Ehren37's page

Ehren37 wrote:

Those arent restrictions, and they cant be used for mechanical balance. Being Lawful Good shouldnt, and does not, get you extra goodies. Does the fighter get extra feats for picking Lawful Good? Does a chaotic neutral cleric get less spells, because his alignment poses fewer perceived restrictions? Those issues are up tot he DM.

Frankly, the paladin's code restricts the group as much as the paladin (which is why the class is loved by drama whores). We refer to any such "restrictions" as a BA Baracus flaw. In the A Team, BA Baracus had a crippling fear of flying. Any time a mission required flight, the team would trick BA into drinking drugged milk. His supposed character flaw wasnt an actual hinderance on BA, it was a hinderance to everyone else. Much like how many interpretations fo the paladin's code discourage sneaking (and flat out discourage lying). If the DM creates a scenario where such tactics are require/advantageous, its not the paladin who suffers alone, its the entire team. As such, you cant slap extra powers on the paladin as compensation for a dubious drawback (if anything,. I'd argue the paladin's party deserves the extra powers). Moreover, whether the code could be perceived as a hinderance at all is entirely dependent on the type of campaign being run and the DM. If everyone signs on to run a Dudley Do-Rite sort of thing and plays accordingly, EVERYONE is playing more or less up tot he code. A chaotic neutral bard might be at more of a disadvantage than the paladin, due to his shifty nature creating disruptions.

Not that you guys want to hear this sort of thing. Go back to yammering about how totally sweet it would be if paladins added their smite bonus to every hit or whatever the overpowered idea du jour is.

OK, ok, that was almost civil..ill bite.

So you are saying that a fighter CHOOOOOSING to be Lawful good is the exact same thing as a paladin being FORCED to be lawful good? Ok, I see how you see balance now.

But then you are also saying that the...

Being lawful good isnt a hinderance. Being chaotic evil isnt an advantage. Presumably if you didnt want to be a paragon of virtue, you wouldnt play a paladin (or a LG fighter, or a LG wizard, or whatever) in the first place. You shouldnt get mechanical bonuses for picking a character concept and RPing that. The chaotic neutral barbarian doesnt get extra benefits for playing something that could cause him trouble with law enforcement officials.

Ehren37 wrote:

Of course. Caught up in your groupthink, you dont want to hear anyone state "no, the paladin is fine". Its not being constructive if you cant think of ways to ramp up the class.

Oh quite on the contrary, we just disagree. We'll state why, and we'll move on. We don't call the people who come on and say it 10 year olds, or say they're just caught up in group think.

You think the paladin is fine?

Then go play and stop flaming the people who disagree with you.

Given that its a playtest post, and there are people clamoring for mroe buffs, remaining quiet wont have the desired effect. Arguiing against overpowered buffs will.

Ok, even if your % is correct, which I disagree about...does the fighter not get his bonuses 100% of the time? What about the barbarian? Cant he still rage as long as he has the points? So this agrument does not really hold to much weight.

No, I wouldnt expect it to with you. Call me when those guys get spells, immunities, extra saves, etc. They are OFFENSE ORIENTED melee. They should ALWAYS outperform the paladin in damage. The paladin, on occasion, should maybe MATCH them, since he pretty much ALWAYS outperforms them on the defensive end.

"shoddy defense" of Paladins are fighters of evil? No sarcasm here at all, do you understand what a paladin is? Im pretty sure you do, and I think you said it "Paladins are fighters of evil" So since that is what they ARE...why is it that we can not use that as part of our argument?

Because you dont give 2 farts about balance. Also, the paladin is a holy warrior. Being the "go to guy" for 95% of all combats isnt a role, its an overpowered design goal. How about this. Fighters are FIGHTERS of everything. Also, since they have the word fighter in their name, they should be the best at fighting. Welcome to your own faulty logic flung back at you.

Man, the quoting feature is god awful on these boards.

OK, if we are going for trade offs here...what does the paladin gain because he also took on the restriction of being lawful good and having a code of conduct? Are either one of those worth a little offense?

No. The lawful good cleric doesnt get extra stuff, does he? See my above post for why its not actually a paladin restriction, but a party restriction. You dont get extra stuff for playing a role, be it an impulsive rogue, a cowardly wizard, or a knight in shining armor.

Obviously you must be talking about me here. I appreciate that you think I may be the "main" poster...but even if that were true that does not make me the one controlling the discussion. I am just as passionate about the paladin as any of these other guys who care to take the time to come here and discuss how we can work on this problem.

Quote:

Duly noted. You're the paladin fanboy equivalent of the guy who thinks katanas can cut a tank in half with one stroke.

Quote:

Yes, I post here a lot. I love this class and I want to have fun playing it. The simple truth is, as the paladin stands, to do what most of us here want to do we would be better served playing a fighter who is very devout to his convictions and role plays with the paladin code of conduct. Is that right? Is that what you want?

Yes, by and large, yes. If all you want to do is fight, and dont value the other benefits (immunities, saves, spells) the paladin gets, go roll a fighter and you'll have what you want.

But you dont want that. You want it all. Spells, special abilities, immunities, etc. Oh, and great offense. But "only" against evil.

Quote:

Should we just remove the paladin from the game because we can not come up with a proper place for him to fit in?

Quote:

He has a place to fit in. He's the more defensive version of the fighter. He has self healing, which translates into effectively more HP. He gets immunities, and has better saves. He trades offense for that.

He has a niche. YOU JUST DONT LIKE IT. Its like going into the rogue play test and b@*~+ing he cant stand toe to toe against a great wyrm, and that he needs more HP, AC etc. Also, his BAB is too low. He needs fighter BAB. Also he needs more feats....

Quote:

I did say that I was finished replying to these sorts of posts, I dont like wasting my time in this Paladin DESIGN focus thread, arguing with people like you...but as I was addressed specifically I had to reply. So that said, I do not believe there is anything more I have to say to you. If you have something constructive to add or you can take part without being an asshat then I would very much enjoy reading and replying to you. But until then this is the last time you will gain an post or quote from me.

Of course. Caught up in your groupthink, you dont want to hear anyone state "no, the paladin is fine". Its not being constructive if you cant think of ways to ramp up the class.

[Guys..you both forgot two other things the paladin also gets at first level.

Lawful good alignment restriction
Code of Conduct

Everyone seems to forget that. But it is part of the class for a reason. I know I talk about them as restrictions, but for the way I RP that is fun for me. But when we talk about "balance" you can not forget those are there, and they are not just there to discourage level dipping.

Those arent restrictions, and they cant be used for mechanical balance. Being Lawful Good shouldnt, and does not, get you extra goodies. Does the fighter get extra feats for picking Lawful Good? Does a chaotic neutral cleric get less spells, because his alignment poses fewer perceived restrictions? Those issues are up tot he DM.

Frankly, the paladin's code restricts the group as much as the paladin (which is why the class is loved by drama whores). We refer to any such "restrictions" as a BA Baracus flaw. In the A Team, BA Baracus had a crippling fear of flying. Any time a mission required flight, the team would trick BA into drinking drugged milk. His supposed character flaw wasnt an actual hinderance on BA, it was a hinderance to everyone else. Much like how many interpretations fo the paladin's code discourage sneaking (and flat out discourage lying). If the DM creates a scenario where such tactics are require/advantageous, its not the paladin who suffers alone, its the entire team. As such, you cant slap extra powers on the paladin as compensation for a dubious drawback (if anything,. I'd argue the paladin's party deserves the extra powers). Moreover, whether the code could be perceived as a hinderance at all is entirely dependent on the type of campaign being run and the DM. If everyone signs on to run a Dudley Do-Rite sort of thing and plays accordingly, EVERYONE is playing more or less up tot he code. A chaotic neutral bard might be at more of a disadvantage than the paladin, due to his shifty nature creating disruptions.

Not that you guys want to hear this sort of thing. Go back to yammering about how totally sweet it would be if paladins added their smite bonus to every hit or whatever the overpowered idea du jour is.

Ehren37 wrote:

Of course you are. You and the other 10 year old paladin fanboys in the thread dont care about balance or good design.

Hell, I'll toss my vote for a holy damage meteor swarm usable as a swift action an unlimited number of times per day. Why not, since we've obviously drifted into bizarro world.

Adding your level to AC or damage? Why not! Paledins kil evils!1!

That anyone would even try and bring up the rogue's damage output shows how rediculously out of touch you are with balance. The rogue is a melee damage class. The paladin is a melee defense oriented class.

Hmmm... thanks for contributing... absolutely nothing.

If you want to help then help. If you want to challenge the suggestions and ideas presented in this thread, or any other for that matter, then be constructive and back up what you have to say. Throwing mud around and exploding with exaggeration as you have says more about who the 10 year old probably is.

I'll stand by my statement. The suggestions here are pretty much on par with what you get from archery or katana spazzes, who demand that their pet weapon grossly out-perform everything else.

Your statement about the paladin being a "melee defense oriented class" should have the unsaid "so suck it up and live with it" added because that's what I think you mean.

Its exactly what I mean. If you want to design a squishy, low HP, low save "holy smiter" class, go for it. But tacking on massive damage to the paladin's already massive defense is piss poor balance. The rabid paladin fans know it, but try and hide behind the shoddy defense of "paladins are fighters of evil!" as though 95% of your combat in D&D isnt against evil things.

Well that statement flies in the face of the main sentiment of those posting in these paladin threads because, if I may speak in this instance for the majority of the paladin posters here, we are not happy with the "defense oriented paladin" and want offense put back in to the class that happens to be one of D&Ds iconic classes going back to AD&D, and a class that was seriously nerfed in 3/3.5/PF relative to the rest (excepting maybe bard).

The paladin had offense in 2nd edition? News to me. He was pretty much a more defensive version of the fighter (better saves, functionally extra HP due to Lay on Hands, some immunities). He lacked specialization, so he had fewer attacks. You see the tradeoff? More defense, less offense.

If you want this smite machine on legs, start offering suggestions to gut the paladin's defenses, and then you can up its damage.

Oh wait, you guys dont want that. You want to outfight the fighter, out damage the rogue (but only against evil!) with cleric spells, better saves, immunities, etc.

pquote]
800+ posts about the PF paladin speaks for the passion that exists for this class, and yes, these may be dominated by a smaller group of regular contributors. Does this make us "fanboyz"? well i don't see too many closed minded paladin advocates here saying "this is the way it must be or else!!!" The suggestions and debate here are pretty openminded... not the definition of fanboy last time i checked... but I am pretty certain I can tell who the...

Over half the posts come from the same few guys, who, to summarize, are pretty much saying "zomg, moar powerz! moar damage!". When you have the main poster actually suggesting crap like adding the paladin level to damage or AC, you pretty much lose all credibility.

Vult Wrathblades wrote:

Marty1000 wrote:

some good stuff

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.

Of course you are. You and the other 10 year old paladin fanboys in the thread dont care about balance or good design.

Hell, I'll toss my vote for a holy damage meteor swarm usable as a swift action an unlimited number of times per day. Why not, since we've obviously drifted into bizarro world.

Adding your level to AC or damage? Why not! Paledins kil evils!1!

That anyone would even try and bring up the rogue's damage output shows how rediculously out of touch you are with balance. The rogue is a melee damage class. The paladin is a melee defense oriented class.

Holy Sword:
"If this spell is cast on a magic weapon, the powers of the spell supersede any that the weapon normally has, rendering the normal enhancement bonus and powers of the weapon inoperative for the duration of the spell. This spell is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way. This spell does not work on artifacts. A masterwork weapon’s bonus to attack does not stack with an enhancement bonus to attack."

"use the divine bond to give it the appropriate bane (+2 to hit and damage, +2d6 damage) against the main enemy type"
A) divine bond don't have bane.
B) It's not clear if divine bond can be combined with the spell Holy sword but I doubt it. The intention of the spell is: Holy sword overrides all magical aspects. You can have a silver holy sword, or cold iron holy sword. But magically it's just a holy sword. But yes, I do think Jason should make it clear if divine bond can or can't be added to the holy sword spell.

With no bane on demand, it is more fair. I had missed that part.

