By the way the numbers you state as averages mine as well be pulled out of thin air. With out knowing the amount of times rolled and the sum of each role it's irrelevant. What is really being done to determine these results is essentially finding the mean sum of a dice and multiplying it or adding it to other mean sums for desired effect. Example the mean sum of an 8 sided dice is 4.5. This is not the average of rolls. It's done by adding 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 and dividing it by 8. No rolls done what so ever. If I roll a 5+6+7+8+5+6+7+8 this gives me an average of 6.5. Now if I roll a1+2+3+4+1+2+3+4 which is an average of 2.5. In fact I have to roll the same combination of number everytime to maintain the same average as again, the ratio does not change. Just changing the amount of times rolled will change the overall average, giving you 4 possible averages for this one number combination. If we were to both roll a 20 sided dice right now 20 times, your average would be completely different then mine and would change every time you did so until you hit every possible combination.
Now let's get back on topic my numbers and statements remain true. To sum it all up right here a Vengeance Paladin only out Damages other Paladins in long term damage at low levels or if combat exceeds 1 hr and a Vengeance Paladin saves Hunters Mark as a final Spell and casts it at the end of the 1hr of combat. The third and final way a Paladin can outdamage other Paladins is by casting hunters mark at higher lvls but this would be under the notion combat last for more than 1 hr. In the long scheme of things unless it's at low level a Vengeance Paladin does not outdamage any other paladin in single target damage or in mass overall damage unless combat exceeds an hour. As there is no reasonable way to quantify the length of combat, encounter per a day, and how spread out encounters are from each other having continuous combat for the time of the spells of holy weapon and hunters mark is the only way to highlight the differences in the class. At low level hunters mark succeds at high level it takes entirely to long to show an increase in damage and if used with out using holy weapon in the first hour is heavily out damaged.
At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or not. If you're not please read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value . a d8 rolled infinitely will converge to an average of 4.5 . A given dataset of d8 rolls might not; however, that's not relevant as it will eventually converge.
Correction on a previous point I missed spoke when I said probability doesn't increase. So let me correct this in my current statement.
While percentage doesn't increase probability does over 2 rolls.
So yes you're right that when you state you have a probability of a 91% to hit. This 91% chance to hit is probability not percentage to actually hit. You have better odds, however you're percentage to hit on either dice never exceeds 70%. As such you are never close to a 95% chance to a single hit because regardless each time you roll it's still a 70% chance to meet the roll as probability is not the same as percent to hit.
Another thing to point out is after the first failure you're probability fo roll better has now dropped. This is known as the Gambler's Fallacy.
Going off this point as well in regards to critting with advantage. You're probability maybe 9.75, I got closer to 13 when I did the math long hand, but you percent to actually get a 20 never exceeds 5%.
Correction on a previous point I missed spoke when I said probability doesn't increase. So let me correct this in my current statement.
While percentage doesn't increase probability does over 2 rolls.
This is true since you're talking about independent variables. However, that's irrelevant since you roll both at effectively the same time and rarely care about the intermediary result. If you only roll with advantage when the first die fails then that's a "significantly" more complicated problem which causes the entire system to change (not much since you'd just discount the probabilities on the second die by 0.3 but either way). In my experience that isn't the case.
So yes you're right that when you state you have a probability of a 91% to hit. This 91% chance to hit is probability not percentage to actually hit. You have better odds, however you're percentage to hit on either dice never exceeds 70%. As such you are never close to a 95% chance to a single hit because regardless each time you roll it's still a 70% chance to meet the roll as probability is not the same as percent to hit.
So the chance to hit if you have advantage is 91%. The dice roll as independent variables with the same distribution. As such while either has a 70% chance of being the value you need they have a 91% chance of being the value you need when taken together since you should only get the unwanted outcome (missing on both die) about 9% of the time.
Another thing to point out is after the first failure you're probability fo roll better has now dropped. This is known as the Gambler's Fallacy.
