For Paladin without Polearm Master the best option is probably the Two-Weapon fighting style, the Nick weapon mastery, and two shortswords.
At level 11 they're getting 3(d6+5+d8) for 39 average damage a turn, while having their bonus action free to use Smite. Polearm Master would give them 2(d10+5+d8) + (d4+5+d8) for 42 average damage a turn but take away their bonus action.
Fighter at level 11 can use polearm master for 3(d10+5) + (d4+5) for 39 average. Great Weapon Master would add 4 to that.
Monk at level 11 can use flurry of blows for 4(d10+5) for 42 average damage, or 31.5 without FoB.
Level 11 appears to be the last time those classes gain a damage boost, although Monk goes to d12 at level 17 for 4(d12+5) for 46 average.
At level 11 a Warlock using Eldritch Blast is doing 3(d10+5) for 31.5, and if they add Hex they can bring that up by 2d6 or 7 per round. That's 38.5, but only against a single target.
A Pact of the Blade Warlock using a d10 weapon is doing 2(d10+5+d6) with Lifedrinker for 28 average, or 35 with Hex.
Which is why a Spell Sniper Warlock using Eldritch Blast in combat is more effective in melee than PotB.
Multi-smite is totally broken. Boring final boss fights lasting 1 or maybe 2 rounds. How epic!!
In fairness, a noble knight slaying a vicious dragon in a couple of rounds is epic.
Of course they've just blown through most of their spell slots... and here comes another dragon.
Meanwhile the others play Poker. For that kind of epicness what we need is deadly combat, with criticals like in other games which can inflict serious injuries or even kill, not dealing ridiculous amount of damage in plain maths, as you reduce the availability to some selected sub/classes, in a hard-selection of capabilities instead rewarding the actions themselves.
I think Smite is fine now, why a Paladin is going to use Searing Smite having Divine Smite? At level 5 Searing Smite are 2d6 while Divine Smite are 3d8.
IMO is correct to sparse the damage along the rounds to make combat interesting and tactical instead making everything by brute force with all that “optimal” garbage with overpowered options.
The Hunter’s Mark vs Smites is balanced because the first one requires Concentration, while the 2nd is used when you already know you hit the target, and can use Concentration in any other thing. A possible change could be making Hunter’s Mark an Action spell, instead Bonus Action (using BA to set a new target), paying some cost as action economy.
EB continues to be a problem because it upscales like a Fighter, but in addition being ranged, magical, and Force attacks. It should not grant a 3rd and 4th attack so easily. Unbalanced.
Of the examples above, I think like more the Polearm, as you get more tactical usage, you can use your Bonus Action to extra hit or Smite depending situation, but also grants Reach, and allow to get GWM or Sentinel feats for extra tactical options, and the Heavy Weapon Fighting Style increases some the average.
Because Searing Smite will keep inflicting damage as long as the target keeps failing their Constitution save. It does 2d6 damage on the hit, and then it does 2d6 before they make their first save for a total of 4d6 against the Divine Smite's 3d8. That's an average of 14 versus 13.5 and if they do fail their save you get to do it again on their next turn, assuming they're still alive.
Hunter's Mark is trash. Spending a level 3 spell to add 2d6 damage a TURN is an utter waste of resources, and the free casts are always at first level for a whopping 3.5 damage. Making it take concentration is just adding insult to injury.
EB is what it is, but it's the reason that the Warlock has been a half-assed caster for the whole of 5e. Casters, even half-assed casters like Warlock, are always better than martials.
The Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Archery fighting style Fighter with a magical handcrossbow used to be fairly comparable to the Warlock, but of course WotC nerfed it.
But no other caster has that overpowered unlimited cantrip that EB is. And the spell slots are a limited resource. At level 11th adding 3 times the score modifier even when it uses d10 damage die is too much, it would be more balanced if the score modifier could be added only once per turn.
But no other caster has that overpowered unlimited cantrip that EB is. And the spell slots are a limited resource. At level 11th adding 3 times the score modifier even when it uses d10 damage die is too much, it would be more balanced if the score modifier could be added only once per turn.
Eldritch last is fine the way it is. It was that way because warlocks had so few spell slots and even with the half caster spell slot progression plus Mystic Arcanum invocations I think it’s fine. Most of the other casters with cantrips are full casters with a faster spell slot and level progression.
For Paladin without Polearm Master the best option is probably the Two-Weapon fighting style, the Nick weapon mastery, and two shortswords.
At level 11 they're getting 3(d6+5+d8) for 39 average damage a turn, while having their bonus action free to use Smite. Polearm Master would give them 2(d10+5+d8) + (d4+5+d8) for 42 average damage a turn but take away their bonus action.
Fighter at level 11 can use polearm master for 3(d10+5) + (d4+5) for 39 average. Great Weapon Master would add 4 to that.
Monk at level 11 can use flurry of blows for 4(d10+5) for 42 average damage, or 31.5 without FoB.
Level 11 appears to be the last time those classes gain a damage boost, although Monk goes to d12 at level 17 for 4(d12+5) for 46 average.
At level 11 a Warlock using Eldritch Blast is doing 3(d10+5) for 31.5, and if they add Hex they can bring that up by 2d6 or 7 per round. That's 38.5, but only against a single target.
A Pact of the Blade Warlock using a d10 weapon is doing 2(d10+5+d6) with Lifedrinker for 28 average, or 35 with Hex.
Which is why a Spell Sniper Warlock using Eldritch Blast in combat is more effective in melee than PotB.
Meanwhile the others play Poker. For that kind of epicness what we need is deadly combat, with criticals like in other games which can inflict serious injuries or even kill, not dealing ridiculous amount of damage in plain maths, as you reduce the availability to some selected sub/classes, in a hard-selection of capabilities instead rewarding the actions themselves.
I think Smite is fine now, why a Paladin is going to use Searing Smite having Divine Smite? At level 5 Searing Smite are 2d6 while Divine Smite are 3d8.
IMO is correct to sparse the damage along the rounds to make combat interesting and tactical instead making everything by brute force with all that “optimal” garbage with overpowered options.
The Hunter’s Mark vs Smites is balanced because the first one requires Concentration, while the 2nd is used when you already know you hit the target, and can use Concentration in any other thing. A possible change could be making Hunter’s Mark an Action spell, instead Bonus Action (using BA to set a new target), paying some cost as action economy.
EB continues to be a problem because it upscales like a Fighter, but in addition being ranged, magical, and Force attacks. It should not grant a 3rd and 4th attack so easily. Unbalanced.
Of the examples above, I think like more the Polearm, as you get more tactical usage, you can use your Bonus Action to extra hit or Smite depending situation, but also grants Reach, and allow to get GWM or Sentinel feats for extra tactical options, and the Heavy Weapon Fighting Style increases some the average.
Because Searing Smite will keep inflicting damage as long as the target keeps failing their Constitution save. It does 2d6 damage on the hit, and then it does 2d6 before they make their first save for a total of 4d6 against the Divine Smite's 3d8. That's an average of 14 versus 13.5 and if they do fail their save you get to do it again on their next turn, assuming they're still alive.
Hunter's Mark is trash. Spending a level 3 spell to add 2d6 damage a TURN is an utter waste of resources, and the free casts are always at first level for a whopping 3.5 damage. Making it take concentration is just adding insult to injury.
EB is what it is, but it's the reason that the Warlock has been a half-assed caster for the whole of 5e. Casters, even half-assed casters like Warlock, are always better than martials.
The Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Archery fighting style Fighter with a magical handcrossbow used to be fairly comparable to the Warlock, but of course WotC nerfed it.
But no other caster has that overpowered unlimited cantrip that EB is. And the spell slots are a limited resource. At level 11th adding 3 times the score modifier even when it uses d10 damage die is too much, it would be more balanced if the score modifier could be added only once per turn.
Eldritch last is fine the way it is. It was that way because warlocks had so few spell slots and even with the half caster spell slot progression plus Mystic Arcanum invocations I think it’s fine. Most of the other casters with cantrips are full casters with a faster spell slot and level progression.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?