3.P Feat Question (Extra Smiting)


Advice and Rules Questions


How does Extra Smiting from 3.5's Complete Warrior interact with the way Paladin's smite works in PF? 3.5 and PF were suppose to be compatible but with the upgrade to Smite this ability seems WAY to powerful.

Because from the way it is worded it you gain two extra attempts to Smite per day. So at level 5 when you gain your next feat, you can choose to take this feat and give your paladin Smite Evil 4/day instead of the 2/day it would normally have.

Or am I reading this all wrong and they wouldn't interact at all?


It's a very powerful ability. Usually it's not necessary since your paladin shouldn't have to waste multiple smite uses on a single enemy anymore.


No but if you began at level 5 and had access to Flaw feats and where human. Thats a potential 8 Smites per day. Meaning you can smite something like twice a battle.

The way I read PF smite evil is you mark a foe with your Smite Evil ability and every attack that hits them deals level to damage. your first, second, fouth, eigth, etc. All attacks against THAT specific foe are smiting strikes.

Now if you could smite so often at level 5 you have roughly the smiting count of a Epic paladin because level 20 Paladin can only smite 7 times in a day.

How powerful would a Paladin be if every foe he fought was under the effects of a Smite Evil? Of course that is if they qualify for Smite Evil.


Shadow on the Wall wrote:

3.5 and PF were suppose to be compatible but with the upgrade to Smite this ability seems WAY to powerful.

I wouldn't describe 3.5 and Pathfinder as compatible, exactly. If you want to run a 3.5 adventure in Pathfinder, it mostly works without too much trouble, though you might have to redo some of the NPC's.

But 3.5 feats are certainly not designed to work well with Pathfinder characters, and should only be allowed on a case-by-case basis. I tend to treat 3.5 stuff as similar to other third-party stuff -- potentially helpful but also potentially broken.


I reread the Conversion Guide, as a quick refresher just now. It makes mention of removing feats if they pertain to things that have been removed or changed. I say changed and I do think this means changed entirely from how they used to work (See turn undead) but Extra Smite has Smite Ability and a +4 BAB requirement both of which still exist in pretty much the same way. Smite was only expanded on but still functions the same way.

So one might say that that was only to pertain to when the game was first coming out, it was new and the 3.5 compatibility was to lure in players and not totally outdate their characters. but that not that it has many books and an established base we can pretend 3.5 is a 3rd party product line. And sure we can, but a lot of us got into 3.5 before PF and while PF is fun and new and inventive for sure there is a lot of background in 3.5 material like the Races of Books and the Complete books that give a lot of flexibility to a PF character that PF just doesn't have.

Saying that 3.5 feats where not designed to work with a PF character is correct, it would also be correct to say that PF characters are designed to at least make use of and benefit from 3.5 feats. Take Power Attack a staple in both games. Power Attack is straight up stronger in PF as it allows a -1/+2 where PA in 3.5 allowed for -1/+1. Now I am sure there are more feats like Extra Smiting that when used with the PF system could be hilariously over powered, that doesn't mean they don't work together just that the rules may have been extended and because of that they don't fit so snugly anymore.

For that I do agree that it should be a case by case if the system needs adjusting to accommodate the feat. Extra Smiting still works because it applies more uses of a limited resource, now if Smiting was an at-will ability then adding +2 to a virtually infinite source makes no sense.


I get the sense that you've recently switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder. If so, welcome to the game! I myself switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder about a year ago. (If you haven't switched to Pathfinder recently, feel free to disregard the rest of my post.)

As you point out, Pathfinder was originally designed to be 3.5 compatible, but it has since grown beyond that into its own game. It has its own line of supplements that fulfill the role of the Complete series, and I think you'll find that Pathfinder characters can be every bit as flexible as 3.5 characters.

Having played Pathfinder for a year or so, my experience is that Pathfinder stuff also tends to be better balanced than 3.5 stuff (including basically all of the Pathfinder supplements), so much so that I really do tend to view 3.5 stuff as suspect in the same way that 3rd-party material is suspect. This isn't a slam against 3.5, which was my game for many years, but the Paizo team has really done a fantastic job of improving and tightening the system.

