New Design & Development: Paladin Smites!

[wordsmithpdx]

Safeguard smite looks more powerful, but I think the deal is "it's better to prevent than to heal". You don't know if your ally is going to benefit from extra AC, he might not get attacked at all, but healing an ally usually means that he needs it.

Not to mention that the AC boost isn't going to help you when, say, an evil paladin is using his binding smite and targeting your Will. With the evidence we've seen of poison damage, psychic damage, etc., I think that AC may be less of a "holy grail" of defense than it used to be.

 

[neceros]

How do you figure? It's similar to the 3.x ability for the Sorcerer to occasionally swap out a known spell at certain levels. Also, Bo9S had a mechanic where at odd levels the 3 classes gained new abilities, while at even levels they could swap out an old ability for a different one. That was combined with a series of strikes within each discipline that were obviously upgraded versions of lower level ones, thereby allowing you to keep your core skills and powers relevant to your current level.

As far as Safeguard Smite is concerned, I could easily see a more powerful variant a few levels later that would apply the AC bonus to the entire party; an option to upgrade via power swap simply makes sense. It still doesn't lock out the choices made through gaining totally new powers (and having to choose among them); instead it helps solidify and reinforce the role that you've been building up throughout your adventuring career.

That would be fine. I don't mind optional rules to allow someone to remove an useless ability for a better one. The way I understood what he was saying was that is was forced to lose older abilities.

Also, I don't want there to be just one smite at any given time. I want to be able to choose from my 5 or 6 smites in a given encounter. What if I really just need a healing smite, but oops I was forced to get rid of it last level?

Options, not restrictions.

 

[Traycor]

That would be fine. I don't mind optional rules to allow someone to remove an useless ability for a better one. The way I understood what he was saying was that is was forced to lose older abilities.

Also, I don't want there to be just one smite at any given time. I want to be able to choose from my 5 or 6 smites in a given encounter. What if I really just need a healing smite, but oops I was forced to get rid of it last level?

Options, not restrictions.

You have a good point. Maybe you will only be able to smite 1/encounter, but have the option of using 6 different smites for that 1 smite attempt?

 

[Stormtalon]

Could even be smite x/encounter, maybe 2 or 3 times tops, I'd guess. With combat lasting more rounds (but being faster or at worst same amount of time as current), that would still require decisions on when and which to use.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I mean why don't the gods just infuse the Paladin with all their divine might? Apparently divine power is something that comes with strings attached, and scales as you become more powerful.

A lot of stories involve gods so awesome that you explode if you see or interact with them. Leveling up increases the amount of awesome you can channel without blowing up. Riddle solved.

 

[WhatGravitas]

True. However the Crusader from Bo9S, was the testbed for many of these abilities and he was restricted to healing through pugillation.

This was mainly done to prevent infinite healing between combats and because you could regain manoeuvres fairly quickly out of combat.

If 4E has a different take on the hit point healing or changes the per encounter-reload to a flat 5 minute break, then some of these issues go away.

And for "miss-and-have-effect" - for me, it's just a swift action spell tacked on the smite ability. Just put together for the ease of use. Nothing else. As swift spells, these abilities would make perfect sense, hence I can accept them as "integrated swift spells".

Cheers, LT.

 

[Bishmon]

And for "miss-and-have-effect" - for me, it's just a swift action spell tacked on the smite ability. Just put together for the ease of use. Nothing else. As swift spells, these abilities would make perfect sense, hence I can accept them as "integrated swift spells".

See, that's exactly my problem. I don't like that they are forcibly integrated. I think it just seems arbitrary.

 

[med stud]

I think the smite is OK for two reasons:

1) The smite + effect is essentially a spell with attack as somatic spell component. No attack, no spell.

2) This is due to the role of the paladin; it is a warrior of a god and the god will only reward him when he fights the (subjectively) good fight. If he wants to hang out at villages healing people he gets nothing from his god. This is how I think about it, at least.

 

[neceros]

See, that's exactly my problem. I don't like that they are forcibly integrated. I think it just seems arbitrary.

It's a means of balance and flavor. It makes being a Paladin interesting and fun to the people that want to be a defender: Heal and Protect without wasting a whole standard action not hitting things. It's supposed to keep the fun in healing and helping.

 

[Umbran]

It's not that he's doing it while he's hitting something with his sword. It's that he's doing it because he's hitting something with his sword.

Yeah, that's rather my thought, too.

I have no problem with the paladin being able to do the activities stated. I fail to see how making those activities always connected is a bonus, either mechanically or in flavor. I would prefer to make them separate - a smite and an aura, instead of a smite that happens to have a rather arbitrary aura attached to it.

I guess I just prefer to have the character's actions and choices be more... atomic.