|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 3:26PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2011
|
Aren't Priests and Paladins basically the same class?
I don't understand, and haven't since the beginning in 1e. Priests are holy warriors who wear mid-heavy armor and can use melee weapons and heal and cast buffing spells.
Paladins are holy warriors who cast spells and can heal in melee combat.
They seem exactly the same to me. In early D&D, they were even more similar, both wore heavy armor and shields, and were in melee combat. Sure, Paladins cast fewer spells back then, but they were still basically the same type of character.
Now, they're even MORE similar. Depending on how you spec your priest, you are basically an armored, holy warrior.
I'm not JUST questioning what the differences are based on mechanics, I'm wondering why both of these classes even exist. D&D just has two different core classes that have the exact same concept. They're both warriors fighting for their gods, often times in incredibly similar ways.
I've been playing D&D for about 21 years now, and while I have played both classes extensively, I still don't understand why they are two classes.
It seems that they should just be different builds of the same class.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I the only one who has this question?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 3:28PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
Ones a defender who dabbles in healing, ones a healer with a good AC.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
Show
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales." "see sig" redirects here
Show
Oblivious troll is Oblivious PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important.
There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level.
Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition. You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 3:30PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
SImilar concepts, radically different mechanics.
The Paladin is a defender, who protects his squishier allies with the threat of divine vengeance. The Cleric (not Priest) is a Leader, who heals and buffs his allies, and is commonly a squishy ally of defenders.
However, there's definitely a strong argument to my mind for an overall Divine class (and similarly for other power sources) which could then be further subdivided into roles, and different treatments and feels thereof (e.g. the Blackguard and the Avenger are both Divine Strikers, but with very different mechanics and feel in play).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 3:47PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2011
|
The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.
And Clerics don't have to be squishy at all. A huge number of the cleric's powers are melee powers and require high strength. With a single feat, you can have good armor.
But that's all mechanics. Most core classes are at least based on different concepts.
In fact, if you will remember, the Druid was originally just a subset of cleric. There seemed to be a good reason to split them off into completely separate classes. Blackguard and Avenger may both be Divine strikers, but at least they have different concepts.
There still is no answer as to why Clerics and Paladins are essentially the same.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 3:48PM
#5
|
|
|
I've always thought that the PHB1 split stat divine classes were a hashup. Paladin should have been your STR based warrior type and cleric should have been your WIS based divine miracle worker type. I never understood why it was not done that way. That would have basically done away with the 'overlap' between clerics and paladins that has always existed and given each one a single clear archetype to be built on. Clerics are your preacher types, your Von Helsings, the wielders of direct divine power. The paladin is then free to be the divinely inspired devout warrior who's combat prowess is enhanced by faith.
And yes, this oversplitting and overlapping has existed since 1e. Basically the original OD&D cleric was all of these things, but for whatever peculiar reason (an attempt at class balance basically) meant that the original cleric was peculiarly limited to weapons that didn't really let you make a 'paladin', thus another class was invented, but it was never really that distinct conceptually. The mechanics were different, but with 4e's move to more consistent mechanics even this difference got reduced a lot.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 4:04PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2008
|
The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.
Because it is not the exact same concept, they are SIMILAR concepts, with a common origin.
From a real world perspective :
Paladin is closer to the Knights Templar in concept. a holy warrior highly trained in combat
Cleric is a member of the cergy. More focused on connecting to their diety, with less martial training.
In fact if you go back to 1st and 2nd editions the difference becomes incredibly clear if you actually read the classes and look at the differences in what the do.
Though in 4e it is basically just renaming the different source/role combinations.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 4:05PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
Clerics are roughly based upon the Knights Hospitaler or Knights Templar. Paladins are roughly based upon Charlemagne's Paladins or the Knights of the Round Table.
Yep, the concepts are very close.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 4:09PM
#8
|
|
|
paladins are warriors, clerics are combat medics
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 4:17PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
The main problem is that I don't understand why they even invented the two different classes then they are EXACTLY the same concept.
And Clerics don't have to be squishy at all. A huge number of the cleric's powers are melee powers and require high strength. With a single feat, you can have good armor.
But that's all mechanics. Most core classes are at least based on different concepts.
In fact, if you will remember, the Druid was originally just a subset of cleric. There seemed to be a good reason to split them off into completely separate classes. Blackguard and Avenger may both be Divine strikers, but at least they have different concepts.
There still is no answer as to why Clerics and Paladins are essentially the same.
Squishiness is about more than just AC. Sure, Clerics can get good AC. Paladins can get good AC, good NADs, Heavy Shields, Plate armour, substantial THP generation on a per-encounter basis, and more crucially, have substantially more Hit Points and Healing Surges. Being hard to hit doesn't stop you being squishy, it just stops you being squished as often.
And yeah, if you call 'divine warrior' a concept, then yeah, Paladins and Clerics are similar. However, I'd call the concept of Paladin 'Divine Protector', and the concept of Cleric 'Divine Healer'. We could split hairs about it all day - it wouldn't change the fact that the differences are primarily mechanical, in how the play in combat, metagame in nature, rather than conceptual, story-based, in-world. In-world, there might be little to tell between a paladin and a cleric in terms of how they seem, how they act.
You seem to be setting the goalposts so that they cannot but be the same.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 08, 2012 - 5:00PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
I think another aspect is how the respective classes represent their god. The Paladin is a champion, whereas the Priest/Cleric is more of a representative. The Paladin shows his god is awesome through example; killing evil things and whatnot. The Priest/Cleric shows his god is awesome through intercession; calling upon the power of his god to heal people/kill people/change the land/feed people/whatever.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
