I'll confess that Paladin is my least played class in 5e, and I haven't seen too much discussion about it. Paladin players, how are you feeling? Is there a fear that Paladin will now be the bottom martial after Monk got so many buffs?
The last time we saw Paladin was UA6, and it looks like that's the last time we're ever going to see it until the PHB drops next year. Apparently it scored high enough to not need any more public playtesting.
For me, the only worrisome part is Smite. I'm totally fine with it being 1/round, and it seems to work with thrown weapons now! But I'm a bit more concerned about it being a bonus action now (no more reaction smites, no more PAMadin) and now that it's a leveled spell, we can't cast anything else and smite on the same turn. Are Paladin players feeling like its fine despite these nerfs? Or are your concerns potentially being glossed over?
I played 1 paladin, and don’t remember the UA that well, but I wasn’t worried when it came out. The class is still really flavorful and does a lot. Smiting is only part of their kit. And the smite spells are much more worthwhile now, which is a nice boost. One of the people I play with, who loves tanky martials, doesn’t like paladins because they’re too good and it feels like playing on cheat mode, to him at least. Dialing them back a bit doesn’t seem like too much.
Paladin is still in a good spot even with the nerfs. Many of the smites no longer require concentration making them actually usable. I will say this kills my Paladin 2/Swords Bard 7 since he was literally a nova build using two weapon fighting a smiting 3 times a turn. PAMadin could do the same, but Oath of Hedonism Bard had character. Only minor adjustment I might make is giving all the smite spells no action required so they are more like 2014 Divine smite feature that way people can use PAM and two weapon builds. I would still keep them once per turn and as casting a leveled spell. This might be too weird since they would literally be spells with a casting time of “no action which you cast when you hit with a weapon attack.” That might be complicated for newer players and someone might find some loop hole with it.
I've played 2 paladins, a Dex-based Tabaxi Vengeance Paladin, and a Str-based Triton Glory Paladin.
I agree & disagree with the above. Paladin is still fine, it was previously top of the pile in terms of martials in terms of nova offense, defense and support. Now it is still very powerful as support and defense but a more moderate DPR. PAMadin will still be a thing, that will just open up your 1st level slots for casting spells rather than SMITE all the time which will make it a more interesting class to play - it will be much more ranger-y rather than the "good at everything" class.
The only thing I'm not sure about, is whether SMITE still doubles on a critical hit? As that is the "hero-moment" for a Paladin so I think they should keep that.
I played 1 paladin, and don’t remember the UA that well, but I wasn’t worried when it came out. The class is still really flavorful and does a lot. Smiting is only part of their kit. And the smite spells are much more worthwhile now, which is a nice boost. One of the people I play with, who loves tanky martials, doesn’t like paladins because they’re too good and it feels like playing on cheat mode, to him at least. Dialing them back a bit doesn’t seem like too much.
Paladin is still in a good spot even with the nerfs. Many of the smites no longer require concentration making them actually usable. I will say this kills my Paladin 2/Swords Bard 7 since he was literally a nova build using two weapon fighting a smiting 3 times a turn. PAMadin could do the same, but Oath of Hedonism Bard had character. Only minor adjustment I might make is giving all the smite spells no action required so they are more like 2014 Divine smite feature that way people can use PAM and two weapon builds. I would still keep them once per turn and as casting a leveled spell. This might be too weird since they would literally be spells with a casting time of “no action which you cast when you hit with a weapon attack.” That might be complicated for newer players and someone might find some loop hole with it.
The smite spells being concentration-free and thus worth casting does feel like a big win! With concentration freed up from smite spells, now the Paladin can concentrate on buffs like Bless, or Pro Evil, or oath spells like HASTE (Vengeance)!
On smite taking up your bonus action... I get why they did it but it does feel a bit clunky. On rounds when you save it for a crit, you probably don't have a great backup for that action, because other bonus action attacks like PAM or Dual Wielder will conflict with your smite a bunch of the time. Then again, most of the Channel Divinities and racials are bonus actions now too...
The only thing I'm not sure about, is whether SMITE still doubles on a critical hit? As that is the "hero-moment" for a Paladin so I think they should keep that.
I've seen this concern a lot and I'm confused why it's even a question? With UA4 I could see the issue, because smite read like a separate instance of damage, but UA6 seems worded such that Smite is extra damage from the same attack ("extra 2d8 radiant damage from the attack".) Am I missing something?
The only thing I'm not sure about, is whether SMITE still doubles on a critical hit? As that is the "hero-moment" for a Paladin so I think they should keep that.
I've seen this concern a lot and I'm confused why it's even a question? With UA4 I could see the issue, because smite read like a separate instance of damage, but UA6 seems worded such that Smite is extra damage from the same attack ("extra 2d8 radiant damage from the attack".) Am I missing something?
Mostly it's because I absolutely hate the nitpicky phrasing differences for what does vs doesn't double on a crit with respect to spells & poison. I wish they would just explicitly say one or the other.
Not sure if it's worth comparing Paladin and Monk, Paladin and Monk do quiet different things. Monk is not a tank and will die quickly in the role, you're not going to choke point out a door or stand at the front as a monk. Monk is more hit and run, or just behind the front line.
I think Paladin usually competes with Barbarian and Fighter, in most parties you want somebody to perform that tanky role and any of these three are good for it, outside of them, there was the circle of the moon druid but that has been nerfed out of tanking in the UAs. As far as Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin goes, they all have their pros and cons for being that front-liner and as long as they do, all three are viable which differentiates itself from monk, monk doesn't serve any vital role that no other class can't do and is why their balance issues were worse. Monk's utility was damage and stunning strike, every class in the game does damage, even bard... so it's just stunning strike, Monk lives or dies by a single feature and then on top they are often melee while have a bad hit die (for melee), lack of features for survivability, their damage was not stand out and their limited ki point pool meant they had nothing once the pool is exhausted.
