D&D 5E Paladin Smites

D

dryanhuston

First Post

• May 8, 2018

• #1

I play frequently in Adventures League as such DM's frequently change/rotate. When playing my Paladin I will make a melee attack with a smite. If what I am attacking has a resistance to physical or magical attacks some DM's will separate my attacks into a physical and magical. Some will consider the whole attack magical.

When it comes up I politely ask why what ever that decision is and I generally get a rational response.

I don't care how the attack breaks down more my issues is about consistency. It would be helpful to know where I can find something like that in the rules or if there is some sort of prescient in previous editions. When it comes up again I can politely say the PHB says this. Not to be a rules lawyer but so we can all be informed.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

• May 8, 2018

• #2

Ordinarily, a creature with have something like "resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non-magical weapons."

If you hit a creature with your non-magical longsword and use a level 2 spell to divine smite, then you should normally do something like 1d8+4 slashing damage plus 3d8 radiant damage. Against the above creature, the slashing damage would be halved, and the radiant damage would be dealt in full.

Similarly, a creature resistant to radiant damage would half that part, independent of the slashing damage.

So I'm not really sure where the situation you describe comes up; I don't think there are creatures with "resistance to physical attacks." Do you have an example of the type of creature you are talking about?

 

T

The Crimson Binome

Hero

• May 8, 2018

• #3

Extra damage from a smite is radiant damage. Creatures with resistance to physical damage will always state that they have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non-magical weapons. Radiant damage is not bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing.

My best guess is that some DMs haven't read the paladin ability closely, so they imagine that is just increases the weapon damage, like a rogue's sneak attack.

 

D

dryanhuston

First Post

• May 8, 2018

• #4

jaelis said:

So I'm not really sure where the situation you describe comes up; I don't think there are creatures with "resistance to physical attacks." Do you have an example of the type of creature you are talking about?

Click to expand...

I was trying to generalize bludgeoning, piercing and slashing by just saying physical.

 

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

• May 8, 2018

• #5

dryanhuston said:

I was trying to generalize bludgeoning, piercing and slashing by just saying physical.

Click to expand...

Got it. The confusing point is that resistance is always against damage, not "attacks." Whether a paladin's smite is a magical attack is a debatable point, but there is no ambiguity about the type of damage it deals: a mix of physical damage and radiant damage. The damage types is all that matters as far as resistance is concerned.

 

P

Pathkeeper24601

First Post

• May 8, 2018

• #6

My guess would be some DM's are just willing to do a little more work to get the correct value.

The correct way would be to separate damage types and apply resistances to each separately. So the attack damage would by one of the weapon types and smite would be radiant. This would also come into play for some cleric's 8th level damage boost, poison, and some spells as well.

If the DM doesn't want to go through that much effort, it is probably better for you that he applies add-on damage type to the whole attack, as that goes in your favor most the time.

The Smite spells may be a little different. Not sure if they change the base attack type or should be considered magic because of the actual casting of the spell.

 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

• May 8, 2018

• #7

If you tell the DM the damage as "14 slashing, 12 radiant", they should all handle it in a consistent manner. That's unambiguous.