Battle Champion vs Paladin

[ZenBear]

If you compare a level 20 Paladin of any subclass with a level 20 Fighter that gained the subclass benefits of both the Battlemaster and Champion, which character would you say is stronger, be it pvp, dungeon crawling, skill challenges, etc?

[Vogonjeltz]

If you compare a level 20 Paladin of any subclass with a level 20 Fighter that gained the subclass benefits of both the Battlemaster and Champion, which character would you say is stronger, be it pvp, dungeon crawling, skill challenges, etc?

So, a character with better sustained and burst damage and better survivability (fighter with two subclasses) vs one paladin subclass?

The fighter.

[PoeticDwarf]

Honestly. I think most parties will prefer the paladin for still good DPR but a lot of healing and help and more options

Both are great

[wunderkid]

Is this serious? Taking an already strong class, giving it a whole other subclasses worth of options and asking if it's weaker or stronger than another class with nothing tagged on?

I don't care what the situation is unless its something only a paladin spell specifically can solve, fighter every time

[Giant2005]

I'd certainly go with the Fighter too, but it isn't entirely clear-cut.
Does the Paladin have the opportunity to pre-buff? Are magic items involved?
If the answer of those questions falls in favor of the Paladin, then I could see him winning.

[PoeticDwarf]

Is this serious? Taking an already strong class, giving it a whole other subclasses worth of options and asking if it's weaker or stronger than another class with nothing tagged on?

I don't care what the situation is unless its something only a paladin spell specifically can solve, fighter every time

So paladin vs fighter. Paladin seen as the best martial often. You give the fighter some decent chamion features. Not that big of a difference

[Sindeloke]

Assuming that both characters are compared at their best for each challenge (PM/GWM/Vengeance vs PM/GWM, not PM/GWM vs a rapier devotion build or something) -

AFB: Do paladins get Bless? If so, that's a clear winner for skill challenges; the fighter has no way to boost his rolls and is likely to have a poor Charisma, leaving him well behind in social challenges and no better than equal at physical challenges. Half proficiency on untrained Dex checks is his only advantage, and they'll both be fumbling most of those due to heavy armor regardless.

For DPR, the paladin is still burstier and preferable against single hard targets (Battlemaster's single d8-d10 through normal play levels is only slightly better than the barbarian's pathetically sad Brutal Crit in terms of taking advantage of crit fishing). Against groups of weak targets or over the course of a long day the fighter pulls ahead, but that's true even without giving him Champion.

For tanking, the fighter has enough feats free for Lucky and DR 3/- or an extra proficient save without giving up Sentinel and PM, but the Ancients paladin has built-in magic resist, real healing, and the saving throws of a monk, and therefore will still take more punishment. Compelled duel is a bit trash, but still a stronger incentive for an enemy's attention than Goad; OTOH the fighter has more chances to land the attack, and the paladin can't duplicate the battlefield control of Pushing Attack or four grapple attempts per turn. This one's a wash; neither of them quite have the full suite of tools they need to do the job, both are very strong with party support to fill in their missing piece.

(For PvP, the Fighter wins, because he usually goes first.)

I'd rather have the paladin with me in a dungeon (or anywhere, really); she's got minor perks against undead and demons, some versatility in terms of party support via spells, and she's not only more likely to save against a trap or an intellect devourer, she also makes me more likely to. +3-5 to all saves for anyone in the party within javelin range is an incredibly sexy class feature, the strength of which cannot really be overstated. The paladin is the best martial because she brings damage & durability, face options, and strong party support to the table, while other martials, especially fighter, mostly only bring damage & durability. (Ranger and Battlemaster have a minimal pretense of party support, but nothing that holds a candle to the bard/cleric/paladin.) Adding Champion marginally improves damage & durability, but that wasn't the fighter's problem to begin with, so it doesn't really do anything to bring it in line with the paladin.

[HoarsHalberd]

AFB: Do paladins get Bless? If so, that's a clear winner for skill challenges; the fighter has no way to boost his rolls and is likely to have a poor Charisma, leaving him well behind in social challenges and no better than equal at physical challenges. Half proficiency on untrained Dex checks is his only advantage, and they'll both be fumbling most of those due to heavy armor regardless.



I would like to point out that dex checks are only at a disadvantage if you aren't proficient with heavy armour. Only stealth checks are penalised by heavy (and some medium) armours.

[Zalabim]

AFB: Do paladins get Bless? If so, that's a clear winner for skill challenges; the fighter has no way to boost his rolls and is likely to have a poor Charisma, leaving him well behind in social challenges and no better than equal at physical challenges. Half proficiency on untrained Dex checks is his only advantage, and they'll both be fumbling most of those due to heavy armor regardless.

Bless is on the paladin list. Bless has no effect on ability checks. The fighter has the same total stats as the paladin, so if they're rubbish at Cha skills it's because they chose to focus on something else.

[R.Shackleford]

The game wasn't made for PvP combat. Send them up against an enemy of varying CR and see how they do with different qualifications for success each time (versus CR x, cr y, and cr z).

Though as a player I would still take the Paladin as the BattleChampion still has one thing it does really well, damage, whereas with the Paladin I can do more than just damage.

Yeah the BattleChampion will be effective at killing things but there is more to the game than being a "point and click" game.

[Gtdead]

AFB: Do paladins get Bless? If so, that's a clear winner for skill challenges;

Guidance is the spell that gives bonus to skill checks. It's a cleric/druid cantrip.
Technically fighter has enough spare feats to grab magic initiate and ritual caster if he wants to be more social.

[R.Shackleford]

Guidance is the spell that gives bonus to skill checks. It's a cleric/druid cantrip.
Technically fighter has enough spare feats to grab magic initiate and ritual caster if he wants to be more social.

In 5e everyone has spare feats.

The difference between a 16 and an 18 and then an 18 and a 20 isn't noticeable especially when target numbers are so low.

As long as you, by level 8 or 12, have an 18 In your main ability score then you will do fine.

Yeah the Fighter gets more feats but it isn't really that big deal.

[Giant2005]

In 5e everyone has spare feats.

The difference between a 16 and an 18 and then an 18 and a 20 isn't noticeable especially when target numbers are so low.

As long as you, by level 8 or 12, have an 18 In your main ability score then you will do fine.

Yeah the Fighter gets more feats but it isn't really that big deal.

