Smite Evil IS EVIL!


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Frostflame wrote:
Remember wisdom is one of the key ability scores of a paladin.

No it isn't, in Pathfinder wisdom can be a paladin dump stat. In fact of all the other abilities, Wisdom is actually the best stat for him to dump because his good will save can make up for a low wisdom.


It's a horrendously unbalanced ability - If the paladin can use it then he'll own the fight easily, if he can't then he loses his biggest source of power. Theres far too much of a power gap between "using it" and "not using it". A ranger might have favoured enemies, but even if not fighting them, he's still a full bab, 6 skill point, spell casting class with free combat feats.

A paladin not fighting an evil foe takes too much of a hit, and that hit is bigger now since the paladin's main power boost relies on smiting.

Well fighting evil is the main focus of the paladin that is why he gets this power. Granted against a wild hungry beast he does not have his powers but He is still a fully armored full BAB High hit point and combat feat orientated warrior, he can hold his own.

The paladin shines most brightly when fighting the foulest and blackest of evils. He is the guy who single handedly if need be will enter hell itself to rescue an innocent. His code would require no less of him. Even with his smite ability fighting fiends and dragons is not an easy task. Remember they are extremely intelligent and do not hesitate to use every dirty trick in the book. They will not if they can help it fight a fair fight.


Frostflame wrote:
They will not if they can help it fight a fair fight.

Well, who does? People with a death wish! :P


I think smite will turn out to be 'just right'.

Many (most?) (all?) of the evil extraplanar/undead monsters many feel will be 'liquified' by paladins under the pathfinder rules have a host of other abilities and minions to keep them safe. Paladins still have movement hurdles to overcome (and those with fancy mounts can't use bonded weapon abilities - even after 'Trigger' bites it).

So, it's a big IF whether or not Peter Paladin is going to make it next to Larry Lich long enough to punch his card. Likely, it will still require all the elements that make RPG's fun for a party to put the Paladin into this position.

A raging barbarian with the right weapon, or an undead killing ranger with a...well maybe not (I was going to go with 'good sling' and I suppose that is possible - are there a lot of people going with 'sling builds' these days?)....anyway lots of other character classes are very dangerous and will (must) kill mean creatures in one or two rounds. And most good Adventure Paths / Modules will give a party a heads-up about what is coming up. For example, I'm currently playing a paladin in Age of Worms, and I doubt we'll be facing unrelenting waves of demons as we finish the campaign!


I appreciate that some folks may want to scream about how right they are--fair enough. But declaring the entire thread "stupid" and launching into vitriolic assertions about the posters and their opinions isn't tolerated. I've cleaned out all of the posts related to the post in question. Avoid allowing the discussion to go this way again.

Dark Archive

Kharis2000 wrote:

Having looked at this and talked it over with my gaming group, the following observations came to all of us:

2) Number of Smite-Affecting Attacks/Round: Although not explicitly stated, we all agreed that the designer's intent was obviously to have smite only function in conjunction with a single attack within a single round, either as part of a full attack sequence (we assume the first hit) or as an attack of opportunity (but not both). The amount of damage dealt otherwise is so unbalancing that it is inconceivable to have been the designer's plan.

I tend to like this idea and may house-rule it (until I see other interesting feedback). But still, it is far from being what's stated.... :D

Looks like the discussion is not over.


lastknightleft wrote:
Frostflame wrote:
Remember wisdom is one of the key ability scores of a paladin.
No it isn't, in Pathfinder wisdom can be a paladin dump stat. In fact of all the other abilities, Wisdom is actually the best stat for him to dump because his good will save can make up for a low wisdom.

Yeah your right my bad, I noticed that spells are based now on Charisma then on wisdom.


A question:
in speaking with a DM friend of mine, he says me that if you decide to smite an evil creature and you failed your attack, you don't loose your daily smiete Evil. Is it right or not ? Because the Channel smite says that the channeling is lost if you fail your attack, so?


Under Pathfinder rules, Smite doesn't work that way.

The way it works is this:

1. You pick a target. This counts as one "use" of the Smite ability.
2. Every attack you make against that target gains the benefits of Smite.


Jabor wrote:

Under Pathfinder rules, Smite doesn't work that way.

The way it works is this:

1. You pick a target. This counts as one "use" of the Smite ability.
2. Every attack you make against that target gains the benefits of Smite.

OK, that's really very powerful now (without thinking about the bypass damage reduction, AC gain and so on.

Thanks a lot!!!!


