The problem is that the best paladin builds are gonna incorporate a level or two of Warlock for that sweet, sweet SAD. It even gives better access to crits! That kinda stuff should probably be the basis of any discussion involving min/maxing
Mechanically, this is a strong argument if the player doesn't care for the paladin capstones. However, it also depends on whether or not the DM pays special attention to the paladin/warlock; it could easily backfire if the patron wants the character to do something that goes against their sacred oath or vise versa.
I prefer to have as much agency over my own characters as possible, so having an non-fallen aasimar paladin/non-celestial warlock would likely drive such a character insane from life-altering choices.
Why pick on aasimar? At the time of this post, it's AL legal to pick aasimars for a character regardless of your PHB+1. Personally, I'd make all races available except notably problematic ones (yuan-ti, winged tieflings and such would still be locked by the PHB+1 or outright banned).
Capstones are not a good argument, nor is the idea that RP could somehow get in the way of a specifically mechanical argument. Sure, under normal circumstances I would agree that it could raise issues, not necessarily that those issues wouldn't actually be for the betterment of the character. But otherwise, flavour is basically infinitely malleable and bringing it up in an argument about mechanical considerations is pointless.
Capstones aren't relevant because only the smallest of percentages of players ever actually reach the top and while I'll wholeheartedly agree that as a whole, Paladin caps are the best in the game, they're also limited time/use and therefore probably still don't hold a candle to the long term benefits of casting and hitting on the same stat.
AL legality is another nonconsideration unless otherwise stated. We can make stuff to that specifications if asked too, but as it stands, it's just about whether or not GWM or PAM are good with smites and so on.
That was a typo with "minimum flat numbers" - should've been just "flat numbers" but I rewrote that sentence from something else and it stayed that way. Not gonna edit it now since you responded to it but ok.
Moving on.
When you say that avg. damage doesn't properly reflect damage dealt you are simply losing me. It's against any kind of math and statistics known to man.
The reason there is greater difference between avg. crit vs. max crit and normal hit vs. normal hit max dmg is because of the sheer number of dice thrown. But guess what? The more dice you throw, the less chance you have for max damage. It evens out. Max total crit may be well beyond in points vs. avg. crit but you still use average damage because you have no chance of rolling that.
The less dice you throw the more chance you have for max damage. It's a simple as that. You have shown nothing to convince me that avg doesn't matter because of smites. It absolutely does matter.
Where did Joe roll this damage? I'd like to see it. The only mention of him doing any significant damage is his 135 against Vecna in Critical Role stream.
And where did I suggest doing damage in single turn vs. over period of time? I don't know where I suggested it. The only thing I said is that I value Holy Weapon more than Banishing Smite because it has better utility (3 hits and you have closed the damage difference and you still have one hour left of buff).
In fact - I have alluded to the opposite with my mentions of reaction from PAM (meaning that you get additional attacks over the course of combat as a reaction against enemy approaching you within 10ft. reach which means more chance to crit and more chance to smite).
As for no2. - I have never said anything about Sentinel. Only about Polearm Master. You lose initiative, a melee attacker comes your way and gets whamed in the face once he is 10ft. from you, before he gets the chance to attack you. The only way this does not come up is if you always win initative and are always 30ft. or less from enemy or you don't get attacked by melee attackers at all.
Did I ever say average numbers didnt matter? No I said average damage doesnt properly reflect the damage Paladins can deal. There is a clear difference you might want to understand it.
You're quote in response to mine avoiding damage and doing damage over time
"How about everyone else in the party who will benefit from faster ending the encounter?"
That was my take aways specifically because the quote you quoted me was in regards to avoiding being hit to deal the damage. This was the end of your first response.
As for 2. Apologies. On bringing up Sentinel still was thinking of when I first brought it up and why I did.
And I say it absolutely reflects the damage Paladin can deal. Whether you use Divine Smite or not, whether you crit or not, average damage is the thing you want the highest.
I would even go further and say that it's especially important for Paladins because they can throw so many dice. Simple rule - the more dice you throw, the more avg. damage matters. The more flat numbers are a part of your dpr, the less avg. matter.
That article says that Joe did 315 with a single Divine Smite. Respectfully, unless there is a transcript or VOD of that, I'm gonna call bullshit. Like I said, the only thing I've seen him do is much less with 3 strikes and 1 crit among them.