At level 8, someone with 18 Str, a Greatsword, GWF, and 2 attacks inflicts 15.63 aDPR against AC 16, that same person with 20 Str inflicts 18.17 aDPR, for an increase of 15.25% DPR.
At level 8, someone with 18 Str, a Greatsword, GWF, GWM, and 2 attacks inflicts 16.47 aDPR against AC 16, that same person with 20 Str inflicts 19.5 aDPR, for an increase of 18.40% DPR.
At level 8, someone with 18 Str, a Halberd, GWF, Polearm Master and 2 attacks inflicts 17.02 aDPR against AC 16, that same person with 20 Str inflicts 20.32 aDPR, for an increase of 19.39% DPR.

As you can see, in each case increasing your Str to 20 has a significant impact on your DPR - even more-so than the feats added to the guy with 18 Str. Don't under-estimate ASIs - they are very powerful.

[wunderkid]

Not to mention at end level the fighter has twice as many attacks, with an 18-20 crit range. That's going to lead to some beastly DPR. The paladin may just edge ahead with a nova, but between action surges and manoeuvres over the course of a day I'd bet the fighter hugely outscales the paladin at end level with all of those added features.

I mean stat wise the pala will focus str and cha most likely giving him a good chance at the social side. But con will then be the third focus.

The fighter can focus str and con. Or dex and con and go ranged and just dakka the frick out of things. But if wanted you could take cha over con, and be just as talky.

Fighter gets 7asi to the paladins 5.

Basically pure fighter vs pure paladin then my money is on the paladin.

But the proposition of a battlemaster+champion fighter just blows most things out of the water for anything combat orientated.

[Gtdead]

At level 8, someone with 18 Str, a Greatsword, GWF, and 2 attacks inflicts 15.63 aDPR against AC 16, that same person with 20 Str inflicts 18.17 aDPR, for an increase of 15.25% DPR.
At level 8, someone with 18 Str, a Greatsword, GWF, GWM, and 2 attacks inflicts 16.47 aDPR against AC 16, that same person with 20 Str inflicts 19.5 aDPR, for an increase of 18.40% DPR.
At level 8, someone with 18 Str, a Halberd, GWF, Polearm Master and 2 attacks inflicts 17.02 aDPR against AC 16, that same person with 20 Str inflicts 20.32 aDPR, for an increase of 19.39% DPR.

As you can see, in each case increasing your Str to 20 has a significant impact on your DPR - even more-so than the feats added to the guy with 18 Str. Don't under-estimate ASIs - they are very powerful.

Exactly, and it gets progressively more important against higher ACs. Especially for classes that can spend resources to nova hard.

[R.Shackleford]

The ACs that you attack aren't all that high. Most target numbers in 5e are lower than what people assume, I'm guessing because they still have 3e on the brain.

Hell, the CR 10 - 15 has a typical range for AC in the 13 to 15 range.

Bigger isn't always better, it depends on what you are getting in the trade off.

If you are already hitting with 70% accuracy then boosting it by another 5% really won't change much in actually game play.

Start off with a 16, get an 18 by level 12 and you will be just fine.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

An ASI might not be strictly necessary, but it's still a significant increase in DPR, and worth taking after key feats. It's still going to be the case that the Fighter will get his "main" feats faster than the Paladin, will max STR faster, and can take more utility feats later on to approach the Paladin's utility.

And even if ASIs mattered for naught, Feats surely matter. Something like Polearm Master and/or Great Weapon Master can define a character, mechanically speaking.

As far as the comparison is concerned, the Paladin would still have more utility and better defense versus stuff that isn't just trying to eat you, but the Fighter's DPR (nova or otherwise, what with action surge) and HP-based defense would be well above what the Paladin could provide.

[Citan]

If you compare a level 20 Paladin of any subclass with a level 20 Fighter that gained the subclass benefits of both the Battlemaster and Champion, which character would you say is stronger, be it pvp, dungeon crawling, skill challenges, etc?
Hi!

Well, first, sorry to be rude, but I don't quite understand the point or interest of such a comparison... But anyways...

I'd take any Paladin (evenmore so an Ancients Paladin) over even this Fighter any day, any settings.
Sure, in a fight, the Fighter will easily heavily outclass Paladin in terms of sustained damage. But that's basically all.

In terms of basically everything non-offense related, Paladin will be as good or better as Fighter, except maybe Strength checks.

Even in combat, I'd prefer Paladin over Fighter any day. Because when you come into fights with hard to hit enemies, Fighter's potency will drop quickly.
If the enemies are hard on party, the Fighter will have no other way to help than try and kill as many as possible on his own. It will be of no help against spellcasters targeting your healer or buffer for example.

"Killing fastest is the best way to survive". No arguing on that.
But one has to think of the party as a whole.
If only one can act while the others spend half their turn trying to avoid damage to stay up, it's not good.
Paladin brings permanent passive buffs that greatly helps party throughout and can often void spells that could quickly throw everyone in the turmoil (such as paralysing a melee combatant, feebleminding a caster or just plain killing them).
He also has great concentration utilities and buffs (Circle of Power, I love you) that pushes further your whole defense. Meaning that everyone in the group has more freedom in going on offense every action and bonus action of every turn.
And he can himself buff in ways that up the damage or make GWM doable every turn against tough enemies (Sacred Weapon, Oath of Enmity, Bless) whereas the Fighter will have no other choice than make a normal attack once he used all his Precision Attacks.
And you could easily argue that smite riders such as Banishing smite, if successful (Diviner friend, Lucky feat) can change the game as surely as a Battlemaster's nova (sure, the foe is still not dead but it's out of the fight for as many turns as you need).

He also has numerous utilities that can help party in every situation, and can change spells every day.

TL;DR: this Fighter would be a self-sufficient brute that fills extremely well one role, "burst and sustained damage dealer", while it will be mediocre to decent in every other depending on stats and feats. Paladin, especially the Ancients, is very good as a striker, tank, party face, and good in sustained damage, utility, healing and other things (bar Stealth for STR builds though ;)).

So, except maybe in PVP (although I would have to think more on this aspect), Paladin FTW. :smallsmile:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

An ASI might not be strictly necessary, but it's still a significant increase in DPR, and worth taking after key feats. It's still going to be the case that the Fighter will get his "main" feats faster than the Paladin, will max STR faster, and can take more utility feats later on to approach the Paladin's utility.

