
Clerics are chosen first and foremost, the devotion comes later, if it isn't already present. If they choose to not devote themselves to the God, they're probably not going to be a Cleric for long.

[Millstone85]

I have held a similar opinion regarding the sorcerer and the warlock.

Mainly, I fear that 5e is still missing the fey and fiendish sorcerous origins because of the existence of the Archfey and the Fiend as warlock patrons.

Just let players decide whether they inherited that otherworldly power or made a pact for it. Eh, the draconic bloodline already suggests that one of your ancestors might have made a bargain with a dragon, or that you yourself could be the first of a new bloodline as a result of a pact.

But that too has been an unpopular opinion.

[Unoriginal]

Many people are devoted to gods. Only some are Clerics.

The difference? The Clerics were chosen to be clerics.

Meanwhile Paladins have Devotion+.

Ergo, the difference between Clerics and Paladins is that the Clerics were chosen, while the Paladins has Devotion+.

Both differ from the usual devotee in that the usual devotee is neither chosen nor has Devotion+.



I admit that calling the Cleric not devoted was an unnecessary and inaccurate hyperbole, but my point was that it's not the devotion that is the determining factor in what makes a Cleric compared to a Paladin.

[hamishspence]

After rereading the Magic section, it appears that:

What differentiates a mortal spellcaster from an immortal spellcaster is the fact that they need the Weave to do magic - they can't touch raw magic.

what differentiates a divine spellcaster from an arcane spellcaster is that they need an intermediary between them and the weave - be it Oath, Nature, or Deity - whereas an arcane spellcaster "plucks the strands of the weave directly".

[Unoriginal]

what differentiates a divine spellcaster from an arcane spellcaster is that they need an intermediary between them and the weave - be it Oath, Nature, or Deity - whereas an arcane spellcaster "plucks the strands of the weave directly".

Indeed indeed.

[Hytheter]

I have held a similar opinion regarding the sorcerer and the warlock.

Mainly, I fear that 5e is still missing the fey and fiendish sorcerous origins because of the existence of the Archfey and the Fiend as warlock patrons.

Just let players decide whether they inherited that otherworldly power or made a pact for it. Eh, the draconic bloodline already suggests that one of your ancestors might have made a bargain with a dragon, or that you yourself could be the first of a new bloodline as a result of a pact.

But that too has been an unpopular opinion.

Plus folding Sorcerer into Warlock would make them a lot more distinct from Wizards, and finally give them the subclass-based bonus spell choices they deserve.

[ZorroGames]

As expected these threads never seem to go well.

While I openly disagree with Unoriginal in some ways that he interprets the wording of the PHB (you are chosen as a PC and you get to choose as a AL PC player - only currently playing AL,) his wording seems more consistent to the game than trying to rewrite Clerics/Paladins, Warlocks, Sorcerers or any class.

Do whatever you want in your game, it is yours.

As an 0D&D player in the past I will state that my view that Clerics and Paladins historically are not variations on the same theme. Just as Jazz and Classical music share the same tools (notes, timing, etc.,) so do, in some ways, Clerics and Paladins. I can blend classes back to Fighting Man, Wizards, Clerics, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling/Hobbit “in the beginning” but that is not 5e. Rangers, Rogues, Paladins, Druids developed later as the role was not being met with the original three booklets.

[GoblinGuy]

If that was the case, both classes could get needlessly confusing and their spell lists would likely have to become combined, which takes away from the niche that each separate class fills. It would also make it so you couldn't have a subclass for either cleric or paladin, which even further takes away the specialty of each class.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, as a player you get to choose.

If the DM wants a campaign where they can impose which class the PCs end up as, it better be cleared in the first session (or as soon as they get the idea).

[Karnitis]

As expected these threads never seem to go well.

snip

I can blend classes back to Fighting Man, Wizards, Clerics, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling/Hobbit “in the beginning” but that is not 5e. Rangers, Rogues, Paladins, Druids developed later as the role was not being met with the original three booklets.

Second this. I only started in 5e, but I can see how if you really feel like things are overlapping, you could halve, or quarter, all classes. If you look at just the PHB, you'll see there's not a ton of overlap. It's because there have been so many subclasses released, it's easy to say there are so many cleric domains each one overlaps with a paladin oath.

But that's also how WOTC wanted it - they wanted to make sure that you could play a clerical paladin, a roguish Warlock, a melee wizard, whatever. So sure, there's a ton of overlap at this point but that's because options are good. We shouldn't limit people's options.

[MrStabby]

In 5e, Clerics are mortals who are being powered by a deity, while Paladins are powered by their determination to follow an ideal and the Oath they swear to do so. In worlds outside of FR, Paladins don't even need gods.

Those things are not the same, at all. In fact they're pretty opposed: "being given power regardless of agency" vs "only getting power by intensively acting through your agency".

Where they started from isn't especially relevant to what they are now.

But equally, where they are now isn't especially relevant to where they should be.



I like having the option from a mechanical side, but I have to agree with R.Shackleford. There's really not enough meaningful distance between "martial Cleric" and "religious Fighter" to fit a base class-- not in 5e's paradigm.

Tradition certainly mandated there be one, and the designers did a great job of making it a mechanically fun and unique option, but it's conceptually pretty redundant. And I think their subclass design kinda reflects that. Most classes have at least a few options that significantly twist the base class' concept-- Moon Druids, Eldritch Knights, Beast Masters, Bladesingers, and so on. But Paladin Oaths? Not really. You're still a heavily armored holy knight with a code of behavior, and you always will be because it's a very narrow design space.

I think this echoes what I think pretty well.

I do think that it would be possible to create a composite class: 2/3rd spell progression as a base and some swapping out of abilities.

Pushing higher level spells accessible to being domain features on the cleric side would be a shift; likewise extra spells prepared should be a subclass feature. Clerics get enough domain features anyway that there is space to substitute in some big ones like extra attack.

Frankly, you might not even need the different spell progression. Valor bard is pretty fine with two attacks and spellcasting (cleric is still probably a bit of a step up due to the actual spells available).



I like having two classes as I like more options and both are mechanically fun. Conceptually there is a lot of overlap though. I suppose my main preference would be better support for multiclassing so you had a bit more control on where on the scale you wanted to be (like both using the same casting stat and maybe being able to add class levels together for determining which spells you can prepare).



There are other cleric concepts that are more conceptually different, but these are less well supported by the class as is. Theologians reliant on intelligence and scholarship, preachers reliant on charisma for their power (obviously there is nothing stopping you building a cleric with high int or cha, but there is a big difference between supporting something and not prohibiting it).

[Man_Over_Game]

As an 0D&D player in the past I will state that my view that Clerics and Paladins historically are not variations on the same theme. Just as Jazz and Classical music share the same tools (notes, timing, etc.,) so do, in some ways, Clerics and Paladins. I can blend classes back to Fighting Man, Wizards, Clerics, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling/Hobbit “in the beginning” but that is not 5e. Rangers, Rogues, Paladins, Druids developed later as the role was not being met with the original three booklets.

Fighter, Thief, Priest, Mage. Just tack on a bunch of multiclassing options (So a Paladin is more Fighter than Priest, an Assassin is more Thief than Fighter, a Swashbuckler is more Fighter than Thief) and you got most of the game.

[Willie the Duck]

As an 0D&D player in the past I will state that my view that Clerics and Paladins historically are not variations on the same theme. Just as Jazz and Classical music share the same tools (notes, timing, etc.,) so do, in some ways, Clerics and Paladins. I can blend classes back to Fighting Man, Wizards, Clerics, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling/Hobbit “in the beginning” but that is not 5e. Rangers, Rogues, Paladins, Druids developed later as the role was not being met with the original three booklets.

I have held a similar opinion regarding the sorcerer and the warlock.
Mainly, I fear that 5e is still missing the fey and fiendish sorcerous origins because of the existence of the Archfey and the Fiend as warlock patrons.
Just let players decide whether they inherited that otherworldly power or made a pact for it.

After rereading the Magic section, it appears that:
What differentiates a mortal spellcaster from an immortal spellcaster is the fact that they need the Weave to do magic - they can't touch raw magic.

Therein lies at least one core issue I think should be mentioned when discussing 'shoulds' with D&D. There are some really specific stuff here that seems like it is setting up a specific game world, yet the gamebooks also try to make it generic. Games like Shadowrun or the Vampire the Masquerade don't have this issue because they flat out are creating a specific world with specific sets of playable entities, and if a few of them thematically overlap or not, it's fine. However, D&D is theoretically neutral with regards to which D&D world (or the DM's own) it is set in, yet as of 5th edition the magic system in general actually references the weave (until recently a Forgotten Realms-specific concept)? Well no wonder there are some contradictory impulses.

As ZorroGames alludes to, D&D started with 3 classes (fighting man, magic user, and cleric), and the very reason there was a cleric class at all was an outgrowth of one player wanting a Van Helsing expy to combat another character's Dracula expy antihero. While having religion and religious people in ones pseudo-medieval fantasy game is unsurprising, having such specific notions as a religious class (much less two, whose differences we can argue for hours over) is an accident of the games history. Are they distinct? Yes, to an arguable extent (clearly, given this thread). Do they need to be distinct? Well, they don't even have to exist at all! Being religious could be completely a background characteristic (or a Background, or feat, or the like, or each class could have their own religious-themed archetype).

So, can you have both paladin class and cleric class (and can you justify a philosophical distinction between the two, as the 5e books we got arguably did or didn't, depending on which side of the previous arguments you land)? Of course! Should there be? Uh... no score drawn! The class system in general is arbitrary but arguments that we should do away with it always seem nonsensical to me. No one is playing D&D (as opposed to the thousands of other TTRPGS that exist at this point) if they didn't want some of the sacred cows left un-barbecued. I think that if any one of the links in the fighter/paladin/war cleric/other martial bent-cleric/less martial best-cleric lineup were removed, the rest could absorb the theme space (and the design space, with a few additional options). One could also expand the lineup, with a 1/3-caster style fighter, and an even-less-martial Cloistered Cleric/archivist/'white mage' concept. I'm not sure filling out the spectrum is a needed goal, but given how many people still want a 1/2 caster gish class, despite all the other options for making a gish, I think if WotC were to do so, people would probably play it.

[Unoriginal]

But equally, where they are now isn't especially relevant to where they should be.


There is no objective answer to what something "should" be.

If I prefer A to B, good for me, but it doesn't mean A should be and B shouldn't.

[TheSchleus]

On the mechanical end, I see no advantage in trying to make paladins and clerics subclasses of the same class. Putting full and partial casters in the same base class is needlessly complicated, and generally robs the class of base features. If you just make it a full caster class, your "paladin" is the war cleric, which is significantly less martial than the paladin. Sure, in theory you could multiclass into some class and get extra attack and make your own version of a paladin, but you might as well remove arcane tricksters and eldritch knights (eh, just multiclass into wizard!). Sure, you can do it, but it loses some of the options and synergy. An arcane trickster isn't just a rogue with a bit of wizard, it's a rogue with pieces of wizardry that it took and made more rogue-like. A paladin isn't just a fighter-like cleric, it's a divine fighter wielding holy power primarily channeled in martial ways. And honestly, it mechanically works out significantly differently from a war cleric with some levels of fighter, which is a good argument for them existing separately. Or if you make your merged paladin/cleric less than a full caster you've lost the divine full caster priest type.

On a flavor end, there really is a difference between someone who channels the power of their god and someone whose dedication to an ideal is so strong that they can wield holy power and no one else gets to have a say in it. It's closer when you have clerics of ideals and philosophies, but the oath of a paladin is more than mere devotion. The paladin oaths so hard that the universe is impressed. A cleric of an ideal is so in tune with that ideal they can channel its power, and those really aren't the same thing. Even if the cleric and paladin were basically the same thing on a power source perspective, having a separate class for "martial holy warrior" and "holy caster who can have a side of martial if they choose it" still would make sense to me. Even war clerics are casters first, but paladins are physical combatants first. And putting a half caster and a full caster on the same base class just isn't going to go well, imho.

And whoever said oaths and pacts seem similar, the difference is the oath is to the universe and the pact is with a being of power. Plus I don't think a merged class would be satisfying, although of course opinions may vary.

[Cynthaer]

Fighter, Thief, Priest, Mage. Just tack on a bunch of multiclassing options (So a Paladin is more Fighter than Priest, an Assassin is more Thief than Fighter, a Swashbuckler is more Fighter than Thief) and you got most of the game.
Yeah, the only core classes (conceptually) are Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, and that's true at least back through 3e.

If you really wanted to, you could 100% strip the game down to those four, and let the rest be covered by multiclassing, level 1 subclasses, and the player's own fluff.

Barbarian: A Fighter who you describe as getting very angry in combat and pretend isn't wearing armor. Alternatively, a Fighter subclass that gives Rage and Unarmored Defense.

Monk: Dex Fighter. Alternatively, a Fighter subclass that gives better Unarmed Strikes.

Druid: Nature Cleric.

Sorcerer: A Wizard subclass that uses Cha instead of Int and doesn't have a book.

Warlock: A Wizard (Sorcerer) whose backstory is making a deal with something for power.

Bard: A multiclassed Wizard (Sorcerer) and Rogue.

Paladin: A multiclassed Cleric and Fighter.

Ranger: A multiclassed Dex Fighter and Rogue.

Even with all twelve 5e classes, the subclasses often bring in some flavor from another class, which can both make multiclassing smoother and reduce the need for multiclassing at all. Conceptual overlap isn't always bad.

Obviously that doesn't mean that the Cleric/Paladin split must be good, but it's why I don't object to War Clerics and Devotion Paladins existing in the same game. They're two mechanically different ways of approaching a similar concept, in a framework that also allows for more divergent concepts like Trickery Clerics and Vengeance Paladins.

[Vorpalchicken]

On the mechanical end, I see no advantage in trying to make paladins and clerics subclasses of the same class.

Exactly where I was going to go. Thanks for saving me the effort. Regardless of the explanations of power sources and devotion and whether Friar Tuck has lost his faith, the game would play vastly differently if one class was subsumed into the other.

The two classes play so entirely unlike each other that the game would be suffering from gaping holes if this change were made.

Clerics that try to be fighters fall flat after just a few levels. Also the aura is a paladin fundamental.

Paladins that try to take the cleric role because no one wants that job lack at both combat ability and support. The bard would be a much better cleric than the pallycleric.

[JNAProductions]

I have not read the whole thread, so I'm probably reiterating stuff that's already been said.

But, I carry on anyway!

From a mechanical standpoint, Clerics and Paladins are really different. So mechanically, they're best left separate.
From a fluff standpoint, Clerics are chosen of the gods, while Paladins are closer to Determinators.

And, from a fun standpoint, what is there to gain from removing options? I mean, there's nothing wrong with making a very martial Cleric subclass or a very castery Paladin subclass, but why remove an entire class from the game just because it bears some similarities to another?

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah, the only core classes (conceptually) are Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, and that's true at least back through 3e.

If you really wanted to, you could 100% strip the game down to those four, and let the rest be covered by multiclassing, level 1 subclasses, and the player's own fluff.

Barbarian: A Fighter who you describe as getting very angry in combat and pretend isn't wearing armor. Alternatively, a Fighter subclass that gives Rage and Unarmored Defense.

Monk: Dex Fighter. Alternatively, a Fighter subclass that gives better Unarmed Strikes.

Druid: Nature Cleric.

Sorcerer: A Wizard subclass that uses Cha instead of Int and doesn't have a book.

Warlock: A Wizard (Sorcerer) whose backstory is making a deal with something for power.

Bard: A multiclassed Wizard (Sorcerer) and Rogue.

Paladin: A multiclassed Cleric and Fighter.

Ranger: A multiclassed Dex Fighter and Rogue.

