What if the Paladin could move to land Retributive Strike?


Classes


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So in GMing HoU I'm finally seeing a Paladin in extensive combat application and I'm finally seeing that while it's far from never happening it is actually fairly difficult to get off Retributive Strike, simply because even if you're camping by an ally it requires them to get attacked from a direction that you can reach the enemy from. So I got thinking on this and it gave me a though.

What if Retributive Strike's trigger and effect allowed you to use it as long as the foe attacking an ally is in a position where you could get in attack reach with a single Stride, allowing you to stride over to the foe and attack? I don't think it would be overpowered, and it'd allow the Paladin to serve as a much more effective defender by being able to cover allies without having to stay in arm's reach.

Alternatively it could just be simplified to something like "An enemy within 30 feet hits or critically hits an ally or friendly creature", and allows you to move to land the attack as long as you can reach the target with a single Stride. This changed description would allow archer Paladins to work with it though it would prevent Elf and Half-Elf Paladins from getting longer range. I think that's alright though.

The idea could probably use some polish but I think it'd make Retributive Strike MUCH more commonly used without increasing its technical maximum potential (That is it will never let you get off more than one off-turn attack).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like it should definitely allow you to take a Step as part of the action, with a feat upgrade to allow you to Stride instead. Allowing a full Stride as part of the base effect is too good, but a Step would be just right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I feel like it should definitely allow you to take a Step as part of the action, with a feat upgrade to allow you to Stride instead. Allowing a full Stride as part of the base effect is too good, but a Step would be just right.

Without something like this, Retributive Strike doesn't work. Things can just move away so that they're not in a position for you to strike and the whole effect falls apart. It's bad design for a key ability of a class to be so easily ignored.


We've been begging for something like this from the start of the playtest.

From my understanding of what was said in another thread though we won't see any Paladin upgrades until they fix the "contentious issues" with the class.

(I'm assuming alignment.)

So, with the playtest ending in a month, I wouldn't expect any Paladin upgrades. We're just going to have to hope that a change helps us in the final version.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, it wouldn't help Retributive Strike feel more like a paladin. The two issues I see are that it's melee-only and, more importantly, reactive. At least to me, paladins are holy warriors who go out and proactively strike against evil, not guardians who can only retaliate.

EDIT: For example, Ret Strike feels like the opposite of the Mendevian crusaders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I agree that the ability feels weak, I'm not sure I agree that enemies will simply step away.

1. Lots of enemies are simply not smart enough to realize this tactic. Animals and other unintelligent enemies will just keep attacking.
2. Even more intelligent enemies might not expect it unless we assume they've had reason to deal with paladins before. Maybe some have. Starts to be a GM's call here.
3. For those intelligent enemies, a GM probably should not be repositioning his bad guys until AFTER the paladin does this to them once or twice so they learn about the ability and start maneuvering to avoid it.
4. Even for intelligent enemies who know about this paladin trick and want to maneuver to avoid it, it will cost them an action. In some cases, that's actually better - as a paladin, I would prefer seeing the enemy NOT attack my friends rather than simply retaliating after my friend gets clobbered.
5. Even when an enemy wants to maneuver out of the paladin's reach, that's just not possible in some situations (narrow corridors, choke points, their own allies are in the way, etc.).

Given all that, the paladin should be able to use this ability in many fights, perhaps most of them, at least once.

That doesn't sound too bad. Maybe not optimal, but I would disagree with those who say the ability "doesn't work". I would choose this way, way before the original version of the Ranger's core class ability, and still choose it now after the ranger was partially fixed.

Given how weak most class features are today, I don't think it needs to be fixed, but adding a feat to allow the Step and maybe another feat to allow a Stride might be fairly balanced.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I strenuously dislike player options which require a GM to play antagonists in a deliberately tactically questionable manner in order for them to even function. Retributive Strike is a serious offender here, as is anything which requires two enemies to be standing next to each other (e.g. Swipe, Cleave).

