Amrûnril
Hero
While it hasn't been transformed to the same extent as Wild Shape, the Paladin's smite mechanic still sees some noteworthy changes in the recent playtest packet. I think it would be helpful to have a discussion thread focused on these changes and have included some of my thoughts as a starting point:
Unarmed Smite: As far as I'm concerned as a Dungeon Master, this isn't actually a change from the 2014 rules. If an unarmed strike counts a melee weapon attack, with its damage appearing specifically in the Weapons table, it clearly fits the requirements for Divine Smite. If that's not intended function, the developers should have addressed this in the errata rather than relying on a dubious semantic argument in Sage Advice. Regardless of the status of unarmed smiting in the current rules, though, I see absolutely no balance or flavor reason to disallow it in future versions.
Ranged Smite: This is probably the biggest change, and one I have more conflicted feelings about. Dealing extra damage from range doesn't align with my conception of a Paladin, but I recognize my conception isn't the only valid one. There's also a balance aspect to consider, though. Ranged attacks have a significant intrinsic advantage over melee attacks, taking a boost designed for melee attacks and applying it unchanged to ranged attacks seems problematic. Perhaps ranged smites should deal reduced damage or require a feat to unlock? Or perhaps they should be triggered before the attack roll, since choosing to deal extra damage after hitting makes less sense if it's coming from a projectile that's already left your control? In principle, ranged smiting could work as a subclass ability, but that doesn't really fit with the current Paladin design, where subclasses are based on ideals rather than combat styles.
One Smite Per Turn: While using multiple smites in one turn is a nice option to have, removing it seems like one of the fairest and least painful ways to scale back the class/ability's power. (which is probably needed).
Smite and Critical Hits: This wasn't specifically addressed in the videos, so it's not clear if it's intended, but the revised wording seems to separate smite damage from the attack damage that doubles on a critical hit. I'm actually ambivalent about the existence of critical hits in the first place. But I think the best argument in their favor is that they can interact with class and other mechanics in compelling ways. Holding on to a spell slot for the crit you hope (or have faith) will eventually happen fits really well with the Paladin class's traditional flavor but is also risky enough to create an interesting strategic choice. I'd be sad to lose this dynamic, and I think that without it, smites would tend to be used in a much more predictable, front-loaded fashion.
Smite Spells: These always seemed to have potential as a mechanic, but losing concentration on a spell like Bless or Compelled Duel felt like too high an opportunity cost. Making them function more like the default smite mechanic seems a great quality of life improvement, and I hope to see them used more as a tactical option and as a way of differentiating Paladins from one another.
Unarmed Smite: As far as I'm concerned as a Dungeon Master, this isn't actually a change from the 2014 rules. If an unarmed strike counts a melee weapon attack, with its damage appearing specifically in the Weapons table, it clearly fits the requirements for Divine Smite. If that's not intended function, the developers should have addressed this in the errata rather than relying on a dubious semantic argument in Sage Advice. Regardless of the status of unarmed smiting in the current rules, though, I see absolutely no balance or flavor reason to disallow it in future versions.
Ranged Smite: This is probably the biggest change, and one I have more conflicted feelings about. Dealing extra damage from range doesn't align with my conception of a Paladin, but I recognize my conception isn't the only valid one. There's also a balance aspect to consider, though. Ranged attacks have a significant intrinsic advantage over melee attacks, taking a boost designed for melee attacks and applying it unchanged to ranged attacks seems problematic. Perhaps ranged smites should deal reduced damage or require a feat to unlock? Or perhaps they should be triggered before the attack roll, since choosing to deal extra damage after hitting makes less sense if it's coming from a projectile that's already left your control? In principle, ranged smiting could work as a subclass ability, but that doesn't really fit with the current Paladin design, where subclasses are based on ideals rather than combat styles.
One Smite Per Turn: While using multiple smites in one turn is a nice option to have, removing it seems like one of the fairest and least painful ways to scale back the class/ability's power. (which is probably needed).
Smite and Critical Hits: This wasn't specifically addressed in the videos, so it's not clear if it's intended, but the revised wording seems to separate smite damage from the attack damage that doubles on a critical hit. I'm actually ambivalent about the existence of critical hits in the first place. But I think the best argument in their favor is that they can interact with class and other mechanics in compelling ways. Holding on to a spell slot for the crit you hope (or have faith) will eventually happen fits really well with the Paladin class's traditional flavor but is also risky enough to create an interesting strategic choice. I'd be sad to lose this dynamic, and I think that without it, smites would tend to be used in a much more predictable, front-loaded fashion.
Smite Spells: These always seemed to have potential as a mechanic, but losing concentration on a spell like Bless or Compelled Duel felt like too high an opportunity cost. Making them function more like the default smite mechanic seems a great quality of life improvement, and I hope to see them used more as a tactical option and as a way of differentiating Paladins from one another.
