Smite spells: removing Concentration?

[Nifft]

Remove the Concentration constraint from the various Paladin Smite spells.

Add a line about "You may only have one active Smite spell at a time."

Let the duration be "1 minute or until discharged."

What would this break?

Elemental Weapon would stack, but I think that's not particularly terrible.

[DivisibleByZero]

The way that our table does it is this:
If the spell is cast (as a bonus action) and the player uses his or her action to attack that round (which they always do, of course), and that attack hits, then the spell is treated as instantaneous, with no concentration requirement.
If the attack(s) that round all miss, *or* if the attack hits and the spell has an effect which the Pally wants to concentrate on, then concentration occurs and is required as normal.

There are two things to consider here.
1) The smite spells are useful only for their riders. Their damage output is weaker than that of simply using your 2nd level Divine Smite ability. So the concentration is usually (but not always) required when they are used.
2) If you have Bless (or another concentration spell) active, you can cast a smite spell. If your attacks all miss, you have to choose whether you want to maintain concentration on Bless (or what have you), or on the smite spell to keep it active (so you can try again next round).

[XmonkTad]

It would make mage slayer a little weaker, and it would make certain riders stronger, in that they can't be knocked off. The "can't knock riders off" means that enemies have one fewer reasons to target the paladin, which might not be what you want if you're trying to hold an enemies attention.

[pwykersotz]

It would improve the nova capability of the top nova class. So it's not so much that it's breaking anything per se, it's raising the bar. If you haven't had issues with the damage your paladins have done, it's unlikely to be a serious problem. I wouldn't do it myself, Paladins don't really need the help from what I've seen.

Like other people have mentioned though, the riders are controlled through concentration, so you'll need to determine if you want them to simply persist for the duration, or if you want concentration to be required to maintain it if the rider lands.

[Citan]

The way that our table does it is this:
If the spell is cast (as a bonus action) and the player uses his or her action to attack that round (which they always do, of course), and that attack hits, then the spell is treated as instantaneous, with no concentration requirement.
If the attack(s) that round all miss, *or* if the attack hits and the spell has an effect which the Pally wants to concentrate on, then concentration occurs and is required as normal.

There are two things to consider here.
1) The smite spells are useful only for their riders. Their damage output is weaker than that of simply using your 2nd level Divine Smite ability. So the concentration is usually (but not always) required when they are used.
2) If you have Bless (or another concentration spell) active, you can cast a smite spell. If your attacks all miss, you have to choose whether you want to maintain concentration on Bless (or what have you), or on the smite spell to keep it active (so you can try again next round).
1) You're underrating the smite spells by saying it's useful only for their riders...
- it adds to damage on a bonus action, so either a good standard choice for "normal" (no GWM/dual-wielder/Sharp) Paladin, or a nice addition to a nova turn.
- it can be upgraded up to 9nth spell lvl, making it ideal for multiclass Paladins (since smite is limited to 4th lvl spell).
- some of smite spells deal damage other than radiant which can be great if enemy is vulnerable to something or resistant to radiant.
- two smite spells can be used with ranged attacks, allowing a Paladin to do decent damage at range if there is nothing better to do (or you're multiclassed as a ranged build such as Paladin with Rogue or Fighter).

2) What you say isn't legal by RAW. As long as there is "Concentration" as a duration, as soon as you cast such a spell it ends the previous ongoing spell. I'm not even sure of what you're saying is RAI.

Remove the Concentration constraint from the various Paladin Smite spells.
Add a line about "You may only have one active Smite spell at a time."
Let the duration be "1 minute or until discharged."
What would this break?
Elemental Weapon would stack, but I think that's not particularly terrible.
Allow a Smite spell to be cast without Concentration BUT requiring concentration to "start" on a hit for the rider to take effect and be sustained, is ok by me (it's nearly the houserules that DivisibleByZero uses at his table). It just allows the Paladin to add some damage while sustaining Bless/ShieldofFaith/whatever.

However, making the whole smite spell 1mn fixed seems a bit overpowered to me, but I'd have to test it out to check.

[DivisibleByZero]

2) What you say isn't legal by RAW. As long as there is "Concentration" as a duration, as soon as you cast such a spell it ends the previous ongoing spell. I'm not even sure of what you're saying is RAI.

No, it's an houserule, just like this entire thread is devoted to an houserule, which is why my post began with "what our table does is...." Don't tell me, in a thread about an houserule, that my table isn't RAW legal. That's a ridiculous claim. NONE of this thread is RAW legal.


1) - it can be upgraded up to 9nth spell lvl, making it ideal for multiclass Paladins (since smite is limited to 4th lvl spell).

Nope. None of them can be upgraded. That's why Divine Smiting is better for damage dealing, because they can. Not a single one of them deals more than a DS spent on a slot of the same level. Not one.

Better for Nova? Sure.
Useful for an archer? Sure.
You're talking niche reasons. Generally speaking, these spells are useful only for their riders. The riders are the reason that they exist.

[Nifft]

Nope. None of them can be upgraded. That's why Divine Smiting is better for damage dealing, because they can. Not a single one of them deals more than a DS spent on a slot of the same level. Not one.

Many of them don't upgrade, but some do:
- Searing Smite
- Branding Smite

(That's two, so "not one" is technically correct. :smallwink: )

[DivisibleByZero]

I never noticed that those two stragglers did. And they both deal 1d6 base. My point still stands. They exist for their riders.

[Citan]

No, it's an houserule, just like this entire thread is devoted to an houserule, which is why my post began with "what our table does is...." Don't tell me, in a thread about an houserule, that my table isn't RAW legal. That's a ridiculous claim. NONE of this thread is RAW legal.

Nope. None of them can be upgraded. That's why Divine Smiting is better for damage dealing, because they can. Not a single one of them deals more than a DS spent on a slot of the same level. Not one.

Better for Nova? Sure.
Useful for an archer? Sure.
You're talking niche reasons. Generally speaking, these spells are useful only for their riders. The riders are the reason that they exist.
As for your houserule, I'm sorry but if I felt compelled to remind about the RAW, it's because I didn't felt clear you were talking about your houserules in the whole post.

Also, again, you're wrong. P.l.a.i.n. wrong.
Branding Smite and Searing Smite CAN be cast as more than 5th lvl. Seeing that multiclassing in a spellcaster to up the spell slots is common (or multiclassing in Paladin for Auras), that is not a niche.
And again, I've just been correcting you (yeah, I daresay that) because saying "smite spells is good only for riders" as an absolute truth is just plain wrong (or you don't know how to best use them). Should you have said something like "smiting ability is generally preferable to smite spells in your standard turn of combat" would I approved 100%. Because that indeed is true.
It's just more or less useful depending on the build and the party around, as any class ability and any spell can be in fact. No more, no less.

[DivisibleByZero]

And again, I've just been correcting you (yeah, I daresay that) because saying "smite spells is good only for riders" as an absolute truth is just plain wrong (or you don't know how to best use them).

Dude, stop being nitpicky just to try to be right.
A DS in a 4th level slot does 5d8 damage.
That damage average doesn't get surpassed by a d6 base smite spell until a 7th level slot gets used, and then it's only by 2 pts.
In an 8th level slot it deals a whopping 5 or 6 more damage on average.
In a 9th level slot it deals a whole 9 extra avg damage.

A multiclass Pally/caster has much, much, MUCH better uses for those 8th and 9th level slots than to spend one of them on 5-9 extra average damage.
If you're blowing one of your precious 8th or 9th level slots on 5-9 extra damage, when you could be using a 4th level slot to do almost as much, then simply put you are doing it wrong.

I'll say it again: Those spells exist for their riders. If you're using those spells for damage dealing not in combination with DS to nova, or if you're using those spells alone for damage dealing from any slot (let alone an 8th or 9th level slot), then you are doing it wrong. They exist for their riders.
The *only* exception is Destructive Smite/Wave, which cannot be upgraded. This is the exception because it's an AoE and does great damage. But the multiclass Pally/caster that you're referring to won't get that one as it's a 5th level Pally spell, so it's a moot point.
So we're right back where we started. Those spells exist for their riders.

[Nifft]

So, back on track...

How many of the Smite spells are worth casting?

IMHO Banishing Smite is worth casting, but I'm iffy about most of the others.

[DireSickFish]

I like that they eat up concentration. Pallys have decent/good con saves with there +cha to saves so they can reliably have a concentration buff up such as Bless or Divine Favor. This improves combat capabilities through out a fight and it is a trade-off to instead use smite spells to increase your nova damage. If smite spells are not concentration then you can have improved sustained combat capabilities and the nova damage the class is so suited for. As someone earlier said you are raising a bar on a class that doesn't need the help.

This is all ignoring the rider effects (which I'm guilty of doing, I often am using Thunderous smite simply because its rider doesn't last and is only 1 point less damage than burning the slot as a regular smite). A lot of rider effects last more than 1 round and can significantly change the shape of the battlefield. DivisibleByZeroes house rule addresses this so make sure you do as well if you allow it.

I wouldn't remove it, but if you do use DivisibleByZeroes rule as concentration is a significant throttling factor on the Paladin.

[Nifft]

Well, what I'm thinking about is re-writing them to NOT be just more nova.

But I want to get a better handle on how everybody uses them before I start making changes.

What I'm thinking right now is: fold them into Compel Duel. Make the rider effects stuff like...

Searing Smite
- Action: none
- Duration: 1 minute

You can cast this spell when you hit an opponent with a melee weapon attack, as though you were using your Divine Smite class feature. You can't use your Divine Smite class feature on the same attack as this spell.

You deal +1d6 fire damage to the creature, and the creature is under your Searing Mark. If the target casts a damaging spell or makes an attack which doesn't include you as a target, the marked creature suffers 1d6 fire damage.

The marked creature can attempt to end the Searing Mark early by using its action to make a Charisma saving throw.

If you make an attack on your turn which doesn't include the creature, or cast any other Smite spell, the Searing Mark ends immediately.

At Higher Levels: The initial damage and Searing Mark damage increase by +1d6 for each spell level above first.

- - -

With spells like that, it's a more interesting decision: more damage (Divine Smite), or more control?

Concentration can still be used for extra damage (via Divine Favor or Elemental Weapon), or for buffing the party (via Bless).

Thoughts?

[Eriol]

I agree that the purpose of most of them is for the "rider" effect. They're arguably even worse for a vengeance paladin as Hunter's Mark is so great (once per hit, works with extra attack and polearm mastery), being a "cast once, move around as needed" with regards to spell slot consumption while competing for the concentration slot. It is quite rare for my pally (5th level) to use the other smites, though it has happened, but only in niche circumstances, like branding against invisible monsters. The normal smite is just so good.

I do like the houserule however that the concentration doesn't take effect until you hit. I'm OK with that idea.

[Citan]

Dude, stop being nitpicky just to try to be right.
A DS in a 4th level slot does 5d8 damage.
That damage average doesn't get surpassed by a d6 base smite spell until a 7th level slot gets used, and then it's only by 2 pts.
In an 8th level slot it deals a whopping 5 or 6 more damage on average.
In a 9th level slot it deals a whole 9 extra avg damage.

A multiclass Pally/caster has much, much, MUCH better uses for those 8th and 9th level slots than to spend one of them on 5-9 extra average damage.
If you're blowing one of your precious 8th or 9th level slots on 5-9 extra damage, when you could be using a 4th level slot to do almost as much, then simply put you are doing it wrong.

I'll say it again: Those spells exist for their riders. If you're using those spells for damage dealing not in combination with DS to nova, or if you're using those spells alone for damage dealing from any slot (let alone an 8th or 9th level slot), then you are doing it wrong. They exist for their riders.
The *only* exception is Destructive Smite/Wave, which cannot be upgraded. This is the exception because it's an AoE and does great damage. But the multiclass Pally/caster that you're referring to won't get that one as it's a 5th level Pally spell, so it's a moot point.
So we're right back where we started. Those spells exist for their riders.
"Dude", you're the one nitpicking. :)
1) Paladin/Bard can have Destructive wave as fast or faster than pure Paladin.
2) Any build with decent levels in Paladin (aka melee-oriented build) will have no known spell higher than 6th in most cases (except specific builds Paladin 2 / Favored Soul Sorcerer X maybe) and since smite-oriented build the character will have much higher chance to land a melee hit than to land a saving throw spell (unless they maximize CHA and attack stat, meaning less feats). So, for melee-oriented characters, it's far more reliable to use bonus action to do additional damage and potential rider with smite spell than trying offensive spell.
That's even more true for pure Paladin which first want to maximize their standard DEX/STR attack and/or want many feats so they keep CHA to a decent but not great level. It's also even more true if you're the main melee fighter of your team and have other people to take care of the buffs. That's even more true if you go Two-handed fighting with Great Weapon Fighting Style since it's generally admitted that the reroll ability apply to all damage dice on a given attack.

That's why saying that in any and all cases smite spells are to be used only when you want a debuff is wrong. They can also be useful for the extra damage they provide if you need to nova. No more, no less.

The only build I see which indeed would always have better uses for high level spells than Smite spells would bethe following: Paladin 3 (DS and Oath, lvl1 spells) / Valor Bard 17 (Extra Attack, Shillelagh as one Magic Secrets, with Polearm Master feat for bonus action attack). This build indeed has much better ways to use high slots and gets a bonus attack on which to divine smite, all while depending only on CHA. :)
Paladin 2/ Bladelock 6 with same weapon combo would also generally avoid smite spells in favor of DS, although the lvl5 are a bit overkill. ^^

The only real drawback of smite spells once again is the concentration, not the fact that they deal slightly less damage than smite of the spell level or that they use the bonus action. Because indeed as a Paladin, you have many good buffs you'd want to keep concentrating on. But if you have people in your party taking care of the buff for you, then Smite spells are the way to go.

EDIT: Also, thanks for not trying do decredibilize me by deforming my word: when I referred to using smite spells to nova, it's obviously in conjunction with divine smite on each attack. It seems so natural to me that I didn't even think you could imagine not doing it. :)

[MaxWilson]

That's even more true if you go Two-handed fighting with Great Weapon Fighting Style since it's generally admitted that the reroll ability apply to all damage dice on a given attack.

That's a controversial claim.

[Citan]

That's a controversial claim.
Ah? Sorry, I thought it was a general consensus. Is there by chance a thread on this forum talking about it? I'm interested.

[DivisibleByZero]

"Dude", you're the one nitpicking. :)
1) Paladin/Bard can have Destructive wave as fast or faster than pure Paladin.

You pull out the one, exclusive, singular example where it might (and I stress *MIGHT* here) be possible that a multiclass pally/caster character would get that spell.... and I'm the one nitpicking?
Nope. Just like I said, you're nitpicking just to try to be "right."
This is where I stopped reading.

[Citan]

You pull out the one, exclusive, singular example where it might (and I stress *MIGHT* here) be possible that a multiclass pally/caster character would get that spell.... and I'm the one nitpicking?
Nope. Just like I said, you're nitpicking just to try to be "right."
This is where I stopped reading.
Lol. You've been the one that first made a "I tell the absolute truth" opinion, which is never a defendable stance, then you went and picked up on me by saying I was talking about only niche and talking about Destructive Wave for whatever reason.

{scrubbed}

So, have a nice day. :)

[MadBear]

Lol. You've been the one that first made a "I tell the absolute truth" opinion, which is never a defendable stance, then you went and picked up on me by saying I was talking about only niche and talking about Destructive Wave for whatever reason.

If you had read, you would have seen that contrarily to you, I try to stay constructive and bring real examples to support my argumentation (as a matter of fact, I even push the politeness to describe a build for which your claim actually holds very true).

But, you know, I don't care eitherway because you'll never move from your ABSOLUTE TRUTH. And I know better than to try and discuss with "that".

So, have a nice day. :)

Citan, you are in fact being nit-picky. No one has claimed "ABSOLUTE TRUTH", and it feels like you just want to win the argument here.

As someone who played a Vengeance paladin, there were 2 reasons that I ever used the smite spells:

1. Going nova on my last attack (thereby cancelling my hunters mark or haste), which I never did lightly since paladin's don't have a lot of spell slots.
2. to put a rider on an enemy

as far as GWF goes, Mike Mearls gives his opinion here:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/great-weapon-smite/

From personal experience, my group will never allow re-rolls on smite again. We started off allowing it, and even I (the paladin) felt it was far to powerful to allow re-rolls on all the smite dice.

[Dralnu]

I wouldn't allow it. Paladins already push burst damage to its extreme; I don't want to give them incentive to stack the burst even higher by not having to drop Bless / Hunter's Mark.

[Citan]

Citan, you are in fact being nit-picky. No one has claimed "ABSOLUTE TRUTH", and it feels like you just want to win the argument here.

As someone who played a Vengeance paladin, there were 2 reasons that I ever used the smite spells:

1. Going nova on my last attack (thereby cancelling my hunters mark or haste), which I never did lightly since paladin's don't have a lot of spell slots.
2. to put a rider on an enemy

as far as GWF goes, Mike Mearls gives his opinion here:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/06/great-weapon-smite/

From personal experience, my group will never allow re-rolls on smite again. We started off allowing it, and even I (the paladin) felt it was far to powerful to allow re-rolls on all the smite dice.

{scrubbed}

DivisiblebyZero, I quote: "Generally speaking, these spells are useful only for their riders. The riders are the reason that they exist."
"I'll say it again: Those spells exist for their riders."

Which is an opinion stated as an absolute truth, and that's wrong. Because?

- Because not everyone plays a Vengeance Paladin (for which I agree maintaining Hunter's Mark/Haste is best). For Devotion, the Sacred Weapon makes weapon attacks much more reliable, so it's much better to upgrade your damage with a Smite Spell than risk an offensive spell.
- Because low/mid level Paladin is more likely to land a melee hit than an attack spell (because generally upping DEX/STR first),
- Because there are many occasions when taking out an enemy thanks to that extra bit of damage instead of letting him live for another turn can make all the difference.
As I said, we all agree that their rider effects are the MAIN use of these spells. But it's NOT the ONLY use. No more, no less.
(For the sake of not reopening the discussion, I won't talk about the many uses of these spells in multiclass builds. ^^)

And that will be my definitive last post on it. :)

EDIT : Thanks for the clarification on GWF style, it seems very natural for me that it was ruled that way. Didn't use it otherwise anyways in my own game but thought about maybe cheesing with it on the next, just for the sake of it. ^^

[DivisibleByZero]

{scrubbed}
DivisiblebyZero, I quote: "Generally speaking, these spells are useful only for their riders. The riders are the reason that they exist."
"I'll say it again: Those spells exist for their riders."

Which is an opinion stated as an absolute truth, and that's wrong. Because?

Something stated as an absolute truth, as you have claimed multiple times, is not going to begin with the words "generally speaking."

[MadBear]

{scrubbed}


You're having a discussion on an open forum, and as such I'm free to jump into the conversation whenever I see fit. It's not like I hacked a private message between the two of you and hoisted my opinion upon you. I suggest you re-read what has been said so far, because you have been by far the most negative person in this thread.

I just called it like I saw it.

[Nifft]

I wouldn't allow it. Paladins already push burst damage to its extreme; I don't want to give them incentive to stack the burst even higher by not having to drop Bless / Hunter's Mark.

I actually feel like Paladins should be encouraged to sometimes use Bless / Hunter's Mark instead of going pure Smite-nova.

But I totally hear you on not stacking their burst damage even higher.

So, what if Smite spells used the same mechanic as the Divine Smite feature: when you hit with a weapon attack, you can either use Divine Smite, or cast a Smite spell.

[djreynolds]

If you took resilient in constitution and war caster, then it shouldn't be a problem or I'd let it slide because you had to invest two feats and with your charisma bonus on saves you should be all right. But it does leave out the chance of that critical hit ruining your day or you failing a role.

[MoutonRustique]

What if DS used up a bonus action - wouldn't that solve a great many "stacking" issues?

[MeeposFire]

What if DS used up a bonus action - wouldn't that solve a great many "stacking" issues?

Sure but it would ruin the paladins ability to nova which is fairly key to the class.

[coredump]

{scrubbed}
DivisiblebyZero, I quote: "Generally speaking, these spells are useful only for their riders. The riders are the reason that they exist."
"I'll say it again: Those spells exist for their riders."

Which is an opinion stated as an absolute truth, and that's wrong. Because?

- Because not everyone plays a Vengeance Paladin (for which I agree maintaining Hunter's Mark/Haste is best). For Devotion, the Sacred Weapon makes weapon attacks much more reliable, so it's much better to upgrade your damage with a Smite Spell than risk an offensive spell.
- Because low/mid level Paladin is more likely to land a melee hit than an attack spell (because generally upping DEX/STR first),
- Because there are many occasions when taking out an enemy thanks to that extra bit of damage instead of letting him live for another turn can make all the difference.
As I said, we all agree that their rider effects are the MAIN use of these spells. But it's NOT the ONLY use. No more, no less.
(For the sake of not reopening the discussion, I won't talk about the many uses of these spells in multiclass builds. ^^)

And that will be my definitive last post on it. :)

EDIT : Thanks for the clarification on GWF style, it seems very natural for me that it was ruled that way. Didn't use it otherwise anyways in my own game but thought about maybe cheesing with it on the next, just for the sake of it. ^^

I read everything.... /0 was speaking in general terms, and you are being nit piky trying to 'prove' him wrong.


The Smites are rarely advisable unless you really need that rider effect. Even as a Nova boost you are usually better off just using more DS next round.

[EvanescentHero]

What I'm thinking right now is: fold them into Compel Duel. Make the rider effects stuff like...

Searing Smite

Since your thread was taken over by off-topic bull****, no one replied to this. Allow me to be the first.

I really like this idea. It's clever and elegant, and provides a new meaningful option. My only change would be to allow a saving throw every turn for free like many other spells like this. I think making the target use their action to attempt a save they may fail is a little strong. But that's just in theory; practice may prove me wrong.

[Anlashok]

{scrubbed}

[Nifft]

Since your thread was taken over by off-topic bull****, no one replied to this. Allow me to be the first.

I really like this idea. It's clever and elegant, and provides a new meaningful option. My only change would be to allow a saving throw every turn for free like many other spells like this. I think making the target use their action to attempt a save they may fail is a little strong. But that's just in theory; practice may prove me wrong.

Thanks!

In this case, since the only downside for not obeying the Smite Mark is a piddly 1d6 fire damage, I didn't feel like it needed an easy way to remove. The monster who wants to attack other people will die a bit faster, and that's fine.

Maybe I ought to go rework the rest of the Smite spells and make a new thread.