I have not personally gotten the opportunity to playtest the Channel Energy ability yet, but had a thought that might help with the "overpowered"-ness of the ability.

Instead of a single use both damaging undead and healing allies, what about the player choosing which effect as needed (and thus only one effect per round)? I've read in people's playtests that Channel Energy allowed players to defeat undead that should have been significantly more challenging very quickly. This would cut down on the power of the ability while still maintaining the versatility. Thoughts?

The difference between AC and Reflex is a small, but noticeable one.

Armor Class, as you pointed out, involves avoiding an attack as well as trying to maneuver to hit the offender back. More precisely though, AC is a target for the attacker. In another way, AC is the DC of the attack roll. You are measuring the attacking character's skill at landing a blow.

Reflex, on the other hand, is a measure of a character's skill at getting the heck away from something unsavory (pain or otherwise). When you roll a Reflex save, your DC is set by the offending spell/effect.

So a subtle difference, but noticeable all the same. And like was said, it won't change in PRPG for compatibility reasons.

**As far as the pirate character, you want a 3.5 Swashbuckler with at least 5 ranks in Tumble and Improved Combat Expertise. ImpCE stacks with fighting defensively, and having the ranks in Tumble gives you bigger bonuses when fighting defensively.

Not sure if the Tumble bonus translates to PRPG though.

This thread branches off from this one because I'd like to focus discussion in this thread to a proposal by Jason Nelson that seemed to get skipped over. Again, this idea was proposed by Jason Nelson and I feel it has a lot of merit and deserves more discussion. (Some paraphrasing has been done, but otherwise this concept is un-altered.)

The biggest problem with the armor system is that medium armor sucks. It is a poor choice for any class that wears armor. I would favor...

1. Get rid of the chain shirt.
   
2. If you can't bring yourself to drop chain shirt, then drop padded armor and reduce the AC bonus of light armors by 1 (i.e. leather is +1, studded is +2, chain shirt is +3).
   
3. If we must keep a speed penalties for heavier armors, change it to -5 ft for medium and -10 ft for heavy.
   
4. Increase the AC bonus for all medium armors by 1.
   
5. Increase the AC bonus for all heavy armors by 2.
   
6. Tie shields to armor type, as follows...
   
   
   
   • Buckler is light armor, +1 AC
     
   • Light shield is medium armor, +2 AC
     
   • Heavy shield is heavy armor, +3 AC
     
   • Tower shield is an exotic heavy armor, +6 AC
     
   
   
7. Create a helmet entry that gets factored into Armor Class and get enchanted seperately.
   
   
   
   • An open-faced helm is medium armor. +1 helmet bonus to AC, -1 to Perception checks (-2 if not proficient).
     
   • A great helm is heavy armor. +2 helmet bonus to AC, -2 to Perception checks (-4 if not proficient).
     
   
   
8. Add a concept of a "vital AC bonus". The principle of the light-fighter is that he's hard to hit, but once you hit him you're getting metal on skin. The heavy fighter, once you hit the AC, you still have to punch through the metal.
   
   
   
   • Light armor gets +0 AC vs. critical confirmation rolls.
     
   • Medium armor gets +X AC vs. critical confirmation rolls.
     
   • Heavy armor gets +2X AC vs. critical confirmation rolls.
     
   
   

Adding DR to armor as a part of the core rules would help a lot too. I would suggest something along the lines of...

DR = 1/2 armor bonus + enhancement bonus

Even without the changes proposed above this would be huge, as now that +1 Hide Armor is (+4 AC, DR 3) vs. a chain shirt (+4 AC, no DR).

I would also suggest that DR scales as follows...

• DR/magic for non-magical armor
  
• DR/adamantine for magical armor
  
• DR/- for adamantine armor
  

Should shields count in this argument? Sure, why not. We can exclude bucklers if we like.

Now our doughty warrior in +5 Full Plate and +5 Heavy Shield not only gets a +20 AC bonus but also DR 10/adamantine. Which is comparable to or better than what the monsters he's fighting at that level (you could easily afford this rig by early double digits if not before - it's only about 52K) will have.

If we implemented the helmet rule, add a +5 Great Helm (bumping the price to 77K), now we're at +27 AC and DR 13/adamantine.

What do you think? Is this a reasonable fix to implement?

Please change Track back to a feat and give the Ranger a bonus to it. Tracking is supposed to be something that is unique to the Ranger, and now it's something that's open to all.

I'm all for other classes being able to find tracks. That's a simple Perception check. But being able to accurately track a creature for a distance and discern things from those tracks (number of creatures, for instance) should be something special.

So please, change Track back to the way it was in 3.5. I never saw any issues with it, and never heard complaints from other players about it. I proposed a similiar thing for the Rogue's Trapfinding ability in this thread and will bring this issue up again once we get to the Feats section of the playtest.