Hello fellows,

First I’d like to say, that I love paladins, almost as much as I love wizards and that I have far more experience as a DM than as a player. I do not want to sound rude or impertinent, but truth is, I’ve been waiting since Smite Evil was “revised” in the Core, to be re-modified once more. It is out of discussion how overpowered this ability is. It gives so many bonuses to many so different things that is loses the very gist of the Paladin’s most emblematic power.

Let us be sincere, extra bonuses to every attack and damage roll in every attack until the foe is dead?? Double damage to outsiders/undeads? Bypass all DRs? and to be even more ludicrous… AC bonus equal to charisma?? I wonder if Pathfinder's design team is being held hostage by paladins as we speak... haha Just joking...

Paladins have more than enough uses per day of his smite, this new smite would mean the obliteration of every demon or undead crossing his path.

Imagine a 12th level Paladin:
Str16 and Cha20 +1 holy longsword (Divine bond) against some fiend, his attacks would be +21/+16/+11 dealing 1d8+28 +2d6 (round after round). Bypassing any DR it might have such as… Cold iron for example. Not to include a two handed use of Power Attack in this formula.

I thought he already had the ability to bypass DR as good (Aura of Faith), why making it even stronger?
What’s the need of making him such a FAST fiend/undead slayer? Compare him to the other classes, barbarians for instance, I mean, he surely is the one chosen to be the strongest against that sort of foes, but… don’t you think this is way too much? What’s also the need for AC bonus in the SMITE evil ability? It was supposed, as I believe, to be an offensive attack. Here it loses its essence, that of the charging paladin with his mighty sword engulfed in white flames! This ability is like a State of Supreme Good.

I am all into making changes for good, really, but this ability didn’t need so big a change.
One more thing… Charisma-based spellcasting?? What happened with the wisdom-based Divine magic, I think this was ONLY to make it easier for the paladin to distribute his stats. That’s a silly, unflavored reason if you ask me.

Now a 20th level Paladin:
Str18 and Cha26. +5 Holy Keen Greatsword. Feats Weapon Focus and Power Attack, just to make it simple it was roughly built, this way it makes itself even more evident. Against a Demon and taking Power Attack -6. +31/+26/+21/+17 4d6+69..., no DR...more than 300hp PER ROUND! and hoping he doesn't deal any critical hit. And we all agree this can be done much deadlier
NO DEMON WOULD LAST MORE THAN ONE ROUND…, A DEMON PRINCE MAYBE 2 ROUNDS. And just in case, you have more AC, just by trying to kill your foe.

All this without falling into absurd builds involving dual kukri fighters in fullplate armors. No ill intentions meant.


The new smite is great. Old smites weren't worth the trouble of tracking. Given the limitations on its use, it's not more powerful than any of the other powered-up classes now.

And that's good - pallys were always underpowered in 3.5.


In my games we use a different kind of smite evil (one of the kinds that were proposed during the playtest), but I can fondly call the new Aura of Justice by it's nickname: "Holy War"


smell of orange blossoms in the wrote:

Paladins still have movement hurdles to overcome (and those with fancy mounts can't use bonded weapon abilities - even after 'Trigger' bites it).

I see people bringing up mobility issues a lot, but in my experience, mobility is never an issue past level 8 or so. If an enemy is flying, it either won't be for long (due to spells like dispel magic and wingbind), or the melee bashers will be in the air within a round (if they aren't at the beginning of a fight). Past level 12 in my RotRL game, everyone was flying, all the time, due to overland flight and extend rods, with normal fly thrown in when they actually thought combat might be coming for improved mobility.

Most combat areas presented in the adventure paths I've seen aren't big enough for a villain to stay out of reach for more than maybe a round, and unless he vastly outclasses the group in raw hit dice (such as Mokmurian)getting backed into a corner is a death sentence. Not that the simple fact that he's not a PC isn't a death sentence already :P. I like that paladins can actually smite evil now, but I do feel it went overboard. No, the paladin can't smite every enemy, but he's not *supposed* to. At most, he should be smiting the 'leader' in any given encounter, whether it's the ogre leading the horde of hobgoblins or the lich standing behind the half-dozen zombie gray renders; if he blows smite evil on a hobgoblin or a zombie or the hezrou minions of the balor, he's throwing out some massive overkill.

