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

[DEFCON 1]

You don't get to know what spell is being cast before you counterspell it. Smite is the same as fireball which is the same as wish as far as the counterspeller knowing what spell is being cast.

Well, maybe you don't at you table... but that has never been a rule even close to being run at mine. I have no idea if that is actually in the rules (and couldn't care less if it is)... but the idea that there is no way to tell the difference between a Wizard casting Wish or casting Mage Hand is just silly in my opinion. At my table (and I'm pretty sure at many others), of course the counterspeller knows what spells they are attempting to counterspell because it's just stupid and pointless otherwise.

Seeing how your table runs counterspell, it makes it much more clear to me why you seem to be so against all of these proposed changes... because how you all are running the game seems to be in a very specific manner with a very particular way of reading and interpreting the rules that I tend to think is not how most of the rest of the playerbase does (and why WotC seems fine with the changes they are proposing for us that you are so against.)

Now there's nothing wrong whatsoever if your table runs Counterspell the way you do... your table, your rules. But at some point you might have to admit that your way is not considered the conventional way, and thus WotC's idea to make Divine Smite counterspellable is not the doom and gloom scenario for the rest of us that it might be for you, and thus trying to convince us that it is will just fall on deaf ears.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

It's still a spell and can be countered, which is a common ability. Now you too can have a signature class ability negated by half the casters out there!!!

But what enemy is going to use their only reaction to counterspell a Divine Smite over whatever other spell the paladin's spellcaster allies are going to destroy them with? If the paladin casts a 2nd level Divine Smite spell to strike a bigger hit, and the enemy wizard says "Counterspell!" then that caster has left their side wide open for the paladin's caster ally to ruin their life with a Fireball or something worse.

Turning all the smites into a series of similar spells is great!

1. It's a boon for cohesive, natural-feeling design that makes sense. This matters more for new players, which is very important to me. When a paladin says they want to smite, there aren't different rules for different kinds of smites (spells and not-spells and timing). (I also believe that abilities that work like spells, and use spell slots should just be spells whenever possible.)
2. It does lessen the multi-smite alpha strike which contributes to it being too strong for both single and multi-class paladins in my opinion. (Additionally, it is irrelevant and unhelpful to point the finger at multi-classing being "the problem", because multi-classing isn't going away, and it has to be considered in all design decisions.)
3. It makes the paladin's tactical choices matter more because they only get one bonus action per their turn. "Which of my smites is the better option against THIS enemy?"; "Is there a caster who likes to counterspell?"; "Do I wait and hope for a crit?"; "Do I use my bonus action for something else?"
4. It no longer freely stacks with other "free actions"+"bonus actions" buffs/combos that break the expected damage limit. But the paladin's effectiveness as a party member is still great because their contribution has been diversified into other very cool updated class abilities and paladin styles, like Lay on Hands as as bonus action; Weapon Mastery; A very cool and growing Aura of Protection; Abjure Foes affecting all enemies; and you can play an unarmed punchadin, (and that doesn't count the subclass enhancements).
5. Remember also that the Paladin is being measured against itself, as well as the developing design of the other classes that are being re-engineered as well. We're seeing a lot more broadening of design options and builds, while utilizing more shared design space (using more bonus actions and reactions, etc.). This gives more classes more options to use those same rules. This will also help different classes both feel familiar due to more shared mechanic usage, (but allows them to utilize them in unique ways).

 

[Chaosmancer]

It was antimagicable as was pointed out earlier by someone in this thread. It's also not a problem. At all. Why? Apples and oranges. The apples of the smite class ability doesn't have to be balanced against the oranges of the spells that also have smite in their names. The spells were not the ability and vice versa, so there was no problem.

Yes, they do need to be balanced. Both use spell slots, both use spell slots to deal extra damage on a crit, and both are paladin exclusive abilities. Just because one wasn't called a spell before doesn't mean you just toss balanced out the window. These aren't apples and oranges, these are smites and smites.

WotC told you that? Or someone on some forum somewhere who had no real information to back up that claim?

Yep, WotC did.

Yes, and you have to use Expeditious Retreat to run away. You can't use the movement for anything because it's called "retreat." And of course you can't use Mage Hand unless you are a mage, because the name is "mage" hand. Dispel Magic can clearly be used against any magic and not just spells, right? Because Dispel "magic." Despite what the rules say, Hold Person can only be used against one individual because it's not Hold "people."

Just because they were called smite, does not make them the same as the paladin smite ability. They were simply spells that happened to have smite in the name. The names are rather careless and are unreliable as an indicator of what the spell can do or what it's for.

They do the exact same thing as Divine Smite.

Look, I get you are upset that your favorite toy isn't special anymore, but stop trying to pretend like Divine Smite and the paladin's exclusive smite spells designed for the paladin were completely unrelated. They weren't. Insisting they were is silly.

 

[Maxperson]

Having enemies use their counter spell a smite instead of a fireball sounds like a big plus to me.

