D&D 5E Building a better Paladin

[Ashkelon]

I think the paladin should have had the warlock spell slot progression. One slot at first level, a second at level 2. A third at level 11, and a forth at level 17. These slots would all be the same level and would improve as the paladin gains levels. These slots would recharge with a short rest.

It would have been an interesting twist to have a short rest recharging half caster and it is especially fitting with their smite spells.

 

[Croesus]

The assertion from people is that Divine Smite specifically is overpowered, and that allowing it to apply multiple times per round is overpowered. I compared that to the Fighter's main methods of nova damage (minus feats), Action Surge and Superiority Dice, and showed that wasn't the case.

You make a good point, but a very narrow one, in part because paladins have many more spell slots for smites than fighters have action surges and most combats last more than one round. Below 17th level, the fighter can nova one round. All but the lowest level paladins can nova multiple rounds in the same combat.

Paladin vs. Barbarian vs. Fighter has too many variables.
- Subclass and build
- Feats
- Rolled stats vs. array
- How many fights in a day
- How many short rests in a day
- How long the fights last
- How many opponents
- Type of opponents

Bottom line, there's really no way to prove which is better, nor if divine smite is too powerful in play compared to other classes. This is going to be a table-by-table thing. My own experience is that barbarians and paladins are better than fighters, but I recognize that's in part because my group tends to have fewer, much tougher fights vs. many, weaker fights.

 

[Gladius Legis]

You make a good point, but a very narrow one, in part because paladins have many more spell slots for smites than fighters have action surges and most combats last more than one round. Below 17th level, the fighter can nova one round. All but the lowest level paladins can nova multiple rounds in the same combat.

But typically only one of those two-Smite rounds will involve the Paladin's highest-level slots. It's only at Lv. 17 when the Paladin has 3 4th-level and 1 5th-level slot that it can enjoy two rounds of its max Smite damage (using 2 Smites/round). Which still won't have the potential ceiling of a Fighter's burst. The Paladin's other novas involving lower-level spell slots will deal even less.

 

[Immoralkickass]

The assertion from people is that Divine Smite specifically is overpowered, and that allowing it to apply multiple times per round is overpowered. I compared that to the Fighter's main methods of nova damage (minus feats), Action Surge and Superiority Dice, and showed that wasn't the case.

To hit in that case wasn't relevant, nor is a full class comparison, because I was showing the maximums of the two classes' nova abilities specifically. If the Fighter is granted advantage, is Blessed, uses Precision Attack on misses, it's very possible for that Fighter to get all or most of that damage on a nova turn.

As for GWM, if I'm comparing the Fighter's Action Surge to the Paladin's Smite specifically, then yes, I do factor in GWM only for the Fighter. Both classes add GWM to their base attacks, but only one (the Fighter) adds it on their nova mechanic as well. If you wanted to factor in base attacks + nova abilities with GWM, it looks even better for the Fighter, since the Paladin will only add +20 (typically) from GWM to their potential damage, while the Fighter would add +40 from that feat before Lv. 11 and +60 from it after.

Whats with the whinny nature of some people constantly crying OP at the drop of a hat. If Divine Smite is OP, then so is Sneak Attack, free and easy damage for 0 resource that scales up to 10d6. But no, its fine since its only once per turn. Nerf Smites!

 

[Gladius Legis]

Whats with the whinny nature of some people constantly crying OP at the drop of a hat. If Divine Smite is OP, then so is Sneak Attack, free and easy damage for 0 resource that scales up to 10d6. But no, its fine since its only once per turn. Nerf Smites!

I saw at least one person in this thread saying they do want to nerf Sneak Attack. :O

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I saw at least one person in this thread saying they do want to nerf Sneak Attack.

I just want it to be its own action, rather than a rider that you attach to whichever of your attacks happens to hit that round. If that means increasing the damage to compensate for reduced accuracy, or giving it advantage on the attack roll to compensate for the inability to make multiple attacks, then so be it. Sneak attack doesn't need to be nerfed as much as it could stand to be more user-friendly. The same goes for smite.

Part of the cheese factor for smite is that the paladin can do it after rolling a crit, and you can never waste it by missing. Big monsters usually have enough HP to last 2-3 rounds, and the paladin is going to be making at least two attacks every round, possibly with advantage. Critical smites are not uncommon. To be perfectly honest, though, the worst abuse that I've seen came from a multi-class paladin/champion who could action surge to smite four times in a round and crit on a 19; those monsters didn't usually last more than two rounds.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Would removing Divine Smite, and instead making the Smite spells empower all attacks that round, rather than them requiring concentration be better?

