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

[Seramus]

Multiclassing into something else is pretty irrelevant when you're trying to argue the merits of a certain class.

That's fair. It was mostly a tangent, since I personally wouldn't multiclass from Bard to Paladin unless that was my character concept. I do think Paladins are strong in general, Bards are just the kings of this edition.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Multiclassing into something else is pretty irrelevant when you're trying to argue the merits of a certain class.

He's trying to argue that the player who went P2/B6 for the smites should have gone F2/P6 for the Action Surge. I think. I'm not even sure what the argument is now.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wouldn't make the trade either, but if the pro paladin argument is that they can technically nova more damage against a single target in the short term, then 2 levels of paladin eliminates that issue.
Did someone make such a claim?

Maybe from level 8+. Not before then.

 

[Ashrym]

Your argument that a bard could be even more effective by going full bard instead of MCing as paladin is a completely different argument than saying it doesn't dish out as much damage as a full paladin. More smites and more attacks does not somehow equal less damage.

The bard doesn't have more attacks. It doesn't take a TWF style to use TWF. The number of smites argument is based on the 5MWD model that in the long run isn't that many more smites, cap out at the same damage in a smite, and are still better served on spell effects instead of smites.

btw Improved Divine Smite is an 11th-level ability. P8 doesn't have it.

There's more to the game than 8th level. I like to think people plan out their characters.
It's an ability the bard will not be picking up in the bard/pally splash vs pally comparison.

also btw "I wouldn't play that character that way" isn't an argument at all. It's not your character; it belongs to a player at my table, and he's basically playing it as a Paladin with a much deeper well of smite damage. That you wouldn't prefer to do that is completely irrelevant to how much pain he dishes out on enemies (a lot).

Not a much deep well. It's 4 smites at the level and 6 smites at 20th level. The relative gap doesn't increase much over time; it decreases. What you're missing is the effects of the spells instead of smiting.

Doing 229 damage to a single target requires a lot more than one fireball.

Doing 229 damage took a lot more than one spell slot. Why are you clinging to fireball and ignoring the other spells mentioned, or clinging to that single target damage like it's the only valid damage? You also wouldn't do 229 damage in that time because accuracy needs to kick in. The pally / bard split is down an ASI in comparison as well so the 20 DEX was being generous. It was just a rough number.

Fireball is used as apples to apples because it's a caster bard option. Damage for damage. The straight bard has an additional 4th level slot so 3 rounds is (9d6)*2+8d6 for ~91 damage per target. That's 2 4th level slots and a 3rd level slot on fireball. It only takes 3 targets to leave total damage in the dust at a third of the resource cost. That's before adding in any bonus action attacks the bard might have also picked up.

Single target can skip completely by using polymorph the first round and sleep the second and incap the opponent because of the new current hp total. Your build can't do that at the level you want to argue and wouldn't based on the premise of smite damage

Spells like dissonant whispers and compulsion let the party make use of opportunity attacks to stack on additional smites, or sneak attacks, or play with war caster for booming blade fun. It's not what the bard does as in individual in that case but how the bard enhances the party. Hypnotic pattern incapacitates large numbers of creatures to manage incoming damage while the party ganks selected targets individually. DPR as a metric ignores incoming versus outgoing ratio.

He's trying to argue that the player who went P2/B6 for the smites should have gone F2/P6 for the Action Surge. I think. I'm not even sure what the argument is now.

No, that was part of comments that paladins have less attacks somehow and was adding on that a paladin can MC just like a bard can. Adding action surge lets the paladin build out nova your bard build. Using a multiclass benefit applies to other builds too. A person cannot look at one splash and ignore other splash options in comparison.

Another comment I made is that the damage you are attributing to bards is coming from the paladin's smite ability and the generic MC caster progression table. That's not a bard ability.

The overall theme I'm going for is throwing away those slots that fast for quick damage not as useful as enhancing the party. Those bardic inspiration dice you are burning through for AC allow other characters to not whiff big attacks or keep them in the battle by not failing a saving throw.

As for the other side of the coin, the build gives up aura of protection, channel divinity, and paladin oath abilities. The boost to the paladin's saves are also important, vow of enmity increases the chance to land those smites fast, and giving up a single off hand attack and 1st level smite for hunter's mark adds up on a single high hp target.

The big advantage going bard instead of paladin isn't as big as you think because it's also giving up higher level paladin abilities compared to a straight paladin or giving up higher level bard abilities when looking at a straight bard. There's more involved than just looking at the number of and level of spell slots.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The bard doesn't have more attacks. It doesn't take a TWF style to use TWF. The number of smites argument is based on the 5MWD model that in the long run isn't that many more smites, cap out at the same damage in a smite, and are still better served on spell effects instead of smites.

How does this mean that the P2/B6 at my table is actually doing less damage than the P8, and all the extra damage dice he's constantly throwing out don't actually mean he's hurting things more? I'm not following the argument here.

