Paladin 8th-Level Feat Dilemma

[Rhaegar14]

Hi Playground. I wanted you guys to weigh in for me because I'm very torn on what to take for my 8th-level feat (technically I could take an ASI but there are two feats I still want and I'm not gonna start pumping ability scores until I have them because feats are more interesting/fun).

Roderick is a Tiefling Devotion Paladin with the following Ability Scores and Feats:

Str 16, Dex 8, Con 13, Wis 12, Int 11, Cha 16
Feats: Sentinel, Heavy Armor Master

He uses a two-handed weapon and has Defense Fighting Style. He's essentially our group's tank, but I didn't want to do a shield because 1) he doesn't have Athletics proficiency (in hindsight he really should but that ship has sailed) and 2) I don't have room in his build to take Warcaster and would rather have the freedom to cast spells with somatic components. It's worth mentioning that we all got a bonus feat at first level as a houserule (this is how he has both Sentinel and HAM already).

So, the two feats I'm considering are pretty obvious picks: Resilient (Constitution) and Great Weapon Master.

Resilient makes him better at everything he does. It'll bring his Con Save from a +4 to a +8, and a +9 starting at level 9, which will make his concentration checks very reliable. That, in turn, makes my buffs actually likely to last in combat. If I need extra damage I can count on Divine Favor or Crusader's Mantle to last longer than two turns, and Shield of Faith or Protection from Good and Evil will probably last through most of a battle. It'll also make him tankier by bumping his Con modifier up to +2.

But when I built this character I decided I actually wanted him to have teeth when it was time to smite some evildoers. This is another reason he uses a two-hander, and the main reason I'm looking at Great Weapon Master. GWM synergizes really well with Sacred Weapon, and the conditional bonus attack emphasizes what's already his most noteworthy mechanical trait: how hard his damage spikes on a critical hit. The other reason I'm considering taking this now is that I know Great Weapon Master doesn't age super well, and this is especially true of Paladins, who get that +1d8 damage on every attack starting at 11th level as opposed to additional attacks.

So, the TL;DR is that I'm gonna take both Resilient (Constitution) and Great Weapon Master by level 12, but don't know which one to take first. Opinions?

P.S. Before somebody inevitably suggests it, I'm not gonna just increase his Strength or Charisma. You can show me all the math in the world showing that it's objectively more effective, but that doesn't make it interesting.

EDIT: The rest of the party is probably helpful context. We have a Crossbow Expert Valor Bard, a Sharpshooter Eldritch Knight with a Longbow, and a Wizard with a dip in Knowledge Cleric. The way our party currently stands Roderick is our only primary frontliner, though both the Bard and the Fighter are not helpless in melee.

[BrianDavion]

if you're tanking I'd up your con first.

[Corran]

if you're tanking I'd up your con first.
I second this. Given that you are restricting yourself to these two feats.

On another note, have you considered taking PAM instead of GWM? I mean, you have already sentinel going on for you, which is a very nice complement to the PM feat, and if you are going for the weapon feat at 12 when you will already have IDS, it makes a lot of sense to take PAM instead. Two attacks and a third with your bonus action, and an almost always guaranteed reactionary attack, for a total of 4 attacks on which to add the damage from IDS and spam smites as necessary. And ofc, all the rest sweet synergy between PAM and sentinel. And it is still a feat, so keeping it ''interesting''.

ps: Given your party composition, it is one of those rare cases where a S&B paladorc would shine. Just saying...

[bid]

With Str16 you're too likely to miss to make GWM useful. You really need some way to keep advantage up.

[Corran]

With Str16 you're too likely to miss to make GWM useful. You really need some way to keep advantage up.
Technically he has both sacred weapon and bless helping him utilise GWM. But both of those take up an action, so the opportunity cost is significant. If I were playing the OP's character, I would go with resilient con for some extra survivability, and I would start my round with sacred weapon and shield of faith (or attack and shield of faith, or even dodge and shield of faith), as the +2 to AC will be a lifesaver with so many attacks coming his way, given all his allies have opted for ranged combat. And then at 12 I would take PAM. All that assuming I was restricted to stay within the paladin class limits.

@OP: Regarding changing to S&B, you dont really need athletics proficiency when playing with a shield. Athletics comes into play only when you intend to take the shield master feat, and you only take the shield master feat when your group is melee-heavy, which your group is clearly not. And you dont need warcaster either, your holy symbol can be inscribed on your shield, which releaves you of the need to perform somatic components. Spells that require material components is another story, and warcaster would still not help you there, but there arent nearly enough paladin spells that require material components to even worry you about this. So given the rest of your party, I would consider going S&B.

edit: If greatsword was picked for style reasons (which it was, judging from your following post), then ignore everything I just said.

[Rhaegar14]

I second this. Given that you are restricting yourself to these two feats.

