Paladin abilities overpowered? What do you think.

[Petrocorus]

I think the main issue with Divine Smite is that there's no 'cap' installed so that its effectiveness is directly correlated to your Paladin level.

Instead, its 'cap' is 'your spell slots', so it's extremely vulnerable to multiclass abuse, especially with Hexblade Warlocks.

Well, there is a hard cap of +5d8 on individual smite.
But yeah, most of the abuse comes from multiclassing.

This contrasts the other martials. You can't build around the ranger. He fills a niche. Same thing with rogue. Fighter isn't a great class to build around too, he is better as a dpr plug.

The PHB Ranger should not be used as a point of comparison with other classes. It's quite good at sustained DPR, without having nova capability until later, and without being that good when focusing on a single target. And more to the point, it's basically unable to do its supposed out-of-combat job.

Any Rogue/Fighter muticlass can ba a better Ranger than the PHB Ranger.

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Post and Run by the OP is noted.

2. Paladins are one of the best designed classes in this edition of this swords and sorcery / high fantasy game.

Complaints should be written on the back of a 50 dollar bill and mailed to ...

[DarknessEternal]

Of course they are. I thought it was common knowledge that Paladins were absolutely the best single class in the game.

[MaxWilson]

Of course they are. I thought it was common knowledge that Paladins were absolutely the best single class in the game.

Well, I certainly don't hold that opinion. They're good at some things, but without multiclassing are bad at the things I care about most.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, I certainly don't hold that opinion. They're good at some things, but without multiclassing are bad at the things I care about most.

Which is why they tend to find parties of other adventureres to work with, so that all of the 'needs' are fulfilled.

[elyktsorb]

Paladin abilities aren't overpowered, other class abilities are just underpowered tbh.

Looking at you Second Story Work

[jaappleton]

Paladins are OP. They are.

Every other smite-style ability, like Eldritch Smite and what Fey Wanderer Rangers can do, are limited to once per turn. Divine Smite has no such limitation, letting them go full nova if they really want. Nobody else can do that.

They get a +Cha Mod to all saves at level 6. That's easily +3, feasibly +4, and in some rare cases +5 at 6th level. That's a very big number. And they give that same numbered bonus to allies within 10ft. The only comparable ability I can come up with to stack that up against is the Monk's ability which is at (IIRC) 14th level. Over twice as many levels, and even then, only impacts the Monk exclusively.

All armor, shields, weapon proficiency. Not even Rangers get the same.

Immunity to disease. This includes, believe it or not, the Harm spell.

Lay on Hands. Free healing.

This is all without mentioning the lv7 abilities.

Some might say, "Well there's a serious lack of ranged-" Javelins, handaxes, any mage in the party can cast Fly on them... Or be a Protector Aasimar, which is pretty damn good at being a Paladin anyway. Or winged Tiefling or Aaracokra if available. Or take the Divine Warrior fighting style and net yourself some Cleric cantrips keying off Charisma. Or Magic Initiate.

Paladins are OP..... when compared to the others.

That said? Please, someone pick a Paladin. I want that save bonus. I want that emergency healing. I want you to rain down divine smite like the wrath of Bahamut themselves and I want to high five you as you do it.

[Sception]

Paladin abilities aren't overpowered, other class abilities are just underpowered tbh.

This. Paladin abilities are great. They're characterful, and they do what they say they do, and they're mechanically effective, and they're mechanically effective in a way that encourages characterful play. Every class should have features like these.

[Amechra]

1. Post and Run by the OP is noted.

As someone who is also guilty of doing this kind of thing - sometimes you just want to write down your opinions, and you don't really have anything to contribute to the conversation beyond starting it.

[Xervous]

This. Paladin abilities are great. They're characterful, and they do what they say they do, and they're mechanically effective, and they're mechanically effective in a way that encourages characterful play. Every class should have features like these.

Every class should have the option to get powers like that. If a player doesn’t want it the choice would be there, but picking a given class might not necessitate this is the function of every instance of the class at every table. But 5e did away with a lot of that choice stuff, favoring other design goals. (Sacred cows beating out potential design improvements in a handful of cases).

[stoutstien]

Of course they are. I thought it was common knowledge that Paladins were absolutely the best single class in the game.

Well they make the top five at least.

[MaxWilson]

Well they make the top five at least.

Subjective guessing based on personal experience ahoy!

Fighter, Wizard, Druid, Bard, Paladin?

I can see Ranger, Monk, Barbarian as a bottom three.

I guess that leaves Cleric, Warlock, Sorcerer, Rogue in the middle?

[Sception]

Every class should have the option to get powers like that. If a player doesn’t want it the choice would be there, but picking a given class might not necessitate this is the function of every instance of the class at every table. But 5e did away with a lot of that choice stuff, favoring other design goals. (Sacred cows beating out potential design improvements in a handful of cases).

I meant that every class should have features like these in that they specifically:

1) Characterful. Directly related to the narrative archetype that class represents.

2) Do what they say they do. Not just a characterful name slapped on a random effect, not an ability that says it does a thing but then fails to make it work, not an ability that works best when you use it in a weird counter-intuitive way.

3) Is mechanically effective. writing it down on your character sheet isn't a waste of your time, using it isn't a waste of your friends' time, using it feels cool and not frustrating because it just works, not itjustworks/toddhoward.meme. Some overlap with number 2 here.

4) Is mechanically effective in a way that encourages characterful play. Using the ability, getting the most out of it, inherently encourages your character and even other members of the party to play the game in a way that brings that narrative concept from number one to life. Like how paladin auras encourage the rest of the party to rally around them, or how divine strike encourages the paladin to directly challenge the strongest foes, or how the conquest paladin's features encourage them to bully weaker enemies.


different classes will have different narrative concepts, so the right features for them will be different. but they should still be characterful, intuitive, effective, and encourage characterful play.

[stoutstien]

Subjective guessing based on personal experience ahoy!

Fighter, Wizard, Druid, Bard, Paladin?

I can see Ranger, Monk, Barbarian as a bottom three.

I guess that leaves Cleric, Warlock, Sorcerer, Rogue in the middle?

Close. Artificer squeeze into my top five fighter hangs around in the middle.

[Petrocorus]

Subjective guessing based on personal experience ahoy!

Fighter, Wizard, Druid, Bard, Paladin?

I can see Ranger, Monk, Barbarian as a bottom three.

I guess that leaves Cleric, Warlock, Sorcerer, Rogue in the middle?

I remember a YT channel (The Nerdarchy, not to name them) where people were adamant that the Warlock was the very worst class.
I still wonder if we read the same PHB.
They also said the Halfling was the very best Rogue race, and that Kobold were awful as Rogue because of Sunlight Sensitivity.

So my point is that different people can have very different opinions on what is best or worst based on the play style of the gaming group, the rulings and house rules they use, the tier of play, the degree of optimization, etc...

I myself thought the Bard tended to be overpowered after my first readings of the PHB and LMoP.

[MaxWilson]

I remember a YT channel (The Nerdarchy, not to name them) where people were adamant that the Warlock was the very worst class.
I still wonder if we read the same PHB.
They also said the Halfling was the very best Rogue race, and that Kobold were awful as Rogue because of Sunlight Sensitivity.

So my point is that different people can have very different opinions on what is best or worst based on the play style of the gaming group, the rulings and house rules they use, the tier of play, etc...

I myself thought the Bard tended to be overpowered after my first readings of the PHB and LMoP.

Spoiler: Off topic

Show

Totally agreed. There isn't a clear top five, or bottom three, but I couldn't resist guessing anyway, and I'm inordinately pleased to have guessed stoutsien's thoughts mostly accurately. :)

I honestly don't know why Ranger often comes out on the bottom. In theory they're completely fine, and in practice they are fairly powerful when I've seen one played (even pre-Gloomstalker), and they are fairly strong in the most-played levels (Tier 1-2), but somehow... they are disparaged anyway. Oh well.

[Sception]

Close. Artificer squeeze into my top five fighter hangs around in the middle.

Really? Artificer, top 5? Personally I find their design is way too subclass dependent. IMO a character class should make for an effective party participant before subclass features even enter the equation. This frees up subclasses to be more thematic in nature, and avoids the risk of truly bad characters.

Eg, since we're talking about paladins, oath of the grown and oath of... was it glory or heroism in the final publication? Whatever, point is both those oaths are pretty weak. But if you play them you can still have an effective character because you're still playing a paladin and paladins are effective to begin with. And since you aren't relying on your subclass to make you effective, you can actually get something distinct and cool out of what good features the subclass does have even if everything else around it kind of sucks. Oath of the crown's kind of bad, but it has spirit guardians as an oath spell, and spirit guardians on a paladin is good and cool enough that crown pallies are effective and even distinct and fun in practice, provided your campaign is going to spend a fair amount of time at levels 9+.

with artificer, the base class has some neat ideas but it doesn't really DO much in practice before you count subclass abilities. And when you do count subclass abilities you can have fun and interesting and effective characters like the battlesmith or the artillerist. But if you end up with a dud subclass like the alchemist, that's suddenly a huge drag and a big old trap choice for players. Worse, it's a trap that's taking up the place of a really interesting thematic concept that deserved so much better.

I don't hate the artificer, but being vulnerable to this kind of thing is a problem that, for me anyway, keeps it out of the top tiers when rating classes for how well designed they are.

[stoutstien]

It's not really about ratings or tiers but more to point out that maybe we toss around OP a little to to easy in 5e.
Nothing about the paladin class really comes close to being broken or out of line.
A week from now we will see a thread how wizards are OP then Druids. Maybe even a barbarian thread. That would actually be refreshing.

[stoutstien]

Really? Artificer, top 5? Personally I find their design is way too subclass dependent. IMO a character class should make for an effective party participant before subclass features even enter the equation. This frees up subclasses to be more thematic in nature, and avoids the risk of truly bad characters.

Eg, since we're talking about paladins, oath of the grown and oath of... was it glory or heroism in the final publication? Whatever, point is both those oaths are pretty weak. But if you play them you can still have an effective character because you're still playing a paladin and paladins are effective to begin with. And since you aren't relying on your subclass to make you effective, you can actually get something distinct and cool out of what good features the subclass does have even if everything else around it kind of sucks. Oath of the crown's kind of bad, but it has spirit guardians as an oath spell, and spirit guardians on a paladin is good and cool enough that crown pallies are effective and even distinct and fun in practice, provided your campaign is going to spend a fair amount of time at levels 9+.

with artificer, the base class has some neat ideas but it doesn't really DO much in practice before you count subclass abilities. And when you do count subclass abilities you can have fun and interesting and effective characters like the battlesmith or the artillerist. But if you end up with a dud subclass like the alchemist, that's suddenly a huge drag and a big old trap choice for players. Worse, it's a trap that's taking up the place of a really interesting thematic concept that deserved so much better.

I don't hate the artificer, but being vulnerable to this kind of thing is a problem that, for me anyway, keeps it out of the top tiers when rating classes for how well designed they are.

infusions can act like a party wide invocation feature and more attunement is golden in later tiers. its a personal thing and less of a flat X class does Y so they are rated whatever. I prefer classes that are engaging to play and promote teamwork rather than power.

[Petrocorus]

I honestly don't know why Ranger often comes out on the bottom. In theory they're completely fine, and in practice they are fairly powerful when I've seen one played (even pre-Gloomstalker), and they are fairly strong in the most-played levels (Tier 1-2), but somehow... they are disparaged anyway. Oh well.

Spoiler: The Ranger

Show

Well, i can say why I am displeased with the Ranger. People may or may not agree with it.

First, let me say the Ranger is pretty good at DPS. And the issue is not there.

The issue is partly that the Ranger DPS doesn't come from the class, but mostly from the subclass, the spellcasting and the feats.
The only main class feature improving its combat prowess beside spells are the FS and Extra Attack. Compare this to other martials.
And the damage improving spells are mostly concentration spells, so, not combinable.

But the bigger issues of the Ranger are its spellcasting and its out-of-combat job.

The OoC job. The Ranger is supposedly a skilled class, to a degree. It's supposed to notably be the go-to class for tracking, and exploring.
But it actually has only one single skill more compared to the Fighter.
All its class features helping it tracking, exploring, stealth, or skirmishing are (very) situational and/or underwhelming.
Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are the worst, they are ribbons which are treated as main class features.
Natural Explorer is notably problematic, because it completely cancels all difficulties in the right environment, and it's completely useless otherwise. FavE is never anything else than a glorified ribbon. And FavE and NatEx are the only class feature helping the Ranger track. Any shmuck with prof in Survival and a decent Wis is as good a tracker as the Ranger when FavE and NatEx don't apply, which is often. That makes the Ranger the fifth or sixth best class to make a tracker.

The Ranger has to rely on its spells for damage, utilities and doing its basic job, which is a problem because:

The spellcasting. The Ranger is the only divine spellcasting class with a limited number of spell known. And there is no reason for this.
And the limit is low. It has less spells known than the EK or AT.
And it's not like its spells list were that good.
And the number of Ranger spells requiring concentration doesn't help it.

The Ranger has to rely on its spell for both its damage improvement and its utilities, but with such a limited number of spell known, it's not going to help a lot in any of this departments.

Add to this that one of the only two subclass available in the PHB is probably the worst subclass in the whole game. I mean, the BeastM doesn't even get a single ability helping it to communicate with animals or its Handle Animal checks.

Yes, the Xanathar subclasses are better but that's part of the way of WotC to try to fix it. By my count, they tried to fix the Ranger six or seven times.

I had made (long ago) a level by level comparison of the Ranger and the Paladin for a player, because the classes are similar and symmetrical in their design in several edition including the 5th, and IIRC at almost every level that is not identical, except a couple, the Paladin is better.

[DarknessEternal]

ITT: "It's not my Paladin that is too strong. It's all you other classes are too weak."

Not ITT: {scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

Paladins are well designed, not overpowered...

The problem is many other classes are not designed as well, making Paladins look better. I don't think there is a Paladin subclass I wouldn't play simply because their chassis works well in several areas. I can't say that for a lot of other classes. (Psst, 5e isn't really balanced as much as the designers would like to think. There, I said it.)

There's no Fighter subclass I wouldn't play. I can't say that for Paladins though.

[ProsecutorGodot]

ITT: "It's not my Paladin that is too strong. It's all you other classes are too weak."

Not ITT: {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Most prefer moving bad options up than bringing good options down.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It's not really about ratings or tiers but more to point out that maybe we toss around OP a little to to easy in 5e.
Nothing about the paladin class really comes close to being broken or out of line.
A week from now we will see a thread how wizards are OP then Druids. Maybe even a barbarian thread. That would actually be refreshing.

Nobody in this thread has specifically refuted that the ability to cure disease and poison at level 2 is way OP and basically eliminates many possible adventure hooks. As a DM all you can really do is say, 'Yeah, but this particular disease/ poison is more powerful so you are going to have to go on... quest anyway", which is basically a Nerf to get around the ability.

[JNAProductions]

Nobody in this thread has specifically refuted that the ability to cure disease and poison at level 2 is way OP and basically eliminates many possible adventure hooks. As a DM all you can really do is say, 'Yeah, but this particular disease/ poison is more powerful so you are going to have to go on... quest anyway", which is basically a Nerf to get around the ability.

It's also not a common thing to use.

Moreover, you don't have to say "Lay On Hands doesn't work," to have a plague plot. Just have it be widespread.

If 50 people are infected, with 10 more each day, the math is not in the Paladin's favor. And that's a pretty small number of cases.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It's also not a common thing to use.

Moreover, you don't have to say "Lay On Hands doesn't work," to have a plague plot. Just have it be widespread.

If 50 people are infected, with 10 more each day, the math is not in the Paladin's favor. And that's a pretty small number of cases.

I'd argue it's not common due in part due to the Paladin (and Cleric) abilities at low levels. This dovetails with the High Fantasy direction 5e has gone and away from a more gritty game that my group likes. Sure a huge plague is fine, but PCs or a handful of important NPCs... moot.

[JNAProductions]

I'd argue it's not common due in part due to the Paladin (and Cleric) abilities at low levels. This dovetails with the High Fantasy direction 5e has gone and away from a more gritty game that my group likes. Sure a huge plague is fine, but PCs or a handful of important NPCs... moot.

How many Paladins are in the average city? Or town? Or village? Remember, you get 1 cure per Paladin level per day.

[stoutstien]

Nobody in this thread has specifically refuted that the ability to cure disease and poison at level 2 is way OP and basically eliminates many possible adventure hooks. As a DM all you can really do is say, 'Yeah, but this particular disease/ poison is more powerful so you are going to have to go on... quest anyway", which is basically a Nerf to get around the ability.

Or you let them do it so they feel rewarded for their choices? If LoH is destroying your tension mechanics I don't think the paladin's the problem.

[MaxWilson]

Nobody in this thread has specifically refuted that the ability to cure disease and poison at level 2 is way OP and basically eliminates many possible adventure hooks. As a DM all you can really do is say, 'Yeah, but this particular disease/ poison is more powerful so you are going to have to go on... quest anyway", which is basically a Nerf to get around the ability.

What adventure hook requires specifically a poison or non-virulent disease on small number of creatures? If it's a large number or virulent then a level 2 Paladin has no hope of handling it; if it's a small number but not a disease (e.g. a curse or madness) then the Paladin again cannot help.

What's an example of an adventure hook that cannot be converted to 5e-friendly form?

[JNAProductions]

Or you let them do it so they feel rewarded for their choices? If LoH is destroying your tension mechanics I don't think the paladin's the problem.

I can see it being an issue if a module or your adventure calls for the PCs to be infected, and have that be a plot point or point of tension.

But as Max says, you could easily make it a curse or something.