11th level: Radiant Strikes You are so suffused with divine might that your weapon strikes carry supernatural power with them. When you hit a target with an attack roll using a Simple or Martial weapon, the target takes an extra 1d8 Radiant damage.
Now, I noticed a couple of issues with how this might work. First, it kinda makes paladin favor dual wielding now, given how light weapons work and that paladins can choose any fighting style. Pretty obvious that getting that +1d8 radiant damage three times per round is way better than getting it two times per round.
Another minor issue is that it doesn't work with bare hands, like Divine Smite now does, it requires a simple or martial weapon.
I believe the simple solution would be to just add +2d8 radiant damage once per round. That also helps to distinguish the way this class deals additional damage: fighter gets another attack, ranger gets consistent damage against one target using the mark, paladin gets a burst.
This is just Improved Divine Smite but now works with using ranged weapons, else wise this really isn't different to 5E and there wasn't many Paladin's taking dual weapons just to abuse IDS, some did but don't forget that a paladin with a weapon in both hands is basically impacting the ability to spell cast, unlike using their shield, which can act as a spell casting focus.
Seems like 2d8 is much stronger. You only have to hit once to get a pile of extra damage vs having to hit twice. And overall, you’re trading a shield for and extra d8 damage. As the above poster said, you then don’t have a free hand for casting. And you’ll need to be using light weapons, so your base damage will be lower. And, you need to play through 10 levels like that before you even get it. Overall, doesn’t seem too strong to me.
I think they should make this work with Unarmed Strikes if they are going to let Divine Smite work with them. And I really don't like the idea of ranged weapons being part of this or Divine Smite, but that's just me. Paladins are a frontline fighter, much like Barbarians, and I think giving them smites on ranged weapons is not what I think of when I think of paladins.
This is just Improved Divine Smite but now works with using ranged weapons, else wise this really isn't different to 5E and there wasn't many Paladin's taking dual weapons just to abuse IDS, some did but don't forget that a paladin with a weapon in both hands is basically impacting the ability to spell cast, unlike using their shield, which can act as a spell casting focus.
Sheathe weapon as free action, cast a spell, end round. Next round, free action unsheathe weapon, attack. Never been a problem, really.
I think they should make this work with Unarmed Strikes if they are going to let Divine Smite work with them. And I really don't like the idea of ranged weapons being part of this or Divine Smite, but that's just me. Paladins are a frontline fighter, much like Barbarians, and I think giving them smites on ranged weapons is not what I think of when I think of paladins.
Yes, it should definitely work with unarmed strikes, at least for the sake of consistency. As for ranged smites, it's just variety. I once played a Dex oath of vengeance paladin with a rapier and buckler and spy background - a sort of illuminati hunter of specific occult texts and relics. With ranged smiting, that character would've been even more versatile. It's nice that 5e acknowledges that paladins are so much more than knights in shining armor. Although IMO they should rename the class to templar, as it's more neutral and encompasses more than that one particular knightly image. Soldiers of god fight all kinds of wars.
This is just Improved Divine Smite but now works with using ranged weapons, else wise this really isn't different to 5E and there wasn't many Paladin's taking dual weapons just to abuse IDS, some did but don't forget that a paladin with a weapon in both hands is basically impacting the ability to spell cast, unlike using their shield, which can act as a spell casting focus.
Sheathe weapon as free action, cast a spell, end round. Next round, free action unsheathe weapon, attack. Never been a problem, really.
I think they should make this work with Unarmed Strikes if they are going to let Divine Smite work with them. And I really don't like the idea of ranged weapons being part of this or Divine Smite, but that's just me. Paladins are a frontline fighter, much like Barbarians, and I think giving them smites on ranged weapons is not what I think of when I think of paladins.
Yes, it should definitely work with unarmed strikes, at least for the sake of consistency. As for ranged smites, it's just variety. I once played a Dex oath of vengeance paladin with a rapier and buckler and spy background - a sort of illuminati hunter of specific occult texts and relics. With ranged smiting, that character would've been even more versatile. It's nice that 5e acknowledges that paladins are so much more than knights in shining armor. Although IMO they should rename the class to templar, as it's more neutral and encompasses more than that one particular knightly image. Soldiers of god fight all kinds of wars.
Eh, while its modern usage has broadened, "Templar" still originated with an explicitly Christian order, so WotC might be steering clear of it on principle.
