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

[Stalker0]

I have no idea if that is actually in the rules (and couldn't care less if it is)

I know you don't care what the rules say so feel free to ignore this, but for everyone else.

The main core "spell identification" rules are noted in Xanathar's. In that ruleset, identifying a spell requires a reaction. Therefore, you cannot identify a spell and counterspell it, as both would require your reaction.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

The main core "spell identification" rules are noted in Xanathar's. In that ruleset, identifying a spell requires a reaction. Therefore, you cannot identify a spell and counterspell it, as both would require your reaction.

Now, perhaps someone other than the counter-speller might reaction-identify the spell and shout it out loudly? Would give a use for that second-best Arcana score! But then...

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

...you may technically not be able to speak outside of your turn.

 

[p_johnston]

So real question does anyone actually use the Xanathar spell identify rule? Because i was under the impression that it was widely considered really bad and as such everyone ignored it.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Riiiiiiiight, because that's what I said.

 

[mellored]

Riiiiiiiight, because that's what I said.

Ok...
Then instead of the enemy wizard casting fireball, they cast counterspell on one of your smites.

Seems like a win.

But again. Either way is fine by me.

 

[Vael]

So real question does anyone actually use the Xanathar spell identify rule? Because i was under the impression that it was widely considered really bad and as such everyone ignored it.

Yes, because it's been kinda seen as a way to balance Counterspell and play some mindgames. I have seen DMs (and I have also done this) who know the mage has Counterspell say, "the monster starts casting a spell" and just look at the player with Counterspell. Actually, I've been on both sides of that equation, because I like to play the caster with Counterspell, and I've had DMs do this to me.

Now ... as a DM, I don't do bait and switches, and if it's a cantrip or at-will magical attack, those are clearly stated, no identification required.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok...
Then instead of the enemy wizard casting fireball, they cast counterspell on one of your smites.

Seems like a win.

But again. Either way is fine by me.

What part of "They don't know what they are counterspelling" do you not get? Is it a smite or a geas? Is it a smite or a destructive wave? They don't know.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

An optional rule should not be changing a base class. If there's a problem, change the optional rule to fix it.

 

[Vael]

What part of "They don't know what they are counterspelling" do you not get? Is it a smite or a geas? Is it a smite or a destructive wave? They don't know.

Now, tbf, DMs always have the info advantage here, because Players announce their spells, so if a DM has a spellcasting monster capable of Counterspell, we don't have the informational gap that we can put on a player.

That said ... I think it's still cool and still worth having Divine Smite be a spell, because it'll be a fun moment when the Paladin Smites a Lich and the Lich says ... "No". BBEG's are generally disadvantaged because of Action Economy, even with legendary actions, so I think this interplay is for the better.

 

[Maxperson]

So real question does anyone actually use the Xanathar spell identify rule? Because i was under the impression that it was widely considered really bad and as such everyone ignored it.

I've never seen it used.