5e Divine Smite

[Soultpp]

So I have a question about the Paladin ability Divine Smite. It uses spell slots to fuel it, does it require any verbal component to use it?

I don't think so, but I ended up in a rather heated argument in our previous game session with our DM because his logic his: It uses spell slots, therefore it is a spell and requires a verbal component to use. Our party is currently in an underwater area, all of us have found rings of water breathing though they don't seem to allow the use of speech underwater so no spells that require verbal components...

So, again, does divine smite, or any ability that burns spell slots, require verbal components? And how can I convince my DM that they are not spells and do not, assuming that they don't?

[Rara1212]

Nope, they do not require any Verbal, Somatic or Material components. If smiting did, it would say so in the ability.

The spellslot part is just used to limit how many times the paladin can use Divine Smite. Just like Moon druids ability to spend spellslots to heal their forms, or Blade Singer wizards to reduce damage.


And also, there are a bunch of spells without Verbal components, so there's that

[Lunali]

In addition to not having components, they are also not spells for purposes of counterspell, mage slayer, and, most importantly, the limitation on casting leveled spells on the same turn you cast a bonus action spell. This means you can use your bonus action on a smite spell, then attack and unleash both the spell and a normal smite on the attack.

[DarkKnightJin]

So I have a question about the Paladin ability Divine Smite. It uses spell slots to fuel it, does it require any verbal component to use it?

I don't think so, but I ended up in a rather heated argument in our previous game session with our DM because his logic his: It uses spell slots, therefore it is a spell and requires a verbal component to use. Our party is currently in an underwater area, all of us have found rings of water breathing though they don't seem to allow the use of speech underwater so no spells that require verbal components...

So, again, does divine smite, or any ability that burns spell slots, require verbal components? And how can I convince my DM that they are not spells and do not, assuming that they don't?

That sounds like a houserule that they *REALLY* should've informed you of before you even started making that Paladin, because it impacts a huge part of the character.
Does this DM also require verbal components on things like Catapult, which only have a Somatic component? It's actually a spell, and it uses spell slots. Therefore, it must have Verbal Component, according to this DM.

I'm with the rest. It costs spell slots to give a finite resource to use. Divine Smite os in no way, shape, or form actually casting a spell.
It's empowering a melee weapon strike (most of which are already nerfed by being underwater, mind you) with a bit of the Paladin's divine power, to hit that enemy just that little bit harder. Mechanically, it's a spell slot to represent that they can't do it on *every* attack they make (at least before 11th level) because it costs them actual power.

Speaking of Improved Divine Smite: Ask your DM if that ALSO has a Verbal Component, since it doesn't actually use spell slots. It's just the 'always on' version of your 2nd level class feature.

Worst case scenario, tell your DM that you aren't having fun playing a severely nerfed Paladin like that, and you would like to play a different character.. or leave the table, if things have festered and you just don't want to play D&D with them for a bit.

[MeeposFire]

Not every spell requires verbal components and so even if divine smite was a spell (it is not) that would not mean that it would require verbal components. Any given spell only has the components that the spell description says it has if divine smite was a spell since it has no listed components that means by default it has no components (but again it is not actually a spell).

[Kane0]

So I have a question about the Paladin ability Divine Smite. It uses spell slots to fuel it, does it require any verbal component to use it?

I don't think so, but I ended up in a rather heated argument in our previous game session with our DM because his logic his: It uses spell slots, therefore it is a spell and requires a verbal component to use. Our party is currently in an underwater area, all of us have found rings of water breathing though they don't seem to allow the use of speech underwater so no spells that require verbal components...

So, again, does divine smite, or any ability that burns spell slots, require verbal components? And how can I convince my DM that they are not spells and do not, assuming that they don't?

No components necessary, or actions for that matter. You don't even have to declare it before the attack is rolled.
5e generally tells you when something is out of the ordinary, such as when Elemental Monks cast spells it says no components even though you're casting the spell. The kicker is that Divine Smite isn't a spell, it's a class feature. Read the class feature and don't assume that you have to reference other parts of the book in order to figure how how it operates.

But if your DM is being weird about it, start shouting Deus vult every time you smite and that should do it.

[Bjarkmundur]

I love the mental image of a player linking one of these threads to his DMs.
It must be an amazing feeling, to have the collective articulate the entire discussion for you.

Actually, as a DM, I'd most likely find that easier. I feel like I have an easier time letting go of my preconceptions when multiple people point out multiple facts i didn't know, especially when they set up scenarios and quote sources as you do.

Anyone have any experience on that, on either sending or receiving a link to a forum thread regarding a DM/Player or Player/Player argument?

[DracoKnight]

I love the mental image of a player linking one of these threads to his DMs.
It must be an amazing feeling, to have the collective articulate the entire discussion for you.

Actually, as a DM, I'd most likely find that easier. I feel like I have an easier time letting go of my preconceptions when multiple people point out multiple facts i didn't know, especially when they set up scenarios and quote sources as you do.

Anyone have any experience on that, on either sending or receiving a link to a forum thread regarding a DM/Player or Player/Player argument?

Can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not...

And while it’s off topic, my DM has openly invited me to link him to sh*t when he’s not sure about something/are having a rules argument. Neither of those instances are fairly common anymore, though.

Back on topic: like others have said, it’s not a spell, has no components, and the DM’s probably trying to handicap you because he built this whole underwater bit around showing spellcasters a hard time, and didn’t consider that Paladins don’t do a lot of proper spellcasting in combat.

[Aprender]

I also couldn't tell if the previous poster was being sarcastic.

As a general rule, try to have discussions like this away from table after (or even better, before) playing.

If the DM has an idea for a specific game style and your player concept interferes according to his interpretation of the rules, you can reasonably ask to change characters. He'll likely be more amenable to allowing the change if there wasn't a big fight at the last gaming session.

[Maelynn]

I love the mental image of a player linking one of these threads to his DMs.
It must be an amazing feeling, to have the collective articulate the entire discussion for you.

Actually, as a DM, I'd most likely find that easier. I feel like I have an easier time letting go of my preconceptions when multiple people point out multiple facts i didn't know, especially when they set up scenarios and quote sources as you do.

Anyone have any experience on that, on either sending or receiving a link to a forum thread regarding a DM/Player or Player/Player argument?

I think this depends both on the nature of the discussion had and on the type of person the DM is.

If you merely had a bit of disagreement, then I'd reckon both DM and player would appreciate a link to determine what the correct ruling is. If it turned into a (heated) argument, however, then emotion and personal feelings tend to get involved - if you'd then proceed to send a link to a forum thread (which doesn't have the exact ruling, but mostly other people's opinions), then it could easily rub the wrong way: "here, I've got 8 people telling you that you're wrong!". Same goes for the type of person who would consider such a link a personal slight even if it was just a disagreement.

[Soultpp]

Well, first, thanks for all of the replies.

I asked here, because I felt that to try to discuss it with the DM again directly would only cause another argument, so rather than doing that, I wanted to get other opinions of people who probably all have vastly more experience with the system than we do.

I will definitely talk to him about if he's willing to read this thread on the topic before I send him the link, of course. I don't want to look like I am rubbing it in his face after all, that is not my point in asking advice.

Also, technically it is not my character, but I am the only one with the account here with which to ask, but I felt it was important to do so.

[Bjarkmundur]

You tackled the situation with incredible finesse, and I applaud your table etiquette (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZP1pzbavQMIwNxIeJqux-8R4o-8xl3rRg4oEF79-v-Y/edit?usp=sharing).

[Zhorn]

I asked here, because I felt that to try to discuss it with the DM again directly would only cause another argument, so rather than doing that, I wanted to get other opinions of people who probably all have vastly more experience with the system than we do.

I will definitely talk to him about if he's willing to read this thread on the topic before I send him the link, of course. I don't want to look like I am rubbing it in his face after all, that is not my point in asking advice.

While I'm very much against the call that the DM has made, I also recognise that this is a rule zero thing. The DM does have ultimate say over all rules at their table and can introduce new rules, exceptions, or abolish old ones at their leisure.

By what is a reasonable ruling, the DM should consider loosening their stance on that verbal requirement that they've imposed on smite. But unfortunately for the players, they are under no obligation to.
But the players are also under no obligation to stick around if their DM is enforcing rules that they find disagreeable. Ultimatums are a terrible way to run a game, but so is introducing a table rule AFTER a player has committed to a choice.

[Mercurias]

And also, there are a bunch of spells without Verbal components, so there's that

That was exactly my thought. Still, it’s going to be extremely hard to play most casters unless they use only non-somatic spells and/or are sorcerers with Subtle Spell.

[Kane0]

I love the mental image of a player linking one of these threads to his DMs.
It must be an amazing feeling, to have the collective articulate the entire discussion for you.

Actually, as a DM, I'd most likely find that easier. I feel like I have an easier time letting go of my preconceptions when multiple people point out multiple facts i didn't know, especially when they set up scenarios and quote sources as you do.

Anyone have any experience on that, on either sending or receiving a link to a forum thread regarding a DM/Player or Player/Player argument?

In my experience, it's a coin toss.
Some DMs actually sort of rely on having a rules lawyer on hand to settle rules disputes and frequently appreciate someone else handling that so they can get on with the game, others really chafe when someone raises a point about their rulings and double-down. Especially if the player isn't providing the argument but just showing them a list of people on the internet that disagree, the second kind of DM typically responds poorly to that.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I would say no...