Incidentally, one of the advantages of Pathfinder over 3.5 is that Paizo puts essentially all the rules online for free. Just in case you aren't aware of it, see this page for the very expansive list of Pathfinder feats. You might be particularly interested in the table of paladin feats on this other page.


It has only been a few weeks since we began using more and more PF things, so I have been exploring the SRDs to find out as much as I could.

I have noticed that PF has a serious power upgrade to most of their feats, but yea I noticed a distinct balance to them and I have to say even though many of 3.5's feats are weaker there just is a lot more of them. Things that are just unique enough to be something a person might need to fill out a specific hole in their build.

Most of what I have seen on PF feats is they are more general or versitle and don't focus as much. Not to say there is no focus to them as there are specific feat chains that give benefits to a very specific build type but those are the outliers.


I switched from 3.5 to PF and I will say that you should be careful in what you allow to cross over. This is one thing that I would not allow to crossover. Limiting a paladin's smite's is a good thing, and giving him more smites is worth more than just a feat.


Can I honestly ask how much more?
What is the downside to a Paladin who can smite evil as an at-will?


You can ask your DM if you can include Extra Smite in your game, but I'd just as soon forget about it, frankly.

I've been playing Pathfinder since before it came out (I learned about it, downloaded the Open Beta, and immediately fell in love), so I'm definitely familiar with the odd transition that some things can bring, like getting used to Barbarians actually having many, many options available to them as part of the BASIC CLASS DESIGN of all things.

---

Here's one major thing you have to remember - Paizo could not use things like the Complete Series, Races series, etc. as part of their game.

The SRD of 3.5 consisted of (at the time) the Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook - the books that said explicitly Core Rulebooks 1 through 4. Now it also includes Unearthed Arcana, the Epic Level Handbook, and Deities & Demigods, but the less said about those books the better...

Paizo used and upgraded the material from the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, while fixing a number of glaring and easily-solvable issues with the system:

Reworking Grappling and combining Grappling with Bull Rush, Trip, and Overrun (the 3 other Combat options which used the exact same formula as Grapple, but weren't given slots on the Character Sheet) into a simple-and-elegant Combat Maneuver system

Further condensing similar Skills into a smaller Skills list (other systems had done the same already years before), making the Skill System more intuitive and straightforward, all while retaining the number of Skill Points per Level of each class, thus making each and every class much more versatile.

Upgrading every class to a unified BAB/HP line - 1/2 BAB uses d6s, 3/4 BAB uses d8s, and full BAB uses d10s, with Barbarian being the sole exception (and, in fact, effectively being a basic "class feature" as it were).

They also upped the number of Feats to 1 every Odd level (something WOTC had done in 4E, and was about the ONLY thing in 4E which was met with universal praise).

Upping the power of many of the "problem" classes like the Barbarian, Fighter, and Sorcerer by giving them whole new shticks: Fighters get better and better at fighting as they level; beyond simply gaining Feats, Barbarians get Rogue Talent-like abilities in Rage Powers; and the Sorcerer effectively gets its own form of Domains in Bloodlines.

Very subtly nerfing the ultra-powerful classes: Druid got hit HARD by having a VERY severe cap on its shapeshifting, while the Polymorph School as a whole got a major overhaul to something far more balanced and subdivided; Clerics got slightly less crazy, but are still extremely good frontline fighters and full casters; and the Wizard basically became combined with the Archmage Prestige Class (which disappeared altogether) by requiring School Specialization, while giving THEM their own form of Domains based on their Specialized Schools. It's a noticeable nerf, but Wizards don't complain because they have cool new toys to play with, and are still THE most powerful class hands-down.

Removing Racial Favored Classes and allowing each character to choose their own Favored Class; Humans got an upgrade wherein they get extra double HP or Skills, or +1 HP AND Skill, whenever they take their Favored Class (later books reinstated Racial Favored Classes kinda - and by Kinda, I mean they made it freakin' awesome: now when you choose your Favored Class, you can choose to either take the extra free HP or Skill Point OR you can apply your Race's Racial Favored Class Ability to it whenever you level (like the Dwarf who gets 1 extra round of rage(!!!) per level!)

