D&D (2024) Playtest Druid and Paladin One D&D survey is live.

[Maxperson]

I've never had a problem with the Paladin, but I've also never had a Paladin use more than one smite IN THE SAME ROUND, which is what you seem to think it so horrible that they've nerfed. Even with 2-4 encounters per day, most Paladins will "save it for later".

I've seen it happen many times when the paladin hits twice in a round. It isn't really a matter of saving it for later or not in a 2-4 encounter day. It's when they think it's necessary due to the monster being fought. It might happen in fight 1, 2, 3 or 2 and 4, or whenever.

I also really don't understand why the game would need a complete overhaul to facilitate 2-4 encounters per day when "everyone" already plays that way.

Because it's problematic. The game doesn't function well on 2-4 encounters. It takes a lot of work to force the square into the round hole. If they really want the game to run for 2-4 encounters, then they need to make that square peg round. Since we can see from the packets that they are clearly not making the necessary changes, what they are doing is for a 6-8 encounter game balance.

 

[Maxperson]

Getting multiple Smites a turn is such a corner case that it slipped entirely through Next playtesting and a year or two of play before WotC realized how ludicrous it could be: Joe Mangianello scored 323 points of damage in one Round on air in a game DMed by Mearls in like '17 or so, and that was pointed out as not RAI even if it was RAW. This is just fixing an unlikely corner case, that's all.

323 in one round was not an issue of smites. If the paladin hit twice with all of his attacks in that round, AND was used 19th level, AND used both of his 5th level slots to smit with, AND rolled max damage on his 5d8, AND crit both times, AND rolled max damage on both crits, the paladin just added 160 damage via smites only 80 of which was from the second smite that round. That's never going to happen.

 

[Parmandur]

I've seen it happen many times when the paladin hits twice in a round. It isn't really a matter of saving it for later or not in a 2-4 encounter day. It's when they think it's necessary due to the monster being fought. It might happen in fight 1, 2, 3 or 2 and 4, or whenever.

Because it's problematic. The game doesn't function well on 2-4 encounters. It takes a lot of work to force the square into the round hole. If they really want the game to run for 2-4 encounters, then they need to make that square peg round. Since we can see from the packets that they are clearly making the necessary changes, what they are doing is for a 6-8 encounter game balance.

Yeah, I mean, on the one hand, they clearly aren't changing the maximal balance focus of the game, but a change like this actually lossens up the standard adventure day, by making a Paladin's performance more predictable in a given fight even for a 1-3 Encounter day, same as making the newer style Monsters more predictable in performance. I reckon the Monk and Warlock are going to go the either way, and be given less reliance on DMs allowing Short Rests between 8 Encounters.

 

[Parmandur]

323 in one round was not an issue of smites. If the paladin hit twice with all of his attacks in that round, AND was used 19th level, AND used both of his 5th level slots to smit with, AND rolled max damage on his 5d8, AND crit both times, AND rolled max damage on both crits, the paladin just added 160 damage via smites only 80 of which was from the second smite that round. That's never going to happen.

Sure: but by the numbers, getting two Smites in one turn is fairly hard to pull off as it is: it's not a given, partly because it was not RAI at any point.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I mean, on the one hand, they clearly aren't changing the maximal balance focus of the game, but a change like this actually lossens up the standard adventure day, by making a Paladin's performance more predictable in a given fight even for a 1-3 Encounter day, same as making the newer style Monsters more predictable in performance. I reckon the Monk and Warlock are going to go the either way, and be given less reliance on DMs allowing Short Rests between 8 Encounters.

I don't agree. The paladin is a single class among 13. This alteration isn't going to do much of anything at all to the RAW adventuring day. Nothing they are doing is.

No matter how they slice it, balance is still going to be based on damage and resource depletion over time. If they give enough resources(and they have with these packets) to last 6-8 encounters, 2-4 will remain problematic.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure: but by the numbers, getting two Smites in one turn is fairly hard to pull off as it is: it's not a given, partly because it was not RAI at any point.

2 smites a turn is exceedingly easy to pull off as it is. It's very easy to hit monsters and 2 hits in a round is common. That means 2 smites in a round is also something that can commonly be done.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't agree. The paladin is a single class among 13. This alteration isn't going to do much of anything at all to the RAW adventuring day. Nothing they are doing is.

No matter how they slice it, balance is still going to be based on damage and resource depletion over time. If they give enough resources(and they have with these packets) to last 6-8 encounters, 2-4 will remain problematic.

Yeah, that's one of the main reasons I remain skeptical of the forum consensus thst "nobody" plays that way based on a handful of Redditors taking a poll. One suspects that WotC might have better market data.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, that's one of the main reasons I remain skeptical of the forum consensus thst "nobody" plays that way based on a handful of Redditors taking a poll. One suspects that WotC might have better market data.

I'm not sure where they would get it other than D&D Beyond, which is as skewed as a bunch of Redditors. Both groups are to an extent self-selecting. None of the polls that I can recall asked how many encounters we run during an adventuring day.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure where they would get it other than D&D Beyond, which is as skewed as a bunch of Redditors. Both groups are to an extent self-selecting. None of the polls that I can recall asked how many encounters we run during an adventuring day.

12 million is somewhat of a better sample size than 7 thousand.

 

[Parmandur]

Also, the balance point is set a maximum rather than a minimum, because that allows the game to function when people use less than all their resources, even if balance gets goofy. Expecting a minimum leads to other silliness, which makes the game not even function if it won't be met.