Sage Advice in general annoys me, because Crawford goes back and forth on his rulings all the time. Yet people still slavishly adhere to it and cite SAC all the time as a Definitive Perfect Source of All Rules Ever, the RAWest RAW that ever RAWed a RAW, and castigate any DM who tells their players that Crawford's rulings apply to Crawford's table, not their own. As if SAC overrode every last thing in every last D&D book ever printed, including Rule Zero. It's cool that SAC is there for people that want it, but it's no more valid for any particular table than Crawford's Twitter feed. Or Mercer's Twitter feed, for that matter.
Er...please don't suggest that the lead designer of the rules is on the same level as Mercer, when it comes to the rules of 5e.
Thank you for the character link! Sage Advice link isn't necessary, but never hurts to offer.
I stand by my earlier advice of shield+spear sentinel+pam if you're worried about a lack of in-setting polearms (take the defense style so you needn't worry about it if you do get a glaive). If you have a scarcity of a bunch of weapons, disregard what I said about lucky - I didn't realize you were point buy, and assumed you rolled high. Take shield master and +2 strength.
But I see you have a silver glaive, so obviously your setting has *some* glaives in it. You also already have the shield, so you're good to go with any spears or quarterstaffs you find (including magic staves, which are quarterstaffs unless explicitly labeled not).
And remember, you're the party tank - your job is protecting the backline from melee. If your enemy solves you by staying back and engaging at range, that's you succeeding *in spades*.
also for a flavor reason, polearms were the weapons the peasants who couldn't afford the fancy training and sword itself.
Not actually true. Yes, some pole weapons were the arms given to cheap conscripts - spears and pikes were the order of the day for conscripts - but things like halberds, glaives, billhooks, and other such weapons? They were manufactured for use by heavily armored knights
The billhook is literally an agricultural tool turned into a weapon. Halberds and glaives were also mainly used by massed infantry. Are you thinking of poleaxes?
In any case, it is very strange that there wouldn't be any polearms in Waterdeep, especially since they are all there in the PHB...
Clarification: My DM is not arbitrarily reducing the polearms in our campaign. He just pointed out that there are almost non special magic polearms in the adventurers he is going to run with us and also non in the DMG. Because we decided, that we will play strictly by the allowed rules and use the official adventures, he es not going to put in extra loot fitting for my char. So actually, it was a nice gesture of my DM to let me know that. It‘s not like he is trying to give me an extra hard time.
I am never not going to recommend a 6 pally/14 sorcerer build with sword and board. It is pretty tanky (AC and Save wise) and has insane, consistent nova damage. I am also playing a bladesinger/paladin who is absolutely disgusting in combat and is super fun.
However, if you don't want to multiclass, there are a few routes for you to take.
1. Traditional sword and board: Pretty decent AC, pretty decent offence. You are stepping into the tank role by doing this, so I suggest picking up spells that accentuate that, such as warding bond and shield of faith. Note, despite my love for pally, I find this build Extremely boring.
2. I will second that the spear + shield PAM build is so much fun, in fact my only pure Paladin is using this build and the oathbreaker subclass. Improved divine smite plus charisma to damage is really great with the extra attacks.
3. I actually think that a one level dip into fighter for the TWF fighting style is probably worth it as well. You still get the extra attack to get the most out of improved divine smite, and there are many, many magical scimitars (And longswords if you get dual wielder)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Clarification: My DM is not arbitrarily reducing the polearms in our campaign. He just pointed out that there are almost non special magic polearms in the adventurers he is going to run with us and also non in the DMG. Because we decided, that we will play strictly by the allowed rules and use the official adventures, he es not going to put in extra loot fitting for my char. So actually, it was a nice gesture of my DM to let me know that. It‘s not like he is trying to give me an extra hard time.
It sounds like your DM is a decent one. Bottom line, your Paladin will have a total of 1 Feat plus 2 ASI's before level 12, and that is a long long way off. You are starting with 27 point stats (which I love). You are going to have to make tradeoffs. I have always always been a proponent of Ability Score improvements versus Feats.
If you have your heart set on PAM or Sentinel at 0 level, there is nothing wrong with that. But remember, you really have to bump your stats with the 2 ASI's that you will get. At least one has to be in CHA.
Sage Advice in general annoys me, because Crawford goes back and forth on his rulings all the time. Yet people still slavishly adhere to it and cite SAC all the time as a Definitive Perfect Source of All Rules Ever, the RAWest RAW that ever RAWed a RAW, and castigate any DM who tells their players that Crawford's rulings apply to Crawford's table, not their own. As if SAC overrode every last thing in every last D&D book ever printed, including Rule Zero. It's cool that SAC is there for people that want it, but it's no more valid for any particular table than Crawford's Twitter feed. Or Mercer's Twitter feed, for that matter.