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
This is just Improved Divine Smite but now works with using ranged weapons, else wise this really isn't different to 5E and there wasn't many Paladin's taking dual weapons just to abuse IDS, some did but don't forget that a paladin with a weapon in both hands is basically impacting the ability to spell cast, unlike using their shield, which can act as a spell casting focus.
Sheathe weapon as free action, cast a spell, end round. Next round, free action unsheathe weapon, attack. Never been a problem, really.
Can potentially be done but the point still stands, this is literally no different to 5E and this was never popular in 5E, this is not something new.
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
you want to play a Devotion Paladin/Ranger 1, So you can cast concentration free hunter's mark and move it as a bonus action, since Divine Smite does not need a Bonus Action, only the spells do... this will add a lot of damage. Or even Devotion Paladin/Hunter Ranger 3 isn't a bad choice either, for that additional 1d8 damage per round on a target that has already taken damage, while also having 2 fighting styles.
The UA ranger is a bad dedicated class but an overpowered multi-class. It is kind of an issue with a few of the classes, most of their best abilities are coming in Tier 1 or Tier 2 and only access to spells is impacted. I think only Rogue has a die hard tier 3 feature thus far.
For the paladin/ranger multiclass here, go paladin 1 -> paladin 1/ ranger 1 -> devotion paladin 8 / ranger 1 -> devotion paladin 8 / hunter ranger 3 and then finally devotion paladin 17 / hunter ranger 3. Yes you delay a few features and spells but the overall net gain makes it worthwhile and you really don't miss out of anything overly important, just 1 channel divinity recharge per imitative roll and getting an epic boon at level 20 and 1 feat at 19, for some more 1st leveled spells, a few cantrips, hunter's mark (no concentration), an extra fighting style and an additional 1d8 damage on injured targets... per round.
The main limiting factor on this build is all the 13s you need, STR, DEX, WIS & CHA but DEX ultimately will be your main attribute, STR and WIS only need to be 13, any other spare points you want to put into CHA and CON. Most of this will be countered by Sacred Weapon, since that is now only a bonus action (does mean holding off hunter's mark on 1st turn of combat).
My recommendation for standard array and background would likely be:
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
Depends on how they do the warrior classes and if they don't fix the ranger.
Oh and yes a Barbarian should be able to rage with things other than melee and use dex weapons.
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
Depends on how they do the warrior classes and if they don't fix the ranger.
Oh and yes a Barbarian should be able to rage with things other than melee and use dex weapons.
No. It’s honestly bad enough that you can Sneak Attack while Raging in 5e. Barbarians are the warriors who most lean into the STR side of things, and their features should reflect that. Plus DEX is already a notably better stat than STR, if all three warrior classes can fully utilize DEX weapons, STR will turn into a niche stat.
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
Depends on how they do the warrior classes and if they don't fix the ranger.
Oh and yes a Barbarian should be able to rage with things other than melee and use dex weapons.
No. It’s honestly bad enough that you can Sneak Attack while Raging in 5e. Barbarians are the warriors who most lean into the STR side of things, and their features should reflect that. Plus DEX is already a notably better stat than STR, if all three warrior classes can fully utilize DEX weapons, STR will turn into a niche stat.
It’s why I don’t particularly like Paladins smiting on ranged weapons. I’m fine that there are a few classes that are centered on melee combat. Not every class needs to be able to do everything.
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
Depends on how they do the warrior classes and if they don't fix the ranger.
Oh and yes a Barbarian should be able to rage with things other than melee and use dex weapons.
No. It’s honestly bad enough that you can Sneak Attack while Raging in 5e. Barbarians are the warriors who most lean into the STR side of things, and their features should reflect that. Plus DEX is already a notably better stat than STR, if all three warrior classes can fully utilize DEX weapons, STR will turn into a niche stat.
Then play your Barbarian that way. The rules should let people who have a different idea on barbarians play it their way.
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
Depends on how they do the warrior classes and if they don't fix the ranger.
Oh and yes a Barbarian should be able to rage with things other than melee and use dex weapons.
No. It’s honestly bad enough that you can Sneak Attack while Raging in 5e. Barbarians are the warriors who most lean into the STR side of things, and their features should reflect that. Plus DEX is already a notably better stat than STR, if all three warrior classes can fully utilize DEX weapons, STR will turn into a niche stat.
Then play your Barbarian that way. The rules should let people who have a different idea on barbarians play it their way.
They do allow for different ways: big two-hander, sword and board, two weapon, and thrown weapon are all on the table. But if you're going to have 12 different classes, the things each class doesn't do are as important as the things they do. Which is also why I'm really not a fan of their new approach to spellcasting.
