That’s so boring. As is there’s really not much to actually do regarding PC development after you pick a subclass other than track the scant few resources they get. This just makes it even more samesame. Why should “everything” a caster does be shoehorned into the Cast a Spell action?!? That’s like saying “everything” I fighter does has to involve the Attack action. It’s just ridiculous. I truly wish they had gone the opposite direction and actually converted eldritch blast, hex, hunter’s mark, chaos bolt, and find familiar into actual class features.
In that case, what is it that they do? Is Eldritch Blast magical? Yes. But if it's not a spell, how does it even work? What differentiates it from spells? If Find Familiar is not a ritual and not magical, then what the hell is it? Magic is used by mortals through spells. It's just how it works in-universe.
Except not anymore since most mortal NPCs use magic through magical abilities now rather than spells.
That’s so boring. As is there’s really not much to actually do regarding PC development after you pick a subclass other than track the scant few resources they get. This just makes it even more samesame. Why should “everything” a caster does be shoehorned into the Cast a Spell action?!? That’s like saying “everything” I fighter does has to involve the Attack action. It’s just ridiculous. I truly wish they had gone the opposite direction and actually converted eldritch blast, hex, hunter’s mark, chaos bolt, and find familiar into actual class features.
In that case, what is it that they do? Is Eldritch Blast magical? Yes. But if it's not a spell, how does it even work? What differentiates it from spells? If Find Familiar is not a ritual and not magical, then what the hell is it? Magic is used by mortals through spells. It's just how it works in-universe.
Except not anymore since most mortal NPCs use magic through magical abilities now rather than spells.
To add on to this, wasn't Eldritch Blast actually an Ability and not a Spell back in 3.5?
I also wanted to come back to this specifically. Nothing about the OneD&D, compared to 5e, has robbed the Paladin of their identity. Can Clerics do Smite Spells now? Sure. Can they do them with absolutely no action cost, multiple times per round? No. (all assuming they have enough slots) A Paladin can Smite during an Attack of Opportunity reaction, a Cleric can't. A Paladin can Smite in attack one, Smite in attack two, Smite in a Bonus Attack, AND Smite in an Attack of Opportunity. A Cleric can only ever do it once per turn because Smite spells (in OneD&D) burn your Reaction.
This information is PLAIN wrong, re-read the UA for Druid and Paladin, you'll note this line under Divine Smite.
You can use Divine Smite no more than once during a turn, and you can’t use it on the same turn that you cast a spell.
A paladin can only smite once per turn (inc smite spells, as they cost a bonus action). A paladin can divine smite on an Attack of Opportunity but can no longer use any smite spell if they have cast it previously and yet to land the attack, since smite spells require a bonus action and you do not have your bonus action on a reaction outside of your turn. This said, I favour the restriction to once per turn and conversion of smite spells to cast on hit, it makes Paladin easier to balance, what I have issue with, is Clerics getting smite spells and then out-performing Paladin with them... yeah...
I will admit two things here: 1) I had missed that sentence. 2) THAT sentence does impact a key and iconic feature for a Paladin. 2a) but the Smite Spells _do_not_.
Remove that one sentence from the OneD&D Paladin build, and the Paladin can still Smite better than anyone else, but are also still limited by their number of available slots. Sure, they could generate an F ton of smite damage all in one round ... but for how many rounds? Burning the candle that bright will make it burn half as long. That's where the balance is (and that's how it was in 5e -- a Paladin could Divine Smite as many times per round as they had the ability to make an attack roll and remaining slots... and that did NOT make them horribly out of balance with upcast fireballs, etc.).
And really, Divine Smite, side protection benefits (Auras in 5e), and their Oath is what drives the Paladin's role and identity. It always has been. Not the Smite spells.
Oaths are mainly a subclass identity as they vary between subclasses, while all Paladins have an Oath, the relationship back to class identify varies.
No. The Oath has been a defining aspect of the Paladin _class_ (not subclasses) going back to 1e, where it was a major part of a Paladin's identity. It bounded their behaviors in ways that went way beyond simple alignment. It is as much an iconic part of the Paladin's identity as the idea of a holy knight in full plate wielding a sword.
Paladins definitely are known as the Smite Class of 5E tho.
Paladins are partially known as smiters, in the divine smite sense, yes. "Of 5e"? no. That is MUCH too myopic a perspective.
But consider that Clerics are "the healer class" as a core identity. Yet, 5 decades later, we have healing spread across multiple classes (Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Artificers, and some subclasses of Sorcerer and Warlock). Does this make Clerics less iconically the Healer class? No. Is anyone else MORE likely to be assumed to be / pigeonholed into the role of healer? No. Some amount of drift and dilution happens, the fact that it happens on a limited basis does not destroy a class's identity.
Consider that Magic-Users (Wizards) are "the attack spell class". Yet, 5 decades later, we have that spread out across multiple classes. Does the Sorcerer rob the identity of the Wizard? A tiny bit, but the ability to largely cast the same spells doesn't mean that they aren't distinctly different classes with very different identities (and identities that, at this point, go way beyond merely prepared spells vs known spells).
While the Auras are definitely a thing Paladin is known for, their Aura spells are now open to Cleric, Aura of Purity, Aura of Life, Aura of Vitality, worse yet Cleric gets them sooner
I'm not talking about Aura spells, I'm talking about the Auras (Aura of Protection, Aura of Courage). The things that tie all the way back to the 1e Paladin's abilities. Those, not the Aura Spells, are key to the Paladin's identity.
Just like Druids are known for their connection to nature, yet everybody knows Druids are the shapeshifting wild shape class, that they can take on forms for performing various tasks. Class identity is not a single feature or piece of fluff.
Identity is more "fluff/lore" than it is "mechanics". Mechanics channel characters into game play roles but says very little about who they are as "people"/characters (in other words, it says very little about their identity). Meanwhile, fluff/lore does more to determine their identity as characters and might have only a limited connection to their mechanics.
They didn't suffer when Warlocks got a little bit of a Smite ability. They didn't suffer when other classes got a bonus damage once per turn (Blessed Strikes, the various bonus damages that some Ranger subclasses get, etc.). A Paladin's identity is as strong and in-tact as it was in 1e and 3e.
When did Warlocks get Smite again? Xanathar's Guide to Everything... ok well that won't be important right?
Well you know what sort of did harm Paladin, it was having a warlock subclass that had a dip so enticing, even I fell for it without considering the actual harm it does do to Paladin Identify and that Subclass is Hexblade... now trying to remember when Hexblade came out... oh right Xanathar's Guide to Everything. There is now a lot of Hexadins and I do think to some degree Hexadin does harm Paladin identity because of how twisted lore needs to get to justify it. So Paladin did in MY* opinion suffer when Eldritch Smite came out, because it came out when Hexblade came out and that, again in MY* opinion, did harm Paladin Identity to some degree.
