Why I do not like that smite evil bypasses every DR

[Hyla]

Gorbacz wrote:

So in this particular case, a rule that's fine for myself and many other folks around causes problems for GM. Now since we're trying to help, and he did state that he's not against banning things because her sees them as OP, why not just adjust the smite and be happy ever after?

We are discussing exactly that at the moment. Not smite itself but aura of justice specifically.

This thread gave me a few good ideas how to nerf or maybe replace certain rules elements so that the paladin does not feel as he has been given the short stick and still solve the problems we are having sometimes.

As for "trying to help", yes there were some helpful people here. There were also some very vocal ones who started insulting me because they thought their opinion was being disdained by me (i.e. I did not immediately change my opinion to match theirs).

[Alienfreak]

Gorbacz wrote:

Hyla wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

The rule itself is fine. I don't see thousands of threads that scream "PALADINS ARE BORKED". I don't even see any "Paladins broke my Carrion Crown" threads, except this one. Your point is, aside from pretending to be intelligent by insulting people?

You know, the insults started pouring in from you guys, not from the people who wanted to discuss smite evil civilly in this thread. We also did not scream in capitals using false grammar.

I specifically stated, more than once, that I do not think that smite evil is "broken", just that it does make a GMs job harder, because smite on / off makes just a big difference in BBEG fights. Look at my OP.

Soooo if you (like me) think that the rule is OK in general (now Alienfreak could use reading your posts for a change), and you aren't against rule-0-nuking "munchkin" stuff, just change smite in your campaign and live happily ever after? :)

I am reading them just fine...

It were other guys saying epic/vorpal/whatever DRs are not decisive because only kickass monsters will have them and yet BBEGs are supposed to be really good and thus show up with some heavy DRs that are often near unbeatable at that level (or only beatable by taking subpar weapon combos). And that is were the Ability of the Paladin smells... because it gets around EVERYTHING...

[Hyla]

Gorbacz wrote:

and you aren't against rule-0-nuking "munchkin" stuff, just change smite in your campaign and live happily ever after? :)

I will make sure to post in this thread if the group agrees to a ruling. I am basically letting the paladins player decide. He is a reasonable guy. If he decides he wants to go with RAW, I can live with that too.

[CunningMongoose]

You may politely explain the problem to your player (the Paladin class is not generally overpowered, but it is in this perticular AP) and ask her/him if he would agree to reroll his character as a Cavalier or Holy Vindicator if the group is ok with that.

Maybe he/she will agree with you hand love the chance to try another build. If done well, this new build would probably allow him/her to keep the same background and get something very close to the original design.

As for the "proper" way to play the game - I would say the proper way is the way where the fun of the group (including the GM) is maximised.

[Grey Lensman]

Well, if the primary problem is the possibility of Aura of Justice (and I have seen this ability tilt encounters from a near-tpk to a rout several times myself) then I would suggest sitting down with your player and copies of the APG, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic. These books all have archetypes, several of which replace Aura of Justice with something else. Or you could look at one of the other lower level archetype abilities if that suits the wishes of both you and your player. Removing an ability and giving nothing in return will seem like a nerf, but replacing it with something else will be a much easier sell.

Some of the archetypes even modify the base smite evil ability if that fits what you want.

[Hyla]

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

useful stuff

Thats an excellent suggestion, thanks.

[CunningMongoose]

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

Good Stuff

Oh, yes. Archetypes are a better idea than converting to Holy Vindicator. Why did I not think about that?

[Douglas Muir 406]

Coming at this from a slight angle: smite, like other paladin powers, comes from the paladin's lawfulness, goodness, and obedience to his code. If the PC paladin strays a bit, you could be justified in messing with the smite power.

For instance, say the other PCs want to undertake some morally dubious or unlawful action "for the greater good!" (It's always for the greater good, of course.) They want to travel with an evil NPC for a while, use the evil magic item instead of destroying it, cooperate with the slavers (because they're the only ones who know where the lost temple is!), take the hefty bribe from the villain to let his henchman go, bargain with the captured fiend for a wish instead of simply killing it, whatever. If the paladin goes along with this, you'd be justified within the game in reducing or removing his powers for some period of time.

Some obvious caveats:

1) This is a reasonable gloss on the RAW, but it isn't the RAW. That just says that if the paladin transgresses too far, powers are lost, and the answer is an Atonement spell. It doesn't provide for intermediate outcomes (i.e., temporary or partial loss of abiilities).

2) Don't do this if you think your player will hate it. Don't do this if you think it will lead to serious party disruption or PvP.

3) Give reasonable warning -- the senior paladin who takes the PC aside for a word, the cleric who warns against dealing with the unspeakable, the example of another paladin who lost his powers, etc.

4) Don't railroad. Give the player a real and reasonable choice. ("Demogorgon eats the world if you don't kill this child" is not a reasonable choice. "The big villain may succeed in his evil scheme if you don't bargain with this lesser villain, letting him escape if he tells you everything he knows" may be, depending.)

I've done this a couple of times, with mixed results. Once the PC paladin slipped a couple of times, started losing his powers, and then turned it into a real role-playing opportunity... the player decided that the paladin was a fundamentally decent person but with a weakness for cutting corners, who could be tempted to do the fast easy thing instead of the right thing. In game terms, he was really a NG or CG character who was trying hard to be LG. This led to a lot of interesting situations, many of which were none of my doing. The other players played along: "just this once" become a recurring joke line in the campaign. That PC ended up being very memorable and the player had a great time.

OTOH, a similar set of temptations led to a PC paladin going over the line, then doubling down and going WAY over the line, falling and losing ALL his abilities, and then deciding that he wasn't going back. That character ended up as an NPC, since an ex-paladin makes a pretty sad PC. (It was pre-Golarion, or I would probably have brought him back as a Hellknight.) It wasn't a horrible outcome -- the player wasn't upset -- but it wasn't a great one, either.

So, handle with extreme care. If the player doesn't find this sort of thing a fun roleplaying challenge, then just don't go there.

Doug M.

[Maerimydra]

The thing that makes me wonder is, if the people at paizo hate DR so much, why didn't they just removed it from the game?

[Talonhawke]

Where do you get that they hate DR?

[Ross Byers]

I cleaned up a bunch of posts and their replies. Be nice.

[Dosgamer]

The issue I had with smite evil was two-fold: double damage bonus versus the big 3 (which was later reduced to just first blow only) and bypass all DR. We houseruled it in my game to eliminate the double damage bonus versus the big three and I eliminated the bypass all DR ability but gave them the ability to overcome lawful and good DR instead. I also allow both divine bond abilities to be taken rather than just selecting one.

[Snorter]

Talonhawke wrote:

Where do you get that they hate DR?

Probably a reference to the current rules re special materials being countered by a big enough '+Plus'?

I can see a precedent for it; in 1E, it was assumed that part of the cost of creation included higher-value materials (ie a +5 sword was assumed to be made wholly or partly of adamantine), and for which the GM was encouraged to request your PCs quest for special materials beforehand.
("You want a dragon-bane sword? Well, you've got to have killed a dragon first, so you can temper the blade in its blood...")

But it sits rather wierdly in 3E, where crafting is abstracted as 'cross off nondescript gold pieces', and weapons get upgraded in stages. That +5 sword is the same bog-standard masterwork steel sword you found at level 1, that you've taken on at least five trips to the magic shop. When did it ever get reforged as an adamantine blade?

At least in 4E, items are discombobulated into Handwavium which is used toward the cost of recreating the item from scratch.
("Here's your sword back."
"That doesn't look anything like my sword I entrusted to you."
"Trust me, it is. I had to throw in a few +1 daggers to make up the difference.")

[Blue Star]

The Pathfinder way is a call back to 3.0, where DR was dependent upon the + of the weapon, which could still be rendered pointless as some of the monsters had DR/+X and Adamantine/Silver/metal or alignment du jour.

[Liam Warner]

Blue Star wrote:

The Pathfinder way is a call back to 3.0, where DR was dependent upon the + of the weapon, which could still be rendered pointless as some of the monsters had DR/+X and Adamantine/Silver/metal or alignment du jour.

I kind of enjoyed that you had monsters who were basically normal, +1 (or magic), +3 (medium magic) or +5 (powerful magic) but then again I also enjoyed the whole monsters only vulnerable to piercing, bludgening, slashing. I still miss the pluses going to straight vs magic though.

Anyway always remember the evil guy is often going to be smart AND have his own contacts consider the following scenario . . .

Villain BOB: OH no what's the big bad pawadine going to do? Is he going to try and hit me with his wythum stick?

Paladin: SMITE EVIL.

Poof

Small Child: Mmmphhh mmmphsdfiowehte splat (at d4 hitpoint and base AC the child is dead).

Villain Bob: HAH how do you like that contingent teleport some friends of mine set up. Now be a good little paladin and go play in the corner since I'm sure you'll run out of abilities before I run out of blonde haired, ruddy cheeked INNOCENT CHILDREN. Now if you'll excuse me I see a ranger I have to soulsuck.

Sure the paladin wont lose their abilities for that first trick nasty as it is but their going to need to think long and hard about whether the villains bluffing. If he isn't and they kill a second or third child how's their god going to react, if he is and the paladin does nothing he's been forced out of the fight removing his powerful abilities without actually nerfing them. Don't do it every time but if the enemy is a mage well its a valid strategy and a nasty surprise.