D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Paladin ... Divine Smite is a Spell now

[Chaosmancer]

which is a cost now.
better version would be a free action that you can take once per turn.

Well, they kind of didn't have a choice.

You could either have ALL smite spells cost no action to cast. Or ALL smite spells take a bonus action to cast. Because as it stood, all of the additional smites did less damage AND took a bonus action, and generally the effects they had weren't worth both maluses.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have never seen one of those spells cast once in 10 years of 5E.
And we got our fair share of paladins in those years.

Right. Because it cost a bonus action, and concentration, and did less damage... all to blind an enemy for 1 round maybe.

They were SO expensive for so little benefit. And part of their expense was Divine Smite was sooo cheap.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Using a "spell" for smite instead of the old mechanic does have a few differences:

• You must now be able to speak. This could affect a paladin under water (depending on DM ruling) or a paladin in a silence effect.
• The effect can be counter spelled.
• The effect is definitely affected by anti-magic (before it was more of a DM question as to whether the radiant damage could work in a AM field, now its clear).
• It consumes your bonus action and counts as a casted spell. This means for example that a paladin can no longer smite and cast Shield of Faith on the same turn.
• (Still debatable) This version of smite doesn't have crit damage.

So yes this version of smite is a bit weaker than the old version in a few ways that might come up once in a while. Now if its assessed that you can't crit with the smite, than that will be a big weakening overall.

Also it’s now limited to once per turn by virtue of being a spell, rather than once per attack in a round. A 5th level paladin currently could get 3 smites a round if they’re hasted.

 

[mellored]

The problem is that it's not free like drawing a blade. That means that it takes time, which would be too late if you hit first. Once you hit, the damage is done. There's no time for another action, bonus or not.

All the above rule does is say when during the turn you can or cannot use the bonus action. It doesn't allow two actions simultaneously.

You're making up rules that don't exsist. Nothing about a bonus action says how long it takes.

Stalker0 listed all the difference.

 

[Horwath]

Both as bonus actions?
And can you can trade away a smite use to cast bless or compel duel?

Lay on hands; Action to use or Bonus action if used on yourself.
Smite uses 5 points of LoH for every d8 of smite damage. No action just once per turn after you hit with attack.
Or just no limit of number of smite attacks, depends how the end version of 1D&D paladin will look like.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You can't see the difference between simply channeling divine power to smite an enemy and taking a moment to chant a spell as a bonus action to smite?

Nope. They are both merely game mechanics, and I've been "fluffing" how all this crap works since I've started playing D&D 40 years ago.

If you personally want to be beholden to RAW on what a "spell" is and looks like and thus you see Channel Divinity and a Divine Spell as two completely separate and different things... I mean, okay. But I do not give the word "spell" or the word "magic" that much living space in my head.

Look, I get it-- some people need that demarcation of words in the book to be able to treat and imagine this stuff differently. So in order to have a "non-magical Ranger" some people have to have a game mechanic that gives the exact same +10 to Stealth bonus that Pass Without Trace does but isn't called Pass Without Trace or called a 'spell'. Or they have to have the healing of Cure Wounds available to them written down by WotC in the book as a "poultice" that produces the exact same effect as Cure Wounds, in order to get their "non-magical Ranger" rather than just imagining and calling the difference themselves.

I find it so funny that some players aren't willing to make those changes to fluff to things like this... and yet there's whole host of other players who are happily throwing fluff entirely out the window in order to create these Frankenstein's Monsters of Warlock-multiclass shenanigans where the fluff of the Warlock is blackened out entirely just so they can min-max the CHA-based game mechanics. Everyone has their breaking point I guess.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. They are both merely game mechanics, and I've been "fluffing" how all this crap works since I've started playing D&D 40 years ago.

You say this like fluff doesn't matter when in fact it makes a huge difference in how something is viewed. It's the difference between turning someone into diamond with an unavoidable gaze or turning someone into rubber with an unavoidable aura.

