Curiosity - Paladin smite spells

[Specter]

Of the 7 smiting spells, only Searing Smite and Branding Smite can be upcast.

Why do you think that is?

[djreynolds]

I think it's balanced, because you can also smite on top of it.

[gfishfunk]

Honestly? Bad design.

The smite spells were poorly planned, as well as the smite feature. I personally think they should have gone with one or the other (spells or Smite feature). I've had long threads about this very thing.

Also, the ongoing damage of searing smite does not scale, and the benefits of Branding Smite are corner case - why not just use a regular at-will smite instead?

I don't think I would ever use Branding Smite at a high spell slot - simply because missing or failing a con save carries a higher risk with a higher spell slot, AND if I am using branding smite it is for the branding aspect.

Strangely, the low level smites become better at high level play. When you hit with your at-will smites, you will tend to burn higher spell slots for higher damage. The low level spell slots can be used for smite spells for additional affects.

[Saggo]

I would hazard a guess that they can't be upcast in general because you can do both a spell smite and Smite on the same weapon attack, but that doesn't really fit the 2 that can since they do similar initial damage and the effects aren't wildly different in scope of power.

[jaappleton]

Of the 7 smiting spells, only Searing Smite and Branding Smite can be upcast.

Why do you think that is?

I don't think most of them are worth it. Most Smite spells produce an additional effect. Thunderous Smite providing the push effect, for example.

The spells aren't worth using at a higher level, really. Divine Smite works whenever you hit, so you can choose its activation. Crit? Damn right, I'm Divine Smiting! But a spell doesn't work like that, it simply functions on your next hit.

One massive gripe I have regarding the Smite spells... the Concentration requirement. I shouldn't lose Bless because I cast Wrathful Smite. It should simply last 1 minute and end on my next successful melee attack.

[JellyPooga]

Of the 7 smiting spells, only Searing Smite and Branding Smite can be upcast.

Why do you think that is?

Ensnaring Strike (not technically a "smite" spell but functions in a similar fashion) can be upcast as well (to remarkable effect against the right target...one of the few spells that actually increases its ongoing damage).

To actually answer the question; as others have said, it's because of stacking. To add to this, I think it's also to avoid potential abuse in conjunction with multiclassing with a full-caster Class. Smite caps out at 5d8, but scaling spells tend not to put caps on, especially when they (in theory) shouldn't be being cast out of spell slots higher than 5th level anyway.

[gfishfunk]

To actually answer the question; as others have said, it's because of stacking.

I don't disagree, although I think its bad design.

Limiting the spells to being cast as 5th level spells (and then plateauing in effects for higher slots) and removing the at-will nature of smites would make for a sleeker and more consistent system (imo). There do not need to be two methods to achieve smites - one system that is already broadly maintained and understood should suffice (spellcasting).

[JellyPooga]

I don't disagree, although I think its bad design.

Limiting the spells to being cast as 5th level spells (and then plateauing in effects for higher slots) and removing the at-will nature of smites would make for a sleeker and more consistent system (imo). There do not need to be two methods to achieve smites - one system that is already broadly maintained and understood should suffice (spellcasting).

I would tend to agree. Removing the Paladins Divine Smite feature and replacing it with a better thought out (and scaling) set of smite spells would be more intuitive and inkeeping with the 5ed design philosophy of "streamlined = good". It would also allow for multiclassing as a Paladin being a choice between "greater range of smite options, with increasingly powerful side effects" vs. "casting lower level/simpler smites out of >5th level slots", instead of (as it is now); "cash-grab Paladin level 2 and haul-ass on [Fullcaster Class of choice] to get higher level slots".

[Fishyninja]

I feel that with Divine Smite, Improved Divine Smite and all the other spell style smites when playing a Paladin all you are really doing is picking what type of damage you want to inflict with your attacks.

Reference: Me

[dejarnjc]

I've never really considered this but do you all think it would be broken or unbalanced at all to allow a Paladin to swap in a Smite spell when using the Divine Smite feature?

I.E. Paladin attacks, hits, decides to smite, then decides to use wrathful smite so only adds a 1d6 psychic damage die (and the fear save) instead of the standard 2d8 radiant. Paladin would still have to have the spell prepared though.

I've been playing 5e exclusively for a few years now and I'm not sure I've ever seen a smite spell utilized in game despite an abundance of Paladin PCs.

