I mean, even if you manage to finesse your way into using CHA for your weapon attacks, you can't completely dump STR if you plan to wear Heavy Armor; at best you can use Medium instead and still need to have a DEX score of 14 for a lower AC. The theoretical possibility of people tacking together separate class features or feats into an optimized build that will at best only slightly redistribute your stats seems like a flimsy basis for saying Paladins should stop using CHA for Aura, or features in general. Finding some way to keep a one level dip into Warlock from giving the feature and leaving Magic Initiate as-is solves the problem much better than nerfing a Paladin feature.
heavy armor is overrated. I would 100% rather have a 14 dex, and medium armor for 1 less AC than I would heavy armor. 14 dex is much higher value than 15 str, unless I need the str to make my attacks with.
Heavy Armor means you can dump Dex down to 10 or even 8 without tanking your AC. For a class like paladin that wants high Str, Con and Cha, that's a great build option, especially since we can smite with thrown weapons now. (Divine Smite says "with a melee weapon" but several melee weapons have the Thrown property.)
Yes, Dex is a god stat, but when you have as strong defenses as a paladin does you don't need to go first.
I only want heavy armor, if I am not going with a s/s build, because rapier's as good as anything str has. D8 is D8. I'd rather have a higher dex for saving throws and initiative, than 1 AC from str. Now, if I ever plan to use 2h weapons, that clearly isn't the case, but for a pure defensive tank? No point. Paladin only wants str if you use a 2h or you feel you have to wear heavy armor. The last paladin I built, had a 10 str, and she wrecked things. the DM was annoyed because rapier isn't a very paladin-y weapon, but the girl who was playing it LOVED it.
Now that weapon masteries are involved, my opinion's changed on that a bit, which is part of why I oppose versatile finesse weapons. With the mastery system, there's a good reason to value str over dex. A rapier is /not/ the same as a longsword now; it's more than just a d8 one hander. As you point out, you can now smite with thrown weapons too. That's another point in str's favor. With the newer rules, you have real choices to make, and choices are good. As a str based paladin NOW, I can choose any mastery property I want, and those mastery properties are of higher value to me than the dex saves, or init bonus. With Mastery in play, I highly doubt I would want a dex based paladin simply because I'm not overly impressed with the mastery options. That's a good thing.
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.
Even with the old Paladin though I'd probably have gone for a Str build, because chances are someone else in the party who can't cover Str would be covering Dex. But I agree with you that Str Paladins are an even better play now.
I took a deeper dive through the Smite spells and I'm feeling a lot better about the new Paladin. They're all so much better than 2024 than they were in 2014 (well, except Banishing Smite.) All of them got some common buffs - being always prepared, becoming cast-on-hit instead of cast-before-hit, and working with thrown weapons (well, a couple of the old smites worked at range before too) and unarmed strikes now.
On top of all those, each one got individual buffs too:
Searing Smite: No more concentration! Also, both the initial and ongoing damage upcast now, the ongoing damage can't be put out with an action from the target or one of their allies anymore, and the ongoing damage triggers before the save - so you're guaranteed at least one instance of each, for a minimum of +2d6 with a 1st-level slot, possibly even 3d6 or 4d6, and it upcasts super well also. A 3rd-level slot for example is minimum +6d6 even if they save, and if it they don't you're looking at +9d6 or more. It's still a Con save so getting the additional damage is unlikely, but it's still possible, and a decent chunk of damage even if they save.
Thunderous Smite: No more concentration as well - and an upcast was added. It doesn't scale quite as well as Searing, but all of the damage is no-save, and the saving throw vs push and prone is Str which is pretty nice.
Wrathful Smite: Concentration removed and upcast added. This one is a bit weaker in that there are multiple saving throws instead of just one, but the frighten effect also can't be removed with an action anymore, so I think it's actually a wash. Damage changed from Psychic to Necrotic now so Paladins have an extra smite damage option.
BrandingGlimmering Shining Smite: This one kept concentration but it's good even with that, by applying full Faerie Fire to the target now - not just the invisibility removal and glow effect, but also makes it so you and all your allies get Advantage on all your attacks for as long as you maintain concentration. No save! The upcast option stays the same.
Blinding Smite: No concentration anymore and a damage upcast was added - but the massive benefit to this one is that it's no-save blind, at least initially. (The target gets a save at the end of each of their turns, but the playtest seems to have forgotten to include which one, I'm guessing Con.)
Staggering Smite: This one was downright awful in 2014; concentration and a Wis save for a single round of disadvantage and no reactions and then the spell ends. Now it's pretty good - no concentration and inflicts the Stun condition, which is just strictly better (still denies reactions, denies actions/attacks completely instead of disadvantage, breaks concentration...) and has an upcast option now.
Banishing Smite: As mentioned, this is the one that needs the most work now. But even if they don't fix it, I'm not going to run into it in most games anyway, so.
With base Divine Smite being a BA spell now... I have to wonder if I'd ever even use it anymore, given the many options above. It's kind of where it always should have been, the basic reliable option when all you want is a little extra reliable damage with no riders, rather than strictly superior to nearly all of the others because they were so weak.
Even with the old Paladin though I'd probably have gone for a Str build, because chances are someone else in the party who can't cover Str would be covering Dex. But I agree with you that Str Paladins are an even better play now.
I agree with most of your analysis here but not that STR based paladin is necessarily in a better place just due to how easily it'll be to make Paladin SAD instead, with 1 feat for Eldritch Adept, since pact of the blade in the last UA was applicable too it. You just need 15 strength for Plate and you're set. Admittedly 15 is still quiet an investment. No longer even need to level dip, a feat is still not free but less than a level dip.
also I think divine smite will remain the go to for critical hits, since the extra damage gets doubled too.
Even with the old Paladin though I'd probably have gone for a Str build, because chances are someone else in the party who can't cover Str would be covering Dex. But I agree with you that Str Paladins are an even better play now.
I agree with most of your analysis here but not that STR based paladin is necessarily in a better place just due to how easily it'll be to make Paladin SAD instead, with 1 feat for Eldritch Adept, since pact of the blade in the last UA was applicable too it. You just need 15 strength for Plate and you're set. Admittedly 15 is still quiet an investment. No longer even need to level dip, a feat is still not free but less than a level dip.
also I think divine smite will remain the go to for critical hits, since the extra damage gets doubled too.
Not only are you needing the 15, but the benefit of being SAD and grabbing CHA feats is balanced by the loss of STR feats like Sentinel, Mage Slayer, Heavy Armor Master, Shield Master, GWM and so on which are generally better for most pally's. So it ultimately comes down to, which do you like more? One isn't automatically better than the other.
