Paladin Multiclassing: DEX for STR?

[Sans.]

Would it work if I home-ruled that Paladins could multiclass with CHA 13 and STR or DEX 13? Someone wants to play Bard/Paladin and buff our party a bit while also dicing enemies with a rapier, but we ran into the STR 13 restriction for multiclassing.

[Naanomi]

Paladin muticlasses fairly strongly, but if you are ok with the results it shouldn't be much of an issue

[Sans.]

Paladin muticlasses fairly strongly, but if you are ok with the results it shouldn't be much of an issue

What exactly do you mean in the second part?

[Arkhios]

Would it work if I home-ruled that Paladins could multiclass with CHA 13 and STR or DEX 13? Someone wants to play Bard/Paladin and buff our party a bit while also dicing enemies with a rapier, but we ran into the STR 13 restriction for multiclassing.

Is he/she starting as a paladin or as a bard?
Rapier is a finesse weapon, true, but that doesn't mean you have to attack with dex.

If the player's still contemplating, I would just start as a paladin, use str for attacks (still using a rapier), picking up the dueling style to be worth it, and wear heavy armor. Easier and less trouble with the multiclass. (Bard doesn't require dex, only cha, and paladin only requires str & cha, so all the character would really need are str & cha 13 to be viable).

Then again, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong about houseruling the requirement, since the most key paladin feature - divine smite - only works with melee weapon attacks.

[Specter]

Not at all. The STR req for pallys and the DEX req for rangers is just there to annoy some good class possibilities.

[Greeniron]

Not at all. The STR req for pallys and the DEX req for rangers is just there to annoy some good class possibilities.

I think it is a holdover from earlier editions where you needed to meet stat requirements when choosing classes.

[Arkhios]

Not at all. The STR req for pallys and the DEX req for rangers is just there to annoy some good class possibilities.

To 'annoy' is a bit unfair, to be honest. Both str for pallies and dex for rangers are more because of the 'class fantasy'. Pallies are generally seen as knights in shining armor, wearing the heaviest of armor, while rangers are more subtle and stealthy warriors.

[Biggstick]

Valor Bard says hello.

Serious though, what exactly are they looking for? Are they trying to max out their Dex, Cha, or both? Do they want to be a primary caster? What's the ideal level split that the player has given you?

Seriously though, Valor Bard will be able to do what it seems the PC is asking to do, all while still playing within the given rules.

[Naanomi]

Dexterity in general is a bit 'better' than Strength:
~Strength: often inconsequential 'feats of strength' like lifting, carrying; access to higher damage two-handed weapons; slightly better AC through heavy armor
~Dexterity: More skills keyed to it; initiative; Dex saves much more important

So allowing a character to ditch a strength requirement for a dexterity one is, in general, a power boost for that character... though not a huge power boost, so as long as you are aware and OK with the character getting a slight 'boost' it shouldn't be a big issue in most cases. Getting Shillelagh as a Bard Secret will make the character easy to focus around one stat; but pretty much would be the same with Strength as well (just needing a 15 STR instead of a 14 DEX)

[bid]

I consider the Str requirement pure fluff. I hate heavy armor, so it might skew my POV.

If you want to stay RAW, maybe you could cover your needs with magic initiate (as a vuman) or a 1 level dip in some cleric.

Valor... well if it fits the bill as is, without MC, take it.

[Gastronomie]

If all the players are okay with it, there is no reason to deny it. Table-talk should be flexible to meet the players' needs, even if it means ignoring everything written in the rulebooks.

[Sans.]

In response to the requests for more detail, basically, they want to have decent combat abilities while also helping the rest of the party, hence Bard/Paladin. In particular, they like being able to buff the party just before and after a dungeon and then being able to help with all saves just by being there, all while still stabbing monsters.

[Arkhios]

Basically, they want to have decent combat abilities while also helping the rest of the party, hence Bard/Paladin.

