Corrections: The Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon feature does not require a bonus action as I indicate in the video. It is applied with no action when you take the attack action. The Oath of Ancients capstone (20th level feature) imbues their aura, so allies within the aura should recieve the same benefits.
By my reading of the Ancients capstone it wouldn't grant the benefits to allies because the wording specifically mentions "You" unlike other Aura benefits. Diminish Defiance is the only effect that actually interacts with your Aura.
I don't think Ancient's Capstone works for allies as all of the text says "Regeneration. At the start of each of *your* turns, *you* regain 10 Hit Points." "Swift Spells. Whenever *you* cast a spell that has a casting time of an action, *you* can cast it using a Bonus Action instead." It doesn't say you and your allies like Aura of Protection or Aura of Alactary does. However, where it does matter that you're buffing your Aura is in regards to Diminish Defiance. "Diminish Defiance. Enemies in the aura have Disadvantage on saving throws against your spells and Channel Divinity options." This is a buff from the old version which only worked within 10 feet of you but now since you got the Aura buff at 18 this works against enemies within 30 feet due to the aura size increase.
You missed that divine smite has a vocal component and cannot be cast while silenced. Abjure foes in the playtest applied a condition for 1 turn even if the enemy succeeded. The level 14 feature is arguable as to which one is better, 2014 version could end feeblemind, imprisonment, true polymorph etc. Blinding smite does not specify when in their turn they get to roll the save.
@@logancuster8035 how did people use this feature before? Whenever I use it with 2014 rules I only used it during non combat situations and for exploration/to know whether an area we entered might have some hostile creatures we didn’t perceive yet. Idk low key all the dms I’ve played with just interpreted the feature as a spidey sense that worked similar to the detect evil and good spell. Did you all just use this when fighting invisible creatures?
Wrathful smite took a huge nerf, even if the concentration may be gone. It used to take a whole action to remove the condition, else it would stick, and attempting to remove it would also have You do it at disadvantage (it was a flat check and not a save, which means proficiency didn’t get added and frightened gives disadvantage on checks.) so it was crazy hard to get rid of.
Note that the text of Divine Smite (and other Smite spells) says the target takes the extra Smite damage "from the attack"... meaning the Smite is considered part of the attack... meaning it benefits from critical hits
@@aidandunne5978 they removed the text only on the first playtest, and they apologized for the unwanted consequence. The last playtest was also including critical damage on smites, there has been a lot of confusion and disinformation about that
I created a homebrew spell called "Find Squire' that summons the soul of a paladin who never fulfilled their oath and gained divine power, gives you a minion who follows your oath, gets more powerful with spell level, doesn't really do that much damage (it gets 2 attacks when the paladin is 13th level for example) but still, can attune a single item, gets better proficiencies as you use higher slots, can cast warding bond on them and keep them next to you for more tank, can use lay on hands through your squire. Player didnt want to be a horsegirl and likes it
My guess is he’s recording several of these a day, and slowly going a little more insane each time he has to muster fresh enthusiasm in the face of extreme fatigue. 😆
Always very insightful and helpful. I would love to see a video on incidental changes from 2024 like how it impacts artificer, mounted combat and untouched subclasses (mostly artificer). Love ya!
Thanks Treantmonk for the rundown on this. Paladin has long been my favorite class and playstyle and (especially as a DM) I agree the burst damage of Smite needed to be toned down. I think the once per round restriction(a la sneak attack) is all they needed to do but the BA and spell restriction was far too much. The main reason I’m frustrated is that I feel like WoTC has been trying to expand the options of playstyles available to characters so that there isn’t 1 meta way to build a character. But by making smite a spell and BA they significantly restrict the use of various multiclass options, spells, and feats. Want to build a raging barbarian zealot paladin- you can’t smite while raging. Want to build a rogue paladin? It’s either smite or cunning action. Monk (a bit strange sure) but you can either smite or flurry of blows. GWM extra attack? No you used smite on your first attack. No misty steps, shield of faith, or other BA spells and smite. Although you can now shield master slam without a BA so that’s nice. Anyway, I’m happy pallys got other buffs to smite spells and class features but the BA and spell restriction mostly limit players from playing their fantasy at the table when all they needed to do was limit the use to once a turn. Smite just isn’t iconic anymore and it does’t play nicely with other iconic elements of the game. I’ll probably be house ruling the BA away for my players and asking any DM if I can do the same.
I do agree with one thing here, and that’s the wording on paladin smite is a bit inflexible. I think wording like “deal xd6 the first time you hit with a weapon attack until the start of your next turn” would have made it a more forgiving spell. I’m actually extremely glad things like raging paladin aren’t a thing anymore since it was just a mix of a technicality on divine smites not being actual spells (as opposed to all the other smites) and exploiting the fact that barbarians are extremely frontloaded.
@Chrjstheshadow I tend to agree. Whenever features provide more benefits to multiclassing than the primary class I think it's a bad design. Action Surge being better for spellcasters than Fighters was bad design.
I'd be inclined to agree at first. But since everything else was buffed or streamlined I don't see it as that bad at all tbh. And much of the obscene multiclasses got reigned in without being made impractical. Much of the Shenanigans in my experience were related to Bonus Action abuse with Sorcerer's Quickened Spell, Either landing Hold Person into two crit smites or just having Booming Blade. The overall net burst damage of the game has gone down. And Paladin's Divine Smite was one of the biggest outliers, and they still had access to access to GWM/PAM. In turn, Paladin builds aren't at all limited to Heavy Weapons for damage with Dual Wielding being much more viable. Likewise, Defender Paladins, especially those with shield, are for more capable defenders without falling behind in damage much at all. Paladins aren't that badly hit, in fact I think they're more flexible. They're just not the One Man Army that can do everything all at once in turn 1. The biggest buff to Pally was that it works better with the team.
@@NexGenRogue I'm for reigning in obscene multiclass abuse. I'm not a huge fan of making smites a spell, but that the lesser evil and it would prevent sorcerer quickened hold spells nonsense. Beyond that, the BA requirement just limits so many choices, ranging fight focused feats or styles like PAM, GWM, etc. spell choices like misty step, shield of faith, etc., and less optimal but thematic choices players may want to make to say rogue or monk. Smite just becomes an occasional utility tools rather than an iconic class feature if you want to use any of these other choices. Don't get me wrong, Pallys got other buffs. and yes dual wielding is an option, but lets be real, its an option for everyone who wants to use nick weapons so thats more a buff for dual wielding in general (which was needed). Point is that you can have all of those same choices without the BA requirement which just needless limits player options and builds.
Agree on the multiclasses, but the problem with GWM extra attack and Smite without the bonus action is that it *was* the single meta way to play. While it feels bad not to be able to do your main things every turn, it still gives some options for a resourceless attack with a feat sometimes, spells other times, and a Smite to boost the damage of one attack other time, so I see the intent. It still feels gross that they apparently looked at all the Rangers complaining about clogged bonus actions and how Paladin has it so much better and went, "You're right, Paladins have a taste of your pain too!"
As a DM, if I have a paladin player who I know has blinding smite, any creature with legendary resistances is going to have blindsight, so perhaps not so good against the BBEG but definitely good against it’s minions.
@@garethhamilton1252 I think this is the point of legendary resistances to begin with: to ensure one bad save doesn't end the fight. Hopefully BBEG that you create have ways of attacking that do not require sight, or other variables. If your BBEG just attacks or cast spells that requires sight, then ya, they are in trouble. But again, you have legendary resistances for a reason. And if the BBEG attack modifier is high enough, disadvantage isn't enough to guarantee misses. Maybe add a legendary resistance or so, then you're not directly countering. Just food for thought!
Heck yes! Chris to the rescue! Work is getting to me today, but now i have a great video to listen to for a beautiful hour! Thank you for the hard work putting out so many videos! Have a great weekend! Much love 💜 until the next video!
I do look forward to every video that comes out. There's always something to learn or at least see an experienced perspective. It's funny of all of Chris' suggestions/predictions, it seems WOTC has listened sometimes.... or just coincidence. Just hire Chris as a spell balance consultant already;)
An interesting side effect of Divine Smite being a spell that becomes auto prepared with one free cast at Paladin 2 and them getting Spellcasting at Paladin 1 now, nothing stopping you from preparing it as one of your two available spells at Paladin 1 (or any of the first level Smite spells). So can get to the smitey fantasy earlier as a pure Paladin if not starting at a higher level, and makes it an easier dip if all you want is Smite.
In my campaign I have been playing an Oath of Watchers 2014 paladin and we are just now going to be testing out the 2024 characters now and I have to say, I am excited to see how my new paladin plays out
Watchers is probably going to feel underwhelming with the new rules. Counterspell got nerfed, their first channel divinity is one of those that is now covered by abjure foes while the second is situational and takes an action. They used to be alright by the virtue of being a paladin subclass and the aura of the sentinel, but since the main class is now a bit worse without a good channel divinity it doesn’t have much going for it. You’d probably have to do a little bit of homebrew to make it fun. I will say though, You can now finally cast alarm as a ritual, lol.
A fun combo for a mounted Paladin with a Lance is that since the lance is one handed while mounted, you can have a shield. Then if you take shield master, when you hit the creature must make 2 saves or fall prone, a Str save from Shield master and a Con save from topple. And with the new rules the Lance no longer has disadvantage when attacking within 5 ft
58:30 as your time on the episode of The Gauntlet has shown, a mount is only effective while it's alive. Flight from an external source is conditional. Depending upon a 59 hp/12 ac griffon at level 20 for flight is a huge liability, both in your continued access to the speed, and in your ability to remain airborne and not plummet to the ground
20th level without a rare consumable like potion of gaseous form or quaal’s feather token: bird? Also broom of flying is uncommon and requires no attunement. Ideally a carpet of flying rolled up like a parachute! If you’re playing in a campaign without magical items then make an actual parachute for the rare moment an ally can’t help. Fly movement at 20th is sad.
i don't mind that the new rules make smites 1/turn, but i hate them taking bonus actions and i hate them being unusable on opportunity attacks and i hate that iconic paladin class features like smites & steeds being spells means they progress faster if you multiclass out of paladin. That last bit isn't a new problem, but i was hoping 5.24 would fix that and it didn't. I'm also annoyed that they wen't with glory for the fourth phb subclass and not the far more narratively & mechanically interesting conquest, or crown which is more in need of an update/rethink.
I find it funny how not even the art for the glory subclass looks as if it fits in. It very much feels as if they didn’t have any good art for it, so they just pulled out some scrapped warlock art and somehow decided that it would do it for a paladin subclass.
This. Plus the fact that it's a spell ruins my builds I had in mind for Barbarian/Paladins. I feel like smites being spells AND costing your bonus action is too restrictive.
You know what the funny thing is? The new rules have EVERYTHING in them to limit Smite to 1 time entry, without spelling it out separately. You literally have to make Divine Smite a spell. And make all Smite spells a “part of the attack”, not a “bonus action”. Under the new rules, you can't use more than one level spell per turn. In total, all Smite spells are now equal to Divine Smite and can be used once per turn. WotC don't read the rules of their own boardgame.
A funny thing is if u take ancients pally to level 7 and then totem barb to level 3 u can get resistance on everything and it’s cool bc it’s both the nature subclass. What sucks is that u can’t smite and rage so barb paladins will no longer be a thing
Just to note. Divine Smite 2024 has a few extra restrictions and downsides it didn't prior. It now competes with spell per turn uses (unless using the freebie) because it's a spell. It has a verbal component, so not only is it stopped by counterspell, but additionally, it can not be used in a zone of silence or similar effects. It''s a bonus action, which means it competes with other bonus actions but also can not be used on reaction attacks off your own turn now, like most opportunity attacks. It's also once per round now, which is additionally restrictive.
