Chobbly's page

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

well when they did the d21 thing they listed 20 things that make PFRPG diff then 3.5 one of them was Paladins smite lasts till the foe is dead

Could mean that it's changed so you can keep smiting that foe until he's dead, or could just be flowery speech describing the changed duration we already know of.

Although that bit may have been a joke, as a concept I really like the sound of this.

It wouldn't tread on the martial abilities of the fighter by requiring feats and feat chains, or the ranger by borrowing any of the favoured enemy type/style of mechanics.

It makes Smite Evil a bit like a divine challenge or oath against evil npc characters, which again fits really nicely.

Chobbly

LPJ Design will be looking for playtesters for our Pathfinder RPG Compatibility Licensed materials. We will be looking for specifically 2 to 4 groups of playetesters, so those that are interseted please feel free to contact me directly at LMPjr007@aol.com with the title "Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License Playtest". Thanks for your support.

That gives rise to a very interesting point actually. For those individuals/companies who are given an early copy of the rules, will there be a 'default' NDA for playtesters of Pathfinder RPG related material to sign or will it be the responsibility of those individuals/companies to make sure that the rules remain confidential, with their own NDA's?

If using non-local playtesting groups, I imagine it will be a little harder to make sure that confidentially can be kept (I'm quite lucky actually, Reality Four Studios has provisionally got two local groups available to playtest, one of which I DM occasionally).

All things being equal (play group still gaming, etc) then my group will probably make the switch to Pathfinder, especially for games that I run. Having run both Alpha 3 and the Beta rules with them, the changes went down really well and gave me a chance to try out some other, new material. A brief dalliance with 4th edition hasn't amounted to anything long-lasting.

We're in the middle of a Scion campaign at the moment though.

I don't mind either way if Paizo decide to support 4e , with adventure paths or whatever. It will be a business decision for Paizo, just like Wizards with the GSL and quite a few 3PP, I imagine.

There's still a bit too much ambiguity in parts of the GSL for my liking - it's an improvement, certainly. It's much better than I expected but not quite as good as I'd hoped.

I'm waiting for news on the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility licence, which to be honest holds more of my interest.

This is really great news. I've been working on a campaign setting for most of the last year, and the latest playtesting copy I'm running with a playgroup at the moment (Christmas notwithstanding).

I'll be really interested to see how the licence pans out - I was originally thinking about 4th Ed for the setting but the restrictions in the GSL turned my hair white with shock.

flash_cxxi wrote:

I don't have credit anywhere but I am just curious Vic.

Why allow softcover and not hardcover? What is the distinction between the two?

The goal here is to discover new talent. Thus, we want to exclude truly established writers—that is, the ones who have made a substantial contribution to their income from game design. We don't want to have to check everybody's income tax records, so we need an easy-to-understand, easy-to-police rule that divides potential entrants along similar lines. We chose hardcover credits because most hardcovers are relatively big deals for publishers, so they usually only tap established authors to write them.

Makes sense to me. I may have a go myself, as I've been lucky enough to be published a few times but never in hardback.

Brutesquad07 wrote:

I am very much on board with the Paladin getting a small amount of bonus feats, as it is many players already feel the need to suplement the class with a level of fighter, that would help with that. I would add the shield feats to the list of bonus feats you can choose from as the paladin is the iconic shield user.

4 feats over a period of 15-20 levels won't step on the fighter's toes. (I have boarded over my windows and readied the basement with food and water to withstand the siege I am about to undergo for suggesting such a thing)

No seige from me - I totally agree that they need these - since all but three classes gain bonus feats.

But that is for a different discussion - one about paladins and we should probably make one in the paladin design focus forum..... :-)

Robert

I agree wholeheartedly, and not wanting to thread-jack I've responded over there instead.

Chobbly

Chobbly wrote:

Vult Wrathblades wrote:

Also the addition of Divine might is a good idea, though I feel that should be a class feature, not a feat.

For what it's worth Vult, I agree, but I just wondered if it would be more salesworthy in a mechanic like this. It's a moot point for me, as most of my paladins would take it at first level, but at least the option is there, giving the paladin a little flexibility without stepping on the fighter's feat chains. Cavalier paladins could take the Mounted Combat feat, for example.

If there were ever cleric only feats, appropriate ones could also be drip-fed into the paladin class using this bonus feat structure too.

Chobbly

Is it your intention with your idea that these new feats that can be taken (Imp Smite, Divine Might), be feats that can be selected as a normal feat that a character gains at every odd level?

I guess the special feats would have a Special line that says something like 'This feat may only be chosen as a paladin bonus feat, as explained in the rules for the paladin base class'. The bonus feat list could have a mix of general paladin-esque feats and the 'special' ones.

Regardless, I foresee both such feats being taken by 9 out of 10 paladins. This brings up the issue that "all paladins are built the same way and start to look the same."

Which then brings up a point: we've all heard and stated things like, "If a class absolutely NEEDS a feat in order to be functional, the the class needs to be modified." The 1000+ paladin thread is chok-full of these comments.
That all being said - I really like your idea, (as a compromise) and I can get behind it; thanks for sharing.

It is a compromise; I make no bones about it. There are many alternate and possibly better/richer ways this could be done, some as described in this thread. But with this approach, backwards compatibility is easier to ensure (more of an issue for some than others) and the bonus feat mechanics are already well known.

However, if those are standard feats that can taken at any time, I can guarantee you that every paladin I make would have both such feats at 1st level! (and yours too by the sound of it.), and so would Vult's and LastKnights I'm sure.

So that brings us back to.... "....the class needs modified."

As for EXTRA SMITE. I'm not sure what Jason is doing with it, but regardless, if it remains a feature that is used as a "per day" ability (Like Lay on Hands, Rage, Channeling, Stun, etc) there should be a feat that adds 2 more uses in the same fashion.

Robert

My reading is that Extra Smiting is not OGL, it's in Complete Warrior. The official Extra Smiting gives 2 more uses, which is great, but a Pathfinder version might have to be carefully worded to avoid being seen as just 'lifting' the feat in that book.

Thanks for your thoughts and comments - much appreciated.

Chobbly

Over in the Extra Smiting thread, I posted an alternate idea to hopefully encompass some of the proposals here.

The idea is for the paladin to have a small number of bonus feats slots, to be gained at 1st, 6th, 12th and 18th level. The divine might/always on damage could be one of these feat choices, and the extra smites equal to the paladin's charisma modifier could be another. Both could be gained at first level.