It seems like with all the stuff the GM has to manage- "I have to play these enemies well enough to be a challenge, but poorly enough so narrow class feat(ure)s function" is something I would prefer to just not have to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ret Strike might need some enhancement class feats to steer it in more active ways for players who like that.

One idea I had was something like:

Mark For Retribution
When an enemy triggers Ret Strike you can choose to not strike but instead mark the target. Until the end of your next round, all your strikes against the target have the effect of a Ret Strike when they hit.


Tbh while I think RetStrike should most definitely benefit from a free step (and 30ft usability with ranged weapons), I also believe that reach weapons are benefitting a bit too much from the "hit both adjacent AND reach".

Don't take me wrong -I love it and it makes them so much more usable- But AoOs with reach are massively better and RetStrike itself kinda demands one right now because it is so much better and regular weapons just don't cut it.

So... I think reaction strikes like AoO and RetStrike should only allow you to attack adjacent targets. Unless they are meant to work with ranged, or allow you a Step (as I hope RetStrike will one day).
Not everyone should feel compelled to choose a Glaive.


Ediwir wrote:

Tbh while I think RetStrike should most definitely benefit from a free step (and 30ft usability with ranged weapons), I also believe that reach weapons are benefitting a bit too much from the "hit both adjacent AND reach".

Don't take me wrong -I love it and it makes them so much more usable- But AoOs with reach are massively better and RetStrike itself kinda demands one right now because it is so much better and regular weapons just don't cut it.

So... I think reaction strikes like AoO and RetStrike should only allow you to attack adjacent targets. Unless they are meant to work with ranged, or allow you a Step (as I hope RetStrike will one day).
Not everyone should feel compelled to choose a Glaive.

Yeah, but we shouldn't hold our breaths. We're not likely to see any changes in time to test them.

That's why I ramped down my own testing.

Paizo wasn't giving me any changes I wanted to test so I eventually stopped.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I strenuously dislike player options which require a GM to play antagonists in a deliberately tactically questionable manner in order for them to even function. Retributive Strike is a serious offender here, as is anything which requires two enemies to be standing next to each other (e.g. Swipe, Cleave).

It seems like with all the stuff the GM has to manage- "I have to play these enemies well enough to be a challenge, but poorly enough so narrow class feat(ure)s function" is something I would prefer to just not have to do.

No.

Dead wrong.

That's not what a GM should do at all.

No GM should choose to play enemies poorly because of PC class features.

But every GM should play enemies according to the nature of those enemies.

Zombies swarm. They don't space themselves out to avoid swipes. They don't choose targets to avoid retributive strikes. Playing zombies like zombies is the GM's job.

Zombies are an easy call, but with just a tiny bit of thought, so is everything else.

Fighting wolves? Have them move around and attack the backs of the PC's legs. That's what wolves do. Will that trigger AoOs? Sure. Will two wolves end up next to each other and get swiped? Sure. They don't know about such things so they don't avoid them.

Fighting goblins? They like to gang up and focus fire, taking advantage of their Scuttle ability to get into range easily. They're also smart enough to fear (and probably target first) any caster. Ganging up means they don't spread out so they are also targets for retributive strike or swipe. Too bad, it's their tactics.

Fighting ogres? They stay at reach, making many PC abilities difficult to use since the ogres are often not adjacent to any PCs. But they might be adjacent to each other - they take up a lot of space and if there are many of them, they'll naturally crowd together so they can be the first one to bash the little PCs. That makes them candidates for fireball, or for martials to step up next to them for swipes and such.

Fighting a bunch of bandits in the woods? These guys aren't stupid. They are mostly martials and they know what martials can do. They avoid grouping up, they prefer flanking, and they definitely take out enemy casters first. In a fight like this, your martial PCs won't use retributive strikes or swipes or other similar abilities very often because the bandits know about these things and avoid making it easy. The GM is under no obligation to play the bandits stupidly just so a PC can use his ability - let them use it in those other fights and let them face the challenge of NOT using it in this one.

Etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
The GM is under no obligation to play the bandits stupidly just so a PC can use his ability - let them use it in those other fights and let them face the challenge of NOT using it in this one.

