Through the discussion of the new paladin there was a little debate about how long "Until Vanquished" meant. It seems that the summary was until killed, captured or they flee. That all makes perfect sense to me, except what if...
What if it stayed with that subject even if they flee? I mean they are not technically vanquished, thus the paladin should give chase right? (if at all possible of course).
So if this were true then the paladin who did not "vanquish" his foe would be running with one less smite until said foe was truly defeated.
I dont think this is how it was meant to work but I could not help but mill it over. It would be a hendrance to the paladin because every DM would of course fill their encounters with invisible flying BBEG's (which seems to be the case anyway) and just get them to flee as soon as the paladin declares a smite against him. Thus they get to take away the key paladin ability for as long as they want.
On the other hand if someone was inclined to run it this way it would be appropriate to give the paladin certain abilities that allowed him to pursue his cowardly foe.
Such as he gains his paladin level to his perception checks against a smited fleeing foe.
Or at higher levels he gains blind sight/sense against a smited foe.
Or +10 Ft of movment (per x lvl) when pursuing a smited foe.
The list could go on....
Just a thought I had and wanted to discuss. Seems like it could be interpreted this way but if it were then it would be a huge negative for the paladin if he did not have something to counter act the flight.
|
I think a little common sense would have to be applied here. The smite evil would end once the conflict is over, either through vanquishing the enemy or causing that enemy to flee.
Once the danger is over, no more smite evil. It would make little sense for a paladin to have his or her power active all the time, just because the enemy the paladin attempted to vanquish is still around.
I think a little common sense would have to be applied here. The smite evil would end once the conflict is over, either through vanquishing the enemy or causing that enemy to flee.
Once the danger is over, no more smite evil. It would make little sense for a paladin to have his or her power active all the time, just because the enemy the paladin attempted to vanquish is still around.
Agreed. Vanquish just means to defeat, not kill. Once the fight is over, it's done.
I took this from an online dictionary (Merriam-Webster).
Main Entry: van·quish
Date: 14th century
1 : to overcome in battle : subdue completely
2 : to defeat in a conflict or contest
In light of the vast improvements to the paladin, I am reluctant to start adding additional powers/abilities to the class; paladins seem strong enough that more stuff would tip the balance scales too much.
I also fully believe enemies should fight for their lives and run away when they cannot win - they want to live just like everyone else. Nobody can win all the time, and if a paladin loses a smite attempt every time he faces an evil foe with enough skill, power, or temerity to escape destruction, then the paladin should and would run out of smite ability and will consequently lose his most effective class feature. That would be unduly punishing to the class.
Consequently, I can see no benefit to leaving the power active beyond the scope of the encounter, or at most a series of related encounters. Ergo, I say the ability should last until the paladin himself deems the foe vanguished, or beyond his ability to vanquish.
So, a one-shot encounter with an evil wizard who teleports away, never to be seen again, the Smite ends right there. On the other hand, if they know who the wizard is and where he lives, the paladin may deem that the wizard is still within his grasp, and might leave the smite active while his own wizard ally prepares to teleport them to the enemy wizard's home so they can continue the assault.
So, a paladin who enters a dungeon and finds it populated with undead might encounter the boss vampire in room #1, but the vampire flees deeper into the dungeon. The paladin may decide to keep his smite active on the vampire, certain that they will see him later as they clear out the undead, room by room. Maybe they will even encounter this vampire a half dozen times before they corner it in its lair - the one declared smite could be valid for that whole time.
|
|
In light of the vast improvements to the paladin, I am reluctant to start adding additional powers/abilities to the class; paladins seem strong enough that more stuff would tip the balance scales too much.
I also fully believe enemies should fight for their lives and run away when they cannot win - they want to live just like everyone else. Nobody can win all the time, and if a paladin loses a smite attempt every time he faces an evil foe with enough skill, power, or temerity to escape destruction, then the paladin should and would run out of smite ability and will consequently lose his most effective class feature. That would be unduly punishing to the class.
Consequently, I can see no benefit to leaving the power active beyond the scope of the encounter, or at most a series of related encounters. Ergo, I say the ability should last until the paladin himself deems the foe vanguished, or beyond his ability to vanquish.
So, a one-shot encounter with an evil wizard who teleports away, never to be seen again, the Smite ends right there. On the other hand, if they know who the wizard is and where he lives, the paladin may deem that the wizard is still within his grasp, and might leave the smite active while his own wizard ally prepares to teleport them to the enemy wizard's home so they can continue the assault.
