The problem with CLERICS and PALADINS - fantasy re-armed
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- In fantasy TTRPG games like Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) and Pathfinder we find character classes of Clerics and Paladins. Though they are different classes they have many similarities. Shad talks about their weapons, spells, their historical basis, similarities and differences.
If you like the content and want to support the channel, you're welcome to support us through playeUr, Subscribe Star, become a channel member here on TH-cam or through Patreon:
PlayeUr: utreon.com/c/s...
Subscribe star: www.subscribes...
Become a member: / @shadiversity
Patreon: / shadbrooks
If you're interested in a great and super affordable katanas take a look at the Spring steel Katana from Romance of Men: romanceofmen.c...
Subscribe to my website so you don't miss an upload:
www.shadiversi...
www.honorguard...
www.shadmbrook...
Tyranth Channel:
@ScreenTested
Come check out my other channels!
THE SHADLANDS: / @theshadlands1142
KNIGHTS WATCH: / knightswatch
My novel, Shadow of the Conqueror Audio Book affiliate links:
US: www.audible.co...
Ebook, Paperback and Hardcover available from most major book retailers, here are a few of the main ones:
Amazon affiliate link (be sure to navigate to your country's amazon site):
amzn.to/2XErUaR
Visit Calimacil for the best replica foam swords and LARP weapons including my sword IMPERIOUS: calimacil.com/...
#medievalfantasy #monk #diablo4 #fantasy #dnd #d&d #matialarts
![[UNCUT] ขยี้ "อลิส" ปม "คลิปลับแตงโม" เปิดชื่อคนพยายามแฮก "มือถือแตงโม" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์I 10ก.พ.68](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_RPLEIi5Sz8/mqdefault.jpg)
paladin cuts you down then thanks god, cleric thanks god then cut you down
love this!
I was just gonna say that a paladin can have 18/00 Strength, uses the parenthetical numbers on the constitution table, improves their THAC0 every level, and can only start casting spells at level 9. And a cleric doesn't do any of that lol.
Cleric is the mum who band aids you after the bullies pick on you. Paladin is the dad who sees to it there will be no further need for band aids.
Only that clerics doesn't cut you, they smash you
😂
Paladin that gives vow of silence is always Christmas themed. He is silent knight, holy knight...
because all is calm, and all is bright.
Thing with maces is that skeleton undead are the basic adversary for clerics. And dnd'wise, blunt weaponry is more effective against skeletons than stabbing weapons
Clerics deal with the unholy at home, knights go on the hunt for unholy away from home…maybe idk lol
Also clerics aren't supposed to be trained fighter (unless they worship a god of war), so it make sense for them to carry a weapon that is durable, easy to access and overall efficient. Though I really like the pathfinder idea of wielding the iconic weapon of your deity.
To my knowledge, this is the best reasoning for a mace. They are simply very effective against skeletons, and cheap to replace. In regards to why a cleric would avoid two-handed weapons, it's often because shields are too valuable to pass on. The ideal place for a cleric is midrange where they can support the whole party, therefore more emphasis is placed on their protection from ranged attacks than their effectiveness in melee.
I always assumed that it was linked to the idea of drawing blood... Based on an old English story about vikings invading, and monks claiming that it would be wrong to spill their blood, and so the vikings clubbed them to death... Admittedly in the wrong direction, but just an association that I have with clerics and blunt weapons.
@joshdixon9369 , I came here to say something like that ! lol , I thought it was the monks who wouldn't draw blood, and would use maces instead.
05:00 - Blunt weapons for clerics. Because the writings are quite specific about killing but somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.
Best priestman ever.
i still want to know how a clergyman knows so much about crime...............................................................
@@stevendubin3584 all the confessions he has heard
@@stevendubin3584 in Firefly, there is a shepard
More to do with shedding blood I'd think.
The historical reason the clergy didn't use cutting or stabbing weapons in battle is because they made *a vow to not spill blood.* That's why bishop Odo of Bayeux is depicted using a wooden club on the Bayeux tapestry for instance.
Sounds like a reasonable reason why they use maces in fantasy.
Have you seen what a mace does to a watermelon… juice definitely plops out 😅
That was his walk around but I am not a fan of literal interpretations as excuses. Priests that have NOT sworn any "do not spill blood" should not be holden to his oath.
@@ASoberBear True, the watermelon army is screwed
They also had a connection to the shepherd's rod, which was a shorter stick carried with the staff.
D&D's Paladin was originally a rather limited sub-class of Fighter, gaining holy power and knightly prestige based on faithfulness to their oath while Clerics have been more along the lines of healers, priests, and exorcists. Because of that Paladins are now akin to Fighters that forego combat feats for a bag of divine tricks to keep the frontline moving and on their feet and all manner of unholy forces at-bay.
Clerics having to deal with hordes of undead (like skeletons) means they usually stick with something that's as good for breaking bones as the Cleric can mend them with magic. Not to mention that Disruption, a magical weapon ability designed for taking the un- out of the undead, was only eligible for bludgeoning weapons.
It still doesn't explain why clerics cannot use bladed weapons. It would be fine if they could, but less efficiently than paladins and warriors.
@@OldSkullSoldier "It would be fine if they could, but less efficiently than paladins and warriors" THEY ALREADY CAN.
Why people keep sustaining these false claims while obviously refusing to actually read the rules is beyond me (the core rules are available completely free, money excuses are a complete lie. Take a few minutes and actually read the rules! Stop being lazy and relying on the DM to know everything and show you actually care about the game. Your DM will absolutely appreciate having a competent player at the table).
There is a world of difference between "Cannot use a sword" and "Is not Proficient (ie: particularly well-trained) with a sword/other weapon and so has a slightly lower chance of harming the target". D&D explicitly allows all characters to use all weapons, armor, and tools regardless of proficiency. How well they do is just augmented by their proficiency bonus or not.
(note: some specific situations may require proficiency with a tool to attempt to use that tool in that particular instance, but if a DM is competent/not a jerk then that will not be the regular rule but simply indicating that the situation is simply requires a minimum level of training).
Every class absolutely can use every single weapon, some are just better at landing a damaging blow with it than others.
And that's why the feat "Martial Weapon Training" exists, for those that care more about having additional weapon options rather than maximizing the powers their class already specializes in. (The same applies to Skills and Tools, with appropriate Feats.) If a Cleric/Wizard/etc wants to branch out they can but it comes at the (honestly low) cost of not getting that +2 stat boost or more focused feat.
Sorry, got a bit triggered by the number of repetitions in the comments sections about "clerics CAN'T use swords".
@@JarieSuicune That rule is the evolution from editions where clerics were absolutely forbidden from using swords.
D&D's Paladin was originally a rather limited sub-class of Fighter, gaining holy power and knightly prestige based on faithfulness to their oath while Clerics have been more along the lines of healers, priests, and exorcists.
show us please
I always saw Paladin as a specialized implementation of a dual class Fighter/Cleric, as that trope was really popular.
I always envisaged clerics as the medieval version of an evangelist crossed with an inquisitor. Their faith is so great they have direct communication with their god, who grants them miracles. They will defend and spread their faith through word, deed, and the face of a hammer.
A paladin is mire like a crusader, the knights templar. They are the gods chosen soldiers, where the clerics spread the faith, the paladins defend it.
I agree. I've always related Paladins to the Knights Templar; Arthurian Knights, too.
Paladin Paladins of Charlemagne, Knights of the round table
EXACTLY MY THOUGHTS!!!
Everything Shad suggests only works in a monotheistic setting. Once multiple gods get involved suddenly pacifism for clerics falls apart since one devoted to the blood god needs to be violent.
Shad just happens to be a monotheistic guy. and you make a good point. not every religion works the same.
Simple. Leeches.
'Pacifist' blood god cleric: "I see your bleeding, I'll heal you by giving you more blood, albeit no more platelets for clotting. Oh, the bleeding has gotten worse; well that isn't my fault, I didn't reduce your number of platelets; I just didn't give you any more than you already had, I am a non-violent helpful guy and you were low on blood, you can't make good art if you already bled out."
Exactly what I was thinking, especially in the context of D&D, what of players who want to worship Shar, Bhaal, Myrkul, Bane, Cyric, Hoar, Loviatar, Tiamat, etc. And I'm pretty sure neutral-alinged gods like Mystra, Oghma and Garl Glittergold would be okay with killing as long as it is in their best interests.
You mentioned blood God so I have to.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!!! ALL HELL KHORNE!!!
In a game where fights happen all the time, if a class's identity is about non-violence, you are going to have a lot of people avoid the class or just agree to ignore that unless you can somehow make buffing allies or controlling the battlefield without doing harm as fun as actually blasting an enemy with a ray of holy light or running around with spirits that attack all you approach
Feels like some sort of spirit shackles holding an enemy in place would make sense.
Or spells that induce weakness (reduced damage/Str rolls).
A blinding light that emanates from the staff and temporarily blinds all in its radius.
Spells that aren't technically hurting them, but will absolutely help your party hurt them.
