Treantmonk evaluates 5th level spells [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 07:21 AM

Hey Treantmonk! Thanks for another video! :smallsmile:

I have a Hexblade/Swords Bard that has a bow, I use defensive flourish with arrows regularly. However, the build I'm referencing is this one (which is a Valor Bard). I think not having Longbow Proficiency with College of Swords was a factor... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B881kY215CM

Could be a good idea to pin this comment so that people know who you're replying to for the "overrated" section.

Also, it's probably worth clarifying that you don't actually think all bard archer builds are bad in the video, since I thought that's what you were saying until I saw this comment. And, judging by the comments, others got the same impression.

Edit: Saw this string of comments too:

Your whole rant about Swift Quiver missed 2 very important things: 1: That build starts with 1 level of fighter for the fighting style 2: You can go V. Human to get Sharpshooter Also, the build is better as a swords bard, but that isnt as big of a change

I didn't miss anything. Straight 10 levels of Bard (no fighter dip until AFTER) is being recommended on big channels in 2018. They took Variant Human all right - Resilient Con.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B881kY215CM&t=788s
I agree the build would be better with a fighter dip beforehand and with Swords Bard. Level 5 and 6 would hurt though.

@Treantmonk's Temple wow, that's a terrible idea. I hadnt seen anyone reccomend that until now, previous it was always start fighter (giving you con save proficiency anyway), then go full bard, maybe get action surge after 11. That seems like making the character intentionally worse to avoid early multiclass delays. Having personally played the build from 2 to 11, level 6 isnt bad, you just focus on being a caster for that level with your weapon as a backup. Level 5 sucked, basically had heat metal and 1 arrow a turn and that's it

I am not defending that build but there is another thing he has missed: the casting time is a bonus action and not an action

Specter

2018-10-23, 11:49 AM

Treantmonk

2018-10-23, 03:50 PM

Could be a good idea to pin this comment :
That's a good idea - thanks.

I am 100% certain I will be doing an "archery guide" video soon after the spells are done. I will probably touch on this stuff again.

Shenanigans

2018-10-23, 04:51 PM

Deathtongue

2018-10-23, 04:57 PM

The thing people don't get about Swift Quiver is that they bloat their ASIs with Resilient (CON) and Sharpshooter and DEX trying so hard to be an archer when being a straight-up Bard would be much better.Bards have a hell of a hard time dealing out damage, so a bard that sacrificed some spellcasting ability (by delaying CHA upgrades) in order to a lot more hit point damage (with Sharpshooter + Swift Quiver + Fighting Style + Sword Bard nonsense) is a defensible trade.

Like it or not, 5E D&D made it so that monsters, especially higher-level monsters, don't really have a good answer to the party just unloading busting out the hit point damage as quickly as possible. So long as you can pierce through their defenses/first-attacks and actually make your attacks, that ancient dragon or lich is going down. It's why parties invest so much effort into spells like Fly / Greater Invis / Haste / Dimension Door / etc. because once your DPR buttkickers can actually take a turn, it's over for team monster past level 10 or so. A character that can switch-hit, such as an archer bard, is extremely valuable because they can both provide the damage and enable other people to do their damage.

Treantmonk

2018-10-23, 06:04 PM

As usual, you've made an excellent video with great insight. Well done.

I was slightly surprised to not see Destructive Wave in there somewhere. I know blasting spells tend not to scale well, but a decent amount of damage in two good types, no friendly fire, and a nice secondary effect all seem like at least a solid B spell to me, maybe even B+. What are your thoughts?

EDIT: And I just saw your reply on YouTube; thanks!

Yeah, for other readers in this forum - I think it's decent (maybe a bit above average overall) for the reasons mentioned, though I don't think the damage is stellar, it targets a strong save, and the secondary effect is prone, which I'll take in a second over no secondary effect, but that's about it.

MaxWilson

2018-10-23, 06:05 PM

Treantmonk

2018-10-23, 06:05 PM

Deathtongue

2018-10-23, 07:18 PM

But any bard can switch hit, thanks to Animate Objects. There are few foes that are outright immune to nonmagical attacks, and animated objects pump out more damage than the archer bard is getting from his two Swift Quiver bonus attacks per round. 10d4+40 (65) >> 2d8+10 (19). And they come with built-in flying, and another 10d4+40 of opportunity attacks.1) Considering what a bard will do to invest in Swift Quiver, it's really more like 2d8 + 38. You know, Sharpshooter and +2 Weapon.
2) The range of animate objects can be a pain in the neck. They move 30 feet with no option to dash, and you generally have to bring the objects with you. I sure love having to waste time getting them to the line or making complicated arrangements for people or familiars to drop bags of caltrops in convenient spots.
3) Immunity is reasonably uncommon (but frequent enough so you just can't ignore it) but resistance is not.
4) Area of effect attacks. They're a thing.

Let's look at 3 and 4 some more. Going down the list of CR10 enemies, here's what it looks like:

* Aboleth
Alhoon (straight-up immune)
* Death Kiss
Death Slaad (AoE spells)
Deva (resistance, can change shape into a humanoid with AoE attacks)
* Froghemoth
Guardian Naga (AoE spells)
Madam Eva from Curse of Strahd (AoE spells)
= Kraken (resistance)
Ooze Master (AoE spells, resistance)
Rahadin, CoS (AoE bonus action)
Stone Giant Dreamwalker (can take control of your animated objects without using actions)
Young Gold Dragon (AoE attack)
Young Red Dragon (AoE attack)

So out of 14 enemies, Animate Objects is only useful against 3 of them and it's 'merely' dicey against one of them. And it'll only get worse as you go up the CR list.

Given all that, I don't see AO being clearly or even mostly superior to Swift Quiver. You give up better reliability and easier deployment for increased damage.

Pex

2018-10-23, 08:56 PM

I think the issue with Animate Objects is not monsters resistant or immune to bludgeoning damage but monsters resistant or immune to non-magical weapons. An animated object is not magical in and of itself, so it won't be effective against those creatures. How many such monsters exist in the Monster Manual isn't relevant. What's relevant is how many appear in the campaign. At this level I expect many. The warriors will have magic weapons so it's not a campaign problem, but it diminishes the value of the spell. It's not a useless spell, but players being resistant to having it is not uncalled for.

Teaguethebean

2018-10-24, 12:02 AM

I didn't realize wall of force wasn't just a wall but a sphere I might have pvp with another table in my campaign so I know what my lv8 wizard will take when I level up. (they are fighting for a rebellion against the government we are fighting for)

Merudo

2018-10-24, 03:52 AM

About Awaken & the charmed condition.

A charmed creature does not do "anything you want it to do" - charmed is not mind-control.

By RAW, the charmed condition only has two effects:

1) A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
2) The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.

So that tree you just awaken will likely give you some assistance, but I wouldn't expect it to risk its life in combat or anything that would put its life in jeopardy.

This greatly reduces the value of the Awaken spell.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-24, 06:43 AM

So that tree you just awaken will likely give you some assistance, but I wouldn't expect it to risk its life in combat or anything that would put its life in jeopardy.

This greatly reduces the value of the Awaken spell.

The other aspect of this is that even if you do manage to convince it to risk it's newfound freedom to do rather deadly things for you (which in fairness, is likely, considering that Charmed will give you advantage on those persuasion checks) as soon as the charm effect wears off in 30 days it's bound to have begun to or already dislikes you. Best case scenario in my eyes is that it retreats back into nature where you found it but maintains a healthy and friendly attitude. It's able to leave your employ at any time after casting the spell, it really isn't mind control.

Even worse, a strict reading of RAW doesn't automatically make the creature friendly to you, as the effect only implies that after 30 days it may no longer be friendly to you. It says nothing about influencing its emotions at any point before, like Charm Person or Monster. It's entirely possible (although unlikely, considering the Charmed condition) that you could fail to even convince your awakened creature to come with you in the first place.

The creature also isn't yours to control, from a gameplay perspective, so unless your DM is forgiving with that and allows you to control it in the ways that you proposed, you're going to spending a lot of your free time training your newly intelligent plant to administer healing potions on command or to flank a creature in combat. I might be stretching the verisimilitude in this but just because you've made the creature intelligent and given it rudimentary understandings of things won't make it adept at combat or as a supporter.

This opinion, of course, is based around how I read and interpret the rules as presented. I can see how Awaken could be considered invaluable in a situation where rule of cool/fun are more prevalent. I probably wouldn't be such a stickler with it myself, I just feel the need to point out potential flaws.

After that I would most likely stay Bard, and get Resilience (CON) at level 12. Honestly I would not even bother with Fighter until very late, a +2 to hit is just not that valuable.
Archery Fighting Styles combination with Sharpshooter is what makes it so invaluable. If your build isn't focused around Sharpshooter I can see the fighting style being less useful, however every bonus to hit is valuable as your damage is wholly ineffective if you can't land the shot. In the case of an Archer Bard build, I think the fighting style is meant to offset Dex still being a secondary stat.

Your proposed example also relies on the Archer Bard not being a great archer until level 11 (two ASI in CHA means that his DEX is at most 16) Hex Warrior also can't affect two-handed weapons, which excludes every ranged weapon other than a Hand Crossbow and Sling (You could also use a Blowgun or Net if you gain martial weapon proficiency). You need at least 3 levels in Warlock with Pact of the Blade and the Improved Pact Weapon feature to use any traditional bow or crossbow with Hex Warrior.

In short, it's not so simple as to dip Hexblade 1 to make an Archer Bard. It is however, very simple to dip Fighter 1.

Zalabim

2018-10-24, 07:55 AM

I have to put myself down as "While archery can be a decent option for bards, the bard is not ever the ultimate archer." Also, are you starting with Sharpshooter or with Crossbow Expert? Because if you have Crossbow Expert, Haste is probably a slightly better choice than Swift Quiver anyway. Casting Haste on yourself then gives you the same number of attacks, the bonus to AC and dexterity saves, and the faster movement, with a lower level spell slot, at the cost of the penalty if you lose concentration.

