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

[Maxperson]

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.

Then they should bring up the fighters, barbarians and rangers to meet the paladin. Make them more fun. Don't make the paladin less fun and hurt parties in the process.

 

[tetrasodium]

Then they should bring up the fighters, barbarians and rangers to meet the paladin. Make them more fun. Don't make the paladin less fun and hurt parties in the process.

Combat would not be improved by scaling all of the monsters to endure the level of explosive & at will DPR you are suggesting here, Tabula rasa is an important concept in times like this. Sometimes it's more important to admit that mistakes were made & correct the mistake before moving on with a clean slate rather than preserving an endless & ever expanding list of mistakes till we have CR1/4 neutronium golems & such.

 

[Maxperson]

Combat would not be improved by scaling all of the monsters to endure the level of explosive & at will DPR you are suggesting here, Tabula rasa is an important concept in times like this. Sometimes it's more important to admit that mistakes were made & correct the mistake before moving on with a clean slate rather than preserving an endless & ever expanding list of mistakes till we have CR1/4 neutronium golems & such.

I'm not suggesting scaling the monsters to endure the DPR. I'm talking about scaling the encounter to compensate for broken balance design(has nothing to do with a specific class). More creatures. Higher CR. That sort of thing, not making an orc with 3000 hit points That isn't being done to "fix" anything, except for a system that is waaaay too easy and has waaaay too many expected encounters.

Plus, if you follow the guidelines the explosive DPR is entirely irrelevant. There was nothing to fix.

Edit: the problem becomes that when WotC "Fixes" this thing that isn't broken, they break it for those groups who want to scale encounters like I show above and have fewer of them. They fix nothing and break something by "fixing" something that isn't broken in either situation.

 

[James Gasik]

Then they should bring up the fighters, barbarians and rangers to meet the paladin. Make them more fun. Don't make the paladin less fun and hurt parties in the process.

They should, but I'm doubtful they will.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

You do know 6 to 8 encounters refers to easy cake walks encounters. Harder Encounters run through that much faster.

 

[Stalker0]

Something the Dnd movie reminded me about.... one thing that 5e robbed the paladin of was their immunity to fear. You have to be a 10th level paladin to have that ability! In 3.5 you got that at level 3!

Its another ability that isn't that strong in most circumstances, but it can be very character defining. The idea of a character literally immune from fear explains a lot of the traditional paladin like behavior, and how they are able to standard so strong against the heinous evils they deal with.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Then they should bring up the fighters, barbarians and rangers to meet the paladin. Make them more fun. Don't make the paladin less fun and hurt parties in the process.

Hmm... but does smiting multiple times in a round = fun?

And smiting every round but not twice in the same round /= fun?

I get where you're coming from now, but I think you might be overstating your point.

Also - if you think 6-8 encounters per day is terrible (as I do) then why would you advocate for something that's "fine as long as you follow (that) guideline"?

What if we want to burn that E/D guideline to the ground, but don't want to encourage the single-round nova at the same time?

Obviously we don't want every fight to be the same, but shouldn't we strive for an average of 3 (tops) encounters per day (with short rests between at least two!) that last for 5 rounds (or so) and blow about a quarter of the party's resources? (I'd say a third, but that would mean that that third encounter would always be touch-and-go for the party).

I say this because I honestly think that OneD&D (or whatever it will be called) is going to rid us of the 6-8 E/D garbage.

 

[Maxperson]

Also - if you think 6-8 encounters per day is terrible (as I do) then why would you advocate for something that's "fine as long as you follow (that) guideline"?

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the company. If I(the company) expect 6-8 encounters and an ability works just fine for 6-8 encounters, I really have no cause to change it, even if it wasn't intended. And especially if it makes it harder for those who want to try and alter the game to make it more enjoyable for their playstyle of fewer encounters.

I'm not actually advocating it personally.

What if we want to burn that E/D guideline to the ground, but don't want to encourage the single-round nova at the same time?

Obviously we don't want every fight to be the same, but shouldn't we strive for an average of 3 (tops) encounters per day (with short rests between at least two!) that last for 5 rounds (or so) and blow about a quarter of the party's resources? (I'd say a third, but that would mean that that third encounter would always be touch-and-go for the party).

I say this because I honestly think that OneD&D (or whatever it will be called) is going to rid us of the 6-8 E/D garbage.

I don't really see how that's possible without a complete redesign of classes, subclasses, spells, monsters and the combat math. All of that(and likely more) is based on resource consumption over 6-8 encounters. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I really don't think I am. Especially if they want even a tenuous ability to claim backwards compatibility. If they did overhaul everything that way, nothing from 5e would be even remotely compatible, having been designed for 6-8 combat encounters.

 

[mamba]

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the company. If I(the company) expect 6-8 encounters and an ability works just fine for 6-8 encounters, I really have no cause to change it, even if it wasn't intended.

unless you are aware that the players of your game rarely ever play that way

Also, if they always considered this an oversight they have reason regardless of even that

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the company. If I(the company) expect 6-8 encounters and an ability works just fine for 6-8 encounters, I really have no cause to change it, even if it wasn't intended. And especially if it makes it harder for those who want to try and alter the game to make it more enjoyable for their playstyle of fewer encounters.

I'm not actually advocating it personally.

I don't really see how that's possible without a complete redesign of classes, subclasses, spells, monsters and the combat math. All of that(and likely more) is based on resource consumption over 6-8 encounters. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I really don't think I am. Especially if they want even a tenuous ability to claim backwards compatibility. If they did overhaul everything that way, nothing from 5e would be even remotely compatible, having been designed for 6-8 combat encounters.

But, if most of us play with 3 or so E/D, and the game works "fine" (all be it sometimes clunkily), can't you just fix the clunks and voila, you have reduced E/D?

And again the crux: Why do you need to multi-smite in a round, when you can just smite every round? With the exception of your extreme case of a single, 3-round combat (which, again, I say wouldn't use ANYONE'S resources) can't you easily blow through your spell-slots in a couple of encounters by smiting every round? How would that not still be fun?

Personally, as a primarily DM, I'd find it "funner" - in that I'd still get a round or two of my bad guy before he gets wasted, which is all I need to feel like I've had a chance to threaten the PCs enough for "fun" (for all of us). I find a nova-like smackdown of my baddies to be anti-fun, myself. They'll still die quickly with a couple of smites, which would also give time for another PC to get a shot in, which is also fun for them, rather than watching the Paladin always get the smackdown.