This is true and I should have mentioned it. It is essentially the “Blessed Warrior” option from Tasha’s but it is worth mentioning that it moved forward.
Honestly as someone playing a paladin now and loves dumping 3 smites while hasted on a boss…..I’m ok with this…I always loved the concept of paladins but I’ve always kinda felt like a 1 trick pony
Nah, 5e Paladin is a two-trick pony; 1. Aura of Protection, 2. Nova potential. The latter was completely gated behind random luck, and with 5.1e it no longer exists. So, was a two-trick pony, NOW a one-trick pony. Of course, that one-trick is like 80% of the power of the Paladin. With 5.1e giving Paladins Archery Fighting Style (presuming it still exists as 5e) this will basically make 6th-10th level Paladins flat out better than Fighter outside of nova potential (with Action Surge).
I feel like they should’ve just treated Divine Smite like sneak attack. You can do it once a round and once on a reaction. That way it can’t be counterspelled or blocked by silence or something like that. Plus it frees up your bonus action to actually cast spells.
Personally, I don’t mind this as much and I think it’s a vast improvement over what we had before since it was way too good and absolutely deserved a nerf. Also, it finally fixes another issue that isn’t talked about a bunch in that Divine Smite now works exactly the same as the other Smite Spells which are also a Bonus Action after a Hit and way better than the clunky versions of before. I also think that people are way overblowing the fact that Divine Smite can be Counterspelled since not many Monsters can Counterspell you and there’s way better stuff to use it on since it’s not a Control Spell, so it’s not going to be a big deal and probably only coming up when you critically hit a Lich at low HP.
@@halozoo2436 There's a small correction, unless they change them to be in line with DS, DS is the only one that is like "oh you hit, now use your bonus action to smite." whereas the other ones you're pre-emptively charging your weapon with the smite effect and holding with concentration, which THEN applies on your next hit. This makes some sense, but the duration of DS is instantaneous. I agree that DS needed a nerf, I just think the Once per turn was all that was needed. It being a spell also brings up the concern that since it's a spell, that means that feats that grant spells in the future can possibly grant Divine Smite. Which is a consequence of folding a feature into a spell. I doubt anyone is going to counterspell a divine smite, but it also makes it useless in antimagic fields or similar effects. The main disappointment is that DS was basically the feature that made use of spell slots in a way that wasn't just "lemme cast a spell." to me the biggest issue with DS was how often you could do it, which was on every attack. I feel this is going too far in the other direction, but I'll see how free action on a hit, once per turn works.
@@waifusmith4043 Maybe, but I still think that it does make a lot of sense overall to just say "All Smites work the same now" instead of having some that function differently and one that isn't even a Spell like the rest. Divine Smite may have been hit too hard, but I don't think it's that big of a deal like people say it is, since the stuff that turns off Smites was already pretty rare, and the Bonus Action concern isn't really too crazy since it's not like you were Smiting and using Lay on Hands together previously while Channel Divinity is usually more of a niche thing, and the Smite-Stacking being killed off completely is 1000% deserved as it was definitely an unintentional exploit caused by Divine Smite not being a Spell.
Regarding the Aura of Warding feature for Ancients Paladin: One thing I found while doing some digging is that when fighting against Vecna from the most recently published adventure, the current Aura of Warding only grants resistance to the damage from when Vecna casts Lightning Bolt, while with the new Aura of Warding you get resistance to the damage of every ability Vecna has *except* Lightning Bolt. Something like that's not going to be true for every situation, but it's an interesting thing to think about. Personally, I would have liked it if Aura of Warding allowed the Paladin to swap between different resistances after a Long Rest, so they could tailor it to fit whatever they expected to face during the day. The new Aura of Warding is great when fighting Vecna, but it does nothing if fighting, say, a Balor or a Dragon.
The Counterspell thing I don't care about, if an enemy wants to burn their counterspell on my smite instead of on the sorcerer's Twinned hold person I'm okay with that. With that said, I do wish we could reaction smite. Maybe they'll update War Caster to allow for that in some way?
I kinda feel like smites shouldn't be 'counterspellable'...It is now too late for the phb but an easy homebrew would be giving paladins from lvl 5 and up the ability to cast smite spells without verbal, somatic or non cost material components. And yeah, also on reactions (at least the 'basic' smite).
Yeah perhaps War Caster may see an update. To me it just feels odd that it can be countered given that it’s supposed to be more related to divine energy and your “mastery”. The reaction loss hurts though.
@@Nemnar7 Even then, the counterspell nerf means I don't lose my spell slot, and that's still a counterspell that won't be hitting a more powerful allied spell
I was fine with smite being limited to once per round. The part I don't like is that if I cast a bonus action spell, like misty step, to close into range with the enemy, I can't smite even once any more. Also, can't smite if slowed any more which doesn't happen often but smite shouldn't need a bonus action.
Yeah, though I'd say it's more like they got their OP Feature that effectively broke the Game's Rules rightfully hit with the nerf hammer, but everything else was actually buffed to make them more usable. Since before Lay on Hands was a bit too clunky to use effectively and a lot of the Channel Divinity options were a bit jank to use in practice. So overall it may be more of a nerf, but that's only because Paladin was so overpowered compared to what it should have been.
