Paladin abilities overpowered? What do you think.

[jaappleton]

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).

Some solid rebuttals.

I still believe Paladins are OP, and borderline brutally so when compared to certain other classes such as the Ranger. The comp is natural because they're both half casters, and both the original half casters from the PHB (Artificer need not apply). Paladins can nova like nobodies business, while the Ranger really struggles to compete against it. Of course, its difficult to discuss how OP one is without acknowledging how UP another is. Ranger is UP for several reasons, and IMO this is partly due to an innate design philosophy the design team had which ended up pigeonholing (and also hamstringing) both of these classes:

Paladins are single target melee oriented.
Rangers are multi target, typically ranged oriented.

This is reflective especially in their class, subclass features and spell lists. Its obvious the design team has since tried to shore up the Ranger a bit especially in regards to its single target damage by baking it into subclass features, typically right out of the gate at 3rd level.

Primary problem is the Ranger spell list; Their exclusive spells are bad (Swift Quiver isn't worth so many levels of sucking to get) and their staple spells are underpowered. Lightning Arrow is not equivalent power for a third level spell. Where's the Ranger equivalent of Spirit Guardians, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Haste? Some subclasses get something like Haste but those subclasses were produced well after the PHB, bandaids on a broken bone.

The Ranger was supposed to be the Paladin, but for multi-target. However, its terrible at it.

Now I've gone on and on about the Ranger because, as stated earlier, its the other half caster from the PHB. The comp is natural. At first glance you'd expect them to be comparable in power. Unfortunately due to how they were pigeonholed in their design, when you try to stack them side by side (Single target VS Single target), Paladin is clearly on top. Stack them against eachother in multitarget combat... Yes, the Ranger is superior, but its also so bad that there's many better things to pick than Ranger.

Lets talk Fighter, then. Paladin VS Fighter, the other d10.

Indomitable at 9 or Aura at 6?
At most, 1/3rd casting restricted to only two spell schools or half casting with plenty of buffs?
Lay on Hands or Second Wind?
Smite or Action Surge?
Third attack or +1d8 Radiant on all attacks?

And that's just the base class. Now, don't get me wrong here... Action Surge is great, especially coming back on a short rest. But I do believe Lay on Hands is strictly superior to Second Wind, and I firmly believe +Cha Mod to all saves (also to nearby allies) >>> Indomitable every long rest.

A lv7 which is typically a ribbon (Though getting better with more recent subclasses), or another Aura like resistance to spell damage?

I fully acknowledge that at higher levels, typically T3 and T4, Fighter can pull ahead of the Paladin. Especially with so many ASIs essentially giving you customized little class features for things like Alert, Shield Master, etc.

However, unless I'm starting at T3 or T4, I have to acknowledge the entire journey of playing and getting high enough level to actually play in T3 and T4. I have to acknowledge going from 1st level, or 3rd, or 5th (typical starting points at the table) and getting to level 11+ and higher tier play.

During actual play, Paladin gets so many benefits especially during T1 and T2 that, from a power gaming perspective (Because when we're discussing how OP something is, that's the lens I have to look through) that its very difficult to pick one of the other d10 classes if you're going melee. And if you're even looking at Paladin, you're going melee.

If you're starting Level 11+? I can see the other classes stacking up and making the choice more difficult, at that point from an optimization standpoint I'll very much consider the other two d10 classes.

[stoutstien]

The only thing ranger really struggled with is on demand nova damage. They do solid damage otherwise and they do get spells like conjure animal that don't fix the general problem they have with casting but it is one of the most universal applicable spells

[jaappleton]

The only thing ranger really struggled with is on demand nova damage. They do solid damage otherwise and they do get spells like conjure animal that don't fix the general problem they have with casting but it is one of the most universal applicable spells

Conjure Animals is, indeed, quite solid.

Part of my Ranger criticism is their lack of good, truly exclusive spells. And while getting Conjure Animals is great, the spells at earlier levels is rather poor. Remember that Conjure Animals is third level, available to Rangers at 9th level, or just shy at the halway point of their adventuring career if your table is planning to go to 20th level. Just as the Paladin shares some solid spells with Cleric, Ranger and Druid are naturally intertwined as well. However, I contest that Paladin spells are fairly solid in starting at first level. Tons of smite spells, not to mention Bless, Shield of Faith, good spells to use in combat to help an ally or yourself.

