why paladins (smite) are powerful: action economy efficiency

[Gladius Legis]

Yes, I was rushed and my math was off. What's your excuse for failing to get the point? There are tons of creatures at CR 6 and lower that have ACs of 16-18, 40-50% miss chance. And some that are higher than 18.

I got your "point," the problem is that it isn't much of a point.

Even if your miss chance is 50%, you still only have a 25% chance of missing with both attacks. Combine that with the 20% chance of failing a CON save, and your chance of losing the spell before you get to try for it again in Round 2, if you're only hit once, is 5%.

 

[Maxperson]

I got your "point," the problem is that it isn't much of a point.

Even if your miss chance is 50%, you still only have a 25% chance of missing with both attacks. Combine that with the 20% chance of failing a CON save, and your chance of losing the spell before you get to try for it again in Round 2, if you're only hit once, is 5%.

IF you're only hit once. Damage dealers tend to be the ones the enemies attack, so that's a very big if. I'd rather have the sure damage. A possible side effect just isn't worth the risk to me.

 

[Gladius Legis]

IF you're only hit once. Damage dealers tend to be the ones the enemies attack, so that's a very big if. I'd rather have the sure damage. A possible side effect just isn't worth the risk to me.

Even if you're hit 3 times before Round 2, you only have a 12.2% chance of losing the spell. The point is that your risk of losing the spell is fairly low regardless.

And if it bugs you that much, take Resilient (CON).

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's why he put the paladin at level 6 and then assumed a 16-18 strength and 16 charisma. He's adding in the +3 to saves from the paladin aura.

Ah, gotcha. Haven't played a Paladin so I'm not familiar with a lot of there stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

Even if you're hit 3 times before Round 2, you only have a 12.2% chance of losing the spell. The point is that your risk of losing the spell is fairly low regardless.

And if it bugs you that much, take Resilient (CON).

So we're up yo 12.2% and that's with a very generous 18 at 6th level. Many will only have 16 strength at 6th level, which alters those numbers even more. Frankly, even 10% is too much. Why would I risk losing my spell 1 time in 10 when I can guarantee the damage 100%? And there are far better feats to take than Resilient, especially when taking that feat means leaving your strength lower and missing more. By 6th level you've only been able to take 1 feat unless you are a variant human, which you can't really factor into general discussions like this.

 

[5ekyu]

Even if you're hit 3 times before Round 2, you only have a 12.2% chance of losing the spell. The point is that your risk of losing the spell is fairly low regardless.

And if it bugs you that much, take Resilient (CON).

Or, make another choice that fits you character, your player, your campaign and your preferences better.

Even if I dont agree with the distrust of the smite dpells due to concentration, I can understand it and see a wide variety of scenarios that would lead to the decision.

It varies by playstyle but a lot more of my choices for character choices in game are developed out of what they have experienced, not the pre-game map-to-optimal-20.

Even now at 7th levrl in my Tuesday game, my "stonedinger" bard is way way away from what my pre-game " level plan thru 10" was. Not even close. But is totally understandable by what she has gone thru - and a lot more fun.

 

[Ancalagon]

Ah, gotcha. Haven't played a Paladin so I'm not familiar with a lot of there stuff.

A note of caution: (and this applies to me as well, everyone really).

One can get a decent idea of the power of a class by reading about it on forums, doing thought experiments etc.

BUT the only way to really test it is actually playing it. I knew that the paladin was strong, but it's only after seeing it on the table that I fully understood it. The aura is *so* good.

(Keep in mind that each group plays a bit different, so it may not be universal... on the other hand, your group is what matters most!)

This is why my comment about the moon druid was tentative (I hope): I have thought about it, read about it, but never played or GMed one. So I don't know for certain.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Frankly, even 10% is too much. Why would I risk losing my spell 1 time in 10 when I can guarantee the damage 100%?

Because that spell might result in an enemy being frightened and wasting actions to try to shake off said frightned condition at disadvantage, so probably being frightened and thus crippled the entire fight? That can be worth a whole lot more than just a few points more damage with the same 1st-level spell slot.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The wizard is strong because of remnants of the "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" problem, but it's a lot less bad in 5e.

The Moon Druid is really strong for a few levels, then it settles down. At high levels it's arguably weaker than other druids.

The point is they're still both stronger classes than the Paladin.

 

[Autumn Bask]

The point is they're still both stronger classes than the Paladin.

Moon Druid I can certainly see an argument for, but Wizard? Not so much. They're great, don't get me wrong, but they're also ridiculously fragile compared to the other casting classes and lack healing utility. But on top of that, their most glaring weakness is their "single-resource dependency".

Wizards rely on spells for defense, offense, and utility—both in and out of combat, and they're also much more reliant on their higher level spell slots than Clerics or Druids or even Bards.

However, I also Paladin vs. Moon Druid is a far more apt comparison than Paladin vs. Wizard, because the former are both "Support Bruisers/Tanks", while the latter only have Spellcasting in common (using the loosest definition of "in common").