@@binolombardi That's a bit harsh on them, especially since that alone still wouldn't even fix all the problems as it wouldn't stop the other exploit in Smite-Stacking. Making Divine Smite a Spell that functions like the rest of the Smite Spells technically may not be the best solution overall, but I think it is the best solution when it comes to updating D&D 5e. No more cheating the Rules of Spellcasting, just a simple, effective change that fixes all the problems Divine Smite had while conversely unifying all the Smites to function exactly the same way like you would initially think so they're more intuitive.
@@halozoo2436 nah. making the other smites additional riders of a once per turn Divine Smite would have been the solution. All they did was gimp the paladin and disproportionately reward fullcasters who gain access to it by removing the spell slot damage cap. paladin using all resources, smites, feats, and weapon masteries is now about as effective as a rogue. too much of a nerf. “Once per turn” was all it needed to be. stacking a bonus action spell on a once per turn divine smite would make them competitive to a new fighter or barbarian for like 2 rounds, then they’d be done. Now they’re done before they start.
I think as long as lay on hand was a bonus actions smite had to be as well. Paladin had no consistent bonus action before this and it gives them a proper choice in combat than just smiting. It also allow the other smite spells to shine as more viable options equal to divine smite. Smite was already stopped by thing like anti magic field, If counterspell stays a con save it will be very difficult to counterspell and they still get the spell slot back. This also bring to an entirely different issue with the bonus action as a concept that I finally think they're fixing by giving more bonus action choices to classes and making it so you have choices rather than using it for one thing or having no use for it at all. I personally like the changes.
I do think that smite being turned I to a spell was a good way to reign its power in when pretty much ever other aspect of the class was buffed. It's one method to make it once per turn, prevent using divine smite to boost the spell smites, and still allowed it to be used as a reaction if they left it a on hit trigger casting. My issue is the bonus action requirement is too punishing. Especially when so much of class, presumably from the ua requires it which is something the ranger currently has to struggle with too.
it really wasn't making class features spells will NEVER feel good imagine if Sneak Attack was made a spell and rogues became half casters now add on that Sneak Attack has a verbal component and that it costs a bonus action to use that is where Divine Smite is at
I don't think Divine Smite being too powerful _for a Paladin_ was the problem, and their "solution" doesn't even address it. The problem is that just a 2-level dip (now a 1-level dip) and combining it with a full-caster will be a better smiter than a straight-classed Paladin (it's a little nuanced; a Paladin will have better Smite spells but worse Smite slots and frequency). We'll also have to see how Magic Initiate ended up, as you may be able to just get it that way.
Smite being a spell means that in the future, you could pick it up with a feat so the dip might not be necessary, given the wording of more modern spell-granting feats.
It does fix the problem. In the 2014 rules divine smite is only strong on Paladin multi class hybrids like sorcadins because they can nova their extra spell slots and spend multiple per turn. Now smites are just an inefficient spell for full casters that requires splitting their stats and class levels to function. Yeah, a cleric for with 1 level of Paladin for example can theoretically smite more often, but it requires martial stats which weakens its other spells, and it doesn’t get the other Paladin features that support the play style.
The problem to me is that paladins were largely fine and well designed and other classes mostly needed to be brought up to its standard. Instead paladin got better as a spellcaster and support, but that’s already where cleric beat them soundly. Meanwhile what made them a potent and mechanically unique martial was gutted and now casters do their martial function about as well if not better. Leaving the once shining example of design that could keep pace with the power and versatility of casters hobbled as a half of a proper caster held up mostly by aura. It’s a tragic state where they almost entirely lost their unique combat style to give way to being just another class’s huge subclass.
I hate smite as a bonus action. It should just be once per round, not bonus action, bonus action limits too much, no channel diovinity, no bonus action spells.
You kind of missed the point about why they're making it a Bonus Action. The idea was to prevent burst damage. If Divine Smite is not a bonus action, then a paladin can combine Divine Smite with a bonus action Smite spell to do the burst damage that the designers are trying to prevent.
@@fortunatus1 it's as simple as "you can only use one type of smite effect per turn". Imo all the smites should be reworked into paladin exclusive feature that isn't a spell and that can be used as part of the attack action, think rogue's cunning strike that also uses up spell slots.
Smite shouldn't be a spell at all in my opinion. However it should be once per turn. I feel that if they hit an opportunity attack they should get some value opportunity for it. Also counterspelling smite is stupid af.
Yeah, I think a lot of these changes were to try to improve balance between classes. The smite changes are a little annoying. Can you choose which attack you spend it on? If it is just your next attack that can also be a major nerf. I agree with what you said. I wish they would have kept it the same but had it be a once per round effect rather than making it a spell. A lot of the changes are interesting.
Definitely. A lot of interesting and very good changes but many were likely made to maintain relative power between the classes. Not a bad move in my eyes but I can see it rubbing many the wrong way.
Alright. I thought about it, and I think I'm coming around to new Paladin. I'm still worried that BA Smite will conflict with cool possible builds in the future, and I'm still sad that Smiting Barbarians is out, but the current design, as far as I can see, will allow dual-wielding Paladins, provided they master Nick. And ultimately, I've seen Bards and Monks navigate having multiple conflicting bonus action options just fine. I really like having 2x or 3x more Channel Divinities. I think Paladins WILL end up feeling more divine. So... Okay. It might be good.