And even if ASIs mattered for naught, Feats surely matter. Something like Polearm Master and/or Great Weapon Master can define a character, mechanically speaking.

As far as the comparison is concerned, the Paladin would still have more utility and better defense versus stuff that isn't just trying to eat you, but the Fighter's DPR (nova or otherwise, what with action surge) and HP-based defense would be well above what the Paladin could provide.

The difference between the two's DPR won't matter when you compare them to what the game is made to throw at them.

Yes a Fighter may do more damage per round but that doesn't matter. It is how well a class can keep up against the game. If the Paladin is killing things in the same number of rounds while doing less damage... Well, then they aren't really doing less damage, the Fighter just has excess damage.

Even if the Paladin is killing this in one extra round, the Paladin can support and do so many other things that the Fighter can't that it makes up for it.

People keep comparing two things to each other without looking at the game itself. The game is made to send X up against Y, DM controlled monsters up against PCs. The game wasn't made to see who deals more damage in a theoretical contest. Theoretical contests won't show the entire story. If a Fighter get's poisoned in some way (especially before Indomitable comes online but even then Indomitable is a terrible feature unless it is a Proficient save that was failed to begin with) the Fighter's core class has no way of dealing with that while the Paladin can remove the poison or offset the penalty (disadvantage is essentially -3.33 whereas Bless would be +2.5).

Also, even if the choice was the 3.5 Ubercharger or a 5e Paladin, I would take the Paladin. I've played the Ubercharger who could kill the moon, it gets old very quickly.

[Giant2005]

Hell, the CR 10 - 15 has a typical range for AC in the 13 to 15 range.
The absolute lowest AC found in the CR 10-15 range is 15, and the averages are much higher than that.

The average AC for CR 10 is 17.25.
The average AC for CR 11 is 17.
The average AC for CR 12 is 16.66.
The average AC for CR 13 is 17.44.
The average AC for CR 14 is 18.4.
The average AC for CR 15 is 18.

I chose to calculate based on AC 16 specifically because it was on the lower end of average. I'd rather stack the odds against the point I'm trying to make, rather than have obvious bias obscure the results.

[CantigThimble]

Hi!

Well, first, sorry to be rude, but I don't quite understand the point or interest of such a comparison... But anyways...

I'd take any Paladin (evenmore so an Ancients Paladin) over even this Fighter any day, any settings.
Sure, in a fight, the Fighter will easily heavily outclass Paladin in terms of sustained damage. But that's basically all.

In terms of basically everything non-offense related, Paladin will be as good or better as Fighter, except maybe Strength checks.

Even in combat, I'd prefer Paladin over Fighter any day. Because when you come into fights with hard to hit enemies, Fighter's potency will drop quickly.
If the enemies are hard on party, the Fighter will have no other way to help than try and kill as many as possible on his own. It will be of no help against spellcasters targeting your healer or buffer for example.

"Killing fastest is the best way to survive". No arguing on that.
But one has to think of the party as a whole.
If only one can act while the others spend half their turn trying to avoid damage to stay up, it's not good.
Paladin brings permanent passive buffs that greatly helps party throughout and can often void spells that could quickly throw everyone in the turmoil (such as paralysing a melee combatant, feebleminding a caster or just plain killing them).
He also has great concentration utilities and buffs (Circle of Power, I love you) that pushes further your whole defense. Meaning that everyone in the group has more freedom in going on offense every action and bonus action of every turn.
And he can himself buff in ways that up the damage or make GWM doable every turn against tough enemies (Sacred Weapon, Oath of Enmity, Bless) whereas the Fighter will have no other choice than make a normal attack once he used all his Precision Attacks.
And you could easily argue that smite riders such as Banishing smite, if successful (Diviner friend, Lucky feat) can change the game as surely as a Battlemaster's nova (sure, the foe is still not dead but it's out of the fight for as many turns as you need).

He also has numerous utilities that can help party in every situation, and can change spells every day.

TL;DR: this Fighter would be a self-sufficient brute that fills extremely well one role, "burst and sustained damage dealer", while it will be mediocre to decent in every other depending on stats and feats. Paladin, especially the Ancients, is very good as a striker, tank, party face, and good in sustained damage, utility, healing and other things (bar Stealth for STR builds though ;)).

So, except maybe in PVP (although I would have to think more on this aspect), Paladin FTW. :smallsmile:

The fighter gets bonus ASIs and doesn't need to max his charisma in addition to strength. Why not pick up the healer feat if his party needs more healing? If the party needs a face he can grab skilled, magic initiate cleric for guidance and/or actor and do a solid job of it. He can grab ritual caster, dungeon delver or observant to contribute significantly to exploration. If his party is in danger he has menacing attack to help prevent damage to them.

You're looking at a fighter built purely for damage and nothing else, then complaining that he isn't built for anything else, which really isn't a fair comparison.

(As a side note I seriously don't understand why there isn't someone with the healer feat in every single party. By level 6 it is better than prayer of healing and can be used, according to the 2-3 short rest rule, more often and does so without draining spell slots. Plus it's faster and can be used efficiently in parties with more than 6 people.)

[wunderkid]

Without blowing resources what you have is basically the same stats on damage for the weapon.

The fighter however makes twice as many base attacks.

And crits 3 times as often.

And can use manoeuvres to increase hit chance and damage.

And can all be from a range if you go dex fighter (which I personally prefer). Although I am curious which is 'better' for the purposes of this?

Throw a few fliers at the paladin and suddenly his damage drops.

Not to mention the ranged fighter is already 10% more accurate thanks to archery style, with the added ASI you will notice the misses stack up. On top of which a miss for a paladin reduces their damage a whole lot, as they do few attacks with big bursts.

Sure the save buff is beautiful, fighter gets indomitable which is a good middle ground for him (no idea what's better +5 or effectively advantage in terms of personal value not group). But that + to all saves is one of the paladins big features so there isn't any competing with that. that is the one thing that makes a paladin in your group amazing. However it's downside is it forces you to clump together and therefore be effected by more spells. Which is very nasty on save for half effects. Still absolutely amazing but not without any negatives.