Ranger doesn't even get access to Faerie Fire, which IMO is a damn shame, they should absolutely have that on their vanilla spell list.

[KorvinStarmast]

Part of my Ranger criticism is their lack of good, truly exclusive spells.

Yep. Beyond Hunters Mark, (Zephyr Strike isn't bad but it's a bit fiddly) the unique Ranger contribution to the spell list is kinda slim.
I still find that making a Ranger not a prepared caster is an egregious misfire; but I've ranted on that sufficiently before, and this thread is about paladins.

[stoutstien]

To be fair saying that paladin is better than the ranger in some was is hardly a solid case for saying paladin is OP.

[jaappleton]

To be fair saying that paladin is better than the ranger in some was is hardly a solid case for saying paladin is OP.

The basis for saying how powerful something is is strictly based on power level comparisons to its contemporaries, isn't it?

[Gtdead]

Some solid rebuttals.
Primary problem is the Ranger spell list; Their exclusive spells are bad (Swift Quiver isn't worth so many levels of sucking to get)

Just an observation, don't mind me:

Just wanted to say that Haste (Horizon Walker) is better than Quiver on so many levels and it's so funny that one is level 3 and the other is level 5. Basically this spell was made for Valor Bard, not for Ranger.

1) You get it at 9 which allows you to compete with fighter at 11.
2) When you get vanish at 14, hide + 3 SS attacks with advantage is better than 4 attacks without advantage against anything important.
3) You have more slots to use haste so you can have it available for the whole adventuring day at high levels.
4) Extra boni like AC and speed.
5) If you have got CE (which is better than Hunter's Mark), Haste effectively becomes SQ, both options offer 4 attacks. I guess you do 1 damage less per shot so that's that.

Now that I said that, please continue :p

[Pex]

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.

Yes!

Two best buds. One Devotion, the other Vengeance, bickering like an old married couple while smiting undead and fiends. Cue the Ancients Paladin eyerolling.

[stoutstien]

The basis for saying how powerful something is is strictly based on power level comparisons to its contemporaries, isn't it?

Sure but saying that one class is viewed as better than the one perceived as the weakest or at least most poorly executed class isn't much of a statement. Especially when there's only three classes total that have similar enough class layouts to use this as a point of comparison.

You excluded artificer which is the other class that follows a similar design principle which is a pretty solid comparison against paladins.

[KorvinStarmast]

Two best buds. One Devotion, the other Vengeance, bickering like an old married couple while smiting undead and fiends. Cue the Ancients Paladin eyerolling.

Thanks for a great visual. That got me grinning.

[jaappleton]

Sure but saying that one class is viewed as better than the one perceived as the weakest or at least most poorly executed class isn't much of a statement. Especially when there's only three classes total that have similar enough class layouts to use this as a point of comparison.

You excluded artificer which is the other class that follows a similar design principle which is a pretty solid comparison against paladins.

I excluded Artificer because as far as half casters go, its the odd man out for several reasons.

1. Unlike the other half casters, no fighting style. Instead it gets cantrips.
2. It was added much later into the life cycle of 5E, after the design team had much more experience and feedback under their belt for this edition. I felt it fair to compare the two half casters from the PHB.

[KorvinStarmast]

I excluded Artificer because as far as half casters go, its the odd man out for several reasons.

1. Unlike the other half casters, no fighting style. Instead it gets cantrips.
2. It was added much later into the life cycle of 5E, after the design team had much more experience and feedback under their belt for this edition. I felt it fair to compare the two half casters from the PHB.

The problem is, in re the misfire I mentioned above, that they are not both built on the same chassis. In the PHB, Paladin gets domain / oath spells, and is prepared. Ranger does not get archetype spells, and is 'spells known'. At least they remedied the 'domain spells' problem in xanathar's, but sadly they didn't back fir the PHB sub classes. (rant shall be excised)

With them both being martials+half casters, it was a bizarre choice to make since they are also both linked to divine casters. (Cleric and Druid respectively)

[MaxWilson]

Primary problem is the Ranger spell list; Their exclusive spells are bad (Swift Quiver isn't worth so many levels of sucking to get) and their staple spells are underpowered. Lightning Arrow is not equivalent power for a third level spell. Where's the Ranger equivalent of Spirit Guardians, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Haste?

Ranger's Fireball is 2nd level: Spike Growth. 8d4 (20) damage on centermost target, no save, difficult terrain. Fills the same role as Fireball in killing mobs of orcs/zombies/etc., with some extra juicy synergies with warlock/Battlemaster pushing attacks.

Ranger's Haste is Conjure Animals: 8 extra attacks for approximately 7 points of damage each, for the next hour. Unlike Haste, no risk of losing actions when the spell ends.

Ranger's other Haste is Pass Without Trace: not only do you get to choose when and how to engage the enemy, but there's a good chance everybody in the party gets a free extra turn to attack/cast spells/etc., with advantage on the first attack. (Yes, it works even if some Paladin is wearing heavy armor, as long as they're a Stealth-proficient Paladin.)

Ranger doesn't even get access to Faerie Fire, which IMO is a ---- shame, they should absolutely have that on their vanilla spell list.

Yeah, too bad. But they do get Ensnaring Strike, Hunter's Mark, Longstrider, Goodberry, Absorb Elements, Zephyr Strike. They already have more good spells to choose from than they can actually learn or concentrate on simultaneously.

About the worst thing you can say of the Ranger is that a Fighter 11/Druid 9 multiclass is competitive with Ranger 20, which maybe says more about how awesome Druids and Fighters are than about how bad a Ranger is.

Lets talk Fighter, then. Paladin VS Fighter, the other d10.

Indomitable at 9 or Aura at 6?
At most, 1/3rd casting restricted to only two spell schools or half casting with plenty of buffs?
Lay on Hands or Second Wind?
Smite or Action Surge?
Third attack or +1d8 Radiant on all attacks?

I'll take SADness and a third attack plus Archery style over +1d8 radiant damage per attack, thank you very much. The third attack scales better and synergizes with Action Surge and feats like Sharpshooter.

Aura's competition is an ASI, not Indomitable. Aura is clearly better defensively (though it increases your MADness) but the ASI contributes to Fighter's offensive potential. (It can be spent in other ways, like Healer feat or Linguist, so "potential" only.)

Second Wind is surprisingly close to Lay On Hands for a widely-ignored feature. 50 HP per long rest, as an action, or 46.5 HP as three bonus actions? Lay On Hands is clearly better at condition healing, but... it's not a huge gap.

Paladins are of course much better at healing via Aura of Vitality, and they can replicate an Eldritch Knight's durability via a level of Divine Soul for Absorb Elements and Shield, so defensively the Paladorc is clearly better, especially if the Fighter picked up Archery style and studded leather /Mage Armor (AC 18) instead of Defense and plate + shield (AC 21 + auras + healing). But offensively, the Fighter has more DPR and more ability to apply it to his target of choice, as opposed to just whatever target happens to be in melee with him at the time.

Paladins are not overpowered, they're just good at tanking, melee burst damage, and healing.

[jaappleton]

The problem is, in re the misfire I mentioned above, that they are not both built on the same chassis. In the PHB, Paladin gets domain / oath spells, and is prepared. Ranger does not get archetype spells, and is 'spells known'. At least they remedied the 'domain spells' problem in xanathar's, but sadly they didn't back fir the PHB sub classes. (rant shall be excised)

With them both being martials+half casters, it was a bizarre choice to make since they are also both linked to divine casters. (Cleric and Druid respectively)

I don't disagree whatsoever.

This is partly why I believe the Paladin is indeed OP; I compare it to its contemporaries, like the Ranger, and IMO there's a pretty clear cut winner there. Some of the more recent Ranger subclasses add a lot to try to bridge that gap, for sure, but overall that gap between them still exists. Its gotten smaller for sure, but there's a gap.

The idea of Paladins being quite strong and Rangers being lackluster are two separate issues, but they are tied together because they're both the PHB half casters.

I don't think Paladins should be nerfed.
I do think Rangers (and some Fighter subclasses) should be buffed. (My primary issue with Fighters is that too many lv7 subclass abilities don't give enough, but that's another topic).

[stoutstien]

I excluded Artificer because as far as half casters go, its the odd man out for several reasons.

1. Unlike the other half casters, no fighting style. Instead it gets cantrips.
2. It was added much later into the life cycle of 5E, after the design team had much more experience and feedback under their belt for this edition. I felt it fair to compare the two half casters from the PHB.

Artificer does get fighter styles of sort they are just folded into the infusions.

The issue is comparing the pally and the ranger only using the phb you are excluding opportunities and actions taken by the designers to address any issues. Sure that mean that some of the ranger subclasses that are following the player handbooks are questionably stronger but that is one strategy to address it without large overhauls In the game.

The new alternative class options coming out are a great opportunity I hope they jumped on.

[jaappleton]

Artificer does get fighter styles of sort they are just folded into the infusions.

The issue is comparing the pally and the ranger only using the phb you are excluding opportunities and actions taken by the designers to address any issues. Sure that mean that some of the ranger subclasses that are following the player handbooks are questionably stronger but that is one strategy to address it without large overhauls In the game.

The new alternative class options coming out are a great opportunity I hope they jumped on.

On Infusions being fighting style equivalents: I have to disagree here. Those infusions make an item magical, which is a wildly different ability than a style. I see what you're saying to get +1 Armor, and that being equivalent to Defense style. But a +1 weapon in my mind is quite different from, say, Duelist because now its a +1 damage difference (from Duelist) to now making all your damage magical AND giving you a +1 bonus to attack rolls. And its things like this which make it quite a difficult comp to Paladin and Ranger; its a whole different design approach.

On PHB Paladin VS PHB Ranger: Undoubtedly the newer Ranger subclasses are the design teams attempts to patch up holes in the base class design. I understand why they made those design choices, and I'm happy they're trying to do things to make picking Ranger a lot more appealing. However, it doesn't change the fact that the base vanilla Ranger is still a bit meh. Think of it like ice cream: If Paladin is a plain, base flavor thats delicious and Ranger needs a lot of toppings to taste good, then they both taste good. But underneath the toppings put on the Ranger, the base ice cream is... eh.

Like yourself, I really do hope the new alternative class features found their way into Tasha's things get a lot more exciting.

[OldTrees1]

Some solid rebuttals.

Thanks. Warning, some of these following comments were already addressed. I just post slower than the forum's norm.

I still believe Paladins are OP, and borderline brutally so when compared to certain other classes such as the Ranger.

I agree with that, but only because I find Ranger UP and Paladin UP in Tier 3-4. While class to class comparison between similar classes is useful, I also have to compare it to more general baselines like Monsters and what qualitative ceilings spells break through. For example Monsters and Spells unlock Aerial fights in mid T2. This other baseline helps me identify if the stronger class is OP vs if the weaker class is UP with regards to level appropriate features.

The comp is natural because they're both half casters, and both the original half casters from the PHB (Artificer need not apply). Paladins can nova like nobodies business, while the Ranger really struggles to compete against it. Of course, its difficult to discuss how OP one is without acknowledging how UP another is. Ranger is UP for several reasons, and IMO this is partly due to an innate design philosophy the design team had which ended up pigeonholing (and also hamstringing) both of these classes:

I do find Artificer to be another apt comparison. Both are half caster buffers that have a mixture of spell and non spell buffing features. They do differ a bit in their offensive style, but I have always found that to be secondary for a Paladin. However I know some Paladin fans focus more on the nova and less on the aura. In those cases the comparison to Ranger starts to shine. However we do need to remember Rangers start with +1 skill, so we need to factor that into the comparison.

I too find Ranger UP, you will dive into that in this next section.

Paladins are single target melee oriented.
Rangers are multi target, typically ranged oriented.

This is reflective especially in their class, subclass features and spell lists. Its obvious the design team has since tried to shore up the Ranger a bit especially in regards to its single target damage by baking it into subclass features, typically right out of the gate at 3rd level.

Primary problem is the Ranger spell list; Their exclusive spells are bad (Swift Quiver isn't worth so many levels of sucking to get) and their staple spells are underpowered. Lightning Arrow is not equivalent power for a third level spell. Where's the Ranger equivalent of Spirit Guardians, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Haste? Some subclasses get something like Haste but those subclasses were produced well after the PHB, bandaids on a broken bone.

The Ranger was supposed to be the Paladin, but for multi-target. However, its terrible at it.

Now I've gone on and on about the Ranger because, as stated earlier, its the other half caster from the PHB. The comp is natural. At first glance you'd expect them to be comparable in power. Unfortunately due to how they were pigeonholed in their design, when you try to stack them side by side (Single target VS Single target), Paladin is clearly on top. Stack them against eachother in multitarget combat... Yes, the Ranger is superior, but its also so bad that there's many better things to pick than Ranger.

RE Ranger spells:
For Paladin Spells I tended to ignore the Paladin exclusive spells unless they fed a hole that a missing Cleric spell would have filled. However the Cleric spells Paladins got were respectable (although they intentionally omit Healing Word and Greater Restoration for some reason). The signature 3rd level spell was often Aid / Revivify. Not much splash at 3rd level spells.

Ranger seems to be in a similar boat where its exclusive spells are not quite good enough. I think Lightning Arrow is an outlier but it sounds like a 2nd level spell. I can see Locate Object, Pass Without Trace, & Conjure Animals as decent imports from the Druid list. Does Ranger get a similar fraction of Druid utility as Paladin gets of Cleric restoration? Hard to tell since those utility spells are harder to use but have stronger ceilings.

You mention Rangers are meant to be multitarget. If so then I think they need much more support in that area. Rangers can focus fire and thus their math was restricted to those stats. When they choose to multitarget they are at a disadvantage since the binary nature of hp rewards focusing fire. So any kind of forced multitarget, even if at will, should have been balanced like an AoE. Which ties this back to their exclusive spells and Lightning Arrow vs Fireball (or even a 6d6 Fireball if we accept Fireball as intentionally above curve). If I am right we would see Ranger suffer when compared to Fighter (-1 skill) and Rogue (+1 skill).

All in all I would expect the combat ability of Ranger to be intentionally weaker than Paladin for 1 reason said 3 ways.
1) Rangers get +1 skill known. This pulls them towards out of combat competence.
2) Rangers are part nature utility caster while Paladins are half protector caster. This also would suggest Rangers would be weaker in combat and stronger out of combat.
3) Rangers get more out of combat utility features and Paladins get more defensive / protective buff features. Again this suggests an intentional design to have Rangers be a bit weaker in combat and better out of combat.

But at the end of the day I think they nerfed Ranger too much.

Lets talk Fighter, then. Paladin VS Fighter, the other d10.

Indomitable at 9 or Aura at 6?
At most, 1/3rd casting restricted to only two spell schools or half casting with plenty of buffs?
Lay on Hands or Second Wind?
Smite or Action Surge?
Third attack or +1d8 Radiant on all attacks?

And that's just the base class.

Now, don't get me wrong here... Action Surge is great, especially coming back on a short rest. But I do believe Lay on Hands is strictly superior to Second Wind, and I firmly believe +Cha Mod to all saves (also to nearby allies) >>> Indomitable every long rest.

A lv7 which is typically a ribbon (Though getting better with more recent subclasses), or another Aura like resistance to spell damage?

I fully acknowledge that at higher levels, typically T3 and T4, Fighter can pull ahead of the Paladin. Especially with so many ASIs essentially giving you customized little class features for things like Alert, Shield Master, etc.

However, unless I'm starting at T3 or T4, I have to acknowledge the entire journey of playing and getting high enough level to actually play in T3 and T4. I have to acknowledge going from 1st level, or 3rd, or 5th (typical starting points at the table) and getting to level 11+ and higher tier play.

During actual play, Paladin gets so many benefits especially during T1 and T2 that, from a power gaming perspective (Because when we're discussing how OP something is, that's the lens I have to look through) that its very difficult to pick one of the other d10 classes if you're going melee. And if you're even looking at Paladin, you're going melee.

If you're starting Level 11+? I can see the other classes stacking up and making the choice more difficult, at that point from an optimization standpoint I'll very much consider the other two d10 classes.

It is known that some classes get bigger subclasses and smaller classes than others. So I am not taking this comparison entirely at face value.

Bonus Feat at 6 and SAD or Aura at 6 and MAD(lower offensive stat as you focus on the prime Cha)? Most will pick Feat, I would pick Aura. If there was an aura like feat I would take it as a 3rd aura because I like auras. Actually I take Inspiring Leader so that kinda counts. However there are plenty of people that consider it equally obvious of a choice in the opposite direction.

3d10+3L vs 5L? Yeah I would take Lay on Hands.

Smite or Action Surge? Action Surge hands down.

Third attack or +1d8 on 2 attacks? A 3rd attack is better. Even if you are doing S&B, +1d8+6 and 3 chances to hit is better than +2d8 and 2 chances to hit. The damage is roughly the same (in Fighter favor) and Fighter has increased consistency.

No casting vs Half casting. 0 < 0.5

I count that as 1 win for Fighter, 1 slight win for Fighter, 2 slight wins for Paladin, and 1 strong win for Paladin.

Once I fold in Eldritch Knight vs Ancients Paladin the contest gets closer (and Fighter pulls ahead in offense), but I would agree that Fighter is weaker than Paladin.

Then again, I switched from Fighter to Paladin in 5E since I was disappointed that 5E Fighter did not feel level appropriate. However this is a close enough comparison that I expect it to fall within the variance people have for calculating an external baseline (see my comment about using Monsters and Spells as a baseline).

So I would conclude:
Ranger is meant to be weaker in combat because it, like Rogue & Druid, get out of combat features baked in to the class. However Ranger combat is even weaker than that. It is UP at a lower level than most martials become UP.
Fighter is weaker than the Paladin despite having a stronger offense. However the contest is close enough to my baseline that I will not claim whether it is because Fighter is UP or Paladin is OP.
I continue to claim that in T3/T4 martial classes become UP even if their offense remains level appropriate in quantity.

All in all a similar position.

[jaappleton]

@OldTrees1 Again, very nice points across the board!

If I may inquire, why do you put Action Surge above Smite? And in your workings, does one come out ahead of the other during specific tiers of play or is your opinion of one being superior pretty much across the board on the matter?

[KorvinStarmast]

This is partly why I believe the Paladin is indeed OP;

Ranger may be UP, but nothing in 5e is OP. I do not find that term/phrase to be well used in this edition. It needs to die a quick and messy death.

That's my two bits.

[MaxWilson]

Third attack or +1d8 on 2 attacks? A 3rd attack is better. Even if you are doing S&B, +1d8+6 and 3 chances to hit is better than +2d8 and 2 chances to hit. The damage is roughly the same (in Fighter favor) and Fighter has increased consistency.

You can also use that third attack for additional utility, e.g. DMG Disarm, or to Shove an enemy prone and/or grapple them. Shove + attack with advantage isn't really worth doing with two attacks, but it's pretty good with three attacks, and with three attacks plus a bonus action attack (CE or PAM from Fighter bonus feat) it can be better both offensively and defensively (kiting) than a straight-up attack would be, as long as the monster is worse than you at Athletics. Paladin doesn't have that extra versatility, just a flat +1d8 damage which has antisynergy with GWM.

A 12th level Fighter who kicks their enemy in the chest to knock them down and then Action Surges six GWM attacks at advantage for 100+ HP of damage is at least as impressive as a 12th level PAM paladin blowing three 3rd spell slots for 12d8 (54) smite damage, for about 75 damage total. My point is that he's getting a lot of mileage out of that third attack.

[jaappleton]

Ranger may be UP, but nothing in 5e is OP. I do not find that term/phrase to be well used in this edition. It needs to die a quick and messy death.

That's my two bits.

Hmm.... I think I see what you’re getting at here.

If I may be so bold as to ask you to elaborate on one thing, though: Do you believe that even with multiclassing?

I’d say straight Paladin is more in line with standard operations than how out of wack something like Sorcadin can be.

[KorvinStarmast]

I’d say straight Paladin is more in line with standard operations than how out of wack something like Sorcadin can be.

The issue with multiclassing (that mess called Hexblade excepted) is that you really need to have some systems mastery to get a good grip on when to put a level into what. Unlike 3.x, this edition wasn't designed with systems mastery as an assumed skill.

Sorcadin gets to be pretty interesting at higher levels, but how that split goes will have an impact on the party when the PC makes the choices to split. (I won't comment further on my disappointment in WoTC making Charisma a casting stat. *grrr* but that ain't gonna change).

Paladin, by itself, is not OP. Sorcadin is a pretty nice application of the MC optional rule.

[OldTrees1]

@OldTrees1 Again, very nice points across the board!

If I may inquire, why do you put Action Surge above Smite? And in your workings, does one come out ahead of the other during specific tiers of play or is your opinion of one being superior pretty much across the board on the matter?

It primarily comes down to Action Surge being better than mere damage. You can use Action Surge for another set of attacks, but you can also use it to do some other action. When that matters you basically have a 1 round Time Stop per short rest. I would have preferred White Raven Tactics, but Action Surge will do just fine.

This estimation does rest on the assumption that all martial classes deal a level appropriate quantity of offense already. From watching Fighters that conserved their Action Surge, I am confident Action Surge is not required for level appropriate quantity of offense.

On the other hand, a conservative use of Divine Smite seems to have been presumed as part of the Paladin default math. So the benefits of the feature above the default is when you are burning your buff/protection/restoration spells for extra damage mitigation (in the form of nova DPS). It does give some flexibility, but I find the comparison clear.

Domain: All tiers of play. Action Surge is just the stronger feature in the areas that count. Although it is not strictly stronger.

[Droppeddead]

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?

Monks are objectively one of the strongest classes in the game. You know that immunity to disease that Paladins get? Monks get that AND immunity against poison. That potential +5 to all saving throws? Monks can get +6 to all saving throws. Some Monks can also heal themselves other can give themselves advantage every turn (even Vengance Paladins look a bit jealous). Needing magic weapons or a limited number of smites to damage certain creatures? Nah, just punch them in the nuts from level 6. Four Elements monks still suck, though.

I'd say that Fighters, at least Champions and Arcane Archer are bottom tier together with Hunter Rangers and Beserker Barbarians. Everyone is better than Beastmaster Rangers though. ;)

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.

No, but other classes have other nova abilities. A levels 6 Kensei Monk/level 14 Rogue can magically sneak attack people usinga longbow for a stupid amount of damage without ever worrying about running out of spell slots, for example.

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.

You also have Artificers at level 20, but yeah. It's a good ability. Not an over powered one though. Standing that close together makes for perfect AoE targets.

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

Rangers don't get heavy armour, which makes sense. Rangers get other stuff though.

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

Again, Monks. They also get immunity to poison.

Lay on Hands. Free healing.

That's not 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.

So under specific circumstances and with the reliance on other characters, some of the Paladin's weaknesses can be mitigated? Sounds reasonable.

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

Powerful? Yes. OP? Nah. Also there are other classes that are more powerful (depending on how you define powerful, of course) than the Paladin.

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.

It is a nice class, I agree.

[MaxWilson]

Monks are objectively one of the strongest classes in the game. You know that immunity to disease that Paladins get? Monks get that AND immunity against poison. That potential +5 to all saving throws? Monks can get +6 to all saving throws. Some Monks can also heal themselves other can give themselves advantage every turn (even Vengance Paladins look a bit jealous). Needing magic weapons or a limited number of smites to damage certain creatures? Nah, just punch them in the nuts from level 6. Four Elements monks still suck, though.

It's interesting that despite having a lower opinion than you do of monks in general, I still apparently have a higher opinion of Elemental monks.

To me the combination of "strong against tough individual monsters AND strong against mobs" is pretty good, especially once Fireball-a-lot comes online at 11th level.

But, I still like Long Death (I'll never die) and Shadow Monk (ultimate scout) better in some ways.

Immunity to poison is indeed interesting, and enables some interesting combos with e.g. Cloudkill without risk of friendly fire damage.

[Droppeddead]

It's interesting that despite having a lower opinion than you do of monks in general, I still apparently have a higher opinion of Elemental monks.

To me the combination of "strong against tough individual monsters AND strong against mobs" is pretty good, especially once Fireball-a-lot comes online at 11th level.

But, I still like Long Death (I'll never die) and Shadow Monk (ultimate scout) better in some ways.

Immunity to poison is indeed interesting, and enables some interesting combos with e.g. Cloudkill without risk of friendly fire damage.

Well, Monks is one of the best base classes so not even a Four Elements Monk is goig to be bad, it's just that they overpay for their subclass abilities and all the other monks have better abilities.

And yeah, Shadow Monks make awesome explorers, especially when combined with three levels of Gloom Stalker and three levels of Rogue Scout...

[stoutstien]

Monks IMO aren't bad they just take a while to take off with having basically a single pool for everything. That just knocks them down a bit.
having multiple pools to draw from just makes it easier to spend those resources.

[jaappleton]

Monks are objectively one of the strongest classes in the game.

You’re right that Monks are great and often overlooked but in what you quoted (my first post in the topic), you compare high level features of Monk to low level features of Paladin.

As I went on to state later in this topic, I believe Paladin is massively frontloaded. It’s fairly inarguable, they really are. Tier 1 and 2, Paladins absolutely rock.

