Your entire reply seems to be predicated on not having seen the current version of True Strike (which is essentially a smite cantrip). Your analysis is entirely based on the 2014 version of the cantrip, so it’s not really relevant. Giving them True Strike plays INTO their Smitey nature, not away from it. The Smite Channel Divinity lets them have a few uses to nova smite, or also pile damage into the attack that doesn’t get substituted. All of that in addition to whatever their smite spells might be.
The wording I gave for Extra Attack is so that IF a Paladin wants to use their Fighting Style to pick up 2 cleric cantrips they can ALSO use one of those cantrips (and not be limited to only using True Strike for that extra attack). But if they don’t bring back that Fighting Style (or even if they do), this wording also covers picking up some Cleric cantrips via Magic Initiate, but isn’t subject to abuse by throwing in any of attack cantrips that would heavily change the theme of the Paladin by making them a fire bolt machine, eldeitvh blast machine, etc.
And having Spare the Dying as a cantrip they can use as an attack substitute isn’t against the Paladin’s grain: they are already often the party’s back up healer. Letting them attack an enemy AND stabilize a character is entirely Paladin-like.
You're right that I was under the impression that you were talking about the current version of True Strike and not the UA version. I didn't know about that change. When referring to an existing feature, spell, or similar gameplay item, it would have been a nice gesture to specify that you were talking about a changed variant.
The fact that this is the “Unearthed Arcana” part of the forums, and everyone comments wrt to the latest UA documents, pretty much handled that context for me.
I believe you can use your background feat to pick up pact of the blade now, so true strike has very little value to the paladin imo.
We don't know for sure that Eldritch Adept will be a 1st-level feat - do we?
So far it isn't a feat in the new releases period. But, if your DM allows you to mix and match the best stuff from multiple editions it can work if your class has spell casting at level 1.
Hopefully we'll see a reversion of the UA6 smite feature, because if OneD&D Paladins to somewhat contribute to the Party beyond their (+3 or +4 10 ft. Aura of Protection) need to either Multiclass into Warlock, or steal their invocation to cheese a less stat-mad perma-half-sacred weapon feature for less worse DPR, its not looking good for the class. Folks should want to play the class beyond 7th level.
Now, I don't know why Oath of Vengeance' 20th level feature doesn't provide the Paladin with the same flight speed as the Fly spell, but its like, when Oath of Glory is looking like it might be the most playable Paladin subclass with UA6's action economy, that's bad.
I suppose it would be funny if Paladins effectively become worse at Smiting than Warlocks, with the return of an awful spell list and bizarre Bonus Action Smite spells that work entirely different than any other BA spell in the game, and also aren't worth using over your generic BA martial feats (for what is subpar performance across the board), but I'm hoping the recent UA's are somewhat revealing for what the direction of the "finished, but not really" classes we aren't playtesting anymore.
The only Paladin change I would make is replacing the Divine Smite spell with the most recent True Strike cantrip + the ability to substitute 1 attack with a cantrip. Then make “Divine Smite” a CD ability, like the Divine Spark cleric CD, only as a melee attack augment.
(I would also split True Strike into 3 different cantrips. The Radiant/Necrotic damage version for Clerics and Paladins; an acid/cold/fire/lightning/poison/thunder version for Druids and Rangers, and a Force version for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards)
The only Paladin change I would make is replacing the Divine Smite spell with the most recent True Strike cantrip + the ability to substitute 1 attack with a cantrip. Then make “Divine Smite” a CD ability, like the Divine Spark cleric CD, only as a melee attack augment.
(I would also split True Strike into 3 different cantrips. The Radiant/Necrotic damage version for Clerics and Paladins; an acid/cold/fire/lightning/poison/thunder version for Druids and Rangers, and a Force version for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards)
Honestly, why even make it a spell? Just give every class a feature:
Empowered Strikes 3rd level When you hit a creature with a weapon attack or deal damage with a cantrip you deal and additional 1d6 damage of [insert damage types here] type. This damage increases to 1d8 at 5th level, 1d10 at 11th level, and 1d12 at 17th level
Cleric & Paladin get radiant/necrotic Rogue gets poison/piercing Fighter & Barbarian gets "same type as the weapon" Ranger & Druid get poison, fire, cold, lightning, thunder Wizard & Sorcerer get acid, fire, cold, lightning, thunder, or force Warlock gets force
And because it is level 3, you can immediately also have the subclass add one or more additional damage types to this, e.g.: Forge Cleric gets fire, GOO-lock gets psychic, Hunter ranger gets b/s/p, etc... etc...
