D&D 5E (2024) Playtest 6: Paladin ... Divine Smite is a Spell now

[Maxperson]

Now, tbf, DMs always have the info advantage here, because Players announce their spells, so if a DM has a spellcasting monster capable of Counterspell, we don't have the informational gap that we can put on a player.

I always have an idea of when the enemies will counterspell before spells are announced, so they've counterspelled cantrips, high level spells and everything in-between. Same as the players.

That said ... I think it's still cool and still worth having Divine Smite be a spell, because it'll be a fun moment when the Paladin Smites a Lich and the Lich says ... "No". BBEG's are generally disadvantaged because of Action Economy, even with legendary actions, so I think this interplay is for the better.

This is just a difference of opinion between you and I. Smite is the primary way that paladins deal damage and I don't think a lich should be able to tell the paladin no. Nor should silence almost completely shut him down. I can see where you are coming from here, though.

 

[Stalker0]

This is just a difference of opinion between you and I. Smite is the primary way that paladins deal damage and I don't think a lich should be able to tell the paladin no. Nor should silence almost completely shut him down. I can see where you are coming from here, though.

My counter argument is.... the paladin wants to play in the magical sandbox they deal with the magical consequences.

Paladins have lots of utility advantages over a martial fighter, but the counter should be that in times when magic isn't great (AM, counterspell, silence) the fighter keeps on trucking while the paladin has to take a step back. That is one of the benefits of playing a martial character, your stuff just works. So I think its reasonable that there are niche circumstances where the DM can trip up the paladin a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

My counter argument is.... the paladin wants to play in the magical sandbox they deal with the magical consequences.

So bad game design is okay, because the player should know better than to play a class that is almost completely shut down by a common spell and just not play it?

Paladins have lots of utility advantages over a martial fighter, but the counter should be that in times when magic isn't great (AM, counterspell, silence) the fighter keeps on trucking while the paladin has to take a step back. That is one of the benefits of playing a martial character, your stuff just works. So I think its reasonable that there are niche circumstances where the DM can trip up the paladin a bit.

I disagree. Fighters need to be given more utility, not utility taken from paladins.

 

[Vael]

This is just a difference of opinion between you and I. Smite is the primary way that paladins deal damage and I don't think a lich should be able to tell the paladin no. Nor should silence almost completely shut him down. I can see where you are coming from here, though.

Paladins are still heavily armored warriors with Weapon Mastery, Extra Attack and Radiant strikes at level 11, so maybe I just don't see them as an engine to just deliver smites. It's a way to, sure, spike damage, but I don't see Paladins as the Smite Fighter.

Also ... how often are Silence spells and Anti-Magic fields used in your campaigns? Because the number of campaigns where I've seen them is pretty small. Counterspell ... sure as a PC resource, but the number of Monster casters with Counterspell also not high.

 

[Stalker0]

So bad game design is okay, because the player should know better than to play a class that is almost completely shut down by a common spell and just not play it?

Its not bad design to have classes have time in the spotlight, and time when they are sweating.

The concept of the paladin is, they are a lesser martial (compared to the fighter) that has magical powers. Well those magical powers are REALLY useful most of the time, they can heal, they can sense evil, create magical shields, hell their mount can fly at higher levels. But once in a while, they face an enemy that can counter their magical gifts. That's the moment the fighter steps in front and says "I got this".

That is the REAL way dnd is balanced, by DMs utilizing encounters that boost the strengths of the characters, and sometimes targets their weaknesses. It creates an ebb and flow to combat, sometimes your the star of the show, other times your buddy gets to be the star.

Giving the paladin a weakness to anti-magical effects to me is very much in line with that mentality.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

It's almost like Counterspelling might be the actual problem element in these examples, not that smites are spells. It's not a fun tool, on either side of the screen.

 

[WanderingMystic]

So bad game design is okay, because the player should know better than to play a class that is almost completely shut down by a common spell and just not play it?

