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

[Mort]

The pillars are rarely equal.

That's where the Paladin's power comes from,. Paladins are powerful at tables with lower exploration and can let party members handle mot of exploration if its important.

That's why people said Paladins were strong early. Paladins are clear and truthful about what they are good at, bad at, what your should expect from them, and where they lean on their allies.

Yes, the Paladin class leans into the way many tables actually play.
Lots of combats BUT not too many encounters between rests, sprinkling of social, not a lot of exploration.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As a class, if you are looking at levels 1-20, I don't think Paladin in general is close to any full caster.* They can compete with a Bard if the game is focused heavily on the combat pillar with little of the exploration or social pillars, but they are still behind the other full casters even in this one pillar, which is their strongest.

90% of games end by level 10 and I think across the level 1-10 range the paladin being strongest is credible, especially given how weak at combat the level 1-4 wizard is and how much of a boost the second attack is. The paladin's the strongest of the non-full casters at high level (depending how you count the warlock), but even the wizard doesn't pull away until level 9 or so. The monk's the monk, the PHB Ranger's very mediocre, the barbarian falls off massively as B/P/S damage gets rarer - but the paladin gets charisma to all saves. And the fighter never gets better than swinging a sharp piece of metal hard and fast.

The other thing is that the paladin has the lowest skill floor of all casters; a paladin who just drops their spell slots into smite is going to be competent. So early on in the edition the paladin seems even stronger.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Add Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade cantrip damage to this! Virtually every melee Rogue has one or both of those now.

Hmm. Nope.
Many rogues in melee prefer to dual-wield, since it gives a better chance of landing a Sneak Attack.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hmm. Nope.
Many rogues in melee prefer to dual-wield, since it gives a better chance of landing a Sneak Attack.

And Vex and Nick both change the calculations

 

[Zardnaar]

Hmm. Nope.
Many rogues in melee prefer to dual-wield, since it gives a better chance of landing a Sneak Attack.

Depends if tashas is used or not.

Bonus action aim granting advantage makes those spells more attractive.

Otherwise dial wield, tgen XBE with hand crossbows then range generally is most efficient rogue.

Ranged combat should be the no other choice option.

Alot of newer players lije using the rogue to stay as far from combat as possible. They're often making themselves useless (-2 to hit or disadvantage) and most rogues I've seen do not use the cantrips or tashas rules (they don't know they exist/dimly aware they exist).

 

[James Gasik]

Depends if tashas is used or not.

Bonus action aim granting advantage makes those spells more attractive.

Otherwise dial wield, tgen XBE with hand crossbows then range generally is most efficient rogue.

Ranged combat should be the no other choice option.

Alot of newer players lije using the rogue to stay as far from combat as possible. They're often making themselves useless (-2 to hit or disadvantage) and most rogues I've seen do not use the cantrips or tashas rules (they don't know they exist/dimly aware they exist).

You don't need advantage as long as you target something with an ally adjacent to them. Which is a fairly common occurrence. At least, when I played a Rogue (pre-Tasha's), it wasn't often that I couldn't get Sneak Attack.

You can get Archery Style or the ability to ignore cover from a Feat (or a Fighter dip, if allowed- I had Fighter levels personally. Really high AC's were rare enough that I really only needed the +2 to hit when dealing with stuff well beyond my level- and those kinds of foes were large enough that soft cover wasn't really an issue, but of course, this is something that is highly variable.

I definitely would play a ranged Rogue again and not feel the slightest bit of remorse for doing so, lol.

 

[Zardnaar]

You don't need advantage as long as you target something with an ally adjacent to them. Which is a fairly common occurrence. At least, when I played a Rogue (pre-Tasha's), it wasn't often that I couldn't get Sneak Attack.

You can get Archery Style or the ability to ignore cover from a Feat (or a Fighter dip, if allowed- I had Fighter levels personally. Really high AC's were rare enough that I really only needed the +2 to hit when dealing with stuff well beyond my level- and those kinds of foes were large enough that soft cover wasn't really an issue, but of course, this is something that is highly variable.

I definitely would play a ranged Rogue again and not feel the slightest bit of remorse for doing so, lol.

Tashas advante feeding ability xombos with the cantrios same book.

No tashas you're casting a cantrip no advantage and I'm not sure about off hand attack.

Ranged it earth it if you're using XBE feat. You're also splitting damage and can half it using your reactio at some level.

Your hit points are a resource may as well use them along with your hit dice.

This is why I hate ranged rogues if I'm a melee character. If I was a battlemaster I would offer you attacks to join in melee.

If you're hurt bad enough by all means hang back.

But optimally in terms of damage, dame reduction and spreading the love get in there is generally most efficient.

You're actually gimping yourself and the rest of your party. If you're looking at Fighter dip for archery style twf adds dex to off hand.

I've seen a few newbie rogues run around using their mobility achieving sweet FA. One even asked me why he's not doing much damage. I said go melee.

Next round shortbow plink for 1d6+3 damage. Said Rogue had a +2 dagger.

High elf, elven accuracy feat and dex level 4, melee take one of the cantrips not a bad Rogue.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Depends if tashas is used or not.

Bonus action aim granting advantage makes those spells more attractive.

It makes them more attractive, but it still locks them in place and loses the tactical flexibility of dual-wielding.

You don't need advantage as long as you target something with an ally adjacent to them. Which is a fairly common occurrence. At least, when I played a Rogue (pre-Tasha's), it wasn't often that I couldn't get Sneak Attack.

We're talking about advantage being used to increase the chances of hitting and getting Sneak Attack off.

 

[James Gasik]

It makes them more attractive, but it still locks them in place and loses the tactical flexibility of dual-wielding.


We're talking about advantage being used to increase the chances of hitting and getting Sneak Attack off.

I was replying to "Ranged combat should be the no other choice option."

I disagree with that assessment. If I feel that I can deal perfectly fine damage and not put my AC 17 behind anywhere in the vicinity of a CR 9 Fire Giant that hits me on a 6, why is that a bad thing?

 

[Zardnaar]

I was replying to "Ranged combat should be the no other choice option."

I disagree with that assessment. If I feel that I can deal perfectly fine damage and not put my AC 17 behind anywhere in the vicinity of a CR 9 Fire Giant that hits me on a 6, why is that a bad thing?

Because you have 9d8 hit dice and can take half damage.

You'll take less damage than that fighter who can't halve it.

If the fighter takes it they can't halve the damage. Between the two of you you've got 18 hit dice to play with vs the fighters 9.

Smaller party you probably should be on the Frontline baiting hits.

Throw on group healing effects if available another incentive to take some damage.

If you've lost a lot of hp or there's rider effects on the damage sure hang back.

Your AC eont be much lower than the fighters 2-3 points depending on build if that.