The question is pretty much in the title. Personally, I'm a bit worried that with smite spells now being available to clerics as well, clerics might step on the toes of paladins one bit too much. Also, having smites as a separate class feature helps build class identity, where your choices reflect your oath and your life path, as well as subclesses unlocking additional ways to smite or modifying your smites, like oathbreaker's smites becoming necrotic, etc.
Find steed is another issue. IMO, this spell is... first, it smells like MMORPG when you get a mount which then upgrades to a flying variation. Second, it kind of sets you apart because out of your entire party, you alone can ride forward into the sunset while the rest walk; and at the same time, the cavalier subclass belongs to the fighter, there's not much synergy in fighting while mounted aside from life bond feature of the steed. In other words, the steed kind of sets you apart one bit too much and I'd rather prefer that paladins had something else they could use outside of combat. An honest question: does the horse really see a lot of use when you're the only one with it?
Edit: another argument in favor of smite as a feature rather than a spell is the interaction with other features. The new Oath of Devotion's Smite of Protection feature, for instance, works only with vanilla divine smite, but not with smite spells. If smite spells were a part of a base feature rather than spells, then Smite of Protection could work with it.
I don’t know about the smite spells. It could be a problem that clerics will take them, and potentially be better at them than pallys, or in practice it could work out that clerics don’t really use them much. There’s lots of subclasses that don’t want to be in melee. They might keep one prepared in case of emergency but rarely or never use it. Of course, there’s melee clerics, and they’d be the issue. But a lot will depend on their other spells. If they have good offensive domain spells, smites may not be as attractive. It’s really tough to judge without a full playtest, including any new cleric domains. I guess I’d prefer it if it was a class spell, just to be safer. At least they made them more attractive this time, so I might use them instead of just vanilla smite.
I like paladins having a mount. It’s a classic that goes back to 1e, and gives some real flavor to the class. Much prefer a class ability to a spell. Pallys are the knight in shining armor (at least that’s the default), they should get their noble steed. And my most recent paladin used the crap out of his mount. But he was a halfling, so it was a medium mount, and mostly compensated for the halfling’s slow speed.
Easiest fix for smite spells is to level cap their growth at 5th level slots. Easiest fix for find stead is to also to level cap it to 5th level slots and remove the fly speed from the mounts entirely.
Clerics had smite abilities in prior editions. Whether it was domain powers like Destruction and Orc, spells like Holy Smite, or prestige class abilities, I don't see that as being a farfetched ability for them. But if they must be able to smite, Paladins still need to be the best at it.
The mount though, I see that as a Paladin specific ability. If they must keep it a spell, it needs to be uniquely useful for paladins - for example, requiring a costly material component that paladins get to ignore.
Personally, I prefer smites primarily be a Paladin spell, with a few of the martial oriented Domains getting them as Domain Spells. Helps preserve distinct class identities, and even capped at level 5 if any martial Cleric can prep all the Smite spells, they're still gonna do a lot more smiting with them than any Paladin due to spell slot progression and final totals. Clerics will get the top tier smites at level 9, while Paladins don't get it until level 17. That really kills the idea that Paladins are the archetypal smiters, imo.
Clerics had smite abilities in prior editions. Whether it was domain powers like Destruction and Orc, spells like Holy Smite, or prestige class abilities, I don't see that as being a farfetched ability for them. But if they must be able to smite, Paladins still need to be the best at it.
The mount though, I see that as a Paladin specific ability. If they must keep it a spell, it needs to be uniquely useful for paladins - for example, requiring a costly material component that paladins get to ignore.
I agree maybe the option is to turn find steed back into feature. Like 3e. Maybe make it similar to Divine smite so it uses spell slots. So the paladins 5th level feature just reads almost like the spells description but isn’t a spell.
Personally, I prefer smites primarily be a Paladin spell, with a few of the martial oriented Domains getting them as Domain Spells. Helps preserve distinct class identities, and even capped at level 5 if any martial Cleric can prep all the Smite spells, they're still gonna do a lot more smiting with them than any Paladin due to spell slot progression and final totals. Clerics will get the top tier smites at level 9, while Paladins don't get it until level 17. That really kills the idea that Paladins are the archetypal smiters, imo.
I have to disagree because the smite spell requires a weapon attack roll. Clerics have other duties that heavily rely on their wisdom. Unless the cleric specifically build to be a dpr they wouldn’t have the Str/Dex equivalent to a Paladin doing the same. Also there are just better options as a cleric. Additionally Paladins have divine smite as a feature so they can smite without having to take up a now precious prepared spot per day. The limit to 5th level makes it so at high levels you do not end up with Cleric crit fishing smiter. Also the divine smite feature is far superior to the smite spells because it doesn’t use your bonus action.
I believe a good fix for smites would be to make the spells do one damage die less, and then have the Paladin divine smite feature make the spells do an additional die/two die of damage. This way a paladin will always do roughly the same or more damage on a smite, unless of course the Cleric decides to pull out all the stops and use a 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th level slot to smite, which would come at a great opportunity cost. This would, however, break searing and wrathful smite (they only do 1d6 @ first level) but they could probably be left as is.
If these changes were put in place I could see Clerics mainly using smites at a low level for the rider effect (Thunderous to knock people away from squishies, Wrathful or Glimmering for Control/Buff, etc) and occasionally pulling out a massive damage smite if the team needs it.
As for Find Steed; I feel that it should be a paladin thing, which could either be achieved by making it a class feature or making it way more costly to use, with a paladin feature that removes the cost. Personally I lean towards the second, but that would probably require tuning down the stats a little. Or maybe make it scale off of the caster's own stats/level, and remove the upcasting? More like how a cantrip scales; once the caster reaches a certain level it can fly, it gains health / AC based on your proficiency bonus etc. That way sure a Cleric can access it earlier, but when the Paladin gets it, it will have the same stats as the Clerics.
Finally, addressing the issues with the 'MMORPG-ness' of Find Steed; I feel like the steed is not so much a combat thing as a flavour/utility thing, because it can't make attacks on its own (unless they change the definition of a controlled mount) and riding a mount indoors would be very cumbersome and unwieldy. It does, however, provide fast movement (and eventually flying), a beast of burden, and, perhaps most importantly, makes you look freakin' cool when you ride in on your magical horse (or pegasus, or hippogriff, or large cat, whatever you prefer). Sure, it may be weird that your mount magically begins to be able to fly, but it's also kinda weird that your Druid can turn into a Dire Wolf or other apex predator before you can turn into a hummingbird or goldfish, and both can be explained by setting specific reasoning. It is, after all, a game, and will have game-like mechanics which your character will inexplicably have to adhere too, unless the DM rules otherwise.
There are pros and cons for each. Having them as spells allows you to make perfectly valid character archetypes which fall outside that of the typical classes. Like what if you want a mounted ranger? Or what if you want an eldritch knight using the smite spells to replicate spellstrike of the old swordmages?
The downside of them being spells if that full casters can just grab them at half the level and do them better than the intended class.
