|
Well, a new desing and development article is up at WotC's site. This is all about paladin smites. It gives three different levels of smites. Don't eat for 3 hours before you read it, or you might spew your undigested food all over the computer screen. The smites have the complexity of Tome of Battle maneuvers without the cool flavor. They are needlessly complex and bland. If nothing else had convinced me not to try 4.0, this article would do it.
Well, a new desing and development article is up at WotC's site. This is all about paladin smites. It gives three different levels of smites. Don't eat for 3 hours before you read it, or you might spew your undigested food all over the computer screen. The smites have the complexity of Tome of Battle maneuvers without the cool flavor. They are needlessly complex and bland. If nothing else had convinced me not to try 4.0, this article would do it.
I read it as well.
I know understand why the multiple attacks have been cut. This is going to take forever to adjucate. Furthermore, I hit you and my friend will be healed because I cut you to ribbons? Suspension of disbelief only goes that far.....
Not hopeful, but I'll await the SRD.
Again, they aren't making things simpler, they are just shifting where the complexity lies. And I agree, while there were a few "hit someone and your ally gets X" abilities in the Tome of Battle, I guess I could kind of live with those, but it seems like this is going to be a major theme of 4th edition.
You know, now that I think of it, its too bad that they aren't covering "commoner" skills in 4th edition. This theme of "do what you want to in combat, and you do what you should be doing to support the party as a by product" might be kind of cool for the local Experts and such.
Critical Craft: If you manage to make a masterwork item on the first try, a customer within 5 squares automatically buys the item at an additional 10%.
Master Critical Craft: If you make a masterwork item on the first try, you automatically fill out your accounting ledgers in such a manner that you get a -10% adjustment to your taxes this year.
I so hope someone puts out a third party book for this.
|
I'm also thinking that that new system won't be as simplified as it's touting. It seems a lot of class abilities will be putting modifiers on surrounding enemies and allies. That's one of the things that slowed down my 3.x play the most, short of having to look up rules.
Still, though, I'll wait for 4e to decide (almost typed deice).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
don't worry, in the digital tabletop the affected characters will get little glowing symbols over their heads like in the Orbitz comericals.
Or in Diablo II.
Knight errant, that made me laugh out loud at work.
And yeah, the 'I smite you, heal Fred' bothers me. maybe because I never found healing 'not sexy'
Oh and Pygon, Deicide is the motto of 4e
Furthermore, I hit you and my friend will be healed because I cut you to ribbons? Suspension of disbelief only goes that far.....
Not hopeful, but I'll await the SRD.
I know its funny in a fantasy world, but for some reason, if you cast a spell and something like this happens, it doesn't bother me. If its just a class ability, it feels way too much like its a game mechanic and not something that's evocative of an actual story element. Fine line I guess.
|
|
Consider that HP's are an abstraction of more than simple physical damage. It's luck, heroism, just plain coolness in combat as well as physical damage.
By keeping that in mind, should you see your friend do something extremely impressive, you too are likely to get an up in your own heroics. So, you get a boost in your HP's (heroics) and don't heal up a cut to your forehead.
Its a matter of perspective.
Consider that HP's are an abstraction of more than simple physical damage. It's luck, heroism, just plain coolness in combat as well as physical damage.
By keeping that in mind, should you see your friend do something extremely impressive, you too are likely to get an up in your own heroics. So, you get a boost in your HP's (heroics) and don't heal up a cut to your forehead.
Its a matter of perspective.
I get that, but up until know hit points, even if they are an abstraction, have always been "healed," not simply "inspired." And using this logic, if you hit someone really hard, and it scares the crap out of his allies, should his allies take HP damage? (I'm actually kind of betting somewhere in 4th edition this will come about)
|
|
And using this logic, if you hit someone really hard, and it scares the crap out of his allies, should his allies take HP damage?
It would depend on the circumstance. If you hit him in the nads with a crossbow bolt, I think it only fitting that all other male characters within LOS would take 1/4 of his damage as sympathetic damage. Thats realism!
