Is there a fear that Paladin will now be the bottom martial after Monk got so many buffs?
I'm pretty confident that that will still be the Ranger.
Rangers are a skills class caster, not a martial class.
Martial usually refers to the classes that grew out of the 0e/B/1e Fighter: Barbarian, (Fighter, obvs), Paladin, and Ranger
The Ranger is definitely in that pack. And they're definitely more oriented around mundane fighting than general skills. Not to mention that "skills class" isn't an actual grouping.
Most people I know are referring to Rogue. Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk when they say “martials,” and WotC specifically refers to Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks when they say “martials,”, they classify Rogues, Rangers, and Bards as Skills “Expert” classes, and they stick Paladins with Clerics & Druids.
Is there a fear that Paladin will now be the bottom martial after Monk got so many buffs?
I'm pretty confident that that will still be the Ranger.
Rangers are a skills class caster, not a martial class.
Martial usually refers to the classes that grew out of the 0e/B/1e Fighter: Barbarian, (Fighter, obvs), Paladin, and Ranger
The Ranger is definitely in that pack. And they're definitely more oriented around mundane fighting than general skills. Not to mention that "skills class" isn't an actual grouping.
Most people I know are referring to Rogue. Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk when they say “martials,” and WotC specifically refers to Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks when they say “martials,”, they classify Rogues, Rangers, and Bards as Skills “Expert” classes, and they stick Paladins with Clerics & Druids.
They didn't refer to the Fighter/Barbarian/Monk group as "Martials", they referred to them as "Warriors". And those groups are gone from the later documents (along with the "Experts", "Mages", and "Priests"). The term martial goes much further back than the UA use of those terms, and also further back than those used as class groups in 2e. Martial has always included Ranger: they're primarily a weapon/fighting class with spells on the side (just like the Paladin, just with a different repertoire). Even in 5e and 1DD: they get Fighting Style and (in 1DD) Weapon Mastery.
You're not disagreeing that there is a conflict, just about the severity of it. So a PAM BA attack is less potent than a 1st level smite at least until radiant strikes. a PAM BA attack is not retroactive damage like smite and PAM BA attack is 1d4+STR normally, assuming GWF, you're talking about 3.2 damage (if memory serves) +STR. If you've got a 65% chance to hit, even with +5 STR and +3 weapon, it'd be averaging 7.44 damage (inc 5% chance to crit) which is less than the 9 average damage of a 1st level smite, with a 80% chance to hit the +8 would do more, or with advantage, so basically Vow of Enmity/Oath of Vengeance.
At level 5, if you're averaging 16 rounds of combat, you're almost at a smite every other round, since 4 1st level slots, 2 2nd level slots and 1 free smite/long rest from feature. At level 9, if you're up to around 24 rounds of combat a long rest, then you've got 2 3rd level slots, 3 2nd level, 4 1st and 1 free smite/long rest (UA6). Of course, longer adventuring days is worse for paladin and shorter ones beneficial, Paladin is very long rest dependent. However on top of this, you also have channel divinity, that is consuming about 3 rounds of bonus actions for some of the subclasses, I think PAM is something that becomes more viable in late game for Paladin or for subclasses without a BA channel divinity.
And yet we see in the latest UA that Circle of the Moon Druid literally got a feature to help them with CON saves which is more than Paladin gets, because they are a caster which uses concentration spells which needs a way to keep them up, and yes, circle of the moon druid gets more because a lot of beast forms have +3 CON, a couple later get even into +4. So their CON+WIS on concentration saves beats out paladins aura of protection, which you can give to them in same party too...
As a paladin, if you take Resilent CON or war caster then you're probably keeping your spells up, yes. There is a few problems with this tho, first off if you take resilient CON, that is an increase of +1 constitution score, which is not strength or charisma. It can be worth it, don't get me wrong but it's a bigger trade off when you might also want to improve that Aura of protection or get more damage output, such as great weapon master. With war caster you can still take a point of charisma. I'd say a pretty standard, standard array build of Paladin is 15+2, 10, 14, 8, 12, 13+1. Maybe you instead go 15+2, 10, 13, 8, 12 14+1, so you get to a 14 with it, leaves your HP a bit lower for levels 1-3... but not by much. I'd normally like to see that +4 at level 4 for attack/damage tho.
