Willie the Duck
2019-03-21, 12:21 PM
In my campaign, two of us have to roll up new characters at 6th level. I am still waffling (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583715-ASIs-for-storm-sorc-tempest-cleric) on whether or not to take Storm Sorcerer/Tempest Cleric, given my DM's unique house rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23788947&postcount=12).
The other guy changed his mind from fighter1/evoker5 to instead play a paladin or paladin/bard (I'm assuming Asimar, dragonborn, or half-elf since he stated he could only pick one feat, and thus not vuman, but it could be something else entirely). One impetus for this is that the party has access to a Staff of Striking (so, +3 staff, plus presumably dueling fighting style). He's asked me which is better for him to take -- Shield Master or PAM.
I'm... I don't know. On one hand, expertise from bard plus shield master makes for some very reliable advantage. OTOH, that's advantage on two 1d6+str+5 attacks, compared to the 2x1d6+str+5 plus 1d4+str+5 as bonus action plus potentially another 1d6+str+5 as a reaction for PAM (each of which would get an extra 1d8 if/when he gets to Pal 11). That, plus a palibard only gets expertise at bard3. I'm kind of leaning toward saying PAM.
Beyond that, do people think palibard is better than just going straight paladin? I know the quicker spell progression feeds smites, but our games are very much not 15 minute workdays and I'm fairly unimpressed with smite's efficiency in that environment.
Any thoughts people have would be appreciated. I'm being looked to for advice and I've kinda hewed away from the Cha-based multiclasses for several years.
Much thanks in advance!
The other guy changed his mind from fighter1/evoker5 to instead play a paladin or paladin/bard (I'm assuming Asimar, dragonborn, or half-elf since he stated he could only pick one feat, and thus not vuman, but it could be something else entirely). One impetus for this is that the party has access to a Staff of Striking (so, +3 staff, plus presumably dueling fighting style). He's asked me which is better for him to take -- Shield Master or PAM.
I'm... I don't know. On one hand, expertise from bard plus shield master makes for some very reliable advantage. OTOH, that's advantage on two 1d6+str+5 attacks, compared to the 2x1d6+str+5 plus 1d4+str+5 as bonus action plus potentially another 1d6+str+5 as a reaction for PAM (each of which would get an extra 1d8 if/when he gets to Pal 11). That, plus a palibard only gets expertise at bard3. I'm kind of leaning toward saying PAM.
Beyond that, do people think palibard is better than just going straight paladin? I know the quicker spell progression feeds smites, but our games are very much not 15 minute workdays and I'm fairly unimpressed with smite's efficiency in that environment.
Any thoughts people have would be appreciated. I'm being looked to for advice and I've kinda hewed away from the Cha-based multiclasses for several years.
Much thanks in advance!