The Paladin: An Argument That It Is Poorly Designed

[gfishfunk]

The Paladin is both fun and effective, and it is not particularly overpowered. Like all classes, it has its powerful features, less powerful features, and puffs of fluff. I am currently playing one right now and I am enjoying it immensely. My complaints are like that of driving a nice sports car - well, yes its nice, but...

My Point:
Lay on Hands is a Swiss Army Knife: I find it incredibly odd that it is a straight pool of HP that can just be pushed into a player rather than, say a pool of d6s (1 per level) to give it that D&D feel. Additionally, the ability to remove disease or poison effectively removes long-running diseases or poisons as a viable long-term threat very early in the level progression. They are okay for in-battle immediate threats, but not for dramatic 'The king has been poisoned/has a rare disease! We need to find an antidote/cure!' type of things. You can achieve the same thing with a curse, I suppose, but that is a lot to move off the table as of level 1. Bring that ability in at level 6.

Smiting Provides Too Much Burst. It was designed to, I get that. Still, it can be layered with Divine Favor / Hunter's Mark / searing Smite Spell and added after-the-fact when you get a critical hit to really-really burst. Most enemies are not designed to withstand that sort of thing, and it can trivialize encounters meant to be difficult because a level 6 Paladin casts Hunter's Mark, hits twice, and burns two lvl 2 at-will smites to just pour on the damage. Its both cool and infuriating. Personally, I think its undesirable--I don't mind spikes, but I would like them to be smaller and more numerous. I think this hinges on the design of smite itself, since it applies after a hit. Making it into a bonus action that requires concentration would even that out a bit, and it would not be able to be layered with other concentration effects.

At-Will Smiting v. Spell Smiting: Smiting works two ways: bonus action spells with concentration and at-will after-attack smites. This is a bit more complex:
- At-Will Smite damage is better than bonus action Smite spells that require concentration. While the auxiliary affect are helpful, not enough to span the damage. The smite spells are generally 1d6 + effect, while the smite is 2d8 straight up on a hit.
- An at-will smite always hits because it is triggered after a hit. Bonus action smite spells are concentration-based until the paladin hits with an attack, potentially lost through a concentration save fail (it happens sometimes, even after level 6), and the effect can be lost due to an enemy save.
Solution? Solution is probably the wrong word, as it implies a problem.
a. Make smite spells do slightly more damage (d6+Cha, or d8) and at-will smites less (d6s), taxing the at-will damage.
b. Make all smites at-will, or make all smites bonus action spells with concentration. If all are at-will, provide smite effects as a build choice, or maybe as an Oath feature. If all smites are spell damage, keep all smite spells as is. Done. I would prefer rolling it into spells, personally, as it would cut down on multi-class abuse, in-so-far as that is actually a thing or a worry.

Divine Sense + Lay on Hands Make Poor Level 1 Abilities, and this is not just a criticism on Paladin, but Ranger too (not UA, which is better imo). Every other class has something functional that feels like the class at level 1. Multi-class abuse is always a consideration, but I think my adjustments to smiting would take care of that anyway. The paladin doesn't need anything to be useful, but I think it needs something to feel like a pally. But that is tricky - they are half-casters, so you cannot give them divine smite at level 1. I think I would give them a 10' radius buff instead, as that gets to be their shtick at level 6+. Maybe something that grants allies a defensive reaction or +5 ft movement, something small and worthwhile.

What the Class Does Really Well: to be fair.
- The spells are decently diverse in terms of casting requirements. A lot are purely verbal, great for a divine fury of 2-H weapon shenanigans of sword and board mayhem. Also, there are some good spells that require a hand free or war caster -- that is good design, and it forces choices.
- The Oath features are all equally well-balanced against each other, for the most part.
- The Auras are a neat thing, and they are so powerful that they really begin to define the class. I think this can actually be expanded and specialized, maybe as the key feature of the class.

Response to Counterpoints:
If its fun, why talk trash about it? Because I love to tinker? Because I enjoy difficult choices at every stage of the game: character creation, mechanical conception, spell progression, spell preparation, and actual use of mechanics. Some people do not want too many choices -- it gets confusing. However, character creation is a part of the game, a fun part. Its fun to have mechanical choices that are meaningful.
Classes Should Not All Work The Same. And that is not what this is about. This is all internal mechanics. That being said, I think we could build more choices into creation itself, and make far fewer features mandatory over every class. That is a story for another time.

[Matticusrex]

Paladins are the power-level that all non casters should be at. Any martial weaker than paladin needs a boost.

[Sigreid]

So I'm only going to comment on Lay on Hands and Detect Evil abilities.

Lay on hands works pretty close to the way it always has. I don't remember the HP total it let you push in AD&D, but it's always been a pool you dip into (except maybe 4e, I wouldn't know). If I remember right it's even always been 5hp to cure a disease.

Divine Sens used to be a straight up detect evil that let them sense anything or anyone that was evil within 60'. It's pretty iconic for the class, but has been toned down a lot.

[Foxhound438]

Most of what you say is that paladin is very strong, even too strong


This satisfies me :D

[Monavic]

I agree with all your points. The cure poison/disease bothered me at level one also. It takes away a lot of cool plot devices and in return it makes the paladin feel useful but not in a dramatic way. Also letting smite be declared after the hit makes it seem like an after thought and not the character drawing on divine grace to empower his strike. Makes it so smites never miss at all, its like the paladin points at his enemy and the wound he just inflicted flares with radiant energy. That being said I am still ok with the current paladin and don't plan to change anything right away.

[Spiritchaser]

I wouldn't change anything.

That having been said, while I wouldn't change them, I do see the argument that divine smites are less fun because they are actionless and reactive, and that making them planned (must state before the attack) would require a small boost which would be tricky to balance, and which would be even closer to smite spells which are seldom worthwhile as they consume one's concentration slot, which is a very prescious resource. There probably is room to tweak this to reward foresight and planning without making a monster.

Again, I wouldn't change it. I think the Paladin is great as it is, and like the monk it's an aspirational balance point for all martials/part casters that are added.

[Specter]

So, definitely overpowered?

Well, I would definitely change a few things:
- Divine Smite has to be announced before the attack roll. It's just the lamest thing to see a player waiting for a crit to smite. Just say, "for Heironeous!" and let it rip.
- Aura of Courage doesn't make allies immune to fear, it just gives them advantage on those saves.

Byt that's just me.

[StoicLeaf]

Counterpoints!

LoH issues:
eh, DM that. The poison is now magically enhanced and cannot be removed by trivial means (and in a high fantasy setting, asking the local cleric to pop by and cast lesser restoration *is* trivial).

Smiting issues:
eh, DM that. 5e isn't designed around having 1 boss monster take on the party. 5e isn't designed around adventurer's reaching the boss at full strength. Make em spend resources early on. If they don't want to, then they die. In regards to smite options; never played a paladin so I don't have a feel for it.

[hymer]

I don't remember the HP total it let you push in AD&D

2hp per lvl in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. It becomes cha mod times class level in 3.X, while Pathfinder had it be more in line with OP's suggestion of using d6s.

[djreynolds]

Of all the martial classes, IMO, the paladin might be the guy or gal left standing at the end of the fight.

The are designed to be a leader at the forefront. Their auras are so powerful.

How many times has everyone been counting squares to the paladin and fighting with the DM that they are with 10ft or 30ft? +5 to saves. And aura of courage and aura of devotion.

They smite post roll and have 2 attacks and at 11th improved divine smite, I think 4 creatures have resistance to radiant damage.

And with resilient con, and charisma and wisdom saves... they are very sticky as a tank. And with a 20 in strength and charisma +10 save in strength anyhow, even without resilient con with a 14 in con and aura of protection, +7 saves.

Lay on hands is awesome

They prepare spells and the domain spells are awesome

IMO, they are the best overall class maybe second to a well made lore bard.

I will take sacred devotion, the bless spell and GWM or PAM over reckless attack any day of the weak.

Now if you said only fighters and rangers of certain levels could use certain feats... who knows

[gfishfunk]

Paladins are the power-level that all non casters should be at. Any martial weaker than paladin needs a boost.

Not at all what I'm talking about. Power levels do not concern me. I just want the jigsaw pieces that make paladin to for together better.


So I'm only going to comment on Lay on Hands and Detect Evil abilities.

Lay on hands works pretty close to the way it always has. I don't remember the HP total it let you push in AD&D, but it's always been a pool you dip into (except maybe 4e, I wouldn't know). If I remember right it's even always been 5hp to cure a disease.

Divine Sens used to be a straight up detect evil that let them sense anything or anyone that was evil within 60'. It's pretty iconic for the class, but has been toned down a lot.

While they are traditional, I think level 1 should give something substantial mechanically. Something you will use a lot. Neither divine sense nor last on hands provide that -imo.


Most of what you say is that paladin is very strong, even too strong


This satisfies me :D

Not interested in strength, interested in how the class fits together.

[gfishfunk]

I agree with all your points. . . . That being said I am still ok with the current paladin and don't plan to change anything right away.

I'm actually considering adding DM to remove at-will smites, but up the damage on the initial hit of spell damages by one dive size. I think that will make all d6 go to d8. And not 2d8, just 1d8.



That having been said, while I wouldn't change them, I do see the argument that divine smites are less fun because they are actionless and reactive, and that making them planned (must state before the attack) would require a small boost which would be tricky to balance, and which would be even closer to smite spells which are seldom worthwhile as they consume one's concentration slot, which is a very prescious resource.

Dang, I had not even considered that.

Currently, I use Bane and Divine Favor. I have not yet used Bless, actually.


So, definitely overpowered?

Well, I would definitely change a few things:
- Divine Smite has to be announced before the attack roll. It's just the lamest thing to see a player waiting for a crit to smite. Just say, "for Heironeous!" and let it rip.
- Aura of Courage doesn't make allies immune to fear, it just gives them advantage on those saves.

Byt that's just me.

Good point on the aura of courage. I actually like the idea of picking aura, having two or three possibly aura effects at any time.

[gfishfunk]

LoH issues:
eh, DM that. The poison is now magically enhanced and cannot be removed by trivial means (and in a high fantasy setting, asking the local cleric to pop by and cast lesser restoration *is* trivial).

Smiting issues:
eh, DM that. 5e isn't designed around having 1 boss monster take on the party. 5e isn't designed around adventurer's reaching the boss at full strength. Make em spend resources early on. If they don't want to, then they die. In regards to smite options; never played a paladin so I don't have a feel for it.

I agree on both points. That being said, running a paladin and knowing I've got a big fight coming up, I'll save those spell slots and just let loose on the boss. And that isn't as fun for either side: boss or player.

Having a more streamlined approach would provide incentives to use spells/spell slots throughout the encounter day rather than all at once.


2hp per lvl in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. It becomes cha mod times class level in 3.X, while Pathfinder had it be more in line with OP's suggestion of using d6s.

The thing with using d6s is that it requires just that extra step of rolling, adding, etc that adds a little more interaction. Also, by being less exact, the Player must choose how much is assigned in terms of variable resources, which add additional tension and swing.


. . . .

IMO, they are the best overall class maybe second to a well made lore bard.

Acknowledged- they are solid as a PC. I am not comparing them to others, though, just looking at how the pieces could internally fit together better.

[Spiritchaser]

I'm actually considering adding DM to remove at-will smites, but up the damage on the initial hit of spell damages by one dive size. I think that will make all d6 go to d8. And not 2d8, just 1d8.


I think that this would be a rather significant reduction in power, yes even with the die increase... something that I certainly wouldn't do. Again, I think paladins, as well as monks are well enough balanced against full casters, even at high level. I'd look to them as evidence that yes, it can be done, and should be done elsewhere.

I wouldn't limit a Paladin smiting power unless I have them compensation. In sure that it's possible...

[Potato_Priest]

Personally, I think he paladin feels right. The paladin walks up to a demon, crits, and yells "DIVINE SMITE!" and gets to feel good rolling a whole fistful of d8s. I don't think it would be nearly as flavorful if smiting just gave you 1 extra d8, or a measly 2 on a crit.

If you don't like smiting after a hit, then you could just have the player declare a smite before they attack, but without having it consume concentration. It's a mild change in power, but it will lead to more saving of smites for the boss.

[Potato_Priest]

I agree on both points. That being said, running a paladin and knowing I've got a big fight coming up, I'll save those spell slots and just let loose on the boss. And that isn't as fun for either side: boss or player.

Having a more streamlined approach would provide incentives to use spells/spell slots throughout the encounter day rather than all at once.


There is an incentive: critical hits. When you score a crit fighting some lame Minotaur minion with its turn coming up in the initiative, you might want to spend that spell slot, since you receive double the value that you normally would, and it will save you a few HP in the long run.

[Nifft]

IMHO the Paladin class is pretty well-designed.

It's got good utility as a dip, but it's also great when you go all the way to 20th level.

I feel like there were some poor design choices in their spell list -- particularly the Smite spells, which are really hit-or-miss, and which don't synergize especially well with their Diving Smite mechanic.

[Sigreid]

While they are traditional, I think level 1 should give something substantial mechanically. Something you will use a lot. Neither divine sense nor last on hands provide that -imo.


I strongly disagree with Lay on Hands. At 1st level 5 HP once per day is huge. Divine sense, I think is a ribbon, there to emphasis the paladin as a hunter of evil guided by unseen powers to recognize the enemy when he sees it.

All in all, I just disagree with your basic premise that it doesn't all fit together well and logically. Reasonable people can differ though, so I leave you to your thread.

[toapat]

All in all, I just disagree with your basic premise that it doesn't all fit together well and logically. Reasonable people can differ though, so I leave you to your thread.

paladin does fit together well (unlike in 3.5 where trading classfeatures carefully became so important that you could double, triple, or octuple your power from the class). the only real problem is that the spell list is balanced against the non-fullcasters, which as a result completely invalidates the natural Resource-Investment-Conflict balance for Divine Smite. the Smite spells themselves are fine if you use the errata'd damage, but because you never need to involve yourself in that investment-conflict because it is rare that they Can solve a problem outside of the base class' conflict range.

[MrStabby]

The Paladin is both fun and effective, and it is not particularly overpowered. Like all classes, it has its powerful features, less powerful features, and puffs of fluff. I am currently playing one right now and I am enjoying it immensely. My complaints are like that of driving a nice sports car - well, yes its nice, but...

My Point:
Lay on Hands is a Swiss Army Knife: I find it incredibly odd that it is a straight pool of HP that can just be pushed into a player rather than, say a pool of d6s (1 per level) to give it that D&D feel. Additionally, the ability to remove disease or poison effectively removes long-running diseases or poisons as a viable long-term threat very early in the level progression. They are okay for in-battle immediate threats, but not for dramatic 'The king has been poisoned/has a rare disease! We need to find an antidote/cure!' type of things. You can achieve the same thing with a curse, I suppose, but that is a lot to move off the table as of level 1. Bring that ability in at level 6.

Smiting Provides Too Much Burst. It was designed to, I get that. Still, it can be layered with Divine Favor / Hunter's Mark / searing Smite Spell and added after-the-fact when you get a critical hit to really-really burst. Most enemies are not designed to withstand that sort of thing, and it can trivialize encounters meant to be difficult because a level 6 Paladin casts Hunter's Mark, hits twice, and burns two lvl 2 at-will smites to just pour on the damage. Its both cool and infuriating. Personally, I think its undesirable--I don't mind spikes, but I would like them to be smaller and more numerous. I think this hinges on the design of smite itself, since it applies after a hit. Making it into a bonus action that requires concentration would even that out a bit, and it would not be able to be layered with other concentration effects.

At-Will Smiting v. Spell Smiting: Smiting works two ways: bonus action spells with concentration and at-will after-attack smites. This is a bit more complex:
- At-Will Smite damage is better than bonus action Smite spells that require concentration. While the auxiliary affect are helpful, not enough to span the damage. The smite spells are generally 1d6 + effect, while the smite is 2d8 straight up on a hit.
- An at-will smite always hits because it is triggered after a hit. Bonus action smite spells are concentration-based until the paladin hits with an attack, potentially lost through a concentration save fail (it happens sometimes, even after level 6), and the effect can be lost due to an enemy save.
Solution? Solution is probably the wrong word, as it implies a problem.
a. Make smite spells do slightly more damage (d6+Cha, or d8) and at-will smites less (d6s), taxing the at-will damage.
b. Make all smites at-will, or make all smites bonus action spells with concentration. If all are at-will, provide smite effects as a build choice, or maybe as an Oath feature. If all smites are spell damage, keep all smite spells as is. Done. I would prefer rolling it into spells, personally, as it would cut down on multi-class abuse, in-so-far as that is actually a thing or a worry.

Divine Sense + Lay on Hands Make Poor Level 1 Abilities, and this is not just a criticism on Paladin, but Ranger too (not UA, which is better imo). Every other class has something functional that feels like the class at level 1. Multi-class abuse is always a consideration, but I think my adjustments to smiting would take care of that anyway. The paladin doesn't need anything to be useful, but I think it needs something to feel like a pally. But that is tricky - they are half-casters, so you cannot give them divine smite at level 1. I think I would give them a 10' radius buff instead, as that gets to be their shtick at level 6+. Maybe something that grants allies a defensive reaction or +5 ft movement, something small and worthwhile.

What the Class Does Really Well: to be fair.
- The spells are decently diverse in terms of casting requirements. A lot are purely verbal, great for a divine fury of 2-H weapon shenanigans of sword and board mayhem. Also, there are some good spells that require a hand free or war caster -- that is good design, and it forces choices.
- The Oath features are all equally well-balanced against each other, for the most part.
- The Auras are a neat thing, and they are so powerful that they really begin to define the class. I think this can actually be expanded and specialized, maybe as the key feature of the class.



I generally agree with much of this - however a few additional points (not disagreements) if I may...

The paladin is both a great designed class and a badly designed class. I don't want to talk about the bad without mentioning all the good in the class as well. However, the other issues:

Prepared spellcasting vs spells known. I would have prefered a spells known class. The ability to customise further would relly help to bring out the themes of your paladin and how you play it. Do you pull out smite spells? If so, what kind of smiter are you? Do you do fire smites or thunder smites? Are you a support paladin packing bless in every fight. If balance were to be dragged in, it could be mentioned that this could provide the space to boost the smite spells. There was an opportunity missed to help stop all paladins being so mechanically similar.

Auras are a dull mechanic. Passive abilities are not by themselves bad - even if uninteresting. The problem with the Paladin ones is that they become such a feature of the class. They are big important abilities - big features that you get no choice over, no control over that are just passive. Also as they work for everyone they don't seem so personal. These are abilities that don't set you aside from the guy stood next to you. I would compare these with passive abilities like the monk speed increase. I think this is a better designed ability - it is weaker, so it lets the designers load more of the class power onto abilities that are interactive and fun to use, it lets you do things that are visibly different from the people around you and it is also a real change. Adjusting saving throws is equivalent to the DM just lowering DCs. You could equally imagine he did that and there was no ability there at all. Equally well any other player could imagine that they had the ability as well but that the DCs the DM used were higher. The archetype auras are a bit better though.

I would go further with the lay-on-hands ability. I think that HP healing is fine but poisons and diseases should probably remain with the cleric/druid - they should keep something to set them apart in this regard.

[Sception]

Both divine smite and the smite spells should use bonus actions, but neither should eat concentration. Make all smites, both the feature and the spells, bonus actions that can only target enemies you hit with a weapon attack on your turn. Tones down the spike damage significantly, avoids the concentration issue (none of them are really worth the concentration slot, I have a hard time imagining a single use, one time smiting effectthat would be), encourages spreading out spell use a bit more through the day since the paladin can't just save up an entire day's worth of spells and dump them into damage on a single turn's worth of attacks.

I also wouldn't mind moving the cure diseases option from lay on hands to a higher level, say 9 or 10 or so, and making the immunity auras (aura of courage, the tyrant's anti-charm aura) advantage auras instead. Outright immunity isn't usually the best design choice.

[MeeposFire]

I only have 2 major problems with the paladins.

1. N0 cantrips. Some people seem to like this I hate it. I don't need attack cantrips but a few of the more interesting utility cantrips seem like they fit and it still seems weird that full casters and 1/3 casters get them but 1/2 casters do not (and no your attempt at rationalizing will not change my mind on this I have heard them all and I still think it is dumb).

2. Smites use spell slots. I dislike this part of the mechanic. I do not mind the number of uses it makes or how the damage racks up but due to this mechanic paladins so often do not get to feel as casters at all which I really miss but if I do cast spells then I really reduce my ability to put out needed damage. Probably would give them a number of "smite" points that are equal to 1/2 casting with a max on points spent that would keep things the same as before.


As for those thinking about changing smite you really need to consider that forcing them to call a smite before you know if you hit means they probably need more smiting potential since misses happen enough in 5e that you would lose your slots with too little effect. It would REALLY hurt the class. If you dislike them saving it only fro crits why no just make it a set number instead of dice? Then there is no benefit to saving it for a crit. IF doing this you might want to make the damage 6 per die you would have rolled (I think it should be slightly higher than normal since you are giving up bonus dice on a crit for this). Alternatively what you could do is force them to declare whether they are using a smite but the spell slot is not consumed unless the attack hits (you prime your weapon but do not actually fully use the smite unless you strike true). Makes you play a swingier game without making the paladin stretch its resources so far without recompense.

[DracoKnight]

I'm with Meepos on the cantrips.

How my DM stops crit-fishing paladins: you declare that you're smiting before you roll, but the spell slot isn't expended unless you hit. Problem solved.

[Waazraath]

Cantrips: agreed, it's weird, and letting them have 2 or 3 from a limited list wouldn't have broken anything. But not too strong ones should be on it imo, stuff like light and spare the dying. No mage hand, guidance or minor illusion.

Lay on hands/lvl 1 abilities: LoH is fine as a level 1 abilities, part of the paladin is the 'healer' role, that's what you get at lvl 1, together with being a good combatant (martial weapons/ all armors and shields). (I also think ranger is fine, with the extra skill btw). Have no problem with the ability to cure disease or poison; could have been given at a later level, no worries, but as somebody else mentioned, a DM can work around this when needed. As for the 'divine sense', it'll be mostly useless at the low levels. It can mostly be used in 5e to detect disguised undead/fiends, which you probably won't encounter til much later. But it was a signature ability in earlier edition, I understand that it is given and that the ability was nerfed from 3.x (amazingly how few people realized how powerful an at will x-ray ability was!). Anyway, the pally feels really like a pally to me, also at level 1.

Smites: I like a lot how they are done this edition. It gives me as a player a lot of rescource management to do: burst with smites, nova burst with spell simte and other smite, or save them and use my concentration in another way. I don't think the damage is overpowered or too much, also on criticals. THis contributes to the rescource management game: will you smite an underling on a crit, when you might need the spell slot later on?

I'm really happy with it as it is. Some choices might been made in another way by the developers, but 'poorly designed' really isn't on the table as far as I'm concerned.

[KorvinStarmast]

f level 1. Bring that ability in at level 6.

Smiting Provides Too Much Burst.

No, it doesn't, if you remember that the design model is 6-8 encounters per day. If you only have one or two encounters per day, yeah, it's extra bursty. If you have to engage in actual resource decisions, no, it isn't too bursty but it provides a nice burst now and again.

The Paladin is IMO well balanced and versatile.

[Arkhios]

I really don't see the problem with Divine Smite. Yes, there's an incentive for Criticals, but how often do you assume a paladin (without any levels in Champion) will crit, on average? It's a plain 5℅ chance, regardless of your attack bonus.

On the other hand, so what if paladin burns through their very few precious spell slots with every hit as a smite. Once they've done that, their batteries have run out for a looooong time (until long rest) and won't be able to smite nor cast spells. What's left after that? Yes, they have auras. Yes, they have Lay on Hands, limited amount per long rest. Yes, they have Channel Divinity... Once per rest ("yay").

Beyond that, paladin without spell slots is just a glorified fighter.

[Zanthy1]

Counterpoints!

LoH issues:
eh, DM that. The poison is now magically enhanced and cannot be removed by trivial means (and in a high fantasy setting, asking the local cleric to pop by and cast lesser restoration *is* trivial).

Smiting issues:
eh, DM that. 5e isn't designed around having 1 boss monster take on the party. 5e isn't designed around adventurer's reaching the boss at full strength. Make em spend resources early on. If they don't want to, then they die. In regards to smite options; never played a paladin so I don't have a feel for it.

Did this exact same thing. If it is a plot specific poison/disease, then the lay on hands won't work, or will only partially work (fixing one symptom but not all).

As for the attrition aspect, I am still working on getting that going. I am so used to allowing my players to rest that they threw a fit when I ran a single dungeon with them and didn't permit a long rest. However I still work to keep the time between long rests active. One thing that I will explain to them next time is "how can you expect to spend 8 hours sleeping in the middle of a dungeon?" Like that just doesn't work for me.

[Sception]

The issue with smite's burst damage is not total damage over the day, but rather the amount of resources that can be compressed into a single round, which encourages paladins to basically just never cast spells and then blow their entire daily resource budget on a single round of attacks. It's not that this is unfair in the aggregate, but it does threaten to trivialize cool encounters while making simple resource sinks more slogging and time consuming than they need to be. Limiting smiting to 1/round (possibly by having the normal smite eat a bonus action) cuts slightly into the paladin's overall damage output (more so for paladins with bonus action attacks), perhaps enough to warrant a slight increase in the damage dealt, but by forcing that damage out into multiple rounds it both prevents the paladin from one shotting bosses and gives them a reason to spread their abilities out over the course of the day, since they can't burn a whole day's worth of resources in just one or two rounds during a critical single encounter.

Alternatively, make the regular divine smite a 1/encounter ability, possibly granted at fist level, with scaling damage, that doesn't use spell slots at all. Possibly a class-shared channel divinity, re-working the various oaths to grant only a single unique channel divinity of their own, and maybe moving choice of oath and the channel divinity powers to first level. I mean, warlocks get to make a key sub-build choice at first level, that doesn't have to be a third level thing. And having the paladin start the game with channel divinity and a code of conduct they have to follow would do a lot to make them feel more paladiny from the get go.


..........................................


I also agree on the cantrips. None of the big ticket items, sure - no guidance or minor illusion; no scag attacks or eldritch blast or vicious mockery or shillelagh. But maybe sacred flame for a weakish but usable ranged attack, spare the dying to fit with their healing theme, that sort of thing. You could grant them at level one, so that you've got some minor caster feel at first level (and so that variant human paladins can pick up warcaster as their bonus feat).

Like, here:

Paladin Cantrips: choose 2 at first level, plus 1 at 10th, from the list:
- Blade Ward
- Light
- Mending
- Sacred Flame
- Spare the Dying
- True Strike
- Thaumaturgy

Same for Rangers, except:
- Dancing Lights
- Druidcraft
- Friends
- Mending
- Message
- Thorn Whip
- True Strike

[Arkhios]

Personally, I think people complaining/arguing that paladin is poorly designed are making the issue seem bigger than it is.

[Sception]

I agree with that. I don't think the paladin is poorly designed overall. If anything, it's my favorite class this edition. I just think it could be a bit better designed is all.

[Saeviomage]

I strongly disagree with Lay on Hands. At 1st level 5 HP once per day is huge. Divine sense, I think is a ribbon, there to emphasis the paladin as a hunter of evil guided by unseen powers to recognize the enemy when he sees it.

Fighters get a fighting style PLUS 6.5 hitpoints of healing. Most divine casters could pop out 2 cure wounds spells, for 5.5 each.

It feels weak. The main benefit is if you split it into 5 1 point heals... but then you're spending your action to heal 1 point.

TBH, I don't think it's a massive deal, but it does feel underwhelming to be a 1st level paladin. Personally I think you could cover it simply by changing the ribbon: remove the per-day limit on it. Now a 1st level paladin is the guy who detects undead and demon threats. As is, he's the guy who uses his limited use ability at the wrong time and gets no mileage out of it.

As for the smite spells vs smite ability? I agree that it might be nicer if the smite ability had a per round limit (ie - once per round). To make up for that, change the smite spells so that they function in a similar manner to it (no pre-cast, just use them in place of your smite for the round).

[toapat]

Personally, I think people complaining/arguing that paladin is poorly designed are making the issue seem bigger than it is.


I agree with that. I don't think the paladin is poorly designed overall. If anything, it's my favorite class this edition. I just think it could be a bit better designed is all.

this, the Paladin is designed perfectly fine within the considerations of the system and to the Class type its designed to. Could it be better? yes, but paladin wasnt designed to be able to achieve both the strengths of the fullcasters and the physical combatants. the core design problem of paladin is also the design problem which stops it from being overpowered, because paladins cant potentially solve every problem. they arent intended to anyway.

I had actually been considering a way to extend the lifespan of LoH in a day by allowing it to burn spell slots like smite while also reworking the spell list so that it focuses much more on utility

[gfishfunk]

I really don't want to change the action economy or disunited smiting from spell slots, I just want to put all smites on the at-will side or all smites on the spell side.

Also, not complaining. Just considering.

The idea is not to give the paladin more versatility but to streamline the smiting.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree with that. I don't think the paladin is poorly designed overall. If anything, it's my favorite class this edition. I just think it could be a bit better designed is all. Other classes need more work. Ranger could still use some love, and IMO Sorcerer Wild Mage could use a tweak.

[toapat]

I really don't want to change the action economy or disunited smiting from spell slots, I just want to put all smites on the at-will side or all smites on the spell side.

Also, not complaining. Just considering.

The idea is not to give the paladin more versatility but to streamline the smiting.

Again, thats completely pointless and either detrimental or overpowered, expecially with the patched smite spells which are higher damage per slot than the at will smiting.

[Vogonjeltz]

Lay on Hands is a Swiss Army Knife:

Smiting Provides Too Much Burst.

At-Will Smiting v. Spell Smiting:

Divine Sense + Lay on Hands Make Poor Level 1 Abilities

Counterpoints:

Lay of Hands has always been thus, and always been a class defining feature of Paladins. It's iconic and part of the bonus for playing a class that has some built-in limitations from the class identity. Paladins used to remove disease/poison as distinct features, putting it all together this way is smarter and makes the single benefit feel more worthy of a class feature.

The burst damage is acceptable given the much lower sustained dpr. There's also the fairly high cost of spending long rest abilities.

I don't see the point behind the Smite vs Smite Spells quibble. Smite spells deliberately do less damage because they carry rider effects. It would imbalance the spells if they both dealt the same damage as a Smite AND put a rider on the target.

Lastly, the two abilities granted are both unique AND iconic. They are excellent level 1 abilities. Lay on Hands necessarily must provide less healing than, as a comparison, Second Wind, because it is far more versatile able to be used on anyone or able to remove a poison or disease, whereas Second Wind is self only and hit points only.


LoH issues:
eh, DM that. The poison is now magically enhanced and cannot be removed by trivial means (and in a high fantasy setting, asking the local cleric to pop by and cast lesser restoration *is* trivial).

LoH doesn't make an exception for the source of the poison because D&D 5e doesn't make a distinction there either.

The whole point of playing a Paladin instead of a Fighter is that you get these fringe benefits instead of melee combat ability, so it's inappropriate to hamper those abilities. Working as intended.

[Trolleitor]

Well I think you're been too harsh on divine smite because of its burst capability. Which it's more noticiable on criticals or on early day encounters. The deep full of hope and wrath look that the paladin player makes while he's rolling the dice has also a GM-annoyance effect.

I ran some math, compared 2 level 6 characters, one is a paladin the other is a fighter, both have Great weapon fighting style and the great weapon master feat.
The fighter already has maxed STR because he got a ASI on level 6, while the paladin is stuck at 19/18.
The fighter is a battle master and the paladin is a oath of vengeance.
I'm not taking AC into consideration.
I'm assuming 2 short rest per day.
I'm ignoring the resources that are not damage oriented.

At the first round of combat the fighter use action surge and the paladin burns his 2 level 2 slots.
Fighter AVG. Dam: 111
Paladin AVG. Dam: 81
Fighter short rest resources expended: 100%
Fighter long rest resources expended: 33%
Paladin long rest resources expended: 42%

Second round of combat:
Fighter AVG. Dam: 47
Paladin AVG. Dam: 72
Paladin long rest resources expended: 71%

Third round of combat:
Fighter AVG. Dam: 47
Paladin AVG. Dam: 72
Paladin long rest resources expended: 100%

Fighter total damage: 205
Paladin total damage: 225

Well the paladin just burned all his day resources and just dealt 20 points more of damage than the fighter (roughtly 10% more damage). And the fighter can still do 2 more action surges that same day.

So... Yep.

Also if we bring up the AC (15 for a CR 6 base monster), its more optimal for the paladin to not use Great weapon master (he would just hit 2-3 times on the whole 3 rounds) And we end with:
Fighter damage (full 3 rounds): 111
Paladin damage (full 3 rounds): 112
F. S. Rest resources spent: 100%
P. L. Rest resources spent: 71%

Keep in mind that d&d is balanced around the "adventuring day" combats are more about burning the party resources than anything else.

I have a paladin player on my campaign with a "annoying ability to rolls 20s", he pretty much randomly break fights, but he become a lame potato after the 2-3 encounter.
But there is no problem in that, he burned a bunch of resources so... The encounter achieved its purpose.
The only way he could get around this problem was to smite 1 time per encounter if he wanted to have some "back up smites".

[furby076]

Divine Sense is a crappy ability
Ancients paladin ability (the capture one) is pretty crappy. The person making the save gets to choose str or dex.

If we were to make divine smite pro-active (and i am against that), then do what was done in 3.x, and give it a bonus to hit. Also, now those should be returned on short rests.

One thing I haven't seen (only gotten to page two) is that paladins regain their powers on long rest. The only powers that come back on short rest are divine sense :smallsigh: That's powerful to get your abilities back on short rest.

Paladins are all about resource management. If a paladin wants to save their daily abilities for the big boss fight, they are taking two risks: 1) they will even have a boss fight, and 2) the fight the party is going to have against the BBEG...is that REALLY the BBEG or is it someone who just looks nasty?

Food for thought :)

[Sception]

The paladin being a lame potato in 3/4 of the days fights, and turning the remaining 1/4 into cakewalks, is exactly the problem. It may not be unfair in terms of overall damage done, but it results in a game play experience that is less fun both for the paladins player and for everyone else at the table.

It's not the total damage dealt that's the problem, it's the ability to condense it into just a couple rounds during the day, and the psychological and mechanical incentive to do so. Restricting a paladin to one smite per round won't really lower their daily output, it just shifts it around a bit, but in the process you end up with a paladin who's less of a dead weight in non-boss encounters, and doesn't steal all the fun and glory from the rest of the party in boss fights.

[gfishfunk]

The paladin being a lame potato in 3/4 of the days fights, and turning the remaining 1/4 into cakewalks, is exactly the problem. It may not be unfair in terms of overall damage done, but it results in a game play experience that is less fun both for the paladins player and for everyone else at the table.

It's not the total damage dealt that's the problem, it's the ability to condense it into just a couple rounds during the day, and the psychological and mechanical incentive to do so. Restricting a paladin to one smite per round won't really lower their daily output, it just shifts it around a bit, but in the process you end up with a paladin who's less of a dead weight in non-boss encounters, and doesn't steal all the fun and glory from the rest of the party in boss fights.

This. This is exactly what I am saying and have said repeatedly here. It's not about damage output but about creating smart incentives.

[Sception]

Now, of course, the paladin's player can always choose to spread out their daily resources over multiple rounds or encounters, and often it's enough to just have a talk with them to sort things out, but it's awkward that the class seems overall built to encourage this exact behavior in terms of how and when its abilities are doled out. At first level, the paladin gets very little, and feels kind of subpar compared to other more level-one oriented classes. Then comes level 2 and they get spellcasting, but only a couple spells per day, and the damage from a single smite is often enough to not just kill, but overkill common enemies, so the player feels pushed to conserve those few resources for the big fight, because if they don't they'll 'waste it', and then in the big fight they'll feel sub par again.

Fear of wasting resources is the same thing that leads players in a final fantasy game to hoard aethers and never cast spells when they would have more fun using both more frequently. Or players in an early series souls game where you were always afraid of wasting healing resources, as opposed to the later games where your main healing resource came back every time you died.

It's the tension between daily and encounter resources generally, but where the full caster has cantrips, and pretty soon gets enough spells per day that burning them all in a single encounter is hard, the paladin gains more spells per day much more slowly. And right when the wizard is getting enough spells to be comfortable using them regularly, the paladin is getting the ability to burn few her few resources twice as quickly, with the implicit message being that that's exactly what she's supposed to do.

Channel divinities help with this, although they come a bit later than is really ideal at level 3, and a couple of the paladin oaths are real duds in terms of their CDs. Ancients and Tyranny in particular.

[BiPolar]

This. This is exactly what I am saying and have said repeatedly here. It's not about damage output but about creating smart incentives.

I play a paladin and it's an interesting problem to have. Do I smite or save it for when it may be more needed? Do I use my vow on this guy, or do I save it for when it's more necessary? Sometimes I choose wisely, other times I don't and pay the iron price. Personally, i like the challenge.

[Mellack]

I think it is an option to play the style you want. Some love the way the Champion has steady output all day long. Others find it incredibly dull. Paladins can choose to burn like the sun at the cost of being lackluster the rest of the day. Some players will gladly make that choice. More judicious use will let them spread the powers out. I say it is good to let players have that option and think it a mistake to remove that.

[Trolleitor]

The paladin being a lame potato in 3/4 of the days fights, and turning the remaining 1/4 into cakewalks, is exactly the problem. It may not be unfair in terms of overall damage done, but it results in a game play experience that is less fun both for the paladins player and for everyone else at the table.

You're right there, the paladin player REALLY hates to spread the resources along the day, most of the time he just want to smite the **** out of someone, he made a paladin to obliberate the BBEG, so he just save all the smites for that combat.

This mindset is very attractive to players that REALLY REALLY hate losing, or hate recurring villains.

Sometimes things get a bit tense because the paladin has spent his resources and starts to try to make camp and try again the next day.

[Arkhios]

You're right there, the paladin player REALLY hates to spread the resources along the day, most of the time he just want to smite the **** out of someone, he made a paladin to obliberate the BBEG, so he just save all the smites for that combat.

This mindset is very attractive to players that REALLY REALLY hate losing, or hate recurring villains.

Sometimes things get a bit tense because the paladin has spent his resources and starts to try to make camp and try again the next day.

That is a very good deduction, which I believe hits right to the point in most cases. I know too many people from RPG circles who very much would prefer the ALL IN AT ONCE approach, and cry about their spent resources later, instead of playing smart.

[rollingForInit]

Well, I would definitely change a few things:
- Divine Smite has to be announced before the attack roll. It's just the lamest thing to see a player waiting for a crit to smite. Just say, "for Heironeous!" and let it rip.


Divine Smite actually does't have to be. It triggers on a hit, so you can't activate it until you know that you've hit. The same way that a Wizard doesn't cast Shield before he knows whether or not the attack was, in fact, a hit.



Lay on Hands is a Swiss Army Knife: I find it incredibly odd that it is a straight pool of HP that can just be pushed into a player rather than, say a pool of d6s (1 per level) to give it that D&D feel. Additionally, the ability to remove disease or poison effectively removes long-running diseases or poisons as a viable long-term threat very early in the level progression. They are okay for in-battle immediate threats, but not for dramatic 'The king has been poisoned/has a rare disease! We need to find an antidote/cure!' type of things. You can achieve the same thing with a curse, I suppose, but that is a lot to move off the table as of level 1. Bring that ability in at level 6.


This isn't a problem with the Paladin, then, but with how 5e treats diseases or poisons. The first 3 levels are, by design, supposed to be really fast, because it's first at level 3 that all classes have gotten their archetypes. And by level 3 several spellcasting classes have access to Lesser Restoration, which cures both diseases, poisons and several other conditions.

So diseases are, by design, not meant to pose a significant threat. That has very little to do with the Paladin.

Besides, there's nothing in the rules stating that there cannot possibly be a disease that's immune to normal cures. In a way that's even more dramatic. "The king is suffering from some unknown illness, and the magic of our Clerics and Paladins keeps failing. You must find the Ancient Artifact of Perfect Healing!"

[Reosoul]

The paladin being a lame potato in 3/4 of the days fights, and turning the remaining 1/4 into cakewalks, is exactly the problem. It may not be unfair in terms of overall damage done, but it results in a game play experience that is less fun both for the paladins player and for everyone else at the table.

It's not the total damage dealt that's the problem, it's the ability to condense it into just a couple rounds during the day, and the psychological and mechanical incentive to do so. Restricting a paladin to one smite per round won't really lower their daily output, it just shifts it around a bit, but in the process you end up with a paladin who's less of a dead weight in non-boss encounters, and doesn't steal all the fun and glory from the rest of the party in boss fights.

I actually disagree with this. Paladin isn't a lame potato for not wasting his spell slots. In a lot of fights, initiative is rolled, something goes down in the first round, and that snowballs the encounter towards victory for one side or another. 5E is very swingy and that's the point, combat is decided quickly. In the same way a Wizard isn't going to spend spell slots on a couple remaining mooks, a paladin isn't going to waste smites on a fight that's won. He has the AC and HP to weather another (possible) hit or two.

What makes paladin fun is you can play a defender, a big brick that stand defiantly in the way of enemies and smacks them about with a sword. But when two encounters get chained together or you face the big bad, Paladins are the best class for going all-out and burning through their resources quickly to swing a fight. I've been a DM and a player for the situations where a paladin just incidentally crits and wipes the floor with a big bad when they throw 12d8 + static mods and one-shot a fool, but that's kind of the point. That's a huge, fun, OH **** moment.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's not overpowered(plenty of builds can do more damage in a single round), underpowered(You have to really try hard to be useless with ANY class in 5E), or even poorly designed(except maybe Oathbreaker). Paladin is FUN.

[Sception]

I think it is an option to play the style you want.

More options aren't always better, if one option is to have more fun, and the other option is to have less, especially when the game mechanics seem to imply that the less fun option is the way to go.

Consider hbomberguy's fantastic, hour-and-a-half treatise on the Souls games: https://youtu.be/AC3OuLU5XCw

And specifically the sub point from minutes 29 to 35 of how Bloodborne was a massive game play improvement in large part because it took away the shield. No more slow, tedius, hiding behind a plank of wood for boring ages waiting until it's completely safe to strike, instead you have to learn to duck and weave parry and be aggressive, and play the game in the way where the mechanics are the most fun, in the way that all of the previous games were the most fun too, except the existence of the shield option, and the way it was introduced (get boned by giant monster right off the bat, but oh wait, what's this, a shield?? I'm probably supposed to use that!), implied that the fun way was wrong, and the boring way was best.


The paladin's ability to condense all of their daily resources into a couple rounds of damage spike, and the seeming mechanical encouragement to do so, maybe isn't as terrible as the Souls' games encouragement to hide behind a shield, but I'd argue it falls into the same sort of category of an option that the game is better off not offering.

[BiPolar]

More options aren't always better, if one option is to have more fun, and the other option is to have less, especially when the game mechanics seem to imply that the less fun option is the way to go.

Consider hbomberguy's fantastic, hour-and-a-half treatise on the Souls games: https://youtu.be/AC3OuLU5XCw

And specifically the sub point from minutes 29 to 35 of how Bloodborne was a massive game play improvement in large part because it took away the shield. No more slow, tedius, hiding behind a plank of wood for boring ages waiting until it's completely safe to strike, instead you have to learn to duck and weave parry and be aggressive, and play the game in the way where the mechanics are the most fun, in the way that all of the previous games were the most fun too, except the existence of the shield option, and the way it was introduced (get boned by giant monster right off the bat, but oh wait, what's this, a shield?? I'm probably supposed to use that!), implied that the fun way was wrong, and the boring way was best.


The paladin's ability to condense all of their daily resources into a couple rounds of damage spike, and the seeming mechanical encouragement to do so, maybe isn't as terrible as the Souls' games encouragement to hide behind a shield, but I'd argue it falls into the same sort of category of an option that the game is better off not offering.
As I said in my post above, it's an issue of resource management and risk assessment. And I like playing with those decisions during the game. It isn't just run up and smash, etc. etc. I have to think critically and decide what to use and when. Yes, I could go and smash all in, but them I'm left with little to do. Instead, I look at the fight, at what my comrades are doing and adjust to the needs. I really haven't had a problem with it and between choosing to be a tank, a healer, a melee fighter or a nova king, it's a lot of fun with a lot of options. And I like options.

[Waazraath]

I'm not sure if I'm following the line of argumentation that is being made here... but: are people saying it's bad that the pally alows a player too much controll on how to spend rescources?

Cause for me, that's a good thing. It's a tactical option. I like tactical options; there are moments when I back with my spells, and spend them on healing and utility; there are moments I spend them all on smites in a random encounter, especially if it can help to end it really quickly (one big, wandering monster and a few lucky crits); and at other moments I save them for the BBG; or spend them equally over all encounters, depending how they go, and what other partymembers are doing. I really don't see how limiting my options as a player will make playing a pally character a more rewarding experience to me.

[BiPolar]

I'm not sure if I'm following the line of argumentation that is being made here... but: are people saying it's bad that the pally alows a player too much controll on how to spend rescources?

Cause for me, that's a good thing. It's a tactical option. I like tactical options; there are moments when I back with my spells, and spend them on healing and utility; there are moments I spend them all on smites in a random encounter, especially if it can help to end it really quickly (one big, wandering monster and a few lucky crits); and at other moments I save them for the BBG; or spend them equally over all encounters, depending how they go, and what other partymembers are doing. I really don't see how limiting my options as a player will make playing a pally character a more rewarding experience to me.

Thank you. This guy gets it.

[Waazraath]

Thank you. This guy gets it.

Thank you. See now that we were posting more or less the same at the same time. Good to see it's not just me.

[Reosoul]

More options aren't always better, if one option is to have more fun, and the other option is to have less, especially when the game mechanics seem to imply that the less fun option is the way to go.

Consider hbomberguy's fantastic, hour-and-a-half treatise on the Souls games: https://youtu.be/AC3OuLU5XCw

And specifically the sub point from minutes 29 to 35 of how Bloodborne was a massive game play improvement in large part because it took away the shield. No more slow, tedius, hiding behind a plank of wood for boring ages waiting until it's completely safe to strike, instead you have to learn to duck and weave parry and be aggressive, and play the game in the way where the mechanics are the most fun, in the way that all of the previous games were the most fun too, except the existence of the shield option, and the way it was introduced (get boned by giant monster right off the bat, but oh wait, what's this, a shield?? I'm probably supposed to use that!), implied that the fun way was wrong, and the boring way was best.

I feel like this is also a flawed argument, as someone who has spent, quite literally, thousands of hours playing the Souls games(it's my thing).

Dark Souls 1 told you how to parry only a couple hallways after telling you how to block. The people who spent the entire game hiding behind a shield probably were simply not open to delving deeper into the game's mechanics(or they liked cosplaying Havel or Tarkus), and that's fine for them, but they can't complain about the game for that.

Going further, Bloodborne's gameplay was actually deeply flawed if you try to say it's a Souls successor. They lost grip on quite a few of the small things that made Souls combat great, in that Souls never had any real "bullcrap!" hits you couldn't respond to or see the telegraph, Bloodborne had tons of stuff that insta-struck you and gave no option other than to recover health via being aggressive. That's fine, it's thematic of the game, but it took away play-style choices for those people who liked to do flawless fights and had came from the Souls series. Bloodborne isn't Dark Souls, at the end of the day. It's a reckless, frenzied melee rather than a well-choreographed dance, and that's okay.

Same way someone might think, subjectively, that Champion Fighter is boring and that Paladin is a 'lame-duck' 3/4th the time. That's fine. But I don't see sufficient evidence that either is poorly designed. Their niche just doesn't appeal to you. If you'd said the Ranger was poorly designed, I don't think anyone would disagree with you, all of it's stuff kind of works, but it's not intuitive and dual wielding runs over you hunter's mark, and beastmaster feels janky when your constantly telling your bonded pet and highly trained wolf to bite something every 6 seconds.

Paladin's fine.

Edit: But I do feel the 'smite spells' could've been a bit better. But then again, there's quite a few 'trap' spells in 5e, so it's hardly limited to the Paladin.

[jas61292]

More options aren't always better, if one option is to have more fun, and the other option is to have less, especially when the game mechanics seem to imply that the less fun option is the way to go.

Consider hbomberguy's fantastic, hour-and-a-half treatise on the Souls games: https://youtu.be/AC3OuLU5XCw

And specifically the sub point from minutes 29 to 35 of how Bloodborne was a massive game play improvement in large part because it took away the shield. No more slow, tedius, hiding behind a plank of wood for boring ages waiting until it's completely safe to strike, instead you have to learn to duck and weave parry and be aggressive, and play the game in the way where the mechanics are the most fun, in the way that all of the previous games were the most fun too, except the existence of the shield option, and the way it was introduced (get boned by giant monster right off the bat, but oh wait, what's this, a shield?? I'm probably supposed to use that!), implied that the fun way was wrong, and the boring way was best.


The paladin's ability to condense all of their daily resources into a couple rounds of damage spike, and the seeming mechanical encouragement to do so, maybe isn't as terrible as the Souls' games encouragement to hide behind a shield, but I'd argue it falls into the same sort of category of an option that the game is better off not offering.

While for the most part I agree with you, I actually am not a fan of this comparison you make here. Now, to be fair, I have not played Bloodborne, but I think the flaw in your argument is that faster paced aggressive gameplay is more fun. Maybe that is true for some people, but I don't think that is a universal truth. Slower, more tactical play is often more fun for some people than quick, reaction based play. But... that said I still agree with you on the Paladin. The big difference to me is that Bloodborne and the Souls games are predominantly single player games, while D&D is a cooperative game. If there is an extra option that is very effective but less fun in a single player game, that's ok. Its your choice whether to use it or not. But in a cooperative game where you have to share the spotlight with other people, its not just about yourself and your own fun.

The Paladin, as is, encourages a playstyle that makes most fights less fun for the player, with difficult boss fights being where they get their fun and glory. And that is cool... until you realize that you are being a drain on the party in most fights, and then stealing all the fun and glory from them in the important ones. An option that makes things less fun for you is almost always OK. You don't have to pick it. But an option that makes things less fun for other players is an example of poor game design. And that is something I do see in the Paladin.

[BiPolar]

While for the most part I agree with you, I actually am not a fan of this comparison you make here. Now, to be fair, I have not played Bloodborne, but I think the flaw in your argument is that faster paced aggressive gameplay is more fun. Maybe that is true for some people, but I don't think that is a universal truth. Slower, more tactical play is often more fun for some people than quick, reaction based play. But... that said I still agree with you on the Paladin. The big difference to me is that Bloodborne and the Souls games are predominantly single player games, while D&D is a cooperative game. If there is an extra option that is very effective but less fun in a single player game, that's ok. Its your choice whether to use it or not. But in a cooperative game where you have to share the spotlight with other people, its not just about yourself and your own fun.

The Paladin, as is, encourages a playstyle that makes most fights less fun for the player, with difficult boss fights being where they get their fun and glory. And that is cool... until you realize that you are being a drain on the party in most fights, and then stealing all the fun and glory from them in the important ones. An option that makes things less fun for you is almost always OK. You don't have to pick it. But an option that makes things less fun for other players is an example of poor game design. And that is something I do see in the Paladin.

You can say the same thing about big spells as well. If you're always a me first player, your the problem. Not the class.

Edit: and if they choose to Nova and are left with just 1-2 attacks for the rest of the day, then others shine in the other encounters. If there are no other encounters... That's a dm game design problem.

[jas61292]

You can say the same thing about big spells as well. If you're always a me first player, your the problem. Not the class.

Edit: and if they choose to Nova and are left with just 1-2 attacks for the rest of the day, then others shine in the other encounters. If there are no other encounters... That's a dm game design problem.

Its not about using powerful resources. Its about rate of consumption, and the playstyle that a class encourages. A wizard could cast all their most powerful spells all in a row, but they still normally can only cast 1 per turn (and maybe 2 per round if you use a reaction spell). A Paladin's smites run off spells, and they start out with the ability to use them just as quickly as a wizard (1 attack plus a possible opportunity attack), and potentially even faster (TWF, PAM or the like for a bonus action attack). This gets even more exaggerated at level 5 when they get extra attack, and potentially even worse with things like Haste coming into play. And through all this, they are still only half casters, meaning they have far fewer resources to burn than a wizard in the first place.

At level 8, for example a wizard has 12 spell slots total, plus 4 levels of arcane recovery. Even if every time they are in combat they cast a spell every turn and use a reaction spell every round, they still last a minimum six and a half round of combat per day before you have to fall back to cantrips. A Paladin has 7 spell slots total at that level. They can spend two every single round, at a minimum. Meaning they can burn through all their resources in three and a half rounds, three fewer than the wizard. If they are a bit more optimized, say with PAM, suddenly that is 2.3 rounds. And that's not counting any potential opportunity attacks. If your caster buddy cast haste on you, now you are done in less than 2 rounds. All your resources, gone, in two rounds. Around three times faster than the wizard. No other class comes close to this kind of potential.

Now, you could say, as you did, that other players can shine in other encounters, but that doesn't eliminate the issues the paladin brings to the table. What's more fun, killing a few mooks, or delivering the decisive move to finish a key boss battle? Almost everyone will tell you the latter. And so what does that make the paladin? The glory hog.

"Oh, that's cool, you can have your fun being the hero in the minor battles with nameless foes. I'll just be here dragging the party down by having no significant offensive contribution the whole time. But don't worry, when we get to the all important story crucial boss, I'll take him down by myself in one or two super anticlimactic rounds. No need to thank me."

Not saying this is going to unbalance the game. But it does make it less fun for anyone not playing the paladin, and that is poor game design.

[BiPolar]

Its not about using powerful resources. Its about rate of consumption, and the playstyle that a class encourages. A wizard could cast all their most powerful spells all in a row, but they still normally can only cast 1 per turn (and maybe 2 per round if you use a reaction spell). A Paladin's smites run off spells, and they start out with the ability to use them just as quickly as a wizard (1 attack plus a possible opportunity attack), and potentially even faster (TWF, PAM or the like for a bonus action attack). This gets even more exaggerated at level 5 when they get extra attack, and potentially even worse with things like Haste coming into play. And through all this, they are still only half casters, meaning they have far fewer resources to burn than a wizard in the first place.

At level 8, for example a wizard has 12 spell slots total, plus 4 levels of arcane recovery. Even if every time they are in combat they cast a spell every turn and use a reaction spell every round, they still last a minimum six and a half round of combat per day before you have to fall back to cantrips. A Paladin has 7 spell slots total at that level. They can spend two every single round, at a minimum. Meaning they can burn through all their resources in three and a half rounds, three fewer than the wizard. If they are a bit more optimized, say with PAM, suddenly that is 2.3 rounds. And that's not counting any potential opportunity attacks. If your caster buddy cast haste on you, now you are done in less than 2 rounds. All your resources, gone, in two rounds. Around three times faster than the wizard. No other class comes close to this kind of potential.

Now, you could say, as you did, that other players can shine in other encounters, but that doesn't eliminate the issues the paladin brings to the table. What's more fun, killing a few mooks, or delivering the decisive move to finish a key boss battle? Almost everyone will tell you the latter. And so what does that make the paladin? The glory hog.

"Oh, that's cool, you can have your fun being the hero in the minor battles with nameless foes. I'll just be here dragging the party down by having no significant offensive contribution the whole time. But don't worry, when we get to the all important story crucial boss, I'll take him down by myself in one or two super anticlimactic rounds. No need to thank me."

Not saying this is going to unbalance the game. But it does make it less fun for anyone not playing the paladin, and that is poor game design.

I want to start by saying that I'm not in total disagreement with you. But a lot of that is going to be dependent on the game designed by the DM. For instance, flying foes, ranged foes, etc. present an immense problem for the standard Smite-o-Matic. If that PC is always being presented with the the BBEG and he gets his chance to shine on abetted, then yes, it can cause a problem. But the Paladin, especially the Vengeance paladin, is literally made to take down the BBEG. Hordes, ranged enemies, etc. present a massive problem and a start to invoke resource management. And you are complaining about a single encounter in a day. What about the rest of the day? If the paladin is choosing to save their resources for that big fight, then that is their choice and they are literally waiting for their turn to shine...why is that a problem for when they shine so bright?

[Deleted]

I believe that almost every class is poorly designed.

But it is done on purpose and in a charming way. It reminds them of a time before D&D become part of a huge business.

A lot of people gobble down the memberberry juice and forgive any issues that they might actually have with it.

This was 4e's main downfall. Put 4e in a 3e shell (which 5e is essentials in a 3e shell) and the hate wouldn't have been as strong (still would need vancian casting). But the game looked wrong and felt like WotC was taking something and changing it too much (though most of the change was cosmetic).

[gfishfunk]

"Oh, that's cool, you can have your fun being the hero in the minor battles with nameless foes. I'll just be here dragging the party down by having no significant offensive contribution the whole time. But don't worry, when we get to the all important story crucial boss, I'll take him down by myself in one or two super anticlimactic rounds. No need to thank me."

This is the crux of my point: you can add a lot at once: pop a bonus action smite spell, hit + smite, and then hit + smite. That burns through a lot of resources and burns through a lot of enemy.

A good player can avoid playing like this.

An (arguably) better player can plan on playing like this and auto attack until ripping thunder on the biggest and baddest thing in the path. Why smite orcs when you think an ogre is ahead?

A good DM can plan around this.

A good design can eliminate this.

Game design automatically creates incentives to players. Players do not need to respond to the incentives.

Changing smites to once-per-turn bonus action activated things slows this down a bit and changes the incentives -- whether that comes from spells or from at-will smites.


If the paladin is choosing to save their resources for that big fight, then that is their choice and they are literally waiting for their turn to shine...why is that a problem for when they shine so bright?

Its a matter of dramatic tension, group effort, and sufficiently exciting fights. Big-Bads that can be downed in two rounds by a hasted paladin do not feel like Big Bads. Thr rogue's nemesis does not feel like a nemesis when the paladin just eliminates it without really trying.

As a player, I want to feel like my paladin (I play one) is challenged by enemies and bosses. If my best bet is to auto-attack until the boss and then hit my limit break to kill it easy, I don't get as much fun out of it -- me as the player.


I believe that almost every class is poorly designed.

But it is done on purpose and in a charming way.

I agree entirely. As I said in post 1: I like to tinker, adjust, and see if I can improve what is in front of me. Paladins ARE fun, but I think their core mechanic is not as well designed as it could be.

[BiPolar]

snip
You could say the same thing about the hoard that was destroyed by the fireball, or the Rogue who sneak attacked, or etc. etc. Situationally there are times for each class and type to shine. If the DM doesn't accommodate for this, that's bad planning, not bad design. If you think it is better to design classes that are all just mediocre, then we have a different idea of fun - and that's okay.

[Deleted]

I agree entirely. As I said in post 1: I like to tinker, adjust, and see if I can improve what is in front of me. Paladins ARE fun, but I think their core mechanic is not as well designed as it could be.

I think that if you make any one class better... You need to make all of them better.

Because they are all... Charming in their poor design.

The best, or easiest, way to fix the Paladin design is to not deal with it being its own class, make it a Fighter subclass. 5e was a perfect time to do it... You have the EK as the arcane side of the coin and could have had the Paladin right there with it.

You could have made a Barbarian and Rogue verion too... To round out the holy trinity of martials.

Barbarian
Beserker (Martial)
Totem (Mostly Martial... Could be considered Psionic or Incarnum)
Rage Mage (Arcane)
Holy Rager (Divine)

Fighter
Champion (Martial)
Battle Master (Mostly Martial... Feels more like Psychic Warrior)
Eldritch Knight (Arcane)
Paladin (Divine)

Rogue
Arcane Trickster (Arcane)
Assassin (Martial)
Thief (Martial)
Avenger (Divine)

[Vogonjeltz]

You're right there, the paladin player REALLY hates to spread the resources along the day, most of the time he just want to smite the **** out of someone, he made a paladin to obliberate the BBEG, so he just save all the smites for that combat.

This mindset is very attractive to players that REALLY REALLY hate losing, or hate recurring villains.

Sometimes things get a bit tense because the paladin has spent his resources and starts to try to make camp and try again the next day.

Remind him he can't benefit from a long rest but once per 24 hours, and that there are going to be 8 encounters whether the sit on their thumbs or actually seek them out.

[Deleted]

Remind him he can't benefit from a long rest but once per 24 hours, and that there are going to be 8 encounters whether the sit on their thumbs or actually seek them out.

Why would seeking out your thumbs be an encounter?

[BiPolar]

Why would seeking out your thumbs be an encounter?

The thumbs. They will be bitten at thee.

[gfishfunk]

I think that if you make any one class better... You need to make all of them better.

Because they are all... Charming in their poor design.

The best, or easiest, way to fix the Paladin design is to not deal with it being its own class, make it a Fighter subclass. 5e was a perfect time to do it... You have the EK as the arcane side of the coin and could have had the Paladin right there with it.

You could have made a Barbarian and Rogue verion too... To round out the holy trinity of martials.

Barbarian
Beserker (Martial)
Totem (Mostly Martial... Could be considered Psionic or Incarnum)
Rage Mage (Arcane)
Holy Rager (Divine)

Fighter
Champion (Martial)
Battle Master (Mostly Martial... Feels more like Psychic Warrior)
Eldritch Knight (Arcane)
Paladin (Divine)

Rogue
Arcane Trickster (Arcane)
Assassin (Martial)
Thief (Martial)
Avenger (Divine)

Oh, I've been tinkering with all of them. And not to make Paladin or any of them better. Just more interesting.

And I would put Barbarian into a subclass of berserker.

EDIT: and I think you are still a bit confused- I'm not looking for better in terms of more powerful or more versatile, I'm looking for internal consistency.

[ChubbyRain]

Oh, I've been tinkering with all of them. And not to make Paladin or any of them better. Just more interesting.

And I would put Barbarian into a subclass of berserker.


I really wouldn't put Barbarian under Beserker, barbarian is the more general class whereas the beserker is the more specialized/specific class.

Though, I would be ok with barbarian being a subclass of fighter... But in a monster like that :p

[Deleted]

Oh, I've been tinkering with all of them. And not to make Paladin or any of them better. Just more interesting.

And I would put Barbarian into a subclass of berserker.

EDIT: and I think you are still a bit confused- I'm not looking for better in terms of more powerful or more versatile, I'm looking for internal consistency.


Giving it more internal consistency would make it a better class and make it shine more against other classes.

At least I think so.

Though the Paladin shines quite brightly already...

It's like the Fighter. The Fighter is the most inconsistent class in the game. Not only does it break action economy is a broad way (others tend to do it in specific ways... But even then they have to give up a bonus action or daily feature), but they also break away from how everyone else does damage... Which causes multiclass problems because you have to account for Extra Attack 2 and 3.

If you made the Fighter more consistent with the internal makeup of the game, you would have an all around better class which could lead to it being miles ahead of anything else (if you aren't very careful).

As for the Barbarian being under the Beserker... I would rather see them as desperate classes than see barbarian under Beserker. For a while now I've been thinking of making a more historic barbarian warrior and giving rage to the Beserker types... Not all barbarians were mindless ragers, look at Genghis Khan for example of a Barbarian that was a tactical thinker and didn't *just* rage.

[Sception]

Psh, why have barbarian be its own class if paladin isn't? Just roll that right up under fighter, make rage a subclass feature.

Same with Ranger.

And fighters can be dex based, so why have a rogue? Just make a fighter subclass with sneak attack. And a monk is just a dex fighter who uses unarmed attack.

Also, why have a warlock? The lore isn't really meaningfully different from wizard. Just shove it right up there. And really, there's no meaningful difference between a cleric and a wizard who happens to have some healing spells and a fighter dip for armor proficiencies. Shove cleric and sorcerer up in there. Bards and Druids, too. A spellcaster's a spellcaster, most of what they do is the same thing. Just let the wizard class pick what mental stat to use for casting at first level, after all fighters can pick their attack stat. Go back to artificer as a wizard subclass, too! Iirc, people loved that version, why go back on it?

So yeah, there should clearly only be two classes, wizard and butler / i mean muggle / i mean fighter. Don't need nothing else, we've got subclasses! And never mind how little design space that would actually leave to differentiate narrative concepts or the mechanical experience of playing different characters! :p

[Deleted]

Psh, why have barbarian be its own class if paladin isn't? Just roll that right up under fighter, make rage a subclass feature.

Same with Ranger.

And fighters can be dex based, so why have a rogue? Just make a fighter subclass with sneak attack. And a monk is just a dex fighter who uses unarmed attack.

Also, why have a warlock? The lore isn't really meaningfully different from wizard. Just shove it right up there. And really, there's no meaningful difference between a cleric and a wizard who happens to have some healing spells and a fighter dip for armor proficiencies. Shove cleric and sorcerer up in there. Bards and Druids, too. A spellcaster's a spellcaster, most of what they do is the same thing. Just let the wizard class pick what mental stat to use for casting at first level, after all fighters can pick their attack stat. Go back to artificer as a wizard subclass, too! Iirc, people loved that version, why go back on it?

So yeah, there should clearly only be two classes, wizard and butler / i mean muggle / i mean fighter. Don't need nothing else, we've got subclasses! And never mind how little design space that would actually leave to differentiate narrative concepts or the mechanical experience of playing different characters! :p

Some people don't like general classes.

I do, I made the Adventurer (still WIP).


Many people like things broken down. The barbarian and fighter are much like MMA and Boxing. Whereas they both beat the hell out of each other, they do so in drastically different situations.

Same thing with Rogues.


If I was making less generic class based system, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue are vague enough to encompass many archetypes BUT are still different from each other. I wouldn't say an Outlander, Soldier, and Urchin should be the same background afterall.

For casters I would say Cleric (Druid and Warlock), Sorcerer (and Bard), Wizard (and 4e Invoker).


Edit

Though, making classes based on backgrounds would be quite fun. Folk Hero and Sage would get some interesting abilities!

Goblin: Me eat the human!
Sage: BOOK TO THE FACE

[Sigreid]

Psh, why have barbarian be its own class if paladin isn't? Just roll that right up under fighter, make rage a subclass feature.

Same with Ranger.

And fighters can be dex based, so why have a rogue? Just make a fighter subclass with sneak attack. And a monk is just a dex fighter who uses unarmed attack.

Also, why have a warlock? The lore isn't really meaningfully different from wizard. Just shove it right up there. And really, there's no meaningful difference between a cleric and a wizard who happens to have some healing spells and a fighter dip for armor proficiencies. Shove cleric and sorcerer up in there. Bards and Druids, too. A spellcaster's a spellcaster, most of what they do is the same thing. Just let the wizard class pick what mental stat to use for casting at first level, after all fighters can pick their attack stat. Go back to artificer as a wizard subclass, too! Iirc, people loved that version, why go back on it?

So yeah, there should clearly only be two classes, wizard and butler / i mean muggle / i mean fighter. Don't need nothing else, we've got subclasses! And never mind how little design space that would actually leave to differentiate narrative concepts or the mechanical experience of playing different characters! :p

Funnily enough, originally Paladin and Ranger were both rolled up under fighter, and barbarian was simply a fighter play style.

[Deleted]

Funnily enough, originally Paladin and Ranger were both rolled up under fighter, and barbarian was simply a fighter play style.

Yup, way too many people forget about pre-3e.

[Sigreid]

Yup, way too many people forget about pre-3e.

To be fair, a lot of players aren't old enough to have ever seen an edition older than 3.x.

[Deleted]

To be fair, a lot of players aren't old enough to have ever seen an edition older than 3.x.

A lot of players aren't old enough to have played 3e either... 5er brought in a lot of young blood XD (not a bad thing!).

[Arkhios]

Internal consistency, or as I see it, being created from the same mold may - in theory - be more balanced between each options, but on the other hand it results in boring options if everything are built essentially same way.

4th edition did this, and look at how much disdain it caused to the game as a whole.
Prior to 4th edition, D&D had a remarkable audience and playerbase. When 4th showed up, it deteriorated into near nothingness. Now that 5th is out, it's starting to recuperate once more. Still not as much as before, but apparently better than during 4th.

[Deleted]

Internal consistency, or as I see it, being created from the same mold may - in theory - be more balanced between each options, but on the other hand it results in boring options if everything are built essentially same way.

4th edition did this, and look at how much disdain it caused to the game as a whole.
Prior to 4th edition, D&D had a remarkable audience and playerbase. When 4th showed up, it deteriorated into near nothingness. Now that 5th is out, it's starting to recuperate once more. Still not as much as before, but apparently better than during 4th.

The internal consistency wasn't the problem.

The problem is that it didn't look like D&D.

Never met a single 4e hater who actually hated what the game gave is, just hated the look and "feel" of it (even though a lot of it is no different from 3e).

Put 4e in a 3e skin and people wouldn't bat an eye. Hell, 5e is very similar to re/4e Essentials already... Funny enough.


Edit

Put vancian casting in 4e and people wouldnt have lost their minds.

[Theodoxus]

Sorry for the tangential slant of my inquiry, but after reading the OP and then looking at each Smite spell and then doing a search on "Are paladin smite spells one use?" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?479394-Paladin-Smite-Spells) and not wanting to use necromancy on that thread...

Why does Thunderous Smite state "The first time you hit..." while every other smite spell states "The next time you hit..." First means something contextually very different than Next - and I would assert that any Smite Spell that uses the word Next means each and every "next hit" for the duration. If that wasn't the intention, then it should be errata'd for each spell to state "First" instead.

Thoughts?

[Deleted]

Sorry for the tangential slant of my inquiry, but after reading the OP and then looking at each Smite spell and then doing a search on "Are paladin smite spells one use?" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?479394-Paladin-Smite-Spells) and not wanting to use necromancy on that thread...

Why does Thunderous Smite state "The first time you hit..." while every other smite spell states "The next time you hit..." First means something contextually very different than Next - and I would assert that any Smite Spell that uses the word Next means each and every "next hit" for the duration. If that wasn't the intention, then it should be errata'd for each spell to state "First" instead.

Thoughts?

Eh, it doesn't really change anything.

The first time you hit (after casting a smite spell) is the next time you hit. The next time you hit (after casting a smite spell) is the first time you hit.

They both work off hits and not attacks so things are fine.

Do recall that the PHB is using plain english, so you can't really div deep into how things contextually vary without losing the spirit of the game.

[Sception]

Psh, Elf used to be a class, too. I'm not eager to go back to that, either. ;)

[Deleted]

Psh, Elf used to be a class, too. I'm not eager to go back to that, either. ;)

Why not? 3e (essentially) did it.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm


(note: I tend to pull out their weird rules people forget about haha)


4e had racial paragon paths, same thing, just being more racially racey... Wait a minute... :p

[georgie_leech]

Why not? 3e (essentially) did it.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm


(note: I tend to pull out their weird rules people forget about haha)


4e had racial paragon paths, same thing, just being more racially racey... Wait a minute... :p

Nah, not as a separate thing. You were a Class, or a Race. There were no Elf Fighters, there were Elves.

[Deleted]

Nah, not as a separate thing. You were a Class, or a Race. There were no Elf Fighters, there were Elves.

If you are talking about the 3e stuff... They are racial levels that you could take.

If you are talking about the 4e stuff... They are racial levels that you could take.

Same principal, slightly different applications to fit in with the system.

[gfishfunk]

Not to change the subject but...

I talked with my DM and for the sake of 'why not' and 'giggles', we are going to play with the smite feature. I'll report how it goes.

We are going to change the base damage to all spell smites to 1d8, +1d8 per spell slot level. Searing smite will still do 1d6 damage on subsequent turns until a save ends. Level 2+ smites need to use the appropriate spell slot level.

At-will smite will now take a bonus action to prepare on that turn. When hit, I will be able to choose between the normal smite or one of the known spells.

This makes all smites happen on a bonus action prep (similar to casting) and specific smites chosen on a hit (similar to at-will), and eliminate concentration.

Any further advice? (Other than "don'tdoit don'tdoit don'tdoit!")

[Sception]

Why not? 3e (essentially) did it.

3 level max racial paragon 'classes', with class mechanics that might require you to already have levels of other classes before taking them (the spellcasting progressions in particular), are not the same thing and you know it. :p

[Deleted]

3 level max racial paragon 'classes', with class mechanics that might require you to already have levels of other classes before taking them (the spellcasting progressions in particular), are not the same thing and you know it. :p

Same principal. You are becoming more dwarfy as you take levels in dwarf.

Doesn't last as long, but you could easily expand them.

In 4e, one of my favorite paragon paths is for the Githzerai (psionic green alien people)... Rathmal

Level 11: Psychic Resistance
Level 11: Unfettered Action
Level 16: Prenatural Instincts

Abilities you can learn... Trace Chance (11), Rathmal Pursuit (12), and Vengeance Shroud (20)

As you gain more levels you become more Githzerai-y. Same concept and a great throwback to the old days.

[BiPolar]

Not to change the subject but...

I talked with my DM and for the sake of 'why not' and 'giggles', we are going to play with the smite feature. I'll report how it goes.

We are going to change the base damage to all spell smites to 1d8, +1d8 per spell slot level. Searing smite will still do 1d6 damage on subsequent turns until a save ends. Level 2+ smites need to use the appropriate spell slot level.

At-will smite will now take a bonus action to prepare on that turn. When hit, I will be able to choose between the normal smite or one of the known spells.

This makes all smites happen on a bonus action prep (similar to casting) and specific smites chosen on a hit (similar to at-will), and eliminate concentration.

Any further advice? (Other than "don'tdoit don'tdoit don'tdoit!")
So that means there's a chance you'll lose those smites? If so, that's a pretty big shift in the original balance. To offset, increase the max smite damage?

[gfishfunk]

So that means there's a chance you'll lose those smites? If so, that's a pretty big shift in the original balance. To offset, increase the max smite damage?

I was going to go with not losing the spell - if nothing connects, no spell occurs. You can re-bonus action next time.

Or, if this makes more sense, the bonus action prepares the spell but hitting casts it.

[georgie_leech]

Same principal. You are becoming more dwarfy as you take levels in dwarf.

Doesn't last as long, but you could easily expand them.

In 4e, one of my favorite paragon paths is for the Githzerai (psionic green alien people)... Rathmal

Level 11: Psychic Resistance
Level 11: Unfettered Action
Level 16: Prenatural Instincts

Abilities you can learn... Trace Chance (11), Rathmal Pursuit (12), and Vengeance Shroud (20)

As you gain more levels you become more Githzerai-y. Same concept and a great throwback to the old days.

The original 'classes' weren't like that. An Elf was an Elf, and as they leveled their entire progression was based on Elfiness, right from Level 1.

[Deleted]

The original 'classes' weren't like that. An Elf was an Elf, and as they leveled their entire progression was based on Elfiness, right from Level 1.

I'm aware of that and I never said it was a 1:1 comparison. It is however the same principal/concept.

Taking a dwarf racial paragon makes you more dwarfy, just like gaining levels of dwarf in the old days. I'm not sure how much more simpler I can explain this... :smallsigh:

[visitor]

The original 'classes' weren't like that. An Elf was an Elf, and as they leveled their entire progression was based on Elfiness, right from Level 1.

hmm. I don't remember it that way. I thought your race gave you racial bonuses (like the characteristic elf sleep resistance, and dwarf +4 magic saves/+4 to hit vs giants) but the non-humans were restricted in levels. Elves could only go up to level 4 fighters, and dwarves 8, if I remember correctly. They were only unrestricted in thief levels. They were the only ones who could multiclass, however. Though that changed by AD&D, I think.

[Sigreid]

hmm. I don't remember it that way. I thought your race gave you racial bonuses (like the characteristic elf sleep resistance, and dwarf +4 magic saves/+4 to hit vs giants) but the non-humans were restricted in levels. Elves could only go up to level 4 fighters, and dwarves 8, if I remember correctly. They were only unrestricted in thief levels. They were the only ones who could multiclass, however. Though that changed by AD&D, I think.

You're thinking AD&D, the person you're responding to is referring to The pre AD&D D&D game.

[MeeposFire]

Yea the race as a class thing was the type that later was codified in the Rulescyclopedia version of D&D. Dwarves were essentially modified fighters with a lower level limit by default (though they gained new abilities at certain XP values), halflings were fighters with a couple different abilities and not quite as tough (not really worth it sadly). Elves had fighter and mage abilities all in one class though for a long while it had slow XP progression.

I like that type of D&D a lot but that is not one of the things I would keep from it (I would probably eliminate that if I were to play that again and have you choose a race for your class like other D&D games). I would also make a large change to the thief class because back then it just needs help (some small changes in other classes as well).

Speaking of which in that version of D&D a fighter chose to be a paladin (or avenger which is essentially the chaotic/evil version) at level 9 which granted them additional abilities.

[Sicarius Victis]

I'm aware of that and I never said it was a 1:1 comparison. It is however the same principal/concept.

Taking a dwarf racial paragon makes you more dwarfy, just like gaining levels of dwarf in the old days. I'm not sure how much more simpler I can explain this... :smallsigh:

The problem isn't how you're explaining it. It is a problem, as you're just implying - and not even subtly - that everyone else is an idiot, but it's not the problem. The problem is that those "Racial Paragon Classes/Paths" are completely different from a Dwarf or Elf class. With the former, your race is a separate thing from your class, you're simply choosing to increase the effect your race has on your character, rather than the effect your class does. The latter, your race and your class are the same thing, and you don't have a choice of class separate from it.

[Sigreid]

The problem isn't how you're explaining it. It is a problem, as you're just implying - and not even subtly - that everyone else is an idiot, but it's not the problem. The problem is that those "Racial Paragon Classes/Paths" are completely different from a Dwarf or Elf class. With the former, your race is a separate thing from your class, you're simply choosing to increase the effect your race has on your character, rather than the effect your class does. The latter, your race and your class are the same thing, and you don't have a choice of class separate from it.

You've got it. In the modern context it would be the person descended from a particular ethnic group who chooses to wear the garb and honor the customs of his ancestors, even though he lives in a city that either has never had or has largely abandoned those traditions.

[visitor]

You're thinking AD&D, the person you're responding to is referring to The pre AD&D D&D game.

No, I was referring to OD&D and AD&D; racial classes came later with Basic D&D

[ChubbyRain]

No, I was referring to OD&D and AD&D; racial classes came later with Basic D&D

At my tables, we call all that Pre-modern D&D.

OD&D, AD&D, and whatever else... If it wasn't made by WotC then it all gets lumped together.

[gfishfunk]

At my tables, we call all that Pre-modern D&D.

OD&D, AD&D, and whatever else... If it wasn't made by WotC then it all gets lumped together.

I have no response to this other than you win the internet for the day for having the best forum name. Right up there with FakePurseShafowMonk.

BagofDevouringShadowMonk?

[Citan]

So, definitely overpowered?

Well, I would definitely change a few things:
- Divine Smite has to be announced before the attack roll. It's just the lamest thing to see a player waiting for a crit to smite. Just say, "for Heironeous!" and let it rip.
- Aura of Courage doesn't make allies immune to fear, it just gives them advantage on those saves.

Byt that's just me.
Agreed on Divine Smite, makes it much more flavorful and, well, just coherent.
If you players whine on the change because they feel punished, they you can tailor the house-rule:
- if you announce beforehand, and hits, you deal extra damage equal to your Charisma modifier (so a smite using a 1st level slot would deal 2d8 + CHA). Or course on a miss you still lose the spell slot.
- if you use it as usual "after the fact", your roll 1d8 less than normal (so a smite using a 1st level slot would deal only 1d8).
That way your player still has some control over how to use his resource, but you entice him to be more ballsy.

[Roderick_BR]

I think Lay-On Hands is ok, but yeah, he should gain the remove stuff at higher levels, not first.
Just having it, at least at higher levels won't break the game any more than clerics/druids/bards removing disease/poison/curse/ healing, that they can do a lot more anyway.

Smite... I dont know, annoucing it before hand is so important?

I think that auras giving allies Advantages onsaves instead of outright immunities is fine.

My only real issue with Paladins is that their Oath only become relevant at 3rd level. You spend 2 whole levels not really caring for what's your divine mission, and suddenly, you do, unlike clerics that pick their deity/domain at 1st level.

They should have a different starting power at 1st level.
My idea is to give them a skill proficiency or bonus on some skill checks (devotion, medicine, vengenace, intimidation, for example), and make their Divine Sense work different for each one. No ideas on how to do that yet tough.

[Deleted]

I think Lay-On Hands is ok, but yeah, he should gain the remove stuff at higher levels, not first.
Just having it, at least at higher levels won't break the game any more than clerics/druids/bards removing disease/poison/curse/ healing, that they can do a lot more anyway.

Smite... I dont know, annoucing it before hand is so important?

I think that auras giving allies Advantages onsaves instead of outright immunities is fine.

My only real issue with Paladins is that their Oath only become relevant at 3rd level. You spend 2 whole levels not really caring for what's your divine mission, and suddenly, you do, unlike clerics that pick their deity/domain at 1st level.

They should have a different starting power at 1st level.
My idea is to give them a skill proficiency or bonus on some skill checks (devotion, medicine, vengenace, intimidation, for example), and make their Divine Sense work different for each one. No ideas on how to do that yet tough.

I think all classes should get their subclasses at level 1 or 2, not really for balance sake but because it makes more sense.

Like the Paladin example.

[gfishfunk]

I think all classes should get their subclasses at level 1 or 2, not really for balance sake but because it makes more sense.

Like the Paladin example.

I agree with that: its helpful for planning purposes if nothing else. Rogue level 1: you know you are going arcane trickster even if you don't get spells until level 3.

I have been toying with a lot of character creation and I was thinking, as you level, add on single statements to your oath, each of which has a corresponding benefit and RP incentive. Start at level 1. That could be cool.

[Sigreid]

I think all classes should get their subclasses at level 1 or 2, not really for balance sake but because it makes more sense.

Like the Paladin example.

I like 3rd as the level for this as I mostly start at level one and like to get to know the character before locking in his subclass. I know a lot of people plan 1-20 up front, but I tend to let what happens to a character shape where he goes.

[Deleted]

I agree with that: its helpful for planning purposes if nothing else. Rogue level 1: you know you are going arcane trickster even if you don't get spells until level 3.

I have been toying with a lot of character creation and I was thinking, as you level, add on single statements to your oath, each of which has a corresponding benefit and RP incentive. Start at level 1. That could be cool.

That would be great for the Paladin!


I like 3rd as the level for this as I mostly start at level one and like to get to know the character before locking in his subclass. I know a lot of people plan 1-20 up front, but I tend to let what happens to a character shape where he goes.

I don't plan out that far, but when I make a character I know the first three levels. I know the general shape that I want my character to take.

Like, recently I made a Barbarian Noble who is going to be a "Paladin". I knew that I wanted an "icy glare" so I went with the tundra UA barbarian so that's my first three levels right there.

Really, most classes are so basic that if you don't already pick out a subclass they don't really feel... Idk... Like they don't feel much different from NPCs.

[furby076]

The Paladin is both fun and effective, and it is not particularly overpowered. Like all classes, it has its powerful features, less powerful features, and puffs of fluff. I am currently playing one right now and I am enjoying it immensely. My complaints are like that of driving a nice sports car - well, yes its nice, but...



I find it interesting that you said paladin is not particularly overpowered, but all of your suggestions were geared on making it less powerful. You didn't talk about fixing the weaker aspects: its still MAD, long rests are required, detect evil doesn't detect evil, only oath of devotion is really good special ability (not talking UA). Oath of ancients spectral vines kind of suck, unless u find and opponent that has weak str/dex, paladin mount never gets better unless DM house rule, smite spell would be great and used way more if it didnt require conc.

[gfishfunk]

I find it interesting that you said paladin is not particularly overpowered, but all of your suggestions were geared on making it less powerful. You didn't talk about fixing the weaker aspects: its still MAD, long rests are required, detect evil doesn't detect evil, only oath of devotion is really good special ability (not talking UA). Oath of ancients spectral vines kind of suck, unless u find and opponent that has weak str/dex, paladin mount never gets better unless DM house rule, smite spell would be great and used way more if it didnt require conc.

I really don't want to fix the weaker aspects. Every class should have some weaker aspects. Many of my homebrew is are on the nerf side, but mostly I want smites to be a one or the other thing. I also don't think they should be concentration based.

Oaths are fine. People like their chosen oath. I like vengeance for the channel bonus action ability. Some folks love oath of ancients. Weaker features are usually paired with better bonus spells.

Long rests are fine, MAD is fine (I think everything should be more MAD anyway - Monostat designs are bad imo). Detect Evil is problematic in this edition, I agree.

Finally, the non-smite aspects were more about pacing - lay on hands benefits should be meaningful not just immediately granted. Divine sense doesn't really do anything at the level is given. Those are barely nerfs. I would actually give a new additional aura at level 1. I think that it's more thematic and traditional.

[Spellbreaker26]

only oath of devotion is really good special ability (not talking UA). Oath of ancients spectral vines kind of suck, unless u find and opponent that has weak str/dex

The channel divinity for Oath of the Ancients sucks to make up for the fact that its aura is amazing. Half damage from spells? Yes please!

[gfishfunk]

Its worth restating my hypothesis: its poorly designed but still fun, so we can overlook the poor design. Ranger was poorly designed and NOT fun, and then we got a much better ranger design out of it.

AFter toying with things a bit, my simple rework would look like:

Paladin:
Lv 1 Features: Aura (Of Movement), Lay on Hands (Healing only, spend your own hit die on others)
Lv 2 Features: Spellcasting (including smite), Fighting Style
Lv 3 Features: Oath
Lv 4 Features: ASI
Lv 5 Features: Divine Sense, Extra Attack, Extra Hit Die
Lv 6 Features: Aura of Protection, Lay on Hands (Poison)

That would also push Divine Health farther back. Diseases could be down the road as well.

Extra Hit Die are ostensibly for lay on hands ability, and promotes the idea of a self-sacrificing Paladin. Divine Sense pushed back makes it a feature of an experienced Paladin.

An early aura and self-sacrificial lay on hands feature firmly promotes paladin as the team player early on, and feels more like a paladin from day 1.

[Spellbreaker26]

Its worth restating my hypothesis: its poorly designed but still fun, so we can overlook the poor design. Ranger was poorly designed and NOT fun, and then we got a much better ranger design out of it.

AFter toying with things a bit, my simple rework would look like:

Paladin:
Lv 1 Features: Aura (Of Movement), Lay on Hands (Healing only, spend your own hit die on others)
Lv 2 Features: Spellcasting (including smite), Fighting Style
Lv 3 Features: Oath
Lv 4 Features: ASI
Lv 5 Features: Divine Sense, Extra Attack, Extra Hit Die
Lv 6 Features: Aura of Protection, Lay on Hands (Poison)

That would also push Divine Health farther back. Diseases could be down the road as well.

Extra Hit Die are ostensibly for lay on hands ability, and promotes the idea of a self-sacrificing Paladin. Divine Sense pushed back makes it a feature of an experienced Paladin.

An early aura and self-sacrificial lay on hands feature firmly promotes paladin as the team player early on, and feels more like a paladin from day 1.

While I do kinda like the idea of a paladin having to sacrifice themselves for others, this really does hit their power a little bit too much. Paladins already have a fair few abilities dedicating to buffing other people; having it take out of their hit dice is a little too harsh.

Divine Sense is actually kinda nice as a first level ability (I certainly found ways to put it to use early on). I like the fact that Auras are for later on - the paladin needs to prove themselves to their gods/code/others to start buffing the people around them.

[gfishfunk]

While I do kinda like the idea of a paladin having to sacrifice themselves for others, this really does hit their power a little bit too much. Paladins already have a fair few abilities dedicating to buffing other people; having it take out of their hit dice is a little too harsh.

I agree - its one of the reasons that I also provide additional hit dice as a possible upgrade. Its interesting to chew on, though.

My recent thought-experiments for design involve taking resource pools (hit die, ki points, spell slots, rages, whatever) and seeing if you can burn them on other things. This was inspired by the paladin smite mechanics. If a paladin can burn a spell slot for smite, why can't a barbarian burn a rage for something cook? Or why can't a fighter burn their action surge to grant someone else an additional action?

These aren't questions I am posing to the thread, just reasoning behind ideas and decisions.

[Hrdven]

Lay on Hands very good for Role Playing. Can earn trust of people from villages very easy, just search for ill people and cure them. Works better than cleric in some cases, because do no need to prepare it.

[gfishfunk]

Lay on Hands very good for Role Playing. Can earn trust of people from villages very easy, just search for ill people and cure them. Works better than cleric in some cases, because do no need to prepare it.

I agree. My argument against the Lay on Hands is that it is too powerful early on. Its not game-breaking at all.

[wilhelmdubdub]

I think that if you make any one class better... You need to make all of them better.

Because they are all... Charming in their poor design.

The best, or easiest, way to fix the Paladin design is to not deal with it being its own class, make it a Fighter subclass. 5e was a perfect time to do it... You have the EK as the arcane side of the coin and could have had the Paladin right there with it.

You could have made a Barbarian and Rogue verion too... To round out the holy trinity of martials.

Barbarian
Beserker (Martial)
Totem (Mostly Martial... Could be considered Psionic or Incarnum)
Rage Mage (Arcane)
Holy Rager (Divine)

Fighter
Champion (Martial)
Battle Master (Mostly Martial... Feels more like Psychic Warrior)
Eldritch Knight (Arcane)
Paladin (Divine)

Rogue
Arcane Trickster (Arcane)
Assassin (Martial)
Thief (Martial)
Avenger (Divine)

They could have made bladesinger a barbarian to me bladesong kind of functions like a rage and have the rage damage convert to a bonus to AC as well as the cleric (tanky, channel divinity) except barbs aren't supposed to cast spells.

[wilhelmdubdub]

The smite fix could be make it a bonus action and concentration. In the beginning of your turn you use a bonus action to declare smite and at what level, then after level 5 you have 2 swings to land it, and since you only get one bonus action you can only do it once on your turn. It would stop the 3 smite burst you can do with PAM and give some element of risk if you GWM and whiff on both you have to hope to concentrate until your next turn. You also can't wait until you crit, just have to hope you crit on your first hit.

[Corran]

The smite fix could be make it a bonus action and concentration. In the beginning of your turn you use a bonus action to declare smite and at what level, then after level 5 you have 2 swings to land it, and since you only get one bonus action you can only do it once on your turn. It would stop the 3 smite burst you can do with PAM and give some element of risk if you GWM and whiff on both you have to hope to concentrate until your next turn. You also can't wait until you crit, just have to hope you crit on your first hit.
That would put waaaay too much competition regarding how the paladin uses his concentration, and it would result making too many things be non-options, which is bad imo. Anyway, smiting 3 times per round due to extra attack and PAM isn't a real issue imo, as if that is a problem in a campaign, the solution lies elsewhere and not in a smite rework, imo (adding encounters per day or using the bariant resting rules is a god solution for example). GWM does not need to be made a worse option for paladin than it already is. Too much competition for action, between attacks, spells, and other class and oath features.