Extra Smite

[Wik]

Extra Smite
You can smite your enemies more often per day.
Prerequisites: Smite Attack
Benefit: You can use any smite attack you have two more times per day. The smite attack follows all normal rules in it's use; this feat merely allows you to make two additional attacks per day.

***

I think it's pretty straightforward. It really has less use than Extra Rage (already approved), since Extra rage gives two extra uses of rage, and lasts longer. So, yeah, it's a minor feat, but one I think could be helpful.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Extra Smite
You can smite your enemies more often per day.
Prerequisites: Smite Attack
Benefit: You can use any smite attack you have two more times per day. The smite attack follows all normal rules in it's use; this feat merely allows you to make two additional attacks per day.

***

I think it's pretty straightforward. It really has less use than Extra Rage (already approved), since Extra rage gives two extra uses of rage, and lasts longer. So, yeah, it's a minor feat, but one I think could be helpful.

Wait, I thought we had that other one where you have to lose half your HP first instead of Extra Rage? Do we have both? Anyway, it's worth noting that Smite is a bit more rare in uses / day than Rage (1 at 1st + every 5, rather than every 4). On the other hand, Extra Rage lets you dip in Barbarian much more easily than this lets you dip in Paladin (multiclass restrictions and smite damage scales by Paladin level). It's probably not a problem. I'll see what other Judges and regular denizens have to say first.

 

[Wik]

We have an Extra rage feat that basically says +2 rages/day.

Since a rage lasts several rounds (let's say about 5, for the sake of an argument), you're essentially getting +2 on attack and damage, plus extra hit points, for ten more rounds a day. Whereas with smite, you get a similar bonus, on a single attack, against an evil foe, for two rounds per day.

As written, this feat is *much* worse than a feat that was already voted in. Even if it were 3 extra smites, it wouldn't necessarily be as good. And since you need to be a 2nd level paladin (or a 1st level cleric who burned a domain) to get into this, as opposed to a 1st level barbarian who took the dip, yeah, I'd say this feat was on the weaker side of things.

THe only reason I'm proposing it is because a) There are very few good feats for paladins; b) those rare good feats are not really an option for Galwynn (who uses a greatsword).

Galwynn's only option is this feat, or Improved Initiative. Which is lame.

 

[Bront]

Is there already an WoTC feat for extra smites?

Just want to make sure we don't rewrite it.

 

[Rystil Arden]

We have an Extra rage feat that basically says +2 rages/day.

Since a rage lasts several rounds (let's say about 5, for the sake of an argument), you're essentially getting +2 on attack and damage, plus extra hit points, for ten more rounds a day. Whereas with smite, you get a similar bonus, on a single attack, against an evil foe, for two rounds per day.

As written, this feat is *much* worse than a feat that was already voted in. Even if it were 3 extra smites, it wouldn't necessarily be as good. And since you need to be a 2nd level paladin (or a 1st level cleric who burned a domain) to get into this, as opposed to a 1st level barbarian who took the dip, yeah, I'd say this feat was on the weaker side of things.

THe only reason I'm proposing it is because a) There are very few good feats for paladins; b) those rare good feats are not really an option for Galwynn (who uses a greatsword).

Galwynn's only option is this feat, or Improved Initiative. Which is lame.

I don't agree with you that 2 extra smites is worse than 2 extra rages. It has to be considered holistically as part of the Paladin package. Also, the Smite bonuses are vastly superior at high levels (though admittedly limited to one strike and not a duration).

That said, I still don't have anything against this feat, as I said before--I just disagree with your reasoning in that last post

 

[Rae ArdGaoth]

Compared to Extra Rage, this seems rather underpowered. If you're stuck for feats, you might want to post Galwynn at the Rules Thread. They helped me out with Rasereit's feat selection just recently.

 

[Wik]

Is there already an WoTC feat for extra smites?

Just want to make sure we don't rewrite it.

There is, but there's also OGL versions, too. It's a pretty common feat. I think the wotc version is from 3.0, and it gives +1 (which is tiny).

It's not in the SRD.

***

RA: Smites aren't vastly superior at higher levels. In fact, they're worse. At low levels, smtie and rage are about equal in damage ability (the rage is all around better, since it offers HP and Will save bonuses, but that's not the point here).