Wouldn't entirely be against removing concentration checks to be honest, it's main purpose is to limit casters to one concentration spell and then it's just a random failure mechanic on top, one that actually does slow the flow of combat, and let's not forget the times when a player forgets that they even need to make these checks when they take damage while playing at a table. And then who wants to be the person that goes, "doesn't this need a concentration check?" every time.... every time. Seen it multiple multiple times that DM and player forget about them, I think because in most campaigns they are just not that common, since most concentration spells are cast by people on the back lines and not often taking damage.
1) There is a BA conflict with Paladin but I don't see that as a bad thing. Every other Str-based martial is likely going to gravitate toward the same old polearm PAM/GWM builds. A class with an actual reason to consider sword and board optimal because they have so many other things to do with their BA (smite, CD, LoH, spells etc) sounds like a nice change of pace.
2) Paladin will have a much easier time with concentration checks than most gishes thanks to their aura. I disagree that the aura doesn't make a big difference, 14 Con and 16 Cha is equivalent to max Con for them. I would just add War Caster to that, which you'll likely want anyway so you can sword and board and still cast - just spend most of your time smiting until you get it since smite has no S component.
it doesn't matter, because martial is not defined anywhere. To me, it's a class that's primarily a weapon user as opposed to primarily a magic user.
This thread is supposed to be about paladins and I think they are going to be excellent, particularly since they will likely be able to pick up pact of the blade with a background feat at level 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think the UA Paladin is pretty solid all around; it hasn't really lost anything from 5e, and actually got a few improvements here and there.
Divine Smite hasn't been nerfed as such, Paladins are just no longer able to dump 2-7 spell slots in a single round into it, so builds that were already ridiculous (e.g- an Action Surging, hasted Polearm Master) are no longer ending big boss battles the moment they turn up. They're not losing any damage, it's just more spread out over time.
This differs from the way in which a Monk's Stunning Strike was nerfed; while this too needed to be done, Monks didn't get extra damage from burning more Ki on Stunning Strikes, they just made it more likely to actually land – a Monk could in theory spend one Ki per round for three rounds and land three Stunning Strikes, it just wasn't very likely except against really low CON save targets (that you probably didn't really need to stun in the first place).
While Monk has finally got some pretty decent improvements, it was a class that really needed them. It can throw out some decent damage via Flurry of Blows, but it's not really exceeding the Paladin, and doing so comes at a cost in defence. Paladin still has solid defence, solid offence, solid healing, and solid party support, all as standard in a complete package, and only needs to spend resources when you know they'll work, and it has access to half-casting for added utility/support if you want it. The UA Monk by comparison is a highly mobile skirmisher that has a delicate balancing act of abilities and resource spending that determines what they're best at round to round, so it doesn't really step on Paladin's toes in any way.
They're very, very different, but I think Monk is shaping up to be a bit more capable and more fun than before, which is great for Monk players. But Paladin remains good at what it's good at (namely, being good in every sense of the word). 😉
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.
UA paladaladindong is doing fine. Lots of people carped over the Divine Smite changes, but frankly it makes a whole lot more sense for the smites to all be unified as spells rather than having a bunch of Smite spells but also this one weird janky smite that's still a Smite but not a spell except it uses spell slots and cares about spell level... Yeah. It's a mess, and the fact that existing 5e players get it doesn't excuse it from being a mess
And a whole lot of people ignored the absolutely huge buff that is turning Lay on Hands into a bonus action. The heavily armored dingdong was already far and away the best class for charging into the fray and saving somebody in trouble; now it gets to hand out its chonky healing pool with one hald while striking its enemies down with the other.
Honestly, my read on the class was that power moved, rather than being lost. Less emphasis was placed on Divine Smite and ridiculous burst damage, but the dingdong's spellcasting became more viable with improvements to Oath spells and no further need to 'waste' prepared spells on alternate Smites (which were themselves dramatically improved), Lay on Hands got huge, and many ancillary rules around the dingdong have also improved it, such as Ritual casting being baked into spellcasting-in-general now.
