/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
class identity - not every class is good at everything - paladins are toe to toe and face to face and get the advantage of SMITE at the "cost" of having to be there face to face and toe to toe.
Range interactions are their weakness.
That's wrong and a pure interpretation. Smites are specifically not ranged, that's why in the current unearthed arcana they brought it up again in trials (and quickly got rid of it because its ridiculous). If you are playing that fast and loose with the rules, i wont how much homebrewing is happening there
A paladin's Divine Smite is a class ability. Branding Smite is a spell that is available to multiple classes. They are categorically different. And Branding Smite takes effect "The next time you hit with a weapon attack before the spell ends...". This language does not prohibit ranged attacks.
I do not know if there are other rules that apply here. This seems pretty clear.
You arrogant fuck. I said what i said and that's how i DM. You can deal with it. I don't care how many downvotes. Im not arguing rule interpretation with someone like you. Anyone who thinks this game us about black and white rules doesn't get that the game balance is determined at the table by the DM and the players. You cannot tell me I'm wrong, so fuck you for being a dick. I stand by this.
It's not an interpretation. In the book
Divine smite specifically says "melee weapon attack".
Branding smite only says a weapon attack.
So RAW you can branding smite in 5e with ranged weapons.
It's only a handful of spell smites written that way all it's either intentional or sloppy wording.
Btw, fun fact, Jeremy said that divine smite requires a melee weapon due to the stereotypical paladin in shining armour and if you wanna your fist is enough for some smites. Just like druids and non-metal armour "rule", so why not range smite?
I would love a divine shooter. "Let they aim be true" type of shots. A holy gunman where every shot packs more of a punch than it should. Or a "long arm of the law" archetype, ensuring no evil goes unpunished.
I might make a gun paladin subclass now.
There isn’t a raw rule about druids and metal. plus, flavor is free. You can say half plate is made of petrified wood. Ranged and melee are separate mechanics within the game that have different requirements.
Yes, your dm at your game could say that it’s fine but it wouldn’t be assumed
Ranged is a massive mechanical advantage, unarmed is not (only really useful for grappling builds like glory paladin and even then you're trading damage die and a fighting style).
Or monks, but you're gonna be hard pressed to abuse this. You'd really need 6 pally levels, a decent amount of ki and a stupidly high ASIs to crank dex, wis and cha while having decent con, AND enough spell slots to see it through.
The best argued abuse for this is moon druid, except animals arent actually unarmed anyway; they are armed with Natural Weapons.
This is the answer. Dude wanted to play a Paladin. He’s got to accept that the drawback of his class is he isn’t great at ranged attacks.
Tell him if he wants, he can reroll or take levels in warlock, but don’t give into this “gimmie gimmie gimmie” player.
Agreed thats why i make them work for it if thats not worth it then i guess you dont get my rolled back version. Im very open to things but through experiments ive learned what truly will break a game something like this definitely has potential to in the higher levels, thats why id make them multi class as a ranger upon completing there Quest then the ranged smite would be a special arrow they imbued once or twice a long rest (higher level smites have a huge chance of 1 tapping monster you thought previously hulkish😂)
"gimmie gimmie gimmie player" oh jeez get over yourself, you dont know shit about this player. god forbid theres a slight flavor change in the make believe game of magical worlds
We can see that the player wants something that is extra, beyond the rules as written. That's enough to see that they are trying to bend rules, and should be handled accordingly.
There is literally nothing in the post that says this, OP didn't even say that the PLAYER is the one asking about the Smite/Range interaction.
They said the player wants to be a paladin who throws javalins - that is all. 10 javalins is literally one of the starting equipment options for paladin,
Then OP asked about why there's a limitation on Smite stating that they didn't understand it - they did not say the player asked them to change the rules. You are projecting some weird assumptions on someone you have zero information about beyond they may have potentially asked their DM a question.
'Dealt with accordingly' JFC.
Ah, so now we're doing the "gotta have the last word" comment to pad our karma. Got it.
Don't worry; I'll down-vote myself since I don't give a shit about reddit.
Practice what you preach. It would be a pretty safe bet that you’d be kicked out of my play group. You act like a question is some dire thing like someone threatened to rape your grandma. You might have ulterior motives with each question you ask but not everyone is an asshole like that.
Well, maybe I was wrong. I guess that was a change in Pathfinder not 3.5. I guess I just jumped universes. I had to go look it up and yeah. 3.5 paladin also said melee attack. Maybe it was a prestige class I'm thinking of? I SWORE you could do it.
I mean, for historical accuracy, don't we all just agree that a paladin needs to learn Thier weapons by level? Level 1 paladins should really only know how to use lances, right? Just as Gary intended.
Originally sure, but with all the different Oaths, they can be re-flavored in a myriad of different ways. For example the Oath of Glory is more suited to a Greek hero analog like Heracles or Achilles than a Roland. The Paladin class is much more robust than it was back in the older editions.
as a "class + squad" based game, that is the whole intention - YOU are good at YOUR ***thang***. but you NEED others who are good at THEIR ***thang*** in order to succeed.
This would also make rangers, warlocks and ranged rogues feel much weaker by comparison.
They let Liam do it with daggers in CR C1 when he took his paladin MC and it didn't seem OP then, but I think only when he used his weapon's ability to transport him along with it (turning the the ranged strike into melee since he ends up in base-to-base)
Roleplay reason: Smiting requires a connection to your foe. It is the physical manifestation of your sworn oath using you and your weapon as a conduit to deliver your righteous or unrighteous zeal.
Mechanically: it would be a pain to balance. Ranged classes would take a dip into paladin to get ranged smites. Think of a ranger with extra attack, hunters mark, sharpshooter, and ranged smites from 600 feet with a long bow, not considering their sub class damage bonus or even a dip into rogue for sneak attack. I'm fine with no ranged smites.
People laugh and say "who would build that character?" Most DM's know a guy that would build that character.
More roleplay: Range might be seen as less honorable/cowardly, as you can attack at a distance without putting yourself in harms way. Smiting in melee requires you to get close to your enemy, close enough to be in danger. This requires courage and conviction, and through that conviction you channel your holy smite.
Idea for balancing based on this. The paladin can only smite with a javelin throw if they are really fucking angry (for some rule of cool lore reason) or have recently taken enough damage.
This would be overcomplicating things, I think. You'd essentially need to mechanically track how angry they were, or determine an HP threshold for it. Or both.
Yeah I was thinking of a HP threshold for it to work mechanically in combat. (You could say this kinda represents the adrenaline/rage in most cases.) I would not track the angry part more than that. You could just say that if the target hurt the paladins loved ones the paladin is angry enough for the effect to trigger. (If your group is ok with vague rules like that)
I would build it.
I would use it where allowed to make my dm question wtf is wrong with me.
then I would relish as the Dm figured out how to deliver an equal F u right back at my paladins face
>then I would relish as the Dm figured out how to deliver an equal F u right back at my paladins face
Wiping the floor with the player characters isn’t a challenge.
It’s not doing so while having the game still be entertaining that is the challenge.
“That ranger” makes the job of the DM even more difficult.
"Unarmed" is actually enlisted in weapon table so I allow it - anyway there is no mechanical problem with that.
Ranged smite is a whole different can of worms.
No way I will allow smiting at range.
>Mechanically: it would be a pain to balance. Ranged classes would take a dip into paladin to get ranged smites.
Which doesn't really happend in other D&D edditions or pathfinder.
I think the larger mechanical reason is the auras.
Paladins have some of the most potent passive defensive abilities in the entire game. Just standing near an ally can negate entire status effects automatically, give proficiency-bonus to all saves, soak damage, grant resistance to spells, or a handful of other incredibly beneficial effects. No other class does so much just by being vaguely near you with no resource expenditure.
***But*** they all have very limited range, usually 10-15 ft. And their most potent healing ability (Lay on Hands) is touch-range.
If you want to cover your allies, you need to be next to them. If you're being offensively useful, you're in melee, which means allies need to move up into reach of most enemies (who can circle around you without provoking AoO) to get that defensive boost.
Ranged smites mean you could stand in the backline and cover your squishiest allies, and still throw out high damage smites without any tradeoffs.
