PDA

View Full Version : 4e: Thou Art Smitten!



kpenguin
2007-11-29, 05:32 AM
So, they dedicated a whole article to paladin smites (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071128). I like the idea of adding a bunch of effects to smites. It feels like the warlock blast essences, but with smites.

Attilargh
2007-11-29, 06:02 AM
The word you're looking for is "smitten".

Kurald Galain
2007-11-29, 06:04 AM
Oh yes, of course. I hit this orc really hard, and therefore my friend is suddenly healed???

Yeah, from a mechanical point of view it is probably balanced and useful and all that, but from a world point of view, you don't heal people by hitting their enemies.

AslanCross
2007-11-29, 06:06 AM
Oh yes, of course. I hit this orc really hard, and therefore my friend is suddenly healed???

Yeah, from a mechanical point of view it is probably balanced and useful and all that, but from a world point of view, you don't heal people by hitting their enemies.

The 3.5 Crusader from ToB already does that.

kpenguin
2007-11-29, 06:08 AM
Oh yes, of course. I hit this orc really hard, and therefore my friend is suddenly healed???

Yeah, from a mechanical point of view it is probably balanced and useful and all that, but from a world point of view, you don't heal people by hitting their enemies.

Just say a wizard paladin did it and leave it at that.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-29, 06:09 AM
And YOU aren't healing your friend. You're actually pleasing your god, who corresponds the favor and heals your friend.


Yeah, it sucks even more when you get gods in the picture.

Tengu
2007-11-29, 06:09 AM
Oh yes, of course. I hit this orc really hard, and therefore my friend is suddenly healed???

Yeah, from a mechanical point of view it is probably balanced and useful and all that, but from a world point of view, you don't heal people by hitting their enemies.

You do when you're a divinely-inspired knight. It feels a bit like WoW but I like it. Or maybe I like it because it feels a bit like WoW.

Argh, triple-ninjaed!

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-29, 06:10 AM
Wow, you must have failed your spot check BIG time.

The_Snark
2007-11-29, 06:11 AM
It does seem a little silly, but I always liked to think of it as a fervent battle prayer: "Heironeous, you take care of healing my buddy while I take care of smiting the heathens, okay? Please?"

On another note, it looks like paladins may come with in-built alignment variation:


Selfish paladins (typically those who serve more self-centered gods or just the occasional egoist who venerates Pelor) can even heal themselves with the strike etc

Lord Iames Osari
2007-11-29, 06:13 AM
Oh yes, of course. I hit this orc really hard, and therefore my friend is suddenly healed???

Yeah, from a mechanical point of view it is probably balanced and useful and all that, but from a world point of view, you don't heal people by hitting their enemies.

Paladin of Generic God of Goodliness: *smites evil into tiny pieces*
GGG: Ah, since you have smitten the evil into tiny pieces in my service, I shall grant a boon to you and your companions, healing one of them.
Paladin of GGG: Thanks, Generic God of Goodliness. I pick Bob over there, he's hurting pretty bad.
GGG: *heals Bob*

Tengu
2007-11-29, 06:16 AM
Wow, you must have failed your spot check BIG time.

Not really. Just a slow typer in the morning.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-29, 06:30 AM
The 3.5 Crusader from ToB already does that.

That doesn't mean it's a particularly good idea.

AslanCross
2007-11-29, 06:40 AM
That doesn't mean it's a particularly good idea.

Didn't say it was, but I meant to say it's nothing new.

Swooper
2007-11-29, 06:45 AM
What worries me is that paladins seem to still suffer from horrible MAD, since both Wis and Cha affect their class abilities (and I'm guessing they'll need Str, Con and possibly Dex too, being melee fighters). I'd have preferred removing the charisma connection, personally. Or the wisdom connection, although that seems like a worse idea.

Roderick_BR
2007-11-29, 06:48 AM
I like it. It gets more uses over of just adding damage. It's easy to see the splash of ToB-ishes crusader abilities in it, and some knight's too. In Complete Champion there's the Fist of Raziel, that gives special effects when smiting, I think it got ideas from there too.

Khanderas
2007-11-29, 07:04 AM
Hitipoints is among other things, the will to carry on fighting.
That smite was so darn smiteful (hehehe) your friends spirit is lifted, abstracted into alittle health heal.
... Or you know, a wizard did it.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 07:29 AM
Would someone be kind enough to copy/paste and spoiler the article? I can't go to WotC while at work. :smalleek:

squishycube
2007-11-29, 07:37 AM
TYG

Smite -- since before 900 CE this word or some very similar Old or Middle English ancestor has meant, "That's going to leave a mark." In the first two editions of Dungeons & Dragons, smite was merely an interesting word used by folks laying down the smack. In my formative gaming years, a player of mine named Erol used to call his halfling paladin's reversed cure light wounds, smites. (Actually he was just a post-Unearthed Arcana fighter/cleric, but he called the character a paladin -- I was not farsighted enough just to let him play a paladin.) I think he just liked yelling "I smite the foul beast!" in that annoying high-pitched kid voice he used to play Sir Lore. (Yes, that's Erol's own name spelled backward in true high-Gygaxian fashion).

With the release of 3rd Edition, Erol's wildest dreams came true. Not only were halflings allowed to be true paladins, smite officially entered the paladin's toolbox. Sure, it was once a day. Sure, it wasn't nearly as good as you wanted it to be sometimes, but smites were promoted from verb to mechanic.

In 4th Edition, D&D smites really come into their own. Now a subset of the paladin's renewable (read, encounter-recharge) powers, smites allow a paladin to deliver a powerful blow with the character's weapon of choice, while layering on some divine effect (and I mean that in both meanings of the word) on allies or enemies. A divine defender, much of the paladin's smites are all about kicking the crap out of those they find anathema while ensuring that foes who want to hurt enemies have a harder time at it. Take, as exhibit one, safeguard smite:

Safeguard Smite
Paladin 1
Encounter • Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2x[W] + Cha.
Hit or Miss: An ally within 5 squares gains a bonus to AC equal to your Wisdom modifier until the end of your next turn.

This basic, entry-level smite has all the things a growing paladin needs to fulfill its role and lay down some hurt. A Charisma attack against the target's Armor Class, safeguard smite deals double her base weapon's damage plus her Charisma modifier in damage (paladins are a force of personality, after all), and grants a quick boost to an ally in trouble (including, in a pinch, the paladin herself). And there you have it. Your first smite -- simple, serviceable, and fun.

As your paladin progresses as a defender of the faith, smites, like all of your abilities, grow in power and utility. But unlike its defender cousin, the fighter, a paladin is more than just the guy who kicks butt and makes sure enemies focus (or want to focus) on him. Paladins have always been able to heal in some way and the 4th Edition variety is no different. Though this splash of leader flavor into the paladin's defender role comes in many forms, one of the more active and interesting ways that your paladin can come to the aid of a companion while fighting is our second example of a smite:

Renewing Smite
Paladin 13
Encounter • Healing, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2x[W] + Cha damage and ally within 5 heals 10 + your Wisdom modifier damage.

You'll no doubt see the pattern between these two smites. They mix a fair portion of damage (scaled up by level, but not necessarily the amount of dice) while giving an ally a much needed boost of hit points at the most opportune moments. Selfish paladins (typically those who serve more self-centered gods or just the occasional egoist who venerates Pelor) can even heal themselves with the strike, as you're considered your own ally unless the effect of a power states otherwise.

Let's move on to smites that inhabit the levels over 20. Binding smite is another flavor of defender smite -- and as its high level demands, does the defender job more effectively, and thus more powerfully than the simple safeguard smite does.

Binding Smite
Paladin 27
Encounter • Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 2x[W] + Wis damage and target cannot gain line of effect to anyone but you until the end of your next turn.

In binding smite you can see an example of how the effect of a smite goes up with level, while the numbers in their base form seem similar when not taking into account the accuracy and damage boosts that merely gaining levels (and having better weapons) affords. It just gets … well, better. Heck, it's epic, after all, so it has to be good, and you don't have to have 4th Edition books in front of you to realize line of effect denial is good. When you're fighting balor, ancient blue dragons, and sorrowsworn, it had better be good -- those critters don't fool around!

There you have it; just a small taste of what your paladin smites will look like in 4th Edition. While I have lost touch with Erol over the years, I hope that come this summer, somewhere out there, Sir Lore will return – a halfling with a high-pitched voice, yelling, "I smite thee, foul miscreant." I imagine his DM will just wince and sigh, just like I did all those years ago.

And mine's even mark-upped!

martyboy74
2007-11-29, 07:39 AM
Here's the article:
Smite -- since before 900 CE this word or some very similar Old or Middle English ancestor has meant, "That's going to leave a mark." In the first two editions of Dungeons & Dragons, smite was merely an interesting word used by folks laying down the smack. In my formative gaming years, a player of mine named Erol used to call his halfling paladin's reversed cure light wounds, smites. (Actually he was just a post-Unearthed Arcana fighter/cleric, but he called the character a paladin -- I was not farsighted enough just to let him play a paladin.) I think he just liked yelling "I smite the foul beast!" in that annoying high-pitched kid voice he used to play Sir Lore. (Yes, that's Erol's own name spelled backward in true high-Gygaxian fashion).

With the release of 3rd Edition, Erol's wildest dreams came true. Not only were halflings allowed to be true paladins, smite officially entered the paladin's toolbox. Sure, it was once a day. Sure, it wasn't nearly as good as you wanted it to be sometimes, but smites were promoted from verb to mechanic.

In 4th Edition, D&D smites really come into their own. Now a subset of the paladin's renewable (read, encounter-recharge) powers, smites allow a paladin to deliver a powerful blow with the character's weapon of choice, while layering on some divine effect (and I mean that in both meanings of the word) on allies or enemies. A divine defender, much of the paladin's smites are all about kicking the crap out of those they find anathema while ensuring that foes who want to hurt enemies have a harder time at it. Take, as exhibit one, safeguard smite:

Safeguard Smite
Paladin 1
Encounter • Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2x[W] + Cha.
Hit or Miss: An ally within 5 squares gains a bonus to AC equal to your Wisdom modifier until the end of your next turn.