Generally, I've not seen those spells actually be used much, which I think is a pity. Removing the concentration requirement from them, and the 'auto-hitting' option of divine smite, should make them more useful to a Paladin I think.

 

[Hillsy7]

Whats with the whinny nature of some people constantly crying OP at the drop of a hat. If Divine Smite is OP, then so is Sneak Attack, free and easy damage for 0 resource that scales up to 10d6. But no, its fine since its only once per turn. Nerf Smites!

There's also the rule of unintended consequences....you make smiting a once per turn thing - I reckon people will actually do it more. If you only have, say, 5 rounds of combat and only 1 opportunity to Smite, so the max you're going to burn is 5 spell slots. Because you can't smite and cast, you're faced with a straight choice between the two - I can foresee it being treated as similar to sneak attack, i.e. something you want to do on every round to maximise damage. Also because you ain't burning resources to nova wipe, you're going to be in melee combat more often, making normal spell casting less appealing - at least currently you can spletterate your current foe and clear a bit of space for a heal or a spell without having a Ghast climbing up inside your armour. By Nova Striking, you create gaps in your DPR output where using normal spells doesn't feel like a damage tax.

Also there's a chance you're more likely to save those spells for combat (baseline damage) rather than treating them as they are (nova spike/boss killer). This might mean players are reticent about spending them during non-combat play. This I think detracts from the Palladin concept of God's Arse-Kicking Boot on earth.

But yeah, I'm with you, I think people have a tendency to think power-gaming (while totally viable and fun) is an existential threat to the ruleset and needs to be kneecapped. Meh - a Palladin at 8th level has access to 10d8 of extra damage....he wants to drop that on the big bad, I'm happy with that. It fits thematically and he's sacrificing all his resources to do so. That's 1 fight per day. Can't see the issue myself.......

I do agree about the Critical hit point however....that does seem a bit cheesy. An easy fix for that is say you have to announce Smite beforehand, but you don't burn the spell slot if you miss.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honest question for those who want to nerf Divine Smite so bad: Have you actually broken down the numbers? Specifically vis a vis the Fighter, whose toes so many of you guys seem to believe the Paladin steps all over?

Yeah, they're both very high DPR, and pretty tanky...

Let's compare the two at Lv. 17, in fact. Greatswords, Great Weapon Fighting Style.

Why bother? The bulk of the game is levels 4-12.

The Paladin... an extra 45 avg. damage ..

The Fighter (Battle Master) ... an extra 45.5 ...

Oh, and I didn't even account for the Fighter taking Great Weapon Master

Presumably the Paladin would have, too, by such a high level.

But the point is, they're both powerhouses. They're DPR classes. They're also both pretty tanky, with second-best d10 HD, and heavy armor proficiency, and some enhancement to saves (the paladin pretty far ahead on that). The BM and Pally both also have a bit of flexibility in combat, the BM via maneuvers, the Pally via using slots to cast. Spells are arguably a lot more versatility (combat & non-combat, offense/defense/support, simply far more of them than the BM has maneuvers, etc), but the Paladin /trades/ smite damage for a different spell, while the BM usually keeps the CS damage, just with a different rider.

But, at that point, we've prettymuch covered everything the BM can do, and we still haven't gotten into some of the Paladin's iconic features.

Also since the Fighter gets 3 attacks and the Paladin 2, on its at-will turns the Fighter benefits more from GWM because that 3rd attack is another opportunity for that feat to add its damage.

And there's why 17th level. Third attack & second action surge.
[MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] has commented before on how 'uneven' (or was it 'tiered?') Extra Attack makes melee-type progression. Pick the right break-points and you can manipulate the data a bit, I suppose.

But the bottom line is that the Paladin doesn't take away the Fighter's "Best at Fighting (with weapons, without magic)" since he's really only about as good at DPR and general toughness as the fighter, and that with some magic into the mix. The Paladin does get a whole lot more on top of that combat prowess, though, while the fighter gets very little. That would be a red flag in a system that aimed for mechanical balance, but for 5e DM-imposed balance, it just calls for a little caution.

It also means that cutting the paladin from the game on conceptual grounds isn't exactly hurting anything on the balance side.

Also in the games I ran, it WAS quite a common tactic to go in there with Hold Person against NPCs and let the Paladin rip into them.

Wow. Honorable.
Sorry, everything you said was spot-on, even this was perfectly cogent, it just struck me as ironic.

I think the Paladin is the most well balanced, and probably most powerful class in 5e. They're pretty much good at everything.

Those sound mutually exclusive.
...Oh, you did mean 'balanced' as in well-rounded/broadly-contributing, rather than as in 'not overpowered?'

How I loathe the Paladins.

They are obnoxious and overbearing, and give themselves the airs of noble lords.

I'd been waiting for that.