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

[Ruin Explorer]

And I think a reasonable reading of my comment on the action economy would understand that, since I'm talking about the playtest Smite spell, a Bonus Action only happens on your turn. This is another unnecessary nit-pick.

No, it's a very important distinction and actually extremely relevant to Playtest Packet 6.

Why?

Because they just upgraded Rogues by moving from from "Once per round, on your turn" to "One per turn" with Sneak Attacks.

At the same time they de facto did the reverse to Paladins. That's not a "nitpick", that's a fundamental difference that made one of the headline changes for Rogues.

Yes, it is ridiculous to the extreme.

But I think we might have a disagreement on who is the lonely person bizarrely internet-person arguing. If you want to say it's me, hey, I can't stop you. But you'll just have to go to bed tonight knowing that there's at least one person out there in internet-land who things this universal truth of yours regarding re-fluff is in fact a pile of caca.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

View attachment 289381
screenshot from DND Beyond's Sage Advice Compendium

Thanks, that's helpful, particularly the specific ref to spell slots.

 

[Sir Brennen]

No, it's a very important distinction and actually extremely relevant to Playtest Packet 6.

Why?

Because they just upgraded Rogues by moving from from "Once per round, on your turn" to "One per turn" with Sneak Attacks.

At the same time they de facto did the reverse to Paladins. That's not a "nitpick", that's a fundamental difference that made one of the headline changes for Rogues.

Sneak attacks are not a bonus action. Divine Smite spells are. There is no need to clarify you can't do a Bonus Action on a Reaction, because that's already how things work in the action economy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sneak attacks are not a bonus action. Divine Smite spells are. There is no need to clarify you can't do a Bonus Action on a Reaction, because that's already how things work in the action economy.

No-one is asking for clarification.

Why are you suggesting they were? It's not in my post or anyone else's.

I'm not "asking" for anything. I'm pointing out that this is a massive and highly negative change for Paladins, from 5E and all previous playtest packets to this packet. This is a huge nerf.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Okay, but spell resistance won't effect it. Nor will silence.

I think all you are doing is once more demonstrating how the 2014 smite spells like blinding smite or wrathful smite were terrible terrible abilities compared to divine smite.

If we look it at this way, then had the choice between more damage, uncounterspellable, works in anti-magic and silence, and takes no action for a spell slot vs spending that same spell slot, for less damage, can be counterspelled, doesn't work in anti-magi or silence, takes a bonus action, has a saving throw but can impose a condition for a single turn.

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.

Also, again, spell resistance does not affect Divine Smite. There is no save, and there is no monster I can find that takes half damage from all spells.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

there is no monster I can find that takes half damage from all spells.

Yeah I thought there was but I can't find them either - an Ancients Paladin in 5E does, but in 1D&D that's changed to Radiant/Necrotic/Psychic damage types.

You're correct though that this trashes normal Smite down to the extremely bad level of the Smite spells. That needs to be fixed, and I'll be giving feedback to that effect.

 

[Sir Brennen]

No-one is asking for clarification.

Why are you suggesting they were? It's not in my post or anyone else's.

Post #92, where you pointed out that I didn't include "on your turn". Maybe you didn't ask for clarification, you added it yourself. Then expounded upon it in post #101.

Unnecessarily.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unnecessarily.

Wow. The Internet, ladies and gents.

Either way, what I've said is correct, and it's a significant change for Smite.

 

[Xamnam]

I think all you are doing is once more demonstrating how the 2014 smite spells like blinding smite or wrathful smite were terrible terrible abilities compared to divine smite.

If we look it at this way, then had the choice between more damage, uncounterspellable, works in anti-magic and silence, and takes no action for a spell slot vs spending that same spell slot, for less damage, can be counterspelled, doesn't work in anti-magi or silence, takes a bonus action, has a saving throw but can impose a condition for a single turn.

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).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Except now you have to have the ability to cast two spells in a round to get that combo to work. Palalocks with quickened spell for the win!

No it works out the gate. It’s a bonus action spell and an action cantrip.