I have no fear that dingdongs will end up 'bottom of the pile'. Even with the inevitable changes from UA6 to accommodate the loss of unified spellcasting, the class has too many good things going for it for a nerf to any one of those things to sink it. Dingdong's never been good because of one specific ability; it's the top of the game because it has half a dozen different abilities that each, by themselves, qualify as top-shelf stuff all bundled together into a single omnicompetent superman. Nothing about that has really changed.
Is there a fear that Paladin will now be the bottom martial after Monk got so many buffs?
I'm pretty confident that that will still be the Ranger.
Ranger is fine, paladin is fine, and being lowest dps if its all pretty close means the other aspects define the class. Lowest is a problem if its a big gap, and you have nothing else going for you
Yes. Overshadowing every other pc at the table. The pal and is dubious ethic is the perfect antagonist for each and every campaign. Its an DM tool. Just give it a CR.
UA paladaladindong is doing fine. Lots of people carped over the Divine Smite changes, but frankly it makes a whole lot more sense for the smites to all be unified as spells rather than having a bunch of Smite spells but also this one weird janky smite that's still a Smite but not a spell except it uses spell slots and cares about spell level... Yeah. It's a mess, and the fact that existing 5e players get it doesn't excuse it from being a mess
And a whole lot of people ignored the absolutely huge buff that is turning Lay on Hands into a bonus action. The heavily armored dingdong was already far and away the best class for charging into the fray and saving somebody in trouble; now it gets to hand out its chonky healing pool with one hald while striking its enemies down with the other.
Honestly, my read on the class was that power moved, rather than being lost. Less emphasis was placed on Divine Smite and ridiculous burst damage, but the dingdong's spellcasting became more viable with improvements to Oath spells and no further need to 'waste' prepared spells on alternate Smites (which were themselves dramatically improved), Lay on Hands got huge, and many ancillary rules around the dingdong have also improved it, such as Ritual casting being baked into spellcasting-in-general now.
I have no fear that dingdongs will end up 'bottom of the pile'. Even with the inevitable changes from UA6 to accommodate the loss of unified spellcasting, the class has too many good things going for it for a nerf to any one of those things to sink it. Dingdong's never been good because of one specific ability; it's the top of the game because it has half a dozen different abilities that each, by themselves, qualify as top-shelf stuff all bundled together into a single omnicompetent superman. Nothing about that has really changed.
This was more or less my initial reaction as well, but not being as versed in Paladin as the other 11 classes I thought I would check my gut feeling against the sentiments of those more experienced, including any paladin mains on the subforum. Reading through this thread, my concerns were indeed alleviated.
To be clear as well - I'm totally on board with every smite being a spell, I completely agree it makes everything simpler. It was more the loss of basic smites leaving the bonus action free, as well as no longer being able to be used on a reaction*, that I hadn't really dived into the mathematical / raw output implications of.
The quality of life improvements like bonus action LoH and paladins becoming ritual casters are points well taken.
Yes. Overshadowing every other pc at the table. The pal and is dubious ethic is the perfect antagonist for each and every campaign. Its an DM tool. Just give it a CR.
Paladin will never overshadow any party that has a wizard in it. and will likely not overshadow any party with a bard, sorcerer or cleric either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Paladin will never overshadow any party that has a wizard in it. and will likely not overshadow any party with a bard, sorcerer or cleric either.
Casters are powerful in the right hands, but very few could match the unexpected burst damage of a 2014 Paladin, especially at a less experienced table that's simply gets a couple of lucky crits and decides to smite on each of them, deleting the boss. The decision to reduce the burst ceiling for the class was a good one imo.
Casters are powerful in the right hands, but very few could match the unexpected burst damage of a 2014 Paladin, especially at a less experienced table that's simply gets a couple of lucky crits and decides to smite on each of them, deleting the boss. The decision to reduce the burst ceiling for the class was a good one imo.
It's never been single-target damage that made casters powerful; their single target damage is distinctly unimpressive compared to martial builds. It's the 'everything else' part that makes them super strong.
