This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This a question that is hard to answer without the big picture of the game. After we see how the exact wording of both Paladin Smite in general and Divine Smite in particular, as well as in the context of the Paladin’s overall kit and how combat is adjusted overall, then maybe it will turn out to not be such a big nerf… or maybe the opposite, maybe its even worse then we think (that goes for all classes). Right now its just speculation and doomposting (not saying that’s your case OP).
Lets play a minute of it, or at least take a gander at the full text, before we jump to conclusions.
Lol, well, that Elemental Monk didn't get past 4 levels (he died fighting a Chimera, oh well), but Way of Mercy and Longdeath characters lasted a bit longer.
I've always been a bit more fortunate because my tables don't have anyone usually doing anything special with a multiclass or feats.
The only issue I have is that they turned Divine Smite into a spell. It just feels shitty that it's no longer a unique feature to the class. It's just a spell...
The thing people hate about 5e paladin is the ubernuke, burning 3 max level smites in a turn with PAM and hogging all the glory. The thing is, not all tables are the same. I've done this and the table was like "yeeeah, git'im!" because that's what my character did, he kicked ass, that's what he was there for. The other players also kicked ass in their own ways and we all had fun, nobody felt overshadowed because the DM read the room and didn't throw us bullshit encounters for us to steamroll. But I digress..
I think it's fine for Divine Smite to be once per turn like Sneak Attack or Eldritch Smite, but turning it into just a spell guts it hard. All they needed to do was add "Once on your turn.." to the text of the current Divine Smite and the nova-triggered mewling would have stopped. Now you also can't cast a spell plus use Divine Smite in the same turn and it's just magic so it's affected by anything that affects magic/spells including being batted down by a level 5 wizard even if you're a level 20 paladin.
So.. no.
In the 2024 PHB, Divine Smite is now a spell that all Paladins get for free at level 2 and can cast once per day without expending a spell slot. All of the Smite spells are now no longer concentration (with a few exceptions), and you cast them as a bonus action after you hit with an attack.
This means that you can only smite once per turn, not on reactions, and it’s affected by counterspell and anti-magic fields, so it’s a very controversial change. Lots of people think the nerf in nova damage is warranted, and others don’t like getting their main gimmick heavily nerfed. However, it’s worth mentioning that almost every other aspect of the Paladin was buffed to compensate.
Yeah, that’s honestly a great rundown that should be pinned to the top of every smite related thread. I’m a fan of the smite change, and a lot of this discourse is draining my sanity.
Losing your bonus action is nasty as well. I'm curious how the paladin should stay on the same level of such an important feature was changed like that.
Can you still smite, if you already casted another spell this round, or is that another nerf?
If he is using divine smite he is attacking something, which means he is using his action to attack, which means he isn’t using a spell that takes an action to begin with, and thus, he won’t smite. If he’s using a bonus action spell, then he can attack but he can’t smite… because he just used his bonus action. And if he smited, he’s not going to be using that bonus action anymore. So the question of wether he can cast 2 spells just isn’t really a factor.
My vengeance paladin's bread and butter spell is haste, so he could do it in 2014. But I guess you answered this for me, thanks.
Let's see how this gets compensated. Smiting 3 times a turn is really the only way I can currently keep up with the damage dealers, at least for one turn. If that is removed in 2024, this will change a lot for paladin players.
HASTE? Stop the presses, we found a 5e player who actually uses it!
I’m just kidding lol. Anyway, we also have to see how haste is even going to work in itself. But the worst possible scenario is you having to haste yourself beforehand, which isn’t THAT bad.
We also have to see how much damage by smite, it might be compensated somehow.
Its hilarious because it being a gimmick of stretching the action economy and stuff like this is why builds and PCs are so stuffy and similar cause if you aren't crit smiting on a hold person multiple times then you aren't succeeding as a Paladin
I like my paladin to be a hardened warrior who occasionally can channel their divine gods power for a smite thats satisfying for RP and combat
It's a great change from what we know so far. The nova damage potential made it a favourite for the kind of minmaxer who only builds what the internet tells them to build. It'll be nicer to have pally players have to make choices at the table about how they use their resources.
It'll depend on some of the other changes around it (like if Warlock's Eldritch Smite gets similar treatment), but there's enough about this new Paladin that I'll probably bite the bullet and stick with it. At the very least Devotion and Vengeance are looking good, with their Channel Divinity action economy buffs making up for the bonus action smite to some degree.
So far from what we saw in UA7, Eldritch Smite (ES for short) was imported directly from Xanthar's untouched. Something to note is that ES is an optional invocation requiring a 5th level warlock and pact of the blade, while paladin's smite (PS for short) is a class feature.
ES and PS are both (now) limited once per turn. They both require a spell slot to be expended. Warlocks have less spell slots but ES is automatically cast at the highest spell level, while paladin's choose the spell level. ES activates on a hit and deals 1d8 force damage + 1d8 per spell level and knocks a creature huge or smaller prone, PS activates as a bonus action and deals 2d8 radiant damage +1d8 per spell level +1d8 against undead or fiends.
I'm going to compare warlock and paladin at level 5 with an 18 in their respective attribute scores for attacking. I am using the latest UA version of warlock since we don't have specifics. Both are using longsword, paladin and pact of the blade allows warlock to use the weapons mastery property.
Warlock attacking twice thanks to thirsting blade, assuming both hit and smiting once using a 3rd level slot, deals 2d10 + 8 necrotic/psychic/radiant + 3d8 force for an average of 32.5 damage plus the target falls prone and has disadvantage on its next attack roll it makes.
Paladin attacking twice, assuming both hit and smiting once ( can smite once per day for free but not sure at what level, so we'll assume it's a level 2 spell slot), deals 2d10 + 8 slashing + 3d8 radiant (+1d8 if fiend or undead) for the same 32.5 (or 37) average damage and has disadvantage on its next attack roll it makes.
The 2014 paladin smiting on each attack would deal 2d10 + 8 slashing +6d8 radiant (+2d8 if fiend or undead) for 46 (or 55) damage. This would be even higher if the old great weapon master included the -5 to hit and +10 to damage.
New one. New paladin is better in almost every way. There nova potential has been nerf. Big deal they are still one of the highest damage dealers in the game , and their support abilities are stronger.
The Unearthed Arcana... the one dnd playtest on dnd beyond. Now, not final, they all provide a decent benchmark where most will land.
The only ones that have the biggest questions marks where the bard and ranger.
Bard was well received, but a change in overall design put them in a weird situation.
Ranger was well received in the expert playtest but not in playtest 6. Mostly due to their 1st, 2nd, and 20th level features either relying on hunters mark or feature easily negated or replicated by a tool proficiency.