Rather than add new class features, these options would add a bit of flexibility to the paladin (Cavalier paladins could take Mounted Combat instead, for example). There are only a few feats, to avoid treading on the feat-chained toes of the fighter, and most of these are paladin-themed.

The sort of feats that I'd got down were:

Divine Might (some sort of always on damage against evil), Extra Lay on Hands, Extra Turning, Improved Smiting (Cha modifier bonus to the number of times per day you can smite), Leadership, Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Turning Smite, Weapon Focus.

Just as an idea, what does everyone think? Apologies if anyone's posted this before, but at 1,000 posts plus the brain is starting to fade...

Chobbly

Also the addition of Divine might is a good idea, though I feel that should be a class feature, not a feat.

For what it's worth Vult, I agree, but I just wondered if it would be more salesworthy in a mechanic like this. It's a moot point for me, as most of my paladins would take it at first level, but at least the option is there, giving the paladin a little flexibility without stepping on the fighter's feat chains. Cavalier paladins could take the Mounted Combat feat, for example.

If there were ever cleric only feats, appropriate ones could also be drip-fed into the paladin class using this bonus feat structure too.

Chobbly

Daniel Moyer wrote:

Brutesquad07 wrote:

Or here is a radical idea. What if the feat let you add your Charisma bonus to the number of times per day you can smite...

So you mean something that should actually be built into the Smite Ability would now be a... FEAT TAX! *continues to hand out the pitchforks and torches to the angry cliche using mob*

I think Daniel is right here. I know just last night I lost my second, and last smite of the day on a miss against a nasty Troll that we really needed to drop fast.

I am afraid that with smite in its current form I would probably just have to spend nearly every one of my feats on it. It is just to precious of a resource not to try to have enough of!

As I said above, yes this could be a good feat, but it should not be necessary. All of the other classes with extra (whatever ability) dont feel FORCED to take it to be effective, I am afraid that paladins would.

Before I get skewered in most uncomfortable places with pitchforks, there is a way that this could work, and maybe satisfy the paladin Smite problem all in one go.

Give the paladin a very small number of paladin related bonus feats. This way, the paladin could be largely left as it is in the Pathfinder Beta book. More Smites as LKL has suggested could be a feat, or a small but always on damage boost against evil working like Vult has suggested, could be chosen at first level. So...

Paladin Bonus Feats: At 1st level, a paladin gets a bonus feat from the following list in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character receives (and the bonus feat granted to human characters). The paladin gains an additional bonus feat from the list at 6th level, 12th level and a final bonus feat at 18th level. A paladin must meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums. These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character gets from advancing levels. A paladin is not limited to the list of bonus feats presented here when choosing normally gained feats.

Divine Might - Charisma modifier as additional damage in normal melee attacks against evil characters.
Extra Lay on Hands - As Pathfinder RPG description
Extra Turning - As Pathfinder RPG description
Improved Smiting - Adds your Charisma bonus to the number of times per day you can smite.
Leadership - As Pathfinder RPG description
Mounted Combat - As Pathfinder RPG description
Power Attack - As Pathfinder RPG description
Stunning Smite - Some sort of alternative Smite effect?
Turning Smite - As Pathfinder RPG description
Weapon Focus - As Pathfinder RPG description

Backwards compatibility is preserved better - after all, the changes are in the feats. There are only a few feats slots (4 in total), to not upset the class or impinge on the fighter. It also creates a mechanic for future supplements to simply 'add in' feats to this list.

No, put down the pitchfork. It was only an idea, that's all...

Chobbly

I think that LKL's idea for Smite is great as well.

That said I am still for something that is always on, no matter how you examine it, a few smites a day is still a small number. Especially after Snorters post about how all the "casters" now have spells that are unlimited daily.

I still say a bonus = to paladin level that is divided amongst hit/dam/ac is the best way to go.

And if we can have that a bonus = to the number of remaining smites to hit/dam/ac.

Either of those would be the final icing on the cake, and we would have a paladin that could stand on his own all the time, not just a few rounds a day.

For me, this is one of the best arguments I've seen for paladin's having an minor but respectable 'always on' damage benefit against evil creatures. Having GM'd my second Pathfinder game the night before last, I can say that the ability of spellcasters (especially low-level ones) to cast even a few low level spells unlimited is a huge improvement, and IMHO it's exactly the same logic that applies to the paladin, especially low level ones, when attacking evil creatures.

Chobbly

I thought this up in the other paladin thread here...what do you guys think?

Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

Thoughts?

I posted elsewhere that my only real concern with this idea (flexiblity is good) that it gets a bit overpowering at high levels (IMHO, reality may be different). A level 20 paladin caught in his pyjamas against a demon could suddenly dump his 20 points into AC and be on AC 30 or thereabouts. In his pyjamas. Against a demon.

However...

Just as a little twist, why not use the paladin's Cha bonus instead of the paladin level? It would help out lower level paladins more (which is a good thing, I think) and also reduce a little bit the multi-stat dependancy that the paladin has. Keep the to hit, damage or AC when fighting evil, as you say, but use the Cha modifier instead?

Low level paladins could use this with their limited Smite(s), to either increase the chances of it hitting (and reducing the whiff chance) or the damage that the Smite will do, if it connects.

If this was it, I could really get behind this, in fact putting Smite back to the way it was as in the Beta book as a one-off attack. The idea is really growing on me, but just using the Cha modifier instead would 'cap' it without it ever threatening game balance.

Maybe Divine Blessing? Righteous Blessing? Something like that?

Chobbly
(Trying to positive)

With what we have not, all the other melee types still outshine the paladin against evil, that is just not acceptable...that is why I keep trying to come up with ideas that we can work with to get the paladin where he should be. But no matter what I come up...

To be honest Vult, everyone on here has their own ideas about how the paladin should be. Rules by committee rarely work, especially when it's something that people feel passionate about, like the paladin. Some things are more important to different people - backwards compatibility is more important to me, which is why I suggested going back to the base definition of Smite Evil and making the arguably poor damage bonus continuous against evil foes.

I can only speak for myself, but if Paizo went with your +1 per remaining Smite idea would it stop me playing a paladin? Of course not - I've played three paladins in three separate campaigns in the last two years with the abysmal 3.5 paladin.