*people are free to disagree with me, not everybody will agree with this.
In regards to Hexblades getting smite, I think it does infringe a bit too much on Paladin but a fix was Pact of the Blade was needed, I just don't think Hexblade and Eldritch Smite were necessarily the correct fixes; and that isn't just from how it infringes on Paladin but also because of how OPed Hexblade+Pact of the Blade actually was/is compared to other Warlock Builds.
1- You don't have to be a Hexblade to get Eldritch Smite, and you DO have to have 5 levels of Warlock to get it. It is not in any way related to the "everyone takes a small dip of Hexblade" problem. 5 levels isn't a small dip.
2- You seem to be conflating your dislike of the Hexblade problem with an unrelated dislike of small amounts of feature sharing. If _everyone_ gets Eldritch Smite/Divine Smite, then that's a problem, but not everyone across the entire spectrum does. Even if _everyone_ takes 5 levels of Hexblade (as opposed to 2 levels of Paladin), that's a significant investment ... and they can only use their Warlock slots to do it (as opposed to, say, a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18. The Warlock build, at 5th level, can smite twice. Even with 20 levels of Warlock, they can only smite 4 times before running out of slots (they _can_ get them back faster, but how often do people actually do short rests? rarely in my experience). The Paladin/Sorcerer build can smite 16 times to full effect, and 22 times total (wasting some of the potential of those upper slots), before running out of slots. The Paladin, of course, can smite 15 times before running out of slots. The Paladin still shines.
Small dilution? maybe. Less dilution than the introduction of the Sorcerer class created for the Wizard. Or, for that matter, less dilution than the Paladin class created for the Cleric.
3- Also, it's not really twisted lore at all. It's "how do we work Elric of Melnibone into D&D without bringing back an old IP dispute". It's right there from referencing the sword Black Razor right in the definition of the subclass. Black Razor was a clone of Stormbringer from day one. Elric is, in a lot of ways, a Warlock .. and just like the Raven Queen grants the Warlock their weapon as the core concept of the Hexblade, that's also a bit like how Elric got his black blade.
Their Identity didn't suffer when their Steed ability became a spell. Their Identity didn't suffer when their Holy Sword ability got folded into Channel Divinity. Their Identity didn't suffer due to Eldritch Smite. Their Identity didn't suffer when Rangers got "Searing Smite" in Tasha's Cauldron. Their Identity hasn't suffered even slightly with the unification of Cleric and Paladin spell lists into Divine Spells (which, in MANY ways is a return to the way Paladin spells worked in earlier editions anyway, when Paladins didn't have their own spell list at all, they just picked from the Cleric spell list). Their Identity wont suffer if their Channel Divinity gets rolled into bonus spell slots and unique spells (like the unique spells that Warlocks and Warlock sub-types get).
Find Steed being a spell in 5E didn't harm Paladin because it remained Paladin Exclusive, with the exception of Magical Secrets from Bard, nobody else could pick up Find Steed.
Since you brought up "small multiclass dips" with the hexblade: it takes a 2 level dip for anyone to get Find Steed.
Not enough Bards were going around using magical secrets for Find Steed when there are juicer picks but some still did. the OneD&D playtests however made it far easier for Bard to get Find Greater Steed** and also gave it to Cleric which in fact has harmed Paladin's Identity. quiet a bit.
It hasn't harmed the Paladin in any way to let the Cleric being able to cast Find Steed. Find Steed has become essentially the Divine version of Animal Companion and Find Familiar. And it doesn't harm the Paladin because it has never been a significant aspect of the Paladin's identity. Paladins could do it, back in 1e, as a class ability: but almost no one really cared about it, as written. You get a loyal intelligent horse. Woohoo! It's like complaining that anyone can learn Find Familiar, and that that harms the Wizard. No one cares because it's a non-issue. And that non-issue doesn't harm the Paladin because: while it was once a core class ability of the Paladin, it is not, and was not, a compelling part of the Paladin's identity.
And, of course, who complains that the Warlock gets their own version of a Familiar as well? Oh poor Wizard, their special companion feature is all over the place now.
You yourself said it: no one goes out of their way to get Find Steed. Because it's not a compelling feature. Not for the Paladin, not for anyone. Which means it's also not a compelling bit of identity for the Paladin. Just like Find Familiar isn't. Just like a Druid being able to substitute Wild Shape for Wild Companion doesn't harm the Ranger.
Find Steed becoming a spell didn't hurt the Paladin's identity. My statement holds.
Paladin's identity has suffered greatly from all Paladin spells going onto the combined spell list, Jeremy Crawford literally acknowledged this in the Survey Results video for Paladin and Druid, that people feel too much Identity has been lost from Paladin from this. Did you even watch that video?
Good Lord no. Why would I want to bother with that kinda fanboy distraction? Next you'll be suggesting I should watch people play D&D instead of playing D&D myself. So, great, Jeremy thinks it was harmed. Gygax also, at one point, thought we should conflate species and class. Designers aren't perfect, and neither are their opinions. Build and play, and form opinions from that. Don't waste your time with what amounts to gossip columns. I can still do the things I want to do with a Paladin, and the core things that are a Paladin's identity, going all the way back, are still there, and reasons why I have to pick a Paladin in order to do them.
Paladin would suffer greatly if their Channel Divinities got rolled into spell slots!? That one isn't even up for debate, Paladin is a highly resource dependent class, restricting their resources down OBVIOUSLY harms the class, that shouldn't even be up for debate.
It's very much up for debate, because you keep wrongly asserting that it would harm their identity. If the spells are class only (like the way they're now doing Pact Weapon and Eldritch Blast), it's not something anyone else can pick up, not via Feats nor shared spell lists. Complaining that it could be turned into a class exclusive spell, _AND_ therefore hurt their class uniqueness and identity? It's silly.
Especially when you're saying this in contrast to Find Steed: another class ability that became a spell. Initially a class specific spell. And that right there is all that's being said in terms of CD becoming spells. Not even "CD becoming Divine List spells", just "CD becoming class-specific spells." To assert that this state was still flavorful for Find Steed, but not for Turn Undead, is silly and self-contradictory.
And then lets add in that, as is, the Cleric and Druid versions of this are things I can literally get with a one level dip. That's without them being spells. Are you as up in arms about that as you are about single level dips into Hexblade? The Paladin's version of it ... takes 3 levels. Which will invariably lead to 4 or 5 levels to get the Feat and probably Extra Attack (depending on what your other class is). And yet you're up in arms about it like it's everyone taking a 1 level dip into Hexblade. Give the Paladin a bonus 1st level spell slot at 3rd level, and a Paladin spell that is comparable to their CD (also at 3rd level). No one else can get it without taking 3 levels of Paladin, but according to you the sky is falling on the Paladin if we do that.
This post is way too long to reasonably break down, I'd need literal hours to go through it all, so I'll only respond to some points, via randomish selection.
Is Cleric less of a "healer class" now, My answer to that is a heck yes. You can play cleric and literally never use or cast a healing spell now. Might not be an optimized choice but it is far more viable than it use to be. If anything, in 5E Bard can actually out-heal Cleric in many instances, they can use Magical secrets to pick up spells that Cleric doesn't have access too, like healing spirit, which makes a Lore Bard potentially one of the best healers in the game. Overall this design choice makes sense tho, WotC wanted to move away to people being boxed into only healing and so healing was altered to not be as required. The changes to Paladin here are however fundamentally different and of little sense.
Paladins are partially known as smiters, in the divine smite sense, yes. "Of 5e"? no
Of 5E? Yes. They definitely are, when people talk about Smite in reference to 5E, unless prefix with 'Eldritch', people are generally thinking of only Paladin. Also when people talk about how Paladin plays or what they do in combat, it generally goes back to Smite. Can Paladin do other things? yes but what is the most impactful thing Paladins do? Generally smite.
When I said Oaths are for Subclass Identity, I did not mean making oaths (I clarified this part), I meant the content of each Oath. The identify of a Devotion Paladin is decidedly different to the Oath of a Conquest Paladin and their identities do differ based on that.
A paladin doesn't need to be a Hexblade to get Eldritch Smite, no, but the invocation and subclass came out together and do both infringe on Paladin's class identity, yes. They obviously do and your argument about 'Elric of Melnibone'. Really isn't a sensible one, Warlocks are born from pacts while paladins from oaths, you shouldn't really be getting the benefits of both or have such a fuzzy line between which you are dealing with, is it a pact or is it an oath? It's also quiet twisting of lore to use that as basis for the vast majority of Paladins that aren't in the Shadowfell.
Find Steed becoming a spell didn't hurt the Paladin's identity. My statement holds.
The issue is not features becoming spells to begin with, this just shows you misunderstand the issue. The issue with smite spells is that other classes can and do access them, which is no the case with Find Steed, it is essentially Paladin exclusive, like Aura of Vitality but in OneD&D these are not Paladin exclusive and that does hurt Paladin Identity, so your statement "holding" is just confirmation you do not understand class identity to begin with.
Overall, I think most people are entitled to their opinions but yours here are a case of 'obviously wrong' opinions, it feels like you don't really understand the base concept of what class identity even is, to be attempting to make these statements. I can't be bothered to go over every point in your post, because again, it's just too long to respond to everything you've said, when it's getting 10+ paragraphs, it becomes generally unreadable and open to just having too much information.
Paladin's identity has suffered greatly from all Paladin spells going onto the combined spell list, Jeremy Crawford literally acknowledged this in the Survey Results video for Paladin and Druid, that people feel too much Identity has been lost from Paladin from this. Did you even watch that video?
Good Lord no. Why would I want to bother with that kinda fanboy distraction? Next you'll be suggesting I should watch people play D&D instead of playing D&D myself. So, great, Jeremy thinks it was harmed. Gygax also, at one point, thought we should conflate species and class.
This is... wow. I mean, it's really hard to take anything else you say seriously when you dismiss the lead game designer as a "fanboy"
Also, Gygax didn't write BECMI
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Paladin's identity has suffered greatly from all Paladin spells going onto the combined spell list, Jeremy Crawford literally acknowledged this in the Survey Results video for Paladin and Druid, that people feel too much Identity has been lost from Paladin from this. Did you even watch that video?
Good Lord no. Why would I want to bother with that kinda fanboy distraction? Next you'll be suggesting I should watch people play D&D instead of playing D&D myself. So, great, Jeremy thinks it was harmed. Gygax also, at one point, thought we should conflate species and class.
This is... wow. I mean, it's really hard to take anything else you say seriously when you dismiss the lead game designer as a "fanboy"
Thats not what I said. I said watching such videos (with the intended implication of putting them forward as superior to individual opinions) is being a fanboy. Not the same statement. A distraction FOR fanboys, not a distraction BY a fanboy.
.Also, Gygax didn't write BECMI
I didn’t say anything about BECMI. Nor is “not being the direct author” the same as being removed from product’s design.
You know what Gygax did oversee and approve? Holmes Basic (Holmes did more compiling and editing than wholesale authoring). That edition conflated species and class, and was what BX and BECMI later built upon.
And you know what Gygax did write? The original 1974 edition in which race determined class (race-as-class is merely a shorthand for that). Dwarves and Halflings were automatically “Fighting Men”, Elves were automatically “Fighting Men / Magic Users”, but with a very different model of how multiclassing works than later editions. It is worded differently, but it is very much species conflated with class.
Thats not what I said. I said watching such videos (with the intended implication of putting them forward as superior to individual opinions) is being a fanboy. Not the same statement. A distraction FOR fanboys, not a distraction BY a fanboy.
It may not have been what you meant, but regardless, a video from the lead game designer explaining what's going into the decisions his team is making is not a "fanboy distraction" in any sense of that phrase. It's how you make informed opinions rather than kneejerk blatherings
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Tracking down every utterance is a distraction meant to occupy the time of fanboys. It is not a substitute for, nor authority over, forming your own opinions from playing the game. He thinks the paladin is harmed. Great.
It doesn’t change, nor over-rule, my opinion based on playing paladins for decades (my most commonly played class), and analysis and play of the OneD&D version.
It is definitely NOT a meaningful retort in each of us arguing our opinions and conclusions. It is essentially you engaging in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
It is definitely NOT a meaningful retort in each of us arguing our opinions and conclusions. It is essentially you engaging in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
while you yourself perform the logical fallacy of Argument from Anecdote
It doesn’t change, nor over-rule, my opinion based on playing paladins for decades (my most commonly played class), and analysis and play of the OneD&D version.
It's not like other people here haven't been playing D&D for just as long and also primarily play Paladin after all, but you phrase it in a way that makes it sound like you have some special understanding of the class, when it's merely an Anecdotal account, which you are entitled too your opinion but you did start this by coming out and attacking my opinion that Paladin has been harmed and continue to argue against that. I don't mind people having differing opinions and agreeing to this but don't act like you're somehow better in any of this.
You're both the one that has managed to supply factually wrong information (regarding changes to Paladin's smite) and the one that attempted to belittle a clear indication that the Community has expressed an opinion that Paladin's identity HAS been harmed in the UA. Additionally you also said:
Which isn't what I said, I said he acknowledged that, not that he either agreed or disagreed. He acknowledged it and said they were looking at it, what I said was.