Removing any restrictions on Multiclassing - it doesn't matter how many or how few classes you have, what your Favored Class Bonus you have. If you want to Multiclass into 5 different Classes, then you, sir, may do just that; if you want a lv1 dip into one class, a level 3 dip into another, a level 6 dip into a third, and 10 levels of a fourth, then you are good to go - no XP penalty whatsoever.

---

Now, all this means that the CORE game got a major overhaul.

What this ALSO meant, however, was that Paizo wasn't very concerned with "supplemental material", especially small options like Feats.

See, WOTC had this real bug up something about not releasing ANYTHING under their Reference Document besides the Core Four. This would be fine for things like the Forgotten Realms books, but sadly all Greyhawk books, many of which were considered "necessary", also fell under the "Supplemental" section and were excluded from the SRD - this means even the Complete Series, Races Series, PHBII, Spell Compendium, and Magic Item Compendium, all which most DMs would consider just as basic a part of 3.5 as a whole as the PHB.

---

Making Base Classes that excite people was a big concern for Paizo in producing Pathfinder, especially in its early days. It has produced 19 radically-different Base Classes, and even the 10 "Hybrid" Base Classes are quite unique, even compared to their "Parent" classes.. with perhaps the sole exception being the Bloodrager, and frankly NO-ONE has complained about having both a pure Barbarian and a Rage Mage in the same game.

However, one of the (and perhaps THE) biggest issues for Paizo was that many of 3.5's most popular classes were completely left out of the Reference Document.

This means that fan-favorites like the Warlock, Marshall, Favored Soul, Scout, Hexblade, Binder, Ninja, and Duskblade all got screwed over and couldn't be transported directly to Pathfinder.

The key word there being "directly," and Paizo has done an absolutely fantastic job at bringing over just about ALL those classes and then-some.

The Marshall became the Cavalier

Favored Soul effectively got split into two classes: The Oracle and the Warpriest

The Scout effectively became split among the Skirmisher, Guide, and Urban Ranger Archetypes for the Ranger - which, coincidentally, can all be combined to effectively re-form the Scout in all its glory and then-some.

The Ninja straight-up became the Ninja Alternate Class of the Rogue.

The Duskblade became the Magus in all but name, although it did get a Bard's body as a bit of a balancing quality.

The Hexblade, as well, became the Hexcrafter Archetype of the Magus.

The Warlock is the Kineticist in the soon-to-come Occult Adventures.

The Binder is the Spiritualist in the same book.

---

They have also tried to effectively remove Prestige Classes from the game by creating Archetypes which blur the line between classes, but apply them where thematically appropriate, thus reducing the perceived "need" for PRCs.

They've gone so far as to add entire Classes to the game which are effectively Prestige Classes transmitted into 20-level Base Class form:

The Dragon Disciple, which already got an ENORMOUS upgrade from 3.5 became the Bloodrager, and now can be based on lots of different themes, not just Dragons.

The Assassin, normally an Evil-only class, was given a complete workover to remove its spellcasting and make it more assassin-like, and then finally it became it's own base class: The Slayer, complete with no restriction on alignment.

The Elven Archer became the Arcane Archer Prestige Class by removing the Elf-Only racial restriction, and then became the Myrmidarch Archetype of the Magus.

The Duelist has been done in several Archetypes across a number of Classes, including Bard, Rogue, Fighter... and finally, it got its own unique Base Class model: The Swashbuckler.

The Blackguard was taken out of the Core rules and replaced with his psychotic older brother: the original, the best, the Antipaladin.

The Nature Warden (a PF PRC) became the Hunter - a wilderness warrior-mage halfway between the Druid and the Ranger.

Even the Ultimate Magus - a Prestige Class from one of the Complete Books which combined the Sorcerer and Wizard together - got its own version in a very, very awesome Base Class: The Arcanist.

---

In addition to these, you have a many Pathfinder-original Classes which definitely have their own flair and aesthetic to them:

The Alchemist

The Inquisitor

The Gunslinger

The Witch

The Summoner

The Skald

The Brawler

The Investigator

---

So, at the end of the day, Feats were a minor issue for Paizo - Feats can be quickly written and added to materials, especially feats based around Class Abilities.

The loss of some, or most, Feats from 3.5 was not a big deal, and Feats were considered by far the most expendable thing from 3.5. Their level of power didn't need to be addressed at all if they weren't in the PHB.

To Paizo, it was more important to make Classes much more appealing, balanced, and refined. The Paladin's Smite was reworked so that the Paladin got naturally more Smites per day (7, compared to 5 in 3.5) in just such a way, even though the Paladin basically didn't need ANY updating from 3.5

Extra Smite could have been a Feat in the Core Rulebook or in one of the succeeding 5 player-based books, but it seems that Paizo felt it unnecessary to add in such a Feat when they were effectively designing the Paladin with that Feat built-in.

Allowing any more than that, you see, and you run the risk of the Paladin becoming the end-all-be-all Martial, just like it was in 3.5

Believe it or not, Rangers, Barbarians, Gunslingers, Slayers, Paladins, Brawlers, Bloodragers, Swashbucklers, Cavaliers, and even FIGHTERS (yes, Fighters, although not their base form; several of their many, many Archetypes) are pretty much all balanced with one another, and, surprisingly, are balanced with 8 of the 9 6th-level Spellcaster classes (the Summoner being noticeably much, much stronger, especially a Synthesist Summoner).

While 9th-level Spellcasters are still the kings, the fact that 24 of the available 32 classes are all pretty-well in-line with one another is astonishing.

But that level of balance can easily be lost.

Something like Extra Smite, which ups a powerful ability to very close to Once-Per-Two-Paladin-Levels or more could bump the Paladin above the other 23 classes, all of which were painstakingly upgraded, ported & balanced, were designed specifically to bring the flavor of a Prestige Class into something you could play starting at lv1, or were brand new inventions of Pathfinder that had no 3.5 Equivalents.

Paizo, therefore, has a lot invested into making sure everything is as perceptibly awesome and fair as possible, especially compared to one another.

The Paladin had the issue of being "The Only Good Martial" in 3.5, and now that that's been fixed, I doubt Paizo wants to screw all that up again.


Shadow on the Wall wrote:

Can I honestly ask how much more?

What is the downside to a Paladin who can smite evil as an at-will?

Smite in Pathfinder allows paladins to solo BBEG's. The number of paladin/smite is overpowered threads was crazy. I still maintain the opinion that those GM's just got caught off-guard.

Having smite as a more limited resource means the paladin has to choose his points carefully, and since he is still a full BAB character when not smiting he can still do decent damage.

On top of that he has spells, mercies, and lay on hands.


Well I agree with the caught off guard aspect.

But Swashbuckler gets level to damage on every hit now. Cavalier has an archetype that mixes a Smite-like feature with Level to damage on every strike through Precise Strike. So really how much more powerful is Smite compared to that?

There are ways to reduce the last three, Archetypes limiting or removing Spells is not unheard of.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
The Warlock is the Kineticist in the soon-to-come Occult Adventures.

While I haven't seen anything from Occult Adventures (though I am super excited for it from what little I've heard,) I do want to mention that, if 3PP material is allowed, Into the Breach: Oracle has a variant Oracle which is the warlock. Not entirely the same as it was in 3.5, it does still have the Eldritch Blast and various modifications for it, and instead of at will abilities, gets access to the various Oracle mysteries. I haven't run one yet, but I really would like to.

Back on topic, like others have said, yeah, I'd definitely run that one by the GM. Smite can be a real power ramp, and having more of it would never be a bad thing. Also, I'm not one to play Paladins, so if someone could remind me....are there any feats or archetypes that let the Paladin use Smite uses to power other abilities?


Shadow on the Wall wrote:

Well I agree with the caught off guard aspect.

But Swashbuckler gets level to damage on every hit now. Cavalier has an archetype that mixes a Smite-like feature with Level to damage on every strike through Precise Strike. So really how much more powerful is Smite compared to that?

There are ways to reduce the last three, Archetypes limiting or removing Spells is not unheard of.

Swashbuckler gets level to damage because they cannot wield two handed weapons or dual wield weapons. So, they can't get 1.5 time strength to damage (or dex to damage) nor can they get 3:2 power attack scaling nor can they get the benefits of having an off hand weapon to deal extra damage (useful when you have big static like Smite or Favored Enemy).