Vult Wrathblades wrote:

Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know...I really like this one. At later levels we could even allow the paladin to bestow this bonus on a companion...or make that a feat.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Interesting idea this one. It gives the paladin a lot of flexibility. That said, it affects other things, like feats. Power Attack and Combat Expertise are in some ways much less useful, apart from being a prerequisite to allow other feats. In fact, with this ability and Power Attack paladins could become two-handed weapon monsters - a level 4/Str 18 paladin with a greatsword could in theory have a +8 to damage, and have no to-hit penalty by applying this new +4 bonus to his melee attack roll, negating the -4 for Power Attack.

The reason why I posted about splitting the current Smite Evil mechanic is that it's already there in the SRD, albeit woefully underpowered. The fact that it is so underpowered makes it, or some of it, more suited to be an 'always on' style ability.

I think there is worth in looking at splitting out Smite Evil into two abilities, the 'divine blow' part with maybe a DR avoiding/good aligned/staggering type effect, and the paladin level damage part as an ongoing effect against evil. Maybe the paladin doesn't even have to Detect Evil for the ongoing damage to be applied against evil foes, as the GM will know if the creature is evil, even if the paladin doesn't.

The advantage of doing this is, I think, mainly backwards compatibility. Feats like Silver Smite from the Eberron setting and Ranged Smite from BoED still track. Extra Smiting from Complete Warrior still works fine. The Grey Guard class's Smite Evil damage, which stacks with the paladin, can still track with little changes, applying instead to the ongoing damage.

Although it may sound like heresy, if a level 1 paladin gets a boost to damage against all evil foes, even if only a single point, does this compensate for only one Smite per day at first level?

Chobbly

Chobbly wrote:

Yes, although maybe this is where you could add in the alternate Smite type effects (perhaps not extra damage), staggering the target for 1d6 turns, the bonus to AC, the Smite ignoring DR, etc or something else.

How about (with Divine Might):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. A successful Smite attempt ignores all damage resistance that the target possesses. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

It's the concept of spliting Smite bonus to hit and damage against evil foes which is interesting.

Chobbly

First: To Robert, believe me I know, but I'm bored at work and no one is discussing anything else.

To Chobbly, as a once per day power it's weak. True strike does the same thing better, adding the DR break helps, but if it's only a single attack then this goes right back to the problem that was that smite evil is underwhelming as a class ability. + cha to hit to deal an extra 1 damage at first level or even an extra 5 at 5th level.

Then you also haven't adressed the fact that at low levels since detect evil doesn't work on creatures with less than 5 HD the abilities won't do anything at all even if the creature is evil.

Detect Evil would need to be altered (maybe back) to allow the paladin to mark out evil foes. As many have said, the paladin needs two abilities - one continuous one to take out low level foes and one to do serious damage to high level characters.

With the suggestion, the paladin always gets the damage of Smite Evil against recognised evil foes in the form of Divine Might - but the Smite Evil attack itself just makes the attack more likely to deal damage with DR being ignored.

It's just an idea, needs lots of refining, and maybe the concept is done better elsewhere.

Chobbly wrote:

Great, great ideas, I can really get behind these. How about something like (both at first level):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

Divine Might (Su): Devoted to fighting evil, the devout paladin gains a boost to her damage against evil foes. When attacking a creature that the paladin knows is evil, either through spells or use of the paladin's Detect Evil ability, the paladin deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level against the evil creature. This extra damage applies to all melee, unarmed and natural attacks against the evil creature, including Smite Evil attempts.

So, a 1st level paladin may only be able to smite once a day with a special attack, but he has a single point bonus to damage against evil foes all the time. It links well into the Detect Evil ability.

Feats that give extra Smites still work, but they give only extra Smite attempts. Feats that give a damage boost (i.e. +1d6 damage on a smite) still work, but on a Smite attempt.

Smite Evils can be ranged attacks too, so ranged paladins can still work, but the physical 'might' applies to melee, unarmed and natural attacks, delivered in hand to hand.

Plus, and maybe more importantly, the number of Smites can stay as they are now, because the Divine Might boost is always active.

Thoughts?

Chobbly

Umm if I'm reading this right the only thing smite does is give you your charisma to hit? And with the change to detect evil. Creatures with less than 5HD unless they are outsiders, undead, or clerics, do not have an evil aura, which means, that you would only get the divine might bonus vs. demons and undead, until level 4-5. I would rather take...

Yes, although maybe this is where you could add in the alternate Smite type effects (perhaps not extra damage), staggering the target for 1d6 turns, the bonus to AC, the Smite ignoring DR, etc or something else.

How about (with Divine Might):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. A successful Smite attempt ignores all damage resistance that the target possesses. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

It's the concept of spliting Smite bonus to hit and damage against evil foes which is interesting.

Chobbly

Vult Wrathblades wrote:

Marty1000 wrote:

some good stuff

Good example Marty. I think you were exactly right with your assessment. I do however think that Smite should have a different concept. I see no reason that the paladin's smite can not be always active. It already has the restriction that the target must be evil...yea yea some say that 90% of things are evil, but the Rogue will get his flank 90% of the time too. The fighter and barbarian will have their powers all of the time. So letting the paladin smite all the time is not out of line IMHO.

I say we just make it Char mod to hit, paladin level to damage, is not multiplied on a crit, it bypasses all damage reduction. And you must know that the target you are attacking is evil (through detect evil). Then at later levels this would boost a little allowing it to crit and also crit against creatures that are immune to crits (Critting that wight that has been hurting the party would be pretty dramatic.)

I just absolutely do not feel that this is over powered in any way....it simply lets the paladin shine where he is supposed to...and he has not become useless in combats, as per your example.

I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

However, I would propose that the "always on power" be a completely separate ability from smite evil.

When the paladin encounters evil enemies (and i would also argue CN enemies) that he gets his "quickening" ala highlander. The paladin goes the turbo kicks in as he battles his evil foes. This is the "always on" power. When he meets up with BBEG, or triple Ds, or evil undead, or slaadi (i hate those toads!), he hits the nitrous oxide boost which of course is his smite evil. A limited duration, big impact ability with limited number of uses per day. Major damage to the EVIL dudes.

Great, great ideas, I can really get behind these. How about something like (both at first level):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

Divine Might (Su): Devoted to fighting evil, the devout paladin gains a boost to her damage against evil foes. When attacking a creature that the paladin knows is evil, either through spells or use of the paladin's Detect Evil ability, the paladin deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level against the evil creature. This extra damage applies to all melee, unarmed and natural attacks against the evil creature, including Smite Evil attempts.

So, a 1st level paladin may only be able to smite once a day with a special attack, but he has a single point bonus to damage against evil foes all the time. It links well into the Detect Evil ability.

Feats that give extra Smites still work, but they give only extra Smite attempts. Feats that give a damage boost (i.e. +1d6 damage on a smite) still work, but on a Smite attempt.

Smite Evils can be ranged attacks too, so ranged paladins can still work, but the physical 'might' applies to melee, unarmed and natural attacks, delivered in hand to hand.

Plus, and maybe more importantly, the number of Smites can stay as they are now, because the Divine Might boost is always active.

Thoughts?

Chobbly

I think we should keep smites simple, as close to the original intent as possible (a single hit), while solving the major complaint (the whiff factor). I like the upgraded smite proposed by Jason B. Or I could go with the idea proposed by anothony Valente (here), assuming it's limited to the intended target of the smite (and maybe not quite so many dice). Or I could go with the targets per day idea, as long as the duration of the targeting is short.

I agree. Whilst it's nice in some ways lasting a round (especially the AC boost, I'd be happy for that to stay) the Smite Evil attempt to me should be one blow, one single attack, strong enough so that even the target's ancestors can feel it. When a paladin smites evil, other evil creatures around it should be shaken at the display of divine power. You could throw in some staggered effect as well or something similar, but it should be one blow.

Apart from that, Will Saves improvement I like, tweaks to spell levels I like. For me, the paladin's pretty much there apart from Smite Evil - LastKnightLeft's suggestion of more Smites at first level is sorely needed. The 1d6+level damage idea is also good for the viability of low level paladins. Everything else I haven't got a major opinion about at the moment.

Chobbly

Then you haven't played a paladin from levels 1-5. I've always from the very begining said that a paladin at higher levels is allright, but that the poor low level paladin gets the shaft. The lay on hads improvement was a great fix, but the channel energy change then nerfed it right back so it wasn't an overall improvement, the smite fix is either perfect, or barely an improvement depending on your campaign.

Spellcasting is still aweful, 1/2 caster level and you have to memorize while getting fewer spells than a full caster, level 4 paladin is still crap compared cleric level 1, and until you can say I'd rather have paladin level 4 than cleric level 1 you haven't fixed the paladin.

The higher end stuff, I haven't an issue with, but I have an issue with the low level paladin which is what I've said from the very beggining, and the low level paladin hasn't been fixed at all.

Having played paladins in three different games in the last two years, I agree totally. Paladins early on are dire, and the effects of Smite in the SRD/PHB are laughable. The spellcasting takes so long to kick in it's little more than an afterthought, although the same could be said about the Ranger.

I don't know, I sometimes wonder if it makes more sense for the amount of damage dealt in a Smite to come from the CR of the monster rather than the paladin's level. The greater the evil, the greater the divine power in the Smite that is given to confront it...?

Chobbly

I've got a general question, one of scope. How far can, or perhaps instead should, the changes to Smite Evil go?

The reworked Pathfinder paladin is, overall, a much improved version of the base 3.5 paladin. The new abilities are great, IMHO, and Holy Champion itself is worth stopping in the class for. Whilst Lay on Hands has some issues when compared to how it worked in the past, for me one of the few things that really needs to be addressed is Smite Evil.

So, what are the base problems with Smite Evil, if it is kept to the x/day mechanic?

1) Too few Smite attempts.
2) Smite does too little damage.
3) Smite attempts are lost on a miss.

LastKnightLeft had a great, simple and straightforward solution to too few Smite attempts - Cha Modifier + 1 Smites at first level. Level dipping isn't really a problem for the paladin. Even a level 19 sorcerer / level 1 paladin still has to act like a paladin and keep to the Code of Conduct to keep his paladin abilities.

The second problem is that Smite attempts do too little damage, especially at lower levels. Bypassing DR is a great way of doing this, keeping the Smite fast and straightforward without adding in extra complexity. Even if it's only an extra point of damage from a level 1 paladin, as Jason Nelson posted earlier, "It's all getting through!" Plus, good or law aligning a weapon is still useful for when the paladin isn't smiting, which will still be most of the time.

Ranged Smites, many people like, I dislike, but limiting it to a 30 foot range as Ratpick suggested seems a good compromise and apparently already has a precedent. Some people have mentioned wanting Smite Evil to start applying to CMB attacks. Do we need this? Will the class work without it? Is the point of smite arguably to reflect a 'holy blow', rather than a 'holy trip' or a 'holy disarm'?

The final problem, Smite attempts being lost on a miss, is also straightforward to fix. A failed Smite attempt isn't lost. This deals with the aforementioned 'whiff' factor.

So, what I propose is something like this:

Smite Evil (Su): A number of times per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee, natural or unarmed attack, or a ranged attack of 30ft or less. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. Infused with divine power, all damage resistance possessed by the target is ignored for the purposes of the Smite Evil attempt.

It's not a huge change, which is the point. I can't take credit for much of it but is a huge change really needed? Playtesting should be much easier than trying to go through a wholly new mechanic, and backwards compatibility less likely to be tripped up. Non-Pathfinder feats that add damage/dice to Smite Evil attempts or increase the number of smite attempts would still track.

Should the rules for Smite Evil be kept simple, allowing us to focus on the challenge of actually playing a paladin, rather than overcomplicating rules that may not need overcomplicating?

One idea, but many questions...

Chobbly
(sorry about the post length, btw)

Chobbly wrote:

At the moment, the PHB limits Smite Evil to one normal melee attack, a 'holy blow' if you will. From a visualisation point of view, I struggle to see smite (which as a word has a physical inference anyway) working as a ranged attack. Any type of unarmed, melee or natural attack, totally, ranged attacks, less so.

One of the three LG Golarion deities is Erastil, whose favored weapon is a longbow. You don't think that paladins of Erastil should be able to smite with their god's favored weapon?

EDIT: And the LN god Abadar also produces a lot of paladins; his favored weapon is the crossbow.

And the Church of Silver Flame from the Eberron Campaign Setting, their favoured weapon is the longbow. Smite is a melee attack only in the PHB, and I have always felt that Smite is best represented as a a form of direct, physical and close-up attack, as I mentioned before. You could argue that the concept of favoured weapons applies more to clerics anyway, but that's probably a discussion for somewhere else.

I have worries that opening smite up to ranged attacks could give rise to the paladin/ranger uber-bowman, especially if Smites have a duration and ranged feats are tricked out on (like from Complete Warrior). But, that said, even if a ranged smite attack is added it's not exactly going to stop me running Pathfinder. Everyone's got different opinions and preferences, but at the end of the day it's up to Paizo.