Even with all twelve 5e classes, the subclasses often bring in some flavor from another class, which can both make multiclassing smoother and reduce the need for multiclassing at all. Conceptual overlap isn't always bad.

Obviously that doesn't mean that the Cleric/Paladin split must be good, but it's why I don't object to War Clerics and Devotion Paladins existing in the same game. They're two mechanically different ways of approaching a similar concept, in a framework that also allows for more divergent concepts like Trickery Clerics and Vengeance Paladins.

I'm glad someone else saw it too. Keeping things basic and succinct isn't a problem. In fact, it helps put emphasis on differences that we sort of "assume" with a system that uses a lot of classes.

For example, mechanically and conceptually, there's not a lot of difference between a Wisdom-less Ranger and the Rogue Scout. By making them part of a basic class system, we can better separate them and draw out those differences.

For a real life example, twins often grow up to have very similar personalities, unless they grow up together. Keeping similar things together (like keeping everything that's remotely like a Fighter as a Fighter subclass) will help contrast their differences, as well as highlight what needs to be more different between them.

[patchyman]

But I don't think the redundancy is that big. One is a divine warrior, the other a divine caster.

One is a divine caster, who can wear heavy armor and use martial weapons, and the other is a divine warrior that can cast spells and heal. Totally different! 😜

[patchyman]

I definitely argue clerics and warlocks are indistinguishable in the fluff.

Both gain magical powers from their service to a higher power that bestows great wonders on them. I don't know which I'd fold into the other, but in my mind invocations would make great domain abilities.

Except they are extremely distinguishable on other grounds so it doesn’t make sense to roll them into the same class. Given that warlocks are limited to few spells with big effects, I’m not even sure how you would graft clerics on that chassis.

[diplomancer]

Except they are extremely distinguishable on other grounds so it doesn’t make sense to roll them into the same class. Given that warlocks are limited to few spells with big effects, I’m not even sure how you would graft clerics on that chassis.

So are clerics and paladins, completely different mechanics and roles.

[patchyman]

It's BOTH. Read mother****ers, read!

Does the source of the power really matter for the purposes of this discussion? Power sources are one of the things that are the easiest to refluff and have the fewest consequences to the game.

If someone wants to play a tiefling warlock of the Infernal pact and say they are a cambion, Very few DMs would have a pb with that.

[Man_Over_Game]

Except they are extremely distinguishable on other grounds so it doesn’t make sense to roll them into the same class. Given that warlocks are limited to few spells with big effects, I’m not even sure how you would graft clerics on that chassis.

I think the thing is that:


Sources of power don't matter, due to everything being able to be refluffed as however you want. There's no reason a Cleric can't worship a demon, and there's no reason a Warlock can't worship a god.
Mechanics and the source of power don't have any link. Nothing about the Warlock's chassis says it has to be for a Warlock. Even the Cleric's Divine Intervention can be something that could technically be performed by a Patron (and in fact, has more narrative support for doing so).

If you swapped the concept of Warlocks with Clerics, and vice-versa, there wouldn't be any difference. It might matter that there are two different chassis, but it doesn't matter who gets what.

A Cleric is just someone who worships a god, it doesn't matter if their spells are Prepared or not, or if they have heavy armor.


Change Paladins to be called Knights.
Change Clerics to be called Paladins.
Change Warlocks to be called Clerics.



And nothing much has really changed. In fact, the concept of Clerics only casting 1-2 big spells on occasion (they call help from their God, but not constantly) kinda fits in-line with how I think of Clerics.

[Unoriginal]

There's no reason a Cleric can't worship a demon

If you use the default setting, there are lore reasons for that.

Could be a demon god, or the demon is just a representative of what you worship, but a demon-only by itself can't grant spells to Clerics.

If you use a custom setting where it's possible, then there is indeed no reason for that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the thing is that:


Sources of power don't matter, due to everything being able to be refluffed as however you want. There's no reason a Cleric can't worship a demon, and there's no reason a Warlock can't worship a god.
Mechanics and the source of power don't have any link. Nothing about the Warlock's chassis says it has to be for a Warlock. Even the Cleric's Divine Intervention can be something that could technically be performed by a Patron (and in fact, has more narrative support for doing so).



Except that there is a difference based on power source. Clerics know their entire list because they themselves are not learning spells. They're petitioning the god for aid and the god is doing the heavy lifting. This is extremely different than a warlock, who gets unique, individual powers as rewards for service.

Warlocks seek power (or are given it without effort as part of a GOO pact). For a warlock, the Pact is primary. They do service for their Patron, the patron gives power in discrete, non-refundable chunks. Once granted, this power is the warlock's to do with as they please. This ties in with their spells-known, multi-part class mechanics entirely. It's also directly opposed to the clerical motif.

Clerics are given power whether they want it or not. They don't learn spells--you can be illiterate and even unaware of the truth of the god and be granted power. They can't cast it directly by themselves--their access is mediated through the deity. A cleric has no power of his own. A cleric, without access to the god's power, is a dude in armor. If a cleric displeases their god, they can be cut off and removed from power. A warlock cannot.

Fluff is not separable from mechanics. I repeat--there is no such thing as "fluff". It's all rules. Some rules have numbers and dice rolls associated with them, others do not. But they're none-the-less rules.

[Man_Over_Game]

Except that there is a difference based on power source. Clerics know their entire list because they themselves are not learning spells. They're petitioning the god for aid and the god is doing the heavy lifting. This is extremely different than a warlock, who gets unique, individual powers as rewards for service.

Warlocks seek power (or are given it without effort as part of a GOO pact). For a warlock, the Pact is primary. They do service for their Patron, the patron gives power in discrete, non-refundable chunks. Once granted, this power is the warlock's to do with as they please. This ties in with their spells-known, multi-part class mechanics entirely. It's also directly opposed to the clerical motif.

Clerics are given power whether they want it or not. They don't learn spells--you can be illiterate and even unaware of the truth of the god and be granted power. They can't cast it directly by themselves--their access is mediated through the deity. A cleric has no power of his own. A cleric, without access to the god's power, is a dude in armor. If a cleric displeases their god, they can be cut off and removed from power. A warlock cannot.

Fluff is not separable from mechanics. I repeat--there is no such thing as "fluff". It's all rules. Some rules have numbers and dice rolls associated with them, others do not. But they're none-the-less rules.

Not according to Adventure League. Officially, you can fluff anything to your heart's content, as long as features, spells and weapons remain unchanged.

You could have a Wizard be an inventor who creates (prepares) inventions (spells) at the start of the day and uses them in combat. Or you could be an Arcane Trickster who's actually a psionic that lands Sneak Attacks from learning an enemy's weakness and grabs thing with his mind. He doesn't just "pick" a lock, he can see through it to figure out how to dismantle it.

And if Adventure League is considered too open-ended, then I think there might be something off.

[MrStabby]

There is no objective answer to what something "should" be.

If I prefer A to B, good for me, but it doesn't mean A should be and B shouldn't.

Absolutely. So maybe tone down the macho stuff criticising others for sharing their subjective opinion?


Does the source of the power really matter for the purposes of this discussion? Power sources are one of the things that are the easiest to refluff and have the fewest consequences to the game.

If someone wants to play a tiefling warlock of the Infernal pact and say they are a cambion, Very few DMs would have a pb with that.

Well it does cause a problem. It would mean that those people who have invested heavily in the fluff of a specific version of D&D would no longer be able to be condescending to other people on the internet with alternative views of how their world works. How can they claim others are playing the game wrong and that paladins absolutely and objectively get power from wherever if people go round saying it doesn't matter? How can we fill the internet with anger over really petty things if we allow people to play "a tiefling warlock of the Infernal pact and say they are a cambion". That way madness lies! We must all embrace the SAME fluff; Heterodoxy in our fantasy game should NOT be allowed!

[RedMage125]

R. Shackleford, I regret to inform you that Unoriginal is correct and you are wrong. Your error is understandable, however. It is a common misconception about paladins that I have been seeing among D&D players since 3e came out.


Your opinion can't change my mind when your opinion is factually wrong.
Like these opinions of yours?

In different lore they are both direct agents of a deity, agent of an idea, or just a member of a church. Any piece of fluff can be applied to the other. No two classes have such similar fluff and lore, even the ranger and druid has reasons to be seperate on this account.



Paladins were forced to have a deity in the past just were clerics at some points.

These things are not absolute truisms of Paladins in past editions, or at least of all setting in those editions.

In all editions of D&D prior to 3e, Paladins did not explicitly have a connection to a deity at all. In fact, if you look up the definition of "paladin", in addition to one of the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, it says "knightly or heroic champion" or "defender of a righteous cause". Pre-3e editions supported this. Even though Paladins got divine spells chosen from the Cleric spell list, and they could Turn Undead (albeit worse than a cleric), they did not get these powers from gods.

Forgotten Realms is a special case, since the gods are so overwhelming in that setting that every lay person needs to have a patron deity or be bricked into a wall in the afterlife. So yes, in FR, all paladins had gods, but that did not necessitate that they received power like clerics did. Though it would not be a stretch to fluff it as such. Going forward, however, I am going to only discuss "core setting" assumptions, since Forgotten Realms is the corner case where the gods are ALWAYS required.

Then came 3e, and the iconic Paladin, Alhandra. Alhandra had a tattoo of the holy symbol of Heironeous on her arm. She, at least, seemed to be devoted to a deity. Prosecutor Godot quoted the exact line from the 3e PHB earlier, however. "A Paladin need not devote herself to a single deity. Devotion to righteousness is enough". What really bricked up the D&D community at large, however, was the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith. See, in 3.0, a bunch of splatbooks were released for various classes, but they grouped "similar" classes together. Sword & Fist was Fighters and Monks, Song
& Silence was Rogues and Bards, Tome & Blood was Wizards and Sorcerers, and Masters of the Wild was Barbarians, Rangers, and Druids. Lumping Paladins in with Clerics led many to perceive paladins like you advocate. As "knights of the gods". This has led to any number of people asking "why don't evil deities have paladins?". The correct answer to that, of course was "Because people who devote themselves to righteousness, and hold themselves to the highest standards thereof don't often pay homage to evil deities". But people clamored for it, and WotC relented and gave us the Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter nonsense in Unearthed Arcana. But I digress.

Then came 4th edition. Now, it is important to note, that essentially, WotC appropriated the word "paladin" from what it means in the English language (see definition, above), and made a new definition for 4e D&D. That being "a knight of a specific deity or faith". See, 4th edition is the ONLY edition in which your second bolded statement is correct. Paladins WERE forced to have a deity in that edition. And unlike Clerics, who could still be of a "similar" alignment to their deity, paladins had to match the deity's alignment exactly. ironically, in that edition, paladins also had no fear of losing their powers, because, like clerics, their powers explicitly stemmed from the ritual that invested them as Clerics/Paladins and could not be just taken away because they did something their god did not like. They might be branded as heretics by the rest of the faithful, and hunted down, but they did not lose their class abilities. But for the first time, all deities had Paladins, and Paladins were defined as a Defender-type class that served gods.

However, this is a 5e forum. We should be using 5e definitions, right? Then we should ask, "do 5e Paladins have to serve deities?".

Whether sworn before a god's altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.
Others have already quoted the bits about how "many are devoted to gods of good, but their power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from any god".

The bottom line, R. Shackleford, is that since Paladins are not bound into the box you laid them into in your OP, everything that follows to your conclusions are not truisms. Yes, SOME Paladins are like combat-oriented Clerics. But they do not HAVE to be. So shoehorning them and clerics together into some kind of "2 variations of one class" would be doing a disservice to them, as Paladins, by the RAW, are very different from clerics unless they choose otherwise.

And that, ultimately is what Unoriginal was trying to say. That's how I read it, at least. You DID get kind of combative when presented with proof that your founding assumptions were incorrect. And I'm inclined to agree with unoriginal and PhoenixPhyre in that respect. You are giving the perception that you are not in this discussion with an open mind. You are utterly dismissive of any and all evidence that contradicts you. Which, in a thread titled "Change My View", I perceive it that you are not debating honestly and in good faith.

I hope that, going forward, you can accept that you made an error in your founding assumptions. For other matters and threads, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not according to Adventure League. Officially, you can fluff anything to your heart's content, as long as features, spells and weapons remain unchanged.

You could have a Wizard be an inventor who creates (prepares) inventions (spells) at the start of the day and uses them in combat. Or you could be an Arcane Trickster who's actually a psionic that lands Sneak Attacks from learning an enemy's weakness and grabs thing with his mind. He doesn't just "pick" a lock, he can see through it to figure out how to dismantle it.

And if Adventure League is considered too open-ended, then I think there might be something off.

Adventure league is entirely mechanics focused. And that's not the default, not by a long shot. In fact, I'd say it's too far in that direction. Taking AL as the starting point for anything throws off all discussions. It's basically it's own separate sub-game, with its own separate rules.

[Man_Over_Game]

Adventure league is entirely mechanics focused. And that's not the default, not by a long shot. In fact, I'd say it's too far in that direction. Taking AL as the starting point for anything throws off all discussions. It's basically it's own separate sub-game, with its own separate rules.

The point I was trying to make is that it's the most restrictive, focusing on the things that matter most: Fun for everyone.

Sure, a DM could limit the narrative to allow things that work for him, but that doesn't inherently make the game better.
Balance does. Teamwork does. Storytelling does. Controlling the narrative of your players? Not always.

[RedMage125]

Absolutely. So maybe tone down the macho stuff criticising others for sharing their subjective opinion?


Unoriginal was not the one who said "your opinion is factually wrong", so maybe point that statement in the right direction, bbn instead?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The point I was trying to make is that it's the most restrictive, focusing on the things that matter most: Fun for everyone.

Sure, a DM could limit the narrative to allow things that work for him, but that doesn't inherently make the game better. Balance does. Teamwork does. Controlling the narrative of your players? Not always.

Setting consistency is key in my opinion. "Anything goes" wackyness is not fun for me at all. And that requires fluff rules as well as mechanics ones.

So for my setting, I have
* Paladins with no god at all.
* Paladins who work with clerics/priests.
* Clerics who worship God A (and claim to draw their power from them) but are really, unbeknownst to them, fueled by God B (who is in it for the joke).
* "Traditional" clerics
* In-universe clerics who are mechanically warlocks, because their god cannot grant spells (not being one of the 16+1 who have that role). With all the worldbuilding implications that entails.

Without a firm differentiation, you end up with just an incoherent mess (which describes AL in many ways). And "focused on player fun" is the last thing I'd say about AL. Player fun is very much secondary to consistency and ease of enforcement.

Divorcing fluff from crunch means you're better off playing point buy, really. One of the big things about D&D is that it's all set up to enable archetypes. If you refuse to play within those archetypes, you're not doing D&D. Sure, you can houserule anything, but it's just as much a houserule as is changing any mechanical thing.

Fluff matters. In most cases, fluff is more important and crucial to the feel of the game than is mechanics. You can ignore most mechanics and things stay on an even keel. Not respecting the tone and archetypes leads to disintegrated settings and murderhoboism (and worse things) real fast.

This may be the key to most of our disagreements--I don't find thinking in mechanical terms that useful. Mechanics are there because they have to be to make our jobs easier. They're not fundamental, they're secondary and fungible. Any other mechanic that works can take its place. Replacing "fluff", however, is replacing the core of the game.

[Unoriginal]

Absolutely. So maybe tone down the macho stuff criticising others for sharing their subjective opinion?


There is no mach stuff, and I am not criticizing people for sharing their opinions.

I'm against people presenting non-factual claims as truths, not against opinons.



And that, ultimately is what Unoriginal was trying to say.


First of all, thank you for your post, RedMage125. What I was trying to say was, overall, "here's how 5e defines those classes, and they're different enough in concept they deserve different classes."