If the Swashbuckler didn't get level to damage, they would deal almost no damage. They would be equivalent to a sword and board that doesn't use their shield to attack at all. Which is probably the least damaging build possible.

The Cavalier's challenge is limited in the number of times it can be used like a Paladin's Smite. And as for Daring Champion that you call out, it basically function exactly like the Swashbuckler. Which has all the same drawbacks. With the only benefit being that you can stack Challenges and Precise Strike to deal some really incredible damage. But still, probably not better than a normal paladin with a two-handed weapon using Smite. Mostly because Smite adds to attack and damage, whereas Precise Strike and Challenge only add to damage.


You do make some very valid points there Claxon.
I was just pointing it out because it is very similar. I did not take into account a Two-handed approach. Mostly because I really do like the Sword and Shield playstyle for flavor so I rarely think of it.


Shadow on the Wall wrote:

Can I honestly ask how much more?

The Archetype (Oath of Vengeance) that allows the Paladin to Smite more per day costs him his ability to Channel Energy, along with Aura of Justice (ability to spend 2 Smites to pass Smite to the whole party), and requires the expenditure of 2 uses of Lay on Hands.


Shadow on the Wall wrote:

You do make some very valid points there Claxon.

I was just pointing it out because it is very similar. I did not take into account a Two-handed approach. Mostly because I really do like the Sword and Shield playstyle for flavor so I rarely think of it.

While sword and shield is an iconic idea for flavor, mechanically in Pathfinder it's one of the worst combat style available (assuming you don't use your shield as a weapon).

If you want more Smite uses, the Oath of Vengeance that Rynjin mentions is the best way to go about it. What you give up isn't a big deal compared to what you gain.


Shadow on the Wall wrote:

Well I agree with the caught off guard aspect.

But Swashbuckler gets level to damage on every hit now. Cavalier has an archetype that mixes a Smite-like feature with Level to damage on every strike through Precise Strike. So really how much more powerful is Smite compared to that?

There are ways to reduce the last three, Archetypes limiting or removing Spells is not unheard of.

The swashbuckler damage is nowhere near smite damage. Smite gives bonuses to AC, to attacks, and to damage. The attacks and damage combination is always a lot better than any plain damage.

As an example if you are ever offered +4 to damage vs +3 to attack then you should almost always go with the attack bonus. The math has been done and the post are here from GM's showing how the bossed was owned. All you have to do is look. :)


Indeed, a baseline estimation is that it takes 2 points of damage for every +1 to attack to break even. Meaning you need 3 points of damage per one point of attack to actually gain anything (hence why Power Attack is written they way it is and why it's really only great for two-handers).

So Smite which gives bonuses to attack and damage is substantially stronger than things which only give damage bonuses. Of course, the drawback with Smite being the limited target range as opposed to Precise Strike which is always on and Challenge which can be used on anyone. The balance here is done by restricting the applicable targets and total number of uses.


Yes Smite can only work on evil things (Well Smite Evil) and because the majority of bad guys fall into Evil this does give them a wide birth on targets. Challenge lacks the bonus to hit but allows use of two handed attacks which boost damage output. Precise Strike is straight 1 handed and thus does not benefit from Two-handing and grants no bonus to hit.

I agree there is a balance there of sorts. Paladins wielding a Two handed sword power attacking on a smite is going to out perform even the Daring Champion using challenge I am not denying this.

Now when the paladin is not smiting and you bring in Precise Strike that is different Paladin drops behind the Daring Champion w/o challenge unless he is two-handing a weapon which not everyone wants to Two-hand.

Giving more uses of smite means he is using his main gimmick more often. If the Barbarian could only rage against 7 targets a day would that be balanced? for numbers a Barbarian with a +2 con (Before rage) can rage for 44 rounds per day at level 20.


You're forgetting that while Smite is an absolute nuke of an attack (which it kinda should be thematically), it's not the Paladin's only gimmick.

The Paladin gets Auras which means he's a buffer for his party and potentially a debuffer against his enemies JUST by being there.

He gets Lay On Hands which is actually pretty bad BUT is used to fuel abilities and Feats which are anything BUT bad.

A Paladin also gets either the ability to turn any weapon he's wielding, even a completely mundane one, into a freakishly-strong weapon for minutes at a time, OR he gets an Abram's tank in the form of a Mount.

So, if the Paladin could ALSO Smite AT WILL, or even a number of times per day equal to its level, then you're talking about a Martial Class that is just better than every other Martial in the game.

You could KINDA get away with that idiocy in 1st and 2nd Ed, where the requirements to even BECOME a Paladin were so painful and nigh-impossible to meet that very few people could, thus serving as a balancing quality to how the Paladin was hands-down better than all other Fighter-types.

But 3.5 (rightfully) put player choice first, and decided that anyone could make any archetypical character they wished, be it a low-Strength-high-Dex Dwarf Paladin (impossible in 1st & 2nd Ed), a Gnome Barbarian, etc.

That means that the Paladin had to be nerfed a bit to justify being all-inclusive save for the sole requirement of being Lawful Good.

The Paladin STILL ended up running away with the show, however, and was by far the best/only real option in 3.5 for being effective and not being a full spellcaster.

Like I said, in Pathfinder, basically ALL Martials were FINALLY brought up to the Paladin's level in some form or another, and the Paladin received a quiet nerf in that they no longer had access to Extra Smite (although their Smite was altered to give them 7 total Smites instead of 5, so it's more like they were allowed ONE Extra Smite built into the class).

If you let the Paladin Nuke a Dude every round without fail, or even more than they already can, by having Extra Smite out the wazoo, combined with ALL their pretty toys, then you wind right back up with "Every non-full-caster lives in the Paladin's Shadow" all over again.


I do see your point, but maybe its my OCD I don't like odd numbers and 7 smites a day is a bit odd. Really it should have been moved to 8 smites so its two smites per battle, after all at higher levels you have multiple foes which are mini bosses so having access to smite on the mini bosses helps out a ton.


Shadow on the Wall wrote:
I do see your point, but maybe its my OCD I don't like odd numbers and 7 smites a day is a bit odd. Really it should have been moved to 8 smites so its two smites per battle, after all at higher levels you have multiple foes which are mini bosses so having access to smite on the mini bosses helps out a ton.

I guess, but bear in mind that 7 is a thematically significant number for a Holy Warrior.

7 is one of the most-significant numbers in Christianity (where Paladins come from) and other religions:

Seven Wonders of the World

Seven Hills of Rome

Seven Deadly Sins / Seven Heavenly Virtues

The Seven Sleepers

The Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (a medieval superstition)

The Seven Maskim from Mesopotamian mythology

Seven Days of Creation according to the Torah and Bible

The Shichifukujin, the "Seven Lucky Gods," in Japanese Mythology

Seven in general is considered a lucky number.

---

It's also Mathematically significant in being the largest Prime Cardinal Number (8 and 9 can be divided by 2, 4, and 3)

Geographically: The Seven Continents of Earth

Meteorologically: The Seven Days of the Week

To Physics: The Seven Colors of the Rainbow- Red, Magenta, Blue, Cyan, Green, Yellow, Orange.

Biologically: Most mammals have 7 Cervical Vertibrae

Statistically: Seven is the most-common roll on a pair of traditional dice (d6s).

---

Seven is everywhere as an important number, so it just makes thematic sense that a Paladin would get to Smite seven times, really.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Shadow on the Wall wrote:

I reread the Conversion Guide, as a quick refresher just now. It makes mention of removing feats if they pertain to things that have been removed or changed. I say changed and I do think this means changed entirely from how they used to work (See turn undead) but Extra Smite has Smite Ability and a +4 BAB requirement both of which still exist in pretty much the same way. Smite was only expanded on but still functions the same way.

PF Smite is ludicrously better than 3.5 Smite, and Extra Smiting would definitely fall under the "removing feats that pertain to things that have been changed" portion of the conversion guide.

