D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[MarkB]

step1: DM describes the environment
step2: Players describe what they want to do
step3: DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions

Step 2 is not "player determines outcome of what they want to do before doing it. When an ability violates such a low level building block of the system like allowing a player to not describe what they want to do before resolving what they want to do while describing what they want to do the ability is a failure of design. Expecting the GM to make it wor is not reasonable.

We were talking about a paladin being able to add smite damage to an unarmed attack. The outcome of making an attack is neither inevitable nor predetermined.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah but then you are getting mechanically fiddly, I would think.

How?
It's an attack of opportunity?
it can't be simpler than that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Should draw Opportunity Attacks, imo.

No. This just makes bow fighters run away and shoot anyway. Granting advantage seems to be a better way to make using ranged weapons in melee punishing.
Probably just generally granting advantage to all melee attacks for an entire turn could be a way to generally balance ranged attacks...

 

[Horwath]

No. This just makes bow fighters run away and shoot anyway. Granting advantage seems to be a better way to make using ranged weapons in melee punishing.
Probably just generally granting advantage to all melee attacks for an entire turn could be a way to generally balance ranged attacks...

why not both?

 

[MarkB]

No. This just makes bow fighters run away and shoot anyway. Granting advantage seems to be a better way to make using ranged weapons in melee punishing.
Probably just generally granting advantage to all melee attacks for an entire turn could be a way to generally balance ranged attacks...

What's the in-game rationale, though? What is a ranged attacker doing that then makes it easier for someone to run up and hit them compared to, for instance, a totally unarmed spellcaster?

 

[Horwath]

What's the in-game rationale, though? What is a ranged attacker doing that then makes it easier for someone to run up and hit them compared to, for instance, a totally unarmed spellcaster?

Same could be applied to non-cantrip spell that is not melee touch or cone or blast emanating from the caster.

Cure wounds or burninh hands: No AoO
Healing word or fireball: AoO

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Yeah but then you are getting mechanically fiddly, I would think.

I don't follow how your proposed special source of advantage is less "fiddly" than a special source of opportunity attacks, which it sounds like you were advocating. It actually quickly gets more fiddly, since you have to litigate when the advantage would apply, based on what the bow user did on their prior turn. If I shoot someone with a bow, then draw a sword and go into melee for the second attack, while holding the bow in a second hand, what happens? The rules get complicated quickly, or start producing nonsensical results quickly.

Meanwhile "ranged attack in melee draws opportunity attack" is comparatively nice and clean. The penalty immediately comes with direct relationship to the trigger, rather than being a source of advantage floating around and being tracked until the enemy turn comes up. Yes it's another rule that needs remembering, and reactions can be a bit confusing in terms of turn order sometimes, and whatever, but versus needing to track another source of advantage, and one that I don't think I'm alone in thinking doesn't really make sense, I think drawing opportunity attacks has to win.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What's the in-game rationale, though? What is a ranged attacker doing that then makes it easier for someone to run up and hit them compared to, for instance, a totally unarmed spellcaster?

Firing a bow?
We could also give advabtage agaibst unarmed combatants...

 

[Chaosmancer]

step1: DM describes the environment
step2: Players describe what they want to do
step3: DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions

Step 2 is not "player determines outcome of what they want to do before doing it. When an ability violates such a low level building block of the system like allowing a player to not describe what they want to do before resolving what they want to do while describing what they want to do the ability is a failure of design. Expecting the GM to make it wor is not reasonable.

Wut?

The player determining the outcome happens in like... the VAST majority of spells and abilities. Do you honestly think it is a failure of design that when Control water is cast, the caster determines what the water does? Or if the Barbarian enters their rage, they get the benefits of rage? Like, what are you even trying to say here?

///////////////

This is an example of why it's exhausting trying to keep 5e's rules glued together while players drive trucks through the poorly defined areas with glee.

Spellcasting is not poorly defined, nor is how the various components work. You just had a false assumption that all spells require material components.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nerfing Ranged attacks (instead of just applying the rules like Cover) is not the way to fix this. The way to fix this is to buff melee and thrown weapons. And frankly, I'm not even sure it really needs it.

The biggest advantage of ranged over melee is staying out of the range of being attacked. All granting melee attackers advantage against ranged attackers or giving them opportunity attacks in melee does is incentivize the Ranged Characters to... stay out of range of being attacked? You are just taking the thing they already want to do that makes them more powerful, and making it even more desirable for them?

But, what happens when a character gets Crossbow expert or the new sharpshooter and can continue using their ranged weapon in melee? Then they stay in melee... and lose their biggest advantage because they are staying in range of taking damage.