Are you referring to the website referred to as 'Sage Advice' that collects Crawfords tweets? Or the actual Sage Advice Compendium put out by WotC and updated on a semi-regular basis? Because they're two vastly different things; the latter is not all RAW and is basically a collection of musings on the rules made by Crawford and a few others, while the latter is an official RAW document, hence why it's hosted on DDB
Sage Advice in general annoys me, because Crawford goes back and forth on his rulings all the time. Yet people still slavishly adhere to it and cite SAC all the time as a Definitive Perfect Source of All Rules Ever, the RAWest RAW that ever RAWed a RAW, and castigate any DM who tells their players that Crawford's rulings apply to Crawford's table, not their own. As if SAC overrode every last thing in every last D&D book ever printed, including Rule Zero. It's cool that SAC is there for people that want it, but it's no more valid for any particular table than Crawford's Twitter feed. Or Mercer's Twitter feed, for that matter.
Are you referring to the website referred to as 'Sage Advice' that collects Crawfords tweets? Or the actual Sage Advice Compendium put out by WotC and updated on a semi-regular basis? Because they're two vastly different things; the latter is not all RAW and is basically a collection of musings on the rules made by Crawford and a few others, while the latter is an official RAW document, hence why it's hosted on DDB
For a long long time Crawford's "musings on Twitter" were indeed considered as RAW. They still are by me, and many many others. (There is Facebook channel dedicated to RAW that many here would hate, that still references his Tweets prior to 2020 as gospel) Now, the other guy, Mearls, his Twitter posts were constantly being contested by Crawford, as Mearls was a RAF guy.
Sage Advice in general annoys me, because Crawford goes back and forth on his rulings all the time. Yet people still slavishly adhere to it and cite SAC all the time as a Definitive Perfect Source of All Rules Ever, the RAWest RAW that ever RAWed a RAW, and castigate any DM who tells their players that Crawford's rulings apply to Crawford's table, not their own. As if SAC overrode every last thing in every last D&D book ever printed, including Rule Zero. It's cool that SAC is there for people that want it, but it's no more valid for any particular table than Crawford's Twitter feed. Or Mercer's Twitter feed, for that matter.
Are you referring to the website referred to as 'Sage Advice' that collects Crawfords tweets? Or the actual Sage Advice Compendium put out by WotC and updated on a semi-regular basis? Because they're two vastly different things; the latter is not all RAW and is basically a collection of musings on the rules made by Crawford and a few others, while the latter is an official RAW document, hence why it's hosted on DDB
For a long long time Crawford's "musings on Twitter" were indeed considered as RAW. They still are by me, and many many others. (There is Facebook channel dedicated to RAW that many here would hate, that still references his Tweets prior to 2020 as gospel) Now, the other guy, Mearls, his Twitter posts were constantly being contested by Crawford, as Mearls was a RAF guy.
Crawford's tweets IMHO are very useful as an indication of what was intended to be RAW. However, I think counting them as RAW goes too far. They are often controversial, appearing to contradict the written rules in the books, and he definitely contradicts his own tweets at times, too. To misquote Barbossa:
Crawford's tweets are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules
I was not aware there was a difference between the two. Though frankly, I also don't particularly care much - I knew Crawford's tweets weren't "Sage Advice" in an official capacity, I just knew there was something called "Sage Advice" in which Crawford gets paid to tell you you're running your game wrong and you're a terrible DM for doing so, so you should listen to him instead of being a DM. And also that Sage Advice has flipped its stance more than once on things like Shield Master, in the manner of a bad game dev running a balance patch more than clarifying rules interactions.
Chasing Crawford's vision of Perfect D&D is as pointless as chasing anyone else's vision of Perfect D&D. The only vision of perfect D&D you should be chasing is your own and your tablemates'. If that means telling Crawford to hang because at your table Sentinel beats Disengage no matter which way the Disengager is running? Then that's what's best for your table.
More on topic, since discussing the impact of SAC is so not what this thread is for...I stand by my recommendation of PAM with no Sentinel, even with a lack of fancy polearms. PAM lets you dump a third Smite in a round if you need to go crazy nova burst to burn something down, and again - anything that Disengages prior to coming after you is wasting its action if it's not a rogue. Between the bonus action attack and the much more common AoOs from PAM, a glaive paladin can Smite much more often than any other type. Your glaive is already silvered so it bypasses some of the need for a magical weapon, but honestly? Even just a basic +1 Smitin' stick would cover your needs for most of a campaign.
I was not aware there was a difference between the two. Though frankly, I also don't particularly care much - I knew Crawford's tweets weren't "Sage Advice" in an official capacity, I just knew there was something called "Sage Advice" in which Crawford gets paid to tell you you're running your game wrong and you're a terrible DM for doing so, so you should listen to him instead of being a DM. And also that Sage Advice has flipped its stance more than once on things like Shield Master, in the manner of a bad game dev running a balance patch more than clarifying rules interactions.
Chasing Crawford's vision of Perfect D&D is as pointless as chasing anyone else's vision of Perfect D&D. The only vision of perfect D&D you should be chasing is your own and your tablemates'. If that means telling Crawford to hang because at your table Sentinel beats Disengage no matter which way the Disengager is running? Then that's what's best for your table.
More on topic, since discussing the impact of SAC is so not what this thread is for...I stand by my recommendation of PAM with no Sentinel, even with a lack of fancy polearms. PAM lets you dump a third Smite in a round if you need to go crazy nova burst to burn something down, and again - anything that Disengages prior to coming after you is wasting its action if it's not a rogue. Between the bonus action attack and the much more common AoOs from PAM, a glaive paladin can Smite much more often than any other type. Your glaive is already silvered so it bypasses some of the need for a magical weapon, but honestly? Even just a basic +1 Smitin' stick would cover your needs for most of a campaign.
You are incorrect on several points, but they are related to SAC and Crawford, so not relevant to this thread. The only thing I will say wrt to the off-topic stuff is some time ago, Gygax visited me in a dream, and told me to go forth and spread the gospel of the One True Perfect Version of D&D. And that is what I do.
WRT to any particular Feat, if the OP wants to do a ton of damage, then yeah PAM is the one to take. If he wants to absorb more damage for the party, take Heavy Armour Master, which also frees up a couple points to put somewhere other than Str. If he wants to control the field of battle, then yeah, Sentinel works.
The OP has to decide what kind of char this Paladin will be. But I stand by my earlier statements, that at the very least, the 1st two ASI's should go to stat increases.
JC's saying you don't get an Attack of Opportunity but you still get to attack them as you have Polearm master which alllows you to attack when they enter reach...you just do not get to shut their movement down?
The argumentation from the DM is silly. "Offensively disengaging" does nothing vs a character with PAM (you still provoke the AoO).
I don‘t see why the Char with PAM still gets an AoO. Disengage lets you move freely without provoking AoO while moving. Therefore you don‘t trigger the PAM AoO when you enter the reach of the Polearm-Bearer.
You are correct. This what I get for rushing out a post in between work calls, rather than thinking about brain farts for half a second first. Apologies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
JC's saying you don't get an Attack of Opportunity but you still get to attack them as you have Polearm master which alllows you to attack when they enter reach...you just do not get to shut their movement down?
The argumentation from the DM is silly. "Offensively disengaging" does nothing vs a character with PAM (you still provoke the AoO).
I don‘t see why the Char with PAM still gets an AoO. Disengage lets you move freely without provoking AoO while moving. Therefore you don‘t trigger the PAM AoO when you enter the reach of the Polearm-Bearer.
You are correct. This what I get for rushing out a post in between work calls, rather than thinking about brain farts for half a second first. Apologies.
You had Sentinel and PAM mixed up. Sentinel allows you to make AoO even when the enemy disengages.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Er...please don't suggest that the lead designer of the rules is on the same level as Mercer, when it comes to the rules of 5e.
Thank you for the character link! Sage Advice link isn't necessary, but never hurts to offer.
I stand by my earlier advice of shield+spear sentinel+pam if you're worried about a lack of in-setting polearms (take the defense style so you needn't worry about it if you do get a glaive). If you have a scarcity of a bunch of weapons, disregard what I said about lucky - I didn't realize you were point buy, and assumed you rolled high. Take shield master and +2 strength.
But I see you have a silver glaive, so obviously your setting has *some* glaives in it. You also already have the shield, so you're good to go with any spears or quarterstaffs you find (including magic staves, which are quarterstaffs unless explicitly labeled not).
And remember, you're the party tank - your job is protecting the backline from melee. If your enemy solves you by staying back and engaging at range, that's you succeeding *in spades*.
The billhook is literally an agricultural tool turned into a weapon. Halberds and glaives were also mainly used by massed infantry. Are you thinking of poleaxes?
In any case, it is very strange that there wouldn't be any polearms in Waterdeep, especially since they are all there in the PHB...
Clarification: My DM is not arbitrarily reducing the polearms in our campaign. He just pointed out that there are almost non special magic polearms in the adventurers he is going to run with us and also non in the DMG. Because we decided, that we will play strictly by the allowed rules and use the official adventures, he es not going to put in extra loot fitting for my char. So actually, it was a nice gesture of my DM to let me know that. It‘s not like he is trying to give me an extra hard time.
I am never not going to recommend a 6 pally/14 sorcerer build with sword and board. It is pretty tanky (AC and Save wise) and has insane, consistent nova damage. I am also playing a bladesinger/paladin who is absolutely disgusting in combat and is super fun.
However, if you don't want to multiclass, there are a few routes for you to take.
1. Traditional sword and board: Pretty decent AC, pretty decent offence. You are stepping into the tank role by doing this, so I suggest picking up spells that accentuate that, such as warding bond and shield of faith. Note, despite my love for pally, I find this build Extremely boring.
2. I will second that the spear + shield PAM build is so much fun, in fact my only pure Paladin is using this build and the oathbreaker subclass. Improved divine smite plus charisma to damage is really great with the extra attacks.
3. I actually think that a one level dip into fighter for the TWF fighting style is probably worth it as well. You still get the extra attack to get the most out of improved divine smite, and there are many, many magical scimitars (And longswords if you get dual wielder)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
It sounds like your DM is a decent one. Bottom line, your Paladin will have a total of 1 Feat plus 2 ASI's before level 12, and that is a long long way off. You are starting with 27 point stats (which I love). You are going to have to make tradeoffs. I have always always been a proponent of Ability Score improvements versus Feats.
If you have your heart set on PAM or Sentinel at 0 level, there is nothing wrong with that. But remember, you really have to bump your stats with the 2 ASI's that you will get. At least one has to be in CHA.
Are you referring to the website referred to as 'Sage Advice' that collects Crawfords tweets? Or the actual Sage Advice Compendium put out by WotC and updated on a semi-regular basis? Because they're two vastly different things; the latter is not all RAW and is basically a collection of musings on the rules made by Crawford and a few others, while the latter is an official RAW document, hence why it's hosted on DDB
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
For a long long time Crawford's "musings on Twitter" were indeed considered as RAW. They still are by me, and many many others. (There is Facebook channel dedicated to RAW that many here would hate, that still references his Tweets prior to 2020 as gospel) Now, the other guy, Mearls, his Twitter posts were constantly being contested by Crawford, as Mearls was a RAF guy.
Crawford's tweets IMHO are very useful as an indication of what was intended to be RAW. However, I think counting them as RAW goes too far. They are often controversial, appearing to contradict the written rules in the books, and he definitely contradicts his own tweets at times, too. To misquote Barbossa:
I was not aware there was a difference between the two. Though frankly, I also don't particularly care much - I knew Crawford's tweets weren't "Sage Advice" in an official capacity, I just knew there was something called "Sage Advice" in which Crawford gets paid to tell you you're running your game wrong and you're a terrible DM for doing so, so you should listen to him instead of being a DM. And also that Sage Advice has flipped its stance more than once on things like Shield Master, in the manner of a bad game dev running a balance patch more than clarifying rules interactions.
Chasing Crawford's vision of Perfect D&D is as pointless as chasing anyone else's vision of Perfect D&D. The only vision of perfect D&D you should be chasing is your own and your tablemates'. If that means telling Crawford to hang because at your table Sentinel beats Disengage no matter which way the Disengager is running? Then that's what's best for your table.
More on topic, since discussing the impact of SAC is so not what this thread is for...I stand by my recommendation of PAM with no Sentinel, even with a lack of fancy polearms. PAM lets you dump a third Smite in a round if you need to go crazy nova burst to burn something down, and again - anything that Disengages prior to coming after you is wasting its action if it's not a rogue. Between the bonus action attack and the much more common AoOs from PAM, a glaive paladin can Smite much more often than any other type. Your glaive is already silvered so it bypasses some of the need for a magical weapon, but honestly? Even just a basic +1 Smitin' stick would cover your needs for most of a campaign.
Please do not contact or message me.
You are incorrect on several points, but they are related to SAC and Crawford, so not relevant to this thread. The only thing I will say wrt to the off-topic stuff is some time ago, Gygax visited me in a dream, and told me to go forth and spread the gospel of the One True Perfect Version of D&D. And that is what I do.
WRT to any particular Feat, if the OP wants to do a ton of damage, then yeah PAM is the one to take. If he wants to absorb more damage for the party, take Heavy Armour Master, which also frees up a couple points to put somewhere other than Str. If he wants to control the field of battle, then yeah, Sentinel works.
The OP has to decide what kind of char this Paladin will be. But I stand by my earlier statements, that at the very least, the 1st two ASI's should go to stat increases.
You are correct. This what I get for rushing out a post in between work calls, rather than thinking about brain farts for half a second first. Apologies.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You had Sentinel and PAM mixed up. Sentinel allows you to make AoO even when the enemy disengages.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.