As it stands, smite evil brings up a classic problem with overpowered players I've seen in a lot of games; you have to crank up the power of a villain to compensate for a particular hero, to keep that hero from making everyone else feel like sidekicks because the initiative is basically a countdown to his turn, or the mop-up afterward. Unless you just arbitrarily give the lich a ton of bonus hp, the extra oomph you have to give him to make him survive longer than a round against a group that includes a paladin means that you're playing what I've heard others cleverly refer to as rocket tag; if the group wins initiative, the lich dies like a little girl in a sundress (assuming the party is smart, realizes the paladin is their golden boy, and works to facilitate him with spells like tactical teleportation or benign transposition), or if the lich wins, at least one person dies/is petrified/is dragged screaming through a rift in time to horrific neverwheres on the first round. Neither outcome is much fun for anyone but the paladin, and even then his fun will be tempered by pity for the rest of the party unless he's a special kind of selfish. :P

And all this, without even touching the group smite, charge builds (or just the rhino rush spell), or the abovementioned dual-wielding kukri monstrosity. While I agree that the paladin should definitely shine when fighting evil, I think just the bonus damage (without doubling against certain types) and deflection would be all he needs to do that (the bonus damage effectively negates most DR anyway). He should give the group an edge, not be their 'I win' button.

EDIT: fixed the bad poker analogy I'd made at the end there :P


At last! Someone speaks coherently! (Save for the part in which everybody flies, hehe) The problem is not only whether the Paladin is balanced in comparison to the other classes, but whether it is balanced at the moment of the confrontation against his foes. If you have to dramatically boost every monster's Hp so they have the opportunity to last more than one round, then I bet there is something wrong with the rule. I mean, if you wish to play that sort of hack and slash involving astronomical figures in damages and hit points, that's just fine. Yet, Core rules, I tend to think, are supposed to be like "base guide lines", if you like to add mayhem and power to them, great for you! really, but they shouldn't be like that from the very beginning.

Fighters, it seems to be, that they all have to wear full plate armors... are also incredibly powerful at high levels, but at least they distribute their power amongst many abilities, not only one. And as far as I see, Barbarians do less damage than both, Paladins and Fighters.

I'd like [and it's just me] Smite Evil to be only One Hit or one full attack at the most, not some kind of “Divine Rage”, and it should be only offensive, as its name suggests. AC bonus could be part of some improvement to his Divine Grace , but not part of his Smite. And Aura of Justice ability is more than enough regarding DR bypassing.


At only one hit, it's not worth keeping track of. Especially if you keep the "if you miss you still lose the use" clause. I can count on one finger the number of times I've actually seen a one-shot paladin smite actually be useful. And it was a freak circumstance, at that: the paladin was charging a half-demon ogre on horseback with a lance and with full Power Attack and crit with a blessed weapon (auto-confirm against evil), and wouldn't have killed the thing without the smite damage bonus. That's the only time I've ever seen 3.5 smite actually really do anything, and what you're proposing is essentially a wholescale reversion to 3.5 smite.


I'd just like to keep the idea, maybe it can be a full-attack. But "lasts 'till the foe is dead" makes no sense, and DR bypassing benefit is given in Aura of Justice, it is not necessary to be able to bypass every DR with holy power. And as I said, the deflection bonus could have been given as a Divine Grace improvement, which one of his most important defesive ability.

Of course I liked it as it was before (and I play and use in my campaings Paladins all the time, smite mostly used against bosses, not against every poor demon), but this is too much for just one ability. I've no problems with changes, always flavour and some "sort" of common sense is involved and .

Sorry, but I've to insist on the following, what should we GMs do with NPCs and Monsters Hit points? Do you realize that standard rules make these (Monsters) unable to withstand more that one or two rounds "regular" PC's? Are "Bosses" hp supposed to be increased three, four or five times as in 4e? -maybe a missed that part-


Ive read a lot here about this ability breaking the game, being unfair or stepping on toes. I was part of the other huge thread that broke down the paladin and I can say that if you take away or weaken what paladins do agains evil then everything else steps on his toes (which no one seems to be worried about).

I am sure my games are a bit different than most but we have plenty of combats that last for 20+ rounds. My DM maxes mobs HP and always throws high AC's at us.

But even if that were not the case, it would not change my feelings.

What makes combats dramatic are the other events that happen. Like when 2 characters from our group threw grappling hooks over the back of a Roc and it flew away. One guy fell but the other tied the ropes around his waist and killed it.. it fell to the ground nearly killing him but that was epic!

To see the paladin walk up to something that was supposed to be this ultimate evil and watch him work it over would be epic to me. The BBEG is talking all his smack and thinking that these lowly adventurers are goig to cower before him... Then he gets a taste of Holy Wrath and has to run or die.

It is nice to see the bad guys have something to fear for a change. Im tired of them having all the confidence because they are "evil" time to have some confidence in the good guys!

If smite makes BBEG's fear the paladin fine! If it shortens combats, FINE! The paladin is finally the guy that kicks evils ass! The ranger can be the guy against whatever he wants and hte fighter is that guy all the time. Dont piss the barbarian off because then he is the guy!