This is just my opinion, but I think have a few of the smites open for Cleric is no big. There is enough of a separation between Cleric and Paladin that I do not think it will step on toes, but it kind of makes sense that a cleric can "smite" to some extent. In 3.5 Divine Smite was just bonus damage against undead and fiends, but otherwise a paladin was really just a fighter with some cleric spells and less feats, now that have an entire suite of unique features and abilities, even spells. I do not think sharing a couple of the lower end smite spells would take that away, especially if they go back to Magic Initiate choosing classes, it will make it require multiclassing to unlock them otherwise, unless they open up half casters to magic initiate l, which i also support. In the last Unearthed Arcana they appeared in, Searing Smite and Wrathful smite was still on the divine table while the rest were moved to Paladin exclusive, that seems fair to me, leave those two for clerics that want to use a weapon to emphasize that feature option at first level, allows magic initiate to pick up a d6 smite-like for other classes taking the feat.
Otherwise we can argue anyone using divine magic is stepping on Cleric toes, or Rangers having some druid spells steps on druid toes and Warlock steps on everybody's toes. A little bit of overlap is fine and can allow players to be creative with mechanics to create a character outside of the normal set classes without going down multiclass. Like Arcane tricksters and Eldritch knights using a smite spell as a way to simulate erupting arcane force from their weapon.
Apparently I never commented on this one but did vote. Anyway there are numerous ways smites could go, but smites should be a class feature, not spells. I actually think the idea that they are linked to spell slots is the biggest issue with smites to begin with, since it makes their scaling odd compared to other features of other classes. I have numerous ideas on how smite could be rebalanced in fair ways without even using spell slots but a lot of people hate the idea of paladin getting yet another dedicated resource (divine sense I admit is very... not needed).
As of latter UAs, I think there is even more reason to go with the feature option, since it could go more akin to Rogue's cunning strike, where you sacrifice X number of damage die for an effect. It'd actually make the smites easier to use then having to remember the effects of 8 different smite spells and having to look them up every time just to remember the damage die of that particular smite spell.
This is just my opinion, but I think have a few of the smites open for Cleric is no big. There is enough of a separation between Cleric and Paladin that I do not think it will step on toes, but it kind of makes sense that a cleric can "smite" to some extent. In 3.5 Divine Smite was just bonus damage against undead and fiends, but otherwise a paladin was really just a fighter with some cleric spells and less feats, now that have an entire suite of unique features and abilities, even spells. I do not think sharing a couple of the lower end smite spells would take that away, especially if they go back to Magic Initiate choosing classes, it will make it require multiclassing to unlock them otherwise, unless they open up half casters to magic initiate l, which i also support. In the last Unearthed Arcana they appeared in, Searing Smite and Wrathful smite was still on the divine table while the rest were moved to Paladin exclusive, that seems fair to me, leave those two for clerics that want to use a weapon to emphasize that feature option at first level, allows magic initiate to pick up a d6 smite-like for other classes taking the feat.
Otherwise we can argue anyone using divine magic is stepping on Cleric toes, or Rangers having some druid spells steps on druid toes and Warlock steps on everybody's toes. A little bit of overlap is fine and can allow players to be creative with mechanics to create a character outside of the normal set classes without going down multiclass. Like Arcane tricksters and Eldritch knights using a smite spell as a way to simulate erupting arcane force from their weapon.
You have to remember that in the UAs we have had, Searing Smite has done the most damage of any smite (more than even divine smite) and cleric has had access to it with higher level spell slots. So a lot of the sentiment against clerics having smites comes from that. Searing smite remains the biggest issue, since even with one attack a round, cleric is outsmiting paladin due to that one spell alone. As for stepping on cleric's shoes, Paladin does not do a lot of things that cleric does, no AoE heals, lacks a lot of spells, has no cantrips.
Sharing divine casting is not an issue for cleric to be unique from paladin but for paladin, it should be distinct from a cleric/fighter multi-class. A level 6 cleric/6 fighter should be fundamentally different to a level 12 paladin, else why even have paladin as a class to begin with.
So on top of getting easily the best half-casting in the game outside of - arguably - artificers AND having a completely uninterruptible healing resource they don't have to pay for that lets paladins burst heal better than any other class in the game up to and including Life Domain clerics AND getting every last inch of a fighter's martial prowess up to level 11 AND being the only class in the entire game with a reliable combat-grade mount AND getting the single best class feature in all of D&D in Aura of Protection...paladins should also get a third resource pool specifically to fuel their Divine Smites that they also don't have to pay for, so they can use their spells freely without having to expend a single spell slot on healing or damage the way every other class in 5e needs to?
Sure. That seems entirely fair and balanced.
Dingdongs are already uncontestably the strongest overall class in 5e. Yes yes yes - "but wizzerds! Wizzerds!" Spells are strong - wizards are not. The wizard class is the weakest framework in 5e, held up solely by the strength of arcane spellcasting and their abundant access to it. In every other way paladins are easily the game's strongest class. They have easy access to game-defining Charisma skill proficiencies, the game's strongest armor and weapons, the game's strongest features, the broadest and most broadly effective pool(s) of resources, are essentially immune to saving-throw effects at higher levels...a high-level paladin is a combat demon with much stronger out-of-battle utility than anything but a full-flight arcane caster.
Divine Smite does not need to be given a whole magazine of free ammo, made even more uninterruptible and uncounterable than the current version, and made even stronger to boot. My own paladin was only really held back by her deliberately mediocre melee Dexadin set-up and the fact that Divine Smite ate the same food as spellcasting so I had to pick between the one or the other. If I got a dozen free Smites a day on top of bonus action Lay on Hands on top of full divine halfcasting, Misty would've been unstoppable even with her lame AC and lowish HP.
Class abilities should enable a character to be more effective and efficient using a specific skill and spell. For example, an Eloquence Bard is more effective at persuasion due to their Silver Tongue class ability. In application to Paladins, make a class ability that allows them to use a Smite Spell similarly - fewer failures, less low damage, etc.
Non-paladin primary caster smite availability is a hilarious idea. The way 5E handles spell level progression, it basically dictates that clerics will be better evil-bonkers than paladins past level 5, and one single Extra Attack does nothing to help this.
Non-paladin primary caster smite availability is a hilarious idea. The way 5E handles spell level progression, it basically dictates that clerics will be better evil-bonkers than paladins past level 5, and one single Extra Attack does nothing to help this.
So despite clerics getting armor and weapon proficiencies, skills and class abilities that lend themselves to melee/weapon combat, and entire domains slanted towards the Battle Priest idea, clerics are not allowed to have one single proper tool to support this obviously intended playstyle because upcasted Smites somehow render paladins meaningless despite the enormous breadth of crap dingdongs can do that clerics can't?
[REDACTED]
Notes: All users are expected to be civil when participating on these forums
So despite clerics getting armor and weapon proficiencies, skills and class abilities that lend themselves to melee/weapon combat, and entire domains slanted towards the Battle Priest idea, clerics are not allowed to have one single proper tool to support this obviously intended playstyle because upcasted Smites somehow render paladins meaningless despite the enormous breadth of crap dingdongs can do that clerics can't?