Casters are powerful in the right hands, but very few could match the unexpected burst damage of a 2014 Paladin, especially at a less experienced table that's simply gets a couple of lucky crits and decides to smite on each of them, deleting the boss. The decision to reduce the burst ceiling for the class was a good one imo.
It's never been single-target damage that made casters powerful; their single target damage is distinctly unimpressive compared to martial builds. It's the 'everything else' part that makes them super strong.
I know that and you know that, but we're talking about the reason Smite was limited to 1/round. They're trying to solve smite-novas, not the entire martial caster divide at every level of experience with the game.
Paladin will never overshadow any party that has a wizard in it. and will likely not overshadow any party with a bard, sorcerer or cleric either.
Casters are powerful in the right hands, but very few could match the unexpected burst damage of a 2014 Paladin, especially at a less experienced table that's simply gets a couple of lucky crits and decides to smite on each of them, deleting the boss. The decision to reduce the burst ceiling for the class was a good one imo.
I understand why it was done, and I agree with it. What I said was that a Paladin will never overshadow a party, and occasionally deleting a monster with some lucky dice rolls I don't think would qualify.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Paladins will be just fine. They still have the single most OP feature in the game (outside of wish, which should be eliminated entirely) on their sheet in the form of their auras.
I understand why it was done, and I agree with it. What I said was that a Paladin will never overshadow a party, and occasionally deleting a monster with some lucky dice rolls I don't think would qualify.
The designers do see it as overshadowing though. UA4:
Crawford: "There is also now a limit placed on Divine Smite; we have now made it clear that Divine Smite can be used no more than once per turn...all of us who've been playing the game for the last eight years have also {had} tables when, because paladins could do Smite attack after attack after attack, it can too quickly turn into the rest of the party being a group of bystanders observing the Paladin do everything-"
Todd (sarcastically)" "I've never been at a table where everyone just sat back and watched the paladin go full Nova, I don't know you're talking about! oh there will be some salty Paladin players."
Crawford: "Right... the flip side is you get to use Divine Smite in more ways than you ever could before...and we've also revised all the Smite spells that were in the 2014 Player's Handbook."
Not only was it happening, it happened often enough for them to cite it as the reason for the change.
I'm aware. I still don't agree that a paladin, ever overshadowed the party more than a wizard does every night. There's no * next to the discussion about the martial/caster divide that says *except paladins
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I'm aware. I still don't agree that a paladin, ever overshadowed the party more than a wizard does every night. There's no * next to the discussion about the martial/caster divide that says *except paladins
My point is that while your focus might be the martial/caster divide, it isn't theirs. When they say Paladin Nova needs to be addressed, they're not doing it to try and increase martial/caster parity, they're doing it because paladin nova is a substantial problem in its own right from the feedback they've received and play data they've seen firsthand.
As for wizards - my guess is that wizards overshadowing their tables is a much rarer occurrence in actual play. Of course on message boards and theorycrafting discussion, wizard power comes up a lot, but such discussions and theory are ultimately conducted by a tiny minority of the D&D playerbase. Wizards have been the highest-ceiling class nearly throughout D&D's history and it doesn't seem to have caused the sky to fall at any point.
Look man, read the post I was replying to. He said that paladins were overshadowing every other person in the party. I said that's not true. Since you have been explaining to me that paladin novas needed to be nerfed. My dude, I even said I agreed with the change. I merely challenged that paladins weren't overshadowing everyone in they party. And they don't. There's really no need to keep lecturing me on information that I know, I understand, and I have already said I understand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Most people I know are referring to Rogue. Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk when they say “martials,” and WotC specifically refers to Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks when they say “martials,”, they classify Rogues, Rangers, and Bards as
Skills“Expert” classes, and they stick Paladins with Clerics & Druids.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They didn't refer to the Fighter/Barbarian/Monk group as "Martials", they referred to them as "Warriors". And those groups are gone from the later documents (along with the "Experts", "Mages", and "Priests"). The term martial goes much further back than the UA use of those terms, and also further back than those used as class groups in 2e. Martial has always included Ranger: they're primarily a weapon/fighting class with spells on the side (just like the Paladin, just with a different repertoire). Even in 5e and 1DD: they get Fighting Style and (in 1DD) Weapon Mastery.