Kind of an "I didn't shoot you I just loaded the gun" kind of thing.
"unless you can somehow make... controlling the battlefield without doing harm as fun as actually blasting..."
It's learned. When I first played the "God Wizard" (as it's known), I cast Create Pit and then let all my allies stab the enemies from the top of the pit with spears while I laughed. After the battle they completely memory-holed the, well, hole I created and boasted about their damage numbers and I felt _so smug_ thinking to myself how much harder it would've been without me because they normally just rush at thing 1, pound it to death, rush at thing 2, pound that to death, etc etc.
When you play a buffer or battlefield control you have to keep track of the bonus damage you've applied to allies. I'm a little more experienced with the buffing side of things and how many times allies hit when they otherwise wouldn't because you gave them +2 to hit on a roll or two is outstanding, and people remember the buffs you do somewhat moreso than the difficult terrain you make around enemies
Take raids in MMORPGs for example. There are few things more satisfying in knowing that as a healer, though you're doing little damage to the enemy, the raid would be literally impossible without you. You can sacrifice a single assassin or wizard, it'll just take longer to kill the boss. But without a healer you have no raid.
"I'm not fighting, I'm helping people find the LORD. First class to Heaven."
@@shadowpathfinder7723 Reminds me of my old man Dwarf character.
I spend all campaign healing and buffing and making the party laugh with my roleplay, never really fighting or anything, just supporting (as was my character's goal in the first place; help some youngsters be the adventurers he himself never got to be) and I fully enjoyed myself.
In combat I never did anything flashy or particularly damaging (not counting making my allies deal far more damage and be able to focus all their energy on killing as I kept them in tip top shape) but then we encountered a dragon.
The party couldn't reach this flying thing, and so I stepped up, 1 simple wave of my hands and glowing magical chains yanked the beast down from the sky and completely immobilized it so the youngsters could hack it to pieces.
Such a great badass moment.
And yes, a binding spell is still JUST support.
To this day, that character is a fan favorite that is implemented as an NPC in their campaigns, while the hacky slashy blasty characters are all but forgotten.
This was not a problem in old-school D&D.
I grew up with 2nd edition, and they provided a brief description of the historical or mythological inspiration for each class to give players a bit of direction. Originally, clerics were WAY less priestly and magical, and were described as being based on holy orders such as the Templar Knights. Paladins were described as being inspired by the chivalric knights of Arthurian legend, the Knights of the Round Table, who were also very religious, but not clergy like the Templars.
Modern gaming and pop culture have embraced more magic, and pushed paladins into the Templar-inspired role of the clerics. This then leaves clerics being either the exact same as paladins, or encourages them to be more of a mage or priest than a warrior-monk.
I really like the 5e differentiation where Paladins took a turn for ideological representation rather than specific religious representation. I think that keeps them aligned to religious ideas but thematically differentiates them from Clerics who are direct religious representatives.
@@bryannorris8049 See it's funny because I'm firmly in the opposite camp. Paladins just getting a slew of magical divine power because they swear some arbitrary oath with no actual religious element is so far beyond weird for a medieval fantasy setting to me. It strikes me as this post-modern, anti-religious 'cleansing' of all dah evil religionz' from the game step by step. "I'm going to smite you with the power of friendship" just doesn't feel like the same thing as "By the grace of the Lord, I send you now to God to face divine judgement for your sinful existence." But at this point I've become a grognard who plays AD&D, so what do I know. Enjoy your goofy hair colors and aggressively bisexual tieflings. You have fun at your table your way.
@@CMacK1294 AD&D is where I spent most of my gaming. I have that problem with the 5e cleric description, that you can have a non-divine source of your divine power. However, I like the option to connect the paladin oath with something other than the divine. I think it has broadened the class. All of the oath options can be played just like you described. My paladin power comes directly from a deity and everything is in that deity's service, but alternatively I could level up into the guy who hands Gawain an axe, or I could build out an Oath of Vengeance Batman picking spells that I can flavor as non-magical, or I can build the knight of the realm whose supernatural abilities are granted by the kingdom's mages, clerics, and/or divine patron for services directly to the realm. But thinking about building a paladin I certainly would pick a deity and an oath fitting for that deity and build to that.
Personally I find the idea of a paladin drawing their power straight from the oath to be kind of meh. Cool idea to draw power from a deeply made promise, but I feel it has weird implications for dnd specifically.
Like what are you swearing the oath too if not a diety? What entity holds you responsible to your oath? If you break you're oath, what is taking your power away? With the current system I feel like I could justify my oath staying intact for example if I break it, but I don't believe I've broken it. Let's say a paladin is deluded into genuinely believing he hasn't broken his oath when he has, logically if the power is coming from his promise and not from a divine source, he shouldn't lose his power no matter how much he breaks his oath.
The modern idea of a paladin in dnd only works logically if you have a diety acting as the rules lawyer for the oath.
@@DragonGunzDorian I don't see the oath as the source. I see the oath as essentially the cosmic ruleset for granting power. 5e opens the source up to more options. Any entity or organization of sufficient power could grant the class features through the oath ruleset. Some earlier editions even struggled with the idea of breaking the archetype with evil deities being the power source. All the oaths in 5e work well with one deity or another in the published pantheons as a power source; there are just more options than that. Oath of ancients is a great addition which looks like a classic archetype with a deep literary basis that has nothing to do with the crusader image of a paladin or even a specific divine source and it captures that really well.
2 epiosodes of Fantasy re-Armed in one month, let's gooo
There's another one 😮😮😮
Paladin being unable to heal would be interesting, but my Druid shall not give up his healing.
Also to a Druid, their healing magic does come from the divine, be that nature itself or a nature god. Besides they have connections to the fae & old legends of hermits / Druids healing others.
Also it’d be a hard sell to get many players to play a character that can’t attack anything. As well as the dubious nature of a pacifist saying I won’t hit you, but let me restrain you with a spell so my friends can.
Nevertheless I’m glad you’re doing more of these fantasy discussions again.
Previous editions had less healing options. 5e improved things by giving it to more classes and also added additional rest healing mechanics so that someone wasn't stuck being the healer or at least the sole healer.
About the topic of Druid and healing: I like the seperation of "instant" heals for Clerics and "Heal over time" for Druids (like it is done in the Pillars of Eternity games).
A Cleric/Priest using the power granted by their god to help directly, while a Druid would maybe accelerate the persons natural recovery to keep it "natural".
About the main topic: Clerics wearing heavy or even "medium" armor was always weird to me, that should be reserved only for Cleric/Warrior Multiclass or Clerics of a War/Fighting God.
Them wearing light armor and having some fighting prowess to balance out their Spellcasting as compared to the Paladin would make more sense in my Opinion. There is a reason why many people consider Clerics a broken class, they can basically do everything, depending on their deity.
@@Gamersoul1That could be a work around for the healing, though to my original point, a Druids source of power could also be divine in a sense.
They are priests of nature.
As for limiting a cleric’s armor & weapon options, they should be more limited than a fighter or Paladin.
I think the best way to think of the difference between Paladin and Cleric is a Paladin Protects and a Cleric Heals. Also i think completely removing healing spells from a paladin will canibalse his motif, with the Paladin operating as essentially a battlefield Medic who will heal you enough to keep you alive, but you have to see a Cleric afterwards, or can keep a wounded soldier alive long enough to get to the cleric.
I wonder *if* Shad knows of Dragon Quest series, there's *no* paladin class in any of games with a job system, just pilgrim/cleric/priest who can use limited variety of weapons and mainly healing spells.
Also, being the frontline that they are: Paladins often end up using their healing magic on themselves. Paladins put themselves in danger so that others don't have to be in danger... Often knowing that they can heal themselves afterward.
How many games can you even name like that?
I've only played two games (both video, not even one tabletop is like this) where paladins actually protect as a priority and clerics actually heal as a priority.
The difference between Paladin and Cleric is that Clerics are *9th-level Divine Spellcasters* that still somehow get 3/4 BaseAttackBonus and Paladins are warriors that get to be immune to all trickery except lying/feints for their faith. In Shad's D&D 3.5 example Paladins have "the divine spark" within themselves and are lore-wise essentially quasi-gods who can become demi-gods and eventually full-on gods through maintaining purity in their trials, whereas Clerics receive their powers from a god and their soul is filled with that god's quintessence so that when they die that become a more powerful outsider in several thousand years.
Really a sufficiently high-level Paladin should be able to become a good-aligned Patron for Warlocks and such
I disagree is the best way since you can have evil clerics that usually take harm instead of heal. Main difference is Clerics magic comes from a diety or something more powerful than them where as Paladins their magic comes from themselves. This is mentioned in the rules that Paladins although they usually follow a god they don't have to as their powers come from their own faith which is also why they use Charisma for spellcasting.
I might be a tad biased here, seeing how i was a druid healer for almost 10 years in Everquest. But druids are perfectly fine as healers, as they use the soothing touch of mother nature herself to keep their allies alive. She can be a caring mother tending to her children, or a force of unparalleled destruction to her enemies.