I am 100% in favor of the auto-Perception check for rogues to find traps. Definitely something that should be changed to the class as a whole.

As far as the Trapfinding skill, I would change it to the way Track was handled in 3.5 = make it into a feat and give it to the Rogue with a classed-based bonus. Rangers got a +4 bonus when tracking, so give Rogues a +4 to checks to find traps.

This serves a number of purposes:
(1): All classes can find traps, but Rogues are naturally better at it. As they should be.
(2): By making it a feat, it's not something that other classes can NATURALLY do (finding traps with DCs of 20+), but they can invest in it.
(3): By keeping Disable Device as a skill that you can't use untrained, you keep the limiting factor. That observant fighter might be able to notice the trap before he sets it off, but he doesn't have a clue about how to disable it.

I think this is the best way to handle Trapfinding, as it worked really well in 3.5 and handles all the issues that are being discussed.

I would agree that the Bard really doesn't need the alignment requirement, but the other two have to stay.

As other people have said, the idea behind the Monk is extreme discipline. That's why the RAW are that a Monk cannot continue gaining levels of Monk unless s/he is Lawful. Her mind has lost the focus to keep up with the intense training of that way of living. Drunken Master is a prestige class, BTW, so when you're done feeling Lawful you can be that chaotic martial arts guru.

Barbarians need their non-lawful requirement for the same reason. Someone who is really disciplined and controlled isn't going to burst into a primal rage and start tearing things apart. He might get really angry and start taking names, but it's not the kind of fury that the wild barbarian exemplifies.

The biggest complaint I've heard of and seen with multiclassing is save bonuses. Obviously if your saves are ridiculously good, then you're sacrificing other things (BAB, spells, etc.). I think that it balances out just fine. I have never seen multiclassing lead to problems in terms of designing encounters for my players.

Take the character mentioned earlier (a 15th level character with +0 BAB but great saves). Sure, he will probably make all of his Will saves, but if he gets in a grapple he's pretty much boned. His power level on class abilities is most certainly significantly lower than his allies as well. So he might always make that Fort save against poison, but he's probably pretty useless in combat.

Simply put, if people *honestly* feel that people multiclassing for save bonuses is a problem then I think you just need to insert a line of text saying that "all Good saves in any classes after your first are one less" and retooling PrC's as appropriate. Now that Fighter 1/Ranger 1 only has a Fort save of +3 instead of +4... which is how he would progress anyways. Still, I have not seen multiclassing ever become a problem in any games I have played.

I'm still in favor of full sneak attack damage against those creatures that are vulnerable, but creating a line of feats to scale the non-traditional ones.

Should rogues be able to sneak attack undead? You bet. Right away at level 1? Maybe. But then I don't want to see that same level 1 rogue get a sneak attack on a construct (like an animated chair or something). Making feats keeps the versitility while making the power scale.

Hi there all,

It should be known that I am currently thinking about the possibility of allowing bards to cast bard spells while using bardic performance, regardless of the type. This does not seem too overpowering to me, especially for a class like the bard.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I think it's a great idea because it's not difficult to imagine a bard working magical power into the words/notes of a song/performance. But the issue still remains then of how to balance bards with instruments vs. bards without... I know a lot of the 3.5 bards I played with went without for the same reasons mentioned in this thread.

I think a good start could be as simple as having an instrument increase the effectiveness of the various bardic music abilities. Then the player needs to choose between stronger bardic music or more combat savvy.

Special attacks that effect status. Like nerve or pressure point strikes that interrupt the flow of ki in the target. They might cause:

- Blinded
- Dazed
- Deafened
- Nasueated
- Paralyzed

Or maybe they could prevent the use of an arm (forcing off hand strikes) or hamper movement. Tactical strikes that impact the battle in ways other than massive damage.

Cheers

I love this idea, as well as the other suggestion of looking to monster abilities for possible ki uses. I think these are both great ways to add versatility to the class without making it overpowering.

The initial proposal seems to present a number of great ideas for balancing out Sneak Attack, but also [I feel] lead to a lot of bookkeeping. So why not make it even simpler? Create feats that allow rogues to sneak attack formerly immune creature types (there are some that are not OGL, so wording and such would have to get changed).

Then have it scale at half the rate of sneak attack dice (one sneak attack feat every four levels). Now rogues are still much more versitile in their use of SA, but it wouldn't be quite as broken as it is right now.

Diamond Soul has no effect on your teammates casting spells on you. A creature with SR can always choose to let something through, just like you can always choose to fail a save.

One resource you might like is www.crystalkeep.com - check out the Equipment PDF.

It's got all kinds of alchemical equipment that you can make use of in any 3.x campaign.

As far as keeping alchemist's fire and acid relevant, what about scaling the Craft DC (and price) for stronger versions?

Suzaku wrote:

I think evil cleric should be added to +1d6 per two paladin levels as they register just as evil as outsiders and even more evil then undead.