S
Fluff matters. In most cases, fluff is more important and crucial to the feel of the game than is mechanics. You can ignore most mechanics and things stay on an even keel. Not respecting the tone and archetypes leads to disintegrated settings and murderhoboism (and worse things) real fast.

Amen. And while both fluff and mechanics are mutable, what we talk is the default, ie what's in the book, despite it being probably the least important for one's table compared to what they decide for it and what they prefer.

[MrStabby]

Unoriginal was not the one who said "your opinion is factually wrong", so maybe point that statement in the right direction, bbn instead?

It was more aimed generally at the whole thread, quote was really to reflect a continuation of a point and to provide context. Probably wasn't clear - my mistake.

I have seen people be a lot less intense about minutiae of wording and interpretation of real world religions.

If something is said about a matter that can only be considered subjective, then it is clearly an opinion. Getting offended that someone didn't qualify their statement as an opinion only goes to show that someone is a) just looking to pick a fight for whatever reason, or b) didn't quite grasp that a comment, however absolutely phrased,about a matter that is purely subjective is always going to be an opinion or c) doesn't speak English as a first language and has fallen foul of some of the subtleties in it. It's like getting angry over someones spelling or syntactic error when what they actually mean is still intelligible.

[Unoriginal]

If something is said about a matter that can only be considered subjective, then it is clearly an opinion. Getting offended that someone didn't qualify their statement as an opinion only goes to show that someone is a) just looking to pick a fight for whatever reason, or b) didn't quite grasp that a comment, however absolutely phrased,about a matter that is purely subjective is always going to be an opinion or c) doesn't speak English as a first language and has fallen foul of some of the subtleties in it. It's like getting angry over someones spelling or syntactic error when what they actually mean is still intelligible.

Or d) People stating their subjective opinons as if they were objective facts happen regularly, both on this forum and in real-life discussions.

I came into this thread just to point out a reason why Clerics and Paladins being separate classes made sense. Me and other people have provided quotes straight from the book to back it up. Instead of simply saying "you say that, but I prefer X, so it doesn't change my view", the OP kept calling what I said and provided the quotes for "factually wrong opinions".

I don't see any reason to believe that OP hasn't been claiming to be factual.

However, for the sake of not making this discussion worse, I'll stop participating.

[RedMage125]

It was more aimed generally at the whole thread, quote was really to reflect a continuation of a point and to provide context. Probably wasn't clear - my mistake.

I have seen people be a lot less intense about minutiae of wording and interpretation of real world religions.

If something is said about a matter that can only be considered subjective, then it is clearly an opinion. Getting offended that someone didn't qualify their statement as an opinion only goes to show that someone is a) just looking to pick a fight for whatever reason, or b) didn't quite grasp that a comment, however absolutely phrased,about a matter that is purely subjective is always going to be an opinion or c) doesn't speak English as a first language and has fallen foul of some of the subtleties in it. It's like getting angry over someones spelling or syntactic error when what they actually mean is still intelligible.

All too often on these forums, people actually DO purport that their opinions are objective facts. So it frequently IS necessary to qualify their statement as an opinion. Something unoriginal and I share is a vehement distaste for people who present (provably) untrue things as "facts". All too often, I will -before I get snarky with people- ask them if they are expressing an opinion, and to please clarify if they are. Many of them insist that what they are claiming is explicitly NOT an opinion, but "fact". And they're wrong. And less-experienced people on these forums might read their statements and mistake them for truth.

I absolutely believe that the only "wrong" way to play D&D is a way in which people at your table are not having fun. So everyone should house rule to their heart's content. HOWEVER, when it comes to forum discussions about rules (be it classes, races, other mechanics, etc), only what is in the RAW can be considered "Fact". This is because any and all house rule permutations are impossible to account for. So when someone says something is "factually correct", it should be able to be proven with citation from the source material. And I always try to qualify any opinion or anecdote on my part as exactly that, to make it clear that I am not claiming as fact something that I cannot support with text.

And as much as it would be nice to say that we should always assume the best of people, and that any subjective subject matter should "always be construed as an opinion", that isn't how the world works, that isn't how discussion of anything works. Each person is responsible for the perception that they create with their words. In the military, we have a saying "Perception Is Reality". And what that actually means is that to the person perceiving you, the perception they have is the only reality they know of you. There's absolutely nothing wrong with admitting a mistake, or clarifying what one actually intended. It's actually more mature and responsible to do so. Better to say "I did not mean to imply that this was an absolute, I was expressing my opinion. Sorry if that was not clear" after the fact, than to continue to obstinately declare that one is absolutely correct, even in the face of actual PROOF.

And when those same people are telling others that their "opinions are factually wrong", they are certainly the one who is a) picking a fight, b) not distinguishing between subjective and objective statements, or c) having language barrier issues.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Unoriginal. At least for the first part, lol.

[Witty Username]

The Paladin and the Cleric have gotten weird over time because they have both been expanded out of their original concept. Gone are such notions that Paladins have to be Lawful Good and Clerics cannot use bladed weapons. So, on the surface they can now look very similar. This feels more complex with the introduction of the hexblade warlock, like a cleric feels similar to a Paladin feels similar to a hexblade.

But this is not an is question, it is an ought question.

I would say Paladin has no reason to be a subclass or Domain of Cleric, and Paladins still have a somewhat unique play-style. I think this should be expanded upon, and more oaths and spells to split the the Paladin more into its own thing. Also, Paladins and Clerics do require different stats, so more abilities that lean into the idea that these are more charismatic people than wise people would be reasonable.
Furthermore, these problems have come from expanding the classes to fit broader concepts, Druids overlap with Rangers that overlap with Barbarians and Fighters which overlap with Paladins which overlap with clerics, because they have all grown.

If the Paladin is not differentiated enough to be a class, I would also look at the ranger and the barbarian.

[Teaguethebean]

So it's settled barbarian and fighter are now the same class. Good job team!

[Witty Username]

So it's settled barbarian and fighter are now the same class. Good job team!

I am seriously thinking what the flavor difference between a barbarian and fighter without a house is, the fact fighter can take folk hero or outlander background makes barbarian feel unnecessary.

You could say rage, but if it is just rage than that is an easy Martial Archetype to make.


And then path of the zealot steps on the paladins toes a bit, I think if sameness is a problem we have some issues on all fronts.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, that's what I want; pally as fighter subclass using tech similar to Cavalier or Eldritch Knight to get some spells, some smiting, some steed-riding etc. While that's not a bad approach conceptually, Paladin is the game's best Gish in 5e. Gish is something that the game's players want. WoTC now and again listens. This was one of their answers for this edition. And by decoupling Paladin from a deity, they opened up a wide range of Paladin playstyles to enjoy that gish theme. By the way, original Paladin was sub class of Fighting Man, with some other cool powers but You Had To Qualify For It With High Dice Rolls.

I think Clerics and Druids should be the same class as well. They were when the druid originally came out in 1976, Eldritch Wizardry. Druid as sub class of Cleric. You Had To Qualify For It With High Dice Rolls in Wisdom and Charisma.
In 5e, Clerics are mortals who are being powered by a deity, while Paladins are powered by their determination to follow an ideal and the Oath they swear to do so. In worlds outside of FR, Paladins don't even need gods. Bingo, end of, and that is how this edition is built. It works.

Those things are not the same, at all. In fact they're pretty opposed: "being given power regardless of agency" vs "only getting power by intensively acting through your agency".


You're a Cleric because a god believes in you. Whether you like it or not. My FR Tempest cleric has a 12 page back story that explains how his deity chose him.
A Cleric can be Chosen by Nature itself, but that still makes them a Cleric. A Druid isn't a Cleric of Nature. I could have lived without the Nature Domain, as I feel that it is a dis to Druids, but I "get" the domain now that a friend of mine has played one in our ToA campaign.
The real question is...Can there be an atheist cleric? If you use DMG pages 10-13 as a guide, Forces and Philosophies can sub in for deities. In my campaign world, deities are given lots of different names in various nations ... but they are all embodiments of archetypes, Forces, and Philosophies. (Example: Love, Death, Life, The Storm, The Eternal Flame, The Earth, The Wind, Water, Justice ... etc).

There's really not enough meaningful distance between "martial Cleric" and "religious Fighter" to fit a base class-- not in 5e's paradigm. Respectfully disagree. See my first point, above, on WoTC giving a Gish to the fan base. Paladin is the first Gish, EK is another one, and Bladesinger is the last.

As expected these threads never seem to go well.

It does not help that the opening premise rather ignores how we got from three classes to 12 with a few dozen sub classes

As an 0D&D player in the past I will state that my view that Clerics and Paladins historically are not variations on the same theme. Yep, Fighting Man had the special class of Paladin, as above, if you rolled high.
Does the source of the power really matter for the purposes of this discussion? Yes. This is 5e. In universe, it makes a distinction.

[RedMage125]

Respectfully disagree. See my first point, above, on WoTC giving a Gish to the fan base. Paladin is the first Gish, EK is another one, and Bladesinger is the last.



No love for BladeLocks, or Swords/Valor Bards?
:wink:

[KorvinStarmast]

No love for BladeLocks, or Swords/Valor Bards?
:wink: I like Blade Locks just fine. I think they were, as originally put together, sub par but certainly playable.
Paladin as best Gish,out of the box, I think is a slam dunk.
What bothers me most about Blade Locks now is that when they tried to correct their original screw up with Hex Blade, they overcompensated.

Valor bards leave me cold. Swords moreso. I admit my bias: our first campaign had a Lore Bard and to me, that is what a Bard is. I guess I need to play a valor bard to get to "feel that class" but I find that with swingy combat in 5e, a d8 martial just doesn't ring my bell unless it's a monk.

[RedMage125]

I like Blade Locks just fine. I think they were, as originally put together, sub par but certainly playable.
Paladin as best Gish,out of the box, I think is a slam dunk.
What bothers me most about Blade Locks now is that when they tried to correct their original screw up with Hex Blade, they overcompensated.

Valor bards leave me cold. Swords moreso. I admit my bias: our first campaign had a Lore Bard and to me, that is what a Bard is. I guess I need to play a valor bard to get to "feel that class" but I find that with swingy combat in 5e, a d8 martial just doesn't ring my bell unless it's a monk.

See, now for me, my first 5e PC was a Valor Bard. I like breaking standard tropes every so often. 6' 7" dragonborn wading into battle with a hunting horn on a thong around his neck, blowing into it for things like Thunderwave and Sleep. His concept was primarily that of a Skald-type bard, where he was a warrior, but also a keeper of traditions.

In his off-time, his chosen instrument was the bagpipes. Because a big-honkin dragonborn in half-plate playing the bagpipes is awesome.

I haven't had a lot of faith in the sustainability of Bladelocks until hexblade, honestly. I think you're right that they overcompensated a bit and made it to powerful, but bladelocks were VERY squishy before.

But if paladins count as good Gishes right out of the box, do not Rangers as well? OR does a Paladin's ability to spend spell slots on non-spell combat options (like Smite) make the difference?

[Unavenger]

Honestly, I think they're both mechanically and flavour-wise vastly different. Besides, you can name almost any class and say that it should just be a subclass of something else, perhaps with the exception of fighter because its whole concept lacks in any sort of detail. I'm sure they could have made everything a subclass of warrior, rogue or mage, but they didn't because the concepts are distinct enough that it bears making a class out of them.

(Now, Pathfinder's warpriest didn't really need to exist when paladin and inquisitor both already did, mind. But paladins and clerics are pretty vastly different.)

[Witty Username]

See, now for me, my first 5e PC was a Valor Bard. I like breaking standard tropes every so often. 6' 7" dragonborn wading into battle with a hunting horn on a thong around his neck, blowing into it for things like Thunderwave and Sleep. His concept was primarily that of a Skald-type bard, where he was a warrior, but also a keeper of traditions.

In his off-time, his chosen instrument was the bagpipes. Because a big-honkin dragonborn in half-plate playing the bagpipes is awesome.

I haven't had a lot of faith in the sustainability of Bladelocks until hexblade, honestly. I think you're right that they overcompensated a bit and made it to powerful, but bladelocks were VERY squishy before.

But if paladins count as good Gishes right out of the box, do not Rangers as well? OR does a Paladin's ability to spend spell slots on non-spell combat options (like Smite) make the difference?
I didn't know valor bards got medium armor, good to know.
I would say rangers are a good gish, the paladin has an edge because its vanilla abilities read better, but the spells and martial skills are there for the ranger.

Honestly, I think they're both mechanically and flavour-wise vastly different. Besides, you can name almost any class and say that it should just be a subclass of something else, perhaps with the exception of fighter because its whole concept lacks in any sort of detail. I'm sure they could have made everything a subclass of warrior, rogue or mage, but they didn't because the concepts are distinct enough that it bears making a class out of them.

(Now, Pathfinder's warpriest didn't really need to exist when paladin and inquisitor both already did, mind. But paladins and clerics are pretty vastly different.)
I tend to agree with this, my overlap comments are more to say overlap is not an issue. If you shake the tree hard enough the classes will start to look similar but there are things(like combat) that every class is expected to contribute to, and there are a limited number of ways to do that effectively.

[Maan]

Funny thread. To me at least, because I started playing RPGs back in the days of the box set: yep, that was my first ever.

Just the Four Venerable Classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Rogue) plus "demihumans" who were actually classes: Dwarf being a Figher limited in levelling but with some bonuses, Halfling a even more limited sort of Fighter-Rogue, and Elf being a Fighter-Magic User.

Well, in that edition (with the "Companion" set) the Druid was a Cleric option at level 9. Paladin, Knight and Avenger were Fighter options (at level 9, too): for Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic Fighter respectively (there were just those three alignments: no Good or Evil, yet).
So yeah, I kinda chuckle when I read someone writing how outrageous it is that now Paladins are no longer Lawful Good only. :smallbiggrin:

Ok, oldster rambling done and back to the thread...

In some other post, someone asked if D&D is the ruleset or the setting. Obviously it's both, since the rules explicitly make some assumptions about the setting.
That doesn't mean future development couldn't make them more setting-neutral.

Of course everyone will have their opinion about the fact they should do it.

Being one who likes to build her own worlds I'm in favour, and I also think they could easily also make it so one can still keep the old flavour if so inclined.
But making it more of a construction game set could well be the future of the game. After all, expansions for the official settings are already a thing.

[patchyman]

If you swapped the concept of Warlocks with Clerics, and vice-versa, there wouldn't be any difference. It might matter that there are two different chassis, but it doesn't matter who gets what.

I agree with a lot of what you say but you gloss over a lot of specifics. A Cleric that isn’t doing regular heals and buffs doesn’t feel like a cleric, but since Warlocks have to be very careful with their slots, it is very difficult for them to fill this niche.

Likewise most Warlock spells don’t fill the Cleric’s niche thematically, so you end up with massively different spells between subclasses.

This is not the case for Clerics and Paladins.

[Willie the Duck]

Funny thread. To me at least, because I started playing RPGs back in the days of the box set: yep, that was my first ever.

Just the Four Venerable Classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Rogue) plus "demihumans" who were actually classes: Dwarf being a Figher limited in levelling but with some bonuses, Halfling a even more limited sort of Fighter-Rogue, and Elf being a Fighter-Magic User.

Well, in that edition (with the "Companion" set) the Druid was a Cleric option at level 9. Paladin, Knight and Avenger were Fighter options (at level 9, too): for Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic Fighter respectively (there were just those three alignments: no Good or Evil, yet).
So yeah, I kinda chuckle when I read someone writing how outrageous it is that now Paladins are no longer Lawful Good only. :smallbiggrin:

Ok, oldster rambling done and back to the thread...

