D&D 5E Decoupling Smite from spell slots?

[FrogReaver]

I mean, if you compare all of what a paladin gets to one rogue power... yes, it'll look like the paladin does fine. Uneven cherry picking doesn't convince me you are correct. Mind you, I don't think doing an extensive theoretical breakdown of the two classes actually does the thread any good, either, so I'm not going to go there.

My point was that comparing divine smite to sneak attack was the most extreme cherry picking and flawed comparison of this thread.

Paladins primarily scale damage via extra attack and improved divine smite. Rogues primarily scale damage via sneak attack. That’s why comparing sneak attack to divine smite only is flawed.

... insignificant after level 2 or 3, so why bother with it at all?

I agree. I would just remove divine smite and replace it with something that helps spell casting. But if one wants to achieve the OPs goal then it requires a weak divine smite for balance. And IMO Thematics is enough of a reason for it to exist in that case.

 

[James Gasik]

Really, I think the problem is how WotC designed Paladin subclasses. You choose an Oath, and that gives you certain abilities. But in reality, what you should have had was have subclasses like:

Avenger: the divine fist of your God. You Smite foes with holy power.
Defender: you protect the allies of your faith. You have an Aura of holy power that shields others.
Hospitaler: you bring succor to the meek. You have Healing Hands that cure wounds and cleanse disease.
Chevalier: you are a shining Knight-Errant, ranging far and wide to do your God's work. You have a Valiant Steed that bears you in battle.
Invoker: you call upon your God's power to blast foes with magic. You can call down Divine Fire when using your spells.

 

[steeldragons]

Meanwhile, the Rogue is gaining an extra d6 of sneak attack every other level, with no limit on the number of uses per rest, no spell slots to make it happen. Some small situational arrangement must be made, but those aren't hard to get.

By comparison a single d6, with no scaling with level, a limited number of times per day, falls behind really, really fast.

My response to that would be...

This is the inherent (and oft overlooked) advantage to a class that doesn't rely on magical power... This is exactly the "edge," forgive the pun, of a mundane (vs. "magic dependent," not meaning "boring/run-of-the-mill") class.

When a paladin is "out" of smites per day (or whatever increment) they have spell slots to fill in for some time -and to @Stormonu 's original desire- and still would have some ability to use non-smite spells.

When THOSE are all done, a paladin is still a warrior archetype, right? Probably in heavy armor. Probably with a big weapon. Probably with a BUNCH of hit points (with the great AC = stay standing longer = more rounds to deal damage), and decent strength bonus. A paladin without smites is not somehow "woe is I, I can't deal decent damage, at will, all day long."

The thief with the sneak attack isn't laying on hands or have divine health or access to spells (as a default, arcane tricksters hardly count as they're third casters and paladins are half) or sense Evil ("divine," whatever) or project Auras of anything.

I was also, and probably should have been more clear, not saying it HAD to be d6. It could be a d8. Or 2d6. Or "2 (automatically) + d6" (so, guaranteed, 3-8 hp extra damage). But, point was, whatever it is decided to be, it is flat and doesn't scale. If you want it to scale, then that's what the sl=pell slots are for. 1st level slot = additional [d6/d8/2d6/whatever it is]. 2nd level slot = additional [d6/d8/2d6/whatever it is] X 2. and so on. That's where your scaling is/comes in. So, it's possible.

But again, it's possible as a MAGICAL extra thing. So, no, it should not "scale" like a sneak attack. It's a limited -very special, even extra special if you want to take narrative/in-game from your [oath/god/ideal/whatever] source into account- resource.

 

[Stormonu]

Also, minor point but unless the rogue is fighting with two weapons (and thus losing use of Cunning Action) they don’t get Extra attack, so they get only one swing a round and can only apply the sneak attack once even if they get multiple strikes, whereas the paladin is, by 5th level, getting two swings - as long as one connects, they can smite and can possibly do so twice if they hit both times (three if the paladin decides to go two-weapon as well).

 

[FrogReaver]

Really, I think the problem is how WotC designed Paladin subclasses. You choose an Oath, and that gives you certain abilities. But in reality, what you should have had was have subclasses like:

Avenger: the divine fist of your God. You Smite foes with holy power.
Defender: you protect the allies of your faith. You have an Aura of holy power that shields others.
Hospitaler: you bring succor to the meek. You have Healing Hands that cure wounds and cleanse disease.
Chevalier: you are a shining Knight-Errant, ranging far and wide to do your God's work. You have a Valiant Steed that bears you in battle.
Invoker: you call upon your God's power to blast foes with magic. You can call down Divine Fire when using your spells.

I like that direction but what happens is once you’ve solidified a specific design there are always going to be certain things that design doesn’t do well.

Someone can always come behind you and say well if you had designed it this way then this problem wouldn’t exist, but undoubtedly, by the time they actually specify their ‘improved design’ the same thing will inevitably happens to it.

 

[nevin]

I think the \bigest mistake with paladin was taking away the 10th dispell magic circle when holding a holy weapon. I miss the days when Magic users saw a paladin or antipaladin and wanted to run away.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Really, I think the problem is how WotC designed Paladin subclasses. You choose an Oath, and that gives you certain abilities. But in reality, what you should have had was have subclasses like:

Avenger: the divine fist of your God. You Smite foes with holy power.
Defender: you protect the allies of your faith. You have an Aura of holy power that shields others.
Hospitaler: you bring succor to the meek. You have Healing Hands that cure wounds and cleanse disease.
Chevalier: you are a shining Knight-Errant, ranging far and wide to do your God's work. You have a Valiant Steed that bears you in battle.
Invoker: you call upon your God's power to blast foes with magic. You can call down Divine Fire when using your spells.

Yeah, something along these lines where core powers could have been somewhat regulated to subclasses would have made the class as a whole less strong and the subclasses more thematic. As it is, I really don't care for any of the subclasses and neither does anyone in my group. We made a homebrew which pretty much every one uses when they play a paladin. I understand the subclasses need to be a bit underwhelming due to how strong the core class is RAW, however.

 

[James Gasik]

I would personally love to play a "magic Paladin" who is better at spellcasting, even if that cost me other abilities. But yeah, rather than make Subclasses that let you specialize in one aspect of being a Paladin, we got the base package, and Oaths that kind of function like Cleric Domains.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The invoker-type subclass might fit that bill.

I wonder if the base class could be redesigned with those aspect improvement as subclasses. When I have more time maybe I will explore it more, but since I just started my new job (tomorrow really), time will be much shorter now.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

I’ve changed it so they get a number of smite uses equal to their Charisma modifier. Each increase in D8 damage counts as an extra use. Recharges after a long rest. I’m playing with homebrew rules designed to lower the power levels of the game, so I understand how it might not jive with some play styles.