Does it break the game? I would think no because most of the time your fighting foes of your opposite alignment anyway. When I've tried this houserule it usually doesn't, but I thought I'd see if anyone would say otherwise.
I agree with LH, I think that it'd make a powerful ability even more powerful. Think of what a Paladin does though, he's a force against evil and that's why his god has bestowed upon him that ability. He is a holy warrior meant to combat evil wherever it is and destroy it.
The opposite is true for AP's where they smite good.
I think it takes away from it being special and basically makes it like a Power Attack without any kind of negatives (i.e. the negative to attack rolls).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd call it unnecessary. Paladins are already pretty darn strong, and the occasional non-evil enemy can help the GM challenge them sometimes. If the Paladin could just plow through everything I feel as though she'd get boring rather quickly.
Does it break the game?
Does it break the game? No. It breaks the Paladin though. They're not warriors with magical perks. They are a bulwark against Evil; the shining exemplars of chivalrous courage in the face of vile atrocities. They don't simply smite. They smite Evil!
Paladins belong on a pedestal, even when that means they have poor footing there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removing the restriction is not a good idea. If so I would reduce the number of smites to maybe 1 at 1st level and 1 every 6th level after that, maxing out at 4 upon reaching level 19.
PS: I think it's better to not do it at all.
Paladins belong on a pedestal, even when that means they have poor footing there.
I disagree with that. Paladins shouldn't be any more special than the other classes. As I said, most of the time you fight opposite aligned foes anyway, and many of those foes(undead/outsiders) take additional pain. Those foes also happen to take additional effects from effects such as litany of righteousness and other paladins specific spells.
I also don't think a challenge should require negating a class feature. Best way to shut down a paladin in my experience is to fight several foes. What's with this evil fighting one on one gig? Anti-paladins are just going to smite him right back, and taking an extreme alignment already gives you penalties against several foes, spells, and regionally can be a real pain(Fighting in evil/chaotic plane for instance).
I agree with LH, I think that it'd make a powerful ability even more powerful. Think of what a Paladin does though, he's a force against evil and that's why his god has bestowed upon him that ability. He is a holy warrior meant to combat evil wherever it is and destroy it.
The opposite is true for AP's where they smite good.
I think it takes away from it being special and basically makes it like a Power Attack without any kind of negatives (i.e. the negative to attack rolls).
Depends on how your paladins work. If your paladins of the ideal, then smite means something different than smiting evil. Speaking of which, smite evil doesn't always smite someone who is the opposite of your deity or ideas unless you force an RP before every smite. If you instead think of it as someone smiting that which stands in his way or as exerting himself, it has a very different flavor.
In a game where most of the game is Aeons and other forms of neutral foes, you need to tell them no or give them an alternative anyway. Similarly with Anti-Paladins in a game with mostly evil. Would anyone happen to have an alternative suggestion to that?
Power attack is much different than smite. Smite if you spam all day you run out before the BBEG or his dragon and you probably overkill most minions. On the other hand, power attack your likely to use all the time. All the time. All the friggin time.
@Wraith, reducing the amount of times used is terrible blanace. I'm not a fan of one time use I WIN buttons. Reducing its strength would be an option, but it already has reduced strength because the foe wouldn't have type/subtype that takes additional modifiers.
Its a problem because the principle balancing factor of the power of the paladin, is that they are luke warm against neutral targets. Eliminate that weakness and you have to take away some of the strength too or else risk aleinating other martial oriented classes.
I still think it'd make that powerful ability even more so, you'd see builds reflect it as well where people would try to work around the rules, find loopholes just to give more smites/day because it is so awesome, which is just another whole new can of worms. If you don't mind that kind of min/max in your games it's your table and you can do what you want.
It just seems most of us agree it's meant to smite evil for good paladins and smite good for anti-paladins. I also feel it's not only about the power of the paladin, it's about them being divine warriors opposed to the "other" side of the spectrum. Having it be able to smite neutral just opens it up for paladins to be able to break their codes even easier and institutes more grey areas for them to navigate.
I still think it'd make that powerful ability even more so, you'd see builds reflect it as well where people would try to work around the rules, find loopholes just to give more smites/day because it is so awesome, which is just another whole new can of worms. If you don't mind that kind of min/max in your games it's your table and you can do what you want.
