D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[Sir Brennen]

Hi, just a question, why do you say it doesn't make any narrative sense? You're imbuing an attack with holy power, why couldn't you do this with a ranged weapon? When a deity smites you, "bolts from the blue" is perfectly acceptable, and what if you are a follower of a god such as Solonor?

Just agreeing with the similar statement made by the OP. In melee, the smite is immediately after the hit, the power is sort of flowing from the character through the weapon to the target. The sense of contact is immediate. At range, it seems less connected and immediate, and just a bit weird.

Your examples of a god smiting would mechanically be more akin to attacking with the intent to smite, and not quite the same as determining to use a smite after a successful attack. And "what about PCs who follow X deity" sounds more like arguments for a subclass ability, as not every member of a class with follow that deity.

Narrative interpretation is going to vary the most of all the points regarding a ranged smite, and some people may be fine with that part of it. So, of the concerns listed, I'd give it the lowest importance.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Yeah, if Battlemasters and Rogues can add their bonus effects to ranged attacks, no real reason Paladins couldn't as well.

Battlemasters do less damage with their abilities compared to Smite, and will have a smaller resource pool. Rogues using ranged attacks are giving up an increased chance for a Sneak Attack compared to using two weapons in melee.

 

[Amrûnril]

I don't see a balance issue. Ranged fighters are as valid a build as melee fighters, and get pretty much the same perks or better, ranged rogues and rangers are similarly viable, and with most spellcasters ranged tends to be the default. Paladins being able to smite from a distance shouldn't pose any serious issues with game balance.

Personally, I think that the strength of ranged attacks relative to melee attacks is a balance issue more broadly (especially in outdoor encounters). I do see the point that it's odd to insist on this point for Paladins when it's not applied to any other class's design, but the Paladin's already considered a strong class without this ability, and adding it would be a significant buff.

 

[Charlaquin]

I really like all of the changes, and Sebastian from Dragon Age 2 already warmed me up to the idea of an archer Paladin.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Personally, I think that the strength of ranged attacks relative to melee attacks is a balance issue more broadly (especially in outdoor encounters). I do see the point that it's odd to insist on this point for Paladins when it's not applied to any other class's design, but the Paladin's already considered a strong class without this ability, and adding it would be a significant buff.

I guess we see a straight buff to martial melee weapons in general. So maybe there are other incentives to stick to melee.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

I'm combing the two, because they're the same topic: should paladins be able to smite outside of using a melee weapon? While ranged combat has been the paladin's weakness, new access to cantrips will remove this already. Allowing smites on regular ranged attacks is unlikely to be that much of an issue, especially now that it's been pared back a bit.

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).

This is an excellent addition, and helps to make the Smite spells useful. When you could always just regular smite, the spells were situational at best.

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.

Quite of bit of wording change for several abilities, including the cleric's radiant damage. My reading says it's not part of the attack's damage, and thus isn't doubled. This is also useful for paring back the power of the smite.

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.

Interestingly, several of them lost Concentration since they don't have to be cast before the attack. Anything with an ongoing effect still has it, however. I feel the smite spells have been improved enough to consider using them outside of niche concepts.

 

[Clint_L]

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: agree.

Ranged smite: No problem with this, as I don't see it making an archer paladin very viable on its own - too much of the rest of the paladin build is geared towards melee. I think you'd be really gimping yourself to try to make a dex-based paladin archer who primarily fights at range. However, it might make a dip into paladin viable for a ranger...

One smite/turn: Fair. It's a mild nerf but paladins are probably in need of a slight rebalancing.

Smite and Critical Hits: Don't like this change, if the wording is correct. Agree that the current system forces the paladin to make a tough choice each round. And the occasional nova burst is fun.

Smite spells: agree.

 

[billd91]

Battlemasters do less damage with their abilities compared to Smite, and will have a smaller resource pool. Rogues using ranged attacks are giving up an increased chance for a Sneak Attack compared to using two weapons in melee.

Yeah, but as of 5e, the battlemaster’s dice were a short rest recovery ability while the spell slots that power the smite are a long rest recovery ability. So I suspect things tended to even out (they do in the game I run).

 

[Clint_L]

I don't see ranged smites as an issue for paladins - they are generally bad at ranged combat so this would be a desperation tactic, not a core feature.

But now I am thinking through the implications of a ranger taking a dip into paladin and then being able to use smite on their ranged attacks. And that could be very powerful. Not that rangers don't need a boost, but this does not seem like the best way to go about it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

First: great thread. Thanks for your insights.

Unarmed Smite: As far as I'm concerned as a Dungeon Master, this isn't actually a change from the 2014 rules.

Agreed -- this is cool and fun.

Ranged Smite: This is probably the biggest change, and one I have more conflicted feelings about.

I understand these concerns, but in the end I'm not going to be concerned with a wider range of potential builds. The problem (if any) is with ranged combat generally, for which I am content to let bonus damage always come from Strength (as an example fix).

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).

I agree this is reasonable, but the limit should be the same as the Rogue's sneak attack which (in the first iteration) only allowed one use on your turn, as part of an attack action. I hope the wording here suggests the Rogue will be made to match.