I totally agree with your take. My top complaints about old paladin weren't that things didn't feel good or weren't strong, it was that there were some specific features that just felt over-tuned. They managed to tune those down and still make the class overall stronger. Hopefully it will still be fun to play, and I think it will be.
a strange thing about smite being a spell now, and also not having a level cap on the scaling, means that bards can just start smiting and dropping 9th level smites dealing 10d8 radiant on their melee attacks, which is kinda awesome.
literally what i thought. Making it class feature disallows bards from being best paladin. You turn it into a spell, that scales by itself instead of class feature, bard can do it better like they do everything. Since smite is like 70% of paladin, this will remove them from most games.
Don't think this was revealed at time of original posting, but the bard will no longer be able to get the Divine Smite spell without actually taking a level of paladin. Magical Secrets only grants access to Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spell list.
they ol yellered Divine Smite -verbal component means it cannot be used in silence bubble -being a spell means it can be counterspelled -being a BA makes it suffer the same thing current ranger does Paladins are going to be the new rangers, best case scenario when other classes can use YOUR CLASS FEATURE better than you can, something got fucked up
A lot of people seem to be so indifferent/underwhelmed to the find steed feature, but I think it feels good to have it. Having a special steed as well as lay on hands are the two most iconic paladin abilities, so I am delighted that they both have been improved.
Yeah, the Paladin self-buff subclass channel divinities all became Sword Bard on attack action uses, but purely to accommodate Bonus Action Smite. Find Steed is the most ribbon a ribbon feature ever was. And Paladin's Smite is so bad I wish it wasn't a feature. They took the feature from the playtest, and then nerfed the nerf, turning Paladin's Smite into a auto prepare for the Divine Smite spell and a free casting Divine Smite once per long rest at level 1 (lol). It is such a lazy feature by design. The whole justification for saying "we're calling this Paladin's Smite because it doesn't just prepare Divine Smite, but allows you to CAST Divine Smite once per day (at level 1) - wtf is that? That's "protecting" and "safeguarding a 5e feature? When I heard that I just felt livid for such a bold face lie. But, by virtue of how terrible the saving throw system is in D&D, Paladins will find a place in T3 and T4 parties for the sheer value of giving the other players a chance with Aura of Protection to make their saves in higher level d&d campaigns. Emanation buff bots unite, lol.
The other reason for them making Divine Smite a spell, is because all of the OTHER smites were spells. The Paladin was always supposed to be able to use Searing Smite, Thunderous Smite, Wrathful Smite, ect. However, because Divine Smite was not a spell and not any type of action, those spells were NEVER used. Now, the other smite spells will actually be viable in comparison. The only other way to do this would have been to turn ALL of the other smite spells into non-action smites built into the Divine Smite ability. Which is a much bigger change.
I didnt like the smite changes when i first saw them, i still dont like it now. It feels like an unnecessary nerf that could have been solved by limiting divine smite to once per turn. Or even having it linked to the attack action like green flame blade or booming blade.
Want to also add (and this is definitely a game FEEL issue more than a gameplay or balance issue) that turning all smites into spells removes the unique charm they once had. Best example I can give is if Bardic Inspiration was turned into a spell, or Eldritch Invocations were reskinned as Feats. It feels as if an aspect of the feature has been lost as a result.
Honestly, 2024 paladins use bonus action just for smites or lay on hands. Honestly, that's cool, you have to choose, like monks choose more punches or other actions as bonus actions.
2:20 Really, so a bard will become a better paladin by default? Just take college of lore to gain access to paladin "spells" and now you can smite far better than any paladin since you gain spell slots alot faster. Who thought this up?
I just thought of a fix for the divine smite changes. First back to not being a spell and just being able to use not costing a bonus action. It makes no sense to cost a bonus action since we have sneak attack the way it is. The way id balance smite usage is when you use divine smite of any level if you wish to use another on the same turn, you can only use another smite of a level below it. Keep the free divine smite change per long rest. My thinking behind this is that this will force people to consider what spell slots to use up and if they plan to be able to smite more than once on their turn, as well as also nerf early game burst.
I’m planning to run the new rules for the most part, but I will be modifying Divine Smite for players who (like me) hate the bonus action restriction. I’m still unsure how I’ll approach it exactly; Currently, I’m thinking I might actually replace the casting time of all the smite spells from a bonus action to a reaction, to keep it in line with how the action economy of the game generally works but keeping the designers’ intention of adding an action economy cost to smite (although it technically always had the invisible action economy cost of requiring the attack action or some other action that allowed you to make a weapon attack). If I’m fine with adding an additional action economy cost to smite, why change it from a bonus action then? Well, my biggest issue with the new smite is this: No other class feature in the game monopolizes your action economy when you use it as much as the new smite. Full stop. Yes, sometimes Sneak Attack requires you to use your bonus action to activate it, but not always. A Barbarian will usually take the attack action after they Rage, but they’re not required to. There’s one class I know if that has a feature similar to this, that being the Monk (Martial Arts and Ki, which both required you to take the attack action in order to get a bonus action attack), but those abilities seem to have both been updated for 2024 to no longer have that action economy tax. But in order for the paladin to use their second level class feature (which is normally the “wait, you can do that?” feature), they have to spend an action to attack and then they have to spend a bonus action to smite, or at least save their bonus action until after they attack so they can see if they crit. The ability to do more than one thing on your turn is part of the reason why D&D’s combat system is fun, but smiting doesn’t really feel like “doing more than one thing on your turn.”
