Paladin will never overshadow any party that has a wizard in it. and will likely not overshadow any party with a bard, sorcerer or cleric either.
Casters are powerful in the right hands, but very few could match the unexpected burst damage of a 2014 Paladin, especially at a less experienced table that's simply gets a couple of lucky crits and decides to smite on each of them, deleting the boss. The decision to reduce the burst ceiling for the class was a good one imo.
few can? not true, perhaps you mean "single-target" damage, the damage casters put out in AoE easily exceeds what Paladin puts out on a single target. For example, a 9th level Paladin on a critical hit can put out about 4d6+8d8+5+enchantment bonus. So with a +2 greatsword, this would be an average of around 57 damage, a 5th level fireball from an evocation wizard is going to do 10d6+5 damage, or 40 damage unresisted and 20 damage resisted, if you hit 5 targets with that, it's 200 damage, Paladin would need 4 critical in a round to be challenging this, with something like GWM, you could get 3 (but no bonus action smite spell, thus why not in the equation). Now more likely 2 of the targets would make the save and so you'd drop around 40 damage to 160, but this is hardly the biggest issue whereas for most paladin, a critical hit in a round with two attacks is 9.75%, getting 2 critical hits in a round, is a 0.25% chance; admittedly this is higher with advantage (~18.54% & ~3.44% chance respectively).
Apparently Paladin being able to once or twice a day do a massive nova and then basically drop to one of the lowest base line damage numbers of the game (until around level 11 anyways), makes em overpowered but casters being able to wipe waves of creatures in a single spell cast is not? I've seen an encounter basically ended by a Druid casting tidal wave, before. Then after all of this casters can still do single target damage while paladin is quiet lacking in the AoE department. AoE remains basically exclusive to casters, else wise it's throwing consumables or using magic items, like a neckless of fireballs... casters have a huge advantage in AoE. There is not really a single thing that Paladin can do that one caster or another can not, while there are multiple things that casters can do, which Paladin simply can not. The correct way to have addressed the caster/martial divide was to bring the other martials more up to where Paladin could shine in that one battle, to bring martials up, instead we see martials continued to be weirdly rebalanced and paladin nerfed, so that now they are also behind all casters in the caster/martial divide, too.
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.
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.
1) There is a BA conflict with Paladin but I don't see that as a bad thing. Every other Str-based martial is likely going to gravitate toward the same old polearm PAM/GWM builds. A class with an actual reason to consider sword and board optimal because they have so many other things to do with their BA (smite, CD, LoH, spells etc) sounds like a nice change of pace.
2) Paladin will have a much easier time with concentration checks than most gishes thanks to their aura. I disagree that the aura doesn't make a big difference, 14 Con and 16 Cha is equivalent to max Con for them. I would just add War Caster to that, which you'll likely want anyway so you can sword and board and still cast - just spend most of your time smiting until you get it since smite has no S component.
1) It's a conflict that no other class that does damage similarly has, do you think Battlemaster Fighters or Rogues using sneak attack should have to use the bonus action? Paladin nova might be high but their base line DPR isn't the best, which is the traditional cost of being a Nova, you spike damage and then have a lower base line, Paladin's nova AND base line are nerfed in this, which is problematic, if you nerf the nova, normally the correct rebalance is to slightly increase baseline DPR. So now we are left at a point where a few of the options that could be done to bring the base line back up to snuff will not work due to smites being BA.
I've never seen anybody complain that Paladin puts out too much damage over an adventuring day, because they don't, their issue is that they put out too much Nova in certain situations and steal the spot light. Which raises other questions, is stealing the spot light bad? Actually, it's balanced, every character needs a spot light moment, now paladin will get far less... it's a more bland experience. But on top of that they will just do worse total damage over an adventuring day, which was never part of the issue, and was in fact already a bit on the low side.
2) It gets back to an important point about Paladin, they are MAD, so spending ASI's on feats is more costly to a Paladin to begin with. A caster will get a +5 in their spell casting modifier then they are free to get warcaster and resilient CON, as a Paladin, when you've got +5 Strength or +5 Charisma, it's often best to still put more points into strength or charisma and as a tank character you still want HP too. so yes, a Paladin beats most Gish builds on con saves, buts then most gish builds aren't usually tanks (still taking hits but usually not as many), they generally aren't burning spell slots on another feature (I.E. smite) and some of them remain SAD (like pact of the blade warlocks), even when Gish.
I'm not saying you can't go with a greedy paladin build, but it's not always the best and focusing on concentration spells is not necessarily the optimal choice. If you go greedy you're worse at support and damage.
Look man, read the post I was replying to. He said that paladins were overshadowing every other person in the party. I said that's not true. Since you have been explaining to me that paladin novas needed to be nerfed. My dude, I even said I agreed with the change. I merely challenged that paladins weren't overshadowing everyone in they party. And they don't. There's really no need to keep lecturing me on information that I know, I understand, and I have already said I understand.
I'm not "lecturing you." I'm explaining why I agree with Crawford that Paladin overshadowing was indeed happening and needed to be addressed. Clearly it IS true - just not at your table - and that's totally fine.
If you want to take it as a lecture, I certainly can't stop you and I'm sorry you feel that way.
There is not really a single thing that Paladin can do that one caster or another can not, while there are multiple things that casters can do, which Paladin simply can not. The correct way to have addressed the caster/martial divide was to bring the other martials more up to where Paladin could shine in that one battle, to bring martials up, instead we see martials continued to be weirdly rebalanced and paladin nerfed, so that now they are also behind all casters in the caster/martial divide, too.
You're assuming that "addressing the caster/martial divide" is one of their goals. Reducing it to a degree, maybe - but not addressing it, not completely - and toning down smite nova is not at odds with a reduction goal in any event.
1) It's a conflict that no other class that does damage similarly has, do you think Battlemaster Fighters or Rogues using sneak attack should have to use the bonus action? Paladin nova might be high but their base line DPR isn't the best, which is the traditional cost of being a Nova, you spike damage and then have a lower base line, Paladin's nova AND base line are nerfed in this, which is problematic, if you nerf the nova, normally the correct rebalance is to slightly increase baseline DPR. So now we are left at a point where a few of the options that could be done to bring the base line back up to snuff will not work due to smites being BA.
I've never seen anybody complain that Paladin puts out too much damage over an adventuring day, because they don't, their issue is that they put out too much Nova in certain situations and steal the spot light. Which raises other questions, is stealing the spot light bad? Actually, it's balanced, every character needs a spot light moment, now paladin will get far less... it's a more bland experience. But on top of that they will just do worse total damage over an adventuring day, which was never part of the issue, and was in fact already a bit on the low side.
2) It gets back to an important point about Paladin, they are MAD, so spending ASI's on feats is more costly to a Paladin to begin with. A caster will get a +5 in their spell casting modifier then they are free to get warcaster and resilient CON, as a Paladin, when you've got +5 Strength or +5 Charisma, it's often best to still put more points into strength or charisma and as a tank character you still want HP too. so yes, a Paladin beats most Gish builds on con saves, buts then most gish builds aren't usually tanks (still taking hits but usually not as many), they generally aren't burning spell slots on another feature (I.E. smite) and some of them remain SAD (like pact of the blade warlocks), even when Gish.
I'm not saying you can't go with a greedy paladin build, but it's not always the best and focusing on concentration spells is not necessarily the optimal choice. If you go greedy you're worse at support and damage.
1) Rogues will often use their BA though, whether on Cunning Action or Steady Aim or TWF. Fighters might get a resourceless use of it if they spend a feat on PAM or DW or SM. Overall, I don't see the damage increase from doing that as being much more than smite, in fact its likely to be less a lot of the time since Smite's damage increase doesn't need a separate attack roll.
2) Where you and I disagree is that Paladins can still get spotlight moments even with 1/round smite. Nova is not necessary to have the spotlight.
3) Paladins aren't that MAD honestly, they don't need +5 Str/Cha the way Monks want +5 Dex/Wis for example, because they can get by with a 16 or even 14 Cha. It's not like they want to max out Cha the way Monks want to max out Wis; they have plenty of spells that don't need saving throws or spell attacks.
