I'm hoping Radiant Strikes (Improved Divine Smite) still requiring a weapon is an oversight. Considering Divine Smite is now explicitly able to work with Unarmed Strikes it feels pretty bad that they still end up missing out at later levels.
It might be a multi classing thing depending on how the Monk turns out. Divine smite being once a turn makes multiple unarmed strikes a non issue, but Radiant Strikes could make it broken.
@@AwesomeWookiee I think maybe it could be more of taking a level dip in monk while you're a high level paladin. I wouldn't see it as a huge problem tbh.
I love the updated version of Find Steed. However, that brings up a even more pressing problem, which is to PLEASE update and clarify the rules for mounted combat. Can your controlled mount interlace actions and movement with your player character? Can a controlled mount take bonus actions and reactions (given that the new Find Steed gives bonus actions to mounts)? Can the Find Steed mount be uncontrolled given the text in the spell that now says "it functions as a controlled mount". If not then why give bonus actions to the mount?
As I recall, controlled mounts share your initiative but can only take the dash, disengage or dodge action for their action. They are still free to use any bonus actions they possess.
Oath of Devotion definitely got the updates that it needed by making its main abilities be bonus actions instead of actions and making the capstone accessible at a level that most campaigns actually get to. I am a little confused with the wording of the smite spells as bonus actions- based on the way they're worded, it feels like they should be reaction spells instead of bonus actions.
I think it's good to have the smite spells be bonus actions so that the Paladin still has their reaction available for opportunity attacks. As a tank, it's really important that a Paladin can discourage an enemy from moving away from them. (And those Paladin opportunity attacks are especially dangerous when it gives them another opportunity to smite).
It's to stop you losing the spell before you hit, that was a major factor that made divine smite too much better than the smite spells, since divine smite only occurs on hit while smite spells take concentration immediately and if you take damage, you could lose the smite spell before ever getting to use it. There is no need for it to be a reaction, it's just that essentially the spell isn't concentration until the hit is made now, this way around just makes it easier to under the intention. At least how I see it.
@@daviddalrymple2284 yeh, the issue with thisnspells is they notbbeing used, so granting reasons yo not use them wouldnt make sense, and paladin doesnt hace a ton of uses to ba that arent spells
Remove the smite spells and add the option to enhance Divine Smite with their effects. And remove the use of spell slots for Divine Smite and make it have its own resource so the Paladin can use spell slots for actual spells and not burn them on Divine Smite.
This is pretty much what I have been saying. A number of smites equal to cha mod per long rest. Smite scales from 2d8 to 6d8. Smite spells can be kept as they are but u cant use smite spells and DS on the same attack (but on two different attacks).
@@a.m928 For me personally I dislike having a feat called Divine Smite (DS) and spells that work like DS (and also uses a spells slot). So either remove the feat and make DS a spell or remove the spells and tie them into a feat. Another thing is the "compete for spell slots" thing. Every paladin that i have DM'ed for use majority for spells slots for DS. Because the damage is so good on DS, my players don't want to "waste" spells slots, even though they might have wanted to cast that detect magic, daylight or whatever). Taking DS away from spell slots, would make players feel like they don't sacrifice damage when casting spells. For me, having a feat that just deals extra damage is meh, go play a rogue or barbarian. Now I will just throw something out there: Lets say we make remove the smite spells and tie them into a DS feat and give it its own resource. Now, you could add these extra effects based what Oath you choose, for example: 1. Oath of the Ancients - Ensnaring Strike, Flaming Strike, Thundering Strike.... 2. Oath of Devotion - Blinding Strike, Branding Strike, Banishing Strike, a strike that give extra to fiends/undead) 3. Oath of Vengeance - Paralyzing Strike, Wrathful Strike... What I am going for here is, make DS into a tactical choice of using the "right" Smite on the right monster to swing the tides of battle your way :) This is of course just how I would like the paladin to be, and I surely understand what others would like to have this holy dps warrior that smites everything dead every combat while the rest of the party hangs out in the bar. Cheers...
As a paladin main for many years now, I do appreciate the new ways for paladins to use smites and our other features. But I will say that blatant limiting of smiting with only once per turn and the not being able to cast a spell on the same turn is extremely frustrating. If this is the price for getting unarmed and ranged smites, I am not willing to pay that price. Getting rid of the Paladin's ability to be this holy nova on the battle field really removes what made the paladin really special. Now regarding the rest of the changes made to the class; I am in favor it. I think streamlining the other features and actually giving the paladins a chance to use channel divinity is nice because its a feature that is rarely used. The new additions to lay on hands is nice as well as how auras will be working. All good things. What they are doing with the oaths is fun and I do like the streamlined features and how they boost the base class features like the aura of protection. Overall I am happy with most of the changes to paladin. The options and streamlined features are a step in the right direction. But the changes made to the base divine smite are unacceptable. I am not willing to trade the classic smite features for the unarmed and ranged smites. Being able to Nova was one of the primary selling points of the paladin. Its like taking rollercoasters out of amusement parks just because some people are scared of them. If an individual table wants to homebrew around the paladin, fine. But changing the primary selling point and feature of paladins to avoid players being able to Nova is frustrating and disheartening.
I'm hoping for more necromancer healing abilities. I know it sounds odd, but they already have one of the most powerful healing spells for its level, so it would be fun to build a healer necromancer.
My first Character idea was a apothecary who strayed into Necromancy precisely because the will to use Healing magics to wanting to control the essence of life in the unliving, struck me as a line it would be easy to cross over if one were fanatical enough.
I am a big fan of how the fine steed is being handled, The new revisions on smite spells are nice. The scaling and damage output of paladins is overall nicely done in this one. Epic Boons are way more epic now thx for listening to our feedback (I was one of those who really wished them to allow over capping away from the 20 max score)
Already planning to use that free cast on Armor of Agathys for a Conquest Paladin. A free AoA during a big boss fight or group ambush would be very nice.
I believe the current problem with High CR monsters (based on the custom monster rules) is that monsters are expected to have an AC 19 from CR 17+. It stays at CR 19 for 14 levels and never changes. High monsters should be expected to have a Higher base AC (20 from CR 20-23, 21 from CR 23..., 22, 23, etc.), there by needing more HP to compensate for the lower difference expected to actual AC. That's just my 💰💰
Just as important as making monsters survive longer is ensuring that they can deal more damage. A lot of the high CR monsters in the early 5e books can only deal a ludicrously small amount of scratch damage when their signature ability is still waiting to recharge.
@@daviddalrymple2284 Yeah, that is a big problem as the signature move will deal an overload of damage and then the other attacks compensate for smaller damage. Bringing all to a middle ground would certainly help too.
19:44 I want to point out to Todd and the team that, as a fellow fan of "spooky stuff", that the Cleric doesn't have to be in opposition to undead and the like. in 3rd edition Rebuke and Control Undead, as well as a formula for tracking how many undead creatures you could control, were all built directly into the class. Depending on which deity you serve, the creepy critters of the world are your allies. I really hope the team thinks to leave some design space for the old Rebuke Undead, even if it ends up as an alternative option in the DMG, or attached to specific subclasses as a modifier to Turn/Smite Undead.
So, unlike Druid I am pretty good with the changes made to Paladin… my only question is if I may ask why the choice to remove the extra 1d8 to undead and fiends from divine smite? But as said I do like the changes to Paladin but I personally would like to know the design choice to remove the bonus damage to undead and fiends.
We had a new paladin when learning she could cast searing strike and divine strike for the same blow, she said "I can do both!" with glee and awe. She also learned the difficulty of combat without spell slots left. It will be interesting to see if the standard 4or 5 round fight average continues.
Learning that I could Thunderous Smite and Divine Smite on the same blow made me absolutely adore my Paladin. Losing that ability to load up everything I have into one mighty blow feels like it completely guts the Paladin.
@@jonathanrich9281 I'm sure they will change it up. Combat might get a whole new feel to it. I'm holding on to my 2014 player's handbook, but I'm also curious what they will come up with.
@@ReadingDave They were so set in nerfing the Paladin Nova style that I’m not optimistic, to be honest. For a lot of these playtest UAs, it seems like they’ve got a lot of the smaller Quality of Life fixes in, like the Light weapon property bonus action attack and Smites with fists and ranged weapons, but carving out the souls of the classes, like Paladin smites not being stackable and Druids now just having three forms and not gaining any defensive utility out of wildshape.