I was thinking of making a Paladin for our new campaign, and now I’m not making one for sure. I’m sorry paladin fans, my heart goes out to you. I am philosophically opposed to nerfing, and am a believer in a good DM makes up for power imbalance in the group with granting epic boons and amazing homebrewed magic items to the players that are not as powerful.
I do like the changes to divine smite. Removes the insane NOVA that can allow fights to end too quickly. In addition, it decreases the power of multiclassing paladin without making it obsolete, and, with the improved later level features, encourages keeping with the paladin class throughout the character's career, which I view as a positive.
3:06 I have a big gripe with this rationalization. In 5e most combat focused paladin spells are concentration. Meaning things like bless, shield of faith or one of the smite spells. Ask yourself what would you want your paladin player doing, casting purify food and water or smiting?
I’m a bit confused here. Your point is exactly my point, if I understand it correctly. You’re saying that since there’s often nothing better to do with your spell slots that it just makes sense that you would be using them for Smite instead? If so, I agree with you lol.
@@InsightCheck Well that is just the issue. The 5e paladin didn't have much to cast especially in earlier levels. So the complaint that paladins don't cast spells isn't just that smite is available but also that they are only cast 1 spell per combat. The bonus action nerf to smite made much more sense when paladin was given access to the full cleric spell list. At that point, the player had more options to make combat spell casting matter. The big issue now is there is still little incentive for a paladin player to use a 1st or 2nd level spell slot on anything but smite. The smite spell change to remove concentration was a good first step, but they needed to either up the damage or add aoe to make them more attractive then regular smite. Also, thanks for the reply! Great channel!
@@InsightCheck exactly as the guy above said, paladins don't have other spells better worthwhile to use for the most part Especially because the best Paladin spells are typically concentration, you risk really easily losing your concentration since paladins are typically melee Fighters And do you really want your Paladin to use their whole action to cast bless instead of attacking twice? Especially when at least one of those attacks now could have a smite? Unless they become full casters or their spell list becomes hugely expanded, there's no reason for a paladin to Mid combat cast a spell IMHO. You want your Paladin to tank and do damage
I always wish divine smite could be something separate from your spell slots. Its so frustrating to have to choose between smiting or just having really nice utility spells. Like would it of been so bad to just give it its own pool to expend from especially if you can only smite once per turn anyways?
They combine it because having all your spells and smites would be alot. People underestimate the free smite and free steed. That allows you to cast more than before.
Ive been working on this actually. Move smite to being the primary use of your channel divinity (2/short rest), and divine sense the secondary use. Subclass abilities are separated out into their own recharges, smite spells are dropped and the riders they do made into improvements to the basic smite distributed among the subclasses. For example the conquest pally gets the save vs fear every time they use their divine smite, and the devotion pally gets the free extra damage vs fiends and undead
@@Funkin_Disher that would give you more resources that's why they don't. Being a spell slot means you gotta give up spells for it. I don't think people get the free casting of smite and find steed give some slots back.
My problem lies with: No smites on reaction. The free uses in the paladin class should automatically scale to the paladin class levels highest spell slots. The loss of the smite spell extra preparations I feel like they went a bit too far and I feel for my paladin friends who look at this version and say 'aww man' instead of 'hell yeah'. Edit. I just thought of it, but what if the bonus action spell rules hasnt changed. This going to make smite as bonus actions spells even more limited in who could be interestef.
This doesn't bring the power in line with the other classes, though. It nerfs it enough that the Rogue and Ranger aren't completely left behind, but the spellcasters are still stupidly overpowered, and will only get more powerful with the remaster. The paladin was the only martial that could keep pace with spellcasters.
Ouch. Yeah, I would have preferred to keep Divine Smite as a thing you can do if you hit with an attack but it can only be done once per round. Now it's going to a question of do I want to chance missing with this spell slot invested?
This will get rid of the meme of Paladins having Smite slots, instead of spell slots, as now people can't burn three level 1 slots to absolutely bone whatever tough enemy is meant to be able to handle half or more of the party at once. I almost never used smites that way, so the change doesn't effect my playstyle much.
Smite as a bonus action feels fine to me. The stupid nova rounds are gone and its strength to a multiclass is diminsihed. In exchanged, we get a lot more interesting, well rounded, straight class.
I am interested in seeing how this new paladin plays out with the new rules set. In my current campaign, one of my players has a paladin/rogue... and yes the rapier booming blade sneak-smite is pretty sick.
They're just teasing us now. I'm pretty sure it can be used on an unarmed attack, but it's also a bonus and a spell? Now if I'm silenced or there's a wizard nearby with counterspell I'll just not be able to use it at all. In my games I'll treat it the same as it was before probably. Might even make it so that you can use it once a day without expanding a spell slot
An enemy spellcaster wasting a 3rd level spell slot to counterspell a Divine Smite is a huge win for the party. The enemy just burnt their reaction and wasted a spell slot, now they can't counterspell the Wizard's Banishment or the Sorcerer's Cone of Cold
I adore all that Insight Check does throughout his videos; being straight up with you guys. What i see in the comments has made a civil war regarding Paladin. Regardless of what all say, opinions expressed to others, etc., Paladins "core feature" has been stripped into something that can get counterspelled, people. Stripping Divine Smite off of Paladin was like how people got angry when they grouped Wizards' spell into Arcane Spell List or stripping away Rage from Barbs or Wild Shape off Druids as examples here. This so called "nerf" didnt need to go this route. It could've went like Rogue's Sneak Attack and all would be ok. OR boost everyone else to feel how powerful Paladins truly are. I accept people having their own opinion, and thats acceptable. Just, dont go hating people who like 2014 Divine Smite and will homebrew restrictions that could've been the GOAT definitively. Be respectful of your surroundings, and remember homebrew exists for a reason. Good day Jeremy and ALL of the I.C. community
I still disagree with how they think this means Paladin players will now use other Smites more often. How? 2d8 Radiant that increases 1d8 per level is better than 2d6 Thunderous and Branding Smite 1d6 Wrathful Smite 3d8 Blinding Smite (which a Divine Smite at the same level would be doing 4d8) And if its a fiend or undead that's an extra 1d8. Plus very few things are resistant to Radiant.