So they are now in the same boat as everyone but barbarians, fighters and rogues. Also counter spell almost never happens and so they make the caster who decided to cast their silence or counterspell on the paladin and not the druid, cleric, wizard, sorcer, warlock or ranger use the only use that they have of that ability.

In publishes books there are only 30 instances of people with counterspell and those are almost all specific named individuals. You are arguing against a niche occurrence that will almost never happen and even if it does it might happen once.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Apples and oranges do not need to be balanced. Just because they share a name doesn't make them the same thing. I mean Flexible Casting allows a Sorcerer to use spell slots and is a class exclusive ability, so it's basically the same as a 2014 paladin smite and needs to be made into a spell, right?

You are totally right, there is absolutely no difference between creating sorcerery points and dealing damage. Just like +5 AC is 100% identical to attonement to restore paladin powers.

Oh wait... those things aren't the same at all.

But dealing damage on hit compared to dealing damage on a hit plus an effect rider... ARE.

Let's look at the differences. 2014 smite is not a bonus action, cannot be countered, is not subject to silence negating the ability to use it, and can be used more than once per round.

Further the balance argument is just flat out wrong per WotC. WotC has claimed to use more than once that we can use both 2014 classes and 2024 classes side by because they are balanced the same. Is that true or are you saying that they are lying to us about it?

Trying to use the backwards compatibility to argue that Divine Smite wasn't out of line is the same as admitting that the previous Druid Wildshape with the templates is 100% equally balanced to the 2014 Moon Druid.

They ARE changing things to rebalance them, and yet again, despite you hating it, Divine Smite is meant to be on the same power level as the smite spells. Stop trying to conduct special pleading. If you don't like Divine Smite being a spell, then just advocate for ALL smites to no longer be spells. But you can't have some that are spells and some that aren't.

Citation please. I want to see where every time you complained about it that they told you those things.

It was their youtube channel where it was addressed last. I'm not re-watching hundreds of hours of video to find it. Especially since I know you, and you would just change the definition to claim that you are right anyways.

And this is objectively false.

Only if you decide to be pendantic and declare that a paladin exclusive ability to spend a spell slot to deal damage on a hit with a melee weapon is not exactly the same as a paladin exclusive ability to spend a spell slot to deal damage on a hit with a melee weapon plus a rider.

And you are that pendantic, so I will rephrase. For all practical balance purposes, divine smite and the smite spells are designed to be the same sort of thing. That is why the damage for those spells is what it is.

 

[mellored]

What part of "They don't know what they are counterspelling" do you not get? Is it a smite or a geas? Is it a smite or a destructive wave? They don't know.

And they used a spell slot to do that.

A spell slot they are not using for something else, like a fireball.

 

[Maxperson]

Paladins are still heavily armored warriors with Weapon Mastery, Extra Attack and Radiant strikes at level 11, so maybe I just don't see them as an engine to just deliver smites. It's a way to, sure, spike damage, but I don't see Paladins as the Smite Fighter.

Fighters get weapon mastery as well, and even more attacks. Plus they get more criticals or superiority dice or yet other stuff, and level 11 to do a bit more damage is well past the level where you should get a boost outside of a spell smite that can be easily shut down.

Smite was the only way for paladins to boost to the point of what fighters and other classes accomplish. I get that they could uber boost for a fight or maybe 2, but then they were gimped for the rest of the adventuring day's fights, so it balanced out.

Also ... how often are Silence spells and Anti-Magic fields used in your campaigns?

Silence is taken by most casters that can get it, just like the vast majority of PCs that can cast it take it. It's VERY useful and casters are not generally stupid. If PCs can think of it, so can NPCs.

Because the number of campaigns where I've seen them is pretty small. Counterspell ... sure as a PC resource, but the number of Monster casters with Counterspell also not high.

If you take the one nonexhaustive snapshot that the MM gives, sure, but those are not the spells that every NPC of that type takes. 18 NPC archmages should have 18 different spell lists, but a few critically important spells will make almost all of those lists. Just like they do with PC wizards. If you are simply using the Archmage list in the MM with no changes every time you use one, you are doing a disservice to both the NPCs and the players.