Yay, Nay, Somehwere inbetween? personally lowkey not a fan of them (ps just made a reddit account for this alone i just wanted to hear your thoughts on the subject thats all have a nice day!)
I don’t care that the damage on divine smite went down and I approve of it being a once per turn thing, I do care about counterspell, the fact that it can’t harm fiends that have the “immune to spells under (x) level” trait, and the fact that it takes a bonus action so you kind of have to save your BA in case you crit, rather than being encouraged to use it for fun stuff like misty step or sanctuary or racial BA abilities.
Also my REAL pet gripe with the class update is that LoH doesn’t cure diseases anymore. Means I can’t port over my doctor paladin into the new edition (and it’s just generally one of my favorite pieces of fluff. My first ever paladin got a free dog that we kept back at base because he cured the rabies off of a random feral dog <3)
Even though they have said that diseases are being phased out (mostly due to the situational immunity, even more so when you consider that Harm as written cannot affect anyone with disease immunity) and are just being replaced with the poisoned condition, I can see why the flavour of it has been lost
Oh yeah diseases probably never should have been a mechanic, but things like “I use LoH to sterilize my hands before stitching up wounds” or, you know, dealing with a tuberculosis outbreak or rabies (…or sketchy diseases your bard picked up last time you were in town…) just make for nice flavor that I utilize a lot and associate with class identity.
(And as a DM I think I would hesitate to call someone with a cold or something “poisoned.”)
A cold is just poison for the body it makes perfect sense /j.
But with that context in mind I can see how and why the flavouring of not being able to cure diseases anymore is a loss. Cool paladin concept though.
Agreed. I think it was a step too far making it a spell instead of an ability. Also takes away from smiting barbarians which I always thought had such fun flavor and potential.
I’m okay with it being once per turn and having a cap on how upcast it is, but damn it sucks to see the Paladin fall so far. I really hope they end up adjusting it a bit whenever they do 5.24 versions of Tasha’s.
I love a Zealot Barbarian/Devotion Paladin.
I don't think people should really be up in arms about... I think only 2 monsters, one of which is a god? Rakshasas, and Tiamat. Paladin smite only worked on them previously due to a "well actually".
I've seen so many posts bringing up Limited Magic Immunity like it's a super common feature you find all the time.
I did wonder- I don't think I'be ever seen it
They're also from older printings, the newer "Aspect of Tiamat" dropped it entirely.
The newer monsters with a feature similar actually wouldn't apply to smite. Limited Spell Immunity
The (monster) automatically succeeds on saving throws against spells of (level) level or lower, and the attack rolls of such spells always miss it.
I’m not sure if your complaint about fiends is warranted quite yet. We haven’t seen the updated monster manual to know of those abilities are still in there as they are.
Isn't the new monster manual coming out after the other materials? So people will be playing 5.5 with the 5e monsters.
Yeah, but for now you’re playing against 5e monsters rather than 5.5 because for some reason they’re staggering the book releases. If the complaint about fiends isn’t warranted once we finally get to see the monsters in question I’ll rescind it.
Yeah, personally i like the idea of it being like sneak attack. Free action once per turn.
Regarding the LoH change,i remember reading something about them removing disease entirely?
Only 2 monsters have spell immunity and counterspell would either never be worth it to cast on a paladin or it'll be at the point where a paladins smite is strong enough that it'll probably have aura of protection, in which case counterspelling will probably fail.
In my experience players roll the worst when the outcome wouldn’t be that serious but would just feel bad, like burning your bonus action on your crit smite for the night and having it counterspelled (half joking but I can see that souring an evening real fast.)
I do get that counterspells aren’t quite as serious since they’re probably going to be save spells, but paladins at your average PC level (of like 5-8) have few enough spell slots that I can see a counterspell feeling like “ok your chance for a cool thing tonight is just gone”
Counterspell actually doesn't cause the counterspelled to expend their slot. Only the action. Much less punishing on both sides. Much less hype but much less punishing.
Ah, okay! Didn't realize that somehow, lol. I concede the point on that then :)
I seriously hope they walked back on counterspell not cosuming the slot
That would be so tremendously stupid if they actually went through with it
If you get an enemy to counter spell your smite honestly I feel like you won that encounter..
Certain things being immune to spells under a certain level is something I hadn't considered and that does kind of suck
People are upset in HOW they changed Divine Smite not why. Most people knew it was too strong but instead of just making it once per turn like sneak attack they also made it counterspellable and require bonus action. Seems like they thought if they did something that simple with little other changes people would be upset that paladin would be too much of the same and not needing of an update but IMO, paladin was one of the only classes that really didnt need an upodate besides a few small things.
Also some people like the nova damage aspect of the class. If a person wants to blow up a monster and spend his spell slots thats perfectly fine. It just means if they run into more trouble they might have some issues.
This is exactly it. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I hate the once per turn mechanics for damage riders.
Aren't they sort of important, for example to avoid a rogue with extra attack from another class going crazy with sneak attacks?
I don't mind it as much on rogues since they aren't designed for multi attack, I'm talking about the ranger bumps that proc once. I like improved divine smite much more where it procs on hits.
It had to be a bonus action. It was too splashable for Sorcerers and Warlocks. Now it competes with their inherent action economy.
Hot take; they shouldn't balance around mc
Right!? Its an optional feature...
Would limiting the amount of smite die to be at least partially based on paladin level have helped alleviate it being to splashable?
Well… padlocks can double smite now…
Take multiclassing out of the fucking game. Stop balancing shit around it.
Take classes out of the game. They're archaic.
It's fine. It's one nerf. Having played many a paladin and run games for as many, I'd be hard pressed to say paladin damage wasn't somewhat of an issue. Especially when paladins could smite then smite again and then smite a third time with either a spell or a bonus action attack.
The class is more versatile. It has more innate movement with the mount, a pretty solid control option at mid levels, and is an even better tank/healer with lay on hands being a bonus action.