Paladin's identity has suffered greatly from all Paladin spells going onto the combined spell list, Jeremy Crawford literally acknowledged this in the Survey Results video for Paladin and Druid, that people feel too much Identity has been lost from Paladin from this.
I doubt you actually intend to make it sound like you're better than others, just letting you know, a few statements you've made so far, do come off that way.
It is definitely NOT a meaningful retort in each of us arguing our opinions and conclusions. It is essentially you engaging in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
while you yourself perform the logical fallacy of Argument from Anecdote
Using past experience is not the same as arguing from anecdote. Arguing from anecdote is using limited specific events to ASSERT a general conclusion. Show one case where I used a specific event as proof of a general conclusion, as opposed to stating my extensive experience with the class as a sort of nona fides, or using examples that refuted your general conclusion. Refuting a conclusion is not the same as asserting a conclusion.
It is definitely NOT a meaningful retort in each of us arguing our opinions and conclusions. It is essentially you engaging in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
while you yourself perform the logical fallacy of Argument from Anecdote
Using past experience is not the same as arguing from anecdote. Arguing from anecdote is using limited specific events to ASSERT a general conclusion. Show one case where I used a specific event as proof of a general conclusion, as opposed to stating my extensive experience with the class as a sort of nona fides, or using examples that refuted your general conclusion. Refuting a conclusion is not the same as asserting a conclusion.
Incorrect, Arguing from Anecdote is using Anecdotal Evidence. Anecdotal Evidence is based on personal experience or observations, the "assertion" is not actually necessary for something to be Anecdotal. In fact, there is a name for such an assertion, and that is a hasty generalization, which is another type of logical fallacy, Anecdotal Evidence is often accompanied by hasty generalizations but hasty generalizations and arguments for anecdote are two separate types of logical fallacy.
Now you're arguing that YOUR experience of Paladin only; that is the very definition of Anecdotal. WotC on the other hand put out actual surveys and collected, and compiled the results. In other words they have collected a consensus from multiple people, which is more meaningful than the opinions of a single person.
It doesn’t change, nor over-rule, my opinion based on playing paladins for decades (my most commonly played class), and analysis and play of the OneD&D version.
Here you are saying that the basis for your opinions IS your Anecdotal experience of play of OneD&D, again. This is the very definition of Anecdotal. I am not arguing my point alone from just my experience, I have been interacting with others as well as reviewing what WotC has said in a publicly available video which confirms that yes, there is a consensus that many people believe the changes harms Paladin's Identity.
Additionally, the fact Jeremy Crawford even mentioned it, should be showing it wasn't a small amount of people saying this, a significant enough amount of people added this to their surveys that they felt this way (given it wasn't a question). You can argue all you want that you don't think these things harm Paladin's identity but clearly enough people think it does that WotC is taking note of it and saying they'll look at redressing it.
You are conveniently leaving out the analysis that went alongside the experience. I even said that in the thing you quoted. You also created a straw man by putting the word “only” in there, where I never said only based upon _my_experience_ , so that you could pretend that it is only my anecdotes that are the basis of my conclusion. But you go right ahead making up things I said, and overlooking things I said. You seem to be good at that.
You are conveniently leaving out the analysis that went alongside the experience. I even said that in the thing you quoted. You also created a straw man by putting the word “only” in there, where I never said only based upon _my_experience_ , so that you could pretend that it is only my anecdotes that are the basis of my conclusion. But you go right ahead making up things I said, and overlooking things I said. You seem to be good at that.
What analysis, the same one that you said was based off of YOUR experience? That or you've written your sentence extremely wrong, because the way you wrote it implies that your analysis is only based off of your experience.
This is a lot of back and forth over something that should be fairly simple.
Spells that were previously Paladin specific are no longer limited only to Paladins, this objectively diminishes some of a 5e Paladin's class identity, that's just a fact. There's certainly room to debate how much those actually contributed to the Paladin's identity, as I think realistically most Paladins hardly used them (there were better things to concentrate on), but it's still a loss no matter how you look at it.
Personally I'm not too bothered about this, as the Paladin is still the better equipped class to actually make the most of them, even though the Cleric has more slots to cast them with, so it's more of a gain for frontline Clerics rather than a loss to Paladins IMO. On the other hand, I equally wouldn't be bothered if they went back to being Paladin only.
Since they seem to want to limit the nova potential of Paladin (which I'm broadly supportive of), they could actually just roll these into the Divine Smite feature itself. For example, maybe you pick two smite "powers" that you can activate when you trigger your Divine Smite, either on top of the basic damage (as a higher level feature) or trading some damage for a bonus effect? With more choices at higher levels.
It could be an interesting way to do it as them no longer being spells would mean they'd have the option of declaring it divine (therefore unaffected by an antimagic field, in the same way as Channel Divinity and regular Divine Smite).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You are conveniently leaving out the analysis that went alongside the experience. I even said that in the thing you quoted. You also created a straw man by putting the word “only” in there, where I never said only based upon _my_experience_ , so that you could pretend that it is only my anecdotes that are the basis of my conclusion. But you go right ahead making up things I said, and overlooking things I said. You seem to be good at that.
What analysis, the same one that you said was based off of YOUR experience? That or you've written your sentence extremely wrong, because the way you wrote it implies that your analysis is only based off of your experience.
At no point did I say it was exclusively based off of experience, and at one point I also said analysis. Building more straw men on top of lies about what other people said? Or more pushing of your interpretations onto other people's statements? (your inference does not determine other people's implications). Or are you going to now drop a name as an appeal to authority, but hide behind your pedantic wording of your name drop?
This is a lot of back and forth over something that should be fairly simple.
Spells that were previously Paladin specific are no longer limited only to Paladins, this objectively diminishes some of a 5e Paladin's class identity. There's certainly room to debate how much those actually contributed to the Paladin's identity, as I think realistically most Paladins hardly used them (there were better things to concentrate on), but it's still a loss no matter how you look at it.
Personally I'm not too bothered about this, as the Paladin is still the better equipped class to actually make the most of them, even though the Cleric has more slots to cast them with, so it's more of a gain for frontline Clerics rather than a loss to Paladins IMO. On the other hand, I equally wouldn't be bothered if they went back to being Paladin only.
Since they seem to want to limit the nova potential of Paladin (which I'm broadly supportive of), they could actually just roll these into the Divine Smite feature itself. For example, maybe you pick two smite "powers" that you can activate when you trigger your Divine Smite, either on top of the basic damage (as a higher level feature) or trading some damage for a bonus effect?
It could be an interesting way to do it as them no longer being spells would mean they'd have the option of declaring it divine (therefore unaffected by an antimagic field, in the same way as Channel Divinity and regular Divine Smite).