[BiPolar]

I've never really considered this but do you all think it would be broken or unbalanced at all to allow a Paladin to swap in a Smite spell when using the Divine Smite feature?

I.E. Paladin attacks, hits, decides to smite, then decides to use wrathful smite so only adds a 1d6 psychic damage die (and the fear save) instead of the standard 2d8 radiant. Paladin would still have to have the spell prepared though.

I've been playing 5e exclusively for a few years now and I'm not sure I've ever seen a smite spell utilized in game despite an abundance of Paladin PCs.

That's actually an interesting idea - although I still would rather have a guaranteed 2d8+ then the damage and a rider based on a save.

[rbstr]

Yeah, I guess it's basically that you can tack on a regular smite to "upcast".

But, really, Smite spells are pretty meh. You get the damage on a hit but they have to fail a save for the rider to hit, which is a bit double jeopardy. Concentration means you cant keep up a buff, but I guess you do get to keep the smite "active" until you hit something if your concentration isn't broken.

It'd be nice to have a streamlined smite system that enables the smite spells.
I definitely like "you can use a smite spell instead of regular 2d8 smite". Then they should probably all have some kind of scaling. Also, perhaps you would only learn X many smite types.
Going the other way and making the regular smite work like the smite spells is just a fat nerf without changing up how they work.

[BiPolar]

Yeah, I guess it's basically that you can tack on a regular smite to "upcast".

But, really, Smite spells are pretty meh. You get the damage on a hit but they have to fail a save for the rider to hit, which is a bit double jeopardy. Concentration means you cant keep up a buff, but I guess you do get to keep the smite "active" until you hit something if your concentration isn't broken.

It'd be nice to have a streamlined smite system that enables the smite spells.
I definitely like "you can use a smite spell instead of regular 2d8 smite". Then they should probably all have some kind of scaling. Also, perhaps you would only learn X many smite types.
Going the other way and making the regular smite work like the smite spells is just a fat nerf without changing up how they work.

What if we took away the damage part of the smite spell and just gave it the rider. Then it's a question of guaranteed rider effect vs guaranteed damage?

[borg286]

The biggest reason why I would say you don't see smite is that concentration is a core balancing aspect of 5e, thus all spells that have concentration need to be compared against the best concentration spell available. The only way to win this arms race is to be situationally far superior. The reason it must be far superior is that it needs to outweigh the cost of losing the benefit for the rest of combat. By dropping bless for a smite, your are losing the bless benefit for the rest of combat. Is an extra d8 and the chance to get a rider effect worth losing a d4 to attacks, saves, to 3 team members? For the existing smite spells it isn't.

I feel that smite should be a channel divinity option with a default smite scaling with level. Adding in a few other smite options that have a sort of mark effect at the cost of damage. This is closer to a fighter style with short rest refresh rather than caster daily resources.
Now smites don't compete with spells but rather other channel divinity slots. I'd now key channel divinity uses off of charisma to free up the contention.

[Mhl7]

Limiting the spells to being cast as 5th level spells (and then plateauing in effects for higher slots) and removing the at-will nature of smites would make for a sleeker and more consistent system (imo). There do not need to be two methods to achieve smites - one system that is already broadly maintained and understood should suffice (spellcasting).

Three month ago, I could not agree more! But now I changed my mind. All your reasons stand in my opinion, but this is the opinion of a seasoned player. Recently I had this experience: there is this friend of mine that only plays with my group and only because I convinced him to join us two years ago.
Creating his first character he said "I want to be a martial and kick asses". The others at the table, however, wanted some healing so they convinced him to play a paladin. He read the class and said "Fine, but I am never ever gonna cast a spell". Imagine if there were not Divine Smite feature, he would have found the Paladin lackluster and probably never played dnd again. Instead he found the Smites (not the spells) super fun: it really was the asskicking character that he wanted to be.

He has played only paladins since. Now, after two years, I saw him cast a smite spell!! Can you imagine my surprise?

The point of the story is: Smite are simple to understand for new players, especially those ones that don't want to bother to read all the rules. Heck, in this way you can literally only read the description of the class! It is like the simple feel of the Champion archetype, without the need to stick with the fighter.
I really think that I would have lost him, if he was forced to read the spell section of the player handbook.

[gfishfunk]

The point of the story is: Smite are simple to understand for new players, especially those ones that don't want to bother to read all the rules. Heck, in this way you can literally only read the description of the class! It is like the simple feel of the Champion archetype, without the need to stick with the fighter.
I really think that I would have lost him, if he was forced to read the spell section of the player handbook.

That is a really good point: at-will has a nice simplicity.

I have been playing with redesign and homebrew. Instead of doing a spell, I have spell points that convert directly into damage. I like it even better than doing spells for smites.

The main thing, though, is that they should have done one or the other.

[toapat]

Three month ago, I could not agree more! But now I changed my mind. All your reasons stand in my opinion,

really? because the only valid argument he has is the inconsistency that exists between the action consuming smite spells and the class feature smite. If you havent found the errata'd damage dice for smite spells, of course they look pointless. The largest problem is the fact that they are concentration which conflicts with the general rest of the paladin spell list.

Really the paladin smite spells shouldnt exist (barring Destructive Wave) because they dont fit the design dichotomy of Smite in 5E in that you trade versatility for the day for damage now.

[Saggo]

I would tend to agree. Removing the Paladins Divine Smite feature and replacing it with a better thought out (and scaling) set of smite spells would be more intuitive and inkeeping with the 5ed design philosophy of "streamlined = good". It would also allow for multiclassing as a Paladin being a choice between "greater range of smite options, with increasingly powerful side effects" vs. "casting lower level/simpler smites out of >5th level slots", instead of (as it is now); "cash-grab Paladin level 2 and haul-ass on [Fullcaster Class of choice] to get higher level slots".

I wouldn't roll Divine Smite into spells if only because it then has all the weaknesses of spells. Barbarians and Moon Druids couldn't use it, you could get counterspelled, etc, etc. I don't know how Antimagic Zone affects Divine Smite, it may expend a spell slot but it's not called a magical effect in the block, so I think it would still work. But if it were a spell it definitely wouldn't work.

So while making all Smites spells and removing the feature might seem intuitive, it will ultimately add more rules and restrictions to it.

[DKing9114]

really? because the only valid argument he has is the inconsistency that exists between the action consuming smite spells and the class feature smite. If you havent found the errata'd damage dice for smite spells, of course they look pointless. The largest problem is the fact that they are concentration which conflicts with the general rest of the paladin spell list.

Really the paladin smite spells shouldnt exist (barring Destructive Wave) because they dont fit the design dichotomy of Smite in 5E in that you trade versatility for the day for damage now.

smites don't take an action-they're bonus action spells.

[toapat]

smites don't take an action-they're bonus action spells.

someone doesnt get what action economy means.

[JellyPooga]

I wouldn't roll Divine Smite into spells if only because it then has all the weaknesses of spells. Barbarians and Moon Druids couldn't use it, you could get counterspelled, etc, etc. I don't know how Antimagic Zone affects Divine Smite, it may expend a spell slot but it's not called a magical effect in the block, so I think it would still work. But if it were a spell it definitely wouldn't work.

So while making all Smites spells and removing the feature might seem intuitive, it will ultimately add more rules and restrictions to it.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Paladins and their smites are definitely in the "abused dips" category of multiclass builds and without doubt it's one of the more powerful Class Features out there due to its "apply after hitting" clause. Does it need taking down a peg? Maybe, maybe not, but if we turn it into a wider range of smite spells, we can add a little too so that we not entirely losing out by cementing it as a magical effect.

Additionally, by making all smites a spell we can discard the question of whether or not it counts as a spell or a magical effect. As it stands, there are some GMs scratching their heads over it; it's powered by a spell slot, it adds a magical damage type and there are Smite spells in the spell chapter but does Divine Smite count as a spell? No, it doesn't in the current RAW, but if we slam it all into the spellcasting chapter, it clears up any ambiguity.

[Saggo]

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Paladins and their smites are definitely in the "abused dips" category of multiclass builds and without doubt it's one of the more powerful Class Features out there due to its "apply after hitting" clause. Does it need taking down a peg? Maybe, maybe not, but if we turn it into a wider range of smite spells, we can add a little too so that we not entirely losing out by cementing it as a magical effect.

Additionally, by making all smites a spell we can discard the question of whether or not it counts as a spell or a magical effect. As it stands, there are some GMs scratching their heads over it; it's powered by a spell slot, it adds a magical damage type and there are Smite spells in the spell chapter but does Divine Smite count as a spell? No, it doesn't in the current RAW, but if we slam it all into the spellcasting chapter, it clears up any ambiguity.

I don't particularly disagree with your point. I was mainly pointing out that spells have limitations that weren't being said. You might be able to craft a better spell system, sure, but it's not strictly better and doesn't necessarily curb 2 level dips by full casters without adding fiddly restrictions to the spells. One thing I will disagree with is that it doesn't fit 5e design, I think it's fits fine here if maybe requiring a little more refinement (but that's not a unique issue).

I do think it's a bad thing to reduce variety, though. I am aware that variety in spell effects is variety, but Divine Smite being a feature and not a spell gives players a different way to spend resources and that in turn gives variety in build options. Going back to Druids, for just one example, you're eliminating one of the very few ways to improve Wild Shape damage if it becomes a spell.

I will add that while it's obviously anecdotal and I'm not trying to disprove it's an abused dip, I haven't actually seen anyone use Paladin 2/Full Caster X in play and I've only seen a handful of people admit to doing it in play on forums.

[gfishfunk]

I will add that while it's obviously anecdotal and I'm not trying to disprove it's an abused dip, I haven't actually seen anyone use Paladin 2/Full Caster X in play and I've only seen a handful of people admit to doing it in play on forums.

Yeah - most times that I see it asserted is in Adventurer League reports, where people mention actual AL parties. My homegames rarely see multiclassing, even. I haven't gamed with another player that has even multiclassed (just me, and nearly ever time because I like to fiddle and end up with lackluster characters).

[Pex]

Three month ago, I could not agree more! But now I changed my mind. All your reasons stand in my opinion, but this is the opinion of a seasoned player. Recently I had this experience: there is this friend of mine that only plays with my group and only because I convinced him to join us two years ago.
Creating his first character he said "I want to be a martial and kick asses". The others at the table, however, wanted some healing so they convinced him to play a paladin. He read the class and said "Fine, but I am never ever gonna cast a spell". Imagine if there were not Divine Smite feature, he would have found the Paladin lackluster and probably never played dnd again. Instead he found the Smites (not the spells) super fun: it really was the asskicking character that he wanted to be.

He has played only paladins since. Now, after two years, I saw him cast a smite spell!! Can you imagine my surprise?

The point of the story is: Smite are simple to understand for new players, especially those ones that don't want to bother to read all the rules. Heck, in this way you can literally only read the description of the class! It is like the simple feel of the Champion archetype, without the need to stick with the fighter.
I really think that I would have lost him, if he was forced to read the spell section of the player handbook.

While I have no issues reading up on the spells I know the feeling. I never cast the smite spells, and I hardly ever cast any paladin spells. I was concerned about making this choice a year ago, but for my personal taste I find the paladin spell list at low level to be lackluster. I will cast Bless. That's worth it of course. Once in a while I cast Shield Of Faith. Otherwise I only use Divine Smite which pretty much has been the more fruitful contribution I bring to a combat. It does help the DM allows Great Weapon Style to work on smites, which could be a consideration for people. The Aura spells, those are spells worth casting instead of using the slot for a Divine Smite.

[toapat]

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Paladins and their smites are definitely in the "abused dips" category of multiclass builds and without doubt it's one of the more powerful Class Features out there due to its "apply after hitting" clause. Does it need taking down a peg? Maybe, maybe not, but if we turn it into a wider range of smite spells, we can add a little too so that we not entirely losing out by cementing it as a magical effect.

Additionally, by making all smites a spell we can discard the question of whether or not it counts as a spell or a magical effect. As it stands, there are some GMs scratching their heads over it; it's powered by a spell slot, it adds a magical damage type and there are Smite spells in the spell chapter but does Divine Smite count as a spell? No, it doesn't in the current RAW, but if we slam it all into the spellcasting chapter, it clears up any ambiguity.

Multiclassing: Any class is going to be abusable for multiclassing if its well designed for providing a sense of progression because of how Smite scales with multiclassing. ultimately this is a problem of 5E's multiclassing rules and not paladin

Apply after hit: Paladins were designed as crit fishers. thats what the numbers say. the problem with paladin casting was brought up by Pex in that theres almost no point in actually casting spells because the list sucks if you arent Ancients, and even ancients has fairly limited reason to use the oath spells

Any GM that doesnt know how divine Smite vs Smite spells work needs to go learn the system.