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

[codo]

Paladins are not made useless by not being able to complete a single smite. Heck, unlike the wizard, druid, bard, sorcerer, warlock (ect. ect. ect) the paladin getting their smite countered STILL DID SOMETHING, meanwhile a wizard whose firebolt cantrip got countered did nothing at all.

If you want to play with magic, you have to pay the price. There is no such thing as a free lunch. A class should not get all of the benefits of casting spells with none of the downside. Smite spells are already automatically cast and can never fail, they don't need to to be immune to counterspell and anti-magic as well.

Its not like paladins are underpowered in the first place. They are almost universally regarded as one of the most powerful classes, and the most powerful class that is not a full caster.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My problem with it is that it's a spell. The flaws that go with spells are just a crappy coincidence.

Right. Nothing to do with it now being a bonus action. Nothing to do with the spell slot cost. The only change you don't like is that now it can be countered, anti-magicked, or silenced. That's it.

Well... frankly... so what? Every single other smite is vulnerable to those, so it makes sense Divine Smite is too.

Sure. Take that pitchfork and go dig a well. Let me know how using the wrong tool for a specific job goes for you.

Interesting. Because the tool is "deal more damage in combat" or "deal more damage in combat plus a rider" and yet using one against an enemy that can counter magic is like "using a pitchfork to dig a well". So, again, this is just solely on counter-plays for Divine Smite. You don't want there to be any. You want Divine Smite to be impossible to stop. Pure powergaming.

I want balance. This is balanced.

Once again, is ONLY what it WRITTEN. It quite literally cannot include anything else. I mean, c'mon man, it's Rules as Written. Not Rules as I Like to Interpret Them. Not Rules as Inferred. Not Rules as Made Up By Me. It's Rules as WRITTEN.

Funny how you dismiss RAI.

There are many things not written down. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Bad play is bad. If NPCs are acting without knowledge, that's the DM's fault.

It is only without knowledge if the knowledge doesn't exist. Instead of declaring all of that bad play and assuming poor DMing... why not assume the knowledge exists?

No.

How is having a smite counter-spelled but still being able to use your action to finish an attack and deal damage, not to a lesser extent than having your entire action negated and achieving no effect?

 

[Maxperson]

Right. Nothing to do with it now being a bonus action. Nothing to do with the spell slot cost. The only change you don't like is that now it can be countered, anti-magicked, or silenced. That's it.

You don't get to tell me "that's it" or what I am talking about. I dislike that it's a spell. The paladin smite evil was never a spell. The rest of those issues are just crappy things that going along with it being a spell, but are not why I intensely dislike the change.

Well... frankly... so what? Every single other smite is vulnerable to those, so it makes sense Divine Smite is too.

Interesting. Because the tool is "deal more damage in combat" or "deal more damage in combat plus a rider" and yet using one against an enemy that can counter magic is like "using a pitchfork to dig a well". So, again, this is just solely on counter-plays for Divine Smite. You don't want there to be any. You want Divine Smite to be impossible to stop. Pure powergaming.

I want balance. This is balanced.

If all you want is for them all to be the same, and you view that as balanced, then I presume you'd be okay with none of them being spells. That's not ideally what I want, but I'd take that over making smite into a spell.

Funny how you dismiss RAI.

There are many things not written down. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

But it does mean that it doesn't exist in RAW. You can assume things unwritten exist within a rule or ability. I do it all the time. 99.9% of DMs might make the same assumption about a given thing. That doesn't make any of it RAW. In the case of the paladin's aura, you aren't going to get anywhere near 90% of DMs to assume that it's detectable by anyone who walks by. You might not even hit 50%. What's more, you have no idea what RAI is when it comes to paladin auras. Further, RAI is entirely irrelevant when it comes to RAW.

It is only without knowledge if the knowledge doesn't exist. Instead of declaring all of that bad play and assuming poor DMing... why not assume the knowledge exists?

Because it's unnecessary. And because it makes it literally impossible to keep paladinhood a secret. Everyone with 10 feet of him is going to instantly know.

How is having a smite counter-spelled but still being able to use your action to finish an attack and deal damage, not to a lesser extent than having your entire action negated and achieving no effect?

One class can't leave the area and still attack effectively. All the others can just walk out of range and be unhampered. Apples and oranges.

 

[Maxperson]

If you want to play with magic, you have to pay the price. There is no such thing as a free lunch. A class should not get all of the benefits of casting spells with none of the downside. Smite spells are already automatically cast and can never fail, they don't need to to be immune to counterspell and anti-magic as well.