It just seems most of us agree it's meant to smite evil for good paladins and smite good for anti-paladins. I also feel it's not only about the power of the paladin, it's about them being divine warriors opposed to the "other" side of the spectrum. Having it be able to smite neutral just opens it up for paladins to be able to break their codes even easier and institutes more grey areas for them to navigate.
The only way to get a really spammable smite than I know is Oath of Vengeance. The only downside to that road is less healing and a slightly weaker aura of justice. What turns a man neutral...
I'm fine with gray area actually. I tend to be a gray and gray morality kinda' guy when I build characters, PC or GM side of life, though I tend to tend to change it based on the campaign and peoples comforts. It also makes it easier to design a game with a paladin rather than catering I feel like. Fluff is its own thing, and depending on campaigns it can be very different.
I don't think smiting neutrals opens up for breaking codes. Neutrals are just as capable of acting against your interest or to be antagonist or protagonist as the other alignments. If not more so! Pretty sure Zap had logic that spelled that out quiet well, though I'd hope no paladin starts acting like that...
Its a problem because the principle balancing factor of the power of the paladin, is that they are luke warm against neutral targets. Eliminate that weakness and you have to take away some of the strength too or else risk aleinating other martial oriented classes.
In that case is the paladin overpowered in games where there are mostly evil targets? That would be most games I'm in. One of my DMs uses almost exclusively undead for instance. Focusing on mechanics alone, I have little reason not to play a paladin in that case. I suppose that brings up another question altogether about the balance it already has. Are they expected to suck against not so evil and rock against evil then? I'm not sure if that's balance either.
So would you have suggestions on other strengths to remove? Some of their other strengths are dependent on fighting evil or outsiders, undead, and such, and they would lose out on those when fighting other alignments.
Its a problem because the principle balancing factor of the power of the paladin, is that they are luke warm against neutral targets. Eliminate that weakness and you have to take away some of the strength too or else risk aleinating other martial oriented classes.In that case is the paladin overpowered in games where there are mostly evil targets? That would be most games I'm in. One of my DMs uses almost exclusively undead for instance. Focusing on mechanics alone, I have little reason not to play a paladin in that case. I suppose that brings up another question altogether about the balance it already has. Are they expected to suck against not so evil and rock against evil then? I'm not sure if that's balance either.
Short answer, thats an abnormal campaign and not what the game expects. The game expects you to have to deal with a variety of enemies including neutrals like, humanoids (humans, elves, dwarves) that are not evil, animals, elementals, constructs, oozes, a number of magical beasts (hydras for instance) these are very common creature types in most adventures. If you are just facing evil yess the paladin is going to shine more then normal.
And yes, the paladin's wheel house is taking down single big bad evil guys. Thats what they are best at. They are not as good at fighting non-evil things. This is intentional to the design of the class.
So would you have suggestions on other strengths to remove? Some of their other strengths are dependent on fighting evil or outsiders, undead, and such, and they would lose out on those when fighting other alignments.
It would be easier to just play a cavalier at that point, messing with the balance of the paladin in that fashion is going to be really really messy.
Of the top of my head, I would probably remove divine grace and divine bond. Maybe something else, but I am honestly not sure. I'd have to do alot of playtesting to give you a reasonable result, and there isnt a point. We have a class that is sort of like a paladin but not evil specific, its the cavalier.
Cavaliers ate far from broken, though they don't gain AC during their challenge. Imo paladins should be free of alignment, be able to use their smite on anything, and have their channing and aura be based on their deity and alignment like a cleric.
It would be easier to just play a cavalier at that point, messing with the balance of the paladin in that fashion is going to be really really messy.
A cavalier is not a paladin, like, at all. Mechanically or fluff. They do not have auras or smite. They have a mount and banner and a challenge and order. I don't think its that messy. Removing divine grace or bond is a terrible trade off. Divine grace does nothing for their ability to slam things. How would removing everything with divine in the name help balance? I'm not making a paladin without religion.
