D&D 5E (2014) An Argument for Why Paladins are the Strongest Class in 5E D&D

[Garthanos]

I think Barbarians beg to differ on this point.

I always thought of barbarians as skilled in intimidation, nature, animal handling, perception, athletics, stealth, story telling(oral history), laying traps, crafting their own equipment and survival and medicine plus a few dozen others people leave off the list

 

[Ashrym]

Not true. Two-weapon fighting style isn't available to Paladins, and his Bardic Inspiration gives him an AC bonus along with bonus damage. Dude frequently was sitting there with 25 AC after a flurry of attacks.

A paladin can MC for TWF just as easily as a bard can MC for smites. It's a minor point though because TWF is a small amount when improved smiting already does similar damage and the paladin can just take the AC bonus instead. It's the action surge the paladin picks up along with TWF that matters in that MC option.

The defensive flourish eats through bardic inspiration that I would prefer be used for saving throws the party needs. AC should be 22 or 23 on average barring magic items. The issue is the bard needs to attack in order to maintain it.

Smites are even less sustainable for a full paladin. Fact is the MC'd bard smites harder and more often. And since he rolls more attacks, he gets more critical hits. From watching them in play:

P2/B6: Smites more, smites harder, crits more often, better AC, has some good 3rd and 4th level spells if needed
P8: More hp, save bonus aura, much better LoH, can prepare paladin spells above 1st level (no cleric so this is important)

That's not the bard, however. That's because the paladin ability is being backed by the standard MC spell caster progression. A sorcerer MC does that too but also adds more slots from sorc point conversion.

3 attacks + BI + smite 3 > fireball on a single target, especially if that target is a demon. They've been fighting a lot of demons. Besides, there's an evoker wizard in the party, and only Lore bards can have fireball before 10th level.

3 smites equals 3 spell slots gone. It's inefficient.

BI damage is applied once. 4.5 avg. 3 attacks with short swords 25.5 with 20 DEX so 30 damage before accuracy plus smites and possible crits.

• Round 1: 5d8+4d8+4d8+30 = lots, yes, against a single target using 2 3rd level and 1 4th level spell. ~88 damage with aside from crits and accuracy.
• Round 2: 4d8+3d8+3d8+30 = lots still. ~75 damage same assumptions
• Round 3: 3d8+2d8+2d8+30 = ~66 damage.

That's what the smiting does. Single target attacks that leaves the build tapped out quickly.

There's no doubt there's some number porn there. The difference is the fireball cost a 3rd level slot and the smiting cost a 4th level slot and 2 3rd level slots that first round. The damage comes out fast but the guy who cast fireball still has a lot more slots.

Alternatively, the straight up bard can cast compulsion once with that fourth level spell your build doesn't have and use it to trigger opportunity attacks for the party every round while also attacking or casting more spells subsequent rounds. A party that knows how to work together can get a lot of damage out of compulsion for something that takes a bonus action to continue using.

Or just make the encounter a lot easier with hypnotic pattern.

The fireball example does work with a lore bard, yes. We both get to use a subclass but I left it out for the follow up above. The main points were better use of spell slots that can create or reduce damage, and still have more slots to use as needed. I'd rather get animate objects levels earlier.

 

[Ashrym]

until somebody takes expertise in it... and you start actually trying to do stunts. Of course with that being so vague I can see why people don't

That's a trick of the mind. The DC's don't increase just because expertise exists and the classes that take expertise are not normally investing in STR. The vast majority of monsters don't have proficiency at all.

A fighter can also take expertise in athletics if there is a concern. It's available via feat (prodigy) in humans, half elves, and half orcs. That gets back to not taking non-combat feats. It's also a fast splash.

I think that is a nail on the head and even my adjustments to the fighter were largely about making it even more versatile in combat or allowing the str fighter to not lag on initiative so much and similar combat things so I am not thinking I have room to talk

Separate ASI's, combat feats, and non-combat feats into separate class progressions if you are modding classes. That allows for splits in the pillar more to your liking based on class and guarantees non-combat feats are getting taken. Adding more feats will probably be needed.

 

[Garthanos]

A fighter can also take expertise in athletics if there is a concern. It's available via feat (prodigy) in humans, half elves, and half orcs. That gets back to not taking non-combat feats. It's also a fast splash.

I call it vague because I have no idea what kind of stunts might be possible if I do it. No idea at all can I jump over enemies heads and gain advantage on the other side... its a blank slate sunk cost as far as I am concerned. Its some 1970s negotiation with a DM who has been told that adventuring without magic will be 10x as tough. Might as well figure you are going to stuck with ability akin to the guy down the block not Cuh Chulainn or Beowulf

Separate ASI's, combat feats, and non-combat feats into separate class progressions if you are modding classes. That allows for splits in the pillar more to your liking based on class and guarantees non-combat feats are getting taken. Adding more feats will probably be needed.

Sounds like an idea ... and while you are at it come up with some guidelines for what can be accomplished with skills

Point is when you take a combat feat you kind of know what you are getting.... some of the others not so much

 

[FrogReaver]

Not true. Two-weapon fighting style isn't available to Paladins, and his Bardic Inspiration gives him an AC bonus along with bonus damage. Dude frequently was sitting there with 25 AC after a flurry of attacks.



Smites are even less sustainable for a full paladin. Fact is the MC'd bard smites harder and more often. And since he rolls more attacks, he gets more critical hits. From watching them in play:

P2/B6: Smites more, smites harder, crits more often, better AC, has some good 3rd and 4th level spells if needed
P8: More hp, save bonus aura, much better LoH, can prepare paladin spells above 1st level (no cleric so this is important)



3 attacks + BI + smite 3 > fireball on a single target, especially if that target is a demon. They've been fighting a lot of demons. Besides, there's an evoker wizard in the party, and only Lore bards can have fireball before 10th level.

Chance that you hit 3 of 3 attacks is abysmal.

 

[generic]

Hmm some of the ideas I have about allowing fighters to be better at spreading out damage kind of like how the 1e fighter fighting a lot on zero level / minion class enemies was able to widen the swath of carnage. Though it came up rarely I wonder if this might provide even more niche for he fighter.

The 4e monk had a daily that allowed it to attack every enemy in reach as it moved passed. A fluid graceful riposte maneuver might accomplish similar to the 1e rule for the fighter

I remember creating a trial ruleset for 5E where Fighters could use certain attacks to make area of effect attacks, which, in flavor, would be a flurry of sword strikes, or, maybe, a volley of arrows.

 

[Garthanos]

I remember creating a trial ruleset for 5E where Fighters could use certain attacks to make area of effect attacks, which, in flavor, would be a flurry of sword strikes, or, maybe, a volley of arrows.

I am looking at using various metamaneuvers like granting an adjacent enemy an opportunity attack to gain an extra attack yourself and in general things like spending 2 attacks to attack all adjacent.. perhaps without attribute mod on any but the first only enemies ganging up on you are vulnerable to having more than 2 hit. Basically a way to discourage focus fire which makes focus fire a harder choice

 

[Seramus]

"Look at me!!! I delayed casting hypnotic pattern so I can blow those slots on single target d8's instead."

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.

Claiming a bard is powerful because of the paladin smite ability seems a bit misplaced, no?

Did someone make such a claim?

 

[fearsomepirate]

...

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.

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

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).

There's no doubt there's some number porn there. The difference is the fireball cost a 3rd level slot and the smiting cost a 4th level slot and 2 3rd level slots that first round.

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

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

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