D&D 5E (2024) How 2024 design interacts with class features and resources (poorly)

[Horwath]

For paladins:
only thing about smite that needed to be changed is:
you can use it Once on YOUR turn.

that is it. The required Bonus action is overkill, making it an actual spell is an overkill.

Same for assassin.
Assassin was never the problem.
the Assassin 3, Gloomstalker 3, Fighter 2, Paladin 5+ was always the problem.

Assassinate features could just be coded:
your attack that carries sneak attack rider is automatic crit if it hits and a normal hit if it misses in 1st round of combat against surprised enemy.
If you limit assassinate to sneak attack only, you do not need to worry about multiclass exploits.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For paladins:
only thing about smite that needed to be changed is:
you can use it Once on YOUR turn.

that is it. The required Bonus action is overkill, making it an actual spell is an overkill.

On the other hand other changes were needed:

• Lay On Hands needed to become a bonus action
• Given that Paladins get static damage (especially at level 11) something needed to be done to restrict their extra attacks as they multiply; giving them more uses for the bonus action meant that Polearm Master and Two Weapon Fighting didn't dominate

So moving the Smite to a bonus action helped balance the paladin weapon styles while keeping Smite as still an effective use of a first level spell slot.

Same for assassin.
Assassin was never the problem.
the Assassin 3, Gloomstalker 3, Fighter 2, Paladin 5+ was always the problem.

Narp. The 2014 assassin needed changing because the surprise rules had been heavily defanged to prevent TPKs. Now you can disagree with the change to the surprise rules (I do as they take tension and planning out of the game) but with no bonus round for surprise something needed to change.

But there actually was a problem with surprise, and that was how DM and table dependent it was, and this carried through to assassin. At the wrong table the assassin never got their big feature, leading to a negative play experience. And D&D specialises in least worst not most good.

 

[Steady Vane]

• Given that Paladins get static damage (especially at level 11) something needed to be done to restrict their extra attacks as they multiply; giving them more uses for the bonus action meant that Polearm Master and Two Weapon Fighting didn't dominate

You seem to be conceding the point here, that paladin action economy was made worse in a way to fight between their class features, spellcasting, and weapon mastery.

As the OP said, weapon mastery was made without consideration to the classes, so WOTC had to make clunky and feels-bad a core feature of the paladin to accommodate the weapon changes.

For comparison, consider the ranger. Ranger was one of the most disliked classes generally in 5e, partly because it suffered a similar issue with its bonus action economy being incredibly overbloated. Your subclass wants it, spells want it, and dual-wielding wants it. The "iconic" ranger spell in 5e, Hunter's Mark, wants your Bonus Action too. It feels bad to play.

Perhaps optionally multiplying the number of attacks you get was not the play. Multiplying the number of attacks innately makes the system incredibly unsteady, but in 5.5 it is a core option that you can just stumble into or completely miss. In 5e, you smoothly and automatically progressed through number of attacks and/or attack-boosting features at levels 1, 5 and 11. In 5.5, you might or might not triple your attacks at level 4/double them by level 5, and every class that adds damage per hit is told to consider it balanced. Other than paladins, there are multiple classes like barbarians and bards that can easily add damage to each weapon hit. Doubling the number of on-hit bonuses provided, versus Sap or Cleave or something never scaling, was simply never going to be balanced.

In response they nerf paladin Smite spells to make the paladin action economy bad, and buff the Divine Favor level 1 spell so paladins are "buffed" and better than rangers still, because WOTC hates rangers I guess. Also paladins now have a horse. Look, they gave paladins a horse, and made one first-level spell their go-to instead of smites, aren't paladins better? But they had to nerf smite action economy for "balance", anyone who complains is clearly a dirty nova player. I just wanted to use my bonus action for stuff man.

In comparison to the 5e paladin, in 5.5 you are left with a "buffed" paladin class with a thematically weak core feature that conflicts with everything else to even use, and ivory-tower style options to pick with your system mastery. 3.5 style design re-invented, I hate it.

If I described a class with a weak central feature you were better off ignoring for trying to find value in other parts of the half-caster's kit, because the Bonus Action usage was so bloated the class feels poor to play unless you specifically avoid the things that use your concentration or Bonus Action, that describes a 5e/5.5 ranger and a 5.5 paladin. 5.5 paladin has inherited the 5e ranger complaints, or at least half of them. Technically numerically strong but badly designed. And it's because of weapon mastery

 

[rabirin]

So, in regards to two arguments made here...

• Did Lay on Hands need to be a bonus action? Not whatsoever. There's no actual need for it to be a BA. Making it a BA ultimately only benefits the yo-yo healing "meta" (particularly as non-spell healing in 2024 is effectively nerfed).
• 2024 doesn't do anything at all to limit Paladins' number of attacks at all, and are the prime example of how allowing excessive numbers of easy extra attacks throws off game balance.

But if I'm being perfectly honest, requiring a bonus action for Divine Smite is hardly unreasonable. Divine Smite has always been a spell in all but limitations, and the only reason having Divine Smite require a bonus action feels so limiting was because of how unrestricted Divine Smite was compared to other options.

Where 2024 does get entirely...well, 2024-y...is the fact that Eldritch Smite still functions the exact same way, without any action usage. Inconsistent design!

What I would have done, to be frank? Smites as spells, that's the starter. At level 5, you can now upcast Smite spells—no more Bards who take a one-level dip and can cast Smites more effectively than a Paladin. Then at level 11, Radiant Strikes lets you forgo the free radiant damage on an attack to cast a Smite spell as part of that attack. This makes Smites less abusable for non-Paladins, lets them regain the option for action-free Smites at higher levels, and reins in Radiant Strikes a bit.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You seem to be conceding the point here, that paladin action economy was made worse in a way to fight between their class features, spellcasting, and weapon mastery.

I am not conceding the point in the slightest. I am making the point that the 2014 paladin action economy was generally too good and this had the effect of making any paladin build that could consistently use bonus actions to attack broken.

To put it simply in the 2014 rules paladins had no default way to use their bonus action. Literally none of their class features used it unlike e.g. fighters (second wind), barbarians (raging), rogues, monks, and rangers (hunter's mark). The only subclass features paladins had in the core books that used their bonus action were the Oath of Vengeance channel divinity and two level 20 abilities from other subclasses.

This meant that the paladin's bonus action was free real estate. And anything that gave a simple spammable bonus action in combat was far more powerful on a paladin than on any other class because there was no competition for the bonus action; it was an always-spam not a choice. In addition to that the paladin, due to its level 11 bonus damage per attack didn't just gain more attacks from e.g. Polearm Master than anyone else, it gained more extra damage per attack than e.g. a fighter would.

Because the paladin had such a ridiculously clean action economy under 2014 rules builds that could reliably use their bonus actions, especially if they could use it to attack, (Polearm Master of course being the poster child here as it did both) were just better than builds that didn't. And when it's that clear a difference paladins didn't have build choice; they had an intelligence test to find the right build - which was not good for the variety of the game.

So yes the paladin action economy was made way worse because the 2014 paladin action economy was actually broken. And because it was made way worse a paladin with a sword and shield is now competitive with one with spear and shield rather than spear and shield being the One True Way.

As the OP said, weapon mastery was made without consideration to the classes, so WOTC had to make clunky and feels-bad a core feature of the paladin to accommodate the weapon changes.

And you are ignoring the point. Weapon mastery was irrelevant to the changes in the paladin action economy. They took something broken (the paladin action economy) and brought it into line with everyone else. And yes broken things do feel good and when something was broken but no longer is it does feel worse. This doesn't mean that fixing broken things is a bad thing.

In response they nerf paladin Smite spells to make the paladin action economy bad,

The paladin action economy isn't actually bad now. It's just not trivial.

and buff the Divine Favor level 1 spell so paladins are "buffed"

Buffing the Divine Favour spell because it was genuinely bad compared to just Divine Smiting and getting the damage upfront. It still takes four hits to break even with a simple divine smite, and that's normally at least two rounds of attacks as you can miss (with the buff meaning it didn't block you further). It wasn't to buff the paladin, it was to give the paladin options by buffing a genuinely bad spell.

Paladins were arguably the most powerful class in 2014 rules (it was them or wizards) and they gained two substantial buffs; weapon mastery and dropping Lay On Hands to a bonus action. They also took a single nerf to something that was both broken and lead to unfortunately centralising weapon choices rather than a variety of competitive options.

But they had to nerf smite action economy for "balance", anyone who complains is clearly a dirty nova player. I just wanted to use my bonus action for stuff man.

Smite is stuff.

In comparison to the 5e paladin, in 5.5 you are left with a "buffed" paladin class with a thematically weak core feature that conflicts with everything else to even use,

You are left with a buffed paladin class that has a core feature that conflicts with precisely two other mandatory features, all of which are on limited resources. You are also left with a buffed paladin class other than for certain specific choices, none of which should have been iconic and all remain viable (polearm master, charismadin, smite-nova).

and ivory-tower style options to pick with your system mastery. 3.5 style design re-invented, I hate it.

And being 3.5 style design re-invented is why the paladin needed rebalancing. It now doesn't encourage system mastery or provide an oversized reward for tortuous build paths that rewarded unusual weapon choices and multiclassing. There were two paladin choices in 5.14 that were head and shoulders above all others and that wanted a little system mastery to find:

• Spear + Shield + Polearm Master; we've been into why (it's also got combos with duelist style of course giving it advantages over other polarms)
• Single level dip into Hexblade Warlock for
  • Attacking with charisma that you also use for your aura and spells with basically no penalty (in the 2024 rules weapon feats don't add to charisma - which with the first stat breakpoint being at level 4 matters much more than it did)
  • A short rest spell slot for Smite or Shield (you get the short rest spell slot in 2024 but no Shield)
  • The Shield spell added to your spell list (you needed to multiclass to do this in 2014 but it's easy for any 2024 paladin)
  • A short rest Hexblade's Curse that provides healing, damage, and crits

The 2014 Paladin was a "tortured multiclass and an odd weapon, win in character creation" class in a way the 2024 paladin isn't. Can you play a warlock-dipping charisma-attacking spear and shield paladin in 2024? Sure you can. It just isn't the bestest any more. Almost every paladin build that doesn't (a) use polearm master, (b) dip warlock to use charisma as your attack stat, or (c) blow all their spell slots on a smite nova and then rest after a single fight is better.

If I described a class with a weak central feature you were better off ignoring

Then you wouldn't be describing the 2024 Paladin. I'm not sure whether you're talking about spellcasting, lay on hands, or divine smite. But all work well.

trying to find value in other parts of the half-caster's kit, because the Bonus Action usage was so bloated

So ... you consider three very different options (Divine Smite, Lay on Hands, and Channel Divinity: Divine Sense) to be too bloated for you? Or are you also playing an Oath of Glory paladin and having an hour long buff that takes an action to use. Or are you playing a level 20 paladin? Seriously, I don't think that Divine sense ever competes with Lay on Hands or Divine Smite. So in combat it's a choice between spending a bonus action to smite and one to heal, each using a limited resource.

I have just listed literally all the PHB paladin abilities in the game that use bonus actions and that are given to the paladin by default. If you took e.g. spear and shield (because it was the bestest in 5.14) and Divine Favour (because it was buffed so is now competive) and other abilities that used your bonus action that is your build choice. The paladin has a decent number of bonus actions but you can make build choices to bloat them.

And it's because of weapon mastery

So... what weapon mastery actually uses your bonus action?

 

[Horwath]

So, in regards to two arguments made here...

• Did Lay on Hands need to be a bonus action? Not whatsoever. There's no actual need for it to be a BA. Making it a BA ultimately only benefits the yo-yo healing "meta" (particularly as non-spell healing in 2024 is effectively nerfed).

yes,

for one simple reason, healing is really boring.
all healing spells/effects/features should be Bonus action.

 

[Neonchameleon]

yes,

for one simple reason, healing is really boring.
all healing spells/effects/features should be Bonus action.

I wouldn't go that far. But yes if you are going to have D&D style healing and D&D style hit points it is boring and should thus default to not using your full action.

 

[rabirin]

yes,

for one simple reason, healing is really boring.
all healing spells/effects/features should be Bonus action.

Then I'm very glad you're not deciding what options every person playing the game should be allowed to have.

I've had the joy of dropping a much-needed Mass Cure Wounds in an intense battle and keeping everyone in the fight. If that's something you don't care about, maybe just don't take that option for yourself.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wouldn't go that far. But yes if you are going to have D&D style healing and D&D style hit points it is boring and should thus default to not using your full action.

Either that or healing spells need to be very efficient.

 

[Zardnaar]

Old paladin you had bo brainer options and OP nova.

New paladin has to make tactical choice potentially between an extra attack, smite or divibe favor. And hunters mark if youre a vengeance one.

Bonus action abuse was s key part of 2014 often via feat.

Smites should probably be divorced from spells. Number of times per day equal to proficiency bonus per long/short rest.