The Gambler's Fallacy is stating that 3 20s in a row means you'll get a 4th 20. Or that 6 1s in a row means you're due for another 20. In this instance it would be insisting that rolling a d20 that misses means the next d20 will cause you to hit. That's false since you're just drawing a second entry from an independent distribution. The Gambler's Fallacy doesn't really apply here since you're drawing 2 values from the distribution simultaneously. That actually does affect the overall outcome without causing the Gambler's Fallacy to apply since you're not making claims about future rolls and are just attempting to calculate the likelyhood based on the overall distribution. (If you were saying that missing on the first hit means you'll hit the second one then you'd be talking about the gambler's fallacy, saying that calculating the entire probability is the gambler's fallacy isn't really correct since its a different problem entirely).
Going off this point as well in regards to critting with advantage. You're probability maybe 9.75, I got closer to 13 when I did the math long hand, but you percent to actually get a 20 never exceeds 5%.
Uh. sure? That doesn't matter though. The only thing that matters there is the probability of getting a 20. As such when attacking with advantage you have a higher chance of critting since a 20 will show up ~195% more often (a 4.75% increase to the probability)
Additionally vengeance paladins are considered so strong because of hunter's mark at most common play levels (1-14 iirc) and a self-sourced advantage on targets that they care about. I mean when talking about T4 realistically Ancient's paladins are by far the best vow because of resistance to spell damage (which murders my party every time). I mean vengeance paladins aren't that much further ahead as far as DPR goes and devotion/ancients auras are ridiculously useful in that tier. I mean they both get abilities that help them stay up dealing damage whereas vengeance paladins just get more abilities that help them deal more damage (which they didn't really need because polearm master is a thing).
I mean each paladin does great at different things
Tank - Ancients (aura too good)
Hybrid - Devotion (aura + the channel divinity for more to hit is great)
Damage - Vengeance (screw THAT monster in particular)
Controller - Conquest (All the Fear.)
Flavor Tank that Tanks via taking the damage and casting spells I guess I haven't played it yet - Redemption
As for Gamblers Fallacy you're statement in regards to taking roles simultaneously is dependent on rolling 2 d20s at once or rolling 2 d20s individually. Together yes they may have a probability 91%. Individually it ends to fall into Gamblers Fallacy to some extent. Thus the separation of probability chance and actual roll chance. Missing the first roll and assuming you still have a 91% probability chance is Gamblers Fallacy. Personally I roll better let the dice go individually. It's how I've gotten my straight 18 characters and high rolls.
In regards to lvls 1-14 yes Vengeance Paladins cant even be competed with in respective damage. After this especially with use with hunters mark other Paladains can exceed its damage out out with holy weapon, or it takes longer to get access to full damage by using holy weapon and hunters mark. Vengeance Paladins do have there better probability against individuals but it is individuals they tend to fall be hind with herds because all there oath features are designed to be against an individual target minus its lvl 20 feature. Hopefully a vengeance paladin put points in to charisma ar that point though.
I guess it's more of a cautionary tale then for late lvl Vengeance Paladins. Dont get sucked into just hunters mark. If so other oaths can surpass the damage out put.
Speaking of Redemption Paladins I plan to play one in the the future and be a pacifist that runs around stopping everyone from fighting for shits and giggles.
As for Gamblers Fallacy you're statement in regards to taking roles simultaneously is dependent on rolling 2 d20s at once or rolling 2 d20s individually. Together yes they may have a probability 91%. Individually it ends to fall into Gamblers Fallacy to some extent. Thus the separation of probability chance and actual roll chance. Missing the first roll and assuming you still have a 91% probability chance is Gamblers Fallacy. Personally I roll better let the dice go individually. It's how I've gotten my straight 18 characters and high rolls.
I mean sure? The gambler's fallacy is ignoring the underlying distribution because dice have been doing something different. Regardless of rolling separately or together highest of 2d20 will always have the same chances taken as a whole. I mean they follow a "compound" distribution. I mean there's nothing anywhere near as suspicious as a dnd player and their dice. So if individual rolls work for you then go for it lol.
In regards to lvls 1-14 yes Vengeance Paladins cant even be competed with in respective damage. After this especially with use with hunters mark other Paladains can exceed its damage out out with holy weapon, or it takes longer to get access to full damage by using holy weapon and hunters mark. Vengeance Paladins do have there better probability against individuals but it is individuals they tend to fall be hind with herds because all there oath features are designed to be against an individual target minus its lvl 20 feature. Hopefully a vengeance paladin put points in to charisma ar that point though.