Old smite was a single use ability that was easily wasted to no benefit, and more smites were almost a requirement for the ability to be worthwhile. New smite deals more damage, has powerful supporting spells like litany of righteousness, lasts until the target is defeated, and increases the paladin's AC. Extra Smiting is laughably cheap at a prereq +4 BAB and the class feature. Many Paladin's would take it 3 or 4 times just to ensure that they never run out of their win card. The Extra Smiting feat is based on the idea that Smite is essentially of the same power level as a 1/day rage power under the PF system, not the encounter long enemy crusher and personal buff that current smite actually is.

Power Attack is also a poor example; there's actually a lot of people out there who still prefer the way the 3.5 one worked since you can customize your penalty to hit based on the opponent, and the damage boost actually maths out to an equivalent exchange in the context of the game's updated math. For example, a 16th level PF Barbarian swinging at a bad guy has to take a -5 penalty to attack rolls for a +15 boost to damage; that's all Power Attack does in PF. A 3.5 Barbarian can take anywhere from a -1 hit for 2 points of extra damage to a -16 for +32 points of damage. Depending on the other modifiers and buffs you have active and what opponent you're facing, the 3.5 PA offers a much greater degree of precision in the ability to deal damage. If you happen to be one of the many number crunchers out there who knows how to math out the probabilities, 3.5 Power Attack will actually provide you a much greater benefit over the life of your character.


I am just not sure if I agree that Smiting is an encounter long crusher. It pertains to 1 opponent, And adds a lot of damage output as well as a buff against that opponent.

But with the increased damage you will kill that bad guy on average of 3 or 4 turns if he is proper geared and given benefit of feats and so forth. But once that opponent falls if you still have bad guys in the fight you are now dealing much less damage overall as most of your damage output was from Smite.

I do agree the more control of the 3.5 Power attack was nice, but the Pf version seems better balanced and requires less math work. Though I will point out in 3.5 Power attack allowed you to -1 from attack to add +1 to damage. And it was limited to base attack bonus so at most you could do was a -20 for a +20 at level 20

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Shadow on the Wall wrote:

I am just not sure if I agree that Smiting is an encounter long crusher. It pertains to 1 opponent, And adds a lot of damage output as well as a buff against that opponent.

But with the increased damage you will kill that bad guy on average of 3 or 4 turns if he is proper geared and given benefit of feats and so forth. But once that opponent falls if you still have bad guys in the fight you are now dealing much less damage overall as most of your damage output was from Smite.

I do agree the more control of the 3.5 Power attack was nice, but the Pf version seems better balanced and requires less math work. Though I will point out in 3.5 Power attack allowed you to -1 from attack to add +1 to damage. And it was limited to base attack bonus so at most you could do was a -20 for a +20 at level 20

I was referring to a two-handed character, which was why the PF Barbarian got a -1/+3 ratio and the 3.5 Barbarian got a -1/+2 ratio. Trust me, my numbers were accurate :)

Smite is also in the context of the group; if Johnny Lightbringer is "smiting up" to go take down the BBEG, his buddies are probably clearing out everything else while he locks down that enemy's attention. By the time he's finished pwning that red dragon, the others have most likely wiped out the kobold sorcerer and his tribe along with the fire newt minions. And the Paladin's performance doesn't decrease as much as you might think post-smite; check out Ashiel's Paladin Hell scenario where he shows how the Paladin's Divine Bond and Lay on Hands features actually allow him to perform at top levels even in a scenario where he has no legitimate targets to smite.

There's also the fact that by the time the Paladin can grab this ability, he's already up to 2 smites a day; given the game assumes a three combat encounter adventuring day and there's nothing level appropriate that can stand for long against a smite (which also ignores all DR now, can't remember if that was brought up already), he's now got enough to tear through any evil opponent he might encounter like tissue paper, without even worrying much about whether someone more evil is likely to come along.

If you were to allow the feat, I'd strongly suggest raising the BAB prereq to +9 and completely removing the "Special" line allowing it to be taken multiple times. Honestly though, I just wouldn't allow it at all or really much of the Paladin materials from 3.5. The 3.5 Paladin is a completely different beast than the one that now exists in Pathfinder, and the Pathfinder Paladin is markedly more powerful on nearly every front. Adding in 3.5 feats that assume a much lower core class starting performance isn't the best idea.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Advice and Rules Questions / 3.P Feat Question (Extra Smiting) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice and Rules Questions