Dexterity Paladin?

[zeek0]

I am considering the play of a Dexterity Paladin, specifically with an Oath of the Ancients. Are there any minor or major pitfalls to this concept of which I am unaware?

Thanks!

[Human Paragon 3]

Should be fine as long as you're still making melee attacks for smite. I'd suggest a rapier since it's a little better than short sword.

One downside is that you don't get to take advantage of your heavy armor proficiency, assuming your going with medium armor to benefit from your DEX score. But it's at most 1-2 AC points. Not the end of the world.

[Naanomi]

Or a whip, punish those sinners (with a reach-smite!)

[TrollCapAmerica]

Or a whip, punish those sinners (with a reach-smite!)

Hmm id call it very Magical Realmy but Loviatar actually existed in the old days

[zeek0]

One downside is that you don't get to take advantage of your heavy armor proficiency, assuming your going with medium armor to benefit from your DEX score. But it's at most 1-2 AC points. Not the end of the world.

What I mean is dumping Strength and maxing Dexterity. After all, medium armor only allows for a +2 to AC from Dex. So I'd probably be using studded leather.

As I see it, at first level and +3 dex modifier, I can start with 15 AC, maxing at 17 at 20 Dex. That's as good as it gets with medium armor and only 1 less than Heavy Armor.

[Talyn]

You can start with 17 AC, actually - nothing says you can't use a rapier+shield combination!

[MeeposFire]

Or be a dwarf. Granted no boost to dex at the start but then you can wear heavy armor and not care.

[Yorrin]

I think that Dex Palis are actually better in a lot of ways than their Str counterparts. Studded + Shield + Rapier is a great equipment setup, but you also have the option to switch to a longbow/heavy xbow if the need arises, and you're winning on initiative and taking half damage from all sorts of spells. The biggest loss is the hit to Athletics, so you can't grapple/shove/etc as easily. But that's fine, because you can now play stealth-paladin :smallbiggrin:

[Eslin]

Only real losses are having poor athletics and one less attack per round. The first isn't a big issue, the second's a fairly large difference.

[MeeposFire]

Well a bonus action attack is only usable with very few weapons so I find that to be only an issue if for instance you were going to go staff style.

On the other hand you could go two weapon style and take your fighting style as being defensive for the AC boost. Combine that with the two weapon fighting feat to up your damage slightly and even more AC. You will deal less damage than the standard maximum but it does get you an extra instance of smite damage.

[Eslin]

Well a bonus action attack is only usable with very few weapons so I find that to be only an issue if for instance you were going to go staff style.

On the other hand you could go two weapon style and take your fighting style as being defensive for the AC boost. Combine that with the two weapon fighting feat to up your damage slightly and even more AC. You will deal less damage than the standard maximum but it does get you an extra instance of smite damage.

That lands you 1 AC and 1 damage per attack (3-5 for the bonus attack) behind a paladin who took polearm master and dueling. On top of that you have worse grapple, worse opportunity attacks and need two magic weapons instead of one, but get better initiative and far better sneak.

[Tenmujiin]

I have a character build on the backburner that is a dex-based paladin of vengeance. Dual-wielding with the armored fighting style means you have the same AC as a shield user (at the cost of a feat) and you get more attacks per round to land those smites and hunter's mark bonus damage. A polearm master, greatweapon-fighting strength paladin may be mechanically stronger but fills a somewhat different role to a dex paladin since dex gives you acrobatics and stealth rather than athletics.

[Eslin]

I have a character build on the backburner that is a dex-based paladin of vengeance. Dual-wielding with the armored fighting style means you have the same AC as a shield user (at the cost of a feat) and you get more attacks per round to land those smites and hunter's mark bonus damage. A polearm master, greatweapon-fighting strength paladin may be mechanically stronger but fills a somewhat different role to a dex paladin since dex gives you acrobatics and stealth rather than athletics.

12 (studded leather) + 1 (armoured) + 5 (dexterity) + 1 (dual wield feat) = 19 AC
18 (plate) + 2 (shield) = 20 AC

True enough regarding different roles, backgrounds mean if you need your paladin to be a sneak, he can be. Won't be quite as strong as a knight in shining armour style one, but can still perform well - that's good game balance right there. You'd expect a sneaky paladin to not be quite as good at straight up combat as a strength/armour one.

[Balor777]

Duelist style +2 damage is a good thing.Altho i would dip a level in fighter for the 2 weapon style and get the +1 armor style from palladin and the 2WF feat.
This way 2 x D8(rapier)+DEX plus the double smites per round if you realy need it.Also the final ac is +2 like having a shield and you get another small heal(second wind)

[Eslin]

Duelist style +2 damage is a good thing.Altho i would dip a level in fighter for the 2 weapon style and get the +1 armor style from palladin and the 2WF feat.
This way 2 x D8(rapier)+DEX plus the double smites per round if you realy need it.Also the final ac is +2 like having a shield and you get another small heal(second wind)

12+1+1+5=19, plate+shield=20.

[Tenmujiin]

sniped due to char limit

I meant compared to a dex based shield user, plate is obviously the superior AC, even if only slightly


snip

For the vengance paladin it is 3d8+3d6+3*dex or 3d4+3d6+3*dex for a whip user (yes you can dual wield whips, they are 1 handed mele weapons, even if it looks as silly as that fighter with a shield and a staff). Duelist gets 2d8+2d6+4+2*dex. Assuming a 16 dex paladin (this is a 5th level build) the numbers come out at 51 damage a round for the rapier, 39 for the whip and 36 for the duelist. The duelist gets an extra ASI though

[Balor777]

12+1+1+5=19, plate+shield=20.
Yeah but damage wize is better.
d8+5+2~11,5DPR for sword/shield and 23dpr at 5 level.At 11 level 2d8+10 +2d8(improved divine smite smite) ~>32DPR
2d8+10 ~19DPR for duals 28.5DPR at at 5.At 12 level-> 3d8+15+3D8~>42DPR
If we include 35% miss chance we have 20 vs 26 dpr thats 30% more damage per round exchange for 1AC and 1 level dip.But you also get a small heal plus if you start as a fighter
you get fortitude vs will saving throw proficiency, you also as a dex Paladin have much better initiative and reflex saving throw.
I highly believe DEX build is better even if you go for one hand+shield.The only reason i would go for heavy armor is the heavy armor master 3DR.Its
VERY good.It maybe fade away after 15 level but 85% of the monster attacks are non magicalincluding all dragons and even the tarasque :P

[silveralen]

You run into a bit of trouble if you want to trip people, which is a shame because shield master is really great for paladins making sure their smites connect. But that's really the only flaw of it, and you can get around it fairly easy.

The AC difference is fairly small, half plate has no strength requirement and only loses by a single AC, studded leather is the same when you max dex.

[Balor777]

You run into a bit of trouble if you want to trip people, which is a shame because shield master is really great for paladins making sure their smites connect. But that's really the only flaw of it, and you can get around it fairly easy.
Yeah you are right here.Trip is a nice tool.But thats it.I somehow feel anyone should go for DEX builds in this edition except barbarrian or Polearm fighter.
TWF(champion half orc) has compared to Great weapon style + GWMaster feat:
30% more damage for levels 1-4
5% more damage for levels 5-10(depending on power attack usage and allways need at least +3 attack bonus higher value from armor to use -5+10 effectively)
0~10% less damage from level 11 to 14 (depending on power attack usage and allways need at least +3 attack bonus higher value from armor to use -5+10 effectively)
and only ~3% less damage for 15-19.(depending on power attack usage and allways need at least +3 attack bonus higher value from armor to use -5+10 effectively)

Since TWF is better for 80% of the game and you can use the D8 with DEX.Plus for enemies with same AC vs bonus attack+D20/2, SUCKS to use -5+10 because you will loose damage
and monster may attack a different guy from your party if you miss 1 round, i came to the conclusion that DEX is allways the way to go unless you want go for 2feats(pole/GWM)
and/or you are Berzerker.

[Eslin]

Yeah but damage wize is better.
d8+5+2~11,5DPR for sword/shield and 23dpr at 5 level.At 11 level 2d8+10 +2d8(improved divine smite smite) ~>32DPR
2d8+10 ~19DPR for duals 28.5DPR at at 5.At 12 level-> 3d8+15+3D8~>42DPR
If we include 35% miss chance we have 20 vs 26 dpr thats 30% more damage per round exchange for 1AC and 1 level dip.But you also get a small heal plus if you start as a fighter
you get fortitude vs will saving throw proficiency, you also as a dex Paladin have much better initiative and reflex saving throw.
I highly believe DEX build is better even if you go for one hand+shield.The only reason i would go for heavy armor is the heavy armor master 3DR.Its
VERY good.It maybe fade away after 15 level but 85% of the monster attacks are non magicalincluding all dragons and even the tarasque :P

English lesson time: It's spelled wise, not wize.

As to the rest, why is the paladin using a sword? I fixed your calculations below(used the breakpoints you decided on), though I'm not sure why they're needed - I already explained that strength had better damage.
Both have the same +hit, so accuracy doesn't need to be factored in. Main stat will be 18 at 5, 20 at 11 (can't get to 20 without two ASIs, presuming variant human for the feat at level 1)

OH+S at 5: 1d6+4+2 + 1d6+4+2 + 1d4+4+2= 27.5
DW at 5: 1d8+4 + 1d8+4= 17
OH+S at 11: 1d6+1d8+5+2 + 1d6+1d8+5+2 + 1d4+1d8+5+2= 27.5= 44
DW at 11: 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 + 1d8+5= 28.5
DW at 12: 2d8+5 + 2d8+5 + 2d8+5= 42

Quarterstaff and shield stays ahead in damage and armour class the whole time and stays one level ahead forever.

[pibby]

I myself posted the very same concept the OP had, and to sum up what I know about the concept (which has probably been mentioned by others in this thread already):

-Str paladins can potentially do more damage in melee since they can use two-handed weapons that do 1d12, 2d6, and reach weapons with 1d10 damage. Opposed to dex paladins with 1d8 with just the rapier.
-Str paladins are better at doing combat maneuvers [(str)athletics] as with any str based build, but dex paladins can be just at good at avoiding combat maneuvers [(dex)acrobatics)].
-Str paladins potentially have better AC with plate armor (18) with Dex paladins have potential max one less than that with leather armor (17).
-Dex paladins have better ranged dps than str paladins, but it hardly matters since paladins do more damage with melee using smites and smite spells.
-Dex paladins can sneak better than str paladins.
-Dex paladins get a higher Dex saves which happen more often than Str saves.
-Dex paladins have higher initiative.

Personally I like Dex paladins over Str paladins since I only need to have high stats in Dex, Cha, and Con as opposed to a Str paladin who needs to have decent scores in those three stats along with Str.

[Tarrab]

I think multiclassing is the true answer to your question.

For an ONLY Paladin guy, I would go Strength, it´s just simpler that way and in the terms of sheer rolls and dice, they will rock.
For a MULTICLASS Paladin guy, I would go Dex, and then some Warlock and/or Bard and/or Rogue. You can´t go wrong with a multiclass pally in my book!

[Tarrab]

I think multiclassing is the true answer to your question.

For an ONLY Paladin guy, I would go Strength, it´s just simpler that way and in the terms of sheer rolls and dice, they will rock.
For a MULTICLASS Paladin guy, I would go Dex, and then some Warlock and/or Bard and/or Rogue. You can´t go wrong with a multiclass pally in my book!

Although... if you MULTICLASS to Fighter, Barbarian or something "fighty", Str might still be the way...

[Balor777]

English lesson time: It's spelled wise, not wize.
Yeah thx!Im not a native speaker.