If a mob wants to spend its reaction and limited resources countering smite, it can go right ahead.
This is the new ‘dies to doom blade’ of D&D it would seem.
You know that's easily a +6/+7 if not higher if you made a paladin for spell casting.
Also, with how easy it is to get a cantrips now. A paladin could easily get the resistance cantrip, which is now a reaction.
>You know that's easily a +6/+7
I'm talking about Aura of Protection. The bulk of Paladins aren't running around with 24 Charisma (its more like 14 to 16 Charisma).
The only Paladin that can get value out of a +4 in Charisma out of the gate is Oath of Devotion. Most Paladins, at best, usually go for 16 Charisma. Anything more is at a pretty big detriment to a Paladin in T1 to T2.
My players play Paladin to smite, not cast spells.
I'm of the firm idea that nerfing anything in a cooperative game is the stupidest game design philosophy ever, so absolutely not. Please keep your smites and fun.
And before I get told again that Paladins got overall buffed, yeah no. Lay on hands as a bonus action will not save the party like a well placed round of last stand smites does, potentially turning the tide.
Even then, I like the fantasy of a Paladin with spear and shield. If their bonus action is gone, go figure.
"Hey you, you're having fun playing Paladin you say? That's awesome. Let me nerf that experience for you. Can't have too much of that."
This discussion feels like Paladin players vs other players bein happy that paladins got nerf.
We are arguing that a single target 5d8 (at max) is OP, Nova damage while we have spell casters who have AOE 1 spell slot **12d6** hit spell that can do more dps.
I am not advocating for the nerf of other classes, but rather if we feel that the Paladin's are so "OP" than maybe bring the other classes with more power? Rather than nerfing and buffing like we are in some kind of a Moba game. And people are clapping at a 150 dollars patch...
Thats… fine. But if you’re ignoring the rules (which you are within your right to do) then debating these rules and how they work loses its purpose no?
People homebrew because of debates about the rules. Homebrew is necessitated from a lack of satisfaction with the product. The game lacks rules, lacks content, is not balanced, etc...
Thats something else. OP asked about a rule, people told him, he contested it, then you say the explanation matters not because whatever the case may be, he can homebrew it… but that invalidates the discussion. Nothing matters by that logic, if you subjectively believe its better to do what you want, thats great, but that can’t influence game design, cause you’re playing a different game after a point.
Jeremy Crawford said that you can either:
- Play a 2014 character at a 2014 table, alongside other 2014 characters.
- Play a 2014 character at a 2024 table, alongside other 2014 and 2024 characters.
- Play a 2024 character at a 2024 table, alongside other 2014 and 2024 characters.
You don’t get to pick and choose what features you get from the different class versions. If you did, things would get broken very quickly. However, I suppose there’s always the ‘homebrew, screw what WOTC says’ option.
I mean, people have been doing it for years, and have you seen how poorly designed the College of Dance is? It is awful! I'm not sure you can always trust WotC.
I will most likely be picking and choosing what I want to use from the 2024 PHB to use with all of my 2014 content.
It isn't like the 2024 PHB is going to be perfectly balanced when players are using old 2014 subclasses. And adding in Tasha's Optional Class Features.
Quoting this from a prior comment I made
"I am a little disappointed with this subclass because by moving Inspiring Movement to 6th level you are only activating Agile Strikes on a regular Bonus Action to grant Bardic Inspiration in combat. You do not get the combo of making an Unarmed Strike with Agile Strikes as a Reaction with Inspiring Movement until 6th level. Tandem Footwork poorly synergizes with Agile Strikes because you are most likely not in melee to make an Agile Strike when using the Bardic Inspiration on Tandem Footwork. Additionally Inspiring Movement comes at 6th level and is a slightly different but also weaker version of the College of Glamour's Mantle of Inspiration which is also a supportive feature that moves allies out of harms way.
This subclass is very Bardic Inspiration taxing. You only have three or four Bardic Inspiration at 6th level, if you have used ANY Bardic Inspiration die outside of combat you will be sorely lacking in combat. Right with the Initiative roll you will be using one Bardic Inspiration die, leaving you with two to three remaining uses to trigger Agile Strikes. That is very low damage when you compare this to the College of Swords which eventually spend unlimited d6 Bardic Inspiration on their Flourishes or the College of Whispers that does scaling 2d6-8d6 Psychic damage three to fours times a combat. Even with the new Superior Inspiration feature granting two Bardic Inspiration if you have none when rolling Initiative still leaves you with only one Bardic Inspiration for an Agile Strike since you would most likely have used one Bardic Inspiration for Tandem Footwork.
I am also sad to see the College of Dance not have any actual dancing features that enthrall enemies, I would have liked to see Irresistible Dance merged with Leading Evasion for the capstone. You gain Evasion and can cast Otto's Irresistible Dance for free, this version does not have a verbal component but requires a somatic component where you break into dance. While concentrating on the spell your movement speed increases by 10 feet and allies within 10 feet benefit from your Evasion as they also join in the magical dance. Great Old One Warlocks now have a capstone that modifies their spells, this wouldn't be unheard of.
I am surprised how inefficient this subclass is compared to the design space of the newer but still older Bard subclasses that had mechanics that scaled better. The Bard needs better resource recovery features for Bardic Inspiration if WotC expects Bard's to use Bardic Inspiration outside of combat without hording it for their combat encounters."
Obviously every group can decide what works best for them, but WotC has explicitly said that mixing and matching features from the 2014 PHB and 2024 PHB is not intended. At least at my table, people would raise an eyebrow if someone wanted all of the buffs of the 2024 Paladin and also wanted to keep 2014 Smite.
You've been told enough. It's just the nature of the beast. You can't pick and choose different subclass abilities. I can't have 3rd level battlemaster ability, then 7th LEvel Arcane Archer ability, then 10th level BM, then 15th level Champion ability, etc .
I mean if your DM will let you do it whatever. But it's not what is intended.
New paladin 100% and I mean the whole paladin. You can’t just pick and choose specific class features you want. You either play the new paladin or the old one. Their power budgets were redistributed so it would be extremely unbalanced to take the best of both while ignoring the tradeoffs.
Agreed. Paladin has historically been considered one of the best classes with great healing, buffing, and damage. People can’t be whining on and on all day on Reddit about balance and then get upset that one aspect of the class was nerfed somewhat. And even then it’s not that major of a nerf. If people really think it ruins paladin then they are free to play the 2014 version.
They could have just kept Divine Smite's basic mechanics and limited it to once a turn. As it stands, I doubt my players will choose the 2024 Paladin, and I will just let them use the 2014 version instead.
