Rane- said:This is for PvP only;
In what circumstance would you use Smite over Hammer? I can't think of a single matchup where I would use Smite instead of Hammer if I had both at my disposal (ala Vanquisher). Is there a single opponent that Smite is better against?
Anger-DRS said:I guess its just..different, though a combination of hammers plus Smite with O/W was fun against ES sorcs.
Toastes said:If they're in your top-left region (or even top) in melee range, you hammer them.
If they're on your bottom right or below you, you smite them. After smiting them a few times, try to pop out a hammer. That will generally put them in range to get hit.
Rane- said:It just seems redundant. Hammer is better than ANY melee out there. Smite is better than almost all melee, but there are a few matchups it can't win. Why would you get Smite when you could get something else to compliment your matchup vs ranged attackers? I just don't see how Vanquishers could beat good casters (let alone why you'd hinder yourself like that by neglecting any type of ranged attack.)
Diabolico x64 said:Well, a good melee player will be able to beat any kind of character with a smiter, including a hammerdin.
fugitive alien2 said:explain how to kill a desynching hammerdin with smite and you'll be awarded the pally nobel prize for 1.10
Rane- said:So back on topic;
Is there any time when Smite is better than Hammer? (The only reason I see to use Smite is that it requires less skill points, so for Hybrids that can't afford a strong Hammer, you're better off with a decent Smite.) But is there a time when Smite is actually BETTER than Hammer?