Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8777596" data-attributes="member: 6795602">My argument was spells are better but smites are still good.&nbsp; It kind of sounds like you agree spells are better. But IMO you are straddling the fence about whether smites are good by saying they are good due to action economy and bad due to only providing what you speak of as a little extra damage.In a 20 round adventuring day a 10th Paladin is only hitting with about 24 of his 40 attacks, each for about 10 damage a hit. That’s 240ish damage (assuming you only use your action to attack).&nbsp; Adding the smites in here is about a 40% increase in damage and it can be directed where it’s needed.&nbsp; Sounds like a significant benefit to me.And It only gets stronger in shorter adventuring days - which seem to be more typical.My post said exactly this.My post explicitly said that. Smiting is strong, but spell casting is often better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8777596, member: 6795602"] My argument was spells are better but smites are still good. It kind of sounds like you agree spells are better. But IMO you are straddling the fence about whether smites are good by saying they are good due to action economy and bad due to only providing what you speak of as a little extra damage. In a 20 round adventuring day a 10th Paladin is only hitting with about 24 of his 40 attacks, each for about 10 damage a hit. That’s 240ish damage (assuming you only use your action to attack). Adding the smites in here is about a 40% increase in damage and it can be directed where it’s needed. Sounds like a significant benefit to me. And It only gets stronger in shorter adventuring days - which seem to be more typical. My post said exactly this. My post explicitly said that. Smiting is strong, but spell casting is often better. [/QUOTE]

Verification