Is it possible to match Paladin in T2

[Skrum]

As the title. It seems to me that Paladin (or a paladin multiclass, particularly hexblade) is just flatly the best, i.e. most powerful, character one could make in the 5-8 level ranges. Probably higher, but I'm less familiar with those levels.

Is that the case? I just don't see how any other class can even come close to the defense and offense of a paladin. Literally best defense AND best (single target) offense, by a huge margin.

[Frogreaver]

As the title. It seems to me that Paladin (or a paladin multiclass, particularly hexblade) is just flatly the best, i.e. most powerful, character one could make in the 5-8 level ranges. Probably higher, but I'm less familiar with those levels.

Is that the case? I just don't see how any other class can even come close to the defense and offense of a paladin. Literally best defense AND best (single target) offense, by a huge margin.

Offensively I think the SS+CBE+Precision Battlemaster Fighter comes out ahead. Being a ranged character also provides some nice defensive properties of it's own.

[LudicSavant]

As the title. It seems to me that Paladin (or a paladin multiclass, particularly hexblade) is just flatly the best, i.e. most powerful, character one could make in the 5-8 level ranges. Probably higher, but I'm less familiar with those levels.

Is that the case? I just don't see how any other class can even come close to the defense and offense of a paladin. Literally best defense AND best (single target) offense, by a huge margin.


Is that the case?

To get a solid demonstration of whether or not this is the case, I recommend setting a static goalpost (e.g. a specific Paladin build that you think is difficult for others to compete with. For simplicity's sake, I recommend starting with the single class Paladin case first) then we can compare things to its offense and/or defense directly, and you can judge whether they 'even come close.'

[Sigreid]

Can I just say that it's refreshing to have a class other than wizard be the "You're OP" punching bag for a change?

For the question, I'd say that it's unfortunate if the game you're in doesn't have more to it than damage and defense.

[Eldariel]

Obviously any of the big full casters (Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Lore Bard) does this fairly easily. Level 3 spells are pretty serious game; we're talking Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, etc. Just Conjure Animals alone is offensively stronger than a whole Paladin, nevermind other abilities and those level 1-2 slots. Though the Pally aura on 6 and Steed on 5 are sweet: those don't have direct parallels in the caster toolbox (but things like Bless, Aura of X, Counterspell, Silvery Barbs, Bardic Inspiration, etc. do fit the same ballpark). Pally is indeed a solid character on this tier range but I would rate it below the big casters as per usual.

[Hael]

Obviously any of the big full casters (Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Lore Bard) does this fairly easily. Level 3 spells are pretty serious game; we're talking Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, etc. Just Conjure Animals alone is offensively stronger than a whole Paladin, nevermind other abilities and those level 1-2 slots. Though the Pally aura on 6 and Steed on 5 are sweet: those don't have direct parallels in the caster toolbox (but things like Bless, Aura of X, Counterspell, Silvery Barbs, Bardic Inspiration, etc. do fit the same ballpark). Pally is indeed a solid character on this tier range but I would rate it below the big casters as per usual.

Id argue that druid and cleric are for sure stronger, but wizard and bard probably not (they need a few more levels into t2 for slots/progression before they surpass the paladin). This is mainly b/c of the duration of conjure animals/spirit guardians allowing multiple combats.

Dark horse for being better than a paladin in early t2 is an artillerist. They are borderline broken from 4-7 b/c of the temp hp spam (not unlike twilight clerics).

[Eldariel]

Id argue that druid and cleric are for sure stronger, but wizard and bard probably not (they need a few more levels into t2 for slots/progression before they surpass the paladin). This is mainly b/c of the duration of conjure animals/spirit guardians allowing multiple combats.

Dark horse for being better than a paladin in early t2 is an artillerist. They are borderline broken from 4-7 b/c of the temp hp spam (not unlike twilight clerics).

Well, Wizard has Animate Dead and Lore Bard can have either Animate Dead or Conjure Animals on 6 depending on what they feel like. Other Bards...hmm, well, Eloquence is still a rather brutal CC machine; how that compares to Paladin is less direct though but generally I'd say CC > damage. Bard is definitely interesting subclass-wise, since there's much greater variety there compared to all the other big classes.

[Sulicius]

Paladins are very powerful in tier 2. The are very tough against attacks and spells, have powerful healing and condition removing abilities and nova damage on demand. Even when they spend their resources, they are still tough, boost their allies and swing hard.

Obviously range is their weakness. A paladin not in 10ft. range of their enemy or friend might as well not exist.

Many in this thread overestimate the power of spellcasters, maybe because they have never seen how tough a paladin is when they want to. When a battle goes awry, it is the paladin who stays standing and gets his allies back up to fight. I have seen it over and over. Wizards and others relying on concentration can get caught flat-footed when their big spell fails to get the exact result they intended, but not the paladin.

They are the best at what they do (when they can get close).

[Eldariel]

Many in this thread overestimate the power of spellcasters

No, many in this thread underestimate the power of spellcasters because they have never seen what a Tier 2 spellcaster can truly do in a tough spot when pulling out all the stops. There's a reason level 3 spells are considered such a massive break point.

[LudicSavant]

Obviously any of the big full casters (Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Lore Bard) does this fairly easily. Level 3 spells are pretty serious game; we're talking Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, etc. Just Conjure Animals alone is offensively stronger than a whole Paladin, nevermind other abilities and those level 1-2 slots. Though the Pally aura on 6 and Steed on 5 are sweet: those don't have direct parallels in the caster toolbox (but things like Bless, Aura of X, Counterspell, Silvery Barbs, Bardic Inspiration, etc. do fit the same ballpark). Pally is indeed a solid character on this tier range but I would rate it below the big casters as per usual.


Id argue that druid and cleric are for sure stronger, but wizard and bard probably not (they need a few more levels into t2 for slots/progression before they surpass the paladin). This is mainly b/c of the duration of conjure animals/spirit guardians allowing multiple combats.

Dark horse for being better than a paladin in early t2 is an artillerist. They are borderline broken from 4-7 b/c of the temp hp spam (not unlike twilight clerics).

Re: Cleric.

Consider, say, a Death Cleric. Their CD shares the properties that make Divine Smite good (can't be wasted, no extra action economy, can activate on multiple hits, etc) and can be attached to weapon or spell attacks (so it totally works with things like Spiritual Weapon, unlike Divine Smite).

At level 6, their Channel Divinity alone is worth 102 extra damage in a 2 short rest day. For comparison, a Paladin spending all of their spell slots on (non-crit) Divine Smite is worth just 63 extra damage.

And the Death Cleric will still have 10 spell slots left. And possibly some Animated Dead that they made with yesterday's spell slots (smart necromancers will do their raising/re-controlling of undead right before bedtime).

___

Speaking of undead, there's the Necromancer Wizard. Undead Thralls not only benefits Animated Dead at an extremely favorable rate (at +3 proficiency, it boosts a basic skeleton's damage to over 150%, and it gets you more skeletons per slot), but it also benefits Summon Undead (the Tasha's spell which lasts an hour).

A level 8 Wizard can afford 3 level 4 slots per day (thanks to Arcane Recovery). Enough for 3 hours of upcast Summon Undead -- often enough for the whole adventuring day. (Got leftover slots at the end of the day? Make even more animated dead for tomorrow!)

That Summoned Undead could be, say, an incorporeal ghost with Extra Attack that can throw out 2d8+20 damage with +9 to hit, and forces not one but two Wis saves against being Frightened.

That's for no action economy at all. That's just stapled on top of your entire Action, your Bonus Action, your familiar (which can hand out flyby advantage, and other useful things), and their horde of juiced up skeleton minions (with Undead Thralls).

Not only does the Necromancer Wizard have the ability to outdo the Paladin's single target damage, they also have a more versatile offense, able to exploit an enemy's gaps in their defense by virtue of their diverse options.

[noob]

As the title. It seems to me that Paladin (or a paladin multiclass, particularly hexblade) is just flatly the best, i.e. most powerful, character one could make in the 5-8 level ranges. Probably higher, but I'm less familiar with those levels.

Is that the case? I just don't see how any other class can even come close to the defense and offense of a paladin. Literally best defense AND best (single target) offense, by a huge margin.

While you are good at nova damage and tanking, you are not as good at sustaining as other characters(like a moon druid) or at simply dealing reliable damage over long times as some other characters(Such as a rogue), you also lack strong aoe attacks.
If we are doing a 5 minute workday, then surely the paladin is good due to the fact you can nova half of the time but then a wizard can cast one spell every two turns and fireball is a stupidly devastating aoe spell.

[LudicSavant]

Many in this thread overestimate the power of spellcasters, maybe because they have never seen how tough a paladin is when they want to. When a battle goes awry, it is the paladin who stays standing and gets his allies back up to fight. I have seen it over and over. Wizards and others relying on concentration can get caught flat-footed when their big spell fails to get the exact result they intended, but not the paladin.

I would say that skillful Wizard play is not the guy who goes "if I have x, y, z and the DM allows me to do A, B, C then look at all my power!" It's this (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23667136&postcount=251). You can throw a bunch of monkey wrenches into their plans and they will still proceed apace because their strength is in adaptability.

You contend that folks have never seen how tough a paladin can be. But if you're watching someone over-rely on Concentration or the success of a particular big spell, then perhaps you've not yet seen how tough a spellcaster can be.

Just because you've seen someone play a spellcaster doesn't mean you've seen what a spellcaster can do. There is a very large gap between the skill floor ("Fireball go brrr") and the skill ceiling ("Okay, how many layers of Morton's Fork would you like?")


Wizards and others relying on concentration can get caught flat-footed when their big spell fails to get the exact result they intended, but not the paladin.

They are the best at what they do (when they can get close).

The Paladin has to worry about their own set of monkey wrenches; enemies playing keepaway being one of them.

[noob]

The Paladin has to worry about their own set of monkey wrenches; enemies playing keepaway being one of them.
Bow shooting paladins are a thing.
Especially in featless games: in featless games you no longer have any advantage sticking to a single weapon category so a paladin in those games should have their usual melee weapon and a bow in their back.

[LudicSavant]

Bow shooting paladins are a thing.
Especially in featless games: in featless games you no longer have any advantage sticking to a single weapon category so a paladin in those games should have their usual melee weapon and a bow in their back.

Yes, obviously? :smallconfused: As are Paladins with throwing weapons using Strength, Paladins using spells, Hexblade dippers grabbing Eldritch Blast, etc. Paladins in general can be expected to have non-melee options.

It is nonetheless true that playing keepaway is often an effective way of reducing a Paladin's efficiency.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, in T2 paladins are a bit of a powerhouse. Maybe not quite shepherd druid levels but pretty damn powerful.

I think so much of their power comes from being a great all-rounder. Cha as the primary stat provides massive out of combat advantage whenever you need to deal with people, especially at a level where spells are not sufficiently numerous to achieve the same.

Heavy armour proficiency is great - you are at a level where picking up plate mail is plausible but also not at the high levels where AC tends to be a very unreliable defence.

You have a decent enough source of damage in an attack - this means there is no need to expend resources up-front, you can wait to see how a fight evoles and whether reinforcements arrive before switching to a more resource intensive plan for an encounter.

Your damage sources are physical and radiant, radiant is tough to resist and if you have something resistant to BPS you can bring this out. Also if you have a magic weapon BPS resistance is rare (though getting a magic weapon in T2 might not be that common).

Paladins are relatively unhindered by charm immunity, fear immunity, magic resistance, legendary saves (which you might start to encounter in T2), fire resistance or any other similar defences. A resource free way of ignoring these enemy features is pretty damn solid.

A lot of other strong options rely on other abilities - shepherd druid using conjure animals for example really falls down if it can't speak/be heard by the summons. Other classes rely on other factors such as downtime, a supply or corpses or other things not always available.

But the big thing about the paladin at this level is versatility and resiliance. A wizard is good but benefits a lot from the protection of the rest of the party. If the party splits or the fighter gets charmed they can be in trouble and a unconscious PC tends to do little. When it all goes south, the Paladin is still d10 hp class, still has aura of protection, still a tough front-line character.

The paladin is fine when surprised, when attacked in the middle of the night or when defensive spells have expired. It is fine in pitch black, in fog clouds or daylight. It is fine on long days or when enemies have counterspell or dispel magic or in an area protected by hallow of forbidance or being tossed under water. If the party sets off a fireball trap or touches a contact poison investigating an ancient idol, the paladin is better placed than most.

The flexability of the class is also awesome. A prepared caster is probably looking at about 11 spells prepared at level 7. For something like a wizard, you are probably looking at a couple of spells like mage armour and shield just to get close to a paladin's resiliance. That leaves you with just two spells per level to try and cover whatever bases you want to cover.

At this level paladin is probably only looking at knowing about 7 spells (not including those from an oath), so a few fewer but doesn't need a damage spell (due to good attack action), doesn't need a spell for healing (lay on hands), gets some coverage from being able to deal with poison disease and divination from other class abilities. The paladin is also able to swap these out with the rest of the list - no need to have found them and added to a spell book (normally the number of good wizard spells is only a little bit more than the number you have but there are so many great options in T2 that prep limits and scribing can be an issue). It has a spell list with damage options, mobility, control, information gathering, healing, protection/buffing.

Something like a wizard is great when you would win anyway. A lot of full casters at T2 do very well when you can prepare. If you know what you are up against, you make some preparations, you have your defensive spells up, you have water breathing or whatever. As a rule, a fight you chose is a fight you can win... otherwise you wouldn't chose it. The fight that kills is the unexpected - surprised, unprepared, unbuffed, a type of enemy unexpected, in numbers and locations unanticipated, unseen in the dark... this is where tha paladin is good. The paladin in T2 is so powerful, not because it let's you win fights you would have won anyway, but because it let's you win fights that would otherwise end the party.

Getting into T3, other classes can pull away a bit with more spells prepared, better divinations so the party isn't surprised, better mobility to dictate the terms of engagement etc.. but averaged over T2 the paladin is awesome.

[Dr.Samurai]

By level 8, where has a paladin put their 2 ASIs? Or what feats have they grabbed?

[MrStabby]

By level 8, where has a paladin put their 2 ASIs? Or what feats have they grabbed?

My typical guess would be raise charisma with one and strength with another, though if feats are in play I would suggest a feat taken in place of the strength boost.

I would suggest fey touched for a feat if odd charisma else something like pole arm mastery.

[stoutstien]

I don't think you'd be hard-pressed to make any class keep up with the paladin assuming the same level of optional rules are in play. Not to say the paladin doesn't have a good array of features and tools to make sure they rarely feel completely at a lose they're not exactly running away with anything.

[Skrum]

Ok I'm beginning to see the shape of this - not that I didn't know it exactly, but kinda really pointing it out.

The format we play is very favorable to paladins. Almost as a rule, we have a 5m adventuring day. It's a West Marches type game where each night has a different mix of characters, and the game starts and ends in some safe, neutral area. Thus, it's rare for any game to have more than 2 combats (and once the game ends, you'll have multiple long rests, weeks even, before that particular character plays again).

There's also a gentleman's agreement/soft ban on summons. Cluttering the table with minions tends to slow gameplay to a crawl, so no one has played a summoning character.

So yah, paladins feel indomitable.

[ThatDuckGrant]

I would also like to submit the Bladesinger for this. Sure, you don't have the massive save boost that a paladin has, but I would argue that both AC and damage output are better. It's harder to quantify damage output because so much of it is tied up in your concentration, but a here are some theoretical numbers for a level 6 BS with 18 Dex, 16 INT using level 3 ShadowBlade (SB):

AC while bladesinging: 19 (+5 with shield)
Damage potential: 7d8+8 = 39.5
Note that SB also comes with a rider that provides advantage in low light, which could synergize well with Elven Accuracy.


The Bladesinger can only do this for a maximum of 3 encounters per day, but if we compare it to a Paladin at level 6:

Paladin with PAM, 18 str, 16 Cha:
AC 18
Damage potential (no smites): 2d10+1d4+12 = 25.5
Damage for first level smite: 2d8 = 9
Damage for second level smite: 3d8 = 13.5


So even if the paladin spent a second level slot every turn smiting, it would still average 0.5 less damage than the Bladesinger, AND the Bladesinger still has a bonus action. Where the Paladin really shines of course is in its saving throws, which of course protect it better than the Bladesinger. But of course the other side of the coin is how versatile the Bladesinger's access to the wizard list makes it. Fighting a bunch of archers behind arrowslits? Fireball. A troll with a greatsword that hits harder than the paladin? Heat metal. A bunch of fairies buzzing around? Web.

Of course it all comes down to playstyle, but I think specifically comparing the paladin in tier 2 makes this harder. I think the Paladin has the 2nd most consistent power curve through all 4 tiers (behind the wizard), but looking in a vacuum at tier 2 someone is always going to be able to find an example of something stronger.

[Gignere]

I would also like to submit the Bladesinger for this. Sure, you don't have the massive save boost that a paladin has, but I would argue that both AC and damage output are better. It's harder to quantify damage output because so much of it is tied up in your concentration, but a here are some theoretical numbers for a level 6 BS with 18 Dex, 16 INT using level 3 ShadowBlade (SB):

AC while bladesinging: 19 (+5 with shield)
Damage potential: 7d8+8 = 39.5
Note that SB also comes with a rider that provides advantage in low light, which could synergize well with Elven Accuracy.


The Bladesinger can only do this for a maximum of 3 encounters per day, but if we compare it to a Paladin at level 6:

Paladin with PAM, 18 str, 16 Cha:
AC 18
Damage potential (no smites): 2d10+1d4+12 = 25.5
Damage for first level smite: 2d8 = 9
Damage for second level smite: 3d8 = 13.5


So even if the paladin spent a second level slot every turn smiting, it would still average 0.5 less damage than the Bladesinger, AND the Bladesinger still has a bonus action. Where the Paladin really shines of course is in its saving throws, which of course protect it better than the Bladesinger. But of course the other side of the coin is how versatile the Bladesinger's access to the wizard list makes it. Fighting a bunch of archers behind arrowslits? Fireball. A troll with a greatsword that hits harder than the paladin? Heat metal. A bunch of fairies buzzing around? Web.

Of course it all comes down to playstyle, but I think specifically comparing the paladin in tier 2 makes this harder. I think the Paladin has the 2nd most consistent power curve through all 4 tiers (behind the wizard), but looking in a vacuum at tier 2 someone is always going to be able to find an example of something stronger.

I think you’re selling your BS a bit short, it’s actually 4 encounters they can have level 3 Shadowblade up because of arcane recovery.

However it’s max fighting potential doesn’t come into play until the second round but given the style of play OP is talking about it is probably not unrealistic to start the fight with BS and a nuke, than Shadowblade in round 2.

[kingcheesepants]

Paladins are definitely strong, they can do amazing nova damage, their auras are incredibly useful, they have a number of abilities like lay on hands and divine sense, they're charisma based so they do well in most RP situations. However they don't have a lot of good AoE, or crowd control, they have very little to do when at range aside from tossing a javelin or shooting a bow (neither of which will utilize their smites or other special abilities), they don't get expertise, their spell list is pretty lacking overall. I think a party made entirely of different kinds of clerics, wizards or bards would do better overall than a party made entirely of paladins.


By level 8, where has a paladin put their 2 ASIs? Or what feats have they grabbed?

If they're anything like Paladins I've played with Fey Touched and Sentinel. Maybe Polearm Master or a straight strength or charisma boost depending on what they're going for, possibly warcaster if they're doing more spells than average.

[RazorChain]

I'm running for a group that's on level 5 now.

Moon Druid, Death Cleric, Vengeance Paladin, Necromancer wizard and Assassin Rogue. Finally when they hit level 5 the Paladin started to shine.

The Moon Druid has been nigh unkillable with 2 shapeshifts per short rest and mostly is bear or direwolf and throws a spell at the start of a fight and then shapeshifts.

The Death Cleric has been smiting just as hard as the Paladin with his Channel Divinity that he recovers every short rest

The Assassin usually scouts ahead so lot of the time the group gets a drop on things and then the Assassin starts the fight with a crit sneak attack which does plenty in damage and has plenty of utility as the scout/security specialist.

I must say that the Assassin, Death Cleric and Moon Druid got their time to shine from level 2 or 3. Now the wizard and the paladin just caught up.

The adventuring days usually have around 2-3 short rest with some random encounters during travel that let's the party go full nova.

Yes the Paladin is a rock solid class, an excellent tank that can do a lot of damage in a pinch and has a lot of versatility and good buffs. But there are bunch of other rock solid options out there for T2.

[LudicSavant]

I'm running for a group that's on level 5 now.

Moon Druid, Death Cleric, Vengeance Paladin, Necromancer wizard and Assassin Rogue. Finally when they hit level 5 the Paladin started to shine.

The Moon Druid has been nigh unkillable with 2 shapeshifts per short rest and mostly is bear or direwolf and throws a spell at the start of a fight and then shapeshifts.

The Death Cleric has been smiting just as hard as the Paladin with his Channel Divinity that he recovers every short rest

The Assassin usually scouts ahead so lot of the time the group gets a drop on things and then the Assassin starts the fight with a crit sneak attack which does plenty in damage and has plenty of utility as the scout/security specialist.

I must say that the Assassin, Death Cleric and Moon Druid got their time to shine from level 2 or 3. Now the wizard and the paladin just caught up.

The adventuring days usually have around 2-3 short rest with some random encounters during travel that let's the party go full nova.

Yes the Paladin is a rock solid class, an excellent tank that can do a lot of damage in a pinch and has a lot of versatility and good buffs. But there are bunch of other rock solid options out there for T2.

To emphasize this:

With the stated 2-3 short rests, the level 5 Death Cleric is dealing 90-120 extra damage with their smite, over the course of the day.

Even if the level 5 Paladin spent literally 100% of their spell slots on nothing but Divine Smite, they would only deal 63 extra damage with all of those smites (not including crits).

Edit Correction, at level 6 the Death Cleric will be dealing 102-136 extra (with 2 or 3 short rests, respectively), while the Paladin will be dealing 63 extra. But at level 5 specifically, the Death Cleric doesn't have their second CD yet.


I would suggest fey touched for a feat if odd charisma else something like pole arm mastery.

In the case of this Paladin build:

With a 16 in your primary stat, you'd be looking at cantrip-ish resourceless DPR, even with Polearm Mastery and Dueling.

Vs AC 17, you're looking at...

Fey-Touched with Dueling/Longsword: 9.95 DPR
Polearm Master with Dueling/Spear: 12.725 DPR
(You could do slightly more with a two-handed weapon, but IMHO you're better off keeping your shield).

For comparison, a basic 20 Wis Cleric's Potent Toll the Dead will do 13.5 DPR vs a +0 Wis save, or 9 DPR against a +5 Wis save.

A Death Cleric's Toll the Dead is better than that, since they can twin it, and because it will bypass all damage resistances. They'll lack Potent Spellcasting, but they can just take Blessed Strikes from Tasha's instead.

As for burning resources... well, Death Cleric smites are generally bigger than Paladin smites (see above), and then you've got a full caster's allotment of spell slots on top of that. 12 of 'em! They can be marching with a horde of undead, in Spirit Guardians, with Spiritual Weapon (that smites you), and still have their Action free to Dodge or cast another spell or something. Heck, if they're like the Death Cleric build I posted in a recent thread, they also have Shield on demand (because that's a thing that straight class Clerics can be built to do now).

__________________________________________________ ____________

Now don't get me wrong, Paladins are fantastic, and their aura is one of the best abilities around. But the OP wasn't saying Paladins are merely good. They were saying that Paladins are, and I quote "Literally best defense AND best (single target) offense, by a huge margin." And that's simply not the case, plenty of stuff can compete with the Paladin, in either category.

(And for the record, Death Cleric is far from the biggest gun I could be pulling out. It just conveniently happens to have a smite-like ability).

[JakOfAllTirades]

As the title. It seems to me that Paladin (or a paladin multiclass, particularly hexblade) is just flatly the best, i.e. most powerful, character one could make in the 5-8 level ranges. Probably higher, but I'm less familiar with those levels.

Is that the case? I just don't see how any other class can even come close to the defense and offense of a paladin. Literally best defense AND best (single target) offense, by a huge margin.

In melee, yes.

At range, not so much?

[da newt]

Paladin are very solid. They very good AC and HP, and have some of the best saves in the game which really improves their survivability. They also have SMITES so they can nova when needed. And best of all, they are pretty simple to play (heavy armor, a weapon, vow of enmity, EA, PAM, flanking, and just keep mashing that one button over and over again).

Full casters are also very powerful but they require a bit more skill to truly reach their potential. Their toolkit is big and complex. Picking the right spell and tactic at the right time/situation makes all the difference in the world. Sure you can cleric up spirit guardians and spiritual weapon with warcaster and dodge and do just fine, but a well built and played wizard/druid/sorc or even bard is a force to be reckoned with. Gods help team monster if the Wiz rolls a good initiative ...

Yup, palis are great, so are full casters once they get a few spells to play with. The setting, adventuring day, and player's skill will determine which is 'best' (and also of course how each of us chooses to define best to suit our person preferences).

[tKUUNK]

Can Paladin be matched in Tier 2? Yes.

But the fact that this isn't dismissed as a silly question proves your point. The paladin is a serious contender in this range.

The way I look at it is, you've basically got a Fighter, with half-casting, smites, healing, and an aura on top. That's pretty ridiculous.

side note re: bladesinger / shadow blade builds: I LOVE shadowblade....but depending on the campaign / DM, you may run into a lot of foes with necrotic damage resistance. In that sense, the paladin is a bit more fool-proof by relying on radiant damage. (of course, as a wizard, bladesinger will have other options, too)

[MrStabby]

To emphasize this:

With the stated 2-3 short rests, the level 5 Death Cleric is dealing 90-120 extra damage with their smite, over the course of the day.

Even if the level 5 Paladin spent literally 100% of their spell slots on nothing but Divine Smite, they would only deal 63 extra damage with all of those smites (not including crits).



In the case of this Paladin build:

With a 16 in your primary stat, you'd be looking at cantrip-ish resourceless DPR, even with Polearm Mastery and Dueling.

Vs AC 17, you're looking at...

Fey-Touched with Dueling/Longsword: 9.95 DPR
Polearm Master with Dueling/Spear: 12.725 DPR
(You could do slightly more with a two-handed weapon, but IMHO you're better off keeping your shield).

For comparison, a basic 20 Wis Cleric's Potent Toll the Dead will do 13.5 DPR vs a +0 Wis save, or 9 DPR against a +5 Wis save.

A Death Cleric's Toll the Dead is better than that, since they can twin it, and because it will bypass all damage resistances. They'll lack Potent Spellcasting, but they can just take Blessed Strikes from Tasha's instead.

As for burning resources... well, Death Cleric smites are generally bigger than Paladin smites (see above), and then you've got a full caster's allotment of spell slots on top of that. 12 of 'em! They can be marching with a horde of undead, in Spirit Guardians, with Spiritual Weapon (that smites you), and still have their Action free to Dodge or cast another spell or something. Heck, if they're like the Death Cleric build I posted in a recent thread, they also have Shield on demand (because that's a thing that straight class Clerics can be built to do now).

__________________________________________________ ____________

Now don't get me wrong, Paladins are fantastic, and their aura is one of the best abilities around. But the OP wasn't saying Paladins are merely good. They were saying that Paladins are, and I quote "Literally best defense AND best (single target) offense, by a huge margin." And that's simply not the case, plenty of stuff can compete with the Paladin, in either category.

(And for the record, Death Cleric is far from the biggest gun I could be pulling out. It just conveniently happens to have a smite-like ability).

I think you have missed that the death cleric's toll the dead can only hit two creatures if they are within 5ft of each other - this is pretty niche. And yes, the level six death cleric ability does get round resistance, but then basically so too does the magic weapon spell for the paladin. Toll the dead on the other hand starts to lose out to things like enemies you can't see (darkness, obscured, invisible, blinded cleric etc.) and to magic resistance. I don't have my figures to hand, but I think there are more magic resistant enemies than necrotic resistant enemies.

And not sure why you are comparing to a paladin using smite damage with death cleric. My points were much more focussed on the value the paladin can get from spells and their ability to fit different roles. Sure, you can build a paladin for damage and it will do well, but I remain unconvinced that it it the best use of the class.

As for a particular build, I am not sure I would go for dueling - as you seem to be evaluating on the basis of damage, then sure it makes sense, but for some campaigns picking up guidance could be better, blindfighting appeals more as does defense and even protection. Taking PAM at 8 was largely a precursor to sentinel at 12.

[LudicSavant]

I think you have missed that the death cleric's toll the dead can only hit two creatures if they are within 5ft of each other - this is pretty niche.

I missed no such thing.


This twinning does require enemies to be adjacent though, so don't count on getting it all the time

Because a Death Cleric can target two creatures within 5 feet of each other, and bypass Necrotic damage resistance, their Toll the Dead is better than that of a generic Cleric, exactly as I said.


a basic 20 Wis Cleric's Potent Toll the Dead will do 13.5 DPR vs a +0 Wis save, or 9 DPR against a +5 Wis save.

A Death Cleric's Toll the Dead is better than that, since they can twin it, and because it will bypass all damage resistances. They'll lack Potent Spellcasting, but they can just take Blessed Strikes from Tasha's instead.

[MrStabby]

I missed no such thing.

Because a Death Cleric can target two creatures within 5 feet of each other, and bypass Necrotic damage resistance, their Toll the Dead is better than that of a generic Cleric, exactly as I said.

Ok... sure.

Even notwithstanding this you still seem to be treating damage as the only output of a character. The big paladin ability is probably aura of protection and its the turn by turn value of that that I think is a lot better than a few extra damage per turn. I mean paladin damage is solid and you can certainly boost it impressively when high damage is the right tool or if you are facing fiends, undead or just want to go to town on a critical hit - I am not saying this isn't a factor, but don't overplay it.

Even if you want to look at damage, it really depends on things like the proportion of enemies with magic resistance, legendary saves, immunity to BPS damage, frequency of advantage (though as death cleric can snag chill touch this narrows the gap), number of opportunity attacks (though I guess a death cleric can stand in melee as well and get the occasional attack).

[LudicSavant]

Ok... sure.

Even notwithstanding this you still seem to be treating damage as the only output of a character.

I very clearly didn't do that either.


Paladins are fantastic, and their aura is one of the best abilities around.

and still have their Action free to Dodge or cast another spell or something. Heck, if they're like the Death Cleric build I posted in a recent thread, they also have Shield on demand (because that's a thing that straight class Clerics can be built to do now).

[Gignere]

side note re: bladesinger / shadow blade builds: I LOVE shadowblade....but depending on the campaign / DM, you may run into a lot of foes with necrotic damage resistance. In that sense, the paladin is a bit more fool-proof by relying on radiant damage. (of course, as a wizard, bladesinger will have other options, too)

That’s fine because Shadowblade damage is psychic. Yes there are psychic immune enemies but they are generally few and far between, and radiant is maybe just a smidge better damage type than psychic but psychic damage is no slouch.

[MrStabby]

I very clearly didn't do that either.

What fraction of characters did you spend comparing non damage abilities relative to damage abilities?

What do you actually think is important?


Edit:

I think I understand more. You never intended to respond to me and intended to respond to something else. I had been struggling to understand why you might possibly think that your comments on death clerics were an appropriate response to what I had written and trying to square that circle was an issue.

Then my phone loaded the other comments (I just had the ones between my starting to draft and and sitting a response (which took forever as looking after kids) missing from the feed. I think you were responding to what other peoe said.

[KorvinStarmast]

By level 8, where has a paladin put their 2 ASIs? Or what feats have they grabbed? I put both ASIs into Charisma, it's now 20. I am dex based, using sword and board. Feat for vHuman was Medium Armor Master. I can stealth and I can do a decent front line. If I do cast a spell, like command, I want it to work. I love boosts to saves for the party. 16 Dex is good enough to hit if the dice don't just hate me.
I also like the boost to party initiative that my proficiency bonus offers. :smallsmile:

Paladin is solid in Tier 2, but you still have to hit. (Last night the dice were very, very cold, level 9).
Watcher Paladin has a CD that (depending on the enemy) can break up a crowd of enemy, or, if the party is against a spell caster, gives ADV to INT/CHA/WIS saves. That's handy as heck, but you do need to be in a party that does a little recon/scouting to get an idea of what you may need.

I don't just use spell slots for smites, about a half of the time, maybe a bit more than half.
Two sessions ago I used both of my 3d level slots on Counterspell since we were up against multiple casters.

[tKUUNK]

That’s fine because Shadowblade damage is psychic. Yes there are psychic immune enemies but they are generally few and far between, and radiant is maybe just a smidge better damage type than psychic but psychic damage is no slouch.

dude, thanks for the correction! I got my wires crossed on the damage type somehow. Now I can get back to daydreaming about Shadowblade builds. :D

[LudicSavant]

Edit:

I think I understand more. You never intended to respond to me and intended to respond to something else. I had been struggling to understand why you might possibly think that your comments on death clerics were an appropriate response to what I had written and trying to square that circle was an issue.

Then my phone loaded the other comments (I just had the ones between my starting to draft and and sitting a response (which took forever as looking after kids) missing from the feed. I think you were responding to what other peoe said.

Yes. I was just using your Paladin build as a concrete example of "a Paladin build someone might play" while responding to someone else. Not arguing with any point you made.

[RazorChain]

To emphasize this:

With the stated 2-3 short rests, the level 5 Death Cleric is dealing 90-120 extra damage with their smite, over the course of the day.

Even if the level 5 Paladin spent literally 100% of their spell slots on nothing but Divine Smite, they would only deal 63 extra damage with all of those smites (not including crits).






Yeas the Death Cleric is good as a melee fighter but he is only level 5 and gets his second channel divinity per short rest and bypasses necrotic resistance at level 6. So at the moment it's +15 dmg per channel divinity. At level 6 it becomes +17 dmg twice per short rest which is better than the paladin can do on average so at that point the Death cleric is going to outsmite the paladin again.

But at level 6 the paladin gets his aura which is a very strong feature.

[LudicSavant]

Yeas the Death Cleric is good as a melee fighter but he is only level 5 and gets his second channel divinity per short rest and bypasses necrotic resistance at level 6. So at the moment it's +17 dmg per channel divinity. At level 6 it becomes +19 dmg twice per short rest which is better than the paladin can do on average so at that point the Death cleric is going to outsmite the paladin again.

Ah you're right, that is at level 6, not 5. Silly me.

So yeah. At 6+ they'll outsmite the Paladin again. But in return the Paladin will get their aura.

[strangebloke]

As usual, the classes that people feel are overpowered reveal more about how their games are run than about the system itself.

Paladins are great in short adventuring days because with smite they can easily use three slots a turn. Paladins are great when melee is possible, because they're a melee focused class and many of their features don't work at range. Paladins are stellar when the primary challenge of the enemy is 'a few enemies with big numbers' because paladins tend to have really big numbers (big damage, big AC, big save bonuses, big heals) Paladins excel in "boss rush" style campaigns where there's 3-4 really big encounters centered on singular powerful monsters.

But consider the opposite scenario, where there's a really long (lets say 10 encounter) day and you're fighting in a swamp against a tribe of evil goblins who are experts at ambushing and using the terrain to their advantage, relying on shortbows, traps, and hit-and-run tactics. The Paladin is miserable here! He can't get into range, even if he does he will only kill 1-2 goblins a turn, he can't contribute in the exploration pillar at all, he isn't good at spotting ambushes, and the party will likely be too spread out chasing goblins for his aura to matter much. His big fat heals and smites are still there but over the course of so many encounters they don't amount to much at all. His main contribution in such a scenario is bless. Sure a hexadin can blast in this situation, and sure a dexadin can contribute a bit with a bow, but...

Well. Compare a ranger in this situation. Or a monoclass warlock.

The Ranger is ambushing the ambushers, with good wis and good dex. The ranger is using insanely efficient magic like conjure animals or summon beast. The ranger can, with the right spells/features, kill 3-4 goblins a turn, and doesn't have to go into melee to leverage their class features. The ranger has expertise in at least one relevant skill, and has spells that allow them to contribute in the exploration challenges like tracking the goblins to their lair.

People feel paladins are strong because they play under conditions that make them strong. For contrast, druids, wizards, and clerics are always very strong regardless of play conditions because their main strength is covering a wide range of bases. Barbarians are exceptionally weak because even in the narrow conditions where they're playable they're still super mediocre.

[Skrum]

-a bunch of really good points-

I agree, but only to a point. An adventure could be pure intrigue, but that's not how most games are played. Encounters could be a long, drawn out affair with lessor enemies using terrain and hit and run tactics, but most would find that incredibly tedious (for it to be the norm). So yes, paladins are really good at a particular type of game. The problem is, a lot of games fall into that type. A few minions, a few big bads, and combat lasts a few rounds. Well, that's what paladins are incredibly good at. I think it's slightly off the mark to say "well that's just the game you play." That's the game A LOT of people play, to the point where I'd call it something like the default.

[MrStabby]

As usual, the classes that people feel are overpowered reveal more about how their games are run than about the system itself.

Paladins are great in short adventuring days because with smite they can easily use three slots a turn. Paladins are great when melee is possible, because they're a melee focused class and many of their features don't work at range. Paladins are stellar when the primary challenge of the enemy is 'a few enemies with big numbers' because paladins tend to have really big numbers (big damage, big AC, big save bonuses, big heals) Paladins excel in "boss rush" style campaigns where there's 3-4 really big encounters centered on singular powerful monsters.

But consider the opposite scenario, where there's a really long (lets say 10 encounter) day and you're fighting in a swamp against a tribe of evil goblins who are experts at ambushing and using the terrain to their advantage, relying on shortbows, traps, and hit-and-run tactics. The Paladin is miserable here! He can't get into range, even if he does he will only kill 1-2 goblins a turn, he can't contribute in the exploration pillar at all, he isn't good at spotting ambushes, and the party will likely be too spread out chasing goblins for his aura to matter much. His big fat heals and smites are still there but over the course of so many encounters they don't amount to much at all. His main contribution in such a scenario is bless. Sure a hexadin can blast in this situation, and sure a dexadin can contribute a bit with a bow, but...

Well. Compare a ranger in this situation. Or a monoclass warlock.

The Ranger is ambushing the ambushers, with good wis and good dex. The ranger is using insanely efficient magic like conjure animals or summon beast. The ranger can, with the right spells/features, kill 3-4 goblins a turn, and doesn't have to go into melee to leverage their class features. The ranger has expertise in at least one relevant skill, and has spells that allow them to contribute in the exploration challenges like tracking the goblins to their lair.

People feel paladins are strong because they play under conditions that make them strong. For contrast, druids, wizards, and clerics are always very strong regardless of play conditions because their main strength is covering a wide range of bases. Barbarians are exceptionally weak because even in the narrow conditions where they're playable they're still super mediocre.

So I agree with your general point that people think classes are strong that reflect their ways of playing, but I guess my experience of the specifics is different.

I see paladins as great for dealing with long days where you want resource efficiency. Turning every spell slot into the maximum effect is vital and paladins have a great, broad range of spells to do this. In long days, spell slots for healing are at a premium so high AC and spells like shield of faith are awesome, but also other abilities like aura of protection that takes pressure off this limited resource.

I also think because paladins excell defensively, they are not bad at hordes of small things. Sitting at a choke point with 20AC won't make you invulnerable to high level monsters but you will shine vs lots of low level monsters.

The point about terrain is well made though. If you have an open space with more mobile enemies where find steed doesn't work and they have strong ranged attacks and they just use attacks rather than saves then the paladin is mostly healing and buffing allies.

D&D no longer just happens in dungeons or fighting large, scary monsters.

[stoutstien]

I agree, but only to a point. An adventure could be pure intrigue, but that's not how most games are played. Encounters could be a long, drawn out affair with lessor enemies using terrain and hit and run tactics, but most would find that incredibly tedious (for it to be the norm). So yes, paladins are really good at a particular type of game. The problem is, a lot of games fall into that type. A few minions, a few big bads, and combat lasts a few rounds. Well, that's what paladins are incredibly good at. I think it's slightly off the mark to say "well that's just the game you play." That's the game A LOT of people play, to the point where I'd call it something like the default.

Mono styled encounters and campaigns leading to classes performing better others due to lack of variation isn't exactly a new observation. If you as a player are finding this is causing a less enjoyable game then you need to work with the DM to start opening up gameplay.

[strangebloke]

I agree, but only to a point. An adventure could be pure intrigue, but that's not how most games are played. Encounters could be a long, drawn out affair with lessor enemies using terrain and hit and run tactics, but most would find that incredibly tedious (for it to be the norm). So yes, paladins are really good at a particular type of game. The problem is, a lot of games fall into that type. A few minions, a few big bads, and combat lasts a few rounds. Well, that's what paladins are incredibly good at. I think it's slightly off the mark to say "well that's just the game you play." That's the game A LOT of people play, to the point where I'd call it something like the default.

You might be right about it being the most common form of play, but I think its important to clarify that when you say "impossible to match paladin in T2" what you really mean is "impossible to match paladin in T2 under a Combat-As-Sport paradigm."

Because even if "combat as sport without much exploration or intrigue" is the DOMINANT paradigm, it isn't the only game in town. Combat as war is a very common playstyle and has a lot of support in the system and modules. There are a lot of campaigns where something like a bugbear gloomstalker is going to make a paladin look like a punk.

And this brings us back to druids, wizards, clerics, warlocks, and bards. Even in the combat-as-sport paradigm, what does a paladin have that's better than conjure animals? What do they have that's even close? How much is the paladin actually outdamaging the cleric with spirit guardians and spiritual weapon and cantrip?

In other words... yeah, paladin is top tier sometimes. Wizards and druids are top tier ALL the time.

So I agree with your general point that people think classes are strong that reflect their ways of playing, but I guess my experience of the specifics is different.

I see paladins as great for dealing with long days where you want resource efficiency. Turning every spell slot into the maximum effect is vital and paladins have a great, broad range of spells to do this. In long days, spell slots for healing are at a premium so high AC and spells like shield of faith are awesome, but also other abilities like aura of protection that takes pressure off this limited resource.
Paladins are strong overall, yes. They get three full resource pulls (CD, LoH, spells) as well as a permanent pet summon and aura. But they get a lot stronger under ideal conditions.


I also think because paladins excell defensively, they are not bad at hordes of small things. Sitting at a choke point with 20AC won't make you invulnerable to high level monsters but you will shine vs lots of low level monsters.
Lots of people have high AC, just saying. Warlocks and Bards can get 19 AC with just a half-feat of investment, clerics get at least that by default, wizards and sorcerers have mage armor + shield for 21+ AC...


D&D no longer just happens in dungeons or fighting large, scary monsters.
One might argue, it never happened in dungeons exclusively. Field encounters have always been a thing.


Mono styled encounters and campaigns leading to classes performing better others due to lack of variation isn't exactly a new observation. If you as a player are finding this is causing a less enjoyable game then you need to work with the DM to start opening up gameplay.
Yup. Having multiple modes of challenges is actually the recommendation of the system itself, and it makes sense. OF COURSE the ranger is going to be sad if he's built for stealth and never gets to ambush an enemy. OF COURSE the barbarian will be sad if all the enemies are always running away from him and he never gets to do anything. Of course a paladin's going to be sad if every adventure is super drawn-out and he doesn't get to go ham with his abilities.

So just keep switching it up, and everyone's going to be happy (unless their character is just too dang weak to compete, lol but that's harder to do in 5e imo)

[Waazraath]

What is telling for me is that, yes, it is possible to match a pally in T2, most examples given in this thread are... rather specific. A BM CBE/SS does indeed much more damage, but it is also a very specific build requiring a subclass and 2 feats (and that's not taking into account that it cant heal buff etc. like the pally can). A caster with conjure animals is great (especially a shepard druid) if you can pick your own animals (contrary to RAW). Death clerics and animate dead and all that are great if your DM doesn't invoke in-world repercussions against evil party behaviour. Casters in general can be good with specific spells, if the DM is kind enough not to aim for concentration disruption or keeps the mooks nicely in fireball or sleep formation.

Point being: to match a pally, some pretty specific builds are given. While it matters jack which paladin we are talking about. Dex based Ancients, GWM using Vengeance, PAM based Crown (a weaker subclass): they are all great. They all have strong defenses, healing, at least competence in the social pillar with skills and cha as a main stat, great nova damage dpr, a companion through Find Steed, and more depending on subclass. While I'm the first to admit a battle master can be as useful as a pally in a straight out dungeon crawl, in my experience a pally can work in almost any type of game and be among the most useful party members.

[strangebloke]

What is telling for me is that, yes, it is possible to match a pally in T2, most examples given in this thread are... rather specific. A BM CBE/SS does indeed much more damage, but it is also a very specific build requiring a subclass and 2 feats (and that's not taking into account that it cant heal buff etc. like the pally can). A caster with conjure animals is great (especially a shepard druid) if you can pick your own animals (contrary to RAW). Death clerics and animate dead and all that are great if your DM doesn't invoke in-world repercussions against evil party behaviour. Casters in general can be good with specific spells, if the DM is kind enough not to aim for concentration disruption or keeps the mooks nicely in fireball or sleep formation.

Point being: to match a pally, some pretty specific builds are given. While it matters jack which paladin we are talking about. Dex based Ancients, GWM using Vengeance, PAM based Crown (a weaker subclass): they are all great. They all have strong defenses, healing, at least competence in the social pillar with skills and cha as a main stat, great nova damage dpr, a companion through Find Steed, and more depending on subclass. While I'm the first to admit a battle master can be as useful as a pally in a straight out dungeon crawl, in my experience a pally can work in almost any type of game and be among the most useful party members.

What I think is interesting is how many arguments rely on things like "good AC" and "decent CHA" as though these are unique properties that only paladins have, and not universally accessible mechanics. Nearly every character in the game can hit 19 AC with two spell slots or a single half-feat. It's not hard, and paladin isn't impressive for hitting that number. Decent CHA is similarly also redundant most of the time. Between warlocks, bards, paladins, swashbuckler rogues, fighters with spare ASIs, and sorcerers, I've only once seen a party where 'decent cha' was enough to fill the 'face' roll. Citing this as a class strength seems especially weird given that Paladins usually won't even focus CHA, and won't have expertise or Commanding Presence or anything to enhance their charisma rolls.

I don't think specific builds need to be brought up. I think a normal, basic cleric is just as good as a paladin in T2. Comparable AC, more useful / focused stats, more spell slots, better CD, better subclass features, better spell list. Sure paladin has find steed and smite and aura, both classes have their strengths, but saying the paladin "can't be matched" just seems wrong.

And that isn't RAW for conjure animals, that's sage advice, and only nerfs the spell out of being overpowered if you go with an extremely combative usage of that ruling. Pretty much any usable CR 1/4 beast makes the spell incredibly strong.

[noob]

And that isn't RAW for conjure animals, that's sage advice, and only nerfs the spell out of being overpowered if you go with an extremely combative usage of that ruling. Pretty much any usable CR 1/4 beast makes the spell incredibly strong.
By the rules as written the gm have the right to always make the spell conjure only sea horses since each time they specify the cr it is "x or lower"
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/conjure-animals
Meaning the gm can systematically make each option conjure cr 0 creatures and if the gm pick the creatures he can decide to only pick sea horses.
So with an extremely combative usage,you might as well not cast that spell.
Even the sage advice mentioned the "cr x or lower" part meaning that they clearly intended gms to be able to pick cr0 creatures

[Eldariel]

By the rules as written the gm have the right to always make the spell conjure only sea horses since each time they specify the cr it is "x or lower"
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/conjure-animals
Meaning the gm can systematically make each option conjure cr 0 creatures and if the gm pick the creatures he can decide to only pick sea horses.
So with an extremely combative usage,you might as well not cast that spell.

Yeah, I think that's precisely what he said. Honestly, in any actual table, I have a hard time seeing it be anything but broken by RAW - if you give creatures based on what makes sense for the environment, it's just going to be nuts vast majority of the time, and if you give random creatures, it's similarly going to be nuts almost always. The built-in "balance system" is so terrible that it's barely worth mentioning unless the DM goes out of their way to **** over the players (and a DM who does is probably one who doesn't need RAW to **** over their players and thus is not really one you should probably be playing with in the first place) and the CR 1/4 list has a stupidly strong list of things. Like Axe Beaks and Boars are the only truly weak options and 8 of either of those even is going to do rather serious work for a level 3 spell.

[Sulicius]

No, many in this thread underestimate the power of spellcasters because they have never seen what a Tier 2 spellcaster can truly do in a tough spot when pulling out all the stops. There's a reason level 3 spells are considered such a massive break point.

But after they pull out all the stops, they are a low AC, low HP character that has to hope they have a useful low-level spell left. Paladins just keep truckin’.

This is obviously in the case of a longer adventuring day.

Still, a Paladin can nova when needed. They are beyond all martials, and even a couple of spellcasters at that tier. I am thinking Cleric and Warlock.

[noob]

But after they pull out all the stops, they are a low AC, low HP character that has to hope they have a useful low-level spell left. Paladins just keep truckin’.

This is obviously in the case of a longer adventuring day.

Still, a Paladin can nova when needed. They are beyond all martials, and even a couple of spellcasters at that tier. I am thinking Cleric and Warlock.

Valour Bards and clerics still have good ac after depleting their spells.

[Eldariel]

But after they pull out all the stops, they are a low AC, low HP character that has to hope they have a useful low-level spell left. Paladins just keep truckin’.

First of all, any caster can have 19 AC easily enough on this level if they want to. Second of all, there are all-day options available here (Animate Dead for instance lasts for 24 hours; few days are longer than that). Third, Paladin without spell slots isn't very impressive either. And fourth, the HP differential is entirely circumstantial: Druid or Cleric has almost the same HP as Paladin on the base level and something like an Abjurer or Moon Druid is likely to have more. It's not like casters lack on the at-will or short rest front either on these levels.

Pulling out all the stops also involves making good use of their at-will and all-day options including simple stuff like the Dodge-action, dropping Prone, move action, rituals, cantrips, etc. This conserves the big resources meaning they'll be fine regardless of how long the day is. All of that adds up to a lot when used appropriately, but I'm aware that many caster players fail to utilise their full toolkit (and of course, caster classes and builds vary wildly: a frontline Abjurer is very different from a low defense Eloquence Bard).

[Gignere]

But after they pull out all the stops, they are a low AC, low HP character that has to hope they have a useful low-level spell left. Paladins just keep truckin’.

This is obviously in the case of a longer adventuring day.

Still, a Paladin can nova when needed. They are beyond all martials, and even a couple of spellcasters at that tier. I am thinking Cleric and Warlock.

I don’t agree with the keep on trucking thing at all. I’ve seen paladins out of spell slots and they basically end up being featureless fighters. Let just say it ain’t pretty at that point.

The problem with comparing with casters is that the skill level differences between players are massive. In the same game one full caster can be constantly running out of spell slots, do less DPR, drops in nearly every fight, contribute way less than another full caster in the same party.

It’s so frustrating because when I’m in a party and the casters are not good I almost always eventually just reroll to a full caster just so the party can function smoothly.

[Sulicius]

I don’t agree with the keep on trucking thing at all. I’ve seen paladins out of spell slots and they basically end up being featureless fighters. Let just say it ain’t pretty at that point.

The problem with comparing with casters is that the skill level differences between players are massive. In the same game one full caster can be constantly running out of spell slots, do less DPR, drops in nearly every fight, contribute way less than another full caster in the same party.

It’s so frustrating because when I’m in a party and the casters are not good I almost always eventually just reroll to a full caster just so the party can function smoothly.

Those paladins still have lay on hands and an aura, combined with being tough themselves, they keep a party alive.

Of course spellcasters are very versatile at tier 2 and can do incredible things, but I have seen a paladin keep a party alive, where a spellcaster would just have folded. Let’s just say it is good to have a party with different classes? I’m happier to have a paladin in a party rather than another wizard.

Also, you make some very elitist arguments that make me worry. Isn’t it ok for people to play suboptimal? Are they playing in such a way that the DM TPK’s the party immediately?

[Eldariel]

Also, you make some very elitist arguments that make me worry. Isn’t it ok for people to play suboptimal? Are they playing in such a way that the DM TPK’s the party immediately?

Suboptimal playing doesn't speak for class power. It speaks for player skill. It's completely irrelevant for the conversation of how strong classes actually are: only when players actually play their class near the ceiling can we witness what the build can do (let alone what the class can do: in order of impact we have Player > Build > Class so to study the power of a class, we have to go pretty deep and have fairly high level player and build showcasing said class) since otherwise we're only witnessing a portion of the build's power and thus actually comparing players, not mechanics. Which is quite pointless since each player is unique and none of us is going to play with a significant number of them from the whole population: it again speaks little of what the build or the class can do.

[Tanarii]

Paladins are very strong in Tier 2, but they do have two weaknesses: Con is typically a tertiary stat, and their slots come back on a Long Rest.

Barbarians will almost always make Con their secondary. Fighters other than EKs usually do, and Rogues sometimes as well. Even Warlocks, Wizards and Sorcs often do that. I've seen enough Paladins with 12-13 Con to know for a class that's pretty much a Tank, it's a common weakness.

Fighters (besides EKs) and Rogues (besides ATs) and Monks have low to no long rest dependencies. Warlocks have few until high level. Paladins are a solid enough base class they can survive just fine without them, similar to Clerics and Druids, but unlike Bards or Wizards or Sorcerers. But they still have to husband their resources, which stops them from being all OP all the time. Of course, if your table runs a 5MWD all bets are off.

Weaknesses aside, they're still a stellar class in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

[strangebloke]

By the rules as written the gm have the right to always make the spell conjure only sea horses since each time they specify the cr it is "x or lower"
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/conjure-animals
Meaning the gm can systematically make each option conjure cr 0 creatures and if the gm pick the creatures he can decide to only pick sea horses.
So with an extremely combative usage,you might as well not cast that spell.
Even the sage advice mentioned the "cr x or lower" part meaning that they clearly intended gms to be able to pick cr0 creatures

The rules say:

Choose one of the following options for what appears:

One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower
Four beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower
insofar as RAW exists, its ambiguous about who chooses what sort of beast appears. Generally, if a spell says something like "You summon an object costing less than 25 gp" the assumption would be that the player chooses what the item is. Generally everyone assumed when 5e launched, that the player chose. You could argue that the DM chooses, and according to Sage Advice this is the intended reading, but its not RAW. And yes, a DM can use this sage advice to justify the druid hilariously wasting a third level spell in combat to summon seahorses, but this is a good way to make your players very very angry.

I've never actually met anyone who had a DM pull such a thing on them, because its just kind of unpleasant, yeah? If your DM rolls randomly on a table, you'll probably get something like a horse or cow or elk, all of which massively outperform any other 3rd level spell and any other character.

But after they pull out all the stops, they are a low AC, low HP character that has to hope they have a useful low-level spell left. Paladins just keep truckin’.
Have you ever actually seen a T2 cleric or druid run out of spell slots? They have far more efficient spells than the paladin, and far more spells, and they aren't much worse if they do run out, having comparable AC and wildshape. Heck, Druids and Clerics are SAD which means they'll usually have better CON than the paladin.


Those paladins still have lay on hands and an aura, combined with being tough themselves, they keep a party alive.
How is a peace cleric that gives +2d4 to all saves not keeping the party alive? Or abjurer's ward, or Grave Cleric crit negation, or the amazing CC of spirit guardians, or... you get my point.


Also, you make some very elitist arguments that make me worry. Isn’t it ok for people to play suboptimal? Are they playing in such a way that the DM TPK’s the party immediately?
You can play suboptimally, but the thread topic was making the positive claim that paladins cannot be matched in t2.

they're good! but "can't be matched" is only true under very specific conditions, which I outlined above.

[da newt]

Just curious, but how much do y'all see the tier 2 pali's aura coming into play? With it's pretty small radius in a 'normal' 5 PC party I've seen it commonly cover 1 other melee PC most of the time, and every so often a second PC, but usually leave 2 or 3 of the other PC's unprotected.

It's certainly a great feature and very handy when it comes into play, but it doesn't seem to apply all that often in real games in my experience (but maybe my parties are abnormally spread out with casters and ranged attackers and skirmishers often too far away to benefit).

[Hael]

Maybe its just me, but I actually consider Paladins to peak relatively speaking a little later in the game. Like lvl 8-12 or thereabouts. Yea full casters are going to be even more dominant, but at those high lvls the Paladins have gottten a few ASis to deal with their madness issues and are kinda majorly pulling away from other martials.

Ditto with some of the gishes like hexblades, bladesingers etc.

(Rangers are more of a t1 class imo).

Actually pact of the chain genielocks are a pretty good candidate for being equally overpowered in that 4-8 range.

[noob]

How is a peace cleric that gives +2d4 to all saves not keeping the party alive? Or abjurer's ward, or Grave Cleric crit negation, or the amazing CC of spirit guardians, or... you get my point.


Even ancients barbarian gets a neat defensive tool when you fight low monster numbers.

[Gignere]

Those paladins still have lay on hands and an aura, combined with being tough themselves, they keep a party alive.

Of course spellcasters are very versatile at tier 2 and can do incredible things, but I have seen a paladin keep a party alive, where a spellcaster would just have folded. Let’s just say it is good to have a party with different classes? I’m happier to have a paladin in a party rather than another wizard.

Also, you make some very elitist arguments that make me worry. Isn’t it ok for people to play suboptimal? Are they playing in such a way that the DM TPK’s the party immediately?

I’ve played in games without one full caster in t2 and it was basically unbearable at least to me the DM had to keep putting in super OP stuff in the game until enough peeps rerolled to full casters. The party did have a Paladin.

I’ve played games without a Paladin in t2 but with full casters yeah once in a few encounters I thought hey the Paladin aura would have made this encounter easier but it didn’t require the DM to basically mod the whole game and throw in a whole bunch of unique items to keep the game running.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

As the title. It seems to me that Paladin (or a paladin multiclass, particularly hexblade) is just flatly the best, i.e. most powerful, character one could make in the 5-8 level ranges. Probably higher, but I'm less familiar with those levels.

Is that the case? I just don't see how any other class can even come close to the defense and offense of a paladin. Literally best defense AND best (single target) offense, by a huge margin.

At level 5 (with a regular adventure day) a Paladin is absolutely not the strongest class. You're a decent well rounded character, but have roughly 1 spell slot per encounter. Maybe with Shield of Faith you stretch 1 slot into multiple encounters.

At level 6-10 there's an argument to be made that a Paladin who focusses on Cha is the strongest character regardless of subclass due to the level 6 aura that benefits multiple characters throughout the adventuring day. I don't think its OP unless the adventuring day is shortened to the point where the Paly can cast a buff spell and smite multiple times through each combat.

I would agree that there are a couple of subclasses (the Shepherd has been mentioned a couple of times on the thread) that are stronger. We've mostly banned these at our table.

[Skrum]

I don't think its OP unless the adventuring day is shortened to the point where the Paly can cast a buff spell and smite multiple times through each combat.
.

Well....that's part of it, certainly. Our adventuring day is very short, typically 2 encounters. It's the constraints of the game.

[Kvess]

Paladins have a lot going for them. The core chassis of the class gives you good armor, a fighting style, spell casting, channel divinity, lay on hands, and with a high charisma score you’re also a contender to be the party face. The subclasses also tend to be very strong and impactful. It’s difficult to play a Paladin and not feel that you are significantly contributing to the party.

The problem is a lone Paladin isn’t a party. You’re not a full caster and you don’t get flashy AOE spells until late in your career. Your abilities don’t tend to work at range. You can’t take as much punishment as a raging Barbarian. Your abilities don’t refresh on a short rest like a fighter. You can’t turn into a powerful beast like a Druid. You certainly can’t pick locks as well as a Rogue.

Paladin is a good class to play. There are definitely situations where it shines. But I’d rather have a Bard, a Wizard and a Barbarian backing that Paladin up instead of another three Paladins.

[Skrum]

You can’t take as much punishment as a raging Barbarian.

I disagree here. Sure, a paladin can't literally wear as many attacks as a barb can, but paladins are far more effective tanks in the sense that their armor and saves are going to keep them on their feet a lot longer than a barb will. This is especially true for barbs that aren't Bear Totem - when you reach level 6, 7, 8, etc., damage types become a lot more varied.

[MrStabby]

What I think is interesting is how many arguments rely on things like "good AC" and "decent CHA" as though these are unique properties that only paladins have, and not universally accessible mechanics. Nearly every character in the game can hit 19 AC with two spell slots or a single half-feat. It's not hard, and paladin isn't impressive for hitting that number. Decent CHA is similarly also redundant most of the time. Between warlocks, bards, paladins, swashbuckler rogues, fighters with spare ASIs, and sorcerers, I've only once seen a party where 'decent cha' was enough to fill the 'face' roll. Citing this as a class strength seems especially weird given that Paladins usually won't even focus CHA, and won't have expertise or Commanding Presence or anything to enhance their charisma rolls.

I don't think specific builds need to be brought up. I think a normal, basic cleric is just as good as a paladin in T2. Comparable AC, more useful / focused stats, more spell slots, better CD, better subclass features, better spell list. Sure paladin has find steed and smite and aura, both classes have their strengths, but saying the paladin "can't be matched" just seems wrong.

And that isn't RAW for conjure animals, that's sage advice, and only nerfs the spell out of being overpowered if you go with an extremely combative usage of that ruling. Pretty much any usable CR 1/4 beast makes the spell incredibly strong.
Paladin AC doesn't have to be special to be good. Just like the fact that multiple classes get access to counterspell doesn't mean its not a good spell for a wizard. I don't think anyone is arguing tha T2 paladin is the best class because of AC alone. If they were then I guess other classes geting that AC would be a counterargument.


Suboptimal playing doesn't speak for class power. It speaks for player skill. It's completely irrelevant for the conversation of how strong classes actually are: only when players actually play their class near the ceiling can we witness what the build can do (let alone what the class can do: in order of impact we have Player > Build > Class so to study the power of a class, we have to go pretty deep and have fairly high level player and build showcasing said class) since otherwise we're only witnessing a portion of the build's power and thus actually comparing players, not mechanics. Which is quite pointless since each player is unique and none of us is going to play with a significant number of them from the whole population: it again speaks little of what the build or the class can do.

I hard disagree. Playing is about having fun. Optimal play is therefore about having the greatest fun at the table. More skillful players will make decisions that result in more fun being had. Not all options that are powerful are actually that fun - forty two skeleton archers slowing down play or wish/simularcra chains... yeah, doing something less powerful is absolutely not a reflecion on a lack of player skill.


Just curious, but how much do y'all see the tier 2 pali's aura coming into play? With it's pretty small radius in a 'normal' 5 PC party I've seen it commonly cover 1 other melee PC most of the time, and every so often a second PC, but usually leave 2 or 3 of the other PC's unprotected.

It's certainly a great feature and very handy when it comes into play, but it doesn't seem to apply all that often in real games in my experience (but maybe my parties are abnormally spread out with casters and ranged attackers and skirmishers often too far away to benefit).

I find the paladin aura offers pretty good coverage in practice. So the paladin gets covered and probably another one nearby by default for a typical 4 person party. Thats half the party. However it isn't half the targets. The archer that isn't with the paladin in the front lines - well they are out of range of the spell so not a valid target. And the monk/rogue/skirmisher - probably out of sight behind a pillar or round a corner or similar. For a lot of effects you cover half the party but frequently 100% of the good targets. At worst, if an enemy is playing round your aura they might still be doing things like targetting the ranger with the Hold Person spell rather than the barbarian next to you - still 1pc potentially out of the fight but probably has a better chance of making the save still.

This also highlights the other element of flexability - you can reposition to help with repeat saves. Sure, going somewhere you might not want to be in combat has a cost but if you can just pick which enemy to stand next to and catch someone who benefits in your aura its nice.

Finally, as combat goes on and the number of enemies decline melee combatants tend to cluster up more. People might be spaced out at the start of a fight but end up bunched together by the end.

[LudicSavant]

What is telling for me is that, yes, it is possible to match a pally in T2, most examples given in this thread are... rather specific. A BM CBE/SS does indeed much more damage, but it is also a very specific build requiring a subclass and 2 feats


Death clerics and animate dead and all that are great if your DM doesn't invoke in-world repercussions against evil party behaviour.

A CBE/SS Fighter has a better offense, therefore it is sufficient to disprove that Paladin has "literally the best single target offense by a huge margin." QED, question answered.

It only takes a single counterexample to disprove such statements. If you want more counterexamples, that is a different question, and we could give you a longer list.

Likewise, Death Cleric isn't given as an example because they're the only Cleric that competes with Paladin (far from it; there are other Clerics that are better than Death Cleric). They're given as an example because they are an easy example to make (since their CD mechanic is so similar to Smite).

[animorte]

I actually think Clerics take the lead here. Sure, they probably don't do quite as much direct damage themselves, but they can easily cause and prevent more damage in a number of other ways across the entire party while still being useful themselves. And it doesn't require just these few specific Cleric builds. Druids are equally comparable in a few similar ways, and their own ways entirely.

It's worth mentioning them both because versatility in a number of areas while still being notable in the few the Paladin might be better. They have more spells, more healing, ranged capability, melee capability, more OOC utility.

I do think there are a great number of ways to challenge and surpass the Paladin, but overall they are still a reliable class if you know what you're doing, and there are allies to make up for your weaknesses. But that last part is just a fair way to play the game as far as I can tell.

[Ogun]

I really love this discussion, it's making me look seriously at playing a paladin.

The idea that paladins of any sub-class could be equally viable and unchallenged by the game world is confusing to me.
If you are keeping your oath, playing a paladin should cause a great deal of hassle, more than the average necromancer, who, unbound by a moral code, can simply use other abilities when a posse of undead would be problematic.
Paladins should face many situations were either acting or failing to act will break their oath.
I was really baffled at the idea that a paladin could be ready to go at full capability in the middle of the night, but I researched that one, and yes, sleeping in armor has no required penalty, but can be penalized at a DMs discretion, kinda like Conjure Animals...

Someone suggested posting a build to use as a goalpost, and that was a good idea.
Right now every challenge is met with a plethora of paladins that might be, rather than a single one that is.

[LudicSavant]

Someone suggested posting a build to use as a goalpost, and that was a good idea.
Right now every challenge is met with a plethora of paladins that might be, rather than a single one that is.

Yep, pretty much.

It is critical to set a specific goalpost for a claim like this, because Paladins are very subject to opportunity cost in Tier 2.

This is a point I was making on page 1 -- MrStabby actually posted a specific Paladin, and said Paladin has pretty poor damage output. Which is fine, it's good at other things (with a +5 aura). But it makes the point that MAD, ASI-starved Paladins that try to be great at one thing fall behind competent competition in other things.

A Paladin may have a d10 HD, but their tertiary Con means that their base HP is actually more similar to a Warlock, Bard, or Cleric than a Fighter.

A Paladin may be able to boost damage with offensive ASIs, a two-handed weapon, and spending all their spells on smites or other offensive boosts. But their defense will suffer quite a bit as a result, with mediocre AC, health, less Cha (and therefore markedly lower saves) and a relative lack of resources for defensive spells.

A Paladin may be able to boost defense by pumping Cha, throwing on a shield, and using defensive spells, but their offense won't keep up if they do (as demonstrated with MrStabby's character). Moreover, they'll have positioning limitations (because auras are small, and Paladins tend to prefer melee).

A Paladin can go for Dex or Strength, each with pros and cons. If they go for Strength they get heavy armor and potentially grappling (depending on their hand situation), but are noisy and have poor initiative (unless they're Watchers), which is important for both offense and positioning (and therefore defense). And will have unimpressive Dex saves even with their aura, unless they really pumped Cha. And have to take time to put their armor on. And have to pay a significant wad of cash for plate (enough to buy some other very nice things).

Even Hexadins are not free of opportunity costs in tier 2; they delay their ASIs, auras, and higher level slots, and still don't turn entirely SAD (because they need 13 Str to multiclass out, and still need 15 str or 14 dex for armor). They get a lot in return, certainly, but they still aren't getting everything.

Paladins are rock solid, but they're not going to be the best at everything unless the other players just aren't playing effective characters (or are not playing those characters effectively).


Ok I'm beginning to see the shape of this - not that I didn't know it exactly, but kinda really pointing it out.

The format we play is very favorable to paladins. Almost as a rule, we have a 5m adventuring day. It's a West Marches type game where each night has a different mix of characters, and the game starts and ends in some safe, neutral area. Thus, it's rare for any game to have more than 2 combats (and once the game ends, you'll have multiple long rests, weeks even, before that particular character plays again).

There's also a gentleman's agreement/soft ban on summons. Cluttering the table with minions tends to slow gameplay to a crawl, so no one has played a summoning character.

So yah, paladins feel indomitable.

Yeah, that certainly is an environment that plays to the advantages of Paladins, who A) can blow through all of their resources in a single combat if they want to, and B) have pretty much all of their power budget connected to long rests rather than short. Moreso than almost every other class.

Paladins have almost no short rest resources, except for their Channel Divinity. Almost every other class benefits more from short rests than Paladins do, including...

- Warlocks (who have some of the biggest benefits from short rests in the game)
- Bards (inspiration is big, especially on classes like Glamour Bard)
- Clerics (Channel Divinity x2/SR can be a very big deal, depending on subclass)
- Wizards (Arcane Recovery, time for rituals, etc)
- Monks (Everything runs on ki, and ki is short rest based)
- Fighters (Second Wind, Action Surge, and many subclass features such as Battle Master maneuvers or Rune Knight runes run on short rests)
- Druids (Wild Shape and various subclass abilities are on short rest charge)

And many of them benefit from longer adventuring days more than the Paladin, too. Not just because of resourceless options, but because of things like long-duration spells that can carry through multiple fights and so forth.

Ending every session in a safe neutral area also means that the Paladin's relative lack of 'base control' kit doesn't really matter.

[Eldariel]

I hard disagree. Playing is about having fun. Optimal play is therefore about having the greatest fun at the table. More skillful players will make decisions that result in more fun being had. Not all options that are powerful are actually that fun - forty two skeleton archers slowing down play or wish/simularcra chains... yeah, doing something less powerful is absolutely not a reflecion on a lack of player skill.

1) Fun is subjective so such a discussion is entirely meaningless. One guy's fun is another guy's misery. Somebody likes math. Somebody likes stories. Somebody likes optimal play and sending a Dragon packing on level 3. Another person might enjoy using the mechanics of the game to realize a certain concept. Somebody might like all of the above. Somebody only one aspect. All of them will enjoy certain kind of D&D. Therefore, discussing "greatest fun" is useless: it varies from individual to individual and thus we'll never get meaningful answers that could be extrapolated outside the sample.

2) That's completely irrelevant to a discussion on class power. Nobody is saying "You should play optimally" or "Everybody can only take the best possible build choice/tactical choice/whatever." If that's what I said, your response would be appropriate, but here it is simply arguing past me.

This discussion is, "Is class X [Paladin] stronger than its contemporaries in Tier 2", to which the answer is "No." Or further, "Paladin is not a top tier class when comparing Tier 2 classes at their maximum potential, but it is a strong class with useful abilities." This discussion is about class power, not "class fun" or "class contribution while using 30% of their available options" or whatever. If we're talking about class power, we should talk about class power, where we should consider what all classes can do when using their full power since otherwise our answer fails to answer the question itself. If we wanna talk about the most fun options, let's talk about the most fun options but let's make a separate thread for that and keep this one on topic.

Whether or not options are "fun" to you, they exist. That doesn't change and there's no way to make a valid objective division into "fun" and "unfun" abilities. And even if there were, all the abilities are a part of the class kit and thus class's power and thus relevant to class power discussions. Any power discussion that discounts certain class options is not considering the actual power of the classes, but "classes as I would like for them to be" or something along those lines; which is again a useless benchmark for discussion between different actors (and thus different preferences), let alone for a system with millions of different actors (and thus millions of different preferences).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Well....that's part of it, certainly. Our adventuring day is very short, typically 2 encounters. It's the constraints of the game.

I wonder if the reverse is also true. Which is to say, what if encounters exceeded 8 per LR? So, let's say the party is gassed, with all expendable resources used and characters at 1/2 hp. They try to get a long rest, but are ambushed by 2 sets of attackers (encounters 9 and 10). The paladin still has one of (if not the) strongest abilities in the game in the 6th level aura, a subclass dependent 7th level aura if the party has reached 7th, divine health, all armor options, fighting style, and multi-attack.

Does any other class compare in terms of resourceless abilities? Rogue, to me, still seems solid in the sense they can mitigate damage to themselves and deal some out; they just don't benefit other characters the way the Paly does with the aura. Other that that I'm struggling to find classes that are even close.

[Reach Weapon]

They try to get a long rest, but are ambushed by 2 sets of attackers (encounters 9 and 10).
An interrupted long rest is often a successful short one... Which is to say a lot of classes just found they had something left in the cupboard after all.

[Thunderous Mojo]

1) Fun is subjective so such a discussion is entirely meaningless. One guy's fun is another guy's misery..

It isn’t meaningless…rather the data set resulting from certain playstyles that one does not utilize, may not feel meaningful to that person.

Knowing the environmental conditions on Jupiter and Mars isn’t meaningless to a discussion about Earth’s climate, even if each planet’s ‘subjective’ environment is different.

At the point of play, every gaming table, is subjectively different.

To only have discussions that ignore this, renders results that won’t match the reality of play, since all actual Play is subjective.

Animate Dead is a great spell, in a campaign that treats creating undead creatures from an Utilitarian moral perspective.

If Animating the Undead is considered an Evil Act in a campaign, then the cost benefit analysis changes.

I think having such nuance in a discussion, isn’t meaningless.

One small quibble, while Death Clerics do have a Smite Power, under RAW/RAI, it is supposed to be a subclass for NPCs.

A Grave Cleric is the more realistic player facing comparison point, than using a Death Cleric. (Small quibble)

I’m curious, in Paladin friendly games, are other players using Ritual spells?

The Silence spell, is Golden, as are most Rituals.

[Chaos Jackal]

Well, the wizard's ritually cast Leomund's tiny hut is a great resource on its own when ambushed during a long rest, as long as it isn't dispelled. And well, if every late night ambush suddenly has a dispeller, it's gonna get quite eye-rolling, quite fast.

Not to discount Aura of Protection, of course. It's one of the best features in the game, especially for its level. With the exception of spellcasting, really few things are at the same level as Aura of Protection.

But spellcasting ultimately is a thing and yes, 3rd- and 4th-level spells alongside class and subclass features do have the paladin beat in terms of both offense and defense. Just too much efficiency and great tools on top of said efficiency. Area control covers both offense and defense across a decent chunk of the battlefield. Same with summons. Well-played spellcasters won't need to use more than a spell or two each combat for affecting said combat and they have plenty of spells at this stage to make it through a longer adventuring day. Their out-of-combat utility is usually unparalleled too, especially the wizard's. Paladins are really good, yes. But not as good as that.

Funnily enough, I'm playing both a paladin and a wizard in different campaigns these days, and at about the same level (paladin's 8, wizard's 7). My paladin's a party favorite, has Inspiring Leader, everybody adores her aura (yes, it comes up quite a lot) and there's cheers the moment I roll a 20. She's solid. Extremely solid. With our druid and wizard players not being particularly good players (rather the opposite, especially the druid) she often seems to be the strongest member of the party. But on days where our two full casters are actually playing decently? Well, I don't wanna say she's getting blown out of the water, that'd be a bit of an exaggeration, but she can't compete with the druid's conjure animals (when she decides to prepare it) or with the wizard webbing an entire encounter and practically ending it from the get-go. She's tough and hard to bring down, but she's not immortal and the only reason she seems to compare favorably to the Moon druid is because I'm playing a lot more intelligently and don't end up taking tons of damage for no reason; conversely, the Abjuration wizard is just as tough. Guidance through Blessed Warrior, the steed, Charisma and my own roleplaying do give a lot of stuff to do out of combat, but she still doesn't have the wizard's rituals. And I've a few things going in my favor. Like I said, the two full casters aren't very good at the game; I'm the only one with a high Charisma and I'm quite good at leveraging it while the wizard is horrible at using enchantments (you should hear his suggestions) so I end up with a lot to do socially; I have gauntlets of ogre power and due to player changes and some other incidents we were given the option to rebuild our characters at lv5 when I already had said gauntlets, so I'm packing 20 Cha and 16 Con because I dumped Str after that rebuild. Lots of things that add up and I still don't feel like I'm the top of the party every day.

Now, my wizard? Close to invulnerable between spells and a flying speed (winged tiefling), instrumental every single combat, between hypnotic pattern and summon greater demon alone I'm winning half of the day's encounters, protecting the party is a breeze thanks to Chronal Shift, silvery barbs and counterspell (I've lost count of how many times the rerolls have ruined the DM's day), good preparation and tech spells have allowed for some really clutch moments that no other character in the party could've hoped to match and out of combat the wizard's ritual casting and utility spells are pulling double duty. The party's pretty big (six people and used to be seven), has casters, though again the players are pretty weak mechanically, but still, my wizard's without a doubt the strongest character in said party. Having joined them a few sessions in-play already, many of the players who, while experienced, haven't seen casters played to their strengths, thought that I wouldn't be bringing much, if anything, to the whole thing. Two sessions later, one of them confided those doubts in me and said she had no idea I could be just so damn useful... And I'm not even that good of a player, neither am I pulling off everything I'm capable of.

I enjoy playing both characters. But if I had to pick one in terms of power, I'd always take my wizard without a second thought. Paladins are excellent, yes. Full casters, particularly wizards, druids and clerics? Still a step up.

[Eldariel]

It isn’t meaningless…rather the data set resulting from certain playstyles that one does not utilize, may not feel meaningful to that person.

Knowing the environmental conditions on Jupiter and Mars isn’t meaningless to a discussion about Earth’s climate, even if each planet’s ‘subjective’ environment is different.

Sure but if you have million planets, knowing the conditions on two of them isn't going to tell you anything about the mode or the mean values. Moreover, if you're interested in the largest possible size for a planet, you won't find the results by studying individual planets but by the framework of rules that direct the formation of a planet, because the possible value might not even have occurred in the whole population at that time but that doesn't make the possible value any less possible, it just means that the population didn't happen to have produced a planet of the maximal size at that point.

Here we are talking about the framework, i.e. rules, not its realizations, i.e. individual tables.

[Waazraath]

A CBE/SS Fighter has a better offense, therefore it is sufficient to disprove that Paladin has "literally the best single target offense by a huge margin." QED, question answered.

Eh, yes? I'm a bit puzzled you phrase this as if we would disagree, since this is what I'm literally saying.


It only takes a single counterexample to disprove such statements.

Yes. I added another statement though: the fact that all these counter examples are really specific, does say something about the Pally's power in tier 2. A stock pally, any subclass, regardless of player's optimization effort and/or skills, is top notch. Dex or str based, raising attack stat or charisma or picking a more or less appropriate feat, regardless of fighting style and whether spell slots are spent on smites, utility or healing. Unless actively anti-optimizing, they are a Great Addition to Any Party. You really can't say the same for e.g. Fighter, Druid or Wizard.

So while the answer to the question in the OP is obviously 'yes', the way the thread evolved is an interesting illustration on how good the class is in this tier.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Here we are talking about the framework, i.e. rules, not its realizations, i.e. individual tables.

The framework in this situation is defined, by the very broadly worded question of the thread: “Can the Paladin class be matched in T2”.

The answer is of course “Yes”…but the more salient question is what is meant by “matched”.

Of course in absolute terms minionmancy, is a tremendously effective tool. People recognize that.

Indeed, this fact is so well recognized that some persons in this very thread have commented that players exercise self restraint and avoid minionmancy precisely due to it’s effectiveness and impact on their particular game.

Skrum, (the thread originator), conceded that they were not viewing the issue from the perspective of building a Framework…they were posting based off their own personal experiences, and were not considering the macro-features of their game that might impact class performance such as the number of Encounters.

If the prompting question was more refined,(in the literal sense of the word, not in a normative sense), in scope, I would agree with you 100%. However, the prompt isn't, so the subjective aspects strike me as being relevant.

[Frogreaver]

Of course in absolute terms minionmancy, is a tremendously effective tool. People recognize that.

Indeed, this fact is so well recognized that some persons in this very thread have commented that players exercise self restraint and avoid minionmancy precisely due to it’s effectiveness and impact on their particular game.

My biggest gripes with animate dead builds are 1) they are extremely weak to AOE, 2) logistically handling the tight confines of many dungeons with an army of skeletons is annoying and 3) mass minions just slow down the game way too much.

So while we can look at their theoretical maximum DPR output, there's so many situations where that output is going to be greatly reduced. A single fireball may kill them all, reducing the DPR contribution of them to 0. In a dungeon you may only can get 1/4 of them into attacking position, significantly reducing their DPR contribution. Not all DPR is created equal. And that's if you even decide to use them because of non-combat concerns like slowing down the game/potentially negative social implications/potentially negative exploration implications (skeletons aren't stealthy, they can step on traps, an army of them leave signs that enemies could more easily track, etc).

[Thunderous Mojo]

I think those are all valid points, Frogreaver.

(Of course, not every game takes place entirely in Dungeons)

At the very least, a Zombie or Skeleton, acts as mobile Cover, which can be useful.

The lack of Stealth for zombie/skeletons can be ameliorated by a single spell, Pass Without Trace, or one can exploit the fact that hordes of undead tend to be somewhat noticeable.

A Cleric of Trickery can PW/OT the party but leave the minions outside the spell effect, in order for the minions to draw fire and reveal enemy positions.

A Cleric has essentially no opportunity cost vis a vis the Animate Dead spell. If the cleric has time and the materials, then Undead Factotums should be considered.

Wizards have slightly more opportunity cost compared to a cleric, as to guarantee having the spell a Wizard is going to use a Known Spell gained by level up.

This is a very slight, difference, to my mind.

[Frogreaver]

I think those are all valid points, Frogreaver.

(Of course, not every game takes place entirely in Dungeons)

This sounds like an intended counterpoint which makes it sound like you are implying my position is that all games take place entirely in dungeons.

Instead, my point is that many games (not all) contain dungeons often enough (not exclusively) for one to consider how much weaker animate dead will be in most dungeons.


At the very least, a Zombie or Skeleton, acts as mobile Cover, which can be useful.

Mobile cover is a pretty poor option for a 3rd level slot... IMO.


The lack of Stealth for zombie/skeletons can be ameliorated by a single spell, Pass Without Trace, or one can exploit the fact that hordes of undead tend to be somewhat noticeable.

Yes, throw more resources at the problem ***Assuming your party even has a character with that spell and the inclination to cast it. It also amuses me how when a caster player is challenged about some spell not being as good as he believes, the initial reaction is to throw more spells at it to attempt to make it better.


A Cleric of Trickery can PW/OT the party but leave the minions outside the spell effect, in order for the minions to draw fire and reveal enemy positions.

Which lowers the DPR of the skeletons since they are getting attacked and dying first. Just another example of a situation where the DPR on the tin for skeletons isn't going to come close to matching the theoretical DPR of them.


A Cleric has essentially no opportunity cost vis a vis the Animate Dead spell. If the cleric has time and the materials, then Undead Factotums should be considered.

You mean besides the potential social and exploration issues in game and the slow down of the actual game in the real world?

[LudicSavant]

I find it weird that people are arguing over Animate Dead given that the Paladin was being outdamaged before Animate Dead was used. :smallconfused:

[Frogreaver]

I find it weird that people are arguing over Animate Dead given that the Paladin was being outdamaged before Animate Dead was used. :smallconfused:

{Scrubbed}

[LudicSavant]

Yes. I added another statement though: the fact that all these counter examples are really specific, does say something about the Pally's power in tier 2. A stock pally, any subclass, regardless of player's optimization effort and/or skills, is top notch.

The Battle Master you reference is just a bog-standard Battle Master taking the usual archery feats that we've seen get compared to basically every class on this forum. The Cleric is a bog-standard raceless, featless Death Cleric doing nothing special (if people were trying to go really strong they'd at the very least pull out Twilight or Peace). "A spellcaster with Conjure Animals" is a wide category that includes, among other things, every Druid. I don't think there've even been any multiclass examples yet. And several folks have been giving counterexamples as generalized as "spellcasters in general."

I mean, I think the Paladin is quite good, but not because of 'the specificity of counterexamples.'

The Fighter could have just as easily been a Rune Knight, or a Gloomstalker / Echo Knight, the Cleric could have just as easily been a Peace Cleric, etc etc.

[Waazraath]

The Battle Master you reference is just a bog-standard Battle Master taking the usual archery feats that we've seen get compared to basically every class on this forum. The Cleric is a bog-standard raceless, featless Death Cleric doing nothing special (if people were trying to go really strong they'd at the very least pull out Twilight or Peace). "A spellcaster with Conjure Animals" is a wide category that includes, among other things, every Druid. I don't think there've even been any multiclass examples yet. And some folks were giving counterexample as generalized as "spellcasters in general."

I mean, I think the Paladin is quite good, but not because of 'the specificity of counterexamples.'

The Fighter could have just as easily been a Rune Knight, or a Gloomstalker / Echo Knight, the Cleric could have just as easily been a Peace Cleric, etc etc.

That BM is 'bog standard' as an example of a build that does a lot of single target dpr. It is a specific subclass with 2 specific feats and a specific maneuver (precision attack) and a specific fighting style. That's pretty darn specific. Compare random paladin build (ignoring subclass/spellls prepared/asi's picked) now with a EK with a greatsword, defense fighting style which spend asi's on str and con; with a champion which picked GWM and maxed out str; with a land druid that doesn't assume the player picks the animals of Conjure Animal (or heavens forbid: with another lvl 3 spell prepared!).

The point stands. If you have a (lets say) level 7 party, and you know you will get a new player, and don't know anything about the build the player will pick, or about the player's skill and interest in optimization, or how the campaign will develop further, and you get the question "what class would you like her to play", the answer would be for me 100% certain paladin (ok, just after "whatever the hell she feels like", and assuming we don't have one in the party yet, cause diversity makes parties stronger).

[Eldariel]

That BM is 'bog standard' as an example of a build that does a lot of single target dpr. It is a specific subclass with 2 specific feats and a specific maneuver (precision attack) and a specific fighting style. That's pretty darn specific. Compare random paladin build (ignoring subclass/spellls prepared/asi's picked) now with a EK with a greatsword, defense fighting style which spend asi's on str and con; with a champion which picked GWM and maxed out str; with a land druid that doesn't assume the player picks the animals of Conjure Animal (or heavens forbid: with another lvl 3 spell prepared!).

The point stands. If you have a (lets say) level 7 party, and you know you will get a new player, and don't know anything about the build the player will pick, or about the player's skill and interest in optimization, or how the campaign will develop further, and you get the question "what class would you like her to play", the answer would be for me 100% certain paladin (ok, just after "whatever the hell she feels like", and assuming we don't have one in the party yet, cause diversity makes parties stronger).

It is true that Paladin optimization and skill floor is quite high, which might of course inflate the perception of the class. Indeed, THAT is probably the highest in the game due to how well it functions just Smiting on hit vs. important targets and just having Aura and LoH.

[LudicSavant]

It is true that Paladin optimization and skill floor is quite high, which might of course inflate the perception of the class.

Yeah, the floor is high, and the subclasses are more balanced against each other than some other classes (e.g. the distance between Crown and Watchers is smaller than the distance between Purple Dragon Knight and Rune Knight).

[Dr.Samurai]

That BM is 'bog standard' as an example of a build that does a lot of single target dpr. It is a specific subclass with 2 specific feats and a specific maneuver (precision attack) and a specific fighting style. That's pretty darn specific. Compare random paladin build (ignoring subclass/spellls prepared/asi's picked) now with a EK with a greatsword, defense fighting style which spend asi's on str and con; with a champion which picked GWM and maxed out str; with a land druid that doesn't assume the player picks the animals of Conjure Animal (or heavens forbid: with another lvl 3 spell prepared!).

The point stands. If you have a (lets say) level 7 party, and you know you will get a new player, and don't know anything about the build the player will pick, or about the player's skill and interest in optimization, or how the campaign will develop further, and you get the question "what class would you like her to play", the answer would be for me 100% certain paladin (ok, just after "whatever the hell she feels like", and assuming we don't have one in the party yet, cause diversity makes parties stronger).
I agree. Why use an NPC subclass from the DMG?

And this is my own personal quibble but I hate what a "standard" the crossbow fighter is given that the trope of "crossbow fighter" is rather anemic. Everyone's like "oh yeah, fighters can out-damage that!" you just have to play a person that uses a crossbow... That heroic weapon, that iconic tool of adventurers and warriors!

Anyways, I get the sense that Ludic is chomping at the bit so someone should post an "impossible to match" tier 2 paladin. I'm skeptical that the paladin can't be matched.

Actually, I'm skeptical that Aura of Protection really protects anyone but the paladin. In my current game, I'm the frontliner and no one is EVER within 10ft of me unless we're in some sort of dungeon situation, and that's still not a guarantee that someone will be right behind me. But anytime "dungeons" get brought up the reply is "this isn't your grandpa's D&D anymore, people play outside of dungeons".

I second the OP's comments about game/playstyle. I suspect that many games simply don't use monster grapples/restrain/trips. The paladin doesn't have proficiency in Strength saving throws, and if you go Dex or Hexadin, you probably dumped Strength. So you might struggle to break a grapple, and the monster can just move at half speed with you in tow and approach your backline. Or you could get knocked prone, and the monster can eat an OA and move to the backline. Paladins aren't fast and you'll have to move half speed to catch up, which may not be enough. These types of saves/effects are common in tier 1, so I wouldn't really consider the paladin a "frontliner" then. A melee character, yes, of course. But if you have trouble getting physically manhandled by monsters, you're not a frontliner. If you're a strength paladin, it's not as pronounced, and hopefully you trained Athletics. But to get back to the point, if monsters never try to move you from the frontline, and only ever trade blows with you or try to move around you, then deficiency in Strength is not a problem.

[Chaos Jackal]

Actually, I'm skeptical that Aura of Protection really protects anyone but the paladin. In my current game, I'm the frontliner and no one is EVER within 10ft of me unless we're in some sort of dungeon situation, and that's still not a guarantee that someone will be right behind me. But anytime "dungeons" get brought up the reply is "this isn't your grandpa's D&D anymore, people play outside of dungeons".

Seen it come up a lot in my own games, but it will of course depend on the party. There's a monk and a Moon druid spending plenty of time in melee in my case, the Abjuration wizard will at times rely on her Ward and shield and risk getting closer to the fight solely to benefit from the Aura, and I myself am leveraging my paladin's reach (I run PAM) and Relentless Avenger to safely move close to allies after I make my attacks (or just stick close to them when I spend a turn casting) and give them the Aura's benefit. On top of that, we're using the Aura a whole lot outside of combat too, to the point where people don't go drinking until my character's nearby, so that they can down the strong stuff or the potential poisons without worrying much. I'm not sure how I feel about my paladin enabling drinking binges though.

Anyway, while the 10ft Aura won't always benefit everyone, with careful gameplay both from the paladin and the other players as well as a fitting party, you can definitely get a lot out of it. Not enough to make the paladin unmatched, of course (see my post above and others) but it's definitely a big point in their favor.

[Bobthewizard]

The point stands. If you have a (lets say) level 7 party, and you know you will get a new player, and don't know anything about the build the player will pick, or about the player's skill and interest in optimization, or how the campaign will develop further, and you get the question "what class would you like her to play", the answer would be for me 100% certain paladin (ok, just after "whatever the hell she feels like", and assuming we don't have one in the party yet, cause diversity makes parties stronger).

I agree that paladins have a higher floor than other classes, but I don't think a high floor should be used to answer the question "Is it possible to match Paladin in Tier 2." That seems more like a conversation of ceilings than floors, and I don't think their ceiling is as high as other classes.

If I'm bringing some other class to the table, I'm happy to see a paladin. They are great. They can help with tanking and healing, two things that a party needs. But those roles can be covered well by other classes. The aura is unique and very helpful, but the game works fine without it.

If I'm not playing one, I always hope someone else is playing a wizard. Crowd control and rituals make my life easier, and it's a hard combination to make up with other characters. It can be done, but it's harder to replicate, so I would definitely put wizard above paladin.

And neither of those compare to shepherd druids. Unless the DM is actively trying to nerf you with your summons, they are the most powerful Tier 2 class in the game. So much so that I don't enjoy playing them or playing next to them.

So to answer the question of "is it possible to match paladin in Tier 2?" I would say definitely yes. Wizards, druids, most clerics but certainly twilight, probably most bards or sorcerers, a well-made hexblade, or a gloomstalker or battle master with CBE/SS. All of those would be missed more in my parties if they dropped out than the paladin would.

[strangebloke]

Ultimately, the key takeaway here is that paladins are a very very good melee beatstick class with lots of flexibility in other areas....

but they're still a melee beatstick class.

[Kvess]

I disagree here. Sure, a paladin can't literally wear as many attacks as a barb can, but paladins are far more effective tanks in the sense that their armor and saves are going to keep them on their feet a lot longer than a barb will. This is especially true for barbs that aren't Bear Totem - when you reach level 6, 7, 8, etc., damage types become a lot more varied.
I'll grant that it's debatable. Sure, you could have a higher armor class and better saves, but barbarians have more hit points, rage makes healing a barbarian more efficient, and most importantly, barbarians don't have spells to concentrate on.

If there's a barbarian in your party, at the end of the day I would rather have enemies use all of their attacks on my chonky, less-armoured ally who isn't concentrating on something important.

[da newt]

The pali aura is a great feature - no doubt about it - but it is also a feature that I think gets more credit than it deserves. If we assume an 18 CHA at this level the aura adds +4 to every save for PC's within it's AoE - this +4 improves a PC's chance of success 20%, so in one of five save opportunities it will change a fail into a success, on the other 4 of 5 there is no change. Furthermore, for roughly 1/2 of those new successes it changes the outcome from full damage to half damage. For example: an average fireball does 8d6 = 28 damage, so for 1 in 5 PCs in the pali's aura their damage is reduced by 14 (and the fireball has a 20' radius vs the Pali aura's 10' radius so it doesn't cover the whole area anyway). Conversely, for save or suck spells it's value is greater, but still only benefits ~ one in five.

I do love a Pali - it's a great class, but there are others that can match it's effectiveness (and other's that really struggle to keep up).

[Gignere]

The pali aura is a great feature - no doubt about it - but it is also a feature that I think gets more credit than it deserves. If we assume an 18 CHA at this level the aura adds +4 to every save for PC's within it's AoE - this +4 improves a PC's chance of success 20%, so in one of five save opportunities it will change a fail into a success, on the other 4 of 5 there is no change. Furthermore, for roughly 1/2 of those new successes it changes the outcome from full damage to half damage. For example: an average fireball does 8d6 = 28 damage, so for 1 in 5 PCs in the pali's aura their damage is reduced by 14 (and the fireball has a 20' radius vs the Pali aura's 10' radius so it doesn't cover the whole area anyway). Conversely, for save or suck spells it's value is greater, but still only benefits ~ one in five.

I do love a Pali - it's a great class, but there are others that can match it's effectiveness (and other's that really struggle to keep up).

Yep for some reason players don’t seem to value the counterspell that mitigated 100+ damage to the party nearly as much as the Paladin save aura that mitigates at most 1/3rd of that damage.

[Kvess]

IMHO, that’s the wrong way to think about the odds. When you make a save, you don’t know what you’re going to roll ahead of time.

Adding 20 percentage points is a big deal in 5e. If it turns a 60% chance to save into an 80% chance to save, it cuts the rate at which a hostile spell succeeds in half: from 2-in-5 to 1-in-5. If there are multiple spellcasters targeting the party, it will make a significant difference. Throw in aura of warding to give the party resistance to spell damage and you have a powerful defensive buff.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'll grant that it's debatable. Sure, you could have a higher armor class and better saves, but barbarians have more hit points, rage makes healing a barbarian more efficient, and most importantly, barbarians don't have spells to concentrate on.

If there's a barbarian in your party, at the end of the day I would rather have enemies use all of their attacks on my chonky, less-armoured ally who isn't concentrating on something important.
I'm playing a level 5 Wild Surge barbarian in a PBP game and I took Medium Armor Master as my variant human feat. So I'm running half-plate right now with a shield, so AC 20, and I have more hit points than a paladin would and resist half damage from most attacks. A paladin would have Lay on Hands though...

Re Aura of Protection... I have to admit, I understand the power of this feature but, stylistically, the idea of clustering around the paladin rubs me the wrong way. It seems very confining.

Paladin - Everyone stay close to me and we have a better chance of defeating this medusa!

Barbarian - Keep your distance and get your bows out! *tanks the gaze attack with a superior con save, grabs the medusa by the face, pushes the monster away from the party so they are out of range of the gaze attack*

[Willie the Duck]

The OP made a request for us to counter some specific claims, which are very easy to do, especially with wide open context (given all playstyles and all definitions of the measures, it is easy to supersede a paladin in offense and/or defense). People seem to be tripping over each other (with much hurt feelings) to do so, and I have no intention of joining in.

Discussing the value of a paladin in Tier 2 in general, I think that is the place where the paladins solidness in design begins to shine -- charisma to saves and charisma for spells works really well (especially compared to when paladins were Wisdom-based casters but had charisma based save bonuses, and such); the spells compliment the class well and the preparation scheme is better than the ranger's spells-known (and there are fewer concentration- and bonus-action logjams, which is another ranger problem); the smite mechanic, while more situational than sometimes acknowledged, works well (+1d8+1d8/spell level is not efficient spell slot usage, being able to do so without a separate action and in clutch moments, however, is great); and with the exception of at-will ranged response (and of course a paladin can always pull out a bow, and now have cantrip options) there aren't a lot of situations where they are completely shut down. They are generally solidly built, seem well-thought-through, and are both thematic and enjoyable to play. Also really easy to get the hang of when first playing the game. Back in 2014, gamers cracked the PHB, found half-elf vengeance paladins and (whichever combat feat combo you prefer) and thought 'I know exactly what to do.' Paladins are solid right out of the box without needing to have combed the game for optimal spells and combinations and such.


Obviously any of the big full casters (Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Lore Bard) does this fairly easily. Level 3 spells are pretty serious game; we're talking Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, etc.
This brings up a good point. These are two spells that I keep hearing people talk about the limits of. Or, barring that, that they find that these spells run away with the game completely irrespective of paladins and that their table has stopped using them. Same with Twilight Clerics, ____ Druids, coffeelocks, simulacrum shenanigans, and who knows what else. Once a play group has filtered through the stuff they don't want in their play experience, the paladin generally emerges unscathed while much of the TO best options end up either on the ban pile or the 'we'll roll our eyes at you if you choose to do this' pile.

[Kvess]

Re Aura of Protection... I have to admit, I understand the power of this feature but, stylistically, the idea of clustering around the paladin rubs me the wrong way. It seems very confining.

Paladin - Everyone stay close to me and we have a better chance of defeating this medusa!

Barbarian - Keep your distance and get your bows out! *tanks the gaze attack with a superior con save, grabs the medusa by the face, pushes the monster away from the party so they are out of range of the gaze attack*

You could always split the difference and have the Paladin and Barbarian attack together in melee while everyone else attacks from range. Just because you can channel divine energy to brute force the entire party through a hostile effect doesn’t mean that you should.

[Dr.Samurai]

The OP made a request for us to counter some specific claims, which are very easy to do, especially with wide open context (given all playstyles and all definitions of the measures, it is easy to supersede a paladin in offense and/or defense). People seem to be tripping over each other (with much hurt feelings) to do so, and I have no intention of joining in.
This Forum: Paladins are a solid built class with broad capabilities, each strong in their own right.

Someone: Paladins are the best!

Also This Forum: Paladins are garbage, Aura of Protection sux!

[LudicSavant]

This brings up a good point. These are two spells that I keep hearing people talk about the limits of. Or, barring that, that they find that these spells run away with the game completely irrespective of paladins and that their table has stopped using them. Same with Twilight Clerics, ____ Druids, coffeelocks, simulacrum shenanigans, and who knows what else. Once a play group has filtered through the stuff they don't want in their play experience, the paladin generally emerges unscathed while much of the TO best options end up either on the ban pile or the 'we'll roll our eyes at you if you choose to do this' pile.

Yep, because Paladins aren't shenanigans-tier. They're just rock-solid tier.

[Kvess]

They are generally solidly built, seem well-thought-through, and are both thematic and enjoyable to play. Also really easy to get the hang of when first playing the game. Back in 2014, gamers cracked the PHB, found half-elf vengeance paladins and (whichever combat feat combo you prefer) and thought 'I know exactly what to do.' Paladins are solid right out of the box without needing to have combed the game for optimal spells and combinations and such.

I think if you ask those of us poking holes in the claim that paladins are unmatched in T2, most of us will say that Paladin is a solid class with a lot of mechanics that work well together and do a capable job filling a number of roles in a party. They’re great in many situations a party will encounter. I’ve personally enjoyed playing paladins.

But I feel that the premise of the question is wrong. Even if paladins were mechanically better than every other class, there are reasons why you don’t see too many adventuring groups made up of four paladins: players understand that sometimes you just need someone who can cast fireball, pick a lock, sneak into a building, or transform into a bird.

[Skrum]

the smite mechanic, while more situational than sometimes acknowledged, works well (+1d8+1d8/spell level is not efficient spell slot usage, being able to do so without a separate action and in clutch moments, however, is great)

I think smite is significantly better than that. The fact that you get to see the attack roll before spending the spell slots is huge. Consider that most people play with flanking. Ergo, getting advantage on your attacks is, well not trivial, but really common. You'll be rolling with advantage on the majority of your attacks, in my experience.

Attacking with advantage means you have a ~10% of rolling a 20 with any attack. If you have PAM (3 attacks) or Elven Accuracy (which pairs incredibly well with a hexblade dip, on top of Cha-SAD), your chance of getting a crit in a given round rises to ~29% and ~28% chance, respectively. Hexblade's Curse + Elven Accuracy and you have a ludicrous 52% chance of getting a crit when attacking twice.

Because of the way crit damage is calculated, smites get a return on a crit the way weapons just don't. Now your spell give 2d8 + (2 * spell level). A 2nd level smite crits for 6d8 damage. Paladins get second level slots at 5th level. Save it for a crit, and they can hit for 8d8+ability mod, at 5th level.

If smiting worked the way Thunder Smite, etc., worked, it would be massively weaker. But being able to fish for crits and then smite when you get them makes paladins incredibly potent combatants.

[Willie the Duck]

I think if you ask those of us poking holes in the claim that paladins are unmatched in T2, most of us will say that Paladin is a solid class with a lot of mechanics that work well together and do a capable job filling a number of roles in a party. They’re great in many situations a party will encounter. I’ve personally enjoyed playing paladins.
Right. I don't doubt that people know this. I was simply framing where my response as being outside of the argument-scrum.


But I feel that the premise of the question is wrong. Even if paladins were mechanically better than every other class, there are reasons why you don’t see too many adventuring groups made up of four paladins: players understand that sometimes you just need someone who can cast fireball, pick a lock, sneak into a building, or transform into a bird.
Hmm. I don't think anyone was trying to suggest that either. I'd almost consider this a third possible discussion/ framing for power comparison.

[LudicSavant]

Consider that most people play with flanking. Ergo, getting advantage on your attacks is, well not trivial, but really common.

I'm sorry, what? Where did you get that notion from?

[Skrum]

I'm sorry, what? Where did you get that notion from?

I mean, that's anecdotally what I've seen on these forums. It's a very common rule variant, similar to feats.

[Chaos Jackal]

I mean, that's anecdotally what I've seen on these forums. It's a very common rule variant, similar to feats.

Decidedly not, especially in these forums.

Personally, the only place I've ever seen the rule used was CR (I think, I wasn't really paying much attention when listening to it) and as far as discussions go here and in other online D&D outlets I'm pretty sure that, while certainly a rule that gets used somewhat, it's definitely not something used by "most people" and in no way on par with how common feats are.

For GitP specifically, there have been plenty of discussions solely about that rule over time and I don't think even half the people in these threads were for it, let alone actually running with it.

Advantage is still easy to gain. but I'd rather not factor flanking in that equation.

[Gignere]

Decidedly not, especially in these forums.

Personally, the only place I've ever seen the rule used was CR (I think, I wasn't really paying much attention when listening to it) and as far as discussions go here and in other online D&D outlets I'm pretty sure that, while certainly a rule that gets used somewhat, it's definitely not something used by "most people" and in no way on par with how common feats are.

For GitP specifically, there have been plenty of discussions solely about that rule over time and I don't think even half the people in these threads were for it, let alone actually running with it.

Advantage is still easy to gain. but I'd rather not factor flanking in that equation.

Played with 7 different DMs over the last few years, and myself DMing none of them plays with flanking rules in 5e.

[da newt]

All of the DMs I've played with do allow the optional flanking rule except when running AL games which prohibit it. I have no idea if this is common, regional, a product of these DMs copying each other, or a choice to try to help melee martial PCs keep up with magic.

I've seen a few posts arguing the cost/benefit of the flanking rule, but I don't remember seeing a poll or similar that tried to establish how prevalent it is. Might be worthy of a new thread ...

[strangebloke]

This Forum: Paladins are a solid built class with broad capabilities, each strong in their own right.

Someone: Paladins are the best!

Also This Forum: Paladins are garbage, Aura of Protection sux!

Nah, under the conditions most people play with, I'd consider them to be comparable to the warlock and bard, just behind the best classes in the game (wizards, clerics, and druids) at this point, and depending on play conditions they could easily be one of the very best, particularly if we're talking about a slightly suboptimal / non-powergaming paradigm.

It's the "can't be matched" claim that makes me go :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused::smal lconfused:

[Dr.Samurai]

Nah, under the conditions most people play with, I'd consider them to be comparable to the warlock and bard, just behind the best classes in the game (wizards, clerics, and druids) at this point, and depending on play conditions they could easily be one of the very best, particularly if we're talking about a slightly suboptimal / non-powergaming paradigm.

It's the "can't be matched" claim that makes me go :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused::smal lconfused:
I know, I jest. Sometimes the forum reflexively opposes a thread premise, so it's funny that a class that is generally considered to be very strong is now being dissected because the OP threw down a gauntlet.

That said, I agree with most responses here concerning the paladin on either side, and with your comments regarding game-style.

You could always split the difference and have the Paladin and Barbarian attack together in melee while everyone else attacks from range. Just because you can channel divine energy to brute force the entire party through a hostile effect doesn’t mean that you should.
I meant more that there's two ways to protect the party. The paladin can buff their saving throws, or the barbarian can keep monsters away so the saving throws are never made. The former requires grouping together and doesn't prevent the saving throw, the latter requires the barbarian to make their saving throw and space on the battlefield. (Also, this doesn't take spells into account. This is mostly for gaze attacks, auras, and saves triggered by charges/dives/etc.)


Re Flanking: I haven't played in a single 5e game to date where flanking was allowed.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

An interrupted long rest is often a successful short one... Which is to say a lot of classes just found they had something left in the cupboard after all.

I appreciate that could happen. My post was about something else that could also happen: an exceptionally long adventure day without an additional short rest. In the case characters become completely dependent on resourceless abilities Paladins are extremely strong, far beyond most classes, particularly full casters. So again, I ask the question; beyond Rogues, who are kind of in touch for abilities, is any other class even close?

[Skrum]

I appreciate that could happen. My post was about something else that could also happen: an exceptionally long adventure day without an additional short rest. In the case characters become completely dependent on resourceless abilities Paladins are extremely strong, far beyond most classes, particularly full casters. So again, I ask the question; beyond Rogues, who are kind of in touch for abilities, is any other class even close?

Resourceless melee fighters and paladins are pretty similar. My guess is the fighter is somewhat more likely to have notable feats like PAM/Sentinel or GWM, which would give them the edge offensively by a good margin. But the paladin would have the advantage on defense - mostly from the aura, but also because they're more likely to go sword and board. Defense is....idk, arguably more valuable when there's no rests at hand. The DM is probably throwing lessor enemies for balance purposes, so not getting hit is more valuable than overkilling small fries. Contextual edge to paladins, IMO.

A ranged fighter almost certainly has the edge. SS/CBE is extremely potent, they're ranged so they have some built in defense, and none of it takes resources.

Barbs are just screwed. No rage, they're melee fighters with no heavy armor proficiency.

[Dr.Samurai]

Barbs are just screwed. No rage, they're melee fighters with no heavy armor proficiency.
Half-plate with 14 Dex is 1 point behind Plate.

Reckless Attack, Danger Sense, Fast movement, and Feral Instinct are all passive abilities that don't require Rage (first part of Feral Instinct, to be precise).

-1 AC
+1hp/lvl
Advantage on Init
Advantage on Dex saves
Advantage on Attacks
+10ft Speed

Not sure how they're doing much worse than anyone else. Even the paladin just has Aura of Protection, but are they getting targeted by tons of spells at this point of the 10+ encounter day? I sure hope not lol.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Resourceless melee fighters and paladins are pretty similar. My guess is the fighter is somewhat more likely to have notable feats like PAM/Sentinel or GWM, which would give them the edge offensively by a good margin. But the paladin would have the advantage on defense - mostly from the aura, but also because they're more likely to go sword and board. Defense is....idk, arguably more valuable when there's no rests at hand. The DM is probably throwing lessor enemies for balance purposes, so not getting hit is more valuable than overkilling small fries. Contextual edge to paladins, IMO.

A ranged fighter almost certainly has the edge. SS/CBE is extremely potent, they're ranged so they have some built in defense, and none of it takes resources.

Barbs are just screwed. No rage, they're melee fighters with no heavy armor proficiency.

That's a fair assessment of Paly v. Fighter. Most of our Palys have used a single feat or 1/2 feat to enhance their melee due to Str and Chr needs. Whereas Fighters have already got an extra ASI by 6th so have either boosted their attack stat or got multiple feats for offence.

As for Barb, yes they have some abilities, though not a fighting style. Reckless Attack is niche at best without Rage, particularly if HP are depleted at this point (and they would be).

[Ogun]

Gloomstalker is probably gonna do quite well, unless this 11th encounter is happening in daylight.
Mold Earth means almost any campsite can have defensive earthworks.
I think one ritual casting of tiny hut might beat almost any other resourceless ability in a long rest-inturrupted-by-ambush scenario.
Cast multiple times, overlapping each other for a bigger warded area.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's a fair assessment of Paly v. Fighter. Most of our Palys have used a single feat or 1/2 feat to enhance their melee due to Str and Chr needs. Whereas Fighters have already got an extra ASI by 6th so have either boosted their attack stat or got multiple feats for offence.

As for Barb, yes they have some abilities, though not a fighting style. Reckless Attack is niche at best without Rage, particularly if HP are depleted at this point (and they would be).
So Aura of Protection is what makes paladins... extremely strong, far beyond most classes... when resources are depleted?

Because the AC and weapons can be done by others.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So Aura of Protection is what makes paladins... extremely strong, far beyond most classes... when resources are depleted?

Because the AC and weapons can be done by others.

Full casters are left in the dust. Other martials all have something going for them. Paladins have the best access to AC and a Fighting Style. Aura of Protection + another Aura at 7th puts them over the top, yes. I did make the point that Rogues were still within reach in my earlier post and I think Skrum had a good argument that Fighters' additional more focussed ASI likely puts them ahead offensively.

[Angelalex242]

It does depend on subclass and campaign.

If you're playing Strahd, Devotion also comes with charm immunity, and therefore pointing and laughing at Strahd's main divide and conquer power.
If you're playing human enemies, Ancients has the famous antimagic...and now you're usually taking 1/4 damage from any damaging spell.
As long as you're not fighting fearproof enemies, conquerer will be scaring all the enemies...

You get the idea. Don't forget the level 7 ability!

Level 10 is also tier 2, by the way, which brings online the antifear aura for all paladins regardless of subclass.

[animorte]

All of this has officially convinced me that Paladins are indeed the most effective class, at the end of the day, when nobody else has resources left. Before that (and before level 6) they're simply a reliable character to have on your team.

Moral of the story is, if you're seeking out a class for a new player, recommend Paladin. No matter how bad they are, as long as they are conscious and nearby (and level 6), they'll be some form of useful.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

All of this has officially convinced me that Paladins are indeed the most effective class, at the end of the day, when nobody else has resources left. Before that (and before level 6) they're simply a reliable character to have on your team.

Moral of the story is, if you're seeking out a class for a new player, recommend Paladin. No matter how bad they are, as long as they are conscious and nearby (and level 6), they'll be some form of useful.

Yeah, I brought this scenario up because we've more or less had it at our table on a few occasions. Everyone is looking up and down their character sheets trying to figure out what to do; when there has been a Paly in the group tactics often revolve around keeping him up and multiple characters staying in the Aura(s).

[strangebloke]

Talking about how strong a paladin is when "all resources have been expended" is a bad way to frame the discussion of resources throughout an adventuring day, because it assumes that all classes and builds expend and regain resources at an equal rate, that a warlock, druid, sorcerer, rogue, and paladin will all have 80% of their resources expended after four encounters.

That's not how this works... at all.

The warlock has relatively few resources to spend or regain, but what it does have (within t2) it mostly gets back on a short rest. Most of its really good spells (eg, summon fey) can last a whole encounter, but they also have some very power spells that only last one round. So it has 100% of its resources for encounter 1, then 50% of its resources in encounter 2, then 100% again in encounter 3, then 0% in encounter 4, then 100% again in encounter 5. The warlock doesn't really care about total encounters in a day, only encounters between short rests.

The druid has wildshape on a short rest, of course, and with how long that lasts, they can basically use that with abandon and never really worry about running out. The rest of their abilities tend to refresh on a long rest, but their spells are infamously long in duration and require concentration, so its actively hard for a druid to use all their resources in a day. They'll have 100% their kit in encounter 1, then 90% of their resources in encounter 2, then 85% of their resources in encounter 3, then... the "no resources" case is completely irrelevant, they simply never get there. Any day where the druid runs out of resources is a day where everyone else died like five encounters ago.

Rogues of course are a "no-rest" class, but this doesn't actually mean they favor super-long adventuring days, since they actually underperform classes like fighter, ranger, and paladin no matter how long the day goes. They're just not really good in combat at all and even though they can stay alive and contribute for a long time, they're reliant on people getting into melee so overall they're just better off if non-combat solutions can be found.

Then you have sorcerers. They don't have many resources, and by design they are encouraged to spend all those resources very quickly and if they want to leverage their features they will. They also have limited spell selection, which leads to them having relatively poor defenses, which means that of all casters they're more likely to end up as a 'squishy' compared to other casters.

Finally, the Paladin. With Divine smite, they can spend those resources really fast for some really high-power turns (much like a BM might) but overall their abilities aren't very efficient. I can't stress this enough. They have mostly spells with 1-10 minute durations at best, and many of their unique spells are one use, one target smites. Bless, find steed, and magic weapon are the only spells I'd really consider 'efficient' for a paladin and even then they're at risk of losing concentration.

So what's my point here? Resourceless paladins might perform better than say a resourceless druid or warlock, but they become resourceless a lot quicker and stay resourceless longer.

[LudicSavant]

Yeah, I brought this scenario up because we've more or less had it at our table on a few occasions. Everyone is looking up and down their character sheets trying to figure out what to do; when there has been a Paly in the group tactics often revolve around keeping him up and multiple characters staying in the Aura(s).

Keep in mind that the Paladin needs to have a good resourceless performance, because they have relatively few resources to burn in the first place.

Lemme show you what I mean:
An L8 Cleric will have double the Channel Divinities of a L8 Paladin. They'll also have 4/3/3/2 slots (27 spell levels) vs 4/3 spell slots (10 spell levels). A Paladin will get 40 hp worth of Lay on Hands, but a single Life Cleric CD can heal 40 hp (and a Twilight or Peace CD is worth more than that). And a Cleric will often have additional resources from their subclass, too (such as Twilight's bonus action non-spell flight, or a Peace Cleric's bond).

What this means is that in an extended adventuring day, a Paladin will be using their resourceless output rather than than their resource-burning output significantly more often than the Cleric.

And the only category where the Paladin's resourceless output is notably better than an L8 Cleric's is the aura.

L8 Clerics will generally have AC similar to a sword and board Paladin, solid resourceless damage (a 2d12+1d8 Blessed Strikes Toll the Dead is pretty much the minimum, some subclasses/builds have better resourceless options), and similar HP too (because a Paladin's d10 HD is offset by tertiary Con).

The resourceless Cleric will have utilitarian cantrips, including the ability to spam Guidance for a roughly Expertise-sized bonus at this level (and a bonus to initiative rolls), as well as rituals. And they'll often have something from their Subclass too (like a Twilight Cleric's ability to grant Advantage on initiative at-will, etc).

So yeah. The Paladin needs that aura.


Talking about how strong a paladin is when "all resources have been expended" is a bad way to frame the discussion of resources throughout an adventuring day, because it assumes that all classes and builds expend and regain resources at an equal rate, that a warlock, druid, sorcerer, rogue, and paladin will all have 80% of their resources expended after four encounters.

*snip*

So what's my point here? Resourceless paladins might perform better than say a resourceless druid or warlock, but they become resourceless a lot quicker and stay resourceless longer.

Yeah. If you want to examine performance over long adventuring days, it's really important to look at the resources.

[animorte]

Resources or not, the Aura of Protection is extremely valuable at all points of the day. It balances it out by requiring everybody to be in fireball formation, which conveniently the aura will assist against a little. Not necessarily always worth it though. I still personally put most Clerics above them even on low resources. I also value cantrips very highly (and the Paladin has none), some of which can impose penalties to the enemy in a similar way that the aura protects. Again, that's worth mentioning it must hit to be effective while the aura is constant.

[Thunderous Mojo]

This Forum: Paladins are a solid built class with broad capabilities, each strong in their own right.

Someone: Paladins are the best!

Also This Forum: Paladins are garbage, Aura of Protection sux!

The first opinion, strikes me as the most sensible position.
The second is the opinion of the Paladin Lovers.
(Just as my spouse is the greatest person in the world to me, so is the Paladin class to the Pally Inamoratas)

The last opinion, is just incorrect.😈

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Keep in mind that the Paladin needs to have a good resourceless performance, because they have relatively few resources to burn in the first place.

Lemme show you what I mean:
An L8 Cleric will have double the Channel Divinities of a L8 Paladin. They'll also have 4/3/3/2 slots (27 spell levels) vs 4/3 spell slots (10 spell levels). A Paladin will get 40 hp worth of Lay on Hands, but a single Life Cleric CD can heal 40 hp (and a Twilight or Peace CD is worth more than that). And a Cleric will often have additional resources from their subclass, too (such as Twilight's bonus action non-spell flight, or a Peace Cleric's bond).

What this means is that in an extended adventuring day, a Paladin will be using their resourceless output rather than than their resource-burning output significantly more often than the Cleric.

And the only category where the Paladin's resourceless output is notably better than an L8 Cleric's is the aura.

L8 Clerics will generally have AC similar to a sword and board Paladin, solid resourceless damage (a 2d12+1d8 Blessed Strikes Toll the Dead is pretty much the minimum, some subclasses/builds have better resourceless options), and similar HP too (because a Paladin's d10 HD is offset by tertiary Con).

The resourceless Cleric will have utilitarian cantrips, including the ability to spam Guidance for a roughly Expertise-sized bonus at this level (and a bonus to initiative rolls), as well as rituals. And they'll often have something from their Subclass too (like a Twilight Cleric's ability to grant Advantage on initiative at-will, etc).

So yeah. The Paladin needs that aura.



Yeah. If you want to examine performance over long adventuring days, it's really important to look at the resources.

Clearly the Cleric is a strong class at Tier 2; arguably the strongest under the constraints of a regular adventuring day. This is for some of the reasons you list, particularly when you add the number of spells (not sure why you counted spell levels here) to the number of CDs. They just have a lot of resources to contribute to the adventuring day.

I'd disagree with the idea that because they've got a lot of resources they'll have many left at the point were others are running out. My experience has been that experienced players and groups tend to use resources at a rate that will allow them to get through the (expected) day so that all players will run low at about the same time. Often full casters use multiple spells in combat and/or take on some area(s) beyond combat with their resources. Specific to the Cleric v. Paladin we would generally use numerous Cleric slots for out of combat healing and save the Paladin LoH as long as possible.

[Angelalex242]

As the usual Paladin, I quite agree. My Lay on Hands is generally for emergencies, generally if the cleric or druid drops, and I have to get them back up. Otherwise, I go through most battles conserving my slots and waiting for the 'boss' of the adventure module. ...then may the gods have mercy on that poor fool as I smite him into non existence.

[LudicSavant]

I'd disagree with the idea that because they've got a lot of resources they'll have many left at the point were others are running out. As would I, which is why that's not what I said.

I said that they have fewer resources to burn and use their resourceless output more often. When they use their resources, and whether it's in or out of combat, is irrelevant to the point being made.

If you 'saved up for the boss,' you were just using your resourceless output on earlier turns rather than later ones.

tl;dr Resource efficiency is not measured by how long you wait to use a resource. It's measured by how hot you can burn and for how long. Paladin can burn hot for only a short time (relative to the Cleric), whether that time is at the start, end, or spread throughout the day.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

As the usual Paladin, I quite agree. My Lay on Hands is generally for emergencies, generally if the cleric or druid drops, and I have to get them back up. Otherwise, I go through most battles conserving my slots and waiting for the 'boss' of the adventure module. ...then may the gods have mercy on that poor fool as I smite him into non existence.

Also, I've found LoH one of the few resources that is actually worthwhile spending an action on during combat. 40hp at 8th level is tough to match.

[LudicSavant]

Also, I've found LoH one of the few resources that is actually worthwhile spending an action on during combat. 40hp at 8th level is tough to match.

Life Cleric CD is worth 40 hp. Peace Cleric and Twilight Cleric CD are worth more than that.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Life Cleric CD is worth 40 hp. Peace Cleric and Twilight Cleric CD are worth more than that.

I'd hope a Cleric subclass that specializes in healing can beat a Paly. As for the other 2, well they do a lot of things better than everyone else...

[LudicSavant]

As for the other 2, well they do a lot of things better than everyone else...

In which case, the answer to “is it possible to match the Paladin in T2” should clearly be yes.


The first opinion, strikes me as the most sensible position.
The second is the opinion of the Paladin Lovers.
(Just as my spouse is the greatest person in the world to me, so is the Paladin class to the Pally Inamoratas)

The last opinion, is just incorrect.😈

Agreed. IMHO first opinion is correct.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

In which case, the answer to “is it possible to match the Paladin in T2” should clearly be yes.

I think there's already agreement upthread that there are several subclasses including these and the Shepherd that are stronger. Perhaps some multi-combos as well. Whether these are allowed, allowed with eye roll, or banned is table specific. I personally will not be DMing another Shepherd again, and I don't need to try out the Peace and Twilight to come to the same conclusion.

I think the OP's question is about the Paladin class though, so even if these subclasses are included I'm not sure that is representative of an entire classes superiority. For the record I think Paladin is a strong class, but with a normal length adventuring day it's not out of line with Cleric and a few other classes at Tier 2.

[Itsfrank]

Been playing a Paladin: Oath of the Crown with one level in Sorcerer: Divine Soul. We have a group of healers and it's been going well.
If you want to know why, this was the post I made a while ago about it. https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643790-Hello-all-Can-you-help-me-make-a-party-full-of-healers
We take care of a lot of NPCs and do escort missions. We just reached level 7 and my aura helps out the most throughout the day with combat and some other things. Like i dont heal the most and it's not better than anybody else. But I always feel like I'm contributing with that and it let's me focus on other stuff.

[strangebloke]

I think there's already agreement upthread that there are several subclasses including these and the Shepherd that are stronger. Perhaps some multi-combos as well. Whether these are allowed, allowed with eye roll, or banned is table specific. I personally will not be DMing another Shepherd again, and I don't need to try out the Peace and Twilight to come to the same conclusion.

I think the OP's question is about the Paladin class though, so even if these subclasses are included I'm not sure that is representative of an entire classes superiority. For the record I think Paladin is a strong class, but with a normal length adventuring day it's not out of line with Cleric and a few other classes at Tier 2.

In other words "yes, several classes can match the paladin in T2."

Which imo is sort of obvious, given that Paladin is really a pretty specialized class to begin with.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

In other words "yes, several classes can match the paladin in T2."

Which imo is sort of obvious, given that Paladin is really a pretty specialized class to begin with.

I'd ask why you think Paladin is a specialized class?
Most of the anecdotes on this thread indicate those who play them find they're well rounded and contribute regularly to their group. As a Chr class they can participate in the social pillar effectively; mostly ours end up taking proficiency in 1 skill (often Intimidation), though in one campaign we didn't have another Chr based character, so the Paly took the lead in most social encounters.
They can act as the back up healer as needed.
Unlike most melee martials they have a selection of spells and CD, so even if a combat encounter starts at range round 1 can be used effectively. Once they're in combat they're competitive with other martials and have Nova capability if needed.
The auras admittedly are better if at least one other character wants to be in melee (or is summoning), though I'd think that's the vast majority of groups. Regardless, they're resourceless and often cover most/ all of the group when they're in tight settings.

[strangebloke]

I'd ask why you think Paladin is a specialized class?
Most of the anecdotes on this thread indicate those who play them find they're well rounded and contribute regularly to their group. As a Chr class they can participate in the social pillar effectively; mostly ours end up taking proficiency in 1 skill (often Intimidation), though in one campaign we didn't have another Chr based character, so the Paly took the lead in most social encounters.
They can act as the back up healer as needed.
Unlike most melee martials they have a selection of spells and CD, so even if a combat encounter starts at range round 1 can be used effectively. Once they're in combat they're competitive with other martials and have Nova capability if needed.
The auras admittedly are better if at least one other character wants to be in melee (or is summoning), though I'd think that's the vast majority of groups. Regardless, they're resourceless and often cover most/ all of the group when they're in tight settings.

Paladin is very solid within their niche, but lack flexibility to expand outside of it. They have really explosive healing and damage, but not very efficient damage or healing, and everything they have only works in melee, and only works on one target at a time. Outside of that, they have the aura buff, some buff spells and... not much else.

Paladins don't get anything notable outside of combat, don't get much real ranged support (magic weapon / divine favor work, but these aren't that potent) and don't generally have good options for larger numbers of enemies, and don't have good options when they're low on gas. "Decent CHA" is not a class feature. SAD classes like fighter, rogue, cleric, druid, and barbarian can have decent CHA. CHA-focused classes like sorcerer, bard, and warlock will have actually good CHA, and might have, you know, actual non-combat class features.

Compare this to something like a Cleric, which has good damage, good AoE, decent single-target DPR, good out of combat casting, ranged and close heals, lots of buffs... its clear which class is better rounded.

The paladin's not completely pigeonholed like a rogue or barbarian, but they definitely have a certain kind of adventuring day they want to have.

[Angelalex242]

I'm curious why you think Paladins aren't rocking charisma 20?

My paladins prioritize charisma over strength.

[strangebloke]

I'm curious why you think Paladins aren't rocking charisma 20?

My paladins prioritize charisma over strength.

Everyone has ability scores. They're completely irrelevant to considering the strength of a class, unless you're saying something like "focusing wis and dex is generally better overall than focusing str and int"

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Everyone has ability scores. They're completely irrelevant to considering the strength of a class, unless you're saying something like "focusing wis and dex is generally better overall than focusing str and int"

In that vein I'll agree with the part of your post arguing that Paladins have few (generally a few spells) abilities that lend themselves to the social pillar. I'd disagree with your assessment that they have 'decent' Cha similar to a number of other classes. Cha is Paladins primary or secondary score depending on how you want to play it. Some of the other classes you list, particularly Barbarians and Clerics, could (at best) see Cha as their 4th score if they intended to play their character that way. Classes you list are going to have to make significant sacrifices to boost Cha.

Given that there are several Cha based skills, I see no reason why a Paly with an 18 Cha in tier 2 isn't going to be the one taking the lead on (at least) one of those. That's consistently been the experience at our table anyway.

[strangebloke]

In that vein I'll agree with the part of your post arguing that Paladins have few (generally a few spells) abilities that lend themselves to the social pillar. I'd disagree with your assessment that they have 'decent' Cha similar to a number of other classes. Cha is Paladins primary or secondary score depending on how you want to play it. Some of the other classes you list, particularly Barbarians and Clerics, could (at best) see Cha as their 4th score if they intended to play their character that way. Classes you list are going to have to make significant sacrifices to boost Cha.

Given that there are several Cha based skills, I see no reason why a Paly with an 18 Cha in tier 2 isn't going to be the one taking the lead on (at least) one of those. That's consistently been the experience at our table anyway.

If there are no warlocks, bards, sorcerers, or rogues who are focusing CHA skills, 18 CHA and proficiency might be enough to land you the role of party face. But how much utility are you actually offering compared to a fighter with 14 CHA? 18 CHA is only a +2 when compared with 14 CHA, its less impactful than guidance, expertise, Bardic inspiration, enhance ability, or commanding presence.

But really my point is this: Everyone has the same stat points. Everyone can invest in any stat. CHA is not a very good stat compared to the others. It isn't tied to a good save, and while it has skills associated with it there are a lot of classes that want to invest in it so that skill use ends up being redundant. You usually don't need more than one 'face.' More often I find my parties wishing they had more stealthy people or more wise/perceptive people, or investigators, than wishing they had someone with decent CHA. Heck most of the time when someone shows up they're dissapointed if someone's competing for the role of face.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

Well, Wizard has Animate Dead and Lore Bard can have either Animate Dead or Conjure Animals on 6 depending on what they feel like. Other Bards...hmm, well, Eloquence is still a rather brutal CC machine; how that compares to Paladin is less direct though but generally I'd say CC > damage. Bard is definitely interesting subclass-wise, since there's much greater variety there compared to all the other big classes.

I would agree. However I would both agree with the OP and go further in support of your point. A hexbard, imo, is easily the strongest T3 character in the game as it is actually played at that level. However at tier 2 you are pretty strapped for slots and your big F-you spells ie Animate Objects, Polymorph, etc come on pretty late in tier 2 especially if you are multiclassed. By 13-14th level bards are gruesome.

Part of it is because of their skill flexibility and spell stealing and 1 level warlock dip, they can make good use of almost all magic items which are starting to become abundant in tier 3. They almost definitely have a flying monstrous intelligent mount with spell twinning ability after bard 10. They have really stout AC for a full caster, 18 or 19 minimum before any magic armor or shields which in practice by tier 3 is often closer to 21-22 from magic items. With 5 first level spell slots for shield and silvery barbs, and 5 uses of cutting words for Lore bards and possible mirror image etc you basically are not going to hit them with a rolled attack, even a crit, if they don't want you too and your only hope is AOEs, which because they are flying at 60' speed, will often be either impossible to pull off or wasted on a single target, oh and they are also the strongest counter-spellers in the game. Defensively they are obscene at tier 3.

Then they have multiple beam ag blast cantrips with hex and curse and maybe Elvish Accuracy to be criting like 23% of the time, and if you really piss an Eloquence Bard off they can give you the old "do you want to use a legendary resistance or fail this save" move of mind sliver, silvery barbs, unsettling words and a charm spell off an instrument of the bards for something like a -10 to your save... which you must make at disadvantage. Ouch.

And if they don't feel like going that way with it, they can just negotiate their way into a parallel universe where the BBEG was never born with expertise persuasion + 20 charisma + reliable talent persuasion so their minimum possible roll is like what, 25? On a nat one!

If you can survive to level 13 or 14 as an eloquence bardlock it becomes your world and the monsters are just living in it.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

If there are no warlocks, bards, sorcerers, or rogues who are focusing CHA skills, 18 CHA and proficiency might be enough to land you the role of party face. But how much utility are you actually offering compared to a fighter with 14 CHA? 18 CHA is only a +2 when compared with 14 CHA, its less impactful than guidance, expertise, Bardic inspiration, enhance ability, or commanding presence.

But really my point is this: Everyone has the same stat points. Everyone can invest in any stat. CHA is not a very good stat compared to the others. It isn't tied to a good save, and while it has skills associated with it there are a lot of classes that want to invest in it so that skill use ends up being redundant. You usually don't need more than one 'face.' More often I find my parties wishing they had more stealthy people or more wise/perceptive people, or investigators, than wishing they had someone with decent CHA. Heck most of the time when someone shows up they're dissapointed if someone's competing for the role of face.

Different play styles I guess. At our table it's often the case that we don't have 1 'face'. Rather, who's talking is dependent on a number of things: specific skill required, language known, who is being talked to (for example if it's the thief's guild it's going to be the rogue regardless of scores).

On your point that Cha isn't broadly a very good stat, particularly with saves, I'd say, Exactly. For the most part fighters, rogues, etc are much more likely to invest in Wis as their tertiary stat, so a Paladin as a 2nd 'face' is usually a lot better than the next best option.

[Itsfrank]

It seems weird to me that only one person would ever be the one that talks to others. In my group we all play a fair part when talking to NPCs.

[Dr.Samurai]

Social skills are overrated...

Persuasion --> Completely unnecessary. 80% of the rules govern violence, just use violence to get what you want.

Deception --> This is immoral and breaks down the bonds of society.

Intimidation --> DMs don't let their NPCs get intimidated.

Performance --> Grab proficiency in an instrument instead.

As I have carefully and thoroughly laid out above, charisma skills are pretty much useless.

[Frogreaver]

Social skills are overrated...

Persuasion --> Completely unnecessary. 80% of the rules govern violence, just use violence to get what you want.

Deception --> This is immoral and breaks down the bonds of society.

Intimidation --> DMs don't let their NPCs get intimidated.

Performance --> Grab proficiency in an instrument instead.

As I have carefully and thoroughly laid out above, charisma skills are pretty much useless.

IMO, the reasoning here doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Violence also breaks down the bonds of society. While neither violence nor deception are 'good', it's generally better to be a liar than a murderer.
Also, DM's actually do allow NPC's to be intimidated, especially via a successful check.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, as Player Characters your violence is used to uphold the bonds of society and carry out justice, right? Right??

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, as Player Characters your violence is used to uphold the bonds of society and carry out justice, right? Right??

Not always, that's for sure

If there perhaps some attempt at an underlying message I'm missing here?

[x3n0n]

Not always, that's for sure

If there perhaps some attempt at an underlying message I'm missing here?

I had assumed that "carefully and thoroughly" in the earlier post were implicitly in blue text.

[Dr.Samurai]

I had assumed that "carefully and thoroughly" in the earlier post were implicitly in blue text.
Lol, yes :smallbiggrin:

[strangebloke]

CHA skills aren't useless, and there's some value in redundancy, I just don't really view "This class requires CHA" as a "role." This is like people who say Barbarian is good just because barbarian has STR. STR can be had by a lot of characters - so can CHA. Ability scores are never useless, so every character will ultimately have some things they can do with some of their ability scores, but this doesn't really say much about the class.

When I say Paladin is a specialist, what I mean is that they're really good at supporting/healing/killing things within near range, and they have some solid QOL/consistency features like mobility and high saves, but overall nothing else about them really stands out. They're not good at range, and they're basically never better than any CHA caster out of combat, and frequently a lot worse.

[Angelalex242]

Well, Paladins do have an advantage over Sorcerers and Warlocks...and possibly even Bards.

Paladins are known to have high honor and integrity. Warlocks and Bards are known for being tricky bastards.

So when the High Charisma guy wearing full plate armor asks for something, you might figure he's being honorable.

When the Bard asks the same, he might be using you for something.

[Tanarii]

That's world lore specific though. A world with old school Keepers of Lore Druidic Bards and Viking Skald Valor Bards instead of questionable ethics Troubadour Bards might have them valued over the constantly dispatched Neutral Vengeance Paladins who hunt down those trying to reveal secrets for The Unspoken God of Knowledge.

Warlocks you'd have to be known, but ya I can't help think of Jafaar when I think of a Warlock. :smallamused: But otoh they might be a Harry Dresden, working as a Winter Knight for the fae.

[animorte]

Well, Paladins do have an advantage over Sorcerers and Warlocks...and possibly even Bards.

Paladins are known to have high honor and integrity. Warlocks and Bards are known for being tricky bastards.

So when the High Charisma guy wearing full plate armor asks for something, you might figure he's being honorable.

When the Bard asks the same, he might be using you for something.

There are certainly specifics which are the exception, as listed immediately after this, but overall that’s actually a good point. Provided the DM and living world account for that, but that’s pretty much the same for any rule or expectation.

[Tanarii]

There are certainly specifics which are the exception, as listed immediately after this, but overall that’s actually a good point. Provided the DM and living world account for that, but that’s pretty much the same for any rule or expectation.Assuming that Bards and warlocks are known as tricky or that Paladins are known for integrity is just as much a specific exception as the reverse.

[Angelalex242]

To be fair, I grew up in the old 2E era, where Paladins better have integrity...or else. Ditto 3.5.

[noob]

Well, Paladins do have an advantage over Sorcerers and Warlocks...and possibly even Bards.

Paladins are known to have high honor and integrity. Warlocks and Bards are known for being tricky bastards.

So when the High Charisma guy wearing full plate armor asks for something, you might figure he's being honorable.

When the Bard asks the same, he might be using you for something.

No, there is a lot of kinds of paladins so you can not know what defines them just by looking at them(so you can not know what defines "integrity" for them).
Furthermore a bunch of oathes are compatible with deception or betrayal.

[animorte]

First, I agree that you can’t easily tell just by looking and there are exceptions for both sides, easily. But when you lose all of your divine powers because of an alignment check, that seems pretty clear to me. Now, that’s not quite the case anymore (thank heaven) but 5e by no means removed the concept.


A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world…
Later, it also quotes that this may not always be the case, which is completely fair.

Someone that directly fits the description of “knight in shining armor” might be taken more seriously at first glance than a performer for example. And if the Paladin were attempting to deceive I dare say that might grant an advantage.

If we’re on the conversation of Charisma stat and role play effect within the game, it’s also worth mentioning how an average NPC might initially view the approaching adventurer. Unless of course you’re all roll (no role).

[strangebloke]

Well, Paladins do have an advantage over Sorcerers and Warlocks...and possibly even Bards.

Paladins are known to have high honor and integrity. Warlocks and Bards are known for being tricky bastards.

So when the High Charisma guy wearing full plate armor asks for something, you might figure he's being honorable.

When the Bard asks the same, he might be using you for something.

a reputation for honor simply isn't how all paladin subclasses operate. Devotion paladins, sure, but do you think ancients paladins have a problem with lying? Vengeance? Conquest? Oathbreaker?
A "paladin" in setting isn't necessarily a "paladin" mechanically. I've had rogues and bards that were sworn to knightly orders, and paladins who were lone wolves following no code but their own.
Even if you are a knight with the oath of devotion, this doesn't make you better at all social challenges. Maybe some people will be more easily persuaded of your good intent, but others might mistrust you. Criminals don't like talking to cops.
Devotion specifically prohibits a lot of things you'd use your CHA for in the first place.

[Tanarii]

If we’re on the conversation of Charisma stat and role play effect within the game, it’s also worth mentioning how an average NPC might initially view the approaching adventurer. Unless of course you’re all roll (no role).
With great trepidation that this heavily armed/magical and (in)famous murderhero* is trying to talk to them?

*insert murderhobo, mercenary, antihero, or possibly even just hero depending on campaign context.

[animorte]

With great trepidation that this heavily armed/magical and (in)famous murderhero* is trying to talk to them?

*insert murderhobo, mercenary, antihero, or possibly even just hero depending on campaign context.

That’s pretty funny. I mean obviously if you’ve made a name for yourself, you better expect the consequences!

[Angelalex242]

Well ya see, murderhobos are historical. Actual Knights in the middle ages were basically murderhobos till the Church consecrated them all with the Code of Chivalry. So murderhobos are just unconsecrated knights.

[Dr.Samurai]

My previous post on social skills was tongue in cheek. But I do get Strangebloke's point in that Charisma is not the paladin's primary stat. Yes, some people may play it that way, but not everyone does. It's not primary in the way it is for bards, sorcerers, and warlocks.

And I will say that I do wonder how overrated the skills really are. I generally never have a good charisma score, but it doesn't stop me from engaging in the roleplay. I'll check for opportunities to get advantage on any rolls needed, or just use the Help action on whoever is doing the talking to give them advantage. I never feel inadequate in these cases.

But are social skills critical to getting a quest, going adventuring, and beating the bad guys? Not really, not in my experience. They add another layer, but a warrior with high strength, a cleric with high wisdom, a thief with high dex, and a wizard with high intelligence will be just fine without a party face.

[strangebloke]

My previous post on social skills was tongue in cheek. But I do get Strangebloke's point in that Charisma is not the paladin's primary stat. Yes, some people may play it that way, but not everyone does. It's not primary in the way it is for bards, sorcerers, and warlocks.

And I will say that I do wonder how overrated the skills really are. I generally never have a good charisma score, but it doesn't stop me from engaging in the roleplay. I'll check for opportunities to get advantage on any rolls needed, or just use the Help action on whoever is doing the talking to give them advantage. I never feel inadequate in these cases.

But are social skills critical to getting a quest, going adventuring, and beating the bad guys? Not really, not in my experience. They add another layer, but a warrior with high strength, a cleric with high wisdom, a thief with high dex, and a wizard with high intelligence will be just fine without a party face.
It depends on the adventure. I like to have 'optional enemies' that can be avoided with good persuasion/diplomacy. Something like a local elemental spirit who will smite you for trespassing unless you can give a good reason for it not to do so. I also like to have mystery parties where there are multiple social schemes in action at the same time.

The thing is, of course, that 'having a good charisma' isn't the only factor in these situations. Class features like expertise, bardic inspiration, and guidance can all be more impactful. Spells like enhance ability or zone of truth (hey, paladin has that) can matter more. And hey, there are non-CHA skills that matter too. Insight and perception and stealth, at a minimum, but also sleight of hand, investigation, history, etc.

Basically my feeling on this part of the discussion is thus:

the difference between a high ability score (18) and a middling ability score (14) is only about 10%, and there are enough other factors that this basically gets lost in the noise.
every PC has the same number of ability scores to work with, on average, and a class REQUIRING you to invest in one over another is not really a strength. Paladins may have high STR and CHA, but that's actually a limitation of the class. Fighters can have high CHA, but only if they want to. So if 'having decent CHA' is good for paladins, being SAD is better for rogues and fighters and clerics.
CHA specifically is a common ability score, so even if its a useful one, odds are that the party as a whole will already have at least one guy with good CHA.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well ya see, murderhobos are historical. Actual Knights in the middle ages were basically murderhobos till the Church consecrated them all with the Code of Chivalry.
They did a little bit after too ... as becomes apparent if you read enough history of that period.

So murderhobos are just unconsecrated knights. That was true before, during, and after ...

But I do get Strangebloke's point in that Charisma is not the paladin's primary stat. Yes, some people may play it that way, but not everyone does. It's not primary in the way it is for bards, sorcerers, and warlocks. I tend to agree. My paladin has maxed charisma over anything else since I want the Turn extraplanar beings to work, my command spell to work, and my protection aura to be most excellent. I could have capped this paladin's Cha at 16 and done OK, I am sure.

I'll check for opportunities to get advantage on any rolls needed, or just use the Help action on whoever is doing the talking to give them advantage. This is the key to knowing how to use ability scores, IME.
But are social skills critical to getting a quest, going adventuring, and beating the bad guys? Not really, not in my experience. They add another layer, but a warrior with high strength, a cleric with high wisdom, a thief with high dex, and a wizard with high intelligence will be just fine without a party face.
Yep. That's the party from the Basic Rules.


Basically my feeling on this part of the discussion is thus:

every PC has the same number of ability scores to work with, on average, and a class REQUIRING you to invest in one over another is not really a strength. Paladins may have high STR and CHA, but that's actually a limitation of the class. Fighters can have high CHA, but only if they want to. So if 'having decent CHA' is good for paladins, being SAD is better for rogues and fighters and clerics.
CHA specifically is a common ability score, so even if its a useful one, odds are that the party as a whole will already have at least one guy with good CHA. Or they will find ways to work around it, like guidance or help or other stuff.

[Tanarii]

I'll check for opportunities to get advantage on any rolls needed, or just use the Help action on whoever is doing the talking to give them advantage.
I always assume if a character speaks up they are changing it into a Group check instead of it counting as a Help action. Butting in on someone else's attempt to Persuade (of whatever) makes the character part of a group conversation, not a helper.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I always assume if a character speaks up they are changing it into a Group check instead of it counting as a Help action. Butting in on someone else's attempt to Persuade (of whatever) makes the character part of a group conversation, not a helper.

If it's only one person and they're also proficient I think help is applicable. More than two I'd say a group check.

[Angelalex242]

Careful. If the 8 charisma barbarian and wizard realize they do more harm than good whenever they open their mouths, they'll get out their phones and play on them whenever talking happens instead of paying attention.

[strangebloke]

Careful. If the 8 charisma barbarian and wizard realize they do more harm than good whenever they open their mouths, they'll get out their phones and play on them whenever talking happens instead of paying attention.

Agreed. Group checks are terrible, and should not ever be used in a real game. They actively discourage anyone except the 'lead' from participating.

[Tanarii]

Careful. If the 8 charisma barbarian and wizard realize they do more harm than good whenever they open their mouths, they'll get out their phones and play on them whenever talking happens instead of paying attention.Mission accomplished when a check will be required. Apart from my not allowing phones at the table. Characters with a Cha 8 need to find other ways to assist, because chiming in when a Cha check will be required isn't what their character is good at.

Group checks are a fantastic way to make folks think about if their character will actively hurt the group by jumping in. They're also of course useful when someone who is really good can pull the rest of the group up. Help action otoh is a far too often assumed appropriate game tool for many situations in which it really shouldn't really apply.

HOWEVER, I just realized I jumped to a conclusion here. There's a difference based on what the second character does. If a second low Cha character provides a key piece of information that helps the primary talker put together a cogent argument at just the right moment, that's helping. Or possibly making a check unneeded, depending on the info. If they're just butting in with their two cents, that's turning it into a group check. The resolution check should flow from the situation being resolved as well as the intentions and approach being taken, as always.

[solidork]

Agreed. Group checks are terrible, and should not ever be used in a real game. They actively discourage anyone except the 'lead' from participating.

I mean, you say 'never' but there are situations where everyone has to participate because they need to in order to benefit from the success - if you're all sneaking, or trying to outrun an avalanche or whatever.

In those situations, using a group check allows people skilled at the task to cover for those who are bad at it so your 8 Dex Heavy Armor paladin CAN participate in the infiltration without screwing it up for everyone. You've got it exactly backwards for the situations my group uses them for.

A good example of a situation to use a group social check would be: the guard captain asks each person individually what they were doing last night at the time of the murder. Maybe the low charisma Wizard and Barbarian mess it up, but the Rogue and Sorcerer manage to smooth things over and craft a good alibi - the group as a whole escapes suspicion because half of them passed.

[strangebloke]

I mean, you say 'never' but there are situations where everyone has to participate because they need to in order to benefit from the success - if you're all sneaking, or trying to outrun an avalanche or whatever.

In those situations, using a group check allows people skilled at the task to cover for those who are bad at it so your 8 Dex Heavy Armor paladin CAN participate in the infiltration without screwing it up for everyone. You've got it exactly backwards for the situations my group uses them for.

A good example of a situation to use a group social check would be: the guard captain asks each person individually what they were doing last night at the time of the murder. Maybe the low charisma Wizard and Barbarian mess it up, but the Rogue and Sorcerer manage to smooth things over and craft a good alibi - the group as a whole escapes suspicion because half of them passed.

Nope. Never. They don't make sense narratively, they create perverse incentives and actively make everything make less sense. They're one of the worst mechanics I've ever seen in a TTRPG.

Lets say we have a guy named Loud Bob. Now on a normal stealth mission, a mission where you're behaving intuitively, you'd leave loud bob behind. But because you know that stealth in this instance will be a group check, it basically doesn't matter. He's going to fail, but everyone else will probably succeed, and so its fine. Heck, you can enlist a bunch of hirelings and cast pass without trace on them to race your chances of success! Does this make sense? No! Loud Bob is LOUD. More people will make the stealth team MORE LOUD not less. This is obvious if you think about it for more than a second, but the mechanic does the opposite.

Conversely, lets say we have a guy named Average Steve. Average Steve sees that the conversation with Lord Jon is going poorly, so he chimes in with a detail his two friends missed. Normally, you would assume that Average Steve is helpful here, he has modest charisma after all, and his point is helpful. Unfortunately, this turns the interaction into a GROUP CHECK and we go from the best roller having advantage due to help, to suddenly two out of the three people need to succeed.

Its inorganic and unintuitive.

Instead, just. Don't do group checks. Ever. The fighter got tongue-tied, rolled bad, and the bard is trying to cover for him? New charisma check, this time with a higher DC. Easy.

Group Checks are BAAAAAAAD and dumb.

[Angelalex242]

Mission accomplished when a check will be required. Apart from my not allowing phones at the table. Characters with a Cha 8 need to find other ways to assist, because chiming in when a Cha check will be required isn't what their character is good at.

Group checks are a fantastic way to make folks think about if their character will actively hurt the group by jumping in. They're also of course useful when someone who is really good can pull the rest of the group up. Help action otoh is a far too often assumed appropriate game tool for many situations in which it really shouldn't really apply.

HOWEVER, I just realized I jumped to a conclusion here. There's a difference based on what the second character does. If a second low Cha character provides a key piece of information that helps the primary talker put together a cogent argument at just the right moment, that's helping. Or possibly making a check unneeded, depending on the info. If they're just butting in with their two cents, that's turning it into a group check. The resolution check should flow from the situation being resolved as well as the intentions and approach being taken, as always.

Being a veteran paladin player, I'm likely to participate in social encounters. I'm equally likely to NOT in stealth encounters, because Sir ClankyClank can't sneak to save his life. So I hang back as I've always done since 2E (and through 3.5e) and stay the heck out of such things.

...and yes, I've been known to pull out the old phone when it's stealth time, as I know very well it's not my time.

[da newt]

"If it's only one person and they're also proficient I think help is applicable. More than two I'd say a group check."

Sort of off topic but: Is there anything actually written / RAW that states a PC requires proficiency in the skill to be able to perform the HELP action? I've run into this ruling many times, but haven't been able to find a source/reference for it.

[Dr.Samurai]

I always assume if a character speaks up they are changing it into a Group check instead of it counting as a Help action. Butting in on someone else's attempt to Persuade (of whatever) makes the character part of a group conversation, not a helper.
That's one way to do it, though I disagree that someone can't assist in a conversation without having to themselves start rolling checks. A point of clarification, a point of emphasis, a missed point, etc. All of these can help someone making a charisma check without the person doing so needing to succeed at a roll, and I think is perfectly in line with using the Help action to assist on a social check.

[meandean]

Is there anything actually written / RAW that states a PC requires proficiency in the skill to be able to perform the HELP action?No, there is not.

[ProsecutorGodot]

No, there is not.

If the skill check requires proficiency, yes. By default this is only Thieves Tools, however a DM is within their rights to only call for a skill check when a player has proficiency in the relevant skill.

The exact reason is that to be able to help you have to be able to attempt the task alone.

[KorvinStarmast]

HOWEVER, I just realized I jumped to a conclusion here. There's a difference based on what the second character does. If a second low Cha character provides a key piece of information that helps the primary talker put together a cogent argument at just the right moment, that's helping. Or possibly making a check unneeded, depending on the info. If they're just Thus have the player who wants to help with persuasion or deception describe approach and intention. :smallsmile: Sometimes it ends up with advantage, sometimes not, and a few times the 'you're not helping!' bit comes up and a disadvantage crops up. (Rare, seen it twice). The key is to get the role play by the helping character fully implemented into the transaction.

I always assume if a character speaks up they are changing it into a Group check instead of it counting as a Help action. Butting in on someone else's attempt to Persuade (of whatever) makes the character part of a group conversation, not a helper. Depends on the situation, see above.
Sort of off topic but: Is there anything actually written / RAW that states a PC requires proficiency in the skill to be able to perform the HELP action? I've run into this ruling many times, but haven't been able to find a source/reference for it. No, not in the base game. There is no requirement to have proficiency to make an ability check. (There is some question about thieves tools, As An Exception to that general rule, and IIRC musical instruments).

[ProsecutorGodot]

Depends on the situation, see above. No, not in the base game. There is no requirement to have proficiency to make an ability check. (There is some question about thieves tools, As An Exception to that general rule, and IIRC musical instruments).

Right, to clarify my own post above this one, there's no specific requirement to be proficient with Thieves Tools to use them. To open a Lock using Thieves'; Tools however does require proficiency and the working together rules do say that if it's for the purposes of opening a lock then both characters need to be proficient.

Using Thieves' Tools to disarm a trap, for example, doesn't ever say proficiency is required.

[KorvinStarmast]

Right, to clarify my own post above this one, there's no specific requirement to be proficient with Thieves Tools to use them. To open a Lock using Thieves'; Tools however does require proficiency and the working together rules do say that if it's for the purposes of opening a lock then both characters need to be proficient.

Using Thieves' Tools to disarm a trap, for example, doesn't ever say proficiency is required. Copy all. My general point was that all of the ability checks are "you can try anything, you are better at it if proficient" we seem to have violent agreement upon. :smallsmile:

[Dr.Samurai]

Re Needing Prof. to Help

I know this was covered already but the rules do not require this. Additionally, it doesn't make a lot of sense to require it anyways.

Low level apprentices are called helpers for a reason. I was a handyman for many years and the porters assisted me all the time even though they couldn't do what I was doing. This is very common, and it's one of the ways someone begins learning. Similarly as an HVAC technician; your helper doesn't have the proficiency/certifications, but is still handing you tools, holding ladders, throwing switches on/off, etc.

More to the topic, my boss and I handle a lot of interactions with staff and contractors together. She or I will lead the conversation, with the other one chiming in every now and then with a relevant point or a clarification. I don't think this is a "group" check. It seems more like assistance to me.

I would not require proficiency to use the Help action for a charisma check (or any check really), nor would I consider it a group check. Either of those seems like limiting social interaction needlessly to only the people that are good at them, and I'm not sure what the benefit of that is.

Someone with an 8 Cha and prof in Persuasion, attempting a Medium DC of 15 might need a 13 on the die. And when the other 8 Cha person Helps them, now they have Advantage and a better shot at making the DC. Perfectly in line with the rules, and I don't really see the issue with it.

[Tanarii]

I guess I just sit in on enough meetings where the team is trying to persuade another group and folks are constantly chiming in to "help" by taking things off topic, going into far too many details, apparently contradicting each other because of phrasing, etc. :smallamused:

[KorvinStarmast]

I guess I just sit in on enough meetings where the team is trying to persuade another group and folks are constantly chiming in to "help" by taking things off topic, going into far too many details, apparently contradicting each other because of phrasing, etc. :smallamused: Classic example of then applying disadvantage to the roll! :smallbiggrin: (Per chapter 7...)

[Dr.Samurai]

It also depends on how you treat the check.

Some DMs take the roll and it is assumed the characters in game said something persuasive/deceptive/intimidating based on whether the roll beat the DC or not.

Others allow the players to make their case by speaking out what they want to say, and then determine if any modifiers are relevant based on how good of a job the player did at roleplaying the check.

In the case of the former, it's playing with the rules as they are. A check is called for, a DC is set, the roll is made, and you check vs the DC. An ally can use the Help action to grant Advantage on the roll.

In the case of the latter, well, it's all up to the DM and how they interpret the players' attempts at social skills. This is obviously too open to variables, but suffice it to say that while this is more engaging and maybe even intuitive, it almost circumvents the mechanics of the game. A player can be crap at lying or persuading, despite being a Bard with Expertise in both relevant skills. Alternatively, I can play a barbarian with 8 charisma and no proficiency, but I as a player can speak eloquently about why the king should let us do x,y,z.

ETA: Actually, I should caveat this that I haven't read the section on social encounters in the DMG in some time. So I should probably go brush up on that first before talking nonsense lol.

[Sindeloke]

Careful. If the 8 charisma barbarian and wizard realize they do more harm than good whenever they open their mouths, they'll get out their phones and play on them whenever talking happens instead of paying attention.

An 8 is a -1. The 8 CHA barbarian and wizard are statistically likely to outroll the 18 CHA paladin multiple times per session.

[Angelalex242]

An 8 is a -1. The 8 CHA barbarian and wizard are statistically likely to outroll the 18 CHA paladin multiple times per session.

Accidents of math can happen, but since the paladin is also proficient, it's his +6 vs. their -1. Could he roll a 3 when they roll a 20? Sure. Would I have them roll anyway? Not if them rolling a 2 ruins the negotiation.