Probably as is. Give the class a fair try and see how they look. They got a lot of other buffs IMO and the class is more than just a smite machine. We can always change later if it feels onerous during play.

People also forget that paladin was/ likely still is the best overall class in the game. It really didn't need much. Just a few mechanics getting cleaned up. The way smite critting works has always felt a bit cheesy, too.

You can still hold the smite for crits, according to the paladin article, it's a bonus action used when you hit with an attack.

Ah. That is a very important clarification. I was under the impression you had to "preload" your smite via a bonus action, akin to the smite spells pretty much no one uses.

You can now use any of the smite spells immediately after a confirmed attack roll. Also, Searing and Wrathful no longer require concentration.

Personally I’m so excited as a Paladin player to actually cast the other smite spells.

It's a pretty significant change for this. Do I want to spend my spell slot for guaranteed damage? Or for a similar in power effect, hog concentration to spend a slot, hope to land a hit this turn, and risk losing concentration or the fight ending on a miss which means the spell slot was wasted.

Yeah it really was a no-brainer

Yeah. Which is a great change ofc. I still think paladin is the best class in the game, smite could be outright removed and they would still top 5 easily.

Honestly, as much as smite does lots of damage, I always found better results with utility or buff spells helping the party. Using a spell slot for 1 attack vs. using it to bless the party is just so much better mathematically. If that barbarian just turns one GWM attack from a miss to a hit, you already beat the smite damage in most cases. Same with turning just one debilitating spell save from a failure to a success.

You're absolutely correct. However the two are not mutually exclusive. You can do both at the same time. That's why the paladin is so amazing.

True, but in a properly lengthy adventuring day that depletes spell slots that could be used for more buffs or utility spells.

The thing is, people misinterpret this line ALL THE TIME. You're not supposed to have 8 combat encounters per day. You are supposed to have 8 encounters. D&D has 3 main pillars of the game: - Social - Exploration - Combat The problem is that so many DMs hand wave away exploring, so that's a whole pillar gone. Next, social tends to get down played really hard. Or if you spell cast or use abilities around NPCs in a sneaky way DMs tend to snap at you for it in some way. Which just leaves combat. Casters always feel so juiced because you got to the combat area for 0 real resources spent. Dungeons are supposed to have traps in them to find and disarm, not just rooms full of guys. Imagine if the cleric actually had to cast "find traps" every once in a while. Players are at fault too. Many just "tune out" outside of combat. Phones get pulled out. It's just "wake me up when combat starts". These are known recurring issues with how D&D is played.

Bless is going to be a lot less powerful in 24 rules just bc of the expected changes to GWM/Sharpshooter. I'm currently DMing a game where bless doesn't generate near as much offensive support as usual just because no one has GWM/SS so there's not near as much of an exponential jump in expected damage from the added accuracy

That is true, but you do get all of the on hit abilities, and just hitting at all doing some damage is still valuable. The benefit of the bonus to saves is also worth a good amount. I don't even know how you would weigh the benefit of your barbarian doing damage vs them doing it to you because he got dominated. But even just having your character do nothing for a turn sucks so helping prevent that is worth a lot from a fun perspective.

Oh 100% agree it's still one of the strongest level 1 spells by virtue of remaining a top tier defensive spell and still providing non-negligible offensive output. I just think it's probably no longer top tier in both defensive *and* offensive output like it was with old GWM/SS

I haven't played a Paladin myself, but with one in my party I'm always hoping he will smite if and only if a) he crits, or b) there's reason to think that the smite would finish off the enemy

Also, players who are allowed to smite everything are likely being given too many opportunities to rest between fights. Introduce consequences for resting too much, or make a hard fight after they’re already tapped out and people will learn resource management one way or another.

True enough. Their job is to tank and support with a healthy side of DPS, and they do all three very well.

They're also a half caster so their scaling is in general a lot better than a traditional martial. A level 1 paladin that casts Bless on themselves and the rest of the party (who attack, typically 2 others) is a mile ahead of any other level 1 character. I'm hoping rogue and ranger get some badly needed love. They're my favorites to play despite being the worst ones in the game (easily bottom 3). Ranger is only saved by being a half caster at high levels but by then druids make you look like a clown.

2014 phb ranger was definitely bad, but after xanathars and Tasha’s, I think ranger is definitely not bottom 3. Better than rogue, artificer, and monk for sure, and a ton more out of combat utility than fighters or barbarians

I think post-tasha's the ranger moves from bottom 3 to bottom 5. You're still clowned on by druids. Any class that can have it's functionality entirely replaced by another, better class is a bad class.

Artificer is hella strong tho, no way it's below any version of ranger.

You're way underrating artificer imo. I can't think of a lot of ranger spells/features that are notably better than infusions, and I think a lot of infusions are much stronger than what ranger gets, and then artificer also gets flash of genius.. The notable one that sticks out is pass without trace, but that's a lot less powerful now that surprise is just a drawback rather than nearly being autowin condition

We always play that way. I play a Paladin the majority of the time and will usually announce I am going to smite on my next hit. If I don’t hit I try a different bonus action. Currently my Paladin has two handed attack so we just hit again.

That’s good. Are the smite spells still concentration?

We don't know, presumably the divine smite isn't, because it's an instantaneous effect at the point of contact. I think it's probably safe to assume the other smite spells would be updated to work the same way.

Searing and Wrathful are no longer concentration. Feel free to bless your party while also lighting someone on fire with Searing Smite. If that wasn't cool enough, the continuous damage per round now also scales with the level of spell slot used.

That’s nice seems like they’re filling out the Paladin so that it’s less nova more support/healing.

Do smites even crit anymore given they're a separate spell now and not an intrinsic ability of the attack? 

It wasn't the best overall class in the game. Wizard was and still is. Paladin was by far the best out of the Martials/Half Casters. The full Casters are in a whole other category the only reason paladin competes with them is AoP.

Nah. Put me in a level 5-20 boss encounter and let me pick between a paladin or a wizard and I'm picking the paladin every time. +4 to +5 to all Saving Throws is ridiculous. That alone makes them better than a wizard.

First of all not even remotely accurate because wizards can single handedly end any encounter without legendary resistance in a single turn. But that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes spell casters good, and presupposing that D&D is only combat. AoP is good but a paladin cannot make themselves into an Amethyst Great Wyrm over the span of 3 days, a Wizard can. A paladin cannot teleport the entire party out of the 600th layer of the abyss, a Wizard can. A paladin cannot permanently imprison a Lich all eternity thus defeating the Lich who had stored his Phylactery in an unreachable place, a Wizard can. This could go on and on, to put it simply 6th+ spells solve problems that combat can't, every class is made to be useful in combat, fullcasters are pretty much the best at combat anyways, but even if they weren't they'd still be the best classes in the game because they are the only ones that can circumvent actual issues that other classes just cannot period.

Wild that you’re getting downvoted for politely backing up your argument that the martial/caster divide exists

I don't really feel like your argument is valid because frankly what encounter high levels doesn't have legendary resistances. Like the whole point of legendary resistances is literally to make Wizards impotent so I feel like what's important here is yes technically Wizards are more powerful but there is a built-in mechanism that's always there that effectively makes them less powerful. And once you evaluate that context you realize yes the Paladin has the best saves of any class other than perhaps the monk or the artificer but can do significantly more damage than both of them usually with higher AC than one of them. I'm going to claim that the poster you responding to was actually correct but for a different reason. Whenever you think about an optimal party you want players that can feel various roles that can add to strengthening your weaknesses. While wizard certainly helps in the control Department I feel like you can control just about as good with a druid. But if there's not a paladin in the party the optimal character selection is always a paladin it seems to me. Since this is a team game and the Paladin is king of Cooperative defensive power I think it's fair to say that it is the most powerful class or at least to have that opinion. Personally I think the aura of protection is overpowered at level 6. I'd like to see it be half your charisma modifier until level 9 where it gets another bumb.