On another note, have you considered taking PAM instead of GWM? I mean, you have already sentinel going on for you, which is a very nice complement to the PM feat, and if you are going for the weapon feat at 12 when you will already have IDS, it makes a lot of sense to take PAM instead. Two attacks and a third with your bonus action, and an almost always guaranteed reactionary attack, for a total of 4 attacks on which to add the damage from IDS and spam smites as necessary. And ofc, all the rest sweet synergy between PAM and sentinel. And it is still a feat, so keeping it ''interesting''.

ps: Given your party composition, it is one of those rare cases where a S&B paladorc would shine. Just saying...

I have thought about PAM, and it is mechanically a better choice, but thematically I like the great weapon because the greatsword is his deity's favored weapon. I also prefer the mental image of the greatsword over a polearm.

On your postscript, you're not wrong, but it's also waaaaay too late for that haha.

Edit: However, I'm not entirely disinterested in discussing the merits of S&B academically:


Technically he has both sacred weapon and bless helping him utilise GWM. But both of those take up an action, so the opportunity cost is significant. If I were playing the OP's character, I would go with resilient con for some extra survivability, and I would start my round with sacred weapon and shield of faith (or attack and shield of faith, or even dodge and shield of faith), as the +2 to AC will be a lifesaver with so many attacks coming his way, given all his allies have opted for ranged combat. And then at 12 I would take PAM. All that assuming I was restricted to stay within the paladin class limits.

@OP: Regarding changing to S&B, you dont really need athletics proficiency when playing with a shield. Athletics comes into play only when you intend to take the shield master feat, and you only take the shield master feat when your group is melee-heavy, which your group is clearly not. And you dont need warcaster either, your holy symbol can be inscribed on your shield, which releaves you of the need to perform somatic components. Spells that require material components is another story, and warcaster would still not help you there, but there arent nearly enough paladin spells that require material components to even worry you about this. So given the rest of your party, I would consider going S&B.

edit: If greatsword was picked for style reasons (which it was, judging from your dollowing post0, then ignore everything I just said.

I also have Bardic Inspiration and any number of spells my allies could cast to help with GWM. It's a team game, after all. But Sword and Board; you've got it mixed up. The holy symbol on the shield fills the need for a material component, but NOT a somatic component. The rules as written state that you can use the same hand that uses a material component for somatic components, when casting a spell with a material component. But if it only has a somatic component, you need a free hand. This is pretty much the most nonsensical rule in the world, but it's also confirmed by Sage Advice. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting) So Warcaster is actually pretty necessary for a S&B Paladin, precisely because so few of their spells have material components (though there are several that are only verbal).

But yes, the greatsword was at least in part a style pick.

[bid]

So Warcaster is actually pretty necessary for a S&B Paladin, precisely because so few of their spells have material components (though there are several that are only verbal).
I'm not sure how many VS spells are used during battle (as opposed to before you draw your sword).

[Fflewddur Fflam]

How does his character already have two feats before 8th level and he's not a variant human???

[Rhaegar14]

How does his character already have two feats before 8th level and he's not a variant human???

I covered that in the OP. We all got a bonus feat at first level.

[Biggstick]

I have thought about PAM, and it is mechanically a better choice, but thematically I like the great weapon because the greatsword is his deity's favored weapon. I also prefer the mental image of the greatsword over a polearm.

On your postscript, you're not wrong, but it's also waaaaay too late for that haha.

Edit: However, I'm not entirely disinterested in discussing the merits of S&B academically:



I also have Bardic Inspiration and any number of spells my allies could cast to help with GWM. It's a team game, after all. But Sword and Board; you've got it mixed up. The holy symbol on the shield fills the need for a material component, but NOT a somatic component. The rules as written state that you can use the same hand that uses a material component for somatic components, when casting a spell with a material component. But if it only has a somatic component, you need a free hand. This is pretty much the most nonsensical rule in the world, but it's also confirmed by Sage Advice. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting) So Warcaster is actually pretty necessary for a S&B Paladin, precisely because so few of their spells have material components (though there are several that are only verbal).

But yes, the greatsword was at least in part a style pick.

Honestly though, what spells are you casting that have more then a verbal cast requirement? All the smites are verbal, command is verbal, most of your other spells are buffs that are cast before combat...

[Rhaegar14]

Cure Wounds and Dispel Magic are both Verbal and Somatic without Material components, and are both spells that could be needed in the middle of combat. I'll admit, having never actually looked at the list that closely (as I said, there are fluff reasons I went with a two-hander), it is shorter than I thought.

[Giant2005]

I can understand believing that a bonus to your con saves is more mechanically beneficial than getting a bonus to anything else via an ASI, but the notion of it being a more interesting bonus is... strange.

[Rhaegar14]

The idea is that it makes any of my Concentration buffs more reliable, which gives me more options in combat. Spells like Elemental Weapon (not quite there yet, but I know what's gonna be on my spell list starting at level 9) start to be a lot more attractive when my chance of losing them when I take damage (and I have Sentinel and am the only one on the front line, so I get a lot of attention) goes from 30% to 5%.

[hymer]

Off the cuff, I'd advocate taking Resilient between the two. GWM is nice and everything, but your role and your stats both cry out for +1 con and strong Concentration saves. You should be able to make do with smiting when you need extra damage.
It does suck that you have no way (yet) to attack with your bonus action, but GWM is only a partial cure for that, anyway.

[djreynolds]

You need IMO GWF to really make GWM shine, it just sucks rolling 1s and 2s.

Would the DM let you switch out defensive style for GWF?
Would you be willing to pick up levels of fighter? 1 or 2? Action surge is nice

I like that you took devotion, IMO sacred weapon in awesome. Especially since you cannot stack sources of advantage, sacred weapon works with in combination with advantage.

Polearm master is something to look into, at level 11th you get improved divine smite and with a polearm you could add 1d8 to both attacks and the bonus attack. And you have sentinel, which goes nicely with sentinel.

Another option is a couple levels of sorcerer, grab a cantrip for ranged purposes and the shield spell, +5AC as a reaction.

Obviously resilient con is great and reliable choice. But also increasing charisma will bump all saves by +1. And that sacred weapon increases as well.

So for me, I think PAM would service you best and since 11th level's improved divine smite

If you survived this long with your con saves at +4, you could wait til 12th. The wizard could spam bless as he has the Knowledge cleric dip

Maxing charisma is a huge priority as well, it affects spell DC, sacred weapon, # of prepared spells, and saves for your whole party.

[bid]

You need IMO GWF to really make GWM shine, it just sucks rolling 1s and 2s.
Wait, you're saying that once-in-a-blue-moon 14 damage ain't enough?

If that +1 average damage was that important, he'd go Str18. Defense is way better.

[Laserlight]

You could have a greatsword-polearm if you refluff a glaive as being a flamberge.

[Pex]

if you're tanking I'd up your con first.


I second this. Given that you are restricting yourself to these two feats.



Resilient (Con) would be ideal then.

[Biggstick]

Cure Wounds and Dispel Magic are both Verbal and Somatic without Material components, and are both spells that could be needed in the middle of combat. I'll admit, having never actually looked at the list that closely (as I said, there are fluff reasons I went with a two-hander), it is shorter than I thought.

Let's be frank, you should never be casting Cure Wounds in combat. If you absolutely have to be using a heal, your LOH should suffice. After combat, you can use your Cure Wounds if you feel it's necessary. If you're still worried about healing at later levels, Aura of Vitality is a purely verbal spell that will do way more healing then most other healing spells. If you're worried about Dispel (which from the way you're talking, it would be to Dispel allies and yourself), you gain access to Cleansing Touch at Paladin 14 to remove any spell effect on yourself or a willing creature.

You should only be considering Warcaster as a feat tax if you're going a class that has access the Shield spell and BB/GFB (Sorc/Warlock fill this slot very effectively).

And as others have said, if you're really considering a weapon feat, it should be PAM, not GWM. You gain so much more with the always available bonus action, as well as the solid use of reaction. Combined with your Sentinel ability, it's even better. If you're worried about the flavor from having a Greatsword, ask the DM if he'd be fine with re-skinning your Greatsword as a Polearm.

Overall I'd still choose Resilient Con as you're serving as the front line of the party and maintaining concentration on your Bless + never failing Con/Wis saves + Sentinel will provide a pretty decent shield for your caster allies.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

I covered that in the OP. We all got a bonus feat at first level.

Oy. So would a variant human get two at first level? Because otherwise humans are getting screwed... as usual.

[Karnack]

I feel your pain, I'm playing a paladin in one of my games. Just hit level 11 and I've only got a +2 Con and Cha mod. It ain't good enough, considering that I'm a front liner and have concentration spells out the wazoo.

Take Resilient (Constitution), in the long run having constitution save proficiency is much more crucial to a paladin.

Also the fact that Con saves are the most common type of saves in the game, and some of those spell instant death (i'm looking at you Demi lich).

[bid]

You should only be considering Warcaster as a feat tax if you're going a class that has access the Shield spell and BB/GFB (Sorc/Warlock fill this slot very effectively).
Yep.

Either you are a juicy target (even with a shield donned offhand) and will spend your reaction on shield.
Or you are ignored by enemies, will spend your reaction on OA with BB/GFB.

[djreynolds]

Wait, you're saying that once-in-a-blue-moon 14 damage ain't enough?

If that +1 average damage was that important, he'd go Str18. Defense is way better.

I like defensive style. But prefer damage more.

A paladin can use a shield if defense is that important to him. Fighting a BBEG, S&B. Fighting mooks, great sword or glaive.

And his sacred weapon will carry him for awhile, once a short rest recharge.

The fact that he is fighting with a two-handed weapon and thinking of GWM, he should've grabbed GWstlye and can do so by a quick fighter dip.

Devotion and sacred weapon and GWM go very well together.

PAM though would give him the most bang for his buck when he gets improved divine smite.

So for me, in order of preference. PAM or Chr increase at 8th