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

[doctorbadwolf]

Wrathful is frightened for up to a minute, requiring an action after a failed save to shake it off (or for the caster to drop concentration).

But a die of damage! You give up so much! Jk wrathful remains a good spell.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mean, no-one but you is using "re-fluff" to mean "personally, and only personally, re-imagine", so you're basically saying that you've decided to use a word differently to everyone else. You're, dare I say it, by your own definition "re-fluffing" the meaning of the word "re-fluff" lol.

You mean of the handful of people in this thread who are talking about it? Okay. I can accept that.

Cause guess what? Even if a handful of people joined into our discussion to agree with your take, or a handful showed up and agreed with my take... yeah, either of us could go "Ha! See! Told ya so!!!"... but... so what? None of this matters. WotC isn't watching our thread with baited breath to finally figure out who's right or wrong and then base their decisions for their playtest on it.

This whole thing came about because Maxperson believes that Divine Smite that uses a spell slot but is not defined as a spell is different than a Divine Smite that is defined as a spell. And they don't like the change. Which is fine. They don't have to. But my response of "If the change ends up going through, then you could just treat a Divine Smite spell the same way you currently treat a Divine Smite cleric ability that uses a spell slot" is not exactly an outrageous idea. Max doesn't have to accept that, obviously... and if they don't, it's no skin off my nose. They can just use 5E14 Divine Smite to their heart's content. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But it's also not going to stop me from saying that WotC is under no obligation to change or not change their rules on the matter just because Max didn't like it.

 

[Nadan]

WoTC wants the smite spells to be closer in power to divine smite. They could have made none of them spells, instead they made all of them spells. But going back to 2014's interpretation would just mean that the smite spells are again garbage options.

WoTC have a hardline that won't remove any spell nor change the spell level. They clearly want to nerf paladin's nova potential AND don't want divine smite stackable with other spell smite (or any bonus action spell) based on previous packet. At least this time it can stack with GFB and BB if you really want to.

 

[Maxperson]

Um... magic resistance only gives advantage to saves, it never gave resistance to magical damage. So... how does magic resistance do anything to Divine Smite? There is no save.

"As you hit the creature, your strike channels divine wrath. The target takes an extra 1d6 Necrotic damage from the attack, and it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Frightened condition until the spell ends. At the end of each of its turns, the Frightened target
repeats the saving throw, ending the spell on itself on a success."

 

[Maxperson]

This whole thing came about because Maxperson believes that Divine Smite that uses a spell slot but is not defined as a spell is different than a Divine Smite that is defined as a spell.

It's not just a belief. It's a fact! The 2014 divine smite is in fact not a spell. It cannot be counterspelled and is not affected by silence.

And they don't like the change. Which is fine. They don't have to. But my response of "If the change ends up going through, then you could just treat a Divine Smite spell the same way you currently treat a Divine Smite cleric ability that uses a spell slot" is not exactly an outrageous idea.

In order for it to be the 2014 divine smite, I would have to have it house ruled to be that way. Even if I could re-fluff it as a player, re-fluffing the 2024 version cannot make it into the 2014 version. There are mechanical differences.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. These are all things FOR YOU. And how YOU see them.

But how YOU see them is not universal. And WotC is under no obligation to curtail their designs to make sure they fit under what YOU think they should be. I would never in a million years want them to not come up with new ideas because they thought YOU wouldn't accept them. Sorry.

They are not all for me and how I see them. If I'm the DM, it's also how the game world sees it and is in fact what happens in the fiction, regardless of how the player sees it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Cause guess what? Even if a handful of people joined into our discussion to agree with your take, or a handful showed up and agreed with my take... yeah, either of us could go "Ha! See! Told ya so!!!"... but... so what? None of this matters. WotC isn't watching our thread with baited breath to finally figure out who's right or wrong and then base their decisions for their playtest on it.

I don't think WotC cares about or even thinks about re-fluffing, generally speak.

You mean of the handful of people in this thread who are talking about it? Okay. I can accept that.

No I mean when the term is used here or on other TT RPG sites generally. Nobody uses it to mean a single person re-imagining, they use it to mean a shared discussion that X abilities that this character uses look like Y (sometimes it does extend to minor mechanical effects, too, but that's less certain). In practice, it's definitely true that relatively few people contradict that - but some DMs do, and it does sometimes actually matter to the story and so on. A caster who casts spells that look like beautiful fireworks will generally get a different reaction from casting in public to one who casts the same spells but they look like spine-chilling tendrils/snakes/worms of darkness.

 

[Maxperson]

You saying it does not make it true.

Mine and @Ruin Explorer's definition has been the commonly used one for literally decades. I've never even heard the one you are espousing until this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You mean of the handful of people in this thread who are talking about it? Okay. I can accept that.

Cause guess what? Even if a handful of people joined into our discussion to agree with your take, or a handful showed up and agreed with my take... yeah, either of us could go "Ha! See! Told ya so!!!"... but... so what? None of this matters. WotC isn't watching our thread with baited breath to finally figure out who's right or wrong and then base their decisions for their playtest on it.

This whole thing came about because Maxperson believes that Divine Smite that uses a spell slot but is not defined as a spell is different than a Divine Smite that is defined as a spell. And they don't like the change. Which is fine. They don't have to. But my response of "If the change ends up going through, then you could just treat a Divine Smite spell the same way you currently treat a Divine Smite cleric ability that uses a spell slot" is not exactly an outrageous idea. Max doesn't have to accept that, obviously... and if they don't, it's no skin off my nose. They can just use 5E14 Divine Smite to their heart's content. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But it's also not going to stop me from saying that WotC is under no obligation to change or not change their rules on the matter just because Max didn't like it.

“Re-fluff” means reimagine personally without changing mechanics what a weird argument. People are seriously trying to claim otherwise?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Mine and @Ruin Explorer's definition has been the commonly used one for literally decades. I've never even heard the one you are espousing until this thread.

Yeah and if anyone wants back-up on this, go look at discussions on re-fluffing here and on other sites like RPG.net.