While I agree the Paladin class has a mechanic that depends entirely on enemies being dumb.

And that's dumb.

Grand Lodge

I've come across an issue with RS, making a build the optimizes it.
In order to get lots of opportunity you need to both stay near enemies and use a reach weapon. No shield means you are closer to your enemies, frequently closer than your allies are, and no shield means others who do use shields will likely have a better AC and therefore you soak up more attacks instead of them. Once you show you can hit someone who attacks your ally, and that you aren't really any harder to hit than anyone else, why would foes attack someone else?


DM_Blake wrote:
But every GM should play enemies according to the nature of those enemies.

But at issue is that as the GM I have to choose who the players fight and where they fight (to an extent, PCs have input on this but I still have to figure out what's around.)

So if I have in the party as sword and board paladin and a Barbarian with Swipe, Cleave, and Great Cleave, and I'm planning for a session I have to decide whether and how often the party will fight bands of stupid things that will wade into melee in packs so these class features function or how often the party will face intelligent opponents who avoid that sort of thing since there's literally no reason to stand next to your buddy. So there's pressure on "populate the area" that's less on "what makes sense to be here and would be an appropriate challenge" and "what can I put there that will allow half the Barbarian's class feats to function", which is a pretty strange way to do adventure design.

Plus, while we all have intution into how bandits or wolves or zombies fight, it's not like we have the same intuition for how Rakshaskas or Leng Spiders or Bone Devils fight, to say nothing for when the bestiaries get *really* exotic.

A simple solution would be to create a reason to be adjacent to an ally (so you can get swept, cleft, or retributively struck) that's not "I made a mistake").


Maybe design RS in a similar fashion as the Monk's Crane Flutter? add the words "even if the attacker isn't in your reach"?...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of retributive strike either, but as a GM I would rule the paladin to be friendly to themselves, so they could counterattack when struck. It does add a little bit of interplay to the ability, but not enough to redeem it as a core feature imo.


sherlock1701 wrote:
I'm not a fan of retributive strike either, but as a GM I would rule the paladin to be friendly to themselves, so they could counterattack when struck. It does add a little bit of interplay to the ability, but not enough to redeem it as a core feature imo.

Hmm, when you put it that way it actually sounds pretty hype. I mean honestly being able to counterattack as a reaction like that, ESPECIALLY with Aura of Justice and Holy Smite down the line, actually sounds pretty sweet for a core ability.


sherlock1701 wrote:
I'm not a fan of retributive strike either, but as a GM I would rule the paladin to be friendly to themselves, so they could counterattack when struck. It does add a little bit of interplay to the ability, but not enough to redeem it as a core feature imo.

How would you handle Shield Warden and Shield of Reckoning in this case?

(That's what my ch5 paladin does: He's sword and board and has the divine allies...sword and board, its amazing: I prevented 40 damage to an ally tonight AND smacked up two demons, enfeebling them. Oh, and basically did it back to back, because one went a little before me and the other went a little after me, I even crit one of them).


I like the step and stride options that were suggsted. Ofcourse I still think the ret strike stuff and armor mastery stuff should be pulled out of paladin and stuff into another class (I would call it knight) and make a new main ability for the pally plus add some outsider themed stuff for the paladin and make them into 2 separate classes.


Draco18s wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I'm not a fan of retributive strike either, but as a GM I would rule the paladin to be friendly to themselves, so they could counterattack when struck. It does add a little bit of interplay to the ability, but not enough to redeem it as a core feature imo.

How would you handle Shield Warden and Shield of Reckoning in this case?

(That's what my ch5 paladin does: He's sword and board and has the divine allies...sword and board, its amazing: I prevented 40 damage to an ally tonight AND smacked up two demons, enfeebling them. Oh, and basically did it back to back, because one went a little before me and the other went a little after me, I even crit one of them).

Nice! Our Paladin unfortunately didn't take Shield of Reckoning, he had other things he wanted with the slots.

