Implementation of divine powers

[Primitive Screwhead]

Second is the disconnect between action and result present in a couple of powers. The paladin's Shielding Smite provides an AC bonus to someone up to 25 feet away when the paladin hits in melee. Say what? If it were, say, an adjacent ally like in the cleric's Priest's Shield power it would make more sense. But there's no connection between the paladin's strike and the ally's AC bonus. He just gets it.

On the cleric side, Sacred Flame presents the same problem. The cleric blasts a foe with holy light, and any ally within the cleric's sight gains his choice of 2 hp or a save. Why? The ally can be all the way over there. What does he have to do with the holy flame? And why can't the cleric grant this boon without blasting a foe with holy flame?

This is how I see these; the OPs first objection is to an at-will that is limited to X times per day. My understanding is that the Lay on Hand uses the Pally's own Healing Surge to heal another, and since some Pally's may have more Healing Surges than others... decent way to handle the mechanics and a nice element to the class.

Shielding Smite I see more as a 'Hey bad-guys, look at me the powerful Divine Warrior' whose successful attack temporarily distracts opponents from an ally. {giving the bonus to AC to all allies might make it too powerful an ability for the level its at}

Sacred Flame I see not as the Cleric doing two actions, but the calling down fire from the gods..and all the allies who can see the Cleric do this know that they have the power of a *god* on thier side and have their morale raised..which mechanically is a bonus to hp or save...

course, thats just the viewpoint of a 4e lurker

 

[FireLance]

One of my tentative house rules (to be confirmed after I've had a chance to see all the rules and evaluate the system as a whole) is to allow a paladin to use Shielding Smite as an immediate interrupt power against his marked opponent if he attacks someone other than the paladin. The trade-offs for turning a standard action power into an immediate interrupt power are that the AC bonus can only be applied to the opponent's target, and the paladin has to forego dealing radiant damage to the marked opponent (perhaps he draws on the radiant energy to make the smite quickly instead).

I think this turns Safeguard Smite into something potentially more flavorful and useful than its original incarnation. Instead of the paladin making a smite and somehow granting an AC bonus to an ally, it's the paladin acting as an instrument of divine protection and retribution, smiting a marked opponent that has attacked one of his allies, and interfering with the attack (giving his ally an AC bonus) as a result.

The house ruled Shielding Smite might look like this:

Shielding Smite
Paladin Attack 1
Encounter • Divine, Weapon
Standard Action (Special)
Special: You may use this power as an immediate interrupt against an opponent you have marked who makes an attack that does not include you as a target. The AC bonus provided by this power must be applied to an ally who is targeted by your marked opponent. In a round that you use this power in this manner, your marked opponent does not take radiant damage from your Divine Challenge, but continues to suffer the normal penalty to attack rolls.
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2x[W] + Cha.
Effect: Until the end of your next turn, an ally within 5 squares of you gains a power bonus to AC equal to your Wisdom modifier.​

 

[Fifth Element]

This is how I see these; the OPs first objection is to an at-will that is limited to X times per day. My understanding is that the Lay on Hand uses the Pally's own Healing Surge to heal another, and since some Pally's may have more Healing Surges than others... decent way to handle the mechanics and a nice element to the class.

It's decent, yes. But it could be better. I understand the balance reasons for it, it just bothers me that they simplified everything into a unified at-will/encounter/daily structure, then started re-complicating it by adding exceptions. An encounter power means you can use it once per encounter. Unless you can use it twice per encounter.

Shielding Smite I see more as a 'Hey bad-guys, look at me the powerful Divine Warrior' whose successful attack temporarily distracts opponents from an ally. {giving the bonus to AC to all allies might make it too powerful an ability for the level its at}[/quote}
But given the range that won't fit all the time. 25 feet away in the middle of melee is a very large distance to be noticing how another one-on-one fight is progressing. And notice it's an AC bonus, not an attack penalty, so a new opponent that charges into the battle, never having seen the paladin, to attack that ally will still have a harder time landing a blow.

Sacred Flame I see not as the Cleric doing two actions, but the calling down fire from the gods..and all the allies who can see the Cleric do this know that they have the power of a *god* on thier side and have their morale raised..which mechanically is a bonus to hp or save...

Of course, only one ally gets the bonus. And there's the issue of why this particular bonus is tied to the holy flame and not some other divine attack the cleric has at his disposal.

I don't really want to argue the particular justifications for these two powers. I just hope that the PHB contains some nice descriptive text to help me work them into my games seamlessly.

 

[Gloombunny]

Huh... the cleric powers do require that you hit the enemy to get the buffing effect. That's odd.

Shielding Smite doesn't, though - you get the shielding whether or not you hit. I like to think of it as a quick prayer done in the same round as a melee attack. And I think it's kinda neat that the prayer only works if the paladin is attacking an enemy. I mean, for a cleric maybe it's enough to wave a little icon around to show your piety and channel some divine power, but for a paladin, actions speak louder. If you're a paladin, then your holy symbol is stabbing the unrighteous in the face.

And I think that's awesome.

 

[Fifth Element]

Huh... the cleric powers do require that you hit the enemy to get the buffing effect. That's odd.

Shielding Smite doesn't, though - you get the shielding whether or not you hit. I like to think of it as a quick prayer done in the same round as a melee attack. And I think it's kinda neat that the prayer only works if the paladin is attacking an enemy. I mean, for a cleric maybe it's enough to wave a little icon around to show your piety and channel some divine power, but for a paladin, actions speak louder. If you're a paladin, then your holy symbol is stabbing the unrighteous in the face.

And I think that's awesome.

Agreed, but it's odd that such a power has to be tied to an attack. I mean, the paladin's a defender, so why not a minor action to give the AC bonus to an ally?

This is much more of a complaint for the cleric - why does a cleric need to attack to grant the benefits?

 

[Gloombunny]

Agreed, but it's odd that such a power has to be tied to an attack. I mean, the paladin's a defender, so why not a minor action to give the AC bonus to an ally?

I, like, just posted the reason why not. You quoted it. If you don't like my reason, that's cool, but...

 

[eleran]

I find it interesting that some of you declare the Shielding Smite explanation as "lame" yet don't ever undertake to come up with your own explanation for it. Let's hear your mighty minds come up with non-lameness.

I am fine with Shielding Smite as is. The Paladin is a warrior for his/her god. They attack things that defoul or insult their faith based worldview, it's what they do. In this one action, coupled with a brief intonation to the patron deity they ask for aid to one of their comrades (who is likely in a precarious situation and needs the help) while simultaneously laying the beat down on a bad doer. Might even be a good way to win over some converts if they have any allies who are shopping for a deity.


Don't just declare things lame, come up with something better. Get in the game or sit the bench.

 

[Fifth Element]

I find it interesting that some of you declare the Shielding Smite explanation as "lame" yet don't ever undertake to come up with your own explanation for it. Let's hear your mighty minds come up with non-lameness.

Tone down the snark, please. It's not appreciated.

Why can't we ask that professional game designers design something better if we see a problem with it? I am not a professional game designer, I don't work for WotC. I don't pretend to know better than they do. All I can do is say that I think this could be better, or I think it would be better if it were slightly different.

Your argument is a logical fallacy. Just because I don't know what the solution is, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

 

[Fifth Element]

I, like, just posted the reason why not. You quoted it. If you don't like my reason, that's cool, but...

My point was that the paladin is a "defender". Why should he therefore have to attack to grant the effect? Wouldn't a minor action to do the same thing make just as much sense, since the effect is not dependent on the success of the attack?

 

[Lackhand]

No. That are not how this game are played.
It wouldn't be a bad implementation, but neither is this.