I'm not exactly sure how strength isn't a decent combat ability (likewise, heavy armor guarantees a decent AC). Sure, low dex means you're not great with projectile ranged weapons, but you're just as good with thrown weapons as you are with melee weapons, neither are your dex saves nor initiative very good, but if someone wants a dip in paladin, that's almost definitely because of 2nd level divine smite and since it works only in melee, I don't see a real issue between doing a heavily armored, str-based melee paladin/bard (or bard/paladin, whatever) and 'decent combat abilities'. And, if it's only because of those two levels, I'd honestly say that taking 2 levels in paladin up-front and then going into bard, never looking back, is going to be at the very least reasonably good, if not great. Again, you can attack with rapier using strength, if the weapon is your thing.

All of that, of course, is to tackle the multiclassing requirements the easier way, without having to bend the rules.

If, however, you (and the rest of the group) are fine with the (very common btw) houseruled dex/str 13 requirement, then go for it.
In that case I would allow str/dex 13 and wis 13 for a ranger as well (since they are proficient with str and dex saves, it would even make sense).

[djreynolds]

A 13 in str, is one for one in point buy. Not expensive and since you are grabbing bard, take expertise in athletics.

A bard/rogue with expertise in athletics while sporting and 8 in strength is +11, same as a fighter with 20 in strength.

But with a 13 in strength (+1), you could have +13 in athletics... good for disarming and shoving and grappling

With song of rest, cure wounds and lay on hands... you could leave con in 12-14 range and be fine. I try to honestly, and I know it is difficult with standard array or point buy, to dump a stat.

But that is price for playing paladin, needing a 13 in str and chr... and in return you are able to smite post role with any of your spell slots. Worth the price. And you can still max out dex and chr, if you leave con at 12

[CaptainSarathai]

Would it work if I home-ruled that Paladins could multiclass with CHA 13 and STR or DEX 13? Someone wants to play Bard/Paladin and buff our party a bit while also dicing enemies with a rapier, but we ran into the STR 13 restriction for multiclassing.

I'd allow it, I'd just be wary.
He's going Bard, so it's not really a problem (although something's fishy about not wanting to build Str, unless he's already built the character and just now realized he wants the dip in/out)

But one thing the 13Str does, is make it harder to dip in/out of Rogue to combine Sneak Attack and Smite damage.
It also makes it harder to bypass Heavy Armor for AC20, which you'll notice that you only get if you start as a Paladin.
On the whole, it just makes it easier to control the balance of some of the more exploitative Paladin MC options.

[bid]

A 13 in str, is one for one in point buy. Not expensive and since you are grabbing bard, take expertise in athletics.
5 of your 27 points on a dump stat is expensive.

[Naanomi]

5 of your 27 points on a dump stat is expensive.
Dexterity also tends to be better than Strength in general... but the real point difference come if you plan on using Shillelagh

Point Buy: Half-Elf Race:
Strength Based: (assuming you want to maximize STR and CHA)
16/8/16/8/10/16

Strength Based: (assuming you just wanted enough STR for Heavy Armor and Shillelagh was going to cover the rest)
15/8/16/8/12/16

Dexterity Based: (assuming you want to maximize DEX and CHA)
8/16/16/8/10/16

Dexterity Based: (assuming you just wanted enough DEX to maximize Medium Armor and Shillelagh was going to cover the rest)
8/14/16/10/12/16 <--- Now *that* is a functional bard!

[Arkhios]

Dexterity also tends to be better than Strength in general... but the real point difference come if you plan on using Shillelagh

Point Buy: Half-Elf Race:
Strength Based: (assuming you want to maximize STR and CHA)
16/8/16/8/10/16

Strength Based: (assuming you just wanted enough STR for Heavy Armor and Shillelagh was going to cover the rest)
15/8/16/8/12/16

Dexterity Based: (assuming you want to maximize DEX and CHA)
8/16/16/8/10/16

Dexterity Based: (assuming you just wanted enough DEX to maximize Medium Armor and Shillelagh was going to cover the rest)
8/14/16/10/12/16 <--- Now *that* is a functional bard!

Forgive my minor nitpick, but the requirements for heavy armor vary. Lower than Str 13 is enough for ring mail (AC 14; 30gp), Str 13 is enough for chain mail (AC 16; 75gp), Str 15 is enough for Splint (AC 17; 200gp) as well as Plate (AC 18; 1500gp). Just to give some perspective.

