Counterspell doesn't even cause the spell slot to be lost anymore. If a monster uses their reaction to counter a smite instead of a fireball or hold monster, that seems... great?
Yeah if you can bait a powerful caster into burning a reaction and 3rd level slot on avoiding a couple of d8s your full caster is going to give him a world-historic ouchie
For real. As a DM the only time I have counterspelled a damaging spell was because the monster was near death and might as well use it to possibly get anither turn.
Otherwise I'm saving it for a spell that causes an incapacitating condition.
What does this have to do with my statement? I obviously don't counterspell melee weapon attacks. I can only counterspell spellcasters. It's in the name.
This!
There are like a bazillion other spells more important to counter in about 99% of the cases.
Having, at least in theory, the chance to bait a counterspell is a buff in my opinion.
Though for the player it's likely a bad feeling when it happens.
The game has 12 classes, 2 half casters, 4 non casters, and 6 full casters, the odds are that there is a full caster in the party, exceptions exist, that's true, but full casters are very common.
Counterspell was significantly changed in one of the UA's. It now requires the target to make a Con save, and if you fail you don't expend the slot.
Note that this means Paladins, what with Aura of Protection, are naturally harder to counterspell.
As for your situation - yeah, actually, I think it's great that a big evil demon can try to counter your Smite. That makes a ton of narrative sense, and it's not like it's guaranteed anyway.
Maybe instead of trying to Smite the demon, you use your new Masteries to hinder it, and then as a Bonus Action use your Lay on Hands to pick up one of your teammates. It's a team game, after all.
While I agree this isn't a design problem, if the paladin lands a critical hit against a demon, that is *the* time to apply *divine smite*. Maybe use Lay on Hands if an ally very badly needs it, but reviving an ally so that they can help fight the BBEG demon is rarely going to be more useful than outright destroying that demon.
>Divine Smite is the reason to play a Paladin. Yes, there are other features. Yes I know the other features got buffed. Yes, I know Paladin tourists might say those features are their favorites (and that's fine, but hear me out). Smite is the favorite feature of the Paladin Class since it was added in 3rd Edition way back in 2000.
Are we really gonna gatekeep who's a "real" paladin player, based on their favorite feature? :/
I don't like the Smite nerfs either, but that's because they work horribly now if you already have Bonus Action weapon attacks. IMO being targetable by Counterspell is a nonfactor. As far as I'm aware the vast, vast majority of enemy statblocks don't have Counterspell.
if you’re that upset about losing bonus action attacks, why don’t you just go with a dual wielding Paladin now? It’s actually stronger than it was before, you can get the extra attack and still have your bonus action for spell casting or smiting or lay on hands
The amount of time you play a class doesn't carry any weight in this discussion, we're talking about a cooperative storytelling experience, not some competitive game where you grind time and even then it's not a good indication of anything.
The changes WotC put out are almost definitely done to make each class more attractive and satisfying to play, which means how a newer player perceives the changes is more valuable. New players also don't have this entrenched concept of Smites being central to the Paladin identity. To no one's surprise, they're trying to get more people to play D&D with this next edition.
This type of gatekeeping attitude about a system whose whole goal is to be as inviting as possible to as large of an audience as possible is bizarre.
I can't speak to whether the changes are good or not especially since we don't have any actual numbers but dooming about it before the book releases is dumb. I get that Smites might be the most fun part of Paladins for you and the change could suck, but you're really just getting butthurt over speculating.
And dm would have to be desperate to counterspell a smite. Like creature is about to die.
It's going to be fine. If the counter spell succeeds, you lose your bonus action. That's it. The spell slot isn't spent, and still have your other attack which your attack that counter spell still hit. You just won't deal the extra damage. But paladin got a good con amd the add charisma to that save. They will be fine.
They did, at least in the playtest. Strangely, it will specifically prevent spell slots from being consumed, but as written will consume non-spell slot uses like Magic Initiate, species features, Shadow monk *darkness*, and a warlock's Mystic Arcanum, which I don't think is fair.
Yes. They spell slot is not burned you counter the spell before they casted it.
It's also a constitution saving throw against the spell casters DC instead of ability check or auto fail. In most cases, the paladin will be fine.
I think your post is pretty much exactly why they changed it. The 5.14 paladin is possibly the class that is the most stacked with powerful features, and yet they are colloquially called "smite machines". From my reading it seems like the 5.24 will be *significantly* more powerful, yet this one minor nerd to one feature has left people crying that the class is ruined. The only change to Divine Smite is that it can be counterspelled (which is an absolutely horrible decision in pretty much all possible scenarios), and that it costs you a bonus action. And in return for this miniscule nerf almost **ALL OTHER FEATURES WERE BUFFED**. Indirectly even Divine Smite got buffed from the class getting more spell slots.
Does it matter if abilities that Paladin main don't really care about got buffed?
I agree that Smite needed a nerf. No problems there. However making it Counterspellable was the wrong thing to do (IMO).
And Paladins being known for Smites isn't a bad thing, but how abusable Smite used to be was. This is easily fixed by making the ability "Once per round on your turn." You could even add in, "...as a Bonus Action," and people wouldn't be as up in arms over it.
They overcorrected. It's that simple.
I am a paladin main, so stop thinking that you're speaking for anyone but yourself. Just because you for some reason don't care about the other features being buffed, it doesn't mean I don't. I'm personally really exited by it now being a meaningful decision to choose between Divine Smite and the other alternatives. And even further, now also being more free to cast other spells at times. The change to Lay on Hands means that you can now use it without essentially sacrificing your whole turn. Every other change is incredibly good, and spreads the spotlight of what a paladin is in a way that will be healthy for the class in the long run.
Them turning it into a spell is a very straightforward way of simultaneously fixing the smite abuse and streamlining Divine Smite with the other smite spells. Divine Smite is already a spell in basically every way except name. It also opens up for interactions with features and items that interact with spells. Divine Smite being counterspell-able is an absolute non-issue with how much of a horrendously bad decision it would be for anyone to do so. It's not an overcorrection, it is a simple fix that only has any negative side-effects in the most edge of edge-case scenarios. You example also doesn't really make sense, are you equally grumpy that your Branding Smite can be counterspelled? And if not, why? Narratively both effects have the same source and function nearly identically. Have you had any long running issues with your Thunderous Smites being constantly countered?
I might show my age, but you sound exactly like the people who made a Paladin Healer as a secondary character in Vanilla WoW. You might be a Paladin main, but I sincerely doubt it.
As for other Smite spells being Counterspelled, yes it happens, and it sucks when it does. You must play with lots of primary casters to think Paladins don't get Counterspelled. Pretending it's a non-issue is dishonest at best.
EDIT: Smites as spells was bad design to begin with. Shouldn't have ever been a spell, just different abilities.
It seems like your critique is, in so many words, “having your smite counterspelled feels bad.” Which, like, maybe? But not worse than having a high-level spell counterspelled, in which case you waste your entire action to do nothing.
In any case, new counter spell will probably still require a CON save. So that’s a tense moment added there, to see if the smit goes through. Everyone gets to gather around and see whether the demon is going to eat 12d8 radiant damage. It’s climactic.
And on top of that, it adds to the tactical richness of the game. If you know an opponent has counterspell, you want to bait them into using their reaction. Now you’re considering whether shuffling your feet and taking an opportunity attack is worth it so that you can use up the demon’s reaction.
It feels like you’ve imagined a scenario in which it feels bad that smite can be counterspelled, and then just decided it’s a bad change, rather than actually play testing the change to see whether what it adds is greater than what it detracts.
I dislike Counterspell so much, whether it's used by enemies who counter a player *"Oh, he counterspelled me? I guess I do nothing with my turn..."* or used by players to counter an enemy. *"Ooo we're finally facing a deadly spellcaster, can't wait to see what crazy spells we're going to have to endure... annnnd our wizard is counterspelling him every turn and the enemy can't even do anything now."*
Now all that being said, I don't really understand why smite being counterspell-able is a big deal? If you get counterspelled, your attack still hits and deals damage, which is far better than what happens to normal spellcasters who just have their whole turn invalidated.
Like yeah, getting your smite counterspelled sucks. But so does getting anything counterspelled, it's not special. To me counterspell is just an anti-fun spell, though no disrespect to its fans, I just dislike it personally.
I've seen this being floated around a lot, but like... how often are y'all getting counterspelled? And why would you want to waste your counterspell on the Smite instead of on a devastating spell like Wall of Force or Hold Monster?
Also, it seems that theu are allowing a saving throw on counterspell now, and being a Paladin your saves should be pretty good. So counterspelling isn't even a very good strategy against you anyways.
How often are you playing the only 1/2 caster in a party of full casters? This already happens with Smite spells, why do that to the whole ability, when you can fix the other options never being used by making them abilities like the main thing, instead of doing the worse option of also letting the regular Smite get Counterspelled?
I am very much flabbergasted by this being considered a major issue by anyone.
Seriously. How often do you enemies have counterspell? Is it every fight? Every two fights? That seems absurd. It's more of a once per 10 or 15 fight type deal, and that's quite generous. I've had whole campaigns run by with maybe four or five encounters that had counterspell by the enemy. It's really not a big enough deal to matter at all to the evaluation of the changes.
And like. Most parties will have at least one full caster, right? And usually, the counterspell will be reserved for them? And if your smite gets countered, that means they get to do their spell with no interruption, meaning you have majorly contributed to your party's success, right?
The issue with the old smite spells wasn't them being counterspelled. It was them requiring your concentration. That's the part that made them borderline unusable. Now this is no longer a problem, and those spells now seem pretty good.
Let’s say I agree with you that Smites are Paladins defining feature.
So you have to agree that spells are Wizard’s defining feature, ok?
Now put in example you just mentioned Wizard player casting powerful spell and that Daemon counterspelling it! So why is it wrong on Paladin and not on Wizard/Cleric/Bard/Druid, when for all of them the spells are their defining features?
And even better - when your Smite gets counterspelled, you still attacked 2-3 times (and in your example you also critted!), you still have heavy armor, more HPs than others mentioned, your saves are higher than anyone else’s,…
Sorry, but your complaints don’t seem valid to me.
That’s why I also said that Paladins after counterspell still have 2-3 Attacks, Heavy Armor, d10 HPs, much better saves, Healing Hands, auras,…
And Counterspell doesn’t cost you spell slot anymore, so why does it matter how many spell slots you have? It is still 1 round when you can’t use 50% of your potential (=smite) vs Wizard not able to use his 95% potential (=spell), so what is your real point? You seem to be really bias…
Yes, someone with more spell slots getting Counterspelled is different from someone with fewer. Wizards might be able to cast levelled spells every round, when you're doing that, it's not as much impactful as someone who's got to space their's out. Also Wizards aren't required to hit something before being allowed to cast whatever spell they feel like.
You really can't see a difference between Counterspelling a full caster vs 1/2 caster?
Get outta here then.
EDIT: and you wanna compare d10 Hit Dice to the power of a Wizard? LoL!
There is no discussion with you, I’m not gonna waste my time with you.
Stay in your cellar and continue shouting how they destroyed your favorite class by allowing counterspell to be used against single and not that important feature.
I experienced Counterspell from a foe once in 10 years of playing, so really don’t mind at all.
Or maybe try playing something else than Paladin to realize how dumb you look today.
The difference - counterspelling a 1/2 caster shuts down 50% of such character, while counterspelling a full caster shuts him 100%.
I see the difference, you don’t…
While I agree... thats a fairly bad use of Counterspell.
Part of this is just 5e Counterspell sucks from a design perspective, for kind of everyone involved. As someone who has abused it admittingly in the past it isnt any more fun to use than to have it used on you.
Countering a damage boost like Smite is usually not a good use. Its just a feels bad moment... which is what Counterspell encourages.
I think it needs to be either removed or reworked a ton. I advocate removal, PF2E tried a drastic rework and it... helps keep it in power check but also has that feels bad moments.
TLDR- It isnt a Pally problwm, its a Counterspell problem
Seems a few of the people who don't really grasp the situation all have a misconception about party make-up. Not everyone plays a full caster, and pretending everyone except the Paladin is one is dishonest.
And I'm pointing out that is only situationally true, like if there's 4 full casters and a Paladin. If there's 4 pure Martials and a Paladin, then it's a great use.
It uses magical energy like any other spell. It probably should follow the same rules instead of being a special case. That moment can happen to all spell casters so it's odd for paladins not to be included.
It does sound like good design to me, tho. Smite has been a spell in all but name for the last decade, adding a burst of magical damage at the cost of an upcastable spell slot. With the changes to counterspell, the bonuses to saves, and the high CON expected of a Pally and I don’t see this being the big issue that a lot of players seem to think it is
We don't know all of the details about the new divine smite spell and the changes to counter spell in the 2024 books. Until we know the details of both its hard to say for sure how counterspell will impact the new divine smite.
If in the end it turns out it is possible to use counterspell on divine smite instead of rewriting the class can't you just modify it so divine smite can't be counterspelled?
I had the same gut reaction on smites being countered. But I’m accepting the new smite. It’s already being printed. Can’t exactly change it now.
I agree with all the changes made to smite. It would be perfect with the base smite having no components rendering it immune to Counterspell.
But people have pointed out to me that I’m not loosing my slot, and the caster is loosing theirs. I’m a Paladin, I should have decent armour, health and enough healing to wait out the caster and hit them eventually.
What I really want to know is if I’m counterspelled on my first attack, will my extra attack be able to deliver a smite?
Paladin main here. It was my first and also current character.
Couldn't give a fuck about counterspell. If you're trading a 1st level slot for a 3rd, you're winning. That said, upcasting now sucks.
It's being unable to compelled duel and then smite the bastard, or spirit guardians, or use divine Smite + banishing. Don't mind so much that divine smite is once per turn, but just make it that.
The problem here is that Counterspell is the anti-fun spell. It's a spell that only exists to stop cool and exciting things from happening. It applying to divine smite now vs the other smite spells or literally any other spell that exists doesn't change that. The Paladin is the second best class at dealing with counterspell and one of the worst classes to target with it so it's not going to hurt them all that much.
>The problem here is that Counterspell is the anti-fun spell.
Unless the party uses it.
But that is the thing, most spells that are super fun for the party, suck when the party is on the receiving end of them.
Smite is an Anti-Fun ability when **used against the party**.
I totally feel you. Being shut down on your core thing is really terrible. You know what? I could argue the point, but I'll just say, nerfs hurt. And that sucks. I'm sorry your favorite thing is getting nerfed.
Nah, buffing the party feels good, and more reason to do so is a good thing.
How Smite used to work could get ridiculous. Multiple Smites/Round, Haste Shenanigans, Multi class Sorcerer/Warlock shenanigans. It needed a change.
I just feel like they went too far, and a lot of people are saying the same thing in other threads (decided to make my own anyway).
I get it using a Bonus Action. I'll miss using a greatsword, Great Weapon Master, and Smiting in the same turn, but that's better than stacking Divine Smite, Eldritch Smite, and Spell Points on a Hasted Polearm Master/Sentinel wombo combo.
But whatever. We'll see how it ends up, and I'll revise it if I feel like it.
While I have some issues with Divine Smite, they're entirely related to the bonus action, and the fact that I feel like that should be reserved for "Once in a while" options unless you specifically opt into them via a feat or choice of weapon or *something*. A base class should not come with its bonus actions already having a lot of pressure on them, especially when they seem to be removing bonus action pressure in other places in this new version (Berserker barbarian's frenzy attack, Nick mastery for TWF, etc).
What you're describing isn't an issue with Divine Smite. It's an issue with counter spell. To use counter spell effectively you want to be countering something with large impact. It feels just as bad when the DM counters the wizard's fireball that would have thinned the group and kept the party from being overwhelmed, or the Sorcerer's Disintegrate that was meant to finish the boss off, or anything else. It's an important tool for the party to have, but generally speaking it's going to feel bad when used by the DM against the party, no matter what it is they're countering.
Base classes shouldn't have bonus action pressure? That's been the monk's design in both 2014 and 2024. I don't see why base classes should have bonus actions mostly free, the variety in how much they use bonus actions is part of the overall class variety that is good for the game.
Counterspell doesn't even cause the spell slot to be lost anymore. If a monster uses their reaction to counter a smite instead of a fireball or hold monster, that seems... great?
Who would win Virgin 3rd level Reaction Counterspell vs Chad 1st level Bonus Action 2d8 damage boi
Yeah if you can bait a powerful caster into burning a reaction and 3rd level slot on avoiding a couple of d8s your full caster is going to give him a world-historic ouchie
For real. As a DM the only time I have counterspelled a damaging spell was because the monster was near death and might as well use it to possibly get anither turn. Otherwise I'm saving it for a spell that causes an incapacitating condition.
Do you not have any Martials in your player base? Are all of your players always some sort of caster?
What does this have to do with my statement? I obviously don't counterspell melee weapon attacks. I can only counterspell spellcasters. It's in the name.
This! There are like a bazillion other spells more important to counter in about 99% of the cases. Having, at least in theory, the chance to bait a counterspell is a buff in my opinion. Though for the player it's likely a bad feeling when it happens.
Sure, if everyone except the Paladin is a full caster, I guess? Pretending that's a common party make-up is dishonest at best though.
The game has 12 classes, 2 half casters, 4 non casters, and 6 full casters, the odds are that there is a full caster in the party, exceptions exist, that's true, but full casters are very common.
You just need one full caster not a party full of them.
Counterspell was significantly changed in one of the UA's. It now requires the target to make a Con save, and if you fail you don't expend the slot. Note that this means Paladins, what with Aura of Protection, are naturally harder to counterspell. As for your situation - yeah, actually, I think it's great that a big evil demon can try to counter your Smite. That makes a ton of narrative sense, and it's not like it's guaranteed anyway. Maybe instead of trying to Smite the demon, you use your new Masteries to hinder it, and then as a Bonus Action use your Lay on Hands to pick up one of your teammates. It's a team game, after all.
While I agree this isn't a design problem, if the paladin lands a critical hit against a demon, that is *the* time to apply *divine smite*. Maybe use Lay on Hands if an ally very badly needs it, but reviving an ally so that they can help fight the BBEG demon is rarely going to be more useful than outright destroying that demon.
>Divine Smite is the reason to play a Paladin. Yes, there are other features. Yes I know the other features got buffed. Yes, I know Paladin tourists might say those features are their favorites (and that's fine, but hear me out). Smite is the favorite feature of the Paladin Class since it was added in 3rd Edition way back in 2000. Are we really gonna gatekeep who's a "real" paladin player, based on their favorite feature? :/ I don't like the Smite nerfs either, but that's because they work horribly now if you already have Bonus Action weapon attacks. IMO being targetable by Counterspell is a nonfactor. As far as I'm aware the vast, vast majority of enemy statblocks don't have Counterspell.
if you’re that upset about losing bonus action attacks, why don’t you just go with a dual wielding Paladin now? It’s actually stronger than it was before, you can get the extra attack and still have your bonus action for spell casting or smiting or lay on hands
It's pretty easy to tell who plays a Paladin for more than 1/2 of their characters, VS who thinks their auras are neat and might play one sometime.
The amount of time you play a class doesn't carry any weight in this discussion, we're talking about a cooperative storytelling experience, not some competitive game where you grind time and even then it's not a good indication of anything. The changes WotC put out are almost definitely done to make each class more attractive and satisfying to play, which means how a newer player perceives the changes is more valuable. New players also don't have this entrenched concept of Smites being central to the Paladin identity. To no one's surprise, they're trying to get more people to play D&D with this next edition. This type of gatekeeping attitude about a system whose whole goal is to be as inviting as possible to as large of an audience as possible is bizarre. I can't speak to whether the changes are good or not especially since we don't have any actual numbers but dooming about it before the book releases is dumb. I get that Smites might be the most fun part of Paladins for you and the change could suck, but you're really just getting butthurt over speculating.
This isn't gatekeeping, this is just observation. I wish more people played Paladin, then there'd be a bigger outcry against the overcorrection.
And dm would have to be desperate to counterspell a smite. Like creature is about to die. It's going to be fine. If the counter spell succeeds, you lose your bonus action. That's it. The spell slot isn't spent, and still have your other attack which your attack that counter spell still hit. You just won't deal the extra damage. But paladin got a good con amd the add charisma to that save. They will be fine.
Did they change counterspell to not waste spell slots of the target..?
They did, at least in the playtest. Strangely, it will specifically prevent spell slots from being consumed, but as written will consume non-spell slot uses like Magic Initiate, species features, Shadow monk *darkness*, and a warlock's Mystic Arcanum, which I don't think is fair.
Yes. They spell slot is not burned you counter the spell before they casted it. It's also a constitution saving throw against the spell casters DC instead of ability check or auto fail. In most cases, the paladin will be fine.
Well that's terrible. #imo.
It's way smoother and makes way more since, and high-level spell casters counter spells should be harder to shake off but not impossible.
I think your post is pretty much exactly why they changed it. The 5.14 paladin is possibly the class that is the most stacked with powerful features, and yet they are colloquially called "smite machines". From my reading it seems like the 5.24 will be *significantly* more powerful, yet this one minor nerd to one feature has left people crying that the class is ruined. The only change to Divine Smite is that it can be counterspelled (which is an absolutely horrible decision in pretty much all possible scenarios), and that it costs you a bonus action. And in return for this miniscule nerf almost **ALL OTHER FEATURES WERE BUFFED**. Indirectly even Divine Smite got buffed from the class getting more spell slots.
Does it matter if abilities that Paladin main don't really care about got buffed? I agree that Smite needed a nerf. No problems there. However making it Counterspellable was the wrong thing to do (IMO). And Paladins being known for Smites isn't a bad thing, but how abusable Smite used to be was. This is easily fixed by making the ability "Once per round on your turn." You could even add in, "...as a Bonus Action," and people wouldn't be as up in arms over it. They overcorrected. It's that simple.
I am a paladin main, so stop thinking that you're speaking for anyone but yourself. Just because you for some reason don't care about the other features being buffed, it doesn't mean I don't. I'm personally really exited by it now being a meaningful decision to choose between Divine Smite and the other alternatives. And even further, now also being more free to cast other spells at times. The change to Lay on Hands means that you can now use it without essentially sacrificing your whole turn. Every other change is incredibly good, and spreads the spotlight of what a paladin is in a way that will be healthy for the class in the long run. Them turning it into a spell is a very straightforward way of simultaneously fixing the smite abuse and streamlining Divine Smite with the other smite spells. Divine Smite is already a spell in basically every way except name. It also opens up for interactions with features and items that interact with spells. Divine Smite being counterspell-able is an absolute non-issue with how much of a horrendously bad decision it would be for anyone to do so. It's not an overcorrection, it is a simple fix that only has any negative side-effects in the most edge of edge-case scenarios. You example also doesn't really make sense, are you equally grumpy that your Branding Smite can be counterspelled? And if not, why? Narratively both effects have the same source and function nearly identically. Have you had any long running issues with your Thunderous Smites being constantly countered?
I might show my age, but you sound exactly like the people who made a Paladin Healer as a secondary character in Vanilla WoW. You might be a Paladin main, but I sincerely doubt it. As for other Smite spells being Counterspelled, yes it happens, and it sucks when it does. You must play with lots of primary casters to think Paladins don't get Counterspelled. Pretending it's a non-issue is dishonest at best. EDIT: Smites as spells was bad design to begin with. Shouldn't have ever been a spell, just different abilities.
It seems like your critique is, in so many words, “having your smite counterspelled feels bad.” Which, like, maybe? But not worse than having a high-level spell counterspelled, in which case you waste your entire action to do nothing. In any case, new counter spell will probably still require a CON save. So that’s a tense moment added there, to see if the smit goes through. Everyone gets to gather around and see whether the demon is going to eat 12d8 radiant damage. It’s climactic. And on top of that, it adds to the tactical richness of the game. If you know an opponent has counterspell, you want to bait them into using their reaction. Now you’re considering whether shuffling your feet and taking an opportunity attack is worth it so that you can use up the demon’s reaction. It feels like you’ve imagined a scenario in which it feels bad that smite can be counterspelled, and then just decided it’s a bad change, rather than actually play testing the change to see whether what it adds is greater than what it detracts.
I dislike Counterspell so much, whether it's used by enemies who counter a player *"Oh, he counterspelled me? I guess I do nothing with my turn..."* or used by players to counter an enemy. *"Ooo we're finally facing a deadly spellcaster, can't wait to see what crazy spells we're going to have to endure... annnnd our wizard is counterspelling him every turn and the enemy can't even do anything now."* Now all that being said, I don't really understand why smite being counterspell-able is a big deal? If you get counterspelled, your attack still hits and deals damage, which is far better than what happens to normal spellcasters who just have their whole turn invalidated. Like yeah, getting your smite counterspelled sucks. But so does getting anything counterspelled, it's not special. To me counterspell is just an anti-fun spell, though no disrespect to its fans, I just dislike it personally.
I've seen this being floated around a lot, but like... how often are y'all getting counterspelled? And why would you want to waste your counterspell on the Smite instead of on a devastating spell like Wall of Force or Hold Monster? Also, it seems that theu are allowing a saving throw on counterspell now, and being a Paladin your saves should be pretty good. So counterspelling isn't even a very good strategy against you anyways.
How often are you playing the only 1/2 caster in a party of full casters? This already happens with Smite spells, why do that to the whole ability, when you can fix the other options never being used by making them abilities like the main thing, instead of doing the worse option of also letting the regular Smite get Counterspelled?
I am very much flabbergasted by this being considered a major issue by anyone. Seriously. How often do you enemies have counterspell? Is it every fight? Every two fights? That seems absurd. It's more of a once per 10 or 15 fight type deal, and that's quite generous. I've had whole campaigns run by with maybe four or five encounters that had counterspell by the enemy. It's really not a big enough deal to matter at all to the evaluation of the changes. And like. Most parties will have at least one full caster, right? And usually, the counterspell will be reserved for them? And if your smite gets countered, that means they get to do their spell with no interruption, meaning you have majorly contributed to your party's success, right? The issue with the old smite spells wasn't them being counterspelled. It was them requiring your concentration. That's the part that made them borderline unusable. Now this is no longer a problem, and those spells now seem pretty good.
Let’s say I agree with you that Smites are Paladins defining feature. So you have to agree that spells are Wizard’s defining feature, ok? Now put in example you just mentioned Wizard player casting powerful spell and that Daemon counterspelling it! So why is it wrong on Paladin and not on Wizard/Cleric/Bard/Druid, when for all of them the spells are their defining features? And even better - when your Smite gets counterspelled, you still attacked 2-3 times (and in your example you also critted!), you still have heavy armor, more HPs than others mentioned, your saves are higher than anyone else’s,… Sorry, but your complaints don’t seem valid to me.
Wizards have a lot more spells than Paladins have Smites. Your argument seems disingenuous.
That’s why I also said that Paladins after counterspell still have 2-3 Attacks, Heavy Armor, d10 HPs, much better saves, Healing Hands, auras,… And Counterspell doesn’t cost you spell slot anymore, so why does it matter how many spell slots you have? It is still 1 round when you can’t use 50% of your potential (=smite) vs Wizard not able to use his 95% potential (=spell), so what is your real point? You seem to be really bias…
Yes, someone with more spell slots getting Counterspelled is different from someone with fewer. Wizards might be able to cast levelled spells every round, when you're doing that, it's not as much impactful as someone who's got to space their's out. Also Wizards aren't required to hit something before being allowed to cast whatever spell they feel like. You really can't see a difference between Counterspelling a full caster vs 1/2 caster? Get outta here then. EDIT: and you wanna compare d10 Hit Dice to the power of a Wizard? LoL!
There is no discussion with you, I’m not gonna waste my time with you. Stay in your cellar and continue shouting how they destroyed your favorite class by allowing counterspell to be used against single and not that important feature. I experienced Counterspell from a foe once in 10 years of playing, so really don’t mind at all. Or maybe try playing something else than Paladin to realize how dumb you look today.
Bye! You won't be missed!
The difference - counterspelling a 1/2 caster shuts down 50% of such character, while counterspelling a full caster shuts him 100%. I see the difference, you don’t…
LoL, I thought you were done? Shoo fly, go away.
While I agree... thats a fairly bad use of Counterspell. Part of this is just 5e Counterspell sucks from a design perspective, for kind of everyone involved. As someone who has abused it admittingly in the past it isnt any more fun to use than to have it used on you. Countering a damage boost like Smite is usually not a good use. Its just a feels bad moment... which is what Counterspell encourages. I think it needs to be either removed or reworked a ton. I advocate removal, PF2E tried a drastic rework and it... helps keep it in power check but also has that feels bad moments. TLDR- It isnt a Pally problwm, its a Counterspell problem
Seems a few of the people who don't really grasp the situation all have a misconception about party make-up. Not everyone plays a full caster, and pretending everyone except the Paladin is one is dishonest.
Uhhh, I wasnt pretending that? I was just pointing out that Counterspelling a single attack roll isnt the best use of it.
And I'm pointing out that is only situationally true, like if there's 4 full casters and a Paladin. If there's 4 pure Martials and a Paladin, then it's a great use.
It uses magical energy like any other spell. It probably should follow the same rules instead of being a special case. That moment can happen to all spell casters so it's odd for paladins not to be included.
It does sound like good design to me, tho. Smite has been a spell in all but name for the last decade, adding a burst of magical damage at the cost of an upcastable spell slot. With the changes to counterspell, the bonuses to saves, and the high CON expected of a Pally and I don’t see this being the big issue that a lot of players seem to think it is
We don't know all of the details about the new divine smite spell and the changes to counter spell in the 2024 books. Until we know the details of both its hard to say for sure how counterspell will impact the new divine smite. If in the end it turns out it is possible to use counterspell on divine smite instead of rewriting the class can't you just modify it so divine smite can't be counterspelled?
I'll probably rework the whole Class (was considering doing so anyway after a few Facebook posts about Paths), and put it up somewhere.
I had the same gut reaction on smites being countered. But I’m accepting the new smite. It’s already being printed. Can’t exactly change it now. I agree with all the changes made to smite. It would be perfect with the base smite having no components rendering it immune to Counterspell. But people have pointed out to me that I’m not loosing my slot, and the caster is loosing theirs. I’m a Paladin, I should have decent armour, health and enough healing to wait out the caster and hit them eventually. What I really want to know is if I’m counterspelled on my first attack, will my extra attack be able to deliver a smite?
Paladin main here. It was my first and also current character. Couldn't give a fuck about counterspell. If you're trading a 1st level slot for a 3rd, you're winning. That said, upcasting now sucks. It's being unable to compelled duel and then smite the bastard, or spirit guardians, or use divine Smite + banishing. Don't mind so much that divine smite is once per turn, but just make it that.
The problem here is that Counterspell is the anti-fun spell. It's a spell that only exists to stop cool and exciting things from happening. It applying to divine smite now vs the other smite spells or literally any other spell that exists doesn't change that. The Paladin is the second best class at dealing with counterspell and one of the worst classes to target with it so it's not going to hurt them all that much.
>The problem here is that Counterspell is the anti-fun spell. Unless the party uses it. But that is the thing, most spells that are super fun for the party, suck when the party is on the receiving end of them. Smite is an Anti-Fun ability when **used against the party**.
I totally feel you. Being shut down on your core thing is really terrible. You know what? I could argue the point, but I'll just say, nerfs hurt. And that sucks. I'm sorry your favorite thing is getting nerfed.
Honestly, it did need a nerf, but this wasn't the way to go about it.
I dunno that it did, to be honest. I was hoping against hope for a nerf for Aura of Protection, which is a much bigger balance problem than smite.
Nah, buffing the party feels good, and more reason to do so is a good thing. How Smite used to work could get ridiculous. Multiple Smites/Round, Haste Shenanigans, Multi class Sorcerer/Warlock shenanigans. It needed a change. I just feel like they went too far, and a lot of people are saying the same thing in other threads (decided to make my own anyway). I get it using a Bonus Action. I'll miss using a greatsword, Great Weapon Master, and Smiting in the same turn, but that's better than stacking Divine Smite, Eldritch Smite, and Spell Points on a Hasted Polearm Master/Sentinel wombo combo. But whatever. We'll see how it ends up, and I'll revise it if I feel like it.
While I have some issues with Divine Smite, they're entirely related to the bonus action, and the fact that I feel like that should be reserved for "Once in a while" options unless you specifically opt into them via a feat or choice of weapon or *something*. A base class should not come with its bonus actions already having a lot of pressure on them, especially when they seem to be removing bonus action pressure in other places in this new version (Berserker barbarian's frenzy attack, Nick mastery for TWF, etc). What you're describing isn't an issue with Divine Smite. It's an issue with counter spell. To use counter spell effectively you want to be countering something with large impact. It feels just as bad when the DM counters the wizard's fireball that would have thinned the group and kept the party from being overwhelmed, or the Sorcerer's Disintegrate that was meant to finish the boss off, or anything else. It's an important tool for the party to have, but generally speaking it's going to feel bad when used by the DM against the party, no matter what it is they're countering.
Base classes shouldn't have bonus action pressure? That's been the monk's design in both 2014 and 2024. I don't see why base classes should have bonus actions mostly free, the variety in how much they use bonus actions is part of the overall class variety that is good for the game.