Updated edition has the paladin getting one free use of smite per long rest. As this does not use a spell slot, could the paladin use smite on a second attack in the same round?
Nope cause it is a bonus action now. They specifically made the changes that they did to stop Paladins from novaing during combat. It sucks, but it is what it is.
Nope cause it is a bonus action now. They specifically made the changes that they did to stop Paladins from novaing during combat. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I know as a DM, I'm always making encounters tailored to the PCs. Thus, Nova damage is pointless, because it is accounted for in the difficulty of the encounter. But I know a lot of players are upset it doesn't exist. So I'm curious if you guys tend to play games were the encounters are balanced toward your characters, or if having nova damage makes encounters significantly easier for you?
Nope cause it is a bonus action now. They specifically made the changes that they did to stop Paladins from novaing during combat. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I know as a DM, I'm always making encounters tailored to the PCs. Thus, Nova damage is pointless, because it is accounted for in the difficulty of the encounter. But I know a lot of players are upset it doesn't exist. So I'm curious if you guys tend to play games were the encounters are balanced toward your characters, or if having nova damage makes encounters significantly easier for you?
Nova damage should always be a trade off for the players. Like yes, you should always have the option to use all your resources on one particular fight, but the natural consequence is that you then will not have those resources if needed later, so you better pick the most opportune time. It's a risk, and risks should be able to pay off or otherwise as the situation dictates, therfore rewarding or punishing that playstyle by itself.
If your players keep going nova and then getting steam-rolled in later fights, eventually they'll learn to conserve resources and spread them out more evenly. If they're in a jam and they figure they *need* to deal with a threat definitively and quickly, they should have the choice to go nova in that moment.
The only real problem with the choice of whether on not to go nova is if you're only getting in one combat encounter per long rest anyways, so the players have no reason not to. If that's what you're doing, then you have to majorly ramp up difficulty to maintain challenge, but that's difficult to do accurately since the game is balanced for more evenly spread out encounters. I would just make sure multiple encounters happen per day whenever possible.
Back on the subject of the Paladin though, I've pretty much made my peace with the change to 1 per turn, as Smite damage really was the thing that set the Paladin SO much higher above the other classes.
I don't really see the issue with nova-ing. That was the Paladin's schtick - it could do most things other classes can do, and for a brief period even better than they can, but very quickly runs out of steam. Classes/Subclasses that provide more problems for me are the ones that consistently put it out. I'm less concerned about the Paladin that put out 40 damage on their first turn then settled down to 20 for the next two, than I am about the other guy who put out 30 damage every turn.
Yes, novas makes it harder to balance encounters because you don't know if they'll nova or not due to player agency...but player agency is front and centre of D&D, and encounter balance is hardly the driving force behind D&D's ethos.
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.
Yes. The ability states that it’s “on a hit.” It doesn’t say which or when the hit must occur. So you can smite on a reaction, bonus action, hasted action, etc. hit so long as it’s a melee weapon attack as per the ability description. https://100001****/
Personally, I do not think it would have been an issue if the 1 free casting of Divine Smite as part of the Paladin Smite feature did not need a Bonus Action, since it remains 1st level and can easily become a redundant feature in many builds that would never be used at later levels and it definitely feels like Paladin is still quite behind Fighter and Barbarian in terms of damage in 2024.
Yes. The ability states that it’s “on a hit.” It doesn’t say which or when the hit must occur. So you can smite on a reaction, bonus action, hasted action, etc. hit so long as it’s a melee weapon attack as per the ability description.
Divine Smite is not an ability in 2024, OP stated "Updated edition" which would mean 2024 where Divine Smite was changed to be a Bonus Action Spell.
THe problem with the 2014 method of enabling multiple smites per round was that it made Paladins too good at eliminating climax encounters against the main villains simply by getting next to them. The ability to melt any single foe simply by getting within reach was a major problem for many campaigns, especially those with few encounters per day or encounters with small numbers of baddies. It was the opposite problem that 1st edition had. In AD&D, the wizard would annihilate entire armies of baddies before the fighter could even get close enough to need their sword, and it left the fighter's player, bored and feeling useless.
5e 2014 went to the opposite extreme. Get to the big climactic fight against the villain that everyone wants a piece of, and the Paladin melts him in a single round - everyone else just gets to watch it happen.
I understand that D&D isn't balanced towards PvP (but it should be), but Paladins were simply too good at eliminating any single foe. A level appropriate dragon shouldn't drop in a single round, just because the Paladin managed to teleport within melee range.