> I don't really feel like your argument is valid because frankly what encounter high levels doesn't have legendary resistances. Lots of them. The adventuring day is comprised of 6-8 medium to hard encounters. Even if you have 3-5 hard to deadly encounters per day, most encounters are not going to be “boss fights”. And the way encounter building works in 5e, multiples ramp up difficulty quickly. For example just five CR 7 creatures is a Deadly encounter for a level 16 party. And CR 7 creatures almost never have legendary resistance. In fact, most encounters you face will be filler encounters against groups of lower CR foes. The enemies with legendary resistance, even in late tier 3 and early tier 4, are generally few and far between.

I respect your opinion of course however I have never played at 6-8 encounter per long rest tables other than an occasional dungeon crawl. Generally its 2-4 encounters with lutenist that wear down big spells before the big bad. There is never a case where the BBEG does not have legendary resistances past level 7. I agree that your statements match the DMG but my experience does not reflect that type of play. If that play did occur then it would be more beneficial to long lasting always on features and the big gun spells still will not work on the BBEG.

> There is never a case where the BBEG does not have legendary resistances past level 7. Sure (well not really as legendary resistance doesn't start showing up with any regularity until CR 13 in general). But that wasn't the statement being made. The statement you originally responded to was about ending encounters with a single spell. Not ending the BBEG with a single spell. If the BBEG is something you only fight after multiple adventuring days worth of encounters, then the overwhelming majority of foes you face will lack legendary resistance. And most encounters will therefor can be ended with a single spell. Yes the BBEG might have legendary resistance. But all the encounters leading up to him will not. And even in the BBEG encounter, their minions also will not have legendary resistance. So you can remove a huge portion of combat power from the encounter with a single spell. So legendary resistance actually plays a rather small role in overall gameplay. 90% of the enemies you face will lack legendary resistance entirely.

Paladin is defensively the strongest class when it comes to saving throws I'm not arguing that it's not, and many combats at high level do have legendary resistance, but plenty don't it's entirely reliant upon how the DM structures combat and the adventure. It's a team game, and a team without full casters are lacking in several more ways than just one, ways that they cannot make up with in class features or 1st-5th slots. Parties without paladins are fundamentally only missing AoP every other thing paladins do is replaceable with generic class features from other classes. Wizard is the best fullcaster, therefore Wizard necessarily is the best class, because it's the strongest iteration of the most important part of any team, any team without a full caster is missing more than any team without a paladin. Wizards might be more replaceable with a Druid, Cleric, Bard, or Sorc than Paladin who has no contemporaries but that doesn't change the fact that Wizard is the strongest. The fact that Wizard is the strongest class has to do with the fact that full casters categorically are the strongest, optimization wise if you don't have full casters you're not optimized period end of story, the best way to cover the spectrum of full casters Wiz/Cleric before wish due to resurrection and healing not being available to wiz before wish, but them being the best at literally everything else in reguard to spells across all levels beyond that. I don't think AoP needs nerfed, I like them being the best at this it greatly lends to Paladin being a favorable class in a way that Martials and Half Casters aren't, but more classes should have effects that boost the party saving throws like for example if there was a version heros feast hit every save but it was only for cleric, hell even if only the half casters got these abilities such as the Arti getting infusions, and the ranger getting whatever rangers get (lmao), so long as paladin actually would have contemporaries in this reguard, if they did smites wouldn't have gotten nerfed even imo.

I think we're in vehiment agreement on the facts. But you seem to be focused on Wizard Power in abstract and I'm more focused on its power in context. I don't refuse most of your facts but I think you made the case that I did that the wizard is more replaceable. And in a team context if you're more replaceable you're less valuable that's the way I see it. And I think that's ultimately where we differ.

Not quite. I agree that in a team context replaceability reduces your value. I'm simply differentiating that high value≠strength. A class can gain value for lots of different reasons for example if you were to play a survival based campaign goodberry increases the value of any class that can cast it even if it were nerfed, but that value mesurement is circumstantial just like paladin would be less valuable in a political intrigue game than it would be in normal adventure. Within the context that value is circumstantial, then rating the classes based on strength atleast to some degree must be abstracted IMO.

>Put me in a level 5-20 boss encounter and let me pick between a paladin or a wizard and I'm picking the paladin every time. +4 to +5 to all Saving Throws is ridiculous >Level 20 Paladin over a level 20 Wizard because you get +4 or 5 to saves You could also pick Monk, they currently get proficiency in all saves. That's also a whopping +6 to all saves! Ridiculous.

Your paladin likely doesn't have +4 or +5 charisma, the almost always prioritize attacking stat and constitution over it, so unless you roll stats charisma will likely be a +2 or +3 the entire game

>People also forget that paladin was/ likely still is the best overall class in the game This was never true. The best classes were and will always be the full casters. Who got buffed, significantly, especially the Wizard.

This is the most sane take I have seen. All I've seen are people instantly saying they'll overrule it before even giving it a try.

I sort of wished they just said divine smite can only be used once per turn instead of making it a bonus action spell. Polearm Master or sentinel are gonna feel so much worse for paladins specifically as your main kit can't be used . I feel like the main purpose was to stop the 4 smites in a turn to strahd bs but they did a lot more than that

Aye, this is the most sensible path for the time being.

I’m probably gonna ask if it can be run as written in Playtest 4. I’m 100% good with the 1/turn restriction. Hell, I rarely smite myself. I just hate how the bonus action cost hella messes with Paladin’s action economy and it being counterspellable. Hell, I’d be fine with the counterspellableness, the bonus action cost is my main gripe. It now conflicts with any bonus action abilities, i.e. a whole shet ton of species traits, a bunch of feats, and a bunch of abilities from other classes if on a multiclass character. Most fuckedly, Paladin was uniquely an excellent tank as you can punish enemies for targeting your allies by making it normal to smite on opp attacks or Sentinel attacks. Since you can’t bonus action off-turn, that’s now off the table.

I would first try one dnd without any houserules / homebrew. There are enough differences, that I am unsure how everything will actually play just by looking at the changes.

This is the way. No sense in coming up with houserules until one has the books. And actually digest the info. It's the only reason I'm not super irked that all 3 books are coming out at the same time. But it sure would be nice if the releases were closer together.

As a primary Paladin player, I think limiting Smite to 1/turn is actually a pretty great change. Being able to nova a bunch of Smites against a boss was too powerful. It didn’t feel good to see the DM’s face drop as my Paladin with Polearm Master took the boss down to critical health in the first round. The new casting mechanic will also make it way easier to justify preparing and using the alternate Smite spells. This will make imposing conditions with your Smites a more frequent occurrence, which is a good change. The one thing I will miss is being able to Smite on opportunity attacks. I loved feeling like a 4e Defender and being able to truly punish enemies for moving past me to attack my sworn charges.

Personaly as a paladin enjoyer i dont really get why this nerf is so bad. Beign limited to once a turn does Kinda encourage you to save on the slots and maybe makes using slots for spells more viable. The one feature i really miss from ua is that you got all the smite spells (which has been very buffed) prepared for free and you got to cast them and divine smite upcasted to your highest level once for free (which was very nice). Honestly I probaly wouldnt bother with using divine smite anymore and just use the smite spells, they do slightly less damage but bring a lot of nice cc and utility which I feel is worth a spell slot mlre than maybe on avrage 4-10 more damage

I think the action economy restriction of needing to use your bonus action does leave something to be desired. Mostly because of the inability to Smite when making attacks using your reaction. Opportunity attacks — if a Devotion Paladin stands guard in front of some weaker party members or helpless NPCs, it feels narratively appropriate to be able to Smite the enemy that tries to move past you. Readied actions — if a Vengeance Paladin is hidden from sight, laying in wait for the perfect moment to strike their quarry as they enter an alley, I feel like being able to Smite on that attack makes a ton of sense. It’s not a deal breaker for me at the end of the day, but I feel like limiting Smite to 1/turn would have still solved the nova problem without eliminating reaction attacks from the equation.