I would have nerfed the damage over the number per turn something like a d8 to a d6. Choosing to burn lots of spell slots for damage is really satisfying and now it is just gone.
I honestly hope we get to keep the 2014 versions of the classes on DNDBeyond, as I really do not like these aspects: - Smite change being counterspellable, blocked by a silence spell, and eating your Bonus Action meaning it cannot be used with PAM or on Reaction Attacks is unbelievably terrible for a feature that was already somewhat niche when compared to the value of casting spells like Bless. And I personally think removing the nova potential is unwarranted given the costs. - Half-casters getting spellcasting at 1st levels make no sense when Third-casters get it at level 3, and it also makes Sorcadins more powerful. Not that I mind the latter too much, but I would've thought one would want to make single-classing MORE appealable and not less so. - Getting more fighting styles only really serves to make multiclassing better. Like, what is the point of getting Archery as a single-classed Paladin if it can't deliver smites with it? - Divine Sense being tied to Channel Divinity is bad. If people weren't throwing them out enough with the 2014 version, very few people are going to throw them out now that they're tied to better combat features that you can now use more frequently. I'd rather have it as its own resource. - Lay on Hands not curing disease removes any player character creation from combating the mechanic, and being able to use it on Undead and especially Construct makes no sense. - Oath of the Ancients is butchered past 6th level. Only in very specific campaigns will the 7th level aura be worth it as those damage types are the rarest three damage types to receive in the game, save for Force Damage. Spell Damage resistance was balanced; most encounters in most campaigns doesn't even have spellcasters, and the most dangerous spells at higher levels don't even deal damage. The other changes are fine. Free Smite and Find Steed is cool, with the latter being auto-prepped is cool.I also feel like getting an extra channel divinity but only regaining one per short rest is a band-aid fix. Once you use one, you're back to how it works before, but with even more and better options asking for the feature.
Divine smite is the weakest 1st level melee range spell that costs 1 action 1 bonus action and spell slot. The only weaker 1st lvl damage spell is Witchbolt which has a 30 ft range. Now Smite will only be used on crit as the damage does not justify the cost if you can misty step or use bonus action attacks via feats.
@@dilkertoquendo8219 it does cost an action now because it cannot be used as a rider on a bonus action or a reaction. You must perform the attack action on your turn for divine smite to be possible. And you can miss, it just doesn't let you use it at all if you miss with your attack. Before you could miss with your attack and still use polearm master or a reaction attack to still smite.
@@ArturoGonzalez-st7xj You ignore the fact that you still use your attack action normally. Your statement would only be true if you would only do smite damage but not your normal weapon damage. So no, smite does not cost an action, since you still get the full effect of the attack action that you use it with.
@@Narokh Can you smite without using the attack action under the new rules? No? I thought so. In the end It takes an attack action + a bonus action instead of any forms of attack with a melee weapon whether it be action reaction or bonus action in 2014.
@@ArturoGonzalez-st7xj Just because the smite is retroactively attached to one attack from your attack action does not mean that it actually costs your attack action to smite. If you order a meal for say $10, and then for that meal only have the option to add a side for $2 (just random numbers for example sake), the side does not cost you $12.
Sure it looks bad if you only see the Paladin as a vehicle for Smite and nothing else. However, I think the intent was to give the Paladin more options outside of Smite and a more well rounded character overall. People have to look beyond the memes and old wornout stereotypes and see the new potential.
Honestly everyone’s complaining, but this will make a vastly more robust Paladin versus someone who does nothing but Smite until they have no spell slots and occasionally health an ally.
Uktimately the game is played through resource managemet. Spell slots, hit points, special abilities and most importantly action economy. To make the 3 action economy and then design options not using that economy was bad design. I like the change.
people are talking so much about them """"nerfing Divine Smite""""" when In reality divine smite becoming a bonus action is way smaller of a thing than people realize. Because even if it stayed how it did before; that doesn't change the fact that it's a spell now, and you can basically only expend one spell slot per turn.
Everyone forgets the war caster feat. As a ranger player, I almost always have it because of the advantage on concentration saves and the ability to cast a spell that costs an action as a reaction. As a DM, I’ll home brew that BA spells can be cast with the feat. It will give the option to smite on a reaction if a Paladin takes the feat.
Well, it's not like booming blade where you get to attack as part of the spell. Making a meele opportunity attack and casting a spell, even one that has a casting time of bonus action both require your entire reaction. If you allow that you might as well allow a warlock to cast hex and then attack with a weapon as part of the same reaction with war caster.