I mean with herds you have destruction wave and the rest of your abilities? Hunter's mark can also be moved after killing a thing. So I mean in many cases they're just fine with herds. I dunno, I'm not entirely certain that anything but conquest paladins really shine against hoards (maybe oathbreakers if you're running the proper support for them and not fighting fiend/undead enemies? idk)
I guess it's more of a cautionary tale then for late lvl Vengeance Paladins. Dont get sucked into just hunters mark. If so other oaths can surpass the damage out put.
I agree for a single encounter! However, you should more or less have hunter's mark running at all times except for BBEG/Hard+ encounters since you've a limited number of holy weapons (which is a funny concept tbh).
Speaking of Redemption Paladins I plan to play one in the the future and be a pacifist that runs around stopping everyone from fighting for shits and giggles.
Go for it! Then relay what they're good at to other people.... Correction after rechecking the block their level 20 ability is ridiculous
Emissary of Redemption
At 20th level, you become an avatar of peace, which gives you two benefits:
You have resistance to all damage dealt by other creatures (their attacks, spells, and other effects).
Whenever a creature hits you with an attack, it takes radiant damage equal to half the damage you take from the attack.
If you attack a creature, cast a spell on it, or deal damage to it by any means but this feature, neither benefit works against that creature until you finish a long rest.
I'm only inclined to have probability fo fall under Gamblers Fallacy in the case you know what you're aiming for. In the situation we used this being an 18 AC. If not reached on the first roll the probability of getting it on you're second goes down.
There was something else that I read somewhere where taking the higher of the two numbers in rolls like this tend to skew the probability chance to a higher result. Something to look into.
On this we can reach an agreement as per overall damage is keeping hunters mark running but switching to holy weapon in singular encounters and having holy weapon last until its spell end before jumping hunters mark back on.
Again long term Damage is what vengeance paladin excel in comparison to other oaths. As to singular targets from what others were stating this remains in question. Technically A Devotion still has better chances at dealing damage as it's not reliant on a probability to hit. Furthermore being reliant on the increase probability fo get crits further falls into Gamblers Fallacy as now probability every for the specific roll decreases. Going against a BBGE a Paladin who blows spells slots for damage is more likely t deal superior singular target damage as opposed to long term damage through our the day.
I know right its fairly ridiculous. Its lvl 15 ability is pretty lackluster mind as well stick with protection fighting style to be able to still have resistance.
I'm only inclined to have probability fo fall under Gamblers Fallacy in the case you know what you're aiming for. In the situation we used this being an 18 AC. If not reached on the first roll the probability of getting it on you're second goes down.
First and foremost. That is not how probability works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy That is the gambler's fallacy. All it states is that you cannot make assumptions on future samples of an independent distribution. Nothing more nothing less. If you did not get it on the first roll the second roll is unchanged. However, the two rolls taken together act as a different distribution so it operates as a different set of probabilities.
There was something else that I read somewhere where taking the higher of the two numbers in rolls like this tend to skew the probability chance to a higher result. Something to look into.
I mentioned that earlier with derivations of the likelihood to crit with advantage. Adding a second d20 and then taking the highest shifts the distribution to:
All of these are percentages. I apologize about the table format. This is what I've been using this entire time when talking about things like an increased to-hit chance and an increased crit chance. Advantage vs no-advantage use different distributions (albeit related) which causes different behavior when looking at them generally. tbh advantage in 5e is a super elegant way to helping people do better without trivializing things. Elven accuracy makes this even more dumb with the chance of critting going up to ~14.3% and the chance of hitting an 18 AC target going to 97.3% (which beats the +5!)
On this we can reach an agreement as per overall damage is keeping hunters mark running but switching to holy weapon in singular encounters and having holy weapon last until its spell end before jumping hunters mark back on.
Yep!
Again long term Damage is what vengeance paladin excel in comparison to other oaths. As to singular targets from what others were stating this remains in question. Technically A Devotion still has better chances at dealing damage as it's not reliant on a probability to hit. Furthermore being reliant on the increase probability fo get crits further falls into Gamblers Fallacy as now probability every for the specific roll decreases. Going against a BBGE a Paladin who blows spells slots for damage is more likely t deal superior singular target damage as opposed to long term damage through our the day.
long term - sure
Singular targets - Still vengeance as you have a higher chance of critting, a similar chance of hitting, and are not relying on other people for advantage
Devotion making it easier to hit - There are extremely few cases (in 5e) wherein equipment would make it true that a lower chance to crit but higher chance to hit would yield more damage. I could look some up; however, honestly at that point you're talking about major gear differences that yield that change.