Why are you clinging to fireball

I'm not the one who wrote paragraphs of strange math trying to prove that a single fireball is just as good as three full rounds of melee attacks & Divine Smite. Did I mention they're fighting demons? +1d8 on smites, and the big ones pretty much all have resistance to fire damage and advantage on saving throws.

Fireball is used as apples to apples because it's a caster bard option.

At 8th level, it is only a Lore Bard option. Going from a front-line melee fighter to a back-line caster is not apples to apples.

BTW, there's no save vs smite for half damage, which glabrezus and whatnot do a lot...and they resist fire on top of that!

There's more to the game than 8th level. I like to think people plan out their characters.
It's an ability the bard will not be picking up in the bard/pally splash vs pally comparison.

This campaign ends at 9th level, and it's ending with lots of demon fights (the evoker wizard is really having a tough time btw). Pretty sure my player planned for that.

 

[Seramus]

Maybe from level 8+. Not before then.

I would say 6+. That's when they get fun things like Additional Magical Secrets or Mantle of Majesty, etc.

 

[Ashrym]

How does this mean that the P2/B6 at my table is actually doing less damage than the P8, and all the extra damage dice he's constantly throwing out don't actually mean he's hurting things more? I'm not following the argument here.

It looks like you are ignoring parts of the argument instead of trying to follow it. That's probably on me for not being clear enough, though. My thoughts get ahead of me sometimes. ;-)

To be clear, your P2/B6 is missing paladin features such as oath of enmity and hunter's mark from vengeance as an example compared to a P8 or a F2/P6. Your P2/B6 is also missing an ASI that can either be a damaging feat or attack ability score increase accuracy and damage. More dice does not equal more damage just because it's more dice. It's only part of the picture.

That's a separate discussion from smites usually being a poor use of spell slots for a bard.

I'm not the one who wrote paragraphs of strange math trying to prove that a single fireball is just as good as three full rounds of melee attacks & Divine Smite. Did I mention they're fighting demons? +1d8 on smites, and the big ones pretty much all have resistance to fire damage and advantage on saving throws.

It's not strange math. It's just a total of average damage assuming hits. The problem here is "they're fighting demons" is a form of cherry picking. How the campaign is run is not indicative of the classes.

An advantage in a particular campaign is not a general advantage.

At 8th level, it is only a Lore Bard option. Going from a front-line melee fighter to a back-line caster is not apples to apples.

BTW, there's no save vs smite for half damage, which glabrezus and whatnot do a lot...and they resist fire on top of that!

Why would lore bards not be an option and when was it determined advantage was restricted to melee? Your build is specifically using a swords bard. Other subclasses can be argued against the merits of the subclass you selected.

Refering to glabrezu is still cherry picking a monster susceptible to smite with advantages against other spells, although I'm not clear why they don't avoid smites by flying.

This campaign ends at 9th level, and it's ending with lots of demon fights (the evoker wizard is really having a tough time btw). Pretty sure my player planned for that.

When your campaign ends doesn't dictate a general comparison either.

It's still missing the point of the other paladin abilities being missed and other spell opportunities for the bard.

 

[gyor]

Paladins are tops for Soloing that is for sure.

Has anyone taken in Variant Class Features from the UA into account? How does that change things?

 

[fearsomepirate]

It looks like you are ignoring parts of the argument instead of trying to follow it.

You don't have a consistent argument, that's why. You're theorycrafting, which means you are necessarily overlooking the virtually unlimited contextual variations that happen in real campaigns, while I'm running a table with one of each, and it's pretty clear who puts out the most damage in an adventuring day. Well, before the Sword of Answering, anyway.

It's not strange math.

It was when you claimed a single Fireball was just as effective as three smites and three attacks. It's not.

Why would lore bards not be an option

Because they're not a viable front-line melee option. The dude in the back with 15 AC lobbing fireballs and warping people's minds is a completely different role than the triple-attacking fella with 19-27 AC crit-fishing the baddies he hit with Faerie Fire. Telling people they shouldn't be in the role they want to play because you personally think it would be more interesting for them to be in some other party role is 100% not the DM's call to make. I'm not gonna tell this guy to move to the back line, throw away the plate mail and the swords,, and pick a 3rd-level wizard spell any more than I would tell an Archery Fighter/Rogue mashup that he should have been a straight Great Weapon Fighter instead.

Refering to glabrezu is still cherry picking a monster susceptible to smite with advantages against other spells,

It's really not. The CR9 monster list has a fair bit of resistance to fire and advantage on saves. Maybe you'll get lucky and fight treants. Or you might be really screwed and end up going up against fire giants.

although I'm not clear why they don't avoid smites by flying

Bard and the Wizard used Dispel Magic.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm curious why we are looking specifically at level 8 in the Paladin 2 / Bard X setup. Why not leve 9 or 11 or maybe even 7? What's so special about level 8?