LogFAQs > #896672388

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But is it possible to make a "lighter" Paladin build in 5e D&D that is anything other than completely suboptimal? Paladins technically have all Armor Proficiencies after all, which should make them as effective with light armor as they are the heaviest plate. Could someone make a Dex-build Paladin relying more on dodging rather than tanking, wearing light armor, and using a Dex-based finesse weapon like a fencing blade or scimitar, rather than wearing a schoolbus and wielding a three-handed doomclub? Maybe using something like a buckler or targe as an off-hand AC booster, or even a main-gauche type of secondary weapon that can alternatively boost AC or allow for bonus attacks?

Sure, it's not crazy suboptimal either. Besides, I've thought about much, much worse builds.

The only thing that's really awkward about it is that you don't get access to the Two Weapon Fighting Style at level 2, which if you really are interested in it, you can still take one level dip to Fighter to grab it.

I guess if you really want to be anal, the starting equipment is technically chainmail so that's no good.

Other than that, I guess I should go through this point by point:
-Most martial finesse weapons actually suck for damage, which is why finesse is so useful. The max damage die you can get is a d8 with a rapier, which isn't great, but it's what any dex character has to deal with, it's not special.
-Shields are actually really good in 5e (which is a +2 AC), WotC has really made it hard getting a crazy high AC. Most monsters have a bounded AC up to 20, with a few, few of them getting all the way up to
a whole 25 AC! This means showing up with 18 AC is actually pretty good and not the default for basically every class.
-The secondary weapon deals it's base die damage (i.e. deals 1d8+0) with the offhand (without Two Weapon Fighting), and the bonus to hit doesn't get proficiency bonus. But this isn't limited to the paladin, it's just how it works. You can do some gross stuff to the system with this though. This won't give a bonus to AC (that I know of, there's always something).

It's absolutely fine, hell the character I'm playing right now can't speak. If you talk to some completely grognardy people about it, they will give you a weird look, but paladin stuff doesn't actually care about your strength... so whatever.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

As a tangential side-note while talking about builds and Armor Proficiencies, if "going as big as possible is always the best choice" IS how the rules tend to work, wouldn't it be a good idea for every magic user class to take a single level of Fighter or Paladin to get the heavy armor proficiency, and thus become a spellcasting tank with an insane AC rather than a glass cannon? The rules-as-written seem to suggest that would be a completely valid thing to do, even if it is sort of power-gamer-y (meaning some groups and DMs would s*** on a player for doing it). Why wear robes with an AC of like 12 (if you're lucky) when you can be wearing full plate and have an AC of 18?

That depends on the edition.
In 3.5 you had spell chance failure, which sucked dealing with it. Plus they piled on negative modifiers if you didn't know what you were doing until you cried yourself to sleep.
In 4e it just wasn't an option, plus magic users got their INT bonus to AC, so it was fine.
In 5e there's a "just don't" part. "If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you cant cast Spells."

As with all of the editions, you could get feats to get more armor proficiency, but feats are precious and few and far between to get AC bonuses in 6 levels.
---

ImmortalityV, "I would like to kiss Icoyar to be honest in a non gay way though"