This basic, entry-level smite has all the things a growing paladin needs to fulfill its role and lay down some hurt. A Charisma attack against the target's Armor Class, safeguard smite deals double her base weapon's damage plus her Charisma modifier in damage (paladins are a force of personality, after all), and grants a quick boost to an ally in trouble (including, in a pinch, the paladin herself). And there you have it. Your first smite -- simple, serviceable, and fun.

As your paladin progresses as a defender of the faith, smites, like all of your abilities, grow in power and utility. But unlike its defender cousin, the fighter, a paladin is more than just the guy who kicks butt and makes sure enemies focus (or want to focus) on him. Paladins have always been able to heal in some way and the 4th Edition variety is no different. Though this splash of leader flavor into the paladin's defender role comes in many forms, one of the more active and interesting ways that your paladin can come to the aid of a companion while fighting is our second example of a smite:

Renewing Smite
Paladin 13
Encounter • Healing, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 2x[W] + Cha damage and ally within 5 heals 10 + your Wisdom modifier damage.

You'll no doubt see the pattern between these two smites. They mix a fair portion of damage (scaled up by level, but not necessarily the amount of dice) while giving an ally a much needed boost of hit points at the most opportune moments. Selfish paladins (typically those who serve more self-centered gods or just the occasional egoist who venerates Pelor) can even heal themselves with the strike, as you're considered your own ally unless the effect of a power states otherwise.

Let's move on to smites that inhabit the levels over 20. Binding smite is another flavor of defender smite -- and as its high level demands, does the defender job more effectively, and thus more powerfully than the simple safeguard smite does.

Binding Smite
Paladin 27
Encounter • Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 2x[W] + Wis damage and target cannot gain line of effect to anyone but you until the end of your next turn.

In binding smite you can see an example of how the effect of a smite goes up with level, while the numbers in their base form seem similar when not taking into account the accuracy and damage boosts that merely gaining levels (and having better weapons) affords. It just gets … well, better. Heck, it's epic, after all, so it has to be good, and you don't have to have 4th Edition books in front of you to realize line of effect denial is good. When you're fighting balor, ancient blue dragons, and sorrowsworn, it had better be good -- those critters don't fool around!

There you have it; just a small taste of what your paladin smites will look like in 4th Edition. While I have lost touch with Erol over the years, I hope that come this summer, somewhere out there, Sir Lore will return – a halfling with a high-pitched voice, yelling, "I smite thee, foul miscreant." I imagine his DM will just wince and sigh, just like I did all those years ago.


On another note, it looks like paladins may come with in-built alignment variation:

That's not inbuilt variation; that's how the player thinks. They use selfish because he's healing himself, instead of healing his allies. Note that 'Selfish' is only captilized because it's the beginning of the sentence.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 07:43 AM
Thanks squishy and marty.

Really looks cool. Seems they have taken the best notions of Factotum and Tome of Battle and handed them out to all the classes. I am getting more and more jazzed about 4e all the time.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-29, 08:03 AM
On another note, it looks like paladins may come with in-built alignment variation:

Selfish or egoist Paladins?

Man, what happened to standards around here.

This is why Paladin makes a better Prc, because then nobody complains that you can't be an evil one. Oh wait, Assassin, nevermind.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 08:11 AM
Selfish or egoist Paladins?

Man, what happened to standards around here.

This is why Paladin makes a better Prc, because then nobody complains that you can't be an evil one. Oh wait, Assassin, nevermind.

Because they are just making the Paladin a generic "Divine Warrior" who crusades for a deity, be it for Tyr or Asmodeus. I like it. It's how it should be.. how it's always been really. How many times have there been "Anti-Paladin" or more recently, "Blackguard". It is patently ridiculous IMO that Lawful Good, and only Lawful Good, deities have military orders which recieve divine power to augment their martial ability.

kjones
2007-11-29, 08:42 AM
Paladins of other alignments are nothing new. I believe PHBII has a bunch of variants.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-29, 08:42 AM
It is patently ridiculous IMO that Lawful Good, and only Lawful Good, deities have military orders which recieve divine power to augment their martial ability.

But every diety has clerics who do exactly that all the time.

The Paladin is a pretty redundant class unless you turn clerics into pacifists.

Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good dieties are also allowed Paladins in 3rd edition.

Who says Paladins have to be diety related anyway? A Paladin never was a "divine warrior who crusades for a diety", it was the class you took if you wanted to play a Knight of Arthurian tradition. Making it anything else is betraying the concept to make people who don't really care about that concept happy. They may as well just scrap the Paladin or put it in as an option for Lawful Good fighters to take, that's all it really was in some earlier editions (as well as requiring godlike stats). The Paladin class was always unneccesary and not worth the arguements that took place over it.

Why does Asmodeus even want crusading warriors anyway?

Green Bean
2007-11-29, 09:03 AM
But every diety has clerics who do exactly that all the time.

The Paladin is a pretty redundant class unless you turn clerics into pacifists.

Seeing as it's a new edition, I'd be very surprised if Wizards didn't try to curb CoDzilla. If 4e clerics aren't able to wear platemail and wade into melee, then paladins start to make sense.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-29, 10:31 AM
A couple of interesting miscellaneous notes:

The smites are described as "renewable (read: encounter-recharge) abilities," further implying that there will still be a few per-day mechanics.

This seems to be confirmation that 4e will indeed measure everything in "squares" instead of "feet."

Pokemaster
2007-11-29, 10:54 AM
Why does Asmodeus even want crusading warriors anyway?

Well, someone has to lay down the law Sheriff of Nottingham-style. Just imagine how horrible the world would be if someone stole from the rich and gave to the poor.

Overall, the smites look pretty sweet. You get to brutally assault people in the name of your god, but it's not the generic attack with a bonus that it was in 3E. I'd say this bodes well for the other classes, especially the Fighter.

Thinker
2007-11-29, 10:58 AM
In DnD Clerics are war-priests and paladins are holy knights. There is a difference in that paladins should be better at fighting than clerics, who should gain more power from their deities.
The argument that having clerics and paladins at the same time is redundant is the same as saying that having rangers and rogues is redundant; why not just play a fighter who lives in the woods and leave the skills to the rogue?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-29, 11:18 AM
In DnD Clerics are war-priests and paladins are holy knights. There is a difference in that paladins should be better at fighting than clerics, who should gain more power from their deities.

But Clerics are better at fighting than Paladins, so it doesn't work.

Thinker
2007-11-29, 11:20 AM
But Clerics are better at fighting than Paladins, so it doesn't work.

I do not disagree with that. I am referring to DnD as a whole, not just 3.5e. That was why I used the word should. Hopefully in 4th ed they make the distinction more apparent.

Brawls
2007-11-29, 11:56 AM
Soooo, I haven't had my coffee yet this morning so I'm a bit slow, but how is the Charisma vs. AC (or Wisdom) attack going to work? With ToB, I can see how a Warblade's Concentration check vs. AC plays out. For the proposed 4e Paladin, I can't imagine a Charisma check really getting anywhere near high enough to touch an oppenent's AC. Am I reading this wrong?

Brawls

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-29, 11:59 AM
You're probably going to ADD your CHA to a normal attack roll. Like it works with the current smites. You probably won't be making a CHA check only.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 12:02 PM
You're probably going to ADD your CHA to a normal attack roll. Like it works with the current smites. You probably won't be making a CHA check only.

See I was thinking it would mean replacing your normal STR based or DEX based attack with CHA. So instead of 1d20+3 (STR) you would get 1d20+2 (CHA) instead.

Larrin
2007-11-29, 12:16 PM
See I was thinking it would mean replacing your normal STR based or DEX based attack with CHA. So instead of 1d20+3 (STR) you would get 1d20+2 (CHA) instead.

except a smart paldin will probably have a higher CHA bonuse than STR, i think that 4e Paladins may tend to have higher mental stats and lower physical (espeacially STR) than 3e.

also, the "I hit you, and my friend heals" problem can possibly be explained thusly;

when a spell caster casts spells in previous edditions, they did so by waving hands and mutting words and throwing bat guano around. This is fine for wizards and maybe even clerics to some degree, but a full blooded warrior like a paladin wouldn't be casting spells like that (at least not in the midst of battle) thus they cast spells by smiting there foes. thus it isn't "I hit you, and somehow my friend heals", but rather "I cast a spell to heal my friend, and to complete it i need to smack something" It isn't perfect, but i can live with thinking about it that way.

Pokemaster
2007-11-29, 03:27 PM
But Clerics are better at fighting than Paladins, so it doesn't work.

Clerics are better at fighting than almost anything. I believe that's one of the things the 4th Edition rules are supposed to fix.

I'm guessing that Smite abilities will appeal more to Paladins who want a higher charisma than strength, but even if your strength is higher than your charisma, you still get an additional effect out of smite that a normal attack wouldn't provide.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-11-29, 03:47 PM
I'm guessing that Smite abilities will appeal more to Paladins who want a higher charisma than strength, but even if your strength is higher than your charisma, you still get an additional effect out of smite that a normal attack wouldn't provide.

The idea of Paladins as muscless pretty boys who use their lovelyness to win battles doesn't sit well with me but I guess it's a natural evolution of an already imbred and mutated concept.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-29, 04:18 PM
Excellent. Looks like Paladins are killing the Crusader and taking its stuff (or more likely, politely negotiating with the Crusader for all of its stuff.)

As a Paladin fanboy, I approve. If nothing else, they'll get more utility besides being massive burst damage in full plate.

Oh, and adding CHA modifier to attack on a Smite is probably just going to work the same as it does already. Although "Cha vs. Will" makes that more confusing.

DraPrime
2007-11-29, 04:20 PM
So because I cut off some fiend's head, my friend's wounds heal :smallconfused: That's just weird. If these smites didn't have such strange benefits I'd probably like them, but this is just way too messed up. Hopefully there are other smites that actually make sense.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-29, 04:22 PM
I really want to know how this Healing Smite stuff makes any less sense than spellcasting. I've seen two or three perfectly reasonable explanations for it already, and the one I'm going with is "your god (or the forces of Lawful Goodness at large), in appreciation for you smacking that demon a good one, grant you a favor, in this case, healing your friend."

Plus, does anyone complain about Crusader Strike?

DraPrime
2007-11-29, 04:24 PM
I really want to know how this Healing Smite stuff makes any less sense than spellcasting. I've seen two or three perfectly reasonable explanations for it already, and the one I'm going with is "your god (or the forces of Lawful Goodness at large), in appreciation for you smacking that demon a good one, grant you a favor, in this case, healing your friend."

Plus, does anyone complain about Crusader Strike?

Spellcasting has always been a part of D&D, this is something new and bizzare. And why doesn't my god heal me all the time so that I can take on entire demon armies? It would be worth his time.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-29, 04:26 PM
Think of it like a spell with a somatic component of "hit someone", then. And one that renews per encounter rather than per day.

It's just a technique to be more efficient in combat, doing your duties of damage and healing at the same time; a specialized spellcasting ability. And as mentioned before, it's not new, nor particularly bizarre, as 4e Concept Testing Tome of Battle had a class with the exact same ability.

Artanis
2007-11-29, 04:31 PM
So because I cut off some fiend's head, my friend's wounds heal :smallconfused: That's just weird. If these smites didn't have such strange benefits I'd probably like them, but this is just way too messed up. Hopefully there are other smites that actually make sense.
Even if it doesn't make much sense, this is an area where playability is probably going to be forced to trump atmosphere.

The problem with Clerics in 3e is that, in order to get people to play the healer, WotC made them good at melee combat as well...but screwed up and made them a little too good. This sort of thing keeps the Cleric smacking things so that he's actually fun to play, while still being a healer rather than an uberfighter with really good bandaids.

The_Snark
2007-11-29, 04:32 PM
Spellcasting has always been a part of D&D, this is something new and bizzare. And why doesn't my god heal me all the time so that I can take on entire demon armies? It would be worth his time.

As pointed out, it's not quite as new as it seems (although people do also complain when crusaders do this).

They don't do that all the time for the same reason they don't grant all their clerics 9th-level spells. Not enough attention, not enough power to do it for everyone, and if they do it, then eventually evil gods will do it too, empowering their followers to cut bloody swathes through the forces of good. Escalation eventually follows, leading over time to full-on divine battles on the Material Plane...

... which pretty much leaves no mortals, and only a very few gods want that. So the gods work out rules, and only break them in really dire need (DM fiat).

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-29, 04:33 PM
Did anyone else notice that smite has no restriction on targets? As in you can smite a good or evil creature with the same effect (barring any consequences of an evil action of course)?

kpenguin
2007-11-29, 04:38 PM
Did anyone else notice that smite has no restriction on targets? As in you can smite a good or evil creature with the same effect (barring any consequences of an evil action of course)?

My guess is that since paladins can be dedicated to more alignments than LG, you get an alignment that you can smite with when you choose which alignment to dedicate yourself too. These smites don't have alignment included because alignment restrictions will be in the general description of smites.

Starsinger
2007-11-29, 04:39 PM
Did anyone else notice that smite has no restriction on targets? As in you can smite a good or evil creature with the same effect (barring any consequences of an evil action of course)?

Good, I see that as a welcome divorce between mechanics and alignment. I loathe the fact that alignment is a sort of in-game out-game stat that can be measured in game, and has all sorts of ridiculous uses. "It's okay, I know he's evil, so I can kill him." You should never get to know someone's alignment because you bust out a low level divination spell (or an at-will class ability). You should have to infer it based on their actions..

So I hope this trend continues, and that there's no mechanical impact between being lawful good or chaotic evil or any of the alignments in between.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-29, 05:40 PM
This sort of thing keeps the Cleric smacking things so that he's actually fun to play, while still being a healer rather than an uberfighter with really good bandaids.

QFT. It's a problem that's plagued RPGs for years: healers aren't heroes. Would you rather be busting heads, or being forced to patch up the people busting heads because otherwise they'd die and scream at you? Wouldn't it be nice to do both at the same time?

Just think of smiting foes as priming the positive energy pump. "Get the juice pumping, the blood flowing."

Kurald Galain
2007-11-29, 05:59 PM
Even if it doesn't make much sense, this is an area where playability is probably going to be forced to trump atmosphere.

So you are, in essence, claiming that every system that does not allow you to heal people by hitting other people lacks playability.

That is a rather bold claim. I can think of at least a handful of systems that do epic combat very well without requiring this.

The difference is noticeable in fantasy books. Good fantasy books have magic systems with internal rules, consistencies, and limitations; bad fantasy books have magic that does whatever the plot requires at that moment. 4E clearly takes the latter approach, apparently influenced by Magic: the Gathering - magic does whatever is most convenient for the rules making team.

SmartAlec
2007-11-29, 06:11 PM
The difference is noticeable in fantasy books. Good fantasy books have magic systems with internal rules, consistencies, and limitations; bad fantasy books have magic that does whatever the plot requires at that moment.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

ALL magic in Fantasy books does whatever the plot requires at the moment. A BAD Fantasy writer might use it as a cheap Deus Ex Machina, or get sloppy and write him/herself into a corner. A GOOD Fantasy writer simply does a much tighter job of this, by planning ahead.

You're critiquing the Magic before you've read the Book. Here's some news: Magic in 4th Ed works in a different way than in 3rd Ed! We knew that when they said they were removing spell slot systems. Chances are, it applies to a lot more. Just because you don't know the internal rules, consistencies and limitations doesn't mean they're not there.

Matthew
2007-11-29, 06:15 PM
Well, I have to say, "this looks stupid." I am sure it will either prove popular or not based on how it relates to the other powers available. Regardless, you can colour me not impressed. I will wait to see the core books to see how this interacts with the game, but I don't think I could be any less their target audience if I tried. I'm sure it will be very 'playable'.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-29, 06:22 PM
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

ALL magic in Fantasy books does whatever the plot requires at the moment.

If that didn't make sense to you, I can only say you need to read a larger variety of fantasy books.

Aside from that, we can already see from the previews (as well as the direction of 3.5 sourcebooks in the last year or two) that WOTC's design is based on game mechanics rather than plot.

Now I see this as a design choice. I am stating this factually, and I am nowhere saying that "every1 shuold haet 4E because of thsi!!!1". So I don't really understand why your last post seems so defensive; it almost sounds like you think I say something negative about 4E, and therefore what I said must be false.

SmartAlec
2007-11-29, 06:34 PM
If that didn't make sense to you, I can only say you need to read a larger variety of fantasy books.

Aside from that, we can already see from the previews (as well as the direction of 3.5 sourcebooks in the last year or two) that WOTC's design is based on game mechanics rather than plot.

Now I see this as a design choice. I am stating this factually, and I am nowhere saying that "every1 shuold haet 4E because of thsi!!!1". So I don't really understand why your last post seems so defensive; it almost sounds like you think I say something negative about 4E, and therefore what I said must be false.

It just seemed to be a bizarre thing to say.

All we're seeing here are the mechanics, without the background that supports them. But, you're criticisiing the background. The background that we don't know.

As to magic in fantasy, I read plenty. The only difference I see between the 'Good' handling of Magic and the 'Bad' handling of magic is that the writer of the 'Good' handling is able to maintain the illusion of consistency. Everything in a book is a product of the author. If an author condradicts himself by a rule he made up earlier when he started writing the book, he can do one of two things: make it seem more consistent (either by rewriting the passage he's written, or by tweaking the rule, or... some other cunning device of writing), or he can largely ignore it.

Either way, the magic serves the story, not the other way around. If it didn't, then it would be irrelevant to the story being told.


I'm sure it will be very 'playable'.

By what other criteria should a game be judged? 'Playability' would seem to cover everything that would make you want to play the game again, or not.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-29, 06:42 PM
My view on healing/buffing with smites:

Just look at human history and mythology. There are always gods that demand sacrifices. Smiting is just sort of a "sacrifice lite": Instead of tying the enemies of the gods to an altar and tearing out their hearts to stave off a flood, you stab them on the field of battle to acquire a minor boon. The god your paladin serves is slightly empowered by the blood shed from your enemies when you dedicate a strike to him, so in exchange he uses that power to heal an ally or somesuch. The idea of the blood of mortals having power for the gods is nothing particularly strange or special. It can even be extrapolated to bloodless creatures, as you are cutting them and damaging their life (whether it be by weakening the negative energy bonds powering undead or spilling the water and sap contained within a treant) much in the way that bleeding damages the life of a human. The only trouble is applying this to constructs, but assuming all constructs are considered powered by magic, it can be justified. If they ever introduce a mundane, steam-powered construct, though...

psychoticbarber
2007-11-29, 06:58 PM
My own take has been mentioned above, but I'll reiterate it. If HP is an abstraction of your ability to continue fighting, then the smiting may not heal your wounds, but it might inspire you to fight longer than you otherwise would have.

Just because people describe HP in terms of bodily health doesn't mean that that's always what it is.

J.Gellert
2007-11-29, 07:02 PM
So if you're friend is at -9 HPs and you are out of healing magic, you can smite a passing butterfly or bee to heal him?

And Binding Smite is a way to... keep aggro? Now we'll be playing WoW-D&D, good times.

Aximili
2007-11-29, 07:02 PM
My own take has been mentioned above, but I'll reiterate it. If HP is an abstraction of your ability to continue fighting, then the smiting may not heal your wounds, but it might inspire you to fight longer than you otherwise would have.

Just because people describe HP in terms of bodily health doesn't mean that that's always what it is.
QFT.