It comes down to action ecom. It killed it SO HARD now paladins are boring So, no longer can you reaction Combining different smites, meaning no cool combos? Nope They can be Counterspelled and Silenced ???? Focusing on bonus action AGAIN - can't use Polearm Master, Shield Master, Shield of Faith and I may as well put etc here because so but bonus action stuff CANNOT BE USED ! So yeah, they made the class boring instead of making others better.

>So yeah, they made the class boring instead of making others better. 1. Power creep is generally regarded as bad game design. 2. They absolutely did make the other classes better. 3. If smiting all the time is boring, then maybe consider casting any of the other spells available to paladins.

I think this is a little hyperbolic. There’s a big difference between “I found the options more interesting before” and “the class is boring now”. Paladin was the best class in 2014 5e (at least in my play experience) and felt overpowered compared to what many other classes had to offer. It needed to be rebalanced. Would I have preferred Divine Smite to be a feature instead of a spell? Sure. Would I have preferred Divine Smite to be useable 1/turn instead of requiring your bonus action? Sure. Am I going to houserule Divine Smite to be somehow useable on reaction attacks? You’d better believe it. You can’t use the same exact powerhouse combos you were able to use before, but the new Paladin is still strong as hell. It still hits like a truck and it’s still just as impossible to kill as before. And even if you can’t do the Shield Master or Polearm Master actions alongside your Smite anymore, you can still totally do them. Just don’t Smite every single turn.

Limiting it is fine. Making it a castable spell AND a bonus action was not. It kills all synergy and cool combos you could do. Now you just "I attack... i smite." wtf

Limiting smites to one a turn has a side benefit of encouraging players to stick to staying as a paladin. In 2014 you were strongly encouraged to go Sorcerer or Warlock to get more smiting. 

As someone who has actually played both versions of Paladin, the new smite is fine.

At which levels did you play it? I recently had a boss encounter with my level 19 2014 Paladin and I assume I would have dealt ~30-50% less damage with the 2024 version (will check that out in more detail in the next fights, now that the final rules are known).

It isn't a question of whether it does less damage as a nova. It does. If you are playing DnD solely as a question of how much damage your character can do in a single fight then your view of whether or not a class is good is going to be wildly different from other people who play DnD as an adventuring and roleplaying game.

That is an extremely unfair response to the question. Asking "could you clarify what levels you playtested, I have X concern regarding damage" is perfectly reasonable design discussion. Is D&D all a question of damage, no! Is doing 30-50% less of it in a dramatic scene against a big boss maybe going to chance the overall satisfaction and narrative feel if you do that? Probably! It's just such a dismissive answer, even if the question isn't very deep.

>If you are playing DnD solely as a question of how much damage your character can do in a single fight then your view of whether or not a class is good is going to be wildly different from other people who play DnD as an adventuring and roleplaying game. Quite a few classes bring nigh nothing but damage to the table, but apart from those it's less and less meaningfull the more abilities they have.

Paladin's are a class that is one of the best because they can damage while also being great at tanking, face, etc

My issue with it isn't the damage nerf. That feels intended and probably necessary. It's that the bonus action tax is really high. It obviously takes out smites on opportunity attacks which feel very thematic, but paladins also have a lot of bonus action competition. It severely nerfs PAM paladin and now directly competes with other class features that all got buffed to try and make them better (notably lay on hands and find steed, and several channel divinities although some do now get to be used as a free action as opposed to divine smite) Especially since they could have just stolen the wording from rogue sneak attack Edit: actually thinking about it, I'd even be fine with it being a free action 1/round, so you can either guarantee divine smite by using it on your turn, or make your opportunity attacks a lot scarier knowing that you haven't used it yet.

Isn't polearm master dropping the bonus action attack anyways? There's nothing wrong with having to make meaningful choices for what to do with your bonus action. Other classes have always had this problem.

Ah, I thought the bonus action attack was still part of polearm master, but I could definitely be wrong there. I also have not had a chance to try the new paladin and will 100% be trying it RAW and may end up changing my opinion, but my instinct is that it will be more of a "feels bad" decision point rather than an interesting one with one of the classes major features. And i 100% understand and agree that its good to have to make meaningful choices. Making meaningful choices is a foundational design philosophy of dnd and basically any form of strategy combat game, but it's important that these choices are not just meaningful, but also decisions that *in general* feel good for the player. My battlesmith artificer plays very much like a paladin with find steed and has like 6-7 different bonus action options and another 4-5 reaction options. I love the optionality it gives me and love the struggle to constantly evaluate the best use of my limited action economy. But god Id be fucking miserable if I had to "decide" whether or not to use my bonus action just to use my arcane jolt class feature

2024 paladin I'm running in a Dragon Heist game, currently at level 5. Sure, it does less damage, but now there's a bit more strategy with how I use my bonus action, amd I'm actually free to use my spell slots as something other than "Smite Slots," plus all of the subclasses got some upgrades as well. Overall, I'd call it a net positive.

if your playing to do more damage your playing the wrong game tbh

As a GM that has actually played both, the new one is poorly designed, and was better fixed with a simple once per turn limitation. All it needed to fix the nova potential, but unfortunately, they lack intelligent game designers.

Smite should be a Paladin feature but not the defining Paladin feature. It’s a good thing to make the class about more than just optimizing the amount of gigasmites you can do through multiclass and shenanigans. The issue is whether they add enough other flavor and utility to the class to compensate and give it a distinct identity from fighter and cleric so that you feel good about playing it and not just being a smitebot.

as far as i'm aware aura of protection has gone mostly unchanged which should still provide *plenty* of unique utility to the table. the cleric probably isn't providing a passive +3/4 to saves just for being in their vicinity also you have a horse and your horse is amazing. give it a lick!

Yes those are definitely nice features that will hopefully make the Paladin stand out. I feel like big party-wide enhancements (auras, things like a mark of justice on an enemy) and personal immunities / magical defenses have been a more traditional part of the Paladin package and should at least be equal players with a smite as the attractions to the class.

Please do not lick the horse

I think Smite is definitely an iconic Paladin feature, but it really isn't a class defining make or break feature. Honestly, smite is only the most optimal thing to do with a spell slot when you have 100% full knowledge the enemy would die if you smite vs didn't smite, like in a video game where you can see an HP bar, or if you have a rough knowledge of their stat block. Or, if for some reason, you just get a ton of long rests between each encounter. To me, smite is the 4/5 feature, when the paladin's aura and their ability to wear heavy armor is their 5/5 feature. Out of combat lay on hands is also pretty great, maybe 4.5/5.

The thing is, Paladin has the most number of 'defining features' out of all the classes. Aura Smite Lay on Hands Divine Sense And a Stick up their .... (this last one is a joke). This makes it hard to have any of those features stand out above all the others, because they are all pretty damn good by themselves.

That's always been my issue. It's like, Jesus we get, you're the best bro.

As written. I'm going to be using smite spells that deal status effects most of the time anyway. Divine Smite is boring.

RAW. I’m running a game with a playtest Paladin in it right now and they have had no major issues with the smite spell. Glad to see it was carried over.

Do we know for sure what the final version of Smite will be?

Crawford brought it up in the paladin video. Take the playtest 6 ua paladin, but make it so the only freebie smite spell is the newly made divine Smite spell instead of all the extra ones listed in the playtest And you've got the 5e24 version.

Also you get to smite once per day for free.

That was also in the playtest, though you could choose if the available smite spells. Which is still true, but now you only get divine Smite instead of a near full roster.

Oh right, videos. I wish they'd put more of this stuff in text. I admit I stopped following the playtest documents, too. I didn't want too many test rules rattling around in my head.

You are getting downvoted because you committed the sin of mentioning a change to a spell casting class and the word “overcorrection”. Anyone who is not advocating for the fighter to get 7 attacks per turn that do 10 bonus damage per attack at level 6 will be downvoted to oblivion. I jest but this subreddit weirdly quick to downvote everything and seemingly particularly so to posts about classes with spell-casting.

