Conquest Paladin build help

[McSkrag]

Hello All! I hoping you can give me some advice on an AL character build. I’m relatively new to AL so have never played beyond tier 1 and don't have a good idea of what works in the higher tiers.

I read Legimus’ guide to Conquest Paladins (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?543427-The-Wall-of-Fear-A-Complete-Guide-to-the-Oath-of-Conquest) and thought they sounded like fun. Thanks, Legimus!

So I’ve got a level 3 Conquest Paladin, that's been super fun to play, that just hit level 4 and has enough downtime to go to level 5. Now I have to make some rebuilding choices to make before I lock in at level 5.

Current character:
Half-Elf, Paladin 3
STR 16 | DEX 10 | CON 14 | INT 8 | WIS 12 | CHA 16
Dueling

I’m thinking I rebuild my stats at level 4 like this to prepare for at least a level of Hexblade sometime.

Rebuild for level 5:
Half-Elf, Paladin 5 or Paladin 4 + Hexblade 1
STR 15 | DEX 10 | CON 16 | INT 8 | WIS 10 | CHA 18
+2 CHA

I am looking for a front line character that can deal decent damage, can help the whole team, has a some versatility, and is viable on all tiers.

My current thought is to go Paladin 16 + Hexblade 4 with Defense Fighting Style, Great Weapon Master, and Warcaster so I can use a Polearm.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on build options, tactics, and viability at higher levels.

Thanks!

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

If you want to use a polearm, then Hexblade isn't a viable dip. You don't want to go beyond Hexblade 1, since it'll delay all your class features. You need Pact of the Blade to use the Hexblade features with a polearm, which means Hexblade 3. You'll want to use your next ASI on Charisma anyway, so the good polearm benefits - Sentinel, GWM, PAM - are all a ways off. So you might want to go with Hexblade 1, sword and shield, and a bit more Con to maintain concentration.

[McSkrag]

If you want to use a polearm, then Hexblade isn't a viable dip. You don't want to go beyond Hexblade 1, since it'll delay all your class features. You need Pact of the Blade to use the Hexblade features with a polearm, which means Hexblade 3. You'll want to use your next ASI on Charisma anyway, so the good polearm benefits - Sentinel, GWM, PAM - are all a ways off. So you might want to go with Hexblade 1, sword and shield, and a bit more Con to maintain concentration.

So, take 1 level of Hexblade early to use CHA with a sword + shield, then wait to take the other 2-3 Hexblade levels until after Paladin level 8ish?

[CTurbo]

I think you're overthinking it by a mile. I wouldn't multiclass at all. The Paladin class is SO strong by itself and Conquest has one of the best capstones in the entire game.

I wouldn't take GWM or PAM. You're already going to be awesome at DPR. I would build around maximizing fear. Take the Menacing feat for sure. I'd grab Sentinel after getting Cha maxed. If you have room for another feat, Magic Initiate: Bard would be great flavor for Vicious Mockery, a Utility cantrip, and a 1st level spell like Bane or Faerie Fire.

So if you can restat yourself, go 16 Str, 16 Con, 17 Cha and take Menacing which would round out your Cha to 18.

I'd probably stay Sword and board

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

So, take 1 level of Hexblade early to use CHA with a sword + shield, then wait to take the other 2-3 Hexblade levels until after Paladin level 8ish?

No, just take 1 level of Hexblade total.

[McSkrag]

I think you're overthinking it by a mile.

Hah! You're probably right. I'm like that. :smallsmile:


I wouldn't multiclass at all. The Paladin class is SO strong by itself and Conquest has one of the best capstones in the entire game.

I wouldn't take GWM or PAM. You're already going to be awesome at DPR. I would build around maximizing fear. Take the Menacing feat for sure. I'd grab Sentinel after getting Cha maxed. If you have room for another feat, Magic Initiate: Bard would be great flavor for Vicious Mockery, a Utility cantrip, and a 1st level spell like Bane or Faerie Fire.

So if you can restat yourself, go 16 Str, 16 Con, 17 Cha and take Menacing which would round out your Cha to 18.

I'd probably stay Sword and board

Thanks! Super helpful. The capstone is exceptionally good. Do people play level 20 characters a lot in Adventurer's League?

[McSkrag]

No, just take 1 level of Hexblade total.

So both you and CTurbo think going sword and board is the way to go. I like it. Keeps things simple.

Would you stay pure Paladin for the level 20 capstone? Or take the 1 level of Hexblade for some versatility through the lower levels?

[CTurbo]

Hah! You're probably right. I'm like that. :smallsmile:



Thanks! Super helpful. The capstone is exceptionally good. Do people play level 20 characters a lot in Adventurer's League?