They seem to be pulling off the "not quite a spellcaster" spellcaster route a lot better the actual half-casters atm.
The ability to substitute attacks and spells solves the core problem for half-casters, which is action economy -- for a hybrid character's action to be as good as a specialist's action, it needs to be a hybrid action, not "choose one or the other, and whichever you choose you're doing half as well"
What you want is for half-casters to be a martial and a caster at the same time, simultaneously, on every turn. You want them to get to do a martial attack and a caster "attack" together with no penalty or limitation.
A hybrid character should get a weak martial attack and a weak caster attack. If they're forced to choose one or the other, they can't be half-level at an option they're actually expected to use.
Alternately, if you don't feel playing a half-caster with their flexibility and unique features offers enough...
The flexibility of spellcasting really depends on your spell list. Paladins have a terrible spell list for the most part, in both 5e (and likely will in OneD&D). Part of that is just half caster progression (can't blinding smite till 9th level), and the other-half is just poorly designed the Smites are.
OneD&D had to completely change how Paladins can cast a bonus action spell (as in, during their attack action), just to make Smite spells beyond Wrathful worth preparing for the fear-dmg-aura.
Similarly, the bulk of their subclass features are either very high-level or underwhelming 15th level and above. That's why the regression to 2014 class progression really hits classes like Paladin hard.
then maybe you shouldn't play those classes and not complain when they're not made to be obviously overpowered.
The optional rule of Multiclass is kinda the issue at heart... and the number of "dead" level class progression you see across the board. Fullcasters always have spellcasting to pursue as they level up, with features that change how its done, 5e Paladins get their auras /channel divinity options within 7 levels, and that's been a consistent complaint for pure-Paladin for a bit.
Paladin's aren't necessarily starving, but Sorcerer, Warlock and Fighter levels all look very juicy to a lot builds to chase over the "improved" (but not really) divine smite (or radiant strikes) at 11.
What you want is for half-casters to be a martial and a caster at the same time, simultaneously, on every turn. You want them to get to do a martial attack and a caster "attack" together with no penalty or limitation.
That is the Eldritch Knight Fighter, lol. And they're the only game in town for spellcasting martials currently in the last few playtest that aren't getting steamrolled by Pact of the Blade Warlock.
Optimizers make for the absolute worst game designers, because they want every class to be homogenized into indistinct, boring mush because they can't see anything but "pure damage output" as the only goal for a PC.
This isn't really a problem for groups who don't use the optional multiclass rules, at the same time, almost everyone does, because its fun to lego-up your back-story and class, the only issue is a lot classes or subclasses have these colossal stretchs of time where nothing is happening for them, making multiclassing a lot of the time mechanically way more appealing, or just homebrew.
If 2014 class progression in 5e wasn't so terrible, you really wouldn't have this complaint to boot.
I believe you can use your background feat to pick up pact of the blade now, so true strike has very little value to the paladin imo.
We don't know for sure that Eldritch Adept will be a 1st-level feat - do we?
So far it isn't a feat in the new releases period. But, if your DM allows you to mix and match the best stuff from multiple editions it can work if your class has spell casting at level 1.
We also don't know if pact of the blade will look exactly like it did. I'm sure there was some feedback on the issues with it and the eldritch adept feat so if that is a concern to them all they would need to do is add some pre-req like must be x level warlock, must have eldritch blast known etc. As any pre-req at all removes it from the options for the feat.
I think he spelled R A N G E R wrong. Paladins have a fantastic spell list imo.
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.
Circle of Power, Destructive Wave, Dispel Evil and Good, Holy Weapon, Raise Dead
1. (concentration, takes an action you could be attacking), (takes an action where you could be attacking), (concentration, can be avoided with forced movement and teleportation, takes an action you could be attacking), (not worth it when you have Lay on Hands, cleric should really be yo-yoing with healing word if you’re in that situation), (wizard can cast this as a ritual and has more slots, why would you ever use a paladin slot on this), (worse than using a smite unless you hit at least three attacks over one and a half rounds where smite needs only one attack), (very good spell. No disagreement. Is still concentration and requires an action, however), (the only one I have no complaint with).