Even with the old Paladin though I'd probably have gone for a Str build, because chances are someone else in the party who can't cover Str would be covering Dex. But I agree with you that Str Paladins are an even better play now.
I agree with most of your analysis here but not that STR based paladin is necessarily in a better place just due to how easily it'll be to make Paladin SAD instead, with 1 feat for Eldritch Adept, since pact of the blade in the last UA was applicable too it. You just need 15 strength for Plate and you're set. Admittedly 15 is still quiet an investment. No longer even need to level dip, a feat is still not free but less than a level dip.
also I think divine smite will remain the go to for critical hits, since the extra damage gets doubled too.
Not only are you needing the 15, but the benefit of being SAD and grabbing CHA feats is balanced by the loss of STR feats like Sentinel, Mage Slayer, Heavy Armor Master, Shield Master, GWM and so on which are generally better for most pally's. So it ultimately comes down to, which do you like more? One isn't automatically better than the other.
While true, you then get the Charisma feats, like inspiring leader, a few of the racial feats, like Elven Accuracy or Flames of Phlegethos, also go Charisma. Then if you have any melee ranged cantrip for any reason, War Caster is also down the Charisma Route, more so booming blade, so I don't think there is that much difference down the two routes by the end racial choice or feat choice at level 1 might be kind of important, since if you have damage cantrips, you'll get more damage for when out of range and the stronger Aura of Protection. Also your Save DCs will be higher on saves against your smites.
As for Sentinel, it's still good but it's definitely weaker since you can no longer smite on it in any form, which is where I kind of favour booming blade route now, it doesn't enforce the 0 movement but moving incurs more damage and it does more damage to begin with. You can get more opportunity attacks with Sentinel still, obviously, so it's fairly equal. Elven Accuracy on a vengeance paladin is obviously insane, Flames of Phlegethos with searing smite is also quiet powerful.
Overall not a fan of Shield Master, there are now many ways to get push backs, which do more and while prone might be good for the paladin, for your casters and ranged characters, it's problematic. Heavy Armor Master is good for trash mobs, but I feel mostly offset against inspiring leader, it's really getting down to if you're using a 2-handed weapon to pick up something like GWM or Polearm Master, those are good feats for that particular style of build but PAM doesn't really work well with sentinel any more.
I agree with most of your analysis here but not that STR based paladin is necessarily in a better place just due to how easily it'll be to make Paladin SAD instead, with 1 feat for Eldritch Adept, since pact of the blade in the last UA was applicable too it. You just need 15 strength for Plate and you're set. Admittedly 15 is still quiet an investment. No longer even need to level dip, a feat is still not free but less than a level dip.
also I think divine smite will remain the go to for critical hits, since the extra damage gets doubled too.
Cha SAD paladin being easier to achieve doesn't make Str Paladin worse off though, even if it's better, it's just a build choice. It might seem suboptimal to you but some people just want to be the strong guy in the party for their concept. This is like saying Rogue is worse off because Bards can get expertise too; yeah, they can, but if I want to be a Rogue when I sit at the table, then what Bard can do is completely irrelevant for me. Same for a Cha-based Paladin if I want to be Str-based.
But to reiterate what I've been saying for several pages now - I do want Pact of the Blade to be nerfed, preferably to something like 1H weapons only. This would mean that a Paladin who wants to use a 2H weapon like a greatsword would either need to go with a Str build, stick with a longsword instead, or multiclass Hexblade which would cost them 3 levels now. Hopefully something like this is what they go with.
Overall not a fan of Shield Master, there are now many ways to get push backs, which do more and while prone might be good for the paladin, for your casters and ranged characters, it's problematic. Heavy Armor Master is good for trash mobs, but I feel mostly offset against inspiring leader, it's really getting down to if you're using a 2-handed weapon to pick up something like GWM or Polearm Master, those are good feats for that particular style of build but PAM doesn't really work well with sentinel any more.
I wouldn't bother with Shield Master on a Paladin either, for one they have way better things to do with their bonus action, and for two, if they want to push enemies around they can use a Push weapon and Thundering Smite for two push attempts on a single hit targeting two different saves, three if you go with Charger.
I agree with most of your analysis here but not that STR based paladin is necessarily in a better place just due to how easily it'll be to make Paladin SAD instead, with 1 feat for Eldritch Adept, since pact of the blade in the last UA was applicable too it. You just need 15 strength for Plate and you're set. Admittedly 15 is still quiet an investment. No longer even need to level dip, a feat is still not free but less than a level dip.
also I think divine smite will remain the go to for critical hits, since the extra damage gets doubled too.
Cha SAD paladin being easier to achieve doesn't make Str Paladin worse off though, even if it's better, it's just a build choice. It might seem suboptimal to you but some people just want to be the strong guy in the party for their concept. This is like saying Rogue is worse off because Bards can get expertise too; yeah, they can, but if I want to be a Rogue when I sit at the table, then what Bard can do is completely irrelevant for me. Same for a Cha-based Paladin if I want to be Str-based.
But to reiterate what I've been saying for several pages now - I do want Pact of the Blade to be nerfed, preferably to something like 1H weapons only. This would mean that a Paladin who wants to use a 2H weapon like a greatsword would either need to go with a Str build, stick with a longsword instead, or multiclass Hexblade which would cost them 3 levels now. Hopefully something like this is what they go with.
Overall not a fan of Shield Master, there are now many ways to get push backs, which do more and while prone might be good for the paladin, for your casters and ranged characters, it's problematic. Heavy Armor Master is good for trash mobs, but I feel mostly offset against inspiring leader, it's really getting down to if you're using a 2-handed weapon to pick up something like GWM or Polearm Master, those are good feats for that particular style of build but PAM doesn't really work well with sentinel any more.
I wouldn't bother with Shield Master on a Paladin either, for one they have way better things to do with their bonus action, and for two, if they want to push enemies around they can use a Push weapon and Thundering Smite for two push attempts on a single hit targeting two different saves, three if you go with Charger.
Personally, I think the whole viability of CHA paladin does take away from STR paladin, some of the feats moving to half-feats do benefit strength but overall those feats have mostly been nerfed in one way or another so I do not see any reason that STR paladin is a better shape now than it was in the original 2014, prior to the release of hexblade for warlock. Is it still a viable build and one you can have fun with? sure. I'm not debating that STR builds are viable but rather that STR is in a healthier position now than before, I don't really see any reason as to why that is the case? You still have the subpar initiative and lack of real ranged combat options and most of the things reliant on CHA before are still reliant on CHA now. About the only change is to smites which are much less dependent on constitution saves, but that has nothing to do with STR and most of those have secondary effects with saves that are CHA based for save DC.
