First, please understand that this is just an opinion, I'm perfectly happy with the Paladin class as is, and in fact believe it to be one of the best constructed classes in 5e.
Here is my opinion: I feel like a few abilities of the Paladin are a bit too good. Namely Aura of protection and the Oath of Ancients Aura of Warding.
Aura of protection comes in at level 6, and can give up to a +5 bonus to all saves to creatures within 10 feet. This is essentially adding a free level 13 proficiency bonus to every save. Not to mention that it stacks up on top of already proficient saves. So, at level six, a Rogue with 16 Dex gets a save bonus of +11 for dex saves. Without the aura, the rogue has to wait until level 17 with a full 20 in Dex to gain that same number. I personally feel like the Aura of protection should be nerfed down a bit, maybe half of the charisma score bonus (rounded down) to every ally, a +2 bonus to every save is still extremely useful. Any thoughts/ideas on how to change it around a bit?
As for Aura of Warding, this ability is WAY too good for level 7. It gives the Paladin and every ally within 10 feet free resistance to spell attack damage. Not just spells. Any unique monster ability labelled as a spell attack also falls underneath the spell attack field. Everyone within that aura gets resistance to that damage.
For comparison, an Abjuration school Wizard gets a similar ability of spell damage resistance. Note: only spells not spell attacks. In addition, they get it at level 14. That is 7 levels above the Paladin's ability, which is a ton of playtime for the wizard in comparison for the Paladin.
Lastly: The Abjuration Wizard's ability affects only themselves, whereas the Paladin's ability affects everyone within 10 ft of themselves along with themselves.
In summary the Oath of Ancient's Aura of Warding seems far too powerful an ability to have at such a lower level, and it feels like this ability should be the capstone or near capstone Paladin subclass ability for Oath of Ancients. Any thoughts/ideas for this one? (PS: This ability is my primary concern)
So here's the thing. Aura of Protection and Aura of Warding are both balanced around the fact that paladin's are not full spellcasters and people would have to stand near them for it to help them at all. For it to get to a large enough radius to actually be affecting everyone the paladin has to be level 18. Additionally wizards get all sorts of other features that help them out (like spell recovery and you know level 6+ spells).
Oath of Ancient's Aura of warding is super powerful; however, it doesn't outweigh things like higher level spell casting (wizard/sorc/warlock/cleric/druid/bard) / resistance to all (barbarian) / more attacks (fighters) / sneak attack and cunning action and more (rogues). It just gives them another support aura that helps them keep everyone around them alive.
Aura of protection is also fine for the same reason. You effectively have it acting as a major constraint on the Paladin's build (forcing them into being a MAD class) which makes them give up ASIs into str/dex/con for helping themselves and others have better saves. Additionally its a feature that could've been something else (it doesn't help with damage like action surge for example)
Idk. Its a cooperative game. I don't think that the auras are realistically causing problems especially since the abilities are not directly comparable to other class abilities.
I can see your point. I just view the combo of basically a +5 ring of protection + magic damage resistance as something really strong. But, I do agree with you in saying that Oath of Ancients in particular is a supportive subclass for Paladin, which in and of itself has some heavy support abilities, luckily enough, no long distance healing for balance.
You are completely correct in saying that it is a cooperative game and that some class abilities seem strong in comparison to others. I'm probably too focused down on the Paladin class alone and haven't looked at the picture as a whole.
I am going to post a question in the DMs only thread about how to challenge my party's build, so, if you have any advice for when that goes up, it'll be appreciated.
Thanks a bunch for just some words of rationality.
Curious question, would there be any homebrew ideas on how to maybe change these abilities around a bit?
I can see your point. I just view the combo of basically a +5 ring of protection + magic damage resistance as something really strong. But, I do agree with you in saying that Oath of Ancients in particular is a supportive subclass for Paladin, which in and of itself has some heavy support abilities, luckily enough, no long distance healing for balance.
The big thing here is to also realize that the only 2 damaging abilities that most paladins get as they level (other than smites) are improved divine smite (1d8) and extra attack (self explanatory). They're very much intended to be a bulwark that helps people directly next to them which can also deal some damage. They don't get ranged abilities worth anything really; and, if you challenge their Oath they can be manipulated by the situation to cause conflict within the party. Idk. I just think the abilities are there for legacy and balance reasons (honestly this conversation reminds me a bit of DMs saying bear totem is OP and rogue sneak attack on every turn is OP - They're not its just that that single ability is making up for something that the subclass isn't getting otherwise)
You are completely correct in saying that it is a cooperative game and that some class abilities seem strong in comparison to others. I'm probably too focused down on the Paladin class alone and haven't looked at the picture as a whole.