2. (your cleric has more slots for basically all of these. Precombat Aid is definitely cleric department. You don’t want to be casting warding bond, you want warding bond cast on you, so you can absorb damage more effectively.)
3. (Dispel Magic and revivify are emergency only spells for you to be using, because they eat third level smites and are covered by cleric. Remove curse is cleric territory. Crusader’s Mantle sounds pretty good, but it’s not actually that great in my experience. Aura of Vitality and Spirit Shroud are fantastic - but Aura of Vitality is short rest healing in design, where you can’t lose conc and as much as 18d6 healing.)
4. (Banishment is good. But DC spells aren’t really paladin territory cause they’re MAD. Aura of Life is fantastic in the right situation, but it’s very situational. Death Ward is good. But it’s also eating a 4th level smite. Which hurts a lot. These are also 4th level spells. Which you will not see many of.)
5. (Circle of Power is fantastic.. but a fifth level spell, which most campaigns will never see on a paladin. Destructive Wave is fairly solid damage, with good damage types, but most of the time you’ll just be attacking anyway, unless some enemies clump themselves conveniently. Holy Weapon is worse than a 5th level smite unless you hit three attacks in one and a half rounds - but a pretty solid spell that I would use in the right situation. I would never use dispel evil and good. It is a 5th level protection from evil and good with a guaranteed charmed removal.. which one paladin subclass guarantees already and most of them could use their aura of protection + protection from evil and good to basically guarantee anyway. Raise Dead is yet another ‘I do this since my cleric can’t right now’).
The paladin spell list may not be terrible, but it’s definitely not great, often because it overlaps with cleric, which is a fantastically strong class. And also, disparaging people for being optimisers doesn’t help your argument - it just makes you seem whiny and childish. It’s as valid a way to play as any other. I am also sure that there are many spells on the paladin spell list which are terrible and are never used - perhaps even most of them - because they are simply not ever worth it compared to smiting.
The paladin spell list may not be terrible, but it’s definitely not great, often because it overlaps with cleric, which is a fantastically strong class.
'Spell X would be better on a full caster' does not mean it's a bad spell. It just means that a half-caster isn't as good a caster as a full caster. Which gets into the action economy issue I mentioned above.
What is a good, even a great spell on a full caster isn't always a good spell (or even a mediocre one) on a half caster. In addition to the lower numbers to hit and save DC from the MAD stats there is also the fact that certain spells are really best used in a limited window - which typically starts when the full casters get them. By the time half casters get them, the effectiveness of those spells has often dropped significantly.
Concentration is more of a factor with front line hybrid characters than full casters primarily due to them taking more hits - more concentration saves means more chances for failure, after all. I don't think the Paladin (post aura) is as bad off on a per save basis as it might first appear, but they will be making many more of those concentration saves than an archer Ranger will in most combats. Feats can help, but those are a much harder choice to make when the class is MAD.
Alternately, if you don't feel playing a half-caster with their flexibility and unique features offers enough, then maybe you shouldn't play those classes and not complain when they're not made to be obviously overpowered.
What you want is for half-casters to be a martial and a caster at the same time, simultaneously, on every turn. You want them to get to do a martial attack and a caster "attack" together with no penalty or limitation.
Optimizers make for the absolute worst game designers, because they want every class to be homogenized into indistinct, boring mush because they can't see anything but "pure damage output" as the only goal for a PC.
This is a really disingenuous comparison between half casters and full classes compared to what Cezmi said.
A half caster is a hybrid class and thus ARE martials and casters at the same time. Their drawback is that their extend or prowess in either category is limited. Paladins melee attacks doesn't improve beyond 1x Extra Attack and a +1d8 at lvl 11. In the meantime full martial classes gets really strong martial features; Fighter gets extra attacks, extra feats/ASIs; Barbarian gets Rage for damage reduction and Rage damage; Rogue gets ever increasing damage amp with Sneak Attack - and the funny thing is that none of this actually costs a limited resource (Barbarian rage is obviously limited, but the duration generally last a full combat encounter and you can regain a use on a short rest, so a Barb without Rage is... unlikely). I left out Monk as I'm not very familiar with them and they are seen as being on the struggle bus already. The point about the limited resource is so even if you say that Paladin can amp their damage with Smites, it still costs a very very limited resource that runs out quickly and is only renewable with a long rest.