I'm a huge fan of Paladins, and I love the 2024 changes to them - because they needed it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I don't really see the issue with nova-ing. That was the Paladin's schtick - it could do most things other classes can do, and for a brief period even better than they can, but very quickly runs out of steam. Classes/Subclasses that provide more problems for me are the ones that consistently put it out. I'm less concerned about the Paladin that put out 40 damage on their first turn then settled down to 20 for the next two, than I am about the other guy who put out 30 damage every turn.
Yes, novas makes it harder to balance encounters because you don't know if they'll nova or not due to player agency...but player agency is front and centre of D&D, and encounter balance is hardly the driving force behind D&D's ethos.
I've never had a problem with smite nova damage. It's part of what made them. I've played paladins and the Nova damage fissles out quickly. Especially if you're multiclassed with additional spells that are more beneficial to you over blowing those higher level spell slots for damage. It does happen. People act like the Nova damage was an infinite resource when it wasn't.
One game I played, I went and blew my load with constant Nova damage. Yeah I took out the the big bad guy. But then we didn't know there were three other big bad guys who showed up. The fight went sideways real quick cause I didn't have my beneficial spells to rely on or my Nova damage. Lesson learned and I never did that again.
But as someone said, my only gripe with the new smite is that it is a spell, so it can be countered. And it's a bonus action. Get rid of those two things and just make it useable once per turn, and it is good to me.
I don't really see the issue with nova-ing. That was the Paladin's schtick - it could do most things other classes can do, and for a brief period even better than they can, but very quickly runs out of steam. Classes/Subclasses that provide more problems for me are the ones that consistently put it out. I'm less concerned about the Paladin that put out 40 damage on their first turn then settled down to 20 for the next two, than I am about the other guy who put out 30 damage every turn.
Yes, novas makes it harder to balance encounters because you don't know if they'll nova or not due to player agency...but player agency is front and centre of D&D, and encounter balance is hardly the driving force behind D&D's ethos.
I've never had a problem with smite nova damage. It's part of what made them. I've played paladins and the Nova damage fissles out quickly. Especially if you're multiclassed with additional spells that are more beneficial to you over blowing those higher level spell slots for damage. It does happen. People act like the Nova damage was an infinite resource when it wasn't.
One game I played, I went and blew my load with constant Nova damage. Yeah I took out the the big bad guy. But then we didn't know there were three other big bad guys who showed up. The fight went sideways real quick cause I didn't have my beneficial spells to rely on or my Nova damage. Lesson learned and I never did that again.
But as someone said, my only gripe with the new smite is that it is a spell, so it can be countered. And it's a bonus action. Get rid of those two things and just make it useable once per turn, and it is good to me.
Countering doesn’t kill the target’s spell slot as of 24, so it’s no different than an effect that boosts AC or decreased an attack roll. And making it take a Bonus Action keeps it on balance with the other Smites and was probably part of breaking up the notorious PAM/GWM combo- which really needed to be comprehensively stripped down a few levels.
I don't really see the issue with nova-ing. That was the Paladin's schtick - it could do most things other classes can do, and for a brief period even better than they can, but very quickly runs out of steam. Classes/Subclasses that provide more problems for me are the ones that consistently put it out. I'm less concerned about the Paladin that put out 40 damage on their first turn then settled down to 20 for the next two, than I am about the other guy who put out 30 damage every turn.
Yes, novas makes it harder to balance encounters because you don't know if they'll nova or not due to player agency...but player agency is front and centre of D&D, and encounter balance is hardly the driving force behind D&D's ethos.
I've never had a problem with smite nova damage. It's part of what made them. I've played paladins and the Nova damage fissles out quickly. Especially if you're multiclassed with additional spells that are more beneficial to you over blowing those higher level spell slots for damage. It does happen. People act like the Nova damage was an infinite resource when it wasn't.
One game I played, I went and blew my load with constant Nova damage. Yeah I took out the the big bad guy. But then we didn't know there were three other big bad guys who showed up. The fight went sideways real quick cause I didn't have my beneficial spells to rely on or my Nova damage. Lesson learned and I never did that again.
But as someone said, my only gripe with the new smite is that it is a spell, so it can be countered. And it's a bonus action. Get rid of those two things and just make it useable once per turn, and it is good to me.
Countering doesn’t kill the target’s spell slot as of 24, so it’s no different than an effect that boosts AC or decreased an attack roll. And making it take a Bonus Action keeps it on balance with the other Smites and was probably part of breaking up the notorious PAM/GWM combo- which really needed to be comprehensively stripped down a few levels.