Its not like paladins are underpowered in the first place. They are almost universally regarded as one of the most powerful classes, and the most powerful class that is not a full caster.

I don't want to make the smite spells immune. This is about the class ability which is not a spell and never should become one.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You don't get to tell me "that's it" or what I am talking about. I dislike that it's a spell. The paladin smite evil was never a spell. The rest of those issues are just crappy things that going along with it being a spell, but are not why I intensely dislike the change.

The only thing you dislike is that it is a spell.
The only difference between what it was and being a spell, is that now it is affected by things that affect magic.

ergo, the only thing you dislike is that now Divine Smite can be countered, Anti-Magicked and Silenced.

If all you want is for them all to be the same, and you view that as balanced, then I presume you'd be okay with none of them being spells. That's not ideally what I want, but I'd take that over making smite into a spell.

Yes, as I have stated over a dozen times in this discussion with you. Those are the only two options that are balanced.

But it does mean that it doesn't exist in RAW. You can assume things unwritten exist within a rule or ability. I do it all the time. 99.9% of DMs might make the same assumption about a given thing. That doesn't make any of it RAW. In the case of the paladin's aura, you aren't going to get anywhere near 90% of DMs to assume that it's detectable by anyone who walks by. You might not even hit 50%. What's more, you have no idea what RAI is when it comes to paladin auras. Further, RAI is entirely irrelevant when it comes to RAW.

That is a whole lot of words to say you can't prove that Paladins aren't identifiable.

Because it's unnecessary. And because it makes it literally impossible to keep paladinhood a secret. Everyone with 10 feet of him is going to instantly know.

I'm not seeing a problem with that.

One class can't leave the area and still attack effectively. All the others can just walk out of range and be unhampered. Apples and oranges.

So, you are only talking about silence? Funny, I was talking about counterspell.

But okay, since we agree that paladins are less affected by counterspell, let's look at silence. You are correct a Paladin will not be able to smite while in a zone of silence, and that a caster can exit a zone of silence and cast... but what happens if a caster CAN'T exit a zone of silence?

See, a paladin in a zone of silence is still dishing out between 2d8+mods and 2d10+1d4+3d8+mods of damage in silence, depending on the build and level. A wizard that is trapped in silence... can't. They might be really lucky and be able to hit with a 1d8+0. Now, I'm pretty good at math, but assuming the wizard can't leave.... the paladin seems to be less effected. And, well, while the paladin may not be able to smite that enemy in the silence, paladin damage is respectable WITHOUT needing to smite on every single attack in every single fight.

 

[Maxperson]

The only thing you dislike is that it is a spell.

This is as far as you get to go. You don't get to add anything else and falsely attribute it to me. None of the rest of what you said applies to why I detest the change. Those are just inconvenient extras.

Yes, as I have stated over a dozen times in this discussion with you. Those are the only two options that are balanced.

You're wrong, but I'm okay with making none of them being spells. It's a False Dichotomy to assume that there is no other way to balance things than those two options.

That is a whole lot of words to say you can't prove that Paladins aren't identifiable.

I don't have to. They aren't unless you can prove that it is written that they are. Anything else is you making it up.

I'm not seeing a problem with that.

Then homebrew that for your game.

So, you are only talking about silence? Funny, I was talking about counterspell.

Both apply, so I was just focusing on the one I thought you were talking about. Counterspell can be itself counterspelled, though, which is super annoying. I've literally had 6 counterspells on the stack waiting to counter one another. That's why I got rid of the spell from games that I run.

But okay, since we agree that paladins are less affected by counterspell, let's look at silence. You are correct a Paladin will not be able to smite while in a zone of silence, and that a caster can exit a zone of silence and cast... but what happens if a caster CAN'T exit a zone of silence?

Then neither can the paladin. So in those instances things are the same, but if it can be exited only the paladin gets screwed, which makes it unbalanced for the paladin.

See, a paladin in a zone of silence is still dishing out between 2d8+mods and 2d10+1d4+3d8+mods of damage in silence, depending on the build and level. A wizard that is trapped in silence... can't.

Why are you assuming so much damage? A sword and board paladin with a longsword does d8+str mod damage. Or are you assuming 20th level?

 

[Clint_L]

This thread...in the monk thread we are looking for ways to make the class viable at doing its basic function, whereas this thread is worried about the S tier class possibly getting the most minor nerf imaginable, that arguably is not even a nerf.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is as far as you get to go. You don't get to add anything else and falsely attribute it to me. None of the rest of what you said applies to why I detest the change. Those are just inconvenient extras.

They are the only things that matter. They are the only difference. You haven't articulated any other possible difference between "use a bonus action to spend a spell slot to activate divine smite" and "use a bonus action to cast divine smite". If they are just "inconvenient extras" then the change shouldn't matter, because they are the only thing that has changed.

You're wrong, but I'm okay with making none of them being spells. It's a False Dichotomy to assume that there is no other way to balance things than those two options.

No it isn't, but whatever.

I don't have to. They aren't unless you can prove that it is written that they are. Anything else is you making it up.

If you can't prove it either way, then both things are equally true. Your's doesn't get special treatment.

Both apply, so I was just focusing on the one I thought you were talking about.

Wow... you just aren't even trying, are you? Here is what I said

How is having a smite counter-spelled but still being able to use your action to finish an attack and deal damage, not to a lesser extent than having your entire action negated and achieving no effect?

And you thought I was talking about Silence? How is me specifically asking about Counter-spell talking about Silence?

Counterspell can be itself counterspelled, though, which is super annoying. I've literally had 6 counterspells on the stack waiting to counter one another. That's why I got rid of the spell from games that I run.

Which has nothing to do with the paladin, and you have now stated that this isn't a problem for your game. So... seriously, other than "I don't like it" do you have any... reasons? Because you have now stated that the bonus action isn't a problem and counter-spell isn't a problem, leaving only silence and anti-magic as "problems" with this change... which you have also claimed are just "inconvenient extras" not actually problems.

Then neither can the paladin. So in those instances things are the same, but if it can be exited only the paladin gets screwed, which makes it unbalanced for the paladin.

Why are you assuming so much damage? A sword and board paladin with a longsword does d8+str mod damage. Or are you assuming 20th level?

Right, the poor paladin who is so terrible at melee combat is getting screwed because they must rely on their terrible melee capabilities. That makes sense.

And, really? 2d8+mods is 5th level. 2d10+1d4+3d8+mods is 11th level with polearm master. You likely skipped the part where I said "depending on the build and level" so... sword and board at level 5 and polearm master at level 11. I could have increased it, but I think I made a good enough point. You likely aren't going to be encountering very many zones of anti-magic or zones of silence before 5th level, so it is pretty minor.

 

[Maxperson]

They are the only things that matter. They are the only difference.

Not to me or what I'm saying.

You haven't articulated any other possible difference between "use a bonus action to spend a spell slot to activate divine smite" and "use a bonus action to cast divine smite". If they are just "inconvenient extras" then the change shouldn't matter, because they are the only thing that has changed.

You're seriously going to argue that I haven't said one isn't a spell and the others are spells? Because that in my(and every other person's) book is an articulated difference between the two.

No it isn't, but whatever.

Dude. They can raise the damage on the spells. Make the riders have no saves. And a myriad of other ways to balance the two. What you claim is in fact, and it is fact since I can balance them without your dichotomy, a False Dichotomy. You have claimed that something has only two options when there is in fact multiple other ways to achieve balance.

If you can't prove it either way, then both things are equally true. Your's doesn't get special treatment.

They aren't equally true, though. You're making stuff up that isn't even implied, let alone stated. That doesn't get equal weight to, "It's not written there so it's not there by default."

And, really? 2d8+mods is 5th level. 2d10+1d4+3d8+mods is 11th level with polearm master. You likely skipped the part where I said "depending on the build and level" so... sword and board at level 5 and polearm master at level 11. I could have increased it, but I think I made a good enough point. You likely aren't going to be encountering very many zones of anti-magic or zones of silence before 5th level, so it is pretty minor.

According to D&D Beyond(and I disagree with their numbers) only 2% of PCs reach 11th level. That would mean that 98% of paladins never see that damage.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oof.

The game isn’t just what is written. It is written in natural language precisely so that we can reasonably assume things necessary to make the fiction work.

If someone casts a spell in reaction to an attack against them, it’s probably shield. Your character doesn’t need the RAW to say they can make reasonable assumptions based on available data.

“There is no explicit wording in the rules text that says you can do the thing, so you cannot do it RAW” is not how 5e is written. It’s not how this game works.

How are we a decade into this game and still having this argument!?

Anyway, Divine Smite being a spell is good.