New Design & Development: Paladin Smites!

[Simia Saturnalia]

What I'm getting is you're upset WotC won't do your roleplaying for you, and are limiting the tools to mechanical effectiveness. Any actual character will have to be supplied by the player, rather than being read from the class description.

Sorry, no sympathy.

A lack of roleplaying is a GM and/or player issue. Nothing to do with the books.

 

[Aenghus]

3e has a bunch of spells, and monster SLAs with short durations, that would be useful in combat, but not enough so to justify using them rather than a more powerful ability, or just attacking normally. The term I use is Opportunity Cost for a power or ability.

The 3e paladin had minor access to divine spells, but I don't think this felt right, IMO. The new 4e paladin's magical abilities majorly include smite attacks, which primarily damage a foe and also have a secondary effect, often conditional on the smite succeeding.

People seem to be obsessing about the secondary effect, while ignoring the fact that the smite damage itself is the main part of the power. Its likely paladins no longer have spells, and the secondary effects of smiting are their magic (along with whatever else paladins have). These secondary effects aren't particularly strong, as paladins are not primary casters. In 3e terms they would be swift spells, but I actually like the idea of tying the benefit of most of these effects to a successful smite.

 

[Skaven_13]

So, clerics should only be able to cast spells on themselves and those of the same faith as well?

For D&D to work, you have to assume the gods give their imbued followers some discretion on how to use their power.

No, that's not what I'm saying. People keep saying that they don't have a problem with an smite that also provides healing to a select ally, because they are just invoking power from their god. What I was stating is that, for the paladin, I would much rather see a broad area healing instead of single ally healing, and would prefer that if smite was going to do healing at all, that it would be paladin only.

For the record, I don't have a problem with the smite inspiring allies or intimidating enemies, forcing the enemy to deal with the paladin over other targets. I just don't like the idea of healing being a part of this ability.

If I wanted to blow everything out of proportion, I could ask where does the stacked healing stop? Does a thief heal an ally when they sneak attack? What about a bard singing a really good song? What about a cleric healing an ally...and...heal an ally in the process? But I don't think we are there at that point just yet.

 

[The Little Raven]

Don't be obtuse. I'm referring to "aggro-management" abilities, not random effects like Confusion.

There are no aggro-management abilities. There are abilities that force a character to take a particular action, which have existed since 1st edition. Attempting to compare those to threat mechanics from MMOs just demonstrates a lack of knowledge in that regard, since it's nowhere near a score-based threat management system.

 

[Skaven_13]

Furthermore, do you realize that if the "burst radius" affected anyone in range, it would quickly become an area attack against undead?

Yep. Do I have a problem with that? Nope.

 

[The Little Raven]

Wow's popularity is due to easy levelling, casual friendly gameplay, an extremely smooth combat system (relative to other mmo's), and a highly polished world. Not mechanics and game balance.

Wait a minute.

Did you seriously just claim that character advancement, gameplay, and combat are NOT mechanical systems that are subject to balance?

 

[Skaven_13]

And I don't see that they are becoming support characters. Smite is only one class ability, which appears as if it will have many other versions as well. And the Epic level smite seems particularly holy warriorish: "Face me, foul miscreant!"

Plus, smites .... well... smite. This particular ability still allows the paladin to lay the hurt down on his enemies. It's still an offensive martial power at its core.

I agree, but I feel that the secondary effect should be thematically linked with the idea that this is an offensive martial power....wait...how many pages is this now? Seems like this discussion has gone on forever.

 

[Skaven_13]

I admit I like the epic smite ability. As you said, very holy warriorish even though as a rule I don't like "taunt" abilities in my PnP.

I liked this one too. The idea that you are forcing the enemy to deal with you over others in combat - very nice.

 

[Njall]

Yep. Do I have a problem with that? Nope.

Ok. So, from a purely mechanical PoV you consider a munchkin mechanic the paladin's ability to attack for double damage and heal a single ally, but you're ok with the ability to smite for double damage, heal all your allies in range and damage all your enemies, too? Maybe we just don't agree on what's "munchkin"

 

[Klaus]

I'll quote myself in another board:

I'd much rather see a more blanket effects like:

Humbling Smite
Even if you miss, your opponent suffers a -2 to his next attack.

Brother's Keeper Smite
If you hit your opponent, excess holy energy from your smite heals hp equal to your Charisma bonus (minimum 1) to all your allies (including yourself).

Smiting Challenge
If you hit your opponent, his next attack must target you. Otherwise he suffers a -2 to all his attacks for the remainder of the encounter.