MAN I really want to hear more about the Rogue! Thematically, the Arcane Trickster is my favorite class alongside the Lore Bard. I would really love to hear about ways of improving the Rogue's damage.
The less obvious nerf for auras only affects multiple-pally parties. All of the charm/frighten immunity, movement speed, resistance, etc effects were considered separate auras, so they could all apply to whoever is in range. Now a creature can only benefit from a single pally's buffs at a time
Honestly this seems really dumb. It's such a huge part of the paladin's reason for being in the party at all and the effects are all completely different. It's like having all support spells just be called "buff" and putting the different benefits into the spell description as choices. Then all characters would only benefit from one spell at a time, even with different casters concentrating for completely different reasons.
This is technically true but since the creature can choose what aura affects them "while in them", the wording would imply that they can switch between auras at any time with no action requirement. In practice the timings between paladin auras granting their benefits rarely overlap so you may as well be benefiting from both at the same time (like movespeed will rarely be relevant at the exact same time as charm immunity). It's an odd choice of words for sure though.
I think you're underselling Oath of Vengeance a bit... it should be on par with all the others, given that you can stack damage with HM and Divine Favor and near permanent advantage. Moreover, the 7th level feature has great synergy with polearm master, a feat that you'll probably want anyway and also great synergy with Haste (which by itself is a great boon to the subclass). The 20th level feature just means you can have reliable flight, allowing you to share the steed with other party members if need be and while you attack one creature, the others may be frightened of you. They will not be attacking you, or rather, they will try to run away which will be hard with a 60 ft fly speed (120 feet with haste, again, or more if you have longstrider up for example). Finally, Oath of Vengeance might be as well one of those paladins that can get away with just 18 or 16 on their charisma, given that many of their features don't care too much about their saving throw DC, making it so you can focus on the more martial capabilities. Honestly, I was thinking 4/5 but I am open to be corrected as to why my line of thought might not be correct! Edit: also, sacred weapon requires you to invest in charisma to get a meaningful attack bonus while vow of enmity does not
Polearm Mastery no longer provides Opportunity Attacks (it provides an attack as a reaction, but it's no longer an Opportunity Attack). I do agree Oath of Vengeance is being undersold here, though...I'd give it at least a 3.5.
Hmm funny I think he overvalued all of the subclasses except Devotion. Vengeance is decent only if you dual wield and that's mostly because of DF and HM. Their other features are Misty step and Vow of enmity. 7 and 15 are comparable to a 1/3 of sentinel feat each. I'd trade the whole subclass features and go subclassless for a free sentinel feat+1Dex and fay touched+1cha.
@@AndreAlbuquerque-uk2oi well level 7 and lvl 15 are 1/3 sentinel feat each. Fay touched lets you get misty step for free +one other spell (hex or gift of alacrity) and you have +1/+1 on 2 stats. All you are missing really is vow of enmity which is a fair trade for full sentinel, free cast of MS and Hex / GoA and +1/+1. Also there is shining smite so its NOT that bad. I'd say both vengeance and glory are worth less than sentinel + fay touched for free. Ancients has decent level 15 and channel divinity and their aura add necrotic resistance which is OK.
Let's be honest. The only plausible reason to nerf Smite was to kill Nova builds. Make it once per turn would be enough. If the concern was to ensure that they did not combine Smite with other Smite spells, they could make the class feature grant a spell that can be used once per turn with no action required and the rule of "One Spell per turn with spell slot" would prevent the whole problem (problems with immunity to magic, anti-magic circle or counter-spell are the least of it). Using the Bonus action is the unfair nerf here, an unnecessary limitation.
I’ve been saying that and thinking we might homebrew that into our campaigns. It makes zero sense for a paladin to wield a polearm with the change, it nerfs GWM, and encourages sword and board way to much
@@tyleradams7615 If it helps to know, I already did that for the paladins in both my campaigns. One of them has Duel Wielder, the other PAM - and this nerf massively hurts both. The latter has it even worse, since he mc'd into Barb recently, and smites being spells nukes that combo. Thus far it's been working quite well (we shifted to 2024 rules during the latter stages of the playtest).
@@Matanlimer pop divine favor and you have an extra d4 on 7 potential attacks in your first two turns at level 5. Combines very well at level 11 with the extra d8 paladins get.
IMO having to give up your bonus action is why it's a nerf even with the added utility. Smite doesn't play well with great weapon master, polearm master, or sentinel anymore.
I don't think misty step is as nice on a paladin anymore. Part of what made it really good, was you could misty step to a squishy target, and then double smite them in one turn, now you can't smite and misty step in the same turn.
It’s still better than not having mobility options. Yes, having a racial ability or the ability to cast it without a spell slot is better but just being able to melee something without additional effects is still a lot better than having to use the dash action.
In addition, with the changes to Searing, Shining and Thunderous smites; Divine smite will now be used less often. That means that one of the 3 paladin defining main class features in 2014 (Auras, Lay on Hands and Divine Smite) will now be used less often, if ever.
In addition to the other features being improved I would argue that Smites in general are a defining feature of paladins, its just that they all sucked except for divine smite before now. Now they still get to smite but they get additional options to how they smite. I would still use divine Smite on fiends and undead. Still smiting, just better and more flexible tools to smite with.
I think I would use the free divine smite every session and consider using smite on crits, I would save most of my spell slots for all the better spells. I think they've heavily changed the feel of paladins for 2024 in combat.
@@edwintaylor6891 certainly, you are not just the nova ds guy anymore, you are now have a bunch more offensive options than divine smite, now Vow of Emnity has competition
Alright, I'm building it. Stone Goliath Glory Paladin Entertainer. For feats, definitely Grappler asap, then grabbing maybe HAM to pair with stone's endurance. Later get inspiring leader to give temp HP alongside the heroic inspiration from musician(entertainer). You give inspiring smite temp hp to whoever loses their inspiring leader temp hp first. 18 str/18cha by 12 with point buy. Only 14 con, but whatever, HAM+Stone's Endurance. Annoying for enemies, good saves, no frightening. You grapple and drag annoying foes all over the place and smite them. give allies advantage, temp hp, speed, better saves, anti-fear, healing, and can carry their unconscious body or corpse out of the dungeon.
The problem with Smites is that they consume a Bonus Action as you attack. Now that Bonus Actions have gotten more usage from the 2024 rules and in class features, it makes the use of a Smite spell consume your whole use of actions. So if you cast spells that require a Bonus Action like Divine Favor or use Lay on Hands, you're locked out of Smiting for that round. I'd be okay with the once per turn usage. Just get rid of the casting time to be Bonus Action.
1) Even if you remove the bonus action, you can still only use one level spell per turn. 2)This is still better than the bonus action, because with a smite for the bonus action you just can't use smite with reaction attacks. And you can't use the “Poleram Master” or “Great weapon master” feats.
I agree the breaking oath blurb is a nice touch. It is more focused on role-play and changing your subclass if your Paladin has radically changed during the course of their life...
One big advantage of vow of enmity vs sacred weapon is that sacred weapon is applied to one weapon you are holding. If you want to dual wield or want to swap weapons to take advantage of multiple masteries, sacred weapon isn't as effective. Vow of enmity affects anything you do. Would still prefer sacred weapon in most cases, though.
Vow of Enmity also increases crit chances, which Sacred Weapon doesn't. Sacred Weapon is probably better in isolation, but Vow of Enmity is pretty solid.
Honestly, I think it's *healthier* now. I think they should've set it such that you get a number of free Smites per *Short Rest* equal to your *Charisma modifier*. Give some real parity to the Ranger. And then say if you know other Smite Spells, you can cast them from this reserve. And have more Spells that involve a weapon attack. With those changed combined it'd really just feel like a true gishy spellblade without emphasizing the nova. I'd be fine with axing the Faithful Steed feature for this revised Paladin's Smite design. For the idea of feature budget I also kind wish Abjure Foes and Divine Sense were an amped up spells rather than a class feature, using your newly liberated and available spell slots. I like the new Paladin, just a lot of little things feel off to me.
It’s just way to taxing to use your core feature, which is smiting. All the 2H feats can’t be used with smite,l and mathematically it makes so much more sense to dual wield/sword and board. Scrap the bonus action and tie it to the one spell per turn rule. It’s the most simple fix ever.
The reason why Jeremy Crawford said that Spiritual Weapon was OP is because you could combo it with Spirit Guardians. Now that they are both concentration spells, this is no longer an option... except for War Clerics.
You missed 3 issues with Smite being a spell, which is part of why people call it a nerf. It DOES make a difference if you consider how the rules interact with it. - You can only cast one spell using a spell slot per turn, so this interferes with certain combos and features you could get from multiclassing, like Action Surge, as well as additional actions from spells like Haste. Take Vengeance Paladins, for example: They now cannot cast Haste, attack and Smite. - You also cannot cast Smite in a Silence field, since Smite now has a Verbal component. - Counterspell is also worse than you make it sound. Eating both your bonus action and negating a Smite Critical Hit is a big deal, and is likely to negate more damage than what other casters might do, ignoring Conjure Minor Elementals combos. Even if you have another attack, you don't get another chance to smite. The idea of you necessarily being right before a Sorcerer or Wizard doing something more impactful is a strange and frankly disingenuous argument. It could just as well be that this counterspell kept an enemy alive long enough to get off a powerful spell or attack off that ruined the party's day. You could only consider it a win if you intentionally imagine the initiative order to be perfect for the Paladins party. The thing that doesn't make a difference, is the single free 1st level Divine Smite.
My biggest issue with the new Paladin is that its features fall off hard after level 6, its spells scale slowly as a half-caster, and most of its low level features, if they scale at all, scale better with other classes. The hardest-hitting Divine Smite a Paladin can ever muster is 6d8 (7d8 against Undead and Fiends), which they achieve at level 17. Warlocks, Bards, and Sorcerers with a single level dip into Paladin all reach that potential damage at level 10. On top of that, if the Warlock is a Celestial Patron, they can add their Charisma modifier to the damage of Divine Smite (Level 6 - Radiant Soul). And if they're Pact of the Blade, they can go nova and use Divine Smite and Eldritch Smite on the same attack, because Eldritch Smite is not a spell and does not use an action, meaning the one spell with a spell slot per turn rule does not apply to it. And Sorcadins can modify their Divine Smites with Metamagic, rerolling low damage dice with Empowered Spell or protecting it against anti-spell abilities like Silence or Counterspell with Subtle Spell. A Paladin can upcast their Find Steed to give it a flying speed at level 13. A Bard or a Sorcerer with 5 levels of Paladin can do it at level 9. And by the time the Paladin is level 13, the flying mount summoned by the Bard and Sorcerer has 20 more HP and 2 more AC. And meanwhile, the free casting of Find Steed quickly becomes irrelevant to the Bard and Sorcerer, because they can start summoning stronger versions of the Steed at level 7, and the Paladin can start summoning stronger steeds at level 9. However, it probably still remains somewhat relevant for the Paladin, because as mentioned earlier, the Paladin's steed will always have lower AC and fewer HP than the Bard's or the Sorcerer's, so the Paladin is probably going to need to be resummoning it more often. Unfortunately, that free casting only ever summons the weakest possible steed, with 25 HP and 12 AC, meaning that the free casting is not going to last very long unless every enemy ignores it. Paladin's Smite gives you a single free Divine Smite at level 2, with the Divine Smite spell always prepared, and it does not scale at all past that point. So, at level 2 Paladin, you can add 2d8 damage to a single melee attack without expending a spell slot once per long rest. At level 20 Paladin, you can add 2d8 damage to single melee attack without expending a spell slot once per long rest.