Maan, ZorroGames and I believe KorvinStarmast started with the oD&D Little Brown Books. Those of us who started with the Mentzer BECMI boxed sets are not oldsters*, just less newbs than some others. :smalltongue: Heck, our game came with thieves as a class, what kind of madness is that? :smallbiggrin:
*I actually started playing with a Moldvay-Cook B/X game which used some 1e modules, but my first purchased set was 1st printing Mentzer basic (with the old B/X-style thief percentile progression)


In some other post, someone asked if D&D is the ruleset or the setting. Obviously it's both, since the rules explicitly make some assumptions about the setting.
That doesn't mean future development couldn't make them more setting-neutral.

Of course everyone will have their opinion about the fact they should do it.

Being one who likes to build her own worlds I'm in favour, and I also think they could easily also make it so one can still keep the old flavour if so inclined.
But making it more of a construction game set could well be the future of the game. After all, expansions for the official settings are already a thing.

That was kind of what I was trying to get at (I think, I'm a little unclear on your intended point). D&D does have some serious setting implications (including the inclusion of religion; and how different entities interact with classes, such that clerics, paladins, and warlocks can be a thing). Certainly once you make the game your own or simply are using it to make your own thing (construction set, as it were), these finely split hairs we're cutting on the distinction between classes become rather unimportant. At that point, you can make these different subclasses as distinct or overlapping as you want them.

[R.Shackleford]

I haven't been talking of just the fluff as purely 5e, I have talked of the previous fluff of both the cleric and Paladin. While the Paladin has grown beyond Lacelot, who was a terrible Paladin, their devotion is no different than a cleric's.

To gain power, one must have a deep seeded belief, gain divine power, and be blessed (the paladin's healing is blessed).

The Cleric is devoted, not everyone can become any class, but a cleric still must choose to follow their deity, the same way a paladin must choose to follow their convictions.

The cleric and paladin are no different from each other now, and definitely are no different from each other in a majority of D&D. If a Paladin didn't channel divine power

Also, I knew I forgot to add something...

From Jeremy Crawford

"For example, divine magic, which is mostly associated with clerics and paladins, but it's also associated with druids and rangers. Divine magic is all about drawing your magic and learning your magic through a divine lens, whether that's Gods, nature spirits or nature itself. Some cosmic force usually that has consciousness that is bestowing power upon you or that you are tapping into."

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/135-arcane-and-divine-magic-in-dungeons-and-dragons

Now, there is a subclass that you can say is nature related, but a majority of Paladins are falling under the gods.

Clerics and Paladins aren't different enough from this standpoint to claim a different class, especially in a system such as 5e. 4e or 3e? Yeah, bring on the multitude of classes, but not 5e.

Now to get to work, yay night shift :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I haven't been talking of just the fluff as purely 5e, I have talked of the previous fluff of both the cleric and Paladin. While the Paladin has grown beyond Lacelot, who was a terrible Paladin, their devotion is no different than a cleric's.

To gain power, one must have a deep seeded belief, gain divine power, and be blessed (the paladin's healing is blessed).

The Cleric is devoted, not everyone can become any class, but a cleric still must choose to follow their deity, the same way a paladin must choose to follow their convictions.

The cleric and paladin are no different from each other now, and definitely are no different from each other in a majority of D&D. If a Paladin didn't channel divine power

Also, I knew I forgot to add something...

From Jeremy Crawford

"For example, divine magic, which is mostly associated with clerics and paladins, but it's also associated with druids and rangers. Divine magic is all about drawing your magic and learning your magic through a divine lens, whether that's Gods, nature spirits or nature itself. Some cosmic force usually that has consciousness that is bestowing power upon you or that you are tapping into."

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/135-arcane-and-divine-magic-in-dungeons-and-dragons

Now, there is a subclass that you can say is nature related, but a majority of Paladins are falling under the gods.

Clerics and Paladins aren't different enough from this standpoint to claim a different class, especially in a system such as 5e. 4e or 3e? Yeah, bring on the multitude of classes, but not 5e.

Now to get to work, yay night shift :smallbiggrin:

You can't use previous editions as definitive. Paladins are the most changed class, fluff wise. And yes, mechanically and fluff wise, paladins are very different from clerics. Trying to shoehorn them into one class would ruin one, the other, or both. And the bolded part is not definitive--note the word "usually". And no, paladins in all settings except FR don't need gods at all. They're completely divorced from them, except as they choose. They may worship them like anyone else, but their power comes from their Oath and their conviction, not from gods.

Sorry, but your cherry picking doesn't convince anyone.

[Brookshw]

In all editions of D&D prior to 3e, Paladins did not explicitly have a connection to a deity at all. In fact, if you look up the definition of "paladin", in addition to one of the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, it says "knightly or heroic champion" or "defender of a righteous cause". Pre-3e editions supported this. Even though Paladins got divine spells chosen from the Cleric spell list, and they could Turn Undead (albeit worse than a cleric), they did not get these powers from gods.


While I appreciate and don't necessarily disagree with your argument, I do think that you're short selling the relationship between paladins and the gods, or at least "the church".

Glancing briefly at the class as laid out in the 2e PHB, two things stand out that reinforce the connection between the Paladin and the church. A Paladin's tithe expressly went to "whatever charitably, religious institution of lawful good alignment he serves" (emphasis added). Similarly, the "never retain wealth" rule lead to "all excess must be donated to the church or another worthy cause" (emphasis again). While admittedly the latter example does leave it a bit open ended where the money actually goes, between them there's certainly an explicit connection drawn between the paladin and the church.

Turning to the Complete Paladin Handbook of the same edition we have more evidence of the connection than we could ever really need. Just look at the becoming a paladin section: "Churches secure paladin candidates at an early age" candidates are chosen by high level clerics, with most families of a chosen candidate turning them over to be a ward of the church for training. From the same section, "the gods may choose a mortal to become a paladin for reasons of their own". These aren't the only reason for the paladin to become such, there are other means involving governments, inherited titles, mentors.

On the topic of strongholds, a paladin's strong hold is, in part, "a tribute to his deity", "a religious sanctuary".

The point being, D&D has long portrayed and represented, either explicitly or implicitly, a strong connection between paladins and religious organizations or deities, while leaving some wiggle room.

Subsequently I can completely understand why someone would raise this question.

OP: I have little interest in fluff post 2e and won't comment on 4/5e's treatment of the topic, but I would like to offers this framework for you to consider for paladins: it's a venn diagram, paladins on one side being militant and serving their beliefs, however they come to them, clerics on the other side expressly following their gods, the churches in the middle where the two meet. They might occupy the same space at certain points, but not all the time.


You can't use previous editions as definitive.
Sure he can, all the best fluff was 2e :smalltongue:

[Constructman]

{scrubbed}

[Constructman]

{Scrubbed}

[PhoenixPhyre]

Point 2: It says right in the PHB that Paladins don't need no gods. They can swear themselves to the Fey spirits and/or nature, or over the graves of their dead families. The Crown Paladin in the SCAG swears themselves to the ideals of king and country, while the Conquest Paladin in XGtE swears themselves to strength above all, or even to the forces of Hell. No gods required, unless the Paladin's on Toril, where the gods butt their noses in on everything.



Please watch the language and the insults.

One modification--they can swear themselves in front of fey spirits, etc. Not to those spirits, merely with the spirits as a witness. There's a huge difference. The Oath itself is binding. It's not sworn to anyone or on anyone, it's an oath on their own soul. And Oaths have power independent of the gods. Words have power. Promises, especially when they bind you to do uncomfortable things, have power. And that sacrifice is a key distinguisher. A cleric can be doing what comes naturally to them, spreading the word of light/darkness/whatever, serving the god that they best fit. A paladin's Oath will always involve personal sacrifice. Sacrifice of taking the easy route. Sacrifice of kin, of family, of a settled life. And that sacrifice brings power

[RedMage125]

R. Shackleford,

It has been unequivocally proven to you, through RAW quotes from several editions, that Paladins getting power from gods/belief systems like Clerics is not the only model that Paladins follow. Yes, an individual Paladin PC may choose to have their character do such, but the class as a whole is not set up to imitate a Cleric chassis as you claimed initially.

Continuing at this point without even addressing that is myopic, at best.

The citations you have provided only support that an individual Paladin may choose to have a character who is a "more warrior-like Cleric", not a blanket truism of the class as a whole that would support your class-merging hypothesis.

[Maan]

Nice to know I'm not the only "been playing 30+ years" :smallbiggrin:



That was kind of what I was trying to get at (I think, I'm a little unclear on your intended point). D&D does have some serious setting implications (including the inclusion of religion; and how different entities interact with classes, such that clerics, paladins, and warlocks can be a thing). Certainly once you make the game your own or simply are using it to make your own thing (construction set, as it were), these finely split hairs we're cutting on the distinction between classes become rather unimportant. At that point, you can make these different subclasses as distinct or overlapping as you want them.
Pretty much what I meant (sorry if I wasn't clear).
If we look at past editions, some things were evolved, others redone. Paladins (and Avengers) start as Fighters who make a pact with a church (it was a requirement) and got some abilities and clerical spells.

Now they are warrios who devote themselves to some ideal: Oath of the Crown is basically the Arthurian knight, for example.
But Clerics too can devote themselves to a philosophy now, rather than a cult; you could theorically have Clerics devoted to atheism.

The difference as I see it is that a Cleric is more of a leader and motivator, or at least a support: the one that works with other people toward those goals they believe in. This is something true both flavour-wise and the way the mechanics work.
The Paladin is about a more personal belief: a Vengeance Paladin may well work alone to stamp out evil, and that's why Paladins aren't full caster but more a martial bent class.

Of course, that could change again with next edition.
Right now, the only caster classes that don't have access to divine magic are Warlock and Wizard, since Sorcerer got Divine Soul... They could well decide that the distinction between divine and arcane magic is no longer meaningful.

[diplomancer]

Nice to know I'm not the only "been playing 30+ years" :smallbiggrin:


Pretty much what I meant (sorry if I wasn't clear).
If we look at past editions, some things were evolved, others redone. Paladins (and Avengers) start as Fighters who make a pact with a church (it was a requirement) and got some abilities and clerical spells.

Now they are warrios who devote themselves to some ideal: Oath of the Crown is basically the Arthurian knight, for example.
But Clerics too can devote themselves to a philosophy now, rather than a cult; you could theorically have Clerics devoted to atheism.

The difference as I see it is that a Cleric is more of a leader and motivator, or at least a support: the one that works with other people toward those goals they believe in. This is something true both flavour-wise and the way the mechanics work.
The Paladin is about a more personal belief: a Vengeance Paladin may well work alone to stamp out evil, and that's why Paladins aren't full caster but more a martial bent class.

Of course, that could change again with next edition.
Right now, the only caster classes that don't have access to divine magic are Warlock and Wizard, since Sorcerer got Divine Soul... They could well decide that the distinction between divine and arcane magic is no longer meaningful.

It actually is no longer meaningful already. Bards are arcane casters, but they have a lot of healing spells. It is not the nature of the spell that determines if it is divine or arcane. A cure wounds by a cleric is divine magic. The same cure wounds by a bard is arcane magic. Mechanically meaningless, though a DM can decide to create areas where divine magic works differently from arcane magic (like giving a bonus to spell save DCs on hallowed grounds, or something of that sort. This example would affect the same spell cast by a cleric and by a wizard differently).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


ok there buddy

[MaxWilson]

Then you may as well combine fighters and rogues. They are both people that kill people via training and mundane weapons.
Just make rogue a fighter subclass and replace extra attacks with skills and abilities.

Welcome to the OSR!

[Willie the Duck]

Welcome to the OSR!

I know. I've been arguing that splitting out fighting man and thief/now rogue was a mistake since forever ago.



Of course, that could change again with next edition.
Right now, the only caster classes that don't have access to divine magic are Warlock and Wizard, since Sorcerer got Divine Soul... They could well decide that the distinction between divine and arcane magic is no longer meaningful.


It actually is no longer meaningful already. Bards are arcane casters, but they have a lot of healing spells. It is not the nature of the spell that determines if it is divine or arcane. A cure wounds by a cleric is divine magic. The same cure wounds by a bard is arcane magic. Mechanically meaningless, though a DM can decide to create areas where divine magic works differently from arcane magic (like giving a bonus to spell save DCs on hallowed grounds, or something of that sort. This example would affect the same spell cast by a cleric and by a wizard differently).

And the Divine Soul Sorcerer is a sorcerer who casts cleric spells as arcane spells through the magic granted to them by their ancestral divine connection to magic. If that doesn't make the distinction arbitrary, I don't know what would. However, Maan's point that it'll all change by next edition anyways is also pretty salient. There are differences between paladins and clerics in 5e, but it's up to the individual whether the distinction is important and must be delineated into two distinct classes (especially when sub-classes are clearly a thing again now).

[MrStabby]

And the Divine Soul Sorcerer is a sorcerer who casts cleric spells as arcane spells through the magic granted to them by their ancestral divine connection to magic. If that doesn't make the distinction arbitrary, I don't know what would.

Possibly an arcana cleric casting arcane spells through a connection to the divine...

[KorvinStarmast]

But if paladins count as good Gishes right out of the box, do not Rangers as well? OR does a Paladin's ability to spend spell slots on non-spell combat options (like Smite) make the difference? If Rangers prepared spells as Paladins do, maybe? They spell list seems less impressive to me (And I play both Ranger and Paladin) and they do not get that smite / Nova that Paladin does.


I haven't been talking of just the fluff as purely 5e, I have talked of the previous fluff of both the cleric and Paladin. While the Paladin has grown beyond Lacelot, who was a terrible Paladin, their devotion is no different than a cleric's. Not sure what edition you are referring to, but that statement is incorrect for 5e. And as noted, Paladin is originally a sub set of Fighting Man, or Fighter, not Cleric. Your "should" rather ignores about 40 years of what the game has done with both classes.
Dragon Magazine was, for years, filled with what we now see in stuff like Unearthed Arcana: "here's a neat new wrinkle on the D&D classes, try it out at your table." Some were good, some were broken as hell (I refer to Dragon 1 to about 250) but all of it became part of the process by which the game's devs, be they TSR or WoTC, fiddled around with "class" and came up with stuff that people played. This latest stream lining in 5e is part of a 45 year long process.

Your "should" is, as the Dude would say "your opinion, man." I do not find your support for it very well presented.

@WIlly: Yes, I began the three brown books in a box, then Greyhawk, and so on ...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not sure what edition you are referring to, but that statement is incorrect for 5e. And as noted, Paladin is originally a sub set of Fighting Man, or Fighter, not Cleric.

Paladin strikes me as more of Fighter, with a side of Cleric (as the original design) rather than Cleric with a side of Fighter.

Which makes sense. Note that the first level of Paladin doesn't even have any spells. They're a knight-novice at that point. A fighter with aspirations and a sense of conviction. They've sworn no lasting oaths. A level 1 cleric is already a full spell-caster.

[Maan]

It actually is no longer meaningful already. Bards are arcane casters, but they have a lot of healing spells. It is not the nature of the spell that determines if it is divine or arcane. A cure wounds by a cleric is divine magic. The same cure wounds by a bard is arcane magic. Mechanically meaningless, though a DM can decide to create areas where divine magic works differently from arcane magic (like giving a bonus to spell save DCs on hallowed grounds, or something of that sort. This example would affect the same spell cast by a cleric and by a wizard differently).
(emphasis mine)


And the Divine Soul Sorcerer is a sorcerer who casts cleric spells as arcane spells through the magic granted to them by their ancestral divine connection to magic. If that doesn't make the distinction arbitrary, I don't know what would. However, Maan's point that it'll all change by next edition anyways is also pretty salient. There are differences between paladins and clerics in 5e, but it's up to the individual whether the distinction is important and must be delineated into two distinct classes (especially when sub-classes are clearly a thing again now).


