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

[WanderingMystic]

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.

I am sorry I was thinking of the martial classes not the full casters since there are and have always been in a league of their own.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I realize that in a legal sense there might be a meaningful difference between "aristocrat" compared to "noble" & some of the other "default backgrounds"*

No, again, we're not on the same page. I'm not even remotely talking about Nobles, Aristocrats, or whatever you want to call them. I really am not following your line of discussion. I have no context.

I'M speaking about how backgrounds are mechanically customizable, not anything about what they're called or why the exist.

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.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about - I have no context. What disruptions? What corrections? What unreasonable expectations?

*Continuing tour word from 138.

What? Where I talked about the Paladin being not done yet? I STILL don't understand where you're coming from. And I'm honestly trying!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

@tetrasodium Thinking about it, I think that you're trying to say that players expect to have their Noble character be richer than someone else's Farmer character, right? So that creates weird expectations at the table, and you don't like that? It's not a problem I've seen, but (if I'm right) I get what you're talking about.

But I don't see how it pertains to what I was talking about, which is just that you can change your Feat or your Skills or your ASIs, regardless of what you CALL your chosen background, or how your DM has NPCs interact with that person.

Does that make sense as to how we're talking about two different things? If you have a connection between the two in mind, feel free to let me know.

 

[Nightfly]

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.

This could be (and maybe should be) its own thread, but...no way. Paladins are THE best class in 5e. I've seen that from both sides: my most powerful character as a player was a paladin, and the character that frustrated me the most as a DM was emphatically a paladin. They're great tanks, do crazy damage, heal, cast spells, and their auras nullify entire aspects of encounters. No wizard ever made me gnash my teeth as DM the way a paladin did.

I haven't seen the 5.5e paladin, so I can't comment on that, although I've read nothing that makes me think they've been nerfed into the ground. If they've been dialed back a bit...well, they had lots of room to be.

 

[tetrasodium]

@tetrasodium Thinking about it, I think that you're trying to say that players expect to have their Noble character be richer than someone else's Farmer character, right? So that creates weird expectations at the table, and you don't like that? It's not a problem I've seen, but (if I'm right) I get what you're talking about.

But I don't see how it pertains to what I was talking about, which is just that you can change your Feat or your Skills or your ASIs, regardless of what you CALL your chosen background, or how your DM has NPCs interact with that person.

Does that make sense as to how we're talking about two different things? If you have a connection between the two in mind, feel free to let me know.

Not richer in GP, higher in clout & soft power within society. Instead of wealth the backgrounds with standing set players up to expect that their PC deserves undue clout & access when they choose a background with standing in society like noble spy guild artisan & so on after seeing 20 pages of blurbs & artwork misleading expectations. It makes for the difference between "is it reasonable that my character might have met xxx" & "I approach xxx to discuss his ties working for my family/guild/etc so we can [plotstuff]". When it's just only one player among many who is mislead it's no big deal for a dm "worth their salt" but when it's multiple players it turns into a regular disruption with the players reinforcing each other's bad expectations caused by 20 pages of overly spotlighted optional things making it a bit more work to counter gracefully without repelling player investment in the world.

I feel like we've only exchanged a couple posts in a fairly brief time tonight & somehow the thread's pagecount has jumped by 3 pages since the start that I'm not really following though so I'm not sure if it's even relevant here anymore.

 

[Gladius Legis]

No wizard ever made me gnash my teeth as DM the way a paladin did.

In my experience, if the wizard isn't outshining the paladin, the wizard player is not good at playing their class.

 

[James Gasik]

It depends. Paladins have a lot going for them- arguably, they have the most solid defense package in the game with d10 hit dice, heavy armor, shields, lay on hands, and aura of protection. The ability to trade spells for burst damage gives them some rather nice versatility as well.

You could find a Paladin simply ignoring a lot of things that would stop other characters in their tracks- I saw this in a Curse of Strahd game, where a TPK was averted simply because the enemy couldn't take out the Paladin.

