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

[Maxperson]

And they used a spell slot to do that.

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

It's often better to save your group from the spell than dish out damage. NPCs that give no thought to defense die too quickly to be a real challenge to PCs. PCs use both offense and defense, why is it that you think NPCs are too dumb to do the same thing?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You're seriously claiming that damage on a hit that doesn't take a bonus action, cannot be stopped by counterspell and silence, and doesn't have a rider effect = a spell that takes a bonus action, can be stopped by both counterspell and silence, does damage on a hit and has a rider effect that carries a saving throw with it?

One does not equal the other by a long shot.

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.

Either they are correct that the 2014 paladin and 2024 paladin are roughly equal in balance or they are wrong. They are claiming the former. Are the right or wrong?

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.

Why would I advocate for something that doesn't need to be in place? There was literally nothing wrong with smite not being a spell and the different spell smites being spells.

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.

A major difference is a major difference, not being pedantic. There's no way you can equate the non-spell smite with a spell smite and be anywhere close to accurate. There are too many significant differences.

And you are that pendantic, so I will rephrase.

Ahh, resorting to attacking the person and no the argument I see.

 

[mellored]

It's often better to save your group from the spell than dish out damage. NPCs that give no thought to defense die too quickly to be a real challenge to PCs. PCs use both offense and defense, why is it that you think NPCs are too dumb to do the same thing?

You're still missing my point.

Every counterspell they cast, means 1 less fireball that they can cast.

You lose a level 1 slot. They lose a level 3 slot.

Winner, you.

 

[Maxperson]

You're still missing my point.

Every counterspell they cast, means 1 less fireball that they can cast.

You lose a level 1 slot. They lose a level 3 slot.

Winner, you.

I'm not missing the point. It's not really relevant since everyone on both sides guesses with counterspell. It's just as often counterspell a 3rd or higher spell on the part of the NPCs and counterspell a cantrip on the part of the PCs. At all evens out EXCEPT that the paladin relies on smites to be equal to everyone else, so being able to shut him down with counterspells or silence is unacceptable.

If they are that worried about the nova(a non-issue unless the DM creates it as one), then they can simply limit it to once per round. There was zero need to make it into a spell and royally gimp the paladin.

 

[Vael]

If they are that worried about the nova(a non-issue unless the DM creates it as one), then they can simply limit it to once per round. There was zero need to make it into a spell and royally gimp the paladin.

They did. That was how it was stated in the last Paladin Playtest. This is not news, the designers have stated that allowing spell+smite is too much and they want to fix it. So, option 1: New Rule, cannot smite and cast spells in the same turn. As it was in the last Paladin UA. Option 2: Make Smite work like all the other rewritten Smite spells. Option 2 requires no new rules, existing rules and action economy cover it. That, to me, is cleaner design. The added interplay is a feature, not a bug and makes all Smites function the same way.

And, if Silence and Counterspell are such bugaboos ... the simplest way to fix it ... let the Paladin cast Smite spells without components. Done.

 

[mellored]

I'm not missing the point. It's not really relevant since everyone on both sides guesses with counterspell. It's just as often counterspell a 3rd or higher spell on the part of the NPCs and counterspell a cantrip on the part of the PCs. At all evens out EXCEPT that the paladin relies on smites to be equal to everyone else, so being able to shut him down with counterspells or silence is unacceptable.

Paladins don't often use spells above 3rd level.

And they still take weapon damage from the sword.
And the extra d8.
Possibly falling prone or some other mastery.
And have the highest AC
And the highest saves.
...

There was zero need to make it into a spell and royally gimp the paladin.

If Paladins are "royally gimped" by casting spells.

Then wizards, sorcerers, druids, bards, and clerics might as well be removed from the game. Because they depend on spells far more than any paladin.

 

[Sir Brennen]

If I, as a DM, have an NPC with Counterspell prepared, first and foremost, I’m going to stay out of melee as much as possible, letting my goons engage. And then I’m going to use my Counterspells on the guys in robes or waving their holy symbols around who are able to cast ranged and/or area effect spells my way.

Very rarely would I focus on the guy in plate mail casting spells immediately upon landing an attack, because that should be extremely obvious that he’s just casting smite, Xanathars rules aside.

Only if the paladin were hitting the Counterspelling NPC themselves would they cast it as a form of self-preservation. By that point the party should be aware the NPC has Counterspell, so it becomes a tactical decision of when to cast spells, or try and get the NPC to use it on something else first in the round.

That said, the PCs might fight an NPC that could logically have Counterspell on their list maybe one in ten encounters, because not every NPC is an arcane caster.

Also, it’s boring. Magic in combat should be used by the GM to create interesting situations and obstacles for the PCs, and they should vary encounter to encounter. Using the same tactic all the time can lead to dull fights and frustrated players.

It’s simply not common enough, at least in games I’ve run and played in, to warrant consideration as a downside to making Divine Smite a spell. Same with silence, which, as an area effect, can hose ally casters as much as the enemy in combat.

 

[Maxperson]

Paladins don't often use spells above 3rd level.

A lot of groups play to high level.

And they still take weapon damage from the sword.

Same from my wizard.

And the extra d8.

What extra d8? The one they get at 11th level? You can't expect an ability that doesn't happen until 11th level to help with the first 10 levels.

Possibly falling prone or some other mastery.

Which fighters also get, so this isn't a paladin thing.

And have the highest AC

Where is the paladin specific extra AC coming from?

And the highest saves.

Starting at 6th level, but this is hardly compensation.

If Paladins are "royally gimped" by casting spells.

Then wizards, sorcerers, druids, bards, and clerics might as well be removed from the game. Because they depend on spells far more than any paladin.

I was hoping someone would make this argument, because it doesn't apply.

Paladins don't have the option to move out of the range of silence or counterspell like those other classes do. They can still be effective at that range. Paladins can't. Smiting is a melee ability.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Paladins don't have the option to move out of the range of silence or counterspell like those other classes do. They can still be effective at that range. Paladins can't. Smiting is a melee ability.

Incredibly circumstantial. Depending on where the silence is cast, they can always move to a target outside of the silence. This includes melee engaging the character that cast silence, since they wouldn’t want to be in the area and cripple themselves.

A smart spell caster is also targeting the enemy spellcasters with silence anyway, not the melee types.

Again, simply not a common enough or effective enough tactic to warrant reverting to the non-spell version of divine smite.

 

[mellored]

Same from my wizard.

You just said you didn't have a wizard.

What extra d8? The one they get at 11th level? You can't expect an ability that doesn't happen until 11th level to help with the first 10 levels.

A lot of groups play at high level.

Which fighters also get, so this isn't a paladin thing.

Fighters don't have the ability to force enemies to lose a 3rd level spell as a bonus action.

I was hoping someone would make this argument,

Glad i could help. 

Paladins don't have the option to move out of the range of silence or counterspell like those other classes do. They can still be effective at that range. Paladins can't. Smiting is a melee ability.

Unless you throw a javelin or other ranged weapon.
Or hit with a topple weapon
Or hit with a slow weapon
Or grapple and drag the wizard back into the zone.

Or, just walk out of the zone and hit the wizard.