Spell wise the paladin has 15 slots to last him the day at max level. He won't want to be using those slots to solve utility based issues. He needs them for smiting and combat buffs just to be able to compete with the fighter. Besides there isn't much on the paladin spell list that can deal with situations that the fighter never could it just makes those situations easier (and also from a role play perspective sometimes boring).

[Citan]

The fighter gets bonus ASIs and doesn't need to max his charisma in addition to strength. Why not pick up the healer feat if his party needs more healing? If the party needs a face he can grab skilled, magic initiate cleric for guidance and/or actor and do a solid job of it. He can grab ritual caster, dungeon delver or observant to contribute significantly to exploration. If his party is in danger he has menacing attack to help prevent damage to them.

You're looking at a fighter built purely for damage and nothing else, then complaining that he isn't built for anything else, which really isn't a fair comparison.

(As a side note I seriously don't understand why there isn't someone with the healer feat in every single party. By level 6 it is better than prayer of healing and can be used, according to the 2-3 short rest rule, more often and does so without draining spell slots. Plus it's faster and can be used efficiently in parties with more than 6 people.)
I'm sorry, you misunderstood me.
I already took every available option as feat into account when writing my personal opinion on this (confer, quoting myself "will be extremely good at once role {} but mediocre to decent in any other depending on stats and feat"). But since you want some detail, let's go. :)

Healing
Healer is good. But that's it. That's an emergency poorman's heal that requires an action and is once per short rest.
Paladin has: Lay on Hands, Cure Wounds, Aura of Life, REVIVIFY (I won't quote all ;)). As well as Inspiring Leader potentially.

Party protection
Fighter can, 6 times per short rest, divert ONE enemy's attacks for ONE round.
Paladin, without doing anything, brings +3 to +5 to everyone's saves and immunity to status or magic resistance depending on the oath. He also gets Command (non-concentration) and Compelled Duel (concentration) to draw or divert the fire, single target buffs such as Shield of Faith and party buffs such as Aura or Circles.

Party face
Since Paladin will max CHA, he will naturally get +5 to any Charisma check. Whereas CHA is typically a dump stat for Fighter so probably 12 max at start. So Fighter would need the "Skilled" feat just to reach (and ultimately best by 1-2 points) Paladin level in skill checks other than Intimidation (considering that the Paladin took it). Only with added Actor feat would he really trumps the Paladin, and only in specific situations.

Environmental awareness and utility
On Insight, Paladin and Fighter are probably on par as a basis stat-wise, so Fighter would get the upper hand here on passive scores for Investigation and Perception. Only on passive scores though. And Paladin gets Zone of Truth ultimately.

Dungeon Delver would indeed be an "exclusive" for Fighter here, since Paladin would probably not get it since many more directly useful feats for him.
But Paladin get many Detect and Locate spells, Purify and Create Food, and Find Steed. So he can help direct the party, ensure you never lack provisions and provide a mount if needed.

Ritual Caster is a good catch. :) But it's really DM dependent. And it requires either 13 WIS which is usually a tertiary or dump stat or 13 INT which is the classic dump stat except for EK (which is out of scope of the thread, but whatever ;)). So probably lower main/secondary stats which means another ASI to bump them.

Summary
As you see, the Fighter would have to spend half a dozen Feats to just get a small portion of what a Paladin provides as is. Which is not very probable since any Fighter would want to max attack stat and keep CON (and DEX) at some decent to high levels.
So, I'm not "looking at a fighter built purely for damage and nothing else, then complaining that he isn't built for anything else". I'm looking at it for exactly what it is: a class that IS built for damage first and foremost, with a few bells here and there, notably "extra feats" that allow Fighters to tweak their skills to fill in a few gaps when nobody else suited for it is available.
Only the Eldricht Knight really feels more versatile because he can choose a variety of spells (including spells from any school at some levels), but even then he is still geared towards pure fighting.

And I'm certainly not saying that it is a bad thing, or that the Fighter would be an "inferior" class or whatever. I always love having a Battlemaster or Eldricht Knight in a party.
I was just answering to the (strange) question that was starting the whole thread. :)


Spell wise the paladin has 15 slots to last him the day at max level. He won't want to be using those slots to solve utility based issues. He needs them for smiting and combat buffs just to be able to compete with the fighter. Besides there isn't much on the paladin spell list that can deal with situations that the fighter never could it just makes those situations easier (and also from a role play perspective sometimes boring).
But that's precisly the thing.
The plain idea of "competition" in fight is stupid, totally senseless. Because obviously the Fighter will always be better at damage. That IS his thing.
Saying this is basically throwing away half the features of the Paladin...:smallfrown:

Also, guys, do you really spend each and every hour of each and every day fighting?
Because that is no more a roleplaying game, that is a paper dungeon crawler.

In any normal campaign, there will be numerous occasions where the Paladin can safely spend a few slots on utility, or even everything (not every day should include a fight just "because there has to be a fight").

As for "there isn't much on the paladin spell list that can deal with situations that the fighter never could it just makes those situations easier (and also from a role play perspective sometimes boring). Just the Locate spells or Create Food, I'd be curious to see how a Fighter (unless having learnt Ritual Caster and related spells) could manage in, say, an underground maze...:smallbiggrin: Good luck also on curing your poisoned friend or outright reviving him.

[CantigThimble]

I do my comparisons at levels 5-12 or so as that's where most campaigns tend to take place.

Healing
Healer is far from 'poor man's healing', At level 7 the paladin gets 35 lay on hands and then, if he spends every single spell on healing, another average 66 for a total of 101 average per day healing.

The healer feat gets an average of 14.5 healing times 4 party members times (1 base use + 2 short rests). That's an average of 168 healing per day under ideal conditions. Now, some party members might end up taking less than 14.5 or no damage between short rests so we'll drop that by 40% to 100.8.

Both also get the ability to restore people to 1HP practically for free (though healer does it slightly more efficiently) so that's hardly worth considering but you can see that the healer feat will have about the maximum possible paladin healing without expending any damage resources (besides the feat itself).