I'll give the math. Let's assume we have a barbarian and a paladin, with 10s in all stats (silly, I know, but it makes the math easier). Both are humans. Let's also assume that they only fight evil opponents (or it tips things even more in favour of the barbarian) One has taken extra rage, the other extra smite.

At 5th level ('high level' for us), the barbarian will have 4 rages per day, while the paladin will have 4 smites.

The Barbarian can rage for a total of 20 rounds per day, and has a +2 bonus on attack and damage while raging. Yeah, there are peripheral effects, too, but let's just look at combat.
Assuming the barbarian hits about half the time, that's 20 points of bonus damage.

The Paladin will get a small bonus to her attack roll (if she had a charisma modifier), and deals 5 extra points of damage per attack. If she hits half the time, that's 10 points of bonus damage.

At 10th level:

The barbarian's gets 5 rages per day, at the same bonuses. That's 25 rounds. Again, assuming half the attacks hit, it's still around 25 points of damage.

Our paladin has 5 smites. Each smite now does 10 points of damage. Assuming half hit, that's... 25 points of damage.

20th level changes things, though.

The barbarian will have 8 rages, each at +3 to attack and damage. And they last longer (6 rounds a rage, and he's no longer tired!). So, 48 rounds per day of rage. If half his attacks hit (and the bonus has gone up, meaning the barbarian is more accurate than the paladin), he's inflicting 72 points of bonus damage.

Our paladin has 7 smites, each at +20 on damage. No big changes. If half hit... he's dealing 70 points of damage.

But there's a catch - at 20th level, the raging barbarian is making 4 attacks per round, while the smiting paladin is making one. Which ups the damage potential of the barbarian. About the only advantage a smite has over a rage is that there's no exhaustion at the end, and that you can make multiple ones per day - So our paladin can smite 7 rounds in a row... while our barbarian can stay in a single rage for 6.

There's a definite closeness in the numbers, but I think there's still a slight edge on the barbarian.

 

[Rystil Arden]

There is, but there's also OGL versions, too. It's a pretty common feat. I think the wotc version is from 3.0, and it gives +1 (which is tiny).

It's not in the SRD.

***

RA: Smites aren't vastly superior at higher levels. In fact, they're worse. At low levels, smtie and rage are about equal in damage ability (the rage is all around better, since it offers HP and Will save bonuses, but that's not the point here).

I'll give the math. Let's assume we have a barbarian and a paladin, with 10s in all stats (silly, I know, but it makes the math easier). Both are humans. Let's also assume that they only fight evil opponents (or it tips things even more in favour of the barbarian) One has taken extra rage, the other extra smite.

At 5th level ('high level' for us), the barbarian will have 4 rages per day, while the paladin will have 4 smites.

The Barbarian can rage for a total of 20 rounds per day, and has a +2 bonus on attack and damage while raging. Yeah, there are peripheral effects, too, but let's just look at combat.
Assuming the barbarian hits about half the time, that's 20 points of bonus damage.

The Paladin will get a small bonus to her attack roll (if she had a charisma modifier), and deals 5 extra points of damage per attack. If she hits half the time, that's 10 points of bonus damage.

At 10th level:

The barbarian's gets 5 rages per day, at the same bonuses. That's 25 rounds. Again, assuming half the attacks hit, it's still around 25 points of damage.

Our paladin has 5 smites. Each smite now does 10 points of damage. Assuming half hit, that's... 25 points of damage.

20th level changes things, though.

The barbarian will have 8 rages, each at +3 to attack and damage. And they last longer (6 rounds a rage, and he's no longer tired!). So, 48 rounds per day of rage. If half his attacks hit (and the bonus has gone up, meaning the barbarian is more accurate than the paladin), he's inflicting 72 points of bonus damage.

Our paladin has 7 smites, each at +20 on damage. No big changes. If half hit... he's dealing 70 points of damage.

But there's a catch - at 20th level, the raging barbarian is making 4 attacks per round, while the smiting paladin is making one. Which ups the damage potential of the barbarian. About the only advantage a smite has over a rage is that there's no exhaustion at the end, and that you can make multiple ones per day - So our paladin can smite 7 rounds in a row... while our barbarian can stay in a single rage for 6.

There's a definite closeness in the numbers, but I think there's still a slight edge on the barbarian.

I think everything in your analysis is chosen for a ridiculous edge case (except the 'Paladin is only making 1 attack per round' bit, which is just totally wrong). I don't need to get into all of them since I'm not going to try a reanalysis (but to be fair, you have to consider that you picked level 5 when you could have picked 4 or 8, and you picked 10 in all stats when you certainly realise that the Paladin, like the Monk, shines the higher the stats go).

Obviously a Barbarian is going to outdamage a Paladin. That's totally not the point. The question is whether in the context of Paladin this feat is stronger than Extra Rage in the context of Barbarian. Frex, the level 20 Barbarian won't need the extra rages almost any day, since she'll already have enough to cover every battle. The feat is worthless to her most days. The Paladin will always have opportunities to use the extra smites exactly because the smites each only cover a single attack.

That said, when it comes down to it, I am in favour of your feat. I'm just really not in favour of your analysis

 

[Wik]

I'm just giving the info in terms of damage. And it's right - a barbarian can outdamage the paladin, and a rage is core to the barbarian, while smite is peripheral to the paladin.

I just don't think smites are really much better than a barbarian's rage in terms of damage - the paladin is always worse in damage with a smite. And, even without rage and smite, I think the barbarian would win out. Higher Hit Dice, no huge ability drain (so higher combat attributes), more skills, mobility (granted, a lower AC, but by much, since the barbarian should be able to put some more points into Dex), defensive traits... whereas the paladin has some piddly spells, a few save auras, and a horse that really doesn't come into play too often.

As for the ability thing - I was just doing it to show how they function in a level playing field. In reality, the barbarian will do much more damage - multiple attacks per round (any round you smite, you only get one) while ragin, and the fact that barbarians don't need to put points into Wisdom and Charisma. Really, Smite is BY FAR weaker than Rage. But we know that. Point is, it never gets better.

I dunno. I just noticed that when you said that paladins deal ridiculous amounts of damage at high levels, I'd pop up and cry "foul". That extra +10, +20, or whatever is nothing compared to a raging barbarian.

And, yeah, I realize you're in defence of the feat. I just get carried away sometimes.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I'm just giving the info in terms of damage. And it's right - a barbarian can outdamage the paladin, and a rage is core to the barbarian, while smite is peripheral to the paladin.

I just don't think smites are really much better than a barbarian's rage in terms of damage - the paladin is always worse in damage with a smite. And, even without rage and smite, I think the barbarian would win out. Higher Hit Dice, no huge ability drain (so higher combat attributes), more skills, mobility (granted, a lower AC, but by much, since the barbarian should be able to put some more points into Dex), defensive traits... whereas the paladin has some piddly spells, a few save auras, and a horse that really doesn't come into play too often.

As for the ability thing - I was just doing it to show how they function in a level playing field. In reality, the barbarian will do much more damage - multiple attacks per round (any round you smite, you only get one) while ragin, and the fact that barbarians don't need to put points into Wisdom and Charisma. Really, Smite is BY FAR weaker than Rage. But we know that. Point is, it never gets better.

I dunno. I just noticed that when you said that paladins deal ridiculous amounts of damage at high levels, I'd pop up and cry "foul". That extra +10, +20, or whatever is nothing compared to a raging barbarian.

And, yeah, I realize you're in defence of the feat. I just get carried away sometimes.

(any round you smite, you only get one)

You keep using this phrase, but, I do not think the RAW says what you think it does...

Inigo Montoya aside, I'm...pretty sure you're wrong, or at least, I have not the foggiest idea where you're getting this.

Also, the Barbarian-beating SRD Paladin Smite builds really start coming into their own at Epic levels (continually taking the feat to add level to Smite damage again and again).

The key, though, is the accuracy of the Smite for high enough Charisma. For a Paladin starting with only 13 Charisma (not much) and pumping most everything into Strength, the Paladin can still have 24 Charisma trivially by level 19. That's +7 to hit vs +3, much more than the Barbarian, and the damage is +19 vs +3. If you Spirited Charged on your mount, that's actually +57 Damage, and you can Power Attack more damage in if you like.

The key for the comparison is not the damage, though--the key is that Barbarians only need a few Rages to cover all day, and the Paladin can always use more Smites.

Once again, I'm still not against this feat