In regards to smite being a spell, counter spell will either be not worth using on it, or it'll be way too hard given a paladins con saves would be high enough that there's a good chance they'll just tank the counter spell. Doubly so if resilient was taken, which is a p common feat to take on paladins.
Enough was given in return for the changes. It'll definitely play different, but I think that's the point and I'm ultimately fine with it.
If the bad guy wizard is using its reaction and counterspell to target the party member that has at least +7 to their con saves that's a win for the party IMO.
If the enemy wizard is dumb enough to try and counterspell a level 6 paladins smite then they deserve what happens next lmao
And if the Counterspell in the playtest makes it to the official books then the only thing wasted if you get Divine Smite Counterspelled is the bonus action.
Wait, what's this about Counterspell and Con saves? Have they done away with the save DC being based off the spell level?
Well, the last updated version of counterspell they published in the playtest involved a CON save based on the caster's spell save DC. This save happened no matter what, and didn't care about the level of the spell being countered.
Hmm, seems like Resilience CON is even more of a feat tax for casters then
Ya know what, given the new Counterspell rules, it really wouldn't be worth it for an enemy caster to try. Maaaaaaybe if it was a crit-smite and they were on death's door.
Yeah, they definitively were shooting to change the play style, and that I'm totally OK with. I do wish divine smite was not a bonus action but was still limited to once a turn, but it's not the end of the world.
Smite cannot be a bonus action, everything else is fine but bonus action is way too much, rework the other smites to not require a bonus action instead
Smite cannot be a bonus action, everything else is fine but bonus action is way too much, rework the other smites to not require a bonus action instead, losing your bonus action is way too much.
It feels like paladin players want to be able to do everything in a single turn. That's just not how other classes play, and now paladin is playing by the same rules.
We are still missing information on key feats and spells that could change things.
My initial impression is that the Smite changes are a massively over complicated fix. All you needed to add was a limit once per turn clause and you are done.
The main concern I have is with the general overload of bonus action features. This exists on other newly released classes as well, but seems to really be present on Paladin. Smite, Lay on Hands, Potions, Polearm Master, Great Weapon master and any BA spell. This gets much worse with multiclassing. Options are good, but I feel they have strayed into a position where you are losing synergy and constantly have clashing abilities.
I'm okay with the idea of nerfing the burst smite damage. But I hate the concept of masking every nerf as an improvement. Let's wait for the final rules and see how they work.
The Find Steed being a paladin feature is so mid. They act like that's a significant buff when you will rarely ever use it. If the travel/exploration aspect of the game was more fleshed out, it would be more valuable but I doubt that is going to be the case.
So, steeds are awesome in combat if there is room to maneuver. Outdoors, big rooms, even on a ship. I blame players for not taking advantage of mounted combat.
Still a mid feature as a class feature tbh.
"I blame players for not using a mount in DUNGEONS and dragons"
Have you never seen a particularly large room in a dungeon?
Not may issue if a person can't think outside hte dungeon box. Having a mount that can move 25 feet, take a dodge action, then move 25 more feet afterwards makes for a particularly hard to hit pc. Now imagine if you would the outside, and adding a xbow to the pc and they can almost always be out of range or out of lines/cones/clouds.
Have you never encountered a ladder or any other insurmountable obstacle for aa useless mount?
I wish smites had been made a once-per-turn Cunning Strike-style feature fueled by spell slots instead of Wizards copping out and making them bonus action spells, but that's really my only complaint.
My thoughts is everything about the paladin got buffed and more thematic besides the nova damage nerf which happened across multiple classes. Nova damage was something labeled as a problem they wanted to fix.
Paladins are still one of the strongest classes in the game so I think the changes for paladin are pretty good.
Honestly I don't doubt that a large several handfuls of people brought it up in the initial 5e satisfaction survey a few years ago. It's been a minute so people probably forgot that
It's not just nova damage nerf, it's a nerf to every single build that regularly uses its bonus action which is what I really dislike about it.
I wish divine smites nerf was just a once per turn limit like sneak attack rather than requiring the bonus action. I enjoy the Find Steed changes.
i fucking hate horses
I've always loved the idea of mounted combat, but the mechanics have consistently sucked in every edition. 3.Xe wasn't completely bad, but 5e definitely got worse.
It's really hard without mounted combatant or a saddle of the cavalier. And the drake warden can't even move before attacking when mounted RAW, absolutely hopeless.
Generally don't love it. It's a very strong class in 5e, so naturally people will love it or hate it. Divine Smite should have been left as it was but limited to once/turn like Sneak Attack and Eldritch Smite. Turning it into a spell was BS, imo. Find Steed does not compensate for how they gutted Divine Smite. I played DoMM to level 20 and never once used Find Steed. Getting it for free might be generally nice if you aren't in a dungeon all the time or if you optimize for mounted combat, but it would have been wholly worthless to me in that 3 year campaign.
The trick for find steed in a dungeon is to summon a mastiff and use it to help with perception or moving smaller party members around the battle field.
Love all of them except smite being a bonus action and a spell (and they won't be at any game I run). Once per turn is fine, nova builds could be a pain sometimes.
The biggest thing people seem to be missing is they wanted to nerf how easy it was to splash Paladin for divine smite. Since now it'll compete with your other class' bonus actions as well it's less braindead obvious to take something like 2 levels of it with every Cha class.
But it's a spell now, and not exclusive to Paladins so these classes you are talking about taking a 2 level dip for it don't even need to take the dip to smite anymore.
Balancing around an optional rule, multi-classing is fucking stupid. If that's their reason then they're dumber than I thought
I mean it's optional in the way feats are: Not very.
Everything's beneficial except for making smites count as spells now. It "fixed" a problem I've never encountered. Paladin nova damage is fun and all but I've also been out of slots by the time the big finale happens b/c I was having too much fun earlier in the session lol.
This is where I fall too. I’ve played with lots of Paladins and DMed for a few, and I love that they can burn so many spell slots so quickly. A big part of playing a 2014 Paladin is knowing when to nova, because a 5th-level Paladin can go through half their spell slots in a single turn, and for a 10th-level Paladin that’d still be a third of their spell slots. Even just two combat encounters in a day could easily take all of their spell slots if they’re not careful. Giving players the opportunity to burn through so many spell slots so quickly is great for the DM, because you can bait them into burning spell slots too early, while also being very fun to play.
I've definitely seen the Nova thing be a problem before. Saw a Paladin OTK Strahd. It was kind of hilarious.
Divine smite is supposed to be a silver bullet against undead, so operating as intended. Strahd raw is also a frail and fairly weak boss, and require dm fines to not just get embarrassingly rolled. This is a problem of bad matchup and somewhat poorly designed base stat block for a main villain rather than smite being op.
I don't think Smite is OP but I'm pretty sure that the majority of creatures in the MM are undead or devils/demons so Paladin has a lot of good matchups. The issue with smite is that it has the potential to make a lot of bosses anticlimactic I think.
I mostly DM and I've mostly never really had an issue with the power of base paladin, every other paladin that's been problematic has been some kind of multiclass thing. Though unlike a lot of other DMs I apparently run a lot of combat and I'm stingy with rests so that seems to make the Nova issue doesn't come up for me.
As someone who played a paladin in a curse of strahd campaign, yeah it could be exciting sometimes. But it’s also easy even in an undead/demonic setting to just have non smite weak enemies show up regularly. As far as unexciting combats, I think I’ve seen our spellcaster do that far more than any damage dealer. The amount of single boss fights at mid/low levels ended by one cast of suggestion or mob fight turned into a joke by hypnotic pattern are vast. And in those all the maritals essentially sat back and got to watch the caster win the combat on the first turn. Our dm had to start shoving in legendary resistance to everything and cheese all aoe fights a bit by having even fairly dumb enemies all immediately chain awaken hypnotized allies. And even then, suggestion and hypnotic pattern were fight deciding spells to the last session. Don’t get me wrong, smite was a good feature. It was a major piece of what made paladin potent enough to contribute next to all the spellcasters. But straight class it wasn’t close to op. It just had some potential to scale a bit out of control with multiclass (and even then, mostly at higher levels when the effects of multiclass actually become more apparent).
That's why I'm hoping that with all the balancing we're seeing with martial characters I'm praying that casters get hit hard, though apparently it's not looking like that'll be the case.
Yeah, it’s really not looking like casters are being brought down to the martials level at all, or even getting worse in any substantive way. I’d rather martials be brought up in power and versatility anyways, than have everyone brought down to martial’s level. Having watched like a monk, rouge and an alchemist, the bad classes generally are stuck with extremely boring and repetitive turn cycles that generally lack hype moments or meaningful decision making without the dm constantly spoon feeding them custom opportunities. Paladin used to be one of the few martials that had an actually interesting tension, having an actually limited pool they could easily run out of, and having to choose between power now and utility and longevity later. The rework guts that and drives them away from even being a melee martial.
The archetypical Paladin, the knight in shining armour charging into the front lines, was already kind of bad. Tacking a huge opportunity cost onto their iconic feature by making it cost a Bonus Action, when one of the more fun little optimisations you could make to that style was using feats like Polearm Master or Two Weapon Fighting to squeeze out more Improved Divine Smite damage, is not great.
Nerfing the feature now known as Radiant Strikes in this way also makes mono-classing Paladin into high levels worse. Optimisers would already go straight into Warlock or Sorcerer the second they get Aura of Protection and with Pact of the Blade getting buffed people are going to do that more. From an optimisation perspective there's really no reason to play a Strength-based melee Paladin any more, while the Charisma ranged Paladin focused on giving Aura to other casters while concentrating on something like Bless is untouched.
Huge win for Tabletop Builds, sad day for people who actually want to play on type.
One big pet peeve for me is that Pact of the Blade is such an obvious way to build a a charisma based melee character that everything else is kind of "why are you better than X extra warlock levels?".
If your main interest in being a paladin is hitting people while providing a group buff, it feels weird that splashing so much WARLOCK is the way to do it.
Funny thing is with the pact boons becoming invocations and pact of the blade taking on hexblade’s charisma for attack you don’t even need to take a warlock dip at all to be able to attack with charisma. All you need is to take eldritch adept and suddenly the charisma based characters can use everything.
I didn't mind the changes but I don't feel good about divine smite being a spell, I think it's an awful change
I did find a silver lining in this: ring of spell storing could now store a divine smite. Or work with your wizard to make some smite scrolls
Making it a spell and a bonus action is a significant nerf, though it doesn’t wreck the class or the Paladin flavor.
I’ve played multiple Paladin/Lore Bards and Paladin/Sorcerers. This change disincentivizes the 2 level dip with other Charisma casters, like Paladin/Sorcerer or Paladin/Bard. Now if you dip, may as well commit to Paladin 6 for the Aura of Protection. Which is generally more powerful than say Paladin 2/Sorcerer X.
Beyond that, this change makes other Gish combinations more attractive. Bladesinger and Eldritch Knight look better than they already are.
What I’m wondering is if D&D Beyond will support the 2014 and 2024 rulesets, or if it will only support 2024 rules once they are released.
Bladesingers being able to make a Booming blade attack as one of their extra attacks and the 2024 Warlock getting three attacks at lvl 11 are going to make them much better than a Paladin in melee.
Yeah, if warlock keeps their 3rd attack they outclass Paladins in melee. And celestials Warlocks may even be better Paladins in some situations. I mean, is really funny that Paladins don’t really have that much communication with their divinity vs Warlocks who can just directly talk to them.
I'm legit thinking Paladin 1 / Celestial Warlock x is the new play. Heavy Armor, 3 attacks and all of the juicy melee pacts from the Playtest would be very nice.
Yeah, if they keep the 3rd attack is for sure the new play. That or 12 warlock/8 oathbreaker for aura and cha extra dmg
Yeah, I'm kinda waiting to see how dnd beyond changes on launch. Like I'm not really entertaining any of the updates if I can't easily mix and match stuff. I'm not learning a completely new ruleset for what amounts to less options and mostly lateral improvements.
Not a huge fan personally. But after watching the Ranger video on the changes they got it much worse.
If they wanted to limit Smite to once per turn that's what they should have done outright. Making it into a Spell instead of a class feature, and making it costs a retroactive bonus action to activate on-hit, are both super clunky and lame solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. Just add "once per turn" to the start of the 2014 smite ability and be done with it.
It's fine, but i don't like the whole approach of balancing things by nerfing some things, fiddling about with others. Paladin and Wizards have the power level every character should be brought up to, rather than pick some arbitrary point in the middle and try and push it to that (and looking at the ranger, they've failed that anyway).
I`d probably homebrew divine smite into once per turn without bonusaction
Honestly, if they wouldn’t have made smite into a spell and a bonus action I wouldn’t have minded. My problem with it is it makes my turns binary. The most efficient use of my turn and my spells slots is basically always going to be “I attack, smite and end my turn”. I can’t slip in the occasional spell like compelled duel, divine favor or shield of faith anymore which really sucks. On top of that it will be affected by magic resistance, counterspell and “spells under X level effects”
Everything else is fine. A better divine steed is exactly what I wanted.
Paladin looks stronger, but less fun. Bad change.
I think my biggest gripes with the Divine Smite changes (that actually matter) are the fact it can't be used off turn like Sneak Attack and it no longer works with barbarian rage.
Really not a big fan of the “nerf strong things to balance” mentality. Obviously power creep is a thing and paladins are strong, but paladin smite is a meme for a reason. Balance changes should almost never harm class fantasy and fun, and these do both imo. Sets a bad precedent going forward.
Base Paladin is saddled with two bad features from levels 1-5 that allows them to cast a level 1 and level 2 spell that's already available to them on their spell list, pushing the use those spells at some capacity throughout an adventure.
To be specific:
Paladin's Smite is an inexcusable bad feature that doesn't do anything beyond prepare Divine Smite (spell), and allow you to cast it once per day at level 1. That is from levels 2-20.
Similarly, Faithful Steed has the same issue of being a bizarre feature that prepares Find Steed (spell), and allows you to cast it once per day at level 2. That is from level 5-20.
Again, these are already on the Paladin spell list, but Find Steed is jarring here because the steed is permanent and directly benefits from using a higher spell slot, forever.
You have to go out of your way as you level up to use either feature for greater diminishing returns (much like the Ranger does for its 7 available casts of Hunter's Mark at level 1) and in Find Steed's case you're either sticking the best one you can summon (and maybe watching the Bard fly from levels 6-20 using the same spell while you wait till level 13), or just perpetually summoning South Park's Kenny the horse to die or scout for you at lowest level.
And this is all because the design team for some bizarre reason is terrified of Paladins and Rangers having features that use spell slots in 2024 (meanwhile, Druid will be using spell slots for Wildshape and Warlock's will be Eldritch Smiting to their heart's content).
You could complain about the Divine Smite change making the change to Lay on Hands going to the Bonus Action seem a lot less impactful (only Warlocks are allowed to have a class feature Bonus Action heal (a ranged one at that!)), but its mostly just frustrating because it doesn't do anything but limit how you play or build up your Paladin.
But... the Paladin subclass Channel Divinity was buffed... (at least the one that wasn't erased for the level 9 Abjure Foes, so enjoy using the same Channel Divinity over and over for the first 8 levels).
I just wish the 2024 Ranger and Paladin were designed in a way that was more consistent with the other classes leading in the PHB, and in a way that incentivized players to continue progressing in their chosen class (instead of an assortment of features that work a lot better with a multiclass).
It's not impossible for WotC to make good choices for the 2024 Ranger and Paladin, the choices the players, Dungeon Masters and content creators have handed to them to make the best Ranger and Paladin, but instead there's this totally insane fear of half-casters using spell slots on non-spells.
Oh well, it's going to print as is, and while the Paladin is playable, it feels unnecessarily burdened by bad game design that is not present in the 2024 classes.
- The changes to divine smite are simply stupid and nonsensical. I have no doubt they were done because the smite spells are never used, but this was not the way to correct that.
- Lay on hands being a bonus action is absurd. I'm surprised I haven't seen it talked about more often (i.e. at all). Unless the PHB says something different from everything I can find online, it's still just 1 from the pool to restore 1 hit point. That is going to be extremely problematic.
- I'm not a fan of spellcasting being moved to 1st level.
I like everything else.
I don't see how Lay on Hands being a bonus action is absurd. Sometimes you need a quick heal before striking with a weapon swing. So what if it competes with your bonus action, most of the time you shouldn't need the healing unless its an emergency, same with how healing potions (still no direct confirmation on other potions falling under the same rules) are now bonus actions.
No one wants to spend an action doing fuck all when that same action could've been used to attack or buff.
Spellcasting being moved to first level makes sense to me at least. Artificer has it at first level so it'd stand to reason to just move both paladin and ranger to 1st as well. Not that it matters since the designers expect you to start at level 3 if your all vets at the game anyway, rendering the 1st/2nd level spellcasting issue moot. There's functionally no difference in the end.
Yeah. It's not even like this is the only class with Bonus Action healing. Celestial Warlock and Dreams Druid been on this. Heck, any caster with Healing Word still does this better than Paladin.
Lay on Hands isn't for Yo-Yo healing. It's meant to be your Second Chance to get back into the fight
And even if it does cost a spell and metamagic to do it, Divine Soul Sorcerers can do the same as well. Not as effectively but it still bears mentioning.
