D&D 5E Paladin: Why Are They Often Considered Highly Powerful?

[Mr. Wilson]

I'm one of those people who consider the Pally to be among the most powerful classes, if not the single most powerful.

Pretty much everything has been mentioned at this point, but I'd like to point out one thing that has only been hinted at.

Having a Paladin in the party makes the entire party better, and noticeably so. I don't think any other class can have such a huge positive impact on an entire party as the Paladin can. The Cleric is runner up IMO.

Pretty much all of their Auras(spells and features) are REALLY strong. Never worry about failing a save again if you're a pally or standing near one.

I'm jumping back a couple pages, but I'd say that Bards (and especially Lore bards) are the class that has the most positive impact on parties. Being able to snipe the best buff spells across spell lists along with Cutting Words and Bardic Inspiration is more powerful than the aura, IME.

On topic, Paladins are a top tier class, for sure, but they shine best in the type of DnD that most people play, which is 1-2 encounters per session and can unload all their resources.

 

[LapBandit]

Sorry, gonna bang the fighter drum for a second.

I had a defense fighter and there was a defense paladin in the party. We both had almost identical stats. Right down to the same armor and whatnot.

I watched the paladin put my poor fighter in the dust virtually every session. He was outdamaging me by a very, very wide margin. Now, I was playing a champion fighter, not a battlemaster, so, that might have been the issue, but, it did seem like the paladin, considering that every other aspect was identical, was considerably better at doing my job than I was.

Not a conclusion, but, just a point. Everyone talks about the high damage types but tend to forget that the paladin steps REALLY hard on the fighter's toes.

So much this.

I have seen a Battlemaster and a Paladin played similarly and even in a dungeon setting where the paladin can't nova then long rest repeatedly, the paladin just gets too many abilities that pull it through compared to the fighter.

I've homebrewed the fighter to get more features earlier and it's helped a lot at my table:

 

[Phion]

People have pretty much pointed out why the paladin is so good. The only flaw I can think of regarding the paladin is not even a flaw and more of a personal preference; they are really boring characters.

Yes, I am sure many people will say "oh my paladin was really unique in terms of personality" or "any character can be interesting, its the player that makes a character interesting" but as a concept they are really tedious to me and I have never seen a player truly make a interesting paladin. People try to make them interesting by making them evil, but even then I mentally roll my eyes because its always the same old thing I have seen. In terms of features, they are perhaps so good it turns the character into a Mary Sue/ glory seeker which makes the experience feel fake when they do succeed because the game has gave them all the tools to succeed.

Whereas the fighter is like a fresh canvas. You can assign so many personalities to the class as they are so generalized, having said that though I think the class really needs more to stay unique. Easiest solution I could think of for this is to give the Fighter more fighting styles and a wider selection to pick from.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's really the whole package.

1) Paladins basically get more bonus spells always memorized from their oath than rangers/EK's get to KNOW. This is in addition to already knowing their full list. They get much more magical utility than the other fighter/caster hybrids.

2) Their social stat is also a combat stat, so a bump in charisma effects 2 pillars.

3) Their BS auras - Giving themselves and everyone +3-5 to saves kind of defeats the point of bounded accuracy and seems a holdover from the math porn of 3rd edition. Add in the ancients "half damage from magic" nonsense, and it's pretty insane for a class that also has good damage.

4) Their freeby mount was better than the poor beastmaster ranger's companion for a decent spread of levels, since it could act independently and only cost a 2nd level spell slot to get back. This was at least fixed in the UA.

5) Their damage output is open to nova exploitation, so we're back to time wasting attrition encounters. We're in our 40's with families, jobs, etc... Our group doesn't have time to grind out several hours of filler combats each adventuring day to fix WOTC's poor encounter baseline assumption. Because it just doesn't organically happen to have adventures so pressing that you can't take long rests as needed, yet still enabling several hour long naps each day in between 6-8 encounters...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

People have pretty much pointed out why the paladin is so good. The only flaw I can think of regarding the paladin is not even a flaw and more of a personal preference; they are really boring characters.