There is not really a single thing that Paladin can do that one caster or another can not, while there are multiple things that casters can do, which Paladin simply can not. The correct way to have addressed the caster/martial divide was to bring the other martials more up to where Paladin could shine in that one battle, to bring martials up, instead we see martials continued to be weirdly rebalanced and paladin nerfed, so that now they are also behind all casters in the caster/martial divide, too.
You're assuming that "addressing the caster/martial divide" is one of their goals. Reducing it to a degree, maybe - but not addressing it, not completely - and toning down smite nova is not at odds with a reduction goal in any event.
It's a bigger issue than Paladin nova tho, and yet remains mostly unaddressed, Paladin's nova is not the greatest issue, a Paladin can go full nova once, maybe twice a day, at later levels and actually obtain that high level of damage. Outside of nova Paladin are doing a low base line of damage. So yes, the only way to avoid the nova spike getting too big is to restrict smite, this is not in disagreement. What is, is that this is really the biggest issue that needs addressing and was it addressed correctly? It would not be broken for fighter and barbarian to have access to something like the whirlwind attack of 3rd edition or for paladins and monk to get access to something akin to swordburst, the AoE damage would still be less than casters but the option would then be there. What we have ended out with is that paladin got nerfed and martials got the most minor of buffs, tho some of the more powerful feats got nerf for them. So the end result of this, is we now have a much weaker paladin who already had the worst passive DPR pre-level 11 for a martial... has their passive DPR hit further on top of nova, it's an over-correction and an obvious one while the more obvious over-shadowing of casters (more so wizard and sorcerer), still easily exists.
1) It's a conflict that no other class that does damage similarly has, do you think Battlemaster Fighters or Rogues using sneak attack should have to use the bonus action? Paladin nova might be high but their base line DPR isn't the best, which is the traditional cost of being a Nova, you spike damage and then have a lower base line, Paladin's nova AND base line are nerfed in this, which is problematic, if you nerf the nova, normally the correct rebalance is to slightly increase baseline DPR. So now we are left at a point where a few of the options that could be done to bring the base line back up to snuff will not work due to smites being BA.
I've never seen anybody complain that Paladin puts out too much damage over an adventuring day, because they don't, their issue is that they put out too much Nova in certain situations and steal the spot light. Which raises other questions, is stealing the spot light bad? Actually, it's balanced, every character needs a spot light moment, now paladin will get far less... it's a more bland experience. But on top of that they will just do worse total damage over an adventuring day, which was never part of the issue, and was in fact already a bit on the low side.
2) It gets back to an important point about Paladin, they are MAD, so spending ASI's on feats is more costly to a Paladin to begin with. A caster will get a +5 in their spell casting modifier then they are free to get warcaster and resilient CON, as a Paladin, when you've got +5 Strength or +5 Charisma, it's often best to still put more points into strength or charisma and as a tank character you still want HP too. so yes, a Paladin beats most Gish builds on con saves, buts then most gish builds aren't usually tanks (still taking hits but usually not as many), they generally aren't burning spell slots on another feature (I.E. smite) and some of them remain SAD (like pact of the blade warlocks), even when Gish.
I'm not saying you can't go with a greedy paladin build, but it's not always the best and focusing on concentration spells is not necessarily the optimal choice. If you go greedy you're worse at support and damage.
1) Rogues will often use their BA though, whether on Cunning Action or Steady Aim or TWF. Fighters might get a resourceless use of it if they spend a feat on PAM or DW or SM. Overall, I don't see the damage increase from doing that as being much more than smite, in fact its likely to be less a lot of the time since Smite's damage increase doesn't need a separate attack roll.
2) Where you and I disagree is that Paladins can still get spotlight moments even with 1/round smite. Nova is not necessary to have the spotlight.
3) Paladins aren't that MAD honestly, they don't need +5 Str/Cha the way Monks want +5 Dex/Wis for example, because they can get by with a 16 or even 14 Cha. It's not like they want to max out Cha the way Monks want to max out Wis; they have plenty of spells that don't need saving throws or spell attacks.
1) because rogues use BA for something else, paladins shouldn't be able to? I don't get the logic to this argument. Sure Rogue gets more things that rely on BA but Paladin still has things that rely on BA, so this is not really a good argument. If you're a devotion paladin, you can't sacred weapon AND smite on the same turn, if your using your lay-on-hands then you can't smite on the same turn. Rogue doesn't sacrifice their BA when they critical and sneak attack, it's not like paladin is deficient in bonus action options but making smites bonus action makes using the options Paladins may have or builds they could have... worse.
2) Paladin's "spotlight" is definitely going to suffer from this, basically it'll be that tossing out a lay-on-hands or managing to evade every attack in a round, which both are less special, far less special. Outside of this, then it's social interactions, with Paladin being a Charisma class, however that is an entire separate issue to combat balance and another area that WotC needs to address with CHA characters usually being dominating in social interactions, of course you can DM and/or role-play around it, but it's still just weird.
3) Paladin is still MAD, just because there is one class that is more MAD, doesn't really change that. But even if you disregard being MAD, you're still going to want that +5 around level 8 if you can get it, since you're going to be down on damage and attack, the thing you might sacrifice getting the +5 is something else that offers more damage and there are feats that give more reliable damage than the concentration spells that Paladin has, except maybe bless which is an exception since it aids it's own saving throws..... and you're going to use bless if another caster hasn't already cast it and you can't melee attack for whatever reason...
It's a bigger issue than Paladin nova tho, and yet remains mostly unaddressed, Paladin's nova is not the greatest issue, a Paladin can go full nova once, maybe twice a day at later levels and actually obtain that high damage, then outside of that, they are doing a low base line
Paladin's damage without using smite is higher than a barbarian's damage without using rage (because they have fighting style); comparing resource-free dpr is kind of meaningless. Paladins definitely have different level scaling, though; a level 2 paladin has 4d8 of smites per day, a level 20 has 54d8, whereas barbarian rage goes from +2 to +4.
It's a bigger issue than Paladin nova tho, and yet remains mostly unaddressed, Paladin's nova is not the greatest issue, a Paladin can go full nova once, maybe twice a day at later levels and actually obtain that high damage, then outside of that, they are doing a low base line
Paladin's damage without using smite is higher than a barbarian's damage without using rage (because they have fighting style); comparing resource-free dpr is kind of meaningless. Paladins definitely have different level scaling, though; a level 2 paladin has 4d8 of smites per day, a level 20 has 54d8, whereas barbarian rage goes from +2 to +4.
Paladin's passive damage is less then barbarian's, because barbarian can reckless attack, which is advantage and barbarian can reckless attack at any given round, now if they would reckless attack every round is another question but their sustainable DPR is technically higher than paladin's because they can do that. We will also need to see if the level 1 feat/asi is going to remain from UA 1&2, since if it does, most barbarians are going to pick up a fighting style anyway, whereas paladin does not have many great level 1 options for martial damage, not able to pick up a fighting style until level 2.
comparing Barbarian to Paladin has issues, because barbarian tends to get more power from subclass, their offensive subclass zealot does almost a 1st level smite in damage every round of rage, that is a lot of damage, paladin doesn't really do that same type of thing, closest you get is with spells like divine favor or spirit shroud, but those are concentration and more easily lost than rage, also you're doing less smites since still expanding spell slots but anybody who thinks paladin should just do smites and nothing else is being a little short sighted. Paladin's sustained DPR almost catches up to barbarian at level 11, since Improved Divine Smite/Radient Strikes is adding ~4.5 damage a hit but Barbarian reckless attacking every round would still just take the passive DPR, however by this point paladin does have more spell slots and 3rd level smites... so Paladin is potentially winning on damage over an adventuring day over a Zealot barbarian (who's Divine Fury is doing 1d6+5 a round at this level)
1) because rogues use BA for something else, paladins shouldn't be able to? I don't get the logic to this argument. Sure Rogue gets more things that rely on BA but Paladin still has things that rely on BA, so this is not really a good argument. If you're a devotion paladin, you can't sacred weapon AND smite on the same turn, if your using your lay-on-hands then you can't smite on the same turn. Rogue doesn't sacrifice their BA when they critical and sneak attack, it's not like paladin is deficient in bonus action options but making smites bonus action makes using the options Paladins may have or builds they could have... worse.