Party Protection
Sure, paladins are better against magical or other save based effects. That's what they do. Menacing attack, however, is still a very strong ability for protecting the party and in your example of a fighting doing nothing but killing things while the party dies around him you didn't factor it in at all. (Not to mention sentinel or other defensive feats)

Party Face
Before level 12 a paladin will only have 16 charisma, which is just about equal to the guidance cantrip in effectiveness. So if neither have proficiency from their starting skills then the fighter can take skilled and outmatch the pally. If both have proficiency then the fighter can take guidance (plus 2 other spells the pally will never see) and just about match the pally. Also, the fighter is under no obligation to dump charisma. He is dependent on exactly one stat (besides con, everyone needs con so it's not worth factoring into discussions like this) so the other good stats can go wherever he wants them to. He could just take 14 charisma and be a mere 1 point behind the paladin with no feats spent. Granted, that rarely happens because usually there will be a bard, sorcerer or warlock in the party but it is still an entirely viable option that he has.

Exploration
Ritual caster. I could copy a list of every ritual here and explain how absurdly amazing they all are but I don't think that would be worth the time. And it really isn't that DM dependent. Even if I never found a single ritual in any dungeon or city to copy it could easily still be worth it for two rituals of my choice. Rary's telepathic Bond, Water Walk and Divination are fantastic spells.



And I'm certainly not saying that it is a bad thing, or that the Fighter would be an "inferior" class or whatever. I always love having a Battlemaster or Eldricht Knight in a party.

You said you'd rather have ANY paladin than a turboboosted fighter. That may not be a direct statement of Paladin>Fighter but it might as well be. I'm just saying that fighters can match or exceed paladins in several important non-damage ways if they choose to.

[Cybren]

It's also worth pointing out that a battle champion has two subclasses that intrinsically boost damage output. This means you can maintain your DPR relative to the paladin while using a higher % of your ASIs on lateral development rather than vertical

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The difference between the two's DPR won't matter when you compare them to what the game is made to throw at them. Even adjusting for all the environmental factors, your ability to apply HP damage to enemies is clearly going to matter. Maybe marginal differences don't make up for other things, but the discussion is in levels, not absolutes.
Yes a Fighter may do more damage per round but that doesn't matter. It is how well a class can keep up against the game. If the Paladin is killing things in the same number of rounds while doing less damage... Well, then they aren't really doing less damage, the Fighter just has excess damage.Why, again, are we assuming that the Fighter's DPR is going exclusively into excess damage? Honestly the Paladin is far more likely to overkill than the Fighter given his smiting crits, and the fighter's damage being spread over a bunch of attacks.
Even if the Paladin is killing this in one extra round, the Paladin can support and do so many other things that the Fighter can't that it makes up for it. The Paladin is still limited by the action economy. Every round he's doing other things with his action, he's not attacking. Now, he can do interesting things with his bonus action, but this can be overcome by enough DPR.
People keep comparing two things to each other without looking at the game itself. The game is made to send X up against Y, DM controlled monsters up against PCs. The game wasn't made to see who deals more damage in a theoretical contest. Theoretical contests won't show the entire story. If a Fighter get's poisoned in some way (especially before Indomitable comes online but even then Indomitable is a terrible feature unless it is a Proficient save that was failed to begin with) the Fighter's core class has no way of dealing with thatExcept, the Fighter is well equipped to deal with poison effects, by the game's standard. He can afford to use his second highest stat on Con, and he has Con save proficiency.
while the Paladin can remove the poison or offset the penalty (disadvantage is essentially -3.33 whereas Bless would be +2.5).Or another party member can spend an action in a supporting role, while the Fighter sticks to his specialty. Once you start including factors like having other party members to shore up your deficiencies, specializing in something (like damage) becomes better, not worse.
Also, even if the choice was the 3.5 Ubercharger or a 5e Paladin, I would take the Paladin. I've played the Ubercharger who could kill the moon, it gets old very quickly.This I won't argue; the paladin is more interesting/fun to play. But in terms of party effectiveness, it goes 3.5 Ubercharger > Two Subclass Fighter > Paladin > Regular Fighter.

[Sindeloke]

Bless is on the paladin list. Bless has no effect on ability checks. The fighter has the same total stats as the paladin, so if they're rubbish at Cha skills it's because they chose to focus on something else.

Right you are on the spell, my bad there, I was indeed thinking of Guidance, which they'd both have to burn a feat for. But you're still ignoring proficiency; fighters have to select a specific background (which is outside the scope of class comparisons, since anyone can do that) or blow a feat to get Diplomacy, while paladins can just pick it. Sure, the fighter has a spare feat he can do that with, but realistically he won't. Comparing a paladin built to tank with a fighter built to tank makes sense, both classes might regularly be used for that. Likewise damage. Likewise even party support; Battlemaster has some really sad fake Warlord abilities that make him look like he'd be good for that, and Inspiring Leader is a good use for any rogue or fighter's extra slots, so a fighter player might reasonably try to fill that role. But you simply do not waste resources on making a single-class fighter or paladin a skill monkey. Doesn't happen. The instant your fighter decides he wants to be the party face, he's going to dip rogue; the instant your paladin decides to beef up her skillset, she's going to dip bard. And at that point we're no longer comparing pure classes and the conversation is moot.

The only reasonable way to compare skill effectiveness on classes that don't support building for skill prowess is to compare the side features that they'll pick up while building for what they do support, and no fighter is realistically rocking Diplomacy or Charisma from his class, while paladins always have one and commonly have both.

Without spells to enhance their skills, though, the paladin falls behind on physicals due to greater MAD, so it looks closer to a wash. But given this is a group game, I think this contest still favors the paladin even then; physical skill challenges are far easier to reliably bypass with magic (or, like, owning a horse - hey, look, the paladin gets one of those for free!) than social ones.

[Saeviomage]

Paladin. Realistically the uber-warrior is just getting a damage boost and damage is something that anyone can do. The paladin is some pretty solid damage, plus a whole lot of party-wide defense. To the point where I'd max charisma on a paladin prior to maxing strength or dex.

[Specter]

Considering two dudes in full plate, the Battlemaster would eat the Paladin alive with Precision Strike and Parry. Can't smite something you can't hit. Adding Champion to the mix? Yeah, well, you know what happens.

[MrStabby]

I would go for the fighter by quite a way. By level 8 you have 3 ASIs and can start to get the magic initiate/ritual caster/keen mind/actor/whatever role you fancy feats whilst the paladin is still scrabbling around trying to get solid Str, Cha and Con. With all the combat bonuses you are getting as uberfightingmunchkin you can even not use any ASIs at all for combat and still be comparable in a fight to the paladin.

By level 20 it is a bit more close as the fighter has had so many ASIs that they are going for lower priority selections but over the whole progression fighter would be desperately overpowered.

Some of this also depends on the party - sometime s the saves bonus from the paladin is worth more, sometimes there is a Sorcerer or a Warlock or a Bard or Another Paladin in the party and solid Cha for diplomacy skills is little advantage.

[Giant2005]

The Fighter won't have as many spare feats as you think - he is a little bit MAD too.
Due to the Champion's incredibly OP level 18 ability, the Fighter has some very real cause in maxing his Con, which means 4 of his 7 ASI/feat selections will be on abilities.
Sure most people wouldn't include Con as being MAD, but although it is a priority for other classes, it is a lesser priority. I wouldn't ever use an ASI to boost Con unless I had nothing else to do with it or there was an extremely powerful Con-reliant ability in my build such as that which belongs to the Champion.
The Paladin would boost Str and Cha, while the Fighter boosts Str and Con.

Either way, if combat was the only issue then the Paladin wouldn't stand a chance. The Paladin would have 20 Str, 20 Cha and Polearm Master. The Fighter would have 20 Str, 20 Con, Polearm Master, Heavy Armor Master, and Mounted Combatant. The fight wouldn't even be close.

[Citan]

I do my comparisons at levels 5-12 or so as that's where most campaigns tend to take place.

Healing
Healer is far from 'poor man's healing', At level 7 the paladin gets 35 lay on hands and then, if he spends every single spell on healing, another average 66 for a total of 101 average per day healing.

Party Protection
Sure, paladins are better against magical or other save based effects. That's what they do. Menacing attack, however, is still a very strong ability for protecting the party and in your example of a fighting doing nothing but killing things while the party dies around him you didn't factor it in at all. (Not to mention sentinel or other defensive feats)

Party Face
Before level 12 a paladin will only have 16 charisma, which is just about equal to the guidance cantrip in effectiveness. So if neither have proficiency from their starting skills then the fighter can take skilled and outmatch the pally. If both have proficiency then the fighter can take guidance (plus 2 other spells the pally will never see) and just about match the pally. Also, the fighter is under no obligation to dump charisma. He is dependent on exactly one stat (besides con, everyone needs con so it's not worth factoring into discussions like this) so the other good stats can go wherever he wants them to. He could just take 14 charisma and be a mere 1 point behind the paladin with no feats spent. Granted, that rarely happens because usually there will be a bard, sorcerer or warlock in the party but it is still an entirely viable option that he has.

Exploration
Ritual caster. I could copy a list of every ritual here and explain how absurdly amazing they all are but I don't think that would be worth the time. And it really isn't that DM dependent. Even if I never found a single ritual in any dungeon or city to copy it could easily still be worth it for two rituals of my choice. Rary's telepathic Bond, Water Walk and Divination are fantastic spells.



You said you'd rather have ANY paladin than a turboboosted fighter. That may not be a direct statement of Paladin>Fighter but it might as well be. I'm just saying that fighters can match or exceed paladins in several important non-damage ways if they choose to.

First off, I reaally love how you bias the discussion in a very arbitrary way just to try and defend your view.
Since well is it about lvl 12 max?
Not that it changes anything by the way...

Healing
Paladin gets Aura of Vitality (2d6*10 on a single lvl 3 spell) and Revivify at lvl 9, in addition to disease/poison removing. Fighter can only heal people. Paladin > Fighter.

Party protection
Paladin gets Compelled Duel (1mn long), Command and a smite spell that frightens when really needed. Fighter can only do Menacing attack on one enemy for 6 turns (which cannot prevent save or suck spells, while Command can).
And if Fighter miss the Manoeuver or its weapon attack, you will regret it. Paladin's Aura and other buffs are reliable.
So, yes, I took it into account.

Party face
Saying "Fighter has only one stat to care of" is really a plain demonstration of dishonesty.
Fighter that goes STR will still have to keep both DEX and CON to 14 and 16 at the very least, and will probably still max CON, as most Fighters will do anyways, because unless specific Sharpshooter build, they WILL be the first at risk during a fight.
So on 7 feats, you can safely assume that most Fighters will spend at least 3 or 4 ASI on stat bumps (the 4th being often a Resilient to take advantage of an odd stat), considering traditional builds with STR first, then CON, then DEX, then everything else. Meaning very little chance that you start wich CHA higher than 11/12.
Additionnaly, the Paladin is one of the classes that may deal the best with "no-more-than-decent" CON since he gets +CHA on saves anyways. The tough point is concentration, but it can still be worked around. :)

Exploration
No argue than Ritual Caster is good. But it IS DM dependent, you never get to learn one ritual if your DM doesn't give you the chance. HE is the one making the campaign. Although, certainly, I see no reason why the DM would not give you regular occasions to learn them, but this means you aren't sure you get everything you want when you need it.
Paladins has the spells built in so no worries here.

Be it at 4th, 8th, 12th or whatever other level, Paladin will still be overall better than Fighter in any field other than sustained damage, because he gets everything built in without needing to bump other stats than his two main or taking feats. It's not "bad" or anything, it's just a fact. Deal with it.

And learn about the distinction between personal opinion and false truth: I'd say that "I would take Paladin over Fighter anytime". Because, when I have to project into any campaign that I don't know anything about (especially how many party members and of which classes), I prefer betting on "strong versatility" rather than "best in one role".
THAT is an opinion. My own.
If I can have both Paladin and Fighter, I'll be even happier.


Considering two dudes in full plate, the Battlemaster would eat the Paladin alive with Precision Strike and Parry. Can't smite something you can't hit. Adding Champion to the mix? Yeah, well, you know what happens.
You seem very keen to forget that Paladin gets Oath which bring +5 to every attack they make, against a single enemy (Vengeance) or any enemy (Sacred Weapon). To which they can add Bless if they just want to be very sure they hit.
So, in a match between Fighter and Paladin, all would be decided in the first round. If Fighter manages to start first, action surges and spend all Manoeuvers, there is a very good chance he'll slay the Paladin. Beyond this particular hypothesis, Fighter would still get the upper hand in probability but I wouldn't bet blindly on him just because of that.
The worst case for a Fighter would be a Paladin with Lucky feat managing to start first. Because then Paladin could cast a Smite spell and use the Lucky feat to ensure both his attack and the rider takes effect. Just the blinding effect could be devastating on the Fighter. Only counter I see is Fighter having Lucky feat also (I wonder how that would be ruled then ^^).


But you simply do not waste resources on making a single-class fighter or paladin a skill monkey. Doesn't happen. The instant your fighter decides he wants to be the party face, he's going to dip rogue; the instant your paladin decides to beef up her skillset, she's going to dip bard. And at that point we're no longer comparing pure classes and the conversation is moot.

The only reasonable way to compare skill effectiveness on classes that don't support building for skill prowess is to compare the side features that they'll pick up while building for what they do support, and no fighter is realistically rocking Diplomacy or Charisma from his class, while paladins always have one and commonly have both.

Totally agree on the bolded part. The only true way for a Fighter to expand himself reasonably well in a field is the dip into another class. And I tend to be among the ones that find this a fair trade (especially Rogue, Bard or Barbarian dipping).

[SmokingSkull]

I think there is one thing people tend to forget. When it comes to comparing other classes to the Fighter is that other classes get more baseline due to their design. That's why Fighters get 7 ASI's compared to everyone else's 5, (Or the Rogue's 6.) Sure a Paladin by design is going to be naturally good at interaction and is decent in combat, but the Fighter gets to choose more often whether they become more social, explorative or combat orientated. Paladins get fewer and different choices to customize their character should they stay pure to the class.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather take the Fighter than the Paladin. Why? Paladins require (mostly) long rests to fully function, give a Fighter an hour and they're usually good to go. If a Fighter really wanted Diplomacy and the like they could customize their background to grant them the skill, ergo anyone could do that. That and I've also noticed: why do people value social interaction so highly? Like it's only the most amazing thing one can do in D&D?

There's three pillars: Combat, Exploration and Interaction. A Fighter is naturally good at one of these, but can then specialize in one of the other two or go full versatile and dabble in both. A Paladin gets less in choosing these things. The spells they possess are either combat orientated in the form of healing or buffing. They have a few useful spells for interaction but they really don't have any direct exploration spells (Unless Oath of Ancients, and even then not every Paladin will go that route.)

TL;DR You can't really compare the two in a vacuum, they will be played differently based upon player choices when it comes to customization and the expectations, needs and story of the group and campaign itself.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm sorry, you misunderstood me.
I already took every available option as feat into account when writing my personal opinion on this (confer, quoting myself "will be extremely good at once role {} but mediocre to decent in any other depending on stats and feat"). But since you want some detail, let's go. :)

Healing
Healer is good. But that's it. That's an emergency poorman's heal that requires an action and is once per short rest.
Paladin has: Lay on Hands, Cure Wounds, Aura of Life, REVIVIFY (I won't quote all ;)). As well as Inspiring Leader potentially.

Party protection
Fighter can, 6 times per short rest, divert ONE enemy's attacks for ONE round.
Paladin, without doing anything, brings +3 to +5 to everyone's saves and immunity to status or magic resistance depending on the oath. He also gets Command (non-concentration) and Compelled Duel (concentration) to draw or divert the fire, single target buffs such as Shield of Faith and party buffs such as Aura or Circles.

Party face
Since Paladin will max CHA, he will naturally get +5 to any Charisma check. Whereas CHA is typically a dump stat for Fighter so probably 12 max at start. So Fighter would need the "Skilled" feat just to reach (and ultimately best by 1-2 points) Paladin level in skill checks other than Intimidation (considering that the Paladin took it). Only with added Actor feat would he really trumps the Paladin, and only in specific situations.

Environmental awareness and utility
On Insight, Paladin and Fighter are probably on par as a basis stat-wise, so Fighter would get the upper hand here on passive scores for Investigation and Perception. Only on passive scores though. And Paladin gets Zone of Truth ultimately.

Dungeon Delver would indeed be an "exclusive" for Fighter here, since Paladin would probably not get it since many more directly useful feats for him.
But Paladin get many Detect and Locate spells, Purify and Create Food, and Find Steed. So he can help direct the party, ensure you never lack provisions and provide a mount if needed.

Ritual Caster is a good catch. :) But it's really DM dependent. And it requires either 13 WIS which is usually a tertiary or dump stat or 13 INT which is the classic dump stat except for EK (which is out of scope of the thread, but whatever ;)). So probably lower main/secondary stats which means another ASI to bump them.

Summary
As you see, the Fighter would have to spend half a dozen Feats to just get a small portion of what a Paladin provides as is. Which is not very probable since any Fighter would want to max attack stat and keep CON (and DEX) at some decent to high levels.
So, I'm not "looking at a fighter built purely for damage and nothing else, then complaining that he isn't built for anything else". I'm looking at it for exactly what it is: a class that IS built for damage first and foremost, with a few bells here and there, notably "extra feats" that allow Fighters to tweak their skills to fill in a few gaps when nobody else suited for it is available.
Only the Eldricht Knight really feels more versatile because he can choose a variety of spells (including spells from any school at some levels), but even then he is still geared towards pure fighting.

And I'm certainly not saying that it is a bad thing, or that the Fighter would be an "inferior" class or whatever. I always love having a Battlemaster or Eldricht Knight in a party.
I was just answering to the (strange) question that was starting the whole thread. :)

But that's precisly the thing.
The plain idea of "competition" in fight is stupid, totally senseless. Because obviously the Fighter will always be better at damage. That IS his thing.
Saying this is basically throwing away half the features of the Paladin...:smallfrown:

Also, guys, do you really spend each and every hour of each and every day fighting?
Because that is no more a roleplaying game, that is a paper dungeon crawler.

In any normal campaign, there will be numerous occasions where the Paladin can safely spend a few slots on utility, or even everything (not every day should include a fight just "because there has to be a fight").

As for "there isn't much on the paladin spell list that can deal with situations that the fighter never could it just makes those situations easier (and also from a role play perspective sometimes boring). Just the Locate spells or Create Food, I'd be curious to see how a Fighter (unless having learnt Ritual Caster and related spells) could manage in, say, an underground maze...:smallbiggrin: Good luck also on curing your poisoned friend or outright reviving him.

The problem the paladin runs into is that their offense (smiting) is mutually exclusive with their other spellcasting opportunities.

Yes, in the very short term they can keep up with the sustained damage of just the champion by putting everything they have (all their spell slots) in bursting from smite. Unfortunately for the paladin, that only takes them so far in a day, and it's easily offset by the short rest regenerated superiority dice.

It's not even close, Fighter is substantially better with both subclasses.

[JNAProductions]

Party face
Saying "Fighter has only one stat to care of" is really a plain demonstration of dishonesty.
Fighter that goes STR will still have to keep both DEX and CON to 14 and 16 at the very least, and will probably still max CON, as most Fighters will do anyways, because unless specific Sharpshooter build, they WILL be the first at risk during a fight.
So on 7 feats, you can safely assume that most Fighters will spend at least 3 or 4 ASI on stat bumps (the 4th being often a Resilient to take advantage of an odd stat), considering traditional builds with STR first, then CON, then DEX, then everything else. Meaning very little chance that you start wich CHA higher than 11/12.
Additionnaly, the Paladin is one of the classes that may deal the best with "no-more-than-decent" CON since he gets +CHA on saves anyways. The tough point is concentration, but it can still be worked around. :)

One issue with that-why the heck are you focusing on a Strength-based Fighter? Dexterity is generally better.

And even if you do have a Strength Fighter, guess what? Dexterity penalties don't apply in heavy armor, so they can have an 8 in Dexterity and rarely feel it.

[Rysto]

One issue with that-why the heck are you focusing on a Strength-based Fighter? Dexterity is generally better.

Are they? A DEX fighter is leaving an awful lot of DPR on the table. A rapier only averages 4.5 damage per successful attack, while a greatsword will do 7. Once extra attack starts kicking in I would think that would end up being pretty significant.

[Jarlhen]

Are they? A DEX fighter is leaving an awful lot of DPR on the table. A rapier only averages 4.5 damage per successful attack, while a greatsword will do 7. Once extra attack starts kicking in I would think that would end up being pretty significant.

I suspect they mean as ranged? I'm not sure, but I imagine a sharpshooter and maybe crossbowmaster would do ok. Not sure, just a thought.

[EvilAnagram]

A Dex-based Fighter wins more often than not. The Dex combines with Champion features to provide the best possible initiative, and he can use maneuvers to keep the Paladin distant with a higher chance of critting. Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expertise for even nastier damage.

[djreynolds]

A Dex-based Fighter wins more oftwn than not. The Dex combines with Champion features to provide the best possible initiative, and he can use maneuvers to keep the Paladin distant with a higher chance of critting. Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expertise for even nastier damage.

And defensive duelist, even for a strength based fighter, is a cheap way to up defense, up to +6 AC on 1 reaction. Now that paladin has to spam bless to help his to hit eating away spell slots that could be used to smite.

A fighter is all about attrition. Your spells will run out. And a fighter will have maxed his to hit by level 6 and is grabbing resilient wisdom at some point as well.

[Citan]

The problem the paladin runs into is that their offense (smiting) is mutually exclusive with their other spellcasting opportunities.

Yes, in the very short term they can keep up with the sustained damage of just the champion by putting everything they have (all their spell slots) in bursting from smite. Unfortunately for the paladin, that only takes them so far in a day, and it's easily offset by the short rest regenerated superiority dice.

It's not even close, Fighter is substantially better with both subclasses.
The thing is, you're fighting a void combat. We ALL agree here that Fighter easily trumps Paladin in terms of damage.
It's about the rest that the discussion is.
Tanking, exploring, investigating, socializing...

Sure, none of the utility spells is intrisically required. For example, in theory, you could find a stolen object that is about to get smuggled just by asking in bar, interrogating thieves and such. But it's usually a long shot or takes an amount of time. If you know for example that the object will go out of reach in an hour, Locate Object here would save your day (well, provided you're "familiar" with it: not sure how to understand this).

Same as "Create Food" could be seen as superfluous. Still, when I look at the thread from a few days ago where someone asked for help because his party was buried in an underground cavern because of an earthquake, with no food left, I'd say it comes pretty handy (unless DM is lenient enough to say you find rats and spiders to eat. Yummy!!).

And since not every day is about fighting, you will have the chance to use these spells. ;)

As for fights, the Paladin can easily fill the role of a lacking Cleric/Bard or complement it when it really counts (such as reviving someone), or ensure the survival of a pal who can then actively contribute to offense instead of go in hiding (SoF, Protection spells), or draw/disable the fire of the BBEG (Compelled Duel, Wrathful Smite, Banishing smite), or protect the caster that started casting a minute-long spell such as the Tiny Hut (Sanctuary)...

In summary, the Fighter can fill the shoes of other to a more or less decent extent by investing Feats, whereas the Paladin has everything built-in to fill many roles with great efficiency (especially since he knows all spells, just has to choose the ones he prepares each day. My opinion would be vastly different if the Paladin was like Sorcerer, with a handful of spells learnt for the whole career).

So, that's why the Paladin is "better" in a vacuum than the Fighter, even amped with 2 subclasses, even considering that the Fighter can generally use at least 3 ASI on Feats. Because when you don't know what you get into, any Paladin has a much higher chance than the Fighter to have something significant to contribute, without any need for special build.

EDIT: And frankly, unless specific situations (BBEG, last fight of the day, or you're sure you can finish a dangerous foe with this smite), I personally don't consider divine smite as being "by principle" the best use of Paladin's spell slots. Rather the opposite. At least when talking about pure Paladin. Multiclass would change everything in the discussion on both sides. :)


One issue with that-why the heck are you focusing on a Strength-based Fighter? Dexterity is generally better.

And even if you do have a Strength Fighter, guess what? Dexterity penalties don't apply in heavy armor, so they can have an 8 in Dexterity and rarely feel it.
I was so expecting this.
First, a don't expect a Fighter with 8 in Dexterity to live that long. Any decently intelligent enemies will try both attacks and spells, see he's great at defending attack but a mess to avoid Dexterity spells, then focus on this.
Second, I don't see how anyone could want rolling Initiative with a malus.

Third, even for a pure Dexterity build, you'll want to max or nearly-max Constitution (because Survivor) so over a STR build you'd gain maybe one Feat.

Finally, I naturally biaised the discussion towards STR because DEX builds towards damage = ranged builds. And it seems off for me to compare a ranged Fighter with a Paladin (since Paladin screams "melee"), while I'd find it very pertinent to compare it to a Ranger. :)