Hp is abstract. In fact, damage represents much more stress and lack of morale than actual injuries.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-29, 07:04 PM
Just because people describe HP in terms of bodily health doesn't mean that that's always what it is.

No, but the only reason why HP is sometimes said to be an abstraction of morale and so forth, is because some people figured out that having it represent physical health (which it was designed for) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In other words, a retcon. Problem, is, as an abstraction of morale it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

Note how just about every rules-related text, other than a small bit of philosophy to the side, as well as nearly every player everywhere, assumes it means physical health. For instance, if an arrow is coated with injection poison and it hits, reducing the fighter from 80 to 78 HP, you could argue that now his "ability to dodge stuff" is diminished - but he still has to save for the poison which is now in his bloodstream.

Oh, and note how 4E refers to 50% loss of hit points as "bloodied". That doesn't sound like morale.

Of course, given a substantially convoluted excuse, you can rationalize away any rule you want. Doing so doesn't make it a good rule, however.

Aximili
2007-11-29, 07:05 PM
So if you're friend is at -9 HPs and you are out of healing magic, you can smite a passing butterfly or bee to heal him?

The crusader's abilities had restrictions to when it could be used. If I recall correctly, you had to strike someone who actually intended to harm you or your allies. Which makes sense, after all, how motivated is your friend gonna get if you start hack 'n slashing commoners off the street?

J.Gellert
2007-11-29, 07:08 PM
So, you poke the bee and it tries to sting you. Intent to cause harm - Healing time!

Mewtarthio
2007-11-29, 07:12 PM
So if you're friend is at -9 HPs and you are out of healing magic, you can smite a passing butterfly or bee to heal him?

I assume that it'll be like the Crusader: It only works on actual enemies. No god appreciates randomly stabbing passing animals (except maybe a CE god of slaughter), and a butterfly just doesn't have the life energy necessary to make a decent sacrifice. Even if you upgrade to stabbing commoners, your god wouldn't accept such a lousy offering: Good gods would naturally be apalled, gods of battle and conquest would believe you to be wasting your time, and even gods of slaughter and genocide would reject such a sacrifice, viewing it as mundane and weak (imagine if, instead of sacrificing a full-grown bull to Zeus, you sacrificed a stillborn calf).

Tokiko Mima
2007-11-29, 07:13 PM
That doesn't mean it's a particularly good idea.

You know what I think? I think they owe you royalties on the idea of Smite Feats. :smallwink:

Hooray Revised Paladin, already doing this in 3.5!

SmartAlec
2007-11-29, 07:14 PM
Of course, given a substantially convoluted excuse, you can rationalize away any rule you want. Doing so doesn't make it a good rule, however.

You're right; but it also doesn't make it a bad rule. The thing that makes it a good rule or not... is whether it's a good rule or not.

That's what DnD is; rules, justified by a fictional context, to aid in visualising an imaginary situation. Some of the rules are good; some of them aren't so good. That is every roleplaying system in a nutshell, right there.

Seems weird to try to call it into question now; RPGs have been around for well over 30 years.

J.Gellert
2007-11-29, 07:15 PM
Good-aligned Gods should be appalled by any form of sacrifice.

SmartAlec
2007-11-29, 07:16 PM
Good-aligned Gods should be appalled by any form of sacrifice.

They're pretty big on selfsacrifice.

Demonstrating your intent to slay evil/protect the innocent by putting yourself in harm's way in their name might well cut it.

The way I see it, in 13 words: A Cleric prays with his Holy Symbol, a Paladin prays with his sword.

Aximili
2007-11-29, 07:22 PM
No, but the only reason why HP is sometimes said to be an abstraction of morale and so forth, is because some people figured out that having it represent physical health (which it was designed for) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In other words, a retcon. Problem, is, as an abstraction of morale it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. No that's not the reason. It's actually explained in the core books. I confess to not remembering if it was the DM guide or the PHB, but I specifically recall that it mentions a paladin coming out of a fireball alive.
The problem is: it's like a paragraph or two only, so it's easy to go unnoticed (the greatest flaw in the books, IMO). Something like this really deserved more attention.


Note how just about every rules-related text, other than a small bit of philosophy to the side, as well as nearly every player everywhere, assumes it means physical health. For instance, if an arrow is coated with injection poison and it hits, reducing the fighter from 80 to 78 HP, you could argue that now his "ability to dodge stuff" is diminished - but he still has to save for the poison which is now in his bloodstream.That's one of the flaws of the HP system. You either lack on verisimilitude or lack on simplicity (which would happen if you added a conditional to see what actually wounds the target).

Oh, and note how 4E refers to 50% loss of hit points as "bloodied". That doesn't sound like morale.You are distorting it. It sounds exactly like morale to me. It means that after taking half you HP in damage, you're likely to have finally suffered a serious wound, and thus you start suffering penalties. The fact that you suffer no penalties for taking damage while way above 50% and while just bellow it, represents that you are taking little physical damage during those intervals (statistically speaking, of course).



Of course, given a substantially convoluted excuse, you can rationalize away any rule you want. Doing so doesn't make it a good rule, however.
How good the HP system is, is not a subject for this thread, but it certainly makes a whole lot more sense to picture the guy getting tired from dodging the blow than to picture him surviving a 50 damage blow with an axe.

Matthew
2007-11-29, 07:23 PM
By what other criteria should a game be judged? 'Playability' would seem to cover everything that would make you want to play the game again, or not.
Many, many others. That's why you get 'playability' as a discrete category. Chess is a very playable game, so is Chequers, Munchkin, Zombies, Settlers of Catan. They aren't all equal because they are playable, though.

Aximili
2007-11-29, 07:25 PM
So, you poke the bee and it tries to sting you. Intent to cause harm - Healing time!
Now you get the picture.:smallwink:

Though I can totally picture Pelor saying: "You poked her first! I saw it! No healing for you!:smallmad: "

SmartAlec
2007-11-29, 07:28 PM
Many, many others. That's why you get 'playability' as a discrete category. Chess is a very playable game, so is Chequers, Munchkin, Zombies, Settlers of Catan. They aren't all equal because they are playable, though.

Perhaps not from an objective viewpoint. However, we're players, not analysts; Playability would seem to suggest everything that is most relevant to us.

J.Gellert
2007-11-29, 07:29 PM
Though I can totally picture Pelor saying: "You poked her first! I saw it! No healing for you! "

Best fall from grace ever! :smallsmile:

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-29, 07:29 PM
I always see HP as a mixture of stamina, morale, and physical damage. They more you get knocked about, the less stamina you have, same with morale.

Just my 2cp.

Matthew
2007-11-29, 07:33 PM
Perhaps not from an objective viewpoint. However, we're players, not analysts; Playability would seem to suggest everything that is most relevant to us.

Not really. Castles & Crusades is a very playable game, as is True20; both are alternatives to D20, which I also consider to be very playable. That doesn't mean that I find it very easy to prepare for, or modify, design adventures for or use to mechanically represent my Home Brew campaign World. All it means is that it plays well in practice, which it does. I have no doubt that 4e will play well, but that doesn't mean that I consider the mechanics to be aesthetically pleasing. Certainly, all this stuff about Smites having seemingly unrelated secondary effects, is something that I find, from an aesthetic point of view, unappealing, even silly. To bring another lengthy Thread into it, the Spiked Chain has very playable mechanics, but I still regard it as silly.

reorith
2007-11-29, 07:37 PM
What worries me is that paladins seem to still suffer from horrible MAD, since both Wis and Cha affect their class abilities (and I'm guessing they'll need Str, Con and possibly Dex too, being melee fighters). I'd have preferred removing the charisma connection, personally. Or the wisdom connection, although that seems like a worse idea.

i think mad will find its use as a balancing tool to an extent in 4e.

Pokemaster
2007-11-29, 08:21 PM
Paladins have always worked by asking their Gods for Divine Powers so they could crush their enemies. The only difference Smites make is that instead of getting minor Cleric powers or attack bonuses, their Gods will give them something that's actually useful.

Ryshan Ynrith
2007-11-29, 09:09 PM
No, but the only reason why HP is sometimes said to be an abstraction of morale and so forth, is because some people figured out that having it represent physical health (which it was designed for) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In other words, a retcon. Problem, is, as an abstraction of morale it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

Note how just about every rules-related text, other than a small bit of philosophy to the side, as well as nearly every player everywhere, assumes it means physical health. For instance, if an arrow is coated with injection poison and it hits, reducing the fighter from 80 to 78 HP, you could argue that now his "ability to dodge stuff" is diminished - but he still has to save for the poison which is now in his bloodstream.

Oh, and note how 4E refers to 50% loss of hit points as "bloodied". That doesn't sound like morale.

Of course, given a substantially convoluted excuse, you can rationalize away any rule you want. Doing so doesn't make it a good rule, however.

A fairly minor point, in the scheme of things, but almost all poisons deal ability damage, not HP damage, and that is very much more "this is harming my body directly" than HP. Of course, the current poison system is somewhat bizarre and is one of the things I hope 4E fixes, but there you are.

It is not necessarily purely morale, but a mixture of luck and energy and the ability to avoid death and a little bit of actual damage. A grazing wound that does no serious damage will still take a bit of a toll on the warrior who receives it, rendering him less able to avoid future hurts.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-29, 09:21 PM
A fairly minor point, in the scheme of things, but almost all poisons deal ability damage, not HP damage, and that is very much more "this is harming my body directly" than HP. Of course, the current poison system is somewhat bizarre and is one of the things I hope 4E fixes, but there you are.

