Improved Divine Smite: A strange reading - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xeviat-DM Sep 01, 2015 1:00:48	Hi everyone. A friend is interpreting the paladin's 11th level "Improved Divine Smite" ability differently than I have. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage. If you also use your Divine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite.
#2 Lucas_Blackstone Sep 01, 2015 1:23:23	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#3 Slagger_the_Chuul Sep 01, 2015 1:59:50	I think I'd go with Xeviat-DM's reading. You don't get two allocations of Improved Divine Smite damage, it's just telling you that the amount of damage you get from it isn't subsumed by your regular Divine Smite. That said, I can see the alternative working as well.
#4 AndrewJO Sep 01, 2015 2:43:47	It's basically saying that using divine smite doesn't negate improved divine smite
#5 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 2:56:44	There's 2 readings. 1. When you have this feature and you use divine smite, instead of adding the extra 1d8 to the attack itself you add it to the divine smite damage roll. Basically the second sentence changes the feature's writing from: "Add 1d8 radiant damage when you hit with an attack" to "Add 1d8 radiant damage to your damage roll when you use divine smite" 2. You get to add 1d8 radiant damage when you hit with an attack AND if you use divine smite you also add 1d8 radiant damage to that damage roll as well. The problem I have with 1 is that it's totally weird to do it that way however I have a bigger problem with 2 because the original text lacks any of the usual words to indicate that the second sentence would be stating you get 1d8 radiant damage on both the attack itself on a hit and divine smite. Things like also, and, in addition, etc.. The two sentences aren't linked in the traditional way and seem exclusive which is why I'm leaning toward 1 being the answer here. I just have no idea why they would make it work that way. EDIT: If it was to just say that improved divine smite doesn't block divine smite they sure chose a weird way to say it.
#6 Yunru Sep 01, 2015 2:57:47	You add 1d8 radiant to all you attacks. This is independant of any uses of divine smite.
#7 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 3:54:43	Yunru wrote:
#8 Yunru Sep 01, 2015 4:13:44	Right, so if you hit and divine smite you do XdY+Mod+1d6+Divine Smite damage.
#9 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 4:26:30	Yunru wrote:
#10 Yunru Sep 01, 2015 4:33:52	But doesn't that make no practical difference anyway?
#11 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 5:11:38	Yunru wrote:
#12 Yunru Sep 01, 2015 5:21:35	Oh I see. It could be adding to both the weapon and the smite, rather than moving from the weapon to the smite.
#13 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 5:26:52	Yunru wrote:
#14 Elfcrusher Sep 01, 2015 5:37:25	I vote for the 'both' interpretation. Otherwise there is zero purpose to the second sentence.
#15 AndrewJO Sep 01, 2015 5:47:58	The PHB is filled with sentences that have zero purpose. Just ask Jeremy Crawford for a ruling and post his answer here. If enough people ask for a ruling it will end up in the next errata.
(Reply to #14) AaronOfBarbaria	Elfcrusher wrote:
#17 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 7:04:49	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#18 jaelis Sep 01, 2015 7:08:01	It looks like they mean just +1d8 to me, not +2d8 with a spell slot smite.
#19 Elfcrusher Sep 01, 2015 7:18:37	Oh, ok. I re-read it several more times, and I can see the 1d8 rationale now. Wow, talk about an unclear sentence. They could have just said, "add 1d8 radiant damage to all of your attacks, whether or not you use Divine Smite."
#20 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 7:25:13	Yep they could have very easily stated that it stacks with Divine Smite. The way they did it now leads me to believe that if you Divine Smite you get 1d8 radiant on your attack if it hits and 1d8 radiant added to your divine smite damage roll as well. Double dipping the feature essentially. I just don't understand why they would have worded it the way they did otherwise.
(Reply to #19) AaronOfBarbaria	Elfcrusher wrote:
#22 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 7:50:25	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#23 Elfcrusher Sep 01, 2015 7:53:39	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #22) AaronOfBarbaria	Noctaem wrote:
#25 Yunru Sep 01, 2015 8:08:43	I however, have tweeted a while ago. And now the wait.
#26 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 8:16:40	Yunru wrote:
#27 Elfcrusher Sep 01, 2015 9:05:19	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #27) AaronOfBarbaria	Elfcrusher wrote:
#29 Coredump00 Sep 01, 2015 9:32:05	While double dipping may be nice, there is a 'not nice' reading also. What if they do mean that you add the IDS +1D8 to the DS Xd8 to give you a 'new' Divine Smite of (X+1)D8..... not a problem until we remember that DS is capped at 5D8. It means lvl 4 and lvl 5 slots give no benefit over lvl 3 slots.....
#30 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 10:19:21	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#31 Logain08 Sep 01, 2015 10:45:41	Well, if I may offer my two cents. The feature is called Improved Divine Smite, so maybe it does in fact add 1d8 to your Divine Smites as well. You basically smite a little bit with every attack (the +1d8 per hit with a melee weapon) and your Divine Smite feature gets better (a 1st level smite now does 2d8+1d8 damage), hence the improved part. I could see this going both ways. I'm very interested what Crawford has to say on the matter!