Gambler's Fallacy has nothing to do with increased crit potential. The increased crit potential is because you're using a different distribution for your to-hit rolls. Were you using the same distribution this would be a different conversation. Additionally the gambler's fallacy is a logical fallacy. It straight up does not effect the underlying math or distribution.
BBEG -> If you're gonna nova something then yeah you're probably doing more damage. However, that is not a non-vengeance only sorta thing. At most the vengeance paladin would fall behind 4d8 damage (3rd level smite for hunter's mark); however, that's only 18 damage and honestly you'd be using a 1st level smite instead in most cases (lowering the difference to 9 damage). Additionally that's discounting the utility of having hunter's mark up for the other 8 hours of the day; and, that assumes that noone died / got blinded / anything bad that happens that paladins can fix.
The big thing here is that vengeance paladins have a no-save, self-sourced, and short rest recharging source of advantage on a single enemy that lasts a minute. That means that they're going to consistently (again we're ignoring outside factors such as a wizard who understands that faerie fire is basically faerie gold when you have a large martial party) outdamage the other paladins with devotion (and ancients if the target fails their save) coming up close behind. I'm not saying that makes anything unviable (since you know devotion is sturdier and ancients is too) I'm just saying that vengeance paladins are exceptional at "screw that guy in particular" moments.
I know right its fairly ridiculous. Its lvl 15 ability is pretty lackluster mine as well stick with protection fighting style to be able to still have resistance.
I'm still wrapping my head around playing a paladin wherein a viable method of play is "I wall of force them all in a dome with me. I sit down. I wait." I mean. That's hilarious.
i havent read all of the comments in this thread but i have seen a large amount of bashing on the channel divinity feature of vengeance paladins vow of enmity and people saying it worse than the oath of devotions sacred weapon
this is completely untrue and is very easy to prove wrong by using a simple situation here
you are in a room and you are fighting a miniboss but you used all your smites up earlier getting here protecting the party and now dont have any left you have the great weapon master feat this means you can cop a -5 to the roll for +10 damage most paladins will have a +3 to charisma adn we will say they are level 8 so they have a 18 in strength as well their roll to hit will be +6 for the oath of devotion but the vengeance paladin will get a +3 which isnt good looking bad but unfortunately for the miniboss vow of enmity gives advantage which on average gives a +5 to attack rolls and doubles the chance of rolling a critical the oath of vengeance paladins bonus is 3 but his average has just gone up by 5 so for averages sake we will call it a +8 to hit or a +7 if we want to be condescending
they both have great burst damage and it doesnt come out as being extremely different but it does show that the channel divinity gives a higher chance to hit therefore a higher damage average along with a higher crit chance
hunters mark would benefit from the higher crit range additionally
Vengeance does more damage. Add 5% more damage to the total due to increased hit chance. Vengeance also gets haste. Vengeance also gets hold person and monster. You can’t win your point if you’re talking about a single target. If you’re talking about multiple targets, you’re right though.
Couldnt access my old account maddogs1989 here. That was entirely my point. Against single targets yes Vengeance deals more damage with haste.
Vengeance Paladins who focus on hunters mark will always deal more long term damage but any Paladin will deal higher bursts of damage if the Vengeance is concentrated on hunters mark because they'd lose hunters mark casting a smite spell.
In fact in single turn damage if the Vengeance doesnt use any other spells it still deals the same damage as all paladins.
Focused on hunters mark deals less damage round for round for 5 rounds (rounds it takes for a lvl 20 Paladin to burn all spell slots on smites and spell smites) but more overall damage in the Adventuring day.
Using Haste Deals the Damage done in 5 rounds of combat in half the time. Has by far the Highest burst of a single class but is attainable by any Paladin that has haste cast on them.
With both Haste and hunters Mark deals more damage faster and over time.
However again this is all best against single targets a Devotion will deal more reliable damage against all targets in comparison to the Vengeance. Which is my point.
This also said a Devotion is Immune to Charms and at lvl 15 has imposes disadvantage to attacks against the 5 creature types.
