D&D General Druid vs. Paladin - March Madness 2024 - Final Round!

[Yaarel]

Ok, I went with Paladin.

I normally like fullcasters. But Paladin really is a good class.

 

[ezo]

Does anyone even play those classes anymore in 5e?

I play them more than all the other classes combined. Just FYI.

DISCLAIMER: All content of this post is the opinion of the author. No infringement on the rights or priviledges of others is intended or implied.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can't believe it, but not a single member of the Core Four club (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue) made it into the final round.

I'm okay with it. Anything was bound to be a lot more interesting than Yet Another 'Fighters Vs. Wizards' Argument. Again. For the fifteenth time. This week.

Fully agreed.

There were some pretty good contenders. I'm still surprised that the Druid has come this far, but my tongue in cheek comments aside, it is a solid class.

I'm as surprised as you (so surprised, I forgot to add this part!) Back during the D&D Next playtest, Druid was the least popular class in one of the class polls. It was handily beaten even by the ever-controversial Warlord.

I still think Wizards are better. But then, I really value flexibility in my casting classes.

Of course, the other side of that is that the Wizard is so flexible it has no real identity beyond "spells spells spells and more spells." Not one of its mechanics actually supports the theme of being a Hermetic academician slowly piecing together the secrets of the universe; hell, they don't even do research except implicitly, off-camera, with no actual weight or value beyond a vague handwave at "oh that's how you get new spells."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Does anyone even play those classes anymore in 5e? In my experience playing nearly exclusively with people who never played before 5e, I can't remember the last time I saw a Cleric, Wizard, or Rogue, and only really see Fighters as multi-class dips for Action Surge. All I ever see are Bards, Sorcerers, Barbarians, Paladins, Warlocks, Rangers, maybe the occasional Monk or Druid

Oh, definitely. Wizard, particularly with some of its subclasses, is one of the objectively strongest classes in all of 5e, and both Sorcerer and Warlock live in its shadow. Fighter will always, always be one of the most popular classes, literally without regard to whether it feels awesome or terrible to play, because people will doggedly play it regardless of its design quality because it is the class called 'Fighter'. And Cleric, well, anyone who wants to explore religion is inherently pushed toward it, even as it moves further and further away from actually expressing any religious elements at all anymore. Rogue is really the only one plausibly getting left out, and that only because it's just not quite as iconic as the Fighter.

Part of the rise of popularity for Bard and Paladin specifically is, honestly, that they sucked pretty badly in 3.x, but have gotten much, much better in 5e. Pre-4e, Bards were dabblers in everything and that made them grossly incompetent at a lot of things. In 5e, they're much better than any dabbler but almost never as good as any specialist at most things--falling into "quite good but not amazing" territory, which is where they'd been intended to be in Third Edition. Paladin, meanwhile, is pretty basic but very good at what it does, and the combination of its features makes it produce impressive spike damage while also having useful utility.

Finally, of the classes you've listed, all fall into (at least) one of three camps:
(1) Fundamentally high-concept/built-in-narrative class, so there's something to sink one's teeth into
(2) Charisma-based, supporting a roleplay-and-narrative-heavy playstyle
(3) Flexible enough to adapt to what any given group needs

And, notably, of the ones that aren't Cha-based, Barbarian is the only one that isn't Wis-based--and Wisdom is the other ultra-important mental stat.

 

[CleverNickName]

Does anyone even play those classes anymore in 5e? In my experience playing nearly exclusively with people who never played before 5e, I can't remember the last time I saw a Cleric, Wizard, or Rogue, and only really see Fighters as multi-class dips for Action Surge. All I ever see are Bards, Sorcerers, Barbarians, Paladins, Warlocks, Rangers, maybe the occasional Monk or Druid

I see them all the time. Usually there's at least one Fighter or Rogue, and at least one Wizard or Cleric, in every gaming group I've had. It's been that way for the entire run of 5E.

 

[TwoSix]

I see them all the time. Usually there's at least one Fighter or Rogue, and at least one Wizard or Cleric, in every gaming group I've had. It's been that way for the entire run of 5E.

In my own games, Fighters and Wizards are pretty rare, but Rogues and Clerics are pretty common. The most common classes by quite a bit are Paladins, Bards, and Warlocks.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Of course, the other side of that is that the Wizard is so flexible it has no real identity beyond "spells spells spells and more spells." Not one of its mechanics actually supports the theme of being a Hermetic academician slowly piecing together the secrets of the universe; hell, they don't even do research except implicitly, off-camera, with no actual weight or value beyond a vague handwave at "oh that's how you get new spells."

A great deal of truth in that. However, Wizards are also "solution man" - or should be. While I've never met a wizard player (and character) that didn't enjoy their evocation spells ("Spell go BOOM!"), where they really shine (or should) is in their ability to solve problems ("Hold on. I've got a spell for that."). That does require wide-open access to spells, though, which is something a lot of games have trouble providing.

And unhappily with 5e's prohibition against buffs, one of the more useful problem-solving tools for the Wizard was taken away. Frankly a classic wizard complaint would be something like: "Years studying the hidden mysteries, plunging into the arcane depths of history and theory. Mastering the subtle art and science that is magic. Wrestling with the actual rules of reality - and winning! And what do you, my fellow party members, only ever want me to do? Blow up the monsters! ARGH!" {Later, in private: "Hehehe, monster go boom.")

 

[el-remmen]

In the three 5E campaigns I have run (or am currently running) the class breakdown has been.

Rangers 3 (2 hunters, 1 gloomstalker) - one ranger multiclassed as sorcerer and one multclassed as rogue
Druids 2 (1 circle of land - swamp, 1 circle of stars)
Fighters 2 (1 eldritch knight, who multiclassed to wizard, and 1 was a barbarian who multiclassed to fighter)
Paladins 2 (1 oath of compassion, 1 oath of vengenance)
Bards 2 (1 college of lore, and one college of valor who multiclassed to wizard)
Barbarians (1 path of the berserker who multiclassed to fighter - see ablove)
Wizards 2 (Diviner and Abjurer - both multiclassed to wizard)
Rogues 3 (1 arcane trickster, 1 swashbuckler, 1 hunter ranger multiclassed to rogue)

 

[CreamCloud0]

A great deal of truth in that. However, Wizards are also "solution man" - or should be. While I've never met a wizard player (and character) that didn't enjoy their evocation spells ("Spell go BOOM!"), where they really shine (or should) is in their ability to solve problems ("Hold on. I've got a spell for that."). That does require wide-open access to spells, though, which is something a lot of games have trouble providing.

And unhappily with 5e's prohibition against buffs, one of the more useful problem-solving tools for the Wizard was taken away. Frankly a classic wizard complaint would be something like: "Years studying the hidden mysteries, plunging into the arcane depths of history and theory. Mastering the subtle art and science that is magic. Wrestling with the actual rules of reality - and winning! And what do you, my fellow party members, only ever want me to do? Blow up the monsters! ARGH!" {Later, in private: "Hehehe, monster go boom.")

Personally, I think 5e’s insistence on making all classes self sufficient of each other and ‘competent’ in combat was detrimental to overall class design.

 

[Scribe]

Personally, I think 5e’s insistence on making all classes self sufficient of each other and ‘competent’ in combat was detrimental to overall class design.

Absolutely.