Where is my ranged smiting?

i just realized that divine smite requires a melee attack.  WHY?


...I realize this is hardly the biggest flaw with divine smite (not seperate from channel divinity, doesn't scale, acts only buffs damage once rather than for each attack until the target is dead), though that last one doesn't really matter much given the nature of 5e combat.  Not to mention the pitiful lay on hands healing (or the fact that it also uses channel divinity), or the fact that the paladin doesn't get the mount until level 8.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Where have you seen divine smiting that isn't a ranged attack? It was that way in 3E/3.5, and I'm fairly certain that paladins were limited to melee smites in 4E as well.

That it is a melee attack is pretty much the definition of what a smite is.

The metagame is not the game.

Pathfinder.  One can quite literally smite someone witha revolver in pathfinder, "have gun, will travel" as they say.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Pathfinder.  One can quite literally smite someone witha revolver in pathfinder, "have gun, will travel" as they say.



Well, there's yer problem right there.


smite
  (smt)
v. smote (smt), smit·ten (smtn) or smote, smit·ing, smites

v.tr.
1.
a. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.

b. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else.


2. To attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows.

3.
a. To afflict: The population was smitten by the plague.

b. To afflict retributively; chasten or chastise.


4. To affect sharply with great feeling: He was smitten by deep remorse.


v.intr.
To deal a blow with or as if with the hand or a hand-held weapon.




As with most of the above definition above, I think that smiting should be done as part of hitting with a melee attack, the smiting being an extra "oomph", the paladin saying "According to my Oath and philosophy, you should get your head bashed in!".

Paladins are also very much a hands-on-class : Lay on Hands, several aura effects radiating from themselves. Their spell list includes no spells that can damage from range (except Cure Wounds, but that's only to undead).
Their whole creed is getting up close and personal, smashing things that "just aren't right", according to their Oath.

That's why smiting is treated as an extra damage bonus effect on top of a successful melee hit, not a seperate "ranged touch attack" whereby the paladin projects his force of will into the shape of (insert deity/oaths preferred weapon) and bashing his opponent on the head with it.

Sounds like a smite to me...

I see no reason why there shouldn't be an option for ranged smiting. There's trickster clerics, might as well be archer paladins too.
Sounds like a smite to me...

I see no reason why there shouldn't be an option for ranged smiting. There's trickster clerics, might as well be archer paladins too.

but why shouldn't smite just be "when you make a successful attack with a weapon", why does it have to be melee or ranged, that just seems arbitrarily restrictive.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Pathfinder.  One can quite literally smite someone witha revolver in pathfinder, "have gun, will travel" as they say.



Well, there's yer problem right there.


smite
  (smt)
v. smote (smt), smit·ten (smtn) or smote, smit·ing, smites

v.tr.
1.
a. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.

b. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else.


2. To attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows.

3.
a. To afflict: The population was smitten by the plague.

b. To afflict retributively; chasten or chastise.


4. To affect sharply with great feeling: He was smitten by deep remorse.


v.intr.
To deal a blow with or as if with the hand or a hand-held weapon.




As with most of the above definition above, I think that smiting should be done as part of hitting with a melee attack, the smiting being an extra "oomph", the paladin saying "According to my Oath and philosophy, you should get your head bashed in!".

Paladins are also very much a hands-on-class : Lay on Hands, several aura effects radiating from themselves. Their spell list includes no spells that can damage from range (except Cure Wounds, but that's only to undead).
Their whole creed is getting up close and personal, smashing things that "just aren't right", according to their Oath.


this could easily be done with a longbow or throwing weapon.



That's why smiting is treated as an extra damage bonus effect on top of a successful melee hit, not a seperate "ranged touch attack" whereby the paladin projects his force of will into the shape of (insert deity/oaths preferred weapon) and bashing his opponent on the head with it.


no idea where you got this part from, i said "smite someone with a [ranged weapon]" not seperate ranged touch attack.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Right now, smite is melee-only due to precident.