As for doing it with the self-as-ally idea, I think Shield Warden specifies it need an adjacent ally and you aren't adjacent to yourself. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm also in the "paladin is her own ally" camp. A paladin should be protecting allies by being in the front, presenting herself as a target for enemies. Not hiding *behind* allies with a reach weapon, hoping the enemy strikes the allies to maximize her own attacks. :o

I find it quite odd that Paizo has not clarified this.

---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:

I'm also in the "paladin is her own ally" camp. A paladin should be protecting allies by being in the front, presenting herself as a target for enemies. Not hiding *behind* allies with a reach weapon, hoping the enemy strikes the allies to maximize her own attacks. :o

I find it quite odd that Paizo has not clarified this.

---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Table 10-2 should be destroyed

I expect 1.6 will address this, it's said to be a big update to Paladin.

---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that you need to freaking quit dropping this opinion on the end of every comment, completely regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on the thread it's in. This is like the 5th one I've seen. We freaking get it, you don't like the existence of 10-2. Kindly give it a rest.


I get the feeling it's a sort of automated signature.

---
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Potency Runes should be destroyed


I'm so terrified that 1.6 is going to strip LG only from Paladin. I've been dick to my stomach coming to these forums since the announcement.


HWalsh wrote:
I'm so terrified that 1.6 is going to strip LG only from Paladin. I've been dick to my stomach coming to these forums since the announcement.

Might want to edit that...

Paladin is very one dimensional, but at least it worksish.

I'd rather have them completely revamp ability score generation, armor, magic items and spells. But that won't happen.


Edge93 wrote:


Furthermore, I am of the opinion that you need to freaking quit dropping this opinion on the end of every comment, completely regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on the thread it's in. This is like the 5th one I've seen. We freaking get it, you don't like the existence of 10-2. Kindly give it a rest.

This is a rhetorical tool I borrowed from Cato the Elder. The very point is to repeat the tagline continuously, to remind readers that this is an important topic without forcing a discussion on the subject each time.

I must say I'm surprised at how effective it has been. Originally, I didn't intend to create separate posts about this, just use the tagline as a reminder, but I seem to have inspired @DM_Blake to open the Pros and Cons of Table 10-2: Skill DCs thread about it, where the debate has been quite heated, but also constructive. Both Pro and Con has had good arguments.

This board does not have automated taglines. I'm inserting mine manually after every post. Using taglines in forums is normally automated, and I thought most people would have developed selective vision and not see them anymore. I know I don't. Since you do get annoyed, I'll drop it, at least as long as I feel the topic is alive anyway.


citricking wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
I'm so terrified that 1.6 is going to strip LG only from Paladin. I've been dick to my stomach coming to these forums since the announcement.

Might want to edit that...

Paladin is very one dimensional, but at least it worksish.

I'd rather have them completely revamp ability score generation, armor, magic items and spells. But that won't happen.

Lol should've been "sick to my stomach" I was on my phone and the d is next to the s. I can't edit it unfortunately, as it is too late.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
I'm so terrified that 1.6 is going to strip LG only from Paladin. I've been [s]ick to my stomach coming to these forums since the announcement.

Hope you'll forgive the edit.

Probably don't need to worry too much. Throwing in paladins of more alignments (even just antipaladin and paladin) mid playtest is likely too poor an idea mid-game for them to do it. It'll cause flame wars (because it always causes flame wars when paladin alignment comes up) polluting these forums, and it will turn some of the most dedicated pro-paladin crowd away from giving good data for them. Too many mechanical issues to hammer out with the playtest to throw in a paladin smokescreen that makes it harder to actually find them. If they want non-LG paladins they can probably tweak the class between playtest and release, then leak the info in a blog/interview after they stop taking playtest data to let the two paladin crowds hash out the flame wars before the game is released.

Further, they aren't likely to throw in non-LG paladins in the final product. LG-only has been said to be the most popular paladin stance in paizo's staff, so if they include non-LG paladins it'll probably be in further supplements so those sources can more easily be restricted.


