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 removed from the Divine Spell list and become Class Feature Enhancements to Divine Smite (at higher levels, Paladins could add something like the "Banishment" feature to Divine Smite, eliminating the need for that spell; and similarly for the other 2nd level+ Smite Spells). Keep Searing, Thunderous, and Wrathful on the Divine Spell List, but maybe limit their maximum dice to keep them from outshining the Paladin.
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?
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 more I thought about this part, the more I liked it, so I changed my second bullet item in the list (in the above quote of myself, but not in the original comment) from:
"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."
to:
"2nd level and higher Smite Spells are removed from the Divine Spell list and become Class Feature Enhancements to Divine Smite (at higher levels, Paladins could add something like the "Banishment" feature to Divine Smite, eliminating the need for that spell; and similarly for the other 2nd level+ Smite Spells). Keep Searing, Thunderous, and Wrathful on the Divine Spell List, but maybe limit their maximum dice to keep them from outshining the Paladin."
This would imply that Analysis and Play aren't two seperate items but one and since you're definitely not talking about other people's play, it is still inferring your own play on to that. It's inferred with how you have worded it, as I said before. Of course you could just remove the first instance of the word and, then it appears like a list of three things, not two.
This would imply that Analysis and Play aren't two seperate items but one and since you're definitely not talking about other people's play, it is still inferring your own play on to that. It's inferred with how you have worded it, as I said before. Of course you could just remove the first instance of the word and, then it appears like a list of three things, not two.
In other words, you don't understand the optional nature of the oxford comma. And you're doubling down on being pedantic.
This would imply that Analysis and Play aren't two seperate items but one and since you're definitely not talking about other people's play, it is still inferring your own play on to that. It's inferred with how you have worded it, as I said before. Of course you could just remove the first instance of the word and, then it appears like a list of three things, not two.
Guys can you two just knock it off? This is a pointless argument about grammar now and nothing to do with D&D. Both of you are expressing completely subjective opinions because "class identity" does not have a rigorous definition nor any way to objectively quantify it. It is just a "feeling" people have about the classes.
If you guys still want to argue your points with some semblance of objective logic or rigorous analysis then you both need to define quantifiable measures that can be compared between D&D 5e and One D&D to justify your points. Because so far you've both just expressed subjective opinions, fallen into the Fallacy-Fallacy (i.e. that the observation that someone is using a logical fallacy in their argument is not proof their conclusion is wrong), and argued linguistical semantics.
This would imply that Analysis and Play aren't two seperate items but one and since you're definitely not talking about other people's play, it is still inferring your own play on to that. It's inferred with how you have worded it, as I said before. Of course you could just remove the first instance of the word and, then it appears like a list of three things, not two.
Guys can you two just knock it off? This is a pointless argument about grammar now and nothing to do with D&D. Both of you are expressing completely subjective opinions because "class identity" does not have a rigorous definition nor any way to objectively quantify it. It is just a "feeling" people have about the classes.
If you guys still want to argue your points with some semblance of objective logic or rigorous analysis then you both need to define quantifiable measures that can be compared between D&D 5e and One D&D to justify your points. Because so far you've both just expressed subjective opinions, fallen into the Fallacy-Fallacy (i.e. that the observation that someone is using a logical fallacy in their argument is not proof their conclusion is wrong), and argued linguistical semantics.
Fine I'll drop it, it is actually a waste of my time when I could be doing more productive things to begin with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The more I thought about this part, the more I liked it, so I changed my second bullet item in the list (in the above quote of myself, but not in the original comment) from:
"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."
to:
"2nd level and higher Smite Spells are removed from the Divine Spell list and become Class Feature Enhancements to Divine Smite (at higher levels, Paladins could add something like the "Banishment" feature to Divine Smite, eliminating the need for that spell; and similarly for the other 2nd level+ Smite Spells). Keep Searing, Thunderous, and Wrathful on the Divine Spell List, but maybe limit their maximum dice to keep them from outshining the Paladin."
No, because of your usage of the word and.
This would imply that Analysis and Play aren't two seperate items but one and since you're definitely not talking about other people's play, it is still inferring your own play on to that. It's inferred with how you have worded it, as I said before. Of course you could just remove the first instance of the word and, then it appears like a list of three things, not two.
In other words, you don't understand the optional nature of the oxford comma. And you're doubling down on being pedantic.
Guys can you two just knock it off? This is a pointless argument about grammar now and nothing to do with D&D. Both of you are expressing completely subjective opinions because "class identity" does not have a rigorous definition nor any way to objectively quantify it. It is just a "feeling" people have about the classes.
If you guys still want to argue your points with some semblance of objective logic or rigorous analysis then you both need to define quantifiable measures that can be compared between D&D 5e and One D&D to justify your points. Because so far you've both just expressed subjective opinions, fallen into the Fallacy-Fallacy (i.e. that the observation that someone is using a logical fallacy in their argument is not proof their conclusion is wrong), and argued linguistical semantics.
Fine I'll drop it, it is actually a waste of my time when I could be doing more productive things to begin with.