Which mechanically is better over all than getting a reactionary attack to your vow mark and while the lvl 7th ability is cool it is only really useful in closing distance vs not being able to be charmed and prevent your allies from being charmed as well.
I'm not saying the Vengeance cant deal more damage against single targets or that they cant deal damage faster.
I'm saying from the mechanics while a Devotion may not deal the same damage as fast or against an individual target it deals more reliable damage against more targets, has better aura abilities and a 15th lvl spell that puts most of the most dangerous creatures in DnD at disadvantage.
I got to thread late. Does vengeance paladin do less damage or just have the chance to do more (Bigger chance if halfelf with elven accuracy .) than other oaths not counting spells. (They all can use spell slots for Smite)
New take on an old thread but i'm currently running a dex paladin and Hunters Mark synergizes really well with two handed fighting. Hinges on the Warcaster feat but by level 6 you can throw down 6d6 per round with short swords or 3d10 +3d6 + an AC bump if you take two handed fighting as a feat or style. Paladins get Aura of Protection and proficiency on WIS saves which helps keep the concentration check up.
ALSO! Last facet but stacking Vow of Emnity for advantage, three attacks per turn, and the extra 1d6 from Hunters Mark could be a Crit Machine when you throw a smite on top.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
By the way the numbers you state as averages mine as well be pulled out of thin air. With out knowing the amount of times rolled and the sum of each role it's irrelevant. What is really being done to determine these results is essentially finding the mean sum of a dice and multiplying it or adding it to other mean sums for desired effect. Example the mean sum of an 8 sided dice is 4.5. This is not the average of rolls. It's done by adding 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 and dividing it by 8. No rolls done what so ever. If I roll a 5+6+7+8+5+6+7+8 this gives me an average of 6.5. Now if I roll a1+2+3+4+1+2+3+4 which is an average of 2.5. In fact I have to roll the same combination of number everytime to maintain the same average as again, the ratio does not change. Just changing the amount of times rolled will change the overall average, giving you 4 possible averages for this one number combination. If we were to both roll a 20 sided dice right now 20 times, your average would be completely different then mine and would change every time you did so until you hit every possible combination.
Now let's get back on topic my numbers and statements remain true. To sum it all up right here a Vengeance Paladin only out Damages other Paladins in long term damage at low levels or if combat exceeds 1 hr and a Vengeance Paladin saves Hunters Mark as a final Spell and casts it at the end of the 1hr of combat. The third and final way a Paladin can outdamage other Paladins is by casting hunters mark at higher lvls but this would be under the notion combat last for more than 1 hr. In the long scheme of things unless it's at low level a Vengeance Paladin does not outdamage any other paladin in single target damage or in mass overall damage unless combat exceeds an hour. As there is no reasonable way to quantify the length of combat, encounter per a day, and how spread out encounters are from each other having continuous combat for the time of the spells of holy weapon and hunters mark is the only way to highlight the differences in the class. At low level hunters mark succeds at high level it takes entirely to long to show an increase in damage and if used with out using holy weapon in the first hour is heavily out damaged.
At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or not. If you're not please read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value . a d8 rolled infinitely will converge to an average of 4.5 . A given dataset of d8 rolls might not; however, that's not relevant as it will eventually converge.
Correction on a previous point I missed spoke when I said probability doesn't increase. So let me correct this in my current statement.
While percentage doesn't increase probability does over 2 rolls.
So yes you're right that when you state you have a probability of a 91% to hit. This 91% chance to hit is probability not percentage to actually hit. You have better odds, however you're percentage to hit on either dice never exceeds 70%. As such you are never close to a 95% chance to a single hit because regardless each time you roll it's still a 70% chance to meet the roll as probability is not the same as percent to hit.
Another thing to point out is after the first failure you're probability fo roll better has now dropped. This is known as the Gambler's Fallacy.
Going off this point as well in regards to critting with advantage. You're probability maybe 9.75, I got closer to 13 when I did the math long hand, but you percent to actually get a 20 never exceeds 5%.
I stand corrected on expected value as its remaining unbiased in nature.
