| Razgrizx |
Hello there!
So, several threads as of late on Retributive strike go into how the ability seems to work and the philosophy behind it etc. But a lot is also focused on what does it mean to be a paladin and why don't they have smite. However, I just want to focus on the ability itself and why I think it needs to be changed.
Namely, I think paladins as defenders not strikers is perfectly fine, and paladins as strikers being perfectly fine. So, if the core ability did either I would be happy, but reactive strike isn't the way I would like to see it done as its an ability that requires the paladin to have another ally attacked in the first place rather than preventing such an attack at the players control.
What I mean by this is against any non-intelligent foe this ability has no power in preventing a nasty monster from tearing at the parties rogue or other such classes besides for if it kills them. This is of course, unless the DM steps in. Which makes it so the ultimate goal of not having your allies wounded in the first place is entirely up to the DM in this case, so it fails as a defending ability that gives the player agency.
Then, this ability doesn't help what paladins can do as lawful good heroes. For example: A Paladin participating in trial by combat. In a one on one possibly character driven scenario that is iconic for paladins in a sense, to commence justice via combat, their ability is completely useless for them and every feat associated with (less I missed a feat that lets them use it without allies or they count as their own ally). This of course could be compared to a rogues sneak attack in previous editions often requiring flanking and sch but rogues did have other tools like combat maneuvers and such to acquire sneak attack.
Secondly, I think it shoehorns the Lawful Good paladin immensely into defense instead of say a seeker of justice. Before a paladin meets with a party, this ability has no use for him as a champion of good if he his collecting bandit bounties or monster slaying as a character. So, in universe I think its an ability that doesn't do them justice as paladins who have many options for enforcing the law alone as well.
Thirdly, any ability that requires the DM full awareness as a core feature to use or the actions of a monster to use IMO shouldn't be core. As a player I want tools I can apply on my own. I want to be able to on my turn get in and use a cool feat or spell etc and turn the tide of battle or like lay on hands heal a friend. Retributive strike does fill in a reaction for when the paladin isn't shielding himself of course but I feel like it should be a feat later down the line on its own for this not an ability that other effects greatly depends on ESPECIALLY when its at a -2 penalty making it less accurate than any ability that applies to a normal attack.
I'd say reactive strike should just be another feat one can pick instead of AoO at the level AoO can be selected. It fills a more defending niche than AoO in that you need an ally by the side and works without the enemy moving but a paladin can instead pick AoO which is more zone control as well, two flavors of defense with pros and cons I think match nicely at the level given as two valid choices. Of course, this would require a new 'core feature' likely made up of abilities like (doesn't need to be) Holy Smite that likely wouldn't be connected with retributive strike anymore.