[edit] Taking a hybrid class that doesn't do either weapon attacks or spell casting particularly well and forcing them to stick to only one or the other when full classes gets to do their specialized action, is a recipe for making hybrid-classes significantly weaker in comparison. [/edit]
On the note of Paladin's very limited resource for Smiting:
The limited spell slot pool for Paladins is also the reason why I had the hope that Paladins could have a separate resource to use for Smites. Fuse it with the Channel Divinity mechanic if you have to for the sake of brevity and expand the number of uses so you can actually Smite on a semi regular basis. This would also be a fantastic hook for investing deeper into the class if you continue to gain Channel Divinity points on a larger scale than we see in the UA6 version.
The different Smite variants could either cost different amounts of points and/or excel in different aspects: Aka the Divine Smite excels in pure damage, scaling with Paladin lvl or cantrip-scale. Other smites provide their respective conditions, making them tech-choices rather than straight upgrades. The UA6 version grants 1 free Smite per long rest which doesn't make sense to use for anything but your highest level Smite spell to get the most out of it.
The multiclass rules on Channel Divinity already isolates it to the class it was gained through. So no multiclassing Paladin to get more Cleric Channel Divinity uses. And the Paladin getting more Divine Sense, Abjure Foes, or subclass CD-uses is not something that seems terribly problematic. Although sharing resource with Smites might cannibalize all uses to only Smites or subclass CD. Even though otherwise CDs would mainly be used on subclass CD, as Divine Sense is... really situational and Abjure Foes gets cancelled on the target taking damage and targets Wisdom save - which is a more common save proficiency and only gets worse the higher CR we go, so is often not that impactful, unless the DM basically sets up for it with a swarm of lower CR monsters that the party wants to escape from rather than kill.
Which brings me to the next point: Half casters have the very severe limitation that they gain spell slots at half the pace of full casters and their weapon attacks don't improve significantly past lvl 5 unlike other Martial classes.
How can you say with a straight face that if Half casters could both do a weapon attack and cast a spell during the same turn is the same as a full caster and a full martial combined?
Meanwhile we have the Bladesinger and the EK, which are a full Caster or full Martial with the ability to dip into the other's territory. They don't do it as well obviously, but that's a full class imitating a hybrid-class. Also even if Half casters gets the option through their Extra Attack feature to both make a weapon attack and cast a spell; They don't get access to cantrips naturally. So they are spending their very limited spell slot pool for this.
There's very legitimate reasons as to why many people choose to multiclass the Paladin class. The class is mainly front-loaded and doesn't have many good hooks in the later levels, so once you get the majority of the juice in the class at either 2nd, 6th or 7th lvl, it looks enticing to bolster your character with more spell slots (and options) from a full caster class or bonus attack benefits from a martial class. The Charisma synergy between multiclassing Paladin and Warlock is also a fan favorite for adding strengths together.
Similarly nothing is preventing an otherwise squishy Wizard from dipping 1 level into a Cleric - War domain to pick up heavy armor and not even altering their spell slot progression, although delaying their acquisition of higher level Wizard spells by one level. And for that trade they pick up the strongest armor category in the game, which can be further improved with spell casting. With the UA6 template for Cleric you don't get the subclass, but can still get the Divine Order to acquire heavy armor proficiency.
Is the issue the ability to multiclass or a failure to provide proper incentives to stay in the same class? (see the spoiler above for some class purity incentive for Paladin)
1. (concentration, takes an action you could be attacking), (takes an action where you could be attacking), (concentration, can be avoided with forced movement and teleportation, takes an action you could be attacking), (not worth it when you have Lay on Hands, cleric should really be yo-yoing with healing word if you’re in that situation), (wizard can cast this as a ritual and has more slots, why would you ever use a paladin slot on this), (worse than using a smite unless you hit at least three attacks over one and a half rounds where smite needs only one attack), (very good spell. No disagreement. Is still concentration and requires an action, however), (the only one I have no complaint with).
2. (your cleric has more slots for basically all of these. Precombat Aid is definitely cleric department. You don’t want to be casting warding bond, you want warding bond cast on you, so you can absorb damage more effectively.)
3. (Dispel Magic and revivify are emergency only spells for you to be using, because they eat third level smites and are covered by cleric. Remove curse is cleric territory. Crusader’s Mantle sounds pretty good, but it’s not actually that great in my experience. Aura of Vitality and Spirit Shroud are fantastic - but Aura of Vitality is short rest healing in design, where you can’t lose conc and as much as 18d6 healing.)