Chobbly

At the moment, the PHB limits Smite Evil to one normal melee attack, a 'holy blow' if you will. From a visualisation point of view, I struggle to see smite (which as a word has a physical inference anyway) working as a ranged attack. Any type of unarmed, melee or natural attack, totally, ranged attacks, less so.

On another score, how would the various Smite related feats from other sources be affected by Smite Evil having a duration? Feats like Silver Smite (from the Eberron Campaign Setting) that give damage boosts would be even more useful if the Smite had a duration, perhaps too much? If I was a paladin in Eberron, there'd be no point playing a Sovereign Host deity paladin because Silver Smite would just be too good to pass up.

One idea, linked to what Lord Aerthos Pendragon said just, is to break apart the Smite Evil attack bonus and the damage slightly. When declared (as a free/immediate action) the attack bonus from Smite Evil is applied to every attack until the paladin actually hits. When the attack hits, all Smite Evil affects are applied. The attack bonus then ends.

This gets around loss of the Smite Evil attempt if the attack fails - the attack bonus stays active until the paladin's blow connects and then the righteous fury of the smite is delivered.

If an attack is made against a non-evil foe, or the combat encounter finishes, then the Smite Evil attempt immediately ends without any effect and the attempt is considered spent.

Chobbly

1. Each use of SE aligns your weapon to law & good.

I think this is a no-brainer, an absolutely simple change, and useful. You smite evil, your weapon is [good] for beating DR. Smite chaos, it's lawful for beating DR. I think something like this is a must.

That said, I actually would suggest doing this slightly differently, and that is this:

When smiting evil, you ignore any form of DR possessed by an evil creature.

That way, when fighting evil, paladin > golf bag of weapons. The paladin needn't know or care what kind of DR the thing has, whether it's a pit fiend with DR/good and silver or a balor with DR/good and cold iron or a jelly donut-odaemon with DR/good or blueberry muffins, if it's evil, and the paladin is smiting, it's ALL gettin through!

Whilst I would prefer the current Smite Evil working on a per encounter mechanic rather than a per day, this I like.

Ignoring all DR would give the paladin something it severly lacks - a reason for evil creatures to fear it, above any other martial character with Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization boosts or equivalents.

Simple change, probably few or no background compatibility issues. I like it.

Chobbly

The paladin's (new) Divine Bond and Holy Champion class features mention the paladin having a god, but this isn't explained anywhere else in the class description, or even how the paladin selects a deity.

IMHO, the rules for this could do with clarifying. For what it's worth, the text in the 3.5 PHB explicitly states that the paladin does not require a specific deity, and that the very righteousness of the paladin's cause is enough.

Chobbly

I think that it should remain setting-specific.

The SRD doesn't mention requiring a deity to be chosen, and the Players Handbook actually says that the paladin doesn't have to devote herself to a specific deity - the righteousness of the cause is enough. 4th Edition IIRC is different, and requires the Paladin to chose a deity. The Pathfinder RPG doesn't push the need for a deity, but the need for selection of a deity appears in the changed 'Divine Bond' class feature and the new 'Holy Champion' class feature.

Thing is, this opens up the 'Holy Warrior' debate. Some think a paladin to be the martial instrument of her deity. The paladin can be, but doesn't have to be, in core 3.5. In that case should it stay the same as 3.5, allowing either a deity to be selected or just the righteousness of the paladin's cause? A slight wording change may help, but that's probably more relevant when the focus changes to looking at the classes chapter.

Keeping this flexibility would allow it to be setting-generic, much like 3.5.

Chobbly

Thing is, if you follow option (1) and make all races like humans, that has a real knock on for human characters. The versatility that has typically been associated with human characters is diluted across the pool of racial characters. Something would need to be in its place that reflected a versatility that other races did not have.

Idea (2), just killing the idea is a possibility, but would be a shame I think. I had a chat to my some of my playgroup about the new favoured class rules, as well as another player outside. The rules for this went down quite well, especially the flexibility of being able to switch between gaining an additional hit point or skill point at every level up.

And, no one is being forced to play anything. It merely offers an advantage for some classes over others. It would be more work for a GM who wanted favoured class rules like this to put them in than it would be for a GM who didn't want them to take them out. So why not leave them in?

Racial feats have been discussed as a possible replacement for this. For me, feat slots are a precious enough commodity as it is (unless you're a fighter). If you make racial feats that need to take up a feat slot, regardless of how much flavour the feat slot adds, it is still affecting the potential of the character. You could then say that the racial feat could be gained free, but then is there any point in doing it as a racial feat?

Chobbly

Of course, we're all assuming the rule is to benefit players.

It can just as easily be used to represent the game world as a whole, and the creatures who inhabit it.

Dwarven fighters/clerics are either tougher or more studious than other races.

Humans are tougher or more studious than anyone. (something the game routinely points out through all the editions is the prolific and progressiveness of the humans in their short lives, compared to the much MUCH longer lived races.)

I could go through for each race and say the same- but you get the idea.
The point isn't so much that You get (or don't get) 1hp or 1 skill point- its that the race as a hole has some serious strong points. And they have created a mechanical benefit to back that up. Before all we had was a penalty. 'Elves are better wizards because if they aren't, they suck at doing multiple things'. Now its "Elven wizards tend to be better wizards than anyone else". And the rules support that.

It doesn't mean there are no elven (insert non-favored classhere) it just means that elven Wizards are more powerful, on average, than non-elven wizards.

The 1hp, the 1 skill, isn't That big a deal. Its actually a small deal. It's not even the equivalent of a feat (toughness gives more hp, and is constant despite your class).

It does encourage the stereotypes- but thats the point. It isn't a negative thing, it is why the mechanical advantage, though small, exists. It's to show you WHY they are stereotypical.

It doesn't limit creativity. It doesn't limit choices or options. It merely gives a small bonus to someone who chooses a particular race and class combination. Not unlike choosing a Str based race for warriors or an Int based race for Wizards. You don't have to- and you aren't penalized if you don't- but if you Do choose it, you can gain the bonus.

-S

Agree totally. It doesn't take anything away, but just says that certain races are more naturally blessed in certain areas. Humans and half elves is their versatility, and in the case of humans, they don't get much else.

An elf can be any class they want to, but naturally are predisposed towards working alongside nature (Ranger) or studies involving magic (Wizard). Likewise with halflings, they are naturally gifted in the paths of the bard and the rogue. They can always take different classes if they want to, bucking the trend and thus standing our from their fellow halflings by very nature of being different.

