I’m trying to find the players handbook in the dungeons master guide where it says paladins are not allowed to use poison
also, my daughter is trying to do an oath of the ancient paladin swashbuckler rogue multi class, but our DM is saying that if she uses her sneak attack that it will cause negative consequences to her oath so the question am I asking is sneak attack frowned upon by paladins oaths
Both of those restrictions sound like they come from earlier editions. At least the poison one is from 1e, maybe 2e. Don’t know where the no sneak attack is coming from, but it also sounds like a 1e interpretation when pallys were all lawful good (and lots of people played them as good to the point of being “lawful stupid”).
There is no restriction, by RAW on either in 5e. Now, the DM may have a house rule in place. There are some older gamers that prefer the classic paladin and try to stick to the knight in shining armor theme. I’d check with the DM and see if it’s a house rule, or just maybe thinking a rule is in there when it’s not anymore.
That is what I was thinking it being from early addition.
We were build her character to be like a stealthy protector of nature in a role in the party was secondary tank in little heals, and some crowd control
we chose swashbuckler Rouge to go with it because it gives other options for sneak attack basically kind of like you get sneak attack for dueling another creature.
The restrictions of past editions were long since removed to further enable player narrative for their characters and backstory. Not all Paladins need to be good, not all warlocks need to be evil.
A paladin/rogue would be able to use Cunning Strike's poison option for example, now a paladin is still good vs. poison but nothing stop them using it.
By the rules, a swashbuckler/paladin should be allowed, again, barring any house rules otherwise. But I’d think hard about it. Paladins get pretty good stuff at every level, and sacrificing those bonuses for sneak attack die usually isn’t great. Paladins, even with the nerf in ‘24 are quite good at damaging people without the boost from sneak attack. At the very least, you want to take paladin up to probably level 6 before you consider multiclassing. The aura power there is just too good to pass up. Besides that, you end up being pretty thinly spread on ability scores. You need a 13 str, cha and dex to even be able to pull it off. And paladins want a good con as well. Unless you are rolling for stats, and roll really well, it’s tough to pull off and stay effective.
Regarding the initial questions, there is no RAW proscribing Paladins from using poison or “dishonorable” combat tactics. That said, the Oath tenets are provided for roleplay purposes, although interpretation of them and how strictly they’re enforced is between the player and DM. Ancients looks fairly fluid about means compared to more idealistic ones like Devotion, but it really comes down to what people agree on at a given table.
Taking up the thread about the build, generally speaking Sneak Attack is not worth dipping for- it scales by Rogue level so it’s always going to be underperforming for its tier as a dip feature.
Practically speaking, there’s no massive disadvantage to using Light Armor and a rapier as a Paladin, getting Stealth prof via background, race, or a feat, and taking Poisoner and/or Skill Expert to round out the features as desired. They can’t Hide mid-combat the way a Rogue can, but there is extensive debate on how Hiding in combat works at all, especially for melee attacks, so without knowing the DM it’s impossible to say if that point is at all relevant.
Paladins can be of any alignment and backstabb or poison people like anyone else would in theory. There's very little guidelines for when Breaking Your Oath.
Taken Paladin with the Oath of the Ancients commitment to preserving life and light, perhaps most would be seeking to prioritize not taking life of others with lethal poison but incapacitating poison whenever possible for example.
But in the end your player character's fun is what matters most, despite how much often they are on par with it.
BREAKING YOUR OATH
A Paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most dedicated are fallible. Sometimes a Paladin transgresses their oath.
A Paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution, spending an all-night vigil as a sign of penitence or undertaking a fast. After a rite of forgiveness, the Paladin starts fresh.
If your Paladin unrepentantly violates their oath, talk to your DM. Your Paladin should probably take a more appropriate subclass or even abandon the class and adopt another one.
This my 15 year old daughter’s character and she normally only plays rouge. Got her to branch out and play different class by telling she can still multi class. It a dex base pally. For multi class it’s a 13 in cha and 13 in either str/dex
This my 15 year old daughter’s character and she normally only plays rouge. Got her to branch out and play different class by telling she can still multi class. It a dex base pally. For multi class it’s a 13 in cha and 13 in either str/dex
That could be a house rule your DM is using for a dex-pally, which of course would override anything else. But by RAW, the pally needs 13 str and cha, and the rogue needs 13 dex, so you need all three to be 13 or higher.
If she absolutely wants to do it that way it’s her call and the house rule for stat reqs will avoid the worst of the spread issues, but there’s very little synergy of features and both classes rely a lot on continuous class level scaling to keep their performance up.