Are both merely the same game mechanic? Yes. The difference due to the fluff is significant, though.

If you personally want to be beholden to RAW on what a "spell" is and looks like and thus you see Channel Divinity and a Divine Spell as two completely separate and different things... I mean, okay. But I do not give the word "spell" or the word "magic" that much living space in my head.

You act like players can just choose to alter the fluff of the game or change mechanics whenever they want to. They can't. Only the DM can and even then many won't allow it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I find it so funny that some players aren't willing to make those changes to fluff to things like this... and yet there's whole host of other players who are happily throwing fluff entirely out the window in order to create these Frankenstein's Monsters of Warlock-multiclass shenanigans where the fluff of the Warlock is blackened out entirely just so they can min-max the CHA-based game mechanics. Everyone has their breaking point I guess.

Unfortunately it's not up to players, as the playtest continues to make clear - it's entirely up to DMs. This is one of the major issues with refluffing stuff - it's 100% asking the DM if that's cool - and with some DMs that's a non-issue. With others, it's a tedious hassle, because they want to consider every point separately. With others still, it's an exercise in pain because they're likely to say no to most of it. None of this reflects on their general DM'ing skills either.

 

[Maxperson]

You're making up rules that don't exsist. Nothing about a bonus action says how long it takes.

Stalker0 listed all the difference.

And those are important differences that cause it to be thematically and mechanically crappy. Yes that's my opinion, and as such I will not use a 2024 paladin unless the 2024 paladin also has 2014 style smites.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Unfortunately it's not up to players, as the playtest continues to make clear - it's entirely up to DMs.

I think it depends on what is being re-fluffed.

WotC and all kinds of other people had made mention in many years in the past the idea that for instance you can fluff your Magic Missiles however you want. The mechanics would remain as 1d4+1 Force damage per missile... but you could make them look like purple lasers, or balls of plasma, or a stream of rubber ducks. Didn't matter. Whatever you wanted to see them as, it was fine. And while the DM could of course argue with you and say "Nuh uh! They don't look like that!"... the player's visualizing the scene however they want, including how their Magic Missiles look. And no amount of DM whining would change that. The player is fluffing their spell in whatever manner they choose.

By the same token... if (general) you as a player visualize in your head how a Channel Divinity looks in-game, and it is different than how you see a Spell looking when it is cast in-game... that's cool. Nice bit of fluff differential on your part. But that is entirely in (general) your own head. You could just as easily be a person for whom the visualization of a Channel and a Spell don't look different at all-- there's like a glow around the Cleric's hands, and then POOF! some effect happens. Yes, the game mechanics of the two would be different (different resource pools for instance), but how they actually are fluffed in the game world does not and need not be different. Or they can be. It's up to the player to decide how they are seeing the effects play out.

Both ways are completely legitimate choices on the part of the player, and the DM has no say in it (or at least no say that the player doesn't GIVE to the DM by hanging their head and sadly agreeing to listen what the DM is demanding these things look like.) And I completely understand that if (general) you as a player have these visualizations of what is a Channel and what is a Spell ingrained in your head... (general) you might have a hard time accepting the move of Divine Smite over to a Spell (not that this even technically applies in this situation, because Divine Smite isn't even a Channel Divinity, it's just a random divine ability the Cleric gets to apply!) But I personally do not believe WotC needs to use (general) your unwillingness to visualize Divine Smite the ability and Divine Smite the Spell as the same kind of effect as a reason for not making this change if they think it's overall worthwhile (if it makes more sense thematically and for ease-of-use by putting all the Smites into one bucket for instance.)

Just because a person can't make the change of seeing Divine Smite the spell the same way they see Divine smite the cleric ability is no reason WotC should necessarily throw out potentially good ideas in my opinion. But who knows? Maybe WotC will see enough resistance to this idea and roll it back? Whatever happens, happens.