Possibly an arcana cleric casting arcane spells through a connection to the divine...
Yup, what I was musing on is: the differences, as far as rules go, right now are pretty much reduced to spell list (and this is getting more and more blurry) and how you prepare spells.

So I wouldn't be surprised if in the next edition they would just go with "eh, you can cast spells. Just pick a reason you like about why you can."
Ok, maybe not so radical: but you get the idea. I think it could well be "nerdy caster" ("You study your spells to get them, here are the rules. You can cast healing spells too, anyway. You are some cleric bookworm, then."), "spontaneus caster" ("It comes natural to you. Maybe momma was a dragon, or impregnated by a Planetar, or Asmodeus, or whatever."), "pact caster" ("You gave service to some pooowerful being. A deity, you are a cleric. A fiend, you are a warlock. A hot [espunged], you are into BDSM.")
And actually it could work pretty well, if done right.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yup, what I was musing on is: the differences, as far as rules go, right now are pretty much reduced to spell list (and this is getting more and more blurry) and how you prepare spells.

So I wouldn't be surprised if in the next edition they would just go with "eh, you can cast spells. Just pick a reason you like about why you can."
Ok, maybe not so radical: but you get the idea. I think it could well be "nerdy caster" ("You study your spells to get them, here are the rules. You can cast healing spells too, anyway. You are some cleric bookworm, then."), "spontaneus caster" ("It comes natural to you. Maybe momma was a dragon, or impregnated by a Planetar, or Asmodeus, or whatever."), "pact caster" ("You gave service to some pooowerful being. A deity, you are a cleric. A fiend, you are a warlock. A hot [espunged], you are into BDSM.")
And actually it could work pretty well, if done right.

Mechanics should follow from aesthetics and theme, and the "choose your own fluff" thing has big problems with aesthetics (and thus has side effects for mechanics). It makes settings totally incoherent and destroys the strong archetypes D&D is known for. If you want "choose your own fluff", go for point buy.

Now I agree the arcane/divine split is pointless at this point, but the solution isn't to divorce fluff and crunch. Because that's never the solution (at least for any game I want to play). It's to actually make meaningful differences.

I'd say there are a few "sources" that matter--
Universal Harmony: bards and paladins [1]
Investiture: clerical magic is divine investiture, warlocks have personal investiture
Wizardry: wizards and sorcerers, the former being studied and the latter being innate
Shamanism: druids and rangers, for me, are all about working with the spirits of nature
Psionic: currently unoccupied, but whatever the mystic evolves into will fit here.

I'd extend these "sources" beyond just the spell-casters. Fighters and rogues follow the studied model of wizardry, which is why they pick up wizard casting. Barbarians generally follow the shamanistic model, channeling spiritual entities.

[1] I'm going to be controversial and lump paladins as the foil of bards. Bards seek to discover the existing harmonies and manipulate them, floating with the flow. Paladins seek to impose their own harmony onto the universe, forcing the universe to resonate to their metaphorical tune. Effectively, bards sweet-talk the universe, making small changes (hence their biggest effects are subtle and on the minds of people) while paladins out-stubborn the universe.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think I'm going to start reading "change my view" as "please argue with me for the next three weeks while I continue to hold exactly the same view regardless".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think I'm going to start reading "change my view" as "please argue with me for the next three weeks while I continue to hold exactly the same view regardless".

That's not what it meant all along?

[Temperjoke]

I think I'm going to start reading "change my view" as "please argue with me for the next three weeks while I continue to hold exactly the same view regardless".

Accurate, based on what I've seen in this website and on the greater internet.

[TheSchleus]

Mechanics should follow from aesthetics and theme, and the "choose your own fluff" thing has big problems with aesthetics (and thus has side effects for mechanics). It makes settings totally incoherent and destroys the strong archetypes D&D is known for. If you want "choose your own fluff", go for point buy.

Now I agree the arcane/divine split is pointless at this point, but the solution isn't to divorce fluff and crunch. Because that's never the solution (at least for any game I want to play). It's to actually make meaningful differences.

I'd say there are a few "sources" that matter--
Universal Harmony: bards and paladins [1]
Investiture: clerical magic is divine investiture, warlocks have personal investiture
Wizardry: wizards and sorcerers, the former being studied and the latter being innate
Shamanism: druids and rangers, for me, are all about working with the spirits of nature
Psionic: currently unoccupied, but whatever the mystic evolves into will fit here.

I'd extend these "sources" beyond just the spell-casters. Fighters and rogues follow the studied model of wizardry, which is why they pick up wizard casting. Barbarians generally follow the shamanistic model, channeling spiritual entities.

[1] I'm going to be controversial and lump paladins as the foil of bards. Bards seek to discover the existing harmonies and manipulate them, floating with the flow. Paladins seek to impose their own harmony onto the universe, forcing the universe to resonate to their metaphorical tune. Effectively, bards sweet-talk the universe, making small changes (hence their biggest effects are subtle and on the minds of people) while paladins out-stubborn the universe.

While I'm not sure exactly how you would put this into mechanical differences, I do really like this way of thinking about it. Even the bards and paladins using the same power source seems reasonable to me. Although with this setup, I would argue for making sorcerers use intelligence (but an intuitive sort of intelligence instead of learning based). Charisma seems more suited to making the universe do what you say, either by persuasion (bard) or stubbornness (paladin).

[Millstone85]

I'd say there are a few "sources" that matter--
Universal Harmony: bards and paladins [1]
Investiture: clerical magic is divine investiture, warlocks have personal investiture
Wizardry: wizards and sorcerers, the former being studied and the latter being innate
Shamanism: druids and rangers, for me, are all about working with the spirits of nature
Psionic: currently unoccupied, but whatever the mystic evolves into will fit here.

I'd extend these "sources" beyond just the spell-casters. Fighters and rogues follow the studied model of wizardry, which is why they pick up wizard casting. Barbarians generally follow the shamanistic model, channeling spiritual entities.What about monks and their "magic of ki"? 4e put them under the psionic power source, which makes sense to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

Mechanics should follow from aesthetics and theme, and the "choose your own fluff" thing has big problems with aesthetics (and thus has side effects for mechanics). It makes settings totally incoherent and destroys the strong archetypes D&D is known for. If you want "choose your own fluff", go for point buy.

Now I agree the arcane/divine split is pointless at this point, but the solution isn't to divorce fluff and crunch. Because that's never the solution (at least for any game I want to play). It's to actually make meaningful differences.

I'd say there are a few "sources" that matter--
Universal Harmony: bards and paladins [1]
Investiture: clerical magic is divine investiture, warlocks have personal investiture
Wizardry: wizards and sorcerers, the former being studied and the latter being innate
Shamanism: druids and rangers, for me, are all about working with the spirits of nature
Psionic: currently unoccupied, but whatever the mystic evolves into will fit here.

I'd extend these "sources" beyond just the spell-casters. Fighters and rogues follow the studied model of wizardry, which is why they pick up wizard casting. Barbarians generally follow the shamanistic model, channeling spiritual entities.

[1] I'm going to be controversial and lump paladins as the foil of bards. Bards seek to discover the existing harmonies and manipulate them, floating with the flow. Paladins seek to impose their own harmony onto the universe, forcing the universe to resonate to their metaphorical tune. Effectively, bards sweet-talk the universe, making small changes (hence their biggest effects are subtle and on the minds of people) while paladins out-stubborn the universe.


What about monks and their "magic of ki"? 4e put them under the psionic power source, which makes sense to me.

From another angle... what makes "ki" and the "internal magic" of sorcerers different? It's all power that comes from within, isn't it?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What about monks and their "magic of ki"? 4e put them under the psionic power source, which makes sense to me.

That's probably where they'd end up for me. It's about using personal energy to directly influence reality, bypassing any Weave (or any such thing), spell components, etc.


From another angle... what makes "ki" and the "internal magic" of sorcerers different? It's all power that comes from within, isn't it?

Sorcerers cast spells. Their knowledge of them comes from within, but the actual performance is functionally identical to that of a wizard. Only the source of the knowledge itself changes. Sorcerers are primarily outward directed--even self-only spells are cast on themselves from the outside (so to speak).

Monks tap their personal energy (ki) and bypass all those trappings. At a cost, however--they can only do a little bit and most of it only directly affects themselves. Their power stays within themselves. There's no ambient field involved, no Weave, no magic words. It's all magic, but it's very different magic.

[patchyman]

The difference as I see it is that a Cleric is more of a leader and motivator, or at least a support: the one that works with other people toward those goals they believe in. This is something true both flavour-wise and the way the mechanics work.
The Paladin is about a more personal belief: a Vengeance Paladin may well work alone to stamp out evil, and that's why Paladins aren't full caster but more a martial bent class..

Ironically enough, the leadership and motivation class is Wis based, and the inner belief class is Cha based.

[RedMage125]

I think I'm going to start reading "change my view" as "please argue with me for the next three weeks while I continue to hold exactly the same view regardless".


That's not what it meant all along?
Lol.

Effectively, bards sweet-talk the universe, making small changes (hence their biggest effects are subtle and on the minds of people) while paladins out-stubborn the universe.
"Out-stubborn the universe" is a beautiful turn of phrase.

What about monks and their "magic of ki"? 4e put them under the psionic power source, which makes sense to me.


From another angle... what makes "ki" and the "internal magic" of sorcerers different? It's all power that comes from within, isn't it?
I second PhoenixPhyre's response.

"Ki" is markedly similar to psionics, in that everything done to power the effect comes from within, and is honed by training, discipline, and practice. Sorcerers more correctly have an internal and innate connection to "The Weave" (or whatever one calls the ambient field of magic in a given world), to include how to pluck the strings of it to achieve distinct magical effects (spells), which are otherwise indistinguishable from the way a wizard achieves those same effects through diligent study.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorcerers cast spells. Their knowledge of them comes from within, but the actual performance is functionally identical to that of a wizard. Only the source of the knowledge itself changes. Sorcerers are primarily outward directed--even self-only spells are cast on themselves from the outside (so to speak).

Monks tap their personal energy (ki) and bypass all those trappings. At a cost, however--they can only do a little bit and most of it only directly affects themselves. Their power stays within themselves. There's no ambient field involved, no Weave, no magic words. It's all magic, but it's very different magic.

So you'd say that sorcerers have inherent knowledge, but still draw on the same external "power" that wizards to, while wizards need to learn that knowledge?

Not attempting to argue right or wrong here, just explaining where I got the impression that sorcerers are drawing on inherent power, based on the 5e PHB:


Magic is a part of every sorcerer, suffusing body, mind, and spirit with a latent power that waits to be tapped. Some sorcerers wield magic that springs from an ancient bloodline infused with the magic of dragons. Others carry a raw, uncontrolled magic within them, a chaotic storm that manifests in unexpected ways.


The appearance of sorcerous powers is wildly unpredictable. Some draconic bloodlines produce exactly one sorcerer in every generation, but in other lines of descent every individual is a sorcerer. Most of the time, the talents of sorcery appear as apparent flukes. Some sorcerers can’t name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby’s birth, or a taste of the water from a mysterious spring might spark the gift of sorcery. So too might the gift of a deity of magic, exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner Planes or the maddening chaos of Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality.


Sorcerers have no use for the spellbooks and ancient tomes of magic lore that wizards rely on, nor do they rely on a patron to grant their spells as warlocks do. By learning to harness and channel their own inborn magic, they can discover new and staggering ways to unleash that power.

[jjordan]

In different lore they are both direct agents of a deity, agent of an idea, or just a member of a church. Any piece of fluff can be applied to the other. No two classes have such similar fluff and lore, even the ranger and druid has reasons to be seperate on this account.

Their practical application is the same, to smite the enemies of their faith, heal their allies, and tank hits. Druids and rangers have very different practical applications, druids are primarily casters a d rangers are primarily battles, though they can step on each ither toes.

Side by side, most clerics and paladins will look rather similar. Armor, shield, and a weapon. Sometimes using a two handed weapon in place of sword and board. Going back to my example of Druids and Rangers, we see that side by side, they do not look all that similar. Their armor type and style would be different as they also carry different weapons and use them in vastly different ways.

The biggest difference between the two is when the cleric goes more on the caster side, clerics do make effective casters. However, this would be like if we split the druid into two classes, one that was mostly wildshaping and physical attacks and then a druid with wildshaping and also had more spells. Additionally, the cleric can be a caster and still be a Paladin in all but name.

I think mixing the Cleric and the Paladin class features and making them a half caster would bebthe right call. Have a subclass that improves casting (and allows for more higher level spells) or improves combat (no more spells, but you get smite spells and other goodies like fighting style). You could give this hybrid class the Warlock casting as they get their magic from powerful outsiders too.


Though, I could see an argument for the Warlock being a cleric too, they at least have different fluff and specialties.

Anyways, so yeah, there's no reason to split the Cleric and Paladin up into seperate classes.
You are correct. Clerics, Warlocks, and Paladins should all be in the same basic class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So you'd say that sorcerers have inherent knowledge, but still draw on the same external "power" that wizards to, while wizards need to learn that knowledge?

Not attempting to argue right or wrong here, just explaining where I got the impression that sorcerers are drawing on inherent power, based on the 5e PHB:


Magic is a part of every sorcerer, suffusing body, mind, and spirit with a latent power that waits to be tapped. Some sorcerers wield magic that springs from an ancient bloodline infused with the magic of dragons. Others carry a raw, uncontrolled magic within them, a chaotic storm that manifests in unexpected ways.


The appearance of sorcerous powers is wildly unpredictable. Some draconic bloodlines produce exactly one sorcerer in every generation, but in other lines of descent every individual is a sorcerer. Most of the time, the talents of sorcery appear as apparent flukes. Some sorcerers can’t name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby’s birth, or a taste of the water from a mysterious spring might spark the gift of sorcery. So too might the gift of a deity of magic, exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner Planes or the maddening chaos of Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality.


Sorcerers have no use for the spellbooks and ancient tomes of magic lore that wizards rely on, nor do they rely on a patron to grant their spells as warlocks do. By learning to harness and channel their own inborn magic, they can discover new and staggering ways to unleash that power.



The PHB, sadly, waffles between knowledge and power way too much. That's a place where they are definitely (IMO) too fuzzy about things. Everything I say is in context of my theory of magic (presented elsewhere) that separates spells (knowledge, patterns) from the power source (always internal, always the same).

Sorcerers have power (PHB-sense) because of their breeding. In my theory, that's knowledge. A sorcerer who never gains experience has the potential, has the knowledge floating in their blood, but lacks the soul-based structures to employ that power. But the power they're interfacing with and depend on is external--the ambient field/Weave/etc. This means that they, from an external point of view, have to draw on outside power to cast (and hence are vulnerable to antimagic fields).

Monks' power is entirely intrinsic--it's the same power that all creatures have. Everyone has ki, it's just not used by a lot of people because they don't have the training/discipline/focus/whatever to harness it. When a monk does stunning strike, they're not projecting ki, they're messing with the opponent's ki. Only the "spell-like" ones (Four Elements, etc) are projecting ki, and there they're using that to cause the same sorts of resonances as a "real" spell-caster (subject to a lot of the same limitations with things like antimagic field, etc).

[Man_Over_Game]

Sorcerers still modify the Weave. This is reflected by the fact that they can multiclass with other caster levels and be able to use each other's slots fluidly. In fact, a Sorcerer 4/Wizard 5 would have more power than a Sorcerer 6. This implies that weave modification (spell casting) is something that all has the same end goal. Learning new ways to do the same trick makes you better at that one trick, rather than just having a bunch of oddball ways of doing it. Similarly, learning to bake cookies might make you better at baking a cake, despite being completely different recipes.

