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

[Ashrym]

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.

A person can make them respectable enough in damage (that was my "mediocre" comment from earlier), but it doesn't get to the same levels and focus on damage is not focus on something else.

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.

MC paladin or warlock with sorcerers are popular too, for the same reasons. It's the features from those classes that a person is looking for and not the bard specifically.

The MC costs 2 levels and 1 spell progression level on the MC table. Those smites look good but they aren't sustainable and a person could just have used a couple of fireballs or whatnot instead.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Ashrym - Bards don't do everything a rogue does, obviously, that would be a silly claim. But they can handle the skill monkey job just fine, and they're still full casters. I wasn't talking about the tanky side of things.

 

[Ashrym]

Could you break this thought down more about over specialized?

It's just the high fighting focus in the base class other than some non-combat skill proficiencies and the option to use ASI's for non-combat.

If people want a "has stronger / more other pillar options" fighters don't lean that way. Their mechanical options in that regard are low.

 

[Ashrym]

@Ashrym - Bards don't do everything a rogue does, obviously, that would be a silly claim. But they can handle the skill monkey job just fine, and they're still full casters. I wasn't talking about the tanky side of things.

Most skills can be covered regardless. That's what happened with bounded accuracy and backgrounds, maybe with a bit of race support, and only rolling when there's doubt on the outcome.

Expertise and extra proficiency are nice but reliable talent is the big skill win and that's still a rogue thing.

I can make a DEX fighter with a criminal background who picks up expertise and skills via race / feats. "Skill monkey" is less class based than it once was.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's just the high fighting focus in the base class other than some non-combat skill proficiencies and the option to use ASI's for non-combat.

If people want a "has stronger / more other pillar options" fighters don't lean that way. Their mechanical options in that regard are low.

This.

Fighters can only make a claim at matching the best classes at combat in a game style that seems relatively rare. ( 6+ encounters/long rest.)
However they are pretty much the undisputed worst class for out of combat matters.

 

[Garthanos]

It's just the high fighting focus in the base class other than some non-combat skill proficiencies and the option to use ASI's for non-combat.

Someone said they felt obligated to use their ASIs as combat buffs or are there insufficient non-combat feats? Or just too many other classes with a lot better out of combat features?

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

At our table we have an Arcane Archer Fighter and an Oath of Devotion Paladin.

Both are having a lot of fun which is what counts.

The Fighter generally has a bigger impact in combat due to sheer damage output. The Paladin has that aura though which is really good and lets them have a spotlight every time there are saves to be made.

 

[prabe]

Someone said they felt obligated to use their ASIs as combat buffs or are there insufficient non-combat feats? Or just too many other classes with a lot better out of combat features?

Probably some of all of those, plus 5E being more than a little tilted toward combat, making combat-effectiveness a prime consideration.

 

[Ashrym]

Someone said they felt obligated to use their ASIs as combat buffs or are there insufficient non-combat feats?

There are plenty of non-combat feats. It's the "felt obligated" culture that stops it more than lack of feats. Players want it for free.

The first bonus ASI isn't until 6th level so the class feature offering non-combat as a choice is a second tier option. Some subclasses offer benefits and I think fighters get by well enough the way 5e handles skills but the core fighter fights.

 

[Fenris-77]

Most skills can be covered regardless. That's what happened with bounded accuracy and backgrounds, maybe with a bit of race support, and only rolling when there's doubt on the outcome.

Expertise and extra proficiency are nice but reliable talent is the big skill win and that's still a rogue thing.

I can make a DEX fighter with a criminal background who picks up expertise and skills via race / feats. "Skill monkey" is less class based than it once was.

The Bard gets more skills and expertise, that's a step up on any other skill build except rogue, who are obviously tops. I don't know why we're arguing about this, Lore Bard is obviously the second best skill monkey.