For most of my characters, I've not had access to the official way of changing ASIs on here. Most of my players in my campaigns wouldn't either. Nor do I think it should paygated either.
Wait. Can't you just manually add other pluses/minuses on the Abilities page of character creation to redo the "official" ASIs?
You can...it's how I got around it...but it's not ideal. You can't use Standard Array or Point Buy if you manipulate the numbers themselves (plus it's nice to keep your actual rolled stats). You can override bonuses, but then they get flagged (presumably to alert the DM to the possibility of cheating). To be honest, we don't know if they're going to provide something similar in 2024e because they're changing how it all works anyway.
The ideal is how they did it once you bought Tasha's that shows what you've changed (IE that you changed the ASI from ability X to ability Y. Just...don't paygate it. Which was the idea of the Background system during the UA trials - you get some suggestions, but ultimately, you create your own Background.
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.
smite needed to be nerfed, not ruined. Why couldn’t they have just made smite once per round only and left it at that? it didn’t need to be turned into a spell or made into a bonus action
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?
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. paladin/barbarians, an already unoptimal multiclass, can no longer smite while raging
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
you made very great points the smite nerf is 3 nerfs stacked ontop of each other 1. its a spell 2. it needs a bonus action 3. the BA limit makes it so you cant use in much anymore its not that good
if they wanted to limit it they should of just made it only once per turn and not made it a BA or a spell (not that it needed a nerf IMO or will if ever be played this way at my tables)
My issue with new backgrounds is lack of social or Roleplay features. Why can’t I have retainers/butlers as a noble or be able to get help from a temple as an acolyte, or get free lodging and food if a perform as an entertainer?
You can still get all those things, they'd just be rewards for actually roleplaying in the campaign rather than universal plot coupons at chargen.
And what rules allow me to have these things? Cause I don’t see WoTC supporting Roleplay and social centric rules. WoTC is trying to turn 5e into a wargame for their precious VTT. It definitely won’t be possible in AL.
If your DM demands that you show them a printed rule for you to get lodging as an entertainer, that's not a problem a book can or should solve.
My issue with new backgrounds is lack of social or Roleplay features. Why can’t I have retainers/butlers as a noble or be able to get help from a temple as an acolyte, or get free lodging and food if a perform as an entertainer?
Honestly, those are things you can accomplish either by spending money or by trading favors. "Your character may have friends, allies, and contacts acquired before the start of the game" doesn't need to be part of the background system.
They dropped those kind of social features because a lot of tables found them cumbersome and/or dropped them. It was an interesting concept, but they couldn’t be reliably integrated into a campaign and some created ongoing work for the DM- like juggling a bunch of retainer NPCs who are going to be following the party around. I’ve seen a few systems that had mechanisms for integrating such things at character creation or later, but those were soft RPG’s where you spent XP directly on it, and it was still between you and the GM for what exactly you’d get from that.
And what rules allow me to have these things? Cause I don’t see WoTC supporting Roleplay and social centric rules. WoTC is trying to turn 5e into a wargame for their precious VTT. It definitely won’t be possible in AL.
If your DM demands that you show them a printed rule for you to get lodging as an entertainer, that's not a problem a book can or should solve.
Unless they are using the 2014 rules, in which case there is actually a printed rule and either way, what to expect from one's character's background is something that should be worked out between player and DM regardless. pre session 1....
They dropped those kind of social features because a lot of tables found them cumbersome and/or dropped them. It was an interesting concept, but they couldn’t be reliably integrated into a campaign and some created ongoing work for the DM- like juggling a bunch of retainer NPCs who are going to be following the party around. I’ve seen a few systems that had mechanisms for integrating such things at character creation or later, but those were soft RPG’s where you spent XP directly on it, and it was still between you and the GM for what exactly you’d get from that.
Think it is only the Knight who had formal retainers. My understanding is that there is still a Noble background and a noble title is normally expected to mean something, based on any setting with a character with a noble title or, for that matter, historically. So that DM homework would still be there, wouldn't it? With even less guidance?
They dropped those kind of social features because a lot of tables found them cumbersome and/or dropped them. It was an interesting concept, but they couldn’t be reliably integrated into a campaign and some created ongoing work for the DM- like juggling a bunch of retainer NPCs who are going to be following the party around. I’ve seen a few systems that had mechanisms for integrating such things at character creation or later, but those were soft RPG’s where you spent XP directly on it, and it was still between you and the GM for what exactly you’d get from that.
Think it is only the Knight who had formal retainers. My understanding is that there is still a Noble background and a noble title is normally expected to mean something, based on any setting with a character with a noble title or, for that matter, historically. So that DM homework would still be there, wouldn't it? With even less guidance?
It’s not homework, that’s just “where in this setting do you get respect, and how much?”. That’s general worldbuilding, same as any other passive background info. That’s significantly different from creating extra NPCs that are supposed to follow the party (which is also an option for the Noble background in the current PHB).
Plus PCs honestly shouldn’t be major/active nobility so much as just a member of X family in any case, given that they’re going out and getting their own hands dirty.
And what rules allow me to have these things? Cause I don’t see WoTC supporting Roleplay and social centric rules. WoTC is trying to turn 5e into a wargame for their precious VTT. It definitely won’t be possible in AL.
If your DM demands that you show them a printed rule for you to get lodging as an entertainer, that's not a problem a book can or should solve.
Unless they are using the 2014 rules, in which case there is actually a printed rule and either way, what to expect from one's character's background is something that should be worked out between player and DM regardless. pre session 1....
Dumping that printed rule is a good thing. You shouldn't need a plot coupon to be able to stay at an inn, even for free, when you can make a check instead. (And honestly, even if that check were to somehow fail, I've never in all my years been in a campaign where the inn price made a difference.)
They dropped those kind of social features because a lot of tables found them cumbersome and/or dropped them. It was an interesting concept, but they couldn’t be reliably integrated into a campaign and some created ongoing work for the DM- like juggling a bunch of retainer NPCs who are going to be following the party around. I’ve seen a few systems that had mechanisms for integrating such things at character creation or later, but those were soft RPG’s where you spent XP directly on it, and it was still between you and the GM for what exactly you’d get from that.
Think it is only the Knight who had formal retainers. My understanding is that there is still a Noble background and a noble title is normally expected to mean something, based on any setting with a character with a noble title or, for that matter, historically. So that DM homework would still be there, wouldn't it? With even less guidance?
It’s not homework, that’s just “where in this setting do you get respect, and how much?”. That’s general worldbuilding, same as any other passive background info. That’s significantly different from creating extra NPCs that are supposed to follow the party (which is also an option for the Noble background in the current PHB).
Plus PCs honestly shouldn’t be major/active nobility so much as just a member of X family in any case, given that they’re going out and getting their own hands dirty.
We are more than a little off topic for the Paladin here... Good to hear they have added those to suggestions, although personally I think that any Noble background should be in some sort of 'advanced / complex backgrounds' or 'how the PC's fit into your worldbuilding' discussion in the DMG, rather than the PHB.
Bringing this back more on topic, they could also have discussed orders of knights, mage guilds, druidic circles, temple hierarchies, thieves' guilds and other such organizations individual PC's could belong to and/or interact with. Do paladins on that world take oaths and gain station just spontaneously, or is there some sort of formality to it? Discussion worthy.
Bringing this back more on topic, they could also have discussed orders of knights, mage guilds, druidic circles, temple hierarchies, thieves' guilds and other such organizations individual PC's could belong to and/or interact with. Do paladins on that world take oaths and gain station just spontaneously, or is there some sort of formality to it? Discussion worthy.
That kind of thing is traditionally in the DMs bailiwick, though a discussion of collaborative worldbuilding somewhere wouldn't be amiss.
smite needed to be nerfed, not ruined. Why couldn’t they have just made smite once per round only and left it at that? it didn’t need to be turned into a spell or made into a bonus action
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?
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. paladin/barbarians, an already unoptimal multiclass, can no longer smite while raging
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
Lots of these problems seem to assume that the 2014 rules, powers and abilities will stay exactly the same, while only the paladin powers change. That's really unlikely to be the case. It's next to impossible to make these judgements until we have the actual rules in front of us, in particular, the wording of how the smite spell works. But to get into specifics.
1. We won't know until we see the wording, but I don't think this would be an issue. if the target of the spell is self, or your weapon, or something else, then tiamat's immunity wouldn't come into play because the spell doesn't target her. Similar to how if you put down a grease spell, and she walked across it, she'd have to make a save. (I know, she'd just fly, but you get the point.) Again, we won't know until we see the wording.
2. Hey, if the enemy wizard wants to use their reaction and a 3rd level spell slot to counterspell a smite (which might miss and not even come into play anyway) instead of a cone of cold, that's a choice they could make, sure. And if they did, it seems like it would be pretty cinematic to see the sorcerer cancelling out the paladin's smite so they can hope to live another round. But either way, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a lot of counter-smites.
3. First, we won't know until we see the rules, maybe there's no V component. Maybe there's been changes to the component rules. Maybe there's been changes to the casting rules. Maybe they actually did a section on underwater casting (actually, saying V spells don't work underwater is a house rule, afaik). But besides all that, are you running an entirely underwater campaign? The general infrequency with which these sorts of things will come up will probably make them more interesting, as it will force a change in strategy, rather than punishing.
4. Paladins were never effective dual wielders. In fact, they get better at it in '24, since they'll be able to take the two-weapon fighting style, and weapon masteries go a long way toward making dual wielding more viable for everyone. Why can't they use a pole arm? they can still swing a glaive all around freely. If you're talking about the BA attack from PAM, we don't know if PAM will work the same way. And in both cases, once again, this gives them an interesting tactical choice to make ech round. Do I want to hit harder with one attack, or take an extra attack. Choices are more interesting.
5.Something that never worked in the first place still doesn't work. I guess you got me there.
6. We don't know what the spellcasting rules will be. The whole bonus action spell/cantrip thing was always a bit clunky, and I think was mostly in there to put a brake on quicken spell. But since they're probably adjusting quicken, could be they're changing this, too. But, once again, this gives you a choice, which is better to do in this round? And once again, choices are more interesting.
7. If you BA cast smite, then missed on all your regular attacks, you still have the smite active, and will be able to use it on your OA. (I think, again, this will depend on the wording of the spell.)
Most of these issues either aren't issues, or are features, not bugs. The '14 paladin could be played by placing a small rock on the "smite" button. Now the player will need to make meaningful, tactical, round-to-round choices about what they should do. So smite isn't as strong, that's true, but overall the class should be more interesting to play.
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?
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. paladin/barbarians, an already unoptimal multiclass, can no longer smite while raging
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
The target of the spell in UA is Self, so it generally won't interact with immunity mechanics. Which may not exist in the 2024 MM anyway.
(a) that's generally going to be a poor use of counterspell, (b) I don't see anything stupid, nonsensical, or ludicrous about it.
Given that every depiction of paladin smiting I've come across shows them shouting something as they do it... seems legit for silence to stop it.
Dual wielding just requires a weapon with the Nick property. Polearm Mastery deserves every nerf it gets.
So a bad idea... is an even worse idea?
Every spell I know of that uses a weapon is a cantrip, which combines with a BA just fine.
My issue with new backgrounds is lack of social or Roleplay features. Why can’t I have retainers/butlers as a noble or be able to get help from a temple as an acolyte, or get free lodging and food if a perform as an entertainer?
Honestly, those are things you can accomplish either by spending money or by trading favors. "Your character may have friends, allies, and contacts acquired before the start of the game" doesn't need to be part of the background system.
Tell this to AL
It's subject to the DMs discretion, but if not... retainers are covered under the rules for services, the rest are covered by the rules for food, drink, and lodging, so just set aside a trivial amount of gold to cover what you want?
My issue with new backgrounds is lack of social or Roleplay features. Why can’t I have retainers/butlers as a noble or be able to get help from a temple as an acolyte, or get free lodging and food if a perform as an entertainer?
Honestly, those are things you can accomplish either by spending money or by trading favors. "Your character may have friends, allies, and contacts acquired before the start of the game" doesn't need to be part of the background system.
Tell this to AL
There's a reason AL has a mixed reputation in the community, from what I've seen. Saying a concept won't work in AL isn't nothing, but it's hardly a decisive blow either.
smite needed to be nerfed, not ruined. Why couldn’t they have just made smite once per round only and left it at that? it didn’t need to be turned into a spell or made into a bonus action
Smites already were a bonus action spell.
Except for one.
By having that one weird smite sitting outside of the spell rules, you end up with:
Double-dipping, where you can smite twice on the same hit
People forgetting they have the basic smite or the spell smites
Inconsistent rule interactions (For instance: some smites can be countered, some can't)
probably other weirdnesses
To fix this rule inconsistency, you either need all smites to be spells, or no smites to be spells. Since they're powered by spell slots, it's simpler, easier, and more consistent to make it all.
At least they made it so you didn't have the awkward cast-before-and-concentrate mechanism anymore. (as of playtest, and I seriously doubt it'll change back, because post-hit cast is just mechanically better)
Does it cost bonus actions, and thus weaken the paladin some?
Yes, but paladins were, AFAIK, pretty much universally considered the top melee class. They'll cope. (And it's not like they didn't get anything new.)
They don't even really lose smite damage output over the long run, just burstiness.
My issue with new backgrounds is lack of social or Roleplay features. Why can’t I have retainers/butlers as a noble or be able to get help from a temple as an acolyte, or get free lodging and food if a perform as an entertainer?
Honestly, those are things you can accomplish either by spending money or by trading favors. "Your character may have friends, allies, and contacts acquired before the start of the game" doesn't need to be part of the background system.
Tell this to AL
I’m sympathetic that AL folks might not be able to play the way they prefer. That’s messed up. But it doesn’t seem like the whole game should be held hostage to their policies.
My issue with new backgrounds is lack of social or Roleplay features. Why can’t I have retainers/butlers as a noble or be able to get help from a temple as an acolyte, or get free lodging and food if a perform as an entertainer?
Honestly, those are things you can accomplish either by spending money or by trading favors. "Your character may have friends, allies, and contacts acquired before the start of the game" doesn't need to be part of the background system.
Tell this to AL
It's subject to the DMs discretion, but if not... retainers are covered under the rules for services, the rest are covered by the rules for food, drink, and lodging, so just set aside a trivial amount of gold to cover what you want?
This. AL practically inundates you with useless gold. I struggle to think of the AL campaign where the innkeeper's bill of all things grinds the adventure to a standstill. It's just a made-up complaint.
You can...it's how I got around it...but it's not ideal. You can't use Standard Array or Point Buy if you manipulate the numbers themselves (plus it's nice to keep your actual rolled stats). You can override bonuses, but then they get flagged (presumably to alert the DM to the possibility of cheating). To be honest, we don't know if they're going to provide something similar in 2024e because they're changing how it all works anyway.
The ideal is how they did it once you bought Tasha's that shows what you've changed (IE that you changed the ASI from ability X to ability Y. Just...don't paygate it. Which was the idea of the Background system during the UA trials - you get some suggestions, but ultimately, you create your own Background.
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.
you made very great points the smite nerf is 3 nerfs stacked ontop of each other
1. its a spell
2. it needs a bonus action
3. the BA limit makes it so you cant use in much anymore its not that good
if they wanted to limit it they should of just made it only once per turn and not made it a BA or a spell (not that it needed a nerf IMO or will if ever be played this way at my tables)
You can still get all those things, they'd just be rewards for actually roleplaying in the campaign rather than universal plot coupons at chargen.
If your DM demands that you show them a printed rule for you to get lodging as an entertainer, that's not a problem a book can or should solve.
Honestly, those are things you can accomplish either by spending money or by trading favors. "Your character may have friends, allies, and contacts acquired before the start of the game" doesn't need to be part of the background system.
They dropped those kind of social features because a lot of tables found them cumbersome and/or dropped them. It was an interesting concept, but they couldn’t be reliably integrated into a campaign and some created ongoing work for the DM- like juggling a bunch of retainer NPCs who are going to be following the party around. I’ve seen a few systems that had mechanisms for integrating such things at character creation or later, but those were soft RPG’s where you spent XP directly on it, and it was still between you and the GM for what exactly you’d get from that.
Unless they are using the 2014 rules, in which case there is actually a printed rule and either way, what to expect from one's character's background is something that should be worked out between player and DM regardless. pre session 1....
Think it is only the Knight who had formal retainers. My understanding is that there is still a Noble background and a noble title is normally expected to mean something, based on any setting with a character with a noble title or, for that matter, historically. So that DM homework would still be there, wouldn't it? With even less guidance?
It’s not homework, that’s just “where in this setting do you get respect, and how much?”. That’s general worldbuilding, same as any other passive background info. That’s significantly different from creating extra NPCs that are supposed to follow the party (which is also an option for the Noble background in the current PHB).
Plus PCs honestly shouldn’t be major/active nobility so much as just a member of X family in any case, given that they’re going out and getting their own hands dirty.
Dumping that printed rule is a good thing. You shouldn't need a plot coupon to be able to stay at an inn, even for free, when you can make a check instead. (And honestly, even if that check were to somehow fail, I've never in all my years been in a campaign where the inn price made a difference.)
We are more than a little off topic for the Paladin here... Good to hear they have added those to suggestions, although personally I think that any Noble background should be in some sort of 'advanced / complex backgrounds' or 'how the PC's fit into your worldbuilding' discussion in the DMG, rather than the PHB.
Bringing this back more on topic, they could also have discussed orders of knights, mage guilds, druidic circles, temple hierarchies, thieves' guilds and other such organizations individual PC's could belong to and/or interact with. Do paladins on that world take oaths and gain station just spontaneously, or is there some sort of formality to it? Discussion worthy.
That kind of thing is traditionally in the DMs bailiwick, though a discussion of collaborative worldbuilding somewhere wouldn't be amiss.
Lots of these problems seem to assume that the 2014 rules, powers and abilities will stay exactly the same, while only the paladin powers change. That's really unlikely to be the case. It's next to impossible to make these judgements until we have the actual rules in front of us, in particular, the wording of how the smite spell works. But to get into specifics.
1. We won't know until we see the wording, but I don't think this would be an issue. if the target of the spell is self, or your weapon, or something else, then tiamat's immunity wouldn't come into play because the spell doesn't target her. Similar to how if you put down a grease spell, and she walked across it, she'd have to make a save. (I know, she'd just fly, but you get the point.) Again, we won't know until we see the wording.
2. Hey, if the enemy wizard wants to use their reaction and a 3rd level spell slot to counterspell a smite (which might miss and not even come into play anyway) instead of a cone of cold, that's a choice they could make, sure. And if they did, it seems like it would be pretty cinematic to see the sorcerer cancelling out the paladin's smite so they can hope to live another round. But either way, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a lot of counter-smites.
3. First, we won't know until we see the rules, maybe there's no V component. Maybe there's been changes to the component rules. Maybe there's been changes to the casting rules. Maybe they actually did a section on underwater casting (actually, saying V spells don't work underwater is a house rule, afaik). But besides all that, are you running an entirely underwater campaign? The general infrequency with which these sorts of things will come up will probably make them more interesting, as it will force a change in strategy, rather than punishing.
4. Paladins were never effective dual wielders. In fact, they get better at it in '24, since they'll be able to take the two-weapon fighting style, and weapon masteries go a long way toward making dual wielding more viable for everyone. Why can't they use a pole arm? they can still swing a glaive all around freely. If you're talking about the BA attack from PAM, we don't know if PAM will work the same way. And in both cases, once again, this gives them an interesting tactical choice to make ech round. Do I want to hit harder with one attack, or take an extra attack. Choices are more interesting.
5.Something that never worked in the first place still doesn't work. I guess you got me there.
6. We don't know what the spellcasting rules will be. The whole bonus action spell/cantrip thing was always a bit clunky, and I think was mostly in there to put a brake on quicken spell. But since they're probably adjusting quicken, could be they're changing this, too. But, once again, this gives you a choice, which is better to do in this round? And once again, choices are more interesting.
7. If you BA cast smite, then missed on all your regular attacks, you still have the smite active, and will be able to use it on your OA. (I think, again, this will depend on the wording of the spell.)
Most of these issues either aren't issues, or are features, not bugs. The '14 paladin could be played by placing a small rock on the "smite" button. Now the player will need to make meaningful, tactical, round-to-round choices about what they should do. So smite isn't as strong, that's true, but overall the class should be more interesting to play.
It's subject to the DMs discretion, but if not... retainers are covered under the rules for services, the rest are covered by the rules for food, drink, and lodging, so just set aside a trivial amount of gold to cover what you want?
There's a reason AL has a mixed reputation in the community, from what I've seen. Saying a concept won't work in AL isn't nothing, but it's hardly a decisive blow either.
Smites already were a bonus action spell.
Except for one.
By having that one weird smite sitting outside of the spell rules, you end up with:
To fix this rule inconsistency, you either need all smites to be spells, or no smites to be spells. Since they're powered by spell slots, it's simpler, easier, and more consistent to make it all.
At least they made it so you didn't have the awkward cast-before-and-concentrate mechanism anymore. (as of playtest, and I seriously doubt it'll change back, because post-hit cast is just mechanically better)
Does it cost bonus actions, and thus weaken the paladin some?
Yes, but paladins were, AFAIK, pretty much universally considered the top melee class. They'll cope. (And it's not like they didn't get anything new.)
They don't even really lose smite damage output over the long run, just burstiness.
I’m sympathetic that AL folks might not be able to play the way they prefer. That’s messed up. But it doesn’t seem like the whole game should be held hostage to their policies.
This. AL practically inundates you with useless gold. I struggle to think of the AL campaign where the innkeeper's bill of all things grinds the adventure to a standstill. It's just a made-up complaint.
Any changes to Oathbreaker?
2014 5E mostly
3.5 maybe.