C/P from EN World (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e);


An article on the official site, The Importance of Terrain, deals with... well, terrain in 4E. The majority of the article reiterates that movement is more imortant in 4E, encounter areas are bigger, etc. It does have a good few items in it:
A reference to how 100' chasms are deadly in non-paragon/epic (levels 11+) play.
Information on a sample terrain type - the Doomspore, which includes an interesting insight into the poison mechanic (bold added by me): "If any creature enters a doomspore's square (or uses a standard action to kick or poke at it, if within reach), a doomspore releases a cloud of spores that provides concealment to all creatures within its own and adjacent squares. Furthermore, a bloodied creature in the area of a cloud when created, who moves into the cloud, or begins its turn in the cloud, is subject to a Fortitude attack (+10) that deals 1d10 points of poison damage on a hit. In addition, a target hit by a doomspore is weakened and takes ongoing poison 5 (save ends both conditions; creatures with immunity to or resist poison 5 are immune to the weakened condition also)." Note that a "bloodied" creature, to the best of our knowledge at present, is one at 50% or less hit points.

psychoticbarber
2007-11-29, 11:20 PM
Of course, given a substantially convoluted excuse, you can rationalize away any rule you want. Doing so doesn't make it a good rule, however.

Well, I never once said it was a good rule. Though I think it is, speaking from the point of view of someone who has played dedicated healers. I've had both good and bad experiences, but when it comes down to playing with a DM I don't know well, I'd like the opportunity to play a character that heals and can also contribute in combat, and I don't always want to play CoDzilla.

And don't talk too loudly about rationalization, you might awaken the spoooooky wizards :smallwink:.

No, seriously, I know it's a dumb abstraction, but I'll take "My abilities to shrug off damage and keep fighting increase" over "My body can withstand more head-shots than it could before", because excessive realism is always a possibility.

Matthew
2007-11-30, 11:59 AM
Paladins have always worked by asking their Gods for Divine Powers so they could crush their enemies. The only difference Smites make is that instead of getting minor Cleric powers or attack bonuses, their Gods will give them something that's actually useful.

El wrongo. Check out the description in the PHB and SRD of where Paladins derive their power. None of which has anything to do with the fact that the secondary effects of a Smite making a it suddenly useful. Seriously, +X Damage is useless, but +X Damage and +Y Healing is useful? Powered up mechanics and smooth aesthetics don't necessarily mix well.

Person_Man
2007-11-30, 12:30 PM
The difference is noticeable in fantasy books. Good fantasy books have magic systems with internal rules, consistencies, and limitations; bad fantasy books have magic that does whatever the plot requires at that moment. 4E clearly takes the latter approach, apparently influenced by Magic: the Gathering - magic does whatever is most convenient for the rules making team.

I didn't like the article, and I agree with you. But only up to a point.

At the age of eight when I first read that I could play a character that created fireballs by throwing bat poop at his enemies, it didn't make any sense to me. In fact, I avoided Magic Users entirely because magic in D&D didn't fit into anything I had read before, or talked about before, or seen on tv or in a movie. But then after playing a few games with my friends, I thought to myself, "Hey, magic is cool." And eventually it seemed normal that I could kill a room full of people by waving my hands around, saying a few words, and tossing some garbage at them.

Right now, it just seems odd and hokey that I can heal one of my friends by hitting an enemy. It was odd when they printed it in the Tome of Battle. It's odd now.

Hopefully, they'll build up some internally consistent fluff to explain why they want to use the mechanic. And if the mechanic works well, and the fluff helps people roleplay, then people will use it and it will be fun. If not, people can avoid it, or just play some other class and call themselves Paladins, or stick with an earlier edition of the rules.

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-30, 03:16 PM
So, they dedicated a whole article to paladin smites (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071128). I like the idea of adding a bunch of effects to smites. It feels like the warlock blast essences, but with smites.

I like the idea. But I'm still seeing this fundamental disconnect where a rule exists without any clear explanation of what's happening in the game world.

Specifically, the binding smite: "Hit: 2x[W] + Wis damage and target cannot gain line of effect to anyone but you until the end of your next turn."

What does that mean, exactly? What is the paladin doing, exactly, that prevents the enemy from gaining a line of effect to anyone else?

The renewing smite has a similar problem. Although we can come up with an explanation for that easily enough, that's not the point: The point is that the designers aren't putting any thought into it. (For a paladin, his martial skills are a rite offered up to his god. So when he strikes with his chosen weapon, it's no different than a cleric calling upon his god -- and the paladin can manifest that faith in the form of healing for his allies in combat.)

And it's not just this one article: I first became aware of this problem when Mike Mearls' redesigned the 3rd Edition rust monster. The current design crew at WotC apparently don't give a damn about whether or not a mechanic makes any sense in terms of the game world.

Of course, the binding smite is also an example of why I don't actually believe anything that WotC or their designers are saying about 4th Edition. I mean, I don't want to call them blatant liars, but it was literally only days ago that Mike Mearls posted to the WotC boards and swore that aggro mechanics had been tested, found wanting, and removed from the game.

And yet here we are: This is clearly an aggro mechanic.


What worries me is that paladins seem to still suffer from horrible MAD, since both Wis and Cha affect their class abilities (and I'm guessing they'll need Str, Con and possibly Dex too, being melee fighters). I'd have preferred removing the charisma connection, personally. Or the wisdom connection, although that seems like a worse idea.

Based on what we've seen so far, it looks like ALL the classes are going to be relying on broad-based stats. If you look at that from a 3rd Edition paradigm, it sounds like a bad idea. But in 4th Edition it just means that you'll have different strengths and weaknesses with each class depending on what pattern of good-and-weak ability scores you choose.

In other words, you won't need to be good at everything a class could potentially be good at in order to have a good, balanced character.

Or, to put it another way, you'll have the ability to choose to de-couple Charisma or Wisdom from your paladin (although that will naturally influence which paladin abilities you'll choose to specialize in).

Or so they've said, of course.


No, but the only reason why HP is sometimes said to be an abstraction of morale and so forth, is because some people figured out that having it represent physical health (which it was designed for) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In other words, a retcon.

No. I'm sorry, but that's completely incorrect. Hit Points have always been an abstract mechanic representing both physical damage, the ability to keep going despite damage, and the ability to minimize damage.

For example, here's the AD&D1 PHB: "Each character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors."


Note how just about every rules-related text, other than a small bit of philosophy to the side, as well as nearly every player everywhere, assumes it means physical health. For instance, if an arrow is coated with injection poison and it hits, reducing the fighter from 80 to 78 HP, you could argue that now his "ability to dodge stuff" is diminished - but he still has to save for the poison which is now in his bloodstream.

Hit points never represent a blow which was completely dodged: Your ability to roll with a punch or turn a sword thrust that would have skewered your heart into one which instead leaves a thin line of blood on your shoulder increases your hit points (by reducing the effectiveness of any given blow that connect for damage), but it doesn't eliminate the ability for a poison arrow to deliver its poison.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 03:31 PM
I mean, I don't want to call them blatant liars, but it was literally only days ago that Mike Mearls posted to the WotC boards and swore that aggro mechanics had been tested, found wanting, and removed from the game.

And yet here we are: This is clearly an aggro mechanic.

Are you sure?

I was under the impression that an aggro mechanic would be a series of checks and balances that determines automatically what target a monster could attack.

Binding Smite is a spell. It can exist outside of aggro, and works whether it's some complicated series of circumstances is driving the monster, or whether it's DM's choice.

And it doesn't even last longer than a round; if it was an aggro mechanic, then it would increase the chances of a monster attacking the paladin and continuing to attack the Paladin, but it doesn't even do that, not unless the Paladin uses this Smite over and over - and I don't think he can.

Artanis
2007-11-30, 03:39 PM
Of course, the binding smite is also an example of why I don't actually believe anything that WotC or their designers are saying about 4th Edition. I mean, I don't want to call them blatant liars, but it was literally only days ago that Mike Mearls posted to the WotC boards and swore that aggro mechanics had been tested, found wanting, and removed from the game.
I thought they said that the "fighter is an aggro-magnet tankbot" thing was removed, not that they had removed all abilities that made the monster take a swing at them before going for the squishies.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-30, 03:44 PM
The crusader's abilities had restrictions to when it could be used. If I recall correctly, you had to strike someone who actually intended to harm you or your allies. Which makes sense, after all, how motivated is your friend gonna get if you start hack 'n slashing commoners off the street?

I, for one, would be very motivated. Maybe to run before police come or stop him, but I would be motivated.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-30, 03:49 PM
I first became aware of this problem when Mike Mearls' redesigned the 3rd Edition rust monster. The current design crew at WotC apparently don't give a damn about whether or not a mechanic makes any sense in terms of the game world.
QFT on the second sentence. Do you have a link for that rust monster?

My personal favorite example is the spell Regroup from the PHB2. Logically, it should be easier to teleport one person, than to teleport five people. Then explain why Dimension Door, which transports one, is fourth level, and Regroup, which can transport over a dozen, is third.


No. I'm sorry, but that's completely incorrect. Hit Points have always been an abstract mechanic representing both physical damage, the ability to keep going despite damage, and the ability to minimize damage.
Ah yes, that is why nearly every single spell that lets you recover hit points is called "cure wounds"...

Justin_Bacon
2007-11-30, 04:51 PM
Are you sure?

I was under the impression that an aggro mechanic would be a series of checks and balances that determines automatically what target a monster could attack.

Yes, I'm sure. I'm afraid your understanding of aggro mechanics is relatively narrow and inaccurate.

In principle, binding smite is similar or identical to a World of Warcraft Taunt: If you attack anybody, you will attack me. This effect lasts for a limited time, unless I do something to make you continue attacking me and only me.

In this case the mechanic is limited to "line of effect" abilities (which may or may not include melee attacks depending on how the 4th Edition combat rules work), but it's the exact same principle.


QFT on the second sentence. Do you have a link for that rust monster?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a

The key rule is: "A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, warp, and crack. Any metal weapons, armor, and shields carried by a creature struck are weakened by this effect. (...) These penalties last for 10 minutes."

How do weapons, armor, and shields which have been corroded, warped, and cracked magically repair themselves 10 minutes later? Nobody knows.


Ah yes, that is why nearly every single spell that lets you recover hit points is called "cure wounds"...

Yes, actually. Since all hit points lost represent wounds suffered, it makes sense that the spells which cure those wounds would be referred to as "cure wounds" spells.

However, it is true that the cure spells are gamist and go directly contrary to everything else written about the hit point mechanic in the last 30 years. (Why? Because, unlike natural healing, the number of hit points you heal is not adjusted by your level.) What's your point? ;)

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

clericwithnogod
2007-11-30, 05:03 PM
None of which has anything to do with the fact that the secondary effects of a Smite making a it suddenly useful. Seriously, +X Damage is useless, but +X Damage and +Y Healing is useful?

Is this maybe an example of what was described by David Noonan as being "viable" at something. Second-rate fighting plus second-rate healing equals happiness...

"Viable" is mentioned in the regards to gishes and multiclass characters, but there is kind of a blurry line between any class that isn't a fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric and a gish type of character (if there is a line at all).

I'm hoping against hope that all characters regardless of class that build for fighting in melee can fight in melee with a general effectiveness of 1 (with a varying range of .75-1.25 or so depending on situations) with the difference being how they fight and their secondary effects - the defenders preventing damage and being able to take a little more damage, the strikers moving around and avoiding a little more damage, the controllers managing the battlefield and doing whatever and leaders healing/buffing/debuffing and doing whatever at an effectiveness of .5 or so . People who really don't like to focus on melee could use their choices to reverse the numbers to .5 combat and 1 at their role.

Essentially, I hope they use the roles and power sources to differentiate how a class is effective in combat rather than how effective a class is in combat.

From some of the examples though, I'm getting the impression that there will be a lot of fighting with a general effectiveness of .75 or so and doing something else with a general effectiveness of .75, which really doesn't work that well to me. Without seeing the builds behind the examples, it is hard to know what classes are capable of.

Worst case, it could look like this:

Fighter: Whacks an enemy at an efffectiveness of 1, and does something defensivey at a .5.

Paladin: Whacks an enemy at an effectiveness of .75, while doing something defensivey at a .75.

Swordmage: Whacks an enemy with an effectiveness of .75 and the Rogue turns invisible.

Cleric: Taps the enemy with his coup stick and does something healy at an effectiveness of 1.

Edit: blurrly...

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 05:26 PM
Yes, I'm sure. I'm afraid your understanding of aggro mechanics is relatively narrow and inaccurate.

So's WotC's, apparently:


There are no mechanics that compel the monster to attack anyone (well, a specific spell might do that, but we already have that in D&D).

Binding Strike is more like a variation of Knight's Challenge, which was itself similar to Taunt.

Somebloke
2007-11-30, 05:29 PM
Oh, and note how 4E refers to 50% loss of hit points as "bloodied". That doesn't sound like morale.

Of course, given a substantially convoluted excuse, you can rationalize away any rule you want. Doing so doesn't make it a good rule, however.

I think 'bloodied' represents a number of small cuts, glancing strikes, bruises under the armor, near misses, strain at having to repeatedly-and barely-push back heavy blows and a general sense of being harried into a corner taking it's toll, both physically and psycologically.

Personally, I think this is the best path for hit points to take- the old method (he hits you with a sword. You're more or less fine) was always a little silly.

Starsinger
2007-11-30, 05:29 PM
Binding Strike is more like a variation of Knight's Challenge, which was itself similar to Taunt.

So... I don't quite understand what people's beef with abilities like this are. People complain because fighter types are ineffectual as meat shields, because who in their right mind cares about the guy poking you for 2d6+12 damage, when you're being save or sucked by some guy in the back?

And then people complain that abilities that allow martial characters to effectively meat shield are turning D&D into WoW.

Somebloke
2007-11-30, 05:32 PM
So's WotC's, apparently:



Binding Strike is more like a variation of Knight's Challenge, which was itself similar to Taunt.

...except that it's a magical compulsion brought on by a divine supernatural power rather than some guy giving the finger. What is the difference between this and some gish using an 'arcane strike' to channel a charm or dominate spell?

Really, that is what the Paladin is. A person who uses divine power to augment combat options.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 05:35 PM
So... I don't quite understand what people's beef with abilities like this are.

Just to be clear: I have no beef. I don't consider spells like this an 'aggro mechanic'. They're spells. Or... smites, or whatever.

Starsinger
2007-11-30, 05:38 PM
Just to be clear: I have no beef. I don't consider spells like this an 'aggro mechanic'. They're spells. Or... smites, or whatever.

To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about you in particular, you just happened to be the last person to talk about the ability when I started my post.

J.Gellert
2007-11-30, 07:09 PM
But it is an aggro mechanic, even if people are reluctant to admit it.

Honestly, the MMOOOC (massively multiplayer online out of character) community is such a big market that WotC would be silly not to take advantage of that. And it is not a new thing - just look at the Warlock and Knight classes.

Now 4E goes a step further with more aggro-mechanics, skill trees, and well, the whole online distribution and playing thing. These may be new to D&D, but they are not original, they have been around in online games.

In fact until recently I thought the online games would stay forever distinct from "traditional" RPGs (so now we have to add words like "traditional" or "old-style" to make others understand what we're talking about?), despite seeing how DDO worked out (I mean, NWN2 is so marvelously RPG). But now Dungeons & Dragons has to be marketed to that wide gaming group, and these mechanics worry me.

And not necessarily in a bad way, I've enjoyed online games myself, but I don't bring elements from them to my gaming group. It's a different thing.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 07:22 PM
This is not a 'new thing'. By this definition, things like the spells Invisibility, Darkness, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Sanctuary and even Charm Monster are 'aggro mechanics'; they all have some effect on who monsters are likely to attack. Abilities to control the battlefield have been a part of D&D since... well, since forever. And talent trees already existed in 3rd Ed, in the form of Prerequisites for feats; Dodge moved onto Mobility that moved onto Spring Attack, etc. This is simply an expansion of the concept, an expansion that worked well in Star Wars: Saga Edition.

J.Gellert
2007-11-30, 07:31 PM
Battlefield control is as old as chess. Aggro is not. There is a big difference between "I charm you, and you will think me as a friend" and "I wave my sword and you have no choice but to attack me" - it should be readily obvious unless one refuses to acknowledge it.

SmartAlec
2007-11-30, 07:42 PM
Battlefield control is as old as chess. Aggro is not. There is a big difference between "I charm you, and you will think me as a friend" and "I wave my sword and you have no choice but to attack me" - it should be readily obvious unless one refuses to acknowledge it.

But it's all battlefield control.

If we want to look at what 'managing aggro' really means, it's using certain abilities to change the threat values of the player characters to control what monster attacks who.

But since there are no threat values in D&D - only DM discretion - the term doesn't hold any relevance.

As has been pointed out, Binding Strike only lasts a round. Yes, a monster will likely have no choice but to attack the Paladin. But next round? It doesn't matter how hard the Paladin hits the monster, or that the wizard or whoever else is involved in the combat runs away, that monster can still attack the wizard or the paladin or whoever the DM decides to make it attack.

That's not threat. That's not 'managing aggro' at all. Binding Strike is less of a Taunt, and more like a reverse Charm Monster or a very selective Blindness.

It's not an aggro mechanic. Really, it's not. It's a battlefield control spell.

Edit: A really short-duration one, admittedly.

J.Gellert
2007-11-30, 08:05 PM
Aggro is a simple form of battlefield control. And proving that it's battlefield control doesn't mean that it is not an aggro mechanic. And no one will agree on what that is unless it is defined... But forcing an enemy to ignore your allies and concentrate on you pretty much is it (http://cobolhacker.com/images/content/aggro_i_has_it_s.jpg). :smallsmile:

Mewtarthio
2007-11-30, 08:32 PM
I think we're using different definitions of "aggro mechanic." WotC has likely been saying that there's no aggro mechanic under the definition that an aggro mechanic is a numerical threat system that determines who a monster will attack next. That's a bad thing, because MMORPGs have to use such methods in absence of an intelligent controller of the monster. Binding Smite, on the other hand, is just a spell that influences the actions of a target.

And, yes, Binding Smite is probably pulled from effects like WoW's "Taunt." Is that an inherently bad thing? Bear in mind, the entire point of a strong melee class is to last a long time. They can absorb a lot of damage before going down. However, that means absolutely nothing if they can't ensure enemies will attack them. Left to their own devices, intelligent foes will simply charge over to the Wizard and bisect him, just eating the ineffectual AoO from the melee guy (okay, the meleer can ready an action to stand in their way, but that only works on one enemy, and he's given up his action). The 4e Fighter has one way of fixing the problem: He can apparently do serious harm to anyone that attempts to break combat with him. The Paladin has another: He can use effects that are essentially spells with the power to influence an enemy's target. So long as the enemies don't keep track of a variety of factors to see who they currently want to kill most, it's not aggro: It's an effective defensive tactic.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-02, 06:26 AM
Personally, I think this is the best path for hit points to take- the old method (he hits you with a sword. You're more or less fine) was always a little silly.
Oh, I fully agree that having some condition and related effects for being heavily wounded is a good idea. However, my point is that, while "hit points equal physical health" indeed doesn't make a whole lot of sense, "hit points equal morale and dodge ability" as they're doing in 4E doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.


And then people complain that abilities that allow martial characters to effectively meat shield are turning D&D into WoW.
No, the point is that there's other ways to make meat shielding viable.


And, yes, Binding Smite is probably pulled from effects like WoW's "Taunt." Is that an inherently bad thing? Bear in mind, the entire point of a strong melee class is to last a long time.
Yes, because "The current design crew at WotC apparently don't give a damn about whether or not a mechanic makes any sense in terms of the game world."

If you look over the message boards, there have been several mechanics proposed by players that make fighters viable in some other fashion, that make a lot more sense. For instance, a fighter can "interpose" himself as a free action. Or a shield-bearing fighter blocks line-of-effect for e.g. dragon breath. Et cetera.

Somebloke
2007-12-02, 11:25 AM
Oh, I fully agree that having some condition and related effects for being heavily wounded is a good idea. However, my point is that, while "hit points equal physical health" indeed doesn't make a whole lot of sense, "hit points equal morale and dodge ability" as they're doing in 4E doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.