2) Paladin's "spotlight" is definitely going to suffer from this, basically it'll be that tossing out a lay-on-hands or managing to evade every attack in a round, which both are less special, far less special. Outside of this, then it's social interactions, with Paladin being a Charisma class, however that is an entire separate issue to combat balance and another area that WotC needs to address with CHA characters usually being dominating in social interactions, of course you can DM and/or role-play around it, but it's still just weird.
3) Paladin is still MAD, just because there is one class that is more MAD, doesn't really change that. But even if you disregard being MAD, you're still going to want that +5 around level 8 if you can get it, since you're going to be down on damage and attack, the thing you might sacrifice getting the +5 is something else that offers more damage and there are feats that give more reliable damage than the concentration spells that Paladin has, except maybe bless which is an exception since it aids it's own saving throws..... and you're going to use bless if another caster hasn't already cast it and you can't melee attack for whatever reason...
1) The logic is that the way to compare BA balance across classes is to see what damage can be done with them, and whether that damage costs a resource. Currently, the king of resourceless BA damage is probably BM Ranger, which gets two attacks with their BA every round for free. Rogue TWF or StA probably adds considerably less than that overall but is similarly resourceless. Paladin Smite meanwhile will add quite a bit but costs a resource.
2) (*Ironman Voice*) "if you needed smite nova to have any spotlight, you didn't deserve the spotlight."
3) You definitely do not need 20 Cha by level 8 to be a great paladin much less a viable one. Bless is just one example of what they can be concentrating on. But even if you feel you need max Cha in Tier 2 for some reason, dip Warlock for blade pact.
1) The logic is that the way to compare BA balance across classes is to see what damage can be done with them, and whether that damage costs a resource. Currently, the king of resourceless BA damage is probably BM Ranger, which gets two attacks with their BA every round for free. Rogue TWF or StA probably adds considerably less than that overall but is similarly resourceless. Paladin Smite meanwhile will add quite a bit but costs a resource.
Bear in mind that paladin is giving you some extra resources to cover that resource cost. In general I find it unlikely to have more than about ten rounds of melee combat in a day unless you're really fond of grinding corridor/doorway fights, and in those fights the main job of a melee fighter is to prevent the enemy from getting past the death zone a spellcaster put down (last time we had one of those, the barbarian was unmovable, but the moonbeam did most of the damage).
1) because rogues use BA for something else, paladins shouldn't be able to? I don't get the logic to this argument. Sure Rogue gets more things that rely on BA but Paladin still has things that rely on BA, so this is not really a good argument. If you're a devotion paladin, you can't sacred weapon AND smite on the same turn, if your using your lay-on-hands then you can't smite on the same turn. Rogue doesn't sacrifice their BA when they critical and sneak attack, it's not like paladin is deficient in bonus action options but making smites bonus action makes using the options Paladins may have or builds they could have... worse.
2) Paladin's "spotlight" is definitely going to suffer from this, basically it'll be that tossing out a lay-on-hands or managing to evade every attack in a round, which both are less special, far less special. Outside of this, then it's social interactions, with Paladin being a Charisma class, however that is an entire separate issue to combat balance and another area that WotC needs to address with CHA characters usually being dominating in social interactions, of course you can DM and/or role-play around it, but it's still just weird.
3) Paladin is still MAD, just because there is one class that is more MAD, doesn't really change that. But even if you disregard being MAD, you're still going to want that +5 around level 8 if you can get it, since you're going to be down on damage and attack, the thing you might sacrifice getting the +5 is something else that offers more damage and there are feats that give more reliable damage than the concentration spells that Paladin has, except maybe bless which is an exception since it aids it's own saving throws..... and you're going to use bless if another caster hasn't already cast it and you can't melee attack for whatever reason...
1) The logic is that the way to compare BA balance across classes is to see what damage can be done with them, and whether that damage costs a resource. Currently, the king of resourceless BA damage is probably BM Ranger, which gets two attacks with their BA every round for free. Rogue TWF or StA probably adds considerably less than that overall but is similarly resourceless. Paladin Smite meanwhile will add quite a bit but costs a resource.
2) (*Ironman Voice*) "if you needed smite nova to have any spotlight, you didn't deserve the spotlight."
3) You definitely do not need 20 Cha by level 8 to be a great paladin much less a viable one. Bless is just one example of what they can be concentrating on. But even if you feel you need max Cha in Tier 2 for some reason, dip Warlock for blade pact.
1) right, but this is because you're comparing it to a secondary damage source of the rogue, Smite is about on par with sneak attack at any given level. Sneak attack gives an additional ~3.5 DPR every odd level from level 1, smite starts higher but scales slower, so it's ~9 DPR, at level 5, a 2nd level smite is ~13.5 where sneak attack is now ~10.5. at level 9 a 3rd level smite is doing ~18 damage, sneak attack is doing, 17.5. Smite is easier to critical with, because it's resource based but sneak attack is doing around the same damage at no resource cost. So rogue is basically doing sneak attack every round unless they do not hit. So that 9th level paladin is doing exactly 2 3rd level smites at level 9. Rogue's sneak attack is superior to paladin's smite, and yet it's smite that is both resource based and costs the higher action economy, it doesn't really make sense.
2) This isn't even an argument, and a pointless comment, things like the spotlight are often bourne through randomness and the nova paladin hits is usually on the 1 in 10 chance that they actually critical hit the BBEG on the first round, there were are few things that pushed it past 10%, such a vow of enmity for Vengeance paladin, admittedly but this is actually quiet limited a case since it is just one subclass. So no, I entirely disagree with you, the occasional encounter being destroyed is not decremental to the game and paladin is not the biggest encounter destroyers, casters are and yet their spotlight of getting those encounter destroy moments off are yet untouched. Personally I think that one big nova stops the combat being bland, it needs randomness too it.
3) I said +5 for level 8, I did not say +5 Charisma... I dunno why you thought charisma over strength here but maybe I should have been more clear, I mean +5 strength. Of course the warlock dip remains an option, but really it's a bad fix to the issue for Paladin, you'd still need 15 strength I suppose, for the plate but that assumes the strength requirement remains in one d&d....
1) The logic is that the way to compare BA balance across classes is to see what damage can be done with them, and whether that damage costs a resource. Currently, the king of resourceless BA damage is probably BM Ranger, which gets two attacks with their BA every round for free. Rogue TWF or StA probably adds considerably less than that overall but is similarly resourceless. Paladin Smite meanwhile will add quite a bit but costs a resource.
Bear in mind that paladin is giving you some extra resources to cover that resource cost. In general I find it unlikely to have more than about ten rounds of melee combat in a day unless you're really fond of grinding corridor/doorway fights, and in those fights the main job of a melee fighter is to prevent the enemy from getting past the death zone a spellcaster put down (last time we had one of those, the barbarian was unmovable, but the moonbeam did most of the damage).
10 rounds of combat is pretty low for an adventuring day, that is like 3 encounters, if you're playing with such few encounters or have such trivial fights that they only last 2 rounds... it would explain why paladin might appear stronger than is. Most dungeons should be having more than 3 encounters. Makes me think of the long rest video by Deerstalker Pictures... long resting in most dungeons is just a crazy concept and something parties do because their daily session ended and for convenience but does not in fact make the game better.
Don't get me wrong, there is going to be days with less encounters for obvious reasons, usually story telling, but when you're doing the actual dungeon delve, you should be doing more than 10 total rounds of combat... in a lot of the cases of battles for story, these are usually more overworld which is also notably a weakness of paladin since when the ranger realises they can snipe the mobs from 180 foot away, the paladin is going to take a few turns to get to the mobs... since paladin really isn't good for range. Tho magic initiative may change this if people pick it up at level 1 in oned&d, have to see how it goes for final release.