Clerics also spend a lot of time fighting against undead which is probably a big part of the reason they usually use blunt weapons
The blunt weapon thing is pretty redicules in my opinion. But many fantasy systems have got stuck on blunt for clerics.
Things get confusing there when the Cleric is one who follows the Death Domain of their god, because the Death Domain Cleric is just as likely to raise their own undead, as they are to destroy some other guy's undead.
@@zacharycunningham7669 Just treat it as a competition thing. My death god is bigger and better than your death god! XD
Also I think there are some gods of death in D&D who do not like the undead as they are an affront to the balance of life and death. Might to look it up again.
@@zacharycunningham7669 Symbolism can also be a factor. Maces have often served as symbols of authority (they do look similar to scepters), and cleric could use them as a symbol that they're wielding the authority of their god.
As I recall, the blunt-weapon rule was largely inspired by (Christian) religious strictures which prohibit a priest from shedding blood, in order to keep themselves ritually 'clean' for their duties at the Communion ritual (and dodge the obvious conflict between preaching mercy and whacking people in ordinary war). In medieval times, clergy - especially nobility appointed to be bishops with feudal duties in war - wielded blunt weapons because they supposedly didn't cut flesh open to shed blood, like swords and axes.
Between the oddities of medieval thinking, and the DnD version of polyglot polytheism, it doesn't make much sense.
One thing to consider with a vow of non-violence is that dnd is typically a polytheistic setting, with the gods as varied as the people, and by extension, their clerics also as varied; and while the idea of an evil cleric still being bound to such a vow is certainly interesting, it gets really messy with certain cleric/god archetypes (god of war or death or assassins etc.)
This and it's very hard to play a pure support character that never uses offense at all. It's a struggle if everyone else is doing big damage and you just don't. The need to be a badass sometimes is something that even the support wants
death why?
god of death is an interesting one based on setting, in Forgotten Realms, there is Kelemvor, god of ‘the dead’, Lawful Neutral; compared to Myrkul, god of ‘death’, Neutral Evil. A cleric of Kelemvor could definitely have such a vow, a cleric of Myrkul on the other hand…
(Also d&d 5e has both ‘grave’ and ‘death’ domain clerics, ‘grave’ being the more shepherd of the dead, while ‘death’ is typically the more aggressive, active bringer of death)
@@TTDundee and undeath
In theory you could also get creative with what is 'non-violence' with some vows being less semantically limiting depending on which deity. Hitting you directly is violence, healing the barbarian so they can hit you is 'non-violence'. Pretty standard. But what if you heal a monster that was about to eat them. Or you heal a parasite that is sucking their life away. Can you heal bacteria that their immune system is fighting? What about healing a cancerous tumor in them? Is healing someone so they can be exposed to more 'enhanced interrogation techniques' considered violence? That will likely depend on the deity's and religion's semantics.
Utilize an ability that allows your deity to judge those in front of you? Well that isn't your magic stealing away their life force, it is your deity's, and it wasn't your judgement that they would be harmed; your deity decided that and acted on it. Not your fault that everyone you let your deity judge ends up withering away.
A cleric’s day job is tending the masses and evangelising about god, paladins are pious knights
In AD&D the priests are a bit of a missing class. Clerics are supposed to be wearing armour. The robe wearing variant running temples are just Clerics in cloth. However apperantly, as I stumbled on in the lore pure "priests" are indeed religious leaders but then do not need to have any spellcasting abilities at all.
@@michaelpettersson4919 It may vary in older editions, but clerics are the servants of their gods and act according to the will of their god. Most gods due not use their clerics merely for evangelizing. Cleric are mediums for exerting the god' power outside of their native realms. A god of life would much rather have their cleric go forth and wipe all undeath from the world then tell people they should hate the undead. When people of faith pray for divine intervention from their gods, the clerics are that divine intervention.
@@valkronis1863 Hench cleric. A stay at home at the temple running things would be a priest. They can do the preaching part. There are little use for those as player characters however.
Well yes as well as cleaning the necropolis and crypts of undead throughout their churches range. Paladins are the grand army of the church and may be pious to a fault but isn't as much of a requirement as it is for the clerics.
@@xyreniaofcthrayn1195 Indeed. Paladins are often far more pious as they exist to uphold and protect the tenets of their faith. Their power is the reward for their piousness. While paladins are the blessed warriors of their faith, clerics are the conduit for the god's will and power. It may be better to view a cleric not as someone that follows the doctrine of their faith but as a mortal that is willingly being possessed by a god. This means that a deity can basically offer their power to any person so long as they obey the god's will.
This is why paladins are the priests of the faith that are given divine protection by taking up the sword to defend said faith. Clerics on the other hand are the god's chosen. They don't receive their power because of their own faith or devotion, they receive it because the god wills it so.
Nice I want more of this! This was one of the biggest reason I subbed :) and monster rearm/ tactics fighting them
I think the number of people that would just go full healbot willingly is very very low. And with healing magic practically locked behind the cleric someone would have to pick it anyway. That was a major problem with old systems, someone was gonna need to do something they don't like.
For stories, books, movies, games where 1 player controls multiple characters, this is usually already the distinction of Paladins and Clerics, and it works.
Yeah they kinda overtuned the Cleric and even the Druid because people wanted to fight instead of just heal. Which is fair but they did it the wrong way.
Yeah, also the vow of non-violence doesn't quite make sense for every deity, evil deities for one but also a more neutral/good war god for example.
I tend to really like the full support playstyle, but I understand those who hate it.
@@X-Vidar that's a very interesting point, and I think I have a solution. Depending on the nature of the god they serve, lies the spells they aquire. If they serve the god of war, then they would naturally not heal, but incapacitate, debuff and even inflict a curse of wrath, which makes their enemy fight among themselves, effectively creating more conflict. Hence the power of the god of war.
@@MeriliremI get that, but sometimes, you can only go so far before you break the philosophy of a class. A druid is basically a hermit that wants nothing to do with civilization, because he's already earned the title of king of the forest. His role pertains more in protecting his territory, than in fighting other people's wars. I'd be fine if a cleric had some binding, and buffing skills. You can even take a loophole with their vows, making their guardian angel a familiar that protects the cleric, as the cleric is now a cherished vessel of light and grace, deemed worthy. You can balance this, by making the angel as strong as the cleric's faith, and letting faith points be their level up mechanic.
I personally enjoy the difference with gods and oaths. It allows a character to be directly fueled by ideals. These ideals could of course lead you to a god. However, in my games, I prefer some general vibes but mostly the freedom to make the vows or dedications myself. Paladin is my favorite class so I'm bias and I admit that. The paladin being a character who believes in something and not just a God to guide them has always appealed to me.
Paladin is a warrior first and man of faith second. Cleric is a man of faith first and warrior second.
Yes incredibly simple
Nope
Paladin is more devoted to their faith than a cleric, by far. If you havent read 1st edition AD&D you are in the dark
@@BearfootBob you seem to think d and d matter. They don't.
@@minecraftfox4384 nice troll attempt kid
I play 5e and I find that there are enough distinctions between the two classes for me. Especially with all the different Oaths not even necessarily being of "divine" nature. Some oaths don't include the use of gods, but ideals, or other things. Like the popular Oath of Vengeance class,, or the Oath of the Watchers and Oath of the Ancients.
In my homebrew world, I use these paladin oaths to act as different orders. The Oath of the Watchers, for example, is an order that works to keep extra-dimensional threats at bay as per the class' function. The Oath of the Ancients would assist druids and even the Hunters Guild (which regulates the hunting of monster and animals alike).
Some paladin oaths would work with the clerics and those orders like the Oath of Devotion and Redemption would act as the Templar Knights of our own history.
My favorite Oath is "Oath of Conquest"!
About 3-4 years ago I created 12 different lvl 1 characters in case I found a suitable group (which I unfortunately haven't yet).
1 of whom is: A Chaotic Neutral Anthropologist background Female Astral Elf Paladin planning Oath of Conquest.
Ooooh i love the Dragon Lance chronicles! I had the entire series but i was stupid enough to sell it... One of my biggest regrets
Oof.
What *possessed* thou to sell an entire series.
Also, Oof.
I feel like with DnD specifically, you can flavor it however you like. Your choice of class is really just your rules your playing. This is all up to your creativity and world. That is what I love about DnD, it is a type of art in characters. It gives you the tools to make them and guidelines in flavoring, but in the end it is up to you on how you want your character to be. As far as pacificism goes, a good support cleric knows how to utilize sanctuary, which essentially allows you to focus solely on healing and other support and commit to not attacking. But in the end let people play their characters as they would like. A druid could easily access healing "magic" through herbs and medicinal plants, same goes for rangers. Although what would be better is if it were a separate feature than magic for both the druids and rangers, essentially giving you an alternate method like the paladins lay on hands but for herbs and salves. As is though, I would just reflavor their "magic" as just that.
Nice episode, I think the general old school depiction was that clerics were holy healers, they could pick up a weapon to defend themselves, but they were primarily a healing/support class with minor martial elements, and the paladins were the opposite. (But with newer ones editions of dnd and subclasses like war cleric this distinction fell away)
A Multiclassed Dwarven Fighter/Cleric could easily outlevel a pure Cleric or pure Fighter back in the day.
Just as a Multiclassed Elven Fighter/Mage would do similar.
Thats the one issue i have here, shad is taking d&ds version of the modern cleric as the standard, where-as i find clerics in fantasy more often relate to the priest archetype (cloth wearing holy magic user).
@@daemonbane1 Clerics in Fantasy are strictly a D&D creation!
Especially if we're talking the Holy Crusader Archetype that Gygax went with right from the get go!
Other Fantasy tends to go with Druids or Monks....Both of which have D&D equivalents that are separate from the Cleric we're talking about!
Just take the Cleric's HP and ThacO vs that of a Wizard/Magic User - D8 vs D4, To Hit getting better every two levels vs every 5 levels!
Clerics got higher HP than Rogues and Bards {D6}!
Clerics were always MEANT to be TANKS! There to stand alongside the Fighter/Barbarian etc. NOT sit at the back! It was the Wizard at the back with the Rogue trying to sneak round behind the enemy!
I wonder *if* Shad knows of Dragon Quest series, there's *no* paladin class in any of games with a job system, just pilgrim/cleric/priest who can use limited variety of weapons and mainly healing spells.
The thing about "newer editions" - and D&D (or Wizards of the Coast) in general - is that it is all about the money. They make money by sell things like source books, guides, campaigns, etc (or the licensing fees). As long as they keep the basic rules (i.e., edition) the same, DMs and players can keep using their old stuff. But, as soon as they come out with a new edition - 3, 3.5, 4.5, 5, 5.5 - everyone, DMs and players alike - must throw out the old & buy all new stuff. That is the main reason why they do it.
Admittedly, I didn't start playing D&D until after 5e came out, but I like the idea that there are a variety of classes that are very similar, save for one or two defining features. Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks all cast arcane spells, but the difference is in HOW they go about acquiring their power, and that difference is then reflected in the game mechanics for each class. For Clerics and Paladins, the question isn't "what weapons can you use," it's "In whom do you put your faith?" The Cleric is devoted to a deity, where the Paladin is devoted to an ideal.
The Cleric doesn't need to swear an oath or abide by rules and regulations. They simply need to act within the tenets of their chosen faith, channeling the power of their deity - and given the vast pantheon most fantasy settings share, those tenets can be quite varied. A Cleric of a merciful deity might heal the injured. A trickster deity might see the Cleric spread joy or chaos through practical jokes. An evil deity might lead the Cleric to slaughter civilians. A war deity might order the Cleric to battle. A peaceful deity might urge their Cleric to become a mediator. Clerics are full casters in 5e because they get a direct line to their source of power. They can still use weapons - many domains have martial weapon proficiency - but the Cleric isn't defined by the sword they wield, but the miracles they perform.
Where the cleric requires faith in a higher power, a Paladin requires faith in themselves. The paladin might follow a specific deity, but they might just as often embody the spirit of a civilization, or a force of nature. What matters is the oath they hold sacred. Think of someone like Steve Rogers. He admits he believes in a god, but he's certainly not a cleric. Captain America draws his strength from the fighting spirit of his country, and it is that indomitable force of will that ensures he "can do this all day". A good-aligned paladin might vow to defend a sacred grove from defilers or hunt down the necromancer that slaughtered his village before he can become a lich. An evil paladin might vow to wipe out every member of the family that betrayed him or see the halls of government burned down such that he might remake them in his own image. Paladins are half casters in 5e because regardless of whether or not they have a deity backing them up, their power comes from their own conviction, manifesting the divine spark from within in order to achieve wonders.
--
Also, I couldn't disagree more with your position that healing magic should be restricted to the divine or to clerics who choose the path of non-violence. What could embody the idea of restoration and renewal more than Mother Nature herself? In the real world, your body heals injuries all on it's own, regardless of your chosen gris gris. Someone who commands the forces of nature in a fantasy setting should absolutely be able to channel those forces in order to cure a sickness or mend a wound.
Great answer, but with your last comment I would argue that there are nature healers in the form of druids.
@Kristopher-f7g That was my point exactly. If a cleric can harness the power of the divine to heal, why wouldn't a druid be able to harness the power of nature? I think druids would have an even greater claim to healing magic than clerics.
@@SCOm1359AP true in many ways and I think in some ways you could have a ranger (thinking in DND or classic fantasy trope terms) who has a specialization in healing...like the scene in LOTR where Aragorn uses his expertise from living in the wilds to collect the right herbs and make a poultice for Frodos wound. Might not be as flashy but equally valid.
"Do not hurt where holding is enough; Do not wound where hurting is enough; Do not maim where wounding is enough; and kill not where maiming is enough; the greatest warrior is he who does not need to kill." --Code of Berek from the grimdark series Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever by Stephen Donaldson.
Some days it's just nice to see how far this channel has come. We started out as a guy with a microphone sitting in front of a bookshelf and now here we are.
Seriously, loved hearing your thoughts on the topic. You're a great talk show host and I hope you don't forget it.
From a D&D perspective, the paladin was a hybrid class that was halfway between cleric and fighter. Clerics in previous editions couldn't use bladed weapons because of an oath to not draw blood. The reason cleric and paladin has so much overlap in current rules editions is that being the dedicated healer is often miserable in a game where you only control one character. All RPG characters are adventurers, to a greater or lesser extent, so having a character that won't fight go out into combat will feel unsatisfying after a while. D&D is a game made to be played and the characters were designed with this in mind.
And also maybe players might want to roleplay as Clerics of more combative or murderous gods such as Talos, Tempus, Bhaal, Bane, Shar, Gruumsh, etc. So the vow non-violence becomes wierd when you try to apply it to the Clerics of such gods.
And since Druids can serve nature gods like Silvarnus or nature spirits, I would find it wierd if they didn't have healing like Shad said. Like why wouldn't their patrons just tell them the basics, but not advanced healing like a Cleric, it would be super weird if a Druid with nature magic said, "Sorry Bub, the best I can do for your broken leg is some herbs and bandages". Meanwhile the guy can shapeshift, talk to animals and control plants.
Maybe in a new IP or another setting that is a bit more rigid can work with Shad's ideas. But trying to something as diverse as D&D will just bring complexities down the line to that one player who wants to deviate.
"I don't want to serve Helm, Sune or Ilmater, I want my Cleric to burn the world in Bhaal's name". - Murder Hobo, probably.
I feel like the main reason why healing magic is so prominent accross classes is simply because average players would die way often without.
I can see your point. To me this should make the cleric class that much more valuable to bring on a campaign, if healing abilities were more nerfed for other classes and more magnified for clerics.
This is where D&D went wrong if you ask me. They made everyone able to dip into everyone else's toybox. I like party dynamics where each party member is amazing at 2 or 3 things and suck at everything else; that way they all depend on one another. That's what makes successful games where everyone gets to shine and the combat is fast and intense. The geniuses who invented D&D knew this. The Xerbs that have hijacked it do not. In early D&D, a bard could do a little of what everyone else did, and made a great backup for a 5th party member to make the team a little more survivable if they took a loss. By the time we got to 3.5 D&D, the Bard could do everything every other class did, and often better. I'll never forget when our bard did some song that cast mass heal/mass harm every round for like 5 minutes; making them vastly better healers than my dedicated pacifist healer with every feat and attribute funneled into maximizing her healing ability. Beat by a bard combat build. D&D died to me that day. It got resurrected as a lich on the day they released the latest embarrassment.
Honestly I think a lot of it is more down to spreading things out. They wanted to get away from a cleric feeling essential and also forcing the cleric to be a heal bot.
@@Brentisimo I mean the problem is that it's a game with 12 classes and having the healing reserved to just one class would really push people to take one in a way they probably don't like.
I'd disagree on the healing aspect because healing in 2014 was already notoriously bad. Aura of Vitality was great out of combat but not great in combat, Cure Wound was only picked if you couldn't get healing word. Healing Word and Cure wound are pretty emblematic. They don't heal that much especially when upcasted meaning using them in combat was often worse than just attacking the enemy. The one exception to that is that healing somebody that was downed would get them back into combat as long as they didn't die and thus Yo Yo Healing became a thing. 2024 has reacted by buffing the amount of healing a lot of healing spells do and ultimately it's probably still better to just deal damage.
The big issue with an oath of non violence is that it wouldn't account for the individual religions in this world. Clerics, unlike paladins, can generally be of an alignment, depending on what god they serve. It wouldn't make since for an evil cleric or a cleric of a war god to become non violent, or a strictly pacifist support.
Usually the alignment is also a major component for the distinction. Paladins can only be good (Or Lawful good, if we're going with dnd) wheras clerics can be anything, and their powers can largely vary depending on their god.
I kind of think going deeper into that vein helps to distinguish the two. A paladin is a specific kind of "good" holy warrior, where as a priest/cleric is a caster who can take up weapons, but their magic is entirely dependent on their deity domains. And in some settings you have an evil equivalent to the paladin (Blackguard, Shadowknight, etc)
I love that you address fantasy archetypes, and I would be delighted to have a conversation with you about this subject, even though I appear to be a nobody. Regarding archetypes in general, you certainly make a good point, but I disagree because you overlook some critical details that I can't fully explain in a single comment. If anyone is interested in debating this, please let me know.
10:52 Restoration is a perfectly valid school of magic, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!
FUS RO DAH!
Nice Skyrim
Especially with the Dragonborn & Dawnguard DLCs:)
This. Wizards SHOULD be able to learn magic that mends broken bodies, if they can magic together dead bodies into minions, can transform entire healthy people into healthy animals, etc.
And think of the iconic Gimli quote. "I'll give you a wound _even a Wizard_ can't heal!" implying Wizards are known to be able to heal wounds on Middle Earth.
It’s a cool concept and I like how thought out this is, but I like how it is done mainly now. Clerics get their juice from gods and that has a wider range to explore while paladins get their juice from oaths/the light but especially doing what they believe is right. But maybe I’ve always viewed warlocks and clerics more similar than clerics and paladins so it could be clouding my view
Yeah, I mean like, if this is correct, Priests of Talos (in D&D) are dedicated to War and Destruction and one of their Holy Rituals to appease Talos is the smashing of a glass sphere. This is to bring the blessing of Talos to allow them to destroy their enemies.
I'm afraid the whole "Non-Violence" Oath wouldn't work for a guy like that.
DragonLance is my all-time favorite series! I've been reading and rereading it for almost 40 years.
Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman are the perfect team. Margaret is the heart, and Tracy is the Mind. There are also dozens of other amazing authors and artists who've contributed to the series.
This video was great. It is like a throw back to the videos you use to make and the reason I started following your channel to begin with.
I can somewhat see why Shad wants clearer distinctions between classes, but really, you can already play a cleric without armor if you really want to. The classes are ultimately just a set of game mechanics and some classes can have overlapping roles. You can define your characters however you want. A celestial warlock can functionally be your cleric. Warlocks and clerics both get spells from a higher power, and warlocks are limited to simple weapons and light armor. In 5e, there's even a divine sorcerer subclass that has access to the cleric spell list. Sorcerers and warlocks are also charisma-based, which would make them better leaders and pastors as opposed to wisdom-based clerics. Sometimes charisma is a dump stat to a cleric player.
Shad perhaps forgot that bards can heal too, and you could build a bard more cleric-like. Your bard can be an orator and be a pastor, or your bard can be a Gregorian monk chanting rhythmically (though Gregorian monks only chanted like that for money). And there are fighting bards subtypes. When Shad gets around to bards in Fantasy re-armed, he might just tear the class apart. The new handbook even has a dance bard that fights like a monk--and they have healing magic. The bard has always seemed like a weird class to me.
Trying to make D&D classes fit into rigid realistic roles is futile, I think.
I love these D&D character deep dives!
I look forward to more!
There are - what, 12 basic classes plus maybe half a dozen new ones, it would be very cool to see your take on each of these . . . Especially the Ranger!
Death Knights of Krynn was one of the best DnD based pc games in the 80's! I love the Dragonlance books too. The best part of Dragonlance is that dragons were not just window dressing. Dragons were an essential part of the lore and creation myths. The god of good was a platinum dragon. The god of evil was a Tiamat type multi headed dragon. (The neutral god was a librarian for some reason?) The good dragons were metallic. The evil dragons where chromatic but each color represented a corroded version of their original metallic base. The red dragons were corroded(rusted) iron dragons, for example . The death knight Lord Soth was essentially Dnd Darth Vader. Loved Dragonlance!
In Dragonlance I feel the restriction that clerics could only use blunt weapons was related to their role as healer. It was a limitation on the amount of harm they could do. But I think the blunt weapons were also related to the idea that the cleric was the antithesis to undead. A powerful cleric would instantly kill all the weakest undead the moment she stepped into battle In this version of DnD, blunt weapons also did greater damage to undead.
Raistlin Majere lives!
wasnt Raistlin Majere ill qith some turbocancer/mageaids?
+][+
@@titanscerw It might have been retconned since I last read the series but he was possessed by the spirit of a long dead mage. He was then cursed with hourglass eyes that constantly saw things withering / aging / dying during his test to become a true mage and learn more powerful magic. Or at least that's how I remember it.
"your paladin is called kaladin?" "yah." "that sounds a lot like paladin." "maybe that's why he became a paladin."
"Let me see your spells, let me see em."
Depending of what edition one of the greatest differences between the Clerics and the Paladins is that the Clerics often is far better as a class. That Clerices is also often a more open class because of Alignment demands (back when the Paladin needed to be Lawful good.)
Clerics seem to be able to do more, just look at BG3 as a fairly recent example.
There are a variety of dieties influencing what a Cleric can do between full on healer, a caster flavoured dps, a mix of caster and melee, a tank, so many others.
Paladin has what, fighterish build with some healing and extra damage, various protection flavoured abilities - not able to be a full healer, no ability to be a caster dps, just a melee damage dealer or a tank.
Certainly good in those roles but far more limited.
@@MGShadow1989I agree, playing BG3 as a Sorcerer/Cleric/Wizard, Clerics are way more versatile due the Domains, especially for multiclassing, and the fact you can pick an evil god, which is good for roleplaying.
Also was human only class in 2nd edition.
AD&D Paladins were REALLY good as a class. 3e nerfed them into oblivion.
@@astronaut7796 But Paladin has some nice roleplaying options, like being judge for Arabela, who stole that druid relic, and playing vengeance paladin and using bugged oath power (target yourself) was fun, very strong. Paladin only conversation options were quiet common and had interesting results and funny aswel.
Within the proper D&D 5e 2014+ system Clerics & Paladins are very different! The Paladins get their powers from their Oath without needing a Deity or "Other Beings" to enforce that Oath. While Clerics get their powers from the Deity they serve who helps enforce that bond.
What's more, Paladins are "Half-Casters" which means they mix Martial Prowess with Magic.
While, Clerics are "Full-Casters" who mainly use Magic with occasional Martial Abilities.
What's really interesting, (but rarely thought about) is that Clerics are closer to Warlocks rather than Paladins.
Warlocks get their powers from their Patron which can be considered almost like a "Quasi-Deity" in power/strength/abilities. Similarly, they too only get their powers from that bond with their Patron which is very similar to Clerics' & their bond with a Deity. 0:21
I respect your rights to opinions, but disagree with your opinions in this video. Anyway, it is still a well-made video & I know of Dragonlance and own copies of the original Trilogy (but its one of the 2000 printings). 11:19
The problem with limiting healing spells to just the Cleric class is that it's going to force one person at the table to have to play Cleric.
Which is why druids need to keep their healing. Especially since they are essentially priests of nature anyways & we’re in fact a subclass of cleric once.
That's how it is. I play a cleric 99% of the time because someone has to.
I would just change up who gets WHICH healing options.
Bard - Healing Word but no Cure Wounds.
Druid - Cure Wounds but no Healing Word.
Cleric - Both.
I'd even let Wizard and Sorcerer, at base, learn some healing magic.
Druid and Ranger would get Neutralize Poison, with its physical components consumed potentially representing knowing how to find antidotes and remedies in the wild. Cleric casting the same spell would have verbal and somatic components, but not consume a material component.
Bards could cure various MENTAL status conditions but would struggle to deal with physical maladies aside from their musical Healing Word.
Clerics can be the best healers without being the only healers.
@@RoninCatholic Those sorts of distinctions could also work to flavour those who can heal without locking it all down to one class. I might also put certain extremely powerful healing magics behind subclass barriers, so that the "vow of pacifism" can be a thing if people want to go uber-healer, but is not required for more general healing options. Revivify vs Resurrect, for example.
@@VaughanCockell Yeah. And making it that many classes can heal in some way and only one of them heals _every_ way also makes it so that at once a party lacking a Cleric isn't completely boned, adds a resource management puzzle regarding possibly encountering an ailment nobody in the current group can counter and thus it actually being a threat for once, having tactically varied enemy behavior instead of smart ones always aiming for whoever's in priest vestments, and frees the Cleric's burdens up a little and lets him focus on his initial purpose more (directly confronting Undead opponents, specifically; "Vampire Hunter in a medieval context" is the core character concept and the "holy man white wizard" stuff was added later and proved important enough to overtake the foundation).
Palladium Fantasy does a great job of making distinctions between the Priest (member of the clergy or clergyman) and the Paladin.
And it still offers its Priests a variable level of Martial Skills (Hand-to-Hand skill, including none, Mercenary, and Soldier), whereas the Palladin's Hand-to-Hand is one of the strongest in the game.
Cleric is pretty wide class and it completely depends on the deity they worship and their culture. You can have a cleric in black robes doing dark rituals wielding sacrificial dagger, you can have a cleric working in a sickhouse healing the sick, you can have warpriest riding to war for a cause in full battle gear, you can have a humble country cleric worshiping a God of harvest. Paladin is basically just a holy templar.
The ultimate unkillable party of adventurers is a group of clerics of different gods that gather together to complete a quest. Need damage, War God Cleric, Need stealth, Trickster God Cleric.etc.
Old versions of fantasy kept them distinct. Historically there were far more versions, crusaders, templars, priests such as bishops or cardinals, etc. I will always love my 2nd edition "complete guides" where they really breakdown the logic of the classes.
In practice the way I see it is that a Cleric is a priest or holy man that took up arms and magic to banish evil and the unholy.
While a Paladin is a knight that is devout to a deity and wields holy power.
The main difference would be training, a cleric is equipped and armed enough for self defense with more knowledge and power in spell casting, and a paladin has more training with weapons and channels holy power for protection and hitting harder with weapons.
I really enjoy the debate of this and your take on it.
Furthermore, I agree on the aesthetics of the paladin blessing his weapon with a prayer and a cleric wearing robes I think that logically you would need to wear at least chain mail. Even if you use magic for protection, armor is not going to tire you out as much as that probably would. I like the idea of clerics and paladins having a reverse restriction from a druid: wearing leather or any other such dead animal part is forbidden and blocks the divine magic.
I disagree on the complete vow of non violence however a vow to never kill a mortal with a soul is perfectly reasonable and doesn't require you to not be able to act in self defense. A cleric's equipment and training in martial arts is fully in self defense so you would only use a shield, staff, or some non lethal weapon that can catch another weapon.
Even if the cleric is devoted to a war god, wars still need doctors and he could have a unique buff for everyone around him to protect them and make them hit harder or even summon a war God avatar after a ritual kinda like The Avatar of Khaine.
Druids being restricted from lay on hands healing without divine power is an interesting idea. I do like druids being more of a pharmacist than a doctor and being the one to cook up a recipe to make you better. Medicine is nature's healing after all. I made a druid for dnd that was an orphan that grew up in a temple which operated jointly as a place of worship, orphanage, and a hospital, while she did learn healing from the clerics there she channeled it through fire, flowers, and natural remedies.
Well as of recent dnd paladins get their power from their dedication to their oath and not necessarily before a diety, and clerics get theirs from various gods. Elemental weapon and the titular smite spells are still the hallmark of a paladin.
tl;dr paladins give the big stick
clerics give the big roast (of radiant flame).
Clarification the idea clerics carry mace and other blunt weapons goes back to early D&D, like ore 1st edition and has nothing to do with training. It was assumed clerics took an oath not to shed blood but... well the gods were fuzzier on kneecaps
I don't know Shad, I understand where you coming fromm but you forget the reason why in D&D Clerics are so similar to Paladins is because people didn't play them. Wizards kept buffing them so much with acess to armor and weapons they just became a alternate outfit Paladin.
You have to make the class interesting to play, and in D&D combat is one of the main pillars of it.
Honestly I think it's fussier than that.
Clerics were one of the 3 original classes. Unlike magic-users they got access to magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (so not as potent as the fighter especially as many of the best magic weapons were edged) but unlike the fighting-men they got spells (but not as many as the wizard). Originally it was because somebody wanted to play a character in opposition to a vampire PC and wanted to lean into the vampire hunter and is influenced by bishops and templars
Paladins came out relatively shortly after in an expansion as a subclass to fighter but had more restrictions and prerequisites. There were alignment restrictions, higher minimum stats, etc. They leaned into being the chivalric knight.
Nowadays Clerics still have better weapon and armor capabilities typically versus other casters but leaned more into magic being able to get to the highest level of spells (but often on average having weaker spells than the wizard overall. They do have the best access to healing spells however which wizards typically cannot gain). Paladins have leaned into being the half caster half martial but of divine magic. They draw their power from oaths (although if memory serves me they mention these can still be from a god).
I always went by the idea of the Paladin and Cleric being 2 sides of the same coin. They both cast and have melee, but the Paladin specializes in combat and not casting, and vice versa for Cleric.
Paladins are kind of combination characters. They're like 75% fighter with 25% cleric mixed in.
Like Rangers are a sort of combination of fighter and rogue.
Cleric is already 80% holy man mage and 50-60% warrior.
Ranger is about 75% fighter 15-25% rogue and 30% druid.
And Paladin is like 50% fighter and 50% cleric after cleric is already part fighter.
In fact, Fighter and Wizard are probably the only two pure expressions of their archetype.
@RoninCatholic something in your math isn't adding up. I just can't put my finger on it though.
@@CaterF0X Let's put it this way: The amount _less good_ at wearing armor, having Hit Points, and using weapons that any given caster but ESPECIALLY a Cleric has is not very much in comparison to the benefits of their supernatural powers. If you stripped out all the divine intervention from a Cleric you'd still have something better at direct combat than three quarters of the character classes, it'd just be marginally to noticeably inferior to a pure Fighter at every point they differ.
Most likely Shad won't read this. But, here goes a long rant/reasoning.
Firstly, let's start with a different system you might like. Fabula Ultima is a TTRPG that is modeled after JRPGs of old. Where the DM AND the players build the world. Their class system is built around the idea that a class is apart of your character, not your character as a whole. So, every "class" is semi modular and is meant to be maxed out, allowing ten levels per class but only able to work on 3 classes at a time, but after mastering you can move onto other classes afterwards.
Next, let's talk about why I feel 5e D&D became so popular. Ease of use. By limiting, restricting, and cutting what a player is able to do just because you FEEL something is powerful, (As a DM you can alter things how you want, so if something IS powerful, you can cut it back), you are cutting back their creative freedom. Most people do not like losing freedom. So by imposing a rule that limits someone for no more reason than, "Healing magic should be rare!" is the same as saying, "you can't use a sword because you don't have the feat for it". "But D&D does that already!" You might say, and yes, as a story element, not as a truly limiting factor. After all, if the DM allows you can have your druid using metal weapons, or other such normally limiting things.
And finally, by boiling down the "Cleric vs Paladin" differences to not factor in the games/shows/stories/comics they're apart of... well, you are also ignoring the actual differences those "classes" have. Each world, show, game, etc uses those two words differently, and thus, much like my dislike of Death Battle's use of this, fusing every last version of a "Cleric" or a "Paladin" does boil down to, one is more magic aimed while another is more physically aimed. You boiled away the details to make your point, which thus makes the point lack detail. You like the idea of a paladin saying an oath then standing with a weapon sheathed in magical aura, however, depending on the world you're taking the paladin from, they can't do that, or won't do that unless it is their god's whim to do so. So, let me pose to you a question. Why do you think the clerics of D&D had moved closer and closer to not being pure healers? Well, from all that I've seen, (Sorry to answer before you did, but again, I don't think you'll actually read this far.) it is because most players do not like just sitting and waiting during combat... and as a healer, you're just waiting for your turn, can't plan as you have to... again, wait, for others to get hurt. "What about buffs?" What about them? Every spellcaster in every game has their own style of buffs and that would be something near thoughtless to employ, but the healing, the very thing you wanted to be so very powerful, needs others to be hurt and... well, if those buffs are good enough, or the party is powerful enough you don't get to cast your healing. Now, let's look at the flip side to this. Healing is ONLY from magic or looooong resting. I'm sure you've had fond memories of games where your character was hurt and the cleric was out of spells in a dungeon so you had to limp your way through it to victory or death... but... for anyone new to the game? "You've cast your healing spells, now no one can heal past using the highly costy healing potions until you rest" is what you have made. It... can be fun, with those who are used to those systems but it often leads to any combat aimed games coming to a dead end just because either everyone got hurt too often (which is up to luck a lot of times early game) and the cleric running out of magic. Compound this issue with having high HP characters who take LONG timeframes to heal normally, then add the fact that you have to have one cleric in the party annnnnd... now you have told your party who they are going to be, how they're going to play, and how badly it'll all go if they don't.
3.5 D&D was a system I loved making characters for but it boiled down to three things. You had to have classes based on what type of game the DM was running, (which made not knowing all the more frustrating) you had to always grab the newest magical gear (because the stats for the monsters you fought kept going up and up and up), and you almost always were killed late game because of level drain or some status effect because healing was too powerful late game.
If you want a combat focused game of... well any system, you will see that most do not like to play the healers. Be this because they have too many things to focus on as the party goes off on their own without thought, feeling useless as they run out of magic too often or are rarely needed, or they end up picking up some sort of weapon, losing their magic, and suddenly feel happier that they get to do something during combat.
I... feel you're being a little too heavy against druids for their ability to cast healing magic. You heal, right now, because of that being the natural thing your body does. Take that away, and you might as well say, "Clerics can't heal unless they piss on people, as they need holy water to do so". Sure, you're "lore accurate" but you do lose the fun of it, annnnnd a bit of sense about how things work.