[Naanomi]

:smallconfused:
Forgive my minor nitpick, but the requirements for heavy armor vary. Lower than Str 13 is enough for ring mail (AC 14; 30gp), Str 13 is enough for chain mail (AC 16; 75gp), Str 15 is enough for Splint (AC 17; 200gp) as well as Plate (AC 18; 1500gp). Just to give some perspective.
Fair enough, perhaps I should have said 'to make the *best* use of heavy armor'
http://i.imgur.com/tuKaGyM.jpg

[Specter]

To 'annoy' is a bit unfair, to be honest. Both str for pallies and dex for rangers are more because of the 'class fantasy'. Pallies are generally seen as knights in shining armor, wearing the heaviest of armor, while rangers are more subtle and stealthy warriors.

Exactly. By annoying people into a cliche, you make them conform to something that will not even take place in your game, or is culturally stupid. Elf Paladins and Dwarf Rangers for some reason have to take an intensive course from each other to multiclass.

[Arkhios]

Exactly. By annoying people into a cliche, you make them conform to something that will not even take place in your game, or is culturally stupid. Elf Paladins and Dwarf Rangers for some reason have to take an intensive course from each other to multiclass.

If your game is contrarian to the norm, it's all on you. Both of your examples are culturally exceptional to the norms. Elves don't usually become paladins nor dwarves rangers. If your game is different, by all means, make a houserule, but don't blame the game being honest with its origins. From origins perspective, elf paladins and dwarf rangers are 'culturally stupid', not vice versa.

[Naanomi]

Dwarf rangers (or rather, kits that are essentially dwarf rangers) have been around since at least 2e in some form... Elf Paladins less so, though I think the 2e Elf Book had a 'champion of *main elf God*' that was structured as an elven paladin

[Lawful Good]

I've never really understood why Paladins needed STR 13 to multiclass. It is a huge downside to have to have a probable dump stat for dexadins be bumped up to 13.
I tried making a dexadin once, but I feel like it is way too MAD. Maybe CON or WIS 13 to multiclass, or just straight up CHA. You do have to be careful about mixing a full caster with Paladin, Paladins are a very good dip.

[Arkhios]

I've never really understood why Paladins needed STR 13 to multiclass. It is a huge downside to have to have a probable dump stat for dexadins be bumped up to 13.
I tried making a dexadin once, but I feel like it is way too MAD. Maybe CON or WIS 13 to multiclass, or just straight up CHA. You do have to be careful about mixing a full caster with Paladin, Paladins are a very good dip.

Because, originally - way before you even could 'point buy' your stats, you had to roll really good to even be able to become a paladin - high dexterity was never a requirement.
While old editions have no sway in 5th edition per se, it's obvious that these origins have a lot to do with the current versions. Paladins above all classes are supposed to use the heaviest of armor. Even fighters don't "have to", as they can opt to have either str or dex 13, when multiclassing, not both.

Dexadin is a (stupid) concept that has been only recently stamped upon the class due to finesse becoming an inherent weapon feature. It's not the "default" by any means. Complaining about dexadins being hard to make is ridiculous BECAUSE paladins are supposed to use strength primarily. If you want to be a "dexadin" you have to deal with the consequences and stop whining about it.

[bid]

Dexadin is a (stupid) concept that has been only recently stamped upon the class due to finesse becoming an inherent weapon feature.
I've seen dexadin in 3.5, that was 10 years ago. There was a ranged smite feat in book of exalted deeds from 2003, iirc.

That sounds like "get off my lawn" recent.

[Arkhios]

I've seen dexadin in 3.5, that was 10 years ago. There was a ranged smite feat in book of exalted deeds from 2003, iirc.

That sounds like "get off my lawn" recent.

I'm speaking from the core point of view here. It's true that you could take weapon finesse as a feat in 3.5 - a fact I admit having forgotten due to not having played it for over 10 years. Book of exalted deeds, however, is far from core.

Even so, 5th edition having a finesse weapon property is fairly new thing that does encourage a dex build, but it's not the "default" for a paladin. IIRC, finesse property (as in allowing dexterity without a feat tax) was actually introduced in 4th edition, but even then you used strength for your attacks with Paladin Powers.

So, technically, dexadin has become more common in 5th edition than ever before.

That being said, I'm not against playing out of the ordinary concepts. In fact I even 'brewed a feat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?506044-Combat-Versatility-feat) in homebrew forum after you mentioned the feat from Book of Exalted Deeds.