4. (Banishment is good. But DC spells aren’t really paladin territory cause they’re MAD. Aura of Life is fantastic in the right situation, but it’s very situational. Death Ward is good. But it’s also eating a 4th level smite. Which hurts a lot. These are also 4th level spells. Which you will not see many of.)
5. (Circle of Power is fantastic.. but a fifth level spell, which most campaigns will never see on a paladin. Destructive Wave is fairly solid damage, with good damage types, but most of the time you’ll just be attacking anyway, unless some enemies clump themselves conveniently. Holy Weapon is worse than a 5th level smite unless you hit three attacks in one and a half rounds - but a pretty solid spell that I would use in the right situation. I would never use dispel evil and good. It is a 5th level protection from evil and good with a guaranteed charmed removal.. which one paladin subclass guarantees already and most of them could use their aura of protection + protection from evil and good to basically guarantee anyway. Raise Dead is yet another ‘I do this since my cleric can’t right now’).
The paladin spell list may not be terrible, but it’s definitely not great, often because it overlaps with cleric, which is a fantastically strong class. And also, disparaging people for being optimisers doesn’t help your argument - it just makes you seem whiny and childish. It’s as valid a way to play as any other. I am also sure that there are many spells on the paladin spell list which are terrible and are never used - perhaps even most of them - because they are simply not ever worth it compared to smiting.
So your arguments are:
Concentration (because Paladins have poor concentration saves, poor AC to avoid making saves, poor saves to avoid damage in general, and you don't want more PCs who can support concentration spells).
It takes an action to do, because when you can save multiple party members by telling the monster to sit its butt down and enjoy its tea, what you really want is to hit it once or twice and let it kill everyone.
An open acknowledgement that a spell is indeed very good...but somehow not just because another class can cast it, because you never want multiple party members to be able to cover a problem if needed. Somehow.
Concentration isn’t good on a paladin because A) they don’t have constitution save proficiency, B) they are frontliners - sure, they have good AC, OK CON saves (since they are MAD and not proficient, but have the aura). When did I say I didn’t want more PCs who can support concentration spells? That seems a little random.
Two, you’re in a party. If a monster can wipe your whole party in a turn, maybe consider using a different monster. Your DC will objectively be worse than a full caster, because paladins are MAD (unless you rolled really well). Command is a great spell - but ‘waste my action with a mediocre DC’ isn’t fun.
Three, you’re in a party. Control is just.. not your department. Sure, you CAN do those things if you need to. Great. Amazing. Part of why paladin is a strong class. But you’re wasting your time trying to be a full caster.
You’re also implying that the poster who said paladin had a terrible spell list just wanted to spike paladin’s power. ‘It says a lot’ is pretty passive-aggressive. If the invented coherent optimiser demographic was the main influence on 5.5 or whatever it’s called, Ancients wouldn’t have been nerfed. Divine smite wouldn’t have been nerfed. Warlock would have kept flexible casting. Yaknow. Try not to blame the fact you don’t like some of the changes on something that doesn’t exist.
The fact that this is the “Unearthed Arcana” part of the forums, and everyone comments wrt to the latest UA documents, pretty much handled that context for me.
The extra damage, making it a smite they can do every turn, all day long.
We don't know for sure that Eldritch Adept will be a 1st-level feat - do we?
So far it isn't a feat in the new releases period. But, if your DM allows you to mix and match the best stuff from multiple editions it can work if your class has spell casting at level 1.
Hopefully we'll see a reversion of the UA6 smite feature, because if OneD&D Paladins to somewhat contribute to the Party beyond their (+3 or +4 10 ft. Aura of Protection) need to either Multiclass into Warlock, or steal their invocation to cheese a less stat-mad perma-half-sacred weapon feature for less worse DPR, its not looking good for the class. Folks should want to play the class beyond 7th level.
Now, I don't know why Oath of Vengeance' 20th level feature doesn't provide the Paladin with the same flight speed as the Fly spell, but its like, when Oath of Glory is looking like it might be the most playable Paladin subclass with UA6's action economy, that's bad.
I suppose it would be funny if Paladins effectively become worse at Smiting than Warlocks, with the return of an awful spell list and bizarre Bonus Action Smite spells that work entirely different than any other BA spell in the game, and also aren't worth using over your generic BA martial feats (for what is subpar performance across the board), but I'm hoping the recent UA's are somewhat revealing for what the direction of the "finished, but not really" classes we aren't playtesting anymore.
The only Paladin change I would make is replacing the Divine Smite spell with the most recent True Strike cantrip + the ability to substitute 1 attack with a cantrip. Then make “Divine Smite” a CD ability, like the Divine Spark cleric CD, only as a melee attack augment.
(I would also split True Strike into 3 different cantrips. The Radiant/Necrotic damage version for Clerics and Paladins; an acid/cold/fire/lightning/poison/thunder version for Druids and Rangers, and a Force version for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards)
Honestly, why even make it a spell? Just give every class a feature:
Empowered Strikes
3rd level
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack or deal damage with a cantrip you deal and additional 1d6 damage of [insert damage types here] type. This damage increases to 1d8 at 5th level, 1d10 at 11th level, and 1d12 at 17th level
Cleric & Paladin get radiant/necrotic
Rogue gets poison/piercing
Fighter & Barbarian gets "same type as the weapon"
Ranger & Druid get poison, fire, cold, lightning, thunder
Wizard & Sorcerer get acid, fire, cold, lightning, thunder, or force
Warlock gets force
And because it is level 3, you can immediately also have the subclass add one or more additional damage types to this, e.g.:
Forge Cleric gets fire, GOO-lock gets psychic, Hunter ranger gets b/s/p, etc... etc...
Well, if Paladins are going to steal from anyone, the OneD&D Eldritch Knight isn't a bad pick.
They seem to be pulling off the "not quite a spellcaster" spellcaster route a lot better the actual half-casters atm.
The ability to substitute attacks and spells solves the core problem for half-casters, which is action economy -- for a hybrid character's action to be as good as a specialist's action, it needs to be a hybrid action, not "choose one or the other, and whichever you choose you're doing half as well"
A hybrid character should get a weak martial attack and a weak caster attack. If they're forced to choose one or the other, they can't be half-level at an option they're actually expected to use.
The flexibility of spellcasting really depends on your spell list. Paladins have a terrible spell list for the most part, in both 5e (and likely will in OneD&D). Part of that is just half caster progression (can't blinding smite till 9th level), and the other-half is just poorly designed the Smites are.
OneD&D had to completely change how Paladins can cast a bonus action spell (as in, during their attack action), just to make Smite spells beyond Wrathful worth preparing for the fear-dmg-aura.
Similarly, the bulk of their subclass features are either very high-level or underwhelming 15th level and above. That's why the regression to 2014 class progression really hits classes like Paladin hard.
The optional rule of Multiclass is kinda the issue at heart... and the number of "dead" level class progression you see across the board. Fullcasters always have spellcasting to pursue as they level up, with features that change how its done, 5e Paladins get their auras /channel divinity options within 7 levels, and that's been a consistent complaint for pure-Paladin for a bit.
Paladin's aren't necessarily starving, but Sorcerer, Warlock and Fighter levels all look very juicy to a lot builds to chase over the "improved" (but not really) divine smite (or radiant strikes) at 11.
That is the Eldritch Knight Fighter, lol. And they're the only game in town for spellcasting martials currently in the last few playtest that aren't getting steamrolled by Pact of the Blade Warlock.
This isn't really a problem for groups who don't use the optional multiclass rules, at the same time, almost everyone does, because its fun to lego-up your back-story and class, the only issue is a lot classes or subclasses have these colossal stretchs of time where nothing is happening for them, making multiclassing a lot of the time mechanically way more appealing, or just homebrew.
If 2014 class progression in 5e wasn't so terrible, you really wouldn't have this complaint to boot.
We also don't know if pact of the blade will look exactly like it did. I'm sure there was some feedback on the issues with it and the eldritch adept feat so if that is a concern to them all they would need to do is add some pre-req like must be x level warlock, must have eldritch blast known etc. As any pre-req at all removes it from the options for the feat.
I think he spelled R A N G E R wrong. Paladins have a fantastic spell list imo.
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
So, EKs are going around pretending they invented something that they stole from Bladesingers? 😉
EKs had the feature all along - it's just that power creep led to the Bladesinger doing it better and sooner, hence the revamp in the playtest.