But if you are evil then you better think of something other than a straight forward attack against a paladin. If this means DM's have to put a bit more thought into their encounters then BOOHOO! So what you cant send your Lich or Evil cleric at us and just laugh now.

Ill say it again, let the paladin have a place to stand where he is the go to guy. Everyone else has their place, the paladin's is against evil!

Part of the reason it feels so broken is because it was such shit before!


Look, I think what you said is just fantastic, really, but it's a player's point of view. And those cannot be trusted with rule desing, because players TEND to think just in improving their characters, caring nothing for the story and [b]its sense[b], and it should ALL be taken into account. You can always talk to your GM into doing something involving high numbers, but I don't consider numbers having anything to do with the word "epic".

Example of non-sense: Boosting your Terrifying Necromacer HPs to 600. So he can live long enough to cast 2 spells. (forget the undead minions for a second, just an example).

Anyway... I will probably improve Smite Evil in my game, but certainly not this way.

EDIT: Short combats, in most cases, tend to be far from anything "epic".


Frostflame wrote:
Im glad the power got boosted up, because now a paladin can stand head to toe with a dragon hypothetically speaking.

Wait, now the paladin is bowing before the dragon?

EDIT: I hope that's only hypothetical.


Compaired to what any class with high lvl spells can do the new Smite is very balanced.

Anything BUT an evil caster will tear a paladin to pieces. And even an Evil caster will probably have a good shot at it with what he can do to the paladin through spells.

Lets not even mention what he can do directly to the paladin via spells.

Lets just talk about what a caster can do to make himself impervious to the paladin AND his smite.

He can fly, go invisible, mirror image... Any number of these things make them nearly immune to the paladin. And the paladin can do nothing about it even with his great saves.

So yea, if your BBEG stands there and lets the paladin beat on him yea he is gonna go down fast. But is that really gonna happen?

And if so, then when the Chaotic Neutral creatures start coming after the group the paladin gets to stand back and cheer his friends on who are still getting their bonuses.

Sovereign Court

Core Rules wrote:
Aura of Justice (Su): At 11th level, a paladin can expend two uses of her smite evil ability to grant the ability to smite evil to all allies within 10 feet, using her bonuses. Allies must use this smite evil ability by the start of the paladin's next turn and the bonuses last for 1 minute. Using this ability is a free action. Evil creatures gain no benefit from this ability.

BBEG party time with the paladin DJ!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Thus far in one of my games I've found that Smite Evil was perfectly fine. I run the game, and my party went into a nasty encounter with a cleric of Shar that was three levels higher than the party, and her 4 minions. If it hadn't been for Smite Evil it would have been a TPK, and if I had done something slightly differently then it would have taken out no less than three of the four characters, when they were fairly well optimized. And with the paladin on her own against the cleric? It would have been really, really tough. But I love the ability, and will see if it gets too powerful later. I doubt it though.


Aashdallar wrote:
Of course I liked it as it was before (and I play and use in my campaings Paladins all the time, smite mostly used against bosses, not against every poor demon)

Why shouldn't paladins smite those "poor demons"? Demons are, by definition (Outsider [chaotic, evil]), a paladin's archnemesis. They SHOULD fear a paladin. If the paladin is forced to fight his archnemeses without benefit of his smite because he has to save it just in case there's a BBEG around the corner, what's the point in playing a paladin? It's like playing a fighter that can't use his primary weapon except against "bosses". What's the point?

Smite is the paladin's class-defining ability. It should be used frequently, not hoarded against an eventuality.


Don't forget the horrendous ability to transfer the smite power to everyone at high levels.
Now when it comes to the final fight ALL my party is smiting the bad guys.


It looks like most of you guys haven't played agains very good combat oriented DM.

I think the ability is powerfull, but not unbalanced, when all the party member get together for a smite I garanty that an horrible area spell would happen, and if u think about it, we haven't even SEEN the bestiary yet, I am sure those evil guys are nicelly boosted too.

Besides, the paladin is a beacon, I guarantee that an evil group would just jump him first to get it over with, they wouldn't spread out.

What I think is funny is that no one ever cared about the fact that the arcane spell caster was always so much more powerfull than the other classes, and now that the paladin can actually destroy evil, not inconvenience them, everyone is mad, I think it's ironic, really.


Xum wrote:
It looks like most of you guys haven't played agains very good combat oriented DM.

Sorry, but that very same argument could be said for every single issue that ever cropped up in 3.5. Whenever someone complains "caster's are overpowering", theres nothing to stop others saying "That's just your game" or "The DM must not run things well".

