New Design & Development: Paladin Smites!

[Hussar]

Same. From everything I've heard, 4E is not the "D&D" we know. Even though 3ed had an implied flavor and fluff, that flavor was much closer to "iconic" fantasy than 4E seems to be.

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. 3e is iconic D&D fantasy. But iconic fantasy? Firstly, what the heck IS iconic fantasy? Secondly, how does D&D come even close to that?

D&D is D&D fantasy. At least now the designers have the cojones to own up to it.

 

[Jinete]

That's the crux of the problem.

"I smack the enemy. My allies are now healed."

"I roll a critical miss and hit a tree instead of my enemy. My allies now have a bonus to AC."

That makes exactly zero sense. I am sure the apologists can come up with a flavor explanation that makes sense (to them), but I don't like it. BTW, there is a very simple solution to this issue, and I am baffled that WotC designers did not go this way:

Divine Resilience
Paladin 1
Encounter
Swift Action
Target: One ally
Trigger: Smite attack (hit or miss)
Effect: An ally within 5 squares gains a bonus to AC equal to your Wisdom modifier until the end of your next turn. This effect comes from releasing excess divine energy channeled during the smite attack.

And so on...

Emphasis mine.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Because tying these abilities to a smite attack is lame and doesn't make sense. Just keep them separate abilities or spells.

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?

 

[Sammael]

D&D is D&D fantasy. At least now the designers have the cojones to own up to it.

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.

 

[Sammael]

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?

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

 

[Clavis]

I'm curious. Did you have any problems with paladins casting spells in any edition of DND?
Because that's what this is, essentially. He's casting a divine spell, using his sword as a focus, while hitting something really hard.

As for the name...eh. Would you be happier if they called it 'Faith's Shield Smite?' Rename the silly thing to make you happy.

I was always uncomfortable with Paladins having spells per se. The laying on a hands bit was OK, because there is a tradition in medieval folklore that righteous Kings and noblemen are able to heal (it's were Tolkien got his "hand of a healer" bit from for Aragorn).

I never really needed to houserule anything about Paladin's spells, because I've never DMed a group that had a Paladin in it. Paladins were always antagonists to the amoral semi-criminals that were the PCs of my campaigns.

If I have to rename every ability in the game (from Safeguard Smite to Emerald Frost), why even bother playing it anymore? And yes, I was annoyed by the inclusion of Greyhawk PC names in the spell lists of 1st edition.

 

[Midknightsun]

While I think Iunderstand the mechanical reasoning behind the whole smite and boost an ally concept, I'm also having problems wrapping my head around this one conceptually. Of course, I'm not a big fan of paladins anyway. This is probably one of the first things I've heard out of 4e that doesn't thrill me, but then again I've never liked every aspect of any gaming system I've played, so one strike against 4e isn't worrying me.

Though I have to disagree that this "is a video game" and not D&D anymore. Having heard this sooo many times before, it get old, and knowing that video games have stolen so much from RPGs over the years that the line has been blurry for some time. Even during the switch between 1e and 2e there were grumblings (and more later with the suppliments), and I still know grognards who think 3.5 isn't D&D and find it to be "video gamey" where there's no roleplaying, only "rollplaying". I have a feeling it won't be any different this time around. Some like it, a few hate it, but many will end up playing it.

 

[Wormwood]

D&D is D&D fantasy. At least now the designers have the cojones to own up to it.

Without very heavy editing, the only fantasy that 3e emulates is 3e.

I daresay 4e will require the same amount of effort that was required make 3e resemble Lieber, Howard, Tolkien (or Gygax).

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I remember hen I first played a Swordsage and used a maneuver whose name I can't remember right now:

Me: "I roll 2d20, choose a result, and if it's the lower one but it hits I do normal damage +1d6 cold. If I choose the higher and it hits I just do normal damage. If I miss I miss."

DM: "how do you do that, that doesn't make sense, how do you get to roll twice?"

Me: "Well, you see, I create a shadowy replica of my blade and it either hits or just distracts my foe"

DM: "Oh, OK then"

A little magical explanation goes a long way

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.

 

[Sammael]

Without very heavy editing, the only fantasy that 3e emulates is 3e.

3e was a near-perfect fit for my world of choice, the Forgotten Realms. I am not seeking to emulate any particular fantasy, I just want D&D to work within the FR setting.

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