Ki is a physical energy, probably separate from the Weave entirely. It's probably from the same source that Barbarians can use to Rage, in the sense that it's Supernatural, Physical, yet not inherently related to the Weave (due to the fact that Ki is unusable with any other "magical" energy source). Additionally, it's availability is directly related to the Monk levels you have. That is, a Monk NEEDS Ki in order to be a Monk. It's probably the most mysterious of the forms of "magic". I think it's easiest to assume Ki is specific to Monks, and has nothing to do with the Weave, as the mechanics of the game support this theory.

Sorcerers, unlike other casters, probably bend the Weave using emotion, passion, or willpower (due to using Charisma). Their unique connection to the Weave is what lets them do so. A Wizard can have all the Charisma he wants, but that will not allow him to bend the Weave in the same way, because his soul is not inherently attached to the Weave. Instead, the Wizard must find other ways to manipulate the Weave, using science and logic in order to find loopholes, and using a medium to gather his magical thoughts on a day-by-day basis (the spellbook).



In a way, it's the magical inks, dyes and formulas that allows a Wizard to touch the Weave. A Sorcerer does so inherently.

Paladins and Warlocks also use their will to bend the weave, but Paladins do so out of their will aligning with the Oath (My will is the Oath, the Oath is me. I wish to cast magic, so my Oath casts the magic), and Warlocks do so out of acting on behalf of their Patron (similar to Paladins, they act on behalf of their Patron, and so the Patron is the one doing the heavy lifting).

Similarly, some creatures are naturally warm, and others have to create their own warmth. It's the same goal, but a small change in how you get there leads to drastically different lifestyles.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorcerers still modify the Weave. This is reflected by the fact that they can multiclass with other caster levels and be able to use each other's slots fluidly. In fact, a Sorcerer 4/Wizard 5 would have more power than a Sorcerer 6. This implies that weave modification (spell casting) is something that all has the same end goal. Learning new ways to do the same trick makes you better at that one trick, rather than just having a bunch of oddball ways of doing it. Similarly, learning to bake cookies might make you better at baking a cake, despite being completely different recipes.

Ki is a physical energy, probably separate from the Weave entirely. It's probably from the same source that Barbarians can use to Rage, in the sense that it's Supernatural, Physical, yet not inherently Magical or related to the Weave.

Sorcerers, unlike other casters, probably bend the Weave using emotion, passion, or willpower (due to using Charisma). Their unique connection to the Weave is what lets them do so. A Wizard can have all the Charisma he wants, but that will not allow him to bend the Weave in the same way, because his soul is not inherently attached to the Weave. Instead, the Wizard must find other ways to manipulate the Weave, using science and logic in order to find loopholes, and using a medium to gather his magical thoughts on a day-by-day basis (the spellbook).

In a way, it's the magical inks, dyes and formulas that allows a Wizard to touch the Weave. A Sorcerer does so inherently.

Similarly, some creatures are naturally warm, and others have to create their own warmth. It's the same goal, but a small change in how you get there leads to drastically different lifestyles.


I thought "the weave" was a Forgotten Realms sidebar in 5e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I thought "the weave" was a Forgotten Realms sidebar.

It's being used as a generic term--the PHB sidebar says that all settings have an ambient energy field that is tapped for spell-casting. The exact FR structure (with an active god of magic, etc) is FR specific, but the idea that there is ambient magic that spell-casters interface with and manipulate is meta-setting material.

[Millstone85]

So you'd say that sorcerers have inherent knowledge, but still draw on the same external "power" that wizards to, while wizards need to learn that knowledge?

Not attempting to argue right or wrong here, just explaining where I got the impression that sorcerers are drawing on inherent power, based on the 5e PHBHere is the part of the 5e PHB that makes me share PhoenixPhyre's interpretation:
All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding--learned or intuitive--of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power--gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.

I would say sorcerers have a mostly intuitive understanding of the Weave, and wizards have a mostly learned understanding of the Weave, while bards and warlocks are more mixed. But none can cast spells without the Weave.

This sidebar sadly forgot monks. I think "All magic depends on the Weave" should have been "All spellcasting depends on the Weave", with ki and psionics being magical arts that fall outside of spellcasting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here is the part of the 5e PHB that makes me share PhoenixPhyre's interpretation:

I would say sorcerers have a mostly intuitive understanding of the Weave, and wizards have a mostly learned understanding of the Weave, while bards and warlocks are more mixed. But none can cast spells without the Weave.

This sidebar sadly forgot monks. I think "All magic depends on the Weave" should have been "All spellcasting depends on the Weave", with ki and psionics being magical arts that fall outside of spellcasting.

The distinction between "magic" (spell-casting) and "magic" (fantastical things that are similar to, but different from, spell-casting) is another place where the PHB is way too fuzzy. 4e/shadow monks cast spells, probably in an intuitive, arcane-like fashion. Their power source (ki) is quite different from spell slots, however. The rest of their abilities are not actually "magical" in the sense that is interfered with by anti-magic field, etc.

[Millstone85]

https://i.imgur.com/W0vTmfY.png

[Maan]

Ironically enough, the leadership and motivation class is Wis based, and the inner belief class is Cha based.
I know, right? Blame that on the fuzzy definition of Charisma as also being "force of personality"... or somesuch :smallbiggrin:

[Man_Over_Game]

I know, right? Blame that on the fuzzy definition of Charisma as also being "force of personality"... or somesuch :smallbiggrin:

One is "I choose for this to happen". The other is "This is how things must be".

A Paladin swears an Oath, and obeys that Oath for power. But who's to say that the Paladin itself isn't the Oath? You think that obeying the Oath grants you power, but maybe it's the fact that simply acting under the Oath's tenets makes you a piece of that Oath? It is not a single Paladin, channeling power from a greater source; it is a hoard of believers who define a belief. Stray too far from that belief, and you no longer gain its power. The Oaths are fairly open-ended, to be defined by those gaining them. In a way, the Oath is like English: you use it, you adapt it, you are a part of it, and you can consciously choose to be a part of something else.

This is different from a deity. Deities rarely change to their followers or the mortal world. For most changes to a Deity, it has to come from another divine source. As a result, Clerics cannot "choose" the best path to take, or the direction of their beliefs. They simply believe in their god's teachings and obey them. They are not choosing the best path for good, they are obeying the orders of their Deity. Similarly, a Druid makes no opinions where their power is concerned. They simply know what must be done, and there is no dilemma involved.

I'm not sure if there's enough distinction for them to be different classes, but this is the distinction I make narratively when it comes to their different ability scores.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I know, right? Blame that on the fuzzy definition of Charisma as also being "force of personality"... or somesuch :smallbiggrin:

I see CHA as being the counterpart to Wisdom--

Wisdom (in 5e) is about Sense of Other. Perception, intuition (especially about things affecting the outward parts or others, such as others' feelings or reactions), resisting external effects that would remove your control. It's inward-directed--other things affecting you. "Know your enemy/friend" is their M.O. They know their place in things, because they can see the outside.

A high WIS/low CHA person knows exactly how others are feeling, but may not be able to express themselves in a way that gets others to listen. Clerics that want to truly be leaders of men need both, but can be very effective because they can both inculcate loyalty (CHA) and sense what their conversants are feeling (WIS).

Charisma, then, is about Sense of Self. It's how you power through effects that want to change where or what you are (banishment, polymorph). It's how you put force on the world through your beliefs, so it's about strength of belief, force of will, that ineffable "presence" that some people just have. Someone with high CHA just stands out, whether they want to or not. People instinctively turn to them; dogs back down from their glare. Their MO is more "Know yourself." They can often come across as stubborn or conceited, although they may not be. They are sure of themselves, confident that they can work it out.

A high CHA/low WIS person often comes across as self-centered or clueless. The actor who gets scammed blind. Everyone pays attention to them, but they can't really work an in-person crowd. If they're a preacher, they tend to either be a cult leader (attracting broken people based on personal magnetism) or a figurehead/spokesperson (like many celebrities).

Intelligence is command of Fact. It's orthogonal to the other two, although stereotypically high INT correlates with low WIS and CHA (nerds who are oblivious to social or physical cues and can't talk their way out of a sticky situation). A high-INT cleric might be a theologian writing dry dusty tomes about the intricacies of Pelor worship in the 3rd century before present.

[moonfly7]

The answer to your question is simple: paladins are geared towards ideals, and while they do serve gods, ive seen many a godless paladin who just believes in justice. Think divinely fueled cops or soldiers. Clerics are priests though. They worship one god and often take a specific aspect to emulate, but they identify souly with the god, not necessarily ideals of one sort or the other. At the end of the day they're priests with magic. Some have combat training as well, but you get the gist.

[Beleriphon]

5E paladins get their powers from taking an oath and sticking to it, while clerics are generally empowered by deities, or something similar.

In original context a paladin was a character like Roland who took on incredible abilities due to their purity of spirit and adhering to the tenets of chivalry, while a cleric was more like Archbiship Turpin who was a literal holyman who happened to also stomp ass at the same time he was spreading the good word.

In D&D context this made Roland more like a fighter, but with extra oomph, while Turpin is granted the ability by his deity to achieve miracles (spells).

So a paladin and a cleric aren't the same thing. Even in context of a setting that doesn't necessarily use A Matter of France or Le Morte d'Arthur as its basis for either class the difference is clear. A cleric is a member of a specific deity's holy-people, while a paladin swears an oath to uphold certain principles and may or may not be associated with a deity's religion.

My personal setting (found in my signature) uses that distinction. There are orders of knights, in which paladins can be found, but they are distinct from clerics. The basic idea was that a knightly order is open to all followers of deity X, clerics, fighters, rogues, monks, wizards, whatever. They all get knighted and get benefits there-in. However, only priests (which are exclusively clerics and non-magical priests) make up the formal hierarchy of a religion's leadership, one can't be a member of both the power structure and a knight.

[suplee215]

Part of the issue is that so much in 5e is meant to be easily fluff. Therefore while both Cleric and Paladin has some niches in flavor, they overlap often and you can always go "my paladin was chosen by a god" like a cleric does or "my cleric devoted his entire life". However as a DM when building a temple or religious order I find the difference between Paladins and clerics very easy. A Paladin will be closer to the police or crusader whereas the Cleric will be less likely to find on the front lines and most likely in higher leaderships (not always).

[Max_Killjoy]

The cleric's power comes from a connection, to a deity or to the collective power of a principle or faith that people revere.

It's possible depending on the setting that the paladin's power is far more personal, coming from that oath, from her own willpower and emotion and dedication to it.

In a lot of fantasy settings, especially those with strong magic, vows and oaths and personal dedication to an ideal have actual power. To give your word, to make an oath, to take a vow, those things are not empty words in those settings, they call on "the universe" or "the cosmos" itself... in a way the paladin is tapping into the same power as the gods, but directly, via something even the gods can't break or sully.

In a setting with only evil gods, there may well only be evil clerics. But there might still be good paladins. Personally, I find the idea of someone so dedicated to good -- actual good --that they'll fight the very gods to be extremely appealing as a character concept.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My personal setting (found in my signature) uses that distinction. There are orders of knights, in which paladins can be found, but they are distinct from clerics. The basic idea was that a knightly order is open to all followers of deity X, clerics, fighters, rogues, monks, wizards, whatever. They all get knighted and get benefits there-in. However, only priests (which are exclusively clerics and non-magical priests) make up the formal hierarchy of a religion's leadership, one can't be a member of both the power structure and a knight.

While we're sharing setting stuff, here are a few Orders from my setting. Only one of these is exclusive to paladins. Most of the members of the others are not empowered like PC paladins, just like most priests are not clerics.

The Scale-Balancers are an order devoted to Justice (and the goddess of justice). The head of the order is the high priestess, but she's not a cleric (in the PC sense). She has powers, including being able to summon an avatar of her deity, but they're individual divine gifts and she's a hopeless combatant. Her right hand is a paladin, nicknamed (by some PCs) "Sparkles" for her glowing hair. This order is known for rooting out wickedness and dishonesty/injustice. Very much Lawful Neutral, they have a tendency to consider everyone to be a sinner, "the gods will know their own" style. Mixed priests, warriors, and clerics/paladins, plus a core of sneaky information-gatherer types (rogue archetypes).

Another notable organization of paladins and others are the Sinner's Tears. This is a decentralized, cell-like organization found across the land. Its members (called Tears) are all people who have committed horrific acts. They believe that their sins are unforgivable and that they are damned. As a result, they are free to do whatever is necessary to stop the spread of wickedness and to protect the innocent from having to taint themselves with violence. They consider the rest of their lives to be training so that when the demons come to drag their souls to the Abyss they can beat them down on their own turf. These are not associated with any god, although they associate with anybody. Paladins and other martial types, but anyone who has walked that path is welcome. There's a new development that will change these guys soon, though.

A third is the Scale-guard. Acting as the royal guard of the Dragon Queen (head of the Remnant Dynasty), this organization only accepts the elite of the elite. They demand absolute loyalty to Queen and country. The vast majority swear the Oath of the Crown. Finding a Scale-guard outside of the Dynasty's capital is rare. These are all knights and paladins, but are few in number. No particular religious devotion here, mostly Oath of the Crown.

Then there are the many different independent paladins, part of no order. Most Oath of the Ancients and Oath of Vengeance paladins are this way. Either previously trained as soldiers or nobles or having served as a squire under a wandering knight, they are itinerant wanderers, going about and doing good/fighting evil.

My paladins aren't necessarily knights, because most of the countries don't even have that idea (not being feudal in nature). Those that become Sanctioned Adventurers (among whom are the PCs) get trained in heavy armor, etc. as part of their training if they weren't already.

[ProsecutorGodot]

In a setting with only evil gods, there may well only be evil clerics. But there might still be good paladins. Personally, I find the idea of someone so dedicated to good -- actual good --that they'll fight the very gods to be extremely appealing as a character concept.

This is what I enjoy most about Paladins, they can gain great power in spite of any potential interference from a higher power as long as they believe what they're doing is what should/has to be done. The sheer force of will and confidence to tell anyone who stands in your way that you will find the power to stand against them, even if they're a god.

Becoming powerful through nothing but determination and a steel resolve is a very powerful fantasy and as much as I enjoy clerics, they don't embody that at all. They become powerful through a gift and if their God happens to be particularly stubborn or fickle, they can lose that power. Clerics will almost always cite their power as "X God's Blessing" where a Paladin can say "This is mine, I made this power my own.".

This is also why I find Warlocks to be a nice in-between. Sure, you've potentially sworn yourself to something you had no business dealing with, but you usually went into it knowing full well what you were getting into and were determined to see it through anyway.

[Witty Username]

Clerics and Paladins aren't different enough from this standpoint to claim a different class, especially in a system such as 5e. 4e or 3e? Yeah, bring on the multitude of classes, but not 5e.


If they are not different enough to be two different classes, which one should be a subclass of the other?
would you give clerics a smite domain?
would you give paladins more spell caster focused subclass, Oath of wisdom maybe?

or are you more in the line of thought that paladins and clerics should be re flavored to be more separate concepts?

Edit: and quick thing, why is 5e so different from the previous editions for this problem?


Nice to know I'm not the only "been playing 30+ years" :smallbiggrin:
Christ, I haven't even lived that long, and I thought I was all cool for having played 2e.

[T.G. Oskar]

First: congrats. You've triggered me. My favorite class is Paladin, and I'll defend it as...well, as a Paladin is willing to defend what it believes.

Second: I hope this isn't hopeless, but this particular point makes me think otherwise.


Cherry picking rightnout of the SRD!

Your opinion can't change my mind when your opinion is factually wrong.

That's...not civil. The hope lies in that the quotes I've placed, and my own rant, help you understand that there is a possibility. Anyways...