#32 Bloodscythe Sep 01, 2015 10:54:31	Hmm... I read the sentence to mean this: If you hit with a weapon, you deal weapon damage + 1d8 radiant damage. If you hit with a weapon, and you use smite, you deal weapon damage + 1d8 + smite damage. I assumed the wording was to allow the paladin to "exceed" the 5d8 maximum of divine smite, since the 1d8 from "improved divine smite" is in addition to the damage caused by divine smite. So if a paladin with improved divine smite makes a weapon attack, and hits, and uses a 4th lvl spell slot, they'll do weapon damage + 1d8 + 5d8.
#33 Noctaem Sep 01, 2015 11:00:21	Bloodscythe wrote:
#34 Elfcrusher Sep 01, 2015 11:07:34	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#35 Elfcrusher Sep 01, 2015 11:09:13	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #35) Bloodscythe	Elfcrusher wrote:
#37 Elfcrusher Sep 01, 2015 13:10:11	Yeah, that makes sense. So the reason for the wonky second sentence is to make it clear that it breaks the 5d8 cap.
(Reply to #37) Bloodscythe	Elfcrusher wrote:
(Reply to #38) Lucas_Blackstone	Bloodscythe wrote:
#40 Noctaem Sep 02, 2015 4:07:34	Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
#41 El_Condoro Sep 02, 2015 5:38:36	It's called Improved Divine Smite because the paladin does not need to expend a (or any) spell slot/s to get the extra 1d8 radiant damage - "all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power". So, an 11th-level+ paladin can do an extra 1d8 radiant damage with every melee weapon attack, and then add Divine Smite to that if he chooses, expending 1st- to 4th- level spell slots to gain the +2d8 to 5d8 radiant damage. He could do weapon damage + 6d8 radiant damage if of sufficient level and with enough spell slots.
(Reply to #41) Logain08	El_Condoro wrote:
#43 TiaNadiezja Sep 02, 2015 8:43:49	A.B.S. Always. Be. Smiting.
#44 Macv12 Sep 02, 2015 17:50:18	I read it as lowering the smiting floor, so Divine Smite costs a 0th-level spell slot +1d8 per slot after that, maxing at 6d8 now instead of 5. In effect. Makes sense to me how it's improved.
(Reply to #44) Xeviat-DM	Macv12 wrote:
#46 Noctaem Sep 03, 2015 5:27:43	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#47 El_Condoro Sep 03, 2015 6:08:26	The improved smite does 1d8 to every melee attack of the paladin. It stacks with smite, which uses a paladin's spell slot/s to get the extra 2d8 to 5d8. So, 1d8 per melee attack or 3d8 to 6d8 additional radiant damage if smite is used. Not seeing the confusion here.
(Reply to #47) Bloodscythe	El_Condoro wrote:
#49 El_Condoro Sep 03, 2015 6:33:57	The numbers you provide seem to add up to us saying the same thing but the way it's done might differ. Minimum and maximum calculations below. Improved Divine Smite: weapon + 1d8 radiant damage (optional) Smite: 1st-level slot = 2d8 radiant damage (minimum) Total damage: weapon + 3d8 radiant damage Using 4th-level slot (maximum) Total damage: weapon + 1d8 (improved smite) +5d8 (smite) = weapon + 6d8 radiant damage.
#50 jaelis Sep 03, 2015 6:52:23	El_Condoro wrote:
#51 El_Condoro Sep 03, 2015 7:03:46	Where is the support for that reading? The second sentence that has been quoted says, If you use your Divine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite. The "this damage" only makes sense if it relates to the 1d8 radiant damage of improved divine smite cited in the preceding sentence. There is no double-dipping - they just stack. Nowhere does it say divine smite is improved - they are two separate features, although a melee attack from an 11th-level+ paladin can use them simultaneously.
#52 Elfcrusher Sep 03, 2015 7:37:33	El_Condoro wrote:
#53 Logain08 Sep 03, 2015 7:45:40	This is the full quote from the book: "By 11th level, you are so suffused with righteous might that all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage. If you also use your Dvine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite."
#54 Noctaem Sep 03, 2015 7:46:17	jaelis wrote:
#55 Noctaem Sep 03, 2015 7:52:57	Logain08 wrote:
(Reply to #55) AaronOfBarbaria	Noctaem wrote:
#57 Noctaem Sep 03, 2015 8:08:58	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #57) AaronOfBarbaria	Noctaem wrote:
#59 Noctaem Sep 03, 2015 8:27:57	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #59) AaronOfBarbaria	Noctaem wrote:
#61 Noctaem Sep 03, 2015 8:44:26	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#62 Elfcrusher Sep 03, 2015 8:53:30	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#63 Logain08 Sep 03, 2015 8:53:33	I think Noctaem makes a convincing case and I think the sentence as written allows for his interpretation. That said, I would like official clarification on the matter. Especially the "also" in the last sentence of the Improved Divine Smite feature complicates matters a bit :-)
#64 Macv12 Sep 03, 2015 8:56:59	With Aaron on this one. Using "they wouldn't have said that since it's technically unnecessary" doesn't do it for me. The rules are, allegedly, written in an imprecise common-English format that makes them easier to understand. That might include noting something that is already implied by the rules but wasn't immediately obvious. In this case, "Improved Divine Smite" could easily be taken as a feature that improves Divine Smite, even if it is technically a separate named feature. With the limit on how much damage Divine Smite can do, they would want to point out that "Improved Divine Smite" is not "improved Divine Smite," and its bonus damage isn't affected by the cap. And, to fix the lunch analogy: "when you order lunch, you also get an apple. If you also order an apple basket, you add this apple to the extra apples in the basket." Here, "this apple" is obviously a single item, which is being added to the basket instead of being an a la carte item in the second case. It seems like the more sensible feature for them to have wanted to implement, and you can see how they could have arrived at the sentence in the PHB trying to explain it.
