Playtest 6 Paladin: One dnd

[@honorarybard3189]

I know this is a minor part of the video, but: I took Protection on my first character, who was a Tiefling Paladin. We were Level 3, and came to a fortress inhabited by the "Skeleton King," where people from our organization were tied to a pole in the freezing weather to die and be turned into skeletons. We rescued them, and were attacked by a battalion of skeletons, some had four arms. I stayed by one of the captives, as the four armed skeleton made four attacks against this unarmored paladin with 1HP. I (misreading the Fighting Style) interposed my shield, and deflected all four of the attacks, protecting and eventually rescuing him. I have since realized that only one would have been at disadvantage, and have never taken Protection again, because the only time it was cool to use was when I misread it haha.

[@thebitterfig9903]

Such a small change, but that'd be so handy. Letting Protection apply to all the attacks of one attacker against the protected target seems pretty fair, but also something that'd reasonably.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

@@thebitterfig9903 Considering that the Shield spell effectively lets you decide the most optimal time to apply a huge +5 that can stack with anything, it seems reasonable to me to extend mere Disadvantage to all attacks for a resourceless reaction on a character whose only other reaction is an OA, that protects only one other person and so doesn't even stop the creature from deciding to target you instead.

[@freman007]

It's like Monk. It's only good if you cheat. So no harm, no foul.

[@derektom14]

I once made the exact same mistake, I let a fighter use Protection to impose disadvantage on all seven of a marilith's attacks, so absolutely none of then hit an allied paladin. Whoops.

[@Zanmatopt]

My only sadness with smites becoming spells, is that it blocks the possiblity of multiclassing between barbarian and paladin. As you are no longer capable of smiting while raging.

[@chuckchan4127]

That's probably why they did that. Honestly, multi-classing is not a good feature due to implementation: too easy to break it IMO.

[@partyontheobjective]

You know, the ability to cast the Steed in combat with an action, immediately made me think about Brave Sir Robin, and that "Until we meet again!" Skeletor meme.

[@Deris87]

Funny you mention Skeletor, my first thought was He-man "summoning" Battlecat. Now I need to plan out a Glory Paladin build.

[@andrewbrowder7062]

Regarding the ancients Paladin 7th level aura, believe the design team has said they want to have less spells on monsters and more "magical abilities." This might make the old aura less effective against the new monster manual. The lack of knowledge about enemies makes it difficult to judge these types of features.

[@gloryrod86]

That a great point. Ill also point out that i think i prefer this ability even if what you said isn't true. I personally face more monsters that do these types of damage than truly dangerous spellcasters. Also thematically it makes more sense to me.

[@Klaital1]

Yeah I like the new aura, even fi radiant and psychic are not that common damage types, necrotic sure is.

[@jwktiger05]

my first Paladin was Oath of the Acients; and in 2 years of playing it, I've used the 7th level aura *once*. Since the DM knows, they don't target spells at me or within 10feet. BUT at the same time Legendary abilities, like those of dragons bypass this damage reduction. I saw the level 7 and was thinking tha twould be awesome but how monsters, and often mini-bosses attack its not actually spells so its worthless. Making it straight Psycic, Necrotic, and Radiant Damage reduction makes it simpler and more fair. It also fits the theme better imo.

[@cfalkner1012]

“Level 13 would have yielded better results!”

[@thiagoknofel8982]

A feature like Divine Order, which allows the player to choose between 2 cantrips or 2 mastery properties would be much more appropriate. Thematically valid option is always better

[@daanopdebeeck2312]

Agreed, also just two options is way too few where one is the 'caster' option and the other the 'martial' option

[@thebitterfig9903]

My personal preference would be two cantrips, one mastery baseline at level 1, with a second mastery once you level up some, 7th or 10th level or such. That puts a Paladin or Ranger at even footing with their principle weapon, same power with what they use most (and they could still change with a long rest), but they wouldn't have as much weapon-utility flexibility. I don't dislike the idea of a choice... tho maybe include 1-and-1 as well as 2 of either.

[@LusterMoonYT]

Yeah i want a choice. My favorite paladin is a non-violent redemption paladin. I choose that over cleric cause I like lay on hands and the auras, as well as the theme of my power coming from an oath rather than a God. Anyway, blessed warrior was nice cause my character didn't do any damage. So I used guidance and resistance alot. Being forced into fighting styles, weapon mastery and smiting is lame. The cool part about paladin is the oath and the aura

[@kennyostrom3098]

While you have a good point, it smells like an "illusion of choice" issue if weapon mastery is always the better option. But assuming backwards compatibility, wouldn't that mean blessed warrior fighting style from tasha's is still an option?

[@thiagoknofel8982]

@@kennyostrom3098 well, in terms of how the paladin is configured now, I think it's a valid option. We know that the choice of cantrips will almost always lie on resistance and guide. It ends up being more of a choice between support X combat utility.

[@MegaZed]

It's also worth noting that making the Divine Smite spell a bonus action also makes it impossible to smite on a held action, since that would also require your reaction. Even though I would HATE for the uniformity of the smite spells to be disrupted (for reasons of simplicity), they COULD choose to correct this by simply allowing Divine Smite to be usable as a reaction as well as a bonus action. A spell with multiple casting times is unusual, but it's ON E way to do it.

[@gloryrod86]

I think it's fine that its impossible to smite on a held action or reaction. Unlike sneak attack that doesn't feel like its as big a part of the paladin identity

[@minikawildflower]

Good point! And that could be one little extra thing for the divine smite, where if you're using it as a held action or reaction your only option is the classic smite as opposed to the bonuses. I think having something unique about the "classic" version is definitely ok!

[@Rubycule]

I believe this is intentional. When looking at this and the monk, I noticed something. Stunning Strike is now also 1/turn (but can be used on a reaction attack). Limiting resource bound on hit abilities like this means the resource doesn't run out as fast anymore. A level 5 paladin used to be able to burn quickly through most of their spell slots. A monk Was able to burn a lot of ki just by using stunning strike. I believe this is an attempt of making the resources last longer. Now, smite spells have been improved by adding versatility. Sadly, the monk only got nerfed and its Power budget wasn't redistributed elsewhere. :/

[@HunterTracks]

Or they could've, and hear me out here, added the other spells as Divine Smite feature options while keeping the once per turn restriction. The current approach has more holes than a cheese grater made out of actual cheese. Also, reaction casting wouldn't work for prepared attacks, since prepared attacks already use your reaction. You don't make the attack as a part of your casting of smite, so you would need two reactions to activate it.