No not really, but still it's be a lot better than multiclassing into anything. You really want Paladin 18 too for extended Auras out to 30ft

[Corran]

Unless you are sold to halfelf for flavor reasons, you would be better off by changing the race to human. An extra feat is far more important than +2 CON plus the halfelf's racial traits in your case, even from an end build perspective.

Anyway, I would add anther vote to the S&B suggestion, as the small radius of aura of conquest means that you will probably end up close to lots of frightened enemies in order to ensure maximum control.

You definitely need a feat that boosts concentration, the latest by paladin level 8, so you can maintain fear concentration without much trouble. Resilient CON is the better one, so that means that you start with an odd CON score, BUT, if you plan on dipping hexblade, then it will have to be warcaster instead (so that you can use the shield spell with a S&B setup; also, in this case, you start with an even CON score).

Now, assuming a hexblade dip for hex warrior (ie attack with CHA), I would still probably start with a STR of 16, cause shoving and grappling utilizes strength, so does resisting against it. I think this is worth more than a +2 in some tertiary stat like wisdom or dex. Another reason for starting with a 16 in STR is that it allows me not to have to rush the hexblade level, so I can postpone it to be taken at as far as character level 11 (so I can grab all of aura of conquest, 3rd level spells, fear included, and aura of courage, without delay). And if I was in a melee heavy group, then I would also take shield master early too, so this is another very good reason to start with a 16 in STR.

[Nidgit]

Unless you are sold to halfelf for flavor reasons, you would be better off by changing the race to human. An extra feat is far more important than +2 CON plus the halfelf's racial traits in your case, even from an end build perspective.
This is simply incorrect. For a MAD class that's interested pumping CHA, the Half-Elf offers the ASI equivalent of Vuman but gives you darkvision and Fey Ancestry too. The Vuman's main advantage over the Half-Elf is that it offers early access to feats; however, once you reach a point where the Vuman takes an ASI, the Half-Elf taking the equalizing feat is superior from that point forward.

There are plenty of reasons to take Vuman but the end build perspective here isn't one of them.

[McSkrag]

Unless you are sold to halfelf for flavor reasons, you would be better off by changing the race to human. An extra feat is far more important than +2 CON plus the halfelf's racial traits in your case, even from an end build perspective.

Anyway, I would add anther vote to the S&B suggestion, as the small radius of aura of conquest means that you will probably end up close to lots of frightened enemies in order to ensure maximum control.

You definitely need a feat that boosts concentration, the latest by paladin level 8, so you can maintain fear concentration without much trouble. Resilient CON is the better one, so that means that you start with an odd CON score, BUT, if you plan on dipping hexblade, then it will have to be warcaster instead (so that you can use the shield spell with a S&B setup; also, in this case, you start with an even CON score).

Now, assuming a hexblade dip for hex warrior (ie attack with CHA), I would still probably start with a STR of 16, cause shoving and grappling utilizes strength, so does resisting against it. I think this is worth more than a +2 in some tertiary stat like wisdom or dex. Another reason for starting with a 16 in STR is that it allows me not to have to rush the hexblade level, so I can postpone it to be taken at as far as character level 11 (so I can grab all of aura of conquest, 3rd level spells, fear included, and aura of courage, without delay). And if I was in a melee heavy group, then I would also take shield master early too, so this is another very good reason to start with a 16 in STR.

That makes a lot of sense about CON save proficiency and the need for STR even if I'm attacking with CHA.

I think this is what I will do for the level 5 rebuild:

Rebuild for level 5:
Variant Human, Paladin 5
STR 16 | DEX 8 | CON 16 | INT 8 | WIS 8 | CHA 18
Resilient CON, +2 CHA
Dueling, Sword & Board

Level 20 goal:
Variant Human, Paladin 20 or Paladin 19 + Hexblade 1
STR 16 | DEX 8 | CON 16 | INT 8 | WIS 8 | CHA 20
Resilient CON, +2 CHA, +2 CHA, Level 12+ ASI options: Warcaster, Shield Master, +2 STR, or Sentinel
Dueling, Sword & Board, Eldritch Blast

That sets up a build that will be fun to play all the way through tier 4 and has some good options for feats and versatility. I can see the point CTurbo makes about pure Paladin. Going Variant Human and a starting STR 16 and CHA 16, I can decide to if I want to dip Hexblade somewhere along the way or stay pure Paladin.

[MrWesson22]

This is simply incorrect. For a MAD class that's interested pumping CHA, the Half-Elf offers the ASI equivalent of Vuman but gives you darkvision and Fey Ancestry too. The Vuman's main advantage over the Half-Elf is that it offers early access to feats; however, once you reach a point where the Vuman takes an ASI, the Half-Elf taking the equalizing feat is superior from that point forward.