I really like the iconic image of a chivalric knight that I thought Paladin represented and dont like the idea of the become a Divine Ranged Class. I think Ranged abilities need to be more limited in use, requiring a loading round so to speak before a ranged attack with smite.
I also think ranged flying bow mounted paladins are going to be a problem for DMs trying to maintain consistency with their worlds setting while still having challenging combat outdoors. Unless the DM want to metagame encounters himself of course but I think that is terrible form.
I mean, metagaming encounters is part of the DM's job, really. Make the fights interesting, engage with the different builds. Especially when you have a powerful BBEG with the ability to gather intelligence about the party.
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
Given that the nova aspect of smites has been specifically targeted for a nerf, I don't think it's a big reason to worry.
Actually, I personally always wanted a Dex barbarian subclass, based on Mongol Horde image. A fast and furious rider capable of showering enemies with arrows as much as slicing them with dual scimitars. And a Cha subclass that turns authority and intimidating presence to the extreme. But that's just me. It's just as ridiculous as a melee wizard, but we actually do have Bladesinger...
I really like the iconic image of a chivalric knight that I thought Paladin represented and dont like the idea of the become a Divine Ranged Class. I think Ranged abilities need to be more limited in use, requiring a loading round so to speak before a ranged attack with smite.
I also think ranged flying bow mounted paladins are going to be a problem for DMs trying to maintain consistency with their worlds setting while still having challenging combat outdoors. Unless the DM want to metagame encounters himself of course but I think that is terrible form.
To each their own; I myself could never quite stomach the sugary righteousness and naive chivalry of a classic paladin. Probably because I'm too much into Warhammer, I rather prefer witch hunters, inquisitors, charismatic fanatics with nothing but pitchfork and an oath, and haggard veterans who don't know why they still have divine spark in them. In other words, I prefer a knight in stained armor.
Regarding the mount, I think this here is in fact an overpowered thing. I could understand a temporary mount as means to cover the distance, but this one is a Find Familiar spell on steroids.
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
Given that the nova aspect of smites has been specifically targeted for a nerf, I don't think it's a big reason to worry.
Actually, I personally always wanted a Dex barbarian subclass, based on Mongol Horde image. A fast and furious rider capable of showering enemies with arrows as much as slicing them with dual scimitars. And a Cha subclass that turns authority and intimidating presence to the extreme. But that's just me. It's just as ridiculous as a melee wizard, but we actually do have Bladesinger...
I really like the iconic image of a chivalric knight that I thought Paladin represented and dont like the idea of the become a Divine Ranged Class. I think Ranged abilities need to be more limited in use, requiring a loading round so to speak before a ranged attack with smite.
I also think ranged flying bow mounted paladins are going to be a problem for DMs trying to maintain consistency with their worlds setting while still having challenging combat outdoors. Unless the DM want to metagame encounters himself of course but I think that is terrible form.
To each their own; I myself could never quite stomach the sugary righteousness and naive chivalry of a classic paladin. Probably because I'm too much into Warhammer, I rather prefer witch hunters, inquisitors, charismatic fanatics with nothing but pitchfork and an oath, and haggard veterans who don't know why they still have divine spark in them. In other words, I prefer a knight in stained armor.
Regarding the mount, I think this here is in fact an overpowered thing. I could understand a temporary mount as means to cover the distance, but this one is a Find Familiar spell on steroids.
Yes, smites are getting a nerf, so far, and I’m fine with that as I think it was needed. Did they go too far? Maybe. I’ve said I would be fine if they could cast a spell the same turn as a Divine Smite, if they can’t crit. But I’m fine with them as is. But between Divine Smite and the smite spells that do decent damage with the rider effects I do feel they outshine many of the other Archer builds out there (as far as non-multiclass builds go)
And nothing is stopping you from your Mongol Horde mounted Archer, they just might not be a Barbarian. Plenty of classes that can fill that build. Just like you can make a “knight in shining armor” using the Barbarian in medium armor, shield, and Longsword. Classes and subclasses have certain flavors but you are not bound to them.
And, sure, we have Bladesinger but unless you focus them a certain way they tend to be better off playing similar to other wizards as they get higher levels. Their HP just doesn’t keep up in Tier 3-4. Imo
And just like Barbarians you don’t have to play a Paladin as the Chivalric knight they can be just as mush a scoundrel as any rogue depending on the oaths you follow
For what i can appreciate it seems that each class is losing their identity and turning in jack of all trades, instead of measuring cons vs pros in class selection its more who provide more pros than the other. Lets compare the classes on what they have that others cant do. lets strip them down to their special trick and their restriction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
11th level: Radiant Strikes
You are so suffused with divine might that your weapon strikes carry supernatural power with them. When you hit a target with an attack roll using a Simple or Martial weapon, the target takes an extra 1d8 Radiant damage.
