Please step away from the 4th edition "effect everything" abilities.

[ForeverSlayer]

I love the idea of "Smite Evil" being based on the Paladin's beliefs about the target, and not some inherent Evilness of the target.

I couldn't leave this one alone.

So you like the fact that Paladins can choose who is evil and who isn't?

Instead of something being actually evil, the Paladin can make that choice for them and Smite the hell out of them.

Yeah, great game we have coming up.

 

[triqui]

You are actually looking at the class wrong. Favored Enemy is an extra of the class just like Sneak Attack is an extra for the rogue. You don't always get to flank an opponent so you don't always get to use Sneak Attack. Well the same goes with the ranger, you can fight anything with no problem at all but when you go up against that spell creature you go above the norm, just like with the Paladin and evil creatures.

I disagree. A rogue who can't sneak attack does not fight "with no problem". He is completelly useless in a fight. Rogues in 3.0 were completelly useless wen fighting undeads.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I disagree. A rogue who can't sneak attack does not fight "with no problem". He is completelly useless in a fight. Rogues in 3.0 were completelly useless wen fighting undeads.

Completely useless in a fight huh?

Not sure what game some of you were playing but it sure as hell doesn't sound like 3rd edition. Rogues had more than just Sneak Attack, in case you didn't know.

 

[slobster]

Completely useless in a fight huh?

Not sure what game some of you were playing but it sure as hell doesn't sound like 3rd edition. Rogues had more than just Sneak Attack, in case you didn't know.

A rogue's sneak attack was his major contribution to combat. Going back to 1d6+2 damage when the fighter was dealing eleventy gazillion damage, with a higher bonus no less, and the wizard was giggling as he danced gleefully on the corpses of the laws of physics, was no fun for the rogue player.

It's happened to me, it's certainly happened to other players. We were happy when 4E allowed sneak attack to be more broadly useful. You may disagree or have different opinions on the subject, but don't belittle and dismiss ours because of that.

 

[mkill]

Completely useless in a fight huh?

Not sure what game some of you were playing but it sure as hell doesn't sound like 3rd edition. Rogues had more than just Sneak Attack, in case you didn't know.

I played a Rogue in 3.5. You're wrong. (Prove me otherwise. Use Magic Device doesn't count)

Back to Favored Enemy, I like the concept, but I think it works best as a theme, say "Dragonslayer", "Elfhunter", "Ghostbuster" ...
1) it's optional, you can take something else if it doesn't fit your Ranger
2) it comes as an ability set that can contain more than just bonus damage
3) it can have abilities tied to the enemy - dragonslayers get a bonus against breath weapons, construct killers can disable them etc
4) you can play a Dragonhunter Fighter or Wizard if you want

 

[aurance]

I completely disagree with the premise and conclusion, so... no thanks.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I played a Rogue in 3.5. You're wrong. (Prove me otherwise. Use Magic Device doesn't count)

Back to Favored Enemy, I like the concept, but I think it works best as a theme, say "Dragonslayer", "Elfhunter", "Ghostbuster" ...
1) it's optional, you can take something else if it doesn't fit your Ranger
2) it comes as an ability set that can contain more than just bonus damage
3) it can have abilities tied to the enemy - dragonslayers get a bonus against breath weapons, construct killers can disable them etc
4) you can play a Dragonhunter Fighter or Wizard if you want

Why doesn't UMD count? You can't sit there and say a class is worthless, ask me to prove that it's not but limit me in what I can use.

I've played rogues in 3.0 and 3.5 so I'm right. Not my fault that you limit yourself when playing a class.

 

[dkyle]

I couldn't leave this one alone.

So you like the fact that Paladins can choose who is evil and who isn't?

Not quite. I like the fact that Paladins can choose who they think is evil, and who isn't. And act according to what they think is true. I reject evilness as something that something is. Or goodness, or chaoticness, or lawfulness. It's cartoonish and silly.

I think it's far more interesting for a Paladin to smite something, successfully, and later find out it wasn't really evil after all, than for a Paladin to smite something, then rest easy knowing that it was inherently evil (or else the smite wouldn't have worked), so he was automatically right to kill it; no muss, no fuss, no thought, no drama.

Instead of something being actually evil, the Paladin can make that choice for them and Smite the hell out of them.

What determines that something is "actually evil"?

And the Paladin isn't choosing for someone else that they are evil. He's only choosing to judge them as evil.

The Paladin would still have a code. An honest (Good) Paladin would not lightly judge others as evil, and upon judging wrongly, would be horrified to discover his mistakes. A dishonest Paladin might very well find NPC Paladins hunting him down for his betrayal to his code.

 

[slobster]

Not quite. I like the fact that Paladins can choose who they think is evil, and who isn't. And act according to what they think is true. I reject evilness as something that something is. Or goodness, or chaoticness, or lawfulness. It's cartoonish and silly.

I agree with you in the real world, but some people like their game to be free of moral hand-wringing. They just want to cut up some enemies, and making the bad guys EEEVIL is a way to let them do so without guilt.

It's a legitimate thing to want in your escapist hobby. I've played and enjoyed games on both extremes of the scale.

With that said, I support the "smite anything" concept from a game design perspective. People who absolutely need "smite evil" are free to houserule it into their games, and if they offer a way to do it in the rules (optionally!) then more power to them.

 

[Doombybbr]

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but:

The latest Paladin blog said there WOULD be a Smite Evil ability.

Where does this "I don't want the Paladin to be able to smite everything." thing come from?

smite "evil" is because the paladin usually serves a god, however it would only apply to what his god doesn't like, so it doesn't work on servents of bahumut if you are a paladin of bahumut, but if you are a paladin of tiamut go ahead and let your greed get the better of you, or tiamut won't help you out.....