[1DnD] Two ideas to preserve Paladin identity (Steed + Smites)

[Psyren]

Most of us, even those who don't mind Smite spells and the Find Steed spell being accessible to clerics (and enterprising bards?) in 1DnD, still want Paladins to have a clear edge with these abilities. I came up with a couple of ideas to help with this while filling out my survey that I wanted to share with the community here for their thoughts.

1) Find Steed: Add an expensive material component to this one that gets consumed when it's cast, but allow the Paladin's Faithful Steed ability to let them ignore it. Now Paladins can cast this spell much more freely, while clerics and bards need to be much more careful about when they use this, and/or expend additional resources protecting it that the paladin doesn't need to worry about, but they're not barred from using it entirely.

2) Smite spells: Make it so only paladins can use these with ranged or thrown weapons. In addition, Paladins have the ability to reroll up to half the damage die from the smite spell without expending a resource. (Alternatively, they can reroll any 1s and 2s.) Bake these abilities into the Divine Smite feature.

These are relatively simple tweaks that would make paladin steeds and smites special without outright removing the spells or reverting to class spell lists (yes, I know, some of you would prefer that!) Thoughts? Anything I overlooked?

[LibraryOgre]

2) Smite spells: Make it so only paladins can use these with ranged or thrown weapons. In addition, Paladins have the ability to reroll up to half the damage die from the smite spell without expending a resource. (Alternatively, they can reroll any 1s and 2s.) Bake these abilities into the Divine Smite feature.


My difficulty with this is that not all Paladins are going to benefit much from being able to use them with ranged weapons; sure, they have the option, but it's not what they do.

I'd be more inclined to make the Smite spells, if prepared, part of the Divine Smite feature. If I have Searing Smite prepared, and I choose to Divine Smite, I can spend a bonus action to add Searing Smite to the Divine Smite. So, in addition to the 2d8 radiant damage, I do 1d6 fire damage, too. If I don't have a Smite Spell prepared of an appropriate level, I can still Divine Smite like normal. If I'm not a Paladin, I can Searing Smite like normal. Paladins, though, can combine them, using a single spell slot.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Find Steed. To me, it's the equivalent of an upgraded Find Familiar; "If you spend a 2nd level slot on this spell, your familiar (insert find steed description). If you use a 4th level slot, the steed is (insert find greater steed description)"

I know about Phantom Steed, but, really, that spell is a bit too high a level for what it does.

[Rukelnikov]

I think the find steed thing is not bad to make Pally stand out a bit, but maybe improve their version instead of nerfing everyone else's?

Maybe when prepared as a Paladin spell it gets automatically up casted as if a slot equal to PB was used?

[Kane0]

I think id prefer them being class features first and foremost, like channel options. Then tailor the number of channels to suit.
The spells thenselves i think work better as bonus from subclass rather than base list.

[Psyren]

My difficulty with this is that not all Paladins are going to benefit much from being able to use them with ranged weapons; sure, they have the option, but it's not what they do.

I'd be more inclined to make the Smite spells, if prepared, part of the Divine Smite feature. If I have Searing Smite prepared, and I choose to Divine Smite, I can spend a bonus action to add Searing Smite to the Divine Smite. So, in addition to the 2d8 radiant damage, I do 1d6 fire damage, too. If I don't have a Smite Spell prepared of an appropriate level, I can still Divine Smite like normal. If I'm not a Paladin, I can Searing Smite like normal. Paladins, though, can combine them, using a single spell slot.

I don't mind this idea. Make them Reactions with the trigger being "you activate a Divine Smite attack" or something and then nobody else can use them.


I think the find steed thing is not bad to make Pally stand out a bit, but maybe improve their version instead of nerfing everyone else's?

Is it truly a nerf when they never had the spell before to begin with? Clerics should be grateful for any version they get I'd say.


Maybe when prepared as a Paladin spell it gets automatically up casted as if a slot equal to PB was used?

I wouldn't be opposed to this idea but not with the one that's prepared in a slot - I'd have the free casting do that.

[Xihirli]

1) Find Steed: Add an expensive material component to this one that gets consumed when it's cast, but allow the Paladin's Faithful Steed ability to let them ignore it. Now Paladins can cast this spell much more freely, while clerics and bards need to be much more careful about when they use this, and/or expend additional resources protecting it that the paladin doesn't need to worry about, but they're not barred from using it entirely.


