Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovarwa" data-source="post: 7123032" data-attributes="member: 75153">Paladin single-target damage *should* be higher than a wizard's.Wizards get the best spell list in the game.&nbsp; No one gets spells faster.&nbsp; D&amp;D5 wizards have more flexibility than ever with their daily spell choices.&nbsp; They usually have much better things to do with their action than mere single-target damage.Comparing a paladin's damage against a full-caster only makes sense in the context of trying to demonstrate that paladins are underpowered.&nbsp; (Which they are not.)&nbsp; Comparisons against rogues, rangers, fighters, monks and barbarians makes more sense.&nbsp; Ok, not rangers, since they are a Known Problem.&nbsp; The different martial classes won't all do the same damage, but might bring a variety of tricks to the table to offset those differences.Really, if paladins need to be nerfed because they sometimes get to do a lot of damage, then barbarians are next on the chopping block because rage is just plain wrong, and then we need to ban assassins or never let them get surprise because that's the first step in winning the war against terrorism, and then maybe limit Fighters to only the Champion subclass because Fighters already get too many attacks and ASIs.&nbsp; So we're left with monks and rangers as the epitome of fair martial class design.&nbsp; But just in case, let's make every ranger a core beastmaster, because they are the most flavorful and least abusive.Yay?Anyway,Ken</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovarwa, post: 7123032, member: 75153"] Paladin single-target damage *should* be higher than a wizard's. Wizards get the best spell list in the game. No one gets spells faster. D&D5 wizards have more flexibility than ever with their daily spell choices. They usually have much better things to do with their action than mere single-target damage. Comparing a paladin's damage against a full-caster only makes sense in the context of trying to demonstrate that paladins are underpowered. (Which they are not.) Comparisons against rogues, rangers, fighters, monks and barbarians makes more sense. Ok, not rangers, since they are a Known Problem. The different martial classes won't all do the same damage, but might bring a variety of tricks to the table to offset those differences. Really, if paladins need to be nerfed because they sometimes get to do a lot of damage, then barbarians are next on the chopping block because rage is just plain wrong, and then we need to ban assassins or never let them get surprise because that's the first step in winning the war against terrorism, and then maybe limit Fighters to only the Champion subclass because Fighters already get too many attacks and ASIs. So we're left with monks and rangers as the epitome of fair martial class design. But just in case, let's make every ranger a core beastmaster, because they are the most flavorful and least abusive. Yay? Anyway, Ken [/QUOTE]

Verification