D&D 5E Best designed classes in 5e

[The Crimson Binome]

This is the first time I have ever seen anything like this cited as anything like a "fundamental principle". There's certainly nothing explicit or implicit in the 5E rules to indicate that WotC feels this way, and quite a bit to indicate that they don't -- starting with the paladin.

There's the entire concentration mechanic, which limits you to a single buff at a time. There's the explicit rule that you can't spend a spell slot to cast a spell as a standard action in the same turn you spend a spell slot to cast a spell as a bonus action, which effectively limits how quickly you can spend spell slots. Two general rules that apply to all spellcasters make it pretty clear where the designers were trying to go with this.

There are even the actual smite spells, which interact with both of those mechanics, and show us how the game could incorporate this type of effect in a consistent manner. The game sets up how you're supposed to spend spell slots, with every rule aligned toward the same goal, and then violates all of that with one class feature. That is bad design. Even ignoring how it negatively affects the game at the table, by letting one character turn into the superstar of every boss fight, it is just plain inconsistent with the guiding principle of spell slot management.

 

[Krachek]

With my current level 11 wizard I don't remember having a one big fight only day since level one.
In most adventure the " spend all slot fight " should be an exception, and rules should not be twisted to manage it.

 

[Gladius Legis]

There's the entire concentration mechanic, which limits you to a single buff at a time. There's the explicit rule that you can't spend a spell slot to cast a spell as a standard action in the same turn you spend a spell slot to cast a spell as a bonus action, which effectively limits how quickly you can spend spell slots. Two general rules that apply to all spellcasters make it pretty clear where the designers were trying to go with this.

There are even the actual smite spells, which interact with both of those mechanics, and show us how the game could incorporate this type of effect in a consistent manner. The game sets up how you're supposed to spend spell slots, with every rule aligned toward the same goal, and then violates all of that with one class feature. That is bad design. Even ignoring how it negatively affects the game at the table, by letting one character turn into the superstar of every boss fight, it is just plain inconsistent with the guiding principle of spell slot management.

And the Fighter's Action Surge "violates" the one action per round principle by allowing the Fighter to take two actions in the round.

And the Barbarian's Reckless Attack "violates" how difficult advantage on attacks is normally supposed to be attained.

And the Rogue's Cunning Action "violates" how you're supposed to Disengage if you want to move away from an enemy without drawing opportunity attacks.

... Let's be real, certain class features are designed specifically to violate the assumptions most other classes have to follow. The Paladin, it gets to violate your criteria for spell slot usage/round. The horror.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's the entire concentration mechanic, which limits you to a single buff at a time. There's the explicit rule that you can't spend a spell slot to cast a spell as a standard action in the same turn you spend a spell slot to cast a spell as a bonus action, which effectively limits how quickly you can spend spell slots. Two general rules that apply to all spellcasters make it pretty clear where the designers were trying to go with this.

There are even the actual smite spells, which interact with both of those mechanics, and show us how the game could incorporate this type of effect in a consistent manner. The game sets up how you're supposed to spend spell slots, with every rule aligned toward the same goal, and then violates all of that with one class feature. That is bad design. Even ignoring how it negatively affects the game at the table, by letting one character turn into the superstar of every boss fight, it is just plain inconsistent with the guiding principle of spell slot management.

1. Disagree. Rules are made to be broken. Exceptions are always going to exist and can produce some fabulous mechanics.

2. There's a difference between casting actual spells on a turn and using an ability that converts a spell slot to extra damage twice on a turn.

3. IMO Paladins smite feature is probably the best designed feature in the game! It has perfect flavor for the class. It fits well mechanically. It's new and innovative for D&D.

4. As far as rate of use concerns go. Paladins get 2 attacks. To use divine smite twice he has to hit with both attacks. There's some turns he will miss both attacks and not get to use it any. The most likely thing to happen is that he hits with 1 of those 2 attacks and misses with the other. So while he is not capped at 1 divine smite per turn, it's not like he's getting significantly more than 1 divine smite on average per turn. If you want to talk about how bonus action attack feats mess with that balance or multiclassing messes with it then I'm all ears. But the feature controls its own usage rate under the basic class assumptions of 2 attacks per round and having a 60% chance to hit most enemies.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

... Let's be real, certain class features are designed specifically to violate the assumptions most other classes have to follow. The Paladin, it gets to violate your criteria for spell slot usage/round. The horror.

It shouldn't have been, though, and allowing it to do so was an example of poor class design. Resource expenditure is a matter of pacing, and it should be kept reasonably-comparable for all classes. Allowing one class to run itself out of power after one combat means that one character is incentivized to act in a way counter to everyone else in the party. It creates a conflict of interests, similar to how the Warlock is encouraged to take as many short rests as it possibly can, but rather moreso.

 

[FrogReaver]

It shouldn't have been, though, and allowing it to do so was an example of poor class design. Resource expenditure is a matter of pacing, and it should be kept reasonably-comparable for all classes. Allowing one class to run itself out of power after one combat means that one character is incentivized to act in a way counter to everyone else in the party. It creates a conflict of interests, similar to how the Warlock is encouraged to take as many short rests as it possibly can, but rather moreso.

Pretty much everyone here but you thinks it's a great feature and the Paladin is very well designed.... When it comes to answering a subjective questions like "Is the Paladin a well designed class" I think we have the communities answer.

Your reasons for thinking it's not a well designed mechanic aren't based on the games basic assumptions because when compared to the games basic Paladin assumptions of 2 attacks per round and 60% chance to hit on average then the rate of use of divine smite isn't too fast. If your paladins stray to far from those basic assumptions then I can understand seeing the ability as problematic. If those assumptions don't hold then it will feel like the ability can be spent at to fast a rate. My suggestion is blame the imbalance on whatever is causing those assumptions to not be true and not the Paladin class itself. If those assumptions consistently don't hold in your games then a houserule may be in order that limits divine smite to so many times per turn instead of once per attack.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

There's the entire concentration mechanic, which limits you to a single buff at a time.

That has nothing to do with the rate at which you can cast spells. Under this rule you can still cast as many non-concentration spells as fast as you please.

There's the explicit rule that you can't spend a spell slot to cast a spell as a standard action in the same turn you spend a spell slot to cast a spell as a bonus action, which effectively limits how quickly you can spend spell slots.

That's a limit on the amount of power you can output in a round, and doesn't actually have anything to do with spell slots either. You will note that the rule applies even if you're casting a leveled spell without spending a slot.

Two general rules that apply to all spellcasters make it pretty clear where the designers were trying to go with this.

If they wanted what you say to be a general principle to be a general principle, it would have been the work of a moment to write a rule stating it explicitly. "You cannot spend more than 1 spell slot per round." Boom. Done. So show me that sentence in the PHB and I will happily concede your point.

The game sets up how you're supposed to spend spell slots, with every rule aligned toward the same goal, and then violates all of that with one class feature.

Plus some other class features.

Plus every reaction spell.

Face it, dude, you are basing your argument on the premise of a "fundamental principle" which does not exist.

Allowing one class to run itself out of power after one combat means that one character is incentivized to act in a way counter to everyone else in the party.

Like I already said: if a wizard or cleric really wants to run themselves out of power in one combat, they almost certainly can. The paladin is not "acting counter to everyone else in the party". They're managing their resources in the same way as the other spellcasters. Insofar as you perceive this as a problem, it is not a paladin problem, it is a Vancian spellcasting problem.

 

[RonLugge]

It shouldn't have been, though, and allowing it to do so was an example of poor class design. Resource expenditure is a matter of pacing, and it should be kept reasonably-comparable for all classes. Allowing one class to run itself out of power after one combat means that one character is incentivized to act in a way counter to everyone else in the party. It creates a conflict of interests, similar to how the Warlock is encouraged to take as many short rests as it possibly can, but rather moreso.

Actually, I think it fits exactly with how Warlocks, Fighters, and Monks are designed. It's almost like the game was designed around 2 short rests a day, with 6 fights.

 

[Gadget]

One thing this thread has made me realize is that what MM said in the AMA thread is very true: it seems different components of the system (class, sub-class, spells, feats) where designed by different people with slightly different expectations. They probably could have used another pass or two over the system to smooth things out. Great game though.

 

[Lanliss]

One thing this thread has made me realize is that what MM said in the AMA thread is very true: it seems different components of the system (class, sub-class, spells, feats) where designed by different people with slightly different expectations. They probably could have used another pass or two over the system to smooth things out. Great game though.

maybe so, but some of the stuff MM said in that thread was also pretty stupid, IMO. Like blending Pact and Pact boons, or eliminating Bonus actions.