D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[James Gasik]

Nothing to see here, I forgot TWF is slated to be changed.

 

[Clint_L]

I’ve come around to letting paladins keep the ability to smite after they’ve rolled to hit. Yes, it lets them fish for critical hits, but doing so makes them hold onto spell slots, so it becomes an interesting gamble.

Limiting them to one smite/round is enough.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Yeah there must be a reason why they chose specifically not to include smiting in the action economy. This is one option but without understanding the butterfly effect based off that original decision, I am not sure if it would be good or bad. It may be that limiting smiting to once per round, declaring intention to Smite before rolling (not expended on a miss), and giving access to more interesting spells might move this issue to the sweet spot.

They probably figured that the spell slot cost would be a sufficient limitation, and didn't expect how common 5min adventuring days would be in actual 5e play.

 

[Tutara]

I don’t understand why Smite isn’t a reaction. Make the spell smites reactions, too. It seems to perfectly represent the whole ‘when this happens, you do this’ schtick of using a reaction. Bonus action feels a bit awkward, but free action smiting is maybe too much.

 

[James Gasik]

They probably figured that the spell slot cost would be a sufficient limitation, and didn't expect how common 5min adventuring days would be in actual 5e play.

That's not a unique problem to the Paladin, however. If you want to adjust the game to compensate for variable game day lengths, it has to be systemic, you can't just make one class pay for the sins of game design.

 

[Pauln6]

I don’t understand why Smite isn’t a reaction. Make the spell smites reactions, too. It seems to perfectly represent the whole ‘when this happens, you do this’ schtick of using a reaction. Bonus action feels a bit awkward, but free action smiting is maybe too much.

Fighter superiority dice, favored foe, and rogue sneak attack do not require any action economy. Smites are magical though, so I suppose the question should be whether that puts them in a different regime. Martial = no action; magical = part of action economy. Personally, I would be fine if it took a bonus action or reaction to smite. There are no spells that are free, so burning spells for other purposes need not be free either. It's still a pretty sweet deal if it's not competing with two weapon fighting.

 

[Var]

The current framework forces Paladin into STR builds or Hexblade dips. The latter being stronger for on paper optimization regarding pure damage output. Let's ignore if that's optimal or not and just consider that these are the bottleneck that all other options will be gated by.
Smite only working on melee weapon attacks and not having access to Archery FS is about 99% of why that is the case.
UA Paladin does not suffer the same limitation. You don't need to Dip anywhere for a solid ranged option anymore.
A Thunderous Smite Javelin downing a flier for the benefit of the whole party is probably enough to not require thinking about having a better ranged option.
Dex based Paladins have some issues grabbing proficiency in Acrobatics, so Melee isn't the greatest of ideas. Your options to prevent getting shoved or grappled aren't stellar. You almost always give up your Heavy Armor Proficiencey when going DEX and the STR Pally does get the same Smite options at range by using Javelins. In-Class balancing wise I see a class that can cover more roles than it can now, where it's forced to be a frontliner.
That role is important for the average party and someone should stay in front and keep the heat of people with lower HP and less AC. But it also means I can play a Paladin that compliments a melee party of Barbarian, Fighter and Cleri with some divine archery.
I'm also quite happy to move away from multiclassing into either Warlock or Sorcerer as the easiest optimization build path.

Opening up Monks, ranged Fighters, Rogues and Rangers to work better with lower level Paladin Features is a win in my book.
Completely agree with others that Clerics shouldn't suddenly have access to Smites and Find Steed with better Spellprogression out of nowhere. With the current Spellists, if Smites is what I actually want, there's not much of a reason for anyone to go with Paladin levels over a Cleric aside from Charisma classes.

 

[Stalker0]

Smite and single classed sneak damage spikes are a problem with crits. The fact that they tried an alternative in one of the earlier packets suggests that they are aware of this problem, but how to fix it without making crits very boring?

Monsters die fast enough without doubling all damage on a crit. One option might be to use inspiration to double all your damage dice, which would cut down on frequency of the big spikes. Another option would be only to double weapon damage but expand the definition of weapon damage to certain other class features. Another would be to add specific riders to class features rather than just doubling all dice. That could favour things like battlemasters, colossus slayer, one extra sneak damage die etc.

In my campaign, we do not allow extra damage from magic items to double on a crit.

And that's fine, the issue I'm seeing is people are posting as if the playtest has already removed any ability for smite to work on a crit. IT HAS NOT. Just I want to ensure people aren't playtesting based on an improper understanding of what the current version of the playtest says.

 

[Stalker0]

The current framework forces Paladin into STR builds or Hexblade dips. The latter being stronger for on paper optimization regarding pure damage output. Let's ignore if that's optimal or not and just consider that these are the bottleneck that all other options will be gated by.
Smite only working on melee weapon attacks and not having access to Archery FS is about 99% of why that is the case.
UA Paladin does not suffer the same limitation. You don't need to Dip anywhere for a solid ranged option anymore.
A Thunderous Smite Javelin downing a flier for the benefit of the whole party is probably enough to not require thinking about having a better ranged option.
Dex based Paladins have some issues grabbing proficiency in Acrobatics, so Melee isn't the greatest of ideas. Your options to prevent getting shoved or grappled aren't stellar. You almost always give up your Heavy Armor Proficiencey when going DEX and the STR Pally does get the same Smite options at range by using Javelins. In-Class balancing wise I see a class that can cover more roles than it can now, where it's forced to be a frontliner.
That role is important for the average party and someone should stay in front and keep the heat of people with lower HP and less AC. But it also means I can play a Paladin that compliments a melee party of Barbarian, Fighter and Cleri with some divine archery.
I'm also quite happy to move away from multiclassing into either Warlock or Sorcerer as the easiest optimization build path.

Opening up Monks, ranged Fighters, Rogues and Rangers to work better with lower level Paladin Features is a win in my book.
Completely agree with others that Clerics shouldn't suddenly have access to Smites and Find Steed with better Spellprogression out of nowhere. With the current Spellists, if Smites is what I actually want, there's not much of a reason for anyone to go with Paladin levels over a Cleric aside from Charisma classes.

Paladins can grab a rapier and melee just fine. Your right they're more vulnerable to grapple and shove (though there are many ways to pick up skills, background being a good one). They also have better dexterity saves (much more common than strength ones), they get a much better initiative, and they don't have the limitations or cost of heavy armor. That looks like a perfectly reasonable trade off to me. Some paladins would take it, some would not, but its a reasonable option.

The paladin is not forced into a strength build, regardless of whether they can use ranged smites or not.

 

[Flamestrike]

I don’t understand why Smite isn’t a reaction. Make the spell smites reactions, too.

Because Paladins are traditionally melee based, and they want them to remain sticky with AoO would be my guess.