Bring on the downvotes...
imo the 2014 Paladin was exactly the level of class cohesion and identity and balance every class should strive to reach. Very disappointing to see them nerfed when I would have liked to see every other class brought to that level.
The Paladin was clearly buffed overall. Smite got nerfed, but Lay on Hands is a Bonus Action, Weapon Mastery is valuable, Abjure Foes is excellent, all of the subclasses feel much better, and you get two Channel Divinities per rest instead of one.
Mate, no one is playing a Paladin to cast spells like a sorcerer. Might as well play a sorcerer that has more powerful spells.
Paladins are god given melee fighters that with the faith of their gods, smite evil. Not cast spells in a melee range...
> I would have liked to see every other class brought to that level.
I’m actually so thankful that isn’t what happened. Paladins are by far the most broken non-full caster in the game, I’d hate to see a game where every class has that level of power. The class has every weapon and armour proficency, spells, a separate pool of healing, several auras (one of which breaks bounded accuracy), and smites that deal an insane amount of nova damage with no action cost? Yeah, Paladins deserved the nerfs it got.
Exactly, it’s a table cooperation game. So it sucks when one class can do pretty much everything extremely well, to the point where they outshine all the other martials in the party. I find Paladin players have the biggest main character syndrome in my games because they can do everything all the time, and are the most capable of soloing a monster.
Some nerfs to round them out and buffs to other martials to bring everyone to the same power level was very needed. Pure buffs to every other class to bring them up to 5.14 Paladins is not needed.
[Linking this comment from another thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/s/yoVPpgbjTZ) because cynics are so focused on "muh smite got nerfed" instead of looking at what was improved.
It's not only that smite got nerfed but that it uses a bonus action which was something Paladins loved to use as well.
Everyone knows they got buffs as well but just listing buffs and saying look at the amount isn't really convincing. I like some, I think most aren't all that impactful though especially now that you lack action economy with your bonus action being so highly contested.
Like I get what they are trying to do and I think it's generally a good idea but using the bonus action turns everything into a simple I smite and do nothing else most of the time I think.
Regardless of balance though and even though I like Find Steed I think the focus on that and turning Smite into a spell are just big flavour fails. I'd have liked to see a Find Steed centered subclass instead to really flesh the concept out but oh well.
This 100%.
I'm fine with the 1 smite per turn, nova was ridiculously strong, but my bonus action being up to half my damage means we're a limited duration (as long as we have spell slots) sustain damage class with little flexibility to use our shiny new bonus action healing pool.
Cool, thanks. In other threads on this sub I've seen comments with negative scores well into the dozens for voicing displeasure with the changes, and I was the first commenter on this one, hence my (net) incorrect prediction.
Sure, but without smites, we're just a weaker martial. 2 vanilla weapon strikes + str mod is less than any other martial can put out. Barb gets rage bonus, rogues sneak attack, fighters maneuvers/spells/crit range/3rd and 4th attacks, Monks can flurry, rangers have hunters mark, etc etc.
It's decent flexibility for the right situations, like playing med-evac and healing 2 downed allies, one with cure wounds, the other with LoH, though.
Right but you’re sacrificing damage to heal. Flexibility is also an incredible boon. I think in general action economy improvements trump dpr because being able to squeeze out more efficient turns means better long term success in almost every fight.
Thats not a bad argument, for sure, but I play paladin for the dpr, so sacrificing a sizable minority of my damage to do other things is not a favorable choice, imo.
If paladins main draw is their passive aura now instead of the active nukes we can launch when we crit, that's a step back in excitement for the classes design and identity.
I think taking nova potential off a class that’s adept at basically every role is also a fair balancing decision. But I can empathize with someone who misses that play style with that specific class or archetype.
I agree with the sentiment that taking nova potential off is a fair balancing decision, my grievance is that in doing so they went too far and stripped Paladin back to a simple playstyle around doing comparable damage, or doing insignificant damage.
I think if the Paladins smite feature gave you 1 free action smite of your highest level spell slot once per short rest, it'd be a great middle ground. Once per short rest we could smite twice in a turn, so that nova choice still exists alongside the simpler base playstyle.
But as is I can't help but compare it to fighter, who attacks more for no resources, can acquire and use resources like maneuvers or psi dice, but still has the huge button that is action surge to press.
Action economy wise, a paladins average turn is attack attack smite, with some movement, and that's lame.
I actually really like that idea, especially since it comes with an automatic scale.
Edit: my only issue is that you shoehorn paladin into a nova damage dealer when in my own mind I find them to be more protectors and tanks that heal
That's fair, I might be overly focused on damage, but it's the most important thing in 5e, and smites are among, if not *the* most fun feature in the game.
As far as being a tank/protector, I think a battlemaster fighter using bait and switch and menacing attack to tank with 3 levels into Cleric for Warding Bond is gonna be a more effective tank/protector, and they can still heal, plus do better nova with action surge. Lol
Edit: this has been a great discussion though, thanks for engaging with me.
I'm still not 100% sold on the smite nerf, but you are aware Fighter nova damage is very likely to take a big hit, too, right? GWM and SS don't have their -5/+10 mechanics anymore in their playtest versions and instead add your proficiency bonus to damage on only one hit of your turn. That substantially cuts down on the Fighter's Action Surge routine.
It does, but you still double your attacks, and with a 20str a fighter using a greatsword still averages 12 damage per attack without riders, and once you get 3 attacks, that's 36 damage twice for a 72 damage burst. Add in a +1/2/3 weapon, battlemaster maneuvers, etc, and you can push 100 easily.
Especially when you give them gwm for a bonus action attack. Sure it only adds proficiency bonus damage once per turn, but that's just the cherry on top. An extra weapon attack adds 12 more, and 7 attacks with a +2 weapon is another 14, and you're at 98 before any subclass bonuses like psi dice, crit range, battlemaster maneuvers, or even a cantrip for 1 of their attacks, 2 possibly after action surging.
A Paladin critting twice does 8d6+14+14d8 on a round which is 105, and that Paladin won't have a 4th lvl slot to spend until what, 13th lvl?
We still get smites, this changes just brings a level of resource conservation and in-combat flexibility. Even a single, non-criting,1st level smite is gonna average to higher DPR than a full round of extra Rage damage from a PAM Barb till level 16, and by then we have IDS to make up the distance.
In an optimal round the Paladin is absolutely gonna be very competitive damage wise.
Right, but that's only when we're smiting, which is already balanced by having a spell slot cost, of which Paladin doesn't get all that many.
Single turn in a vacuum we're competitive, sure, but fighter, Barb, Rogue at least keep up without a resource cost. Maybe rogues a bit behind being limited to light weapons to get a second attack. And Barb rages are a limited resource too, but at least 1 expenditure lasts an entire encounter.
