Cast or Smite

[Pex]

I decided to try out an Adventurers League and am playing a Paladin. When first reading 5E and the Paladin, a concern is now coming to pass. I'm not liking the mechanic of having to choose between casting a spell or smiting. Both are nifty things, and having to choose between them I'm finding an unfair, obtrusive restriction. Do I cast or do I smite is an unanswerable question. The hint is there to only smite when fighting undead or fiends, typical paladin foes, but personal preference some spells I really like and don't want to pass up using. Smiting should have been its own resource, something like Charisma modifier uses refresh on a short or long rest depending on how it would work when not based on spell slot. Your Oath at some level could give a more potent version based on the Oath. For now, though, I'm favoring spellcasting more than smiting so I'm losing a class feature until and unless the rare circumstances align for perhaps a critical hit against an undead or fiend where using a smite is really worth it, and it has to be a BBEG undead or fiend not mook #3.

[pibby]

As someone who plays paladin in AL, I usually use smites when I think it's going to be the finishing blow against a troublesome enemy like a BBEG or whenever I roll a crit. Most of the time I use my spell slots for Bless or Divine Favor. It's also useful when you need to overcome monsters that are resistant to nonmagical weapon damage.

Personally I like the Paladin's conflicting resource management. For one encounter you can be the Cleric and for another you can burst damage like a Fighter using Action Surge. It makes the class quite flexible but a bit hard to manage if you aren't confident in spending spell slots efficiently throughout the adventuring day.

[burninatortrog]

I'm not liking the mechanic of having to choose between casting a spell or smiting.

You don't have to choose between them, though. You can do both. You have at least two spell slots, so you can use some for smiting and some for casting.

[Ouranos]

The POINT is to make you choose. Offense or defense/utility. I basically just Smite when we NEED to do lots of damage or on a crit. The rest of my spells are usually used for defense or utility. Shield can be AMAZING on a tank character (like mine) because a good tank can position where enemies HAVE to fight them before anyone else.

[Mjolnirbear]

I've played spellcasters exclusively since i started playing until my paladin. So this dichotomy is very real to me and was pretty jarring.

Over time you get used to not *having* to cast something every fight. Save Bless or Divine Shield until those tough fights. And Smite on crits. Always. Except on very weak enemies, at which point you cry.

Crit Smites are absolutely your best source of damage so try to figure out how to auto-crit. This means Sleep and Hold Person. Convince party casters to prep these spells and cast them when you really need it--like, oh, the powerful enemy caster or the deadly barbarian bandit king. Or sneak up on enemies that are sleeping. I did that to an Ogre once. I needed to borrow D8s from everyone at the table. Very satisfying.

The lack of spells compelled me to look elsewhere for meaningful combat choices. A strength paladin for instance has Athletics, which has very strong tactical uses. The Shield master and Sentinel feats offer similar choices, and so do DM actions such as Mark and Climb Onto Larger Creature. Since mine is a Small dex pally, i went went with a combination Yoda/Swashbuckling thing and decided Cool was also a meaningful combat choice. So he uses his climb speed from the Mariner fighting style to hide above doorways, drop on unsuspecting enemies from trees, and run up walls to leap over the enemy's head. He slides between legs, leaps to strike at faces, and ducks, weaves, and spins. And i literally wrote a story about the fight where he Climbed onto a dragon, rode it when it tried to escape, and struck the killing blow before falling to his (temporary) doom.

As you become higher level you'll have more room for both smites and spells. You'll have a better feel for when each is needed. Until then: smite on a crit unless it's wasted; Bless on really tough fights or smite when you really need big damage.

Also: Smite spells are largely crap. Never cast them unless you need the rider effect: fire damage for Trolls, or Fear, or Banish, or whatever.

[pwykersotz]

I find the fact that both choices are great to be fairly refreshing. Neither spells nor smite are a trap, and when you choose to use either affects gameplay substantially. If both were discreet resources then the smites would probably have to be weaker and hence less fun. And while I feel your pain at low levels, at middle or higher levels the resource pool grows nicely. It also helps min/maxing your resource pool if you use the spell point system, so maybe give that a try.

