D&D 5E Mike Mearls: Ranged Paladin doesn't break anything

[FrogReaver]

Well they are right in one sense...

You can't break the game with ranged attacks anymore than they already have lol.

It's not like this piece topples the building over on it's own. Its more like the straw that broke the camels back. It's not that ranged attacks make paladins better than any other class. They don't. It's that a ranged paladin is likely going to be better than any melee paladin. Heck he probably makes an even better sniper character than a rogue. At level 2 he can do 3d8 + 2d6 + 3 damage from longbow range.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not like this piece topples the building over on it's own. Its more like the straw that broke the camels back.

It's more like debating which straw in which of 40 bales of hay that were dropped on the camel from a C-130 flying at 20,000 ft - because we heard the camel was hungry and figured, after the horse we led to water died of thirst, it wouldn't need all that hay, which we had because, hey, the sun was shining... - actually broke it's back.
Because one of em must've and we need to fix that little sucker.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Paladin is already borderline OP, if not straight up OP. Adding to that power is an obvious no no.

 

[CapnZapp]

...

 

[CapnZapp]

You think that you are removing something from the character when you do this, but you're actually not. The armor thing is totally irrelevant: the dex based character may as well not have heavy armor proficiency for all that they use it. Similarly with the melee weapon vs ranged weapon. It's not common to actually get pinned in melee, and such a character still has melee weapons they can use. The fact they can't smite isn't that relevant: typically by the time the character is pinned, they've already used whatever resources they were going to dedicate to the fight.

Also fwiw, you can already make a ranged paladin. Dex based paladins do just fine (except for the bizarre multiclassing restrictions 5e has). Ensnaring strike is a 1st level spell that affects your next weapon attack (melee or ranged) and scales (very effectively) by slot level. The only real problem is that you're stuck being a green knight if you want this specific option.

Otherwise you're 'stuck' with branding smite (2nd level) and banishing smite (5th) if you want a vengeance or devotion paladin and are committed to never entering melee. One could argue that the base paladin abilities of the other oaths are more effective for a range paladin though.

A Paladin that can smite at range is outright better than the existing Paladin.

You're entirely correct that Dex somewhat makes up for the lack of heavy armor, but the main point is/should be that *not entering melee* makes up for lack of heavy armor!

The Paladin is perhaps the strongest (most well-rounded, few noticeable weaknesses) class of all.

Its dependency on melee is one of its few significant drawbacks. Let's keep it that way - don't listen to MMearls...!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Well they are right in one sense...

You can't break the game with ranged attacks anymore than they already have lol.

It's not like this piece topples the building over on it's own. Its more like the straw that broke the camels back.

True.

Still no good argument for opening the doors even wider.

At least any party with a Paladin will be tied to melee. Let's not throw that away.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[DEFCON 1]

Paladin is already borderline OP, if not straight up OP. Adding to that power is an obvious no no.

A Paladin that can smite at range is outright better than the existing Paladin.

You're entirely correct that Dex somewhat makes up for the lack of heavy armor, but the main point is/should be that *not entering melee* makes up for lack of heavy armor!

The Paladin is perhaps the strongest (most well-rounded, few noticeable weaknesses) class of all.

Its dependency on melee is one of its few significant drawbacks. Let's keep it that way - don't listen to MMearls...!

Or...

If there isn't another paladin in the party, then it doesn't matter whether a ranged paladin is better or worse than a melee paladin.

All that matters is whether this ranged paladin is too much better than other characters in the particular party in which he's found, mainly the ones who might also be running an archery build. Because then, yeah... if the ranged paladin greatly outshines the archery ranger or archery rogue, then the player of either of those two builds might find their contribution is being overshadowed. But that's a true possibility of any combination of character classes that overlap, whether or not you introduce or allow a ranged paladin.

A party that includes 3 melee characters, a wizard, and a ranged paladin will find little to no issue that the DM has allowed the paladin PC to work at range. Yes, the ranged PC will do a lot of damage if they smite a lot-- just like the ranged rogue who would do a lot of damage due to Hiding advantage and sneak attack. And if we accept and work around ranged rogues as DMs... to think we'd be incapable of doing the same around a ranged paladin is to not give ourselves enough credit.

So to dismiss the ranged paladin out of hand because of this theoretical "ladder" of potential class power that some players have created in their minds is kind of silly if you ask me. Like anything else... there are a ton of ways a PC will be over- or underpowered, whether or not you believe in some universal "default" power level of all classes and builds. If your PC's story works in this way, and you want to try this new class combo out... then do so. Just like you would any UA playtest class thing. And if the DM finds he needs to either reduce or up the power depending on how it plays, then they can do so as they go along.

 

[CapnZapp]

Or...

If there isn't another paladin in the party, then it doesn't matter whether a ranged paladin is better or worse than a melee paladin.

All that matters is whether this ranged paladin is too much better than other characters in the particular party in which he's found, mainly the ones who might also be running an archery build. Because then, yeah... if the ranged paladin greatly outshines the archery ranger or archery rogue, then the player of either of those two builds might find their contribution is being overshadowed. But that's a true possibility of any combination of character classes that overlap, whether or not you introduce or allow a ranged paladin.

A party that includes 3 melee characters, a wizard, and a ranged paladin will find little to no issue that the DM has allowed the paladin PC to work at range. Yes, the ranged PC will do a lot of damage if they smite a lot-- just like the ranged rogue who would do a lot of damage due to Hiding advantage and sneak attack. And if we accept and work around ranged rogues as DMs... to think we'd be incapable of doing the same around a ranged paladin is to not give ourselves enough credit.

So to dismiss the ranged paladin out of hand because of this theoretical "ladder" of potential class power that some players have created in their minds is kind of silly if you ask me. Like anything else... there are a ton of ways a PC will be over- or underpowered, whether or not you believe in some universal "default" power level of all classes and builds. If your PC's story works in this way, and you want to try this new class combo out... then do so. Just like you would any UA playtest class thing. And if the DM finds he needs to either reduce or up the power depending on how it plays, then they can do so as they go along.

The melee rogue should gain damage bonuses.

They should have kept at least some of the checks on ranged dominance. As is, it's mostly player inertia that keeps melee in the game.

Then and only then can you start thinking about allowing the probably best class in the game to project force at a distance.

---

Other than that, I don't see the relevance of your arguments.

Yes of course the switch from melee to range doesn't matter (as much) if you've already decided there are other melee builds!

But if there wasn't? What if you actually looked at this with objective eyes, instead of setting up scenarios that "confirm" your preconceptions...?

What if there's a point when the next batch of players suddenly realize "wait a minute, why are we creating melee builds at all? I know it's a staple of fantasy, but in 5e we can ALL be ranged snowflakes!"

Then it won't be long before you too realizes the Monster Manual can't cope.

Have a good day

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[FrogReaver]

Paladin is already borderline OP, if not straight up OP. Adding to that power is an obvious no no.

when rolled well a paladin is very very strong. I might classify him as OP. I'm not as sure about the average point but paladin? Strong yes. Overpowered Isn't a word I'd come close to using for him

 

[DEFCON 1]

But if there wasn't? What if you actually looked at this with objective eyes, instead of setting up scenarios that "confirm" your preconceptions...?

What if there's a point when the next batch of players suddenly realize "wait a minute, why are we creating melee builds at all? I know it's a staple of fantasy, but in 5e we can ALL be ranged snowflakes!"

I am looking at it with objective eyes.

And my eyes have seen that the players I play with are not at all concerned with playing the absolute best and strongest PC build with the least likelihood of being hurt or attacked. And based upon much of what I've read here and in other threads, other DMs at other tables ALSO have not seen this issue through their objective eyes.

Your objective eyes have told you that at YOUR TABLE... your players move to ranged PCs because it's "safer" and they are "more effective" according to whatever metrics your table puts a premium on. But it's your SUBJECTIVE eyes that see this as an issue for the entirety of the D&D game and is an issue for EVERY OTHER TABLE out there. And you constantly attempt to use your subjective eyes and opinions that this is an issue for the entirety of the D&D game to make sure other people follow your subjective opinions, presumably because that's the only way WotC will ever change anything in the game to match your perceptions-- if enough other people agree with you.

It's a fool's errand of course... you've already seen how little WotC cares about your concerns for the game... but I credit you for not giving up the ship. I just continually make it a point to let other people know that your subjective opinions about issues involving the entirety of the D&D game are just that-- subjective. And that for the most part people can ignore you because your beliefs only affect your own table and the tables of those few who agree with you. The rest of us know your subjective eyes are blind to what is actually happening to our tables and thus your opinions can be safely ignored.