D&D 5E Building a better Paladin

[Gladius Legis]

Yeah, they're both very high DPR, and pretty tanky...

The Fighter moreso on the former. As it should be.

Why bother? The bulk of the game is levels 4-12.

Did you miss my later post where I did Lv. 3, 5, 8, 10 and 13?

It also means that cutting the paladin from the game on conceptual grounds isn't exactly hurting anything on the balance side.

You do realize you'll never get your wish there? The notion of removing iconic classes like the Paladin from the next edition is a non-starter for so many reasons. And no, multiclassing Fighter/Cleric and calling it a Paladin will never work. Period.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Also this should go without saying, but a thread titled "Building a BETTER (class here)" sort of implies we're looking for ways to improve the class, if needed.

Calling for arbitrary nerfs makes a class the exact opposite of better (i.e. it makes it WORSE by definition). And demanding a class' outright removal is off-topic entirely.

 

[Sacrosanct]

"Better" is totally subjective. And in my subjective opinion (and others apparently), the paladin would be better with more limitations on the smite ability. End stop.

 

[Tony Vargas]

**double-post**

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Also this should go without saying, but a thread titled "Building a BETTER (class here)" sort of implies we're looking for ways to improve the class, if needed.

Calling for arbitrary nerfs makes a class the exact opposite of better (i.e. it makes it WORSE by definition).

Sometimes, the best way to improve a class is by bringing it into line with the other classes.

If someone made a thread about how to build a better 3.5E druid, it would be about how to preserve the core identity of the class without having it overshadow anyone else by as much.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You do realize you'll never get your wish there?

I run games. I cut the paladin, it's not my problem any more. A Noble war cleric or fighter/cleric would have to do for a player with a similar concept - or a homebrew PrC if I find I have a hole in the setting that calls for something like a paladin, but I don't want to re-introduce the class.

But, while I find the Paladin conceptually redundant (or, at least, not warranting a full class), I certainly don't begrudge other DMs using it, nor other players enjoying it, and I didn't get the impression this was a petition to get the Paladin changed, officially.

Calling for arbitrary nerfs makes a class the exact opposite of better (i.e. it makes it WORSE by definition).

If your only definition of 'better' is 'more powerful.'
An over-powered class is made better by having that power reigned in. And the Paladin is arguably imbalanced 'high' relative to some other non-full-caster classes, like the Fighter & Ranger - not imbalanced enough to raise a flag in 5e, of course, but it's still there.

Tangentially, I'd quite like to see the fighter stack up better across the board, and the Paladin is clear point of comparison - close enough to the fighter's equal in weapon combat, with far more versatility and out of combat capability.

 

[Gladius Legis]

"Better" is totally subjective. And in my subjective opinion (and others apparently), the paladin would be better with more limitations on the smite ability. End stop.

If you put functional limitations on a class that wasn't there before, you make a class "worse." The exact opposite of "better." Words have meanings, especially important to account for when they are antonyms.

You can argue making the Paladin worse would make the game better as a whole. And I would vehemently disagree with you, but at least you'd actually be honest.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you put functional limitations on a class that wasn't there before, you make a class "worse." The exact opposite of "better." Words have meanings, especially important to account for when they are antonyms.

Nope. Not necessarily true, because..

You can argue making the Paladin worse would make the game better as a whole. And I would vehemently disagree with you, but at least you'd actually be honest.

pretty much this. As I, and others have said, we feel the smite can overshadow other PCs and/or cause a behavior with paladin players to be a detriment to the other party members (by encouraging smite when other spells available to a paladin might be better, depending on the situation). "MOAR DPR =/= better." You can disagree all you want, but try to keep your one true waysim at the door, thanks.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Sometimes, the best way to improve a class is by bringing it into line with the other classes.

If someone made a thread about how to build a better 3.5E druid, it would be about how to preserve the core identity of the class without having it overshadow anyone else by as much.

Um, how is the 5e Paladin anywhere near as overpowered as the 3.5 Druid was?

Also, as I said above, you're still making a class worse when you nerf it. By definition. As someone who definitely agreed the 3.5 Druid was out of line, I would absolutely say it needed to be made worse to make a better game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Um, how is the 5e Paladin anywhere near as overpowered as the 3.5 Druid was?

I didn't say that it was. I was just pointing out that your argument didn't logically follow, so you should use a different argument.

If you put functional limitations on a class that wasn't there before, you make a class "worse." The exact opposite of "better." Words have meanings, especially important to account for when they are antonyms.

Even in the context of just the paladin class, limitations don't make it worse. It would definitionally make the class less powerful, but that's not the same thing. Being better is not synonymous with being more powerful.

Some thematic limitations on the smite ability would return a good deal of flavor which had been removed from the class, and I would argue that it's easily better than the boring version that's currently in the book.