In any case, it can be ruled out if a GM doesn't want it with little game effect, so why not leave it in for those players who do?

Chobbly

Eww, Mushy.

On point; I see no reason why a Human can't take Fighter as his Favored class when he's a rogue at level one.

I agree. It could represent a number of situations, i.e. a fighter wants one day to be a paladin, or a rogue who has a true calling embracing her sorcerer heritage, or something.

It may not be the most efficient for the character build, but how much that matters depends on the player.

Chobbly

I'll either be switching my Eberron campaign over when the Forgotten Forge arc has finished (mainly because the warforged player wants an Iron Defender of his own, and it's being created for him by the patron as payment for his assistance), or running something homebrew that I'm working on.

Or I may pick up one of the AP's - haven't truly decided yet.

Chobbly

Someone may have already spotted this, but on page 6, it says:

The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards, Wisdom for clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers, or Charisma for sorcerers and bards.

Paladins now use Charisma for spellcasting, so should paladins be included with sorcerers and bards?

On page 7, it also mentions paladins getting bonus spells based on their Wisdom in the description for that ability.

Chobbly

Thank you.

Seconded.

I can only speak for myself, but all of the hard work that you guys do is appreciated, and the fact that you have made the Alphas and the Betas publicly available. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute.

Good luck with GenCon!

Chobbly

There is another way, I suppose, but looking backwards.

The old Complete Paladin's Handbook (for 2nd edition) had a load of additional kits for paladin types - the Wyrmslayer, hunter of evil dragons. Or the Votary, suspicious of all other religions. Or a Squire, a paladin who never 'makes it'. The traditional Equerry/chevalier, the knight on horseback. Or maybe the Divine, closer to clerics than any other paladin. Yes, I do have a copy of the AD&D Complete Paladin's Handbook on my desk.

I know it's probably too late for major changes, but any of these could be dropped in at the paladin's 5th level, as Divine Bond options. Just as ideas:

Weapon of the Faith (similar to Votary kit) - Smite attempts also work against clerics and paladins of other faiths?
Dragonhunter (similar to Wyrmslayer kit) - applies 1/2 his level as additional damage in melee attacks against evil dragons?
Devout (similar to Divine kit) - Gains one of the Cleric domains relevant to his/her deity?

Chobbly

Back before WEG lost the StarWars license most of my RPG collection consisted of WEG products (namely StarWars). It's sad to see the company "die" again...

... plus I never really got the chance to play much TORG back in the day

Same as me. In the late eighties / early nineties, I bought a lot of what WEG put out, but pretty much everything Star Wars. I loved the d6 system, it was so easy to get players into because it used 'normal' dice . I was a big fan of the Star Warriors game too - the recent SW Miniatures Battles game IMHO doesn't qualify as much of a game when it's compared to the more complex but richer Star Warriors. Even after WEG lost the licence, I looked in every now and again to see what they were doing.

I never played TORG either, but got the starter books for it. It was always an interesting setting, but never got round to running it with my playgroup back then.

I hope someone can do something with the name, at least. It'd be a shame if West End Games simply became just a warm yet distant memory and an infrequently modified article on Wikipedia.

Chobbly

Chobbly wrote:

If iterative attacks ever got dumped, there would need to be a mechanic that increased the damage considerably in each hit (by a melee class?) to make up for it. The additional attacks could become rerolls if the previous hit missed, or something, i.e. a BAB on a +10/+5, you would only get the reroll of +5 if the +10 missed.

Well, as was said earlier, extra attacks could be converted into damage multipliers. For example:

At BAB 1-5, attack damage = [weapon]+Str+enhancement
At BAB 6, attack damage = 2x([weapon]+Str+enhancement)
At BAB 11, attack damage = 3x([weapon]+Str+enhancement)
At BAB 16, attack damage = 4x([weapon]+Str+enhancement)

and so on. Feats like Rapid Shot and Two-Weapon Fighting grant a second attack, if the first attack hits. The second attack does not get the multiplier. However, taking Improved Two-Weapon Fighting increases the off-hand damage to 2x, Greater to 3x.

Rerolls aren't really a good idea, as the point is to reduce the number of rolls made.

And you do reduce the numbers of rolls made. It only works on a Full Attack. If you hit on the first attack, that's it, done, no more rerolls and work out damage. Only if you miss, and have secondary attacks do you get the chance for a reroll.

A 3.5 BAB stat of say +9/+4 would still be valid, but mean something different, on a full attack only if you miss on a +9 do you get a second attack on a +4. Once you hit the target, that's it, no more rerolls even if you had some left.

However, several questions emerge:
-How to handle Power Attack? I'm leaning towards not multiplying Power Attack damage.
-How to handle Sneak Attack? As we've just nerfed full-attacking for sneak attack damage, unless we also multiply that.
-How to handle Energy weapons? I would say the d6s from Frost, Flaming, etc. multiply as well, if a same-priced enhancement bonus multiplies.
-How to handle critical hits? If a weapon has an x2 crit range, do we double the total, or follow typical D&D multiplication rules and turn it into a x3 (at BAB 6-10)?
-What about the bad guys? If damage is dealt in a huge spike instead of over multiple attacks, monsters wielding manufactured weapons become more deadly, as they can't halt their sequence anymore.
-What about Haste? I'm kicking around having Haste let you roll 2d20 when attacking, and take the better of the two rolls. Extra attacks should be granted from feats and be special.

-Matt

I'd say leave most things as they are, for backward compatibility's sake, but you have some valid thoughts.

Chobbly

I love how classes were done with feats and Talent trees. Might not go over so well with some and not exactly backward compatible, but the flexibility is a win for me.
Also like the level dependent damage bonuses.

Not sure if the Force Powers are a fair comparison to magic in D&D so adding in a magic system could be unbalancing.

The adoption of the class talent trees in SW Saga (very similar to those in d20 Modern) IMHO is one of the best things in Saga.

Just think - if this had been done for D&D bards could have a songs talent tree, and by learning some songs (talents) they could expand their repertoire and learn different songs. Paladins could have had healing, smite and leadership talent trees. Rangers could have survivalist and nature trees. There could even be a bit of overlap between the talent trees amongst similar classes (Rangers and druids? Clerics and paladins? Wizards and sorcerers).

If you followed it up to the end, you could even have a radically different magic engine, with spell schools and domains being trees of their own - should a wizard be able to cast fireball if he doesn't even know how to cast light or flare? Could a 'manifest flame' tree like that comprise of something like Flare, Burning Hands, Fireball, Firetrap and Wall of Fire?

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic. If iterative attacks ever got dumped, there would need to be a mechanic that increased the damage considerably in each hit (by a melee class?) to make up for it. The additional attacks could become rerolls if the previous hit missed, or something, i.e. a BAB on a +10/+5, you would only get the reroll of +5 if the +10 missed.

Chobbly

One thing I'd like to be clear about is that while the Pathfinder RPG contains OGL content, Pathfinder itself is and will remain a Paizo trademark. (And by the time our compatibility logo will be available, it will almost certainly be a registered trademark. Yay for ®!)

Absolutely. Being able to mark a product as being compatible with the Pathfinder RPG is a really good thing, and may give those people who had an idea for a 4th ed supplement or setting an alternative to the GSL.

Chobbly

That's really interesting (and I don't mean the brain-eating). Having a Pathfinder RPG Enabled logo would be a really good idea, and something I could imagine quite a few people and smaller publishers would have a look at.

I know it's not particularly necessary, what with Pathfinder being OGL and all, but will hopefully help cement the Pathfinder RPG 'brand', if that doesn't sound too distasteful.

Unlike the brain eating.

Chobbly

In my experience, most people I've seen play paladin's avoided the restriction anyway, not by breaking the rule but by just walking around it. By taking those two fighter levels first or by just using rules that let them ignore it like prestige classes and feats that removed/or were an exception to the restriction.
This is a minimal change, and it changes pretty much nothing.

Exactly. I've played a paladin in settings where I've had to take a feat, and others where the setting allowed paladins to multiclass into other certain classes. I've also played paladins with prior levels in fighter just to beef up the paladin's combat abilities for the game being played.

Removing the restriction is the right thing. As you say, it also frees up a feat slot for the paladin to use elsewhere.

Chobbly

We implemented the +1 skill point idea in our current Pathfinder campaign.

Players loved it, and it felt so much more appropriate than "you're level 4, you get +4 hit points". It let our underachiever fighter (int 9) take profession(butcher) AND profession(cook).

I really like the +1 skill point for favoured classes idea for exactly that reason. I'll probably be doing the same in my home game too. It makes Favoured Classes a feature of the class, balanced out with a restriction and a benefit.

Chobbly

So for people who prefer 3.x to 4E, congratulations. Pathfinder RPG is a win for you. But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else: Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(

That's your opinion, and you, like me and every other sentient being on the planet, is entitled to it. I imagine that you are not the only person who feels that way. Some people really like what they see in 4th Edition, and enthusiasic about the move. If you like 4th Edition, I hope you and your playgroup have a great time with the system.

I imagine that for Paizo, and the industry as a whole, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't see. We don't know (as a community) yet how much support 4th Edition will garner from third party publishers. The fact that there is a rumoured clause in the GSL which allows Wizards to effectively yank the licence away if they choose to would make me think twice if I was a publisher. From a business perspective, the prospect of someone else being able to effectively shut down one of your product lines is one hell of a strong argument for looking at alternatives. The OGL is there already and can't be revoked.

I may pick up 4th Edition at some point, but am in no rush. Conversely, I'm looking forward to Pathfinder. My playgroup have had a look at the Pathfinder Alpha 3, and can see some good things in it. 4th Edition, on the other hand, has turned them cold. Simple economics is one of the main reasons - we've invested a fair bit in 3.5 resources and even though Pathfinder will require a bit of conversion those resources are still usable.

So, I'll be buying Pathfinder. No question. 4th Edition, at some point.

Chobbly

Getting rid of them would be a bad idea. PF shouldn't take things away.

I agree. I suppose getting rid of them might harm backward compatibility as well and make the job of converting old 3.5 characters harder.

For me, it's keeping the feel of the Ranger class in the combat styles. Out of all the suggestions, the new one that seems to fit best to me is skirmish, but then again what do I know!

Chobbly

I can see this idea being easy to address, by simply replacing the reference to a free weapon proficiency, with 'Humans gain one free class skill of their choice'. Then let them choose if/when to spend their human bonus skill point/level.
(EDIT: beaten to the post by DracoDruid).

It also gives GM's an opportunity to use this bonus in many different ways. Facing off against three seemingly identical human fighters could be different every time, if the GM chooses. The first human could be really slippery (Bluff skill, perhaps feinting now and again), the second really quick on their feet (Acrobatics), and the third intimidating (guess what, Intimidate). It makes humans in the game as being both unpredictable and versatile, which is how they should be.

I like the idea of an additional class skill, whether it's got the free skill rank or not. GM's could (and in my case, would) house rule any odd choices, as always unless there was a reason.

Chobbly

Just thinking about Smite Evil. I can appreciate why the effect Smite Evil could have to remain the same, for backward compatibility reasons. I know there are feats in x numbers of books, as well as classes, that refer to Smite Evil, so perhaps a major change to the way it works isn't possible without breaking backward compatibility.

In that case, why not give the effect of Smite Evil a little tweak? Not enough to upset any of the references to it, but just a little extra? Say, if the attack hits and deals damage it also causes the target to gain the Shaken condition for 1d6 rounds, or something. A foe hit by a divine blow should feel like he's been hit with divine-inspired force, rather than just a heavy attack.

It also means that other allies can benefit from the paladin Smiting Evil, encouraging the paladin to lead the charge, as he should be.

Just an idea, that's all.

Chobbly

I figured it might be helpful to consolidate thoughts and comments on the races in this thread.

I'll start with a possible change that might be nice for Humans.

As an option, instead of the weapon proficiency, how about choosing a single skill that remains a class skill regardless of your current class or class you're advancing into? You gain a bonus rank in that skill at 1st level to start with so off the bat you're trained in it.

Gotta say quest-master, I really like this idea.

It could make humans progress into some prestige classes easier, which fits the versatility aspect the race. I know that the new base classes offer so much more in Pathfinder, but the option is still there.

I think more importantly it also promotes differences between human characters of the same class. All fighters have the same class skills (and very often end up having the same or similar feats), but those damn unpredictable humans...

For players, it means that if, for example, your group consists of a human fighter, halfling cleric and elven wizard, your group has no way to disable traps short of perhaps magical means. The human fighter in this case could take Disable Device - he wouldn't in any way be as a good as a real Rogue (no Trap Sense, etc), but enough to get them through in a pinch. It also wouldn't derail a game because a given character type wasn't available. Perhaps in the human fighter's character history he was friends with a thief, or simply dabbled in criminal activities occasionally when funds were short.

It also gives GM's flexibility on how to implement this change, if at all. Any existing stat blocks used could either gain the free rank you mentioned or simply be ignored. Equally, GM's could decide to dispense with this rule altogether, like some GM's like to do with favoured classes, without any real effect on the game or mechanics.

Chobbly

There is actually a precedent for this. I think it was the issue of Dragon with the DM Screen by WAR had "paladins" for every alignment.

The Neutral Good one was called "The Sentinel" and had powers that involved nature and countering unnatural forces trying to intrude upon nature (the NG example had Sentinels opposing fiends, but abberations and undead would have also worked).

http://paizo.com/store/magazines/dragon/issues/2003/310

There was a smiliar article about anti-paladins in this issue:
http://paizo.com/store/magazines/dragon/issues/2003/312

I think Unearthed Arcana might have also had paladins of different alignments (though the issues of Dragon predate UA by a good bit).

You're absolutely right about Unearthed Arcana - Freedom (CG), Slaughter (CE) and Tyranny (LE).

There is also something else that may be of interest in Unearthed Arcana - an alternate version of the cleric, who prefers 'standing at the forefront of the battle against the enemy'.

This version gains some things from the paladin base class - aura of courage and the ability to smite. The smite is good or evil aligned, depending on if the cleric would channel positive or negative. In return, the cleric loses turn undead.

I think this could really work. The paladin base class would not have to change, and I think this is good for several reasons. It's one of the most iconic classes, was underpowered and unloved (IMHO) in 3.0/3.5 and rendering it down to a sub-class option would be a real shame when the Pathfinder Alpha 3 has (more or less) fixed it.

The cleric is a great class, is already deity/alignment generic, has really good saves and with the above options gets Smite too. (It wouldn't be a major rules stretch to allow this Smite to be Smite Evil / Smite Non-Neutral / Smite Good if you wanted).

On the downside, the cleric would lose channel energy, and I know it has a lower BAB, but is more than capable of buffing itself up. The Pathfinder cleric has all the extra domain stuff too.

It's just an idea, but this could fit the 'champion' idea much better. No big long lists of replacement class features or codes of conduct, just nice and simple.

What do you think?

Chobbly

These are quite good and anyone interested in champions of X would be well advised to get their grubby mitts on these books. Although, you are correct and an Paladin is LG, once it's not LG anymore, it's not a Paladin.

Peace,

tfad

Agree totally. If there was a separate class somewhere, perhaps called Dark Champion or something that allowed non LG paladin-esque characters for those players that want them, that would be fine by me. The paladin base class for me is LG and always will be LG.

I'm really happy with the way that the paladin is looking in Alpha 3. I like the way that Lay on Hands works now. Giving something other than repeated uses of Remove Disease is definitely the right move, and worth staying in the paladin base class. Nice to see the multiclassing restriction gone as well, which means that other sub-types like wandering knight-errant style paladins (with a level of Ranger or two) are now really feasible.

About the only thing I might want to see a little bit differently is Smite Evil. It works ok, but needs... something extra. Maybe ignoring DR, the attack being good-aligned, the use of Smite Evil possibly being regained if it results in an opponent being reduced to negative hit points, I don't know, just something.

Chobbly

Just had a quick pass through of the Paladin rules. Gotta say, nicely done.

Moving the spells to Charisma makes sense. I also like the way that the Lay on Hands now works, used to remove disease, curses, enchantments. Basing it off 1/2 paladin level plus Cha modifier is different, and should be fine when I've got used to it. Divine Bond - I'm growing to like it more as time goes on.

About the only thing I'd change would be the spellcasting from prepared to spontaneous, to differentiate the paladin from the cleric a little more and with the few number of spells per day I can't see it breaking much. Still, it's a minor thing for me, and it's great to be able to say that about the paladin class :-)

Good job... now, if only I wasn't DM'ing at the moment....

Chobbly

Hi there.

I'm working on a new mechanic to replace the paladin's Smite Evil ability. It is called Divine Assault, and can be used once per combat engagement (encounter). It lasts a number of rounds, depending on the paladin level, and gives a bonus to hit and damage against a particular target if certain conditions are met. The x/day of Smite Evil is totally gone, making it simpler to use/look after.

Anyway, enough babbling...

* / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / *

Divine Assault (Su): Once per combat engagement, a paladin may launch a divine assault against a particular foe. A combat engagement is defined as the period in-between initiative rolls, no matter the duration. In effect, when the paladin makes an initiative roll and so begins combat she regains the ability (if previously spent) to initiate a divine assault.

The length of a divine assault increases as the paladin progresses. When first gained, a divine assault only lasts a single round. A divine assault at 4th level lasts for 2 rounds and a divine assault at 7th level can last for 3 rounds. The possible duration of the divine assault increases by 1 round every three paladin levels, all the way up to 18th level where the maximum potential length of a divine assault in a combat engagement is 7 rounds.

To initiate a divine assault, the paladin must target an adjacent foe as a free action. If the paladin accidentally targets a creature with this ability that is not evil, the divine assault has no effect, but the divine assault is still considered spent for that particular encounter.

While divine assault is active, as long as the paladin continues to (or tries to) engage the targeted creature she adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of divine damage per paladin level against the target creature. The Divine Assault effect will cease at the end of the turn if one of these conditions is met:

• The duration of the divine assault (as specified) ends.
• The paladin is unconscious, or the targeted creature is unconscious.
• The paladin is reduced to negative hit points, or the targeted creature is reduced to negative hit points.
• If able to do so, the paladin does not either move towards or initiate an attack against the targeted creature.

When an assault has begun against an evil foe, a paladin can be impossible to stop. The paladin is a swirling, continual maelstrom of focused destruction, the power of the divine rushing through every fibre of her being. To represent this state of righteous fury, whilst in a divine assault the paladin gains a bonus equal to his Charisma modifier to resist any bull rush, disarm, grapple or trip attempts.

* / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / * / *

For Pathfinder, whilst in a divine assault the DC for a combat maneuver against the paladin would be 15 + the paladin's CMB + the paladin's charisma modifier. Whilst infused with the power of her deity (indeed, you could say that this is the reason for the paladin to exist, to smite her enemies) the paladin is much harder to waylay or stop.

What do you think? If this isn't of interest (and it probably won't be, as Pathfinder is shaping up really well on its own) I will be using this mechanic in my own games/resources and reserve the right, yada yada, yada.

We now return you to your regular programming.

Chobbly