One last gripe, if you're a paladin of a god, or goddess whose focus is healing... you're telling me that paladin can't heal? Wouldn't that be an affront to their deity?
I mostly think of Paladins as tanks and clerics as supports when it comes to gaming terms :P
if you think in those terms you are less about role playing and more about fighting. the interesting part is how the characters act and develop throughout the story arcs. combat as in real life should be avoided if possible.
A proper D&D Fighter, and any of its derivatives (Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian) is both a DPS and a Tank. Rogues are out of combat support classes with a side hustle of being slightly-less-good DPS attackers than Fighters and significantly worse tanks. Wizards are primarily buffer/debuffers with a nuke in the back pocket just in case. Clerics are designed primarily around being specialized in defeating a specific subtype of enemy that is otherwise problematic for a party (the Undead) with healing magic thrown on as an afterthought.
@@nilsdock Depends, Oath of Vengeance is about killing evil on sight, you want to dodge combat with confused peasants, but robbers and worse should not be alowed to live.
@@eldenarmortem975 Yes but I would argue that actually randomly meeting a evil doer is low. however some GMs seem to make combat the main focus and throw a lot of token bad guys at the players for them to kill. it is more rewarding to the players if they get the choice to fight, and the one who has taken the oath wants to kill every evil doer. the rest of the party would perhaps not want to get into a fight they cannot win. and the interesting dynamic in the interplayer discussions and choices is what is rewarding to players.
when i personally do "Bad guys" as a GM i develop their characters and give them backstory and a reason for doing the "Bad" things. The robbers could be starving pessants trying to feed their families. or the gang leader could be raised as an orphan and he organizes food and shelter for local orphans to give back to the community. Morality should not be reduced to good and evil, but rather be fluent and depend on the situation.
If the players choose to act in a certain way I make sure everyone treats them thereafter. If they execute robbers after a fight, they will be hunted as outlaws (if someone finds out). if they bring the bandits to justice they will be rewarded and highly respected as working with the lawmen.
Generally I believe the distinction lies in how they get their dps, clerics rely on buffs, paladins rely on equipment. I don’t think restricting healing would work in a game because people want flexibility, it might work for a story to build up characters.
Not in all setting, but you could absolutely write a story or created a game or a roleplaying system, where healing magic is rarer. But then that has to be considered within the larges balancing of the game play or the rules of the world.
About maces :
I have no source, but I heard that priests who went into battle used blunt weapons, because "man of God cannot spill blood".
@mateuszbanaszak4671 you will most certainly spill blood if you are bludgeoning someone to death. It's old and pretty stupid explanation of purely esthetic choice
I don't think that really happened anywere in history
*Bonk
Don't think that ever happened in history tho
So back in the crusade days, when mail was the best armour, maces were actually very good at smashing up mail. Maces (at least the one-handed ones) are not so good at smashing up full plate armour.
You'd have to jettison DnD rulesets because its mechanics are strongly based on war gaming.
Im currently playing a devine soul sorcerer and flavoring it as "what if a paladin learned magic instead of swords"
I'm currently working on Paladins for my fantasy series and this has helped me a lot.
so far I've mentioned the term paladin can be used as both a broad term to mean any warrior particularly favoured by a deity (putting them in the same school as demigods and Shades) but also has a very specific warrior in the Christian Church which in the modern setting I'm working with needs to have a special process of application, worthiness and endorsement within the church to allow them to become so, and give them far more sway in the Church than just a warrior mage of particular power and piety.
I really always see Paladins (and made them in my own system) more like faith-oriented kit/subclass for Warriors.
Paladin is to a cleric what a ranger is to a druid. Gameplay wise they are less spellcasting oriented versions with better combat abilities and some nice tricks and features.
@mikkomuukka1755 that is why I personally like branching subclass system, where you don't need to make so much classes because there are different kits that can modify your character in the way you'd like. Some may argue that it is basically the same thing - to write different classes or to write different kits - but I personally like it that way more.
I think the main distinction is that Clerics are primarily priest-like magic users that can use weapons and armor were as Paladins are primarily religious warriors that can use magic.
i can't wait for you to cover the Warlock.
I absolutely adore this video and will be using these perspectives in my current project! :)
You could argue that all characters are a multiclass of 4 basic classes (each with many subclasses)
1. Fighter. Anyone who specialises in any type of physical combat.
2. Cleric. Gains magical power from a provider: deity, patron.
3. Mage. Magical power from their own efforts.
4. Thief. A catch-all for non magical, non combat skills. Incl. Entertainer, diplomat, artificer etc.
Paladin is just a fighter-cleric
Do the spellcasters even count as being different?
The way they are different you listed is more theme than practical difference
I would add artificer and alchemy to the list. They are less common, but still distinct power-sources and play styles from above.
I’d replace thief for skilled, that’d include artificers, alchemists, thief abilities & other skills.
@@guardiantree8879 I would say artifcaer is a seperate category on its own. It means 'power by technology'.That is different from a thief's social and dexterity skills, and different from magic. Though it is not used that much in RPGs.
originally the paladin was a special type of fighter cleric that the humans had. Dwarves had fighter clerics, and technically the humans could as well, but much worse.
Ahh, I miss this type of video. The video essays from earlier years where Shad just nerds out about random topic are the best stuff on this channel IMO
I think the issue with focusing on healing magic especially in say D&D is that game has always tended to stay away from very effective healing equivalent to level to stop fights from turning into slogs. Healing has always seemed helpful yet not really enough to focus on alone because you really need to deal as much damage as possible to make the battle be over asap. I'm not sure exactly how strong the healing would be you're speaking of but most of the time you're better off with tank dps and everyone carries the best health pots you can have or one or 2 people having a decent enough heal to get through the ordeal while still dealing damage or effects.
Paladins are warrior with some holy powers while clerics are holy dudes with some martial prowess
druids used to be a cleric subclass. and nature has plenty to do with healing. they're basically nature priests, where as clerics are temple priests.
Yeah, Shad was a little off on that one. Don’t touch my druid Shad!
when i used to worldbuild i made the simple difference like this...
Clerics focus of casting mainly holy & devine magic(often borrowed from deities) on friends and foes( healing, buff, blind & magic to control area like barriers, shields and repulsion fields ),
while the Paladins are those who essentially are bound to devine artifacts and the specific power of said artifact gets imbued into their basic magic and martial skills but most strongly imbues its wielder with near angelic power for a limited time or limited amount of power when called apon thus putting inhuman amount of stress on their ability to survive so they must balance training to become stronger to wield the artifacts power that could kill a normal mortal and training to release more of the artifacts power to complet their quests.
In Ad&D 2nd paladins had to have a cha 17 only got access to spells at level 9. The restriction to bludgeoning weapons was to avoid cutting flesh (I know it was a little lame). Paladins also quickly outstripped a cleric in combat abilities.
I think it wasn't directly about cutting flesh but about spilling blood. Religions often have these things where stuff is basically against the rules but allowed because of a technicality. Spilling blood is usually intended to mean fighting, but it doesn't say that directly. Sure, bludgeon weapons will also spill blood, for example, if you hit somebody's head but it's not their purpose to cause blood loss.
@GothamClive I only said cutting flesh because I expected somebody to argue that a bludgeoning would definitely make a bloody mess.
2nd edition Paladin was equal to the fighter in all aspects, so they were vastly better in combat. The only downside was wasting a good stat roll on charisma. Paladin spells were useless by the time they got them. Level 1 cleric spells at level 9.
Glad he’s revisiting his fantasy re-armed series. This is what I’ve been missing tbh
8:00 - The vow of non-violence is a cool idea. You can make some exceptions that make sense, like violence against undead
The War Domain Clerics may have something to say in direct opposition to that...
In 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds, you actually had rules for vows (as feats). I think with vows of non-violence and peace you could still use non-lethal spells and weapons to subdue living creatures and you were still able to fight undead and regular constructs.
@@zacharycunningham7669 I like the idea of having different specializations. Like a vow of non-violence increasing your healing potentional and maybe giving you another healing spell
@@MyraTalisen I recognize that, I'm just saying there's no way in all of the Nine Hells that a War Domain Cleric would ever be caught DEAD taking any such vows of non-violence in the first place.
A long time ago we had a party with multiple clerics and we encountered vampires in the campaign. One of the other players playing a cleric made what I thought was a very valid point: any good-aligned cleric who encountered a vampire would consider destroying that vampire an overriding concern in normal campaign conditions. He would drop everything to seek to destroy that vampire, and if he wasn't capable of it, would go so far as to journey to the head of his order to get someone who could.
Dragon Lance is why my first ever gamertag was KenderKin. Such an underrated series
In AD&D the Paladin class allows humans have a basic fighter/cleric build rather than them having to dual-class, which is useful for small party sizes. Demi-humans can obviously multi-class so can fill the role with a fighter/cleric build via that route.