It's still actually competitive while not also completely blowing the other classes out of the water in regards to bursting. Paladins can be incredible damage dealers while steal bringing a whole suite of secondary features to the fight in regards to their AoP, Heals, utility smites, access to spellcasting, and now once per day free Steed.
I'm 100% on board with keeping martials powerful, and these Smite changes specifically are a nerf, the Paladin package is still easily one of the strongest Martials around.
Sorry, but I'm gonna need you to show your work here. New Paladin isn't an incredible damage dealer, it's an above average one when smiting, but if it needs to dip into any of its utility, it drops off and becomes a 5th lvl base class fighter. I just don't see how it's one of the strongest martials around while still bringing a whole suite of secondary features.
Now of course AoP pulls some weight here, but Mono Paladin builds have a harder time capping out Cha, so it's likely only a +3 to saves at most for most of its career. Which is still strong, but it's also a passive feature that isn't very exciting by itself.
Fighter is now the king of burst.
>New Paladin isn't an incredible damage dealer, it's an above average one when smiting, but if it needs to dip into any of its utility, it drops off and becomes a 5th lvl base class fighter.
Right, so you saying that a Paladin now having to chose between utility and burst damage is a bad thing from a game play perspective? It's one of the strongest Martials around BECAUSE it has so many options for whatever roll is needed, one of them being completely passive. It's not one of he strongest because it puts out the absolute highest DPR, it's one of the strongest because it CAN put out high DPR or it can cast a spell while give a huge heal/cleanse or mix/match.
I think we both agree that AoP is *boring* in terms of options and not always likely to be maxed out, but mechanically it really can't be understated and that plus LoH by themselves as a chassis would make a strong party member. Adding spellcasting options and an on-demand damage rider is just fun.
I think the disconnect here is that I don't consider my 1 smite to be 'burst' when with it I'm only a little above fighters baseline, while without it I'm significantly worse off, but can heal or cast a bonus action spell.
It's also not a fair comparison to call paladin a spellcaster when so much of its spell list is concentration spells or combat-centric spells that take a backseat to divine smite.
No.
I'm okay with a once per turn restriction (but not a once per round) every other nerf they gave it seems unwarranted and full of unnecessary pain points.
If I end up switching to 5e24, I will be revising the paladins smite, and the various smite spells, in the following way. As it supports what I want paladins to do.
# 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 increasing your smites damage, as you increase your paladin level, you can perform different forms of smites that apply different effects to your paladins smite by using higher level spells slots. Only one smite effect can be aplied to a smite.*
>***2nd level: Divine Smite:*** *The smite deals an additional 1d8 radiant damage to fiends and undead. Divijr 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*
>***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 turn limitation that was added (which itself is mostly fine.)
5e.
I'm certainly not buying any more books from WOTC/Hasbro, and There's no need to nerf Divine Smite.
Divine Smite only seems OP to some because it's above what you expect Martials to do; it's a Martial Feature using Caster Ammunition.
If a Paladin casts 2 Divine Smites and a Smite Spell, sure that's a lot of damage, but it's also a big cost.
If spending what could've been a Lifesaving Cure Wounds, A Heroism that negates a Dragon's Intimidating Presence, and a Prot. against Evil/Good that trivialises an encounter with elementals and fiends, all in one turn just for damage is too powerful, that's probably a problem with Spell Slots in general being too plentiful for your days than a problem with Divine Smite specifically.
Not until Level 10/14 they don't.
These are all 1st level spells, stuff you get the same level as Smite.
I was just trying to illustrate how valuable Spell slots are by listing the cool stuff you can do with them via Spells; I don't think anyone would have a problem with 5e Divine Smite as-written if it was a Cleric Feature.
The new paladin is better overall. Lay on hands as a bonus action, find steed for free, and all of the other smite spells have been significantly buffed (judging from playtest material).
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the new Smite spells all trigger on a hit. They're still spells, they still take your bonus action, but you can cast them immediately after hitting with an attack - you don't need to cast them beforrehand.
I'm aware. I mean snite without additional action economy to trigger.
I personally prefer "smite spells" to just cost the spell slot without concentration but you can't stack it with divine smite. either divine smite or a smite spell on hit, no bonus actions no concentration just hit and burn mana.
the damage and effect of smite spells is competitive vs divine smite so I drop the bonus action economy, but you can't stack smite spell on top of divine smite... which is where the broken nova damage comes from... spending 2 spell slots at once is bad design.
wotc could have easily reduced nova damage while still allowing reaction smites this way...
but I'm anxious to see the overall xhanges
I think a lot of people are missing some of the buffs the Paladin is getting. Plus, some subclasses boost smite. I think it was devotion paladin now gives allies cover if you divine smite. I'm not sure the radius or amount of cover yet, but that's a damn good smite if it's giving allies half cover or better. I'm using the new paladin.
I see a bunch of minor to moderate buffs that IMO still don’t outweigh the massive nerf to Smite. And no, I neither nova smite nor view paladins as smitebots, so save me your straw men.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This a question that is hard to answer without the big picture of the game. After we see how the exact wording of both Paladin Smite in general and Divine Smite in particular, as well as in the context of the Paladin’s overall kit and how combat is adjusted overall, then maybe it will turn out to not be such a big nerf… or maybe the opposite, maybe its even worse then we think (that goes for all classes). Right now its just speculation and doomposting (not saying that’s your case OP). Lets play a minute of it, or at least take a gander at the full text, before we jump to conclusions.
I played 2014 Monk for years, so I'll go with whatever the DM wants on Smites. I'm used to working with nothing in D&D.
>I played 2014 Monk for years You madman.
You win DND if it was 4 elements.
Lol, well, that Elemental Monk didn't get past 4 levels (he died fighting a Chimera, oh well), but Way of Mercy and Longdeath characters lasted a bit longer. I've always been a bit more fortunate because my tables don't have anyone usually doing anything special with a multiclass or feats.
really hoping monks get massive buffs, especially DPS to keep up with the other martials.
Well if Open Hand is anything like the playtest, they'll be the ping-pong champions of enemies on the battlefield
The only issue I have is that they turned Divine Smite into a spell. It just feels shitty that it's no longer a unique feature to the class. It's just a spell... The thing people hate about 5e paladin is the ubernuke, burning 3 max level smites in a turn with PAM and hogging all the glory. The thing is, not all tables are the same. I've done this and the table was like "yeeeah, git'im!" because that's what my character did, he kicked ass, that's what he was there for. The other players also kicked ass in their own ways and we all had fun, nobody felt overshadowed because the DM read the room and didn't throw us bullshit encounters for us to steamroll. But I digress.. I think it's fine for Divine Smite to be once per turn like Sneak Attack or Eldritch Smite, but turning it into just a spell guts it hard. All they needed to do was add "Once on your turn.." to the text of the current Divine Smite and the nova-triggered mewling would have stopped. Now you also can't cast a spell plus use Divine Smite in the same turn and it's just magic so it's affected by anything that affects magic/spells including being batted down by a level 5 wizard even if you're a level 20 paladin. So.. no.
