Paladin abilities overpowered? What do you think.

[micahaphone]

{scrubbed}

[Ignimortis]

Compared to other classes and what they get at levels, let us take a look.

5e Paladins always seemed to me to be, probably, the best designed class in the context of the game. They're versatile, but not too much (unlike full casters), and powerful, but in rather strict and conventional ways. I would say that I'd rather play a 5e paladin than any of the 5e Big Four unless I had a very specific concept in mind (and I don't really gravitate to any concept a 5e Fighter or Rogue or Wizard would be able to embody).

TL;DR = Paladin isn't OP. Some other classes are just not as good, in my general experience.

[kbob]

Woah, woah woah... hand on. I think you are doing the paladin a real disservice here.

Firstly you skip over their proficiencies as if they are nothing - sure they are not the real powerhouse of the class but they are the only half caster to actually get native heavy armour proficiency. Now for sure heavy armour isn't much better than medium in a lot of cases till you start getting magic armour - in which circumstances being able to wear a fancy suit that your light cleric, valor bard, ranger or barbarian wont is a pretty big deal. If you roll one of these on a treasure table it gets some good use.

You also miss spellcasting off level 2. Seriously, this is where I think it showcases that Paladins get all the best toys. You work on prepared spells, not known you you have a lot of flexability. You work with a good number, more than some full casters. You don't have all the downside of needing to cast through tools like an artificer, you spells prepared are topped up by oath spells from level 3... but thi big thing is the paladin spell list. You get spells that work well with your class features - lots of bonus action spells so you can still attack for example, buff spells to make you more powerful in combat. And just stand out spells - with aura of vitality and lay on hands you can be as good a healer as most clerics AND be a badass as well. Look at wrathful smite or find steed/greater steed - fantastic spells that other classes could only wish for and a perfect compliment to the class. Don't miss out on the richness of the spell list when evaluating the class.

And fighting style? In amongst spellcasting and smiting, something as small as a fighting style can get missed. This class gets everything though.

At level 3 you consioucly skip over the oaths. I think this is a mistake as you are eliding over so much power. Two channel divinities per oath (OK, usually only one of which is truely powerful, and the other a bit niche). A concentration free effect (and free of VSM componenets) on a short rest recharge is big. Some are more egregious than others but there are few subclass abilities below level 5 that I would say could comete for power - maybe portent, probably cutting words, maybe the gloomstaker stuff. Between lay on hands, channel divinity, the best way of getting spells, domain spells... the paladin by third level has about as much magical resource as a full caster and even more flexability... and all baked into a martial chassis.

I also think that the immunity to disease thing is niche, but not as niche as you suggest. There are a number of things it protects against - not least things like the harm spell. But the thing to remember is that it is better than a dead level as some classes have, its more than a ribbon and it is an extra thing on a level where you get awesome stuff anyway.

You just about get it right with the aura at level 6.

Aura of courage is a bit DM dependant. If there are no dragons in dungeons and dragons, no illusionists, wizards, bards, warlocks or anyone else who might take the fear spell (or wrathful smite, or any of the others) then sure its not that useful... still immunity to what would otherwise be a debilitating effect is good. I mean it wouldn't be a power level in any class but it isn't weak.

Improved divine smite has benefits you don't touch on. Mainly radiant damage. If we look at all the monsters that suffer from specific damage types I believe two stand out. Fire and radiant. So I include for example trolls for fire and vampires for radiant. And of these fire is much more resisted. In short, if you were to pick one damage type to stick on every attack you make, it would probably be radiant.

And at level 14... well not content to trample over the fighter doing melee combat better than they do, and the bard by doing support better than they do, and the cleric by healing better than they do... now you become better at dispel magic than an abjuration wizard. Ok, the last one is a bit of an exageration as you can really only help your allies but no roll is required. No spell slot. No risk of failure. Feeblemind just ends. Otto's irresistable dance is resisted. Monsters are unheld. Geas be gone. And this is not one off, it is multiple times per day.


There are a number of reasons the Paladin is this mistaken monstrosity that has waddled its bloated body out othe the design process. None of the individual abilities by themselves (with the possible exception of the level 6 aura) are obviously broken. The problem is the cumulative effect and the way they scale. Lay on hands isn't just a 1st level ability - it improves every single level. Likewise spellcasting scales. You can look at the list of abilities and it doen't look that broken till you dive in because these things that grow all the time are only shown once... like getting another spell you can prepare every level. Even things like the level 6 aura scale - they scale with the severity of the saves forced on you and the party. They scale with the value of the spells your casters are focussing on.

Their flexability and power are superb. I think the real big issue is that they gave every ability a new resource: Detect good and evil, spells, lay on hands, cleansing touch... even if the kept flexability but made them draw from the same pool it would be better. Is it really more balanced to have paladins able to dispell 9th level spells as their own resource pool than say having to spend some lay on hands points? Same for detection and so on.

Some of this I can forgive as at higher levels things get pretty silly anyway - I would say level 14 is aredy slipping into insanity somewhat anyway. My main gripe is why would you play any other martial character? If you want to play a nature themed archer an Ancients Paladin is still more powerful than a ranger even with forcing on it the suboptimal choices. You want a raging strongman to pound your enemies into the mud - you can upgrade your barabrian to a vengeance paladin. I don't actually mind that the paladin is this powerful - and it is pretty fun - but I do mind that it is powerful in such a way that it makes other classes unatractive. Paladins are awesome; it just sucks to be playing at a table with one if you want to play any other type of martial character*.

As A DM the Paladin class annoys me a bit - not just because of its power, but because of whats its power can do to take away fun. Paladin can kill enemies, or at least make it clear they will die, before some players may even get to interact with them. Peak damage on the most dramatic encounters of a campaign that relegates other players into marginal relevance is not cool in a class. One porrly timed crit and you have a pretty anticlimactic campaign where half the party didn't feel they really needed to bother showing up. I think I would have been happier if divine smite added multiples of 5 to the damage rather than d8s, just to stop the worst of this. Making the party immune (or close enough) to large numbers of lower level spellcasters shuts out some adventure options as well. I get that paladins should have their time to shine like any other class, but they way they often do it makes other characters a bit less relevant and I don't think that is good.


*OK, a slight exageration but most of the point stands.

I enjoyed reading this and agree with most of what you said. Paladin is my favorite class of all time in DnD and I’m glad they finally made them shine. That said their abilities are significant and most of what you said (actually all of your points) I agree with. I just don’t come to the same conclusion. Paladins can shut down an encounter via smites but that’s usually just one encounter. They burn through slots pretty quick smiting. As a DM, the only time I hate when a player says they crit is when they are playing a paladin. That’s said, I find little trouble dealing with them outside of their stupid good saves. You just need to separate them from the party and have them have to focus on the heavy hitting HP sponge working for the BBEG. No need to worry about saves cuz those brutes don’t cast spells anyway. As far as other classes, the other melee classes have plenty of time to shine. Fighters are sick in their own right and barbarians are just nigh unkillable rage monsters that can do some heavy hitting on their own. Both can actually out DPR the paly. And then there’s Hexblade. Now for what it’s worth, I have a both a paly and Hexblade for when I’m not running. I will say I believe both are the top tier martial classes. Paly for its nova and auras and Hexblade for DPR, evocations, and being a pseudo full caster (they are the best gishes in the game in my opinion). Basically the paly is better for helping a party and Hexblade is better for being more powerful from a selfish standpoint. That said, neither class just eclipses the barbarians and fighters that I sometimes play with. Even the ranger is BA when he needs to be. Ok. I’ll admit we use the “revised” UA Ranger, but still. Paly is the best frontliner for nova damage and bolstering the party, but he is not broken (though I believe you never actually said he was like the original poster). Anyway, just my thoughts. Others may disagree.

[Sception]

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.

Fair enough. There are definitely things I like about the artificer, and I love both battlesmiths and artillerists when you look at their complete packages. I just feel like there should have been a bit more built into their base package and a bit less shoved off onto the subclasses to avoid the possibility of disappointments like the alchemist.

...

While I defend paladins overall, there are definitely some issues that could be ironed out.

Re: divine smite, it can encourage paladins to stockpile spell slots then burn them all to nova down a tough encounter, which can result in a paladin slightly underperforming in filler and attrition fights, ending fun and climactic encounters prematurely, or even underperforming in an adventuring day's most difficult encounter because 'what if there's an even harder fight later'. The ease and reliability of divine smite can also be a problem, leading to paladins failing to engage with their actual spell lists, which reduces the differentiation between paladin oaths and can actually weaken the character overall, since clever use of actual paladin spells will often provide greater returns than just smiting all your slots away.

While I'm fine with divine smite as is, I personally wouldn't object to house rules that limit the ability to 1/turn. And if I were rebuilding paladin from the ground up, I'd probably...

Spoiler

Show

Make divine smite a discrete ability with a number of uses per short rest - maybe cha mod per short rest? Or a set number per short rest that scales with paladin level? Make it do +1d8 damage with damage type set by alignment (radiant for good, force for neutral, necrotic for evil), with an extra dice of damage against enemy types according to the alignment (fiends & undead for good, fey & aberrations for neutral, celestials for evil), without spending any spell slot. Then give all paladins an option of burning a spell slot when they smite for +d8 damage per slot level.

Then each oath could have a unique smite ability to trade 2+ dice of damage for an additional effect, like conquest can trade dice of damage to force a save vs. frighten, devotion can trade dice to impose disadvantage on attacks made against their allies, ancients can trade dice to impose a save vs. restrained, vengeance can trade dice to give themselves advantage on attacks vs. the target for a round, etc. At higher levels maybe gain additional abilities to trade more dice to improve the effect, maybe impose disadvantage on the save or make the effect ongoing on impose a more deleterious effect or so on. You could then replace & remove the entire 'smite' line of spells, which mostly don't work particularly well, and where they do work kind of edge in on the paladins gimmick.

that answers a few issues with paladin actually - increasing their short rest resources so they aren't as dependent on daily stuff while reducing the ability to nova a single important fight out of existence. Same total damage output when burning spell slots to smite, but the damage efficiency of the slots themselves are reduced which gives more incentive to consider actual spell use, 'fixes' the smite spells by replacing them outright, etc.

but that's a bunch of of the cuff homebrew spit balling, and isn't really here or there. I don't really have much problem with the ability as is, though again I personally wouldn't object to a 1/turn house rule limit on smites, and I think that would go a long way towards mitigating the nova issue.


as per the auras... a party that clumps up gains a lot of protection from paladin auras, especially aura of protection, but also becomes more vulnerable to aoe effects, something a DM can absolutely take advantage of if the party's tactics are getting a bit stale. You can also manipulate positioning yourself - throw in some brute thug strongman enemies that can shove party members out of the aura for the mastermind enemies in the back ranks to be able to target them, that sort of thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

Not sure if you saw the previous thread regarding casters sucking versus martials, by the same OP with the same Post and Run MO. I suppose that you are right to a certain extent: 'here's a thought, discuss' is a way to do stuff.

[MaxWilson]

Purple Dragon Knight and Arcane Archer give me pause, but I'd still probably play both of them. I like Fighters as long as the campaign uses feats.

Which paladin subclass(es) would you not play Max?

It's a personal thing, but Devotion is the only one whose ideals actually feel like Paladin ideals to me, so for me it's either Devotion Paladin or Oathbreaker anti-Paladin (Darth Vader, Lord Soth), and the latter only as a DM NPC. I simply see no reason for the other subclasses to exist, but YMMV.

PDK and Arcane Archer are weak subclasses on a strong chassis so I'd still play them, although first I'd need a reason not to play EK instead (e.g. "I dare you not to play an EK"). PDK has been fun in one-shots that I've DM'ed, would like to have been a player for.

[GlenSmash!]

It's a personal thing, but Devotion is the only one whose ideals actually feel like Paladin ideals to me, so for me it's either Devotion Paladin or Oathbreaker anti-Paladin (Darth Vader, Lord Soth), and the latter only as a DM NPC. I simply see no reason for the other subclasses to exist, but YMMV.

I'm loving my Half-Orc Ancients 'Paladin' but I designed the character specifically to be more of a martial Shaman rather than an actual Paladin so I guess my mileage did indeed vary

[Amechra]

Not sure if you saw the previous thread regarding casters sucking versus martials, by the same OP with the same Post and Run MO. I suppose that you are right to a certain extent: 'here's a thought, discuss' is a way to do stuff.

I didn't realize that it was the same person. Hmm.

Eh, at least it isn't sorcerers and gifs this time, I guess?

[cutlery]

I like them. They aren’t weak, that’s for sure, and the fact you are no longer tied to being lawful stupid is great. Making Oathbreaker just a type of paladin rather than an entirely new class like the blackguard is great, and oaths like vengeance, ancients, and conquest explore new themes you had to ask your DM for in previous editions.

I think paladins are about right in 5e, I just wish some other classes were as good.

[Pex]

When it comes to things being overpowered I can agree there are objective examples. These are things that make the game unplayable. They are unintentional loopholes in the rules of "I win D&D". This is where Simulacrum chaining with Wish and Coffeelock of infinite spell slots lie. Everything else is subjective to the viewer. As a matter of personal opinion even where I disagree a particular thing is overpowered I can see the point of view about it where others do have a problem. I agree they are powerful but disagree it's too much power. This is where Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, and multiclassing Hexblade comes in. House rules to fix the problem people have are reasonable, such as changing the feats to -Proficiency to hit/2x Proficiency to damage and give the most desired features of Hexblade to Blade Pact in general. The house rules are curtailing the power but still appreciative of their intent keeping their spirit.

Then there is what I sometimes facetiously describe as people who hate characters doing more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage". It's still subjective, but at some point one can go too far in objecting to PC power. PCs are supposed to be powerful. There's nothing wrong with PCs being powerful. It's a feature of the game they get to do Cool Things and have Cool Defense. Complaining about any and every class ability a PC can do as too powerful is a bridge too far. Maybe they're not too powerful but rather other abilities are too weak. Maybe comparison to other class abilities is irrelevant and an ability just is what it is, does what it's supposed to do, and is the whole point of playing the character and the game in general.

Can a particular class ability fall under my Great Weapon Master appreciation of a problem? Since it's subjective of course it can, but right now nothing about a Paladin falls into this category. What it can do it is supposed to do. Where it shines is where it's supposed to shine and doesn't make the game unplayable nor need nerfing.

[Snails]

Actuallly power does not matter. A PC simply being more powerful than other PCs usually does not matter either.

What matters is if either (1) a PC is so powerful that it is shoving other PCs out of the limelight often enough that other player care, or (2) a PC is so powerful that it is making encounter design really hard on the DM.

Things like defensive auras almost cannot be a problem of type #1, because it is mostly preventing fellow PCs from suffering suckage, thus the players of those other PCs feel like the Paladin helps their PC get those limelight moments. That is the opposite of a problem.

As for the smite damage, it is good, but is it actually better than the Fighter who plowed that level 6 ASI into GWM and just Action Surged? Probably not.

[Jerrykhor]

As for the smite damage, it is good, but is it actually better than the Fighter who plowed that level 6 ASI into GWM and just Action Surged? Probably not.

You're wrong. Divine Smite is better than Action Surge, because it cannot be wasted. Action Surge is wasted when the Fighter roll low on his extra attacks, but Divine Smite is never wasted, and also multiplied on crits. Funny you mentioned GWM, because its going to reduce the chance to hit even more.

[MaxWilson]

You're wrong. Divine Smite is better than Action Surge, because it cannot be wasted. Action Surge is wasted when the Fighter roll low on his extra attacks, but Divine Smite is never wasted, and also multiplied on crits. Funny you mentioned GWM, because its going to reduce the chance to hit even more.

Well, it depends. A 6th level Paladin has only 14d8 (63) of Divine Smite available for the whole day if he completely dumps all of his spell slots into it. That's a low bar for the GWM Fighter to clear. But it depends on enemy AC.

[Eldariel]

Well, it depends. A 6th level Paladin has only 14d8 (63) of Divine Smite available for the whole day if he completely dumps all of his spell slots into it. That's a low bar for the GWM Fighter to clear. But it depends on enemy AC.

Hmm, but Smite does have the crit multiplication and the opportunity to save it for crits going on for it. So if you crit on average once per day (20 attacks, where 3 rounds at 6 encounters already produces 36 even before PAM) you can get 3d8 extra out of that. Add to that the autohitting for the extra attacks and you're doing fine. Of course, whether it's worth critting the enemy with a Smite is another matter and of course there's no guarantee you'll have Smites remaining by that time. Which provides for some inaccuracy but yeah, while I agree that a Fighter might come out ahead, Smite is a bit better than the raw amount of damage you'd get out of the blue due to its controllability.

[Waazraath]

Hmm, but Smite does have the crit multiplication and the opportunity to save it for crits going on for it. So if you crit on average once per day (20 attacks, where 3 rounds at 6 encounters already produces 36 even before PAM) you can get 3d8 extra out of that. Add to that the autohitting for the extra attacks and you're doing fine. Of course, whether it's worth critting the enemy with a Smite is another matter and of course there's no guarantee you'll have Smites remaining by that time. Which provides for some inaccuracy but yeah, while I agree that a Fighter might come out ahead, Smite is a bit better than the raw amount of damage you'd get out of the blue due to its controllability.

Some other things to consider:
- on the one hand, synergies with other class features. A lvl 6 pally will most likely have increased cha (following form a thread on this a while back); the fighter has 2 asi's by lvl 6, increasing (in this example, most likely) str and GWM. That higher str allows it to hit more often, recues the penalty from GWM, and the other feature of GWM will give it bonus attacks that should be calculated as well.
- on the other hand: what about the pally's warhorse? You can't use it to fight while on top of it, and probably can't take it into most dungeons. But out in the open, it can fight alongside the party, and the damage it does and extra hp it brings will be a huge boost to the pally's defense and offense compared to the fighter.

In general though, I think the fighter pulls ahead when only dpr is concerned (which is of course as it should be, given all other things the pally brings to the table).

[cutlery]

Hmm, but Smite does have the crit multiplication and the opportunity to save it for crits going on for it. So if you crit on average once per day (20 attacks, where 3 rounds at 6 encounters already produces 36 even before PAM) you can get 3d8 extra out of that. Add to that the autohitting for the extra attacks and you're doing fine. Of course, whether it's worth critting the enemy with a Smite is another matter and of course there's no guarantee you'll have Smites remaining by that time. Which provides for some inaccuracy but yeah, while I agree that a Fighter might come out ahead, Smite is a bit better than the raw amount of damage you'd get out of the blue due to its controllability.

And spell/smite slots saved for crime (crits, but crime is funnier) that don’t get spent are also wasted.

Anyway, viewing action surge when missing as a waste is like viewing any form of advantage a “waste” if you miss. That isn’t how probability works. Plus, you can use action surge to cast a buff spell (or two) which sure isn’t a “waste”.

[Eldariel]

And spell/smite slots saved for crime (crits, but crime is funnier) that don’t get spent are also wasted.

Anyway, viewing action surge when missing as a waste is like viewing any form of advantage a “waste” if you miss. That isn’t how probability works. Plus, you can use action surge to cast a buff spell (or two) which sure isn’t a “waste”.

Agreed, Action Surge gives a certain amount of probabilistic damage, which is completely valid as such. Smite gives a certain amount of "guaranteed" damage but obviously you are as restricted in when you can apply it as the next guy since you still need to land hits to Smite. So they have different considerations but much like enemies making their saves, missing attacks aren't really "wasted" as such; some attacks will miss and some saves will be made and all you need to do is land more. The more attacks you're making or the more saves you're making, the better. There's no valid way of viewing Action Surge but through the probabilistic outcome.

[Petrocorus]

Well, it depends. A 6th level Paladin has only 14d8 (63) of Divine Smite available for the whole day if he completely dumps all of his spell slots into it. That's a low bar for the GWM Fighter to clear. But it depends on enemy AC.

It also depends on the Fighter subclass. With Fighting Spirit or Precision Attack available for the Surge, the probability of hitting while power attacking raises quite well.

[MaxWilson]

It also depends on the Fighter subclass. With Fighting Spirit or Precision Attack available for the Surge, the probability of hitting while power attacking raises quite well.

Yes, although to be completely fair you also should take Paladin subclass into account as well in that case. But Fighter subclass is typically better than Paladin subclass is at adding damage/synergizing with GWM/SS. For Paladin damage comes mostly from the core class.

[Snails]

You're wrong. Divine Smite is better than Action Surge, because it cannot be wasted. Action Surge is wasted when the Fighter roll low on his extra attacks, but Divine Smite is never wasted, and also multiplied on crits. Funny you mentioned GWM, because its going to reduce the chance to hit even more.

For purposes of this discussion, I only care if it is good in a way that forces the DM's hand in terms of encounter design.

That the paladin might efficiently employ smite to average out to have a good DPS over the course of the day is not a problem -- a frontliner should have respectable DPS. That the paladin might get lucky with a crit or two and nuke an opponent is not a problem -- luck crits can bring down anybody.

That the Fighter might choose his moment to combine, say, Action Surge with Superiority Dice to hit for 60-100 damage in one round is much more likely to be a problem. (I am not asserting this is a problem, only it is the kind of thing that potentially could be viewed that way.)

[cutlery]

For purposes of this discussion, I only care if it is good in a way that forces the DM's hand in terms of encounter design.

That the paladin might efficiently employ smite to average out to have a good DPS over the course of the day is not a problem -- a frontliner should have respectable DPS. That the paladin might get lucky with a crit or two and nuke an opponent is not a problem -- luck crits can bring down anybody.

That the Fighter might choose his moment to combine, say, Action Surge with Superiority Dice to hit for 60-100 damage in one round is much more likely to be a problem. (I am not asserting this is a problem, only it is the kind of thing that potentially could be viewed that way.)

Hell, a fighter can choose to combine action surge, sup die, and smite.

More hits is potentially more smites, too.

[KorvinStarmast]

Paladins are OP. They are.

Wrong, again.

[stoutstien]

I've always seen the paladin as a strong class in regards of recovering and mitigating times when the party screws up. The worse things go the better they look. If a party can consistently maintain the momentum a lot of the paladin's tool box goes unused.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I've always seen the paladin as a strong class in regards of recovering and mitigating times when the party screws up. The worse things go the better they look. If a party can consistently maintain the momentum a lot of the paladin's tool box goes unused.

In practice, this matches my experience. As we've played this campaign longer, gotten stronger, I find that I use less of my resources cleaning up mistakes and have more room to be proactive.

I think for much of the t3 and early t4 content we've seen has put my Paladin far back into a supporting role where I'd originally intended for him to shine.

Paladins start strong, remain strong but barring their capstone seem to peak early.

[Edea]

Another interesting characteristic of the paladin, at least to me: with most other classes, there's this sort-of 'worry' that if there's more than one member of the same class in the party, there's going to be competition between them as to who's better built/getting into the spotlight more, or whether having the same job sours RP potential between them to an extent.

Paladins have none of that. I can very easily see an entire party of nothing but Paladins going swimmingly, something I can't really say for any other class, not even cleric or druid. If there's already two Paladins in the party and the new guy's like, "...is it OK if I play one, too?", you're not going to get eye-rolls, you're going to get 'hell yeah, you can play one!" There's just no such thing as too many Paladins, which TBH is kinda weird.

[cutlery]

Another interesting characteristic of the paladin, at least to me: with most other classes, there's this sort-of 'worry' that if there's more than one member of the same class in the party, there's going to be competition between them as to who's better built/getting into the spotlight more, or whether having the same job sours RP potential between them to an extent.

