D&D 5E How can I get Wrathful Smite on my spell list?

[MarkB]

Not seeing how this changes the Magic Initiate feat? I mean, it seems possible WotC might change it in OneD&D, but we have not seen a version of Magic Initiate for OneD&D yet.

They're changing the way spells in general are listed. Wrathful Smite is listed on the Divine spells list as of the current playtest, and is available for both clerics and paladins to choose. Most likely, the Magic Initiate feat would be revised to allow you to pick spells from a specific spell list (Arcane, Divine or Primal) rather than spells a specific class has access to.

 

[ECMO3]

You should also be prepared for your DM to rule that the text is in error, and a saving throw is required like other similar abilities.

It is not errated, so there is no chance of this. The DM is a pretty strict RAW guy with very few homebrew rules. I've also played a Paladin with WS in his game before so he knows what the mechanics are and didn't blink before.

Some DMs like to monkey with the rules on the fly. But something like this is a major deviation from clearly written RAW. It severely weakens the spell and thereby dramatically affects any builds that rely on it. I would not be against this as homebrew, but logically something like this which is a known departure from RAW should be stated up front as homebrew in session 0 and not on the fly. It would be different if the wording was ambiguous or unclear.

The DM I am playing with has 3 homebrew rules - drinking a potion yourself is a bonus action, he has homebrew inspiration rule and a rule that Monks can't stun enemies that have legendary actions or legendary saves (not that it uses a save, but that stunning strike does not work at all on them). I don't really like the last rule on monks, but his table-his rules and he says it in session 0 so you can develop your build with that in consideration.

I will note ONE changed WS to be a save .... which is one reason I want to play it now while we are still playing 5E rules.

 

[ECMO3]

Not seeing how this changes the Magic Initiate feat? I mean, it seems possible WotC might change it in OneD&D, but we have not seen a version of Magic Initiate for OneD&D yet.

They will almost certainly change it to be a half feat. I think all the feats are going that direction.

 

[cbwjm]

Not seeing how this changes the Magic Initiate feat? I mean, it seems possible WotC might change it in OneD&D, but we have not seen a version of Magic Initiate for OneD&D yet.

Actually, you're right, it's already been changed to the 3 traditions (I forgot they were changing to that) so you can pick it up now with the oneDnD version of the feat. Technically it doesn't add it to your spell list so there may be some interactions that don't work with it, but OP would be able to use their spell slots with it.

Magic initiate changes are in the Character Origins playtest.

 

[Burnside]

Maybe you could talk to your DM about your character getting a magic item or weapon that would allow you to cast the spell.

 

[Ancalagon]

the Apothecary class (an upcoming class in the drakkenheim product "Sebastian Crowe's Guide to Drakkenheim" will have a feature similar to the bard's capacity to access other spells. But that probably isn't helpful :/

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It is not errated.

That's probably because no one raised it, since it's only on the paladin spell list, and paladins mostly use their spell slots to smite.

A good DM doesn't need WotC's permission to fix broken things.

 

[ECMO3]

That's probably because no one raised it, since it's only on the paladin spell list, and paladins mostly use their spell slots to smite.

A good DM doesn't need WotC's permission to fix broken things.

But it is not really broken. Powerful yes, but it is not as "broken" in play as Shield, Command, Bless or several other 1st level spells. Also unlike Shield, to be really effective you need to max charisma, which on a point-buy Paladin is a design choice with ramifications - a lower Constitution and a lower Strength. Maxing my casting stat is a choice I always gladly make on half-casters, but it is a compromise nonetheless.

Also using an action for an abilty check instead of a save is not really that uncommon. Ensnaring Strike for example is an action to make a strength check to try and escape. In terms of power, Ensnaring Strike imposes a comparable condition and additionally does damage every turn and can be used on ranged attacks. Does Ensnaring Strike need to be fixed? Web and Earthen Grasp are also an action to do a strength check to try to escape. Given these examples I don't think it is safe to say the 5E designers originally intended it to be a save.

Finally, like I said I would not be opposed to "fixing" it philosophically, but "fixing" rules mid campaign to nerf a PC spell/ability is not really a good DM practice IME. Fixing troublesome rules in session 0 is a completely different story.

 

[Flamestrike]

But it is not really broken.

A ton of creatures are flat out immune to frightened.

Which conditions are the most monsters immune to, and which are the fewest immune to?

Oozes, most constructs, a lot of undead, plants, and fiends can’t be frightened at all.

You also have the save to deal with (and legendries) and the fact without the frightened effect the damage is piddling, plus the fact it uses your concentration slot, and only targets one creature.

I still think it's a typo (it should be a Save and not an Ability check, and that's how I would rule it in my game) but even with the typo, it's situationally strong, without being broken.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A ton of creatures are flat out immune to frightened.

Which conditions are the most monsters immune to, and which are the fewest immune to?

Oozes, most constructs, a lot of undead, plants, and fiends can’t be frightened at all.

You also have the save to deal with (and legendries) and the fact without the frightened effect the damage is piddling, plus the fact it uses your concentration slot, and only targets one creature.

I still think it's a typo (it should be a Save and not an Ability check, and that's how I would rule it in my game) but even with the typo, it's situationally strong, without being broken.

Indeed, I would change it because it's inconstant and a clearly an error, not because it's strong. It's fairly rubbish, which is why the typo has never been corrected - too few people use the spell for it to be noticed.

A saving throw--also called a save--represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat.

-PHB/Core Rules


In other news, "thou shall commit adultery".