D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[Yaarel]

I agree ranged smite is awkward, thematically. I normally associate the Paladin with "honorable" combat, in a way that is "fair" by being a face-to-face duel. Assassinating from a distance conflicts with this concept.

But. The Fey Knight, namely the Ancient Paladin, is great for ranged attacks. The British Elf and fairy have "elf shot", being invisible spirit arrows that induce pain and cause paralysis via stroke. The Fey have no ethical problem with attacking from a distance.



Relatedly, a "standard" smite deals the radiant damage type. But I would like this base feature to be "radiant damage or an other damage type of your choice from the following list". I want thunder and lightning smites to be there for a Thor-like concept. Force smites for a Jedi-like concept. Maybe fire, cold, or poison for a dragon knight concept. Psychic damage for elf shot Fey Knight. The base damage type itself is vital to establish a character concept. The 5e Paladin is such a versatile class, I want the smite type to lean into this.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I could come around on ranged smites. It’s archery in general that needs reining in.

 

[Xamnam]

It's interesting to me that most people are parsing this new smite language as not allowing for it to be doubled by crits. For me, the language that made the difference was the Critical Hit entry in the first UA, that clarified it only applied to weapon damage. That glossary entry has not been in the following UAs, so we're supposed to use the 2014 PHB rules for them. The language for Smite has changed, and I can see how to read it in a way that can support either side, but I still feel like people who want to crit-fish would argue the new Smite does not disallow it in the same way the first playtest did.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

As far as I know they did errata the Weapons table to remove Unarmed Attack from it. Like it's gone from current printings, it's not in the SRD, and it's not in D&D Basic. The whole weapon attack vs melee weapon attack vs unarmed attack vs attack action vs attack roll vs attack thing is some incredibly frustrating, noodley, and not particularly useful semantics. It feels like it's a darling of someone on the design team at WotC, because otherwise it's just a series of really dumb distinctions to draw. It's a level of nuance and precision that does not serve the game well.

That said, I've never seen a DM even bat an eye at unarmed smite. First because it essentially never comes up, and second because it's actually pretty cool.

Ranged Smite:

I think it's fine because not all paladins are humans in full plate anymore.

That said, I doesn't look like they've really done anything to address Dex being so potent in combat except to nerf the big ranged feats (which is a significant change).

Mechanically they kind of don't make sense, but only if you think the smite comes from the paladin, and not their deity or power. Imagine being an elven paladin whose every arrow has a thin gold wire spiraled around it. When the arrow strikes, a bolt of energy strikes the target from the heavens.

I'm not particularly concerned here, I guess. It's potent and continues to discourage melee, which isn't good. But, it's really Sharpshooter and Archery Fighting Style that really keep ranged combat so good.

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 expected this and was only surprised that they similarly included spellcasting in the limitation. But I think it was needed, and I'm kind of frustrated they didn't make this change in 2016. Quite honestly, I don't understand why Divine Smite isn't just a first level spell, and then give paladin a class feature that gives a bonus 1d8 damage when casting a Smite of some kind. It's honestly even sillier now than it was before.

Or, I don't know, give Paladin it's own spell list and then when other classes can steal spells default to only including "Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Druid." They've always had oddball spells on the half caster lists that don't always work well when you get them 8 levels earlier like 5th level spells. The current designs mean the classes get 5th level spells at level 17, but they're required to be as balanced as a spell you could get at level 9. Just stupid.

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 think this is true of all bonus damage dice now. It's boring, but I guess the swingyness of crits is a thing.

Still, I'm not really sure why we need to nerf PC crits. Is there some D&D PVP arena out there? Elven Accuracy is so good that we need to nerf crits instead of issuing functional errata on the broken feat?

Smite Spells:

I agree, they're a better design now.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

I think unarmed attacks being weapon attacks is just horribly tortured rules-legalistic thinking that makes the game byzantine and obtuse to all but its deepest initiates. Now they seem to want to get around the problem by filling the manual with "or unarmed strike" verbiage.

They really just need a good, simple term to cover "non-spell attacks" that doesn't imply whether or not one has a weapon.

Though in the particular case of Divine Smite they should probably just let it work on spell attacks too.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.


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.


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.

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.

"should paladins be able to smite outside of using a melee weapon?" Maybe, but the still current version of being able to make the attack roll determine if there was a successful attack and only then declare a smite is doubly problematic when it comes to ranged weapon smite. The GM winds up getting pressured by players because Bob can't cast a spell, call for a dex save, & then decide if he wanted to cast a failed acid splash that was saved against or consume a spell slot for a successful lightning bolt that targeted a failed save.

Unarmed smite is problematic though because it negates any scenario where the players (or NPCs) have been disarmed for whatever reason.
cast spells? Need a focus, do you have one? You might be tied up/shackled or whatever too
weapons? Those were taken, improvised weapons are an option till you find something better You might be tied up/shackled or whatever too
Natural weapons? You might be tied up/shackled or whatever.
Smite? You might be tied up/shackled or whatever but who cares when you can headbutt shoulder check or just flop your naked paladin self onto the guard to smite them

 

[UngainlyTitan]

...
Smite? You might be tied up/shackled or whatever but who cares when you can headbutt shoulder check or just flop your naked paladin self onto the guard to smite them

And that is why you are a holy warrior. Kind of reminds me of the end of the Paksensarrion books.

 

[tetrasodium]

And that is why you are a holy warrior. Kind of reminds me of the end of the Paksensarrion books.

d10 hit die, wisdom saves, charisma saves, simple weapons, martial weapons, light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, shields, all the various paladin abilities... It's not like we are talking about beastmaster rangers or something. It's a poorly designed yet very obvious loophole in the mechanics that forces the GM in a bad position when gameplay involves edge cases so completely predictable wotc even kicks off a 5e HC with it.

 

[Mistwell]

The one issue is clerics get the smites sooner and have the higher spell slots to make them more powerful (to a lesser extent so do Bards) then Paladin's a similar issue to Find Steed. An improved smite feature for Paladin's that doubles smite spells damage would help.

All smites, including the variations provided by the spells, should be moved into the class abilities with an option list instead of spells. You power them with spell slots, but don't make them actual spells. Don't give other classes these smites which are a defining characteristic of Paladins.

 

[Stalker0]

You might be tied up/shackled or whatever but who cares when you can headbutt shoulder check or just flop your naked paladin self onto the guard to smite them

Sorry that is just a feature of the unarmed ability. Just like barbarians can come out of jail naked with a great AC, druids can wildshape into a bear and kill, and monks....you know....become just ok