(Reply to #61) AaronOfBarbaria	Noctaem wrote:
#66 jaelis Sep 03, 2015 9:06:08	I think the language is legitimately unclear. Two examples that seem pretty parallel to me. "Whenever you purchase gas at GasCo, you get a 10% discount. If you also buy candy in our snack shop, you get this discount on the candy price." I think most people would not expect 20% off on their candy. "Whenever you purchase $20 of gas at GasCo, you get an extra gallon of gas for free. If you also buy $20 worth of candy in our snack shop, you get this free gallon of gas." I think most people would expect 2 gallons of free gas if they bought both gas and candy. Maybe I'm wrong about how people would read those, I don't know. But that's how I would, and I'm not sure I could clearly say which one is closer to the smite rule.
(Reply to #65) Logain08	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #62) AaronOfBarbaria	Elfcrusher wrote:
(Reply to #67) AaronOfBarbaria	Logain08 wrote:
#70 Logain08 Sep 03, 2015 9:21:40	Wasn't it Wittgenstein who said that meaning is use? I forgot, it's been a long time. Anyways, if meaning is indeed use then it's perfectly possible for two reasonable people to disagree on the meaning/use of the same concept or words. Many language philosophers would argue that language is inherently ambiguous and is only intended to carry meaning for the users. (If I recall correctly)
(Reply to #70) AaronOfBarbaria	Logain08 wrote:
(Reply to #56) Bloodscythe	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #71) Logain08	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#74 Elfcrusher Sep 03, 2015 9:51:10	My turn: "We'll give you a nickel back for every dollar worth of gas you buy. If you also come into the store and buy food, we'll apply this discount to your total bill." Is it 5% off just the gas, or 5% off gas plus groceries? Either interpretation is gramatically valid. At least in my mind, that's the most accurate analogy so far. AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#75 Noctaem Sep 03, 2015 9:50:18	Logain08 wrote:
(Reply to #74) AaronOfBarbaria	Elfcrusher wrote:
#77 shintashi Sep 03, 2015 10:54:48	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#78 Elfcrusher Sep 03, 2015 11:44:19	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#79 Noctaem Sep 03, 2015 12:16:57	Elfcrusher wrote:
#80 Veleria Sep 03, 2015 13:13:51	Question, would this feature allow you to apply normal weapon damage to creatures immune/resistant to non magical weapons? Is the attack considered magical, or is just the d8 radiant added after whatever penalties to damage occur?
#81 El_Condoro Sep 03, 2015 13:52:45	Elfcrusher wrote:
#82 El_Condoro Sep 03, 2015 13:58:02	Veleria wrote:
#83 Saeviomagy Sep 03, 2015 21:28:14	You can have 1-8 apples for your meal. If you also decide to have a sandwich you add that amount of apples to your meal.
#84 El_Condoro Sep 03, 2015 21:45:01	Except it's the other way around. You have a sandwich for lunch. If you choose to have apples with your lunch you can add them to the meal. Strange way to talk about a picnic but this is D&D.
(Reply to #83) AaronOfBarbaria	Saeviomagy wrote:
#86 Noctaem Sep 04, 2015 5:01:54	Saeviomagy wrote:
#87 Noctaem Sep 04, 2015 5:13:37	Veleria wrote:
#88 Elfcrusher Sep 04, 2015 6:17:55	I still think y'all are changing the original language with your analogies in ways that bias the meaning. In this case you're replacing a bonus to something with just a something. If that makes sense. Here's the original language: "By 11th level, you are so suffused with righteous might that all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage. If you also use your Dvine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite." So doing just word replacement to change the context: "By 11th level, you are so deserving of extra calories that all your orders get bonus goodies with them. Whenever you order a regular coffee at the coffee shop, you also get a bonus doughnut. If you also redeem a coupon for an espresso drink, you add this bonus to the extra drink ." If you order a coffee and you redeem a coupon for a triple caramel latte, how many doughnuts do you get? The ambiguity comes because it's not clear if "this bonus" means the actual doughnut you got with the coffee, or the more abstract concept of a free bonus. And that is how the original is written. The way a lot of you are writing your examples, instead of "you add this bonus" you would have written "you add this doughnut". I agree that would be much more clear, but it's also not an accurate analogue to the original.
#89 Noctaem Sep 04, 2015 6:42:03	Elfcrusher wrote:
#90 Quad_Hund Sep 04, 2015 7:45:40	Noctaem wrote:
#91 shintashi Sep 04, 2015 7:57:23	i dont see the confusion. if you simply think of the power as +1d8 always, and then read the divine smite rules seperately, then it stacks normally without problems. it's a nice feature that implies a paladin might do something like 2 attacks at 2d8+x, instead of 2 attacks at 1d8+x. Come to think of it, if you aren't doing weapon shield, and instead do two weapon fighting, you could have 2d8 + x 3 times per round as a paladin. +3 +2d10 for avenger, +2d6 for a flame tongue, +2 +1d8 with a sun blade (like the one in the new abyss adventure). So theoretically, 3d8+7 or better 3 times per round is possible, with a high of around 2d8+2d10+12 x 3, which is 48-144 (96), using 2 avengers, two weapon fighting, and a belt of storm giant strength. That's the same as a fighter using a two handed weapon +3 four times per round with a storm giant belt. Hmnn... i think a fighter is more likely to get a +3 greatsword than a paladin is to get two holy avengers. With no magic items it looks like the paladin gets 2d8+5 x3, or 21-63 (42). Vs. a Fighter Getting 5 attacks per round at 1d8+5 x5, or 30-65 (47) two weapon fighting, or 2d6+5 x4, 28-68 (48) using a great sword. I think this constant radiant damage bonus gets the paladin closer to the fighter on average, but doesn't exceed it. The Radiant bonus from using once per day or spell slots is similar to the d12s the fighter gets to add. Factoring in Action surge it all works out.