Lay on Hands is for that final push for your melee swingers and having that spellcaster eat even a single hit in order for them to push out their best spell. It's also for patches in-between long journeys where a long rest isn't possible and you don't want to take the gamble on an hour long short rest but that's more niche then anything.
Lay on hands being a bonus action is absurd.
I don't see that at all tbh
Nerfing a suboptimal playstyle that people liked. Proof that WotC makes decisions based on memes.
Nova damage isn't suboptimal. It's the strongest thing a damage dealer can do.
Burning all of your day's resources over the course of 3-4 turns is not a great plan, generally.
It is when most of the tables run the "2-4 little encounters, 1 big encounter" mindset. You don't spend smite on the little baby things you spend smite during the massive encounter, the boss fight so to speak.
So under that context it isn't suboptimal to spend everything during a boss fight if you know that you'll just get a rest and restore it all anyway.
I won't buy any content from the new update. It's ethically bankrupt and is absolute garbage. If some content is free I will adapt but why are we interested?
Because most of it is better than what we had before (as in generally accepted and popular frame of rule. Homebrew is nice and all but far from homogeneous). And about ethics, you should never turn to corporations when you want ethics. It's not their role.
It felt super weird seeing a bunch of people come out of the woodworks to defend the nerf to Smite by saying that Paladin now gets bonus action Lay on Hands and a free casting of Find Steed as a way to say it was overall a buff or net neutral.
Personally, getting to heal more often is nice but as someone who has been playing 5e forever I know that damage is always going to be king in combat. No need to heal if enemies are dead. Smite needed a nerf, but turning it into a bonus action spell is too much. Once a turn would've been fine. Hell, turning it into a reaction would've been a really strong nerf I'd still agree with.
Lay on Hands always suffered from becoming your whole turn, but now it suffers from fighting with smite and any bonus action spells you may have. Same issue as before, but on a smaller scale. It's an improvement but not a really drastic one. At the end of the day, its still competing with damage and utility and in most cases lay on hands loses those fights, unless another player is downed or your character is about to go down.
Find Steed is Really campaign and DM dependent, you could always just prepare the spell before hand and taking one of your spell preparation slots to do so isn't a particularly harsh punishment for an intelligent steed. A single free casting of it is nice but even when I've played Paladins who took advantage of Find Steed I never felt particularly taxed when I cast it. You don't lose the mount often unless you're caught in an aoe or the DM targets your steed for a specific reason. I dunno. I guess all the find steed stuff just feels like the designers vision of what a paladin should be being pushed through when most players I've played with don't play them like that at all. Out of all the paladins I've played with, only one has ever summoned a steed and that's because I was playing them and it was a very open world campaign.
Aura of Protection probably could've done with a nerf, even more than smite in my opinion yet its staying the exact same as being absolutely busted if you have high Charisma. Mind you I'd say that its only absolutely busted because saving throws are in an abysmal state to begin with.
Also I'll go ahead and say that I wish ranged smites were a thing. Even just reading ranged smites weren't going to be a thing made me realize how cool a smiting archer would be. I'd have loved rangers for example to get ranged smites, if nothing else, but instead rangers got thoroughly shafted by continuing to be the Hunter's Mark class.
So I guess overall: Nay. Old Paladin stays if I even bother with 5e24, seeing as they haven't really fixed anything I personally care about, including stuff outside of Paladin.
I know that, overall, is a buff.
But I don't like it. I'll stick with the old Paladin within the new rules. No weapon masteries sadly, but is worth it for the joys of double smite in a turn.
It is a conundrum. You get to play a paladin with double smites but due to the different frame work you can't use 2014 classes with 2024 subclasses. And if 2024 rule books are in play other rules override the 2014 books in terms of mechanics (the only one I can use for example is surprise because we all know about that change).
Get to double smite but at what cost... Well fun for you mainly so that's good.
I do not want the new subclasses of pally either tbh.
And I don't know if the mechanical changes are gonna be so game changer that is imposible to slap an old class within the "new" rules.
But, if by any chance is either imposible or not worth the trouble, I'll just sick with the 2014 PHB rules. That or I'll switch definitely to pathfinder.
Well then you'll be fine because you can absolutely play a 2014 class/subclass with someone who is using 2024. You'll just use all of the rules of 2024 in terms of mechanics and spells if such a factor were to happen because that's how that works gives or take.
On the fence. I would prefer if paladin smite spells were a reaction instead of a bonus action. I think the free use of Find Steed is too thematically intrusive (not everyone wants a pet). I wished they leaned a little harder into support. Overall the class got buffed, which is good.
Using it as a reaction, triggering once you hit an enemy in melee, would have been a good way to handle it while making everyone happy (more or less).
Eating your reaction might be worse?
All smites free action limited to once a turn this is non-negotiable
Horse
they accidentally nerfed divine smite instead of aura of protection.
Not a fan. A big part of what made the Paladin so fun for me was the burst damage it could dish out on demand, so the 1/turn limit that arises from it costing a bonus action really rubs tme the wrong way. Divine Smite taking up a bonus action now also conflicts with so many other things you could be doing on your turn as a bonus action. Moreover, it can be gained by other classes with just a single level dip, it can be Counterspelled, and most of all... It's just basically not a Paladin-exclusive feature anymore.
The paladin changes make me want to stick with 5e. So I will.
I don't Kind them a lot. Paladin was in a pretty good spot. I didn't expect a lot of changes. Smite should be a class feature and not a spell. I would have liked if find steed and find greater steed were class features as well. But other than that I don't have a problem with the new paladin.
WotC hates multiclassing and build diversity with a passion. So many of these changes have been "dumb the game down so new players don't have to make as many choices." Which is a terrible reason to change anything.
Still the strongest of all martial classes by a long shot. (Maybe not if the pally’s spells are nerfed, although that seems highly unlikely to me) I was never a fan of Devine smite, it’s to wasteful of your precious spell slots (I ran 4-10 encounters a day) I’m baffled the aura isn’t nerfed. That was the best feature paladins got, even better then spell casting (smite included). +5 to all saves the party makes is ridiculous OP, making Palladian the only must have class for the highest tier of play. With all the other buffs the Palladian starts surpass even full casters.