Go read abjuration wizard the rest of the way. They get proficiency to counterspell at level 10 which lets them be the best "counterspeller" in the game (I mean they have a 60% chance or so to counterspell a level 9 spell with a level 3 spell slot). There's a lot of OPness to most of the classes in the game. Its just that they're all OP in different ways =D.
I am going to post a question in the DMs only thread about how to challenge my party's build, so, if you have any advice for when that goes up, it'll be appreciated.
So as far as challenge goes.... Mind flayer's do a great job incapacitating paladins. And incapacitated paladin's don't have an aura... Just sayin ;)
Oh. And my party's paladin still hasn't forgiven me for the oblex. Try having one with a simulacrum of a jovial singing bard surrounded by simulacra of bandits or something. Draws in the paladin and then drains its memory.... :D
Greater Invisibility is also monstrously frustrating for any paladin that doesn't have greater invisibility prepped. As are synaptic static and enemies abound and mental prison / feeblemind (though the last one is a bit cruel)
Thanks a bunch for just some words of rationality.
Curious question, would there be any homebrew ideas on how to maybe change these abilities around a bit?
As far as homebrew goes I wouldn't really bother changing it other than to pay significantly more attention to location. Paladin auras without a battlemap are a giant PITA and positioning can fix them more often than not. Actually variant rules can also be a big help here. Especially the diagonal movement rule and spell shape rules from PHB/Xanathar's since they'll restrict the aura to effectively only people standing right next to the paladin.
I played a very crazy paladin centaur build using a slightly modified oath of the ancients archtype (just swapped a few of the spells cause of the diety I was with). I can firmly say that the aura is strong, but not broken, and here is why. The aura presents an interesting question to both players and dms at the table, is it safer next to the paladin? Assuming that casters notice the spells not being as effective as expected (not a crazy thing to realize), and piece together that the one at the center of them all is the paladin, either the paladin will be avoided, or focused down. This means that if your next to the paladin, your more likely to get a fireball thrown your way, but that fireball wouldn't likely do as much damage (he gave +3 saves). Conversely, if you weren't next to the paladin, that fireball would hurt more if it WAS directed at you, assuming the caster went that strategy. The end result is having to decide if you wanted to take chip damage from AOEs, or risk taking a larger hit if you drew attention. I can firmly say that it was enjoyable while the character was around. Basically its that the ability isn't broken, but influential enough that a dm DOES need to think around it, which in my opinion isn't a bad thing. A dm is totally within their right to want to modify it, but you shouldn't kneejerk to it, try running a few sessions with it before you nerf it too hard.
a traditional Paladin although has many powerful abilities is likely to be brave, and fair and honourable.... an evil wizard might rather sucker the paladin into accepting a duel, mano et mano, there by eliminating the aura from benefiting the party. or some such roleplaying exploit.
the point being the pally is more likely to put you in harm's way then actually steam roll the villains.
The only part where I find Paladins start going insane on versatility is when you factor in multiclassing, but even then, you're looking at 10+ levels at minimum before they get started. Frankly, the Paladin is "too good" in the same way Barbarians are "too good" at absorbing physical damage. Keeping magic and nasty effects off their allies and themselves is really what a good chunk of the paladins class feature revolve around, so they kind of need to do their job well to actually be an option worth picking.
The oath of ancients aura at 7th is great, but that the best thing they get. The Cdiv is depressing, the spells are... well they aint as choice as others. Like every class you have a good level, you have a great level but you have a few tumbleweed levels.
The bonus to saves is (to me) why we all want a paladin in the party and why it hurts to see paladins scrimp on charisma (usual reason given, i dont need charisma to smite) please dont think +5 is the limit, after all it could go up to +6 if you are granted a boon or blessing and thats a party everyone likes to be in.
As for Aura of Warding, this ability is WAY too good for level 7. It gives the Paladin and every ally within 10 feet free resistance to spell attack damage. Not just spells. Any unique monster ability labelled as a spell attack also falls underneath the spell attack field. Everyone within that aura gets resistance to that damage.
Aura of Warding only works against spells. It doesn't work against spell attacks that aren't delivered by a spell.