The class isn’t just smites though. People undervalue the aura and how necessary that is. The Aura of Protection is a crazy boost to the party. The issue is that people think Paladin’s are only supposed to be damage dealers and nothing more which is why WoTC made these changes.
@@keeganmbg6999 The Aura's great. That justifies 6 levels of Paladin for one character in the party. After that, by switching to Sorcerer or Bard you are able to do all of the Paladin abilities better than the Paladin. Your mount's better, your smites are better, your defenses are just as strong, you can cast higher level spells, and you get all of the features of the other class you take.
@AndreAlbuquferque-uk2oi Find Greater Steed isn't a thing anymore, the 2024 Find Steed is strictly at its best cast by either a Paladin who multiclasses into Bard / Sorceror, or anyone that can cast Wish for an 8th level variant of it. If the goal was "protecting the identity" of the Paladin, the design choices for 2024 push the Paladin to either do a multiclass at level 1 or 6, and just to be the best Paladin they can be, which is mostly a Paladin.
In the Ranger video you mention how good the level 17 feature giving advantage was, but here the Vengeance Paladin's level 3 feature is not great because advantage is cheap? What is really the value of advantage in the 2024 revision?
The FIGHTING STYLE change actually does make a difference. Many of the fighting styles available to Paladins were just not as good as the ones available to Fighters. Same goes for Rangers. But now both classes get access to the Fighter version of the fighting styles. Depending on your build, that’s a buff. (Unarmed fighting)
I think an unarmed paladin with oath of glory sounds very fun. Besides just the vibe of a great athlete punching the crap of people being fun, the extra movespeed it provides is stronf for a grapple party.
IMO Vow of Enmity shines when you're dual wielding and/or weapon juggling (and preferably both). Since you only get 2 weapon masteries ever as a Paladin, the Vow frees you from having to prepare Vex, and you can prepare the mastery property of another weapon, instead. And with Dual Wielder, your attack routine can instead be something like shortsword (no mastery) > scimitar (Nick) > warhammer (Push) > bonus action warhammer (Push).
For Vengeance Paladin the 7th lvl Relentless Avenger as a halfling, let's you halt the enemy retreat as a reaction and immediately move through their space to block them. Love it.
Dim uncapping the damage on Divine Smite and making fine steed just up cast for the fly speed makes it much less likely two straight class, a 6 paladin 14 Bard or sorcerer in most ways will just be a way better paladin.
Paladin: "Hmm. Which interesting & useful Smite spell do I want to use? And maybe I'll be concentrating on another spell, too!" Ranger: "I'm just gonna concentrate on Hunter's Mark. It doesn't have any interesting options. It just does damage only. Hooray!"
28:04 yes, yes it is. There would have been not harm in keeping Divine Smite working like Eldrich smite (1/turn, no ba, not a spell, could even throw in the restriction of not using a spell and smite at the same turn as a treat), and letting the paladin choose to use their bonus action WHEN THEY WANT TO on a smite with some extra effects. The maluses of all smites being spells and costing a BA have been outlined in other comments, so I wont repeat them, but i gotta say that glazing over all of those issues really rubs me the wrong way. 49:31 I think that ancients, at level 7, is going to range from mid to godlike depending on campaigns. Necrotic and psychic arent excatly common among monsters, but by the nature of the monsters that use them, they tend to pour when they rain. As such in a campaign like Phandelver and below (psychic) or COS\Vecna they oath gets a massive boost by virtue of some of the more challanging foes in the campaign relying pretty heavily on those.
Just a note at th-cam.com/video/PrxY-PWDRcw/w-d-xo.html that it was stated Sacred Weapon uses a bonus action but it doesn't even take that, it's a part of the attack action, no?
Vow of Enmity gives you advantage without screwing over your Ranged party members. So I don’t think it’s been devalued at all. Remember that ranged attacks against prone enemies are made with disadvantage!
VoE is very good, but just about anyone can gain advantage in the 2024 PHB so that eats a degree of value out of VoE as any group progresses in a game it just becomes an option that you can ignore in groups. It doesn't help Shining Smite is also in the Paladin tool kit that applies that advantage to everyone without any consequence outside said Paladin having to concentrate on it, which is why Oath of Devotion seems to be the best Paladin subclass because its offering you options at every tier of play that can't be offered by your own spells or your party. Oath of Glory is uber-bad though between the jumping rules, changes to Peerless Athlete and changes to the grappling rules, or the mere existence of Goliath (whose features are better than anything you're getting out of the Oath of Glory subclass, really robbing them of their greek hero mythness).
'I am not sure Smite got nerfed all that much'" 2014 Divine Smite +Nothing can stop you from delivering it once you hit +Doesn't use any action +Can be used as many times as you can hit +Works with opportunity attacks +Can be used simultaneously with Spell Smites (and Eldritch Smite for Hexadins) +You can cast any spell on the same turn -it always costs a spell slot 2024 Divine Smite: -Can be counter-spelled -Uses your Bonus Action -Can be used only once per turn -Can't be used with attack of opportunity -Can't be combined with other smites (they all use BA) -You can't cast any spell on the same turn (except once per lr) +You get to use it once without using a spell slot
The Paladin's Smite nerf was specifically to avoid going nova, which I think is fair. They could have just left it as "once per turn" rather than a spell though, and not required a bonus action. However, Eldritch Smite still works with the new Paladin's Smite because it's not a "spell" cast with a spell slot, and neither does it require an action. It just uses your spell slots as a resource. A technicality for sure but a welcome one I think.
@@deffdefying4803I think that's one of the biggest issues - BA smites aren't so bad on a straight paladin, but hurts their ability to use them with feats or multiclasses (PAM, Duel wielder, multiclasses that furthet tax your BA, etc...). It could have easily had the same treatment as ES and avoided nova damage just as easily without that uneeded tax. Es being a better version of Divine Smite due to not having a BA cost is just further insult to injury.
@@martl8615 Yeah, it's really a change that gets worse the more you think about it. Which is why drives me crazy that so many would be experts engage in blatant apologizm for it.
1 Paladin/ X Bard (Valor pref for the "Bladesinger extra attack") is looking really nice. Outside of the fact you don't unlock that extra attack until level 7, but you still have plenty of better options besides attacking in melee until then.
Related to picking up wrathful smite with shadow touched, if, by chance, dragonlance feats are allowed, you could pick up shining smite from adept of the red robes.
Searing Smite: "...they take the damage at least two times - unless they die..." I see no text about the spell ending if the target dies. I believe its body is still smoldering for rounds (for the whole 1 minute duration) after dying - as it cannot make its constitution saving throw. Is it useful tactically? No. Is it a sight to behold? Hell yeah! On the other hand if the target is revived during the spell's duration it should continue to damage them.
Vow of enmity doubles ones chance to crit, while sacred weapon does not. Atleast in my experience you get most mileage out of crits on paladins with smites. I feel like that’s worth noting.
Yeah I thought it was given short change as well, especially without the -5 accuracy/+10 damage feats. Vow of enmity also benefits nick mastery attacks [for 3 attacks w/o using a bonus action], which synergises with the passive improved divine smite, as well as divine favor and/or hunter's mark or other concentration damage buffs
Don’t forget that Sacred Weapon works only on one weapon, while Vow of Enmity can work better with dual wielding, so one is better for 2h weapons or S&B, while the other for 2WF builds that do now more dmg in general.
I still wish divine smite was not a bonus action! Just feels like a lot to give up spell slots AND a bonus action for a couple of damage die. I am glad the other smite spells got buffed. Before they were just such a waisted opertunity. Love the new ones though...would have been cool to stack divine smite and one of the other smite spells but maybe that is why they did the bonus action thing. Im still wondering why they are so worried about nova damage when the new conjure minor elementals is a thing! More for the casters, i guess, less for the marshals
You’re vids are amazing, make more 😂 Just started a campaign with a devotion paladin (Dragonlance). Same as you I am going to try mounted with lance (and shield). Am taking PAM however, I don’t think having the extra attack can hurt and using a mount getting the extra reaction attack should be easy. Am also secretly hoping that the feat works well in this specific campaign (am guessing a Dragonlance is a magic weapon the party will get).
About the Oath of Vengeance capstone. Other than the genie warlock or elemental wild shape, I can't think of a class feature that granted you the hover ability. Not taking massive damage and missing half the encounter if you are knocked prone 100ft up in the air sounds like pretty big Insurance to me.
I don't know how broken this would become, but at first thought I would fix the banishing smite to be something like this: The target make the Charisma Saving Through anyway to avoid being banished AND if he has 50hp or less after the damage he fails the save automatically. I don't know if it fixes the issue, but if I happen to be the GM for a paladin, I would house rule the spell this way.
Interesting point about using Find Steed to get a mount for another party member - that's one advantage of this vs the Ranger's hunter's mark. I like the new Ranger but this is definitely an advantage here that they can't use if you for some reason want a non-hunter's-mark ranger
Everyone defending the smite change downplays counterspelling smite - but that's not the only downside to DS being a spell - it can now be countered, silenced, anti-magic auraed, copied and stolen - none of which was possible in the 2014 edition. Also, it can't be stacked with other smites, used with any other Bonus actions (no more misty step and smite or shield of faith and smite) nor used with an opportunity attack; AND some creatures are now immune to it (a 2024 level Paladin cannot smite a Rakshasa anymore).
You’re assuming Rakshasha’s are the same and also that’s 1 creature out of thousands that exist. As a player, if my DM EVER counterspelled my smite over the Wizard’s Fireball, Wall of Force, Banishment, Synaptic Static, Wish, etc then I would consider that a win for the party. That’s a waste of a Counterspell because it only stops my BA. I don’t lose the spell slot or anything with how the new counterspell works.
@@keeganmbg6999 Unless you are fighting Vecna from the Eve of Ruin campaign, in which case you do also lose the spell slot, and you take damage, and Vecna can still counterspell the Wizard, too, and no one can counter his counterspell. Because Vecna's counterspell is not a spell, still works like the old counterspell, and he has multiple reactions per round. It's still a niche case, but it's an example that must be taken into account, because as part of the most recent published adventure he's an example of the WOTC's design philosophy moving forward, which includes giving creatures spell-like abilities that don't necessarily conform to the spells available to players, and giving powerful enemies multiple reactions per round. Also, as niche as the Rakshasa case is, until the new Monster Manual is released, Rakshasa are, by definition, the same, and may continue to be the same depending on if WOTC changes their stat block or even includes them in the book. For me, the bigger issue with making Divine Smite a spell is that it makes it so other classes can do them better than the Paladin. Sorcerers can alter their Smites with Metamagic, which includes Empowered Spell so they can reroll the damage dice, and Subtle Spell which allows them to cast the spell in scenarios where the Paladin can't (like when Silenced, or against enemies who would counterspell it). And Celestial Warlocks get the Radiant Soul ability, which allows them to add their Charisma modifier to the damage of a spell that deals Radiant or Fire damage once per turn. Spells, like, say, Divine Smite and Searing Smite, which become available to them with a 1 level Paladin dip, since Paladins get spellcasting at first level. And that's not getting into the fact that Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bards who dip Paladin can have their Divine Smite deal as much or more damage at level 10 than a Paladin can at level 17. Or the fact that Sorcerers and Bards can have their Smites go beyond the maximum potential of the Paladin, mostly because Divine Smite does not deal enough damage to be worth wasting higher level slots on it.
Let's be honest. The only plausible reason to nerf Smite was to kill Nova builds. Make it once per turn would be enough. If the concern was to ensure that they did not combine Smite with other Smite spells, they could make the class feature grant a spell that can be used once per turn with no action required and the rule of "One Spell per turn with spell slot" would prevent the whole problem (problems with immunity to magic, anti-magic circle or counter-spell are the least of it). Using the Bonus action is the unfair nerf here, an unnecessary limitation.
@@CivilWarMan I mean, those classes could already make the damage deal more or at the minimum, more often and sooner than Paladins could in the first place. Your issue is inherently with Paladin, it’s with how multiclassing in 5E.24 works.
If I’m a high level undead spellcaster, mostly just Lichs, I’m counterspelling any high level smite used on a crit. Preventing yourself from getting one shotted is an optimal way of using counterspell lol
Basically this, we are fooling ourselves thinking that a DM isn't going to counter spell smite. Someone is going to do just because they can, and the paladin player is going to feel terrible when it happens.
Its one of the few times the DM can just say LOL at a critical hit / spell. That and depending on the group make-up why not build encounters stacked against multiple half caster / spellcasters with enemies that can consistently challenge their spell use.
@@JTex-f5dTHATS WHAT IVE BEEN THINKING THIS WHOLE TIME!! “Dumb DM countering my Smite when we have full casters in the party, not an optimal use of counterspell at all 🤓” optimal or not it’s going to SUCK to have a smite counterspelled when that wasn’t an option before. An undead caster counterspelling a smite used after a nat 20 is just going to keep them alive longer. Legendary resistances can be used for save or suck spells.
I think the blowback on paly was frankly insane and so disproportionate for what we got. I love the dnd community but the groupthink and outrage trains get so ridiculous sometimes. The nerf barely scratched the Paladin, it just lowered the burst damage ceiling which is a great change imo. If groups don’t run a standard adventuring days worth of combats (or god forbid only one combat per day) then the paly smitefest was wayyyy too strong. Also I’m personally here for the (now competitive) other smites to see more play - and even more so after your break down. Awesome video, looking forward to the next one!
The only problem with smite is that it requires a Bonus Action, which I frankly don't understand. They got it right with Eldritch Smite, and then pooped their pants with the paladin smite spells. Divine Smite right now is kind of only useful if you get a lucky crit at low levels. The free castings are also frankly useless at higher levels, since they take up your BA (which can be used to make attacks that can be more powerful through buffs, other spells, etc.), and they are always at the lowest level. So fun times smiting for 2d8 at level 17 xD
@@Notsogoodguitarguy i mean what other bonus action do palys have that require every turn to use? Sure your set up round means no BA but thats not the biggest deal in the world. GWM and polearm master are massively nerfed so not that, or smite is at least very competitive. Also smite has always been a poor use of a spell slot 80% of the time when compared to the power of spells tbh - except in the case of crits or nova burst rounds; And its not like free divine smites are a bad use of a BA even at 20th level. 2d8 or 4d8 when saved for crits is still extra dpr that uses a low cost resource. it can be applied post hit to an attack too so 9/18 (on average) extra dpr isnt nothing. I cant see why the bonus action is the sticking point, the big nerf was making it useable only once per round, and i think thats a good thing for the health of the game.
Yeah, not too mention with the free castings of HM you can still main action cast a spell since it doesn't use a spell slot. I personally think HM being every attack instead limited to 1 attack a turn but scaling like the UA playtest makes it better then people realize.
Divine Smite- Nerfs: Once per turn, uses bonus action, can't be used on reaction, counts as a leveled spell. Buffs: Can be used unarmed, can be used with some thrown weapons, no longer caps at 4th level Yeah, no. Divine Smite got gutted. They should of just made it "once per turn" like sneak attack.
Or, you know, like Eldritch Smite xD Also, the removal of the cap is only a buff for a paladin dip by a sorcerer/bard, not really for the paladin themselves. They literally just nerfed the paladin smite into the ground. And the free castings are basically useless at higher levels, since you're casting them without a spell slot, meaning at the lowest level. So, thanks for the 2d8 free damage 2-3 times per day. Wow. Much generous.
100%. I’m not a minmaxer but i want (and want my players) to have flexibility in how they build their character. Using the BA (and making it a spell to a lesser degree) takes away those options without choosing objectively conflicting options.
I believe the earliest you could get a flying mount in 2014 was 10th level with bard's magical secrets. Now if you take a paladin to fifth level to get the find steed spell, and multiclass into a full caster, you can upcast at 4th level and get a flying Mount at 9th level. So, that's at least one level earlier than before.
Not only that, but if you do manage to get to the highest level, the gap in power is stark. A level 20 Paladin, summoning the most powerful steed they possibly can, gets a flying mount with 55 HP and 15 AC. A 20th level Sorcadin, with 5-7 levels of Paladin and the rest in levels of Sorcerer, can summon a flying mount with *95* HP and *19* AC, while still being able to prepare 7th (if Paladin 7/Sorcerer 13 or Paladin 6/Sorcerer 14) or 8th (if Paladin 5/Sorcerer 15) level spells. The Sorcadin's smites are stronger, because they have higher level spell slots. They're more reliable, because you can now use Empowered Spell metamagic to reroll dice on your smites. They can be protected against anti-spell abilities, because you can now use Subtle Spell metamagic to remove the verbal component, meaning their smites can be cast in Silence and cannot be Counterspelled. From what I've been able to see, Paladins can be decent specifically as support tanks from tier 1 to maybe early tier 3. In terms of the Paladin's old offensive capability, a Blade Warlock or Valor Bard can take as little as a 1 level dip into Paladin and completely eat the Paladin's lunch, and if a campaign does manage to get to tier 3 and beyond the pure Paladin falls off *hard* compared to the multiclass options.
Its funny that all the 2024 Paladin features scale significantly better on a Bard or Sorceror multiclass. Basically, every level after 6th level has to (and doesn't) compete with fullcaster spell progression, and Oath of Glory is just sitting there with weaker features than the Goliath species. But I guess one can't expect much since they shelved Paladin mid-play test.
While banishing smite seems like a ton of ifs, it is also a type of banishing that doesnt give saves each round, so it functions simlar to 2014 banishment in that regard. Instead of having it only banish on 50 hit points or fewer, it should just be advantage on the save if above 50 hit points.
@TreantmonksTemple Channel Divinity does not seem to use Bonus Action, I think. So, things like Sacred Weapon do not use any action AT ALL. More buffed than appears...
I'm trying to imagine how you'd read the scroll as you're attacking, but I guess that's no wonkier than casting any other spell from a scroll in combat...
I'm going to say, I like Banishing Smite, but only for the damage. Force damage is great damage to apply, and 5d10 is basically the same as 6d8 (as you said). The banishment is just unnecessary in my mind. If they have less than 50 hit points, I probably want them to stick around so either I can hit them with my second attack or my party can finish them off.
Bonus action arguments aside, everything they did with Smite is how Hunter's Mark should have been handled. ONE feature to give it a free casting, damage scaling in the spell description, and tactical options with the same flavor on the spell list. Thats why Paladins have room left over to give features to other core mechanics like Channel Divinity, Lay on Hands, and Aura upgrades, making playing the Paladin feel like being a Paladin. The Ranger does have other fun options instead of HM, but then you're not taking advantage of those upgrade features. Im sure that if Abjure Foes, Restoring Touch, and Aura Expansion were replaced by 3 features to make just the standard Divine Smite spell a little better, people would be calling the Paladin boring too.
I know they said the new PHB would be compatible with older content but Abjure foe ability sounds very similar to the oath of conquest pld ability conquering presence which also uses channel divinity
![The Complete Story of Destiny! From origins to Shadowkeep [Timeline and Lore explained]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9mbDXvDNqTU/mqdefault.jpg)
Corrections: The Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon feature does not require a bonus action as I indicate in the video. It is applied with no action when you take the attack action.
The Oath of Ancients capstone (20th level feature) imbues their aura, so allies within the aura should recieve the same benefits.
By my reading of the Ancients capstone it wouldn't grant the benefits to allies because the wording specifically mentions "You" unlike other Aura benefits. Diminish Defiance is the only effect that actually interacts with your Aura.
I don't think Ancient's Capstone works for allies as all of the text says
"Regeneration. At the start of each of *your* turns, *you* regain 10 Hit Points."
"Swift Spells. Whenever *you* cast a spell that has a casting time of an action, *you* can cast it using a Bonus Action instead."
It doesn't say you and your allies like Aura of Protection or Aura of Alactary does. However, where it does matter that you're buffing your Aura is in regards to Diminish Defiance.
"Diminish Defiance. Enemies in the aura have Disadvantage on saving throws against your spells and Channel Divinity options."
This is a buff from the old version which only worked within 10 feet of you but now since you got the Aura buff at 18 this works against enemies within 30 feet due to the aura size increase.
You missed that divine smite has a vocal component and cannot be cast while silenced. Abjure foes in the playtest applied a condition for 1 turn even if the enemy succeeded. The level 14 feature is arguable as to which one is better, 2014 version could end feeblemind, imprisonment, true polymorph etc. Blinding smite does not specify when in their turn they get to roll the save.
@@Vizardlorde It only worked against specifically spells, though. Overall the 2024 version is more useful all around, IMO.
@@Vizardlorde on D&D Beyond Blinding Smite says the save is at the end of their turns. So at least one turn with blindness.
Divine Sense also now works for 10 Mins as opposed to the “end of your next turn” duration that it used to have!
It's a good way to find vampires
Radar for creeps
So by location, means it can find invisible creatures too?
@@jackhilton4285 pretty sure yeah. But they still would have the Invisible condition
@@logancuster8035 how did people use this feature before? Whenever I use it with 2014 rules I only used it during non combat situations and for exploration/to know whether an area we entered might have some hostile creatures we didn’t perceive yet. Idk low key all the dms I’ve played with just interpreted the feature as a spidey sense that worked similar to the detect evil and good spell. Did you all just use this when fighting invisible creatures?
YOU'RE AT 80% SUBSCRIBED?! I think 65% is the highest I've ever heard a creator say was subscribed. That's crazy and awesome. Well deserved.
Sacred weapon doesn't even take the bonus action now, it's actually better than it seems based on the video!
Wrathful smite took a huge nerf, even if the concentration may be gone. It used to take a whole action to remove the condition, else it would stick, and attempting to remove it would also have You do it at disadvantage (it was a flat check and not a save, which means proficiency didn’t get added and frightened gives disadvantage on checks.) so it was crazy hard to get rid of.
Note that the text of Divine Smite (and other Smite spells) says the target takes the extra Smite damage "from the attack"... meaning the Smite is considered part of the attack... meaning it benefits from critical hits
Which is good, it always used to, but in the playtest they removed that. Glad they put it back
@@aidandunne5978 they removed the text only on the first playtest, and they apologized for the unwanted consequence.
The last playtest was also including critical damage on smites, there has been a lot of confusion and disinformation about that
I created a homebrew spell called "Find Squire' that summons the soul of a paladin who never fulfilled their oath and gained divine power, gives you a minion who follows your oath, gets more powerful with spell level, doesn't really do that much damage (it gets 2 attacks when the paladin is 13th level for example) but still, can attune a single item, gets better proficiencies as you use higher slots, can cast warding bond on them and keep them next to you for more tank, can use lay on hands through your squire. Player didnt want to be a horsegirl and likes it
Love it 😀
you lost the opportunity to name your spell Summon Squire Spirit making it an S3 tier of spell xD
"Hey everyone!" gets more excited with every video.
My guess is he’s recording several of these a day, and slowly going a little more insane each time he has to muster fresh enthusiasm in the face of extreme fatigue. 😆
How did you post this 2 weeks ago
@@landanross2966 Patreon supporters get early access to videos. Pretty common practice.
@@landanross2966I'm a patron.
@@WorldOfAcaladid he get to the wizard video?
Still thinks it's the most powerful class?
Always very insightful and helpful. I would love to see a video on incidental changes from 2024 like how it impacts artificer, mounted combat and untouched subclasses (mostly artificer). Love ya!
Thanks Treantmonk for the rundown on this. Paladin has long been my favorite class and playstyle and (especially as a DM) I agree the burst damage of Smite needed to be toned down. I think the once per round restriction(a la sneak attack) is all they needed to do but the BA and spell restriction was far too much. The main reason I’m frustrated is that I feel like WoTC has been trying to expand the options of playstyles available to characters so that there isn’t 1 meta way to build a character. But by making smite a spell and BA they significantly restrict the use of various multiclass options, spells, and feats. Want to build a raging barbarian zealot paladin- you can’t smite while raging. Want to build a rogue paladin? It’s either smite or cunning action. Monk (a bit strange sure) but you can either smite or flurry of blows. GWM extra attack? No you used smite on your first attack. No misty steps, shield of faith, or other BA spells and smite. Although you can now shield master slam without a BA so that’s nice. Anyway, I’m happy pallys got other buffs to smite spells and class features but the BA and spell restriction mostly limit players from playing their fantasy at the table when all they needed to do was limit the use to once a turn. Smite just isn’t iconic anymore and it does’t play nicely with other iconic elements of the game. I’ll probably be house ruling the BA away for my players and asking any DM if I can do the same.
I do agree with one thing here, and that’s the wording on paladin smite is a bit inflexible. I think wording like “deal xd6 the first time you hit with a weapon attack until the start of your next turn” would have made it a more forgiving spell. I’m actually extremely glad things like raging paladin aren’t a thing anymore since it was just a mix of a technicality on divine smites not being actual spells (as opposed to all the other smites) and exploiting the fact that barbarians are extremely frontloaded.
@Chrjstheshadow I tend to agree. Whenever features provide more benefits to multiclassing than the primary class I think it's a bad design. Action Surge being better for spellcasters than Fighters was bad design.
I'd be inclined to agree at first. But since everything else was buffed or streamlined I don't see it as that bad at all tbh. And much of the obscene multiclasses got reigned in without being made impractical.
Much of the Shenanigans in my experience were related to Bonus Action abuse with Sorcerer's Quickened Spell, Either landing Hold Person into two crit smites or just having Booming Blade.
The overall net burst damage of the game has gone down. And Paladin's Divine Smite was one of the biggest outliers, and they still had access to access to GWM/PAM. In turn, Paladin builds aren't at all limited to Heavy Weapons for damage with Dual Wielding being much more viable. Likewise, Defender Paladins, especially those with shield, are for more capable defenders without falling behind in damage much at all.
Paladins aren't that badly hit, in fact I think they're more flexible. They're just not the One Man Army that can do everything all at once in turn 1. The biggest buff to Pally was that it works better with the team.
@@NexGenRogue I'm for reigning in obscene multiclass abuse. I'm not a huge fan of making smites a spell, but that the lesser evil and it would prevent sorcerer quickened hold spells nonsense. Beyond that, the BA requirement just limits so many choices, ranging fight focused feats or styles like PAM, GWM, etc. spell choices like misty step, shield of faith, etc., and less optimal but thematic choices players may want to make to say rogue or monk. Smite just becomes an occasional utility tools rather than an iconic class feature if you want to use any of these other choices. Don't get me wrong, Pallys got other buffs. and yes dual wielding is an option, but lets be real, its an option for everyone who wants to use nick weapons so thats more a buff for dual wielding in general (which was needed). Point is that you can have all of those same choices without the BA requirement which just needless limits player options and builds.
Agree on the multiclasses, but the problem with GWM extra attack and Smite without the bonus action is that it *was* the single meta way to play. While it feels bad not to be able to do your main things every turn, it still gives some options for a resourceless attack with a feat sometimes, spells other times, and a Smite to boost the damage of one attack other time, so I see the intent.
It still feels gross that they apparently looked at all the Rangers complaining about clogged bonus actions and how Paladin has it so much better and went, "You're right, Paladins have a taste of your pain too!"
The biggest advantage of vow of enemity over sacred weapon is that it increases your chance to crit, which matters a lot for paladins.
Feels like Blinding Smite is going to be pretty good against a lot of creatures with legendary resistances and actions.
As a DM, if I have a paladin player who I know has blinding smite, any creature with legendary resistances is going to have blindsight, so perhaps not so good against the BBEG but definitely good against it’s minions.
Nice you should always counter your parties abilities
@@geekpeak5052 not always counter, sometimes play into, but who wants an easy un-climactic boss fight?
@@garethhamilton1252 I think this is the point of legendary resistances to begin with: to ensure one bad save doesn't end the fight. Hopefully BBEG that you create have ways of attacking that do not require sight, or other variables. If your BBEG just attacks or cast spells that requires sight, then ya, they are in trouble. But again, you have legendary resistances for a reason. And if the BBEG attack modifier is high enough, disadvantage isn't enough to guarantee misses. Maybe add a legendary resistance or so, then you're not directly countering. Just food for thought!
@@garethhamilton1252 you also give all you creatures damage immunity to force damage if there's a pc who is a warlock, better be safe.
You deserve a 100k , your handbooks for 3.5 were awesome
Heck yes! Chris to the rescue! Work is getting to me today, but now i have a great video to listen to for a beautiful hour!
Thank you for the hard work putting out so many videos! Have a great weekend! Much love 💜 until the next video!
I do look forward to every video that comes out. There's always something to learn or at least see an experienced perspective. It's funny of all of Chris' suggestions/predictions, it seems WOTC has listened sometimes.... or just coincidence. Just hire Chris as a spell balance consultant already;)
An interesting side effect of Divine Smite being a spell that becomes auto prepared with one free cast at Paladin 2 and them getting Spellcasting at Paladin 1 now, nothing stopping you from preparing it as one of your two available spells at Paladin 1 (or any of the first level Smite spells). So can get to the smitey fantasy earlier as a pure Paladin if not starting at a higher level, and makes it an easier dip if all you want is Smite.
In my campaign I have been playing an Oath of Watchers 2014 paladin and we are just now going to be testing out the 2024 characters now and I have to say, I am excited to see how my new paladin plays out
Watchers is probably going to feel underwhelming with the new rules. Counterspell got nerfed, their first channel divinity is one of those that is now covered by abjure foes while the second is situational and takes an action. They used to be alright by the virtue of being a paladin subclass and the aura of the sentinel, but since the main class is now a bit worse without a good channel divinity it doesn’t have much going for it. You’d probably have to do a little bit of homebrew to make it fun. I will say though, You can now finally cast alarm as a ritual, lol.
A fun combo for a mounted Paladin with a Lance is that since the lance is one handed while mounted, you can have a shield. Then if you take shield master, when you hit the creature must make 2 saves or fall prone, a Str save from Shield master and a Con save from topple. And with the new rules the Lance no longer has disadvantage when attacking within 5 ft
Gonna play this on Saturday I'm to excited
Plus I think the DC for Topple's CON save is increased by your CHA modifier when you use Sacred Weapon.
Been waiting so long for your break down on this!
58:30 as your time on the episode of The Gauntlet has shown, a mount is only effective while it's alive. Flight from an external source is conditional. Depending upon a 59 hp/12 ac griffon at level 20 for flight is a huge liability, both in your continued access to the speed, and in your ability to remain airborne and not plummet to the ground
Share spells is supposed to help with that. Gone now.
20th level without a rare consumable like potion of gaseous form or quaal’s feather token: bird? Also broom of flying is uncommon and requires no attunement. Ideally a carpet of flying rolled up like a parachute! If you’re playing in a campaign without magical items then make an actual parachute for the rare moment an ally can’t help. Fly movement at 20th is sad.
A ring of feather falling is a good solution to that.
i don't mind that the new rules make smites 1/turn, but i hate them taking bonus actions and i hate them being unusable on opportunity attacks and i hate that iconic paladin class features like smites & steeds being spells means they progress faster if you multiclass out of paladin. That last bit isn't a new problem, but i was hoping 5.24 would fix that and it didn't. I'm also annoyed that they wen't with glory for the fourth phb subclass and not the far more narratively & mechanically interesting conquest, or crown which is more in need of an update/rethink.
I find it funny how not even the art for the glory subclass looks as if it fits in. It very much feels as if they didn’t have any good art for it, so they just pulled out some scrapped warlock art and somehow decided that it would do it for a paladin subclass.
This... all of this is correct.
I'd rather play the old glory for fun grappling tactics. Otherwise I'd never look at the paladin. Never liked any of the others.
This. Plus the fact that it's a spell ruins my builds I had in mind for Barbarian/Paladins. I feel like smites being spells AND costing your bonus action is too restrictive.
You know what the funny thing is? The new rules have EVERYTHING in them to limit Smite to 1 time entry, without spelling it out separately.
You literally have to make Divine Smite a spell. And make all Smite spells a “part of the attack”, not a “bonus action”. Under the new rules, you can't use more than one level spell per turn. In total, all Smite spells are now equal to Divine Smite and can be used once per turn. WotC don't read the rules of their own boardgame.
A funny thing is if u take ancients pally to level 7 and then totem barb to level 3 u can get resistance on everything and it’s cool bc it’s both the nature subclass. What sucks is that u can’t smite and rage so barb paladins will no longer be a thing
If it's any compensation, you can cast divine favor prior to raging. Think of it like many baby smites!
that truly makes me sad
Just to note. Divine Smite 2024 has a few extra restrictions and downsides it didn't prior.
It now competes with spell per turn uses (unless using the freebie) because it's a spell.
It has a verbal component, so not only is it stopped by counterspell, but additionally, it can not be used in a zone of silence or similar effects.
It''s a bonus action, which means it competes with other bonus actions but also can not be used on reaction attacks off your own turn now, like most opportunity attacks.
It's also once per round now, which is additionally restrictive.
80% subs?! That's amazing! Hope to continue to see your guidance through the next 10 years of DND
MAN I really want to hear more about the Rogue! Thematically, the Arcane Trickster is my favorite class alongside the Lore Bard. I would really love to hear about ways of improving the Rogue's damage.
Get this man his subs!!! The fate of Faerûn depends on it!
Limiting smite to 1/turn is fine
But it shouldn't require a BA
I am more excited by this Paladin than 2014. I like all the smite options. I like having the thrown weapon option. I might play one of these.
And paladins just keep farming slots for smite rather than casting spells so they gonna be more versatile now I guess
The "hey everyone" gets more enthusiastic every video haha
Let's get this man to 100K! We are getting closer!
00:00 jump scare got me Chris 😂
The less obvious nerf for auras only affects multiple-pally parties. All of the charm/frighten immunity, movement speed, resistance, etc effects were considered separate auras, so they could all apply to whoever is in range. Now a creature can only benefit from a single pally's buffs at a time
Honestly this seems really dumb. It's such a huge part of the paladin's reason for being in the party at all and the effects are all completely different. It's like having all support spells just be called "buff" and putting the different benefits into the spell description as choices. Then all characters would only benefit from one spell at a time, even with different casters concentrating for completely different reasons.
This is technically true but since the creature can choose what aura affects them "while in them", the wording would imply that they can switch between auras at any time with no action requirement. In practice the timings between paladin auras granting their benefits rarely overlap so you may as well be benefiting from both at the same time (like movespeed will rarely be relevant at the exact same time as charm immunity). It's an odd choice of words for sure though.
I think you're underselling Oath of Vengeance a bit... it should be on par with all the others, given that you can stack damage with HM and Divine Favor and near permanent advantage. Moreover, the 7th level feature has great synergy with polearm master, a feat that you'll probably want anyway and also great synergy with Haste (which by itself is a great boon to the subclass). The 20th level feature just means you can have reliable flight, allowing you to share the steed with other party members if need be and while you attack one creature, the others may be frightened of you. They will not be attacking you, or rather, they will try to run away which will be hard with a 60 ft fly speed (120 feet with haste, again, or more if you have longstrider up for example).
Finally, Oath of Vengeance might be as well one of those paladins that can get away with just 18 or 16 on their charisma, given that many of their features don't care too much about their saving throw DC, making it so you can focus on the more martial capabilities.
Honestly, I was thinking 4/5 but I am open to be corrected as to why my line of thought might not be correct!
Edit: also, sacred weapon requires you to invest in charisma to get a meaningful attack bonus while vow of enmity does not
Besides that, it all has been a subclass that you might invest in Str instead of Cha
Polearm Mastery no longer provides Opportunity Attacks (it provides an attack as a reaction, but it's no longer an Opportunity Attack). I do agree Oath of Vengeance is being undersold here, though...I'd give it at least a 3.5.
Hmm funny I think he overvalued all of the subclasses except Devotion.
Vengeance is decent only if you dual wield and that's mostly because of DF and HM. Their other features are Misty step and Vow of enmity. 7 and 15 are comparable to a 1/3 of sentinel feat each.
I'd trade the whole subclass features and go subclassless for a free sentinel feat+1Dex and fay touched+1cha.
@@mpetrov2402 the whole subclass for those 2 feats?
@@AndreAlbuquerque-uk2oi well level 7 and lvl 15 are 1/3 sentinel feat each. Fay touched lets you get misty step for free +one other spell (hex or gift of alacrity) and you have +1/+1 on 2 stats. All you are missing really is vow of enmity which is a fair trade for full sentinel, free cast of MS and Hex / GoA and +1/+1. Also there is shining smite so its NOT that bad.
I'd say both vengeance and glory are worth less than sentinel + fay touched for free. Ancients has decent level 15 and channel divinity and their aura add necrotic resistance which is OK.
Let's be honest. The only plausible reason to nerf Smite was to kill Nova builds. Make it once per turn would be enough. If the concern was to ensure that they did not combine Smite with other Smite spells, they could make the class feature grant a spell that can be used once per turn with no action required and the rule of "One Spell per turn with spell slot" would prevent the whole problem (problems with immunity to magic, anti-magic circle or counter-spell are the least of it). Using the Bonus action is the unfair nerf here, an unnecessary limitation.
Ranger… unfair in how?
One class being worse off than pally does not detract from the uneeded BA cost on DS.@@haukionkannel
I’ve been saying that and thinking we might homebrew that into our campaigns. It makes zero sense for a paladin to wield a polearm with the change, it nerfs GWM, and encourages sword and board way to much
@@tyleradams7615 If it helps to know, I already did that for the paladins in both my campaigns. One of them has Duel Wielder, the other PAM - and this nerf massively hurts both. The latter has it even worse, since he mc'd into Barb recently, and smites being spells nukes that combo.
Thus far it's been working quite well (we shifted to 2024 rules during the latter stages of the playtest).
@@Matanlimer pop divine favor and you have an extra d4 on 7 potential attacks in your first two turns at level 5. Combines very well at level 11 with the extra d8 paladins get.
I've been loving this series, but I can't wait for build videos
IMO having to give up your bonus action is why it's a nerf even with the added utility. Smite doesn't play well with great weapon master, polearm master, or sentinel anymore.
But your New Sacred Weapon and Vow of emnity does
@@AndreAlbuquerque-uk2oiAs does Radiant Strikes (formerly Improved Divine Smite).
@@tiradegrandmarshal I mean, the trade od nerfing divine smite but earning better Sacred Weapon and VoE it worths it
@@AndreAlbuquerque-uk2oi No, it's not worth it.
Or many multiclasses
I don't think misty step is as nice on a paladin anymore. Part of what made it really good, was you could misty step to a squishy target, and then double smite them in one turn, now you can't smite and misty step in the same turn.
It’s still better than not having mobility options. Yes, having a racial ability or the ability to cast it without a spell slot is better but just being able to melee something without additional effects is still a lot better than having to use the dash action.
Idk I never liked paladins so this nerf seems like a good thing
@@AngelCanseco1 Well, you're just a hater. You just hate class so you're glad they broke his legs and put him in a wheelchair.
In addition, with the changes to Searing, Shining and Thunderous smites; Divine smite will now be used less often. That means that one of the 3 paladin defining main class features in 2014 (Auras, Lay on Hands and Divine Smite) will now be used less often, if ever.
But channel divinity options, Lay on Hands are so much better, Divine Favor now a good spell, magic weapon too, I do this "trade" everytime
In addition to the other features being improved I would argue that Smites in general are a defining feature of paladins, its just that they all sucked except for divine smite before now. Now they still get to smite but they get additional options to how they smite. I would still use divine Smite on fiends and undead.
Still smiting, just better and more flexible tools to smite with.
I think I would use the free divine smite every session and consider using smite on crits, I would save most of my spell slots for all the better spells. I think they've heavily changed the feel of paladins for 2024 in combat.
@@edwintaylor6891 certainly, you are not just the nova ds guy anymore, you are now have a bunch more offensive options than divine smite, now Vow of Emnity has competition
I agree, divine smite is a pretty dead feature without being a free action.
An unarmed goliath running around wrestling people and using smite punches sounds kinda fun ngl
Alright, I'm building it. Stone Goliath Glory Paladin Entertainer. For feats, definitely Grappler asap, then grabbing maybe HAM to pair with stone's endurance. Later get inspiring leader to give temp HP alongside the heroic inspiration from musician(entertainer). You give inspiring smite temp hp to whoever loses their inspiring leader temp hp first. 18 str/18cha by 12 with point buy. Only 14 con, but whatever, HAM+Stone's Endurance. Annoying for enemies, good saves, no frightening. You grapple and drag annoying foes all over the place and smite them. give allies advantage, temp hp, speed, better saves, anti-fear, healing, and can carry their unconscious body or corpse out of the dungeon.
Be Macho Man or The Rock. Divine elbow drops
The problem with Smites is that they consume a Bonus Action as you attack. Now that Bonus Actions have gotten more usage from the 2024 rules and in class features, it makes the use of a Smite spell consume your whole use of actions. So if you cast spells that require a Bonus Action like Divine Favor or use Lay on Hands, you're locked out of Smiting for that round.
I'd be okay with the once per turn usage. Just get rid of the casting time to be Bonus Action.
1) Even if you remove the bonus action, you can still only use one level spell per turn.
2)This is still better than the bonus action, because with a smite for the bonus action you just can't use smite with reaction attacks. And you can't use the “Poleram Master” or “Great weapon master” feats.
I agree the breaking oath blurb is a nice touch. It is more focused on role-play and changing your subclass if your Paladin has radically changed during the course of their life...
I got my book yesterday. Much better than using the website for early access.
One big advantage of vow of enmity vs sacred weapon is that sacred weapon is applied to one weapon you are holding. If you want to dual wield or want to swap weapons to take advantage of multiple masteries, sacred weapon isn't as effective. Vow of enmity affects anything you do.
Would still prefer sacred weapon in most cases, though.
Vow of Enmity also increases crit chances, which Sacred Weapon doesn't. Sacred Weapon is probably better in isolation, but Vow of Enmity is pretty solid.
aura of protection turning off due to being incapacitated (2024) vs unconscious(2014) is a huge nerf.
Honestly, I think it's *healthier* now. I think they should've set it such that you get a number of free Smites per *Short Rest* equal to your *Charisma modifier*. Give some real parity to the Ranger.
And then say if you know other Smite Spells, you can cast them from this reserve. And have more Spells that involve a weapon attack.
With those changed combined it'd really just feel like a true gishy spellblade without emphasizing the nova. I'd be fine with axing the Faithful Steed feature for this revised Paladin's Smite design.
For the idea of feature budget I also kind wish Abjure Foes and Divine Sense were an amped up spells rather than a class feature, using your newly liberated and available spell slots.
I like the new Paladin, just a lot of little things feel off to me.
It’s just way to taxing to use your core feature, which is smiting.
All the 2H feats can’t be used with smite,l and mathematically it makes so much more sense to dual wield/sword and board.
Scrap the bonus action and tie it to the one spell per turn rule. It’s the most simple fix ever.
Unarmed Paladin = Jonathan Joestar
with a horse stand?
@andritsiry Jonathan is the only JoJo who didn't have a Stand... But yeah, that could work.
What should its name be, though?
@@RokuroCarisu gorillaz, or the animal
Unarmed Paladin = The One Punch Man.
With spirit shroud active already and divine smite you really can punch a guy for ridiculous damage.
1d8 + 5 + 1d8 + 1d8 + 4d8
Woah this was earlier than I expected
The reason why Jeremy Crawford said that Spiritual Weapon was OP is because you could combo it with Spirit Guardians. Now that they are both concentration spells, this is no longer an option... except for War Clerics.
It was never OP. I dont know what he is smoking....
I do not see the problem?
Dual wielding dex paladin with nick wep and hunters mark with divine favor is nuts!
You missed 3 issues with Smite being a spell, which is part of why people call it a nerf. It DOES make a difference if you consider how the rules interact with it.
- You can only cast one spell using a spell slot per turn, so this interferes with certain combos and features you could get from multiclassing, like Action Surge, as well as additional actions from spells like Haste. Take Vengeance Paladins, for example: They now cannot cast Haste, attack and Smite.
- You also cannot cast Smite in a Silence field, since Smite now has a Verbal component.
- Counterspell is also worse than you make it sound. Eating both your bonus action and negating a Smite Critical Hit is a big deal, and is likely to negate more damage than what other casters might do, ignoring Conjure Minor Elementals combos. Even if you have another attack, you don't get another chance to smite. The idea of you necessarily being right before a Sorcerer or Wizard doing something more impactful is a strange and frankly disingenuous argument. It could just as well be that this counterspell kept an enemy alive long enough to get off a powerful spell or attack off that ruined the party's day. You could only consider it a win if you intentionally imagine the initiative order to be perfect for the Paladins party.
The thing that doesn't make a difference, is the single free 1st level Divine Smite.
With the Oath of Vengeance 20th level feature you can give your flying mount to another player and still fly.
And maybe catch them if their paper plane breaks.
28:35 That's all well and good, and you technically aren't wrong, but Diving Smite still shouldn't be a spell.
My biggest issue with the new Paladin is that its features fall off hard after level 6, its spells scale slowly as a half-caster, and most of its low level features, if they scale at all, scale better with other classes.
The hardest-hitting Divine Smite a Paladin can ever muster is 6d8 (7d8 against Undead and Fiends), which they achieve at level 17.
Warlocks, Bards, and Sorcerers with a single level dip into Paladin all reach that potential damage at level 10.
On top of that, if the Warlock is a Celestial Patron, they can add their Charisma modifier to the damage of Divine Smite (Level 6 - Radiant Soul). And if they're Pact of the Blade, they can go nova and use Divine Smite and Eldritch Smite on the same attack, because Eldritch Smite is not a spell and does not use an action, meaning the one spell with a spell slot per turn rule does not apply to it.
And Sorcadins can modify their Divine Smites with Metamagic, rerolling low damage dice with Empowered Spell or protecting it against anti-spell abilities like Silence or Counterspell with Subtle Spell.
A Paladin can upcast their Find Steed to give it a flying speed at level 13.
A Bard or a Sorcerer with 5 levels of Paladin can do it at level 9.