3e/3.5 restricted Smite Evil to melee weapon attacks, and the only 4e Paladin smites I've been able to find are melee powers as well (can someone with better info confirm/deny this?), while it didn't exist at all prior to 3e. Pathfinder is the only game I know of that allows a paladin to Smite at range, and there was some argument about that too.
All that being said, there's not really a good reason why a paladin shouldn't be able to smite from a safe distance, like a dirty coward. You should include it in your feedback for the next packet.

The metagame is not the game.

All that being said, there's not really a good reason why a paladin shouldn't be able to smite from a safe distance, like a dirty coward. You should include it in your feedback for the next packet.


is this the face of a coward?

mainly i just want my halfling paladin to be able to switch back and forth between a longbow and katana while riding a celestial pony (but that's the topic for my OTHER paladin thread)



"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

It's one of those minor things that can be fixed with DM fiat, alternate class features, feats, prestige classes, and so on. I don't think the default paladin needs anything more than a melee smite, but I also don't think the default fighter should have archer options, so what the hell do I know?
Yeah, Legolas wasn't a paladin. Maybe you've heard of the ranger class?
Yeah, Legolas wasn't a paladin. Maybe you've heard of the ranger class?

fun fact: i never said he was a paladin.  I said he was not a coward.

Protip: read a post before commenting on it. 

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

There was never a claim that Legolas was a paladin, merely that he was an archer and not a coward.

Anyways, besides precident (which seems to be a major part of the basis of D&D Next), the primary argument against paladins being able to smite at range is that it feels wrong - that the role of the paladin should be to engage in melee, taking on the brunt of the danger for their allies. Or at least, not to stay in the rear lines where they are more guarded from danger. Having the smite be keyed to melee attacks encourages the paladin to then build with melee in mind.

That being said, the argument stood better when the paladin was meant to represent an idealized knight. With paladin having been expanded to be a paragon of various ideals, the ability to smite at range seems fitting to certain character concepts.
There was never a claim that Legolas was a paladin, merely that he was an archer and not a coward.

Anyways, besides precident (which seems to be a major part of the basis of D&D Next), the primary argument against paladins being able to smite at range is that it feels wrong - that the role of the paladin should be to engage in melee, taking on the brunt of the danger for their allies. Or at least, not to stay in the rear lines where they are more guarded from danger. Having the smite be keyed to melee attacks encourages the paladin to then build with melee in mind.

That being said, the argument stood better when the paladin was meant to represent an idealized knight. With paladin having been expanded to be a paragon of various ideals, the ability to smite at range seems fitting to certain character concepts.

agreed, let's say i wanted to make a paldin of Thor (i realize the Norse equivilent to the paladin was actually the berserker, but never mind that), then i should be able smite my enemies with a thrown hammer.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

That being said, the argument stood better when the paladin was meant to represent an idealized knight. With paladin having been expanded to be a paragon of various ideals, the ability to smite at range seems fitting to certain character concepts.

Quite so. After what happened with the samurai class in 3.5, though, I'm just worried that (nature) paladin will take over as the go-to class for snipers.

The metagame is not the game.

The smiting at range "Paladin" that I always wanted to see in 4E was a crossbow wielding vampire slaying van richten looking avenger. I think that the basic paladin set up as a melee only is fine, but if a letter ruleset makes a vampire and undead slayer I think a ranged paladin as opposed to a Ranger would fit very well. Maybe Downgrade the armor and up some abilities to sneak and investigate cities rumored to be brimming with cultists of Orcus.
There is no real mechanical reason for it to be melee only and if you feel it should work so, then I'd just talk to your DM to see if you can change it.

I had a similair thing happen in my 4E game where a player was using a Slayer with a bow asked if he could use his Power Strike with ranged attacks. I said sure and changed the name to Power Shot. Worked fine.
in3.5 there was a feat that let you ranged sneak attack

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

in3.5 there was a feat that let you ranged sneak attack



Do you mean at any range? Because Sneak Attack by default allowed you to apply it to ranged attacks within 30ft in 3.5.
in3.5 there was a feat that let you ranged sneak attack




And Zen Archery is sweet (use Wis instead of Dex).
in3.5 there was a feat that let you ranged sneak attack



Do you mean at any range? Because Sneak Attack by default allowed you to apply it to ranged attacks within 30ft in 3.5.



no I meant Smite... in the book of exaulted there was a Ranged SMITE feat...

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?