Okay chief.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Maybe y'all could make a separate thread for the "are rangers martials" debate?
(I suggest starting it off with a clear definition of the term "martial.")
1) There is a BA conflict with Paladin but I don't see that as a bad thing. Every other Str-based martial is likely going to gravitate toward the same old polearm PAM/GWM builds. A class with an actual reason to consider sword and board optimal because they have so many other things to do with their BA (smite, CD, LoH, spells etc) sounds like a nice change of pace.
2) Paladin will have a much easier time with concentration checks than most gishes thanks to their aura. I disagree that the aura doesn't make a big difference, 14 Con and 16 Cha is equivalent to max Con for them. I would just add War Caster to that, which you'll likely want anyway so you can sword and board and still cast - just spend most of your time smiting until you get it since smite has no S component.
it doesn't matter, because martial is not defined anywhere. To me, it's a class that's primarily a weapon user as opposed to primarily a magic user.
This thread is supposed to be about paladins and I think they are going to be excellent, particularly since they will likely be able to pick up pact of the blade with a background feat at level 1.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I think the UA Paladin is pretty solid all around; it hasn't really lost anything from 5e, and actually got a few improvements here and there.
Divine Smite hasn't been nerfed as such, Paladins are just no longer able to dump 2-7 spell slots in a single round into it, so builds that were already ridiculous (e.g- an Action Surging, hasted Polearm Master) are no longer ending big boss battles the moment they turn up. They're not losing any damage, it's just more spread out over time.
This differs from the way in which a Monk's Stunning Strike was nerfed; while this too needed to be done, Monks didn't get extra damage from burning more Ki on Stunning Strikes, they just made it more likely to actually land – a Monk could in theory spend one Ki per round for three rounds and land three Stunning Strikes, it just wasn't very likely except against really low CON save targets (that you probably didn't really need to stun in the first place).
While Monk has finally got some pretty decent improvements, it was a class that really needed them. It can throw out some decent damage via Flurry of Blows, but it's not really exceeding the Paladin, and doing so comes at a cost in defence. Paladin still has solid defence, solid offence, solid healing, and solid party support, all as standard in a complete package, and only needs to spend resources when you know they'll work, and it has access to half-casting for added utility/support if you want it. The UA Monk by comparison is a highly mobile skirmisher that has a delicate balancing act of abilities and resource spending that determines what they're best at round to round, so it doesn't really step on Paladin's toes in any way.
They're very, very different, but I think Monk is shaping up to be a bit more capable and more fun than before, which is great for Monk players. But Paladin remains good at what it's good at (namely, being good in every sense of the word). 😉
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.
UA paladaladindong is doing fine. Lots of people carped over the Divine Smite changes, but frankly it makes a whole lot more sense for the smites to all be unified as spells rather than having a bunch of Smite spells but also this one weird janky smite that's still a Smite but not a spell except it uses spell slots and cares about spell level... Yeah. It's a mess, and the fact that existing 5e players get it doesn't excuse it from being a mess
And a whole lot of people ignored the absolutely huge buff that is turning Lay on Hands into a bonus action. The heavily armored dingdong was already far and away the best class for charging into the fray and saving somebody in trouble; now it gets to hand out its chonky healing pool with one hald while striking its enemies down with the other.
Honestly, my read on the class was that power moved, rather than being lost. Less emphasis was placed on Divine Smite and ridiculous burst damage, but the dingdong's spellcasting became more viable with improvements to Oath spells and no further need to 'waste' prepared spells on alternate Smites (which were themselves dramatically improved), Lay on Hands got huge, and many ancillary rules around the dingdong have also improved it, such as Ritual casting being baked into spellcasting-in-general now.
I have no fear that dingdongs will end up 'bottom of the pile'. Even with the inevitable changes from UA6 to accommodate the loss of unified spellcasting, the class has too many good things going for it for a nerf to any one of those things to sink it. Dingdong's never been good because of one specific ability; it's the top of the game because it has half a dozen different abilities that each, by themselves, qualify as top-shelf stuff all bundled together into a single omnicompetent superman. Nothing about that has really changed.
