Unearthed Arcana New UA: 43 D&D Class Feature Variants

The latest Unearthed Arcana is a big 13-page document! “Every character class in D&D has features, and every class gets one or more class feature variants in today’s Unearthed Arcana! These variants replace or enhance a class’s normal features, giving you new ways to enjoy your character’s class.”

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Hussar]

With Spiritual Weapon you have to hit twice to surpass the damage from the same 2nd-level Divine Smite. And there's a not-insignificant chance you miss at least once with that spell, so it could be 3 rounds or even more before the damage becomes worth the slot.

So, multiple bonus actions over multiple rounds to do nothing but damage that often doesn't match a same-level Divine Smite, or one bonus action at the start to frighten the enemy and make them waste actions to shake it off? Easy answer for me there.

It just seems you're approaching the topic with an inherent prejudice against the Smite spells when you don't consider that many of your favorite spells have the same issues against same-level Divine Smites, and often for worse effect than the Smite spells have.

You're forgetting the primary advantage with Spiritual Weapons - Range. My Spiritual Weapon is a pretty solid ranged option for a melee focused paladin (which, frankly, is most of them). Meaning that I don't have to spend rounds double moving in order to attack, I can generally get at least one attack (or multiple if I want to throw stuff) that is dealing at least some damage per round.

The Smite Spells are just too situational. If Disadvantage is trivial (as @doctorbadwolf claims) then it's trivial for the baddies as well and your Frightened or Blinded effects aren't really all that powerful anyway. And, since it's not guaranteed, it's so dependent on saving throws. It's not like Paladin's are typically walking around with high DC saves - 14 or 15 is far more likely than anything else. Meaning that the spells, even against stuff that doesn't have any save plus, still fail about 25% of the time, flat out. VS an ability that is 100% effective, that's not a good trade off.

 

[Gladius Legis]

You're forgetting the primary advantage with Spiritual Weapons - Range. My Spiritual Weapon is a pretty solid ranged option for a melee focused paladin (which, frankly, is most of them). Meaning that I don't have to spend rounds double moving in order to attack, I can generally get at least one attack (or multiple if I want to throw stuff) that is dealing at least some damage per round.

Sure, that's good if many of your first rounds involve all enemies being more than 30 feet away from you. That's not everyone's experience.

The Smite Spells are just too situational. If Disadvantage is trivial (as @doctorbadwolf claims) then it's trivial for the baddies as well and your Frightened or Blinded effects aren't really all that powerful anyway. And, since it's not guaranteed, it's so dependent on saving throws. It's not like Paladin's are typically walking around with high DC saves - 14 or 15 is far more likely than anything else. Meaning that the spells, even against stuff that doesn't have any save plus, still fail about 25% of the time, flat out.

Well, I certainly don't agree that disadvantage is a trivial effect. In the case of blinding, it's advantage for you and disadvantage for them, which is a major tipping of scales. And even in the case of Blinding Smite, you still dealt 3d8 extra damage even if the enemy saved.

Also, it depends on the type of Paladin. Conquest Paladins are actually better served prioritizing CHA over STR because they really want to inflict fear.

VS an ability that is 100% effective, that's not a good trade off.

Spiritual Weapon can miss. That's not 100% effective.

 

[Salthorae]

because I can do both at the same time

just like you can use a Smite spell and a divine smite at the same time.

 

[Ashrym]

Yes, it does matter. In both examples, they both use up the same spell slot.

In most cases, Smiting twice is going to be better, certainly than Divine Favor + Smite with 1st-level slots. And depending on party composition, if I wasn't able to prebuff (since Crusader's Mantle requires a full action), then two 3rd-level Smites can also be (and often is) better than CM + Smite.


It doesn't compare favorably there, either.

At Lv. 1-4 it even loses to Searing Smite. SS's 1d6 on initial hit + 1d6 on failed save the first 2 rounds is better than DF's 1d4 + 1d4 1st 2 rounds. And probably have similar rates of success/failure. Not that I'd use SS at all.

DF is only slightly better 1st 2 rounds than SS if you dual-wield, since you're not getting DF the 1st round due to your off-hand attack also taking up a bonus action.

If I was going for megahit damage I'd do Thunderous Smite's 2d6 right of the bat and stick a Divine Smite on top of that hit. Frontloaded damage is a big deal in this edition and is better than damage over time like you get with DF.

Or again, compare DF to Wrathful Smite ... yeah, not even a comparison.


Yes, Bless is great. Bless also requires an action, as opposed to a bonus action. You act like that's nothing.

The difference is the situational benefits are different but I find my situations more prominent. TWF at 5th level when I'm not in a party, the party is small, or other members are down using divine favor is a slot for up to 3d4 per round and the rounds last longer in those situations. It's situational, and more situational than I would justify for those smites.

At 1st level those smites also take up my bonus action to cast and would also be down that off hand weapon attack.

If I don't use divine favor I'm not down anything because I can still use that slot for divine smite as you say.

I don't front load damage for nova's because we play longer days and I conserve slots. I like the idea of stacking damage but did one of us miss something here? I can use a bonus action and a slot for thunderous strike and add 2d6 damage, or I can use a bonus action and slot for an offhand weapon attack for 1d6+2d8 damage? Thunderous smite damage is only better if I'm not TWF unless I missed something.

I'm not forgetting the initial round. I'm accepting that I might not cast a concentration spell either and then simply rely on standard smites as the situation warrants.

 

[cbwjm]

I find that my players will often buff up before combat begins anyway so what action a buff spell requires often doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Ashrym]

just like you can use a Smite spell and a divine smite at the same time.

The same bonus action adds more damage using the same spell slot dual wielding unless I missed something.

 

[jgsugden]

If you have to argue over which is better, then it doesn't matter. Both are useful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you have to argue over which is better, then it doesn't matter. Both are useful.

Well, or someone just likes to argue.

(what? why're y'all look'n at me allofa sudden?)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You're forgetting the primary advantage with Spiritual Weapons - Range. My Spiritual Weapon is a pretty solid ranged option for a melee focused paladin (which, frankly, is most of them). Meaning that I don't have to spend rounds double moving in order to attack, I can generally get at least one attack (or multiple if I want to throw stuff) that is dealing at least some damage per round.

The Smite Spells are just too situational. If Disadvantage is trivial (as @doctorbadwolf claims) then it's trivial for the baddies as well and your Frightened or Blinded effects aren't really all that powerful anyway. And, since it's not guaranteed, it's so dependent on saving throws. It's not like Paladin's are typically walking around with high DC saves - 14 or 15 is far more likely than anything else. Meaning that the spells, even against stuff that doesn't have any save plus, still fail about 25% of the time, flat out. VS an ability that is 100% effective, that's not a good trade off.

My memory isn’t great right now because I’m a bit ill, but I doubt I said Disadvantage is trivial.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Awesome. Good. Adequate. OK. Not horribly broken. Tastes like chicken. Doesn't cause cancer.

Slot whatever you like in there. Apart from tautologies restating popularity, no conclusion is supported by 'it's popular.'

That’s nonsense. People will notice if the thing they’re playing doesn’t work, and it will lose popularity.

You also keep ignoring the satisfaction portion of my post. Perhaps because it doesn’t fit whatever the hell it is you’re trying to do here?