Mostly evil is most good campaigns I've been in actually. Its a major advantage in PFS in the least. It also creates an idea that balance is highly dependent on balancing the alignments of what you fight. Does that mean I have to keep a ratio of good to evil at all times or something? Is there a quote or chart somewhere I can find to support this beyond "paladin are op against evil"?
I think there is an issue game where a character being true neutral is mechanically superior. There's a large number of both offensive and defensive spells and abilities that either don't work against neutral targets at all, or have a reduced effect. And it's very rare when being neutral actually restricts a character from utilizing those spells/abilities themselves.
Yeah, I'm sure there is a thread on here that explains how neutral is power gaming. Summoners are a good class to look at if you want to judge the power of neutral.
Can't see any reason not to. A paladin is just a cleric with thicker armor, bigger weapons, and a stick up his butt. No reason not to pull the stick out.
Remember, fluff is mutable.
It would be easier to just play a cavalier at that point, messing with the balance of the paladin in that fashion is going to be really really messy.A cavalier is not a paladin, like, at all. Mechanically or fluff. They do not have auras or smite. They have a mount and banner and a challenge and order. I don't think its that messy. Removing divine grace or bond is a terrible trade off. Divine grace does nothing for their ability to slam things. How would removing everything with divine in the name help balance? I'm not making a paladin without religion.
Its not about having divine in their name, its about giving up substantial abilities for the unmitigated smite power. Either that or heavily nerf smite itself. Basically smite evil is worth X, smite everything is worth X+Y, you now need to remove Y worth of stuff from the paladin to keep it even. Exactly what could constitute Y is very tricky and probably involves a redesign of the class.
Mostly evil is most good campaigns I've been in actually. Its a major advantage in PFS in the least. It also creates an idea that balance is highly dependent on balancing the alignments of what you fight. Does that mean I have to keep a ratio of good to evil at all times or something? Is there a quote or chart somewhere I can find to support this beyond "paladin are op against evil"?
For paladins, yes, balance is heavily dependent on what you fight. There isnt a chart, its a rational conclusion that comes from their abiltiies. And in terms of the spread, the best example is the paizo adventure paths. Look at variations there. There are ALWAYS neutral enemies in them, because it isnt just smite that is alignment dependent. If everything is evil you are making a good number of options better then they are supposed to be.
Cavaliers ate far from broken, though they don't gain AC during their challenge.
They also don't do extra damage to dragons, outsiders and undead. They also don't get their CHA as an attack bonus. They also don't bypass DR.
Smiting is significantly more powerful than the cavaliers' challenge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would make Paladins stronger, obviously... But broken? Far from it.
Smite would still be limited by its numbers of daily uses, so simply adding multiple enemies per encounter already makes Smite Evil well balanced.
If you feel Oath of Vengeance makes it too spammable, just ban the archetype.
IMHO, Pathfinder would be infinitely better without a alignment system. It adds nothing to the game except for a bunch of pointless restrictions and needless forum discussions.
I would make Paladins stronger, obviously... But broken? Far from it.
Smite would still be limited by its numbers of daily uses, so simply adding multiple enemies per encounter already makes Smite Evil well balanced.
If you feel Oath of Vengeance makes it too spammable, just ban the archetype.
IMHO, Pathfinder would be infinitely better without a alignment system. It adds nothing to the game except for a bunch of pointless restrictions and needless forum discussions.
If it were broken, then it would be broken for it to be used on evil in the first place. If it was broken to use it on neutrals it would likely be to use it on evil characters too. Regardless of restrictions, kill foe x per day would be a rather broken ability.
I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss alignments. Personally I think they are okay so long as they don't restrict, but they are highly subjective, vary greatly between people, and while I'm okay with it, I am not okay with it become a hindrance or interfering with the game, which appears to happen repeatedly.
I would not recommend removing it, for thematic purposes.
But, if you want to make it work against more enemies, consider replacing it with a renamed Ranger's Focus:
link
At 1st level, once per day, the guide can focus on a single enemy within line of sight as a swift action. That creature remains the Ranger’s focus until it is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points or surrenders, or until the Ranger designates a new focus, whichever occurs first. The Ranger gains a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the target of his focus. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2.
At 4th level, and every 3 levels thereafter, the Ranger can use this ability one additional time per day.
Usable against any enemy, works equally often, but at say level 10 it's +6/+6 instead of +6/+10 (if a 10th level pala has +6 cha, which seems likely).
I would not recommend removing it, for thematic purposes.
Actually, I think it would be more thematic if you could use it on anyone. Not everyone you should have to smite is evil, and not everyone you can smite you should have to. If your a anti/paladin of an ideal if your smiting someone they may very well have had it coming regardless of alignment.
The suggestion is nice though. I think its more than a little lacking for a trade off however.
The suggestion is nice though. I think its more than a little lacking for a trade off however.
What do you find lacking, exactly? Seems quite fair in regards to trading a restrictive use ability for an unrestricted use ability.
The suggestion is nice though. I think its more than a little lacking for a trade off however.What do you find lacking, exactly? Seems quite fair in regards to trading a restrictive use ability for an unrestricted use ability.
Its half as powerful and doesn't give the AC nor bypass DR? Don't forget against specific foes the damage bonus is double, and at later levels the aura of justice gives the party a really heavy oomph when you absolutely need it(though I think it turns into overkill often). I don't find overly specific to be good balance either, which I stated earlier.
I would not recommend removing it, for thematic purposes.Actually, I think it would be more thematic if you could use it on anyone. Not everyone you should have to smite is evil, and not everyone you can smite you should have to. If your a anti/paladin of an ideal if your smiting someone they may very well have had it coming regardless of alignment.
The suggestion is nice though. I think its more than a little lacking for a trade off however.
I agree. Alignments shouldn't be monolithic things, with 'all (X)-alignment characters get along and are allies' (where X is any alignment descriptor of your choice).
Its half as powerful and doesn't give the AC nor bypass DR? Don't forget against specific foes the damage bonus is double, and at later levels the aura of justice gives the party a really heavy oomph when you absolutely need it(though I think it turns into overkill often). I don't find overly specific to be good balance either, which I stated earlier.
Okay, so lets just generic it up with factors you mentioned:
"Once per day, a paladin can call upon divine power to aid her in her struggle against her enemies. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. The paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds one-half her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite is an outsider, a dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 1 point of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite.
The smite effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: Paladin, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level."
There is always the cavalier/ samurai for you.
Okay, so lets just generic it up with factors you mentioned
I'm not sure if that has to be done however, which is why I've asked the forum their ideas. I'm not looking for a direct replacement, though I did ask what would balance. Maybe reducing the bonus by half against non evil would make sense, or not allowing it bypass DR against non evil. I'm still not keen on how only works on evil is good balance. The only proof I have that its supposed to be any balance at all has been presented as "Paladin infers" which doesn't help me with game mastery business at all.
There is always the cavalier/ samurai for you.
How do your cavaliers and samurai get around the horse mount/iajutsu focus and get paladin class features? Cavalier and Samurai seem very different to paladin to me.
Cav/ Sam don't have all the paladin features, but they do have that paladin feel. The can "smite" anything and don't have to worry about falling near as much. The horse is iconic for pallys anyway. I think samurai does it better, but that is just me.
Well anyone can smite really. Define smite. Smite as a class feature is something specific that gives you big bonuses against one foe, and through archetypes has additional affects. Bypass DR, increased AC, increased to hit, increased damage by 1 per level, and increased damage by 2 per level against certain foes. Challenge is calling out a foe to come and get you the way I see it. Its laying down the gauntlet and possibly giving that foes negatives and sometimes even yourself, and definitely giving you a buff or tactical bonus in return.
I'm not so sure about paladin feel. Cavaliers and Samurais can be all sorts of people, so long as they have an order to relate to and have a mount. Fluff is mutable anyway, so for a roleplaying feel you can get a lot from any class. Mechanics however are not so mutable. If this was a talk about the code we could talk a little more about fluff, because that actually defines the paladins characteristics, however we're talking about the mechanics of smite if anything atm. Though I feel biased personally, I want to hear other peoples opinions.
Paladins and Samurais are also very different in how they handle saves, in how they buff teammates, and how they're companions work. They're different on many levels. Also spell casting and immunities. Spell casting is always big in this game.