My DM tells me that the Paladin "Smite" spells are "stackable." Yet I am unclear on the mechanics of stacking them. I guess what is proper order of application?
1) Divine Smite
2) Smite spell as bonus action
3) Melee Attack so prior invocations work
4) Given Extra Attack from the Melee Attack, do it one more time.
The paladin Smite spells require a bonus action to cast and use a spell slot to do so. They have to be cast prior to the attack being made AND the paladin needs to maintain concentration on the spell until the paladin hits something which will trigger the Smite spell. The concentration requirement means that the paladin can't use shield of faith or bless or another useful concentration spell if they plan to use Smite spells (eg. Branding smite etc).
Divine Smite is completely different. AFTER the paladin has hit a target they can decide whether they want to expend a spell slot and Smite which will add to the total damage. A first level spell slot adds 2d8 damage against a regular target and 3d8 vs fiends and undead. The damage from the spell slot used for a smite goes up by 1d8 with each extra level of a spell to a maximum of a 5th level slot which would add 6d8 damage. You can only expend one spell slot on each hit.
However, the key difference here is after. The paladin can decide to use a smite and expend a spell slot on any attack that hits. This is particularly useful for critical hits since the dice from the smite will be doubled when rolling for damage on a critical hit.
So the order would be:
1) Cast a Smite spell using a bonus action (if the paladin wishes to do so - many paladins would choose to either cast a most useful spell with the slot or save the slot for a regular smite)
2) Use the attack action, possibly with multiple attacks.
On the first hit the smite spell goes off and the paladin could also choose to expend a spell slot to use a regular smite (I think this is likely what your DM means by stacking). The paladin can then continue with any other attacks they have from the attack action. If the paladin hits with another attack they can choose whether they wish to expend another spell slot for a smite. However, since the bonus action Smite spell was resolved on the first attack, it doesn't get resolved again.
5) Given prior Melee Attack use Extra Attack to either do it again, or do something different
Yes? 🤷♂️
No. You don't roll to hit before casting the Smite spell.
1) Cast regular smite spell
2) Roll to hit - once you have rolled to hit you are resolving an attack and I don't think you can use a bonus action between the to hit roll and the resolution of the attack.
3) If you hit - resolve regular smite spell - Invoke divine smite if you want to expend a spell slot - roll damage
4) Make another attack if you have one. You only have ONE bonus action so there is only one Smite spell on your turn.
Not to confuse things too much, but it’s probably worth nothing the smite spells aren’t usually great. There’s some edge cases where the spells are good — branding smite against something that can turn invisible, for example. But in general, you’re better off spending the spell slot on divine smite for the pure damage and not messing with the smite spells. That may change in 1D&D, but right now, the spells aren’t too good.
I wouldn't dump them all in "generally not worth it"; Thunderous Smite and Blinding Smite have some pretty good debuffs, especially once you have Extra Attack to potentially let you take advantage immediately if your first attack connects. And the damage differential isn't that big. Granted, things like Branding and Banishing are definitely fairly situational. Mostly the issue is just that people prefer the sure thing to the potential for a whiff, although that's being addressed in 1D&D.
I wouldn't dump them all in "generally not worth it"; Thunderous Smite and Blinding Smite have some pretty good debuffs, especially once you have Extra Attack to potentially let you take advantage immediately if your first attack connects. And the damage differential isn't that big. Granted, things like Branding and Banishing are definitely fairly situational. Mostly the issue is just that people prefer the sure thing to the potential for a whiff, although that's being addressed in 1D&D.
Yeah, as kind of restrictive as the One D&D smite concept is... for those who don't read the UA, basically all smites are spells now, and you cast them by expending a bonus action after landing a hit. So no smiting on AoO, and now you can only get one smite per round. Kinda a downgrade, but now the smite spells don't cost concentration, and since even Divine Smite is a spell now Paladin players actually have a good reason to use the smite spells. Overall I think it will lead to more fun and interesting gameplay for Paladins, but it is a bit disappointing that it comes at the cost of reducing their overall damage potential, which is one of the most fun aspects of playing a Paladin.
My DM tells me that the Paladin "Smite" spells are "stackable." Yet I am unclear on the mechanics of stacking them. I guess what is proper order of application?
1) Divine Smite
2) Smite spell as bonus action
3) Melee Attack so prior invocations work
4) Given Extra Attack from the Melee Attack, do it one more time.
🤷♂️
Not quite.
The paladin Smite spells require a bonus action to cast and use a spell slot to do so. They have to be cast prior to the attack being made AND the paladin needs to maintain concentration on the spell until the paladin hits something which will trigger the Smite spell. The concentration requirement means that the paladin can't use shield of faith or bless or another useful concentration spell if they plan to use Smite spells (eg. Branding smite etc).
Divine Smite is completely different. AFTER the paladin has hit a target they can decide whether they want to expend a spell slot and Smite which will add to the total damage. A first level spell slot adds 2d8 damage against a regular target and 3d8 vs fiends and undead. The damage from the spell slot used for a smite goes up by 1d8 with each extra level of a spell to a maximum of a 5th level slot which would add 6d8 damage. You can only expend one spell slot on each hit.
However, the key difference here is after. The paladin can decide to use a smite and expend a spell slot on any attack that hits. This is particularly useful for critical hits since the dice from the smite will be doubled when rolling for damage on a critical hit.
So the order would be:
1) Cast a Smite spell using a bonus action (if the paladin wishes to do so - many paladins would choose to either cast a most useful spell with the slot or save the slot for a regular smite)
2) Use the attack action, possibly with multiple attacks.
On the first hit the smite spell goes off and the paladin could also choose to expend a spell slot to use a regular smite (I think this is likely what your DM means by stacking). The paladin can then continue with any other attacks they have from the attack action. If the paladin hits with another attack they can choose whether they wish to expend another spell slot for a smite. However, since the bonus action Smite spell was resolved on the first attack, it doesn't get resolved again.
Thank you! So the order would then be:
1) Roll for hit
2) Cast regular Smite Spell
3) Invoke Divine Smite
4) Melee Attack
5) Given prior Melee Attack use Extra Attack to either do it again, or do something different
Yes? 🤷♂️
No. You don't roll to hit before casting the Smite spell.
1) Cast regular smite spell
2) Roll to hit - once you have rolled to hit you are resolving an attack and I don't think you can use a bonus action between the to hit roll and the resolution of the attack.
3) If you hit - resolve regular smite spell - Invoke divine smite if you want to expend a spell slot - roll damage
4) Make another attack if you have one. You only have ONE bonus action so there is only one Smite spell on your turn.
Not to confuse things too much, but it’s probably worth nothing the smite spells aren’t usually great. There’s some edge cases where the spells are good — branding smite against something that can turn invisible, for example. But in general, you’re better off spending the spell slot on divine smite for the pure damage and not messing with the smite spells. That may change in 1D&D, but right now, the spells aren’t too good.
I wouldn't dump them all in "generally not worth it"; Thunderous Smite and Blinding Smite have some pretty good debuffs, especially once you have Extra Attack to potentially let you take advantage immediately if your first attack connects. And the damage differential isn't that big. Granted, things like Branding and Banishing are definitely fairly situational. Mostly the issue is just that people prefer the sure thing to the potential for a whiff, although that's being addressed in 1D&D.
But my understanding is that Paladins don't get cantrips (Booming Blade) ?
Not from being a Paladin, but potentially from multi-classing or by taking the Magic Initiate feat.
Yeah, as kind of restrictive as the One D&D smite concept is... for those who don't read the UA, basically all smites are spells now, and you cast them by expending a bonus action after landing a hit. So no smiting on AoO, and now you can only get one smite per round. Kinda a downgrade, but now the smite spells don't cost concentration, and since even Divine Smite is a spell now Paladin players actually have a good reason to use the smite spells. Overall I think it will lead to more fun and interesting gameplay for Paladins, but it is a bit disappointing that it comes at the cost of reducing their overall damage potential, which is one of the most fun aspects of playing a Paladin.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
It’s not reducing their overall potential, the numbers are the same. It just dials back their burst a bit. Still a bit of a nerf, but nothing major.
They definitely are now