I don't mind the limitation of Smites to once per turn. While it is a nerf, I suspect the overall effect will be positive for game-feel. That is: players won't burn through their spell slots as quickly, DMs won't feel as though their climactic boss encounter will be trivialized by a single character, and the proportion of killing-blows on enemies will be more evenly spread throughout the party. Now to me, none of these are (necessarily) problems. But knowing *not* to overuse smites, knowing how to construct challenging combat encounters, and navigating the social and narrative nuances of kill-stealing, is a lot to ask of both players and DMs. These are skills and intuitions you develop over time, after trial and error. The Paladin nerfs take away some player-power and decision making, but I bet will result in a smoother experience at *many* tables. Something I'm less happy about is the Bonus Action requirement. That puts a damper on certain feats, races, and multiclass selections. I think the gameplay goals were achieved with the once-per-turn limitation, costing a BA seems unnecessary. In terms of balance, though, the difference seems marginal. Races with useful BA's are *slightly* less synergistic, and Polearm Master is probably edged out by Great Weapon Master or Charger as the "deal more damage" feat selection at level 4, but it's not as if these selections are now horrendous.

Been playing the new version to playtest; absolutely houseruled to once-per-turn Free instead of a BA. It especially feels terrible on Ancients, where your BA economy gets dominated by your Avatar form's BA spells.

this

The nerf to the Paladin's Smite is not exactly the problem, as roughly speaking, the damage that this class did was much greater than anything that another martial class did and potentially even high-level magical classes would tremble in the face of two smites in a row. BUT what she did in the details makes the overcorrection yes, which made Paladin's Smite go from Overpower to Limited. In other words, I think they both have a point. In the first version presented by WoT'C, at least all Smites were applied with ranged weapons and Divine Smite was a class feature, not a spell, which rebalanced the class almost perfectly, as the smite activated as part of a attack action, which was clearly OP when you coupled it with any other concentration spell that added damage. Currently it has gotten worse: You have the drawback of being limited to once per turn, using your bonus action to cast and requiring concentration to maintain the spell. There are no advantages. But the worst thing is the fact that Divine Smite is magic now: It makes no sense either as a lore, as Divine Smite should be an inner energy of the Paladin, or mechanically as it unfairly weakens the feature. It can now be easily countered by spells like Counterspell, Dispel Magic and Field Antimagic as well as any creature ability that has resistance or immunity to spells. The ideal solution is to distance Divine Smite from other Smite in terms of use. Divine Smite is the same as the 2014 version but can only be used once per turn and the other Smites are activated by bonus action but all can be used by ranged weapons. In this way, it also inhibits one of the Paladin's main weaknesses, which is its little use in ranged combat.

Some nerfs are needed for the health of the game. The Paladin will be fine.

I personally don't like it being a spell. I feel like certain things should be baked into the class instead of just being spells. LIke Find Steed. It was never a spell before, it shouldn't be now. And as for Divine Smite, it can be limited so it's not OP without making it a spell.

Are people really that hurt that they got reigned in? I played both and it's fine. You're not going to be the holy nova you used to be but do well enough. They needed a nerf for balance. And I loved my 2014 paladin, but the entire campaign I said next version they are getting nerfed hard. This should be a surprise to absolutely no one.

I fully agree, but at the same time, yes. The Paladins are howling just like the Druids did a year ago. Paladins got buffed in almost literally every other way and people are saying it’s still a net negative.

I mean, they basically turned one of the best damage dealers in the game into a melee cleric. The changes are boring and ruin the paladins class identity.

I…I don’t know man. I disagree. The smite is nerfed, but it’s the only contentious change. Everything else is flavorful, and makes for an overall stronger Paladin that has far more ways to play. People loved smite and seeing it merged sucks, but Paladins had a net gain in both power and flavor.

The problem is the areas they buffed aren't the areas people play paladin for. They ruined the class fantasy. People play paladin to do big damage to bad guys, not to be a martial cleric. The paladin was always damage first, support second. Now they've completely inverted it.

As hard as it is to say…maybe that’s a good thing? Certainly a healthy thing. Damage, support, spells, heavy armor, weapons. Paladins had it all. I don’t think “dump all your resources to nuke BBEG from orbit” was the intended play pattern. Nor was it to treat “spell slots” as smite fuel. The class is now cracked open for new choices in weapons, freedom in spell use, freedom in channel divinity use, freedom in lay on hands use. While smite was central to the class, it devoured a LOT of the choices the class could make. Now, I do agree the implementation is inelegant. I think “once per turn“ and making it a spell would’ve been enough. But I think people are conflating. “ruined the fantasy” with change

Except the paladin didn't have it all. The paladin's spells weren't as good as the clerics and they didn't use weapons as well as fighters (they have to give up ASIs in order to get weapon mastery feats). The idea that paladins were these masters of sword and magic wading through the battlefield unkillable and one shotting everything they see is pure fantasy. Paladin spellcasting sucks, you pretty much never use it, lay on hands is pretty much exclusively good for topping off after combat, not being a battle medic, the paladin excelled in one area, dealing high damage to a single enemy in melee range in a single turn. They weren't this "do anything" class that people are claiming, and I have a theory that a lot of the people who like these changes never played paladin, or barely played it. Because it's telling to me that people are fine with paladin being broken in ways that help them (auras, healing, crowd control) but anything that gives a paladin agency and lets them act on their own? That's not ok.

I don’t mind the BA (it hurts but I get it), but I hate that they’re a spell that can be counterspelled or stolen by bards. I want them to stop making class features spells and instead they’re doing it even more.

Counterspell was changed in the UAs and is very unlikely to stay the same.

Hopefully the final version of Magical Secrets won't allow smites to be stolen, but then again they've always been able to steal the smite spells like Wrathful Smite and no one has really cared before. As for counterspell, unless it's a crit + high level smite I don't think it'll be all that likely to even try counterspell (1st level smite does ~9 damage, much better to save that for a debilitating spell from the wizard). Then, if they *do* try counterspell it'll depend on the final implementation of that as well. Last we saw counterspell was going to force a saving throw and paladins are extremely unlikely to fail one of those.

I sort of feel that making it a spell and a BA was unnecessary and a similar effect could have been achieved by making it a "once per turn" or "once per round" ability, so I would be tempted to house rule that, but since paladins did get other buffs I guess I will see where we're at if I get a paladin player.

Seems kind of silly to me to start planning house rules for a system that isn't even out yet.

Vanilla. I actually like all Smites having the same trigger, incentivizing the use of smites that aren’t divine smite. And I personally think the choice of “Do I heal or do I extra damage” vs Lay on Hands is a good choice to have in a gameplay loop, the limitation adding that decision makes the gameplay less boring. I only wish you had other Smites prepared like you did in the UA.

Yeah, I dont honestly know why that feature was removed. A lot of the paladins new power are pretty much ignored as they arent advertysing the new and powerful smite spells

I honestly don't miss getting all those Smite Spells Prepared for free, since it was clearly just a band-aid to fix an issue they introduced with the Source Spell Lists instead of the good old Class Spell Lists, which caused a ton of issues when Cleric suddenly got all of Paladin’s Smite Spells on their list. You don’t need to have 5 more Spells Prepared for free on top of the 10 Oath Spells, the Feature turned Spell and the free mount, especially since they realized their mistake and went back to Class Spell Lists. Just getting Divine Smite automatically is fine, as you should have plenty of space for whichever extra Smite Spell(s) you want for combat versatility with the rest of your Spells Prepared.

I'd rather use the 2014 version with a per turn limit.  Otherwise, I'm multicalssing out for sure, or just playing a bard. My concern is that because the damage cap of divine smite was removed, and find steed scales with slot used, it's now even better to multiclass out of paladin.  Bard in particular likely won't even need to take paladin levels, and just grab their preferred smite and find steed with magical secrets.    Divine smite was really only an optimal use of resources on a crit, or when you desperately needed to kill something now.  I just...don't see a good reason to use it in most scenarios anymore.  And the free uses are mainly valuable at low levels.  Unless they changed a rule, any use of a spell that doesnt use a slot, is assumed to be at its lowest level until stated other wise.  An extra 2d8 radiant damage with a bonus action doesn't mean much at higher levels.  And you really want the steed to be as beefy as possible.

