I am playing a human vengeance paladin balanced STR/CHA build with shield master feat. I know the maximum damage, low defense builds of PAM and GWM are very popular, but don't think they are the most effective. They do one thing very well, burn through resources very quickly, and tend to ignore the potential of boosting the party versus being a sexy smite machine.
I approach the game very differently. For me, the capacity to spike damage with the 2nd level smite class feature is built in. I tend to favor concentrating on the spells bless, heroism, PFG+E and shield of faith. You cannot mathematically represent the effect of bless causing a group to make extra saving throws and extra hits from the +1D4. Aid can revive multiple down party members in a potential TPK. Conversely, if I have extra attack and go crazy smiting I could potentially kill two enemies by burning three spells slots if both attacks hit. Now that kind of nova is sexy, but a terrible use of resources compared to casting Aid. I also don't care if I lose concentration due to being attacked on the front lines. Because if my Paladin is under attack, he is tanking, and my archer and druid can go about their business under less pressure.
I have been putting both Thunderous and Wrathful Smite on my spell list but have not cast either one yet. I like both spells, but prefer to unload a divine smite for pure damage. For me, wrathful smite is most useful if I know I cannot kill the target in one or two hits. Then I have at least a chance to reap the benefits of the frightened condition for the team.
So my play style is based more on making the team better than maximizing my DPR or Nova. My damage is plenty high with dueling, divine smite, and oath of vengenance. I have a lot of options and decide round by round what I need to do rather than being a smite machine. Being willing to cast spells rather than save them for smites is so important if surprised or caught out of position. For one round I play as a caster while I move into position on the front line. The flexibility of having high charisma and more spells to choose from is so important to me.
Anyways, I apologize for the long post. Curious about what you think of this style of play
I think your style of play is okay. However, I think there is a pretty big logical fallacy going on here, and that's the idea that a DPR big damage build can't do what you're doing, or even do it better.
Suppose I started with a human vengeance paladin of my own, with GWM as my starting feat, and I opt to increase STR at lvl 4. If a combat started, I could cast bless on myself and the party and use my bonus action for vow of enmity on my target. And just like that, I've used a resource to not only increase my own damage, but my party's as well. The following turn, I could attack my target with advantage and a +1d4, and that being the case there's a solid chance I'll land my hit even with a -5 penalty. The result is sustainable big damage, all for the cost of one slot and a channel divinity which recharges on a short rest.
It doesn't even have to be low-defense either. I could choose to have the defense fighting style for +1 AC while using a two-handed weapon. Suppose I went with a greatsword and chainmail. I'd have 17 AC, versus a dueling fighting style who'd have 18 AC. Let's assume I chose a devotion paladin with GWM. First round of combat, I use my channel divinity for sacred weapon and cast shield of faith. My AC then jumps up to 19 while my to-hit increased to +3 at the very least. I could choose to power attack more liberally. Just like that, I can increase my damage and my survivability while avoiding this supposed pitfall of using up all my resources in one go.
But even then, sometimes using a resource like smiting or "going nova" has its merits over using a concentration spell. We're going to assume tier 1 for this next part. When you cast bless, you're not increasing your damage just yet. You're waiting on returns for your investment. Your forgone attack that you just used to cast bless also is also part of that investment. If you're a dueling paladin with a long sword (d8) and 3 STR modifier, averaged DPR is roughly 6. But it's not just 6, cause you used a slot which could've been a smite. Smites, unlike normal attacks, are a straight up 9 DPR (1st lvl assumed) increase since they can only be used on confirm hits. So, you're comparing the casting of bless to a 15 damage investment. How long, then, will it take for your party to make up that loss? If the answer is more than 3-4 rounds, which is the average length of fights in 5e, then you were better off casting smite and just lost out on damage. That answer, btw, also depends on the build of your blessed targets. If you blessed a SS+XBE fighter, you can expect returns sooner. If you blessed another duelist, probably won't see them until later.