Me calling you out on the party benefiting from faster ending the encounter was not about single round damage but the overall DPR in a fight which for me is considering crits, additional attacks from PAM reaction and additional attacks from bonus action. In doing so, I assume that the fight lasts longer than 1 round (monster high HP and more than 1 monster) and that the monsters will actually have something to do.
You advocate having a high AC build which is fine. I like having to swing polearm left and right during the fight.
Imagine this scenario: you vs. a melee monster, 30ft. from each other, rolling initiative. If monster wins (probable since Dex is a dump stat for a plate paladin), the monster closes in on us and gets first hit in the face with a Divine Smite, Improved Divine Smite and Holy Weapon. Monster hits us and unfortunately we have to tank that damage but it's ok, we can survive that. Then our turn starts and we unleash our 3 attacks, all with Divine Smites.
By the end of our turn we have attacked the monster 4 times.
In the same scenario the difference between my Paladin and yours is that yours has not been hit by the monster but yours has attacked 2 times.
Or imagine a scenario when we win the initiative but the closes monster is more than 30 feet away. You run up, do some buffing if not done before and wait for the monster to approach you. If I want to be extra cheeky I can say you have won initiative but the monster is 40 feet away. Now the PAM Paladin can attack 3 times during that round vs. S&B 0. But let's say it's more than that. Now you are within monster's move distance and it's basically scenario 1.
Or imagine that there is more than one monster and you are locked with one in a fight but a second one comes (either to attack you or going past you for an ally) and you have your reaction - another hit because 10ft. reach is hard to avoid if your allies are not far away from you.
This is what I meant "ending encounter earlier" - not dealing more damage to one monster in one specific turn or even round but having the ability to swing additional attacks with smites to deplete the overall HP monster pool during the fight.
Okay, I have found the FB post. So it's 315 damage full round. Still, what we do not know is:
1. How many crits?
2. What kind of gear?
3. What kind of buffs?
Because if we don't know that then I can say something like this:
Paladin of Vengeance, Str. 25 (from belt), Glaive +3 that deals extra 2d8 per hit (simulating his Hand of Vecna), prebuffed with: Banishing Smite (self), Holy Weapon (cleric), Haste (from wizard)
4 attacks with GWM dealing: 3d10+1d4+8d8 (glaive "hand")+4d8 (Impr.divine smite) + 5d10+ 24d8 (4xsmites against a fiend/undead)+8d8 (holy weapon) + 80
324.5 avg damage without crit.
If you think some of the buffs are excessive then remove them but I think he crit twice in that round so...well, here you go. After all, it's much easier to crit and explode your avg damage than to roll max damage.
He made 4 attacks (Haste, Frenzy because he is a MC Barbarian), crit twice. And I watched him roll his dice, he was really not maxing out that damage. (82 on his first 20d8 attack for instance).
So yeah - he did impressive damage but it was about average of what was expected considering 4 hits with frenzied rage two of which were crits.
I've been looking into this stuff while I've been working on a paladin guide (Hopefully out sometime in the next twoish weeks), and I've sort of found that there are a few different paths you can take paladins.
1. Paladins that are taking Polearm Mastery + Great Weapon Mastery + Sentinel are going to have a really high offensive damage output, mainly with those first two but sentinel also can help with damage and give you excellent control. Paladins that are going that route are wanting to take multiclasses that can give you lots of on hit dice/damage. This is things like Ranger's Colossus Slayer from the Hunter conclave and Hunter's Mark, Hex and Hexblade's Curse from Warlock, and assorted other options that work with a polearm.
2. Another way to build a paladin is to go sword and board, and probably raise your Dex instead of your Str for the variety of better usage in skills and multiclassing into things like Rogue. This can give you a lot more utility in how you might be spending your turn since you have more options than just hitting them with your polearm a bunch, but they tend to be less damage oriented as a result. These also end up working out as great anti mages because you can multiclass for some mobility, and then combine that with how inherently good paladins can be at shrugging off magic.
3. All in support, you can sort of see this as similar to option 2 in the sense that you aren't quite as focused on all out offense, but you can still melee fine with a hexblade multiclass to let you just use your Cha for attacking with a sword. This ends up also working well if you are doing the super multiclassing mix of Paladin Warlock Sorcerer and optionally Bard, though perhaps you go to paladin 7 first before you really start getting into this. I think this one ends up as the better long term build since you get more spell slots and the ability to cast things like Misty Step and Hold Person as a bonus action (thanks Quicken Spell).
4. Maximize your tanking by going super high health and as much armor as is practical for you to have and just absorb hits for people, especially nice with the Oath of Redemption so you can literally just be an HP battery for the more squishy party members, maybe grab levels of Battlemaster Fighter or Cleric with this for more shenanigans you can do, or go into Bard and then throw around some bardic inspirations for people. Either way this is a bit of a more "mundane" support in that you aren't just relying on spells to do all the work.
Regardless of which of these you pick, you are still a solid character, just with a different focus. Nothing stops any of these from just deciding to run in and hit them with the magic explody sword, but each plays a slightly different role in the party. Key is to know what you are and aren't great at. Also on the topic of calculating damage numbers, Using the Dice average tends to be better since it's, well, average. Calculating crits too heavily into the result only really makes sense if you have ways to actually get them, either with Assassin Rogue dip, or having someone in the party who can toss out Hold Persons.
Can anybody here tell me your thoughts about Dueling compared to Defense fighting style for paladins? +2 damage each hit is fair, but I feel like Fighters benefit from that way more, while +1 to AC helps avoiding concentration rolls and generally getting hit.
+2 damage vs. 5% dodge chance. Is that 5% that notable? Maybe over the course of a long time, but +2 damage every hit can be pretty nice. Of course Polearm Mastery is the best way to do damage anyway so Dueling isn't actually that optimal. Dueling does bring up your average damage with a one hander to a typical two hander or at least fairly close though. Defense is just a minor bump to something you will use often, so if you intend to really pump up that AC it isn't a terrible idea.
dueling is good if your campaign isn't going to get into higher levels, especially if you're going to be using polearm master with a one handed spear or quarterstaff. +2 damage on a hit is good at level 2 and still decent at level 8 or so and an awful lot of campaigns are wrapping up at that point.
It doesn't scale at all beyond making extra attacks, and once you have two attacks (plus maybe a bonus attack from polearm master) that's all the attacks a round you're going to get, it's not going to scale beyond that, and by the time you're in your mid teens that extra damage isn't particularly noticeable anymore. +1 AC still matters about as much at level 15 as it did at level 5, so in the long run imo defense style is better. Again, though, most campaigns don't last long enough for that to really show.
If you're building a tankier, more supportive paladin then defense is better at any level, of course.
As for great weapon style... eh. It's really a shame it doesn't apply to smite damage - if it did (or if you can convince your DM to house rule it to apply) then it might be worth taking. As it is, if you're using a two handed weapon you might as well just stick with defense style no matter what levels you're playing at.
I personally find both fighting styles to be very good at low levels. Monsters tend to be squishier and not as accurate with their attacks, so the +2 damage and -5% chance to be hit have a much stronger impact. Against a tarrasque at 17th+ level? They simply don't hold the same weight.
Think about your role in the party. Do you want to be tankier and harder to drop, thus being able to smite more? Defense. Is it more important to drop your enemies sooner, thus relying less on resources or needing to tank hits? Dueling. Can't decide or simply want both? Multiclass into fighter for the other and probably action surge, too.
So to recap, the highest potential damage for my original post would be 2d10 + 1d4 + 15d8 (16d8 if the target is a fiend) + 15. This strategy is made for dealing a lot of damage at once. I just wanted to point out another, more defensive build. Take the shield master feat along with the protection fighting style. You and your friends will be better protected from melee attacks.
So to recap, the highest potential damage for my original post would be 2d10 + 1d4 + 15d8 (16d8 if the target is a fiend) + 15. This strategy is made for dealing a lot of damage at once. I just wanted to point out another, more defensive build. Take the shield master feat along with the protection fighting style. You and your friends will be better protected from melee attacks.
I'd rely more on careful positioning than the Protection fighting style. The cost of a potential attack of opportunity is huge against smarter enemies, as they'll realize they can run past you safely.
I love gish ideas. I just don't see sorcerer, even draconic sorcerer, in direct melee except by mistake of positioning. When making a gish, ask yourself "what does this bring to the table that wouldn't be better served by a class designed to be there ?
My first thought is that poison is a terrible damage type to deliberately pick. Acid (black dragon) is MUCH better. Take a 3 (or 4) level dip into tome warlock for Primal Savagery (from the druid list) keyed to your CHA, which gives you quicken cast and action cast for 8d10 acid damage per turn if you hit. That's the same as quickening EB, with fewer rolls. Of course, if you're taking warlock, just grab Agonizing Blast and deal 8d10+(8x cha mod) which should be 5 by that point, and should be 3-4 for most of the game. Or both while you're running up. 1-2 levels of paladin is virtually mandatory for heavy armor, because you really need an ac above 20 to be in melee and not just die. You'll cap out at about 200hp without tough. Use the feat you waste on Elemental Adept and either pick up another invocation via feat, or go heavy armor Master or mobile, and get to sorc 14 ASAP.
really, though, straight pally is better in melee, or pally/warlock for hexblade/blade pact. Go pally ( oathbreaker) 7-8, hexblade bladelock 12, deal weapon+15 twice per round plus smites
Straight barbarian is better in melee too, or fighter.
