D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Paladin ... Divine Smite is a Spell now

[mellored]

Nor does the old smite limited to once per day. It was already fairly balanced. Making it a spell just unbalanced things more.

You said yourself. You never saw any of the smites used.

That wasn't balanced.

Edit: But let's do a real comparison, shall we? 5th level banishing smite 5d10+banishment. 5th level divine smite: 6d8.

That's how spells work. Higher level ones are better than upcasting lower level ones.

A 5th level Thunder wave does 6d8 in 15'
A 5th level cone of cold does 8d8 in 60'.

 

[Maxperson]

You said yourself. You never saw any of the smites used.

No. I said I never saw the 2014 smites used. The change from the last packet to allow casting after a hit would have changed that.

That wasn't balanced.

It was as of last packet.

That's how spells work. Higher level ones are better than upcasting lower level ones.

Except the burning smite upscaled is still better than regular smite upscaled. The redone smite spells are just plain better than divine smite as a spell.

 

[mellored]

Except the burning smite upscaled is still better than regular smite upscaled.

Except Shatter upscaled us better than Snilloc’s Snowball Swarm upscaled.

 

[Nadan]

Except the burning smite upscaled is still better than regular smite upscaled. The redone smite spells are just plain better than divine smite as a spell.

Searing smite's con is it does fire damage, so you basically can't use it to smite most fiends. On the other hand when you smite those things with divine smite, it got extra damage that can count as free upcast.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nor does the old smite limited to once per day. It was already fairly balanced. Making it a spell just unbalanced things more.

Edit: But let's do a real comparison, shall we? 5th level banishing smite 5d10+banishment. 5th level divine smite: 6d8.

Banishment (as long as the target ends with 50 or less hp, and then fails a charisma saving throw, and only lasts 1 minute with concentration) vs +1d8 damage against undead or fiends. Also, don't most fiends have magic resistance, meaning that they would have advantage on that charisma save?

I wonder which is better, 27.5 damage against a fiend that maybe, might, possibly be banished for a little while, or 31.5 damage against a fiend.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Searing smite's con is it does fire damage, so you basically can't use it to smite most fiends. On the other hand when you smite those things with divine smite, it got extra damage that can count as free upcast.

Though, actually, this did get me to go back and look. Searing Smite got a surprising buff I missed the first time. The damage is increased per spell slot for both the initial damage AND the Damage over time. Plus it is on the Divine Spell list, not the paladin exclusive one.

So, woof, that could be a cleric delivering a +5d6 on an attack, with a bonus +5d6 at the start of their turn, only stopping with a con save...

That is WAY nastier than I thought it was, dang. Costs you a 5th level slot, but that is an unstoppable, unblockable 10d6 fire damage. That was a BIG buff I missed compared to the original.

 

[Maxperson]

Searing smite's con is it does fire damage, so you basically can't use it to smite most fiends. On the other hand when you smite those things with divine smite, it got extra damage that can count as free upcast.

You smite a hell of a lot more than just fiends, though. One missed save and it does more damage than a divine smite. Two and you are golden. Add in the occasional vulnerability to fire and that creature is toasty golden. Of course you can find situations where divine smite is going to be better. In the great majority of instances, though, it's not going to be better.

 

[Maxperson]

Banishment (as long as the target ends with 50 or less hp, and then fails a charisma saving throw, and only lasts 1 minute with concentration) vs +1d8 damage against undead or fiends. Also, don't most fiends have magic resistance, meaning that they would have advantage on that charisma save?

I wonder which is better, 27.5 damage against a fiend that maybe, might, possibly be banished for a little while, or 31.5 damage against a fiend.

It doesn't banish fiends. It banishes whatever you hit. Cherry picking a resistant creature is kinda hokey.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It doesn't banish fiends. It banishes whatever you hit. Cherry picking a resistant creature is kinda hokey.

Sure, doesn't have to be a fiend. But about half of the enemies CR 8 or higher have magic resistance, and we are talking about the big finishing move of a level 17 paladin. I doubt you are going to use it on an orc or a hill giant. And even without the resistance, you have to meet the other pre-requisites.

This isn't a banishment like the banishment spell. It is severely curtailed.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, doesn't have to be a fiend. But about half of the enemies CR 8 or higher have magic resistance, and we are talking about the big finishing move of a level 17 paladin.

Here you are trying to dig a well with a pitchfork again. The right tool for the job, man. The right tool for the job.

And even without the resistance, you have to meet the other pre-requisites.

are you talking about the hit points that you've watched the group dish out in damage? It's pretty easy to guess when 50 hit points or less happens. In WotC's limited wisdom, they've balanced 5e around hit points and it's easy to get a feel for around how many hit points something has.

This isn't a banishment like the banishment spell. It is severely curtailed.

I don't see where the banishment spell is not affected by spell resistance.