Paladin - Smite. Holding the Charge.


Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin


Roman suggested in the "Welcome to Divine" thread the following solution to the mediocrity that is the paladin's smite.

The Paladin should be able to "hold the charge" on a missed attack, able to retain the effect for a number of turns until it hits. The details on how such a power would work are sketchy at best, but I imagine that the rule for touch spells like Shocking Grasp is the precedent here.

Roman went on to suggest that the Smite itself could last multiple rounds, whether it hits or not. This brings the power a little bit more in line with the Barbarian's Rage, although not as powerful.

I like these ideas, because they don't change the numbers on the smite effect. They give it a slight boost in effectiveness, addressing the most egregious problem with smites: missing and wasting your class's signature power. In most casts, no other class has such potential to waste it's signature ability— at least not without having more attempts per day.

My take is this: the smite lasts a number of rounds equal to Cha (it is no longer vogue for the pally to go off wisdom?) or until discharged. All this does is increase the likelihood that the smite will not be wasted on a miss.


We did something similar in our playtest in that we gave Smite Evil (and similar cleric domain powers like War) a flat 3 round duration. If an attack is successful during those three rounds, the power is "activated". If for some reason all attacks miss during this time, the power dissipates and the use is expended.

The only reason we went with 3 rounds was the precedent already in the cleric domains that many of the abilities can be "held" for 3 rounds.

No paladin to test it with, and amazingly when I created my cleric I figured longsword would be fairly popular but only 1 out of the other 5 players decided to use one???

Hopefully I will have a chance to try out this houserule before too long with my cleric....

Sovereign Court

Er...in Pathfinder, the smite use is not lost if the attempted smite misses. So I don't think that's an issue anymore.

Sovereign Court

Jess Door wrote:
Er...in Pathfinder, the smite use is not lost if the attempted smite misses. So I don't think that's an issue anymore.

We've talked about this before, they need to specify whether that is the case or not because removing the line isn't the same as saying it's not used up on a miss. I agree that I think that was Jason's intention, but without spelling it out, it's ambiguous and open to DM discression. My DM says it's used up on a miss because that is the established trend with per day effects.

As to extending smite duration if it's any further than one whole round (i.e. all itterative attacks and AoOs) it breaks backwards compatability with supplements that have feats balanced around the current smite.


lastknightleft wrote:


As to extending smite duration if it's any further than one whole round (i.e. all itterative attacks and AoOs) it breaks backwards compatability with supplements that have feats balanced around the current smite.

...sort of. I don't think extending the duration is the best solution. I'm right now in favor of removing the "fizzlemiss", adding 1d6 per 4 levels to damage vs creatures of the evil subtype, and making the attack good and lawful aligned. I think that's the best fix. However, your comment about balance and compatibility has given me pause, and I would like to share my thoughts on that:

IMO, backwards compatibility isn't threatened by balance. It's mostly a matter of "can I use the existing stat block without modification?" As long as Smite remains a times/day power, the stat block is in-tact, and you can easily run a paladin with feats balanced for the old smite using the new smite.

Of course, like all things converted 3.5 to pathfinder, the best conversion policy is a case-by-case basis. I'm only clarifying my thoughts on this because without the statblocks of existing modules as a guideline, if you start looking at the balance of existing products as your benchmark then you can't even use the beta. PFRPG Beta has completely re-written balance.

It's not about balance, it's about conversion workload.


I agree with toyrobot's OP,
at least something along the lines of those options needs to be implemented...
I can't really say which is most to Jason's preference of things,
but they all at least remove the swinginess of the ability, which even Touch Effect spells aren't subject to, as pointed out.

Sovereign Court

toyrobots wrote:


...sort of. I don't think extending the duration is the best solution. I'm right now in favor of removing the "fizzlemiss", adding 1d6 per 4 levels to damage vs creatures of the evil subtype, and making the attack good and lawful aligned. I think that's the best fix. However, your comment about balance and compatibility has given me pause, and I would like to share my thoughts on that:

IMO, backwards compatibility isn't threatened by balance. It's mostly a matter of "can I use the existing stat block without modification?" As long as Smite remains a times/day power, the stat block is in-tact, and you can easily run a paladin with feats balanced for the old smite using the new smite.

Of course, like all things converted 3.5 to pathfinder, the best conversion policy is a case-by-case basis. I'm only clarifying my thoughts on this because without the statblocks of existing modules as a guideline, if you start looking at the balance of existing products as your benchmark then you can't even use the beta. PFRPG Beta has completely re-written balance.

It's not about balance, it's about conversion workload.

Well I disagree with you their our playtest includes a couple of supplements from 3.5 and so far that pathfinder system hasn't broken, granted we are only third level but hey.

