D&D 5E Chaladin

[Halivar]

As far as I know, in 5e CHA is an attack stat for sorcerers and warlocks, so it's not like the edition doesn't have the technology.

I thought that 5e was meant to be some sort of "unity edition". Apparently not.

Just because some guys on a forum don't like it doesn't mean you won't have it as an option. Myself, I like a balance between Str and Cha as far as stat importance goes; a robust smite mechanic (which PF has and 3.5 did NOT) gives me the best of both worlds.

I also kinda pride myself on playing a 4E chaladin before it got serious official support in the PHB2.
/don sunglasses
/open Pabst Blue Ribbon

EDIT: After all, if we're killing sacred cows *I* like (strict alignment) we might as well kill some I don't like, also. It's only fair.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I thought that 5e was meant to be some sort of "unity edition". Apparently not.

It's not. It's an edition that claims to have taken the "best" things from every edition and combined it into one.

A large number of people hated Cha and Con based attacks for non-magical attacks. That's one of the things many people complained about in 4e. The idea being that people are willing to accept that your Force of Will or Force of Personality powers your spells but not that your Force of Personality powers your sword attacks.

I'm guessing that's why there are no non-str, non-dex based attack rolls for non-magic users.

 

[Halivar]

A large number of people hated Cha and Con based attacks for non-magical attacks. That's one of the things many people complained about in 4e.

But the conceit behind the 4E paladin, and the historical smite mechanic, is that they aren't​ non-magical attacks.

 

[TwoSix]

I opened this thread because the CHA/STR split for paladins was one of the things that I immediately liked about 4e: STR for Lancelot, CHA for Galahad.

As far as I know, in 5e CHA is an attack stat for sorcerers and warlocks, so it's not like the edition doesn't have the technology.

I thought that 5e was meant to be some sort of "unity edition". Apparently not.

Personally, I miss the Intelligent Blademaster feat the most. I loved the concept of a super-deductive swordsman; and it enabled some of my personal favorite 4e builds like the Eladrin Knight.

 

[pemerton]

A large number of people hated Cha and Con based attacks for non-magical attacks. That's one of the things many people complained about in 4e.

<snip>

I'm guessing that's why there are no non-str, non-dex based attack rolls for non-magic users.

But the conceit behind the 4E paladin, and the historical smite mechanic, is that they aren't​ non-magical attacks.

Right. A CHA-paladin's attack are directed not by his/her strength of body, but by the grace that the divinity has bestowed upon him/her.

As far as CON is concerned, who had CON melee attacks in 4e but for warlocks and battleminds? Both obviously magic-users.

 

[Halivar]

As far as CON is concerned, who had CON melee attacks in 4e but for warlocks and battleminds? Both obviously magic-users.

The CON attacks I will absolutely give you. I never took them, and didn't know they existed. But can you agree that there exists ways of thinking about the paladin that allow for Cha-based attacks?

EDIT: Even for 'locks... Con attacks were just weird. Seemed a little contrived. Not my favorite implementation of warlock. I had other issued too, like the pact that required nothing of them.

EDIT EDIT: Duh. You answered my question before I asked it LOL. I need to read closer.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Right. A CHA-paladin's attack are directed not by his/her strength of body, but by the grace that the divinity has bestowed upon him/her.

I never said I had a problem with it. Just that a lot of people did. I think the idea is that the thought that every single swing of their sword was magical was just a little too magical for some people. I saw a lot of posts about it over the last couple of years.

Over the lifetime of D&D, I can understand the sentiment. Magic in D&D has traditionally been the thing that you call upon periodically only a couple of times per day. The idea that every swing of your sword has your god actively moving your hand into the right place seems like your god is taking way too active a hand in the world.

And before it is mentioned, I understand that Clerics and Wizards and other spellcasters have cantrips that can be used all day long...I think a lot of people complained about that as well. But they are JUST over the line of acceptable for most people because they are dedicated spellcasters. For the Paladin it might be just too far a stretch.

As far as CON is concerned, who had CON melee attacks in 4e but for warlocks and battleminds? Both obviously magic-users.

Wardens. But they are also kind of magical. Though a bunch of their attacks weren't exactly worded in a magical way.

I believe you'll find that there are absolutely 0 Non-Str, Non-Dex based attacks that deal your weapon's damage on a hit in 5e. If it is magic, it deals the specific spell's damage instead.

 

[Halivar]

I believe you'll find that there are absolutely 0 Non-Str, Non-Dex based attacks that deal your weapon's damage on a hit in 5e. If it is magic, it deals the specific spell's damage instead.

If paladin smite does not add Cha bonus to attack rolls, that would be a a radical departure from its history.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I opened this thread because the CHA/STR split for paladins was one of the things that I immediately liked about 4e: STR for Lancelot, CHA for Galahad.

As far as I know, in 5e CHA is an attack stat for sorcerers and warlocks, so it's not like the edition doesn't have the technology.

I thought that 5e was meant to be some sort of "unity edition". Apparently not.

Methinks you speak to hastily, sir.

(a) It's probably worth it to see the actual PHB paladin and how much they reward having a high CHA or depend on STR.

(b) The concept of a CHA-driven spellcaster who wears heavy armor and weilds a sword and casts healing and defensive magic might be entirely possible without a specific Paladin subclass.

(c) If you really NEED to have CHA being your stat for swinging your sword and neither A nor B work, it's still entirely possible we'll have rules for keying things off of different ability scores in the DMG. So if not in the realm of presumed play, undoubtedly a thing that can happen, and possibly even an Official Thing That Can Happen.

 

[doctorhook]

I don't have any conceptual problems with paladins dealing charisma or wisdom damage with spells or smites, but I strongly dislike the idea of charisma as a normal attack stat (rather than damage stat) with regards to weapon attacks. I'm not too fond of "laser paladins" either. (Unless we're talking an actual laser cannon, but that's a different story.)