Jokes aside though, I understand what you are saying and mostly agree with you. I'm just trying to perhaps understand their reasoning. This aspect of 4e seems overly video gamey to me and has me clutching my 2nd Edition books even tighter.
It would depend on the circumstance. If you hit him in the nads with a crossbow bolt, I think it only fitting that all other male characters within LOS would take 1/4 of his damage as sympathetic damage. Thats realism!
Jokes aside though, I understand what you are saying and mostly agree with you. I'm just trying to perhaps understand their reasoning. This aspect of 4e seems overly video gamey to me and has me clutching my 2nd Edition books even tighter.
I guess that's really the point. The way this works feels too much like a blatant game mechanic first and foremost. It can be explained "in game," but it just feels a little weak.
In fact, it reminded me of some of the comments on rejected items in the RPG Superstar contest. It was alright for an item to fulfill a basic "need" in the game, but if it didn't feel like a magic item that made sense "in game" beyond its mechanical aspects, it wasn't as highly regarded.
But I totally agree with sympathetic damage from groin hits . . .
It sounds like (I didn't read the article) it is basically Crusader's Strike from Bo9S. It's kinda of described as a righteous strike against a different aligned foe that when you hit a pulse of positive energy rings out and you can direct it to yourself or an ally. The positive energy pulse heals the target it strikes. Yeah it's definately a stretch and probably one of the reasons so many people do not like Bo9S.
|
|
It sounds like (I didn't read the article) it is basically Crusader's Strike from Bo9S. It's kinda of described as a righteous strike against a different aligned foe that when you hit a pulse of positive energy rings out and you can direct it to yourself or an ally. The positive energy pulse heals the target it strikes. Yeah it's definately a stretch and probably one of the reasons so many people do not like Bo9S.
Thank you for the reminder. I tried hard to erase that from my brain. ;p
I can understand that it's cool and awesome looking and appealing and so on, but once again it's not my kind of fantasy.
While it can be at the right place in a super-powered setting or in a game such as Exalted, I must say "not in my D&D".
You bash a baddie, the only thing that flies off is blood and a couple of teeth. Maybe some dangerous acid or poisonous blood. No healing positive energy.
I'm also thinking that that new system won't be as simplified as it's touting.
To be fair, I don't believe it was ever claimed that 4E would be a simpler system so much as that it would take less time to prepare for the DM. D&D is and always has been a complex game and it keeps getting more complex with each new edition. I can't imagine 4E will be any different in this regard.
Mind you, I don't believe for a minute that 4E will in fact take less prep time than 3E, but that's what the claim has been.
I get that, but up until know hit points, even if they are an abstraction, have always been "healed," not simply "inspired." And using this logic, if you hit someone really hard, and it scares the crap out of his allies, should his allies take HP damage? (I'm actually kind of betting somewhere in 4th edition this will come about)Consider that HP's are an abstraction of more than simple physical damage. It's luck, heroism, just plain coolness in combat as well as physical damage.
By keeping that in mind, should you see your friend do something extremely impressive, you too are likely to get an up in your own heroics. So, you get a boost in your HP's (heroics) and don't heal up a cut to your forehead.
Its a matter of perspective.
Here's the text from the introduction:
"smites allow a paladin to deliver a powerful blow with the character's weapon of choice, while layering on some divine effect"
My interpretation of that is that a) the paladin is a fighter class primarily; b) and a divine class, secondarily. So when a paladin does something related to (a) (hit something) a secondary effect related to (b) can result.
It seems to me, what they have tried to do is make the paladin into a divine fighter, rather than just a fighter/cleric amalgam, as it has been in previous editions.
I think that's an interesting approach.
Greg
Critical Craft: If you manage to make a masterwork item on the first try, a customer within 5 squares automatically buys the item at an additional 10%.
Master Critical Craft: If you make a masterwork item on the first try, you automatically fill out your accounting ledgers in such a manner that you get a -10% adjustment to your taxes this year.
Hilarious! And hits the nail on the head.
Mechanical rules have to be connected to in-game reality in some way or the result will be disbelief on the part of players and DMs alike. My response to rules like these (and to be fair some feats in 3E were like this too) is simply to ridicule and ignore them.
