# New Design & Development: Paladin Smites!



## Reaper Steve (Nov 29, 2007)

I smite thee, foul miscreant!

Interesting.

On one hand, I like the condensed, ultiltarian way the info is presented. On the other, it asks way more questions than it answers.

But I'm happy with the crunchy goodness revealed this week!


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Nov 29, 2007)

Cool beans, man. Cool beans.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

Awesome, more crunch!


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

Glad to see crunch.  Actual, useful crunch.

Safeguard seems very good, especially at first level.  
Renewing seems to be a small amount of healing for the level you gain it.  (Maybe ~10% of your hit points?)  At least you're smacking someone around with it as well.

Binding... might be useful.  If you can take the attacks.

But, OK, Charisma attack?  I suspect that is BAB + Cha modifier, but there seems a chance that you just roll charisma, though that doesn't scale well.

Lots of MAD, but it looks like a paladin could, in theory, dump strength.

I wish they would use a different term than ally, however.  Unless you have multiple personalities, you are not an ally of yourself.  Normal usage of the word needs two or more entities to make sense.  

Also glad he (eventually) explained that you do add bonuses to the damage, and it isn't just base weapon damage, because a constant of 2 x d8 (or whatever) would be... bad.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 29, 2007)

If you think of the allies as a group, then you are an ally. It's just _allies_ as opposed to _enemies_. It makes sense, and it's less wordy than "friendly target" (which would require clarification anyway).

Anyway, cool stuff. Smiting is fun. That line of effect smite looks mighty interesting. It's always good to limit a wily opponent's options.


----------



## GrinningBuddha (Nov 29, 2007)

Wisdom vc. AC attacks and Wisdom vs. Will attacks.  Yummy.

While physical stats will be important for every character, we may be seeing paladins running around with their strength being one of their lowest stats. Force of will becomes more important than force of arms?  

I like the development space being explored here.


----------



## Abstraction (Nov 29, 2007)

So, it looks like a 20th level paladin might have 20 per-encounter smites? Maybe not a smite every level, though. A per-encounter at first level, per day at second, at will at third and so on with the per-encounter for the paladin being smites? That would work for a level 1, 4, 7, 10 and 13 smite which fits the article. The 27 doesn't fit that progression. I will guess that a 13th level paladin has 5 different smites on a per-encounter basis. Being based on the same numbers, they seem to scale very well. The 1st level smite is really just as effective to the 13th level paladin as the 13th level smite. Do these represent _choices_ a paladin makes, or does every 13th level paladin gain the exact same smite?


----------



## Kurotowa (Nov 29, 2007)

Given what's previously been said about roles and builds, and using something akin to talent trees, I'd be amazed if the Paladin didn't get a choice of smites.  Though the specifics are something I wouldn't want to try and guess at yet.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

I wonder if they will leave the entries as they are now. It seems a bit too technical for the way they've been saying they are writing the book.

In any case, I'm happy to see that damage multipliers increase with level. That will really make a difference in level between 1 and 30, which I like. I like to see a decent change in status from one level to the next. Personally, I wouldn't mind if each level gained ~30-50% increase in base power (read: HP, Damage, BAB, etc).

Repost from DDI:


> Smite -- since before 900 CE this word or some very similar Old or Middle English ancestor has meant, "That's going to leave a mark." In the first two editions of Dungeons & Dragons, smite was merely an interesting word used by folks laying down the smack. In my formative gaming years, a player of mine named Erol used to call his halfling paladin's reversed cure light wounds, smites. (Actually he was just a post-Unearthed Arcana fighter/cleric, but he called the character a paladin -- I was not farsighted enough just to let him play a paladin.) I think he just liked yelling "I smite the foul beast!" in that annoying high-pitched kid voice he used to play Sir Lore. (Yes, that's Erol's own name spelled backward in true high-Gygaxian fashion).
> 
> With the release of 3rd Edition, Erol's wildest dreams came true. Not only were halflings allowed to be true paladins, smite officially entered the paladin's toolbox. Sure, it was once a day. Sure, it wasn't nearly as good as you wanted it to be sometimes, but smites were promoted from verb to mechanic.
> 
> ...


----------



## Piestrio (Nov 29, 2007)

Can someone post this.

I still can't view wizards D&DI.



EDIT: thanks!


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> So, it looks like a 20th level paladin might have 20 per-encounter smites? Maybe not a smite every level, though. A per-encounter at first level, per day at second, at will at third and so on with the per-encounter for the paladin being smites? That would work for a level 1, 4, 7, 10 and 13 smite which fits the article. The 27 doesn't fit that progression. I will guess that a 13th level paladin has 5 different smites on a per-encounter basis. Being based on the same numbers, they seem to scale very well. The 1st level smite is really just as effective to the 13th level paladin as the 13th level smite. Do these represent _choices_ a paladin makes, or does every 13th level paladin gain the exact same smite?




I would like to see more than one power or talent per level. I don't think you should get a new smite every level: The smite you got at level one should be perfectly viable at level 30. Just because it's from a lower level doesn't mean it should be less powerful. If anything, it should be more honed and have grown from all of the use.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

Well, I don't hate 'em, but I'm not all that enthused. I just don't like the idea of a paladin smiting his enemy and that causing some random ally 20 feet away to be harder to hit depending on how wise the paladin is. Any justification for that making any sort of sense just seems so paper-thin. 

I mean, is the ally's increased difficulty to hit a result of seeing his paladin ally invoke the smite, sort of like an inspirational thing? If so, why is it based on the paladin's wisdom? Are his attacks somehow more inspiring to his allies if he's very wise? And why does that bonus wear off after a round? "I feel invigorated! I can dodge blows, withstand more punishme...oh, wait, never mind." And why would this bonus apply to the ally even if the attack misses? That would seem very demoralizing. Why does the bonus apply to only one ally? What makes it so other allies can't gain this bonus by bearing witness to the smite?

Or is it on the paladin's end? Is he invoking power from his god to protect his ally? If so, that seems akward. "I'm going to smite you, foul creature! Oh, and with my widsom I shall simultaneously provide some brief divine protection to that guy over there, even if you, foul creature, aren't the one attacking him! Ha!"

I understand its purpose in the mechanics, and it seems to do that well enough. I'm just not seeing how the power makes any sense in my imagination.


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

Hopefully choice of smites and other abilities, having 5 per encounter abilities would probably be a waste.  Thats on the edge, but more than 6 or 7 would almost certainly be a waste.

I can't see a reason not to open every single combat with Safeguard Smite, by the way.  Taking down enemies faster and avoiding damage is almost always a good tactical decision.

Anyone note that 'weapon of choice' reference near the beginning?  An unfortunate choice of words, or actually a class requirement?

Love that the first level ability actually scales and is just as useful (if not more useful the other smites) at higher levels?

On binding smite, btw.  The target can't even affect himself... no healing, teleporting or anything else, or at least thats the way I read 'line of effect to anyone but you'.  Nice, but so high level I'm not sure I care.  It does seem like the power level is toned down a bit.  It certainly isn't 3.x 'epic', and I'm rather glad of that.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

I like the idea strategically.  I think it would make more sense if the safeguard smite game a bonus to an ally's AC from attacks made by the creature hit.  I don't like that the paladin hitting target A helps his/her ally defend versus target B.

The idea of the burst of healing coming from a hit in a given radius from the blow makes a bit more sense.  

Overall though, pretty nifty information.  Plus, what shocks me more, the smites didn't have absolutely ridiculous names.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

Oh and thanks to Neceros from those of us that can no longer log in to anything on WotC's site.


----------



## Smerg (Nov 29, 2007)

I would suspect a progression close to the Bo9S.

At level 10, you would have 10 smites/slots known, 5-6 smites ready to use, and possibly 2-3 stances that were available all the time.

A paladin could thus pick up a smite aimed at dragons or undead (enhanced attack specific to these creatures) and not feel it was clogging the choices of utility smites that could be used in any situation.

A paladin might even have a few things like Align weapon or flaming weapon smite that are again not useful 100% so can be moved to the known but not ready backburner when the expectation of those types of encouters are low (ex no need of flaming weapon smite since I am fighting fire giants today, guess I will get out the anti-huge creature smite).


----------



## Sammael (Nov 29, 2007)

What was that about not having aggro rules in 4E? 

Overall, I _like_ the variety of smites. I am guessing that 4E paladins will not be spellcasters in the traditional sense of the word, but, rather, they will have an array of abilities that look a lot like spells.

What I _don't_ like is that, for the most part, the smites presented are purely gamist in nature. I can see no feasible in-game justification for their secondary effects, except _maybe_ the binding smite. I miss an opponent and my friends are now harder to hit? WTF? I realize that 4E is being designed with the principle that "unfun" things (such as wasting a smite by missing the intended oponent) are badbadbadbadbad, but come on... Similarly, the "I hit, you heal" smite is likewise bizarre.

Regarding the class name, I will be renaming it "champion," much like I've done in 3.x.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

> On binding smite, btw. The target can't even affect himself... no healing, teleporting or anything else, or at least thats the way I read 'line of effect to anyone but you'. Nice, but so high level I'm not sure I care.



That's pretty awesome.



> It does seem like the power level is toned down a bit. It certainly isn't 3.x 'epic', and I'm rather glad of that.



Thank goodness. I wonder if there will be epic epic.. like 31-40? PHB2 maybe?



> What I don't like is that, for the most part, the smites presented are purely gamist in nature. I can see no feasible in-game justification for their secondary effects, except maybe the binding smite. I miss an opponent and my friends are now harder to hit? WTF? I realize that 4E is being designed with the principle that "unfun" things (such as wasting a smite by missing the intended oponent) are badbadbadbadbad, but come on... Similarly, the "I hit, you heal" smite is likewise bizarre.



They did the same thing in Book of Nine Swords. I think it's very effective. I like it, even if it doesn't make perfect sense to you or me. It could be any one reason, perhaps one we can't think of?


----------



## DreamChaser (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I understand its purpose in the mechanics, and it seems to do that well enough. I'm just not seeing how the power makes any sense in my imagination.




Huh...try this on:



			
				Paladin said:
			
		

> Hail Bahamut! Grant your glory and might as we battle those foul in your sight. Let my blade strike true as your claws and let our shields be true to your cause!




Each smite does not need to be a single thing nor is it necessarily cause / effect...it is an overall prayer or incantation but it is doing two things. Note that the protection happens Hit or Miss. The paladin is a woman of action and she asks for the blessing of her god to strike at her foes; but she is also a guardian who wishes to help her comrades in their fight.

I think it makes perfect sense.

DC


----------



## Oldtimer (Nov 29, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Oh and thanks to Neceros from those of us that can no longer log in to anything on WotC's site.



Or one can just make links that logs in automatically for you. 
Like this: I smite thee, foul miscreant!


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Nov 29, 2007)

Paladin 1, Paladin 13, Paladin 27: they're all available at odd levels. It may just a coincidence, or perhaps it's to the SW Saga system, with characters getting powers at odd levels and feats at even ones?

One of the Gencon revelations was 25th level spells, but there may not be 24th or 26th level spells.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2007)

I doubt the Paladin will choose a new smite each level.  For one, that would require there to be AT LEAST 31 smites to choose from, so that there'd be some actual choice involved.  Realistically, you'd want about 60.  I don't think the book will have 60 paladin smites.

There are a lot of other progressions that would match 1, 13, and 27.  Every odd level would do it.  Level 1 plus every 6 levels after it would get you 1, 7, 13, 20, 27.  I'm sure there's more, plus there's "when we darn well say so" as an option.

I'd also be surprised if the only choosable paladin abilities were smites.

Regarding the in game explanation- Its a paladin.  He's doing magic, except because he's a paladin, he doesn't wave his hands around like a little girl to do magic- he hits things in the face while channeling divine energies to enact his will.  There, solved that one.

I like the idea of charisma modifying the paladin's special attacks.  I like playing characters with spread out ability scores, and this suggests to me that a bunch of mid level numbers might be a good option for a paladin.

Regarding the use of low level smites at higher levels- If this is like other supplements, the way that will be handled is that you'll use your smite selections to drop a lower level smite and gain a higher one that does a similar effect, but better.  Like with Renewing Smite.  I'll bet there are other healing smites in the PHB, and the idea is that if your focus is on healing smites, you'll upgrade over time rather than continue using the original.

Binding Smite- That's... a pretty cool effect.  Its tactical.  I really like it.  I'm kind of sorry its such a high level though.


----------



## resistor (Nov 29, 2007)

Mechanically, this looks like a very good approach.  I'm not convinced by the flavor of some of the smites, but not of them look hopeless.


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

But the 1st level smite actually scales (with normal weapon damage).  It does just as much damage as the 13th level smite, and I'd argue that a AC bonus is worth more than a really very small amount of healing (for 13th level), which doesn't scale well, and actually becomes a smaller percentage of your hit points as you increase in level, no matter how small your HP increase is each level.

Heck, you aren't even healing the bonus hit points you get from the toughness feat, unless you have a wisdom modifer of +6!  Since Safeguard would give you a +6 AC (even if just for a round), swapping Safeguard for Renewing seems a poor choice, if its possible.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 29, 2007)

I presume that the format for these Smites is going to be the same format we see for all Powers. If so, I like it a lot. It condenses a lot of important information in a simple, clean format. There are a few details that need to be explained (such as how Charisma vs. AC attacks work, exactly), but otherwise, I can read that description perfectly well.

Name
Required class and level
Classification (frequency of use?) * special descriptors
Action cost
Range
Valid Targets
What you need to roll
Effect and Duration

Pretty much all the information you need, in the exact order you need to know it, for any kind of power.

I think this description might be the final nail in the coffin for the classic D&D magical schools. There is no unneccesary <Conjuration> tag next to the healing descriptor, nor anywhere else.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 29, 2007)

These new healing ideas are really not my cup of tea.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There are a lot of other progressions that would match 1, 13, and 27.  Every odd level would do it.  Level 1 plus every 6 levels after it would get you 1, 7, 13, 20, 27.  I'm sure there's more, plus there's "when we darn well say so" as an option.




Shouldn't level 1 plus every 6 after give you 1, 7, 13, 19, 25?

As far as an arithmetic progression of the form a*n+b that goes through 1, 13, and 27, you'd need b to be 1 when n is 0, so a*n would have to be able to be 0, 12, and 26.  a would have to divide all of those and the only common divisor of all of those is 2.  So the odd trick works, but no other arithmetic one.  Either it's odd or its a more complex pattern.


----------



## Jinete (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Buddy Jesus pic




 LOL   



> They mix a fair portion of damage (scaled up by level, but not necessarily the amount of dice) while giving an ally a much needed boost of hit points at the most opportune moments.




I'm not sure I get this. Damage for all strikes is 2x[W]+Ability mod. I don't know how fast ability modifiers scale in 4e, but in 3e there wouldn't be a lot of damage difference between a 1st and a 27th lvl pally. 

Except if "base weapon damage" includes a level dependent bonus of some sort.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Or one can just make links that logs in automatically for you.
> Like this: I smite thee, foul miscreant!




Nice trick, and thanks.  Maybe there are indeed ways to get around their (ahem) "security" and actually read some of the 4e advertisements from their site.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 29, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I get this. Damage for all strikes is 2x[W]+Ability mod. I don't know how fast ability modifiers scale in 4e, but in 3e there wouldn't be a lot of damage difference between a 1st and a 27th lvl pally.
> 
> Except if "base weapon damage" includes a level dependent bonus of some sort.



They do specifically mention that the damage scales up by level, in the comments on the second smite.  Maybe there's a direct level-based bonus to damage, or maybe "base" just means before doubling effects and extra dice or whatever, so stuff like power attack would get doubled by the smite too.  Who knows.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 29, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Nice trick, and thanks.  Maybe there are indeed ways to get around their (ahem) "security" and actually read some of the 4e advertisements from their site.



The easy way is to click the "printer friendly" link at the bottom of each page.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 29, 2007)

I like these a lot!!

The big question of course is what is a charisma attack?

Is it an attack modified by charisma instead of strength....just a charisma check, a charisma check modified by a few things like your level bonus?

My guess is it will work very much like BO9S. Your number of manuevers won't go up very much, and as you increase in level you can start upgrading 1st level powers into higher ones. 

I do like the charisma/wisdom parity. More charisma = more raw damage. More wisdom = more help to your friends. Both are viable in their own way. That's a kind of MAD I could really come to like.


----------



## Yair (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm not sure I like this whole "I hit, and an ally gets X".    Seems very strange, especially the "I miss, and an ally gets X".    Yes, I suppose it could be prayers, but why does a prayer needs to be accompanied by a strike? And it doesn't seem to require even a verbal component, or concentration... it doesn't feel right. I'm also concerned it will lead to paladins attacking the mooks to activate their smite's secondary effects on an ally in need. 

That won't stop me from buying the book and seeing how it all works in practice. But I don't think I'll like it.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 29, 2007)

Yair said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I like this whole "I hit, and an ally gets X".    Seems very strange, especially the "I miss, and an ally gets X".    Yes, I suppose it could be prayers, but why does a prayer needs to be accompanied by a strike?



A paladin is a lodestone of the gods whose powers manifest most strongly during the channeling of a smite.  In these moments, he can achieve greatness, working his will on himself, his companions, and his enemies.

AKA magic.

Imagine it like this.  Most of the day, a Paladin is a regular dude.  Maybe an unusually upstanding (or at least exceptionally devoted) dude, but a regular dude nonetheless.  When Smiting Season rolls around, though, his magical mojo spikes and pours out of him.  Crazy shenanigans ensue.  Unless you're a bad guy, in which case cranial bleeding usually ensues.


----------



## FadedC (Nov 29, 2007)

Seems like the paladin might be able to just "smite the air" to activate the 2nd part of his power if he really wanted to. I can't imagine him wanting to very often though...the true power of the ability seems to be the fact that it gives you a strong attack in addition to providing a bonus of some kind. Without the attack part, the effect seems intended to be minor (except maybe for the epic power).


----------



## OakwoodDM (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> But the 1st level smite actually scales (with normal weapon damage).  It does just as much damage as the 13th level smite, and I'd argue that a AC bonus is worth more than a really very small amount of healing (for 13th level), which doesn't scale well, and actually becomes a smaller percentage of your hit points as you increase in level, no matter how small your HP increase is each level.
> 
> Heck, you aren't even healing the bonus hit points you get from the toughness feat, unless you have a wisdom modifer of +6!  Since Safeguard would give you a +6 AC (even if just for a round), swapping Safeguard for Renewing seems a poor choice, if its possible.




That is, unless the Wis bonus to the Heal is the Wis bonus we saw on the Spined Devil card, and it's initial Wis bonus + Half level, in which case, it scales fairly nicely (and starts off essentially as 16 + initial wis bonus)


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

Meh.  Even if (and I doubt it) that is true, that only keeps it at ~10% of a characters hit points.  Thats perhaps a single hit from a normal weapon, and would lag far behind the damage capability of anyone with comparable abilities.  As a once/encounter thing, that isn't much.  It doesn't come close to a 10 to 15% shift in the odds that a character will get hit at all (from all attacks for a round) and thats what Safeguard smite will give you, even if you don't push Wisdom to truly unreasonable levels.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 29, 2007)

Well, one thing is for sure...WotC has picked up the consolation-price strategy from different sports competitions. Missed your attack roll with that nifty class ability? No worries, it'll still have an effect on somebody. Makes me wonder if the fighter will be able to turn a near enough miss into decreased damage with some or other ability. Color me unimpressed.  :\


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

One of the three smites has an effect on a miss.

But, yes, there is a fighter ability that inflicts a character's strength modifier in damage when he misses.  whee.


----------



## senna (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.  Even if (and I doubt it) that is true, that only keeps it at ~10% of a characters hit points.  Thats perhaps a single hit from a normal weapon, and would lag far behind the damage capability of anyone with comparable abilities.  As a once/encounter thing, that isn't much.  It doesn't come close to a 10 to 15% shift in the odds that a character will get hit at all (from all attacks for a round) and thats what Safeguard smite will give you, even if you don't push Wisdom to truly unreasonable levels.




True, but it could help a ally that droped to negatives and put him in shape again, or could heal the wizard who is being scorshed with fire in the back of the party, in witch case a bonus to ca would notbe too helpfull. It´s very situacional and both are usefull in the right context, but the first is more so i admit. What is nice because that first level power will still see use as you go upin level.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 29, 2007)

From the article I get the impression that bonus damage by level (but not strength) counts as base weapon damage.  

Other smites, I see as putting on penalties to the subject, or stunning/dazing (they need to clarify and fix these conditions), or fear effects or smite and give your defenses bonuses.  And improved versions of the other 2 smites, which effect all allies rather than just one.

I noticed that all these smites are melee based, which was the way it was in 3e too.  But assuming I wanted a character who used ranged smites, I'm guessing there's a feat or talent to do that.  Though somehow I'm suspecting it's going to lean more on a feat like there was in 3.5e.  

Of course it also makes me wonder the possibilities with multi-classing, like will you be able to pick an "arcane-smite" with the right feat for a Paladin/Warlock, and if that would be so powerful, it would be a per day ability.


----------



## Njall (Nov 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Well, one thing is for sure...WotC has picked up the consolation-price strategy from different sports competitions. Missed your attack roll with that nifty class ability? No worries, it'll still have an effect on somebody. Makes me wonder if the fighter will be able to turn a near enough miss into decreased damage with some or other ability. Color me unimpressed.  :\




You mean things like people taking half damage from an attack when a saving throw succeeds? Eh, I'm shocked, where did they take such a weird idea?


