Paladin. Disappointing

[mach1.9pants]

Because it doesn't make any sense. The holy fire makes sense, because the god is warranting that the enemy must take an action. The shield doesn't make any sense ONLY BECAUSE it's reliant on an attack. It's an entirely bizarrre and metagame thing. It doesn't make any sense from the character's perspective. He just makes an attack and Jesus decides to shield his friend? I mean what? Why couldn't he just get Jesus to shield his friend?

It's clearly an entirely arbitary decision by a game designer to tie these things together. A lot of spells are pretty arbitary, but this one doesn't make intuitive sense, because there's no intuitive link between the actions, which is a huge difference.

OK now I get where you are coming from. It is not a holy shield you don't like but the fact that an attack causes a defence. A nice succinct explanation, thank you.

If you're incapable of getting that, well, that's fine, it just means you'll never understand and you shouldn't try to argue with people about it.

I am quite capable of understanding most things, it was a genuine question. You don't have to come back with that sort of insulting rubbish..as you said yourself...'why the attitude?' I was asking a question not arguing against your opinion or insulting your INT!

Why the attitude?

 

[Thyrwyn]

Hi Ruin - me again. Just playing Devil'sPaladin's Advocate here.

Maybe, all magic needs a trigger. Paladins are all about Action, specifically they are divine warriors. Paladin's magic needs an Action to trigger it, an action appropriate to a warrior. For the divine sayeth:

"You would invoke my power to bolster your ally, then smite your foe to invoke my shield. If there are no foes worthy of your wrath, then you have no allies in need of my protection; if there are no foes within the reach of thy blade, then you have failed me and I shall not answer your call."

Or, maybe, it is better game design to provide abilities that encourage the character to play to the archetype (take the fight to the enemy and boost my allies) as opposed to against it (stand back and cast spellsprayers that boost my allies).

Or, maybe, it is more fun to play a paladin that gets to hit things than one that has to give up his turn to cast shield on an ally.

Pick your poison - I can live with any of 'em.

 

[Khaim]

In 3.XE or earlier, you can see his powers as being subtle any like the gods helping him, by and large. In 4E, they're not just helping him, he's a superhero with a constantly glowing sword (at will), putting bizarre metagame-ish shields on people with his attacks (which doesn't even make sense supernaturally), and maybe he doesn't shoot laserbeams like the cleric, but he does make people burn with holy fire and so on. It's much more flashy, and if 3E was a fantasy novel, then 4E is a comic book.

I agree- the Paladin they've shown is just silly. Shielding Smite? Please.

On the other hand, most of the other classes seems to fit well with their flavor. The fighter isn't doing anything un-fighterly, the wizard is great, and the warlock is different enough to not just be wizard 2. The cleric is a bit iffy, but not terribly so. (And hooray for Turn Undead looking useful!)

So I'm still in the overall positive camp. But less so.

 

[Kordeth]

I agree- the Paladin they've shown is just silly. Shielding Smite? Please.

Meh, the one-sentence fluff is kind of lame, and I could do with fewer "Jesus laser rock show" effects--but that's fluff. I have no objection whatsoever to a paladin, in the midst of a pitched battle of his own, witnessing his comrade-in-arms about to be overwhelmed by orcs and shouting "Moradin, protect my brother as I cannot!" as he smashes his hammer into his own opponent.

The only potential concern I see with smites is that there might well be times when a paladin wants to bless an ally and there are no enemies present--the obvious example is a trap encounter. It might well be beneficial to give the rogue an AC bonus as she tumbles through the slashing pendulum-blades and dodges the spring-loaded spikes to get to the "off" button, but as written there's no way for a paladin to do that if there's nothing for him to smack. Personally, I'd rule that any smite that buffs an ally can be used without an attack, and you just ignore the attack roll and damage portions of the power (e.g. you can give your ally a "smiteless" Shielding Smite, you're just sacrificing the potential to do 2[W] + Strength modifier to an enemy), but that doesn't appear to be an official option. Still, that's minor enough, IMHO.

 

[MaelStorm]

I always envisioned a paladin with a shield or a priest with a holy symbol, in my head. It's part of the costume. And this idea is fun IMO.
EDIT: And to push the fuzzy logic further! A hero without is costume is not a hero anymore

 

[mach1.9pants]

I have no objection whatsoever to a paladin, in the midst of a pitched battle of his own, witnessing his comrade-in-arms about to be overwhelmed by orcs and shouting "Moradin, protect my brother as I cannot!" as he smashes his hammer into his own opponent.

The only potential concern I see with smites is that there might well be times when a paladin wants to bless an ally and there are no enemies present--the obvious example is a trap encounter. It might well be beneficial to give the rogue an AC bonus as she tumbles through the slashing pendulum-blades and dodges the spring-loaded spikes to get to the "off" button, but as written there's no way for a paladin to do that if there's nothing for him to smack. Personally, I'd rule that any smite that buffs an ally can be used without an attack, and you just ignore the attack roll and damage portions of the power (e.g. you can give your ally a "smiteless" Shielding Smite, you're just sacrificing the potential to do 2[W] + Strength modifier to an enemy), but that doesn't appear to be an official option. Still, that's minor enough, IMHO.

This: I really wish my fluff/explanation producing abilities came upto the standard of so many on this board! I am keeping a notebook full of these gems (such as Mustrum's explanation of per encounter powers). Keep 'em coming

 

[Piratecat]

No more real-life religious references, folks.

If you're incapable of getting that, well, that's fine, it just means you'll never understand and you shouldn't try to argue with people about it.

In what possible way can this not be considered rude? RE, out of the thread. Either follow the rules or don't post; making your point by insulting people isn't one of the options.

 

[Terramotus]

Because it doesn't make any sense. The holy fire makes sense, because the god is warranting that the enemy must take an action. The shield doesn't make any sense ONLY BECAUSE it's reliant on an attack. It's an entirely bizarrre and metagame thing. It doesn't make any sense from the character's perspective. He just makes an attack and Jesus decides to shield his friend? I mean what? Why couldn't he just get [Helm] to shield his friend?

I suspect that originally you and the shielded allly had to share an enemy in common, and you were protecting the ally from attack, but that this was removed for being too complicated. I just look at it as divine energy is inherently protective. You flare energy to do damage, and are able to use the overflow to protect an ally. If that's too much for you, you can always nerf the power and require that the Paladin and the ally share a foe, and state that the bonus only applies against said shared foe. But I think that's overly restrictive, personally.

 

[Darth Cyric]

It would if they could use Spiritual Hammer and a number of other flash abilites at will or very frequently, yes. I'm not saying 3E didn't have superhero-ish characters (it did, later on), but Paladin wasn't one of them.

The Paladin was also one of the weakest classes in 3e.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Why the attitude? Is that your opinion or a fact?

It's a hypothesis based on the facts we've gotten so far.

If you're incapable of getting that, well, that's fine, it just means you'll never understand and you shouldn't try to argue with people about it.

Or maybe we have imaginations.