Prove it. We have blog posts on this very site about Ranger feedback - most notably from the infamous James and that Beastmaster post. I don't care for the man nor his style of talking nor gaming methods, but he is part of the D&D team, so he counts as an official source. Now, you give an official source, post-James post, that changes that official stance.
There is no survey that says that Ranger is the least played class. As far as I'm aware, the only data showing classes played comes from classes in the character builder from this site (data found here), and it shows that Ranger is the 6th most popular class, trailing closely behind Cleric and Barbarian.
You are twisting words, DnDPaladin. Full stop. You claimed the Ranger gets the least amount of FS choices of any class, which is provably false - only three classes and one subclass get FS choices, one of which has less than the Ranger, one of which is equal, and only the Fighter class has more. That's average. You are wrong here. No matter how you spin things, one thing remains. You. Are. Wrong. And anyone that takes a look at the Class, provided here, can easily see it. That's not an opinion, that's objective fact.
Not as onjective as you think... Considering numbers can also shows the earth is flat while we both know thats false... But hey oh well..
You can ignore the whole class survey done by official WotC and the unearthed arcana... By the way... Curse gaming is not wotc... Thus beyond is not wotc. Your source is only official to curse gaming... Not wotc... Now mike mearls and jeremy crawford both made such a surbey back in 2016. They asked exactly this question. The answer they got from thousands of people... Ranger is the worse class though it has its goods.
Why do you think we got the revised ranger ?
But hey... Agree to disagree... Im done trying to explain official wotc stuff while you keep using non-official sources...
In any cases... Glad to have had that discution... It was fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Not siding with anyone here on this heated discussion but in Unearthed Arcana Revised Ranger it states:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin."
I normally abhor multiclassing. It delays or outright forgoes access to high level class features and capstones (to clarify I play AL and private campaigns that all go to lvl 20). That said, however, I could not find a reason to stay with ranger over level 5 (for Extra Attack feature and 2nd lvl spell slots). I was tempted to stay to lvl 7, but decided it was not worth it. I multiclassed into Rogue-Scout for even more ranger feel and I get all the features that you get from ranger in the 15 additional lvls of rogue and some are actually sooner then ranger would get them. Considering a bonus ASI rogues get at 10th lvl, I don't even miss out on one of those and I actually get them sooner then a single class ranger would get.
The first character I ever made was a pally. As a young boy, he got shipwrecked on an island and was raised by Orcs when he showed his strength when fighting to survive. Took up an Orc God, and went around smashing stuff. Was low key crazy but a ton of fun.
I feel that Paladins are too restrictive. You can be much more versatile now as a Cleric and although you won't have the burst damage capability, you can out damage one a Paladin over time and have access to a lot more spells. A Paladin is the Warlock of melee, you just do one thing. Locks EB, Paladins Smite, but at least a Lock can get to a 9th level spell.
You can be much more versatile now as a Cleric and although you won't have the burst damage capability, you can out damage one a Paladin over time and have access to a lot more spells.
Clerics can only outdamage paladins by using more spell slots than them. They don't get a Fighting Style or Extra Attack, and the Cleric's Divine Strike only works once per turn while a Paladin's Improved Divine Smite works on every attack. Paladins also get Divine Favor, which Clerics don't get unless they chose War Domain; it's cheaper to use than Spiritual Weapon and more useful against monsters like vampires or zombies.
That's setting aside the ever-present benefits of a Paladins's Aura of Protection and the fact that Paladins get a decent amount of healing power without dipping into their spell slots.
Smites are spell slots too and that is the bread and butter of being a Paladin, which I'm not saying is a bad thing. Just like EB is the bread and butter of a Warlock, you'll be doing that one thing throughout your time playing the class and not much else. That's why I don't play one, and why I think others don't either. It's hard to pick that in between class that can cast but doesn't get the higher level spells. Fighters will out damage a Paladin over time as they have so many more attacks while Barbarians will outlast everything. The Paladin just seems in that middle ground where it does great at it's burst damage, but is too reliant on limited spell economy to do damage which leaves little left to cast spells for versatility and even then they are limited to level 5 even at 20.
Sorcadin is a very powerful build for sure, but less powerful the deeper you go into Paladin. It addresses the issue of getting more spell slots as well as being able to cast higher level spells that the Paladin lacks. That points back to my answer for the OP of why it seems people don't play Paladin as a class as much as other classes.
D&D is a Sword and Sorcery game. Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue and Paladin are the "Sword" part of that, and Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer and Warlock are the "Sorcery" part. Six warrior classes, six caster classes.
Clerics are primarily spellcasters. Even those who smack things occasionally, even the War Cleric, are still primarily magic users. Paladins are primarily warriors who spend most of their time smacking things with just a bit of spell support. Trying to compare the two is like trying to compare the barbarian to the sorcerer. Sure, they both like exploding things, but they do it in vastly different ways - one with a giant axe, one with an empowered fireball spell. Fundamentally, you will be attacking with the paladin's sword (/shield/polarm/etc) more than anything else. That's the point of the "Sword" classes. The same is also true of Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, etc.
Smites are the bread and butter of paladin attacks (also, Bless is quite popular I find), but that's like saying that Rages are the bread and butter of Barbarians. Definitely true, and also part of the appeal of the class.
Smites are the bread and butter of paladin attacks (also, Bless is quite popular I find), but that's like saying that Rages are the bread and butter of Barbarians. Definitely true, and also part of the appeal of the class.
Exactly right! I think we are just trying to see why that bread and butter is less appealing that others. Why do you think a Paladin is less popular?
Smites are the bread and butter of paladin attacks (also, Bless is quite popular I find), but that's like saying that Rages are the bread and butter of Barbarians. Definitely true, and also part of the appeal of the class.
Exactly right! I think we are just trying to see why that bread and butter is less appealing that others. Why do you think a Paladin is less popular?
Not because of smites. As per D&D surveys, we know that the main reason people choose a class has nothing to do with its mechanics, or how powerful it is, but rather because they have a story in mind that they're interested in trying out. People pick a concept that they want to play, THEN look at mechanics after that step. If someone wanted to play something paladin-y, then smites wouldn't factor into it.
Now, the paladin is the knight-in-shining-armor archetype. Or the black knight, or fey knight, etc. It could be as simple as just a trend where playing the knight archetypes is currently out of favor due to overexposure, or people are currently looking at the shiny new cavalier / samurai fighter subclasses which also have a whole "knight" vibe to them. Or it could be a trend due to popular shows going on - less Game of Thrones interest, and more Handmaiden's Tale.
And that's assuming that we are actually experiencing a lack of interest in the paladin and its not just a local meta-game issue; I've seen some gaming circles that do nothing but hate on the monk, but in another circle, it was one of the more popular options at the table.
I have been playing a paladin for nearly 2 years in my current campaign and I was able to try out a multi class, which i disliked so my DM let me be straight paladin. It is awesome, I am always dishing out the most damage, more than the wizard even, and I always have something I can do on my turn even if its not combat. I play a devotion paladin and play him as an almost crusader, but ultimately is focused on saving the plane from devastation.
Either your wizard doesn't even try to do damage, either hes rolled low. there is no way your smites can rival desintegrate or finger of death. heck even blight and fireball dish out more damage then smites.
that'S the thing about randomness in any games, some people get ridiculous amount of high rolls versus some others who get ridiculous ammount of low rolls. that's why people can't really compare one to another. The theory behind everything is sound and fine, but once you get into practice, things gets hectic based solely on luck of the people.
exemple... right now i have a barbarian lock, in theory i'm supposed to dish out an average of 5.5 (halberd) +5 (str) +2 (rage) 5.5 (halberd) +5 (str) +2 (rage) 2.5 (polearm feat) +5 (str) +2 (rage) a grand total of an average of 34.5 damage every single rounds. unfortunately i barely ever do that. reguardless of the dice i use... i pretty much always roll low. thats my luck... sometimes i do roll high, but rarely does it really happen. in practice thanks to my luck, i more often do an average of 20 per round. thats still not bad, but very far from the average i'm supposed to do. now of course i didn't count my hexblade curse as well. the very reason i've gone lock as well as next level smites which i can't wait to unlock.
when you start considering these elements of luck, things gets really messy when it comes to mechanics. sure, multiclassing paladins removes you certain aspects of the class, but you gain others too. Multiclass is never bad because of that. that said, if as a player who dislike what you got, then i have to ask you... why did you try it ? didn't you check out what you could do before doing it ? either way. if you disliked it, then fine go back to straight... after all, its each players choice.
again... to "me" warlock is a class that is better when multiclassing. Paladins literally depends on which type of paladin you wanna be. if you wanna be straight DPS and pumping all those slots into smites, then yes going full pally is awesome... but if you want to be more of a healer and support, then having 6 levels of cleric for the domain of life makes you a much better option then straight. so yeah, it really depends on the person and the concept they want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
that'S the thing about randomness in any games, some people get ridiculous amount of high rolls versus some others who get ridiculous ammount of low rolls. that's why people can't really compare one to another.
If that were true, casinos wouldn't be able to operate.
a grand total of an average of 34.5 damage every single rounds. unfortunately i barely ever do that. reguardless of the dice i use... i pretty much always roll low. thats my luck...sometimes i do roll high, but rarely does it really happen. in practice thanks to my luck, i more often do an average of 20 per round.
That's not your luck, that's confirmation bias. If you tracked your dice rolls you'd find they do tend towards 34.5 damage. Nobody's beaten the law of large numbers yet.
With Extra Attack, 2 smites with a long sword deals 12d8+STR×2 (~64) and any additional modifiers which does rival (but doesn't beat) Disintigrate at 1d6+40 (~75) considering Disintigrate uses (what is likely) the Wizard's only level-6 spell slot and does quite a bit more damage than a 5th level Fireball's 10d6 (~35). I'd say smites can definately rival a wizard for damage.
In a one-shot campaign at level 20 I once used a Polearm Master Paladin/Sorc, and managed to burn through every spell slot I had in 6 round, against the biggest of big bads. Using Crusader's mantle, smiting 3 times a turn, and reacting with Shield and Counterspell, that build was certainly as potent as the next in the fight, which was definately ahead of the Wizard. That said the wizard wisely opted for more tactical spells rather than straight damage, using spells like Prismatic Wall to separate targets.
And that's with a longsword/shield. A rather iconic base that's very good at protecting allies, but not the strongest when it comes to damage. If a Paladin really wanted to go nova? Bonus action to activate a smite spell, then two hits with the longsword, divine smiting each time. Three smites in a single round is more than possible.
That's probably the biggest thing with Paladin's is the roleplay aspect. I have one DM that will allow me to create a backstory that will cause things to work. I'm playing a pally in another game, and the DM is really restrictive. Which I understand since Pallies are generally good people. I never play one that isn't a good guy. Just a few flaws, which one would have, and play them out as well which causes a bit of a mess at times.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Prove it. We have blog posts on this very site about Ranger feedback - most notably from the infamous James and that Beastmaster post. I don't care for the man nor his style of talking nor gaming methods, but he is part of the D&D team, so he counts as an official source. Now, you give an official source, post-James post, that changes that official stance.
There is no survey that says that Ranger is the least played class. As far as I'm aware, the only data showing classes played comes from classes in the character builder from this site (data found here), and it shows that Ranger is the 6th most popular class, trailing closely behind Cleric and Barbarian.
You are twisting words, DnDPaladin. Full stop. You claimed the Ranger gets the least amount of FS choices of any class, which is provably false - only three classes and one subclass get FS choices, one of which has less than the Ranger, one of which is equal, and only the Fighter class has more. That's average. You are wrong here. No matter how you spin things, one thing remains. You. Are. Wrong. And anyone that takes a look at the Class, provided here, can easily see it. That's not an opinion, that's objective fact.
Not as onjective as you think... Considering numbers can also shows the earth is flat while we both know thats false... But hey oh well..
You can ignore the whole class survey done by official WotC and the unearthed arcana... By the way... Curse gaming is not wotc... Thus beyond is not wotc. Your source is only official to curse gaming... Not wotc... Now mike mearls and jeremy crawford both made such a surbey back in 2016. They asked exactly this question. The answer they got from thousands of people... Ranger is the worse class though it has its goods.
Why do you think we got the revised ranger ?
But hey... Agree to disagree... Im done trying to explain official wotc stuff while you keep using non-official sources...
In any cases... Glad to have had that discution... It was fun.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Not siding with anyone here on this heated discussion but in Unearthed Arcana Revised Ranger it states:
"Over the past year, you’ve seen us try a number of new approaches to the ranger, all aimed at addressing the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin."
That is straight from WotC...
Link here:
https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf
And also just wanted to mention... Paladins are fukking awesome! ;)
"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."
I normally abhor multiclassing. It delays or outright forgoes access to high level class features and capstones (to clarify I play AL and private campaigns that all go to lvl 20). That said, however, I could not find a reason to stay with ranger over level 5 (for Extra Attack feature and 2nd lvl spell slots). I was tempted to stay to lvl 7, but decided it was not worth it. I multiclassed into Rogue-Scout for even more ranger feel and I get all the features that you get from ranger in the 15 additional lvls of rogue and some are actually sooner then ranger would get them. Considering a bonus ASI rogues get at 10th lvl, I don't even miss out on one of those and I actually get them sooner then a single class ranger would get.
The first character I ever made was a pally. As a young boy, he got shipwrecked on an island and was raised by Orcs when he showed his strength when fighting to survive. Took up an Orc God, and went around smashing stuff. Was low key crazy but a ton of fun.
I feel that Paladins are too restrictive. You can be much more versatile now as a Cleric and although you won't have the burst damage capability, you can out damage one a Paladin over time and have access to a lot more spells. A Paladin is the Warlock of melee, you just do one thing. Locks EB, Paladins Smite, but at least a Lock can get to a 9th level spell.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Smites are spell slots too and that is the bread and butter of being a Paladin, which I'm not saying is a bad thing. Just like EB is the bread and butter of a Warlock, you'll be doing that one thing throughout your time playing the class and not much else. That's why I don't play one, and why I think others don't either. It's hard to pick that in between class that can cast but doesn't get the higher level spells. Fighters will out damage a Paladin over time as they have so many more attacks while Barbarians will outlast everything. The Paladin just seems in that middle ground where it does great at it's burst damage, but is too reliant on limited spell economy to do damage which leaves little left to cast spells for versatility and even then they are limited to level 5 even at 20.
I don't know. I'm going Pally and Sorc build and it's been fun so far. Granted I'm just lvl 1 into each class lol
Sorcadin is a very powerful build for sure, but less powerful the deeper you go into Paladin. It addresses the issue of getting more spell slots as well as being able to cast higher level spells that the Paladin lacks. That points back to my answer for the OP of why it seems people don't play Paladin as a class as much as other classes.
D&D is a Sword and Sorcery game. Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue and Paladin are the "Sword" part of that, and Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer and Warlock are the "Sorcery" part. Six warrior classes, six caster classes.
Clerics are primarily spellcasters. Even those who smack things occasionally, even the War Cleric, are still primarily magic users. Paladins are primarily warriors who spend most of their time smacking things with just a bit of spell support. Trying to compare the two is like trying to compare the barbarian to the sorcerer. Sure, they both like exploding things, but they do it in vastly different ways - one with a giant axe, one with an empowered fireball spell. Fundamentally, you will be attacking with the paladin's sword (/shield/polarm/etc) more than anything else. That's the point of the "Sword" classes. The same is also true of Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, etc.
Smites are the bread and butter of paladin attacks (also, Bless is quite popular I find), but that's like saying that Rages are the bread and butter of Barbarians. Definitely true, and also part of the appeal of the class.
I have been playing a paladin for nearly 2 years in my current campaign and I was able to try out a multi class, which i disliked so my DM let me be straight paladin. It is awesome, I am always dishing out the most damage, more than the wizard even, and I always have something I can do on my turn even if its not combat. I play a devotion paladin and play him as an almost crusader, but ultimately is focused on saving the plane from devastation.
Either your wizard doesn't even try to do damage, either hes rolled low. there is no way your smites can rival desintegrate or finger of death. heck even blight and fireball dish out more damage then smites.
that'S the thing about randomness in any games, some people get ridiculous amount of high rolls versus some others who get ridiculous ammount of low rolls.
that's why people can't really compare one to another. The theory behind everything is sound and fine, but once you get into practice, things gets hectic based solely on luck of the people.
exemple... right now i have a barbarian lock, in theory i'm supposed to dish out an average of
5.5 (halberd) +5 (str) +2 (rage)
5.5 (halberd) +5 (str) +2 (rage)
2.5 (polearm feat) +5 (str) +2 (rage)
a grand total of an average of 34.5 damage every single rounds. unfortunately i barely ever do that. reguardless of the dice i use... i pretty much always roll low. thats my luck... sometimes i do roll high, but rarely does it really happen. in practice thanks to my luck, i more often do an average of 20 per round. thats still not bad, but very far from the average i'm supposed to do. now of course i didn't count my hexblade curse as well. the very reason i've gone lock as well as next level smites which i can't wait to unlock.
when you start considering these elements of luck, things gets really messy when it comes to mechanics.
sure, multiclassing paladins removes you certain aspects of the class, but you gain others too. Multiclass is never bad because of that. that said, if as a player who dislike what you got, then i have to ask you... why did you try it ? didn't you check out what you could do before doing it ? either way. if you disliked it, then fine go back to straight... after all, its each players choice.
again... to "me" warlock is a class that is better when multiclassing. Paladins literally depends on which type of paladin you wanna be. if you wanna be straight DPS and pumping all those slots into smites, then yes going full pally is awesome... but if you want to be more of a healer and support, then having 6 levels of cleric for the domain of life makes you a much better option then straight. so yeah, it really depends on the person and the concept they want.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
If that were true, casinos wouldn't be able to operate.
That's not your luck, that's confirmation bias. If you tracked your dice rolls you'd find they do tend towards 34.5 damage. Nobody's beaten the law of large numbers yet.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
With Extra Attack, 2 smites with a long sword deals 12d8+STR×2 (~64) and any additional modifiers which does rival (but doesn't beat) Disintigrate at 1d6+40 (~75) considering Disintigrate uses (what is likely) the Wizard's only level-6 spell slot and does quite a bit more damage than a 5th level Fireball's 10d6 (~35). I'd say smites can definately rival a wizard for damage.
In a one-shot campaign at level 20 I once used a Polearm Master Paladin/Sorc, and managed to burn through every spell slot I had in 6 round, against the biggest of big bads. Using Crusader's mantle, smiting 3 times a turn, and reacting with Shield and Counterspell, that build was certainly as potent as the next in the fight, which was definately ahead of the Wizard. That said the wizard wisely opted for more tactical spells rather than straight damage, using spells like Prismatic Wall to separate targets.
Extended Signature
And that's with a longsword/shield. A rather iconic base that's very good at protecting allies, but not the strongest when it comes to damage. If a Paladin really wanted to go nova? Bonus action to activate a smite spell, then two hits with the longsword, divine smiting each time. Three smites in a single round is more than possible.
That's probably the biggest thing with Paladin's is the roleplay aspect. I have one DM that will allow me to create a backstory that will cause things to work. I'm playing a pally in another game, and the DM is really restrictive. Which I understand since Pallies are generally good people. I never play one that isn't a good guy. Just a few flaws, which one would have, and play them out as well which causes a bit of a mess at times.