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

[Garthanos]

Am I right in thinking fighter is not even in the running? makes me sad. Paladins were admittedly a type of fighter way back when but still.

 

[generic]

Am I right in thinking fighter is not even in the running? makes me sad. Paladins were admittedly a type of fighter way back when but still.

The Fighter still wins in terms of sustained damage and first-level multiclassing potential. The sheer number of times the Fighter will eventually be able to attack using the Attack action outpaces any other class in 5E, making it less necessary to hit each attack, and allowing for more cushioning for missed attacks. In addition, Fighters can be effective as long-range specialists as well as front-line fighters, unlike Paladins, for whom even the Bowadin build is a poor Archer replacement.

 

[Garthanos]

The Fighter still wins in terms of sustained damage and first-level multiclassing potential.

Being a good thing to steal from is pretty faint praise... and given how people play fewer encounters seems to make the first a bit that way too.
There is indeed something to be said for reliable functionality (like the 4e reaping strike ability) but these are a personality dependent desire access to big flashy is appealing to more.

There is an Avenger Archer character archetype ie a type of paladin/cleric divine Artemis/Apollo Archer style one would want to be ranged friendly but is totally appropriate that the base class be terrible at range seems stylistically correct.

 

[Minigiant]

Am I right in thinking fighter is not even in the running? makes me sad. Paladins were admittedly a type of fighter way back when but still.

The Fighter wins at dedicated sustained melee damage at dedicated sustained ranged damage. It also is decent at melee/ranged switch hitting, tied with rangers.

Rangers is best at on ranged "weapon" nova and switch "weapon" nova.

Paladin just looks good because it's melee nova is great and stereotypical D&D campaigns are cramped with grounded sacks of HP.

 

[Garthanos]

The Fighter wins at dedicated sustained melee damage at dedicated sustained ranged damage. It also is decent at melee/ranged switch hitting, tied with rangers.

Hmm some of the ideas I have about allowing fighters to be better at spreading out damage kind of like how the 1e fighter fighting a lot on zero level / minion class enemies was able to widen the swath of carnage. Though it came up rarely I wonder if this might provide even more niche for he fighter.

The 4e monk had a daily that allowed it to attack every enemy in reach as it moved passed. A fluid graceful riposte maneuver might accomplish similar to the 1e rule for the fighter

 

[Seramus]

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.

Yeah. At 6th level a Bard can easily deal 9d8 damage every round for 10 minutes straight. At 10th level that goes up to more than 15d8 every round for an hour.

A Bard that takes 2 levels of Paladin is even funnier.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

Sounds like the opening for a joke.

"A bard, a paladin, and a wizard walk into a tavern....."

The punchline being that there were two other characters in the party but no one noticed them.

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.

Evasion, uncanny dodge, sneak attack, and reliable talent beg to differ. Both gain skill abilities but rogues gain them faster and by the time lore bards have peerless skill (which runs on a limited resource) all rogues have reliable talent. Eliminating low rolls lets rogues succeed at checks more often than a limited use bonus.

Rogues have innate defensive abilities that tank damage better and are better at skills. Bards do a lot but they still don't do it as well as more focused classes.

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.

Compare that to a vengeance paladin who also casts hunter's mark or haste plus has a fighting style, improved divine smite, more smite options, vow of enmity, and a bonus to make concentration saves the bard doesn't have.

Both are also putting ASI's into an attack stat instead of CHA, or are going for CHA and losing accuracy and damage on the attacks. MAD hits them in ways that don't hit fighters, barbarians, and rogues that people tend to forget.

A person can build a STR based PAM or GWM valor bard but they are losing out in other areas in the process. Going that route gets damage faster than waiting for 10th level on a spell for the archer. Going ranged would be better off CE for the bonus action attack in the meantime, making haste better than swift quiver by that level.

Am I right in thinking fighter is not even in the running? makes me sad. Paladins were admittedly a type of fighter way back when but still.

A battlemaster unloading expertise dice on an action surge nova's nicely. Same armor, same hit die, both have self healing and saving throw benefits under different mechanics, bonus feats/ASI's are nice. I prefer the fighter but my adventuring days don't consist of "fight's over let's rest". Or the EK is rather similar but MOAR attacks vs MOAR spells.

I don't think the argument of a "weak" fighter is true. Possibly over-specialized but fighters don't struggle with being able to fight well.

A Bard that takes 2 levels of Paladin is even funnier.

Sure is because he delays access to higher level abilities and gives up both a 7th level spell slot and an ASI for the ability to waste spell slots on damage that would have been more effective cast on spells. Like the higher level spells he just delayed and permanently giving up a force cage, for example.

"Look at me!!! I delayed casting hypnotic pattern so I can blow those slots on single target d8's instead."

Claiming a bard is powerful because of the paladin smite ability seems a bit misplaced, no?

 

[Garthanos]

A battlemaster unloading expertise dice on an action surge nova's nicely. Same armor, same hit die, both have self healing and saving throw benefits under different mechanics, bonus feats/ASI's are nice. I prefer the fighter but my adventuring days don't consist of "fight's over let's rest".

Thanks for the analysis.

Possibly over-specialized but fighters don't struggle with being able to fight well.

@Ashrym
Could you break this thought down more about over specialized?

 

[Garthanos]

Claiming a bard is powerful because of the paladin smite ability seems a bit misplaced, no?

Some bad guys must make a satisfying pop when they go out by over kill eh.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Compare that to a vengeance paladin who also casts hunter's mark or haste plus has a fighting style, improved divine smite, more smite options, vow of enmity, and a bonus to make concentration saves the bard doesn't have.

I didn't say it out-damages the Paladin. Just said it's respectable if you take the right options. I do wonder how much damage it would have done if I'd played it as a Paladin and just crapped out Lightning Arrow and Hail of Thorns with all my slots. As it was, though, I relied more on Animate Objects than anything else.

Claiming a bard is powerful because of the paladin smite ability seems a bit misplaced, no?

Recently had a PC in my campaign that went P2/Bd 6. College of Swords, so he attacks 3x per round and pretty much just uses his slots for smite. So he had 4/3/3/1 slots while the full Paladin had 4/3. MCing Bard with Warlock or Paladin is pretty popular.

The Paladin rescued Prince Thrommel and got a Sword of Answering as a reward, though.