This gave me an idea. What if the bonus smite damage applied to any creature that was based on the strength of the evil using the detect evil guidelines? So, faint or less evil, 1 damage/paladin level, for moderate evil, +1d6 damage/2 paladin levels, and for strong or overwhelming evil, +1d6 damage/paladin level. (or alternatively, 1 dam/paladin level for faint, 2 dam/paladin level for moderate, and 4 dam/paladin level for strong or more).

I could definitely get behind this idea. Thematically, bigger evils require a bigger beatdown. It makes sense, and evil outsiders are big on that list already.

I'm also in favor of changing SE back to a flat #/paladin level for the damage bonus to make calculating damage faster. 2/paladin level is what I'm hoping for, or this alternative.

Jason, thank you for the [Design Focus] update! It's very much appreciated to get an idea for what playtest concepts are being looked at and considered by the design team. That being said, my thoughts on the changes to...

Detect Evil: Awesome. I love it, love it, love it!

Smite Evil: Thank you heartily for the changes you've made. While I would have loved to have not wasted a smite attempt on a miss, I can be happy with the changes you've made here.

Lay on Hands: I'm partial to the pool of points that 3.5 used, but this looks like good revision from the initial beta rules on the ability. Many thanks on this as well.

Channel Energy: I like how you tied this in with Lay on Hands; I feel that's definitely the way to go here. As other people have said, clarification will be needed with how the Paladin's version of Channel Energy mixes with the Cleric's and relevant feats.

Divine Bond: I love this ability (and thank you Paizo for an alternative to the mount!). Again as has already been mentioned some clarification on stacking effects for the weapon bonuses and how that will relate to DR will be needed. As far as the mount, I think it makes sense to have it roaming the celetial planes. If the weapon bond is a celestial spirit, why wouldn't the mount be celestial as well? Just seems to make sense for me.

Holy Champion: Jason Nelson proposed a DR 10/- vs. evil, which I think is one way to go. Another would be to give the paladin DR 10/good. She's still protected against her foes, but if she gets into a tussle with celestials she's on her own.

Other thoughts: I think that the changes to Smite Evil were very positive and should help to level the playing field. Further playtesting will give us an answer there. I would still request that the Paladin get Tower Shield Proficiency to aid that end. I don't think the Paladin will have to worry about outshining the Cleric, but I do think the Paladin's caster level needs to be switched to Paladin level-3 (aka CL 1 @ 4th, CL 2 @ 5th, etc). Spontaneous casting would be a boon, but the caster level fix is almost a necessity. All in all, thank you heartily again for the changes. Back to playtesting!

Lord Aerthos Pendragon wrote:

*The DR 10/- on the hellwasps gives them the DR against magic and other non-weapon effects.

Um, DR does not stop any damage from Magic or energy sources. DR is only good against physical attacks.

DR/- just means no material, alignment, or weapon type bypasses it. Spells, supernatural abilities like a breath weapon, and just plain old fire would fully damage a creature with any kind of DR.

You sure? I could have sworn that DR X/- shaved off the first X points of damage from any source... then again it's been a long week so I might just be losing my mind.

Again how is a creature more vulnerable if you miss it half the time??? To be vulnerable would mean they're easy to fight and that just isn't the case ESPECIALLY at level 5!

Undead are immune to crits and sneak attack, but the ranger favored enemy damage works normally against them same as in 3.5. It was different in 3.0 mind you.

I don't have the Pathfinder PDF in front of me, but I believe undead are susceptible to sneak attack now. Rogues can now sneak attack most things... which will likely get addressed in that part of the playtest.

You still want the touch attack because the two things affect you differently. If a ray of intense heat (ala Scorching Ray) touches you, it's going to hurt a lot. It's a simple action.

On the other hand, a combat manuever is a more complicated action. The attacker needs to be able to contact his opponent (touch attack) and have enough skill to accomplish the maneuver (CMB roll/save).

If you only have the save, then you are effectively penalizing melee classes like the Fighter because their superior combat skill--which should translate to an ease of accomplishing combat manuevers--isn't reflected in a save mechanic alone. With a save as the only mechanic, a Fighter and a Wizard of equal level are almost equally as likely to accomplish a combat manuever against the same foe.

Requiring the touch attack balances this out a little bit. Now the wizard will not be as likely to make that touch attack as his fighter counterpart at lower levels, and at higher levels his lower BAB continues to make the Wizard's disarm attempt easier to resist than the Fighter's.

Grapple is definitely one of the things that needs a lot of clarification. I suppose we'll have to see what comes down the pipes as we get closer to that part of the playtest.

I will agree that the 3.5 DR system was much more streamlined and easier to work with. If they want to keep the system as is (ala 3.0), then they need to note somewhere that Bob's +1 keen longsword functions as a +2 longsword for the purpose of overcoming DR. Because like you said, it's not fair to punish players for wanting a weapon with a little flair instead of one more plus.

And honestly, I never saw a real lack of value for +N weapons. I still had people grabbing for that +3 heavy mace instead of the +1 [insert cool ability here] longsword.

All of the encounters at this level were obviously much more difficult because of the lack of a focused spellcaster and a focused healer. That would have made both encounters much easier. On other notes...

*Would grappling the Chuuls have been any easier if they didn't have Improved Grab? I know that a lot of people are discussing the combat manuever feats in general, and feedbak on how well balanced the new grapple rules are would be super.

*The DR 10/- on the hellwasps gives them the DR against magic and other non-weapon effects.

First off, thank you for playtesting as you are! I think it will really help to see how the classes measure up over multiple levels, and your description of the setting is pretty good.

*I agree with your note on healing 1 hp/level with a night's rest, that it's pretty meager. The Heal skill is helpful in that regard, but that still leaves one person without the x2 benefit. I can't think of any kind of fix that I really like, so I think the 1 hp/level is just something that we'll have to deal with.

*Incorporeal undead tend to be vulnerable because their state of incorporeality gives them that 50% miss chance. Which is pretty darn aggravating.

*I would also be in favor of the Ranger getting Cure Light as a 1st level spell. No need to change the spell level of the others--but Cure Light Wounds shouldn't be a 2nd-level spell.

You'd still want to tone down the number of skill points it provides. you have to keep in mind that +3 bonus that Pathfinder provides to ANY skill you have at least 1 rank in.

..."armor system revamp"

I'm most certainly in favor of your suggestions on shields and helmets. Especially helmets! At the very least helmets (and/or the armors where the description says it comes with a helmet) should give you a +x to your AC for critical threats.

But generally speaking I agree with your armor arguments. Maybe not as much with your case for light armor or Mage Armor, but definitely for beefing up the Medium & Heavy armors.

I'm also in favor of eliminating the speed penalties entirely for Medium armor (unless it would make you encumbered to a medium load), and would say that heavy armor should only give you a 5-ft penalty to speed.

I like this idea a lot, actually. It's quite well thought out. Long have I agreed with the sentiment that heal is kind of a useless skill. Why would anybody bother putting ranks into the heal skill when magical healing is available? Every function of the heal skill as written can be surpassed with spells below 4th level.

Allowing the heal skill to repair HP in a meaningful way would be a great boon to parties without clerics. I understand that you do not want this to be super-fast, but I think a minute per HP might be a little too slow.

Even so, heal still might need a boost. Heal is a very flavorful class skill for clerics that is hardly ever used.

What about vastly expanding the effect of the heal skill? Here are some possibilities.

1. Pershaps the one i like the most. Grant a synergy bonus from the heal skill to healing magic. Make it cure more hp, or be better at removing status or something. But then why put more than 5 ranks into it? Not sure, perhaps you could solve that problem by making multiple levels of synergy. IE, an ability at 5 ranks, 10 ranks, etc...

2. Make the heal skill a bit more like the craft skill. As your ranks in heal go up, so does the availability of various healing items to your character, perhaps some which could not otherwise be created. For example: DC 15 create a potion of CLW, DC18 create antitoxin, DC20 create potion of cure mod wounds, dc23 create potion of lesser restoration, dc 25 ... I'm not saying that should be the distribution or the items made necessarily, but something like that. Maybe if the check was high enough you could get an stat reparier that worked instantly (as restorations take 3 rounds to take effect)

3. Allow the heal skill to be substituted for a Knowledge(appropriate) check, perhaps at a -5 penalty, when attempting to determine the strengths and weaknesses of a monster. So, to know that a Ghale has DR 10/Evil and Cold Iron attack may be a DC 23 Knowledge (The Planes) check, or a DC 28 (Heal) check.

I think that the 1 HP/min would work just fine. Especially if you are trying to convey the fact that natural healing (even with bandages and poultices and such) takes time.

(1)Synergies were removed from Pathfinder. However, you could change the wording for TDW to say "...you heal +1 HP for every 5 points by which you beat the DC."

(2)I could see the Heal skill for antitoxin, but that would be about it. All the other items are magical in nature and should still require the proper spells.

(3)I fail to see how the Heal skill would grant a person knowledge about a creature aside from any known poisons/diseases it possessed. How in the Nine Hells would a Heal check tell you a monsters weaknesses?

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

The unified saves and such while interesting brake backward capability far to much. So this will not happen.

While a good point, it doesn't follow from a lot of the stuff we have seen that breaks backwards compatibility. In a Pathfinder RPG campaign a lot of the old classes would have to be restatted if only slightly to fit in with the new assumptions of the system (among them the fact that BAB and Hit Dice should be connected logically).

