D&D 5E Are Paladins Merely Mediocre Multiclass Fighter/Clerics?

[Neonchameleon]

The Ranger is a warrior.
The Shaman would be a caster.

The Ranger is a pretty substantial caster by the standards of pre-5e. Fifth level spells is barely less than a 3.5 bard gets - and I don't see the shaman as a cleric level caster. To be honest I'd rather expand the warlock with a primal subclass.

Haha no.

I want D&D Psion. Not a Mind Sorcerer.

I'm not clear what you want here.

1. You can go whistle if you want attack and defence modes from the 1e psion.
2. Are you demanding the literal 70 pages of hand curated spells that the 3.5 XPH had? In which case there are reasons you're not getting that.
3. Do you want a flexible power point caster who augments spells by upcasting them, casts with power points using no somatic or material components, and otherwise behaves the way they used to? In which case all you need to do is go into your copy of Tasha's with a bottle of tip-ex, paint out Aberrant Mind, and write in Psion.

Spellbook?

That's what you consider the class identity? Make it your casting focus.

Close but no cigar and wrong prime scores.

So what you want is literally "exactly the way it worked".

In which case I'm saying "down the line cleric, no changes required". It has ninth level spells and the right prime scores after all. And things like Spirit Guardians are more Invoker than "classic Cleric" IMO.

Half caster warrior like Ranger or Paladin..

Not third caster fighter. Not Full Caster with a sword
Half casting Arcane Warrior

That's some extremely narrow bounds you're setting there. And we still have the Armourer and Battlesmith who are exactly what you claim to want. All this to match something that didn't really exist in prior editions other than through heavy workrounds.

So like 30% the power.

Yeah, I didn't say that they were good replacements.

5e shoves every cool idea into subclasses.

Subclasses are 1/3 the power of full classes in what they do.

Depends on the base class. And in 90% of cases for prior editions 1/3 of the thematic difference is more than enough to make up for an old school "class", with only 4e then forcing the designers to put in enough material to make it worth bothering to make a class. Picking a really obvious example the 3.0/3.5 barbarian in 5e would be deservedly nothing more than a subclass in 5e - as would the 3.0/3.5 sorcerer. But the Artificer (which admittedly needs a polish) couldn't be made to fit in the wizard so it became a new class.

It abuses the low tolerance of design some D&D has and how they don't see potential full power of ideas.

Which is why they made every single idea into a class to sell more bloated splatbooks. I consider it a good thing that 5e isn't in the shovelware business and that they are actually using the full power of ideas rather than hastily churning out half formed ideas to fill books and break balance.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They will be in the 2024 revision.

Yup, all this talk about Paladins being great at nova'ing and generally it going to turn very sour later this year unless WotC listened to feedback and didn't make Smite into a Bonus Action, as they did in the 2024 version. And that wasn't the only questionable change 2024 made.

 

[Minigiant]

The Ranger is a pretty substantial caster by the standards of pre-5e. Fifth level spells is barely less than a 3.5 bard gets - and I don't see the shaman as a cleric level caster. To be honest I'd rather expand the warlock with a primal subclass

That's because WOTC is lame and doesn't pull from sources that have nature magic warriors like comics and anime. No Iceman's armor or Wolverine Regen. No Kiba's giant dogs or Shigechi's Havest. Ranger magic is untapped

I see at least 2 more primal classes.

One class that is primarily a pet class. The beast companion is a shamanic spirit that gets the bonuses of class and subclass features. The humaniod casts spells to heal and buff it and most stands back

Then you have another wisdom class that is much like the druid in the d&D movie. A Wildshape spammer. Tougher than a moon druid with options to Dragonshape or Giantshape via subclass.

m not clear what you want here.

1. You can go whistle if you want attack and defence modes from the 1e psion.
2. Are you demanding the literal 70 pages of hand curated spells that the 3.5 XPH had? In which case there are reasons you're not getting that.
3. Do you want a flexible power point caster who augments spells by upcasting them, casts with power points using no somatic or material components, and otherwise behaves the way they used to? In which case all you need to do is go into your copy of Tasha's with a bottle of tip-ex, paint out Aberrant Mind, and write in Psion

More like the 3e Psion.

A caster special spells that have different additions when you upcast them. Like having the Metamagician attached the the spell.

Like Far Hand levitates items. But if upcasted you can increase the range, strength, or make it and attack for each level upcasted.

So 1 spell known is more like 4 spells.

That's what you consider the class identity? Make it your casting focus.

I mean a divine version of the wizard. You copy spells to your prayer book, use Intelligence, and collect scrolls.

But since you use a weaker spell list, you can do stuff the is op in the hand of wizards. Like swap spells on short rest. Or create spells with alterations and copy them to your prayer book. Or learn paladin spells.

Basically remember that OP version of the wizard in the playtest with Memorize and Create Spell. Make it use the divine spell list instead.

So what you want is literally "exactly the way it worked".

In which case I'm saying "down the line cleric, no changes required". It has ninth level spells and the right prime scores after all. And things like Spirit Guardians are more Invoker than "classic Cleric" IMO.

Was thinking more like a divine warlock really.

Spamming Sun strike and divine bolt while concentrating on Spirit Guardian.

I'd love a Warlockish Short Rest caster for Divine, Primal, and Psionic spell lists.

That's some extremely narrow bounds you're setting there. And we still have the Armourer and Battlesmith who are exactly what you claim to want. All this to match something that didn't really exist in prior editions other than through heavy workrounds

Duskblade or Swordmage. Like greenflame and booming blades.

Arcane spells made for a warrior.

Depends on the base class. And in 90% of cases for prior editions 1/3 of the thematic difference is more than enough to make up for an old school "class", with only 4e then forcing the designers to put in enough material to make it worth bothering to make a class. Picking a really obvious example the 3.0/3.5 barbarian in 5e would be deservedly nothing more than a subclass in 5e - as would the 3.0/3.5 sorcerer. But the Artificer (which admittedly needs a polish) couldn't be made to fit in the wizard so it became a new class.

That's only because the D&D designers are, I can't say uncreative, but like you said unwilling to create new material and themes unless forced .

They halfway do anything they are not enthusiastic about. Barbarian, Sorcerer, Monk, and Ranger were seriously undercooked.

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC is letting third-party designers create all these extra classes for people. Which should be a good thing, based on all the people who got so ticked off when WotC was going to pull the OGL-- thus implying that third-party designers and their products were a group worth maintaining in the D&D atmosphere.

If the OGL / Creative Commons / ORC are all worth having for d50 designers to use... their products should be worth using as well and you shouldn't need WotC to make that same exact stuff for you.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's because WOTC is lame and doesn't pull from sources that have nature magic warriors like comics and anime. No Iceman's armor or Wolverine Regen. No Kiba's giant dogs or Shigechi's Havest. Ranger magic is untapped

Oh, I have no point of disagreement with this. There is definitely a lot more primal magic (including a half-caster barbarian subclass) that can and should be added.

I see at least 2 more primal classes.

One class that is primarily a pet class. The beast companion is a shamanic spirit that gets the bonuses of class and subclass features. The humaniod casts spells to heal and buff it and most stands back

I've limited diagreement here. I don't see "the pet class" needs to be primal, merely that there need to be primal options; pets aren't a druid exclusive thing. I actually think that between the beastmaster ranger, the wildfire druid, the battle smith artificer, and the pact of the chain 5e is close to getting it right.

Then you have another wisdom class that is much like the druid in the d&D movie. A Wildshape spammer. Tougher than a moon druid with options to Dragonshape or Giantshape via subclass.

Mmmm... I think you're coming at this in too limited a way. More shapeshifting is definitely needed. But I'd rather have multiple different chassis; a ninja/ranger shapeshifter feels like a different thing from a barbarian/brute. I'd rather multiple subclasses here.

More like the 3e Psion.

A caster special spells that have different additions when you upcast them. Like having the Metamagician attached the the spell.

Like Far Hand levitates items. But if upcasted you can increase the range, strength, or make it and attack for each level upcasted.

So 1 spell known is more like 4 spells.

In short a tiny fraction of spells. Your Far Hand with two metamagics here isn't four spells given that upcasting is now part of basic spellcasting, it's two. (It has two augments, one for range and one for weight - current mages can handle one and get a second spell if needed). There are several key things here:

• Upcasting is a property of the spell not the class
• 5e casters can already upcast in a single direction on 5e spells
• Sorcerers can also metamagic
• Only a small fraction of psionic spells in 3.X have multiple augments
• Many psionic spells that appear to have multiple Augment options (like Brain Lock or Control Flames) could easily have them rewritten for a single augment option - in the case of Brain Lock the multiple aguments widen the target selection (it's a quasi Hold Person/Hold Monster) and in the case of Control Flames the separate augments are one to increase the fire and the other decrease it
• Some of these augments (especially Far Hand) are low level faffing.

In short the entire objection seems to be "Nothing but a class will do because there are about half a dozen spells that do not fit".

I mean a divine version of the wizard. You copy spells to your prayer book, use Intelligence, and collect scrolls.

And how often do wizards actually do that in 5e?

Duskblade or Swordmage

If you're talking the 4e Swordmage with the Aegis (especially Assault) I can agree - but that is not "a gish" of which 5e is well supplied; it's a very specific implementation of a gish. The Duskblade? That's only a hair away from the Eldritch Knight other than one gets heavy armour earlier and the other gets casting earlier. (The Duskblade gets 5th level spells to the EK's 4th level, more spells per day and about two different abilities). If it's 5th level spells you really care about there's always the Artificer.

There's already a 90% match to what you want to do without needing to dump a new class on 5e.

Like Greenflame and Booming Blades

Arcane spells made for a warrior.

Both Greenflame and Booming Blades (and a few other warrior spells) are literally in 5e.

That's only because the D&D designers are, I can't say uncreative, but like you said unwilling to create new material and themes unless forced .

That's because every new thing added materially makes the game worse because it makes the mechanical overhead higher.

They halfway do anything they are not enthusiastic about. Barbarian, Sorcerer, Monk, and Ranger were seriously undercooked.

Oh, agreed. But all the classes you list there are a significant improvement on even their 3.5 versions, never mind their 3.0 ones (there is an argument that unlike the other three the 3.5 PHB Ranger might even be a match for the 5e PHB one, but the 3.0 ranger wasn't so much undercooked as raw). And adding half baked prestige classes or even half baked classes like the Duskblade in general just ensures there is more undercooked material in the game.

I'm convinced that one reason 4e worked as well as it did is you couldn't just churn out a class with a pitch of "angry fighter" or "spontaneous wizard", give it a name, and declare it to be done. Instead you needed multiple subclasses and dozens of powers and fit it to a role while meeting benchmarks, so you needed to really think about the class.

 

[James Gasik]

And how often do wizards actually do that in 5e?

I'm not sure I follow this question. Are you saying Wizards don't track down spells to scribe into their spellbooks? Mine certainly does! Am I somehow in a minority of Wizard players who think that 2 new spells per level is enough to cover all their needs? Or are you saying that most DM's don't offer Wizards this luxury, while the Cleric and Druid with full reign over their spell lists are already part of the game?

 

[Hriston]

I’m going to disagree.

To me, the Paladin is the holy warrior who is directly chosen by their deity. In most stories that inspired the creation of the class, paladins are called by their God, sometimes relentlessly and personally by name.

Which stories are those? The aforementioned Holger is the only paladin in Appendix N of which I'm aware, although I haven't read all of it. Maybe you're thinking of The Twelve Peers? I'm mostly unfamiliar with the Matter of France myself. ETA: So I don't know if their stories involve being called into service by God or not.

Their job is to be a warrior of the faith. They can be part of the faith’s hierarchy, but usually are not.

The cleric can be a warrior for the faith, but that’s not their primary role. Their duty is more tied into the day-to-day ministry to the flock and to evangelize others to join.

Being an adventurer seems like a strange fit then.

 

[Minigiant]

, agreed. But all the classes you list there are a significant improvement on even their 3.5 versions, never mind their 3.0 ones (there is an argument that unlike the other three the 3.5 PHB Ranger might even be a match for the 5e PHB one, but the 3.0 ranger wasn't so much undercooked as raw). And adding half baked prestige classes or even half baked classes like the Duskblade in general just ensures there is more undercooked material in the game.

I'm convinced that one reason 4e worked as well as it did is you couldn't just churn out a class with a pitch of "angry fighter" or "spontaneous wizard", give it a name, and declare it to be done. Instead you needed multiple subclasses and dozens of powers and fit it to a role while meeting benchmarks, so you needed to really think about the class.

That's my whole thing.

2e, 3e, and now 5e just slapped 1-2 class features on one of the classic 4 classes. Then slapped a weak subclass on them because they didn't have the design space.

4e and 1e forced the designers to think up a full class or mechanical concept big enough to be expansive and not straightjacketed


On Shaman

I think there is a missing element. The druid puts too much power budget in spells. Same with ranger and weapons and artificer and infusions.

On Shifter

Same as shaman. Druid has too much mech space in casting that Wildshape and Moon Druid progression is slow.

On Psion

I guess more spells could work. But WOTC refuses to make those spells with that level of detail.

On Gish

What I meant is weaving arcane effects with attacks. The duskblade could have spells trigger with hits. The swordmage could disguise slashes behind illusions, teleport between slashes, and empower slashes with elements and shields.

 

[Neonchameleon]

On Shaman

I think there is a missing element. The druid puts too much power budget in spells. Same with ranger and weapons and artificer and infusions.

I don't think you're right about ranger or artificer. Which is why their subclasses are strong.

On Shifter

Same as shaman. Druid has too much mech space in casting that Wildshape and Moon Druid progression is slow.

That depends on your interpretation. As I said I'd like multiple versions from multiple classes. Barbarian gets one in the form of the Beast - and I'd like a ranger one as well and a more flexible Barbarian one.

On Psion

I guess more spells could work. But WOTC refuses to make those spells with that level of detail.

Without more spells you won't get what you claim is missing with your psion even if you add a full class. So it's not the class that's the issue.

On Gish

What I meant is weaving arcane effects with attacks. The duskblade could have spells trigger with hits. The swordmage could disguise slashes behind illusions, teleport between slashes, and empower slashes with elements and shields.

The 5e Eldritch Knight can mix weapon attacks and cantrips and this is being boosted with the 2024 update. There are also weapon cantrips, Smites (especially for the Bladelock), and a few spells that incorporate melee attacks. Plus defensive and reaction spells of course. I'm not seeing the Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger as behind the Duskblade.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think you're right about ranger or artificer. Which is why their subclasses are strong.

Maybe yes. Maybe no. I don't know how balanced a ranger a tough strong beast is.

That depends on your interpretation. As I said I'd like multiple versions from multiple classes. Barbarian gets one in the form of the Beast - and I'd like a ranger one as well and a more flexible Barbarian on

They are still too base class strong for wildshape into a beast of CR their level or have infinite or near infinite wildshape.

You cant do the shapeshift spam you see in fantasy or even the D&D as a full or half caster.

Without more spells you won't get what you claim is missing with your psion even if you add a full class. So it's not the class that's the issue.

Well the D&D psion is as focused on its versatile powers/spells as the D&D wizard is focused on their spell library.

The 5e Eldritch Knight can mix weapon attacks and cantrips and this is being boosted with the 2024 update. There are also weapon cantrips, Smites (especially for the Bladelock), and a few spells that incorporate melee attacks. Plus defensive and reaction spells of course. I'm not seeing the Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger as behind the Duskblade.

The 2024 versions are better.
______



But as a whole WOTC and the D&D community is tame on creativity on INT and WIS classes. Possibly since Wis is linked to religion and INT is like to wizards who are not allow to have competition.