[Specter]

If your game is contrarian to the norm, it's all on you. Both of your examples are culturally exceptional to the norms. Elves don't usually become paladins nor dwarves rangers. If your game is different, by all means, make a houserule, but don't blame the game being honest with its origins. From origins perspective, elf paladins and dwarf rangers are 'culturally stupid', not vice versa.

No. See, the fact that one wears armor has absolutely nothing to do with being a paladin. You can argue that the class was inspired by the crusaders, but fact is many other cultural references would be lost. You think Dexadin is stupid, ok, but that's your own view, and game history has already proven otherwise, because even archer paladins were doable (and that's lame). The races were also just an example, too. Half-orc ranger? You better not try to become a better Fighter or you'll have to take some ballet lessons to pull it off.

I've obviously houseruled this, but it's stupid of the game to presume, for instance, that being favored by a god has ANYTHING to do with physical strenght, instead of purity of heart, devotion and blabla.

[Arkhios]

I've obviously houseruled this, but it's stupid of the game to presume, for instance, that being favored by a god has ANYTHING to do with physical strenght, instead of purity of heart, devotion and blabla.

I see your point and I concede, maybe I tried to defend my own opinions a bit too hard. But you made a slight mistake there. Paladin isn't favored by a god. Cleric is. Nothing in the paladin's description says they would be favored, or even chosen, by a deity. (Cleric's description, on the other hand, does say exactly that). As written, Paladin's powers come from commitment to justice and from personal conviction. Yes, their abilities speak of divine, but the thing is that paladins are warriors who have chosen to commit themselves to a specific cause. Their conviction channels divinity from within. Many paladins do worship gods, but they don't have to.

[Naanomi]

As written, Paladin's powers come from commitment to justice and from personal conviction. Yes, their abilities speak of divine, but the thing is that paladins are warriors who have chosen to commit themselves to a specific cause.
Paladins get their power from commitment to an ideal, but not necessarily Justice... Oath of the Crown at the very least (and arguably Oath of the Ancients) speak to other ideals.

Also, from a 'cosmology' perspective they are getting their magic from some divine source or another (their magic is 'divine' magic even though the distinction is pretty meaningless now); though I would imagine their conviction and belief is drawing that power right from the Outer Planes themselves rather than a Power specifically (again, standard cosmology... weather FR or broader Planescape nested)

[Arkhios]

Paladins get their power from commitment to an ideal, but not necessarily Justice... Oath of the Crown at the very least (and arguably Oath of the Ancients) speak to other ideals.

Also, from a 'cosmology' perspective they are getting their magic from some divine source or another (their magic is 'divine' magic even though the distinction is pretty meaningless now); though I would imagine their conviction and belief is drawing that power right from the Outer Planes themselves rather than a Power specifically (again, standard cosmology... weather FR or broader Planescape nested)

Fair enough. But nothing says the divine source is explicitly a god. Which was my point.

[Naanomi]

Fair enough. But nothing says the divine source is explicitly a god. Which was my point.
True. I mean, in the Forgotten Realms setting it probably is a God since it is almost a setting requirement that every character have a personal patron Diety.

Outside of the Realms I think it is most likely a conviction driven connection to the Outer Planes or tapping into your own soul; but the fluff of Oathbreker indicates a Warlock-like source is possible as well (Archfey for Ancients, a few options for Crown); and I could easily see Ancients having a more Druidic connection to the land thing going on

[Arkhios]

I could easily see Ancients having a more Druidic connection to the land thing going on

Heh, funny you should mention it.. my ancients paladin is a sworn Protector of the Circles.

[rican]

A girl in my party had a half-elf dex paladin/bard multiclass. We use standard array so I emailed her asking what her stats were like.

Str 12 +1
Dex 15 +1
Con 13
Int 8
Wis 10
Cha 14 +2

She was planning on bumping str/con at some point, since it would have helped with her shield bashing anyway.

[bid]

A girl in my party had a half-elf dex paladin/bard multiclass. We use standard array so I emailed her asking what her stats were like.

Str 12 +1
Dex 15 +1
Con 13
Int 8
Wis 10
Cha 14 +2

She was planning on bumping str/con at some point, since it would have helped with her shield bashing anyway.
That +1 from reaching Str14 pales compared to expertise. Resilient (Con) is a better IMO.

That's the optimum array for the Str13 paladin requirement, I believe.

[Willie the Duck]

The designers chose a line to draw--Rangers and Monks assumed to be Dex builds, Fighters can choose Str or Dex, Paladins and Barbarians assumed to be Str. We can debate the merits, but they had to draw it somewhere. If they let any of them pick either Str or Dex, I bet someone would be arguing for a return of Knowledge Devotion builds and letting you use your Int instead (I am aware that's not quite how KD worked, but that would be a way to preserve the concept of KD builds).

I deeply suspect that the reason for not allowing Dex as a multiclass req for Paladins (or Str for Rangers) was indeed protecting the iconic image or the respective classes. Unless the designers comment on their logic, all we have is our individual suspicions.

I would say go ahead and make the change, except that--Dex builds seem to be optimal. Pala-bard/sorc/or warlock seems to be the go-to optimal build (although palibard being oft considered the least powerful of those). If the rest of the group is playing land circle druids, 4elements monks, or MAD multiclasses like wizard-cleric, then a Dex palibard who also doesn't need to up their Str to 13 might seem a little too awesome. If you don't have that problem, go ahead is my advice.

[Specter]

I see your point and I concede, maybe I tried to defend my own opinions a bit too hard. But you made a slight mistake there. Paladin isn't favored by a god. Cleric is. Nothing in the paladin's description says they would be favored, or even chosen, by a deity. (Cleric's description, on the other hand, does say exactly that). As written, Paladin's powers come from commitment to justice and from personal conviction. Yes, their abilities speak of divine, but the thing is that paladins are warriors who have chosen to commit themselves to a specific cause. Their conviction channels divinity from within. Many paladins do worship gods, but they don't have to.

Cool, let's run with your idea. Conviction of belief translates into Charisma, by the book, so pallys need CHA, that's fair. But if a dude comes from a lineage of knights who use a sacred rapier as their weapon for whatever reason a la musketeer, does he really need 100 push-ups every day to uphold justice? That's my beef with the intended system.

[Saeviomage]

As written, Multiclass stat minimums prevent organic level progression (no, you can't stop being a wizard, you're too dumb! No, you can't be a reformed rogue who turns paladin, you're too weak!) and their net positive contribution to the game is zero.

They are a poorly designed afterthought. Ditch them.

[Tanarii]

To 'annoy' is a bit unfair, to be honest. Both str for pallies and dex for rangers are more because of the 'class fantasy'. Pallies are generally seen as knights in shining armor, wearing the heaviest of armor, while rangers are more subtle and stealthy warriors.


Because, originally - way before you even could 'point buy' your stats, you had to roll really good to even be able to become a paladin - high dexterity was never a requirement.
While old editions have no sway in 5th edition per se, it's obvious that these origins have a lot to do with the current versions. Paladins above all classes are supposed to use the heaviest of armor. Even fighters don't "have to", as they can opt to have either str or dex 13, when multiclassing, not both.
You can't argue that Paladins are one way due to class fantasy and the also throw in old edition stats stats, when the other class your claiming is that way because class fantasy DOESN'T have the support of old edition stats.

Rangers were a Str stat class in 1e. Not Dex. They added Dex equal to Str in 2e, and Dex because primary for archery Rangers in 3e. Even in 4e Rangers were a Str or Dex class.

And it was 3.5 that changed the ranger from 'warrior' primary archetype with some stealthiness & ambush abilities --> 'skirmisher' archetype with good combat abilities, reversing the Ranger archetype.

All that said, I agree that Str is far more core to the Paladin archetype of 'shining knight'. I'm just pointing out that your argument falls apart for Rangers, so that indicates that 'archetype' + 'history' aren't necessarily solid things to justify why things are a way in D&D, and should remain that way.


Fair enough. But nothing says the divine source is explicitly a god. Which was my point.
It explicitly isn't a god. (Unless a paladin so chooses.)

PHB p82:
A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever the lurk.
... a Paladins power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.

PHB 205, the weave of magic sidebar:
The spells of clerics, Druids, Paladins and rangers are called divine magic. These spell casters' access to the weave is mediated by divine power - gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.