You can but you should know ehen to do it. My Pala is a defensive supporter but if anything gets to close to our casters crusher+divine+thunderous is a nice combo even if takes all your slots.
love the changes to find steed in itself, but it feels awkward & wrong that other classes get earlier & better access to it. smite spells also nicely improved, but again feels weird for other classes to be smiting, and in particular smiting earlier & better thanks to faster access to more and higher level spell slots. I know they're trying to reduce the number of resources paladins track, but maybe divorcing find steed & smite from spell slots would have been worth experimenting with.
i like the new version of divine sense, but making a situational niche utility ability compete for limited uses for what are generally build defining combat abilities seems likely to have the same effect as just removing it from the game.
@@RobWeld57 I don't think that this UA did revert Spiritual Weapon back. They had mentioned early on in playtesting if something wasn't mentioned in a new UA, to continue using the old UA version of it. Plus Spiritual Weapon isn't in the changelog so I think they're still planning to make it concentration
The character I play most often and enjoy the most is an Oath of Devotion Paladin, so I was excited for this one. So far: -Love all the updates to the Oath of Devotion itself, keep em -The whole Find Steed thing reads less like it should be a spell/feature and more like it should be its own full subclass, akin to the Cavalier Fighter. My paladin is an 8 foot tall minotaur so he doesn't really need a steed, and I feel like this feature would go unused in how I play paladins generally -Although the Smite changes make sense, I do wish that the limits on Smite would be lifted. For many of my players, Smite is why they love playing Paladins so much. Yeah you could just houserule it, but it sucks that you might have to.
You could get a specially formidable steed, and honestly diszgree, paladin find steed was always a liked combo for a lot of people even if it was kinda bad for a ton of reaons, this makes it very cool and profitable Even if u dont want a mount, having a horse partner that youncan talk to and can helpu outnis super cool as a class feature
Having the extra pools of abilities was fine. Ive been playing paladin for 9 years and have never had an issue. Lumping it all into one resource nerfs his/her abilities hella hard
Delivering divine judgement directly through paladins fists and conjuring enemies demise in form of blessed arrow directly in front of their eyes in the blessed longbow? Making the Paladin features be more versatile and more fluid to use yet keeping their meaning and power behind them and delivering on all the possible roleplay possibilities. Love it. Please keep it just as you described it, you're really getting good at delivering just what we want and need ❤️😇
Paladin has literally never been a purely martial class. It’s a half caster class, a Gish. Martials are Rogue, Fighter, Monk, Barbarian. It’s actually been a roadblock in trying to get martials to be good because it had so much insane NOVA potential to compete with. You also got a ton of stuff that Rangers wish they had.
Sure paladins do nova but those are most often on crits if they're using spell slots tactfully. Compare that to a barbarian who is dealing an average of 22 damage per attack at EARLY game and going up from there. Anyone who thinks martials are weak doesn't know my math.
@@Aidscapade71 except your math excludes that Paladins also have healing and support mechanics, can have a free mount, and can have higher AC than a Barbarian. A Barbarian who, using that math, usually has to risk getting critted on with reckless attack to achieve that damage along with a feat tax. There’s more to D&D than your number spreadsheet lol.
I like a good bit of these changes, like Find Steed which already felt integral to Paladins becoming a class feature. But I feel like limiting Divine Smites to once per turn and saying they can't be used with spells makes it hard to justify using them at all. Why would you use Divine Smite when you can use a spell slot for one of your other smite spells that have other bonus effects? The tiny bit of extra damage isn't enough to justify using it imo.
I hope that martial paladins still feel relevant after these changes. I don’t mind opening up more options but I hope that martial paladins don’t become deeply suboptimal compared to ranged paladins. Like maybe make melee smites slightly stronger than the ranged version. I would also be lying if I didn’t feel sad about the smite changes. Stacking smites felt pretty fun and something that could be balanced by simply increasing the number of enemies a paladin faces against. (Maybe make stacking smites something only once per long rest like a channel divinity) As a whole I just hope melee martials in onednd can still feel meaningful when played with casters since even in 5e melee lags a little behind ranged. Sorry if someone reads this and finds it ranty but paladin is one of my favorite classes and some of the changes made me feel a little uneasy. I just hope I can love this new version of the class ( when it officially comes out) as much as I love the 5e paladin.
Paladin is my favorite class so I gotta say I think these are pretty fair changes for what we are getting in return. The only thing I'm hesitant about is not being able to cast spells on the same turn you use divine smite because I think it might have some action economy issues but I look forward to play testing it and seeing how it feels
@@ZeroRoyale Except for things like you know... being hasted, bonus action spells like compelled dual, healing word, or armor of faith and very niche examples like being able to quicken a spell with a feat or cross classing into a sorcerer.
My fav class as well but I usually end up multiclassing. My characters do not have to be super powerful I just like mixing and matching to find good synergies. I must admit I hate the changes to smite. Reminds me a lot about the sentinel/Polearm aster debate: If the few skills that offer interesting mechanics are overpowered that means the other skills are too lame. I am fine with doing less damage but loosing the ability to build around crits or not being able to quicken a cure wounds cause I used smite pretty much kills this version of paladin.
I like getting more uses and options for channel divinity on Paladin. Not sure how I feel on smite restrictions since the cost of a spell slot is already pretty high, but the damage limit and ranged weapon change is nice. I will say though, making a ranged Paladin will be incredibly MAD so I don’t think that change is as nice as it sounds
I'm with Jeremy and Todd in that it's not always fun when a Paladin is able to use 2 or 3 smites in a single turn, and completely obliterate a monster before their turn even comes.
Casters can't use more than one leveled spell in a turn, it makes zero sense that Paladins could just churn through all their resources at triple the pace. This is a good change, even if it is a bit of a nerf to the Paladin's burst potential.
@@daviddalrymple2284 the same thing can be done with casters and spells. I think it’s important to have the option to spend all my resources to take out a high priority target and spending a spell slot on hypnotic pattern or fireball has a lot more impact than spending a spell slot on an extra 4d8 damage for one attack. Plus by the time Paladins can do that casters have 5th level spells
@@SheenaMalfoy it makes sense to me because divine smite is generally worse than just casting a spell. Would you rather do 2d8 damage to one target or cast bless?
Dude more necromancer stuff, it’s such a cool concept, it’s just damn near impossible to feel like a powerful necromancer without using every single spell slot on maintaining control
We have done few high 17-20 campaigns. It would be nice to have some guidance of ways we could explore reasons and fun of over twenty play. Maybe like the top teirs of fourth edition.
I'm excited for unarmed smites. The first character I ever made was a dragonborn paladin. Their god is Torm who's holy symbol is a right handed gauntlet, so it makes sense that I'd want to smite some baddies with the gauntlet they wear that represents their god.
"is this going to unbalance high lvl play?" ... Can safely say high lvl is where balance fundamentally goes to die. And in a game like dnd that says something.
@@sqoo5 I would say it is exacerbated in D&D but is often an issue in RPGs overall. Not every one, and in some it's pretty great, but it isn't exclusive.
Balance is a subjective and tricky beast of game design. There is a large quantity of variables that change frequently. It can be easily skewed. There also arises a lot of questions. Is balanced play fun, or is it boring? Does it make sense for the circumstances, or should unbalanced play naturally arise? What does balanced play even look like?
What was confusing or tricky about the spell smites? Cast it as a bonus action and hit your enemy as an action so the effect activates on the same turn. Fairly easy to understand imo
Had a scary fellow in our party one time by the name of Markus…Conquest Paladin by this time. We encountered a T-Rex in the jungles of Chult; and Markus had been disarmed of his weapons during the battle. As the T-Rex lowered itself to feast upon our pinned Paladin, our player inquired with the GM if he could smite with his forehead. …the GM allowed this; and because this was an undead T-Rex, the radiant energy from the impact of the headbutt was enough to kill the dinosaur. …also hilariously, the top half of Markus’s face had been blackened & charred by the radiant damage.
Look smites once per turn can be a fine change and a good balancing option if they left everything else about smites unchanged. But Smite no longer deal extra damage to Fiends and Undead and they no longer combo with with spells, because you can’t cast and smite on the same turn. You are essentially paying a spell slot to use a less effective sneak attack that only scales if you use you more precious spell slots. This also doesn’t just effect smite spells, Paladins struggle with positioning too, Ancients Paladins amended this with Misty step so you can close the gap, but now if you Crit on the attack after Misty stepping you can’t smite and lose your damage. Idk I just think this is a bit harsh on Pallys, yes they are strong but they are also martials, which struggle immensely compared to caster and they are usually one of the few classes that can keep up. I mean at least we can punch and bow smite, but idk if the sacrifices are even worth it.
I totally agree as someone who almost exclusively plays paladin I'd rather only be able to smite with a weapon if I could at least also stack on a smite spell or some other spell.
I never in a million years thought necromancer would be the sample wizard subclass. It's what I play right now and we had to change it so much just to make it viable. I've been wanting a change so bad and I would actually love more options than just summoning the undead. I really feel like necromancers should be the way wizards can heal, just not as effectively as a cleric and it requires that life to come from another source but with more options. Grim Harvest was a good idea but it relies on the necromancer to be the one making the killing blow and only heals them
I doubt Necromancer is gonna be THE sample subclass, but rather one of the total 48 subclasses making it into the "base" OneD&D game (of which we're gonna get to playtest them all eventually). I can't imagine anything other than Evocation being the default Wizard subclass.
He said later in the year. I'm guessing the first Wizard subclass will be Evoker. They're putting 48 subclasses (4/class) in the playtest, so there will be more coming later.
I mean, it's neither confirmed nor denied which will be the sample wizard subclass but given how long it will be until the next one I find it unlikely he would mention it if it wasn't already on the horizon. That being said, assuming it isn't Necromancy what subclass would you assume would be the sample school? Because I've never seen any single school stand out as the definitive Wizard school. Closest I can imagine is maybe Evoker
Salty Paladin Player here. I am not a fan of the one smite per turn change. This might actually be problematic since Smites are best played on Crits. It only needs to happen once: You hit your first attack: you smite. You CRIT with your second attack: you cry. OR you hit with first attack, you don't smite (hoping for the crit) then you MISS your second! You didn't smite at all. And this will make Players ask the DM if they could add the smite to the first attack (which most cool DMs might allow but not everyone is).
As a resident paladin enjoyer, the change makes sense and I'm not too sad about it. I question restricting it for SPELLS as well, that makes no sense to me. But 1/turn in general I totally get. Paladins are great at EVERYTHING so nerfing their absurd DPR is only logical.
@@theindiefox347I totally think it's fair as well. Paladins are too good at murdering. I just think design-wise, this is sorta problematic since it'll create a lot of gambling and "Mother-may-I".
@@ldavepedrialva My group and I have gotten around the "mother may I problem" by house ruling that you make your attacks in groups. 1st set of attacks ( action) and get to determine which one crits/ smites. All of these Have to be made on a single target. If you want to attack one target with your 1st attack and another target with your 2nd attack, then you roll those individually, and The dice ruling stands on which creature got crit against and/or if you didn't take down the 1st opponent whether they get an opportunity attack or you attack the 2nd opponent. If the player wants to make a 2nd set of attacks ( bns action / off hand/ surge/ ect) the same rules apply. Our table, Who usually campaign between levels 3 and 10, had already limited the number of smites that could used per round specifically to limit "The Nova effect" because we as a group agreed that we didn't want to be "the paladin and his backup buddies". We viewed the smites much like the rogue sneak attack; great for bursts, but if overused make it too easy to steal the show
I'm really glad they're explicitly playtesting a Necromancer archetype: They'll have to face the "too many minions for a player to control" problem with necromancers (and summoners in general)
I like that there is no more damage cap off for smite. The once per turn and the fact it can't stack with a smite spell is kind of trash though. Then again, now we have ranged and unarmed. So honestly, as someone who plays paladins all the time, this seems fair, and will help stretch out combat. I'm hesitantly positive
It's not a buff or a nerf, it's a rework on it and I think it's all for the best. It creates more character customization options and less inconsistent combat encounters.
@@midwestindigo1397 not really. The smite is just worthless. Why smite if you could bless the party. Or use any buff spell. Measly 2d8 damage is worthless compared to bless or any kind of buff. And that is the max it can do. Cause no extra dice on crit, no 2 smites a turn, no spells the same turn
Please don't limit the Paladin to either cast a spell OR smite ONCE. The one smite per turn is understandable, but at least, by using a bonus action regularly, allow them to use the smite spells.
I don't mind smite being once per turn or that it longer deals extra damage to undead and fiends. I think its silly to fear the paladin nova so much, especially if adventuring days are sufficiently long. But regardless, these changes are ok. What I don't like is how you can't cast spells and and smite on the same turn. It reduces the options I have available for my paladin. I can't misty step to the bad guy and hit them with a divine strike, I am just limited in my options like that. What if I have haste going? I cast a cure wounds with my action then go to hit the bad guy with my hasted action and I can't smite them. That is very limiting in my opinion. Another issue I have is also related to options. Why does the devotion paladin only get his offensive channel divinity? Where's the utility/defense option? I always thought it was one of the most exciting elements of the paladin subclass. I will add that I love that they fixed the smite spells! Finally! Now I can concentrate on a spell and still use my smite spells, adding versatility. And the smite spells that are still concentration, kind of deserve it, so that is all good.
A lot of good changes from what it seems, but one thing I noticed is that the Paladin seems to become even stronger, while imo already being the strongest martial. I am not against martials getting a bit of a buff, but I think with this context the Ranger and the Rogue could use a little bit more than they got in the playtest they were in.
be ready to see this soon : "oh you want a feat where you can smite stack and crit on your stacked smites? for just $0.99 and unlock this feat today for the next 24 hours"
The once-per-round for Divine Smite is a good limitation, but the limitation with the spells is an EXTREMELY BAD change, I hope it does not make it to the final version otherwise it will be homebrewed to oblivion... The other changes are good, and will streamline the class more.
@@mattmakermusic I don't like the 1 spell per round limitation in general, but it's understandable for full casters. In this case the Paladin does not even cast a spell with the smite regardless of the spend spell slot, plus it's weaker than most spells. Also, there are a ton of utility and support spells that require a Bonus Action to cast, this will just make fights take longer for no reason because the Paladin will not be able to do anything else after a smite while wasting his Bonus Action. Plus combined with the change of the smite spells that he will also not be able to add, and the change to the once-per-round smite, he loses an incredible amount of damage potential. Some of them are welcome, all of them together are a colossal nerf.
@@mattmakermusic why? Paladins that can cast anything but smite and use divine smite usually invested quiet a bit of skills/resources. It is powerful but drains so much that you can only use it where it counts. The changes turn it into yet another roundly routine skill. killing a lot of the strategic component. I would rather remove the paladins bonus action spells and make them options for the divine smite ability.
@@oliveranan4881 When I wrote the original comment I had just concluded a session (as the DM) where the paladin stacked smite spells on top of divine smite and then secured a critical hit thanks to the divination wizard, which led to the boss of the encounter going from 200 Hit Points to 30 in a single attack which also banished said boss, so I was a bit mad at the concept of smite stacking in general. In hindsight, I realize that was just a good way to spend resources and good teamwork, aside from being kinda the point of having a burst damage dealer in the group. Since then, however, I have changed my mind on that limitation and think that it is a little... stupid? I realize they are trying to prevent things like the episode I described earlier from happening again and throwing off the balance of an encounter, but doing it by taking away all the cool things that players could once do isn't the way to go, I realized. So yeah, I agree with you. Sorry for the wall of text.
Some Warlock Hints as well are interesting. I hope the warlock has Int as a playtest option again. Also, I am so curious as to how it will work, Maybe it will get it's Pact magic like the Channel Divinity/primal ability now? Getting a certain number to start at the beginning of the day, and then per short rest & eventually upon inintiive roll getting another slot? Time will tell but the mind is racing. What do you think @ToddKenreck?
I really want warlocks to be int casters. They’re literally described as “seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse” or something like that in their intro text. You don’t do that with charm and force of will, you do that with intense study and intellection. I do, however, think they’re going to keep the “channel x” to the priest group of characters, but we may see a similarly structured concept in the warlock, where it has one resource that can be spent on multiple things, some of which are subclass-specific. I’m most interested to see how they change invocations, because while they are cool and versatile, they are one of the most complex things the warlock has. Given they’re moving to a simplification of the rules as a whole, I don’t think the entire invocation list is going to remain.
The paladin is pretty good. It does look like the old level 20 feature has been tuned down a bit in the devotion subclass, even though it was kinda weak. Will mean when transferring older subclasses they will be way better. P.s. also sucks the flying find familiar doesn't get flyby ability.
Giving half-casters the ability to cast a free Oath/Domain spell is great--but only if you refrain from connecting other abilities to spell slots, which seems to be the inclination in the UA design so far.
Love/hate relationship with the new smiting. The balance thing I am totally fine with. Having it be a bonus action that works like a reaction feels clunky. Why not just making it a reaction that happens on your turn?
If they did this, then paladins would lose their ability to use opportunity attacks when things move past them/away from them which they’re probably trying to avoid.
ปีที่แล้ว +2
Paladin champion of horse racing, called Captain Falcon. FALCON PUNCH.
Yay!!! I love Necromancy Necromancers!! I love these play tests, you can really see the effort put into these new features, and I can’t wait. I am just sad that there won’t be many of the races from Mordenkainens Monsters of the Multiverse, because the campaign I am building requires that racial diversity, and although 5.5 is “backwards compatible”, I don’t think it will be worth it to run this amazing new rule set on 5.5, until those features come out. The goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, centaurs, fairies, etc. are just too important. + I would be over the moon if Tiny races were added, or tiny race rules even.
To the salty paladin players: did you know that other classes can spend their spell slots to attack and THEN find out if it misses? Smites are already forgiving
I don't like having divine smite on ranged attacks but I support it on kicks and punches. Also, I won't support only one divine smite per turn. The rest sound pretty good and I will continue to allow divine smite on attacks of opportunity.
personally my favorite version of a DnD necromancer was a 3.5 prestige class called "true Necromancer" it wasnt just an arcane specialty, it was a fusion of arcane and divine magic. fantastic concept. a bit OP (my favorite bit was the passive aura of desecration)
Imagine taking away extra thematic smite damage vs fiends and undead, ya know, the classic enemies of paladins which allowed them to excel. Why ever use divine smite when you can just use the bonus action spells to do more damage?
This. Though I think I'd rather that be pushed further. Have Divine Smite either become a spell or a Channel Divinity option and then have the 2nd level feature become an improvement to Smite spells.
I feel like it would make sense to just turn Divine Smite into a spell, would it not? I'm sure it's still a feature so it can be tweaked by other features potentially, and maybe they don't want non-paladins to have a neutral smite (even if the other smites are available), but as described here, it just sounds like another spell that's always prepared.
As a non paladin player, but a martial enjoyer... Are we really sure nerfing the paladin is the way to go? I expected all martials to become much stronger in tier 3 and onwards, so sad to see this is not a staple of early decision making in the desing of Onednd :/
First of all, Paladin is the one "Martial" class that didn't need buff because it was a half-caster and it had smite... Secondly, these changes are not nerfs... in no world are these ever nerfs! They are adjustments that make the class cleaner, clearer and less frontloaded to play, but give it back everything it loses in the smite department in other places to compensate for it...
@@mojin7470 This is definitely a nerf across the board, no bonus dmg vs fiends/undead, no way to cure disease/not immune to disease, smites being utterly gutted
@@crushcommando8637fiends and undead unless in a campaign specific won't come up that much, not many abilities at all inflicted disease, smites arnt gutted and don't take up concentration! You can now keep up other valuable spells, along with the free cast of an oath spell and find steed you'll have more of the largely the same smites just stretched out
@@dantea7475 he meant the base class smite, not the spell you dummy. I played literally 14 paladins and I hate this change. The problem with their reasoning "Why should other players feel like lackeys" while freaking caster throw meteor and freaking fireball at all thr enemies freaking infuriates me
One smite per turn is bad. Given some of the feat changes that made sentinel, shield master, etc weaker it’s hard to justify a melee Paladin. There is room between one and tons. You didn’t “reign it in a little bit” you attacked it multiple ways.
dropping his devine smite dps and improving spellcasting is a much better change for the class, spellcasting always felt secondary to the point where charisma was not a requirement for most builds
@@ДюсековИльяс then why have spellcasting to begin with; either make work or not have it at all, spellcasting for the paladin is as core for him as any other class
I'm fine with the limit use of smite... but don't limit use of spell... I want to smite and then cast healing words to heal someone... but I can't now... make that you can't use multiple smite together but allow the use of support and healing spells
As someone who’s played an oath breaker paladin in 2 campaigns. Smite absolutely needed a nerf. Going to miss those 200+ damage rounds, but not salty about it. It was long overdue.
So weird, to see Jeremy say they've made things better, and more powerful, when the only changes to the Paladin are basically nerfs, with the exception of the one thing that didn't need a buff (Smiting), not only did they lose the ability to remove diseases, they lost...yanno, one of their archetypical features of actually being immune to diseases, the shuffling of abilities also has hurt them all over the place, egads.
NERF? MY GUY ARE YOU BLIND? As a resident Paladin enjoyer they kept all the things I wanted, and smoothed out all the things I thought needed tweeking. Calling this a nerf is laughable. More Channel Divinity uses, Bonus Action Divine Sense that lasts 10 minutes, any fighting style you want, cantrips, more spell options, Sacred Weapon for Devotion is now a BONUS ACTION. I'm so happy. The only thing I do agree as a nerf is Divine Smite, but divine smite was hilariously busted and needed a nerf anyway.
How is removing the ability to cure diseases your one thing that you focus on as a big nerf? Its literally the most pointless feature in all of the paladin class in the 2014 version... Like what?
smite was always balanced. limited to 5d8(6d8). it costs spell slots. it works on one enemy. by the time the paladin can max a smite too, a wizard can use steel wind strike which is stronger and is an AOE, or use shadow blade and have consistent high damage. sorcerers can do the same (except steel wind strike) paladins were fine
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm hoping Radiant Strikes (Improved Divine Smite) still requiring a weapon is an oversight.
Considering Divine Smite is now explicitly able to work with Unarmed Strikes it feels pretty bad that they still end up missing out at later levels.
It might be a multi classing thing depending on how the Monk turns out. Divine smite being once a turn makes multiple unarmed strikes a non issue, but Radiant Strikes could make it broken.
@@dojojolly 11 levels isn't a dip, so I doubt it matters for Monks that much.
@@AwesomeWookiee I think maybe it could be more of taking a level dip in monk while you're a high level paladin. I wouldn't see it as a huge problem tbh.
I think it's fine
Ranged paladins now tho
I love the updated version of Find Steed. However, that brings up a even more pressing problem, which is to PLEASE update and clarify the rules for mounted combat. Can your controlled mount interlace actions and movement with your player character? Can a controlled mount take bonus actions and reactions (given that the new Find Steed gives bonus actions to mounts)? Can the Find Steed mount be uncontrolled given the text in the spell that now says "it functions as a controlled mount". If not then why give bonus actions to the mount?
I dont agree on half, butbyes, please make mounted combat make sense, is not so hard
Hopefully the UA for the new DM's Guide elaborates on mounted combat.
As I recall, controlled mounts share your initiative but can only take the dash, disengage or dodge action for their action. They are still free to use any bonus actions they possess.
In addition ot can take reactions as normal
High CR monster buffs sounds great. Yeenoghu was the BBEG of my first campaign and I had to double his health.
High Tier play in general hopefully is being redone, considering with 5E, most campaigns never made it to tier 3, let alone tier 4.
Yeenoghu!
It is not only buff numbers, High CR monster need more especial ability
Can smite with ranged weapons? That finally opens up a divine archer style build.
I am the bone of my sword
Especially since they can now use any fighting style that's available.
Yes! I’ve been wanting this
You can now have a divine smiting Paladin gunslinger. Echoes of the classic western Have Gun Will Travel...
Oath of Devotion definitely got the updates that it needed by making its main abilities be bonus actions instead of actions and making the capstone accessible at a level that most campaigns actually get to. I am a little confused with the wording of the smite spells as bonus actions- based on the way they're worded, it feels like they should be reaction spells instead of bonus actions.
I think it's good to have the smite spells be bonus actions so that the Paladin still has their reaction available for opportunity attacks. As a tank, it's really important that a Paladin can discourage an enemy from moving away from them. (And those Paladin opportunity attacks are especially dangerous when it gives them another opportunity to smite).
It's to stop you losing the spell before you hit, that was a major factor that made divine smite too much better than the smite spells, since divine smite only occurs on hit while smite spells take concentration immediately and if you take damage, you could lose the smite spell before ever getting to use it. There is no need for it to be a reaction, it's just that essentially the spell isn't concentration until the hit is made now, this way around just makes it easier to under the intention. At least how I see it.
Could sacred weapon add the modifier to the attack roll as well? Or is it too much?
@@daviddalrymple2284 yeh, the issue with thisnspells is they notbbeing used, so granting reasons yo not use them wouldnt make sense, and paladin doesnt hace a ton of uses to ba that arent spells
Remove the smite spells and add the option to enhance Divine Smite with their effects. And remove the use of spell slots for Divine Smite and make it have its own resource so the Paladin can use spell slots for actual spells and not burn them on Divine Smite.
This is pretty much what I have been saying. A number of smites equal to cha mod per long rest. Smite scales from 2d8 to 6d8.
Smite spells can be kept as they are but u cant use smite spells and DS on the same attack (but on two different attacks).
@@a.m928 For me personally I dislike having a feat called Divine Smite (DS) and spells that work like DS (and also uses a spells slot). So either remove the feat and make DS a spell or remove the spells and tie them into a feat.
Another thing is the "compete for spell slots" thing. Every paladin that i have DM'ed for use majority for spells slots for DS. Because the damage is so good on DS, my players don't want to "waste" spells slots, even though they might have wanted to cast that detect magic, daylight or whatever). Taking DS away from spell slots, would make players feel like they don't sacrifice damage when casting spells.
For me, having a feat that just deals extra damage is meh, go play a rogue or barbarian.
Now I will just throw something out there:
Lets say we make remove the smite spells and tie them into a DS feat and give it its own resource. Now, you could add these extra effects based what Oath you choose, for example:
1. Oath of the Ancients - Ensnaring Strike, Flaming Strike, Thundering Strike....
2. Oath of Devotion - Blinding Strike, Branding Strike, Banishing Strike, a strike that give extra to fiends/undead)
3. Oath of Vengeance - Paralyzing Strike, Wrathful Strike...
What I am going for here is, make DS into a tactical choice of using the "right" Smite on the right monster to swing the tides of battle your way :)
This is of course just how I would like the paladin to be, and I surely understand what others would like to have this holy dps warrior that smites everything dead every combat while the rest of the party hangs out in the bar.
Cheers...
As a paladin main for many years now, I do appreciate the new ways for paladins to use smites and our other features. But I will say that blatant limiting of smiting with only once per turn and the not being able to cast a spell on the same turn is extremely frustrating. If this is the price for getting unarmed and ranged smites, I am not willing to pay that price. Getting rid of the Paladin's ability to be this holy nova on the battle field really removes what made the paladin really special.
Now regarding the rest of the changes made to the class; I am in favor it. I think streamlining the other features and actually giving the paladins a chance to use channel divinity is nice because its a feature that is rarely used. The new additions to lay on hands is nice as well as how auras will be working. All good things.
What they are doing with the oaths is fun and I do like the streamlined features and how they boost the base class features like the aura of protection.
Overall I am happy with most of the changes to paladin. The options and streamlined features are a step in the right direction. But the changes made to the base divine smite are unacceptable. I am not willing to trade the classic smite features for the unarmed and ranged smites. Being able to Nova was one of the primary selling points of the paladin. Its like taking rollercoasters out of amusement parks just because some people are scared of them. If an individual table wants to homebrew around the paladin, fine. But changing the primary selling point and feature of paladins to avoid players being able to Nova is frustrating and disheartening.
Also, paladins already have a limit to smites, it is spell slots.
I'm hoping for more necromancer healing abilities. I know it sounds odd, but they already have one of the most powerful healing spells for its level, so it would be fun to build a healer necromancer.
My first Character idea was a apothecary who strayed into Necromancy precisely because the will to use Healing magics to wanting to control the essence of life in the unliving, struck me as a line it would be easy to cross over if one were fanatical enough.
Don't forget though, healing spells are all converted to abjuration instead of necromancy school
As a die-hard paladin stan, I am happy to not be captain 200-damage-smite-stack anymore. I love how the new smite spells work.
I am a big fan of how the fine steed is being handled, The new revisions on smite spells are nice. The scaling and damage output of paladins is overall nicely done in this one. Epic Boons are way more epic now thx for listening to our feedback (I was one of those who really wished them to allow over capping away from the 20 max score)
Already planning to use that free cast on Armor of Agathys for a Conquest Paladin. A free AoA during a big boss fight or group ambush would be very nice.
I believe the current problem with High CR monsters (based on the custom monster rules) is that monsters are expected to have an AC 19 from CR 17+. It stays at CR 19 for 14 levels and never changes. High monsters should be expected to have a Higher base AC (20 from CR 20-23, 21 from CR 23..., 22, 23, etc.), there by needing more HP to compensate for the lower difference expected to actual AC. That's just my 💰💰
Just as important as making monsters survive longer is ensuring that they can deal more damage. A lot of the high CR monsters in the early 5e books can only deal a ludicrously small amount of scratch damage when their signature ability is still waiting to recharge.
@@daviddalrymple2284 Yeah, that is a big problem as the signature move will deal an overload of damage and then the other attacks compensate for smaller damage. Bringing all to a middle ground would certainly help too.
Unarmed Strike Paladin living their best Sting from Fairy Tail life.
i would say it fit more Loki, than Sting
@@Zankyo137 Ah yes. That's perfect.
19:44 I want to point out to Todd and the team that, as a fellow fan of "spooky stuff", that the Cleric doesn't have to be in opposition to undead and the like. in 3rd edition Rebuke and Control Undead, as well as a formula for tracking how many undead creatures you could control, were all built directly into the class. Depending on which deity you serve, the creepy critters of the world are your allies. I really hope the team thinks to leave some design space for the old Rebuke Undead, even if it ends up as an alternative option in the DMG, or attached to specific subclasses as a modifier to Turn/Smite Undead.
So, unlike Druid I am pretty good with the changes made to Paladin… my only question is if I may ask why the choice to remove the extra 1d8 to undead and fiends from divine smite? But as said I do like the changes to Paladin but I personally would like to know the design choice to remove the bonus damage to undead and fiends.
We had a new paladin when learning she could cast searing strike and divine strike for the same blow, she said "I can do both!" with glee and awe. She also learned the difficulty of combat without spell slots left. It will be interesting to see if the standard 4or 5 round fight average continues.
Learning that I could Thunderous Smite and Divine Smite on the same blow made me absolutely adore my Paladin. Losing that ability to load up everything I have into one mighty blow feels like it completely guts the Paladin.
@@jonathanrich9281 I'm sure they will change it up. Combat might get a whole new feel to it. I'm holding on to my 2014 player's handbook, but I'm also curious what they will come up with.
@@jonathanrich9281 Guts Paladin? The effectiveness of the class never hinged on blowing its load all at once.
@@ReadingDave They were so set in nerfing the Paladin Nova style that I’m not optimistic, to be honest. For a lot of these playtest UAs, it seems like they’ve got a lot of the smaller Quality of Life fixes in, like the Light weapon property bonus action attack and Smites with fists and ranged weapons, but carving out the souls of the classes, like Paladin smites not being stackable and Druids now just having three forms and not gaining any defensive utility out of wildshape.
You can but you should know ehen to do it. My Pala is a defensive supporter but if anything gets to close to our casters crusher+divine+thunderous is a nice combo even if takes all your slots.
love the changes to find steed in itself, but it feels awkward & wrong that other classes get earlier & better access to it. smite spells also nicely improved, but again feels weird for other classes to be smiting, and in particular smiting earlier & better thanks to faster access to more and higher level spell slots.
I know they're trying to reduce the number of resources paladins track, but maybe divorcing find steed & smite from spell slots would have been worth experimenting with.
i like the new version of divine sense, but making a situational niche utility ability compete for limited uses for what are generally build defining combat abilities seems likely to have the same effect as just removing it from the game.
The devotion subclass is pretty great not gonna lie
@@RobWeld57 I don't think that this UA did revert Spiritual Weapon back. They had mentioned early on in playtesting if something wasn't mentioned in a new UA, to continue using the old UA version of it. Plus Spiritual Weapon isn't in the changelog so I think they're still planning to make it concentration
@@RobWeld57 the problem I see is most dnd combat is 4 rounds
The character I play most often and enjoy the most is an Oath of Devotion Paladin, so I was excited for this one. So far:
-Love all the updates to the Oath of Devotion itself, keep em
-The whole Find Steed thing reads less like it should be a spell/feature and more like it should be its own full subclass, akin to the Cavalier Fighter. My paladin is an 8 foot tall minotaur so he doesn't really need a steed, and I feel like this feature would go unused in how I play paladins generally
-Although the Smite changes make sense, I do wish that the limits on Smite would be lifted. For many of my players, Smite is why they love playing Paladins so much. Yeah you could just houserule it, but it sucks that you might have to.
You could get a specially formidable steed, and honestly diszgree, paladin find steed was always a liked combo for a lot of people even if it was kinda bad for a ton of reaons, this makes it very cool and profitable
Even if u dont want a mount, having a horse partner that youncan talk to and can helpu outnis super cool as a class feature
I called it.. smite punch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love this
Missing divine health and aura of courage being moved to level 13 really hits on the classic paladin feel
Having the extra pools of abilities was fine. Ive been playing paladin for 9 years and have never had an issue. Lumping it all into one resource nerfs his/her abilities hella hard
@@kidbuu511 Good. Paladins had too much as it was compared to other martial classes.
@@kidbuu511 I agree. Tracking was never a problem...or if it was: is an easy problem to solve. Having all lump into one feels weirds
Delivering divine judgement directly through paladins fists and conjuring enemies demise in form of blessed arrow directly in front of their eyes in the blessed longbow? Making the Paladin features be more versatile and more fluid to use yet keeping their meaning and power behind them and delivering on all the possible roleplay possibilities. Love it. Please keep it just as you described it, you're really getting good at delivering just what we want and need ❤️😇
"Paladins get free horseys"
-WotC, 2023
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Paladins going nova is the best part of being a paladin.
Considering paladins used to utterly eclipse every class that wasn’t a full caster, a lot of these changes were very much needed
yea right. lets nerf the only decent martial class instead of bringing them closer to full caster power. great game design.
Paladin has literally never been a purely martial class. It’s a half caster class, a Gish. Martials are Rogue, Fighter, Monk, Barbarian.
It’s actually been a roadblock in trying to get martials to be good because it had so much insane NOVA potential to compete with.
You also got a ton of stuff that Rangers wish they had.
That's not even remotely true WTF 😒
Sure paladins do nova but those are most often on crits if they're using spell slots tactfully. Compare that to a barbarian who is dealing an average of 22 damage per attack at EARLY game and going up from there.
Anyone who thinks martials are weak doesn't know my math.
@@Aidscapade71 except your math excludes that Paladins also have healing and support mechanics, can have a free mount, and can have higher AC than a Barbarian.
A Barbarian who, using that math, usually has to risk getting critted on with reckless attack to achieve that damage along with a feat tax.
There’s more to D&D than your number spreadsheet lol.
Smite should be a free resorce if you are limit to 1 a turn. It should be more like sneak attack then.
I like a good bit of these changes, like Find Steed which already felt integral to Paladins becoming a class feature. But I feel like limiting Divine Smites to once per turn and saying they can't be used with spells makes it hard to justify using them at all. Why would you use Divine Smite when you can use a spell slot for one of your other smite spells that have other bonus effects? The tiny bit of extra damage isn't enough to justify using it imo.
I wonder what they’re going to do with action surge if they’re worried about novas…
Same as always: Nerf it to death. The balancing concept is sadly pushing everything that sticks out down instead of lifting other skills up.
"Once per short rest you can make one additional weapon attack when you take the Attack Action"
I hope that martial paladins still feel relevant after these changes. I don’t mind opening up more options but I hope that martial paladins don’t become deeply suboptimal compared to ranged paladins.
Like maybe make melee smites slightly stronger than the ranged version.
I would also be lying if I didn’t feel sad about the smite changes. Stacking smites felt pretty fun and something that could be balanced by simply increasing the number of enemies a paladin faces against. (Maybe make stacking smites something only once per long rest like a channel divinity)
As a whole I just hope melee martials in onednd can still feel meaningful when played with casters since even in 5e melee lags a little behind ranged.
Sorry if someone reads this and finds it ranty but paladin is one of my favorite classes and some of the changes made me feel a little uneasy. I just hope I can love this new version of the class ( when it officially comes out) as much as I love the 5e paladin.
Paladin is my favorite class so I gotta say I think these are pretty fair changes for what we are getting in return. The only thing I'm hesitant about is not being able to cast spells on the same turn you use divine smite because I think it might have some action economy issues but I look forward to play testing it and seeing how it feels
I was surprised they didn't give the option to cast non smite spells.
Considering the Magic and Attack actions usually take… an action, it makes sense
@@ZeroRoyale Except for things like you know... being hasted, bonus action spells like compelled dual, healing word, or armor of faith and very niche examples like being able to quicken a spell with a feat or cross classing into a sorcerer.
@@Top_Knite interesting point. That is something to consider. If it doesn’t come to pass, we can simply cast the spells and not smite on the same turn
My fav class as well but I usually end up multiclassing. My characters do not have to be super powerful I just like mixing and matching to find good synergies. I must admit I hate the changes to smite. Reminds me a lot about the sentinel/Polearm aster debate: If the few skills that offer interesting mechanics are overpowered that means the other skills are too lame.
I am fine with doing less damage but loosing the ability to build around crits or not being able to quicken a cure wounds cause I used smite pretty much kills this version of paladin.
Time for a paladin with a glock let's go!
Bayonetta here I come
A good necromancer is my dream as a main wizard player!
I like getting more uses and options for channel divinity on Paladin. Not sure how I feel on smite restrictions since the cost of a spell slot is already pretty high, but the damage limit and ranged weapon change is nice. I will say though, making a ranged Paladin will be incredibly MAD so I don’t think that change is as nice as it sounds
I'm with Jeremy and Todd in that it's not always fun when a Paladin is able to use 2 or 3 smites in a single turn, and completely obliterate a monster before their turn even comes.
Casters can't use more than one leveled spell in a turn, it makes zero sense that Paladins could just churn through all their resources at triple the pace. This is a good change, even if it is a bit of a nerf to the Paladin's burst potential.
@@daviddalrymple2284 the same thing can be done with casters and spells. I think it’s important to have the option to spend all my resources to take out a high priority target and spending a spell slot on hypnotic pattern or fireball has a lot more impact than spending a spell slot on an extra 4d8 damage for one attack. Plus by the time Paladins can do that casters have 5th level spells
@@SheenaMalfoy it makes sense to me because divine smite is generally worse than just casting a spell. Would you rather do 2d8 damage to one target or cast bless?
The limit of once-per-round is good, but the limitation of smite or spell is trash.
Dude more necromancer stuff, it’s such a cool concept, it’s just damn near impossible to feel like a powerful necromancer without using every single spell slot on maintaining control
maybe use less spell and have a smaller army? if you use every slot in a army wont complain about dont have other option,.
We have done few high 17-20 campaigns. It would be nice to have some guidance of ways we could explore reasons and fun of over twenty play. Maybe like the top teirs of fourth edition.
What is telegram?
I'm excited for unarmed smites. The first character I ever made was a dragonborn paladin. Their god is Torm who's holy symbol is a right handed gauntlet, so it makes sense that I'd want to smite some baddies with the gauntlet they wear that represents their god.
As would be their duty.
I saw mention under the Shortsword entry that weapons are going to have more nuance, and while I'm what that entails, I'm excited.
"is this going to unbalance high lvl play?" ... Can safely say high lvl is where balance fundamentally goes to die. And in a game like dnd that says something.
That seems to be a problem primarily exclusive to dnd right now
@@sqoo5 I would say it is exacerbated in D&D but is often an issue in RPGs overall. Not every one, and in some it's pretty great, but it isn't exclusive.
Balance is a subjective and tricky beast of game design. There is a large quantity of variables that change frequently. It can be easily skewed. There also arises a lot of questions. Is balanced play fun, or is it boring? Does it make sense for the circumstances, or should unbalanced play naturally arise? What does balanced play even look like?
What was confusing or tricky about the spell smites? Cast it as a bonus action and hit your enemy as an action so the effect activates on the same turn. Fairly easy to understand imo
Had a scary fellow in our party one time by the name of Markus…Conquest Paladin by this time.
We encountered a T-Rex in the jungles of Chult; and Markus had been disarmed of his weapons during the battle.
As the T-Rex lowered itself to feast upon our pinned Paladin, our player inquired with the GM if he could smite with his forehead.
…the GM allowed this; and because this was an undead T-Rex, the radiant energy from the impact of the headbutt was enough to kill the dinosaur.
…also hilariously, the top half of Markus’s face had been blackened & charred by the radiant damage.
Look smites once per turn can be a fine change and a good balancing option if they left everything else about smites unchanged. But Smite no longer deal extra damage to Fiends and Undead and they no longer combo with with spells, because you can’t cast and smite on the same turn. You are essentially paying a spell slot to use a less effective sneak attack that only scales if you use you more precious spell slots. This also doesn’t just effect smite spells, Paladins struggle with positioning too, Ancients Paladins amended this with Misty step so you can close the gap, but now if you Crit on the attack after Misty stepping you can’t smite and lose your damage.
Idk I just think this is a bit harsh on Pallys, yes they are strong but they are also martials, which struggle immensely compared to caster and they are usually one of the few classes that can keep up. I mean at least we can punch and bow smite, but idk if the sacrifices are even worth it.
I totally agree as someone who almost exclusively plays paladin I'd rather only be able to smite with a weapon if I could at least also stack on a smite spell or some other spell.
"No cap" - Todd Kenreck, 2023
THE PALADIN MONK IS FINALLY HERE
Yes just make sure you have 13 strength dexterity wisdom and charisma
Hello iron fist
I never in a million years thought necromancer would be the sample wizard subclass. It's what I play right now and we had to change it so much just to make it viable. I've been wanting a change so bad and I would actually love more options than just summoning the undead. I really feel like necromancers should be the way wizards can heal, just not as effectively as a cleric and it requires that life to come from another source but with more options. Grim Harvest was a good idea but it relies on the necromancer to be the one making the killing blow and only heals them
I doubt Necromancer is gonna be THE sample subclass, but rather one of the total 48 subclasses making it into the "base" OneD&D game (of which we're gonna get to playtest them all eventually). I can't imagine anything other than Evocation being the default Wizard subclass.
He said later in the year. I'm guessing the first Wizard subclass will be Evoker. They're putting 48 subclasses (4/class) in the playtest, so there will be more coming later.
I mean, it's neither confirmed nor denied which will be the sample wizard subclass but given how long it will be until the next one I find it unlikely he would mention it if it wasn't already on the horizon. That being said, assuming it isn't Necromancy what subclass would you assume would be the sample school? Because I've never seen any single school stand out as the definitive Wizard school. Closest I can imagine is maybe Evoker
Though I would prefer Transmutation if it had to be a school other than Necromancy
Salty Paladin Player here. I am not a fan of the one smite per turn change. This might actually be problematic since Smites are best played on Crits. It only needs to happen once: You hit your first attack: you smite. You CRIT with your second attack: you cry. OR you hit with first attack, you don't smite (hoping for the crit) then you MISS your second! You didn't smite at all. And this will make Players ask the DM if they could add the smite to the first attack (which most cool DMs might allow but not everyone is).
As a resident paladin enjoyer, the change makes sense and I'm not too sad about it. I question restricting it for SPELLS as well, that makes no sense to me. But 1/turn in general I totally get. Paladins are great at EVERYTHING so nerfing their absurd DPR is only logical.
@@theindiefox347I totally think it's fair as well. Paladins are too good at murdering. I just think design-wise, this is sorta problematic since it'll create a lot of gambling and "Mother-may-I".
I honestly think you're just creating a hyperbole. I'm sure it'll happen but most players are usually adults about these type of things.
@@ldavepedrialva My group and I have gotten around the "mother may I problem" by house ruling that you make your attacks in groups.
1st set of attacks ( action) and get to determine which one crits/ smites. All of these Have to be made on a single target. If you want to attack one target with your 1st attack and another target with your 2nd attack, then you roll those individually, and The dice ruling stands on which creature got crit against and/or if you didn't take down the 1st opponent whether they get an opportunity attack or you attack the 2nd opponent.
If the player wants to make a 2nd set of attacks ( bns action / off hand/ surge/ ect) the same rules apply.
Our table, Who usually campaign between levels 3 and 10, had already limited the number of smites that could used per round specifically to limit "The Nova effect" because we as a group agreed that we didn't want to be "the paladin and his backup buddies". We viewed the smites much like the rogue sneak attack; great for bursts, but if overused make it too easy to steal the show
Don't forget. Until we get change on how crits work, smites don't crit anymore
I'm really glad they're explicitly playtesting a Necromancer archetype: They'll have to face the "too many minions for a player to control" problem with necromancers (and summoners in general)
I like that there is no more damage cap off for smite. The once per turn and the fact it can't stack with a smite spell is kind of trash though. Then again, now we have ranged and unarmed. So honestly, as someone who plays paladins all the time, this seems fair, and will help stretch out combat. I'm hesitantly positive
It's not a buff or a nerf, it's a rework on it and I think it's all for the best. It creates more character customization options and less inconsistent combat encounters.
@@midwestindigo1397 not really. The smite is just worthless. Why smite if you could bless the party. Or use any buff spell. Measly 2d8 damage is worthless compared to bless or any kind of buff. And that is the max it can do. Cause no extra dice on crit, no 2 smites a turn, no spells the same turn
Read the UA and really like the changes to Paladin. Still need a bit of work on clarity.
Continuing to appreciate the base rule changes. :)
Please don't limit the Paladin to either cast a spell OR smite ONCE. The one smite per turn is understandable, but at least, by using a bonus action regularly, allow them to use the smite spells.
Beefing up high cr monsters!! Yes! Yes! Awesome!
I liked keeping track of all that for my paladin. Dont like dumbing stuff down and streamlining too much. That being said I like a lot of this.
I don't mind smite being once per turn or that it longer deals extra damage to undead and fiends. I think its silly to fear the paladin nova so much, especially if adventuring days are sufficiently long. But regardless, these changes are ok.
What I don't like is how you can't cast spells and and smite on the same turn. It reduces the options I have available for my paladin. I can't misty step to the bad guy and hit them with a divine strike, I am just limited in my options like that. What if I have haste going? I cast a cure wounds with my action then go to hit the bad guy with my hasted action and I can't smite them. That is very limiting in my opinion.
Another issue I have is also related to options. Why does the devotion paladin only get his offensive channel divinity? Where's the utility/defense option? I always thought it was one of the most exciting elements of the paladin subclass.
I will add that I love that they fixed the smite spells! Finally! Now I can concentrate on a spell and still use my smite spells, adding versatility. And the smite spells that are still concentration, kind of deserve it, so that is all good.
PLEASE SACRED WEAPON SHOULD ADD THE MODIFIER TO THE DAMAGE AS WELL.
i like that now you can do ranged paladins!
When I heard ranged Strike my brain went to Archer, "I am the bone of my sword"
A lot of good changes from what it seems, but one thing I noticed is that the Paladin seems to become even stronger, while imo already being the strongest martial. I am not against martials getting a bit of a buff, but I think with this context the Ranger and the Rogue could use a little bit more than they got in the playtest they were in.
+1 on the playtest
necromancer
be ready to see this soon : "oh you want a feat where you can smite stack and crit on your stacked smites? for just $0.99 and unlock this feat today for the next 24 hours"
I think Divine Health should still be a feature for the Paladin.
The steed stuff sounds dope.
YESS! I will want to just play a full Pally instead of multiclassing really! I mean Paladins are hard not to go full class anyway, but still.
The once-per-round for Divine Smite is a good limitation, but the limitation with the spells is an EXTREMELY BAD change, I hope it does not make it to the final version otherwise it will be homebrewed to oblivion...
The other changes are good, and will streamline the class more.
I, for one , think instead that it is a very good change. May I ask, out of curiosity, why you personally think that it is bad for the class?
@@mattmakermusic I don't like the 1 spell per round limitation in general, but it's understandable for full casters.
In this case the Paladin does not even cast a spell with the smite regardless of the spend spell slot, plus it's weaker than most spells. Also, there are a ton of utility and support spells that require a Bonus Action to cast, this will just make fights take longer for no reason because the Paladin will not be able to do anything else after a smite while wasting his Bonus Action.
Plus combined with the change of the smite spells that he will also not be able to add, and the change to the once-per-round smite, he loses an incredible amount of damage potential. Some of them are welcome, all of them together are a colossal nerf.
@@OnigoroshiZero Ah, I understand now. Thanks!
@@mattmakermusic why? Paladins that can cast anything but smite and use divine smite usually invested quiet a bit of skills/resources. It is powerful but drains so much that you can only use it where it counts. The changes turn it into yet another roundly routine skill. killing a lot of the strategic component. I would rather remove the paladins bonus action spells and make them options for the divine smite ability.
@@oliveranan4881 When I wrote the original comment I had just concluded a session (as the DM) where the paladin stacked smite spells on top of divine smite and then secured a critical hit thanks to the divination wizard, which led to the boss of the encounter going from 200 Hit Points to 30 in a single attack which also banished said boss, so I was a bit mad at the concept of smite stacking in general. In hindsight, I realize that was just a good way to spend resources and good teamwork, aside from being kinda the point of having a burst damage dealer in the group.
Since then, however, I have changed my mind on that limitation and think that it is a little... stupid? I realize they are trying to prevent things like the episode I described earlier from happening again and throwing off the balance of an encounter, but doing it by taking away all the cool things that players could once do isn't the way to go, I realized. So yeah, I agree with you.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Some Warlock Hints as well are interesting. I hope the warlock has Int as a playtest option again. Also, I am so curious as to how it will work, Maybe it will get it's Pact magic like the Channel Divinity/primal ability now? Getting a certain number to start at the beginning of the day, and then per short rest & eventually upon inintiive roll getting another slot? Time will tell but the mind is racing. What do you think @ToddKenreck?
I really want warlocks to be int casters. They’re literally described as “seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse” or something like that in their intro text. You don’t do that with charm and force of will, you do that with intense study and intellection.
I do, however, think they’re going to keep the “channel x” to the priest group of characters, but we may see a similarly structured concept in the warlock, where it has one resource that can be spent on multiple things, some of which are subclass-specific. I’m most interested to see how they change invocations, because while they are cool and versatile, they are one of the most complex things the warlock has. Given they’re moving to a simplification of the rules as a whole, I don’t think the entire invocation list is going to remain.
The paladin is pretty good. It does look like the old level 20 feature has been tuned down a bit in the devotion subclass, even though it was kinda weak. Will mean when transferring older subclasses they will be way better.
P.s. also sucks the flying find familiar doesn't get flyby ability.
They didn't put the 5d8 max for smite. So Sorc/pally2 just became stronger. 10d8 with 9th level spell.
Giving half-casters the ability to cast a free Oath/Domain spell is great--but only if you refrain from connecting other abilities to spell slots, which seems to be the inclination in the UA design so far.
Love/hate relationship with the new smiting. The balance thing I am totally fine with. Having it be a bonus action that works like a reaction feels clunky. Why not just making it a reaction that happens on your turn?
If they did this, then paladins would lose their ability to use opportunity attacks when things move past them/away from them which they’re probably trying to avoid.
Paladin champion of horse racing, called Captain Falcon. FALCON PUNCH.
I'm with Todd, I love my creepy characters...can't wait to hear what is in store for the necromancer.
The way is worded, smite now works on ranged weapons
Do Channel Divinity between Cleric and Paladin stack?
Unless it's spelled out, it always just meant that you gained more options for the same number of Channel Divinity uses.
While considering the future of d&d is at stake will this play test be available to use in the character creator on d&dbeyond?
How about making the whole CR system more concrete, because as is, it doesn't really mean anything in terms of encounter building
As a beginner DM, I find it so hard to understand the math behind it
Yay!!! I love Necromancy Necromancers!! I love these play tests, you can really see the effort put into these new features, and I can’t wait. I am just sad that there won’t be many of the races from Mordenkainens Monsters of the Multiverse, because the campaign I am building requires that racial diversity, and although 5.5 is “backwards compatible”, I don’t think it will be worth it to run this amazing new rule set on 5.5, until those features come out. The goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, centaurs, fairies, etc. are just too important. + I would be over the moon if Tiny races were added, or tiny race rules even.
@@voodoophil Thank you, that’s actually a very big help!
To the salty paladin players: did you know that other classes can spend their spell slots to attack and THEN find out if it misses? Smites are already forgiving
Yes, please buff necromancers!
Radiant Strikes should be allowed for unarmed strikes, please don’t make me homebrew that like I’ve always had to with divine smite
I don't like having divine smite on ranged attacks but I support it on kicks and punches. Also, I won't support only one divine smite per turn. The rest sound pretty good and I will continue to allow divine smite on attacks of opportunity.
personally my favorite version of a DnD necromancer was a 3.5 prestige class called "true Necromancer" it wasnt just an arcane specialty, it was a fusion of arcane and divine magic. fantastic concept. a bit OP (my favorite bit was the passive aura of desecration)
Imagine taking away extra thematic smite damage vs fiends and undead, ya know, the classic enemies of paladins which allowed them to excel. Why ever use divine smite when you can just use the bonus action spells to do more damage?
This. Though I think I'd rather that be pushed further. Have Divine Smite either become a spell or a Channel Divinity option and then have the 2nd level feature become an improvement to Smite spells.
They don't do more damage, Smite starts at 2d8 damage. The smite spells do less damage but have added effects
I feel like it would make sense to just turn Divine Smite into a spell, would it not? I'm sure it's still a feature so it can be tweaked by other features potentially, and maybe they don't want non-paladins to have a neutral smite (even if the other smites are available), but as described here, it just sounds like another spell that's always prepared.
Finally a Divine Archer😁
Paladin needed these changes so don't bend the knee to the complainers!
I would prefer to keep Divine Heatlh, instead of adding something such as Divine Steed
Love these changes!
The smite with ranged weapons makes me think if Barb from John Ringo's "Princess of Wands" who was channeling divine aura through her hand gun.
As a non paladin player, but a martial enjoyer... Are we really sure nerfing the paladin is the way to go? I expected all martials to become much stronger in tier 3 and onwards, so sad to see this is not a staple of early decision making in the desing of Onednd :/
First of all, Paladin is the one "Martial" class that didn't need buff because it was a half-caster and it had smite...
Secondly, these changes are not nerfs... in no world are these ever nerfs!
They are adjustments that make the class cleaner, clearer and less frontloaded to play, but give it back everything it loses in the smite department in other places to compensate for it...
@@mojin7470 This is definitely a nerf across the board, no bonus dmg vs fiends/undead, no way to cure disease/not immune to disease, smites being utterly gutted
@@crushcommando8637fiends and undead unless in a campaign specific won't come up that much, not many abilities at all inflicted disease, smites arnt gutted and don't take up concentration! You can now keep up other valuable spells, along with the free cast of an oath spell and find steed you'll have more of the largely the same smites just stretched out
@@crushcommando8637its not really a nerf they removed 2 ribbon features and reworked smites
@@dantea7475 he meant the base class smite, not the spell you dummy. I played literally 14 paladins and I hate this change. The problem with their reasoning "Why should other players feel like lackeys" while freaking caster throw meteor and freaking fireball at all thr enemies freaking infuriates me
One smite per turn is bad. Given some of the feat changes that made sentinel, shield master, etc weaker it’s hard to justify a melee Paladin. There is room between one and tons.
You didn’t “reign it in a little bit” you attacked it multiple ways.
dropping his devine smite dps and improving spellcasting is a much better change for the class, spellcasting always felt secondary to the point where charisma was not a requirement for most builds
But that's the point of a paladin. If you want to be a divine caster, then why play a paladin? You should be playing a cleric
@@ДюсековИльяс then why have spellcasting to begin with; either make work or not have it at all, spellcasting for the paladin is as core for him as any other class
Super excited for these paladin changes, looks like its going to be a lot of fun to play without overshadowing other classes so much!
Feel the same way!
Great changes. I like everything that I heard. The Paladin will be much better balanced.
The whole point of the paladin is the tank nova
The changes seem neat.
I think smite spells should have been eliminated and folded into divine smite as options
That would be a nice change
I would've liked it if smite still did more damage to fiends and undead but I'm happy how it turned out.
I'm fine with the limit use of smite... but don't limit use of spell... I want to smite and then cast healing words to heal someone... but I can't now... make that you can't use multiple smite together but allow the use of support and healing spells
As someone who’s played an oath breaker paladin in 2 campaigns. Smite absolutely needed a nerf. Going to miss those 200+ damage rounds, but not salty about it. It was long overdue.
So weird, to see Jeremy say they've made things better, and more powerful, when the only changes to the Paladin are basically nerfs, with the exception of the one thing that didn't need a buff (Smiting), not only did they lose the ability to remove diseases, they lost...yanno, one of their archetypical features of actually being immune to diseases, the shuffling of abilities also has hurt them all over the place, egads.
NERF? MY GUY ARE YOU BLIND? As a resident Paladin enjoyer they kept all the things I wanted, and smoothed out all the things I thought needed tweeking. Calling this a nerf is laughable. More Channel Divinity uses, Bonus Action Divine Sense that lasts 10 minutes, any fighting style you want, cantrips, more spell options, Sacred Weapon for Devotion is now a BONUS ACTION. I'm so happy. The only thing I do agree as a nerf is Divine Smite, but divine smite was hilariously busted and needed a nerf anyway.
How is removing the ability to cure diseases your one thing that you focus on as a big nerf?
Its literally the most pointless feature in all of the paladin class in the 2014 version...
Like what?
Some nerfs, but the smite on unarmed attacks and ranged weapons is pretty good.
smite was always balanced. limited to 5d8(6d8). it costs spell slots. it works on one enemy. by the time the paladin can max a smite too, a wizard can use steel wind strike which is stronger and is an AOE, or use shadow blade and have consistent high damage. sorcerers can do the same (except steel wind strike)
paladins were fine