New Design & Development: Paladin Smites!

[neceros]

So, it looks like a 20th level paladin might have 20 per-encounter smites? Maybe not a smite every level, though. A per-encounter at first level, per day at second, at will at third and so on with the per-encounter for the paladin being smites? That would work for a level 1, 4, 7, 10 and 13 smite which fits the article. The 27 doesn't fit that progression. I will guess that a 13th level paladin has 5 different smites on a per-encounter basis. Being based on the same numbers, they seem to scale very well. The 1st level smite is really just as effective to the 13th level paladin as the 13th level smite. Do these represent choices a paladin makes, or does every 13th level paladin gain the exact same smite?

I would like to see more than one power or talent per level. I don't think you should get a new smite every level: The smite you got at level one should be perfectly viable at level 30. Just because it's from a lower level doesn't mean it should be less powerful. If anything, it should be more honed and have grown from all of the use.

 

[Bishmon]

Well, I don't hate 'em, but I'm not all that enthused. I just don't like the idea of a paladin smiting his enemy and that causing some random ally 20 feet away to be harder to hit depending on how wise the paladin is. Any justification for that making any sort of sense just seems so paper-thin.

I mean, is the ally's increased difficulty to hit a result of seeing his paladin ally invoke the smite, sort of like an inspirational thing? If so, why is it based on the paladin's wisdom? Are his attacks somehow more inspiring to his allies if he's very wise? And why does that bonus wear off after a round? "I feel invigorated! I can dodge blows, withstand more punishme...oh, wait, never mind." And why would this bonus apply to the ally even if the attack misses? That would seem very demoralizing. Why does the bonus apply to only one ally? What makes it so other allies can't gain this bonus by bearing witness to the smite?

Or is it on the paladin's end? Is he invoking power from his god to protect his ally? If so, that seems akward. "I'm going to smite you, foul creature! Oh, and with my widsom I shall simultaneously provide some brief divine protection to that guy over there, even if you, foul creature, aren't the one attacking him! Ha!"

I understand its purpose in the mechanics, and it seems to do that well enough. I'm just not seeing how the power makes any sense in my imagination.

 

[Voss]

Hopefully choice of smites and other abilities, having 5 per encounter abilities would probably be a waste. Thats on the edge, but more than 6 or 7 would almost certainly be a waste.

I can't see a reason not to open every single combat with Safeguard Smite, by the way. Taking down enemies faster and avoiding damage is almost always a good tactical decision.

Anyone note that 'weapon of choice' reference near the beginning? An unfortunate choice of words, or actually a class requirement?

Love that the first level ability actually scales and is just as useful (if not more useful the other smites) at higher levels?

On binding smite, btw. The target can't even affect himself... no healing, teleporting or anything else, or at least thats the way I read 'line of effect to anyone but you'. Nice, but so high level I'm not sure I care. It does seem like the power level is toned down a bit. It certainly isn't 3.x 'epic', and I'm rather glad of that.

 

[KingCrab]

I like the idea strategically. I think it would make more sense if the safeguard smite game a bonus to an ally's AC from attacks made by the creature hit. I don't like that the paladin hitting target A helps his/her ally defend versus target B.

The idea of the burst of healing coming from a hit in a given radius from the blow makes a bit more sense.

Overall though, pretty nifty information. Plus, what shocks me more, the smites didn't have absolutely ridiculous names.

 

[KingCrab]

Oh and thanks to Neceros from those of us that can no longer log in to anything on WotC's site.

 

[Smerg]

I would suspect a progression close to the Bo9S.

At level 10, you would have 10 smites/slots known, 5-6 smites ready to use, and possibly 2-3 stances that were available all the time.

A paladin could thus pick up a smite aimed at dragons or undead (enhanced attack specific to these creatures) and not feel it was clogging the choices of utility smites that could be used in any situation.

A paladin might even have a few things like Align weapon or flaming weapon smite that are again not useful 100% so can be moved to the known but not ready backburner when the expectation of those types of encouters are low (ex no need of flaming weapon smite since I am fighting fire giants today, guess I will get out the anti-huge creature smite).

 

[Sammael]

What was that about not having aggro rules in 4E?

Overall, I like the variety of smites. I am guessing that 4E paladins will not be spellcasters in the traditional sense of the word, but, rather, they will have an array of abilities that look a lot like spells.

What I don't like is that, for the most part, the smites presented are purely gamist in nature. I can see no feasible in-game justification for their secondary effects, except maybe the binding smite. I miss an opponent and my friends are now harder to hit? WTF? I realize that 4E is being designed with the principle that "unfun" things (such as wasting a smite by missing the intended oponent) are badbadbadbadbad, but come on... Similarly, the "I hit, you heal" smite is likewise bizarre.

Regarding the class name, I will be renaming it "champion," much like I've done in 3.x.

 

[neceros]

On binding smite, btw. The target can't even affect himself... no healing, teleporting or anything else, or at least thats the way I read 'line of effect to anyone but you'. Nice, but so high level I'm not sure I care.

That's pretty awesome.

It does seem like the power level is toned down a bit. It certainly isn't 3.x 'epic', and I'm rather glad of that.

Thank goodness. I wonder if there will be epic epic.. like 31-40? PHB2 maybe?

What I don't like is that, for the most part, the smites presented are purely gamist in nature. I can see no feasible in-game justification for their secondary effects, except maybe the binding smite. I miss an opponent and my friends are now harder to hit? WTF? I realize that 4E is being designed with the principle that "unfun" things (such as wasting a smite by missing the intended oponent) are badbadbadbadbad, but come on... Similarly, the "I hit, you heal" smite is likewise bizarre.

They did the same thing in Book of Nine Swords. I think it's very effective. I like it, even if it doesn't make perfect sense to you or me. It could be any one reason, perhaps one we can't think of?

 

[DreamChaser]

I understand its purpose in the mechanics, and it seems to do that well enough. I'm just not seeing how the power makes any sense in my imagination.

Huh...try this on:

Hail Bahamut! Grant your glory and might as we battle those foul in your sight. Let my blade strike true as your claws and let our shields be true to your cause!

Each smite does not need to be a single thing nor is it necessarily cause / effect...it is an overall prayer or incantation but it is doing two things. Note that the protection happens Hit or Miss. The paladin is a woman of action and she asks for the blessing of her god to strike at her foes; but she is also a guardian who wishes to help her comrades in their fight.

I think it makes perfect sense.

DC

 

[Oldtimer]

Oh and thanks to Neceros from those of us that can no longer log in to anything on WotC's site.

Or one can just make links that logs in automatically for you.
Like this: I smite thee, foul miscreant!