The Divine Smite Nerf

#shorts

[someusername]

The biggest slap in the face to me is the fact that Eldritch Smite is neither a spell and I'm pretty sure it also doesn't require a bonus action.

[marvincooper]

"I recognize the council has made a decision but given that it's a stupid ass decision I've elected to ignore it"

[mcshark]

Should have been a "reaction" to avoid abuse. Most paladins don't have a use for reaction anyway other than Sentinel builds

[Xynth]

The Smite nerf, imo, isn't to kill Paladins it's to kill *Sorcadins.* Otherwise it would cost your Reaction or just be limited to Once Per Turn. They've specifically taken Divine Smite + Twinned Spell Booming Blade out back.

[AdellRedwinters]

I think making it a “divine spell” is fine but it does feel like double/triple dipping to say it’s once a turn, a spell, and a bonus action. I think just remove that BA restriction and it would be fine.

[lucasramey]

Straight up I just recommend people homebrew the feature to combine the best aspects of the 2014 and 2024 versions, simply make it not a spell, once per turn, trigger upon declaring you're smiting after hitting with an attack, free once per long rest 1st level smite, there we go best of both worlds and it's still balanced towards being once per turn which is really all it needed to fix its damage bloat and resource expenditure

[Answerisequal]

Honestly Reaction would have been so much better tbh. It would be better for action economy and it would allow for more dynamic combat as opportunity attacks would go amiss and monsters would move more.

[JimJim...]

they really needed to do to reduce the, admittedly massive, burst capability from Divine Smite was add the text "once per turn" to the feature like Sneak Attack and Eldritch Smite. Requiring your bonus action and making it a spell was way overkill and guts a lot of the fun of the class for me.

[Dayhawk]

So Divine Smite can now be counterspelled LOL!?

[Athorment]

Paladins require a bunch of attributes to function. From Strength 13, to having both high strength and charisma and, with the amount of HP you could gather + amount of spells that require concentration? You want decent Con as well.

Yes, i understand that Divine smite made paladins feel a little samey, but the fantasy of the class was always to be able to smite some hefty damage at the cost of your limited spell slots.

They added variety to one of the most straightforward classes at the cost of no longer feeling the same highs.

I dont mind being able to counterspell smite, but making it a bonus action is too much. Revert at least the latter and i can agree it's a net positive. I would also remove concentration tbh.

[absolutleynotanalien]

There seams to be allot of bots in this comment section. Atleast in the first minute.

[PillowOfEvil]

Its stupid that its a bonus action. And I hate that its a spell. Overall, i hate what they've done with the Paladin's smite. Sure, they made some other stuff good, but completely removing smite from their abilities(even if its only once per turn), just feels bad.

[HighTechWizard]

I find humor in how much I've heard people talk about 2024 like, "well this is much worse and didn't need changing, but that's not a bad thing...?"

[DSTkunn]

They really should have both smite and hunter's mark be class abilities. Have smite and hunter's mark be a certain amount of uses probably scaling by level + proficiency.

Smites being a free action with your attacks, when you run out, you can use spell slots, but they have a fixed level of damage that scales.

If you use spell slots alongside your normal charges, you can amp the damage like the old smite but scale the damage on a range of spells 1-2 being 1 die extra, 3-4 2 die, etc

Hunter's Mark should have scaling damage, free action to cast, once target is killed you have to reapply as a free action using up one of your uses. If you want to switch targets before your current target is downed, you can with a bonus action (costs one use)

I still think some ranger flavor needs to be injected in some ranger features, but I think it could be a way to at least make mandatory hunter's mark be...not as painful.

[twitwit]

Caster burst damage hasn't been nerfed at all.

[saari]

After updating my level 12 paladin to the 2024 rules, i definitely feel the hurt with the lack of multiple smites. HOWEVER, what I notice is that it does protect my spell economy more. It can allow paladins to fill the support role more and be more mindful of their spell usage. Although it is not a fun change, and can understand the paladins that only want to smite will rightly not like the change, I personally am finding myself fitting in my party better.

[RMSBones]

Are we all just going to remove the BA tax? Power to the players

[trixus]

Pro tip: Use Eldritch Smite invocation. It is straight up better than the Divine Smite in ONE D&D...
- It's not a spell [cannot be counterspelled]
- Doesn't require a bonus action
- Automatically knocks people prone upon impact (no saving throw)
- does force dmg instead of radiant dmg (slightly better dmg type)
- Maximal dmg is only limited by level of spell slot that you use
- Works on both melee AND range attacks

[DrJay-]

It can be counterspelled, is blocked by limited magic immunity, blocked by antimagic fields (such as beholders and the antimagic field spell), costs a bonus action, and cannot be paired with other smite spells.
They didn't just nerf it, they ruined it.

[johnquigley]

I really didn't have a problem with the way the class worked in the 2014 edition. Yes you could do amazing burst damage, but only a few times before you were out of spell slots. Then you had nothing for the rest of that days fights. I feel like that was sufficent balance versus the fighter as the fighter had much better sustain. I don't really understand what the paladins identity in combat is supposed to be now. It's just an inferior fighter with good auras. Which is useful for the party of course but not exactly fun to play.