Xum wrote:

One thing I find really odd is that everyone talks about the Smite, but no one says a thing about Sneak Attack, sure you have to flank and all that, but it's VERY usable and does much more damage, am I crazy here?

BTW, glad you liked my "Smite evil is EVIL" thread ;)

Sneak attack has been around long enough that most DM's know how to deal with it. This new smite thing has them/us having to come up with new ways to stop players and many DM's dont like that.

The DMs job is to create a challenge and set up a scenario in which everyone has fun. Intentionally "stopping" a player from using his shtick seems bush league to me. I'm not saying, for instance, sneak attack (3x) being pointless in an undead heavy adventure, it happens, but going out of the way to minimize a character's strength.

Paladins were weaksauce in 3x. Period. They kicked serious ass in 1e. 2e? Somewhere in between. Pathfinder brought them back to "kick ass" status, but in a specific set of circumstances. If a DM only uses neutral opponents in a campaign with a paladin, specifically to counteract what a paladin does well, that's bush. Just ban th epaladin outright, rather than have them exist in a campaign world where there are no opponents that would necessitate the existence of paladins in the first place.

I think I'll put this another way:

From what I've seen on these and other boards is that people hate the IDEA of paladins, so now that they don't suck ass (like they did in 3x) and people might actually want to, I don't know, play one, everyone has their panties in a twist over it.

Paladins are a lot better than they were in 3x. They still aren't as good as clerics or wizards. They aren't "overpowered".

Paladins are a lot better than they were in 3x. They still aren't as good as clerics or wizards. They aren't "overpowered".

Paladins, finally, don't *suck.* They've sucked for long enough. As someone who doesn't play them, I'm nothing but happy for those that do play them. I'm not jealous at all.

Yay for Paladins. I prefer Clerics (and Druids), which have been less (or more) weakened by the Pathfinder changes, and I'm still not jealous that the Paladins got something shiny. It's about time.

Paladin does divine favour and makes his weapon +1, and then does smite evil - BOOM! Go get your shine box boy! +12 damage to every attack. He's using a greatsword so that's 2d6+22 damage altogether on every single hit, and god forbid he gets a critical hit. The others might as well go whoring and just throw the Paladin at every evil villain they encounter. And the...

Str: 24 (17+2 racial, +1 stat increase at level 4, +4 Rage bonus)
Power attack: -2/+6
Weapon Specialization: +2
Enhancement bonus: +1

Total: 2d6+19 (Average 26) - against anyone

Rogue 7: Human Two Weapon Fighter

Str 10
Sneak attack: 3d6
Enhancement bonus: +1

2 short swords

(1d6+3d6+1) x2 (Average 30) when flanking

Paladin

2d6+22 vs Evil (average 29)

I'm not seeing a huge difference here...

I am very happy myself with the boost both the Paladin and the Monk received Ptahfinder RPG. In my opinion both those classes lagged seriously since their very inception in the game.

Wraithstrike, that will always be a problem I think. Designers cannot create modules with every possible power combination in mind. Especially not with all the expanded bases classes that were/are floating around from splatbooks, specific settings. And not even going into the ever growing list of prestige classes. I think module writers do a great job though considering what they are asked to do.

I also dont think every fight needs to be changed, but I think a good Dm would sit down before running a module with copies of his player's characters and look through each encounter. And odds are at least one fight will have to be altered per module...most likely the final fight.

-Weylin

Oh, and, since the re-work of Smite, our group disallowed the "Extra Smiting" feat. Not enough pre-req's to justify the power boost.

Heh, personally I just changed Extra Smite to grant 1 extra smite per day, instead of the usual amount (4 I think)