So going back to Paladin, Barbarian and Fighter, I'm going to say it, out of the three, with all the UAs, even the latest, Barbarian is still the last place of the three, it's damage is lower than Paladins or Fighters. A barbarian is rage dependent, their AC is usually around average (where Paladin and Fighter are usually high AC), their saves are usually worse, Paladin gets Aura of Protection and Fighter gets more feats (so picking up resilient for Dexterity or Wisdom, not as a big a cost). Barbarian's rage however is quiet a good feature in most combats, since any slashing, piercing or bludgeoning damage is halved, these are the most common damage types in most campaigns, but for creatures not dealing these damage types, Barbarian is going to be in a worse position than Paladin or Fighter. Also I'll add the point that more damage is often the best way to lower incoming damage, a downed and dead creature performs no actions. Barbarian is still a great class and people will continue to play it.
I'd say fighter beats out Paladin but it's hard, Fighter has A LOT of build choices, Paladin meanwhile is more versatile, a Paladin can work in a party with a fighter or barbarian since a Paladin can heal/support, albeit to a limited degree. Fighter has a bonus action self-heal while Paladin has lay on hands, which is bonus action in UA6.
For the bonus action, As far as smite spells go, moving them all to on-hit was necessary, I think addressing concentration was needed but it's the wrong fix and I also believe the the bonus action cost needed addressing. Changing divine smite, to a spell was already enough since you can only cast one levelled spell a turn which de facto already limited it to once a turn. I think the cost of bonus action isn't class killing or anything but it is build limiting, it is railroading Paladin into basically having to be the versatile weapon + shield class, since the best feats for Polearms and Great Weapons conflict with smite. It is still possible to do Polearms with PAM, you do your normal attack and if crit then smite, else use the bonus action attack but for great weapons with great weapon master... it's a bit fatal, since the time you most want to smite is when you critical while great weapon master's best usage is getting that extra bonus action attack when you critical. Also bonus action is conflicting with two features, Lay on hands (which is BA in UA6) and channel divinity options of many subclasses, like vow of enmity. Paladin is the only class that has this weird bonus action cost to retroactive damage like this, fighter subclasses like battlemaster do not, rogue's sneak attack does not, it sits very much as an outlier and inconsistency.
In regards to what I believe, I believe the fix for concentration for Paladin needed to be something more reliable, while Paladin is high AC, it is still going to take a lot of hits, perhaps being able to sacrifice health from lay-on-hands to pass the check, or some alternative way to maintain concentration more readily, not a cost free one but one that makes concentration spells worth holding. As for the smite spells, at that point holding concentration on them is then more reliable and would only apply to smite spells that had lasting effects, like banishing smite or searing smite but not divine smite or thunderous smite.
Paladin is still in a good spot even with the nerfs. Many of the smites no longer require concentration making them actually usable. I will say this kills my Paladin 2/Swords Bard 7 since he was literally a nova build using two weapon fighting a smiting 3 times a turn. PAMadin could do the same, but Oath of Hedonism Bard had character. Only minor adjustment I might make is giving all the smite spells no action required so they are more like 2014 Divine smite feature that way people can use PAM and two weapon builds. I would still keep them once per turn and as casting a leveled spell. This might be too weird since they would literally be spells with a casting time of “no action which you cast when you hit with a weapon attack.” That might be complicated for newer players and someone might find some loop hole with it.
^^ this. Paladin's going to still be really solid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don't mind the basic Smite being a spell instead of an ability ... but if they stick with that, I think that Paladins should have a version of the Cleric's Channel Divinity: Divine Spark. That's where I would put Divine Smite -- as powerful as Divine Spark, but used to enhance the damage of a (melee?) weapon attack or unarmed strike, instead of being its own action.
Then replace the spell version with "Radiant Smite" and "Necrotic Smite" (basically the same as the Divine Smite spell, but does the corresponding damage amount). These two spells replace the Divine Smite spell in PlayTest6. You pick one or the other as your "Always Prepared" spell, that is a candidate for the 1 free casting.
Change the name of "Radiant Strikes" (11th level feature) to Divine Strikes, and it does Radiant or Necrotic damage.
Last, add "Elemental Smite", that lets you pick the basic elemental damage type (acid, cold, fire, lightning, thunder). It should scale, but it doesn't have secondary effects (like persistent damage from Searing Smite, or the pushing effect of Thunderous Smite; so you can pick your element or you can have secondary effects). I might even say that this spell replaces Thunderous Smite on the "always prepared" list, and replaces Searing Smite as the smite spell that Rangers get (as per Tasha's Cauldron).
So: Divine Smite becomes a Channel Divinity that has a big oomph, but doesn't cost an action nor spell slot. Basic smiting is a spell (just like in PT6), unlike 2014 Divine Smite. There's a flexible Elemental Smite. And don't forget that at 11th level, Paladins get the feature to enhance all of the melee weapon/unarmed strike attacks for free.
Not sure if it's worth comparing Paladin and Monk, Paladin and Monk do quiet different things. Monk is not a tank and will die quickly in the role, you're not going to choke point out a door or stand at the front as a monk. Monk is more hit and run, or just behind the front line.
Sorry I have to respond to this because.. just no.. IMO most of this is just wrong.
So going back to Paladin, Barbarian and Fighter, I'm going to say it, out of the three, with all the UAs, even the latest, Barbarian is still the last place of the three, it's damage is lower than Paladins or Fighters.
Um.. no. Barbarians handily out damage Fighters and Paladins before level 11 because of Reckless & Rage damage. Beserker is now an absolute DPR machine, Zealot has always been at the top of the pile in terms of DPR, and even Tree has some DPR benefits.
I'd say fighter beats out Paladin but it's hard, Fighter has A LOT of build choices
Um.. again no. With the nerfs to weapon feats, STR-builds are just vastly superior offensively than DEX-builds, and that's really the problem with Monk. UA8 monk will shine well above any other two-weapon using build, but two-weapon using is still a terrible build option. Every UA Fighter will be either PAM + GWM or GWM + Sentinel, there's just not really any point to anything else. Paladin is the same in this case only with Sword-and-Board as a viable build if you play short adventuring days and more incentive for Sentinel over PAM prior to level 11 (at which point Improved Divine Smite incentivizes maximizing attacks per round). Paladin subclasses have always offered more customization than Fighter with unique CD, spells, and unique always-on-auras, and viability for mounted builds. Base Paladin class alone is superior to most Fighter builds.
Changing divine smite, to a spell was already enough since you can only cast one levelled spell a turn which de facto already limited it to once a turn.
That is not a rule, you absolutely can cast multiple levelled spells a turn most notably to Counterspell a Counterspell to your Action spell. If smite was changed to an "on a hit" (no action required) spell then you could cast it on every attack as it is used now. The only limitation of levelled spells is bonus actions, if you cast a levelled spell as a bonus action you cannot cast another levelled spell that turn.
I think the cost of bonus action isn't class killing or anything but it is build limiting, it is railroading Paladin into basically having to be the versatile weapon + shield class, since the best feats for Polearms and Great Weapons conflict with smite.
Conflicting with smite is largely irrelevant since smite is massively limited by your small number of spell slots as a paladin. The only time a paladin could smite on every attack in 2014 5e was if your table runs one combat per day and your paladin was level 9+. Besides a PAM BA attack is more potent than a 1st level smite so you might as well take PAM anyway and use those 1st level spell slots for something else (like Shield which you will pick up from Magic Initiate as your 1st level feat).
Also bonus action is conflicting with two features, Lay on hands (which is BA in UA6) and channel divinity options of many subclasses, like vow of enmity.
If you are using Lay on Hands on yourself as a Paladin more than once per long-rest then you are doing it wrong. Lay on Hands' great advantage is that is can do a big heal all at once and bring you back into the fight.
Paladin is the only class that has this weird bonus action cost to retroactive damage like this, fighter subclasses like battlemaster do not, rogue's sneak attack does not, it sits very much as an outlier and inconsistency.
Not really when you consider they are spells not class features. Every spell in the game has an action cost to cast it, so smite spells should be no different. The choice is simply BA or Reaction. Both would be viable though I suspect because of the free availability of Shield (spell) it's better from a powergaming perspective to have them as a BA rather than as a Reaction.
it's a bit fatal, since the time you most want to smite is when you critical while great weapon master's best usage is getting that extra bonus action attack when you critical
Again no, the best part of GWM is the + proficiency bonus damage every turn and getting a BA attack when you kill something. Crits are so rare they barely factor into damage calculations.
In regards to what I believe, I believe the fix for concentration for Paladin needed to be something more reliable, while Paladin is high AC, it is still going to take a lot of hits, perhaps being able to sacrifice health from lay-on-hands to pass the check, or some alternative way to maintain concentration more readily, not a cost free one but one that makes concentration spells worth holding.
No, between Aura of Protection and Resilient:Con Paladins can get massively high constitution saving throws right now if they want it. IMO just because you can cast spells doesn't mean the game should make it easy for you to maintain concentration (if that is desirable they should just eliminate the "lose concentration from taking damage" mechanic entirely).
I'm pretty confident that that will still be the Ranger.
I think you're probably right - will really depend on what they do with Favored Enemy, Deft Explorer, Volley/Barrage and Sharpshooter.
Beastmaster looks like it'll handily keep up with all the paladins though - getting 2 attacks per bonus action, and the beast can disengage with its own bonus action so it'll be able to get charge damage added on each time too on top of HM. But the others will likely need a bit of help.
I'll confess that Paladin is my least played class in 5e, and I haven't seen too much discussion about it. Paladin players, how are you feeling? Is there a fear that Paladin will now be the bottom martial after Monk got so many buffs?
No, that's the barbarian. Paladin might have been reduced from S tier to A tier.
I'll confess that Paladin is my least played class in 5e, and I haven't seen too much discussion about it. Paladin players, how are you feeling? Is there a fear that Paladin will now be the bottom martial after Monk got so many buffs?
No, that's the barbarian. Paladin might have been reduced from S tier to A tier.
Barbarian was on top damage-wise even before Brutal Strike, they're fine. Several channels have crunched the numbers. I'm not worried about them 😛
One of the more recent damage comparisons had Paladin lower than the other martials, but that was Devotion, and it was before the most recent WM changes (and they were still above baseline.)
Barbarian was on top damage-wise even before Brutal Strike, they're fine.
Top damage in every tier is fighter. Barbarian is probably second in tier 1 and decently competitive in tier 2, but it pretty much falls off a cliff in tier 3. This is not significantly different from how it works in the 2014 version, paladins don't have enough spell slots for changes in smite to matter before tier 2.
Rangers are a skills class caster, not a martial class.
There is some classification issue here. For example, rogue damage is rather poor without specialized builds such as sentinel setups, but it's generally not expected to be top damage.
Rangers are a skills class caster, not a martial class.
There is some classification issue here. For example, rogue damage is rather poor without specialized builds such as sentinel setups, but it's generally not expected to be top damage.
Right, because their main schtick is the skill monkey, and they’re pretty decent at damage too. Rangers are also skills oriented, with spellcasting, and they do decent enough damage too. Same with Artificers. Same with Bards too, only bards do more skills & casting and less damage. As opposed to Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin which are all more damage oriented.
Is there a fear that Paladin will now be the bottom martial after Monk got so many buffs?
I'm pretty confident that that will still be the Ranger.
Rangers are a skills class caster, not a martial class.
Martial usually refers to the classes that grew out of the 0e/B/1e Fighter: Barbarian, (Fighter, obvs), Paladin, and Ranger
The Ranger is definitely in that pack. And they're definitely more oriented around mundane fighting than general skills. Not to mention that "skills class" isn't an actual grouping.
Not sure if it's worth comparing Paladin and Monk, Paladin and Monk do quiet different things. Monk is not a tank and will die quickly in the role, you're not going to choke point out a door or stand at the front as a monk. Monk is more hit and run, or just behind the front line.
Sorry I have to respond to this because.. just no.. IMO most of this is just wrong.
So going back to Paladin, Barbarian and Fighter, I'm going to say it, out of the three, with all the UAs, even the latest, Barbarian is still the last place of the three, it's damage is lower than Paladins or Fighters.
Um.. no. Barbarians handily out damage Fighters and Paladins before level 11 because of Reckless & Rage damage. Beserker is now an absolute DPR machine, Zealot has always been at the top of the pile in terms of DPR, and even Tree has some DPR benefits.
Going by base class, Paladin has more, but you're right with subclasses, these subclasses are adding a lot of damage but this does only last up until level 9, when Paladin gets spirit shroud and 3rd level smites, then radiant strikes at level 11. I'd have to figure out each UA optimized build to find out exactly where the differences are in DPR. but a Vengeance Paladin is likely around par to behind 2 DPR on average with smites taken into account and behind Berserker by around 2~4 DPR around level 5, assuming all are using great swords and 16 rounds of combat in the adventuring day.
I'd say fighter beats out Paladin but it's hard, Fighter has A LOT of build choices
Um.. again no. With the nerfs to weapon feats, STR-builds are just vastly superior offensively than DEX-builds, and that's really the problem with Monk. UA8 monk will shine well above any other two-weapon using build, but two-weapon using is still a terrible build option. Every UA Fighter will be either PAM + GWM or GWM + Sentinel, there's just not really any point to anything else. Paladin is the same in this case only with Sword-and-Board as a viable build if you play short adventuring days and more incentive for Sentinel over PAM prior to level 11 (at which point Improved Divine Smite incentivizes maximizing attacks per round). Paladin subclasses have always offered more customization than Fighter with unique CD, spells, and unique always-on-auras, and viability for mounted builds. Base Paladin class alone is superior to most Fighter builds.
Paladin's build choices are subclass, a choice of four fighting styles and 5 feats/ASI. Fighter has a choice of every fighting style in the game, 7 feats/ASI and it's subclasses do fundamentally alter the way the class is played, paladin subclasses do have different channel divinities and different prepared spells but I just do not see this as the same type of difference from eldritch knight to battlemaster to rune knight to echo knight. The auras are mostly an immunity to something which only applies in the situations that, that condition comes up and the channel divinities are mostly damage, attack, frightening/turned, there is a couple of different ones in there but not much. And I don't really agree on the spells either, which paladin subclass has such a great 3rd level spell that every paladin would want? Most of the good spells are save DC or concentration, which Paladin is not exactly good at. There is a couple of worthwhile spells, like plant growth from oath of ancients can do well for battlefield control but it's mostly barely more than fluff.
Changing divine smite, to a spell was already enough since you can only cast one levelled spell a turn which de facto already limited it to once a turn.
That is not a rule, you absolutely can cast multiple levelled spells a turn most notably to Counterspell a Counterspell to your Action spell. If smite was changed to an "on a hit" (no action required) spell then you could cast it on every attack as it is used now. The only limitation of levelled spells is bonus actions, if you cast a levelled spell as a bonus action you cannot cast another levelled spell that turn.
Apologies, this is a bonus action spell caveat, so you're right here. It could still be placed in as a restriction on the divine smite feature however, so it's still an easy fix.
I think the cost of bonus action isn't class killing or anything but it is build limiting, it is railroading Paladin into basically having to be the versatile weapon + shield class, since the best feats for Polearms and Great Weapons conflict with smite.
Conflicting with smite is largely irrelevant since smite is massively limited by your small number of spell slots as a paladin. The only time a paladin could smite on every attack in 2014 5e was if your table runs one combat per day and your paladin was level 9+. Besides a PAM BA attack is more potent than a 1st level smite so you might as well take PAM anyway and use those 1st level spell slots for something else (like Shield which you will pick up from Magic Initiate as your 1st level feat).
You're not disagreeing that there is a conflict, just about the severity of it. So a PAM BA attack is less potent than a 1st level smite at least until radiant strikes. a PAM BA attack is not retroactive damage like smite and PAM BA attack is 1d4+STR normally, assuming GWF, you're talking about 3.2 damage (if memory serves) +STR. If you've got a 65% chance to hit, even with +5 STR and +3 weapon, it'd be averaging 7.44 damage (inc 5% chance to crit) which is less than the 9 average damage of a 1st level smite, with a 80% chance to hit the +8 would do more, or with advantage, so basically Vow of Enmity/Oath of Vengeance.
At level 5, if you're averaging 16 rounds of combat, you're almost at a smite every other round, since 4 1st level slots, 2 2nd level slots and 1 free smite/long rest from feature. At level 9, if you're up to around 24 rounds of combat a long rest, then you've got 2 3rd level slots, 3 2nd level, 4 1st and 1 free smite/long rest (UA6). Of course, longer adventuring days is worse for paladin and shorter ones beneficial, Paladin is very long rest dependent. However on top of this, you also have channel divinity, that is consuming about 3 rounds of bonus actions for some of the subclasses, I think PAM is something that becomes more viable in late game for Paladin or for subclasses without a BA channel divinity.
Also bonus action is conflicting with two features, Lay on hands (which is BA in UA6) and channel divinity options of many subclasses, like vow of enmity.
If you are using Lay on Hands on yourself as a Paladin more than once per long-rest then you are doing it wrong. Lay on Hands' great advantage is that is can do a big heal all at once and bring you back into the fight.
This is the big advantage of lay on hands, it's a minor point but it could be annoying for a devotion paladin that does their attacks and gets their 1 critical of the day on the same round that they have to heal themselves or another character with it. It's not something that'll come up every dungeon but it will come up every now and then.
Paladin is the only class that has this weird bonus action cost to retroactive damage like this, fighter subclasses like battlemaster do not, rogue's sneak attack does not, it sits very much as an outlier and inconsistency.
Not really when you consider they are spells not class features. Every spell in the game has an action cost to cast it, so smite spells should be no different. The choice is simply BA or Reaction. Both would be viable though I suspect because of the free availability of Shield (spell) it's better from a powergaming perspective to have them as a BA rather than as a Reaction.
This is part of the issue of moving divine smite to be a spell in the first place, instead of moving all smites to be part of the same feature. Personally I don't think that many paladins are going to go that crazy over the shield spell, it'll definitely be a meta and might even turn out better when you get to level 9 and get spirit shroud... I'll leave it more time to see on that one. But the spells could be kept as bonus action and the Smite feature changes it to not be a bonus action, there is a similar thing with how bladesinger's extra attack straight up ignores the casting time of cantrips, switching one out instead for an attack.
it's a bit fatal, since the time you most want to smite is when you critical while great weapon master's best usage is getting that extra bonus action attack when you critical
Again no, the best part of GWM is the + proficiency bonus damage every turn and getting a BA attack when you kill something. Crits are so rare they barely factor into damage calculations.
Mmm, it depends on what you're fighting, a group of 12 orcs, sure, 1 young red dragon but the former is likely more common, this said for a barbarian or a vegeance paladin with their advantage you are going to expect it to be more of a factor, with vegance paladin, you're gunna expect an almost 18.55% chance to critical each round which is higher than the 9.75% chance of using normal attacks. However the proficiency bonus damage and BA attack on kill are also very good, so you're right, it still a good pick actually.
In regards to what I believe, I believe the fix for concentration for Paladin needed to be something more reliable, while Paladin is high AC, it is still going to take a lot of hits, perhaps being able to sacrifice health from lay-on-hands to pass the check, or some alternative way to maintain concentration more readily, not a cost free one but one that makes concentration spells worth holding.
No, between Aura of Protection and Resilient:Con Paladins can get massively high constitution saving throws right now if they want it. IMO just because you can cast spells doesn't mean the game should make it easy for you to maintain concentration (if that is desirable they should just eliminate the "lose concentration from taking damage" mechanic entirely).
And yet we see in the latest UA that Circle of the Moon Druid literally got a feature to help them with CON saves which is more than Paladin gets, because they are a caster which uses concentration spells which needs a way to keep them up, and yes, circle of the moon druid gets more because a lot of beast forms have +3 CON, a couple later get even into +4. So their CON+WIS on concentration saves beats out paladins aura of protection, which you can give to them in same party too...
As a paladin, if you take Resilent CON or war caster then you're probably keeping your spells up, yes. There is a few problems with this tho, first off if you take resilient CON, that is an increase of +1 constitution score, which is not strength or charisma. It can be worth it, don't get me wrong but it's a bigger trade off when you might also want to improve that Aura of protection or get more damage output, such as great weapon master. With war caster you can still take a point of charisma. I'd say a pretty standard, standard array build of Paladin is 15+2, 10, 14, 8, 12, 13+1. Maybe you instead go 15+2, 10, 13, 8, 12 14+1, so you get to a 14 with it, leaves your HP a bit lower for levels 1-3... but not by much. I'd normally like to see that +4 at level 4 for attack/damage tho.
Wouldn't entirely be against removing concentration checks to be honest, it's main purpose is to limit casters to one concentration spell and then it's just a random failure mechanic on top, one that actually does slow the flow of combat, and let's not forget the times when a player forgets that they even need to make these checks when they take damage while playing at a table. And then who wants to be the person that goes, "doesn't this need a concentration check?" every time.... every time. Seen it multiple multiple times that DM and player forget about them, I think because in most campaigns they are just not that common, since most concentration spells are cast by people on the back lines and not often taking damage.
I'll confess that Paladin is my least played class in 5e, and I haven't seen too much discussion about it. Paladin players, how are you feeling? Is there a fear that Paladin will now be the bottom martial after Monk got so many buffs?
The last time we saw Paladin was UA6, and it looks like that's the last time we're ever going to see it until the PHB drops next year. Apparently it scored high enough to not need any more public playtesting.
For me, the only worrisome part is Smite. I'm totally fine with it being 1/round, and it seems to work with thrown weapons now! But I'm a bit more concerned about it being a bonus action now (no more reaction smites, no more PAMadin) and now that it's a leveled spell, we can't cast anything else and smite on the same turn. Are Paladin players feeling like its fine despite these nerfs? Or are your concerns potentially being glossed over?
I played 1 paladin, and don’t remember the UA that well, but I wasn’t worried when it came out. The class is still really flavorful and does a lot. Smiting is only part of their kit. And the smite spells are much more worthwhile now, which is a nice boost.
One of the people I play with, who loves tanky martials, doesn’t like paladins because they’re too good and it feels like playing on cheat mode, to him at least. Dialing them back a bit doesn’t seem like too much.
Paladin is still in a good spot even with the nerfs. Many of the smites no longer require concentration making them actually usable. I will say this kills my Paladin 2/Swords Bard 7 since he was literally a nova build using two weapon fighting a smiting 3 times a turn. PAMadin could do the same, but Oath of Hedonism Bard had character. Only minor adjustment I might make is giving all the smite spells no action required so they are more like 2014 Divine smite feature that way people can use PAM and two weapon builds. I would still keep them once per turn and as casting a leveled spell. This might be too weird since they would literally be spells with a casting time of “no action which you cast when you hit with a weapon attack.” That might be complicated for newer players and someone might find some loop hole with it.
I've played 2 paladins, a Dex-based Tabaxi Vengeance Paladin, and a Str-based Triton Glory Paladin.
I agree & disagree with the above. Paladin is still fine, it was previously top of the pile in terms of martials in terms of nova offense, defense and support. Now it is still very powerful as support and defense but a more moderate DPR. PAMadin will still be a thing, that will just open up your 1st level slots for casting spells rather than SMITE all the time which will make it a more interesting class to play - it will be much more ranger-y rather than the "good at everything" class.
The only thing I'm not sure about, is whether SMITE still doubles on a critical hit? As that is the "hero-moment" for a Paladin so I think they should keep that.
The smite spells being concentration-free and thus worth casting does feel like a big win! With concentration freed up from smite spells, now the Paladin can concentrate on buffs like Bless, or Pro Evil, or oath spells like HASTE (Vengeance)!
On smite taking up your bonus action... I get why they did it but it does feel a bit clunky. On rounds when you save it for a crit, you probably don't have a great backup for that action, because other bonus action attacks like PAM or Dual Wielder will conflict with your smite a bunch of the time. Then again, most of the Channel Divinities and racials are bonus actions now too...
I've seen this concern a lot and I'm confused why it's even a question? With UA4 I could see the issue, because smite read like a separate instance of damage, but UA6 seems worded such that Smite is extra damage from the same attack ("extra 2d8 radiant damage from the attack".) Am I missing something?
Mostly it's because I absolutely hate the nitpicky phrasing differences for what does vs doesn't double on a crit with respect to spells & poison. I wish they would just explicitly say one or the other.
Not sure if it's worth comparing Paladin and Monk, Paladin and Monk do quiet different things. Monk is not a tank and will die quickly in the role, you're not going to choke point out a door or stand at the front as a monk. Monk is more hit and run, or just behind the front line.
I think Paladin usually competes with Barbarian and Fighter, in most parties you want somebody to perform that tanky role and any of these three are good for it, outside of them, there was the circle of the moon druid but that has been nerfed out of tanking in the UAs. As far as Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin goes, they all have their pros and cons for being that front-liner and as long as they do, all three are viable which differentiates itself from monk, monk doesn't serve any vital role that no other class can't do and is why their balance issues were worse. Monk's utility was damage and stunning strike, every class in the game does damage, even bard... so it's just stunning strike, Monk lives or dies by a single feature and then on top they are often melee while have a bad hit die (for melee), lack of features for survivability, their damage was not stand out and their limited ki point pool meant they had nothing once the pool is exhausted.
So going back to Paladin, Barbarian and Fighter, I'm going to say it, out of the three, with all the UAs, even the latest, Barbarian is still the last place of the three, it's damage is lower than Paladins or Fighters. A barbarian is rage dependent, their AC is usually around average (where Paladin and Fighter are usually high AC), their saves are usually worse, Paladin gets Aura of Protection and Fighter gets more feats (so picking up resilient for Dexterity or Wisdom, not as a big a cost). Barbarian's rage however is quiet a good feature in most combats, since any slashing, piercing or bludgeoning damage is halved, these are the most common damage types in most campaigns, but for creatures not dealing these damage types, Barbarian is going to be in a worse position than Paladin or Fighter. Also I'll add the point that more damage is often the best way to lower incoming damage, a downed and dead creature performs no actions. Barbarian is still a great class and people will continue to play it.
I'd say fighter beats out Paladin but it's hard, Fighter has A LOT of build choices, Paladin meanwhile is more versatile, a Paladin can work in a party with a fighter or barbarian since a Paladin can heal/support, albeit to a limited degree. Fighter has a bonus action self-heal while Paladin has lay on hands, which is bonus action in UA6.
For the bonus action, As far as smite spells go, moving them all to on-hit was necessary, I think addressing concentration was needed but it's the wrong fix and I also believe the the bonus action cost needed addressing. Changing divine smite, to a spell was already enough since you can only cast one levelled spell a turn which de facto already limited it to once a turn. I think the cost of bonus action isn't class killing or anything but it is build limiting, it is railroading Paladin into basically having to be the versatile weapon + shield class, since the best feats for Polearms and Great Weapons conflict with smite. It is still possible to do Polearms with PAM, you do your normal attack and if crit then smite, else use the bonus action attack but for great weapons with great weapon master... it's a bit fatal, since the time you most want to smite is when you critical while great weapon master's best usage is getting that extra bonus action attack when you critical. Also bonus action is conflicting with two features, Lay on hands (which is BA in UA6) and channel divinity options of many subclasses, like vow of enmity. Paladin is the only class that has this weird bonus action cost to retroactive damage like this, fighter subclasses like battlemaster do not, rogue's sneak attack does not, it sits very much as an outlier and inconsistency.
In regards to what I believe, I believe the fix for concentration for Paladin needed to be something more reliable, while Paladin is high AC, it is still going to take a lot of hits, perhaps being able to sacrifice health from lay-on-hands to pass the check, or some alternative way to maintain concentration more readily, not a cost free one but one that makes concentration spells worth holding. As for the smite spells, at that point holding concentration on them is then more reliable and would only apply to smite spells that had lasting effects, like banishing smite or searing smite but not divine smite or thunderous smite.
^^ this. Paladin's going to still be really solid.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don't mind the basic Smite being a spell instead of an ability ... but if they stick with that, I think that Paladins should have a version of the Cleric's Channel Divinity: Divine Spark. That's where I would put Divine Smite -- as powerful as Divine Spark, but used to enhance the damage of a (melee?) weapon attack or unarmed strike, instead of being its own action.
Then replace the spell version with "Radiant Smite" and "Necrotic Smite" (basically the same as the Divine Smite spell, but does the corresponding damage amount). These two spells replace the Divine Smite spell in PlayTest6. You pick one or the other as your "Always Prepared" spell, that is a candidate for the 1 free casting.
Change the name of "Radiant Strikes" (11th level feature) to Divine Strikes, and it does Radiant or Necrotic damage.
Last, add "Elemental Smite", that lets you pick the basic elemental damage type (acid, cold, fire, lightning, thunder). It should scale, but it doesn't have secondary effects (like persistent damage from Searing Smite, or the pushing effect of Thunderous Smite; so you can pick your element or you can have secondary effects). I might even say that this spell replaces Thunderous Smite on the "always prepared" list, and replaces Searing Smite as the smite spell that Rangers get (as per Tasha's Cauldron).
So:
Divine Smite becomes a Channel Divinity that has a big oomph, but doesn't cost an action nor spell slot.
Basic smiting is a spell (just like in PT6), unlike 2014 Divine Smite.
There's a flexible Elemental Smite.
And don't forget that at 11th level, Paladins get the feature to enhance all of the melee weapon/unarmed strike attacks for free.
Sorry I have to respond to this because.. just no.. IMO most of this is just wrong.
Um.. no. Barbarians handily out damage Fighters and Paladins before level 11 because of Reckless & Rage damage. Beserker is now an absolute DPR machine, Zealot has always been at the top of the pile in terms of DPR, and even Tree has some DPR benefits.
Um.. again no. With the nerfs to weapon feats, STR-builds are just vastly superior offensively than DEX-builds, and that's really the problem with Monk. UA8 monk will shine well above any other two-weapon using build, but two-weapon using is still a terrible build option. Every UA Fighter will be either PAM + GWM or GWM + Sentinel, there's just not really any point to anything else. Paladin is the same in this case only with Sword-and-Board as a viable build if you play short adventuring days and more incentive for Sentinel over PAM prior to level 11 (at which point Improved Divine Smite incentivizes maximizing attacks per round). Paladin subclasses have always offered more customization than Fighter with unique CD, spells, and unique always-on-auras, and viability for mounted builds. Base Paladin class alone is superior to most Fighter builds.
That is not a rule, you absolutely can cast multiple levelled spells a turn most notably to Counterspell a Counterspell to your Action spell. If smite was changed to an "on a hit" (no action required) spell then you could cast it on every attack as it is used now. The only limitation of levelled spells is bonus actions, if you cast a levelled spell as a bonus action you cannot cast another levelled spell that turn.
Conflicting with smite is largely irrelevant since smite is massively limited by your small number of spell slots as a paladin. The only time a paladin could smite on every attack in 2014 5e was if your table runs one combat per day and your paladin was level 9+. Besides a PAM BA attack is more potent than a 1st level smite so you might as well take PAM anyway and use those 1st level spell slots for something else (like Shield which you will pick up from Magic Initiate as your 1st level feat).
If you are using Lay on Hands on yourself as a Paladin more than once per long-rest then you are doing it wrong. Lay on Hands' great advantage is that is can do a big heal all at once and bring you back into the fight.
Not really when you consider they are spells not class features. Every spell in the game has an action cost to cast it, so smite spells should be no different. The choice is simply BA or Reaction. Both would be viable though I suspect because of the free availability of Shield (spell) it's better from a powergaming perspective to have them as a BA rather than as a Reaction.
Again no, the best part of GWM is the + proficiency bonus damage every turn and getting a BA attack when you kill something. Crits are so rare they barely factor into damage calculations.
No, between Aura of Protection and Resilient:Con Paladins can get massively high constitution saving throws right now if they want it. IMO just because you can cast spells doesn't mean the game should make it easy for you to maintain concentration (if that is desirable they should just eliminate the "lose concentration from taking damage" mechanic entirely).
I'm pretty confident that that will still be the Ranger.
I think you're probably right - will really depend on what they do with Favored Enemy, Deft Explorer, Volley/Barrage and Sharpshooter.
Beastmaster looks like it'll handily keep up with all the paladins though - getting 2 attacks per bonus action, and the beast can disengage with its own bonus action so it'll be able to get charge damage added on each time too on top of HM. But the others will likely need a bit of help.
No, that's the barbarian. Paladin might have been reduced from S tier to A tier.
Barbarian was on top damage-wise even before Brutal Strike, they're fine. Several channels have crunched the numbers. I'm not worried about them 😛
One of the more recent damage comparisons had Paladin lower than the other martials, but that was Devotion, and it was before the most recent WM changes (and they were still above baseline.)
Paladin can do a lot more than damage of course.
Top damage in every tier is fighter. Barbarian is probably second in tier 1 and decently competitive in tier 2, but it pretty much falls off a cliff in tier 3. This is not significantly different from how it works in the 2014 version, paladins don't have enough spell slots for changes in smite to matter before tier 2.
Rangers are a skills class caster, not a martial class.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is some classification issue here. For example, rogue damage is rather poor without specialized builds such as sentinel setups, but it's generally not expected to be top damage.
Right, because their main schtick is the skill monkey, and they’re pretty decent at damage too. Rangers are also skills oriented, with spellcasting, and they do decent enough damage too. Same with Artificers. Same with Bards too, only bards do more skills & casting and less damage. As opposed to Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin which are all more damage oriented.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Martial usually refers to the classes that grew out of the 0e/B/1e Fighter: Barbarian, (Fighter, obvs), Paladin, and Ranger
The Ranger is definitely in that pack. And they're definitely more oriented around mundane fighting than general skills.
Not to mention that "skills class" isn't an actual grouping.
Apologies in advance for very long post.
Going by base class, Paladin has more, but you're right with subclasses, these subclasses are adding a lot of damage but this does only last up until level 9, when Paladin gets spirit shroud and 3rd level smites, then radiant strikes at level 11. I'd have to figure out each UA optimized build to find out exactly where the differences are in DPR. but a Vengeance Paladin is likely around par to behind 2 DPR on average with smites taken into account and behind Berserker by around 2~4 DPR around level 5, assuming all are using great swords and 16 rounds of combat in the adventuring day.
Paladin's build choices are subclass, a choice of four fighting styles and 5 feats/ASI. Fighter has a choice of every fighting style in the game, 7 feats/ASI and it's subclasses do fundamentally alter the way the class is played, paladin subclasses do have different channel divinities and different prepared spells but I just do not see this as the same type of difference from eldritch knight to battlemaster to rune knight to echo knight. The auras are mostly an immunity to something which only applies in the situations that, that condition comes up and the channel divinities are mostly damage, attack, frightening/turned, there is a couple of different ones in there but not much. And I don't really agree on the spells either, which paladin subclass has such a great 3rd level spell that every paladin would want? Most of the good spells are save DC or concentration, which Paladin is not exactly good at. There is a couple of worthwhile spells, like plant growth from oath of ancients can do well for battlefield control but it's mostly barely more than fluff.
Apologies, this is a bonus action spell caveat, so you're right here. It could still be placed in as a restriction on the divine smite feature however, so it's still an easy fix.
You're not disagreeing that there is a conflict, just about the severity of it. So a PAM BA attack is less potent than a 1st level smite at least until radiant strikes. a PAM BA attack is not retroactive damage like smite and PAM BA attack is 1d4+STR normally, assuming GWF, you're talking about 3.2 damage (if memory serves) +STR. If you've got a 65% chance to hit, even with +5 STR and +3 weapon, it'd be averaging 7.44 damage (inc 5% chance to crit) which is less than the 9 average damage of a 1st level smite, with a 80% chance to hit the +8 would do more, or with advantage, so basically Vow of Enmity/Oath of Vengeance.
At level 5, if you're averaging 16 rounds of combat, you're almost at a smite every other round, since 4 1st level slots, 2 2nd level slots and 1 free smite/long rest from feature. At level 9, if you're up to around 24 rounds of combat a long rest, then you've got 2 3rd level slots, 3 2nd level, 4 1st and 1 free smite/long rest (UA6). Of course, longer adventuring days is worse for paladin and shorter ones beneficial, Paladin is very long rest dependent. However on top of this, you also have channel divinity, that is consuming about 3 rounds of bonus actions for some of the subclasses, I think PAM is something that becomes more viable in late game for Paladin or for subclasses without a BA channel divinity.
This is the big advantage of lay on hands, it's a minor point but it could be annoying for a devotion paladin that does their attacks and gets their 1 critical of the day on the same round that they have to heal themselves or another character with it. It's not something that'll come up every dungeon but it will come up every now and then.
This is part of the issue of moving divine smite to be a spell in the first place, instead of moving all smites to be part of the same feature. Personally I don't think that many paladins are going to go that crazy over the shield spell, it'll definitely be a meta and might even turn out better when you get to level 9 and get spirit shroud... I'll leave it more time to see on that one. But the spells could be kept as bonus action and the Smite feature changes it to not be a bonus action, there is a similar thing with how bladesinger's extra attack straight up ignores the casting time of cantrips, switching one out instead for an attack.
Mmm, it depends on what you're fighting, a group of 12 orcs, sure, 1 young red dragon but the former is likely more common, this said for a barbarian or a vegeance paladin with their advantage you are going to expect it to be more of a factor, with vegance paladin, you're gunna expect an almost 18.55% chance to critical each round which is higher than the 9.75% chance of using normal attacks. However the proficiency bonus damage and BA attack on kill are also very good, so you're right, it still a good pick actually.
And yet we see in the latest UA that Circle of the Moon Druid literally got a feature to help them with CON saves which is more than Paladin gets, because they are a caster which uses concentration spells which needs a way to keep them up, and yes, circle of the moon druid gets more because a lot of beast forms have +3 CON, a couple later get even into +4. So their CON+WIS on concentration saves beats out paladins aura of protection, which you can give to them in same party too...
As a paladin, if you take Resilent CON or war caster then you're probably keeping your spells up, yes. There is a few problems with this tho, first off if you take resilient CON, that is an increase of +1 constitution score, which is not strength or charisma. It can be worth it, don't get me wrong but it's a bigger trade off when you might also want to improve that Aura of protection or get more damage output, such as great weapon master. With war caster you can still take a point of charisma. I'd say a pretty standard, standard array build of Paladin is 15+2, 10, 14, 8, 12, 13+1. Maybe you instead go 15+2, 10, 13, 8, 12 14+1, so you get to a 14 with it, leaves your HP a bit lower for levels 1-3... but not by much. I'd normally like to see that +4 at level 4 for attack/damage tho.
Wouldn't entirely be against removing concentration checks to be honest, it's main purpose is to limit casters to one concentration spell and then it's just a random failure mechanic on top, one that actually does slow the flow of combat, and let's not forget the times when a player forgets that they even need to make these checks when they take damage while playing at a table. And then who wants to be the person that goes, "doesn't this need a concentration check?" every time.... every time. Seen it multiple multiple times that DM and player forget about them, I think because in most campaigns they are just not that common, since most concentration spells are cast by people on the back lines and not often taking damage.