"3-4 is the generally accepted length in design discussions"
I've been playing D&D for 12 years, our GM has played it for more than 20 years, And so have most of our players. Our GM is also GM at some play by...

I've been playing for over 20 years myself, and have played 3rd edition extensively since release (converting to 3.5). I have seen one fight go 10 rounds (a solo bard against a naga that had special tunnels it could move through). The overwhelming majority of 3rd edition fights are 3-4 rounds. Increasing the number of rounds of combat was a stated design goal of 4th edition in order to combat this. Again, your players are terrible at dispatching enemies (and your DM seriously underplaying monster effectiveness), if 10 rounds is your accepted standard.

I'm not even sure how you drag a high level fight out to 10 rounds. Play nothing but spring attacking bards? We're talking 3rd edition, and not 4th, right?

3-4 is the generally accepted length in design discussions.

Is holy sword game breaking? No.
Lets see:
- a +5 sword? By now we all have +3 weapon. If not, ask your wizard or clerc to cast greater magic weapon. You now have a +4 sword ...for 13 hours. If you got an evil ousider bane or undead bane it,s now +6 vs undead or evil outsiders.
- Holy? Well nice but it's only 2d6 extra.
- magic circle against evil. By now all have a deflection bonus and resistance of at least +2.
- HS is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way.

It actually is. It lets you effectively get a double strength weapon, for free, with on demand special properties. You buy regular "plusses" with your cash, and use the divine bond to give it the appropriate bane (+2 to hit and damage, +2d6 damage) against the main enemy type of the encounter. At 8th level you can add an energy type to it as well. So for the entire fight, you're dealing +2 to hit and +3d6 damage. Compared to the fighters sad little +1 from weapon training and +2 from weapon specialization. On top of cha to hit and +8 damage per attack (4d6 extra if its undead or evil outsider!) for 2 rounds (multiple times per day).

Way to much offense, way too much defense. Both of these abilities need to be toned down. Ditch the multiple rounds on smite for a starter, restore it to a single attack, but make it reliable where it isnt expended on a miss.

William Bradbury wrote:

The current proposed version of smite evil is so stupidly overpowered its a joke. It lasts 3 rounds at 16+, which is the about the duration of mist high level combats. You can use it 7 times per day. Its effectively always on.

That it was even proposed is dubious design, that people are whining its not good enough is ludicrous.

Lets look at this realistically - youre spouting off numbers for a character and game that is at 16+ level.

Use your same logic and look at one at 8th level.

Lets. You can use it 3 times a day, for 2 rounds. That is 3 out of the suggested 4 "meaningful" encounters, for 2 rounds each. On most of the time vs real battles, and allowing you to make a full attack at least 3 times per day with an extra 8 points of damage per attack. On top of his freebie Greater Than Greater Magic Weapon (we can assume an appropriate bane on there for an extra +2 to hit and damage, and 2d6 to damage). The fighter gets a paltry +1 from his class abilities.

If you guys wanted to give the paladin offense of this magnitude, you should have been pushing for the fighter to start forcing save or die effects on crits in the fighter playtest. The paladin should be a lesser fighter than the fighter, since all the fighter does is... drumroll... fight.

This current setup is way too much offense, way too much defense, plus spells and special abilities. The fighter gets a few feats, and its core damage feat, power attack, has been gutted. The feats in pathfinder arent particularly great (many being standard actions, which preclude a charge), and there arent enough noteworthy that are fighter only.

If you want to buff the hybrid, go back and address the parent class.

MOST games played happen from 3rd to 12th level. Most campaingns and games are not spent exploring levels at 16+.

Even the PF adventure paths are only supporting up to about 15-16th level.

So its ok that its just somewhat broken at mid level, and utterly broken at upper levels?

Furthermore - 3 rounds being the length of a combat???? I must disagree. The characters In my Sackled City game who just reached 16th level last game - their combats usually last 6-15 rounds.

usually about 8-10.

I don't know too many lasting only 3!

I'm not sure what game you're playing where its NOT resolved that fast. Damage grossly outstrips defense, and casters quickly get fight ending spells.