[ZenBear]

having to choose between them I'm finding an unfair, obtrusive restriction. Do I cast or do I smite is an unanswerable question.

{scrubbed}

Is it unfair that you have to choose only one subclass? Is it obtrusive that the Paladin doesn't get full spell progression and 4 attacks?

[Pex]

{scrubbed}

Is it unfair that you have to choose only one subclass? Is it obtrusive that the Paladin doesn't get full spell progression and 4 attacks?

No more unfair than a 1st level human character with Sharpshooter feat. Funny thing people not universally liking a particular gaming mechanic.

[JNAProductions]

{scrubbed}

Is it unfair that you have to choose only one subclass? Is it obtrusive that the Paladin doesn't get full spell progression and 4 attacks?

I have to agree with ZenBear here. It's basic resource management-if you don't like making the decision on how best to spend resources, play a Rogue.

[Pex]

I have to agree with ZenBear here. It's basic resource management-if you don't like making the decision on how best to spend resources, play a Rogue.

The problem is not resource management but two different main class abilities conflicting with each other. A cleric has resource management with his spell slots. Casting one spell precludes casting another, but they're still both spells. Casting a spell doesn't otherwise interfere with his Channel Ability, another resource management, nor an ability derived from Domain, such as War's bonus attack, for yet another resource management. Note it does not bother me a Paladin has two Channel options but can only do one of them per short rest. Channeling is its own thing. Spells and smites are two different things but compete over the same resource. That is what I'm not liking.

[JNAProductions]

So treat smites as spells that are purely damage based, like, say, Scorching Ray. You wouldn't complain as a Wizard about Scorching Ray-why complain about a Paladin's smites?

[JoeJ]

The problem is not resource management but two different main class abilities conflicting with each other. A cleric has resource management with his spell slots. Casting one spell precludes casting another, but they're still both spells. Casting a spell doesn't otherwise interfere with his Channel Ability, another resource management, nor an ability derived from Domain, such as War's bonus attack, for yet another resource management. Note it does not bother me a Paladin has two Channel options but can only do one of them per short rest. Channeling is its own thing. Spells and smites are two different things but compete over the same resource. That is what I'm not liking.

So if you were to separate them, how many spell slots would you remove and replace with smites?

I think that would nerf the class quite a bit. If you can't swap between spells and smites you're more likely to run out of whichever one you need right now.

[EvilAnagram]

The problem is not resource management but two different main class abilities conflicting with each other. A cleric has resource management with his spell slots. Casting one spell precludes casting another, but they're still both spells. Casting a spell doesn't otherwise interfere with his Channel Ability, another resource management, nor an ability derived from Domain, such as War's bonus attack, for yet another resource management. Note it does not bother me a Paladin has two Channel options but can only do one of them per short rest. Channeling is its own thing. Spells and smites are two different things but compete over the same resource. That is what I'm not liking.

A smite essentially deals spell damage, but you don't have to spend the slot unless you've already hit. Your need to spend spell slots introduces an interesting need to balance your resources without having to keep track of multiple resources. I honestly can't see what the problem is, save that you want to be able to do more things than you're allowed to do.

[Pex]

So if you were to separate them, how many spell slots would you remove and replace with smites?

I think that would nerf the class quite a bit. If you can't swap between spells and smites you're more likely to run out of whichever one you need right now.


None. Smites would have its own number of uses. It would have to change how it works. Into what I don't know. I'm just not liking how it's implemented now. Cha modifier uses per long rest is one possible system, to differentiate from Channel's once per short rest. I might not even mind making Smite a particular use of Channeling with the overall number of Channels available work like Cleric's Channeling depending on how the new Smite ability would work, say add Cha modifier to hit and damage against one targeted foe until the target drops as something I just thought of. Narrow the available creature targets to undead, fiends, and foe based on Oath if preferred.



A smite essentially deals spell damage, but you don't have to spend the slot unless you've already hit. Your need to spend spell slots introduces an interesting need to balance your resources without having to keep track of multiple resources. I honestly can't see what the problem is, save that you want to be able to do more things than you're allowed to do.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I just flat out disagree smiting and spell casting should have to use the same resource allocation.