Fighter1 arcana cleric X is better in melee defensively
If you're determined to be in melee as a dragon sorc, pally 2/sorc 18; pally 6/sorc 14; pally 2/hexblade 4/ sorc 14; pal 6/hexblade 4/sorc 10 are all going to serve you better than straight sorcerer ever will.
All of that said, your build looks ok, except pick up haste and fireball or lightning bolt (or all 3), skip the control spells unless you're going with heightened spell metamagic. And like I said, pick black instead of green. (Also, acid splash is objectively bad, go with any of the fire or cold dragons instead if you're still taking Elemental adept; ray of frost is great and firebolt is perfectlyadequate)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem is that the best paladin builds are gonna incorporate a level or two of Warlock for that sweet, sweet SAD. It even gives better access to crits! That kinda stuff should probably be the basis of any discussion involving min/maxing
Mechanically, this is a strong argument if the player doesn't care for the paladin capstones. However, it also depends on whether or not the DM pays special attention to the paladin/warlock; it could easily backfire if the patron wants the character to do something that goes against their sacred oath or vise versa.
I prefer to have as much agency over my own characters as possible, so having an non-fallen aasimar paladin/non-celestial warlock would likely drive such a character insane from life-altering choices.
Why pick on aasimar? At the time of this post, it's AL legal to pick aasimars for a character regardless of your PHB+1. Personally, I'd make all races available except notably problematic ones (yuan-ti, winged tieflings and such would still be locked by the PHB+1 or outright banned).
Capstones are not a good argument, nor is the idea that RP could somehow get in the way of a specifically mechanical argument. Sure, under normal circumstances I would agree that it could raise issues, not necessarily that those issues wouldn't actually be for the betterment of the character. But otherwise, flavour is basically infinitely malleable and bringing it up in an argument about mechanical considerations is pointless.
Capstones aren't relevant because only the smallest of percentages of players ever actually reach the top and while I'll wholeheartedly agree that as a whole, Paladin caps are the best in the game, they're also limited time/use and therefore probably still don't hold a candle to the long term benefits of casting and hitting on the same stat.
AL legality is another nonconsideration unless otherwise stated. We can make stuff to that specifications if asked too, but as it stands, it's just about whether or not GWM or PAM are good with smites and so on.
And I say it absolutely reflects the damage Paladin can deal. Whether you use Divine Smite or not, whether you crit or not, average damage is the thing you want the highest.
I would even go further and say that it's especially important for Paladins because they can throw so many dice. Simple rule - the more dice you throw, the more avg. damage matters. The more flat numbers are a part of your dpr, the less avg. matter.
That article says that Joe did 315 with a single Divine Smite. Respectfully, unless there is a transcript or VOD of that, I'm gonna call bullshit. Like I said, the only thing I've seen him do is much less with 3 strikes and 1 crit among them.
Me calling you out on the party benefiting from faster ending the encounter was not about single round damage but the overall DPR in a fight which for me is considering crits, additional attacks from PAM reaction and additional attacks from bonus action. In doing so, I assume that the fight lasts longer than 1 round (monster high HP and more than 1 monster) and that the monsters will actually have something to do.
You advocate having a high AC build which is fine. I like having to swing polearm left and right during the fight.
Imagine this scenario: you vs. a melee monster, 30ft. from each other, rolling initiative. If monster wins (probable since Dex is a dump stat for a plate paladin), the monster closes in on us and gets first hit in the face with a Divine Smite, Improved Divine Smite and Holy Weapon. Monster hits us and unfortunately we have to tank that damage but it's ok, we can survive that. Then our turn starts and we unleash our 3 attacks, all with Divine Smites.
By the end of our turn we have attacked the monster 4 times.
In the same scenario the difference between my Paladin and yours is that yours has not been hit by the monster but yours has attacked 2 times.
Or imagine a scenario when we win the initiative but the closes monster is more than 30 feet away. You run up, do some buffing if not done before and wait for the monster to approach you. If I want to be extra cheeky I can say you have won initiative but the monster is 40 feet away. Now the PAM Paladin can attack 3 times during that round vs. S&B 0. But let's say it's more than that. Now you are within monster's move distance and it's basically scenario 1.