That's not always the case. The fact that multiple people are claiming such problems should be an indicater that there are problems with the system.

Xum wrote:
What I think is funny is that no one ever cared about the fact that the arcane spell caster was always so much more powerfull than the other classes, and now that the paladin can actually destroy evil, not inconvenience them, everyone is mad, I think it's ironic, really.

Again, very poor reasoning "Somthing else is broken" is very poor justification for adding in an overpowering ability. Yes, caster's can break the laws of physics in quite a few gamebreaking ways at high levels. Does that therfore mean we should make every attack a fighter deals hand out some Save or Death effect? No? How about shooting save-or-suck lasers of somkind. Never mind that such abilities would drasticly alter the feel of the class or turn the class into some weird "Kill or do nothing in combat" class.


I opened the book got told by my DM to look at smite evil and rejoiced so much ever since dnd removed the holy avenger shooting good beams i've wanted something epic. and here we have it.


I thought it was overpowered at first, and it is strong, but it is not as good as it looks on paper unless you just go toe to toe with the paladin.

I ran a 10th/11th level party against Illthane in AoW. The dragon only lose to due to DM niceness. The pally hits hard, but when a dragon has six attacks, and can still hit while power attacking the paladin will be using his action to lay on hands.

The pally also got beat down by an ice devil in melee, but only after decimating him with cone of cold first. Had I entered into melee first it would have been a short fight.


Xum wrote:


....Besides, the paladin is a beacon, I guarantee that an evil group would just jump him first to get it over with, they wouldn't spread out.

Actually I had the ice devil target the paladin first, the same way I would have had him target a spellcaster first if he had done something annoying(threatening.


Another funny thing, everyone that playtested it said it's not overpowered, funny eh?


Xum wrote:
Another funny thing, everyone that playtested it said it's not overpowered, funny eh?

To add to this point:

As long as the DM does not fight the paladin's fight(melee)what can smite really do? I would not deny the paladin melee all the time because the player won't have fun, but going toe to toe is just suicide most of the time. Mix it up a little and the paladin should not be owning your games.


Xum wrote:
Another funny thing, everyone that playtested it said it's not overpowered, funny eh?

I've played a character able to add twice hsi level spontainius to his damage rolls for one round, he was considered the most overpowering character I ever made. He was made using a combination of psionic feats and 3.5 power attack, which allowed him to hit despite power attacking for full.

Compared to a paladin, the character has less armour (certain abilities restricted him to lighter armour), was MAD (Multiple attritute dependent) due to these feats as well, which caused him to have both a low dexterity and low constitution.

He did, however, have a holy weapon and this double level to damage ability. Naturally, the holy worked on just about everything (so a paladin in the same shoes could have done the same thing) and this double level to damage ability allowed him to one-shot quite a few monsters. Naturally, because of his glaring weaknesses, ones he didn't one-shot instantly decked him. A paladin in the same situation, without even trying, could do his job far better, and this character had to spend every feat he had up until 13th level in order to be able to do this, with glaring weaknesses attached.

And that character was still considered the most overpowering martial character wer've seen.

Gaining a huge damage bonus round after round, with large boosts to both AC and attack, are overpowering for our group, we have seen it IG.


wraithstrike wrote:
Xum wrote:
Another funny thing, everyone that playtested it said it's not overpowered, funny eh?

To add to this point:

As long as the DM does not fight the paladin's fight(melee)what can smite really do? I would not deny the paladin melee all the time because the player won't have fun, but going toe to toe is just suicide most of the time. Mix it up a little and the paladin should not be owning your games.

Worth noting is that Smite Evil no longer has the melee-only clause. You can Smite with a composite longbow just as easily as with a longsword, now. Paladin archers are actually pretty brutal against evil foes. The one downside archer builds have is that the list of weapon special abilities for Divine Bond has very few decent options for ranged weapons (brilliant energy, defending, disrupting, and keen aren't applicable, leaving axiomatic, flaming/burst, holy, merciful, and speed).


By the way, I just had an idea for a decent balancing factor that doesn't remove any of Smite Evil's buffs. I actually borrowed a bit from 4th Edition, but I maintain that there are good ideas to be found everywhere...

Add a clause to Smite Evil that states roughly, "However, by declaring a foe the target of his Smite, the Paladin is making a vow before his deity. If at any point the Paladin turns aside from his assault on the Smite target -- that is, if he has the opportunity to attack the target or to move into attack range of the target, and chooses not to do so -- he no longer gains the benefit of Smite Evil on that target until he spends another swift action and another daily use of Smite Evil to re-affirm his vow."

In other words, once a Paladin declares a Smite target, he has to either continually attack that target or lose the Smite. If he takes a round to heal, buff, guard a doorway, whatever, he's lost the daily use. This adds to gameplay because it presents the paladin's player with an interesting tactical choice: Smite Evil makes him a damage-dealing juggernaut against that foe, but smart opponents will use that against him to draw him away from his companions or to lead him into their minions, who he can't attack while maintain his power. The player has the choice to be the bold cavalier, charging into melee against incredible odds, or the calculating tactician, forcing the enemy to withdraw temporarily to buy his companions time. Etc.

It doesn't decrease Smite Evil's power, but it does limit the ways Smite Evil can be used in an organic, player-driven fashion.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zurai wrote:

By the way, I just had an idea for a decent balancing factor that doesn't remove any of Smite Evil's buffs. I actually borrowed a bit from 4th Edition, but I maintain that there are good ideas to be found everywhere...

Add a clause to Smite Evil that states roughly, "However, by declaring a foe the target of his Smite, the Paladin is making a vow before his deity. If at any point the Paladin turns aside from his assault on the Smite target -- that is, if he has the opportunity to attack the target or to move into attack range of the target, and chooses not to do so -- he no longer gains the benefit of Smite Evil on that target until he spends another swift action and another daily use of Smite Evil to re-affirm his vow."

In other words, once a Paladin declares a Smite target, he has to either continually attack that target or lose the Smite. If he takes a round to heal, buff, guard a doorway, whatever, he's lost the daily use. This adds to gameplay because it presents the paladin's player with an interesting tactical choice: Smite Evil makes him a damage-dealing juggernaut against that foe, but smart opponents will use that against him to draw him away from his companions or to lead him into their minions, who he can't attack while maintain his power. The player has the choice to be the bold cavalier, charging into melee against incredible odds, or the calculating tactician, forcing the enemy to withdraw temporarily to buy his companions time. Etc.

It doesn't decrease Smite Evil's power, but it does limit the ways Smite Evil can be used in an organic, player-driven fashion.

Hmmm. That's a nice idea. I might use it. Wouldn't affect my party's paladin in the slightest as he's very much a cavalier combatant when smiting.

I'd allow them to swift Lay on Hands on themselves, but taking a standard or full round action that doesn't target their Smite foe would be out. That would mean they could still use things like Cleave, Whirlwind Attack or a full attack to hit other creatures, they just have to make their chosen opponent the main target. If their lower iterative attacks won't hit anyway, why waste them?


Paul Watson wrote:
I'd allow them to swift Lay on Hands on themselves, but taking a standard or full round action that doesn't target their Smite foe would be out. That would mean they could still use things like Cleave, Whirlwind Attack or a full attack to hit other creatures,...

That's the intent. As long as they're moving towards the Smite target (assuming it's out of attack range) or include the Smite target in their attacks (with a multi-target attack like Cleave or Whirlwind Attack, or with an AOE spell), they're good to go. If they choose to ignore their target for a round, that's when they need to re-engage their Smite.


Nero24200 wrote:
Xum wrote:
Another funny thing, everyone that playtested it said it's not overpowered, funny eh?

I've played a character able to add twice hsi level spontainius to his damage rolls for one round, he was considered the most overpowering character I ever made. He was made using a combination of psionic feats and 3.5 power attack, which allowed him to hit despite power attacking for full.

Compared to a paladin, the character has less armour (certain abilities restricted him to lighter armour), was MAD (Multiple attritute dependent) due to these feats as well, which caused him to have both a low dexterity and low constitution.

He did, however, have a holy weapon and this double level to damage ability. Naturally, the holy worked on just about everything (so a paladin in the same shoes could have done the same thing) and this double level to damage ability allowed him to one-shot quite a few monsters. Naturally, because of his glaring weaknesses, ones he didn't one-shot instantly decked him. A paladin in the same situation, without even trying, could do his job far better, and this character had to spend every feat he had up until 13th level in order to be able to do this, with glaring weaknesses attached.

And that character was still considered the most overpowering martial character wer've seen.

Gaining a huge damage bonus round after round, with large boosts to both AC and attack, are overpowering for our group, we have seen it IG.

Were these glaring weaknesses anything like a LG allignment restriction and a code so rigid that if you step slightly out of bounds you could have lost all 13 of your feats?


Vult Wrathblades wrote:


Were these glaring weaknesses anything like a LG allignment restriction and a code so rigid that if you step slightly out of bounds you could have lost all 13 of your feats?

