Smite vs. Shield - order of operations

[FlappyTungsten]

Calling all RAWers and RAIers,

I'm having a little trouble figuring out the order of operations when it comes to abilities that are activated on a hit. Specifically, Divine Smite vs. the Shield spell.

The Divine Smite paladin class feature (p. 85) reads:

...when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target...

The Shield spell (p. 275) reads:

Casting time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack...

So if a paladin with a spell slot to expend lands a hit on a spellcaster with a Shield spell available, both are able to activate their smite and shield at that time. My question is, which of these happens first? It seems logical that the rules would call for one person to declare it first, but I can't for the life of me figure out which.

Both parties have something to lose if they have to go first. The paladin risks losing a spell slot by activating their smite, only to miss when the target activates shield. The target risks wasting a spell slot on an ordinary melee attack instead of a far more damaging smite.

My gut feeling is that the spellcaster goes first. This is based firstly on the wording of Divine Smite: "expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target". This implies the damage is a foregone conclusion; you wouldn't expend a spell slot to deal extra damage if your attack missed, even if it would otherwise have hit but for a reaction taken by the target in response to your hitting.

Secondly, p. 190 describes a reaction as "an instant response to a trigger of some kind". The word 'instant', to me, trumps a situational ability that doesn't contain any indication as to immediacy.

But both of these seem woolly and still not definitive one way or the other. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Cheers all.

[HeyBJ]

I think it would go like this: Attacker rolls to see if they hit. Defender has a choice of using Shield once they know they're getting hit, but before damage is rolled. If they don't declare the Shield, then the attacker will be able to Smite. If they use Shield upon hit, there's no opportunity for the attacker to use Smite because the attack misses anyway.

[Squeeq]

I think it would go like this: Attacker rolls to see if they hit. Defender has a choice of using Shield once they know they're getting hit, but before damage is rolled. If they don't declare the Shield, then the attacker will be able to Smite. If they use Shield upon hit, there's no opportunity for the attacker to use Smite because the attack misses anyway.

That sounds about right to me. The way it's written kind of feels like flicking on a switch after you've already stuck the other guy with the pointy bit or something, and you'd never make that commitment until you'd gotten the feedback of landing a hit. Since the shield spell seems more like an absolute last-second "I'm not going to be able to dodge this!" reaction rather than a fake-out, I don't think a paladin would be duped like that.

Maybe think of it in M:tG terms? If someone casts a spell that has an effect and then an optional later effect, you can counter it right away to keep it coming out, but I don't think you can wait until all the effects are done and creatures are sacrificed and mana is spent and THEN counter it to negate any positive effects, if that makes sense?

However, it would be neat to have an ability that takes place AFTER the commitment to use bonus dice for attack damage, like you're fooling them into thinking they've landed a hit and waste their energy piling the damage on, sort of like the disguised-log ninja gambit. However, at that point we get "reactions" and "delayed reactions" and a whole bunch of mechanical mumbo-jumbo.

[DivisibleByZero]

Disagree with the above posters.
Shield uses the caster's reaction, which they can take after the smite if they so choose.
Basically, in this particular situation, whomever speaks first is potentially going to waste resources.

[R.Shackleford]

Shield causes smite to not hit due shield's wording. The attack never hit in The First place.

[Squeeq]

Disagree with the above posters.
Shield uses the caster's reaction, which they can take after the smite if they so choose.
Basically, in this particular situation, whomever speaks first is potentially going to waste resources.

That's a good point!

It's tricky, because on most of the abilities that reference save rolls, you aren't able to see whether or not the save failed before you activate the ability, but this isn't written in exactly the same way. Well, rather, they're both written in the same way, and it's after the hit is confirmed? It's pretty fuzzy, and if it's whoever-speaks-first, then there's going to be arguments or just huge long standoffs, so there should be a ruling made by DMs to figure it out. Now, if you could activate Smite when rolling damage, that would be different.

This kind of -is- a pickle.

[ClintACK]

If the attack misses -- whether naturally, or after Shield is cast -- the attack is not eligible for a Divine Smite. So the Smite spell slot cannot be wasted.

I'm imagining one possible scenario:

- Paladin rolls a hit.
- Paladin declares a Smite.
- Wizard declares Shield.
- DM announces the hit is now a miss.
- Paladin's Smite no longer happened. No spell slot wasted.

Result: the attack misses, the Wizard spends a 1st level spell slot, the Paladin does not spend any spell slot.

[R.Shackleford]

Disagree with the above posters.
Shield uses the caster's reaction, which they can take after the smite if they so choose.
Basically, in this particular situation, whomever speaks first is potentially going to waste resources.

That's not exactly how shield works.

Shield can turn what would have been a hit into a miss. The timing for shield is between the attack roll and determining if it hit or not.