Please do not contact or message me.
Ranger is fine, paladin is fine, and being lowest dps if its all pretty close means the other aspects define the class. Lowest is a problem if its a big gap, and you have nothing else going for you
Yes.
Overshadowing every other pc at the table.
The pal and is dubious ethic is the perfect antagonist for each and every campaign.
Its an DM tool.
Just give it a CR.
This was more or less my initial reaction as well, but not being as versed in Paladin as the other 11 classes I thought I would check my gut feeling against the sentiments of those more experienced, including any paladin mains on the subforum. Reading through this thread, my concerns were indeed alleviated.
To be clear as well - I'm totally on board with every smite being a spell, I completely agree it makes everything simpler. It was more the loss of basic smites leaving the bonus action free, as well as no longer being able to be used on a reaction*, that I hadn't really dived into the mathematical / raw output implications of.
The quality of life improvements like bonus action LoH and paladins becoming ritual casters are points well taken.
*outside of readied actions
Paladin will never overshadow any party that has a wizard in it. and will likely not overshadow any party with a bard, sorcerer or cleric either.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Casters are powerful in the right hands, but very few could match the unexpected burst damage of a 2014 Paladin, especially at a less experienced table that's simply gets a couple of lucky crits and decides to smite on each of them, deleting the boss. The decision to reduce the burst ceiling for the class was a good one imo.
It's never been single-target damage that made casters powerful; their single target damage is distinctly unimpressive compared to martial builds. It's the 'everything else' part that makes them super strong.
I know that and you know that, but we're talking about the reason Smite was limited to 1/round. They're trying to solve smite-novas, not the entire martial caster divide at every level of experience with the game.
I understand why it was done, and I agree with it. What I said was that a Paladin will never overshadow a party, and occasionally deleting a monster with some lucky dice rolls I don't think would qualify.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Paladins will be just fine. They still have the single most OP feature in the game (outside of wish, which should be eliminated entirely) on their sheet in the form of their auras.
The designers do see it as overshadowing though. UA4:
Crawford: "There is also now a limit placed on Divine Smite; we have now made it clear that Divine Smite can be used no more than once per turn...all of us who've been playing the game for the last eight years have also {had} tables when, because paladins could do Smite attack after attack after attack, it can too quickly turn into the rest of the party being a group of bystanders observing the Paladin do everything-"
Todd (sarcastically)" "I've never been at a table where everyone just sat back and watched the paladin go full Nova, I don't know you're talking about! oh there will be some salty Paladin players."
Crawford: "Right... the flip side is you get to use Divine Smite in more ways than you ever could before...and we've also revised all the Smite spells that were in the 2014 Player's Handbook."
Not only was it happening, it happened often enough for them to cite it as the reason for the change.
I'm aware. I still don't agree that a paladin, ever overshadowed the party more than a wizard does every night. There's no * next to the discussion about the martial/caster divide that says *except paladins
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
My point is that while your focus might be the martial/caster divide, it isn't theirs. When they say Paladin Nova needs to be addressed, they're not doing it to try and increase martial/caster parity, they're doing it because paladin nova is a substantial problem in its own right from the feedback they've received and play data they've seen firsthand.
As for wizards - my guess is that wizards overshadowing their tables is a much rarer occurrence in actual play. Of course on message boards and theorycrafting discussion, wizard power comes up a lot, but such discussions and theory are ultimately conducted by a tiny minority of the D&D playerbase. Wizards have been the highest-ceiling class nearly throughout D&D's history and it doesn't seem to have caused the sky to fall at any point.
Look man, read the post I was replying to. He said that paladins were overshadowing every other person in the party. I said that's not true. Since you have been explaining to me that paladin novas needed to be nerfed. My dude, I even said I agreed with the change. I merely challenged that paladins weren't overshadowing everyone in they party. And they don't. There's really no need to keep lecturing me on information that I know, I understand, and I have already said I understand.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha