New Design & Development: Paladin Smites!

[Njall]

Yes, that was the one exception I could see, and here is why: it doesn't discern between my enemies and my allies. If my party is around me, then more than likely, so is the enemy. Even if the radius is something small as 5ft. It was mainly in reply to those who say the divine power "bleeds" into another effect. If the paladin is going to bleed power, then best to burst it from his attack.

Do I like this mechanic? Not really, but I could accept it better than "and heal Joe the mage, who doesn't worship you, has never done anything to further your cause, but he's my ally, which should count for something, and I'm asking really, really nicely (cause I have high charisma)".

What would I be happy with and still include healing? The paladin smites the enemy, and receives personal healing from his god.

But neither Lay on Hands nor the paladin's cure spells require that the recipient worships the same deity as the paladin, as things stand.
So what's the difference, really? In 2e ( and 3e) the paladin can heal anyone; but if in 4e he tries to heal that same ally while smiting an opponent, his deity should be asking "why do you want him healed"?
Furthermore, do you realize that if the "burst radius" affected anyone in range, it would quickly become an area attack against undead?

 

[Sir Brennen]

Explain to me why a paladin needs to buff party members in order to be considered a leader.

So you've had problems with the paladin's aura, laying on hands and spell casting abilities from all other editions too, then?

 

[Montague68]

Because otherwise his leadership is hollow, because it has zero mechanical effect on his followers. They would be just as well led by a sheep in heavy armor.

*Shakes head sadly*

Roleplaying, where art thou? No offense meant, but this line of thought is precisely what is turning me off from the latest incarnations of D&D.

 

[Roland55]

Neither does magic, really. From your storybook standpoint, Lancelot and Galahad should be pure fighters with only an ability to hit things.

The "Hit and Heal" or "Hit and Buff" is not being introduced because of computer games. It's being introduced because of the serious problems that have been demonstrated over thirty years of D&D and never really been addressed: few people want to play the cleric.

3e tried to fix this by going "you're ultra-powerful, Mr Cleric!", but it didn't work. The problem isn't the number of abilities the cleric has, it is the limited number of actions they get.

The hope that Wizards have is that by combining two action types (Hit & Heal; Hit & Buff), they'll make the leader role more attractive to players.

Cheers!

Not really attractive to me, personally -- but I definitely see the logic behind this decision. Let's see how it works out in practice.

 

[Sir Brennen]

*Shakes head sadly*

Roleplaying, where art thou? No offense meant, but this line of thought is precisely what is turning me off from the latest incarnations of D&D.

Well, he could have just as easily said "They might as well be lead by a fighter in heavy armor".

Of course, you could have a straight fighter with a high charisma dedicated to a deity who functions as a leader as well. There's your roleplaying.

But the paladin class has been around since first edition, and needs to have its own niche that isn't just a watered down fighter melded to a watered down cleric. I'm glad the 4E designers found the path of expanding an existing ability that is thematically in tune with the concept of a divine warrior.

 

[Stoat]

Simply from a mechanical, gamist point of view, I like the idea of letting a paladin (or cleric) combine an attack with a buff or a heal. It seems like there might be several ways of doing that, including swift spells, auras or the method presented in the two feats at issue.

From a flavor, simulationist perspective I'm having a little cognitive dissonance, and I think I know why. The combination of "I whack 'em!" with "Be Healed!" is sui generis in D&D. For thirty years, spell casting has been one thing and attacks have been another. There is little precedent for an effect that looks like an attack with a weapon but also confers a benefit on a nearby ally.

I can't speak for others, but I think that's why folks might be more comfortable if the paladin produced the exact same result using smite+swift spell instead of the all-in-one method presented in the article. Certainly, my mental framework is having a hard time adjusting to the idea. It feels wrong because it's so unfamiliar.

I also believe that once the rules are presented in full with a little flavor, and after I've had some time to become familiar with them and see them in play, that I'll be just fine with the new smite.

 

[Roland55]

4E will not be everyone's cup of tea, but I like what I am seeing so far.

Good for you!

Just remember -- it has to pull in more than Grimslade to be successful.

Here's hoping the playtests are going well.

 

[Montague68]

So you've had problems with the paladin's aura, laying on hands and spell casting abilities from all other editions too, then?

Not at all. I'm not saying the paladin should be of no use to his fellow party members, nor that he has never had support abilities. Paladins can and should help allies. However it shouldn't be their main purpose. They're not bards. Or at least they weren't.

 

[Counterspin]

Why does a single class feature suddenly comprise the entire class? And how does buffing become their main purpose when half that buff is smashing a guy in the face?

 

[Roland55]

So, now in 4e, his "power words", or his appeal to his god, is to not only smite the enemy in front of him, but to also allow him to protect or heal his companion.

I cannot fathom why this is so hard for you to stomach.

Careful, careful, sir.

It isn't always about logic and reason.

Neither you nor I need understand why he cannot stomach it. It is, after all, his stomach.

Give him space to work this out for himself.