Opinion Requested: Paladin Multiclass

[Auramis]

Hello everyone,

My main character that I play (or at least conceptually, given how seldom we actually play atm in our group) is an Oath of the Ancients Paladin. I was wondering how y'all thought a paladin might do with a dip into the UA Ranger, thematically speaking. I doubt forgoing the capstone for paladin is worth it, given the strength of a paladins 20, but I thought I'd ask just to see.

[agnos]

Is the capstone better than 10+ levels as a more effective multi class? Does Ranger make it more fun to play than a capstone you're unlikely to ever see? Does Ranger fill party holes otherwise lacking?

Imo almost everyone should multiclass for a 1-4 level dip. Generally speaking, it gives more options in how to play the character (mechanically and thematically) while providing a significantly stronger 5-15 build. It's not for some builds or themes though.

That said, I think I'm in the minority that thinks 1-2 level dips should be taken before 5. Bards, Wizards, Sorcerors, and druids often get huge bonuses from a level of Cleric. Rogues and Monks gain a bunch from an early Fighter 2/Sorceror 1/Warlock 2 dip. Paladin/EK/Ranger can gain a ton from various dips. 5e is great about giving good mix and match options. There are so many viable options that if it mechanically isn't bung then you can do it and be fine.

[Arkhios]

Certainly not the most optimal thing to do, but screw optimizing!
If I had the stats to do it (without messing with standard multiclassing requirements), I'd probably take either 2, 3, or 4 levels of ranger over the course of 20 levels total.

With 2 ranger levels you'd only sacrifice one ASI and the capstone, but get in return the improved version of Favored Enemy, advantage on initiative which is always nice, second Fighting Style and a few of ranger's spells.
(Edit: if you were a sword & boarder and took the Dueling Style, the combination would effectively net you a +4 to damage rolls against a favored enemy, which is pretty damn good, and along with Hunter's Mark and Improved Divine Smite the damage would certainly be awesome)

With 3rd level, you'd lose aura improvements, one level of spellcasting (depending how you read the multiclassing rules for that), but would get to choose a conclave. I'd probably take Hunter because I think that the beast's hit dice won't scale with character level, while the rest would. (I hope it would though)

With 4th level, you'd lose 5th level spells from Paladin, but not any slots, and you'd get one more ASI.

All that considered, 2 levels dip would be the best in my opinion as the aura improvement is just too good to pass, and there are more pros than cons with this dip. Imho, fighting style and advantage on all initiative checks is worth one ASI.

Statwise I should think that leave dexterity and wisdom to 13-14, and focus on strength and charisma (in that order), as these are more important to a primary paladin. As paladin you have access to heavy armors and thus have an easier chance of getting high AC at the expense of stealth disadvantage only. Also, since ranger gets a fixed amount of (always known) spells, you don't need wisdom that much. Especially if you pick spells that don't depend on saves and spell attacks, and if I recall, ranger's don't have too many of those.

[djreynolds]

You can use both, you just have to focus on the spells you find most powerful. I think the ranger spells are more potent, but there are a few paladin spells which are good as well.

So you have to set your wisdom or charisma at 13. This will help you decide which class to focus on more in the build.

I would probably focus on melee, a bow is nice since you have no cantrips, but with some ranger spells they work well with thrown weapons... hence increasing your wisdom at the expense of the paladin's save bonus and spells like hold person and banishment, both are very good spells to have.

Its the same issue if you had wizard/sorcerer... which stat do you increase?

I think you could go paladin/barbarian or paladin/fighter and get more out of it.

[Sans.]

Problem is Arkhios, no one actually gets to level 20.

[Arkhios]

Problem is Arkhios, no one actually gets to level 20.

You don't know that. It's just a bitter assumption deduced from how far people commonly get. Even so, it's not the rules' fault. The real culprits are the DM's who refuse to run their game that far for whatever reasons.

But, in my previous post I didn't exactly specify at which character levels you should take the ranger levels. Even if I did specify it, taking n levels of ranger means you'll lose n levels of Paladin in the process, regardless of the "actual" level cap. It doesn't matter whether I took those 2 levels after 6th paladin level or after 18th character level, if we could reach 20th level, the few paladin levels would already be lost, no matter what. The further you multiclass into ranger, the more you lose as a paladin. 2 levels dip gets you the most benefit compared to the potential losses.

[Sans.]

You don't know that. It's just a bitter assumption deduced from how far people commonly get. Even so, it's not the rules' fault. The real culprits are the DM's who refuse to run their game that far for whatever reasons.

But, in my previous post I didn't exactly specify at which character levels you should take the ranger levels. Even if I did specify it, taking n levels of ranger means you'll lose n levels of Paladin in the process, regardless of the "actual" level cap. It doesn't matter whether I took those 2 levels after 6th paladin level or after 18th character level, if we could reach 20th level, the few paladin levels would already be lost, no matter what. The further you multiclass into ranger, the more you lose as a paladin. 2 levels dip gets you the most benefit compared to the potential losses.

I never blamed anyone for the problem; I merely wrote a statement that is commonly true. My point is that you talking about 'losing' the paladin features is not actually that useful, since not many people will be able to apply it. In fact, who's to say that they won't just continue past level 20, taking 18 levels in Paladin, 4 levels in ranger and 2 in fighter?

Anyway, my answer to the actual question is you should probably go 2, 6 or 7 levels in Paladin, then go ranger 3? And then turn back to paladin for a bit.

[Specter]

Are you focusing on STR or DEX? First of all, ask your DM if he could wave the multiclassing prerequisite of either STR or DEX. This is mostly a fluff distinction created by the developers that serves nothing at all. Also don't worry about Wisdom too much, you can take spells without attacks or saves easily.

That being said, 4 Ranger levels can't hurt a Paladin. You get advantage on initiative rolls, +2dmg to one enemy (undead comes to mind), one skill, Hunter's Mark, and an ASI. The rest depends on archetype.

Hunter: 1d8dmg per turn or a situational extra attack without expending any resource. Nuff said.
Beastmaster: Another party member. Granted it will be much weaker due to the low HP, but hey, damage is damage.
Deep Stalker: Another attack at the first round of combat, darkvision, hiding perks and Disguise Self.

As far as progressions go, you need to know:
1) How far will this campaign go? Most DMs can give you an answer, especially with published modules. If you're playing CoS, for instance, Pal7/Rgr3 works better than Pal10, but that's just me.
2) How soon do you want good Ranger features? Most people think of capstones without realizing how much crap they have to wade through just to get there (looking at you, Cleansing Touch).

[Sigreid]

Only you can really answer this question because the effect on your power level doesn't really matter. A 2-3 level dip isn't going to make you useless as a paladin. The only thing that really matters is do you think it's adding flavor and abilities the the character that will make him more fun for you (and hopefully the group) at the table? I mean thematically it does match well with the nature's defender vibe, but are the ranger abilities going to fit into the character's play-style well and let you do things that match with his personality and combat style that you struggle with as a pure paladin?

[djreynolds]

Hello everyone,

My main character that I play (or at least conceptually, given how seldom we actually play atm in our group) is an Oath of the Ancients Paladin. I was wondering how y'all thought a paladin might do with a dip into the UA Ranger, thematically speaking. I doubt forgoing the capstone for paladin is worth it, given the strength of a paladins 20, but I thought I'd ask just to see.

A revised ranger and paladin in CoS, would be worth it even for 10 levels.

Could go even 8 paladin and 2 ranger, or 6 paladin and 4 ranger

Even if you went 6 ranger and only 4 paladin. Protection from evil in this campaign is worth it and will at least cover you. I know 6 paladin is the golden standard, but protection from evil will at least cover you from Strahd's magic.
I think the +4 damage to all favored enemies, undead and fiends/aberrations would go far

You could definitely fight TWF in the game or go S&B.

[Spore]

I was wondering how y'all thought a paladin might do with a dip into the UA Ranger, thematically speaking..

Emphasisize mine. How is your Paladin even flavored? Does he protect nature? Then Ranger (or Druid) might be good although I prefer Magic Initiate Druid then. Is it a Fey Knight? Then maybe a Feylock is more worthwhile. Does he just protect a human settlement in the wilds. Then even Fighter is okay to keep the martial versatility but play down the mystical aspect. Does he simply just love Life? Why not a Life Cleric then (along with Goodberry via Magic Initiate)?

There are several ways to make the crunch fit the flavor. But you seem to have a certain flavor in mind and I don't give two cents about the flavor descriptions made in the PHB. Stay close to a theme and construct your character around it.