10 rounds of combat is pretty low for an adventuring day, that is like 3 encounters
10 rounds of melee combat. That means you are assumed to actually be in range for use of melee. At that range, a medium encounter (the stuff they think should be padding the day) lasts 1-2 rounds. Deadly encounters last longer, but not by as much as they pad the xp budget -- a x2 budget encounter is typically about 50% longer encounter (so 2-3 rounds) with monsters that hit around 50% harder (which means it does more than twice as much. Which means you take a lot more damage, but the number of rounds of combat per day actually goes down.
10 rounds of combat is pretty low for an adventuring day, that is like 3 encounters
10 rounds of melee combat. That means you are assumed to actually be in range for use of melee. At that range, a medium encounter (the stuff they think should be padding the day) lasts 1-2 rounds. Deadly encounters last longer, but not by as much as they pad the xp budget -- a x2 budget encounter is typically about 50% longer encounter (so 2-3 rounds) with monsters that hit around 50% harder (which means it does more than twice as much. Which means you take a lot more damage, but the number of rounds of combat per day actually goes down.
Ah, fair enough, my mistake. yes some combats do start with party 60~70 foot away, getting what you're putting down now, but in these cases you're talking about positions where paladins do even less then normal since range... the thing paladin generally lacks without dipping or feats. So at that point you're down to spell casting and using a spell slot, dashing (which is usually not the best), dodging, readying an action or something along those lines. Bless is quiet a good choice in those scenarios.
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.
I love how this concept implies sincere dedication to debauchery and excess, to the level of swearing an oath. "My sacred duty commands me - hic! - to rid the world of this bottle of wine!".
Or for a dex paladin, use a longbow and divine favor. Or big brother variant crusader's mantle (particularly useful if you have an ally with a ton of attacks).
Or for a dex paladin, use a longbow and divine favor. Or big brother variant crusader's mantle (particularly useful if you have an ally with a ton of attacks).
I'd only consider crusader's mantle if another caster had used bless already since I generally consider 1-4 attack to be superior to 1-4 damage, let alone that bless can be cast as a 1st level spell, with a 3rd level slot you're hitting 5 targets... I generally see crusader's mantle as a synergy spell, where you cast it with a wizard using animate objects or druid casting conjure woodland animals, where the number of affected creatures is much higher, else wise bless > crusader's mantle almost always.
I'd only consider crusader's mantle if another caster had used bless already since I generally consider 1-4 attack to be superior to 1-4 damage.
Whether it's better depends a bit on what your existing accuracy is, though I'd forgotten it wasn't a bonus action. It also doesn't have a target cap though that rarely matters. In general if your damage per attack is less than your hit chance a damage bonus is better, which is usually the case outside of sharpshooter (which no longer has its -5/+10 option in 2024) or rogues.
1) right, but this is because you're comparing it to a secondary damage source of the rogue, Smite is about on par with sneak attack at any given level. Sneak attack gives an additional ~3.5 DPR every odd level from level 1, smite starts higher but scales slower, so it's ~9 DPR, at level 5, a 2nd level smite is ~13.5 where sneak attack is now ~10.5. at level 9 a 3rd level smite is doing ~18 damage, sneak attack is doing, 17.5. Smite is easier to critical with, because it's resource based but sneak attack is doing around the same damage at no resource cost. So rogue is basically doing sneak attack every round unless they do not hit. So that 9th level paladin is doing exactly 2 3rd level smites at level 9. Rogue's sneak attack is superior to paladin's smite, and yet it's smite that is both resource based and costs the higher action economy, it doesn't really make sense.
2) This isn't even an argument, and a pointless comment, things like the spotlight are often bourne through randomness and the nova paladin hits is usually on the 1 in 10 chance that they actually critical hit the BBEG on the first round, there were are few things that pushed it past 10%, such a vow of enmity for Vengeance paladin, admittedly but this is actually quiet limited a case since it is just one subclass. So no, I entirely disagree with you, the occasional encounter being destroyed is not decremental to the game and paladin is not the biggest encounter destroyers, casters are and yet their spotlight of getting those encounter destroy moments off are yet untouched. Personally I think that one big nova stops the combat being bland, it needs randomness too it.
3) I said +5 for level 8, I did not say +5 Charisma... I dunno why you thought charisma over strength here but maybe I should have been more clear, I mean +5 strength. Of course the warlock dip remains an option, but really it's a bad fix to the issue for Paladin, you'd still need 15 strength I suppose, for the plate but that assumes the strength requirement remains in one d&d....
1) Smite being just on par with SA means the Paladin is considerably ahead of the Rogue because they also have Extra Attack, Fighting Style and WM for base/sustained/resourceless DPR. And that's not counting buffs or channel. They're absolutely fine without smite-nova.
2) See #1.
3) Ok... so can you explain to me how going for +5 Str by level 8 makes them so MAD that they're "down on damage and attack?" 🤨
You can get 20 Str easily by starting with 15+2 / 10 / 14 / 10 / 10 / 13+1, and even have room for a half-feat at 4. Or you can try 14+2 / 10 / 14 / 10 / 10 / 15+1 if you don't need a feat and would rather have more Cha instead (16 instead of 14). Or you could go for 15+1 / 8 / 15+1 / 8 / 8 / 15+1 if you're in a completely featless game but want more survivability from higher Con. There are multiple possibilities.
I'd only consider crusader's mantle if another caster had used bless already since I generally consider 1-4 attack to be superior to 1-4 damage.
Whether it's better depends a bit on what your existing accuracy is, though I'd forgotten it wasn't a bonus action. It also doesn't have a target cap though that rarely matters. In general if your damage per attack is less than your hit chance a damage bonus is better, which is usually the case outside of sharpshooter (which no longer has its -5/+10 option in 2024) or rogues.
Maybe thinking of Spirit Shroud which is the stronger version of Divine Favor but only works in 10 foot? I'd probably still stick with bless, since casters like wizards, sorcerers and warlocks can benefit from bless but rarely benefit from crusaders mantle, since crusaders mantle specifically requires a weapon attack but bless affects all attack rolls. A scenario where maybe it'd change is if your DM is one too give advantage for height advantage, then if you're above the target enemy I could see the benefit.
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.
I love how this concept implies sincere dedication to debauchery and excess, to the level of swearing an oath. "My sacred duty commands me - hic! - to rid the world of this bottle of wine!".
He was fun to play, and literally started most combats full Nova. While technically the changes don’t kill the RP of the character the ability to Nova with 3 smites was part of the fun. I often attempted to avoid fights with intelligent beings as he would say, “I will take little pleasure in killing you, but I deny myself no pleasure. We may live an laugh together. A pleasure I prefer, but I do find some joy washing blood from steel.” I argued that statement was a persuasion check, but they kept saying it was an intimidation check. I wasn’t proficient in intimidation. I still kept saying it. Lol.
1) right, but this is because you're comparing it to a secondary damage source of the rogue, Smite is about on par with sneak attack at any given level. Sneak attack gives an additional ~3.5 DPR every odd level from level 1, smite starts higher but scales slower, so it's ~9 DPR, at level 5, a 2nd level smite is ~13.5 where sneak attack is now ~10.5. at level 9 a 3rd level smite is doing ~18 damage, sneak attack is doing, 17.5. Smite is easier to critical with, because it's resource based but sneak attack is doing around the same damage at no resource cost. So rogue is basically doing sneak attack every round unless they do not hit. So that 9th level paladin is doing exactly 2 3rd level smites at level 9. Rogue's sneak attack is superior to paladin's smite, and yet it's smite that is both resource based and costs the higher action economy, it doesn't really make sense.
2) This isn't even an argument, and a pointless comment, things like the spotlight are often bourne through randomness and the nova paladin hits is usually on the 1 in 10 chance that they actually critical hit the BBEG on the first round, there were are few things that pushed it past 10%, such a vow of enmity for Vengeance paladin, admittedly but this is actually quiet limited a case since it is just one subclass. So no, I entirely disagree with you, the occasional encounter being destroyed is not decremental to the game and paladin is not the biggest encounter destroyers, casters are and yet their spotlight of getting those encounter destroy moments off are yet untouched. Personally I think that one big nova stops the combat being bland, it needs randomness too it.
3) I said +5 for level 8, I did not say +5 Charisma... I dunno why you thought charisma over strength here but maybe I should have been more clear, I mean +5 strength. Of course the warlock dip remains an option, but really it's a bad fix to the issue for Paladin, you'd still need 15 strength I suppose, for the plate but that assumes the strength requirement remains in one d&d....
1) Smite being just on par with SA means the Paladin is considerably ahead of the Rogue because they also have Extra Attack, Fighting Style and WM for base/sustained/resourceless DPR. And that's not counting buffs or channel. They're absolutely fine without smite-nova.
2) See #1.
3) Ok... so can you explain to me how going for +5 Str by level 8 makes them so MAD that they're "down on damage and attack?" 🤨
You can get 20 Str easily by starting with 15+2 / 10 / 14 / 10 / 10 / 13+1, and even have room for a half-feat at 4. Or you can try 14+2 / 10 / 14 / 10 / 10 / 15+1 if you don't need a feat and would rather have more Cha instead (16 instead of 14). Or you could go for 15+1 / 8 / 15+1 / 8 / 8 / 15+1 if you're in a completely featless game but want more survivability from higher Con. There are multiple possibilities.
1) as mentioned above, Sneak Attack is far FAR ahead of smite, paladin gets access too smite at it's highest damage 2/3 times a day, then they are using lower levelled spell slots doing less damage. I am aware Paladin gets extra attack and fighting style, the fighting styles paladin gets access which increase damage are duelling and great weapon fighting, which is equivalent to around a 1 to 1.3 damage increase per attack.
Paladin does get extra attack, sure. at level 9 paladin over 15 round of combat, assuming they used all smite spells is doing 30 attacks, we are talking ~1.5 critical hits. Over an adventuring day that is 8 + 9 + 8 die in smites, with an additional 4 or 8 die from critical hits, so around 33 dies. So with a +1 longsword you're going to expect roughly ((4.5×.7+8×.65)×30+33×4.5) / 15 damage or 26.6 DPR.
Rogue over the same 15 turns, assuming two weapon fighting with two +1 short swords would be doing, (3.5×.7)×2+(7×0.65)+(17.5×0.945) is 25.77 DPR a round.
yes, I know it's possible to build both classes to do more (i.e. greatsword+GWM, spirit shroud spell or two handcrossbows+crossbow expert), but I think this makes most of the point, sneak attack, near entirely bridges all those extra things paladin gets and yet paladin's damage remains resource based. When you then get into ranged combat, where Paladin is near useless and rogue can continue to shoot, or even to sneak attack in some cases... paladin performs only while in position, in melee combat while rogue can move all around the battlefield to wherever is best for them. And then once all is said, if the adventuring day goes into 16, 17 or more rounds of combat, Paladin's DPR drops, rogue's remains relatively constant. Basically who appears to do more damage is highly related to length of an adventuring day, part of how paladin broke was many parties doing shorter days than designed, which does mean there are other design issues which need addressing.
And of course I'll note as a rogue, are you going to bother with that second attack from two weapon fighting? probably only if your first hit missed, so in practice rogue will do less damage since the extra damage of two weapon fighting is not going to be enough to justify that 1d6+1 damage unless it's to try and get that sneak attack damage you didn't get on the first hit.
I think it is also important to note, that BBEGs can not counter-spell a sneak attack too, where now all smites can be counter-spelled. It's another part of all this lovely rebalancing that does need consideration. A lot of spell caster BBEGs might just want to counter-spell that critical smite.
2) #1 is based on your ignoring some very important factors in how smite works. I think it's also important to note, that I'm not saying that smite nova is gone, it's reduced but still exists but is going to be less pronounced.
Generally the point of being resource based, is your resources do more when you use them but you do less in general without them, meanwhile with resources paladin is not doing more and most of this relies on saving your highest level smites for when you critical, which raises other issues, since you have no control over when you critical. People are just getting upset that when that critical is against the BBEG, Paladin suddenly appears very powerful, since it's 8d8+2d8+5+2+1 damage in this scenario, or 53 average damage in a single hit. If the rouge critical hits, then they are doing 10d6+2d6+5+1 or 48 average damage. All of this assumes the paladin even has a 3rd level slot available, they didn't cast spirit shroud or some other spell, or use it in an earlier smite. Of course paladin still gets that extra attack, but to remind, the point is just that paladin appears stronger than is from this singular scenario and limiting smite to once per round was already enough to bring this back into relative control. There wasn't a need to both make paladin resource based and consume the BA in this.
3) First off, let's go back to where that +5 comment came from:
But even if you disregard being MAD, you're still going to want that +5 around level 8 if you can get it, since you're going to be down on damage and attack.
This wanting +5 by level 8 is based on disregarding MAD in the first place, so you're making a none point here.
second off, getting +5 at level 8 doesn't mean you don't want to work on the +3 charisma at level 12, this is unrelated, it can be quiet beneficial to get the +3 at 12, that shifts you to a +3/+4 dexterity save and is a +3 to anybody in range on all saves, which is going to help in a lot of occasions.
EDIT: At this point, I think I've said most of my part, we will probably just continue to disagree here and so I'm ready to drop it now, I've said a lot here and probably too much as I have a very bad habit of doing. My apologies for this.
Paladin does get extra attack, sure. at level 9 paladin over 15 round of combat, assuming they used all smite spells is doing 30 attacks, we are talking ~1.5 critical hits. Over an adventuring day that is 8 + 9 + 8 die in smites, with an additional 4 or 8 die from critical hits, so around 33 dies. So with a +1 longsword you're going to expect roughly ((4.5×.7+8×.65)×30+33×4.5) / 15 damage or 26.6 DPR.
Rogue over the same 15 turns, assuming two weapon fighting with two +1 short swords would be doing, (3.5×.7)×2+(7×0.65)+(17.5×0.945) is 25.77 DPR a round.
This is a good example of why these kinds of comparisons aren't always useful though; the Rogue's Sneak Attack may not require a resource, but it's conditional on having advantage or an ally within 5 feet, so you can't always guarantee it on a first round, or even on later rounds.
You can sort of do it reliably by going ranged and using Steady Aim, but that's only useful if you can get within short range, otherwise you lose the chance at Sneak Attack by using Steady Aim to counter long range, or having to bonus action Dash to get closer. And one of the benefits of Rogue having Weapon Mastery is that this reduces the dominance of ranged Rogues since Nick means you've got two shots at Sneak Attack without spending your bonus action.
Meanwhile, the Paladin's Divine Smite is only conditional on hitting, and you wait until you hit or miss before deciding whether to spend the resource (and at what level) so you can choose situationally whether to do more damage in a shorter time, fish for critical hits, spend big on key targets etc. Sneak Attack by comparison can be wasted on weaker targets (no benefit to doing excess damage if you would have killed them anyway).
Plus the Paladin's Divine Smite has the substantial benefit of being on a Paladin rather than a Rogue, so you're talking about a character with more base hit-points, higher base AC, the ability to heal themselves (now as a bonus action action) etc. etc.
The Paladin is in no way being short changed by the fact that a Rogue can do similar damage, in fact it's the opposite because the Paladin is doing it as part of a solid all around package, while the Rogue comes with greater risk/lesser durability.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Paladin does get extra attack, sure. at level 9 paladin over 15 round of combat, assuming they used all smite spells is doing 30 attacks, we are talking ~1.5 critical hits. Over an adventuring day that is 8 + 9 + 8 die in smites, with an additional 4 or 8 die from critical hits, so around 33 dies. So with a +1 longsword you're going to expect roughly ((4.5×.7+8×.65)×30+33×4.5) / 15 damage or 26.6 DPR.
Rogue over the same 15 turns, assuming two weapon fighting with two +1 short swords would be doing, (3.5×.7)×2+(7×0.65)+(17.5×0.945) is 25.77 DPR a round.