R. Shackleford, I regret to inform you that Unoriginal is correct and you are wrong. Your error is understandable, however. It is a common misconception about paladins that I have been seeing among D&D players since 3e came out.

[...]

In all editions of D&D prior to 3e, Paladins did not explicitly have a connection to a deity at all. In fact, if you look up the definition of "paladin", in addition to one of the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, it says "knightly or heroic champion" or "defender of a righteous cause". Pre-3e editions supported this. Even though Paladins got divine spells chosen from the Cleric spell list, and they could Turn Undead (albeit worse than a cleric), they did not get these powers from gods.

Forgotten Realms is a special case, since the gods are so overwhelming in that setting that every lay person needs to have a patron deity or be bricked into a wall in the afterlife. So yes, in FR, all paladins had gods, but that did not necessitate that they received power like clerics did. Though it would not be a stretch to fluff it as such. Going forward, however, I am going to only discuss "core setting" assumptions, since Forgotten Realms is the corner case where the gods are ALWAYS required.

Then came 3e, and the iconic Paladin, Alhandra. Alhandra had a tattoo of the holy symbol of Heironeous on her arm. She, at least, seemed to be devoted to a deity. Prosecutor Godot quoted the exact line from the 3e PHB earlier, however. "A Paladin need not devote herself to a single deity. Devotion to righteousness is enough". What really bricked up the D&D community at large, however, was the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith. See, in 3.0, a bunch of splatbooks were released for various classes, but they grouped "similar" classes together. Sword & Fist was Fighters and Monks, Song & Silence was Rogues and Bards, Tome & Blood was Wizards and Sorcerers, and Masters of the Wild was Barbarians, Rangers, and Druids. Lumping Paladins in with Clerics led many to perceive paladins like you advocate. As "knights of the gods". This has led to any number of people asking "why don't evil deities have paladins?". The correct answer to that, of course was "Because people who devote themselves to righteousness, and hold themselves to the highest standards thereof don't often pay homage to evil deities". But people clamored for it, and WotC relented and gave us the Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter nonsense in Unearthed Arcana. But I digress.

Then came 4th edition. Now, it is important to note, that essentially, WotC appropriated the word "paladin" from what it means in the English language (see definition, above), and made a new definition for 4e D&D. That being "a knight of a specific deity or faith". See, 4th edition is the ONLY edition in which your second bolded statement is correct. Paladins WERE forced to have a deity in that edition. And unlike Clerics, who could still be of a "similar" alignment to their deity, paladins had to match the deity's alignment exactly. ironically, in that edition, paladins also had no fear of losing their powers, because, like clerics, their powers explicitly stemmed from the ritual that invested them as Clerics/Paladins and could not be just taken away because they did something their god did not like. They might be branded as heretics by the rest of the faithful, and hunted down, but they did not lose their class abilities. But for the first time, all deities had Paladins, and Paladins were defined as a Defender-type class that served gods.

However, this is a 5e forum. We should be using 5e definitions, right? Then we should ask, "do 5e Paladins have to serve deities?".

Others have already quoted the bits about how "many are devoted to gods of good, but their power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from any god".

The bottom line, R. Shackleford, is that since Paladins are not bound into the box you laid them into in your OP, everything that follows to your conclusions are not truisms. Yes, SOME Paladins are like combat-oriented Clerics. But they do not HAVE to be. So shoehorning them and clerics together into some kind of "2 variations of one class" would be doing a disservice to them, as Paladins, by the RAW, are very different from clerics unless they choose otherwise.

And that, ultimately is what Unoriginal was trying to say. That's how I read it, at least. You DID get kind of combative when presented with proof that your founding assumptions were incorrect. And I'm inclined to agree with unoriginal and PhoenixPhyre in that respect. You are giving the perception that you are not in this discussion with an open mind. You are utterly dismissive of any and all evidence that contradicts you. Which, in a thread titled "Change My View", I perceive it that you are not debating honestly and in good faith.

I hope that, going forward, you can accept that you made an error in your founding assumptions. For other matters and threads, too.

This statement is a great way to start, but I'll take it from a different aspect.

You see a Cleric, maybe on foot, maybe on a horse. What do you expect the Cleric to do on your town? Most likely, to proselytize, to officiate a religious service, to give counsel... If this sounds familiar, this is because that's what you'd expect a priest to do.

You see a Paladin, most likely on a horse. What do you expect the Cleric to do on your town? Most likely stay for a while, resting and recovering after a brutal battle, having its horse rest, and probably remaining to itself. The Paladin might talk to the children, maybe tell a story or two, and as soon as it hears that there might be some danger, it'll leap into action even if it's in the middle of eating or sleeping. Basically, what a hero would do.

This is how I see them in fluff. They're way too distinct. In fact, it runs (partly) on how they were envisioned originally, and (partially) on how they're envisioned now, and (semantically) on what the word represents. RedMage explained this very well, but I'll expand a bit: in AD&D 1st/2nd Edition, the Cleric was considered akin to a "knight Templar", or a "knight Hospitaller"; i.e., a member of a military-religious order, whereas the Paladin was considered more of a knight-errant, using the concept of the Twelve Peers or the Knights of the Round Table. Here's where my conception differs in one, but is spot-on regarding the other; the Cleric was perceived as a crusader of the faith (a warrior of the faith), whereas a Paladin was perceived as a quester. You could find some overlapping, however; a Paladin's quest could involve serving as a mercenary on an army (or perhaps, serving for your country as would a Fighting Man) on what could be considered a crusade, which would have you fighting alongside Clerics. (And also Fighting [Wo]Men, because warriors), but for the most part, their purpose was different.

Mechanically, however, is where things change. AD&D 2nd explained this better on that regard, placing the Paladin on the same group as the Fighter and Ranger (the "Warrior"), while the Cleric was lumped with the Druid on another group (the "Priest"). Here, you can see the divide that I referred to; a Paladin is explicitly a Warrior (and thus, does things expected of a Warrior, including having mechanically better chances of landing and withstanding a hit, have better knowledge of combat and strategy, and focus on more physical aspects), while the Cleric is explicitly a Priest (and does things expected of a Priest, such as wonderworking and ceremonial rites; hence, Rituals). That said, there's an overlap that comes straight from the very first editions, and can be explained quite well - the Cleric's choice of armor and weaponry makes it a solid front-line combatant, and the Paladin's powers include the ability to Channel Divinity (or Turn Undead, as it was on the old days; personally, I find Channel Divinity to explain this better) and cast divine spells. Yes, there is a solid overlap that, quite frankly, seems to be the entirety of your argument. If a Cleric is a Priest, why does it have heavy armor and wields weapons (mostly blunt weapons) and can fight pretty well, while the Paladin has divine powers?

The answer might be because the Cleric on a roleplaying game is akin to a chaplain. If you know the term, you know it's used more on the military, though a chaplain can work everywhere. A chaplain is an ordained minister of any faith that is assigned to an organization to provide services related to the faith, such as spiritual counsel and rites. This sounds quite distinct to its incarnation as a member of a military-religious order, except chaplains that serve in the military, despite being explicitly non-combatants, aren't forbid from having combat training. (In fact, a chaplain can be part of the armed forces, while receiving theological training that would allow it to be ordained.) Now, think of a world without the Geneva Conventions, more akin to the Crusades, and you'd expect the Cleric's purpose to be part combat medic, part wonderworker, part buffer (after all, what better buff than to say "your god wills it!"), who can whack up some foot soldier's bums if they get too close. The Cleric mechanically reflects this: the Heal/Medicine skill and all healing spells allow the Cleric to function as a Combat Medic, spells like Bless and Shield of Faith allow it to work as a buffer, and as for Wonderworker? Well, there's Divine Intervention, for one, and...Channel Divinity and their entire spellcasting ability on the other. After all, there's a good reference on divine spells being essentially miracles. (Flame Strike, for example, and Raise Dead, and old-school Sticks to Snakes, come straight from the Bible, so...miracles?) And as for their combat ability? You probably want your combat medic/buffer/wonderworker to be in heavy armor, no?

On the other hand, the Paladin was based off Three Hearts, Three Lions and other books that are based on the concept of knighthood (you know, the kind of books that made Don Quixote become the first LARPer go crazy). "TH,TL" gave the Paladin most of its iconic powers, including Lay on Hands, the ability to Remove Disease (both a reference to the Royal Touch of kings, which was supposed to cure diseases), while their purity of purpose reflected on their increased saving throw bonuses (which eventually became Divine Grace, and Aura of Grace) and their Aura of Good. Tradition gave them magic swords and magic horses (think Perseus and Bellerophon...hey, what a way to make a reference!) The more difficult thing to explain would be their ability to cast spells, except for that, you can go to BECMI for explanations; there, Fighters could choose to become ordained as Paladins (or Avengers!) on a church, which would give them special powers, in exchange for not holding lands and becoming a Knight. However, even then, the Paladin would be expected to go on quests. Again, this is a point on your argument that stands...except that, when moving to Advanced D&D, as the Paladin was made its own class, it also became somewhat agnostic on its composition.

Beleriphon (see, reference!) explains this in a similar way, and I like the explanation.


5E paladins get their powers from taking an oath and sticking to it, while clerics are generally empowered by deities, or something similar.

In original context a paladin was a character like Roland who took on incredible abilities due to their purity of spirit and adhering to the tenets of chivalry, while a cleric was more like Archbiship Turpin who was a literal holyman who happened to also stomp ass at the same time he was spreading the good word.

In D&D context this made Roland more like a fighter, but with extra oomph, while Turpin is granted the ability by his deity to achieve miracles (spells).

So a paladin and a cleric aren't the same thing. Even in context of a setting that doesn't necessarily use A Matter of France or Le Morte d'Arthur as its basis for either class the difference is clear. A cleric is a member of a specific deity's holy-people, while a paladin swears an oath to uphold certain principles and may or may not be associated with a deity's religion.

My personal setting (found in my signature) uses that distinction. There are orders of knights, in which paladins can be found, but they are distinct from clerics. The basic idea was that a knightly order is open to all followers of deity X, clerics, fighters, rogues, monks, wizards, whatever. They all get knighted and get benefits there-in. However, only priests (which are exclusively clerics and non-magical priests) make up the formal hierarchy of a religion's leadership, one can't be a member of both the power structure and a knight.

This helps to expand that distinction. A Paladin is a Knight (not just a Warrior, but one who swears an oath of service), a Cleric is a Priest, and their purposes differ. The Paladin, however, distances itself from a Knight by swearing its Oaths to a higher purpose - as a Knight would. The Paladin wouldn't necessarily have to swear its Oath to a specific faith, or to a faith at all; and for that, 5e pretty much nailed it. The Paladin can swear an Oath to the forces of Good (Devotion), to the Light (Ancients, and that Oath is less "warrior of the faith" and closer to what the Ranger should be), to vengeance (erm, Vengeance), to country and king (Crown), to the concept of Conquest (again, Conquest) and to redemption from sin and/or errors (Redemption). Oath of the Crown is closer to the concept of AD&D Paladin, Devotion hearkens to the BECMI Paladin (it's actually the most vanilla Paladin), Ancients is mostly a Warden from 4e rewrapped into the Paladin class, Vengeance is the Avenger from 4e rewrapped into the Paladin class, Conquest is basically a Pathfinder's Hellknight, and Redemption...well, remember the Book of Exalted Deeds? Of those, you could say that Redemption (and to a degree, Ancients) fits more the concept of a religious warrior, but only barely. Every Oath can be independent of following a deity, even if you consider celestials as a form of deity (and therefore, devotion).

Then again, that depends on your interpretation of an Oath. It's particularly important when compared to a Domain. Here, I defer to another quote:


One is "I choose for this to happen". The other is "This is how things must be".

A Paladin swears an Oath, and obeys that Oath for power. But who's to say that the Paladin itself isn't the Oath? You think that obeying the Oath grants you power, but maybe it's the fact that simply acting under the Oath's tenets makes you a piece of that Oath? It is not a single Paladin, channeling power from a greater source; it is a hoard of believers who define a belief. Stray too far from that belief, and you no longer gain its power. The Oaths are fairly open-ended, to be defined by those gaining them. In a way, the Oath is like English: you use it, you adapt it, you are a part of it, and you can consciously choose to be a part of something else.

This is different from a deity. Deities rarely change to their followers or the mortal world. For most changes to a Deity, it has to come from another divine source. As a result, Clerics cannot "choose" the best path to take, or the direction of their beliefs. They simply believe in their god's teachings and obey them. They are not choosing the best path for good, they are obeying the orders of their Deity. Similarly, a Druid makes no opinions where their power is concerned. They simply know what must be done, and there is no dilemma involved.

I'm not sure if there's enough distinction for them to be different classes, but this is the distinction I make narratively when it comes to their different ability scores.

Even when not entirely sure whether they should be a separate class or not, the distinction is fair enough. I'll give a different interpretation, which is close to the definition of 5e, and also somewhat historical.
Oaths involve Conviction and Devotion to an Ideal, first and foremost. When a Paladin swears its Oaths, it doesn't make them lightly. These define its worldview, and the spells and powers it acquires reflect that worldview. Furthermore, it establishes the service it'll do - a Devotion Paladin may have a similar task as an Ancients Paladin, but in the end, their purposes will differ. This is true even when their purposes are very similar (i.e., a Devotion Paladin does it for the Greater Good, an Ancients Paladin does it for the Light, but what may be the Greater Good for the Devotion Paladin doesn't necessarily has to be what the Ancients' Paladin has sworn to defend. An Ancients Paladin may receive a rebuke from a Devotion Paladin for being too "hedonistic", and the response will be "loose down a bit and get that stick off yer bum!"
A Cleric's Domain, on the other hand, isn't necessarily tied to Conviciton OR Devotion. Instead, it's essentially akin to a scholar's degree of mastery on a subject; a distillation of the philosophical aspect of existence that its deity governs upon. Even two Clerics of the same deity will have different outlooks if they choose different domains; i.e., a Life Cleric and a Light Cleric may follow Pelor, or Lathander, in a very different way, as their purposes will likewise differ. Same thing for Clerics choosing the same domain but belonging to different deities; that is, the way Heironeous wages War is very distinct to how Hextor wages War, and their clerics will follow suit.

As you can see, there's a difference, fluff-wise, between an Oath and a Domain. This is also true for the mechanical differences, except you probably get focused on one thing only - Channel Divinity powers and granted spells. Indeed; a Paladin being able to Channel Divinity makes it pretty similar to a Cleric, as well as their ability to cast spells, but this is essentially their only similarity. A Paladin is a better fighter (ergo, Fighting Style), a Paladin projects Auras (ergo, Aura of Courage, Aura of Grace; furthermore, three of the Paladin's spells are explicitly Auras, and most Oaths grant a third permanent one, such as Devotion, Ancients, Conquest and Redemption). Not all Oaths grant Divine Strike, while every single Paladin gains Improved Divine Smite. Not all Paladins get to Turn certain enemies (i.e.: Crown, Redemption, not sure if Conquest), but all Clerics get to Turn (and eventually Destroy) Undead (even Evil ones following gods of Undeath). Finally, the Paladin is the ONLY class whose capstone ability is based on its subclass, whereas the Cleric essentially gets a modification to its 10th level class feature. As you can see, while there are mechanical similarities, the differences are greater.

Consider, thus, the Eldritch Knight. It's a Fighter, but it's also a spellcaster; except, its spellcasting ability is limited. It has all the traits of the Fighter, but also gets spells. Is it too similar to a Bladesinger Wizard? Both are decent front-liners and cast spells, but in the end, the Eldritch Knight is a warrior first, spellcaster second, whereas the Bladesinger is the opposite. This rings true for the Cleric and the Paladin, where the former is spellcaster first, warrior if necessary, whereas the Paladin is warrior first, spellcaster if necessary (you can choose never to cast a spell and instead spend your slots on Divine Smite).