#92 shintashi Sep 04, 2015 8:02:23	Quad_Hund wrote:
#93 Quad_Hund Sep 04, 2015 8:25:16	shintashi wrote:
#94 Chaosmancer Sep 04, 2015 14:17:42	My two cents about the improved divine smite. If you hit with divine smite you move the improved divine smite +1d8 to merge with the divine smite damage. I'm not great at math sentences but I'll try to show it. Normal attack with greatsword: (2d6+mod slashing) Divine Smite (lv 1) with greatsword (2d6+mod slashing) + (2d8 radiant) Normal attack, improved divine smite, with greatsword (2d6+mod slashing)+(1d8 radiant) Divine Smite (lv 1), improved divine smite, with greatsword (2d6+mod) + (3d8 radiant) So the second sentence does two things in my mind. First it tells us that Divine Smite's limits do not apply to the d8 from improved divine smite, you could end up doing 7d8 radiant to fiends and undead for example. Secondly it tells us that all Divine Smite damage is in the same grouping. Someone mentioned that is odd, but it actually makes a little sense if people are exactingly specific about the math involving resistance. (1/2 d8) + (1/2 2d8) could easily give a very different result than (1/2 3d8) if od numbers are rolled. Does it make any practical difference? No, not really, but the intent seems to be there for me.
#95 El_Condoro Sep 04, 2015 15:37:42	I agree with most of that except the maximum smite damage that can be done is 6d8 radiant (1d8 for improved smite and a maximum of 5d8 for smite). Vulnerability would then double the damage done, if it applied (such as a shadow demon). Also vulnerability and resistance are done after the damage dice are rolled, so a creature that is resistant to radiant damage (can't think of any) would take 6d8 /2 damage rather than 1d8 /2 + 5d8 /2 damage.
(Reply to #95) Chaosmancer	El_Condoro wrote:
#97 El_Condoro Sep 07, 2015 3:54:15	Yes, I think that is probably right.
#98 Coredump00 Sep 07, 2015 7:44:28	I think it is fairly clear that IDS does not 'double dip' with Divine Smite, but is written that way to show it 'adds' to the cap. But I also think it is only fairly clear.... I would not want to bet much either way until JC chimes in.
#99 JackOfAllTirades Sep 07, 2015 23:52:08	All of this semantic tug-of-war notwithstanding, does the Paladin class really need the extra d8 provided by the "double dip" version of Improved Divine Smite? Or is it powerful enough the other way?
#100 Logain08 Sep 08, 2015 0:57:15	I think what the paladin needs and how the wording of Improved Divine Smite should be interpreted are two different and unrelated questions. But to actually answer your question: no idea. I have very little knowledge on how strong the paladin is based on its own merits or compared to other damage dealing (martial) classes. I think other people on these boards are more qualified to answer your question. In my experience though, the paladin is quite strong, but I'm not level 11 yet and I don't know how it will compare to the other classes in my group at that point.
(Reply to #100) Xeviat-DM	Logain08 wrote:
#102 Chaosmancer Sep 08, 2015 4:10:12	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#103 Noctaem Sep 08, 2015 5:36:42	Being a good burst damage class does not make you overpowered simply because the features you get almost 3/4 of the way through your trek to level 20 add 1d8 to your attacks and 1d8 if you smite. It's ridiculous to claim that makes it overpowered and then dismiss the argument that it's a double dip. It's not overpowered at all.
#104 Elfcrusher Sep 08, 2015 11:16:38	I'm placing my bet on single dip, but in that case not only is the language strange, but so is the title. "Improved Divine Smite" does not, to me, suggest a completely different mechanic from "Divine Smite". That's like calling a rogue's shortsword his "Improved Sneak Attack".
#105 JackOfAllTirades Sep 08, 2015 12:04:45	Chaosmancer wrote:
#106 Chaosmancer Sep 08, 2015 14:52:17	Noctaem wrote:
#107 Logain08 Sep 08, 2015 15:00:15	Okay, so the paladin is capable of doing excellent burst damage even without the double dip. That may be a good reason to rule against the double dip for many or it may not. But that doesn't change the fact that, for me and some others here, the language of the feature is not as clear as it could be and so I would still like a clarification on the matter from Crawford as to how it is meant to work.
#108 Xeviat-DM Sep 08, 2015 17:48:58	Chaosmancer wrote:
#109 CrazyMcNinja Sep 08, 2015 18:15:52	Improved Divine Smite is purposely written to allow up to 6d8 additional Radiant damage at level 17 when a Paladin finally obtains a 5th level spell slot. Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite are two separate sources of damage and thusly stack. The difference is that you have to use a spell slot to use Divine Smite. Improved Divine smite is always active and affects every attack you make, regardless of whether or not you use a spell slot to activate Divine Smite.
#110 Chaosmancer Sep 09, 2015 21:33:36	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#111 Dwarfslayer Sep 11, 2015 13:08:04	Logain08 wrote:
(Reply to #111) Logain08	Dwarfslayer wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Xeviat-DM