Now, I noticed a couple of issues with how this might work. First, it kinda makes paladin favor dual wielding now, given how light weapons work and that paladins can choose any fighting style. Pretty obvious that getting that +1d8 radiant damage three times per round is way better than getting it two times per round.
Another minor issue is that it doesn't work with bare hands, like Divine Smite now does, it requires a simple or martial weapon.
I believe the simple solution would be to just add +2d8 radiant damage once per round. That also helps to distinguish the way this class deals additional damage: fighter gets another attack, ranger gets consistent damage against one target using the mark, paladin gets a burst.
This is just Improved Divine Smite but now works with using ranged weapons, else wise this really isn't different to 5E and there wasn't many Paladin's taking dual weapons just to abuse IDS, some did but don't forget that a paladin with a weapon in both hands is basically impacting the ability to spell cast, unlike using their shield, which can act as a spell casting focus.
Seems like 2d8 is much stronger. You only have to hit once to get a pile of extra damage vs having to hit twice.
And overall, you’re trading a shield for and extra d8 damage. As the above poster said, you then don’t have a free hand for casting. And you’ll need to be using light weapons, so your base damage will be lower. And, you need to play through 10 levels like that before you even get it. Overall, doesn’t seem too strong to me.
I think they should make this work with Unarmed Strikes if they are going to let Divine Smite work with them. And I really don't like the idea of ranged weapons being part of this or Divine Smite, but that's just me. Paladins are a frontline fighter, much like Barbarians, and I think giving them smites on ranged weapons is not what I think of when I think of paladins.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Sheathe weapon as free action, cast a spell, end round. Next round, free action unsheathe weapon, attack. Never been a problem, really.
Yes, it should definitely work with unarmed strikes, at least for the sake of consistency. As for ranged smites, it's just variety. I once played a Dex oath of vengeance paladin with a rapier and buckler and spy background - a sort of illuminati hunter of specific occult texts and relics. With ranged smiting, that character would've been even more versatile. It's nice that 5e acknowledges that paladins are so much more than knights in shining armor. Although IMO they should rename the class to templar, as it's more neutral and encompasses more than that one particular knightly image. Soldiers of god fight all kinds of wars.
Eh, while its modern usage has broadened, "Templar" still originated with an explicitly Christian order, so WotC might be steering clear of it on principle.
Also, imo, they should give the Paladins a truncated list of Fighting Styles to pick from, rather than the whole bag, like they did with Rangers. I thought one of the points of the "Warrior" group was to have access to all the Fighting Styles, so it kinda dilutes that if Paladins get the whole spread as well.
Can potentially be done but the point still stands, this is literally no different to 5E and this was never popular in 5E, this is not something new.
Hmm, I don't think it would serve any purpose other than limitations for the sake of limitations. Holy archer isn't something game-breaking, especially given the new actually reasonable limitations to divine smite. Also, in a more modern setting you'll get to brandish .50 Smite&Wesson. "Do you feel lucky, heretic?".
My concern is if the smiting archer now becomes the better archer compared to all the others. They were already a powerful class and could dish out good nova damage already. Now add that to ranged weapons (yes they are scaled back in 1D&D) and do you still want to play a Ranger?
Edit: should a Barbarian be able to rage with a longbow with Dex and reckless attack with it so they also have options?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
you want to play a Devotion Paladin/Ranger 1, So you can cast concentration free hunter's mark and move it as a bonus action, since Divine Smite does not need a Bonus Action, only the spells do... this will add a lot of damage. Or even Devotion Paladin/Hunter Ranger 3 isn't a bad choice either, for that additional 1d8 damage per round on a target that has already taken damage, while also having 2 fighting styles.
The UA ranger is a bad dedicated class but an overpowered multi-class. It is kind of an issue with a few of the classes, most of their best abilities are coming in Tier 1 or Tier 2 and only access to spells is impacted. I think only Rogue has a die hard tier 3 feature thus far.
