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

[mellored]

Nope. Been saying that consistently for pages.

You've been saying that paladins are royally nerfed, because smite is a spell.

But somehow. No other class that uses spells has any problems. Not even those that depend on spells far more.

 

[Maxperson]

You've been saying that paladins are royally nerfed, because smite is a spell.

What does that have to do with +1d8 at 11th level?

But somehow. No other class that uses spells has any problems. Not even those that depend on spells far more.

No other class has to leave the threat that they are on as a general rule, since they are generally good at range outside of silence.

 

[Maxperson]

But HOW do you know? Like, what exactly is your character sensing that is tipping them off to a spell being cast?

Or does your table just rely on the DM to say "X is casting a spell" without any in character justifications?

I know because RAW is that you don't know anything other than a spell is being cast unless you use your reaction to identify it, and that's if you use the optional RAW in Xanathar's. If you don't, you CAN'T identify it before it's finished casting. I assume that there are telltale signs of a spell being cast, but beyond that you don't know unless you give up your reaction.

 

[mellored]

No other class has to leave the threat that they are on as a general rule, since they are generally good at range outside of silence.

Sure.

Every battle has a zone of silence where a bunch of melee enemies stand in, and a bunch of wizards who know counter spell behind them.

And Paladins can't do anything but walk into it the zone.

Can't throw javelins at enemies who are standing still.
Can't wait for the enemy to move out.
Can't go around.
Or anything else...

 

[Sir Brennen]

I know because RAW is that you don't know anything other than a spell is being cast unless you use your reaction to identify it, and that's if you use the optional RAW in Xanathar's. If you don't, you CAN'T identify it before it's finished casting. I assume that there are telltale signs of a spell being cast, but beyond that you don't know unless you give up your reaction.

As I mentioned above, in the case of Smite, an observer doesn’t need to identify it to be fairly certain of what it is when cast, because of who is casting it, and when it’s cast. And again, unless the counterspeller is the target of the smite, it’s probably not worth expending a Counterspell on. And perhaps not even then.

So while a Smite spell can be counterspelled, it’s less likely to be than an unidentified spell from a wizard or cleric opponent.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Sure.

Every battle has a zone of silence where a bunch of melee enemies stand in, and a bunch of wizards who know counter spell behind them.

And Paladins can't do anything but walk into it the zone.

Can't throw javelins at enemies who are standing still.
Can't wait for the enemy to move out.
Can't go around.
Or anything else…

An important “anything else” is don’t have anyone who can cast Dispel Magic (which is on all Spell lists, where Silence is only on Divine and Primal).

 

[Mephista]

I know because RAW is that you don't know anything other than a spell is being cast unless you use your reaction to identify it, and that's if you use the optional RAW in Xanathar's. If you don't, you CAN'T identify it before it's finished casting. I assume that there are telltale signs of a spell being cast, but beyond that you don't know unless you give up your reaction.

I'm not saying to identify it. I'm asking you how your character knows, inside the narrative, that a spell is being cast.

You're playing a wizard. There's an antagonist dressed in a magic robe holding a tome. How does the DM indicate that your opponent is casting a spell to let you know that you could counterspell? What is the cue that your wizard picks up that a spell is going to be cast?

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're seriously claiming that damage on a hit that doesn't take a bonus action, cannot be stopped by counterspell and silence, and doesn't have a rider effect = a spell that takes a bonus action, can be stopped by both counterspell and silence, does damage on a hit and has a rider effect that carries a saving throw with it?

One does not equal the other by a long shot.

You are essentially arguing, completely seriously, that if I gave fighter's the ability to make two, non-action, non-bonus action free AOE attacks that ignore non-magical resistance that those are completely different from normal action attacks that are single target and effected by resistance, and therefore cannot be considered against each other in balance.

Yes Max, having two abilities that do similar things, but one is cheaper in action economy, less counterable, and does more damage does make those two things different. The difference is one of those two things is unbalanced and has a much higher power budget. Stop using the things that made Divine Smite out of alignment with the Smite spells to try and argue that they shouldn't be balanced against each other.

Either they are correct that the 2014 paladin and 2024 paladin are roughly equal in balance or they are wrong. They are claiming the former. Are the right or wrong?

I'll tell you when we get a 2024 paladin and not a playtest attempting to fix their mistakes from 2014.

Why would I advocate for something that doesn't need to be in place? There was literally nothing wrong with smite not being a spell and the different spell smites being spells.

Wrong. There was a lot wrong with it. The Smite spells took an action that Divine Smite didn't. They were affected by counterspell, silence, and anti-magic. And they did less damage. They were so much weaker than Divine Smite that they were essentially never used by the majority of tables.

A major difference is a major difference, not being pedantic. There's no way you can equate the non-spell smite with a spell smite and be anywhere close to accurate. There are too many significant differences.

"These two things were unbalanced, therefore they should not be balanced." This is a pointless position to take, because you are agreeing with my points, yet denying they mean anything.

Ahh, resorting to attacking the person and no the argument I see.

Not an attack against you, an acknowledgement of all the times we've had this dance.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And of course your welcome to. For me the counter spell was the worst spell in the game. It made my players feel like I took a dump on their Christmas, everyone of my spellcasters would get couterspelled and be even more anemic.

I can respect that your table loves it, my table hates it. I removed it and won't ever bring it back.

I haven't removed it yet, but I did make it always a spellcasting roll. So it ends up being more dynamic instead of auto-shutting down magic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know because RAW is that you don't know anything other than a spell is being cast unless you use your reaction to identify it, and that's if you use the optional RAW in Xanathar's. If you don't, you CAN'T identify it before it's finished casting. I assume that there are telltale signs of a spell being cast, but beyond that you don't know unless you give up your reaction.

Whether or not it is RAW, you still know and saw what happened before, and can apply logic. If you see someone get hit with a sword, and then they begin casting a spell in reaction to being hit, it likely isn't Raise Dead, because that spell isn't a reaction.

Similarly, an armored warrior casting a spell AFTER hitting with a weapon is likely not casting lightning bolt, since they hit with a weapon and lightning bolt doesn't work that way.