So, a paladin who enters a dungeon and finds it populated with undead might encounter the boss vampire in room #1, but the vampire flees deeper into the dungeon. The paladin may decide to keep his smite active on the vampire, certain that they will see him later as they clear out the undead, room by room. Maybe they will even encounter this vampire a half dozen times before they corner it in its lair - the one declared smite could be valid for that whole time.
This would be okay, as long as the paladin was unable to smite anything else while maintaining his or her smite for that one foe.
This would be okay, as long as the paladin was unable to smite anything else while maintaining his or her smite for that one foe.In light of the vast improvements to the paladin, I am reluctant to start adding additional powers/abilities to the class; paladins seem strong enough that more stuff would tip the balance scales too much.
I also fully believe enemies should fight for their lives and run away when they cannot win - they want to live just like everyone else. Nobody can win all the time, and if a paladin loses a smite attempt every time he faces an evil foe with enough skill, power, or temerity to escape destruction, then the paladin should and would run out of smite ability and will consequently lose his most effective class feature. That would be unduly punishing to the class.
Consequently, I can see no benefit to leaving the power active beyond the scope of the encounter, or at most a series of related encounters. Ergo, I say the ability should last until the paladin himself deems the foe vanguished, or beyond his ability to vanquish.
So, a one-shot encounter with an evil wizard who teleports away, never to be seen again, the Smite ends right there. On the other hand, if they know who the wizard is and where he lives, the paladin may deem that the wizard is still within his grasp, and might leave the smite active while his own wizard ally prepares to teleport them to the enemy wizard's home so they can continue the assault.
So, a paladin who enters a dungeon and finds it populated with undead might encounter the boss vampire in room #1, but the vampire flees deeper into the dungeon. The paladin may decide to keep his smite active on the vampire, certain that they will see him later as they clear out the undead, room by room. Maybe they will even encounter this vampire a half dozen times before they corner it in its lair - the one declared smite could be valid for that whole time.
OK, but does it work that way?
OK, but does it work that way?This would be okay, as long as the paladin was unable to smite anything else while maintaining his or her smite for that one foe.In light of the vast improvements to the paladin, I am reluctant to start adding additional powers/abilities to the class; paladins seem strong enough that more stuff would tip the balance scales too much.
I also fully believe enemies should fight for their lives and run away when they cannot win - they want to live just like everyone else. Nobody can win all the time, and if a paladin loses a smite attempt every time he faces an evil foe with enough skill, power, or temerity to escape destruction, then the paladin should and would run out of smite ability and will consequently lose his most effective class feature. That would be unduly punishing to the class.
Consequently, I can see no benefit to leaving the power active beyond the scope of the encounter, or at most a series of related encounters. Ergo, I say the ability should last until the paladin himself deems the foe vanguished, or beyond his ability to vanquish.
So, a one-shot encounter with an evil wizard who teleports away, never to be seen again, the Smite ends right there. On the other hand, if they know who the wizard is and where he lives, the paladin may deem that the wizard is still within his grasp, and might leave the smite active while his own wizard ally prepares to teleport them to the enemy wizard's home so they can continue the assault.
So, a paladin who enters a dungeon and finds it populated with undead might encounter the boss vampire in room #1, but the vampire flees deeper into the dungeon. The paladin may decide to keep his smite active on the vampire, certain that they will see him later as they clear out the undead, room by room. Maybe they will even encounter this vampire a half dozen times before they corner it in its lair - the one declared smite could be valid for that whole time.
Well, we don't know for sure, but I personally think that if the Paladin activates his Smite Evil ability on another creature, the effect on the first vanishes - after all, it seems that the new Smite Evil (or 'Lock-On Target', as I personally have started to call it) is akin to a spiritual link to the foe - a challenge of wills, if you want - , and usually such kind of challenges are one-on-one (except for Aura of Justice...)
Something like 'It's time for you and me, you one-eyed freak !!!' (quote from Duke Nukem 3D)
In this case, it wouldn't matter if the first foe was effectively vanquished/defeated/never to be seen again, as long as the Paladin 'switches target' activating another S.E. daily use (and losing the previous one).
Of course, just one month left to know the real deal...
I think you guys misunderstood me here...
Im not suggesting that the rule be interpreted that way or even suggesting that it should be that way.
I just thought it was an intersting side not to think about "what if" it did work that way.
*shrug*
In this case, it wouldn't matter if the first foe was effectively vanquished/defeated/never to be seen again, as long as the Paladin 'switches target' activating another S.E. daily use (and losing the previous one).
I dont think this is right...
Why shouldnt the paladin be able to have his smite up against two targets at once? I mean the eb and flow of battle could put him out of range of his first target though he may still be in the same combat. Then he could decide that he needs to smite someone else before going back to his original smite target.