[Safety Sword]

I just flat out disagree smiting and spell casting should have to use the same resource allocation.

Play a different class then. That's how Paladin works and is balanced against the other classes. You can't say "I want to play a Paladin" and then not want to use any of the rules associated with the class.

If you're a DM and a player says, "I want to be a wizard but I think that having a defined number of spells I can cast a day isn't for me.", what would you say? HOW ABOUT "NO". The core mechanics of the classes should be left alone.

If I didn't need to use spell slots to smite as a paladin then it would be an enormous boost in the effective number of spell slots that I have. I would also need a second resource to limit smite mechanic.

Paladins needing to make choices is great. The lack of options and choices is one one of the big complaints about martial characters in previous editions and that's effectively not the case in 5E.

[JoeJ]

None. Smites would have its own number of uses. It would have to change how it works. Into what I don't know. I'm just not liking how it's implemented now.

Yeah, but you still have to reduce the number of spell slots paladins have so that their total slots + smites per long rest remains the same. Otherwise you're giving the class a huge power boost.

[Pex]

Play a different class then. That's how Paladin works and is balanced against the other classes. You can't say "I want to play a Paladin" and then not want to use any of the rules associated with the class.

If you're a DM and a player says, "I want to be a wizard but I think that having a defined number of spells I can cast a day isn't for me.", what would you say? HOW ABOUT "NO". The core mechanics of the classes should be left alone.

If I didn't need to use spell slots to smite as a paladin then it would be an enormous boost in the effective number of spell slots that I have. I would also need a second resource to limit smite mechanic.

Paladins needing to make choices is great. The lack of options and choices is one one of the big complaints about martial characters in previous editions and that's effectively not the case in 5E.

With that line of thinking this Forum should not exist then. Why should anyone at any time have a problem with anything and discuss it? We should just take everything we're given and shut up about it if you don't like it. Discussion was all fine and dandy at first, with some people saying they like the system and why and others trying to put a spin on the matter in hopes of giving me a different perspective. Didn't work since I'm still not liking the system as is, but I appreciate the effort and conversation for conversation sake. Now all of a sudden people are getting on my case of how dare I not like it. I don't like this particular choice the rules have me make. If you're upset that I don't like it, get over it. I don't need your approval to not like something.

Show me how it's not as bad I think it is. Give me pointers on how to manage the resource allocation. Don't figuratively yell at me for the audacity of not liking how it works.


Yeah, but you still have to reduce the number of spell slots paladins have so that their total slots + smites per long rest remains the same. Otherwise you're giving the class a huge power boost.

A boost compared to as is now, I'd have to agree, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I'm finding it a weakness of the class that smites and spells are using the same resource, a restriction that shouldn't have been necessary. I'm actually liking the idea now of Smiting should have been tied to Channeling with the number of uses working like cleric and getting +Cha modifier to hit and damage. Conceptually you'd save it for the BBEG. When you get more uses at later levels you can afford one against the Lieutenant. Alas, I have to deal with it as is. Since it's a League game, there's no house rule option.

[Safety Sword]

With that line of thinking this Forum should not exist then. Why should anyone at any time have a problem with anything and discuss it? We should just take everything we're given and shut up about it if you don't like it. Discussion was all fine and dandy at first, with some people saying they like the system and why and others trying to put a spin on the matter in hopes of giving me a different perspective. Didn't work since I'm still not liking the system as is, but I appreciate the effort and conversation for conversation sake. Now all of a sudden people are getting on my case of how dare I not like it. I don't like this particular choice the rules have me make. If you're upset that I don't like it, get over it. I don't need your approval to not like something.

You seem upset by the fact that I believe that you shouldn't tinker with the core mechanics of the paladin class.
You haven't given any reasonable alternatives; just stomping your feet and saying you don't like it.

As a few have pointed out, you're not asking for a minor adjustment to a class, or a clarification on how it works. You're actually needing a rebuild and rebalance of the entire class for the sake of "not liking" the way it works. That's a new class. Home brew away. But if you want to play a paladin, then you have to use the rules for paladins.

[Pex]

You seem upset by the fact that I believe that you shouldn't tinker with the core mechanics of the paladin class.
You haven't given any reasonable alternatives; just stomping your feet and saying you don't like it.



Haven't I? Let's see.


Smiting should have been its own resource, something like Charisma modifier uses refresh on a short or long rest depending on how it would work when not based on spell slot. Your Oath at some level could give a more potent version based on the Oath. For now, though, I'm favoring spellcasting more than smiting so I'm losing a class feature until and unless the rare circumstances align for perhaps a critical hit against an undead or fiend where using a smite is really worth it, and it has to be a BBEG undead or fiend not mook #3.


None. Smites would have its own number of uses. It would have to change how it works. Into what I don't know. I'm just not liking how it's implemented now. Cha modifier uses per long rest is one possible system, to differentiate from Channel's once per short rest. I might not even mind making Smite a particular use of Channeling with the overall number of Channels available work like Cleric's Channeling depending on how the new Smite ability would work, say add Cha modifier to hit and damage against one targeted foe until the target drops as something I just thought of. Narrow the available creature targets to undead, fiends, and foe based on Oath if preferred.

[JNAProductions]

Those aren't viable alternatives-those are straight out buffs to the Paladin, one of the most powerful classes in 5E. There's a difference between a fix that breaks the class and a fix that leaves the class balanced.

[Pex]

Those aren't viable alternatives-those are straight out buffs to the Paladin, one of the most powerful classes in 5E. There's a difference between a fix that breaks the class and a fix that leaves the class balanced.

I'm not married to the idea. I don't see it as too powerful, but I can see it being a problem for low level. Have the adding of Cha modifier to hit and damage be the Improved Divine Smite paladins get at 11th level. At low level it could be get Advantage to attack rolls against the creature and Advantage on saving throws from the creature's attacks that require one. Maybe only Advantage on the attack roll and have the Oaths provide a different add-on, not necessarily at level 3. Light could be Advantage on Saving Throws, Ancients add Cha modifier to AC, Vengeance get a Bonus Action of an attack. Still too powerful? It could instead be Cha modifier in d8s radiant damage. The point is it's possible to have some Smite ability not tied to spell slots, which I would have preferred.

[JNAProductions]

Then spend some time, flesh out the entire system, and present it. Most others are fine with the Paladin as is, so if you want homebrew smites, it's on you to create them.

[Ouranos]

Honestly, you have three options in this case man. Not trying to be rude, but this is just how it's gonna work no matter how much you complain.

1. You can choose not to play. The obvious answer. Yeah, I may sound like a jerk for pointing it out, but it's true.

2. You can homebrew something and see if the DM will allow it. Seeing as how it's League play, he won't, but you can "solve" the problem for someone who isn't in League.

3. You can realize it's balanced the way it is because without a finite resource, you have no reason not to smite, and having the two interchangeable gives the Paladin an incredible versatility. You can CHOOSE to Smite on a crit for major pain, or when the Cleric gets knocked out you can use your turn to stand him back up with some health, even though you already used Lay on Hands on yourself to lighten the Cleric's load. (Examples given are things I have done in game.)


If you don't like the class, and want to be in League play, you HAVE to accept it. THAT is what will happen, period. Because no matter WHAT we say, even if all of us agree with you, or help you find a "solution," LEAGUE play is organized and under the RULES PRESENTED, and nothing we do here will change it. The fact that the majority of the people in the thread disagree with you, however, makes it look like honestly, the problem is YOU, not the class. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is.

[Mjolnirbear]

To be fair, Pex, paladins can pump out RIDICULOUS amounts of nova

At level 5, with an offhand weapon, catching a target asleep, i can auto-crit it three times with two level 2 spell slots and a level 1slot for double dice on all weapon damage and smites.

Let's see, with polearm master: 1d10 + 1d10 + 1d4 + 9 (strength bonus +3) + 3d8 + 3d8 + 2d8. On a non-crit.

With a crit: 4d10 + 2d4 + 9 + 16d8.

Minimum damage is 31. Maximum damage is 185. I mean holy ****. 185.

It costs him all but two spell slots. He needs to catch his target with its pants down or hit it with the right spell. But the potential is there. He can unleash it at any point. Even without a crit it's, scientifically speaking, an arseload of damage.

No wizard can unleash that kind of damage at level 5. No quickened or twinned sorceror spell comes close. No raging barbarian can pull off this much damage. The paladin is the only class.

Can he do it always? No. Does it cost him? Yes. Does it make it a difficult choice, hoping for that crit or casting bless? Naturally. BUT HE CAN DO IT and it's not even impossible to set up. Not only that but there are *more* choices. He can target undead. He can use higher-level spell slots. He can cast a spell such as Divine Favour or Wrathful Smite and add more damage dice to his rolls. The Wizard could Haste him. He might be multiclassed as a fighter with Action Surge (though that would cost him slots, so it's a better combo later on). He might be weilding a Flamebrand.

For that kind of optional damage, with no save, damn right it costs spell slots.

[Safety Sword]

Haven't I? Let's see.

I did say "reasonable".

Paladin is amazing as it is. Freeing up spell slots is not a check on it's power, it's a straight up boost.
More smites also isn't the answer.


I'm not married to the idea. I don't see it as too powerful, but I can see it being a problem for low level. Have the adding of Cha modifier to hit and damage be the Improved Divine Smite paladins get at 11th level. At low level it could be get Advantage to attack rolls against the creature and Advantage on saving throws from the creature's attacks that require one. Maybe only Advantage on the attack roll and have the Oaths provide a different add-on, not necessarily at level 3. Light could be Advantage on Saving Throws, Ancients add Cha modifier to AC, Vengeance get a Bonus Action of an attack. Still too powerful? It could instead be Cha modifier in d8s radiant damage. The point is it's possible to have some Smite ability not tied to spell slots, which I would have preferred.

Again, you're redesigning the entire core of the class without any deep thought as to why it is how it is now. Hint: It's like it is now to limit the power exchange of instant smite damage by making the cost significant.

Anyway I think you know how a few of us feel about it. Like I said previously, I'd like to see you home brew something that doesn't break the game, but a separate smite mechanic and a lower number of spells would be required. It's messier than what we have now, which is elegant and gives options without managing a second resource.

[EvilAnagram]

You say that like it's a bad thing.
I think it is a bad thing when you're talking about massively buffing a class that many people already consider to be overpowered.


I just flat out disagree smiting and spell casting should have to use the same resource allocation.
Why? What about that design makes it a bad thing? How is offering the player a choice between extra utility and extra damage bad?

[RenaldoS]

If it truly bothers you having to make the decisions during play, just set aside some of your spell slots for smiting only.

[Giant2005]

If you want Smites that aren't tied to spell slots, then homebrew yourself a Cantrip that does something similar. I don't think it would be too broken to give your Paladin Shocking Grasp and simply rename it to "Minor Smite" or something.
Or if you want something closer to how Smites ordinarily work, don't homebrew anything - just play the guy until level 11 when you get Improved Divine Smite (Which is basically what you are asking for) and be happy with it rather than trying to get yourself a level 11 ability earlier than you deserve it.

[Pex]

Why? What about that design makes it a bad thing? How is offering the player a choice between extra utility and extra damage bad?

Its existence of using the same resource. Other classes don't have two distinct class features competing with each other. Clerics have spells and Channels and Domain abilities. Fighter has Action Surge and Second Wind and More Than Two Attacks and Archetype abilities. Sorcerers have spell slots and Points to manipulate them. Warlocks have spells and Invocations and Pact Abilities. Paladins have Auras and Channel and (Spells or Smites.) It's the "or" part existing that's a bother. Auras and Channel and Spells would be fine with Smites incorporated into Channel as a Channel option with number of Channels increasing as per Cleric. I guess I can conclude to myself now that my issue is Smite should have been a Channel ability/resource not spellcasting. It's never been about the concept of resource management or limited number of uses, only the misapplication, in my opinion, of what resource Smite should have been using.

Show me why spellcasting is the proper resource. Show me strategies of when to cast spells (and perhaps particular spells) and when to smite. But for heaven's sake already, everyone stop yelling at me for the audacity of not liking how it is now.

Yes, I know it's not literally "everyone".


If it truly bothers you having to make the decisions during play, just set aside some of your spell slots for smiting only.

Thought of that. A partial solution, but I see it as something I'll have to wait a few more levels to do. Still, as I just reached 3rd level and have three 1st level spell slots, I may try holding on 1 for a smite and use the other two for spellcasting. I was fine with 2nd level only having two slots, so it's something. Maybe another session or two I can see how often I actually am casting spells.

As a Vengeance Paladin, my personal favorite spells to cast are Shield of Faith, Bane, and Hunter's Mark. Now that's a fun choice of one resource management allotment to make. Since I'm not an archer, Shield of Faith is good for when I face opposing archers until I can get into melee range. Bane is good for when I have multiple foes around me. Hunter's Mark is good when I'm facing the BBEG or at least boss of the fight.

[MaxWilson]

I decided to try out an Adventurers League and am playing a Paladin. When first reading 5E and the Paladin, a concern is now coming to pass. I'm not liking the mechanic of having to choose between casting a spell or smiting. Both are nifty things, and having to choose between them I'm finding an unfair, obtrusive restriction. Do I cast or do I smite is an unanswerable question. The hint is there to only smite when fighting undead or fiends, typical paladin foes, but personal preference some spells I really like and don't want to pass up using. Smiting should have been its own resource, something like Charisma modifier uses refresh on a short or long rest depending on how it would work when not based on spell slot. Your Oath at some level could give a more potent version based on the Oath. For now, though, I'm favoring spellcasting more than smiting so I'm losing a class feature until and unless the rare circumstances align for perhaps a critical hit against an undead or fiend where using a smite is really worth it, and it has to be a BBEG undead or fiend not mook #3.

I'd only smite in two circumstances:

1.) Opportunity attacks, especially if you're trying to showcase that you are a threat not to be ignored while tanking.

2.) Nova situations where you must kill some enemy nownownow before he hurts someone else.

In any other situation, I'd rather save my spell points for Aura of Vitality and Shield of Faith.


Its existence of using the same resource. Other classes don't have two distinct class features competing with each other. Clerics have spells and Channels and Domain abilities. Fighter has Action Surge and Second Wind and More Than Two Attacks and Archetype abilities. Sorcerers have spell slots and Points to manipulate them.

Sorcerers are a bad example here, because spell slots and sorcery points are interchangeable. Like paladins, sorcerers have to decide which class feature they value more highly and prioritize its usage.

If you want something that doesn't cost you spells, lean more on Sacred Weapon as your paladin fluff. It goes off Channel Divinity instead of spell slots.

[Safety Sword]

... (Spells or Smites.) ...

That "or" is actually an "and".

The spell slot use as a resource is an acknowledgement that spells are really good and you shouldn't get them and smite and extra attack.

It all comes out in the wash, and paladins are on the rather shiny side.

It's not unfair to have to choose where to allocate the slots. At least there is a choice to make. You can choose to smite with all of them, or cast them like a "normal" spell.

Only sorcerer has this kind of choice apart from paladin. It's a feature, not a bug.

[JackPhoenix]

The problem is that you're thinking about Smite as very different from spells. It isn't...think about it as a spell that's always prepared, gives increased damage with higher slot (as with most damage spells), does extra damage against fiends and undead and never miss, because you're basically casting it as a reaction after you hit an enemy in melee without actually using your reaction for the round. And that can be "cast" multiple times a turn, something no other class can do.

If a wizard decides to cast Scorching Ray and misses, the slot is gone without any effect. If a paladin misses, he just won't use smite and save the slot...and even better, he can decide to use it only when he crits, doing double damage, when the wizard still uses his limited spell slots for 1/20 chance of crit.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Hunter's Mark is an interesting spell, that you can get a lot of use from, but more so as an archer, as it uses concentration. Cast it once and, if you don't get hit you, can maintain it for several encounters possibly. Even better for tracking your enemy if it managed to flee combat, or as social/non-combat use to follow someone through town.

Bane is good, but Bless is usually considered the better spell, but again both are concentration spells that are competing for your concentration.

Shield of Faith is good bonus, but again is contending for your concentration slot.

Divine Smite is on demand damage, that can be used when you know you will actually deal the extra damage, and thus not wast the spell slot needlessly.

An easy way to save slots is basically for every 3 spell slots you get, set aside one for divine smite... always taking up at least one of each spell level.
The other 2 slots can be used for casting, or in the rare occasion you really want to smite (a lot), burn up to half of your non-smite slots for additional damage.

If you want to use a lot of divine smites, I'd suggest building for damage, If you want to cast more, go sword and board and stack on the AC.

[EvilAnagram]

Other classes don't have two distinct class features competing with each other.
Sorcerers have to use Sorcery points either to use Metamagic or to regain spell slots. Monks use Ki to inflict debuffs, cast spells, or make extra attacks. Rangers need to spend spell slots to use Primeval Awareness. Even Lore Bards have to make the call whether to use Inspiration to buff or to debuff, just as Battle Masters have to choose whether to buff their allies or debuff and damage their enemies. And every single class offers the option to trade in ASIs in for Feats.

It's actually quite common in this edition for class features to compete with each other.

It's never been about the concept of resource management or limited number of uses, only the misapplication, in my opinion, of what resource Smite should have been using.


Show me why spellcasting is the proper resource.
Because forcing you to give up some utility is a good compromise for allowing you to deal excellent damage.
Because Paladin damage is good enough without smites that allowing them extensive smite use and full utility use is a bit overpowered.
Because Trading in spell slots for other features is present in the design of both Sorcerers and Rangers, while Monk Ki serves essentially the same purpose.
Because the way spell slots scale, you will be able to nova a bit and use some utility by level 5.
Because as it stands, people already complain about Paladins being OP without the massive buff of allowing them to smite without using up spell slots.


Show me strategies of when to cast spells (and perhaps particular spells) and when to smite.
You should smite...

enemies you want to take out quickly.
boss encounters.
enemies who resist nonmagical damage.
enemies who are weak to radiant.
enemies who suffer some status effect after taking radiant damage.




You should use spells:

when you judge that the benefit of casting a spell outweighs the benefits of smiting again.


Note that these are essentially the same considerations you have to make when deciding whether to use an attack spell or a utility spell in any class.

[Pex]

The problem is that you're thinking about Smite as very different from spells. It isn't...think about it as a spell that's always prepared, gives increased damage with higher slot (as with most damage spells), does extra damage against fiends and undead and never miss, because you're basically casting it as a reaction after you hit an enemy in melee without actually using your reaction for the round. And that can be "cast" multiple times a turn, something no other class can do.

If a wizard decides to cast Scorching Ray and misses, the slot is gone without any effect. If a paladin misses, he just won't use smite and save the slot...and even better, he can decide to use it only when he crits, doing double damage, when the wizard still uses his limited spell slots for 1/20 chance of crit.

Now that's a good point. You cannot fail to land a smite because you use it after you already know you've hit the enemy, a very rare feature. That points to the potency of smiting. A spellcaster who misses his attack roll or the enemy makes a saving throw still loses the spell slot. That gives me pause to take a second look at everything. I knew that's how it works, but a refresher perspective helps to make me understand it. Thanks.

[Ruslan]

Just think of it like this:

Divine Smite
1st level evocation
Casting time: Special
Range: Touch
Components: none
Duration: Instantaneous

Cast this spell when you hit a creature with a melee attack. That attack deals additional 2d8 radiant damage (3d8 against Fiends or Undead). Casting this spell doesn't take an action.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 1st, to a maximum of 5d8.
Special: a Paladin of 2nd level or higher always has this spell prepared.

There. Problem fixed. Now you don't have to choose between spellcasting and smiting. You merely have to choose between casting Divine Smite and casting another spell - a conundrum with which any spellcaster must be intimately familiar.

[Pex]

Just think of it like this:

Divine Smite
1st level evocation
Casting time: Special
Range: Touch
Components: none
Duration: Instantaneous

Cast this spell when you hit a creature with a melee attack. That attack deals additional 2d8 radiant damage (3d8 against Fiends or Undead). Casting this spell doesn't take an action.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 1st, to a maximum of 5d8.
Special: a Paladin of 2nd level or higher always has this spell prepared.

There. Problem fixed. Now you don't have to choose between spellcasting and smiting. You merely have to choose between casting Divine Smite and casting another spell - a conundrum with which any spellcaster must be intimately familiar.

Nice. :smallsmile:

[Yagyujubei]

i just skimmed through the posts because so many were novel-esque. but making spells and smites a separate resource for paladins would absolutely be overpowered. I say this as someone who has a lvl 13 paladin currently in a campaign.

the first few levels wouldn't matter much since the spells are huge game changers, but once you get up to 3rd level spells the effect they have can be pretty huge so you really do have to choose. do I cast my aura to buff the party for the entire encounter? or do I burn my magic to take out a high threat target as quickly as possible?

if paladin could do both of those things there wouldn't be much reason to pick any other class from an optimization standpoint.

[sigfile]

Paladins that don't like having to choose (and want to keep playing in AL) tend to make side deals. A couple of levels of Warlock not only come with glittering prizes, but they also allow a Paladin to cast and/or smite every encounter.

[Pex]

Paladins that don't like having to choose (and want to keep playing in AL) tend to make side deals. A couple of levels of Warlock not only come with glittering prizes, but they also allow a Paladin to cast and/or smite every encounter.

That would also solve my archery problem, i.e. character is terrible at it. As a personal thing I very rarely multiclass regardless of edition, so I'm not sure I'd do this but it is worth keeping in mind. It's not going to be before 6th level regardless because I want my divine grace. :smallbiggrin: 7th level would then be the uncomfortable one multiclassing into warlock but not have Agonizing Blast yet. Then there's also losing the ability score increase of 8th level Paladin. 4th level I know I'm boosting Charisma. Decisions, decisions. (The good kind. :smallwink:)

[Vogonjeltz]

You could always just view smite as a variable spell that can be cast in conjunction with hits without costing an action.

[JoeJ]

i just skimmed through the posts because so many were novel-esque. but making spells and smites a separate resource for paladins would absolutely be overpowered. I say this as someone who has a lvl 13 paladin currently in a campaign.

Unless you kept the total numbers the same, so that, for example, instead of getting two spell slots that can also be used for smites at 2nd level, the character would get 1 spell slot and 1 smite. At 3rd level they have 1 spell slot and 2 smites, and so on. If that's the case, the class would be getting a slight nerf.

[sigfile]

That would also solve my archery problem, i.e. character is terrible at it. As a personal thing I very rarely multiclass regardless of edition, so I'm not sure I'd do this but it is worth keeping in mind. It's not going to be before 6th level regardless because I want my divine grace. :smallbiggrin: 7th level would then be the uncomfortable one multiclassing into warlock but not have Agonizing Blast yet. Then there's also losing the ability score increase of 8th level Paladin. 4th level I know I'm boosting Charisma. Decisions, decisions. (The good kind. :smallwink:)

It might solve your archery problem; if you're a sword 'n' board type, you'll need Warcaster before you can cast Eldritch Blast with your hands full. If you're a greatweapon user, you're fine. Javelins will be your friends for a while in either case.

It's tough to multiclass a Paladin. The class features are worth getting as soon as you reasonably can, but you're multiclassing to make the character more interesting to play, so...

My rule of thumb is that I'll take a couple of levels of <multiclass> after level 6, unless I'm playing an Oath of the Ancients (or Oathbreaker, I suppose, but I mostly play AL) Paladin. If OotA, I don't branch out until after level 8.