D&D 5E Removing Concentration From Smite Spells, Including Spells like Ensnaring Strike?

[Umbran]

Divine Smite doesn't need help, but how often do paladins use these smite spells instead of just Divine Smiting?

My Artificer uses his Branding Smite pretty frequently.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

My Artificer uses his Branding Smite pretty frequently.

Battlesmith, I'm guessing? In my post I asked "how often do paladins use these smite spells instead of just Divine Smiting?" Battlesmiths aren't paladins.

 

[Umbran]

Battlesmith, I'm guessing? In my post I asked "how often do paladins use these smite spells instead of just Divine Smiting?" Battlesmiths aren't paladins.

I am aware.

I am suggesting that paladins aren't a sufficient measure to decide what the smite spells may need.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I am aware.

I am suggesting that paladins aren't a sufficient measure to decide what the smite spells may need.

They were up until the Artificer came out. However, because the Paladin is the class that gets them on their spell list and the fact that they are still primarily meant for that class, I would say that the fact that they typically do not use these spells should indicate that the spells need something.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Divine Smite doesn't need help, but how often do paladins use these smite spells instead of just Divine Smiting?

Never IME. Not once. Ever. Granted, I've only seen two Paladins played over the last nearly two years... but they NEVER, EVER chose to use a spell slot when good ol' divine smite does more damage. I suppose someone might want the riders the smite spells have, but IMO they shouldn't even be in the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm in the ''do it this way instead'' camp

I'd make it a leveled-equivalent to the ''blade'' spells from the SCAG.

So they would be 1) without concentration, 2) target self 3) include the effect of a normal attack + a rider

I'd be fine with some changing to that, though taking a whole action means I'd want to increase their damage a little, since pretty much all characters that use these spells have Extra Attack, and such spells would be incompatible with that feature.

I'm really torn on the HM as a class feature debate, and by extension, this suggestion for Paladins. Having it as a class feature/spell w/o concentration is appealing just for usability within each class, but I think it makes them too ripe for dipping. (Especially if the changes were made to both classes, and you've got a paladin ranger with near permanent bonus damage.)

Also, w/o concentration, wouldn't the Smite spells then be stackable?

I think you misread the OP a bit. The suggestion isn't to give the Paladin any new feature at all. It's to take all smite spells, ie spells that are cast as a bonus action, last a minute with concentration, and trigger when you hit with an attack, and turn them into "cast as a bonus action when you hit with an attack" spells with the same effect. You only get one bonus action a turn, and can only cast 1 spell per turn, so they couldn't stack.

I'd tend towards just rolling them all into the Holy Smite ability. When the paladin spends a spell slot to Holy Smite, they can either do a conventional Holy Smite or apply a specialised Smite effect chosen from a menu of options equivalent to those in the current spells, with some effects requiring spending higher-level spell slots. They can use specialised Smites a number of times per long rest equal to their proficiency bonus.

That's fine for Paladins, I guess. They aren't the only characters with these types of spells.

Just keep it the way it is, smites don't need any help IMO.

They're, at best, on part with other 1 action non-concentration spells of the same level. Making them concentration brings them down a bit, or at least makes playing them much more frustrating than they need to be.

Just for eases sake I'd keep them as they are but just remove the concentration. (Scratch that, no you should be able to choose when you hit - having to set it up in advance is just confusing when you first play a Paladin - I'm not even convinced the bonus action is necessary - just spend the spell slot.)

Unless someone can explain to me why they should have it? After all you still only ever get the one hit.

I agree that smites don't need to be more powerful, but most of the spells are not upgrades, they're just alternatives, and they often don't get used because Bless is so good to have up, and it helps the whole party.

I'd be fine with ditching the bonus action requirement, especially for the sake of the ranger and battlesmith artificers.

My recommendation is to allow it to trigger when you hit, still take your bonus action, but keep the concentration.

How on Earth would that work? You'd be concentrating for the length of the attack? Sorry, but I don't understand what you're suggesting, here. Would concentration literally just be there so you can't use it while concentrating on something else? Why?

Remove concentration. They NEVER get used.

So what if a paladin wants to stack them? Spend multiple spell slots and rounds in a row casting? Big deal. Keep the range of Self and 1 minute duration. The paladin gets a big hit on one enemy.

That is far too powerful.

I am aware.

I am suggesting that paladins aren't a sufficient measure to decide what the smite spells may need.

This.

They were up until the Artificer came out. However, because the Paladin is the class that gets them on their spell list and the fact that they are still primarily meant for that class, I would say that the fact that they typically do not use these spells should indicate that the spells need something.

Hexblades, for one thing. For another, ensnaring strike and lightning arrow are smite spells, too.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Never IME. Not once. Ever. Granted, I've only seen two Paladins played over the last nearly two years... but they NEVER, EVER chose to use a spell slot when good ol' divine smite does more damage. I suppose someone might want the riders the smite spells have, but IMO they shouldn't even be in the game.

That is EXTREMELY surprising to me. IME they get used pretty frequently, and would be used much more often if they didn't interfere with things like Bless and Hunter's Mark.

Perhaps its because of how I run combat, which pretty well forces players to think tactically, beyond just damage output. Unless you can kill an enemy with that single hit, sometimes burning it's next turn is much more valuable than killing it one attack sooner next round. Not to mention that some smite spells make it much easier for another party member to kill the target.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

How on Earth would that work? You'd be concentrating for the length of the attack? Sorry, but I don't understand what you're suggesting, here. Would concentration literally just be there so you can't use it while concentrating on something else? Why?

Sorry, maybe I was unclear. You would keep concentration for the smite spells that have duration effects (searing smite, blinding smite, staggering smite, etc), but not for Thunderous Smite and others like that.

Hexblades, for one thing. For another, ensnaring strike and lightning arrow are smite spells, too.

Hexblades use these smite spells even less than paladins do. With the amount of spell slots that warlocks get, they will almost definitely never use one of these spells. Also, IMO, only spells that have "smite" in their name are "smite spells."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, maybe I was unclear. You would keep concentration for the smite spells that have duration effects (searing smite, blinding smite, staggering smite, etc), but not for Thunderous Smite and others like that.

Hexblades use these smite spells even less than paladins do. With the amount of spell slots that warlocks get, they will almost definitely never use one of these spells. Also, IMO, only spells that have "smite" in their name are "smite spells."

I used examples other than those spells in the OP, and I'm not going to get into a semantics argument over it.

IME, Hexblades use them quite often.

As for the first part, sure, that's fine. Some of them also have saves for the target though, which IMO obviates the need for concentration for balance purposes.

 

[Shiroiken]

Never IME. Not once. Ever. Granted, I've only seen two Paladins played over the last nearly two years... but they NEVER, EVER chose to use a spell slot when good ol' divine smite does more damage. I suppose someone might want the riders the smite spells have, but IMO they shouldn't even be in the game.

Some in my group have played around with them, and in general the riders are seldom worthwhile. Thundering Smite is the only one that saw any repeated use due to the Shove effect was sometimes worth the damage loss. Since it only cost 1 prepared spell, it was often kept for such situations. Everything else is pretty meh, except for Banishing Smite, which we didn't get high enough level to try out. Losing out on only 1d8 for a chance to blind seems worth it, assuming you can hold concentration.

IMO Divine Smite is what shouldn't have been in the game. Without it, the smite spells are right where they should be.