D&D 5E Smite Nerf: Paladin Buff?

[rgoodbb]

When I first read the title for some reason I saw Night Smurf!

That got my attention!

Sorry got nothing actually constructive to add.

 

[Kalshane]

As someone currently playing a paladin in a campaign with a crapton of demons and undead (and running another game involving a paladin) I think the paladin is working as designed. When I'm playing, I'm constantly agonizing on when to use Divine Smite. Sometimes, it's "obvious", other times a smite now could mean not having it later when we're fighting something bigger and badder. (Or when that spell slot could be used on a potentially encounter-turning spell.)

In my own game, the party just had a fight with serial killer ghast that they'd been hunting for awhile. As expected, the paladin did huge amounts of damage smiting him. However, the rogue actually managed to out damage the paladin with her sneak attacks because she crit two rounds in a row. (Which, granted, was luck rather than a core class ability, but still she managed to outshine the paladin in the realm where he's meant to be king.) I can plan for a smiting paladin. I can't plan for the 5th level rogue dishing out close to 100 points of damage over two rounds because her dice suddenly got super hot.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This may be a table thing. 1st spells still give +2d8 damage, +3d8 at 11th. Double that if applied on a crit. And a 1st level spell is not a hefty opportunity cost.

It costs you your opportunity to do 2d6 damage with Thunderous Smite AND possibly knock the enemy away and prone, or 1d6 psychic damage with Wrathful Smite and a good chance to render it combat-ineffective. Is the extra 2 points of damage (Thunderous Smite) or 5.5 points of damage (Wrathful Smite) really that critical to your combat strategy?

RE: "smite on a crit." It's not really compatible with the initiative system I use (everybody declares, then everybody acts), and my players find smiting on a crit absurd anyway (at least, I remember one paladin's player openly mocking the idea of deciding AFTER the hit lands whether or not you're going to smite), so I have no experience actually playing with it. I'm skeptical however that crit-smites are sufficiently better than regular smites to make abolishing smites a significant balance nerf--now you have a slightly wider window of utility (have to guess correctly that a foe is within 36 HP of death instead of 18) but a narrower window of opportunity (have to make said guess correctly at a time when you just happen to roll a critical hit). See below.

Even for a higher level spell doing 18 HPs of damage - preventing a damaged foe from getting another turn can easily be worth 70 HP of healing after a combat ends. Easy example, dropping a caster who would throw an AoE spell at your party. Again, that's not saying always, but it is saying a common conditional. Probably comes up at least once per combat where an appropriately sized smite would drop an opponent but a normal hit will not.

Isn't this in bold the same as the example you quoted, only with less specificity?

It isn't enough for an appropriately-sized smite to drop an opponent where a normal hit would not. You have to do that on a turn where the enemy is about to inflict 70+ HP of damage on the PCs before anyone else can act. Could be a table thing, but IME that's quite rare, outside the glassy glass cannon Meteor Swarm scenario already mentioned, or equivalent ones such as an already-damaged Flameskull casting Fireball when four or more PCs are in Fireball Formation. Since players (at my table) don't know the monster's remaining HP or spell loadouts, they wouldn't even know for sure they were in this optimal scenario even if it did arrive--you could waste your spell slots on smiting AND STILL get Fireballed, and now you will have trouble even healing the damage because you already blew the spell slots.

Divine Smite isn't a bad capability to have, but I predict the proposed nerf (basically removing it from the game entirely) will have little impact on game balance.

Per above, it's possible that deciding to smite AFTER rolling a crit could alter the above analysis--I don't play that way myself, but I'm open to arguments from those who do. And yet, I rather doubt it.

 

[Xeviat]

Paladin smite isn't comparable to fireball. It's comparable to someone spending potentially up to 3 spell slots in one round, or 4 if an opportunity Attack shows up. Heck, you could spend a bonus action one round for a smite spell, next round hit and expend a spell slot, use a bonus action to cast another smite spell, then hit again and expend a 4th spell slot.

I want it to be more like the smite spells. It deals more damage than them, and has bonus against undead and fiends, so it should still have value. Limiting it to once per round doesn't prevent the Spell stacking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

I was referencing hunter's Mark because someone can't use hunters mark and a "shot" spell at the same time. A ranger has to choose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Satyrn]

When I first read the title for some reason I saw Night Smurf!

That got my attention!

Sorry got nothing actually constructive to add.

Hey, when I first read this post for some reason I was reminded of Nyte Blayde.

I thought that was cool.

And yeah, I got nothing constructive to add, either.