There are plenty of reasons to take Vuman but the end build perspective here isn't one of them.

Yep. +4 to stats, darkvision, perception, etc vs +2 to stats and a feat. If the vuman then puts +2 to stats at 4 while the half elf takes a feat, guess what. They are on the same page stat and feat wise, but the half elf still has all the other half elf things.

[Sception]

Vuman and half elf are both great for Conqueror. The 4 level side treck into hexblade works fine, but it does come at the cost of delaying or skipping several good conqueror features. Basically, it's a trade off - you gain a lot of versatility and secondary utility, but lose off on some of your fear-based tanking control. That is the primary gimmick of conquerors, at least from level 7 onward, and nothing progresses that particular gimmick better than more levels of conqueror. Again, multiclasses can make for perfectly viable builds, it just looks and feels more like a trade of for a conqueror than it does for, say, a smite-based vengeance paladin, who only gets better at smiting by dropping out of paladin to take sorcerer or bard levels at some point.

The single level hexblade dip is something of an exception, because MADness is an issue for you, one that Hex Warrior does a lot to fix. Once you have aura of conquest, your save DCs start to matter more than your attack accuracy and damage, so you're generally motivated to pump cha before strength, and by the time you've got +5 cha and still only +3 strength, that single level dip of hexblade is looking really really attractive. Plus it comes with other nice boosts, including a solid ranged fallback (something of a weak area for paladins in general), that great hexblade's curse ability that scales with character level, the Shield spell (though as a sword and board character you'll also need warcaster to take advantage of it), and a short rest recharging first level slot for wrathful smite, or divine smite, or bless, or shield once you pick up warcaster, which really helps with a paladins adventuring day longevity. In a regular game, hexblade dip would also snag you booming blade cantrip, which isn't that great on its own but works well with warcaster once you pick it up, but in Adventurer's league you can't learn booming blade because of the PHB+1 restriction.

Warcaster also helps prop up your concentration saves, which in build priority is right up there with maxing your save DCs and your attack accuracy & damage. Though warcaster doesn't help as much as resilient: con, which is the superior choice if you aren't multiclassing.

It doesn't make you better at fear based tanking control, but it fixes your biggest flaw while offering so much extra goodness that it's worth the delay in paladin progressions in most games (exceptions are games starting in the late teens and expect to get to 20). That said, the dip is FAR from obligatory, and if you skip it there are levels you'll be happy you did.

Conversely, while a more extended trip into warlock does cut into your fear based tanking control, it offers enough other utility that it still can make for a very viable character who balances control and pure damage rather than favoring one over the other, and who mixes in a bunch of fun useful all the time or short-refresh magical abilities, which can be less frustrating to manage than the paladin's mostly daily resources. It's a perfectly fun and viable character, a fair bit more versatile if notably less good than a pure conqueror at the conqueror's specific area of expertise. Which, honestly, is how multiclassing is *supposed* to work. If you do go for the longer multiclass, I'd aim to eventually hit at least Paladin 7 (aura of conquest is THE defining feature of the conqueror, if you're not going to pick it up you really should be looking into another oath), Hexblade 5 (when you get Fear in short rest recharging slots). From there you can take pure paladin levels, pure hexblade levels, a mix of both, or even something else entirely like shadow sorcerer to round out your build. To be clear, the build is less synergistic than, say, a vengeance/hexblade multiclass layering damage on damage and probably crit fishing with elven accuracy, but it is still a perfectly viable character.

[Corran]

This is simply incorrect. For a MAD class that's interested pumping CHA, the Half-Elf offers the ASI equivalent of Vuman but gives you darkvision and Fey Ancestry too. The Vuman's main advantage over the Half-Elf is that it offers early access to feats; however, once you reach a point where the Vuman takes an ASI, the Half-Elf taking the equalizing feat is superior from that point forward.

There are plenty of reasons to take Vuman but the end build perspective here isn't one of them.
There are two extremes in regard to darkvision, with nothing or very very little in between. You either need it, or you can live without it. You need it if you are the scout. You don't if you are not. I guess that if everyone else at the party has darkvision and also the DM pays a lot of detail in visibility conditions (so much that a light spell would hinter your group's tactics, assuming such tactics relied a lot on utilizing darkvision and sneaking), well, such a situation would fall under the 'very little in between' that I mentioned. But generally, scouts need darkvision, str-based paladin can do without.

As for the rest, I think of it like that. If +2 CON, fey ancestry, one skill proficiency and Elven as an extra language, if all this package was a feat, would it make it into the final build of my vhuman conquest paladin. Personally, I wouldn't have enough room for it, even if I was debating my 19th level pick. I think there are much better things to do with your feats.

