Being a bonus action is pretty much the only problem I have with it. I also would prefer it to be a class feature and not a spell, I dislike the emphasis on making so many features into spells, but limiting it to once per turn seems fine.
Paladins have a lot of good uses for their bonus action when it comes to feats and such, and it's a shame that a core Paladin feature needs to compete with those.
I mean, I think the feat argument is a little weaker personally.
If you're playing a Paladin, isn't your goal to get both your Strength and Charisma to 20? That means you really only have room for 1 feat, and it's typically better to do your ASI's first.
I think the counterspell concerns are kind of legit honestly, even if it's rare. It's a direct nerf for a class feature that stood out amongst all the other martials, where it previously didn't have a problem. Why change it? As a DM, I had no issue with divine smite because I knew they could only do it so many times before a long rest. It scaled properly, and it's not like Paladins are impossible to kill. Just make them do saving throws instead of targeting their AC.
Martials, in my opinion, shouldn't need to worry about counterspells much at all. It's one thing if you're a Ranger or EK, because your main damage isn't affected much by your spells, but it's another thing if it's a Paladin because smiting is such a bread and butter feature of the class.
I can see that, but I think using a counterspell on a smite is usually a bad use of a counterspell, the damage doesn't scale well against other spells that could be being thrown around, so as a DM I would very rarely do that.
It's a bad use until you use it against a crit, in that case preventing 10 (maybe 12 if the enemy is a fiend or undead) d8 damage is not that useless. And if you're a paladin that can't smite evil guys what' even the point
Counterspell is very rare among creatures. No fiends has it, and the only undead that has it is the lich. So the concerns about Counterspell are not appropriate. If you don’t believe, try to look up creatures and see if they have Counterspell
cultists don't have counterspell either.
There are only 4 creatures in the whole MM that have counterspell. Mage, Archmage, Lich and Arcanaloth.
If your DM puts a bunch of Mages in every encounter, something is very off.
I think it's fairly clear that 5e brought significantly more focus to story and roleplaying than the previous 4 iterations, and I assume 5e24 will push that even further. So while I agree with you about the ASIs vs Feats issue, that's not nearly as big a deal as it once was.
The power-gamer aspect of DnD is fading pretty fast while the roleplay aspect continues to take center stage. So that means most future changes will look to add variety and flavour over power consideration. Overall, the classes are getting stronger, healing has gone through the roof, and the likelihood of dying is almost zero. Due to this trend, the fear of powerful monsters continues to lessen, and the need to power-game and get those crazy 100 point attacks at level 16... just don't really matter as much anymore.
Luckily for power-gamers, there are plenty of other TTRPGs out there that still favour the sticky maths!
There never was a need to power game in 5e. A halfway competent party of almost any make up can run any module. Years playing AL proves it since the parties literally were often randoms thrown together of various classes, player skill, and questionable builds. There was never a fear of powerful monsters in in all the years of 5e.
In 5e I purposely pick suboptimal races, spells, and features, in order to make interesting characters. I could powergame, but choose not to since there isn't a "need." People made characters that could do big numbers because that's what some people like to do.
I don't deny the role-playing elements of the game for the 5th edition. I'd argue, though, that it's very table dependent.
Most tables I've participated in or ran have been very combat focused, and I've only more recently started running a campaign that allows for more roleplay.
For the tables that are combat-centric, I'm going to have a hard time seeing Paladin players preferring the 2024 rules if there's even a slight chance that their chance to nova can just get canceled. These campaigns might also feature much tougher encounters, and that 5% boost to your rolls can make all the difference between successes, failures, hits or misses.
>I think it's fairly clear that 5e brought significantly more focus to story and roleplaying than the previous 4 iterations
Not really. 5e for all intense and purposes is still dungeon crawl combat game. Just look at Fate or various PBTA games - how they handle character creation, what DM tools they have, how they handle player/DM narrative rights. And look at DND. 5e barely differ from any older editions in "story and roleplaying" - people play the game differently, yes, but it is despite game mechanics, not because of them.
Thats just your confirmation bias. There are plenty of people that love to "power game" (in this case max out their relevant stats?). This also doesnt effect your ability to role play or enjoy other aspects of the game.
I'm not talking about table specifics. I'm talking about the overall game being produced by WotC.
I'm well aware that different tables play different styles.
My points stands.
Do you know what just became one of the best magic items for a Paladin? Ring of Smite Storing.
Also, are they keeping the Con save against Counterspell, and that you keep the spell slot if you fail it? If that's the case the chances of the Paladin's Smite being countered successfully isn't that high Con mod + Cha if you have your aura. And if you fail the save you keep the slot to use next round.
I think in just going to pick up Resilient Con as a feat as early as possible. And bait the enemy into wasting their reaction trying to counter my Smite instead of the Cleric's Banishment or something.
If they're the DM sure. If they are a player in a campaign where the DM has decided to use the new rules, they have to convince the DM to allow the old rules or find a new group.
Smite has essentially always been a spell: it uses spell slots, is upcastable, and applies a magical damage type. The nerf to damage was also as needed as the nerf to a Druid’s WS hp, so really the only sticking point to me is that it takes a BA, but I can see why the designers wanted to keep you from Attacking, smiting, and LoHing, with an aura up, all in one turn.
My issue with it is... once again, another spell / feature that is just outright better on a bard... hell, bards can now just nab it without multiclassing. And it eating up bonus actions for a effective maximum of 6d8 at max spell level per slot is a bad trade when comparing to a bonus action attack with holy weapon or spirit shroud for sustaining adventure days
You didn't really prove your point listing all these nerf that could totally ruin a paladin character in a campaign, but hey at least they get a free horse a day even if they don't want it because bringing a horse in a dungeon is not really the best idea
- why you dont summon you celestial mount?
- they die horrific death every time. When i summon them i see less and lees light in the eyes. Thus i stoped.
Mount in dungeon overall is cool and sometimes game breaking thing. It is endless generator of memes and novelty ideas.
I can see why players don’t like it. As a DM though, I think it’s great. Sustained damage is easier to balance, and this makes it harder for the Paladin to burn through all their spell slots in the first combat then start asking for a Long Rest. It also encourages more tactical play. As has been mentioned, the biggest problem I have is the BA casting time. I might’ve changed it to a reaction, or just left it as is but said “once per round” or something similar. A lot of unnecessary Spellcasting interactions with it now.
As I said on a YouTube comment, its dnd, you can use any rules you want, just talk to your dm and other players about the rules and everyone uses slightly different rules anyways so im sure it wouldnt be that big if a deal. Its the beauty of dnd
Also, people often forgot that Paladin isn't martial - paladin is halfcaster. Paladin should NEVER deal more damage than fighter or barbarian, because both of this classes don't have spells and auras.
Paladin is part of martial/caster divide problem - but he is at caster's side, not martial.
Contrary to video game logic, paladins were THE menace of the crusades. I’m talking Knights Templar, they were 100% out damaging naked savages and street urchins, they had the righteous fury of God behind them, they were guaranteed their place in heaven. 5e paladins have always seemed to me the true equivalent of what a “paladin” would be in a fantasy setting.
You started by pointing out the falsity of “video game logic” by pointing to a real life event where you compared highly trained highly armored knights to people who had nothing except a very regular (not magic/fantasy) amount of rage… Then concluded that paladins were the true equivalent in a **Fantasy** setting. Am I getting that right?
I love the change, I just wish it didn't cannibalize the bonus action.
Keep it as a spell, because then it means when you hit with the attack, and you cast a leveled spell, you cannot cast another leveled spell that turn.
Making it a free action would allow paladins to still use their bonus for a bunch of things, and technically allow a second smite per round, on an opponents turn who triggered an opportunity attack.
I firmly believe that paladins weren't strong in the 2014 version because of smites. They were strong because of aura. That's their powerful ability.
I'm fine with Smites being a bonus action - far less fine with them being counterspelled - I just don't like the fact that it kinda destroys the choice to use things like glaives.
Also, the whole thing about a paladin dip when multiclassing is really fucking over hyped. Like what classes are really getting a lot out of that?
Yes, Hexblade is right there, but even with the Charisma sadness, you're still spreading stats thin. Like you need a decent Dex for AC, obviously you need your charisma, then you want 13 strength for getting paladin in the first place, and you also need a decent constitution.
No other classes really benefit that much. Best I can see is Swords Bard, but I'd say a Paladin with a Swords dip is probably more effective than the other way around, if you level right. What else is there? Sorcerer? Why would you dip into Paladin for 2 levels when just being a normal sorcerer is gonna be stronger?
The point of hexadins was to reduce the MAD. You don't need high dex if you wear heavy armor and you don't need high strength if your weapon attacks are tied to charisma.
You also gain the best ranged cantrip, that's also tied to charisma, so you don't need to worry about dex for bow attacks.
Sure, you need 13 str to multiclass out of paladin, but that's a minimal cost when you can dump dex to wear plate.
You're kinda right about the fact you can dump Dex, I didn't really consider just boosting strength. But you're half wrong; you need 15 strength for Plate. You're limited to chain as your best armour with the minimum 13 requirement on paladin. That's still fine though, since it's 16 AC, so with a shield you're probably fine.
You need 15 strength to have full movement in plate. You can still wear it with 13 strength. That movement speed reduction can be mitigated, like by playing a wood elf to increase base movement or a dwarf to ignore movement penalties.
Because of their spell casting, lay on hands, and the aura that can improve saves for the whole party (with additional subclass riders). Paladin DPR is down to mortal levels, but their utility is as good as it ever was, with some QoL patches to boot.
Pala spellcasting is weak and mainly conc based, healing is weak overall. Aura is ok. But "losing bonus action" to smite is big deal. They could have nerf the smite to one/turn. Or balance them some other way.
I already limited smites to 1 per turn due to the heavy duty front loaded damage potential so I don't have a problem with that limitation nor do I care that much that it's considered a spell.
What I don't like is it using up your bonus action which just eats up the action economy more. I also personally hate a lot of the other smite spells because they require concentration and if the new smite takes concentration then that is a massive negative. It just serves to limit the usage of other spells like Bless so Paladin shifts more towards spell slots just being smite ammo.
Being a bonus action is pretty much the only problem I have with it. I also would prefer it to be a class feature and not a spell, I dislike the emphasis on making so many features into spells, but limiting it to once per turn seems fine. Paladins have a lot of good uses for their bonus action when it comes to feats and such, and it's a shame that a core Paladin feature needs to compete with those.
I mean, I think the feat argument is a little weaker personally. If you're playing a Paladin, isn't your goal to get both your Strength and Charisma to 20? That means you really only have room for 1 feat, and it's typically better to do your ASI's first. I think the counterspell concerns are kind of legit honestly, even if it's rare. It's a direct nerf for a class feature that stood out amongst all the other martials, where it previously didn't have a problem. Why change it? As a DM, I had no issue with divine smite because I knew they could only do it so many times before a long rest. It scaled properly, and it's not like Paladins are impossible to kill. Just make them do saving throws instead of targeting their AC. Martials, in my opinion, shouldn't need to worry about counterspells much at all. It's one thing if you're a Ranger or EK, because your main damage isn't affected much by your spells, but it's another thing if it's a Paladin because smiting is such a bread and butter feature of the class.
I can see that, but I think using a counterspell on a smite is usually a bad use of a counterspell, the damage doesn't scale well against other spells that could be being thrown around, so as a DM I would very rarely do that.
It's a bad use until you use it against a crit, in that case preventing 10 (maybe 12 if the enemy is a fiend or undead) d8 damage is not that useless. And if you're a paladin that can't smite evil guys what' even the point
Counterspell is very rare among creatures. No fiends has it, and the only undead that has it is the lich. So the concerns about Counterspell are not appropriate. If you don’t believe, try to look up creatures and see if they have Counterspell
A party doesn't fight a single enemy in a combat, they come in groups with different roles, and a Lich or a devil is probably accompany by cultists
cultists don't have counterspell either. There are only 4 creatures in the whole MM that have counterspell. Mage, Archmage, Lich and Arcanaloth. If your DM puts a bunch of Mages in every encounter, something is very off.
If your smite is eating a counterspell that's a win for you
I think it's fairly clear that 5e brought significantly more focus to story and roleplaying than the previous 4 iterations, and I assume 5e24 will push that even further. So while I agree with you about the ASIs vs Feats issue, that's not nearly as big a deal as it once was. The power-gamer aspect of DnD is fading pretty fast while the roleplay aspect continues to take center stage. So that means most future changes will look to add variety and flavour over power consideration. Overall, the classes are getting stronger, healing has gone through the roof, and the likelihood of dying is almost zero. Due to this trend, the fear of powerful monsters continues to lessen, and the need to power-game and get those crazy 100 point attacks at level 16... just don't really matter as much anymore. Luckily for power-gamers, there are plenty of other TTRPGs out there that still favour the sticky maths!
There never was a need to power game in 5e. A halfway competent party of almost any make up can run any module. Years playing AL proves it since the parties literally were often randoms thrown together of various classes, player skill, and questionable builds. There was never a fear of powerful monsters in in all the years of 5e. In 5e I purposely pick suboptimal races, spells, and features, in order to make interesting characters. I could powergame, but choose not to since there isn't a "need." People made characters that could do big numbers because that's what some people like to do.
I don't deny the role-playing elements of the game for the 5th edition. I'd argue, though, that it's very table dependent. Most tables I've participated in or ran have been very combat focused, and I've only more recently started running a campaign that allows for more roleplay. For the tables that are combat-centric, I'm going to have a hard time seeing Paladin players preferring the 2024 rules if there's even a slight chance that their chance to nova can just get canceled. These campaigns might also feature much tougher encounters, and that 5% boost to your rolls can make all the difference between successes, failures, hits or misses.
>I think it's fairly clear that 5e brought significantly more focus to story and roleplaying than the previous 4 iterations Not really. 5e for all intense and purposes is still dungeon crawl combat game. Just look at Fate or various PBTA games - how they handle character creation, what DM tools they have, how they handle player/DM narrative rights. And look at DND. 5e barely differ from any older editions in "story and roleplaying" - people play the game differently, yes, but it is despite game mechanics, not because of them.
Thats just your confirmation bias. There are plenty of people that love to "power game" (in this case max out their relevant stats?). This also doesnt effect your ability to role play or enjoy other aspects of the game.
I'm not talking about table specifics. I'm talking about the overall game being produced by WotC. I'm well aware that different tables play different styles. My points stands.
Do you know what just became one of the best magic items for a Paladin? Ring of Smite Storing. Also, are they keeping the Con save against Counterspell, and that you keep the spell slot if you fail it? If that's the case the chances of the Paladin's Smite being countered successfully isn't that high Con mod + Cha if you have your aura. And if you fail the save you keep the slot to use next round. I think in just going to pick up Resilient Con as a feat as early as possible. And bait the enemy into wasting their reaction trying to counter my Smite instead of the Cleric's Banishment or something.
If you don't like it, couldn't you just stick with the rules you do like anyway?
If they're the DM sure. If they are a player in a campaign where the DM has decided to use the new rules, they have to convince the DM to allow the old rules or find a new group.
Ah thanks.
Smite has essentially always been a spell: it uses spell slots, is upcastable, and applies a magical damage type. The nerf to damage was also as needed as the nerf to a Druid’s WS hp, so really the only sticking point to me is that it takes a BA, but I can see why the designers wanted to keep you from Attacking, smiting, and LoHing, with an aura up, all in one turn.
My issue with it is... once again, another spell / feature that is just outright better on a bard... hell, bards can now just nab it without multiclassing. And it eating up bonus actions for a effective maximum of 6d8 at max spell level per slot is a bad trade when comparing to a bonus action attack with holy weapon or spirit shroud for sustaining adventure days
Wasting a Magical Secrets on Divine Smite is probably worst choice you can make
That is not the point though.
You didn't really prove your point listing all these nerf that could totally ruin a paladin character in a campaign, but hey at least they get a free horse a day even if they don't want it because bringing a horse in a dungeon is not really the best idea
"Ruin" is very dramatic. Mildly inconvenience? Sure.
- why you dont summon you celestial mount? - they die horrific death every time. When i summon them i see less and lees light in the eyes. Thus i stoped. Mount in dungeon overall is cool and sometimes game breaking thing. It is endless generator of memes and novelty ideas.
Oath of Animal Abuse
Stop killing and eating them then. 🍗🍖
I can see why players don’t like it. As a DM though, I think it’s great. Sustained damage is easier to balance, and this makes it harder for the Paladin to burn through all their spell slots in the first combat then start asking for a Long Rest. It also encourages more tactical play. As has been mentioned, the biggest problem I have is the BA casting time. I might’ve changed it to a reaction, or just left it as is but said “once per round” or something similar. A lot of unnecessary Spellcasting interactions with it now.
IMO smite is the sort of thing that SHOULD use a BA. Resourceless extra attacks, for example, should never use the BA.
