Very few monsters or NPCs actually have counterspell, though. (Of course the frequency of such enemies will vary by DM and campaign.) And frankly, using your reaction to counter a half-caster's spell seems like poor strategy when you could instead be countering one of the full-casters in the party. A fireball does over twice as much damage as a 2nd-level divine smite (2nd-level 'cos I'm assuming 5th-level PCs) to one target, and of course fireball usually hits far more than one target. Not to mention, speaking from experience, running NPC spellcasters is a pain (for me at least, maybe not so much for some of you master DMs).

Also: Rakshashas (or however that's spelt) are like, literally the only monster in the (2014) Monster Manual that has blanket spell immunity. Everybody else just gets boosts to saves, which divine smite doesn't care about.

Its kinda funny that the Moon-Druid, the base Barbarian (& Zealot, Beserker), the Monk-WoM, the Warlock (via Eldritch-Smite invocation) or so on, have some variant of the 2014 Divine Smite (a free action, on hit, optional extra damage), while the 2024 Paladin lost theirs, lol.

The 2024 design team was like, "Divine Smite... is so fun and immediately rewarding, so, everyone gets one! ...except you" *points at Paladin, takes plate away* "... be happy you get to keep your aura!" *sees Cleric* "...oh dear, take this Action cast of Hallow once-per-day, you looked famished!" *sees Wizard* "Oh dear, take this Conjure Elemental spell!"

2024 Paladin: *-_-*

Its so weird. They gutted Divine Smite after disseminating it to over the course of the last 10 years to other classes (with added effort to do so in the 2024 PHB) and then just opted to make this seismic change only towards Paladins in how they deal damage or build their characters. If you have any plans to focus a Paladin on using Divine Smite, or the smite spells (which all effectively read: give your party advantage), you're either not looking at the same feats as melee centric Barbarians / Fighters or are looking to multiclass into a full caster just to make Divine Smite or the smite spells out damage Divine Favor + a Bonus action attack, lol.

Overall, bizarre game design. Its right up there with Ranger's d10 at level 20 or 13th UNBREAKABLE Hunter's Mark (lol).

I guess I don't really see what the big deal is. Divine Smite still seems almost functionally identical to me. It still does the same damage, it still happens on a hit. Besides "being a spell" (which is moot most of the time), the only appreciable change is making it cost a bonus action, and paladins usually don't have much else to do with their bonus actions. In the base class, sure Lay on Hand and Divine Sense use them -- but both of those features used to cost an action in the 2014 version, so you could never combine one of them with an Attack action + Divine Smite. Now, you can Attack as an action and use Lay on Hands, Divine Sense, or Divine Smite as a bonus action. You can't use two in the same turn, but you never could. I guess you might want to use Two-Weapon Fighting, but that's not something that paladins often do in my experience.

Besides competing with other bonus actions, I suppose that the once-per-turn limit is also a new quality of the ability. There's something of a point there, but I also feel that paladins, being half-casters, have so few spell slots to begin with that needing to cast it more than once per turn shouldn't be an issue. I dunno. I guess that's just a feeling -- I don't have any hard data besides my own experience with a single paladin PC.

As for divine favour being better . . . over three rounds, with 1 Attacks / turn, using 1 1st-level spell slot, divine favour deals an average of 7.5 radiant damage, whilst Divine Smite deals 9. At 2 Attacks / turn, divine favour's increases to 15, whilst Smite's remains the same of course. With a 2nd-level slot, favour's damage remains the same, whilst Smite's increases to 13.5; a 3rd-level slot gives 18. That's true for both 2014 and 2024 rules. So, divine favour is better only at level 5+ when expending a 1st or 2nd level slot, while Smite deals more damage before Extra Attack and whenever using a 3rd level spell slot or higher. It's true that using Two-Weapon Fighting makes divine favour more attractive, but again, I've never heard of a dual-wielding paladin. (Which doesn't mean that it can't happen, of course, just that it's unlikely.)

But also, something else to consider is that the damage from divine smite always applies (barring resistance or immunity) since you cast it after hitting, whereas divine favour's damage isn't guaranteed. For the sake of simplicity, assuming that one's to-hit bonus and the target's AC cancel one another out, that gives one's attacks a roughly 50-50 chance of hitting, thus divine favour's damage is effectively halved, making it never more effective than divine smite.

Quote from Boromir_The_Fair >>

I guess I don't really see what the big deal is. Divine Smite still seems almost functionally identical to me. It still does the same damage, it still happens on a hit. Besides "being a spell" (which is moot most of the time), the only appreciable change is making it cost a bonus action, and paladins usually don't have much else to do with their bonus actions. In the base class, sure Lay on Hand and Divine Sense use them -- but both of those features used to cost an action in the 2014 version, so you could never combine one of them with an Attack action + Divine Smite. Now, you can Attack as an action and use Lay on Hands, Divine Sense, or Divine Smite as a bonus action. You can't use two in the same turn, but you never could. I guess you might want to use Two-Weapon Fighting, but that's not something that paladins often do in my experience.

Besides competing with other bonus actions, I suppose that the once-per-turn limit is also a new quality of the ability. There's something of a point there, but I also feel that paladins, being half-casters, have so few spell slots to begin with that needing to cast it more than once per turn shouldn't be an issue. I dunno. I guess that's just a feeling -- I don't have any hard data besides my own experience with a single paladin PC.

 I mean, the once per turn is the intended nerf in the first place. (I feel like that was explicitly mentioned somewhere (possibly in the UA where they first showed that this is what they were intending, but I could be mistaken)) The BA cost and edge cases created by it being a spell just feel like overkill. In particular, the BA runs into the same issues as hunter's mark being concentration, you lose out on other BA stuff from feats & the like, or even stuff from multiclassing (and to a lesser extent, BA spells as well). The polearm master back-end strike is one example, or the also mentioned dual wielding, or spells like misty step (for vengeance at least).

I like to use the rouge's sneak attack as a comparison. Rouge's sneak attack still has no action economy cost to it (while still avoiding hypothetical peak nova by just saying "once per turn", scales faster than smites, but has the advantage & dex weapon restrictions.

Smites, by contrast, deal less damage, cost a resource (and a resource that becomes more "expensive" as you level up vs sneak attack's upgrades being automatic) & more action economy, and have the already mentioned spell edge cases (and the verbal component is also new, so silence effects are also a new problem, not just the higher powered stuff like counterspell or the spell resistances feature). It's only real remaining upside is the better damage type & the neutral trade off of not needing to be dex based, but not having ranged access.

Plus, there's the fact that, like people like Cezmi have noted, other classes "smite lite" effects didn't receive the same changes, and now are arguably better choices as a result. Creating that feeling of "Paladin's are only useful for multiclassing to 6 for aura, then dipping for something better" that already kind of was a mindset in the 2014 rules. I for one had already felt that in the campaign I was in, where I only stuck with paladin for as many levels as I did because I wanted Find Greater Steed. (look at most any multiclass build guide for paladin and it suggests stopping at 6 for aura, maybe 8 if the build had a really high feat tax) Making a Hexblade Sorlock gives you most of what it takes to do paladin stuff, really only losing auras & find steed.

Honestly, it kind of feels like it was done to pad out the fairly mediocre paladin spell list, since if they did the opposite and moved the other smite spells to class features like what they did with rogue & cunning strike, they would be removing  1/4th of the spell list.

Is this really a school of Transmutation? In the Paladin class in PHB 2024 it says Evocation.

This doesn't really bother me that much after considering my paladin play style.  I always use my smites with crits and on monsters that need to die in a hurry.  Overall this doesn't change things nearly as much as lay on hands going to a bonus action or getting multiple channel divinities does for me.  My guess tho if I am to be kinda brutal with my honesty is that WOTC needed to nerf paladins a little for these changes and chose to do it this way.  They might also be "intentionally" creating problems to fix with NEW books that you will buy to iron out the problems they created in the first place.

Quote from 99025 >>

This doesn't really bother me that much after considering my paladin play style.  I always use my smites with crits and on monsters that need to die in a hurry.  Overall this doesn't change things nearly as much as lay on hands going to a bonus action or getting multiple channel divinities does for me.  My guess tho if I am to be kinda brutal with my honesty is that WOTC needed to nerf paladins a little for these changes and chose to do it this way.  They might also be "intentionally" creating problems to fix with NEW books that you will buy to iron out the problems they created in the first place.

The Lay on Hands change kills LoH + Sanctuary, and the lack of any mechanical way in class to target anyone who isn't within 5 feet of the Paladin (say using LoH on a target in your Aura of Protection at some point) regulates LoH to self heal territory.

The multiple Channel Divinity change also would make more sense if Vow of Enmity wasn't the only good Paladin channel divinity amongst the 2024 PHB subclasses. Sacred Weapon is a massive accuracy bump for one weapon... but accuracy doesn't really combo with anything in 2024, while the other Paladin subclasses have genuinely awful Channel Divinities that make Divine Sense an appealing target (lol).

The 2024 Paladin doesn't seem to be designed around the changes to 2024 spellcasting rules, grappling, the weapon feats and that's why when I look at Oath of Glory, I'm just baffled, and asking what DOES this do at any tier of play?

Paladin is just in a weird place in 2024 where there reaction is either the space for magic Initiate / shield or them doing a bad Fighter impression with weapon mastery, their Bonus Action is home to ALL their other features, including their on-hit smites, which in 2024 could be used on a reaction attack if you concentrated on them; now it seems your smites are either to give the party advantage at some capacity or crit-fish when your BA is available.

I guess what I'm saying, could you imagine if Battle Master maneuvers were Bonus actions? And that's kinda the heart of this, 2014 Paladin had more versatility than 2024 Paladin does, and if it wasn't for weapon mastery, I would struggle to even justify the 2024 Paladin at tables.

Making a Class feature a spell is the Biggest D*ck move. They've Neutered the Paladin!!!

I like these rules. A 2014 L6 Paladin could smash creatures on turn 1, heal party members (next turn) and stand on the front line (high HP and AC) with a huge save bonus.

DM:What role is your character?

Player: I'm the tank, striker and medic.

Rather than having the DM add radiant resistance to all BBEGs, let's just balance the class.

Individually smites aren't so bad, it's just that they were too stackable. (And, enemies shouldn't be couterspelling smites unless the party has no full casters)

These adjustments slow paladins down a little and feel appropriate.

é o tempo de 10 rodadas

what a sad and horrible thing. I'm going to continue playing the fifth edition anyway, this "new edition" is very boring and discouraging

A unique power of the paladin, which has always been themed as such, a core ability of the paladin. In previous editions, it was always this way, but now they've decided to make smite a spell. You can say whatever you want, but divine smite is not, and never has been, a spell. Divine smite is a paladin's power, but now, besides being a spell, it means you can only use it once per turn and it prevents you from casting any other spell alongside the smite. If you want to cast shield of faith, forget it, you won’t be able to do that anymore. Compelled duel or any other bonus action spell? You can't do that either if you use smite. Before anyone says this is fair because paladins are too strong, it's worth remembering that paladins have to manage their spell slots carefully, and they are only half-casters. There's also the fact that smite's effectiveness depends a lot on whether you roll well on those 4 or 5 d8s. Paladin and fighter are the best classes for a heroic medieval fantasy system like D&D. Don't nerf classes that are good, improve the ones that are weak.

This spell only uses a verbal component. 

I love how they ruined the majority of the paladin class

Interesting discussion so far; here are the main points I've gathered: 1) It's a spell now, 2) the Bonus Action cost, 3) the verbal component, 4) the other smite spells, and 5) Counterspell.

For 1) and 2), I think it's a bummer this means you can't also cast an 'actual' Bonus Action spell on the smite turn. Throwing up Shield of Faith for defense since you're likely running up to the main threat if smiting, trying Compelled Duel in the same scenario, or even applying Divine Favor (especially the new version) are not possible anymore. I do acknowledge that just generally keeping your Bonus Action free for smiting is probably a pain for some builds, if not completely killing the idea of smiting.

The argument against 2) regarding Lay On Hands - you couldn't smite and LOH in the same turn in 2014 either with just base class features.

Looking at 2) as more of a 'once per turn' thing, I think this is just better for the game. Yeah, it's cool to blow all your resources in the first two rounds and delete the BBEG, but this just sucks for DMs. I don't really see a good solution for DMs dealing with a nova Paladin in 2014; either having radiant resistance which directly makes the PC feel bad, or artificially increase the target's HP. I'm nowhere near experienced as a DM, though, so I could for sure be wrong about this.

3) is the one that's pretty strange to me. I get it, calling upon your divine power to strike your enemies down might have a verbal aspect for some players, but I just can't see silence breaking this ability fantasy-wise. I more could see just a somatic component (or as with Green-Flame/Booming Blade) - that being the act of making the attack.

Now 5) - if anything, I see an NPC using their reaction and spell slot on a smite as a good thing. Sure, it sucks for the Paladin but as Boromir_The_Fair said, compare the highest spell level in the party, and I'm wanting the smite to get Counterspelled over the Fireball. But does it actually suck for the Paladin? Look at the new version of Counterspell. If they're a 6th level Paladin, they have (hopefully) at least a +3 to the saving throw against it just from Aura, and even if they do get Counterspelled, the smite's spell slot isn't lost. I really don't get it - you either get your smite off, or you bait out the Counterspell using just a bonus action.

With 4), I think this consequence of the change is my favorite. The other smite spells are no longer "cast as a bonus action, hope you land an attack on the same turn, and if not - hopefully don't lose concentration before your next turn." They function just like Divine Smite now, so you don't have to worry about the spell being wasted. I personally would never use the other smite options before, but now it's easier to weigh pure damage against other effects. In fact, Searing Smite is looking great with the facelift it got - guaranteed 2nd round damage, scaling DoT, and no more 'action to douse the flames' ending it right away.

Finally, I think the best part of this change is that using your spell slots for something else doesn't feel so bad. The consensus seems to be that "Paladin's whole thing is smite," where I see them more as a more martial-focused Cleric (don't talk to me about the Protector Divine Order), which means casting support spells in my eyes. If anything, two-weapon fighting with Dual Wielder, the Nick Weapon Mastery, plus Divine Favor is way higher damage per spell slot - potentially 39d4 radiant with Divine Favor at 5th Paladin level. Of course you won't always hit, and the combat likely isn't 10+ rounds, but four hits landing with Divine Favor beats out a 1st level smite (six beats a 2nd), not to mention that it can be split up between enemies. Critting on the turn you cast Divine Favor would suck, though.

Quote from PurplBanana >>

Interesting discussion so far; here are the main points I've gathered: 1) It's a spell now, 2) the bonus action cost, 3) the verbal component, 4) the other smite spells, and 5) Counterspell.

For 1) and 2), I think it's a bummer this means you can't also cast an 'actual' bonus action spell on the smite turn. Throwing up Shield of Faith for defense since you're likely running up to the main threat if smiting, trying Compelled Duel in the same scenario, or even applying Divine Favor (especially the new version) are not possible anymore.

The argument against 2) regarding Lay On Hands - idk, you couldn't smite and LOH in the same turn in 2014 either ("erm, if you have Haste applied you could actually-").

Looking at 2) as more of a 'once per turn' thing, I think this is just better for the game. Yeah, it's cool to blow all your resources in the first two rounds and delete the BBEG, but this just sucks for DMs. I don't really see a good solution for DMs dealing with a nova Paladin in 2014, either having radiant resistance which directly makes the PC feel bad, or artificially increase the target's HP. I'm nowhere near experienced as a DM, though, so I could for sure be wrong about this.

3) is pretty strange to me. I get it, calling upon your divine power to strike your enemies down might have a verbal aspect for some players, but I just can't see silence breaking this ability fantasy-wise. I more could see just a somatic component (or as with Green-Flame/Booming Blade) - that being the act of making the attack.

If anything, I see an NPC using their reaction and spell slot on a smite as a good thing. Sure, it sucks for the Paladin but as Boromir_The_Fair said, compare the highest spell level in the party, and I'm wanting the smite to get Counterspelled over the Fireball. But does it actually suck for the Paladin? Look at the new version of Counterspell. If they're 6th level, they have (hopefully) at least a +3 to the saving throw against it just from Aura, and even if they do get Counterspelled, the smite's spell slot isn't lost. I really don't get it - you either get your smite off, or you bait out the Counterspell using just a bonus action.

With 4), I think the change is neat just for this. The other smite spells are no longer "cast as a bonus action, hope you land an attack on the same turn, and if not - hopefully don't lose concentration before your next turn. They function just like Divine Smite now, so you don't have to worry about the spell being wasted. I personally would never use the other smite options before, but now it's easier to weigh pure damage against other effects. In fact, Searing Smite is looking great with the facelift it got - guaranteed 2nd round damage, scaling DoT, and no more 'action to douse the flames' ending it right away.

Finally, I think the best part of this change is that using your spell slots for something else doesn't feel so bad. The consensus seems to be that "Paladin's whole thing is smite," where I see them more as a more martial-focused Cleric (don't talk to me about the Protector Divine Order), which means casting support spells in my eyes. If anything, two-weapon fighting with Dual Wielder, the Nick Weapon Mastery, plus Divine Favor is way higher damage per spell slot - potentially 39d4 radiant with Divine Favor at 5th level. Of course you won't always hit, and the combat likely isn't 10+ rounds, but four hits landing with Divine Favor beats out a 1st level smite (six beats a 2nd), not to mention that it can be split up between enemies. Critting on the turn you cast Divine Favor would suck, though.

 Probably the best summary here. Most of the arguments I'm reading on this thread against new paladin are simply not well thought out (someone literally tried to say 6d8 is better than 5d10...) for for anyone else stopping by: new paladin is good, go enjoy it.

the one crazy thing i see here is no more level restrictions, meaning you can totally cheese it. 1 pali 19 sorc here i come

Quote from Bronn1 >>

You're telling me that I should punish my player's special abilities just to prolong a boss battle?  Sounds pretty lame to me.

 You do realize adopting this rule change... litterally punishes your player's special abilities just to prolong boss battles, right ? If the nova damage was so overbearing (which in all fairness, it was), all that was needed was adding "Divine smite can only be used once per turn". Making it once per turn and a spell and adding a bonus action cost to it nerfed it too much. Paladin needed to be brought down a little, not a lot.

It also introduces very anticlimactic edge cases, like not being able to smite some evil monsters (as some have said, Tiamat and Rakshasas comes to mind), not being able to smite in a Silence zone, getting your divine smite counterspelled, all of which feels very weird for a martial class feature. Not saying it will happen often, but happen it will.

It also incentivizes multiclassing out of Paladin even more, especially with the cap on damage removal, and outside of specific scenarios (spell slot lvl 1, undead or fiend with spell slot up to 2, resistance or immunity to fire), is outshone by Searing Smite in almost every case.

As it stands now, it is a worse sneak attack that costs spell slots and bonus actions, doesn't work on opportunity attacks, that progresses faster if you take levels out of the intended class, and that sometimes just does not work at all when you activate it.

(someone literally tried to say 6d8 is better than 5d10...)

No one actually tried to say that. Someone said 6D8 had a higher ceiling than 5D10 which was wrong, but they still said 5D10 was better.

The spell description above only has a verbal component.