Or imagine that there is more than one monster and you are locked with one in a fight but a second one comes (either to attack you or going past you for an ally) and you have your reaction - another hit because 10ft. reach is hard to avoid if your allies are not far away from you.
This is what I meant "ending encounter earlier" - not dealing more damage to one monster in one specific turn or even round but having the ability to swing additional attacks with smites to deplete the overall HP monster pool during the fight.
https://www.facebook.com/JoeManganiello/posts/july-28-2018-founders-legends-day-to-celebrate-what-would-have-been-the-80th-bir/2081033365265648/
Okay, I have found the FB post. So it's 315 damage full round. Still, what we do not know is:
1. How many crits?
2. What kind of gear?
3. What kind of buffs?
Because if we don't know that then I can say something like this:
Paladin of Vengeance, Str. 25 (from belt), Glaive +3 that deals extra 2d8 per hit (simulating his Hand of Vecna), prebuffed with: Banishing Smite (self), Holy Weapon (cleric), Haste (from wizard)
4 attacks with GWM dealing: 3d10+1d4+8d8 (glaive "hand")+4d8 (Impr.divine smite) + 5d10+ 24d8 (4xsmites against a fiend/undead)+8d8 (holy weapon) + 80
324.5 avg damage without crit.
If you think some of the buffs are excessive then remove them but I think he crit twice in that round so...well, here you go. After all, it's much easier to crit and explode your avg damage than to roll max damage.
EDIT: I have found the stream.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/292007853?filter=all&sort=time
He made 4 attacks (Haste, Frenzy because he is a MC Barbarian), crit twice. And I watched him roll his dice, he was really not maxing out that damage. (82 on his first 20d8 attack for instance).
So yeah - he did impressive damage but it was about average of what was expected considering 4 hits with frenzied rage two of which were crits.
I've been looking into this stuff while I've been working on a paladin guide (Hopefully out sometime in the next twoish weeks), and I've sort of found that there are a few different paths you can take paladins.
1. Paladins that are taking Polearm Mastery + Great Weapon Mastery + Sentinel are going to have a really high offensive damage output, mainly with those first two but sentinel also can help with damage and give you excellent control. Paladins that are going that route are wanting to take multiclasses that can give you lots of on hit dice/damage. This is things like Ranger's Colossus Slayer from the Hunter conclave and Hunter's Mark, Hex and Hexblade's Curse from Warlock, and assorted other options that work with a polearm.
2. Another way to build a paladin is to go sword and board, and probably raise your Dex instead of your Str for the variety of better usage in skills and multiclassing into things like Rogue. This can give you a lot more utility in how you might be spending your turn since you have more options than just hitting them with your polearm a bunch, but they tend to be less damage oriented as a result. These also end up working out as great anti mages because you can multiclass for some mobility, and then combine that with how inherently good paladins can be at shrugging off magic.
3. All in support, you can sort of see this as similar to option 2 in the sense that you aren't quite as focused on all out offense, but you can still melee fine with a hexblade multiclass to let you just use your Cha for attacking with a sword. This ends up also working well if you are doing the super multiclassing mix of Paladin Warlock Sorcerer and optionally Bard, though perhaps you go to paladin 7 first before you really start getting into this. I think this one ends up as the better long term build since you get more spell slots and the ability to cast things like Misty Step and Hold Person as a bonus action (thanks Quicken Spell).
4. Maximize your tanking by going super high health and as much armor as is practical for you to have and just absorb hits for people, especially nice with the Oath of Redemption so you can literally just be an HP battery for the more squishy party members, maybe grab levels of Battlemaster Fighter or Cleric with this for more shenanigans you can do, or go into Bard and then throw around some bardic inspirations for people. Either way this is a bit of a more "mundane" support in that you aren't just relying on spells to do all the work.
Regardless of which of these you pick, you are still a solid character, just with a different focus. Nothing stops any of these from just deciding to run in and hit them with the magic explody sword, but each plays a slightly different role in the party. Key is to know what you are and aren't great at. Also on the topic of calculating damage numbers, Using the Dice average tends to be better since it's, well, average. Calculating crits too heavily into the result only really makes sense if you have ways to actually get them, either with Assassin Rogue dip, or having someone in the party who can toss out Hold Persons.