If your build is going to be for 2H, then you still get more out of being STR then going for the SAD Charisma paladin but that is still limited and certain racial choices (any-elf) can change even that. I can see that changes to thrown weapons might be on consideration, I don't really care about unarmed combat, Paladin isn't pushing a weapon die for unarmed combat. Now with background feats, you can pick up a cantrip or alert feat, neither of which benefit from STR specifically to help with range or initiative.
So you’ll save yourself a whole 1 ability point for less AC, a slight increase in turn order on average, and slightly better performance on DEX saves for a class that already has strong saves and has an extremely efficient independent healing mechanic that’s becoming a bonus action? If “whelmed” was sea level, my impression of this prospect would be at crush depth. There’s superficial gains in an abstract white room way, but the actual practical impact on performance seems negligible at best.
That ability point on point buy going from 14 to 15 is 2 points, that saves some dumping in other stats. And on top of that if Charisma is your attack stat, getting 15 strength just for AC seems off. Unless you plan on grappling or something its really not doing anything for you other than wearing armor. So its 1 less AC for higher initiative, 2 stat points to spread, a wider range of skills, leaving stealth as an option etc. You are not crippling yourself by going heavy armor, the differences are fairly small, but the dex medium armor route is a bit better if you manage to get charisma as your attack stat. I'd likely still go strength just as it feels right for a paladin to be in plate.
I wish strength did more, but it just doesn't do much in D&D. .
@Ace: Running with CHA through Pact of the Blade allows you to make a more diverse stat array while amping up both weapon and spells than a Strength main Paladin. Going with DEX / medium armor over STR / heavy armor gives you even more flexibility. And the ability to start earlier in a turn is also additional protection for yourself and your team. The best kind of control is threat removal - mainly achieved through killing or incapacitating the enemy. So I wouldn't say it is marginal, but I agree it is not game-breaking or a must-have to select DEX over STR, but it has its merits and from an optimization point of view, I would say the DEX build is superior to the STR build in 2014 PHB.
Of course that being said, I would most likely multiclass my Paladin, so I do require that 13 STR minimum to fulfill the multiclass requirement, which invalidates the DEX option altogether for multiclassing.
@Dudeicus: I agree and I wish Strength had more applications. A good example could be to enable the shove/grapple attack through an Opportunity Attack. Thus if an enemy tries to go past you to get to your squishier teammates in the back, you could attempt to stop them. And that would work so much better for a Strength character than a Dex/Cha character. I know this encroaches on the Sentinel feat, but the feat achieves it through a weapon attack - aka it doesn't care about the nature of the ability modifier used and it delivers damage. Getting half-way there through existing alternate attacks would make Strength characters just a bit better for control/frontline. So far in my experience in 5e Opportunity Attacks doesn't happen all too often anyway, so it is not a huge buff. I feel like the alternative actions you can take in your turn often gets overlooked once you enter late tier 2 play, and often it takes very specific setups that the DM has to tailor into the story - aka we're fighting at the edge of a cliff where shoving or grappling and moving creatures over the edge could be a tactical choice. These situations doesn't appear as naturally in many stories. To better this you could either make the options already available stronger or you can increase the accessibility to them or you can create entirely new options that have merits.
Even with the old Paladin though I'd probably have gone for a Str build, because chances are someone else in the party who can't cover Str would be covering Dex. But I agree with you that Str Paladins are an even better play now.
I took a deeper dive through the Smite spells and I'm feeling a lot better about the new Paladin. They're all so much better than 2024 than they were in 2014 (well, except Banishing Smite.) All of them got some common buffs - being always prepared, becoming cast-on-hit instead of cast-before-hit, and working with thrown weapons (well, a couple of the old smites worked at range before too) and unarmed strikes now.
On top of all those, each one got individual buffs too:
Searing Smite: No more concentration! Also, both the initial and ongoing damage upcast now, the ongoing damage can't be put out with an action from the target or one of their allies anymore, and the ongoing damage triggers before the save - so you're guaranteed at least one instance of each, for a minimum of +2d6 with a 1st-level slot, possibly even 3d6 or 4d6, and it upcasts super well also. A 3rd-level slot for example is minimum +6d6 even if they save, and if it they don't you're looking at +9d6 or more. It's still a Con save so getting the additional damage is unlikely, but it's still possible, and a decent chunk of damage even if they save.
Thunderous Smite: No more concentration as well - and an upcast was added. It doesn't scale quite as well as Searing, but all of the damage is no-save, and the saving throw vs push and prone is Str which is pretty nice.
Wrathful Smite: Concentration removed and upcast added. This one is a bit weaker in that there are multiple saving throws instead of just one, but the frighten effect also can't be removed with an action anymore, so I think it's actually a wash. Damage changed from Psychic to Necrotic now so Paladins have an extra smite damage option.
BrandingGlimmering Shining Smite: This one kept concentration but it's good even with that, by applying full Faerie Fire to the target now - not just the invisibility removal and glow effect, but also makes it so you and all your allies get Advantage on all your attacks for as long as you maintain concentration. No save! The upcast option stays the same.
Blinding Smite: No concentration anymore and a damage upcast was added - but the massive benefit to this one is that it's no-save blind, at least initially. (The target gets a save at the end of each of their turns, but the playtest seems to have forgotten to include which one, I'm guessing Con.)
Staggering Smite: This one was downright awful in 2014; concentration and a Wis save for a single round of disadvantage and no reactions and then the spell ends. Now it's pretty good - no concentration and inflicts the Stun condition, which is just strictly better (still denies reactions, denies actions/attacks completely instead of disadvantage, breaks concentration...) and has an upcast option now.
Banishing Smite: As mentioned, this is the one that needs the most work now. But even if they don't fix it, I'm not going to run into it in most games anyway, so.
With base Divine Smite being a BA spell now... I have to wonder if I'd ever even use it anymore, given the many options above. It's kind of where it always should have been, the basic reliable option when all you want is a little extra reliable damage with no riders, rather than strictly superior to nearly all of the others because they were so weak.
The WIS check of the 2014 Wrathful Smite being a free saving throw in 2024 is definitely a nerf in all but the most niche of situations. Also as for damage types, Necrotic is heavily resisted compared to Psychic, so overall it seems like a loss. Definitely a weaker version in 2024.
I didn't actually catch that the UA Blinding Smite doesn't include a saving throw when you hit. Considering how it says the target repeats their saving throw at the end of each of its turns makes me believe it was meant to have a saving throw on first application. I don't expect this to be a buff.
Yea Banishing Smite... got kinda weird. The separation from the Banishment spell where permanently banishing the target is no longer an option is... a mistake to me. That being said the premise of this Smite variant is... awkward at best. You need to use a 5th level spell slot for it, which first is available to you at level 17... The target needs to be brought down to less than 50 hit points (at level 17, that's basically the DPR of one to three players) and then the target just sits in quarantine for a minute, while you can take care of other pests and prep for the big one to return. This one definitely feels like the one they should revamp/completely remake and perhaps make it an AoE Smite, where they pair a Smite with Destructive Wave to form a cone-version with main damage on the target and some supplementary damage on secondary targets. Where Destructive Wave deals 5d6s thunder and 5d6s radiant/necrotic, this variant could deal 5d6s of both damage types to the main target and only 3d6s of both types to the secondary targets. Thus there's still a very good reason to actually cast Destructive Wave for its AoE damage, whilst the Smite variant forces more of that damage into the main target (through your weapon attack). And also gives it an opportunity to critical strike.
Otherwise, yes the Smite spells have gotten better and much less clunky to use with removal of most concentration requirements which I wager was mainly done out of simplicity (to not have a duration on the Smite application spell and one separate on the condition). But as you said yourself the Divine Smite feels... not as enticing now. It has all the baggage of being a Spell (it costs a bonus action) and no benefit - well you can use a 5th level spell slot to deal 6d8 damage now, while a Banishing Smite deals 5d10 Force - or equivalent average damage with a better damage type, although missing the Undead/Fiend bonus damage. It is technically a plus for multiclassers. For pure damage Searing Smite is always stronger than Divine Smite, so as long as Fire is not resisted or unaffecting and the target is not vulnerable to Radiant you get a lot more mileage out of Searing Smite.
I would prefer if Divine Smite was the Paladin's go-to for maximum damage and the other Smite variants were tech-options where trading a little bit of damage would be worthwhile for the rider under the right circumstances. Right now I feel like there's little reason to cast Divine Smite, and I really, really dislike how the once per Long Rest free Smite doesn't utilize your maximum spell slot level - making it mostly optimal to cast your highest level Smite spell for that free charge instead of picking the better variant for the task at hand and not feel cheated. If we're afraid of multiclassers with that wording, have it be the maximum spell slot level gained through the Paladin class.
I’d forgotten about the STR pre-req for multiclass; also, I did specifically address the idea that there is some additional flexibility for the point spread. The issue is the boosts are so small as to be negligible; LoH sharply reduces the value of bumping the CON mod by one and even two is iffy, the class has little to no skill support so you wouldn’t get much value from boosting INT or WIS, and Aura of Protection does for saves in general what LoH does for CON. The arrangement might theoretically be more optimized, but the changes are marginal rather than dramatic. You’re not going to turn a Paladin into a skill monkey, boost their DPR by more than a tick or two, or consistently improve their ability to soak damage.
Personally, I think the whole viability of CHA paladin does take away from STR paladin, some of the feats moving to half-feats do benefit strength but overall those feats have mostly been nerfed in one way or another so I do not see any reason that STR paladin is a better shape now than it was in the original 2014, prior to the release of hexblade for warlock. Is it still a viable build and one you can have fun with? sure. I'm not debating that STR builds are viable but rather that STR is in a healthier position now than before, I don't really see any reason as to why that is the case? You still have the subpar initiative and lack of real ranged combat options and most of the things reliant on CHA before are still reliant on CHA now. About the only change is to smites which are much less dependent on constitution saves, but that has nothing to do with STR and most of those have secondary effects with saves that are CHA based for save DC.
If your build is going to be for 2H, then you still get more out of being STR then going for the SAD Charisma paladin but that is still limited and certain racial choices (any-elf) can change even that. I can see that changes to thrown weapons might be on consideration, I don't really care about unarmed combat, Paladin isn't pushing a weapon die for unarmed combat. Now with background feats, you can pick up a cantrip or alert feat, neither of which benefit from STR specifically to help with range or initiative.
I think winning initiative is somewhat overrated, especially on a class with strong defenses and healing abilities that can soak a lot of different enemy attacks and then respond accordingly, and especially especially in 5e where you can't really delay or modify your initiative order like you could in prior editions. If initiative matters that much to you, you can just pick Alert as your starting feat and be on par with if not ahead of most 14 Dex medium-armor users, and even swap places with anyone who's better at it than you for those times when doing so is vital.
As for the weapon, sword and board isn't bad either because Paladins get Dueling Style, so a d8 weapon effectively becomes d12 and therefore functionally not far off from being a 2-hander anyway. No GWM, but such a paladin has plenty of other good feat choices anyway like War Caster, Charger, Mounted Combat, Mage Slayer etc instead, or just plain maxing out their Str and Cha as quickly as possible. And smite would partially conflict with GWM's bonus strike regardless so I would personally prioritize sword and board on a paladin above every other martial.
Lastly - unless I'm missing something, I don't think Pact of the Blade lets you grapple with Cha, so that's one more thing a Str Paladin can ne natively good at that a Dex or Chaladin won't be. You could even go all in with Tavern Brawler or Unarmed Style since you can smite with your punches now.
The WIS check of the 2014 Wrathful Smite being a free saving throw in 2024 is definitely a nerf in all but the most niche of situations. Also as for damage types, Necrotic is heavily resisted compared to Psychic, so overall it seems like a loss. Definitely a weaker version in 2024.
I didn't actually catch that the UA Blinding Smite doesn't include a saving throw when you hit. Considering how it says the target repeats their saving throw at the end of each of its turns makes me believe it was meant to have a saving throw on first application. I don't expect this to be a buff.
Yea Banishing Smite... got kinda weird. The separation from the Banishment spell where permanently banishing the target is no longer an option is... a mistake to me. That being said the premise of this Smite variant is... awkward at best. You need to use a 5th level spell slot for it, which first is available to you at level 17... The target needs to be brought down to less than 50 hit points (at level 17, that's basically the DPR of one to three players) and then the target just sits in quarantine for a minute, while you can take care of other pests and prep for the big one to return. This one definitely feels like the one they should revamp/completely remake and perhaps make it an AoE Smite, where they pair a Smite with Destructive Wave to form a cone-version with main damage on the target and some supplementary damage on secondary targets. Where Destructive Wave deals 5d6s thunder and 5d6s radiant/necrotic, this variant could deal 5d6s of both damage types to the main target and only 3d6s of both types to the secondary targets. Thus there's still a very good reason to actually cast Destructive Wave for its AoE damage, whilst the Smite variant forces more of that damage into the main target (through your weapon attack). And also gives it an opportunity to critical strike.
Otherwise, yes the Smite spells have gotten better and much less clunky to use with removal of most concentration requirements which I wager was mainly done out of simplicity (to not have a duration on the Smite application spell and one separate on the condition). But as you said yourself the Divine Smite feels... not as enticing now. It has all the baggage of being a Spell (it costs a bonus action) and no benefit - well you can use a 5th level spell slot to deal 6d8 damage now, while a Banishing Smite deals 5d10 Force - or equivalent average damage with a better damage type, although missing the Undead/Fiend bonus damage. It is technically a plus for multiclassers. For pure damage Searing Smite is always stronger than Divine Smite, so as long as Fire is not resisted or unaffecting and the target is not vulnerable to Radiant you get a lot more mileage out of Searing Smite.
I would prefer if Divine Smite was the Paladin's go-to for maximum damage and the other Smite variants were tech-options where trading a little bit of damage would be worthwhile for the rider under the right circumstances. Right now I feel like there's little reason to cast Divine Smite, and I really, really dislike how the once per Long Rest free Smite doesn't utilize your maximum spell slot level - making it mostly optimal to cast your highest level Smite spell for that free charge instead of picking the better variant for the task at hand and not feel cheated. If we're afraid of multiclassers with that wording, have it be the maximum spell slot level gained through the Paladin class.
Vanilla Divine Smite IS the pure damage variant though, especially if (a) you already have advantage from somewhere else (very easy to do now) and (b) you're up against fiends or undead where you functionally get a free upcast added on. The only one that does more is Banishing, and that uses concentration, whereas the Paladin can concentrate on something else like Bless or Spirit Shroud or Holy Weapon or Haste (certain oaths) and still throw out their DS zaps. So design-wise, it's fulfilling that function. The other smites might do more damage overall if you don't have advantage or you're able to get them to stick (e.g. Searing) but those are more situational in nature.
Winning initiative is a big deal (in a fight that will end after three rounds of PC actions, it's the difference between the enemies attacking 3x and the enemies attacking 2x (or in a fight against three foes where you drop one per turn, 6 total attacks vs 3), but each +1 to dex bonus is only around 5% increase to your odds of winning initiative so it's generally not as good as your primary attribute.
Winning initiative is a big deal (in a fight that will end after three rounds of PC actions, it's the difference between the enemies attacking 3x and the enemies attacking 2x (or in a fight against three foes where you drop one per turn, 6 total attacks vs 3), but each +1 to dex bonus is only around 5% increase to your odds of winning initiative so it's generally not as good as your primary attribute.
Yeah that's basically what I was saying. It's a good thing to aim for if picking it up isn't detrimental to your build, but too easy to overrate online.
For a Paladin who wants high Str, Con and Cha and plans to wear plate, I would have no problem deprioritizing Dex down to 10 or even 8.
Lastly - unless I'm missing something, I don't think Pact of the Blade lets you grapple with Cha, so that's one more thing a Str Paladin can ne natively good at that a Dex or Chaladin won't be. You could even go all in with Tavern Brawler or Unarmed Style since you can smite with your punches now.
<snip>
Vanilla Divine Smite IS the pure damage variant though, especially if (a) you already have advantage from somewhere else (very easy to do now) and (b) you're up against fiends or undead where you functionally get a free upcast added on. The only one that does more is Banishing, and that uses concentration, whereas the Paladin can concentrate on something else like Bless or Spirit Shroud or Holy Weapon or Haste (certain oaths) and still throw out their DS zaps. So design-wise, it's fulfilling that function. The other smites might do more damage overall if you don't have advantage or you're able to get them to stick (e.g. Searing) but those are more situational in nature.
Yup, Pact of the Blade only applies to attacks you make with the bonded weapon. So no unarmed strikes or grapple/shove gets a CHA boost.
I had gotten into my head that Searing Smite also used d8s, but they are only d6s. Otherwise Searing had the same damage base with potential for additional damage. However since Searing upscales both the initial fire damage AND the rider on upcasting, it mostly makes sense to use it over Divine Smite when upcasting - which might be true even when fighting undeads/fiends - depending on the spell slot level and the target's CON save. In pure damage Divine Smite deals on average: 4.5 flat + 4.5 X spell slot level Searing Smite deals on average at minimum: 0 flat + 7 X spell slot level They are even at lvl 2 slots and Searing takes the cake from lvl 3, and there's always the opportunity for the rider to continue. This is icky to me, and leaves Divine Smite in a position where, like you said, I don't know if I would use it really.
I had gotten into my head that Searing Smite also used d8s, but they are only d6s. Otherwise Searing had the same damage base with potential for additional damage. However since Searing upscales both the initial fire damage AND the rider on upcasting, it mostly makes sense to use it over Divine Smite when upcasting - which might be true even when fighting undeads/fiends - depending on the spell slot level and the target's CON save. In pure damage Divine Smite deals on average: 4.5 flat + 4.5 X spell slot level Searing Smite deals on average at minimum: 0 flat + 7 X spell slot level They are even at lvl 2 slots and Searing takes the cake from lvl 3, and there's always the opportunity for the rider to continue. This is icky to me, and leaves Divine Smite in a position where, like you said, I don't know if I would use it really.
It's true that Searing will hit harder/scale better a lot of the time - but Radiant damage is much, much more reliable than Fire, especially if you're fighting fiends (who would not only have a high chance to resist or immune Searing, but would be susceptible to the bonus damage from DS.) In addition, Searing is a Con save so the dot falling off early is likely.
But the key thing to keep in mind is that the 2024 Paladin gets all of these as free preparations now, so it's not like there's much of an opportunity cost here; use whichever one is likely to work best for whatever you're fighting. You can even apply the dot from Searing and then switch to DS on subsequent rounds for as long as it takes them to put the fire out, assuming you don't need those spell slots later.
In addition, the great scaling gives paladin interesting choices. Is a 3rd-level slot on Searing (minimum +6d6 fire, with the potential to hit +9d6 or even +12d6!) worth the slot, or should you spend that 3rd level slot on Blinding Smite instead for guaranteed advantage to you and all your allies against that target for at least a round, possibly more? Which will do more damage? That's impossible for me to answer in a vacuum, but it's a fun question that the 2024 Paladin now gets to ask 😎
I'm well aware of Fire being a worse damage type than Radiant. And I commented that Searing beats Divine when upcasting purely on the damage numbers given that damage type is not interacted with. (And on the subject of damage types; Pact of the Blade also allows a damage type change for the weapon swing to radiant, psychic or necrotic - which is a pretty good spread when you can't have Force or Thunder. I find it hard to argue against picking it up if the feat Eldritch Adept is still available in the 2024 PHB)
I agree it's a good thing that the non-Divine Smite spells have more interesting applications and is part of your repertoire naturally AND that they feel like good options - well most of them. I just think Divine Smite has lost its evergreen status, and to me that's a shame.
With how the 2024 version shapes up I will probably ask my DM to allow spell points for the flexibility if I make a Paladin.
I think eldritch adept isn't going to be in the PHB. On one hand, that makes me sad because there's a lot of great stuff worth picking up. On the other hand, it's probably better for the game if those things are a bit harder to poach.
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.
Just making it a level 4 feat will reduce how much “poaching” happens; at that point you can either pass on ASI to snag Blade and have a +3 ability mod on weapons from CHA barring lucky rolls or other factors that can’t be readily accounted for, or pass on the feat and have a +4 ability mod from STR. Not groundbreaking either way, but it does make it a trade-off.
We don't know what they are thinking about for it yet. I agree with you, but I don't think I have seen it listed yet. I'd have to assume that means they don't intend to carry it forward.
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.
Have we even seen the full array from the PHB? And there’s been subclasses they’ve announced will be in the new PHB but haven’t printed in any UA, so it’s pretty hard to call.
Have we even seen the full array from the PHB? And there’s been subclasses they’ve announced will be in the new PHB but haven’t printed in any UA, so it’s pretty hard to call.
There's a small number of subclasses I don't recall seeing, but only one unknown
Barbarian: Berserker, Wild Heart, World Tree, Zealot
I only want heavy armor, if I am not going with a s/s build, because rapier's as good as anything str has. D8 is D8. I'd rather have a higher dex for saving throws and initiative, than 1 AC from str. Now, if I ever plan to use 2h weapons, that clearly isn't the case, but for a pure defensive tank? No point. Paladin only wants str if you use a 2h or you feel you have to wear heavy armor. The last paladin I built, had a 10 str, and she wrecked things. the DM was annoyed because rapier isn't a very paladin-y weapon, but the girl who was playing it LOVED it.
Now that weapon masteries are involved, my opinion's changed on that a bit, which is part of why I oppose versatile finesse weapons. With the mastery system, there's a good reason to value str over dex. A rapier is /not/ the same as a longsword now; it's more than just a d8 one hander. As you point out, you can now smite with thrown weapons too. That's another point in str's favor. With the newer rules, you have real choices to make, and choices are good. As a str based paladin NOW, I can choose any mastery property I want, and those mastery properties are of higher value to me than the dex saves, or init bonus. With Mastery in play, I highly doubt I would want a dex based paladin simply because I'm not overly impressed with the mastery options. That's a good thing.
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
Even with the old Paladin though I'd probably have gone for a Str build, because chances are someone else in the party who can't cover Str would be covering Dex. But I agree with you that Str Paladins are an even better play now.
I took a deeper dive through the Smite spells and I'm feeling a lot better about the new Paladin. They're all so much better than 2024 than they were in 2014 (well, except Banishing Smite.) All of them got some common buffs - being always prepared, becoming cast-on-hit instead of cast-before-hit, and working with thrown weapons (well, a couple of the old smites worked at range before too) and unarmed strikes now.
On top of all those, each one got individual buffs too:
Searing Smite: No more concentration! Also, both the initial and ongoing damage upcast now, the ongoing damage can't be put out with an action from the target or one of their allies anymore, and the ongoing damage triggers before the save - so you're guaranteed at least one instance of each, for a minimum of +2d6 with a 1st-level slot, possibly even 3d6 or 4d6, and it upcasts super well also. A 3rd-level slot for example is minimum +6d6 even if they save, and if it they don't you're looking at +9d6 or more. It's still a Con save so getting the additional damage is unlikely, but it's still possible, and a decent chunk of damage even if they save.
Thunderous Smite: No more concentration as well - and an upcast was added. It doesn't scale quite as well as Searing, but all of the damage is no-save, and the saving throw vs push and prone is Str which is pretty nice.
Wrathful Smite: Concentration removed and upcast added. This one is a bit weaker in that there are multiple saving throws instead of just one, but the frighten effect also can't be removed with an action anymore, so I think it's actually a wash. Damage changed from Psychic to Necrotic now so Paladins have an extra smite damage option.
Branding Glimmering Shining Smite: This one kept concentration but it's good even with that, by applying full Faerie Fire to the target now - not just the invisibility removal and glow effect, but also makes it so you and all your allies get Advantage on all your attacks for as long as you maintain concentration. No save! The upcast option stays the same.
Blinding Smite: No concentration anymore and a damage upcast was added - but the massive benefit to this one is that it's no-save blind, at least initially. (The target gets a save at the end of each of their turns, but the playtest seems to have forgotten to include which one, I'm guessing Con.)
Staggering Smite: This one was downright awful in 2014; concentration and a Wis save for a single round of disadvantage and no reactions and then the spell ends. Now it's pretty good - no concentration and inflicts the Stun condition, which is just strictly better (still denies reactions, denies actions/attacks completely instead of disadvantage, breaks concentration...) and has an upcast option now.
Banishing Smite: As mentioned, this is the one that needs the most work now. But even if they don't fix it, I'm not going to run into it in most games anyway, so.
With base Divine Smite being a BA spell now... I have to wonder if I'd ever even use it anymore, given the many options above. It's kind of where it always should have been, the basic reliable option when all you want is a little extra reliable damage with no riders, rather than strictly superior to nearly all of the others because they were so weak.
I agree with most of your analysis here but not that STR based paladin is necessarily in a better place just due to how easily it'll be to make Paladin SAD instead, with 1 feat for Eldritch Adept, since pact of the blade in the last UA was applicable too it. You just need 15 strength for Plate and you're set. Admittedly 15 is still quiet an investment. No longer even need to level dip, a feat is still not free but less than a level dip.
also I think divine smite will remain the go to for critical hits, since the extra damage gets doubled too.
Not only are you needing the 15, but the benefit of being SAD and grabbing CHA feats is balanced by the loss of STR feats like Sentinel, Mage Slayer, Heavy Armor Master, Shield Master, GWM and so on which are generally better for most pally's. So it ultimately comes down to, which do you like more? One isn't automatically better than the other.
While true, you then get the Charisma feats, like inspiring leader, a few of the racial feats, like Elven Accuracy or Flames of Phlegethos, also go Charisma. Then if you have any melee ranged cantrip for any reason, War Caster is also down the Charisma Route, more so booming blade, so I don't think there is that much difference down the two routes by the end racial choice or feat choice at level 1 might be kind of important, since if you have damage cantrips, you'll get more damage for when out of range and the stronger Aura of Protection. Also your Save DCs will be higher on saves against your smites.
As for Sentinel, it's still good but it's definitely weaker since you can no longer smite on it in any form, which is where I kind of favour booming blade route now, it doesn't enforce the 0 movement but moving incurs more damage and it does more damage to begin with. You can get more opportunity attacks with Sentinel still, obviously, so it's fairly equal. Elven Accuracy on a vengeance paladin is obviously insane, Flames of Phlegethos with searing smite is also quiet powerful.
Overall not a fan of Shield Master, there are now many ways to get push backs, which do more and while prone might be good for the paladin, for your casters and ranged characters, it's problematic. Heavy Armor Master is good for trash mobs, but I feel mostly offset against inspiring leader, it's really getting down to if you're using a 2-handed weapon to pick up something like GWM or Polearm Master, those are good feats for that particular style of build but PAM doesn't really work well with sentinel any more.
Cha SAD paladin being easier to achieve doesn't make Str Paladin worse off though, even if it's better, it's just a build choice. It might seem suboptimal to you but some people just want to be the strong guy in the party for their concept. This is like saying Rogue is worse off because Bards can get expertise too; yeah, they can, but if I want to be a Rogue when I sit at the table, then what Bard can do is completely irrelevant for me. Same for a Cha-based Paladin if I want to be Str-based.
But to reiterate what I've been saying for several pages now - I do want Pact of the Blade to be nerfed, preferably to something like 1H weapons only. This would mean that a Paladin who wants to use a 2H weapon like a greatsword would either need to go with a Str build, stick with a longsword instead, or multiclass Hexblade which would cost them 3 levels now. Hopefully something like this is what they go with.
I wouldn't bother with Shield Master on a Paladin either, for one they have way better things to do with their bonus action, and for two, if they want to push enemies around they can use a Push weapon and Thundering Smite for two push attempts on a single hit targeting two different saves, three if you go with Charger.
Personally, I think the whole viability of CHA paladin does take away from STR paladin, some of the feats moving to half-feats do benefit strength but overall those feats have mostly been nerfed in one way or another so I do not see any reason that STR paladin is a better shape now than it was in the original 2014, prior to the release of hexblade for warlock. Is it still a viable build and one you can have fun with? sure. I'm not debating that STR builds are viable but rather that STR is in a healthier position now than before, I don't really see any reason as to why that is the case? You still have the subpar initiative and lack of real ranged combat options and most of the things reliant on CHA before are still reliant on CHA now. About the only change is to smites which are much less dependent on constitution saves, but that has nothing to do with STR and most of those have secondary effects with saves that are CHA based for save DC.
If your build is going to be for 2H, then you still get more out of being STR then going for the SAD Charisma paladin but that is still limited and certain racial choices (any-elf) can change even that. I can see that changes to thrown weapons might be on consideration, I don't really care about unarmed combat, Paladin isn't pushing a weapon die for unarmed combat. Now with background feats, you can pick up a cantrip or alert feat, neither of which benefit from STR specifically to help with range or initiative.
@Ace: Running with CHA through Pact of the Blade allows you to make a more diverse stat array while amping up both weapon and spells than a Strength main Paladin. Going with DEX / medium armor over STR / heavy armor gives you even more flexibility. And the ability to start earlier in a turn is also additional protection for yourself and your team. The best kind of control is threat removal - mainly achieved through killing or incapacitating the enemy. So I wouldn't say it is marginal, but I agree it is not game-breaking or a must-have to select DEX over STR, but it has its merits and from an optimization point of view, I would say the DEX build is superior to the STR build in 2014 PHB.
Of course that being said, I would most likely multiclass my Paladin, so I do require that 13 STR minimum to fulfill the multiclass requirement, which invalidates the DEX option altogether for multiclassing.
@Dudeicus: I agree and I wish Strength had more applications. A good example could be to enable the shove/grapple attack through an Opportunity Attack. Thus if an enemy tries to go past you to get to your squishier teammates in the back, you could attempt to stop them. And that would work so much better for a Strength character than a Dex/Cha character.
I know this encroaches on the Sentinel feat, but the feat achieves it through a weapon attack - aka it doesn't care about the nature of the ability modifier used and it delivers damage. Getting half-way there through existing alternate attacks would make Strength characters just a bit better for control/frontline. So far in my experience in 5e Opportunity Attacks doesn't happen all too often anyway, so it is not a huge buff.
I feel like the alternative actions you can take in your turn often gets overlooked once you enter late tier 2 play, and often it takes very specific setups that the DM has to tailor into the story - aka we're fighting at the edge of a cliff where shoving or grappling and moving creatures over the edge could be a tactical choice. These situations doesn't appear as naturally in many stories.
To better this you could either make the options already available stronger or you can increase the accessibility to them or you can create entirely new options that have merits.
The WIS check of the 2014 Wrathful Smite being a free saving throw in 2024 is definitely a nerf in all but the most niche of situations. Also as for damage types, Necrotic is heavily resisted compared to Psychic, so overall it seems like a loss. Definitely a weaker version in 2024.
I didn't actually catch that the UA Blinding Smite doesn't include a saving throw when you hit. Considering how it says the target repeats their saving throw at the end of each of its turns makes me believe it was meant to have a saving throw on first application. I don't expect this to be a buff.
Yea Banishing Smite... got kinda weird. The separation from the Banishment spell where permanently banishing the target is no longer an option is... a mistake to me. That being said the premise of this Smite variant is... awkward at best. You need to use a 5th level spell slot for it, which first is available to you at level 17... The target needs to be brought down to less than 50 hit points (at level 17, that's basically the DPR of one to three players) and then the target just sits in quarantine for a minute, while you can take care of other pests and prep for the big one to return.
This one definitely feels like the one they should revamp/completely remake and perhaps make it an AoE Smite, where they pair a Smite with Destructive Wave to form a cone-version with main damage on the target and some supplementary damage on secondary targets. Where Destructive Wave deals 5d6s thunder and 5d6s radiant/necrotic, this variant could deal 5d6s of both damage types to the main target and only 3d6s of both types to the secondary targets. Thus there's still a very good reason to actually cast Destructive Wave for its AoE damage, whilst the Smite variant forces more of that damage into the main target (through your weapon attack). And also gives it an opportunity to critical strike.
Otherwise, yes the Smite spells have gotten better and much less clunky to use with removal of most concentration requirements which I wager was mainly done out of simplicity (to not have a duration on the Smite application spell and one separate on the condition). But as you said yourself the Divine Smite feels... not as enticing now. It has all the baggage of being a Spell (it costs a bonus action) and no benefit - well you can use a 5th level spell slot to deal 6d8 damage now, while a Banishing Smite deals 5d10 Force - or equivalent average damage with a better damage type, although missing the Undead/Fiend bonus damage. It is technically a plus for multiclassers. For pure damage Searing Smite is always stronger than Divine Smite, so as long as Fire is not resisted or unaffecting and the target is not vulnerable to Radiant you get a lot more mileage out of Searing Smite.
I would prefer if Divine Smite was the Paladin's go-to for maximum damage and the other Smite variants were tech-options where trading a little bit of damage would be worthwhile for the rider under the right circumstances. Right now I feel like there's little reason to cast Divine Smite, and I really, really dislike how the once per Long Rest free Smite doesn't utilize your maximum spell slot level - making it mostly optimal to cast your highest level Smite spell for that free charge instead of picking the better variant for the task at hand and not feel cheated. If we're afraid of multiclassers with that wording, have it be the maximum spell slot level gained through the Paladin class.
I’d forgotten about the STR pre-req for multiclass; also, I did specifically address the idea that there is some additional flexibility for the point spread. The issue is the boosts are so small as to be negligible; LoH sharply reduces the value of bumping the CON mod by one and even two is iffy, the class has little to no skill support so you wouldn’t get much value from boosting INT or WIS, and Aura of Protection does for saves in general what LoH does for CON. The arrangement might theoretically be more optimized, but the changes are marginal rather than dramatic. You’re not going to turn a Paladin into a skill monkey, boost their DPR by more than a tick or two, or consistently improve their ability to soak damage.
I think winning initiative is somewhat overrated, especially on a class with strong defenses and healing abilities that can soak a lot of different enemy attacks and then respond accordingly, and especially especially in 5e where you can't really delay or modify your initiative order like you could in prior editions. If initiative matters that much to you, you can just pick Alert as your starting feat and be on par with if not ahead of most 14 Dex medium-armor users, and even swap places with anyone who's better at it than you for those times when doing so is vital.
As for the weapon, sword and board isn't bad either because Paladins get Dueling Style, so a d8 weapon effectively becomes d12 and therefore functionally not far off from being a 2-hander anyway. No GWM, but such a paladin has plenty of other good feat choices anyway like War Caster, Charger, Mounted Combat, Mage Slayer etc instead, or just plain maxing out their Str and Cha as quickly as possible. And smite would partially conflict with GWM's bonus strike regardless so I would personally prioritize sword and board on a paladin above every other martial.
Lastly - unless I'm missing something, I don't think Pact of the Blade lets you grapple with Cha, so that's one more thing a Str Paladin can ne natively good at that a Dex or Chaladin won't be. You could even go all in with Tavern Brawler or Unarmed Style since you can smite with your punches now.
Vanilla Divine Smite IS the pure damage variant though, especially if (a) you already have advantage from somewhere else (very easy to do now) and (b) you're up against fiends or undead where you functionally get a free upcast added on. The only one that does more is Banishing, and that uses concentration, whereas the Paladin can concentrate on something else like Bless or Spirit Shroud or Holy Weapon or Haste (certain oaths) and still throw out their DS zaps. So design-wise, it's fulfilling that function. The other smites might do more damage overall if you don't have advantage or you're able to get them to stick (e.g. Searing) but those are more situational in nature.
Winning initiative is a big deal (in a fight that will end after three rounds of PC actions, it's the difference between the enemies attacking 3x and the enemies attacking 2x (or in a fight against three foes where you drop one per turn, 6 total attacks vs 3), but each +1 to dex bonus is only around 5% increase to your odds of winning initiative so it's generally not as good as your primary attribute.
Yeah that's basically what I was saying. It's a good thing to aim for if picking it up isn't detrimental to your build, but too easy to overrate online.
For a Paladin who wants high Str, Con and Cha and plans to wear plate, I would have no problem deprioritizing Dex down to 10 or even 8.
Yup, Pact of the Blade only applies to attacks you make with the bonded weapon. So no unarmed strikes or grapple/shove gets a CHA boost.
I had gotten into my head that Searing Smite also used d8s, but they are only d6s. Otherwise Searing had the same damage base with potential for additional damage. However since Searing upscales both the initial fire damage AND the rider on upcasting, it mostly makes sense to use it over Divine Smite when upcasting - which might be true even when fighting undeads/fiends - depending on the spell slot level and the target's CON save.
In pure damage Divine Smite deals on average: 4.5 flat + 4.5 X spell slot level
Searing Smite deals on average at minimum: 0 flat + 7 X spell slot level
They are even at lvl 2 slots and Searing takes the cake from lvl 3, and there's always the opportunity for the rider to continue. This is icky to me, and leaves Divine Smite in a position where, like you said, I don't know if I would use it really.
It's true that Searing will hit harder/scale better a lot of the time - but Radiant damage is much, much more reliable than Fire, especially if you're fighting fiends (who would not only have a high chance to resist or immune Searing, but would be susceptible to the bonus damage from DS.) In addition, Searing is a Con save so the dot falling off early is likely.
But the key thing to keep in mind is that the 2024 Paladin gets all of these as free preparations now, so it's not like there's much of an opportunity cost here; use whichever one is likely to work best for whatever you're fighting. You can even apply the dot from Searing and then switch to DS on subsequent rounds for as long as it takes them to put the fire out, assuming you don't need those spell slots later.
In addition, the great scaling gives paladin interesting choices. Is a 3rd-level slot on Searing (minimum +6d6 fire, with the potential to hit +9d6 or even +12d6!) worth the slot, or should you spend that 3rd level slot on Blinding Smite instead for guaranteed advantage to you and all your allies against that target for at least a round, possibly more? Which will do more damage? That's impossible for me to answer in a vacuum, but it's a fun question that the 2024 Paladin now gets to ask 😎
I'm well aware of Fire being a worse damage type than Radiant. And I commented that Searing beats Divine when upcasting purely on the damage numbers given that damage type is not interacted with. (And on the subject of damage types; Pact of the Blade also allows a damage type change for the weapon swing to radiant, psychic or necrotic - which is a pretty good spread when you can't have Force or Thunder. I find it hard to argue against picking it up if the feat Eldritch Adept is still available in the 2024 PHB)
I agree it's a good thing that the non-Divine Smite spells have more interesting applications and is part of your repertoire naturally AND that they feel like good options - well most of them. I just think Divine Smite has lost its evergreen status, and to me that's a shame.
With how the 2024 version shapes up I will probably ask my DM to allow spell points for the flexibility if I make a Paladin.
I think eldritch adept isn't going to be in the PHB. On one hand, that makes me sad because there's a lot of great stuff worth picking up. On the other hand, it's probably better for the game if those things are a bit harder to poach.
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
Just making it a level 4 feat will reduce how much “poaching” happens; at that point you can either pass on ASI to snag Blade and have a +3 ability mod on weapons from CHA barring lucky rolls or other factors that can’t be readily accounted for, or pass on the feat and have a +4 ability mod from STR. Not groundbreaking either way, but it does make it a trade-off.
We don't know what they are thinking about for it yet. I agree with you, but I don't think I have seen it listed yet. I'd have to assume that means they don't intend to carry it forward.
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
Have we even seen the full array from the PHB? And there’s been subclasses they’ve announced will be in the new PHB but haven’t printed in any UA, so it’s pretty hard to call.
There's a small number of subclasses I don't recall seeing, but only one unknown