This is a good example of why these kinds of comparisons aren't always useful though; the Rogue's Sneak Attack may not require a resource, but it's conditional on having advantage or an ally within 5 feet, so you can't always guarantee it on a first round, or even on later rounds.
You can sort of do it reliably by going ranged and using Steady Aim, but that's only useful if you can get within short range, otherwise you lose the chance at Sneak Attack by using Steady Aim to counter long range, or having to bonus action Dash to get closer. And one of the benefits of Rogue having Weapon Mastery is that this reduces the dominance of ranged Rogues since Nick means you've got two shots at Sneak Attack without spending your bonus action.
Meanwhile, the Paladin's Divine Smite is only conditional on hitting, and you wait until you hit or miss before deciding whether to spend the resource (and at what level) so you can choose situationally whether to do more damage in a shorter time, fish for critical hits, spend big on key targets etc. Sneak Attack by comparison can be wasted on weaker targets (no benefit to doing excess damage if you would have killed them anyway).
Plus the Paladin's Divine Smite has the substantial benefit of being on a Paladin rather than a Rogue, so you're talking about a character with more base hit-points, higher base AC, the ability to heal themselves (now as a bonus action action) etc. etc.
The Paladin is in no way being short changed by the fact that a Rogue can do similar damage, in fact it's the opposite because the Paladin is doing it as part of a solid all around package, while the Rogue comes with greater risk/lesser durability.
Paladin's Divine Smite is conditional on hitting with a melee weapon or unarmed strike in the latest UA, but it also consumes a bonus action and an additional resource. Essentially Paladin needs to be that ally within 5 ft that rogue relies on in the first place.
Rogue is party dependent but you're gunna see more sneak attacks over a normal adventuring day than smites. Yes there are cases where rogue will not get to sneak attack, but in reality these tend to actually be about equal the rounds that paladin is in range for their smite, since paladin needs to be in that range for smite. Your STR fighter and your barbarian also favour this distance. Meanwhile out of this distance, Paladin has about the worst ranged options of any class, rogue can still sneak attack on ranged attacks in certain situations, such as being in a position where they are attacking an enemy that for some reason can not see them, since that gives advantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
few can? not true, perhaps you mean "single-target" damage, the damage casters put out in AoE easily exceeds what Paladin puts out on a single target. For example, a 9th level Paladin on a critical hit can put out about 4d6+8d8+5+enchantment bonus. So with a +2 greatsword, this would be an average of around 57 damage, a 5th level fireball from an evocation wizard is going to do 10d6+5 damage, or 40 damage unresisted and 20 damage resisted, if you hit 5 targets with that, it's 200 damage, Paladin would need 4 critical in a round to be challenging this, with something like GWM, you could get 3 (but no bonus action smite spell, thus why not in the equation). Now more likely 2 of the targets would make the save and so you'd drop around 40 damage to 160, but this is hardly the biggest issue whereas for most paladin, a critical hit in a round with two attacks is 9.75%, getting 2 critical hits in a round, is a 0.25% chance; admittedly this is higher with advantage (~18.54% & ~3.44% chance respectively).
Apparently Paladin being able to once or twice a day do a massive nova and then basically drop to one of the lowest base line damage numbers of the game (until around level 11 anyways), makes em overpowered but casters being able to wipe waves of creatures in a single spell cast is not? I've seen an encounter basically ended by a Druid casting tidal wave, before. Then after all of this casters can still do single target damage while paladin is quiet lacking in the AoE department. AoE remains basically exclusive to casters, else wise it's throwing consumables or using magic items, like a neckless of fireballs... casters have a huge advantage in AoE. There is not really a single thing that Paladin can do that one caster or another can not, while there are multiple things that casters can do, which Paladin simply can not. The correct way to have addressed the caster/martial divide was to bring the other martials more up to where Paladin could shine in that one battle, to bring martials up, instead we see martials continued to be weirdly rebalanced and paladin nerfed, so that now they are also behind all casters in the caster/martial divide, too.
1) It's a conflict that no other class that does damage similarly has, do you think Battlemaster Fighters or Rogues using sneak attack should have to use the bonus action? Paladin nova might be high but their base line DPR isn't the best, which is the traditional cost of being a Nova, you spike damage and then have a lower base line, Paladin's nova AND base line are nerfed in this, which is problematic, if you nerf the nova, normally the correct rebalance is to slightly increase baseline DPR. So now we are left at a point where a few of the options that could be done to bring the base line back up to snuff will not work due to smites being BA.
I've never seen anybody complain that Paladin puts out too much damage over an adventuring day, because they don't, their issue is that they put out too much Nova in certain situations and steal the spot light. Which raises other questions, is stealing the spot light bad? Actually, it's balanced, every character needs a spot light moment, now paladin will get far less... it's a more bland experience. But on top of that they will just do worse total damage over an adventuring day, which was never part of the issue, and was in fact already a bit on the low side.
2) It gets back to an important point about Paladin, they are MAD, so spending ASI's on feats is more costly to a Paladin to begin with. A caster will get a +5 in their spell casting modifier then they are free to get warcaster and resilient CON, as a Paladin, when you've got +5 Strength or +5 Charisma, it's often best to still put more points into strength or charisma and as a tank character you still want HP too. so yes, a Paladin beats most Gish builds on con saves, buts then most gish builds aren't usually tanks (still taking hits but usually not as many), they generally aren't burning spell slots on another feature (I.E. smite) and some of them remain SAD (like pact of the blade warlocks), even when Gish.
I'm not saying you can't go with a greedy paladin build, but it's not always the best and focusing on concentration spells is not necessarily the optimal choice. If you go greedy you're worse at support and damage.
I'm not "lecturing you." I'm explaining why I agree with Crawford that Paladin overshadowing was indeed happening and needed to be addressed. Clearly it IS true - just not at your table - and that's totally fine.
If you want to take it as a lecture, I certainly can't stop you and I'm sorry you feel that way.
You're assuming that "addressing the caster/martial divide" is one of their goals. Reducing it to a degree, maybe - but not addressing it, not completely - and toning down smite nova is not at odds with a reduction goal in any event.
1) Rogues will often use their BA though, whether on Cunning Action or Steady Aim or TWF. Fighters might get a resourceless use of it if they spend a feat on PAM or DW or SM. Overall, I don't see the damage increase from doing that as being much more than smite, in fact its likely to be less a lot of the time since Smite's damage increase doesn't need a separate attack roll.
2) Where you and I disagree is that Paladins can still get spotlight moments even with 1/round smite. Nova is not necessary to have the spotlight.
3) Paladins aren't that MAD honestly, they don't need +5 Str/Cha the way Monks want +5 Dex/Wis for example, because they can get by with a 16 or even 14 Cha. It's not like they want to max out Cha the way Monks want to max out Wis; they have plenty of spells that don't need saving throws or spell attacks.
It's a bigger issue than Paladin nova tho, and yet remains mostly unaddressed, Paladin's nova is not the greatest issue, a Paladin can go full nova once, maybe twice a day, at later levels and actually obtain that high level of damage. Outside of nova Paladin are doing a low base line of damage. So yes, the only way to avoid the nova spike getting too big is to restrict smite, this is not in disagreement. What is, is that this is really the biggest issue that needs addressing and was it addressed correctly? It would not be broken for fighter and barbarian to have access to something like the whirlwind attack of 3rd edition or for paladins and monk to get access to something akin to swordburst, the AoE damage would still be less than casters but the option would then be there. What we have ended out with is that paladin got nerfed and martials got the most minor of buffs, tho some of the more powerful feats got nerf for them. So the end result of this, is we now have a much weaker paladin who already had the worst passive DPR pre-level 11 for a martial... has their passive DPR hit further on top of nova, it's an over-correction and an obvious one while the more obvious over-shadowing of casters (more so wizard and sorcerer), still easily exists.