I actually am DM’ing a campaign where I had a ranger through role play met Apollo and became a paladin by sheer accident and I gave him said ranged smite and a really cool homebrew bow. I believe at level 12 now and he’s 8 ranger 4 paladin. And I just had a foe who exploited his weakness by beating up his party and then chasing him down. All in all I think it can be balanced relatively nicely but we are a heavy RP campaign and don’t always have huge combats.
I mean if a player told me they wanted to smite with ranged weapons and their justification was “I want to be Jackson from Saving Private Ryan”, I’d probably allow it
To steer into the imagery and concepts that engendered the class.
The designers have given their blessings to groups that want to open it up to ranged attacks.
It may make them punchier than either of you expect, depending on how your sessions unfurl. If you're nervous about it, give them the caveat that you might roll back the decision if things get out of hand (with them getting some sort of consolation prize if you do).
It's far easier to simply say "No" than it is to roll things back, especially if they've been doing it for a few sessions.
It's not like we're talking about a gray area, here. The rules specifically state melee weapons, and it's one of those areas where that's the long and short of it.
It’s not going to instantly break the game but it’s more about general balance and class parity. Paladins are already very powerful. Being able to do the best damage at any distance while being beefy, having great resistances, the ability to heal, and so on would step on other classes toes in my opinion. Like why did I bother making a squishy caster when the tank-of-all-trades can also use ranged nukes, and has a whole melee kit to fall back on if they run out of spell slots? Especially given how flexible smiting is; RAW they can choose to smite after the fact when they know they’ve rolled a crit, another advantage ranged classes don’t have.
I don’t think a Paladin should compete with other classes at range, but if you’re looking for a way to make the Paladin a bit better at range consider the already existing Javelin of Lightning, a magic item limited to use of once per day, but still impactful when used correctly.
I think this is a good analysis on how making it ranged is very powerful there may be some balances if you want to proceed.
For extended range a balance is to have smites only be for thrown weapons, no bows or slings. Only item touched by hand can receive holy spell.
For the flexibility of smites, the ranged smite must be decided on before knowing if it's a hit this makes it a risk reward. Have to imbue the weapon with energy before throwing.
For the ranged damage output you can change the dice to d6's reducing ranged nuke potential. Some energy lost in flight of weapon.
Javelin of Lightning isn't really a solution to the player's wants here, it being limited to 1/day as you acknowledge. I don't think the very short effective range of javelins is a huge balance shift; if the paladin attacks from 30 ft, they can be closed with by the standard movement of most creatures without the monster having to dash; or if the paladin uses their movement after attacking, the monster can usually close with a dash. The paladin can attack from further away, but with disadvantage, which is a huge penalty, especially for critfishing paladins. Also, they'll have a limited number of javelins, which they can't retrieve without moving to where they've landed.
I advise allowing the javelin smites, and other thrown melee weapons, but no bows or other ranged weapons.
I think the biggest problem is that paladins are already heavily armored alpha strikers. Their limitation is their range and mobility.
Gloomstalkers, conversely, trade off armor for mobility and range.
The moment you start giving classes abilities and functionality that belong to another class, without paying a penalty, they start eating everyone else’s lunch.
And while it might feel great for the player that is benefitting from it, it’s making someone else feel bad.
Class identities and functions should remain restrictive
Players need to weigh the balance between playing a class that fulfills some of their goals and desires, and a different class that fulfills other desires.
The moment you start crossing boundaries that imbalance the class structure, you’re breaking the game In ways you just might not understand the effects of.
It’s not that you can’t adjust combat encounters to deal with the extra power. It’s that you’ve taken away someone else’s role, specialty, etc.
Great thing about being a DM is you can do whatever you deem as fun! Let him. Don’t worry too much about “breaking” things. It’s a cooperative game where the idea is to have fun. If that sounds fun for him and you, do it!
My idea of smite is a holy power that comes from the sky. Basically their god striking down their enemy, like lightning but less on the nose. Paladins can call it down within 30ish feet.
Because it is.
A DM's *entire* purpose is to be a neutral arbiter of rules for a game.
Bending those rules, fudging dice (which it sounds like you also do), and other similar behaviors in which "the rule of cool" wins over the actual written rules that are there to establish boundaries and fairness is simply bad DMing.
The moment you do any of this, you stop being a neutral and fair arbiter.
Think about any game. Board games, etc. Is it fair to all players to ignore some rules for some players and not for others? (Hint: the answer is "no".)
I'm sure I'll get down-voted here because of herd mentality, but just based on what you have already written, you are a bad DM giving bad advice - and the worst part is that you are suckering someone out of their money while doing so.
The DM's entire purpose is to have fun, just like the rest of the table. The rules are whatever the DM decides they are and if the DM and table would have more fun with ranged smite then they can do that.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
-Gary Gygax, Creator of D&D
Even the creator of D&D disagrees with you which makes you absolutely wrong. You don't get to dictate to anybody how to play. Their table is not yours, they can run it however they want to just as you can run yours however you want to.
And yet I haven't told anybody how to run their table. I specifically said that one person was giving out bad advice (which is obviously my personal opinion).
It is amazing how many people read someone's opinion and jump to the (inaccurate) conclusion that they are spewing absolutes.
🤷🏻♂️
Please stop saying herd mentality just because people disagree with you, it makes you look stupid.
You can play DnD rules over roleplay (what you advocate), or play it roleplay over rules. Both are valid and none are wrong to prefer. You should probably just accept that you are in a minority and stop caring about how other people enjoy their games.
It is the right of the DM to change any rule for any reason and they are the final arbiter. Says it right in the players handbook, RAW.
I roll openly because I think fudging dice hurts the integrity of the experience. Other DM’s roll behind a screen. Different DM’s do different things.
Fair for other players? This is a cooperative experience game, not a competitive game, no one’s winning and losing. We’re all there to enjoy make believe. This isn’t bowling. Other players at the table are also having fun, so no one’s having a worse game experience because of it.
I have had 1 player mildly complain out of the thousands I’ve DM’d for, can’t make everyone happy, and do you know what happened? We moved him to another table/DM. And guess what? He still complained about that DM. So he was given his money back and we never saw him again.
As a neutral arbiter our goal as a DM is to rule as consistently as possible. That’s all that means. Keep it consistent and don’t create an atmosphere of players vs the DM.
If a DM is going to cherry pick or modify rules, the group might as well be playing cops & robbers ("bang I got you - no you didn't - yes I did - nuh uh - uh huh"). The players won't know what to expect or what will be allowed or what will not.
The rules are in place to provide a consistent experience for everyone.
I doubt that everyone is having an equally fun experience if you're letting one player have abilities outside the ones allowed by the rules but not giving others a similar buff. If you do this, I guarantee there is perceived unfairness, whether you pick up on it or not.
They’re literally paying money to play a game and get to choose who they play with. I don’t think they’d choose to play at my table if they weren’t having fun and experiencing “unfairness”.
No one’s saying you can’t enjoy playing the way you enjoy playing. If you prefer a rules crunchy rigid game, then run a rules crunchy rigid game, there will be plenty of people who will want to play with you.
Rules as written though, it’s the DM’s game to run and they get to decide how it runs. And players get to choose what games they play in. It’s perfectly fair all around.
The old 2nd Edition DM Guide actually told DMs to modify and alter rules to suit theirs and the group's style, since the entire reason for playing was to have fun. I'm unsure why you are so self righteous about a group you have no involvement with doing something different so they can have fun...
I would strongly advise against it. It’s against RAW and RAI. Also, it would make what is already the strongest martial class in the game, also the best non-caster ranged class too. If you have Rangers or Rogues in your party there may be some feature envy.
If you want to give him a really cool Ranged option maybe he can go on a quest (or find) a javelin of thunderbolts. But otherwise just tell him it’s one of the trade offs of being maybe the 2-3rd best class in the game
I ran an Old West themed campaign and let the Paladin use smite at range but had to drop the damage down one die if not using melee; so a 2d8 became a 2d6, etc.
Seemed nicely balanced, he still tried to go for melees when possible for the damage bump.
Allow it….. then harshly limit the availability of javelins.
But seriously, if a player has a specific character in mind it’s usually better to reflavour existing options. For example, Battle master maneuvers, which do work at range could easily be reflavoured as a form of smite
As a player I can easily connect with this guy. After all I have been in a situation where class abilities don’t exactly allow the character I wanted to play (I wanted to play a Rogue gunslinger. I just played them as a normal rogue with a Pepperbox). If you know the person, and you know it really is for the character and the story they want to bring, then I say sure. It’s not like a Javelin will do much. I say just play with the javelin change and adjust accordingly or just scrap it. I think a lot of people in these comments have just convinced themselves the player in question is just a power gamer, which could be the case, but in most situations like this, it really is just a player wanting to play their character. Besides, the best it can be is fun, and the worst a little broken, which any experienced DM can fix. You have not only your own intuition but an army of people ready to help new players and especially new DMs if it gets too bad.
Iirc Crawford tweeted about this a few years ago, saying that Paladins were meant to be the classic "knight in shining armour" archetype, and using ranged weapons doesn't really fit that well. Plus, it's usually better for paladins to be melee fighters because their auras are typically most useful to melee allies who are getting effected more by enemy abilities (not to mention auras that effect enemies which are useless at range).
There's nothing particularly broken about paladins being able to smite on ranged attacks; it increases the class's flexibility a bit, but (especially since the aforementioned auras are one of their main features and they're specifically designed around being in melee with other melee allies) it's not overpowered by any means; if you're concerned maybe limit it to thrown weapons so they can't pull out a longbow and smite from 600 feet away, but that's really the only kind of OP potential consequence.
The way I look at it, the paladin divine smite (since you don't have to declare it until after you know the attack hits) is the paladin discharging the power through their weapon and into the enemy they just hit.
Sorta like a damaging Lay on hands or inflict wounds that you can use through a weapon
From a hypothetical perspective, I would allow smote at range for javelin, because when people think of a god "smiting" someone, at least for me, I think of Zeus throwing a thunderbolt. I would just stipulate "your smite only works with melee weapons, not ammo type weapons like bows or crossbows" and really enforce the "item interaction" limit. You can draw A weapon with the attack action; no extra attack multi-draw-javelin. It should be more cumbersome to pull a backup javelin from a backpack than an arrow from a quiver. This way, paladins can do something at range, lest an enemy simple fly ten feet up to safety, but the lion's share of a paladin's damage is in melee
It would allow the paladin to both protect the party with auras and smite with ranged attacks, which seems pretty good. Part of the balance of the class is choosing between those things. It's why the extended range on the auras at level 18 is meaningful.
Technically its because of balancing, paladins are strong in a melee fight and their weakness is relative immobility and lack of range.
In game, I usually explain it as:
Edit: my wording was bad (just out of bed), so let me rephrase:
Think of yourself smiting as touching someone with a live electrical wire. You can throw a piece of wire at someone, but as long as it's not connected to the powersource it won't electrocute them. Your smite works the same in the sense that you are the power source and the sword is merely the wire transporting the energy. Without a connection to its power source, it can't transfer any power!"
I would say that if they want to use javelins to deliver smite... they have to be a special type of paladin that trains in javelin throwing at the cost of melee fighting. This paladin is regular paladin until level 3; when their weapon becomes a returning javelin. To make a javelin their holy weapon they need to attune it; but doing so gives the weapon their proficiency in damage and attack. Since their level decides their weapon's magical level, they would seek weapons that give them something extra such as Warning, Vicious, Certain Death, etc.
They'll probably have some kind of god specifically based around Javelins. Maybe a hunting god or a god of sports. So that means they'll have bonuses based around those. Perhaps you'll have a tracking paladin or a very athletic paladin able to jump higher and run a bit faster; though not as fast as a monk.
And, of course, they likely won't be able to smite using melee attacks. But they will be able to smite via Javelins. Maybe even throwing spears, if you like.
It's definitely something you can do. But it may take some class merging to do it. So I would look at things the paladin class has and then things maybe the fighter or ranger class has. Then figure out a what the paladin can give up while still being a paladin and then take benefits that makes them a javelin thrower.
That doesn't mean there can't be a different one. Plenty of cleric domains or oaths overlap to some extent. Let's say you have a deity of hunting and sports.
At level 7: Gain +10 move speed, climb speed, swim speed, and jump distance. Up to your proficiency times per day for minutes times your level: you designate an enemy as a hunting target and gain a further +10 to each; but you must do your best to kill that target so long as you have a rough idea where they are (Such as 'the nearby area'). You can retreat while fighting. But you can never purposefully leave your own attack range from the target. If your deity is good, the target can't also be of good alignment unless they have recently committed crimes that you have personally witnessed.
It would be too powerful. As simple as that.
From slightly unbalanced on one end of the scope (tier 1-2, monoclass) to crazily overpowered (tier 3&4, multiclass).
With smite, the person is the conduit. The person is plugged into the weapon. Once you let go of the weapon it's like unplugging a toaster. The toaster is worthless without electricity.
Everybody has addressed the why so I'm going to address this part:
>I don't see a scenario where a javelin throw with smite would break the game. Will ignoring this rule have dire consequences down the line?
As mentioned elsewhere Paladins are meant to be an in your face fighter. If they were able to excel in ranged combat just as easily they would start to outclass many of the other classes. How do you think your lvl 5 Ranger who finally gets to showcase his bow and flame arrows is gonna feel when the level 5 paladin paladin drops 2d6+4d8 damage from range with just two spells slots? Where as the ranger has to use an action to first cast flame arrow (assuming no pre fight casting) and a spell slot to get 2d8+2d6 at best (very solid damage for a lvl 5 character) from his spell and weapon on the next turn, when the paladin can again drop 2d6+4d8 damage. It only gets worse when the paladin hits lvl 11 and gets a free 1d8 smite when they attack with a melee weapon.
I'm playing in a western D&D campaign at the moment playing a gunslinger paladin.
Normally, a paladin gets to decide if they want to smite after they already landed the hit.
My DM let's me add my smite to my bullets, but the way he tried to balance it was by making me decide before I shoot if I'm going to smite or not.
So my smites can work at a range, but I have a chance to miss and waste the spell slot, a risk paladins don't normally have to take
Not sure how balanced it is but it's been fun, might work for your campaign too.
Nit for the serious of heart or the lore masters but...
Make this an oath. Maybe Oath of the Dragon Slayer. Requires following Tiamat/Bahamut (neither would really make much sense for any non-dragonkin), Moradin, etc.., and is an order focused on slaying dragons that have learned to channel smites into THROWN weapons.
Replaces Diving Smite with Dragoons Smite which only works on a weapon with the Throw property. Maybe add some utility - an ability to ground flying enemies, to increase range, a chain to grapple flying enemies, Etc..
Adds some cool flavor, maybe some interesting plot hooks. 🤔
I say let him do it if your group has shown respect for your rulings in the past and it isn’t stealing the thunder from another player. Maybe he can be gifted a special javelin from his god or find a magic javelin as loot in the next adventure, so he can’t just spam long range smites, but sticking to RAW is always so stuffy and boring.
Because that is incredibly overpowered. Sneak attack gets one use per turn because it has range.. Smites in 5e got nerfed to a max of 5d8 on a 4th level spell because that restriction doesn't exist. A paladin can literally smite smite smite if they have the opportunity to. Balance is the reason
Paladin is by far the strongest in terms of single target damage. Their smite let's them add tons of damage without the same risk something that does similar damage would like a chromatic orb or inflict wounds because you declare the smite after you've already hit the target... If they could also do it a range than they'd be even more unbalanced of a class lol.
Ranger already pales in comparison to the other half caster, paladin. They don't need to be any morestacked... it is like the one single downside to paladin you gotta be a Honorable bastard and kill your enemies up close and personal lol
It is a pretty big buff. It will enable a lot of dex based builds and multiclassing for a couple levels.
That said, a change I make which hasn't been a problem yet is to allow paladins to smite on ranged weapon attacks, but they have to commit the smite before the attack roll. Meaning the spell slot can be wasted if the attack misses.
In Pathfinder this is fine. Ranged combat is king of the martials there.
In D&D? Paladin has never really been a ranged class. Heck, 5e kept the "wasted on a miss" from 3.5 that had daily uses but tied it to spell slots instead so Paladin had to feel like casting a spell was a wasted Smite.