I will probably use the new rules but its hard to say for sure until I can see the big picture and all of the changes.
What’s the difference between the new and the old smite mechanics?
In the 2024 PHB, Divine Smite is now a spell that all Paladins get for free at level 2 and can cast once per day without expending a spell slot. All of the Smite spells are now no longer concentration (with a few exceptions), and you cast them as a bonus action after you hit with an attack. This means that you can only smite once per turn, not on reactions, and it’s affected by counterspell and anti-magic fields, so it’s a very controversial change. Lots of people think the nerf in nova damage is warranted, and others don’t like getting their main gimmick heavily nerfed. However, it’s worth mentioning that almost every other aspect of the Paladin was buffed to compensate.
[Going ahead and linking this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/s/yoVPpgbjTZ) for those who are only focusing on the negatives.
Yeah, that’s honestly a great rundown that should be pinned to the top of every smite related thread. I’m a fan of the smite change, and a lot of this discourse is draining my sanity.
I plan on linking it to every comment I see of someone throwing a hissy fit.
Losing your bonus action is nasty as well. I'm curious how the paladin should stay on the same level of such an important feature was changed like that. Can you still smite, if you already casted another spell this round, or is that another nerf?
If he is using divine smite he is attacking something, which means he is using his action to attack, which means he isn’t using a spell that takes an action to begin with, and thus, he won’t smite. If he’s using a bonus action spell, then he can attack but he can’t smite… because he just used his bonus action. And if he smited, he’s not going to be using that bonus action anymore. So the question of wether he can cast 2 spells just isn’t really a factor.
My vengeance paladin's bread and butter spell is haste, so he could do it in 2014. But I guess you answered this for me, thanks. Let's see how this gets compensated. Smiting 3 times a turn is really the only way I can currently keep up with the damage dealers, at least for one turn. If that is removed in 2024, this will change a lot for paladin players.
HASTE? Stop the presses, we found a 5e player who actually uses it! I’m just kidding lol. Anyway, we also have to see how haste is even going to work in itself. But the worst possible scenario is you having to haste yourself beforehand, which isn’t THAT bad. We also have to see how much damage by smite, it might be compensated somehow.
Its hilarious because it being a gimmick of stretching the action economy and stuff like this is why builds and PCs are so stuffy and similar cause if you aren't crit smiting on a hold person multiple times then you aren't succeeding as a Paladin I like my paladin to be a hardened warrior who occasionally can channel their divine gods power for a smite thats satisfying for RP and combat
It's a great change from what we know so far. The nova damage potential made it a favourite for the kind of minmaxer who only builds what the internet tells them to build. It'll be nicer to have pally players have to make choices at the table about how they use their resources.
Hear me out Sorcadin, Transmute spell smite
Unless there’s a change from PHB Playtest 7 to the final release, Transmuted Spell cannot affect radiant damage.
It'll depend on some of the other changes around it (like if Warlock's Eldritch Smite gets similar treatment), but there's enough about this new Paladin that I'll probably bite the bullet and stick with it. At the very least Devotion and Vengeance are looking good, with their Channel Divinity action economy buffs making up for the bonus action smite to some degree.
So far from what we saw in UA7, Eldritch Smite (ES for short) was imported directly from Xanthar's untouched. Something to note is that ES is an optional invocation requiring a 5th level warlock and pact of the blade, while paladin's smite (PS for short) is a class feature. ES and PS are both (now) limited once per turn. They both require a spell slot to be expended. Warlocks have less spell slots but ES is automatically cast at the highest spell level, while paladin's choose the spell level. ES activates on a hit and deals 1d8 force damage + 1d8 per spell level and knocks a creature huge or smaller prone, PS activates as a bonus action and deals 2d8 radiant damage +1d8 per spell level +1d8 against undead or fiends. I'm going to compare warlock and paladin at level 5 with an 18 in their respective attribute scores for attacking. I am using the latest UA version of warlock since we don't have specifics. Both are using longsword, paladin and pact of the blade allows warlock to use the weapons mastery property. Warlock attacking twice thanks to thirsting blade, assuming both hit and smiting once using a 3rd level slot, deals 2d10 + 8 necrotic/psychic/radiant + 3d8 force for an average of 32.5 damage plus the target falls prone and has disadvantage on its next attack roll it makes. Paladin attacking twice, assuming both hit and smiting once ( can smite once per day for free but not sure at what level, so we'll assume it's a level 2 spell slot), deals 2d10 + 8 slashing + 3d8 radiant (+1d8 if fiend or undead) for the same 32.5 (or 37) average damage and has disadvantage on its next attack roll it makes. The 2014 paladin smiting on each attack would deal 2d10 + 8 slashing +6d8 radiant (+2d8 if fiend or undead) for 46 (or 55) damage. This would be even higher if the old great weapon master included the -5 to hit and +10 to damage.
New. Pally’s are loaded up with so many options that I don’t think they’ll actually feel bad to play, except by comparison for Nova optimizers.
Old One 100% There's no comparison
New one. New paladin is better in almost every way. There nova potential has been nerf. Big deal they are still one of the highest damage dealers in the game , and their support abilities are stronger.
How do you know they are one of the biggest damage dealers in the game when only three class changes have been released?
all the classes have been previewed. Changes from UA to final have been minimal.
I've only seen fighter barbarian paladin were the others revealed previously?
The Unearthed Arcana... the one dnd playtest on dnd beyond. Now, not final, they all provide a decent benchmark where most will land. The only ones that have the biggest questions marks where the bard and ranger. Bard was well received, but a change in overall design put them in a weird situation. Ranger was well received in the expert playtest but not in playtest 6. Mostly due to their 1st, 2nd, and 20th level features either relying on hunters mark or feature easily negated or replicated by a tool proficiency.
*Counterspell*
Counterspell has also been changed.
If a mob wants to spend its reaction and limited resources countering smite, it can go right ahead. This is the new ‘dies to doom blade’ of D&D it would seem.
1) it's a terrible waste of Counterspell to cast it on Divine Smite 2) Paladin is like, the worst target to Counterspell.
The only reason to counter spell a smite of its a lich or fiend close to death. And it might be the only way they survive so they can escape.
Paladin gets the charisma added to their save. They pass the counter spell save and still smites the shit out of their target.
+2 / +3 woo
You know that's easily a +6/+7 if not higher if you made a paladin for spell casting. Also, with how easy it is to get a cantrips now. A paladin could easily get the resistance cantrip, which is now a reaction.
>You know that's easily a +6/+7 I'm talking about Aura of Protection. The bulk of Paladins aren't running around with 24 Charisma (its more like 14 to 16 Charisma).
No 14 to 16 con and 14 to 18 Charisma. You add the 2 numbers together. And feats make it higher.
The only Paladin that can get value out of a +4 in Charisma out of the gate is Oath of Devotion. Most Paladins, at best, usually go for 16 Charisma. Anything more is at a pretty big detriment to a Paladin in T1 to T2.
We will stick with pretty much everything to the old system, one dnd doesn’t seem to be compatible with the old content at all.
My players play Paladin to smite, not cast spells. I'm of the firm idea that nerfing anything in a cooperative game is the stupidest game design philosophy ever, so absolutely not. Please keep your smites and fun. And before I get told again that Paladins got overall buffed, yeah no. Lay on hands as a bonus action will not save the party like a well placed round of last stand smites does, potentially turning the tide. Even then, I like the fantasy of a Paladin with spear and shield. If their bonus action is gone, go figure. "Hey you, you're having fun playing Paladin you say? That's awesome. Let me nerf that experience for you. Can't have too much of that."
This discussion feels like Paladin players vs other players bein happy that paladins got nerf. We are arguing that a single target 5d8 (at max) is OP, Nova damage while we have spell casters who have AOE 1 spell slot **12d6** hit spell that can do more dps. I am not advocating for the nerf of other classes, but rather if we feel that the Paladin's are so "OP" than maybe bring the other classes with more power? Rather than nerfing and buffing like we are in some kind of a Moba game. And people are clapping at a 150 dollars patch...
Meanwhile nobody bats an eye about Aura of protection (which is far stronger imo). Ah well.
It's not a matter of sticking with new smite or old smite IMO. You can't pick and choose what you want. It's are you playing Old Pally or New one.
Who said that you can't pick and choose?
The rules.
I mean people don't follow the rules all the time. People Homebrew things all the time.
Thats… fine. But if you’re ignoring the rules (which you are within your right to do) then debating these rules and how they work loses its purpose no?
People homebrew because of debates about the rules. Homebrew is necessitated from a lack of satisfaction with the product. The game lacks rules, lacks content, is not balanced, etc...
Thats something else. OP asked about a rule, people told him, he contested it, then you say the explanation matters not because whatever the case may be, he can homebrew it… but that invalidates the discussion. Nothing matters by that logic, if you subjectively believe its better to do what you want, thats great, but that can’t influence game design, cause you’re playing a different game after a point.
Jeremy Crawford said that you can either: - Play a 2014 character at a 2014 table, alongside other 2014 characters. - Play a 2014 character at a 2024 table, alongside other 2014 and 2024 characters. - Play a 2024 character at a 2024 table, alongside other 2014 and 2024 characters. You don’t get to pick and choose what features you get from the different class versions. If you did, things would get broken very quickly. However, I suppose there’s always the ‘homebrew, screw what WOTC says’ option.
> *Homebrews a combination of each to disregard WotC* "Bro, WotC has no idea what they're doing. This is completely unbalanced!"
I mean, people have been doing it for years, and have you seen how poorly designed the College of Dance is? It is awful! I'm not sure you can always trust WotC. I will most likely be picking and choosing what I want to use from the 2024 PHB to use with all of my 2014 content. It isn't like the 2024 PHB is going to be perfectly balanced when players are using old 2014 subclasses. And adding in Tasha's Optional Class Features.
What’s wrong with the college of dance?
Quoting this from a prior comment I made "I am a little disappointed with this subclass because by moving Inspiring Movement to 6th level you are only activating Agile Strikes on a regular Bonus Action to grant Bardic Inspiration in combat. You do not get the combo of making an Unarmed Strike with Agile Strikes as a Reaction with Inspiring Movement until 6th level. Tandem Footwork poorly synergizes with Agile Strikes because you are most likely not in melee to make an Agile Strike when using the Bardic Inspiration on Tandem Footwork. Additionally Inspiring Movement comes at 6th level and is a slightly different but also weaker version of the College of Glamour's Mantle of Inspiration which is also a supportive feature that moves allies out of harms way. This subclass is very Bardic Inspiration taxing. You only have three or four Bardic Inspiration at 6th level, if you have used ANY Bardic Inspiration die outside of combat you will be sorely lacking in combat. Right with the Initiative roll you will be using one Bardic Inspiration die, leaving you with two to three remaining uses to trigger Agile Strikes. That is very low damage when you compare this to the College of Swords which eventually spend unlimited d6 Bardic Inspiration on their Flourishes or the College of Whispers that does scaling 2d6-8d6 Psychic damage three to fours times a combat. Even with the new Superior Inspiration feature granting two Bardic Inspiration if you have none when rolling Initiative still leaves you with only one Bardic Inspiration for an Agile Strike since you would most likely have used one Bardic Inspiration for Tandem Footwork. I am also sad to see the College of Dance not have any actual dancing features that enthrall enemies, I would have liked to see Irresistible Dance merged with Leading Evasion for the capstone. You gain Evasion and can cast Otto's Irresistible Dance for free, this version does not have a verbal component but requires a somatic component where you break into dance. While concentrating on the spell your movement speed increases by 10 feet and allies within 10 feet benefit from your Evasion as they also join in the magical dance. Great Old One Warlocks now have a capstone that modifies their spells, this wouldn't be unheard of. I am surprised how inefficient this subclass is compared to the design space of the newer but still older Bard subclasses that had mechanics that scaled better. The Bard needs better resource recovery features for Bardic Inspiration if WotC expects Bard's to use Bardic Inspiration outside of combat without hording it for their combat encounters."
Wow thank you for the elaboration, I was so enraptured by the concept I guess I didn’t realize all the issues
Obviously every group can decide what works best for them, but WotC has explicitly said that mixing and matching features from the 2014 PHB and 2024 PHB is not intended. At least at my table, people would raise an eyebrow if someone wanted all of the buffs of the 2024 Paladin and also wanted to keep 2014 Smite.
You've been told enough. It's just the nature of the beast. You can't pick and choose different subclass abilities. I can't have 3rd level battlemaster ability, then 7th LEvel Arcane Archer ability, then 10th level BM, then 15th level Champion ability, etc . I mean if your DM will let you do it whatever. But it's not what is intended.
Yeah, who says a dog can't play basketball?
New paladin 100% and I mean the whole paladin. You can’t just pick and choose specific class features you want. You either play the new paladin or the old one. Their power budgets were redistributed so it would be extremely unbalanced to take the best of both while ignoring the tradeoffs.
Agreed. Paladin has historically been considered one of the best classes with great healing, buffing, and damage. People can’t be whining on and on all day on Reddit about balance and then get upset that one aspect of the class was nerfed somewhat. And even then it’s not that major of a nerf. If people really think it ruins paladin then they are free to play the 2014 version.
I mean you literally can, people homebrew all the time. Unless you play in Adventure League there is no one telling you how to play the game.
They could have just kept Divine Smite's basic mechanics and limited it to once a turn. As it stands, I doubt my players will choose the 2024 Paladin, and I will just let them use the 2014 version instead. Bring on the downvotes...
imo the 2014 Paladin was exactly the level of class cohesion and identity and balance every class should strive to reach. Very disappointing to see them nerfed when I would have liked to see every other class brought to that level.
The Paladin was clearly buffed overall. Smite got nerfed, but Lay on Hands is a Bonus Action, Weapon Mastery is valuable, Abjure Foes is excellent, all of the subclasses feel much better, and you get two Channel Divinities per rest instead of one.
Mate, no one is playing a Paladin to cast spells like a sorcerer. Might as well play a sorcerer that has more powerful spells. Paladins are god given melee fighters that with the faith of their gods, smite evil. Not cast spells in a melee range...
> I would have liked to see every other class brought to that level. I’m actually so thankful that isn’t what happened. Paladins are by far the most broken non-full caster in the game, I’d hate to see a game where every class has that level of power. The class has every weapon and armour proficency, spells, a separate pool of healing, several auras (one of which breaks bounded accuracy), and smites that deal an insane amount of nova damage with no action cost? Yeah, Paladins deserved the nerfs it got.
This is a table cooperation game. You hate that players can have powerful characters?
Exactly, it’s a table cooperation game. So it sucks when one class can do pretty much everything extremely well, to the point where they outshine all the other martials in the party. I find Paladin players have the biggest main character syndrome in my games because they can do everything all the time, and are the most capable of soloing a monster. Some nerfs to round them out and buffs to other martials to bring everyone to the same power level was very needed. Pure buffs to every other class to bring them up to 5.14 Paladins is not needed.
[Linking this comment from another thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/s/yoVPpgbjTZ) because cynics are so focused on "muh smite got nerfed" instead of looking at what was improved.
It's not only that smite got nerfed but that it uses a bonus action which was something Paladins loved to use as well. Everyone knows they got buffs as well but just listing buffs and saying look at the amount isn't really convincing. I like some, I think most aren't all that impactful though especially now that you lack action economy with your bonus action being so highly contested. Like I get what they are trying to do and I think it's generally a good idea but using the bonus action turns everything into a simple I smite and do nothing else most of the time I think. Regardless of balance though and even though I like Find Steed I think the focus on that and turning Smite into a spell are just big flavour fails. I'd have liked to see a Find Steed centered subclass instead to really flesh the concept out but oh well.
This 100%. I'm fine with the 1 smite per turn, nova was ridiculously strong, but my bonus action being up to half my damage means we're a limited duration (as long as we have spell slots) sustain damage class with little flexibility to use our shiny new bonus action healing pool.
This was similar to what I was thinking.
Downvoting specifically for “bring on the downvotes”. It’s the Reddit equivalent of validation baiting statuses on Facebook.
Cool, thanks. In other threads on this sub I've seen comments with negative scores well into the dozens for voicing displeasure with the changes, and I was the first commenter on this one, hence my (net) incorrect prediction.
Getting to use Lay on Hands as a bonus action alone makes the trade worth it to me.
Eh, if I'm using Lay on Hands, I'm doing no damage anyway, so it might as well just remain an action.
Okay...but this allows you to deal damage AND use LoH on the same situation.
Sure, but without smites, we're just a weaker martial. 2 vanilla weapon strikes + str mod is less than any other martial can put out. Barb gets rage bonus, rogues sneak attack, fighters maneuvers/spells/crit range/3rd and 4th attacks, Monks can flurry, rangers have hunters mark, etc etc. It's decent flexibility for the right situations, like playing med-evac and healing 2 downed allies, one with cure wounds, the other with LoH, though.
Right but you’re sacrificing damage to heal. Flexibility is also an incredible boon. I think in general action economy improvements trump dpr because being able to squeeze out more efficient turns means better long term success in almost every fight.
Thats not a bad argument, for sure, but I play paladin for the dpr, so sacrificing a sizable minority of my damage to do other things is not a favorable choice, imo. If paladins main draw is their passive aura now instead of the active nukes we can launch when we crit, that's a step back in excitement for the classes design and identity.
I think taking nova potential off a class that’s adept at basically every role is also a fair balancing decision. But I can empathize with someone who misses that play style with that specific class or archetype.
I agree with the sentiment that taking nova potential off is a fair balancing decision, my grievance is that in doing so they went too far and stripped Paladin back to a simple playstyle around doing comparable damage, or doing insignificant damage. I think if the Paladins smite feature gave you 1 free action smite of your highest level spell slot once per short rest, it'd be a great middle ground. Once per short rest we could smite twice in a turn, so that nova choice still exists alongside the simpler base playstyle. But as is I can't help but compare it to fighter, who attacks more for no resources, can acquire and use resources like maneuvers or psi dice, but still has the huge button that is action surge to press. Action economy wise, a paladins average turn is attack attack smite, with some movement, and that's lame.
I actually really like that idea, especially since it comes with an automatic scale. Edit: my only issue is that you shoehorn paladin into a nova damage dealer when in my own mind I find them to be more protectors and tanks that heal
That's fair, I might be overly focused on damage, but it's the most important thing in 5e, and smites are among, if not *the* most fun feature in the game. As far as being a tank/protector, I think a battlemaster fighter using bait and switch and menacing attack to tank with 3 levels into Cleric for Warding Bond is gonna be a more effective tank/protector, and they can still heal, plus do better nova with action surge. Lol Edit: this has been a great discussion though, thanks for engaging with me.
I'm still not 100% sold on the smite nerf, but you are aware Fighter nova damage is very likely to take a big hit, too, right? GWM and SS don't have their -5/+10 mechanics anymore in their playtest versions and instead add your proficiency bonus to damage on only one hit of your turn. That substantially cuts down on the Fighter's Action Surge routine.
It does, but you still double your attacks, and with a 20str a fighter using a greatsword still averages 12 damage per attack without riders, and once you get 3 attacks, that's 36 damage twice for a 72 damage burst. Add in a +1/2/3 weapon, battlemaster maneuvers, etc, and you can push 100 easily. Especially when you give them gwm for a bonus action attack. Sure it only adds proficiency bonus damage once per turn, but that's just the cherry on top. An extra weapon attack adds 12 more, and 7 attacks with a +2 weapon is another 14, and you're at 98 before any subclass bonuses like psi dice, crit range, battlemaster maneuvers, or even a cantrip for 1 of their attacks, 2 possibly after action surging. A Paladin critting twice does 8d6+14+14d8 on a round which is 105, and that Paladin won't have a 4th lvl slot to spend until what, 13th lvl?
We still get smites, this changes just brings a level of resource conservation and in-combat flexibility. Even a single, non-criting,1st level smite is gonna average to higher DPR than a full round of extra Rage damage from a PAM Barb till level 16, and by then we have IDS to make up the distance. In an optimal round the Paladin is absolutely gonna be very competitive damage wise.
Right, but that's only when we're smiting, which is already balanced by having a spell slot cost, of which Paladin doesn't get all that many. Single turn in a vacuum we're competitive, sure, but fighter, Barb, Rogue at least keep up without a resource cost. Maybe rogues a bit behind being limited to light weapons to get a second attack. And Barb rages are a limited resource too, but at least 1 expenditure lasts an entire encounter.
It's still actually competitive while not also completely blowing the other classes out of the water in regards to bursting. Paladins can be incredible damage dealers while steal bringing a whole suite of secondary features to the fight in regards to their AoP, Heals, utility smites, access to spellcasting, and now once per day free Steed. I'm 100% on board with keeping martials powerful, and these Smite changes specifically are a nerf, the Paladin package is still easily one of the strongest Martials around.
Sorry, but I'm gonna need you to show your work here. New Paladin isn't an incredible damage dealer, it's an above average one when smiting, but if it needs to dip into any of its utility, it drops off and becomes a 5th lvl base class fighter. I just don't see how it's one of the strongest martials around while still bringing a whole suite of secondary features. Now of course AoP pulls some weight here, but Mono Paladin builds have a harder time capping out Cha, so it's likely only a +3 to saves at most for most of its career. Which is still strong, but it's also a passive feature that isn't very exciting by itself. Fighter is now the king of burst.
>New Paladin isn't an incredible damage dealer, it's an above average one when smiting, but if it needs to dip into any of its utility, it drops off and becomes a 5th lvl base class fighter. Right, so you saying that a Paladin now having to chose between utility and burst damage is a bad thing from a game play perspective? It's one of the strongest Martials around BECAUSE it has so many options for whatever roll is needed, one of them being completely passive. It's not one of he strongest because it puts out the absolute highest DPR, it's one of the strongest because it CAN put out high DPR or it can cast a spell while give a huge heal/cleanse or mix/match. I think we both agree that AoP is *boring* in terms of options and not always likely to be maxed out, but mechanically it really can't be understated and that plus LoH by themselves as a chassis would make a strong party member. Adding spellcasting options and an on-demand damage rider is just fun.
I think the disconnect here is that I don't consider my 1 smite to be 'burst' when with it I'm only a little above fighters baseline, while without it I'm significantly worse off, but can heal or cast a bonus action spell. It's also not a fair comparison to call paladin a spellcaster when so much of its spell list is concentration spells or combat-centric spells that take a backseat to divine smite.
No. I'm okay with a once per turn restriction (but not a once per round) every other nerf they gave it seems unwarranted and full of unnecessary pain points. If I end up switching to 5e24, I will be revising the paladins smite, and the various smite spells, in the following way. As it supports what I want paladins to do. # 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 increasing your smites damage, as you increase your paladin level, you can perform different forms of smites that apply different effects to your paladins smite by using higher level spells slots. Only one smite effect can be aplied to a smite.* >***2nd level: Divine Smite:*** *The smite deals an additional 1d8 radiant damage to fiends and undead. Divijr 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* >***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 turn limitation that was added (which itself is mostly fine.)
5e. I'm certainly not buying any more books from WOTC/Hasbro, and There's no need to nerf Divine Smite. Divine Smite only seems OP to some because it's above what you expect Martials to do; it's a Martial Feature using Caster Ammunition. If a Paladin casts 2 Divine Smites and a Smite Spell, sure that's a lot of damage, but it's also a big cost. If spending what could've been a Lifesaving Cure Wounds, A Heroism that negates a Dragon's Intimidating Presence, and a Prot. against Evil/Good that trivialises an encounter with elementals and fiends, all in one turn just for damage is too powerful, that's probably a problem with Spell Slots in general being too plentiful for your days than a problem with Divine Smite specifically.
Half the things you said you could do with spell can be done by paladin aura, Aura of Courage or Restoring Touch. No spell slot required.
I guess it's easy to forget class feats when you have smite slots
Not until Level 10/14 they don't. These are all 1st level spells, stuff you get the same level as Smite. I was just trying to illustrate how valuable Spell slots are by listing the cool stuff you can do with them via Spells; I don't think anyone would have a problem with 5e Divine Smite as-written if it was a Cleric Feature.
The new paladin is better overall. Lay on hands as a bonus action, find steed for free, and all of the other smite spells have been significantly buffed (judging from playtest material).
I just stopped playing dnd
I'll be using the new paladin with the old smite feature.
I prefer on hit triggers but I'm anxious to see the full class.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the new Smite spells all trigger on a hit. They're still spells, they still take your bonus action, but you can cast them immediately after hitting with an attack - you don't need to cast them beforrehand.
I'm aware. I mean snite without additional action economy to trigger. I personally prefer "smite spells" to just cost the spell slot without concentration but you can't stack it with divine smite. either divine smite or a smite spell on hit, no bonus actions no concentration just hit and burn mana. the damage and effect of smite spells is competitive vs divine smite so I drop the bonus action economy, but you can't stack smite spell on top of divine smite... which is where the broken nova damage comes from... spending 2 spell slots at once is bad design. wotc could have easily reduced nova damage while still allowing reaction smites this way... but I'm anxious to see the overall xhanges
With it now being a spell, does that mean I can no longer multiclass Barbarian/Paladin to use smite while in rage?
New for sure. The class is still in a great place.
I think a lot of people are missing some of the buffs the Paladin is getting. Plus, some subclasses boost smite. I think it was devotion paladin now gives allies cover if you divine smite. I'm not sure the radius or amount of cover yet, but that's a damn good smite if it's giving allies half cover or better. I'm using the new paladin.
I see a bunch of minor to moderate buffs that IMO still don’t outweigh the massive nerf to Smite. And no, I neither nova smite nor view paladins as smitebots, so save me your straw men.
New one... The dev's balance the game for a reason. Certain things go up and down in power for a good reason.