Certainly, a savvy Wizard can avoid pitfalls and turn an encounter inside out with the right spell, but staying power and the ability to generate "please die now" damage when needed is something to be reckoned with.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In my experience, if the wizard isn't outshining the paladin, the wizard player is not good at playing their class.

I think that is just your experience at your tables. While the wizard can do things the paladin can't dream of, they should not use them to outshine the paladin. In my experience you are not good at playing the wizard class if you waste your resources for trivial things.

Also the paladin aura is a subtle benefit, but if this bonus makes the wizard not fail a crucial concentration check, everything the spell does after that point goes to the paladin's achievement list.

In 3.5 we had a bard with abysmal stats. So all they did was focussing on social checks and buffing the party. The ranger had +4/+4 bonuses to hit and damage on 3 to 4 attacks. Guess what: when we did statistics of damage done and we counted 4 damage of al attacks and all of the close hits towards the bards damage meter, guess who was ahead.

Why did I tell you this anecdote: it is not about shining individually. It is forming a team with strength in different areas to make a fun game.

 

[Clint_L]

It depends. Paladins have a lot going for them- arguably, they have the most solid defense package in the game with d10 hit dice, heavy armor, shields, lay on hands, and aura of protection. The ability to trade spells for burst damage gives them some rather nice versatility as well.

You could find a Paladin simply ignoring a lot of things that would stop other characters in their tracks- I saw this in a Curse of Strahd game, where a TPK was averted simply because the enemy couldn't take out the Paladin.

Certainly, a savvy Wizard can avoid pitfalls and turn an encounter inside out with the right spell, but staying power and the ability to generate "please die now" damage when needed is something to be reckoned with.

Yeah, I think paladins are the top dogs in the current game; we'll see what happens next year. They are phenomenal tanks, reliable damage dealers who can nova like crazy, off healers with some interesting spell options that increase their versatility, have an aura that is arguably the best group buff in the game, and can even function as the party's face if it lacks one of the primary charisma classes.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, I think paladins are the top dogs in the current game; we'll see what happens next year. They are phenomenal tanks, reliable damage dealers who can nova like crazy, off healers with some interesting spell options that increase their versatility, have an aura that is arguably the best group buff in the game, and can even function as the party's face if it lacks one of the primary charisma classes.

Honestly, I feel the Paladin is a strong contender for the best class chassis in the game. Although it pays for this, because few of it's subclasses really wow me, but that could just be me.

Compare and contrast it's cousin, the Ranger, which flounders due to it's dubious identity, where the subclass has to do the heavy lifting- Ranger with a bad subclass is just terrible, while a Paladin with a mid subclass is just fine.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Wizard. It's class chassis is poor and pretty bland, even compared to other full casting classes, like the Bard or the Cleric. But because it's power isn't in it's class chassis, but in it's spells, a Wizard with no subclass at all can perform quite well (or badly) based entirely on your choice of spells. That's pretty horrible design, yet it persists because that's how the Wizard has always been, and if you change it, some people get irate, lol.

As an aside, the Sorcerer suffers especially from this, because spell choice is absolutely vital- if you don't pick spells that are always strong and useful, you're in for a miserable experience.

I mean, look at the Cleric. Here we have a sturdy class chassis with decent hit points, AC, ok weapon choices, Channel Divinity, and subclasses that ooze flavor and can grant potent features and spells that a Cleric can't even use. And if they pick a bad spell, no problem, I'll pray for a different one tomorrow!

So why does the Wizard get so much attention? Because most of the Cleric spells are fairly poor, designed to be silver bullets for specific situations. I've seen a ton of Clerics who are basically "healing word, spiritual weapon, spirit guardians, and some cool spell I got from my Domain", lol.

The dirty secret of D&D is that spell slots are not even between all of the spellcasting classes. A spell slot of a given level for one class can be less dramatic than one for another class. Which makes absolutely no sense, not just from a game mechanics level, but from a narrative one-

You're telling me the best spell a God can grant to their chosen champion is probably poached from the Wizard spell list? As the Hulk would put it, "puny God".