I don’t like that it is a spell or bonus action. Rather, I wish it was a special feature for choosing two smite types and it counts as a damage *Combat Mastery*! It’s a new feature that could keep the game flowing and streamlined, and many smites debuff already too. Eating up a bonus action discourages using bonus action before your attack action, means it can’t be used during your reaction or bonus action attack options, and being a spell means the barb can’t use it. I am still absolutely in favor of killing this huge nova culture though, and want set-up, sustained, or multi-turn damaging moves to be substantially more powerful, at the cost of needing teamwork and strategy. I want this nova dpr culture to be diminished
With smite i think they threw the baby out with the bathwater. I do think it need a nerf, but comeon...a bonus action, really. I think everyone is underestimating how big a nerf this really is. Paladins damage output will take a huge hit and the buffs to others just isnt quite whatever everyone is saying by what ive seen. Honestly, i think they worry too much about the Paladin dip and have made a single dip more juicy than ever by making it a spell.
“Once per turn” is all the change they needed to do for divine smite. making it a spell was entirely unnecessary. weird bonus action requirement introduces bonus action bottle necking whose removal was a primary consideration for pretty every other class. Cant smite on a reaction attack. Can be counterspelled, even if counterspell is rebalanced and less resource draining. Can be entirely turned off for extended periods of time by silence, a level 2 spell, due to its vocal component. any attack gained from a bonus action is comparable to a 1-2 level smite with little to no resource expenditure. paladin now has to spend resources and a bonus action to be comparable to a rogue, which is pretty sad. A paladin can no longer hold a candle to a fighter or barbarian even when expending all resources. Eagerly awaiting the needed Errata, knowing theres little chance for them to make the appropriate change.
From my perspective the Paladin got lots of little buffs then one massive glaring nerf. This is incredibly awkward as from my experience DM'ing and playing through the playtests every other class overall improved. Sure there were a few subclasses that were toned down like the moon druid but as a whole the classes benefited. As a DM I am completely fine with the nerf to divine smite being once a round. From my experience most Paladins would be bad fighters until the boss rolled around. What I do not like is how they made it a spell, and how it takes a bonus action. Constantly being deprived of a bonus action if you want to deal competitive damage with the monk, fighter, or barbarian is incredibly clunky especially as bonus actions have become more important. So far this and the Ranger have been misses for me
Counterspell requires you to perceive verbal and/or somatic components, so it can be counterspelled. However, if they kept counterspell like in the last version of the playtest, then a) you get a save against it (at which paladins tend to not be too shabby) and b) even if counterspelled, your spell slot is not lost.
I would also like to point out that now that Divine Smite is a spell, I believe you should be able to use Meta Magic on it, and there’s some fun options with that.
I’m gonna disagree with you on smite not needing to be a spell. If you let it be once per turn but not a spell, you could stack it with the smite spells, basically bringing the nova that they wanted reined in right back.
I think they could have done something cool by making all the smite spells a class feature under Paladin smite, with the player gaining more options as they level up. Maybe even potential for subclass specific smites. Sort of like an innovocation setup for the smites
I dont like features that give a spell I would otherwise have had access to. Give me the option to pick find steed instead of giving it to me at the expense of what could have been something more unique. Also yea, dislike smite being a bonus action spell. Feels like it makes the smite much less interesting and mechanically unique
I have the same concerns with Bonus Action Smite. Certain monsters will shit down Paladins, and Smite can ve counterspelled. I really don’t think these are intended effects but by over complicating the solution to amite once per turn we come to this result
I’m worried about if you can grab Divine Smite via Bard’s Magical Secrets. That might be a rather bad thing because Valor/Swords bard or Whispers Bard will destroy Paladin in smiting things, which feels super ironic. Bard is something I wish we’d see already. It being looked at in week 3 is nuts.
So, my guess about Jeremy's misspeak, is he meant to say it is no longer 10 minutes as in the UA but is back to the hour duration, but that is just me guessing about how someone who does a lot of playtesting might misspeak about something.
He has made several mistakes during his reviews that have been released. I think they ran through the book review and features over several prolonged recordings so it makes sense to confuse a few details of features over many hours of recording.
Facts are Paladins were nerfed on the thing that really made them special (burst attacking) and were made more well rounded. If you hate that 👍🏿 cool. If you love it 👍🏿 cool. I see it as a net negative but it was needed for one reason- new DMs. The ability of any one person to just lay out the pain in a way no one else can is hard to account for and thinking of it is a barrier to them having good games. And the thing that stops once DMs from becoming often DMs is feeling it was not something they were good at. Now the damage going out is almost the same (napkin math) between most straight classes it is predictable and makes combat balance simpler.
You never mentioned the other problem with Smite as a spell: Multiclassing Mixing Paladin with either Moon Druid or any Barbarian is no longer viable, since you can’t cast spells while raging or wildshaped.
I really like smite as a bonus action spell. Yes it can be counter spelled- good. That’s what all the spellcasters have to deal with. The difference being that at least a paladin hit something so did some damage. A cleric, for example, would just waste their action. Plus there’s the change to counter spell in the playtest which, I hope, has gone through. And making it a bonus action actually gives it a meaningful opportunity cost. There’s all sorts of things it stops abuse of like a barbarian smiting whilst raging and the like. I like the change. Plus less smites being used means less resources used (spellslots) which means less calls for long rests. It also means that paladins have more opportunities to actually cast a different spell. Heresy I know.
I agree with the decision to reduce the nova potential of the paladin and a few classes. I don’t think those kinds of abilities are great for the health of the game. I like the new smite spells, but I do think the paladin should be able to smite people that flee. I might give the paladin a homebrew “reactive smite” spell as part of the paladin smite feature that just functions as the divine smite spell but triggered when somebody flees without disengaging.
I’m fully with you here. I do think the change to smite was a good call for the overall health of the game, even if I think it could have been handled better. I can totally see tons of people Homebrew allowing it to be cast as an opportunity attack.
Aura of Warding is in a weird place. On the one hand: As you mention, the new design is increasingly moving away from monsters having actual spells and thus the amount of attacks and abilities the aura helped you with has decreased (and with a new PHB will decrease even more) On the other hand: Necrotic, Psychic, and Radiant are not great damage types to resist (although are certainly thematic). Radiant is not a common damage type for PCs at most tables for a variety of reasons. Psychic damage is similarly not particularly common although more common than radiant at most tables (probably). Necrotic has a chance of popping up a bit more frequently.
Honestly, based on what I've heard regarding the Paladin changes, if I ever play a Paladin in this version, I'd probably just take Cleric cantrips as my fighting style, go full support caster, and completely ignore the Divine Smite spell, because burning my bonus action on top of the spell slot to only add 2d8 damage to a single attack is not even remotely worth it to me.
You know… why can’t divine energy you are imbued with not be counterspelled? Other divine spells or spells that describe some kind of divine energy in their description can be counterspelled. Why can’t an especially crafty fiend or undead like a Lich have some ability to Counterspell divine energy built up in a Paladin for a smite? “It’s incompatible energy” you might say. Maybe that’s the point? They can counterspell the Smite by infusing temporarily their body with Demonic or Necrotic energy, cancelling out the Divine Energy, like Fire evaporating Water or Decay withering Life. Boom, perfect way to flavor such a Counterspell, and it gives DMs a cool moment for their BBEG spellcaster to show their magical prowess, that they can Counterspell a Divine Smite, forcing the Paladin to use other tactics as long as the BBEG can Counterspell. (Spell slots on monsters ARE limited, do remember! No monster can infinitely Counterspell to my knowledge)
Same, plus the whole class hasn’t even been revealed, just some details about it. If you watch Treantmonk’s video about it, it sound like there are things they skipped over. Either way, the class sounds like it’s becoming more beginner friendly which is always a good thing. Very interested to see what Insight Check has to say or if it’s just a clickbait title
I don’t think it was a particularly click baity title. Overall I think the class has improved despite some “nerfs” to features. The exact way they went about some felt odd hence the “confusing”. I think this was a big step in the right direction for the class :)
@@InsightCheck I appreciate you going out of the way to reply here. I personally like Divine/Paladin smite as a BA spell because it makes it so you can’t use Divine Smite on the same turn as another smite spell like Branding Smite. It would get really out of hand if a Paladin upcast both on the same turn, especially if they multiclassed into Sorcerer to upcast Branding Smite above 5th level or into Warlock for Eldritch Smite. I think making it a spell keeps it powerful while preventing players from really cheesing the system with multiclassing. I think they’re doing the same kind of thing by making it so Life Cleric’s don’t provide a boost to Goodberry anymore, and there’s probably more examples I can’t think of off the top of my head. Either way, the overall direction seems to be shifting from powergamer friendly to beginner friendly, and even as a powergamer I appreciate that.
You can tell who the paladin players in the comments by the main character delusion, maybe i dont want you to kill the enemy in the first round your party members would like a turn too.
You say they could've just make Divine Smite feature work once per turn. But how would that solve Smite stacking, that WotC also clearly wanted to eliminate. They don't want Divine Smite on top of Wrathful/other smites. The Smite spells that were already there in 2014 aren't always exclusive to Paladins, and could not frictionlessly turned into Paladin features. Turning Divine Smite into a spell, like all other smites, is the cleanest and easiest solution, without completely changing either Paladin feature set or spell lists.
Correct me I'm wrong....smite as a spell, bonus action...concentration right? A minute if it follows early versions of spell smites...or until you connect. When you connect, you deal damage. So, you could pre-cast before going into a room, then swing...connect/smite...bonus action cast smite again, swing and smite again. Or if you missed you'd have it for your AoO. Also, Find steed. If this has a upcast version that allows the mount to fly, a multi classed sorcadin is going to get that feature first. Not complaining or making judgments here, just wrapping my head around the changes. If they wanted smite to be 1/rnd, maybe they should have stipulated it like with Monk stun. 1/rnd or 1/turn?
The idea that any of the classes are being balanced around multiclassing, an optional rule curated by DMs, is a joke. At the same time, Divine Smite is now a spell anyone can pick up with a single level in Paladin, and scales significantly better on a full caster than Paladin, so if this was a choice "balance" around multiclassing, they failed, lol.
@@nm2358 It’s not a joke. The smite spells still require martial stats to attack with, can’t be combined with features like rage or wild shape anymore, take a bonus action now which prevents stacking with other leveled spells, and the better ones eat up concentration. Yeah, you could theoretically make some sort of melee cleric for example that could smite, but the necessary stats would weaken its other spells, it wouldn’t have multi attack, and it would miss out on all of the Paladin features that support that play style. Also smite is much less impactful as a standalone multiclass feature if you can’t spend multiple spell slots per round smiting. Sorcadins wouldn’t be good either with these rules.
I like the new smite better than the old. Feels a lot more fair. And let's be honest, it was always similar to smite spells. As for the counter spell thing, they changed that spell too where you don't lose your slot i believe. Also, you can now play a proper dual wielding paladin with the Nick property + Two-weapon fighting. Costs no BA, and deals normal attack damage. Pretty cool.
They could also just add "once per turn you can cast one of these spells" to Paladins Smite and set Divine Smite's Casting Time to "immediately after hitting a creature with a melee weapon or an Unarmed Strike, no action required", and It would be a huge fix. Paladins have low dayly uses for their features, low uses for spells...so they need their BA
I really wish all the smites were reaction speed because you could still only use them once per round on your turn but you still have your bonus action available for other stuff
@nicolaspereyra420 which I think would be a better trade off since that means you can still only do it once and only on your turn (which is the designers' intention)
@nicolaspereyra420 I guess but personally I dont care about it being a spell since all the other smites are spells. I just want them to all function the same way. I just didn't like burning the spell slot before making the attack roll. That's more why I was saying use your reaction for all of them. I suppose to keep them from being spells you could have them all in a list and decide which one you want to use like arcane archer with paladin level prerequisites for the higher leveled ones.
@@supervado7962 1) You never needed to burn your spell slot before making an attack roll, Idk what you are talking about 2) Rouges have sneak attack, battlemasters have manuever dice, and revised rangers have the thing that replaced hunter's mark. Several classes have ways of dealing damage with features, so why paladins can't have that? If the worry was that they were burning far too many spel slots with smite they could've restrict it to once per turn
I think changing smite to a bonus action spell will prove to be a positive move and better balance the paladin with the other classes. In terms of melee damage output my ideal is fighters and barbarians do the most with paladins, monks, rangers and rogues coming in behind the pure fighters but making up for it with their other features and abilities.
I think the reason Smites take a bonus action to cast is because… it’s a spell. Spells have casting times and the fastest ones there are is a bonus action or a reaction. Spells don’t have a casting time of “once per turn” time has to be put in for a spell to be cast, it’s how the game engine works. By making Divine Smite a spell they gave themselves two options. Take away your bonus action or take away your reaction. Now, I don’t know which of those would be better. There’s a lot of people who really value their reaction. I get it, you’re a mostly martial class, you want your attacks of opportunity. But a bonus action? I don’t know if there’s really too many uses for your bonus action as a Paladin in combat. And if there is, most of them are setup, so you just might not use a Smite on that turn.
Considering now your channel divinity and your lay on hands are bonus actions, not considering racial abilities because that's a little too whiteroomy, 2024 paladin is going to have a lot of options when it comes to their BA on their turn. I still think making it a spell was a bad call, because of the possibility in the future that other classes can pick it up via a feat. If the spell feats going forward follow the same rulings as something like Fey touched, then you can pick up Divine smite, a key paladin feature without a dip into it. I liked it better when it was an ability that yes, magically bolstered your damage, but was an ability that used spell slots in a different way...even if that way is fairly caveman-y xD
@@waifusmith4043 Even though the process in the Playtest changed, I think they’re going to make it so that some spells can only ever be used by certain classes. Like Hunter’s Mark and Eldritch Blast. They were trying to do it by having like Paladin or Wizard tags on the spells, but I’m not sure if anything like that is sticking. And even then, if you’re using your divine powers to use Lay on Hands or Channel Divinity, I think it’s fair that you can’t also Smite.
At the same time, its Bonus Action that pretends its a reaction now too, which makes it one of the most bizarre set of spells in D&D, because they're not really Bonus action, they're reactions spells that consume your Bonus Action, I guess to avoid Smites being use on a reaction (lol).
@@EpicRandomness555 I'm going to still disagree. the application of Divine smite being a bonus action is so half assed, as someone later mentions it's more like a reaction spell that consumes your bonus action. With the smite spells, you're infusing energy into you. 2D8 radiant damage can spike their damage yes, but keep in mind they are a half caster, they only get a handful of slots per day. Pace out their spell slots by making it a once per turn (or if you really want to double down on limiting them, once per round). If someone wants to double up on smiting via a spell and DS, they're still burning through two spell slots. There's a variety of ways I would have rebalanced Smite, but this is terrible design to me because it homogenizes a key feature, reducing it to being "just another spell", and something that can be picked up with a one level dip. Even if DS is restricted to just paladins, that means nothing once you get your first level in paladin via a multiclass. You get spellcasting, meaning access to all 1st level paladin spells. the class tags on spells I believe were back when they were trying the arcane, divine and primal spell lists, which has been thrown out already. If the multiclassing spellcasting rules holdover from 2014 (which there's little to no reason they don't). It doesn't change the problem that a martial cleric can get divine smite with less of a penalty than before, and it turns what was a core feature into yet another spell. Hunter's mark and EB were at least signature spells that either have features or subfeatures that show a clear bias towards them. I'll stand by Divine Smite being a spell being a horrid idea. it needed to be rebalanced but I highly doubt that turning it into a spell was necessary, because it's the first feature in 5e (to my knowledge) that showed a way to use spell slots for things other than casting.