As to the rest, why is the paladin using a sword?
hahah nice!
I fixed your calculations below(used the breakpoints you decided on), though I'm not sure why they're needed - I already explained that strength had better damage.
Both have the same +hit, so accuracy doesn't need to be factored in. Main stat will be 18 at 5, 20 at 11 (can't get to 20 without two ASIs, presuming variant human for the feat at level 1)

OH+S at 5: 1d6+4+2 + 1d6+4+2 + 1d4+4+2= 27.5
Are you sure it was intented to attack twice with a onehand weapon?
Isnt it really strange that all the other pole master weapons must be used on two hands,probably to push a swing with each hand on each side?
If its like this there shoudnt be any lvl4+ shield user NPC without shield/quarterstaff.
I mean man i cant even imagine how you gonna attack with a reverse grip when the 80% of the weight is in the other side.
This is redicilous, sorry


DW at 5: 1d8+4 + 1d8+4= 17
OH+S at 11: 1d6+1d8+5+2 + 1d6+1d8+5+2 + 1d4+1d8+5+2= 27.5= 44
DW at 11: 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 + 1d8+5= 28.5
DW at 12: 2d8+5 + 2d8+5 + 2d8+5= 42

Quarterstaff and shield stays ahead in damage and armour class the whole time and stays one level ahead forever.

I definately wouldnt allow it in my table.


I myself posted the very same concept the OP had, and to sum up what I know about the concept (which has probably been mentioned by others in this thread already):

-Str paladins can potentially do more damage in melee since they can use two-handed weapons that do 1d12, 2d6, and reach weapons with 1d10 damage. Opposed to dex paladins with 1d8 with just the rapier.
-Str paladins are better at doing combat maneuvers [(str)athletics] as with any str based build, but dex paladins can be just at good at avoiding combat maneuvers [(dex)acrobatics)].
-Str paladins potentially have better AC with plate armor (18) with Dex paladins have potential max one less than that with leather armor (17).
-Dex paladins have better ranged dps than str paladins, but it hardly matters since paladins do more damage with melee using smites and smite spells.
-Dex paladins can sneak better than str paladins.
-Dex paladins get a higher Dex saves which happen more often than Str saves.
-Dex paladins have higher initiative.

Personally I like Dex paladins over Str paladins since I only need to have high stats in Dex, Cha, and Con as opposed to a Str paladin who needs to have decent scores in those three stats along with Str.
If you do the math TWF does more damage for 80% of the game.The only way to do more damage is the Polearm way.Since TWF can be done wirh D8 finese weapon you are good to go.
DEX reflex+Aura of protection we are talking about +8 to reflex at 7(1st level fighter) level and +9 Later.If your pala is green you will be mitigate 90% of the spell damage.
Also +5 to init gives a huge bonus.
I really DONT like that dex is the way to go combining great offence/defence but thats it.

[Eslin]

I definately wouldnt allow it in my table.

Why not? The rules specifically tell you that you can do it. The rules let gargantuan dragons fly (no way they could even come close to getting lift at that size and shape), allow a character to survive falling from the stratosphere and let a fighter shoot a heavy crossbow nine times in six seconds. What is physically feasible or even possible for us is not a concern for well trained D&D characters.


Are you sure it was intended to attack twice with a onehand weapon?
Yes, I am. It allows the bonus action attack with three actions, one of which is one handed. I can't see that being unintentional.

Again, it is physically impossible to do many of the things a high level fighter can do - why is letting a master of using such weapons attack with both ends of a staff such a problem?


If its like this there shoudnt be any lvl4+ shield user NPC without shield/quarterstaff.
Hand crossbows and polearms have the highest skill cap in 5e for some reason, not sure why.

[Shadow]

I definately wouldnt allow it in my table.

In b4:
"But the rules say that a staff can be used as a one handed weapon, and therefore I can use a shield with it and still get that second attack from the feat."

Common sense says that the second attack comes from the haft and that this is essentially being treated like an improvised weapon (which is why it deals 1d4 damage) but they will never admit that because then their broken combo wouldn't be available.

edit:
Damn. Just seconds too late.

[metaridley18]

Common sense says that the second attack comes from the haft and that this is essentially being treated like an improvised weapon (which is why it deals 1d4 damage) but they will never admit that because then their broken combo wouldn't be available.

After building character after character, and seeing it in play Polearm Master is almost too good. The guaranteed bonus attack plus the free attack when they approach has so much economy gain that rarely do I build a martial type character without thinking "but this would be so much better as a Polearm Master".

So PM is already great, add in the 1H Quarterstaff + Shield + Duelist thing and you have the highest consistent melee DPR build (X attacks at 1d8+Str+2, 1 bonus attack at 1d4+Str+2) without sacrificing any AC like you're supposed to with other high DPR options such as 2H weapons or TWF.

To me, that smacks of a divergence from RAI, although it is totally allowed by RAW. So even staying away from the "that's silly and unrealistic" argument, I would rule that quarterstaves need to be wielded 2H in order to gain the benefit of Polearm Master, simply from a gamist point of view and making sure that all options are at least approximately equally viable. I further refuse to play it that way.

But if you don't rule it that way, a Dex paladin cannot compete with a shield and staff Str paladin.

[Eslin]

After building character after character, and seeing it in play Polearm Master is almost too good. The guaranteed bonus attack plus the free attack when they approach has so much economy gain that rarely do I build a martial type character without thinking "but this would be so much better as a Polearm Master".

So PM is already great, add in the 1H Quarterstaff + Shield + Duelist thing and you have the highest consistent melee DPR build (X attacks at 1d8+Str+2, 1 bonus attack at 1d4+Str+2) without sacrificing any AC like you're supposed to with other high DPR options such as 2H weapons or TWF.

To me, that smacks of a divergence from RAI, although it is totally allowed by RAW. So even staying away from the "that's silly and unrealistic" argument, I would rule that quarterstaves need to be wielded 2H in order to gain the benefit of Polearm Master, simply from a gamist point of view and making sure that all options are at least approximately equally viable. I further refuse to play it that way.

But if you don't rule it that way, a Dex paladin cannot compete with a shield and staff Str paladin.

Except it doesn't work like that. Ignore the +2 - it's supposed to be equal to other things, it just happens to be better than the 2h fighting style because balance was done poorly.

The exchange is +2 AC for less damage and 5ft less reach. Which is, all things considered, an equal tradeoff, especially when reach is more important due to the other half of the feat. Seriously, no-one ever seems to comment on this part - +2 AC, -2 damage, -5ft reach. Seems a fairly equal trade.

And how is it against RaI? Polearm master can be used with 3 weapons. One of those weapons is one handed. Seems pretty simple.


In b4:
"But the rules say that a staff can be used as a one handed weapon, and therefore I can use a shield with it and still get that second attack from the feat."

Common sense says that the second attack comes from the haft and that this is essentially being treated like an improvised weapon (which is why it deals 1d4 damage) but they will never admit that because then their broken combo wouldn't be available.

edit:
Damn. Just seconds too late.
Cool. Please tell me what common sense says about a high level fighter being to reload a heavy crossbow 9 times in 6 seconds, then get back to me about a polearm master being able to make an attack with both ends of the polearm he's using.

[citizenkeen]

Duelist style +2 damage is a good thing.Altho i would dip a level in fighter for the 2 weapon style and get the +1 armor style from palladin and the 2WF feat.
This way 2 x D8(rapier)+DEX plus the double smites per round if you realy need it.Also the final ac is +2 like having a shield and you get another small heal(second wind)

You can't have two fighting styles, IIRC.

[Shadow]

Cool. Please tell me what common sense says about a high level fighter being to reload a heavy crossbow 9 times in 6 seconds, then get back to me about a polearm master being able to make an attack with both ends of the polearm he's using.

A PM *can* make an attack with both ends of the polearm he's using, but it should require both hands to do so.
IE: No shield.
With the fact that a versatile weapon was allowed with PM, it should have been made explicitly clear that it must be wielded using the versatile property for that function.
The fact that this wasn't made clear was an oversight. An oversight which any reasonable DM will probably fix in his game, like myself and metaridly have.

Keen:
You can have two styles (Champion grants two itself) but you cannot take the same one twice.

[Balor777]

In b4:
"But the rules say that a staff can be used as a one handed weapon, and therefore I can use a shield with it and still get that second attack from the feat."

Common sense says that the second attack comes from the haft and that this is essentially being treated like an improvised weapon (which is why it deals 1d4 damage) but they will never admit that because then their broken combo wouldn't be available.

edit:
Damn. Just seconds too late.
Well a Polearm/glave d4 attack is a weaker swing attack by pushing with your left hand.The only reason its a D4 is probably because the other 80% "body" of the weapon
wont allow you to accelarate that d4 side to give a strong blow.
Polearms use a "wide baseball bat grip"You make a good swing with the heavy side but you cant do a strong swing with the other side because of the small lever/small acceleration distance AND the suspended weight on the opposed side.Thats why d4 is a very reasonable damage.Take your broom stick and try it and you will undertand what my lack of good english probably wont let you visualise well.Now try to do the same "d4" damage with only one hand, haha.
Now if all this sound difficult imagine the same thing with the quarterstaff ONE HANDED.You will do a swing like you would do with a lonsword and now a d4 damage with reverse grip
with all the other 80% of the staff weight slowing you down?No.Noway.For both realism and balance reasons.

[metaridley18]

Except it doesn't work like that. Ignore the +2 - it's supposed to be equal to other things, it just happens to be better than the 2h fighting style because balance was done poorly.

The exchange is +2 AC for less damage and 5ft less reach. Which is, all things considered, an equal tradeoff, especially when reach is more important due to the other half of the feat. Seriously, no-one ever seems to comment on this part - +2 AC, -2 damage, -5ft reach. Seems a fairly equal trade.

And how is it against RaI? Polearm master can be used with 3 weapons. One of those weapons is one handed. Seems pretty simple.

Ignoring the +2 to damage, you're right, it's a tradeoff of AC for damage and reach. My problem is that +2 to AC is much better than +2 to damage, especially as that +2 to damage is only for some of your attacks (since the haft attack is the same damage regardless). But regardless, I wouldn't consider this to be too imbalancing on its own.

The reason I say it isn't RAI is because of how it works with Duelist.

With Duelist, the tradeoff is actually +2 AC and +2 damage on your bonus attack for -5' reach and benefit of whichever fighting style you didn't pick when you chose Duelist (which, as you say, are underwhelming. TWF which you weren't using anyway, Protection which sucks, 2H weapon style which is meh, and Defense which I would argue is actually fairly good, but not enough to tip the scales as then it's +1 AC and +2 damage for -5' reach).

As a slight aside, I think you can pinpoint the offensive attack options that the developers considered based on feats that grant bonus action attacks: TWF (whether melee or ranged), Polearms, 2H big weapons (even if theirs isn't guaranteed).

There's a notable lack of any feat support for extra attacks with the standard sword and board, with the glaring exception of the QS, or 1/2 of Great Weapon Master, and that is pretty sub optimal if you're just taking it for the non-guaranteed bonus action attack with melee weapons.

That strikes me as odd, so I conclude that sword and board bonus action attacks weren't intended except in rare circumstances (Cleric of War limited use ability or similar features), as they are primarily defensive fighters. Therefore, I believe that using Polearm Master with a 1H weapon was an oversight that the developers didn't intend (as stupid as that may seen considering the feat explicitly calls out the 1H weapon as valid).

This is at best a tangent from the point of the thread, and I think I've made my point pretty clear so I'll try to abstain from deviating the thread further. It's just an important consideration for Dex paladins in general.

[Garimeth]

RAI its pretty clear a one handed use of the extra attack of PM is NOT RAI.

Look no further than the fact that neither pike nor spear are on that weapon list - because they are piercing. The RAI action is you swing the weapon, and then attack with the haft hand as a but stroke or thrust.

As a DM I would never allow this shield and staff nonsense, it's RAW, but clearly not RAI.

To the OP:
Dueling and rapier is the way to go for dex pally, and can be pretty fun I imagine! Also keep in mind too with all this talk of multi-classing that the oaths have some of the cooler capstones in the game, so weigh carefully if you expect to reach 20!

[Mandragola]

I do think it's a tricky one for DMs. RAW is very hard to argue with, but then it just beats all other options by too much - and feels wrong. Fighting with a quarterstaff and shield would be rubbish. You'd always be banging your staff on your own shield.

