D&D 5E Smite Nerf: Paladin Buff?

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. After seeing a paladin in play able to stack a smite spell and then use their smite ability on both attacks that hit that round, I'm a little concerned about their burst potential.

How bad of a nerf would it be if I switched the smite core ability to "bonus action", and made it work on the next attack that hit, while giving it a concentration (1 minute) duration? Right off the bat, a paladin wouldn't be able to stack a smite and a concentration spell, which might not be intended. But, a warlock or ranger can't stack Hex or hunter's mark.

I'd like to see abilities spread out more. Being able to burst for so much more extra damage in one round, when other casters are limited to 1 non-reaction spell slot per round generally, is proving to be a problem for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Colder]

It's a really big nerf to paladins in general. Most paladin spells require concentration, not just the smites.

 

[Mephista]

limit smites to once a round. Doesn't that fix all your problems right there?

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Hi everyone. After seeing a paladin in play able to stack a smite spell and then use their smite ability on both attacks that hit that round, I'm a little concerned about their burst potential.

How bad of a nerf would it be if I switched the smite core ability to "bonus action", and made it work on the next attack that hit, while giving it a concentration (1 minute) duration? Right off the bat, a paladin wouldn't be able to stack a smite and a concentration spell, which might not be intended. But, a warlock or ranger can't stack Hex or hunter's mark.

I'd like to see abilities spread out more. Being able to burst for so much more extra damage in one round, when other casters are limited to 1 non-reaction spell slot per round generally, is proving to be a problem for me.

Not sure what you mean with the Hunter's Mark or Hex. My understanding of those spells is that the extra damage is applied to each attack. So multiple Eldritch Blast rays would benefit from multiple d6's added onto damage.

My personal opinion is that Paladin's Divine Smite is fine as is. Yes, they can deal a lot of damage very quickly, but doing so leaves them pretty vulnerable later. Most of their other abilities are party support abilities (Lay of Hands, the various Auras, ect), so it's their one schtick, offensively speaking.

Does it create problems for encounters involving only one bad guy / the BBEG? Sure. But any creature smart enough to be a worthy foe of the PCs should work hard to soften them up and give the Paladin plenty of opportunities to use their spell slots/smites before going up against them.

 

[manduck]

It's also important to note that spells like Hunter's Mark and Hex have a duration to them and can be moved from target to target. That's a good benefit to those spells. Casting Hunter's Mark at a higher level can make the spell last for hours, if I'm remembering it correctly. A smite, on the other hand, is an instant use of a spell slot for one attack. Hex and and Hunter's mark can be used for multiple attacks against multiple targets. So really, the smite is balanced out against them. Smite is one big hit while the other two are lots of slightly boosted hits. So really, smite is fine as is. Sure, against that one BBEG smites are dangerous. That's the whole point of the smite (and the offensive side of the paladin). It's the paladin's way to deal damage against the heavy hitters, by design.

 

[Blue]

Hi everyone. After seeing a paladin in play able to stack a smite spell and then use their smite ability on both attacks that hit that round, I'm a little concerned about their burst potential.

How bad of a nerf would it be if I switched the smite core ability to "bonus action", and made it work on the next attack that hit, while giving it a concentration (1 minute) duration? Right off the bat, a paladin wouldn't be able to stack a smite and a concentration spell, which might not be intended. But, a warlock or ranger can't stack Hex or hunter's mark.

I'd like to see abilities spread out more. Being able to burst for so much more extra damage in one round, when other casters are limited to 1 non-reaction spell slot per round generally, is proving to be a problem for me.

The paladin smite uses up a limited resource. Saying they can nova well with it is like saying that a fireball can do a heck of a lot of damage to tightly bunched foes - this is true, but also the point.

A paladin using a smite spell and a Divine Smite is using up two spells per round. That lasts for a round and a half total for the day up to 4th level. At 5th when you get extra attack you can do it for 2 whole rounds per day (3 spells per round). At 9th level a paladin could do it for three whole rounds per day. Not until 15th could they do it for 4 whole rounds - your standard combat. And that blows all of their spells so you aren't using them for anything else or during any other encounters during the day.

Frankly, the ability to go nova is inherent in the design decisions of long-rest vs. short-rest recovery of powers. It looks like giving the paladin a very limited supply of spell+smite currency but they can pull it all out against a particular baddie if needed is how they designed the class.

 

[Illithidbix]

limit smites to once a round. Doesn't that fix all your problems right there?

I think this is an easier nerf.

Also, much of the problem is that I suspect most groups (like us) find it tricky to have the 6-8 encounters/adventuring day into the narrative of the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hi everyone. After seeing a paladin in play able to stack a smite spell and then use their smite ability on both attacks that hit that round, I'm a little concerned about their burst potential.

How bad of a nerf would it be if I switched the smite core ability to "bonus action", and made it work on the next attack that hit, while giving it a concentration (1 minute) duration?

What you'll see if you implement this rule is that smiting spells like Wrathful Smite get used exclusively, and Divine Smite gets used essentially never.

In practice that's not much of a nerf, because once you hit 9th level, Divine Smite is *almost* always a bad idea anyway from a combat effectiveness and efficiency standpoint. The only exception is when you're fighting the glassiest of glass cannons, like a lich about to cast Meteor Swarm.

There simply aren't very many scenarios where inflicting 18 HP of damage now is more valuable than healing 70 HP of damage sixty seconds from now.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

One smite nerf I've been considering is that Paladins must expend their highest remaining spell slot when they smite. This means they need to be more judicial in using them. Do they smite now, on a normal hit, or wait until (or if) they crit?

 

[Blue]

In practice that's not much of a nerf, because once you hit 9th level, Divine Smite is *almost* always a bad idea anyway from a combat effectiveness and efficiency standpoint. The only exception is when you're fighting the glassiest of glass cannons, like a lich about to cast Meteor Swarm.

There simply aren't very many scenarios where inflicting 18 HP of damage now is more valuable than healing 70 HP of damage sixty seconds from now.

This may be a table thing. 1st spells still give +2d8 damage, +3d8 at 11th. Double that if applied on a crit. And a 1st level spell is not a hefty opportunity cost.

Even for a higher level spell doing 18 HPs of damage - preventing a damaged foe from getting another turn can easily be worth 70 HP of healing after a combat ends. Easy example, dropping a caster who would throw an AoE spell at your party. Again, that's not saying always, but it is saying a common conditional. Probably comes up at least once per combat where an appropriately sized smite would drop an opponent but a normal hit will not.