[@MegaZed]

@@HunterTracks is it really a "hole" if it was designed with intent? And the language could be, as opposed to changing the casting time, include a line that says, "This spell can also be cast as part of a reaction you take when you hit with a melee weapon or unarmed strike attack." But, as I said, I'd hate to remove the uniformity that they've created for the Smite spells, so, personally, I will not cry over this nerf to Divine Smite (damage option, since the actual feature is a huge buff).

[@indigoblacksteel1176]

I feel like moving the Paladin's Lay on Hands to a Bonus Action could have been awesome if they hadn't ALSO moved the Smites to Bonus Actions. You mentioned that a Feat bonus action might be made 20% of the time, but I feel like between Smites and Lay on Hands, you're probably talking

[@caosisaac]

When you think about it though you could never use both lay on hands and smite on the same turn anyway. So nothing is lost there. We just gain the ability to attack and lay on hands on the same turn.

[@wassentme1891]

​@@caosisaacI would have liked a numbers buff more than an action-economy buff. (using a full action just feels better thematically rather than being a quick thing you toss in between attacks)

[@alexmiller1800]

It’s ironic that Paladins are starting to feel the pain Rangers have felt for years: EVERYTHING is competing for your Bonus Action I guess the idea is that Paladins SHOULDN’T be smiting on every turn, but the Bonus Action cost is a little high. No Shield Master BA shove, no PAM BA attack, no Telekinetic Feat BA shove, no GWM BA attack. A lot of great Feats have much more limited use now for Paladins. I think a once per turn limit was 100% necessary on Smites and making them spells is interesting, but it really hurts their Feat options which are super important for Martials.

[@macromondo8026]

I like the new paladin smite spells in general (looking at you Banishing Smite) BUT I would still very much like if Divine Smite was a class feature, just for being able to bypass limitations of spells (I feel Half Casters should have features to let them shine in situation where a lv5 spell just won't cut it in general because in those situations Full Casters can just power through with higher level spells.)

[@wassentme1891]

Maybe magic immunity will include references to a spell list (Primal, Arcane, etc.) so these custom spells can bypass it. Fighting a monster with limited immunity to one spell list over others and getting a chance to use your class-specific spells would be cool.

[@EpicRandomness555]

My 2 thoughts are, 1. The Paladin aura should have a gradual progression in its expansion instead of shooting up at later levels. 2. The Ancients aura no longer giving resistance to damage from spells only matters if you’re fighting spellcasters all the time, which is pretty rare I feel. Maybe it could have one other damage resistance. Maybe Thunder or Force.

[@CivilWarMan]

In the survey, I suggested that Aura of Warding be changed so the Paladin provides some damage resistances that can be changed each long rest, or maybe even short rest since they seem to be moving back to making them relevant for some classes again. Limit it to elemental resistances (so no piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning) and perhaps reduce the number of resistances to compensate for the extra ability to tailor the aura to match expected upcoming threats. That way if the party's going into an area with a lot of poison and fire damage or cold the thunder damage, the aura's still relevant.

[@briang3598]

I think they could afford to extend the aura range to 20 feet, or at least 15 feet, at 13th level since nothing else is going on besides a higher spell slot, and the benefit exclusively helps your allies, not you, so you aren't exactly made to outshine anyone else further by getting that slightly better aura range.

[@RJWhitmore]

The major analysis that I believe needs to be done here is what new Spells are now available to the Paladin with the Divine list being used and how that plays out for a Paladin *at the level they are acquired*. One of the major disappointments for the 5e Paladin has always been the Class Spell List, with Bless as a Level 1 Spell basically beating out all other options (subclasses can add here, though). The other major disappointment has always been Smite. Coincidentally (or, perhaps not), these features both used the Spell Slots Paladin got, which actually made Smite viable at all - well, until you multiclassed for actually good Spells. Now the Spell List is the entire Divine list, which should make Spell Slots more competitive - coincidentally (again, perhaps not), the Smites have improved (well, not Divine Smite, but the others). In general, the 5e Paladin only really had one thing going for it, despite the surface veneer; Aura of Protection. Outside of the Aura, damage and survivability was both higher on other classes (largely ranged options, which Paladin cannot really do), even factoring in Smite, while the Spells offered little. You always wanted one for the Aura though (and Bless is always nice).

[@ilovethelegend]

Looking over the lists now. I think the biggest highlights for spells that paladin has now that they didn't have before are hold person, spiritual weapon, and spirit guardians. I'm actually not sure about spiritual weapon. Didn't they nerf it so it ate concentration last playtest? Even if that change is out, I wonder if the paladin has better things to do with their bonus action than maybe 1d8+4.

[@AtelierGod]

@@ilovethelegenduse spirits guardian with the feat metamagic adept to quicken spell cast it, be a lv.7 conquest paladin and use your channel divinity conquering presence to frighten all creatures within 30 feet of you, now Aura of conquest will make all frightened enemies within take damage equal to half your paladin level but it’s the 0 speed thing we want, now with spirits guardian up you’ll also do 3d8 damage a turn to all within the aura and with a 0 speed they can’t escape, just sit in your butt and wait for someone to break free of the frightened condition then fight them as one at the time as they slowly die.

[@wassentme1891]

My only note is that Lay-on-Hands scales really well and can cleanse some debilitating effects. A lot of tanks can run into trouble with wasted survivability, but with Paladin? You can share your health pool, unlike Fighter or Barbarian.

[@minikawildflower]

I know much of the attention is on smites but I LOVE making the steed spells paladin exclusive. Between that and some of the unique smites improving, it really feels like there is a reason to go deep into the Paladin class, if that's the theme you want. Before it was so easy to replicate some of that stuff with levels of Bard/Cleric/Sorcerer/Warlock, etc

[@minikawildflower]

And I totally agree with Chris on smites - that the individual Divine Smite is a bit less strong, but the unique smites now feel like true upgrades to the classic smite, so the whole package of smite options feels better to me.

[@neisan92]

​@minikawildflower I think they should all have been turned into features instead of spells. The downside of making them spells and removing all of the flexibility of the base smite makes the base smite utterly gutted and useless. You lose so much of the potential it had for slight uniformity that could have been given in a better way.

[@M9Seradon]

I feel the opposite. The Paladin was already the only class to natively get find steed so them making it Paladin exclusive doesn't really change much, but the changes to Find Steed and Smite (and Spiritual Weapon which Paladins now get) now heavily favor multiclassing out after getting your key features in favor of fullcaster progression. Before the only way to have a flying steed was to stick with the class until lvl 13 or play Bard and use Magical Secrets for it, but now you just stay in Paladin until level 5 then play Bard/Sorc. Your spellcasting is delayed by 2 levels and you'll never have 9th level spells but you barely ever see 9th level spells anyways and in return you get effectively permanent fly speed at lvl 9, faster spell progression, cantrips, and all the full caster features which will naturally push you to be a stronger Paladin than you ever could if you stayed "pure".

[@minikawildflower]

@@M9Seradon oh interesting, I didn't think about how upcasting would impact that. Good point.

[@eewweeppkk]

Once again here to rear my ugly head and complain that they sucked some fun out of warlock. Can't believe they gutted the pact of the tome so hard, and already fairly weak but flavorful option now made even weaker with less flavor.

[@LeoAndrares]

A reminder that half cover also gives the +2 bonus to dex saves, not only AC, i'm just saying this bc i think it's the second time on these recent videos where you referred only to the AC part, doesn't change A LOT of the power level but it is better than just the +2 AC

[@Byssbod]

I tend to forget about that dex save benefit, personally. I'll bet it's common as hell

[@CivilWarMan]

There are major issues with the idea that it's fine if Paladins do less damage because of their utility. First, a lot of the Paladin's utility comes at the expense of them doing damage, because many of those abilities either require a bonus action (like Lay on Hands, Vow of Enmity, or Sacred Weapon), which removes their ability to Smite, or their action (like Abjure Foes or Nature's Wrath), which also removes their ability to Smite. If the Smite spells had no action requirement, but still kept the spell slot cost and the once-per-turn limit, then there would be much less problem with them still doing less damage than equivalent level Fighters, Barbarians, or Rogues because they could deal damage and provide the utility at the same time. Second, Valor or Swords Bards with a 2 level Paladin dip still get a lot of the benefits of single-class Paladins, but also have greater utility and damage potential. Compared to a 13th level single-classed Paladin, a Paladin 2/Valor Bard 11 still gets Heavy Armor, Extra Attack, Weapon Mastery, and Divine and Thunderous Smites. They lose Channel Divinity, Faithful Steed, Auras, Abjure Foes, the higher level Smite spells, and Radiant Strikes. However, they gain more flexible spell selection, more spell slots, higher level spell slots, much better skill rolls, cantrips, and Bardic Inspiration. They can smite more often, and while their smites won't have the variety of the Paladin's, their individual smites will hit harder because they can upcast them higher. With Swords Bard, their Inspiration won't even compete with Smiting, because Sword Flourishes don't have an action cost, so they'll hit even harder. So the Bard Paladin could potentially hit harder more often than a single-class Paladin, and all while having comparable or better utility.

[@freman007]

They have Searing Smite, which is probably the best of the Smite spells because it does 2d6 damage before the target can make a save.

[@z4p0tek]

Thank you Chris! This is a great analysis and giving feed back from this playtest to the Wotc based on this analysis is easy. I hope that people give a well thought feed back and not ruin these well done classes (minus the monk) for the rest of us.

[@Melorific]

I think an important consideration for the ancients paladin aura is that lately they've been moving away from including spells on monster stat blocks. So even if we're not sure if it's better or not than the old version when using old monster stat blocks. The old version does not work with the new design direction and would be terrible if monsters stopped casting spells at all.

[@thiagoknofel8982]

In my eyes, the protective aura will become more useful despite the loss of potential. It's much rarer for you to be the target of magic than some type of specific damage from monsters. Even so, I suggested in research that they add force damage to the other 3, to make it more useful against creatures with magical traits (and spellcasters).

[@Whiplash557]

I was a bit sour on the smite before, but you moved my mind on it! I'm quite exicited to play a One DND paladin when it comes out! Hopefully they touch up banishing smite though

[@kaemonbonet4931]

Idk, it feels bad that everything is crowded into the bonus action. I also don't like that all smites are a spell but it's less important than it used to be because now no matter what you're spending your bonus action. Previously, my big sticking point was that smiting was a magic action even if it wasn't a spell because it meant you couldn't do things like misty step and smite in the same turn which is a feel bad for me. Now they've changed the language but it's the same effect. I can understand how the limitation encourages use of the more interesting spells but it also just feels limiting. This paladin seems like it's much less multi class friendly which I'm sure was the point. That and throttling the burst damage. Idk it just seems like it's way throttled. In your example the high end of the damage was something like 66, which considering it's only eight points higher than the barbarians every turn damage seems bad. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd like them to ease up on the bonus action requirement or something. Or give the paladin back it's non spell option so it can smite not on its turn.

[@ryanscanlon2151]

I've suggested it before and based on what you were saying I think rogue should be the new baseline not eldritch blast hex. With every video in the 6th play test eldritch blast and he's just feels worse and worse, when you picked it everyone agreed that it felt like good damage but now it just feels flaccid. Rogue is the cleanest embodiment of the new 1 per turn damage boosts wizards has decided to focus on over the multi attack with damage stacking. It also fits nicely a balance of interesting mechanics vs power output, as it out damages the paladin slightly but the paladin has more interesting mechanics where as fighter and barbarian deal more damage but have fewer interesting mechanics. It just feels like that's where the point of comparison should be not eldritch blast hex.

[@freman007]

At level 11 Eldritch Blast has the same damage as a Monk without Flurry of Blows.

[@_zurr]

Man getting the Steed as an Action sounds hilarious, especially if you cast it immediately after it dies.

[@TherinCreative]

Regarding the Oath of the Ancients aura, it'll depend on the DM's penchant for using spells. Since they started moving away from monsters and NPC stat blocks casting spells and instead using actions that mimic spells, the 2014 feature isn't looking as strong, but homebrew DMs that do still employ spellcasting monsters and NPCs will increase the value of the old version. The UA6 version makes the paladin a lot more valuable against a lot of undead, but Radiant and Psychic damage aren't as common, but it should generally still be good, especially if more monsters start dealing those types of damage through their actions.

[@brenthall5971]

I've been dming an ancients pally for several years in a long term campaign using a few different campaign books. We both thought that Aura of Warding would be super powerful. Unfortunately, its not. We both overestimated how uncommon it is for npcs to use an actual spell against players. Most of the time the npcs use spell like abilities, not spells. Sure. It's come in handy and useful against npc casters. It's just much less common than we expected. Many times, we go a whole session without it coming into play.

[@statpaca]

Chris I know I'm late and you probably won't see this, but I really like when you calls things that are too powerful too powerful. While power is fun and there's a general power creep to the game, having options that are way better than anything else limits options. In the 2014 game I think it's difficult to justify any other class mechanically as a frontline character compared to the paladin. It looks like with the redesign that's no longer the case.

[@dajhier1]

I'm new to ttrpgs only been playing for about a year but it's disgustingly obvious to me how easily exploitable and unbalanced alot of player options actually are so alot of the playtest material makes me sigh in relief no matter how much the community complains online I think things need to be nerfed for the overall health of the game

[@AwesomeWookiee]

Giving Cantrips to Paladins adds an entire extra play style, especially for a Devotion Paladin (who can add Charisma to weapon attack rolls to get the Smite in). Having a choice between a cantrip or a mastery would make such a fun difference.

[@Psuedo-Nim]

I suspect Paladin smite spells will be changed to not be a bonus action, but simply allowed to be cast after a weapon hit, with perhaps a once-per-turn limit. And maybe even the basic Divine Smite might get exempted from that.

[@heroniusnapalmv6990]

I'm afraid that is just wishful thinking

[@Psuedo-Nim]

@@heroniusnapalmv6990 I'm not saying it should, I'm just thinking if the D&D team reacts to commentary, I think a lot of feedback from players will ask for that bonus action be removed. Sometimes players ask for too much on a class, not thinking of the balance implications. Like Treanmonk, I think it's fine if Paladins do less damage than dedicated fighters.

[@HunterTracks]

​@@Psuedo-NimI agree that it's fine for paladins to do less damage than fighters, but I think that should be done through buffs to fighters, not nerfs to paladins. For me, even despite weapon masteries, fighters and barbarians could use some tactical options that would make them less boring to play, and it provides a great opportunity to balance out the classes.

[@bcw1nc865]

You should go over how they are supporting martials in Baldurs Gate III, I think that some of it really should make it's way into one DND Couple examples: shove is a bonus action, frenzy doesn't give exhaustion, you don't need to make the attack action in order to use a bonus action to make an off hand attack.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

I think a lot of skill type actions really should just be a bonus action. Rogues are still phenomenal by getting access to more main actions as bonus actions.

[@Seraphim_MTG]

One note about the magic initiate that's worth noting, anyone can take Shillelagh with it and be single ability dependant as a caster/martial mix. Matters a lot to paladins I think.

[@Jnom73]

It is an absolute crime that this channel isn’t above 100k subs. Another great video.

[@Ephsy]

There's plenty of high level stuff that incapacitates without a saving-throw. That's the caveat: The paladin get their aura, mostly unnerfed. Then the DM can just incapacitate them and have a field day.

[@Marc.Google]

The data points you provide are my absolute favourite and of which I look forward to the most with you every new Unearthed Arcana! (in response to the 1 minute mark of this video…)

[@r.downgrade5836]

Love the capstone and change to Ancient's Channel Divinity, and, I guess the 7th Level aura makes it worth while to take Magic Initiate at first level to grab the Absorb Elements spell. Probably the best candidate for a Dexadin still.

[@Jedwoods]

I found, with Warding Aura, that I was constantly asking my DM 'is that a spell?' before knowing whether to apply resistance. At least this way the player will know without having to ask.

[@adamjohnson182]

11:19 I mostly agree that Aura of Protection is a crazy powerful feature at level 6. The other thing to consider is that there aren’t many other ways to boost saving throws in D&D, and Paladins are also almost always in melee, so it only benefits other melee/adjacent PCs. This shouldn’t be affecting an entire party if you’re playing optimally because most PCs aren’t in melee range.

[@indominusolympus8802]

I think Banishing Smite is pretty easy to fix. You hit the creature, and they make the one saving throw. On a failure, the creature is banished for one minute. If the attack reduces the creature to 50 Hit Points or less, the creature automatically fails the save.

[@redrumssam5888]

A minute is a very long time

[@NateFinch]

I wish faithful steed just scaled with your paladin level rather than requiring a higher level spell. The whole "you get a free casting but not the good one if you're higher level" is just one more indication that these class features should not be spells.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

It's really annoying getting features that have static scaling in that regard, which makes it relatively weaker as time goes on when everything else scales around you.

[@kurtoogle4576]

When I did the survey, I suggested reversing the first two paladin auras. Fear immunity seems far more logical for a lower-level party boost. And yes, at Chris' recommendation, I dug into the many issues of Banishing Smite. ;)

[@Richybabes]

A note on Restoring Touch - I believe this actually has actually been changed mechanically from base lay on hands in the current version, in that you can now heal and also remove a condition with the same action, just subtracting 5hp for each condition you remove. 40 points on a Deafened + Paralyzed creature would still heal them 30hp and remove both conditions, for example. At least that's how it reads to me. Of course, this probably isn't as strong as the current Cleansing Touch that can simply end a spell on yourself or an ally with no roll.

[@holdengraham6945]

Aura of warding might be different because they are planning more stat blocks that don't cast spells.

[@NessOnett8]

I am confident that Aura of Warding is worse. But as an ancients paladin player I think that is completely fine. That feature was too good too often. And I think this is still a very strong feature that is more in line with what it should be. Also it's not a completely dead feature against non-casters, which was sometimes an issue. Not to mention the discrepancies between spells and spell-like effects and where the line is. This is just much cleaner and easier.

[@mattkoets8660]

One thing that might be worth noting for paladins' damage and utility also is that they get access to spirit guardians at level 9 now, assuming the spell stays similar by the time we see the new PHB.

[@AnaseSkyrider]

It's Schrodinger's WOTC. On the one hand, Spirit Guardians is phenomenally powerful for Clerics and they're a full caster, so it probably won't be nerfed. On the other hand, Paladin can finally cast it, so it probably will be.

[@nm2358]

​@@AnaseSkyriderIf it isn't, Paladins would have to he lunatics to waste their spell-slots on smite over Spirit Guardians, even Spirit Shroud is a competitive pick

[@thenightowldude]

Excellent analysis as usual. Many points I had missed.

[@predwin1998]

Find Steed was also just an action for Paladins in Playtest 4, but then it was a class feature changing the cast time for Paladins specifically while it was 10 minutes for all other classes. Now that other classes can't access it anymore there's no reason for Paladin to use a feature to alter the cast time of a spell that only they can cast anyway.

[@thebitterfig9903]

The big thing I don’t really love is the loss of Cantrips and the fact that Paladins and Rangers get as many weapon masteries at level one as a Barbarian. I feel like there should be more of a distinction between the half casters and the martial classes. Cantrips were an interesting form of resource-free utility that was pretty interesting. It’s not hard to get a few from background feats, but I really liked P&R getting them baseline, since spells are integral to P&R design. Meanwhile, I don’t like that they have as much attack-utility as Barbs and Rogues and Monks (lol Monks). They have all these spells, and can do a lot of really powerful things with them. Maybe just having one weapon mastery at first level, a second mastery later on, would be enough. They should get something, because all the weapon-focused classes should, but there should be more of a distinction. Two cantrips and one mastery on a Paladin or Ranger would feel really nice to me, providing lots of options, but more narrow in weapons than a martial, more narrow in spells than a full caster. The soul of a half caster. But that’s just, like, my opinion.

[@tibot4228]

Depending on what they mean by retro-compatibility, you masy still be able to get the Holy Warrior Fighting Style from Tasha's if you want cantrips.

[@HunterTracks]

Agreed! I also really dislike that third-casters are technically better at spellcasting than half-casters for levels 3 and 4, since they get cantrips and half-casters don't. After the advent of Cunning Strike, Arcane Tricksters have a lot more tactical options than any ranger subclass, both in and out of combat, and that doesn't feel quite right. Also, Weapon Mastery was made to make up for the nerfs to martial feats, so it's more than a little bit confusing to use it as justification for the removal of cantrips.

[@thebitterfig9903]

@@tibot4228 Magic Initiate is 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell, and you can take it at level 1 as part of a background. But mostly I have strong feelings that, for weapon things, Paladins and Rangers should be a noticeable step back from Fighters and Barbarians. Not a lot, but at least a little. For example, a Fighter should be a better Archer than a Ranger, period. More damage, more options for masteries. Because a Ranger can do things like heal and Pass Without Trace and summon animals, and so forth. How much worse should a Ranger be? Not much, maybe 5%-10%, but a little. For a Paladin, they’re making a choice to get a lot of powerful support abilities, healing and auras. They should be a little behind what a Barbarian can do with a great weapon or a Fighter with Sword and Board. One mastery rather than two goes a long way for that. With your main weapon, you are the equal. Same as a Fighter with a Longbow, same as Barbarian with a Maul. But you don’t have a second choice right away. Your weapon attacks are more specialized, but on par. Meanwhile, baseline cantrips would provide a different kind of utility. Stuff like guidance, resistance, message, spare the dying. I just think it’d be a better direction. I know I can figure out a way to get Cantrips. I think it’d be better to give them by default, which makes it more likely Paladins and Rangers find creative ways to use them, and so that there is a small but noticeable distance between half casters and martials for weapons.

[@timovandervalk679]

I am currently playing an Oath of Glory paladin my campaign. I have to say, it is extremely underrated. The channel divinitys as well as the spell list feel much bette,r than many assume it to be, especially with guiding bolt as a ranged option and haste, which can be doubled on your steed. Peerless Athlete has been a golden feature for me. From jumping over city walls, to jumping to cave ceilings and knocking climbing / flying enemies prone, up to carrying heavy obstacles out of the way during exploration. Tthis feature was incredibly nice to have and makes one really feel like a mighty, heroic figure. I also recommend to grab shield master with it to knock enemies prone as a BA. The new version of Peerless Athlete might last longer, but I am sad that knocking prone and grappling are now saving throw dependet, and therefore make this feature a lot less reliable.

[@SilentSooYun]

I was thinking how mad it would be if the Glory Pally were a Harengon or Centaur. Or any species with Powerful Build...

[@clarkside4493]

Regarding off turn attacks: the Paladin may not get Smites, but they will still get the extra Radiant damage from Radiant Strikes. It's not much, but it is something!

[@freman007]

But they got that from Improved Divine Smite anyway.

[@clarkside4493]

@@freman007 yeah, it could have been gone!

[@freman007]

@@clarkside4493 Given how hard WotC are trying to nerf the damage of martials, when damage is the only reason they exist, you're right, they could have taken that feature away too.

[@antiscam2468]

Remember. The new smite specifies melee weapons, not attacks. Ranged smites are available for thrown weapons, which is nice because it gives a reason to use the javelin.

[@tibot4228]

In my survey, I asked for flight speeds for your mount to be a paladin feature, instead of being dependent on spell slot level. This because a multiclassed caster with 5 levels in paladin will get access to flying mounts faster than a paladin. It's not a huge deal by any stretch, but hey, there are two dead-ish levels.

[@tibot4228]

Thrown Weapon Fighting Dex-based paladin could be interesting to try. Though a Strength-based one with tridents would probably be incredibly powerful.

[@mattdahm4289]

Thank you Treantmonk!

[@TerminalDevastation]

Personally, the I dont think a paladins' smites should expend any sort of action, bonus, reaction or normal. It should be once per turn... maybe only refreshes the ability to use it like that at the start of the paladin's turn so its use amount is still consistant with the amount of uses it is now, but increases ones options on how and when you can use it. Maybe even give the paladins a single dedicated Smite action, that can be used with any action, that refreshes upon turn start, with the paladin smite feature and only usable with the stuff given in the feature.

[@zoddlander]

I don't know how other people feel about the new Smite's not being able to be used during a Rage when multiclassing a barbarian with paladin! That is one drawback of the Smite's being spells intead of a class feature! I mean, I still think that a player that takes two barbarian levels, just to get Reckless Attacks, seems fine! I'm fine with this paladin for the most part!

[@Xorrin]

5e is not made for multiclass, outside of few overpowered build

[@neisan92]

​@@Xorrinthen remove it entirely. If they are gonna sit here and try to nerf everything so they can't be used in multiclass builds then just take the option away. They won't because they know players love it. Either wmbrace the ridiculousness of multiclassing or remove it this half way shit is obnoxious.

[@freman007]

@@neisan92 That's my opinion also. You can't nerf a feature just because it becomes overpowered in multiclass builds. That's just taking away the fun people have with those class features. We're not playing a video game. There's no such thing as an "overpowered character". We play at tables controlled by a DM who can regulate such shenanigans if they feel like it. The only spell I think needs to be banned is Silvery Barbs.

[@GunnarWahl]

Just a reminder the summon draconic spirit gives you resistance to it's breath weapon, which can be necrotic, psychic or radiant if you take a gem dragon spirit.

[@roninhare9615]

I think they ought to implement an improved smite post level 5, using the two weapon mechanic. Where you can cast smite during your attack, but you cannot do it more than once. The way you can still smite on your turn and smite with a reaction. (I know you can’t get an extra attack with two weapon fighting during a reaction, but rather use the sneak attack rules) If we want to address the verbal component of smite, maybe also make it so it not longer requires the verbal component for the smite spells.

[@Axel-zc6xj]

Most of the paladin is fine with me. I just really don't like the baseline Divine Smite being a spell. It ruins multiclassing, like my barbarian/paladin. I think WotC could make these changes without causing a detriment to other aspects. AKA do everything else to baseline Divine Smite EXCEPT make it a spell. Yes yes I get it, not everyone multiclasses, but also not everyone stays a single class. I am advocating for those who DO multiclass.

[@sneedfest3399]

Classes are not designed around multiclassing

[@HunterTracks]

​@@sneedfest3399Then they really need to stop nerfing things to reduce their multiclass potential.

[@tibot4228]

well, it's just a single class combo that's broken. But while I love the bonus action requirement, I would be in favor of Divine Smite alone becoming a class feature once again (and one that you can use without spending a bonus action on a critical hit).

[@Axel-zc6xj]

@@sneedfest3399 I would have agreed with you BUT they made smites work with unarmed strikes. Paladins never needed that. I find it hard to argue that wasn't for monk/paladin multiclassing.

[@Axel-zc6xj]

@@tibot4228 It also ruins smites while in druid wild shape. Even the moon druid can't use them, since the new forms can only use abjuration spells. Of which none of the smites are abjuration.

[@tibot4228]

I've only just realized just how mobile paladins are now. You can reliably get a mount in combat, so you can Disengage and increase your movement speed, and eventually fly, with ease; and your smites, including your Radiant Strikes, all work with thrown weapons. You brought up these options, but I didn't realize that, combined, they make paladins pretty decent at mid range too.

[@jonathanpickles2946]

The only issue with level 13 damage calculation is that it's outside of where 99% of the game is played. It really needs L5 and L9 ish.

[@majorbones251]

You bring up a good point. DM’s should get really comfortable with the phrase: “Your target falls prone.” I don’t wonder if Weapon Mastery is going to be looked back on as a mistake some day.

[@HunterTracks]

DMs are one thing, but ranged martials really need some way to bypass the disadvantage from the prone condition, and they need it yesterday.

[@majorbones251]

@@HunterTracks omg. I didn’t even think about that. Rangers are going to have a nightmare.

[@immortalls9689]

Less power in smite , a steed spell not everyone wants , channel divinity nerf because several features use it and you get very few uses, more ways to stop auras , less smiting due to restrictions, bonus actions are used in almost every feature , all in all, hot twke maybe but this sounds like it will feel awful in practice , too restrictive and all to lose out on dps to resourceless damage sources by not a small amount AND you need very specific setups to maximize this to the point where it’s painful if you don’t, I don’t like it, it’s too much loss for not really any meaningful gain outside maybe 2 specific sub classes and capstones you will rarely get while everyone else gets more new toys, I don’t know how you can see this as anything else

[@99sonder]

I disagree on the part about Aura of Protection. It's an iconic, class defining feature for Paladins, something exciting to build a character around and has amazing flavor to match the mechanics! As long as the Paladin stands tall, their mere presence is enough to inspire confidence in their allies to stand against the tides. It's a feature that actually lets the Paladin protect their allies and provide a unique niche to the party! And mechanically, it brings with it some interesting dilemmas, do you as a party split up, to try and avoid having multiple people getting caught in a big AoE, or do you group up around the paladin to hopefully have more people make saves. Features like Aura of Protection and Reckless Attack are the shining beacons of good class features in 5e, that any other feature should aim to be as beautiful in their balance of simplicity and complexity, IMO

[@RKGrizz]

Paladins having more than 20% less damage than other melee classes is sad, especially after losing the ability to smite more than once and during reactions.

[@CivilWarMan]

One major issue with your damage estimates: The Fighter DPR you calculated was also a melee build, but you were using only a 60% chance to hit per attack, versus 86% for a Paladin. If Advantage is as easy to obtain as you say, that Fighter is going to be hitting a lot more often, which is going to widen the gap you are showing in your chart.

[@lihninor]

"Creatures are just constantly prone in this playtest" couldn't agree more. I'm actually disappointed with Weapon Mastery. This stuff should be built into maneuvers for each martial class. If fighters/monks were tripping, barbarians were shoving, etc, martials would feel more distinct and interesting. Weapon Mastery will get real samey real fast.

[@williamgordon5443]

I noticed that some of the 20th level sub-class features in the 2014 edition (like Oath of the Ancients Elder Champion), would say take an action and you just get the feature but now it says that you take a bonus action to enhance your aura of protection. I'm not sure how this would change the feature, but it is a change.

[@Gafizal1]

I am deeply annoyed that they have destroyed smites for moon druids despite making them work for monks… ( unless the monk is wildshaped)

[@Axel-zc6xj]

They also destroyed smites for paladin/barbarian multiclass. I am currently playing one, it's one of my favorites, so this hurts a more personal level. I can imagine others feel the same way.

[@indigoblacksteel1176]

Well, they only kind of work for monks. You can't Flurry of Blows and smite.

[@mathiasseverin5673]

​@@Axel-zc6xjI agree, but I think they want you to play a Zealot Barbarian for that flavor. The Zealot which kinda "Smites" once per turn anyways.

[@Axel-zc6xj]

@@mathiasseverin5673 Though it simulates paladin smites, it doesn't fulfill the actual role. The role that the divine smite feature is playing is a spell slot dump for when you CAN'T use them, like wild shape and barbarian rage. If you have spell slots as a barbarian, they are borderline useless when fighting at your best AKA raging. With divine smite, suddenly they are usable. Ironically, the new spell slot dump in the playtest is the bard's font of inspiration. "...In addition, if you have no uses of Bardic Inspiration left, you can give yourself one use by expending a spell slot (no action required). You can do so only once per turn." So it's still there, just needs a bigger dip.

[@mathiasseverin5673]

@@Axel-zc6xj ahh, hadnt noticed that about the Bard. Thats kinda fun. Bard-barian?

[@spiderwrangler4457]

It may have been something you were thinking, but since I didn't hear it explicitly mentioned, the Ancients Paladin shifting to resistance vs Nec, Rad, Psy instead of vs spells is likely in response to many creatures moving from spells to spell-like actions?

[@jspsj0]

Happy to see that the classes, in general, are improving. They should focused on the more problematic ones from now one. ( warlock, fighter, monk and ranger )

[@JavierSanchez-mo2ef]

awesome video as always

[@JJV7243]

I really like the paladin - it has been toned down, but it feel right. Its fair, fits its niche well, and will be giving this class a very satisfied rating.

[@thebitterfig9903]

I think you’re right about Aura of Protection. The thing I keep thinking about is that perhaps it should be a +1 bonus that has a larger area of effect, maybe increasing to a +2 bonus at high level when auras go up to 30 ft in the status quo. Maybe the area should be based on Charisma, 5 feet plus 5 more per bonus. This evens the gaps between parties with and without paladins, as well as makes the aura easier to use geometrically for any group with a paladin.

[@Xorrin]

A +1 is nothing, even so when there are classes like sorcerer which can make you roll with disadvantage or spells or other effect that only half the damage on a success

[@neisan92]

I would make it 15ft and 1/2 your CHA mod rounding up and later 30ft and your ful CHA mod.

[@laerbear6760]

I would like the change to aura of warding a lot more if OotA actually got absorb elements

[@LordNeroXXI]

Now we just need Oathbreaker subclass to come back. I feel like I'm the only person that loved the Oathbreaker

[@redrumssam5888]

It was kinda ass

[@LordZeebee]

Paladins were already doing crazy amounts of damage so not letting then smite outside their own turn seems like a decent nerf, plus it lets Rogue have a little more of a unique identity as a physical fighter

[@dustinwhite3800]

I know this is a Paladin video but I can’t help but think that with how cheap advantage is with knocking enemies prone all the time how much worse the Barbarians reckless attack feature is. Most of the time it’ll be used for the rare occasions you don’t have advantage or I guess if you want to persuade an enemy to hit you instead of someone else. It feels like more of a tanking (protecting your party) feature more than an actual offense boost now.

[@notsochosenone5669]

About Aura of Protection - i think they can swap it with Aura of Courage, so now AoP is 10th level feature and AoC is 6th level. Single class builds should be encouraged after all. If they do this they should change some names maybe, but still.

[@nadirku]

One thing I kind of HATE about the Oath of Devotion is that the "Sacred Weapon" Channel Divinity option is now pretty much the only Paladin base class, or subclass feature to not work with Unarmed Strikes... Also as I have seen other people point out, the Sacred Weapon channel Divinity is kind of incompatible with thrown weapon builds (you throw the weapon once, and pray you can recover it before the fight is over, or before the option times out), and also incompatible with Two-Weapon-Fighting builds (you cannot use Charisma to attack with your off-hand weapon). With Weapon Masteries encouraging "Golf Bag of Weapon" builds, to swap which Mastery you will use, the Sacred Weapon Channel Divinity is currently kind of anti-synergistic with that.

[@johngillan4475]

Thank you for your information video

[@brinklight0074]

I like most of the changes to paladin compared to the current version. I would like to see aura of corage and aura of protection swapped, thus delaying that powerful feature while still being useful for the team. As for smite, I still want to see it capped at 5th level spell slots, since I don't like that multiclassing will allow for more AND better smites. I am glad that smite nova damage got reduced and think it is good that you can only smite once per turn. However, I do wish smite spells did not require a bonus action. I really feel like paladin weapon diversity took a hit with this change. Faithful steed/lance/dueling/GWM seems to be the only or at least primary optimal choice, and you cannot even enjoy GWM crit bonus since it conflicts with smite. TWF/PAM/GWM is heavily nerfed and I personally dislike less viablity in feat/weapon selection. I would also like an alternative to faithful steed, since not every paladin wants to do mounted combat, and there are many dungeons that make mounted combat ineffective. Maybe just a free cast of a smite once per day or something similiar.

[@buraeen5735]

I still think the Vengeance Paladin capstone is the weakest one here. Pretty much everything is immune to Frightened (This was a problem in 2014 too admittedly.) so the feature nearly boils down to 1 per day (and the never use 5th level slots) flight with hover for 10 minutes which is worse than half of the 6th level Genie-lock feature. Edit: Everything at level 20 immune to frightened that is.

[@crazyrussianman2128]

I don't know why people always forget that cover gives the +2 or +5 bonus to dex saves as well as ac. For that matter, the dodge action gives advantage on dex saves.

[@freman007]

Clerics still get Searing Smite (and anyone else can with Magic Initiate). With the ability to do 1d6 damage on the attack, then an automatic 1d6 before the enemy gets to make a save, with the potential to do more damage if they fail, it's the best of the Smite spells, and it scales faster on the Cleric (or any other Full Caster, Valor Bard anyone?) than it does on the Paladin. If I still wanted to play Warlock after UA6 gave us the Arcane Valor Bard (hint, I don't) then it'd be the feat I picked up with Lessons of the First Ones.

[@njfernandes87]

I'm positive that the change to the Protection fighting style is due to ppl pointing out that as it was proposed, it was very much metagaming, ud only use it if you know the penalty imposed would change the outcome or you dont bother. As it is presented in this playtest, u *try* to protect your ally by imposing disadvantage. U trade the fact that u dont know if ull succeed in your intention for a bigger penalty imposed (disadvantage is about -3.8 penalty, so almost double, more likely to succeed). I actually prefer this version, dont like situations when the DM has to provide info like that, and if they DM wont tell me, id rather have the bigger number to increase my success.

[@FaustTheThird]

isnt it okay if Paladins have a really good ability like aura, I mean I always hear how casters are better than martials. Maybe we should be bringing the other martials up to the paladins level instead of nerfing the paladins. Paladins despite their aura aren't better than casters after all right?

[@HunterTracks]

In a way, I hate that Lay on Hands and Channel Divinity have gone to your Bonus Action. Not only does that combine with the smite change to make your BA incredibly overloaded, it basically makes it so you never have a reason to not attack on a turn. Rather than being tactical about your resources and your party's needs in the battle, you always go in head first and sword swinging, because you literally don't have any other option. It's certainly an improvement on the DPR of the class, but it makes paladins feel way more like barbarians now.

[@nm2358]

Yeah, this to be my consistent gripe. Paladins went from "nothing" to do on the Bonus Action, to all their 5e features are on the Bonus Action.

[@cfalkner1012]

“You could have made that build better!”

[@tiagopedrosa6746]

The new smites that require a bonus action to cast make the class very clunkly to play. Too many features are now bonus action. Most encounters in 5e last 3 rounds. So with you want to cast an spell, activate ur channel divinity and smite, you only be able to amite once per combat. I do not undestend why they just make it the smite fetures work once per turn without an action require. Thay way u will not be limited and struggle with what to use evry turn in combat and IT IS WAY MORE FUN.

[@freman007]

Because WotC aren't about fun. They're about sending the Pinkertons to terrorize a KZbinr because he got a box of Magic cards a few days early.

[@MumboJ]

Relentless Avenger seems a bit self-redundant now. The whole point is that you chase after the target running away, but now you also prevent them from running away so who are you chasing after? Maybe if two creatures run away at the same time? But then you're leaving one of them behind. Also, slight conflict of Reaction economy with Soul of Vengeance (which I've just realised is basically the other half of Sentinel), but they're situational enough that they might be fine.

[@elastoid5459]

"To those commenters... yeah. It's just one data point." Reminder that your video title said more damage "ACROSS THE BOARD" and then had one data point. I think that'll be where a lot of people took issue

[@Treebohr]

I created an NPC who had the Protection fighting style, except I altered it to make it basically be an aura of disadvantage. It's overpowered that way, but at least it's good.

[@wadeking4054]

I'm fine with the paladin for the most part. My only concern is smite won't feel as fun anymore. Really depends on if making the choice on the type of smite ends up being a fun decision in the end. The updated steed spell could also make a big difference. I just loved the freedom of the smite feature and being able to use it in combination with the smite spells, using it out of turn, deciding to burst your damage, etc.

[@acxbry]

I really struggle with Paladin's being forced into Mounted Combat with every Subclass due to the Base Paladin 5th level option. I would prefer it to be a Paladin exclusive spell that I can take instead of a 5th level feature. If I don't want to play a Paladin with an animal companion build I lose out on a whose aspect of the 5th level feature boost.

[@codiethompson3401]

Re Aura of Protection: I homebrew that it affects allies, but not the Paladin themselves.

[@marcducorsky8736]

Relentless avenger - Paladin have a feat baked into a subclass. DO the same for monk. Monks usually need to spend 4 of 5 feats to max out DEX/WIS. And many of the feats in UA are not available or MONKS. Forgot to state this in my Survey..

[@parheliaa]

Considering that single-class paladin has MAD problems (apart from typical standard Str/Dex/Con setup for martials he has to get some Cha), the constant Aura of Protection is not OP. Frankly, this is the only reason I would consider a paladin when creating a melee character.

[@StirFryTuna]

I don't want to see paladin nerfs. I want to see other non-spellcasters get buffed so paladin's power is justified. All smites should just be on hit, with no extra action to cast.

[@nm2358]

This change would free up the BA and really prevent stuff like Shroud or Guardians from becoming the only "smite" I use

[@elladunham9232]

For the damage calculations, I am content if those numbers stayed, the barbarian as a pure damage machine/tank is what barbarian players want, and them being the best at it feels good. Fighters being able to deliver amazing damage while also providing a variety of tricks and buffs feel nice as well, and while paladin are at the bottom, its enough for a player to feel good while doing other things, such as healing.

[@bennettellis1154]

All of the movements of actions to bonus actions and the bonus action channel divinities and capstone features are making me even more annoyed with smites costing a bonus action. A lot of those feel like improvements because you are getting your action back for attacking. But they prevent you from doing the signature thing your paladin does on an attack! That’s a real feel bad. And sacred weapon or vow of enmity on the subclasses specifically improves your chances to hit, but prevent you from doing the cool thing you’d want to do on a hit! Oh, and the special feelbad moment of vow of enmity increasing your chance of critting but also making it so that you can’t smite on a crit the turn you activate is soooooooo frustrating. I love standardizing smites. I love paladins getting smite variants for free (and no one else getting them). Just don’t run it through the bonus action. Limit it to once a turn like with the rogue, that’s more than enough. The trigger doesn’t need action economy, it can just be on a hit. I’d prefer it also if they weren’t spells (let a paladin misty step and smite god dammit), but at least let the paladin do all the other things you keep giving it cool bonus actions for and still do their signature attack thing. All the other classes can keep doing their signature attack things, their bonus action trade offs happen elsewhere!

[@tibot4228]

I think they're incentivizing you to actually play the game it's supposed to be played: with 6-8 encounters per day, so you can use all your abilities over the course of the day, but you can't nuke everything in 3 turns.

[@HunterTracks]

​@@tibot4228Outright removing your ability to use more than one spell slot for turn isn't incentivising you to do anything, it's outright forcing you to behave the same way regardless of your campaign.

[@bennettellis1154]

@@tibot4228 simply limiting smites to once a turn would prevent nuking, you don't need to cut off other interesting builds by making them bonus actions.

[@tibot4228]

@@bennettellis1154 How do you make polearm mastery (or other feats that give you bonus actioin attacks) not compulsory for melee builds, and especially after 11th level, without creating competition for your bonus action? And generally speaking, all classes should be able to use every part of their turn. It's bad design to have a resource that isn't expended regularly as part of your base class.

[@HunterTracks]

​@@tibot4228There's already plenty of competition for paladin bonus actions with Lay on Hands, Channel Divinity, racial options and spells, and that list only grows if you multiclass. At this point, it's not about Polearm Master being compulsory, it's about it not being useless.

[@jonathanhaynes9914]

Thanks Chris

[@marcducorsky8736]

Faithful Steed. When a paladin gets to the level, he can cast level 4 spells, the Paladin can cast it once for free and the steed gets flying.

[@riverplasmahero2508]

Question from someone who has never played a Paladin, why the anti-ranged weapon? To me, someone riding in with either a heavy crossbow or a long bow just as much fits my mental image of a paladin as someone with a Lance or Longshore. Is there something mechanically that I'm missing that makes it too OP for a Paladin to be able to use all these abilities with any weapon or unarmed strike? Also, why would they remove cantrips? From my experience cantrip damage is negligible and cantrips as a whole just make players feel like they have more options and can do random cool things.