About the bold part, agreed in theory, I just don't think such a point comes into play.



Level 20 goal:
Variant Human, Paladin 20 or Paladin 19 + Hexblade 1
STR 16 | DEX 8 | CON 16 | INT 8 | WIS 8 | CHA 20
Resilient CON, +2 CHA, +2 CHA, Level 12+ ASI options: Warcaster, Shield Master, +2 STR, or Sentinel
Dueling, Sword & Board, Eldritch Blast

Shield master is hard to rate, as its usefulness mainly derives from your party composition. Meaning that if the dpr(s) in your team do their damage from melee, then shield master is a good pick. If the dpr(s) of your team are ranged characters, I think you should better avoid picking it. If it is worth picking though, conquest paladins use it with tremendous effect, as firstly, frightened enemies roll their checks to resist your shove with disadvantage, but most importantly, once they are down, they cannot get up since aura of conquest denies their movement, and to get up you need to use part of your movement. Keep in mind of course, that you can always attempt to shove enemies, even without this feat, at the cost of one of your attacks, so you are still privy to the aforementioned benefits. Weather it is worth it to grab a feat that allows you to shove using a bonus action instead of one of your attacks, depends entirely on how often it will make sense to shove an enemy, and that depends entirely on if your dpr(s) are melee or ranged characters, as I said in the beginning.

Other good feats apart from the ones you mentioned include and are not limited to: lucky, inspiring leader and alert (I also like mobile, but I guess you can do without it cause paladins get access to find steed).

Picking warcaster when you already have resilient con and aura of protection, is a bit of an overkill where concentration is concerned. And given that you cannot get BB and absorb elements because of AL rules, makes me wonder if the shield spell alone is worth of justifying spending a feat for just that one spell. It's a tough call though, so is replacing resilient con with warcaster given you don't grab BB and absorb elements along with shield. AL complicates optimization...

A set of 10 DEX, 14 CON, 10 WIS, might be worth thinking about (instead of 8 DEX, 16 CON, 8 WIS).

Oh, and if you don't mind the flavor of a whip, make sure you carry one, as a secondary weapon. Most times you wont make good use of a reach weapon, since the small radius of aura of conquest will make you want to be adjacent to enemies, but sometimes the positioning of the enemies might be such that it will allow you to make good use of a reach weapon without having to sacrifice control. And while a heavy polearm is a better weapon, it does cost you an action to unequip a shield, so for these rare occasions, you would do well to have a whip handy.

[CTurbo]

I still say stick with pure Paladin.


IF you can change races, I'd go Fallen Aasimar all the way as their built in racial fear effect can't be beat IMO. Their extra damage is just the icing on the cake. Start with 17 Cha and take Menacing ASAP to round it off to 18.


Menacing feat -

"You become fearsome to others, gaining the following benefits:

Increase your Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency in the Intimidation skill. If you are already proficient in the skill, you add double your proficiency bonus to checks you make with it.
When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one attack with an attempt to demoralize one humanoid you can see within 30 feet of you that can see and hear you. Make a Intimidation check contested by the target's Insight. If your check succeeds, the target is frightened until the end of your next turn. If your check fails, the target can't be frightened by you in this way for 1 hour."


Fallen Aasimar -

"Ability Score Increase: Your Charisma score increases by 2, Strength score increases by 1.

Necrotic Shroud: Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to turn into pools of darkness and two skeletal, ghostly, flightless wings to sprout from your back. The instant you transform, other creatures within 10 feet of you that can see you must each succeed on a Charisma saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier) or become frightened of you until the end of your next turn.

Your transformation lasts for 1 minute or until you end it as a bonus action. During it, once on each of your turns, you can deal extra necrotic damage to one target when you deal damage to it with an attack or a spell. The extra necrotic damage equals your level.

Once you use this trait, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest."

[Corran]

IF you can change races, I'd go Fallen Aasimar all the way as their built in racial fear effect can't be beat IMO.
How many crowd-fear effects that cost an action to activate does a conquest paladin need?

[CTurbo]

How many crowd-fear effects that cost an action to activate does a conquest paladin need?


All of them

[McSkrag]

I still say stick with pure Paladin.

Menacing feat -


Fallen Aasimar -



I hear you on the pure Paladin. My plan now is to build my stats so they do not require Hexblade to work. That way Hexblade becomes an option I can take down the road if I feel like I need it.

Regarding the Menacing and Fallen Aasimar, you're right, those would be sweet choices, but I'm playing in AL so I can't use UA or Volos with a Conquest Oath no matter how awesome they would be.