God this argument is such bullshit. "Oh noes, the cleric might actually get to use the chainmail and warhammer it starts the game with in a way that isn't hilariously counterproductive! THE SHEER NERVE OF THEM!"
Given how smite spells upscale, and that smites are the paladin's one and only saving grace in the damage department, I'd say yes. Especially given how clerics, full-casters, are given martial weapon proficiencies, extra attack abilities, heavy armor, etc. What does the pally get to match a full smite casting battle priest, damage-wise? One Extra Attack?
So on top of getting easily the best half-casting in the game outside of - arguably - artificers
Including Artificers, there are only three half-casters.. that's already the beginning of a weak argument...
Now all half-casters are weaker than the 5 full casters and warlock (if you call that full caster or three/fourths caster), so already in a situation where half of the PHB classes are stronger.
having a completely uninterruptible healing resource they don't have to pay for
Paladin's pay for it by not being a full caster with spells like mass cure wounds, prayer of healing or heal. Also Paladin is not alone in having an uninterruptible healing resource, fighter has a healing resource that is uninterruptible and a bonus action versus an action, now UA is moving lay-on-hands to bonus action too, because the only time anybody would use it is on a downed ally or outside of combat, at which point nothing is interrupting any healing.
Admittedly lay-on-hands can be used on others but it actually left Paladin slightly behind fighter since fighter could second wind and in encouraged to always second wind before a short rest if they haven't used it already. Tier 3 & 4 lay on hands is quiet amazing but tier 1 & 2 lay on hands is generally actually weaker than second wind. Of course lay on hands can also remove some status affects, but again that is to make up for Paladin not being a full caster.
lets paladins burst heal better than any other class in the game up to and including Life Domain clerics AND getting every last inch of a fighter's martial prowess up to level 11
Paladin lacks any form of AoE healing which is generally more worthwhile in most healing cases. Burst heals are only good for when the tank goes down which as a paladin, you're the tank, so that burst is mostly meant for use on self, this aside, lay-on-hands is not the best burst heal, cleric and druid at level 11 get the heal spell which heals 70HP, Lay on hands does not match this until level 14 but a 7th level heal is 80HP which at level, basically it remains behind until level 20 at 100HP vs 100HP but by that point cleric gets mass heal at 700HP. Lay on hands is the best burst heal in tier 2, about it. It's still a good heal but it's not the best, once heal comes a long, as for a life cleric, they can get the heal spell at 9th level up to 111HP which is 1 point more than lay on hands can ever get... but you'd probably instead still use mass heal.
As for comparison to fighter.... I can not see where Paladin gets action surge, nor can I see any paladin subclass that adds as much damage as most of the fighter subclasses. For example battlemaster adds a lot, additionally fighter gets extra feats, so if you want to get the +5 and Great Weapon Master by level 6, in current UA, you can do that as fighter, you can't as Paladin, at level 8 sure, but then fighter picks up another feat, maybe polearm master, sentinel, piercer, slasher, etc...
being the only class in the entire game with a reliable combat-grade mount AND getting the single best class feature in all of D&D in Aura of Protection...
Bard also gets access to find greater steed, admittedly via magical secrets but they do. As for best class feature, sorry, gotta give that one to Wizard for their amazing feature called, "spell casting", it is a feature. Of course there is also Barbarians rage, rogue's sneak attack, bards magical secret, other spell casters with the class feature "spell casting". If you removed Aura of Protection from Paladin, it'd still be a function class, you remove spell casting from wizard it goes from being the strongest class in the game to literally the weakest.
Perhaps you mean secondary feature, or support feature, even then it's questionable if Aura of Protection is really the best of those...
paladins should also get a third resource pool specifically to fuel their Divine Smites that they also don't have to pay for, so they can use their spells freely without having to expend a single spell slot on healing or damage the way every other class in 5e needs to?
Sure. That seems entirely fair and balanced.
I think this is the crux of the argument and the answer to this is yes, it is fair and balanced, because a big part of Paladin's imbalance is caused by the shared resource of spells and smites. Smites scaling to spell-casting causes their odd and weird effects on damage. I do also believe lay on hands should be changed but I do not need to go into detail on this, I'd just say to make it like Baldur's gate 3, then split of divine smite from spellcasting. Or if really concerned about three resources, lay-on-hands could be powered by spell slots, healing Charisma+Paladin level HP with the same option to switch 5HP for removing certain status effects.
I can imagine a few ways to make a separate resource work. Paladin could have a number of charges starting at 2 and when they use divine smite they consume all charges, for each charge they get a 1d8 radiant damage die but have the ability to switch 1 die for another effect, such as searing (smite damage changes to fire, additionally does 1d6 damage for 1 minute with CON save after taking damage). The charges are then recovered from attack rolls or spell casts made during the paladin's action (not BA or reaction), 1 charge per attack roll or spell cast, to smite the paladin needs at least 2 charges and the number of maximum charges increases inline with spell casting, so the paladin has 1+round up(paladin level /4) charges.
This is not the way I am saying they should go but an idea where the smites aren't spamable but would be more balanced with regards to no longer consuming spell slots. And if anything, this idea actually makes smites slightly less common since charging a 4th level smite would take 4 attacks and be usable on the 5th attack. Of course all charges recover on a long rest, perhaps X number of changes on a short rest if needed to balance, would need play testing to find out.
Dingdongs are already uncontestably the strongest overall class in 5e. Yes yes yes - "but wizzerds! Wizzerds!" Spells are strong - wizards are not. The wizard class is the weakest framework in 5e, held up solely by the strength of arcane spellcasting and their abundant access to it.
Paladin is uncontestably the strongest overall? by what metric? I've played quiet a few classes in 5E and I found Circle of the Moon Druid to be the strongest by far, the ability to mitigate damage while outputting damage and then having full spellcasting on top was straight up broken. Turning into a giant constrictor snake and literally restricting a few BBEGs into uselessness.... while having a concentration spell up. I remember doing it to a young dragon at one point, since the DM dice rolled conjure woodland animals and the dragon had two giant constrictor snakes on it, with lair actions not being enough to save it. Admittedly this is a subclass instead of a class, but different classes get different amounts of power from their subclasses and so it is relevant. That said, this is also obviously the reason wild shape is getting nerfed on that insane mitigation.
Wizards have low HP, sure, Wizards have low AC, sure, Wizards have spells where they can teleport 500 foot away and continue to bombard a paladin to death from range just like they can most creatures in the game, it's not a fun way to play but it exists. Paladin are useless in anything but melee combat, sure high AC means taking less damage, got it, aura of protection means taking less damage, got it, but when a bard or druid only needs to cast heat metal and you're completely useless... I dunno where people get this idea that Paladin is so strong from. Paladin is strong at a role, that is front-line melee combat, most encounters lead to paladin getting into front-line melee combat, but even in front-line melee combat, Paladin isn't particularly any stronger than either Barbarian or Fighter.
Now if you get into a combat with a flying dragon that stays around 30-60 foot in the air, paladin is doing exactly nothing, perhaps casting a buffing spell, grabbing a near by stone and throwing it or taking a few javelins and hoping to hit something, without a level dip into another caster or a feat like magic initiate they are hopeless in ranged combat. Barbarian is actually better than Paladin, since Barbarian usually has a higher dexterity, so while they don't have the features for it, they're still gunna hit more often and get a bit more damage when they do, same goes for a strength based fighter, usually a higher dexterity than paladin, since Paladin does want that Aura of Protection, or wants some Save DC on their spells, or wants to be able to level dip at some point to meet multi-class requirements.
The issues with fighter are well... none... unless you include everything outside of combat... the issue with barbarian is their damage features on the base class are a little lackluster but some of their subclasses, like zealot, do compensate for it a lot; however a certain subclass is so good at taking damage that many people could not bear to make any other choice. I apologize for the bad joke in advance.
They have easy access to game-defining Charisma skill proficiencies, the game's strongest armor and weapons, the game's strongest features, the broadest and most broadly effective pool(s) of resources, are essentially immune to saving-throw effects at higher levels...a high-level paladin is a combat demon with much stronger out-of-battle utility than anything but a full-flight arcane caster.
The way skills work makes balance nearly impossible and social interactions needs re-doing so that charisma is not all dominating.
The strongest armor in the game gives disadvantage with stealth making paladin basically the least stealthy thing since two criminals tried to hide their identities with black marker when robbing a gas station.
Paladin has proficiency to the same weapons as Fighter, Barbarian & Ranger but does not have necessarily the same skill with them, Paladin is not going to longbow as well as ranger and a barbarian is still generally going to get more out of a greataxe than a paladin would and fighter gets more feats, so they can pick up more specialized feats for those types of weapons.
The game's strongest features, maybe the best synergized set of features of any class, but again, I'd say Wizard's spellcasting alone beats basically the whole set of Paladin's class features...
as for out of battle utility, Wizard, Bard, Ranger and Druid easily have paladin beat in this. Wizard has features that let's them create an impenetrable campsite/mansion where the party can sleep while hauling around 500 pounds of luggage and having servants running around doing errand for them, ritual spells are insane and wizard truly has some special ones. Ranger is very much a capable scout and has spells like pass without trace that are strong enough that even paladin can potentially pass stealth checks. Also the paladin probably sucks at perception, survival, slight of hand, and so many other skill checks which come up outside of combat, the bard with their jack of trades, the rogue... good at a lot of this stuff. So not sure what you mean by out-of-battle utility, perhaps you mean social encounters? That is one weakness of Wizard, unless you need the arcana checks, history, religion... they are knowledge buffs which also do occasionally help in social encounters if utilized correctly.
Divine Smite does not need to be given a whole magazine of free ammo, made even more uninterruptible and uncounterable than the current version, and made even stronger to boot. My own paladin was only really held back by her deliberately mediocre melee Dexadin set-up and the fact that Divine Smite ate the same food as spellcasting so I had to pick between the one or the other. If I got a dozen free Smites a day on top of bonus action Lay on Hands on top of full divine halfcasting, Misty would've been unstoppable even with her lame AC and lowish HP.
Again, the point is getting an actually balanced divine smite that works, there is no great reason that spellcasting and divine smite actually need to be coupled together like this, it's just an assertion people make.
DEX based paladin only performs slightly worse than STR based, once you get +5 dexterity, studded armour is only 1 AC beneath Plate, your HP should not matter based on being STR or DEX based, the area you'd suffer on is weapons that aren't finesse or ranged weapons but as a DEX based paladin that is the trade you're making since then you actually can use a bow relatively well when out of melee. That said, a smite is still a smite tho, delivered with a rapier or a greatsword, the difference is only going to be 1d8 vs 2d6, an average difference of around 2.5 damage and if you go duelling, compared to GWF, that difference decreases to below 1.9.
Also the idea is not to make smites more common, it is to better balance smites in general, you're making a lot of assumptions here about what other people are after and nobody is saying paladin should be averaging 1 smite a turn every turn of combat.
So despite clerics getting armor and weapon proficiencies, skills and class abilities that lend themselves to melee/weapon combat, and entire domains slanted towards the Battle Priest idea, clerics are not allowed to have one single proper tool to support this obviously intended playstyle because upcasted Smites somehow render paladins meaningless despite the enormous breadth of crap dingdongs can do that clerics can't?
God this argument is such bullshit. "Oh noes, the cleric might actually get to use the chainmail and warhammer it starts the game with in a way that isn't hilariously counterproductive! THE SHEER NERVE OF THEM!"
Given how smite spells upscale, and that smites are the paladin's one and only saving grace in the damage department, I'd say yes. Especially given how clerics, full-casters, are given martial weapon proficiencies, extra attack abilities, heavy armor, etc. What does the pally get to match a full smite casting battle priest, damage-wise? One Extra Attack?
I agree with this but would point out that clerics don't get those proficiencies, subclasses of cleric do or they can get them from feats. But yes, a war cleric for example, it's very hard to see the difference sometimes, they can even use spiritual weapon to make up for that lost attack, then just smite when critical on main weapon... gets very broken very quickly, way stronger than Paladin.
Very valid, and again, that was and is just my opinion. To be fair; about the cleric/druid and half casters, I was just being unnecessarily facetious, and that is on me.
We played tested a few different levels (5, 11, 17 a one shot each) at my table, so my opinion just comes from my own table and experiences. In interest of clarity, I am not aware of the larger state of things involving Searing Smite and the other Smite spells at other tables. At our table, we didn't have a problem with Searing Smite out smiting the paladin, mostly because it was resisted so often. Fire is the most resisted/immune outside of poison which is a bit of built in balance, which is why most fire based things gets by with doing more that it's equivalent in other energy types, but I do get what you are saying. The residual damage also scaling with the spell level of Searing Smite can be a lot, especially when you are guarantied at least one ping off of it and at low levels when only a few things will actually resist it.
About the 6/6 cleric/fighter, the paladin is already fundamentally different at 12 even without any smite spells; Their built in auras buffs, support with lay on hands, damage supplementation with radiant strikes, and entirely different theme with their subclass kits. Yeah, it will be a pain to be out of spell slots at the start of a fight, but they can still heavily support their allies with positioning alone, which a cleric cannot do and at the trade off of having one less attack than a pure fighter at 12. My point was that a Paladin is more than just smiting, smiting is just what they are known for, and even then mostly because of this edition.
All of that being said. I would also be down with just doing away with all of the smite spells and just having the feature. I just do not think it is that big of a deal for clerics to have a couple of smite spells available to support their melee options. They can give clerics Thunderous or just give them Wrathful, it would just be fun for them to have the option.
Very valid, and again, that was and is just my opinion. To be fair; about the cleric/druid and half casters, I was just being unnecessarily facetious, and that is on me.
We played tested a few different levels (5, 11, 17 a one shot each) at my table, so my opinion just comes from my own table and experiences. In interest of clarity, I am not aware of the larger state of things involving Searing Smite and the other Smite spells at other tables. At our table, we didn't have a problem with Searing Smite out smiting the paladin, mostly because it was resisted so often. Fire is the most resisted/immune outside of poison which is a bit of built in balance, which is why most fire based things gets by with doing more that it's equivalent in other energy types, but I do get what you are saying. The residual damage also scaling with the spell level of Searing Smite can be a lot, especially when you are guarantied at least one ping off of it and at low levels when only a few things will actually resist it.
About the 6/6 cleric/fighter, the paladin is already fundamentally different at 12 even without any smite spells; Their built in auras buffs, support with lay on hands, damage supplementation with radiant strikes, and entirely different theme with their subclass kits. Yeah, it will be a pain to be out of spell slots at the start of a fight, but they can still heavily support their allies with positioning alone, which a cleric cannot do and at the trade off of having one less attack than a pure fighter at 12. My point was that a Paladin is more than just smiting, smiting is just what they are known for, and even then mostly because of this edition.
All of that being said. I would also be down with just doing away with all of the smite spells and just having the feature. I just do not think it is that big of a deal for clerics to have a couple of smite spells available to support their melee options. They can give clerics Thunderous or just give them Wrathful, it would just be fun for them to have the option.
For searing smite yes, you're guaranteed the initial damage and the first ping, so the number of die increases by 2 every level instead of 1, like every other smite spell. At level 5, cleric does 3d6+3d6 with a chance to do more 3d6 instances on following rounds, it's an average 21 damage before the 1st con save while at level 5 paladin is using 2nd level divine smite for 3d8, or 13.5 damage. By level 9 it's 5d6+5d6 (35) vs 4d8 (18) or 3d6+3d6(21), at which point a cleric doing a normal hit is doing around the same smite damage as a paladin using divine smite on a critical hit. Fire being more resisted is fair, that is partially campaign specific, if you're in Avernus you're gunna see a lot of fire resistance but in most campaigns, it won't be that common that searing smite would be that impacted in most encounters.
I didn't mean the fighter 6/cleric 6 would exactly be the same as Paladin 12, but I was more on the play style itself, Aura is nice but few paladins are going to alter how they attack based off of it. Radiant strikes are more damage, but not really altering the play style. I should have been more clear on that, and so I apologise, as the fighter 6/cleric 6, your main thing is likely to be going how to melee hit and try and inflict that searing smite or wrathful smite, from the UA6 smite spells. There would still be slight difference in other areas, like action surge vs lay on hands for sure.
We definitely agree that it should be a feature instead. I honestly do not know why WotC did not experiment with the idea of incorporating all smites into being a feature earlier in the UAs, my only thoughts would be how it'd impact other classes/races that get smites, like hexblades or Zariel Tieflings but those could have been adjusted either to different spells or having a racial feature to match the change on paladin.
Steed: c) don't care. The game has done both, historically ... and both work. Lets spend our time on things that are actually meaningful.
Smite: Both. Give Paladins: 1- a Channel Divinity called "Divine Smite" that is like the Cleric's Divine Spark ... but is used to enhance melee damage (weapon or unarmed strike). Make this a Reaction. 2- The class Feature grants the new True Strike cantrip instead of a Divine Smite spell. (also: give Paladins and Rangers the enhanced version of Extra Attack, that Bladesingers have; and EK's sort of get now as a subclass benefit). 3- Make a version of Searing Smite, named Elemental Smite, that lets you pick the damage type (from Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder) but doesn't do any secondary affect (like the secondary effect searing smite and thunderous smite do). Elemental Smite should also be available to Rangers (instead of Searing Smite .. or maybe both). And it should work with any weapon attack (maybe that means no unarmed stikes).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The question is pretty much in the title. Personally, I'm a bit worried that with smite spells now being available to clerics as well, clerics might step on the toes of paladins one bit too much. Also, having smites as a separate class feature helps build class identity, where your choices reflect your oath and your life path, as well as subclesses unlocking additional ways to smite or modifying your smites, like oathbreaker's smites becoming necrotic, etc.
Find steed is another issue. IMO, this spell is... first, it smells like MMORPG when you get a mount which then upgrades to a flying variation. Second, it kind of sets you apart because out of your entire party, you alone can ride forward into the sunset while the rest walk; and at the same time, the cavalier subclass belongs to the fighter, there's not much synergy in fighting while mounted aside from life bond feature of the steed. In other words, the steed kind of sets you apart one bit too much and I'd rather prefer that paladins had something else they could use outside of combat. An honest question: does the horse really see a lot of use when you're the only one with it?
Edit: another argument in favor of smite as a feature rather than a spell is the interaction with other features. The new Oath of Devotion's Smite of Protection feature, for instance, works only with vanilla divine smite, but not with smite spells. If smite spells were a part of a base feature rather than spells, then Smite of Protection could work with it.
I don’t know about the smite spells. It could be a problem that clerics will take them, and potentially be better at them than pallys, or in practice it could work out that clerics don’t really use them much. There’s lots of subclasses that don’t want to be in melee. They might keep one prepared in case of emergency but rarely or never use it.
Of course, there’s melee clerics, and they’d be the issue. But a lot will depend on their other spells. If they have good offensive domain spells, smites may not be as attractive. It’s really tough to judge without a full playtest, including any new cleric domains. I guess I’d prefer it if it was a class spell, just to be safer. At least they made them more attractive this time, so I might use them instead of just vanilla smite.
I like paladins having a mount. It’s a classic that goes back to 1e, and gives some real flavor to the class. Much prefer a class ability to a spell. Pallys are the knight in shining armor (at least that’s the default), they should get their noble steed. And my most recent paladin used the crap out of his mount. But he was a halfling, so it was a medium mount, and mostly compensated for the halfling’s slow speed.
Easiest fix for smite spells is to level cap their growth at 5th level slots. Easiest fix for find stead is to also to level cap it to 5th level slots and remove the fly speed from the mounts entirely.
Clerics had smite abilities in prior editions. Whether it was domain powers like Destruction and Orc, spells like Holy Smite, or prestige class abilities, I don't see that as being a farfetched ability for them. But if they must be able to smite, Paladins still need to be the best at it.
The mount though, I see that as a Paladin specific ability. If they must keep it a spell, it needs to be uniquely useful for paladins - for example, requiring a costly material component that paladins get to ignore.
Personally, I prefer smites primarily be a Paladin spell, with a few of the martial oriented Domains getting them as Domain Spells. Helps preserve distinct class identities, and even capped at level 5 if any martial Cleric can prep all the Smite spells, they're still gonna do a lot more smiting with them than any Paladin due to spell slot progression and final totals. Clerics will get the top tier smites at level 9, while Paladins don't get it until level 17. That really kills the idea that Paladins are the archetypal smiters, imo.
I agree maybe the option is to turn find steed back into feature. Like 3e. Maybe make it similar to Divine smite so it uses spell slots. So the paladins 5th level feature just reads almost like the spells description but isn’t a spell.
I have to disagree because the smite spell requires a weapon attack roll. Clerics have other duties that heavily rely on their wisdom. Unless the cleric specifically build to be a dpr they wouldn’t have the Str/Dex equivalent to a Paladin doing the same. Also there are just better options as a cleric. Additionally Paladins have divine smite as a feature so they can smite without having to take up a now precious prepared spot per day. The limit to 5th level makes it so at high levels you do not end up with Cleric crit fishing smiter. Also the divine smite feature is far superior to the smite spells because it doesn’t use your bonus action.
I believe a good fix for smites would be to make the spells do one damage die less, and then have the Paladin divine smite feature make the spells do an additional die/two die of damage. This way a paladin will always do roughly the same or more damage on a smite, unless of course the Cleric decides to pull out all the stops and use a 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th level slot to smite, which would come at a great opportunity cost. This would, however, break searing and wrathful smite (they only do 1d6 @ first level) but they could probably be left as is.
If these changes were put in place I could see Clerics mainly using smites at a low level for the rider effect (Thunderous to knock people away from squishies, Wrathful or Glimmering for Control/Buff, etc) and occasionally pulling out a massive damage smite if the team needs it.
As for Find Steed; I feel that it should be a paladin thing, which could either be achieved by making it a class feature or making it way more costly to use, with a paladin feature that removes the cost. Personally I lean towards the second, but that would probably require tuning down the stats a little. Or maybe make it scale off of the caster's own stats/level, and remove the upcasting? More like how a cantrip scales; once the caster reaches a certain level it can fly, it gains health / AC based on your proficiency bonus etc. That way sure a Cleric can access it earlier, but when the Paladin gets it, it will have the same stats as the Clerics.
Finally, addressing the issues with the 'MMORPG-ness' of Find Steed; I feel like the steed is not so much a combat thing as a flavour/utility thing, because it can't make attacks on its own (unless they change the definition of a controlled mount) and riding a mount indoors would be very cumbersome and unwieldy. It does, however, provide fast movement (and eventually flying), a beast of burden, and, perhaps most importantly, makes you look freakin' cool when you ride in on your magical horse (or pegasus, or hippogriff, or large cat, whatever you prefer). Sure, it may be weird that your mount magically begins to be able to fly, but it's also kinda weird that your Druid can turn into a Dire Wolf or other apex predator before you can turn into a hummingbird or goldfish, and both can be explained by setting specific reasoning. It is, after all, a game, and will have game-like mechanics which your character will inexplicably have to adhere too, unless the DM rules otherwise.
(Also, yay, my first post XD)
Class features for both only if Spiritual Weapon becomes a non concentration class feature for Clerics.
There are pros and cons for each. Having them as spells allows you to make perfectly valid character archetypes which fall outside that of the typical classes. Like what if you want a mounted ranger? Or what if you want an eldritch knight using the smite spells to replicate spellstrike of the old swordmages?
The downside of them being spells if that full casters can just grab them at half the level and do them better than the intended class.
This is just my opinion, but I think have a few of the smites open for Cleric is no big. There is enough of a separation between Cleric and Paladin that I do not think it will step on toes, but it kind of makes sense that a cleric can "smite" to some extent. In 3.5 Divine Smite was just bonus damage against undead and fiends, but otherwise a paladin was really just a fighter with some cleric spells and less feats, now that have an entire suite of unique features and abilities, even spells. I do not think sharing a couple of the lower end smite spells would take that away, especially if they go back to Magic Initiate choosing classes, it will make it require multiclassing to unlock them otherwise, unless they open up half casters to magic initiate l, which i also support. In the last Unearthed Arcana they appeared in, Searing Smite and Wrathful smite was still on the divine table while the rest were moved to Paladin exclusive, that seems fair to me, leave those two for clerics that want to use a weapon to emphasize that feature option at first level, allows magic initiate to pick up a d6 smite-like for other classes taking the feat.
Otherwise we can argue anyone using divine magic is stepping on Cleric toes, or Rangers having some druid spells steps on druid toes and Warlock steps on everybody's toes. A little bit of overlap is fine and can allow players to be creative with mechanics to create a character outside of the normal set classes without going down multiclass. Like Arcane tricksters and Eldritch knights using a smite spell as a way to simulate erupting arcane force from their weapon.
Apparently I never commented on this one but did vote. Anyway there are numerous ways smites could go, but smites should be a class feature, not spells. I actually think the idea that they are linked to spell slots is the biggest issue with smites to begin with, since it makes their scaling odd compared to other features of other classes. I have numerous ideas on how smite could be rebalanced in fair ways without even using spell slots but a lot of people hate the idea of paladin getting yet another dedicated resource (divine sense I admit is very... not needed).
As of latter UAs, I think there is even more reason to go with the feature option, since it could go more akin to Rogue's cunning strike, where you sacrifice X number of damage die for an effect. It'd actually make the smites easier to use then having to remember the effects of 8 different smite spells and having to look them up every time just to remember the damage die of that particular smite spell.
You have to remember that in the UAs we have had, Searing Smite has done the most damage of any smite (more than even divine smite) and cleric has had access to it with higher level spell slots. So a lot of the sentiment against clerics having smites comes from that. Searing smite remains the biggest issue, since even with one attack a round, cleric is outsmiting paladin due to that one spell alone. As for stepping on cleric's shoes, Paladin does not do a lot of things that cleric does, no AoE heals, lacks a lot of spells, has no cantrips.
Sharing divine casting is not an issue for cleric to be unique from paladin but for paladin, it should be distinct from a cleric/fighter multi-class. A level 6 cleric/6 fighter should be fundamentally different to a level 12 paladin, else why even have paladin as a class to begin with.
So on top of getting easily the best half-casting in the game outside of - arguably - artificers AND having a completely uninterruptible healing resource they don't have to pay for that lets paladins burst heal better than any other class in the game up to and including Life Domain clerics AND getting every last inch of a fighter's martial prowess up to level 11 AND being the only class in the entire game with a reliable combat-grade mount AND getting the single best class feature in all of D&D in Aura of Protection...paladins should also get a third resource pool specifically to fuel their Divine Smites that they also don't have to pay for, so they can use their spells freely without having to expend a single spell slot on healing or damage the way every other class in 5e needs to?
Sure. That seems entirely fair and balanced.
Dingdongs are already uncontestably the strongest overall class in 5e. Yes yes yes - "but wizzerds! Wizzerds!" Spells are strong - wizards are not. The wizard class is the weakest framework in 5e, held up solely by the strength of arcane spellcasting and their abundant access to it. In every other way paladins are easily the game's strongest class. They have easy access to game-defining Charisma skill proficiencies, the game's strongest armor and weapons, the game's strongest features, the broadest and most broadly effective pool(s) of resources, are essentially immune to saving-throw effects at higher levels...a high-level paladin is a combat demon with much stronger out-of-battle utility than anything but a full-flight arcane caster.
Divine Smite does not need to be given a whole magazine of free ammo, made even more uninterruptible and uncounterable than the current version, and made even stronger to boot. My own paladin was only really held back by her deliberately mediocre melee Dexadin set-up and the fact that Divine Smite ate the same food as spellcasting so I had to pick between the one or the other. If I got a dozen free Smites a day on top of bonus action Lay on Hands on top of full divine halfcasting, Misty would've been unstoppable even with her lame AC and lowish HP.
Please do not contact or message me.
Class abilities should enable a character to be more effective and efficient using a specific skill and spell. For example, an Eloquence Bard is more effective at persuasion due to their Silver Tongue class ability. In application to Paladins, make a class ability that allows them to use a Smite Spell similarly - fewer failures, less low damage, etc.
Non-paladin primary caster smite availability is a hilarious idea.
The way 5E handles spell level progression, it basically dictates that clerics will be better evil-bonkers than paladins past level 5, and one single Extra Attack does nothing to help this.
So despite clerics getting armor and weapon proficiencies, skills and class abilities that lend themselves to melee/weapon combat, and entire domains slanted towards the Battle Priest idea, clerics are not allowed to have one single proper tool to support this obviously intended playstyle because upcasted Smites somehow render paladins meaningless despite the enormous breadth of crap dingdongs can do that clerics can't?
[REDACTED]
Please do not contact or message me.
Given how smite spells upscale, and that smites are the paladin's one and only saving grace in the damage department, I'd say yes. Especially given how clerics, full-casters, are given martial weapon proficiencies, extra attack abilities, heavy armor, etc.
What does the pally get to match a full smite casting battle priest, damage-wise? One Extra Attack?
Including Artificers, there are only three half-casters.. that's already the beginning of a weak argument...
Now all half-casters are weaker than the 5 full casters and warlock (if you call that full caster or three/fourths caster), so already in a situation where half of the PHB classes are stronger.
Paladin's pay for it by not being a full caster with spells like mass cure wounds, prayer of healing or heal. Also Paladin is not alone in having an uninterruptible healing resource, fighter has a healing resource that is uninterruptible and a bonus action versus an action, now UA is moving lay-on-hands to bonus action too, because the only time anybody would use it is on a downed ally or outside of combat, at which point nothing is interrupting any healing.
Admittedly lay-on-hands can be used on others but it actually left Paladin slightly behind fighter since fighter could second wind and in encouraged to always second wind before a short rest if they haven't used it already. Tier 3 & 4 lay on hands is quiet amazing but tier 1 & 2 lay on hands is generally actually weaker than second wind. Of course lay on hands can also remove some status affects, but again that is to make up for Paladin not being a full caster.
Paladin lacks any form of AoE healing which is generally more worthwhile in most healing cases. Burst heals are only good for when the tank goes down which as a paladin, you're the tank, so that burst is mostly meant for use on self, this aside, lay-on-hands is not the best burst heal, cleric and druid at level 11 get the heal spell which heals 70HP, Lay on hands does not match this until level 14 but a 7th level heal is 80HP which at level, basically it remains behind until level 20 at 100HP vs 100HP but by that point cleric gets mass heal at 700HP. Lay on hands is the best burst heal in tier 2, about it. It's still a good heal but it's not the best, once heal comes a long, as for a life cleric, they can get the heal spell at 9th level up to 111HP which is 1 point more than lay on hands can ever get... but you'd probably instead still use mass heal.
As for comparison to fighter.... I can not see where Paladin gets action surge, nor can I see any paladin subclass that adds as much damage as most of the fighter subclasses. For example battlemaster adds a lot, additionally fighter gets extra feats, so if you want to get the +5 and Great Weapon Master by level 6, in current UA, you can do that as fighter, you can't as Paladin, at level 8 sure, but then fighter picks up another feat, maybe polearm master, sentinel, piercer, slasher, etc...
Bard also gets access to find greater steed, admittedly via magical secrets but they do. As for best class feature, sorry, gotta give that one to Wizard for their amazing feature called, "spell casting", it is a feature. Of course there is also Barbarians rage, rogue's sneak attack, bards magical secret, other spell casters with the class feature "spell casting". If you removed Aura of Protection from Paladin, it'd still be a function class, you remove spell casting from wizard it goes from being the strongest class in the game to literally the weakest.
Perhaps you mean secondary feature, or support feature, even then it's questionable if Aura of Protection is really the best of those...
I think this is the crux of the argument and the answer to this is yes, it is fair and balanced, because a big part of Paladin's imbalance is caused by the shared resource of spells and smites. Smites scaling to spell-casting causes their odd and weird effects on damage. I do also believe lay on hands should be changed but I do not need to go into detail on this, I'd just say to make it like Baldur's gate 3, then split of divine smite from spellcasting. Or if really concerned about three resources, lay-on-hands could be powered by spell slots, healing Charisma+Paladin level HP with the same option to switch 5HP for removing certain status effects.
I can imagine a few ways to make a separate resource work. Paladin could have a number of charges starting at 2 and when they use divine smite they consume all charges, for each charge they get a 1d8 radiant damage die but have the ability to switch 1 die for another effect, such as searing (smite damage changes to fire, additionally does 1d6 damage for 1 minute with CON save after taking damage). The charges are then recovered from attack rolls or spell casts made during the paladin's action (not BA or reaction), 1 charge per attack roll or spell cast, to smite the paladin needs at least 2 charges and the number of maximum charges increases inline with spell casting, so the paladin has 1+round up(paladin level /4) charges.
This is not the way I am saying they should go but an idea where the smites aren't spamable but would be more balanced with regards to no longer consuming spell slots. And if anything, this idea actually makes smites slightly less common since charging a 4th level smite would take 4 attacks and be usable on the 5th attack. Of course all charges recover on a long rest, perhaps X number of changes on a short rest if needed to balance, would need play testing to find out.
Paladin is uncontestably the strongest overall? by what metric? I've played quiet a few classes in 5E and I found Circle of the Moon Druid to be the strongest by far, the ability to mitigate damage while outputting damage and then having full spellcasting on top was straight up broken. Turning into a giant constrictor snake and literally restricting a few BBEGs into uselessness.... while having a concentration spell up. I remember doing it to a young dragon at one point, since the DM dice rolled conjure woodland animals and the dragon had two giant constrictor snakes on it, with lair actions not being enough to save it. Admittedly this is a subclass instead of a class, but different classes get different amounts of power from their subclasses and so it is relevant. That said, this is also obviously the reason wild shape is getting nerfed on that insane mitigation.
Wizards have low HP, sure, Wizards have low AC, sure, Wizards have spells where they can teleport 500 foot away and continue to bombard a paladin to death from range just like they can most creatures in the game, it's not a fun way to play but it exists. Paladin are useless in anything but melee combat, sure high AC means taking less damage, got it, aura of protection means taking less damage, got it, but when a bard or druid only needs to cast heat metal and you're completely useless... I dunno where people get this idea that Paladin is so strong from. Paladin is strong at a role, that is front-line melee combat, most encounters lead to paladin getting into front-line melee combat, but even in front-line melee combat, Paladin isn't particularly any stronger than either Barbarian or Fighter.
Now if you get into a combat with a flying dragon that stays around 30-60 foot in the air, paladin is doing exactly nothing, perhaps casting a buffing spell, grabbing a near by stone and throwing it or taking a few javelins and hoping to hit something, without a level dip into another caster or a feat like magic initiate they are hopeless in ranged combat. Barbarian is actually better than Paladin, since Barbarian usually has a higher dexterity, so while they don't have the features for it, they're still gunna hit more often and get a bit more damage when they do, same goes for a strength based fighter, usually a higher dexterity than paladin, since Paladin does want that Aura of Protection, or wants some Save DC on their spells, or wants to be able to level dip at some point to meet multi-class requirements.
The issues with fighter are well... none... unless you include everything outside of combat... the issue with barbarian is their damage features on the base class are a little lackluster but some of their subclasses, like zealot, do compensate for it a lot; however a certain subclass is so good at taking damage that many people could not bear to make any other choice. I apologize for the bad joke in advance.
The way skills work makes balance nearly impossible and social interactions needs re-doing so that charisma is not all dominating.
The strongest armor in the game gives disadvantage with stealth making paladin basically the least stealthy thing since two criminals tried to hide their identities with black marker when robbing a gas station.
Paladin has proficiency to the same weapons as Fighter, Barbarian & Ranger but does not have necessarily the same skill with them, Paladin is not going to longbow as well as ranger and a barbarian is still generally going to get more out of a greataxe than a paladin would and fighter gets more feats, so they can pick up more specialized feats for those types of weapons.
The game's strongest features, maybe the best synergized set of features of any class, but again, I'd say Wizard's spellcasting alone beats basically the whole set of Paladin's class features...
as for out of battle utility, Wizard, Bard, Ranger and Druid easily have paladin beat in this. Wizard has features that let's them create an impenetrable campsite/mansion where the party can sleep while hauling around 500 pounds of luggage and having servants running around doing errand for them, ritual spells are insane and wizard truly has some special ones. Ranger is very much a capable scout and has spells like pass without trace that are strong enough that even paladin can potentially pass stealth checks. Also the paladin probably sucks at perception, survival, slight of hand, and so many other skill checks which come up outside of combat, the bard with their jack of trades, the rogue... good at a lot of this stuff. So not sure what you mean by out-of-battle utility, perhaps you mean social encounters? That is one weakness of Wizard, unless you need the arcana checks, history, religion... they are knowledge buffs which also do occasionally help in social encounters if utilized correctly.
Again, the point is getting an actually balanced divine smite that works, there is no great reason that spellcasting and divine smite actually need to be coupled together like this, it's just an assertion people make.
DEX based paladin only performs slightly worse than STR based, once you get +5 dexterity, studded armour is only 1 AC beneath Plate, your HP should not matter based on being STR or DEX based, the area you'd suffer on is weapons that aren't finesse or ranged weapons but as a DEX based paladin that is the trade you're making since then you actually can use a bow relatively well when out of melee. That said, a smite is still a smite tho, delivered with a rapier or a greatsword, the difference is only going to be 1d8 vs 2d6, an average difference of around 2.5 damage and if you go duelling, compared to GWF, that difference decreases to below 1.9.
Also the idea is not to make smites more common, it is to better balance smites in general, you're making a lot of assumptions here about what other people are after and nobody is saying paladin should be averaging 1 smite a turn every turn of combat.
I agree with this but would point out that clerics don't get those proficiencies, subclasses of cleric do or they can get them from feats. But yes, a war cleric for example, it's very hard to see the difference sometimes, they can even use spiritual weapon to make up for that lost attack, then just smite when critical on main weapon... gets very broken very quickly, way stronger than Paladin.
Very valid, and again, that was and is just my opinion. To be fair; about the cleric/druid and half casters, I was just being unnecessarily facetious, and that is on me.
We played tested a few different levels (5, 11, 17 a one shot each) at my table, so my opinion just comes from my own table and experiences. In interest of clarity, I am not aware of the larger state of things involving Searing Smite and the other Smite spells at other tables. At our table, we didn't have a problem with Searing Smite out smiting the paladin, mostly because it was resisted so often. Fire is the most resisted/immune outside of poison which is a bit of built in balance, which is why most fire based things gets by with doing more that it's equivalent in other energy types, but I do get what you are saying. The residual damage also scaling with the spell level of Searing Smite can be a lot, especially when you are guarantied at least one ping off of it and at low levels when only a few things will actually resist it.
About the 6/6 cleric/fighter, the paladin is already fundamentally different at 12 even without any smite spells; Their built in auras buffs, support with lay on hands, damage supplementation with radiant strikes, and entirely different theme with their subclass kits. Yeah, it will be a pain to be out of spell slots at the start of a fight, but they can still heavily support their allies with positioning alone, which a cleric cannot do and at the trade off of having one less attack than a pure fighter at 12. My point was that a Paladin is more than just smiting, smiting is just what they are known for, and even then mostly because of this edition.
All of that being said. I would also be down with just doing away with all of the smite spells and just having the feature. I just do not think it is that big of a deal for clerics to have a couple of smite spells available to support their melee options. They can give clerics Thunderous or just give them Wrathful, it would just be fun for them to have the option.
For searing smite yes, you're guaranteed the initial damage and the first ping, so the number of die increases by 2 every level instead of 1, like every other smite spell. At level 5, cleric does 3d6+3d6 with a chance to do more 3d6 instances on following rounds, it's an average 21 damage before the 1st con save while at level 5 paladin is using 2nd level divine smite for 3d8, or 13.5 damage. By level 9 it's 5d6+5d6 (35) vs 4d8 (18) or 3d6+3d6(21), at which point a cleric doing a normal hit is doing around the same smite damage as a paladin using divine smite on a critical hit. Fire being more resisted is fair, that is partially campaign specific, if you're in Avernus you're gunna see a lot of fire resistance but in most campaigns, it won't be that common that searing smite would be that impacted in most encounters.
I didn't mean the fighter 6/cleric 6 would exactly be the same as Paladin 12, but I was more on the play style itself, Aura is nice but few paladins are going to alter how they attack based off of it. Radiant strikes are more damage, but not really altering the play style. I should have been more clear on that, and so I apologise, as the fighter 6/cleric 6, your main thing is likely to be going how to melee hit and try and inflict that searing smite or wrathful smite, from the UA6 smite spells. There would still be slight difference in other areas, like action surge vs lay on hands for sure.
We definitely agree that it should be a feature instead. I honestly do not know why WotC did not experiment with the idea of incorporating all smites into being a feature earlier in the UAs, my only thoughts would be how it'd impact other classes/races that get smites, like hexblades or Zariel Tieflings but those could have been adjusted either to different spells or having a racial feature to match the change on paladin.
The choices listed in the poll are insufficient.
Steed: c) don't care. The game has done both, historically ... and both work. Lets spend our time on things that are actually meaningful.
Smite: Both.
Give Paladins:
1- a Channel Divinity called "Divine Smite" that is like the Cleric's Divine Spark ... but is used to enhance melee damage (weapon or unarmed strike). Make this a Reaction.
2- The class Feature grants the new True Strike cantrip instead of a Divine Smite spell. (also: give Paladins and Rangers the enhanced version of Extra Attack, that Bladesingers have; and EK's sort of get now as a subclass benefit).
3- Make a version of Searing Smite, named Elemental Smite, that lets you pick the damage type (from Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder) but doesn't do any secondary affect (like the secondary effect searing smite and thunderous smite do). Elemental Smite should also be available to Rangers (instead of Searing Smite .. or maybe both). And it should work with any weapon attack (maybe that means no unarmed stikes).