Divine smite and Spell smites question

[Ketiara]

Ok so it takes a bonus action to activate a "spellsmite" banishing smite... you can as a ??? action fuel your melee attacks with spell levels to do radiant damage...

now can you bonus action a banishing smite, thus having it ready for the next attack, and THEN when you hit with your next melee ofcourse release the banishing smite as rules describe, but can you fuel the attack with more spells through divine smite? I dont read anywhere that you cant, so can you guys please let me know where it say you cant do these things, or where they exclude eachother.

ATM my issue is with a pit fiend that ive activated my banishing smite last round as a bonus action, so I know I will use this when I hit the sucker! but I want to fuel the hit with a 3rd lvl spell just to give it a bit more ooumph, and ofcourse the extra attack will have a 3rd lvl spell applyed aswell... what do you guys think?

[SharkForce]

the paladin's class feature smite does not require any actions. smite away.

[Mellack]

Yes, you can definitely double-dip, as it were. It just burns through spell slots fast. Paladins are great for nova damage.

[coredump]

5th level Paladin can move up to 30', cast Branding Smite as a bonus action, attack and hit, spend a 3rd level slot for a total of 2D6+3D8 extra damage.... then attack a second time and hit, spend another 3rd level slot, doing another 3D8 extra damage.

Paladins do nova pretty well.

IME, however, I almost never use the smite spells. I can do more damage via Divine smite, and I usually have things to do with my bonus actions.

[zinycor]

IME, however, I almost never use the smite spells. I can do more damage via Divine smite, and I usually have things to do with my bonus actions.

I agree with you, but Thunderous smite can be very good to push character and make him fall prone.

[MrStabby]

Smites can be pretty good with knowledge of what you are up against. Vulnerability to a type of damage for example, can make smites worth using.

Prior to the errata "clarifications" elemental sorcerers/paladins could get reasonable value out of smites for their chosen element. I say prior to the errata as fire is pretty much the best element and doing multiple instances of fire damage appeared to be good (although still only limited to things you were thinking would survive till the next turn anyway.

That said, I think only banishing smite is a good spell. The others are just occasionally not too terrible. If you are a vengeance paladin who uses hunter's mark for example the conflict of concentration is pretty terrible.

[coredump]

I agree with you, but Thunderous smite can be very good to push character and make him fall prone.


Smites can be pretty good with knowledge of what you are up against. Vulnerability to a type of damage for example, can make smites worth using.

Sure, there are some niche encounters where it might be helpful, and its good to keep them in mind.
Plus, I assume that at higher levels (lets say 12-14+) you may have enough slots that its worthwhile. But at 8th level, I can still burn through all of them just as Divine.



That said, I think only banishing smite is a good spell. Well sure, but now you are talking about a 17th level Paly (or some combo with a full caster class)
If you are a vengeance paladin who uses hunter's mark for example the conflict of concentration is pretty terrible.
Even Hunter's mark is questionable... If I already have it running thats okay. But otherwise it competes with Vow for the first round, and still takes 3 hits to be better than just using it as a smite... and that assumes you keep concentration for those 3 hits. It depends on how many bad guys I am dealing with at that point...