----------



## Jinete (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.  Even if (and I doubt it) that is true, that only keeps it at ~10% of a characters hit points.  Thats perhaps a single hit from a normal weapon, and would lag far behind the damage capability of anyone with comparable abilities.  As a once/encounter thing, that isn't much.  It doesn't come close to a 10 to 15% shift in the odds that a character will get hit at all (from all attacks for a round) and thats what Safeguard smite will give you, even if you don't push Wisdom to truly unreasonable levels.




A 3.5 paladin could cast cure moderate wounds, which would heal 2d8+6 i.e. ~15hp.  10+wisdom isn't bad as an added effect to hitting your foe for double damage. And it's not like the paladin is the primary healer.

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.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 29, 2007)

Never really liked Paladins and never had any player really want to play them (my guys always shy away from LG as if it is a straitjacket). 

Still interesting ideas, I can see these smite powers working for the paladin as has the divine power source, he should call to his God before issuing these strikes (like HE-Man the Paladin "By the power of GreySkull!!").




			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Well, one thing is for sure...WotC has picked up the consolation-price strategy from different sports competitions. Missed your attack roll with that nifty class ability? No worries, it'll still have an effect on somebody. *Makes me wonder if the fighter will be able to turn a near enough miss into decreased damage with some or other ability. Color me unimpressed.  :\*




In one of the playtests a fighter did damage even though he missed because he had some feat/power :S...

I was not really in love  with the idea either.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 29, 2007)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> Or one can just make links that logs in automatically for you.
> Like this: I smite thee, foul miscreant!




Erm isn't that (and the Printer Friendly thing) a big security hole?


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 29, 2007)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> In one of the playtests a fighter did damage even though he missed because he had some feat/power :S...
> 
> I was not really in love  with the idea either.





Seems only fair is wizards can miss with their spells and still do half damage.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 29, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> You mean things like people taking half damage from an attack when a saving throw succeeds? Eh, I'm shocked, where did they take such a weird idea?




Me, I'm wondering how people get the idea to compare saving throws and their context with attack rolls and their context in older editions, but I guess everything is possible.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 29, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Seems only fair is wizards can miss with their spells and still do half damage.




For 4E, with magic attack rolls, this is indeed a question that needs to be answered...which doesn't mean I like the way they did that so far, though I could see the area effect attacks being roughly equal to splatter-attack grenade weapons, while a failed magic attack on a ray would yield a total miss, for example.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 29, 2007)

Perhaps because in 4E they are exactly the same mechanic. Spell attack a persons Reflex Defense, Swords attack a person's AC.


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> For 4E, with magic attack rolls, this is indeed a question that needs to be answered...which doesn't mean I like the way they did that so far, though I could see the area effect attacks being roughly equal to splatter-attack grenade weapons, while a failed magic attack on a ray would yield a total miss, for example.




If its anything like SW Saga, area attacks that miss reflex defense simply do half damage.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 29, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> The big question of course is what is a charisma attack?




I've been thinking about that, and considering the recent 'Races and Classes' leak said



> Unified progression of defense, BAB and saves. A 10th level character will have +5 of those (thus +0.5 / level). Even at 1st level classes can significantly alter the base value. Class abilities modify them further.




I wonder whether attacks might be half level + Str bonus (typical melee weapon), half level + Dex bonus (missile weapon), half level + Cha bonus (paladin smite) and target different defences as appropriate

Cheers


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Well, one thing is for sure...WotC has picked up the consolation-price strategy from different sports competitions. Missed your attack roll with that nifty class ability? No worries, it'll still have an effect on somebody. Makes me wonder if the fighter will be able to turn a near enough miss into decreased damage with some or other ability. Color me unimpressed.  :\



You're welcome to be unimpressed, but calling a failed attack roll a "miss" (save possibly on a roll of 1) suggests limited familiarity with the abstractions of armor and Hit Points as used in D&D.

Armor doesn't make you harder to hit, and attack rolls under AC don't miss. A failed attack roll is as much or more 'bounces harmlessly off his armor' as it is 'cuts the air where he was standing'. The fighter, thanks to 4e, has the technique to turn one (or more) of those glancing harmless blows into something the foe at least takes notice of.

I'm okay with the context, really.


----------



## Njall (Nov 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Me, I'm wondering how people get the idea to compare saving throws and their context with attack rolls and their context in older editions, but I guess everything is possible.




Well, it's because now saving throws work like AC ( notice the reference to "cha vs will" ), thus it is reasonable to think that the two would work in similar ways.
Wizard power: deal, say,  2d6 damage to anyone in the area, half if reflex defense is missed. Int vs Reflex. It works exactly like fireball in 3.x; 
Fighter power: deal weapon damage to your target. Deal str bonus as damage on a miss. Attack vs AC.
Seems consistent, doesn't it?
If both are per encounter abilities, I don't see where the problem is


----------



## OakwoodDM (Nov 29, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> A 3.5 paladin could cast cure moderate wounds, which would heal 2d8+6 i.e. ~15hp.  10+wisdom isn't bad as an added effect to hitting your foe for double damage. And it's not like the paladin is the primary healer.
> 
> 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.




Plus, of course, there might be characters who lose some of their potent powers when they become Bloodied. No amount of AC boosting is going to take them back past the threshhold, but a dozen or so hit points of healing could, if only for one attack.


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 29, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> You're welcome to be unimpressed, but calling a failed attack roll a "miss" (save possibly on a roll of 1) suggests limited familiarity with the abstractions of armor and Hit Points as used in D&D.
> 
> Armor doesn't make you harder to hit, and attack rolls under AC don't miss. A failed attack roll is as much or more 'bounces harmlessly off his armor' as it is 'cuts the air where he was standing'. The fighter, thanks to 4e, has the technique to turn one (or more) of those glancing harmless blows into something the foe at least takes notice of.
> 
> I'm okay with the context, really.




Looking at it from that context I dont really have a problem with it. How the powers work in-game needs to be explained in the PHB. 

If I can understand what the power looks like in-game I can explain it to my players. Dont break my immersion WOTC...


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 29, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> You're welcome to be unimpressed, but calling a failed attack roll a "miss" (save possibly on a roll of 1) suggests limited familiarity with the abstractions of armor and Hit Points as used in D&D.




Nope, it simply suggests I don't percieve the necessity to dial up the resolution in my description in order to take all possible scenarios of why the attacker failed to do damage into account. Splicing it up into "your hit simply missed outright", "the target moved out of the way fast enough" and "your swing connects but bounces off his armor harmlessly" was far too much to type for my initial post, but apparently I should get used to people questioning my gamer cred as soon as I start using shorthand.

Shorthand like "You didn't hit the AC, you fail to do damage". This is what the attack roll is about, and the differing factors that in the end enable the fighter to roll for damage are all included in that one abstract attack bonus (or ThAC0 value, or the To-Hit value, or whatever you prefer to use). The same way, all the differing factors that keep the target from suffering damage are rolled into its AC.

What I simply don't like is ANOTHER factor that says "Hey, despite you not hitting your target strong enough to punch through the armor, despite it ducking away from your swing fast enough, you still do some damage because we don't want you to not have fun while swinging/lose one of your encounter abilities because your die rolled bad." At some point in the game, there are simply too many safety nets to make sure a character cannot entirely fail no matter what he does FOR MY PERSONAL TASTE! That is not meant as a general statement of value of the game in question, by the way.



			
				Njall said:
			
		

> Well, it's because now saving throws work like AC ( notice the reference to "cha vs will" ), thus it is reasonable to think that the two would work in similar ways.
> Wizard power: deal, say, 2d6 damage to anyone in the area, half if reflex defense is missed. Int vs Reflex. It works exactly like fireball in 3.x;
> Fighter power: deal weapon damage to your target. Deal str bonus as damage on a miss. Attack vs AC.
> Seems consistent, doesn't it?
> If both are per encounter abilities, I don't see where the problem is




My personal problem with this is that one is a clear area attack that spreads its damage over the entire area, the other is an attack against one singular target, as such it is very locally restricted damage. If you had given that fighter some area attack weapon (flame thrower, greek-oil grenade, blackpoder bomb), I'd have less problems with it.
Conversely, if a ray attack misses, I'd have as much problems with the spell still doing some damage to *its intended target*.
In the light of spell attack rolls, I'd rather have them institute the "miss" on a failed attack roll more broadly for combat spells as well to make them equal to a failed weapon attack roll. But that's just me.
And yeah, with older editions, spells were different enough from weapon attacks in combat, in applicability, effect, and frequency, to warrant a different handling. If spell attacks are now closer to weapon attacks in 4E, they should be handled pretty much similarly as well.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 29, 2007)

I think they sound great, and give the Paladin a few more options in combat - plus they're all pretty immediate effects, so a minimum of bookkeeping.

I think we'll have to wait for more details before we can start judging their effectiveness at higher levels - those descriptions don't really make it clear entirely how they work or give examples of numbers.

Still liking the 4e ideas!


----------



## Goken100 (Nov 29, 2007)

*What happened to "No Aggro"?*

I thought we were assured that they tried and discarded MMO-style aggro mechanics for Defenders?  That 27th level smite sounds like aggro to me.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 29, 2007)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> A paladin is a lodestone of the gods whose powers manifest most strongly during the channeling of a smite.  In these moments, he can achieve greatness, working his will on himself, his companions, and his enemies.
> 
> AKA magic.



I agree.  The idea that a paladin can harness the act of striking a foe in the same way a wizard can harness the fireball potential in bat guano works for me.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 29, 2007)

One thing I noticed was the bonus to AC from the Paladin's smite was unnamed. Which I wouldn't have expected. Maybe they have come up with something that will get round all the stacking issues.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I thought we were assured that they tried and discarded MMO-style aggro mechanics for Defenders?  That 27th level smite sounds like aggro to me.



No, aggro is the system where everything you do racks up "aggro points" and the enemy attacks the person with the most aggro points and will never attack anyone else.  And tank types generally have abilities with increase their aggro artificially in order to stay at the top of the list, while everyone else has to be careful not to use their biggest attacks too often because it might put their aggro over the tanks and they'll die.

This is instead a system where certain classes give monsters a particular reason to attack only them without preventing them from attacking others.

I'm guessing line of effect won't matter for melee attacks, probably only for ranged attacks.  Even if it is both, however, it's still only for one round.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I thought we were assured that they tried and discarded MMO-style aggro mechanics for Defenders?  That 27th level smite sounds like aggro to me.




As far as I understand aggro, the smiting ability mentioned in the article isn't it - it's a single ability that uses a similar mechanic.

A full aggro mechanic would mean that every character who affected any monster would have an aggro score against that monster, and the DM would have to track each aggro score for each monster to determine who it would attack next round - which would be a complete nightmare. D&D doesn't need this, as we have a DM to decide upon the monsters tactics.


----------



## OakwoodDM (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I thought we were assured that they tried and discarded MMO-style aggro mechanics for Defenders?  That 27th level smite sounds like aggro to me.




Really? Sounds nothing like it to me. 

There's a huge difference between "This ability prevents the target from targetting anyone but you" and "Monsters attack people depending on (in this order): Who has done them the most damage; who has done their friends the most damage; who is healing the party the most; who was the last person to target them. In all these cases, the damage( & healing) is accumulated for the last 5 rounds."

The first is what this smite does. The second is an aggro mechanic.

(Disclaimer: This is my made up version of an aggro mechanic based on my limited understanding of them. I don't expect it to be an accurate representation of any aggro mechanic from any computer game past or present!)

Edit: three posts at the same time saying essentially the same thing!


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I thought we were assured that they tried and discarded MMO-style aggro mechanics for Defenders?  That 27th level smite sounds like aggro to me.




They said they discarded MMO-style aggro (ie: where it tends to be tracked by the amount of damage you can do, and would involve a lot of bookkeeping.).


----------



## Driddle (Nov 29, 2007)

I read elsewhere that they're introducing three kinds of hit-point regenerative abilities as well: a _Protein-Laden Recovery_ (something involving steak and lobster), a _Feather-Bed Recovery_ (requires the PC assume a horizontal position), and a _Medicinal Recovery_ (they're still experimenting with health plan rules). 

It's quite exciting to see such creative new design directions. The only way this could get even better is if they could incorporate a joystick and button combinations. ... "Tiramisu Smite" = D,D,U+Punch!


----------



## Njall (Nov 29, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> My personal problem with this is that one is a clear area attack that spreads its damage over the entire area, the other is an attack against one singular target, as such it is very locally restricted damage. If you had given that fighter some area attack weapon (flame thrower, greek-oil grenade, blackpoder bomb), I'd have less problems with it.
> Conversely, if a ray attack misses, I'd have as much problems with the spell still doing some damage to *its intended target*.
> In the light of spell attack rolls, I'd rather have them institute the "miss" on a failed attack roll more broadly for combat spells as well to make them equal to a failed weapon attack roll. But that's just me.
> And yeah, with older editions, spells were different enough from weapon attacks in combat, in applicability, effect, and frequency, to warrant a different handling. If spell attacks are now closer to weapon attacks in 4E, they should be handled pretty much similarly as well.




Well, compare it to "whirlwind attack", in its SWSE incarnation: it's a melee attack, and it's also an area attack, so it deals half damage on a missed hit.
If there's only one oppoent in range, it works along the lines of this power.
Furthermore, the power was said to be a "spear power", IIRC...thus, you can assume the fighter is spinning the haft in the defender's square, thus assuring he'll at least hit his opponent, even though he'll only score a glancing blow. 
But if it's just a matter of personal taste, I won't argue any further


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 29, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> Except if "base weapon damage" includes a level dependent bonus of some sort.




What if they go the SW Saga route:  Add 1/2 your level in damage to weapons?  In which case that paladin at 27th level would be adding an extra +13 points.


----------



## Njall (Nov 29, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I read elsewhere that they're introducing three kinds of hit-point regenerative abilities as well: a _Protein-Laden Recovery_ (something involving steak and lobster), a _Feather-Bed Recovery_ (requires the PC assume a horizontal position), and a _Medicinal Recovery_ (they're still experimenting with health plan rules).
> 
> It's quite exciting to see such creative new design directions. The only way this could get even better is if they could incorporate a joystick and button combinations. ... "Tiramisu Smite" = D,D,U+Punch!




You know, it's weird how people keep associating 4e and video games, when the only games where you're assumed to gain power through gear more than experience that I can remember having played are WoW and 3e, and the first impression my dm had when 3e was released was that it was so modular it would've been easy to make a videogame out of it, adding feats ( and, eventually, prestige classes ) with expansions. 
To each one his own, I guess?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 29, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> Furthermore, the power was said to be a "spear power", IIRC...thus, you can assume the fighter is spinning the haft in the defender's square, thus assuring he'll at least hit his opponent, even though he'll only score a glancing blow.




Reminds me of the classic scene from Moria where the troll spears Frodo. Frodo is protected by his mithril shirt, so he isn't spitted, but he still took enough damage from the blow to put him out of the fight.

(note, I'm not saying this is the D&D representation of that fight. I'm perfectly aware that there are lots of different ways of 'flavour texting' that fight. I'm just using it as a visual that fits)

Cheers


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I think this description might be the final nail in the coffin for the classic D&D magical schools. There is no unneccesary <Conjuration> tag next to the healing descriptor, nor anywhere else.




Thuis things I'm doing right now?

Yeah, that's the dance of joy.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I thought we were assured that they tried and discarded MMO-style aggro mechanics for Defenders?  That 27th level smite sounds like aggro to me.




Sounds like a one-round compulsion effect to me.


----------



## ShinRyuuBR (Nov 29, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> What if they go the SW Saga route:  Add 1/2 your level in damage to weapons?  In which case that paladin at 27th level would be adding an extra +13 points.




It seems pretty obvious that is the case. It seems the guy from Hungary was right, and so was the spined devil stats: ability modifiers now are always (or mostly) used with +1/2 lvl added. This would include Defenses (plus 10), attack rolls (including "Charisma attacks"), damage rolls, skill checks and so on. As the guy said, every class will use the progression of +1/2 lvl for everything, and their abilities and powers will make the difference.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 29, 2007)

They are doing well with the actual crunch, and I like this new guys writting. Even the names here where fine. 

One thing: I am not sure they are simplifying things. They are simplifying _some _ things, but if a paladin (and everyone else) does have a bag of these in play, all doing different kinds of buffs and effects, it may not be _that_ simple. 

But I am liking it.


----------



## BartD (Nov 29, 2007)

ShinRyuuBR said:
			
		

> It seems pretty obvious that is the case. It seems the guy from Hungary was right, and so was the spined devil stats: ability modifiers now are always (or mostly) used with +1/2 lvl added. This would include Defenses (plus 10), attack rolls (including "Charisma attacks"), damage rolls, skill checks and so on. As the guy said, every class will use the progression of +1/2 lvl for everything, and their abilities and powers will make the difference.



I have considered the same thing (everything increases by +1 per 2 levels) and think it is mostly brilliant.

The only concern I really have is what to do with the con modifier for hitpoints and to a lesser degree the int modifier to skills. If hitpoints is affected by con as in 3e, it will give everyone 50 extra hitpoints at level 10, 200 at level 20 and 450 at level 30, which will come to dominate hit point totals unless something else is changed to modify it. While it would certainly be simple to disregard the increases for hitpoints and skills, it would also make it less neat.


----------



## Voss (Nov 29, 2007)

Only some things are increasing that way.  Hit points will not be one of them.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

ShinRyuuBR said:
			
		

> As the guy said, every class will use the progression of +1/2 lvl for everything, and their abilities and powers will make the difference.




The more I think about this change . . . the more I really like it.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2007)

On the "Consolation Prize" sub-topic.

The point to remember is that a single die roll for attack is not the only attack a character is making in a round.  Even in a 6 second round, the PC is assumed to be doing more than swinging his sword once.  Six seconds is a fairly long time, so, it's not terribly hard to imagine that you are making an area of effect attack on a 5 foot area with a weapon as you duck, jive, swing and feint, gaining one actual attack in that round (or more with iteratives). 

Since I believe that iterative attacks have been removed (I think I read that), it makes more sense that you would have collateral effects to actions unless you reduce the time frame even further than a 6 second round.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 29, 2007)

One word for the new Paladin smites: Ridiculous.

How does hitting an enemy give your friends better armor? In what legend or myth did this happen? When did Roland (the legendary model for the Paladin class) hit someone in a way that healed his friends? And "Safeguared Smite"? It sounds like a character in a 1950s schoolhouse filmstrip.

Apparently, in 4th ed. the DM doesn't just have to keep track of the rules exceptions created by one or two spellcasters, but has to deal with every party member creating multiple rules exceptions multiple times in combat. This is "easier DMing"? They've  cut down on the "Christmas tree" effect with magic items alright - by building the magic items right into the classes! Just what are they smoking in Seattle?

I wish WOTC would stop calling the game they're making a 4th edition of D&D. Maybe they could try something more appropriate, like Golden Hyper Dragon Warrior Defenders: The Game Of Fantasy Races Who Live In A Grid of Squares And Therefore Only Move In Straight Lines.


----------



## Goken100 (Nov 29, 2007)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> No, aggro is the system where everything you do racks up "aggro points" and the enemy attacks the person with the most aggro points and will never attack anyone else.  And tank types generally have abilities with increase their aggro artificially in order to stay at the top of the list, while everyone else has to be careful not to use their biggest attacks too often because it might put their aggro over the tanks and they'll die.
> 
> This is instead a system where certain classes give monsters a particular reason to attack only them without preventing them from attacking others.
> 
> I'm guessing line of effect won't matter for melee attacks, probably only for ranged attacks.  Even if it is both, however, it's still only for one round.



Okay, thanks, now I've got it.  I R happys with 4E (on this issue...).


----------



## Stormtalon (Nov 29, 2007)

It's not giving the allies better ARMOR per se.  Look at it this way; it's a Charisma-based ability -- that means it's powered by the Paladin's own force of personality.  As a non-fantasy analogy, think of one of the final sequences in _Aliens_.  

Ripley coming out in the power loader and laying into the Queen with her cry of "Get away from her you b****!" -- THAT's the sort of thing a Safeguard Smite does.  It draws an enemy's attention away from a particular target just long enough to make it less likely to get ahold of 'em.  

Mechanically, it could be done as either a penalty to the enemy's attack roll OR as a bonus to AC; since it only affects attacks against a single individual, the AC bonus is the right way to go.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 29, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> One word for the new Paladin smites: Ridiculous.
> 
> How does hitting an enemy give your friends better armor? In what legend or myth did this happen? When did Roland (the legendary model for the Paladin class) hit someone in a way that healed his friends? And "Safeguared Smite"? It sounds like a character in a 1950s schoolhouse filmstrip.



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.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> It's not giving the allies better ARMOR per se.  Look at it this way; it's a Charisma-based ability -- that means it's powered by the Paladin's own force of personality.  As a non-fantasy analogy, think of one of the final sequences in _Aliens_.
> 
> Ripley coming out in the power loader and laying into the Queen with her cry of "Get away from her you b****!" -- THAT's the sort of thing a Safeguard Smite does.  It draws an enemy's attention away from a particular target just long enough to make it less likely to get ahold of 'em.
> 
> Mechanically, it could be done as either a penalty to the enemy's attack roll OR as a bonus to AC; since it only affects attacks against a single individual, the AC bonus is the right way to go.



My first instinct explanation was this, though more in a "Holy hell did you see what he did to Bill!?!?" approach amongst the foes. Which I realize is silly, but made me chuckle.


----------



## el-remmen (Nov 29, 2007)

I don't like these from either a flavor stand-point or a mechanical stand-point (including another layer of stuff to be forgotten about - "Oh wait! I should have healed someone on that last smite, so then he didn't really die from that attack, because I would have chosen him. . .etc. . . etc. . . )


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I don't like these from either a flavor stand-point or a mechanical stand-point (including another layer of stuff to be forgotten about - "Oh wait! I should have healed someone on that last smite, so then he didn't really die from that attack, because I would have chosen him. . .etc. . . etc. . . )



"Yes you should have. I recommend reading over your smites when you have a free moment to ensure you're familiar with all their effects."


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 29, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> These new healing ideas are really not my cup of tea.




That’s because everyone is stuck on the "hit points = physical damage" I think it would have been better of they would have gone Wounds/Vitality and just divide the hit points by two..

The way 4e works you have not taken any physical damage till the character is bloodied, before that, its all non-physical damage.. 

Instead of seeing it as "heeling" before the target is bloodied, see it as a 2nd wind, catching your breath, regaining your composure.

In boxing you see someone take a ton of small hits, they don’t take him down, and sometimes they look like that are against the ropes and somehow pull off a comeback… (That’s not being bloodied) Now, sometimes you will see a good boxer gets a wack to the ribs, which takes the fight out of him. (Example of bloodied)


----------



## eleran (Nov 29, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> One word for the new Paladin smites: Ridiculous.
> 
> How does hitting an enemy give your friends better armor? In what legend or myth did this happen? When did Roland (the legendary model for the Paladin class) hit someone in a way that healed his friends? And "Safeguared Smite"? It sounds like a character in a 1950s schoolhouse filmstrip.
> 
> ...




Perhaps you can point me to a source that has Roland throwing spells?  

I wish you and your ilk would stop pontificating and bloviating on what is and isn't D&D.  Just shut up and go play whatever you want to play and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2007)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> Each smite does not need to be a single thing nor is it necessarily cause / effect...it is an overall prayer or incantation but it is doing two things.




Not sure I like that, though.  If it must have multiple effects, I would prefer all the effects to be more strongly thematically linked.  Otherwise, we are in "it is a dessert topping, and a floorwax!" territory.  If the effects are disparate, it becomes much easier to forget or confuse them.

YMMV.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 29, 2007)

*The Paladins Role and the Paladin*

The whole "role" thing is a pretty clear here. Paladin's are defenders, and as such, they need to be able to make melee attacks. And neither healing nor buffing is going to stay in the way of that. Whats also interesting is that they may be more charismatic then strong, and still, they are defenders and can go toe to toe in melee. So we can be confident that other paladin benefits are in this vien: melee attacking, and defending themselves and others. (I am curious where that horse is going to fit in). 

But is this too gamist? I really don't think this feels anymore artificial or a-mythic then spell casting paladins. And there is something _ritualistic _ about cutting into an enemy. I could see a big, holy, hit giving relief to your allies.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 29, 2007)

BartD said:
			
		

> I have considered the same thing (everything increases by +1 per 2 levels) and think it is mostly brilliant.




Why increase everything at one/two levels when it would keep a similar at one/one level?

In SAGA I think only skills, and additional damage increase at 1/2. All Defenses, a Good BAB increase at one for one.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2007)

Something to not forget here as well is that not all paladins are LG anymore.  If my NE paladin eviscerates someone, getting a little boost from my dark Lord isn't out of line.  Comparisons to Roland are pretty much moot by now.  

This ain't your daddy's D&D anymore.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This ain't your daddy's D&D anymore.



Yup.


----------



## GlassJaw (Nov 29, 2007)

First thought - cool, finally some actual crunch!
Second thought - wow, these are kinda lame...  :\ 

Overall, I don't like this trend at all.  

The secondary, "consolation prize" abilities are kind of hokey and feel like they were thrown-in and designed as an afterthought.  We feel bad if someone misses and wastes their smite so we'll tack on some random ability.  Ehh.  I would rather see abilities like the AC bonus be some kind of aura or just separate abilities altogether.

On top of that, it seems to me that effects like we are seeing here will do nothing to speed up play - quite the opposite.  I thought one of the design goals for 4E was speed of play.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by Hussar
> > This ain't  D&D anymore.
> 
> 
> ...




The wheel really does turn doesn't it?  Wasn't this pretty much precisely what people were saying about 3e seven years ago?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 29, 2007)

I am underwhelmed, but then the Crusader from Bo9S didn't grab me either.  Not sure I can add anything substantive to the conversation here.  Plus, it seems to be rapidly degenerating into a "nuh uh, yah huh" kind of debate that can only end in thread closing.

I will say that conceptually, I find attacks that hurt enemies and help allies somewhat difficult to conceive.  Most effects do one or the other.  Attacks might have extra effects, but they usually penalize the enemy.  Hamstring an opponent, he takes damage and loses two squares of movement.  Heal an ally, they get 2d6+10 hp and a +2 to AC.  That kind of thing.

Generally, secondary effects of abilities tend to have the same target as the primaries.  So I can see why people are having trouble with it.  Sure, mythologically it's fine and easy to explain.  But mechanically it's different from _most_ of what we've encountered before.


----------



## DreamChaser (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The wheel really does turn doesn't it?  Wasn't this pretty much precisely what people were saying about 3e seven years ago?




Yes. And I rolled my eyes just as vigorously then.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The wheel really does turn doesn't it?  Wasn't this pretty much precisely what people were saying about 3e seven years ago?



Possibly, but there are some crucial differences as well.

2E > 3E: huge changes to game mechanics (d20 system), a few flavor changes (any race can be any class, non-good rangers, orcs are CE, etc).

3E > 4E: overall, minor changes to game mechanics (tweaking and rebalancing of the d20 system), huge flavor changes.

To me, flavor is what makes the system "feel" like D&D, not mechanics. In that respect, I would wholeheartedly support even greater changes to the d20 system than what they are doing in 4E, but the current flavor changes are making me cringe.


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 29, 2007)

Yair said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I like this whole "I hit, and an ally gets X".    Seems very strange, especially the "I miss, and an ally gets X".



It actually makes more sense to me if the special effect happens regardless of whether the attack hits.  Just think of it as a quick prayer followed by an attack.

Why does the prayer have to be followed by an attack?  Well, you're a paladin, a martial champion of your deity.  Your *sword* is your holy symbol.  Cutting down the unrighteous is the purest expression of your faith.  Actions speak louder than words, and a prayer without a strike against evil is just empty mumbling.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 29, 2007)

How often did Roland use detect evil, turn undead, lay on hands or cure disease? I'm betting zero.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 29, 2007)

Voss said:
			
		

> I wish they would use a different term than ally, however.  Unless you have multiple personalities, you are not an ally of yourself.



DID the article make it expressly clear that you could take the bonus yourself? I have a hunch the paladin will be a character with a lot of abilities he HAS to use on others rather than himself.


----------



## GlassJaw (Nov 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> In that respect, I would wholeheartedly support even greater changes to the d20 system than what they are doing in 4E, but the current flavor changes are making me cringe.




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.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 29, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> DID the article make it expressly clear that you could take the bonus yourself? I have a hunch the paladin will be a character with a lot of abilities he HAS to use on others rather than himself.



It said he could target himself


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 29, 2007)

You know, I'm honestly just a little bit confused about all the problems people have with the kicker abilities for the smites.  Let's look at some current Paladin spells and abilities.

Lay on Hands and Cure Wound spells:  Heal allies
Protection from Evil: An ally gains a bonus to armor class (Vs evil creatures)

Dont those just look familiar?  Why are people acting like these abilities are coming out of nowhere? They've ALWAYS had this ability, but now they can do it while smacking the heck out of something at the same time.


----------



## DreamChaser (Nov 29, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Not sure I like that, though.  If it must have multiple effects, I would prefer all the effects to be more strongly thematically linked.  Otherwise, we are in "it is a dessert topping, and a floorwax!" territory.  If the effects are disparate, it becomes much easier to forget or confuse them.




I agree with the danger of dessert and floorwax....I just don't feel that any of these fall into that category.

If it was smite for extra damage and grant your ally +4 bonus to open locks, then I'd be concerned. But as the rest of my post noted...



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Note that the protection happens Hit or Miss. The paladin is a woman of action and she asks for the blessing of her god to strike at her foes; but she is also a guardian who wishes to help her comrades in their fight.




In each of the three examples, the paladin basically says "<god> help us by helping us overcome our foes." The first smite involves the god answering with extra damage and by protecting an ally, the second with damage and healing an ally, the third with damage and limiting an enemy. 

The goal of all three is the same and the methods are firmly in keeping with the role of the paladin (divine defender OR (for those who are hating on the roles) a praying warrior with heavy armor and a sword (of course that is a longer way of saying the same thing)).

DC


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 29, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> How often did Roland use detect evil, turn undead, lay on hands or cure disease? I'm betting zero.




Exactly. 

But a lawfull-not good-Roland smiting "saracens": it works well enough.


----------



## GlassJaw (Nov 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Dont those just look familiar?  Why are people acting like these abilities are coming out of nowhere? They've ALWAYS had this ability, but now they can do it while smacking the heck out of something at the same time.




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


----------



## Jinete (Nov 29, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I will say that conceptually, I find attacks that hurt enemies and help allies somewhat difficult to conceive.  Most effects do one or the other.  Attacks might have extra effects, but they usually penalize the enemy.  Hamstring an opponent, he takes damage and loses two squares of movement.  Heal an ally, they get 2d6+10 hp and a +2 to AC.  That kind of thing.




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


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 29, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It said he could target himself



Thats why i asked.

_grumble..._ even evil paladins should be encouraged to have allies. _grumble..._


----------



## Smerg (Nov 29, 2007)

Several things here.

Roland - well if you need a justification for healing or AC then often seeing a knight fight well is accompanied by word like 'his companions took heart'.  Heart being a reference to courage, recovery, regain of ability, better fighting as a result.  It is a pretty standard literary approach to saying that the Champion fought well which meant that everyone else suddenly got better.

Lay on Hands, Cure Light Wounds with Reach Spell Feat, Holy Sword spell ( need I go on that magic is part of D&D and is part of the God's impact on warriors).  I would further point that great Champions are lightning rods to the divine.  Just their actions of standing up and doing the 'right' thing means that Gods tend to intervene in their lives and their surroundings (both good and bad on that part).


A person said that the heal 10+wisdom seemed a bit weak.  I would point out that Kundum mentioned on Clerics that people get increased healing affects in their presence.  The heal 10+wisdom may get an additional modifier as if the base amount was just weapon damage before someone wielded it.  That might make this healing scale dramatically more then it appears now on paper.


There was a comment on using smites out of combat to attack things like rocks and trees to trigger the healing affect.  Given that manuvers likely have a 'cool' down (2 min in Bo9S) this will only lead to a slow heal but there might also be some overall riding trigger to use a smite (Divine being might take offense to invoking their holy power to strike down flowers so that your paladin can top up their hit points to maximum).


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If my NE paladin eviscerates someone, getting a little boost from my dark Lord isn't out of line.  Comparisons to Roland are pretty much moot by now.




But what is N and why E? And why not Roland: he cut up lots of people.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> but now they can do it while smacking the heck out of something at the same time.



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...


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> That's the crux of the problem.
> 
> "I smack the enemy. My allies are now healed."
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 29, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> 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."
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

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




You and I are probably much closer in *that* opinion than you may think.

I bailed out of the Realms shortly after the Time of Troubles because the changes made to accomodate 2e didn't really feel like 'my' Realms (which will always and forever be the Grey Box).

I recently started playing a Realms campaign, and it is unrecognizable experienced through the lens of the 3.5 rules.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> If it was smite for extra damage and grant your ally +4 bonus to open locks, then I'd be concerned.




Shhh.  Not too loud.  Some of the smites may not yet be written and they can use that.


----------



## eleran (Nov 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> 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?




I think you'll find with most of these folks the actual equation is;

Anything WE didn't think of = lame


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

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




From the new Smite description.


> This effect comes from releasing excess divine energy channeled during the smite attack.




What is a divine spell in 3rd ed?  'Channeling divine energy' seems a pretty good description to me.  This is no different from a Paladin spell in 3rd.  It's just got a new name in 4th.  Heck, you could convert this into a 3rd ed spell easilly and, like I said earlier, I doubt anyone would bat an eye.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 29, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I bailed out of the Realms shortly after the Time of Troubles because the changes made to accomodate 2e didn't really feel like 'my' Realms (which will always and forever be the Grey Box).



If they were to write a ruleset that will make the Realms feel like the Grey Box again, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, the dragonborn / tiefling / golden wyvern / emerald frost invasion makes it a near impossibility for 4E.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> From the new Smite description.
> 
> 
> What is a divine spell in 3rd ed?  'Channeling divine energy' seems a pretty good description to me.  This is no different from a Paladin spell in 3rd.  It's just got a new name in 4th.  Heck, you could convert this into a 3rd ed spell easilly and, like I said earlier, I doubt anyone would bat an eye.



Yes, but please note that _I_ included that description. It was not included in the original article.


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 29, 2007)

I agree this is cool beans.

Between this, the feats and the poison damage, I don't see how 4E makes the game THAT much simpler, though.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really, what iconic fantasy had the trade of magic items assumed?
> 
> What iconic fantasy had spells for purchase at relatively minor costs?
> 
> ...




Exactly. 3rd edition was bad enough. Now WOTC feels empowered to go whole hog and p**s all over the campaign world of any DM who doesn't want to go along with an over-the-top wire-fu idea of fantasy. And if a DM wants to do something that directly contradicts the _official rulebook_, he or she is going to find new players harder to come by. After all, WOTC doesn't sell miniatures that look like the characters in _homebrew _campaigns...


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> 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.




Again:

Wealth/level guidelines

Demographic guidelines

Buying Magic items

All tied very, very tightly to the mechanics.  About a bazillion threads of "3e doesn't do what I want it to do" on the 3e boards on EN World say that you're wrong and that Monte Cook's style of fantasy was very much "shoved down our throats".

It's just that the implied setting wasn't called out so clearly.  It was there.  You have difficulty using 3e if you stray too far from the above three.  It can be done, but, the further you go, the harder it is.  4e is just making explicit what 3e had implicitly done.  3e had already tied the idea of core setting to core rules.  Look at all the tap dancing that you have to do in just about any setting to stray from the core assumptions?

Heck, 3rd party publishers have made an entire cottage industry out of straying from core assumptions.

The idea that this isn't somehow D&D anymore is just a very strange concept to me.


----------



## Jinete (Nov 29, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> 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.




Honestly, it sounds a bit off to me too. But I'm hoping for some nice flavor that explains the effect. 

Take a look at "Fire in the blood" spell from Heroes of Horror.



> <snip>
> Until the spellís duration has elapsed, anyone who deals slashing or piercing melee damage on you is sprayed with your blood in retribution.
> <snip>
> The arc and direction of the blood spray is magical in nature, and the spray does not splatter adjacent squares or parties, no matter how close together they might be. Each spray strikes only the one responsible for the wound.




Replace "damage on you" with "you deal damage", replace blood with "divine energy", mention "invoking a brief blessing for your wounded ally" and there you go


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Yes, but please note that _I_ included that description. It was not included in the original article.




Yes, but, in the original article, they didn't include ANY flavour description.  How can you possibly judge the flavour they will use?

Why are we even discussing flavour when there is zero to discuss?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2007)

eleran said:
			
		

> I think you'll find with most of these folks the actual equation is;
> 
> Anything WE didn't think of = lame





Okay, that's enough.

We are all gamers here, right?  We are here because we love the game.  We shall treat each other - and each other's opinions - *with respect*, or we will shut up.  This snide sniping trying to dismiss large swatch of people in a stroke as having opinions of no value is a cheap trick, and it will cease.

If, somehow, this is confusing, please feel free to e-mail a moderator.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, but, in the original article, they didn't include ANY flavour description.  How can you possibly judge the flavour they will use?
> 
> Why are we even discussing flavour when there is zero to discuss?



That's not flavor, that's a basic attempt at trying to make _any_ sense out of an utterly nonsensical gamist ability.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

So far the most I've seen is people saying they can't stand WotC to impart it's own flavor into the mechanics. They want to be able to make up their own reasons for events to happen.

So, they finally leave out the flavor and give us straight mechanic, giving no reason as to why things are happening and people still complain?

Make up your own reason as to why the smites do what they do: 
_The Paladin prays for it to be and his sword is his testimony. 
The Gods choose to bless an ally due to the Paladin's efforts. 
The paladin imparts it herself because she is just that bad ass._

Choose one.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Several things here.
> 
> Roland - well if you need a justification for healing or AC then often seeing a knight fight well is accompanied by word like 'his companions took heart'.  Heart being a reference to courage, recovery, regain of ability, better fighting as a result.  It is a pretty standard literary approach to saying that the Champion fought well which meant that everyone else suddenly got better.




Then there's the issue of why only one of the paladins allies should get the AC bonus.  The whole party watches the paladin's awesome smite and then Gary over there gets the boost.  I could see two ways to fix this.  Either everyone within a radius of the strike gets inspired (I like this) or the AC bonus only applies to attacks from the crature the paladin hit.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Nov 29, 2007)

What DM is actually going to allow a player to "smite" a rock and gain some sort of bonus?  I don't see how, in reading the power description, that could  occur.  The spirit and description of the ability support the player attacking a foe to gain a divine advantage.  Johnny Munchkin saying, "Ah, but I hate the earth!" fails the common sense test. Seems silly that folks would even get wound up about that.  I don't find the abilities all that hard to explain either, "I channel the might of my god through sheer force of will to smite my enemies.  Coincidently, my deity rewards me by protecting one of my allies."  

My favorite thing thus far- Paladins seem to be moving away from a crappy fighter/crappy cleric to something that stands on its own.  Making their wis and cha matter in combat seems to be a good move from where I stand.

My two cents.


----------



## Smerg (Nov 29, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Then there's the issue of why only one of the paladins allies should get the AC bonus.  The whole party watches the paladin's awesome smite and then Gary over there gets the boost.  I could see two ways to fix this.  Either everyone within a radius of the strike gets inspired (I like this) or the AC bonus only applies to attacks from the crature the paladin hit.




It is almost a 10 to 1 bet that there will be a feat to turn a single strike bonus into an aura bonus either in the PHB or some supplementary material within a year.

With no 'spell' levels, likely there will be a reduced bonus mechanism to do this effect.


----------



## Andor (Nov 29, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I agree.  The idea that a paladin can harness the act of striking a foe in the same way a wizard can harness the fireball potential in bat guano works for me.




I dunno. I have some flavor issues with:

Paladin:  "The Gods in their greatness and mercy have granted me the power to cure wounds."
Farmer: "Wonderful! So you can heal my hurt child?"
Paladin: "Well, I can only heal while punching someone in the face."
Farmer: "What? You need to hit me to heal my child? I guess so..."
Paladin: "Well, really it requires murderous intent. Maybe you have a spare chicken I can smoosh?"
Farmer: "Who did you say you worshipped again?"


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I dunno. I have some flavor issues with:
> 
> Paladin:  "The Gods in their greatness and mercy have granted me the power to cure wounds."
> Farmer: "Wonderful! So you can heal my hurt child?"
> ...




And hopefully paladins will have supplemental abilities to counter this problem. I doubt that will be the paladin's _only _healing ability: That would just be silly.

The smite is an attack, and is meant to aid in battle. The healing portion of the smite is meant to assist with keeping people alive, not be all inclusive.

We still need clerics and real heals.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

EDIT: Whoops! Nevermind. Old.


----------



## mmu1 (Nov 29, 2007)

I really do NOT like their idea of how to "simplify" gameplay.

In this case, they give the Paladin the ability to cause all kinds of effects - increasing AC, healing, an ability that you can click to interrupt spellcasting  - but in order to keep things manageable, they appear to be strictly tied to hitting something in combat. 

That way, the idea presumbaly goes, you're reminded to use it whenever you make an attack, and don't have to keep track of how many spell slots, or uses of positive energy, or whatever, you have left, because it's automatically tied in to just one ability (smite) that you need to keep track of.

Aside from the fact that in play, this actually promises to be a lot more complicated than 3.5 (more special abilities, more complexity - duh), what bothers me is the issue of whether you'll be able to use any of these newly-acquired magical abilities outside of combat, or independently of swinging a weapon - and if not, why not? (aside from the desire to keep things "simple" from a mechanical point of view) Frankly, the thought that now you can boost AC, heal at range and exercise mind-control or compulsion magic - _just as long as you're smiting something while you do it_ - strikes me as completely idiotic.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> So far the most I've seen is people saying they can't stand WotC to impart it's own flavor into the mechanics. They want to be able to make up their own reasons for events to happen.
> 
> So, they finally leave out the flavor and give us straight mechanic, giving no reason as to why things are happening and people still complain?



Welcome to the 4e forum!

 :\


----------



## BryonD (Nov 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> I dunno. I have some flavor issues with:
> 
> Paladin:  "The Gods in their greatness and mercy have granted me the power to cure wounds."
> Farmer: "Wonderful! So you can heal my hurt child?"
> ...



And I'd have a problem with that also.
But being able to harness the mystic energy in a smite to cause some other effect is not the same as being restricted to smite energy as the only way to get there.
What you have described is not what I said.

And even with that I don't think the implementation shown here is that good.  
I'm just ok with the concept.


----------



## Traycor (Nov 29, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> At level 10, you would have 10 smites/slots known, 5-6 smites ready to use, and possibly 2-3 stances that were available all the time.