1) because rogues use BA for something else, paladins shouldn't be able to? I don't get the logic to this argument. Sure Rogue gets more things that rely on BA but Paladin still has things that rely on BA, so this is not really a good argument. If you're a devotion paladin, you can't sacred weapon AND smite on the same turn, if your using your lay-on-hands then you can't smite on the same turn. Rogue doesn't sacrifice their BA when they critical and sneak attack, it's not like paladin is deficient in bonus action options but making smites bonus action makes using the options Paladins may have or builds they could have... worse.
2) Paladin's "spotlight" is definitely going to suffer from this, basically it'll be that tossing out a lay-on-hands or managing to evade every attack in a round, which both are less special, far less special. Outside of this, then it's social interactions, with Paladin being a Charisma class, however that is an entire separate issue to combat balance and another area that WotC needs to address with CHA characters usually being dominating in social interactions, of course you can DM and/or role-play around it, but it's still just weird.
3) Paladin is still MAD, just because there is one class that is more MAD, doesn't really change that. But even if you disregard being MAD, you're still going to want that +5 around level 8 if you can get it, since you're going to be down on damage and attack, the thing you might sacrifice getting the +5 is something else that offers more damage and there are feats that give more reliable damage than the concentration spells that Paladin has, except maybe bless which is an exception since it aids it's own saving throws..... and you're going to use bless if another caster hasn't already cast it and you can't melee attack for whatever reason...
Paladin's damage without using smite is higher than a barbarian's damage without using rage (because they have fighting style); comparing resource-free dpr is kind of meaningless. Paladins definitely have different level scaling, though; a level 2 paladin has 4d8 of smites per day, a level 20 has 54d8, whereas barbarian rage goes from +2 to +4.
Paladin's passive damage is less then barbarian's, because barbarian can reckless attack, which is advantage and barbarian can reckless attack at any given round, now if they would reckless attack every round is another question but their sustainable DPR is technically higher than paladin's because they can do that. We will also need to see if the level 1 feat/asi is going to remain from UA 1&2, since if it does, most barbarians are going to pick up a fighting style anyway, whereas paladin does not have many great level 1 options for martial damage, not able to pick up a fighting style until level 2.
comparing Barbarian to Paladin has issues, because barbarian tends to get more power from subclass, their offensive subclass zealot does almost a 1st level smite in damage every round of rage, that is a lot of damage, paladin doesn't really do that same type of thing, closest you get is with spells like divine favor or spirit shroud, but those are concentration and more easily lost than rage, also you're doing less smites since still expanding spell slots but anybody who thinks paladin should just do smites and nothing else is being a little short sighted. Paladin's sustained DPR almost catches up to barbarian at level 11, since Improved Divine Smite/Radient Strikes is adding ~4.5 damage a hit but Barbarian reckless attacking every round would still just take the passive DPR, however by this point paladin does have more spell slots and 3rd level smites... so Paladin is potentially winning on damage over an adventuring day over a Zealot barbarian (who's Divine Fury is doing 1d6+5 a round at this level)
1) The logic is that the way to compare BA balance across classes is to see what damage can be done with them, and whether that damage costs a resource. Currently, the king of resourceless BA damage is probably BM Ranger, which gets two attacks with their BA every round for free. Rogue TWF or StA probably adds considerably less than that overall but is similarly resourceless. Paladin Smite meanwhile will add quite a bit but costs a resource.
2) (*Ironman Voice*) "if you needed smite nova to have any spotlight, you didn't deserve the spotlight."
3) You definitely do not need 20 Cha by level 8 to be a great paladin much less a viable one. Bless is just one example of what they can be concentrating on. But even if you feel you need max Cha in Tier 2 for some reason, dip Warlock for blade pact.
Bear in mind that paladin is giving you some extra resources to cover that resource cost. In general I find it unlikely to have more than about ten rounds of melee combat in a day unless you're really fond of grinding corridor/doorway fights, and in those fights the main job of a melee fighter is to prevent the enemy from getting past the death zone a spellcaster put down (last time we had one of those, the barbarian was unmovable, but the moonbeam did most of the damage).
1) right, but this is because you're comparing it to a secondary damage source of the rogue, Smite is about on par with sneak attack at any given level. Sneak attack gives an additional ~3.5 DPR every odd level from level 1, smite starts higher but scales slower, so it's ~9 DPR, at level 5, a 2nd level smite is ~13.5 where sneak attack is now ~10.5. at level 9 a 3rd level smite is doing ~18 damage, sneak attack is doing, 17.5. Smite is easier to critical with, because it's resource based but sneak attack is doing around the same damage at no resource cost. So rogue is basically doing sneak attack every round unless they do not hit. So that 9th level paladin is doing exactly 2 3rd level smites at level 9. Rogue's sneak attack is superior to paladin's smite, and yet it's smite that is both resource based and costs the higher action economy, it doesn't really make sense.
2) This isn't even an argument, and a pointless comment, things like the spotlight are often bourne through randomness and the nova paladin hits is usually on the 1 in 10 chance that they actually critical hit the BBEG on the first round, there were are few things that pushed it past 10%, such a vow of enmity for Vengeance paladin, admittedly but this is actually quiet limited a case since it is just one subclass. So no, I entirely disagree with you, the occasional encounter being destroyed is not decremental to the game and paladin is not the biggest encounter destroyers, casters are and yet their spotlight of getting those encounter destroy moments off are yet untouched. Personally I think that one big nova stops the combat being bland, it needs randomness too it.
3) I said +5 for level 8, I did not say +5 Charisma... I dunno why you thought charisma over strength here but maybe I should have been more clear, I mean +5 strength. Of course the warlock dip remains an option, but really it's a bad fix to the issue for Paladin, you'd still need 15 strength I suppose, for the plate but that assumes the strength requirement remains in one d&d....
10 rounds of combat is pretty low for an adventuring day, that is like 3 encounters, if you're playing with such few encounters or have such trivial fights that they only last 2 rounds... it would explain why paladin might appear stronger than is. Most dungeons should be having more than 3 encounters. Makes me think of the long rest video by Deerstalker Pictures... long resting in most dungeons is just a crazy concept and something parties do because their daily session ended and for convenience but does not in fact make the game better.
Don't get me wrong, there is going to be days with less encounters for obvious reasons, usually story telling, but when you're doing the actual dungeon delve, you should be doing more than 10 total rounds of combat... in a lot of the cases of battles for story, these are usually more overworld which is also notably a weakness of paladin since when the ranger realises they can snipe the mobs from 180 foot away, the paladin is going to take a few turns to get to the mobs... since paladin really isn't good for range. Tho magic initiative may change this if people pick it up at level 1 in oned&d, have to see how it goes for final release.
10 rounds of melee combat. That means you are assumed to actually be in range for use of melee. At that range, a medium encounter (the stuff they think should be padding the day) lasts 1-2 rounds. Deadly encounters last longer, but not by as much as they pad the xp budget -- a x2 budget encounter is typically about 50% longer encounter (so 2-3 rounds) with monsters that hit around 50% harder (which means it does more than twice as much. Which means you take a lot more damage, but the number of rounds of combat per day actually goes down.
Ah, fair enough, my mistake. yes some combats do start with party 60~70 foot away, getting what you're putting down now, but in these cases you're talking about positions where paladins do even less then normal since range... the thing paladin generally lacks without dipping or feats. So at that point you're down to spell casting and using a spell slot, dashing (which is usually not the best), dodging, readying an action or something along those lines. Bless is quiet a good choice in those scenarios.
I love how this concept implies sincere dedication to debauchery and excess, to the level of swearing an oath. "My sacred duty commands me - hic! - to rid the world of this bottle of wine!".
Or for a dex paladin, use a longbow and divine favor. Or big brother variant crusader's mantle (particularly useful if you have an ally with a ton of attacks).
I'd only consider crusader's mantle if another caster had used bless already since I generally consider 1-4 attack to be superior to 1-4 damage, let alone that bless can be cast as a 1st level spell, with a 3rd level slot you're hitting 5 targets... I generally see crusader's mantle as a synergy spell, where you cast it with a wizard using animate objects or druid casting conjure woodland animals, where the number of affected creatures is much higher, else wise bless > crusader's mantle almost always.