This is true since you're talking about independent variables. However, that's irrelevant since you roll both at effectively the same time and rarely care about the intermediary result. If you only roll with advantage when the first die fails then that's a "significantly" more complicated problem which causes the entire system to change (not much since you'd just discount the probabilities on the second die by 0.3 but either way). In my experience that isn't the case.
So the chance to hit if you have advantage is 91%. The dice roll as independent variables with the same distribution. As such while either has a 70% chance of being the value you need they have a 91% chance of being the value you need when taken together since you should only get the unwanted outcome (missing on both die) about 9% of the time.
The Gambler's Fallacy is stating that 3 20s in a row means you'll get a 4th 20. Or that 6 1s in a row means you're due for another 20. In this instance it would be insisting that rolling a d20 that misses means the next d20 will cause you to hit. That's false since you're just drawing a second entry from an independent distribution. The Gambler's Fallacy doesn't really apply here since you're drawing 2 values from the distribution simultaneously. That actually does affect the overall outcome without causing the Gambler's Fallacy to apply since you're not making claims about future rolls and are just attempting to calculate the likelyhood based on the overall distribution. (If you were saying that missing on the first hit means you'll hit the second one then you'd be talking about the gambler's fallacy, saying that calculating the entire probability is the gambler's fallacy isn't really correct since its a different problem entirely).
Uh. sure? That doesn't matter though. The only thing that matters there is the probability of getting a 20. As such when attacking with advantage you have a higher chance of critting since a 20 will show up ~195% more often (a 4.75% increase to the probability)
That's why we use it for min/maxing! Its super useful for determining which options are better.
Additionally vengeance paladins are considered so strong because of hunter's mark at most common play levels (1-14 iirc) and a self-sourced advantage on targets that they care about. I mean when talking about T4 realistically Ancient's paladins are by far the best vow because of resistance to spell damage (which murders my party every time). I mean vengeance paladins aren't that much further ahead as far as DPR goes and devotion/ancients auras are ridiculously useful in that tier. I mean they both get abilities that help them stay up dealing damage whereas vengeance paladins just get more abilities that help them deal more damage (which they didn't really need because polearm master is a thing).
I mean each paladin does great at different things
Tank - Ancients (aura too good)
Hybrid - Devotion (aura + the channel divinity for more to hit is great)
Damage - Vengeance (screw THAT monster in particular)
Controller - Conquest (All the Fear.)
Flavor Tank that Tanks via taking the damage and casting spells I guess I haven't played it yet - Redemption
Why am I an army - Oathbreaker
As for Gamblers Fallacy you're statement in regards to taking roles simultaneously is dependent on rolling 2 d20s at once or rolling 2 d20s individually. Together yes they may have a probability 91%. Individually it ends to fall into Gamblers Fallacy to some extent. Thus the separation of probability chance and actual roll chance. Missing the first roll and assuming you still have a 91% probability chance is Gamblers Fallacy. Personally I roll better let the dice go individually. It's how I've gotten my straight 18 characters and high rolls.
In regards to lvls 1-14 yes Vengeance Paladins cant even be competed with in respective damage. After this especially with use with hunters mark other Paladains can exceed its damage out out with holy weapon, or it takes longer to get access to full damage by using holy weapon and hunters mark. Vengeance Paladins do have there better probability against individuals but it is individuals they tend to fall be hind with herds because all there oath features are designed to be against an individual target minus its lvl 20 feature. Hopefully a vengeance paladin put points in to charisma ar that point though.
I guess it's more of a cautionary tale then for late lvl Vengeance Paladins. Dont get sucked into just hunters mark. If so other oaths can surpass the damage out put.
Speaking of Redemption Paladins I plan to play one in the the future and be a pacifist that runs around stopping everyone from fighting for shits and giggles.
I mean sure? The gambler's fallacy is ignoring the underlying distribution because dice have been doing something different. Regardless of rolling separately or together highest of 2d20 will always have the same chances taken as a whole. I mean they follow a "compound" distribution. I mean there's nothing anywhere near as suspicious as a dnd player and their dice. So if individual rolls work for you then go for it lol.
I mean with herds you have destruction wave and the rest of your abilities? Hunter's mark can also be moved after killing a thing. So I mean in many cases they're just fine with herds. I dunno, I'm not entirely certain that anything but conquest paladins really shine against hoards (maybe oathbreakers if you're running the proper support for them and not fighting fiend/undead enemies? idk)
I agree for a single encounter! However, you should more or less have hunter's mark running at all times except for BBEG/Hard+ encounters since you've a limited number of holy weapons (which is a funny concept tbh).
Go for it! Then relay what they're good at to other people.... Correction after rechecking the block their level 20 ability is ridiculous
Emissary of Redemption
At 20th level, you become an avatar of peace, which gives you two benefits:
If you attack a creature, cast a spell on it, or deal damage to it by any means but this feature, neither benefit works against that creature until you finish a long rest.
... wat.
I'm only inclined to have probability fo fall under Gamblers Fallacy in the case you know what you're aiming for. In the situation we used this being an 18 AC. If not reached on the first roll the probability of getting it on you're second goes down.
There was something else that I read somewhere where taking the higher of the two numbers in rolls like this tend to skew the probability chance to a higher result. Something to look into.
On this we can reach an agreement as per overall damage is keeping hunters mark running but switching to holy weapon in singular encounters and having holy weapon last until its spell end before jumping hunters mark back on.
Again long term Damage is what vengeance paladin excel in comparison to other oaths. As to singular targets from what others were stating this remains in question. Technically A Devotion still has better chances at dealing damage as it's not reliant on a probability to hit. Furthermore being reliant on the increase probability fo get crits further falls into Gamblers Fallacy as now probability every for the specific roll decreases. Going against a BBGE a Paladin who blows spells slots for damage is more likely t deal superior singular target damage as opposed to long term damage through our the day.
I know right its fairly ridiculous. Its lvl 15 ability is pretty lackluster mind as well stick with protection fighting style to be able to still have resistance.
First and foremost. That is not how probability works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy That is the gambler's fallacy. All it states is that you cannot make assumptions on future samples of an independent distribution. Nothing more nothing less. If you did not get it on the first roll the second roll is unchanged. However, the two rolls taken together act as a different distribution so it operates as a different set of probabilities.
I mentioned that earlier with derivations of the likelihood to crit with advantage. Adding a second d20 and then taking the highest shifts the distribution to:
Advantage vs no advantage
1: 0.25 1-20: 5
2: 0.75
3: 1.25
4: 1.75
5: 2.25
6: 2.75
7: 3.25
8: 3.75
9: 4.25
10: 4.75
11: 5.25
12: 5.75
13: 6.25
14: 6.75
15: 7.25
16: 7.75
17: 8.25
18: 8.75
19: 9.25
20: 9.75
All of these are percentages. I apologize about the table format. This is what I've been using this entire time when talking about things like an increased to-hit chance and an increased crit chance. Advantage vs no-advantage use different distributions (albeit related) which causes different behavior when looking at them generally. tbh advantage in 5e is a super elegant way to helping people do better without trivializing things. Elven accuracy makes this even more dumb with the chance of critting going up to ~14.3% and the chance of hitting an 18 AC target going to 97.3% (which beats the +5!)
Yep!
long term - sure
Singular targets - Still vengeance as you have a higher chance of critting, a similar chance of hitting, and are not relying on other people for advantage
Devotion making it easier to hit - There are extremely few cases (in 5e) wherein equipment would make it true that a lower chance to crit but higher chance to hit would yield more damage. I could look some up; however, honestly at that point you're talking about major gear differences that yield that change.
Gambler's Fallacy has nothing to do with increased crit potential. The increased crit potential is because you're using a different distribution for your to-hit rolls. Were you using the same distribution this would be a different conversation. Additionally the gambler's fallacy is a logical fallacy. It straight up does not effect the underlying math or distribution.
BBEG -> If you're gonna nova something then yeah you're probably doing more damage. However, that is not a non-vengeance only sorta thing. At most the vengeance paladin would fall behind 4d8 damage (3rd level smite for hunter's mark); however, that's only 18 damage and honestly you'd be using a 1st level smite instead in most cases (lowering the difference to 9 damage). Additionally that's discounting the utility of having hunter's mark up for the other 8 hours of the day; and, that assumes that noone died / got blinded / anything bad that happens that paladins can fix.
