D&D (2024) Playtest Druid and Paladin One D&D survey is live.

[mamba]

The nerf is at best unnecessary and at worst detrimental to the party.

why should it matter whether it is detrimental to the party, by that logic nothing can ever be adjusted down

 

[Parmandur]

I don't believe in protecting players from themselves. If they want a pitfall like they, they can engage it.

Protecting players from themselves and from traps is a stated design principle of the D&D team, however: that's also why they are giving all Spellcasters the ability to choose new Spells every Day.

 

[James Gasik]

After some thought, I wonder if the "nerf" to smites isn't about encounter balance at all, but balance between classes. With the addition of two weapon fighting style to the Paladin, maybe they thought triple smiting in one round was simply too good compared to other fighting classes?

 

[Parmandur]

After some thought, I wonder if the "nerf" to smites isn't about encounter balance at all, but balance between classes. With the addition of two weapon fighting style to the Paladin, maybe they thought triple smiting in one round was simply too good compared to other fighting classes?

It's because the corner case of double or triple Smiting made it into the 2014 rules as an oversight, but the designers felt it was too big to just errata, same as Ranger issues.

 

[Maxperson]

why should it matter whether it is detrimental to the party, by that logic nothing can ever be adjusted down

By twisting my logic, sure. In the case of a nerf, if the only real effect it can have actively hurts the group, it should not be made. Note that adjust appropriately downward =/= hurt the group. This is not such an adjustment. It's just no effect if the group fights 6-8 encounters an adventuring day or harm if less than what the game expects.

My logic concerns harm, not an appropriate adjustment. You are conflating an appropriate adjustment downward with harm and inappropriately applying that to my logic.

 

[Maxperson]

Protecting players from themselves and from traps is a stated design principle of the D&D team, however: that's also why they are giving all Spellcasters the ability to choose new Spells every Day.

If that's their goal, then they should make a rule that the DM can't allow them to make dumb decisions and any time the players would make a mistake, the DM needs to tell them about it and have them make a good decision.

It's a bad design goal.

 

[Maxperson]

After some thought, I wonder if the "nerf" to smites isn't about encounter balance at all, but balance between classes. With the addition of two weapon fighting style to the Paladin, maybe they thought triple smiting in one round was simply too good compared to other fighting classes?

Spellcasters are already better than paladins. Why would they "balance" the classes by making the disparity worse?

 

[James Gasik]

Spellcasters are already better than paladins. Why would they "balance" the classes by making the disparity worse?

Because Wizards of the Coast doesn't believe spellcasters are superior to other classes? I was more thinking about comparing "primary melee combatants" like Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers (?), and Paladins to one another; this is where multi-smiting really stands out.

 

[mamba]

My logic concerns harm, not an appropriate adjustment. You are conflating an appropriate adjustment downward with harm and inappropriately applying that to my logic.

To be fair, you did not make a clear distinction like this in the original post… so you are saying no adjustment was needed, hence the adjustment they made is hurting the group rather than fixing an issue

WotC seems to think that this only accidentally slipped into the 2014 rules, so it was a mistake all along and now is a good time to fix it. If it was a mistake to include it, then it should be fixed imo

It's because the corner case of double or triple Smiting made it into the 2014 rules as an oversight, but the designers felt it was too big to just errata, same as Ranger issues.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, you did not make a clear distinction like this in the original post… so you are saying no adjustment was needed, hence the adjustment they made is hurting the group rather than fixing an issue

I'm saying.

1) No adjustment is needed, because the game assumes 6-8 encounters per adventuring day and there is no issue whatsoever if you follow that guideline.
2) The adjustment makes little to no difference at all if you follow the 6-8 encounters per adventuring day guideline, so didn't need to be made for that purpose.
3) The adjustment for those who don't like that guideline and instead put far fewer, far more deadly encounters, results in the paladin and the party as a whole being at a serious disadvantage because in those kinds of encounters, being able to put down opponents quickly is often the key to survival. They are designed with full party output in mind.
4) Since it fails to affect #2 and detrimentally affects #3, it just makes it harder for those who don't like to face a ridiculous number of encounters to succeed if there is a paladin in the group.
5) Due to the above, the change should never have been made. It can only hurt and not help.

WotC seems to think that this only accidentally slipped into the 2014 rules, so it was a mistake all along and now is a good time to fix it. If it was a mistake to include it, then it should be fixed imo

Then it was a happy accident that made the class more enjoyable and didn't negatively affect game balance. "Fixing" an error to make the game less fun is itself a mistake.