D&D (2024) Wow, 5.5e characters are STRONG!

[UngeheuerLich]

I playtested it, too, and the class just felt bad to play. It was by far the most unpleasant experience I have ever had in 5e in any form, and I've played a 2014 Four Elements Monk. I was juggling bonus actions too many times, and at no point did a smite ever feel like an option at all. Simply dual-wielding is a better use of my bonus action, and other classes are better at that, too, because the one reason to dual-wield on a Paladin doesn't exist anymore. And when a smite isn't an option, then I might as well play another class.

Ok. Seems that you play different than we do. For our paladin, everything was a boon. Although bonus action juggling is annoying, action juggling and limited to only the same vanilla smite over and over again is more annoying.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I was juggling bonus actions too many times

Okay, let's look at what takes a bonus action...

• smiting
• PAM/GWM's extra attack
• lay on hands/sacred weapon, but them costing an action would be worse
• subclass spells like Sanctuary/Hunter's Mark/Ensnaring Strike
• dual-wielding without either weapon being Nick
• some racial stuff, like Orcs make for worse Paladins because of this

The subclass spells vs smite I'll admit looks awkward, but the other conflicts seem really manageable, mostly by picking something else.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Ok. Seems that you play different than we do. For our paladin, everything was a boon. Although bonus action juggling is annoying, action juggling and limited to only the same vanilla smite over and over again is more annoying.

Action juggling could be worked around in a lot of cases by prebuffing.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Okay, let's look at what takes a bonus action...

• smiting
• PAM/GWM's extra attack
• lay on hands, but it costing an action would be worse
• subclass spells like Sanctuary/Hunter's Mark/Ensnaring Strike
• dual-wielding without either weapon being Nick
• some racial stuff, like Orcs make for worse Paladins because of this

The subclass spells vs smite I'll give you, the other conflicts seem really manageable, mostly by picking something else.

OK, so I either take PAM or GWM and just have a bonus action that's better than anything smite can do, or I ignore those feats and intentionally gimp the character just so it can actually be a Paladin. Some choice there.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

OK, so I either take PAM or GWM and just have a bonus action that's better than anything smite can do, or I ignore those feats and intentionally gimp the character just so it can actually be a Paladin.

You still benefit from them (reaction attack / extra dmg), you just won't benefit from them to the max if you want to do something else that turn (like when, say, someone is hard to hit and you'd rather +3d8 them now for sure than likely miss with the extra d4 attack).

Worst comes to worst, yes, they may just have to pick a different feat, one that is not quite as powerful as the two absolutely best feats in the game. Or simply be a half-caster with PAM/GWM who uses their slots on casting spells instead of smites (and still gets free weapon masteries for some reason). I think they'll manage.

 

[tetrasodium]

I... I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing? Your video is talking about why Gygax didn't want PCs to be Aristocrats nor Peasants. That's only widely tangentally related to a discussion of what you get mechanically from choosing a background. Are you objecting to backgrounds as a THING? Because that's definitely not what we've been talking about, though I'd be happy to discus it on its own (with some context).

On the subject that I was talking about: If it's for some reason important for a player to be one of the 12 or whatever "official" backgrounds for ease-of-terminology, the problem is STILL solved by picking one of those backgrounds (in name) and then changing LITERALLY ANYTHING YOU LIKE about it. Don't like the feat? Take a different one. Don't like the ASI's? Take a different one. THOSE ARE THE RULES. The backgrounds they're using cover MOST archetypes. Your version would likely only be a variant on a theme, anyhow.

I realize that in a legal sense there might be a meaningful difference between "aristocrat" compared to "noble" & some of the other "default backgrounds"* I noted during some periods of time & nation states but I don't think that level of hair splitting tends to apply to even the most tedious of tables.... At the end of chargen the problem remains the same throughout the campaign when one or more players at the table is given an unreasonable expectation down that road where the GM is continually forced to correct the resulting disruptions.

*Continuing tour word from 138.

 

[Gladius Legis]

You still benefit from them (reaction attack / extra dmg)

If they require a bonus action you can't use them with a reaction attack.

(and still gets free weapon masteries for some reason)

The weapon masteries are the only reason they're not straight-up 2014 Monk tier.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

If they require a bonus action you can't use them with a reaction attack.

Enemy approaches you. You hit them with your PAM reaction. Bonus actions are not involved.

 

[WanderingMystic]

If they require a bonus action you can't use them with a reaction attack.

The weapon masteries are the only reason they're not straight-up 2014 Monk tier.

I am sorry but this statement is laughable. Paladins are still one of the most powerful classes out there. Just because they have other uses for their bonus action doesn't make them a bad class.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Paladins are still one of the most powerful classes out there.

No, this statement is laughable.

They weren't even one of the most powerful in 2014. Every full caster was better. They were just the best non-full caster, which is like winning junior varsity.