The code is an tool for RPing and a means of making sure the LG warriors stay LG, it should not be used as a means of balancing a class. For one thing, everyones interpretation of alignment is different, so unless if it was so then already the class will be horrendously unblanced for some, and just unplayable for others.

For the record, I wasn't trying to use my example to prove indefinately that the class is unblanced, I'm just really getting annoyed with these "just play-test it" responses that seem to be so popular here, even if the element in question has been playtested. People here seem to forget that folk in the Beta stage were complaining that the ability was too good in certain situations (specifically two-weapon fighting). Not only has nothing be done to address this, the smite has been made more powerful since.

And I suppose what's more frustrating is that people here are happy to say "Play test it first" when aruging in favour of PFRPG, but when people being saying things like "This change is so great!" or "Paizo made me want to play this class for the first time in X years" without playing it first (or in some cases, before the Pathfinder version even came out) no one is allowed to say anything negative and the only "Just play-test it" answers in such threads are directed to those complaining, even though at the time, their complaints are as perfectly valid as those complimenting.

Dark Archive

Nero24200 wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:


Were these glaring weaknesses anything like a LG allignment restriction and a code so rigid that if you step slightly out of bounds you could have lost all 13 of your feats?

The code is an tool for RPing and a means of making sure the LG warriors stay LG, it should not be used as a means of balancing a class. For one thing, everyones interpretation of alignment is different, so unless if it was so then already the class will be horrendously unblanced for some, and just unplayable for others.

For the record, I wasn't trying to use my example to prove indefinately that the class is unblanced, I'm just really getting annoyed with these "just play-test it" responses that seem to be so popular here, even if the element in question has been playtested. People here seem to forget that folk in the Beta stage were complaining that the ability was too good in certain situations (specifically two-weapon fighting). Not only has nothing be done to address this, the smite has been made more powerful since.

And I suppose what's more frustrating is that people here are happy to say "Play test it first" when aruging in favour of PFRPG, but when people being saying things like "This change is so great!" or "Paizo made me want to play this class for the first time in X years" without playing it first (or in some cases, before the Pathfinder version even came out) no one is allowed to say anything negative and the only "Just play-test it" answers in such threads are directed to those complaining, even though at the time, their complaints are as perfectly valid as those complimenting.

Here's my thing, that little flavor nod, is specifically in there because GM's are to make note of it.

If you say its not meant to be taken into account, you are allowing paladins to basically murder kids, because you feel that is a flavor nod not meant to be something the paladin is held to.

And really it could be as simple as "You have been in this prison for weeks, there is another person you know to be innocent in the cell next door. You broke out and have an opportunity to free them as well, but doing so may hamper your efforts. What do you do?"

Now note, that is a may hamper, for all you knwo the guy is a genius at picking locks and could help you breeze through getting out of this place with your gear. For all you know, he could be excess baggage because if you free him, you might feel obligated to protect him. The obvious good thing to do is to free that person, now does that mean if he doesn't free them he is evil or wrong?

No, but it does create a case for later when the character does other judgment calls. The more judgment calls you give him, and he botches the less likely the other players will get upset when you strip his powers because the character's morale code was not adhered to.

And if you hate the PALADIN's code, the Knight's code was far stricter, and had mechanical penalties that went with it!


Dissinger wrote:


Here's my thing, that little flavor nod, is specifically in there because GM's are to make note of it.

If you say its not meant to be taken into account, you are allowing paladins to basically murder kids, because you feel that is a flavor nod not meant to be something the paladin is held to.

And really it could be as simple as "You have...

So what exactly to you plan to do to use this to balance the game? If the paladin starts owning everything in sight are you just going to say "You lose all your class features?". If a paladin falls, it should be because they deserve to fall, not simply because of OOC balance.

To say otherwise means your encourgaing people to make their PC's paladin's fall simply being too good at what they do or because they might be gamebreaking otherwise, somthing which wasn't exactly an issue pre-PFRPG and somthing that never needed to be an issue if they didn't balance the class under such assumptions (which I don't think they'd do anyway, especially considing that one of the most debated parts of the paladin's code was altered in PFRPG).

The druid also has a code of conduct as well, does that mean the druid falling is also an aspect of game balance? Even though the druid code is a relativly easy one to maintain.

What about clerics? By RAW, they have no code of conduct, even though in terms of fluff a typical cleric should be as restricted (if not moresoe) than a paladin, since a cleric's job isn't to preach a whole alignment sector, but instead a single deity.

Pre-Pathfinder, bards were supposed to be chaotic, was their inability to be lawful also a balancing factor? Are my barbarians suddenly too powerful if they are lawful?

At the end of the day, theres nothing to stop a particularly devout fighter from also having such a code of conduct, yet the fighter won't lose class features or gain benifits by having such a code. If it's really such a mechanical drawback, then I want every LG character to gain perks via being lawful good.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I've got an odd idea. I'm not sure if it's really good, or really bad.

Remove the daily uses mechanic entirely. Make Smite Evil an immediate action which enhances your next successful attack made within one round, which bestows all the same benefits (doubling and DR included) with one exception: change the paladin's AC bonus to a Sacred penalty on the target's attacks for one round, and the target must make Concentration checks for any spells cast within one round as if the Smite were ongoing damage. (If the smite is used with a readied action to interrupt, only the higher Concentration check for immediate damage is required.)

Now it doesn't favor maximum attacks per round; while the damage increase is still significant, it doesn't patently outshine a ranger; there's a slight opportunity cost (swift action) but no "save it for the zombie" effect; and the entire party benefits from the protective effect, which makes up for the lost damage.


Lets be realistic: anyone who cannot see that Smite Evil is now overpowered is at least slightly crazy :P just like people who prefer 4e instead of Pathfinder :P.

The level 20 Palladin from our group defeated a Pit Fiend on his own in one round. The wizard only teleported the Pally next to the Fiend. Obviously this is not so strange, my Enchanter 20 defeated a Pit Fiend on his own as well (this was some time ago already in another campaign - we don't fight Pit Fiend's every day), but my enchanter is much more vulnerable to attacks while the Palladin is pretty much untouchable, except for area damage spells, and even than he can heal a trillion d6 of hitpoints.

I like the better Paladin as well, but lets just all admit they have overdone it at least a little and focus this discussion towards a reasonable house rule.

We have house ruled the Smite now: no bypassing DR and no double damage. The Smite still owns, but at least the poor Pit Fiend lives.

The Invisible Man

Dark Archive

Nero24200 wrote:
Xum wrote:
Another funny thing, everyone that playtested it said it's not overpowered, funny eh?

I've played a character able to add twice hsi level spontainius to his damage rolls for one round, he was considered the most overpowering character I ever made. He was made using a combination of psionic feats and 3.5 power attack, which allowed him to hit despite power attacking for full.

And that character was still considered the most overpowering martial character wer've seen.

Gaining a huge damage bonus round after round, with large boosts to both AC and attack, are overpowering for our group, we have seen it IG.

I want to pipe up now and say I was the DM for this group and I would like to say I withdraw the complaint of it being overpowered due to some facts I recently learned the facts being that 1 you can only use one psionic feat at a time (player was using multiple if memory serves) and 2 most can only be used on one attack (player was using them on full attacks again if memory serves.)


Kevin Mack wrote:


I want to pipe up now and say I was the DM for this group and I would like to say I withdraw the complaint of it being overpowered due to some facts I recently learned the facts being that 1 you can only use one psionic feat at a time (player was using multiple if memory serves) and 2 most can only be used on one attack (player was using them on full attacks again if memory serves.)

Only when expending psionic focus, certain feats (like Up the Walls, the one letting him run up walls) works simply by being in psionic focus, and remains in effect until it's expended.

Also, as said earlier, I'm not trying to use this as some end-all example to say somthing like "The ability is overpowering, thats it" or anything. It was simply to show that even if people have used the class IG, theres nothing to stop them having seen abilities just like it before. This is because the "Just play-test it first" arugment seems to be grating on me quite a bit, mostly because in some cases the argued features have been play-tested and I notice no one seems to use the arugment the other way when complimenting the changes.

Sovereign Court

The Invisible Man wrote:

Lets be realistic: anyone who cannot see that Smite Evil is now overpowered is at least slightly crazy :P just like people who prefer 4e instead of Pathfinder :P.

Guess I'm slightly crazy

I agree with the no double damage, not for power reasons though, just because I hate the idea that Paladins are now rangers spec'd against demons/undead/dragons.

But I don't think taking away the DR reduction is a good idea...

Also the problem with houseruling it now is that the final bestiary isn't out, we have no idea how they've altered monsters to account for the new abilities. And I doubt people will get rid of their houserule after they've allready made it. If you're houseruling it now because they are owning 3.5 monsters that doesn't mean it will hold true with the pathfinder version.

Dark Archive

Wait for new Bestiary is OK. but so much for the backward compatibility we have been hearing for such a long time ...
So far, my Pathfinderized players have absolutely nuked Nualia who had 3 Yeth Hounds with her....
Does that mean I have to recalculate every single encounter made for 3.5 ?
So much for backward compatibility.

But then ... that's another story.....

51 to 100 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Smite Evil IS EVIL! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.