Did you read the Oath of the ancients? Hedonistic party animal fits well. Paladins are not boring by any stretch.

 

[Phion]

Did you read the Oath of the ancients? Hedonistic party animal fits well. Paladins are not boring by any stretch.

Sorry, I just find them boring as a concept (although oath of the ancients is step in the right direction). Would a party animal really be able to make an oath strong enough to be selected as one of the privileged few that is the paladin? If they could the oath would be along the lines of "I swear to PAAAAAR-TAY" which would be fun the first 10 times but would quickly grow stale.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Sorry, I just find them boring as a concept (although oath of the ancients is step in the right direction). Would a party animal really be able to make an oath strong enough to be selected as one of the privileged few that is the paladin? If they could the oath would be along the lines of "I swear to PAAAAAR-TAY" which would be fun the first 10 times but would quickly grow stale.

Sure, why not? The entire point of the oath is joie de vivre. To spread the love of life to others, fight those that bring darkness into the world. Oh no, the horror of being a CG fighter. Such dull.

It's like people complaining clerics are boring. You pick the god/oath that fits the character's style. Pretty much any personality type has an oath/god to go with it. It's no more limiting than actually giving your <insert other class here> character a consistent personality.

 

[Phion]

Sure, why not? The entire point of the oath is joie de vivre. To spread the love of life to others, fight those that bring darkness into the world. Oh no, the horror of being a CG fighter. Such dull.

It's like people complaining clerics are boring. You pick the god/oath that fits the character's style. Pretty much any personality type has an oath/god to go with it. It's no more limiting than actually giving your <insert other class here> character a consistent personality.

I wasn't really complaining, said from the beginning it was just a personal opinion. Paladins just don't appeal to me regardless of how they are presented.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I wasn't really complaining, said from the beginning it was just a personal opinion. Paladins just don't appeal to me regardless of how they are presented.

I just don't see how that same issue wouldnt apply to any class. Basically any personality you make for a fighter, would work for a paladin, other than I guess someone noncomittal enough not to have any convictions. You just need to match the oath.

 

[Wiseblood]

It's really the whole package.

1) Paladins basically get more bonus spells always memorized from their oath than rangers/EK's get to KNOW. This is in addition to already knowing their full list. They get much more magical utility than the other fighter/caster hybrids.

2) Their social stat is also a combat stat, so a bump in charisma effects 2 pillars.

3) Their BS auras - Giving themselves and everyone +3-5 to saves kind of defeats the point of bounded accuracy and seems a holdover from the math porn of 3rd edition. Add in the ancients "half damage from magic" nonsense, and it's pretty insane for a class that also has good damage.

4) Their freeby mount was better than the poor beastmaster ranger's companion for a decent spread of levels, since it could act independently and only cost a 2nd level spell slot to get back. This was at least fixed in the UA.

5) Their damage output is open to nova exploitation, so we're back to time wasting attrition encounters. We're in our 40's with families, jobs, etc... Our group doesn't have time to grind out several hours of filler combats each adventuring day to fix WOTC's poor encounter baseline assumption. Because it just doesn't organically happen to have adventures so pressing that you can't take long rests as needed, yet still enabling several hour long naps each day in between 6-8 encounters...

6) very good hit dice

7) cure blindness, and disease and heal without using slots

8)Heavy armor proficiency and shields for great AC and Martial weapons

9) extra damage against undead, one of the most common enemies

10) BS auras buffing friends better than the bard
Without spending an action(I know auras were mentioned already but they are really strong) eg immunities granted fear

11) dispel magic on creature without needing a check I havent seen this yet because we are 12th level.

Yes the Paladin is very, very strong. Most classes are strong but few have their fingers in so many cookie jars. Good thing they wash their hands.