How are there only 16 rounds of combat in 6-8 four round fights? That's 24-32 rounds of combat. Remember, the official game balance is the adventuring day, so this entire discussion about class balance must revolve around that balance.
That's because I didn't say it was a day with 6 to 8 four round fights. I said it was 16 rounds of combat. So, can you stop trying to alter the premise? Seriously, this is your third attempt to say my numbers are wrong simply because you didn't read what I wrote to understand the numbers I was using, and keep trying to insist your numbers are the only acceptable numbers that can exist.
Because, here is a fun fact. The game is balanced around 6 to 8 ENCOUNTERS. Not 6 to 8 FIGHTS. Combat is not the only possible encounter. Traps are encounters as well. So even in a 6 encounter day... you can absolutely have four fights, and two non-fight encounters. This is literally a known fact, so I don't understand why it would confuse you so much.
6-8, so we'll say 7 fights since that's in the middle. Fights average 3-5 rounds, so we say 4 rounds. The fighter is getting I guess 10 smites total for the 28 rounds of combat. The monk gets 28 rounds of his ability. Since the paladin only gets 10(with that 2nd level ability) smites, that's NOT 16 rounds. That's 10 rounds. So the monk gets an additional 18 rounds, not 12.
28 rounds of combat minus 16 rounds of combat equals twelve rounds of combat. Yes, if you change that to 28 rounds of combat minus 10 rounds of combat that would equal eighteen rounds of combat. But that not only requires the paladin only having 10 rounds of combat, which wasn't my claim, or the assumption that I ever claimed the paladin smote 16 times, which I never did.
Seriously, go back. Reread my post. At this point you are arguing against the shadows you have conjured from your own assumptions, and nothing I have stated.
I never said 40. I said he can't know how many hit points something has left, so there will be overkill and more of it than the monk who doesn't have such a large spike of damage. You simply cannot assume that 100% of the paladin smite damage is going to be useful. If you do, you are automatically incorrect in your assessment.
I know you never said 40%. I said 40%, when I showed how much damage the paladin would have to lose for the Monk in 16 rounds of combat (with the paladin getting 10 rounds of smites) to deal more damage than the Paladin. You never disputed my number, and in fact you have simply claimed that the amount of damage lost is greater than 0%. If the paladin only loses 15% of their damage to overkill? They do more damage than the monk. 33%? They do more damage than the monk.
I don't need to assume 100% of the smite damage is 100% useful. I just need to assume 70% of it is useful, and the paladin outperforms the monk. Or 80% or 90% or 95%. So, unless you can prove that the paladin is only 60% effective with their smite damage.... you are just whistling into the wind. Because it doesn't matter than a small percent of the damage is lost when the gap is so large.
Quote them saying that 2024 will be backwards compatible with the 2014 classes? That's common knowledge man. The only way that's possible is if they keep the adventuring day that the entire edition of 5e is balanced around.
If they redesign the game from the ground up in order to get rid of the adventuring day, and the playtest packets show us that the are not doing that, then backwards compatibility isn't possible.
Backwards compatibility is perfectly in line with not assuming 6 to 8 encounters per day. Especially since many resources have gained or lost different recovery rates.
Your claim that backwards compatibility proves that they have not altered the balance is laughable in the face of the actual changes to balance already presented. Unless you think paladins always received three channel divinities and recovered one per short rest? Or that Warlocks received a daily spell allotment?
