D&D (2024) Smite Changes

[MarkB]

Are you really atte. To go to compare a scenario where Alice actively takes some action to "create* a focus item that may require some effort to physically hide it as equivalent to Bob simply saying " no I ignore that & don't need a focus or improvised weapon... in fact I ignore the problem with being cuffed that are going to hinder Dave's claws too unless you fiat an adversarial 'because the gm said so' type roadblock for this one mold breaking ability of mine as well"?

@MarkB that battlemaster ability does not deal things like 5d6+banish or 3d6+blind. and it's still problematic design that has the GM needing to appear fair while juggling the fact that Alice & Bob are playing by a very different set of rules for basic attack declarations because one can retcon a resource consuming action into their quantum attack after determining success while the other & the rest of the table only sees the GM enforcing an unfair situation

Some characters being able to deal with or get around problems that are issues for others is pretty much the fundamental basis of class-based design.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Ranged is just too powerful in 5e. At the very least the archery fighting style should be replaced with something else. I mean there's a reason that target shooting is a sport and target stabbing is not, hitting things at a distance is harder in real life (especially moving targets). I can accept leveling the field for simplicity's sake, but then they add a fighting style that make is easier to hit at range than in melee (with no comparable melee hit improving option). So you get to not soak damage, not waste turns dashing to the enemy, and you hit easier. Melee is a sucker's game.

Ranged has always been powerful even before 5e. The trade is you can’t use it in melee. I think it would be better if they made ranged attacks (specifically bows) impossible to use at melee range (instead of just disadvantage). It would make closing down ranged attackers an actual viable tactic.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Ranged has always been powerful even before 5e. The trade is you can’t use it in melee. I think it would be better if they made ranged attacks (specifically bows) impossible to use at melee range (instead of just disadvantage). It would make closing down ranged attackers an actual viable tactic.

Realistically using a bow in melee would give attackers advantage.

 

[Horwath]

Ranged has always been powerful even before 5e. The trade is you can’t use it in melee. I think it would be better if they made ranged attacks (specifically bows) impossible to use at melee range (instead of just disadvantage). It would make closing down ranged attackers an actual viable tactic.

Only change I would put in that melee attacks have advantage vs you after you use a ranged weapon.
Advantage would be until the start of your next turn.

 

[Stalker0]

Ranged has always been powerful even before 5e. The trade is you can’t use it in melee. I think it would be better if they made ranged attacks (specifically bows) impossible to use at melee range (instead of just disadvantage). It would make closing down ranged attackers an actual viable tactic.

Ranged previously had a LOT of trade offs.

1) low damage: dex did not add to damage, so you had to have special bows and a high strength to get reasonable damage. Further, melee fighters had power attack like feats and abilities that dealt more damage.

2) firing into melee penalty: in 3e this was a -4 penalty

3) OA, firing while in a threatened area actually generated an opportunity attack, a nasty penalty.

4) more distance penalties: bows had shorter base ranges and more penalties for distance.

5) more melee closing options: you used to have charge and run options to close the distance quickly with ranged attackers. Those don’t exist anymore.

3e ranged characters often need signficant stat and feat expenditure to be equal to melee, and you still didn’t have power attack. In 5e it’s trivial to make an archer as good as a melee guy…except you also get to fire at range!

 

[Knight_Marshal]

I have never liked the 5e Smitadin. They need to go back to Smite Evil which was what the paladin is supposed to be about.

The 5e paladin is like they are handing out demerits in school. You get a Smite and you get a Smite and you get a Smite and another Smite for good measure.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Unarmed Smites --> Love it. I've always enjoyed the smite punch, it looks cool, it feels cool, and I'm excited to see it officially allowed.

Ranged Smite --> Love it. The idea of a holy Archer is a very fun one to play with, and it leads to more interesting variety. Also, there are some Holy Orders and dieties who WOULD focus on archery, and they deserve paladins too.

I sort of understand the disconnect people are having between the mechanic and the story because of the timing, but frankly, I think this is just a bit of inconsistency for the sake of making smites actually usable. If you had to declare a smite before rolling to hit... I mean, guh, almost no one would like that. Spending spells on effects that fail to do anything sucks, which is why just about every pure damage spell in the game does damage on a miss. Now, if smites did half damage on a miss, they may be okay to declare ahead of time, but I'm fine with minor two second retcons that say I did the thing before shooting, even if I made the decision afterwards, for the sake of making the ability usable.

One Smite Per Turn / Spell Smites --> Honestly... yeah, this was desperately needed. I hate nerfing things in general, but watching a polearm paladin go in and deal 2d10+1d4+8d8+9 or 58 damage on average in a single turn at level 5? More if they were facing a demon or undead? It was just too much.

We had a paladin in one game specifically not use smites for an entire fight against a Demi-lich, because it had too few HP and the player felt it would be boring to win immediately on their turn.

I am curious though if it was intended that you could Divine Smite on the first attack at level 5, then smite spell on the second? I'm not sure if I'm okay with that or not. Also, since the Divine Smite doesn't take any action, I'd really want the Smite spells to be notably better. And... maybe?

Banishing works (27 vs 27.5 and effect), but all of the other smite spells are less damage, and I'm not sure that the Bonus action cost is worth the effect.

Crits -> I remake crits anyways. And I'm ambivalent on this change.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have never liked the 5e Smitadin. They need to go back to Smite Evil which was what the paladin is supposed to be about.

No. Paladins should not be about smiting evil. That is a mocked trope for a reason.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Casting spells without a focus however is not a feature of "unarmed ability"

Ah yes, there are no spells that can be cast without a focus... except for Acid Splash, or Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, or burning hands, or entangle or... really it is a long list.

Oh, wait, maybe you mean there are no spells that can be cast without a focus AND without Somatic components...

Except for Mind Sliver, Vicious Mockery, Dissonant Whispers, Misty Step, Thunder Step, Mind Whip.... wow, that's still a decently sizable list.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Ranged previously had a LOT of trade offs.

1) low damage: dex did not add to damage, so you had to have special bows and a high strength to get reasonable damage. Further, melee fighters had power attack like feats and abilities that dealt more damage.

2) firing into melee penalty: in 3e this was a -4 penalty

3) OA, firing while in a threatened area actually generated an opportunity attack, a nasty penalty.

4) more distance penalties: bows had shorter base ranges and more penalties for distance.

5) more melee closing options: you used to have charge and run options to close the distance quickly with ranged attackers. Those don’t exist anymore.

3e ranged characters often need significant stat and feat expenditure to be equal to melee, and you still didn’t have power attack. In 5e it’s trivial to make an archer as good as a melee guy…except you also get to fire at range!

this is true.