I didn't know that they changed Counterspell. Cool. As far as the rest, I just don't agree with it. Making it require a bonus action was a terrible change. It was unnecessary when Eldritch Smite does the exact same thing and has access to the PAM/GWM combo, without requiring a bonus action.
I don't really see the issue with nova-ing. That was the Paladin's schtick - it could do most things other classes can do, and for a brief period even better than they can, but very quickly runs out of steam. Classes/Subclasses that provide more problems for me are the ones that consistently put it out. I'm less concerned about the Paladin that put out 40 damage on their first turn then settled down to 20 for the next two, than I am about the other guy who put out 30 damage every turn.
Yes, novas makes it harder to balance encounters because you don't know if they'll nova or not due to player agency...but player agency is front and centre of D&D, and encounter balance is hardly the driving force behind D&D's ethos.
I've never had a problem with smite nova damage. It's part of what made them. I've played paladins and the Nova damage fissles out quickly. Especially if you're multiclassed with additional spells that are more beneficial to you over blowing those higher level spell slots for damage. It does happen. People act like the Nova damage was an infinite resource when it wasn't.
One game I played, I went and blew my load with constant Nova damage. Yeah I took out the the big bad guy. But then we didn't know there were three other big bad guys who showed up. The fight went sideways real quick cause I didn't have my beneficial spells to rely on or my Nova damage. Lesson learned and I never did that again.
But as someone said, my only gripe with the new smite is that it is a spell, so it can be countered. And it's a bonus action. Get rid of those two things and just make it useable once per turn, and it is good to me.
Countering doesn’t kill the target’s spell slot as of 24, so it’s no different than an effect that boosts AC or decreased an attack roll. And making it take a Bonus Action keeps it on balance with the other Smites and was probably part of breaking up the notorious PAM/GWM combo- which really needed to be comprehensively stripped down a few levels.
You DO lose the resource if it isn't a spell slot, notably, so the free casting would be lost if countered.
What he likely meant was that being Counterspelled is now no different than missing with an attack against a temporarily raised AC. You're only out the action/bonus action/reaction, not that AND a spellslot like before. It doesn't "cost" a consumable resource anymore to be Counterspelled, in effect it just delays you a turn, then you can try again. Meanwhile the person who Counterspelled IS down a consumable resource (at least a third level spell slot).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
What he likely meant was that being Counterspelled is now no different than missing with an attack against a temporarily raised AC. You're only out the action/bonus action/reaction, not that AND a spellslot like before. It doesn't "cost" a consumable resource anymore to be Counterspelled, in effect it just delays you a turn, then you can try again. Meanwhile the person who Counterspelled IS down a consumable resource (at least a third level spell slot).
It's not the same.
If you miss with due to AC, you lose the spell slot, consumed M components and the action.
If you get Counterspelled, then you lose the consumed M components and the action. It says the spell dissipates, so the spell is cast but has no effect. It does explicitly say that you don't lose the spell slot, so you get that back, but doesn't mention the consumable M components - since the spell is cast (it just gets dissipated), then you treat it exactly like you've cast the spell unless told otherwise. You're not, so if you were casting Dark Star, then you lose the shard of onyx and the drop of blood.
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.
What he likely meant was that being Counterspelled is now no different than missing with an attack against a temporarily raised AC. You're only out the action/bonus action/reaction, not that AND a spellslot like before. It doesn't "cost" a consumable resource anymore to be Counterspelled, in effect it just delays you a turn, then you can try again. Meanwhile the person who Counterspelled IS down a consumable resource (at least a third level spell slot).
It's not the same.
If you miss with due to AC, you lose the spell slot, consumed M components and the action.
If you get Counterspelled, then you lose the consumed M components and the action. It says the spell dissipates, so the spell is cast but has no effect. It does explicitly say that you don't lose the spell slot, so you get that back, but doesn't mention the consumable M components - since the spell is cast (it just gets dissipated), then you treat it exactly like you've cast the spell unless told otherwise. You're not, so if you were casting Dark Star, then you lose the shard of onyx and the drop of blood.
I mean, none of that is really germane to the point that being counterable does not significantly impact Divine Smite’s performance, or to the spell in general. The one freebie cast is the only thing you can actually lose, which imo is a fair trade for being a freebie. And Smites only use V components, so there’s no M component to lose.
I don't really see the issue with nova-ing. That was the Paladin's schtick - it could do most things other classes can do, and for a brief period even better than they can, but very quickly runs out of steam. Classes/Subclasses that provide more problems for me are the ones that consistently put it out. I'm less concerned about the Paladin that put out 40 damage on their first turn then settled down to 20 for the next two, than I am about the other guy who put out 30 damage every turn.
Yes, novas makes it harder to balance encounters because you don't know if they'll nova or not due to player agency...but player agency is front and centre of D&D, and encounter balance is hardly the driving force behind D&D's ethos.
I've never had a problem with smite nova damage. It's part of what made them. I've played paladins and the Nova damage fissles out quickly. Especially if you're multiclassed with additional spells that are more beneficial to you over blowing those higher level spell slots for damage. It does happen. People act like the Nova damage was an infinite resource when it wasn't.
One game I played, I went and blew my load with constant Nova damage. Yeah I took out the the big bad guy. But then we didn't know there were three other big bad guys who showed up. The fight went sideways real quick cause I didn't have my beneficial spells to rely on or my Nova damage. Lesson learned and I never did that again.
But as someone said, my only gripe with the new smite is that it is a spell, so it can be countered. And it's a bonus action. Get rid of those two things and just make it useable once per turn, and it is good to me.
And this, I think, is the "problem" they sought to correct. I imagine the cycle went something like this:
1. First BBEG: Paladin novas and trivializes the encounter. 2. Second BBEG: Paladin novas, but DM punishes them by creating a multi-tiered encounter. It's either lost, or narrowly won, at best. 3. Third-Inifnity BBEG: Paladin no longer novas, but has no idea how far to go anymore, and either underperforms (using too few resources in an encounter) or overperforms (using too many resources in an encounter) and is left dissatisfied either way - OR - the DM spends a considerable amount of time and energy making sure encounters are dynamic around how many resources the paladin uses and the DM is left dissatisfied with the time/enjoyment ratio since it's at the whim of the paladin player.
I feel that it probably had more to do with a single class' ability to completely warp the way encounters needed to be created/managed and the strain that put on DMs than anything else.
In order to get multiple smites in a round, you need multiple bonus actions in a round, which is not normally possible (you can only use a bonus action on your turn, and only one). It's technically possible for a Thief-17/Paladin-1 (or more) to smite twice in a round via Thief's Reflexes, but that's a singularly degenerate build.
I don't really see the issue with nova-ing. That was the Paladin's schtick - it could do most things other classes can do, and for a brief period even better than they can, but very quickly runs out of steam. Classes/Subclasses that provide more problems for me are the ones that consistently put it out. I'm less concerned about the Paladin that put out 40 damage on their first turn then settled down to 20 for the next two, than I am about the other guy who put out 30 damage every turn.
Yes, novas makes it harder to balance encounters because you don't know if they'll nova or not due to player agency...but player agency is front and centre of D&D, and encounter balance is hardly the driving force behind D&D's ethos.
I've never had a problem with smite nova damage. It's part of what made them. I've played paladins and the Nova damage fissles out quickly. Especially if you're multiclassed with additional spells that are more beneficial to you over blowing those higher level spell slots for damage. It does happen. People act like the Nova damage was an infinite resource when it wasn't.
One game I played, I went and blew my load with constant Nova damage. Yeah I took out the the big bad guy. But then we didn't know there were three other big bad guys who showed up. The fight went sideways real quick cause I didn't have my beneficial spells to rely on or my Nova damage. Lesson learned and I never did that again.
But as someone said, my only gripe with the new smite is that it is a spell, so it can be countered. And it's a bonus action. Get rid of those two things and just make it useable once per turn, and it is good to me.
And this, I think, is the "problem" they sought to correct. I imagine the cycle went something like this:
1. First BBEG: Paladin novas and trivializes the encounter. 2. Second BBEG: Paladin novas, but DM punishes them by creating a multi-tiered encounter. It's either lost, or narrowly won, at best. 3. Third-Inifnity BBEG: Paladin no longer novas, but has no idea how far to go anymore, and either underperforms (using too few resources in an encounter) or overperforms (using too many resources in an encounter) and is left dissatisfied either way - OR - the DM spends a considerable amount of time and energy making sure encounters are dynamic around how many resources the paladin uses and the DM is left dissatisfied with the time/enjoyment ratio since it's at the whim of the paladin player.
I feel that it probably had more to do with a single class' ability to completely warp the way encounters needed to be created/managed and the strain that put on DMs than anything else.
I can understand that. But like I said, my whole issue is the fact that it's a bonus action now. Sneak Attack does just as much damage as well as Eldritch Smite and you don't lose your bonus action. Heck, Sneak Attack doesn't even use resources lol. They should have just limited it to once a turn without costing a BA, just like the previously mentioned abilities, and I'm sure nobody would have had an issue with it.
Nope cause it is a bonus action now. They specifically made the changes that they did to stop Paladins from novaing during combat. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I know as a DM, I'm always making encounters tailored to the PCs. Thus, Nova damage is pointless, because it is accounted for in the difficulty of the encounter. But I know a lot of players are upset it doesn't exist. So I'm curious if you guys tend to play games were the encounters are balanced toward your characters, or if having nova damage makes encounters significantly easier for you?
As the DM you can literally do whatever you want. The Rules are written to give the maximum play experience by the developers. Imbalance/balance from tinkering/removing certain rules is the cost to pay when you homebrew.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Updated edition has the paladin getting one free use of smite per long rest. As this does not use a spell slot, could the paladin use smite on a second attack in the same round?
You still only have one bonus action and divine smite in 2024 requires the bonus action.
Nope cause it is a bonus action now. They specifically made the changes that they did to stop Paladins from novaing during combat. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I know as a DM, I'm always making encounters tailored to the PCs. Thus, Nova damage is pointless, because it is accounted for in the difficulty of the encounter. But I know a lot of players are upset it doesn't exist. So I'm curious if you guys tend to play games were the encounters are balanced toward your characters, or if having nova damage makes encounters significantly easier for you?
Nova damage should always be a trade off for the players. Like yes, you should always have the option to use all your resources on one particular fight, but the natural consequence is that you then will not have those resources if needed later, so you better pick the most opportune time. It's a risk, and risks should be able to pay off or otherwise as the situation dictates, therfore rewarding or punishing that playstyle by itself.
If your players keep going nova and then getting steam-rolled in later fights, eventually they'll learn to conserve resources and spread them out more evenly. If they're in a jam and they figure they *need* to deal with a threat definitively and quickly, they should have the choice to go nova in that moment.
The only real problem with the choice of whether on not to go nova is if you're only getting in one combat encounter per long rest anyways, so the players have no reason not to. If that's what you're doing, then you have to majorly ramp up difficulty to maintain challenge, but that's difficult to do accurately since the game is balanced for more evenly spread out encounters. I would just make sure multiple encounters happen per day whenever possible.
Back on the subject of the Paladin though, I've pretty much made my peace with the change to 1 per turn, as Smite damage really was the thing that set the Paladin SO much higher above the other classes.
I don't really see the issue with nova-ing. That was the Paladin's schtick - it could do most things other classes can do, and for a brief period even better than they can, but very quickly runs out of steam. Classes/Subclasses that provide more problems for me are the ones that consistently put it out. I'm less concerned about the Paladin that put out 40 damage on their first turn then settled down to 20 for the next two, than I am about the other guy who put out 30 damage every turn.
Yes, novas makes it harder to balance encounters because you don't know if they'll nova or not due to player agency...but player agency is front and centre of D&D, and encounter balance is hardly the driving force behind D&D's ethos.
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.
Yes. The ability states that it’s “on a hit.” It doesn’t say which or when the hit must occur. So you can smite on a reaction, bonus action, hasted action, etc. hit so long as it’s a melee weapon attack as per the ability description. https://100001****/
Personally, I do not think it would have been an issue if the 1 free casting of Divine Smite as part of the Paladin Smite feature did not need a Bonus Action, since it remains 1st level and can easily become a redundant feature in many builds that would never be used at later levels and it definitely feels like Paladin is still quite behind Fighter and Barbarian in terms of damage in 2024.
Divine Smite is not an ability in 2024, OP stated "Updated edition" which would mean 2024 where Divine Smite was changed to be a Bonus Action Spell.
THe problem with the 2014 method of enabling multiple smites per round was that it made Paladins too good at eliminating climax encounters against the main villains simply by getting next to them. The ability to melt any single foe simply by getting within reach was a major problem for many campaigns, especially those with few encounters per day or encounters with small numbers of baddies. It was the opposite problem that 1st edition had. In AD&D, the wizard would annihilate entire armies of baddies before the fighter could even get close enough to need their sword, and it left the fighter's player, bored and feeling useless.
5e 2014 went to the opposite extreme. Get to the big climactic fight against the villain that everyone wants a piece of, and the Paladin melts him in a single round - everyone else just gets to watch it happen.
I understand that D&D isn't balanced towards PvP (but it should be), but Paladins were simply too good at eliminating any single foe. A level appropriate dragon shouldn't drop in a single round, just because the Paladin managed to teleport within melee range.
I'm a huge fan of Paladins, and I love the 2024 changes to them - because they needed it.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I've never had a problem with smite nova damage. It's part of what made them. I've played paladins and the Nova damage fissles out quickly. Especially if you're multiclassed with additional spells that are more beneficial to you over blowing those higher level spell slots for damage. It does happen. People act like the Nova damage was an infinite resource when it wasn't.
One game I played, I went and blew my load with constant Nova damage. Yeah I took out the the big bad guy. But then we didn't know there were three other big bad guys who showed up. The fight went sideways real quick cause I didn't have my beneficial spells to rely on or my Nova damage. Lesson learned and I never did that again.
But as someone said, my only gripe with the new smite is that it is a spell, so it can be countered. And it's a bonus action. Get rid of those two things and just make it useable once per turn, and it is good to me.
Countering doesn’t kill the target’s spell slot as of 24, so it’s no different than an effect that boosts AC or decreased an attack roll. And making it take a Bonus Action keeps it on balance with the other Smites and was probably part of breaking up the notorious PAM/GWM combo- which really needed to be comprehensively stripped down a few levels.
I didn't know that they changed Counterspell. Cool. As far as the rest, I just don't agree with it. Making it require a bonus action was a terrible change. It was unnecessary when Eldritch Smite does the exact same thing and has access to the PAM/GWM combo, without requiring a bonus action.
You DO lose the resource if it isn't a spell slot, notably, so the free casting would be lost if countered.
What he likely meant was that being Counterspelled is now no different than missing with an attack against a temporarily raised AC. You're only out the action/bonus action/reaction, not that AND a spellslot like before. It doesn't "cost" a consumable resource anymore to be Counterspelled, in effect it just delays you a turn, then you can try again. Meanwhile the person who Counterspelled IS down a consumable resource (at least a third level spell slot).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
It's not the same.
If you miss with due to AC, you lose the spell slot, consumed M components and the action.
If you get Counterspelled, then you lose the consumed M components and the action. It says the spell dissipates, so the spell is cast but has no effect. It does explicitly say that you don't lose the spell slot, so you get that back, but doesn't mention the consumable M components - since the spell is cast (it just gets dissipated), then you treat it exactly like you've cast the spell unless told otherwise. You're not, so if you were casting Dark Star, then you lose the shard of onyx and the drop of blood.
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 mean, none of that is really germane to the point that being counterable does not significantly impact Divine Smite’s performance, or to the spell in general. The one freebie cast is the only thing you can actually lose, which imo is a fair trade for being a freebie. And Smites only use V components, so there’s no M component to lose.
And this, I think, is the "problem" they sought to correct. I imagine the cycle went something like this:
1. First BBEG: Paladin novas and trivializes the encounter.
2. Second BBEG: Paladin novas, but DM punishes them by creating a multi-tiered encounter. It's either lost, or narrowly won, at best.
3. Third-Inifnity BBEG: Paladin no longer novas, but has no idea how far to go anymore, and either underperforms (using too few resources in an encounter) or overperforms (using too many resources in an encounter) and is left dissatisfied either way - OR - the DM spends a considerable amount of time and energy making sure encounters are dynamic around how many resources the paladin uses and the DM is left dissatisfied with the time/enjoyment ratio since it's at the whim of the paladin player.
I feel that it probably had more to do with a single class' ability to completely warp the way encounters needed to be created/managed and the strain that put on DMs than anything else.
In order to get multiple smites in a round, you need multiple bonus actions in a round, which is not normally possible (you can only use a bonus action on your turn, and only one). It's technically possible for a Thief-17/Paladin-1 (or more) to smite twice in a round via Thief's Reflexes, but that's a singularly degenerate build.
I can understand that. But like I said, my whole issue is the fact that it's a bonus action now. Sneak Attack does just as much damage as well as Eldritch Smite and you don't lose your bonus action. Heck, Sneak Attack doesn't even use resources lol. They should have just limited it to once a turn without costing a BA, just like the previously mentioned abilities, and I'm sure nobody would have had an issue with it.
As the DM you can literally do whatever you want. The Rules are written to give the maximum play experience by the developers. Imbalance/balance from tinkering/removing certain rules is the cost to pay when you homebrew.