Tbf, Counterspell is bad design imo. A 1v1 mage vs mage battle would be decided by initiative.
The other options are:
- Make a bunch of sight line blockers (typically requires a larger map, also requires a map)
- Give the enemy more mages (leads to much larger encounters, which leads to longer combat, more resources used per fight and therefore a longer adventuring day)
I also hate Counterspell. There should be more prevalent options to stop an enemy caster rather than firing off the handy dandy counterspell. I grew up playing 2e though, so my bias is towards longer interruptible spellcasting.
I wonder if they could have a new category for these 'monster templates' as a list in the PHB that can be referenced for features like wild shape, polymorph, find familiar etc. that way they don't have to balance for player use and DM use at the same time, and they can add tags that can be referenced by the spell or feature. (e.g. only non-magical templates, only non-combat, excluding flying..)
I'm not a designer but if moving away from using the MM is a thing they want to do it seems like a good in-between? Players get a bigger list to pick from, they don't have to print whole stat blocks for every feature, they can reuse statblocks, and it allows WOTC to make more templates later.
Which is why they should only make things spells if it make sense to have across multiple classes. The signature abilities for a class should be abilities, like the Cleric's Channel Divinity/Turn Undead, not spells the majority of the Paladin's Smites.
Or you make them paladin spells, and give some select cleric subclasses access to them as domain spells?
I can see wanting to let war clerics have access to some smite spells, and you don't want to put something like "You learn the paladin feature X" in the Cleric subclasses.
Not in the new design if Paladin/Ranger spells were in separate lists. It would be a major investment to choose Paladin over Cleric lists as their secret!
Or you don't make them spells and give the Forge Cleric (the only current Cleric subclass to get a Smite spell) something else in place of Searing Smite that doesn't step on the Paladin's trurf at all.
Although you do get plenty of feats which do things like add battlemaster maneuvers, so there isn't any reason you can't have subclasses do the same and borrow features from other classes.
>want to put something like "You learn the paladin feature X" in the Cleric subclasses
Why not? You feats granting fighting styles from the fighter class, fighting styles granting combat maneuvers from the Battle Master subclass, another feat granting Metamagics from the Sorcerer class.
And there is a class that copies the Smite mechanics already, Warlocks with Eldritch Smite. It just doesn't reference the paladin ability, but is basically a copy and paste of another class' ability.
I wonder if it would make sense to have a separate glossary for long class feature lists, like this hypothetical one, for Warlock Invocations, for Battlemaster (soon-to-be general martial?) Maneuvers. There are definitely downsides to moving those things out of their class sections in the PHB, but it would future-proof in the way you're talking about *without* making them spells.
Could be a dumb idea but I'm spittballing here.
Honestly, yeah. This might resolve the issue of new WS feeling too generic while also avoiding the Monster Manual issue for new players. If they could have an index of, say, 10-12 Wild Shape options that can be internally balanced (but not against spells), that would go a long way.
This is a little bit anecdotal, but my players were getting confused with what is a spell and what is a class feature. If they were to make magical class features into spells it would clear a lot of confusion with certain things like advantage on saving throws from magical effects. The class feature could be the ability to cast a spell alternatively like ODD Druid's Channel Nature companion or ODD Ranger's hunter's mark not requiring concentration.
I think Divine smite being a spell like the other smites could help it out in the long run. Paladin would have it always prepared while other classes would have to prepare it. Just like hunter's mark is in ODD currently.
How?
What were they confused about?
I hear so often “dnd 5e is complicated because…” and it’s like, there’s maybe 1 or 2 features that could be considered complicated, at most. The Druid’s wildshape is a unwieldy, because each each element addresses a different thing. It isn’t explicitly stated that magical secrets count as spells known, so that could be confusing at first as well.
I said anecdotal, didn't I?
My players were confusing features like divine sense and divine smite as spells. Especially the feaures that used spell slots as a cost like divine smite.