Wizards has stated that high level characters will be just as simple to make and to play as low lvl chars. My guess is that lower lvl smites will be *overwritten* by the higher smite and take their place. Thus the players has to decide which smiting ability they like best.

Hard choices in character progression: Win!


----------



## DM_Blake (Nov 29, 2007)

Many people seem hung up on the smite+heal or smite+AC mechinic. There are comments about how it doesn't make sense that a paladin can swing at a monster and, hit or miss, some random friend 20' away gets a bonus to AC.

And those people are right, assuming the AC bonus has a cause/effect relationship with the attack. 

But it is not a cause/effect relationship. The attack does not casue the side effect.

Think of it this way.

In a world where magic actually works, and people learn how to control magic to the greatest effect, it stands to reason that users of magic would find ways to do more than one thing at once. It's just more efficient.

Why shouldn't a wizard learn how to cast a single spell that gives him Mage Armor, Mirror Image, and Blur, all at once, and casts Magic Missile at an enemy. Very efficient. Imagine the first round of combat with such a mage. He gets up 3 powerful defensive spells and he blasts an enemy with an attack spell.

If wizards COULD do this, they absolutely WOULD do this.

Of course, it is hard to balance game mechanics. If the real world is a game, then the game designer keeps everything balanced and nobody gets the ability to do things that everyone cannot do. So, in D&D, because it is a game, wizards cannot combine all of that into a single spell.

But if it were real life, you can bet some wizards would be looking for a way to do exactly that.

Same goes for these paladin smites.

Paladins want to smite enemies. Paladins want to heal allies. Paladins want to shield their companions from harm.

So, they've finally figured out a way to combine some of these effects into a single prayer to their god.

I think that's a fairly cool idea from a viewpoint of roleplaying. Finally people can actually manipulate magic, or divine channeling, to make it efficient, rather than just memorizing age-old formulas to do one thing at a time.

What will be really cool is when all the other classes learn how to do this too. Maybe wizards will be able to combine effects like I described. Maybe clerics can bless and cure in a single round. Maybe rogues can pick pocket and sneak attack at the same time. Maybe fighters can trip and disarm at the same time.

Now, finally, the characters, NPCs, and monsters are taking control of magic and making it work for them, instead of following straightjacket rules.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> Wizards has stated that high level characters will be just as simple to make and to play as low lvl chars. My guess is that the higher lvl smites will *over right* the old smite and take its place. Thus the players has to decide which smiting ability they like best.
> 
> Hard choices in character progression: Win!



That would be horrible.


----------



## Smerg (Nov 29, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I really do NOT like their idea of how to "simplify" gameplay.
> 
> ...
> 
> Aside from the fact that in play, this actually promises to be a lot more complicated than 3.5 (more special abilities, more complexity - duh), what bothers me is the issue of whether you'll be able to use any of these newly-acquired magical abilities outside of combat, or independently of swinging a weapon - and if not, why not? (aside from the desire to keep things "simple" from a mechanical point of view) Frankly, the thought that now you can boost AC, heal at range and exercise mind-control or compulsion magic - _just as long as you're smiting something while you do it_ - strikes me as completely idiotic.




Just a word of note on simplify.

It does not mean neuter.

WotC means simplify by saying that all things will be roll d20 and add modifiers.  It means that all classes have similar progressions.  It means that monsters will have similar layouts.

Again, similar does not mean identical.  There is plenty of room for variety.

Magic the Gathering has basically simple mechanics with similar layouts.  This still allows for thousands of possabilities.

WotC is aiming for players and DMs to focus less on having to look up the special table for Turn Undead or the seperate chart of modifiers for Grapple and have all of these things under one similar system.

Again, similar does not mean exactly identical as there is room to reflect that a Wizard using a wand is different from a fighter with sword and shield.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 29, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Just a word of note on simplify.
> 
> It does not mean neuter.



In the 4E context it has been a concern of mine for a few weeks that it may mean exactly that.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Welcome to the 4e forum!
> 
> :\



One day humans will be united. Unfortunately, that's the day we'll all be dead I swear.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> In the 4E context it has been a concern of mine for a few weeks that it may mean exactly that.



How do you figure? I have yet to see the death sentence in 4E that people are exclaiming about.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 29, 2007)

Paladins won't have more than a handful of smites to use in a battle. There has to be a way to balance at will with per encounter and per day effects. I fail to see how it would be complicated to learn the smites you have and apply their effects. I mean how hard is it to heal someone when you use the healing smite? 

As for the flavor, it sounds to me like Paladins are given battle-abilities by their divine patrons because they are warriors. The most logical way to allocate such a resource is to have it happen in battle. 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. Smites just sound like the gods way of encouraging you to kill enemies, like you're supposed to be doing. Smites, to me, sound like spells, but the casting component is making a weapon attack (which is also enhanced).

If you want divine abilities of a less martial sort, I'm sure the cleric has plenty.

Edit: As for effects happening on a miss, specifically the fighter effect (one that we know about only second-hand), well I doubt such effects are going to be universal. The claims that it is only there to make people feel better about losing are overstated in my opinion because I doubt you'll have to use an effect like that. If you don't want that particular safety net, then don't use it. Also, I like the idea of the spear attack being some sort of spin hit with the haft. That makes sense and sounds cool. The effect matches the flavor (so it's not JUST a safety net, not that I have a problem with people using it as such).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Something to not forget here as well is that not all paladins are LG anymore.




In the PH, paladins are Lawful or Good.

The rest is in the DMG.  Makes me happy.


----------



## Traycor (Nov 29, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> Wizards has stated that high level characters will be just as simple to make and to play as low lvl chars. My guess is that lower lvl smites will be overwritten by the higher smite and take their place. Thus the players has to decide which smiting ability they like best.
> 
> Hard choices in character progression: Win!






			
				neceros said:
			
		

> That would be horrible.



Most combat only lasts 5-6 rounds. If a paladin has 10 per-encounter smiting abilities then they would smite every time they attack, including AoO's. That would be plain silly.

But an upgraded smite that superceded the previous would be excellent. It would force the player to continue to make tactical choices about when to use the ability in every combat, even at higher levels.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> Most combat only lasts 5-6 rounds. If a paladin has 10 per-encounter smiting abilities then they would smite every time they attack, including AoO's. That would be plain silly.
> 
> But an upgraded smite that superceded the previous would be excellent. It would force the player to continue to make tactical choices about when to use the ability in every combat, even at higher levels.



I agree that there needs to be a choice in battle. However, I want previous abilities open to later levels to pick and choose.

A better scenario would be to limit one smite per creature, or something similar.


----------



## Stormtalon (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by Traycor
> > Wizards has stated that high level characters will be just as simple to make and to play as low lvl chars. My guess is that the higher lvl smites will over right the old smite and take its place. Thus the players has to decide which smiting ability they like best.
> >
> > Hard choices in character progression: Win!
> ...




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.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> 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?



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.

If they want to give the paladin a 1/encounter ability that lets them do a little healing or a little AC boost to an ally as a swift action, great. That way the paladin could do it whenever he wanted. Maybe his allies were ambushed and he uses the quick prayer to protect one of those ambushed allies until he can get there to help. Maybe he's in the midst of battle with a demon when he hears one of his allies in trouble, so he says a quick prayer to help him while dodging and returning attacks with the demon. That way that quick prayer for protection or healing is tied to nothing other than when the paladin thinks he needs to help protect or heal an ally.

But when that quick prayer is strictly tied to a smite attack, I'm not a fan. It just seems so arbitrary, in my opinion. If you're comfortable with the paladin saying, "Pelor, help me smite this foe, and protect Bob over there!" fine. But I don't like how he can only use this ability to protect Bob over there if he's smiting an enemy. I just don't like how they're tied together. 

That's just my opinion. Hopefully I'm not wrong.


----------



## Deverash (Nov 29, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

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




My one real problem with the power texts is its ONLY the mechanics.  The descriptions of the powers really do make them or break them.  But we don't have any.  What we have so far is, basically, the upper part of a spell description(level, casting time, etc) + a summary of the effect.

I'm just hoping they have more description of the powers than the name.  It would clear it up a lot.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> 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.



But wouldn't the gods prefer a Paladin doing his job and killing Evil for Good, or Good for Evil (etc.)? So his "prayers" are weapon strikes. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Traycor (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> I agree that there needs to be a choice in battle. However, I want previous abilities open to later levels to pick and choose.
> 
> A better scenario would be to limit one smite per creature, or something similar.



I personally like the idea of limiting what smite the player has. One paladin will be different from the next if they are forced to pick and chose between balanced abilities. I'm sure if such is the case, a paladin would have the option of taking a new smite or reverting to an old one ever few levels.


----------



## paulsometimes (Nov 29, 2007)

This new set up actually makes me excited about the idea of playing a paladin.  I think the smite which makes an enemy focus on you for a round should come a bit earlier, but none the less, all three seem reasonable to me.
A paladin, in my mind, is like a divine fighter, so it only makes sense that he receives these abilities while in combat.  If I need someone that can heal at virtually any time, I'll look for a cleric.  
My only issue is that if the the healing or AC bonus are because of a prayer, than shouldn't it be the DM (acting as the god) to choose which ally receives it, unless the paladin specifically says a name.  I would also say that if the attack misses, the ally only receives a half bonus due to the paladin's faith wavering (cause we all know it has to be a god's fault if we fail at something  )


----------



## Andor (Nov 29, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And I'd have a problem with that also.
> But being able to harness the mystic energy in a smite to cause some other effect is not the same as being restricted to smite energy as the only way to get there.
> What you have described is not what I said.




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

It could happen.


----------



## wordsmithpdx (Nov 29, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Kintara said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 29, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.



Well, that sounds like a Fighter/Cleric to me.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.



Personally, I wouldn't have any problems with having Paladin Auras. However, so long as I can do my defender role and still heal and hit things with a fast paced momentum, then we'll be alright. 

I hated spells for that reason: They were too slow to use when in combat if you also had a sword in your hand.


----------



## mhensley (Nov 29, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> Most combat only lasts 5-6 rounds. If a paladin has 10 per-encounter smiting abilities then they would smite every time they attack, including AoO's. That would be plain silly.
> 
> But an upgraded smite that superceded the previous would be excellent. It would force the player to continue to make tactical choices about when to use the ability in every combat, even at higher levels.




I'm beginning to think that no one will ever be making a simple attack anymore.  Paladins will always be Smiting.  Rogues will always be Sneak Attacking.  Fighters will always be Two-Fisted Monkey Attacking.


----------



## Perun (Nov 29, 2007)

I think it's fairly clear the 4e paladin smites are actually a lot like 3e spells. All three listed in the WotC article are resolved through Charisma attacks, which means they're guided by something else than physical strength.

On second thought they could be a combination of 3.5 smite and divine feats. You channel divine energy in your attack, allowing you to deal extra damage, and you use the "excess" (or fraction of) divine energy to achieve a secondary effect. In 3.5 parlance, you make your smite attack and use a free action to channel positive energy to give your allies a boost or whatever other effect is tied to the smite.

A 3.5 paladin with Quicken Turning and Sacred Boost (both from _Complete Divine_, p. 84) can, for example, smite his foe and make all _cure_ spells cast within one round on all of his allies within a 60-ft. burst maximised, and then take his move action.

I assume the actual smites in the PH will come with at least one short sentence of flavour description (similar to what they now use in spell descriptions; such descriptions were mentioned in one of the earlier preview articles).

Regards.


----------



## mhensley (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> However, so long as I can do my defender role and still heal and hit things with a fast paced momentum, then we'll be alright.




What's all this bs about playing a defender role?  If I'm playing a Paladin, my job should be to kick evil butt and take names.  If the other party members can't take care of themselves, I don't need them.  D&D is not WoW.  Mages are quite capable of defending themselves without a meatshield- invisibility, levitation, mirror image, flying, protection from missiles, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## neceros (Nov 29, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> What's all this bs about playing a defender role?  If I'm playing a Paladin, my job should be to kick evil butt and take names.  If the other party members can't take care of themselves, I don't need them.  D&D is not WoW.  Mages are quite capable of defending themselves without a meatshield- invisibility, levitation, mirror image, flying, protection from missiles, etc., etc., etc.



Are you sure, because I'm not.

Let me explain a bit.

Yes, if I were to play a Paladin I'd most certainly want to fight against Evil and save the weak. However, to be able to do these things sometimes you need a party. Sure, I can kill a skeleton to fulfill my personal dogma, but I can kill so many more things with a party.

Yes, mages most likely have the ability to protect themselves, but I can do it better. Being a team makes fighting much easier.

This has nothing to do with MMOs, and everything to do with balance and having fun.


----------



## mrswing (Nov 29, 2007)

This is exactly the kind of stuff which makes me worry about 4e.

There's no link between hitting an enemy and improving the group members' ACs. There's no link between hitting an enemy and by hitting them suddenly healing your allies somewhat. 

At first, 4e seemed to be very close to the kind of thing I wanted from D&D. But as time goes on, the more is revealed of the system, the more I fear that the game becomes even more of a meta-game than before. D&D used to be inspired by fantasy novels and stories, but as everyone knows it has slowly developed into its own genre. With this new edition, it seems as if the developers are really locking D&D into a world of its own completely.

And as for less complexity... Seems to me like it's all getting MORE complex by the second. 

I was really looking forward to this... Now, not so much...


----------



## BryonD (Nov 29, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

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



That would be bad


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Aside from the fact that in play, this actually promises to be a lot more complicated than 3.5 (more special abilities, more complexity - duh), what bothers me is the issue of whether you'll be able to use any of these newly-acquired magical abilities outside of combat, or independently of swinging a weapon - and if not, why not? (aside from the desire to keep things "simple" from a mechanical point of view) Frankly, the thought that now you can boost AC, heal at range and exercise mind-control or compulsion magic - _just as long as you're smiting something while you do it_ - strikes me as completely idiotic.





I think it's clear at this point that they're not doing much to support their claim that they were making combat streamlined and fast.  The more we hear the clearer it is that combat will be slower than in 3.x.  Imagine a bunch of smiting paladins fighting amongst some of the terrain we've learned about and already we're bogged down with a lot to keep track of (using the only crunch we have.)

All is not lost, however.  It is possible that a lot of the abilities will prove to be fun and that maybe we will have a system with slow (compared to 3.x) but entertaining battles.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 29, 2007)

mrswing said:
			
		

> This is exactly the kind of stuff which makes me worry about 4e.
> 
> There's no link between hitting an enemy and improving the group members' ACs. There's no link between hitting an enemy and by hitting them suddenly healing your allies somewhat.



In martial power source terms, pressing the attack on someone so that they're less able to attack another (giving an ally AC) seems perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Nov 29, 2007)

I feel like the first two smites would make more sense flavor-wise if they just affected ALL allies within X squares (possibly excluding the paladin himself). Like, every smite releases a wave of divine goodness that helps out all your nearby buddies, rather than, "Bill the Wizard is in trouble! I better attack this orc on the other side of the room to bolster his defenses!"


----------



## Nine Hands (Nov 29, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about that, and considering the recent 'Races and Classes' leak said
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure, that makes total sense.  What's the point of keeping Base Attack Bonus around when you  are not using it for multiple attacks or feat requirements.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 29, 2007)

mrswing said:
			
		

> This is exactly the kind of stuff which makes me worry about 4e.
> 
> There's no link between hitting an enemy and improving the group members' ACs.




And in fact if you read the smite again, there is absolutely no link between hitting your enemy and improving your group member's AC.

Whether you hit or miss, your ally gains a benefit. So consider if the ability was written like this:

"You grant an ally a divine boon that gives them a bonus to AC equal to your wisdom bonus. In addition, you can make a single charisma attack that deals twice your weapon damage + charisma bonus on a successful hit."

In fact, you could simply say that the paladin gives his ally a benefit and doesn't attack anyone (he still uses the action for the ability, just doesn't attack with it). Or you can use both.

The key to the flavor in this one is that you think of the abilities as separate, because really they are. Now, if in the book it actually requires you to swing your weapon at an actual opponent to get the AC benefit, well then I'll be mad along with you


----------



## grimslade (Nov 29, 2007)

*Smitten with the new smite*

I like the mechanics and I like the flavor of a smite +effect.
The concept of a paladin being rewarded by his deity for taking the fight to the enemy fits, a holy warrior, champion of his deity, who aids his allies while dishing out god's will. You want a divine spellcaster pick up a cleric. The paladin is in the trenches both as protector and avenger. 

A Smite is not every time the pally swings his sword, this is a special, focused attack graced with divine energy.  Why wouldn't there be more of an effect than straight damage?  The paladin calls out his foe for divine judgement. The act of smiting is sacred, a ritual, a prayer. The paladin of Bahamut, the protector, lends the Platinum dragons protection to an ally when he smites. A paladin of Pelor, the healer, mends wounds of his comrades when he invokes the Sun god's might. It fits the theme of the divine warrior much better than psuedo-Vancian prayers.


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 29, 2007)

Oh, and let me just throw another thumbs up on the naming of smites.

I've been on the "bad WOTC naming" bandwagon for a lot of 4e, but the smite names are simple, somewhat flavorful, and give me a decent idea of what the smite does. Those are the kinds of names I want in 4e.


----------



## Stormtalon (Nov 29, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> In martial power source terms, pressing the attack on someone so that they're less able to attack another (giving an ally AC) seems perfectly reasonable to me.




And in Divine power source terms, using the force of your own personality backed up with power granted by your deity of choice to cause enemies to fear what might happen to _them_ if they attack an ally of yours (again, giving the AC bonus) _*also*_ is perfectly reasonable.  Even if you miss, the divine power in your weapon is plain for all to see, and the fervor in your eyes is enough to cause even the most stalwart to hesitate for just long enough that an attack which might otherwise have hit now misses.


----------



## Nine Hands (Nov 29, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Why increase everything at one/two levels when it would keep a similar at one/one level?
> 
> In SAGA I think only skills, and additional damage increase at 1/2. All Defenses, a Good BAB increase at one for one.




I think it may have to do with number inflation.  When you have a +1 bonus at first level, its not a problem, but whey you get to higher levels, say 20th, the +20 bonus overshadows smaller bonuses.

Now WotC might also have something up their sleeves when you hit an odd number level (such as talents in SWSE).

I honestly don't mind it as long as it is unified across the entire game instead of the slightly patched (yet functional) way that SWSE uses.

But this is all conjecture until we see the rules.


----------



## kennew142 (Nov 29, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Oh, and let me just throw another thumbs up on the naming of smites.
> 
> I've been on the "bad WOTC naming" bandwagon for a lot of 4e, but the smite names are simple, somewhat flavorful, and give me a decent idea of what the smite does. Those are the kinds of names I want in 4e.




I don't know. I was kind of hoping for names like Purple Monkey Whallop and Golden Wyvern Strike (that way paladins can have Golden Wyvern Adepts too).


----------



## Smerg (Nov 29, 2007)

I also like how smite is now not tied to examining the opponent for evil first.  Smite is now your divine patron aiding you in your battles.

When you fight true and hard then good things will happen to you and your allies.

I also would like to point out these three smites are the tip of the future Paladin.  I am sure that future books will bend and change the initial mechanic to allow for many other of more themed values.

There will also be the choice to multi-class slots for the Paladin that wants to have some more traditional 'clerical' or other class abilities.  This may give the option for the Paladin that wants to cure the lame in a village to take a few selected healing slots instead of all smite slots to have a choice of other things to do outside of combat (likely need to spend 5 min to bring these abilities to the fore if the Paladin sets themself up with mainly smites for combat but they would abilities to use for other occasions).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 29, 2007)

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> Sure, that makes total sense.  What's the point of keeping Base Attack Bonus around when you  are not using it for multiple attacks or feat requirements.



To have a difference between a 1st level character and a 10th level character. To explain why 1st level character die when they attack an Adult Red Dragon, and 10th level characters might beat him.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Nov 29, 2007)

mrswing said:
			
		

> This is exactly the kind of stuff which makes me worry about 4e.
> 
> There's no link between hitting an enemy and improving the group members' ACs. There's no link between hitting an enemy and by hitting them suddenly healing your allies somewhat.
> 
> ...




It might seem to be getting more complex, but that can't be stated with any certainty until we see the entire system in play.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 29, 2007)

What's funny to me is I hear a lot of people complaining about the notion of a Paladin that casts spells by swinging his sword.

But the this is that a PALADIN is a divine warrior. He's not supposed to be a warrior who casts spells. All of the spells paladins had in 3e were supposed to provide a way to simulate the paladin's divine favor. Some of those abilities were handled with granted class abilities, whereas others were presented in the form of spells the paladin could cast _because that was the only way the designers thought the abilities could be balanced._

Now, along comes 4e and we have a view of a few options for the Paladin's key ability that should have been "per encounter" in 3e: Smite. But it really is per encounter now rather than it being "4 times/day" with the HOPE that its use would be spread out. I imagine that your average paladin has a choice of a few smites to use - all of which cause double damage, but each of which has a different divine power (mostly "leader-y" stuff: buffs or nerfs) that they trigger. 

I'm sure paladins also have many of their traditional abilities, like cure disease, or "lay on hands." The latter could be an "at-will" or "per day" ability. But in combat, the paladin with  _Renewing Smite_ doesn't have to stop fighting to lay on hands - he can channel the excess divine energy from his smite to boost one ally. By making each smite self-contained, it cuts down on the possibility of a player "forgetting" about the secondary effect. If I use "Safeguard Smite," I don't have to worry about having to remember to decide what my Smite's secondary effect is. Ditto if I use a different smite.

Essentially, smites are just strike activated spells. The paladin is channelling divine energy into a strike, and doing something with the excess. It's like they combined the ability to channel divine energy, spellcasting and the smite. Basically, I'm speculating that "Smites" are the primary way paladins channel divine energy. And that's fine with me. Paladins "casting spells" in the middle of combat has just never made a whole lot of sense.

Personally, I like the flavor and the mechanics here. However, given the hew and cry, I'm beginning to understand why WotC was reluctant to let stuff out. People are speculating wildly and, in most cases, _assuming the worst._ And I imagine that will continue _at least_ until they see the system in full. Until then, things just won't make complete sense and the wild speculation will continue.

I love the internet.


----------



## Gundark (Nov 29, 2007)

I have to say I really like the smites.

I was expecting this thread to be chok full of bellyaching...but have been pleasantly surprised. It's only been partially full


----------



## Nine Hands (Nov 29, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> To have a difference between a 1st level character and a 10th level character. To explain why 1st level character die when they attack an Adult Red Dragon, and 10th level characters might beat him.




Well with 1/2 level you have a difference of 5 points or so, plus any class modifiers they put in.  I'm willing to bet that each class will have an attack/defense kicker installed (just like the defense bonuses from SWSE).

Also makes multiclassing easier too.


----------



## DM_Blake (Nov 29, 2007)

mrswing said:
			
		

> This is exactly the kind of stuff which makes me worry about 4e.
> 
> There's no link between hitting an enemy and improving the group members' ACs. There's no link between hitting an enemy and by hitting them suddenly healing your allies somewhat.
> 
> I was really looking forward to this... Now, not so much...




Consider this post (32 posts before yours): 
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3911611&postcount=145

It directly addresses your concerns.

So what's your take on viewing it this way?


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 29, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.



Who says they're always connected? People are acting like Smite is going to be the only class ability of Paladins.

However, one benefit of tying the two together is that it definitely keeps the Paladin and Cleric abilities unique to the respective classes.



			
				mrswing said:
			
		

> There's no link between hitting an enemy and improving the group members' ACs. There's no link between hitting an enemy and by hitting them suddenly healing your allies somewhat.



No link? Arbitrary? I think it appears this way because we are being presented with the mechanics, and not much flavor/fluff.  

But to me, it seems pretty straight forward. The paladin wants a favor from his deity, the deity says, "Okay. First, do you job!"

Like a couple of others have suggested, perhaps the best way to think of it is the AC bonus, healing, etc aren't _secondary_ effects, but the primary focus, with the smite required to activate or trigger them (Smite as somatic component was a helpful concept as well.)

Honestly, reading the article gave me a little cognitive dissonance at first, too. Even thoughts of "This feels awfully gamist..." But after going through this thread, I'm thinking I'll have no problem accepting this into my game. 

Here's a thought: if normal spell-casting for paladins has evolved into this (and other abilities we haven't seen yet), what has the spell-casting ranger evolved into?


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 29, 2007)

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> Well with 1/2 level you have a difference of 5 points or so, plus any class modifiers they put in.  I'm willing to bet that *each class will have an attack/defense kicker installed (just like the defense bonuses from SWSE).*
> 
> Also makes multiclassing easier too.




I think that's a pretty good guess. I also would bet that, like SWSE, those will overlap, but not stack. And the kickers are probably in the range of +0 to +3. That would mean they matter, but don't overrun the system...

Now, where's that spined devil card?


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

I love it.  The golden wyvern thread talks about how Wizards should strip everything down to the bare bones so it's universally applicable to all settings, and then this one where the cry goes out that by not sufficiently describing how smites work, something which could vary from setting to setting, Wizards has rendered their effects inconceivable.  Entertaining stuff.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> I love it.  The golden wyvern thread talks about how Wizards should strip everything down to the bare bones so it's universally applicable to all settings, and then this one where the cry goes out that by not sufficiently describing how smites work, something which could vary from setting to setting, Wizards has rendered their effects inconceivable.  Entertaining stuff.



And one more time...Welcome to the 4e forums!


 :\ 

Some folks just wanna fight about it, I think, like the guy in the bar who just got laid off and he's really mad at the world.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Entertaining stuff.




I used to think so. 

But 6 more months of this? I think I'll pass.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> 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.



Then why not let the paladin heal and protect things as swift actions?


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Then why not let the paladin heal and protect things as swift actions?



Perhaps because that would return his magical abilities to the realm of "watered-down cleric"?


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 29, 2007)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> I thought we were assured that they tried and discarded MMO-style aggro mechanics for Defenders?  That 27th level smite sounds like aggro to me.



One foe, one round, at late epic. It is Aggro control, but it is nothing like the 3E Knight had and it is not like the foe does not have other options. He basicly has Tunnel vision with the paladin at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> I love it.  The golden wyvern thread talks about how Wizards should strip everything down to the bare bones so it's universally applicable to all settings, and then this one where the cry goes out that by not sufficiently describing how smites work, something which could vary from setting to setting, Wizards has rendered their effects inconceivable.  Entertaining stuff.



This doesn't even make sense. No one here is complaining that the paladin smite isn't called "shining steed strike". Some people aren't happy that the smite doesn't make sense in terms of the basis of how it would work, not whether or not it has some meaningless name that's supposed to evoke flavor.

In your efforts to imply that a number of people here are either idiots or hypocrites and put yourself in a holier-than-thou position, you didn't even bother to wait for a good argument to push your point. Instead you just came off as lazy, disingenuous, and disrespectful. It's just bad form, and it contributes absolutely nothing productive to the discussion.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> I love it.  The golden wyvern thread talks about how Wizards should strip everything down to the bare bones so it's universally applicable to all settings, and then this one where the cry goes out that by not sufficiently describing how smites work, something which could vary from setting to setting, Wizards has rendered their effects inconceivable.  Entertaining stuff.




You're exaggerating a little (just a little), but yeah.  Again my problem is not so much in the description, but (IMO) the pairing of unlike abilities.  I think that other people are having similar issues, though they may not be able to articulate it as well.


----------



## Betote (Nov 29, 2007)

The first actual crunch I see from 4E, and it has to be an awful gamist design. If I ever run 4E, now I know I'm banning or dratically altering the paladin class. If the other ones are equally nonsense, I'm afraid I'll pass


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Then why not let the paladin heal and protect things as swift actions?



Maybe the paladin _can_ heal and protect things as swift actions, in addition to using smites as a standard action. Smites are per-encounter abilities that will eventually run out, so it makes some sense that Paladins should have Defender abilities available at will in order to function in their role when their per-encounter abilities are worn out. These are probably swift actions that function in addition to normal movement and normal attacks.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 29, 2007)

People can't accept a spell-casting holy warrior with a single prayer that says both "Lord, aid me in smiting my foes, and guard my friends against harm"?

Really?


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 29, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I think that's a pretty good guess. I also would bet that, like SWSE, those will overlap, but not stack. And the kickers are probably in the range of +0 to +3. That would mean they matter, but don't overrun the system...
> 
> Now, where's that spined devil card?




Okay, pulled up the WotC forum post with the Spined Devil stats...



> SPINED DEVIL
> Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil)
> LEVEL 6 SKIRMISHER
> 
> ...




Taking the theory that BAB increases at +1 per 2 levels, Spiney here should have a BAB of +3. His melee attacks have a +6 to hit and +4 to damage (same as what a 19 strength would give). Possibile explanations for the +6 to hit:

- +4 from Str bonus, +2 kicker from being a skirmisher.

His Spine Rain is a +9 Dex attack that does 1d6 + 2 (plus fire & poison) damage. Interestingly, his 3e Dex bonus would be +2. Coincidence? As for the +9 to hit, again, taking out the +3 from level, we have to hit +6. My speculation:

+2 from Dex bonus, +4 kicker from being a skirmisher.

It's possible there's a to-hit penalty from fighting with two weapons, but I don't think so. What do people think of the notion that a "Dex attack" uses the Dex bonus for damage? Plausible? Cheesy?

Any other observations based on revisiting these stats?


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

Why does magic become suddenly incomprehensible when it does two divergent things at once?  It's magic.  The possibilities of what it can do are literally boundless.

Bishmon -
The point is that Wizards is screwed either way.  When people see things stripped of their trappings, such as the smites, their response is that it doesn't make any sense and that it's gamist.  When they see things with their trappings, ala Golden Wyvern Adept, they say that Wizards is impinging on their creativity.  As for saying people are hypocrites and idiots, I never suggested that the people in this thread are the people on that thread, so I don't grokk that conclusion.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> People can't accept a spell-casting holy warrior with a single prayer that says both "Lord, aid me in smiting my foes, and guard my friends against harm"?



That would be awesome. Maybe a swift action that gives a +2 bonus to attacks, damage, and AC against evil creatures for every ally within 15'. Maybe call it 'Battle Blessing' and allow it to be used once per encounter.

Instead, we're left with Safeguard Smite and the very real possibility of:

Wizard: Ouch, that archer up in the tree way over there is shooting at me with arrows! Hey, defender, a little help!
Paladin: Well, um, you see, I can't really invoke my remaining divine power to defend you, because in order to defend you, I have to attack something.
Wizard: What are you talking about? You have enough divine inspiration left that will allow you to defend me, but only while you're attacking something?
Paladin: My god works in mysterious ways.
Wizard: So, I'm guessing it's a no go with protection from that dragon that's flying towards us?
Paladin: You know the drill, not unless he gets within range of my sword.


----------



## Masquerade (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Wizard: Ouch, that archer up in the tree way over there is shooting at me with arrows! Hey, defender, a little help!
> Paladin: Well, um, you see, I can't really invoke my remaining divine power to defend you, because in order to defend you, I have to attack something.
> Wizard: What are you talking about? You have enough divine inspiration left that will allow you to defend me, but only while you're attacking something?
> Paladin: My god works in mysterious ways.
> ...



The paladin's purpose is to sword things in the name of his/her god and thus only draws the god's attention (and favor) when swording things. I don't find that outside the realm of verisimilitude.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Bishmon -
> The point is that Wizards is screwed either way.  When people see things stripped of their trappings, such as the smites, their response is that it doesn't make any sense and that it's gamist.  When they see things with their trappings, ala Golden Wyvern Adept, they say that Wizards is impinging on their creativity.  As for saying people are hypocrites and idiots, I never suggested that the people in this thread are the people on that thread, so I don't grokk that conclusion.



But again, it's not an either/or. Wizards should be able to adequately describe how something works without forcing flavor on us by throwing out names like 'golden wyvern adept'. After all, it's been done for roughly 30 years now.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> People can't accept a spell-casting holy warrior with a single prayer that says both "Lord, aid me in smiting my foes, and guard my friends against harm"?
> 
> Really?



I'm sure it was originally a penalty to attack inflicted, but then they decided it was too hard to keep track of and too powerful for a low-level ability, so they used AC bonus instead.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 29, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Exactly. 3rd edition was bad enough. Now WOTC feels empowered to go whole hog and p**s all over the campaign world of any DM who doesn't want to go along with an over-the-top wire-fu idea of fantasy. And if a DM wants to do something that directly contradicts the _official rulebook_, he or she is going to find new players harder to come by. After all, WOTC doesn't sell miniatures that look like the characters in _homebrew _campaigns...




I'm not sure how to put this...

There is no Cabal. WotC WILL NOT break into your house and torch your old D&D books. Nor are you going to be held at gunpoint while playing OFFICIAL DUNGEONS & DRAGONS(TM) Fourth Edition Rules, D&D(TM) Miniatures, and role with D&D(TM) Dice. And they certainly don't sit in Redmond having EVILGASMS about how dragonborn, warlords, and the Shadowfell is going to royally screw up some random players homebrew world. 

At the expense of being called on badwrongfun, I think you might have better luck (and much better companionship) posting here  rather than raising your blood pressure in the FOURTH EDITION forum. 

Just sayin.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

I really don't care about the names, I care about how well the system runs.  And dollars to donuts the Golden Wyvern lodge is going to make it easier for me to run the system, because I bet all of the spell shaping type feats are going to have the Golden Wyvern prefix, so it will be easier to build characters interested in evocations and play them.  If that's all I get out of the name Golden Wyvern I'll be quite happy.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

Masquerade said:
			
		

> The paladin's purpose is to sword things in the name of his/her god and thus only draws the god's attention (and favor) when swording things. I don't find that outside the realm of verisimilitude.



See, I don't concede that at all. A paladin is and always has been more than just some guy with a sword who's god really, really wants him to kill things.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Nov 29, 2007)

Ugh.  More per encounter abilities.
More and more not to like.

That killed any indication it was going to be good.
I keep looking for a reason to in any way support 4e.  Keep coming up short.
Why do I bother?


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 29, 2007)

Kheti : The whole system is based on at will/per encounter/per day now, so if that's a deal breaker for you, you are probably out of luck.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how to put this...
> 
> There is no Cabal. WotC WILL NOT break into your house and torch your old D&D books. Nor are you going to be held at gunpoint while playing OFFICIAL DUNGEONS & DRAGONS(TM) Fourth Edition Rules, D&D(TM) Miniatures, and role with D&D(TM) Dice. And they certainly don't sit in Redmond having EVILGASMS about how dragonborn, warlords, and the Shadowfell is going to royally screw up some random players homebrew world. .




This is not actually true.  I myself receive a small but pleasant stipend from Wizards of the Coast (TM) for breaking the occasional knee in the alley behind my Friendly Local Gaming Store (TM).  We get official D&D (TM) tire irons.

I'm not supposed to tell you that, but the last time their lawyer tried to enforce the D&D (TM) Non Disclosure Agreement against me, I broke the guy's knee.


----------



## Stormtalon (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> See, I don't concede that at all. A paladin is and always has been more than just some guy with a sword who's god really, really wants him to kill things.




But at the same time, the paladin has always had little to no ability to handle enemies at range.  This is really no different.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 29, 2007)

Betote said:
			
		

> The first actual crunch I see from 4E, and it has to be an awful gamist design.




What about this is poor gamist design?  It seems like good gamist design, from what little we have seen.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

> Exactly. 3rd edition was bad enough. Now WOTC feels empowered to go whole hog and p**s all over the campaign world of any DM who doesn't want to go along with an over-the-top wire-fu idea of fantasy.




God forbid Wizards actually do what they want with something they spent millions of dollars on to save from a company that was going to take it to it's grave.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

Kheti sa-Menik said:
			
		

> Ugh.  More per encounter abilities.




Yeah! Ugh! Damn them for setting up situations in which you won't say "Well, time to pull out the old crossbow and waste a bolt each turn, since my wizard is completely out of spells per day and has no other abilities to aid in any way, shape, or form."


----------



## Shazman (Nov 29, 2007)

I don't like the mechanics of how these smites work. I hit you, so my friend's sucking gut wound immediately heals up.  What?  This is too ridiculous for me to stomach.  I think I'll pass on 4th edition.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 29, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> People can't accept a spell-casting holy warrior with a single prayer that says both "Lord, aid me in smiting my foes, and guard my friends against harm"?
> 
> Really?



I'm not sure how an oversimplification of the issue and misrepresentation of the complaint is going to change anyone's mind.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 29, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What about this is poor gamist design?  It seems like good gamist design, from what little we have seen.



It's very good gamist design. Gamists are probably very pleased, because:

(1) It reinforces the notion that D&D is a game, and verisimilitude be damned
(2) It allows a character to do two things at the same time, thus increasing his metagame potential
(3) Smites are per-encounter, so a paladin can pretty much smite all day long; this is good because it keeps the game going
(4) It provides a reward even in case the smite fails (gods forbid that characters should ever fail at anything), so the player will not feel completely cheated when he uses up his smite for the encounter

Before I get accused of simulationism, I would like to point out that I like to run campaigns which provide a nice balance between the "game" and "simulation" aspects. For instance, I'd be perfectly fine with point (4) above if smite were a limited resource (like it is in 3.x). But when it's effectively unlimited, and the designers are telling me to reward a player for even attempting to use his pretty-much unlimited resource, then I really cannot help but hate the notion.


----------



## fuindordm (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> See, I don't concede that at all. A paladin is and always has been more than just some guy with a sword who's god really, really wants him to kill things.




Seconded.

And, darnit, the way a power is described really does count.  I felt a great relief when 3e chucked "spell memorization" for "spell preparation". One little word, and the whole feeling of the setting can change. (Note also that spell preparation led to a small but very significant boost to the wizard's power: the ability to prepare some spells later in the day.)

In the same way, I would be much happier to see the "extras" on the smite described as coming before the smite, and usable even without an attack.  For example:

"A paladin can call on divine power to aid her allies, and has learned to channel some of that power into a melee attack at the same time.  Lacking the scholarship of a cleric, their selection of effects is much more limited--but that attack sure hurts when it lands."

It occurs to me that the "smite tree" looks a bit like they took the cleric's pile of turning-based feats and make a core class ability out of them.

Ben


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> But at the same time, the paladin has always had little to no ability to handle enemies at range.  This is really no different.



Very true. He still can't really handle things at range. But what's different is now that inability to handle things at range will in some way affect his ability to protect and/or heal his allies, because he now has protection and healing abilities that are inextricably linked to attacking enemies in melee, and that just doesn't make sense to a number of people.


----------



## Abstraction (Nov 29, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> I don't like the mechanics of how these smites work. I hit you, so my friend's sucking gut wound immediately heals up.  What?  This is too ridiculous for me to stomach.  I think I'll pass on 4th edition.



The lack of imagination in this camp simply apalls me. How about, I call upon my god and am rewarded for steadfast loyalty by the power of His twin causes for retribution against evildoers and his mercy for the good and steadfast. My right hand is infused with Wrath and my left with Love and heart is filled with Justice.

In other words, I hit this guy and that guy gets healed.


----------



## Smerg (Nov 29, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> I don't like the mechanics of how these smites work. I hit you, so my friend's sucking gut wound immediately heals up.  What?  This is too ridiculous for me to stomach.  I think I'll pass on 4th edition.




Ok, so I pray for my divine patron to heal my friend (or myself) while I kick the cajones out of some bad guy.

I think this is a pretty good sacrifice situation.  It works far better then some bat guano as the patron knows they are getting something in return for the offering of good for their champion brandishing the flag.

I suppose that this would make more sense if I had to spend a whole round praying and doing nothing while the Paladin should be doing some justice on the evil people.

I can fling lightning bolts, summon meteors, invoke words of power, but it is somehow non-sensical to heal people at a distance?  It is somehow non-sensical to actually be rewarded for serving your divine patron?  It is somehow non-sensical that you don't have to stop clobbering the bad guys to go and bandage someone?

This is a good mechanism that was shown being used by the cleric in the battle with Red Dragon D&D article.  If you have some new problem, I am truly amazed as that article came out two months ago.  I think it is good that we are not forced to have heal bots but people that can heal while they do other activities.  People that can keep fighting instead of forced to sit on the side lines and go Rah Rah as the other people roll the dice.


----------



## Stormtalon (Nov 29, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What about this is poor gamist design?  It seems like good gamist design, from what little we have seen.




I think the intimation is that it's gamist design and therefore it is awful; at least, that's the way I read it.

I'd argue that any mechanic that's stripped of relevant flavor, as these appear to have been, will always resemble gamist design more than simulationist.  There's many, many ways you can describe these abilities such that they make sense and that their powers flow naturally from the paladin as a charismatic holy defender.


----------



## Bishmon (Nov 29, 2007)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> The lack of imagination in this camp simply apalls me.



Come on, this is just not needed. You can make your point without this stuff.


----------



## Abstraction (Nov 29, 2007)

Considering the sheer number of abilities/powers that will need to be described for 8 classes times 30 levels, I think page count might be a bit of a concern. I'm sorry, but you might have to come up with your own flavor.


----------



## Xyl (Nov 29, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay, pulled up the WotC forum post with the Spined Devil stats... *snip* Any other observations based on revisiting these stats?




Just one: WotC has stated repeatedly that monster stats are not calculated the same way as PC stats, so analyzing the Spined Devil stat card won't tell us anything certain about PCs. In particular, I think the devil's attack bonus, damage, and defense numbers were just picked out of thin air (or more likely, from a table).


----------



## Stormtalon (Nov 29, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Very true. He still can't really handle things at range. But what's different is now that inability to handle things at range will in some way affect his ability to protect and/or heal his allies, because he now has protection and healing abilities that are inextricably linked to attacking enemies in melee, and that just doesn't make sense to a number of people.




The thing is, we've only seen the paladin's _smite_ abilities which would naturally be tied to clobbering things.  The ability to smite is simply one of the things they can do, and you simply can't generalize based off of these three smites we've seen.  He may very well have ways to buff and heal allies without having to hit things.  

Still, he's a Defender, a front-line combatant and that's where you should expect a goodly number of a paladin's powers to be focused.  Additionally, he is powered by his faith and his connection to his deity, so miraculous abilities tied to his combat skills also make sense.  

I really think part of the key to these abilities is to look at the controlling stat.  Two out of the three of these feed off of Charisma (and the 3rd off of Wisdom), which has been described (at least in 3e, and I can't see that changing much in 4e) as being force of personality and an inner strength.  So it's not something inherent in the blows themselves that's doing the extra effects -- it's something within the paladin himself: his strength, his will, his conviction in his beliefs.  Something within him stirs his allies to overcome injury, or his enemies to falter for a brief moment.

Had the abilities keyed off of Strength or a physical stat, I'd be scratching my head, too -- but they key off of the mental abilities, and that's enough to realize that they do indeed work and make sense.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 29, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how to put this...
> 
> There is no Cabal. WotC WILL NOT break into your house and torch your old D&D books. Nor are you going to be held at gunpoint while playing OFFICIAL DUNGEONS & DRAGONS(TM) Fourth Edition Rules, D&D(TM) Miniatures, and role with D&D(TM) Dice. And they certainly don't sit in Redmond having EVILGASMS about how dragonborn, warlords, and the Shadowfell is going to royally screw up some random players homebrew world.
> 
> ...




Oh c'mon. What's the fun of talking to people who all agree with you? A conversation is most enjoyable when it includes people of differing points of view.

For the record, I'm not some kind of 1st Edition grognard. I wanted a new edition of D&D, to fix its accumulated crud and streamline its rules.  I was also hoping that WOTC was going to undo the wrong of 2nd edition. I eagerly bought and tried to play 3rd edition. I didn't like watching the look of boredom and frustration on player's faces as they spent 2 hours trying to make characters. I didn't like the agonizingly slow combat rules that even WOTC now says were a bad idea. My problem is not with innovation in D&D; my problem is with WOTC creating an entirely new game, and then labeling it D&D.

As for EVILGASMS, they actually sound like fun. I'll have to try them sometimes.


----------



## Stone Dog (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm hoping that the PHB has a small paragraph at the beginning saying something like 

"Smites primarily call upon divine power to deal extra damage to enemies.  However, the divine power will often bleed into secondary effects designed to aid the paladin and his allies in combat."

I'm also hoping that the paladin will be shown to have healing and protection talents as well so that when people say "Why can't my paladin heal without hitting something" or "why do I need to attack to offer a defense bonus" we can point to Lay on Hands or Protection from Evil.

Smites are one thing the paladin can do.  Odds are they aren't the ONLY thing the paladin can do.


----------



## Masquerade (Nov 29, 2007)

It would be a simple house rule to say that paladins can activate any of their smites' secondary effects as a standard action, consuming that encounter's use of that smite.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 29, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This is not actually true.  I myself receive a small but pleasant stipend from Wizards of the Coast (TM) for breaking the occasional knee in the alley behind my Friendly Local Gaming Store (TM).  We get official D&D (TM) tire irons.
> 
> I'm not supposed to tell you that, but the last time their lawyer tried to enforce the D&D (TM) Non Disclosure Agreement against me, I broke the guy's knee.




Oooo, FASA used to have those.  One of their snipers got my Shadowrun GM coming out of the Marvin Center at GWU back in '94.

To be fair, he was kind of a (bleep) GM.

Brad


----------



## Hyudra (Nov 29, 2007)

My problem with the smites isn't tied to the crunch... it's tied to the narrowness of it.

I'd be fine with these smites as a class ability, generally speaking, except for the fact that it only applies to three or so gods in a vast pantheon.  For paladins who supposedly aren't tied to the lawful good alignment anymore, it still sticks pretty resolutely to the lawful and good axis.


That other guy is a paladin of Bahamut.  He's a protector of law and order, of justice and the scourge of evil.  He smites his foes while protecting or healing his allies.

I'm playing a paladin of Kord, let's say.  He's the dragonslayer, a champion of martial strength, and as a holy warrior of his temple I...  smite my foes while protecting or healing my allies.

I was kind of hoping smites would be a flexible, variable feature.  I hope we can build our characters with or without some of these features, especially if they're all going to stick so closely to the 'archetypical' class.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

Hyudra said:
			
		

> My problem with the smites isn't tied to the crunch... it's tied to the narrowness of it.




Making judgments with such little information reminds me of that old parable about the blind men who all feel a different part of an animal, and come to completely different conclusions than eachother... and they all end up being totally wrong about the animal.


----------



## Abstraction (Nov 29, 2007)

Hyudra said:
			
		

> My problem with the smites isn't tied to the crunch... it's tied to the narrowness of it.
> 
> I'd be fine with these smites as a class ability, generally speaking, except for the fact that it only applies to three or so gods in a vast pantheon.  For paladins who supposedly aren't tied to the lawful good alignment anymore, it still sticks pretty resolutely to the lawful and good axis.




Well, you are your own ally, so I assume he evil guys just heal themselves. That doesn't make them all that different mechanically, but you can always add a little flavor on top.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 29, 2007)

Hyudra said:
			
		

> My problem with the smites isn't tied to the crunch... it's tied to the narrowness of it.
> 
> I'd be fine with these smites as a class ability, generally speaking, except for the fact that it only applies to three or so gods in a vast pantheon.  For paladins who supposedly aren't tied to the lawful good alignment anymore, it still sticks pretty resolutely to the lawful and good axis.



???

The Chaotic Evil guy just says "Screw the rest of you! I'm healin' myself!" 

*Smite!*

Plus, we don't know what other smite abilities (or even class features) paladins will have.

I will concede, at first glance, that your Kord example is a pretty good one where the paladin might be more inclined to be a glory hound and less concerned with allies. Perhaps there's a Smite which boosts Str or gives some other, more appropriate, bonus?

I think the "design space" (is that the newest buzz phrase?) allows for creation of new smiting abilities more specific to the paladin's deity as well.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> Well, you are your own ally, so I assume he evil guys just heal themselves. That doesn't make them all that different mechanically, but you can always add a little flavor on top.




And I don't see why people immediately assume that evil people don't actually have feelings or loyalty... or that they may use their healing smite powers to keep their allies alive because dead allies are useless.

I mean hell, even Hitler was in love, and I think we can all agree that he was evil.


----------



## Abstraction (Nov 29, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And I don't see why people immediately assume that evil people don't actually have feelings or loyalty... or that they may use their healing smite powers to keep their allies alive because dead allies are useless.
> 
> I mean hell, even Hitler was in love, and I think we can all agree that he was evil.



Hitler was very complex. A vegetarian, loved his dog. Actually, a pretty good model for a complex villain.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

Indeed.  Evil (cleric) people not being able to heal their companions on the fly was something that really annoyed me.  Good clerics may very well wish to cause wounds on an evil moster that is attacking them, and evil clerics very much wish to preserve themselves (maybe moreso than a self sacrificing good cleric.)  They should have either given both good and evil just the ability to heal, or they should have given both good an evil the ability to heal or harm.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 29, 2007)

Hyudra said:
			
		

> I was kind of hoping smites would be a flexible, variable feature.  I hope we can build our characters with or without some of these features, especially if they're all going to stick so closely to the 'archetypical' class.



Well, despite the fact that you can use your smites for your own good, look at the way the smites are designed, including "Paladin 1". I guess there is a small smite list, similar to a spell list, so you'll probably get some choice to model more brutal, less defensive paladins.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 29, 2007)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Well, despite the fact that you can use your smites for your own good, look at the way the smites are designed, including "Paladin 1". I guess there is a small smite list, similar to a spell list, so you'll probably get some choice to model more brutal, less defensive paladins.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




I hope this is the case.  Of course then there is the issue of balancing all these changes so that not every paladin has to choose the exact same smites.  That is an extremely difficult thing to do.  I do hope they've been playtesting the hell out of this system.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 29, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> I hope this is the case.  Of course then there is the issue of balancing all these changes so that not every paladin has to choose the exact same smites.  That is an extremely difficult thing to do.  I do hope they've been playtesting the hell out of this system.




No, I'm afraid not. They've just been throwing darts at a board and picking the feats that way.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 30, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> No, I'm afraid not. They've just been throwing darts at a board and picking the feats that way.




Uh-oh, it's a good sign that this forum has gone far down the bad path when the official Board Optimist starts handing out sarcastic comments without even a smilie attached.


----------



## rkwoodard (Nov 30, 2007)

*Does not seem fluid*

Hi,
  I love the flavor of the intent (As I am getting), Paladin's using Aura's and Divine energy to do stuff.  Cool. 

But, it just does not seem fluid.  I am getting the books and will try them out, but I am not seeing the simpification of the system.


--I think I see why.  3ed was never that complicated cause my group never did the high level, super-buffs, spiffy type moves.  We always kinda keep to the simple stuff and low mid levels.--

The way this is reading (and I hate I am bring this up) is like a Magic the Gathering type thing. 

I think I am going to like the 4th edition Minis game as a wargame.  But I don't know if I will like the RPG as much.  I am getting concerned over my ability to immerse myself with these types of Mechanics.  

RK


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Uh-oh, it's a good sign that this forum has gone far down the bad path when the official Board Optimist starts handing out sarcastic comments without even a smilie attached.




You can always tell when I'm feeling irritable when my trademark "Cheers!" disappears.

Seriously, KingCrab? We're talking about Wizards of the Coast. This is the company that cares an awful lot about game mechanics. We've seen a 4e playtest report where something has been discarded because it was a no-brainer choice - it was so good, it overshadowed all the other options.

Their mechanical understanding of the game is far, far superior to what it was during 3e design, and they're also playtesting a lot.

I expect this edition will have a mechanical coherence that we haven't seen before.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2007)

rkwoodard said:
			
		

> I think I am going to like the 4th edition Minis game as a wargame.  But I don't know if I will like the RPG as much.  I am getting concerned over my ability to immerse myself with these types of Mechanics.




I understand your concern, but I don't think we'll have to worry. When you come down to it, the mechanics of all the editions of D&D have often gone against the role-playing/storytelling aspects. 

The basic change is likely to be that "help others" kind of mechanics will now be part of "kill enemy" mechanics. So, you don't cast _bless_ anymore - you make an attack and also get the effect of bless.

Meanwhile, wizards will still cast fireballs, and fighters will still hit things with swords. They're just removing the problem of a character spending an action purely to help someone else have fun.

Cheers!


----------



## rkwoodard (Nov 30, 2007)

*as long as*



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> I understand your concern, but I don't think we'll have to worry. When you come down to it, the mechanics of all the editions of D&D have often gone against the role-playing/storytelling aspects.
> 
> The basic change is likely to be that "help others" kind of mechanics will now be part of "kill enemy" mechanics. So, you don't cast _bless_ anymore - you make an attack and also get the effect of bless.
> 
> ...





It could be cool.  I have always liked the concept of using divine energy in multiple ways. I have just never thought of doing multiple things at the same time.    I think also my concerns are founded upon my group.  If they can turn something into a joke or snide comment at the table it is over and done with.  


RK


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2007)

rkwoodard said:
			
		

> It could be cool.  I have always liked the concept of using divine energy in multiple ways. I have just never thought of doing multiple things at the same time.    I think also my concerns are founded upon my group.  If they can turn something into a joke or snide comment at the table it is over and done with.




Ah, yes - the best laid rules do have to make it past your group... 

In fact, for the last few weeks, I've been DMing a Cleric/Crusader, which is pretty close to how the paladin smites will work. (Except the 4e mechanics look a lot cleaner and better). The idea of having Attack + Effect has been really, really appreciated by the player in question. It works very nicely.

You also get interesting choices as to which effect to use. Do you do the attack which also heals, the attack which does +2d6 damage, or the attack that gives everyone +4 to attack for one turn?

Of course, the Bo9S effects rely on the crusader successfully hitting... that the paladin smite secondary effects work even on a miss? Brilliance. It'll work really, really well at the game table, and I might even make adjustments to the mechanics in my current game.

Cheers!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 30, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Uh-oh, it's a good sign that this forum has gone far down the bad path when the official Board Optimist starts handing out sarcastic comments without even a smilie attached.



Yeah. Then cats and dogs will be cohabiting and we all know what happens after that.


----------



## Henry (Nov 30, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah. Then cats and dogs will be cohabiting and we all know what happens after that.




Mass Hysteria! (And Cogs and Puttens!)


----------



## neceros (Nov 30, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Then why not let the paladin heal and protect things as swift actions?



Because his divine dogma requires that he fights for his cause. He attacks in order to get the bonuses: it's his somatic component.



			
				Hyudra said:
			
		

> My problem with the smites isn't tied to the crunch... it's tied to the narrowness of it.
> 
> I'd be fine with these smites as a class ability, generally speaking, except for the fact that it only applies to three or so gods in a vast pantheon.  For paladins who supposedly aren't tied to the lawful good alignment anymore, it still sticks pretty resolutely to the lawful and good axis.
> 
> ...



Understandable. However, the PHB will say "Paladins are Lawful or Good." and leave it at that. The DMG will have rules on making the Paladins Evil or Chaotic. Paladins are meant to be good in nature, but they know people will want to stray sometimes.



			
				Kheti sa-Menik said:
			
		

> Ugh.  More per encounter abilities.
> More and more not to like.
> 
> That killed any indication it was going to be good.
> ...



I'm not sure why balancing battles on the encounter level is a bad thing? Last time I played a wizard I gave him up because he was boring. I don't really like running out of normal spells after 2 fights.
It will be balanced per fight, I assure you. Having unlimited of a resource after the day is over isn't going to unbalance anything, because the monsters will also have them.



			
				Shazman said:
			
		

> I don't like the mechanics of how these smites work. I hit you, so my friend's sucking gut wound immediately heals up.  What?  This is too ridiculous for me to stomach.  I think I'll pass on 4th edition.



Like so many before you have mentioned they are only separate so long as you just look at straight mechanics. When "The paladin's divine patron instills his ally a boost of spirit due to your striking of his favored enemy" is added to the power it doesn't look so separate, does it?

When people complain that fluff is crowding their books, Wizards releases fluff-free information. When they released fluff-free info, people complain that it's too mechanic and gamest in design.



			
				fuindordm said:
			
		

> ..."A paladin can call on divine power to aid her allies, and has learned to channel some of that power into a melee attack at the same time.  Lacking the scholarship of a cleric, their selection of effects is much more limited--but that attack sure hurts when it lands."



Feel free to think of your additive when you see the ability from now on. No body will think less of you.

Sometimes, I swear.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by DreamChaser
> If it was smite for extra damage and grant your ally +4 bonus to open locks, then I'd be concerned.
> 
> Shhh.  Not too loud.  Some of the smites may not yet be written and they can use that.




Geez, did you see how hard he just hit that guy?  I better unlock this door before he does the same to me (click).


----------



## Stalker0 (Nov 30, 2007)

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Wizard: Ouch, that archer up in the tree way over there is shooting at me with arrows! Hey, defender, a little help!
> Paladin: Well, um, you see, I can't really invoke my remaining divine power to defend you, because in order to defend you, I have to attack something.
> Wizard: What are you talking about? You have enough divine inspiration left that will allow you to defend me, but only while you're attacking something?
> Paladin: My god works in mysterious ways.
> ...




Or maybe, the paladin can simply say: "Alright I'm going to use my smite, but I'm not going to attack anything, I'll use up a smite but can I just get the AC bonus?"

Dm: "Sure"

We don't know that you HAVE to attack a creature to gain the bonus, we just know that's part of the smite. Similar to how with defensive fighting you don't actually have to attack anything, you just have to give up your attack action.


----------



## neceros (Nov 30, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Or maybe, the paladin can simply say: "Alright I'm going to use my smite, but I'm not going to attack anything, I'll use up a smite but can I just get the AC bonus?"
> 
> Dm: "Sure"
> 
> We don't know that you HAVE to attack a creature to gain the bonus, we just know that's part of the smite. Similar to how with defensive fighting you don't actually have to attack anything, you just have to give up your attack action.



Well, to be fair if you aren't attacking it'd be better to use Full Defense to gain more AC.

In regard to your first statement, obviously I can't say for certain, but if we're taking Bo9S as a big assuming role model, then I'm sure you will have to actually strike.

None-the-less, I have no doubt that the paladin will receive abilities to aid his party members without requiring him to smite. Guys, these are just 3 of his abilities. These are smites: powers designed to hurt his opponents fore-most. The secondary benefit is a great help that shows his divine touch and sets him apart from his Fighter brethren. Consider that he will most likely have powers that actually aid without requiring an attack, and powers to aid in AC and defenses since he is a _divine _assistant.

Keep it in context and you'll understand their goal with designing these abilities: One pea in a big pod of power.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Nov 30, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Or maybe, the paladin can simply say: "Alright I'm going to use my smite, but I'm not going to attack anything, I'll use up a smite but can I just get the AC bonus?"
> 
> Dm: "Sure"
> 
> We don't know that you HAVE to attack a creature to gain the bonus, we just know that's part of the smite. Similar to how with defensive fighting you don't actually have to attack anything, you just have to give up your attack action.




In looking at the smite descriptions, they ARE attacks.  Fighting defensively is not the same type of thing.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> A Smite is not every time the pally swings his sword, this is a special, focused attack graced with divine energy.  Why wouldn't there be more of an effect than straight damage?  The paladin calls out his foe for divine judgement. The act of smiting is sacred, a ritual, a prayer. The paladin of Bahamut, the protector, lends the Platinum dragons protection to an ally when he smites. A paladin of Pelor, the healer, mends wounds of his comrades when he invokes the Sun god's might. It fits the theme of the divine warrior much better than psuedo-Vancian prayers.




Maybe this is where most people are having issues.  I see smite as the paladin asking his god for assistance in slaying his enemy.  The paladin might have a need behind asking his god for assitance, such as protecting his wounded friend, or demoralizing the enemy to protect the innocents, but the assistance is in slaying his enemy.  

I'm not even against secondary affects that force the paladin's target to focus on the paladin, or rallying allies (which is really removing fear effects, not healing).  But if you want to start flavoring the secondary effects based on the gods portfolio, then limit the paladin's spellcasting to only domain spells, or make paladin domains that reflect the god.


----------



## neceros (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> Maybe this is where most people are having issues.  I see smite as the paladin asking his god for assistance in slaying his enemy.  The paladin might have a need behind asking his god for assitance, such as protecting his wounded friend, or demoralizing the enemy to protect the innocents, but the assistance is in slaying his enemy.



I don't quite understand this thinking pattern.

These smites are, indeed, slaying the paladin's enemies. It seems they do this fairly well, being twice normal weapon damage. However, remember that a Paladin's role in a party is to help defend his comrades. To this point paladin smites have been given helpful additions.

If you were being smitten wouldn't you want to kill the person that's smacking the hell out of you while, at the same time, healing her friend?


----------



## Nine Hands (Nov 30, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay, pulled up the WotC forum post with the Spined Devil stats...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wonder if the kicker (based on class), differs for each ability score.

So Fighter might be +2 STR, +1 CON, +1 DEX, +0 to WIS, INT, and CHA.

Just a wild guess.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Here's a thought: if normal spell-casting for paladins has evolved into this (and other abilities we haven't seen yet), what has the spell-casting ranger evolved into?




Well, being a dissenting voice in the forum...I'm thinking he will be able to cast two spells when he swings both weapons in his two weapon fighting style....  

or, whenever he traps an animal, all non-allies in 30ft are affected by a 2d6 furry animal damage


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Nov 30, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Seriously, KingCrab? We're talking about Wizards of the Coast. This is the company that cares an awful lot about game mechanics. <snip>




Wow, I haven't laughed that hard in a long long time.  THAT is funny.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Nov 30, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Kheti : The whole system is based on at will/per encounter/per day now, so if that's a deal breaker for you, you are probably out of luck.




I figured maybe some abilities would be in this awful vein, but all of them?  Per Encounter?  What a miserable, terrible idea.

I was so hoping to keep participating in RPGA events too in Living FR.   :\


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> I don't quite understand this thinking pattern.
> 
> These smites are, indeed, slaying the paladin's enemies. It seems they do this fairly well, being twice normal weapon damage. However, remember that a Paladin's role in a party is to help defend his comrades. To this point paladin smites have been given helpful additions.
> 
> If you were being smitten wouldn't you want to kill the person that's smacking the hell out of you while, at the same time, healing her friend?




First, if someone is beating the hell out of me, then my friend is the least of my worries.  I am defending them by absorbing the damage that might have otherwise gone to them.  I would like to be returning damage.  This allows my friend the time to heal themselves and get back into the fight.

But this goes back to my original thought: I can't justify, to myself, that this power can "bleed through" as a healing affect to allies.  I could see my allies becoming inspired, or my enemies intimidated, with the fact that I wield divine power, but inspirational healing just doesn't sit well with me.  I could even see if the divine power gave secondary affects to the paladin, and healing would be okay to me in this instance,.

So the breakdown is due to my personal view of smite and how it differs from your personal view of smite.


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 30, 2007)

*re*

Well, I think I'll be waiting for the video game. I don't like the rules from a PnP RPG perspective. Paladin smites don't have much verisimilitude in my book. Looks like the DnD designers were told to focus on rule creation that was very friendly to the making of a video game. I think I'll be waiting for the video game rather than upgrading to 4th edition.

Strikes that heal your group or give AC? C'mon now. That is not in anyway interesting from  a story book standpoint. It has absolutely nothing to do with simulating a fantasy holy knight. The characters I see as holy knights are Lancelot and Galahad with strong ideas of chivalry and nobility. Now it is some class that hits things and gives benefits to group members. Straight video game paladin.

Honestly, I understand it. If I were a businessman that owned PnP DnD, I would focus on designing rules for a video game as well. After seeing the success of WoW and Everquest, the owners of DnD could make alot more money designing a very good video game than they can designing a very good PnP game.

The main reasons DnD hasn't dominated the fantasy MMORPG market is because they had  game designers that weren't focused on using the source material and creating game rules friendly to an MMORPG game. Now they are correcting the game rule error in 4th edition.

We'll see if DnD can get the game rules right and then do a proper job with the game content. We may not get a great PnP RPG out of 4th edition, but it wouldn't surprise me if we get the best MMORPG DnD has ever made. 

Very smart of the marketing department. If I had owned DnD, I'd be torn between focusing on a MMORPG and making a great PnP game. In the end, I'd probably go for the MMORPG market as well since that is where the big money is.

Hasbro (That's who owns them right) finally decided to get the most out of this hobby game they purchsed from WotC. Smart move on their part. A successful MMORPG would be huge money if Hasbro puts good game designers on it and follows one of the successful models like Warcraft of the Orginal Everquest and uses the content advantage they have to dominated the market. We'll see if Hasbro is willing to put the money in to get the most out of their investment.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2007)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> Well, I think I'll be waiting for the video game. I don't like the rules from a PnP RPG perspective. Paladin smites don't have much verisimilitude in my book.




Neither does magic, really. From your storybook standpoint, Lancelot and Galahad should be pure fighters with only an ability to hit things.

The "Hit and Heal" or "Hit and Buff" is not being introduced because of computer games. It's being introduced because of the serious problems that have been demonstrated over thirty years of D&D and never really been addressed: few people want to play the cleric.

3e tried to fix this by going "you're ultra-powerful, Mr Cleric!", but it didn't work. The problem isn't the number of abilities the cleric has, it is the limited number of actions they get.

The hope that Wizards have is that by combining two action types (Hit & Heal; Hit & Buff), they'll make the leader role more attractive to players.

Cheers!


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 30, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> 3e tried to fix this by going "you're ultra-powerful, Mr Cleric!", but it didn't work. The problem isn't the number of abilities the cleric has, it is the limited number of actions they get.




It will be interesting to see what 4e does choose to do with the cleric if there really is enough healing coming from other sources.  Will they combine the cleric's healing with other actions as well, or will the cleric take it's role as "leader" and somehow be focused on just providing bonuses for other characters?


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see what 4e does choose to do with the cleric if there really is enough healing coming from other sources.  Will they combine the cleric's healing with other actions as well, or will the cleric take it's role as "leader" and somehow be focused on just providing bonuses for other characters?




Indeed.

My personal take is that you have two Leader classes.

The Warlord will be more buffing, the Cleric will be more healing - even though every class has enhanced healing, the Cleric will be significantly superior. You might be able to survive without a Cleric, but you'd prefer to have one around.

Also, the Cleric will have active spells as well, in addition to some nice anti-undead abilities.

An active spell is like Hold Person, although that actual spell will probably not be in its current form, rather than the "passive" spells like Bull's Strength.

Cheers!


----------



## Shazman (Nov 30, 2007)

Smerg said:
			
		

> Ok, so I pray for my divine patron to heal my friend (or myself) while I kick the cajones out of some bad guy.
> 
> I think this is a pretty good sacrifice situation.  It works far better then some bat guano as the patron knows they are getting something in return for the offering of good for their champion brandishing the flag.
> 
> ...




If he hit an enemy with a smite, and as a benefit could say a brief healing or protection prayer, as a swift action, I would have no problem with it. I could even almost buy allies getting temporary hitpoints from a morale boost at seeing the paladin's spectaclular hit. What you have here are two effects coming form one action that are completely disconnected.  It would be like a wizard hits you with his staff, and for no reason at all, a column of fire roasts some enemies 20 ft away. No spellcasting or power words, or activating the staff.  It just happens.  That is ridiculous, and I can't stomach it. You have to have a bit of versimilitude even in a fanstasy game, like D&D.  Prayers or spells heal or damage, melee attacks should never heal unless it's a touch attack with a healing spell.


----------



## Smerg (Nov 30, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see what 4e does choose to do with the cleric if there really is enough healing coming from other sources.  Will they combine the cleric's healing with other actions as well, or will the cleric take it's role as "leader" and somehow be focused on just providing bonuses for other characters?




Kundum in his report on classes stated that healing works better in the presence of a Cleric.  This could be either a multiplier or it could be the level or wisdom bonus of the cleric affects healing spells used within a certain range of them.  They are thus living altars of their faith or walking beacons for their divine patron.

An interesting and good imagery.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 30, 2007)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Or maybe, the paladin can simply say: "Alright I'm going to use my smite, but I'm not going to attack anything, I'll use up a smite but can I just get the AC bonus?"




Ooorrr, even more likely, he'll say something like "I cast _cure light wounds_."

Just sayin'.


----------



## grimslade (Nov 30, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> If he hit an enemy with a smite, and as a benefit could say a brief healing or protection prayer, as a swift action, I would have no problem with it. I could even almost buy allies getting temporary hitpoints from a morale boost at seeing the paladin's spectaclular hit. What you have here are two effects coming form one action that are completely disconnected.  It would be like a wizard hits you with his staff, and for no reason at all, a column of fire roasts some enemies 20 ft away. No spellcasting or power words, or activating the staff.  It just happens.  That is ridiculous, and I can't stomach it. You have to have a bit of versimilitude even in a fanstasy game, like D&D.  Prayers or spells heal or damage, melee attacks should never heal unless it's a touch attack with a healing spell.




This is a disconnect for me. The attack + swift action 'spell' is ok, but eliminating the swift action and combining the prayer with the attack lacks verisimilitude? How is Vancian magic considered verisimilitude? The concept of a swift action is kludge to fix the shortcomings of the limited action turn based sytem. Combining effects to attacks is a different concept.
With the 4E smites, the attack IS the prayer or spell or powerword. It is the channel that brings the effect (+AC, healing or binding) into being. In 3E this was already the case, the paladin attacked and divine energy powered extra damage and a greater chance to hit into the strike. Should smite have been rewritten to the attack + a swift damage boosting prayer?
All of spellcasting is changing. Vancian slots are greatly reduced. Wizards use foci now. There are secondary effects from the use of different powers. These smites are a small taste of what is to come. 4E will not be everyone's cup of tea, but I like what I am seeing so far.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> But this goes back to my original thought: I can't justify, to myself, that this power can "bleed through" as a healing affect to allies. I could see my allies becoming inspired, or my enemies intimidated, with the fact that I wield divine power, but inspirational healing just doesn't sit well with me..



To be fair, the Wizards description doesnt give much fluff text at all for it.  All we have is a base description 'smites allow a paladin to deliver a powerful blow with the character's weapon of choice, while layering on some divine effect' and pure game mechanics.  Any fluff you're putting behind it, ATM, is all your own creation...and you've already done the job of describing a way that it'd work for you...so why not use that? 

The paladin shouts out his god's name, calling upon him to close the wounds of his fellow warrior against darkness, and to empower his blade to smite the hell out the one before him. Heck, think of tradtional prayers...how many of them call upon a deity to do just ONE thing?  Usually it's some combination of 'Make my opponents hurt a lot' with 'keep my guys from dying'


----------



## Gloombunny (Nov 30, 2007)

If it helps, don't think of the smite as an attack with a buffing side effect.  Think of it as a spell with two effects - a buff for an ally, and charging your weapon with divine energy.  And, like touch spells that give you a "free" attack after you cast them to charge up your hand, using the smite gives you a free attack with the charged-up weapon.  (Unlike touch spells, though, the charge gets used up even if you miss.  C'est la vie.)


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> To be fair, the Wizards description doesnt give much fluff text at all for it.  All we have is a base description 'smites allow a paladin to deliver a powerful blow with the character's weapon of choice, while layering on some divine effect' and pure game mechanics.  Any fluff you're putting behind it, ATM, is all your own creation...and you've already done the job of describing a way that it'd work for you...so why not use that?




That is true.  There is no fluff text provided by wizards, so I have the mechanic to go off of.  That said, to me, my ability to hit someone with a weapon should not result in healing allies, so a smite that heals a paladin's allies doesn't work for me.  If the smite just healed the paladin, I'm fine with that, but not others.



			
				D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> The paladin shouts out his god's name, calling upon him to close the wounds of his fellow warrior against darkness, and to empower his blade to smite the hell out the one before him. Heck, think of tradtional prayers...how many of them call upon a deity to do just ONE thing?  Usually it's some combination of 'Make my opponents hurt a lot' with 'keep my guys from dying'




Ok.  Traditional prayers are also full of honorifics, praise, asking for the saving of souls, and sometimes the request for a puppy   , etc.  So when does a standard smite attack start to become full round actions?

Traditional prayers aside, when does the god say 'No'?  Unless the ally is of the same faith, why would the god even bother with healing a hurt ally?  Is his servant not resourceful enough to handle the situation?

All this fluff aside (I think I'm just rambling now), spells for clerics and paladins are just traditional prayers that just invoke more power.  There are prayers to heal, prayers to assist in combat, etc.  The system works them one at a time.  If you want multiple effects, that is a higher level spell.

I'll give in on healing with a smite on one condition: it's a burst effect centered on the paladin from divine energy being converted into positive energy at the point of impact.  As a burst effect, it does not care about allies or enemies.


----------



## Njall (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> That is true.  There is no fluff text provided by wizards, so I have the mechanic to go off of.  That said, to me, my ability to hit someone with a weapon should not result in healing allies, so a smite that heals a paladin's allies doesn't work for me.  If the smite just healed the paladin, I'm fine with that, but not others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Just see the smite as a spell.
The somatic component is "smack the enemy".
I don't see how that is less realistic than a guy with a book learning to set things on fire throwing balls of guano bat around...


----------



## Jinete (Nov 30, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> The paladin shouts out his god's name, calling upon him to close the wounds of his fellow warrior against darkness, and to empower his blade to smite the hell out the one before him. Heck, think of tradtional prayers...how many of them call upon a deity to do just ONE thing?  Usually it's some combination of 'Make my opponents hurt a lot' with 'keep my guys from dying'




HEAR ME BAHAMUT!!!. THIS ONE'S BLOOD FOR OURS!!! 

Could work. Also, made me shiver.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 30, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> Just see the smite as a spell.
> The somatic component is "smack the enemy".
> I don't see how that is less realistic than a guy with a book learning to set things on fire throwing balls of guano bat around...



Actually, I think the whole Smite is a spell. Since the attack seems to be based on Charisma, instead of Strength, you are casting a spell. The spell has two effects - dealing damage and healing/protecting/binding someone else.


----------



## Stormtalon (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> I'll give in on healing with a smite on one condition: it's a burst effect centered on the paladin from divine energy being converted into positive energy at the point of impact.  As a burst effect, it does not care about allies or enemies.




And if the smites were based off of Strength and physical prowess, then uncontrolled bursts would make sense.  However, they're not; Charisma and/or Wisdom are the relevant stats, meaning it's not just an uncontrolled burst of divine energy.  The paladin is using his force of will and inner fire and devotion to take the power granted by his deity and shape it and channel it.  His deity grants the power and through his martial devotion to their cause, the paladin gives it a focus and a purpose.  Why is that seeming to be such a hard thing for people to accept as (within the D&D milieu) "realistic" and sensible?


----------



## eleran (Nov 30, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Understandable. However, the PHB will say "Paladins are Lawful or Good." and leave it at that. The DMG will have rules on making the Paladins Evil or Chaotic. Paladins are meant to be good in nature, but they know people will want to stray sometimes.





How do you know this?  Is there a link to some proof or other documentation?  

I really liked your post other than this statement.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 30, 2007)

eleran said:
			
		

> How do you know this?  Is there a link to some proof or other documentation?




http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212876


----------



## Njall (Nov 30, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Actually, I think the whole Smite is a spell. Since the attack seems to be based on Charisma, instead of Strength, you are casting a spell. The spell has two effects - dealing damage and healing/protecting/binding someone else.




And I'm fine with that, as well 
I was just trying to put it in such way that the two effects ( "I smite my opponent so that I please my patron" and "My patron deity grants an ally of mine the ability to avoid an opponent's attack/regain some lost strength" ) could be seen as correlated.
Frankly, until the mechanics make it impossible for me as a DM to find a flavor description for what's happenning in my game, I'm okay with just about anything they could come up with.
If it was an extraordinary ability (as opposed to the (su) it is in 3.x), I'd probably have a problem with it, but as things stand...not really. 
It would also be ok with me if they decided that Paladins are only capable of manifesting divine powers when fighting...I'd just assume that clerics are the ones learning to manipulate divine power and positive/negative energy, while paladins are more similar to spontaneous casters, feeling closer to their patron deities only when fighting on their behalf.


----------



## DM_Blake (Nov 30, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> If he hit an enemy with a smite, and as a benefit could say a brief healing or protection prayer, as a swift action, I would have no problem with it. I could even almost buy allies getting temporary hitpoints from a morale boost at seeing the paladin's spectaclular hit. What you have here are two effects coming form one action that are completely disconnected.  It would be like a wizard hits you with his staff, and for no reason at all, a column of fire roasts some enemies 20 ft away. No spellcasting or power words, or activating the staff.  It just happens.  That is ridiculous, and I can't stomach it. You have to have a bit of versimilitude even in a fanstasy game, like D&D.  Prayers or spells heal or damage, melee attacks should never heal unless it's a touch attack with a healing spell.




Who said there's no spellcasting or power words in these Smite abilities.

Spells have components that complicate their use. Verbal components can be silenced. Somatic components can be interrupted by grapples, being tied up, etc. Material components can be taken away. This complicates spellcasting.

But paladin Smites have never required this stuff. In 3e, a paladin simply states he is smiting the evil monster, and he gets a damage bonus. There are no game mechanic components like with spellcasting, but surely in a roleplaying sense they are there. That paladin appeals to his god for the power to smite his foes.

That is just as much a "power word" as anything else.

So, now in 4e, his "power words", or his appeal to his god, is to not only smite the enemy in front of him, but to also allow him to protect or heal his companion.

I cannot fathom why this is so hard for you to stomach.

In 3e, the paladin asks his god for a smite and he gets it. Nobody can interrupt that or take it away. In 4e, the paladin asks his god for a smite and a little extra help, and he gets it. Nobody can interrupt that or take it away.

It's exactly the same thing, except that in 4e, the paladins have learned how to milk their gods for more than just damage.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> Just see the smite as a spell.
> The somatic component is "smack the enemy".
> I don't see how that is less realistic than a guy with a book learning to set things on fire throwing balls of guano bat around...




I'm not looking at this as realistic or not realistic.  I realize I'm playing a game.

That said, there are certain things I just don't want to see combined.  Healing allies and damaging others with a melee attack is one of them.  Missing the to hit roll and still causing damage is another.  To me, it doesn't flow well together and it feels munchkin.

Besides, I played a game system where smite was a spell.  That spell did one thing: it attempted to kill my enemy with large amounts of damage.


----------



## Njall (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> I'm not looking at this as realistic or not realistic.  I realize I'm playing a game.
> 
> That said, there are certain things I just don't want to see combined.  Healing allies and damaging others with a melee attack is one of them.  Missing the to hit roll and still causing damage is another.  To me, it doesn't flow well together and it feels munchkin.
> 
> Besides, I played a game system where smite was a spell.  That spell did one thing: it attempted to kill my enemy with large amounts of damage.




Uhm, so, as you said earlier, you'd be ok if it healed in a radius, but you're not ok if it only heals one ally? It's exactly the same game mechanic, assuming we're talking game mechanics here, and it's even more powerful.
If it's not flavor that bothers you, and you'd be fine with the smite healing in a radius ( same mechanic...), then what's the matter?
Care to explain why "I smite my opponent and heal Joe the mage, here" is more munchkin than "I smite my opponents and heal the entire party" (mechanically, I mean...)?


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Actually, I think the whole Smite is a spell. Since the attack seems to be based on Charisma, instead of Strength, you are casting a spell. The spell has two effects - dealing damage and healing/protecting/binding someone else.




You know, one good thing about this discussion is that it actually got me to read the article (which, with the new online format, has not happened that often).  What did I get from this?  I hate the idea of charisma instead of strength for a melee attack.

Just one more thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> You know, one good thing about this discussion is that it actually got me to read the article (which, with the new online format, has not happened that often).  What did I get from this?  I hate the idea of charisma instead of strength for a melee attack.
> 
> Just one more thing.



Sorry for the inconvenience.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

I fully agree with Celtavian. It's as if the designers have spent their time hanging out on the WoW paladin boards looking for ideas.

It's not the game mechanics that have players flocking to MMORPG's. It's the convenience of sitting down at your computer (pantsless, if you wish) and hanging out with friends while you slay baddies over and over and over. Kill, loot, ding, gratz. It's instant gratification.

The design with this mechanic screams "group friendly! Melee support!". What it doesn't do is scream "Paladin!". A paladin is not some dude in plate whose sole purpose in life is to make other like-minded folks who happen to be within 40 feet of him more powerful. He is a holy warrior, infused with power by his god to wage war on evil and defend the faith. However, instead of granting his holy warriors the ability to strike down the wicked, Torm is granting them the ability to more easily find groups. Huzzah...

After 22 years, I'm afraid I'm going to have to move on from D&D and stay with Castles & Crusades.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> Uhm, so, as you said earlier, you'd be ok if it healed in a radius, but you're not ok if it only heals one ally? It's exactly the same game mechanic, assuming we're talking game mechanics here, and it's even more powerful.
> If it's not flavor that bothers you, and you'd be fine with the smite healing in a radius ( same mechanic...), then what's the matter?
> Care to explain why "I smite my opponent and heal Joe the mage, here" is more munchkin than "I smite my opponents and heal the entire party" (mechanically, I mean...)?




Yes, that was the one exception I could see, and here is why: it doesn't discern between my enemies and my allies.  If my party is around me, then more than likely, so is the enemy.  Even if the radius is something small as 5ft.  It was mainly in reply to those who say the divine power "bleeds" into another effect.  If the paladin is going to bleed power, then best to burst it from his attack.

Do I like this mechanic?  Not really, but I could accept it better than "and heal Joe the mage, who doesn't worship you, has never done anything to further your cause, but he's my ally, which should count for something, and I'm asking really, really nicely (cause I have high charisma)".

What would I be happy with and still include healing?  The paladin smites the enemy, and receives personal healing from his god.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 30, 2007)

So we've moved on to the point where something doesn't even have to be part in a videogame to be too videogamey!  Gearjammer, you actually have a perfectly reasonable point about how you don't like the flavor of the new smites.  If you'd just cut the meaningless "Oh noes video games" trash out, it would be perfectly reasonable.  Though I'd still be confused by the fact you don't see the Paladin as a leader of men, cause I certainly do.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Though I'd still be confused by the fact you don't see the Paladin as a leader of men, cause I certainly do.




Explain to me why a paladin needs to buff party members in order to be considered a leader.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 30, 2007)

Because otherwise his leadership is hollow, because it has zero mechanical effect on his followers.  They would be just as well led by a sheep in heavy armor.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Sorry for the inconvenience.




No problem.  Really.  I was amazed I got through the whole article.      Usually they bore me around the second paragraph, then I'm off to somewhere else.

But these versions of smite feel very much of bo9s, and I wasn't impressed with a lot of the content in that book.  I'm not going to say 3.x was fine the way it was, cause it needed work, and some of the news of 4e has been promising, but to me, this isn't one of them.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> Do I like this mechanic?  Not really, but I could accept it better than "and heal Joe the mage, who doesn't worship you, has never done anything to further your cause, but he's my ally, which should count for something, and I'm asking really, really nicely (cause I have high charisma)".



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.


----------



## Njall (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> Yes, that was the one exception I could see, and here is why: it doesn't discern between my enemies and my allies.  If my party is around me, then more than likely, so is the enemy.  Even if the radius is something small as 5ft.  It was mainly in reply to those who say the divine power "bleeds" into another effect.  If the paladin is going to bleed power, then best to burst it from his attack.
> 
> Do I like this mechanic?  Not really, but I could accept it better than "and heal Joe the mage, who doesn't worship you, has never done anything to further your cause, but he's my ally, which should count for something, and I'm asking really, really nicely (cause I have high charisma)".
> 
> What would I be happy with and still include healing?  The paladin smites the enemy, and receives personal healing from his god.




But neither Lay on Hands nor the paladin's cure spells require that the recipient worships the same deity as the paladin, as things stand.
So what's the difference, really? In 2e ( and 3e) the paladin can heal anyone; but if in 4e he tries to heal that same ally while smiting an opponent, his deity should be asking "why do you want him healed"? 
Furthermore, do you realize that if the "burst radius" affected anyone in range, it would quickly become an area attack against undead?


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> Explain to me why a paladin needs to buff party members in order to be considered a leader.



So you've had problems with the paladin's aura, laying on hands and spell casting abilities from all other editions too, then?


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Because otherwise his leadership is hollow, because it has zero mechanical effect on his followers.  They would be just as well led by a sheep in heavy armor.




*Shakes head sadly*

Roleplaying, where art thou? No offense meant, but this line of thought is precisely what is turning me off from the latest incarnations of D&D.


----------



## Roland55 (Nov 30, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Neither does magic, really. From your storybook standpoint, Lancelot and Galahad should be pure fighters with only an ability to hit things.
> 
> The "Hit and Heal" or "Hit and Buff" is not being introduced because of computer games. It's being introduced because of the serious problems that have been demonstrated over thirty years of D&D and never really been addressed: few people want to play the cleric.
> 
> ...




Not really attractive to me, personally -- but I definitely see the logic behind this decision.  Let's see how it works out in practice.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> *Shakes head sadly*
> 
> Roleplaying, where art thou? No offense meant, but this line of thought is precisely what is turning me off from the latest incarnations of D&D.



Well, he could have just as easily said "They might as well be lead by a fighter in heavy armor".

Of course, you could have a straight fighter with a high charisma dedicated to a deity who functions as a leader as well. There's your roleplaying.

But the paladin class has been around since first edition, and needs to have its own niche that isn't just a watered down fighter melded to a watered down cleric.  I'm glad the 4E designers found the path of expanding an existing ability that is thematically in tune with the concept of a divine warrior.


----------



## Stoat (Nov 30, 2007)

Simply from a mechanical, gamist point of view, I like the idea of letting a paladin (or cleric) combine an attack with a buff or a heal.  It seems like there might be several ways of doing that, including swift spells, auras or the method presented in the two feats at issue.

From a flavor, simulationist perspective I'm having a little cognitive dissonance, and I think I know why.  The combination of  "I whack 'em!" with "Be Healed!" is _sui generis_ in D&D.  For thirty years, spell casting has been one thing and attacks have been another.  There is little precedent for an effect that looks like an attack with a weapon but also confers a benefit on a nearby ally.

I can't speak for others, but I think that's why folks might be more comfortable if the paladin produced the exact same result using smite+swift spell instead of the all-in-one method presented in the article.  Certainly, my mental framework is having a hard time adjusting to the idea.   It feels wrong because it's so unfamiliar.

I also believe that once the rules are presented in full with a little flavor, and after I've had some time to become familiar with them and see them in play, that I'll be just fine with the new smite.


----------



## Roland55 (Nov 30, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> 4E will not be everyone's cup of tea, but I like what I am seeing so far.




Good for you!

Just remember -- it has to pull in more than Grimslade to be successful.   

Here's hoping the playtests are going well.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> So you've had problems with the paladin's aura, laying on hands and spell casting abilities from all other editions too, then?




Not at all. I'm not saying the paladin should be of no use to his fellow party members, nor that he has never had support abilities. Paladins can and should help allies. However it shouldn't be their main purpose. They're not bards. Or at least they weren't.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 30, 2007)

Why does a single class feature suddenly comprise the entire class?  And how does buffing become their main purpose when half that buff is smashing a guy in the face?


----------



## Roland55 (Nov 30, 2007)

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> So, now in 4e, his "power words", or his appeal to his god, is to not only smite the enemy in front of him, but to also allow him to protect or heal his companion.
> 
> I cannot fathom why this is so hard for you to stomach.




Careful, careful, sir.

It isn't always about logic and reason.

Neither you nor I need understand why he cannot stomach it.  It is, after all, his stomach.   

Give him space to work this out for himself.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> Not at all. I'm not saying the paladin should be of no use to his fellow party members, nor that he has never had support abilities. Paladins can and should help allies. However it shouldn't be their main purpose. They're not bards. Or at least they weren't.



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.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> 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 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.

There are many other smites available? Well then perhaps I'm a bit premature.

My discomfort stems from the obvious convergence with online RPG-style mechanics. In those types of games, paladins are strictly healing/support for the most part and I loathe those representations of "paladins" with every ounce of my being. The paladin becoming a walking first-aid/buff station due to "balance" issues is my greatest fear for 4th Ed. and these smites were setting off alarm bells. 

I'll wait and see what other options are available.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> I fully agree with Celtavian. It's as if the designers have spent their time hanging out on the WoW paladin boards looking for ideas.




Well, they must not have gotten many ideas since the WoW paladin doesn't have smites that heal eachother.



> It's not the game mechanics that have players flocking to MMORPG's. It's the convenience of sitting down at your computer (pantsless, if you wish) and hanging out with friends while you slay baddies over and over and over. Kill, loot, ding, gratz. It's instant gratification.




Not true. MMOs existed for a decade before WoW, yet they never reached mainstream popularity until one with the right mechanics and gameplay balance came along.



> He is a holy warrior, infused with power by his god to wage war on evil and defend the faith. However, instead of granting his holy warriors the ability to strike down the wicked, Torm is granting them the ability to more easily find groups. Huzzah...




So keeping himself and his allies alive doesn't serve his deity's cause? Dealing double damage with a smite isn't the ability to strike down the wicked?


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

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




So, I take if you've never liked or used the confusion spell from any edition of D&D, since one of it's random actions is "attack the caster," which is exactly the same as this "taunt" effect.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 30, 2007)

Not to be hostile, but could you tell us which online RPG you're referring to?  It'd be helpful if people told us what they're actually talking about rather than throwing out "it comes from computer games."


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 30, 2007)

I see these smites as being somewhat difficult to implement in a D&D based Videogame that's real-time like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights (assuming that Obsidian does get to develop a 4e CRPG).  The 1 round benefit doesn't do much for what's roughly 6 seconds, it'll work if the videogame was turn-based, but doesn't seem to add much for a real-time experience.  Now I guess a player of a paladin PC could have have 2 targets set-up when using a smite, 1 to benefit from the secondary attacks, and another as receive the end of the smite.  But already it's a little complicated to implement in such a videogame.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, they must not have gotten many ideas since the WoW paladin doesn't have smites that heal eachother.
> 
> Not true. MMOs existed for a decade before WoW, yet they never reached mainstream popularity until one with the right mechanics and gameplay balance came along.
> 
> So keeping himself and his allies alive doesn't serve his deity's cause? Dealing double damage with a smite isn't the ability to strike down the wicked?




Judgment of Light. Not exactly the same thing, but similar effect.

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.

See my post above as to my concerns. The mechanic itself is fine.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Not to be hostile, but could you tell us which online RPG you're referring to?  It'd be helpful if people told us what they're actually talking about rather than throwing out "it comes from computer games."




World of Warcraft specifically. WoW paladins are notoriously weak unless they are healing and supporting a group.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 30, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> I see these smites as being somewhat difficult to implement in a D&D based Videogame that's real-time like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights (assuming that Obsidian does get to develop a 4e CRPG).  The 1 round benefit doesn't do much for what's roughly 6 seconds, it'll work if the videogame was turn-based, but doesn't seem to add much for a real-time experience.  Now I guess a player of a paladin PC could have have 2 targets set-up when using a smite, 1 to benefit from the secondary attacks, and another as receive the end of the smite.  But already it's a little complicated to implement in such a videogame.



It could work okay if you can designate a default friendly ("Always protect Wilbur").  Simple scripts ("Protect lowest HP ally") could do the job well.  Doing it all on the fly clearly would be a huge hassle, though.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, I take if you've never liked or used the confusion spell from any edition of D&D, since one of it's random actions is "attack the caster," which is exactly the same as this "taunt" effect.





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


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 30, 2007)

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 (Nov 30, 2007)

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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

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.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer - You're wrong.  Paladins in WOW are one of only two classes that can fill any of the three main roles, and only one of those is healing.  I'm afraid that conception of paladins is not the one in WOW.  Try again.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Not true. MMOs existed for a decade before WoW, yet they never reached mainstream popularity until one with the right mechanics and gameplay balance came along.




Actually, it took a graphical interface and the spread of internet access to really move the muds/mush style text based games into the everquest/wow games we have see.  Everquest had mainstream popularity until WOW came along.


----------



## broghammerj (Nov 30, 2007)

*Two concerns*

I have read through about 85% of this thread so I may have missed it, but I have two concerns regarding these smites.

1.  Speed and complexity of game play.  Doesn't boosting everyones AC add to the same confusion of multi buff spells that will be in effect such as bless, bard abilities, etc?  Wasn't this a problem with 3E in remembering all these bonuses in combat.

2. I hope laying of hands is not sacrificed for the healing smite.  I have used laying of hands to save a mayor from an assassination attempt by a band of rogues and to heal an NPC who's death would have really sabotaged a plotline.  If I can heal these individuals by simply electively "missing" my smite attack then I will be really annoyed.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

Njall said:
			
		

> 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"




Actually, the damaging of my enemies is only going to happen when facing undead, and that is   because of how healing is considered positive energy and the fact that undead take damage from positive energy.  Turn the enemies into any living opponent, and now you are healing your enemies as well.

Did I say that this is the one I prefer?  No.  Did I say it was even a good mechanic?  No.  In fact, it's a bad mechanic, but I prefer it over single ally healing.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Wait a minute.
> 
> Did you seriously just claim that character advancement, gameplay, and combat are *NOT* mechanical systems that are subject to balance?




I meant that class mechanics weren't a huge part of it. At release, many class mechanics didn't work very well either through bugs or design decisions. It took them the better part of a year to hammer those out.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> I meant that class mechanics weren't a huge part of it. At release, many class mechanics didn't work very well either through bugs or design decisions. It took them the better part of a year to hammer those out.




Yeah, that's called "balancing." Any person who claims they can perfectly balance something before it undergoes heavy use by a large group of people is simply deceiving themselves.

And yes, those class mechanics were a huge part of it. Broad classes that are able to fit multiple roles (most of them) were far more appealing to people than EQ and it's 20+ classes with limited viability and horrible overshadowing (no point being a warrior if there are knights around).

WoW is the most popular because it's the most fun to play, and the mechanics are what make it fun. The art style is great, but pretty graphics only take you so far if your gameplay sucks (Vanguard, for example, looks pretty but sucks to play).


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> Everquest had mainstream popularity until WOW came along.




Wrong.

Everquest was, and still is, a niche game. At it's highest, it never featured more than 750k active users. It was never prominently featured in several TV shows, unlike WoW (in fact, the South Park episode won an Emmy). It hasn't featured several commercials played on prominent networks. It doesn't have a world tournament for it's PvP. It doesn't have dozens of spin-off products, including novels, board games, card games, roleplaying games (it had one, but that seems to be inactive right now), comic books, action figures, collectible dioramas. It was never optioned for a movie, nor does it come up in the blogs of tons of industry luminaries (both videogame and normal RPG). Based on it's popularity alone, Blizzard was able to hold a rather large convention (twice!) that was bigger than the Everquest meets that Sony held (I live in San Diego, I've seen them).

Hell, in one month's time, WoW had a higher user base than EQ did at it's peak, and this was after 5 years of EQ being dominant.

So, no, Everquest never ever made it to the mainstream.


----------



## Montague68 (Nov 30, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Gearjammer - You're wrong.  Paladins in WOW are one of only two classes that can fill any of the three main roles, and only one of those is healing.  I'm afraid that conception of paladins is not the one in WOW.  Try again.




I don't want to derail this into a WoW thread, so I won't be discussing it anymore. But if you haven't played a paladin in WoW, the healing abilities were far, far stronger than the other abilities. Blizzard is supposedly taking steps to change that, after only three years. 

My apologies again for the derail.


----------



## Counterspin (Nov 30, 2007)

Regardless of what the paladin in WOW is like, you've got your causality inverted.  The early version WOW paladin you had experience with is an explicit homage to the cleric in D&D.  The data flows from D&D to WOW, not the other way around.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 30, 2007)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> I have read through about 85% of this thread so I may have missed it, but I have two concerns regarding these smites.
> 
> 1.  Speed and complexity of game play.  Doesn't boosting everyones AC add to the same confusion of multi buff spells that will be in effect such as bless, bard abilities, etc?  Wasn't this a problem with 3E in remembering all these bonuses in combat.
> 
> 2. I hope laying of hands is not sacrificed for the healing smite.  I have used laying of hands to save a mayor from an assassination attempt by a band of rogues and to heal an NPC who's death would have really sabotaged a plotline.  If I can heal these individuals by simply electively "missing" my smite attack then I will be really annoyed.



 I agree that the "boosting ally's AC" smite is kinda cumbersome. I'd rather have it impose a -2 to the enemy's attack. That's why I posted my variant smiles on page 11.


----------



## HeinorNY (Nov 30, 2007)

The more the 4E's design philosophy gets closer to WoW mehcanics, the better it will be as a game, and since it IS a game and not a mini-drama-theatre, I'm loving the news so far. 

D&D4E FTW.


----------



## Skaven_13 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> Everquest was, and still is, a niche game. At it's highest, it never featured more than 750k active users. It was never prominently featured in several TV shows, unlike WoW (in fact, the South Park episode won an Emmy). It hasn't featured several commercials played on prominent networks. It doesn't have a world tournament for it's PvP. It doesn't have dozens of spin-off products, including novels, board games, card games, roleplaying games (it had one, but that seems to be inactive right now), comic books, action figures, collectible dioramas. It was never optioned for a movie, nor does it come up in the blogs of tons of industry luminaries (both videogame and normal RPG). Based on it's popularity alone, Blizzard was able to hold a rather large convention (twice!) that was bigger than the Everquest meets that Sony held (I live in San Diego, I've seen them).
> 
> ...




I'll agree to disagree with you on this, so that we don't derail this into an everquest vs wow thread.  I'm not trying to say that everquest is better than wow.  With how much popularity wow has now, I would agree that wow has definitely exceeded anything that everquest was.  Everquest did have spin-off material though including toys, a simpsons spoof, and a film slated for 2009/2010.  A lot of wow's popularity came from the fact that blizzard's warcraft rts games were insanely popular.

Also, remember that internet access has increased in the past 7 years, so people that might not have had access even 4 years ago, now use the internet for all sorts of things.

But, I'll go back to my original statement, a graphical interface and increased internet access brought the muds/mush systems into the mainstream.  Personally, I don't play either.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 30, 2007)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> Regardless of what the paladin in WOW is like, you've got your causality inverted.  The early version WOW paladin you had experience with is an explicit homage to the cleric in D&D.  The data flows from D&D to WOW, not the other way around.




Indeed.  That's why I rolled a WoW paladin, since it looked close to the D&D cleric, which was obviously one of the two most powerful classes (I'd've rolled druid if I could've been ANYTHING that wasn't a NE on Alliance!).

I could only wish that my Crusader Strike would heal my allies or increase their avoidance.

Brad


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to say that everquest is better than wow.




I'm not trying to say the opposite is true. I'm merely saying that WoW has entered the mainstream because of it's popularity and the many references made to it by pop culture.



> Everquest did have spin-off material though including toys, a simpsons spoof, and a film slated for 2009/2010.




Everquest had a number of other video games put out, and the Simpsons reference you speak of was a level in the latest Simpsons video game... not quite the same as being featured as the focus of an entire episode, nor having Captain Kirk (dressed as a Jedi, no less!) or Mr T do commercials for you. They have a few novels (4, I believe) and the roleplaying game. And that movie has been "in development" since EQ launched, and has no believable studio behind it.

That's a paltry penetration into the mainstream compared to WoW, which has more people aware of it than Everquest ever did.



> A lot of wow's popularity came from the fact that blizzard's warcraft rts games were insanely popular.




Indeed. Diablo 2 was only beaten by Warcraft 3 which was only beaten by World of Warcraft. Blizzard makes some fine games.



> But, I'll go back to my original statement, a graphical interface and increased internet access brought the muds/mush systems into the mainstream.




And again, I'll disagree. Up until WoW, MMOs were still considered to be nerd havens, for those people that would rather interact with people from their computer than in real life. And because of the amount of time you had to put into the game to achieve anything worthwhile, it was somewhat true. It wasn't until WoW came out with easier progression, a more appealing aesthetic, and casual gameplay that the cultural view of MMOs changed from "nerdfest" to something more.


----------



## HeinorNY (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> Explain to me why a paladin needs to buff party members in order to be considered a leader.




Because it does happen in real life.

In real life leaders give psychological "buffs" to everybody.
People that are motivated and with good morale work better and fight better, they can do almost everything more effectively.

But even the best and most dramatic role playing on the table can't motivate the dice, so we need mechanical buff to simulate the psychological motivation.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 30, 2007)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> *Shakes head sadly*
> 
> Roleplaying, where art thou? No offense meant, but this line of thought is precisely what is turning me off from the latest incarnations of D&D.



I kinda see your point. You could just rely on roleplaying for making a character feel like a leader. 

But many (I am not saying all, and I am not willing to bet if it's actual the majority or a minority) people prefer to express their character abilities in game terms. 
If a character was supposed to be a sailor before starting his adventurers career, he better has a few ranks in Profession (Sailor) (and maybe a host of other skills, depending on personal taste, group style and your compromise with the existing rules for skills and skill points). 

If your character is a leader, he better have abilities that make him good at leading people - a high charisma score, a good diplomacy/leadership skill (the latter exists in other games, not D&D), and he should be able to guide his comrades in battle, too. The latter can be done by just having a clever player (coming up with good battle plans), but if a "non-leader-material" player wants to play a leader, he might not have the best plans. (But maybe another player has, and he suggests them and the group pretend the suggestion was actually from the leader type character or was agreed on by him). Or he has mechanical abilities that boost the other PCs, regardless of how bad the tactics he uses are actually. 

There is, obviously, another camp, that might find mechanics for such things a restriction or unneccessary, because you could just play them out. And they are not wrong. That is a valid possibility. 

The best would probably to combine both concepts, but if in doubt, personally (based on my personal experience with my group ) I go the "mechanical" route in a game system.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 1, 2007)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Because it does happen in real life.
> 
> In real life leaders give psychological "buffs" to everybody.
> People that are motivated and with good morale work better and fight better, they can do almost everything more effectively.




Agreed. A lot of WW2 (and later conflict) accounts illustrate this handily.


----------



## neceros (Dec 1, 2007)

Skaven_13 said:
			
		

> Actually, the damaging of my enemies is only going to happen when facing undead, and that is   because of how healing is considered positive energy and the fact that undead take damage from positive energy.  Turn the enemies into any living opponent, and now you are healing your enemies as well.
> 
> Did I say that this is the one I prefer?  No.  Did I say it was even a good mechanic?  No.  In fact, it's a bad mechanic, but I prefer it over single ally healing.



I don't remember where, but I'm almost positive they've said they are getting rid of "positive" and "negative" damage and just using "Healing" and "Damage."

Although, "Healing" may still damage undead, as it may be.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Everquest was, and still is, a niche game. At it's highest, it never featured more than 750k active users. It was never prominently featured in several TV shows, unlike WoW (in fact, the South Park episode won an Emmy). It hasn't featured several commercials played on prominent networks. It doesn't have a world tournament for it's PvP. It doesn't have dozens of spin-off products, including novels, board games, card games, roleplaying games (it had one, but that seems to be inactive right now), comic books, action figures, collectible dioramas. It was never optioned for a movie, nor does it come up in the blogs of tons of industry luminaries (both videogame and normal RPG). Based on it's popularity alone, Blizzard was able to hold a rather large convention (twice!) that was bigger than the Everquest meets that Sony held (I live in San Diego, I've seen them).
> 
> So, no, Everquest never ever made it to the mainstream.



Actually, Everquest has been in movies before: *The New Guy*
*Everquest Movie:* http://movies.ign.com/articles/825/825306p1.html
*EverQuest Theater Trailer:* http://movies.station.sony.com:7000/patch/web/eq2/cg.wmv
*EverQuest 2 features Christopher Lee, Heather Graham, and a myriad of other voice actors:* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0428505/

Sure, at the time, MMOs weren't entirely as mainstream as other games, but WoW was developed entirely because EverQuest was so popular amongst gamers. Blizzard saw an oppertunity from Sony and decided to hit it.


Regardless, games in all forms take note on what works when creating balance. Yes, this is a role playing table top game, and I agree whole heartily that D&D should never be considered or resemble an MMO. However, MMOs, Computer RPGs, and especially video entertainment will always be a good source of ideas and uses when creating games, including RPGs.

It's not a bad thing -- it's the natural way of things. So long as you are allowed to play your character the way you want to play, and everyone at the table has fun doing what they like to do, whether that be roll play or role play, then what's the problem?

Even I have to choose to ignore some things I don't like in respect for the greater game.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> I don't remember where, but I'm almost positive they've said they are getting rid of "positive" and "negative" damage and just using "Healing" and "Damage."




Good. This means no more of that "Healing is conjuration of positive energy, while the opposite is not a conjuration of negative energy" nonsense.


----------



## Abstraction (Dec 1, 2007)

I like how the Charisma mechanic mirrors the cleric choice in 3E. Do I want to be strong and a decent fighter? Or do I want to be Charismatic and lay the smack on undead? Only, of course, the Paladin doesn't have to hope for any specific type of enemy if he chooses the Charismatic route.


----------



## Goobermunch (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> That's a paltry penetration into the mainstream compared to WoW, which has more people aware of it than Everquest ever did.
> 
> 
> And again, I'll disagree. Up until WoW, MMOs were still considered to be nerd havens, for those people that would rather interact with people from their computer than in real life. And because of the amount of time you had to put into the game to achieve anything worthwhile, it was somewhat true. It wasn't until WoW came out with easier progression, a more appealing aesthetic, and casual gameplay that the cultural view of MMOs changed from "nerdfest" to something more.




I'll grant you the first of your comments.  But World of Warcraft is where it is today only because it stands on Everquest's shoulders.

As for your second comment, it's patently incorrect.  Everquest is the game that brought computer gaming out of the nerdzone and into the mainstream.  Consider that Kurt Schilling's Everquest habit came to light in 2001 (the same year Blizzard announced that it would be developing WoW).  My wife's cousin played Everquest long before Warcraft came out.  Jenny's a lot of things, but a nerd she ain't.

Everquest got popular because of its social nature.  People would start to play (relatively normal people), and they'd bring in their friends and families.  That's what made it successful.  Sure, it may have started with geeks, but it didn't take long for it to invade offices, schools, houses, and even sports teams.

WoW certainly has surpassed EQ, but EQ laid the groundwork and took the MMOG from nerdland to mainstream.  I know, because I watched it happen.

--G


----------



## Moonshade (Dec 1, 2007)

Well, at least my favourite class hasn't yet been saddled with names like Golden Wyvern Adept. I remain cautiously optimistic. I hope that despite being holy (or unholy, in 4E) _warriors_, as I've seen some people point out, paladins won't always need to hit things with weapons in order to be able to channel the effects of their divine commitment/inspiring presence. Smites are nice, but it would be great if the design team could think up non-smitey but thematically appropriate and fun things for paladins to do.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 1, 2007)

Paladin strikes are all about helping you teammates out, somehow I suspect Rogues will be all about inflicting debilitating conditions with sneak attack powers like Arterial Strike and Hamstring.


----------