I think one of the boards at WOTC talks about how the reference to hp depends entirely on context; for example, the 'hit points equals luck and morale' would apply to a player character while 'hit points equal resistance to injury' would apply to a tank.

This is not necessarily the most realistic, but the easiest and most flexible way to explain a game mechanic that really looks a lot like a life bar on a video game.

Cuddly
2007-12-02, 11:41 AM
Yes, I'm sure. I'm afraid your understanding of aggro mechanics is relatively narrow and inaccurate.

In principle, binding smite is similar or identical to a World of Warcraft Taunt: If you attack anybody, you will attack me. This effect lasts for a limited time, unless I do something to make you continue attacking me and only me.

In this case the mechanic is limited to "line of effect" abilities (which may or may not include melee attacks depending on how the 4th Edition combat rules work), but it's the exact same principle.

To be fair, they haven't released ANY fluff on the mechanic. Maybe you're bad at making up fluff?
I can come up with several internally consistent reasons why the energy channeled from a deity's favored may cause me to have problems seeing things.

Starbuck_II
2007-12-02, 01:04 PM
Battlefield control is as old as chess. Aggro is not. There is a big difference between "I charm you, and you will think me as a friend" and "I wave my sword and you have no choice but to attack me" - it should be readily obvious unless one refuses to acknowledge it.

Since Complete Adventurer Mindless Rage has been Available. It causes target who fails will save to only attack caster.
So Aggro has been here for a while.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-02, 01:49 PM
I think I saw someone saying that as long it's magic, it's alright (like that wizard spell), so, paladins using divine-based powers (like Smite), to make "agro", its looks alright.
The problem is when they use it with characters without magic, like fighters. I'm betting they'll have the "you are not paying attention to me? Take that!" approach, of giving penalties to enemies that try to ignore him. I think there are some feats that gives you bonuses in these cases in the PHB2.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-02, 01:59 PM
Yes, because "The current design crew at WotC apparently don't give a damn about whether or not a mechanic makes any sense in terms of the game world."

With a single, mighty thrust, you channel divine energy from your god into your opponent, cursing him and cutting off his ability to percieve the world around him. This ability comes at cost, however: As you are the source of this curse, you yourself can still be sensed. The opponent now turns his focus entirely on you...

Kurald Galain
2007-12-02, 03:36 PM
With a single, mighty thrust, you channel divine energy from your god into your opponent, cursing him and cutting off his ability to percieve the world around him.

First, that wasn't actually the ability we were talking about. And second, as has been pointed out before, given sufficient arbitrary rambling you can find an excuse for any ability - in essence using the "It's magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)" cop-out for bad writing. But just because you can find an excuse doesn't mean the ability makes sense. Redefining "sense" to "whatever happens to be the most convenient at the moment" is not good writing.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-02, 03:55 PM
First, that wasn't actually the ability we were talking about. And second, as has been pointed out before, given sufficient arbitrary rambling you can find an excuse for any ability - in essence using the "It's magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)" cop-out for bad writing. But just because you can find an excuse doesn't mean the ability makes sense. Redefining "sense" to "whatever happens to be the most convenient at the moment" is not good writing.

You have to do that with any spell. How can Wizards create acid out of nothing? Magic. How are you able to shrink a human to half its normal size without harming it? Magic.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-12-02, 11:03 PM
And second, as has been pointed out before, given sufficient arbitrary rambling you can find an excuse for any ability - in essence using the "It's magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)" cop-out for bad writing.Except that it IS magic. These are fueled by divine power, and Binding Smite attacks the enemy's Will defense. It's a compulsion effect. Holy crap, never seen one of those before.

Khanderas
2007-12-03, 09:33 AM
This is not a 'new thing'. By this definition, things like the spells Invisibility, Darkness, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Sanctuary and even Charm Monster are 'aggro mechanics'; they all have some effect on who monsters are likely to attack. Abilities to control the battlefield have been a part of D&D since... well, since forever. And talent trees already existed in 3rd Ed, in the form of Prerequisites for feats; Dodge moved onto Mobility that moved onto Spring Attack, etc. This is simply an expansion of the concept, an expansion that worked well in Star Wars: Saga Edition.
There is a difference between "I attack the armored Fighterthat is attacking me with the sword, because I see noone else" (caster is invisible) and "the Fighter hits me with a sword and since the Wizard beside him is still casting his spell, I have not taken damage from that yet, so I attack the Fighter"
Just sayin'

Even nonsentient animals woud problebly attack an unarmored foe (wizard) above an armored one (fighter), when the pack of feral wild dogs out for blood figures out there is one meatsicle and one tincan around, even they will pick the meatsicle.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-03, 09:42 AM
Except that it IS magic. These are fueled by divine power, and Binding Smite attacks the enemy's Will defense. It's a compulsion effect. Holy crap, never seen one of those before.

The point, once more, is that assuming that magic can do whatever happens to be convenient at the time, is poor design. It's the equivalent of the DM stating outright that the player characters will do this-or-that because it happens to be convenient for the plot.

It's easy to "explain" anything and everything by simply saying "it's magic" because that doesn't actually explain anything. I can invent the explanation that "by dancing around your enemy with your sword held upside-down, your deity will summon an alien from the planet Cauliflower, who will bonk your opponent with a rock. The rock then melts and flows into his brain, which has the effect of blinding him from everybody who is not you for the next minute". That makes exactly as much sense as the other "it's magic" explanations in this thread, and has the added advantage of being funny.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 10:06 AM
Except that it IS magic. These are fueled by divine power, and Binding Smite attacks the enemy's Will defense. It's a compulsion effect. Holy crap, never seen one of those before.

I view Binding Smite as a focused "Magic Circle against" with a hole in it. A hole that automatically shifts to face the Paladin... basically, you *are* binding the target, it's just an incomplete bind.

I view the healing Smite as pretty simple. As I smack the troll, I cast part of its essence into Pelor, who surges through me and into an ally.

Or god-less version:
As I smack the troll, I distill its corrupted essence into purity, which gives me the energy to heal a party member.

The difference between an excuse and magic is just the depth of the explanation.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-03, 10:33 AM
The difference between an excuse and magic is just the depth of the explanation.

Well, that's good - my explanation with the aliens and the magic rock was deeper than yours, so it follows it is therefore a better explanation.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 10:48 AM
Well, that's good - my explanation with the aliens and the magic rock was deeper than yours, so it follows it is therefore a better explanation.

The statement was made under the assumption someone would be *trying* to explain things. But let's try that again:

By chanting sacred words while in combat, the divine summons a servant from another plane; this spirit flows through you and smites your foe with a sanctified stone which melts and flows into his body. The foe then takes on the aspect of stone, becoming as stubborn and blind as a boulder.

Or let's try that again.

By putzing around with your spellbook, the uncaring (Boccob) or goodly (Mystra) goddess of magic allows you access to this unseen field of magic strings that you twist and tie in order to have complex words bouncing around in your head for the rest of the day. Later, you can dance around with some batcrap held upside down in one hand and you suddenly forget the words and something explodes.

Or let's try that again.

You're just so *good* or *evil* or *neutral* that the gods of the universe smile upon you and say "Here. Here's some of my divine power. Go knock yourself out and save/conquer/be apathetic towards the world, only now you can do it while making undead your *****es."

Or let's try that again.

You have giant things made of metal and spells that are animated by raw magic that are *immune* to 80% of magic - even, occasionally, spells that were used to create them.

Or let's try that again.

You sing and somehow raise your comrades' morale (Bardic Music) but your music is somehow inaudible at a conscious level (Subsonics) and can affect brainless plant things (Green Ear) because you sing so good it's somehow *magic*.

Or how about just plain old, "By some arbitrary principle of the universe, your level of selfishness enables me to hit you really hard. But I can't do it to little Timmy over there."

AND THEN THERE ARE SPELLS THEMSELVES! Oh, those are just lovely. "Hey, I can create supernatural flames which are enough to flashdestroy all of the objects in this room, but nothing catches on fire and there is no pressure involved. Just... heat. It also doesn't induce any other chemical reactions, not just combustion." Riiiiight.

"From a certain point of view, it was the truth." How would say, Discern Lies handle this? The concept of lying is an artificial abstraction. Is that an evasion, or is it a lie?

There are items out there (such as spellbooks) which are too complicated to read simply via spells meant to deal with them. Why? Just for the sake of being complicated. The item I'm thinking of in particular is just written in a thousand different mundane languages. At what point does writing become too complicated for magic to auto-translate? If it simply depends on the writer intending to obscure his meanings (a decision they've cited), then does that mean that those spells can't translate Pig Latin, even though it's an extremely simple and mechanical cipher?

Inconsistency is the name of the game with magic, and you're questioning the myriad of explanations given for a healing smite as being 'excuses' but not just 'magic'?

Kurald Galain
2007-12-03, 11:07 AM
Well, of course there are numerous other things in D&D that don't make sense.

But unless you're suggesting that two (or five) wrongs make a right, the proper strategy should be fixing the things that are ludicrous, rather than adding more things that are downright silly.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 11:12 AM
Well, of course there are numerous other things in D&D that don't make sense.

But unless you're suggesting that two (or five) wrongs make a right, the proper strategy should be fixing the things that are ludicrous, rather than adding more things that are downright silly.

Of course two wrongs don't make a wrong. Five don't either. But when we get to fifty wrongs out of fifty-one incidents, I am suggesting that the point of view you're going into the matter with is flawed.

D&D, by its very nature, supports a thousand different systems of belief or magic; compare Eberron's 'gods' to FR's 'gods' to actual Greco-Roman gods. It's designed to emulate popular fantasy of a dozen kinds, something which has stayed consistent through every edition, especially with the release of so many d20 conversions in 3ed. You will not get remarkable levels of internal consistency unless you have one guy calling all the shots with a team of 25 advanced Physicists, 25 Chemists, 25 Philosophers, 25 Sociologists, 25 Economists, 25 Psychologists, and 25 Anthropologists going over everything he's made.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-03, 01:07 PM
Well, of course there are numerous other things in D&D that don't make sense.