For the paladin/ranger multiclass here, go paladin 1 -> paladin 1/ ranger 1 -> devotion paladin 8 / ranger 1 -> devotion paladin 8 / hunter ranger 3 and then finally devotion paladin 17 / hunter ranger 3. Yes you delay a few features and spells but the overall net gain makes it worthwhile and you really don't miss out of anything overly important, just 1 channel divinity recharge per imitative roll and getting an epic boon at level 20 and 1 feat at 19, for some more 1st leveled spells, a few cantrips, hunter's mark (no concentration), an extra fighting style and an additional 1d8 damage on injured targets... per round.
The main limiting factor on this build is all the 13s you need, STR, DEX, WIS & CHA but DEX ultimately will be your main attribute, STR and WIS only need to be 13, any other spare points you want to put into CHA and CON. Most of this will be countered by Sacred Weapon, since that is now only a bonus action (does mean holding off hunter's mark on 1st turn of combat).
My recommendation for standard array and background would likely be:
Str: 13
Dex: 15 +2
Con: 10
Wis: 12 +1
Int: 8
Cha: 14
Depends on how they do the warrior classes and if they don't fix the ranger.
Oh and yes a Barbarian should be able to rage with things other than melee and use dex weapons.
No. It’s honestly bad enough that you can Sneak Attack while Raging in 5e. Barbarians are the warriors who most lean into the STR side of things, and their features should reflect that. Plus DEX is already a notably better stat than STR, if all three warrior classes can fully utilize DEX weapons, STR will turn into a niche stat.
It’s why I don’t particularly like Paladins smiting on ranged weapons. I’m fine that there are a few classes that are centered on melee combat. Not every class needs to be able to do everything.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Then play your Barbarian that way. The rules should let people who have a different idea on barbarians play it their way.
They do allow for different ways: big two-hander, sword and board, two weapon, and thrown weapon are all on the table. But if you're going to have 12 different classes, the things each class doesn't do are as important as the things they do. Which is also why I'm really not a fan of their new approach to spellcasting.
I really like the iconic image of a chivalric knight that I thought Paladin represented and dont like the idea of the become a Divine Ranged Class. I think Ranged abilities need to be more limited in use, requiring a loading round so to speak before a ranged attack with smite.
I also think ranged flying bow mounted paladins are going to be a problem for DMs trying to maintain consistency with their worlds setting while still having challenging combat outdoors. Unless the DM want to metagame encounters himself of course but I think that is terrible form.
I mean, metagaming encounters is part of the DM's job, really. Make the fights interesting, engage with the different builds. Especially when you have a powerful BBEG with the ability to gather intelligence about the party.
Given that the nova aspect of smites has been specifically targeted for a nerf, I don't think it's a big reason to worry.
Actually, I personally always wanted a Dex barbarian subclass, based on Mongol Horde image. A fast and furious rider capable of showering enemies with arrows as much as slicing them with dual scimitars. And a Cha subclass that turns authority and intimidating presence to the extreme. But that's just me. It's just as ridiculous as a melee wizard, but we actually do have Bladesinger...
To each their own; I myself could never quite stomach the sugary righteousness and naive chivalry of a classic paladin. Probably because I'm too much into Warhammer, I rather prefer witch hunters, inquisitors, charismatic fanatics with nothing but pitchfork and an oath, and haggard veterans who don't know why they still have divine spark in them. In other words, I prefer a knight in stained armor.
Regarding the mount, I think this here is in fact an overpowered thing. I could understand a temporary mount as means to cover the distance, but this one is a Find Familiar spell on steroids.
Yes, smites are getting a nerf, so far, and I’m fine with that as I think it was needed. Did they go too far? Maybe. I’ve said I would be fine if they could cast a spell the same turn as a Divine Smite, if they can’t crit. But I’m fine with them as is. But between Divine Smite and the smite spells that do decent damage with the rider effects I do feel they outshine many of the other Archer builds out there (as far as non-multiclass builds go)
And nothing is stopping you from your Mongol Horde mounted Archer, they just might not be a Barbarian. Plenty of classes that can fill that build. Just like you can make a “knight in shining armor” using the Barbarian in medium armor, shield, and Longsword. Classes and subclasses have certain flavors but you are not bound to them.
And, sure, we have Bladesinger but unless you focus them a certain way they tend to be better off playing similar to other wizards as they get higher levels. Their HP just doesn’t keep up in Tier 3-4. Imo
And just like Barbarians you don’t have to play a Paladin as the Chivalric knight they can be just as mush a scoundrel as any rogue depending on the oaths you follow
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
For what i can appreciate it seems that each class is losing their identity and turning in jack of all trades, instead of measuring cons vs pros in class selection its more who provide more pros than the other. Lets compare the classes on what they have that others cant do. lets strip them down to their special trick and their restriction.