D&D 5E An Argument for Why Paladins are the Strongest Class in 5E D&D

[Ashrym]

I think the Bard outperforms the paladin in almost every category except that nifty Aura. The bard is a much more flexible class that empowers many character concepts, and can even do a lot of what the paladin does by poaching their spells.

Seriously, a Bard can have find greater steed, banishing smite, or destructive wave several levels before a Paladin can.

Or just take good spells like banishment or fear or fireball or animate objects etc instead.

The class is irrelevant there. It's half caster vs full caster while a person could use sorcerer instead of bard and still access higher level spells faster.

Bards have advantages but armor and damage are on the lower end of the scale. I do prefer bardic inspiration to aura of protection because it moves with characters and can be applied in more ways.

It really more that the paladin, warlock, and bard came into their archtypes in 3e. 4e showed how they look at at full power. So all 5e had to do is revert the 4e versions into a more traditional frame. Ranger and Sorcerer didn't get such solidification.

That was part of my open test feed back. "I want more 4e than 3e in my 5e bard."

4e wasn't my favorite edition but it certainly wasn't the train wreck some people want to portray it as.

The issue with ranger and sorcerer is more people didn't want 4e conversions.

Bards tend to not be able to fight on the front lines using Martial Weapons. Although, being a Sword Bard might mitigate the weaponry concern.

Swords bard abilities are attached to the attack action. That creates a conflict between using flourishes and casting spells.

Valor bards add shields and get to keep that AC improvement without burning inspiration or while casting spells. It's the better front line option.

Either is likely to go rapier and DEX, but valor gains all martial weapons proficiency to go a different build.

Bards can use weapons like anybody else. The only major gap is level 5, when the Paladin gets a second attack and 2nd level spells to smite with. Then level 6 rolls around.
Indirect damage is damage.

Bards can use weapons but they don't get abilities that improve using those weapons. The higher the level the bigger that weapon gap gets.

It's the same issue with cantrips where other casters get better damage cantrips and most gain abilities that improve cantrip damage.

Bards improve skill use and inspiration instead of weapons and spells. They are great at support but tanking hits and inflicting damage are not shine moments for them. They tend to take extra focus just to hit mediocre in those aspects at tbe cost of other areas.

 

[Zardnaar]

Or just take good spells like banishment or fear or fireball or animate objects etc instead.

The class is irrelevant there. It's half caster vs full caster while a person could use sorcerer instead of bard and still access higher level spells faster.

Bards have advantages but armor and damage are on the lower end of the scale. I do prefer bardic inspiration to aura of protection because it moves with characters and can be applied in more ways.



That was part of my open test feed back. "I want more 4e than 3e in my 5e bard."

4e wasn't my favorite edition but it certainly wasn't the train wreck some people want to portray it as.

The issue with ranger and sorcerer is more people didn't want 4e conversions.



Swords bard abilities are attached to the attack action. That creates a conflict between using flourishes and casting spells.

Valor bards add shields and get to keep that AC improvement without burning inspiration or while casting spells. It's the better front line option.

Either is likely to go rapier and DEX, but valor gains all martial weapons proficiency to go a different build.



Bards can use weapons but they don't get abilities that improve using those weapons. The higher the level the bigger that weapon gap gets.

It's the same issue with cantrips where other casters get better damage cantrips and most gain abilities that improve cantrip damage.

Bards improve skill use and inspiration instead of weapons and spells. They are great at support but tanking hits and inflicting damage are not shine moments for them. They tend to take extra focus just to hit mediocre in those aspects at tbe cost of other areas.

This a bard focused on damage isn't going to be great at it.

 

[Fenris-77]

The mechanics of Bard versus Paladin don't matter after a point. We know Bard, Lore in particular, is a strong mechanical class. Full caster, great mechanics, etc. Bards are not straight damage dealers though, it's not what they're good at. You can build them that way, but its not optimized. The Lore Bard is, quite possibly, a 'better' mechanical 5e class than the Paladin, but not built as a DPR build. IMO, if you wanted an optimized 5e party, you might start Paladin, Lore Bard, Diviner, and then add meat shields. The DM will scramble to up the CR.

 

[Zardnaar]

The mechanics of Bard versus Paladin don't matter after a point. We know Bard, Lore in particular, is a strong mechanical class. Full caster, great mechanics, etc. Bards are not straight damage dealers though, it's not what they're good at. You can build them that way, but its not optimized. The Lore Bard is, quite possibly, a 'better' mechanical 5e class than the Paladin, but not built as a DPR build. IMO, if you wanted an optimized 5e party, you might start Paladin, Lore Bard, Diviner, and then add meat shields. The DM will scramble to up the CR.

That was one of our early parties.

Had Paladin, light cleric, Diviner, war cleric, rogue, lore bard iirc.

 

[Fenris-77]

Lore Bards and Diviners are the shizz. Better, mechanically, than the Paladin IMO, although the Paladin definitely takes the cake for the melee classes. Paladin, Paladin, Rogue, Lore Bard, Diviner might be the uber party.

 

[Zardnaar]

Lore Bards and Diviners are the shizz. Better, mechanically, than the Paladin IMO, although the Paladin definitely takes the cake for the melee classes. Paladin, Paladin, Rogue, Lore Bard, Diviner might be the uber party.

I would put a light cleric in their somewhere. Probably replace the rogue.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, the Lore Bard can probably take care of Rogue stuff just fine. I'm old school enough I don't like to without a Rogue though. I was actually thinking more specifically of an Assassin MC build. The assassin nova's first, then some sexy control, they the Paladin's do their thing. A light cleric would also be pretty optimized. It's kind of level dependent really. The Assassin doesn't come online until 8th level, so for a lower tier game I'd go light Cleric. For a higher tier game I'd go Assassin. I might be biased about the assassin.

 

[Minigiant]

Again it depends on the campaign.

A lot of the strength of the Paladin comes from how the stereotypical D&D dungeon crawl is set up. They are tight spaces with sacks of hp monsters and damage and save based traps. Perfect for a slow novaing tank who can self heal.

Lore Bards are better for more sandboxy overworld game where a range of skills and magic are needed and pure firepower is less in demand.

 

[Fenris-77]

Two full casters and the right control spells make Paladins much more generally useful. When you can pace the fight you can pace the need for nova, which really ups the overall usefulness. Even in a pretty traditional dungeon-y game the Bard is doubling for the Rogue, is a better party face than the Paladin, and still has full casting to toss around.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The Valor bard can do respectable damage if you pick up Hunter's Mark, one of the spell smites, or Swift Quiver. However, those are all Concentration spells, and Bards typically have much more interesting things to do with Concentration. When I played one, we already had a Barbarian, Paladin, and Moon Druid, so more damage was really not a priority. I ended up using other spells a lot while plinking with my bow.