Toofey

2018-10-24, 08:02 AM

You should do a new cantrips video, even if you are repeating your other work it's new to youtube.

Corran

2018-10-24, 09:44 AM

Specter

2018-10-24, 10:28 AM

Bards have a hell of a hard time dealing out damage, so a bard that sacrificed some spellcasting ability (by delaying CHA upgrades) in order to a lot more hit point damage (with Sharpshooter + Swift Quiver + Fighting Style + Sword Bard nonsense) is a defensible trade.

Like it or not, 5E D&D made it so that monsters, especially higher-level monsters, don't really have a good answer to the party just unloading busting out the hit point damage as quickly as possible. So long as you can pierce through their defenses/first-attacks and actually make your attacks, that ancient dragon or lich is going down. It's why parties invest so much effort into spells like Fly / Greater Invis / Haste / Dimension Door / etc. because once your DPR buttkickers can actually take a turn, it's over for team monster past level 10 or so. A character that can switch-hit, such as an archer bard, is extremely valuable because they can both provide the damage and enable other people to do their damage.

• 'Some spellcasting ability' seems like a sugarcoat, since to have all these things you'd have to leave your CHA at 16. That's a serious hamper on all spells that require CHA, not to mention that you get 2 less inspiration dice per rest.

• You don't need Swift Quiver to switch-hit. Consider Greater Invisibility, that every Bard gets: advantage on attacks means you can Sharpshoot away much more easily, even if you had 16 DEX. You'd get two attacks, but those two would hurt more than those from Swift Quiver (you don't want to -5 all attacks without advantage). And obviously, disadvantage against you.

• When you cast Animate Objects, even if the enemy resists it, as Treant said it's 32avg. But you also need to consider that it frees your action: you can Dodge, Disengage, Dash, can cast a cantrip or another non-concentration spell alongside it, and for that the value goes even higher.

• Forgetting about Animate Objects for a second, other spells also increase your weapon DPR significantly. Elemental Weapon, for instance, is a 3rd-level spell that you can upcast that exploits vulnerabilities. Shadow Blade is a 2nd-level spell that can be upcast, and few monsters (non-objects) resist psychic. Haste gives you another attack, frees up your bonus action and also gives you more AC. Greater Invisibility, as mentioned. Etc.

Basically, Swift Quiver is, indeed, overrated, as are bards who invest mainly in archery.

I am so buffled as to why banishing smite was listed as an underrated spell, that I cannot even begin to type an organized rational response as to why I think it's a bad spell. It has to be a good spell in the first place for someone to underrate it.

I mean, this spell is so situational it is rarely worth even preparing. It's only use is if you ever need to throw everything and the kitchen sink at something tough you are fighting, and hope it will be enough to tip the balance of the encounter (gamble!). And only if you were not already concentrating in something you cannot afford to lose. Banishing smite is essentially the kitchen sink, as you can already go guns blazing with the normal divine smite, which does not mess with concentration and with which you do not gamble anyway.

And in regards to how it compares to banishment, it does not. These spells are far more different than similar, and that's because banishment (good or bad), is the kind of spell you focus your tactics around for a given encounter. Banishing smite on the other hand is a spell you use when you throw away whatever tactics you were using because you are desperate, it's a last resort kind of thing.

More than anything else though, banishing smite is a spell of convenience. It's for the player that does not care about optimization and tactics, and wants to play a paladin just to be a smite machine from a combat perspective. Either because they like to roll damage dice or because they enjoy a simplistic approach to the combat side of the game. So for this kind of player, banishing smite is the answer as to why divine smite does not scale enough to be used more effectively with 5th level slots. The fact that it does take up concentration is no important either to that player, because for them spells slots were just meant as smite fuel. I think this spell just exists to appeal to that kind of playstyle. Otherwise I don't think it's a good spell.

Banishing (gambling spell which does a lot or nothing) = focus your tactics around it, planned spell
Banishing Smite (which is much easier to plan for due to bypassing magical resistances) = Desperate spell
?

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-24, 11:23 AM

Banishing (gambling spell which does a lot or nothing) = focus your tactics around it, planned spell
Banishing Smite (which is much easier to plan for due to bypassing magical resistances) = Desperate spell
?

It is worth noting that Banishing Smite doesn't allow a save but does require the target to be reduced to 50 or few hit points for the rider effect.

Since you, a player, have no direct knowledge of a monsters physical well being (to the degree that would make this spell a sure thing) it can be seen as a bit desperate, since by the time you're deciding that Banishing Smite is your best option for a 5th level spell slot you may have had more luck with Destructive Wave or a regular old Smite.

That's at least how I think it's being rationalized here, as far as I'm concerned anything that has a chance of failure comes with a layer of desperation. You wouldn't consider doing it if you didn't have a reasonable plan to follow it up with. Both Banishment and Banishing Smite are both "good" spells, situationally "Great".

Corran

2018-10-24, 11:26 AM

Banishing (gambling spell which does a lot or nothing) = focus your tactics around it, planned spell
Banishing Smite (which is much easier to plan for due to bypassing magical resistances) = Desperate spell
?
Yeah, pretty much.
Using banishment at 1st round of combat to take out a (couple of) enemies, so that I can focus on the enemies in two doses, is a plan. Depending on your chances of landing it, or on what other ways you have to deal with a small number of tough foes (wall of force, summons, whatever), will determine how good of a plan it is and if it's worth investing on that spell in the first place, but using banishment on round 1 is a plan, whether it's a good or a bad one.
Banishing smite is the opposite of a plan. You went into a tough fight unprepared, and due to bad luck/tactics you are losing the encounter, and divine smite is not enough on its own to save the day. So you throw on top a little more, hoping it will make the difference. This is not a plan, this is being desperate.

Comparing banishment with banishing smite is beside the point though. They don't have almost anything in common. I made a brief mention to banishment, because Treantmonk touched on it, saying something along the lines (paraphrasing) that ''because banishment gets talked a lot and is overrated, that makes banishing smite underrated since it does not get talked at all'' (or at least that how I understand it). As if these two spells are even a little similar or of similar value(why, because they both have banish in their names? They are completely different spells, used against completely different opponents and kind of encounters, one makes sense to base your tactics around, the second is for lazy and far from optimal combat approach).

I felt I should touch on why I think these two spells are far more different than alike, but that has nothing to do with my point in that banishing smite is a bad spell (I did just use banishment as a counterexample to say that banishing smite is not a spell you can plan around, though it could be many other spells instead of banishment as my counterexample).

MaxWilson

2018-10-24, 12:10 PM

2) The range of animate objects can be a pain in the neck. They move 30 feet with no option to dash, and you generally have to bring the objects with you.

What in the world makes you think animated objects can't Dash? Do you think that monsters can't Dash?

The actions listed in the PHB can be taken by any creature. (And so can improvised actions, but the PHB doesn't enumerate them, it merely notes that they are possible.)

1) Considering what a bard will do to invest in Swift Quiver, it's really more like 2d8 + 38. You know, Sharpshooter and +2 Weapon.

Good money chasing after bad. Play an Eldritch Knight instead.

4) Area of effect attacks. They're a thing.

Great! A monster who spends time AoEing minions on the front line is not attacking the back line.

I think the issue with Animate Objects is not monsters resistant or immune to bludgeoning damage but monsters resistant or immune to non-magical weapons. An animated object is not magical in and of itself, so it won't be effective against those creatures. How many such monsters exist in the Monster Manual isn't relevant. What's relevant is how many appear in the campaign. At this level I expect many. The warriors will have magic weapons so it's not a campaign problem, but it diminishes the value of the spell. It's not a useless spell, but players being resistant to having it is not uncalled for.

Yep.

This BTW is why Shepherd Druids are so attractive as minionmancers: their minions don't have to deal with weapon resistance for the most part (Korreds and Giant Apes throwing rocks still do, because Mighty Summoner only boosts attacks with natural weapons), and their minions are resistant to AoE attacks. But as you say, it's hard to evaluate in a vacuum exactly how much better they are than regular druids, because monsters in a campaign are not drawn from a uniform distribution of monsters in the monster manual.

However, w/rt Bards and Animate Objects, that's why I called out opportunity attacks. Since opportunity attacks roughly double the DPR in situations where the party has mobility, and "how often does the party have mobility" and "how often are monsters resistant to weapon attacks" are both situational, it's probably fair to just call it roughly even w/rt effective DPR. In the rare case of monsters that are outright immune to nonmagical attacks, either use a different spell or have your animated objects fall back to Helping PCs attack or grappling enemies to cause them to waste attacks on your objects.

Citan

2018-10-24, 01:25 PM

I am so buffled as to why banishing smite was listed as an underrated spell, that I cannot even begin to type an organized rational response as to why I think it's a bad spell. It has to be a good spell in the first place for someone to underrate it.

I mean, this spell is so situational it is rarely worth even preparing. It's only use is if you ever need to throw everything and the kitchen sink at something tough you are fighting, and hope it will be enough to tip the balance of the encounter (gamble!). And only if you were not already concentrating in something you cannot afford to lose. Banishing smite is essentially the kitchen sink, as you can already go guns blazing with the normal divine smite, which does not mess with concentration and with which you do not gamble anyway.

And in regards to how it compares to banishment, it does not. These spells are far more different than similar, and that's because banishment (good or bad), is the kind of spell you focus your tactics around for a given encounter. Banishing smite on the other hand is a spell you use when you throw away whatever tactics you were using because you are desperate, it's a last resort kind of thing.

More than anything else though, banishing smite is a spell of convenience. It's for the player that does not care about optimization and tactics, and wants to play a paladin just to be a smite machine from a combat perspective. Either because they like to roll damage dice or because they enjoy a simplistic approach to the combat side of the game. So for this kind of player, banishing smite is the answer as to why divine smite does not scale enough to be used more effectively with 5th level slots. The fact that it does take up concentration is no important either to that player, because for them spells slots were just meant as smite fuel. I think this spell just exists to appeal to that kind of playstyle. Otherwise I don't think it's a good spell.

Edit: Btw, great video Treantmonk, I hope you keep them coming (and posting them here cause I find valuable the comments your video generate -apart from hearing your take on them of course), and I am excited to hear that you intend to move into classes and possibly other aspects of the game once you finish up with spells.
You are reall downsizing the differences here between spells.

So when a Cleric or Sorcerer is using Banishment, it's a fine and wise tactical move, but when a Paladin uses Banishing Smite it's a brainless move?
And as a result Banishing Smite would be worthless?

Wow. Do you realize how that sounds?

Let's repeat it while taking actual effects of the spells into account.
- When a Cleric uses up a 4th spell among all great spells using up concentration, to try and land a 1-mn lasting debuff on a failed CHA save...
It's a great move.
- When a Paladin (or Bard) uses up a 5th level spell to land in addition to a weapon attack on which he could tack up some smite spell to give a high chance of reaching the "less than 50 hp" bar, to banish *without any further save*... It's borderline a waste of resources?

Please don't misunderstand: my first reflex on a Paladin, for using a 5th level spell, would always rather be casting Circle of Power (because at that level, that kind of buff is certainly a lifesaver).
The fact that you need to get target under 50 HP for banishment to take effect also makes it very situational considering that you should usually expect a creature that has less than 50 HP to be killable in the one or two next rounds anyways.
But that may be exactly the reason why you used that highest level spell too: to ensure you just plain kill it, because extra 5d10 is not something to sneeze at.

So. Yeah, certainly it's very situational, and a desperate move...
On a *single-classed Paladin* only. Taken in isolation too (because in the -obviously specific- case of an allied Diviner with a loaded 20, you can basically one-shot any creature CR 14-16 if you really go full nova).
Note that a single level of Hexblade Warlock or a DEX build changes many things, with Elven Accuracy.

Now, on a Valor Bard or any Bard with longbow proficiency? You can start using it at 10th level. Of course, as a solo player, it's worthless. In a team?

You should start encountering creatures with HP a bit under 100, that are not really dangerous taken alone (especially against a group of PC) but can make nasty surprises if let alone.
Banishing Smite requires coordination and (preferably not meta ;)) knowledge about monsters, so it's definitely not a spell for any and everyone, but for a gishy Bard (especially Whispers thanks to extra damage) it's a very powerful tool to provide breathing space to a party.
Or to instantly set up a power balance that leave little doubt to who would win a lethal confrontation.
Or to create confusion among enemy group to disrupt and avoid confrontation without killing your target (especially good to capture VIP escorted by less dangerous enemies).

And things get even stupidly better when taking into account multiclassing possibilities.

Banishment is overall better because many casters have it and it's "only" needing a fail on a usually not great save.
Banishing Smite is overall a niche spell both for a Paladin because of opportunity cost, except Devotion using it in team (Sacred Weapon on longbow, with a Rogue pal ;)), and for Bards because you need to spend a Magic Secrets on it and there are so many other great level 5 spells...
But it can be really damn good, in spite of the HP requirement, because, well, no save is no save. :)

LudicSavant

2018-10-24, 01:29 PM

On Banishing Smite:

Now, Banishing Smite is on 2 spell lists: Hexblade and Paladin. However, since Treantmonk's analysis of why he thinks it's good talks about using it in combination with other Paladin abilities, rather than Hexblades or Bards, I'm going to talk about it in that context. Since that appears to be at least one of the contexts that he's using.

So... here are some things to consider for Banishing Smite as a Paladin, specifically.

You get the spell, once per day, at 17th level. This is your highest level spell slot, so you want it to be able to help out with your day's toughest challenges.

Now, it takes up your bonus action. Given that optimized Paladin builds tend to have some good way to raise their DPR with their bonus action already, that's cutting into the "5d10" damage that this spell does (unless you pre-cast it before the fight starts, of course; we'll get to that). Since many Level 17+ Paladin builds can deal damage in that range with a bonus action already, we probably want it to do something more than just damage. So let's look at the banishment effect itself.

Now, here's a hangup I have with Banishing Smite: You must use the smite on your first attack that hits, which means that even if your whole attack routine would have reduced them below 50 hit points, unless your first hit does, you don't banish anyone. Since, according to Jeremy Crawford, you can't insert a bonus action in between your Extra Attacks, it has to be the very first attack of the round that hits. No using it as a combo ender allowed.

For a 17th level Paladin, this means that just finishing out your attack routine might well have killed the enemy, or at least left them near-death. It also means that you sure as heck aren't using this as an opener against anything threatening (which is what everyone uses Banishment for), because 50 hit points is a relatively small percentage of high CR monster hit points, and that's doubly true for the kind of monsters you'd use your single 5th level spell slot on.

The fact that you're disabling an enemy who has less than 50 hit points left at a time in the game where people tend to start with a few hundred hit points, it means that you had to invest about as much into taking them out as actually take them out in order to disable them.

Okay, so what about pre-casting it? Well, then you basically just spent your Concentration and 5th level spell slot for 5d10 damage at 17th level, because your very first attack isn't going to banish the dragons and dragon-like foes that you're fighting 6-8 times a day at this level. You know what else can use your Concentration to deal more than an average of 27.5 damage over the course of a fight with your pre-cast? Bless. Bless can do that. Don't like Bless? Fine, you can be a Vengeance Paladin and cast Haste. Maybe you could be a Crown Paladin and cast Spirit Guardians. Point is, if all you're getting here is 5d10 damage, then you're not getting the world's greatest deal here. You want to get the Banish too, and that's unlikely to happen on a pre-cast due to the "it goes off on first hit" issue.

In order for Banishing Smite to get its money's worth against conventional enemies, you basically need a situation like the following:
> There is more than one threatening enemy still on the field
> One of them is at around 70 hit points. Much more and there's a fair chance you're making the "miss chance" for banish higher than the chance enemies will make a Banishment save. Much less and you'd probably just kill the enemy without the spell.
> You have to be aware that they're around this hit point range.
> Your full attack routine couldn't, with burning slots, as a 17th level Paladin, wouldn't be enough to kill them.
> The enemy is up next on the initiative order (not your allies).

But wait! There is a really good use case for Banishing Smite that Treantmonk's video doesn't really touch on!

It's good against things that have a "death gate" and the ability to yo-yo off of it just like PCs do. You can use Banishing Smite to destroy arrogant Zealot Barbarians who think they're immortal, for example. All that stuff I said about "you could have just reduced them to zero hp" doesn't apply when we're talking about enemies who are still really dangerous at zero hit points (like PCs are).

Citan

2018-10-24, 01:41 PM

It's good against things that have a "death gate" and the ability to yo-yo off of it just like PCs do. You can use Banishing Smite to destroy arrogant Zealot Barbarians who think they're immortal, for example. All that stuff I said about "you could have just reduced them to zero hp" doesn't apply when we're talking about enemies who are still really dangerous at zero hit points (like PCs are).
This is very true, but we have to admit, against in the specific (although common ;)) context of single-classed Paladin, it would probably be a rare situation, because if your party if still fully up you could just gang up to kill it off...

So if we consider this context, meaning 17+ level, the only rare situations when it would be worth using are...
- You are facing a potential TPK, and banishing one of the enemy could be enough to avoid that (and maybe if you had cast Circle of Power in the first place you could have avoided that rundown, just saying :smalltongue:).
- You don't actually want anyone else to touch the target either to harm or heal it because you'd like to capture it.
- You just want to finish off a creature and it has high enough AC to probably require two weapon attacks to make one hit.
And, of course all this is also based on the presupposition your character calculates that "chances of reaching the less than 50 HP condition on first hit" > "chances of target to fail a CHA save".

Because, let's remind to everyone (and me the first, totally forgot about it :smallredface:) that Banishment is ALSO on Paladin list
(which helps me understand why Corran was so harsh against this spell ^^).

Also thanks for telling it's on Hexblade list too. This makes Hexblade Bladelock even hotter than before. :)

LudicSavant

2018-10-24, 01:43 PM

*Snip*

That was sort of the point I was getting at, yeah. Banishing Smite is rather situational for a Paladin, and not a replacement for Banishment.

Also thanks for telling it's on Hexblade list too. This makes Hexblade Bladelock even hotter than before. :)

NP!

Vorpalchicken

2018-10-24, 02:05 PM

I agree with almost all of the assessments, including the overratedness of Swift Quiver.

I don't think Immolation is the worst spell however. If you want one target and no body remaining to spring back to life or otherwise inconvenience you, it's not a bad pick. If we're talking monsters, they are usually ash at zero. If we are talking PVP or DM player character murder, that's one extra auto-failed death save each round (can't pass that dex save.)

It's not a good spell be any means but I don't think it is the King of Bad 5th level Spells.

Treantmonk

2018-10-24, 03:38 PM

as far as I'm concerned anything that has a chance of failure comes with a layer of desperation. You wouldn't consider doing it if you didn't have a reasonable plan to follow it up with. Both Banishment and Banishing Smite are both "good" spells, situationally "Great".

I'm quoting this but responding to the various "gamble of Banishing Smite" comments.

There are 2 possibilities when you cast banishment. Either absolutely nothing happens, or the creature is banished.

There are 2 possibilities when you hit a creature with a banishing smite. Either they take the damage of the attack + an extra 5d10 radiant damage, or that plus they're banished.

Banishing smite allows you to hedge your bet. It's never an all or nothing scenario. Totally underrated.

Treantmonk

2018-10-24, 03:41 PM

On Banishing Smite:

Now, here's a hangup I have with Banishing Smite: You must use the smite on your first attack that hits, which means that even if your whole attack routine would have reduced them below 50 hit points, unless your first hit does, you don't banish anyone. Since, according to Jeremy Crawford, you can't insert a bonus action in between your Extra Attacks, it has to be the very first attack of the round that hits. No using it as a combo ender allowed.

I was unaware of that ruling. In the past he's always said you can take a bonus action at any time on your turn unless the ability that uses a bonus action specifies when it can be used.

Could you post a link?

LudicSavant

2018-10-24, 03:43 PM

I was unaware of that ruling. In the past he's always said you can take a bonus action at any time on your turn unless the ability that uses a bonus action specifies when it can be used.