Sep 01, 2015 1:00:48

Hi everyone. A friend is interpreting the paladin's 11th level "Improved Divine Smite" ability differently than I have.

Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage. If you also use your Divine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite.

Lucas_Blackstone

Sep 01, 2015 1:23:23

Xeviat-DM wrote:

Slagger_the_Chuul

Sep 01, 2015 1:59:50

I think I'd go with Xeviat-DM's reading. You don't get two allocations of Improved Divine Smite damage, it's just telling you that the amount of damage you get from it isn't subsumed by your regular Divine Smite. That said, I can see the alternative working as well.

AndrewJO

Sep 01, 2015 2:43:47

It's basically saying that using divine smite doesn't negate improved divine smite

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 2:56:44

There's 2 readings.

1. When you have this feature and you use divine smite, instead of adding the extra 1d8 to the attack itself you add it to the divine smite damage roll. Basically the second sentence changes the feature's writing from:

"Add 1d8 radiant damage when you hit with an attack" to "Add 1d8 radiant damage to your damage roll when you use divine smite"

2. You get to add 1d8 radiant damage when you hit with an attack AND if you use divine smite you also add 1d8 radiant damage to that damage roll as well.

The problem I have with 1 is that it's totally weird to do it that way however I have a bigger problem with 2 because the original text lacks any of the usual words to indicate that the second sentence would be stating you get 1d8 radiant damage on both the attack itself on a hit and divine smite. Things like also, and, in addition, etc.. The two sentences aren't linked in the traditional way and seem exclusive which is why I'm leaning toward 1 being the answer here. I just have no idea why they would make it work that way.

EDIT: If it was to just say that improved divine smite doesn't block divine smite they sure chose a weird way to say it.

Yunru

Sep 01, 2015 2:57:47

You add 1d8 radiant to all you attacks. This is independant of any uses of divine smite.

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 3:54:43

Yunru wrote:

Yunru

Sep 01, 2015 4:13:44

Right, so if you hit and divine smite you do XdY+Mod+1d6+Divine Smite damage.

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 4:26:30

Yunru wrote:

#10

Yunru

Sep 01, 2015 4:33:52

But doesn't that make no practical difference anyway?

#11

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 5:11:38

Yunru wrote:

#12

Yunru

Sep 01, 2015 5:21:35

Oh I see. It could be adding to both the weapon and the smite, rather than moving from the weapon to the smite.

#13

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 5:26:52

Yunru wrote:

#14

Elfcrusher

Sep 01, 2015 5:37:25

I vote for the 'both' interpretation. Otherwise there is zero purpose to the second sentence.

#15

AndrewJO

Sep 01, 2015 5:47:58

The PHB is filled with sentences that have zero purpose. Just ask Jeremy Crawford for a ruling and post his answer here. If enough people ask for a ruling it will end up in the next errata.

(Reply to #14)

AaronOfBarbaria

Elfcrusher wrote:

#17

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 7:04:49

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#18

jaelis

Sep 01, 2015 7:08:01

It looks like they mean just +1d8 to me, not +2d8 with a spell slot smite.

#19

Elfcrusher

Sep 01, 2015 7:18:37

Oh, ok. I re-read it several more times, and I can see the 1d8 rationale now. Wow, talk about an unclear sentence.

They could have just said, "add 1d8 radiant damage to all of your attacks, whether or not you use Divine Smite."

#20

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 7:25:13

Yep they could have very easily stated that it stacks with Divine Smite. The way they did it now leads me to believe that if you Divine Smite you get 1d8 radiant on your attack if it hits and 1d8 radiant added to your divine smite damage roll as well. Double dipping the feature essentially. I just don't understand why they would have worded it the way they did otherwise.

(Reply to #19)

AaronOfBarbaria

Elfcrusher wrote:

#22

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 7:50:25

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#23

Elfcrusher

Sep 01, 2015 7:53:39

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #22)

AaronOfBarbaria

Noctaem wrote:

#25

Yunru

Sep 01, 2015 8:08:43

I however, have tweeted a while ago. And now the wait.

#26

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 8:16:40

Yunru wrote:

#27

Elfcrusher

Sep 01, 2015 9:05:19

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #27)

AaronOfBarbaria

Elfcrusher wrote:

#29

Coredump00

Sep 01, 2015 9:32:05

While double dipping may be nice, there is a 'not nice' reading also.

What if they do mean that you add the IDS +1D8 to the DS Xd8 to give you a 'new' Divine Smite of (X+1)D8..... not a problem until we remember that DS is capped at 5D8.

It means lvl 4 and lvl 5 slots give no benefit over lvl 3 slots.....

#30

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 10:19:21

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#31

Logain08

Sep 01, 2015 10:45:41

Well, if I may offer my two cents. The feature is called Improved Divine Smite, so maybe it does in fact add 1d8 to your Divine Smites as well. You basically smite a little bit with every attack (the +1d8 per hit with a melee weapon) and your Divine Smite feature gets better (a 1st level smite now does 2d8+1d8 damage), hence the improved part. I could see this going both ways.

I'm very interested what Crawford has to say on the matter!

#32

Bloodscythe

Sep 01, 2015 10:54:31

Hmm... I read the sentence to mean this:

If you hit with a weapon, you deal weapon damage + 1d8 radiant damage.

If you hit with a weapon, and you use smite, you deal weapon damage + 1d8 + smite damage.

I assumed the wording was to allow the paladin to "exceed" the 5d8 maximum of divine smite, since the 1d8 from "improved divine smite" is in addition to the damage caused by divine smite.

So if a paladin with improved divine smite makes a weapon attack, and hits, and uses a 4th lvl spell slot, they'll do weapon damage + 1d8 + 5d8.

#33

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 11:00:21

Bloodscythe wrote:

#34

Elfcrusher

Sep 01, 2015 11:07:34

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#35

Elfcrusher

Sep 01, 2015 11:09:13

Bloodscythe wrote:

(Reply to #35)

Bloodscythe

Elfcrusher wrote:

#37

Elfcrusher

Sep 01, 2015 13:10:11

Yeah, that makes sense. So the reason for the wonky second sentence is to make it clear that it breaks the 5d8 cap.

(Reply to #37)

Bloodscythe

Elfcrusher wrote:

(Reply to #38)

Lucas_Blackstone

Bloodscythe wrote:

#40

Noctaem

Sep 02, 2015 4:07:34

Lucas_Blackstone wrote:

#41

El_Condoro

Sep 02, 2015 5:38:36

It's called Improved Divine Smite because the paladin does not need to expend a (or any) spell slot/s to get the extra 1d8 radiant damage - "all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power".

So, an 11th-level+ paladin can do an extra 1d8 radiant damage with every melee weapon attack, and then add Divine Smite to that if he chooses, expending 1st- to 4th- level spell slots to gain the +2d8 to 5d8 radiant damage. He could do weapon damage + 6d8 radiant damage if of sufficient level and with enough spell slots.

(Reply to #41)

Logain08

El_Condoro wrote:

#43

TiaNadiezja

Sep 02, 2015 8:43:49

A.B.S. Always. Be. Smiting.

#44

Macv12

Sep 02, 2015 17:50:18

I read it as lowering the smiting floor, so Divine Smite costs a 0th-level spell slot +1d8 per slot after that, maxing at 6d8 now instead of 5. In effect. Makes sense to me how it's improved.

(Reply to #44)

Xeviat-DM

Macv12 wrote:

#46

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 5:27:43

Xeviat-DM wrote:

#47

El_Condoro

Sep 03, 2015 6:08:26

The improved smite does 1d8 to every melee attack of the paladin. It stacks with smite, which uses a paladin's spell slot/s to get the extra 2d8 to 5d8. So, 1d8 per melee attack or 3d8 to 6d8 additional radiant damage if smite is used. Not seeing the confusion here.

(Reply to #47)

Bloodscythe

El_Condoro wrote:

#49

El_Condoro

Sep 03, 2015 6:33:57

The numbers you provide seem to add up to us saying the same thing but the way it's done might differ. Minimum and maximum calculations below.

Improved Divine Smite: weapon + 1d8 radiant damage

(optional) Smite: 1st-level slot = 2d8 radiant damage (minimum)

Total damage: weapon + 3d8 radiant damage

Using 4th-level slot (maximum)

Total damage: weapon + 1d8 (improved smite) +5d8 (smite) = weapon + 6d8 radiant damage.

#50

jaelis

Sep 03, 2015 6:52:23

El_Condoro wrote:

#51

El_Condoro

Sep 03, 2015 7:03:46

Where is the support for that reading? The second sentence that has been quoted says,

If you use your Divine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite.

The "this damage" only makes sense if it relates to the 1d8 radiant damage of improved divine smite cited in the preceding sentence. There is no double-dipping - they just stack. Nowhere does it say divine smite is improved - they are two separate features, although a melee attack from an 11th-level+ paladin can use them simultaneously.

#52

Elfcrusher

Sep 03, 2015 7:37:33

El_Condoro wrote:

#53

Logain08

Sep 03, 2015 7:45:40

This is the full quote from the book:

"By 11th level, you are so suffused with righteous might that all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage. If you also use your Dvine Smite with an attack, you add this damage to the extra damage of your Divine Smite."

#54

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 7:46:17

jaelis wrote:

#55

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 7:52:57

Logain08 wrote:

(Reply to #55)

AaronOfBarbaria

Noctaem wrote:

#57

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 8:08:58

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #57)

AaronOfBarbaria

Noctaem wrote:

#59

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 8:27:57

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #59)

AaronOfBarbaria

Noctaem wrote:

#61

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 8:44:26

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#62

Elfcrusher

Sep 03, 2015 8:53:30

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#63

Logain08

Sep 03, 2015 8:53:33

I think Noctaem makes a convincing case and I think the sentence as written allows for his interpretation. That said, I would like official clarification on the matter. Especially the "also" in the last sentence of the Improved Divine Smite feature complicates matters a bit :-)

#64

Macv12

Sep 03, 2015 8:56:59

With Aaron on this one.

Using "they wouldn't have said that since it's technically unnecessary" doesn't do it for me. The rules are, allegedly, written in an imprecise common-English format that makes them easier to understand. That might include noting something that is already implied by the rules but wasn't immediately obvious. In this case, "Improved Divine Smite" could easily be taken as a feature that improves Divine Smite, even if it is technically a separate named feature. With the limit on how much damage Divine Smite can do, they would want to point out that "Improved Divine Smite" is not "improved Divine Smite," and its bonus damage isn't affected by the cap.

And, to fix the lunch analogy: "when you order lunch, you also get an apple. If you also order an apple basket, you add this apple to the extra apples in the basket." Here, "this apple" is obviously a single item, which is being added to the basket instead of being an a la carte item in the second case. It seems like the more sensible feature for them to have wanted to implement, and you can see how they could have arrived at the sentence in the PHB trying to explain it.

