D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[James Gasik]

I have real issues in understanding what you write. If I understand you correctly you are mapping the procedure of the game to actions in the fiction. Well I do not do that, not with D&D, because in my opinion the whole thing starting with AC and Hit Points make no sense.
I do not have a problem with smite as currently implemented and we do not have a basis for an argument, we are fundamentally at odds irrespective of any flaws in my understanding of your position.

I mean, pretty much, nothing in D&D really maps to "reality" in any way, and everything about combat, from AC to hit points, to the turn order, is completely abstract beyond "being stabbed with sword enough times eventually kills you".

The fact that a given proud nail bothers some people isn't abnormal; if you see the game as more than just a "fantasy simulator" and want to achieve some level of immersion, then there's always going to be some weird thing that pulls you out of the illusion and disrupts verisimilitude.

I think we all have that "one thing" (or more than one thing; I have a list!) of stuff about the game that irks us. If it's simply a matter of finding a way for it to "make sense", that's one thing. But sometimes I see debates like this, and it seems more like some people want to use this as an excuse to nerf characters because of some perceived imbalance.

Now is the Paladin balanced? That's hard to say; in many respects, they might have the most resilient chassis of any class in 5e. They excel at hit points, defense, saves, they have decent burst damage, spellcasting that isn't 100% gimped like an Eldritch Knight, as well as a few immunities and party buffs. Seems pretty solid.

But actually playing one, you realize that spellcasting is poor because you're not really built to be a melee caster; until you find a way to bolster your concentration check, most spells you'd want to cast can fall off very quickly what with you being the target of bad guy's ire. The defensive options are nice, but you're a backup healer in a game where healing isn't great to begin with, and all you really do is chuck a bunch of dice at enemies until your tank runs dry and then you just say "I attack for middling damage" the rest of the session. (Limiting Smite to once per turn seems like a good thing for pacing, since as it is now, I see no reason not to Smite everything you can to end fights as soon as possible).

Which, if that's your bag, more power to you, but I don't find that terribly fun. Opening up Smite to non-standard builds is at least interesting, and I'm hoping subclasses will do something with this idea; maybe we'll get the Sacred Fist or the Divine Hunter!

The ability to wait until you know you're not going to waste your cool thing when you use it is nice, and I like how classes and subclasses that rely on hitting an enemy were given that consideration (Paladin with Smite, Monks with Stunning Strike, Battlemasters with their Maneuvers); it's already bad enough when you whiff in combat and do nothing for however many minutes it takes to get back to your turn, but losing your "I do a cool thing" resource on top of it just bites.

I would need a very good reason to want to see this changed beyond "it doesn't make sense to me", especially in a game where, as I said before, Wizards can totally react to hits after the fact to decide if they want something to hit them or not with Shield. And don't even get me started on Shield v. Magic Missile, lol.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Where exactly did you get lost on the concept of players should need to declare a resource consuming action before the dice for that action are rolled rather than being allowed to roll the dice then after seeing the result of that roll declare the resource consuming action?

I'm still confused how this is, in any way shape or form, a problem. The reason it isn't like sneak attack is because it is supposed to consume a resource, you aren't supposed to be able to smite on every single hit you ever make. It also consumes a spell slot because that allows for scaling, you can smite powerful enemies harder than weaker enemies, while sneak attack hits everyone for the same amount every time.

Your problem solely seems to be that the ability was designed not to waste the resource. Which is a good thing, because otherwise, the Divine Smite ability would rarely get used, be a terrible ability and not an iconic one, and all around just be a worse design for what I can only assume is the questionable benefit of easing your personal incredulity towards the order of events.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, pretty much, nothing in D&D really maps to "reality" in any way, and everything about combat, from AC to hit points, to the turn order, is completely abstract beyond "being stabbed with sword enough times eventually kills you".

The fact that a given proud nail bothers some people isn't abnormal; if you see the game as more than just a "fantasy simulator" and want to achieve some level of immersion, then there's always going to be some weird thing that pulls you out of the illusion and disrupts verisimilitude.

I think we all have that "one thing" (or more than one thing; I have a list!) of stuff about the game that irks us. If it's simply a matter of finding a way for it to "make sense", that's one thing. But sometimes I see debates like this, and it seems more like some people want to use this as an excuse to nerf characters because of some perceived imbalance.

Now is the Paladin balanced? That's hard to say; in many respects, they might have the most resilient chassis of any class in 5e. They excel at hit points, defense, saves, they have decent burst damage, spellcasting that isn't 100% gimped like an Eldritch Knight, as well as a few immunities and party buffs. Seems pretty solid.

But actually playing one, you realize that spellcasting is poor because you're not really built to be a melee caster; until you find a way to bolster your concentration check, most spells you'd want to cast can fall off very quickly what with you being the target of bad guy's ire. The defensive options are nice, but you're a backup healer in a game where healing isn't great to begin with, and all you really do is chuck a bunch of dice at enemies until your tank runs dry and then you just say "I attack for middling damage" the rest of the session. (Limiting Smite to once per turn seems like a good thing for pacing, since as it is now, I see no reason not to Smite everything you can to end fights as soon as possible).

Which, if that's your bag, more power to you, but I don't find that terribly fun. Opening up Smite to non-standard builds is at least interesting, and I'm hoping subclasses will do something with this idea; maybe we'll get the Sacred Fist or the Divine Hunter!

The ability to wait until you know you're not going to waste your cool thing when you use it is nice, and I like how classes and subclasses that rely on hitting an enemy were given that consideration (Paladin with Smite, Monks with Stunning Strike, Battlemasters with their Maneuvers); it's already bad enough when you whiff in combat and do nothing for however many minutes it takes to get back to your turn, but losing your "I do a cool thing" resource on top of it just bites.

I would need a very good reason to want to see this changed beyond "it doesn't make sense to me", especially in a game where, as I said before, Wizards can totally react to hits after the fact to decide if they want something to hit them or not with Shield. And don't even get me started on Shield v. Magic Missile, lol.

I want to add onto all of this a point about normal spellcasting.

The majority of the time one of three things happens when you cast a spell. If you cast a damage spell, the enemy does get to save... for half damage. The spell slot cannot be completely wasted because it is guaranteed damage.

Secondly, you cast the spell and it works. You cast Wall of Stone? There is a wall of stone there. You cast Control Water? You can control and redirect water. You step in and say "this is going to happen" and it happens.

And finally, you have a save and there is no effect on a successful save. We often call these spells "save or suck" spells. Because if you fail them it SUCKS. If you fail your save against Hypnotic Pattern? You have essentially lost the fight. Hold Person? At a minimum you lose your turn, and at worse you just got multiple auto-crits against you. These spells can be wasted, but that is partially balanced by the fact that they are incredibly powerful and game changing when they work.

And so, I really think this complaint about Divine Smite fails to take into account the type of ability it is. It is not a save or suck ability, it is a damage ability, and it is designed for that purpose.

 

[Stalker0]

And as I said upthread, if it's the order of operations that bothers you, how about instead have the ability go something like:

"Once per turn, before making an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, the Paladin can declare they are making a smite attempt...[sacrifice spell slots yadda yadda]...if this attack misses, the Paladin regains the spell slots used for the smite attempt."

How does that handle the flavor though? So now you charge your sword with holy light and swing, but if I miss the holy fire dies away…but my god goes “it’s ok sweetly you’ll get them next time” and gives me more juice?

 

[Stalker0]

until your tank runs dry and then you just say "I attack for middling damage" the rest of the session.

You mean the same damage as a fighter? It’s not like paladins such as just swinging the old metal stick around pretty good

 

[MarkB]

How does that handle the flavor though? So now you charge your sword with holy light and swing, but if I miss the holy fire dies away…but my god goes “it’s ok sweetly you’ll get them next time” and gives me more juice?

Or that holy power is yours, granted to you by your deity to wield as you wish, and if your attack doesn't connect so that it can discharge into an opponent it doesn't just dissipate away - you reclaim it back to yourself, for you to redeploy as you wish at a later time.

 

[Amrûnril]

step1: DM describes the environment
step2: Players describe what they want to do
step3: DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions

Step 2 is not "player determines outcome of what they want to do before doing it. When an ability violates such a low level building block of the system like allowing a player to not describe what they want to do before resolving what they want to do while describing what they want to do the ability is a failure of design. Expecting the GM to make it wor is not reasonable.

I'd argue Smite actually does follow this pattern. In stating that an attack hits, the DM is describing an aspect the environment. At that instant, when the character has landed a blow but is still in the process of following through with it, the player describes their intent to empower that blow with magical/divine power. The DM then narrates the result, based on damage rolls, the target's hit points, and any other relevant factors.

As for the benefits of this mechanic, I think it's clear that many players enjoy using it in its current state. More specifically, though, I think it facilitates variety in character building. Because a Paladin player knows that their damage boosing ability will work a set number of times, regardless of their attack stat, they have a bit more flexibility to de-prioritize that attack stat and instead invest in something like constitution or charisma.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I mean, pretty much, nothing in D&D really maps to "reality" in any way, and everything about combat, from AC to hit points, to the turn order, is completely abstract beyond "being stabbed with sword enough times eventually kills you".

The fact that a given proud nail bothers some people isn't abnormal; if you see the game as more than just a "fantasy simulator" and want to achieve some level of immersion, then there's always going to be some weird thing that pulls you out of the illusion and disrupts verisimilitude.

I think we all have that "one thing" (or more than one thing; I have a list!) of stuff about the game that irks us. If it's simply a matter of finding a way for it to "make sense", that's one thing. But sometimes I see debates like this, and it seems more like some people want to use this as an excuse to nerf characters because of some perceived imbalance.

There are so many things in D&D that drop immersion that I stopped playing for 15 years, but I discovered that the other games I tried had their own issues and that any tractable game is likely to have some.
I came back to D&D because it is D&D and I leaned to live with my issues and largely enjoy the game.
Now you are taking me to task about my "failure" to comprehend that @tetrasodium has an issue. Now I freely admit that I can have trouble parsing what @tetrasodium writes but it is clear to me that he objects to the fact the paladin does not have to commit to the smite until the paladin has already established that the attack made has connected. In that way the spell slot spent on a smite is always effective.
Now, I agree with this mechanic and pretty much for the reasons outlined by @Chaosmancer in post 102 above.
I do not want a change, there is no argument. Nothing he says is going to sway me on this matter. He is not proposing a position I would ever favour.
Now, I believe you also favour the current rules with regard to Divine Smite so this post confuses me somewhat.

Now is the Paladin balanced? That's hard to say; in many respects, they might have the most resilient chassis of any class in 5e. They excel at hit points, defense, saves, they have decent burst damage, spellcasting that isn't 100% gimped like an Eldritch Knight, as well as a few immunities and party buffs. Seems pretty solid.

But actually playing one, you realize that spellcasting is poor because you're not really built to be a melee caster; until you find a way to bolster your concentration check, most spells you'd want to cast can fall off very quickly what with you being the target of bad guy's ire. The defensive options are nice, but you're a backup healer in a game where healing isn't great to begin with, and all you really do is chuck a bunch of dice at enemies until your tank runs dry and then you just say "I attack for middling damage" the rest of the session. (Limiting Smite to once per turn seems like a good thing for pacing, since as it is now, I see no reason not to Smite everything you can to end fights as soon as possible).

I am not at all sure why this is addressed to me.
On the topic of the paladin as spell caster, I believe the current UA greatly improves that since the smite spells (mostly) have concentration removed from them and now deliver a clear effect on delivery. by making concentration less needed then the issues with loosing the spell due to concentration, or just whiffing the attacks in the round cast and then loosing the spell to concentration in the enemy turn, are gone.

Which, if that's your bag, more power to you, but I don't find that terribly fun. Opening up Smite to non-standard builds is at least interesting, and I'm hoping subclasses will do something with this idea; maybe we'll get the Sacred Fist or the Divine Hunter!

What exactly do you think is my bag?

The ability to wait until you know you're not going to waste your cool thing when you use it is nice, and I like how classes and subclasses that rely on hitting an enemy were given that consideration (Paladin with Smite, Monks with Stunning Strike, Battlemasters with their Maneuvers); it's already bad enough when you whiff in combat and do nothing for however many minutes it takes to get back to your turn, but losing your "I do a cool thing" resource on top of it just bites.

I would need a very good reason to want to see this changed beyond "it doesn't make sense to me", especially in a game where, as I said before, Wizards can totally react to hits after the fact to decide if they want something to hit them or not with Shield. And don't even get me started on Shield v. Magic Missile, lol.

Again who are you arguing with here? I pretty much totally agree with you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If the argument is that Paladins do too much damage because they never "waste" a spell slot on a Smite that misses, whereas other casters do waste slots when they miss, or their targets save, then that's an objective argument worth considering. One solution would be to make them declare it before the attack. Other solutions would be to reduce spell slots, reduce damage done, etc.

But the argument that "it's a perversion of gameplay" to allow after-the-fact declarations is, although valid, a subjective aesthetic preference.

 

[James Gasik]

How does that handle the flavor though? So now you charge your sword with holy light and swing, but if I miss the holy fire dies away…but my god goes “it’s ok sweetly you’ll get them next time” and gives me more juice?

Sure why not? What's the limit to a God's power anyways? They decide whether I get spells or not, and how many.