And by the time the Paladin is level 13, the flying mount summoned by the Bard and Sorcerer has 20 more HP and 2 more AC.
And meanwhile, the free casting of Find Steed quickly becomes irrelevant to the Bard and Sorcerer, because they can start summoning stronger versions of the Steed at level 7, and the Paladin can start summoning stronger steeds at level 9. However, it probably still remains somewhat relevant for the Paladin, because as mentioned earlier, the Paladin's steed will always have lower AC and fewer HP than the Bard's or the Sorcerer's, so the Paladin is probably going to need to be resummoning it more often. Unfortunately, that free casting only ever summons the weakest possible steed, with 25 HP and 12 AC, meaning that the free casting is not going to last very long unless every enemy ignores it.
Paladin's Smite gives you a single free Divine Smite at level 2, with the Divine Smite spell always prepared, and it does not scale at all past that point. So, at level 2 Paladin, you can add 2d8 damage to a single melee attack without expending a spell slot once per long rest. At level 20 Paladin, you can add 2d8 damage to single melee attack without expending a spell slot once per long rest.
The class isn’t just smites though. People undervalue the aura and how necessary that is. The Aura of Protection is a crazy boost to the party.
The issue is that people think Paladin’s are only supposed to be damage dealers and nothing more which is why WoTC made these changes.
@@keeganmbg6999 The Aura's great. That justifies 6 levels of Paladin for one character in the party. After that, by switching to Sorcerer or Bard you are able to do all of the Paladin abilities better than the Paladin. Your mount's better, your smites are better, your defenses are just as strong, you can cast higher level spells, and you get all of the features of the other class you take.
You cant take paladin spells by Magical Secrets anymore
@@AndreAlbuquerque-uk2oino need to - it’s just an up cast find steed as long as you have the 5/6 levels in paladin
@AndreAlbuquferque-uk2oi Find Greater Steed isn't a thing anymore, the 2024 Find Steed is strictly at its best cast by either a Paladin who multiclasses into Bard / Sorceror, or anyone that can cast Wish for an 8th level variant of it.
If the goal was "protecting the identity" of the Paladin, the design choices for 2024 push the Paladin to either do a multiclass at level 1 or 6, and just to be the best Paladin they can be, which is mostly a Paladin.
In the Ranger video you mention how good the level 17 feature giving advantage was, but here the Vengeance Paladin's level 3 feature is not great because advantage is cheap?
What is really the value of advantage in the 2024 revision?
Weapon Mastery to make someone go prone. Topple? Not sure. Not sure the Ranger gets it either.
i still don't like that a full caster can smite better then a full on paladin. i want for paladin to smite the best
The FIGHTING STYLE change actually does make a difference. Many of the fighting styles available to Paladins were just not as good as the ones available to Fighters. Same goes for Rangers.
But now both classes get access to the Fighter version of the fighting styles.
Depending on your build, that’s a buff. (Unarmed fighting)
Thanks for the video Chris.
We’re all waiting to see your 2024 version of the god wizard…and the other builds of course.
Couple of things about oath of vengeance ( correct me if i m wrong ):
- works on ranged attacks
- doesn t depend on you keeping the weapon on hand
Thanks Treantmonk! 🌲🥷👊
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, very helpful, and I appreciate that you provide a coolheadedness.
The fiend horse on a conquest paladain is so good!!!!! Frighten everything.
In my opinion, HM works better on an Oath of Vengeance compared to a Ranger. They have fewer spells that I would rather be concentrating on.
I think an unarmed paladin with oath of glory sounds very fun. Besides just the vibe of a great athlete punching the crap of people being fun, the extra movespeed it provides is stronf for a grapple party.
IMO Vow of Enmity shines when you're dual wielding and/or weapon juggling (and preferably both). Since you only get 2 weapon masteries ever as a Paladin, the Vow frees you from having to prepare Vex, and you can prepare the mastery property of another weapon, instead. And with Dual Wielder, your attack routine can instead be something like shortsword (no mastery) > scimitar (Nick) > warhammer (Push) > bonus action warhammer (Push).
For Vengeance Paladin the 7th lvl Relentless Avenger as a halfling, let's you halt the enemy retreat as a reaction and immediately move through their space to block them. Love it.
Dim uncapping the damage on Divine Smite and making fine steed just up cast for the fly speed makes it much less likely two straight class, a 6 paladin 14 Bard or sorcerer in most ways will just be a way better paladin.
Paladin: "Hmm. Which interesting & useful Smite spell do I want to use? And maybe I'll be concentrating on another spell, too!"
Ranger: "I'm just gonna concentrate on Hunter's Mark. It doesn't have any interesting options. It just does damage only. Hooray!"
28:04 yes, yes it is. There would have been not harm in keeping Divine Smite working like Eldrich smite (1/turn, no ba, not a spell, could even throw in the restriction of not using a spell and smite at the same turn as a treat), and letting the paladin choose to use their bonus action WHEN THEY WANT TO on a smite with some extra effects. The maluses of all smites being spells and costing a BA have been outlined in other comments, so I wont repeat them, but i gotta say that glazing over all of those issues really rubs me the wrong way. 49:31 I think that ancients, at level 7, is going to range from mid to godlike depending on campaigns. Necrotic and psychic arent excatly common among monsters, but by the nature of the monsters that use them, they tend to pour when they rain. As such in a campaign like Phandelver and below (psychic) or COS\Vecna they oath gets a massive boost by virtue of some of the more challanging foes in the campaign relying pretty heavily on those.
Just a note at th-cam.com/video/PrxY-PWDRcw/w-d-xo.html that it was stated Sacred Weapon uses a bonus action but it doesn't even take that, it's a part of the attack action, no?
Correct
It is part of the attack action. No action required
Vow of Enmity gives you advantage without screwing over your Ranged party members. So I don’t think it’s been devalued at all.
Remember that ranged attacks against prone enemies are made with disadvantage!
VoE is very good, but just about anyone can gain advantage in the 2024 PHB so that eats a degree of value out of VoE as any group progresses in a game it just becomes an option that you can ignore in groups.
It doesn't help Shining Smite is also in the Paladin tool kit that applies that advantage to everyone without any consequence outside said Paladin having to concentrate on it, which is why Oath of Devotion seems to be the best Paladin subclass because its offering you options at every tier of play that can't be offered by your own spells or your party.
Oath of Glory is uber-bad though between the jumping rules, changes to Peerless Athlete and changes to the grappling rules, or the mere existence of Goliath (whose features are better than anything you're getting out of the Oath of Glory subclass, really robbing them of their greek hero mythness).
'I am not sure Smite got nerfed all that much'"
2014 Divine Smite
+Nothing can stop you from delivering it once you hit
+Doesn't use any action
+Can be used as many times as you can hit
+Works with opportunity attacks
+Can be used simultaneously with Spell Smites (and Eldritch Smite for Hexadins)
+You can cast any spell on the same turn
-it always costs a spell slot
2024 Divine Smite:
-Can be counter-spelled
-Uses your Bonus Action
-Can be used only once per turn
-Can't be used with attack of opportunity
-Can't be combined with other smites (they all use BA)
-You can't cast any spell on the same turn (except once per lr)
+You get to use it once without using a spell slot
The Paladin's Smite nerf was specifically to avoid going nova, which I think is fair. They could have just left it as "once per turn" rather than a spell though, and not required a bonus action.
However, Eldritch Smite still works with the new Paladin's Smite because it's not a "spell" cast with a spell slot, and neither does it require an action. It just uses your spell slots as a resource. A technicality for sure but a welcome one I think.
@@deffdefying4803I think that's one of the biggest issues - BA smites aren't so bad on a straight paladin, but hurts their ability to use them with feats or multiclasses (PAM, Duel wielder, multiclasses that furthet tax your BA, etc...). It could have easily had the same treatment as ES and avoided nova damage just as easily without that uneeded tax.
Es being a better version of Divine Smite due to not having a BA cost is just further insult to injury.
@@Matanlimerwith Weapon Masteries in the mix, not getting a bonus action is a big issue.
@@martl8615 Yeah, it's really a change that gets worse the more you think about it. Which is why drives me crazy that so many would be experts engage in blatant apologizm for it.
@@deffdefying4803Eldritch Smite is an oversight for sure. It needs to be errataed to a bonus action with the rest of them.
1 Paladin/ X Bard (Valor pref for the "Bladesinger extra attack") is looking really nice. Outside of the fact you don't unlock that extra attack until level 7, but you still have plenty of better options besides attacking in melee until then.
8:05 now requires a bonus action and he doesn't know if it was nerfed much?!
Big nerf.
Related to picking up wrathful smite with shadow touched, if, by chance, dragonlance feats are allowed, you could pick up shining smite from adept of the red robes.
Searing Smite: "...they take the damage at least two times - unless they die..." I see no text about the spell ending if the target dies. I believe its body is still smoldering for rounds (for the whole 1 minute duration) after dying - as it cannot make its constitution saving throw. Is it useful tactically? No. Is it a sight to behold? Hell yeah!
On the other hand if the target is revived during the spell's duration it should continue to damage them.
Vow of enmity doubles ones chance to crit, while sacred weapon does not. Atleast in my experience you get most mileage out of crits on paladins with smites. I feel like that’s worth noting.
Yeah I thought it was given short change as well, especially without the -5 accuracy/+10 damage feats. Vow of enmity also benefits nick mastery attacks [for 3 attacks w/o using a bonus action], which synergises with the passive improved divine smite, as well as divine favor and/or hunter's mark or other concentration damage buffs
Of course I'm subscribed!
With Living Legend up, if you're not using your bonus action for attacks, you'll never miss if you've also taken Combat Prowess.
Don’t forget that Sacred Weapon works only on one weapon, while Vow of Enmity can work better with dual wielding, so one is better for 2h weapons or S&B, while the other for 2WF builds that do now more dmg in general.
I still wish divine smite was not a bonus action! Just feels like a lot to give up spell slots AND a bonus action for a couple of damage die. I am glad the other smite spells got buffed. Before they were just such a waisted opertunity. Love the new ones though...would have been cool to stack divine smite and one of the other smite spells but maybe that is why they did the bonus action thing. Im still wondering why they are so worried about nova damage when the new conjure minor elementals is a thing! More for the casters, i guess, less for the marshals
CME still looks like an oversight. I'll be shocked if it survives the next major round of errata as it is.
You’re vids are amazing, make more 😂
Just started a campaign with a devotion paladin (Dragonlance). Same as you I am going to try mounted with lance (and shield). Am taking PAM however, I don’t think having the extra attack can hurt and using a mount getting the extra reaction attack should be easy.
Am also secretly hoping that the feat works well in this specific campaign (am guessing a Dragonlance is a magic weapon the party will get).
Hey, ancients paladin gets a perfect skincare routine at level 15. I mean it's unique at least
About the Oath of Vengeance capstone. Other than the genie warlock or elemental wild shape, I can't think of a class feature that granted you the hover ability.
Not taking massive damage and missing half the encounter if you are knocked prone 100ft up in the air sounds like pretty big Insurance to me.
I don't know how broken this would become, but at first thought I would fix the banishing smite to be something like this:
The target make the Charisma Saving Through anyway to avoid being banished AND if he has 50hp or less after the damage he fails the save automatically.
I don't know if it fixes the issue, but if I happen to be the GM for a paladin, I would house rule the spell this way.
That was exactly my thinking. Given that it's a level higher than the Banishment spell, and only available to Paladins, I don't think it's overpowered
Interesting point about using Find Steed to get a mount for another party member - that's one advantage of this vs the Ranger's hunter's mark. I like the new Ranger but this is definitely an advantage here that they can't use if you for some reason want a non-hunter's-mark ranger
Everyone defending the smite change downplays counterspelling smite - but that's not the only downside to DS being a spell - it can now be countered, silenced, anti-magic auraed, copied and stolen - none of which was possible in the 2014 edition. Also, it can't be stacked with other smites, used with any other Bonus actions (no more misty step and smite or shield of faith and smite) nor used with an opportunity attack; AND some creatures are now immune to it (a 2024 level Paladin cannot smite a Rakshasa anymore).
You’re assuming Rakshasha’s are the same and also that’s 1 creature out of thousands that exist.
As a player, if my DM EVER counterspelled my smite over the Wizard’s Fireball, Wall of Force, Banishment, Synaptic Static, Wish, etc then I would consider that a win for the party. That’s a waste of a Counterspell because it only stops my BA. I don’t lose the spell slot or anything with how the new counterspell works.
@@keeganmbg6999 Unless you are fighting Vecna from the Eve of Ruin campaign, in which case you do also lose the spell slot, and you take damage, and Vecna can still counterspell the Wizard, too, and no one can counter his counterspell. Because Vecna's counterspell is not a spell, still works like the old counterspell, and he has multiple reactions per round.
It's still a niche case, but it's an example that must be taken into account, because as part of the most recent published adventure he's an example of the WOTC's design philosophy moving forward, which includes giving creatures spell-like abilities that don't necessarily conform to the spells available to players, and giving powerful enemies multiple reactions per round.
Also, as niche as the Rakshasa case is, until the new Monster Manual is released, Rakshasa are, by definition, the same, and may continue to be the same depending on if WOTC changes their stat block or even includes them in the book.
For me, the bigger issue with making Divine Smite a spell is that it makes it so other classes can do them better than the Paladin. Sorcerers can alter their Smites with Metamagic, which includes Empowered Spell so they can reroll the damage dice, and Subtle Spell which allows them to cast the spell in scenarios where the Paladin can't (like when Silenced, or against enemies who would counterspell it). And Celestial Warlocks get the Radiant Soul ability, which allows them to add their Charisma modifier to the damage of a spell that deals Radiant or Fire damage once per turn. Spells, like, say, Divine Smite and Searing Smite, which become available to them with a 1 level Paladin dip, since Paladins get spellcasting at first level.
And that's not getting into the fact that Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bards who dip Paladin can have their Divine Smite deal as much or more damage at level 10 than a Paladin can at level 17. Or the fact that Sorcerers and Bards can have their Smites go beyond the maximum potential of the Paladin, mostly because Divine Smite does not deal enough damage to be worth wasting higher level slots on it.
Let's be honest. The only plausible reason to nerf Smite was to kill Nova builds. Make it once per turn would be enough. If the concern was to ensure that they did not combine Smite with other Smite spells, they could make the class feature grant a spell that can be used once per turn with no action required and the rule of "One Spell per turn with spell slot" would prevent the whole problem (problems with immunity to magic, anti-magic circle or counter-spell are the least of it). Using the Bonus action is the unfair nerf here, an unnecessary limitation.
@@CivilWarMan I mean, those classes could already make the damage deal more or at the minimum, more often and sooner than Paladins could in the first place. Your issue is inherently with Paladin, it’s with how multiclassing in 5E.24 works.
@@thiagoknofel8982 I assume they turned it into a spell for their VTT lol
If I’m a high level undead spellcaster, mostly just Lichs, I’m counterspelling any high level smite used on a crit. Preventing yourself from getting one shotted is an optimal way of using counterspell lol
Basically this, we are fooling ourselves thinking that a DM isn't going to counter spell smite. Someone is going to do just because they can, and the paladin player is going to feel terrible when it happens.
Its one of the few times the DM can just say LOL at a critical hit / spell.
That and depending on the group make-up why not build encounters stacked against multiple half caster / spellcasters with enemies that can consistently challenge their spell use.
@@JTex-f5dTHATS WHAT IVE BEEN THINKING THIS WHOLE TIME!! “Dumb DM countering my Smite when we have full casters in the party, not an optimal use of counterspell at all 🤓” optimal or not it’s going to SUCK to have a smite counterspelled when that wasn’t an option before. An undead caster counterspelling a smite used after a nat 20 is just going to keep them alive longer. Legendary resistances can be used for save or suck spells.
@@nm2358that’s why I don’t feel salty DMing with Silvery Barbs in play….i can do it too 😤
I think the blowback on paly was frankly insane and so disproportionate for what we got. I love the dnd community but the groupthink and outrage trains get so ridiculous sometimes. The nerf barely scratched the Paladin, it just lowered the burst damage ceiling which is a great change imo. If groups don’t run a standard adventuring days worth of combats (or god forbid only one combat per day) then the paly smitefest was wayyyy too strong. Also I’m personally here for the (now competitive) other smites to see more play - and even more so after your break down. Awesome video, looking forward to the next one!
The only problem with smite is that it requires a Bonus Action, which I frankly don't understand. They got it right with Eldritch Smite, and then pooped their pants with the paladin smite spells. Divine Smite right now is kind of only useful if you get a lucky crit at low levels. The free castings are also frankly useless at higher levels, since they take up your BA (which can be used to make attacks that can be more powerful through buffs, other spells, etc.), and they are always at the lowest level. So fun times smiting for 2d8 at level 17 xD
@@Notsogoodguitarguy They need to nerf Eldritch Smite to a bonus action.
@@Notsogoodguitarguy i mean what other bonus action do palys have that require every turn to use? Sure your set up round means no BA but thats not the biggest deal in the world. GWM and polearm master are massively nerfed so not that, or smite is at least very competitive. Also smite has always been a poor use of a spell slot 80% of the time when compared to the power of spells tbh - except in the case of crits or nova burst rounds; And its not like free divine smites are a bad use of a BA even at 20th level. 2d8 or 4d8 when saved for crits is still extra dpr that uses a low cost resource. it can be applied post hit to an attack too so 9/18 (on average) extra dpr isnt nothing. I cant see why the bonus action is the sticking point, the big nerf was making it useable only once per round, and i think thats a good thing for the health of the game.
Same thing for ranger mains. Like, bro. HM rocks when paired with Duel Wielder/TWF/and Nick Weapon Masteries. It's insanely good.
Yeah, not too mention with the free castings of HM you can still main action cast a spell since it doesn't use a spell slot. I personally think HM being every attack instead limited to 1 attack a turn but scaling like the UA playtest makes it better then people realize.
it's a shame you stopped showing the hit dice/proficiencies/equipment table, I quite liked seeing what changed. Great video!
Divine Smite-
Nerfs: Once per turn, uses bonus action, can't be used on reaction, counts as a leveled spell.
Buffs: Can be used unarmed, can be used with some thrown weapons, no longer caps at 4th level
Yeah, no. Divine Smite got gutted. They should of just made it "once per turn" like sneak attack.
Or, you know, like Eldritch Smite xD Also, the removal of the cap is only a buff for a paladin dip by a sorcerer/bard, not really for the paladin themselves. They literally just nerfed the paladin smite into the ground. And the free castings are basically useless at higher levels, since you're casting them without a spell slot, meaning at the lowest level. So, thanks for the 2d8 free damage 2-3 times per day. Wow. Much generous.
Divine smite now works like every other smite like it should have always been
100%. I’m not a minmaxer but i want (and want my players) to have flexibility in how they build their character. Using the BA (and making it a spell to a lesser degree) takes away those options without choosing objectively conflicting options.
@@NotsogoodguitarguyThat's a problem with Eldritch Smite. Clearly an oversight, needs to be a bonus action with the rest of them.
I believe the earliest you could get a flying mount in 2014 was 10th level with bard's magical secrets. Now if you take a paladin to fifth level to get the find steed spell, and multiclass into a full caster, you can upcast at 4th level and get a flying Mount at 9th level. So, that's at least one level earlier than before.
Small species + original beast master with a pteranodon worked at level 3
Not only that, but if you do manage to get to the highest level, the gap in power is stark. A level 20 Paladin, summoning the most powerful steed they possibly can, gets a flying mount with 55 HP and 15 AC. A 20th level Sorcadin, with 5-7 levels of Paladin and the rest in levels of Sorcerer, can summon a flying mount with *95* HP and *19* AC, while still being able to prepare 7th (if Paladin 7/Sorcerer 13 or Paladin 6/Sorcerer 14) or 8th (if Paladin 5/Sorcerer 15) level spells.
The Sorcadin's smites are stronger, because they have higher level spell slots. They're more reliable, because you can now use Empowered Spell metamagic to reroll dice on your smites. They can be protected against anti-spell abilities, because you can now use Subtle Spell metamagic to remove the verbal component, meaning their smites can be cast in Silence and cannot be Counterspelled.
From what I've been able to see, Paladins can be decent specifically as support tanks from tier 1 to maybe early tier 3. In terms of the Paladin's old offensive capability, a Blade Warlock or Valor Bard can take as little as a 1 level dip into Paladin and completely eat the Paladin's lunch, and if a campaign does manage to get to tier 3 and beyond the pure Paladin falls off *hard* compared to the multiclass options.
@@elliotbryant3459 I think the earliest I've found now is small species, level 1 find familiar, summon a giant vulture for your familiar and go.
@@brynwtsn We can finally achieve the Rescuer's Down Under fantasy from level 1!
Its funny that all the 2024 Paladin features scale significantly better on a Bard or Sorceror multiclass. Basically, every level after 6th level has to (and doesn't) compete with fullcaster spell progression, and Oath of Glory is just sitting there with weaker features than the Goliath species.
But I guess one can't expect much since they shelved Paladin mid-play test.
Blinding Smite. The save to end the condition. Start of its turn, End of its turn or only action of its turn.
35:05 Smite of Protection, halfcover also provides +2 to Dex saves :)
While banishing smite seems like a ton of ifs, it is also a type of banishing that doesnt give saves each round, so it functions simlar to 2014 banishment in that regard. Instead of having it only banish on 50 hit points or fewer, it should just be advantage on the save if above 50 hit points.
banishing smite should really just not have that 50 hit point restriction, it would be solid if they took that out.
@TreantmonksTemple Channel Divinity does not seem to use Bonus Action, I think. So, things like Sacred Weapon do not use any action AT ALL. More buffed than appears...
Smite scrolls let's gooo
I'm trying to imagine how you'd read the scroll as you're attacking, but I guess that's no wonkier than casting any other spell from a scroll in combat...
Wait, what?
@@Hyruler scrolls have the same casting time as the spell written on them so have fun!
@@Nos2113 wrap the scroll around your weapon of choice
@@deffdefying4803 Better plan ahead with that one 😆
I'm going to say, I like Banishing Smite, but only for the damage. Force damage is great damage to apply, and 5d10 is basically the same as 6d8 (as you said). The banishment is just unnecessary in my mind. If they have less than 50 hit points, I probably want them to stick around so either I can hit them with my second attack or my party can finish them off.
Bonus action arguments aside, everything they did with Smite is how Hunter's Mark should have been handled. ONE feature to give it a free casting, damage scaling in the spell description, and tactical options with the same flavor on the spell list. Thats why Paladins have room left over to give features to other core mechanics like Channel Divinity, Lay on Hands, and Aura upgrades, making playing the Paladin feel like being a Paladin.
The Ranger does have other fun options instead of HM, but then you're not taking advantage of those upgrade features.
Im sure that if Abjure Foes, Restoring Touch, and Aura Expansion were replaced by 3 features to make just the standard Divine Smite spell a little better, people would be calling the Paladin boring too.
I know they said the new PHB would be compatible with older content but Abjure foe ability sounds very similar to the oath of conquest pld ability conquering presence which also uses channel divinity