D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part IX: Paladin)

[DND_Reborn]

IMO the paladin class is so strong it doesn't even need subclass features, so just flavor it however you want and remove subclasses from it.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO the paladin class is so strong it doesn't even need subclass features, so just flavor it however you want and remove subclasses from it.

I don't agree with that. It's strong, yes, but it only really overshines if you have too few encounters during the adventuring day. A paladin going nova is a scary thing and if he can go nova reliably, then...

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't agree with that

That's fine, but I also feel that way about Monks and Rogues as well. They have so many features, subclass features aren't really needed.

While Paladins don't have as many core features, they get spells and their core features are so strong, subclasses aren't necessary--which is why many of their subclass features are fairly weak IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

That's fine, but I also feel that way about Monks and Rogues as well. They have so many features, subclass features aren't really needed.

While Paladins don't have as many core features, they get spells and their core features are so strong, subclasses aren't necessary--which is why many of their subclass features are fairly weak IMO.

I've never seen a paladin get spells. I mean, on paper they do, but in combat they seem to use all the slots on smites.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've never seen a paladin get spells. I mean, on paper they do, but in combat they seem to use all the slots on smites.

Yeah, that's a pity IME, but I understand it. Paladin's (especially at higher levels) have some really good spells.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, that's a pity IME, but I understand it. Paladin's (especially at higher levels) have some really good spells.

I agree. When I made my Oath of Ancients Paladin I was really excited to try out the spells. It didn't take long for me to realize that the smite spells were mostly junk. Why cast a spell before you hit and then hope you haven't lost concentration by the time it is used, just to do less damage than a normal smite and get a small effect? Once I realized how good smite was, the only spell I ever cast was the occasional Misty Step to get up on someone fast or get to someone who was at the top of a 20 foot cliff or something. It was a shame, really.

What they should have done is give paladins smite dice based on level and limited the number you could spend also based on level. So a 3rd level paladin might have 8 smite dice and be able to use a max of 2 of them on any given hit.

 

[FireLance]

My preferred approach to cutting down on smites is to allow paladins to only smite once per short rest. This also has the side benefit (to me) of encouraging the players to take more short rests.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Same!

Also the closest we have to a Warden.

Whereas for me I think the theme is completely out of left field*, and it--like the Oath of Vengeance being "Avengers"--feels like a slap in the face to people who actually liked the 4e Warden.

Like, if someone told you you could play a Warlock, and it turned out Warlock was just a Wizard subclass that had spooky fluff and one "talk to your patron" feature, but no Hex, no eldritch blast, no invocations, literally nothing like either the 3e or 4e Warlock....would you think "hey, awesome, they gave us something kinda-sorta-vaguely Warlock-like"? Or would you think, "Wow, this was the best they could do, huh? And they're still calling it 'Warlock.' Just wow"?

I'm definitely in the latter camp. It's a similar stance to my rather significant frustration with the "no no no never EVER add more classes, in fact we should have fewer classes and condense everything down as much as possible." That is, trying to shoehorn too many distinct ideas into a single framework very frequently results in one of three things: (a) diluting those distinct ideas until they're barely there (as is the case with Paladin), (b) diluting the base so far that it ceases to have enough stuff in it to be compelling on its own (e.g. I would say Wizard and Fighter are in this camp), or (c) a power-creep spiral (Twilight Cleric being a good example here.)

The purpose of making an actually new class, if a new class is warranted, is to carve out a solid thematic-mechanical package and give it the solidity and support it needs. Subclasses then offer the opportunity to specialize, diversify, or present interesting contrast.

*The Green Knight already exists. It's called the Ranger. The fact that many folks, such as @CleverNickName, see a better Ranger in the Oath of the Ancients Paladin is a condemnation of both things IMO, not a positive about either.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Whereas for me I think the theme is completely out of left field*, and it--like the Oath of Vengeance being "Avengers"--feels like a slap in the face to people who actually liked the 4e Warden.

Like, if someone told you you could play a Warlock, and it turned out Warlock was just a Wizard subclass that had spooky fluff and one "talk to your patron" feature, but no Hex, no eldritch blast, no invocations, literally nothing like either the 3e or 4e Warlock....would you think "hey, awesome, they gave us something kinda-sorta-vaguely Warlock-like"? Or would you think, "Wow, this was the best they could do, huh? And they're still calling it 'Warlock.' Just wow"?

I'm definitely in the latter camp. It's a similar stance to my rather significant frustration with the "no no no never EVER add more classes, in fact we should have fewer classes and condense everything down as much as possible." That is, trying to shoehorn too many distinct ideas into a single framework very frequently results in one of three things: (a) diluting those distinct ideas until they're barely there (as is the case with Paladin), (b) diluting the base so far that it ceases to have enough stuff in it to be compelling on its own (e.g. I would say Wizard and Fighter are in this camp), or (c) a power-creep spiral (Twilight Cleric being a good example here.)

The purpose of making an actually new class, if a new class is warranted, is to carve out a solid thematic-mechanical package and give it the solidity and support it needs. Subclasses then offer the opportunity to specialize, diversify, or present interesting contrast.

*The Green Knight already exists. It's called the Ranger. The fact that many folks, such as @CleverNickName, see a better Ranger in the Oath of the Ancients Paladin is a condemnation of both things IMO, not a positive about either.

I can see why they did it as paladin much like druid is a fairly small class concept and is hard to make different flavours off that sound cool.

 

[Argyle King]

Oath of Ancients is one of my favorite things in 5E.

There are a lot of different ways to approach the concept of a divine warrior dedicated to more primal religions.

The most fun I've had playing a character was as a lizardfolk Oath of Ancients paladin. Navigating what was "good" from his perception and lizardfolk culture when among a humanoid party was a very rewarding rp experience. It was like playing a more violent and "survival of the fittest" type Druid, but he wasn't evil; he had a code and a dedication to a cause.

In particular, I remember the character had no qualms about killing. However, he was upset about the party rogue/warlock killing someone "and only taking stupid rocks" (money) but not preserving any of the meat or using parts from the kill to make things.

Edit: I also remember spending a lot of time figuring out how to balance lizardfolk culture against the tenets of the class. That was likewise a very rewarding rp experience.

Kindling the light meant not engaging in unnecessary killing. There was no challenge nor honor in killing something defenseless and/or something which didn't need culled. If a kill were deemed necessary, he felt that you should not be wasteful -and use as much of the kill as possible. Against other predators and dangerous combatants, he was more willing to engage in violence because sometimes, in nature, two alpha predators come into conflict.

Sheltering the light and protecting against things which would make life barren includes culling over-populated animals so that the cycle of life (and the natural balance of hunter/prey) is maintained.

Preserving his own light meant enjoying a good hunt or sharing a good meal with friends, family, and tribe members. He was also very generous with gifts to valued friends and enjoyed crafting artwork (often in the form of a weapon or shield) out of bone, antlers, and etc.

Being light came from being strong and protecting friends, family, and tribe members who were weak. Though this was also balanced against an expectation that one would seek to become stronger -or at least useful to the tribe/group in some way. Laziness and a lack of desire to better self is something he looked down upon.