It's a spellcaster not a martial
It’s both. Paladins are good in martial combat and have spells they cast. Being a martial is not exclusive from being a spellcaster. That’s why we call them half casters
Smite isn't worth using anymore, but then again the optimal paladin just casts EB and reminds the wizards they have +5 to saves anyway.
That's nonsense. Of course smite is worth using
No it's not, they just explained why
I'm okay with everything (that ubcan remember anyway, I'll need a fine comb over to see if there's any other silly decisions) except the divine smite to paladin smite changes. Even then, I'd be fine with it being a once per turn feature, I think that's healthy.
I'm just not okay with it as a once per round bonus action spell with a verbal component. That's an over correction.
I would have also preferred amites be turned into paladin features instead of divine smite being turned into a spell.
I will be adjusting paladins smite in my own games to be like the following based on my playtesting of the feature.
Paladins smites
Starting at 2nd level, whenever you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or melee weapon attack, you can expend a spell slot to deal additional radiant damage to your target equal to 1d8 + a number of additional d8's equal to level of the expended spell slot.
You can perform a smite once per turn normally, and whenever you score a critical hit with an unarmed strike or melee weapon attack.
In addition to the smites damage, as you increase your paladin level, you can perform different forms of smites that apply different effects to your paladins smite. Only one smite effect can be applied to a smite unless otherwise stated.
2nd level: Divine Smite: The smite deals an additional 1d8 radiant damage to fiends and undead. Divine Smite requires a 1st level or higher spell slot to use
2nd level: Searing Smite: The smite deals fire damage instead of radiant damage and sets the stricken target ablaze. While ablaze, the creature must succeed on a constitution saving throw at the start of each of its turns or take 1d6 fire damage. The effect ends on successful save. Searing Smite requires a 1st level or higher spell slot to use
2nd Level: Thunderous Smite: The smite deals thunder damage instead of radiant damage, and the target must make a str save or be pushed 10 feet away and knocked prone. Thunderous Smite requires a 1st level or higher spell slot to use.
5th level: Shining Smite: The smite causes the stricken target to shed bright light in 5ft radius as long as you maintain concentration for up to a minute (as if concentrating on a spell.) While shedding this light, any source of invisibility the creature has ends immediately, and they can not benefit from the invisible condition. Additionally, attacks made against the target have advantage while affected by this light. Shining Smite requires a 2nd level or higher spell slot to use
5th Level: Wrathful Smite: The smite deals psychic damage instead of radiant damage and the target must make a wis save or be frightened for up to 1 minute. The creature can make a wisdom saving throw as an action to remove the frightened condition on a success. Wrathful Smite requires a 2nd level or higher spell slot to use.
9th level: Blinding smite: The smite causes the stricken target to have the blinded condition for the next minute. At the end of each of the creatures, it can make a constitution saving throw to end the effect early. Blinding smite requires a 3rd level or higher spell slot to use.
13th level: Staggering Smite: The smite deals psychic damage instead of radiant damage and causes the target to make a wisdom saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn. Staggering smite requires a 4th level of higher spell slot to use.
17th level: Banishing Smite The smite deals force damage instead of radiant damage and causes the creature to make a charisma saving throw. If the creature fails, it is banished. A banished creature that is native to a different plane of existence than the one you are on, returns to its home plane. A banished creature that is native to your current plane of existence will instead vanish to a harmless demiplane where it is incapacitated for up to a minute (requiring your concentration as if concentrating on a spell.) A creature that is reduced to 50 hit points or fewer by banishing smite cannot succeed on this saving throw by any means. Banishing smite requires a 5th level or higher spell slot to use.
You can use one of these smites without expending a spell slot once per long rest. For the purposes of the smite effects and damage treat the smite as if a 1st level spell slot was used for it at 2nd level. A 2nd level spell slot was used at 5th level. A 3rd level spell slot was used at 9th level. A 4th level spell slot was used at 13th level and a 5th level spell slot was used at 17th level.
This stops smites from being counterspelled. This also stops smites from being prevented from use when in a zone of silence (the playtest had them as verbal component spells so I'm assuming that here.)
This keeps smites as a once per turn thing unless the paladin gets a crit. Ensuring that they can always capitalize on those fun moments provided they have the spell slots.
This allows PAM and two weapon fighting based attacks to also be able to apply smites still, but still limits it to once per turn save for the crit exception I put in.
This allows smites to work on opportunity attacks still.
It stops smite spamming but doesn't gut the feature or add pain points it never had beyond the new general once per round limitation that was added (which itself is mostly fine but shoukd be turn instead of round.)
Not this again
/r/UnearthedArcana is that way
And if I ever feel the need to just share my house adjustments without my commentary on the official design and opinions on it. I'll post there
You're like a broken record on this though.
I think this is the 6th time I've posted my suggested changes with my thoughts on the matter, maybe only 5 times.
About as many times as people have asked on the d&d subs that I've also become aware of. I'm gonna say my piece when I come across an appropriate opportunity to do so.
I wouldn't expect that to change either.
I think this is the 6th time I've posted my suggested changes with my thoughts on the matter, maybe only 5 times.
We've noticed. You're very proud of your solution that solves none of the problems with the Paladin
Might be a bit much of me to assume good faith here, but why not. I'll continue to bite the bait. What issues exist that my changes aren't addressing, and please avoid just being cheeky a saying some nothing answer like "the ones WotC are solving with their changes." Lets get some real discussion and sincerity here.
My understanding is that the main issue some folk with the paladin was that it had too much "nova damage" for some folks liking, because one could make multiple smites in a turn, compared to something like sneak attack which was only limited to once per turn.
Logically, to address this, you limit divine to once per turn, just like sneak attack. So that's what I did. Solving the nova damage potential of the paladin.
Some people also had issue with double smiting. That potential is also removed with my change as each of the smite spells are now competing features instead of spells.
Folk wanted to be able to smite with unarmed strikes. That's solved in my change too.
What issue is fixed by adding bonus action cost, spell restriction, and verbal component to divine smite? There isn't an issue I've seen that anyone had with smite existing as its own feature and not possessing those restrictions.
I've addressed the divine smite/spell smite doubling, and I've addressed the nova potential by an incredibly reasonable margin, I've addressed unarmed strikes. What are these issues that my changes don't address?
I'd love to hear a genuine answer if you can provide one. It'd be a lot more interesting.
1) You can still Divine Smite multiple times a round in your version, off turn, which is bad and something WotC is clearly trying to avoid.
2) You can still combo it with all sorts of other bonus action acctions, whch is bad and something WotC is clearly trying to avoid.
3) You can still easily dip Paladin for two levels to make the Sorcerer or Warlock way, way, way better because it doesn't compete with their own innate action economies, which is bad and something WotC is clearly trying to avoid.
So no you have not addressed anything.
What issue is fixed by adding bonus action cost, spell restriction, and verbal component to divine smite? There isn't an issue I've seen that anyone had with smite existing as its own feature and not possessing those restrictions.
Game mechanics that cannot be meaningfully interacted with are not good mechanics. Making it a bonus action leads to interesting decisions in battle for the player. "Should I Smite for more damage or use another ability that is more situationally useful?"
Making it a spell lets it interact with other game mechanics that also interact with spells. Nothing interacts with Divine Smite in 5e. It's extremely boring. Likewise with verbal components.
You simply want it to be as powerful as possible because that's the box you've lived in for a decade, with no regard for what's actually a more rewarding game experience.
1) Multiple times per round is fine. Multipem ler turn isand rhe nova that allowed was where rhere was a problem for some. Sneak attack got to keep it's per turn limit, and smite is a weaker Sneak attack that costs a spell slot. Being able to smite once per turn is healthy.
2) Combo potential is actually good design and healthy for the game. Abitiire interaction with one another is most often a fine thing, outside of some edge cases. The numbers a smite believed are not an unhealthy case.
3) Sorcerers and warlocks also tend to have better things to do with trier action economies then smites unless the smite scores a crot. Then smite damage is somewhat competitive to some spells.
Got anything else or is it just those non-ossue middling examples?
Those ARE the issues lmfao. They clearly don't want people crit fishing Divine Smites either and yours does nothing to discourage it. Hold Person/Monster + Smites is still an instant gib rendering any solo monsters completely useless.
Multiple times a round is not fine. Making it a spell is flat out more interesting. And Sorlock/Warlock Paladins were a massive problem for any table with semi competent players. Maybe you just didn't have those?
Your assessments of everything are completely wrong. And luckily for me WotC actually got this one right for a change.
But hey you go ahead and post your homebrew on every post for the next decade. Everyone else will get as sick of it as I already am.
I don't think this really helps the issue though. Like, obviously players like being able to Smite, but I do like the idea that there is some actual counterplay to a Paladin outside of just not being within range of them.
That depends on what issue you're talking about. I don't think a lack of counterplay was ever an issue for smite, especially given the middling damage it managed on a single smite unless a crit was secured.
The nova was an issue to some. My changes address that. Double smite was an issue. This fixes that too.
If smite was an at will feature like the rogues sneak attack, some extra counterplay might be warranted (though honestly, even sneak attack doesn't warrant or, hence why steady aim became a thing.) Smite uses a resource though which.
Very much agree to disagree.
You can't just look at paladin changes in a vacuum. A lot of classes got nerfed just by all classes now getting their subclass at level 3. The changes within the paladin class are plus/minus, personally I think it's streamlined and better. But overall with regard to all the classes, paladin got buffed pretty good.
They are fine. They will be stronger than 5.0. Remember, 5.5 feats are changed and cannot be mixed with 5.0 feats, freeing up your bonus action.
Rogues and Ranger, on the other hand, got screwed. Their new features are side grades or non existent.
Rangers are really going to depend on how the spells are designed. If a decent portion of the Ranger spell list is changed to be more like the smite spells that activate on a hit and no longer require concentration, it’ll be a pretty great buff
How is cunning strike not a buff? Rogues now have all kinds of utility they can add to their sneak attack.
It's not added, it's in lieu of damage dice.
9 times out of 10, damage is what will be chosen, especially since we have no idea what saving throws DCs will be involved.
With more options available and the class not having been put out there to the masses we'll see how much use cunning strikes get. Casters will generally sacrifice numbers for effects so I don't necessarily doubt rogues won't do the same. Time will tell.
Ranger seems fine if uninspired. It's more or less iterative of the tasha ranger people liked so we'll see how that goes.
I love the Paladin changes. In exchange for a Divine Smite nerf (which was necessary for the health of the game), Paladins got buffed in almost literally every other aspect.
I get that, but if I wanted to play a defensive support friend, I'd play a pf2 paladin equivalent. 5e paladins were fun for nuking things.
Oh I'm not denying it was fun as hell! My very first character was an Oath of Vengeance Paladin, and one of my best game-table memories was dropping a 4th Level Divine Smite on a critical hit against a Brainstealer Dragon.
At the same time, having played numerous non-Paladin characters since then, I can see how game-warping the old Divine Smite really was. Especially when you throw multiclassing into the mix.
I’ve never played a Paladin personally in 5e, but I am playing one in Baldurs Gate right now. I definitely like being able to smite multiple times a turn, but it burns through all of your spell slots so quickly, and then you don’t have any left when you need them for other things.
I like that more features are being moved to the spell chapter, since it means less flipping through the book to find all the rules, and the spells are always alphabetized. It also makes the rules more clear for divine smite using a spell slot and how upcasting it works.
I think since you can only do it once a turn now though, I would like it if the damage scaled more with higher level slots (like from 2d8 at level 1 to 4d8 at level 2 etc). I’m really hoping that’s the case since they did a similar thing in the UA with healing spells.
I would like it if the damage scaled more with higher level slots (like from 2d8 at level 1 to 4d8 at level 2 etc).
The way its described in D&DBeyond, and how it was in the Playtesr, they just ported Divine Smite as is to the Bonus Action, so... I wouldn't put much faith in an actual "buff" to Divine Smite damage because that would recquire some effort on the team's part that was not present when Paladin's Smite was announced to be in the 2024 PHB after nerfing it.
I actually think the changes push the Paladin into more of a Battlefield commander role. Devotion paladin that only has a +1 or +2 Strength and pumps Charisma is now a top tier build.
Drop strength entirely and take the cantrip fighting style so you can be a full time caster!
Probably taking it too far.
If you have a +1 or +2, you essentially have a +1 or +2 weapon when you use Sacred Weapon, and you can wear Heavy Armor
I kind of like that it disincentivizes players from multiclass dipping into paladin for the Divine Smite feature when they aren’t interested in playing the class and are just interested in dealing more damage. I’m not a big fan of Smite using a bonus action, but that does give it parity with rangers who use their bonus action for Hunter’s Mark.
It’s awful. The other buffs they made are minimal, and smites are the entire reason people play Paladin. They’re nerfing the core identity of the paladin. I know that at my table, we’ll keep on using 5e paladin smite rules.
Smite is not the whole reason people play Paladin. People play paladin because they want to be a Holy Warrior. Paladin's identity is being a hardy frontline fighter that can also support the party through their healing, spells and auras, and in that sense the class has only been enhanced.
The line of thinking that players play Paladins simply for Smite is probably a big part of why they nerfed it. Ya'll get free healing to give out as you see fit, built-in Mount, f'n Auras. I swear some Paladin players sound like actual children when you put what the Paladin can do into context and then see them upset about Smite.
What? Smite is still there you know.
...you are aware you can still smite, right?
Once per turn and it’s both a spell and a bonus action???
yes? if you don't consider 5e paladin nova potential to be problematic then I can see why this is the end of the world for you.
you even get to smite more than before, just not in the same round.
The UA where it was still a feature and was once per turn fixed that turning smite into a spell that costs your bonus action makes no sense at all.
You don't think bonus action bloat is problematic? Read the fucking thread more than anything this garbage is what people take issue with
Honestly massive buffs. The 1 smite per turn was necessary, and all the smite spells got better anyway.
I was actually hoping they would nerf Aura of Protection a little. This „cant play with, cant play without“ state of saving throws is annoying.
More than fine with the smite change. I always felt it was a bit gimmicky to be able to basically stack damage on a critical after the fact. It didn't require any planning and I'm not a fan of braindead plays. I like that find steed is becoming part of the core.
That's what it boils down really. The fact that you can just declare a smite after the fact is what needed to change mainly. Oh you did a hit, maybe I'll smite but I dunno... Oh wait my next hit is a critical yeah I'm gonna pump the largest spell slot I have into the smite so I can roll even more dice for more damage.
Sneak attack it's at least expected because you either need advantage to make it work or someone next to the enemy. So it feels more rewarding in that regard, even with goofy (but still understandable) plays such as off-turn sneak attack. And flavour wise it still makes sense, your using your reaction to stab someone while they're distracted with someone else. Rogues are meant to cheat and be slippery, so its only fair that they can do sneak attack off-turn.
Big fan of them. Paladins having an on demand trigger for massive damage at no action economy cost was always going to be a sticking point in their balance rulings. Anything that could grant better team synergy or core buffs had to be weighed against the potential for it upsetting Smite balance even more outta whack with other martials.
I say this as a current Paladin LOVER, and I recognize that part of why I like them so much us because of how universally strong they already are. Now with the new changes, their one round burst potential is throttled back some and in return I'll be getting a whole suite of new buffs and customization options...while still being one of the most effective melee damage dealer in the game.
I feel like they purposely tuned them down a bit. I feel like this puts pally more in line with other classes, pally was really strong before now they are more “fair”. They are still viable and with the new weapon mastery system I don’t think it’s as bad as people think. People will use smites more I think because they aren’t praying for a critical nuke but I dunno obviously I need to do more play testing.
I love the find steed changes, I think people don’t realize how powerful a steed can be when used properly.
I disagree on the smite angle of things. I have no doubt that 2024 paladin players will smite less except for crits because now it also expends your bonus action not to mention that the free use of the spell will almost certainly never see use after the early game. With it costing so much. Same goes for find steed/faithful steed.
I love it, I always felt paladin smite needed to be brought it quite a bit.
Ya, they got a nerf, but it wasn’t a huge one and it was good. I like it
The base class got what's probably normally a fairly mild nerf, and the subclasses, in general, got, if not buffs on all cases, a more uniform level of power that tacks on at a more steady rate over the course of a campaign (non-Vengeance Paladin channel divinity features may actually see use now!). Overall, the changes are probably for the best.
As far as I know so far, it's great overall. Smite nerf in the end is not the end all be all when you got literally everything else either unchanged/rolled into a feature (subclass auras are just now part of Aura of Protection rather than being their own 'feature' so to speak, and scale with aura size) or buffed.
What I do miss though is that one of the UAs had all of the paladin smite spells be bonus spells that you get for free. It's minor but I liked that part of it. Felt thematic since you can flavour it as channeling your divine smite into one of banishment or to set it ablaze with holy fire. Just neat overall.
I thinks it's the correct direction to take paladins. No dm is going to counter your smites, and you are also probably going to encounter a rakshasa once every 10 years, if that. The class got so many other fun tools. It's mostly only the "but muh DPR" crowd that is super upset about it. It's dnd, not bleeding edge world first raiding.
1 missing reply
Middle. It's less of a striker and more of a defensive buffer. But that's only after a brief review.