(Reply to #61)

AaronOfBarbaria

Noctaem wrote:

#66

jaelis

Sep 03, 2015 9:06:08

I think the language is legitimately unclear. Two examples that seem pretty parallel to me.

"Whenever you purchase gas at GasCo, you get a 10% discount. If you also buy candy in our snack shop, you get this discount on the candy price."

I think most people would not expect 20% off on their candy.

"Whenever you purchase $20 of gas at GasCo, you get an extra gallon of gas for free. If you also buy $20 worth of candy in our snack shop, you get this free gallon of gas."

I think most people would expect 2 gallons of free gas if they bought both gas and candy.

Maybe I'm wrong about how people would read those, I don't know. But that's how I would, and I'm not sure I could clearly say which one is closer to the smite rule.

(Reply to #65)

Logain08

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #62)

AaronOfBarbaria

Elfcrusher wrote:

(Reply to #67)

AaronOfBarbaria

Logain08 wrote:

#70

Logain08

Sep 03, 2015 9:21:40

Wasn't it Wittgenstein who said that meaning is use? I forgot, it's been a long time. Anyways, if meaning is indeed use then it's perfectly possible for two reasonable people to disagree on the meaning/use of the same concept or words.

Many language philosophers would argue that language is inherently ambiguous and is only intended to carry meaning for the users. (If I recall correctly)

(Reply to #70)

AaronOfBarbaria

Logain08 wrote:

(Reply to #56)

Bloodscythe

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #71)

Logain08

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#74

Elfcrusher

Sep 03, 2015 9:51:10

My turn:

"We'll give you a nickel back for every dollar worth of gas you buy. If you also come into the store and buy food, we'll apply this discount to your total bill."

Is it 5% off just the gas, or 5% off gas plus groceries? Either interpretation is gramatically valid.

At least in my mind, that's the most accurate analogy so far.

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#75

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 9:50:18

Logain08 wrote:

(Reply to #74)

AaronOfBarbaria

Elfcrusher wrote:

#77

shintashi

Sep 03, 2015 10:54:48

Xeviat-DM wrote:

#78

Elfcrusher

Sep 03, 2015 11:44:19

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#79

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 12:16:57

Elfcrusher wrote:

#80

Veleria

Sep 03, 2015 13:13:51

Question, would this feature allow you to apply normal weapon damage to creatures immune/resistant to non magical weapons? Is the attack considered magical, or is just the d8 radiant added after whatever penalties to damage occur?

#81

El_Condoro

Sep 03, 2015 13:52:45

Elfcrusher wrote:

#82

El_Condoro

Sep 03, 2015 13:58:02

Veleria wrote:

#83

Saeviomagy

Sep 03, 2015 21:28:14

You can have 1-8 apples for your meal. If you also decide to have a sandwich you add that amount of apples to your meal.

#84

El_Condoro

Sep 03, 2015 21:45:01

Except it's the other way around. You have a sandwich for lunch. If you choose to have apples with your lunch you can add them to the meal. Strange way to talk about a picnic but this is D&D.

(Reply to #83)

AaronOfBarbaria

Saeviomagy wrote:

#86

Noctaem

Sep 04, 2015 5:01:54

Saeviomagy wrote:

#87

Noctaem

Sep 04, 2015 5:13:37

Veleria wrote:

#88

Elfcrusher

Sep 04, 2015 6:17:55

I still think y'all are changing the original language with your analogies in ways that bias the meaning. In this case you're replacing a bonus to something with just a something. If that makes sense.

Here's the original language:

So doing just word replacement to change the context:

"By 11th level, you are so deserving of extra calories that all your orders get bonus goodies with them. Whenever you order a regular coffee at the coffee shop, you also get a bonus doughnut. If you also redeem a coupon for an espresso drink, you add this bonus to the extra drink ."

If you order a coffee and you redeem a coupon for a triple caramel latte, how many doughnuts do you get?

The ambiguity comes because it's not clear if "this bonus" means the actual doughnut you got with the coffee, or the more abstract concept of a free bonus. And that is how the original is written.

The way a lot of you are writing your examples, instead of "you add this bonus" you would have written "you add this doughnut". I agree that would be much more clear, but it's also not an accurate analogue to the original.

#89

Noctaem

Sep 04, 2015 6:42:03

Elfcrusher wrote:

#90

Quad_Hund

Sep 04, 2015 7:45:40

Noctaem wrote:

#91

shintashi

Sep 04, 2015 7:57:23

i dont see the confusion. if you simply think of the power as +1d8 always, and then read the divine smite rules seperately, then it stacks normally without problems. it's a nice feature that implies a paladin might do something like 2 attacks at 2d8+x, instead of 2 attacks at 1d8+x. Come to think of it, if you aren't doing weapon shield, and instead do two weapon fighting, you could have 2d8 + x 3 times per round as a paladin. +3 +2d10 for avenger, +2d6 for a flame tongue, +2 +1d8 with a sun blade (like the one in the new abyss adventure). So theoretically, 3d8+7 or better 3 times per round is possible,

with a high of around 2d8+2d10+12 x 3, which is 48-144 (96), using 2 avengers, two weapon fighting, and a belt of storm giant strength. That's the same as a fighter using a two handed weapon +3 four times per round with a storm giant belt. Hmnn... i think a fighter is more likely to get a +3 greatsword than a paladin is to get two holy avengers.

With no magic items it looks like the paladin gets 2d8+5 x3, or 21-63 (42). Vs. a Fighter Getting 5 attacks per round at 1d8+5 x5, or 30-65 (47) two weapon fighting, or 2d6+5 x4, 28-68 (48) using a great sword.

I think this constant radiant damage bonus gets the paladin closer to the fighter on average, but doesn't exceed it. The Radiant bonus from using once per day or spell slots is similar to the d12s the fighter gets to add. Factoring in Action surge it all works out.

#92

shintashi

Sep 04, 2015 8:02:23

Quad_Hund wrote:

#93

Quad_Hund

Sep 04, 2015 8:25:16

shintashi wrote:

#94

Chaosmancer

Sep 04, 2015 14:17:42

My two cents about the improved divine smite.

If you hit with divine smite you move the improved divine smite +1d8 to merge with the divine smite damage. I'm not great at math sentences but I'll try to show it.

Normal attack with greatsword:

(2d6+mod slashing)

Divine Smite (lv 1) with greatsword

(2d6+mod slashing) + (2d8 radiant)

Normal attack, improved divine smite, with greatsword

(2d6+mod slashing)+(1d8 radiant)

Divine Smite (lv 1), improved divine smite, with greatsword

(2d6+mod) + (3d8 radiant)

So the second sentence does two things in my mind. First it tells us that Divine Smite's limits do not apply to the d8 from improved divine smite, you could end up doing 7d8 radiant to fiends and undead for example. Secondly it tells us that all Divine Smite damage is in the same grouping. Someone mentioned that is odd, but it actually makes a little sense if people are exactingly specific about the math involving resistance. (1/2 d8) + (1/2 2d8) could easily give a very different result than (1/2 3d8) if od numbers are rolled. Does it make any practical difference? No, not really, but the intent seems to be there for me.

#95

El_Condoro

Sep 04, 2015 15:37:42

I agree with most of that except the maximum smite damage that can be done is 6d8 radiant (1d8 for improved smite and a maximum of 5d8 for smite). Vulnerability would then double the damage done, if it applied (such as a shadow demon). Also vulnerability and resistance are done after the damage dice are rolled, so a creature that is resistant to radiant damage (can't think of any) would take 6d8 /2 damage rather than 1d8 /2 + 5d8 /2 damage.

(Reply to #95)

Chaosmancer

El_Condoro wrote:

#97

El_Condoro

Sep 07, 2015 3:54:15

Yes, I think that is probably right.

#98

Coredump00

Sep 07, 2015 7:44:28

I think it is fairly clear that IDS does not 'double dip' with Divine Smite, but is written that way to show it 'adds' to the cap.

But I also think it is only *fairly* clear.... I would not want to bet much either way until JC chimes in.

#99

JackOfAllTirades

Sep 07, 2015 23:52:08

All of this semantic tug-of-war notwithstanding, does the Paladin class really need the extra d8 provided by the "double dip" version of Improved Divine Smite?

Or is it powerful enough the other way?

#100

Logain08

Sep 08, 2015 0:57:15

I think what the paladin needs and how the wording of Improved Divine Smite should be interpreted are two different and unrelated questions.

But to actually answer your question: no idea. I have very little knowledge on how strong the paladin is based on its own merits or compared to other damage dealing (martial) classes. I think other people on these boards are more qualified to answer your question. In my experience though, the paladin is quite strong, but I'm not level 11 yet and I don't know how it will compare to the other classes in my group at that point.

(Reply to #100)

Xeviat-DM

Logain08 wrote:

#102

Chaosmancer

Sep 08, 2015 4:10:12

Xeviat-DM wrote:

#103

Noctaem

Sep 08, 2015 5:36:42

Being a good burst damage class does not make you overpowered simply because the features you get almost 3/4 of the way through your trek to level 20 add 1d8 to your attacks and 1d8 if you smite. It's ridiculous to claim that makes it overpowered and then dismiss the argument that it's a double dip. It's not overpowered at all.

#104

Elfcrusher

Sep 08, 2015 11:16:38

I'm placing my bet on single dip, but in that case not only is the language strange, but so is the title. "Improved Divine Smite" does not, to me, suggest a completely different mechanic from "Divine Smite".

That's like calling a rogue's shortsword his "Improved Sneak Attack".

#105

JackOfAllTirades

Sep 08, 2015 12:04:45

Chaosmancer wrote:

#106

Chaosmancer

Sep 08, 2015 14:52:17

Noctaem wrote:

#107

Logain08

Sep 08, 2015 15:00:15

Okay, so the paladin is capable of doing excellent burst damage even without the double dip. That may be a good reason to rule against the double dip for many or it may not. But that doesn't change the fact that, for me and some others here, the language of the feature is not as clear as it could be and so I would still like a clarification on the matter from Crawford as to how it is meant to work.

#108

Xeviat-DM

Sep 08, 2015 17:48:58

Chaosmancer wrote:

#109

CrazyMcNinja

Sep 08, 2015 18:15:52

Improved Divine Smite is purposely written to allow up to 6d8 additional Radiant damage at level 17 when a Paladin finally obtains a 5th level spell slot. Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite are two separate sources of damage and thusly stack.

The difference is that you have to use a spell slot to use Divine Smite. Improved Divine smite is always active and affects every attack you make, regardless of whether or not you use a spell slot to activate Divine Smite.

#110

Chaosmancer

Sep 09, 2015 21:33:36

Xeviat-DM wrote:

#111

Dwarfslayer

Sep 11, 2015 13:08:04

Logain08 wrote:

(Reply to #111)

Logain08

Dwarfslayer wrote: