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

[Stalker0]

Yep, if an effect is adding damage dice to an attack, as such, it’s Smite-able.

I do hope that WOTC comes out and confirms what their intentions were either way, clearly people are confused by it

 

[Chaosmancer]

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!!!

And being countered by a spell is not magic resistance. So, when you said the change to Divine Smite made it vulnerable to magic resistance, you were simply flat out wrong.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is nothing in addition to those points. First, you're wrong. There is an action cost. Second, before these changes I could smite doing more damage with no action cost, no risk of silence working and no ability to be countered. Now those things work on smite. Further, smite wasn't broken before unless the DM broke things by not engaging the adventuring day and only having 1 or 2 encounters. That's not a problem with the ability.

ROFLOL, First off I'm wrong that only changing the concentration on the other smite spells would mean there is no action cost to Divine Smite. Second, before the changes to divine smite (where they just removed the concentration on the other smite spells) there was no action cost.

I know you often make my point for me, but this one takes the cake. Yes, you are 100% correct. Before making these changes Divine Smite had no action cost, while Thunderous smite did have an action cost. There was no risk of Divine Smite being stopped by silence, while Thunderous smite could be stopped by silence. There was no ability to counterspell Divine Smite, while thunderous smite could be counterspelled. This is 100% the problem WoTC faced, because Thunderous smite also did less damage. So, Divine Smite was no action, uncounterable, unsilenceable, un-anti-magicable, and did more damage. It was not balanced against Thunderous smite.

To balance it, they either had to make all smites work like divine smite, or they had to make divine smite a spell. They chose to make divine smite a spell. But if you don't like that, then make sure you understand that there is only one other way to balance those spells.

They already had that. They sucked without the changes that allowed their use after a hit, but that change made them usable. Further, they did not need to alter base smite to use those spells. Nor does the existence of those spells require smite to be made into a sucky ability in order to balance their use.

No. No they didn't. You can buy that line if you want to, but before there was smite, and then there were smite spells which were different. No "parity" was required since they weren't supposed to be the same to begin with. This is a line they are giving in order to encourage people to buy into the nerf. And it seems that some people are snapping up what they are selling.

False Equivalences are false. One does not equal the other.

Yes, they were supposed to be the same. Because every time I complained the about the smite spells, I was told they did less damage because they had a rider effect, and Divine Smite could do more damage because it did not. You may not be happy that Divine Smite is a smite, just like Thunderous Smite or Wrathful Smite or Glimmering Smite, but that was always the intention. That's why they were all called "smite"

 

[Vael]

if something was for free, and now it competes for action slot, then it is prevented from working.

P.S. I do not know what was wrong with current smite?

Because it did technically allow the Paladin to use two spell slots per turn, one to smite another to cast ... something that full casters are prevented from doing, since casting a spell as a bonus action means you cannot cast a non-cantrip spell. The last write-up for the Paladin included new text to stop that from happening. The Sorcerer's Twin Spell got nerfed hard because the limited ability to do that was viewed as too powerful. In general ... ignoring reaction spells, casting two (non cantrip) spells a turn is considered too much by the designers. They've said as much. See also the rewrite of Fighter's Action Surge to no longer allow spellcasting with that action. Also, with the changes to the other Smite spells, if Divine Smite was left as is, double-smiting is clearly a strong option for Paladins and so we have two choices:
1. Leave Divine Smite as is but add a rule that says if you use it, you can't cast spells this turn. That was how the previous Paladin playtest was written.
2. Make Divine Smite a spell and it now, by virtue of action economy negates the need to spell this out, a Paladin cannot double Smite.

I think option 2 is cleaner because it accomplishes the same design goal without adding more rules to remember and makes all the Smites function the same, and I actually like the interplay of being able to Counterspell it or store it in a Ring of Spell Storing.

 

[Horwath]

Maybe Divine smite should be removed from spell slots completely and added it's own resource pool.

I.E. at 2nd level you can do, once per turn when you hit extra +2d8 radiant damage.
you can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus.

at 5th level, damage is increased to +3d8
at 9th level, damage is increased to +4d8
at 13th level, damage is increased to +5d8
at 17th level, damage is increased to +6d8

 

[Nadan]

Maybe Divine smite should be removed from spell slots completely and added it's own resource pool.

I.E. at 2nd level you can do, once per turn when you hit extra +2d8 radiant damage.
you can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus.

at 5th level, damage is increased to +3d8
at 9th level, damage is increased to +4d8
at 13th level, damage is increased to +5d8
at 17th level, damage is increased to +6d8

It is quit clear WotC's goal is nerf paladin's nova ability. No matter what divine smite changes, as long as they can smite multiple times in a turn OR stackable with smite spells, it is fail to meet the goal. And there's also a hard line that no spell will be removed nor change level, including smite spells. So make divine smite a bonus action spell accomplish three goal at once: balance with other smite, unstackable, and only once per round.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree that Counterspell is a "common ability" amongst enemies that most parties face. While there are probably some tables where the PCs face off against spellcasting humanoids as their primary antagonists... I would venture to say that most tables use the wide variety of enemies found in the Monster Manual, most of whom do not cast spells... let alone have Counterspell in their prepared or innate spell lists.

And even if an enemy does have it... the odds of the enemy counterspelling a smite versus a larger spell thrown by someone else in the party I would believe is probably small.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

And being countered by a spell is not magic resistance. So, when you said the change to Divine Smite made it vulnerable to magic resistance, you were simply flat out wrong.

Okay.

 

[Maxperson]

I know you often make my point for me, but this one takes the cake. Yes, you are 100% correct. Before making these changes Divine Smite had no action cost, while Thunderous smite did have an action cost. There was no risk of Divine Smite being stopped by silence, while Thunderous smite could be stopped by silence. There was no ability to counterspell Divine Smite, while thunderous smite could be counterspelled. This is 100% the problem WoTC faced, because Thunderous smite also did less damage. So, Divine Smite was no action, uncounterable, unsilenceable, un-anti-magicable, and did more damage. It was not balanced against Thunderous smite.

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 were supposed to be the same. Because every time I complained the about the smite spells, I was told they did less damage because they had a rider effect, and Divine Smite could do more damage because it did not.

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

You may not be happy that Divine Smite is a smite, just like Thunderous Smite or Wrathful Smite or Glimmering Smite, but that was always the intention. That's why they were all called "smite"

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.

 

[mellored]

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.

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