I would hate to take their reaction away for a spell or feature they can only use on their turn. Reactions can be important. Also I don’t mind the slight Nova allowing a divine smite and smite spell in the same turn would allow. As of now at level 7 a Cleric with Blessed strikes and a higher level casting of a smite spell could pull off a better Paladin style Nova. I don’t see a reason to not allow clerics access to smite spells, but I feel Paladins should be more drawn to them.
After working with it for a while limiting the Paladin’s Divine smite so they can’t cast a spell on the same turn is too much of a nerf. I would limit it so they can’t cast a smite spell on the same hit they activate Divine Smite, but still allow them to use a spell on the same turn even a smite spell on another hit.
The whole point seems to be 'nerf nova potential', so I'm not sure why they'd turn around and un-nerf. Once per turn is still plenty strong.
After working with it for a while limiting the Paladin’s Divine smite so they can’t cast a spell on the same turn is too much of a nerf. I would limit it so they can’t cast a smite spell on the same hit they activate Divine Smite, but still allow them to use a spell on the same turn even a smite spell on another hit.
The whole point seems to be 'nerf nova potential', so I'm not sure why they'd turn around and un-nerf. Once per turn is still plenty strong.
A Cleric using smites spells would out Nova them. The fact that divine smite and smite spells don’t crit, and the version I created still limits them to a max of one divine and one smite spell per turn it’s still a nerf. My point is they over nerfed. Im trying the dial it back.
I think that Divine Smite and smite spells should be combined into a single feature that lets you cast an action-casting-time spell when you hit with an attack (or just as a bonus action like the new smite spells). Maybe an extra 1d6 or so damage per level of the spell. I imagine it could get pretty overpowered with some spells, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Which is a problem with their whole unified spell list concept. Smites probably shouldn't be spells in the first place.
If a spell was unique to a class and kind of core to a classes identity it should probably be a class feature instead of a spell, like it seems they are doing with eldritch blast. I'd suggest hunters mark/hex should fall into the same category. This will usually occur on more specialized halfish caster classes, so give them something unique. The full casters will have their piles of spells past level 5 to make themselves distinct.
Which is a problem with their whole unified spell list concept. Smites probably shouldn't be spells in the first place.
If a spell was unique to a class and kind of core to a classes identity it should probably be a class feature instead of a spell, like it seems they are doing with eldritch blast. I'd suggest hunters mark/hex should fall into the same category. This will usually occur on more specialized halfish caster classes, so give them something unique. The full casters will have their piles of spells past level 5 to make themselves distinct.
I agree with this, find steed also should similarly be a feature instead of a spell now, else every cleric is going to have a pegasus from level 7, find familiar too. And these features should level with class level, to keep them as spells, they could just also implement a "feature" spell list, which lists spells that are only obtainable by direct features but personally think features makes more sense since some of these should scale to class level instead of spell slot, like find steed and eldritch blast.
Which is a problem with their whole unified spell list concept. Smites probably shouldn't be spells in the first place.
If a spell was unique to a class and kind of core to a classes identity it should probably be a class feature instead of a spell, like it seems they are doing with eldritch blast. I'd suggest hunters mark/hex should fall into the same category. This will usually occur on more specialized halfish caster classes, so give them something unique. The full casters will have their piles of spells past level 5 to make themselves distinct.
I agree with this, find steed also should similarly be a feature instead of a spell now, else every cleric is going to have a pegasus from level 7, find familiar too. And these features should level with class level, to keep them as spells, they could just also implement a "feature" spell list, which lists spells that are only obtainable by direct features but personally think features makes more sense since some of these should scale to class level instead of spell slot, like find steed and eldritch blast.
While I am not tied to the steed for the paladin you are right that it would allow the cleric to have a flying mount at level 7 where as the paladin its like level 13. So while if I play a paladin I may never use the feature, something seems off with how much better it is for the cleric.
Which is a problem with their whole unified spell list concept. Smites probably shouldn't be spells in the first place.
If a spell was unique to a class and kind of core to a classes identity it should probably be a class feature instead of a spell, like it seems they are doing with eldritch blast. I'd suggest hunters mark/hex should fall into the same category. This will usually occur on more specialized halfish caster classes, so give them something unique. The full casters will have their piles of spells past level 5 to make themselves distinct.
I agree with this, find steed also should similarly be a feature instead of a spell now, else every cleric is going to have a pegasus from level 7, find familiar too. And these features should level with class level, to keep them as spells, they could just also implement a "feature" spell list, which lists spells that are only obtainable by direct features but personally think features makes more sense since some of these should scale to class level instead of spell slot, like find steed and eldritch blast.
While I am not tied to the steed for the paladin you are right that it would allow the cleric to have a flying mount at level 7 where as the paladin its like level 13. So while if I play a paladin I may never use the feature, something seems off with how much better it is for the cleric.
With the current One D&D design, Bards and Clerics will both have Greater Steed before the Paladin does. It really cheapens it IMO, most parties will already have a pet pegasus by the time the Paladin can get one...
I would hate to take their reaction away for a spell or feature they can only use on their turn. Reactions can be important. Also I don’t mind the slight Nova allowing a divine smite and smite spell in the same turn would allow. As of now at level 7 a Cleric with Blessed strikes and a higher level casting of a smite spell could pull off a better Paladin style Nova. I don’t see a reason to not allow clerics access to smite spells, but I feel Paladins should be more drawn to them.
That's an interesting thought. The new design kind of makes single-class clerics to be buildable like a Sorcadin now....
After working with it for a while limiting the Paladin’s Divine smite so they can’t cast a spell on the same turn is too much of a nerf. I would limit it so they can’t cast a smite spell on the same hit they activate Divine Smite, but still allow them to use a spell on the same turn even a smite spell on another hit.
The whole point seems to be 'nerf nova potential', so I'm not sure why they'd turn around and un-nerf. Once per turn is still plenty strong.
A Cleric using smites spells would out Nova them. The fact that divine smite and smite spells don’t crit, and the version I created still limits them to a max of one divine and one smite spell per turn it’s still a nerf. My point is they over nerfed. Im trying the dial it back.
The current playtest uses the rules from the PH─because the last packet did, and the most recent packet didn't amend that─so why are you saying the dice isn't currently doubled?
After working with it for a while limiting the Paladin’s Divine smite so they can’t cast a spell on the same turn is too much of a nerf. I would limit it so they can’t cast a smite spell on the same hit they activate Divine Smite, but still allow them to use a spell on the same turn even a smite spell on another hit.
The whole point seems to be 'nerf nova potential', so I'm not sure why they'd turn around and un-nerf. Once per turn is still plenty strong.
A Cleric using smites spells would out Nova them. The fact that divine smite and smite spells don’t crit, and the version I created still limits them to a max of one divine and one smite spell per turn it’s still a nerf. My point is they over nerfed. Im trying the dial it back.
The current playtest uses the rules from the PH─because the last packet did, and the most recent packet didn't amend that─so why are you saying the dice isn't currently doubled?
Critical Hits
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target.
The crit allows you to roll extra dice for the attacks damage.
Divine Smite in the PHB's radiant damage is in addition to the weapon's damage,. So it is doubled.
The Divine Smite of the UA the damage is separate from the attacks damage, not in addition to it. So it isn't doubled. The crit only rolls extra of the attack's damage
2ND LEVEL: DIVINE SMITE When you strike a target, you can channel divine energy to smite it. Immediately after you hit a target with an attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend one Spell Slot to deal Radiant damage to the target.
After working with it for a while limiting the Paladin’s Divine smite so they can’t cast a spell on the same turn is too much of a nerf. I would limit it so they can’t cast a smite spell on the same hit they activate Divine Smite, but still allow them to use a spell on the same turn even a smite spell on another hit.
The whole point seems to be 'nerf nova potential', so I'm not sure why they'd turn around and un-nerf. Once per turn is still plenty strong.
A Cleric using smites spells would out Nova them. The fact that divine smite and smite spells don’t crit, and the version I created still limits them to a max of one divine and one smite spell per turn it’s still a nerf. My point is they over nerfed. Im trying the dial it back.
The current playtest uses the rules from the PH─because the last packet did, and the most recent packet didn't amend that─so why are you saying the dice isn't currently doubled?
Critical Hits
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack's damage against the target.
The crit allows you to roll extra dice for the attacks damage.
Divine Smite in the PHB's radiant damage is in addition to the weapon's damage,. So it is doubled.
The Divine Smite of the UA the damage is separate from the attacks damage, not in addition to it. So it isn't doubled. The crit only rolls extra of the attack's damage
2ND LEVEL: DIVINE SMITE When you strike a target, you can channel divine energy to smite it. Immediately after you hit a target with an attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend one Spell Slot to deal Radiant damage to the target.
I dunno, there's a case to be made either way for the wording, I guess. Original PHB does more explicitly tie it to the weapon damage roll, but there's a fair case to be made that "immediately after you hit" just defines the timing as after the hit is confirmed. It'd be a pretty unfortunate blow to the class if they can't crit smite, especially if Rogues still get to crit sneak attack damage.
Spells are spells and I don’t think every class needs a unique spell list. Every class needs a unique feel. Normally that is handled in class features. A Druid is never going to have more use of hunter’s mark than a Ranger. In 5e there is no cleric who could use a smite spell more effectively than a Paladin. This isn’t a spell list problem it’s a class design problem. Making the class feature divine smite essentially a spell itself ruins the Paladin’s ability to use smite spells more effectively than others. That’s the problem. I don’t care if others can cast smite spells, the Paladin should be able to do it the best. Honestly just making Divine smite not stop you from casting spells is a huge fix.
