Search results

You're literally saying a class doesn't suck when everyone else in the party sucks. And you have no idea how utterly ridiculous that sounds. Again, a class becomes relevant only when everyone else is lower tier or sucks. You're really not making a good case here.

The Bard (Tier 3) is better at spellcasting, skills, social situations, and exploration. And combat, too. The Ranger (Tier 4) is better at skills, exploration, and combat, and even arguably spellcasting. The Rogue (Tier 4) is better at skills, social situations, and exploration, and even...

Because the class that can create tension with certain parties can possibly still perform effectively in a party where there isn't that tension. The mechanically weak class, OTOH, is always mechanically weak, regardless of what the rest of the party is. I can make a strong case for playing an...

My problem with Oath of Treachery is that it was actually called an Oath. It should've just been a Blackguard and gone from there. Oathbreaker to me is a Paladin who willfully and knowingly violated their Oath and decided to go full evil. Blackguard, on the other hand, would be cool if...

Which then begs the question: Why not a Cleric, who can do all of that better and a whole lot more? You have a class who is clearly inferior in combat to the Fighter and clearly inferior in both combat and utility to the Cleric. The 3.5 Paladin had no reason to exist.

The Undead Warlock is basically a non-crap version of the Undying. It's ... OK. College of Spirits is interesting, but I don't like that Tales from Beyond takes both your bonus action and your action. Terrible for action economy. I feel like the Bardic Inspiration spending part of it should...

Most of 5e's player base sure has.

A Fighter with all its bonus feats could take the save-boosting feats that other classes wouldn't touch and match the Paladin in that category, while still able to grab all the combat feats it wanted. 3.5 Paladins didn't have much out-of-combat utility. Their narrow spell list didn't do much...

Aside from the one case of an early Vampire class that never saw publication, Vampire was a race or a race template. And it always worked better in D&D as a template, because it allowed flexibility in what a vampire could be. Some vampires in D&Ds other than 4e were fighters, others mages, and...

No, I totally have. You haven't shown it to be false. Oh, anecdotal evidence now? Every 3.5 table that I've ever seen with a Paladin has left the Paladin player completely dissatisfied with the class. Said Paladin players switched to other classes and enjoyed the game much more. Even if that...

I don't have builds handy offhand, but I'm pretty sure I've seen Wizards routinely buff themselves to the highest ACs in the party. A level 1 character, sure. A Level 10 character? No. But other classes are clearly better at doing what the Paladin is supposed to be doing than the Paladin is...

Well, other than the Druid who could cast Barkskin, the Wizard or Sorcerer who could cast Magic Armor and Shield, the Rogue with a good DEX along with their Uncanny Dodge class feature ... A Paladin with an 18 CHA at Level 10 isn't going to hit anything in combat because that same Paladin...

Actually, yeah, they do. Ability increases were only +1s and only came every 4 levels, so you had to choose whether to boost STR, CHA or WIS. There was a major opportunity cost, and it really hurt MAD classes like the Paladin. Their Fortitude save, sure. Their other saves, absolutely not...

No more than a Fighter or Cleric, who can also wear heavy armor. Fighters could take more feats than the Paladin and Clerics had better spells to improve AC and a whole lot more. Barbarian Rage also improved saves. And as I mentioned above, Paladin saves weren't actually all that great even...

Any Paladin with a "decent" Charisma in 3.5 was not hitting a damn thing in combat because it was sacrificing Strength to get that "decent" Charisma, which would be putting it even further behind any other martial class than they already were. Also don't forget that 3.5 Paladins needed a 14 in...

Except the 3.5 Paladin is not any of those things. They can't even get the AC of a well-feated Fighter usually, let alone that of a full caster, nor do they get the damage reduction of a Barbarian, so they're not good tanks. Their damage sucks, any Barbarian or Fighter with Power Attack is going...

OK, let's compare the 3.5 Paladin to, in the same edition's PHB: Full caster classes: Ha. Ha. Ha ha ha. Next. Barbarian: Barbarian deals more damage with Rage, has full-time damage resistance, better mobility, better hit die. Paladin loses. Bard: Even though Bard only goes up to 6th-level...

There was nothing the 3.5 Paladin could do that a Cleric (especially) or even a Fighter (!) couldn't do infinitely better. Spellcasting is the only significant thing the 3.x Paladin got that scaled with level. And even then, it scaled poorly, thanks to the Paladin's spellcasting level being...

I was close to putting the 1e Thief on the list but decided against it because, while it has the flaws you said, its skills were at least useful once they got to that high level. Also, the 1e Thief levels up insanely fast all the way through.

Right, I forgot about that little discrepancy between PHB and DMG. Not that it helps the Monk a whole lot; the Cleric matrix is typically only 1 or 2 points better than the Thief matrix at the same levels. I was looking at the higher levels, where Monks take 500K XP past level 12 to gain new...