[McSkrag]

Shield master is hard to rate, as its usefulness mainly derives from your party composition. Meaning that if the dpr(s) in your team do their damage from melee, then shield master is a good pick. If the dpr(s) of your team are ranged characters, I think you should better avoid picking it. If it is worth picking though, conquest paladins use it with tremendous effect, as firstly, frightened enemies roll their checks to resist your shove with disadvantage, but most importantly, once they are down, they cannot get up since aura of conquest denies their movement, and to get up you need to use part of your movement. Keep in mind of course, that you can always attempt to shove enemies, even without this feat, at the cost of one of your attacks, so you are still privy to the aforementioned benefits. Weather it is worth it to grab a feat that allows you to shove using a bonus action instead of one of your attacks, depends entirely on how often it will make sense to shove an enemy, and that depends entirely on if your dpr(s) are melee or ranged characters, as I said in the beginning.

Other good feats apart from the ones you mentioned include and are not limited to: lucky, inspiring leader and alert (I also like mobile, but I guess you can do without it cause paladins get access to find steed).

Picking warcaster when you already have resilient con and aura of protection, is a bit of an overkill where concentration is concerned. And given that you cannot get BB and absorb elements because of AL rules, makes me wonder if the shield spell alone is worth of justifying spending a feat for just that one spell. It's a tough call though, so is replacing resilient con with warcaster given you don't grab BB and absorb elements along with shield. AL complicates optimization...

A set of 10 DEX, 14 CON, 10 WIS, might be worth thinking about (instead of 8 DEX, 16 CON, 8 WIS).

Oh, and if you don't mind the flavor of a whip, make sure you carry one, as a secondary weapon. Most times you wont make good use of a reach weapon, since the small radius of aura of conquest will make you want to be adjacent to enemies, but sometimes the positioning of the enemies might be such that it will allow you to make good use of a reach weapon without having to sacrifice control. And while a heavy polearm is a better weapon, it does cost you an action to unequip a shield, so for these rare occasions, you would do well to have a whip handy.

The other thing Shield Master does is add some elemental damage control to help replace Absorb Elements. It's not quite as versatile but it also does not cost a spell slot. Along with the BA shove and the prone+fear synergy, it seems fairly useful.

On Warcaster, yeah it's a tough call. Definitely don't need it unless I dip Hexblade, even then maybe not.

I love the whip idea! I'll reflavor it as a chain to keep up appearances.

[Corran]

All of them
That made me chuckle. :smallsmile:
Keep in mind that you are not getting them for free though.

[McSkrag]

All of them

Hahaha... I like where your head's at!

[CTurbo]

That made me chuckle. :smallsmile:
Keep in mind that you are not getting them for free though.



To be fair regarding the Menacing feat and Fallen Aasimar, one is an AoE control fear and one is a single target incapacitating fear. They're both good options to have for a Conquest.




That sucks to hear that they're not options for the OP though.

[Corran]

To be fair regarding the Menacing feat and Fallen Aasimar, one is an AoE control fear and one is a single target incapacitating fear. They're both good options to have for a Conquest.

I think they are overrated, and let me explain why I think that.

Necrotic shroud would be good if you already didn't have two other fear powers (in fear and the CD) that, just like necrotic shroud, use an action. Even then it's not useless to have, as it might still find use (though hardly an optimal use, as it plays better if used on the first round and you attack on subsequent turns, so that you can capitalize on the bonus damage; and that's not likely to happen. But besides, when you are utilizing fear powers along with aura of conquest effectively, dealing damage is the least of your concerns, as the encounter is already won and it is probably even worth it to drag it out so that you can economize your resources). This is stockpiling options that accomplish more or less the same effect (weighting towards 'less' regarding necrotic shroud when compared with the other two) instead of getting something else (like a feat from vhuman) that would not have any overlap with your current features (like necrotic shroud does in regard to conquering presence and the fear spell). If I have A and B and they are enough on their own to do the job in 99% of the cases they are meant for use, getting C which is optional and that will cover the rest 1% is not a good idea IMO.

Menacing is a little trickier to rate. For me, it's the restriction to humanoids that kills it. But let me not jump ahead to conclusions here. Now, menacing is used with some opportunity cost. That of sacrificing one of your two attacks. That opportunity cost becomes bigger once you get IDS, as you are sacrificing even more damage so that you can inflict a one-round fear effect against the enemy. Lets translate this opportunity cost into something more comprehensible. With a couple of calculations, one can see that with IDS in play, if an enemy's average damage (without plugging in hit chance) is about 20 per turn, then using using one of your attacks for damage has pretty much the same value as spending it with menacing. If the enemy deals less than 20 damage on average per turn, using the feat is not beneficial. And if the enemy deals more than 20 damage on average per turn (again, without plugging in hit chance), then it is profitable to use menacing in place of one of your attacks. But how much profitable is it? Well, if the enemy is dealing 21 damage on average per turn, then using the menacing feat has an equivalent value to 1 point of damage or 1 hit point. If the enemy deals 25 damage on average per turn, then using menacing in place of one of your attacks carries the worth of 5 points of damage/hp. It starts becoming clear that menacing is best used when up against fear-susceptible enemies with a high dpr. Now another question is born. Namely, is it good to spend a feat on menacing to squeeze some worth out of fighting fear-susceptible enemies with high dpr, or is it just better (meaning if it would lead to better damage prevention) to attack twice and stack smites on top of my successful attacks to bring said enemy down (of course without having to take a feat in this case, but also having to use spell slots). My answer is: it does not matter. Why? Cause of the restriction I mentioned in the beginning. It only targets humanoids. The vast majority of enemies that would be capable of inflicting high enough damage, for menacing to maybe be worth using instead of an attack with a smite on top of it (as it makes sense on using smites against high damaging enemies), are not even humanoid. And furthermore, if said enemy or group of enemies are fear-susceptible, you already have the tools already to deal with them. You don't need more eggs in the same basket. Now, if somehow you have an odd charisma score, it might make a lot of sense to take menacing, as it is probably better than the rest charisma half feats, strictly from an optimization perspective. But if you charisma score is even, then menacing is simply not good enough to be involved IMO. And taking a race that would allow me to start with an odd charisma score, only so that I can include menacing, is something I would not do, as the benefits of menacing are both situational and marginal.

[CTurbo]

I think they are overrated, and let me explain why I think that.

Necrotic shroud would be good if you already didn't have two other fear powers (in fear and the CD) that, just like necrotic shroud, use an action. Even then it's not useless to have, as it might still find use (though hardly an optimal use, as it plays better if used on the first round and you attack on subsequent turns, so that you can capitalize on the bonus damage; and that's not likely to happen. But besides, when you are utilizing fear powers along with aura of conquest effectively, dealing damage is the least of your concerns, as the encounter is already won and it is probably even worth it to drag it out so that you can economize your resources). This is stockpiling options that accomplish more or less the same effect (weighting towards 'less' regarding necrotic shroud when compared with the other two) instead of getting something else (like a feat from vhuman) that would not have any overlap with your current features (like necrotic shroud does in regard to conquering presence and the fear spell). If I have A and B and they are enough on their own to do the job in 99% of the cases they are meant for use, getting C which is optional and that will cover the rest 1% is not a good idea IMO.

Menacing is a little trickier to rate. For me, it's the restriction to humanoids that kills it. But let me not jump ahead to conclusions here. Now, menacing is used with some opportunity cost. That of sacrificing one of your two attacks. That opportunity cost becomes bigger once you get IDS, as you are sacrificing even more damage so that you can inflict a one-round fear effect against the enemy. Lets translate this opportunity cost into something more comprehensible. With a couple of calculations, one can see that with IDS in play, if an enemy's average damage (without plugging in hit chance) is about 20 per turn, then using using one of your attacks for damage has pretty much the same value as spending it with menacing. If the enemy deals less than 20 damage on average per turn, using the feat is not beneficial. And if the enemy deals more than 20 damage on average per turn (again, without plugging in hit chance), then it is profitable to use menacing in place of one of your attacks. But how much profitable is it? Well, if the enemy is dealing 21 damage on average per turn, then using the menacing feat has an equivalent value to 1 point of damage or 1 hit point. If the enemy deals 25 damage on average per turn, then using menacing in place of one of your attacks carries the worth of 5 points of damage/hp. It starts becoming clear that menacing is best used when up against fear-susceptible enemies with a high dpr. Now another question is born. Namely, is it good to spend a feat on menacing to squeeze some worth out of fighting fear-susceptible enemies with high dpr, or is it just better (meaning if it would lead to better damage prevention) to attack twice and stack smites on top of my successful attacks to bring said enemy down (of course without having to take a feat in this case, but also having to use spell slots). My answer is: it does not matter. Why? Cause of the restriction I mentioned in the beginning. It only targets humanoids. The vast majority of enemies that would be capable of inflicting high enough damage, for menacing to maybe be worth using instead of an attack with a smite on top of it (as it makes sense on using smites against high damaging enemies), are not even humanoid. And furthermore, if said enemy or group of enemies are fear-susceptible, you already have the tools already to deal with them. You don't need more eggs in the same basket. Now, if somehow you have an odd charisma score, it might make a lot of sense to take menacing, as it is probably better than the rest charisma half feats, strictly from an optimization perspective. But if you charisma score is even, then menacing is simply not good enough to be involved IMO. And taking a race that would allow me to start with an odd charisma score, only so that I can include menacing, is something I would not do, as the benefits of menacing are both situational and marginal.

I get what you're saying and you make good points.

The thing with Necrotic Shroud is it frees up a slot that you would have used for Fear and since Paladins don't get a lot of slots anyway, that seems like a decent win to me. CD is also extremely limited too. Also, you're not really giving up anything to get it by being a Fallen Aasimar as everything else lines up for Paladin anyway. I could understand devaluing it if you had to select a race that didn't fit to get it.

I like Menacing because considering it's just a half feat, it's really powerful. Expertise in Intimidation is great. Being able to demoralize one enemy is GREAT for bosses. I have seen it work in actual gameplay. Giving up one attack to demoralize the leader caused an entire army of enemies to surrender. Perfect ability for bosses.

[Corran]

The thing with Necrotic Shroud is it frees up a slot that you would have used for Fear and since Paladins don't get a lot of slots anyway, that seems like a decent win to me.
IMO, the fear spell is the one thing that a conquest paladin should never give up. It is the backbone of a conquest paly's tactics. This is because when paired with aura of conquest, unlike any other feature that can inflict fear and that a conquest paly can get, it does not allow additional saves on subsequent turns. Meaning, that if you can keep your concentration on it (which shouldn't be a big issue with aura of protection and resilient con; lucky also helps here), then enemies that fail their initial save and who are within 10' of you, don't get to save again. This is massive. Not only because frightened is a powerful condition, but also because aura of conquest denies them their movement. Which means that they can't run away, they can't run towards you, they cant dodge and they can't get up if you shove them down, along with the disadvantage on both attacks and skill checks (works well with shoving) due to being frightened. Neither conquering presence, nor necrotic shroud, no other power can compare to this result. You are only limited by the small radius of your aura of conquest, but that means that affected enemies that start their turns outside of it, just drop their weapons and start running away (as per fear spell effect when not synergizing with aura of conquest). All that with one failed save on their part.


CD is also extremely limited too.
It is limited by the fact that it recharges on short rests. Given that the fear spell uses spell slots (which are easier to handle than handling how often you get short rests; less player agency on the latter), this is not necessarily a bad thing. But yes, there might be sometimes when your fear casting was not very effective due to enough enemies rolling well on their save, and at that point you probably need a backup power that can also inflict fear. This is when it is useful to have conquering presence charged and ready (also, when you are fighting enemies with weak wis saves and you want to economize on your resources), to use as a backup when fear does not stick against enough of the mooks you are fighting. But if conquering presence is not charged because you used it in a previous encounter and didn't get a short rest between that and this one I am discussing (ie the one where the fear casting didn't affect many enemies), then in those rare cases necrotic shroud would be very handy to have.
Necrotic shroud does become better as you level up, though this is not because of the fear effect, which IMO becomes all the more situational as you are gaining levels and you start fighting enemies with legendary resistances or fear immunity. It improves cause the bonus damage it grants you improves as you level. And this is important, because conquest paladins, unlike other oaths, have an option to attack with a bonus action during the first turn of combat, when you are also using your action to activate necrotic shroud. And this is by using their spiritual weapon spell, which is a bonus action spell and has no problem being used with necrotic shroud during the same turn. So a fallen aasimar conquest paly has that working for him. Of course, it wont always be the best plan to use your first turn with the necrotic shroud + spiritual weapon combo, but for a boss fight with legendary resistances it would make sense. Still, this plan competes with just using your attack action and smiting with whatever hits in the first round, instead of necrotic shroud that is, in which case you are probably dealing more damage for the first few rounds, yet at the cost of high level spell slots. Or there might just be a spell that fits the enemy and that it might be more beneficial to use instead of activating necrotic shroud for the extra damage. Hard to make a good guess, but it's true that there might be some value in that feature at the high levels due to the extra damage it allows you to do and due to how it pairs well with spiritual weapon.


Also, you're not really giving up anything to get it by being a Fallen Aasimar as everything else lines up for Paladin anyway. I could understand devaluing it if you had to select a race that didn't fit to get it.
You are giving up a potential feat. Aasimar fits very well the bill, but I think vhuman fits better cause of the extra feat. Feats are very powerful, and there are lots of feats that I would want on a conquest paly (even one with a hexblade dip for whom you would not have to boost str with ASI's). And keep in mind, that the extra feat does not only mean one more feat at level 20, it means a faster feat progression, and this is a very big deal. I think the extra feat is more beneficial than getting another fear power in necrotic shroud and making it possible to replace one charisma bump with menacing. Though, as I mentioned above, necrotic shroud might have some value in the higher levels, as when up against opponents with legendary resistances, then dealing hp damage is one of the best thing to do (the other is buffing).


I like Menacing because considering it's just a half feat, it's really powerful. Expertise in Intimidation is great. Being able to demoralize one enemy is GREAT for bosses. I have seen it work in actual gameplay. Giving up one attack to demoralize the leader caused an entire army of enemies to surrender. Perfect ability for bosses.
As charisma half feats go, it is probably the strongest one on a conquest paladin (I only say probably cause I don't have a list of all the cha based half feats in front of me, and I don't remember them all). Given a choice between menacing and several other feats (resilient con, lucky for sure, and depending on group composition to a varying extent, shield master, brawny, inspiring leader; these are the first that come to mind0, I would not pick it. I would probably pick it in place of a charisma bump (I say probably for the same reason as before), but this I said earlier, so I am not saying something new. The example you mentioned showed what a creative player can accomplish (maybe with a tiny bit of help from a permissive DM, though I cannot speak accurately about this last remark as I was not there to see this happening), But there are other ways to demoralize a group of enemies. And if you would like to do that with by using a fear-based power that targets their leader, then wrathful smite would probably have a better effect mechanic-wise (the fear spell would have a better effect flavor wise, cause it would make the leader to run, instead of just cowering). Wrathful smite will have a harder time to land (as you are using a DC instead of an intimidate check which enjoys expertise), but once it lands it's better, cause you don't even have to waste any of your attacks. Though now that I am thinking this a bit more, menacing will always have the edge against (edit: humanoid; I knew I was forgetting something) enemies with legendary resistances (as it does not involve a save, unlike wrathful smite). Though, the point I want to conclude with, is that during the turn routine of a more normal encounter, I don't think menacing offers enough to justify spending a feat on it for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Optimization is based on certain assumptions and not on what a permissive DM would allow a creative player to do.

I get that most of what I say is heavily debatable, and that my own preferences regarding playstyle might influence my thinking subconsciously, so I do not expect you to agree with me on anything. I just enjoy the conversation, as a side effect of it is that it lets me see some features under a new light and think a bit more in depth regarding optimal tactics.

[Sception]

All the cha based half feats:
- actor
- resilient: cha
- elven accuracy
- the dragonborn one, which shouldn't really count, as dragonborn aren't a +2 cha race and don't get a bonus feat at level 1, so they can't take this feat without fallung behind in cha progression.

Next to those, menacing is easily better for aasimar & other non-elf-descended +2 cha race conquerors, and is probably better for half elves, too, though elven accuracy comes close. The other cha skill feats either have the same humanoid restriction for a less useful effect or require a full minute of friendly conversation, so yeah. If you're playing a fallen aasimar or half elf, both of which I'd consider to be tied with vuman (and for the moment warforged envoy, if you're counting eberron playtest material) as best conqueror races, then I personally would strongly endorse starting with a 17 cha and grabbing menacing at 4th level.

....

For vuman bonus feats, menacing needs to compete with a wider range of options. Assuming you want 16 starting str and cha, any half str, con, or cha feat will have the same effect of netting you either a higher starting con mod, or of cancelling out most or all negative ability modifiers. If you care about that, then, in addition to the above, you also have to consider:

- Heavy armor master
- Resilient con
- A few other half str feats that are less good for you than heavy armor master and resilient con

And if you're fine with only +2 con and feel that having a couple weak stats builds character, then you can skip half feats entirely to take something like:

- Sentinel
- maybe Inspiring Leader
- A bunch of other feats that are less good for you than sentinel and maybe inspiring leader

For vumans then, this is a much more competitive list, and while I do think menacing stands up there as a solid option next to the likes of HAM, Resilient Con, Sentinel, and maybe Inspiring Leader, it probably isn't the must-take, obvious best choice out of these options that I've previously described it as, due to the humanoid restriction, which I admit I missed before.

All that said, the skill feats seem to be an abandoned concept, so they probably won't and probably shouldn't be allowed. I mean, if your game allows deptecated ua material, then you might as well skip conquest entirely, as you can get most of the tanking utility of aura of conquest out of tunnel fighter plus sentinel, several levels earlier, and without having to worry about save DCs or condition immunity.

...

As for necrotic shroud, yeah, it isnt the best fear causer, but it is a fear causer, and a damage buff, and it is on a race that also has near ideal stat mods and resistance to a common damage type, which altogether makes a package at least on par with half elf, vuman, and envoy.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It's a character for AL, so I'd assume that Menacing is off the table.

[Sception]

Yeah, for AL menacing isnt even a question. Neither is aasimar, for that matter.