As for Aura of Warding, this ability is WAY too good for level 7. It gives the Paladin and every ally within 10 feet free resistance to spell attack damage. Not just spells. Any unique monster ability labelled as a spell attack also falls underneath the spell attack field. Everyone within that aura gets resistance to that damage.
Aura of Warding only works against spells. It doesn't work against spell attacks that aren't delivered by a spell.
Also some spell slingers can have spells that ignore resistance, and that would spell a great big omg
A spell attack that isnt delivered by spell? Thats some verbiage. Magical attacks fits better for me. (I dont want people being hurt by greenflame blade because the spell is delivered by a weapon attack)
Spell slinger classes do have abilities that ignore resistance, but I am gratefully unaware of a monster / npc stat block that does. If that confluence did occur, then yes ouch indeed. Thats an adventuring staple: You get hurt worse when what you thought was one thing turns out to be a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Regarding the posts question? Nearly every class has an option that seems better to the individual viewer than another. Depending on the style of adventure a specific type of character class / sub combo might over perform. That is as it should be, I expect turn undead to dramatically alter a fight with a horde of zombies. I do think paladins benefit from a mix of defensive and offensive abilities that fighters and barbarians have a right to be envious of. The fighter especially in a game where feats are disallowed. That said? too good would be determined at tiers really, a 5th paladin (for me) outshines a 5th fighter. But a 17th fighter should outshine a 17th paladin. (one for one, no support, which of course is unlikely to happen unless its a one man party)
A spell attack that isnt delivered by spell? Thats some verbiage. Magical attacks fits better for me. (I dont want people being hurt by greenflame blade because the spell is delivered by a weapon attack)
"Magical attacks" is already a game term and could be either weapon attacks or spell attacks. I'm talking about spell attacks specifically.
A spell attack that isnt delivered by spell? Thats some verbiage. Magical attacks fits better for me. (I dont want people being hurt by greenflame blade because the spell is delivered by a weapon attack)
"Magical attacks" is already a game term and could be either weapon attacks or spell attacks. I'm talking about spell attacks specifically.
Uh. Spell attacks are all spells. That's literally the term. 5e constructs all things that use attack rolls as <function> attack. That's why you get ranged weapon - attacks, melee weapon - attacks, and spell - attacks.
Magical attacks aren't really a thing in that sense. That only really appears on specific monsters (generally as magical weapons in the MM but I've seen magical attacks in adventurer's league documents) to denote that it bypasses nonmagical damage resistance.
Hence my request for a clarification of intended meaning - I.C. what is a spell attack not delivered by a spell excluding magical attacks?
Right! I think I was answering that as - Homebrew.
Honestly I not only can't find a monster that has anything resembling that. Additionally it doesn't make sense as far as the DMG and the definitions for everything else are concerned. But I guess maybe something like javelin of lightning (which is just a ranged weapon attack with a magical component)? Generally you have Melee weapon attacks, Ranged weapon attacks, Ranged Spell Attacks, Melee Spell Attacks and spells (saving throws / other). That then can also have the quality of being magical. However, spell resistance would apply to the damage from Range/Melee spell attacks and spells. I don't actually know where he was going with that comment which is what I was trying to say.
According to PHB / DMG there are weapon attacks and spell attacks. Thats the two types of attacks (rolling to hit) However I.C. (inquisitivecoder) mentioned:
"Aura of Warding only works against spells. It doesn't work against spell attacks that aren't delivered by a spell."
to which I assumed in reply
"A spell attack that isnt delivered by spell? Thats some verbiage. Magical attacks fits better for me. (I dont want people being hurt by greenflame blade because the spell is delivered by a weapon attack)"
I.C. firmly rebutted my impression that he was referring to magical attacks.
"Magical attacks" is already a game term and could be either weapon attacks or spell attacks. I'm talking about spell attacks specifically."
Now If something isnt a magical attack and it is spell attack delivered by a non spell? What the heck is it? Here is again asking I.C. to please explain.
Can you give an example of a spell attack not delivered by a spell then, please?
The Way of the Sun Soul monk's Radiant Sun Bolt attack, and various monster attacks like the banshee's corrupting touch and the lich's paralyzing touch.
Uh. Spell attacks are all spells. That's literally the term. 5e constructs all things that use attack rolls as <function> attack. That's why you get ranged weapon - attacks, melee weapon - attacks, and spell - attacks.
5's rules are exception-based. Just like an unarmed strike lets you make a melee weapon attack without a weapon, there are rare cases where you can make a spell attack without casting a spell.
Also the names of rules terms don't carry any rules weight in themselves. For example, Mage Armor isn't actually armor. They're convenient labels. You could just as easily replace weapon attack and spell attack with cat attack and dog attack and the rules would continue to work the same way.
Magical attacks aren't really a thing in that sense. That only really appears on specific monsters (generally as magical weapons in the MM but I've seen magical attacks in adventurer's league documents) to denote that it bypasses nonmagical damage resistance.
The term was coined in the Monster Manual errata that changed every instance of resistance/immunity to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage from nonmagical weapons to nonmagical attacks. Since weapon attacks can be magical attacks, it's not a good term to use when talking about spell attacks that don't come from spells.
Uh. Spell attacks are all spells. That's literally the term. 5e constructs all things that use attack rolls as <function> attack. That's why you get ranged weapon - attacks, melee weapon - attacks, and spell - attacks.
5's rules are exception-based. Just like an unarmed strike lets you make a melee weapon attack without a weapon, there are rare cases where you can make a spell attack without casting a spell.
Also the names of rules terms don't carry any rules weight in themselves. For example, Mage Armor isn't actually armor. They're convenient labels. You could just as easily replace weapon attack and spell attack with cat attack and dog attack and the rules would continue to work the same way.
1) The Sun Soul's attack is a ranged spell attack similar to a cantrip (running off of ki points in this case) as such it very much counts as a spell in this instance. If it doesn't that is a terrible wording. The creature I'm assuming is similar to Tarul Var which has:
Paralyzing Touch.Melee Spell Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 10 (3d6) cold damage. The target must suceed on a DC 17 Constitution saving throw or be paralyzed for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.
That is also a spell attack. If anything its a riff on chill touch. A spell doesn't have to consume a spell slot or be a cantrip for this ability to work on it. Arguably this would work on Paralyzing touch and the sun bolt. There is no reason why it wouldn't.
2) The rules (at least to me) seem to be generally consistent on this. If something is a spell it is a X spell attack and if something is a "martial" (overloaded word in this context) attack then it is a X weapon attack. The monk example is actually terrible here because when you're making an unarmed attack you are using whatever you're hitting the person with as the weapon (which was emphasized in older editions through things like the use of handwraps). Again. I don't see where you're looking for ambiguity where there isn't any.
Magical attacks aren't really a thing in that sense. That only really appears on specific monsters (generally as magical weapons in the MM but I've seen magical attacks in adventurer's league documents) to denote that it bypasses nonmagical damage resistance.
The term was coined in the Monster Manual errata that changed every instance of resistance/immunity to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage from nonmagical weapons to nonmagical attacks. Since weapon attacks can be magical attacks, it's not a good term to use when talking about spell attacks that don't come from spells.
Damage ImmunitiesNecrotic, Poison; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks
Straight from a statblock. Nonmagical is clearly talking about the damage type. It is not referring to a characteristic of the attack. The way 5e has treated damage types effectively means there are "6" damage types for weapons. <Magical> Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing. If you can find something that is resistant to say Fire or Poison from a nonmagical attack that would be great! I would accept I was wrong. However, I haven't seen that in the MM yet.
Additionally - I haven't seen the older version of the MM recently. So if it is the case that they changed every instance of X from nonmagical weapons to nonmagical attacks that's awesome if for no other reason than it makes it clear that a mundane bow using a +1 arrow gets past that resistance (which afaik it always has).
TBH I think we agree more or less. I think that you're just finding ambiguity where there isn't any. However, that may just be due to my reading of the most recent MM. IDK.
1) The Sun Soul's attack is a ranged spell attack similar to a cantrip (running off of ki points in this case) as such it very much counts as a spell in this instance. If it doesn't that is a terrible wording. The creature I'm assuming is similar to Tarul Var which has:
Paralyzing Touch.Melee Spell Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 10 (3d6) cold damage. The target must suceed on a DC 17 Constitution saving throw or be paralyzed for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.
That is also a spell attack. If anything its a riff on chill touch. A spell doesn't have to consume a spell slot or be a cantrip for this ability to work on it. Arguably this would work on Paralyzing touch and the sun bolt. There is no reason why it wouldn't.
They're definitely analogous to spells, but if it's not called a spell in the rules, it's not a spell. Two things being similar doesn't mean they're the same. Radiant Sun Bolt and Paralyzing Touch are ad-hoc magical abilities.
Can you use a melee spell attack to make an opportunity attack?
You can’t if the spell attack is created by casting a spell. When a creature triggers an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against it. The opportunity attack doesn’t suddenly give you the ability to cast a spell, such as shocking grasp.
Each spell has a casting time. A game feature, such as an opportunity attack, doesn’t let you bypass that casting time, unless the feature says otherwise. The War Caster feat is an example of a feature that does let you bypass a 1-action casting time to cast a spell in place of making an opportunity attack.
A few monsters can make opportunity attacks with melee spell attacks. Here’s how: certain monsters—including the banshee, the lich, and the specter—have a melee spell attack that isn’t delivered by a spell. For example, the banshee’s Corrupting Touch action is a melee spell attack but no spell is cast to make it. The banshee can, therefore, make opportunity attacks with Corrupting Touch.
2) The rules (at least to me) seem to be generally consistent on this. If something is a spell it is a X spell attack and if something is a "martial" (overloaded word in this context) attack then it is a X weapon attack. The monk example is actually terrible here because when you're making an unarmed attack you are using whatever you're hitting the person with as the weapon (which was emphasized in older editions through things like the use of handwraps). Again. I don't see where you're looking for ambiguity where there isn't any.
Unarmed strikes are absolutely not weapons in any rules sense.
Some creatures have vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to certain types of damage. Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source). In addition, some creatures are immune to certain conditions.
If a source of damage isn't an attack, that resistance or immunity doesn't apply. A werewolf will still take bludgeoning damage if it falls a long distance or gets crushed by falling rubble.
You're right that in practice it's always bludgeoning/piercing/slashing and there's no monsters with "resistance to fire damage from nonmagical attacks". I doubt we'll see any either. The whole "nonmagical attack" concept is mainly needed for monsters that traditionally can't be hurt by weapons.
Additionally - I haven't seen the older version of the MM recently. So if it is the case that they changed every instance of X from nonmagical weapons to nonmagical attacks that's awesome if for no other reason than it makes it clear that a mundane bow using a +1 arrow gets past that resistance (which afaik it always has).
The change happened in early 2015 so it's definitely been a while. The biggest problem with the old wording was that by making it specific to "nonmagical weapons", it wouldn't protect against unarmed strikes and arguably natural weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First, please understand that this is just an opinion, I'm perfectly happy with the Paladin class as is, and in fact believe it to be one of the best constructed classes in 5e.
Here is my opinion: I feel like a few abilities of the Paladin are a bit too good. Namely Aura of protection and the Oath of Ancients Aura of Warding.
Aura of protection comes in at level 6, and can give up to a +5 bonus to all saves to creatures within 10 feet. This is essentially adding a free level 13 proficiency bonus to every save. Not to mention that it stacks up on top of already proficient saves. So, at level six, a Rogue with 16 Dex gets a save bonus of +11 for dex saves. Without the aura, the rogue has to wait until level 17 with a full 20 in Dex to gain that same number. I personally feel like the Aura of protection should be nerfed down a bit, maybe half of the charisma score bonus (rounded down) to every ally, a +2 bonus to every save is still extremely useful. Any thoughts/ideas on how to change it around a bit?
As for Aura of Warding, this ability is WAY too good for level 7. It gives the Paladin and every ally within 10 feet free resistance to spell attack damage. Not just spells. Any unique monster ability labelled as a spell attack also falls underneath the spell attack field. Everyone within that aura gets resistance to that damage.
For comparison, an Abjuration school Wizard gets a similar ability of spell damage resistance. Note: only spells not spell attacks. In addition, they get it at level 14. That is 7 levels above the Paladin's ability, which is a ton of playtime for the wizard in comparison for the Paladin.
Lastly: The Abjuration Wizard's ability affects only themselves, whereas the Paladin's ability affects everyone within 10 ft of themselves along with themselves.
In summary the Oath of Ancient's Aura of Warding seems far too powerful an ability to have at such a lower level, and it feels like this ability should be the capstone or near capstone Paladin subclass ability for Oath of Ancients. Any thoughts/ideas for this one? (PS: This ability is my primary concern)
So here's the thing. Aura of Protection and Aura of Warding are both balanced around the fact that paladin's are not full spellcasters and people would have to stand near them for it to help them at all. For it to get to a large enough radius to actually be affecting everyone the paladin has to be level 18. Additionally wizards get all sorts of other features that help them out (like spell recovery and you know level 6+ spells).
