So I'm running a group with not one, but two paladins who can Smite Evil. I'm finding it to be a bit overpowered, but unwilling to alter anything in the ability because I'm a purist gamer and I don't nerf just because my players are succeeding more often than not.
My question now becomes... as a DM, how do I beat Smite Evil?
I am mainly concerned with the ability to bypass *all* DR, as it defeats even such previously excellent methods of prolonging a challenging fight as Stoneskin and various DR/- situations. I don't want to resort to AC tampering just to avoid prematurely stunted combat encounters. Again, purist.
The party has earned the enmity of a BBEG who has the ability to monitor and study their actions, so I feel justified in coming up with a way to counter this particularly potent ability that they're exhibiting, but I'm at a loss as to how.
Any ideas or relevant experiences? Thanks!
|
Some relevant threads should have some answers.
Off the top of my head, misdirection and large numbers are the way to balance Smite. Getting them to waste their smites on illusions and non-Evil targets will make them think about when and where they use it. Throwing large numbers of enemies at them will force them to use up smites prematurely or slug it out while conserving their powers for larger threats. Highly mobile enemies are useful at drawing things out, but beware if they think to take up archery.
It's good to make sure it doesn't become the only tactic, but when they earn that BBEG-destroying full attack, don't begrudge them it. At the same time, the fact that the villian is watching and studying them means he has every reason to prepare countermeasures to save his skin from those meddlesome do-gooders.
Two words-neutral mercenaries.
One clarification - I'm looking to beat Smite Evil when used against legitimately evil enemies. Sorry I didn't mention that.
Displacement and similar effects are probably your best bet. Things that increase the chance that the Smite doesn't score home.
One clarification - I'm looking to beat Smite Evil when used against legitimately evil enemies. Sorry I didn't mention that.
That is like fighting a ranger with his favored enemy in his favored terrain or an arcane duel with a wizard. The paladin is in his element beating the life out of evil enemies. If you insist on evil enemies you will get smote X/day. Your solution as previously mentioned is more enemies, neutral enemies, and an occasional anti-magic field. Smite is supernatural so that should block it.
More enemies than smites should work. Instead of two high-level demons, have 20 low level ones.
Depending on your PCs level, show how evil the BBEG is by revealing his dominated celestials to fight them. ^_-
Are you aware that current errata also weakened smite? It's a very big difference to note that the double damage only works on the first successful attack of a smite and not as long as the enemy is still standing (or even the full round).
Where is this referenced? I just checked the most recent errata and didn't see that change.
damage resist good.
Smite ignores ALL DR.
Yeah, I haven't heard of this errata either, wasn't in my printout of what I thought was last errata.
More enemies is the best way, constructs are just irritating for PCs to fight, but hordes of minion play up the paladin trope, slogging through all the minions is tough to impossible, but confronting the BBEG 1on1? Brock Samson vs the taco bell chihuahua.
Where is this referenced? I just checked the most recent errata and didn't see that change.
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook - Second Printing - Update 2.0 - Release Date: 05/26/10
Page 60
In the Smite Evil paladin class feature, change the fourth sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows.
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses.
Download available from your My Downloads page.
I don't think the errata weakens smite at all.
There are some who read "If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses."
They interpret it to mean that since this talks of the first attack subsequent attacks must be different. I don't think there is any support for this. It clearly says of the smite effect...
The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability.
There is no talk of any attacks being different. The damage is increased in the first attack. The errata seems, to me, to be about clarity. They certainly don't say "this limits the paladin smite".
Has there been a designer comment on this?
Sigurd
|
|
I don't think the errata weakens smite at all.
There are some who read "If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses."
They interpret it to mean that since this talks of the first attack subsequent attacks must be different. I don't think there is any support for this. It clearly says of the smite effect...
The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability.
There is no talk of any attacks being different. The damage is increased in the first attack. The errata seems, to me, to be about clarity. They certainly don't say "this limits the paladin smite".
Has there been a designer comment on this?
Sigurd
The third printing incorporated all the previous errata. The new entry for the smite power (page 60) says,
"As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If the target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target is an evil outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses."The original version just stated that if the creature was one of the listed types, the damage increased to 2 points per level. Now, it only applies to the first hit. The rest are treated like a normal smite and get +1hp/level damage.
I really don't find that particularly clear. Without a note about subsequent attacks detailing the first attack (your emphasis) doesn't necessarily tell you the other attacks are any different.
If that is how your read it +2 per level vs +1 per level doesn't seem like that big a difference.
