Ultimately, you as the dm have the power to choose. If you want to, do it. If you don’t want to, don’t do it. Just have fun and let your players have fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I wanted to put something funny but I couldn’t think of anything.
5e Paladins do crazy nova burst damage at melee but then are "balanced" (questionably so) by being basically useless at range. This makes things REALLY unfun for the Paladin when they're stuck at range, but removing their only weakness and letting them do overpowered burst damage in all situations isn't very fair to the rest party either.
The current One DnD playtest Paladin can use divine smite with ranged weapons but is balanced out by only being able to use divine smite once per turn. This is a good way to reduce their strength and their weakness in a more balanced manner
5e Paladins do crazy nova burst damage at melee but then are "balanced" (questionably so) by being basically useless at range. This makes things REALLY unfun for the Paladin when they're stuck at range, but removing their only weakness and letting them do overpowered burst damage in all situations isn't very fair to the rest party either.
Welcome to a cooperative gaming experience, which means there's times you'll be awesome and times you'll be superfluous.
Welcome to a cooperative gaming experience, which means there's times you'll be awesome and times you'll be superfluous.
Yeah that's not a great design in my opinion, and it's pretty obvious why WotC agrees and is changing it in the new version. Everyone should have strengths where they shine and weaknesses where they rely on others, but 5e Paladins are either OP or useless with very little in between so the upcoming changes make sense.
Welcome to a cooperative gaming experience, which means there's times you'll be awesome and times you'll be superfluous.
Yeah that's not a great design in my opinion, and it's pretty obvious why WotC agrees and is changing it in the new version. Everyone should have strengths where they shine and weaknesses where they rely on others, but 5e Paladins are either OP or useless with very little in between so the upcoming changes make sense.
Actually, I believe they've said they're rolling that change back to melee only.
The issue with Paladins as a class is that they can do pretty much everything. Their thing is that they can do most things, often better than the classes who are meant to be good at those things. Their two weaknesses are that they nova - they can't sustain the output as long as the other classes - and they are rubbish at range.
It sounds like you're limiting the Smite by only doing throwing weapons (which is still a pretty big nerf to DS), but it's still abrogating the weakness that is intended to bring at least some balance to a very strong class. If it's only going to be the occasional attack and so it is more a flavour thing...I'd say it's fine. If the player starts building their character around it, then you're screwed and it could cause some real issues at the table. Paladins when played well already have issues with being called OP (mostly due to the whole nova thing giving the impression of it - people forget that you're not doing that every single time), this could cause some contention if people feel that the Paladin is dominating even more than they are already perceived to be.
It's your judgement, really. If the Paladin is only going to do it very occasionally and won't use it to "kill-steal"*, then it should be fine. Otherwise, I'd stay clear.
* While kill-stealing doesn't have the consequences of, say, CoD, people do look forward to "sealing the deal", and a Divine Smiting throwing axe coming out of nowhere and taking the kill can feel very frustrating - especially when it only happened because of rule-bending.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Welcome to a cooperative gaming experience, which means there's times you'll be awesome and times you'll be superfluous.
Yeah that's not a great design in my opinion, and it's pretty obvious why WotC agrees and is changing it in the new version. Everyone should have strengths where they shine and weaknesses where they rely on others, but 5e Paladins are either OP or useless with very little in between so the upcoming changes make sense.
Actually, I believe they've said they're rolling that change back to melee only.
Did they? Was that in their assessment video? I don't think I've seen it. Can't blame them though, it feels OP on the face of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I remember hearing about it, but not where. Don't take it as certain, but yeah it's kinda OP and honestly gives Paladins too much range of performance imo. The thing I feel like some people don't get about class design, particularly when you're looking at something like D&D, is that what a class is weak in is as important a consideration as what they're strong in.
I know I'm thinkiing about allowing a player to use it with throwing weapons just for rule of cool
Then do it. It's your decision. But RAW and RAI that can't be done, and the reason is that it's too powerful. But if you allow it at your table, there is nothing to say. At your table, your rules.
Welcome to a cooperative gaming experience, which means there's times you'll be awesome and times you'll be superfluous.
Yeah that's not a great design in my opinion, and it's pretty obvious why WotC agrees and is changing it in the new version. Everyone should have strengths where they shine and weaknesses where they rely on others, but 5e Paladins are either OP or useless with very little in between so the upcoming changes make sense.
Actually, I believe they've said they're rolling that change back to melee only.
Did they? Was that in their assessment video? I don't think I've seen it. Can't blame them though, it feels OP on the face of it.
Yes, Jeremy Crawford said it in the video in which he analyzed the paladin and druid survey.
Welcome to a cooperative gaming experience, which means there's times you'll be awesome and times you'll be superfluous.
Yeah that's not a great design in my opinion, and it's pretty obvious why WotC agrees and is changing it in the new version. Everyone should have strengths where they shine and weaknesses where they rely on others, but 5e Paladins are either OP or useless with very little in between so the upcoming changes make sense.
Actually, I believe they've said they're rolling that change back to melee only.
Did they? Was that in their assessment video? I don't think I've seen it. Can't blame them though, it feels OP on the face of it.
Yes, Jeremy Crawford said it in the video in which he analyzed the paladin and druid survey.
I know I'm thinkiing about allowing a player to use it with throwing weapons just for rule of cool
Then do it. It's your decision. But RAW and RAI that can't be done, and the reason is that it's too powerful.