How many creatures have evil as a subtype. I think that isn't a broad enough fix because for the most part your smite will still be terribly unimpressive. Unless your campaign centers around a lot of creatures with that subtype, I know none of mine ever have. Well except the one where they were in hell for a little while, but even then that was a sidequest.


lastknightleft wrote:


Well I disagree with you their our playtest includes a couple of supplements from 3.5 and so far that pathfinder system hasn't broken, granted we are only third level but hey.

Fair enough.

lastknightleft wrote:


How many creatures have evil as a subtype. I think that isn't a broad enough fix because for the most part your smite will still be terribly unimpressive. Unless your campaign centers around a lot of creatures with that subtype, I know none of mine ever have. Well except the one where they were in hell for a little while, but even then that was a sidequest.

List of evil subtype SRD critters:

Spoiler:

Achaierai
Barghest
Barghest, Greater
Demon, Babau
Demon, Balor
Demon, Bebilith
Demon, Dretch
Demon, Glabrezu
Demon, Hezrou
Demon, Marilith
Demon, Nalfeshnee
Demon, Quasit
Demon, Succubus
Demon, Vrock
Devil, Barbed (Hamatula)
Devil, Bearded (Barbazu)
Devil, Bone (Osyluth)
Devil, Chain (Kyton)
Devil, Erinyes
Devil, Hellcat (Bezekira)
Devil, Horned (Cornugon)
Devil, Ice (Gelugon)
Devil, Imp
Devil, Lemure
Devil, Pit Fiend
Hell Hound
Hell Hound, Nessian Warhound
Howler
Night Hag
Nightmare
Nightmare, Cauchemar
Swarm, Hellwasp
Vargouille
Yeth Hound

As far as Runelords (which I'm currently running) goes, that feels about right. A number of those creatures make an appearance in the first issue of Pathfinder, and they are some of the more challenging fights.

I've personally house-ruled evil dragons as having the evil subtype as well, since I like the idea of paladins fighting dragons. There is also the chance in the PF Monster book to append the evil subtype to many other creatures that might deserve it (Liches? Vampires?) OR we could expand the list of big-evil critters to encompass the evil, dragon, and undead subtypes.

It seems fitting to me that a paladin should get a small bonus on creatures of mundane evil, creatures that are simply flawed or misguided mortals, but mortals nonetheless. They should get a big bonus— sneak attack level bonus at least— against enemies that embody evil. The above list (plus dragons) is short enough so that GMs won't feel they have to pull out neutral critters just to pose a challenge to the paladin, but long enough so that the paladin will have cause to charge into some of the game's toughest fights and Smite Evil.

Sovereign Court

The problem with that is that if we take that as a fix with no other alterations then the paladin still sucks for 90% of the time. Keep in mind that if you cut out the demons and devils, that list has what ten creatures on it. I don't mind having a boost against them, I just don't want that to be the only fix because simply put it isn't enough.


lastknightleft wrote:
The problem with that is that if we take that as a fix with no other alterations then the paladin still sucks for 90% of the time. Keep in mind that if you cut out the demons and devils, that list has what ten creatures on it. I don't mind having a boost against them, I just don't want that to be the only fix because simply put it isn't enough.

Right. I agree, thank you.

Smite:

  • Smite attempt activated until attack hits.

  • +Cha to strike rolls, +Level to damage.

  • Bonus 1d6 damage per 4 levels vs. Evil, Dragon, and Undead Subtypes.

I think those 3 subtypes are memorable and thematic, suggestive of "big evil." These are the creatures where as GM I feel that Smite should count most. They are also (mostly) higher CR monster types, which helps take the guesswork out of when to use smite. Together, they make up a good fraction of the monster manual, but not so many that the GM will feel under pressure to dig up something the paladin can't wail on. The list of things that paladin shouldn't super-smite is almost more pertinent, because so many things in the game are evil.

Nasty and possibly evil but NOT "big evil" creatures: all the mortal humanoid races who have a choice to be good or evil and don't intrinsically represent evil. You have aberrations and constructs, animals, etc. You have all the good an neutrally aligned outsiders, including Slaad and the like. Paladins should get a little boost if these critters are evil, but they just aren't the sort of things a paladin should want to be out fighting. His goddess wants him to Smite Big Evil.

This would be 2 relatively minor changes that still feel like Smite as it has been, but give it a little more punch when it counts most. When a paladin Smites a devil, I want to hear "Kabloom!" That Kabloom should sound at least as loud as a flanking rogue. I'm not so sure I need that when he hits a kobold. Even a kobold with class levels.

Sovereign Court

toyrobots wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
The problem with that is that if we take that as a fix with no other alterations then the paladin still sucks for 90% of the time. Keep in mind that if you cut out the demons and devils, that list has what ten creatures on it. I don't mind having a boost against them, I just don't want that to be the only fix because simply put it isn't enough.

