Is Straight Paladin or Sorcadin More Powerful

[kbob]

So I may late to the party on this, but is straight Paladin or sorcadin more powerful? I have a player that is a minmaxer and just made a sorcadin. I try not to nerf anything unless absolutely necessary. He hasn’t had a chance to play him yet. He was there with this character for one battle but had to leave the game early for personal reasons outside of the game. That said in his one fight he did a substantial amount of damage and with the help of sorcerer points. I never looked into sorcadin much as I thought hexadin was the powerhouse combo (which is manageable). That said, being 2 levels behind sorcerers (2 levels paly) I thought would be worse in the long run. It seems I may be wrong. I don’t mind powerful builds but “quickened hold person/monster” with early access to level 4 smites seems busted. I mean if everyone was that kind of player I could adjust fire but he’s been playing 3.5 forever, which is where he learned minmaxing from. Most of the other players don’t have the time, experience, nor desire to make such characters. To be fair, I too, appreciate minmaxing (playing since ADnD and LOVE 3.5) and enjoy doing it if that’s the kind of group I’m in. This is not that group. At least not to that level. I’m a pretty experienced DM but I’m kind of at a loss here. I don’t want him to think I’m picking on him, but this may be problem.
Am I wrong? I want to be wrong. I want to see that, “yes, he won’t be as powerful or at least won’t be more powerful because of X.” I realize his hit points will be lower and he will be behind sorcerers of his character level but dang. It seems like a more than fair trade on his part. Thoughts?

[Nidgit]

Sorcadin is extremely powerful, no doubt. The strongest version takes a level or two of Hexblade for SAD attacking, Eldritch Blast and maybe some invocations, but even without that it's quite strong.

One thing to note from your experience is that a Sorcadin in particular is set to nova hard. It's a build that's capable of burning all its resources quicker than anyone else, allowing for massive damage. The flip side of that, though, is that you can pretty easily run out of spell slots over a longer adventuring day. If your table is the type to have one big fight per day, Sorcadin is going to be obscenely strong. If it's three or more, you'll have to be thinking about budgeting your smites and spells so you're not stuck just casting cantrips by the end of the day.

Also, while a 2/X Sorcadin has access to Shield and buff spells, its also got a smaller hit dice and no access to Extra Attack or Aura of Protection. That's some significant durability to be passing on.

[Man_Over_Game]

The big difference is sustainability. Paladin/Sorcerer is really good at burning through resources efficiently and quickly, which means they shine with fewer encounters per day. More martial-oriented builds (like pure Paladin) get more leverage from their increased defenses, standard attacks, and HP, which are all more beneficial in longer adventuring days.

So a big part depends on how often their Long Rests are. If they’re getting only 2 fights between each night, quick-burning builds, like Ranger/Druid or Paladin/Sorcerer, will pull a lot more weight than the solo-classes will.

[Hael]

It depends what you mean. It also depends on the build, what levels are being considered, rolled stats, distribution of combat events etc.

In general, Sorcadins are pretty famous for being super strong but resource hungry. So if you hit him with a gauntlet of events, a lot of the supposed advantage quickly goes away.

But yes, they’re one of the famous cha multiclass combos that are probably a bit overturned, at least once they come online.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Apples and oranges. No multi-attack, auras, or channel divinity. P 6/ S X is a lot closer comparison.
Sorcadin (P 2/ S X) is a lot closer to Fighter or Cleric 1/ Sorc X

[Citadel97501]

Sorcadin is vastly more powerful, the sheer number of smites that you have available really make a difference. I do think that the 6 Paladin/14 Sorcerer is more powerful and useful than the 2/18 build even with the loss of some high end spells. The save aura, extra attack, and additional spells known really does make a massive difference.

[Frogreaver]

IMO:
Level 2. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 3. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 4. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 5. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 6. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 7. Sorcadin is more powerful than Paladin
Level 8. Sorcadin is more powerful than Paladin
Level 9. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X Sorcadin
Level 10. Sorcadin is more powerful than Paladin
Level 11. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X Sorcadin
Level 12. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X Sorcadin
Level 13. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X Sorcadin

[OldTrees1]

A Paladin 2 / Sorcerer X (P2-Sorcadin) has an attack pattern similar to a Rogue X. They get 1 massive attack per round. Balancing between those is a matter of having a long enough day to equalize the resource using Sorcerer vs the at will Rogue.

P2-Sorcadin at level X attacks for 2d6+1d8+1d8 per spell level. Let's assume for most attacks it is the 2nd highest spell level. That is roughly (2d6 -1d8)+1d8 per 2 levels. So you can see that it is a bit stronger than Rogue's 1d8+1d6 per 2 levels.

P2-Sorcadin can also help setup their own critical hits in ways that Rogues rely on allies.

I am treating the utility of a P2-Sorcadin and Rogue as a wash since it is dependent on how the DM runs ability checks.

So you will see a P2-Sorcadin as more powerful than a Rogue, even if the day is long enough that the P2-Sorcadin has to use N-1 slots on average for Divine Smite.


A Paladin 6 / Sorcerer X (P6-Sorcadin) is a more complicated comparison but easier to directly compare to the Paladin X.
Paladin 9 has 3rd level spells. P6-Sorcadin 9 has 2nd level spells and 3rd level slots. Advantage Paladin.
Paladin 13 has 4th level spells. P6-Sorcadin 13 has 4th level spells and 5th level slots. The paladin has Improved Divine Smite. This is parity.
Paladin 15 / 17 has 4th/5th level spells. P6-Sorcadin 15/17 has 5th/6th level spells and 6th/7th level slots. The paladin has Improved Divine Smite. This is where P6-Sorcadin pulls ahead.

P6-Sorcadin can also help setup their own critical hits in ways that Paladins rely on allies.

So you will see a P6-Sorcadin as more powerful than a Paladin, but initially the Paladin is stronger.

[strangebloke]

The big difference is sustainability. Paladin/Sorcerer is really good at burning through resources efficiently and quickly, which means they shine with fewer encounters per day. More martial-oriented builds (like pure Paladin) get more leverage from their increased defenses, standard attacks, and HP, which are all more beneficial in longer adventuring days.

So a big part depends on how often their Long Rests are. If they’re getting only 2 fights between each night, quick-burning builds, like Ranger/Druid or Paladin/Sorcerer, will pull a lot more weight than the solo-classes will.

Pretty much exactly correct in my limited experience.

Sorcadin can have some absolutely ridiculous turns. Expend two level four slots on smites, cast shield as a reaction and cast a fifth level spell as a bonus action.

...but you can only do stuff like that a few times a game, and the rest of the time, the sorcadin will have less HP, worse unenhanced basic attacks (since they miss improved divine smite) and a worse aura effect.

And if we're talking about paladin 2/sorcerer X builds.... those are sorcerers more than they are paladins, so that would be the more relevant point of comparison.

[Waazraath]

IMO:
Level 2. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 3. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 4. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 5. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 6. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X sorcadin
Level 7. Sorcadin is more powerful than Paladin
Level 8. Sorcadin is more powerful than Paladin
Level 9. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X Sorcadin
Level 10. Sorcadin is more powerful than Paladin
Level 11. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X Sorcadin
Level 12. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X Sorcadin
Level 13. Paladin is more powerful than Pal 2/Sorc X Sorcadin

General applicable disclaimer: it depends, on specific party, what type of campaign your playing, your DM's style, length of adventuring days, etc etc.

Having said that, I think the assessment above is solid, over all. Maybe it depends a bit on details and subclasses (for instance, I rate oath of the ancients channel divinity really low, so would prefer a pally2/sor1 above an ancients pally 3), but for most campaigns, I'd prefer a single class paladin in my party, rather than a pally 2/ sor x.

[Aimeryan]

Pal 2/Sorc X plays like a Sorc with more long-term endurance (both offensively and defensively). The loss vs Sorc is the higher spell level, although the spell slots margin is much less affected. However, nova potential is higher with Quickened BB Smites (or Hold Person). Twin Haste is also nice, and Spiritual Guardians (DS) plays far better than it does for a pure Sorc. If you need a frontliner then Sorcadin is a good option. If you don't need a(nother) frontliner, Sorlock is just straight up better than Sorcerer and usually preferable to the Sorcadin.

Pal 2/Sorc X compared to pure Pal. Offensively, damage wise, Booming Blade negates the loss of Extra Attack and IDS. Well, unless GWM & PAM are in play, which they can be. That said, Twin Haste is in play for the Sorcadin (which if you are buffing something like a Rogue is huge due to double SA) so... Also, Quickened BB/Hold Person provides greater nova potential. Defensively, the HP loss is easily negated and more by Shield/Absorb Elements. However, no Aura. Of course, the real power of Sorcerer is the versatililty the spell list provides (if not to the standard of a Wizard) - this clinches it for me and makes the Sorcadin more powerful in general, even if at times they are merely no better than a pure Paladin.

Pal 2/Sorc X vs Pal 6/Sorc X comes down to whether or not you have other frontliners you can buff with the Aura and what your other casters are, in my opinion. If you are a small 3 man party with a Rogue and Warlock then a Pal 2/Sorc is a far better choice as I see it, since you'll want the greater Sorc spells and the Rogue will often not be in Aura range anyway (tip; a Mobile pickup here is amazing for proccing BB).


What is the composition of the rest of the party? If they are Wizard, Bard, XBE/SS Fighter, Bear Totem Barbarian then a Sorcadin fits right in - in fact, they'll probably feel overshadowed, and arguably a pure Paladin will be no worse since versatility will not be a boon here.

[kbob]

We have a pick up format. So we a have a large number of players (some obvious regulars) that play when they can/want to. I think he wants to play it if there are no other arcane casters in the group, I’m not sure though.

[Topgoon]

Agree with the majority of takes here. The Sorcadin is extremely powerful under certain circumstances. They are probably one of the most "action-efficient" class combos (better than a straight Paladin or Sorcerer). Metamagic and Smites both work together to allow the Sorcadin to draw on their long-rest resources in an extremely fast rate.

For example, you'll likely see your Pal 2 / Sorc X character burn through 3-4 levelled spells with the right spells/combos (Bonus Action: Quicken Haste, Action: Attack + Smite, Haste Action: Attack + Smite, with a possible reaction spell still available). Most other characters will using 1-2 levelled slots per turn. So under the circumstance of an all-in round where they unload everything, the Sorcadin can look like they are playing a different game.

The trade-off is that the doing this is extremely costly. Not only do you need to burn sorcery points (another long rest resource) to apply metamagic, smite is also a pretty inefficient damage per slot trade (especially higher level ones). Just compare the damage potential of a 3rd level (4d8 smite single target) and to a fireball (8d6 save-for-half AOE). You do pay an "action economy for value" tax when you choose to smite with your spell slots.

Contrast that against a full-class Paladin that leans more on always-on abilities (Extra Attack, 3x Auras, Improved Divine Smite), the Sorcadin essentially trade those in for more long-rest resource power (spell slots, casting power, and resource-usage-speed). Whether Sorcadins are more powerful will heavily depend on how your campaign is structured, and how much resources are stretched.


One thing to note though - with the release of Tasha's, I would say power-creep has benefited Sorcadins far more than a straight Paladin. The Tasha subclasses are lightyears ahead of the PHB and debatably even the XGTE subclasses, whereas I don't think the Paladin Oaths have seen a similar power creep.

[Rihno]

Apples and Oranges.

Sorcadin is good on paper, but getting there form level 1 is not that good experience, especially if you mix 1 Hexblade level. You are always 2 levels of ASI behind, 1 ASI is permanent lost, you will have 3rd level spells on level 11 or 12 (if you took Hexblade). For 6/6 you will only have 6 Sorcery Points, so only 3 quicken Booming Blades. Since you only have ASI on level 4 and then 10 you will rely way more on your limited resources.

On the other hand well build Paladin can have 3 attacks on level 8, Aura, oath feature, smooth progression, 4 and 8 level ASI, fear immunity and on level 11 - Improved Divine Smte. If you have 3 attacks, 5 encounters per day, 3 turns each - IDS is extra 15x 2nd level Smites. Sorcadin will have to burn slots for that. Pure Paladin also has Greater Steed so flying on Pegasus without need to burn conc and slot for Fly spell. And pure Paladin will enjoy 3rd level spells (some Oaths have really good spell lists!) on level 9, while Sorcadin will have to wait to level 11 min. if you go 6/5. If you have Oath with good 7th level feature that's suddenly 7/5, so level 12. If you want Hexblade dip that's also level 12/13 for 3rd level spells.

And then we have level 15th Oath features, combos of IDS + Spirit Shroud or Haste + IDS + Pegasus etc.

You can even make Paladin having his own Darkness + Blindsight combo, utilizing Mark of Shadow Elf + Blind Fighting Style or Mark of Storm and Fog Cloud + Blind Fighting Style. And now Paladins have Harness Divine Power, letting them getting back that slot from Haste, Spirit Shroud, Hunter's Mark etc.

Imo If you play from level 1 - Pure Paladin is much better to play as.

If you play one-shots or join higher level Campaign, like level 10+ then Sorcadin would be really good as you don't have to wait eternity to be online and your leveling experience from this point will be much better and smoother than before.

[MrStabby]

Both are powerful... I think Paladin is maybe a bit more powerful but in a subtle way.

It is also a bit tricky to compare as, at least till Xanathar's Guide, the sorcerer subclass was a small part of the power but the paladin subclass is really powerful. This can mean there is a tendency to underweight paladin oath features/spells in a comparison.

More HP, more lay on hands, better chance to land a hit for spells like wrathful smite, more resource efficient. This is in addition the the Paladin Big Guns.

Aura of protection is just stupidly powerful. Roughly halving the probability that someone in range will fail a save. No resource cost, no reaction needed. It is hard to emphasise enough just how critical this can be to party success.

Then the other auras. Less important but they are just additional cumulatively useful tool that you miss out on by multiclassing.

Sorcadin is very in your face about what it does. Lots of damage that you can count and quantify and compare to other classes. Paladin does a lot of damage still... but also supports the party in many different ways.

Also remember sorcadin wants a bit more investment than a Paladin. You cant have both con save proficiency and heavy armour proficiency without investing a feat and you will be an ASI behind most of the time... and if you are not picking up aura of protection you will want that con save proficiency.

At really high levels sorcadin is probably better, simply because high level sorcerer spells are really good. Pure sorcerer would probably be better still (depending on game style).

[Quietus]

Sorcadin is good on paper, but getting there form level 1 is not that good experience, especially if you mix 1 Hexblade level. You are always 2 levels of ASI behind, 1 ASI is permanent lost, you will have 3rd level spells on level 11 or 12 (if you took Hexblade). For 6/6 you will only have 6 Sorcery Points, so only 3 quicken Booming Blades. Since you only have ASI on level 4 and then 10 you will rely way more on your limited resources.

I can't speak to the 2/X setup, but I can tell you that when my wife played a Vengeance/Divine Soul 6/X, this was not her experience. She went full Paladin to 6, and then multiclassed out; at level 7, while she wasn't yet bending the action economy to her will, she had access to reaction spells that entirely changed what she could do. Levels 8/9 saw less of a jump, and she definitely felt the delay in ASI, but 10 was her ASI, and at level 11 she definitely felt that Tier 3 Bump, as third level spells came online. She wasn't relying on the scagtrips for this one, though, so even one quickened spell a combat was plenty to absolutely dictate the pace of things.

[Omni-Centrist]

Just in my opinion, I dont know what a Single Class paladin does better than a Paladin 6/Sorc X/Hex1.

[Waazraath]

Just in my opinion, I dont know what a Single Class paladin does better than a Paladin 6/Sorc X/Hex1.

Giving stronger passive buffs to the entire party (much stronger in some cases)? Healing? Hiting 20 charisma a few levels earlier, with all goodness that comes with that? Having a greater steed? Having stronger (higher level) spells for the largest part of the game (and that's if you play up to lvl 20 which most campaigns don't)?

[Aimeryan]

Giving stronger passive buffs to the entire party (much stronger in some cases)? Healing? Hiting 20 charisma a few levels earlier, with all goodness that comes with that? Having a greater steed? Having stronger (higher level) spells for the largest part of the game (and that's if you play up to lvl 20 which most campaigns don't)?

6 Pal Sorc X already has the Aura, so thats a wash. Twin buffs are also very strong support. Divine Soul subclass heals (if you even go for that in combat). Hitting 20 Cha two levels earlier is fine and all, but even just 18 Cha will be a far greater investment for the Sorcadin (especially with 1 Hex), so quality vs quantity there (and for only two levels). Greater Steed is overrated - the rest of the party does not have it, so either your DM gimps the other melee significantly or it doesn't come into play. Also, Sorcadin doesn't need it (ranged options, teleport options, ect.). Pure Pal gets Level 3 spells for two levels before Sorcadin does (or three with 1 Hex), and they get Level 4 spells at the same time - hardly the largest part of the game.

The real answer to the original question is that pure Paladins get a higher reliable base damage to a single target at levels 11-16, since Sorcadin relies on BB to keep up here (which will actually do more damage all else being fair if it procs, but that is the unreliable part - not that getting the enemy to potentially lose its turn by choosing not to move is a bad alternative). Note, nova single target damage is higher on the Sorcadin, so the higher reliable base damage is only really something that pops up in arena-style gauntlets where you face single powerful enemy after single powerful enemy after single powerful enemy without a Long Rest.

[OldTrees1]

Just in my opinion, I dont know what a Single Class paladin does better than a Paladin 6/Sorc X/Hex1.

At which level?

6th level? Paladin has Aura of Protection. If you multiclass early to get Hexblade then you delay the aura. If you don't multiclass early then you are a pure paladin at this point. This can be a bigger deal for protector characters than for DPS characters.
9th level? Paladin has 3rd level spells. If you get Paladin 6 before multiclassing then you delay 3rd level spells (although not 3rd level slots). So Paladin does have some utility bonus. This is more important for healer / protector characters than DPS characters.
13th level? Paladin has non concentration flight. Perhaps the GM will make flight matter in Tier 3+. This is less important for ranged characters, but Sorcadin tends to want to melee.

So there are some advantages. It is not strictly one sided.

[Snails]

Aura of protection is just stupidly powerful. Roughly halving the probability that someone in range will fail a save. No resource cost, no reaction needed. It is hard to emphasise enough just how critical this can be to party success.

It is an interesting philosophical question: whether you raise the upside offensive potential of one character and trust that on average the party will thus prevail (e.g. the Soradin nova), or do raise the floor of the party effectiveness with a very efficient defensive array (e.g. Aura of Protection, plus possibly a 7th level Oath feature)?

The Soradin is clearly a good build. Clearly a Paladin2/SorcererX can get the party out of many problematic situations by burning through resources. But I do believe the 5th level of Paladin for a second attack makes for an efficient and reliable way to employ smites, and the 6th level of Paladin is extremely attractive in terms of resource efficiency, too (where an Action is also a resource, so a fellow party member not failing a save is no small thing).

I do not see either as unambiguously better, but my view would shaded by the intended role within the party. A Paladin 2 dip Soradin looks more like a Striker to me, who can burn resources (e.g. Shield and Absorb Elements) to tank up in an emergency. It is not wrong to play a Striker heavy party, but that is a decision the player should make purposefully IMO.

[Rihno]

Just in my opinion, I dont know what a Single Class paladin does better than a Paladin 6/Sorc X/Hex1.

1 Hex/6 Paladin/5 Sorc has only 2 ASI while being level 12 at this point. That is 4 level loss of ASI. At the same time pure Paladin has 3rd ASI, probably maxing his CHA + having free ASI for attack attribute or good feat like RES (CON), Warcaster, Lucky, whatever really.

Also at this point Paladin is immune to fear, which is very useful and he has Improved Divine Smite which (if build properly for 3 attacks) gives him 3d8 every turn with 3 attacks. That is like having free 2nd level slot to smite.

Sorcadin has only 2 attacks at this point without any damage bonus to them. He has only 5 SPs, so 3rd attack can be done only 2 times with Quicken. Burning slots for more SPs = less slots for smites. For every extra damage he has to burn slot. Paladin just has free bonus damage and can combo it with Spirit Shroud and suddenly our Pure Paladin is hitting 3 attacks, each with 2d8 dmg bonus, which is 6d8 bonus damage per turn for only one slot spent. HexSorcadin does not have access to it unless he takes Divine Soul, taking Cleric spells, but he will have it only on level 12. Meanwhile our Pure Paladin was rocking Spirit Shroud from level 9 and from level 11-12 he was rocking 2d8 dmg bonus. Level 12 is when I see HexSorcadin to catch up, but still remember that Sorcadin DPR without burning slot is weak. He couldn't even build properly for GWM to off-set that because 1 Hexblade does not give SAD CHA for 2-handed weapons and he has only 2 ASI so far, meaning he had no way to rise both CHA and Strength. So we probably look at sword n shield HexSorcadin or maybe Two-Weapon Fighting Style Sorcadin but then he has no Blind Fighting Style to combo with Darkness/Fog Cloud.

Level 13 our Pure Paladin has Pegasus from Greater Steed. If he is Vengeance that means Hasted Pegasus. Now our Paladin has 360 feet flying on Hasted Pegasus with Haste extra action for our Pegasus to Disengage after every attack. HexSorcadin will have to burn either slot for Fly or keep burning slots for range spell, but let's remember that we want that slots for smites. He can also regain more slots from Harness Divine, which works great with long lasting buffs for non-boss fights like Spirit Shroud or Holy Weapon.

Now of course HexSorcadin has Shield, Absorb Elements etc. But he won't have the same stable DPR as let's say pure Vengeance Paladin and they will have simillar Nova, becasue pure Paladin has now a lots of ways to have good DPR without burning smites, like Improved Divine Smite, Hunter's Mark, Spirit Shroud or Blind Fighting + Darkness combo to crit fish. Also at level 15 vs boss pure Vengeance Paladin can have 5 attacks per turn. But Sorcadin with Divine Soul will have Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon for sustain DPR but that's 2 slots spent + Healing. But then again - that's only if you take Divine Soul. It's kind of sad how good Divine Soul is vs other Sorc subclasses for Sorcadin. It's also worth to note that I was way more versitile with spell selection with my Paladin. Playing that sorc low levels is pain with how few spells they know.

And that does not mean that Pure Paladin is better or worse than Sorcadin. No. But for me that Paladin is more of a martial striker, who gets a lot of passives buffs that make him great martial, very mobile striker and nova only when needed. He also gets tons of healing from Lay on Hands without need to use slots. Sorcadin on the other hand for me is a tank. He does not have sustain DPR like well-build pure Paladin, he relies way more on active buffs from his spells and he is more of an front line tank with Heavy Armor, Shield, Absorb Elements, shield + sword. I was also using Extended Death Ward for team and Twin Haste to boost my Barbarian. Even though I had more slots than Pure Paladin - I was also using way more slots than pure Paladin at the end of the day. And the famous quicken hold person combo is overrated. By the time I could do it - single humanoid enemies were just not worth it. We had bigger prey at those levels.

As someone who played both Sorcadin and Paladin I will tell you that I enjoyed them both for different reason. My Socradin was unkillable front liner who relied on Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon in fights as pretty much front line Cleric with 2 medicore Extra Attacks and small aura Aura, while my Paladin was mobile striker, dishing out a lot of DPR without being targeted too much due to mobility and very good sustain DPR with crit fishing (Elven Accuracy) and giving that 30 feet huge Aura and melting bosses with 5 attacks + Elven Accuracy crit smites.

Both are very good and awesome to play as but If someone would ask me what I prefered to play as I would say that level 1-13 I would prefer Paladin as much better, smooth progression. If I were to play from level 12+ then I would probably go Sorcadin as I wouldn't have to wait so long for that 3rd level spells and deal with little spell known selection from Sorc a little Sorc Points.

Overall in my opinion the best build for me would be just Paladin 19 with 1 level dip of Sorcerer (if fighting two-handed) or Hexblade (if one-handed) after level 6 or 11. But that's just my opinion.

Both are great, both are different in play.

[Aimeryan]

1 Hex/6 Paladin/5 Sorc has only 2 ASI while being level 12 at this point.

[...]

Sorcadin has only 2 attacks at this point without any damage bonus to them.

This is where this analysis takes a wrong turn, for me. You don't compare pure Pal's EA + IDS to Sorcadin's EA, you compare pure Pal's EA + IDS to Sorcadin's BB. Booming Blade at level 12 is a slight loss of damage when the target chooses not to move vs EA + IDS, however, you just forced the target not to move - unless you have a party full of uncoordinated melee this is usually very bad for the target. If the target does move, Booming Blade damage fairly strongly eclipses EA + IDS. This is resourceless damage, the one area Paladin is meant to be better in than Sorcadin.

If resources come into regular play, which at level 12 feels pretty reasonable (and to note, 1 Hex/6 Paladin/5 Sorc has Spell Slots equivalent to a level 8 Sorc, which gives them two Level 4 Spell Slots that 12 Pal does not have), then Spiritual Weapon can also come into play for the Sorcadin and does not require Concentration. This will make up for the damage loss even if the target does not move. For Concentration resources, these are available to both, however, they are generally better for a Sorcadin than a Paladin - especially if Divine Soul.

[Rihno]

This is where this analysis takes a wrong turn, for me. You don't compare pure Pal's EA + IDS to Sorcadin's EA, you compare pure Pal's EA + IDS to Sorcadin's BB. Booming Blade at level 12 is a slight loss of damage when the target chooses not to move vs EA + IDS, however, you just forced the target not to move - unless you have a party full of uncoordinated melee this is usually very bad for the target. If the target does move, Booming Blade damage fairly strongly eclipses EA + IDS. This is resourceless damage, the one area Paladin is meant to be better in than Sorcadin.

If resources come into regular play, which at level 12 feels pretty reasonable (and to note, 1 Hex/6 Paladin/5 Sorc has Spell Slots equivalent to a level 8 Sorc, which gives them two Level 4 Spell Slots that 12 Pal does not have), then Spiritual Weapon can also come into play for the Sorcadin and does not require Concentration. This will make up for the damage loss even if the target does not move. For Concentration resources, these are available to both, however, they are generally better for a Sorcadin than a Paladin - especially if Divine Soul.


The issue about selling BB is that it costs Sorc Points. A 6/5 Sorcadin or 1 Hex/6 Pala/5 Sorc has only 5 Sorc Points. That is enough for only 2x Quicken BB. You won't use that every single encounter in adventure day or you will run out of SPs and you will have to burn tons of slots just to fuel SPs for it. Make it work for 6-8 encounters per day. Also since Sorcadin lacks ASI he has to compromise in accuracy (No EA) or in attacks (no PAM etc.).

IDS is consistent damage buff and can be combined with Spirit Shroud, Haste, Hunter's Mark, Spirit Guardians (crown) and with Two-Weapon Fighting, PAM or Revenant Blade for Paladin to get 3rd attack, because he has ASI to do it. But they best part is - it's not part of subclass, but core.

Also Spiritual Weapon is imo not a good example because Sorcadin is 6 or 7 Pala/Sorc. The access to Spiritual Weapon and Guardians is only when player takes Divine Soul. That's 1 of many Sorc subclasses. So not every Sorcadin will have access to those. And Spiritual Weapon is already available for Conquest without any multiclassing and Spirit Guardians for Crown. That's why I said that Divine Soul is very very limiting factor of Sorcadin Power (because it's so much better). They consistent DPR that Paladins get from IDS without boost of some buffs can be achieved by Sorcadin thanks to Spirit Guardians. However, that is only for one single subclass.

However every Paladin has access to IDS, Spirit Shroud, 30 feet Aura, fear immunity, Revivify, Holy Weapon and Greater Steed.

It's important to remember that Sorcadin can be build with different Sorc origin. So we can't take Spiritual Weapon or Guardians for granted for every Sorcadin.

[Frogreaver]

This is where this analysis takes a wrong turn, for me. You don't compare pure Pal's EA + IDS to Sorcadin's EA, you compare pure Pal's EA + IDS to Sorcadin's BB. Booming Blade at level 12 is a slight loss of damage when the target chooses not to move vs EA + IDS, however, you just forced the target not to move - unless you have a party full of uncoordinated melee this is usually very bad for the target. If the target does move, Booming Blade damage fairly strongly eclipses EA + IDS. This is resourceless damage, the one area Paladin is meant to be better in than Sorcadin.

If resources come into regular play, which at level 12 feels pretty reasonable (and to note, 1 Hex/6 Paladin/5 Sorc has Spell Slots equivalent to a level 8 Sorc, which gives them two Level 4 Spell Slots that 12 Pal does not have), then Spiritual Weapon can also come into play for the Sorcadin and does not require Concentration. This will make up for the damage loss even if the target does not move. For Concentration resources, these are available to both, however, they are generally better for a Sorcadin than a Paladin - especially if Divine Soul.

My problem with Sorcadin's is that anything they do "better" than a Paladin requires resources of which they really don't have that many more of. These discussions tend to treat this more like comparing static Paladin to Schrodinger's Sorcadin.

Let's take a look at a 4 round encounter. You'll probably use a couple of shield spells. You'll use 8 sorcery points and your 5 biggest smites assuming you are going all out. You have used 2 level 1 slots, a level 2 slot, your level 4 and level 3 slots. You'll have 2 level 1 slots and 3 level 2 slots. You'll have no level 3 or 4 slots nor sorcery points left. You'll have done strong damage about 210 Damage vs 60% to hit.

The Paladin will have 4 level 1 slots remaining and will have done about 300 Damage vs 60% to hit - while also having a much better at-will damage, great healing with lay on hands, a SR recharge channel divinity left for the remaining fights. (Heck some combinations of Buff Spells and Channel Divinity options may can push the Paladin to ever great Damage (Looking at Vengance Paladin Advantage or some of the good buffs some of his subclasses get access to).

The Sorcadin can do some cool things and is a bit more survivable when it comes to a single hard fight than the Paladin but when it comes to Paladin stuff the PAM Paladin or Paladin 1/Hexblade 1 does the Paladin stuff much better.

[Aimeryan]

The issue about selling BB is that it costs Sorc Points. A 6/5 Sorcadin or 1 Hex/6 Pala/5 Sorc has only 5 Sorc Points. That is enough for only 2x Quicken BB. You won't use that every single encounter in adventure day or you will run out of SPs and you will have to burn tons of slots just to fuel SPs for it. Make it work for 6-8 encounters per day. Also since Sorcadin lacks ASI he has to compromise in accuracy (No EA) or in attacks (no PAM etc.).

I was not referring to Quicken BB - that is a cherry on top. Just standard BB is comparable - either doing slightly less damage but rooting the mob to the spot, or doing a fair bit more damage. PAM does not work with BB, so they wont be taking that anyway (usually a shield + longsword is used here since GWM is also not great with one attack). The two ASI for Cha is all they need. Any more will be put towards increasing their Concentration (Warmaster is good for OA BB, but Res[Con] works too). After that it depends, although Mobile can be great in certain setups (best taken with Variant Human in that case).

[OldTrees1]

I was not referring to Quicken BB - that is a cherry on top. Just standard BB is comparable - either doing slightly less damage but rooting the mob to the spot, or doing a fair bit more damage. PAM does not work with BB, so they wont be taking that anyway (usually a shield + longsword is used here since GWM is also not great with one attack). The two ASI for Cha is all they need. Any more will be put towards increasing their Concentration (Warmaster is good for OA BB, but Res[Con] works too). After that it depends, although Mobile can be great in certain setups (best taken with Variant Human in that case).

1 attack vs 2-3 attacks. That does mean your crit smite frequency will decrease. At that point I wonder if we should go back to comparing vs Rogue (another 1 attack big damage class that uses Booming Blade) rather than Paladin (2 attacks).

[Frogreaver]

1 attack vs 2-3 attacks. That does mean your crit smite frequency will decrease. At that point I wonder if we should go back to comparing vs Rogue (another 1 attack big damage class that uses Booming Blade) rather than Paladin (2 attacks).

But you aren't trying to compete with a rogue. You are trying to make a better Paladin. So naturally it should be compared to a Paladin IMO.

Going down to a single attack nerfs the Damage into the Dirt even with BB and Smiting on nearly every hit.

[Aimeryan]

But you aren't trying to compete with a rogue. You are trying to make a better Paladin. So naturally it should be compared to a Paladin IMO.

Going down to a single attack nerfs the Damage into the Dirt even with BB and Smiting on nearly every hit.

You'll have to qualify the last sentence, without bringing outside sources into the argument (since that leads down a very long rabbit-hole).

[Frogreaver]

You'll have to qualify the last sentence, without bringing outside sources into the argument (since that leads down a very long rabbit-hole).

You said you weren't using quickened to cast 2 booming blades - meaning you get 1 booming blade attack a round - meaning you've nearly halved your damage per round which ends up being extremely poor damage compared to the Paladin.

[Valmark]

You said you weren't using quickened to cast 2 booming blades - meaning you get 1 booming blade attack a round - meaning you've nearly halved your damage per round which ends up being extremely poor damage compared to the Paladin.

Seconding this because I'm a bit confused too- discarding crits a sorcadin with one attack and sword and board (which was said to be better then the polearm or other heavy weapons) has an average damage of 34 if the enemy moves at level 11 (since people were talking about IDS) using a 1d8 weapon and Dueling.

A paladin with a polearm and IDS has an average damage of 42. 44 if they use a spear and Dueling.
And crits are going to favor the paladin over the sorcadin due to the higher number of crits and the fact that half of the sorcadin damage doesn't even get doubled (again, talking about the moving part).

There's no istance where without expending resources the proposed sorcadin beats a paladin in melee damage assuming equal chances to hit, at least as far as I can see. Not with a single attack, at least.

EDIT: For fairness, when the cantrip scales up again at... 16th, I think? The sorcadin's resource-less damage grows again and rises to 43 average if the enemy moves, beating the paladin's by a rather low margin. Without crits.

[Waazraath]

6 Pal Sorc X already has the Aura, so thats a wash. Twin buffs are also very strong support. Divine Soul subclass heals (if you even go for that in combat). Hitting 20 Cha two levels earlier is fine and all, but even just 18 Cha will be a far greater investment for the Sorcadin (especially with 1 Hex), so quality vs quantity there (and for only two levels). Greater Steed is overrated - the rest of the party does not have it, so either your DM gimps the other melee significantly or it doesn't come into play. Also, Sorcadin doesn't need it (ranged options, teleport options, ect.). Pure Pal gets Level 3 spells for two levels before Sorcadin does (or three with 1 Hex), and they get Level 4 spells at the same time - hardly the largest part of the game.

The real answer to the original question is that pure Paladins get a higher reliable base damage to a single target at levels 11-16, since Sorcadin relies on BB to keep up here (which will actually do more damage all else being fair if it procs, but that is the unreliable part - not that getting the enemy to potentially lose its turn by choosing not to move is a bad alternative). Note, nova single target damage is higher on the Sorcadin, so the higher reliable base damage is only really something that pops up in arena-style gauntlets where you face single powerful enemy after single powerful enemy after single powerful enemy without a Long Rest.

... "the real answer", really? For somebody who replies as pedantic as this, there is a lot of bollocks in the post above. Like "6 Pal Sorc X already has the Aura, so thats a wash." Except several subclasses give extremely powerful aura enhancements at paladin 7 (ancients and watchers come to mind as the best). And at level 10 the aura gives immunity to fear. And at level 18, all those aura's get 30ft radius.
And then "Twin buffs are also very strong support.". Yeah, they are. And if you want to twin buff your party you should play a single class sorcerer and no way in hell a pally 6 / hexlock 1 / sor X (which is what we are talking about) cause you are hopelessly behind in both high level spells, and sorcerer points. The latter which you need quickening SCAG cantrips, the former which you need to smite with if you want to get that nova dpr that sorcadin aims for.
"Divine Soul subclass heals (if you even go for that in combat)" Who says anything about 'in combat'? And yeah, one specific subclass... hello Schrodingers Sorcerer!
"Greater Steed is overrated - the rest of the party does not have it, so either your DM gimps the other melee significantly or it doesn't come into play
" lolwut? You disqualify the feature from being good cause potentially there could be other characters in the party, after which a hypothetical DM would choose not to include encounters in which a greater flying steed would be useful cause these potentially existing melee characters wouldn't have any features for ranged damage (like, a bow) or other ability to close distances... I mean, what? Even without using it as an option to fly, Find Greater Steed is an extra combatant on the field that can do damage, block passages, stand guard, etc.

[Rihno]

Seconding this because I'm a bit confused too- discarding crits a sorcadin with one attack and sword and board (which was said to be better then the polearm or other heavy weapons) has an average damage of 34 if the enemy moves at level 11 (since people were talking about IDS) using a 1d8 weapon and Dueling.

A paladin with a polearm and IDS has an average damage of 42. 44 if they use a spear and Dueling.
And crits are going to favor the paladin over the sorcadin due to the higher number of crits and the fact that half of the sorcadin damage doesn't even get doubled (again, talking about the moving part).

There's no istance where without expending resources the proposed sorcadin beats a paladin in melee damage assuming equal chances to hit, at least as far as I can see. Not with a single attack, at least.

EDIT: For fairness, when the cantrip scales up again at... 16th, I think? The sorcadin's resource-less damage grows again and rises to 43 average if the enemy moves, beating the paladin's by a rather low margin. Without crits.

Yah but that DPR comparsion (if using single attack, lol) doesn't make sense. There is a reason why Rogues scale so bad in Tier 2 and up. Becasue when 100% if your damage rides on 1 attack per turn, them miss = 100% damage lost in turn.

If someone would like to play Sorcadin like this I would just go 2/18 and at least have more SPs to Quicken that BB/GFB for second time and compensate more with spells. Having 6/14 build and not using Extra Attack is not smart move.

1 attack will never be better than 3 attacks or even 2 because the more damage you deal per attack the more you lose on miss. It's also one of the reasons why Great Weapon Master in some cases is way overrated on higher levels, becasue the more damage per attack you have the more you lose. And higher the any AC = accuracy starts to net bigger DPR than higher dmg per attack with lower accuracy. One of the reason why Elven Accuracy is so excellent feat.


... "the real answer", really? For somebody who replies as pedantic as this, there is a lot of bollocks in the post above. Like "6 Pal Sorc X already has the Aura, so thats a wash." Except several subclasses give extremely powerful aura enhancements at paladin 7 (ancients and watchers come to mind as the best). And at level 10 the aura gives immunity to fear. And at level 18, all those aura's get 30ft radius.
And then "Twin buffs are also very strong support.". Yeah, they are. And if you want to twin buff your party you should play a single class sorcerer and no way in hell a pally 6 / hexlock 1 / sor X (which is what we are talking about) cause you are hopelessly behind in both high level spells, and sorcerer points. The latter which you need quickening SCAG cantrips, the former which you need to smite with if you want to get that nova dpr that sorcadin aims for.
"Divine Soul subclass heals (if you even go for that in combat)" Who says anything about 'in combat'? And yeah, one specific subclass... hello Schrodingers Sorcerer!
"Greater Steed is overrated - the rest of the party does not have it, so either your DM gimps the other melee significantly or it doesn't come into play
" lolwut? You disqualify the feature from being good cause potentially there could be other characters in the party, after which a hypothetical DM would choose not to include encounters in which a greater flying steed would be useful cause these potentially existing melee characters wouldn't have any features for ranged damage (like, a bow) or other ability to close distances... I mean, what? Even without using it as an option to fly, Find Greater Steed is an extra combatant on the field that can do damage, block passages, stand guard, etc.

Well said. I wanted to reply to him as well, but you wrote what I wanted :).

Disquilifying feature because it's "too good" and "DM will not allow it" is just mind blowing... So Fireball is out, Action Surge is out, Rage is out, Meta Magic is out. Maybe we all just roll Bards? Ow, Magic Secrets.. too good! Out! :D

[Hael]

Yea I mean paladins are usually built quite a bit differently than typical Sorcadin builds and really serve different purposes on the battlefield. Paladins really use 2h weapons very well, and with spells like find steed typically have a great deal more movement speed with which to act and close in melee (this compensates for their lack of ranged options).

Sorcadins are much more tanky and play more like super versatile Eldritch knights. They typically stay closer to the rest of the party, as they will have strong ranged options and more crucially their tanking ability with spells like spirit guardians, kinda incentivizes them to remain close. Of course they can twin BB and quicken GFB, and drop a crap ton of smites, but in practice (at levels where people play) they mostly use those slots for defense, an occasional CC spell and much less for nova chart topping DPR.

So comparing them is a bit awkward, as they're really doing different things.

I personally think comparing Sorcadins to EKS is a much more natural comparison.

[Frogreaver]

Seconding this because I'm a bit confused too- discarding crits a sorcadin with one attack and sword and board (which was said to be better then the polearm or other heavy weapons) has an average damage of 34 if the enemy moves at level 11 (since people were talking about IDS) using a 1d8 weapon and Dueling.


And if the enemy doesn't move that sorcadin does 20.5 Damage on a hit. The PAM + Spear + Shield + IDS does 44 in comparison. 44 Guaranteed and split over 3 attacks is much better than sometimes 20.5 and sometimes 34 over 1 attack.

[Aimeryan]

Alright, some fair points, my memories are from comparing when using Shield + Sword, with Defence, without maxing Strength because Cha is favoured:

Longsword, 1d8.

EA + IDS with 16 Str:
(1d8 + 3) + (1d8 + 3) + 1d8 + 1d8 = 4.5 + 3 + 4.5 + 3 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 24

BB with max Cha (Hex), no movement:
(1d8 + 5) + (2d8) = 4.5 + 5 + 9 = 18.5

BB with max Cha (Hex), movement:
(1d8 + 5) + (2d8) + (3d8) = 4.5 + 5 + 9 + 13.5 = 32

This is from where the sole focus is not just one metric but a more rounded character. If I wanted a pure dps character I would probably go something like XBE + SS BM Fighter, but whatever, here is the sole focus comparison:

Greatsword, 2d6, went all in on Str.

EA + IDS with max Strength:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d6 + 5) + 1d8 + 1d8 = 7 + 5 + 7 + 5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 33

BB with max Strength, no movement:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d8) = 7 + 5 + 9 = 21

BB with max Strength, movement:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d8) + (3d8) = 7 + 5 + 9 + 13.5 = 34.5

Wait, but feats? Problem there is we have to ignore the other uses for th... - oh, but sole focus, I get it (and of course they all hit! - we are getting Advantage and Bless from outside, duh):

Greatsword, 2d6, PAM + GWM, went Variant Human for the extra feat.

EA + IDS + PAM + GWM with max Strength:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d6 + 5 + 10) + (1d4 + 5 + 10) + 1d8 + 1d8 + 1d8 = (7 + 5 + 10) + (7 + 5 + 10) + (2.5 + 5 + 10) + 4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 75

BB + GWM with max Strength, no movement:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d8) = (7 + 5 + 10) + 9 = 31

BB + GWM with max Strength, movement:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d8) + (3d8) = (7 + 5 + 10) 9 + 13.5 = 44.5

Alright, sure, no doubt about it, then.



If someone would like to play Sorcadin like this I would just go 2/18 and at least have more SPs to Quicken that BB/GFB for second time and compensate more with spells. Having 6/14 build and not using Extra Attack is not smart move.

Agreed; I prefer the 2/X build myself, add in 1 Hex if you can't grab a Gauntlet.

[stoutstien]

So I may late to the party on this, but is straight Paladin or sorcadin more powerful? I have a player that is a minmaxer and just made a sorcadin. I try not to nerf anything unless absolutely necessary. He hasn’t had a chance to play him yet. He was there with this character for one battle but had to leave the game early for personal reasons outside of the game. That said in his one fight he did a substantial amount of damage and with the help of sorcerer points. I never looked into sorcadin much as I thought hexadin was the powerhouse combo (which is manageable). That said, being 2 levels behind sorcerers (2 levels paly) I thought would be worse in the long run. It seems I may be wrong. I don’t mind powerful builds but “quickened hold person/monster” with early access to level 4 smites seems busted. I mean if everyone was that kind of player I could adjust fire but he’s been playing 3.5 forever, which is where he learned minmaxing from. Most of the other players don’t have the time, experience, nor desire to make such characters. To be fair, I too, appreciate minmaxing (playing since ADnD and LOVE 3.5) and enjoy doing it if that’s the kind of group I’m in. This is not that group. At least not to that level. I’m a pretty experienced DM but I’m kind of at a loss here. I don’t want him to think I’m picking on him, but this may be problem.
Am I wrong? I want to be wrong. I want to see that, “yes, he won’t be as powerful or at least won’t be more powerful because of X.” I realize his hit points will be lower and he will be behind sorcerers of his character level but dang. It seems like a more than fair trade on his part. Thoughts?

The value of each within a party is different enough to make a straight up power comparison difficult. The different multiclass combos between paladin and sorcerer can raise the potential of a PC but at the cost of a lower celling and a much more complicated resource management mini game to play. TBH that mini game is probably the biggest draw for a lot of players looking for a more interactive gish to use rather than the theoretical increased potential.

The real question is how do you handle pacing, resting/recovery, and spell components. That will tell you more in comparing these two than all the number crunching the internet can muster.

[Frogreaver]

This is from where the sole focus is not just one metric but a more rounded character. If I wanted a pure dps character I would probably go something like XBE + SS BM Fighter, but whatever, here is the sole focus comparison:



We are focusing on DPS because its a metric the Paladin trounces all over the Sorcadin (Pal 6/Sorc X) at level 12. Of course it's not just DPS the Paladin is better than the Sorcadin. The Paladin gets to do about 30 more Lay on Hands healing. Grants the Party Immunity to Fear. Has a little more hp. Also, he has 2 subclass features that usually are fairly good.


It very important to note that it's not like the Paladin is super far behind in buffing or debuffing either.


The Sorcadin at the level in question is a little better at control via access to hypnotic pattern or can twin haste for a strong buff - but using buffs in combat also risks concentration being broken or spending ASI's to shore up Concentration Saves.


Just an observation. A dragon sorcerer's firebolt does just as much damage as your booming blade (unless the target moves).
I also question whether haste is actually more beneficial buff than a level 3 bless that hits the whole party.
Most Paladins will eventually dip a level into hexblade which grants Shield. This boosts their tankiness nearly up to sorcadins.

[Rihno]

Alright, some fair points, my memories are from comparing when using Shield + Sword, with Defence, without maxing Strength because Cha is favoured:

Longsword, 1d8.

EA + IDS with 16 Str:
(1d8 + 3) + (1d8 + 3) + 1d8 + 1d8 = 4.5 + 3 + 4.5 + 3 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 24

BB with max Cha (Hex), no movement:
(1d8 + 5) + (2d8) = 4.5 + 5 + 9 = 18.5

BB with max Cha (Hex), movement:
(1d8 + 5) + (2d8) + (3d8) = 4.5 + 5 + 9 + 13.5 = 32

This is from where the sole focus is not just one metric but a more rounded character. If I wanted a pure dps character I would probably go something like XBE + SS BM Fighter, but whatever, here is the sole focus comparison:

Greatsword, 2d6, went all in on Str.

EA + IDS with max Strength:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d6 + 5) + 1d8 + 1d8 = 7 + 5 + 7 + 5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 33

BB with max Strength, no movement:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d8) = 7 + 5 + 9 = 21

BB with max Strength, movement:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d8) + (3d8) = 7 + 5 + 9 + 13.5 = 34.5

Wait, but feats? Problem there is we have to ignore the other uses for th... - oh, but sole focus, I get it (and of course they all hit! - we are getting Advantage and Bless from outside, duh):

Greatsword, 2d6, PAM + GWM, went Variant Human for the extra feat.

EA + IDS + PAM + GWM with max Strength:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d6 + 5 + 10) + (1d4 + 5 + 10) + 1d8 + 1d8 + 1d8 = (7 + 5 + 10) + (7 + 5 + 10) + (2.5 + 5 + 10) + 4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 75

BB + GWM with max Strength, no movement:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d8) = (7 + 5 + 10) + 9 = 31

BB + GWM with max Strength, movement:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d8) + (3d8) = (7 + 5 + 10) 9 + 13.5 = 44.5

Alright, sure, no doubt about it, then.




Agreed; I prefer the 2/X build myself, add in 1 Hex if you can't grab a Gauntlet.

Your calculation are not accurate because you totally don't calculate accuracy and hit-chance. Your "BB with max Cha (Hex), movement" will deal ZERO DPR if it miss. Zero. Also EA will have like 90% hit chance vs anything that is not AC 20+ minimum while your single attack will have all or nothing damage.

If you want accurate representation of DPR use DPR calculator from LudicSavant.

And you can't have EA + PAM + GWM + IDS + Max Strength. EA does not work with Strength attacks + you would need 5 ASI to even get that full combo, meaning even pure Paladin would only have it on level 19. And you again do not count accuracy of -5 from GWM. Accuracy is the biggest factor of DPR as to deal damage you have to hit first.

Accuracy Effect on DPR:

If you want proper calculation here is level 12 18 DEX Paladin with Elven Accuracy + Revenant Blade + IDS + Spirit Shroud DPR vs AC 20 is 56 DPR attacking with advantage with 87,5% hit chance and almost 40% crit chance.

To compare Level 12 18 STR Paladin with GWM + PAM with IDS + Spirit Shroud vs AC 20 is... 42 DPR with 43% chane to hit and 26% crit chance. Also attacking with advantage (but no EA)

What does it tell us? That you can stack +10 to every hit but if those hit do not connect- you have net bigger damage loss than someone with lower dmg per hit but higher accuracy.

Smites:

Second - it's Paladin. If you want to smite with every attack then the more accuracte Paladin will deliver way more damage on his turn becasue of higher accuracy. Again - the lower accuracy - the higher damage loss on miss. Which is especially important for Paladins because of their smites.

Now both builds have 3 attacks. Now I don't even need to make calculation to make you realize I hope how bad ONE attack is as miss = full damage loss.

So always when you want to calculate DPR - calculate it with accuracy, not with average numbers because 1d10 + 100d6 attack with only +1 to hit will mostly deal zero damage vs high 22 AC target, despite that average damage is 355

[Frogreaver]

Now both builds have 3 attacks. Now I don't even need to make calculation to make you realize I hope how bad ONE attack is as miss = full damage loss.



I completely disagree with this premise. I don't feel bad missing on a single big attack. I feel awesome when i hit on 2-3 of them in a row :smile:

[Rihno]

I completely disagree with this premise. I don't feel bad missing on a single big attack. I feel awesome when i hit on 2-3 of them in a row :smile:

I meant that hitting with one attack per turn, even if you try to attach smite + BB to it won't have good DPR because mathematically you have to miss and miss with reduce your DPR to zero. Hene why 2+ attacks will always be better than one, as sadly Rogues proved us over and over again.

I feel awesome when I know I am maximum effective with minimal effort :smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

I meant that hitting with one attack per turn, even if you try to attach smite + BB to it won't have good DPR because mathematically you have to miss and miss with reduce your DPR to zero. Hene why 2+ attacks will always be better than one, as sadly Rogues proved us over and over again.

I feel awesome when I know I am maximum effective with minimal effort :smallbiggrin:

You will need to elaborate before you claim has validity.
(See your other posts where you said more than "1 attack -> must be weak")
1 attack per turn does not mean 100% miss chance.
1 attack per turn having a chance to miss does not mean it is DPR 0.

1 Attack DPR = Hit Probability x Average Damage.
2 Attack DPR = Hit Distribution x Average Damage.
If a character with a 50% hit chance can choose between a single attack for 24 damage or 2 attacks for 8 damage each, then their DPR options are:
0.5 x 24 = 12
(0.25 * 2 + 0.5 * 1) x 8 = 1 x 8 = 8
In this case the single attack DPR is greater than the two attack DPR.

[Rihno]

You will need to elaborate before you claim has validity.
(See your other posts where you said more than "1 attack -> must be weak")
1 attack per turn does not mean 100% miss chance.
1 attack per turn having a chance to miss does not mean it is DPR 0.

1 Attack DPR = Hit Probability x Average Damage.
2 Attack DPR = Hit Distribution x Average Damage.
If a character with a 50% hit chance can choose between a single attack for 24 damage or 2 attacks for 8 damage each, then their DPR options are:
0.5 x 24 = 12
(0.25 * 2 + 0.5 * 1) x 8 = 1 x 8 = 8
In this case the single attack DPR is greater than the two attack DPR.

Yes but here we don't debate between super strong single attack and couple medicore attacks but a medicore single BB attack from Sorcadin using Hex vs full attack sequence of IDS Paladin using SS (Or Hunter's Mark if you are Vengeance) without even starting to attach smites. The DPR of multi attack Paladin will be higher due to more average DPR because there is less damage lost on miss and average DPR will start to increase for pure Paladin (especially DEX with EA) when you start to add smites as each smite is huge damage boost that is lost on miss, so higher accuracy + more attacks = bigger Nova per turn, further increasing the advantage of higher accuracy combined with more attacks.

Single attack can be strong, but that's not the case. For example a simple level 12 20 STR Paladin with IDS and PAM wielding Glaive would deal 34 DPR vs AC 20 with advantage. That's not optimized build or anything. To get close to tht DPR you would need Arcane Trickster Rogue level 12 with 20 DEX using Booming Blade with advantaeg on top of Sneak Attacck to deal average 32 DPR vs AC 20. Only when you have so high single attack it can start to get competetive, having optimized Rogue to further enchance single attack damage with BB cantrip. And Paladin didn't even use SS, Hunter's Mark or Haste or didn't start to smite.

Point is that yes, single attack build can be effective (Arcane Trickters are best what you can do with that) but it's not the case with his example of Sorcadin vs Paladin.

He also stated average damage values as DPR values which is false because he didn't calculate accuracy vs any kind of AC. Average dice damage is not DPR. You need to calculate accuracy first.

[Frogreaver]

Alright, some fair points, my memories are from comparing when using Shield + Sword, with Defence, without maxing Strength because Cha is favoured:

Longsword, 1d8.

EA + IDS with 16 Str:
(1d8 + 3) + (1d8 + 3) + 1d8 + 1d8 = 4.5 + 3 + 4.5 + 3 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 24

BB with max Cha (Hex), no movement:
(1d8 + 5) + (2d8) = 4.5 + 5 + 9 = 18.5

BB with max Cha (Hex), movement:
(1d8 + 5) + (2d8) + (3d8) = 4.5 + 5 + 9 + 13.5 = 32

This is from where the sole focus is not just one metric but a more rounded character. If I wanted a pure dps character I would probably go something like XBE + SS BM Fighter, but whatever, here is the sole focus comparison:

Greatsword, 2d6, went all in on Str.

EA + IDS with max Strength:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d6 + 5) + 1d8 + 1d8 = 7 + 5 + 7 + 5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 33

BB with max Strength, no movement:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d8) = 7 + 5 + 9 = 21

BB with max Strength, movement:
(2d6 + 5) + (2d8) + (3d8) = 7 + 5 + 9 + 13.5 = 34.5

Wait, but feats? Problem there is we have to ignore the other uses for th... - oh, but sole focus, I get it (and of course they all hit! - we are getting Advantage and Bless from outside, duh):

Greatsword, 2d6, PAM + GWM, went Variant Human for the extra feat.

EA + IDS + PAM + GWM with max Strength:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d6 + 5 + 10) + (1d4 + 5 + 10) + 1d8 + 1d8 + 1d8 = (7 + 5 + 10) + (7 + 5 + 10) + (2.5 + 5 + 10) + 4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 75

BB + GWM with max Strength, no movement:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d8) = (7 + 5 + 10) + 9 = 31

BB + GWM with max Strength, movement:
(2d6 + 5 + 10) + (2d8) + (3d8) = (7 + 5 + 10) 9 + 13.5 = 44.5

Alright, sure, no doubt about it, then.




Agreed; I prefer the 2/X build myself, add in 1 Hex if you can't grab a Gauntlet.

When I first arrived on this forum I said I had never seen anyone compute average damages and compare those like DPR values (except on the off chance it was obvious both would have the same chance to hit). I just wanted to note I've now seen it.

[Sception]

In terms of longevity, a Paladin is already a very long-rest-resource oriented class. Even with extra attack and improved divine smite, paladins still have a tendency to run out of their half-caster spell slots relatively quickly, and once they do they'll also be looking for an opportunity to long rest.

While a sorcadin, whether P2/S+ or P6/S+ or P8/S+, certainly can burn through all their daily resources in a blaze of glory if they want or if the situation calls for it, they will also eventually have more spell slots than a pure paladin, and more access to slot-efficient, encounter-long buff, debuff, and control spells. This allows a sorcadin concerned with their endurance to make their key daily resources last just as long as a typical single classed paladin. Longer, even.

[Aimeryan]

@Rihno, EA = Extra Attack here, not Elven Advantage.


In terms of longevity, a Paladin is already a very long-rest-resource oriented class. Even with extra attack and improved divine smite, paladins still have a tendency to run out of their half-caster spell slots relatively quickly, and once they do they'll also be looking for an opportunity to long rest.

While a sorcadin, whether P2/S+ or P6/S+ or P8/S+, certainly can burn through all their daily resources in a blaze of glory if they want or if the situation calls for it, they will also eventually have more spell slots than a pure paladin, and more access to slot-efficient, encounter-long buff, debuff, and control spells. This allows a sorcadin concerned with their endurance to make their key daily resources last just as long as a typical single classed paladin. Longer, even.

Yup, indeed.

The debate at hand was a whiteroom scenario where we presume resources have ran out and all we are doing is resourceless damage. Its not a great debate, but its the one thing Paladin has over Sorcadin if it should occur. For this to occur we also have to presume the Paladin is a 2H PAM + GWM user otherwise BB still competes, as long as the target moves (yeah, I know, the target not moving is also an amazing result, but for this scenario it deals less damage and is thus considered useless).

Realistically, it doesn't pan out for the same reason we don't expect Wizards to just be using cantrips at level 12 - as you elaborated upon. I would also much rather take a XBE + SS Fighter build if my sole concern was doing damage long after everyone else is out of resources. Also, don't ask me why HP is still fine while the caster level 12 resources have ran out.

[Snails]

While a sorcadin, whether P2/S+ or P6/S+ or P8/S+, certainly can burn through all their daily resources in a blaze of glory if they want or if the situation calls for it, they will also eventually have more spell slots than a pure paladin, and more access to slot-efficient, encounter-long buff, debuff, and control spells. This allows a sorcadin concerned with their endurance to make their key daily resources last just as long as a typical single classed paladin. Longer, even.

At higher tiers, that may well be true. But at middling high levels such as level 12, a pure Paladin has 10 spell slots plus always on Extra Attack, Aura of Protection, 7th level Oath feature, Aura of Courage, Improved Divine Smite. An P2/S+ has the same 10 slots plus 3 x 4th, 2 x 5th. Those 5 high level slots are very juicy and potent in terms of flexibility which gets better at higher levels, but those 5 "always on buffs" are nothing to sneeze at.

I do agree that a Soradin is hardly forced to burn through resources quickly to be effective, and it is quite possible to play the long game and only nova in an emergency. Something like a well-timed Banishment is a single spell slot that can turn a tough encounter into an easy win for the party.

[KyleG]

Excuse my rather rough reading of this text. I've skipped alot of the maths but What I'm reading suggests that paladins offer sustainable damage vs a sorcadins nova. Right?
I might be about to re-enter a campaign (level 10/11) with a character change (party is an entirely chaotic group of shepherd, trickster, ranger/rogue-ranged, & barbarian). Despite the parties weaknesses I don't want to play with a caster (We haven't uptil now). So the draconic sorcerer just flavoured as natural power more than a caster was the idea, focussed on self buffs and making him a better combatant. Striking quicker (quickened gfb) and better (draconic sorcerer stuff). I also wondered whether sprinkling in some champion fighter in the long run might be useful p8/s8/f4. Full asi. Not sure on paladin oath cos I know that makes a difference but it'll have to fit into the less than legal and rather chaotic nature of the group.

[Rihno]

Excuse my rather rough reading of this text. I've skipped alot of the maths but What I'm reading suggests that paladins offer sustainable damage vs a sorcadins nova. Right?
I might be about to re-enter a campaign (level 10/11) with a character change (party is an entirely chaotic group of shepherd, trickster, ranger/rogue-ranged, & barbarian). Despite the parties weaknesses I don't want to play with a caster (We haven't uptil now). So the draconic sorcerer just flavoured as natural power more than a caster was the idea, focussed on self buffs and making him a better combatant. Striking quicker (quickened gfb) and better (draconic sorcerer stuff). I also wondered whether sprinkling in some champion fighter in the long run might be useful p8/s8/f4. Full asi. Not sure on paladin oath cos I know that makes a difference but it'll have to fit into the less than legal and rather chaotic nature of the group.

Basically yeah, a well build Paladin for either Double Bladed Scimitar/Revenant Blade, PAM or two-weapon fighting combined with IDS, Hunter's Mark (if Vengeace), Spirit Shroud/Haste has a lot of sustainable damage and does not need to waste slots on smites on every enemy. It also has a lot support with all it's features, Greater Steed etc. Vengeance Paladin on level 15 can attack 5 times per turn on his VoE target (So bosses or enemy casters) trivilizing most boss fights.

Sorcadin is hard-nova and he has more slots but at the same time he uses more slots too and he is very short and streched with ASI (and he needs to rise that CHA to 20) which means he won't be able to build that RB+EA, GWM+PAM etc combos as his ASI are very late and cut. So it kind of evens up. Sorcadin is way more tankier for be sure but he also needs 13 STR to multiclass meaning he needs STR so his DEX saves will suck or he needs 1 level Hexblade which delay everything even more, slots, spells, aura, ASI.

Champion Fighter is bad dip for both, it slows spell and features progression and offers nothing worth it. Slots and spell progression is worth more for both Paladin and Sorcadin.

As to what to choose - looking at your party you already have healer + summoner (Shepherd Druid) so extra bodies/tanks + healing is covered. Ranger/Rogue seems to cover range attacks and Barbarian is probably front liner.

So you could play tough front-line tank to support Barbarian - in that case I recommend pure Ancients, Redemption or Crown Paladin. Or Sorcadin, but the problem with Sorcadin is that unless you take Divine Soul - you lose tons of power Sorcadin has. Sorcadin build is kind of amazing if you are Divine Soul and good when you take other subclass. It's worth to note that. It's power depends heavy on sorc origin. Or you can be front line Controller with Conquest, but with time you will lose a lot of this Oath power as fear-immunity is rather often later.

Or you can be striker, then Vengeance or Watchers are very good. Especially Mark of Shadow Elf.

Your party is pretty well balanced so you should play what you feel is most interesting for you. The thing about Paladins are - they are always good, no matter of party. You just can't go wrong with them.

[KyleG]

Basically yeah, a well build Paladin for either Double Bladed Scimitar/Revenant Blade, PAM or two-weapon fighting combined with IDS, Hunter's Mark (if Vengeace), Spirit Shroud/Haste has a lot of sustainable damage and does not need to waste slots on smites on every enemy. It also has a lot support with all it's features, Greater Steed etc. Vengeance Paladin on level 15 can attack 5 times per turn on his VoE target (So bosses or enemy casters) trivilizing most boss fights.

Sorcadin is hard-nova and he has more slots but at the same time he uses more slots too and he is very short and streched with ASI (and he needs to rise that CHA to 20) which means he won't be able to build that RB+EA, GWM+PAM etc combos as his ASI are very late and cut. So it kind of evens up. Sorcadin is way more tankier for be sure but he also needs 13 STR to multiclass meaning he needs STR so his DEX saves will suck or he needs 1 level Hexblade which delay everything even more, slots, spells, aura, ASI.

Champion Fighter is bad dip for both, it slows spell and features progression and offers nothing worth it. Slots and spell progression is worth more for both Paladin and Sorcadin.

As to what to choose - looking at your party you already have healer + summoner (Shepherd Druid) so extra bodies/tanks + healing is covered. Ranger/Rogue seems to cover range attacks and Barbarian is probably front liner.

So you could play tough front-line tank to support Barbarian - in that case I recommend pure Ancients, Redemption or Crown Paladin. Or Sorcadin, but the problem with Sorcadin is that unless you take Divine Soul - you lose tons of power Sorcadin has. Sorcadin build is kind of amazing if you are Divine Soul and good when you take other subclass. It's worth to note that. It's power depends heavy on sorc origin. Or you can be front line Controller with Conquest, but with time you will lose a lot of this Oath power as fear-immunity is rather often later.

Or you can be striker, then Vengeance or Watchers are very good. Especially Mark of Shadow Elf.

Your party is pretty well balanced so you should play what you feel is most interesting for you. The thing about Paladins are - they are always good, no matter of party. You just can't go wrong with them.

That's a very thorough succinct analysis. Very much appreciated. Thanks.
Conquest is the oath I want to play the most, although I want to lean into the fear aspects more than the conquest role which I'm struggling with because I don't want my character to be the outsider/fifth wheel my last one was. It was the loss of power because of fear immunity in the later levels that got me looking at sorcadin in the first place, and it was aversion to losing asi that got me thinking of fighter for 4 and the crit on 19/action surge was a nice idea if not in practice.

[Rihno]

That's a very thorough succinct analysis. Very much appreciated. Thanks.
Conquest is the oath I want to play the most, although I want to lean into the fear aspects more than the conquest role which I'm struggling with because I don't want my character to be the outsider/fifth wheel my last one was. It was the loss of power because of fear immunity in the later levels that got me looking at sorcadin in the first place, and it was aversion to losing asi that got me thinking of fighter for 4 and the crit on 19/action surge was a nice idea if not in practice.

If you want to play crit-fisher then Mark of Shadow Elf Paladin is hard to beat. It's DEX + Elven Accuracy 3 attacks setup with crit-fishing for crits. 19-20 crit with normal advantage is the same crit-chance as Elven Accuracy critting on 20. Vengeance and Watchers works best with it.

Here is the basic of concept by @LudicSavant: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24941211&postcount=938

They are also amazing stealth scounts with Pass Without Trace, invisibility and later Greater Invisibility and they get Darkness spell which you can combine with Blind Fighting Style for advantage vs group of enemies or in case of Paladin: VoE + Haste/Hunter's Mark/Spirit Shroud

If you want to lean into Feat aspect, maybe lean on it on narrative level, not mechanical? A Mark of Shadow Vengeance Paladin hunting his enemies from shadows, being silent assasin with smites, a hunter of evil can cause a lot of fear.


If you want to make crit-fisher you could also try Hexblade Elf/Half-Elf with Elven Accuracy + GWM using greatsword, later adding PAM. You can start with EA + Summoning Double Bladed Scimitar as Pact Weapon, then on level 8 Switch to Greatsword with GWM feat and on level 12 add PAM and switch to Glaive. You use Darkness + Devil Sight combo at first, then upgrade to Shadow of Moil.

I also love Conquest as thematic build, but sadly fear immunities basically kill the main appeal of this Oath at some point in game....

[1Pirate]

Something minor to note about Sorcadins(and to some degree hexadins) is that if your DM is strict about component rules, sword-and-board doesn't come online until you take Warcaster since a number of the more useful "tanking" spells like Shield and Absorb elements require somatic components. This can put you behind in ability scores earlier on.

I've been iffy on some multi-class builds because in real play I've gotten excited about a combination when I hit level 6, only to have the party TPK at 4. So a lot of this debate is campaign/DM dependent.

[Tes]

Something minor to note about Sorcadins(and to some degree hexadins) is that if your DM is strict about component rules, sword-and-board doesn't come online until you take Warcaster since a number of the more useful "tanking" spells like Shield and Absorb elements require somatic components. This can put you behind in ability scores earlier on.

I've been iffy on some multi-class builds because in real play I've gotten excited about a combination when I hit level 6, only to have the party TPK at 4. So a lot of this debate is campaign/DM dependent.

Factor in that you ASI progression is behind as so many other things and really want access to non Paladin Spells ASAP (Boomin Blande, Shield, ...) you'll hit level 10 (VHuman) or 14 (other stuff) before you get your Charisma maxed.
Meaning the Paladin will be +1 to hit and +1 damage per hit ahead on top of Extra Attack and IDS.
Considering the Pally could just pick up Mounted Combatant at 12 and get on a Griffon at 13 I don't think the Sorladin is keeping up in DPS in a vacuum and has significanlty less fun progression.
Pally gets stronger every level till here, probably up there with the strongest progression before T3 fully kicks into gear for full casters.

And that's always talking about a "boring" DPS Vengeance Pally.
A Conquest or Ancients Pally doing their thing is arguably more effective at winning encounters than just straight up damage, especially in a larger party they can support.

[Aimeryan]

Something minor to note about Sorcadins(and to some degree hexadins) is that if your DM is strict about component rules, sword-and-board doesn't come online until you take Warcaster since a number of the more useful "tanking" spells like Shield and Absorb elements require somatic components. This can put you behind in ability scores earlier on.

I've been iffy on some multi-class builds because in real play I've gotten excited about a combination when I hit level 6, only to have the party TPK at 4. So a lot of this debate is campaign/DM dependent.

You could drop the weapon as a worse case scenario (even then, a weapon chain could be fashioned). Better case is to not hold the shield while casting (doffing takes an action, however, that is like taking off your trousers - you don't have to hold your trousers all the time even if it does take a few seconds to take them off). Alternatively, whenever you want to use the weapon just draw-attack-sheathe (no OA with it the weapon in this case, but that is a minor issue).

Warcaster is good, but not necessary.

[Valmark]

You could drop the weapon as a worse case scenario (even then, a weapon chain could be fashioned). Better case is to not hold the shield while casting (doffing takes an action, however, that is like taking off your trousers - you don't have to hold your trousers all the time even if it does take a few seconds to take them off). Alternatively, whenever you want to use the weapon just draw-attack-sheathe (no OA with it the weapon in this case, but that is a minor issue).

Warcaster is good, but not necessary.

What's a weapon chain?

I could be wrong but I don't think you can sheate your weapon in the same turn you draw it- both are free item interactions.

And yeah, removing the shield is a bit impractical- you need to lose one turn of actions in order to be able to use your spell. Dropping the weapon might be the best option albeit the least elegant (assuming enemies don't steal it at that point).

[Hael]

I feel like most Sorcadins pick up War caster pretty early, given how amazing and essential it is for their net dpr and tanking (BB reactions), which incidentally muddies the dpr comparisons above (reactions matter).

Also a lot of modern Sorcadin builds are using Tasha's sorcerers so for instance you might have a thorn build with a clockwork paladin, which can really be a significant source of damage against crowds, and thats online pretty early (and might even make the P2 S6 split more attractive than going for the auras first).

More generally, things start to become a bit problematic in straight resource free calculations somewhere in mid tier 3, where the sorcerer spells start outscaling what most Paladins get. I would say that at some point there is a turnover point (campaign and build dependant) where the caster/martial divide starts allowing things that are just not possible in straight class.

[Rihno]

What's a weapon chain?

I could be wrong but I don't think you can sheate your weapon in the same turn you draw it- both are free item interactions.

And yeah, removing the shield is a bit impractical- you need to lose one turn of actions in order to be able to use your spell. Dropping the weapon might be the best option albeit the least elegant (assuming enemies don't steal it at that point).

You can drop weapon as it doesn't require interaction, you just drop it on ground and then as Free-item interaction you pick it up.

Though of course it's clunky solution.

[Rihno]

I feel like most Sorcadins pick up War caster pretty early, given how amazing and essential it is for their net dpr and tanking (BB reactions), which incidentally muddies the dpr comparisons above (reactions matter).

Also a lot of modern Sorcadin builds are using Tasha's sorcerers so for instance you might have a thorn build with a clockwork paladin, which can really be a significant source of damage against crowds, and thats online pretty early (and might even make the P2 S6 split more attractive than going for the auras first).

More generally, things start to become a bit problematic in straight resource free calculations somewhere in mid tier 3, where the sorcerer spells start outscaling what most Paladins get. I would say that at some point there is a turnover point (campaign and build dependant) where the caster/martial divide starts allowing things that are just not possible in straight class.

Sorcadin spells might outscalling Paladin spells, but not Paladin DPR or his passive bonuses. Besides above in posts you have all calcutions and advantages/disadvantages of both etc. proving that neither is better than other, because they play very differently. There is no "turnover point". You want to be more of martial or more of caster? More passive or more active? Smooth progression vs harsh progression. That's pretty much what it is. You want to be more passive DPR/Nova or more more active caster/nova? More of passive support or more of "I need to use slots to support" type? More of "I just need to worry about smites slots" or "I need to worry about smite slots, active spell slots, damage slots, sorc points" etc. You want to be flexible crit-fisher/multi attack martial-support or more of tank-caster-support?

There is no winner here, it's just apples vs oranges and "pick your poison" because you gain and lose something in both cases. None of those - Paladin or Sorcadin is perfect. Even tough at "base level" they are NOVA smitters, the experience is overall different, same as build potential.

[Garimeth]

You could drop the weapon as a worse case scenario (even then, a weapon chain could be fashioned). Better case is to not hold the shield while casting (doffing takes an action, however, that is like taking off your trousers - you don't have to hold your trousers all the time even if it does take a few seconds to take them off). Alternatively, whenever you want to use the weapon just draw-attack-sheathe (no OA with it the weapon in this case, but that is a minor issue).

Warcaster is good, but not necessary.

As Valmark said, the draw/attack/sheathe is not doable within normal action economy.

Also, the whole process described above is a little silly. Warcaster is definitely needed to be optimal.

IRT builds in general, while I see the appeal of Sorcadin, I personally prefer a pure pally, or 2 lock/X paladin. This nets SADness, cantrips, short rest recharge spells that can be used for bless, a powerful ranged attack option, two invocations, and the crit profile of hexblade curse for smiting, while not delaying too much all those sweet paladin goodies.

[follacchioso]

I don’t mind powerful builds but “quickened hold person/monster” with early access to level 4 smites seems busted. I mean if everyone was that kind of player I could adjust fire but he’s been playing 3.5 forever, which is where he learned minmaxing from. Somebody may have said it already, but Hold Person is V,S,M, meaning they need to hold a Spellcasting focus or the Material Components in one hand. Paladins can use a shield or holy symbol for their spells, but that applies only to paladin spells, not the ones from the sorcerer list.

I don't have experience of Sorcadins, but a few things come to mind:
- this is a Melee build. The sorcerer levels may provide some long range spells and cantrips, but watch out for the M components.
- as other said, it's also a nova build, focused on the big boss, but they will struggle against multiple enemies.
- similarly, clunky and noisy paladins, they will struggle on difficult terrain, or in any situation requiring stealth, acrobatics, and lots of other skills.
- Paladins tend to become the focus of attention of the whole party. But there is plenty of strategy for the other members to play around it. If the other players are new to the game, you should let them know about that. Rogues can sneak around while the paladin makes a lot of noise, and so on.

[Aimeryan]

What's a weapon chain?

I could be wrong but I don't think you can sheate your weapon in the same turn you draw it- both are free item interactions.

And yeah, removing the shield is a bit impractical- you need to lose one turn of actions in order to be able to use your spell. Dropping the weapon might be the best option albeit the least elegant (assuming enemies don't steal it at that point).

A weapon chain would just be a chain between your weapon (usually a custom pommel) and some piece of gear on your person (the gauntlet is the likeliest choice, allowing a quick tug to retrieve). It is simply to stop situations where the weapon could roll down a hill, or be lost in a stream, etc. DM-specific in the same way that pretty much anything is, with the advantage that it would be difficult to find some reason this doesn't work, once you get to a smith. Of course, rocks fall, in that is what the DM wants.

The object interation is limited to one object per turn.

You wouldn't take off the shield (called doffing), you simply wouldn't be holding it anymore, thereby presenting a free hand. You are free to let go of anything you are holding, unless something is keeping it locked into your hand - RAW mentions nothing about a shield locking up your hand. Again, rocks fall.

[Hael]

Sorcadin spells might outscalling Paladin spells, but not Paladin DPR or his passive bonuses. Besides above in posts you have all calcutions and advantages/disadvantages of both etc. proving that neither is better than other, because they play very differently. There is no "turnover point".

It will eventually outscale the DPR as well. Again, at some point the amount of resources you have (sorcery points, spell slots etc) starts being more than the amount of fights you get in a day, and your 'nova' calculations start to become just your passive steady damage. So you're going to start seeing twin+quicken Scagtrips + smite fuel multiple rounds in a fight, you'll start seeing fireballs (eventually animate objects + Synaptic static), or spirit guardians and summons in every encounter and things just get out of hand in a hurry.

I consider monoclass paladins as premiere damage class, but that's really during normal lvls of play. Late tier 3 and tier 4 stuff is a separate universe and normal rules simply don't apply.

[Rihno]

It will eventually outscale the DPR as well. Again, at some point the amount of resources you have (sorcery points, spell slots etc) starts being more than the amount of fights you get in a day, and your 'nova' calculations start to become just your passive steady damage. So you're going to start seeing twin+quicken Scagtrips + smite fuel multiple rounds in a fight, you'll start seeing fireballs (eventually animate objects + Synaptic static), or spirit guardians and summons in every encounter and things just get out of hand in a hurry.

I consider monoclass paladins as premiere damage class, but that's really during normal lvls of play. Late tier 3 and tier 4 stuff is a separate universe and normal rules simply don't apply.

No he won't outscale in DPR but ok, give me your calculations vs Big Boss on Socardin and I will tell you - I will beat you with straight Paladin without issue. And Sorcadin "passive damage" does not compare to Improved Divine Smite Paladin passive damage which is resource free. I already gave you example here that if you take 8 encounters per day, each 3 turns then Improved Divine Smite of Paladin with 3 attacks is equal to 72d8 extra damage PASSIVE per adventuring day. That is 24x 2nd level Smites or 18x 3rd level Smites.

Even 6/14 Sorcadin does not have 18x 3rd level slots to burn for whole day. And Paladin didn't even had to burn any slot.

But please go ahead, give me your calculation, but no average damage as DPR but properly calculated DPR with accuracy included vs enemy AC. Let's take AC 19 as it's average AC value from monster manual.

Also Fireball is when you don't smite, spirit guardians is also action in a turn you won't smite.

See the difference? As Sorcadin you are more of a caster. You need to rely on casting spells like Spirit Guardians (which ONLY happens if you take Divine Soult) or Fireball which eats slot every encounter. Paladin does not need to do that. You also need to quicken something and burn SPs to have 3rd attack. It's all resource cost.

You sacrefice steady passive resource free damage and single target DPR for more of AOE damage or spellcasting. Sorcadin is just more of a caster. Paladin is more of a martial. That's it.

Also nothing Sorcadin can bring is equal to 30 feet +5 saves aura for whole team. That's 24h passive that is worth more than any Fireball or Spirit Guardians you can bring.

Meanwhile my Paladin in most fights won't even use more than single slot for some buff if at all especially once Paladin has Holy Weapon.

Passive vs Active. Martial vs caster. Choose which one you want more.

I played both and I can tell you - I had to track and care about resources way more on Sorcadin because I had to use them way more than on Paladin.

But both were great.

[DarknessEternal]

I already gave you example here that if you take 8 encounters per day, each 3 turns then Improved Divine Smite of Paladin with 3 attacks is equal to 72d8 extra damage PASSIVE per adventuring day. That is 24x 2nd level Smites or 18x 3rd level Smites.


I'm totally on your side here, brother. But the rest of the D&D world besides to two of us think D&D only has one encounter per day. Ya know, even though the DMG says 6-8 per day.

[Rihno]

I'm totally on your side here, brother. But the rest of the D&D world besides to two of us think D&D only has one encounter per day. Ya know, even though the DMG says 6-8 per day.

I also get the feeling many people when consider power of something think about one combat or 2-3 per day where they can burn through all resources and long rest.

[Frogreaver]

I'm totally on your side here, brother. But the rest of the D&D world besides to two of us think D&D only has one encounter per day. Ya know, even though the DMG says 6-8 per day.

Even if looking at a single encounter per day the paladin is doing more damage. He can burn through smites much faster while still benefiting from ids and also benefiting more from most buff spells.

[sithlordnergal]

Hmmm, I don't know if a pure Paladin is outright stronger than a Soradin. I can tell you that Soradins are a lot more selfish then Paladins. Their auras are smaller, and they tend to lack Aura of Courage or the 7th level Aura feature. However, they gain a lot more versatility then a pure Paladin, gain their higher level smites at a faster rate, and are better in ranged combat then a Paladin ever will be. Not to mention I'd say Soradins make better tanks due to Shield of Faith+Shield giving you a +7 to AC. They're one of the easiest multiclasses to get an AC of 30 or more on with just a +1 Shield and a Ring of Protection as your magic items.

As for damage, its a bit of a toss up. Once Paladins have Improved Divine smite they do better average damage then a Soradin will. However, Soradins can nova harder then a Paladin due to Bonus Action Booming Blade. Soradins can also nova longer then a pure Paladin can, since they have far more spell slots then your average Paladin. Even if we compare a level 12 pure Paladin to a 6 Paladin/6 Sorcerer, the Soradin has 4 more spell slots then the pure Paladin, and those spell slots are at a higher level. You also have to consider cantrips, as they add a lot of combat versatility. Sure, we all know that Bonus Action Booming Blade, or even BB on an opportunity attack, make for some nice bonus damage. But Chill Touch and Firebolt can handle any long range combat. Chill Touch is especially nice since it gives a major debuff to Undead, and prevents any and all healing. Sure its a bit of a niche spell, but not many creatures resist Necrotic, and blocking all forms of healing to a target is incredibly useful when the time comes.

[Hael]

No he won't outscale in DPR but ok, give me your calculations vs Big Boss on Socardin and I will tell you - I will beat you with straight Paladin without issue.

I played both and I can tell you - I had to track and care about resources way more on Sorcadin because I had to use them way more than on Paladin.

But both were great.

Great that makes two of us, and no you won't. I played a Sorcadin into late tier 3 and multiple different monoclass paladins in various oneshots. Sorcadin resources are a very real problem in tier 2, but somewhere in tier 3 they stop being a problem (and indeed become available to use for offense).

Take lvl 17 for instance. A 6/11 Sorcerer has 11 sp, and something like 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 slots vs a paladins 4 3 3 3 1. IDS adds 3d8 per round to the attack chain (assuming 2 attacks and a BA.. some builds will have haste in which case its 4d8). twinned booming blade adds 6d8 , and an extra 8d8 for the rider.. If I burn one of my 5th lvl spells for font, I can get 18 sp, which means I can be spamming this nonstop for over 4 fights per lr. Even if I don't use font again, there's no world in which the paladin is making up that deficit with *only* IDS (instead we would need to get into build nitty gritty, and 1h vs 2h etc) in any sort of reasonable fight per day scenario. In other words I have created a damage deficit of 18*2d8 + whatever you want to give for the rider (max of 18*8d8).

The next point is that divine smite (available to both) is actually really inefficient use of slot damage (even if its great use of action economy or for nova). So eg you are better served (for total dpr) using an action to fireball a crowd of goblins, then using both of your paladin melee actions hitting them, and then using a third level smite slot. So when we use resources, sorcadins are much more efficient dpr machines.

That's just white room stuff as well. In practice complicated enormously by very important details. For instance monoclass paladins have many turns where they can't hit anything because melee only (and they might not have their steed in a dungeon). They have many turns where they have to stay back, ready actions and provide aura and likewise in reality, sorcadins will also be using a great deal of their resources casting shield and ae, and maybe they come to the conclusion that a spell like hypnotic pattern or twinned deathward is a better use of a slot than a few extra dpr.

Also not considered here is the effect of buffs. That twinned haste on the rogue is adding a substantial amount of dpr to a party.

Finally, and this is where things get out of hand. I haven't talked at all about high level spell slots. As an example there are summons that are available to say Tashas's sorcerers. They scale with spell level, and will dramatically outscale the paladins meager 5th level summon (only available at lvl 17). Upcast spiritual weapon and animate objects also start getting ridiculous. We also haven't talked about always on buffs like fireshield and the much larger spell list sorcerers can pick.

So no, I don't agree. I don't even think its close in tier 4 unless the Sorcadin is only concentrating on buffs and CC.


Even if looking at a single encounter per day the paladin is doing more damage. He can burn through smites much faster while still benefiting from ids and also benefiting more from most buff spells.
I don't see this. Sorcadins can twin BB and quicken GFB, so they can technically deliver more smites per turn with multiple adversaries present?? Haste will benefit the paladin more relatively speaking, but I believe the optimal use of buffs for the Sorcadin would likely be greater invis with the above combo. The only way the Paladin is equaling that sort of Nova is if find greater steed was acting independently and contributing damage (and then we get into summon wars).

[Rihno]

However, Soradins can nova harder then a Paladin due to Bonus Action Booming Blade. Soradins can also nova longer then a pure Paladin can, since they have far more spell slots then your average Paladin.

Sorcadin doesn't really nova harder at all. Quicken BB is just extra 3d8 dmg on level 17 which is equivalent of 3d8 from IDS from 3 attacks of pure Paladin. However, since all that damage runs on one attack - miss will cost Sorcadin more damage loss.

Second the hardest Nova will be Hasted Vengeance Paladin with Soul of Vengeance on Pegasus with either PAM or Revenant Blade build, attacking VoE target with 5 attacks per turn with IDS + Nova + Elven Accuracy to crit fish that 10d8 smites.

As for Sorcadin having longer Nova - mostly agree. However as someone who was playing Sorcadin I have to tell you that it's not always that nice and rainbow as Sorcadin uses way more slots than Paladin on average. Paradoxically even the sole fact that Sorcadin has Shield spell and Absorb elements make him use more spells. Also since he doesn't have as much attacks as Paladin becasue quicken BB is saved on bosses as SPs are very low for most of Sorcadin career - he has to rely way more on spells to do consistent damage like Fireball for example or Spiritual Weapon which leads to more slots used. Shadow Blade is not a bad spell for Sorcadin in that regard, giving him nice sustainable damage, but again - at cost of slot and concentration. Also - if you don't take Divine Soul - Sorcadin loses tons of sustain damage, which is what I highly dislike about Sorcadin, as it basically forces you to take Divine Soul.

Overall as I said - they are both as good, just in different ways and they gain something and lose something.

[Frogreaver]

Hmmm, I don't know if a pure Paladin is outright stronger than a Soradin. I can tell you that Soradins are a lot more selfish then Paladins. Their auras are smaller, and they tend to lack Aura of Courage or the 7th level Aura feature. However, they gain a lot more versatility then a pure Paladin, gain their higher level smites at a faster rate, and are better in ranged combat then a Paladin ever will be. Not to mention I'd say Soradins make better tanks due to Shield of Faith+Shield giving you a +7 to AC. They're one of the easiest multiclasses to get an AC of 30 or more on with just a +1 Shield and a Ring of Protection as your magic items.

As for damage, its a bit of a toss up. Once Paladins have Improved Divine smite they do better average damage then a Soradin will. However, Soradins can nova harder then a Paladin due to Bonus Action Booming Blade. Soradins can also nova longer then a pure Paladin can, since they have far more spell slots then your average Paladin. Even if we compare a level 12 pure Paladin to a 6 Paladin/6 Sorcerer, the Soradin has 4 more spell slots then the pure Paladin, and those spell slots are at a higher level. You also have to consider cantrips, as they add a lot of combat versatility. Sure, we all know that Bonus Action Booming Blade, or even BB on an opportunity attack, make for some nice bonus damage. But Chill Touch and Firebolt can handle any long range combat. Chill Touch is especially nice since it gives a major debuff to Undead, and prevents any and all healing. Sure its a bit of a niche spell, but not many creatures resist Necrotic, and blocking all forms of healing to a target is incredibly useful when the time comes.

The 6 Pal / 6 Sorc can do slightly more Nova Damage albeit significantly less at-will damage
The 2 Pal / 10 Sorc is very bad at damage, Nova or otherwise.

[Rihno]

The next point is that divine smite (available to both) is actually really inefficient use of slot damage (even if its great use of action economy or for nova). So eg you are better served (for total dpr) using an action to fireball a crowd of goblins, then using both of your paladin melee actions hitting them, and then using a third level smite slot. So when we use resources, sorcadins are much more efficient dpr machines.

That's just white room stuff as well. In practice complicated enormously by very important details. For instance monoclass paladins have many turns where they can't hit anything because melee only (and they might not have their steed in a dungeon). They have many turns where they have to stay back, ready actions and provide aura and likewise in reality, sorcadins will also be using a great deal of their resources casting shield and ae, and maybe they come to the conclusion that a spell like hypnotic pattern or twinned deathward is a better use of a slot than a few extra dpr.

All those statements are false. First of all - horde of goblins? Sorcadin is 6 or 7/5 build. You care about crowd of goblins on level 11+? You won't have Fireball till you are LEVEL 11 or 12. At level 11/12 nobody cares about crowds of weak enemies. It's not an issue. Hardly justify to take Sorcadin. Now Wizard at level 5 having Fireball - yes, that's super usefll as at this level crowd of weak enemies can still be a danger to party. But at level 11/12 you finally get a Fireball?

And when the hell Paladins can't hit anything in melee suddenly and Sorcadin can. Well build Paladin has 90% hit chance vs AC 20 enemy. And nobody said anything about Steed. Steed is on top of what I said.

And where they hell Paladin ever has to stay back and ready actions? Wtf? Paladin is up front fighting, not ready action at the back.

If anyone is creating White Room scenarios here is you, ignoring fact that you need 11/12 levels to get that Fireball, that it's not the same spell as getting it on level 5 and creating some non-sense arguments about ready action and staying back when you play freaking melee character.... Who stays back with Paladin....

[Hael]

All those statements are false. First of all - horde of goblins? Sorcadin is 6 or 7/5 build. You care about crowd of goblins on level 11+? You won't have Fireball till you are LEVEL 11 or 12. At level 11/12 nobody cares about crowds of weak enemies. It's not an issue. Hardly justify to take Sorcadin. Now Wizard at level 5 having Fireball - yes, that's super usefll as at this level crowd of weak enemies can still be a danger to party. But at level 11/12 you finally get a Fireball?

And when the hell Paladins can't hit anything in melee suddenly and Sorcadin can. Well build Paladin has 90% hit chance vs AC 20 enemy. And nobody said anything about Steed. Steed is on top of what I said.

And where they hell Paladin ever has to stay back and ready actions? Wtf? Paladin is up front fighting, not ready action at the back.

If anyone is creating White Room scenarios here is you, ignoring fact that you need 11/12 levels to get that Fireball, that it's not the same spell as getting it on level 5 and creating some non-sense arguments about ready action and staying back when you play freaking melee character.... Who stays back with Paladin....

What are you talking about. Suddenly enemy hordes don't count?? Replace goblins with anything non fire resistant (it actually doesn't matter sorcerors can just change the damage type).

And yes, Sorcadins have *ranged* attacks. Resourceless too. You've never been in a boat while archers fire at you? Never been ambushed from the hills, or gone up against flying foes. I can tell you melee only characters can lose well over 1/3rd of their theoretical damage in practice when they don't have access to ranged options.

[Frogreaver]

Great that makes two of us, and no you won't. I played a Sorcadin into late tier 3 and multiple different monoclass paladins in various oneshots. Sorcadin resources are a very real problem in tier 2, but somewhere in tier 3 they stop being a problem (and indeed become available to use for offense).

Take lvl 17 for instance. A 6/11 Sorcerer has 11 sp, and something like 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 slots vs a paladins 4 3 3 3 1. IDS adds 3d8 per round to the attack chain (assuming 2 attacks and a BA.. some builds will have haste in which case its 4d8). twinned booming blade adds 6d8 , and an extra 8d8 for the rider.. If I burn one of my 5th lvl spells for font, I can get 18 sp, which means I can be spamming this nonstop for over 4 fights per lr. Even if I don't use font again, there's no world in which the paladin is making up that deficit with *only* IDS (instead we would need to get into build nitty gritty, and 1h vs 2h etc) in any sort of reasonable fight per day scenario. In other words I have created a damage deficit of 18*2d8 + whatever you want to give for the rider (max of 18*8d8).

The next point is that divine smite (available to both) is actually really inefficient use of slot damage (even if its great use of action economy or for nova). So eg you are better served (for total dpr) using an action to fireball a crowd of goblins, then using both of your paladin melee actions hitting them, and then using a third level smite slot. So when we use resources, sorcadins are much more efficient dpr machines.

That's just white room stuff as well. In practice complicated enormously by very important details. For instance monoclass paladins have many turns where they can't hit anything because melee only (and they might not have their steed in a dungeon). They have many turns where they have to stay back, ready actions and provide aura and likewise in reality, sorcadins will also be using a great deal of their resources casting shield and ae, and maybe they come to the conclusion that a spell like hypnotic pattern or twinned deathward is a better use of a slot than a few extra dpr.

Also not considered here is the effect of buffs. That twinned haste on the rogue is adding a substantial amount of dpr to a party.

Finally, and this is where things get out of hand. I haven't talked at all about high level spell slots. As an example there are summons that are available to say Tashas's sorcerers. They scale with spell level, and will dramatically outscale the paladins meager 5th level summon (only available at lvl 17). Upcast spiritual weapon and animate objects also start getting ridiculous. We also haven't talked about always on buffs like fireshield and the much larger spell list sorcerers can pick.

So no, I don't agree. I don't even think its close in tier 4 unless the Sorcadin is only concentrating on buffs and CC.


I don't see this. Sorcadins can twin BB and quicken GFB, so they can technically deliver more smites per turn with multiple adversaries present?? Haste will benefit the paladin more relatively speaking, but I believe the optimal use of buffs for the Sorcadin would likely be greater invis with the above combo. The only way the Paladin is equaling that sort of Nova is if find greater steed was acting independently and contributing damage (and then we get into summon wars).

The whole point of Nova is to gun down a foe fast. Splitting damage between multiple foes using things like twinned booming blade and greens flame blade while good for big numbers isn’t remotely the same thing.

[Valmark]

A weapon chain would just be a chain between your weapon (usually a custom pommel) and some piece of gear on your person (the gauntlet is the likeliest choice, allowing a quick tug to retrieve). It is simply to stop situations where the weapon could roll down a hill, or be lost in a stream, etc. DM-specific in the same way that pretty much anything is, with the advantage that it would be difficult to find some reason this doesn't work, once you get to a smith. Of course, rocks fall, in that is what the DM wants.

The object interation is limited to one object per turn.

You wouldn't take off the shield (called doffing), you simply wouldn't be holding it anymore, thereby presenting a free hand. You are free to let go of anything you are holding, unless something is keeping it locked into your hand - RAW mentions nothing about a shield locking up your hand. Again, rocks fall.

Oh I see- but yeah, that would go into DM houserules and that greatly depends on the DM.

The object interaction is also limited to one interaction- or at least the example given in the book is that you can draw or sheate a weapon.

That... Makes no sense. By that logic you could have an heavy weapon (as an example a greatsword) and a shield, but you don't seem to consider that possible.

[DarknessEternal]

twinned booming blade adds 6d8

tf I burn one of my 5th lvl spells for font, I can get 18 sp, ).

Yeah, everything's better when you cheat.

Can't twin Booming Blade. You get 5sp for a 5th level spell.

[kbob]

I don't see this. Sorcadins can twin BB and quicken GFB, so they can technically deliver more smites per turn with multiple adversaries present.

I thought that you could not twin BB nor GFB because it had a range of self. Is this not the errata since TCoE? I actually didn’t notice it till another commenter mentioned it earlier in this feed.

[sithlordnergal]

Sorcadin doesn't really nova harder at all. Quicken BB is just extra 3d8 dmg on level 17 which is equivalent of 3d8 from IDS from 3 attacks of pure Paladin. However, since all that damage runs on one attack - miss will cost Sorcadin more damage loss.

Second the hardest Nova will be Hasted Vengeance Paladin with Soul of Vengeance on Pegasus with either PAM or Revenant Blade build, attacking VoE target with 5 attacks per turn with IDS + Nova + Elven Accuracy to crit fish that 10d8 smites.

As for Sorcadin having longer Nova - mostly agree. However as someone who was playing Sorcadin I have to tell you that it's not always that nice and rainbow as Sorcadin uses way more slots than Paladin on average. Paradoxically even the sole fact that Sorcadin has Shield spell and Absorb elements make him use more spells. Also since he doesn't have as much attacks as Paladin becasue quicken BB is saved on bosses as SPs are very low for most of Sorcadin career - he has to rely way more on spells to do consistent damage like Fireball for example or Spiritual Weapon which leads to more slots used. Shadow Blade is not a bad spell for Sorcadin in that regard, giving him nice sustainable damage, but again - at cost of slot and concentration. Also - if you don't take Divine Soul - Sorcadin loses tons of sustain damage, which is what I highly dislike about Sorcadin, as it basically forces you to take Divine Soul.

Overall as I said - they are both as good, just in different ways and they gain something and lose something.

I have a quick question, are you using PAM or Dual Wielding to get the third attack on the pure Paladin? Because Paladins only ever get two attacks. That said, a Paladin using a d10 Polearm with PAM does have the same damage as a Paladin using a Longsword and Shield with Quicken Booming Blade. PAM Paladins do have a lot more base damage since their average damage is always going to be equal to a Soradin going all out with a d8 weapon. The downside is that the PAM Paladin can't use a shield, and the Soradin can actually increase their damage by swapping to a Greatsword. Dual wielding weapons ends up with a similar result, though a dual wielder can technically increase their damage by dual wielding lances while riding a mount.

That said, I fully agree with you that as time goes on you'll find yourself casting more spells then smiting people. Its ironic, the higher the Soradin's level, the more they'll act like a Cleric. That said, I don't know if you have to take Divine Soul. I will admit that Divine Soul meshes really, really well with Soradin because you can jump in with things like Spirit Guardians. But I've never felt that its so strong that it makes the other options moot.

[Hael]

Yeah, everything's better when you cheat.

Can't twin Booming Blade. You get 5sp for a 5th level spell.

You certainly could when I played a Sorcadin and my understanding was that the TCOE changes involved spell sniper and shadowblade changes but left twin and quicken scagtrips mechanics unaltered. So I don’t believe that’s RAW (edit actually there’s multiple conflicting statements about this on the internet, as usual a gigantic wording mess by WOTC. Rule it as you will)

Correct about the SP, I had the direction upside down. 2sp doesn’t change the conclusion in the slightest though

[Frogreaver]

...The downside is that the PAM Paladin can't use a shield...

PAM allows you to use a spear. One can use a spear and shield and still fully benefit from PAM (Aside from some Vengeance Paladin Shenanigans)

[kbob]

You certainly could when I played a Sorcadin and my understanding was that the TCOE changes involved spell sniper and shadowblade changes but left twin and quicken scagtrips mechanics unaltered. So I don’t believe that’s RAW.

TCoE has changed BB and GFB to a range of self. You cannot twin spells with a range of self.

[Frogreaver]

You certainly could when I played a Sorcadin and my understanding was that the TCOE changes involved spell sniper and shadowblade changes but left twin and quicken scagtrips mechanics unaltered. So I don’t believe that’s RAW.

Correct about the SP, I had the direction upside down. 2sp doesn’t change the conclusion in the slightest.

I also recall there being something about them ruling that you cannot twin effects with range of self. Though I couldn't say if this was Twitter, Sage Advice or another source.

[sithlordnergal]

PAM allows you to use a spear. One can use a spear and shield and still fully benefit from PAM (Aside from some Vengeance Paladin Shenanigans)

It does, and it does allow you to have a higher base damage then a sword and board Soradin. Though the sword and board Soradin will do more average damage when the nova then the PAM Paladin will. A pure Paladin can also go Quarterstaff/Shillelagh with PAM and Magic Initiate to have a d8 Quarterstaff and a shield.

[Frogreaver]

It does, and it does allow you to have a higher base damage then a sword and board Soradin. Though the sword and board Soradin will do more average damage when the nova then the PAM Paladin will.

Assuming you are talking the Pal 6 / Sorc X version. If so then the paladin will do significantly more base damage and the Sorcadin will do slightly more Nova Damage.


A pure Paladin can also go Quarterstaff/Shillelagh with PAM and Magic Initiate to have a d8 Quarterstaff and a shield.

What gives you a Shillelagh that keys off Charisma?

[DarknessEternal]

You certainly could when I played a Sorcadin and my understanding was that the TCOE changes involved spell sniper and shadowblade changes but left twin and quicken scagtrips mechanics unaltered. So I don’t believe that’s RAW (edit actually there’s multiple conflicting statements about this on the internet, as usual a gigantic wording mess by WOTC. Rule it as you will)
There's nothing at all ambiguous about the RAW. It says you can't twin Booming Blade.


Correct about the SP, I had the direction upside down. 2sp doesn’t change the conclusion in the slightest though

You claimed to get 18 sp for one 5th level spell slot. That's 13 more than you actually get.

You're not going to make much headway in a rules-based debate with your knowledge of the rules.

[Witty Username]

As I understand it multi classes that have viability are generally stronger in tier 2-3 play and weaker in Tier 1 and Tier 4.
In specific paladin is going to be more effective generally until level 6. Sorcadin will need until level 8ish to hit its strong point. But by level 17 straight sorcerer will have its most important power spike and a Sorcadin will feel that gap. Paladins also get rewarded by a pretty powerful capstone for sticking with it depending on the oath. This of course neglect that these 3 options are good at different things and have a greater concern of party composition.

[Rihno]

I have a quick question, are you using PAM or Dual Wielding to get the third attack on the pure Paladin? Because Paladins only ever get two attacks. That said, a Paladin using a d10 Polearm with PAM does have the same damage as a Paladin using a Longsword and Shield with Quicken Booming Blade. PAM Paladins do have a lot more base damage since their average damage is always going to be equal to a Soradin going all out with a d8 weapon. The downside is that the PAM Paladin can't use a shield, and the Soradin can actually increase their damage by swapping to a Greatsword. Dual wielding weapons ends up with a similar result, though a dual wielder can technically increase their damage by dual wielding lances while riding a mount.

That said, I fully agree with you that as time goes on you'll find yourself casting more spells then smiting people. Its ironic, the higher the Soradin's level, the more they'll act like a Cleric. That said, I don't know if you have to take Divine Soul. I will admit that Divine Soul meshes really, really well with Soradin because you can jump in with things like Spirit Guardians. But I've never felt that its so strong that it makes the other options moot.

You should always build Paladin for 3 attacks because they can allow more ASI than Sorcadin. Even 1 ASI difference is absolutely HUGE in 5e, considering you only get 5 for whole career apart from Fighters.

So yes, you can either build for PAM - Spear + Shield or Glave/Halberd for 10 reach, two-weapon fighting style for Dual scimitars/short swords or Dual Wielder feat or using Double Bladed Scimitar with STR for 3rd attack or Revenant Blade feat for DEX double bladed scimitar build. All that gives you 3rd attack and Paladins benefit greatly from extra attacks due to smites and ADS.

My fav ones are Elven Accuracy Dex Paladins, as accuracy + crit chance + number of attacks works the best with Paladins. But STR based DBS or PAM build will also work great.

Base damage is not important really. Greatsword deals average 7 dmg, while Glaive deals average 5.5. That's 1.5 dmg difference. 10 feet reach gives you way more benefits than that and 3rd attack without any resources too.

You don't have to take Divine Soul of course, but sadly it's just the best because Sorcadin sacrefice a lot of consistent damage and passive effects vs Paladin and Divine Soul is the one that can compensate the most with it thanks to Spirit Guardians or Holy Weapon later and Spiritual Weapon.

The other origins sadly fall behind when it comes to sustain.

[Hael]

There's nothing at all ambiguous about the RAW. It says you can't twin Booming Blade.


You claimed to get 18 sp for one 5th level spell slot. That's 13 more than you actually get.

You're not going to make much headway in a rules-based debate with your knowledge of the rules.

It is ambiguous. Self vs self(xyz) are discussed as different categories in the PHB and this interpretation is backed up in various places and silly tweetstorms in sage advice. Twinned spell talks about the former, not the latter. So the issue is when is self(xyz) also considered a self spell for the rules. RAW it probably is, but it’s caused a fuss on the internet. (edit: see for instance https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/177381/what-is-the-difference-between-a-spell-with-a-range-of-self-and-a-spell-with-a )

I claimed to burn a fifth lvl slot. I had 11 sp to start with and now 5sp. That gives me 16sp (not 18sp like I wrote). Ok? That’s four fights, with four rounds per LR, just like I said. A little humility please when you respond to people on the internet. In any event,none of this changes what I wrote. Lvl 17 Quickened booming blade outputs a 3d8 effect (like 3 shots of IDS) as well as rider damage. The Rider damage will put the resource using abilities ahead. Moreover, upcast animate objects or another upcast summons will easily make all of this moot points.

[Valmark]

It is ambiguous. Self vs self(xyz) are discussed as different categories in the PHB and this interpretation is backed up in various places and silly tweetstorms in sage advice. Twinned spell talks about the former, not the latter. So the issue is when is self(xyz) also considered a self spell for the rules. RAW it probably is, but it’s caused a fuss on the internet. (edit: see for instance https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/177381/what-is-the-difference-between-a-spell-with-a-range-of-self-and-a-spell-with-a )

I claimed to burn a fifth lvl slot. I had 11 sp to start with and now 5sp. That gives me 16sp (not 18sp like I wrote). Ok? That’s four fights, with four rounds per LR, just like I said. A little humility please when you respond to people on the internet. In any event,none of this changes what I wrote. Lvl 17 Quickened booming blade outputs a 3d8 effect (like 3 shots of IDS) as well as rider damage. The Rider damage will put the resource using abilities ahead. Moreover, upcast animate objects or another upcast summons will easily make all of this moot points.

The PHB says those spells have a range of Self so I don't think there is any doubt regarding the RAW. They are discussed as different on what Self means but they both have a range of Self.

You may want to rephrase the sp part since you can never have more then the maximum amount of sp per level at the same time you wouldn't be able to get 16.
You would be able to use 16 sorcery points during the day but you'd never have 16 sp- that can cause confusion in a discussion.

[Hael]

You may want to rephrase the sp part since you can never have more then the maximum amount of sp per level at the same time you wouldn't be able to get 16.
You would be able to use 16 sorcery points during the day but you'd never have 16 sp- that can cause confusion in a discussion.

Yep fair point. In practice you would burn font after a fight or two to regain the sp. One would probably also keep the fifth level slot, and instead burn a bunch of 2nd or 3rd level spells instead at that level. The point is there are a lot of resources for a sorcerer at that stage of the game, and campaigns would really need to involve a lot of fighting over extended durations to really challenge that resource usage. And its like, yea ok resourceless dpr is important, but you can't just dismiss everything the sorcadin does as momentary burst that is unsustainable, especially when that burst represents over 50% of the fights in a day.

[Aimeryan]

Oh I see- but yeah, that would go into DM houserules and that greatly depends on the DM.

Houserule tends to mean something that is either against RAW or a banned common consequence, not merely something not covered by RAW. In any non-module campaign 99% of it will be not covered by RAW - every interaction with an NPC, every location, every group of enemies, etc. None of that goes against RAW, so are not considered houserules. A DM that rules that you cannot ever go down stairs is a houserule because it goes against a common consequence of having stairs and having legs. A DM not banning you from going down stairs is not a houserule, it is just a common consequence occuring as it would.


The object interaction is also limited to one interaction- or at least the example given in the book is that you can draw or sheate a weapon.

As you point out, the text does not limit the number of interactions, only the number of objects. The example is not stated as being exhaustive or exclusive, and nor would common English suggest it need be. Consider this sentence:

It is mighty cold outside today, would you like to put on your hat or scarf? - The question does not suggest that you may only do one of those, although that is also an option. Common English would require something like 'either ... or ...' to exclude the option of doing both.


That... Makes no sense. By that logic you could have an heavy weapon (as an example a greatsword) and a shield, but you don't seem to consider that possible.

You can have both, however, I presume you mean wield both at the same time? Technically you can't do that, although I agree the turn-based nature means that doing one and then the other within the same turn is effectively the same. The writers of 5e left a lot of things up to the DM, it is just how the edition works. Rocks fall.

[Frogreaver]

Houserule tends to mean something that is either against RAW or a banned common consequence, not merely something not covered by RAW. In any non-module campaign 99% of it will be not covered by RAW - every interaction with an NPC, every location, every group of enemies, etc. None of that goes against RAW, so are not considered houserules. A DM that rules that you cannot ever go down stairs is a houserule because it goes against a common consequence of having stairs and having legs. A DM not banning you from going down stairs is not a houserule, it is just a common consequence occuring as it would.



As you point out, the text does not limit the number of interactions, only the number of objects. The example is not stated as being exhaustive or exclusive, and nor would common English suggest it need be. Consider this sentence:

It is mighty cold outside today, would you like to put on your hat or scarf? - The question does not suggest that you may only do one of those, although that is also an option. Common English would require something like 'either ... or ...' to exclude the option of doing both.



You can have both, however, I presume you mean wield both at the same time? Technically you can't do that, although I agree the turn-based nature means that doing one and then the other within the same turn is effectively the same. The writers of 5e left a lot of things up to the DM, it is just how the edition works. Rocks fall.

Being able to use your speed to travel straight up off the ground isn’t covered by explicit rules either and yet it would be a house rule to allow that.

Just because something isnt explicitly spelled out fully to a rules lawyers satisfaction doesn’t mean it’s not covered by RAW.

RAW does say it takes an action to don or doff a shield. RAW naturally implies that If you haven’t doffed the shield then you are still wielding it. If you are still wielding the shield then you don’t have 2 hands free.

[OldTrees1]

As you point out, the text does not limit the number of interactions, only the number of objects. The example is not stated as being exhaustive or exclusive, and nor would common English suggest it need be. Consider this sentence:

It is mighty cold outside today, would you like to put on your hat or scarf? - The question does not suggest that you may only do one of those, although that is also an option. Common English would require something like 'either ... or ...' to exclude the option of doing both.

Did you go left or right?

Common English is ambigious about whether "or" is and/or or xor.

This can be clarified with context clues. You can even use context clues and then subvert those clues. For example "left or right" usually means xor but consider:

P1: Did you go left or right?
P2: Yes
P1: Which one?
P2: Both

Personally I consider drawing, dropping, picking up, and sheathing as 3 object interactions (I consider dropping free).

[Aimeryan]

Being able to use your speed to travel straight up off the ground isn’t covered by explicit rules either and yet it would be a house rule to allow that.

Just because something isnt explicitly spelled out fully to a rules lawyers satisfaction doesn’t mean it’s not covered by RAW.

RAW does say it takes an action to don or doff a shield. RAW naturally implies that If you haven’t doffed the shield then you are still wielding it. If you are still wielding the shield then you don’t have 2 hands free.

Gravity is a common consequence of planet-sized masses - 5e still works on normal logic unless declared otherwise. Magic is one the explicit exceptions, which is why you get spells like Fly.

The books are not encyclopedias; it is fine for them not to cover things.

Doffing means something specific - it is not just a word that you can use to mean anything. Doff, unwield, and drop are different words. Different words can mean different things. Look these words up and you will see why doff =/= unwield =/= drop.

[Frogreaver]

Gravity is a common consequence of planet-sized masses - 5e still works on normal logic unless declared otherwise. Magic is one the explicit exceptions, which is why you get spells like Fly.

The books are not encyclopedias; it is fine for them not to cover things.

Doffing means something specific - it is not just a word that you can use to mean anything. Doff, unwield, and drop are different words. Different words can mean different things. Look these words up and you will see why doff =/= unwield =/= drop.

If you have a shield donned - which is required by RAW to benefit from it then it must be doffed to cease to benefit from it. As long as that shield is donned it requires a hand. As long as that shield is donned it takes an action to doff it and free up that hand.

[Aimeryan]

Personally I consider drawing, dropping, picking up, and sheathing as 3 object interactions (I consider dropping free).

Nice to know, yet irrelevant; the PHB does not state one object interaction:


You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.

The limit is one object, not one object interaction.

[Aimeryan]

If you have a shield donned - which is required by RAW to benefit from it then it must be doffed to cease to benefit from it.

Actually... well, thats an entirely different argument that I am not going to go into - just know this is also contended.


As long as that shield is donned it requires a hand. As long as that shield is donned it takes an action to doff it and free up that hand.

Nope. Show me that RAW statement and we may end up in agreement.

[OldTrees1]

Nice to know, yet irrelevant; the PHB does not state one object interaction:

The limit is one object, not one object interaction.

Your mileage my vary.

"May interact with one object or feature of the environment for free" can mean you get 1 interaction or you can do any number of interactions with 1 object.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am pointing out English has unfortunate ambiguity.

[Frogreaver]

Actually... well, thats an entirely different argument that I am not going to go into - just know this is also contended.



Nope. Show me that RAW statement and we may end up in agreement.

"Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2, You can benefit from only one shield at a time. "

"Don. This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor."
"Doff. This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half."

Shield Don - 1 Action
Shield Doff - 1 Action

By RAW shields are carried in one hand. Dropping the Shield without using an Action is against RAW as dropping a shield would be taking the shield off which can only be done by spending an action to doff it. Gaining the benefits of a shield to AC without spending an Action to Don is against RAW. What you are wanting to do with the Shield fails nearly every statement in RAW about how shields work.

[Aimeryan]

Your mileage my vary.

"May interact with one object or feature of the environment for free" can mean you get 1 interaction or you can do any number of interactions with 1 object.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am pointing out English has unfortunate ambiguity.

I think you may be correct by intent, however, it is just badly written if so. If the once limitation was indeed meant then the sentence really needs to include such an adverb, like so:


You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment once for free, during either your move or your action.

As it is, no such limitation is in effect.

[OldTrees1]

"Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2, You can benefit from only one shield at a time. "

"Don. This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor."
"Doff. This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half."

Shield Don - 1 Action
Shield Doff - 1 Action

By RAW shields are carried in one hand. Dropping the Shield without using an Action is against RAW as dropping a shield would be taking the shield off. Gaining the benefits of a shield to AC without spending an Action to Don is against RAW. What you are wanting to do with the Shield fails nearly every statement in RAW about how shields work.

Oddly enough some shields are designed to be carried by one arm rather than one hand. Including some IRL examples of using the shield hand to hold a sword. So since they are not getting into it, I will mention mileage my vary (ask your GM)


I think you may be correct by intent, however, it is just badly written if so. If the once limitation was indeed meant then the sentence really needs to include such an adverb, like so:

As it is, no such limitation is in effect.

Based on the sentence I am not sure which is the intent and it could mean either (or both if a designer is being tricky) because English allows for implications. However you are right that English allows extra clarification to reduce ambiguity. I like your reworded example.


You can also interact, as many times as you want, with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. A GM might limit the number of interactions. Is another clearer sentence. In 3E they had something like that second sentence to handle Free actions because they expected GMs might limit it if it got out of hand. For example sending an infinitely long message via opening and shutting a door infinite times using the infinite interactions with a single door. But being able to open/shut a door 10 times for free might be quite reasonable.

[Frogreaver]

Oddly enough some shields are designed to be carried by one arm rather than one hand. Including some IRL examples of using the shield hand to hold a sword. So since they are not getting into it, I will mention mileage my vary (ask your GM)



Based on the sentence I am not sure which is the intent and it could mean either (or both if a designer is being tricky) because English allows for implications. However you are right that English allows extra clarification to reduce ambiguity. I like your reworded example.

Is another clearer sentence. In 3E they had something like that second sentence to handle Free actions because they expected GMs might limit it if it got out of hand. For example sending an infinitely long message via opening and shutting a door infinite times using the infinite interactions with a single door. But being able to open/shut a door 10 times for free might be quite reasonable.

IMO a shield that isn’t carried in the hand is not a D&D 5e shield. RAW is that they are carried in one hand.

IMO the example about drawing or sheathing a sword clarifies the object interaction rules. When a sentence is ambiguous sometimes you have to go to the next to understand it’s meaning.

[Aimeryan]

"Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2, You can benefit from only one shield at a time. "
"Don. This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor."
"Doff. This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half."

Shield Don - 1 Action
Shield Doff - 1 Action

Alright, I didn't want to go down this rabbit hole, but since you keep bringing it up...

The armor table lists the benefits of donning any particular armor. In the table you will see the plate entry; in the AC column it states '18' - this means your base AC is 18 for donning the armor. You will also see the shield entry; it states '+2' in the AC column - this means your base AC is increased by 2 for donning the armor.

The plate paragraph, separate to the table, states no benefit for wielding it. The shield paragraph, however, does; 'Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2'. So, wielding a plate does not increase your AC by anything, while wielding a shield increases your AC by 2.

I think you may see where this is going, but if not, carry on reading. Donning has a benefit for the shield; +2 to AC. Wielding has a benefit for the shield; +2 to AC. Donning is not the same as wielding, like a cat is not the same as a dog. If you don and wield the shield, you should, by RAW, get +4 to your AC. Yes, it is badly written and you will find this argument elsewhere.


By RAW shields are carried in one hand. Dropping the Shield without using an Action is against RAW as dropping a shield would be taking the shield off which can only be done by spending an action to doff it. Gaining the benefits of a shield to AC without spending an Action to Don is against RAW. What you are wanting to do with the Shield fails nearly every statement in RAW about how shields work.

Right, so carrying can be done with one hand. It can also be done with two hands, on the side of a horse, ect. The statement is a positive affirmation that it can be held in one hand - it is not stated to be exhaustive. By RAW, nothing prevents other ways of carrying it.

Dropping a shield simply means you let go - it does not mean dropping to the floor, which has extra words. If gravity is not able to pull the shield to the floor because it is still donned then dropping the shield will not result in the shield being on the floor. Common consequence.

Since I am, once more, not stating you doff the shield, (re)donning the shield is not required.

[Garimeth]

Alright, I didn't want to go down this rabbit hole, but since you keep bringing it up...

The armor table lists the benefits of donning any particular armor. In the table you will see the plate entry; in the AC column it states '18' - this means your base AC is 18 for donning the armor. You will also see the shield entry; it states '+2' in the AC column - this means your base AC is increased by 2 for donning the armor.

The plate paragraph, separate to the table, states no benefit for wielding it. The shield paragraph, however, does; 'Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2'. So, wielding a plate does not increase your AC by anything, while wielding a shield increases your AC by 2.

I think you may see where this is going, but if not, carry on reading. Donning has a benefit for the shield; +2 to AC. Wielding has a benefit for the shield; +2 to AC. Donning is not the same as wielding, like a cat is not the same as a dog. If you don and wield the shield, you should, by RAW, get +4 to your AC. Yes, it is badly written and you will find this argument elsewhere.



Right, so carrying can be done with one hand. It can also be done with two hands, on the side of a horse, ect. The statement is a positive affirmation that it can be held in one hand - it is not stated to be exhaustive. By RAW, nothing prevents other ways of carrying it.

Dropping a shield simply means you let go - it does not mean dropping to the floor, which has extra words. If gravity is not able to pull the shield to the floor because it is still donned then dropping the shield will not result in the shield being on the floor. Common consequence.

Since I am, once more, not stating you doff the shield, (re)donning the shield is not required.

SMH. That interpretation is asinine, imo.

As a DM I would personally rule that "dropping" it is a free action, and "doffing" which costs you economy, implies somehow also stowing it on your person to be easily retrieved later. The same way I would rule a weapon being drawn, attacked, and dropped rather than sheathed in one round.

The reality is that depending on whether the shield has straps or not (many do not) dropping it may actually cause it to fall to the ground, and even if it does have straps releasing it and "donning" it again is more than just, I closed my fist. You have to have the angle right to grab the handle, which may require both hands to get, especially if it got twisted around while you were doing whatever other thing you were doing.

If you have a DM that will rule otherwise, I guess good for you, but I know that I never would, and I would roll my eyes if someone at a table with me tried to do this. This is a part of why warcaster as a feat exists, and why many paladin spells are V only.

Case in point:

I have sight picture with an M4 or shotgun (for sake of argument using slugs at some distance) using a one or three point sling. I drop it. The sling retains the weapon, but using it again is not as simple as just wrapping my hand around the handle. I have to bring the weapon back up, position the butt stock correctly, regain my sight picture, and now I can fire again. For most people that is going to take about a second or two and occupy both of their hands.

[Rihno]

This discussion about shield is pointless. RAW says it takes action to don and don off. End of story.

Anything different is houserule and everybody has right to house rule anything at their table, but it's not RAW.

This thread is by RAW, unless specified otherwise by OP. Discussion about anything in game which is not RAW is pointless as houserules can change anything and any discussion then is pointless.

Either we stick to RAW or I will tell you my house rule where my Paladin can dual wield Glaives while still having small shields attached to each of his arms and shoot crossbow with his feet at the same time as reaction. Which doesn't benefit discussion at all and is pointless.

[stoutstien]

This discussion about shield is pointless. RAW says it takes action to don and don off. End of story.

Anything different is houserule and everybody has right to house rule anything at their table, but it's not RAW.

This thread is by RAW, unless specified otherwise by OP. Discussion about anything in game which is not RAW is pointless as houserules can change anything and any discussion then is pointless.

Either we stick to RAW or I will tell you my house rule where my Paladin can dual wield Glaives while still having small shields attached to each of his arms and shoot crossbow with his feet at the same time as reaction. Which doesn't benefit discussion at all and is pointless.

order domain CD could be argued to cause a shield to be dropped without an action. Hard to tell with shields explicitly being Doned instead of held but you need a free hand to Don it.

[Rihno]

order domain CD could be argued to cause a shield to be dropped without an action. Hard to tell with shields explicitly being Doned instead of held but you need a free hand to Don it.

RAW there is no distinction between type of shields. All shields need action to don and don off.

It's similar to why spear is not DEX weapon if we say that we are not using stiff European anti-cavalery spear but nimble chinease spear for martial arts. Or why Glaive and Halberd are part of Polearm Master feat and Pike is not.

By using logic I agree with you becasue some shields like Buckler are held, not doned. But in 5e mechanic all shields are meant to be treated as doned as 5e does not distinguish medium, small or tower shield. Because if shield is meant to be held (like rounded viking shield or buckler) it won't be as strong as knight shield made out of steel and doned to arm to deflect enemy knights lance strikes. So we would suddenly have to also mess with AC value, giving smaller shields +1, medium +2 and tower/kite shields +3.

Since all shields in 5e give +2 then all shields need to be doned. It's to simplify mechanic and stop any argument which shield should give more or less AC, be droped or not, can be thrown or not, pierced by arrows or not etc.

5e makes it all simple. Don and don off 1 action and +2 AC. End.

[kbob]

RAW there is no distinction between type of shields. All shields need action to don and don off.

It's similar to why spear is not DEX weapon if we say that we are not using stiff European anti-cavalery spear but nimble chinease spear for martial arts. Or why Glaive and Halberd are part of Polearm Master feat and Pike is not.

By using logic I agree with you becasue some shields like Buckler are held, not doned. But in 5e mechanic all shields are meant to be treated as doned as 5e does not distinguish medium, small or tower shield. Because if shield is meant to be held (like rounded viking shield or buckler) it won't be as strong as knight shield made out of steel and doned to arm to deflect enemy knights lance strikes. So we would suddenly have to also mess with AC value, giving smaller shields +1, medium +2 and tower/kite shields +3.

Since all shields in 5e give +2 then all shields need to be doned. It's to simplify mechanic and stop any argument which shield should give more or less AC, be droped or not, can be thrown or not, pierced by arrows or not etc.

5e makes it all simple. Don and don off 1 action and +2 AC. End.

I agree with this. If you want to house rule something then that is just what it is, a house rule. If you want something that distinguishes RAW between Shield types they have a system for that, 3.5. It has a lot of such rules. But 5e is supposed to be streamlined and simplified. A shield is a shield.

[Aimeryan]

SMH. That interpretation is asinine, imo.

As a DM I would personally rule that "dropping" it is a free action, and "doffing" which costs you economy, implies somehow also stowing it on your person to be easily retrieved later. The same way I would rule a weapon being drawn, attacked, and dropped rather than sheathed in one round.

The reality is that depending on whether the shield has straps or not (many do not) dropping it may actually cause it to fall to the ground, and even if it does have straps releasing it and "donning" it again is more than just, I closed my fist. You have to have the angle right to grab the handle, which may require both hands to get, especially if it got twisted around while you were doing whatever other thing you were doing.

If you have a DM that will rule otherwise, I guess good for you, but I know that I never would, and I would roll my eyes if someone at a table with me tried to do this. This is a part of why warcaster as a feat exists, and why many paladin spells are V only.

Case in point:

I have sight picture with an M4 or shotgun (for sake of argument using slugs at some distance) using a one or three point sling. I drop it. The sling retains the weapon, but using it again is not as simple as just wrapping my hand around the handle. I have to bring the weapon back up, position the butt stock correctly, regain my sight picture, and now I can fire again. For most people that is going to take about a second or two and occupy both of their hands.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here, I have to be honest. The shield rules, as written, have an action time for donning/doffing, and state the shield is carried in one hand. At no point does it state that the hand is not capable of letting go of the shield. It is simply uncovered.

We can bring realism into this if you like. It is not RAW, however, 5e does require some level of DM interaction that goes beyond RAW. Actual realism would be far more complex; in real life you are both capable of carrying multiple objects in one hand and capable of only carrying one object - it depends on the objects in question. A strapped shield (which would be required to be able to don), would have arm straps and a grip. The grip is necessary for stability and control - trying to parry (which is usually preferable to blocking) without gripping the hand grip would likely spin the shield and be ineffective at stopping the weapon. The arm straps serve multiple purposes; additional stability, reduced fatigue, and yes, allowing the hand to be freed up when needed. Commonly, a torch would be carried in the shield hand and then thrown to the ground if the shield was needed. This works because of the shape and weight of the torch - a more bulky or heavy object might not be feasible.

The case being made here is that the hand used for making somatic components needs to be free. Not holding the shield makes it free. Since you are not even trying to hold something I don't see what the problem is meant to be. The shield rules certainly don't state the hand is locked in place in anyway. Someone has stated that the same must apply to a two-handed weapon - by RAW I agree. On the other hand, any DM will apply some level of realism - for example, if you told your DM you are carrying 20 billiard balls in your hand they may very well say no, but put them in a bag and carry that in your hand... It is the case that 5e left a lot up to the DM, more than any other edition. Is a common consequence of having a hand not locked in place and not holding anything enough to allow you to use it for somatic components? I would say yes, because I fail to see a reason this would not be fine. Is that enough to hold a two-handed sword? Other considerations come into place because such an object is bulky and the rest of the shield will likely get in the way, even if the hand itself is free.

Also, consider the scottish dirk and targe:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ce/9c/c0/ce9cc0352ff17034a49cafc3545ec449.jpg

[Frogreaver]

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here, I have to be honest. The shield rules, as written, have an action time for donning/doffing, and state the shield is carried in one hand. At no point does it state that the hand is not capable of letting go of the shield. It is simply uncovered.

At no point do the rules say you cannot let go of your Greatsword and still attack with it. Trying to make a case about RAW based on what isn't said is ludicrous. Outside of RAW saying "always" or "never" one can state that RAW is unclear about anything because one can always pick an X and claim that RAW never says you can't do X. What you are calling RAW becomes absolutely worthless with your views.

Examples:

RAW doesn't say my level 1 Fighter doesn't have psychic power strong enough to kill an Ancient Dragon, therefore he could do so by RAW.
RAW doesn't say I cannot make 20 attacks on my turn as a level 1 fighter, therefore he can do so by RAW.
RAW only says that shortswords do 1d6 damage, but RAW doesn't say a shortsword can't do 8d6 damage on a hit, therefore mine can do so by RAW.



...See what I mean?

[Aimeryan]

At no point do the rules say you cannot let go of your Greatsword and still attack with it. Trying to make a case about RAW based on what isn't said is ludicrous. Outside of RAW saying "always" or "never" one can state that RAW is unclear about anything because one can always pick an X and claim that RAW never says you can't do X. What you are calling RAW becomes absolutely worthless with your views.

Examples:

RAW doesn't say my level 1 Fighter doesn't have psychic power strong enough to kill an Ancient Dragon, therefore he could do so by RAW.
RAW doesn't say I cannot make 20 attacks on my turn as a level 1 fighter, therefore he can do so by RAW.
RAW only says that shortswords do 1d6 damage, but RAW doesn't say a shortsword can't do 8d6 damage on a hit, therefore mine can do so by RAW.



...See what I mean?

What you are alluding to would not be common consequences. 5e is not an encyclopedia, nor does it try to be. If your DM rules those things then so be it. However, suggesting that all DM rulings are equally likely or equally predicated on common consequences is not true. We can all agree that a DM that allows you to walk up stairs is far more likely than a DM allowing you to have psychic mechanical-relevant powers. Letting go of something is a pretty common ruling, I would hope you agree.

[Frogreaver]

What you are alluding to would not be common consequences. 5e is not an encyclopedia, nor does it try to be. If your DM rules those things then so be it. However, suggesting that all DM rulings are equally likely or equally predicated on common consequences is not true. We can all agree that a DM that allows you to walk up stairs is far more likely than a DM allowing you to have psychic mechanical-relevant powers. Letting go of something is a pretty common ruling, I would hope you agree.

There is no rule saying one can simply drop a donned shield. You are making the assumption that this is acceptable when it is not. A common consequence of having a shield that takes an Action to don and an action to doff would be that one could not simply "drop" said shield. To drop the shield one would first need to doff the shield.

[Rihno]

What you are alluding to would not be common consequences. 5e is not an encyclopedia, nor does it try to be. If your DM rules those things then so be it. However, suggesting that all DM rulings are equally likely or equally predicated on common consequences is not true. We can all agree that a DM that allows you to walk up stairs is far more likely than a DM allowing you to have psychic mechanical-relevant powers. Letting go of something is a pretty common ruling, I would hope you agree.

Please stop. There is no argument here. You can houserule shields however you want. RAW 5e says it takes action to don and action to don off and that's it.

The End. It's written in book.

[Aimeryan]

There is no rule saying one can simply drop a donned shield. You are making the assumption that this is acceptable when it is not. A common consequence of having a shield that takes an Action to don and an action to doff would be that one could not simply "drop" said shield. To drop the shield one would first need to doff the shield.

Drop to floor =/= drop.

Try this: I presume you have some piece of clothing that you have donned today. Grab a piece of that clothing, say the bottom of your jumper. Now let go - what happened? Is the piece of clothing no longer donned? Or did you merely free up your hand?

[Frogreaver]

Drop to floor =/= drop.

Try this: I presume you have some piece of clothing that you have donned today. Grab a piece of that clothing, say the bottom of your jumper. Now let go - what happened? Is the piece of clothing no longer donned? Or did you merely free up your hand?

Letting Go =/= Drop

[DarknessEternal]

Drop to floor =/= drop.

Try this: I presume you have some piece of clothing that you have donned today. Grab a piece of that clothing, say the bottom of your jumper. Now let go - what happened? Is the piece of clothing no longer donned? Or did you merely free up your hand?

You argument is the same as saying fighters have a d4 hit die. The rules specifically cover the action of letting go of a shield.

[Aimeryan]

You argument is the same as saying fighters have a d4 hit die. The rules specifically cover the action of letting go of a shield.

Prove it, with a quote. The rules state several things, but this is not one of them:



When carried, it can be done so in one hand.
Donning/doffing takes an action.
Donning is required to benefit from the +2 AC acquired from donning it.
Wielding the shield gives +2 AC (a possible confliction or addition to the previous point).


That is it. Nowhere does it state the hand that the arm is attached to that the shield is presumably donned to (it actually doesn't state where it is donned to be honest), is immobilised and unable to be used. If you want to make an appeal to reality then I direct you to this image:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/09/f4/10/09f410e6b701b2263c886406691f16c4.jpg

[OldTrees1]

Prove it, with a quote. The rules state several things, but this is not one of them:



When carried, it can be done so in one hand.
Donning/doffing takes an action.
Donning is required to benefit from the +2 AC acquired from donning it.
Wielding the shield gives +2 AC (a possible confliction or addition to the previous point).


That is it. Nowhere does it state the hand that the arm is attached to that the shield is presumably donned to (it actually doesn't state where it is donned to be honest), is immobilised and unable to be used. If you want to make an appeal to reality then I direct you to this image:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttJ8LdOQdSc&t=1s&ab_channel=Shadiversity
Skip to around 8:17 for historical evidence

However your mileage may vary because the common understanding of "carried in one hand" and "donning" in D&D is that it costs 1 hand and 1 action to equip and 1 action to unequip to free up that hand. That is not realistic for all shields. You mentioned ones that are equipped to the forearm. I have evidence of ones equipped to the neck/shoulder. However we can recognize this is outside the common understanding.

However the English language is vague and frequently takes shortcuts using common assumptions (like what kind of shield and what kind of donning). When those assumptions are missing, the rules can become quite vague. This shield example is one example.

[Aimeryan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttJ8LdOQdSc&t=1s&ab_channel=Shadiversity
Skip to around 8:17 for historical evidence

However your mileage may vary because the common understanding of "carried in one hand" and "donning" in D&D is that it costs 1 hand and 1 action to equip and 1 action to unequip to free up that hand. That is not realistic for all shields. You mentioned ones that are equipped to the forearm. I have evidence of ones equipped to the neck/shoulder. However we can recognize this is outside the common understanding.

However the English language is vague and frequently takes shortcuts using common assumptions (like what kind of shield and what kind of donning). When those assumptions are missing, the rules can become quite vague. This shield example is one example.

I can't think of anything else in 5e that is both donned and carried, or donned and wielded. There shouldn't be precedence because it is unique. Common English has very different meanings for donned, carried, held, wielded. If people are illiterate enough to confuse them that is on them. It is possible to presume the developers meant for all of those to be the same, however, the words themselves do not communicate this.

I am under no illusion that nearly all of D&D players are going to rule the shield as held in 1H at all times, requiring it to be doffed to negate that. However, it simply isn't specified as being the case in the PHB. Nor does it hold any connection to the reality of shields. Disregarding bucklers, targes, centre-grip, guige, etc., which are basically not represented in 5e at all, the common forearm-strapped shield and grip configuration did not immobilise the hand - it would be extremely detrimental to do so for no foreseeable gain.

[Frogreaver]

Prove it, with a quote. The rules state several things, but this is not one of them:


[LIST]
When carried, it can be done so in one hand.


The rules don't say that. The rules say, "a shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand."

[DarknessEternal]

Prove it, with a quote.
OK, done. Now you have to argue with yourself, which, I suspect is what you enjoy most.


Donning/doffing takes an action.


Why would you even post the rule disproving your assertion. Shouldn't you have stopped before hitting "Submit Post" and replaced your message with something along the lines of "It turns out, the RAW disproves my claims."

[Frogreaver]

I can't think of anything else in 5e that is both donned and carried, or donned and wielded. There shouldn't be precedence because it is unique. Common English has very different meanings for donned, carried, held, wielded. If people are illiterate enough to confuse them that is on them. It is possible to presume the developers meant for all of those to be the same, however, the words themselves do not communicate this.


Again, the rules explain what don and doff means.

PHB 146
"Don. This is the time it takes to put on armor."
"Doff. This is the time it takes to take off armor."

But more importantly is that the rules also say: "you benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor"

And somewhat ironically all this is under the Getting Into and Out of Armor section.

[OldTrees1]

I am under no illusion that nearly all of D&D players are going to rule the shield as held in 1H at all times, requiring it to be doffed to negate that. However, it simply isn't specified as being the case in the PHB. Nor does it hold any connection to the reality of shields. Disregarding bucklers, targes, centre-grip, guige, etc., which are basically not represented in 5e at all, the common forearm-strapped shield and grip configuration did not immobilise the hand - it would be extremely detrimental to do so for no foreseeable gain.

If nearly all D&D authors and players are going to rule _________, then the D&D rules can use that common assumption as a shortcut in vague languages rather than writing everything perfectly precise.

On the other hand, when an assumption is not universal, and is not made explicit, it will be vague. Even if nearly all the players and authors share the assumption.

On a 3rd hand, I can see how a deeper understanding of realistic shield use can reveal shields that did not use the hand, or even the arm (I hope you enjoyed the video). So while the default ruling is probably that the hand is consumed, your mileage may vary. I expect you would generally rule shields are forearm strapped without impairing the hand for wielding a weapon.

In conclusion, for those "nearly all of D&D players" and only for those "nearly all of D&D players", the rules do restrict what you can do with the shield hand. The words used in the PHB literally do communicate this to "nearly all of D&D players". (I used quotes because I was reusing your qualifier. Adjust it to match.) Just like the words in the PHB literally communicate something else to you.


Edit: I just realized I forgot why you two are arguing about this. Well, I get that you both see that the rules clearly say XYZ and disagree on which XYZ they are clearly saying. However I forget the relevance to the thread.

[Frogreaver]

If nearly all D&D authors and players are going to rule _________, then the D&D rules can use that common assumption as a shortcut in vague languages rather than writing everything perfectly precise.

On the other hand, when an assumption is not universal, and is not made explicit, it will be vague. Even if nearly all the players and authors share the assumption.

On a 3rd hand, I can see how a deeper understanding of realistic shield use can reveal shields that did not use the hand, or even the arm (I hope you enjoyed the video). So while the default ruling is probably that the hand is consumed, your mileage may vary. I expect you would generally rule shields are forearm strapped without impairing the hand for wielding a weapon.

In conclusion, for those "nearly all of D&D players" and only for those "nearly all of D&D players", the rules do restrict what you can do with the shield hand. The words used in the PHB literally do communicate this to "nearly all of D&D players". (I used quotes because I was reusing your qualifier. Adjust it to match.) Just like the words in the PHB literally communicate something else to you.


Edit: I just realized I forgot why you two are arguing about this. Well, I get that you both see that the rules clearly say XYZ and disagree on which XYZ they are clearly saying. However I forget the relevance to the thread.

Relevance was that one argued that a class could do something it wasn't actually capable of doing by RAW to bolster the claim that one class was better than the other.

[OldTrees1]

Relevance was that one argued that a class could do something it wasn't actually capable of doing by RAW to bolster the claim that one class was better than the other.

Was this related to Warcaster or spell foci?

You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.


A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but... it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

Or was this related to dropping and picking up your weapon?

Or was this just about weapon choices?

I am confused. Why is this related to classes? I guess the Divine Focus can be on a shield, but both characters have divine spells.

[Frogreaver]

You could drop the weapon as a worse case scenario (even then, a weapon chain could be fashioned). Better case is to not hold the shield while casting (doffing takes an action, however, that is like taking off your trousers - you don't have to hold your trousers all the time even if it does take a few seconds to take them off). Alternatively, whenever you want to use the weapon just draw-attack-sheathe (no OA with it the weapon in this case, but that is a minor issue).

Warcaster is good, but not necessary.

@OldTrees1

This is the post that started the tangent.

[OldTrees1]

@OldTrees1

This is the post that started the tangent.

I see. So drop the weapon (with a chain attaching it to your gauntlet) as a non action. Cast the spell. Pick up the weapon as an object interaction.

Why argue about methods 2-3 if method 1 works?

Also, what about this is relevant to Paladin vs Sorcadin? That is a class agnostic comment about Warcaster vs alternatives.

I am becoming more confused.

[Frogreaver]

I see. So drop the weapon (with a chain attaching it to your gauntlet) as a non action. Cast the spell. Pick up the weapon as an object interaction.

Why argue about methods 2-3 if method 1 works?

Also, what about this is relevant to Paladin vs Sorcadin? That is a class agnostic comment about Warcaster vs alternatives.

I am becoming more confused.

The Paladin isn't regularly casting spells mid combat that require somatic components. The Sorcadin is, with booming blade if nothing else which essentially makes warcaster be required for that build. Essentially it's a feat tax on an already feat starved class (and it's also a feat that can't be picked up as variant human at level 1 when you are starting as Paladin). Which means it eats into his already slowed ASI progression.

[OldTrees1]

The Paladin isn't regularly casting spells mid combat that require somatic components. The Sorcadin is, with booming blade if nothing else which essentially makes warcaster be required for that build. Essentially it's a feat tax on an already feat starved class (and it's also a feat that can't be picked up as variant human at level 1 when you are starting as Paladin). Which means it eats into his already slowed ASI progression.

I will admit, I generally play an Auradin so my spell selection might not be perfectly representative of these DPS only Paladins and Sorcadins. However I am surprised at that claim. Paladins have plenty of spells to concider.

Although if the P6-Sorcadin is always using Booming Blade and a shield, then they would want Warcaster. Alternatively they could use a greatsword.

Somatic combat spells
Bless (material too)
Divine Favor
Heroism
Aid (material too, surprisingly powerful the first time it is cast in a day)
Daylight (situational, but I have seen it cast)
Dispel Magic (situational, but I have seen it cast)
Spirit Shroud
Banishment (material too)
Holy Weapon

Non Somatic combat spells
Command
Smites (all of them)
Aura of Vitality
Crusader's Mantle
Aura of Life
Aura of Purity

[Frogreaver]

I will admit, I generally play an Auradin so my spell selection might not be perfectly representative of these DPS only Paladins and Sorcadins. However I am surprised at that claim. Paladins have plenty of spells to concider.

Although if the P6-Sorcadin is always using Booming Blade and a shield, then they would want Warcaster. Alternatively they could use a greatsword.

Somatic combat spells
Bless (material too)
Divine Favor
Heroism
Aid (material too, surprisingly powerful the first time it is cast in a day)
Daylight (situational, but I have seen it cast)
Dispel Magic (situational, but I have seen it cast)
Spirit Shroud
Banishment (material too)
Holy Weapon

Non Somatic combat spells
Command
Smites (all of them)
Aura of Vitality
Crusader's Mantle
Aura of Life
Aura of Purity

Most of those are going to be spells you cast at the start of the combat and then pull out your sword. Having a free hand on turn 1 covers most of those.