When fighting Tiamat (or a Rakshasa) no spell lower than 6th level affects them. So when use Divine Smite as a Paladin I expend spell slots. Is Divine Smite then considered a spell? My DM said because you expend spell slots for Divine Smite it's considered a spell. Since I didn't expend enough spell slots to be considered above 6th level, because I can't, the Divine Smite damage didn't take affect. That sounds wrong to me since Divine Smite is not a spell, but a class ability. I take the use of spell slots just means it takes away from me casting spells. What is the ruling on this? Thanks!
DM is always right at the table for the sake of abdicating the rules.
However, if you are following RAW, being immune to spells is being immune to spells. Not spell like abilities, not channel divinity, not magical weapons.
For example, Magic Weapon (a second level spell) could turn your weapon magical in order to bypass the immunity he has to nonmagic weapons. Why? Magic weapon isn't targeting the Rakshasa, it is targeting the weapon (and transmuting it into a magical weapon). The Rakshasa then takes damage from the weapon (not the spell).
Similarly, if you are smiting (the class ability not spell like branding smite) you are not casting a spell, you are sacrificing a spell slot in order to activate your smite class ability. For example, when you get improved divine smite at level 11, it deals 1d8 damage on all weapon damage rolls. That isn't a spell. It therefore ignores limited spell immunity. Smite is the exact same, except you have to sacrifice a spell slot to activate it.
One last way to think about it: Can you counterspell smite? Does smite work in a silence field? Can you absorb smite with an Staff of the Magi? All of these are NO. Because smite isn't a spell. Therefore if someone is immune to spells, smite doesn't care.
The closest exact twitter answer I can point to is : One regarding globe of invulnerability and the magic-like effects of staff of thunder.
I am quite confident that Paladin's Divine Smite is not a spell, whether "as written" or "as intended". It doesn't reference a spell, nor does it use language such as "cast" or "spell".
Compare to other class traits, such as the Monk's Shadow Arts (Way of Shadow) which reads "you can spend two ki points to cast" (followed by a spell list. PH pg. 80), or the Paladin's own Purity of Spirit (under the Devotion Oath) that references "protection from evil and good spell" (PH pg. 86).
Thain is also correct: the Rakshasa's and Tiamat's Limited Magic Immunity prevents eligible spells from affecting them. It doesn't stop spells that do not affect them directly (such as the examples provided above) from having any effect.
And yes, the DM should make a decision on the spot to keep the game going, but DMs are humans (most, at least), and mistakes happen. Talking to them after the session (or at any other time, but try to avoid waking your DM up at 4am with rule comments or concerns) is a good way to establish consistency and a healthy game environment. :)
As a DM, I made the call that it was not counted as a spell. Even though that meant the 6th level party's paladin one-shot the big bad boss Rakshasa at the end of a dungeon with a critical divine smite using a shortsword.
But each DM may not have the time to think it through in the heat of the moment. I could have made either call. After the session, bringing this stuff up to them is probably the best course -- as Onyx mentioned.
A critical smite is as appropriate a way to defeat a big bad as it can be, I believe. :)
I mean, there are builds or playstyles that fish around for criticals to apply smites to, but that happens on anything that's remotely effective.
Theme-wise, though, that moment of divine channeling into an accurate strike, whether by luck, divine guidance, or skill, is the turning point of entire stories, or the climax of entire epics, isn't it? How many novels or movies culminate in such a manner? I think it should be celebrated. :)
I believe some class abilities function as spells, or allows you to cast a spell. Not really sure Divine Smite is one of them.
If I had to defend the DM I would say his logic is as follows:
First the DM is the Type of person who believes there should be a logical reason for things. So If Divine Smite uses a spell slot, it must use magical energy, NOT simply be a mechanic to balance the game and has no connection to the spell slot being used, that is irrelevant. First key decision.
Second is divine smite affecting the creature or your weapon. Second Key Decision.
If you are the first type of DM and believe the smite affects the creature, not the weapon, then Smite would not harm the creature. If you are the second type of DM or believe smite affects the weapon, then you'll lean toward Smite working.
It was totally an epic end to the story arc. The Paladin was as happy as he could be. And, after a moment of looking around the table, everyone else was pretty happy as well. But, there was a little bit of "...um was that it?" going around. A couple of the fights in other rooms were a lot scarier for them. But dice will be dice. And the strike will never be forgotten.
I believe some class abilities function as spells, or allows you to cast a spell. Not really sure Divine Smite is one of them.
If I had to defend the DM I would say his logic is as follows:
First the DM is the Type of person who believes there should be a logical reason for things. So If Divine Smite uses a spell slot, it must use magical energy, NOT simply be a mechanic to balance the game and has no connection to the spell slot being used, that is irrelevant. First key decision.
Second is divine smite affecting the creature or your weapon. Second Key Decision.
If you are the first type of DM and believe the smite affects the creature, not the weapon, then Smite would not harm the creature. If you are the second type of DM or believe smite affects the weapon, then you'll lean toward Smite working.
