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

[Pauln6]

I've been DMing for 40 years and I think my villains have used counterspell twice. Most villains won't even have it and the few that do won't always choose to use it, especially if the paladin is attacking one of their allies. It's very situational but I doubt it would happen often enough to ruin the paladin.

I understand the problem this intended to fix. I'm not sure that this is a better solution than the last playtest but it's certainly not terrible.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not to me or what I'm saying.

You're seriously going to argue that I haven't said one isn't a spell and the others are spells? Because that in my(and every other person's) book is an articulated difference between the two.

Other than being vulnerable to things that affect spells... what makes a spell different from an ability that expends a spell slot?

If being anti-magicked, silenced or counterspelled aren't it... what else is there? Yes, I get one is called a spell and the other is called an ability, but that's like arguing that halberds and glaives are completely different weapons in 5e because one is called a halberd and the other is called a glaive. Practically speaking... there is no difference in the 2014 book between the two weapons, and you've dismissed every difference between Divine Smite the ability and Divine Smite the spell as not really mattering.

They aren't equally true, though. You're making stuff up that isn't even implied, let alone stated. That doesn't get equal weight to, "It's not written there so it's not there by default."

I am not making things up, I am making observations based on how the game is played at every table I have seen and been at. Your only refutation of that is "but they didn't spell that out in the books"

And again, frankly, this is a useless point. Because it came about because you were claiming that an enemy caster might confuse the paladin for a war cleric and counterspell their abilities... but you don't even play with counterspell. So now you are arguing simply because you don't like what I've said, not for any point in the actual discussion.

The only thing left is Silence. That's it. That is the last point you have not conceded as not mattering.

According to D&D Beyond(and I disagree with their numbers) only 2% of PCs reach 11th level. That would mean that 98% of paladins never see that damage.

Oh noes! When I gave a range of possible damage numbers a paladin could give out, I gave a number that less than 2% of all paladins might be capable of! Should I go to the naughty jail for naughty people because I figured on a reasonable maximum that tens of thousands of people will reach?

More seriously, this is a red herring, not an argument. My range doesn't get invalidated just because the high-end of the range is high. That's the point of a range.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've been DMing for 40 years and I think my villains have used counterspell twice. Most villains won't even have it and the few that do won't always choose to use it, especially if the paladin is attacking one of their allies. It's very situational but I doubt it would happen often enough to ruin the paladin.

I understand the problem this intended to fix. I'm not sure that this is a better solution than the last playtest but it's certainly not terrible.

The worst part is, Max has already declared his table doesn't even use Counterspell because he doesn't like it. So now his sole argument is that because Paladins must be in melee, and Silence exists, that this Divine Smite change ruins paladins because they might be in the effect of a Silence Spell and unable to Divine Smite.

Except that isn't his argument, because he says his argument is about something else, I guess just the aesthetics of "this is a spell" instead of "this is an ability that uses a spell slot"?

 

[Maxperson]

Other than being vulnerable to things that affect spells... what makes a spell different from an ability that expends a spell slot?

If being anti-magicked, silenced or counterspelled aren't it... what else is there? Yes, I get one is called a spell and the other is called an ability, but that's like arguing that halberds and glaives are completely different weapons in 5e because one is called a halberd and the other is called a glaive. Practically speaking... there is no difference in the 2014 book between the two weapons, and you've dismissed every difference between Divine Smite the ability and Divine Smite the spell as not really mattering.

You keep trying to figure out some ulterior motive for me. Stop it. There isn't one. True story. When I was four I loathed cigarette smoke. Couldn't stand the smell or the feel in my lungs when people smoked around me. I still can't. So I swore that I would never smoke and I don't. It's entirely irrelevant that there are other bad things like addiction, poison and cancer associated with cigarettes. Those aren't the reasons why I don't smoke.

Smite being a spell is why I dislike it. Nothing else matters. Stop trying to make it about stuff that doesn't matter.

I am not making things up, I am making observations based on how the game is played at every table I have seen and been at. Your only refutation of that is "but they didn't spell that out in the books"

So you're making stuff up based on other people making stuff up. How ever table you've seen does it does not make it RAW or part of the ability. Show me where it says that the aura is detectable and you can be right. Until then you are not right about the paladin auras by default. You can be right about your game where you homebrew it to be that way, though.

And again, frankly, this is a useless point. Because it came about because you were claiming that an enemy caster might confuse the paladin for a war cleric and counterspell their abilities... but you don't even play with counterspell. So now you are arguing simply because you don't like what I've said, not for any point in the actual discussion.

So first, I said I would not PLAY a paladin with smite as a spell. That's why I specified that counterspell is going to be gone from my games as DM from now on. I have no control over how other DMs run it. Second, counterspell has been in my game up through this last campaign. Going forward it will be gone.

Oh noes! When I gave a range of possible damage numbers a paladin could give out, I gave a number that less than 2% of all paladins might be capable of! Should I go to the naughty jail for naughty people because I figured on a reasonable maximum that tens of thousands of people will reach?

No. You should just understand that your numbers are pretty irrelevant if 98% of players will never see them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Smite being a spell is why I dislike it. Nothing else matters. Stop trying to make it about stuff that doesn't matter.

So it is a personal aesthetic reason that no one else really should or needs to care about. Cool. Then this conversation should have been REALLY short. Because none of it actually mattered. It was all just a smokescreen for "but I don't like it"

 

[Maxperson]

So it is a personal aesthetic reason that no one else really should or needs to care about. Cool. Then this conversation should have been REALLY short. Because none of it actually mattered. It was all just a smokescreen for "but I don't like it"

I said from the very beginning that I don't like it and I won't be playing it.

I also don't think it's what they should be doing, but that's just an opinion like your opinion that making it a spell somehow balances things.

 

[mellored]

making it a spell somehow balances things.

It balances it with all the other smites.

 

[Maxperson]

It balances it with all the other smites.

It makes them all spells, but it's not balanced with them. The riders make the other spells better. A trivial amount of extra damage doesn't beat banishment, fire damage against a vulnerable foe, stunned, etc.

 

[mellored]

It makes them all spells, but it's not balanced with them. The riders make the other spells better. A trivial amount of extra damage doesn't beat banishment, fire damage against a vulnerable foe, stunned, etc.

Level 1 spell doesn't beat a level 5 spell.
Correct.

 

[Maxperson]

Level 1 spell doesn't beat a level 5 spell.
Correct.

Nor does the old smite limited to once per day. It was already fairly balanced. Making it a spell just unbalanced things more.

Edit: But let's do a real comparison, shall we? 5th level banishing smite 5d10+banishment. 5th level divine smite: 6d8.