D&D 5E Removing Concentration From Smite Spells, Including Spells like Ensnaring Strike?

[doctorbadwolf]

I was watching a recent debate about Hunters Mark and concentration, and I think that removing C from Hex and Hunters Mark is the wrong direction.

Instead, it should be removed from Smite style spells, and they should instead be “bonus action when you hit with a weapon attack”. So, a ranger could have HM up, and still cast Ensnaring Strike. It still costs a BA, but it adds enough damage that it’s fine. Having multiple things to do with your BA isn’t a bad thing.

but what do you think?

edit to add: Like I said in the bolded text from the start, this includes ranger spells that don't have the word smite in the name, but function like the various smite spells that are called "XYZ Smite".

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'm in the ''do it this way instead'' camp

I'd make it a leveled-equivalent to the ''blade'' spells from the SCAG.

So they would be 1) without concentration, 2) target self 3) include the effect of a normal attack + a rider

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'm really torn on the HM as a class feature debate, and by extension, this suggestion for Paladins. Having it as a class feature/spell w/o concentration is appealing just for usability within each class, but I think it makes them too ripe for dipping. (Especially if the changes were made to both classes, and you've got a paladin ranger with near permanent bonus damage.)

Also, w/o concentration, wouldn't the Smite spells then be stackable?

 

[MarkB]

I'd tend towards just rolling them all into the Holy Smite ability. When the paladin spends a spell slot to Holy Smite, they can either do a conventional Holy Smite or apply a specialised Smite effect chosen from a menu of options equivalent to those in the current spells, with some effects requiring spending higher-level spell slots. They can use specialised Smites a number of times per long rest equal to their proficiency bonus.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just keep it the way it is, smites don't need any help IMO.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Just keep it the way it is, smites don't need any help IMO.

Divine Smite doesn't need help, but how often do paladins use these smite spells instead of just Divine Smiting?

 

[Don Durito]

Just for eases sake I'd keep them as they are but just remove the concentration. (Scratch that, no you should be able to choose when you hit - having to set it up in advance is just confusing when you first play a Paladin - I'm not even convinced the bonus action is necessary - just spend the spell slot.)

Unless someone can explain to me why they should have it? After all you still only ever get the one hit.

I agree that smites don't need to be more powerful, but most of the spells are not upgrades, they're just alternatives, and they often don't get used because Bless is so good to have up, and it helps the whole party.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

My recommendation is to allow it to trigger when you hit, still take your bonus action, but keep the concentration.

 

[GlassJaw]

Remove concentration. They NEVER get used.

So what if a paladin wants to stack them? Spend multiple spell slots and rounds in a row casting? Big deal. Keep the range of Self and 1 minute duration. The paladin gets a big hit on one enemy.

 

[GlassJaw]

Just for eases sake I'd keep them as they are but just remove the concentration. (Scratch that, no you should be able to choose when you hit - having to set it up in advance is just confusing when you first play a Paladin - I'm not even convinced the bonus action is necessary - just spend the spell slot.)

Unless someone can explain to me why they should have it? After all you still only ever get the one hit.

I agree that smites don't need to be more powerful, but most of the spells are not upgrades, they're just alternatives, and they often don't get used because Bless is so good to have up, and it helps the whole party.

I really like this. On a hit, spend a spell slot for the effect. Done.