Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Smite Changes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8952895" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Crits -> I remake crits anyways. And I'm ambivalent on this change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8952895, member: 6801228"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Smite Changes
Top