2ND LEVEL: DIVINE SMITE When you strike a target, you can channel divine energy to smite it. Immediately after you hit a target with an attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend one Spell Slot to deal Radiant damage to the target.
I dunno, there's a case to be made either way for the wording, I guess. Original PHB does more explicitly tie it to the weapon damage roll, but there's a fair case to be made that "immediately after you hit" just defines the timing as after the hit is confirmed. It'd be a pretty unfortunate blow to the class if they can't crit smite, especially if Rogues still get to crit sneak attack damage.
People need to stop getting hung up on wording. I just watched the Treantmonk video where he argues that because the Smite Spells say "extra damage" that they would double on a crit, but because Divine Smite doesn't say "extra" or "additional" they wouldn't. This is despite the fact that the Smite Spells are now a Bonus Action that you take after the attack. If anything logically it should be the reverse, Divine Smite criting and Smite spells not criting since Smite spells are now a separate action taken after the attack which seems logically much more like a separate source of damage. Though honestly, I've never liked that Smite crits (and sneak attack as well - though to a lesser degree) since they are both things you choose whether or not to apply after you make the attack. I tend to HB with my players that Smites & Sneak Attack can only crit IF they declare their intention to use them before they make the attack (still the use of them - so e.g. the expending of the spell slot - only happens if the attack hits though).
Spells are spells and I don’t think every class needs a unique spell list. Every class needs a unique feel. Normally that is handled in class features. A Druid is never going to have more use of hunter’s mark than a Ranger. In 5e there is no cleric who could use a smite spell more effectively than a Paladin. This isn’t a spell list problem it’s a class design problem. Making the class feature divine smite essentially a spell itself ruins the Paladin’s ability to use smite spells more effectively than others. That’s the problem. I don’t care if others can cast smite spells, the Paladin should be able to do it the best. Honestly just making Divine smite not stop you from casting spells is a huge fix.
See the problem there is that now many classes are just getting spells as class features which takes away all their uniqueness. Giving Paladin the Find Steed spell as a class feature but leaving Find Steed as a spell means that their class feature is no longer unique. Since Find Steed scales with spell slot as well, Bards, Clerics (and probably druids since druid-cleric is a great multiclass) will have a better steed than the paladin, despite find steed being a class feature of paladin.
2ND LEVEL: DIVINE SMITE When you strike a target, you can channel divine energy to smite it. Immediately after you hit a target with an attack roll using a weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend one Spell Slot to deal Radiant damage to the target.
I dunno, there's a case to be made either way for the wording, I guess. Original PHB does more explicitly tie it to the weapon damage roll, but there's a fair case to be made that "immediately after you hit" just defines the timing as after the hit is confirmed. It'd be a pretty unfortunate blow to the class if they can't crit smite, especially if Rogues still get to crit sneak attack damage.
People need to stop getting hung up on wording. I just watched the Treantmonk video where he argues that because the Smite Spells say "extra damage" that they would double on a crit, but because Divine Smite doesn't say "extra" or "additional" they wouldn't. This is despite the fact that the Smite Spells are now a Bonus Action that you take after the attack. If anything logically it should be the reverse, Divine Smite criting and Smite spells not criting since Smite spells are now a separate action taken after the attack which seems logically much more like a separate source of damage. Though honestly, I've never liked that Smite crits (and sneak attack as well - though to a lesser degree) since they are both things you choose whether or not to apply after you make the attack. I tend to HB with my players that Smites & Sneak Attack can only crit IF they declare their intention to use them before they make the attack (still the use of them - so e.g. the expending of the spell slot - only happens if the attack hits though).
Well since the wording is what informs you what the rule does it is kind of important to get hung up on it so we make sure its clear. And I'll just disagree on your non crit opinions, crits should be dope, let them be dope. A rogue sneaking for 1d8+5d6 getting a crit where now its 2d8+5d6 is not dope, its boring. The crit was borderline meaningless for them since most their damage came from the 5d6.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would hate to take their reaction away for a spell or feature they can only use on their turn. Reactions can be important. Also I don’t mind the slight Nova allowing a divine smite and smite spell in the same turn would allow. As of now at level 7 a Cleric with Blessed strikes and a higher level casting of a smite spell could pull off a better Paladin style Nova. I don’t see a reason to not allow clerics access to smite spells, but I feel Paladins should be more drawn to them.
The whole point seems to be 'nerf nova potential', so I'm not sure why they'd turn around and un-nerf. Once per turn is still plenty strong.