Right. I agree, thank you.

Smite:

  • Smite attempt activated until attack hits.

  • +Cha to strike rolls, +Level to damage.

  • Bonus 1d6 damage per 4 levels vs. Evil, Dragon, and Undead Subtypes.

I think those 3 subtypes are memorable and thematic, suggestive of "big evil." These are the creatures where as GM I feel that Smite should count most. They are also (mostly) higher CR monster types, which helps take the guesswork out of when to use smite. Together, they make up a good fraction of the monster manual, but not so many that the GM will feel under pressure to dig up something the paladin can't wail on. The list of things that paladin shouldn't super-smite is almost more pertinent, because so many things in the game are evil.

Nasty and possibly evil but NOT "big evil" creatures: all the mortal humanoid races who have a choice to be good or evil and don't intrinsically represent evil. You have aberrations and constructs, animals, etc. You have all the good an neutrally aligned outsiders, including Slaad and the like. Paladins should get a little boost if these critters are evil, but they just aren't the sort of things a paladin should want to be out fighting. His goddess wants him to Smite Big Evil.

This would be 2 relatively minor changes that still feel like Smite as it has been, but give it a little more punch when it counts most. When a paladin Smites a devil, I want to hear "Kabloom!" That Kabloom should sound at least as loud as a flanking rogue. I'm not so sure I need that when he hits a kobold. Even a kobold with class levels.

Have you seen my playtest report what you propose makes a little sense, but it doesn't go far enough because it is still even more situational than favored enemy. Your fix wouldn't have changed a single thing from what I have been experiencing. You still need to make an alteration to have more smites because that is still the only offensive ability he gets from level 1-3 (and I don't count lay on hands as an offensive ability even against undead because it's too weak and allows for a save). Also level x2 damage isn't much of a boost but it comes a little closer to being a relevant amount of damage for a per day ability.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Hello everyone,

Although I am still considering options for increasing the power of smite evil, the duration is likely to change to at least 1 round, making it useful on all your attacks instead of just one. Although I can see the usefulness of "holding the charge", I think an expanded duration is more valuable and allows you to get more use out of the ability.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Sovereign Court

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hello everyone,

Although I am still considering options for increasing the power of smite evil, the duration is likely to change to at least 1 round, making it useful on all your attacks instead of just one. Although I can see the usefulness of "holding the charge", I think an expanded duration is more valuable and allows you to get more use out of the ability.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Oh thank you god I am so happy to hear you say that. Just out of curiosity where do you stand on the issue of the # of smites you get at first level?

And by one round do you mean it ends at the start of your next turn (that way it can aply to AoOs because from my experience the BBEG always tries to run when hurt enough) or just the full round action?

Liberty's Edge

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hello everyone,

Although I am still considering options for increasing the power of smite evil, the duration is likely to change to at least 1 round, making it useful on all your attacks instead of just one. Although I can see the usefulness of "holding the charge", I think an expanded duration is more valuable and allows you to get more use out of the ability.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If limited to one round, won't this encourage an oddly non-paladin-like two-weapon smite build?

Sovereign Court

Shisumo wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hello everyone,

Although I am still considering options for increasing the power of smite evil, the duration is likely to change to at least 1 round, making it useful on all your attacks instead of just one. Although I can see the usefulness of "holding the charge", I think an expanded duration is more valuable and allows you to get more use out of the ability.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If limited to one round, won't this encourage an oddly non-paladin-like two-weapon smite build?

Not Likely, A two weapon fighting paladin might get a little more play, but what makes it unpaladiny? MAD and the heavy feat dependancy of two weapon fighting will prevent the largest # of abuses. Although a rule that you can only smite with your primary weapon might not hurt. Then off hand attacks would be supplemental. It would also prevent shield bashing smites.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

lastknightleft wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hello everyone,

Although I am still considering options for increasing the power of smite evil, the duration is likely to change to at least 1 round, making it useful on all your attacks instead of just one. Although I can see the usefulness of "holding the charge", I think an expanded duration is more valuable and allows you to get more use out of the ability.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

If limited to one round, won't this encourage an oddly non-paladin-like two-weapon smite build?
Not Likely, A two weapon fighting paladin might get a little more play, but what makes it unpaladiny? MAD and the heavy feat dependancy of two weapon fighting will prevent the largest # of abuses. Although a rule that you can only smite with your primary weapon might not hurt. Then off hand attacks would be supplemental. It would also prevent shield bashing smites.

Much like you said with TWF smites, what is unpaladinly about a shield bash smite? Seems very paladiny to me. It also has its own feat chain prereqs if you want to be very good at it.


I'm cool with 1 round, but that raises issues of 2wf, and attacks of opportunity during the round.

I stand by the solution above. Its simple, its similar to the existing rule, and it gives the "kabloom" I want from a power called "smite" when it is appropriate.

Sovereign Court

I want the Pally to smite on AoO's if I have one more enemy take off on me after I smite them I'm gonna smite them again. Evil shouldn't be able to escape the pally.

It's not that I have a problem with shield bash smites. But I don't want every paladin to either TWF or Shield bash because it doubles the number of smites they get. I want them to be able to do that, but I don't want to unfairly advantage it over the THF or a player who doesn't like to shield bash.

The feats allready provide a way to have a cool "smitey" shield bash. But not every character who builds a shield weilding paladin should feel compeled to smite or loose out on the feature.

For my character his shield style is entirely defensive he won't smite with it. Should I feel gimped by the rules for doing so? Not to mention when you add the bashing enhancement and all those feats it starts to get pretty rediculous.

So yes I am in favor of only being able to smite with your primary weapon. If a player builds around shield bashing they can always say that the shield is their primary weapon and that their axe or sword is their off hand weapon. That way they can get the benefit of the smite on the shield.


"All attacks in a round" also actively discourages a vital strike/overhand chop paladin, which is fine by me -- greatsword power-attacking paladins just seem a bit wonky.

Speedweapons and Combat Reflexes will suddenly become a LOT more attractive to paladin characters, though...

Liberty's Edge

lastknightleft wrote:
Not Likely, A two weapon fighting paladin might get a little more play, but what makes it unpaladiny? MAD and the heavy feat dependancy of two weapon fighting will prevent the largest # of abuses. Although a rule that you can only smite with your primary weapon might not hurt. Then off hand attacks would be supplemental. It would also prevent shield bashing smites.

I don't really object to a TWF paladin - if you want to do it and you've got the stat points to try it, I say go for it - but until you get two attacks through BAB, the only difference between the current situation and a one-round duration would come through either AoO (if it lasts long enough for them) or TWF. That's more pressure for TWF than I would prefer to see.

Sovereign Court

toyrobots wrote:

I'm cool with 1 round, but that raises issues of 2wf, and attacks of opportunity during the round.

I stand by the solution above. Its simple, its similar to the existing rule, and it gives the "kabloom" I want from a power called "smite" when it is appropriate.

Also if it allows for AoOs then it's got more utility at lower levels before you get your itterative attacks.

Sovereign Court

A smite lasting for the full round is good - and AoOs for the round could even be very interesting...it might prevent the paladin from takings attacks of opportunity he would have available because he's unsure whether or not the target is evil.

This doesn't solve the problem of the low level paladin, unfortunately. I think the easiest thing is to slightly "front-load" the number of Smite uses for low levels, since the paladin won't have iterative attacks to up his damage potential against his enemies. The oft-mentioned X + Cha mod appeals to me personally. I could even see the number of smites not rising over the paladin's career - making the number of smites follow much the same pattern as turning attempts, as the utility of a single smite use grows with the paladin's gain of iterative attacks.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Shisumo wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Not Likely, A two weapon fighting paladin might get a little more play, but what makes it unpaladiny? MAD and the heavy feat dependancy of two weapon fighting will prevent the largest # of abuses. Although a rule that you can only smite with your primary weapon might not hurt. Then off hand attacks would be supplemental. It would also prevent shield bashing smites.
I don't really object to a TWF paladin - if you want to do it and you've got the stat points to try it, I say go for it - but until you get two attacks through BAB, the only difference between the current situation and a one-round duration would come through either AoO (if it lasts long enough for them) or TWF. That's more pressure for TWF than I would prefer to see.

I don't know that it's any more pressure for TWF than Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, Improved Crit, and any other weapon-specific feats (AKA fighter class abilities) are. You take WS with dagger, if you go TWF you get to double-dip on the attack/damage/crit bonus that you get for the cost of just one feat. The same is true for sneak attack, bardic inspire courage bonuses, haste, bless, prayer, divine favor, and any other blanket buffs (other than ones to STR, which reward THF) or conditions (things that penalize AC, like entangled, prone, stunned, blinded, etc.). All of those benefit the TWF guys the most.

I think if you're trying to boost the paladin's shield use or THF capacity, smite is probably not the best place to do it. The SAB and THF guys don't get to maximize use of all the stuff above, and yet people keep going those routes anyway. I think the same will be true here.

Sovereign Court

you may be right, who knows

Scarab Sages

UPDATE ALERT: A REVISED VERSION OF THE BETA PALADIN HAS BEEN POSTED BY JASON ON THIS THREAD.

Check it out, and save yourselves debating changes that have already occurred!

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin / Paladin - Smite. Holding the Charge. All Messageboards
Recent threads in Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin