Why Don't more people play light armor/weapon paladin

[Telwar]

Why should they? For those who do hooray for them. For those who don't let them play.

TBH, I had heard of Dexadins, but never really thought of them until this thread.

Whether or not it's an optimal build is really beside the point, but it's certainly a valid build, likely because paladin is such a strong chassis and Dexterity has so much going for it over Strength, especially in 5e. I don't think thar Dexadins would have been a thing in previous editions; I know not in 4e, and almost certainly not in 1 or 2. Maybe 3/PF?

[Garimeth]

This doesn't come up in discussions very often, but with 5e's plain sight rules...
Peripheral vision > Being stealthy.

Everyone would need to be a wood elf, lightfoot halfling, or have the stalker feat, otherwise they are just going to see you coming anyway in most cases.

Eh, depends on the DM and terrain.

Forest, urban, or verticality maps there is always a place to hide. I run a desert/sailing/urban based campaign where walking around heavily armed and armored draws suspicion from the occupying empire trying to make the character's homeland their new vassal state, and they've been invited in by the kingdom's sultaness.

This leads to very much heavy armor makes you drown if you fall off a ship, it makes you overheat faster in the desert, it draws suspicion in the city, AND it spoils stealth.

The whole party is moderately stealth and mostly plain clothes. They use stealth and get surprise rounds ALL THE TIME, and I run pretty lethal encounters so they want them - and they work for them.

Stealth and high initiative is something that is INCREDIBLY valuable especially as any character like a paladin with Sentinel. Both of those things means the paladin can pick where to plant their flag - both for area denial, but also their aura. The dexadin I mentioned above is frequently one of the first characters in battle, and has sentinel. They open with a cast of faerie fire or bless, then get in position to harry the most enemies with OAs and sentinel. That surprise round cast of the buff makes it hardly cost them anything (free extra round) and they just gave their party a massive boost for the whole battle.

[Tanarii]

This doesn't come up in discussions very often, but with 5e's plain sight rules...
Peripheral vision > Being stealthy.

Everyone would need to be a wood elf, lightfoot halfling, or have the stalker feat, otherwise they are just going to see you coming anyway in most cases.

Stealth check to see if you achieved surprise not hiding. It just requires DM's judgment that you can attempt an ambush.

[Willie the Duck]

TBH, I had heard of Dexadins, but never really thought of them until this thread.

Whether or not it's an optimal build is really beside the point, but it's certainly a valid build, likely because paladin is such a strong chassis and Dexterity has so much going for it over Strength, especially in 5e. I don't think thar Dexadins would have been a thing in previous editions; I know not in 4e, and almost certainly not in 1 or 2. Maybe 3/PF?

In both AD&D's all fighter-types wanted to have as high a strength and as high a Dexterity as they could, wear as heavy an armor as they could (and would get any AC bonus from Dex in any armor), and all of them would want to be good with sword, lance, and bow (and other weapons in theory, but both the weapon stat charts and magic item distribution leaned heavily in this direction). The primary reason, I think, that there weren't many Dex>Str paladins was that the prereqs were Str12, Con9, Wis13, and Cha17, leaving little room for an impressive Dex. In 3e, Paladins did not have so many prereqs, and now were roughly in the same boat as fighters -- if you wanted to go mostly Dex, you could. If you didn't, you probably still didn't dump Dex, since you probably eventually would get at least Mithril Plate mail, which would grant AC bonuses for Dex up to 16. There mostly the issue would be that you had lots of existing uses for feats, and as such couldn't afford the feats required to keep a Dex build going (in 3e Dexterity builds usually being either archery builds or some kind of two-weapon fighting, each of which took something like 6 to infinity feats to keep competitive as you rose in level).

[Pex]

TBH, I had heard of Dexadins, but never really thought of them until this thread.

Whether or not it's an optimal build is really beside the point, but it's certainly a valid build, likely because paladin is such a strong chassis and Dexterity has so much going for it over Strength, especially in 5e. I don't think thar Dexadins would have been a thing in previous editions; I know not in 4e, and almost certainly not in 1 or 2. Maybe 3/PF?

I don't mind if a player wants to play a DX based paladin, accepting he knows he needs to be in melee and smite while being decent with a bow for when he can't be in melee. I just don't see it as a problem if given most paladins are ST based. I question the thread question. No problem if the thread was asking how to make an effective DX paladin, but the thread question as is implies a wrongness in paladins using ST with which I disagree.

[Snails]

I don't think thar Dexadins would have been a thing in previous editions; I know not in 4e, and almost certainly not in 1 or 2. Maybe 3/PF?

In 1e/2e, having a high Dex was very nice, but you really needed a high Str to be a meleeist (assuming you were not swimming in just the right magic items from lowish levels).

In 3e, the Paladin class was painfully MAD. Plus Finesse to use Dex for attack bonus cost a Feat. Thus the Dex build could never be a standard Paladin build. It was not impossible, but a "once in a blue moon" event when multiple high stats were rolled. (The interesting thing about 3e MAD classes like the Paladin and Monk is they outright suck with standard array or similar stats, but are quite powerful with multiple very high stats.)

In 5e, the Dex Paladin works just fine, without any special or clever planning required. It is not fundamentally different from any other character who is not a primary spellcaster and chooses Dex (i.e. like Rogue or Ranger Dex builds). The downside, as noted upthread, is that you are barred from multiclassing unless you have a Str 13. The Paladin class now seems to get a reasonable amount of love from minmaxers, because they blend so well with the SAD Cha classes; the Str Paladin is the standard chassis for that, because it had to be.

[sophontteks]

Stealth check to see if you achieved surprise not hiding. It just requires DM's judgment that you can attempt an ambush.

Ambush is attacking from hiding. Typically the ambushers are attacking a moving group from a hidden stationary position.

Eh, depends on the DM and terrain.

Forest, urban, or verticality maps there is always a place to hide. I run a desert/sailing/urban based campaign where walking around heavily armed and armored draws suspicion from the occupying empire trying to make the character's homeland their new vassal state, and they've been invited in by the kingdom's sultaness.

There is a place to hide, but those hiding places are stationary. You are automatically revealed when you step between them, as you are in plain sight. "You can't hide from a creature that can see you."

Hiding while moving in forests is a racial trait of the wood elves. Halflings cover urban with hiding behind people (crowds). You may be inadvertantly giving those racial feats to everyone.


The cases where you can sneak and surprise is where they can't see you and aren't prepared for a fight. Like walking up to a door without making a sound while those on the other side are gambling.

[Garimeth]

Ambush is attacking from hiding. Typically the ambushers are attacking a moving group from a hidden stationary position.


There is a place to hide, but those hiding places are stationary. You are automatically revealed when you step between them, as you are in plain sight. "You can't hide from a creature that can see you."

Hiding while moving in forests is a racial trait of the wood elves. Halflings cover urban with hiding behind people (crowds). You may be inadvertantly giving those racial feats to everyone.


The cases where you can sneak and surprise is where they can't see you and aren't prepared for a fight. Like walking up to a door without making a sound while those on the other side are gambling.

I again say its DM dependent.

If the forest is dense, it is reasonable to assume that they have capabilities to move quickly and quietly between cover out to a certain distance, and then even within the distance by timing their moves to when people look away, etc. All of these are represented by the stealth check.

Additionally if there is verticality then you can add rooftops, balconies, hills of varying heights, tower walls, etc.

You are correct that you can't hide from someone who can see you, but ABILITY to see =/= actually DOES see. To trigger the rule the following must be met:

1. The character ALREADY sees them in plain sight in front of them.

OR both of the following

2. The character is not obscured somehow either through partial cover/concealment or lighting.

3. The detecting character's Perception is higher than the stealth check.


Mask of the Wild only applies to "lightly obscured" levels of foliage, per RAW dense foliage counts as heavy obscurement, and renders the person essentially blind! You can certainly hide from them.

This is why I say its DM dependent. What level of foliage is enough to render someone basically blind? There is certainly something in between "impossible to hide" and "makes you blind". If the DM runs stealth in a way that makes it never work - then yeah PCs are not going to build for it, just like not building faces if they don't work for the campgin/DM or not selecting charm and suggestion spells, or not taking familiars if the DM nerfs them etc.

Stealth is something that is very table specific I have found. In my groups case, we are all outdoors people and prior current military, so some of the basic adventuring stuff we have done IRL, and we're just not going to rule that our adventurers are less capable than us irl - cause I'm def not some Navy SEAL or anything.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm not trying to debate how stealth works, I'm just pointing out that its table dependent and that stealth, AND initiative, are very valuable for anyone in the Tank or Controller position, because ideally you need to move before the enemy to do your job well.

[sophontteks]

Just don't forget that if the foliage is rendering you blind, it's almost certainly going to be difficult terrain. I don't want to see you're party trying to run through them and get caught in pricker bushes or something. ;)

But yes to many specific situations. I like the verticality espesially. Any case where they can't see you it works. Just no to generally being able to just roll stealth as a party and be invisible. There are feats and features for that.

For sight in 5e it's basically a 360 degree area around them 5e doesn't even consider facing. We're talking about a rulset where enemies know your position when your invisible unless you roll stealth. It's espesially unforgiving when you aren't invisible.

And yes, many parties are very lax with stealth. Probably a roll over from previous editions. It does make dex builds much stronger.

[Bloodcloud]

There are certainly a few great Dexadin builds, especially with Tasha.

Mark of shadow elf, elven accuracy, revenant blade. Absolute combo made in heaven for a stealthier paladin. Kobold paladin. Goblin paladin.

[Tanarii]

Ambush is attacking from hiding. Typically the ambushers are attacking a moving group from a hidden stationary position.

There is no requirement to be hiding prior to attempting an ambush to achieve surprise. Nor is there a requirement that you meet the same requirements that hiding has to make the check to achieve surprise.

Edit: Since I was making categorical statements, I went and checked. The requirement is "one side is trying to be stealthy". Nothing about hiding. But note that attempting to be stealthy does have movement speed implications.

[sophontteks]

There is no requirement to be hiding prior to attempting an ambush to achieve surprise. Nor is there a requirement that you meet the same requirements that hiding has to make the check to achieve surprise.

Edit: Since I was making categorical statements, I went and checked. The requirement is "one side is trying to be stealthy". Nothing about hiding. But note that attempting to be stealthy does have movement speed implications.

I'm referring to the definition of an ambush.

I think some of the things you may have meant were mentioned, such as standing by a door, or dropping on people from a rooftop.

[Sorinth]

There is no requirement to be hiding prior to attempting an ambush to achieve surprise. Nor is there a requirement that you meet the same requirements that hiding has to make the check to achieve surprise.

Edit: Since I was making categorical statements, I went and checked. The requirement is "one side is trying to be stealthy". Nothing about hiding. But note that attempting to be stealthy does have movement speed implications.

I find in cases where you are visible but trying to be non-threatening in order to surprise someone it's good to make Deception vs Insight checks.

[Keltest]

I find in cases where you are visible but trying to be non-threatening in order to surprise someone it's good to make Deception vs Insight checks.

My general rule of thumb as a DM is that if you are visible and visibly armed, you cant surprise people who see you just by attacking them. You need SOMETHING in the equation that theyre unaware of otherwise youre just attacking them straight up.

[Garimeth]

My general rule of thumb as a DM is that if you are visible and visibly armed, you cant surprise people who see you just by attacking them. You need SOMETHING in the equation that theyre unaware of otherwise youre just attacking them straight up.

That makes sense in some contexts, but not others. In particular when everyone has weapons.

In Afghanistan, we all had weapons, right there, openly carried and loaded. So did our our local allies. Some of those allies were not allies, and they could and did get what would easily be the mechanical equivalent of a surprise round. In those cases something like insight would be more than appropriate.

I would extend it even to concealed weapons or magic threats:
Perception lets you notice the weapon, or spell bag, or focus.

Insight lets you see the tenseness, or nervousness, or shifty eyes that show something's up.

One is environmental and one is social, both will alert you if you notice them.

[Nagog]

To make a long story short: Dex weapons don't deal as much damage. Without the d10 weapons, you have to rely more on Smites for damage, which means less spellcasting. Beyond that, they don't have the baked-in mobility to survive having lower AC, particularly with the value of AC points being exponential (they're far more valuable from 16-25 than they are 10-16). So with lower AC, lower damage/higher resource cost for combat, etc., you're much better off playing a Rogue. Tbh I'd love a Paladin-esque Rogue subclass, giving them some healing, a few buff/support abilities, stuff like that. I'd be a blast.

[Keltest]

That makes sense in some contexts, but not others. In particular when everyone has weapons.

In Afghanistan, we all had weapons, right there, openly carried and loaded. So did our our local allies. Some of those allies were not allies, and they could and did get what would easily be the mechanical equivalent of a surprise round. In those cases something like insight would be more than appropriate.

I would extend it even to concealed weapons or magic threats:
Perception lets you notice the weapon, or spell bag, or focus.

Insight lets you see the tenseness, or nervousness, or shifty eyes that show something's up.

One is environmental and one is social, both will alert you if you notice them.

In that sort of circumstance, i might respond by giving the would-be surprising party advantage on their initiative rolls. I feel the surprised condition really only applies when there would be something that would actively be preventing you from being combat-ready for some reason, either because you dont have your equipment directly in your hands or available, or because youre trying to figure out where people are attacking from at all (say, wood elves attacking you in a forest) or some other circumstance where action is literally impossible.

[stoutstien]

To make a long story short: Dex weapons don't deal as much damage. Without the d10 weapons, you have to rely more on Smites for damage, which means less spellcasting. Beyond that, they don't have the baked-in mobility to survive having lower AC, particularly with the value of AC points being exponential (they're far more valuable from 16-25 than they are 10-16). So with lower AC, lower damage/higher resource cost for combat, etc., you're much better off playing a Rogue. Tbh I'd love a Paladin-esque Rogue subclass, giving them some healing, a few buff/support abilities, stuff like that. I'd be a blast.

The differences you are talking about are ~1 damage with a suboptimal weapon picl per attack unless we factor duelist. for AC it's dependent on tier and gear load out but the AC gap is at most 1 with both values falling on the upper end of the scale of +17 AC.

All paladins rely on balancing the use of spell slots for smites to feel like are being the most effective and as you level your weapon damage becomes less important as you gain more and higher spell slots. The reason pally/ caster multiclasses are so popular is gaining those slots faster to alleviate some of the opportunity costs but that comes with its own list of pros and cons.

in the end the difference isn't that pronounced. It's basically comparing the utility and flexibility of grapple shoving versus the power of having better saves and better initiative. Though I could see a few ways of having your cake and eating it too.

All in all the fact of the majority of paladins are strength in certain player cultures is a localized phenomenon that isn't necessarily mechanically driven.

[diplomancer]

To make a long story short: Dex weapons don't deal as much damage. Without the d10 weapons, you have to rely more on Smites for damage, which means less spellcasting. Beyond that, they don't have the baked-in mobility to survive having lower AC, particularly with the value of AC points being exponential (they're far more valuable from 16-25 than they are 10-16). So with lower AC, lower damage/higher resource cost for combat, etc., you're much better off playing a Rogue. Tbh I'd love a Paladin-esque Rogue subclass, giving them some healing, a few buff/support abilities, stuff like that. I'd be a blast.

It's lower AC only if the Str Pal is also using a d8 for damage, otherwise, even with worse armor, you're still ahead if wearing a shield.

Except for the PAM spear/staff+shield, of course. In that case, yes, lower AC.

[Dork_Forge]

To make a long story short: Dex weapons don't deal as much damage. Without the d10 weapons, you have to rely more on Smites for damage, which means less spellcasting. Beyond that, they don't have the baked-in mobility to survive having lower AC, particularly with the value of AC points being exponential (they're far more valuable from 16-25 than they are 10-16). So with lower AC, lower damage/higher resource cost for combat, etc., you're much better off playing a Rogue. Tbh I'd love a Paladin-esque Rogue subclass, giving them some healing, a few buff/support abilities, stuff like that. I'd be a blast.

This is overblown imo, the lower die of the weapon is neglible, you certainly don't need to blow smites to cover it. If you take a rapier then Dueling is an option and better damage (more reliable) than a d10 weapon. Or you can go TWF (take the feat for the style if you want) and get more chances to Smite and Improved Smite.

The benefits of higher initiative, saves and skills is arguably at least equal to if not greater than losing a single point of AC (potentially at some levels) and an average of 1 or 2 damage on the die. It only really falls down in multiclassing but even then it's just another hurdle not a wall.

[Sorinth]

My general rule of thumb as a DM is that if you are visible and visibly armed, you cant surprise people who see you just by attacking them. You need SOMETHING in the equation that theyre unaware of otherwise youre just attacking them straight up.

That's the whole trying to be non-threatening part. You have to be doing something to try to get them to relax (Usually talking). And that's where the deception vs insight comes in, are you able to get them to relax. And in some cases it would be impossible, some cases maybe it's at disadvantage/advantage depending on circumstances.

[Garimeth]

In that sort of circumstance, i might respond by giving the would-be surprising party advantage on their initiative rolls. I feel the surprised condition really only applies when there would be something that would actively be preventing you from being combat-ready for some reason, either because you dont have your equipment directly in your hands or available, or because youre trying to figure out where people are attacking from at all (say, wood elves attacking you in a forest) or some other circumstance where action is literally impossible.

If I were a PC and this is how my DM ruled I would have absolutely no problem with that.

To make a long story short: Dex weapons don't deal as much damage. Without the d10 weapons, you have to rely more on Smites for damage, which means less spellcasting. Beyond that, they don't have the baked-in mobility to survive having lower AC, particularly with the value of AC points being exponential (they're far more valuable from 16-25 than they are 10-16). So with lower AC, lower damage/higher resource cost for combat, etc., you're much better off playing a Rogue. Tbh I'd love a Paladin-esque Rogue subclass, giving them some healing, a few buff/support abilities, stuff like that. I'd be a blast.

I'm totally with Dork_Forge on this one, those differences are minimal. Feat support and multi-classing are the only good arguments I have seen for STR over DEX.

Which, for the record, I think are strong arguments.

The comparison to Rogue though is confusing.

Paladins get spells (Find Steed is practically a class feature in the right game)
Paladins get LOH
Paladins get Smites (which let them nova more than Rogues when something REALLY needs to die)
Paladins get Auras
Paladins get Channel Divinity

Even if you go Dexadin with a roguish feel to it (the Dexadin in my campaign has the urchin background) its just a completely different playstyle and character.

IRT STR vs. Dex you trade a marginal mathematical benefit in terms of DPR and AC for greatly increased VERSATILITY.

-Stealth (potentially very good)
-Long ranged attacks (yeah you aren't setting DPR records, but being able to longbow when you'd otherwise twiddle your thumbs is pretty dang nice.)
- Don't have to spend an ASI on GWM or PAM.
- Better Initiative
- Better DEX saves, which is AC against powerful magic and effects. (High DEX plus aura is potent, my Campaign's dexadin is also Ancients...)
- You + gear weigh less, which can end up saving your character in a variety of exploration situations (traps, rickety bridges, climbing, falling in deep water) or if the party has to drag your unconscious body out of somewhere. (I've definitely seen plenty of times where the KO'ed heavy armor PC was too heavy for others to egress with and it put the party in danger to have to stay or abandon them.)

The value of some of these (stealth, the longbow, the weight) is going to be DM and campaign dependent and in some games will be extremely valuable, and in others not so much. In my games I run, they are valuable.

The other aspects are valuable in ALL games.

[Garimeth]

If I were a PC and this is how my DM ruled I would have absolutely no problem with that.



I'm totally with Dork_Forge on this one, those differences are minimal. Feat support and multi-classing are the only good arguments I have seen for STR over DEX.

Which, for the record, I think are strong arguments.

The comparison to Rogue though is confusing.

Paladins get spells (Find Steed is practically a class feature in the right game)
Paladins get LOH
Paladins get Smites (which let them nova more than Rogues when something REALLY needs to die)
Paladins get Auras
Paladins get Channel Divinity

Even if you go Dexadin with a roguish feel to it (the Dexadin in my campaign has the urchin background) its just a completely different playstyle and character.

IRT STR vs. Dex you trade a marginal mathematical benefit in terms of DPR and AC for greatly increased VERSATILITY.

-Stealth (potentially very good)
-Long ranged attacks (yeah you aren't setting DPR records, but being able to longbow when you'd otherwise twiddle your thumbs is pretty dang nice.)
- Don't have to spend an ASI on GWM or PAM.
- Better Initiative
- Better DEX saves, which is AC against powerful magic and effects. (High DEX plus aura is potent, my Campaign's dexadin is also Ancients...)
- You + gear weigh less, which can end up saving your character in a variety of exploration situations (traps, rickety bridges, climbing, falling in deep water) or if the party has to drag your unconscious body out of somewhere. (I've definitely seen plenty of times where the KO'ed heavy armor PC was too heavy for others to egress with and it put the party in danger to have to stay or abandon them.)

The value of some of these (stealth, the longbow, the weight) is going to be DM and campaign dependent and in some games will be extremely valuable, and in others not so much. In my games I run, they are valuable.

The other aspects are valuable in ALL games.

EDIT: Also people have talked about using a feat on TWF, but imo for a human dexadin Resiliency: DEX is much more appealing. Its a half feat, and having a CHA+DEX+Prof Bonus dex save is insane.

[N7Paladin]

Putting in my two cents:

Instead of saying Dexadin shunners are all wrong and need to play better, I will share my personal experience.

I play a lot of paladins. A LOT. And even when my characters don't start as paladins, they often end up taking an oath anyway. Almost every single one of my paladins has been dex-based not str. I have never, ever, felt lagging behind in AC, nor lacking. Even with taking breast plate instead of half plate (bc I like stealth), I've never felt lacking. In fact, I don't even use a shield to bump my AC, because I prefer two-weapon fighting. My paladins are often the hardiest (or at least, one of the hardiest) PC in the group, in groups of good, technically-minded players.

I would suggest instead of basing the judgement against dex paladins based on theoretical gameplay, take a chance. Play one.

[Tanarii]

I would suggest instead of basing the judgement against dex paladins based on theoretical gameplay, take a chance. Play one.

AC 16 vs AC 18 base AC being an issue isn't theoretical in any way.

[diplomancer]

AC 16 vs AC 18 base AC being an issue isn't theoretical in any way.

At what level does that AC difference happen? Because I can only see it happening at level 1, when the Dexadin is with Scale Mail, Rapier, and Shield, while the Strengthadin is with Chain and Greatsword, but I believe, from the context, that's not what you mean

[Garimeth]

At what level does that AC difference happen? Because I can only see it happening at level 1, when the Dexadin is with Scale Mail, Rapier, and Shield, while the Strengthadin is with Chain and Greatsword, but I believe, from the context, that's not what you mean

Even then that wouldn't be the case

Studded Leather 12 + Dex 3 + Shield 2 = 17
Scale mail/breastplate 14 + Dex 2 + Shield 2 = 18

Chainmail 16 + GS 0 = 16.

Platemail 18 + GS/Glaive 0 = 18.

So, actually, unless the paladin is TWF, if they went with dueling instead for example, they have BETTER AC early game, and equal AC later game.

EDIT: In theory the STR build can also equip a shield and then would have 1 AC greater than the dex build at the start of game, but if they took a feat that supports their STR combat style they are unlikely to do this. Further, they are also less likely to take the defense FS over GWF, but I did not factor that into the AC calcs.

[1Pirate]

I think the misconception that Dexadin’s aren’t played as much is because a lot of the Paladin optimization guides either don’t mention them or only mention them in passing. As seen from a number of responses in this thread, they’re played a lot(so clearly this thread will be resolved by adding my own experiences to the mix.)

Opening up Elven Accuracy does a lot for paladins since crits are so good with smites. Initiative bonuses are also really great for getting those buffs up early(although I actually didn’t notice this as much due to someone with Gloomstalker levels and a Rogue with Alert). Also don’t discount having good Dex saves. A common tactic for wearing down martials is Save-for-Half effects and being able to pass them can keep you up for an extra round(in Tier 3 play, the evasion part of Shield Master alone has been worth the feat for the Fighter/Ranger)

A few downsides I’ve noticed since moving into Tier 3 play: AC value drops off a lot in higher level play. AC 20 is pretty good Tier 1-2, but when monsters start having +11 to hit with 3 attacks per turn, you can expect to get smacked around a lot(Defense style plus Shield of Faith or Haste can put me to 22, but with the damage rolls going up, concentration is getting harder to maintain).

Bonus actions are also a little harder to come by(though less so for me now due to a home brew Magic item I received). Some have cited the smite spells, but with the number of creatures that have magic resistance or flat immunity to the riders, I got more bang for my buck using concentration for other spells.

Resistance to nonmagical attacks also makes that Long Bow look less appetizing when I can’t(or don’t want) to get in melee or so I tend to go into support mode like a Str Paladin would. To be fair, in a different campaign getting a magic bow might not be as big a deal but my DM’s from the “Quality Not Quantity” school of magic item distribution(considering the aforementioned home brew item, they’d rightfully slap me for complaining about not having a magic bow).

One issue on the whole is my damage is very reliant on long rest resources that have to be managed much more carefully. I got reckless once, and when the BBEG (un)expectedly showed up...well the party would have been better off having a Hero’s Feast than bringing me along. That being said, this is more a weakness of sword & board then Dex, but Dex will have(generally) one less AC than a Str build.

[Tanarii]

At what level does that AC difference happen? Because I can only see it happening at level 1, when the Dexadin is with Scale Mail, Rapier, and Shield, while the Strengthadin is with Chain and Greatsword, but I believe, from the context, that's not what you mean

Good question, because it's around level 7. If play goes to 11th, that's something like the 2nd half of your career.

Before that you're at 12-13 vs 16 (chain) at level 1 (Paladins only get a Chain option)
And AC 15 (Chain shirt) vs 16 probably by mid 2nd
15 vs 17 (Splint) around mid 3rd
16 (breastplate) vs 17 late 4th
16 vs 18 (plate) around late 6th or early 7th.

Note we're talking about stealth medium armors in this sub thread so Scale isn't in the mix unless you're going with MAM.

So, actually, unless the paladin is TWF,

They are.


Edit: I probably should have been clearer in my original comment, what's not theoretical to me is having seen the difference between front line AC 16 breastplate wearers and AC 18 plate wearers in mid Tier 2. Lots and lots of them. Those 2 points of AC make a huge difference. Just as shield does, but the trade off there is defense vs offense, not stealth + acrobatics vs grabbing + jumping + AC.

[Alcore]

Obviously it's the classic build, and you generally want your explosive nova fighter to have a big weapon and tanky armor, but a different approach to paladin would be very doable and I'm disappointed that we don't do see it more often.

You say exactly why; it is classic. It is the archtype. What do you see when you hear paladin? Twenty years ago it was a knight templar in heavy armor and shield who walked the world to shove a peice of metal into the Lord of Terror. These days i tend to see a knight templar with big armor, bigger weapons striding through hellfire to reach the enemies of man and purge xeno filth for the Emperor. Honestly; not much has changed at all...

What do you see when you hear fighter? Probably as many answers as people. I see kung fu personally. The archtype that fighter follows would be better described as warrior or soldier. Even knight.



You answer your own question. If you feel so strongly do something different. I would no longer call that paladin a paladin even though he has the correct features; he is simply no longer the archtype.

Same thing with trolls. Being brought up on classic and WoW sources they tend to be far leaner, beautiful and civilized fay than what the masses believe. They draw from Tolkien or sources that draw from that. It is always a moment of dissonance when i see D&D troll art; they are not trolls.