D&D 5E Smite Nerf: Paladin Buff?

[Flamestrike]

My own 'nerf' to Paladins is that I limit Divine Smite to 1/turn.

In addition to limiting nova bursts, this also makes the 'Smite' spells much more attractive.

 

[Argyle King]

Mostly that it's kind of pointless: wrathful smite is a very effective crippling technique, to the point where the afflicted may be effectively removed from the fight. Spending extra resources to make them dead instead of useless is a bit of a waste.

Maybe it's just me, but frightened doesn't seem as good as being killed faster.

1d6 (3.5) damage and possibly disadvantage if a a save is failed VS 2d8 (9) damage? On a crit, it changes from a comparison of 7 to 18. That's assuming you only use a first level slot. Wrathful Smite cannot be cast at higher levels; Divine Smite gains damage when higher slots are used. In the hypothetical case of a multiclass Paladin, Divine Smite can also still be used while under conditions (such as Rage) which do not allow spells to be cast.

So, the creature takes disadvantage on attack rolls (which could be negated if something happens that gives the creature advantage) and the creature cannot willingly move closer to the Paladin (who needs to be in melee to be effective). I can see situations in which Wrathful Smite would be useful, but I'm not seeing the overwhelming appeal in comparison to other options.

As for why I would use both? I could see it a situation in which I have only 1st level slots left, but I need something to die. Two first level slots produce an extra 12.5 damage; 25 on a crit. Though, honestly, if that were the situation, I'd likely stack up Thunderous Smite instead: weapon + 2d8 + 2d6 + push (possibly for more damage) for two first level slots sounds like a worthwhile trade.

It's also worth mentioning that Wrathful Smite requires an action, Divine Smite does not, and this allows for the Paladin's bonus action to be used for other things.

Thunderous Smite seems like a closer comparison. 2d6 damage and a push (which could be used to shove a creature off of a ledge for more damage) compares pretty well to 2d8. That's besides the point though.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Maybe it's just me, but frightened doesn't seem as good as being killed faster.

The real appeal of Wrathful Smite is that it imposes fear that, basically, doesn't wear off. The victim can try to throw off the fear, but that requires making a Wisdom check (NOT saving throw), which like all ability checks is made at disadvantage while frightened... and doesn't get any Wisdom save proficiency bonus that the monster might have... and it costs an action. So for most intents and purposes, once Wrathful Smite sticks, it doesn't come off. The all you need to do is step away from the target while you finish killing all the other monsters in the vicinity, and then kill the still-frightened target to death with cantrips/arrows/reach weapons.

It's the next best thing to a one-hit kill. (N.b. "next best thing to" != "precisely as good as". "Next best thing" = "inferior, but only marginally so." There are obviously potential complications which come up once in a while when using Wrathful Smite, especially if the target flees to warn others.)

 

[Argyle King]

The real appeal of Wrathful Smite is that it imposes fear that, basically, doesn't wear off. The victim can try to throw off the fear, but that requires making a Wisdom check (NOT saving throw), which like all ability checks is made at disadvantage while frightened... and doesn't get any Wisdom save proficiency bonus that the monster might have... and it costs an action. So for most intents and purposes, once Wrathful Smite sticks, it doesn't come off. The all you need to do is step away from the target while you finish killing all the other monsters in the vicinity, and then kill the still-frightened target to death with cantrips/arrows/reach weapons.

It's the next best thing to a one-hit kill. (N.b. "next best thing to" != "precisely as good as". "Next best thing" = "inferior, but only marginally so." There are obviously potential complications which come up once in a while when using Wrathful Smite, especially if the target flees to warn others.)

Prior to the checks, the initial roll is a Wisdom save. If the target makes it, it does nothing.

In contrast, I don't even have to declare that I'm using Divine Smite until after I already know I've hit.

Also, as you mentioned, the monster could just leave. It also doesn't hamper the target's ability to do things which don't require rolling (such as spells or abilities that ask for saves from the target).

I'm not saying Wrathful Smite is terrible. It's not. I can appreciate the battlefield control uses in the event that no other party member has resources for control. Though, for me personally, I'm just not seeing how it keeps pace with the overall utility, damage, and usefulness of Divine Smite.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Prior to the checks, the initial roll is a Wisdom save. If the target makes it, it does nothing.

Right, that's not under dispute. That's why every time Wrathful Smite has been mentioned in this thread, it has been qualified with statements such as, "So for most intents and purposes, once Wrathful Smite sticks, it doesn't come off." You still have to get it to stick initially. When we discussed Strahd upthread, the point was made that Wrathful Smite isn't a good choice against Strahd due to legendary resistance; but Divine Smite might potentially be good.

I'm not saying Wrathful Smite is terrible. It's not. I can appreciate the battlefield control uses in the event that no other party member has resources for control. Though, for me personally, I'm just not seeing how it keeps pace with the overall utility, damage, and usefulness of Divine Smite.

I guess I'm just less impressed than you are with the damage of Divine Smite. (There is almost no utility or usefulness to it apart from the damage, except in the extreme corner case where you are fighting zombies, vampires, or similar creatures with weaknesses specifically to radiant damage.)

 

[Staffan]

The real appeal of Wrathful Smite is that it imposes fear that, basically, doesn't wear off. The victim can try to throw off the fear, but that requires making a Wisdom check (NOT saving throw), which like all ability checks is made at disadvantage while frightened... and doesn't get any Wisdom save proficiency bonus that the monster might have... and it costs an action. So for most intents and purposes, once Wrathful Smite sticks, it doesn't come off.

I'll admit I haven't seen it in action (the paladin player in my campaign hasn't used wrathful smite so far), but wouldn't concentration be a major isssue? Paladins tend to be in melee a lot and take quite a bit of damage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'll admit I haven't seen it in action (the paladin player in my campaign hasn't used wrathful smite so far), but wouldn't concentration be a major isssue? Paladins tend to be in melee a lot and take quite a bit of damage.

Depends on the paladin I suppose. Your average paladin comes with high mobility built in (Find Steed), so the class has no particular problems with mobility or being stuck in melee; additionally, they tend to have excellent Constitution saves thanks to protection auras, and the main paladin I'm thinking of right now (actually a Paladin/Wild Sorcerer but that doesn't matter here) is also Lucky, so concentration saves aren't a big worry for him (plus he has AC 26 when Shield is factored in so he often doesn't get hit in the first place); but it is certainly true that attacking the paladin's concentration is a potential counter to Wrathful Smite, and some paladins would struggle with overcoming that counter, especially if they're not tactical thinkers.

So: not a major issue for some paladins; perhaps a major issue for others. No different from any other concentration spell, really, including Haste; except that this one helps you keep concentration longer by partially or mostly disabling the bad guy you're concentrating on. Disadvantage on attacks against you = fewer hits = fewer concentration checks, of course; and the "can't approach the object of fear" clause helps reduce the number of hits too, especially if you're mounted and letting your Steed do Disengage for you after you land Wrathful Smite.

 

[Gladius Legis]

In 5e, we have Moon Druids with the Archdruid feature, spellcasters with 9th-level access Wish -> Simulacrum-ing their way to profit, and Action Surging Fighters getting a cheap 80 points of extra damage off 1 feat.

But the Paladin being able to smite multiple times a round is the problem? Really? I swear some of you just want the worthless 3.5 version of the class back. Then go back and just play 3.5.

 

[Xeviat]

In 5e, we have Moon Druids with the Archdruid feature, spellcasters with 9th-level access Wish -> Simulacrum-ing their way to profit, and Action Surging Fighters getting a cheap 80 points of extra damage off 1 feat.

But the Paladin being able to smite multiple times a round is the problem? Really? I swear some of you just want the worthless 3.5 version of the class back. Then go back and just play 3.5.

We can care about multiple issues at the same time. I don't expect people to know my entire posting history, but I've posted about Archdruid being an issue to Moon Druids, I'd never allow a wish simulacrum infinite cycle, and I have issues with great Weapon Mastery/Sharp Shooter.

Limiting a paladin's one round capability also spreads out their ability.

A 3rd level spell deals around 28 damage on a failed save. At that level, a paladin with a second level spell slot can deal 38.16 if both greatsword hits hit. The wizards is 75% the paladin's damage against a single target. Both have two spell slots of this level, 3rd or 2nd. Looking at the DMG spell builder, an area attack dealing 75% of a single target is appropriate.

With a 65% chance to hit or chance the target fails their save, the numbers change a bit. Assuming they smite on their first hit in the round and aren't crit fishing, it comes out to an expected 29.62 damage. The fireball does 23.1 with half damage on a successful save. That's 78% of the paladin.

So, the Paladin still deals more single target damage than a wizard using equivalent resources.

I'm not concerned about the 1 round limitation. It's more the bonus action requirement. Since I'm trying to limit the ability of spending multiple spell slots in a round, it eating into their spell casting bonus actions doesn't bother me in theory, but it could disrupt common play styles (the paladin in our group is smite happy, so I'm only seeing one style). The concentration change could also be an issue. That's what I'm questioning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FrogReaver]

We can care about multiple issues at the same time. I don't expect people to know my entire posting history, but I've posted about Archdruid being an issue to Moon Druids, I'd never allow a wish simulacrum infinite cycle, and I have issues with great Weapon Mastery/Sharp Shooter.

Limiting a paladin's one round capability also spreads out their ability.

A 3rd level spell deals around 28 damage on a failed save. At that level, a paladin with a second level spell slot can deal 38.16 if both greatsword hits hit. The wizards is 75% the paladin's damage against a single target. Both have two spell slots of this level, 3rd or 2nd. Looking at the DMG spell builder, an area attack dealing 75% of a single target is appropriate.

With a 65% chance to hit or chance the target fails their save, the numbers change a bit. Assuming they smite on their first hit in the round and aren't crit fishing, it comes out to an expected 29.62 damage. The fireball does 23.1 with half damage on a successful save. That's 78% of the paladin.

So, the Paladin still deals more single target damage than a wizard using equivalent resources.

I'm not concerned about the 1 round limitation. It's more the bonus action requirement. Since I'm trying to limit the ability of spending multiple spell slots in a round, it eating into their spell casting bonus actions doesn't bother me in theory, but it could disrupt common play styles (the paladin in our group is smite happy, so I'm only seeing one style). The concentration change could also be an issue. That's what I'm questioning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow there's quite a phenomenon here. No matter what you type it's beginning to sound the same, "Xeviat thinks Wizards should be equal to or stronger than paladins any time it comes to damage"