If it was an arcane caster, that would work. Divine? Depends on how divine magic works, and the DM should make a note that divine magic works that way. Why should he note it, you ask? Because divine magic being that similar to arcane magic could have quite a few ramifications (that I'm not going to go into right now).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
When fighting Tiamat (or a Rakshasa) no spell lower than 6th level affects them. So when use Divine Smite as a Paladin I expend spell slots. Is Divine Smite then considered a spell? My DM said because you expend spell slots for Divine Smite it's considered a spell. Since I didn't expend enough spell slots to be considered above 6th level, because I can't, the Divine Smite damage didn't take affect. That sounds wrong to me since Divine Smite is not a spell, but a class ability. I take the use of spell slots just means it takes away from me casting spells. What is the ruling on this? Thanks!
I would agree with you. Divine smite is not part of the paladin's spellcasting ability. Here some sage advices that can help:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/21/is-divine-smite-entire-attack-magical/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/17/divine-smite-combo-hunters-mark/
DM is always right at the table for the sake of abdicating the rules.
However, if you are following RAW, being immune to spells is being immune to spells. Not spell like abilities, not channel divinity, not magical weapons.
For example, Magic Weapon (a second level spell) could turn your weapon magical in order to bypass the immunity he has to nonmagic weapons. Why? Magic weapon isn't targeting the Rakshasa, it is targeting the weapon (and transmuting it into a magical weapon). The Rakshasa then takes damage from the weapon (not the spell).
Similarly, if you are smiting (the class ability not spell like branding smite) you are not casting a spell, you are sacrificing a spell slot in order to activate your smite class ability. For example, when you get improved divine smite at level 11, it deals 1d8 damage on all weapon damage rolls. That isn't a spell. It therefore ignores limited spell immunity. Smite is the exact same, except you have to sacrifice a spell slot to activate it.
One last way to think about it: Can you counterspell smite? Does smite work in a silence field? Can you absorb smite with an Staff of the Magi? All of these are NO. Because smite isn't a spell. Therefore if someone is immune to spells, smite doesn't care.
The closest exact twitter answer I can point to is : One regarding globe of invulnerability and the magic-like effects of staff of thunder.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/19/how-does-globe-of-invulnerability-interact-with-an-item-like-staff-of-thunder/
I am quite confident that Paladin's Divine Smite is not a spell, whether "as written" or "as intended". It doesn't reference a spell, nor does it use language such as "cast" or "spell".
Compare to other class traits, such as the Monk's Shadow Arts (Way of Shadow) which reads "you can spend two ki points to cast" (followed by a spell list. PH pg. 80), or the Paladin's own Purity of Spirit (under the Devotion Oath) that references "protection from evil and good spell" (PH pg. 86).
Thain is also correct: the Rakshasa's and Tiamat's Limited Magic Immunity prevents eligible spells from affecting them. It doesn't stop spells that do not affect them directly (such as the examples provided above) from having any effect.
And yes, the DM should make a decision on the spot to keep the game going, but DMs are humans (most, at least), and mistakes happen. Talking to them after the session (or at any other time, but try to avoid waking your DM up at 4am with rule comments or concerns) is a good way to establish consistency and a healthy game environment. :)
As a DM, I made the call that it was not counted as a spell. Even though that meant the 6th level party's paladin one-shot the big bad boss Rakshasa at the end of a dungeon with a critical divine smite using a shortsword.
But each DM may not have the time to think it through in the heat of the moment. I could have made either call. After the session, bringing this stuff up to them is probably the best course -- as Onyx mentioned.
A critical smite is as appropriate a way to defeat a big bad as it can be, I believe. :)
I mean, there are builds or playstyles that fish around for criticals to apply smites to, but that happens on anything that's remotely effective.
Theme-wise, though, that moment of divine channeling into an accurate strike, whether by luck, divine guidance, or skill, is the turning point of entire stories, or the climax of entire epics, isn't it? How many novels or movies culminate in such a manner? I think it should be celebrated. :)
I believe some class abilities function as spells, or allows you to cast a spell. Not really sure Divine Smite is one of them.
If I had to defend the DM I would say his logic is as follows:
First the DM is the Type of person who believes there should be a logical reason for things. So If Divine Smite uses a spell slot, it must use magical energy, NOT simply be a mechanic to balance the game and has no connection to the spell slot being used, that is irrelevant. First key decision.
Second is divine smite affecting the creature or your weapon. Second Key Decision.
If you are the first type of DM and believe the smite affects the creature, not the weapon, then Smite would not harm the creature. If you are the second type of DM or believe smite affects the weapon, then you'll lean toward Smite working.
Spells are just those magical effects coming from a spellcasting ability.
Here an example (out of a million) in which dispel magic does not work:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/driads-fey-charm-vs-dispel-magic/
It was totally an epic end to the story arc. The Paladin was as happy as he could be. And, after a moment of looking around the table, everyone else was pretty happy as well. But, there was a little bit of "...um was that it?" going around. A couple of the fights in other rooms were a lot scarier for them. But dice will be dice. And the strike will never be forgotten.
All excellent input, thank you!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)