Yo! so one DnD isnt out yet and things can and prob will change but from what iv been able to find they nerfed divine smite so hard not allowing to DS on every attack if they want it was the paladins main thing (along with auras) and it sounds like it will feel worse. that being said i do like the changes where you can use it with other things like unarmed strikes and stuff.
has there been anymore news and its already been changed? what are your opinions on it?
Lol the common theme for the releases are “ backward compatibility “ so you can select what you want from either version. The point is to have fun and play. I’m with you about mixing what you like and don’t
Lol the common theme for the releases are “ backward compatibility “ so you can select what you want from either version. The point is to have fun and play. I’m with you about mixing what you like and don’t
Your guys' game of course do what you'd like; I'm just repeating what WOTC said themselves; the 2024 PHB changes are being balanced for the 2024 PHB classes.
It's not meant to cherry pick through each so you can just have the divine smites of 5e and the aura of 2024 PHB. But you do you, you're not at my table idc lol
Lol the common theme for the releases are “ backward compatibility “ so you can select what you want from either version. The point is to have fun and play. I’m with you about mixing what you like and don’t
Your guys' game of course do what you'd like; I'm just repeating what WOTC said themselves; the 2024 PHB changes are being balanced for the 2024 PHB classes.
It's not meant to cherry pick through each so you can just have the divine smites of 5e and the aura of 2024 PHB. But you do you, you're not at my table idc lol
Where did they say this? alot of the selling point of these books was based on backwards compatibility and how they would work inner changeably
The most recent descriptions are that a 2024 paladin and a 2014 paladin will be able to play at the same table and it will be fine. Not that you can mix and match. But we also haven't seen guidance on any backward compatibility. It would be ridiculous if for example Bigby's Giant book was not allowed with the new rules. For those who spent money on it while waiting for these new rule sets that would be some BS.
There was an article I can’t seem to link that clarified a bit
A common question that's come up on the Internet is whether existing subclasses originally made for what Wizards of the Coast is calling the "2014 rules" can be used with the new class rules found in the newPlayer's Handbook. For instance, can the Bladesinger (a popular Wizard subclass) be used with the 2024 Wizard rules? ComicBook has received confirmation from Wizards of the Coast that older subclasses can be used with the 2024 character class rules. Assumably, this means there will be guidance in thePlayer's Handbook on how to do this, similar to how players can use races and backgrounds from older books to use when making characters using the 2024 rules.
One thing to keep clear – players should not mix abilities from their 2014 subclasses with their 2024 subclass equivalent. So, for example, if a player chooses to build a 2024 Assassin (a Rogue subclass), they can't swap in a feature from the 2014 ruleset in place of a similar feature in the 2024 ruleset. Likewise, players can't build a 2014 Assassin but utilize a 2024 subclass equivalent to a subclass feature.
they just talked about it on the official youtube. Divine Smite is now a spell. Which will limit it to once per turn.
Fact is you cannot pick and choose what you like from 5e and from the new 2024 PHB and combine them.
I'm okay with Paladin changes, they may be a bit weaker but maybe they'll just have more interesting utility. The aura change sounds very good.
Bonus action smite and it being a spell is horrible for so many reasons.
Let me explain why this smite change is bad
1. Magic immunity. Some creatures, like rakshashas or Tiamat, are immune to spells that are 5th level or lower. Paladins can’t get spell slots above 5th level without Multiclassing, and smites likely won’t be able to be upcasted past 5th level like before. And even if they removed the limitation, that would just means Paladin/sorcerer multiclass wouldn’t just be powerful, but it would be required. How else is a Paladin devoted to Bahamut supposed to smite Tiamat like a badass should? What a way to ruin the paladin fantasy by preventing paladins from smiting fiends…
2. Counterspell. Smites being spells means it can be counterspelled, which is stupid, Ludicrous and nonsensical.
3. Paladins can no longer smite when underwater or under the effects of a silence spell, or if their mute.
4. Paladins can no longer be effective dual wielders or polearm masters. Dual wielding already requires a lot to invest in so that it can work, why punish this further? BA smite removes more versatility and customization from paladins
5. you can’t use bonus action abilities. What was the point of BA lay on hands if smite is just gonna eat up bonus action anyways?
6. You can’t smite and cast a spell on the same turn. Say you wanted to use a spell that is an action and uses a melee weapon, and you wanted to smite with it. Well you can’t, cause smite is a spell and you can only cast a spell once per turn
7. You can’t smite on opportunity attacks. Say you really need to smite this one enemy to prevent them from healing and soon, but you miss all your attacks… but then later you get a successful opportunity attack. Well doesn’t matter, cause you aren’t able to smite as an opportunity attack now
8. Paladin/barbarians multiclass can no longer smite while ranging. A barbarian/glory Paladin would be so fun thematically and flavor wise and yet WoTC decided to punish an already MAD and unoptimal multiclass.
Most people aren’t against the idea of paladins being able to only smite once per round. Most of us are against it being a bonus action spell. I don’t understand why they couldn’t have just added “you can only smite once EoR round” to smite and leave it at that. It didn’t need to be turned into a BA spell in a game with already restrictive and poor action economy
Pathfinder2e is able to get away with all magical abilities being spells because it doesn’t have any monsters with “magic immunity”. 5e has monsters like rakshasha with magic immunity, and smites can’t be casted past 5th level, so smites should not have been turned into a spell
maybe smites as a spell would work with a 6e where the entire system is built from the ground up, where things like rakshashas or Tiamat can be made with smites in mind
i aggree on almost all of those things, as well as paladin went down to D-Tier, only 1 very niche build that makes them a tiny bit of playable ( but best way is to just dump the stupid 2024 changs => houseruling divine smite to just be useable once / turn and disregard all the other stupid stuff )
now to the point i disagree :)
4. Paladins can no longer be effective dual wielders - thats the niche build i'm talking about, dual wielding is the only way for them to "weaponize" their bonus action, but i expect wotc to patch that very quickly sadly :( - what to do : you use either 2 light weapons with one having the nick weapon mastery ( scimitar / dagger ) if you use a weapon with nick your offhand attack is done in your attack action and not your bonus action if you want to maximize your dps you get the dual wielder feat ( allows you to use a non light weapon in your main hand ) use a weapon with flex if you don't want to look like a drizzt clone, longsword comes to mind you take 2 weapon fighting as your fighting style build paladin 5 / sorcerer 15 is probaly the best combination for this, might also go p 7 / s 13 so you still get the aura
as a result in this build you will have 2+1 attacks and can smite, but you still loose any kind of versatility, since 99% of them need the bonus action
as for the now you can use the "smite" spells like banishing smite and so on, i can only say they are still very restricted in how to be possible to use, and you still use dmg if you use them instead of just smiting ..... there might be a very very very niche use of them but thats it -> wotc i give you a F for not even trying and not understanding your game
if you want to decrease the chance of getting countered you have now a feat tax including : war caster & resilent ( con ) and if you go the sorcadin route you best pick up the subtle spell metamagic => solves the silence and underwater as well as the counterspelling problem :)
the magic immunity can only be countered with the sorcadin build, if you have lvl 6+ spell slots available sadly :(
and the worst part now is, that the warlock will be a better nova melee combatant in addition to everything else the warlock offers
Lol the common theme for the releases are “ backward compatibility “ so you can select what you want from either version. The point is to have fun and play. I’m with you about mixing what you like and don’t
Your guys' game of course do what you'd like; I'm just repeating what WOTC said themselves; the 2024 PHB changes are being balanced for the 2024 PHB classes.
It's not meant to cherry pick through each so you can just have the divine smites of 5e and the aura of 2024 PHB. But you do you, you're not at my table idc lol
The beauty of pen and paper games is that it's not a video game, you can literally do whatever you want.
Making Smite a bonus action *and* a spell is about the dumbest thing I've come across in DnD since... forever (and I'm talking about the 1970s).
It's not like straight Paladins were ridiculously overpowered and needed nerfing. Smites were the only way Paladins could try (and fail) to keep up with the damage dealt out by fighters and magic-users, and they still maxed out at 5d8 (6d8 on fiends/undead) and were limited by spell slots. And, no, one free smite a day and a cool horse don't make up for turning them into actual, easily negated spells. Nor does weapon mastery, which is hella cool but makes Paladins more like fighters and barbarians (though less powerful) and actually detracts from the divine magic.
Bonus action divine smite - are you kidding me? So no smite spell and divine smite (for two reasons!). No shield shove and smite. No two-weapon fighting and smiting. Even a Reaction would be better than a BA, and more in keeping with the way you can add a smite after hitting. How in all the Hells is adding damage to a hit that you're making *while you're making it* in any way a bonus action???? It's unfathomably absurd.
And, gods!, it's not like smites were the only free action. Sneak attack is free, unlimited by spell slots (or are they going to nerf that too?) and can deals a ton of damage on every hit (3d6 at level 5). Sword Bards' blade flourishes are free actions that burn an inspiration slot the same way smites burn a spell slot. A 5th level sword bard could have up to 5x 1d8 flourishes per short rest (and spells like shatter capable of dealing 3d8 twice per long rest) while a 5th level straight paladin would have just 3x (now 4x) 2d8 smites.
So Paladin smites weren't broken or unbalanced - and they were protected from abuse by multiclassing because they were capped at 5th level spell power. There was no upcasting beyond that. It wasn't broke, and it didn't need fixing. The only thing that needed fixing, maybe, was letting lower levels smite a bit more often - and there were ways to do that without turning them into spells and granting just one - ooooh so generous - free slot.
One DnD Paladins simply aren't Paladins any more, and the reason 2024 ruleset Paladins can play at the same table as 2014 Paladins is that they're simply a different class.
Seriously unimpressed - but, hey. AT least it saves me buying the new books.
I don't mind the changes to paladin, even smite. As a DM I've watched a single pld just about solo a boss by novaing.. other encounters that were supposed to be hard got real easy with a lucky crit smite nova pld.
Spell resistance could be an issue, but this is assuming that the new versions of those monsters/NPC's will still have it, or that it will be worded the same.
I am not fond of the possibility of counter-spelling a smite, the changes to counterspell will help with this, but as a DM I am likely to just alter smite having it bypass magic resistance and immune to counterspell.
I don't mind the changes to paladin, even smite. As a DM I've watched a single pld just about solo a boss by novaing.. other encounters that were supposed to be hard got real easy with a lucky crit smite nova pld.
Spell resistance could be an issue, but this is assuming that the new versions of those monsters/NPC's will still have it, or that it will be worded the same.
I am not fond of the possibility of counter-spelling a smite, the changes to counterspell will help with this, but as a DM I am likely to just alter smite having it bypass magic resistance and immune to counterspell.
almost no one is complaining about the once / turn to use a smite that would be a good thing imho too, but the once per turn and needs to use a bonus action to use divine smite is even worse then the once / turn usage and completly destroys any kind of choice a paladin has .... if a paladin wants to smite at all now he is forced to go twf, no other way around it. Now to add even insult to injury you have classes that do sustained damage 4-5x as high as a Paladin can achieve ..... and each hit they do hits like a smite which uses a lvl 11 spell slot ( ok, they need a lvl 9 spell slot to do that, but it will last for 3-6hrs )
without even trying much, you can make a character that is doing beyond 500 sustained dmg / round in tier 4 play every 2nd round 1000 dmg / round in "nova" ( if you can even call that nova ) and thats without using smites or a Paladin lvl at all
and even if you ban the spell responsible for that the same char can still do ~250 ( 500 nova ) while the Paladin ( sorcadin ) reaches around 150 ( smites don't increase the dmg at all )
if you add simulacrum to that char it about doubles these numbers
Lol the common theme for the releases are “ backward compatibility “ so you can select what you want from either version. The point is to have fun and play. I’m with you about mixing what you like and don’t
Your guys' game of course do what you'd like; I'm just repeating what WOTC said themselves; the 2024 PHB changes are being balanced for the 2024 PHB classes.
It's not meant to cherry pick through each so you can just have the divine smites of 5e and the aura of 2024 PHB. But you do you, you're not at my table idc lol
The beauty of pen and paper games is that it's not a video game, you can literally do whatever you want.
That’s the point. Unless you’re not doing that, then you’re doing that. That’s absolutely true
Pretty sure you would still be able to damage a rakshasa or Tiamat with the One DnD Divine Smite. The spell is cast on you (range "self"), not the rakshasa or Tiamat, giving your attacks extra radiant damage. Thus, they take the damage, unless they're immune to radiant damage. At least that's how I read it.
Btw, I hate losing my bonus action to do a Divine Smite. I would have much preferred some sort of rule that paladins can only smite once per turn, like Sneak Attack for rogues, rather than this. Losing bonus action economy kills one of my favorite weapons and feats for a paladin, the glaive/halberd and Polearm Master feat. Seems to me that PAM no longer is workable for a paladin. Instead of giving paladins more options, WotC seems to have given them fewer. Also, no smiting with an opportunity attack and such. Even rogues get to use Sneak Attack outside of their turn. Sneak Attack scales and doesn't cost the rogue anything, only with a finite resource can paladins smite. So yeah, I think I'm playing classes OTHER than paladin in a One DnD game.
The issue I have with your response is that you, and many others, seem to think to goal of a character build is solely to do mass amounts of damage. Much of the new material in the 2024 books actually looks to reduce damage numbers but increase your tactical options. The changes to smite are in line with that.
I guess it's a difference of the goal we see as I and those I tend to play with aren't pushing min/max builds.
Now I'm not saying that min/maxing is bad, just that's not the way we tend to think. I think that difference in point of view is why we tend not to see this as a negative.
The issue I have with your response is that you, and many others, seem to think to goal of a character build is solely to do mass amounts of damage. Much of the new material in the 2024 books actually looks to reduce damage numbers but increase your tactical options. The changes to smite are in line with that.
I guess it's a difference of the goal we see as I and those I tend to play with aren't pushing min/max builds.
Now I'm not saying that min/maxing is bad, just that's not the way we tend to think. I think that difference in point of view is why we tend not to see this as a negative.
the problem is, that the change to divine smite does not increase your tactical options, since if you smite you loose your bonus action ...... And the 2024 books are very selectly reducing damage ( read paladin ) but massivly !!!!! buff the damag ( melee ) for full casters ( bard, sorcerer, wizard ) for absurd amounts that even the 2014 Paladin wouldn't be able to reach even if he would hit 3x critical ....
e.g. Valor Bard ( 2024 ) version can reach 500 - 1300 damage in 1 Round vs. the 100 damage a paladin can do ..... my honest question here is ( and i know its a group game and i play it like that and i don't really optimize ) do you think that is the right way to go ? and to top that off if a paladin reaches tier 4 play he will loose damage if he smites with a lvl 5 slot vs just auto attacking. almost double the damage of Valor Bard if he has time to prepare a simulacrum ..... sure he won't hit with every of his 7-20 attacks he will get ( w/o any magic items )
What the ones "complaining" about is not the once / Round smite, but the bonus action cost, which just not only robs you of damage, but also takes away all of your tactical options your mentioning
The issue I have with your response is that you, and many others, seem to think to goal of a character build is solely to do mass amounts of damage. Much of the new material in the 2024 books actually looks to reduce damage numbers but increase your tactical options. The changes to smite are in line with that.
I guess it's a difference of the goal we see as I and those I tend to play with aren't pushing min/max builds.
Now I'm not saying that min/maxing is bad, just that's not the way we tend to think. I think that difference in point of view is why we tend not to see this as a negative.
The problem with your response is that you're wrong, many other classes are doing more damage and sometimes MUCH more damage. No, it's not entirely about damage, but some of it is. Players get a thrill out of feeling effective and a "hero" moment. Paladins aren't the best support class. Paladins are emergency healers, but they aren't really healers in the same sense that clerics, druids, divine soul sorcerers are. Paladins aren't really damage dealers, anymore, nor were they the largest damage dealers in 5e either! With divine smite now being a bonus action, paladins really only have their action...unless they never smite. Which may be the way to go? I think the only role left for paladins is one option and one only...sword and board, tank. You will do piddling damage, but you can take defensive minded feats/fighting styles and raise your AC by your proficiency bonus or help reduce damage on allies. That's your only serious option...IF you want to still play a paladin? IMO, the best option is to not play a paladin and go to a different class, that got love in One DnD. All of this assumes you play One DnD, buy all their books, instead of just stay with 5e. I think a whole lot of people are going to do that. It wouldn't be the first new DnD edition to flop.
I suppose I don't understand the problem because I've never thought of, tried, or even knew anyone who did try to get those kinds of damage numbers.
I've never played in a campaign or one shot that requires those kinds of numbers. So perhaps we chalk out difference of opinion to just different play styles.
I do understand the math you put up, I just never saw the point of those kinds of damage numbers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yo! so one DnD isnt out yet and things can and prob will change but from what iv been able to find they nerfed divine smite so hard not allowing to DS on every attack if they want it was the paladins main thing (along with auras) and it sounds like it will feel worse. that being said i do like the changes where you can use it with other things like unarmed strikes and stuff.
has there been anymore news and its already been changed? what are your opinions on it?
Your only option? Just keep it as it is in 5e for your table. That's what I plan on doing. They are dead set on keeping this stupid change.
they just talked about it on the official youtube. Divine Smite is now a spell. Which will limit it to once per turn.
Fact is you cannot pick and choose what you like from 5e and from the new 2024 PHB and combine them.
I'm okay with Paladin changes, they may be a bit weaker but maybe they'll just have more interesting utility. The aura change sounds very good.
says you ill pick and chose what i want
Lol the common theme for the releases are “ backward compatibility “ so you can select what you want from either version. The point is to have fun and play. I’m with you about mixing what you like and don’t
Your guys' game of course do what you'd like; I'm just repeating what WOTC said themselves; the 2024 PHB changes are being balanced for the 2024 PHB classes.
It's not meant to cherry pick through each so you can just have the divine smites of 5e and the aura of 2024 PHB. But you do you, you're not at my table idc lol
Where did they say this? alot of the selling point of these books was based on backwards compatibility and how they would work inner changeably
The most recent descriptions are that a 2024 paladin and a 2014 paladin will be able to play at the same table and it will be fine. Not that you can mix and match. But we also haven't seen guidance on any backward compatibility. It would be ridiculous if for example Bigby's Giant book was not allowed with the new rules. For those who spent money on it while waiting for these new rule sets that would be some BS.
There was an article I can’t seem to link that clarified a bit
A common question that's come up on the Internet is whether existing subclasses originally made for what Wizards of the Coast is calling the "2014 rules" can be used with the new class rules found in the newPlayer's Handbook. For instance, can the Bladesinger (a popular Wizard subclass) be used with the 2024 Wizard rules? ComicBook has received confirmation from Wizards of the Coast that older subclasses can be used with the 2024 character class rules. Assumably, this means there will be guidance in thePlayer's Handbook on how to do this, similar to how players can use races and backgrounds from older books to use when making characters using the 2024 rules.
One thing to keep clear – players should not mix abilities from their 2014 subclasses with their 2024 subclass equivalent. So, for example, if a player chooses to build a 2024 Assassin (a Rogue subclass), they can't swap in a feature from the 2014 ruleset in place of a similar feature in the 2024 ruleset. Likewise, players can't build a 2014 Assassin but utilize a 2024 subclass equivalent to a subclass feature.
i aggree on almost all of those things, as well as paladin went down to D-Tier, only 1 very niche build that makes them a tiny bit of playable ( but best way is to just dump the stupid 2024 changs => houseruling divine smite to just be useable once / turn and disregard all the other stupid stuff )
now to the point i disagree :)
4. Paladins can no longer be effective dual wielders
- thats the niche build i'm talking about, dual wielding is the only way for them to "weaponize" their bonus action, but i expect wotc to patch that very quickly sadly :(
- what to do :
you use either 2 light weapons with one having the nick weapon mastery ( scimitar / dagger )
if you use a weapon with nick your offhand attack is done in your attack action and not your bonus action
if you want to maximize your dps you get the dual wielder feat ( allows you to use a non light weapon in your main hand )
use a weapon with flex if you don't want to look like a drizzt clone, longsword comes to mind
you take 2 weapon fighting as your fighting style
build paladin 5 / sorcerer 15 is probaly the best combination for this, might also go p 7 / s 13 so you still get the aura
as a result in this build you will have 2+1 attacks and can smite, but you still loose any kind of versatility, since 99% of them need the bonus action
as for the now you can use the "smite" spells like banishing smite and so on, i can only say they are still very restricted in how to be possible to use, and you still
use dmg if you use them instead of just smiting ..... there might be a very very very niche use of them but thats it -> wotc i give you a F for not even trying and not understanding your game
if you want to decrease the chance of getting countered you have now a feat tax including : war caster & resilent ( con )
and if you go the sorcadin route you best pick up the subtle spell metamagic => solves the silence and underwater as well as the counterspelling problem :)
the magic immunity can only be countered with the sorcadin build, if you have lvl 6+ spell slots available sadly :(
and the worst part now is, that the warlock will be a better nova melee combatant in addition to everything else the warlock offers
The beauty of pen and paper games is that it's not a video game, you can literally do whatever you want.
Making Smite a bonus action *and* a spell is about the dumbest thing I've come across in DnD since... forever (and I'm talking about the 1970s).
It's not like straight Paladins were ridiculously overpowered and needed nerfing. Smites were the only way Paladins could try (and fail) to keep up with the damage dealt out by fighters and magic-users, and they still maxed out at 5d8 (6d8 on fiends/undead) and were limited by spell slots. And, no, one free smite a day and a cool horse don't make up for turning them into actual, easily negated spells. Nor does weapon mastery, which is hella cool but makes Paladins more like fighters and barbarians (though less powerful) and actually detracts from the divine magic.
Bonus action divine smite - are you kidding me? So no smite spell and divine smite (for two reasons!). No shield shove and smite. No two-weapon fighting and smiting. Even a Reaction would be better than a BA, and more in keeping with the way you can add a smite after hitting. How in all the Hells is adding damage to a hit that you're making *while you're making it* in any way a bonus action???? It's unfathomably absurd.
And, gods!, it's not like smites were the only free action. Sneak attack is free, unlimited by spell slots (or are they going to nerf that too?) and can deals a ton of damage on every hit (3d6 at level 5). Sword Bards' blade flourishes are free actions that burn an inspiration slot the same way smites burn a spell slot. A 5th level sword bard could have up to 5x 1d8 flourishes per short rest (and spells like shatter capable of dealing 3d8 twice per long rest) while a 5th level straight paladin would have just 3x (now 4x) 2d8 smites.
So Paladin smites weren't broken or unbalanced - and they were protected from abuse by multiclassing because they were capped at 5th level spell power. There was no upcasting beyond that. It wasn't broke, and it didn't need fixing. The only thing that needed fixing, maybe, was letting lower levels smite a bit more often - and there were ways to do that without turning them into spells and granting just one - ooooh so generous - free slot.
One DnD Paladins simply aren't Paladins any more, and the reason 2024 ruleset Paladins can play at the same table as 2014 Paladins is that they're simply a different class.
Seriously unimpressed - but, hey. AT least it saves me buying the new books.
I don't mind the changes to paladin, even smite. As a DM I've watched a single pld just about solo a boss by novaing.. other encounters that were supposed to be hard got real easy with a lucky crit smite nova pld.
Spell resistance could be an issue, but this is assuming that the new versions of those monsters/NPC's will still have it, or that it will be worded the same.
I am not fond of the possibility of counter-spelling a smite, the changes to counterspell will help with this, but as a DM I am likely to just alter smite having it bypass magic resistance and immune to counterspell.
almost no one is complaining about the once / turn to use a smite that would be a good thing imho too, but the once per turn and needs to use a bonus action to use divine smite is even worse then the once / turn usage and completly destroys any kind of choice a paladin has .... if a paladin wants to smite at all now he is forced to go twf, no other way around it.
Now to add even insult to injury you have classes that do sustained damage 4-5x as high as a Paladin can achieve ..... and each hit they do hits like a smite which uses a lvl 11 spell slot ( ok, they need a lvl 9 spell slot to do that, but it will last for 3-6hrs )
without even trying much, you can make a character that is doing beyond 500 sustained dmg / round in tier 4 play every 2nd round 1000 dmg / round in "nova" ( if you can even call that nova ) and thats without using smites or a Paladin lvl at all
and even if you ban the spell responsible for that the same char can still do ~250 ( 500 nova ) while the Paladin ( sorcadin ) reaches around 150 ( smites don't increase the dmg at all )
if you add simulacrum to that char it about doubles these numbers
That’s the point. Unless you’re not doing that, then you’re doing that. That’s absolutely true
Pretty sure you would still be able to damage a rakshasa or Tiamat with the One DnD Divine Smite. The spell is cast on you (range "self"), not the rakshasa or Tiamat, giving your attacks extra radiant damage. Thus, they take the damage, unless they're immune to radiant damage. At least that's how I read it.
Btw, I hate losing my bonus action to do a Divine Smite. I would have much preferred some sort of rule that paladins can only smite once per turn, like Sneak Attack for rogues, rather than this. Losing bonus action economy kills one of my favorite weapons and feats for a paladin, the glaive/halberd and Polearm Master feat. Seems to me that PAM no longer is workable for a paladin. Instead of giving paladins more options, WotC seems to have given them fewer. Also, no smiting with an opportunity attack and such. Even rogues get to use Sneak Attack outside of their turn. Sneak Attack scales and doesn't cost the rogue anything, only with a finite resource can paladins smite. So yeah, I think I'm playing classes OTHER than paladin in a One DnD game.
The issue I have with your response is that you, and many others, seem to think to goal of a character build is solely to do mass amounts of damage. Much of the new material in the 2024 books actually looks to reduce damage numbers but increase your tactical options. The changes to smite are in line with that.
I guess it's a difference of the goal we see as I and those I tend to play with aren't pushing min/max builds.
Now I'm not saying that min/maxing is bad, just that's not the way we tend to think. I think that difference in point of view is why we tend not to see this as a negative.
the problem is, that the change to divine smite does not increase your tactical options, since if you smite you loose your bonus action ......
And the 2024 books are very selectly reducing damage ( read paladin ) but massivly !!!!! buff the damag ( melee ) for full casters ( bard, sorcerer, wizard ) for absurd amounts that even the 2014 Paladin wouldn't be able to reach even if he would hit 3x critical ....
e.g. Valor Bard ( 2024 ) version can reach 500 - 1300 damage in 1 Round vs. the 100 damage a paladin can do ..... my honest question here is ( and i know its a group game and i play it like that and i don't really optimize ) do you think that is the right way to go ? and to top that off if a paladin reaches tier 4 play he will loose damage if he smites with a lvl 5 slot vs just auto attacking. almost double the damage of Valor Bard if he has time to prepare a simulacrum ..... sure he won't hit with every of his 7-20 attacks he will get ( w/o any magic items )
What the ones "complaining" about is not the once / Round smite, but the bonus action cost, which just not only robs you of damage, but also takes away all of your tactical options your mentioning
The problem with your response is that you're wrong, many other classes are doing more damage and sometimes MUCH more damage. No, it's not entirely about damage, but some of it is. Players get a thrill out of feeling effective and a "hero" moment. Paladins aren't the best support class. Paladins are emergency healers, but they aren't really healers in the same sense that clerics, druids, divine soul sorcerers are. Paladins aren't really damage dealers, anymore, nor were they the largest damage dealers in 5e either! With divine smite now being a bonus action, paladins really only have their action...unless they never smite. Which may be the way to go? I think the only role left for paladins is one option and one only...sword and board, tank. You will do piddling damage, but you can take defensive minded feats/fighting styles and raise your AC by your proficiency bonus or help reduce damage on allies. That's your only serious option...IF you want to still play a paladin? IMO, the best option is to not play a paladin and go to a different class, that got love in One DnD. All of this assumes you play One DnD, buy all their books, instead of just stay with 5e. I think a whole lot of people are going to do that. It wouldn't be the first new DnD edition to flop.
I suppose I don't understand the problem because I've never thought of, tried, or even knew anyone who did try to get those kinds of damage numbers.
I've never played in a campaign or one shot that requires those kinds of numbers. So perhaps we chalk out difference of opinion to just different play styles.
I do understand the math you put up, I just never saw the point of those kinds of damage numbers.