Whether it's better depends a bit on what your existing accuracy is, though I'd forgotten it wasn't a bonus action. It also doesn't have a target cap though that rarely matters. In general if your damage per attack is less than your hit chance a damage bonus is better, which is usually the case outside of sharpshooter (which no longer has its -5/+10 option in 2024) or rogues.
1) Smite being just on par with SA means the Paladin is considerably ahead of the Rogue because they also have Extra Attack, Fighting Style and WM for base/sustained/resourceless DPR. And that's not counting buffs or channel. They're absolutely fine without smite-nova.
2) See #1.
3) Ok... so can you explain to me how going for +5 Str by level 8 makes them so MAD that they're "down on damage and attack?" 🤨
You can get 20 Str easily by starting with 15+2 / 10 / 14 / 10 / 10 / 13+1, and even have room for a half-feat at 4. Or you can try 14+2 / 10 / 14 / 10 / 10 / 15+1 if you don't need a feat and would rather have more Cha instead (16 instead of 14). Or you could go for 15+1 / 8 / 15+1 / 8 / 8 / 15+1 if you're in a completely featless game but want more survivability from higher Con. There are multiple possibilities.
Maybe thinking of Spirit Shroud which is the stronger version of Divine Favor but only works in 10 foot? I'd probably still stick with bless, since casters like wizards, sorcerers and warlocks can benefit from bless but rarely benefit from crusaders mantle, since crusaders mantle specifically requires a weapon attack but bless affects all attack rolls. A scenario where maybe it'd change is if your DM is one too give advantage for height advantage, then if you're above the target enemy I could see the benefit.
He was fun to play, and literally started most combats full Nova. While technically the changes don’t kill the RP of the character the ability to Nova with 3 smites was part of the fun. I often attempted to avoid fights with intelligent beings as he would say, “I will take little pleasure in killing you, but I deny myself no pleasure. We may live an laugh together. A pleasure I prefer, but I do find some joy washing blood from steel.” I argued that statement was a persuasion check, but they kept saying it was an intimidation check. I wasn’t proficient in intimidation. I still kept saying it. Lol.
1) as mentioned above, Sneak Attack is far FAR ahead of smite, paladin gets access too smite at it's highest damage 2/3 times a day, then they are using lower levelled spell slots doing less damage. I am aware Paladin gets extra attack and fighting style, the fighting styles paladin gets access which increase damage are duelling and great weapon fighting, which is equivalent to around a 1 to 1.3 damage increase per attack.
Paladin does get extra attack, sure. at level 9 paladin over 15 round of combat, assuming they used all smite spells is doing 30 attacks, we are talking ~1.5 critical hits. Over an adventuring day that is 8 + 9 + 8 die in smites, with an additional 4 or 8 die from critical hits, so around 33 dies. So with a +1 longsword you're going to expect roughly ((4.5×.7+8×.65)×30+33×4.5) / 15 damage or 26.6 DPR.
Rogue over the same 15 turns, assuming two weapon fighting with two +1 short swords would be doing, (3.5×.7)×2+(7×0.65)+(17.5×0.945) is 25.77 DPR a round.
yes, I know it's possible to build both classes to do more (i.e. greatsword+GWM, spirit shroud spell or two handcrossbows+crossbow expert), but I think this makes most of the point, sneak attack, near entirely bridges all those extra things paladin gets and yet paladin's damage remains resource based. When you then get into ranged combat, where Paladin is near useless and rogue can continue to shoot, or even to sneak attack in some cases... paladin performs only while in position, in melee combat while rogue can move all around the battlefield to wherever is best for them. And then once all is said, if the adventuring day goes into 16, 17 or more rounds of combat, Paladin's DPR drops, rogue's remains relatively constant. Basically who appears to do more damage is highly related to length of an adventuring day, part of how paladin broke was many parties doing shorter days than designed, which does mean there are other design issues which need addressing.
And of course I'll note as a rogue, are you going to bother with that second attack from two weapon fighting? probably only if your first hit missed, so in practice rogue will do less damage since the extra damage of two weapon fighting is not going to be enough to justify that 1d6+1 damage unless it's to try and get that sneak attack damage you didn't get on the first hit.
I think it is also important to note, that BBEGs can not counter-spell a sneak attack too, where now all smites can be counter-spelled. It's another part of all this lovely rebalancing that does need consideration. A lot of spell caster BBEGs might just want to counter-spell that critical smite.
2) #1 is based on your ignoring some very important factors in how smite works. I think it's also important to note, that I'm not saying that smite nova is gone, it's reduced but still exists but is going to be less pronounced.
Generally the point of being resource based, is your resources do more when you use them but you do less in general without them, meanwhile with resources paladin is not doing more and most of this relies on saving your highest level smites for when you critical, which raises other issues, since you have no control over when you critical. People are just getting upset that when that critical is against the BBEG, Paladin suddenly appears very powerful, since it's 8d8+2d8+5+2+1 damage in this scenario, or 53 average damage in a single hit. If the rouge critical hits, then they are doing 10d6+2d6+5+1 or 48 average damage. All of this assumes the paladin even has a 3rd level slot available, they didn't cast spirit shroud or some other spell, or use it in an earlier smite. Of course paladin still gets that extra attack, but to remind, the point is just that paladin appears stronger than is from this singular scenario and limiting smite to once per round was already enough to bring this back into relative control. There wasn't a need to both make paladin resource based and consume the BA in this.
3) First off, let's go back to where that +5 comment came from:
This wanting +5 by level 8 is based on disregarding MAD in the first place, so you're making a none point here.
second off, getting +5 at level 8 doesn't mean you don't want to work on the +3 charisma at level 12, this is unrelated, it can be quiet beneficial to get the +3 at 12, that shifts you to a +3/+4 dexterity save and is a +3 to anybody in range on all saves, which is going to help in a lot of occasions.
EDIT: At this point, I think I've said most of my part, we will probably just continue to disagree here and so I'm ready to drop it now, I've said a lot here and probably too much as I have a very bad habit of doing. My apologies for this.
This is a good example of why these kinds of comparisons aren't always useful though; the Rogue's Sneak Attack may not require a resource, but it's conditional on having advantage or an ally within 5 feet, so you can't always guarantee it on a first round, or even on later rounds.
You can sort of do it reliably by going ranged and using Steady Aim, but that's only useful if you can get within short range, otherwise you lose the chance at Sneak Attack by using Steady Aim to counter long range, or having to bonus action Dash to get closer. And one of the benefits of Rogue having Weapon Mastery is that this reduces the dominance of ranged Rogues since Nick means you've got two shots at Sneak Attack without spending your bonus action.
Meanwhile, the Paladin's Divine Smite is only conditional on hitting, and you wait until you hit or miss before deciding whether to spend the resource (and at what level) so you can choose situationally whether to do more damage in a shorter time, fish for critical hits, spend big on key targets etc. Sneak Attack by comparison can be wasted on weaker targets (no benefit to doing excess damage if you would have killed them anyway).
Plus the Paladin's Divine Smite has the substantial benefit of being on a Paladin rather than a Rogue, so you're talking about a character with more base hit-points, higher base AC, the ability to heal themselves (now as a bonus action action) etc. etc.
The Paladin is in no way being short changed by the fact that a Rogue can do similar damage, in fact it's the opposite because the Paladin is doing it as part of a solid all around package, while the Rogue comes with greater risk/lesser durability.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Paladin's Divine Smite is conditional on hitting with a melee weapon or unarmed strike in the latest UA, but it also consumes a bonus action and an additional resource. Essentially Paladin needs to be that ally within 5 ft that rogue relies on in the first place.
Rogue is party dependent but you're gunna see more sneak attacks over a normal adventuring day than smites. Yes there are cases where rogue will not get to sneak attack, but in reality these tend to actually be about equal the rounds that paladin is in range for their smite, since paladin needs to be in that range for smite. Your STR fighter and your barbarian also favour this distance. Meanwhile out of this distance, Paladin has about the worst ranged options of any class, rogue can still sneak attack on ranged attacks in certain situations, such as being in a position where they are attacking an enemy that for some reason can not see them, since that gives advantage.