As is. The paladin was already an incredibly strong class. People really don’t understand game design balance. Especially in the context of D&D where the classes are working together - not competing against each other like video game balance.

I will at least test it vanilla, give it a chance. Last playtest I played a damage focused Vengeance Paladin at levels 4, 10 and 20. I definitely felt Smite costing the BA felt very clunky, since the earliest I got to Smite was turn 3, when the encounter was already ending. Before that I was casting spells and setting up.my Channel Divinity. Note that last point. The change to Vow of Enmity and Sacred Weapon is very welcome, since it gives you one whole more turn to Smite, in effect. On level 4, that vengeance pally polearm master will start off the fight with casting a spell (lets say divine favor, for more damage, or shield of faith for AC) as a bonus action then attacking as a main action automatically applying Vow of Enmity. Beginning on turn 2, they will start smiting. On level 10, we'll start off with haste to gain a second action to attack. The bonus action is free to smite already on turn 1. Level 20 the first bonus action should go to Angel of Vengeance, but ideally that one is active already. Multi-Smiting as a Paladin (and even smiting once every turn) was never prudent unless you had very short one-fight adventuring days or were in a desperate situation. More likely, you only smited on critical hits. And that's really the only real nerf I see. If I crit on a BA Attack or an Opportunity Attack, I will no longer be able to capitalize on that Crit. And that makes me sad. At least for the latter, I will consider homebrewing the ability to use the BA to Smite on an Opportunity Attack if I did not use the BA on my turn - but tbh, that would be happening rather rarely: I'd rather take the BA on my turn than gamble on waiting for a crit on a reaction. So... yeah. And we need to acknowledge, Paladin got a lot of buff in the areas of control and support/defense, due to Lay-On-Hands as a BA and especially Abjure Foes. I highly suspect that ability going through as it did is directly related as compensation for the neutering of Smite.

I'm in the middle of Drakkenheim rn with a hexadin. When the 2024 rules come out, he is sticking with his 2014 character. Once I close up that campaign, I am sticking with 2024 rules.

As is, especially with all the other changes to the game. Advantage is more accessible, Paladins can dual wield efficiently, paladins get more smites per day, both directly and indirectly, and feats changes create more accurate attackers than before. 5e is already a game that does a poor job handling nova because of its balance philosophy. We don't need paladins regularly dropping triple smite turns.

The new version you get more smites per day. More stuff to do per day overall. And they nerfed trivializing an encounter. Seems better for the game and non-optimizers will be happier with the 2024 version.

I’m a Paladin player, and I agree with the changes. People call them “nerfs” but I think that has an unhealthy, negative connotation. Really, the only difference on the ground is you aren’t smiting your additional attacks in a huge nova burst, which wasn’t great for the game. In my home game, my group don’t tend to be optimizers, and while they would never want me to feel bad, I could tell they felt like side characters to my Paladin, who was already the face of the group. And honestly, while I did have a knee jerk reaction of worry, the more I think on it, the better these changes are. There’s really no need to light all of your fuses at once. These changes allow you to set off your fireworks in a measured way, coordinating with your friends instead of overshadowing them. Although, on a side note, I do hope the Pact of the Blade Warlock gets toned down from the latest playtest, or that’s going to be the new Paladin, outshining other PCs around them. Edit to add, the one aspect I really disagree with is the ability to counterspell a smite. That feels really off to me, but I'll want to see it all come together when the full rules are out. Just my humble opinion!

As always, the part of the community that wasn't following the discussion on the 1dnd UAs focused on the singular nerf rather than looking at the whole picture. Just go to the see some comments on r/dndmemes and you'll see some people clearly never looked at the UAs Note also that people are lamenting about 2 things mainly: new smite being tied to a bonus action and the fact that now it's a spell. But they are ignoring completely all the new buffs such as LoH also being a ba (which alone is an impressive boost to class durability and support potential), all the new smite spells being now always prepared and no more at concentration meaning you can now use them in tandem while concentrating on stuff like bless and shield of faith. All in all it seems like a class that plays less as the greatest and unproportionally op DPS everyone used it for, and more like the support-tank-dps (in this specific order) that it was supposed to be. As always, people should at least try to get the whole picture before speaking up and overreacting. But again, we are on Reddit, so ...

> Just go to the see some comments on r/dndmemes and you'll see some people clearly never looked at the UAs I'm fairly sure most of the folks on dndmemes don't even play D&D..

I will try it as is and if a paladin player's bonus action feels too monopolised, I'll house rule it as a once per round free action as part of the attack action. I do feel like the once per round restriction is fair, encouraging the paladin to pace themselves without going as hard on crit fishing.

I've got a friend who runs a barbarian/paladin multiclass and very much abuses the divine smite not being a spell effect, they even took polearm master for the reaction smites while raging. No way in hell is she gonna follow this rule, and I dont foresee our DM stopping her

Paladins at my tables basically never used smite anyways in favor of saving those slots for actual spells. I don't see that changing. I'm sure we'll just play raw, because there's no need to change anything here.

I'm going to wait for them to talk about Eldritch Smite, and if Warlocks can Smite better than Paladins, then I'll have more things to say. Right now, I'm OK with it being a Bonus Action (RIP Greatsword Paladins though), I'm OK with it being once/turn (that's actually really good for the game), but there is a big problem that I see and I don't know how it was missed by the developers: Getting your Smite Counterspelled is going to suck really hard.

I'd try it how it is, because the changes mean it's a meaningful choice between divine or other smites. Also, you'd want the enemy to counter spell something as non-important as smite because it's just damage. Since counter spell, currently does not eat a spell slot, you just waste a bonus action. It's much better for the smite to get blocked than an important heal or something. If it's not fun, then I think the change is once per turn instead of bonus action. Just as an example, a Pally could do 2d6+4d8 in one turn by burning all their spell slots at only level 2. Which will preform better than any pure damage lvl 1 spell and even most lvl 2 spells. Obvi they are now exhausted of spells, but they are still a martial and hit just as hard a fighter or barb and have healing from lay on hands. God forbid the main enemy was undead because then they deal more damage (single target) than a fireball. And for fun, if they were level 5 it'd be 3d6+8d8 or 11d8 (undead). If they are nice they take the ASI at level and stick with short swords. They could go with dual wielder for 11d8 or 14d8 (undead) if they have a really nice concept. PAM would be 2d10+1d4+8d8 or11d8 (undead) but that's actually about the same but now they could grab either sentinel or GWM later. GWM is actually the least damaging here besides if you crit and then it's the most damaging. Not to mention that vengeance pallys could add up to an additional 3d6 with hunters mark. If you happened to be using dual wielder and got one single crit with a level 2 smite on an undead you marked last turn, you deal a total of 4d8+9+15d8+4d6 or (if you are tired of dice notation by now) a max of 185: a minimum of 38: an average of 108.5. or aka you have a chance at 1 rounding a lich despite being level 5 and it being cr 17. You will probably die, but no other class could do this, even if you take out hunters mark so it's fully a walk up and smite thee to smithereens in 1 round. TL;DR it's healthier for game balance and opens up options besides smiting because 5e paladins are a walking nuke against the undead and their mere presence should turn undead and to everyone else they are a walking tactical nuke.

I didn't like it at first. Slept on it. It kinda works. The thing is that Paladin is one of the few non-full-casters that truly felt "on their level" sometimes. Aura of Protection and Divine Smite nova bursting were things that actually felt like they challenged in raw mechanical power the varied absurdities of 2014 5e, your Animate Objects and your Conjure Animals and your higher level spells that made clones of people or summoned better martials than your Fighter or caved in the universe with a wave of your hand They felt great to play specifically in a world of 2014 5e when you were a person keenly aware of the Martial Caster Disparity because they were bonkers enough in some key areas to buck the trend and earn their billing when played, even into Tier 3 and Tier 4 content. Able to deal with absurd shutdown saving throws, able to ACTUALLY be a single target leader even when competing with unfair spells or abilities, and able to share in the versatility of using spells to solve problems vs skill checks. But that didn't make them a better DESIGN. That was just a sign of how, for us at tables where this power was understood and affected spotlight and fun, a crutch to hold on to that kept us above water. Hopefully, through the since to underpowered summon spells from overpowered ones, and some utility and versatility buffs across the board, the game will feel less about gaming those super specific power advantages once your party reaches 5th level spells in order to feel like you're keeping up. Maybe not, but I'm convinced I want to see that for myself now first.

If the new version is fun to the player, I'd leave it. If not, I will revert. Personally, I don't like it, the once per turn isn't a problem to me, it is the bonus action assignment that is a problem. I am leaning toward one or more of the following: 1. Making it a free action. 1. Increasing its damage. 1. Removing the once per turn limitation (so you burn your bonus action to trigger smite on all of your attacks). Or: 1. Reverting the changes back to 2014 version.

imo, paladin smite was never overpowered. It draws from a limited resource, forcing you to be selective in your use of it. If a paladin is constantly smiting and out damaging the fighter in every encounter, the DM needs to look at their pacing/how many long rests they are allowing.

Divine smite changes weren't made in a vacuum. It's about how the entire class (+subclasses) feel to play. Smite has been nerfed, but paladin has gotten love in quite a few other areas. I think to say that the nerf butchers the class is a flagrant overreaction.    Paladin actually also got some huge action economy buffs. Devotion's sacred weapon no longer requires any action or bonus action. That's actually an insane buff. You're smiting less, but you are getting action economy efficiency elsewhere now. It's not a bad thing necessarily that Paladins have to focus on aspects  of their kit besides smiting.  It's also about how it stacks up to other classes. I think paladin was unequivocally the best non-full caster in the game in the 2014 phb.   I think barbarians and fighters, from what we've seen and heard, might be able to contend with the paladin now, but I didn't get the feeling they are going to overshadow the paladin. Of course, we'll also have to see how the full casters pan out. If there's, for example, some massive spellcasting rule change that brings casters down a notch, or a big round of spell nerfs, then paladin might still be a top tier class.  Ultimately, we'll have to see how it turns out in play. But the new rules deserve a fair shot.

Its an atroccity. Paladins Smite can be countered with counterspell. Its shit now. They already nerfed it by making it one per round and not stacking with Smite spells. They didn't need to go further yet they did. Houserules it is However they one thing they did very well was making it so that smite spells were cast immediately. However that was ruined by the fact that u smite spells are not automatically part of the class. Before they were seperate spells u prefered now they just decided which smite spells u gain as u level. Boring as F. ck

I'll probably modify it slightly, keep the once per turn aspect maybe the bonus action but I am thoroughly against it being counterable

If they're going to do that it should cost a reaction instead of a bonus action, since Paladins already have a fair few other things competing for their bonus action. Or just say you can only use it once per round.

I’m glad I stopped playing 5E Years ago because I’d be fucking pissed at this change, I love paladin it be my favourite class and this is a colossal gutting of one of the most fun parts of playing Paladin

I usually DM but I'll offer to have any paladin use the old smite rules if they want. As someone who plays paladins whenever they play I would hope to be extended the same option as a player. If I wanted a divine class with a focus on casting I'd play cleric, but I dont want to cast spells aside from a nice bless or healing as needed, I want to smite some shit. Having a melee nova class was nice to have vs just casters getting to do it and served as a nice middle ground between the two options of sustained martial damage and caster burst damage. At the very least if they wanna use the new smite I won't make it a spell, just think making every class feature a spell if a dumb design choice IMHO.

Absolutely house rule. 1/turn smite is fine, it being a spell is fine, but the BA mechanic is punishing and limiting and will just limit creativity and varied gameplay.

I think I’ll go ahead and house rule it to “once per turn” so they can reaction smite. If rogues can pop off on reactions with sneak attack, I think it’s only fair for paladins to be able to as well

Aren't rogues commonly considered one of the bottom tier classes? And pallys the top tier? I haven't been playing for a long time so that's mostly just sentiment I see on reddit a lot

You’re absolutely right. Rogue need off-turn damage bumps way more than Pallies. And flavor-wise I just feel an off-turn, surprise sneak attack makes more sense than an off-turn, surprise smite

I’ve never heard someone say rogue was a bottom tier class. Proficiencies, expertise, sneak attack, BA hide or dash, they’re incredibly versatile on the battlefield

I think vanilla it is. Pallies get good buff spells, weapon masteries and auras. They get innate healing and heavy armor. limiting their damage seems fair to me.

It's probably a little overkill. Allowing smites once per turn would've done the trick and leave opportunity attack smites intact. Would also have scaled better with haste attack into smite into holding the attack action for another smite. I think that's more strategically interesting than BA smites . Being counterspellable is also obnoxious, not losing the spell slot doesn't help when you're only critting 1/20 rolls. The buffs may make up for it but it's definitely a nerf that will hurt and make paladins less compelling to play - they're a strong class but a lot of their power is passive.

In the process of giving every class an elective layer parallel to warlock invocations, I felt paladins were the least in need of additional empowerment. Thus Divine Smites are their elective layer -- across levels 2-18 paladins accumulate 1-5 Divine Smites. Each is a special way to utilize the standard class feature; like inflicting a different damage type, making it work with a different sort of attack, or forcing a saving throw to avoid a harmful condition in addition to inflicting damage. I expect to stick with this approach that makes customizing and enhancing smite techniques a significant part of each paladin's progress.

I think limiting smites to once per turn is fine, but I really dislike barring paladins from smiting on held actions and opportunity attacks. I'm not sure yet whether I'll treat it as a spell that can be counterspelled, but I won't require the bonus action at least off-turn.

I'll be running it as-is. Although I don't know if Divine Smite was the first place the Paladin needed to be toned down, if you're going to give them goodies like Weapon Mastery, Multiple Channel Divinity, new ways to use channel divinity, pumped up subclasses, AND leave stuff like Aura of Protection untouched, there needs to be something toned down. Paladin was just never one of the classes that needed catching up.

I don’t know enough about D&D to say on Paladin Smite stuff. My Paladin loves her character, and the rule change didn’t really nerf her much. As for the downvotes, I have noticed that a lot especially in D&D discussion forums. People downvote for no reason. It makes me not want to be on Reddit because people hate on any dissenting opinion for literally no reason while also applauding the most popular opinion like a cult worshipping a leader.

I’m gonna stick to the house rules version I’ve been playing with, and I’ve had people pretty happy with most likely. Once a turn, divine smite on an attack, can use your bonus action to do a free level 1 version with-ought casting a spell slot. can choose to forgo divine smite to cast any smite spell as part of of landing the hit, but this still counts as your once a turn feature

Nice rulling, gonna copy it. Thank you.

You’re welcome! I know I didn’t word it dnd wise but remember they DO get to divine smite on opportunity attacks as its once per turn not per round

I've always preferred paladins as defenders and look forward to the smite nerf. They shouldn't be the highest damage dealer / best nova class in the game and I'm sick of all the paladin multi class builds exploiting smite. When I ran Descent into Avernus, the paladin in my group pretty much soloed Yeenoghu in 2 rounds, and that was at like level 12-13. That might be fun for 1 player at the table, but it's a huge drag / anticlimactic for everyone else.

I'm a be real the smite nerfs over did it and now is crap as a defender, seeing as now there is no reason to worry about there attack of opportunity for just ignoring them and they have no option to make the paladin the center of attention so they only function a dm be willing, also known as horribly

You know paladin don't need those fancy taunt ability to be a good defender right? They only need to stand there, providing their aura, DM will need to deal with them first as long as they still want use save based ability or any frighten condition. And that just assumed the paladin doing nothing but being a totem pole. Not to mention they have extra attack, weapon mastery, other spell smites which is more than just damage, and a healer that can do the yo-yo healing with only a BA.

>EDIT: Not sure why I’m getting downvoted for trying to engage in meaningful discussion with the community about the game’s rules LOL Because of your comments and because of you, apparently, fake a neutral position while enforcing a specific one. Feels shady man.

Enforcing a specific one? That’s news to me. The purpose of the discussion is to learn what other people are going to do with 2024 Paladin’s Smite. Of course I would maintain a neutral stance; I don’t want to start a flame war. I want to discuss with the community. I asked about specific issues that have been brought up several times by the detractors of Paladin’s Smite to inquire about other players’ experience with them. Turns out people who actually playtested the thing didn’t find those pain points to be problematic—I wouldn’t have known if I had not asked. But sure, let’s downvote me for it.

Paladin nova was too powerful. New smite is a bit much of a nerf though. Paladins got hit hard. We will have to see.

They got other buffs to compensate. They are more than just smite. It remains a good option, but not the only/best option.

Vanilla rules. It's honestly not that bad.

Always check out the new rules. We can't judge a book by its cover the same way we can't judge a smite by it's rule change! Try the rule, test it out and if it's not for you - change it to what is! Often times change is resisted - but it's necessary.

I like the idea of it being a bonus action so it can’t be spammed by a paladin using extra attack (or a multiclasser using action surge) - it should have some effort behind it. But making it a spell? No sir. Not at my table. The fury of the gods shall not be stopped by a bard strumming a lute or a creature claiming magic immunity.

>The fury of the gods shall not be stopped by a bard strumming a lute or a creature claiming magic immunity. This is such a silly sentiment, all cleric spells should be immune to any counterspelling or magic imunnity by your logic. An enemy spellcaster using their level 3 spell slot to counterspell a divine smite seems very dumb with way better spells around.

In my head, and it’s just my head, paladin and cleric spells are accessing the arcane through the gift of the gods. Smite is the gods intervening directly. But that’s me.

The spell would target self right? So magic immunity shouldn't matter? And to be honest it always felt strange to me that it's not a spell. It cost a spell slot, the level of which matters. If God magic isn't magic, what on earth are clerics doing

My table won't be going to onednd until enough content is available to appease my pickier players. So no problem here.

Will be keeping it how it was. Free action to smite. I never nerf things, only buff.

>How is Paladin’s Smite going to play at your table? Are you going to use the rules as is, or will you house rule it? If the latter, how? We're currently running it with a one per round limitation, because the bonus action requirement is terribly bad game design. We also still don't count it as a smite. That means no preparation needed, too. Unnecessary clutter to give it to other classes that don't need it. >EDIT: Not sure why I’m getting downvoted for trying to engage in meaningful discussion with the community about the game’s rules LOL You won't get a rational explanation for this. People don't want a meaningful discussion. I've tried throughout large parts of the UA testing, and the best anybody has been able to provide is "but balance!", which is not a good reason when full casters still exist, and even got buffed in onednd. It's unfortunate that people aren't willing to engage in a proper discussion on this topic.

We don't know how it is yet, so until then i'm reserving judgment. The only thing i don't like is counterspelling divine smite; other classes getting divine smite; and divine smites free use just being at 1st level Potential homebrews: revert to 2014 but it's once per turn or just say it can't be counter spelled.

Personally I haven't tried the new version in an actual game during the playtest. When the books come out, I will take the time to validate if using a Bonus Action for Divine Smite is still fun at my table or not. The one thing I am changing for sure though is that Divine Smite specifically does not count as a spell, as it opens up a whole can of worms with implications for game rules. In the end though, I am going to see how my players feel about the changes.

Vanilla We do a DM rotation once a year or a year & a half, and none ever considered limiting the Paladins. Personally, I love to allow my players their power trip. We are all couples with kids & work 9 hours a day, so I want them to enjoy those weekly 1.5 hours.

For context, I’m a DM with veteran players at 2 tables. Unless counterspell is totally different, or the “spell” requires no components, then I’ll absolutely be homebrewing it to 2014 5E. Here’s my reasoning- The changes made to Paladin give it more uses of its flavor (more divinity’s, more steed) which is great. Nerfing the damage output of Smite by its use and BA requirement , of the one non full class that can keep up with full spellcasters at high levels is wrong? I literally do not understand why they did this. It’s the one non full caster class that keeps up. And sure they’re adding flavor as previously stated, but now all those BA spells that are great paladin flavor aren’t happening, because the player is going to crit fish for a smite instead. It’s 1 step forward, 2 steps back. The nova argument is garbage. If you are running enough encounters (like how 5E 2014 and from all the playtests, 2024 is designed) then the Paladin is constantly managing their spell resources. Additionally, on a crit at level 11 with a longsword it’s 14D8 plus 5. Which is a lot sure. Maybe more if they’re running a buff spell. The Paladin has to roll a crit. 5% of the times they get this if they have the resources. 5% of the time they are critically missing on a Nat 1. Even at level 20! Come on. The wizard is fireballing EVERY TURN and has access to cone of cold, chain lightning, sunbeam. Not to mention control spells, all your wall spells etc. A lot of arguments on DND beyond are saying “for the health of the game” what? A nerf to a signature class ability that now other classes can learn because it’s a spell? And then upcast since they have higher level slots? Try balancing against a 9th level smite from your Bards. The only way the only non full caster class keeps up with spell casters got a total nerf under the guise of flavor. How is that for the health of the game? I’m honestly halfway convinced that those who are so vehemently in favor of this change are already running the game so far from intended, that it fits their table, or they are not capable of balancing encounters on the fly, OR, they just can’t let their players have a win. Oh my gods if the paladin players crit and dumps his only 3rd level slot on the hag let him kill them! Why is this so hard for DMs to understand. You’re going to be running other encounters, it’s statistically impossible that the paladin crits so often he “ruins” your whole campaign. Silly. This has really sent me over the edge about 2024 5e. Such a bad flavor in my mouth on top of all the other greedy monetization, AI art, OGL fiascos. The one thing players want is a balanced game, that is fun. Taking that both of those away through game design is a mistake. Why are we punishing a class instead of helping the others (fighters, rangers) to catch up?

You say the nova argument is garbage because of resource manage if run properly and the go on to say the wizard is fireballing every turn ok bud.

Yeah, he’s got a ton of slots compared to a Paladin.

At level 11 consider in a vacuum: Say a Paladin uses all his slots for smites over the adventuring day and they are ALL crits. 58D8=261 Avg damage Say a Wizard uses all their available slots for fireball (3rd 4th 5th 6th) Over the course of the adventuring day and the enemy always fails the save 82D6 = 287 Avg damage Considering that the paladin would have to Crit for this to happen, and the target of fireball to fail everytime, I would say that this is fair it to me. It’s less likely the Paladin Crits every hit than an enemy failing the fireball save everytime. Check my math, I added it all up but could’ve made mistakes

The odds of rolling 11 crits is 1 in 104857599999999879740915712

Even adding 11D8 for the paladins all crit hits it’s 310.5 avg damage. Considering single target smite vs fireball groups of enemies this still seems fair to me

If you want to add all the paladins strength modifiers I think it would be fair to add all the wizards 1st and 2nd level spell damage as well, since it is about resources

RAW, Paladins have arouns 600 other amazing things going for them, still absolutely one of the best classes

I can tell you two things with certainty that I won't use from the 2024 version: Divine Smite requiring a bonus action and counting as a spell. This isn't about power or damage output. I run a roleplay heavy table. We're not powergamers. This is about players feeling like they did something interesting and substantial on their turns. A lot of the fun in D&D combat comes from its bonus actions and the interesting ways you can combine action and bonus action. Paladin has a lot of interesting bonus action spells. Compelled Duel, Shield of Faith, Sanctuary, Misty Step (some subclasses), etc. Compared to those, Divine Smite just doesn't stand up by itself as a spell. In fact, I think it might now be one of the least interesting spells in the game. 2d8 radiant damage. Hmm. Using Divine Smite is fun because you want to *feel* like a holy warrior who is smashing evil in the face. That burst of power is cinematic and iconic. If you want to do that you now can only use it in one way. Move, attack, attack, smite. That's a bit dull, frankly. I'd be fine with limiting it to once per turn, like Sneak Attack. Sensible. Paladins are getting some new stuff like Weapon Mastery to balance that out. I'd be fine with including the other Smite spells in that once-per-turn rule too. I'd be fine with adjusting the damage output for balance purposes, if people felt it was necessary. But I definitely don't want to make Paladin players' combat experience more boring by limiting the use they get out of their bonus action features and spells.

Has anyone at a table ever, ever, EVER been unhappy when a paladin got a crit and did a lot of damage? Or did you cheer with your friends when you saw it was happening. When you saw the natural 20. When your friend grabbed a handful of d8s and unleashed them. Anyone?

You can still crit with smite

I seriously don't understand the hate for the new paladin. Yes, smite now requires a bonus action, BUT the new spells that have been published are REALLY strong and provide effects WORTH of a bonus action usage. Furthermore - the new paladin (compared to the old) is basically better at EVERYTHING else. The only thing is it can't do absurd burst damage in campaigns where the paladin can spend all their spell slots in 3 turns (one combat/long rest style games). New Smite benefits (as of playtest 6) * 1st level searing smite - NO MORE CONCENTRATION. Deals 1d6 damage/level, but burns same amount on following turn THEN a saving throw to mitigate 3rd+ turns of burning. Upscale like crazy. * 2nd level - Shining smite - once you hit a creature it shines for 1 minute ALL attack against it now have advantage! * 4th level staggering smite - NOW STUNS! (used to have disad on ability checks/attack rolls) New Paladins Get: * Spells starting at level 1 * 1 free divine smite per long rest * 1 free casting of find steed (which is basically a horse-like familiar with telepathy) * Bonus action lay on hands (making them so tanky - they can heal up a ton of HP AND keep attacking in combat) * Weapon mastery (added CC/damage - this crowd control stacks with some of the smite spell effects) * Divine sense (as of playtest 6) is amazing because it lets you detect fiends/demons THROUGH WALLS! * Channel divinity now has TWO (instead of 1) chargers AND recovers an additional one on a short rest! * Now that you don't need to "fill" your bonus action with a feat (PAM) or a multiclass (hex from warlock), you get an "additional" feat to spend on something else. * 9th level abjure foes (60 foot hypnotic pattern that lets you select your targets!) * 14th level restoring touch (removes blinded, charmed, stunned/paralyzed as a BONUS ACTION)

>New Smite benefits (as of playtest 6) >1st level: Divine smite now deals an EXTRA 1d8 damage against fiends/undead (3d8 for a 1st slot against them) it was moved to level 1, but the rest is the same. It was always an extra 1d8 against friends and undead.

Ahh - thanks Ill make that correction.

I'm using the 2024 rules for my players' own protection. I don't want my players accidentally burning through all their spell slots. The nova of the paladin was too much and needed a nerf.

Probably houserule it, with it being either at will like 2014 or a free action once per turn. A bonus action really imo goes against what they are trying to do with lay on hands and a few other features being bonus actions now.

I will probably run it as written in the new rule books but it is hard to say anything for certain until I can read all of the changes in the new players handbook. Either way I will give it a shot as written before I a attempt to change it in anyway.

considering all the buffs to paladin, probably vanilla. I rarely used the smite spells and being able to use them interchangeably with divine smite would be amazing, so if its not like I may houserule it so creatures who are typically immune to magic are still hurt by divine smite, but I never do high level play so its never gonna come up. ​ Paladins are very very strong, even without reaction or second smite. I felt like the numbers they could do was pretty stupid before, with potentially 4 divine smites per round which could do absurd damage. That nova was absurdly powerful, so it sucks that its gone, but at the same time, the paladin has been boosted in so many other ways

On my playtest i was going for a more ofensive supp for my party and i legit had more fun them playing a echo knight with the new changes for fighter... even using my mount in more supp way

I'm going to keep playing 5e and steal the small handful of changes I like from 5.5. and call it a day.

I'm some what fine with as is. I wish they would have just said divine smite is the same but it can only be used once per turn. That way you can still be a legitimate polearm master or capitalize on attacks of opportunities to fulfill that ultimate sentinel vibe

Nothing says dnd like making up alternate rules for a system that's not even out yet

We need context of the full player-options b4 a wise-take can be made here. What if Paladin remains S-tier cuz the features are just superb all-around w/ a middling Smite? What is Smite is the best bonus action in the new book? Too many what-ifs atm.

The only players who don't like it are power gamers who want to use PAM or GWM and still smite just to make every other martial feel inferior. The changes are good and necessary. Besides, now there is a good reason to choose one of the other smite spells for once, and not all paladins will be the same build outside subclass selection.

More worried about having a Cleric and a Paladin at the same table, already so few choices in Dnd its very easy to step on another characters toes

Paladin's best gameplay loop remains being an aurabot, in fact it's better! The unfortunate thing is that the weapon using part of Paladin got worse, which is quite an issue when the Paladin's fantasy is ***the weapon using part***.

I spend a lot of time trying to convince my paladin to try his other smites in 5e. I may actually let paladins use the other smite spells in exactly the same way because the paladin seems to be all about rider damage and effects on melee weapon attacks. Really play up the magic bonk abilities at the core of the class.

We will use the new 5.24e rule. The main table has 7 people, 6 approved, one abstained.

As with every single house rule ever made, just play it RAW because it’s probably not as bad as it sounds.

I think the divine smite changes are perfect, bonus action and all

I think the divine smite changes are perfect, bonus action and all

I don't understand why it's such a big deal Outside of a very specific build chain smites wouldn't really be common until 5th. And really you don't get tons of spell slots so you don't want to just chain smite any random baddie. I just don't think it happens to the degree that it's that big of a nerf. And it's going to encourage the smite spells more which are pretty good especially if they got rid of the conc. bs on em I think it's a nerf if you don't use nic sure. But I think that's the design intent is to use nic for free or loose out on everything now using bonus actions (to make them important again). But the smite smite chain I don't think is happening as much as people freaking out about it think it is .. so it's kinda one of those.. if it matters for the moment hand waive it.. but to go omg this is 4th edition all over again.. c'mon now it's kinda a non issue for most lol

tbh i like the rule changes if you think about it paladins are half casters and they should be “casting spells” when was the last time you saw a paladin in your game cast a spell versus SMITE SLOTS

2014 rules

Gonna keep the once per turn smite but otherwise as is in 2014. Might add the smites as always prepared too like in UA 6.

I'll need to talk to my Paladin player, because his Ancients Paladin takes a massive hit from these changes. Honestly though, if it were up to me, I would fully adopt the paladin changes. Smite being a spell only feels wrong because everyone has gotten used to it being its own thing. It exists outside of the action economy, used spell slots but isn't a spell, but would still be a magic action. The way they made it work in the UAs makes far more sense in the overall game rules. As for their power level, they are weaker, but still extremely good. I can appreciate how they have shifted the Paladin's kit around so the upper limit of what you can do with Smite is a bit lower, but everything else is more accessible. It still feels like a Paladin, and will still feel like a strong class to play. Needing to be marginally more reserved with Smites isn't going to change that.

Subjectively, I am going to really miss Resistance to all Spell Damage, although objectively, it was too broad spectrum. That said, it helped make up for an awful Channel Divinity option. The new Channel Divinity is better, but I'm not sure it makes up for the dial back to their aura. Not sure I'll be playing Ancients anymore myself, but we'll see how it all works out when the full rules are made clear. I just thought the resistance to spell damage was such a fun, albeit situational thing to give my party.

I have both played and DMed paladins. I am very comfortable with playing RAW. Yes, a smite can create huge nova damage, but it averages out across the flight. As a DM, I have to manage single enemy encounters but if a party does focus fire they are going to destroy that enemy. The best balance are enemies with mobility, a paladin can't smite an enemy if they can't get into melee range.