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.