D&D 5E [Poll] Paladin Satisfaction Survey

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Also glad that they're probably going to be releasing evil-compatible paths if the UAs are any indication, as it has always driven me up the wall that evil gods still have chosen divine fighters but they can't be called paladins because reasons. This has also lead to reprints of essentially the same class with minor tweaks, which is something the subclass system is fairly well equipped to address.

They are called "evil priests" or (in 5E) "evil clerics." Paladins are something else, and they don't have to be beholden to gods.

 

[mellored]

I miss being able to be a ranged paladin (totally not reflavoured/played as a magical girl. noooope. honest).

I allow smiting with a ranged weapon, just reduce the damage die by 1.
I also allow archery style.

 

[Mercule]

I'm seeing my first 5E Paladin in play, right now. She's 5th level and no objections, so far. I'd like to see a bit more distance between the War Cleric and the Paladin, but I think that's probably more of an issue with the Cleric (IMO) than the Paladin.

Put another way, if Cleric was fixed to my liking, there'd be little-to-no issue with the Paladin. If you want to play an agent of the divine who wades into the front lines, play a Paladin. If you want to be more priestly, less combat, play a Cleric. As long as the heavy-armor Cleric is common, I'm a lot more sympathetic to lowkey13.

 

[jgsugden]

The only change I would make is to limit smite to once per round and to limit lay on hands to heal a maximum of half the total hp of the recipient.

 

[Sunseeker]

Pretty darn satisfied, it's not perfect but it's a huge improvement.

 

[Dualazi]

They are called "evil priests" or (in 5E) "evil clerics." Paladins are something else, and they don't have to be beholden to gods.

Both of which would imply that they are clerics (full casters) instead of the melee half casters that paladins actually are. Whether or not some or none of them are beholden to gods is also irrelevant, you can quantify them however you like but the fact remains that blackguards tend to have very similar themes and mechanics to paladins. It's not uncommon for some of the class's aspects to be inverted, like a damaging touch in place of lay on hands, but that's exactly the sort of thing subclasses excel at addressing.

You can easily refluff them to be called something else, but asking for a nearly identical class to be produced simply to protect questionable terminology is an incredible waste of time, doubly so with the lack of emphasis on alignment restrictions or mechanics.

 

[Lupus_Cruor]

I'd like to see a few more damage spells that aren't concentration, but other than that I greatly enjoy the 5e Paladin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guest 6801718]

I went with "very satisfied as written". Paladins are good on damage, defense and versatility. I've been playing one for a while now and I always have something to contribute. I like having a lot to do both in and out of combat. The paladin provides that. I do agree with others on smiting though. It would be nice if it was its own mechanic again rather than using up spell slots. I did enjoy the old method of smite being usable a number of times a day equal to your charisma mod, plus charisma mod to hit and plus level to damage. It was nice having it as its own resource so you could do a little more with your spells. Still, certainly not a deal breaker and using a smite is still pretty fun. Nothing beats seeing the DM's face when I pick up that pile of smite dice.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Both of which would imply that they are clerics (full casters) instead of the melee half casters that paladins actually are. Whether or not some or none of them are beholden to gods is also irrelevant, you can quantify them however you like but the fact remains that blackguards tend to have very similar themes and mechanics to paladins. It's not uncommon for some of the class's aspects to be inverted, like a damaging touch in place of lay on hands, but that's exactly the sort of thing subclasses excel at addressing.

You can easily refluff them to be called something else, but asking for a nearly identical class to be produced simply to protect questionable terminology is an incredible waste of time, doubly so with the lack of emphasis on alignment restrictions or mechanics.

You could just as easily give Extra Attack to as evil priest as a domain ability. (Bladesinger stands as precedent.) Also heavy armor and martial weapon proficiency like the Tempest domain.

Voila, now you have an evil fighter dedicated to a god. It doesn't behave like a paladin (no aura of protection for example, no divine smite unless to give a necrotic smite as a separate power) but it doesn't need to. It's just an evil fightery cleric, and it's about as good of a fighter as a paladin, missing only a fighting style.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app