Shield stops a hit, you can't smite if you don't hit.

[Mjolnirbear]

My take is that the paladin doesn't lose his smite. Here's the logic:

Shield causes an invisible barrier of magical force, which increases your AC, among other things, against the triggering attack, and can cause that attack to miss.

Fluff doesn't say about going back in time, reversing the attack, making the weapon pass through you harmlessly, or anything like that. It's a barrier. If the barrier came after the hit, it could not prevent the hit. The barrier necessarily came before the hit, and the triggering phrase means "you know it will hit" and not "your weapon struck flesh" .

A similar thought process with the smite reinforces this. A smite is channeling your mystical might through your sword into your enemy. Conceivably, like electricity, if it does not contact it cannot be channelled. This assumes a smite works enough like an electric shock that contact is necessary and unlike electricity in that it cannot jump a small enough gap (like a Jacob's ladder). As such the logic is much more shaky, but it could be helpful.

[Rhaegar14]

If the attack misses -- whether naturally, or after Shield is cast -- the attack is not eligible for a Divine Smite. So the Smite spell slot cannot be wasted.

I'm imagining one possible scenario:

- Paladin rolls a hit.
- Paladin declares a Smite.
- Wizard declares Shield.
- DM announces the hit is now a miss.
- Paladin's Smite no longer happened. No spell slot wasted.

Result: the attack misses, the Wizard spends a 1st level spell slot, the Paladin does not spend any spell slot.

This is pretty much how I interpret the scenario. The Wizard does get the benefit of knowing the Paladin plans to Smite and can THEN declare they're using Shield, but if that causes a miss the Paladin's spell slot is not expended.

[RSP]

I'd agree with most of what's been posted in that Shield can prevent the hit and if it does indeed stop the hit then Smite cannot be used. However, I would not allow someone to declare they use Shield only after they learn of the Smite; the decision is made the instant the attack would hit, you can't accept the hit, find out there's extra damage and then declare you're casting Shield. Too meta-gamey for me. It would be similar to accepting a hit from a short sword, being told it has a poison effect on it, and then saying "oh well in that case, I cast Shield."

[RSP]

Just to follow up on the above, though it's not implicitly stated in the wording of Shield, I assume you have to declare you're casting it after you get hit, but before resolving any effects of the hit (as other abilities like the Lucky fear state).

If you can wait until after a Smite is declared, or after you find out the sword is poisoned, why can't you wait until after the damage is rolled?

[Lombra]

How are you going to smite if you are not hitting your target? It's as simple as that.

If the smite slot would get used it means that the caster takes the smite damage anyways due to the wording of smite, which doesn't make sense.

You smite only and if only the attack reaches the opponent.

Smite <=> Hit

[Plaguescarred]

A Smite affect a hitting attack, increasing it's damage. If an attack is blocked by a Shield reaction and is a miss instead of a hit, then Smite cannot be used to increase it's damage.

[ClintACK]

I'd agree with most of what's been posted in that Shield can prevent the hit and if it does indeed stop the hit then Smite cannot be used. However, I would not allow someone to declare they use Shield only after they learn of the Smite; the decision is made the instant the attack would hit, you can't accept the hit, find out there's extra damage and then declare you're casting Shield. Too meta-gamey for me. It would be similar to accepting a hit from a short sword, being told it has a poison effect on it, and then saying "oh well in that case, I cast Shield."

I would mostly agree with that.

In the example I was giving, I was imagining two players fighting. And while I wouldn't let the Wizard change his mind and use Shield when he learns that the Paladin intends to Smite, I also wouldn't let the Paladin prevent the Shield spell by yelling, "Smite!" before the Wizard can react. :)

[Segev]

If the attack misses -- whether naturally, or after Shield is cast -- the attack is not eligible for a Divine Smite. So the Smite spell slot cannot be wasted.

I'm imagining one possible scenario:

- Paladin rolls a hit.
- Paladin declares a Smite.
- Wizard declares Shield.
- DM announces the hit is now a miss.
- Paladin's Smite no longer happened. No spell slot wasted.

Result: the attack misses, the Wizard spends a 1st level spell slot, the Paladin does not spend any spell slot.

This is more or less how I'd run it.

Remember that 5e isn't a huge stickler on order of operations and precise rule interactions. Think about what the two powers are "meant" to be doing.

The Smite is the paladin turning a successful strike into a far deadlier one. The Shield is the wizard preventing himself from being hit by a blow.

You could make a strong case that the wizard can't decide to weather the blow, then change his mind and Shield after the Paladin says "it's a smite." But I wouldn't worry too much about it. If the wizard's player is changing his mind like that, it's not hurting anybody because you're not going to make the paladin waste his smite. He still has it for the next attack.

So basically, let them declare in whatever order you want; resolve the effects based on the final state, not the order in which they're declared. If the final state is "wizard isn't hit," then the smite isn't expended.

[RSP]

Agreed. If it goes to PvP, DM becomes a like a Judge and battle gets a lot more formalized.

1) Paladin rolls a hit.
2) DM to Wizard: Do you want to take a reaction?
3) Wizard decides whether to use Shield or not.
4) if no Shield (or if still a hit...if available other features such as Precision Strike could be applied at this point) then Pally can add riders such as Smite, Manuevers or Sneak Attack.

[RSP]

"Agreed" was to Clint. I wouldn't let the Wizard change their mind but that's up to each DM. If you're fine with the meta gaming, go for it.

If you want to layout all the effects of an attack, including damage dealt, before the Wizard decides to use Shield or not, I don't think anything in RAW prevents it as the wording of Shield doesn't include "before any results are the roll are determined" such as other similar abilities declare.

I just personally don't see the ability providing seeing into the future as part of the spell fluff.

Just keep in mind that this could get very contingency complicated with other abilities. What if the Wizard uses Shield, then the Pally uses Precision Strike to still beat the Wizard's AC, would you still let the Wizard opt to have not cast the spell? How far into the future do you allow the choice to be made? If the Pally has multiple attacks and Shield prevents the first one but not the second, can the Wiz opt to have not cast Shield as he's getting hit anyway, and may just be better off using a different reaction instead?

Seems like a lot of redo's (and slower combats) would be taking place, but if that works for your table, run with it.

[R.Shackleford]

Agreed. If it goes to PvP, DM becomes a like a Judge and battle gets a lot more formalized.

1) Paladin rolls a hit.
2) DM to Wizard: Do you want to take a reaction?
3) Wizard decides whether to use Shield or not.
4) if no Shield (or if still a hit...if available other features such as Precision Strike could be applied at this point) then Pally can add riders such as Smite, Manuevers or Sneak Attack.

Side Note: Not the DM's job to hold the player's hand, this can get annoying to players as it seems like the DM is controlling their character.

[Segev]

I wouldn't let the wizard see the damage rolled before choosing. But knowing the full effects of the attack going in is, I think, reasonable. Whether or not the paladin has a smite he's going to use is amongst those effects.

[Socratov]

Personally I'd use the stack idea from MTG to explain where this goes wrong:

first is the attackroll.

Let's assume it its.

Then the paladin might declare a smite due to the hit.
the wizard, hearing the smite declares shield.

Now the stack resolves:

First the shield effect: let's assume that the shield blocks the blow, turning the hit to a miss.
Next the paladin's smite resolves. For the smite to activate, a hit is needed. So the smite fails.

And here we have the problem of Schrödinger's cat, but without the option of the quantum superstate.

Now the real question is thus: how does the smite fail? does it fail to connect? does it just not happen retroactively?

This is where the real crux comes to: does the paladin waste his resources or not? A clue is in how you want to treat the smite: is it triggered on a hit, declared and the attack resumes as if the attack had been a smite all along?Or is it triggered at the beginning of the damage step (at which point the attack has irrevocably hit)?

the former would suit a game that is heavier on the roleplaying aspects, while the latter would suit a combat as war group better.

To know which your group/Dm prefers, talk about it.

My personal recommendation is that the shield does also stop weapon damage and thus is always less of a waste then a wasted smite spellslot. I'd personally rule in favour of the Paladin. While MTG's stack is a great tool for spells and in particular counterspelling, it's not a great model for effects like these. But personally I also dislike the hit trigger in the paladin's smite ability as it has no effect on wether the attack hits or not.

I'd solve the situation by having the smite trigger on dealing damage. Not only does this make more sense RP wise, it also fixes problems like these.

But as it stands RAW wise there is no real answer.

[GlenSmash!]

Side Note: Not the DM's job to hold the player's hand, this can get annoying to players as it seems like the DM is controlling their character.

For experienced players I agree with you however if you're DMing for newbies little reminders for things like reactions can help them gain system mastery and feel more accomplished and enjoy the game more and come back and play more D&D.

It's not the job DMs job to hold a player's hand, but when it's one of your first times crossing the street it's nice to have someone extend a hand to help you.

[Socratov]

Also, I think in this case it's a fair and valid question to ask. It's not hand holding, if done well it will speed up play and streamline effects.

[R.Shackleford]

For experienced players I agree with you however if you're DMing for newbies little reminders for things like reactions can help them gain system mastery and feel more accomplished and enjoy the game more and come back and play more D&D.

It's not the job DMs job to hold a player's hand, but when it's one of your first times crossing the street it's nice to have someone extend a hand to help you.


Also, I think in this case it's a fair and valid question to ask. It's not hand holding, if done well it will speed up play and streamline effects.

No, not for experienced players or for new players.