A Cleric using smites spells would out Nova them. The fact that divine smite and smite spells don’t crit, and the version I created still limits them to a max of one divine and one smite spell per turn it’s still a nerf. My point is they over nerfed. Im trying the dial it back.
Which is a problem with their whole unified spell list concept. Smites probably shouldn't be spells in the first place.
I think that Divine Smite and smite spells should be combined into a single feature that lets you cast an action-casting-time spell when you hit with an attack (or just as a bonus action like the new smite spells). Maybe an extra 1d6 or so damage per level of the spell. I imagine it could get pretty overpowered with some spells, though.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
If a spell was unique to a class and kind of core to a classes identity it should probably be a class feature instead of a spell, like it seems they are doing with eldritch blast. I'd suggest hunters mark/hex should fall into the same category. This will usually occur on more specialized halfish caster classes, so give them something unique. The full casters will have their piles of spells past level 5 to make themselves distinct.
I agree with this, find steed also should similarly be a feature instead of a spell now, else every cleric is going to have a pegasus from level 7, find familiar too. And these features should level with class level, to keep them as spells, they could just also implement a "feature" spell list, which lists spells that are only obtainable by direct features but personally think features makes more sense since some of these should scale to class level instead of spell slot, like find steed and eldritch blast.
While I am not tied to the steed for the paladin you are right that it would allow the cleric to have a flying mount at level 7 where as the paladin its like level 13. So while if I play a paladin I may never use the feature, something seems off with how much better it is for the cleric.
when they introduced the unified spell list i thought they were also gonna have class specific spells but yh its a mess
At the very least I was expecting all fullcasters to get subclass specific spell lists so there was some diversity...
With the current One D&D design, Bards and Clerics will both have Greater Steed before the Paladin does. It really cheapens it IMO, most parties will already have a pet pegasus by the time the Paladin can get one...
That's an interesting thought. The new design kind of makes single-class clerics to be buildable like a Sorcadin now....
The current playtest uses the rules from the PH─because the last packet did, and the most recent packet didn't amend that─so why are you saying the dice isn't currently doubled?
The crit allows you to roll extra dice for the attacks damage.
Divine Smite in the PHB's radiant damage is in addition to the weapon's damage,. So it is doubled.
The Divine Smite of the UA the damage is separate from the attacks damage, not in addition to it. So it isn't doubled. The crit only rolls extra of the attack's damage
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I dunno, there's a case to be made either way for the wording, I guess. Original PHB does more explicitly tie it to the weapon damage roll, but there's a fair case to be made that "immediately after you hit" just defines the timing as after the hit is confirmed. It'd be a pretty unfortunate blow to the class if they can't crit smite, especially if Rogues still get to crit sneak attack damage.
Spells are spells and I don’t think every class needs a unique spell list. Every class needs a unique feel. Normally that is handled in class features. A Druid is never going to have more use of hunter’s mark than a Ranger. In 5e there is no cleric who could use a smite spell more effectively than a Paladin. This isn’t a spell list problem it’s a class design problem. Making the class feature divine smite essentially a spell itself ruins the Paladin’s ability to use smite spells more effectively than others. That’s the problem. I don’t care if others can cast smite spells, the Paladin should be able to do it the best. Honestly just making Divine smite not stop you from casting spells is a huge fix.
People need to stop getting hung up on wording. I just watched the Treantmonk video where he argues that because the Smite Spells say "extra damage" that they would double on a crit, but because Divine Smite doesn't say "extra" or "additional" they wouldn't. This is despite the fact that the Smite Spells are now a Bonus Action that you take after the attack. If anything logically it should be the reverse, Divine Smite criting and Smite spells not criting since Smite spells are now a separate action taken after the attack which seems logically much more like a separate source of damage. Though honestly, I've never liked that Smite crits (and sneak attack as well - though to a lesser degree) since they are both things you choose whether or not to apply after you make the attack. I tend to HB with my players that Smites & Sneak Attack can only crit IF they declare their intention to use them before they make the attack (still the use of them - so e.g. the expending of the spell slot - only happens if the attack hits though).
See the problem there is that now many classes are just getting spells as class features which takes away all their uniqueness. Giving Paladin the Find Steed spell as a class feature but leaving Find Steed as a spell means that their class feature is no longer unique. Since Find Steed scales with spell slot as well, Bards, Clerics (and probably druids since druid-cleric is a great multiclass) will have a better steed than the paladin, despite find steed being a class feature of paladin.
there isnt much use of multiclassing druid anymore (barely a reason to actually play druid now)
Well since the wording is what informs you what the rule does it is kind of important to get hung up on it so we make sure its clear. And I'll just disagree on your non crit opinions, crits should be dope, let them be dope. A rogue sneaking for 1d8+5d6 getting a crit where now its 2d8+5d6 is not dope, its boring. The crit was borderline meaningless for them since most their damage came from the 5d6.