It’s not RAW. Only Fighters have STR or DEX as their multiclass pre-req. Paladins are STR and CHA, while Rogues are DEX, so all 3 need a score of 13 or more for a Paladin/Rogue multiclass using either iteration of the 5e rules.
I’m trying to find the players handbook in the dungeons master guide where it says paladins are not allowed to use poison
also, my daughter is trying to do an oath of the ancient paladin swashbuckler rogue multi class, but our DM is saying that if she uses her sneak attack that it will cause negative consequences to her oath so the question am I asking is sneak attack frowned upon by paladins oaths
Both of those restrictions sound like they come from earlier editions. At least the poison one is from 1e, maybe 2e. Don’t know where the no sneak attack is coming from, but it also sounds like a 1e interpretation when pallys were all lawful good (and lots of people played them as good to the point of being “lawful stupid”).
There is no restriction, by RAW on either in 5e. Now, the DM may have a house rule in place. There are some older gamers that prefer the classic paladin and try to stick to the knight in shining armor theme. I’d check with the DM and see if it’s a house rule, or just maybe thinking a rule is in there when it’s not anymore.
That is what I was thinking it being from early addition.
We were build her character to be like a stealthy protector of nature in a role in the party was secondary tank in little heals, and some crowd control
we chose swashbuckler Rouge to go with it because it gives other options for sneak attack basically kind of like you get sneak attack for dueling another creature.
The restrictions of past editions were long since removed to further enable player narrative for their characters and backstory. Not all Paladins need to be good, not all warlocks need to be evil.
A paladin/rogue would be able to use Cunning Strike's poison option for example, now a paladin is still good vs. poison but nothing stop them using it.
By the rules, a swashbuckler/paladin should be allowed, again, barring any house rules otherwise.
But I’d think hard about it. Paladins get pretty good stuff at every level, and sacrificing those bonuses for sneak attack die usually isn’t great. Paladins, even with the nerf in ‘24 are quite good at damaging people without the boost from sneak attack. At the very least, you want to take paladin up to probably level 6 before you consider multiclassing. The aura power there is just too good to pass up.
Besides that, you end up being pretty thinly spread on ability scores. You need a 13 str, cha and dex to even be able to pull it off. And paladins want a good con as well. Unless you are rolling for stats, and roll really well, it’s tough to pull off and stay effective.
Regarding the initial questions, there is no RAW proscribing Paladins from using poison or “dishonorable” combat tactics. That said, the Oath tenets are provided for roleplay purposes, although interpretation of them and how strictly they’re enforced is between the player and DM. Ancients looks fairly fluid about means compared to more idealistic ones like Devotion, but it really comes down to what people agree on at a given table.
Taking up the thread about the build, generally speaking Sneak Attack is not worth dipping for- it scales by Rogue level so it’s always going to be underperforming for its tier as a dip feature.
Practically speaking, there’s no massive disadvantage to using Light Armor and a rapier as a Paladin, getting Stealth prof via background, race, or a feat, and taking Poisoner and/or Skill Expert to round out the features as desired. They can’t Hide mid-combat the way a Rogue can, but there is extensive debate on how Hiding in combat works at all, especially for melee attacks, so without knowing the DM it’s impossible to say if that point is at all relevant.
Paladins can be of any alignment and backstabb or poison people like anyone else would in theory. There's very little guidelines for when Breaking Your Oath.
Taken Paladin with the Oath of the Ancients commitment to preserving life and light, perhaps most would be seeking to prioritize not taking life of others with lethal poison but incapacitating poison whenever possible for example.
But in the end your player character's fun is what matters most, despite how much often they are on par with it.
This my 15 year old daughter’s character and she normally only plays rouge. Got her to branch out and play different class by telling she can still multi class. It a dex base pally. For multi class it’s a 13 in cha and 13 in either str/dex
That could be a house rule your DM is using for a dex-pally, which of course would override anything else. But by RAW, the pally needs 13 str and cha, and the rogue needs 13 dex, so you need all three to be 13 or higher.
If she absolutely wants to do it that way it’s her call and the house rule for stat reqs will avoid the worst of the spread issues, but there’s very little synergy of features and both classes rely a lot on continuous class level scaling to keep their performance up.
It’s not a house rule is a RAW for the stats
It’s not RAW. Only Fighters have STR or DEX as their multiclass pre-req. Paladins are STR and CHA, while Rogues are DEX, so all 3 need a score of 13 or more for a Paladin/Rogue multiclass using either iteration of the 5e rules.
You right my apologies I look at a totally different character on one of the other dnd beyond accounts not the we are talking about