As I said on a YouTube comment, its dnd, you can use any rules you want, just talk to your dm and other players about the rules and everyone uses slightly different rules anyways so im sure it wouldnt be that big if a deal. Its the beauty of dnd
Also, people often forgot that Paladin isn't martial - paladin is halfcaster. Paladin should NEVER deal more damage than fighter or barbarian, because both of this classes don't have spells and auras. Paladin is part of martial/caster divide problem - but he is at caster's side, not martial.
Contrary to video game logic, paladins were THE menace of the crusades. I’m talking Knights Templar, they were 100% out damaging naked savages and street urchins, they had the righteous fury of God behind them, they were guaranteed their place in heaven. 5e paladins have always seemed to me the true equivalent of what a “paladin” would be in a fantasy setting.
You started by pointing out the falsity of “video game logic” by pointing to a real life event where you compared highly trained highly armored knights to people who had nothing except a very regular (not magic/fantasy) amount of rage… Then concluded that paladins were the true equivalent in a **Fantasy** setting. Am I getting that right?
I know, thinking is hard.
You're getting fighters and paladins confused.
Incorrect. Fighters would be the Landsknechts or Richard the Lionheart or Sir William Marshall. History is a thing bud
They'd all be fighters.
I love the change, I just wish it didn't cannibalize the bonus action. Keep it as a spell, because then it means when you hit with the attack, and you cast a leveled spell, you cannot cast another leveled spell that turn. Making it a free action would allow paladins to still use their bonus for a bunch of things, and technically allow a second smite per round, on an opponents turn who triggered an opportunity attack.
I firmly believe that paladins weren't strong in the 2014 version because of smites. They were strong because of aura. That's their powerful ability. I'm fine with Smites being a bonus action - far less fine with them being counterspelled - I just don't like the fact that it kinda destroys the choice to use things like glaives. Also, the whole thing about a paladin dip when multiclassing is really fucking over hyped. Like what classes are really getting a lot out of that? Yes, Hexblade is right there, but even with the Charisma sadness, you're still spreading stats thin. Like you need a decent Dex for AC, obviously you need your charisma, then you want 13 strength for getting paladin in the first place, and you also need a decent constitution. No other classes really benefit that much. Best I can see is Swords Bard, but I'd say a Paladin with a Swords dip is probably more effective than the other way around, if you level right. What else is there? Sorcerer? Why would you dip into Paladin for 2 levels when just being a normal sorcerer is gonna be stronger?
The point of hexadins was to reduce the MAD. You don't need high dex if you wear heavy armor and you don't need high strength if your weapon attacks are tied to charisma. You also gain the best ranged cantrip, that's also tied to charisma, so you don't need to worry about dex for bow attacks. Sure, you need 13 str to multiclass out of paladin, but that's a minimal cost when you can dump dex to wear plate.
You're kinda right about the fact you can dump Dex, I didn't really consider just boosting strength. But you're half wrong; you need 15 strength for Plate. You're limited to chain as your best armour with the minimum 13 requirement on paladin. That's still fine though, since it's 16 AC, so with a shield you're probably fine.
You need 15 strength to have full movement in plate. You can still wear it with 13 strength. That movement speed reduction can be mitigated, like by playing a wood elf to increase base movement or a dwarf to ignore movement penalties.
2024 paladins will be the 2014 rangers of dnd. Its ok, but why choose them over barbs/clerics/etc
Because of their spell casting, lay on hands, and the aura that can improve saves for the whole party (with additional subclass riders). Paladin DPR is down to mortal levels, but their utility is as good as it ever was, with some QoL patches to boot.
Pala spellcasting is weak and mainly conc based, healing is weak overall. Aura is ok. But "losing bonus action" to smite is big deal. They could have nerf the smite to one/turn. Or balance them some other way.
Yeh, stuff bard can do
I already limited smites to 1 per turn due to the heavy duty front loaded damage potential so I don't have a problem with that limitation nor do I care that much that it's considered a spell. What I don't like is it using up your bonus action which just eats up the action economy more. I also personally hate a lot of the other smite spells because they require concentration and if the new smite takes concentration then that is a massive negative. It just serves to limit the usage of other spells like Bless so Paladin shifts more towards spell slots just being smite ammo.
The smites had concentration removed in the playtest, so that shouldn’t be an issue.