D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal #3: "New Paladin"

"the paladin who, if they were in a movie, would ... have impossibly white teeth".


New Paladin preview: here are some notes, focusing on what's new and changes from the playtest materials. Last time we saw the Paladin was in Playtest 6 [=PT6 below].
See also this comparison at D&D Beyond (by someone who saw the video before it was streamed!)

OVERVIEW

• spellcasting starts at level 1, specifically called out as an advantage for multiclassing. (Same for Rangers).
• Lay on Hands and Weapon mastery at 1
• Paladin's smite at 2, along with fighting style.
• NEW: Paladin fighting style restriction is removed (all are available). You may forego fighting style to learn cantrips. [The option to get cantrips was given in Tasha's. They're letting us have it, but it's not called a "fighting style". I suspect this ties to the decision that fighting styles are feats now, and this would be weaker than magic initiate (which also gives a level 1 spell).]
• Paladin's smite gives you the spell Divine smite, with one free casting.
• channel divinity [CD]: uses increase: start with 2, plus 1 on a short rest.
• divine sense in CD option (as in PT6). duration lasts 10 minutes.
• Find steed spell at level 5, cast 1/day with no slot. Redesigned so that spell can be upcast, with a unique steed statblock. [This strongly implies that it's a class-specific spell, not on others' lists. Awesome. (Will a Lore Bard be able to select it? I hope so, and the discussion of spell lists (see below) makes me think they might, since identifying class-specific spells is harder.)]
• Abjure Foes a CD option (given at 9 in PT6)
• Auras are single things, with a single radius, that gain abilities/functionality (not separate auras as in 2014).

SUBCLASSES

Oath of Devotion.

• NEW: Sacred Weapon is part of the attack action. (PT required a Bonus action).
• Smite of Protection (level 15 in PT6)
• Holy Nimbus (level 20) is a bonus action (as in PT6).

Oath of Glory ("...this for me is the paladin who, if they were in a movie, would look at the camera, have impossibly white teeth, with a little sparkle on them as they smile")

• Peerless athlete lasts an hour (as in PT6)
• NEW: Aura of Alacrity affects allies if they enter your aura on their turn (they no longer need to start there)
• Oath of Glory has a new spell at level 17: Yolan's Regal Presence. Created by the Queen of the Elves, and makes others kneel before you and take psychic damage. [It's said that others can cast this spell too -- if right, then it's a 5th level spell and Clerics (likely) will be getting this at level 9. Perhaps he misspoke, and it's a class-specific spell.]

Oath of the Ancients

• Nature's wrath range "has been extended"
• Aura of Warding as in PT6 (resistance to Necrotic, Psychic, and Radiant)
• Undying Sentinel at 15 as in PT6 (you don't return with 1hp, but [?] 3x class level.

Oath of Vengeance

• NEW: Vow of Enmity part of attack action (not Bonus action); can transfer (as in PT6)
• NEW: Level 20 Avenging Angel activated as a Bonus Action, and lasts an hour (not 10 min as in PT6)

NEW RULES

• new area of effect: it's been there since 2014, but hasn't been named. It's for AOE that emanate from a character or monster -- the Emanation.
• new approach to spell lists. Spell list is part of the class description (as we saw with the Artificer). Entries give the school, whether it needs concentration, and required components. [I presume spell descriptions will still be at the back of the book: this is referring to the lists currently on PHB 207-11.]
• oath spell lists, patron spell lists, etc. have all been vetted and updated throughout.

 

[Morrus]

So you support horrible style of play that results in horrible games that drive people away from the hobby. As a proof: I myself was driven away from rpgs for nearly a decade due to horrible experience with 3.5 and Pathfinder and high demand they had to know every useless minutia and dumb microrules that never come into play, while being impossible to hack or homebrew to fix any rule you may have a problem with, without breakign the whole game.

I don't want to "accuratelly simulate" the world in my game, it's not why most people pick up rpgs, and honestly, I think it hurts D&D that it didn't abbandon simulationist approach already. There are lots of stupid, useless rules that seem to serve only pretending a game with Elves and Dragons is "realistic". A game should have as many rules as it needs, and not a single one more

Calm down, please. That was entirely unnecessary. People are allowed to like different things to you.

 

[Marandahir]

And my EXPERIENCE is that unnecessary systems that are supposed to pander to a group of people that is purely hypothetical, as we have no evidence this "fandom of disease rules" even exists, unnecessairly bloat the game and make it more intimidating for new players. See also: D&D 3/5/Patfinder 1e. Good game should have less rules, but they should be applicable to as many situations as possible.

The evidence: I asked the question about the rules because I LIKE disease rules, both as a player and as a DM. Just like how I like it when I have to deal with the issue in a game like The Elder Scrolls. It's an interesting plot wrinkle that the characters now have to deal with.

In addition, I agree that 3.5e had way too much systems mastery, but rather than leaving the fandom, it made me love the streamlined nature of both 4e and 5e. 5e has brought in far more fans than any other edition. I don't think the game is driving people away en masse, diseases or no diseases. Though I do have a few friends who love 4e and dislike the 5e changes. But they're a minority compared to the amount of folks brought into the large tent umbrella of D&D by 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The evidence: I asked the question about the rules because I LIKE disease rules, both as a player and as a DM. Just like how I like it when I have to deal with the issue in a game like The Elder Scrolls. It's an interesting plot wrinkle that the characters now have to deal with.

In addition, I agree that 3.5e had way too much systems mastery, but rather than leaving the fandom, it made me love the streamlined nature of both 4e and 5e. 5e has brought in far more fans than any other edition. I don't think the game is driving people away en masse, diseases or no diseases. Though I do have a few friends who love 4e and dislike the 5e changes. But they're a minority compared to the amount of folks brought into the large tent umbrella of D&D by 5e.

Is getting the most people possible to buy and play the game the only thing that matters? Because you know that means no one should do anything other than the most popular thing.

 

[Marandahir]

Is getting the most people possible to buy and play the game the only thing that matters? Because you know that means no one should do anything other than the most popular thing.

No, that would be tyranny of the majority, and something social democracies try to balance with protections for minorities. But this isn't a government, it's a game system, and one that is trying to sell as many copies and convert as many prospective buyers as possible into enfranchised players who buy book after book and invest in D&D Beyond and the Virtual Tabletop. This is literally the game's mandate system their purchase by Hasbro. This is why we're back on the Virtual Tools train that was the center-point of why 4e was created in the first place.

The alternative is the TSR era - where they didn't know how to manage the business and nearly killed the game. I'm not saying that 2E is bad by any means - just that the business model was not sustainable, and D&D as a game and an idea is reliant on a company managing the game and spreading its play as much as possible.

As a counter-example, I'd put forward Nintendo's conservative approach to studio acquisitions even when they're booming with sales due to the Switch. They want long term growth, not short term yield. So there are cases to be made that WotC may be trying to grow too quickly and losing their core audience. That was sort of the diagnosis of 4E (where they may have misdiagnosed where the growth potential was, seeing the presented format as of interest to video gamers, but not actually bringing in far more players than they already had like 5E has). WotC isn't perfect, and makes bad decisions like the OGL debacle of months ago. Maybe the game would be healthier in a non-capitalist framework where it lives by "circulating the tapes" – but that's at its very core not going to reach as many players.

I think D&D as the biggest T&T RPG has an obligation to try to be as big hat as possible because it's a sort of "gateway drug" into the hobby. And that obligation to the hobby luckily aligns with WotC's business mandate of trying to gain and retain new players. Smaller more niche games can instead focus their narrative and world styles into more tightly woven systems because they don't have to appeal to as many people as D&D does. That means they can afford to specialize and appeal to smaller groups.

I'd also note that while I find WotC's business models of MtG very scummy, I can't argue with the success: they're able to fund absolutely fantastic art and worldbuilding on the backs of the randomized booster packs and whale-targeting collector's editions. So more sales CAN allow for greater creativity.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Is getting the most people possible to buy and play the game the only thing that matters? Because you know that means no one should do anything other than the most popular thing.

If you except a megacorporation like Hasbro in a capitalist society to make a choice that isn't maximalizing short-term profit, I have a bridge in London to sell you. A small and insular audience of grognards cannot support the mainstream game, that is the reality. If you don't like it, you can always go stick to free games or free material, but in this case I quesiton why are you in thread about the game that needs to make money.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you except a megacorporation like Hasbro in a capitalist society to make a choice that isn't maximalizing short-term profit, I have a bridge in London to sell you. A small and insular audience of grognards cannot support the mainstream game, that is the reality. If you don't like it, you can always go stick to free games or free material, but in this case I quesiton why are you in thread about the game that needs to make money.

I'm not interested in supporting the mainstream game; I don't really buy WotC anymore, and don't really care about Hasbro's quest to maximize their own profits. I care about a fun game I'd want to play, and 5.5 is actively moving away from what I want. It is, however, what everyone's talking about, and I like to interact with the community.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I'm not interested in supporting the mainstream game; I don't really buy WotC anymore, and don't really care about Hasbro's quest to maximize their own profits. I care about a fun game I'd want to play, and 5.5 is actively moving away from what I want. It is, however, what everyone's talking about, and I like to interact with the community.

Is your interaction going beyond complaining how the game is not what you like?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is your interaction going beyond complaining how the game is not what you like?

Sure, I've commented on tons of stuff. I just don't see much value in 5.5, certainly not worth buying books again for.

 

[Marandahir]

I'm not interested in supporting the mainstream game; I don't really buy WotC anymore, and don't really care about Hasbro's quest to maximize their own profits. I care about a fun game I'd want to play, and 5.5 is actively moving away from what I want. It is, however, what everyone's talking about, and I like to interact with the community.

That's fine. I like interacting with you too, Micah. We just might not agree about the direction of the game. :/

 

[Kobold Stew]

If you except a megacorporation like Hasbro in a capitalist society to make a choice that isn't maximalizing short-term profit, I have a bridge in London to sell you.

Hey! Can I get in on this action? I didn't even know people could buy bridges.