Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9060426" data-attributes="member: 6801228">ROFLOL, First off I'm wrong that only changing the concentration on the other smite spells would mean there is no action cost to Divine Smite. Second, before the changes to divine smite (where they just removed the concentration on the other smite spells) there was no action cost. I know you often make my point for me, but this one takes the cake. Yes, you are 100% correct. Before making these changes Divine Smite had no action cost, while Thunderous smite did have an action cost. There was no risk of Divine Smite being stopped by silence, while Thunderous smite could be stopped by silence. There was no ability to counterspell Divine Smite, while thunderous smite could be counterspelled. This is 100% the problem WoTC faced, because Thunderous smite also did less damage. So, Divine Smite was no action, uncounterable, unsilenceable, un-anti-magicable, and did more damage. It was not balanced against Thunderous smite. To balance it, they either had to make all smites work like divine smite, or they had to make divine smite a spell. They chose to make divine smite a spell. But if you don't like that, then make sure you understand that there is only one other way to balance those spells.Yes, they were supposed to be the same. Because every time I complained the about the smite spells, I was told they did less damage because they had a rider effect, and Divine Smite could do more damage because it did not. You may not be happy that Divine Smite is a smite, just like Thunderous Smite or Wrathful Smite or Glimmering Smite, but that was always the intention. That's why they were all called &quot;smite&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9060426, member: 6801228"] ROFLOL, First off I'm wrong that only changing the concentration on the other smite spells would mean there is no action cost to Divine Smite. Second, before the changes to divine smite (where they just removed the concentration on the other smite spells) there was no action cost. I know you often make my point for me, but this one takes the cake. Yes, you are 100% correct. Before making these changes Divine Smite had no action cost, while Thunderous smite did have an action cost. There was no risk of Divine Smite being stopped by silence, while Thunderous smite could be stopped by silence. There was no ability to counterspell Divine Smite, while thunderous smite could be counterspelled. This is 100% the problem WoTC faced, because Thunderous smite also did less damage. So, Divine Smite was no action, uncounterable, unsilenceable, un-anti-magicable, and did more damage. It was not balanced against Thunderous smite. To balance it, they either had to make all smites work like divine smite, or they had to make divine smite a spell. They chose to make divine smite a spell. But if you don't like that, then make sure you understand that there is only one other way to balance those spells. Yes, they were supposed to be the same. Because every time I complained the about the smite spells, I was told they did less damage because they had a rider effect, and Divine Smite could do more damage because it did not. You may not be happy that Divine Smite is a smite, just like Thunderous Smite or Wrathful Smite or Glimmering Smite, but that was always the intention. That's why they were all called "smite" [/QUOTE]

Verification