The big thing here is that vengeance paladins have a no-save, self-sourced, and short rest recharging source of advantage on a single enemy that lasts a minute. That means that they're going to consistently (again we're ignoring outside factors such as a wizard who understands that faerie fire is basically faerie gold when you have a large martial party) outdamage the other paladins with devotion (and ancients if the target fails their save) coming up close behind. I'm not saying that makes anything unviable (since you know devotion is sturdier and ancients is too) I'm just saying that vengeance paladins are exceptional at "screw that guy in particular" moments.
I'm still wrapping my head around playing a paladin wherein a viable method of play is "I wall of force them all in a dome with me. I sit down. I wait." I mean. That's hilarious.
i havent read all of the comments in this thread but i have seen a large amount of bashing on the channel divinity feature of vengeance paladins vow of enmity and people saying it worse than the oath of devotions sacred weapon
this is completely untrue and is very easy to prove wrong by using a simple situation here
you are in a room and you are fighting a miniboss but you used all your smites up earlier getting here protecting the party and now dont have any left you have the great weapon master feat this means you can cop a -5 to the roll for +10 damage most paladins will have a +3 to charisma adn we will say they are level 8 so they have a 18 in strength as well their roll to hit will be +6 for the oath of devotion but the vengeance paladin will get a +3 which isnt good looking bad but unfortunately for the miniboss vow of enmity gives advantage which on average gives a +5 to attack rolls and doubles the chance of rolling a critical the oath of vengeance paladins bonus is 3 but his average has just gone up by 5 so for averages sake we will call it a +8 to hit or a +7 if we want to be condescending
they both have great burst damage and it doesnt come out as being extremely different but it does show that the channel divinity gives a higher chance to hit therefore a higher damage average along with a higher crit chance
hunters mark would benefit from the higher crit range additionally
Vengeance does more damage. Add 5% more damage to the total due to increased hit chance. Vengeance also gets haste. Vengeance also gets hold person and monster. You can’t win your point if you’re talking about a single target. If you’re talking about multiple targets, you’re right though.
Couldnt access my old account maddogs1989 here. That was entirely my point. Against single targets yes Vengeance deals more damage with haste.
Vengeance Paladins who focus on hunters mark will always deal more long term damage but any Paladin will deal higher bursts of damage if the Vengeance is concentrated on hunters mark because they'd lose hunters mark casting a smite spell.
In fact in single turn damage if the Vengeance doesnt use any other spells it still deals the same damage as all paladins.
Focused on hunters mark deals less damage round for round for 5 rounds (rounds it takes for a lvl 20 Paladin to burn all spell slots on smites and spell smites) but more overall damage in the Adventuring day.
Using Haste Deals the Damage done in 5 rounds of combat in half the time. Has by far the Highest burst of a single class but is attainable by any Paladin that has haste cast on them.
With both Haste and hunters Mark deals more damage faster and over time.
However again this is all best against single targets a Devotion will deal more reliable damage against all targets in comparison to the Vengeance. Which is my point.
This also said a Devotion is Immune to Charms and at lvl 15 has imposes disadvantage to attacks against the 5 creature types.
Which mechanically is better over all than getting a reactionary attack to your vow mark and while the lvl 7th ability is cool it is only really useful in closing distance vs not being able to be charmed and prevent your allies from being charmed as well.
I'm not saying the Vengeance cant deal more damage against single targets or that they cant deal damage faster.
I'm saying from the mechanics while a Devotion may not deal the same damage as fast or against an individual target it deals more reliable damage against more targets, has better aura abilities and a 15th lvl spell that puts most of the most dangerous creatures in DnD at disadvantage.
I got to thread late. Does vengeance paladin do less damage or just have the chance to do more (Bigger chance if halfelf with elven accuracy .) than other oaths not counting spells. (They all can use spell slots for Smite)
Vengeance does far more with Haste and hunters mark against single targets only. Devotion will do more reliable against multiple enemies.
New take on an old thread but i'm currently running a dex paladin and Hunters Mark synergizes really well with two handed fighting. Hinges on the Warcaster feat but by level 6 you can throw down 6d6 per round with short swords or 3d10 +3d6 + an AC bump if you take two handed fighting as a feat or style. Paladins get Aura of Protection and proficiency on WIS saves which helps keep the concentration check up.
ALSO! Last facet but stacking Vow of Emnity for advantage, three attacks per turn, and the extra 1d6 from Hunters Mark could be a Crit Machine when you throw a smite on top.