So...I don't really see a similarity that makes it so that the Paladin can't exist. Is there a lot of overlap? Of course, particularly if you choose the War Domain, as you cause the Cleric to become a bit more of a warrior; it's even more if you choose to dip a few levels in Fighter for the Fighting Style, specifically 1 level so you don't lose your last ASI. However, in the end, there's even more differences in concept and in mechanics to make them differ. You could say, as others have done, that there's no distinction between a Cleric and a Druid (both have extensive spellcasting ability, both are fairly decent warriors, both classes' skills are exceptionally similar, and their fluff involves communing with the divine), but there is. While not necessarily a perfect comparison, it's still fair to consider that, if you consider the Cleric and the Paladin as too similar to be different classes, the same is also true for the Cleric and the Druid...and that leads down a pretty slippery slope.

This is an even stronger argument regarding how some classes are too similar.


I have held a similar opinion regarding the sorcerer and the warlock.

Mainly, I fear that 5e is still missing the fey and fiendish sorcerous origins because of the existence of the Archfey and the Fiend as warlock patrons.

Just let players decide whether they inherited that otherworldly power or made a pact for it. Eh, the draconic bloodline already suggests that one of your ancestors might have made a bargain with a dragon, or that you yourself could be the first of a new bloodline as a result of a pact.

But that too has been an unpopular opinion.

Mechanically, the Sorcerer and the Warlock are very distinct; one uses metamagic to empower its spells, the other has invocations and pact magic that are distinct from arcane magic. However, fluff-wise, there's virtually no distinction between either of them. Their main distinction, and the only reason they're separate, is because one involves making a pact, and the other involves being born with that power. However, the Sorcerer by itself isn't as mechanically distinct as a Wizard, and only between 4e and 5e is that the Sorcerer had a degree of distinction, which isn't that much. I'd wager that the Warlock eats the Sorcerer's fluff before the Cleric and the Paladin do a fusion dance, because even the names evoke being essentially the same thing. As mentioned - note that the Sorcerer lacks a Fey or Fiendish Sorcerous Origin, and they had to be VERY careful to distinguish between the Celestial Patron and the Divine Soul Sorcerous Origin. (I.e., one involves making a pact with a celestial, and the other involves having a deity bless you from birth.) I find blending Sorcerer and Warlock a much better argument than blending Cleric and Paladin, and even then, they have merits as separate classes.

So, TL;DR - the Cleric and the Paladin have always been mechanically distinct, and have distinct fluff. They overlap in several things, but their purpose and history are different. Just as there's a lot of overlap between other classes, they happen to have some overlap.

[KorvinStarmast]

{snip most of your nice post}

You see a Paladin, most likely on a horse. What do you expect the Cleric to do on your town? Most likely stay for a while, resting and recovering after a brutal battle, having its horse rest, and probably remaining to itself. The Paladin might talk to the children, maybe tell a story or two, and as soon as it hears that there might be some danger, it'll leap into action even if it's in the middle of eating or sleeping. Basically, what a hero would do. I think you meant to say Paladin, not Cleric, there. :smallsmile:

I appreciate time and effort, and thoroughness, you dedicated to your post. *tips cap*

[ccjmk]

Then paladins would be no different from fighters.

I feel like Paladins could pretty much be a Fighter subclass in another world. If Fighters had Superiority Dice as part of the base class (where Champion can use them to deal just hit easier, hit harder, or resist ****, and the Battlemaster has all these "make an ally move without OAs, cause an ally to make an attack as a reaction, give an ally advantage on an attack, etc etc", Paladins could pretty much be standard fighters using their superiority dice to either Divine Smite or Lay of Hands. Superiority dice at say... 1st/2nd level? you get DS and LoH at 3rd level, aura at 7th, and etc.

Could definitely work.

[Man_Over_Game]

I disagree that expectations of a class are...healthy? You do not think of a Warlock and see a healer, yet that's what led to our Celestial Warlock. You do not think of a Cleric and see a Trickster, yet we have a Trickery domain. You don't think Wizard and see a Swordsman, and that's our Bladesinger. Believing a Paladin must be like a Paladin doesn't seem to be healthy for the subclass system, yet that's a big part of the defense for the Paladin vs. Cleric argument.

5e is making the push to allow players to fill in their own narratives, and limiting ourselves to cliché tropes feels like a step backwards from that. It's a mentality that has been carried across from prior editions, because 5e doesn't really care. Heck, 5e has suggestions for ignoring the class requirements for the race-specific subclasses (bladesinger and battlerager) in SCAG, for creating your own spellbooks, for choosing the terms of your Warlock Pact, or what actually happens when you don't obey your Oath.

So my question is: Was it a good choice for 5e to push away from forced narratives, or is it better to maintain that culture (and all the expectations from it) from prior editions?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So my question is: Was it a good choice for 5e to push away from forced narratives, or is it better to maintain that culture (and all the expectations from it) from prior editions?

5e doesn't really push away from forced narratives. In fact, it enforces strong archetypes. There's a variety of such (and a trickster cleric is one of them that I'd expect because of trickster deities), but each archetype is pretty strong. In fact, the weakest class (ranger) is also the one with the weakest archetypal/mechanical link.

You don't need to keep expectations from previous editions (each edition is its own thing), but you do need internal expectations. 5e is not, and should not be (IMO) a "buffet"-style character-creation process. Point buy systems do that much better, and it doesn't fit the aesthetics of 5e at all.

[RedMage125]

This statement is a great way to start, but I'll take it from a different aspect.
*snip*
RedMage explained this very well, but I'll expand a bit:
*snip*

Thanks! And your explanation was great, too. A bit long-winded, but I tend to be verbose myself, so I wasn't complaining.



[Oath of] Ancients is mostly a Warden from 4e rewrapped into the Paladin class,
I view that one the same way as well! In my home campaign world, I even made my old 4e Warden groups Ancients Paladins.



Mechanically, the Sorcerer and the Warlock are very distinct; one uses metamagic to empower its spells, the other has invocations and pact magic that are distinct from arcane magic. However, fluff-wise, there's virtually no distinction between either of them. Their main distinction, and the only reason they're separate, is because one involves making a pact, and the other involves being born with that power. However, the Sorcerer by itself isn't as mechanically distinct as a Wizard, and only between 4e and 5e is that the Sorcerer had a degree of distinction, which isn't that much. I'd wager that the Warlock eats the Sorcerer's fluff before the Cleric and the Paladin do a fusion dance, because even the names evoke being essentially the same thing. As mentioned - note that the Sorcerer lacks a Fey or Fiendish Sorcerous Origin, and they had to be VERY careful to distinguish between the Celestial Patron and the Divine Soul Sorcerous Origin. (I.e., one involves making a pact with a celestial, and the other involves having a deity bless you from birth.) I find blending Sorcerer and Warlock a much better argument than blending Cleric and Paladin, and even then, they have merits as separate classes.


Fun note: during the 5e "D&DNext" playtest, one of the iterations had Sorcerers and Warlocks as subclasses to the same class. And another had them all be subsets of "Mage".

I like to distinguish between Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks by using the example of students taking a Math test. See, Wizards are the people who studied the material, understand it the way the teacher instructed, and can show all their work (and they do so). Sorcerers, OTOH, are people who for some reason just "get it". They see a complex equation, work it out in their head, and will come to the same answers the Wizard did, but they can't really show their work. They don't know why it's the right answer, they just know it is. Warlocks...are cheaters. They made a back-alley deal to get the answers to the test ahead of time, or they're blackmailing the teacher for them, or they're sleeping with the teacher (last 2 not mutually exclusive). Point is, they have the answers, but they don't even have an understanding of the material at all. They barely bother to even look at the questions, because they got the answers memorized in order.

[Witty Username]

I disagree that expectations of a class are...healthy? You do not think of a Warlock and see a healer, yet that's what led to our Celestial Warlock. You do not think of a Cleric and see a Trickster, yet we have a Trickery domain. You don't think Wizard and see a Swordsman, and that's our Bladesinger. Believing a Paladin must be like a Paladin doesn't seem to be healthy for the subclass system, yet that's a big part of the defense for the Paladin vs. Cleric argument.

5e is making the push to allow players to fill in their own narratives, and limiting ourselves to cliché tropes feels like a step backwards from that. It's a mentality that has been carried across from prior editions, because 5e doesn't really care. Heck, 5e has suggestions for ignoring the class requirements for the race-specific subclasses (bladesinger and battlerager) in SCAG, for creating your own spellbooks, for choosing the terms of your Warlock Pact, or what actually happens when you don't obey your Oath.

So my question is: Was it a good choice for 5e to push away from forced narratives, or is it better to maintain that culture (and all the expectations from it) from prior editions?

So, I think this has a few things I want to unpack.

First, Celestial Warlocks, Trickery Clerics, and Bladesinger Wizards are still Warlocks, Clerics, and Wizards. All of them have a base archetype that they use and the subclass attempts to file that down into a more specific concept within that archetype. We expect all Wizards to cast spells, first and foremost, and every subclass of wizard does that including the Bladesinger. This is why Eldritch Knight is a fighter subclass and not a Wizard subclass.

Second, pushing characters to make their own narratives? 5e tends to be more restrictive(the changes to feats and multi-classing are examples of this).

Third, replacing a class with a subclass reduces capacity for nuance. If paladin was made a subclass of cleric, we would lose the ability to choose an oath, gone would be the variations such as hard-nosed paladins of conquest or naturalistic paladins of the ancients. removing paladins as a class would create more forced narratives, not less.


'Woof'
I am not sure if there is much more to say on the topic with this as part of the discussion. and hi, thank you for all of your home brew.

[T.G. Oskar]

I disagree that expectations of a class are...healthy? You do not think of a Warlock and see a healer, yet that's what led to our Celestial Warlock. You do not think of a Cleric and see a Trickster, yet we have a Trickery domain. You don't think Wizard and see a Swordsman, and that's our Bladesinger. Believing a Paladin must be like a Paladin doesn't seem to be healthy for the subclass system, yet that's a big part of the defense for the Paladin vs. Cleric argument.

5e is making the push to allow players to fill in their own narratives, and limiting ourselves to cliché tropes feels like a step backwards from that. It's a mentality that has been carried across from prior editions, because 5e doesn't really care. Heck, 5e has suggestions for ignoring the class requirements for the race-specific subclasses (bladesinger and battlerager) in SCAG, for creating your own spellbooks, for choosing the terms of your Warlock Pact, or what actually happens when you don't obey your Oath.

So my question is: Was it a good choice for 5e to push away from forced narratives, or is it better to maintain that culture (and all the expectations from it) from prior editions?

It's a bit of both.

In one hand, there's value in having a unified vision of a class. A Fighter has to be capable of fighting. A Rogue should be good at thievery skills, because the name refers to it. A Cleric should do priestly duties, because the concept of a "cleric" is synonymous with that of a priest. The Paladin happens to have a strong vision of a warrior for Good, partly because of self-reference (it's arguably obvious that the concept of a Paladin as a "holy knight" is cemented mostly through D&D itself), partly because of bias from reference material (in other words, painting knights as paragons of Good), and partly because of external reference (consider Paladins in games like WoW, Ultima or Final Fantasy, or the concept of Templars in Dragon Age, Lords in Wizardry or Crusaders in Diablo III; note that, of course, these will end up referencing D&D as a source). Therefore, it's expected to have those classes come with fluff included.

On the other hand, breaking with the established fluff also has some value. It allows for different and varied interpretations of a same theme. The core 4 have it easy; there's different kinds of warriors, different specialties a rogue can focus on (not just being a thief; in fact, one of the big changes between 2e and 3e was to distance the Rogue from the Thief, allowing you to make more than just a criminal), it acknowledges that priests don't have to follow their deity the same way those of other deities can, and mages can specialize in one school, or as seen afterwards, a magical philosophy. (Wizards in this edition hearken to 2e, which had more than just the traditional eight schools of magic, including Alchemy, Geometry and Song Magic; they just haven't tapped into those schools, instead focusing on War Magic and Bladesong) Others, like the Paladin, have it a bit harder; their fluff has some strong traction, and making different knights and warriors sworn to oaths was, in my opinion, a challenge; yet, they succeeded in making different interpretations of a Paladin other than a "holy knight". The Gray Guard (which essentially survived in the Oath of Vengeance, in a way) helped pave the way. Thus, a Paladin can be a traditional knight errant, or a vigilante, or a conqueror, or even an emissary of peace.

The thing is, there are overlaps because there may be more than one way to interpret a classic archetype. The Cavalier, for example, is a Martial Archetype; however, the Paladin could make a solid Cavalier, so an oath that gives it advantages and powers with mounts (and Find Steed as a free spell) is possible, and it'd still be different from the Cavalier archetype as presented by the Fighter. This reflects the idea that the Cavalier concept can be played well with a man at arms (as the Fighter is supposed to represent) as well as a knight (which the Paladin is supposed to represent), except each class will add its own twist. The Cavalier archetype of the Fighter is a more traditional warrior and tank that only marginally uses a mount in combat (it has advantages with it, but doesn't force you to be mounted to use all your features), while the Oath that represents the Cavalier archetype for the Paladin could focus more on the mounted aspect, since the steed is much stronger and the Paladin's features help support that concept a bit better. By doing so, you can entirely reinterpret one aspect that would be very specific otherwise (say, a holy warrior) and repackage it on another (say, the Zealot path of the Barbarian, which is indeed a "holy warrior" in all aspects). However, it depends entirely on the mechanics the class brings.

Warlock with Healer powers? Sure, the Celestial has a very solid variant of Lay on Hands, and has healing spells, but it also has the ability to boost the damage of fire and radiant spells (and you get access to cantrips that do both), and have an awesome "get out of death" card - it's not the "healer version of a Warlock", but a reinterpretation of what the Warlock can do. (That said, the Sorcerer's Divine Soul plays two aspects; as you mention, an origin that grants solid healing to a Sorcerer, as well as complete access to divine magic, but also repackages the Favored Soul into a sensible and much more potent package.) Trickery Domain? It focuses more on illusions than on thievery, which fits more the concept of a trickster, but in the end, it still has access to healing spells and buffs and overtly destructive spells. Bladesinger? Yes, it fights quite well (Extra Attack, Bladesong making you a very solid frontliner in terms of damage and defenses), but in the end, you're still a spellcaster. In the end, it's the class that defines what you can do, and the class has a fluff that will be present no matter what. Certainly, I'd have dropped Turn Undead as the Channel Divinity power that all Clerics have access to, if only because it only makes sense for some kinds of clerics (mainly, those devoted to Life, Light, or whose deities abhor undead; that can include Nature, for example). But, the class has Turn Undead as the default Cleric Channel Divinity power, and it's for a reason; as a sacred cow, TU pretty much defines one of the cleric's main traits. (The other being having access to the best healing spells, barring Healing Spirit.) In the end, subclasses can only deviate one class from their defining fluff that much, but it helps by giving you the tools to reinvent that character. (Multiclass is the other valuable tool.)

So, when I say "a bit of both", I mean this: I like the design paradigm of 5e classes, in that they are narrow enough to have their own definition, but with enough options to play a variety of builds and stories that can deviate. It helps that builds don't feel the same (in a way), whether they use the same class or not. It's good that subclasses feel distinct, but if you go too far, you end up with three classes and a ton of subclasses with a lot more restraints. Look at what the Dragon Age RPG did with specializations so you get a clue of what I mean. There's only three classes, and you get a lot of talents and specializations to diversify your build, but the design itself restrains a lot of what they can do. (The Templar suffers from this in a way.)