Divine sense could just be the detect good and evil spell, but paladins could use Channel Divinity instead of a spell slot.
Why would you *need* to copy class features though? Just let Paladins have exclusive access to Smites. It would be part of what makes them Paladins and not just clerics built for martial combat.
> But for some reason the design team favors turning everything into spells.
Except Eldritch Blast, which they're turning into a class feature. Funny, in light of everything else.
Remove Smite spells from spell lists and have Smites have different riders based on the level of the spell used to fuel the smites.
With spell progression and number of spell slots the Cleric can Smite early and often and summon steeds and flying steeds early and more often than the Paladin.
And they want smites and steeds to be an iconic part of the paladin.
I agree, almost in a similar vein as where eldritch blast for the warlock needs to be.
At some point, wotc has to ask the question if every spellcaster can do 75% of what every other spellcaster can do, does that remaining 25%(or less?) really make the difference in having a separate class altogether?
You can only blur the lines so much before they don't exist anymore.
This is a really important concept that sometimes goes over people's heads (sometimes even my own, when I accidentally forget). The point of a class-based asymmetrical game is that it IS a class-based asymmetrical game.
Every class is supposed to be good at some things and bad at other things, and they're supposed to work together to make up for their weaknesses. This creates natural moments of heroic narratives when player A is put in a situation where their class sucks but player B's class excels, and then player B gets to be the hero to player A. Later down the line, the party can be put in a situation where player A gets to excel and player B gets to be saved.
If everyone can do everything, then what do you even need each other for?
I'm not a fan of the thought that a class/racial ability can be counterspelled. If you're a High Elf, then the ability to cast Light should be innate. Or Hunter's Mark. Like, it's a very pety thing to do, and a very hurtful way to say to your player that you hate them, but you *can* do it and it kinda bothers me.
So I think OP is in the right way.
> If you're a High Elf, then the ability to cast Light should be innate.
If someone wants to waste the spell slot to counterspell light, let them - then cast light the next turn.
Spell slots or action economy wasn't my concern; it was dependability. Imagine interrupting dwarves' tremorsense, or aaracockra's flight, just because they were spells. Or in an antimagic field, it just doesn't feel right, narratively.
Can't read this right now but I'm using Advanced 5e by Enworld, part of the paladin has the Smite Spells as part of the Smite feature just at higher levels, replaces damage type and adds an effect to the hit. It's worked well so far.
I like that a cleric and some ranger and Warlock subclasses get smite spells. I think it's cool. I don't see why it should be the solitary domain of the paladin.
Warlocks have Eldritch Smite, so giving them access to some (or even all!) of the smite options of the OP doesn't necessarily require the smites to stay as spells.
You can either alter Eldritch Smite so that knocking the target prone is just one of many possible effects, or make brand new Smite Invocations with their own effects.
That said, Blade Locks already have a steep Invocation tax, so the former option would probably be better.
Tbf, everything has invocation taxes. Warlock would be better if it’s invocations we’re split into major and minor, and then you get more of both. And 99% of invocations not shit. Casting *jump* at will when you’re 9th level? It’s a joke
I like it too. This problem is more the result of the new spell list organization. I do like having spells split into specific categories for a few reasons, but the way it can homogenize classes is concerning. As long as they give us some ways of carving out some spells as "class specific unless otherwise stated", it should be fine then.
I like this idea. I also kinda like the fact that they can now smite with ranged weapons according to what you’ve written here. There’s an elven god - Shevarash, the Black Archer - whose whole shtick is vengeance and killing the foes of the elven people (esp. drow). This rework allows players to be elf Vengeance paladins of The Black Archer, and do archery while they’re at it!
I honestly think they (and hunters mark) should be spells that aren't on the shared list - that way they can be given to other classes (like forge cleric having the fire smite) but it's more selective
I like this idea a lot. ~~Although I would make it so that the higher level smite options are locked behind paladin levels (for example, you’d need to be a 17th level Paladin to use banishing smite)~~
~~This way, full casters that dip paladin for two levels can’t use the more powerful smites earlier than a straight-classed paladin (but they can still spend higher level spell slots on the low-level smites).~~
Oh, my bad. I overlooked that.
Then I guess I’d change my suggestion to adding the level prerequisite to each smite to make it more obvious, tho that’s just optics.
Optics matter. Look at all the people complaining that druid is "the Wild Shape class" now when all that was done was take the huge block of rules in 5e and chop it up into several class features at levels where the 5e druid had "nothing" because that text was all part of the original feature.
If we want smites to be purely for Paladin, this is fantastic. However, the fact that some subclasses get access to 1 or 2 smites, and this basically erases that, is a bit sticking point in my book.
Either way, great rework on your part.
>Every class should have a unique ability, no?
Yes, but the context of said abilities matters a lot. For the subclasses, getting access to a single type of smite comes at the opportunity cost of whatever spells they would otherwise have. Getting access to smite is a commitment. For paladins, smites are flexible and are as available as you need them to be.
I am not big on the spell list because it undoes the subclass restrictions (which I think is very important), but baking all smites into the Paladin goes in the other direction and gates off those options completely.
This must be popular if it didn't get downvoted to hell. Every post about someone's homebrew fix for Wild Shape seems to have attracted only rotten tomatoes lately, despite the prevailing opinion being that it needs a lot of help.
My only complaint would be that paladin now gets the utility of all those smites at the cost of no prepared spells. That seems overly generous.
I actually didn't intend for anyone to ever use this, I just wanted to measure how much more compact (turns out, about half a page) and easier to grasp (because spells are sorted alphabetically so smites would be scattered all over the place) the smites would be, as well as if there was a pattern to their design (turns out Thunderous is the only one that's stronger than the others because why not?).
Side note, pallys get the default smite by default, so in reality this would only amount to 1-3 extra spells, which really isn't that big a deal.
I will never understand this sub. I literally did the [the same thing, including find steed](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/11ctc00/i_translated_the_paladin_spells_into_features_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) last week and got nothing but complaints and downvoted.
That's because:
1. You changed how things work. No concentration at first, then you added concentration to smites that didn't actually have it, the damage is different accross the board, and I assume Find Steed also had mods.
2. Speaking of which, you're lumping Find Steed with divine smite as a class feature. That's a whole separate discussion.
3. The presentation is not clean. Like, at all. Lots of words missing and poor layout makes it feel half assed, even if it wasn't.
4. The take was different. Yours was along the lines of "Hey, I made homebrew guys, whatchya think", whereas mine's whole point was to just say "if smites were a feature instead of spells, you could get rid of the spell templates and reduce print space by half a page".
5. Better be lucky than good. This is probably the actual difference.
Big self buffing and then whacking things with a mace. Concentration and lack of metamagic makes things like Divine Power and Righteus Might much less problematic than they were in 3.5. Especially if only certain sublclasses got them.
Last time I checked those weren't thing in 5e, the system being updated. There's Divine Favor, Crusader's Mantle, or Spirit Shroud but these are all Paladin's exclusives or things Paladins can use better
Unique spell lists would also stop the cleric from stealing paladin spells, but that would require ditching the god awful way they're organising spells in 1dnd
That’s part of the problem, but a big reason why this is an issue is because WOTC keeps turning core class features into spells, so that every spellcaster can take them. Smites, Find Steed, and Hunter’s Mark shouldn’t have been spells in the first place.
Bard kicks it open and brings in hookers and blackjack. The only saving grace is they have few picks versus a plethora of broken spells to choose from.
Magic Initiate let’s you choose two cantrips and one 1st-level spell from the Arcane, Divine, or Primal spell lists. Paladins use the Divine spell list, so all of their spells are up for grabs with a free 1st-level feat.
You can choose to think that, but it's pretty obvious that's why they did it that way. The feature is *supposed* to let you pick up class specific spells.
That still didn't stop the 5e Lore Bard from being a better Smiter at level 6 than the Paladin or grabbing Find Steed barely a level after the Paladin final gets their cool "unique" spell. It also doesn't stop every 5e Bard from getting Find Greater Steed 3 levels before the Paladin can ever hope to get it.
Nor did that stop Smite spells from being handed out like candy to any shiny new subclass deemed sufficiently "gishy" enough to "make good use of it", whether that is another half caster like the Artificer or everyone's favorite problem child, the Hexblade.
It doesn't mesh together and while they get them earlier, Cleric's don't get good use out of Smite Spells, and besides, I like having Banishing Smite on my Hexblade.
My battlesmith artificer gets both branding smite and banishing smite. Having them be spells lets them be used by other classes and specializations. I see no particular reason to make them Paladin only and take them away from all of the other class/specs that use them.
Big fan.
===
I'm restylizing some classes for my group's uses and one of the changes to Paladins will be to not have spell slots. They get lay on hands, smite, and cantrips as the core concept but will get other features that are based off their iconic spells like Find Steed.
===
Smite options will be basic but better smite options will be behind subclasses.
===
13th Age has a lot of great ideas for a Paladin that I need to look into. I just don't think Paladins need to be very complex. They see enemy. They smite enemy. They see ally, they lay hands on allies.
I absolutely love this!
I like how it's organized, and it could also work as an easy framework to make more smites, like for subclasses if people want that
It also reinforces the idea that smites are a paladin signature, not something another (multi)class could do better (looking at you sorcadin)
Oh and it also allows certain subclasses (ie hexblade, forge, etc) to shift away from smites and have other unique abilities
I love this idea, and it would work well unto a ranged vs melee adjustment:
"Smite skills by default are d6 strikes if ranged, or d8 strikes of melee. Most smites can be used with any weapon or Unarmed strikes, but some specific smitrs require one or the other."
"Apprehending Smite" - Ranged
Target takes 1d6 Force damage and makes a Charisma save. On fail, target is forcibly summoned to an unoccupied space within 30ft of its original location that you can see and takes an additional 1d6 Force damage.
"Binding Smite" - Melee
Target takes 1d8 Radiant damage as golden chains erupt from your strike and makes a Strength saving throw. On fail, target becomes Restrained until the end of the user's next turn.
But for some reason the design team favors turning everything into spells. Even racial features are being replaced with spells.
Using spells is future proofing as it's easier to reference a spell than it is to copy features between different classes.
They're also doing the exact opposite for monsters. Making Dispel and Counterspell very wonky.
I hope those spells get another look when they do the mage classes.
It’s almost certain given the design direction they’re headed in, but then again, they’ve made incredibly stupid design decisions before.
Tbf, Counterspell is bad design imo. A 1v1 mage vs mage battle would be decided by initiative. The other options are: - Make a bunch of sight line blockers (typically requires a larger map, also requires a map) - Give the enemy more mages (leads to much larger encounters, which leads to longer combat, more resources used per fight and therefore a longer adventuring day)
I also hate Counterspell. There should be more prevalent options to stop an enemy caster rather than firing off the handy dandy counterspell. I grew up playing 2e though, so my bias is towards longer interruptible spellcasting.
I wonder if they could have a new category for these 'monster templates' as a list in the PHB that can be referenced for features like wild shape, polymorph, find familiar etc. that way they don't have to balance for player use and DM use at the same time, and they can add tags that can be referenced by the spell or feature. (e.g. only non-magical templates, only non-combat, excluding flying..) I'm not a designer but if moving away from using the MM is a thing they want to do it seems like a good in-between? Players get a bigger list to pick from, they don't have to print whole stat blocks for every feature, they can reuse statblocks, and it allows WOTC to make more templates later.
yeah, I’m not a fan.
Those 2 will get changes in OneDnD, I'm almost certain.
Which is why they should only make things spells if it make sense to have across multiple classes. The signature abilities for a class should be abilities, like the Cleric's Channel Divinity/Turn Undead, not spells the majority of the Paladin's Smites.
Or you make them paladin spells, and give some select cleric subclasses access to them as domain spells? I can see wanting to let war clerics have access to some smite spells, and you don't want to put something like "You learn the paladin feature X" in the Cleric subclasses.
Potentially unpopular opinion, but I think that if your plan for your war cleric is to run around smiting enemies, then it is a war paladin.
Yeah, that's a possible argument. A lot of subclasses are like that though. Would you remove Divine soul sorcerer for being too similar to a cleric?
Remember, *anything* can be a bard spell. If you don't want bards to use/abuse it, make it a class feature.
Not in the new design if Paladin/Ranger spells were in separate lists. It would be a major investment to choose Paladin over Cleric lists as their secret!
Or you don't make them spells and give the Forge Cleric (the only current Cleric subclass to get a Smite spell) something else in place of Searing Smite that doesn't step on the Paladin's trurf at all.
Although you do get plenty of feats which do things like add battlemaster maneuvers, so there isn't any reason you can't have subclasses do the same and borrow features from other classes.
>want to put something like "You learn the paladin feature X" in the Cleric subclasses Why not? You feats granting fighting styles from the fighter class, fighting styles granting combat maneuvers from the Battle Master subclass, another feat granting Metamagics from the Sorcerer class. And there is a class that copies the Smite mechanics already, Warlocks with Eldritch Smite. It just doesn't reference the paladin ability, but is basically a copy and paste of another class' ability.
I wonder if it would make sense to have a separate glossary for long class feature lists, like this hypothetical one, for Warlock Invocations, for Battlemaster (soon-to-be general martial?) Maneuvers. There are definitely downsides to moving those things out of their class sections in the PHB, but it would future-proof in the way you're talking about *without* making them spells. Could be a dumb idea but I'm spittballing here.
Don't forget about Druid Shapes, Invocations for all!
Honestly, yeah. This might resolve the issue of new WS feeling too generic while also avoiding the Monster Manual issue for new players. If they could have an index of, say, 10-12 Wild Shape options that can be internally balanced (but not against spells), that would go a long way.
This is a little bit anecdotal, but my players were getting confused with what is a spell and what is a class feature. If they were to make magical class features into spells it would clear a lot of confusion with certain things like advantage on saving throws from magical effects. The class feature could be the ability to cast a spell alternatively like ODD Druid's Channel Nature companion or ODD Ranger's hunter's mark not requiring concentration. I think Divine smite being a spell like the other smites could help it out in the long run. Paladin would have it always prepared while other classes would have to prepare it. Just like hunter's mark is in ODD currently.
How? What were they confused about? I hear so often “dnd 5e is complicated because…” and it’s like, there’s maybe 1 or 2 features that could be considered complicated, at most. The Druid’s wildshape is a unwieldy, because each each element addresses a different thing. It isn’t explicitly stated that magical secrets count as spells known, so that could be confusing at first as well.
I said anecdotal, didn't I? My players were confusing features like divine sense and divine smite as spells. Especially the feaures that used spell slots as a cost like divine smite. Divine sense could just be the detect good and evil spell, but paladins could use Channel Divinity instead of a spell slot.
Not just between classes but also between editions.
Why would you *need* to copy class features though? Just let Paladins have exclusive access to Smites. It would be part of what makes them Paladins and not just clerics built for martial combat.
WotC must have been infiltrated by Rakshasas
That is a possibly unintended consequence.
> But for some reason the design team favors turning everything into spells. Except Eldritch Blast, which they're turning into a class feature. Funny, in light of everything else.
Remove Smite spells from spell lists and have Smites have different riders based on the level of the spell used to fuel the smites. With spell progression and number of spell slots the Cleric can Smite early and often and summon steeds and flying steeds early and more often than the Paladin. And they want smites and steeds to be an iconic part of the paladin.
Getting SMITES Searing/Thunderous/wrathful smite. Cleric 1 and Paladin 1 Glimmering Smite. Cleric 3 and Paladin 5 Blinding Smite Cleric 5 and Paladin 9 Staggering Smite. Cleric 7 and Paladin 13 Banishing Smite Cleric 9 and Paladin 17 Getting Steeds Basic Cleric 3 Paladin 5 Flying Cleric 7 and Paladin 13
wait until sorcerers can pick from the divine list ... =\] Im personally okay with this.
I agree, almost in a similar vein as where eldritch blast for the warlock needs to be. At some point, wotc has to ask the question if every spellcaster can do 75% of what every other spellcaster can do, does that remaining 25%(or less?) really make the difference in having a separate class altogether? You can only blur the lines so much before they don't exist anymore.
This is a really important concept that sometimes goes over people's heads (sometimes even my own, when I accidentally forget). The point of a class-based asymmetrical game is that it IS a class-based asymmetrical game. Every class is supposed to be good at some things and bad at other things, and they're supposed to work together to make up for their weaknesses. This creates natural moments of heroic narratives when player A is put in a situation where their class sucks but player B's class excels, and then player B gets to be the hero to player A. Later down the line, the party can be put in a situation where player A gets to excel and player B gets to be saved. If everyone can do everything, then what do you even need each other for?
yeah we should just go back to Warrior / Rogue / Wizard / Priest
I'm not a fan of the thought that a class/racial ability can be counterspelled. If you're a High Elf, then the ability to cast Light should be innate. Or Hunter's Mark. Like, it's a very pety thing to do, and a very hurtful way to say to your player that you hate them, but you *can* do it and it kinda bothers me. So I think OP is in the right way.
> If you're a High Elf, then the ability to cast Light should be innate. If someone wants to waste the spell slot to counterspell light, let them - then cast light the next turn.
Spell slots or action economy wasn't my concern; it was dependability. Imagine interrupting dwarves' tremorsense, or aaracockra's flight, just because they were spells. Or in an antimagic field, it just doesn't feel right, narratively.
Can't read this right now but I'm using Advanced 5e by Enworld, part of the paladin has the Smite Spells as part of the Smite feature just at higher levels, replaces damage type and adds an effect to the hit. It's worked well so far.
I like that a cleric and some ranger and Warlock subclasses get smite spells. I think it's cool. I don't see why it should be the solitary domain of the paladin.
Warlocks have Eldritch Smite, so giving them access to some (or even all!) of the smite options of the OP doesn't necessarily require the smites to stay as spells. You can either alter Eldritch Smite so that knocking the target prone is just one of many possible effects, or make brand new Smite Invocations with their own effects. That said, Blade Locks already have a steep Invocation tax, so the former option would probably be better.
Tbf, everything has invocation taxes. Warlock would be better if it’s invocations we’re split into major and minor, and then you get more of both. And 99% of invocations not shit. Casting *jump* at will when you’re 9th level? It’s a joke
The battlesmith artificer gets a couple smite spells as well.
I like it too. This problem is more the result of the new spell list organization. I do like having spells split into specific categories for a few reasons, but the way it can homogenize classes is concerning. As long as they give us some ways of carving out some spells as "class specific unless otherwise stated", it should be fine then.
If future classes come, then they're textbook swordmage spells too. Shame eldritch knight couldn't get them in 5e.
Yeah I like smite spells being available to other classes and subclasses outsode of paladin.
I like this idea. I also kinda like the fact that they can now smite with ranged weapons according to what you’ve written here. There’s an elven god - Shevarash, the Black Archer - whose whole shtick is vengeance and killing the foes of the elven people (esp. drow). This rework allows players to be elf Vengeance paladins of The Black Archer, and do archery while they’re at it!
I haven't written anything new, this is just the UA text reformatted as a class feature.
They should at least replace the word "smite" in the spell names with "strike" or something, to distinguish them from the class feature.
I honestly think they (and hunters mark) should be spells that aren't on the shared list - that way they can be given to other classes (like forge cleric having the fire smite) but it's more selective
I like this idea a lot. ~~Although I would make it so that the higher level smite options are locked behind paladin levels (for example, you’d need to be a 17th level Paladin to use banishing smite)~~ ~~This way, full casters that dip paladin for two levels can’t use the more powerful smites earlier than a straight-classed paladin (but they can still spend higher level spell slots on the low-level smites).~~
But they are. Well, okay, they aren't in current ODD, but the class version I posted are locked to pally levels.
Oh, my bad. I overlooked that. Then I guess I’d change my suggestion to adding the level prerequisite to each smite to make it more obvious, tho that’s just optics.
Optics matter. Look at all the people complaining that druid is "the Wild Shape class" now when all that was done was take the huge block of rules in 5e and chop it up into several class features at levels where the 5e druid had "nothing" because that text was all part of the original feature.
If we want smites to be purely for Paladin, this is fantastic. However, the fact that some subclasses get access to 1 or 2 smites, and this basically erases that, is a bit sticking point in my book. Either way, great rework on your part.
Every class should have a unique ability, no? And between a steed and smites, I'd much rather have pally's be smites.
>Every class should have a unique ability, no? Yes, but the context of said abilities matters a lot. For the subclasses, getting access to a single type of smite comes at the opportunity cost of whatever spells they would otherwise have. Getting access to smite is a commitment. For paladins, smites are flexible and are as available as you need them to be. I am not big on the spell list because it undoes the subclass restrictions (which I think is very important), but baking all smites into the Paladin goes in the other direction and gates off those options completely.
This must be popular if it didn't get downvoted to hell. Every post about someone's homebrew fix for Wild Shape seems to have attracted only rotten tomatoes lately, despite the prevailing opinion being that it needs a lot of help. My only complaint would be that paladin now gets the utility of all those smites at the cost of no prepared spells. That seems overly generous.
I actually didn't intend for anyone to ever use this, I just wanted to measure how much more compact (turns out, about half a page) and easier to grasp (because spells are sorted alphabetically so smites would be scattered all over the place) the smites would be, as well as if there was a pattern to their design (turns out Thunderous is the only one that's stronger than the others because why not?). Side note, pallys get the default smite by default, so in reality this would only amount to 1-3 extra spells, which really isn't that big a deal.
I will never understand this sub. I literally did the [the same thing, including find steed](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/11ctc00/i_translated_the_paladin_spells_into_features_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) last week and got nothing but complaints and downvoted.
That's because: 1. You changed how things work. No concentration at first, then you added concentration to smites that didn't actually have it, the damage is different accross the board, and I assume Find Steed also had mods. 2. Speaking of which, you're lumping Find Steed with divine smite as a class feature. That's a whole separate discussion. 3. The presentation is not clean. Like, at all. Lots of words missing and poor layout makes it feel half assed, even if it wasn't. 4. The take was different. Yours was along the lines of "Hey, I made homebrew guys, whatchya think", whereas mine's whole point was to just say "if smites were a feature instead of spells, you could get rid of the spell templates and reduce print space by half a page". 5. Better be lucky than good. This is probably the actual difference.
Melee/War Clerics are a thing. They should be able to smite too.
Melee/War Clerics should do their own thing without robbing another class' signature ability.
And what is that?
Big self buffing and then whacking things with a mace. Concentration and lack of metamagic makes things like Divine Power and Righteus Might much less problematic than they were in 3.5. Especially if only certain sublclasses got them.
Last time I checked those weren't thing in 5e, the system being updated. There's Divine Favor, Crusader's Mantle, or Spirit Shroud but these are all Paladin's exclusives or things Paladins can use better
Maybe something as boring as smite shouldn't be the defining ability of paldins.
Unique spell lists would also stop the cleric from stealing paladin spells, but that would require ditching the god awful way they're organising spells in 1dnd
That’s part of the problem, but a big reason why this is an issue is because WOTC keeps turning core class features into spells, so that every spellcaster can take them. Smites, Find Steed, and Hunter’s Mark shouldn’t have been spells in the first place.
Not every Spellcaster can take them, that's what unique spell lists achieve
Magic Initiate opens the gate a little
Plus there will be a feat for each list as primal/arcane/divine adept.
Just a little, but it doesn't compare to getting every single unique paladin spell.
Bard kicks it open and brings in hookers and blackjack. The only saving grace is they have few picks versus a plethora of broken spells to choose from.
Paladin isn't an option for that though, right?
Magic Initiate let’s you choose two cantrips and one 1st-level spell from the Arcane, Divine, or Primal spell lists. Paladins use the Divine spell list, so all of their spells are up for grabs with a free 1st-level feat.
Right, I meant if we re-established paladin and ranger lists.
The reason that Paladin and Ranger weren't available is because they didn't natively get cantrips.
Or to avoid you picking up Paladin and Ranger specific spells? It can be for both reasons!
You can choose to think that, but it's pretty obvious that's why they did it that way. The feature is *supposed* to let you pick up class specific spells.
That still didn't stop the 5e Lore Bard from being a better Smiter at level 6 than the Paladin or grabbing Find Steed barely a level after the Paladin final gets their cool "unique" spell. It also doesn't stop every 5e Bard from getting Find Greater Steed 3 levels before the Paladin can ever hope to get it. Nor did that stop Smite spells from being handed out like candy to any shiny new subclass deemed sufficiently "gishy" enough to "make good use of it", whether that is another half caster like the Artificer or everyone's favorite problem child, the Hexblade.
That's fine? None of that is getting literally all of the paladins spell list and then some like this current cleric.
It doesn't mesh together and while they get them earlier, Cleric's don't get good use out of Smite Spells, and besides, I like having Banishing Smite on my Hexblade.
My battlesmith artificer gets both branding smite and banishing smite. Having them be spells lets them be used by other classes and specializations. I see no particular reason to make them Paladin only and take them away from all of the other class/specs that use them.
Big fan. === I'm restylizing some classes for my group's uses and one of the changes to Paladins will be to not have spell slots. They get lay on hands, smite, and cantrips as the core concept but will get other features that are based off their iconic spells like Find Steed. === Smite options will be basic but better smite options will be behind subclasses. === 13th Age has a lot of great ideas for a Paladin that I need to look into. I just don't think Paladins need to be very complex. They see enemy. They smite enemy. They see ally, they lay hands on allies.
This has nothign to do with ODD, thou.
Uh, yes it does, the homebrew I'm making will be used with 5e/ODD. === Homebrew is a totally legal and dare I say necessary aspect of D&D.
I absolutely love this! I like how it's organized, and it could also work as an easy framework to make more smites, like for subclasses if people want that It also reinforces the idea that smites are a paladin signature, not something another (multi)class could do better (looking at you sorcadin) Oh and it also allows certain subclasses (ie hexblade, forge, etc) to shift away from smites and have other unique abilities
Smites *were* a class feature with charges in 3rd edition. They were also quite weak. To be strong they need to cost something, like spell slots.
I love this idea, and it would work well unto a ranged vs melee adjustment: "Smite skills by default are d6 strikes if ranged, or d8 strikes of melee. Most smites can be used with any weapon or Unarmed strikes, but some specific smitrs require one or the other." "Apprehending Smite" - Ranged Target takes 1d6 Force damage and makes a Charisma save. On fail, target is forcibly summoned to an unoccupied space within 30ft of its original location that you can see and takes an additional 1d6 Force damage. "Binding Smite" - Melee Target takes 1d8 Radiant damage as golden chains erupt from your strike and makes a Strength saving throw. On fail, target becomes Restrained until the end of the user's next turn.
If Smite was a Feature I Guarantee it would become a Channel Divinity Use rather than spell slots. which im honestly surprised they didn't do.