New Design & Development: Paladin Smites!

[Wormwood]

The fact that they are changing FR dramatically to make it fit the 4E rules means that this is not the case in 4E.

You and I are probably much closer in *that* opinion than you may think.

I bailed out of the Realms shortly after the Time of Troubles because the changes made to accomodate 2e didn't really feel like 'my' Realms (which will always and forever be the Grey Box).

I recently started playing a Realms campaign, and it is unrecognizable experienced through the lens of the 3.5 rules.

 

[KingCrab]

If it was smite for extra damage and grant your ally +4 bonus to open locks, then I'd be concerned.

Shhh. Not too loud. Some of the smites may not yet be written and they can use that.

 

[eleran]

So let me see if I have this straight.
A paladin who heals his allies by saying a prayer=Fine
BUT...
A paladin who heals his allies by saying a prayer, while hitting something with a sword=Lame?

I think you'll find with most of these folks the actual equation is;

Anything WE didn't think of = lame

 

[D.Shaffer]

This is not how those abilities are described. At all.

From the new Smite description.

This effect comes from releasing excess divine energy channeled during the smite attack.

What is a divine spell in 3rd ed? 'Channeling divine energy' seems a pretty good description to me. This is no different from a Paladin spell in 3rd. It's just got a new name in 4th. Heck, you could convert this into a 3rd ed spell easilly and, like I said earlier, I doubt anyone would bat an eye.

 

[Sammael]

I bailed out of the Realms shortly after the Time of Troubles because the changes made to accomodate 2e didn't really feel like 'my' Realms (which will always and forever be the Grey Box).

If they were to write a ruleset that will make the Realms feel like the Grey Box again, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, the dragonborn / tiefling / golden wyvern / emerald frost invasion makes it a near impossibility for 4E.

 

[Sammael]

From the new Smite description.


What is a divine spell in 3rd ed? 'Channeling divine energy' seems a pretty good description to me. This is no different from a Paladin spell in 3rd. It's just got a new name in 4th. Heck, you could convert this into a 3rd ed spell easilly and, like I said earlier, I doubt anyone would bat an eye.

Yes, but please note that I included that description. It was not included in the original article.

 

[Odhanan]

I agree this is cool beans.

Between this, the feats and the poison damage, I don't see how 4E makes the game THAT much simpler, though.

 

[Clavis]

Really, what iconic fantasy had the trade of magic items assumed?

What iconic fantasy had spells for purchase at relatively minor costs?

What iconic fantasy follows the wealth by level guidelines?

All of those are hard wired into 3e. Change any of those and you radically alter the game.

Exactly. 3rd edition was bad enough. Now WOTC feels empowered to go whole hog and p**s all over the campaign world of any DM who doesn't want to go along with an over-the-top wire-fu idea of fantasy. And if a DM wants to do something that directly contradicts the official rulebook, he or she is going to find new players harder to come by. After all, WOTC doesn't sell miniatures that look like the characters in homebrew campaigns...

 

[Hussar]

My problem here is that I do not like the Mike Mearls and Andy Collins style of fantasy. I didn't like the Monte Cook style of fantasy either, but it didn't get shoved down our throats quite so heavily.

Again:

Wealth/level guidelines

Demographic guidelines

Buying Magic items

All tied very, very tightly to the mechanics. About a bazillion threads of "3e doesn't do what I want it to do" on the 3e boards on EN World say that you're wrong and that Monte Cook's style of fantasy was very much "shoved down our throats".

It's just that the implied setting wasn't called out so clearly. It was there. You have difficulty using 3e if you stray too far from the above three. It can be done, but, the further you go, the harder it is. 4e is just making explicit what 3e had implicitly done. 3e had already tied the idea of core setting to core rules. Look at all the tap dancing that you have to do in just about any setting to stray from the core assumptions?

Heck, 3rd party publishers have made an entire cottage industry out of straying from core assumptions.

The idea that this isn't somehow D&D anymore is just a very strange concept to me.

 

[Jinete]

Certainly, but that's an example of a secondary effect that affects the same target. I have no problem with those, as they're pretty common and conceptually it's not difficult to understand.

Honestly, it sounds a bit off to me too. But I'm hoping for some nice flavor that explains the effect.

Take a look at "Fire in the blood" spell from Heroes of Horror.

<snip>
Until the spellís duration has elapsed, anyone who deals slashing or piercing melee damage on you is sprayed with your blood in retribution.
<snip>
The arc and direction of the blood spray is magical in nature, and the spray does not splatter adjacent squares or parties, no matter how close together they might be. Each spray strikes only the one responsible for the wound.

Replace "damage on you" with "you deal damage", replace blood with "divine energy", mention "invoking a brief blessing for your wounded ally" and there you go