why paladins (smite) are powerful: action economy efficiency

[Gladius Legis]

The whole idea of going after the Paladin as being "OP" when Wizards and Moon Druids exist as they do is an extremely flawed premise from the start.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ancalagon]

The whole idea of going after the Paladin as being "OP" when Wizards and Moon Druids exist as they do is an extremely flawed premise from the start.

The wizard is strong because of remnants of the "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" problem, but it's a lot less bad in 5e.

The Moon Druid is really strong for a few levels, then it settles down. At high levels it's arguably weaker than other druids. (Edit : I should note that this is not from personal experience).

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The Ranger fires cruise missiles that do on average 26 points of damage. With a Crit, 50 isn't uncommon.

How? And how many times a day?

 

[Staffan]

I think the issue isn't that the Paladin is OP. I've watched a Paladin and a Ranger go up at the same rate. The Paladin withut using his limited Smites does damage like a fighter. The Ranger fires cruise missiles that do on average 26 points of damage. With a Crit, 50 isn't uncommon. Twice a turn. Hunters Mark plus their extra dice of damage if the target is already wounded is OP. I have to pad my encounters with a lot of 25 HP crunchies hoping he rolls low and only does 21 points so he has to waste a second cruise missile to take out the crunchie. Now is my ranger doing something wrong? Because this is a problem in all three games that are running at the game shop. 5th lv plus rangers becoming the USS Ranger unloading cruise missiles at 600 feet with lethal accuracy. Talk about min-max.

I'm not sure, but I think you're missing something here.

I'm assuming you mean Colossus Slayer with their "extra dice of damage", but that only works once per turn, and you specifically don't get it against an unwounded target (so you wouldn't be able to use it to take someone from full hp to zero). So at 5th level, a ranger would probably do 1d8+4+1d6 for an average of 12 on an unwounded opponent, followed by 2d8+4+1d6 (average 17) assuming the first attack hit.

You might be including Sharpshooter in the above values, but in that case you're basically taking -6 to hit for +9 damage (including -1 to hit/damage from not using the 4th level ability boost on Dex). A 5th level ranger using Sharpshooter attacks at about +3 (+3 for Dex 16, +2 for archery style, +3 proficiency, -5 sharpshooter) for 1d8+13+1d6 (average 21) on an undamaged foe or 2d8+13+1d6 once per round on a hurt one (average 26), but if you do that you're probably missing at least 50% of the shots.

 

[Maxperson]

Chance to lose Concentration on a Smite spell if cast directly before attacking - 6th level paladin.

Chance to miss both attacks w/ standard 65% chance to hit: 12.25%

Chance to fail a Concentration save doing 20 or less damage (DC 10), assuming +2 CON and +3 CHR. No proficiency for CON saves so you need a 5 or higher. So 20% chance to fail.

So that works out to be a 2.45% chance to lose it if hit once. Even several hits will leave you with over a 90% chance to keep it.

So if we assume an 18 strength at level 6 and +3 for proficiency give +7 to hit. You cannot rely on having spells or items to boost that, so that's a 50% chance to miss a mere 14 AC. If you are hitting with a "standard" 65% chance to hit, you are min-maxing, which is not something the typical player does. The typical player will be missing far more often than that, and I deliberately don't min-max. That sort of play has never been fun for me.

I'm not sure how to respond that was "common enough" to stop using it. Perhaps you had a run of bad luck. Or maybe your risk tolerance is very sensitive.

It's "common enough," because I don't min-max and have a higher chance of missing attacks than you do.

It was the misinformation about having a small effect and then the really small corner case for zero effect that I was clearing up. Hopefully to convince you, but also not to let the misinformation stand for other readers.

The misinformation here is yours. If the average player reads your post, he's going to think he has a 2.45% chance of losing his spell before being able to use it. However, since the average person doesn't min-max, he has a significantly higher chance to lose the spell, just like I do.

 

[Gladius Legis]

So if we assume an 18 strength at level 6 and +3 for proficiency give +7 to hit. You cannot rely on having spells or items to boost that, so that's a 50% chance to miss a mere 14 AC.

Congratulations, you fail at math. +7 to hit vs. 14 AC means you need to roll a 7 or higher to hit. That's a 70% chance to hit, 30% chance to miss.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Chance to lose Concentration on a Smite spell if cast directly before attacking - 6th level paladin.

Chance to miss both attacks w/ standard 65% chance to hit: 12.25%

Chance to fail a Concentration save doing 20 or less damage (DC 10), assuming +2 CON and +3 CHR. No proficiency for CON saves so you need a 5 or higher. So 20% chance to fail.

So that works out to be a 2.45% chance to lose it if hit once. Even several hits will leave you with over a 90% chance to keep it.

I'm not sure how to respond that was "common enough" to stop using it. Perhaps you had a run of bad luck. Or maybe your risk tolerance is very sensitive.



Sure, if you said it was your opinion that you didn't like them up front regardless of how effective they were I wouldn't have bothered to reply.

It was the misinformation about having a small effect and then the really small corner case for zero effect that I was clearing up. Hopefully to convince you, but also not to let the misinformation stand for other readers.

Ok, Blue, I follow most of your stuff here, but how are you arriving at the Concentration save? I thought it was straight Con save, so how are you getting a 5 or higher? With a +2 Con, won't you need a 8 or higher, failing 35% of the time?

 

[Maxperson]

Congratulations, you fail at math. +7 to hit vs. 14 AC means you need to roll a 7 or higher to hit. That's a 70% chance to hit, 30% chance to miss.

Yes, I was rushed and my math was off. What's your excuse for failing to get the point? There are tons of creatures at CR 6 and lower that have ACs of 16-18, 40-50% miss chance. And some that are higher than 18.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, Blue, I follow most of your stuff here, but how are you arriving at the Concentration save? I thought it was straight Con save, so how are you getting a 5 or higher? With a +2 Con, won't you need a 8 or higher, failing 35% of the time?

That's why he put the paladin at level 6 and then assumed a 16-18 strength and 16 charisma. He's adding in the +3 to saves from the paladin aura.