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

[Maxperson]

I think it depends on what is being re-fluffed.

WotC and all kinds of other people had made mention in many years in the past the idea that for instance you can fluff your Magic Missiles however you want. The mechanics would remain as 1d4+1 Force damage per missile... but you could make them look like purple lasers, or balls of plasma, or a stream of rubber ducks. Didn't matter. Whatever you wanted to see them as, it was fine. And while the DM could of course argue with you and say "Nuh uh! They don't look like that!"... the player's visualizing the scene however they want, including how their Magic Missiles look. And no amount of DM whining would change that. The player is fluffing their spell in whatever manner they choose.

By the same token... if (general) you as a player visualize in your head how a Channel Divinity looks in-game, and it is different than how you see a Spell looking when it is cast in-game... that's cool. Nice bit of fluff differential on your part. But that is entirely in (general) your own head. You could just as easily be a person for whom the visualization of a Channel and a Spell don't look different at all-- there's like a glow around the Cleric's hands, and then POOF! some effect happens. Yes, the game mechanics of the two would be different (different resource pools for instance), but how they actually are fluffed in the game world does not and need not be different. Or they can be. It's up to the player to decide how they are seeing the effects play out.

Visualize =/= re-fluff. You can visualize your elf as a 5000 tall elven godzilla if you want and the DM can't stop you. The game reality, though, is that your PC is an elf sized elf. The world is going to treat and react to your PC as an elf sized elf.

Players cannot re-fluff a single thing without DM approval which often does not come.

Just because a person can't make the change of seeing Divine Smite the spell the same way they see Divine smite the cleric ability is no reason WotC should necessarily throw out potentially good ideas in my opinion. But who knows? Maybe WotC will see enough resistance to this idea and roll it back? Whatever happens, happens.

In this case it isn't even a matter of "see." Someone who visualizes their spell as some sort of 2014 smite is going to be sorely disabused the first time that he can't do his "re-fluffed" smite in a silence, antimagic zone and/or is counterspelled.

In the mean time, my 2014 paladin standing right next to his will be smiting to his heart's content right next to him in that antimagic zone.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it depends on what is being re-fluffed.

WotC and all kinds of other people had made mention in many years in the past the idea that for instance you can fluff your Magic Missiles however you want. The mechanics would remain as 1d4+1 Force damage per missile... but you could make them look like purple lasers, or balls of plasma, or a stream of rubber ducks. Didn't matter. Whatever you wanted to see them as, it was fine. And while the DM could of course argue with you and say "Nuh uh! They don't look like that!"... the player's visualizing the scene however they want, including how their Magic Missiles look. And no amount of DM whining would change that. The player is fluffing their spell in whatever manner they choose.

That's literally not re-fluffing.

If the DM is saying or indeed ruling that how you're visualizing them is wrong, then nothing has been re-fluffed, you just have a different idea in your head to the DM and the rest of the players. Talking about DMs "arguing" or "whining" in a game where DMs have ultimate say is just ostrich-type behaviour.

That's not helpful to anyone.

Also re: Smite one huge change people have seemingly ignored is Magic Resistance works on Smite now.

Previously it did not, or not reliably. But now Smite is a spell, it 100% unquestionably falls under the purview Magic Resistance. That's ironically a really significant nerf against a lot of creatures that Paladins are supposed to be focusing on combating.

 

[Nadan]

In the mean time, my 2014 paladin standing right next to his will be smiting to his heart's content right next to him in that antimagic zone.

Well... this part isn't true if you follow the definition of what things are "magical" based on sage advice compendium's ruling. Long story short, divine smite is fueled by spell slot so it will be suppressed. But neither 2014's Improved Divine Smite nor packet 6's Radiant Strikes had wording use "magical" so they won't be suppressed by antimagic.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Players cannot re-fluff a single thing without DM approval which often does not come.

I've never had a DM veto my "re-fluff" of a game mechanic, nor have I ever done so as a GM for a player's re-fluff. The only exception I might make is if a player seeks some mechanical advantage based on their re-interpretation of the ability/spell description, and even then, I usually just nix the mechanical effect, not the re-fluff itself.

For instance, I'm totally fine a player saying his magic missiles appear as streaks of flame. I won't allow those missiles to actually light things on fire, however.

If your experience is that a DM will more often than not disallow re-fluffing, then I suggest you find other people to play with.

That aside, the 2014 Divine Smite does have a few mechanical advantages over the playtest spell version. However, 90% of the time, it's going to be indistinguishable. So these are edge cases you're talking about, and it's even up for debate if the 2014 smite would work in an anti-magic field anyway.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Also re: Smite one huge change people have seemingly ignored is Magic Resistance works on Smite now.

No, it doesn't. Magic Resistance just grants advantage on saves vs magic. The vanilla Divine Smite doesn't allow a save. Only some of the other Smite spells involve saves, and they were already spells prior to the playtest, so no change there.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well... this part isn't true if you follow the definition of what things are "magical" based on sage advice compendium's ruling. Long story short, divine smite is fueled by spell slot so it will be suppressed. But neither 2014's Improved Divine Smite nor packet 6's Radiant Strikes had wording use "magical" so they won't be suppressed by antimagic.

First off, Sage Advice is advice, not rulings - even in the compendium. Second off, I'm unable to find text supporting your interpretation. I think you might be misremembering - where is the text you mean?

I've never had a DM veto my "re-fluff" of a game mechanic

I have so that's immaterial. You know it happens, I know it happens, we all know it happens.

If your experience is that a DM will more often than not disallow re-fluffing, then I suggest you find other people to play with.

Why?

Re-fluffing isn't a common or major issue for 95% of groups. Many DMs who don't like refluffing are otherwise good DMs as I pointed out in my previous. So you need to explain why you think refluffing is such a major issue you should immediately throw your character sheet on the floor and storm out. Why?

No, it doesn't. Magic Resistance just grants advantage on saves vs magic. The vanilla Divine Smite doesn't allow a save. Only some of the other Smite spells involve saves, and they were already spells prior to the playtest, so no change there.

I'm pretty sure there's Magic Resistance which is outright resistance to damage from magic, but sure PC-style MR doesn't work.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's literally not re-fluffing.

If the DM is saying or indeed ruling that how you're visualizing them is wrong, then nothing has been re-fluffed, you just have a different idea in your head to the DM and the rest of the players. Talking about DMs "arguing" or "whining" in a game where DMs have ultimate say is just ostrich-type behaviour.

That's not helpful to anyone.

Re-fluffing is changing how something is presented or looks in-game. It has nothing to do with game mechanics. And a DM does not have 'ultimate say' over that, because they have no way of actually forcing a player to see things in their mind's eye the way the DM wants. The DM may try to suggest or insist on how something is to be perceived... but they can't force players to do it.

In 4E... many players complained that there was no longer a 'Ranged Fighter' option. And a lot of us just said "Re-fluff the Ranger to be a Ranged Fighter!" You don't have to change any of the game mechanics-- they can remain exactly the same and grant all the bonuses for archery and stuff that the 4E Ranger got-- all you had to do was ignore those little italics bits of narrative and fluff that described the mechanics as nature-based. Just roleplay your character as a Fighter but use the Ranger's mechanics.

That's all that re-fluffing is. And while yes, there will be the occasional DM with a stick up their butt that wouldn't like the idea of someone playing a 4E Ranger's mechanics but not acting they are Aragorn... at some point DMs just have to accept that they can't control everything. The player is under no obligation to roleplay like Aragorn and can roleplay like Boromir instead.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That aside, the 2014 Divine Smite does have a few mechanical advantages over the playtest spell version. However, 90% of the time, it's going to be indistinguishable. So these are edge cases you're talking about, and it's even up for debate if the 2014 smite would work in an anti-magic field anyway.

Using a Bonus Action instead of being a free action isn't an "edge case".

Pretending it is is either being intentionally disingenuous, or misunderstanding the action economy pretty severely.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Re-fluffing is changing how something is presented or looks in-game. It has nothing to do with game mechanics. And a DM does not have 'ultimate say' over that, because they have no way of actually forcing a player to see things in their mind's eye the way the DM wants. The DM may try to suggest or insist on how something is to be perceived... but they can't force players to do it.

In 4E... many players complained that there was no longer a 'Ranged Fighter' option. And a lot of us just said "Re-fluff the Ranger to be a Ranged Fighter!" You don't have to change any of the game mechanics-- they can remain exactly the same and grant all the bonuses for archery and stuff that the 4E Ranger got-- all you had to do was ignore those little italics bits of narrative and fluff that described the mechanics as nature-based. Just roleplay your character as a Fighter but use the Ranger's mechanics.

That's all that re-fluffing is. And while yes, there will be the occasional DM with a stick up their butt that wouldn't like the idea of someone playing a 4E Ranger's mechanics but not acting they are Aragorn... at some point DMs just have to accept that they can't control everything. The player is under no obligation to roleplay like Aragorn and can roleplay like Boromir instead.

LOL no.

Re-fluffing is not "have that player imagine it differently".

Re-fluffing is everyone at the table agreeing that say, your magic missiles are tiny metal arrows guided by fairies or something, rather than bolts of energy.

If you just want to make up entirely random new definitions for words, cool, but all you're doing is sowing confusion and being difficult.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Smites can no longer be used with ranged weapons, which everyone expected. However it's interesting that the casting time description for the smite spells is:

In other words, it's not based on the type of attack, but on the type of weapon. That is, if you throw a spear, that's a ranged attack with a melee weapon. (Just like you can make a melee attack with a ranged weapon such as a bow by hitting someone with it.)

So you can still smite at range, but only with thrown weapons.

Also by avoiding “melee weapon attack” they have avoided interfering with blade-cantrip smites, which is nice.