Can anybody here tell me your thoughts about Dueling compared to Defense fighting style for paladins? +2 damage each hit is fair, but I feel like Fighters benefit from that way more, while +1 to AC helps avoiding concentration rolls and generally getting hit.
+2 damage vs. 5% dodge chance. Is that 5% that notable? Maybe over the course of a long time, but +2 damage every hit can be pretty nice. Of course Polearm Mastery is the best way to do damage anyway so Dueling isn't actually that optimal. Dueling does bring up your average damage with a one hander to a typical two hander or at least fairly close though. Defense is just a minor bump to something you will use often, so if you intend to really pump up that AC it isn't a terrible idea.
dueling is good if your campaign isn't going to get into higher levels, especially if you're going to be using polearm master with a one handed spear or quarterstaff. +2 damage on a hit is good at level 2 and still decent at level 8 or so and an awful lot of campaigns are wrapping up at that point.
It doesn't scale at all beyond making extra attacks, and once you have two attacks (plus maybe a bonus attack from polearm master) that's all the attacks a round you're going to get, it's not going to scale beyond that, and by the time you're in your mid teens that extra damage isn't particularly noticeable anymore. +1 AC still matters about as much at level 15 as it did at level 5, so in the long run imo defense style is better. Again, though, most campaigns don't last long enough for that to really show.
If you're building a tankier, more supportive paladin then defense is better at any level, of course.
As for great weapon style... eh. It's really a shame it doesn't apply to smite damage - if it did (or if you can convince your DM to house rule it to apply) then it might be worth taking. As it is, if you're using a two handed weapon you might as well just stick with defense style no matter what levels you're playing at.
I personally find both fighting styles to be very good at low levels. Monsters tend to be squishier and not as accurate with their attacks, so the +2 damage and -5% chance to be hit have a much stronger impact. Against a tarrasque at 17th+ level? They simply don't hold the same weight.
Think about your role in the party. Do you want to be tankier and harder to drop, thus being able to smite more? Defense. Is it more important to drop your enemies sooner, thus relying less on resources or needing to tank hits? Dueling. Can't decide or simply want both? Multiclass into fighter for the other and probably action surge, too.
So to recap, the highest potential damage for my original post would be 2d10 + 1d4 + 15d8 (16d8 if the target is a fiend) + 15. This strategy is made for dealing a lot of damage at once. I just wanted to point out another, more defensive build. Take the shield master feat along with the protection fighting style. You and your friends will be better protected from melee attacks.
I'd rely more on careful positioning than the Protection fighting style. The cost of a potential attack of opportunity is huge against smarter enemies, as they'll realize they can run past you safely.
I love gish ideas. I just don't see sorcerer, even draconic sorcerer, in direct melee except by mistake of positioning. When making a gish, ask yourself "what does this bring to the table that wouldn't be better served by a class designed to be there ?
My first thought is that poison is a terrible damage type to deliberately pick. Acid (black dragon) is MUCH better. Take a 3 (or 4) level dip into tome warlock for Primal Savagery (from the druid list) keyed to your CHA, which gives you quicken cast and action cast for 8d10 acid damage per turn if you hit. That's the same as quickening EB, with fewer rolls. Of course, if you're taking warlock, just grab Agonizing Blast and deal 8d10+(8x cha mod) which should be 5 by that point, and should be 3-4 for most of the game. Or both while you're running up. 1-2 levels of paladin is virtually mandatory for heavy armor, because you really need an ac above 20 to be in melee and not just die. You'll cap out at about 200hp without tough. Use the feat you waste on Elemental Adept and either pick up another invocation via feat, or go heavy armor Master or mobile, and get to sorc 14 ASAP.
really, though, straight pally is better in melee, or pally/warlock for hexblade/blade pact. Go pally ( oathbreaker) 7-8, hexblade bladelock 12, deal weapon+15 twice per round plus smites
Straight barbarian is better in melee too, or fighter.
Fighter1 arcana cleric X is better in melee defensively
If you're determined to be in melee as a dragon sorc, pally 2/sorc 18; pally 6/sorc 14; pally 2/hexblade 4/ sorc 14; pal 6/hexblade 4/sorc 10 are all going to serve you better than straight sorcerer ever will.
All of that said, your build looks ok, except pick up haste and fireball or lightning bolt (or all 3), skip the control spells unless you're going with heightened spell metamagic. And like I said, pick black instead of green. (Also, acid splash is objectively bad, go with any of the fire or cold dragons instead if you're still taking Elemental adept; ray of frost is great and firebolt is perfectlyadequate)