Why the extra steps? CTRL-C the description of Find Steed.
Delete Find Steed.
Delete the description of Faithful Steed.
CTRL-V the description of Find Steed.

Done.

[Psyren]

Why the extra steps? CTRL-C the description of Find Steed.
Delete Find Steed.
Delete the description of Faithful Steed.
CTRL-V the description of Find Steed.

Done.

I'm guessing one of their goals is to not have a single feature that is the length of an entire spell entry complete with attendant statblock. Assuming that guess is wrong though and they decide to remove Find Steed as a spell, this would work

[Xihirli]

"Stats for the Faithful Steeds are listed at the end of the Paladin section" might help.

[Oramac]

I can handle find steed being available to other classes. I don't much like it, but I also don't care enough to make a stink about it.


I'd be more inclined to make the Smite spells, if prepared, part of the Divine Smite feature. If I have Searing Smite prepared, and I choose to Divine Smite, I can spend a bonus action to add Searing Smite to the Divine Smite. So, in addition to the 2d8 radiant damage, I do 1d6 fire damage, too. If I don't have a Smite Spell prepared of an appropriate level, I can still Divine Smite like normal. If I'm not a Paladin, I can Searing Smite like normal. Paladins, though, can combine them, using a single spell slot..

Now this. This I like. But I'd go a step further.

Delete the Smite Spells entirely, then make their effects a rider on the Divine Smite feature. The resource type and cost would need to be adjusted, of course, but the underlying idea is sound.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Sorry to be the contrarian. I don't really mind the Paladin stuff being shared. The reality is that we're again looking at Mechanics over Flavor. The Paladin is nice in that it is a single class, no hassles for MC or level breaks. And the Paladin Subclasses will be on Paladins.

But maybe it's my starting back in 2nd, but the flavor difference between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric is... Minimal. To the point that I never even really worried about playing Paladins in 2nd or 3.X at all.

For me with 5E, my reason to choose Paladin has never been the Mount and Smites, it's the Auras. I don't think there's a casual passive aura anywhere else.

But Smites? Warlock can do it. A few changes, sure, can't do it on multiple attacks in a turn, but in exchange it can go a die higher period and knocks prone.

The Steed is cool, but it's a pet, there's multiple ways to get pets, further it wasn't even unique in 5e, the Bard was ALWAYS able to yank the spell.

I'm just not seeing the issue.

[Psyren]

I don't mind them being shared either but there's still an identity consideration. I don't recall Clerics ever being known for summoning a steed. Smiting is a bit muddier (Destruction/Orc Domain, Holy Smite etc) but if you polled the D&D playerbase on which class is most iconic for smiting, the vast majority would say Paladin. The mechanics should reflect those expectations imo - not by outright removing them from the divine list necessarily (though that is certainly one solution), but by making it so Paladins are the best at them. By tying them to spellcasting, Paladins being half-casters are already on the backfoot compared to Clerics and Bards.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

So... real quick.. I just re-read the new Paladin. They have their normal smite. Is the Smite argument really that clerics more casually have access to like Thundering Smite and Searing Smite, etc? Cause those spells have been shared around already, just to specific subclasses, so still not seeing it as uniquely a Paladin The raw, undiluted Damage boost after a successful hit is still theirs (And the Warlock's).

For the Steed, nope, I can't think of a specific Cleric that has that. But I can think of the Beastmaster Ranger, Battle Smith Artificer, Drakeward Ranger, Wizards in general with Phantom Steed. Any class with a summoning spell.

Like, the "Noble steed" is a Paladin theme since 2nd, no argument, but having a specific pet isn't.

[Psyren]

So... real quick.. I just re-read the new Paladin. They have their normal smite. Is the Smite argument really that clerics more casually have access to like Thundering Smite and Searing Smite, etc? Cause those spells have been shared around already, just to specific subclasses, so still not seeing it as uniquely a Paladin The raw, undiluted Damage boost after a successful hit is still theirs (And the Warlock's).

1) Well, specific caster subclasses being better with individual smite spells is one thing. Every cleric under the sun (including thematic dissonants like Life and Peace) being better with all of them, is another.

2) Do you agree that Paladin should be the class that is most known for smiting? It's okay if you don't, but it probably means we'll have to agree to disagree on the point of these spells, or at the very least their names.


For the Steed, nope, I can't think of a specific Cleric that has that. But I can think of the Beastmaster Ranger, Battle Smith Artificer, Drakeward Ranger, Wizards in general with Phantom Steed. Any class with a summoning spell.

Like, the "Noble steed" is a Paladin theme since 2nd, no argument, but having a specific pet isn't.

None of those are good analogies though. Pets need your bonus action to command, while summons use up your concentration. Phantom Steed is the closest, but even 1 point of damage reduces the duration to a minute, and it's a DM call whether you can keep controlling it during that time.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

1) Well, specific caster subclasses being better with individual smite spells is one thing. Every cleric under the sun (including thematic dissonants like Life and Peace) being better with all of them, is another.

Absolutely fair, but, there's a line for mechanical design ease where you just have to have a grouping of spells that don't always work. I'd point out that Peace Clerics having Flamestrike and such is equally weird.


2) Do you agree that Paladin should be the class that is most known for smiting? It's okay if you don't, but it probably means we'll have to agree to disagree on the point of these spells, or at the very least their names.

We likely will, when I think of Paladin I think of Holy Warrior, the Smite is a thing 5e did, but it didn't used to exist and when I look at the Paladin class I'm interested in the Auras, Lay on Hands and Detect Evil fun. That they do a ton of Single Target Damage is not super important to me and at least at my tables people have very rarely cared about the Spell Smit. Not to knock people who see it differently though.


None of those are good analogies though. Pets need your bonus action to command, while summons use up your concentration. Phantom Steed is the closest, but even 1 point of damage reduces the duration to a minute, and it's a DM call whether you can keep controlling it during that time.

I think we're hitting the divide between Do Mechanics just have to allow Flavor to fit vs Do Mechanics need to explicitly push certain things? Cause the dispute, at least as I'm looking at it, now becomes that the current Paladin Steeds are more powerful in the specific way of Action Economy than other summons or pets.

I don't look at it as "How powerful is my Paladin Steed and is it more powerful than other options." I just look at "If I want a Knight on Shining Armor can I get it?" That other clerics could also make their own themed horses doesn't really raise a flag with me. Just like a Bard getting the Spell in 5e 3 levels ahead of the Paladin doesn't bother me now.

If anything, my critique to the 1D&D Paladin on the issue of Mounts is that it's a specific class feature that's taking up design resource on the character, meaning it's a dead feature for any Paladin that doesn't have having a cool mount as part of their character idea.

[Oramac]

If anything, my critique to the 1D&D Paladin on the issue of Mounts is that it's a specific class feature that's taking up design resource on the character, meaning it's a dead feature for any Paladin that doesn't have having a cool mount as part of their character idea.

I can't guarantee this, since I'm not a 1D&D dev, but I would bet that the paladin find steed feature is considered a Ribbon, and therefore does not take up design space.

[Psyren]

I'd point out that Peace Clerics having Flamestrike and such is equally weird.

Fair; I personally see a distinction between calling down divine fire and physically bashing something's head in directly, but I can buy that being a fine one.



I think we're hitting the divide between Do Mechanics just have to allow Flavor to fit vs Do Mechanics need to explicitly push certain things? Cause the dispute, at least as I'm looking at it, now becomes that the current Paladin Steeds are more powerful in the specific way of Action Economy than other summons or pets.

My point is that I'm okay with "Other Classes Also Can Make Rideable Things" so long a paladin steeds are unique. Action economy is part of that - and so are spell sharing, intelligence, controllability, type, resilience when "destroyed", flight at higher levels etc. The whole package contributes to the feel, at least imo.


I don't look at it as "How powerful is my Paladin Steed and is it more powerful than other options." I just look at "If I want a Knight on Shining Armor can I get it?" That other clerics could also make their own themed horses doesn't really raise a flag with me. Just like a Bard getting the Spell in 5e 3 levels ahead of the Paladin doesn't bother me now.

Well, clearly it bothered someone since Magical Secrets got pushed back to 11/15, and AMS was nuked entirely (though the latter has some hope of return, though I'd be surprised if it comes back at 6th without any restrictions.) But sure, Bards get to break the rules here; personally I think that would be a far from optimal choice, but they can do it.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Fair; I personally see a distinction between calling down divine fire and physically bashing something's head in directly, but I can buy that being a fine one.

Also, fair, how about Inflict Wounds? (I know we're both basically agreeing and moving on, but had to. :) )


My point is that I'm okay with "Other Classes Also Can Make Rideable Things" so long a paladin steeds are unique. Action economy is part of that - and so are spell sharing, intelligence, controllability, type, resilience when "destroyed", flight at higher levels etc. The whole package contributes to the feel, at least imo.

Yeah, so we're divided on how important mechanics are to flavor, no harm there, but after the Druid debate unintentionally shut down a thread I'm mostly agreeing to disagree once both sides get to make their points on that. :)


Well, clearly it bothered someone since Magical Secrets got pushed back to 11/15, and AMS was nuked entirely (though the latter has some hope of return, though I'd be surprised if it comes back at 6th without any restrictions.) But sure, Bards get to break the rules here; personally I think that would be a far from optimal choice, but they can do it.

I wasn't really discussing optimization or most powerful choice, just that it wasn't only Paladins. But, the general idea as I recall is to Pair your Pegasus with something else ridiculous that now shares the spell with you or just gives options. Pegasus Mount + Archer (And probably swift quiver) = raining death from above while being mostly out of range of monsters without spells or ranged. Pegasus + Spirit Guardians = jumping off horse and now you have two waves of death going on covering a much bigger area. There's fun stuff to do with it.

[Rukelnikov]

I wasn't really discussing optimization or most powerful choice, just that it wasn't only Paladins. But, the general idea as I recall is to Pair your Pegasus with something else ridiculous that now shares the spell with you or just gives options. Pegasus Mount + Archer (And probably swift quiver) = raining death from above while being mostly out of range of monsters without spells or ranged. Pegasus + Spirit Guardians = jumping off horse and now you have two waves of death going on covering a much bigger area. There's fun stuff to do with it.

Rhinoceros and Tenser's Transformation

[Psyren]

Also, fair, how about Inflict Wounds? (I know we're both basically agreeing and moving on, but had to. :) )

Still different theming than a smite I'd say.



Yeah, so we're divided on how important mechanics are to flavor, no harm there, but after the Druid debate unintentionally shut down a thread I'm mostly agreeing to disagree once both sides get to make their points on that. :)

Okay



I wasn't really discussing optimization or most powerful choice, just that it wasn't only Paladins. But, the general idea as I recall is to Pair your Pegasus with something else ridiculous that now shares the spell with you or just gives options. Pegasus Mount + Archer (And probably swift quiver) = raining death from above while being mostly out of range of monsters without spells or ranged. Pegasus + Spirit Guardians = jumping off horse and now you have two waves of death going on covering a much bigger area. There's fun stuff to do with it.

To be clear I wouldn't mind Ranger and Druid getting the Find Steed spell either. But I would still want the Paladin to get a leg up when using that spell, probably via some unique benefit inserted into the Faithful Steed feature.

[Yakk]

I like smites as bonus actions you use in response to hitting a target that adds to the damage you can use once/turn.

Keep them on the divine list. Then add:

Divine Smite: When you use a Smite spell, you deal an extra 1d8 radiant damage. This increases to 2d8 at level 5, 3d8 at level 11 and 4d8 at level 17. If the creature is undead or a fiend, you deal an additional 1d8 radiant damage as well.

Now everyone has access to Smite spells. But Paladins in effect get a better version.

...

For Find Steed, my position is all of the "beast companion" stuff needs to have unified mechanics. And not the Tasha's companion treatment.

There should be a bunch of Companions in the PHB. These Companions have level up mechanics.

Then the Paladin can have
Find Steed: As a 1 hour ritual you can perform during a long rest, you can summon a Companion Beast with the Mount feature. This Companion's level is 1/2 of your Paladin level. It gains the Celestial, Fiend or Fey type (depending on your oath). The Companion can be dismissed as an action; if you do so, you can recall it as a 1 minute ritual. If the Companion is reduced to 0 HP, it is dismissed, and cannot be resummoned for 24 hours.

Ranger Beastmasters can have a similar system. Druid Wild Shape can use a similar system. Probably a Barbarian shape-change subclass as well.

Familiars would also use this system, as would Summon Creature spells.

The MM might use Companions to build monsters (and give them CRs), but they would be Companions first, not monsters first.

Companions are specific creature types (warhorse, bear, etc), not generic "beast of the land". They have a base level, have level up rules; this allows your Druid to be a wolf that gets more badass as the Druid gains levels, instead of being forced to find a new form.

Basically, treat Companions as a subsystem not one-off rules for each case, like how Spellcasting is a subsystem.

[Oramac]

I like smites as bonus actions you use in response to hitting a target that adds to the damage you can use once/turn.

Keep them on the divine list. Then add:

Divine Smite: When you use a Smite spell, you deal an extra 1d8 radiant damage. This increases to 2d8 at level 5, 3d8 at level 11 and 4d8 at level 17. If the creature is undead or a fiend, you deal an additional 1d8 radiant damage as well.

Now everyone has access to Smite spells. But Paladins in effect get a better version.

I like this, except the bonus-action-on-a-hit thing. That just feels wonky to me. Perhaps it'll work better during actual play. I certainly hope so, because as-is it just feels really clunky.


snip

Basically, treat Companions as a subsystem not one-off rules for each case, like how Spellcasting is a subsystem.

Good idea, though it would take quite a bit of extra work on the devs part. And I don't really see it fitting with their misguided claims of "backwards compatibility".

Which is sad, because it certainly has merit.

[Psyren]

Divine Smite: When you use a Smite spell, you deal an extra 1d8 radiant damage. This increases to 2d8 at level 5, 3d8 at level 11 and 4d8 at level 17. If the creature is undead or a fiend, you deal an additional 1d8 radiant damage as well.

Now everyone has access to Smite spells. But Paladins in effect get a better version.

I like this, particularly since it scales with paladin level rather than character level.

For the bonus action bit, the casting time of the smite spells covers that imo.



For Find Steed, my position is all of the "beast companion" stuff needs to have unified mechanics. And not the Tasha's companion treatment.

There should be a bunch of Companions in the PHB. These Companions have level up mechanics.

If this is what they end up going with, that's fine. I'd prefer mutable statblocks, but I can live with curated+scaling ones. Just so long as moon druids can go 1-20 without needing to open the MM to keep up.

[LibraryOgre]

I don't mind this idea. Make them Reactions with the trigger being "you activate a Divine Smite attack" or something and then nobody else can use them.

See, I don't want them to be unavailable to anyone else. The idea that I use magic to make my sword hit harder is, in my mind, right in line with a Swords or Valor bard, or an Eldritch Knight. I like the idea of Paladins having them better, but "I cover my sword in magic fire" is cool.

[Rukelnikov]

See, I don't want them to be unavailable to anyone else. The idea that I use magic to make my sword hit harder is, in my mind, right in line with a Swords or Valor bard, or an Eldritch Knight. I like the idea of Paladins having them better, but "I cover my sword in magic fire" is cool.

When I jumped to 5e from 3e I saw Divine Smite as 5e's version of Arcane Strike, dipped Pally in the Bladesinger that I ported from 3e specifically to emulate that.

[Psyren]

See, I don't want them to be unavailable to anyone else. The idea that I use magic to make my sword hit harder is, in my mind, right in line with a Swords or Valor bard, or an Eldritch Knight. I like the idea of Paladins having them better, but "I cover my sword in magic fire" is cool.

Fair point! I'm leaning most strongly towards Yakk's idea.

My issue now though is that, being on the divine list, Gish Bards and EKs have a harder time getting access even though they're thematically appropriate. Though I suppose it would be easy enough to add smite spells to a subclass.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've had the thought that the smite spells shouldn't be paladin things. Instead:

1. Paladins should be able to add the riders to smites whenever based on levels, etc. They get the effects "for free" (etc).
2. Anyone else who wants to "smite" gets the smite spells, which then would be more like the bladetrips (make attack as part of casting the spell) and then adjusted.

That way, paladins get the smite spells for free and more efficient. Everyone else has to pay and can't do the whole "hold it until it hits" thing (so is less efficient).

[Oramac]

See, I don't want them to be unavailable to anyone else. The idea that I use magic to make my sword hit harder is, in my mind, right in line with a Swords or Valor bard, or an Eldritch Knight. I like the idea of Paladins having them better, but "I cover my sword in magic fire" is cool.

I both agree and disagree. "I cover my sword in magic fire" is really cool, but it's not divine. Smite is the divine power of an ideal or deity being channeled through the weapon. Setting your blade on fire (or acid or whatever) is not the same, thematically. Both should absolutely exist, but one should not substitute for the other.


I'm leaning most strongly towards Yakk's idea.


1. Paladins should be able to add the riders to smites whenever based on levels, etc. They get the effects "for free" (etc).
2. Anyone else who wants to "smite" gets the smite spells, which then would be more like the bladetrips (make attack as part of casting the spell) and then adjusted.

Agreed. Thus far, I agree with Psyren. Yakk's idea (combined with LibraryOgre's) is probably the simplest to implement and balance.

[LibraryOgre]

I both agree and disagree. "I cover my sword in magic fire" is really cool, but it's not divine. Smite is the divine power of an ideal or deity being channeled through the weapon. Setting your blade on fire (or acid or whatever) is not the same, thematically. Both should absolutely exist, but one should not substitute for the other.


And with regards to Divine Smite, the Paladin ability, fine. But there's also the Smite line of spells; bonus action, sheathe your sword in fire for up to a minute, until you discharge it. Those don't have any particular reason to be divine.

The old line was that healing was exclusively divine, and that clerics didn't do damage with their spells... then 3e happened, and you have clerics chucking fireballs and bards healing people. I don't see any reason to restrict the Smite line of spells, even if you give Paladins a bonus with them.

[Oramac]

And with regards to Divine Smite, the Paladin ability, fine. But there's also the Smite line of spells; bonus action, sheathe your sword in fire for up to a minute, until you discharge it. Those don't have any particular reason to be divine.

The old line was that healing was exclusively divine, and that clerics didn't do damage with their spells... then 3e happened, and you have clerics chucking fireballs and bards healing people. I don't see any reason to restrict the Smite line of spells, even if you give Paladins a bonus with them.

Works for me. But then they shouldn't be "Smite Spells". Rename them to...I don't know...Wrath Spells or something. Then paladins can get a "Divine Wrath" feature that enhances the Wrath Spells (or whatever new name they get).

[LibraryOgre]

Works for me. But then they shouldn't be "Smite Spells". Rename them to...I don't know...Wrath Spells or something. Then paladins can get a "Divine Wrath" feature that enhances the Wrath Spells (or whatever new name they get).

Fair enough; I'd be inclined to change the Paladin feature to "Divine Wrath", or even just change the spells from "Smite" to "Weapon". Burning Weapon. Branding Weapon. Thundering Weapon.

[Oramac]

just change the spells from "Smite" to "Weapon". Burning Weapon. Branding Weapon. Thundering Weapon.

Problem solved! WOTC should just hire us to do all the game design. We'd be done in a week. :P

[LibraryOgre]

Problem solved! WOTC should just hire us to do all the game design. We'd be done in a week. :P

Until it came time to redo the ranger, and we went after each other with (paired) daggers. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

UA Ranger scored 80 so I assume they're full steam ahead :smallcool:

I'm excited about the choice they'll add back into the Hunter, as well as the other subclasses.

[Kane0]

I'm excited about the choice they'll add back into the Hunter, as well as the other subclasses.

Assuming they actually do? Was that in a vid i missed?

[Psyren]

Assuming they actually do? Was that in a vid i missed?

Yes, Crawford mentioned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hlqW6mYaGo) (23:40-24:36) that there were two themes from the Hunter subclass feedback: Multiattack sucking, and not enough choice compared to the 2014 Hunter. He committed to fixing both, and highlighted this as an example of why they ask for scores for both the class/subclass overall and for the individual features, because differences between those two often give them additional insight.

[Kane0]

Oh good, yes both of those things indeed sucked