In game, something that obviously makes one character better than others probably should be ruled against. If I were DMing then, I'd warn players in advance that this wouldn't be allowed, before anyone made their characters.

I wouldn't argue that the RAW does allow it, but I'd explain to a player my own reasons for not letting it past. In fact, knights* used swords rather than sticks in fights for a reason.

One thing I would say is that all feats are pretty powerful. Polearm master is awesome already, before adding in duelist and shield silliness. I'm running a 2h paladin with great weapon master and he's pretty brutal. I don't miss the AC because the bad guys don't stick around long.

*but not Musashi, who exists to refute attempts at reasonable argument.

[Rhaegar14]

Since I haven't seen anyone mention it in this thread (sorry if I skipped over it in my skimming), the biggest POTENTIAL problem with a Dex Paladin is that for some stupid reason the Paladin requires Strength 13 (and cannot substitute Dex) to multiclass. So IF you plan to multiclass and IF your DM goes strictly by RAW you will run into that issue.

[Mandragola]

Since I haven't seen anyone mention it in this thread (sorry if I skipped over it in my skimming), the biggest POTENTIAL problem with a Dex Paladin is that for some stupid reason the Paladin requires Strength 13 (and cannot substitute Dex) to multiclass. So IF you plan to multiclass and IF your DM goes strictly by RAW you will run into that issue.

That certainly is a problem, especially since dual-wield paladins may well want to take a dip into fighter.

You can actually make a really good dex paladin though if you're happy to go sword and board, which works perfectly well. Sneaking around is a big advantage in any "tank" and works well with a paladin's potential for burst damage. It's not all that compatible with archery though, as swapping between a bow and shield is a hassle in combat.

[Eslin]

A PM *can* make an attack with both ends of the polearm he's using, but it should require both hands to do so.
IE: No shield.
With the fact that a versatile weapon was allowed with PM, it should have been made explicitly clear that it must be wielded using the versatile property for that function.
The fact that this wasn't made clear was an oversight. An oversight which any reasonable DM will probably fix in his game, like myself and metaridly have.
You have no basis for any of this stuff. It's one of three weapons and it's one handed, that they somehow meant it to be two handed is a completely baseless assumption. The rules say something you don't like, so you constantly insist that they meant something different when they're clear as day.


I do think it's a tricky one for DMs. RAW is very hard to argue with, but then it just beats all other options by too much - and feels wrong. Fighting with a quarterstaff and shield would be rubbish. You'd always be banging your staff on your own shield.
True, and trying to reload a heavy crossbow 9 times in 6 seconds would be impossible. BUT IT STILL HAPPENS BECAUSE D&D IS NOT TRYING TO PRETEND TO BE REALISTIC. And it doesn't beat all other options, it's just the best OH+shield option just like hand crossbows are the best option for ranged damage.


In game, something that obviously makes one character better than others probably should be ruled against. If I were DMing then, I'd warn players in advance that this wouldn't be allowed, before anyone made their characters.
Polearm master is the best melee feat, crossbow expert is the best ranged feat. They both give bonus action attacks. If you don't like that that's the case, fine


I wouldn't argue that the RAW does allow it, but I'd explain to a player my own reasons for not letting it past. In fact, knights* used swords rather than sticks in fights for a reason.

One thing I would say is that all feats are pretty powerful. Polearm master is awesome already, before adding in duelist and shield silliness. I'm running a 2h paladin with great weapon master and he's pretty brutal. I don't miss the AC because the bad guys don't stick around long.

*but not Musashi, who exists to refute attempts at reasonable argument.
Don't try to bring real life weapon usage into this, it flat out doesn't work. An estoc is no better against armour than a scimitar, longbows somehow don't require being strong, a quarterstaff can be somehow used one handed at all (they're 2 or 3 metres long, it's ridiculous). That last one is, I think, the root of the problem - quarterstaves are a one handed weapon now, functionally no different from a longsword (which are also two handed in real life for the most part, I think they meant arming sword) and people are having problems dealing with that.


RAI its pretty clear a one handed use of the extra attack of PM is NOT RAI.

Look no further than the fact that neither pike nor spear are on that weapon list - because they are piercing. The RAI action is you swing the weapon, and then attack with the haft hand as a but stroke or thrust.

As a DM I would never allow this shield and staff nonsense, it's RAW, but clearly not RAI.
Halberds and glaives are both piercing weapons too. They both had the same function - piercing end for penetrating armour, setting against incoming horse and dealing with other polearms, hook on the back for unhorsing enemies, slashing edge for swinging and push of pike. So, having established that D&D usage has nothing to do with what works in real life - why is it against RaI? One handed weapon and shield seems a pretty fine combination to me, and it's not like they made the quarterstaff one handed by accident.


Ignoring the +2 to damage, you're right, it's a tradeoff of AC for damage and reach. My problem is that +2 to AC is much better than +2 to damage, especially as that +2 to damage is only for some of your attacks (since the haft attack is the same damage regardless). But regardless, I wouldn't consider this to be too imbalancing on its own.

The reason I say it isn't RAI is because of how it works with Duelist.

With Duelist, the tradeoff is actually +2 AC and +2 damage on your bonus attack for -5' reach and benefit of whichever fighting style you didn't pick when you chose Duelist (which, as you say, are underwhelming. TWF which you weren't using anyway, Protection which sucks, 2H weapon style which is meh, and Defense which I would argue is actually fairly good, but not enough to tip the scales as then it's +1 AC and +2 damage for -5' reach).
So the problem is that they balanced 2h and duelist poorly. That can't affect what RaI is, because obviously they didn't intend to balance it badly. Seriously, think about this for a second, it doesn't make sense. All fighting styles were intended to be equal, so you can't factor them into whether using something one handed is RaI.


As a slight aside, I think you can pinpoint the offensive attack options that the developers considered based on feats that grant bonus action attacks: TWF (whether melee or ranged), Polearms, 2H big weapons (even if theirs isn't guaranteed).

There's a notable lack of any feat support for extra attacks with the standard sword and board, with the glaring exception of the QS, or 1/2 of Great Weapon Master, and that is pretty sub optimal if you're just taking it for the non-guaranteed bonus action attack with melee weapons.

That strikes me as odd, so I conclude that sword and board bonus action attacks weren't intended except in rare circumstances (Cleric of War limited use ability or similar features), as they are primarily defensive fighters. Therefore, I believe that using Polearm Master with a 1H weapon was an oversight that the developers didn't intend (as stupid as that may seen considering the feat explicitly calls out the 1H weapon as valid).

Surely the there is an offensive option that allows 1H attacks, it's called polearm master. Is there any reason to think they wanted a bonus action attack for everything except 1H+shield? What purpose would there be to that? Seriously, there's a lot of 'from x and y I draw that they wanted z' in there but there doesn't seem to be any reason to single sword and board out as the only style that doesn't get a bonus attack.


Well a Polearm/glave d4 attack is a weaker swing attack by pushing with your left hand.The only reason its a D4 is probably because the other 80% "body" of the weapon
wont allow you to accelarate that d4 side to give a strong blow.
Polearms use a "wide baseball bat grip"You make a good swing with the heavy side but you cant do a strong swing with the other side because of the small lever/small acceleration distance AND the suspended weight on the opposed side.Thats why d4 is a very reasonable damage.Take your broom stick and try it and you will undertand what my lack of good english probably wont let you visualise well.Now try to do the same "d4" damage with only one hand, haha.
Now if all this sound difficult imagine the same thing with the quarterstaff ONE HANDED.You will do a swing like you would do with a lonsword and now a d4 damage with reverse grip
with all the other 80% of the staff weight slowing you down?No.Noway.For both realism and balance reasons.
What are the balance reasons? Again, two handed and one handed use seem pretty equal.

Realism wise: Hahahahahaha no. Seriously, I actually do laugh in real life every time I see somebody try to use this one. Longbows require no strength! Padded armour is less stealthy than a chain shirt! Crossbows can be reloaded in fractions of a second without even using a cranequin! Slashing weapons work just as well against plate armour as piercing weapons specifically designed to penetrate plate do! Dragons can SOMEHOW FLY! High level characters can fall from the stratosphere and get over any damage taken from hitting the ground at terminal velocity by taking an hour long nap! Monks can catch arrows and fling them back! Metal shields are no better than wooden ones! Studded leather armour is somehow better than leather armour! Again, a war pick is no better against armour than a scimitar! Longswords and halberds don't do piercing damage! A guy on horseback can dual wield lances and without even having to charge they are significantly more effective than a longsword is.

D&D and physical realism have at best a passing relationship to each other.

[Balor777]

Having an extra attack with a onehand while using a shield resulting the same damage with the 2h weapons
is not balanced.Not balanced at all.If the quarterstaff shield user finds a +1/2 shield later we are talking about same damage
AND 3/4 higher AC from the poor guy with the Greataxe.And im talking same damage IF the 2H guy takes the chances to use-5 to
attack roll, and thats not gonna happen with high AC enemies.

If you want to use it to your table ok, you can do whatever you want.
But there a bunch of people here against this logic.
Anyway its your table do what you want.
Your 1 level human fighter/ 1lvlbarbarrian with 16 STR will attack for :
1d6+3+2+2+1d4+3+2+2 for 20 average damage at level 2.
The same with Greatsword rerroling 1-2s is 2d6+3+2+10(power attack)
This same guys attacking a 12 AC target damage outputs
Guess what the quarterstaff dude does 40% more damae and has 2AC more.
Even the guy with the Polearm(+feat) does ~10%damage less and he also has 2AC less...

http://anydice.com/program/5247

[Eslin]

Having an extra attack with a onehand while using a shield resulting the same damage with the 2h weapons
is not balanced.Not balanced at all.If the quarterstaff shield user finds a +1/2 shield later we are talking about same damage
AND 3/4 higher AC from the poor guy with the Greataxe.And im talking same damage IF the 2H guy takes the chances to use-5 to
attack roll, and thats not gonna happen with high AC enemies.

If you want to use it to your table ok, you can do whatever you want.
But there a bunch of people here against this logic.
Anyway its your table do what you want.
Your 1 level human fighter/ 1lvlbarbarrian with 16 STR will attack for :
1d6+3+2+2+1d4+3+2+2 for 20 average damage at level 2.
The same with Greatsword rerroling 1-2s is 2d6+3+2+10(power attack)
This same guys attacking a 12 AC target damage outputs
Guess what the quarterstaff dude does 40% more damae and has 2AC more.
Even the guy with the Polearm(+feat) does ~10%damage less and he also has 2AC less...

http://anydice.com/program/5247

Observation one: Fighting styles are supposed to have parity. Dueling and GWF are supposed to be equal - if they aren't then you fix that, you don't use it as a reason for other parts being unequal.
Addendum: So, since they're supposed to be equal, let's take them out of our damage calculations, GWF is a bitch to work out anyway.
Observation two: You're comparing greatsword to OH+S, why is that? You should be comparing halberd to quarterstaff.
Observation three: The damage isn't the important part here, the reach is. We're talking 2d10+1d4 vs 2d6+1d4, that's not a large difference - it's four damage per round, which isn't worth -2 AC. It's +2 damage for non bonus attacks, +5ft range for -2 AC. Which seems pretty equal to me.


Seriously guys, answer me this: Are +2 AC and +2 damage +5ft reach not roughly equivalent in power?

[Balor777]

Observation one: Fighting styles are supposed to have parity. Dueling and GWF are supposed to be equal - if they aren't then you fix that, you don't use it as a reason for other parts being unequal.
Addendum: So, since they're supposed to be equal, let's take them out of our damage calculations, GWF is a bitch to work out anyway.
Observation two: You're comparing greatsword to OH+S, why is that? You should be comparing halberd to quarterstaff.
Observation three: The damage isn't the important part here, the reach is. We're talking 2d10+1d4 vs 2d6+1d4, that's not a large difference - it's four damage per round, which isn't worth -2 AC. It's +2 damage for non bonus attacks, +5ft range for -2 AC. Which seems pretty equal to me.


Seriously guys, answer me this: Are +2 AC and +2 damage +5ft reach not roughly equivalent in power?
No im comparing shield +quarterstaff vs GS attacking with -5+10 vs Glaive use + PM feat.
All lvl 2 16 str human fighter1/barbar1.
http://anydice.com/program/5248
The damage and AC is bigger also the guys with 2h or even twf dont have access to the other shield feats.
A +2 shield will make the AC difference +4.Its too powerfull.
But again use what ever you want.And 2AC 2x +2 damage from duelist style is too much to gain for only loosing 5ft range and some AoO.Plus to get AoO by the feat means you dont charge first so initiative is like rolling 1.You have to become more passive and it requires formation to protect your team.

The other paradox here is that an "Exotic" fighting setup is SO much better than what we imagine usual weapons that it shouldnd be that "exotic" at all.
Everyone should had realise that thats the way of fighting and ALL warriors would fight this way.

[Eslin]

No im comparing shield +quarterstaff vs GS attacking with -5+10 vs Glaive use + PM feat.
All lvl 2 16 str human fighter1/barbar1.
http://anydice.com/program/5248
Yes, and I'm saying you shouldn't. You're stacking as many modifiers on as possible to make the weapon dice seem less important, and you shouldn't be including fighting styles at all because they're supposed to be equal.


The damage and AC is bigger also the guys with 2h or even twf dont have access to the other shield feats.
A +2 shield will make the AC difference +4.Its too powerfull.
I'm sorry, what? A +2 shield will make the difference +2. You're literally pulling numbers from nowhere.


But again use what ever you want.And 2AC 2x +2 damage from duelist style is too much to gain for only loosing 5ft range and some AoO.Plus to get AoO by the feat means you dont charge first so initiative is like rolling 1.You have to become more passive and it requires formation to protect your team.
Again, stop including weapon styles. If we're going on a RaI basis then they should be equal, if we're going on a balance basis then you should change them to make them equal. Stop including them as is. It isn't +2AC 2x+2 damage vs +5ft reach, it's +2AC vs 2x+2 damage +5ft reach.

And what are you on about regarding AoOs? Just charge in and you get the attack anyway.

[Balor777]

Yes, and I'm saying you shouldn't. You're stacking as many modifiers on as possible to make the weapon dice seem less important, and you shouldn't be including fighting styles at all because they're supposed to be equal.

No.Without RAGE the % difference is actualy bigger.

I'm sorry, what? A +2 shield will make the difference +2. You're literally pulling numbers from nowhere.
The guy dont having a shield cannot use magic shield to make his defence even better.Only magic armor.
A level 5 Full plate user with shield has 20 AC.The same guy without a shield has 18 AC.At around level 14-16 the first guy would have
+2 plate armor and +2 shield,now having 24 AC.The guy without a shield woould have 20 AC with the same + plate.
The difference is 4AC now.the 10% less chances to be hit at level5 became 20%.

Again, stop including weapon styles. If we're going on a RaI basis then they should be equal, if we're going on a balance basis then you should change them to make them equal. Stop including them as is. It isn't +2AC 2x+2 damage vs +5ft reach, it's +2AC vs 2x+2 damage +5ft reach.
We should include the STYLES because its the result that matters.
Quartwrstaff+shield has: +2AC + two times the style +2 damage 2 times the STR modiffier too.
Greatsword guy: reroll 1-2 making 2d6 8.3 average ONE time the STR modifier and no other bonus damage.
Polearm guy: +5ft two times STR mod and rerroling 1-2s on the D10 damage making the D10 6.35 dpr + SOME AoO.
Thats it.


And what are you on about regarding AoOs? Just charge in and you get the attack anyway.
PH description "other creatures provoke an opportunity attack
from you when they enter your reach." you get AoO on other people turns only.

[Garimeth]

Halberds and glaives are both piercing weapons too. They both had the same function - piercing end for penetrating armour, setting against incoming horse and dealing with other polearms, hook on the back for unhorsing enemies, slashing edge for swinging and push of pike. So, having established that D&D usage has nothing to do with what works in real life - why is it against RaI? One handed weapon and shield seems a pretty fine combination to me, and it's not like they made the quarterstaff one handed by accident..

Well, if you can show me some historical examples of a staff being used to attack with both ends I'd be interested, but it doesn't matter because...



D&D and physical realism have at best a passing relationship to each other.

You answered this for yourself. In D&D the non piercing weapons (in terms of damage dealt) are the ones they chose - ignoring the pike and the spear both (the spear being the EXACT same stat block as the staff except not B damage.)

Also they didn't make the staff one handed, they made it versatile, just like the spear which they did not allow for PM. In light of the exclusion of the P type weapons its clear they expected the weapons to be swung, and the second attack made with the haft, especially since THE EXACT WORDING is: "make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon."

In light of this RAW is clearly an error and they intended one of the following:

1. RAI is the staff is used two handed and wielded in a swung fashion consistent with the other RAW weapons.
2. RAI is that pike and spear accidentally got left off the list, and they were intended to be utilized the same as the other RAW weapons.

It can only be one of those two. As a DM my ruling would be number 1, but I an see a logical case for number 2.

[Eslin]

Well, if you can show me some historical examples of a staff being used to attack with both ends I'd be interested, but it doesn't matter because...




You answered this for yourself. In D&D the non piercing weapons (in terms of damage dealt) are the ones they chose - ignoring the pike and the spear both (the spear being the EXACT same stat block as the staff except not B damage.)

Also they didn't make the staff one handed, they made it versatile, just like the spear which they did not allow for PM. In light of the exclusion of the P type weapons its clear they expected the weapons to be swung, and the second attack made with the haft, especially since THE EXACT WORDING is: "make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon."

In light of this RAW is clearly an error and they intended one of the following:

1. RAI is the staff is used two handed and wielded in a swung fashion consistent with the other RAW weapons.
2. RAI is that pike and spear accidentally got left off the list, and they were intended to be utilized the same as the other RAW weapons.

It can only be one of those two. As a DM my ruling would be number 1, but I an see a logical case for number 2.

You're giving them way too much credit. They have pike in one section but not the other, making it flat out inferior for no reason. I instead posit that the answer is

3. Though well designed overall, 5e is filled with confusing and inconsistent design decisions. For polearm master they slapped a bunch of polearm seeming weapons down, called it a day and spent less time thinking about it than I did to write this sentence. Seriously, if quarterstaff is on there there's no reason not to at least have spear as well.


No.Without RAGE the % difference is actualy bigger.
Yes, but in the other direction. Halberd does more than quarterstaff.


The guy dont having a shield cannot use magic shield to make his defence even better.Only magic armor.
I cannot believe how many times I've had to say this. Proper game design says you balance everything equally with and without magic items, otherwise A is too strong with magic items or B is too strong without magic items. You cannot use 'but this option works better with this magic item' as an argument - you could in 3.5 or 4e with a well thought out set of magic item rules and a level of availability set by the books, but you can't in 5e.


A level 5 Full plate user with shield has 20 AC.The same guy without a shield has 18 AC.At around level 14-16 the first guy would have
+2 plate armor and +2 shield,now having 24 AC.The guy without a shield woould have 20 AC with the same + plate.
The difference is 4AC now.the 10% less chances to be hit at level5 became 20%.
Not an argument, man. Everything you just said applies to shields themselves, are shields themselves overpowered now? No, because as I stated above that's not how this works.


We should include the STYLES because its the result that matters.
Then your problem is with the styles themselves. If one is better than the other then you fix the cause, you don't try to patch the symptoms.


Quartwrstaff+shield has: +2AC + two times the style +2 damage 2 times the STR modiffier too.
Greatsword guy: reroll 1-2 making 2d6 8.3 average ONE time the STR modifier and no other bonus damage.
Polearm guy: +5ft two times STR mod and rerroling 1-2s on the D10 damage making the D10 6.35 dpr + SOME AoO.
Thats it.
Greatsword guy doesn't belong here, this is a discussion of the polearm master feat. And again, you're putting fighting styles as part of the problem with weapon balance - if that's the case, balance them. Until then, don't include them and don't blame things that happen to have the better style for having the better style.


PH description "other creatures provoke an opportunity attack
from you when they enter your reach." you get AoO on other people turns only.
Yes, I know. You were acting like having 10 ft reach was somehow a downside in terms of getting opportunity attacks, and I told you that there was no need to hang back. Which there wasn't.

[metaridley18]

Surely the there is an offensive option that allows 1H attacks, it's called polearm master. Is there any reason to think they wanted a bonus action attack for everything except 1H+shield? What purpose would there be to that? Seriously, there's a lot of 'from x and y I draw that they wanted z' in there but there doesn't seem to be any reason to single sword and board out as the only style that doesn't get a bonus attack.


I don't know why they chose to not give sword and board a bonus action attack feat, but since it's SUCH a glaring omission, I have to assume that it's intended. You can't wield a longsword/mace/rapier with a shield and get a bonus attack. The ONLY way to do so is with a quarterstaff. My assumption is that 1H+shield is a more defensive style so they reflected that by not giving it offensive options. This is why I think the 1H quarterstaff is an oversight.

You can't seriously be telling me that you believe the designers sat down and had this conversation:

Designer A, "We need an option for 1H bonus action attacks with a feat. I know! Wielding a quarterstaff and a shield is a classic fantasy trope, so we'll make the quarterstaff 1H and then Polearm Master will cover it."

Designer B, "You are correct about the iconic and pervasive nature of quarterstaff+shield wielding, but what if people want to use something less popular, like longswords plus a shield? I know this is rarely shown in any sort of fantasy, but I bet someone will want to use it."

Designer A, "No, we should make staff wielding the most optimized 1H weapon, to show our appreciation for the annuls of fantasy prior to this game."

Anyway, do what you want, but the logical conclusion of allowing the 1H quarterstaff is that it is the objective best DPR + AC weapon due to the combo of feats and styles.

For the record, if we aren't including styles, I don't think it's as bad. But EVERY class that would use a quarterstaff in this way gets a style, so you HAVE to take them into account.

I guess another fix would be reworking all the styles, but it's easier (and just as mechanically effective in my mind) to say that using PM requires a 2H weapon. This places sword and board as the more defensive option and the rest as more offensive options.

[Garimeth]

You're giving them way too much credit. They have pike in one section but not the other, making it flat out inferior for no reason. I instead posit that the answer is

3. Though well designed overall, 5e is filled with confusing and inconsistent design decisions. For polearm master they slapped a bunch of polearm seeming weapons down, called it a day and spent less time thinking about it than I did to write this sentence. Seriously, if quarterstaff is on there there's no reason not to at least have spear as well.

I think there is merit to the argument that pike and spear (and hell why not trident also?) should have been included, but that requires them to have made the following errors:

Pike was left off Par 1.
Spear was left off Par 1.
Spear was left off Par 2.

Where as the other interpretation requires the following errors:

The quarterstaff entry doesn't specify that it needs to be being wielded with both hands.

As a DM I choose the simpler interpretation.

Sidenote: I wouldn't allow the dueling style with PM either, since the dueling style explicitly states that it refers to a single one handed weapon, and my ruling of PM is that it is RAI for weapons being wielded two-handed.

[Eslin]

I think there is merit to the argument that pike and spear (and hell why not trident also?) should have been included, but that requires them to have made the following errors:

Pike was left off Par 1.
Spear was left off Par 1.
Spear was left off Par 2.

Where as the other interpretation requires the following errors:

The quarterstaff entry doesn't specify that it needs to be being wielded with both hands.

As a DM I choose the simpler interpretation.

Sidenote: I wouldn't allow the dueling style with PM either, since the dueling style explicitly states that it refers to a single one handed weapon, and my ruling of PM is that it is RAI for weapons being wielded two-handed.
I didn't say error, I said lazy and inconsistent game design. Which we know happened in plenty of places, why not here? Seriously, neither of the options you said makes sense - as you say it obviously wasn't an error not including things, and I can't see someone included two two handed weapons and one one handed weapon and not realising that that means it can be used with a one handed weapon. My third solution is that it, like so many other things, was just not thought through - they slapped down what they thought sounded good and moved on.


I don't know why they chose to not give sword and board a bonus action attack feat, but since it's SUCH a glaring omission, I have to assume that it's intended. You can't wield a longsword/mace/rapier with a shield and get a bonus attack. The ONLY way to do so is with a quarterstaff. My assumption is that 1H+shield is a more defensive style so they reflected that by not giving it offensive options. This is why I think the 1H quarterstaff is an oversight.
But it's not a glaring omission. It's not the only way to get bonus attacks with a shield, either - crossbow expert also allows unlimited bonus attacks while wielding a shield. It would only be a glaring omission if they sat down and thought about this kind of stuff, which they plainly don't - please observe that studded leather is somehow different from regular leather.


You can't seriously be telling me that you believe the designers sat down and had this conversation:

Designer A, "We need an option for 1H bonus action attacks with a feat. I know! Wielding a quarterstaff and a shield is a classic fantasy trope, so we'll make the quarterstaff 1H and then Polearm Master will cover it."

Designer B, "You are correct about the iconic and pervasive nature of quarterstaff+shield wielding, but what if people want to use something less popular, like longswords plus a shield? I know this is rarely shown in any sort of fantasy, but I bet someone will want to use it."

Designer A, "No, we should make staff wielding the most optimized 1H weapon, to show our appreciation for the annuls of fantasy prior to this game."
No, I'm pretty sure their conversation went "Hey what about a feat about hitting things with staves and glaives and stuff" "Yeah that sounds good, hey what CR should pixies have?" "1/4 sounds about good, they can only cast a bunch of level 4 spells"


Anyway, do what you want, but the logical conclusion of allowing the 1H quarterstaff is that it is the objective best DPR + AC weapon due to the combo of feats and styles.

For the record, if we aren't including styles, I don't think it's as bad. But EVERY class that would use a quarterstaff in this way gets a style, so you HAVE to take them into account.

I guess another fix would be reworking all the styles, but it's easier (and just as mechanically effective in my mind) to say that using PM requires a 2H weapon. This places sword and board as the more defensive option and the rest as more offensive options.
Yes, that is the logical conclusion. As is the conclusion that the hand crossbow is objectively the best ranged weapon with crossbow expert, as is the conclusion that a halberd or glaive is the best damage for a two handed weapon.

Did I say I thought this was balanced? No. Compared to halberds, quarterstaves and hand crossbows all other weapons come up short. Just change the feat to melee weapon master and allow any melee weapon to work with it and suddenly the verisimilitude issues disappear, bam solved.

[metaridley18]

You're giving them way too much credit. They have pike in one section but not the other, making it flat out inferior for no reason. I instead posit that the answer is

3. Though well designed overall, 5e is filled with confusing and inconsistent design decisions. For polearm master they slapped a bunch of polearm seeming weapons down, called it a day and spent less time thinking about it than I did to write this sentence. Seriously, if quarterstaff is on there there's no reason not to at least have spear as well.

Yes, I agree with this. I think the 1H quarterstaff working with PM is a similar inconsistent design decision, so requiring PM to use only 2H weapons and also include the spear,pike and similar polearmy weapons is preferable.




Then your problem is with the styles themselves. If one is better than the other then you fix the cause, you don't try to patch the symptoms.

In general I agree with this sentiment ("fix the cause, not the symptoms"). However, if you look at the styles on their own:

The great weapon style is okay, and gets much better if you have options such as smite, sneak attack or magic weapons (although I did see that they only intended it to work with weapon damage specifically, and THAT ruling makes it awful). I wouldn't think this needs changing, assuming you rule it works with attack riders like Smite.

Protection is not what you would call optimized but I've seen some players enjoy it. It's definitely the weakest of the styles from an optimization standpoint, but the Defender role is weakened all across 5E. I'm not sure how to change this to make it balanced. Maybe if the style didn't use your reaction but was limited to once per round.

I think Defense is great, especially if you want versatility of switching weapons. Not the most optimized, but not a bad option. Wouldn't need changing.

TWF is fine. Duelist is fine.

The ONLY problem I have with Duelist is that it works with Polearm Master + Quarterstaff. If I sit down and say "I want to make the best offensive character who is in melee and maybe does [other cool thing]," the best possible option I have is PM+ Shield + Quarterstaff + Duelist style.

I trade the reach of a longer polearm for 2 extra AC. Disregarding ability mods, which will be the same, damage for a Halberd with GW style is 9.3 when you only have 1 attack. Damage for a quarterstaff with Duelilst is 10. So for the first 5 levels, 1H staff actually does MORE damage. After that it's exactly even.

Polearm averages 1 attack (http://anydice.com/program/5251))
Polearm averages 2 attacks (http://anydice.com/program/5252)

So, is -5' reach worth +2 AC (because that's the only trade you're making if you build your character correctly)? I would say yes, every time. That plus the ridiculousness of the staff + shield picture and the combination that they obviously didn't intend sword and board to have bonus attacks leads me to say Polearm Master+ Duelist is the issue I have.

My issue more lies with the idea that IF you choose to be a polearm wielder OR if you want to run sword and board, the ONLY way to optimize it is to be a staff + shield wielder. Everything else is secondary.

[metaridley18]

Did I say I thought this was balanced? No. Compared to halberds, quarterstaves and hand crossbows all other weapons come up short. Just change the feat to melee weapon master and allow any melee weapon to work with it and suddenly the verisimilitude issues disappear, bam solved.

Wait, if you don't think it's balanced, why are you arguing against fixing it so resolutely? My impression was that you thought the RAW was fine and balanced, so I've been trying to show that it's not.

I actually don't agree with you that other weapons come up short. Shield Master, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter are actually pretty decent. My biggest issue is that shield master is underpowered for sword and board if 1H staves are an option. 1H staff+ shield wielding gives both offense and defense whereas the other styles require making trades.

[Eslin]

Wait, if you don't think it's balanced, why are you arguing against fixing it so resolutely? My impression was that you thought the RAW was fine and balanced, so I've been trying to show that it's not.

I actually don't agree with you that other weapons come up short. Shield Master, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter are actually pretty decent. My biggest issue is that shield master is underpowered for sword and board if 1H staves are an option. 1H staff+ shield wielding gives both offense and defense whereas the other styles require making trades.

Because that's not how balance works. The best two handed option is always a halberd or glaive, the best one handed option is a quarterstaff. That doesn't make them too strong and deserving of removal, it just means that more weapons need to be as good - easiest way of doing that is allow the use of any weapon with it, it's not like anyone's going to be too strong if you do so.

Regarding shield master, charger and keen mind are also feats that exist. Not all feats are good, plenty are useless. And there is a trade - no reach. GWM kind of sucks, they screwed the balance up on that, so removing weapon styles as poorly written we get two handed having slightly more damage and 5ft better reach and shield having +2AC. The damage isn't the relevant part there, so the tradeoff is reach vs defense.

[metaridley18]

Because that's not how balance works. The best two handed option is always a halberd or glaive, the best one handed option is a quarterstaff. That doesn't make them too strong and deserving of removal, it just means that more weapons need to be as good - easiest way of doing that is allow the use of any weapon with it, it's not like anyone's going to be too strong if you do so.

Ah, I disagree fundamentally with you then. Polearm master is the best, but only by a damage or so per round, so you could take the other styles without really being strictly inferior. The Great Weapon feat is fine, TWF is strong early and falls off, but is otherwise fine, Archery is very interesting and effective. Charger and Grappler are awful and I don't think I've seen anyone disagree.

My issue is that for sword and board, shield master or other similar defensive feats would be good, but if you can take PM AND use a shield, why would you take any of them? Most of the others have a decent use and are "close enough" for me, since I don't want to rework every weapon style, and even if I did they wouldn't be perfect.

[Shadow]

I don't know why they chose to not give sword and board a bonus action attack feat, but since it's SUCH a glaring omission, I have to assume that it's intended.

It is.
And it's quite clear that it is.
RAI is that there is one way to get a bonus action attack every single round without any need for other triggers or resource expenditure.
-- use two weapons
(or *effectively* use two weapons in the case of Polearm Master)
(or *effectively* use two weapons in the case of Martial Arts)

The fact that XbX can be interpreted to allow a bonus attack with a single weapon is an oversight, and was not intended. The fact that PM allows a quarterstaff to allow a bonus attack while being used one-handed is an oversight and was not intended.
The game allowing something that was not intended makes using it in that way an exploit. It's rules legal, but it's exploitative.

[Eslin]

Ah, I disagree fundamentally with you then. Polearm master is the best, but only by a damage or so per round, so you could take the other styles without really being strictly inferior. The Great Weapon feat is fine, TWF is strong early and falls off, but is otherwise fine, Archery is very interesting and effective. Charger and Grappler are awful and I don't think I've seen anyone disagree.

My issue is that for sword and board, shield master or other similar defensive feats would be good, but if you can take PM AND use a shield, why would you take any of them? Most of the others have a decent use and are "close enough" for me, since I don't want to rework every weapon style, and even if I did they wouldn't be perfect.

Archery is actually by far the best of them - +2 attack is absolutely ridiculous. And shield master wise, there are tons of better uses for bonus actions. That polearm master is one of them is no flaw of polearm master's.


It is.
And it's quite clear that it is.
RAI is that there is one way to get a bonus action attack every single round without any need for other triggers or resource expenditure.
-- use two weapons
(or *effectively* use two weapons in the case of Polearm Master)
(or *effectively* use two weapons in the case of Martial Arts)

The fact that XbX can be interpreted to allow a bonus attack with a single weapon is an oversight, and was not intended. The fact that PM allows a quarterstaff to allow a bonus attack while being used one-handed is an oversight and was not intended.
Actual translation:

(or *don't* use two weapons in the case of Polearm Master)
(or *don't* use two weapons in the case of Martial Arts)

Polearm master still uses one weapon, though I get where you're coming from even though it's not effectively using two weapons any more than hitting something with the hilt of your sword is dual wielding. But how do you think martial arts are? Hit them with your fist on your attack, hit them with your fist on your bonus attack.

[Balor777]

I believe guys we are missing the point with this big posts.
Please try to answer this sipmle questions with logic.

1) Is a shield user supposed to be more durable from a guy without ?
Yes or No?
2)Is a 2handed/TWF an investment you do to gain more damage over protection?
Yes or No?

Isnt it better if we simple FOLLOW the logic behind:
- the shield guy has more armor so he must have less damage.
- the 2handed/two weapon guy must have more damage but less armor

Now we can change all styles and weapons and CR calculation formulas and 100 other staff to balance that Q/staff + shield gets balanced
Or we can change ONLY this combination of Q/staff +shield + duelist and leave all other things as is.



If you give a bonus attack to all onehanders you immediately gimp TWF more and berserker and Polearm/glaive and GrSword/GrAXe setup.
The logic is simple:
Change 1 and keep the others?
Or change everything and keep this one thing.The choise is yours.

[Eslin]

I believe guys we are missing the point with this big posts.
Please try to answer this sipmle questions with logic.

1) Is a shield user supposed to be more durable from a guy without ?
Yes or No?
2)Is a 2handed/TWF an investment you do to gain more damage over protection?
Yes or No?
Honestly? In general 1H vs 2H is a difference of 2 damage, 1d8 vs 1d12. Which is exactly the difference between the 1d6 quarterstaff and 1d10 glaive. So yes, shield is more durable and yes 2H gives more damage, but it's a difference of 2 either way.


Isnt it better if we simple FOLLOW the logic behind:
- the shield guy has more armor so he must have less damage.
- the 2handed/two weapon guy must have more damage but less armor
No, it isn't. The game itself doesn't really any more, there's no 1.5 strength for 2H or anything these days. There are no multipliers, so the damage difference between one handed and two handed is always going to be fairly small - I'd say the extra reach is much more important.


Now we can change all styles and weapons and CR calculation formulas and 100 other staff to balance that Q/staff + shield gets balanced
Or we can change ONLY this combination of Q/staff +shield + duelist and leave all other things as is.
Or you could change duelist and GWF so they're equal, or you could just let the player do it with all one handed weapons instead of just the quarterstaff.


If you give a bonus attack to all onehanders you immediately gimp TWF more and berserker and Polearm/glaive and GrSword/GrAXe setup.
The logic is simple:
Change 1 and keep the others?
Or change everything and keep this one thing.The choise is yours.
TWF already sucks pretty hard unless you need the second hit for a sneak attack. Requires double the amount of magic items, stays only one attack through the whole game, needs a fighting style to even become a normal weapon hit - the only class that actually wants to use it is the rogue.

Berserker already sucks so incredibly hard. Exhaustion is a horrible penalty, it's not worth it anywhere near often enough to make the archetype worth taking.

Polearm/glaive isn't gimped. You lose 2 AC, you gain 2 damage and 5ft of reach. Pretty good deal, I have a paladin in my game who uses both and switches between them based on the situation.

Greatsword/axe is inferior to glaive or halberd, thanks persistent bonus attack.

So... I guess you'd want to change everything? Again, dual wielding and berserker are pretty terrible.

[toapat]

I think multiclassing is the true answer to your question.

For an ONLY Paladin guy, I would go Strength, it´s just simpler that way and in the terms of sheer rolls and dice, they will rock.
For a MULTICLASS Paladin guy, I would go Dex, and then some Warlock and/or Bard and/or Rogue. You can´t go wrong with a multiclass pally in my book!

Paladins are incompetent at multiclassing to complementary classes though, as the mandatory str threshold doesn't compliment the classes you want to merge with.

The major differences between str and dex is you can't kill a dex paladin, while str Paladins bring better damage. Also dex Paladins don't completely suck at ranges greater then 60'

[Eslin]

Paladins are incompetent at multiclassing to complementary classes though, as the mandatory str threshold doesn't compliment the classes you want to merge with.

The major differences between str and dex is you can't kill a dex paladin, while str Paladins bring slightly better damage. Also dex Paladins don't completely suck at ranges greater then 600'

Dex Paladins will actually have better ac then str, because of the limitation of 2h weapons not coming with a shield.

The strength paladin will have better damage and AC, actually.

Dex: 12+1+1+5=19
Strength: 18+2=20

Dex damage: 1d8+4, 1d8+4, 1d8.
Strength damage: 1d6+6, 1d6+6, 1d4+6.

If the dex paladin spends a level on fighter the last hit will be 1d8+4, still leaving them 2 damage lower than the strength paladin overall. The strength paladin can use a halberd instead of a shield and gain a bit of damage and +5ft reach, though if you're intending to switch between the two you probably want defensive style which gives you 19 AC anyways while two handing.

[toapat]

The strength paladin will have better damage and AC, actually.

Dex: 12+1+1+5=19
Strength: 18+2=20

Dex damage: 1d8+4, 1d8+4, 1d8.
Strength damage: 1d6+6, 1d6+6, 1d4+6.

If the dex paladin spends a level on fighter the last hit will be 1d8+4, still leaving them 2 damage lower than the strength paladin overall. The strength paladin can use a halberd instead of a shield and gain a bit of damage and +5ft reach, though if you're intending to switch between the two you probably want defensive style which gives you 19 AC anyways while two handing.

Where is the +6 coming from? Because before polearm master 1h is equal for both. No snowflaking stat comparisons

And not going 2h with str is suboptimal this ed, even against PM because of great weapon fighting.

[Eslin]

Where is the +6 coming from? Because before polearm master 1h is equal for both. No snowflaking stat comparisons

And not going 2h with str is suboptimal this ed, even against PM because of great weapon fighting.

+4 from primary stat for both, +2 for duelist style for strength paladin.

GWF is actually pretty crap. Doesn't apply to anything but the weapon's damage, and rerolling 1s and 2s is not fantastic. If your DM lets you apply it to things like smite damage it gets a bit better, but in general shield and polearm are both good, they just have different strengths.

[Myzz]

wow this thread has gotten way off topic =)

back to OP:
1. Dex Pally loses ability to use dex in heavier armors, limiting you to Studded... all things being equal thats not that big as long as your cool with a Studded Leather wearing Paladin (IMO AC's are close enough that its a wash)
2. Still requires STR to multiclass out of Pally (or in if you didnt start Pally)
3. Better Nova Burst from Dual Wielding (2 Divine Smites vs 1, at low levels and have 1 extra consistantly)
4. Better ability to sneak, because of dex and fact your likely not wearing even medium armor...
5. Worse Shoving and Athletic abilities, which could be overcome with a Belt of GIant Strength



To Polearm Master debate:
6. It seems that quarter staff was intentionally put on the limited list (with some wpns intentionally left off that should have been on?), but then later the quarterstaff was changed to versatile weapon vice 2 handed.
7. Good claim could be made to just remove the weapon list from the feat and allow it for all weapons, or bring back weapon families and have person choose which family to apply it to, or just apply the feat to a specific weapon, or choose any 3 weapons to apply it to...

[silveralen]

It is.
And it's quite clear that it is.
RAI is that there is one way to get a bonus action attack every single round without any need for other triggers or resource expenditure.
-- use two weapons
(or *effectively* use two weapons in the case of Polearm Master)
(or *effectively* use two weapons in the case of Martial Arts)

The fact that XbX can be interpreted to allow a bonus attack with a single weapon is an oversight, and was not intended. The fact that PM allows a quarterstaff to allow a bonus attack while being used one-handed is an oversight and was not intended.
The game allowing something that was not intended makes using it in that way an exploit. It's rules legal, but it's exploitative.

So, a feat which allows you to make an attack with your shield is "effectively" using two weapons. Shield master isn't that far off, it is effectively a second limited type of attack. It's far more two weapons than polearm master is.

[Eslin]

wow this thread has gotten way off topic =)

back to OP:
1. Dex Pally loses ability to use dex in heavier armors, limiting you to Studded... all things being equal thats not that big as long as your cool with a Studded Leather wearing Paladin (IMO AC's are close enough that its a wash)
2. Still requires STR to multiclass out of Pally (or in if you didnt start Pally)
3. Better Nova Burst from Dual Wielding (2 Divine Smites vs 1, at low levels and have 1 extra consistantly)
4. Better ability to sneak, because of dex and fact your likely not wearing even medium armor...
5. Worse Shoving and Athletic abilities, which could be overcome with a Belt of GIant Strength
To Polearm Master debate:
6. It seems that quarter staff was intentionally put on the limited list (with some wpns intentionally left off that should have been on?), but then later the quarterstaff was changed to versatile weapon vice 2 handed.
7. Good claim could be made to just remove the weapon list from the feat and allow it for all weapons, or bring back weapon families and have person choose which family to apply it to, or just apply the feat to a specific weapon, or choose any 3 weapons to apply it to...

1. Correct, the armour difference is minor
2. A problem, though it's only 13 which isn't that bad
3. Uh, no. Polearm master, remember? They both have the same number of attacks
4. Much better sneak - higher dex, no stealth disadvantage
5. I wouldn't count on being given a badly designed and broken item in 5e, the edition where you have no choice in what items you're given
6. That's kind of a baseless assumption. Like, literally there is no base for it - it's just deciding on something out of the blue and declaring it likely to be true. Logic dictates they'd work out how equipment works before they made feats based on it - see medium armour master vs half plate, it looks a lot like they finalised items before they did feats.
7. Exactly what I do. There's no real reason why you can't use a greatsword or battle axe doing it - more damage, but you're missing out on the reach which synergises with the attack of opportunity part of the feat.

[toapat]

+4 from primary stat for both, +2 for duelist style for strength paladin.

GWF is actually pretty crap. Doesn't apply to anything but the weapon's damage, and rerolling 1s and 2s is not fantastic. If your DM lets you apply it to things like smite damage it gets a bit better, but in general shield and polearm are both good, they just have different strengths.

Great weapon fighting isnt godly, but i think this is just a minmax point, you already are foregoing the broad spectrum and solid defenses of dex for the better and more solid offense of Str.

I was assuming duelist for both,

Personally, i just dont like DW this edition, even for classes who can take actual advantage of density of attacks like paladin

[Eslin]

Great weapon fighting isnt godly, but i think this is just a minmax point, you already are foregoing the broad spectrum and solid defenses of dex for the better and more solid offense of Str.

I was assuming duelist for both,

Personally, i just dont like DW this edition, even for classes who can take actual advantage of density of attacks like paladin

But strength has better offense, too. And you can't use duelist for dual wielding.

[toapat]

But strength has better offense, too. And you can't use duelist for dual wielding.

The thing is, unlike prior editions where DW was an inherent option and not some whacky rules loophole, in 5th DW is bad. even in 3rd DW was at least decent if strangled by alot of lack of understanding about the system on the developer's side. the only way i can see DW being possible as an option is if you have the feat and the combat style and a significant classfeature that relies on quantity of hits over quality of hits. the only mark by which paladins succeed at that test is with the passive +1d8 to all melee attacks.

Do i want Paladin to be able to do DW builds? yes. Do i think in the current form its worth the investment? no.

[Eslin]

The thing is, unlike prior editions where DW was an inherent option and not some whacky rules loophole, in 5th DW is bad. even in 3rd DW was at least decent if strangled by alot of lack of understanding about the system on the developer's side. the only way i can see DW being possible as an option is if you have the feat and the combat style and a significant classfeature that relies on quantity of hits over quality of hits. the only mark by which paladins succeed at that test is with the passive +1d8 to all melee attacks.

Do i want Paladin to be able to do DW builds? yes. Do i think in the current form its worth the investment? no.

Well yes, we know. Only class that actually wants to dual wield is the rogue.

[toapat]

Well yes, we know. Only class that actually wants to dual wield is the rogue.

and only until they can get Xbow expert.

about the only houserules for this ed i demand immediately are that all classes with the fighting style classfeature have access to the whole list, that paladins be not melee restricted, and that barbarians can use thrown weapons with rage.

the way that the FIghting style classfeature was used i feel is a very ham-fisted way of telling players how to play their character.

[Balor777]

Well yes, we know. Only class that actually wants to dual wield is the rogue.
Totem barbar with a dip in fighter does really good damage too.You better be Half orc tho to utilise the improved critical damage d8s.
At level 10 the 1fighter/9barb attacks for 3d8+15+9 with 30%chances per round for +3d8 crit.
http://anydice.com/program/529b choose View : Graph , Data At least for viewable summed results.
Its very nice for totem barbar.

[The J Pizzel]

So I'm coming to this thread late, but I'm just going to throw this in here. For a one-shot, I made an dex based, sword and board Oath of the Ancients Elven Pally. I took Medium Armor Master and Mobility. We re-fluffed a rapier to a "large scimitar" and my DM allowed it to do d8 with finesse. So I moved 45 ft/round, didn't suffer OA's, didn't suffer disadvantage on stealth, had great AC, had spells, did d8+5 per hit and had decent lock downs from ancients. In short, my group frapping loved this guy. One player jokingly said I was s cross between Thranduil and Legolas, so I named him Thrangolas (yay one-shots). I evened prepped find steed and summoned an elk at one point just for fun. I did not feel under-powered at all and I absolutely intend on fleshing him out and playing for the next full on on the campaign that I'm not running. Although I do intent on making one or two subtle changes. Here's the character..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2itj5ss0r8qun3/Thranduil.pdf?dl=0

[Balor777]

Rapier is already a d8 finese weapon.this char sounds nice tho

[toapat]

So I'm coming to this thread late, but I'm just going to throw this in here. For a one-shot, I made an dex based, sword and board Oath of the Ancients Elven Pally. I took Medium Armor Master and Mobility. We re-fluffed a rapier to a "large scimitar" and my DM allowed it to do d8 with finesse. So I moved 45 ft/round, didn't suffer OA's, didn't suffer disadvantage on stealth, had great AC, had spells, did d8+5 per hit and had decent lock downs from ancients. In short, my group frapping loved this guy. One player jokingly said I was s cross between Thranduil and Legolas, so I named him Thrangolas (yay one-shots). I evened prepped find steed and summoned an elk at one point just for fun. I did not feel under-powered at all and I absolutely intend on fleshing him out and playing for the next full on on the campaign that I'm not running. Although I do intent on making one or two subtle changes. Here's the character..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2itj5ss0r8qun3/Thranduil.pdf?dl=0

The best way to compare them is that dex-paladin is a prot paladin, while str is a ret pally. Dex trades out your top end damage for being a brick wall. You are not a shadowrun troll, but you are certainly considered part of the armored cavalry, not the infantry. Str comparatively is more of an artillery piece. High power, but vulnerable. Dex without MAM can only match the armor of a str wielder but spells roll off of you except for those nasty int saves. Dex Paladins have longer engagement ranges then str but trade out combat maneuvers.

[Eslin]

The best way to compare them is that dex-paladin is a prot paladin, while str is a ret pally. Dex trades out your top end damage for being a brick wall. You are not a shadowrun troll, but you are certainly considered part of the armored cavalry, not the infantry. Str comparatively is more of an artillery piece. High power, but vulnerable. Dex without MAM can only match the armor of a str wielder but spells roll off of you except for those nasty int saves. Dex Paladins have longer engagement ranges then str but trade out combat maneuvers.

But strength paladins have higher AC. This entire analogy falls down, strength has better armour than dex does, they're less vulnerable.

[toapat]

they're less vulnerable.

5% less physical strikes maybe, but any dex save they are significantly less tanky then a dex paladin. Besides that theoretical cap =/= practical cap. the practical cap for heavy armor is 18, the practical cap for dex is 19. While Heavy Armor Mastery is one of the best feats, that only makes you better against physical combat, not fireball.

Tanks dont just mitigate damage taken from one source unless you are going into molten core and can say that your most valuable focus would be immunity to fire damage, its soaking the most damage they possibly can. having +5 to dex saves vs + ~6-10 damage/round is alot of difference. Most paladins will be vulnerable to Intelect devourers, but a Dex paladin has no save weaknesses otherwise, while a Str paladin still has the vulnerability of weak dex saves.

[Eslin]

5% less physical strikes maybe, but any dex save they are significantly less tanky then a dex paladin. Besides that theoretical cap =/= practical cap. the practical cap for heavy armor is 18, the practical cap for dex is 19. While Heavy Armor Mastery is one of the best feats, that only makes you better against physical combat, not fireball.

Tanks dont just mitigate damage taken from one source unless you are going into molten core and can say that your most valuable focus would be immunity to fire damage, its soaking the most damage they possibly can. having +5 to dex saves vs + ~6-10 damage/round is alot of difference. Most paladins will be vulnerable to Intelect devourers, but a Dex paladin has no save weaknesses otherwise, while a Str paladin still has the vulnerability of weak dex saves.

AC is the most common source of damage taken. And how is the practical cap for armour 18? Plate+shield will get you to 20 before the dex paladin has enough to get to 19.

Saves wise, their save aura means paladins are already very good at making their saves in general - and because 5e reverted to blob of HP and damage style monsters rather than using any of the elements that made 4e's monsters fun, you'll be taking AC based hits a lot more than any other type of hit.

[Torched Forever]

With a Dex Pally you are much better at avoiding magical/save attacks (which tend to hurt more) but take 5% more hits from everything else. For example: a young dragon. It has attacks which would face AC but they are nowhere near as deadly as the whole party getting hit by a save or take huge damage ability. While the save is pretty low its a lot less risky if you have high Dex.Not to mention, but the Dex Pally is (mostly) better than the Str Pally at the noncombat aspects of adventuring. When a trap springs you'll want a higher Dex save not Str. Finally, I think that in all our analysis we really forgot that the Dex Pally is much more likely to go first. Considering that Pally has some pretty nice nova damage this is a huge advantage.





Sidenote on the quarterstaff. Its a simple weapon, it really shouldn't match or beat martial weapons.

[Eslin]

With a Dex Pally you are much better at avoiding magical/save attacks (which tend to hurt more) but take 5% more hits from everything else. For example: a young dragon. It has attacks which would face AC but they are nowhere near as deadly as the whole party getting hit by a save or take huge damage ability. While the save is pretty low its a lot less risky if you have high Dex.Not to mention, but the Dex Pally is (mostly) better than the Str Pally at the noncombat aspects of adventuring. When a trap springs you'll want a higher Dex save not Str. Finally, I think that in all our analysis we really forgot that the Dex Pally is much more likely to go first. Considering that Pally has some pretty nice nova damage this is a huge advantage.





Sidenote on the quarterstaff. Its a simple weapon, it really shouldn't match or beat martial weapons.

It's good because it's usable in a manner that has no equivalent martial weapon use, not because it's simple. If a longsword could be used in the same way, the longsword would be better.

[Myzz]

6. That's kind of a baseless assumption. Like, literally there is no base for it - it's just deciding on something out of the blue and declaring it likely to be true. Logic dictates they'd work out how equipment works before they made feats based on it - see medium armour master vs half plate, it looks a lot like they finalised items before they did feats.

The base is that Quarterstaffs have always been a 2 handed weapon. And have been made into Versatile weapons in this edition. The assumption is that the Pole Arm Master was made using that as an assumption and either someone else changed Staff to a versatile weapon or staff was changed after the feat was already designed and no one noticed the effect the change would have. The FACT that quarterstaff was changed is the base for the assumption...



7. Exactly what I do. There's no real reason why you can't use a greatsword or battle axe doing it - more damage, but you're missing out on the reach which synergises with the attack of opportunity part of the feat.

Nearly every melee that is going to attack you will be coming within 5 ft of you anyways, so you'll still get your AoO on them when they come in range. Any creature that is going to skirt around your 5ft reach, was likely going to skirt around your 10ft reach anyways.

[Eslin]

The base is that Quarterstaffs have always been a 2 handed weapon. And have been made into Versatile weapons in this edition. The assumption is that the Pole Arm Master was made using that as an assumption and either someone else changed Staff to a versatile weapon or staff was changed after the feat was already designed and no one noticed the effect the change would have. The FACT that quarterstaff was changed is the base for the assumption...
Except the rest of the book says that's not how that worked, and quarterstaff didn't get changed to anything - equipment works differently each edition. Look at feats like medium armour master - they plainly knew how their equipment worked before they wrote their feats. You're seriously trying to claim that in an edition with really bland and simple weapons, they somehow missed quarterstaves clearly being one handed weapons?


Nearly every melee that is going to attack you will be coming within 5 ft of you anyways, so you'll still get your AoO on them when they come in range. Any creature that is going to skirt around your 5ft reach, was likely going to skirt around your 10ft reach anyways.
Except that threatening an extra 16 squares forces them to either eat an attack or waste a lot of movement avoiding you and there are plenty of monsters with 10 feet of reach, especially the big powerful ones.

[Torched Forever]

It's good because it's usable in a manner that has no equivalent martial weapon use, not because it's simple. If a longsword could be used in the same way, the longsword would be better.
What I meant is that if a simple weapon can out do a martial weapon then what is the point of martial weapon proficiency? As for the RAI part of the QS discussion, a quick Google search revealed that a quarterstaff is a polearm (making its inclusion in the list make a little more sense flavor wise). Back in 3.5 a QS was a double weapon, which were removed in 5e, (might be 4e sorry, never looked at 4th) to allow you to still make the two attacks it makes even more sense in its inclusion. While I am not sure why they made it versatile (historically wielded with two hands)I would argue that the second attack should, at least, be at 1d2 as it makes no sense for the main attack to be weakened by 1h use but the second to not. But, this would be a house rule and not RAW. Anyway, I'm sorry if I was not clear in my language in the initial post.


As for the reach AoO defending, I don't think it works. The PHB states that reached weapons "adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it" pg. 147, this means that your reach only hits 10ft. for the instant you attack, not during any other time. Why would they include "when you attack with it" if the bonus constantly applied? Although, the Sentinel feat only mentions 5ft. while Polearm Master mentions reach. So, either WotC were careless/made interchangeable terms or the reach is constant and contrasts with the "when you attack" section.

[Eslin]

What I meant is that if a simple weapon can out do a martial weapon then what is the point of martial weapon proficiency? As for the RAI part of the QS discussion, a quick Google search revealed that a quarterstaff is a polearm (making its inclusion in the list make a little more sense flavor wise). Back in 3.5 a QS was a double weapon, which were removed in 5e, (might be 4e sorry, never looked at 4th) to allow you to still make the two attacks it makes even more sense in its inclusion. While I am not sure why they made it versatile (historically wielded with two hands)I would argue that the second attack should, at least, be at 1d2 as it makes no sense for the main attack to be weakened by 1h use but the second to not. But, this would be a house rule and not RAW. Anyway, I'm sorry if I was not clear in my language in the initial post.
RaI wise, quarterstaves behave identically to longswords. Plenty of things - bows, crossbows, studded leather - work nothing like they do in real life. And it's not outdoing martial weapons, there are simply no martial weapons that compete for the same niche. There should be, singling halberds and quarterstaves out like this is stupid, it should be doable with a greatsword or battleaxe, but there aren't.


As for the reach AoO defending, I don't think it works. The PHB states that reached weapons "adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it" pg. 147, this means that your reach only hits 10ft. for the instant you attack, not during any other time. Why would they include "when you attack with it" if the bonus constantly applied? Although, the Sentinel feat only mentions 5ft. while Polearm Master mentions reach. So, either WotC were careless/made interchangeable terms or the reach is constant and contrasts with the "when you attack" section.
WotC being careless about terminology in 5e? No! Next check out their spell section and observe how little sense their targeting rules make. And I'm pretty sure "when you attack with it" works with opportunity attacks - it's half the point of the polearm master feat after all.

[Torched Forever]

With the AoO when they enter your range would only be a 5ft. area. Then when you make the actual AoO the reach increases to 10ft. So, it doesn't help in that instance. I do agree that it lowers the power of the feat significantly with this interpretation (and I don't even use it in games) but I am just trying to figure out the most rule accurate way to handle this.

My point is that quarterstaves as simple weapons (thus more classes proficient) should be able to have the two attacks via this feat (only way to simulate its double weapon nature), but the problem lies in getting out the same number of attacks that would normally require 2 hands in one. This allows you to get +2 AC at the cost of 1 average damage. While this would be fine as part of a feat, it still gets your Str mod to damage (normally part of a fighting style), can have duelist tacked on for +2, and allows for equal novaing to TWF in one hand. Here is a simple comparison of the quarterstaff in 1H to 2H. 2 variant humans that are level 1 Fighters. Human-A has a quarterstaff in two hands while Human-B has it in one. Both took Polearm Master while Human-A took Defense style (to lessen the impact of the shield) and Human-B took Dueling. Assuming both have 16 Str the following happens.

Human-A
Action: 1d20 + 3str + 2prof (15.5 average) for 1d8 + 3str (7.5 average)
Bonus Action: 1d20 + 3str + 2prof(15.5 average) for 1d4 + 3str (5.5 average)
Total: 15.5 to hit and 13 average damage.

Human-B
Action: 1d20 + 3str + 2prof (15.5 average) for 1d6 + 3str + 2duel (8.5 average)
Bonus Action: 1d20 + 3str + 2prof (15.5 average) for 1d4 + 3str +2duel (7.5)
Total: 15.5 to hit, 16 average damage, and 1 greater AC.

It makes it so that you deal more damage because you wielded it 1H in exchange for more AC. That's trading off +1 AC for +3 average damage. That makes NO sense! No matter how much training fluff you can come up with you shouldn't get better damage from taking a defensive option.

On the original topic, in 5e less optimizing is needed in an adventuring party so really as long as you at least try to make the concept work it shouldn't fall behind.

[zeek0]

Alright, I have one more question for this thread...

Which is a clearer choice - Rapier+Shield+Dueling or Rapier+Rapier+Defense?

Thanks for helping me out, I appreciate all the discussion (although admittedly, I dislike all the minutiae chatter about Shillelagh).

[MeeposFire]

Alright, I have one more question for this thread...

Which is a clearer choice - Rapier+Shield+Dueling or Rapier+Rapier+Defense?

Thanks for helping me out, I appreciate all the discussion (although admittedly, I dislike all the minutiae chatter about Shillelagh).

Shield will have greater AC assuming you find a magic shield (pretty fair chances I think). Shield by default costs less since it does not assume a feat like the dual wield build you suggest and so you can spend that feat on something else.

Two weapon will have slightly better damage (since by going rapier you choose not to use a staff and thus no easy way to use your bonus action for attacking). Essentially you more than make up the +4 damage bonus for two attacks that a shield user gets (though that bonus goes up with every additional attack you manage to make such as from haste) by dealing 1d8 (average 4.5 damage) and a further 1d8 from the improved smite ability. You can further the damage totals assuming you can find additional magic weapons (though finding a second rapier would be probably more rare than a shield just due to the fact that any shield will do but you can only use a certain weapon without losing damage or your ability to use your dex bonus).

Do note that this is normal rounds but things get complicated when you want to nova something to death. Shield users have the benefit of having their bonus action ready so you can use things like smite spells. Two weapon users have more attacks and thus more opportunities to use the smite ability in a round. Which of those is better depends on circumstance.

So better AC potential, less cost (or more choice in ASIs), action economy (bonus actions are not used up with shield), and easier magic item use versus greater damage (generally speaking it will be on average about 5 damage+magic item bonus+any other non attribute bonus to damage you get on a hit more per round). So what do you want exactly?

[toapat]

Alright, I have one more question for this thread...

Which is a clearer choice - Rapier+Shield+Dueling or Rapier+Rapier+Defense?

Thanks for helping me out, I appreciate all the discussion (although admittedly, I dislike all the minutiae chatter about Shillelagh).

The trade off is that rapier DW costs you your capstone and one of your ASI if you aren't variant human.

[phrozen]

In short, I am currently playing in a Forgotten Realms campaign as a Dex based Tiefling who is a Paladin 6/ Grey Guard 7 who uses a Two Bladed sword of notable power...Ironic huh? ...Teifling Palladin/Grey Guard

I have had amazing results with this character ie. DPS, Healing, Stealth and just pure versatility. I have found no real disadvantage in this choice. For what you lack in armor, a high dex can counter, especially with the aid of a few minor magic items.

Also, good role playing is the best defence for protecting characters that lack in certain areas. With no heavy armor, I still manage to tank for my party with support from my casters and other party members.

I would actually go as far as saying I prefer the Dex based character over all because of its versatility. My high Dex has literally changed the tide in battle. Gaining the initiative in battle just in its self can make the difference of living or dying.

Hope my input helps. Just ran across this article and felt compelled to reply.

[Daishain]

You can't have two fighting styles, IIRC.
You are forbidden from picking the same fighting style twice (Ie select dueling twice for a +4 damage bonus), but you can have two different ones if given the chance to pick a second.

[PoeticDwarf]

I am considering the play of a Dexterity Paladin, specifically with an Oath of the Ancients. Are there any minor or major pitfalls to this concept of which I am unaware?

Thanks!

Not there aren't, but archery paladin doesn't work. A rapier or other finesse weapon isn't a problem.

[Citan]

Not there aren't, but archery paladin doesn't work. A rapier or other finesse weapon isn't a problem.
Well, that's not entirely true. As a matter of fact, there are two smite spells among the list that work with ranged attacks.
So, you could use your bonus action to cast one of them before unleashing your arrow/bolt/thrown weapon.

Sure, it's evidently underusing a pure Paladin since you cannot burn spell slots otherwise than in melee hit. But you could imagine some efficient or just fun builds. For example...

- A Trickster Rogue who multiclassed as Paladin for some goodies (like Sacred Weapon, melee smites, aura or some spells) could use this to boost his ranged damage on top of his SA.
- A Ranger or Eldricht Knight who needs to up his damage and put a rider on an enemy at the same time...
- A Paladin who fights with a throwable weapon, and really need to hit right now an enemy that it can't get close to...
- A Ranged Bard who dipped in Paladin and wants at least one way to deal spike damage with weapon when necessary

- Or, if it was possible to use a bonus action between the two attacks of Attack action, you could imagine a "pirate-like" character, with a one-handed melee weapon on left, one-handed crossbow on right (with Crossbow Expert) who first spell then smites by burning slot on melee then cast smite spell before unloading crossbow. Not the most efficient by far but a funny situation to play. ^^

Long story short, going Archery build for pure Paladin is indeed a bad idea (unless special concept of Paladin afraid to go in melee ^^) but can make sense in some multiclass builds.

[Mechaviking]

You cannot smite with ranged attacks, but otherwise it works just fine.

Oath of ancients paladins should be able to smite ranged(considering their channel divinity absolutely blows).

I´ve been thinking about this concept as well, if you are sword and boarding it´s basically better(unless magical long sword), but sunblade is finessable :D.

Also mariner combat style would suit a dual wielder better :D

[Psikerlord]

If the OP wants to play a stealthy paladin, with a stronger ranged option than most paladins, just make a custom feat. Something like:

Paladin Commando
1. Gain one cantrip (eg: Firebolt or Eldrtich Blast or whatever)
2. You do not suffer disad on stealth checks in heavy armour
3. Some other cool ability.

:smallsmile:

[Citan]

You cannot smite with ranged attacks, but otherwise it works just fine.

Oath of ancients paladins should be able to smite ranged(considering their channel divinity absolutely blows).

I´ve been thinking about this concept as well, if you are sword and boarding it´s basically better(unless magical long sword), but sunblade is finessable :D.

Also mariner combat style would suit a dual wielder better :D
1. 100% agree on the mariner combat style for dual wielder (since shield wielding is prohibited).

2. You cannot smite by burning spell slots but you can use two specific Smite spells that work with any weapon attack. Far less efficient though that's for sure. :)

3. What do you mean by "Ancients CD blows"? And which one do you refer to?

[Mjolnirbear]

All of the Ancients' channels kinda suck. Entangle, that targets one guy, that can roll to save every turn? Meh. Turn the faithless is flavourful but there are far more undead than fey.

Also suck in comparison to vengeance and devotion. Sacred weapon? So much better than entangle.

[Citan]

All of the Ancients' channels kinda suck. Entangle, that targets one guy, that can roll to save every turn? Meh. Turn the faithless is flavourful but there are far more undead than fey.

Also suck in comparison to vengeance and devotion. Sacred weapon? So much better than entangle.
Well's that's also kinda my opinion (unless you have a way to ensure Ensnare reliability).
That's why I didn't understand, because for me "something blows" means "something is good/great". Or is it just me who understood the expression in the wrong way?

[coredump]

Well's that's also kinda my opinion (unless you have a way to ensure Ensnare reliability).
That's why I didn't understand, because for me "something blows" means "something is good/great". Or is it just me who understood the expression in the wrong way?

"Something blows" usually means it is bad. It comes from "blows chunks", as in 'makes me vomit'.

[WampDiesel]

All of the Ancients' channels kinda suck. Entangle, that targets one guy, that can roll to save every turn? Meh. Turn the faithless is flavourful but there are far more undead than fey.

Also suck in comparison to vengeance and devotion. Sacred weapon? So much better than entangle.

In my campaign the order of ancients channel divinity will include elementals as well. Mainly because I thought it did for a year and it turns out I was misreading. Also it fits thematically with the campaign.

Also OoA pallys have one amazing thing going for them that the other archetypes don't. Aura of Warding @ lvl 7: resistance to elemental damage as an aura? Yes plz.

[DracoKnight]

You can start with 17 AC, actually - nothing says you can't use a rapier+shield combination!

Start with this.


What I mean is dumping Strength and maxing Dexterity. After all, medium armor only allows for a +2 to AC from Dex. So I'd probably be using studded leather.

As I see it, at first level and +3 dex modifier, I can start with 15 AC, maxing at 17 at 20 Dex. That's as good as it gets with medium armor and only 1 less than Heavy Armor.

Then pump Dex to 20, grab the Dual Wielder feat and a second rapier and you're wearing plate as a Dex-based character. :)

[Daishain]

Then pump Dex to 20, grab the Dual Wielder feat and a second rapier and you're wearing plate as a Dex-based character. :)
If going for defense as a Dexadin, the better option would be to snag the medium armor master feat. Half plate goes up to 18 AC, loses its stealth penalty, and your offhand is free to use a shield for a total of 20 AC. All that without needing to get Dex above 16. You only need to spend one ABI on it rather than three to get up to speed on defense as a result.

[DracoKnight]

If going for defense, better option would be to snag the medium armor master feat. Half plate goes up to 18 AC, loses its stealth penalty, and your offhand is free to use a shield for a total of 20 AC. All that without needing to get Dex above 16. One ABI spent vs three.

Yes, this is one ASI vs. three, but depending on the adventure, they might not be able to get ahold of half-plate. And they already expressed willingness to spend two ASIs on getting his Dex to 20. It's only an extra ASI to pick up Dual Wielder. You can be an extremely stealthy dual-wielding Paladin by level 8. Your damage on a hit is 1d8+5 + optional Smite.

[Daishain]

Yes, this is one ASI vs. three, but depending on the adventure, they might not be able to get ahold of half-plate. And they already expressed willingness to spend two ASIs on getting his Dex to 20. It's only an extra ASI to pick up Dual Wielder. You can be an extremely stealthy dual-wielding Paladin by level 8. Your damage on a hit is 1d8+5 + optional Smite.
Just presenting an option, more offense vs more defense. Even if stuck with the splint (or was that scale mail) pallys can get by default (unlikely in a campaign long enough for this many ASIs to come into play), this still beats out a dual wielder in that sense. 19 AC as early as level 4.

[90sMusic]

I think the polearm master debate is pretty amusing

If you guys want to be "realistic" you are playing the wrong game honestly. What with the ability to survive falls of 10,000 feet once you have enough hitpoints, being able to PUNCH dragons as big as buildings to death, "critically hitting" a target with a longbow without instantly killing it or maiming/disabling it in some way, swimming in full plate armor, holding your breath for insane lengths of time under water, flying, magic, miraculously healing all injuries by simply sleeping it off, and so on.

And despite all of that... All of that stuff that you allow and think is ok... You draw the line at hitting someone with a stick? Alllllllllrighty then.

Personally I don't like dex paladins for thematic reasons. Unless you do some serious reflavoring of the class to turn it into something other than a paladin, it just seems more archetypal to be strength based and use plate armor to me. But then, I play for the roleplaying aspects more than worrying about mechanical advantage. If I was gonna do dex based, i'd def have to fluff it up with some reason or justification to be wearing light armor and being dex based. I wouldn't even call myself a paladin, i'd be... Something else.

[TripleD]

I realize this is a necro'd thread, but as someone who plays a lightly armored DEX Paladin I fee he need to reply to two points.


swimming in full plate armor


You actually can do that, it's been tested. Granted it usually looks more like "treading water forward" than swimming, and you can't do it for very long, but if your ship sinks a few hundred feet off shore it's not an automatic death sentence if you're in fitted full plate.



Personally I don't like dex paladins for thematic reasons. Unless you do some serious reflavoring of the class to turn it into something other than a paladin, it just seems more archetypal to be strength based and use plate armor to me. But then, I play for the roleplaying aspects more than worrying about mechanical advantage. If I was gonna do dex based, i'd def have to fluff it up with some reason or justification to be wearing light armor and being dex based. I wouldn't even call myself a paladin, i'd be... Something else.

I based my character off of Sonia Belmont. She wields a whip and dagger while fighting in light armor. I originally envisioned her as being a support fighter (shoving, using "help", etc.) but then the rest of my group went full caster and she got shoved to the front lines.

Still surpringly effective. One time Whip + Sentinel + Dodge + Shield spell let her hold off three trolls long enough to let the rest of the group escape.