But unless you're suggesting that two (or five) wrongs make a right, the proper strategy should be fixing the things that are ludicrous, rather than adding more things that are downright silly.

And what sort of magic system would you like to see?

Justin_Bacon
2007-12-04, 02:59 PM
With a single, mighty thrust, you channel divine energy from your god into your opponent, cursing him and cutting off his ability to percieve the world around him. This ability comes at cost, however: As you are the source of this curse, you yourself can still be sensed. The opponent now turns his focus entirely on you...

Nope. Doesn't work. (Unless "line of effect" and "line of sight" are the same thing in 4th Edition. Which is possible, but sounds fairly strange.)

Plus, with a description like that, "binding smite" is a pretty terrible name for it.


I view Binding Smite as a focused "Magic Circle against" with a hole in it. A hole that automatically shifts to face the Paladin... basically, you *are* binding the target, it's just an incomplete bind.

Now that has some mileage, but opens up some questions: What if it moves away from me and positions itself so that there's another character between me and it. Can it fire through the hole and hit that guy?

If it hits me with a chain lightning spell, can it then strike other people with the secondary bolts?

Actually, that's kind of interesting: The paladin becomes a conduit through which it can effect the wider world, as long as the effects can be made to pass through the paladin.

Although, given that, does that mean that if I cast a fireball spell I have to make the bead actually hit the paladin in order for it to work? Or will the fireball only affect the paladin, no matter what?

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 05:12 PM
Nope. Doesn't work. (Unless "line of effect" and "line of sight" are the same thing in 4th Edition. Which is possible, but sounds fairly strange.)

Plus, with a description like that, "binding smite" is a pretty terrible name for it.



Now that has some mileage, but opens up some questions: What if it moves away from me and positions itself so that there's another character between me and it. Can it fire through the hole and hit that guy?

If it hits me with a chain lightning spell, can it then strike other people with the secondary bolts?

Couldn't say. I'd really need more information on the thought process.

Though since I've clarified my thoughts (thanks to your use of the word conduit) and I think that's a more accurate term than 'incomplete bind.' You and the target become part of the same conduit. In that sense, I would lean towards a 'no', but I don't know precisely their thought process.

EvilElitest
2007-12-04, 05:19 PM
Paladin of Generic God of Goodliness: *smites evil into tiny pieces*
GGG: Ah, since you have smitten the evil into tiny pieces in my service, I shall grant a boon to you and your companions, healing one of them.
Paladin of GGG: Thanks, Generic God of Goodliness. I pick Bob over there, he's hurting pretty bad.
GGG: *heals Bob*

GGG-But what about Joe over there, he is in the negatives
Paladin- No Bob is worst
GGG- accually, he seems to be ok
Bob- I'm not dead
Paladin- No i defentily want to heal bob
GGG- but couldn't Joe die
Paladin- It is a risk i'm willing to take, not heal bob
GGG- I don't really feel comfortable with this
Paladin- look, i killed the dude with green skin and fangs, now you have to heal my companion so just do it, you can't argue with the cruch
GGG- Fine, jerk
Heals bob
Joe- Oh my clavin
from,
EE

tyckspoon
2007-12-04, 05:30 PM
Nope. Doesn't work. (Unless "line of effect" and "line of sight" are the same thing in 4th Edition. Which is possible, but sounds fairly strange.)

Now that has some mileage, but opens up some questions: What if it moves away from me and positions itself so that there's another character between me and it. Can it fire through the hole and hit that guy?

If it hits me with a chain lightning spell, can it then strike other people with the secondary bolts?

Actually, that's kind of interesting: The paladin becomes a conduit through which it can effect the wider world, as long as the effects can be made to pass through the paladin.

Although, given that, does that mean that if I cast a fireball spell I have to make the bead actually hit the paladin in order for it to work? Or will the fireball only affect the paladin, no matter what?

Assuming line of effect means the same thing for 4th ed, the answer to most of these would be yes. Somebody who is placed between the bound enemy and the paladin would insert himself into the enemy's available line of effect and become a valid target. Chain lightning probably wouldn't work; the spell description says you have to choose the secondary targets as well, which implies you need line of effect to them. Fireball would work alright, although it would have to be targeted at the paladin or some point between the bound enemy and the paladin. Spreads and bursts don't need line of effect to their area, just their point of origin, so you can still Fireball or breath attack anybody who is standing too close to the paladin.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-12-04, 05:36 PM
GGG-But what about Joe over there, he is in the negatives
Paladin- No Bob is worst
GGG- accually, he seems to be ok
Bob- I'm not dead
Paladin- No i defentily want to heal bob
GGG- but couldn't Joe die
Paladin- It is a risk i'm willing to take, not heal bob
GGG- I don't really feel comfortable with this
Paladin- look, i killed the dude with green skin and fangs, now you have to heal my companion so just do it, you can't argue with the cruch
GGG- Fine, jerk
Heals bob
Joe- Oh my clavin
No other spellcasting works this way, with the god directly interfering and arguing. Why should Renewing Smite?

EvilElitest
2007-12-04, 05:42 PM
No other spellcasting works this way, with the god directly interfering and arguing. Why should Renewing Smite?

dude, i was being sarcastic, building off an already made joke, come on

But on topic, everybody is saying that hitting hte foe/healing your friend is a god thing. I don't know aobut 4e but in 3e and 3.5e paladins aren't servants of gods nessarilly, they are just holy warriors. So that doesn't work. I could imagine it more taking the pain you inflict =to healing a friend in a yin/yang situation
from,
EE

Nerd-o-rama
2007-12-04, 05:50 PM
I always thought of non-religious Paladins as serving a Cause (specifically Lawful Goodness, although there are other viable ones), much like Clerics of no particular religion. And just as a Cleric of Travel and Trickery can cast the same basic set of spells as a Cleric of Pelor, a Paladin of Generic Lawful Goodness can do the same sort of things as a Paladin of Heironeous, despite not praying to a specific god for it.

Yeah, divine magic is kind of weird.

EvilElitest
2007-12-04, 05:52 PM
Paladins have always worked by asking their Gods for Divine Powers so they could crush their enemies. The only difference Smites make is that instead of getting minor Cleric powers or attack bonuses, their Gods will give them something that's actually useful.

i'm just basing this after 3e, but do people ever read the section relgion under hte paldin class in PHP? Because it says that paladins don't need to worship gods, and there powers don't come from a diety
from,
EE

thorgrim29
2007-12-04, 06:11 PM
Should'nt it be "you are smote", smitten being the old way to say having a crush on? On the subject.... i have to say, I'm liking most of what I see from 4th ed, and this isn't an exeption. I dont realy care if the mechanics fit the fluff, I'll make them fit if I must, but if the mechanics actually work I'll be a very happy camper.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-05, 04:54 PM
And what sort of magic system would you like to see?

What I would like to see is something designed from the point of view of the world, rather than the point of view of the mechanics.

It is not that difficult to set a number of things that magic can easily do (e.g. create fire) and things that can be done only with great difficulty (e.g. mess with the timestream). Then be consistent in those. A spell that creates fire obviously doesn't do much under water, and it is easier to create a small fire than a big one. Go from there and you'll have an intuitive and story-worthy system.

AstralFire
2007-12-05, 05:45 PM
What I would like to see is something designed from the point of view of the world, rather than the point of view of the mechanics.

It is not that difficult to set a number of things that magic can easily do (e.g. create fire) and things that can be done only with great difficulty (e.g. mess with the timestream). Then be consistent in those. A spell that creates fire obviously doesn't do much under water, and it is easier to create a small fire than a big one. Go from there and you'll have an intuitive and story-worthy system.

Not going to happen as long as a big draw of D&D is the number of incredibly different settings that can be modeled under generally similar rules.

Compare the fairly nice coherence of 3.5 Psionics with the bizarre divine shift in Complete Psionic.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-05, 06:18 PM
Not going to happen as long as a big draw of D&D is the number of incredibly different settings that can be modeled under generally similar rules.
I disagree. Precisely because D&D can (or should) be modeled under generally similar rules, this is very well possible. Note how the earlier editions actually did this to a better extent than 3.5 did. The reason it's not happening now is because the (current) design team made the conscious decision to not think about logical or verisimilitudinal consequences of magic. Because, you know, a wizard did it.

Collin152
2007-12-05, 06:25 PM
Regarding the "HP is mostly dodging, plus some scratches"
Riddle me this: Why does Constitution add to your HP, while Dexterity does not?

Sebastian
2007-12-05, 06:33 PM
So if you're friend is at -9 HPs and you are out of healing magic, you can smite a passing butterfly or bee to heal him?



Eh, I thought the same.

Honestly it is too soon to say it without seeing all the rules, but I wonder if paladins in 4e will go around with the infamous bag of rats. :)

Sebastian
2007-12-05, 06:46 PM
No that's not the reason. It's actually explained in the core books. I confess to not remembering if it was the DM guide or the PHB, but I specifically recall that it mentions a paladin coming out of a fireball alive.

No, really, it doesn't make sense anyway. If you are unconscious your morale and will of fighting should be zero, and yet if I hit you with a dagger while asleep you still lose only 1d4 hp. what's up with that?

I mean I can accept it because it is a game but don't even pretend it make sense.

(actually, hope they have a system of damage saves like mutants & masterminds at least as an optional rule, if they are going to trasform D&D in a superhero game (or "push D&D even more toward" if you like) like they are then would be better if they'd go all the way.)

AstralFire
2007-12-05, 07:42 PM
Eh, I thought the same.

Honestly it is too soon to say it without seeing all the rules, but I wonder if paladins in 4e will go around with the infamous bag of rats. :)

These same rules in 3E require that you be fighting something you consider to pose a threat.