D&D 3rd Edition House RulesPost your house rules, custom classes, spells, feats and other stuff here. For D&D 3rd Edition and all older editions of D&D.
I came up with this because Smite Evil has always seemed like a cool power but its execution is pretty pathetic (wasted if attack is a miss, low bonus to attack and damage for a 1/day/5 levels ability).
I came up with 3 changes, everything else about it stays the same.
1) The "use" is not expended if the attack misses and a natural 1 is not an automatic miss.
2) The attack bonus, instead of +1 per point of Charisma modifier, is +1 per point of Wisdom modifier PER LEVEL--up to a maximum amount equal to 1/2 the character's Wisdom score.
3) The damage bonus, instead of +1/(paladin) level is +1 per point of Charisma modifier PER LEVEL--up to a maximum amount equal to the character's Charisma score.
Example:
Arthur (3rd Pal, Wis 14, Cha 16) makes a Smite Evil attack. He gains a +6 (+2 Wis mod X 3 levels) bonus to his attack roll for the Smite attack and +9 (+3 Cha mod X 3 levels) damage. At 10th level (and beyond), Arthur's Smite provides a +7 to attack and +16 to damage.
These numbers are out of hand. I think it is too good at that point. CHA to hit and paladin level to damage seems fine to me. If you reall wanted to go crazy you could do CHA + paladin level to damage.
Sadrik, you apparently misread what I wrote. The bonus to attack is +1 per Wisdom modifier per level, up to a MAXIMUM of 1/2 the character's Wisdom score. So, a paladin with a 20 Wis would still get a maximum of +10 to his attack roll.
For damage, +1 per point of Charisma modiifier per level, up to a MAXIMUM of the character's Charisma score. So your 20th level paladin with a Cha 22 would do only +22 damage with his Smite, not +120.
If you were thinking of uncapped bonuses, yeah, I could see your point, but I stated specifically in my original post about capping damage at their Cha score.
Sadrik, you apparently misread what I wrote. The bonus to attack is +1 per Wisdom modifier per level, up to a MAXIMUM of 1/2 the character's Wisdom score. So, a paladin with a 20 Wis would still get a maximum of +10 to his attack roll.
For damage, +1 per point of Charisma modiifier per level, up to a MAXIMUM of the character's Charisma score. So your 20th level paladin with a Cha 22 would do only +22 damage with his Smite, not +120.
If you were thinking of uncapped bonuses, yeah, I could see your point, but I stated specifically in my original post about capping damage at their Cha score.
4th level paladin with 18 CHA deals +16 damage and maxs out at +18 damage at 5th level. Not much to look forward to...
except increase Cha and/or Wis, additional uses per day through feats, additional uses through levels.
That's a pretty good start, it seems to me, for an ability that is awfully weak as it stands now. Nothing in the paladin class scales with every level except Lay on Hands. A paladin's cha and wis will increase, slowly, but they will increase and as paladin levels rise, the frequency will too.
Now: 5th level Pal (18 Cha); +4 to hit, +5 damage; 2/day.
Now: 20th level Pal (24 Cha); +7 to hit, +20 damage; 5/day.
My Idea: 5th level Pal (16 Wis, 18 Cha); +8 to hit, +18 damage; 2/day.
My Idea: 20th level Pal (20 Wis, 24 Cha); +10 to hit, +24 damage; 5/day.
That's a pretty decent difference and it is something to look forward to.
I think Smite's mostly fine as-is, though I did houserule any smite attack to gain the appropriate alignment type added to the damage. In other words, any Smite Evil attack is made as if using a "good" aligned weapon.
Charging Smite variant and the Tactical feat in Complete Champion can also help add some more kick to it.
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
Why exactly do you think Smite is "mostly fine as-is"? It doesn't even compare to Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization or Favored Enemy or Rage or Flurry of Blows. For a fighting class, the paladin is pretty weak sauce and their Smite Evil is more like Tickle Evil for all it does.
Fighters get their thing against all enemies as long as they have the right weapon. Rangers get serious damage and skill bonuses against certain enemies. Barbarians get darn good Str/Con and Will bonuses against all enemies several times a day. And Monks get silly numbers of attacks and potential damage against all enemies all the time. While the paladin gets a moderate bonus to hit, a proportionately tiny amount of damage but only against some enemies, and only if they hit, and if they miss, its a waste.
How exactly is that "mostly fine as-is" for a melee fighting class, either standing on its own or compared to other classes.
Smite can sure as heck stand for some improvements. Just from the name alone, it should indicate some bad guy about to get bitch slapped upside the head! No one in the Bible that was on the receiving end of a smite got up and walked away from it! And any other books with divine characters that were able to smite or call a smiting down on someone, they walloped the heck out of whoever was getting the smite. 1hp damage per paladin level is pretty pathetic for a Smite (anything).
I think the damage itself is fine - what's NOT fine is how many times/day they can use it. At 5/day, it's a very weak ability. If they could use it, say, 1/round, that would be a powerful ability. Or, hell, let's say 1/minute - that's basically an encounter power, where he gets +Cha to attack and +class level to damage.
The way I did it, FWIW, is this:
Quote:
1 + Cha bonus times per day, a paladin can attempt to smite good or evil (depending on her alignment), or someone of an opposing faith (no matter the alignment) as a standard action with a melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 2 extra points of damage per class level, plus her Charisma bonus. Any class-based abilities that would normally apply to a melee attack (sneak attack, e.g.) can be added to this roll also, if applicable. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not of an opposing alignment of faith, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.
Although I just now noticed that I didn't stipulate that a missed attack = equals a wasted smite; that's just stupid.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
It's mostly fine because +level damage is pretty good. I'm also accustomed to seeing Paladins use it on a mounted charge for x3 damage, of course... But I don't see how it's worse than +1 to hit and +2 damage from focus/specialization. Or how it's much worse than a completely maxed out (increased at every opportunity) favored enemy bonus. And you're far more likely to fight evil than a specific creature type. Granted it's only one attack, while those are constant, which leads to...
I agree with Kerrick. It's weakness is mainly the tiny amounts of use per day. I also don't want to give the Paladin a ton of usages and then let him unload them all in a massive nova on the BBEG either, though...
How broken would it be if the Paladin had no daily Smite limit, but instead could only smite a given enemy x times per encounter, with x being the number of times per day the Paladin progression currently allows? In other words, each encounter at level 20, a Paladin could Smite a given evil enemy up to 5 times. If there were a dozen evil enemies, he could smite each and every one of them that many times over the course of the fight theoretically.
In order to discourage the Paladin from going on a "smite frenzy" with such a rule, there should probably be a penalty associated with trying to smite an enemy that turns out to be non-evil*. Like -1 smite usage per foe per encounter for the rest of that encounter...or the rest of that day... Otherwise, the Paladin has no reason to not make his first attack on any foe a Smite Evil just in case.
*Exact legal text could be something like: "If the enemy you attempt to Smite is not evil and you had not first tried to Detect Evil on him..."
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
I'd just make it x times per encounter - that would be more than enough for most encounters, IMO. x per enemy means the paladin would be doing nothing BUT smiting if he comes up against evil enemies (which, granted, would be fairly realistic, but not very fun gameplay-wise - the rest of the party could just sit back while the paladin charges in and smites everyone to death). Besides, having it per enemy means someone (most likely the player) will have to keep track of how many times a given enemy's been smitten; if everyone's moving around, or if you're using markers for other things as well, this could quickly get very confusing.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