Yeah, I know it's fantasy, but that doesn't mean that when I tie my shoelaces a purple elephant will pop out of my dog's ear. The connection of cause and effect that is present in normal reality has to still be there.
Yeah, I know it's fantasy, but that doesn't mean that when I tie my shoelaces a purple elephant will pop out of my dog's ear. The connection of cause and effect that is present in normal reality has to still be there.
Then in all seriousness I'm curious as to how you saw the original "smite" ability in 3X? Should it matter if the paladin actually did damage for the smite to work? If hitting something caused a divine effect (more damage) to result, why couldn't that happen if he missed? Why couldn't the paladin "smite" the ground (like Thor in the comic books) and have there be smite damage on the nearest creature, regardless of the attack roll? It seems to me that all they've done is take the old smite ability and made it an A+B thing, where A was the original "hit" and B was the extra damage. They've just created more possible options for what B is. Its the exact same mechanic, just with more options.
Not sure where the fuss is.
Greg
|
|
Not sure where the fuss is.
Greg
A smite can do extra damage, cause someone to be stunned, there can even be an area smite that effects all evil creatures in an area. When one effect directly derives from the action performed it seems to make sense. The paladin channels holy energy to smite something that is inherently unholy. Sometimes that has an additional effect. But when the effect seems to have no direct derivation to the action performed things start to break down. Healing a friend with a smite just feels like it breaks the sense of "realism", even for a fantasy world.
I know I have trouble justifying an ability to strike a creature and heal my friend across the room, no matter how it is explained away. It seems...odd. Perhaps I will eventualy get used to it. I doubt it though.
And this is not the first time we have seen in this in a 4e preview. The preview of combat that involved the red dragon had a reference to a cleric making a critical hit and healing an injured wizard. That seems even more odd than a paladin using his smite to heal and harm.
|
|
Then in all seriousness I'm curious as to how you saw the original "smite" ability in 3X? Should it matter if the paladin actually did damage for the smite to work? If hitting something caused a divine effect (more damage) to result, why couldn't that happen if he missed?
Greg
I saw it channeling holy energy into his hands or weapon. When he struck a living creature it discharged, much like a spell that requires a touch attack. Misses or discharging into the ground do nothing. Would I let a paladin strike the ground and discharge the smite? Sure, why not? But it wouldn't do anything and therefore it would make no sense. Or maybe it would in special instances, like opening a door charged with unholy energy or some such thing.
Then in all seriousness I'm curious as to how you saw the original "smite" ability in 3X? Should it matter if the paladin actually did damage for the smite to work? If hitting something caused a divine effect (more damage) to result, why couldn't that happen if he missed? Why couldn't the paladin "smite" the ground (like Thor in the comic books) and have there be smite damage on the nearest creature, regardless of the attack roll? It seems to me that all they've done is take the old smite ability and made it an A+B thing, where A was the original "hit" and B was the extra damage. They've just created more possible options for what B is. Its the exact same mechanic, just with more options.
A smite attack is damaging, but how it turns into a healing effect on your friends is beyond my ability to rationalize.
Specifically:
>If hitting something caused a divine effect (more damage) to result, why couldn't that happen if he missed?
Because you missed, and didn't hit it. My understanding of the word smite comes from its most common and obvious definition: "to hit, strike, beat". If you don't hit it, you haven't smitten it, in my mind. Anything else is rather arbitrary. If it suddenly becomes an effect that can do anything in an indefinite radius, then perhaps it should be renamed to something more appropriate, such as Paladin's Aura?
>Why couldn't the paladin "smite" the ground (like Thor in the comic books) and have there be smite damage on the nearest creature, regardless of the attack roll?
Because he missed the creature he was smiting on his attack roll. Also, D&D isn't supposed to be a superhero comic book.
That's exactly what I mean about the disconnect between physical reality and game effects. If your answer is "it's all magic!" then there's hardly a basis for a consensual reality there at all.
A smite attack is damaging, but how it turns into a healing effect on your friends is beyond my ability to rationalize.
I see the issue, those who don't like this want to limit a smite to do damage. I personally don't see the problem of letting a "smite" be "damage + divine reaction".