Could you post a link?

Sure! Here you go: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298

I'm quoting this but responding to the various "gamble of Banishing Smite" comments.

There are 2 possibilities when you cast banishment. Either absolutely nothing happens, or the creature is banished.

There are 2 possibilities when you hit a creature with a banishing smite. Either they take the damage of the attack + an extra 5d10 radiant damage, or that plus they're banished.

Banishing smite allows you to hedge your bet. It's never an all or nothing scenario. Totally underrated.

Perhaps this is not your intention, but you make it sound kind of like the banishing in case one is the same reward as the banishing in case two. I think it's worth considering that they're not.

The Banishment spell is used as an opener to remove a full strength creature from the start, while Banishing Smite removes a weakened creature that would have been dead or on the brink of death if you had not used the spell (barring scenarios like the Zealot Barbarian I mentioned earlier).

Also, just a nitpick, "it's never an all or nothing scenario" is technically incorrect. While you retain Banishing Smite on a missed attack roll, you still have to hit your (all or nothing) attack rolls at some point, and maintain your Concentration until you do. Also, it has an opportunity cost of whatever your usual bonus action would be (pretty much every optimized Paladin build has a good go-to bonus action DPR booster).

(Note: This critique applies to using the spell as a Paladin. The equation is a bit different when you use it as a Hexblade).

PhantomSoul

2018-10-24, 03:47 PM

I was unaware of that ruling. In the past he's always said you can take a bonus action at any time on your turn unless the ability that uses a bonus action specifies when it can be used.

Could you post a link?

It's probably either this tweet or one consistent with this one:

No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action. #DnD

Treantmonk

2018-10-24, 04:09 PM

Sure! Here you go: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298

You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack

The trigger of Banishing Smite is an attack, so inserting it between attacks would be allowed, at least in the quote you linked.

LudicSavant

2018-10-24, 04:26 PM

The trigger of Banishing Smite is an attack, so inserting it between attacks would be allowed, at least in the quote you linked.

Not quite. Banishing Smite isn't "use this bonus action when you make an attack." The bonus action itself isn't what's triggered by the attack. Instead, you use the bonus action, then make an attack sometime during the duration.

Basically, what Crawford is saying is that you can't use a reaction or bonus action in the middle of an attack sequence unless it specifically says you can. And Banishing Smite doesn't.

Specter

2018-10-24, 04:29 PM

Yeah, pretty much.
Using banishment at 1st round of combat to take out a (couple of) enemies, so that I can focus on the enemies in two doses, is a plan. Depending on your chances of landing it, or on what other ways you have to deal with a small number of tough foes (wall of force, summons, whatever), will determine how good of a plan it is and if it's worth investing on that spell in the first place, but using banishment on round 1 is a plan, whether it's a good or a bad one.
Banishing smite is the opposite of a plan. You went into a tough fight unprepared, and due to bad luck/tactics you are losing the encounter, and divine smite is not enough on its own to save the day. So you throw on top a little more, hoping it will make the difference. This is not a plan, this is being desperate.

Comparing banishment with banishing smite is beside the point though. They don't have almost anything in common. I made a brief mention to banishment, because Treantmonk touched on it, saying something along the lines (paraphrasing) that ''because banishment gets talked a lot and is overrated, that makes banishing smite underrated since it does not get talked at all'' (or at least that how I understand it). As if these two spells are even a little similar or of similar value(why, because they both have banish in their names? They are completely different spells, used against completely different opponents and kind of encounters, one makes sense to base your tactics around, the second is for lazy and far from optimal combat approach).

I felt I should touch on why I think these two spells are far more different than alike, but that has nothing to do with my point in that banishing smite is a bad spell (I did just use banishment as a counterexample to say that banishing smite is not a spell you can plan around, though it could be many other spells instead of banishment as my counterexample).

That's a better explanation, but it doesn't change the fact that Banishment is a gamble, even if you're metagamingly facing an enemy with low CHA and a low CHA save.
Just because Banishing Smite can be an emergency button (if you want a particular enemy not to act right after you, for example) doesn't mean it's not part of a plan. Most planning is planning for contingencies.

LudicSavant

2018-10-24, 04:42 PM

The "Banishing Smite can't be used between Extra Attacks" thing isn't just a Twitter ruling, by the way, it's in the RAW too.

Twigwit

2018-10-24, 06:17 PM

The trigger of Banishing Smite is an attack, so inserting it between attacks would be allowed, at least in the quote you linked.

Frankly it's open season about the order of operations on actions at this point. That thread says that you can't because JC claims you need a specific feature that says you can use a BA between Attacks, based on a precedent that JC set only two hours earlier (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/994993596989300736?lang=en), that contradicts the ruling he made a year previous that said you can so that Shield Master actually has value. JC's rulings have little to no basis in the RAW, they're only authoritative because he's the lead designer and he says that's how he's always wanted them to work. While he's channeling SKR, Mike routinely laments the implementation of BAs in the first place (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/04/could-you-expand-on-why-you-dont-like-the-bonus-action-mechanic/). While that's going on Chris and Kate just ignore all that and make fun adventures. It's all a bit of a mess and it's all just RAI, not RAW, so it only matters as much as you care about RAI.

MaxWilson

2018-10-24, 06:27 PM

The "Banishing Smite can't be used between Extra Attacks" thing isn't just a Twitter ruling, by the way, it's in the RAW too.

I don't know anywhere in the rules where it says actions and bonus actions have discrete timing. AFAIK the rules are merely silent on interleaving them. Am I overlooking something?

Taebyn

2018-10-24, 06:37 PM

Thanks, enjoyed the video and came to the same conclusions about Bards.

Corran

2018-10-24, 07:45 PM

That's a better explanation, but it doesn't change the fact that Banishment is a gamble, even if you're metagamingly facing an enemy with low CHA and a low CHA save.
Just because Banishing Smite can be an emergency button (if you want a particular enemy not to act right after you, for example) doesn't mean it's not part of a plan. Most planning is planning for contingencies.
That's the word I was missing. Banishing smite is indeed a contingency spell.
Contingency for what though? For when you are losing the battle. That's a good time to have a contingency, sure. The problem is that it is so unreliable. Cause you want to use it when you are losing badly enough so that normal smiting wouldn't make a difference, but not as badly as to not trigger the banishing effect. Even if you know the enemy's current hp, that's very small optimal ground. Which makes it, at least in my eyes, a very unreliable contingency spell.

I take back though that it isn't worth preparing (and looking at my previous posts I can see how some things I said were over the top, so I consider the above to be my new position on the spell). It's probably worth preparing, simply because I don't see any other spell capable of filling that contingency space. And since it will be so rare to ever make good use of that spell, I think I will struggle convincing myself to leave a 5th level slot intact, just in case I am presented with an opportune moment which would allow me to use banishing smite effectively.

Did I underrate this spell? Certainly, as I didn't even think it was worth preparing, and now I have changed my mind. Do I think it's good spell that will see the light of day in my games? No and most likely not.

So if we consider this context, meaning 17+ level, the only rare situations when it would be worth using are...
- You are facing a potential TPK, and banishing one of the enemy could be enough to avoid that (and maybe if you had cast Circle of Power in the first place you could have avoided that rundown, just saying :smalltongue:).

Facing a potential TPK could very well mean that you have already lost concentration on circle of power, or on whatever else you were concentrating. I would also not leave it at ''facing a potential TPK''. I would say ''facing a potential TPK when a BBEG is involved''. Meaning, that to consider using banishing smite, there has to be one particular enemy that stands out from the rest (if any). I think the real problem is how you justify keeping a 5th level slot open for the edge case scenario that banishing smite would actually be useful. I mean, the spell is more situational than I would like when I start to think with what it has to compete and how few my 5th level spell slots are (talking about paladins btw).

About bards and warlocks, I don't know as I am not familiar enough with their playstyle and with their other options.
If I was playing a bard though, I would definitely not spend a magical secrets on banishing smite, when there is divine word (https://youtu.be/y8-LH_VUROk?t=279).

Pex

2018-10-24, 09:37 PM

That's the word I was missing. Banishing smite is indeed a contingency spell.
Contingency for what though? For when you are losing the battle. That's a good time to have a contingency, sure. The problem is that it is so unreliable. Cause you want to use it when you are losing badly enough so that normal smiting wouldn't make a difference, but not as badly as to not trigger the banishing effect. Even if you know the enemy's current hp, that's very small optimal ground. Which makes it, at least in my eyes, a very unreliable contingency spell.

I take back though that it isn't worth preparing (and looking at my previous posts I can see how some things I said were over the top, so I consider the above to be my new position on the spell). It's probably worth preparing, simply because I don't see any other spell capable of filling that contingency space. And since it will be so rare to ever make good use of that spell, I think I will struggle convincing myself to leave a 5th level slot intact, just in case I am presented with an opportune moment which would allow me to use banishing smite effectively.

Did I underrate this spell? Certainly, as I didn't even think it was worth preparing, and now I have changed my mind. Do I think it's good spell that will see the light of day in my games? No and most likely not.

As was mentioned it's good enough to use just for the damage since 5th level slots are inefficient for smiting, and you can still smite on top of it. If you get to banish a creature that's a bonus, but you don't need to depend on it. It's the damage you want.

Corran

2018-10-24, 09:54 PM

As was mentioned it's good enough to use just for the damage since 5th level slots are inefficient for smiting, and you can still smite on top of it. If you get to banish a creature that's a bonus, but you don't need to depend on it. It's the damage you want.
Spending a 2nd level slot to deal an extra 3d8 damage is better than spending a 3rd level slot for an extra 4d8 damage and so on (eventually reaching level 5 slots for an extra 5d10 damage, which is pretty much the same as 6d8 damage). The reason is that you get increasingly better options to compete with smites for the increasingly less level-specific slots as you go up in spell levels. Using my 5th level slots just to smite means I am not doing something well. You need the extra effect of banishing smite to take place, for banishing smite to even have a chance of being worth considering. But even if the banishing effect triggers, it takes very specific and narrow circumstances to justify using that spell. For example, using a 5th level slot on banishing smite during a fight you seem to be winning, is a waste of resources in every possible way I can spin it.

Pex

2018-10-24, 10:59 PM

Using a 1st level slot to smite when you're winning isn't a good use of resources either. Sometimes the wizard only needs to Cantrip attack. Sometimes the paladin only needs to weapon attack. That says nothing on whether to use a 5th level Banishing Smite for the damage. Sometimes you're fighting a magical foe and Circle of Power wins you the day. Sometimes you're fighting a foe of hit points and need to Hulk Smash with all the damage you can muster. A spell doesn't need to be universally optimal for every situation of all things ever to occur to be worth having and preparing.

Treantmonk

2018-10-24, 11:00 PM

Spending a 2nd level slot to deal an extra 3d8 damage is better than spending a 3rd level slot for an extra 4d8 damage and so on (eventually reaching level 5 slots for an extra 5d10 damage, which is pretty much the same as 6d8 damage). The reason is that you get increasingly better options to compete with smites for the increasingly less level-specific slots as you go up in spell levels. Using my 5th level slots just to smite means I am not doing something well. You need the extra effect of banishing smite to take place, for banishing smite to even have a chance of being worth considering. But even if the banishing effect triggers, it takes very specific and narrow circumstances to justify using that spell. For example, using a 5th level slot on banishing smite during a fight you seem to be winning, is a waste of resources in every possible way I can spin it.

Think of Banishing Smite as adding about 77 points of damage to a finisher (27 damage + 50 hp for banishment). When party members are in danger of dying that can be a life-saver (literally).

Imagine for a moment you are facing a, oh I don't know - something high, high CR. Let's say a Death Knight. HP 180.

OK, so Death Knight spends the first turn absolutely laying waste to your party. Hellfire orb spreads 70 HP damage around to party members, and now you are all soft. Then on round 2 it hit your party Cleric with a Banishment. Now you are screwed. In that time you've hit it for about 40 points of damage, it's doing just fine. Still 140 hp left.

Now round 3, your Fighter shoots a few arrows into it, maybe another 30 points of damage. Uh, meh. OK we'll take it. Down to 110.

Your turn. Now you throw a 2H greatsword attack, vow of emnity is up. 2d6+5 (str) +3 (magic weapon) +10 (GWF) for 15, + 4d8 from a level 3 smite (23) that's 38. You started off with a Banishing Smite (5d10) now that's 66. That puts it under 50 HP and it's banished (magic resistance? ignored). Heal up, gather around the return point. Hold actions - it returns, it's dead before it can act again.

Now let's say the damage worked out differently and instead it's still over 50 hp. Now you get the booby prize. Instead it onlyh takes 66 hp (on your first attack) and it makes a 33 DC concentration check to maintain that banishment on the Cleric (in addition to taking 66 hp damage - BTW - that's with a +5 con save - good luck). I'm going to say that's not a terrible booby prize. Maybe I'm the crazy one...

MaxWilson

2018-10-25, 01:41 AM

Your turn. Now you throw a 2H greatsword attack, vow of emnity is up. 2d6+5 (str) +3 (magic weapon) +10 (GWF) for 15, + 4d8 from a level 3 smite (23) that's 38. You started off with a Banishing Smite (5d10) now that's 66. That puts it under 50 HP and it's banished (magic resistance? ignored). Heal up, gather around the return point. Hold actions - it returns, it's dead before it can act again.

Not that it matters to your point, but this math is all messed up.

For one thing, 2d6+5+3+10 averages 25, not 15.

For another thing, 4d8 averages 18, not 23.

Good luck BTW hitting AC 26 (20 + Parry) with GWM. Even with a +3 weapon as you assume, you still need a 17 or better. Vow of Enmity helps a little bit but it's still dicey, and if you're planning on using Banishing Smite it takes two rounds to get in enough bonus actions for Vow of Enmity AND Banishing Smite.

Anyway, if you're a level 17+ Paladin and a single CR 17 Death Knight is "absolutely laying waste" to your party, you've got issues. That's barely even a Medium fight for four 17th level PCs, even by 5E's relaxed standards, and you'll have six and a half others like it before the adventuring day is up. You shouldn't be spending your Vow of Enmity, a 3rd level spell slot, and your one and only 5th level spell slot on MAYBE banishing it if your buddies have managed to deal enough damage before your turn.

LudicSavant

2018-10-25, 03:09 AM

Imagine for a moment you are facing a, oh I don't know - something high, high CR. Let's say a Death Knight. HP 180.

OK, so Death Knight spends the first turn absolutely laying waste to your party.

Your assumptions seem a bit off here. This is not facing an enemy of "high, high CR" for a level 17 party, especially not one that has +3 weapons (as is the case in your example). This is facing a speed bump. Let's go check out the DMG guidelines for Challenge Rating.

In the DMG, it says that a merely average adventuring party on a merely average adventuring day should be able to take on 6-8 "Medium or Hard" Challenge encounters in a day. And this metric is for PCs with no magic items at all. If your party is optimized, or they have magic items, or they're facing less encounters per day, they can take on significantly more.

Hellfire orb spreads 70 HP damage around to party members, and now you are all soft.

If a single Hellfire Orb is absolutely laying waste to your magic-item-laden level 17 party, then something is up. I mean, the Ride of the Valkyries Paladin can eat several meteor swarms before it loses its Pegasus mount, just because of how many damage mitigation factors the Paladin has for herself, her mount, and her allies.

Then on round 2 it hit your party Cleric with a Banishment. Now you are screwed. In that time you've hit it for about 40 points of damage, it's doing just fine. Still 140 hp left.

Now round 3, your Fighter shoots a few arrows into it, maybe another 30 points of damage. Uh, meh. OK we'll take it. Down to 110.

Where are these damage numbers coming from? Why is a level 17 party only doing 40 points of damage in 2 rounds? Why is the fighter shooting a few arrows into it on round 3 doing only 30?

Your turn. Now you throw a 2H greatsword attack, vow of emnity is up. 2d6+5 (str) +3 (magic weapon) +10 (GWF) for 15, + 4d8 from a level 3 smite (23) that's 38. This math is wrong. For example, 7+5+3+10 = 25, not 15.

Maybe I'm the crazy one...

With all due respect, your math is off on this one.

Merudo

2018-10-25, 03:30 AM

Imagine that same bard using Animate Objects instead of Swift Quiver...

Just to point out that in your data gathering for Animate Objects, you left out creatures immune to bludgeoning damage.

For CR 11+, we have:

159 creatures in total (8 pages)
62 creatures (39%) resistant to some form of bludgeoning
27 creatures (17%) straight up immune to some form of bludgeoning

So you are looking at 89 out of 159 (56%) either immune or resistant to some form of bludgeoning.

However, if you use Animate Objects with silver objects (such as silver pieces) or adamantine objects, some of these immunities/resistances can be bypassed:

17 creatures are resistant to nonmagical non-silvered attacks
5 creatures are immune to nonmagical non-adamantine attacks.

By carrying silver & adamantine objects, only 67 creatures (42%) remain immune or resistant.

Zalabim

2018-10-25, 05:29 AM

I feel like a lot of people can get distracted by the big bad solo creature fight, but what about the rest of the CR range? What about Mind Flayers? Etc. I know mind flayers are one of those big AoE threats that can take down Animated Objects quickly. It's just an example of creatures that are still dangerous at higher levels.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-25, 06:48 AM

Maybe I'm the crazy one...
Why is the Fighter in this example not a sharpshooter if the Paladin is allowed GWM? Why is the fighter not also allowed a +3 Longbow/Crossbow? How did the Dex based fighter manage to fail the Dex Save from Hellfire Orb, he gets 3 uses of indomitable at this level? If the Paladin is "optimized" why is the Fighters Superiority Dice not taken into account?

Let's give the Fighter a fair shake, like you did for the Paladin:
-3 attacks
-20 Dex
- +3 Magical Weapon (Longbow), Sharpshooter, Archery Fighting Style (-0, +10)
- The Death Knight can't Parry Arrows
- With so many ASI, the fighter can also have Resilient DEX, nearly guaranteeing he saves on the deathfire orb
-If the fighter rolls poorly to hit, he can choose to make it a Precision Attack, averaging an additional +6 to hit
-Since we assume the Paladin hits 26 AC, we'll assume a Fighter can hit 20 AC with a minimum +11 to hit after Sharpshooter

Round 1:
-Fighter saves against Deathfire Orb, taking 35 damage and being very healthy still
-Fighter attacks, 3 times Sharpshooter (1d8+8+10)x3 for an average total of 69 damage.

Round 2:
-If the Fighter's party members are also competent and given a fair shake like the Paladin, the Death Knight has already been killed. If only the Paladin is competent, the Fighter and Paladin together are still more than capable of dealing with this Death Knight.

I should be clear, I don't disagree with Banishing Smite being a decent spell. However you not only cherry picked an example of a relatively low impact encounter for a 17th level party who somehow has only a single competent party member, but you also used Banishment against the cleric. Your Death Knight can upcast Banishment, hold person on all party members or use Destructive Wave, all better choices than simply banishing the Cleric. Heck, even just having him use his 3 longsword attacks (for an average of 28 damage each at +11 to hit) is more likely to take the cleric out of the fight than a spell you yourself consider too much of a gamble.

If the Gloom Stalker Ranger/Fighter in my SKT campaign single handedly killed an Adult Green Dragon at level 10, your party of 3(or more) members can reasonable take out a Death Knight.

This example was designed to make Banishing Smite look like a fantastic option, when it's only okay.

Citan

2018-10-25, 09:48 AM

About bards and warlocks, I don't know as I am not familiar enough with their playstyle and with their other options.
If I was playing a bard though, I would definitely not spend a magical secrets on banishing smite, when there is divine word (https://youtu.be/y8-LH_VUROk?t=279).
I don't see how you can try and make an opportunity cost comparison though.
We are talking, on one side, of a 5th level spell (so Warlock 9, Bard 10) that adds damage on any hit and imposes a "definitive" rider on HP condition.
Which means you have to "calculate" if you counted on it, which is a pain, but it's otherwise something easy enough to apply, especially if you as a Bard -or Warlock- went full-gish way (whether or not building either as full gish is a good idea or not is a debate I'll ask we all avoid, because that would certainly derail the thread ;).

On the other side, of a 7th level spell (so at the earliest level 14 for Bard, 13 for Cleric) that has to fail a Charisma saving throw, and require a much finer knowledge of current enemies's status to use it with a bit of anticipation. Because "just deafened" is usually worthless (sadly). Blinded is nice but at that level enemies may have ways to restore condition, escape or hide from danger. So really the "stunned" is nice. It requires less than 30 HP.

So I'd daresay Divine Word is much better fit for avoiding brutal conflict in the first place against groups of lower danger creatures, than a "change tide" spell in encounters against a few tougher enemies.

Corran

2018-10-25, 11:33 AM

Think of Banishing Smite as adding about 77 points of damage to a finisher (27 damage + 50 hp for banishment).
77 extra points of damage to a finishing blow, I hear you. Meaning that you end a threat faster. We are spending a 5th level slot and using our concentration to do that, so let's try to translate the benefits of what killing a big threat faster means. Basically, what it translates to, is damage mitigation (and perhaps one or two spared low level smites). Nothing post combat healing (or a short rest if possible) can't fix. Meaning, that using my highest level slot just to save on a few lower level slots does not sound like a good deal to me. And it's very likely that we if we are using banishing smite, we are doing so at the last encounter of the day, at which point managing resources is usually less of an issue. But...

When party members are in danger of dying that can be a life-saver (literally).
… this is something I can get behind of. That is where I think the only value of the spell is. And I agree that if it works in such a way, as to make the difference between victory and defeat, then it's a pretty damn great spell. My problem is, that this is very difficult to be the case. Not because I play in an awesome party that trivializes encounters, no! But because when I am losing, I am only allowed to be losing only by that much, for this spell can make an impact. For this spell to change the tide of battle, you must be flirting with defeat only on Tuesdays. Every other day of the week it's unreliable. Either because I am not losing, so I don't need to use it, or because I am losing heavily, so a banishing smite would only lead to me saying ''Well, we gave it our best shot''. It's an extremely situational contingency, because there is a great margin for error.

Taking pauses and thinking about it as I am typing this post, I will admit that looking at it more and comparing with my other options, it's for sure a spell I would like to have prepared when I am going into one of the few big encounters. The ones that denote a ''chapter's'' ending, or a campaign's ending. The big showdown type. Maybe circle of power isn't a good fit for that encounter (or alternatively I am level 19+ and I have two 5th level slots), or maybe there is a better concentration spell to use, or I use none at all because I think the risk to using concentration spells is too great for the gain they would offer me, or I just lose concentration mid fight which pairs well with a losing scenario where banishing smite might be of use. These are all good and sufficient reasons to have banishing smite prepared. But will it make a difference? Only if I banish (or kill just before the enemy does something really nasty) Damage on demand can be quite nice, but I already have smite for that. Using banishing smite for an extra 5d10 is not really needed. At least not when I am winning. Using banishing smite for 5d10 + 50 (or less) is good when it can turn the tide of combat. At least that's how I think of it.

When I start thinking of combat scenarios, it gets a little messy. That's cause I can justify a banishing smite more, when I am doing it being low on hp. So say I manage to banish the big threat just before it takes me out. What if there are other enemies? If they drop me I lose concentration and the big bad gets popped back. So I better do it when I am not at death's door, or if I am relatively low on hp, maybe I should at least have my lay on hands handy to boost my hp just after I banish the big thread, so other enemies don't take me out so that the big bad isn't popped back until we deal with the minions. Meaning, that if fighting a BBEG with mooks, it gets even more difficult to happen across a good moment when banishing smite would be of good use.

Now let's say the damage worked out differently and instead it's still over 50 hp. Now you get the booby prize. Instead it onlyh takes 66 hp (on your first attack) and it makes a 33 DC concentration check to maintain that banishment on the Cleric (in addition to taking 66 hp damage - BTW - that's with a +5 con save - good luck). I'm going to say that's not a terrible booby prize. Maybe I'm the crazy one...
That's something I hadn't thought about. Being able to push the DC of a concentration check from around 17 to 31 can have its uses.

----------

@Citan: Wait, I didn't actually suggest that divine word is better than banishing smite for a bard. I should have also clarified that I use blue text when I want to say silly things. I mean, in all seriousness, I would probably take divine word instead of banishing smite, just because it would be easier to fluff the verbal components as my bard's singing, so I would essentially banish devils and such just with my awesome voice (yeah, I am not copying pick of destiny at all, I am full of original ideas) and without having to wield weapons (though an axe-guitar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVARoafOYHc) sounds like a good idea as well). Whether it is better than banishing smite for a bard though, I am not really sure.

Citan

2018-10-25, 12:30 PM

----------

@Citan: Wait, I didn't actually suggest that divine word is better than banishing smite for a bard. I should have also clarified that I use blue text when I want to say silly things. I mean, in all seriousness, I would probably take divine word instead of banishing smite, just because it would be easier to fluff the verbal components as my bard's singing, so I would essentially banish devils and such just with my awesome voice (yeah, I am not copying pick of destiny at all, I am full of original ideas) and without having to wield weapons (though an axe-guitar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVARoafOYHc) sounds like a good idea as well). Whether it is better than banishing smite for a bard though, I am not really sure.
...
...
/me gets looking back at post in question...
/me sees the blue text.
/me bangs his head against wall.

Don't apologize, please, that sentence was indeed clearly blue on white. My brain just didn't connect because I was reading in a hurry, totally on me. XD

ImproperJustice

2018-10-25, 01:46 PM

Hey Treantmonk!
Finally got to see your video and I like your guides.

Wanted to bring up an aspect of Wall of Light you may have missed, and why are loving it in “Against the Giants”.

The Wall can be cretated horizontally in the air!

This means if you create it about 8-10’ off the ground horizontally (about waist level for the giants), they are in the area of effect, and can’t see you.

But you can see them (or at least their feat) just fine!
This has come up in some other scenarios as well.
It just may be worth considering that the “80’s metal wall” is not as bad as you say.

Also, Immolation can be twinned and is a verbal component only spell. Against a Giant with a terrible dex save it’s a death sentence.
Not bad for a spell that can be used when restrained. Burning foes to ash, also means no healing word Shenanigans so it works good as a finisher on a foe with low hp.

Silkensword

2018-10-25, 03:43 PM

Hi Treantmonk!! Your guides on wizards have made me the player I am today. That, and Inquisitor Lim's Bladesinger guide!

I completely agree with most of the things in your assessment of the Bladesinger; I play mine as god wizards with the ability to facetank via ridiculous AC against melee brutes, while taking backline if there's casters. Our party composition is very squishy, so having a good amount of tank potential by way of bladesong is a fantastic tool!

I never really thought about the economy of DND as much as I should have; the explanation of how spells that have potentially no effect on a good enemy roll are risky business sobered me up to a lot of old favorites.

This is more about an older video of yours, but I consider Ray of Enfeeblement to be one of the better damage mitigation spells; the first round of weakening you get out of it is completely irresistible, even with legendary saves!

Treantmonk

2018-10-26, 06:53 AM

Why is the Fighter in this example not a sharpshooter if the Paladin is allowed GWM? Why is the fighter not also allowed a +3 Longbow/Crossbow? How did the Dex based fighter manage to fail the Dex Save from Hellfire Orb, he gets 3 uses of indomitable at this level? If the Paladin is "optimized" why is the Fighters Superiority Dice not taken into account?

Let's give the Fighter a fair shake, like you did for the Paladin:
-3 attacks
-20 Dex
- +3 Magical Weapon (Longbow), Sharpshooter, Archery Fighting Style (-0, +10)
- The Death Knight can't Parry Arrows
- With so many ASI, the fighter can also have Resilient DEX, nearly guaranteeing he saves on the deathfire orb
-If the fighter rolls poorly to hit, he can choose to make it a Precision Attack, averaging an additional +6 to hit
-Since we assume the Paladin hits 26 AC, we'll assume a Fighter can hit 20 AC with a minimum +11 to hit after Sharpshooter

Round 1:
-Fighter saves against Deathfire Orb, taking 35 damage and being very healthy still
-Fighter attacks, 3 times Sharpshooter (1d8+8+10)x3 for an average total of 69 damage.

Round 2:
-If the Fighter's party members are also competent and given a fair shake like the Paladin, the Death Knight has already been killed. If only the Paladin is competent, the Fighter and Paladin together are still more than capable of dealing with this Death Knight.

I should be clear, I don't disagree with Banishing Smite being a decent spell. However you not only cherry picked an example of a relatively low impact encounter for a 17th level party who somehow has only a single competent party member, but you also used Banishment against the cleric. Your Death Knight can upcast Banishment, hold person on all party members or use Destructive Wave, all better choices than simply banishing the Cleric. Heck, even just having him use his 3 longsword attacks (for an average of 28 damage each at +11 to hit) is more likely to take the cleric out of the fight than a spell you yourself consider too much of a gamble.

If the Gloom Stalker Ranger/Fighter in my SKT campaign single handedly killed an Adult Green Dragon at level 10, your party of 3(or more) members can reasonable take out a Death Knight.

This example was designed to make Banishing Smite look like a fantastic option, when it's only okay.

I can see now the mistake was to provide details rather than focus on the point, as every response has focused on the details and ignored the point.

So let me try again:

Paladin with Banishing Smite attacks, adds on a regular smite too - it does a lot of damage by adding weapon + Smite + Banishing smite.

If that attack brings down the enemy, or brings it under 50 hp, the attack wins the fight. If not, the booby prize is the Paladin did impressive damage with the attack. That's a better booby prize than "nothing happens, erase the spell slot."

Maybe that will be more clear.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-26, 07:25 AM

I can see now the mistake was to provide details rather than focus on the point, as every response has focused on the details and ignored the point.

So let me try again:

Paladin with Banishing Smite attacks, adds on a regular smite too - it does a lot of damage by adding weapon + Smite + Banishing smite.

If that attack brings down the enemy, or brings it under 50 hp, the attack wins the fight. If not, the booby prize is the Paladin did impressive damage with the attack. That's a better booby prize than "nothing happens, erase the spell slot."

Maybe that will be more clear.

I think we all understood the point, Corran was able to write it down better than I was. I personally don't think that point makes the spell underrated, I think that makes it do what it says on the box and at worst overrated because people fall into what I believe is a mistaken belief of how valuable the rider effect actually is.

The details also are important when considering whether a spell is worth such a precious slot for a Paladin. As a Paladin spell it's very underwhelming*. The key difference is that if you're even a bog standard adventuring party, knocking a creature to below 50 points of health to banish at level 17 isn't going to be a lifesaver, it's going to be overkill. The banish effect isn't necessary at that point because your teammates are reliable and can deal at least 50 damage in a single round at that point (a Fighter can do that by himself) regardless of whether you let them ready those actions.
*it takes a lot for a spell to be considered over a use of Divine Smite, regardless of how "good" the spell is. Even crowd favorites like Bless are oft overlooked.

It's a "win more" spell. 5d10 damage makes it decent, no save banish effect that is almost always going to be overkill when it happens makes it "good".

I do feel the need to stress though, that I think it's a significantly more useful spell to Hexblades and Melee Bard's because they can start casting it as early as level 9/10 respectively. They're likely to be fighting level appropriate threats where they might not be able to put it down without that extra help.

LudicSavant

2018-10-26, 08:11 AM

I think we all understood the point

Yeah.

I can see now the mistake was to provide details rather than focus on the point, as every response has focused on the details and ignored the point.

I think that's more than a little unfair to the people who have taken the time to offer you their responses, because...

If that attack brings down the enemy, or brings it under 50 hp, the attack wins the fight. If not, the booby prize is the Paladin did impressive damage with the attack. That's a better booby prize than "nothing happens, erase the spell slot."

This argument was addressed by a few people before you even made your post about the Death Knight. If anything's being ignored, it seems to me that it's those posts.

In addition, details are important. If your examples don't substantiate your point, then it's not wrong for people to point that out.

Zalabim

2018-10-26, 08:23 AM

Corran

2018-10-26, 08:53 AM

I really, really feel like people are focusing on the big bad solo battle as the only appropriate threat to the exclusion of the battles with many lower CR enemies where area effect damage and divide and conquer tactics are most effective.
That's because we are talking about a single-target banishing effect (that as a bonus has the ability to bypass saves and legendary resistances), and which in all likelihood happens during the mid-late or last round of combat. All these factors (single target, targets hit points, timing of the cast), point to a big bad as the ideal target of that spell, because that's how you probably make the most of this spell. The spell is of less value if we use it to target lesser threats.

Citan

2018-10-26, 08:56 AM

I think we all understood the point, Corran was able to write it down better than I was. I personally don't think that point makes the spell underrated, I think that makes it do what it says on the box and at worst overrated because people fall into what I believe is a mistaken belief of how valuable the rider effect actually is.

The details also are important when considering whether a spell is worth such a precious slot for a Paladin. As a Paladin spell it's very underwhelming*. The key difference is that if you're even a bog standard adventuring party, knocking a creature to below 50 points of health to banish at level 17 isn't going to be a lifesaver, it's going to be overkill. The banish effect (usually) isn't necessary at that point because your teammates are reliable and can deal at least 50 damage in a single round at that point (a Fighter can do that by himself) regardless of whether you let them ready those actions.
*it takes a lot for a spell to be considered over a use of Divine Smite, regardless of how "good" the spell is. Even crowd favorites like Bless are oft overlooked.

It's a "win more" spell. 5d10 damage makes it decent, no save banish effect that is almost always going to be overkill when it happens makes it "good".

I do feel the need to stress though, that I think it's a significantly more useful spell to Hexblades and Melee Bard's because they can start casting it as early as level 9/10 respectively. They're likely to be fighting level appropriate threats where they might not be able to put it down without that extra help.
This is probably the most concise yet accurate sum up of both sides of the coin (I just added up the "usually" in paragraph).
Thank you for that. :)

MaxWilson

2018-10-26, 10:10 AM

Pex

2018-10-26, 01:25 PM

In terms of doing impressive damage, it's better to just spend your spell slot on Elemental Weapon V instead of Banishing Smite. It lasts a full hour, gives you +2 to hit, and adds 2d4 (5) HP of elemental damage to every hit you make within that hour. Same concentration cost as Banishing Smite, but instead of 5d10 (27) damage once, you get more hits and more damage on each hit.

Banishing Smite is only worthwhile if you think it's actually going to banish someone, and Corran's argument is persuasive that that isn't going to actually happen, at least if you follow Crawford's Tweet on bonus actions (which I would not). If you ignore Crawford's tweet then there are some niche scenarios where it could be a reasonable finishing move to cast Banishing Smite between your first and second blow.

Paladin smite spells are all about efficient use of your action economy.

If you're in continuous combat for a full hour Elemental Weapon isn't making a difference. If you do manage to get at least two different fights in that hour good luck keeping the concentration throughout despite the CH bonus to saving throw.

Paladins spiking in damage is a feature of the class.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-26, 01:43 PM

If you're in continuous combat for a full hour Elemental Weapon isn't making a difference. If you do manage to get at least two different fights in that hour good luck keeping the concentration throughout despite the CH bonus to saving throw.

Paladins spiking in damage is a feature of the class.

There's also the caveat of the weapon you applying this to having to be non-magical. I know that some campaigns, even high levels, might not hand out a lot of magic items but I would expect the party to at least have a handful of +2 or Flametongue/Icebrand between 4-5 people.

I think that being able to spread damage out among multiple creatures is a strong selling point for some spells. While I wouldn't consider Elemental Weapon as a go to for concentration, I think that it's a decent choice. Holy Weapon would be a much better choice though.

Bonus Action to activate, 2d8 Radiant vs 2d4 Elemental, can be cast on an already magical weapon and if the situation calls for it you can end the spell as a bonus action on subsequent turns for another burst of damage. Conveniently, this effect is AoE and ignores targets of your choice.

Angelalex242

2018-10-26, 01:51 PM

When I use Banishing Smite, it's generally stacked with my divine smite in a maximum damage output Nova sort of thing.

I'm not expecting my opponent to be banished when I use it. I expect them to die.

MaxWilson

2018-10-26, 02:17 PM

There's also the caveat of the weapon you applying this to having to be non-magical. I know that some campaigns, even high levels, might not hand out a lot of magic items but I would expect the party to at least have a handful of +2 or Flametongue/Icebrand between 4-5 people.

I think that being able to spread damage out among multiple creatures is a strong selling point for some spells. While I wouldn't consider Elemental Weapon as a go to for concentration, I think that it's a decent choice. Holy Weapon would be a much better choice though.

If you have a magical weapon, I agree that Holy Weapon is better. On a non-magical weapon, the +2 to hit for Elemental Weapon is important if you're using GWM.

Bonus Action to activate, 2d8 Radiant vs 2d4 Elemental, can be cast on an already magical weapon and if the situation calls for it you can end the spell as a bonus action on subsequent turns for another burst of damage. Conveniently, this effect is AoE and ignores targets of your choice.

Action vs. bonus action would be more important if duration were 1 minute instead of 1 hour. With a 1 hour duration you can afford to pre-cast it when you think a fight is looming. I agree that, of course, 2d8 radiant > 2d4 elemental. And yeah, the burst of light dismissal thing could be useful in a pinch, though I'm not excited about the Con save on it.

I think they are both better uses of 5th level Paladin slots than Banishing Smite is.

Theodoxus

2018-10-26, 03:28 PM

Re: Death Knights - yeah, a 17th level party (regardless of the class makeup) will find a single DK a laughably trivial fight.

If instead, TM had stated "One of the DKs had managed to banish the party cleric" while others were bearing down on the rest of the party. That these particular knights were riding Nightmares and had Hell Hounds at their heels, using the whole thing as a macabre Great Hunt kind of vibe...

Then yeah, the Paladin burning his Banishing Smite to tear into the DK that banished his buddy, in the hopes of sending it back to hell for a minute, or at the very least, causing it to fail it's Conc check and bringing his cleric buddy back...

Although I think it's a little silly, and a lot disingenuous to use White Room discussions as proof of concept that a spell is good, bad or otherwise.

Every spell has a chance to shine in a specific scenario, else the spell wouldn't exist. Would the game be better if instead we had: "elemental bolt", "elemental blast", "elemental line", "elemental cone, big", "elemental cone, small" as the only attack spells? A bit like 3.0 Psionics. Pick a shape, pick an element, pay the point cost and have a nut!

If there was a spell (and only 1 spell, with modular shapes) for each status effect? Prone Spell! Incapacitate Spell! Paralyze Spell! Banish Spell!"...

It'd make sorcerers finally viable, I guess... cut a spell list of 200 spells down to 20 + utility... woo.

Each of the spells in TMs videos can only be quantified in a "in a typical campaign setting". Because specifics will nuke all those "great spells" into uselessness and vice versa.

But getting lost in the weeds arguing over a specific spell with a white room miscarriage of justice is pretty meh on the scale of interesting things to argue about.

Brother carc

2018-10-26, 07:50 PM

One niche use for Banishing smite is when you want a SINGLE attack to do as much damage as possible, namely the grave cleric’s path to the grave ability.

I’ve been playing a level 10 hexblade with great sword and by popping banishing smite and Eldritch smite in the same attack with my cleric buddy’s help there’s a solid chance of ending any target in a single hit.

(2d6 + 5d10 + 6d8 + 4) x 2 - weapon damage plus banishing smite plus Eldritch smite + charisma modifier all multiplied by 2. Then if that doesn’t kill them but it drops them to below 50... *pop*

Theodoxus

2018-10-27, 05:31 PM

(2d6 + 5d10 + 6d8 + 4) x 2 - weapon damage plus banishing smite plus Eldritch smite + charisma modifier all multiplied by 2. Then if that doesn’t kill them but it drops them to below 50... *pop*

You don't get Banishing Smite twice. Like all smite spells, the first time you hit, the attack portion of the spell ends. I really wish people would read their damn abilities. I played for 3 months with a guy playing a Zealot Barbarian who every attack while raging, added the Zealot's radiant damage to his hits... it drove me nuts, but the DM didn't care (even though it was technically AL rules, so he should have).

I've run into this issue with Smite spells most often though. Because it has a duration on Concentration, 1 minute - players think that means every attack for a minute has the smite damage added. Which is insane. Why would you ever use Divine Favor, if you get 5 times the benefit from Searing Smite?

EdenIndustries

2018-10-27, 08:15 PM

You don't get Banishing Smite twice. Like all smite spells, the first time you hit, the attack portion of the spell ends. I really wish people would read their damn abilities. I played for 3 months with a guy playing a Zealot Barbarian who every attack while raging, added the Zealot's radiant damage to his hits... it drove me nuts, but the DM didn't care (even though it was technically AL rules, so he should have).

I've run into this issue with Smite spells most often though. Because it has a duration on Concentration, 1 minute - players think that means every attack for a minute has the smite damage added. Which is insane. Why would you ever use Divine Favor, if you get 5 times the benefit from Searing Smite?

I believe the x2 for Banishing Smite was due to the Grave Cleric ability.

Brother carc

2018-10-28, 01:28 AM

I believe the x2 for Banishing Smite was due to the Grave Cleric ability.

This is correct. Grave cleric ability gives vulnerability to the next attack so you double the banishing smite, the Eldritch smite and the weapon damage on your first attack (that hits)

Citan

2018-10-28, 05:45 AM

This is correct. Grave cleric ability gives vulnerability to the next attack so you double the banishing smite, the Eldritch smite and the weapon damage on your first attack (that hits)
To be noted though, there are ways to impose vulnerability to damage with a few spells. It's rare but it exists.

The true salient points of Grave's abilities are imo...
- It applies to *all* damage (so no problem mixing up damage types like stacking Booming Blade + Divine Smite + Elemental Weapon or smite spell).
- It bypasses *everything*, *including immunities* ("special derogates general" -> ability states "creature has vulnerability against all damage of that attack"), which makes it a better end-game ability than mostly anything else.
- Most importantly, it "just works" (no save, no roll, no nothing).

Making Grave Cleric the best ever buddy of Eldricht Smite Warlocks, Paladins, Rogues, but also casters (Disintegrate), Whisper Bards (BI as extra damage), Long Death Monk (17th level ability becomes incredible nova, plus it fits thematically) and all the ones I forget about that can crank up >10 dices over a single hit. :)
The fact it activates automatically on the next hit can be a pain to optimize though if you want the butter and its money and make a crit. But that's kinda over-ambitious to me. ^^

Treantmonk

2018-10-28, 01:03 PM

I think that's more than a little unfair to the people who have taken the time to offer you their responses
There may have been a communication issue, this sounds like I've been mean somehow.

I posted an example that focused too much on details and not enough on the point I was trying to make. Then I got bogged down in the details (going back and changing GWM and the Smite level) which caused mistakes (as I didn't change the totals to reflect those changes). This caused people to respond to the errors rather than the point I was trying to make.

My rephrasing without the details was not intended on an attack on anyone but me, as I muddied the waters. If it was taken as an attack, my apologies.

Treantmonk

2018-10-28, 05:28 PM

Meaning, that using my highest level slot just to save on a few lower level slots does not sound like a good deal to me.
There are a couple assumptions you are making here, which may be true much of the time, but there are exceptions. Most notable would be the various reasons you need a combat to end quickly.

Either because I am not losing, so I don't need to use it

I think that is a bit of a false dichotomy. What about using it to make what would be a messy victory into a less messy one? (For example)

Taking pauses and thinking about it as I am typing this post,
It is interesting to see your thought pattern as your analysis plays out. Now you have me thinking in more detail on this.

Meaning, that if fighting a BBEG with mooks, it gets even more difficult to happen across a good moment when banishing smite would be of good use.
If you are fighting a BBEG with mooks, I would say there is more reason for this spell. You aren't fighting in a vacuum, even if your character is in trouble, if you are a Paladin, you are good at taking care of the BBEG, and the Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids and Bards are better at neutralizing the mooks before they take you down. (For example)

<snip>...That's something I hadn't thought about. Being able to push the DC of a concentration check from around 17 to 31 can have its uses.
Once again, it is very interesting to see your thought pattern show itself as your analysis plays out.

MaxWilson

2018-10-29, 12:26 AM

There may have been a communication issue, this sounds like I've been mean somehow.

I posted an example that focused too much on details and not enough on the point I was trying to make. Then I got bogged down in the details (going back and changing GWM and the Smite level) which caused mistakes (as I didn't change the totals to reflect those changes). This caused people to respond to the errors rather than the point I was trying to make.

The thing is, though, that you're so focused on the point you're trying to make, you're not hearing the counterpoints other people are making. Bottom line is that there just aren't many situations where Banishing Smite is a compelling spell pick. The idea of making one big attack with Banishing Smite + Divine Smite + GWM for the sake of perhaps forcing a DC 35 concentration save isn't a horrible one, but... there aren't many monsters that have truly scary spells but no legendary resistances. Unless you have a DM who's rewritten the legendary resistance rules, the clever tactic of ending the lich's Shapechange into an ancient Black Dragon via a DC 35 concentration save is really just going to force the lich to spend a legendary resistance.

The Death Knight was a bad example, yes, but there aren't many good examples of when Banishing Smite would be valuable. Perhaps few enough that it's not even worth keeping the spell prepared.

Jerrykhor

2018-10-29, 01:33 AM

Banishing Smite is even more overrated than Banishment is. Treantmonk, if there is one thing you got completely wrong, its this.

By the time Paladins get this spell, they are in the end game. 50hp is pittance for any monster that it would be a gamble to use it unless they were really low on hp. In which case, dealing 50hp of damage would be easier to finish it off. To use this spell, you have to whittle down its hp, but while that happens, the monster has free reign to do whatever it wants. Including killing you first.

This is where it the overrated part comes in. Why banish the monster at the end of the fight? You talk as if the fight is won once you banish it. You are Level 17+, the target most likely has planar travel, planeshift or whatever McGuffin teleporting spell. You are basically saving the creature to fight another day.

But whats worse is, if you truly want to keep the target alive by banishing it, you might accidentally kill it instead. Even if you chose to knock it out, its unconscious body will still be banished, and its not coming back if its not native to your plane. Which means you can't loot it, or take whatever McGuffin item on its body.

Imagine when the Avengers were fighting Thanos until he is severely weakened, and Thor was going to finish him off with one mighty blow. But he chose to Banishing Smite Thanos instead.

Zene

2018-10-29, 01:21 PM

Treantmonk

2018-10-29, 02:36 PM

Great video, Treantmonk!

I know you’ve got requests for next topics piling up... but here’s one more : )

I’d love to see a short video focused on wall spells. I know you’ve covered why they’re great (no save, battlefield control), but it’d be really cool IMO to talk about them all in one place, and dig a little into specific examples of good (and maybe bad?) uses of them. (Maybe even with diagrams for those of us more visually-focused?)

But regardless of whether you cover that, I’m really looking forward to your future vids.

That is a good idea for a vid. I do have lots of ideas, but I'm planning to make these videos as long as people are watching them, so more ideas is always a good thing.

I was thinking of a video series on battlefield control spells, from fog cloud onwards, walls would definitely be on the list!

Treantmonk

2018-10-29, 02:50 PM

but... there aren't many monsters that have truly scary spells but no legendary resistances.
The Lich yes, but here's some that don't:

Drow Matron Mother CR20(seems to have legendary actions, but not resistance. Can cast up to 9th level spells
Nagpa CR17 - 8th level spells
Githzerai Anarch - CR16 - lower HP, so absolutely banishable, concentration spells such as wall of force
Archdruid - CR12 - 9th level spells
Archmage - CR12 - 9th level spells (99hp, could be banished on a single hit - which would be handy...

I'm sure there's more if I looked. Also, module-specific NPC's of course.

I should make it clear, I actually do agree that Legendary Resistance mitigates use of this strategy (using to break concentration) to some degree - just disagree that it involves most spellcasting enemies. Several, not most.

Zene

2018-10-30, 03:27 AM

I was thinking of a video series on battlefield control spells, from fog cloud onwards, walls would definitely be on the list!

Oh, that’s even better!

Deathtongue

2018-10-30, 04:37 PM

Good money chasing after bad. Play an Eldritch Knight instead.Instead of what? You still have the rest of your bard class features. If you need an off-healer/buffer that can still contribute to DPR (a major failing of most bards, especially pre-5th level spell) then a Bard Archer is a good choice. Are they good at barding as a Lore Bard? No. But not every group needs that much barding.

Great! A monster who spends time AoEing minions on the front line is not attacking the back line.But they're still attacking the frontline. Unless you have an all-ranged party, you're at best just encouraging the monster to dogpile all of the attacks onto the frontline, which includes PCs. Which is oftentimes preferable, sure, but it's not free money.

However, w/rt Bards and Animate Objects, that's why I called out opportunity attacks. Since opportunity attacks roughly double the DPR in situations where the party has mobility, and "how often does the party have mobility" and "how often are monsters resistant to weapon attacks" are both situational, it's probably fair to just call it roughly even w/rt effective DPR.I think you're overestimating the utility of OAs, especially at higher level. The kind of melee bruisers who would be willing to break the frontline to get at the back either have movement/aura options to help them or are willing to risk that 20-65 damage (and honestly, probably a lot less) to get a multiattack on. Check out that list of monsters of CR 10 I gave; it's either ignorable to the monsters immediately (because they have resistance to the attacks / cool movement options / whatever) or in one round (after they blast the frontline with an AoE).