1. (concentration, takes an action you could be attacking), (takes an action where you could be attacking), (concentration, can be avoided with forced movement and teleportation, takes an action you could be attacking), (not worth it when you have Lay on Hands, cleric should really be yo-yoing with healing word if you’re in that situation), (wizard can cast this as a ritual and has more slots, why would you ever use a paladin slot on this), (worse than using a smite unless you hit at least three attacks over one and a half rounds where smite needs only one attack), (very good spell. No disagreement. Is still concentration and requires an action, however), (the only one I have no complaint with).
2. (your cleric has more slots for basically all of these. Precombat Aid is definitely cleric department. You don’t want to be casting warding bond, you want warding bond cast on you, so you can absorb damage more effectively.)
3. (Dispel Magic and revivify are emergency only spells for you to be using, because they eat third level smites and are covered by cleric. Remove curse is cleric territory. Crusader’s Mantle sounds pretty good, but it’s not actually that great in my experience. Aura of Vitality and Spirit Shroud are fantastic - but Aura of Vitality is short rest healing in design, where you can’t lose conc and as much as 18d6 healing.)
4. (Banishment is good. But DC spells aren’t really paladin territory cause they’re MAD. Aura of Life is fantastic in the right situation, but it’s very situational. Death Ward is good. But it’s also eating a 4th level smite. Which hurts a lot. These are also 4th level spells. Which you will not see many of.)
5. (Circle of Power is fantastic.. but a fifth level spell, which most campaigns will never see on a paladin. Destructive Wave is fairly solid damage, with good damage types, but most of the time you’ll just be attacking anyway, unless some enemies clump themselves conveniently. Holy Weapon is worse than a 5th level smite unless you hit three attacks in one and a half rounds - but a pretty solid spell that I would use in the right situation. I would never use dispel evil and good. It is a 5th level protection from evil and good with a guaranteed charmed removal.. which one paladin subclass guarantees already and most of them could use their aura of protection + protection from evil and good to basically guarantee anyway. Raise Dead is yet another ‘I do this since my cleric can’t right now’).
The paladin spell list may not be terrible, but it’s definitely not great, often because it overlaps with cleric, which is a fantastically strong class. And also, disparaging people for being optimisers doesn’t help your argument - it just makes you seem whiny and childish. It’s as valid a way to play as any other. I am also sure that there are many spells on the paladin spell list which are terrible and are never used - perhaps even most of them - because they are simply not ever worth it compared to smiting.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
'Spell X would be better on a full caster' does not mean it's a bad spell. It just means that a half-caster isn't as good a caster as a full caster. Which gets into the action economy issue I mentioned above.
What is a good, even a great spell on a full caster isn't always a good spell (or even a mediocre one) on a half caster. In addition to the lower numbers to hit and save DC from the MAD stats there is also the fact that certain spells are really best used in a limited window - which typically starts when the full casters get them. By the time half casters get them, the effectiveness of those spells has often dropped significantly.
Concentration is more of a factor with front line hybrid characters than full casters primarily due to them taking more hits - more concentration saves means more chances for failure, after all. I don't think the Paladin (post aura) is as bad off on a per save basis as it might first appear, but they will be making many more of those concentration saves than an archer Ranger will in most combats. Feats can help, but those are a much harder choice to make when the class is MAD.
This is a really disingenuous comparison between half casters and full classes compared to what Cezmi said.
A half caster is a hybrid class and thus ARE martials and casters at the same time. Their drawback is that their extend or prowess in either category is limited. Paladins melee attacks doesn't improve beyond 1x Extra Attack and a +1d8 at lvl 11. In the meantime full martial classes gets really strong martial features; Fighter gets extra attacks, extra feats/ASIs; Barbarian gets Rage for damage reduction and Rage damage; Rogue gets ever increasing damage amp with Sneak Attack - and the funny thing is that none of this actually costs a limited resource (Barbarian rage is obviously limited, but the duration generally last a full combat encounter and you can regain a use on a short rest, so a Barb without Rage is... unlikely). I left out Monk as I'm not very familiar with them and they are seen as being on the struggle bus already. The point about the limited resource is so even if you say that Paladin can amp their damage with Smites, it still costs a very very limited resource that runs out quickly and is only renewable with a long rest.
[edit] Taking a hybrid class that doesn't do either weapon attacks or spell casting particularly well and forcing them to stick to only one or the other when full classes gets to do their specialized action, is a recipe for making hybrid-classes significantly weaker in comparison. [/edit]
On the note of Paladin's very limited resource for Smiting:
The limited spell slot pool for Paladins is also the reason why I had the hope that Paladins could have a separate resource to use for Smites. Fuse it with the Channel Divinity mechanic if you have to for the sake of brevity and expand the number of uses so you can actually Smite on a semi regular basis. This would also be a fantastic hook for investing deeper into the class if you continue to gain Channel Divinity points on a larger scale than we see in the UA6 version.
The different Smite variants could either cost different amounts of points and/or excel in different aspects: Aka the Divine Smite excels in pure damage, scaling with Paladin lvl or cantrip-scale. Other smites provide their respective conditions, making them tech-choices rather than straight upgrades. The UA6 version grants 1 free Smite per long rest which doesn't make sense to use for anything but your highest level Smite spell to get the most out of it.
The multiclass rules on Channel Divinity already isolates it to the class it was gained through. So no multiclassing Paladin to get more Cleric Channel Divinity uses. And the Paladin getting more Divine Sense, Abjure Foes, or subclass CD-uses is not something that seems terribly problematic. Although sharing resource with Smites might cannibalize all uses to only Smites or subclass CD. Even though otherwise CDs would mainly be used on subclass CD, as Divine Sense is... really situational and Abjure Foes gets cancelled on the target taking damage and targets Wisdom save - which is a more common save proficiency and only gets worse the higher CR we go, so is often not that impactful, unless the DM basically sets up for it with a swarm of lower CR monsters that the party wants to escape from rather than kill.
Which brings me to the next point: Half casters have the very severe limitation that they gain spell slots at half the pace of full casters and their weapon attacks don't improve significantly past lvl 5 unlike other Martial classes.
How can you say with a straight face that if Half casters could both do a weapon attack and cast a spell during the same turn is the same as a full caster and a full martial combined?
Meanwhile we have the Bladesinger and the EK, which are a full Caster or full Martial with the ability to dip into the other's territory. They don't do it as well obviously, but that's a full class imitating a hybrid-class. Also even if Half casters gets the option through their Extra Attack feature to both make a weapon attack and cast a spell; They don't get access to cantrips naturally. So they are spending their very limited spell slot pool for this.
There's very legitimate reasons as to why many people choose to multiclass the Paladin class. The class is mainly front-loaded and doesn't have many good hooks in the later levels, so once you get the majority of the juice in the class at either 2nd, 6th or 7th lvl, it looks enticing to bolster your character with more spell slots (and options) from a full caster class or bonus attack benefits from a martial class. The Charisma synergy between multiclassing Paladin and Warlock is also a fan favorite for adding strengths together.
Similarly nothing is preventing an otherwise squishy Wizard from dipping 1 level into a Cleric - War domain to pick up heavy armor and not even altering their spell slot progression, although delaying their acquisition of higher level Wizard spells by one level. And for that trade they pick up the strongest armor category in the game, which can be further improved with spell casting. With the UA6 template for Cleric you don't get the subclass, but can still get the Divine Order to acquire heavy armor proficiency.
Is the issue the ability to multiclass or a failure to provide proper incentives to stay in the same class? (see the spoiler above for some class purity incentive for Paladin)
Concentration isn’t good on a paladin because A) they don’t have constitution save proficiency, B) they are frontliners - sure, they have good AC, OK CON saves (since they are MAD and not proficient, but have the aura). When did I say I didn’t want more PCs who can support concentration spells? That seems a little random.
Two, you’re in a party. If a monster can wipe your whole party in a turn, maybe consider using a different monster. Your DC will objectively be worse than a full caster, because paladins are MAD (unless you rolled really well). Command is a great spell - but ‘waste my action with a mediocre DC’ isn’t fun.
Three, you’re in a party. Control is just.. not your department. Sure, you CAN do those things if you need to. Great. Amazing. Part of why paladin is a strong class. But you’re wasting your time trying to be a full caster.
You’re also implying that the poster who said paladin had a terrible spell list just wanted to spike paladin’s power. ‘It says a lot’ is pretty passive-aggressive. If the invented coherent optimiser demographic was the main influence on 5.5 or whatever it’s called, Ancients wouldn’t have been nerfed. Divine smite wouldn’t have been nerfed. Warlock would have kept flexible casting. Yaknow. Try not to blame the fact you don’t like some of the changes on something that doesn’t exist.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.