D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe if charging up your attack with a smite had some other cost, such as a bonus action.

Please not. I am glad they are doing away with that.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, let's not abuse the bonus action so that every class needs to use it. I'm reminded of how Pathfinder 1e went nuts with the Swift action, so that losing it (either from a condition or using an immediate), or having to use it for anything else could prevent you from actually using your class abilities.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, pretty much, nothing in D&D really maps to "reality" in any way, and everything about combat, from AC to hit points, to the turn order, is completely abstract beyond "being stabbed with sword enough times eventually kills you".

The fact that a given proud nail bothers some people isn't abnormal; if you see the game as more than just a "fantasy simulator" and want to achieve some level of immersion, then there's always going to be some weird thing that pulls you out of the illusion and disrupts verisimilitude.

I think we all have that "one thing" (or more than one thing; I have a list!) of stuff about the game that irks us. If it's simply a matter of finding a way for it to "make sense", that's one thing. But sometimes I see debates like this, and it seems more like some people want to use this as an excuse to nerf characters because of some perceived imbalance.

Now is the Paladin balanced? That's hard to say; in many respects, they might have the most resilient chassis of any class in 5e. They excel at hit points, defense, saves, they have decent burst damage, spellcasting that isn't 100% gimped like an Eldritch Knight, as well as a few immunities and party buffs. Seems pretty solid.

But actually playing one, you realize that spellcasting is poor because you're not really built to be a melee caster; until you find a way to bolster your concentration check, most spells you'd want to cast can fall off very quickly what with you being the target of bad guy's ire. The defensive options are nice, but you're a backup healer in a game where healing isn't great to begin with, and all you really do is chuck a bunch of dice at enemies until your tank runs dry and then you just say "I attack for middling damage" the rest of the session. (Limiting Smite to once per turn seems like a good thing for pacing, since as it is now, I see no reason not to Smite everything you can to end fights as soon as possible).

Which, if that's your bag, more power to you, but I don't find that terribly fun. Opening up Smite to non-standard builds is at least interesting, and I'm hoping subclasses will do something with this idea; maybe we'll get the Sacred Fist or the Divine Hunter!

The ability to wait until you know you're not going to waste your cool thing when you use it is nice, and I like how classes and subclasses that rely on hitting an enemy were given that consideration (Paladin with Smite, Monks with Stunning Strike, Battlemasters with their Maneuvers); it's already bad enough when you whiff in combat and do nothing for however many minutes it takes to get back to your turn, but losing your "I do a cool thing" resource on top of it just bites.

I would need a very good reason to want to see this changed beyond "it doesn't make sense to me", especially in a game where, as I said before, Wizards can totally react to hits after the fact to decide if they want something to hit them or not with Shield. And don't even get me started on Shield v. Magic Missile, lol.

I wish they’d made divine smite separate from Spellcasting, so people stop mistakenly thinking that it’s better use of a slot than casting any of the very good spells at your disposal.

At least with the change to the smite spells, it’s more clear that they are usually better than using divine smite.

 

[tetrasodium]

Maybe if charging up your attack with a smite had some other cost, such as a bonus action.

Serious question. How many bonus action consuming abilities does a paladins have actually competing with this? do you foresee a lot of players agonizing over if they should smite this monster or save the bonus action in case they really want to use divine sense this round? The trouble with "it uses a bonus action" as a cost is that the alternative to consuming it for x ability is generally not even using that bonus action this round. Unless a player is worried about needing to exploit the death & dying rules with healing word there is almost zero competition for their bonus action*.

* rogues maybe sometimes excluded since they have a use most rounds bonus action that allows only one of a few options.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Serious question. How many bonus action consuming abilities does a paladins have actually competing with this? do you foresee a lot of players agonizing over if they should smite this monster or save the bonus action in case they really want to use divine sense this round? The trouble with "it uses a bonus action" as a cost is that the alternative to consuming it for x ability is generally not even using that bonus action this round. Unless a player is worried about needing to exploit the death & dying rules with healing word there is almost zero competition for their bonus action*.

* rogues maybe sometimes excluded since they have a use most rounds bonus action that allows only one of a few options.

The polearm master attack at my table.

 

[tetrasodium]

The polearm master attack at my table.

"this thing needs to die fast. Do I want to do more damage or much more damage?". Hardly a choice with meaningful strategic concerns to weigh.

Back when using a move action and being limited to a 5 foot step or not using a full round action provided some limits there were considerations to think about but there simply aren't enough things to compete for the bonus action... Bonus actions are like bolting of2's 3 action system onto 3.5 & adding a small handful of things to use it without changing the original actions to compete for it.

 

[fuindordm]

Serious question. How many bonus action consuming abilities does a paladins have actually competing with this? do you foresee a lot of players agonizing over if they should smite this monster or save the bonus action in case they really want to use divine sense this round?

I'm not saying it's a big cost, but at least it is SOME cost.

Healing Word is a common bonus action. Strange that Paladins don't have it, but it is sometimes a hassle for the ranger in my game who has to choose between Healing Word and commanding her dinosaur companion.

Compelled Duel and Shield of Faith are bonus actions, as are the XX Smite spells.

Frankly, I'm OK with ranged smiting as long as they unify it with melee smiting under a more consistent framework:
1. Clarify that "charging" any weapon with a potential smite uses a bonus action, even the basic class ability.
2. The bonus action just reserves the magic to activate on a hit; if the attack misses, the spell slot is not spent.
3. Smiting is like spellcasting in that you can't do it more than once per turn; you also can't smite AND cast a spell unless the second spell is a cantrip.

(pretty similar to @Sabathius42 's suggestion, but I didn't notice it until after writing this post)

Ben

 

[fuindordm]

The polearm master attack at my table.

Ah yes, the dying breath of 3e double weapons.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

"this thing needs to die fast. Do I want to do more damage or much more damage?". Hardly a choice with meaningful strategic concerns to weigh.

Back when using a move action and being limited to a 5 foot step or not using a full round action provided some limits there were considerations to think about but there simply aren't enough things to compete for the bonus action... Bonus actions are like bolting of2's 3 action system onto 3.5 & adding a small handful of things to use it without changing the original actions to compete for it.

I suggested smite use the item interaction not because I want to force a difficult choice but instead because it's a way to limit it to once a turn and only on your own turn.

Using a bonus action would achieve the same limitations, but I feel that's too high an additional cost when its already addressed the multi use and the save for crit bits.

 

[tetrasodium]

I suggested smite use the item interaction not because I want to force a difficult choice but instead because it's a way to limit it to once a turn and only on your own turn.

Using a bonus action would achieve the same limitations, but I feel that's too high an additional cost when its already addressed the multi use and the save for crit bits.

A choice doesn't need to be a "difficult" one for there to be meaningful consequences of choosing one way or the other. Too often bonus actions are just "well duh" obvious choices with no meaningful strategic consequences of making that choice over some other option.

edit: If the intent is only to rate limit the smite, the action economy cost should be action not bonus action. Making it a bonus action simply opens the door to an obvious eventuality of "for my action I use Kamehameha/dragon slave, oh look it hits, now for my bonus action I smite".