Sam Jackson: Only God should have the power to be all places at all times⚔️🔥✝️... Sorry I couldn't resist... I love the lore of Paladins in all interpretations🌹... My second favorite is Anderson from Hellsing Ultimate, especially that prayer he recites before drawing down on Alucard🙌🏿 Truly Exuberant🎆
> Clerics:
Make clerics like Final Fantasy white mages, no armor, only support magic.
They help people by enhancing them.
Mostly ranged magic.
Violence only allowed against evil/undead and similar targets.
> Paladins:
Paladins make them like warriors with self-support magic.
They help people by enhancing themselves to fight evil.
No ranged magic.
Violence allowed against enemies of the Faith, bodyguards to believers and clerics.
"Violence only allowed against undead/demons"
That's just silly. Just don't buff their melee attacks.
@@GriffonSpade Honestly it also just doesn't make that much sense to me. Even if you restricted clerics to only Good Gods, Tyr is a lawful good god of justice and war. Mystra is currently NG and is more focused on magic.
Honestly thank you for that video, it gave me quite a few ideas and inspirations for the TTRPG I've been working on for me and my friend, though mostly for me xD
I agree with you on this one, I think I would be more interesting if there were more distinction between the two classes
I disagree, classes in general should not be a thing. Why I went with a "vow" system in the game. So healing, anti poison, remove curses etc. can be gotten by anyone, but they must uphold the vows for Sobriety, Poverty, Honesty, etc. Breaking the vow they lose that power.
Make the cleric a clothy.
I think another reason clerics use maces is symbolism. One thing is that maces have often served as symbols of authority (they do look similar to scepters), and clerics could use them as a symbol that they're wielding the authority of their god.
Today Shad decides he needs to reveal to everyone that he doesn't know how to play 9th-level divine spellcasters in D&D-like pen-and-paper systems in as roundabout terms as possible, and as an aside he mentions that playing the God Wizard build isn't satisfying because the damage numbers aren't high enough.
Bravo 👏👏👏 Shad for coming out as the linear warrior. Encore
Fantasy rearmed twice in one Advent!
'Tis glorious, bruva, I feel blessed!
+][+
The foundation of the paladin dates back to Ancient Rome's palatinus, where they were Imperial Guards of the Emperor. Palatinus also trained together with the Salii brotherhood, who were themselves devoted to Mars: the Roman God of War. That's really where the fantasy trope of "holy" warrior derived from.
This just gave me an incredibly great idea for priestly magic in my fantasy world. Thanks.
DnD did give you an option like this in the peace domain for the Cleric. The nice thing about all this is that you can do this if you wish, or play a smashy cleric and a healy paladin if you prefer. Choices for days and they're all valid and correct.
Historical example of a cleric (bishop) in battle: Sir Odo's comfort he used a club to ”encourage” his troops to fight
Clerics are what happens when you gatekeep healing. You need to give them lot of melee combat power to get people to play them. So you end up clerics that fight.
@@_Ekaros - I don't understand why needing melee capabilities are required for people to play them.
@MGShadow1989 yeah, people love playing wizards.
@MGShadow1989 because a lot of people don't want to be a healer. You can't give them combat magic cause now they have separate their spell slots. Then DMs have to come up with homwbrew rules etc etc etc
@@MGShadow1989 Because healer is kinda boring role. Wait until you can heal, cast your buffs. Do nothing really on your round.
@@jeicedorin5862 - I'd rather be a full healer.
Honestly, what you have described what the roles of the Paladin and Cleric actually could be is actually what I have always thought of when the two (amazing) classes for most of my life. I actually agree that there should be more distinction. Roleplaying has tradeoffs. Nobody can have it all haha. :)
Anyway, I hope you and your family have a blessed Christmas and New Year! :D
Limiting healing could be interesting for a setting, but you'd have to design the campaign around it. Modern systems especially tend to have a lot of HP recovery mechanics, so if the warrior gets second wind but the paladin doesn't have any healing, then that paladin is gonna have a bad time in prolonged combat.
A well designed dungeon should wear down the players resources as they adventure further in, so you could give the cleric more and bigger healing. That or you could give "dedicated" healers the ability to cure certain debilitations/grievous wounds (something like wither tokens from Magic the Gathering). Make them saveable in different ways, so it doesn't feel like a punishment meant to force them to bring a cleric, but a tradeoff the party might *want* to invest in. That way the players can choose to either bring someone who can heal in the field, or deal with accruing wounds in more creative ways and recover back in town
The key is to make the cleric a worth while party member. For instance they can create food and water, detect traps via spell, create light and destroy/banish undead.
Given the right Deity like a war god or Nature/weather god they can be deadly. Have to siege a castle? call up earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes. Not to mention they can get the Healing and medicinal skills easier than most.
So clerics can be quite useful.
@shawn6860 wizard, paladin, druid
I unfortunately don't have a regular group to play D&D with, but about 3-4 years ago I created 12 different lvl 1 characters in case I found a group.
1 of whom is a Chaotic Neutral Feylost background Female Drow Death Domain Cleric sworn to the Raven Queen. She is not a healer type, if she does have to heal she would prefer to use a Herbalism/Medical Kit instead of her Magic & save her magic to destroy thy enemies.
@@Welkor the cleric can do all three if they want. Versatility is key.
YESSS fantasy re-armed, ngl ive been barely watching your content in the past year or 2 but as soon as i saw the fantasy re-armed i clicked
it all depends on the DEITY!
a cleric and paladin of a Deity of Good, Healing and being nice other than the basics that everyone get - most minor cure wounds, lay on hands and smite will both get access to more spells that heal and buff and just help.
Deity of Order, Law and following rules will grant more spells that bind other and investigate.
Deity of War, fighting and punching the other guy will grant to spells that actually punch the other guy.
Deity of Evil, Murder and being bad will grant spells that harm, curse, and murder...
loving these classic Shad in Chair videos. they're more centered on storytelling. Not that I want the sword in the backyard stuff to go away, but I missed this.
The thing about non-martial (up to pacifistic) clerics is that it is not a great archetype for a player character in a TTRPG. It can work in specific circumstances (when a player really wants to play a pacifist) but as a primary class it doesn't work in my opinion.
My personal solution is to retain Paladins as is for the most part while folding Clerics and Wizards into basically the same class. Religious Wizard is a priest of some god and therefore gets access to specific set of spells.
This is the primary issue. People play TTRPGs for fun. And most of time it is doing things yourself. Specially in something like DnD. You are there not to be passive support person, just helping others. You want to do that stuff yourself. It takes rare player to actually go for pacifism. And where these games are balanced such that you need to have the healing from some source, and if you don't you won't make it. It just doesn't work out. Either healing makes combat trivial, or lack of healing make it impossible.
Ofc there is different type of games where this might work. But for your adventuring and dungeon dwelving not.
Also makes me really think of whole pacifism aspect. Like would it really be okay to heal a dude who just hit someone else with sword to face? If they are also believer, but slightly off say exploitative feudal lord or just hungry bandit...
@@_Ekaros i actually would like to go for a specifically "tank" "defense" type of character using abjuration magic, but in dnd this type of play is not supported and severely hampered by the reaction economy.
you cant play a character who is centered around reacting defensively if you can only at most react once to protect one other player and then cant do shit when the next enemy targets another player.
maybe with a different turn order mechanic than initiative this might work: all enemies call their actions then the players call theirs and then the effects unfold.
@@_Ekaros I don't fully agree in so far as TTRPGs are incredibly varied. There's ttrpgs for kids doing cool tricks with skateboards, games about sleuthing around and getting wrapped up in eldritch horrors you cannot actually fight, games about weirdo mages and their workers, heist oriented ttrpgs where one player might be focused on combat while one is focused on speaking to ghosts (and occasionally zapping people) while another is all about getting into social circles to lie and trick people, and etc.
That said DnD is originally an offshoot of a wargame and it still is very oriented around combat. That's not even a bad thing. I love Lancer which is also very much geared around being a wargame but it does mean certain assumptions are cooked into the game.
In my story setting I've treated paladins more like avatars summoned by their patron deities in times of great need like an undead invasion or something, so the appearance of a paladin was usually a sign something very bad was about to happen. As such, these paladins usually had a crap ton of powerful blessings rather than spells or exceptional combat training. One of them had a magical sword that was chock full of fun tricks, another one could punish liars and sinners in all sorts of different ways like making any nearby sinner fall asleep, and another in a western setting could shoot magic from her guns. All non-lethal spells, of course.
Absolutely love the idea and am very happy to see another fantasy re-armed!
I'd say the issue is the same as with rangers - system that is designed for short encounters in closed spaces. Paladin is a heavy cavalryman above all else. The game can't allow him to run over a dozen of dudes and then retreat for an hour or two and then go back again with new lance and fresh horse.
Set my notifications to actually receive Shads videos, and for the first time, they re back on my recommended
Fantasy Rearmed is easily your best content! I really liked it when you were doing the monster ones, like the centaurs rearmed
oh my god, i can't believe shad is doing classic content again!!!
Fun fun! Thanks for doing what you do, because I do, what i do.