I have DMed for many many many new players both young and older and they learn much better when you don't pull crap like this. Maybe if you are teaching a 8 year old, perhaps, but anyone else? No, just no.

If later they realize they had an ability or feature that could have been useful, well their character froze in the moment and forgot they had that feature. This makes for a much better learning experience for them as their actions had consequences that they could see or feel (fear of character death, fear of failure).

First time playing or 1,000th time playing, don't hold their hands like that.

Before or after a game you can talk with them and explain what they could have done, but during a game session let them make their mistakes. Mistakes are the best way to learn.

[RSP]

The post in which I stated the DM should ask this question was in reference to two players battling and the DM needing to referee between the two.

Whether or not you believe in hand holding isn't the point, I was pointing out that the structure of maintaining the order of actions should be upheld and was specifically commenting on the idea that the Paladin player could yell "I Smite" as a way of preventing the Wizard from casting Shield.

Again, play it as you like but I don't considering it hand holding for a DM to give a player a chance to react to another players action before the acting player continues with announcing additional effects, if any, particularly in a situation where players are fighting.

If you want to, as DM, let players go at it with out mediating, that's fine. I'm just trying to point out if you allow contingent actions ("If he does A, then I'll do B, but if instead he does C, then I'll do D") you'll start using your session playing out hypotheticals rather than playing what actually happens.

[Lombra]

If the attack misses -- whether naturally, or after Shield is cast -- the attack is not eligible for a Divine Smite. So the Smite spell slot cannot be wasted.

I'm imagining one possible scenario:

- Paladin rolls a hit.
- Paladin declares a Smite.
- Wizard declares Shield.
- DM announces the hit is now a miss.
- Paladin's Smite no longer happened. No spell slot wasted.

Result: the attack misses, the Wizard spends a 1st level spell slot, the Paladin does not spend any spell slot.

Smite declaration happens after the wizard's decision of activating shield, since the hit could miss due to it.

[Socratov]

No, not for experienced players or for new players.

I have DMed for many many many new players both young and older and they learn much better when you don't pull crap like this. Maybe if you are teaching a 8 year old, perhaps, but anyone else? No, just no.

If later they realize they had an ability or feature that could have been useful, well their character froze in the moment and forgot they had that feature. This makes for a much better learning experience for them as their actions had consequences that they could see or feel (fear of character death, fear of failure).

First time playing or 1,000th time playing, don't hold their hands like that.

Before or after a game you can talk with them and explain what they could have done, but during a game session let them make their mistakes. Mistakes are the best way to learn.


The post in which I stated the DM should ask this question was in reference to two players battling and the DM needing to referee between the two.

Whether or not you believe in hand holding isn't the point, I was pointing out that the structure of maintaining the order of actions should be upheld and was specifically commenting on the idea that the Paladin player could yell "I Smite" as a way of preventing the Wizard from casting Shield.

Again, play it as you like but I don't considering it hand holding for a DM to give a player a chance to react to another players action before the acting player continues with announcing additional effects, if any, particularly in a situation where players are fighting.

If you want to, as DM, let players go at it with out mediating, that's fine. I'm just trying to point out if you allow contingent actions ("If he does A, then I'll do B, but if instead he does C, then I'll do D") you'll start using your session playing out hypotheticals rather than playing what actually happens.

Exactly. it's less like "You can cast shield/use cutting words/use your imspiration die from the bard/whatever to turn the hit into a miss, do you wish to do so?", but more like "x attacks and looks like it hits, is there anything at this very moment you'd like to do in return?" y/n -> [appropriate response to resume game]

It's not about the handholding, it's about creating the opportunity to let the round continue without creating chaos like shield/smite interactions as OP has stated.

[ryan92084]

Q: Why are you/your players declaring smite before damage rolls? Or declaring smite at all for that matter? Its an unnecessary step. Just roll to hit, roll damage (including smite) and mark the expenditure. If you/they want to give a "holy light infuses my hammer and I do xx damage" speech after the damage roll you/they can feel free but that's too late for shield.

Without adding a smite declaring step to the attacking rules there is no issue or confusion so I would suggest just not adding it.

[Vogonjeltz]

But both of these seem woolly and still not definitive one way or the other. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Shield, by its wording, can retroactively turn a hit into a miss.

Smite only works on a hit. If the hit becomes a miss, Smite can't happen.

So assuming it's a hit and shield would turn it into a miss:

If shield happens, skip question on smite.
If smite happens, then shield, smite simply doesn't happen, costs nothing because it could not be used.

[pwykersotz]

Alternately, they both are used. The paladin's warhammer collides with the wizard's shield! An epic flash of magical might rolls across the battlefield. The shield is shattered, the holy energy fades.

The wizard takes normal weapon damage.


It's not necessarily a good long-term solution, it introduces it's own problems. But it's darned thematic.