While some material released under 3.5 follow the same logic as Pathfinder material (for an example, all the base classes in Magic of Incarnum follow the logic of "d6 hit dice means low BAB, d8 hit dice means medium BAB, d10 hit dice means high BAB") it becomes a problem if you ever wish to introduce material from other sources (of course by houseruling since Paizo can not reprint copyrighted material). You might have to fiddle around with them to follow through with system consistency. As an example, the Dragon Shaman class (from PHB2) has d10 Hit Dice but medium BAB. In a Pathfinder RPG game should this class have its Hit Dice dropped to d8 (making it even more significantly weaker than the Cleric) or should its BAB be increased to +1/level (making it significantly stronger than most pure melee classes in the game)?

My point here is that Pathfinder RPG has already changed so many of the core assumptions of 3.5 that backwards compatibility requires a stretch of imagination at the very least.

From my understanding, the biggest reason for the hit die change in the classes was to improve low-level character survival. Sure, they simplified it to match the BAB for the core classes, but that was not the impetus for the change. For classes like the Dragon Shaman, you wouldn't need to change anything. He's hardy, but not as good a fighter as the Fighter or the Paladin--he's got other abilities to compensate for that.

Backwards compatability is only a stretch if you try to update everything. Paizo can't; the OGL doesn't give them that liberty. So they only worry about what they need to. If you're worried about updating a class that isn't OGL to be more on par with PFRPG classes (which really shouldn't be too much of an issue), then you're on your own for that.

I would change the wording so that the two skills chosen are class skills for one (1) class in which you currently have at least one level. And only +1 skill point at a level up. Otherwise I see Human Rogues with large Intelligence scores being trained in everything and... and oh my... it'd be like a one-man-adventuring-party waiting to happen.

From what I've seen and read on tested with PFRPG, I don't think it's going to be an issue, especially from a DM standpoint. As a player, will you probably be spending some time converting characters and trading out aspects (feats/skills/etc) that are no longer needed? Sure, but you'd be doing that with any kind of rules conversion too.

We also need to keep in mind that there isn't a DMG or MM for PFRPG yet. So from what I've seen the only changes that a DM will need to make, at least initially, is to account for the average party being able to handle a little more. I'm hypothetically putting a PF party ECL = 3.5 party ECL+1 in terms of setting up encounters.

So do I think that PFRPG will discourage DMs because of the changes they are making? No. I think many DMs who have heard of Pathfinder will check out the changes and use something. Whether they make the full switch over or not right away I cannot say, but I do not believe that any of the discussions or changes in the PFRPG will hurt the appeal of the system.

I like your thought process of trying to simplify the mechanic, but it just doesn't make any sense in my mind for any of the manuevers other than Bull Rush/Overrun (and maybe Trip).

Why would a Fortitude save help a character to keep from getting Disarmed or from being caught in a dragon's maw (a Grapple check)? It just doesn't make any sense having it work on one of the current saving throws.

Maybe what could be done is to implement a new "Combat Manuever Saving Throw" with a DC = 10 + 1/2 Base Attack Bonus + Size mod + Relevant Ability Modifer...

...with the ability modifier being either Strength or Dexterity, whichever is higher. This doesn't penalize characters who are quick but not strong and vice versa, while still taking into account that fighter-types should be pros at this sort of thing.

Also I would still recommend a Touch Attack with the DC. The attacker should have to do more than just say, "I disarm you unless you beat my DC of 16."

I think if we want to reference the original three points, have it affect outsiders.

But I'm still in favor of the "Lawful Paladin vs. Good Paladin" option. I think it would be a lot of fun and an exciting new twist for the class.

Is this product even still available? I'm not sure because I was looking through the Pathfinder products, and there isn't any price listed, and the title link doesn't even work! :(

I've heard great things about this and want to check it out, and likely purchase a copy... but I don't know what the status of this product is.

If the suggestions I made for the fighter would work better as new feats or talents, then what would be a better approach to ensuring the fighter never loses his place as the master-of-arms?

I really only think that the last Fighter ability you mentioned should be made into feats. Then at 12th level I think giving the Fighter either a flat bonus to his CMB or one of the Improved [combat manuever] feats (1)is potentially one less feat the character needs to expend, and (2)re-asserts the fact that the fighter is a superior master-at-arms

• SE overcomes all DR on an evil target.
  
• SE can be used with any weapon (ranged, melee, natural, unarmed, etc).
  
• SE adds paladin level + CHA bonus to attack roll.
  
• SE adds +d6/2 paladin levels to the damage dealt.
  
• A SE decision is a free action.
  

So far so normal-ish. There's more:

• SE ignores concealment and soft cover. At higher levels (11+) hard cover is ignored - the paladins attack smashes through such obstructions.
  

SE can be used (however many times the pathfinder rules state - I don't have the pdf in front of me) BUT:

• A paladin may burn turn undead attempts and/or spell slots to gain more SE attempts. 2 spell levels or 2 TU uses equates to a SE use. This is also a free action. There may be other pathfinder paladin powers that can also be 'burned' but I don't know what they are.
  

I'm almost 100% behind everything you've said. I've spent a while trying out different things with the Paladin, and I think you've just about hit the nail on the head. Definitely some kind of "overcoming DR" as a natural part of the Smite; I'm thinking something that scales... perhaps as "Good" at 1st level, then "Lawful" at 6th, and all DR at 12th.

The changes to attack & damage that you propose would be interesting to playtest. The bonus to attack helps make sure that you hit (would that bonus apply to confirm critical threats as well?), and the damage scales comparatively with Sneak Attack, but only against evil creatures (multiplied in a critical hit?). Hmm...

I don't see the need to specify it as a free action. If we agree that it's a singular attack, why not just say that it functions as part of a standard attack action?

I love the flavour of the concealment/cover negate effect! Obviously the mechanic is fun, but the image of a holy Paladin smashing through a wall to subdue the BBEG hiding on the other side is just great. :)

I also really like the idea of burning Turn Undead or spell slots for more SE. I've liked how part of playing a Paladin is making that judgement call about what you need more, so I relish the idea of deciding if I want to hold onto that 1st level spell or get in another smite attempt.

All-in-all, some real great stuff here that I would LOVE to see implemented! Paizo folks, please look long and hard at these suggestions!

Well with the spellcasting it needs to become spontaneous now that it has been moved to Charisma, like the favored soul and sorcerer, charisma is obviously established as the spontaneous caster stat, is there a single caster out there that has charisma based casting and has to memorize spells other than the new Pally?

Also the caster level needs to be paladin level -3 not 1/2 cleric level. I don't have a problem with the spellcasting not counting till you actually get spellcasting but that half cleric level was just terribly off base.

If those two changes were made I would have no issue with the paladins spellcasting.

These are the only changes I would make to the Paladin's spellcasting as well.

As far as the Paladin's Smite Evil ability (which I think we can safely assume is one of the most discussed topics in this section of the playtest), I don't think it needs to be a "always on" ability. The purpose of Smite Evil should be to really bring divine justice against those who really need it.

I mean seriously, a Paladin isn't going to be smiting the evil goblin raiders--he's going to beat them down like a big metal beatstick. He's going to hold onto Smite Evil for the minor demon that the goblin priests have summoned back at their camp. If you want a constant effect for the Paladin, I think that Divine Bond fulfills that slot for you. Make your Paladin weapon that you're bonded with really good at putting the rank-and-file evil creatures in their place.

My point is that Smite Evil doesn't necessarily need to happen more frequently. What I think it really needs is a boost so that when you use it the effect is more apparent. Now whether that comes from increasing the effect of Smite Evil (2 x Paladin level damage, perhaps) or from an added effect aside from damage I don't really care.

1) I'm all behind 2 x Paladin level for Lay on Hands as well. I think that it scales nicely without being overpowering.

2) However, I also think that we really need some clarification from the designers on whether or not you can spend multiple uses of LoH in one go for healing purposes (similar in effect to the pool of 3.5).

If the answer to #2 is "Yes, you can spend multiple uses at once for healing", then I don't care as much about #1. BUT, if the answer to #2 is "No, you can't"... then I think we really need #1 or another option.

Generally speaking, I really liked what I read in your post. But for discussion I'll discuss the classes (and proposals) individually.

-PALADIN-
*I'm neutral on the hit die increase, but definitely in favor of the good Will save. I don't know why a Paladin doesn't have it.

*100% behind you on the Tower Shield Proficiency as well.

*I've also discussed aligning Smite Evil. Giving the class the option of Smite Chaos (with making the attack lawful aligned) I think would be a nice flavor as well. The damage increase to 2 x Paladin level should help alleviate some woes at higher level. Personally, I'm also behind not losing the attempt if you miss.

*I have also suggested increasing Lay on Hands to 2 x Paladin level per use, especially if the Paladin cannot spend multiple charges at once for mid-combat healing. Good thinking.

*I'm neutral on the poison immunity.

*I'm only slightly with you on the spellcasting. I think the Paladin would do just fine if you eliminate the healing-related spells on his spell list. Make it something similar to the Ranger spell list where each spell does something to make the Paladin better at his job as a holy warrior. I'm also in favor of spontaneous casting for the Paladin (& Ranger) since they have so few spells per day.

*I'm neutral on Mettle.

-FIGHTER-
*I'm with Arnim on the exotic weapons, fighters have plenty of feats, they can spend one if the player wants to use an exotic weapon.

*I'm in favor of "Combat Initiative", but I don't think it should outshadow a Rogue. Maybe just make it a straight +2 initiative bonus.

*100% behind the "Combat Tactician" ability, but maybe have it work off of Wisdom instead? Then the character benefits not only from this feat but on Sense Motive checks to avoid being feinted against in combat.

*I would also suggest moving "Veteran's Eye" to use Wisdom. Otherwise, very cool.

*I'm also in favor of "Critical Opportunity", but as a feat in the disarm/trip/bull rush feat trees. Instead, at 12th level the Fighter gains ImpDis/ImpTrip/ImpB-Rush; if he already has one (or more) then he can elect to take Critical Opportunity for that particular combat maneuver.

All in all, great ideas!

Snorter wrote:

Robert Brambley wrote:

...regardless of what form the mechanics of Smite Evil take going forward - I was to re-emphasize the need for a bonus to attack rolls and damage against evil in general all the time...

How about giving the paladin Favoured Enemy (Evil Outsiders)?

It fits the theme, it does the job of making them more effective against their natural enemies all the time, it compensates them for their low skill points by making them more able to identify their foes' powers, and less likely to be tricked, and as the cherry on the top, it opens up a whole bunch of (OGL or non-OGL) Feats and Prestige Classes that grant extra options to affect such an enemy.

Am I right in thinking the restriction on multi-classing has been lifted? That a paladin can take another class, and then return to resume more levels in paladin? The relevant restrictive text is no longer in the Beta, but I can imagine some players/DMs assuming the old 3.5 rule still applied. Can this be explicitly confirmed?

If the paladin can freely multi-class, then the idea of a Paladin/Ranger 'Holy Spawnslayer' looks intriguing.

I like it, but let me go you one better.

Paladins should have a new ability:

Foe of evil: At 1st level, paladins gain a +1 bonus to Intimidate, Perception, and Sense Motive checks against any evil creature, in addition to Knowledge checks made to identify or ascertain the combat capabilities of an evil creature. Paladins also gain a +1 bonus to weapon damage vs. evil creatures.

A paladin's foe of evil bonus increases by 1 at 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter. In addition, the bonuses provided by this ability are doubled against evil outsiders or a creature with an aura of evil, such as an evil cleric or a creature with the evil subtype.

You could also add a final sentence:

[i]This ability is considered equivalent to a ranger's favored enemy bonus for the purpose of qualifying for feats and prestige classes, and any feat or ability...

I'm all for that! Maybe even have the damage bonus increase at every 3 levels even.

Although, I would also add a line in there that the damage bonus does not stack with that of a Ranger, only the higher value is used. This would cut down a little bit on double-dipping, but then again might not be necessary.

I'm wondering if there was really a need to change any of the conditions at all. I don't remember running into any issues with my group.

My vote would be to keep the 3.5 conditions as is, and just include a small table (mayhap in the back of the book) listing the conditions and their effects so it's easier to see at a glance than look up in the glossary.

I always wondered if Thunderstones could effect that past the opening round of Combat but figured they're only good in a suprise round for the -4 Initiative, deafness works normally anytime in the combat.

I could see however a condition like dazed or checked or staggered to be applied if a certain DC was failed (Will or Fort 10 + 1/2 HD + Str mod).

Why not make it something simple, say

If you are going to take a random chance on something it must be significantly better than your reliable option, especially if it costs resources to get it. Period. Otherwise you spend feats to get weaker... Logic Fail.

The combat manuevers don't need to be "significantly better". They all have particular uses that makes them more valuable in specific situations than just a regular old hack 'n slash. The real issue here is that the DC to pull off a CM doesn't scale well. The goal of playtesting CMB should be to find a way to put it on level-footing with a standard attack. Then the average character (without CMB-related feats) is only choosing between doing damage and doing something interesting (tripping, disarming, grappling, moving his enemy, etc.)

I don't believe this is an error. This is because "Grappling" and the "Grappled" condition are two different things. Grappling someone grants both members of the Grapple the 'grappled' condition along with imposing it's own rules, but a person can gain the 'grappled' condition from other sources as well (such as the Web spell).

It looks like they made the 'grappled' condition as the new entangled/grappled/etc. condition, merged into one. So when you are 'grappling', you gain said condition along with a few other rules.

I agree it could be more clear, but do not think it is an error.

I haven't playtested this yet with my group, but it sounds as if merging 'Entangled' and 'Grappled' into one single condition could get confusing. I mean, what happens if you get trapped in a L Monstrous Spider's web (you are now 'Grappled') and the monster comes up and starts a grapple with you. Would you then be twice 'Grappled'??

The only time we even considered tweaking it, was to make it a Metamagic feat with a +0 level adjustment. As a Metamagic feat, it would have to be selected in the morning, and the spells modified by the Metamagic would only be usable in Wild Shape (as the Verbal and Somatic components are replaced with animal noises, which the Druid couldn't duplicate in human(ish) form, making the Metamagicked spells unusable).

I can go along with this as well, but I think that it needs some kind of a requirement. Even just having Still Spell as a prereq would make a world of difference.

What about having Channel Sacred Energy as a power that you choose which alignment axis it affects? When you acquire the power, you choose whether it will affect evil creatures or chaotic creatures? Both fit the Paladin "flavor" and provide a little uniqueness from one character to another.

!!! Just had a thought. What about having this choice affect a Paladin's Smite as well? You choose at 1st level whether your Paladin is a crusader of law and order or one of good and righteousness--that choice affects all other Paladin abilities accordingly. What do you think?

To save on space I'll just use numbers to reference your proposed changes and my thoughts on them...

#1: I think that's a perfectly fine idea. Stays true to the theme of the Paladin without being overly intrusive; and that little extra might help him shine a little more against that BBEG.

#2: I don't know how I feel about Smite Evil being a targeted effect similar to the Knight's Challenge in 3.5... I'd be more comfortable with it affecting all of the Paladin's attacks for a single round. I'd also be behind causing an effect (scale-able DC to negate perhaps) to keep Smite effective at higher levels.

#3: I would agree with making Lay on Hands = 2xPaladin level. This scales much better than as currently written in the beta. I think using CHA x Paladin level becomes overkill, however, since for most Paladins that I've seen Charisma is the highest ability they have. Thus at 10th level a paladin with a 22 Charisma can LoH for 60 hp a shot. Given the number of times a day that Paladins can use LoH now, that's a bit crazy.

#4: As thematic as this idea is, I don't think it's really necessary.

#5: On the one hand I agree with this idea. On the other hand, I find the weapon and armor training as some cool concepts that should be unique to the Fighter class.

#6: My vote is for caster equal to Paladin level-3. Paladin's don't have access to spells before then, so why give them a full caster level? I am in favor of making them spontaneous casters though. Even if you introduce a "Spells Known" table for the Paladin, spontaneous casting makes a world of difference when you only get a couple spells a day.

#7: I think the number of Smites per day is fine as is as long as the attempt isn't wasted if you miss.

#8: I don't agree with this for the same reason as #5. While it would be a cool ability, if you do this you take some of the pizazz out of the Paladin. Maybe make this ability a mid- or upper-level Divine feat?

#9: I haven't seen Divine Grace as a level-dipping issue. If the consensus is that it is a problem, maybe just change the level at which the Paladin acquires it? I don't like the idea of scaling this power.

#10: I don't see a problem with the Paladin's turning ability. I've always seen a Paladin as more likely to smash the skeleton than to turn it. That's more of a Cleric thing anyways.

#11: I can understand the skill point frustration, but I don't think it's something that needs to be fixed. Prior to 3e, you had to be human to be a Paladin--now that would give you those extra 2 skill points (+1 for human and +1 for favored class). I think that if you condense the ability demand a bit (perhaps by making a Paladin's spells work off of Charisma, as was already suggested) this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

But even then, isn't part of the class that the Paladin needs to be kind of a "Superman" in that he needs lots of high stats? Good STR, CON, and CHA... you really only need a DEX of 12 or 14 ('cause we know you're wearing plate) and you only need a WIS of 14 to cast the highest level Paladin spells. So again, while I understand your pain at the ability score demands of the class, I think that's part of the flavor of it.

I'm not against adaptability; I just think it's unbalancing in this case when viewed through the Wizard/Sorcerer prism. It also makes challenging the party more difficult from a DM perspective. All the Cleric or Druid needs is a night of rest; come tomorrow, the party is effectively immune to negative energy (or poison, or whatever else).

You remember of course that both clerics and druids still need prep time in the morning to memorize spells in the first place, just like a wizard, right? If that prepartation time is interrupted or the environment is particularly noisy or otherwise difficult to prepare spells in... well you get the picture. Also, don't forget that battling negative energy and healing is the cleric's specialty just as area of effect damage at range is a wizard's.

I would like to see some type of limiting feature added to the Cleric's and Druid's spellcasting preparation. For example, there could be a "Prayerbook" requirement levied on either or both classes that might be similar to the Wizard's Spellbook. Maybe something mechanically similar, but thematically different.

If you look at something mechanically similar, you by means change on the of the fundamental parts of the cleric class--you severly limit their spell list (this would also filter down to the Paladin and the Ranger since they function in a similar fashion to the Cleric). Part of the Cleric's strength is that she has access to a large pool of spells up front; but she is still limited by only being able to prepare a few each day.

I'm all behind your first 5 points. I think they all address a number of issues with Smite and make it much more (1)logical and (2)effective in fulfilling his role.

However, I don't agree with your last two points. It seems like a bit much. I would say that instead of having Smite last a number of rounds equal to the CHA modifer, change the text to something akin to the following:

"Smite Evil lasts for one round plus one round per every five levels of Paladin. If you succeed on a Smite Evil attempt, the effect ends at the end of the round."

This way the longevity scales a little bit (which may or may not be needed), but you don't lose the attempt due to a bad roll.