 

[ccs]

Everyone sees a class do xyz & thinks "OMG! I should nerf that!"

Why? Your the DM. Your monsters, even your BBEGs, are meant to get mauled.
But you say you want your monsters to last longer?
1st: Use a few more of them. Last Sunday the main encounter was vs an evil Wizard (who could animate statues/objects), his animated dragon statue, his apprentice and her swarm of crows, & 5 3hd fighter types.
The party is pretty tough. So I just added a second statue into the description of the area they tracked him down to. The players didn't know what the original description of the area was.
It was a much better fight.

2nd: Just adjust things on YOUR side of the screen. Up their ACs. Max out their HP. Have the BBEG use up some Schrodingers consumables
Hell, just give some of them plot armor - They can't die before round x (though do keep marking off damage the PCs inflict - Players LIKE inflicting damage.) And then come round x? The BBEG can keel over on the next hit if they've exceeded their HPs.
This way there's no convoluted house rules to keep track of, you don't need to try & balance anything, & you've not actually taken anything away from the players (except maybe a faster kill).
Oh, and you just don't mention any of this to the players.

 

[Satyrn]

Oh my. That plot armor suggestion seems bound to ruffle some feathers

 

[Blue]

It costs you your opportunity to do 2d6 damage with Thunderous Smite AND possibly knock the enemy away and prone, or 1d6 psychic damage with Wrathful Smite and a good chance to render it combat-ineffective. Is the extra 2 points of damage (Thunderous Smite) or 5.5 points of damage (Wrathful Smite) really that critical to your combat strategy?

Faulty assumptions.

1. You assume my bonus action is free. I had great fun with a polearm master paladin. A GWM paladin can also have bonus action taken on any crit or kill.

2. Your opportunity cost involves spreading over multiple round. But the opportunity cost of THAT is not killing it faster. If round when when closing you cast a smite, then round 2 did multiple attacks, landing that smite and also Divine Smiting, the foe would often not get another action, especially with a ranged character helping. Denying a foe an entire action because it's dead is a greater debuff then the rider on either of those two first level smites.

RE: "smite on a crit." It's not really compatible with the initiative system I use (everybody declares, then everybody acts), and my players find smiting on a crit absurd anyway (at least, I remember one paladin's player openly mocking the idea of deciding AFTER the hit lands whether or not you're going to smite), so I have no experience actually playing with it.

At your table with house rules the balance can absolutely be different. I'm talking from the perspective of the rules in the book.

It isn't enough for an appropriately-sized smite to drop an opponent where a normal hit would not. You have to do that on a turn where the enemy is about to inflict 70+ HP of damage on the PCs before anyone else can act. Could be a table thing, but IME that's quite rare, outside the glassy glass cannon Meteor Swarm scenario already mentioned, or equivalent ones such as an already-damaged Flameskull casting Fireball when four or more PCs are in Fireball Formation.

Fair point. I'll meet you halfway - it needs to kill them without any other PCs who would be able to do so before their next action. If a PC in melee halfway across the map goes, that's not too helpful. If the life cleric is the only other one to go and can't reliably do enough damage to drop him, same thing.

But yeah, if your friend the archer can finish him off then it's a bit of a cascade effect - that's someone else not hurt but who knows if that damage in the end would be > 70 points of healing, combat is far to chaotic to tell.

Since players (at my table) don't know the monster's remaining HP or spell loadouts, they wouldn't even know for sure they were in this optimal scenario even if it did arrive--you could waste your spell slots on smiting AND STILL get Fireballed, and now you will have trouble even healing the damage because you already blew the spell slots.

Oh, players at my table don't either. But I do use descriptive terms - barely hurt, staggered, bleeding freely, on it's last legs - enough information from the character that the players can make an informed choice often.

Divine Smite isn't a bad capability to have, but I predict the proposed nerf (basically removing it from the game entirely) will have little impact on game balance.

It would entirely nerf my polearm mastery paladin. It would hurt every single paladin with extra attack who has a reason to kill something QUICKLY. Remember, it's not always about HPs - maybe they need to slay them in 3 rounds to stop a ritual, or save the commoners, or whatever.

It would have a large effect on the paladin as a class, just not a large effect under your house rules and with HPs as the sole metric.

 

[Blue]

You know, a wizard with a 3rd level slot doing 5d8 (save for half) to a bunch of foes in an area is dandy, but if character in melee uses the same level slot to do 4d8 to a foe, that's too much. We can't have those melee types getting anywhere near the spell damage that a caster does. Even if they have to be nigh twice the character level to get that 3rd level slot in the first place.

Really?