J-Craw is on record saying the reason is actually because it doesn't support the fantasy. Jump to 2:29 and see for yourself. He suggests that the numbers work out fine, balance-wise.
What do yall thiink about alowiing throwing weapons to smite for paladins? Too much?
It's not too much usually Paladins have access to more damaging weapons than most thrown weapons.
I believe the reason has more to do with the fact that the Devs wanted the Paladin to be mainly melee characters and making one of their signature feature only working on melee weapon attacks ensure that they usually fight that way.
What do yall thiink about alowiing throwing weapons to smite for paladins? Too much?
All thrown weapons have a short range. So, throwing a javelin while moving into melee sounds on brand for a paladin, but if the player wants to throw weapons to avoid melee then don't allow it.
Notably, because the Paladin is a support-oriented class, having the Paladin be on the front line pushes other party members to also be closer to the action. It's not until level 18 that your auras go up to 30ft, and Lay on Hands requires physical contact.
It's been noted by people smarter than me, that ranged combat is the safest and therefore least exciting way to play. When the bowmen and spell slingers are given reasons to stand within 20ft of their enemies instead of 50+ feet away, the game is simply more fun.
What do yall thiink about alowiing throwing weapons to smite for paladins? Too much?
RAW it is not an option in 5e; throwing a weapon is a ranged weapon attack, and Smite only works on a melee weapon attack.
The power of smite attacks is balanced by the risk of needing to be in melee with the target.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I know I'm thinkiing about allowing a player to use it with throwing weapons just for rule of cool
Ultimately, you as the dm have the power to choose. If you want to, do it. If you don’t want to, don’t do it. Just have fun and let your players have fun.
I wanted to put something funny but I couldn’t think of anything.
5e Paladins do crazy nova burst damage at melee but then are "balanced" (questionably so) by being basically useless at range. This makes things REALLY unfun for the Paladin when they're stuck at range, but removing their only weakness and letting them do overpowered burst damage in all situations isn't very fair to the rest party either.
The current One DnD playtest Paladin can use divine smite with ranged weapons but is balanced out by only being able to use divine smite once per turn. This is a good way to reduce their strength and their weakness in a more balanced manner
Welcome to a cooperative gaming experience, which means there's times you'll be awesome and times you'll be superfluous.
Yeah that's not a great design in my opinion, and it's pretty obvious why WotC agrees and is changing it in the new version. Everyone should have strengths where they shine and weaknesses where they rely on others, but 5e Paladins are either OP or useless with very little in between so the upcoming changes make sense.
Actually, I believe they've said they're rolling that change back to melee only.
The issue with Paladins as a class is that they can do pretty much everything. Their thing is that they can do most things, often better than the classes who are meant to be good at those things. Their two weaknesses are that they nova - they can't sustain the output as long as the other classes - and they are rubbish at range.
It sounds like you're limiting the Smite by only doing throwing weapons (which is still a pretty big nerf to DS), but it's still abrogating the weakness that is intended to bring at least some balance to a very strong class. If it's only going to be the occasional attack and so it is more a flavour thing...I'd say it's fine. If the player starts building their character around it, then you're screwed and it could cause some real issues at the table. Paladins when played well already have issues with being called OP (mostly due to the whole nova thing giving the impression of it - people forget that you're not doing that every single time), this could cause some contention if people feel that the Paladin is dominating even more than they are already perceived to be.
It's your judgement, really. If the Paladin is only going to do it very occasionally and won't use it to "kill-steal"*, then it should be fine. Otherwise, I'd stay clear.
* While kill-stealing doesn't have the consequences of, say, CoD, people do look forward to "sealing the deal", and a Divine Smiting throwing axe coming out of nowhere and taking the kill can feel very frustrating - especially when it only happened because of rule-bending.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Did they? Was that in their assessment video? I don't think I've seen it. Can't blame them though, it feels OP on the face of it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I remember hearing about it, but not where. Don't take it as certain, but yeah it's kinda OP and honestly gives Paladins too much range of performance imo. The thing I feel like some people don't get about class design, particularly when you're looking at something like D&D, is that what a class is weak in is as important a consideration as what they're strong in.
Then do it. It's your decision. But RAW and RAI that can't be done, and the reason is that it's too powerful.
But if you allow it at your table, there is nothing to say. At your table, your rules.
Yes, Jeremy Crawford said it in the video in which he analyzed the paladin and druid survey.
Thank you!
J-Craw is on record saying the reason is actually because it doesn't support the fantasy. Jump to 2:29 and see for yourself. He suggests that the numbers work out fine, balance-wise.
It's not too much usually Paladins have access to more damaging weapons than most thrown weapons.
I believe the reason has more to do with the fact that the Devs wanted the Paladin to be mainly melee characters and making one of their signature feature only working on melee weapon attacks ensure that they usually fight that way.
All thrown weapons have a short range. So, throwing a javelin while moving into melee sounds on brand for a paladin, but if the player wants to throw weapons to avoid melee then don't allow it.
Notably, because the Paladin is a support-oriented class, having the Paladin be on the front line pushes other party members to also be closer to the action. It's not until level 18 that your auras go up to 30ft, and Lay on Hands requires physical contact.
It's been noted by people smarter than me, that ranged combat is the safest and therefore least exciting way to play. When the bowmen and spell slingers are given reasons to stand within 20ft of their enemies instead of 50+ feet away, the game is simply more fun.
That was my thoughts I don't believe it would break the game in any way.