Paladins have none of that. I can very easily see an entire party of nothing but Paladins going swimmingly, something I can't really say for any other class, not even cleric or druid. If there's already two Paladins in the party and the new guy's like, "...is it OK if I play one, too?", you're not going to get eye-rolls, you're going to get 'hell yeah, you can play one!" There's just no such thing as too many Paladins, which TBH is kinda weird.

I’m not sure that’s always true. And, really, I think 4-5 of any class is just fine in 5e.

On the other hand, a Paladin Fight! (Ok, argument) when their oaths conflict sounds delicious.

[MaxWilson]

Another interesting characteristic of the paladin, at least to me: with most other classes, there's this sort-of 'worry' that if there's more than one member of the same class in the party, there's going to be competition between them as to who's better built/getting into the spotlight more, or whether having the same job sours RP potential between them to an extent.

Paladins have none of that. I can very easily see an entire party of nothing but Paladins going swimmingly, something I can't really say for any other class, not even cleric or druid. If there's already two Paladins in the party and the new guy's like, "...is it OK if I play one, too?", you're not going to get eye-rolls, you're going to get '---- yeah, you can play one!" There's just no such thing as too many Paladins, which TBH is kinda weird.

Wizards have this in spades too. "Wanna swap spells?!?"

Multiple Bards would form a band or a traveling circus.

[Edea]

I think the wizard one works if builds are coordinated in advance (specifically, making sure at least one of them's a bladesinger and at least one of them multi'd life cleric 1, lol).

Bards, now there's a ridiculous class. I think their only real 'weakness' is their spell list, and frankly they get a class feature expressly addressing that weakness. Yeah, a party of bards def-o works.

Let's see, what would a paladin party need to cover...probably range. I guess magic initiate (warlock)/a warlock dip?

[jaappleton]

Wrong, again.

Care to elaborate?

{scrubbed}

[OldTrees1]

Care to elaborate?

{scrubbed}

To be fair, they responded to your hyperbolic first paragraph rather than your penultimate paragraph. With that context their post is much more reasonable.

Remember your penultimate paragraph added the qualifier to make it "Paladins are OP .... when compared to the others" Which does not explicitly imply but one can infer means "Paladins are not OP, but the others are UP".

However here is some response to your points. Your evidence takes Paladin features and looks for anything similar in other classes and the result is faulty analogies. Why would Eldritch Smite be comparable to Divine Smite? That would be OP because an Invocation costs less than a level's worth of features. Likewise Eldritch Smite is an optional side specialization for Warlock, but Divine Smite is part of the Paladin default math. It is not unreasonable for Fighter's Extra Attack to be better than War Domain's War Priest ability. Likewise Divine Soul has a very important 2nd half, and many would agree that Tier 3-4 features struggle to be level appropriate. Is Lay on Hands "free healing" or did it cost most of 1st level's feature points?

And yet I can agree that Paladin has more pros than cons when compared to other martial classes (Excluding Rogues) and can push further into T3 before their features become underpowered for that level.

However I would not have phrased it like you did. Paladins are not OP. I generally see WotC's 5E Paladin as only being 13-14 levels long. The remaining levels would need an overhaul to be level appropriate. And the levels 1-5 are very much in line with the strength of other martial classes (excluding the Rogue).

Another interesting characteristic of the paladin, at least to me: with most other classes, there's this sort-of 'worry' that if there's more than one member of the same class in the party, there's going to be competition between them as to who's better built/getting into the spotlight more, or whether having the same job sours RP potential between them to an extent.

Paladins have none of that. I can very easily see an entire party of nothing but Paladins going swimmingly, something I can't really say for any other class, not even cleric or druid. If there's already two Paladins in the party and the new guy's like, "...is it OK if I play one, too?", you're not going to get eye-rolls, you're going to get 'hell yeah, you can play one!" There's just no such thing as too many Paladins, which TBH is kinda weird.

To be fair, the Paladin's signature ability does not stack with itself. Aura of Protection only applies the highest Cha modifier. So 2 Paladins with have 3 auras instead of 4 auras.