Okay, I've got some thoughts. One, and simplest, the restriction to smites being delivered with a melee weapon is too restrictive. Why can't you punch and smite? I'm going to say a melee attack is good enough.
Now, the big one; ranged attacks. In Clearing the Temple, I let Nick have Andre throw the severed head of a vampire spawn at the master vampire and smite him. While that may fall under the Rule of Cool, I do think there needs to be a missile weapon rule for smites. The Ranger spells Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, and Lightning Arrow are basically smite type spells, but Ensnaring Strike works with the next weapon hit of any kind, Hail of Thorns is the next successful ranged weapon attack and Lightning Arrow affects a specific ranged attack and if you miss, it does half damage. So there are examples that go all the possible directions. I want to say that smites go off on your next attack, ranged or melee, but part of me feels that is too much. The complicated but possibly more balanced ruling would be that you CAN smite with a missile weapon, BUT you have to declare the smite before you roll, and if you miss, the smite is lost and you expend the spell slot used to power it. That could lead to interesting results if your smite empowered projectile hits something else…
Also, in favor of ranged smites, is the rule that some cleric domains get a damage boost at 8th and just says weapon, so ranged attacks are good.
Hmmmm. Also, monster attacks like claw and bite are melee weapon attacks. Why not punches?
Paladin Smites
