Paladin's Smite Evil

[Snoring Rock]

At 9th level the paladin may smite evil 1/day for as many rounds as he has levels. It allows the paladin to use his charisma modifier to be added to BtH and he adds his level for damage.

So a paladin at 10th level with a 17 charisma gets an added +2 to hit for 10 rounds. He also adds +10 for damage for that many rounds as well. Powerful.

But if the ability were granted at 1st level, the paladin would get +2 to hit for a single round and a +1 damage for that round. At 2nd level he gets +2 BtH and +2 damage for 2 rounds. This is only once per day.

What would be the harm in allowing smite evil at level 1?

[Lord Dynel]

Nothing, technically. But I feel if you give it to them early, you should probably adjust the XP table to reflect that. The idea of the XP chart is that it "ebbs and flows" according to a class's relative power level. It's already high, but they get a lot of stuff at level 1.

[serleran]

There would be virtually nothing for the paladin to earn if they had their entire power set given up front.

That's not bad, but it is boring. To me.

Of course, I don't care either way as I don't even use this class.

[Arduin]

Nothing, technically. But I feel if you give it to them early, you should probably adjust the XP table to reflect that. The idea of the XP chart is that it "ebbs and flows" according to a class's relative power level. It's already high, but they get a lot of stuff at level 1.

This.

Like AD&D 1st & 2nd Ed (and unlike 3.x), the C&C XP table progression is very meaningful, class by class.

[Treebore]

I've never understood why the Paladin XP requirements are so high. They have always acted like what a Paladin gets is more powerful than a Cleric? All a Paladin gets that is better than a Cleric is a faster BtH progression and the possibility of 1 or 2 more HP per level with their D10 hit dice. Apparently they think getting a permanatized weaker version of Protection From Evil, Immunity to Fear at 6th level, Immunity to Disease and being able to Cure Disease once or twice per week and heal 2 HP of damage per level once per day is far more powerful than a Cleric who can effectively do the same thing plus a whole lot more with the ton of spells they get access to, as well as be able to do it to a number of other PC's and NPC's. By 6th level a Cleric gets their choice of at LEAST 8 powerful spells per day, for 13,000 fewer XP than the Paladin. After level 6 it gets even more disgusting, and all the Paladin gets after that is Smite Evil, and IF, IF the campaign lasts long enough, the powers they get at 12th level, which are still far, far less than what a Cleric will get, which will be 14th level at the same XP's, getting at LEAST 26 spells per day, all the way up to 7th level spells. Yeah, Paladins are royally screwed with their XP requirements. So I say do it, give them their Smite Evil at first level, and have them earn only 1 HP to Damage after that. Heck, give them additional Smite Evils as they level, it still won't make them as powerful as the Cleric of the same XP.

[Arduin]

All a Paladin gets that is better than a Cleric is a faster BtH progression and the possibility of 1 or 2 more HP per level with their D10 hit dice.

There are many powers that a cleric doesn't get. To be 10th level a Cleric needs 425,001 xp. A lowly Fighter (which is weaker than a Paladin) needs 500,001xp to reach 10th...

[serleran]

"Yeah, but a 10th level fighter gets an extra attack!"

"Yeah, but classes aren't balanced against each other."

"Uh?"

"Yeah, but classes aren't balanced against each other."

"What?"

"Classes aren't balanced against each other."

"I don't get it."

We've had this discussion.

[Treebore]

All a Paladin gets that is better than a Cleric is a faster BtH progression and the possibility of 1 or 2 more HP per level with their D10 hit dice.

There are many powers that a cleric doesn't get. To be 10th level a Cleric needs 425,001 xp. A lowly Fighter (which is weaker than a Paladin) needs 500,001xp to reach 10th...

True, but I wasn't comparing all of the classes, I was comparing the Paladin to its closest "cousin", and my argument still stands. Plus in my House Rules, a Fighter is pretty bad azszsz.

[Treebore]

"Yeah, but a 10th level fighter gets an extra attack!"

"Yeah, but classes aren't balanced against each other."

"Uh?"

"Yeah, but classes aren't balanced against each other."

"What?"

"Classes aren't balanced against each other."

"I don't get it."

We've had this discussion.

Yes, and I have no doubt the internet is going to have thousands of more of these discussions.

[serleran]

So?

Let the internet have its discussions.

Repetition is as boring as a paladin getting smite evil.

I say give them a favored foe. Remove the ranger.

For that matter, remove any class and ability that seems similar to another.

Or, just give all classes everything they're supposed to "earn" at level 1. Skip the struggle.

[Arduin]

True, but I wasn't comparing all of the classes, I was comparing the Paladin to its closest "cousin",

The closest class to a Paladin isn't a cleric. Not by a country mile. That would be one of three other classes. Fighter, Knight or Ranger. NOT a full on caster class.

[Snoring Rock]

I am working on a set of house rules. I am adopting a lot of what Rigon has but I am exploring options other than allowing spell use at higher levels for paladins and rangers. If there is one thing I an eager to lose from 1e and gain from 3.x is that those two classes do not have to be casters. C&C has these classes built without the old spell caster route for these two classes. I like that.

With the new house rules, I want to explore something else for paladins. Smite Evil is an ability that can grow with the character level to level. It gets better with level. At first level it does not seem at all powerful but by 10th level it is way off the hook.

Ad far as XP balance and level EPP, I do not see the math in it. I fact it looks more like a hold-out for selling the game to people who do not want to let go of their 1e sensibilities. More nostalgia than good logic.

Show me the math behind the EPP and the abilities gained per level in comparison with the other classes. And please, for the love or Pete, leave 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 3.75e 4e, and 5e out of it. Lets talk C&C. Is there really a mathematical formula to it?

[Treebore]

True, but I wasn't comparing all of the classes, I was comparing the Paladin to its closest "cousin",

The closest class to a Paladin isn't a cleric. Not by a country mile. That would be one of three other classes. Fighter, Knight or Ranger. NOT a full on caster class.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Paladins still are spell casters, just very limited. They Cure Disease by casting a spell, and their 12th level powers are spells. So I will continue to disagree with you on this.

Edit: Lets also not forget the Turn Undead ability only these two classes share.

[Treebore]

I am working on a set of house rules. I am adopting a lot of what Rigon has but I am exploring options other than allowing spell use at higher levels for paladins and rangers. If there is one thing I an eager to lose from 1e and gain from 3.x is that those two classes do not have to be casters. C&C has these classes built without the old spell caster route for these two classes. I like that.

With the new house rules, I want to explore something else for paladins. Smite Evil is an ability that can grow with the character level to level. It gets better with level. At first level it does not seem at all powerful but by 10th level it is way off the hook.

Ad far as XP balance and level EPP, I do not see the math in it. I fact it looks more like a hold-out for selling the game to people who do not want to let go of their 1e sensibilities. More nostalgia than good logic.

Show me the math behind the EPP and the abilities gained per level in comparison with the other classes. And please, for the love or Pete, leave 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 3.75e 4e, and 5e out of it. Lets talk C&C. Is there really a mathematical formula to it?

Yeah, I've been thinking of House Ruling a new XP chart for the Paladin, putting their XP requirement somewhere between the Cleric and Fighter.

[Treebore]

So?

Let the internet have its discussions.

Repetition is as boring as a paladin getting smite evil.

I say give them a favored foe. Remove the ranger.

For that matter, remove any class and ability that seems similar to another.

Or, just give all classes everything they're supposed to "earn" at level 1. Skip the struggle.

These are options I am considering. My main point is, the Paladin does indeed pay too much XP for what they get, so anyone should feel free to "fix it" however they see fit. Its what I do and have always done since 1985 with any system I run. People for some reason feel an obligation to "play by the book", so we will always see threads like this pop up where they can be encouraged to do what they feel they need to do to make their game experience better. Especially with C&C, with its intended goal of being the "Rosetta Stone" for D&D games. My house rules reflect the heck out of this aspect of C&C, I have stuff in there inspired all the way from Chainmail to 4E D&D. Plus influences from Hackmaster, GURPS and Paladium Fantasy. Which is ultimately why I love C&C so much, I have made it into my ideal game of D&D, thanks to the SIEGE mechanic.

[Snoring Rock]

True, but I wasn't comparing all of the classes, I was comparing the Paladin to its closest "cousin",

The closest class to a Paladin isn't a cleric. Not by a country mile. That would be one of three other classes. Fighter, Knight or Ranger. NOT a full on caster class.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Paladins still are spell casters, just very limited. They Cure Disease by casting a spell, and their 12th level powers are spells. So I will continue to disagree with you on this.

Edit: Lets also not forget the Turn Undead ability only these two classes share.

Yes, I agree to a point. They do have attributes of both, and yes they do have casting abilities. What I want to do as add something but not a full on cleric of 4 levels less than a cleric. I want the paladin to be a paladin without cleric casting abilities.

[Snoring Rock]

Has anyone charted EPP and level abilities side by side to see the delicately "balanced" system? I am interested I seeing that. I do not believe they are so balanced.

Beside that, if you add across the line, to each class, then EXP on the level progression need not change, since each class gets something.

[Treebore]

Has anyone charted EPP and level abilities side by side to see the delicately "balanced" system? I am interested I seeing that. I do not believe they are so balanced.

Beside that, if you add across the line, to each class, then EXP on the level progression need not change, since each class gets something.

I know at one point, many years ago, Seleran had put out a short document spelling out what he thought the XP "costs" for each ability were. I think I still have it, so if you PM me the e-mail you like to use, I'll send it to you if I find it.

[Arduin]

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

I simply state the facts based on how the class was positioned since 1st Ed AD&D and through C&C. I don't disagree with you. I agree with the authors.

[Lurker]

As someone that loves to play a Paladin, I'd argue their EXP progression should be much more similar to the rogues. The Gods bless those that are good and serve them sooooooo ..... plus I'll level faster that way !


This seems to be one area where there is little middle ground, or few seek it any way, but it is highly debatable. With that, I'll honestly fall into the 'either lower the exp requirement for their limited abilities - that are balanced by alignment restrictions etc, or improve the abilities they get to the point that warrants the high cost of the class.

That said, I do not support trying to make everything balanced - if that is what some my think my argument is aimed. Fair for exp cost is different than balanced in comparison to the other classes.

I do remember there being something around that in general broke down the exp costs for abilities. I'd bet it was from Serl, but if it is I don't have it saved anywhere.

If it does exist, I'd love to see it, and for more than just this point. I'd love to see what it would cost to give a class a modified version of the knights mounted combat ability, etc

[Snoring Rock]

I went back and looked for differences in EXP progression for the paladin in C&C and there is no blip at all for Smite Evil in the table for that level. I have seen Treebore's formulae and although they look good and make sense, the formula does not hold true for the paladin in C&C. There is no correlation between ability grants and EXP progression. If there is and I missed, please show it to me. Again I argue that the differing EPP for classes is based more on nostalgia for the old game, than on sound math. Not a personal attack or anything of the sort. Again, if you can show me the reasoning and the math, I will be very happy. Treebore has a formula that is good, it just does not work for what is in the PHB. It may however work for 1e. I did not check that. I only checked C&C.

Originally "Smite Evil" as an ability, was given to the paladin at first level and it just became more powerful as they leveled up. I am not saying it should be that way in C&C as well, just wondering why it is written how it is in C&C.

I think allowing that ability to be used at lower level since it is weak to begin with, or would be, will not kill a game. Since there is no real rhyme or reason in the EXP progression, unless someone can show it to me; fiddling with EPP seems needless to me. And I would like to see the delicate balance and math behind it.

Here is an example: Rogues (thieves for the stubborn set) get most abilities at 1st level and then get better as they level up. I do not find that boring in the least. It is fun for the rogue (thief) to get better at his craft as he increases in level. Still fun to play.

So every time one of these discussions creeps up, I see things like "earn it" and "work for it". First, it is a game, I am not sure who is "earning" anything. Second, how many campaigns ever allow paladins to make it to 10th level and so you have any experience running them? Be honest here. There are a lot of shiny things in the book, that most of us never use. That is something I have come to see after some time; at least on this forum. This is by no means scientific, and is not indicative of anyone in particular, but the older the grognardian style player, the less high levels seem to ever be reached. Almost as if reaching higher level is wrong. I want to be naughty and be over 6th level. Why do you think that is? I know there are some who do play high level games, but not as many as low level. The discussion here would lead one to believe that few games get above 5th or 6th level. Hopefully I am mistaken on this. It seems that way.

That may be more realistic for long-running games however. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Rigon]

In 1e and 2e, the paladin's exp requirements where the same as the rangers. Why the trolls changed that, I don't know. I say, give it to them at 1st level and let them play with it. A +1 to hit and damage against evil creatures isn't going to break the game at all.

R-

[Snoring Rock]

Rigon, I am adding it to my really cool new house rules. By the way, my players were very pleased last Friday! It was the Ditch Medicine that they liked. It makes trips back to town less frequent.

[serleran]

Show me the math behind the EPP and the abilities gained per level in comparison with the other classes. And please, for the love or Pete, leave 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 3.75e 4e, and 5e out of it. Lets talk C&C. Is there really a mathematical formula to it?

Indeed there is.

I am not at liberty to divulge it, having given my word that I would not, and have asked others to not provide the document before. The reason is simple -- I am not the one who developed it (the system actually used; my rendition is a "best guess") and while I was informed that my calculations are close, they are not entirely accurate... plus, there was a want to include the official method into a future product (and I hope it happens) so I didn't want to cut into potential TLG fundages.

In essence, if you consider the fighter to be the baseline, it is objectively easy to determine what XP values things like BtH and armor use have; then, all other abilities can be judged against these costs based on numerous factors.

There are problems with this method, naturally, such as the way in which various DMs play games -- druid, ranger, and barbarian survival abilities are somewhat useless in a game where the players get free shelter / food, for example, but the idea is to assume an "archetype game."

Everything in C&C is mathematical. Every game comes down to plus 1.

[Rigon]

Rigon, I am adding it to my really cool new house rules. By the way, my players were very pleased last Friday! It was the Ditch Medicine that they liked. It makes trips back to town less frequent.

Glad they liked them.

R-

[Snoring Rock]

Show me the math behind the EPP and the abilities gained per level in comparison with the other classes. And please, for the love or Pete, leave 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 3.75e 4e, and 5e out of it. Lets talk C&C. Is there really a mathematical formula to it?

Indeed there is.

I am not at liberty to divulge it, having given my word that I would not, and have asked others to not provide the document before. The reason is simple -- I am not the one who developed it (the system actually used; my rendition is a "best guess") and while I was informed that my calculations are close, they are not entirely accurate... plus, there was a want to include the official method into a future product (and I hope it happens) so I didn't want to cut into potential TLG fundages.

In essence, if you consider the fighter to be the baseline, it is objectively easy to determine what XP values things like BtH and armor use have; then, all other abilities can be judged against these costs based on numerous factors.

There are problems with this method, naturally, such as the way in which various DMs play games -- druid, ranger, and barbarian survival abilities are somewhat useless in a game where the players get free shelter / food, for example, but the idea is to assume an "archetype game."

Everything in C&C is mathematical. Every game comes down to plus 1.

Yes, that is the level balance thingy I am looking for. I do actually use the fighter as base. So I started in the right place. I think for the most part, with magic items and different players being present or absent, when EXP get handed out, they level up pretty close together anyway and it ends up not mattering that much. But I like a solid frame to start with.

[Captain_K]

Back to the smite evil power, does it work just ONCE in the time frame or does it work for all those rounds every time it hits?

Was this not already discussed??? Seems deja vu

[Snoring Rock]

SMITE EVIL: Once per day, a paladin of 9th level or higher
may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. Smite
evil adds the paladin’s charisma modifier (if positive) to the
attack roll, and deals 1 extra hit point of damage per level of
the paladin. It lasts for 1 round per level of the paladin. This
ability can be used once per day, and only on creatures of evil
alignment.

[Lord Dynel]

Back to the smite evil power, does it work just ONCE in the time frame or does it work for all those rounds every time it hits?

Was this not already discussed??? Seems deja vu

SMITE EVIL: Once per day, a paladin of 9th level or higher
may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. Smite
evil adds the paladin’s charisma modifier (if positive) to the
attack roll, and deals 1 extra hit point of damage per level of
the paladin. It lasts for 1 round per level of the paladin. This
ability can be used once per day, and only on creatures of evil
alignment.

Captain, as Rock pointed out, starting a 9th level, the Paladin receives a +(Cha mod) to attack, and +9 to damage for 9 rounds. After activated - whether he uses those 9 rounds in combat or not, it's gone until tomorrow.

I know we're veering away from the "balance" discussion and back on topic, but I wanted to say that for whatever reason, the Trolls balanced the Paladin a particular way for a reason. Sliding the smite evil ability down from 9th level to 1st level changes the class, and makes it more powerful. How much more powerful, is a matter of opinion, of course, but I personally don't think that it can be argued that it makes the class more powerful. I think it does a decent amount, but that's my opinion. I think that if that ability slides down to 1st level, the class EPP table needs to be adjusted. I would probably adjust it as much as 20% per level.

[Snoring Rock]

I follow you. But heaven forbid, what do I do if the Paladin finds a +1 weapon and gets the same benefit anyway, but against any aligned creature? Or worse yet, later he finds a +3 bane weapon?

I agree on balance, but at the same time, spells, magic items, lucky siege checks, and the game itself, kind of drowns out the dinky +1 or +2 at 2nd level vs evil. It is useless against a skeleton or a giant animal, or any other non-evil creature you run into regularly anyway.

That is why I allow once a day abilities to be used once a day + relevant ability modifier per day use for other classes. It has not thrown my campaign into chaos or imbalance. The players feel like they have a lot of abilities and enjoy their character more. It is about fun, but balance makes things seem like a challenge so it is a reward for success, which is "fun".

But I agree there must be balance. The EPP for each class is so close together given the rate of exp reward for treasure/magic that it does not seem to make that much difference.