Paradozen wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
I'm so terrified that 1.6 is going to strip LG only from Paladin. I've been [s]ick to my stomach coming to these forums since the announcement.

Hope you'll forgive the edit.

Probably don't need to worry too much. Throwing in paladins of more alignments (even just antipaladin and paladin) mid playtest is likely too poor an idea mid-game for them to do it. It'll cause flame wars (because it always causes flame wars when paladin alignment comes up) polluting these forums, and it will turn some of the most dedicated pro-paladin crowd away from giving good data for them. Too many mechanical issues to hammer out with the playtest to throw in a paladin smokescreen that makes it harder to actually find them. If they want non-LG paladins they can probably tweak the class between playtest and release, then leak the info in a blog/interview after they stop taking playtest data to let the two paladin crowds hash out the flame wars before the game is released.

Further, they aren't likely to throw in non-LG paladins in the final product. LG-only has been said to be the most popular paladin stance in paizo's staff, so if they include non-LG paladins it'll probably be in further supplements so those sources can more easily be restricted.

Don't mind the edit at all. Thank you for it.

I do hope you're right.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Earlier in this thread, someone made the assertion that enemies will simply step away to prevent the Paladin's Retributive Strike. Do I have a gross conceptual error? I thought that reactions were triggered immediately upon the occurrence of the trigger and not on the player's turn. So, if something attacks from a square you threaten against one of your enemies, you could immediately attack that enemy, as the trigger occurred before that enemy had a chance to step out of your reach.

The new Retributive Strike also basically gives your ally/friend an invisible three point hardness (at Paladin first level) shield that prevents the first three points of damage. I think the retributive strike is actually now pretty good.

The Ranged Reprisal class feat, however, confuses me a little bit. For the use of a ranged weapon part of things, I am having trouble imagining when you could use that. When would you be in a fight where an opponent within you reach attacked an ally and you were wielding a ranged weapon? (I am assuming you have to be wielding a ranged weapon to use this aspect since it doesn't give you a free manipulate action to draw a ranged weapon).

As for the step portion of the reaction, it is hard to envision a scenario where you could step without entering the square of another ally or enemy to hit the triggering enemy. I haven't read anything that leads me to believe you are allowed to share squares with an ally or enemy as a medium sized creature. Anyway, I am having trouble seeing a scenario where you could use the step and attack an enemy. What am I missing here?


There are certainly such situations. Say you have

p
A
E

Where P is Paladin, A is Ally, and E is enemy. Before 1.6 this enemy cold attack this ally from here without triggering Ret. Strike because it is out of the Paladin's reach. Which is what people mean when they say enemies will step out of reach, they are saying enemies will move to attack Ally from a spot that is out of Paladin's reach.

But now with 1.6, in the above example the Paladin can Step, making

AP
E

Now Enemy is in reach of Paladin and he can make the attack.

As for Ranged Reprisal, the feat is supposed to let you use Retributive Strike with ranged weapons as long as Enemy and Ally are both within the 15 foot range of Retributive Strike. It removes the need to be in melee reach if you have a ranged weapon.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, I guess I was visualizing the classic side-by-side defender, where it would be hard for an opponent to achieve an opposite position. Or, in a dungeon the paladin and other melee guy are in front and the casters in back. Thanks for explaining the ranged part.


Edge93 wrote:

Now Enemy is in reach of Paladin and he can make the attack.

As for Ranged Reprisal, the feat is supposed to let you use Retributive Strike with ranged weapons as long as Enemy and Ally are both within the 15 foot range of Retributive Strike. It removes the need to be in melee reach if you have a ranged weapon.

...Its also how the Paladin gets that 5-foot-step in the example.

Quote:

If the foe that

triggered your Retributive Strike is within 5 feet of your reach but not
in your reach, you can Step to put the foe in your reach and make the
melee Strike at the end of Retributive Strike.

The reach-weapon fix is the base ability:

Quote:

Both the enemy and ally or friendly creature

must be within 15 feet of you

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / What if the Paladin could move to land Retributive Strike? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes