D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[Bill Zebub]

Realistically using a bow in melee would give attackers advantage.

Should draw Opportunity Attacks, imo.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Should draw Opportunity Attacks, imo.

Yeah but then you are getting mechanically fiddly, I would think.

 

[nevin]

As far as I know they did errata the Weapons table to remove Unarmed Attack from it. Like it's gone from current printings, it's not in the SRD, and it's not in D&D Basic. The whole weapon attack vs melee weapon attack vs unarmed attack vs attack action vs attack roll vs attack thing is some incredibly frustrating, noodley, and not particularly useful semantics. It feels like it's a darling of someone on the design team at WotC, because otherwise it's just a series of really dumb distinctions to draw. It's a level of nuance and precision that does not serve the game well.

That said, I've never seen a DM even bat an eye at unarmed smite. First because it essentially never comes up, and second because it's actually pretty cool.



I think it's fine because not all paladins are humans in full plate anymore.

That said, I doesn't look like they've really done anything to address Dex being so potent in combat except to nerf the big ranged feats (which is a significant change).

Mechanically they kind of don't make sense, but only if you think the smite comes from the paladin, and not their deity or power. Imagine being an elven paladin whose every arrow has a thin gold wire spiraled around it. When the arrow strikes, a bolt of energy strikes the target from the heavens.

I'm not particularly concerned here, I guess. It's potent and continues to discourage melee, which isn't good. But, it's really Sharpshooter and Archery Fighting Style that really keep ranged combat so good.



I expected this and was only surprised that they similarly included spellcasting in the limitation. But I think it was needed, and I'm kind of frustrated they didn't make this change in 2016. Quite honestly, I don't understand why Divine Smite isn't just a first level spell, and then give paladin a class feature that gives a bonus 1d8 damage when casting a Smite of some kind. It's honestly even sillier now than it was before.

Or, I don't know, give Paladin it's own spell list and then when other classes can steal spells default to only including "Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Druid." They've always had oddball spells on the half caster lists that don't always work well when you get them 8 levels earlier like 5th level spells. The current designs mean the classes get 5th level spells at level 17, but they're required to be as balanced as a spell you could get at level 9. Just stupid.



I think this is true of all bonus damage dice now. It's boring, but I guess the swingyness of crits is a thing.

Still, I'm not really sure why we need to nerf PC crits. Is there some D&D PVP arena out there? Elven Accuracy is so good that we need to nerf crits instead of issuing functional errata on the broken feat?



I agree, they're a better design now.

uh yeah just played a game where the weapon master critted almost everything the entire game. It was like we had a permanent moving blade barrier. But I still would rather have swingy crits than tight math. tight math sucks the fun out of the game. It needs those moments when the dice just lift you up or abandon you.

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah but then you are getting mechanically fiddly, I would think.

Or “gasp”, require the archer to pull out the backup melee weapon once in a while.

It’s not like the archer is screwed in melee, they pull out a rapier and they still have dex based attack and damage.

As opposed to a strength meleer forced to go into ranged on occasion, now having to use their weak dex for the fight…

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Or “gasp”, require the archer to pull out the backup melee weapon once in a while.

It’s not like the archer is screwed in melee, they pull out a rapier and they still have dex based attack and damage.

As opposed to a strength meleer forced to go into ranged on occasion, now having to use their weak dex for the fight…

My suggestion was to propose that the archer in melee would give advantage to attackers. The response was that the penalty should be an opportunity attack, which I did not care for because that changes the action economy and gives another reaction trigger to track.

I do not believe the above "'gasp', require the archer to pull out the backup melee weapon...." (bolded) is a fair representation of my position.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My suggestion was to propose that the archer in melee would give advantage to attackers.

Would the advantage trigger if the target used a ranged weapon in their most recent attack, or is it for merely holding a ranged weapon? What if they made a ranged attack, then drew an offhand weapon and attack again? What if they make a ranged weapon attack, then move and end next to an enemy who was not adjacent to them when they made the attack? What if an enemy, on their turn, moves to the creature who made a ranged attack?

Sure, you could just treat it like Reckless Attacks, where making a ranged attack leaves a debuff on you until your next turn, without worrying about the narrative explanation. But even then, my experience with Reckless Attacks is that it's easy to forget attackers have advantage. I think making it an opportunity attack is vastly easier to manage. YMMV.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Would the advantage trigger if the target used a ranged weapon in their most recent attack, or is it for merely holding a ranged weapon? What if they made a ranged attack, then drew an offhand weapon and attack again? What if they make a ranged weapon attack, then move and end next to an enemy who was not adjacent to them when they made the attack? What if an enemy, on their turn, moves to the creature who made a ranged attack?

Sure, you could just treat it like Reckless Attacks, where making a ranged attack leaves a debuff on you until your next turn, without worrying about the narrative explanation. But even then, my experience with Reckless Attacks is that it's easy to forget attackers have advantage. I think making it an opportunity attack is vastly easier to manage. YMMV.

I was thinking of Reckless Attack. You make a ranged attack in melee range of someone they and others get advantage until the start of the you next turn.
I think the tracking is 6 of one half a dozen of the other but I would rather not extend the opportunity mechanic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As opposed to a strength meleer forced to go into ranged on occasion, now having to use their weak dex for the fight…

You should be able to use strength, and all strength related bonuses, for thrown weapons. And there should be some way to increase the range of thrown weapons without disadvantage.

 

[tetrasodium]

Some characters being able to deal with or get around problems that are issues for others is pretty much the fundamental basis of class-based design.

step1: DM describes the environment
step2: Players describe what they want to do
step3: DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions

Step 2 is not "player determines outcome of what they want to do before doing it. When an ability violates such a low level building block of the system like allowing a player to not describe what they want to do before resolving what they want to do while describing what they want to do the ability is a failure of design. Expecting the GM to make it wor is not reasonable.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ah yes, there are no spells that can be cast without a focus... except for Acid Splash, or Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, or burning hands, or entangle or... really it is a long list.

Oh, wait, maybe you mean there are no spells that can be cast without a focus AND without Somatic components...

Except for Mind Sliver, Vicious Mockery, Dissonant Whispers, Misty Step, Thunder Step, Mind Whip.... wow, that's still a decently sizable list.

This is an example of why it's exhausting trying to keep 5e's rules glued together while players drive trucks through the poorly defined areas with glee.