Specifically:
>If hitting something caused a divine effect (more damage) to result, why couldn't that happen if he missed?
Because you missed, and didn't hit it. My understanding of the word smite comes from its most common and obvious definition: "to hit, strike, beat". If you don't hit it, you haven't smitten it, in my mind. Anything else is rather arbitrary. If it suddenly becomes an effect that can do anything in an indefinite radius, then perhaps it should be renamed to something more appropriate, such as Paladin's Aura?
I see your point. Of course the problem is that with AC you can "hit" something without doing damage. (The reason why we have AC and Touch AC) But we accept that abstraction. (Funny how we allow some abstractions but not others?) Maybe WotC shouldn't have called this a "smite". Maybe that would sit better.
>Why couldn't the paladin "smite" the ground (like Thor in the comic books) and have there be smite damage on the nearest creature, regardless of the attack roll?
Because he missed the creature he was smiting on his attack roll. Also, D&D isn't supposed to be a superhero comic book.
This is especially where we disagree. D&D is a medieval superhero comic book. I see the two as identical, except for the setting.
Psionics = mutants.
Wizards = well, wizards (Dr. Strange comes to mind).
Constructs = robots.
Theif = stealthy hero (Black Cat, et al.)
Fighter = strong hero (Hulk, SpiderMan, etc.)
Now granted, comics have more flexibility to mix and match ideas because they don't have to adhere to game mechanics. But they are effectively the same thing.
That's exactly what I mean about the disconnect between physical reality and game effects. If your answer is "it's all magic!" then there's hardly a basis for a consensual reality there at all.
I don't think that you can use the term "physical reality" in D&D. I tried to create a "terminal velocity" table to determine exactly how far and how fast and how much damage would be caused by a fall, by using simple kinematics. The fact of the matter is, 20d6 is an underestimate of maximum falling damage, if you start with 1d6 for the first 10'. But it doesn't matter because its an abstraction and a game, and the rules are all about making the game fun and balanced and not about making it realistic. And if it were realistic, then it wouldn't be fun.
I once DM'ed a game where a fighter fell down a razor laden chute to the ground for the full 20d6 of damage. He got up, drank a healing potion, and started climbing up the side of the tower. Everybody laughed and had a good time. Not realistic, but a hell of a lot of fun.
All IMHO, of course.
Greg
This is especially where we disagree. D&D is a medieval superhero comic book. I see the two as identical, except for the setting.
That I disagree with. What I don't like is thinking D&D is medieval superheroes. That is exactly what I don't like about some of the late 3.5 books and 4E. D&D is sword & sorcery. It is magic and steel and heroes but not superheroes. Comparing the two is apples and oranges not limes and lemons. Both are fruit and make great juice but...
|
Healing a friend with a smite just feels like it breaks the sense of "realism", even for a fantasy world.
Love it when "realism" is brought into the arguments...
I can have the rogue in the center of a fireball and he makes his save and isn't even singed. That's real. (Of course ignoring the reality of a fireball in the first place.)
Because when I play fantasy, I want reality?
They are taking a class that arguably gets very little use and doing something to make it much more its own class rather than a fighter/cleric.
Like so many of WotC's articles, however, this one again leaves people with almost as many questions as it does answers. There is a LOT that isn't being said. Personally, I like the idea of the class ability trees. It gives the classes flexibility and still makes them unique to themselves.
Maybe it does seem a stretch that the attack heals someone else. But then again, how is that any different than the paladin/cleric that had the close wounds spell memorized (Spell Compendium). Mechanics wise there really isn't any difference.
Then again -- maybe close wounds is more "real" to you.
But we accept that abstraction. (Funny how we allow some abstractions but not others?) Maybe WotC shouldn't have called this a "smite". Maybe that would sit better.
Indeed, and the fact that what constitutes reality in D&D is so subjective is what precludes a definitive answer to this argument. I myself see problems with over 50% of the rules even in 3.5E, so perhaps it's hypocritical of me to single out this particular rule in 4E, but my subjective tolerance limit was hit in this instance.
This may be related to certain convention to which we've grown accustomed. Seeing a guy fall down a set of razor-studded stairs, drink a potion and get back up may defy belief, but it follows a cause-and-effect that we're all familiar with; seeing him fall and then having his favorite dog grow a fifth leg is too disjointed from logic for many people. Maybe we'll all be used to it in a few years time, but right now it's jarring.
As for medieval superheroes, that too is subjective. Personally I play much more gritty and "normal" campaigns and leave the Exalted superheroics to others, but of course YMMV. I certainly wouldn't be calculating kinematics in my game. ;)
Then again -- maybe close wounds is more "real" to you.
Yes, it is more real to me because the effect is closely associated with the meaning of the words used to describe it. Close wounds does indeed close wounds; smite is in no way associated with healing.
I think it's just a matter of getting a better name for this power.
|
|
What I don't like is thinking D&D is medieval superheroes.
Just out of curiosity -- Where is the line between "hero" and "superhero"? I mean, aren't the characters supposed to be the hero? Maybe the player's aren't supposed to be better than anyone else in the known world -- that it's "what they do that defines them". Does that mean that all your players are experts, nobles, commoners, or warriors?
What I don't like is thinking D&D is medieval superheroes.Just out of curiosity -- Where is the line between "hero" and "superhero"? I mean, aren't the characters supposed to be the hero? Maybe the player's aren't supposed to be better than anyone else in the known world -- that it's "what they do that defines them". Does that mean that all your players are experts, nobles, commoners, or warriors?
Exactly. A superhero comic book is, at it's core, about people with extraordinariy powers doing extraordinarily heroic (and sometimes not so heroic) things. A magic user casting fly on himself to close with a dragon to use finger of death to save the kingdom fits all those criteria.
D&D is medieval super heroes.
Greg
|
|
I don't think even a name change can make this palatable to most people. Calling it "healing surge" or something mihg tmake it a bit better, but it still shatters suspension of disbelieve to a degree that I just can't get over. In short, I don't like it one bit. I almost miss the old design and development articles that didn't have mechanics. Then we could just speculate on how things work in 4E so we could still hope. Now we see our worst fears about the new mechanics realized.
I don't think even a name change can make this palatable to most people.
I think your sample size is a little too small at this point to make this claim. I may be in the minority here, but it's still only about 11-4 against in this thread. I think there are more than 15 D&D players in the world.
Calling it "healing surge" or something mihg tmake it a bit better, but it still shatters suspension of disbelieve to a degree that I just can't get over. In short, I don't like it one bit.
Never said you should. There's stuff that I don't like in 3.X. Still playing it, though.
But I will say this, dragons that fly and hovering eyeballs that shoot magic rays should probably shatter your suspension of disbelief long before this does...
Greg
I don't want to be viewed as someone that complains and then can't articulate, so let me give you an example of something that would have been less bothersome to me:
If you gave the paladin an ability, let's call it "Surge of Holy Clarity," that when he successfully smites a foe, he strikes him so hard that the paladin is "free" to perform a swift action that allows him to say a prayer to enact his ability to heal an ally in range.
Similarly, the paladin must be able to heal at a distance outside of combat for this to work.
So "in game" the paladin hits his foe really hard, dazes him for a second, the paladin can see his ally hurt, uses the swift action to pray, and heals him.
If the paladin can't normally heal at range though, it seems strange for him to be able to do so because he "smote" someone. In effect, this actually causes three (not two) things to happen when you smite:
1. You call holy power down to harm a foe.
2. You can heal an ally if you hit.
3. You gain the ability to heal at a distance.
Does my "swift action" solution have more steps making it more complex? Yes, but the fact that there are more steps makes if feel like something is happening in the game world. By having everything happen because you used your smite ability feels much more like a game.
In fact, a lot of the rules, rather than being a "realism or not" discussion, is a "narrative or not" discussion to me. Currently, D&D is a storytelling game with strong war gaming elements to it. The new rules almost feel like (what what we have heard so far) a "persistent board game," where you play a persistent character over time in different scenarios, but the main "point" is the tactical combat, not the story being told.
If that makes any sense.
|
|
...but it still shatters suspension of disbelieve to a degree that I just can't get over. ... Now we see our worst fears about the new mechanics realized.
This was your worst fear?
Again --
...how is that any different than the paladin/cleric that had the close wounds spell memorized (Spell Compendium). Mechanics wise there really isn't any difference.
The "new" mechanics are remarkably similar to the "old" mechanics. Ok so now it's packaged into one action rather than two actions that happen at the same time -- but it is the same effect.
Let's see -- on one hand you have a paladin doing a smite attack and then heals someone at a distance -- This is believable. On the other hand, you have a paladin doing a smite attack and then heals someone at a distance -- which "shatters suspension of disbelief to a degree that I just can't get over".
Just trying to figure out what is "believable".
|
|
In fact, a lot of the rules, rather than being a "realism or not" discussion, is a "narrative or not" discussion to me. Currently, D&D is a storytelling game with strong war gaming elements to it. The new rules almost feel like (what what we have heard so far) a "persistent board game," where you play a persistent character over time in different scenarios, but the main "point" is the tactical combat, not the story being told.
If that makes any sense.
I think that this makes sense to me. Here is my take on it -- I love 3.X with its flexibility, options, and possibilities. However, because of all the flexibility, options, and possiblilities our group is taking far more time with the mechanics and not doing as much with the storytelling.
If they can combine different effects into some format that makes the mechanics go smoother in game so that I can do more of the story telling, I'm all for it.
Of course this remains to be seen and the article in question doesn't really deal with this at all.
But what is the next logical step? Clerics usually buff, heal, remove curse, etc. over the course of combat.
So if the cleric hits first in the round, everyone gains X number of temporary hit points, gains a +4 bonus to str and con, and is immune to curses, ability drains, and level drains for, what, three rounds or so? And on top of that scares off any undead in the area?
Or heck, let fighter's "per day" ability be to automatically point at something and kill it once per day that is their level or lower. We know they "can" kill it, so heck, why not just cut out the middleman and let him pick off someone at the beginning of combat.
Its not even so much about the world not feeling "real," but is even more intrinsic, in that the world doesn't feel like a world, it feels like a gameboard.
I just want to be clear -- so your problem isn't with the mechanic, it's with the wording of the ability or what the ability is called.
Well, it's not just the semantics but the logical connection between action and effect. I just don't see how hitting somebody (smiting) is connected to healing somebody else. It's like casting a fireball and having someone else turn into an icicle. Wuh?
But D&D is rife with this kind of thing.
|
|
Since no one else has done it yet, here is most of the transcript
In 4th Edition, D&D smites really come into their own. Now a subset of the paladin's renewable (read, encounter-recharge) powers, smites allow a paladin to deliver a powerful blow with the character's weapon of choice, while layering on some divine effect (and I mean that in both meanings of the word) on allies or enemies. A divine defender, much of the paladin's smites are all about kicking the crap out of those they find anathema while ensuring that foes who want to hurt enemies have a harder time at it. Take, as exhibit one, safeguard smite:Safeguard Smite
Paladin 1
Encounter • Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2x[W] + Cha.
Hit or Miss: An ally within 5 squares gains a bonus to AC equal to your Wisdom modifier until the end of your next turn.This basic, entry-level smite has all the things a growing paladin needs to fulfill its role and lay down some hurt. A Charisma attack against the target's Armor Class, safeguard smite deals double her base weapon's damage plus her Charisma modifier in damage (paladins are a force of personality, after all), and grants a quick boost to an ally in trouble (including, in a pinch, the paladin herself). And there you have it. Your first smite -- simple, serviceable, and fun.
As your paladin progresses as a defender of the faith, smites, like all of your abilities, grow in power and utility. But unlike its defender cousin, the fighter, a paladin is more than just the guy who kicks butt and makes sure enemies focus (or want to focus) on him. Paladins have always been able to heal in some way and the 4th Edition variety is no different. Though this splash of leader flavor into the paladin's defender role comes in many forms, one of the more active and interesting ways that your paladin can come to the aid of a companion while fighting is our second example of a smite:
Renewing Smite
Paladin 13
Encounter • Healing, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2x[W] + Cha damage and ally within 5 heals 10 + your Wisdom modifier damage.You'll no doubt see the pattern between these two smites. 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. Selfish paladins (typically those who serve more self-centered gods or just the occasional egoist who venerates Pelor) can even heal themselves with the strike, as you're considered your own ally unless the effect of a power states otherwise.
Let's move on to smites that inhabit the levels over 20. Binding smite is another flavor of defender smite -- and as its high level demands, does the defender job more effectively, and thus more powerfully than the simple safeguard smite does.
Binding Smite
Paladin 27
Encounter • Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 2x[W] + Wis damage and target cannot gain line of effect to anyone but you until the end of your next turn.In binding smite you can see an example of how the effect of a smite goes up with level, while the numbers in their base form seem similar when not taking into account the accuracy and damage boosts that merely gaining levels (and having better weapons) affords. It just gets … well, better. Heck, it's epic, after all, so it has to be good, and you don't have to have 4th Edition books in front of you to realize line of effect denial is good. When you're fighting balor, ancient blue dragons, and sorrowsworn, it had better be good -- those critters don't fool around!
There you have it; just a small taste of what your paladin smites will look like in 4th Edition. While I have lost touch with Erol over the years, I hope that come this summer, somewhere out there, Sir Lore will return – a halfling with a high-pitched voice, yelling, "I smite thee, foul miscreant." I imagine his DM will just wince and sigh, just like I did all those years ago.
|
|
Its not even so much about the world not feeling "real," but is even more intrinsic, in that the world doesn't feel like a world, it feels like a gameboard.
Maybe you and I are reading different articles. I didn't get that feeling at all from the article. Even at 27th level, the paladin ability lasts a whopping 1 round. And, based on what I read, the paladin gets one smite ability per encounter? (I could have read that wrong.) So one time during an encounter, the paladin might be able to use his smite ability AND help out a comrade that might need some assistance. The rest of the time, what do you think he's doing? Playing "whack a mole" on the illithid.
I feel that this actually gives the paladin more opportunities to be tactically effective without having to take a round and step back five feet, try and get off a spell and next round move back into combat. (Because we are always reading in stories how the paladin stepped just out of reach of his opponent to cast a spell at range and then move back in to engage the creature he took a break from.)
I think that the article is interesting -- nothing more. I really can't tell if it will be good or bad. I do think that a lot of people seem to be reading a lot more "between the lines" than they should however.
I just want to be clear -- so your problem isn't with the mechanic, it's with the wording of the ability or what the ability is called.Well, it's not just the semantics but the logical connection between action and effect. I just don't see how hitting somebody (smiting) is connected to healing somebody else. It's like casting a fireball and having someone else turn into an icicle. Wuh?
How about this:
Once per encounter, a paladin can "charge" his weapon with divine energy. When the weapon successfully strikes a foe, this charge is released and spreads out over a pre-determined area.
At 1st level, the release of this divine energy causes a shockwave which increases the damage dealt to the opponent (2X+Cha). At the same time the divine aspect of this energy is of a nature that all allies within 5 feet gain a bonus to their AC equal to the paladin's Wis bonus.
At 13th level, the release of this divine energy causes a shockwave which increases the damage dealt to the opponent (2X+Cha). At the same time the divine aspect of this energy is of a nature that all allies within 5 feet are healed hp equal to 10 + Wis bonus of the paladin.
At 27th level, the release of this divine energy causes a shockwave which increases the damage dealt to the opponent (2X+Wis). At the same time the divine aspect of this energy is of a nature that the struck creature cannot gain line of effect to anyone but the paladin until the end of the paladin's next turn.
Does that help at all? Note I haven't changed a single thing, just added a few "fluff" words.
But D&D is rife with this kind of thing.
Sure, so one more won't hurt.
Greg
But what is the next logical step? Clerics usually buff, heal, remove curse, etc. over the course of combat.
So if the cleric hits first in the round, everyone gains X number of temporary hit points, gains a +4 bonus to str and con, and is immune to curses, ability drains, and level drains for, what, three rounds or so? And on top of that scares off any undead in the area?
Clerics are not fighters (traditionally if you back to 2ed, Paladins were considered a "sub-class" of fighters, whereas clerics were one of the four main classes - distinct from the others) so no, this doesn't work for clerics. But for paladins ("Holy fighters") there's a certain level of sense there. In fact, it seems to go back to the traditional (i.e pre 3.X) view of paladins than what we have in 3.X - it treats them as a type of fighter.
Or am I the only one who sees this?
Greg
|
|
Okay you want to know what I obsessing over right now?
This line:
...and you don't have to have 4th Edition books in front of you to realize line of effect denial is good.
And the only reason I am so focused on it is because I don't know what the heck he's talking about. Did I miss something? Am I just dense? What is line of effect? Is it line of sight? Is it the ability to use a power? What is it?
How can I know line of effect denial is good unless I know what it is? Sure, I'm being told its a good thing. I would assume preventing a creature from doing something is always good. That sort of comes with the territory. The statement just bugs me. It assumes I am going to nod my head sagely and smile in satisfaction.
Okay, I know its silly and illogical. I know it is a minor part of that article, or at least, a small portion of it. The statement just grates on me for some reason. Throwing out terms without a context is just frustrating.
|
|
Okay you want to know what I obsessing over right now?
This line:
...and you don't have to have 4th Edition books in front of you to realize line of effect denial is good.And the only reason I am so focused on it is because I don't know what the heck he's talking about.
I agree with this. I also felt that it was a bit condescending.
Well, I was going to post a nice long analysis of why I don't like the smite+heal ability but it got lost due to a server hiccup. Sigh....
So here's the short version: having a smite attack with a weapon that also heals the paladin works for me. Having it able to heal allies at a distance seems a little wonky to me. It seems like a contrived way to try make the ability more useful or to make the paladin better fill his role (note: I HATE! HATE! HATE! The idea of character roles). I just get the image of the enemy leaking healing energy every time he is smited by the paladin and that is just cheesy.
Now if the attack was the character stealing the life force/energy/soul of the enemy and bestowing it upon another character that could work. But either way having an ability that does damage and heals another character at a distance just seems like they are trying to cram too much into one action.
What if the paladin could store the extra damage done with smites and use it to fuel his lay on hands ability? That would work for me.
|
|
Is it just me or does the text imply these are but three in a greater number of avalaible smites? I get the sinking feeling when you play 4e the DM will have to have the books constantly open to differentiate in his head between blinding smite, binding smite and bonding smite.
I'm sort of ambivalent about 4e and I must admit articles like this make me ever more ambivalent. On the one hand it sounds like a game I would not necessarily hate being a player in but on the other it keeps sounding ever more complicated and not like something that I, as DM, really want to bother with. And I'm almost always the DM
I agree with those too who say it sounds more and more like a boardgame. The smites effect allies 5 squares away. I assume that means 25 feet but as someone who is trying to move away from more and more mini play I would rather they used feet not squares.
...
I just don't get it.
I don't understand how someone like me - who owns probably 95% of all D&D products ever made - could be so turned off by each new tidbit for 4e.
I know some of you are liking this and similar changes, so I apologize for my tone, but man this is awful stuff (IMO).
They are making it so easy for me to give 4E a pass.
My thought is that if paladins now heal using their smite ability, that WOTC would take away the Lay on Hands ability. Why would they give the paladin two healing abilities... Haven't read anything about this just my thoughts on how smite may affect other things.
Did I miss something? Am I just dense? What is line of effect? Is it line of sight? Is it the ability to use a power? What is it?
...Throwing out terms without a context is just frustrating.
Page 310 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook:
"Line of effect tells you whether an effect (such as an explosion) can reach a creature. Line of effect is just like line of sight, except line of effect ignores restrictions on visual ability. For instance, a fireball's explosion doesn't care if a creature is invisible or hiding in darkness."When I read the article, I knew exactly what he was talking about when he used the term. It also seems fairly self-explanatory, especially if you are familiar with "line of sight." I don't think it is unfair to assume the reader would understand it without a definition.