Divine Smite capped damage: 5d8 or 6d8?

[DarknessEternal]

Thanks to how ambiguous English is, it phrase "to a maximum of 5d8" in the sentence "The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-levei spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spelllevel higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8" can be interpreted as either the total maximum (so a 4th level spell) or just the "each higher than 1st" part (so a 5th level spell).

[1Pirate]

4th level spell.

[kazaryu]

Thanks to how ambiguous English is, it phrase "to a maximum of 5d8" in the sentence "The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-levei spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spelllevel higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8" can be interpreted as either the total maximum (so a 4th level spell) or just the "each higher than 1st" part (so a 5th level spell).

Its not ambiguous. If the latter interpretation was correct youd need to use a 6th level spell slot to max it out, which is impossible for a straight paladin. Thus making the limit silly.

[MrStabby]

Its not ambiguous. If the latter interpretation was correct youd need to use a 6th level spell slot to max it out, which is impossible for a straight paladin. Thus making the limit silly.

I don't think it's silly - there are limits in a class designed to reflect multiclassing. Look at the warlock smite that specifies that the spell slots must be warlock spell slots - all warlock spell slots meet this description so it is a silly limit as any straight warlock will not have any others.

My guess is that it is for a 5th level spell level but it is ambiguous.

[kazaryu]

I don't think it's silly - there are limits in a class designed to reflect multiclassing. Look at the warlock smite that specifies that the spell slots must be warlock spell slots - all warlock spell slots meet this description so it is a silly limit as any straight warlock will not have any others.

My guess is that it is for a 5th level spell level but it is ambiguous.

That is a good point, although i will say that interpretive arguments based on anything but phb tend to be...spotty.

Since design ideals change from book to book. For example: improved pact weapon. Which is in XGE and allows the warlock to maintain parity with magic weapons. But when the phb came out, design intent was that magic weapons wouldnt be guaranteed. So warlocks would have no.need to maintain parity.

However, you did still bring up a good point.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I don't think it's silly - there are limits in a class designed to reflect multiclassing. Look at the warlock smite that specifies that the spell slots must be warlock spell slots - all warlock spell slots meet this description so it is a silly limit as any straight warlock will not have any others.

My guess is that it is for a 5th level spell level but it is ambiguous.

Two things.

First, multiclassing isn't assumed under the base rules. So a Paladin feature should only assume the Paladin as their class.

Secondly... 5e was either rushed or they did a lazy job editing it. There's actually a lot of parts that have half made or need an editor to point out the issues (such as wording). So, having two classes that use diffetent sort of wording makes total sense, sadly.

[Galithar]

The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend.


If it was interpreted as saying "plus 1d8 for each spell level higher then 1st" is what is capped at 5d8 the max damage on a smite would actually be 7d8. To attack the "maximum of 5d8" to the "plus 1d8 for each..." It has to be divorced from the I initial 2d8 completely. This would imply a sixth level spell slot, which a non-multiclass Paladin can't get. I don't think the PHB would have wording that relates only to multiclass without calling it out.

I find it much easier to believe that the cap is intended at 5d8 total, 6d8 against fiends and undead. Which is perfectly inline with the Warlock Eldritch Smite that caps at 6d8 with a 5th level slot.

[Master O'Laughs]

The errata found here: https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf shows the design was for smite damage to be capped with a 5th level spell. Max damage is 6d8.

[Brookshw]

The errata found here: https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf shows the design was for smite damage to be capped with a 5th level spell. Max damage is 6d8.
Nice find!

[Galithar]

The errata found here: https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf shows the design was for smite damage to be capped with a 5th level spell. Max damage is 6d8.

Just for further clarity that means the max damage is 6d8 AFTER the additional bonus against fiends and undead. It does still cap at 4th level spell slots.

As you can see below the last sentence referenced in the document is the one about attacking fiends and undead.




The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend to a maximum of 6d8.

[Master O'Laughs]

Just for further clarity that means the max damage is 6d8 AFTER the additional bonus against fiends and undead. It does still cap at 4th level spell slots.

As you can see below the last sentence referenced in the document is the one about attacking fiends and undead.

Darn, right you are. I wonder why they did not want to allow 5th level slots to add anything to smites? I am not sure what the balance implications would be for just allowing it to scale like the rest of the slots. and extra 4.5 damage in exchange for a 5th level slot seems like not that big of a deal and if anything underwhelming.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Darn, right you are. I wonder why they did not want to allow 5th level slots to add anything to smites? I am not sure what the balance implications would be for just allowing it to scale like the rest of the slots. and extra 4.5 damage in exchange for a 5th level slot seems like not that big of a deal and if anything underwhelming.

Direct damage is the least broken thing in 5e, and easiest to mitigate, so as a DM you can allow the 7d8 reading and it's fine.

[Chronos]

My guess? When they wrote that, they forgot that paladins had 5th-level spell slots, because in 3e, they only went up to 4th. Then, when people asked them about it, they did a quick skim over the rule, saw the bit about the extra damage vs. fiends, and thought that's what people were asking about, so they errataed it to clarify the part that was already clear enough, and ignored the actual problem.

[DarknessEternal]

You'd need a 5th level slot to reach 6d8 on a non-undead/fiend.

[clash]

5th level paladin spells and 5th level ranger spells are more class features than spells, so I would argue the intent was to not allow using those to fuel smites for that reason. They dont want you to burn through your class features.

[Witty Username]

Why did they whack off improved divine smite appling to divine smite attacks?

[Galithar]

Why did they whack off improved divine smite appling to divine smite attacks?

They didn't. The improved Divine smite feature and Divine Smite are completely separate and therefore stack with each other.

[Chronos]

Under the old phrasing, one could argue that if you used a spell slot to smite, then Improved Divine Smite would apply twice. That's what they were trying to fix with that part of the errata.

[Witty Username]

Ok, I guess the wording was confusing enough that I was confused by its removal.

[Galithar]

Under the old phrasing, one could argue that if you used a spell slot to smite, then Improved Divine Smite would apply twice. That's what they were trying to fix with that part of the errata.

Correct.

The wording the SHOULD have used to line up with RAI and the erratta would have been something like "You still add this damage even if you use your Divine Smite Feature"

Then there would be no question about if or how many times the 1d8 can be added.