I do hope that WOTC comes out and confirms what their intentions were either way, clearly people are confused by itYep, if an effect is adding damage dice to an attack, as such, it’s Smite-able.
I do hope that WOTC comes out and confirms what their intentions were either way, clearly people are confused by itYep, if an effect is adding damage dice to an attack, as such, it’s Smite-able.
It's still a spell and can be countered, which is a common ability. Now you too can have a signature class ability negated by half the casters out there!!!
There is nothing in addition to those points. First, you're wrong. There is an action cost. Second, before these changes I could smite doing more damage with no action cost, no risk of silence working and no ability to be countered. Now those things work on smite. Further, smite wasn't broken before unless the DM broke things by not engaging the adventuring day and only having 1 or 2 encounters. That's not a problem with the ability.
They already had that. They sucked without the changes that allowed their use after a hit, but that change made them usable. Further, they did not need to alter base smite to use those spells. Nor does the existence of those spells require smite to be made into a sucky ability in order to balance their use.
No. No they didn't. You can buy that line if you want to, but before there was smite, and then there were smite spells which were different. No "parity" was required since they weren't supposed to be the same to begin with. This is a line they are giving in order to encourage people to buy into the nerf. And it seems that some people are snapping up what they are selling.
False Equivalences are false. One does not equal the other.
if something was for free, and now it competes for action slot, then it is prevented from working.
P.S. I do not know what was wrong with current smite?
It is quit clear WotC's goal is nerf paladin's nova ability. No matter what divine smite changes, as long as they can smite multiple times in a turn OR stackable with smite spells, it is fail to meet the goal. And there's also a hard line that no spell will be removed nor change level, including smite spells. So make divine smite a bonus action spell accomplish three goal at once: balance with other smite, unstackable, and only once per round.Maybe Divine smite should be removed from spell slots completely and added it's own resource pool.
I.E. at 2nd level you can do, once per turn when you hit extra +2d8 radiant damage.
you can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus.
at 5th level, damage is increased to +3d8
at 9th level, damage is increased to +4d8
at 13th level, damage is increased to +5d8
at 17th level, damage is increased to +6d8
You don't get to know what spell is being cast before you counterspell it. Smite is the same as fireball which is the same as wish as far as the counterspeller knowing what spell is being cast.I disagree that Counterspell is a "common ability" amongst enemies that most parties face. While there are probably some tables where the PCs face off against spellcasting humanoids as their primary antagonists... I would venture to say that most tables use the wide variety of enemies found in the Monster Manual, most of whom do not cast spells... let alone have Counterspell in their prepared or innate spell lists.
And even if an enemy does have it... the odds of the enemy counterspelling a smite versus a larger spell thrown by someone else in the party I would believe is probably small.
Okay.And being countered by a spell is not magic resistance. So, when you said the change to Divine Smite made it vulnerable to magic resistance, you were simply flat out wrong.
It was antimagicable as was pointed out earlier by someone in this thread. It's also not a problem. At all. Why? Apples and oranges. The apples of the smite class ability doesn't have to be balanced against the oranges of the spells that also have smite in their names. The spells were not the ability and vice versa, so there was no problem.I know you often make my point for me, but this one takes the cake. Yes, you are 100% correct. Before making these changes Divine Smite had no action cost, while Thunderous smite did have an action cost. There was no risk of Divine Smite being stopped by silence, while Thunderous smite could be stopped by silence. There was no ability to counterspell Divine Smite, while thunderous smite could be counterspelled. This is 100% the problem WoTC faced, because Thunderous smite also did less damage. So, Divine Smite was no action, uncounterable, unsilenceable, un-anti-magicable, and did more damage. It was not balanced against Thunderous smite.
WotC told you that? Or someone on some forum somewhere who had no real information to back up that claim?Yes, they were supposed to be the same. Because every time I complained the about the smite spells, I was told they did less damage because they had a rider effect, and Divine Smite could do more damage because it did not.
Yes, and you have to use Expeditious Retreat to run away. You can't use the movement for anything because it's called "retreat." And of course you can't use Mage Hand unless you are a mage, because the name is "mage" hand. Dispel Magic can clearly be used against any magic and not just spells, right? Because Dispel "magic." Despite what the rules say, Hold Person can only be used against one individual because it's not Hold "people."You may not be happy that Divine Smite is a smite, just like Thunderous Smite or Wrathful Smite or Glimmering Smite, but that was always the intention. That's why they were all called "smite"
Having enemies use their counter spell a smite instead of a fireball sounds like a big plus to me.You don't get to know what spell is being cast before you counterspell it. Smite is the same as fireball which is the same as wish as far as the counterspeller knowing what spell is being cast.