Improved Divine Smite

[Gladius Legis]

Yeah, well, after at least a thread a week for the last 2 years started by someone demanding the Paladin be nerfed, or Divine Smite be nerfed, for completely arbitrary and mathematically unsound reasons, then having a general Paladin improvement thread be hijacked by the same crowd, I'm getting tired of it. It's like the 4e Nerf the Ranger/Nerf Twin Strike mob all over again.

 

[Xeviat]

Gee, it's like different people have different ideas about things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gladius Legis]

And when the math shows it's not even remotely out of line as it is, then those ideas are based on folly. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[Xeviat]

And when the math shows it's not even remotely out of line as it is, then those ideas are based on folly. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

How one person's game goes vs another is anecdote, not fact. The "fact" I don't like is a paladin spending 3 or 4 spell slots in a single round. I don't like novas. That's the root of it, balanced or not. It will be just as balanced for the paladin to spread that all around, in the grand scheme of things, or do you run mostly games with only a single big set piece combat each day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

To the original topic, I'm glad they clarified Improved Divine Smite. It confused me since day one. That last sentence seems redundant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

after at least a thread a week for the last 2 years

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Indeed.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, well, after at least a thread a week for the last 2 years started by someone demanding the Paladin be nerfed, or Divine Smite be nerfed, for completely arbitrary and mathematically unsound reasons, then having a general Paladin improvement thread be hijacked by the same crowd, I'm getting tired of it. It's like the 4e Nerf the Ranger/Nerf Twin Strike mob all over again.

And when the math shows it's not even remotely out of line as it is, then those ideas are based on folly. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Assuming you have layed out your methodical and mathematically sound reasons in one of those earlier threads, I shan't ask you to repeat them here.

Instead I would like to ask for a link or a summary of your position, Gladius, assuming it invalidates the arguments of the nerf crowd and validates the decision of the designers.

Thank you.

 

[jaelis]

Hmm well it makes me curious...

Optimum paladin nova, say at level 12:
- Suppose 4 attacks (2 base, one bonus action from something, one extra from haste)
- Suppose 75% hit rate, with GWF active.
- Burn three level-3 slots for divine smite
- Total damage per hit: 7 (base greatsword) + 10 (GWF) + 5 (Str) + 22.5 (5d8 smite) = 44.5
- Three hits total for 133.5

Optimum fighter nova, same level:
- 8 attacks total (3 base, one bonus, one haste, 3 action surge)
- Same hit rate and GWF
- Suppose a battle master, with five d10 superiority dice
- Six hits total, five with superiority dice added (via trip attack, say)
- Total damage = 5*(7+10+5+5.5) + 1*(7+10+5) = 159.5

That leaves some things out (crits, fighting styles, magic weapons), but is it missing anything significant? Otherwise it does seem like the paladin's 1/day nova is simply worse than the fighter's 1/short rest nova.

Doesn't mean you have to like novas, but it suggests that if you don't you should worry first about the fighter?

 

[jgsugden]

Hmm well it makes me curious...

....

That leaves some things out (crits, fighting styles, magic weapons), but is it missing anything significant? Otherwise it does seem like the paladin's 1/day nova is simply worse than the fighter's 1/short rest nova.

Doesn't mean you have to like novas, but it suggests that if you don't you should worry first about the fighter?

The fighter truly novaed out - the Paladin still has spell slots. And if you start to truly optimize the attacks with all the bells and whistles (Paladin 2 attacks, + bonus + reaction + haste) the math moves further towards the paladin.

Also, you're not considering that the paladin can wait until after they determine their hit is a crit to decide to go full nova on an attack. Fighter can't.

 

[Sacrosanct]

How one person's game goes vs another is anecdote, not fact. The "fact" I don't like is a paladin spending 3 or 4 spell slots in a single round. I don't like novas. That's the root of it, balanced or not. It will be just as balanced for the paladin to spread that all around, in the grand scheme of things, or do you run mostly games with only a single big set piece combat each day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. For many (I'd even posit most), the math isn't the end all, be all for how they enjoy the game or think of it "balanced". Especially so, when the item of topic incentives or drives other behavior. The example I gave in the other thread is that in my games, I've seen how divine smite works resulting in players of paladins to not cast spells at all, but to save them for crits to use divine smite, even when it might be more beneficial to the group as a whole to use a spell like bless or revivify.

This idea that "here is the math based on white room analysis, so your argument and opinions are invalid" needs to die in fire. If for no other reason, the game is not played in a white room. The only thing that is objective is if you are having fun at your table. The #s don't matter if you are having less fun with it the certain way, and if a change makes you have more fun, then it is better. At least what is important (you having fun, not the math).