D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[Bill Zebub]

If an enemy Wizard can cast Shield after I make my successful attack roll and cause it to miss, I don't see why the power of God can't let me decide I'm smiting until I know I hit.

My faith is so powerful that if a monster I have damaged has fewer than 8 hit points I can retroactively go back and a smite to an earlier round.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's not simply a matter of preference or "opinion". it's poorly designed because it creates a perversion of the gameplay loop where a player changes or waits to declare their action with a retcon after seeing the result & I've explained that previously. The fact that you are ignoring that in order to dismissively reframe it as a mere matter of preference & opinion speaks volumes about the indefensibility of that design.

I’m with @MarkB on this one. The rules are rampant with perversions of gameplay. You choose to be especially bothered by this one. Others feel differently.

That doesn’t make your opinion invalid. It just makes it an opinion.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I’m with @MarkB on this one. The rules are rampant with perversions of gameplay. You choose to be especially bothered by this one. Others feel differently.

That doesn’t make your opinion invalid. It just makes it an opinion.

I would also share the opinion of @Bill Zebub and @MarkB

 

[tetrasodium]

I’m with @MarkB on this one. The rules are rampant with perversions of gameplay. You choose to be especially bothered by this one. Others feel differently.

That doesn’t make your opinion invalid. It just makes it an opinion.

A playtest is one of the best times to bring up what we all feel are good or bad bad design elements or reasons. Agreeing if the retroactive retcon smite is an example of bad design or not is second to the outspoken but limp & halfhearted support centered on ""it's only your opinion" & "it doesn't bother me". can you contribute any reason that you like it which might allow discussion rather than this sort of dismissal?

Samre question for you @UngainlyTitan

 

[UngainlyTitan]

A playtest is one of the best times to bring up what we all feel are good or bad bad design elements or reasons. Agreeing if the retroactive retcon smite is an example of bad design or not is second to the outspoken but limp & halfhearted support centered on ""it's only your opinion" & "it doesn't bother me". can you contribute any reason that you like it which might allow discussion rather than this sort of dismissal?

Samre question for you @UngainlyTitan

I do not see an issue with the smite being reliable.

 

[James Gasik]

I do not see an issue with the smite being reliable.

And as I said upthread, if it's the order of operations that bothers you, how about instead have the ability go something like:

"Once per turn, before making an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, the Paladin can declare they are making a smite attempt...[sacrifice spell slots yadda yadda]...if this attack misses, the Paladin regains the spell slots used for the smite attempt."

 

[Bill Zebub]

A playtest is one of the best times to bring up what we all feel are good or bad bad design elements or reasons. Agreeing if the retroactive retcon smite is an example of bad design or not is second to the outspoken but limp & halfhearted support centered on ""it's only your opinion" & "it doesn't bother me". can you contribute any reason that you like it which might allow discussion rather than this sort of dismissal?

Samre question for you @UngainlyTitan

“outspoken but limp & halfhearted”? That’s your attempt at respectful engagement?

Good luck with that.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do not see an issue with the smite being reliable.

I don't either & have already said as much earlier back in post 76. The 5e & current playtest packet version of smite however applies a deceptive mechanic to provide a large number of charges in a small value. That small value allows it to justify a big punch while hiding behind "it maxes out at 4 charges & only a handful of slots compared to $otherClass' spell slots or $otherClass charges of their abilityB" when in reality those numbers are much bigger because $otherClass needs to consume the slot or charge before the dice get rolled.

And as I said upthread, if it's the order of operations that bothers you, how about instead have the ability go something like:

"Once per turn, before making an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, the Paladin can declare they are making a smite attempt...[sacrifice spell slots yadda yadda]...if this attack misses, the Paladin regains the spell slots used for the smite attempt."

That would be much better & significantly mitigate a big part of the problems caused by retcon smites. I suspect it could lead to other problems by introducing a precedent like regaining a spell slot if the save fails as a mechanic that might wind up in the hands of more classes & magic items or interact with possible multiclass combos.

If paladins need specifically more charges to compensate for miss chance then they should have more charges, given a bonus to the smite save/attack they declared prior to rolling or be given an always on ability like radiant strikes. Something like one of those three would be a much better mechanic than a retcon because those work within the basic framework of the system rather than using the GM as glue for a weird inversion of the basic action declaration ->action resolution for one small chunk abilities mostly limited to a single class..

 

[Horwath]

It's not simply a matter of preference or "opinion". it's poorly designed because it creates a perversion of the gameplay loop where a player changes or waits to declare their action with a retcon after seeing the result & I've explained that previously. The fact that you are ignoring that in order to dismissively reframe it as a mere matter of preference & opinion speaks volumes about the indefensibility of that design.

why?

You have a version of indian katar that can split open into 3 blades from 1.

you do it AFTER you stab someone with it, not before, as splitting the weapon before would impair it's penetrating potential. So you make that decision after you "know" the result of your "attack roll".

That would be best comparison to smite.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't either & have already said as much earlier back in post 76. The 5e & current playtest packet version of smite however applies a deceptive mechanic to provide a large number of charges in a small value. That small value allows it to justify a big punch while hiding behind "it maxes out at 4 charges & only a handful of slots compared to $otherClass' spell slots or $otherClass charges of their abilityB" when in reality those numbers are much bigger because $otherClass needs to consume the slot or charge before the dice get rolled.


That would be much better & significantly mitigate a big part of the problems caused by retcon smites. I suspect it could lead to other problems by introducing a precedent like regaining a spell slot if the save fails as a mechanic that might wind up in the hands of more classes & magic items or interact with possible multiclass combos.

If paladins need specifically more charges to compensate for miss chance then they should have more charges, given a bonus to the smite save/attack they declared prior to rolling or be given an always on ability like radiant strikes. Something like one of those three would be a much better mechanic than a retcon because those work within the basic framework of the system rather than using the GM as glue for a weird inversion of the basic action declaration ->action resolution for one small chunk abilities mostly limited to a single class..

I have real issues in understanding what you write. If I understand you correctly you are mapping the procedure of the game to actions in the fiction. Well I do not do that, not with D&D, because in my opinion the whole thing starting with AC and Hit Points make no sense.
I do not have a problem with smite as currently implemented and we do not have a basis for an argument, we are fundamentally at odds irrespective of any flaws in my understanding of your position.