D&D 5E Decoupling Smite from spell slots?

[Li Shenron]

We're going to give A5E a spin once my books come in, but it's been a reality at my table that every paladin player has saved their spell slots for smiting. I can't recall the last time one actually used anything from their list.

You should meet my current paladin player. Dude almost refuses to use smite.

You two together just explained why smiting and spells are pooled together into the same resource in 5e: some players like spellcasting Paladins and others not so much. While technically you can't NOT have spells slots, you can choose to use all your slots for smites (there's at least 1 for each level) and practically work as a spell-less paladin.

A similar case could be thought for the Ranger based on Hunter's Mark, the mobility spells and maybe some of the Conjure, but it's harder to pull it off, as some details and descriptions of those spells go a bit too far in the supernatural to narrate them as less than magic.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Would it be wiser to give them the ability to use Concentration using Charisma?

This is something we allow all casters to do. Concentration is a spellcasting check, not a Constitution saving throw. This way, you will always get to add your proficiency bonus and the higher level you get the more likely you should succeed vs. equal damage.

I think the idea of tying smites to spell levels is because it represents a trade-off. You can to more damage (guaranteed on the hit after the attack) or use spells for defense, utility, etc. just as the Ranger does.

Now, IIRC Tasha's Ranger allows some sort of free hunter's mark? But I could be mistaken.

If you wanted smites to model the same sort of thing, or perhaps akin to a rage, then I would keep damage a bit lower (maybe d6 and d8 at later levels?), but make it last for 1 minute per use like rage and the ranger thing? Keep the uses equal to proficiency bonus per long rest.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is something we allow all casters to do. Concentration is a spellcasting check, not a Constitution saving throw. This way, you will always get to add your proficiency bonus and the higher level you get the more likely you should succeed vs. equal damage.

I like this. Though it also seems to make casters even stronger….

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like this. Though it also seems to make casters even stronger….

Yeah, it does a bit, but not so much IME. Frankly, casters rarely took enough damage with the half damage = DC idea for them to lose concentration... Still, this just made more sense to the group and works well (since it works both ways ).

 

[ECMO3]

Something I'd been considering recently - do you think it would be overpowered if the Paladin's smite became a fixed damage value usable PB number of times per short/long rest and didn't eat into their spell usage? Would recharge be better after a short rest or only after a long rest if this was done?

If this change was made, would altering or removing the various smite spells be advisable to do as well?

Any other factors that might need to be considered?

I would hesitate to change. Without doing math, your proposed changes seem like a bit of a combat nerf, with the added benefit that they will have more spells to cast and therefore more out of combat utility through slots which would otherwise have be used (which is a weakness for Paladin).

I would change them to a spells known mechanic instead of the cleric/druid/artificer method of selecting spells to prepare.

Overall though I don't see this as a net improvement over the current state of affairs, I see it as awash and one that has not been thoroughly playtested.

I will note though that I disagree about Paladins being OP. I think they are "average" as far as classes go. Wizards are at the top of the pack overall and Tasha's Rangers are the top of the martials with the Paladins near the middle on both.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I personally just removed the Smite feature of the class. Smites are just spells now (without the concentration). The Paladin still rocks, its not like the class was lacking in power anyway.

I'm still thinking of having the save bonus only affect the paladin or require a reaction to use on an ally.

 

[NotAYakk]

I personally just removed the Smite feature of the class. Smites are just spells now (without the concentration). The Paladin still rocks, its not like the class was lacking in power anyway.

I'm still thinking of having the save bonus only affect the paladin or require a reaction to use on an ally.

That is crazy strong. You can pre-cast a pile of smite spells and make an insane alpha strike.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is crazy strong. You can pre-cast a pile of smite spells and make an insane alpha strike.

Smite Spells all take bonus actions. So it's definitely not something that could be meaningfully done in combat.

I bet he also has some restrictions on using more than 1 at a time to prevent the precasting more than 1 scenario you are envisioning. Probably just didn't seem worth elaborating to that level of detail.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My opinion: Smiting for big damage is the fun part of playing a paladin - if you take that away they lose the big, exciting moments where you get to throw a fistful of dice and declare a huge damage number.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That is crazy strong. You can pre-cast a pile of smite spells and make an insane alpha strike.

Maybe...

All the smite spells deal less damage than using the spell slots for RAW smites. With each lasting at most 1 minute, I don't think you'd often be in a situation where you might benefit from more than 2 or 3 at best before you will probably need to attack (or have already hit, thus expending any smites in use).

I would think you'd need extraordinary circumstances to really alpha strike multiple smite spells. In most cases, I would think you're better off attacking each round instead of just stockpiling smite spells.

Or as @FrogReaver suggests, there is probably a caveat limiting the stacking of smite spells, perhaps no more than your proficiency bonus at one time (or even less)?