Building a Paladin

[GutterFace]

So i just got the player's handbook, and for the first time in 20+ years of D&D i want to make a Paladin.

Does anyone have any suggestions or warning about things i should look into or avoid, feats to take...attributes to assign?

pretty much looking for some positive input.

[Human Paragon 3]

It's frankly hard to go wrong with any choice you make to build your Paladin. I would recommend making Strength your best score, followed by Cha and Con (equal importance for you). Dump Int and Dex. Wis you can take or leave depending on how in tune you wan't your pally to be.

The class features are all great. Athletics and Persuasion are probably your go-to skills since they are the strongest skills of your two key attributes, but varying away from the obvious choice won't kill you.


Race... They're all great for paladin except gnome and maybe elf. Everything else gets a decent stat boost for you, or something fun that could be helpful. Dragonborn, half orc, human, and tiefling stand out.

When you get your fighting style, I would choose defensive, or protection, since you will get reliable bonus damage from smiting and spells. Paladins are pretty good at filling defensive tank roll, with the best weapon and armor proficiencies in the game. Upgrade your heavy armor asap to the best available.

Last bit of advice is more one of personal taste: Take an unexpected background. Good for RP, and gives you some versatility. How about Hermit or Gladiator variant Entertainer? Or Guild Artisan? A weapon smith who heard the call of Torm and took his sword out of the forge to fight evil sounds cool.

For a sub class, I think the "horned" paladin is probably the strongest, but they're all pretty attractive. I would make this decision based on RP rather than char-op.

In my very brief experience, I found Lay on Hands to be awesome. In fact, all the class features are awesome. That's probably way you want to play one.

[GutterFace]

All this is awesome! thank you for the help!

[Daishain]

I'd like to add Half Elf to the consideration. I like some of the other races better overall, but 2Cha, 1Str,1Con is an excellent ability bonus for a paladin. You also get darkvision, two skills, immunity to what looks to be one of the more irritating spells, and resistance to another.

They're actually a half decent package in this edition, at least for Cha oriented characters, I might actually want to play one this time around.

If you do want to be human, make sure its the variant for that feat. They made feats much more powerful this time around, but also much less convenient to acquire in a timely fashion.

[Shining Wrath]

All 3 Paladin Oath variants have good features, I don't think there's any "traps". The first one listed (AFB) is the most "traditional" paladin. There are no per-se alignment requirements but the fluff is "good" (even Vengeance Oath).

You are sort-of MAD which makes human or half-elf attractive race choices.

The combination of feats (again, AFB) that allow you to be a halberd expert and stop people if you hit them with your opportunity attack feels "Paladin" to me - you protect your friends by smacking anyone in a 10' radius who dares move to attack them.

[Rilak]

I'd like to add Half Elf to the consideration. I like some of the other races better overall, but 2Cha, 1Str,1Con is an excellent ability bonus for a paladin. You also get darkvision, two skills, immunity to what looks to be one of the more irritating spells, and resistance to another.

I would say half-elf is the top contender for Paladin. The extra skills and CHA makes you a good face character and boosts your auras further.

Compared to variant Human, you trade one feat for 2 CHA, 1 skill, darkvision, resist charm, immune sleep. That 2 CHA is worth 1 feat in the long run (Human can take heavy armor master early, but it is almost useless at higher levels).

Compared to Dragonborn, you trade 1 STR, breath and resistance for 1 CHA, 1 CON, 2 skills, darkvision, resist charm, immune sleep.

Compared to Tiefling, you trade 1 INT, fire resist, and some spells for 1 STR, 1 CON, 2 skills, resist charm, immune sleep. (Dragonborn is clearly better than Tiefling)

Compared to Half-Orc, you trade 1 STR, relentless, and savage attacks for 2 CHA, 1 skill, resist charm, immune sleep. As Paladin you do not need savage attacks: you can use a smite on crits for extra damage if you need it; you can choose oath of the ancients to become a super tank at higher levels.

All of these races are good, but I feel half-elf is just a little better ;)

Anyway, more on topic. I like heavy weapons on paladins. Polearm master (halberd) is very nice (bonus actions every turn). Devotion paladins can get good use of great weapon master (add +CHA to hit, so use -5 hit/+10 dmg), but I prefer the polearm for reliable poking. Smite uses spell slots of levels 1-4 to add extra damage (spend one spell on any crit you get); high-level Paladins get the same number of spells for these slots as any other class, so you don't need Sorcerer or Bard levels for smite (they are useful for the utility or to gain slots faster though). Note that Warlock slots can not be used to fuel smite (can be used to cast Paladin spells, but they are not Paladin spell slots); if you don't go Vengeance, Warlock 2 is good to grab Hex and 2 invocations (Devil's Sight and if you want a skill monkey also pick Beguiling Influence).

Edit: Remember that Great Weapon Fighting applies to Divine Smite, making smites really powerful. Consider spending a 4th level spell slot on a crit vs. a fiend (Imp. Divine Smite, Hex, Halberd):
2d10+14d8+2d6+STR, reroll all 1s and 2s :)
Reroll 1s&2s adds:
d12=0.83 dmg
d10=0.80 dmg
d8=0.75 dmg
d6=0.67 dmg
d4=0.5 dmg

Which means Great Weapon Fighting adds 12.2 damage on such a crit. Duelling adds only 2 damage. On a non-crit vs. a non-fiend, you get 1d10+1d8+1d6+STR which still adds 2.22 damage ;) Just to again say that heavy weapons are great for Paladins. And also Hex or Hunter's Mark. The damage die on your heavy weapon does not matter so much, which is why Polearm Master is awesome (bonus attack, extra reactions).

[Totema]

A half-elf paladin... if this were any other edition you'd be a laughingstock. :smalltongue:

[Shining Wrath]

A half-elf College of Lore Bard gets proficiency in 9 of the 18 skills, and half-proficiency in the rest. Half-elves are now awesome, just like Tolkien intended.

[Daishain]

A half-elf paladin... if this were any other edition you'd be a laughingstock. :smalltongue:

No kidding, a lot of things have changed here.

Even the bloody monk is a viable choice these days. Not really an ideal one, it still lags behind, but it can be made to work.

[Knightofvictory]

Half-elves are really amazing at being a Paladin just as everyone says.

One other thing to think about if you want your Paladin to be different from other editions. You can use a rapier and shield with light armor and be a DEX based Paladin opening up some other cool race options like Elf.

Your melee stat (STR or DEX) is most important since you will hitting stuff almost every turn. I would want a 16 or better there. CHA is just as important if you are playing through mid-high levels, but is much less useful at low levels. CON matters for surviving, and the rest is mostly your choice though WIS seems to come up a lot for skills and saving throws.



Cure Wounds: when you need more healing, it's there

Shield of Faith: great for low levels for more survivability when most things die in one hit anyway and you are more fragile. Plus you can cast it, and attack in one turn.

Thunderous Smite: almost as much damage as a normal smite, plus you get to move the thing you hit and knock it down. Very much a team spell, use it to get scary things away from squishy party members, or so your other melee friends can get advantage on attacks and finish it off.

Wrathful Smite: for big scary melee things, land this spell and give it disadvantage attacking everything (including you). Pretty much a save or suck.

Most other spells you can pick as you like, many are situational, but few are useless.

[Socko525]

Half-elfs are really a strong contender for all of the Cha based classes. Aside from flavor/RP reasons I'd probably pick a Half-Elf for Bard/Paladin/Sorcerer/Warlock.

That +2 Cha and then either +1 to Dex/Str and +1 to Con really can't be beat.

Don't forget you get Common, Elven and another language of your choice on top of everything everyone else has mentioned

EDIT: as a half-elf paladin myself, I approve this message

[GutterFace]

Now the question remains.....Polearm Master or Shield?

[Rilak]

Now the question remains.....Polearm Master or Shield?

You can actually choose both and go quarterstaff+shield (it is a rather good combination). But two-handed weapons are so much more powerful I say skip the shield; you don't need the AC.

And if you feel an encounter will require a shield, you can simply slap on a shield+quarterstaff and just lose the fighting style for that one battle. Loss of 2 damage per hit compared to Duelling is not much (or possibly 1 AC, but you can also multi-class Fighter for more styles).

[Daishain]

Now the question remains.....Polearm Master or Shield?

I like the polearm style for its BFC and offensive ability. It also seems quite fitting to me for a paladin to use such a weapon to smite those that would harm their companions.

Of course, on the other hand, S&B appears to actually be not only a viable choice this time around, but a good option. The fact that you can literally shield others from harm alone makes you a much more effective party defender. Not to mention that the right feat will let you avoid all kinds of nasty damage you are normally too slow to dodge.

I'd say it depends on what the rest of the party is doing, but I'm leaning more towards shield. It is after all an iconic choice. (Unless you go oath of vengeance, then it is offense all the way)

[Socko525]

Also keep in mind that per RAW and conversations with the devs, you can cast spells that need somatic components while holding your shield (assuming it has your divine focus emblazoned on it) and a one handed weapon in the other hand.

Whereas with a polearm you'd either need to drop it to free up a hand or take the war caster feat

[GutterFace]

so when i use a polearm and hit with the 1d4 side, do i add my strength like in the old days. or is it just a bonus 1d4 hit?

[Daishain]

Whereas with a polearm you'd either need to drop it to free up a hand or take the war caster feat
Have they actually clarified this somewhere? It isn't explicity stated either way in the PHb that I've seen. In previous editions by RAW you could take one hand off the weapon as a free action, and cast the spell no problem. The reasoning is that you can always hold a THW in one hand effectively, you just can't actively use it.

War caster also seems to be focused on two weapons or a weapon and shield, although its verbage is just loose enough that one can't say for certain that it doesn't have THW in mind as well.

Frankly, if they do rule what you stated to be RAW, that would be among the first houserules I'd ask my DM to make.

[Rilak]

so when i use a polearm and hit with the 1d4 side, do i add my strength like in the old days. or is it just a bonus 1d4 hit?

You add STR :)


Of course, on the other hand, S&B appears to actually be not only a viable choice this time around, but a good option. The fact that you can literally shield others from harm alone makes you a much more effective party defender. Not to mention that the right feat will let you avoid all kinds of nasty damage you are normally too slow to dodge.

Sort of. You end up spending your reaction doing so. With sentinel you could have spent your reaction on preventing the monster getting close instead. You can only use protection once per turn as well. Dragons can attack 6 times per turn or so.

[Rilak]

Have they actually clarified this somewhere? It isn't explicity stated either way in the PHb that I've seen. In previous editions by RAW you could take one hand off the weapon as a free action, and cast the spell no problem. The reasoning is that you can always hold a THW in one hand effectively, you just can't actively use it.

You can interact with one object/turn for free. Sheathe your weapon (or rather, put it in your other hand) as part of your action casting a spell. Draw it when attacking (part of reaction/bonus action/etc) as you are still only interacting with one object.

[Socko525]

Have they actually clarified this somewhere? It isn't explicity stated either way in the PHb that I've seen. In previous editions by RAW you could take one hand off the weapon as a free action, and cast the spell no problem. The reasoning is that you can always hold a THW in one hand effectively, you just can't actively use it.

War caster also seems to be focused on two weapons or a weapon and shield, although its verbage is just loose enough that one can't say for certain that it doesn't have THW in mind as well.

Frankly, if they do rule what you stated to be RAW, that would be among the first houserules I'd ask my DM to make.

RAW it's up to the DM. I believe RAI from the devs is, if it's a versatile weapon being wielded two handed you can do as you say and remove one hand to cast but a 2 handed weapon, no. I agree that it doesn't really make sense, but at the end of the day its all up to the DM.

As for war caster, you're right it's just that per RAW clerics and paladins can get by without it. Material Components- "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic component." This was further confirmed by devs that a cleric/paladin can use their shield with the focus on it and wield a one handed weapon in the other hand while casting.

Now that I think about it, I think clerics/paladins can wear a holy symbol and have it count...let me check

EDIT: So under holy symbol it says "A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10 (what I cited above). To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

[Rilak]

Now that I think about it, I think clerics/paladins can wear a holy symbol and have it count...let me check

Yes, but then it cannot replace a somatic component. Only material ones.

You could argue that you can add a banner to a halberd or similar. That should be a prominent enough display of a holy symbol. RAW just says "wear it visibly".

If your DM does not allow feats he is probably going to be less strict about these things though. It is silly to not let a Paladin cast his spells ;)

[Dralnu]

Dragonborn > half elf.

You're a dragon. You breath fire/lightning/whatever you want. It kills packs of low hp minions like nobody's business. Did I mention YOU'RE A DRAGON?

Seriously, DRAGON

[MustacheFart]

I kinda want to play a gnome paladin now. Just because.

[Rilak]

Dragonborn > half elf.

You're a dragon. You breath fire/lightning/whatever you want. It kills packs of low hp minions like nobody's business. Did I mention YOU'RE A DRAGON?

Seriously, DRAGON

You hit at most 6 creatures with the breath, for 12d6 at first few levels. This is very good, but you probably will never hit more than 3 creatures, and one of them will save. For an average of 5d6 damage. Which is basically 2 hits with Polearm Master, available at first level as human.

It is 30d6 at max level, which is roughly the same damage as a single crit with a smite and spending a 4th level spell slot. That is if you hit 6 creatures. And they all fail the saves.

[Snails]

Of course, on the other hand, S&B appears to actually be not only a viable choice this time around, but a good option. The fact that you can literally shield others from harm alone makes you a much more effective party defender. Not to mention that the right feat will let you avoid all kinds of nasty damage you are normally too slow to dodge.

I'd say it depends on what the rest of the party is doing, but I'm leaning more towards shield. It is after all an iconic choice. (Unless you go oath of vengeance, then it is offense all the way)

The Paladin spells and Smite are also completely agnostic about what weapon you are using, so the offensive downside of S&B is very minor when you have spells to burn. (In 3e, everything that gave a +1 to hit was good fuel for more 2H power attacking.)

I do like the S&B Paladin. If you can get in the right tactical position you are cutting down an opponent's offense by ballpark 30% -- either they have to attack you with your excellent armor + shield or suffer the penalty to attack your friend.

[Rilak]

The Paladin spells and Smite are also completely agnostic about what weapon you are using, so the offensive downside of S&B is very minor when you have spells to burn. (In 3e, everything that gave a +1 to hit was good fuel for more 2H power attacking.)

They are actually not agnostic to the weapon choice. If you pick Great Weapon Fighting you get to re-roll 1s and 2s on the smite. With S&B you do not get this.

[Snails]

Good catch, Rilak.

[Socko525]

It is 30d6 at max level, which is roughly the same damage as a single crit with a smite and spending a 4th level spell slot. That is if you hit 6 creatures. And they all fail the saves.


Comparing 5d6 over 6 characters vs 30d6 on one doesn't seem like a point for or against. Albeit I agree that the damage output for a dragonborn's breath weapon does not scale well as it levels, especially with it only being once every short rest.

[Rilak]

Comparing 5d6 over 6 characters vs 30d6 on one doesn't seem like a point for or against. Albeit I agree that the damage output for a dragonborn's breath weapon does not scale well as it levels, especially with it only being once every short rest.

To clarify: it deals damage similar to a single crit with a melee weapon. And you will do 2 or 3 attacks per turn. The 30d6 for a breath is split among multiple foes, which is worse than killing an opponent in one hit. So yes, it really does not scale well for a full action. And it does not start out great either. At the first levels you might be able to kill a few Goblin with it, but... that is about it.

Still, if you like Dragonborn, they do get decent stats and a free resistance as well.

[Daishain]

To clarify: it deals damage similar to a single crit with a melee weapon. And you will do 2 or 3 attacks per turn. The 30d6 for a breath is split among multiple foes, which is worse than killing an opponent in one hit. So yes, it really does not scale well for a full action. And it does not start out great either. At the first levels you might be able to kill a few Goblin with it, but... that is about it.

Still, if you like Dragonborn, they do get decent stats and a free resistance as well.

Do remember that with the whole "bounded accuracy" set up, large mobs of relatively weak enemies are very much a viable option to throw your way. Said mob can easily rip a new one in characters that don't have a means of AoE damage.

Nothing much like defeating a mighty red dragon, only to get eaten by a large gang of dire rats the next day.

Yes, the above is probably hyperbole to at least some degree, but still, I would not discount breath weapons so quickly.

I do wish it would scale just a bit better though.

[Shining Wrath]

Do remember that with the whole "bounded accuracy" set up, large mobs of relatively weak enemies are very much a viable option to throw your way. Said mob can easily rip a new one in characters that don't have a means of AoE damage.

Nothing much like defeating a mighty red dragon, only to get eaten by a large gang of dire rats the next day.

Yes, the above is probably hyperbole to at least some degree, but still, I would not discount breath weapons so quickly.

I do wish it would scale just a bit better though.

And this is another one of those "who else is in your party?" questions. A short-range breath AoE attack is great if the rest of the party is cleric, druid, rogue. If there's a sorcerer or wizard back there he mocks your puny breath weapon as he prepares to bring the big hurt.

[Daishain]

And this is another one of those "who else is in your party?" questions. A short-range breath AoE attack is great if the rest of the party is cleric, druid, rogue. If there's a sorcerer or wizard back there he mocks your puny breath weapon as he prepares to bring the big hurt.

True to some degree, but one thing I've learned in life that seems to be just as true in games like this: ALWAYS have a plan B, and if you have the opportunity, work out plans C-L while you're at it.

A caveat specifically for PnP games, always have some of your scenario plans account for the possibility that some of your assets are drained, dead, absent, or otherwise not able to pull your arse out of the fire.

In other words, have a backup option on hand for when the sorcerer is out of options.

[GutterFace]

True to some degree, but one thing I've learned in life that seems to be just as true in games like this: ALWAYS have a plan B, and if you have the opportunity, work out plans C-L while you're at it.

A caveat specifically for PnP games, always have some of your scenario plans account for the possibility that some of your assets are drained, dead, absent, or otherwise not able to pull your arse out of the fire.

In other words, have a backup option on hand for when the sorcerer is out of options.

Disengage and hopefully dire rats can't climb as well as i can :)

[Angelalex242]

Speaking of which, I'm looking at Defense vs. Protection. Protection is more powerful, certainly, but it requires my party to stand next to me.

And my party is druid/rogue/warlock/monk. Not too keen on standing around.

So I'm leaning defense...because in bounded accuracy, every +1 matters.

[Strill]

They are actually not agnostic to the weapon choice. If you pick Great Weapon Fighting you get to re-roll 1s and 2s on the smite. With S&B you do not get this.

This is actually only around a +10% to +15% overall damage boost compared to Dueling Fighting Style + Shield + Longsword. So it's not a make-or-break decision. In fact, it's actually necessary for 2-handed weapons to be worthwhile, since a lot of your damage is coming from smites. If it didn't work on smites, 2-handed weapons wouldn't be good enough to give up a shield for.


Speaking of which, I'm looking at Defense vs. Protection. Protection is more powerful, certainly, but it requires my party to stand next to me.

And my party is druid/rogue/warlock/monk. Not too keen on standing around.

So I'm leaning defense...because in bounded accuracy, every +1 matters.

Similarly, Defense fighting style + Longsword + Shield is around a -10% to -15% overall damage penalty compared to Dueling Fighting Style.

Basically, you can consider Dueling Fighting Style + Sword + Shield to be the default. Going 2-hand gives you slightly more damage at the cost of defense, and Defense fighting style gives slightly more defense at the cost of damage. I'm pretty impressed at how well balanced it all is. The differences are only around 10%~15% per step. Big enough to matter, but not huge enough to be mandatory for a particular strategy.

As for Protection, I've talked to people and I'm pretty confident that it's the weakest of the fighting styles. First, it eats your reaction, making it incompatible with the Shield spell, incompatible with certain class features, and with awesome feats like Sentinel or Defensive Duelist. Second, it requires your ally to be next to you, which is not often the case. In fact, the classes who this would be most useful to protect, like rogues, typically have a variety of ways to AVOID being near the thick of combat, and are either staying back or running around all over the place.

[Rilak]

This is actually only around a +10% to +15% overall damage boost compared to Dueling Fighting Style + Shield + Longsword. So it's not a make-or-break decision. In fact, it's actually necessary for 2-handed weapons to be worthwhile, since a lot of your damage is coming from smites.

Similarly, Defense fighting style + Longsword + Shield is around a -10% to -15% overall damage penalty compared to Dueling Fighting Style.

GWF is more than a 10-15% increase compared to duelling. For d8s it adds 17%. For d6s it adds 19%. And on crits this increase remains while damage from duelling style and STR does not increase. The duelling style does bring up non-crits to acceptable levels, but smiting is all about those huge crits. In general, GWF and 2-handers is all about crits in 5e.

[Strill]

GWF is more than a 10-15% increase compared to duelling. For d8s it adds 17%. For d6s it adds 19%. And on crits this increase remains while damage from duelling style and STR does not increase. The duelling style does bring up non-crits to acceptable levels, but smiting is all about those huge crits. In general, GWF and 2-handers is all about crits in 5e.

Yes, however, you have flat bonuses such as STR, which are added on every hit, and have no synergy with GWF. Great Weapon Master has another flat +10 damage. If you have magic weapons, those reduce the proportional impact of GWF too. Since you have these flat bonuses, GWF's proportional impact goes from from 18%, to somewhere between 10% and 15%.

[Rilak]

Yes, however, you have flat bonuses such as STR, which are added on every hit, and have no synergy with GWF. Great Weapon Master has another flat +10 damage. That reduces GWF's proportional impact from around 18%, to somewhere between 10% and 15%..

Using GWM for 10 damage is pretty bad if you don't have advantage though. If you hit on 11+, now you hit on 16+ (0.5 vs 0.25 hits). If you expect to deal more than 10 damage without GWM, you are better off not using it. A greatsword with 14 STR and GWF deals 10.34 damage. Note that I did not include the crit for simplicity (it adds 0.42 dmg more in favour of not using GWM).

With advantage, you go to average 0.75 hits / 0.44 hits (with -5). The damage you need to do to expect same damage with/without GWM is now 14.3. If you deal d6/d8's extra damage per hit (hunter's mark, improved smite, spending spell slots to smite, magic weapon, etc), you will beat this average (d6 adds 4.17 dmg on average). At lower levels GWM might be worth using, but as Paladins scale up, the feat quickly loses its value.

So GWM sucks for Paladins who might want to take -5/+10 (unless the creature is ridiculously easy to hit). You choose GWM for the (sometimes) extra bonus attack. But then you can just pick Polearm Master instead.

[Strill]

Using GWM for 10 damage is pretty bad if you don't have advantage though. If you hit on 11+, now you hit on 16+ (0.5 vs 0.25 hits). If you expect to deal more than 10 damage without GWM, you are better off not using it. A greatsword with 14 STR and GWF deals 10.34 damage. Note that I did not include the crit for simplicity (it adds 0.42 dmg more in favour of not using GWM).

With advantage, you go to average 0.75 hits / 0.44 hits (with -5). The damage you need to do to expect same damage with/without GWM is now 14.3. If you deal d6/d8's extra damage per hit (hunter's mark, improved smite, spending spell slots to smite, magic weapon, etc), you will beat this average (d6 adds 4.17 dmg on average). At lower levels GWM might be worth using, but as Paladins scale up, the feat quickly loses its value.

So GWM sucks for Paladins who might want to take -5/+10 (unless the creature is ridiculously easy to hit). You choose GWM for the (sometimes) extra bonus attack. But then you can just pick Polearm Master instead.

The Oath of Devotion's Sacred Weapon ability lets you add +CHA mod to your weapon attacks, which solves that problem. Also, the bonus action attack from Great Weapon Master is always useful. Or if that's not enough, you could even take the Ritual Caster feat, learn the Find Familiar spell, and have it use the Help action to get Advantage on each attack. Heck, you can already have your mount use the Help action to give you advantage when you need it. There are generally a lot of ways to get advantage.

For Vengeance paladins, you have a reliable source of advantage from your Vow of Emnity and oath spells, and you have an extra attack from the Haste spell, giving you another opportunity for +10 damage.