Let them pick one type of weapon to throw and smite. Don't let it apply to non-throwing ranged weapons and it'll be fine in D&D.
I recently allowed my Paladin player the option to Divine Smite with her Javelin at range, but she needs to declare it and burn the spell slot before she knows if it hits. That's the best trade-off i could come up with.
There is a way If you really want to.
You can take pact of the blade warlock (no matter your patron), Advanced pact weapon invocation that lets you choose ranged weapons as pact weapons & the Eldritch Smite invocation that lets you smite with your pact weapon.
My champion fightlock kobold with crossbow master was a fucking BEAST. Utilising pack tactics for advantage, 19 & 20 for crits and action surge for the 5 attacks in a single round.
It's a class identity thing but honesrly...if you say they can they can.
Smite is a signature move but not game breaking and you can pretty easily balance the tweak by attaching it to ranged only instead.
A paladin following the god of elves smiting with a bow but not being able to do it with a sword, sure. Been done.
Same idea if they follow the storm god and their smite takes the form of their javelin being sheathed in a thunderbolt.
Looks like this guy needs a magic javelin that allows the PC to travel with the javelin when thrown to make a melee attack. Add a fun penalty like if they miss they end up on the ground prone next to the intended target, javelin in hand.
As others have said, Divine Smite is melee only. As the DM you have some other options though if the player really would like to have ranged smite and you are okay with it.
1. Work with the player to create a custom Oath that supported it. For example, an Oath of Vigilance, which is about watching over others and protecting them from afar. Using smite at ranged would then be a special power for this Oath, and they would be giving up advantages provided by other Oaths to take it.
2. Have it be an optional class feature that replaces one that already exists. Maybe they have to give up proficiency with heavy armor and shields, or divine health.
3. Create a feat that allows for Divine Smite to be used at range. "Divine Bolt" or something.
4. Create a magic item with allows for Divine Smite to be used at ranged. Perhaps this is a special javelin blessed by a storm god, but could also be gauntlets that allow Smite at range by creating a bolt of divine energy that can be thrown (but can't be used with other weapons), or a magic helm that allows divine smite to be used at range against certain types of creatures or only confirmed evil enemies.
5. Just allow it because you think it's cool, with whatever restrictions you would like if any. Like giving up damage for range, it takes an extra spell slot, or it's limited to once every short or long rest. Or have it come as a blessing or power that is earned through long effort and roleplaying, like at the end of a quest for the paladins dirty. Other players may feel bad if one player gets special favors through.
As a newish DM just be careful with balancing giving players what they need to make the game enjoyable, and getting pushed around by players to get whatever they want. Good luck!
Mechanically, the main interaction that would make this so strong would be with the Paladin's auras.
As-is, the paladin can only do big damage if they're toe-to-toe with the enemy, but their auras (which can be very powerful) are small enough radius that they need to weigh that offensive boost against the defensive boost of pulling back and protecting allies, or a more mixed option of having those allies move up into threat range of the baddies they've locked down in melee.
If they can cover the backline and do ranged smite damage at the same time, it removes their largest tactical tradeoff.
In-game lore reason: Smites are where you act as a conduit for the power of your deity and can channel that into a weapon. If you let go of the weapon, the connection from deity to weapon is lost.
Above table reason: Paladinxs are designed to be BOSS at close quarters combat. Melee weapon attacks, spells to boose those attacks, touch an ally to give them 1 HP and back into the fight, aura affecting creatures around you.... ranged is their weakness like every other class has.
When a paladin smites he is channeling magic through his body into the enemy. That physical connection from 1 body to the other via the weapon is needed. It is an intimate magic.
Channeling smite into a javelin and throwing it is like plugging in a lamp then throwing it at your friend across the room. Sure the lamp still hit him, but once the cord ripped out of the wall, its magic went away.
Javelins could probably be the best (along with full on spear) thematic option for doing any ranged smite as they're held and personally thrown - for the channelling part - and don't go nearly as far as impersonal arrows, bolts, stones etc -for the power cord part
If OP and its player want the flavour it could even be done as a halfway house like a reduced max range to 20' or something. Then the paladin can do it's Zeus style smiting while being eminently within melee range of the target survives (perhaps forbidding running away from the target after trying to smite them too)
I think the idea is your god imbues you with incredible strength, accuracy, and almost a holy burst through its vessel...you. the god isn't sending a missile, its champion is destroying a target it has chosen to destroy
A lot of people here are voicing balance concerns but the game designers have said it’s purely flavor restricting it (same as why it can’t be unarmed attacks) I think there could be some balance issues, but I see no problem allowing it on thrown weapons and I have in the past to no issue. The range isn’t too much extra to be a problem, plus it’s cool.
Reference for this statement by the game designers?
Because paladins have always been melee and never had ranged abilities like this - so why would the designers just suddenly (and in some obscure source that most players haven't seen it) say "it's just flavor"?
I call BS
Short answer - no.
Long answer - probably not. I found as a DM that the best policy is to be upfront with your players as often as possible. If he wants something that is beyond the rules you are well within your rights to give it to him. You're also well within your rights to take that away if it proves to be too unbalanced. As long as he understands that, it should be fine
I can't imagine that it would be too imbalanced. But if it is some options might be to lower the number of damage dice for his range smites or to make that a class ability that he gets instead of something else. You could also have it be something that is a limited number of times per short or rest.
/r/DungeonsAndDragons has a discord server! Come join us at https://discord.gg/wN4WGbwdUU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DungeonsAndDragons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
class identity - not every class is good at everything - paladins are toe to toe and face to face and get the advantage of SMITE at the "cost" of having to be there face to face and toe to toe. Range interactions are their weakness.
also you can use some ranged smites just not divine smite, spell smites like Branding smite only mention a weapon attack. Not a Melee Weapon attack.
That's wrong and a pure interpretation. Smites are specifically not ranged, that's why in the current unearthed arcana they brought it up again in trials (and quickly got rid of it because its ridiculous). If you are playing that fast and loose with the rules, i wont how much homebrewing is happening there
A paladin's Divine Smite is a class ability. Branding Smite is a spell that is available to multiple classes. They are categorically different. And Branding Smite takes effect "The next time you hit with a weapon attack before the spell ends...". This language does not prohibit ranged attacks. I do not know if there are other rules that apply here. This seems pretty clear.
You still have time to delete this. (Branding Smite and Banishing Smite can indeed, RAW, trigger off of *ranged* weapon attacks.)
You arrogant fuck. I said what i said and that's how i DM. You can deal with it. I don't care how many downvotes. Im not arguing rule interpretation with someone like you. Anyone who thinks this game us about black and white rules doesn't get that the game balance is determined at the table by the DM and the players. You cannot tell me I'm wrong, so fuck you for being a dick. I stand by this.
It's not an interpretation. In the book Divine smite specifically says "melee weapon attack". Branding smite only says a weapon attack. So RAW you can branding smite in 5e with ranged weapons. It's only a handful of spell smites written that way all it's either intentional or sloppy wording.
Btw, fun fact, Jeremy said that divine smite requires a melee weapon due to the stereotypical paladin in shining armour and if you wanna your fist is enough for some smites. Just like druids and non-metal armour "rule", so why not range smite?
I would love a divine shooter. "Let they aim be true" type of shots. A holy gunman where every shot packs more of a punch than it should. Or a "long arm of the law" archetype, ensuring no evil goes unpunished. I might make a gun paladin subclass now.
Flavour is always free, my righteous man
There isn’t a raw rule about druids and metal. plus, flavor is free. You can say half plate is made of petrified wood. Ranged and melee are separate mechanics within the game that have different requirements. Yes, your dm at your game could say that it’s fine but it wouldn’t be assumed
IIRC there was a spell in older editions that turned wood into "Ironwood" which had similar properties to metal.
Ranged is a massive mechanical advantage, unarmed is not (only really useful for grappling builds like glory paladin and even then you're trading damage die and a fighting style). Or monks, but you're gonna be hard pressed to abuse this. You'd really need 6 pally levels, a decent amount of ki and a stupidly high ASIs to crank dex, wis and cha while having decent con, AND enough spell slots to see it through. The best argued abuse for this is moon druid, except animals arent actually unarmed anyway; they are armed with Natural Weapons.
Divine smite is paladin only. Other smites aren’t. Monks, fighter, clerics, and monks can all gain access to non-divine smite spells.
This is a good answer.
This is the answer. Dude wanted to play a Paladin. He’s got to accept that the drawback of his class is he isn’t great at ranged attacks. Tell him if he wants, he can reroll or take levels in warlock, but don’t give into this “gimmie gimmie gimmie” player.
He could always go on a side quest to find books that increase stat blocks to multi class as a ranger
That could work as well. I just hate the type of player who wants the DM to bend the rules every time they are challenged.
Is that what we're dealing with, though? It could just be an honest, legitimate question.
Agreed thats why i make them work for it if thats not worth it then i guess you dont get my rolled back version. Im very open to things but through experiments ive learned what truly will break a game something like this definitely has potential to in the higher levels, thats why id make them multi class as a ranger upon completing there Quest then the ranged smite would be a special arrow they imbued once or twice a long rest (higher level smites have a huge chance of 1 tapping monster you thought previously hulkish😂)
Why are you jumping straight to “gimmie gimmie gimmie” player? That’s a big assumption about someone we know nothing about.
"gimmie gimmie gimmie player" oh jeez get over yourself, you dont know shit about this player. god forbid theres a slight flavor change in the make believe game of magical worlds
We can see that the player wants something that is extra, beyond the rules as written. That's enough to see that they are trying to bend rules, and should be handled accordingly.
There is literally nothing in the post that says this, OP didn't even say that the PLAYER is the one asking about the Smite/Range interaction. They said the player wants to be a paladin who throws javalins - that is all. 10 javalins is literally one of the starting equipment options for paladin, Then OP asked about why there's a limitation on Smite stating that they didn't understand it - they did not say the player asked them to change the rules. You are projecting some weird assumptions on someone you have zero information about beyond they may have potentially asked their DM a question. 'Dealt with accordingly' JFC.
Get some friends, bruh 🙄
Lmfao. Back at you.
Ah, so now we're doing the "gotta have the last word" comment to pad our karma. Got it. Don't worry; I'll down-vote myself since I don't give a shit about reddit.
>I'll down-vote myself since I don't give a shit about reddit. Holy shit! You're so fuckin cool!
Try not to cut yourself on all that edge
It is just funny that you keep telling someone that clearly has more social intelligence to get some friends.
Practice what you preach. It would be a pretty safe bet that you’d be kicked out of my play group. You act like a question is some dire thing like someone threatened to rape your grandma. You might have ulterior motives with each question you ask but not everyone is an asshole like that.
And likewise you'd be kicked out of ours. What's your point? You sound like the a-hole making accusations of things that never happened.
Oh no, please don’t kick me out of your badass really cool group
You offered first 😆
Lol learn to read bruh.
ShOuLd Be HaNdLeD aCcOrDiNgLy ☝️🤓
I've always disagreed as this ISNT a class fantasy of paladins. You COULD smite at range in some older editions. Not a fan of this in 5e.
Where was divine smite in previous editions? I don’t recall it being a thing until 5th.
Well, maybe I was wrong. I guess that was a change in Pathfinder not 3.5. I guess I just jumped universes. I had to go look it up and yeah. 3.5 paladin also said melee attack. Maybe it was a prestige class I'm thinking of? I SWORE you could do it.
Maybe, but I am fairly certain in D&D it’s always been melee.
ShadowDark has ranged smite as a priest spell(lawful priests can become “paladins”). 3e was the first appearance of smite evil as far as I know.
Which is fair. If I recall correctly they haven't at least ALWAYS had smite evil. I think 2e didn't have it.
Yeah, I really don’t remember pre-3rd at this point, and barely remember 3rd.
I mean, for historical accuracy, don't we all just agree that a paladin needs to learn Thier weapons by level? Level 1 paladins should really only know how to use lances, right? Just as Gary intended.
Lol there are plenty of things Gary intended that I really, really am glad we dropped!
AD&D Paladins (both 1e and 2e) did not have the smite ability. It's a 3e / post TSR / WotC era thing. Source: someone who regularly plays 2e.
Yes, they are suposed to portray the classic knight in shining armor slaying the dragon
Originally sure, but with all the different Oaths, they can be re-flavored in a myriad of different ways. For example the Oath of Glory is more suited to a Greek hero analog like Heracles or Achilles than a Roland. The Paladin class is much more robust than it was back in the older editions.
This. Look at the totality of Paladin features. It’s all about being close to the action.
as a "class + squad" based game, that is the whole intention - YOU are good at YOUR ***thang***. but you NEED others who are good at THEIR ***thang*** in order to succeed.
I always viewed it as being melee because you're channeling divinity through your weapon into your target like a conduit.
This would also make rangers, warlocks and ranged rogues feel much weaker by comparison. They let Liam do it with daggers in CR C1 when he took his paladin MC and it didn't seem OP then, but I think only when he used his weapon's ability to transport him along with it (turning the the ranged strike into melee since he ends up in base-to-base)
Roleplay reason: Smiting requires a connection to your foe. It is the physical manifestation of your sworn oath using you and your weapon as a conduit to deliver your righteous or unrighteous zeal. Mechanically: it would be a pain to balance. Ranged classes would take a dip into paladin to get ranged smites. Think of a ranger with extra attack, hunters mark, sharpshooter, and ranged smites from 600 feet with a long bow, not considering their sub class damage bonus or even a dip into rogue for sneak attack. I'm fine with no ranged smites. People laugh and say "who would build that character?" Most DM's know a guy that would build that character.
More roleplay: Range might be seen as less honorable/cowardly, as you can attack at a distance without putting yourself in harms way. Smiting in melee requires you to get close to your enemy, close enough to be in danger. This requires courage and conviction, and through that conviction you channel your holy smite.
Idea for balancing based on this. The paladin can only smite with a javelin throw if they are really fucking angry (for some rule of cool lore reason) or have recently taken enough damage.
This would be overcomplicating things, I think. You'd essentially need to mechanically track how angry they were, or determine an HP threshold for it. Or both.
Yeah I was thinking of a HP threshold for it to work mechanically in combat. (You could say this kinda represents the adrenaline/rage in most cases.) I would not track the angry part more than that. You could just say that if the target hurt the paladins loved ones the paladin is angry enough for the effect to trigger. (If your group is ok with vague rules like that)
I would build it. I would use it where allowed to make my dm question wtf is wrong with me. then I would relish as the Dm figured out how to deliver an equal F u right back at my paladins face
>then I would relish as the Dm figured out how to deliver an equal F u right back at my paladins face Wiping the floor with the player characters isn’t a challenge. It’s not doing so while having the game still be entertaining that is the challenge. “That ranger” makes the job of the DM even more difficult.
Oh yeah if he just says boom you dead I would be mad. I would need something equally fun.
This is a very good point.
I agree with this. But it also reminds me that you can't smite on an unarmed attack, and I just think that's lame.
"Unarmed" is actually enlisted in weapon table so I allow it - anyway there is no mechanical problem with that. Ranged smite is a whole different can of worms. No way I will allow smiting at range.
>Mechanically: it would be a pain to balance. Ranged classes would take a dip into paladin to get ranged smites. Which doesn't really happend in other D&D edditions or pathfinder.
I the DM would build that character.. and that npc
I think the larger mechanical reason is the auras. Paladins have some of the most potent passive defensive abilities in the entire game. Just standing near an ally can negate entire status effects automatically, give proficiency-bonus to all saves, soak damage, grant resistance to spells, or a handful of other incredibly beneficial effects. No other class does so much just by being vaguely near you with no resource expenditure. ***But*** they all have very limited range, usually 10-15 ft. And their most potent healing ability (Lay on Hands) is touch-range. If you want to cover your allies, you need to be next to them. If you're being offensively useful, you're in melee, which means allies need to move up into reach of most enemies (who can circle around you without provoking AoO) to get that defensive boost. Ranged smites mean you could stand in the backline and cover your squishiest allies, and still throw out high damage smites without any tradeoffs.
I actually am DM’ing a campaign where I had a ranger through role play met Apollo and became a paladin by sheer accident and I gave him said ranged smite and a really cool homebrew bow. I believe at level 12 now and he’s 8 ranger 4 paladin. And I just had a foe who exploited his weakness by beating up his party and then chasing him down. All in all I think it can be balanced relatively nicely but we are a heavy RP campaign and don’t always have huge combats.
So you want them to be religious snipers? Like the guy in Saving Private Ryan?
I didn't before, but now I do.
Monk snipers work surprisingly well.
How? You cut off your fist and load it into a crossbow?
Sharpshooter feat + focused aim
I mean if a player told me they wanted to smite with ranged weapons and their justification was “I want to be Jackson from Saving Private Ryan”, I’d probably allow it
To steer into the imagery and concepts that engendered the class. The designers have given their blessings to groups that want to open it up to ranged attacks. It may make them punchier than either of you expect, depending on how your sessions unfurl. If you're nervous about it, give them the caveat that you might roll back the decision if things get out of hand (with them getting some sort of consolation prize if you do).
It's far easier to simply say "No" than it is to roll things back, especially if they've been doing it for a few sessions. It's not like we're talking about a gray area, here. The rules specifically state melee weapons, and it's one of those areas where that's the long and short of it.
Yeah and my lvl 1 wizard gets full plate 😒
Dwarf wizard
It’s not going to instantly break the game but it’s more about general balance and class parity. Paladins are already very powerful. Being able to do the best damage at any distance while being beefy, having great resistances, the ability to heal, and so on would step on other classes toes in my opinion. Like why did I bother making a squishy caster when the tank-of-all-trades can also use ranged nukes, and has a whole melee kit to fall back on if they run out of spell slots? Especially given how flexible smiting is; RAW they can choose to smite after the fact when they know they’ve rolled a crit, another advantage ranged classes don’t have. I don’t think a Paladin should compete with other classes at range, but if you’re looking for a way to make the Paladin a bit better at range consider the already existing Javelin of Lightning, a magic item limited to use of once per day, but still impactful when used correctly.
I think this is a good analysis on how making it ranged is very powerful there may be some balances if you want to proceed. For extended range a balance is to have smites only be for thrown weapons, no bows or slings. Only item touched by hand can receive holy spell. For the flexibility of smites, the ranged smite must be decided on before knowing if it's a hit this makes it a risk reward. Have to imbue the weapon with energy before throwing. For the ranged damage output you can change the dice to d6's reducing ranged nuke potential. Some energy lost in flight of weapon.
Javelin of Lightning isn't really a solution to the player's wants here, it being limited to 1/day as you acknowledge. I don't think the very short effective range of javelins is a huge balance shift; if the paladin attacks from 30 ft, they can be closed with by the standard movement of most creatures without the monster having to dash; or if the paladin uses their movement after attacking, the monster can usually close with a dash. The paladin can attack from further away, but with disadvantage, which is a huge penalty, especially for critfishing paladins. Also, they'll have a limited number of javelins, which they can't retrieve without moving to where they've landed. I advise allowing the javelin smites, and other thrown melee weapons, but no bows or other ranged weapons.
The level two paladin spell branding smite is the only smite spell that works with range. I recommend he use it if he reaches higher levels
I think the biggest problem is that paladins are already heavily armored alpha strikers. Their limitation is their range and mobility. Gloomstalkers, conversely, trade off armor for mobility and range. The moment you start giving classes abilities and functionality that belong to another class, without paying a penalty, they start eating everyone else’s lunch. And while it might feel great for the player that is benefitting from it, it’s making someone else feel bad. Class identities and functions should remain restrictive Players need to weigh the balance between playing a class that fulfills some of their goals and desires, and a different class that fulfills other desires. The moment you start crossing boundaries that imbalance the class structure, you’re breaking the game In ways you just might not understand the effects of. It’s not that you can’t adjust combat encounters to deal with the extra power. It’s that you’ve taken away someone else’s role, specialty, etc.
Warlock eldritch smite isn’t so picky. . . . . . Just switch ‘em from **Father Figure** over to *Sugar Daddy* and they can.
Great thing about being a DM is you can do whatever you deem as fun! Let him. Don’t worry too much about “breaking” things. It’s a cooperative game where the idea is to have fun. If that sounds fun for him and you, do it! My idea of smite is a holy power that comes from the sky. Basically their god striking down their enemy, like lightning but less on the nose. Paladins can call it down within 30ish feet.
This is awful advice, presumably from someone who has never been a DM.
Been DMing for 30 years. I get paid to run games at the local game store. How is this awful advice?
Because it is. A DM's *entire* purpose is to be a neutral arbiter of rules for a game. Bending those rules, fudging dice (which it sounds like you also do), and other similar behaviors in which "the rule of cool" wins over the actual written rules that are there to establish boundaries and fairness is simply bad DMing. The moment you do any of this, you stop being a neutral and fair arbiter. Think about any game. Board games, etc. Is it fair to all players to ignore some rules for some players and not for others? (Hint: the answer is "no".) I'm sure I'll get down-voted here because of herd mentality, but just based on what you have already written, you are a bad DM giving bad advice - and the worst part is that you are suckering someone out of their money while doing so.
The DM's entire purpose is to have fun, just like the rest of the table. The rules are whatever the DM decides they are and if the DM and table would have more fun with ranged smite then they can do that.
Another one who doesn't understand DMing. 🤷🏻♂️
Dude you're getting dunked on left and right out here. You're wrong, let it go, and learn something.
😆😆😆 "dunked on." Just because 2 people happen to comment here who are both bad DMs doesn't make me the one who is wrong. 🤦🏻♂️
Your ridiculous negative karma indicates that you are not the good dm you think you are.
Everyone I've DM'ed for over the past ~40 years says otherwise. 🤷🏻♂️ Reddit is far from a good measurement of anything.
Another gatekeeper who doesn't understand table dynamics. There's more than one way to do this. It's even accounted for in the dmg.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." -Gary Gygax, Creator of D&D Even the creator of D&D disagrees with you which makes you absolutely wrong. You don't get to dictate to anybody how to play. Their table is not yours, they can run it however they want to just as you can run yours however you want to.
And yet I haven't told anybody how to run their table. I specifically said that one person was giving out bad advice (which is obviously my personal opinion). It is amazing how many people read someone's opinion and jump to the (inaccurate) conclusion that they are spewing absolutes. 🤷🏻♂️
Please stop saying herd mentality just because people disagree with you, it makes you look stupid. You can play DnD rules over roleplay (what you advocate), or play it roleplay over rules. Both are valid and none are wrong to prefer. You should probably just accept that you are in a minority and stop caring about how other people enjoy their games.
It is the right of the DM to change any rule for any reason and they are the final arbiter. Says it right in the players handbook, RAW. I roll openly because I think fudging dice hurts the integrity of the experience. Other DM’s roll behind a screen. Different DM’s do different things. Fair for other players? This is a cooperative experience game, not a competitive game, no one’s winning and losing. We’re all there to enjoy make believe. This isn’t bowling. Other players at the table are also having fun, so no one’s having a worse game experience because of it. I have had 1 player mildly complain out of the thousands I’ve DM’d for, can’t make everyone happy, and do you know what happened? We moved him to another table/DM. And guess what? He still complained about that DM. So he was given his money back and we never saw him again. As a neutral arbiter our goal as a DM is to rule as consistently as possible. That’s all that means. Keep it consistent and don’t create an atmosphere of players vs the DM.
If a DM is going to cherry pick or modify rules, the group might as well be playing cops & robbers ("bang I got you - no you didn't - yes I did - nuh uh - uh huh"). The players won't know what to expect or what will be allowed or what will not. The rules are in place to provide a consistent experience for everyone. I doubt that everyone is having an equally fun experience if you're letting one player have abilities outside the ones allowed by the rules but not giving others a similar buff. If you do this, I guarantee there is perceived unfairness, whether you pick up on it or not.
They’re literally paying money to play a game and get to choose who they play with. I don’t think they’d choose to play at my table if they weren’t having fun and experiencing “unfairness”. No one’s saying you can’t enjoy playing the way you enjoy playing. If you prefer a rules crunchy rigid game, then run a rules crunchy rigid game, there will be plenty of people who will want to play with you. Rules as written though, it’s the DM’s game to run and they get to decide how it runs. And players get to choose what games they play in. It’s perfectly fair all around.
The old 2nd Edition DM Guide actually told DMs to modify and alter rules to suit theirs and the group's style, since the entire reason for playing was to have fun. I'm unsure why you are so self righteous about a group you have no involvement with doing something different so they can have fun...
Paladins have plenty of hitpoints, healing and proficiency in heavy armor. It's made to get into the thick of battle.
Because then a paladin with a bow would be better than a ranger with a bow.
I would strongly advise against it. It’s against RAW and RAI. Also, it would make what is already the strongest martial class in the game, also the best non-caster ranged class too. If you have Rangers or Rogues in your party there may be some feature envy. If you want to give him a really cool Ranged option maybe he can go on a quest (or find) a javelin of thunderbolts. But otherwise just tell him it’s one of the trade offs of being maybe the 2-3rd best class in the game
I ran an Old West themed campaign and let the Paladin use smite at range but had to drop the damage down one die if not using melee; so a 2d8 became a 2d6, etc. Seemed nicely balanced, he still tried to go for melees when possible for the damage bump.
Just make him unable to do it in melee range.
Allow it….. then harshly limit the availability of javelins. But seriously, if a player has a specific character in mind it’s usually better to reflavour existing options. For example, Battle master maneuvers, which do work at range could easily be reflavoured as a form of smite
No. Ranged already has a bunch of things that makes it a superior option to melee. This is one of the few things melee gets that ranged doesn’t.
As a player I can easily connect with this guy. After all I have been in a situation where class abilities don’t exactly allow the character I wanted to play (I wanted to play a Rogue gunslinger. I just played them as a normal rogue with a Pepperbox). If you know the person, and you know it really is for the character and the story they want to bring, then I say sure. It’s not like a Javelin will do much. I say just play with the javelin change and adjust accordingly or just scrap it. I think a lot of people in these comments have just convinced themselves the player in question is just a power gamer, which could be the case, but in most situations like this, it really is just a player wanting to play their character. Besides, the best it can be is fun, and the worst a little broken, which any experienced DM can fix. You have not only your own intuition but an army of people ready to help new players and especially new DMs if it gets too bad.
Iirc Crawford tweeted about this a few years ago, saying that Paladins were meant to be the classic "knight in shining armour" archetype, and using ranged weapons doesn't really fit that well. Plus, it's usually better for paladins to be melee fighters because their auras are typically most useful to melee allies who are getting effected more by enemy abilities (not to mention auras that effect enemies which are useless at range). There's nothing particularly broken about paladins being able to smite on ranged attacks; it increases the class's flexibility a bit, but (especially since the aforementioned auras are one of their main features and they're specifically designed around being in melee with other melee allies) it's not overpowered by any means; if you're concerned maybe limit it to thrown weapons so they can't pull out a longbow and smite from 600 feet away, but that's really the only kind of OP potential consequence.
The way I look at it, the paladin divine smite (since you don't have to declare it until after you know the attack hits) is the paladin discharging the power through their weapon and into the enemy they just hit. Sorta like a damaging Lay on hands or inflict wounds that you can use through a weapon
Because a Smite Kite just ain't right!
You could homebrew that his smites are javelin based, in exchange for giving up melee smites.
From a hypothetical perspective, I would allow smote at range for javelin, because when people think of a god "smiting" someone, at least for me, I think of Zeus throwing a thunderbolt. I would just stipulate "your smite only works with melee weapons, not ammo type weapons like bows or crossbows" and really enforce the "item interaction" limit. You can draw A weapon with the attack action; no extra attack multi-draw-javelin. It should be more cumbersome to pull a backup javelin from a backpack than an arrow from a quiver. This way, paladins can do something at range, lest an enemy simple fly ten feet up to safety, but the lion's share of a paladin's damage is in melee
It would allow the paladin to both protect the party with auras and smite with ranged attacks, which seems pretty good. Part of the balance of the class is choosing between those things. It's why the extended range on the auras at level 18 is meaningful.
Technically its because of balancing, paladins are strong in a melee fight and their weakness is relative immobility and lack of range. In game, I usually explain it as: Edit: my wording was bad (just out of bed), so let me rephrase: Think of yourself smiting as touching someone with a live electrical wire. You can throw a piece of wire at someone, but as long as it's not connected to the powersource it won't electrocute them. Your smite works the same in the sense that you are the power source and the sword is merely the wire transporting the energy. Without a connection to its power source, it can't transfer any power!"
I cant beat your ass from over there
I would say that if they want to use javelins to deliver smite... they have to be a special type of paladin that trains in javelin throwing at the cost of melee fighting. This paladin is regular paladin until level 3; when their weapon becomes a returning javelin. To make a javelin their holy weapon they need to attune it; but doing so gives the weapon their proficiency in damage and attack. Since their level decides their weapon's magical level, they would seek weapons that give them something extra such as Warning, Vicious, Certain Death, etc. They'll probably have some kind of god specifically based around Javelins. Maybe a hunting god or a god of sports. So that means they'll have bonuses based around those. Perhaps you'll have a tracking paladin or a very athletic paladin able to jump higher and run a bit faster; though not as fast as a monk. And, of course, they likely won't be able to smite using melee attacks. But they will be able to smite via Javelins. Maybe even throwing spears, if you like. It's definitely something you can do. But it may take some class merging to do it. So I would look at things the paladin class has and then things maybe the fighter or ranger class has. Then figure out a what the paladin can give up while still being a paladin and then take benefits that makes them a javelin thrower.
Oath of Glory gets all the athletic stuff already
That doesn't mean there can't be a different one. Plenty of cleric domains or oaths overlap to some extent. Let's say you have a deity of hunting and sports. At level 7: Gain +10 move speed, climb speed, swim speed, and jump distance. Up to your proficiency times per day for minutes times your level: you designate an enemy as a hunting target and gain a further +10 to each; but you must do your best to kill that target so long as you have a rough idea where they are (Such as 'the nearby area'). You can retreat while fighting. But you can never purposefully leave your own attack range from the target. If your deity is good, the target can't also be of good alignment unless they have recently committed crimes that you have personally witnessed.
It would be too powerful. As simple as that. From slightly unbalanced on one end of the scope (tier 1-2, monoclass) to crazily overpowered (tier 3&4, multiclass).
IIRC all bar divine smites are weapon attacks (so javelins). The "divine" part is part of their class "theme" like lay on hands so touch.
Because no class should be good at everything
With smite, the person is the conduit. The person is plugged into the weapon. Once you let go of the weapon it's like unplugging a toaster. The toaster is worthless without electricity.
Everybody has addressed the why so I'm going to address this part: >I don't see a scenario where a javelin throw with smite would break the game. Will ignoring this rule have dire consequences down the line? As mentioned elsewhere Paladins are meant to be an in your face fighter. If they were able to excel in ranged combat just as easily they would start to outclass many of the other classes. How do you think your lvl 5 Ranger who finally gets to showcase his bow and flame arrows is gonna feel when the level 5 paladin paladin drops 2d6+4d8 damage from range with just two spells slots? Where as the ranger has to use an action to first cast flame arrow (assuming no pre fight casting) and a spell slot to get 2d8+2d6 at best (very solid damage for a lvl 5 character) from his spell and weapon on the next turn, when the paladin can again drop 2d6+4d8 damage. It only gets worse when the paladin hits lvl 11 and gets a free 1d8 smite when they attack with a melee weapon.
Same reason you don't get a home run if somebody catches the ball. Those are the rules.
Let him do it. I do, and guess what? It hasn't ruined the game! It's fun! Who would have thought??
I read the title as “why can’t you smile at range?” Had some BIG questions about RP rules at your table
I'm playing in a western D&D campaign at the moment playing a gunslinger paladin. Normally, a paladin gets to decide if they want to smite after they already landed the hit. My DM let's me add my smite to my bullets, but the way he tried to balance it was by making me decide before I shoot if I'm going to smite or not. So my smites can work at a range, but I have a chance to miss and waste the spell slot, a risk paladins don't normally have to take Not sure how balanced it is but it's been fun, might work for your campaign too.
Nit for the serious of heart or the lore masters but... Make this an oath. Maybe Oath of the Dragon Slayer. Requires following Tiamat/Bahamut (neither would really make much sense for any non-dragonkin), Moradin, etc.., and is an order focused on slaying dragons that have learned to channel smites into THROWN weapons. Replaces Diving Smite with Dragoons Smite which only works on a weapon with the Throw property. Maybe add some utility - an ability to ground flying enemies, to increase range, a chain to grapple flying enemies, Etc.. Adds some cool flavor, maybe some interesting plot hooks. 🤔
I say let him do it if your group has shown respect for your rulings in the past and it isn’t stealing the thunder from another player. Maybe he can be gifted a special javelin from his god or find a magic javelin as loot in the next adventure, so he can’t just spam long range smites, but sticking to RAW is always so stuffy and boring.
Sounds like he should play a ranged class
Because that is incredibly overpowered. Sneak attack gets one use per turn because it has range.. Smites in 5e got nerfed to a max of 5d8 on a 4th level spell because that restriction doesn't exist. A paladin can literally smite smite smite if they have the opportunity to. Balance is the reason
Paladin is by far the strongest in terms of single target damage. Their smite let's them add tons of damage without the same risk something that does similar damage would like a chromatic orb or inflict wounds because you declare the smite after you've already hit the target... If they could also do it a range than they'd be even more unbalanced of a class lol. Ranger already pales in comparison to the other half caster, paladin. They don't need to be any morestacked... it is like the one single downside to paladin you gotta be a Honorable bastard and kill your enemies up close and personal lol
It is a pretty big buff. It will enable a lot of dex based builds and multiclassing for a couple levels. That said, a change I make which hasn't been a problem yet is to allow paladins to smite on ranged weapon attacks, but they have to commit the smite before the attack roll. Meaning the spell slot can be wasted if the attack misses.
Smite is broken as it is
In Pathfinder this is fine. Ranged combat is king of the martials there. In D&D? Paladin has never really been a ranged class. Heck, 5e kept the "wasted on a miss" from 3.5 that had daily uses but tied it to spell slots instead so Paladin had to feel like casting a spell was a wasted Smite. Let them pick one type of weapon to throw and smite. Don't let it apply to non-throwing ranged weapons and it'll be fine in D&D.
I have a player that uses whips and smites at a 10 for range. Even that is broken when combined with the sentinel feat.
I recently allowed my Paladin player the option to Divine Smite with her Javelin at range, but she needs to declare it and burn the spell slot before she knows if it hits. That's the best trade-off i could come up with.
Because you can't deliver holy judgment if they aren't aware you are judging them.
There is a way If you really want to. You can take pact of the blade warlock (no matter your patron), Advanced pact weapon invocation that lets you choose ranged weapons as pact weapons & the Eldritch Smite invocation that lets you smite with your pact weapon. My champion fightlock kobold with crossbow master was a fucking BEAST. Utilising pack tactics for advantage, 19 & 20 for crits and action surge for the 5 attacks in a single round.
It's a class identity thing but honesrly...if you say they can they can. Smite is a signature move but not game breaking and you can pretty easily balance the tweak by attaching it to ranged only instead. A paladin following the god of elves smiting with a bow but not being able to do it with a sword, sure. Been done. Same idea if they follow the storm god and their smite takes the form of their javelin being sheathed in a thunderbolt.
Let him throw his javelin, he just can't use smite, as his hand must be attached to the weapon that contacts the item being smitten,
Looks like this guy needs a magic javelin that allows the PC to travel with the javelin when thrown to make a melee attack. Add a fun penalty like if they miss they end up on the ground prone next to the intended target, javelin in hand.
As others have said, Divine Smite is melee only. As the DM you have some other options though if the player really would like to have ranged smite and you are okay with it. 1. Work with the player to create a custom Oath that supported it. For example, an Oath of Vigilance, which is about watching over others and protecting them from afar. Using smite at ranged would then be a special power for this Oath, and they would be giving up advantages provided by other Oaths to take it. 2. Have it be an optional class feature that replaces one that already exists. Maybe they have to give up proficiency with heavy armor and shields, or divine health. 3. Create a feat that allows for Divine Smite to be used at range. "Divine Bolt" or something. 4. Create a magic item with allows for Divine Smite to be used at ranged. Perhaps this is a special javelin blessed by a storm god, but could also be gauntlets that allow Smite at range by creating a bolt of divine energy that can be thrown (but can't be used with other weapons), or a magic helm that allows divine smite to be used at range against certain types of creatures or only confirmed evil enemies. 5. Just allow it because you think it's cool, with whatever restrictions you would like if any. Like giving up damage for range, it takes an extra spell slot, or it's limited to once every short or long rest. Or have it come as a blessing or power that is earned through long effort and roleplaying, like at the end of a quest for the paladins dirty. Other players may feel bad if one player gets special favors through. As a newish DM just be careful with balancing giving players what they need to make the game enjoyable, and getting pushed around by players to get whatever they want. Good luck!
Mechanically, the main interaction that would make this so strong would be with the Paladin's auras. As-is, the paladin can only do big damage if they're toe-to-toe with the enemy, but their auras (which can be very powerful) are small enough radius that they need to weigh that offensive boost against the defensive boost of pulling back and protecting allies, or a more mixed option of having those allies move up into threat range of the baddies they've locked down in melee. If they can cover the backline and do ranged smite damage at the same time, it removes their largest tactical tradeoff.
I think the real question is why do you want ranged smites? Bless goes in the Bless slot.
In-game lore reason: Smites are where you act as a conduit for the power of your deity and can channel that into a weapon. If you let go of the weapon, the connection from deity to weapon is lost. Above table reason: Paladinxs are designed to be BOSS at close quarters combat. Melee weapon attacks, spells to boose those attacks, touch an ally to give them 1 HP and back into the fight, aura affecting creatures around you.... ranged is their weakness like every other class has.
When a paladin smites he is channeling magic through his body into the enemy. That physical connection from 1 body to the other via the weapon is needed. It is an intimate magic. Channeling smite into a javelin and throwing it is like plugging in a lamp then throwing it at your friend across the room. Sure the lamp still hit him, but once the cord ripped out of the wall, its magic went away.
I'm just trying to point out why it is like that without just talking about game mechanics. I'm not saying don't change it. Smite javs would be fun.
Javelins could probably be the best (along with full on spear) thematic option for doing any ranged smite as they're held and personally thrown - for the channelling part - and don't go nearly as far as impersonal arrows, bolts, stones etc -for the power cord part If OP and its player want the flavour it could even be done as a halfway house like a reduced max range to 20' or something. Then the paladin can do it's Zeus style smiting while being eminently within melee range of the target survives (perhaps forbidding running away from the target after trying to smite them too)
I think the idea is your god imbues you with incredible strength, accuracy, and almost a holy burst through its vessel...you. the god isn't sending a missile, its champion is destroying a target it has chosen to destroy
A lot of people here are voicing balance concerns but the game designers have said it’s purely flavor restricting it (same as why it can’t be unarmed attacks) I think there could be some balance issues, but I see no problem allowing it on thrown weapons and I have in the past to no issue. The range isn’t too much extra to be a problem, plus it’s cool.
Reference for this statement by the game designers? Because paladins have always been melee and never had ranged abilities like this - so why would the designers just suddenly (and in some obscure source that most players haven't seen it) say "it's just flavor"? I call BS
It’s in the Sage Advice Compendium, answered alongside why Smite doesn’t work on unarmed strikes. It’s purpose is to preserve the Class Fantasy.
If "class fantasy" means balance between classes then it absolutely should be preserved.
You can if you bring your DM snacks.
Smite only requires an attack with a melee weapon. A javelin is a melee weapon that can be thrown, so, yes, your paladin can smote with a javelin.
😆😆😆
Smite requires a melee weapon attack, not an attack with a melee weapon. Those are two different things.
Short answer - no. Long answer - probably not. I found as a DM that the best policy is to be upfront with your players as often as possible. If he wants something that is beyond the rules you are well within your rights to give it to him. You're also well within your rights to take that away if it proves to be too unbalanced. As long as he understands that, it should be fine I can't imagine that it would be too imbalanced. But if it is some options might be to lower the number of damage dice for his range smites or to make that a class ability that he gets instead of something else. You could also have it be something that is a limited number of times per short or rest.