Oath of Ancient's Aura of warding is super powerful; however, it doesn't outweigh things like higher level spell casting (wizard/sorc/warlock/cleric/druid/bard) / resistance to all (barbarian) / more attacks (fighters) / sneak attack and cunning action and more (rogues). It just gives them another support aura that helps them keep everyone around them alive.
Aura of protection is also fine for the same reason. You effectively have it acting as a major constraint on the Paladin's build (forcing them into being a MAD class) which makes them give up ASIs into str/dex/con for helping themselves and others have better saves. Additionally its a feature that could've been something else (it doesn't help with damage like action surge for example)
Idk. Its a cooperative game. I don't think that the auras are realistically causing problems especially since the abilities are not directly comparable to other class abilities.
I can see your point. I just view the combo of basically a +5 ring of protection + magic damage resistance as something really strong. But, I do agree with you in saying that Oath of Ancients in particular is a supportive subclass for Paladin, which in and of itself has some heavy support abilities, luckily enough, no long distance healing for balance.
You are completely correct in saying that it is a cooperative game and that some class abilities seem strong in comparison to others. I'm probably too focused down on the Paladin class alone and haven't looked at the picture as a whole.
I am going to post a question in the DMs only thread about how to challenge my party's build, so, if you have any advice for when that goes up, it'll be appreciated.
Thanks a bunch for just some words of rationality.
Curious question, would there be any homebrew ideas on how to maybe change these abilities around a bit?
The big thing here is to also realize that the only 2 damaging abilities that most paladins get as they level (other than smites) are improved divine smite (1d8) and extra attack (self explanatory). They're very much intended to be a bulwark that helps people directly next to them which can also deal some damage. They don't get ranged abilities worth anything really; and, if you challenge their Oath they can be manipulated by the situation to cause conflict within the party. Idk. I just think the abilities are there for legacy and balance reasons (honestly this conversation reminds me a bit of DMs saying bear totem is OP and rogue sneak attack on every turn is OP - They're not its just that that single ability is making up for something that the subclass isn't getting otherwise)
Go read abjuration wizard the rest of the way. They get proficiency to counterspell at level 10 which lets them be the best "counterspeller" in the game (I mean they have a 60% chance or so to counterspell a level 9 spell with a level 3 spell slot). There's a lot of OPness to most of the classes in the game. Its just that they're all OP in different ways =D.
So as far as challenge goes.... Mind flayer's do a great job incapacitating paladins. And incapacitated paladin's don't have an aura... Just sayin ;)
Oh. And my party's paladin still hasn't forgiven me for the oblex. Try having one with a simulacrum of a jovial singing bard surrounded by simulacra of bandits or something. Draws in the paladin and then drains its memory.... :D
Greater Invisibility is also monstrously frustrating for any paladin that doesn't have greater invisibility prepped. As are synaptic static and enemies abound and mental prison / feeblemind (though the last one is a bit cruel)
As far as homebrew goes I wouldn't really bother changing it other than to pay significantly more attention to location. Paladin auras without a battlemap are a giant PITA and positioning can fix them more often than not. Actually variant rules can also be a big help here. Especially the diagonal movement rule and spell shape rules from PHB/Xanathar's since they'll restrict the aura to effectively only people standing right next to the paladin.
I played a very crazy paladin centaur build using a slightly modified oath of the ancients archtype (just swapped a few of the spells cause of the diety I was with). I can firmly say that the aura is strong, but not broken, and here is why. The aura presents an interesting question to both players and dms at the table, is it safer next to the paladin? Assuming that casters notice the spells not being as effective as expected (not a crazy thing to realize), and piece together that the one at the center of them all is the paladin, either the paladin will be avoided, or focused down. This means that if your next to the paladin, your more likely to get a fireball thrown your way, but that fireball wouldn't likely do as much damage (he gave +3 saves). Conversely, if you weren't next to the paladin, that fireball would hurt more if it WAS directed at you, assuming the caster went that strategy. The end result is having to decide if you wanted to take chip damage from AOEs, or risk taking a larger hit if you drew attention. I can firmly say that it was enjoyable while the character was around. Basically its that the ability isn't broken, but influential enough that a dm DOES need to think around it, which in my opinion isn't a bad thing. A dm is totally within their right to want to modify it, but you shouldn't kneejerk to it, try running a few sessions with it before you nerf it too hard.
a traditional Paladin although has many powerful abilities is likely to be brave, and fair and honourable.... an evil wizard might rather sucker the paladin into accepting a duel, mano et mano, there by eliminating the aura from benefiting the party. or some such roleplaying exploit.
the point being the pally is more likely to put you in harm's way then actually steam roll the villains.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
The only part where I find Paladins start going insane on versatility is when you factor in multiclassing, but even then, you're looking at 10+ levels at minimum before they get started. Frankly, the Paladin is "too good" in the same way Barbarians are "too good" at absorbing physical damage. Keeping magic and nasty effects off their allies and themselves is really what a good chunk of the paladins class feature revolve around, so they kind of need to do their job well to actually be an option worth picking.
The oath of ancients aura at 7th is great, but that the best thing they get. The Cdiv is depressing, the spells are... well they aint as choice as others. Like every class you have a good level, you have a great level but you have a few tumbleweed levels.
The bonus to saves is (to me) why we all want a paladin in the party and why it hurts to see paladins scrimp on charisma (usual reason given, i dont need charisma to smite) please dont think +5 is the limit, after all it could go up to +6 if you are granted a boon or blessing and thats a party everyone likes to be in.
Aura of Warding only works against spells. It doesn't work against spell attacks that aren't delivered by a spell.
Also some spell slingers can have spells that ignore resistance, and that would spell a great big omg
A spell attack that isnt delivered by spell? Thats some verbiage. Magical attacks fits better for me. (I dont want people being hurt by greenflame blade because the spell is delivered by a weapon attack)
Spell slinger classes do have abilities that ignore resistance, but I am gratefully unaware of a monster / npc stat block that does. If that confluence did occur, then yes ouch indeed. Thats an adventuring staple: You get hurt worse when what you thought was one thing turns out to be a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Regarding the posts question? Nearly every class has an option that seems better to the individual viewer than another. Depending on the style of adventure a specific type of character class / sub combo might over perform. That is as it should be, I expect turn undead to dramatically alter a fight with a horde of zombies. I do think paladins benefit from a mix of defensive and offensive abilities that fighters and barbarians have a right to be envious of. The fighter especially in a game where feats are disallowed. That said? too good would be determined at tiers really, a 5th paladin (for me) outshines a 5th fighter. But a 17th fighter should outshine a 17th paladin. (one for one, no support, which of course is unlikely to happen unless its a one man party)
"Magical attacks" is already a game term and could be either weapon attacks or spell attacks. I'm talking about spell attacks specifically.
Can you give an example of a spell attack not delivered by a spell then, please?
Uh. Spell attacks are all spells. That's literally the term. 5e constructs all things that use attack rolls as <function> attack. That's why you get ranged weapon - attacks, melee weapon - attacks, and spell - attacks.
Magical attacks aren't really a thing in that sense. That only really appears on specific monsters (generally as magical weapons in the MM but I've seen magical attacks in adventurer's league documents) to denote that it bypasses nonmagical damage resistance.
Hence my request for a clarification of intended meaning - I.C. what is a spell attack not delivered by a spell excluding magical attacks?
Right! I think I was answering that as - Homebrew.
Honestly I not only can't find a monster that has anything resembling that. Additionally it doesn't make sense as far as the DMG and the definitions for everything else are concerned. But I guess maybe something like javelin of lightning (which is just a ranged weapon attack with a magical component)? Generally you have Melee weapon attacks, Ranged weapon attacks, Ranged Spell Attacks, Melee Spell Attacks and spells (saving throws / other). That then can also have the quality of being magical. However, spell resistance would apply to the damage from Range/Melee spell attacks and spells. I don't actually know where he was going with that comment which is what I was trying to say.
According to PHB / DMG there are weapon attacks and spell attacks. Thats the two types of attacks (rolling to hit) However I.C. (inquisitivecoder) mentioned:
"Aura of Warding only works against spells. It doesn't work against spell attacks that aren't delivered by a spell."
to which I assumed in reply
"A spell attack that isnt delivered by spell? Thats some verbiage. Magical attacks fits better for me. (I dont want people being hurt by greenflame blade because the spell is delivered by a weapon attack)"
I.C. firmly rebutted my impression that he was referring to magical attacks.
"Magical attacks" is already a game term and could be either weapon attacks or spell attacks. I'm talking about spell attacks specifically."
Now If something isnt a magical attack and it is spell attack delivered by a non spell? What the heck is it? Here is again asking I.C. to please explain.
The Way of the Sun Soul monk's Radiant Sun Bolt attack, and various monster attacks like the banshee's corrupting touch and the lich's paralyzing touch.
5's rules are exception-based. Just like an unarmed strike lets you make a melee weapon attack without a weapon, there are rare cases where you can make a spell attack without casting a spell.
Also the names of rules terms don't carry any rules weight in themselves. For example, Mage Armor isn't actually armor. They're convenient labels. You could just as easily replace weapon attack and spell attack with cat attack and dog attack and the rules would continue to work the same way.
The term was coined in the Monster Manual errata that changed every instance of resistance/immunity to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage from nonmagical weapons to nonmagical attacks. Since weapon attacks can be magical attacks, it's not a good term to use when talking about spell attacks that don't come from spells.
1) The Sun Soul's attack is a ranged spell attack similar to a cantrip (running off of ki points in this case) as such it very much counts as a spell in this instance. If it doesn't that is a terrible wording. The creature I'm assuming is similar to Tarul Var which has:
Paralyzing Touch. Melee Spell Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 10 (3d6) cold damage. The target must suceed on a DC 17 Constitution saving throw or be paralyzed for 1 minute. The target can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.
That is also a spell attack. If anything its a riff on chill touch. A spell doesn't have to consume a spell slot or be a cantrip for this ability to work on it. Arguably this would work on Paralyzing touch and the sun bolt. There is no reason why it wouldn't.
2) The rules (at least to me) seem to be generally consistent on this. If something is a spell it is a X spell attack and if something is a "martial" (overloaded word in this context) attack then it is a X weapon attack. The monk example is actually terrible here because when you're making an unarmed attack you are using whatever you're hitting the person with as the weapon (which was emphasized in older editions through things like the use of handwraps). Again. I don't see where you're looking for ambiguity where there isn't any.
Damage Immunities Necrotic, Poison; Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks
Straight from a statblock. Nonmagical is clearly talking about the damage type. It is not referring to a characteristic of the attack. The way 5e has treated damage types effectively means there are "6" damage types for weapons. <Magical> Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing. If you can find something that is resistant to say Fire or Poison from a nonmagical attack that would be great! I would accept I was wrong. However, I haven't seen that in the MM yet.
Additionally - I haven't seen the older version of the MM recently. So if it is the case that they changed every instance of X from nonmagical weapons to nonmagical attacks that's awesome if for no other reason than it makes it clear that a mundane bow using a +1 arrow gets past that resistance (which afaik it always has).
TBH I think we agree more or less. I think that you're just finding ambiguity where there isn't any. However, that may just be due to my reading of the most recent MM. IDK.
They're definitely analogous to spells, but if it's not called a spell in the rules, it's not a spell. Two things being similar doesn't mean they're the same. Radiant Sun Bolt and Paralyzing Touch are ad-hoc magical abilities.
"Want to know what spells look like? See "Spells" (PH, 211–89). Nothing else is a spell unless it is presented as a spell or called one."
From Sage Advice Compendium:
Unarmed strikes are absolutely not weapons in any rules sense.
"The rule on unarmed strikes specifically states that they can be used to make a weapon attack (a process). They still don't count as a weapon (an object)."
"Unarmed strikes can be used to make weapon attacks. "Weapon attack" is a rules term, just as "spell attack" is a rule term. "Weapon strike" is just English."
It's a characteristic of the attack, which is why it says "nonmagical attacks" and not "nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage."
From the rules:
If a source of damage isn't an attack, that resistance or immunity doesn't apply. A werewolf will still take bludgeoning damage if it falls a long distance or gets crushed by falling rubble.
You're right that in practice it's always bludgeoning/piercing/slashing and there's no monsters with "resistance to fire damage from nonmagical attacks". I doubt we'll see any either. The whole "nonmagical attack" concept is mainly needed for monsters that traditionally can't be hurt by weapons.
The change happened in early 2015 so it's definitely been a while. The biggest problem with the old wording was that by making it specific to "nonmagical weapons", it wouldn't protect against unarmed strikes and arguably natural weapons.