Or maybe there is only the smite to counter and no fireball that the party can use and the paladin just get gimped.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, maybe you don't at you table... but that has never been a rule even close to being run at mine. I have no idea if that is actually in the rules (and couldn't care less if it is)... but the idea that there is no way to tell the difference between a Wizard casting Wish or casting Mage Hand is just silly in my opinion. At my table (and I'm pretty sure at many others), of course the counterspeller knows what spells they are attempting to counterspell because it's just stupid and pointless otherwise.

Seeing how your table runs counterspell, it makes it much more clear to me why you seem to be so against all of these proposed changes... because how you all are running the game seems to be in a very specific manner with a very particular way of reading and interpreting the rules that I tend to think is not how most of the rest of the playerbase does (and why WotC seems fine with the changes they are proposing for us that you are so against.)

My table runs counterspell by the rules. That you house rule counterspell to be far more powerful than it actually is and so the new rules don't affect you isn't an argument to leave the new smite as it is.

Now there's nothing wrong whatsoever if your table runs Counterspell the way you do... your table, your rules.

RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

But what enemy is going to use their only reaction to counterspell a Divine Smite over whatever other spell the paladin's spellcaster allies are going to destroy them with? If the paladin casts a 2nd level Divine Smite spell to strike a bigger hit, and the enemy wizard says "Counterspell!" then that caster has left their side wide open for the paladin's caster ally to ruin their life with a Fireball or something worse.

Turning all the smites into a series of similar spells is great!

1. It's a boon for cohesive, natural-feeling design that makes sense. This matters more for new players, which is very important to me. When a paladin says they want to smite, there aren't different rules for different kinds of smites (spells and not-spells and timing). (I also believe that abilities that work like spells, and use spell slots should just be spells whenever possible.)
2. It does lessen the multi-smite alpha strike which contributes to it being too strong for both single and multi-class paladins in my opinion. (Additionally, it is irrelevant and unhelpful to point the finger at multi-classing being "the problem", because multi-classing isn't going away, and it has to be considered in all design decisions.)
3. It makes the paladin's tactical choices matter more because they only get one bonus action per their turn. "Which of my smites is the better option against THIS enemy?"; "Is there a caster who likes to counterspell?"; "Do I wait and hope for a crit?"; "Do I use my bonus action for something else?"
4. It no longer freely stacks with other "free actions"+"bonus actions" buffs/combos that break the expected damage limit. But the paladin's effectiveness as a party member is still great because their contribution has been diversified into other very cool updated class abilities and paladin styles, like Lay on Hands as as bonus action; Weapon Mastery; A very cool and growing Aura of Protection; Abjure Foes affecting all enemies; and you can play an unarmed punchadin, (and that doesn't count the subclass enhancements).
5. Remember also that the Paladin is being measured against itself, as well as the developing design of the other classes that are being re-engineered as well. We're seeing a lot more broadening of design options and builds, while utilizing more shared design space (using more bonus actions and reactions, etc.). This gives more classes more options to use those same rules. This will also help different classes both feel familiar due to more shared mechanic usage, (but allows them to utilize them in unique ways).

Then you be happy with unnecessarily gimping paladins.

I will not play the new one if this is the way it will be.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, they do need to be balanced. Both use spell slots, both use spell slots to deal extra damage on a crit, and both are paladin exclusive abilities. Just because one wasn't called a spell before doesn't mean you just toss balanced out the window. These aren't apples and oranges, these are smites and smites.

Apples and oranges do not need to be balanced. Just because they share a name doesn't make them the same thing. I mean Flexible Casting allows a Sorcerer to use spell slots and is a class exclusive ability, so it's basically the same as a 2014 paladin smite and needs to be made into a spell, right?

Let's look at the differences. 2014 smite is not a bonus action, cannot be countered, is not subject to silence negating the ability to use it, and can be used more than once per round.

Further the balance argument is just flat out wrong per WotC. WotC has claimed to use more than once that we can use both 2014 classes and 2024 classes side by because they are balanced the same. Is that true or are you saying that they are lying to us about it?

Yep, WotC did.

Citation please. I want to see where every time you complained about it that they told you those things.

They do the exact same thing as Divine Smite.

And this is objectively false.

 

[mellored]

Or maybe there is only the smite to counter and no fireball that the party can use and the paladin just get gimped.

So your DM just has enemy's with counterspell and nothing else prepared?

No wonder no one wants to play a caster.

 

[Sulicius]

Pretty happy Divine Smite is now a spell. Makes it easier to keep BBEG’s alive for a turn longer

 

[p_johnston]

So while this is definitely a nerf to paladins thats not necessarily a bad thing. Paladins were arguably the best class in the game in terms of combat and a rich vein of multi class cheese. This seems closer to putting them on the same level as other classes.

I suspect a lot of players wont like it because theyre toys taken away but in terms of game health not having one class that can deal double, triple, or quadruple the damage of anyone else in a single turn is probably for the best.