Is there a clarifying voice here from Paizo?
Sigurd
|
So I'm running a group with not one, but two paladins who can Smite Evil. I'm finding it to be a bit overpowered, but unwilling to alter anything in the ability because I'm a purist gamer and I don't nerf just because my players are succeeding more often than not.
My question now becomes... as a DM, how do I beat Smite Evil?
I am mainly concerned with the ability to bypass *all* DR, as it defeats even such previously excellent methods of prolonging a challenging fight as Stoneskin and various DR/- situations. I don't want to resort to AC tampering just to avoid prematurely stunted combat encounters. Again, purist.
The party has earned the enmity of a BBEG who has the ability to monitor and study their actions, so I feel justified in coming up with a way to counter this particularly potent ability that they're exhibiting, but I'm at a loss as to how.
Any ideas or relevant experiences? Thanks!
For starters? A little less GM vs. the Players mindset.
How about you NOT try to "beat it" and instead let the character shine? That's why he or she is playing a paladin, after all. Not to "mess up your game" but to have fun.
Yes, the Paladins hit hard. They do significant damage. They are **supposed to**. That's what they do and it is why they chose to play one. So instead of trying to "beat smite evil", perhaps you should just let them use it?
The players will succeed and -- provided you give the rest of the party members something to do too -- they will all hopefully have fun. That IS the point, isn't it?
If the ability seems to be letting them blow through your bad guys too much -- then up their hit points to maintain the challenge if you feel the board has slanted too far in the player's advantage.
This isn't rocket science. I can tell you that a paladin player will resent the HELL out of continuous neutrals/elementals/constructs thrown in his way. It will seem like a cheesey GM metagame counter to his shining ability that he gets for all the rest of the roleplaying CRAP he has to put with.
And it will seem that way to the Paladin players, because that is precisely what you are doing.
So don't resort to metagame cheese. If you want the players to have fun and respect your GM style -- make the Paladins work for their kills. Do the obvious thing: have the BBEG be mobile and RUN AWAY from the paladin. Let the BBEG show some fear and respect for their abilities. Any evil BBEG who knows there are a pair of paladins in the room who want his heart on a plate is not going to swagger over and do them the favor of cooperating in that mission. He's going to FLY, Levitate, potion of gaseous form, Use DIMENSION DOOR, etc. The BBEG's mission is cleaar: Stay the hell away from the Wonder Twins™.
Any BBEG stupid enough to enter melee with a Paladin, let alone a pair of them, DESERVES to get the ass-kicking he is about to get. And your players DESERVE to administer that ass-kicking too. Make them work for it -- using good party combat tactics to trap the BBEG to where he can no longer run and finally bring him or her to heel.
Then let them beat the BBEG into a bloody pulp and enjoy playing their paladin characters while playing in your game.
I really don't find that particularly clear. Without a note about subsequent attacks detailing the first attack (your emphasis) doesn't necessarily tell you the other attacks are any different.
If that is how your read it +2 per level vs +1 per level doesn't seem like that big a difference.
Is there a clarifying voice here from Paizo?
Sigurd
How is it not clear?
First, it states what all your attacks get: +1 damage/paladin level. All your attacks get this, it says so right there in the paragraph.
Then it says that on your first attack against the evil trinity you get +2 damage per level. Note that it only changes your first attack. Since this special entry says that only the first attack is changed, that means by default all the rest of your attacks get the bonus that was listed right before this special entry.
This is crystal clear. If you're stumbling over this one, then there are a thousand other rules in the book that are really gonna knock you for a loop...
For starters? A little less GM vs. the Players mindset.
How about you NOT try to "beat it" and instead let the character shine? That's why he or she is playing a paladin, after all. Not to "mess up your game" but to have fun.
So don't resort to metagame cheese.
Whoah, easy does it there.
I didn't get the impression that our OP was going nearly so far as you seem to think. He isn't out to resort to metagame cheese undermine the foundations of paladinhood.
Quotes like:
I don't nerf just because my players are succeeding more often than not.
excellent methods of prolonging a challenging fight
avoid prematurely stunted combat encounters.
These sound to me like statements from a fair and reasonable GM who simply wants to challenge his players. You agree, don't you Steel_Wind, that the game should be challenging, at least some of the time, right? Maybe even especually during encounters against the BBEG?
It seems to me to be more than fair, in fact, to be responsible GMing, to seek ways to keep the game challenging and fun. Doing so doesn't necessarily make the GM the scourge of all paladin-kind.
|
|
Whoah, easy does it there.I didn't get the impression that our OP was going nearly so far as you seem to think. He isn't out to resort to metagame cheese undermine the foundations of paladinhood.
No, he didn't. But the suggestions of merc neutrals and dire animals certainly was headed in that direction. Constructs and elementals are a hop skip and a jump away.
These are legitimate critters to be employed -- but only to a point. Then you'll just get the players frustrated.
It seems to me to be more than fair, in fact, to be responsible GMing, to seek ways to keep the game challenging and fun. Doing so doesn't necessarily make the GM the scourge of all paladin-kind.
I would agree -- to a point. But the ones which will make the paladin player feel as if something has not been built to defeat his ability -- is not the way to go.
Blur and move the BBEG around. Keep him out of melee range and let the rest of the party bring him down to earth. Then it's ass-kick time.
Upping the hit points is probably the best way to go. It allows the Paladin to hit and use his ability, while maintaining the length of combat if that's what you want to do.
Specific counters, however, that have the feel and object of defeating the ability will make the player feel frustrated and deliberately targeted by the GM. That's the emotional response you want to avoid.
Protection against Good
Magic Circle Against Good
there are a slew of spell which cause all sorts of grief for evil creatures, but basically of of those spells have equivalent spells to cause just as much trouble to good charcters.
And just to top it all off
Take the Paladin class
Change Lawful good to Lawful Evil
change every pwoer with the word good to evil and vice versa
and now you have the perfect enemy of the paladin who uses all the same mechanical abilities as the paladin.
Throw SMITE GOOD ! at them not to mention every other stacking power the paly's have been using.
In fact you can even make it a mirror match encounter , bascially copy the 2 paladins character sheets and just flip from good to evil and you have 2 baddass evil npc's which are going to be a hell of a fight.
How is it not clear?First, it states what all your attacks get: +1 damage/paladin level. All your attacks get this, it says so right there in the paragraph.
It is not clear that the damage necessarily drops after the first attack.
'Joe switches to a club and on his first successful attack he does bludgeoning damage.'
It is also true that on all subsequent attacks he does bludgeoning damage as well - he's still fighting with a club.
Sigurd
Use succubi against them. That's right, I pluralized that.
They can use vampiric touch at will for 6d6! That's a temporary hit point pool that just replenishes each round. Open things up with a dominated subject and go to town.
Just to reiterate what's been stated. Healing is good, like fast heal or regenerate, and temp hp is good too. Mirror Image really is your friend here as well as anything that generates a miss chance. Just have the leader types in any encounter be ready to deal with smiting. It's a facet of the world and if you're bad and you know it you'll take precautions.
Add enemy clerics to encounters. I just ran a lvl 5 game where the enemy mercenary group had a single 3rd level cleric w/ selective channelling. The fact that an intelligent party will attempt to deal with the cleric before the BBEG will add at least 1 or 2 rounds to the combat.
If the party decides to ignore the cleric. Then the BBEG will recieve plenty of healing in the meantime.
How is it not clear?First, it states what all your attacks get: +1 damage/paladin level. All your attacks get this, it says so right there in the paragraph.
It is not clear that the damage necessarily drops after the first attack.
'Joe switches to a club and on his first successful attack he does bludgeoning damage.'
It is also true that on all subsequent attacks he does bludgeoning damage as well - he's still fighting with a club.
Sigurd
Why would they reference the first attack if it is not different from the other attacks?
How about the fact that James (or was it Jason) posted this after saying he was changing the rules?
So the original rules were that you did double extra damage on the evil trinity. People were saying that playtesting is coming up with Smite Evil as too powerful.
In response, right in the thread that talked about it, the developers said they were changing this ability.
This was the change they made.
Beyond the fact that the text is perfectly clear, why would they change it so that it's exactly the same as before. No. That is absurd.
Really, do you need more clarification than that?
How is it not clear?First, it states what all your attacks get: +1 damage/paladin level. All your attacks get this, it says so right there in the paragraph.
It is not clear that the damage necessarily drops after the first attack.
'Joe switches to a club and on his first successful attack he does bludgeoning damage.'
It is also true that on all subsequent attacks he does bludgeoning damage as well - he's still fighting with a club.
Sigurd
This seems perfectly clear to me, maybe it is that you don't like the change so refuse to acknowledge a reasonable explanation ?
Stay the hell away from the wonder twins!
+1 I love it!
And another +1 for your entire statement, that is exactly how I feel.
My question now becomes... as a DM, how do I beat Smite Evil?
Hear, hear. RPGs aren't competitive games. There is no winner or loser. RPGs are cooperative and collaborative. It's not the DM's job to figure out how to "beat" the players my coming up with clever ways to negate the PCs' various abilities.
Paladins get to smite evil. Period. If the paladin's player didn't want to smite evil, he'd have probably run a different sort of character.
|
How is it not clear?First, it states what all your attacks get: +1 damage/paladin level. All your attacks get this, it says so right there in the paragraph.
It is not clear that the damage necessarily drops after the first attack.
'Joe switches to a club and on his first successful attack he does bludgeoning damage.'
It is also true that on all subsequent attacks he does bludgeoning damage as well - he's still fighting with a club.
Sigurd
Sigurd, I want to preface this with the fact that I actually like you and usually enjoy your posts on this board but that this is making me need to rant.
Because only an idiot would write it like that, an idiot intentionally trying to make people confused. Because any reasonable person would then ask "well what about the second attack."
"Joe switches to a club and now his attacks do bludgeoning damage" is what a person who isn't trying to confuse people writes. And please tell me what purpose changing the wording has if the intent is to not change the ability? the first printing wasn't unclear, misspelled, or confusing. Everyone knew exactly how it was intended to work so why on earth would they errata it so that it worked the exact same way, but now people aren't sure about it.
I think I agree with other posters that you are being intentionally obtuse because you don't like the change. Otherwise I'd have to assume that you really think that what you're saying makes any kind of sense.
|
|
I'd like to say that I find the change to smite annoying and not enough to make a difference to those who think it is too much. So I will just continue using my first printing copy of the rulebook without errata.
Either way, having double damage on one attack is unintuitive. It would have been better to just drop double damage from all attacks if they were going to change it.
A number of ways your evil foes can foil your smiters ...
1) Summon neutral creatures to fight for them (a neutral evil druid can summon neutral animals, after all).
2) instruct all evil lieutenants to run away when smiten - that way they stay alive and the paladins have wasted a smite attempt. Demons and devils are very good at this, as they can teleport at will.
3) Engage at range.
4) Use baleful polymorph and/or illusions to make a bunch of ordinary peasants appear as known evil monsters. If the paladins don't bother to detect evil first they can be in REAL trouble ...
5) Remember, they are EVIL foes - they will fight dirty at every opportunity.
|
The short and long is: Boss vs PCs battles sadly don't work in 3.5. They work in 4th, but only by making bosses "blatantly cheat". A boss backed by minions / lieutents is far more challenging than a boss on his own (even if you have to greatly weaken the boss); just economy of actions. Never mind smite; a solo boss will get crushed by enervate, dazzling displays, etc... and even with smite the Pally is only slightly outdoing a standard Figther / Druid.
|
|
How is it not clear?First, it states what all your attacks get: +1 damage/paladin level. All your attacks get this, it says so right there in the paragraph.
It is not clear that the damage necessarily drops after the first attack.
'Joe switches to a club and on his first successful attack he does bludgeoning damage.'
It is also true that on all subsequent attacks he does bludgeoning damage as well - he's still fighting with a club.
Sigurd
Your analogy is flawed. Let's say we have a weapon called a clubblade. The rules for Clubblade say that it does slashing damage. The rules further say that when used against a teddybear, that the first attack from a clubblade does bludgeoning damage. Implied is that each subsequent attack after the first does slashing damage, because that's what clubblades do.
Smite evil does +1 damage/level. When used against dragons, evil outsiders or undead smite evil does +2 damage/level on the first attack. Once again, implied is that it only does +1 dmg/level after the first hit, because that's what smite evil does.
|
|
How is it not clear?First, it states what all your attacks get: +1 damage/paladin level. All your attacks get this, it says so right there in the paragraph.
It is not clear that the damage necessarily drops after the first attack.
'Joe switches to a club and on his first successful attack he does bludgeoning damage.'
It is also true that on all subsequent attacks he does bludgeoning damage as well - he's still fighting with a club.
Sigurd
Your analogy is flawed. Let's say we have a weapon called a clubblade. The rules for Clubblade say that it does slashing damage. The rules further say that when used against a teddybear, that the first attack from a clubblade does bludgeoning damage. Implied is that each subsequent attack after the first does slashing damage, because that's what clubblades do.
Smite evil does +1 damage/level. When used against dragons, evil outsiders or undead smite evil does +2 damage/level on the first attack. Once again, implied is that it only does +1 dmg/level after the first hit, because that's what smite evil does.
Okay in fairness I will say this, Implication instead of outright saying it, can lead to problems. Because no matter what you imply, someone can infer something you never intended. I agree that the implication in this case is so obvious you have to be acting intentionally obtuse to miss it, but once again, we have someone inferring something way hard to believe.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I really don't find that particularly clear. Without a note about subsequent attacks detailing the first attack (your emphasis) doesn't necessarily tell you the other attacks are any different.
If that is how your read it +2 per level vs +1 per level doesn't seem like that big a difference.
Is there a clarifying voice here from Paizo?
Sigurd
If you want it second hand, I do a lot of work for Paizo and I've gotten it directly from the other Jason that it's 2x on first attack only and 1x after that. Believe it or don't.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'd like to say that I find the change to smite annoying and not enough to make a difference to those who think it is too much. So I will just continue using my first printing copy of the rulebook without errata.
Either way, having double damage on one attack is unintuitive. It would have been better to just drop double damage from all attacks if they were going to change it.
That's what I've done IMC - just make all smites 1x. With the extras you get from it (deflection to AC, beat all DR), it's plenty awesome enough and the paladin in my campaign only made a token pout over the change.
So I'm running a group with not one, but two paladins who can Smite Evil. I'm finding it to be a bit overpowered, but unwilling to alter anything in the ability because I'm a purist gamer and I don't nerf just because my players are succeeding more often than not.
My question now becomes... as a DM, how do I beat Smite Evil?
I am mainly concerned with the ability to bypass *all* DR, as it defeats even such previously excellent methods of prolonging a challenging fight as Stoneskin and various DR/- situations. I don't want to resort to AC tampering just to avoid prematurely stunted combat encounters. Again, purist.
The party has earned the enmity of a BBEG who has the ability to monitor and study their actions, so I feel justified in coming up with a way to counter this particularly potent ability that they're exhibiting, but I'm at a loss as to how.
Any ideas or relevant experiences? Thanks!
Have multiple enmies. Smite evil works against one opponent. If you have 2 paladins, make sure you have 4-6 enemies in every fight. They cant smite them all.
Make sure that all of these enemies are dangerous, equally dangerous if you can manage it. Then the paladins have to choose which ones to smite, and cant smite the whole encounter.
|
|
That's what I've done IMC - just make all smites 1x. With the extras you get from it (deflection to AC, beat all DR), it's plenty awesome enough and the paladin in my campaign only made a token pout over the change.
I can agree with that, although I have no issues with the original wording. I think the only questionable part was the Aura of Justice murderfest. And even then, it's burning two uses to murder one dude. I find that perfectly justifiable in some cases. *coughdragothacoughdemogorgoncough*
Implied is that each subsequent attack after the first does slashing damage, because that's what clubblades do.Okay in fairness I will say this, Implication instead of outright saying it, can lead to problems. Because no matter what you imply, someone can infer something you never intended. I agree that the implication in this case is so obvious you have to be acting intentionally obtuse to miss it, but once again, we have someone inferring something way hard to believe.
To extend the fairness even further, Talon was innacurate when he said it is implied. It's not implied at all. It's stated in black and white. Smite Evil gives you +1 damage/level vs. those creature types. It's right there in the same paragraph with the supposedly confusing text.
That's not an implication and it is outright saying it, so I'm still flummoxed as to why anyone is finding any confusion here.
|
|
The real problem with Aura of Justice is that you don't have to smite the same target. So, if you're in a party of 6, you get 6 uses of Smite Evil for the price of 2. Target different things, go attack different things...you'll murder them all.-Cross
Ah, I had never read that complaint in the other threads, it was all 'my BBEG got instagibbed!'
In any event, this only happens two encounters a day, three tops, so if you don't have more encounters than that I can see it being a problem.
Aside from some nice left handed compliments, thanks lastnightleft - enjoy your posts as well.
I will say, I'm happy to have a note about their intentions because as I said:
I WISH IT WERE CLEARER.
For those that say they wouldn't have changed the rule to leave it the same, I say people change wording all the time - they should have stated the rule.
Detailing the first attack does not tell you anything about subsequent attacks. They stated what was already the case:
"the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses." <Subsequent attacks gain 1 point of damage per level against the same foe.>
I'm fine with the rule change but it requires outside confirmation to make the intent clear.
I'm sure that writing rules has special challenges and isn't easy. At the same time, this is not a very clear way to change a rule.
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses.
Without the forums, I could not tell a player that this was anything more than a clarification. Nothing is said about subsequent attacks. Before the errata the first successful attack did 2 points of damage per level as well.
Sigurd.