Monks get some nice stuff sprinkled in here and there (You forgot Evasion, though ), but most of what you argued is Monk 10-20 VS Paladin 1-10.

Admittedly, there’s something I was thinking at the time of my first post that was in my head, but didn’t actually write in the post:

Most tables stop between levels 10-14, that’s why most official modules also stop right around that range. My argument for Paladin abilities and their level of power is biased toward those levels of “actual play”, as it were.

I believe that’s been a source of discourse people have had with my post. Stacking the classes 1-20 side by side, they’re fairly even*. I especially like high level Monks as they’re one of the most self sufficient classes, and always with a trick up their sleeve.

I based my argument capping it at when most campaigns tend to wrap up (tier 2 or early to mid tier 3). That’s the problem.

*Still think Rangers need a bit of help.

[MaxWilson]

Well, Monks is one of the best base classes so not even a Four Elements Monk is goig to be bad, it's just that they overpay for their subclass abilities and all the other monks have better abilities.

And yeah, Shadow Monks make awesome explorers, especially when combined with three levels of Gloom Stalker and three levels of Rogue Scout...

I feel that Gloom Stalker becomes redundant later on when Shadow Monks gain actual, concentration-free Invisibility. Scout Rogue seems redundant too, although maybe in daylight it adds some value--but for me Shadow Monk is one of those classes that I am not tempted to multiclass.

[Droppeddead]

I feel that Gloom Stalker becomes redundant later on when Shadow Monks gain actual, concentration-free Invisibility. Scout Rogue seems redundant too, although maybe in daylight it adds some value--but for me Shadow Monk is one of those classes that I am not tempted to multiclass.

We're getting a bit off topic with our monk discussion so maybe we shouldn't spend too much time on it in this particular thread? That said, I just have to give you this.
Gloom Stalkers get concentration free invisibility against creatures with dark vision earlier, they get a wisdom bonus to initiative, super dark vision and extra speed and an extra attack on their first turn of combat. Scout makes sure that you will never be in close combat with more than a single opponent and gives you a nice damage boost through Sneak Attack. Expertise in Survivalism, nature (and two more skills) is really good for a scout role as well. All together an 11th level character with 5 levels of monk and 3 each of GS and Scout can do the following in their first turn:
Get at least +5 to initiative, move around 50 feet, make three normal attacks one of which can be a weapon attack that does 3D6 +1D8 +Dex damage, then you can either do two more attacks or using Cunning Action to back away 50 feet or spend a Ki point for two more attacks. If you managed to get Hunter's Mark on your foe you will add 1D6 to all your attacks.
Most enemies using melee weapons will then have to spend their movement and their action to catch up to you and even if they do you can still back of another 25 feet to make it harder for them to surround you. Not bad. B)

You’re right that Monks are great and often overlooked but in what you quoted (my first post in the topic), you compare high level features of Monk to low level features of Paladin.

No, I was comparing monk similar monk abilties to the paladin abilities you brought up.

As I went on to state later in this topic, I believe Paladin is massively frontloaded. It’s fairly inarguable, they really are. Tier 1 and 2, Paladins absolutely rock.

That still doesn't make them OP.

Monks get some nice stuff sprinkled in here and there (You forgot Evasion, though ), but most of what you argued is Monk 10-20 VS Paladin 1-10.

Again, I was replying to what you wrote. You are welcome to bring up higher level paladin abilities if you'd like. It still won't make paladin OP.

Admittedly, there’s something I was thinking at the time of my first post that was in my head, but didn’t actually write in the post:

Most tables stop between levels 10-14, that’s why most official modules also stop right around that range. My argument for Paladin abilities and their level of power is biased toward those levels of “actual play”, as it were.

I believe that’s been a source of discourse people have had with my post. Stacking the classes 1-20 side by side, they’re fairly even*. I especially like high level Monks as they’re one of the most self sufficient classes, and always with a trick up their sleeve.

I based my argument capping it at when most campaigns tend to wrap up (tier 2 or early to mid tier 3). That’s the problem.

Exactly. You can't just ignore half the Paladin's abilities because that conviently supports your narrative.

*Still think Rangers need a bit of help.

Meh. The subclasses in XGtE make up for the crappiness of the base class in the PHB. If you want to play a beastmaster just play a reflavoured Battle Smith Artificer. ;)