I actually did the maths before and by using smites with spiritual weapon, Cleric can potential out damage Paladin, when they miss their one melee attack then use the spiritual weapon or when they hit then they use a smite spell. Banishing Smite is particularly bad, it can be upcast but it's a 5th level spell, so Paladin can't upcast it, it does 5d10 damage for Cleric at level 9 where Paladin doesn't get it until level 17. The 5d10 is guaranteed and as force damage, will rarely ever be resisted and then it has most of the effects of the banishment spell... but no concentration. At level 9, Paladin is on 3rd level spells, so that is 4d8 Divine Smite, 3d8 Blinding Smite,
I'm not necessarily against Cleric having access to smite spells, I'm against Clerics having better access to smite spells than Paladin, same for find (greater) steed. In the UA smite spells are simply more usable than they were in 5E too, since they now have essentially the same trigger as Divine Smite, with the exception of a reaction.
Making it an ability does have potential nice uses but a lot of abilities, including Divine Smite and Channel Divinity now include the words "magical" in them, which I suspect is them being re-aligned so that they will no work in an antimagic field in OneD&D.
You can channel divine energy directly from the Outer Planes, using that energy to fuel magical effects
But the benefits are that it can be better controlled, the different types of smites could just be different effects for Divine Smite. Which also means different paladin subclasses could have different types of smites as features too, which does sound fun.
You are conveniently leaving out the analysis that went alongside the experience. I even said that in the thing you quoted. You also created a straw man by putting the word “only” in there, where I never said only based upon _my_experience_ , so that you could pretend that it is only my anecdotes that are the basis of my conclusion. But you go right ahead making up things I said, and overlooking things I said. You seem to be good at that.
What analysis, the same one that you said was based off of YOUR experience? That or you've written your sentence extremely wrong, because the way you wrote it implies that your analysis is only based off of your experience.
At no point did I say it was exclusively based off of experience, and at one point I also said analysis. Building more straw men on top of lies about what other people said? Or more pushing of your interpretations onto other people's statements? (your inference does not determine other people's implications). Or are you going to now drop a name as an appeal to authority, but hide behind your pedantic wording of your name drop?
Then you worded it poorly, you can't blame me for you wording things poorly, as the comment is still visible. you still said:
It doesn’t change, nor over-rule, my opinion based on playing paladins for decades (my most commonly played class), and analysis and play of the OneD&D version.
If you can't see how that doesn't imply that you're working from your own person anecdote, then it's still on you. Personally, I'm losing interest in responding to you here, it just feels like you're on an ego trip and I'm not here to feed your fragile ego. You aren't here to debate on this topic either, you've just been attacking people from the start for their opinions which gives me an even lower opinion of you from this thread. I can agree to have differing opinions but you've been acting like your opinion is above others and by this point I can no longer give you the out of it being an honest mistake, it's just plain arrogance.
This is a lot of back and forth over something that should be fairly simple.
It has certainly dragged the topic into left field. For my half of that, I apologize.
Personally I'm not too bothered about this, as the Paladin is still the better equipped class to actually make the most of them, even though the Cleric has more slots to cast them with, so it's more of a gain for frontline Clerics rather than a loss to Paladins IMO. On the other hand, I equally wouldn't be bothered if they went back to being Paladin only.
For various reasons, I like the 1st level smite spells being Divine List instead of Paladin restricted. I also somewhat like the idea of certain Clerics (and possibly Warlocks) having access to Banishing Smite, but that could easily be done via Domain Spells instead of the Divine List.
Things I could see being done:
Do to Divine Favor what they did for Hunters Mark for Rangers: Divine Favor (and Holy Weapon?) don't require a Paladin to use Concentration to maintain them.
2nd level and higher Smite Spells are moved off of the Divine Spell list and are "Paladin" spells, and possibly some are also Domain spells.
Paladins can Divine Smite as many times per turn as their Spell Stat Modifier, and doing so doesn't conflict with casting spells. Or maybe it just doesn't conflict with casting Cantrips. (I don't think it should conflict with casting leveled spells, either, but if they really want that restriction, still allow cantrips). That one last sentence for Divine Smite in OneD&D is the one place where I would agree that the Paladin lost _some_ shine.
Make Channel Divinity into : a) bonus 1st level spell slots for Clerics and Paladins at the rate of their Channel Divinity b) CD abilities are spells (1st level spells) that are on their class spell lists and not the Divine Spell List. c) like the Warlock Pact Boons, they are only granted to Paladins and Clerics via Features, based on things like Domain spells (except Turn Undead which is granted to all Clerics as a Cleric spell), and can't be chosen via the daily spell prep.
The only other change I would propose to the Paladin is something to encourage more Paladin/Cleric synergy. Right now Multiclass Synergy for the Paladin is all about Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks ... because they're all Charisma characters. Switch to letting the Paladin pick their spell stat, the way Warlocks can now do it. Just limit it to Wisdom vs Charisma (not Intelligence). Wisdom based Paladins can harken back to the very Deity driven Paladin both with character flavor and with mechanical synergy to be a multiclassed Cleric/Paladin ... instead of that mechanical support being limited to Divine Soul Sorcerer or Celestial Patron Warlock (or Charismatic Preacher themed Bard).
Since they seem to want to limit the nova potential of Paladin (which I'm broadly supportive of), they could actually just roll these into the Divine Smite feature itself. For example, maybe you pick two smite "powers" that you can activate when you trigger your Divine Smite, either on top of the basic damage (as a higher level feature) or trading some damage for a bonus effect?
If they really feel the need to limit the amount of Divine Smite they can do per turn, I would suggest making the limit be based on the Paladin's spell stat modifier.
BUT ... I also _REALY_ like the higher level Smite spells (level 2 and up) special effects being class feature enhancements to the Divine Smite ability. That might prevent the Ban-Hammer Cleric from being a thing, but it still would ADD _NEW_ flavor to the Paladin in a way that I could really get behind.
You are conveniently leaving out the analysis that went alongside the experience. I even said that in the thing you quoted. You also created a straw man by putting the word “only” in there, where I never said only based upon _my_experience_ , so that you could pretend that it is only my anecdotes that are the basis of my conclusion. But you go right ahead making up things I said, and overlooking things I said. You seem to be good at that.
What analysis, the same one that you said was based off of YOUR experience? That or you've written your sentence extremely wrong, because the way you wrote it implies that your analysis is only based off of your experience.
At no point did I say it was exclusively based off of experience, and at one point I also said analysis. Building more straw men on top of lies about what other people said? Or more pushing of your interpretations onto other people's statements? (your inference does not determine other people's implications). Or are you going to now drop a name as an appeal to authority, but hide behind your pedantic wording of your name drop?
Then you worded it poorly, you can't blame me for you wording things poorly, as the comment is still visible. you still said:
It doesn’t change, nor over-rule, my opinion based on playing paladins for decades (my most commonly played class), and analysis and play of the OneD&D version.
If you can't see how that doesn't imply that you're working from your own person anecdote, then it's still on you. Personally, I'm losing interest in responding to you here, it just feels like you're on an ego trip and I'm not here to feed your fragile ego. You aren't here to debate on this topic either, you've just been attacking people from the start for their opinions which gives me an even lower opinion of you from this thread.
The weakness there is in your insistence on an oxford comma ... which is optional in english. Lets break it down for you since you're not capable of diagramming a sentence:
My opinion based on
playing paladins for decades (my most commonly played class)
analysis
play of OneD&D version
Do you see the middle bullet item? Or are you just ignoring it?
Except not anymore since most mortal NPCs use magic through magical abilities now rather than spells.
To add on to this, wasn't Eldritch Blast actually an Ability and not a Spell back in 3.5?
I will admit two things here:
1) I had missed that sentence.
2) THAT sentence does impact a key and iconic feature for a Paladin.
2a) but the Smite Spells _do_not_.
Remove that one sentence from the OneD&D Paladin build, and the Paladin can still Smite better than anyone else, but are also still limited by their number of available slots. Sure, they could generate an F ton of smite damage all in one round ... but for how many rounds? Burning the candle that bright will make it burn half as long. That's where the balance is (and that's how it was in 5e -- a Paladin could Divine Smite as many times per round as they had the ability to make an attack roll and remaining slots... and that did NOT make them horribly out of balance with upcast fireballs, etc.).
No. The Oath has been a defining aspect of the Paladin _class_ (not subclasses) going back to 1e, where it was a major part of a Paladin's identity. It bounded their behaviors in ways that went way beyond simple alignment. It is as much an iconic part of the Paladin's identity as the idea of a holy knight in full plate wielding a sword.
Paladins are partially known as smiters, in the divine smite sense, yes. "Of 5e"? no. That is MUCH too myopic a perspective.
But consider that Clerics are "the healer class" as a core identity. Yet, 5 decades later, we have healing spread across multiple classes (Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Artificers, and some subclasses of Sorcerer and Warlock). Does this make Clerics less iconically the Healer class? No. Is anyone else MORE likely to be assumed to be / pigeonholed into the role of healer? No. Some amount of drift and dilution happens, the fact that it happens on a limited basis does not destroy a class's identity.
Consider that Magic-Users (Wizards) are "the attack spell class". Yet, 5 decades later, we have that spread out across multiple classes. Does the Sorcerer rob the identity of the Wizard? A tiny bit, but the ability to largely cast the same spells doesn't mean that they aren't distinctly different classes with very different identities (and identities that, at this point, go way beyond merely prepared spells vs known spells).
I'm not talking about Aura spells, I'm talking about the Auras (Aura of Protection, Aura of Courage). The things that tie all the way back to the 1e Paladin's abilities. Those, not the Aura Spells, are key to the Paladin's identity.
Identity is more "fluff/lore" than it is "mechanics". Mechanics channel characters into game play roles but says very little about who they are as "people"/characters (in other words, it says very little about their identity). Meanwhile, fluff/lore does more to determine their identity as characters and might have only a limited connection to their mechanics.
1- You don't have to be a Hexblade to get Eldritch Smite, and you DO have to have 5 levels of Warlock to get it. It is not in any way related to the "everyone takes a small dip of Hexblade" problem. 5 levels isn't a small dip.
2- You seem to be conflating your dislike of the Hexblade problem with an unrelated dislike of small amounts of feature sharing. If _everyone_ gets Eldritch Smite/Divine Smite, then that's a problem, but not everyone across the entire spectrum does. Even if _everyone_ takes 5 levels of Hexblade (as opposed to 2 levels of Paladin), that's a significant investment ... and they can only use their Warlock slots to do it (as opposed to, say, a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18. The Warlock build, at 5th level, can smite twice. Even with 20 levels of Warlock, they can only smite 4 times before running out of slots (they _can_ get them back faster, but how often do people actually do short rests? rarely in my experience). The Paladin/Sorcerer build can smite 16 times to full effect, and 22 times total (wasting some of the potential of those upper slots), before running out of slots. The Paladin, of course, can smite 15 times before running out of slots. The Paladin still shines.
Small dilution? maybe. Less dilution than the introduction of the Sorcerer class created for the Wizard. Or, for that matter, less dilution than the Paladin class created for the Cleric.
3- Also, it's not really twisted lore at all. It's "how do we work Elric of Melnibone into D&D without bringing back an old IP dispute". It's right there from referencing the sword Black Razor right in the definition of the subclass. Black Razor was a clone of Stormbringer from day one. Elric is, in a lot of ways, a Warlock .. and just like the Raven Queen grants the Warlock their weapon as the core concept of the Hexblade, that's also a bit like how Elric got his black blade.
Since you brought up "small multiclass dips" with the hexblade: it takes a 2 level dip for anyone to get Find Steed.
It hasn't harmed the Paladin in any way to let the Cleric being able to cast Find Steed. Find Steed has become essentially the Divine version of Animal Companion and Find Familiar. And it doesn't harm the Paladin because it has never been a significant aspect of the Paladin's identity. Paladins could do it, back in 1e, as a class ability: but almost no one really cared about it, as written. You get a loyal intelligent horse. Woohoo! It's like complaining that anyone can learn Find Familiar, and that that harms the Wizard. No one cares because it's a non-issue. And that non-issue doesn't harm the Paladin because: while it was once a core class ability of the Paladin, it is not, and was not, a compelling part of the Paladin's identity.
And, of course, who complains that the Warlock gets their own version of a Familiar as well? Oh poor Wizard, their special companion feature is all over the place now.
You yourself said it: no one goes out of their way to get Find Steed. Because it's not a compelling feature. Not for the Paladin, not for anyone. Which means it's also not a compelling bit of identity for the Paladin. Just like Find Familiar isn't. Just like a Druid being able to substitute Wild Shape for Wild Companion doesn't harm the Ranger.
Find Steed becoming a spell didn't hurt the Paladin's identity. My statement holds.
Good Lord no. Why would I want to bother with that kinda fanboy distraction? Next you'll be suggesting I should watch people play D&D instead of playing D&D myself.
So, great, Jeremy thinks it was harmed. Gygax also, at one point, thought we should conflate species and class. Designers aren't perfect, and neither are their opinions.
Build and play, and form opinions from that. Don't waste your time with what amounts to gossip columns. I can still do the things I want to do with a Paladin, and the core things that are a Paladin's identity, going all the way back, are still there, and reasons why I have to pick a Paladin in order to do them.
It's very much up for debate, because you keep wrongly asserting that it would harm their identity. If the spells are class only (like the way they're now doing Pact Weapon and Eldritch Blast), it's not something anyone else can pick up, not via Feats nor shared spell lists. Complaining that it could be turned into a class exclusive spell, _AND_ therefore hurt their class uniqueness and identity? It's silly.
Especially when you're saying this in contrast to Find Steed: another class ability that became a spell. Initially a class specific spell. And that right there is all that's being said in terms of CD becoming spells. Not even "CD becoming Divine List spells", just "CD becoming class-specific spells." To assert that this state was still flavorful for Find Steed, but not for Turn Undead, is silly and self-contradictory.
And then lets add in that, as is, the Cleric and Druid versions of this are things I can literally get with a one level dip. That's without them being spells. Are you as up in arms about that as you are about single level dips into Hexblade? The Paladin's version of it ... takes 3 levels. Which will invariably lead to 4 or 5 levels to get the Feat and probably Extra Attack (depending on what your other class is). And yet you're up in arms about it like it's everyone taking a 1 level dip into Hexblade. Give the Paladin a bonus 1st level spell slot at 3rd level, and a Paladin spell that is comparable to their CD (also at 3rd level). No one else can get it without taking 3 levels of Paladin, but according to you the sky is falling on the Paladin if we do that.
This post is way too long to reasonably break down, I'd need literal hours to go through it all, so I'll only respond to some points, via randomish selection.
Is Cleric less of a "healer class" now, My answer to that is a heck yes. You can play cleric and literally never use or cast a healing spell now. Might not be an optimized choice but it is far more viable than it use to be. If anything, in 5E Bard can actually out-heal Cleric in many instances, they can use Magical secrets to pick up spells that Cleric doesn't have access too, like healing spirit, which makes a Lore Bard potentially one of the best healers in the game. Overall this design choice makes sense tho, WotC wanted to move away to people being boxed into only healing and so healing was altered to not be as required. The changes to Paladin here are however fundamentally different and of little sense.
Of 5E? Yes. They definitely are, when people talk about Smite in reference to 5E, unless prefix with 'Eldritch', people are generally thinking of only Paladin. Also when people talk about how Paladin plays or what they do in combat, it generally goes back to Smite. Can Paladin do other things? yes but what is the most impactful thing Paladins do? Generally smite.
When I said Oaths are for Subclass Identity, I did not mean making oaths (I clarified this part), I meant the content of each Oath. The identify of a Devotion Paladin is decidedly different to the Oath of a Conquest Paladin and their identities do differ based on that.
A paladin doesn't need to be a Hexblade to get Eldritch Smite, no, but the invocation and subclass came out together and do both infringe on Paladin's class identity, yes. They obviously do and your argument about 'Elric of Melnibone'. Really isn't a sensible one, Warlocks are born from pacts while paladins from oaths, you shouldn't really be getting the benefits of both or have such a fuzzy line between which you are dealing with, is it a pact or is it an oath? It's also quiet twisting of lore to use that as basis for the vast majority of Paladins that aren't in the Shadowfell.
The issue is not features becoming spells to begin with, this just shows you misunderstand the issue. The issue with smite spells is that other classes can and do access them, which is no the case with Find Steed, it is essentially Paladin exclusive, like Aura of Vitality but in OneD&D these are not Paladin exclusive and that does hurt Paladin Identity, so your statement "holding" is just confirmation you do not understand class identity to begin with.
Overall, I think most people are entitled to their opinions but yours here are a case of 'obviously wrong' opinions, it feels like you don't really understand the base concept of what class identity even is, to be attempting to make these statements. I can't be bothered to go over every point in your post, because again, it's just too long to respond to everything you've said, when it's getting 10+ paragraphs, it becomes generally unreadable and open to just having too much information.
This is... wow. I mean, it's really hard to take anything else you say seriously when you dismiss the lead game designer as a "fanboy"
Also, Gygax didn't write BECMI
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Thats not what I said. I said watching such videos (with the intended implication of putting them forward as superior to individual opinions) is being a fanboy. Not the same statement. A distraction FOR fanboys, not a distraction BY a fanboy.
I didn’t say anything about BECMI. Nor is “not being the direct author” the same as being removed from product’s design.
You know what Gygax did oversee and approve? Holmes Basic (Holmes did more compiling and editing than wholesale authoring). That edition conflated species and class, and was what BX and BECMI later built upon.
And you know what Gygax did write? The original 1974 edition in which race determined class (race-as-class is merely a shorthand for that). Dwarves and Halflings were automatically “Fighting Men”, Elves were automatically “Fighting Men / Magic Users”, but with a very different model of how multiclassing works than later editions. It is worded differently, but it is very much species conflated with class.
It may not have been what you meant, but regardless, a video from the lead game designer explaining what's going into the decisions his team is making is not a "fanboy distraction" in any sense of that phrase. It's how you make informed opinions rather than kneejerk blatherings
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Tracking down every utterance is a distraction meant to occupy the time of fanboys. It is not a substitute for, nor authority over, forming your own opinions from playing the game. He thinks the paladin is harmed. Great.
It doesn’t change, nor over-rule, my opinion based on playing paladins for decades (my most commonly played class), and analysis and play of the OneD&D version.
Nor should it.
It is definitely NOT a meaningful retort in each of us arguing our opinions and conclusions. It is essentially you engaging in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
It was a special category of ability that basically made it a spell. 3.5 was full of clutter like that.
while you yourself perform the logical fallacy of Argument from Anecdote
It's not like other people here haven't been playing D&D for just as long and also primarily play Paladin after all, but you phrase it in a way that makes it sound like you have some special understanding of the class, when it's merely an Anecdotal account, which you are entitled too your opinion but you did start this by coming out and attacking my opinion that Paladin has been harmed and continue to argue against that. I don't mind people having differing opinions and agreeing to this but don't act like you're somehow better in any of this.
You're both the one that has managed to supply factually wrong information (regarding changes to Paladin's smite) and the one that attempted to belittle a clear indication that the Community has expressed an opinion that Paladin's identity HAS been harmed in the UA. Additionally you also said:
Which isn't what I said, I said he acknowledged that, not that he either agreed or disagreed. He acknowledged it and said they were looking at it, what I said was.
I doubt you actually intend to make it sound like you're better than others, just letting you know, a few statements you've made so far, do come off that way.
Ah right, a spell like ability! Right, thanks for the reminder.
Using past experience is not the same as arguing from anecdote. Arguing from anecdote is using limited specific events to ASSERT a general conclusion. Show one case where I used a specific event as proof of a general conclusion, as opposed to stating my extensive experience with the class as a sort of nona fides, or using examples that refuted your general conclusion. Refuting a conclusion is not the same as asserting a conclusion.
Incorrect, Arguing from Anecdote is using Anecdotal Evidence. Anecdotal Evidence is based on personal experience or observations, the "assertion" is not actually necessary for something to be Anecdotal. In fact, there is a name for such an assertion, and that is a hasty generalization, which is another type of logical fallacy, Anecdotal Evidence is often accompanied by hasty generalizations but hasty generalizations and arguments for anecdote are two separate types of logical fallacy.
Now you're arguing that YOUR experience of Paladin only; that is the very definition of Anecdotal. WotC on the other hand put out actual surveys and collected, and compiled the results. In other words they have collected a consensus from multiple people, which is more meaningful than the opinions of a single person.
Here you are saying that the basis for your opinions IS your Anecdotal experience of play of OneD&D, again. This is the very definition of Anecdotal. I am not arguing my point alone from just my experience, I have been interacting with others as well as reviewing what WotC has said in a publicly available video which confirms that yes, there is a consensus that many people believe the changes harms Paladin's Identity.
Additionally, the fact Jeremy Crawford even mentioned it, should be showing it wasn't a small amount of people saying this, a significant enough amount of people added this to their surveys that they felt this way (given it wasn't a question). You can argue all you want that you don't think these things harm Paladin's identity but clearly enough people think it does that WotC is taking note of it and saying they'll look at redressing it.
You are conveniently leaving out the analysis that went alongside the experience. I even said that in the thing you quoted. You also created a straw man by putting the word “only” in there, where I never said only based upon _my_experience_ , so that you could pretend that it is only my anecdotes that are the basis of my conclusion. But you go right ahead making up things I said, and overlooking things I said. You seem to be good at that.
What analysis, the same one that you said was based off of YOUR experience? That or you've written your sentence extremely wrong, because the way you wrote it implies that your analysis is only based off of your experience.
This is a lot of back and forth over something that should be fairly simple.
Spells that were previously Paladin specific are no longer limited only to Paladins, this objectively diminishes some of a 5e Paladin's class identity, that's just a fact. There's certainly room to debate how much those actually contributed to the Paladin's identity, as I think realistically most Paladins hardly used them (there were better things to concentrate on), but it's still a loss no matter how you look at it.
Personally I'm not too bothered about this, as the Paladin is still the better equipped class to actually make the most of them, even though the Cleric has more slots to cast them with, so it's more of a gain for frontline Clerics rather than a loss to Paladins IMO. On the other hand, I equally wouldn't be bothered if they went back to being Paladin only.
Since they seem to want to limit the nova potential of Paladin (which I'm broadly supportive of), they could actually just roll these into the Divine Smite feature itself. For example, maybe you pick two smite "powers" that you can activate when you trigger your Divine Smite, either on top of the basic damage (as a higher level feature) or trading some damage for a bonus effect? With more choices at higher levels.
It could be an interesting way to do it as them no longer being spells would mean they'd have the option of declaring it divine (therefore unaffected by an antimagic field, in the same way as Channel Divinity and regular Divine Smite).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
At no point did I say it was exclusively based off of experience, and at one point I also said analysis. Building more straw men on top of lies about what other people said? Or more pushing of your interpretations onto other people's statements? (your inference does not determine other people's implications). Or are you going to now drop a name as an appeal to authority, but hide behind your pedantic wording of your name drop?
I actually did the maths before and by using smites with spiritual weapon, Cleric can potential out damage Paladin, when they miss their one melee attack then use the spiritual weapon or when they hit then they use a smite spell. Banishing Smite is particularly bad, it can be upcast but it's a 5th level spell, so Paladin can't upcast it, it does 5d10 damage for Cleric at level 9 where Paladin doesn't get it until level 17. The 5d10 is guaranteed and as force damage, will rarely ever be resisted and then it has most of the effects of the banishment spell... but no concentration. At level 9, Paladin is on 3rd level spells, so that is 4d8 Divine Smite, 3d8 Blinding Smite,
I'm not necessarily against Cleric having access to smite spells, I'm against Clerics having better access to smite spells than Paladin, same for find (greater) steed. In the UA smite spells are simply more usable than they were in 5E too, since they now have essentially the same trigger as Divine Smite, with the exception of a reaction.
Making it an ability does have potential nice uses but a lot of abilities, including Divine Smite and Channel Divinity now include the words "magical" in them, which I suspect is them being re-aligned so that they will no work in an antimagic field in OneD&D.
But the benefits are that it can be better controlled, the different types of smites could just be different effects for Divine Smite. Which also means different paladin subclasses could have different types of smites as features too, which does sound fun.
Then you worded it poorly, you can't blame me for you wording things poorly, as the comment is still visible. you still said:
If you can't see how that doesn't imply that you're working from your own person anecdote, then it's still on you. Personally, I'm losing interest in responding to you here, it just feels like you're on an ego trip and I'm not here to feed your fragile ego. You aren't here to debate on this topic either, you've just been attacking people from the start for their opinions which gives me an even lower opinion of you from this thread. I can agree to have differing opinions but you've been acting like your opinion is above others and by this point I can no longer give you the out of it being an honest mistake, it's just plain arrogance.
It has certainly dragged the topic into left field. For my half of that, I apologize.
For various reasons, I like the 1st level smite spells being Divine List instead of Paladin restricted. I also somewhat like the idea of certain Clerics (and possibly Warlocks) having access to Banishing Smite, but that could easily be done via Domain Spells instead of the Divine List.
Things I could see being done:
The only other change I would propose to the Paladin is something to encourage more Paladin/Cleric synergy. Right now Multiclass Synergy for the Paladin is all about Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks ... because they're all Charisma characters. Switch to letting the Paladin pick their spell stat, the way Warlocks can now do it. Just limit it to Wisdom vs Charisma (not Intelligence). Wisdom based Paladins can harken back to the very Deity driven Paladin both with character flavor and with mechanical synergy to be a multiclassed Cleric/Paladin ... instead of that mechanical support being limited to Divine Soul Sorcerer or Celestial Patron Warlock (or Charismatic Preacher themed Bard).
If they really feel the need to limit the amount of Divine Smite they can do per turn, I would suggest making the limit be based on the Paladin's spell stat modifier.
BUT ... I also _REALY_ like the higher level Smite spells (level 2 and up) special effects being class feature enhancements to the Divine Smite ability. That might prevent the Ban-Hammer Cleric from being a thing, but it still would ADD _NEW_ flavor to the Paladin in a way that I could really get behind.
The weakness there is in your insistence on an oxford comma ... which is optional in english. Lets break it down for you since you're not capable of diagramming a sentence:
My opinion based on
Do you see the middle bullet item? Or are you just ignoring it?