Point being, there's more to being supportive than just choosing the low damage build or casting concentration spells over smiting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am playing a human vengeance paladin balanced STR/CHA build with shield master feat. I know the maximum damage, low defense builds of PAM and GWM are very popular, but don't think they are the most effective. They do one thing very well, burn through resources very quickly, and tend to ignore the potential of boosting the party versus being a sexy smite machine.
I approach the game very differently. For me, the capacity to spike damage with the 2nd level smite class feature is built in. I tend to favor concentrating on the spells bless, heroism, PFG+E and shield of faith. You cannot mathematically represent the effect of bless causing a group to make extra saving throws and extra hits from the +1D4. Aid can revive multiple down party members in a potential TPK. Conversely, if I have extra attack and go crazy smiting I could potentially kill two enemies by burning three spells slots if both attacks hit. Now that kind of nova is sexy, but a terrible use of resources compared to casting Aid. I also don't care if I lose concentration due to being attacked on the front lines. Because if my Paladin is under attack, he is tanking, and my archer and druid can go about their business under less pressure.
I have been putting both Thunderous and Wrathful Smite on my spell list but have not cast either one yet. I like both spells, but prefer to unload a divine smite for pure damage. For me, wrathful smite is most useful if I know I cannot kill the target in one or two hits. Then I have at least a chance to reap the benefits of the frightened condition for the team.
So my play style is based more on making the team better than maximizing my DPR or Nova. My damage is plenty high with dueling, divine smite, and oath of vengenance. I have a lot of options and decide round by round what I need to do rather than being a smite machine. Being willing to cast spells rather than save them for smites is so important if surprised or caught out of position. For one round I play as a caster while I move into position on the front line. The flexibility of having high charisma and more spells to choose from is so important to me.
Anyways, I apologize for the long post. Curious about what you think of this style of play
I think your style of play is okay. However, I think there is a pretty big logical fallacy going on here, and that's the idea that a DPR big damage build can't do what you're doing, or even do it better.
Suppose I started with a human vengeance paladin of my own, with GWM as my starting feat, and I opt to increase STR at lvl 4. If a combat started, I could cast bless on myself and the party and use my bonus action for vow of enmity on my target. And just like that, I've used a resource to not only increase my own damage, but my party's as well. The following turn, I could attack my target with advantage and a +1d4, and that being the case there's a solid chance I'll land my hit even with a -5 penalty. The result is sustainable big damage, all for the cost of one slot and a channel divinity which recharges on a short rest.
It doesn't even have to be low-defense either. I could choose to have the defense fighting style for +1 AC while using a two-handed weapon. Suppose I went with a greatsword and chainmail. I'd have 17 AC, versus a dueling fighting style who'd have 18 AC. Let's assume I chose a devotion paladin with GWM. First round of combat, I use my channel divinity for sacred weapon and cast shield of faith. My AC then jumps up to 19 while my to-hit increased to +3 at the very least. I could choose to power attack more liberally. Just like that, I can increase my damage and my survivability while avoiding this supposed pitfall of using up all my resources in one go.
But even then, sometimes using a resource like smiting or "going nova" has its merits over using a concentration spell. We're going to assume tier 1 for this next part. When you cast bless, you're not increasing your damage just yet. You're waiting on returns for your investment. Your forgone attack that you just used to cast bless also is also part of that investment. If you're a dueling paladin with a long sword (d8) and 3 STR modifier, averaged DPR is roughly 6. But it's not just 6, cause you used a slot which could've been a smite. Smites, unlike normal attacks, are a straight up 9 DPR (1st lvl assumed) increase since they can only be used on confirm hits. So, you're comparing the casting of bless to a 15 damage investment. How long, then, will it take for your party to make up that loss? If the answer is more than 3-4 rounds, which is the average length of fights in 5e, then you were better off casting smite and just lost out on damage. That answer, btw, also depends on the build of your blessed targets. If you blessed a SS+XBE fighter, you can expect returns sooner. If you blessed another duelist, probably won't see them until later.
Point being, there's more to being supportive than just choosing the low damage build or casting concentration spells over smiting.