Marty1000's page

Actually if you look through the PF Beta there isn't a specific section on multiclassing at all. There are some legacy phrases here and there but multiclassing rules are absent. In the absence of anything new we're assuming it's 3.5 status quo and with the goal of backwards compatibility this is an easy assumtptiom to make. But that would mean the XP penalties should still be here...

but i don't really care about the penalties. they were intended to try to keep multiclassers from getting too far apart in their levels ala 1e/2e.

Weapon that requires large amount of training = Martial

Weapon that requires very little training to use = Simple

Hence why a crossbow a weapon which anyone can be trained in a few days to do is simple. Whilst a longbow which takes years of training is a Martial weapon.

Also one should remember that D&D is as much based on myth and folklaw as it is on real life.

Your last point is well taken and as said earlier in the thread, the longbow is a popular weapon in fantasy literature/movies et al which is why it is perceived as being more common than it should be if it were based on real life.

However, the years of training, largely at the exclusion of others just to be competent tells us that the reality of the longbow is that it was more than a "martial" weapon.

i can accept your argument about D&D being based on myth and folklore and popular culture... but if you look at everything the longbow can do in 3.5/PF it should be a exotic weapon based on game mechanics ( hey look i can do as much damage as the dude with the long sword, full attack every round and do all of this from range. and i can get a strength bow and match melee damage. that's a bit much for a regular martial weapon if you break it down and look at it objectively.

we're not saying that the longbow will be changed or must be changed just that it probably should be changed to exotic weapon. it is clearly a good example of one. maybe one of the best examples of an exotic weapon... except that in the game rules it isn't one.

Longbow as an exotic doesn't quite sit right with me. I agree it takes more than a day to learn, but at the same time it was something every man in england had to learn to use at one point. Making it less that rare or unusually difficult in my mind.

Beyond that, from a game mechanics and Backwards compatability standpoint the longbow is NOT going to be changed to exotic from martial (ok maybe it could be but considering how much Jason B & Co don't want to mess with the Monk's BAB and the...

I don't think saying that long bow is now an "exotic weapon" and comparing that to giving monk's full BAB is the same in terms of exotic weapon. But in my opinion, that is not really the discussion point. Weare saying, well at least I am saying, or presenting the case that in terms of historical context the longbow is a very good real world example of an exotic weapon. Whether or not it is changed to Exotic in PFRPG is a different matter and if it were to happen I don't think it would break anything.

Your point of "every englishman" had to learn to use a longbow actually helps strengthen the point of the longbow being exotic. The longbow was so difficult to master to the point of being useful in warfare that the common englishman had to be forced to train for years to become a capable longbow archer. The difficulty to train the required numbers of longbowmen lead to the development and adopting of the crossbow. Also, the longbow was not adopted in other cultures even in europe. they had shortbow archers and crossbowmen. european lords would hire english longbowmen as merceranries because thy were special and rare. If it was such an easy common weapon they could have developed their own longbow archers.

the comment that anyone can learn to fire a longbow in just a day or two and hit a target may be a valid point. It is another to say that you could train a longbowmen in just a day or two and fire repeatedly and succesfully and rapidly in warfare. Think of the scene from the civil war movie Glory when the recruit is showing off his skill hitting a bottle with his new rifle but when the colonel comes to him and says do this again but faster.. and faster .. and faster all the while firing a pistol next to his ear, there is a definite difference between target practice and war. This isn't a longbow example but it is a good military example.

i would comment that the reason the longbow as an exotic weapon doesn't sit well with you has more to do with it popularity in pop fantasy culture than reality. This is ok. It is what we are used to. However, the real world example of the longbow screams exotic weapon.

I think you'll find his answer more than qualifies the longbow to be an exotic weapon.

Game answer: Shortbow everyone elses bow, Long bow, the specialist archers bow.

I agree that the longbow should be an exotic weapon and I have presented this point in another thread. All of the points you have made both technical and historical speak to this. The problem is the longbow is entrenched as a high profile weapon in fantasy literature/movies/games and people/players have accepted it as more common than it really was, or should be in this game. Players just aren't willing to "give up" the longbow and make it exotic as it should be.

I think the longbow is a textbook example, when you take in it's real world historical context, of an exotic weapon.

furthermore, its capabilities and advantages in the game tell us that it is an exotic weapon and I would definitely suggest that any strength bow should be exotic if I can't win on the base longbow is exotic point.

I would say longbow requires exotic weapon feat.
I would say ability to use a strength bow may even require another.

Just thought to throw that last one out there.

Make the elven curved blade the only two hand weapon in the game that can be used with finesse and let an elven ranger use it as a martial weapon.

That gives an elven ranger that chooses archery instead of two weapon fighting something special for melee.

Other can spend a feat on it if they are no elves

Giving this one to elves, especially with the power up of the weapon means that you will have to give every race some free martial exotic weapons. this goes too far imho. dwarves get too much aswell.

In general I think the change made in 3.5 to allow martial characters of "insert race" a free exotic weapon proficiency feat (or two or more) with "racial" exotic weapons was a mistake. Just because a certain race invented an exotic weapon doesn't mean that weapon is not "exotic" for that race. Dwarves were known for using the battle axe and warhammers. 3e introduced the dwarven waraxe and urgosh as exotic weapons. 3.5 said any dwarf could use the waraxe and urgosh as a martial weapon - thus granting dwarf warriors 2 exotic weapon feats for free. This came about from 3e houserules that found their way into 3.5 revision. I think it was wrong to do this and would like to see it changed back to the 3e way but that is just my opinion. I also think this would go a long way to curbing some of the "racial" competition that i think i detect regarding racial weapons and "who gets what".

I don't expect much support for this viewpoint but I wanted to put it out there.

Actually extensive training is why the longbow is considered a martial weapon whilst a crossbow is a simple weapon.

Yes, but my point is that the longbow, based on historical context, was beyond the skill of most soldiers and is a good example of an exotic weapon. The crossbow wasn't invented for just the riffraff commoners in an army to use, it was invented for the average solider because it was too difficult and took too long to train them to effectively use a longbow. The "game" says it is a martial weapon but in my opinion it really should be classed as "exotic". We are just too familiar with the longbow from its high profile in popular culture to consider it as such.

Also, whoever suggested going back to selecting specific weapon proficiencies, I can almost agree although I would suggest again weapon groups be considered. Perhaps not a change for PF to implement but a good discussion point.

Many interesting comments here.

I would like to add a comment that may not be popular.

One of the best examples of an exotic weapon is...

The Longbow.

Of course in D&D/PF it is considered a martial weapon and not exotic, but from a real world historical context the longbow was rare, difficult to use and required extensive training and as such was an advantage to the english armies that had trained longbow archers. This weapon did not develop in other cultures, except perhaps japan, and was for an extended time almost exclusive to england and even withjin england the longbow archer was rare.

What was the development to counter the longbow, aside from firearms later? It was the crossbow. The crossbow required much less training to use than a longbow and could approach the longbow's power, if not equal it early on, but it's main advantage being that the crossbow could be used without special training - point and shoot. This allowed both england and other nations to readily field archers that could deliver powerful ammunition against heavily armored enemy warriors and begin to eliminate the advantage of the mounted knight.

So... would anyone agree that a longbow should be an exotic weapon in D&D/PF? I'm guessing there aren't too many hands being raised in agreement but from a real world point of view, the longbow is in my opinion, a text book example of the so called "exotic" weapon.

My biggest beef with the Paladin from the beginning of D&D is that the class, in my opinion, should be a bastion of Good as opposed to a bastion of Lawful Good. Hear me out: form follows function. The Paladin has plenty of abilities against Evil, as well as plenty of spells. The class has only a few spells relating to chaos and absolutely no special abilities against chaos. This was true in AD&D, AD&D 2, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, and is still true in Pathfinder.

Hi teddy. I would like to address your "beef" this way. Paladins have always been a bastion of "good" to be sure. Some can argue that they are bastions of "lawful good" specifically but I would like to set that aside for the moment.

I support the idea of the paladin being a bastion of good more so than as a bastion of "lawful good". However, the "bastion of good" paladin must he himself still be lawful good. The paladin is a role model and he holds himself to, and is held by others to, higher standards and expectations than can be expected of those who are not paladins. So while he struggles against evil to help save the common people from the rampages of the evil dragon or corrupt warlord, he will make sure that he follows his code of conduct while fighting (not channelling heh heh)for the cause of good. It is important to him that the great evil is defeated and the people are free and safe from harm but he does not expect the common folk to "be or become lawful good" as result or in payment for his actions.

So the paladin is the bastion of good but this does not mean that the paladin now gets to be of "any good" alignment. His adherence to his code of conduct requires that he be, and is also the evidence that he is, of lawful good alignment and comport himself as such. Paladins are, and will please remain in my opinion, Lawful Good, but they can be those "bastions of good" that you are seeking.

As for not having any abilities versus chaos in D&D or any versions that is not entirely correct - the paladin had additional capability against "chaotic evil" enemies. The paladin's ability to get the max benefit from a holy avenger is first described as a paladin class feature in the AD&D PHB. This is a minor point I am making but would just like to give it as context. I prefer the more general focus against "evil" myself and I could argue that that has mainly been the case since the beginning.

Using these new progressions for prestige classes doesn't appear too complicated. Using them for multiclassed base classes would be a serious pain: you would no longer be able to just add together base save bonus from your different classes, one of the best features of the 3.5 rules for multiclassing.

A better (but still clunky) system would be to just cap base saving throw bonuses based on your character level. Add a column on the character advancement table listing "maximum saving throw bonus from classes." Add your base save bonuses from all classes together, as normal, but if the result is greater than your "maximum saving throw bonus from classes," use that maximum saving throw bonus, instead.

But even that gets a bit wordy.

Wordy perhaps but it may also be a good way to compromise for those who don't want to be absorbed in math class.

FWIW

Rangers in 1e PHB (AD&D) had no special affinity for two weapon fighting compared to any other class.

I am not a player who selects spell casters very often. I prefer my meat and potatoes types and paladins in particular.

That said, I have no problem with Wizards being at the top of the food chain when it comes to high level power.... provided that they have to pay their dues along the way meaning they sucketh at low and mid levels.

I love the concept of Raistlin in the Dragonlance stories needing to be helped along by his twin brother Caramon the warrior, because Raistlin is a weakling to put it bluntly. In the end Raistlin perseveres and overcomes his frailty, in no large part due to his brother's and other companions' aid to become that most "powerful" arch mage.

So this means to me that wizards should be returned to d4 hit dice, we need to keep vancian spell casting (traditional D&D spell casting as it is also a balancing mechanic), need to tone down the bonus powers being given to the various mage types (although i agree they should get something). I know too many people talk about the d4 being to small and survivability at low levels, but this was in fact integral to the class and the way they were played. Mage players had to be smart and clever. Giving them more hit points per level (and this goes for rogues - they should stay at d6 HD) brings them too close to the other classes in terms of combat toughness and makes the wizard and sorceror less dependant on the good will of his party members to survive and thrive.

To re-iterate, I have no problem in the concept of high level Wizards being at the top of the power curve. I do have a problem giving them too much power too soon and them not having to pay their dues.

D6 hit die, bonus use per day/per round/ at will powers plus talk of toning down the power of spells starts smellig like 4E to me.

Maybe classes should go back to needing different XP to advance levels to help balance class power as in AD&D/2e but then that isn't backwards compatible... but would it really change anything????

Personally I think that saving throws should be recalculated according to a new "fractional" system. while this may seem a hassle, the "existing" 3.0/3.5 method for calculating saving throws is broken and needs to be fixed. I don't think "backwards compatibility" should be an issue in this case because here we are trying, IMO, to fix an error that got past the game designers in the first place. And this system can be applied to all characters of past 3/3,5/PF so it is compatible, it just takes some time and effort.

Jason, please be careful when using the term "flat-footed". It is not synonymous with "denied Dex bonus to AC".

So in the description of Feint under the Bluff skill, it is incorrect to say it causes "your opponent to be flat-footed against your next attack".

I agree with Hogarth. Instead of making your opponent flat-footed, this should say "a successful feint causes your opponent to lose his dex bonus to AC against your next attack." In essence, making him zig when he should have zagged.

Another question though, why is Feint attached to bluff skill? They are not the same thing. Many trained combatants include feints as part of their series of attacks and parries and fakes. A trained combatant will feint regularly because he is a savvy, trained warrior, not because he is a slick talking person or good at playing poker.

Bluff is not synonymous with Feint.

Feint should be a combat feat/maneuver on its own but if it remains a skill then it should be a skill of it's own.

This interesting KaeYoss

Overall it is good houserule idea but I think it is overpowered as you have written.

I would suggest a couple things:

You can't apply spell points to purchase an effect that you don't already have the equivalent metamagic-feat for. Example: If he wants to use spell points to "buy" maximum damage, he must also have the maximize spell metamagic feat in his bag of tricks representing that he "knows how" to maximize a spell.

I would suggest that changing the energy type also bring a penalty to the damage dice (say half normal), unless you pay more spell points improve the damage. A fireball by a 10th level wizard would do 10d6 damage. If he changes energy to cold, the spell would do 5d6 cold damage - he is changing his energy on the fly so if he came up against an encounter that he wasn't prepared for, he still needs "to suffer" somewhat for not having the right spells lines up. But he could spend some additional spell points to get back to full normal damage dice. Or perhaps change energy should cost 2 or 3 spell points instead of just 1.

Maybe spell points could also be used to increase the save DC for a spell with some limit - maybe + 1 DC for 2 spell points up to max half caster level.

I would also suggest that Alignment is another of the sacred cows.

I appreciate your work here. You have put a lot of effort.

At first glance, I don't agree with completely eliminating the penalties to hit or giving a bonus to hit because the weapons are light.

Two weapon fighting grants characters an extra attack per round (if they can full attack) at full BAB on top of their other attacks. The penalties are the "trade off" to get this extra attack.

giving up the ability to use a shield isn't a satisfactory penalty.

Letting two weapon fighting negate the penalties 100% says that for the price of one feat you can get an extra attack.

Letting the two weapon fighter get a bonus (even just a +1) because he is using light weapons is the same as giving the character weapon focus with a light weapon in addition to the second attack.

I'm sorry i can't quite get behind this version of two weapon fighting. Characters are getting two much for one feat that has no real pre-requisites or trade offs for getting that extra combat power.

keep working at it though. i do appreciate the ideas and effort.

In general I like the PrC concept. I dislike that there are so many of them. Too many prestige classes were introduced, some fluff based (such as many in FR) some crunch based (splatbooks).

It becomes difficult to keep track as a player and especially as a DM. As a DM I would often say no to splatbooks unless I approved (basically agreed that what the player wanted to do was not some gross powergaming strategy).

Regarding fluff PrCs - why does every organization have to have a prestige class. The organization itself needs to be of some significant power and prestige before it can have prestige class members. To me it seemed that just about every organization has a prestige class and some orgs had several.

Regarding crunch PrCs - I have no idea where some of these prestige classes came from or what made them prestigious. This guy specializes in throwing axes. Ummm isn't he just a fighter with axe specialization?

regarding PrCs in general, I wish the concept of PrCs was better explained before 3e was released. Be warned here before reading further: I am one of those Paladin guys. When 3e was in development, and of course forums such as this weren't as widespread or accessible, there was considerable concern that certain favorite classes were to be dropped from the game, paladin was one of those on the bubble. So we argued to keep paladin as a base class, it was iconic to D&D and must be saved! Make it a Prestige Class??? What??? No!! horrible idea! If paladin is made into one of these prestige classes he is just one step closer to be being eliminated from the game of D&D altogether. He must be saved and that means a core base class! Now if the 3e devs were able to explain in an more accessible way the concept behind prestige classes - that since the base classes were going to be "balanced" per se with the same XP required per level, ability pre-reqs would be scrapped, class racial reqs would be scrapped, and so on for base classes and that this would result in the class of paladin, and bard for that matter, would become common place, no more or less rare than a fighter or cleric or thief (rogue). It was not really explained that PrCs would be used to make up for this and could keep some classes rare and special - that PrCs would have requirements that a character was qualify for and these could include ability scores, alignment, level achieved, etc. If this was explained and publicized better by the 3e devs ( maybe I was dense and missed it but the internet wasn't the ready playground those years ago that it is now) then I could have seen that the way 3e was being designed that paladin and bard (as two main examples) would have been better off as prestige classes than being kept as a base class and nerfed from their former concepts in AD&D.

I think I may have lost my train of thought in there. Ultimately, the concept of PrCs is good, their proliferation is bad, and certain core classes (paladin and bard, maybe monk and druid) would have been best made into core PrCs when 3e was released.

Marty1000 wrote:

Vult Wrathblades wrote:

@Marty, Good post...though I still do think we need something "always on".

Everyone else...where are these fighter feats? I cant see them :(

I think you will see that I hid away in my post a comment that I like Robert Brambley's modified "minor" smite that lasts a limited duration but its use takes away a smite "point"

but I think an always on bonus to hit and damage (not necessarily AC) as you have described is valid. I'm just not sure that I like it limited to number of smites left. It gives me a feeling of the battery running out of power. A wizards spells for examples don't have a lesser effect because they have already used so many spells of that same level.

Exactly. And its an incentive not to smite. I totally agree with you. If Vult wants an always-on bonus, why does he want to tie it to smites? It doesn't make sense.

Marty1000 wrote:

What if the paladin could divide his cha bonus up between to hit, damage and AC, with the total bonus not being greater than paladin level? This would be limited to evil enemies and chaotic neutral outsiders (as i have said before - i hate those slaadi toads!)... but i could live with just against evil.. i suppose.

Why does every proposed paladin feature have to be just like smite and limited by alignment? This feature was originally proposed by Iron Sentinel (link here), and I agree with Vult it works well as an always-on ability that the paladin gets just for being righteous.

Props to Iron Sentinel as the originator of that idea. I like that concept of the paladin getting this bonus just for being righteous. Afterall divine grace and health don't say they only work against "evil" spells or diseases.

I think always limiting the "always on bonus" to just against evil was a way to head off the "fighter's toes" crowd. After seeing the new feats, I am no longer worried about mr. fighter. Let the paladin be righteous and have his always on bonus. He should only be fighting when necessary, and as a last resort if his opponents aren't evil. That being said, the paladin should be someone that "non-evil" street thugs should be afraid to mess with. The current paladin doesn't really give that impression.

Marty1000 wrote:

Smite Evil:

I prefer smite evil being a single massive attack. The Paladin gets limited number of smites per day as per the current table. When the paladin declares smite evil as a swift action, he gets a bonus melee attack at his highest BAB. He gets a bonus to attack equal to Cha modifier + paladin level. If he hits with the smite, he does bonus holy damage equal to 1d6 per paladin level. If he smites a monster of the Evil type, true dragon, or evil undead, the smite damage is doubled. If he misses with the smite, the smite is not lost. He may only smite once per round.

I actually admire your unwillingness to compromise on the idea that a smite is a single attack. However, with bonuses this massive, it seems only fair that the trade-off is an increased chance to whiff. Otherwise, how fair is it for the poor monster frantically dodging your smite (which now lasts as long as you need it to)? How many times can you whiff in a row before even the gods take the side of the evil creature and say "Enough!" My point is that you shouldn't expect a bigger payoff without a bigger gamble.

Hi Mink,

Sorry. My cha bonus + paladin level to attack roll was a left over from my thoughts that if you are doing +1d6/paladin level holy damage then the smite is done as a standard action. You don't full attack and then smite as a bonus... even though that I said that you do...lost my train of thought there. So if you are just smiting as your attack action for the round, then having the big bonus to attack and then of course to damage should apply.

Otherwise, if LKL's smite is still doing 1d6/2 paladin levels as the bonus attack then that is substantial and doesn't need to be 1d6 every level. I do suggest though that it do double damage against the triple Ds and undead if that isn't already in there.

I think something to consider is this:

A 20th level paladin gets 4 attacks per round if he can full attack.

He has a +5 holy long sword let's say. At that level has an 18 strength. So he can do 1d8+4 str bonus+5 weapon bonus plus 2d6 holy damage on a normal attack roll. 1d8+9+2d6 x 4 (assume all attacks hit). 4d8+36+8d6 damage to his evil foe. 82 points of damage per round based on average dice damage.

A single smite as i proposed will do 1d8+9+2d6 (assuming this holy sword damage will stack with smite) + 20d6 = 90 points damage based on average damage dice. This is only 8 more than he would do if he hit with all of his full attacks. That actually isn't that much. He basically has traded his full attacks for one shot at a better "attack" percentage to do the same damage.

In this case smite evil really should be a bonus attack done at full BAB + cha bonus to hit) damage of 1d6 + 1d6 every 2 paladin levels. Double damage vs Evil creature type, undead, or dragon. I don't think it is too much to add paladin level to the attack role as well. But perhaps limit how long he has to do a successful smite to rounds equal to his cha bonus. If a paladin with 18 cha can't hit with his smite within 4 rounds, too bad. it is gone.

This raises an interesting question: do paladins duck?

I can't say for sure. I am not really a paladin. I only play one on weekends.

@Marty, Good post...though I still do think we need something "always on".

Everyone else...where are these fighter feats? I cant see them :(

I think you will see that I hid away in my post a comment that I like Robert Brambley's modified "minor" smite that lasts a limited duration but its use takes away a smite "point"

but I think an always on bonus to hit and damage (not necessarily AC) as you have described is valid. I'm just not sure that I like it limited to number of smites left. It gives me a feeling of the battery running out of power. A wizards spells for examples don't have a lesser effect because they have already used so many spells of that same level.

What if the paladin could divide his cha bonus up between to hit, damage and AC, with the total bonus not being greater than paladin level? This would be limited to evil enemies and chaotic neutral outsiders (as i have said before - i hate those slaadi toads!)... but i could live with just against evil.. i suppose.

I am in the camp of "Leave alignment restrictions (and alignment itself for that matter) in the rules of the game but house rule them out if you and your group agree to play without them".

I think it is much more appropriate to house rule out a rule like alignment restrictions than it is to house rule them in especially when they can be a contentious issue to try and include back into the game. With this in mind, alignment and classes with alignment restrictions has been part of D&D all along and pathfinder is built on the roots of that game. So in my opinion, the default mode for alignment restrictions should be to include them in the core rules. If you and your gaming group don't want to abide by them, by all means house rule them out for your game. It is your right to modify the game to get the most enjoyment for yourself and your friends, but know that they are still there in the core rules when you come across other gamers.

Chipping in from the road...

Haven’t been able to post too much lately but I have been trying to keep up with the topic ..

A few things:

"Code of Conduct" and "must be LG alignment"

If these are to not have any relevance to game balance then why are they still included by the game designers as class features? In AD&D a paladin was a fighter with all of the paladin abilities and restrictions tacked on. So in concept of game design, the code of conduct (and more XP per level) was "worth" a fighter getting LoH, Spells at 9th level, War Horse, Detect Evil, Saves, Protection from Evil, (anything else?) to become a paladin. Also AD&D paladins were restricted on the amount of treasure and magic items they could possess. The code of conduct was not considered to be just fluff. It was real and considered a game balancing mechanic. How to measure this? I am not sure but it should have some meaning.

Offense for the Paladin:

I have promoted the following for the paladin:

Paladin's should be allowed to purchase weapon focus/spec tree of feats with the from the feats that they already have. In this case, the paladin doesn't get bonus feats, he just gets permission to spend his feats on these ones if he should choose. This reflects that the paladin is also a martial character, who is formally trained in the noble enterprise of warfare. This would be enough to elevate the paladin above the basic NPC warrior class.

Paladin Feats

There should be some paladin specific feats. I’m not sure what ones there should be and I haven’t made any up but a paladin should get some bonus feats every so many levels (maybe every 4 levels) as they advance in experience. Some of these feats should be offense “martial” oriented and others can be “divine” oriented enhancing channel and LOH and such.

Smite Evil:

I prefer smite evil being a single massive attack. The Paladin gets limited number of smites per day as per the current table. When the paladin declares smite evil as a swift action, he gets a bonus melee attack at his highest BAB. He gets a bonus to attack equal to Cha modifier + paladin level. If he hits with the smite, he does bonus holy damage equal to 1d6 per paladin level. If he smites a monster of the Evil type, true dragon, or evil undead, the smite damage is doubled. If he misses with the smite, the smite is not lost. He may only smite once per round.

I like the idea from LKL that smite is a bonus attack made at highest BAB and does some hefty damage but still only a finite number of times per day. This means that a sucessful smite evil by a paladin is a big deal. He has a significant boost to help him hit which is important at higher levels and the damage done by the attack is significant which helps at all levels of course but is more meaningful at low levels. A 5th level paladin gets 2 smites per day, each capable of doing +5d6 damage. I think that is pretty fair and solid and meaningful in the game. The paladin will want to save his smites for the most important enemies or the most dire combats but when he does smite it should be worth it.

We have to keep in mind that paladins are played at all levels and not just point to how powerful something looks at the highest levels. I think this smite evil option works well through all levels. Is limited by the number of targets of the smite - a single evil enemy and that it must be a melee attack which means the paladin is in harms way.

I think that other people here (VW, LKL,RB) have talked many more times about an always on ability to help the paladin in combat that would come from the "pool of smites" and last a certain duration of rounds. I think that RBs idea is my preferred one (1 +Cha bonus duration, ½ paladin level to hit, paladin level to damage IIRC).

The point I want to make is that there has to be a reason to want to use smite, that the smite should be meaningful in the game and an exciting event for the player. Getting to do this only so many finite number of times in a day means this should be a substantial thump.

Should the damage be 1d6 for every 2 paladin level instead? Maybe but I don’t think that it is enough on a single smite attack that is done in melee and only affects a single target. Since the target doesn't get to save vs the smite perhaps that is the justification for the lower damage than my d6/level. Doubling the damage against certain types of evil targets might be too much but it would be good to actually test it out in game play.

Please throw your flaming balls ... I am preparing to duck... now.

minkscooter wrote:

Zark wrote:

And let's have a look at Divine Grace at level 2.

Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) or a a bonus equal her paladin level (whichever is lower) on all saving throws.

I think Zark's adjustment to Divine Grace is a good one as well. It will be a little hard for a pally with a high Cha to accept since he would have to hit 4th or 5th level before getting the full benefit of his stat but it is a good compromise if you see level dipping as a real problem or have experienced it to be a problem.

many interesting things

I like your ideas here and they would have good merit for discussion further in the combat design threads. Of course, since the paladin is a melee class, it is good to consider these concepts here and how they could impact the class and game down the road.

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.

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. 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).

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 paladin haters are.

So please prove you aren't just a hater and propose some constructive ideas to help the paladin that demonstrate the epitome of game balance and good design since I am so obviously ridiculously out of touch with them.

Happily awaiting your helpful ideas.

Marty1000 wrote:

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.

Now you are back to the Lightbringer or Divine Might (Wrath) ideas that Robert Brambley and I proposed at the very beginning of this debate.

I could totally get on board with either of those as separate concepts from Smite. However it is done, the paladin needs something that ALWAYS works against evil.

Hi guys,

I've read every post in this thread. Sorry that I didn't refer to the always on ability by one of its "names". Vult brought up "always on" in response to my post about smite as proposed by JB at the start of this thread. I merely replied with how always on works "in concept" compared to "smite" and that I think it should be kept as a completely separate ability. I don't like the idea of tying "light bringer" or "divine might" or "hoochie power" to the number of smites remaining in a day as previously suggested by Vult. It was an oversight on my part to not make that clear in my post in hindsight. "Always On" is either "on" or it's not "Always On"

So "Yay" to bumped up smite evil (1d6 per level) but so far it isn't bumped up enough.

And a "yay" to an always on paladin combat power vs. evil opponents. Just tie it to paladin level and not cha bonus.

Melee only for both. As for ranged smite, there is a feat to pay for that capability in one of the "splat books" (books that i tend to not use since there are too many of them to keep track of as a DM).

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.

And the thread continues...

There is a lot being said about smite. So let me chime in as well.

First smite evil,

As presented by Jason, smite evil will last for 1 round at levels 1-7, 2 rounds worth at levels 8-15, and 3 rounds at levels 16+. The paladin gets his cha bonus to attack and AC and bonus damage equal to level except when fighting Evil or Undead type beasties.

Excepting attacks of opportunity and "haste" effects, smite progression will look like this, if the paladin can do a full attack:

Levels 1-3 1 smite per day with 1 attack per smite over 1 round
Levels 4-5 2 smites per day with 1 attack per smite over 1 round
Level 6 2 smites per day with 2 attacks per smite over 1 round
Level 7 3 smites per day with 2 attacks per smite over 1 round
Levels 8-9 3 smites per day with 2 attacks per smite over 2 rounds
Level 10 4 smites per day with 2 attacks per smite over 2 rounds
Levels 11-12 4 smites per day with 3 attacks per smite over 2 rounds
Levels 13-15 5 smites per day with 3 attacks per smite over 2 rounds
Level 16-18 6 smites per day with 4 attacks per smite over 3 rounds
Level 19-20 7 smites per day with 4 attacks per smite over 3 rounds

So at low levels 1-5 the smite hasn't really done much for the pally reletive to the original beta smite unless he is fighting undead or evil-type. He'll do his +1 to +5 of bonus damage or he gets an extra +1d6 or +2d6 against those "special" enemies. And he's done smiting after 1 or 2 events at these levels.

I will now use the rogue sneak attack as a comparison of class abilities that are more or less supposed to be an "equivalent" of smite.

Meantime the rogue in the party is using the engagement of the paladin and other party members to set up "flanks" and sneak attack doing his +1d6, +2d6, or +3d6 per attack against any opponent he can flank and he can do this with a missile weapon too. He can do this every round of combat that he can set up a "flank". He never "runs out of sneak attacks". Ok good for the rogue. He then boosts his sneak damage to +4d6 at 7th level and then +5d6 at 9th. That's even better for the rogue. good for him.

So the paladin is going to be saving his smite at low level. He has to make it count but what is he really going to getting from saving up? Not a lot making him a pretty un-fun combatant for the player. So we still have a low to mid level problem with the paladin with new modified smite up until about 8th-10th level. He's maybe done 3 to 5 attacks that if all were successful (unlikely) will have done base weapon damage (let's say 1d8)+ smiting damage.

A 10th level paladin could at best get off 16 smite attacks in a day equating to 16d8+160 total damage potential (i'm ignoring all strength and enhancement bonuses to keep my math simple, and fighting rogue "could" focus on a decent strength if he wanted, a d6 does avergae 3.5 damage per die and a d8 does 4.5 damage per die roll..). He has to split these up into 4 smite uses so 4d8+40 potential damage per smite use. Our rogue friend is fighting in the same battles and is also 10th level. The fights are lasting 5 rounds lets say. He can set up sucessful flanks in 3 rounds of each fight. So he gets 2 attacks per round hits 6 sneaks in the combat with his short sword doing 6d6+30d6 damage total damage potential so 6d6+105 points in one combat. The paladin spends 1 smite in that battle so his potential was 4d8+40 damage. BBEG had sent standard evil nasties at the crack of dawn. Combat 1 finished. Party has mid morning tea. BBEG is annoyed, he doesn't like to see the party drinking tea so he unleashes some nasty evil outsiders at the party. Paladin says - OK now it's really smite time! He powers up and in the course of the combat he lets loose 2 uses of smite ( he only has 1 left) he unloads 8d8+40d6 for 8d8+140 damage potential. The rogue has chipped in his usual 6d6+105 again. The paladin looks satisfied and so does the rogue. Battle 2 done. High fives and extra scones all around. Party sits down for lunch then gets back on their way to find the BBEG. BBEG is really ticked. How dare these pukes think to challenge me, drinking their tea and eating along the way? He calls forth his frost giant gang to punish them. Battle number 3 begins. Fire giants, not quite one of the triple Ds but nasty all the same. Paladin sees the fire giant captain and says. Smite time. He lays in, does 4d8+40.... the fire giant staggers back, and then shakes it off because he still has well about 65% of his hit points and the paladin is all smited out. back to 1d8+some bonuses (prob +6 to +8 range) He and the paladin trade blows and then the fire giant staggers and falls, multiple short sword wounds in his back as the rogue has chipped in yet again with his 6d6+105 damage potential. The paladin thanks the rogue for saving his life and suggests the party find a place to rest and recover because he can't contribute to the fights enough to help. But the BBEGs stronghold is in sight! OK says the paladin I have no fear, I'll be ineffectual but perhaps i can help to keep us alive with some healing. BBEG has watched the battle from scrying. He knows now is the time to attack the party! The paladin can not smite and he and his demonic or undead servants can attack under cover of darkness when night falls. Combat 4 begins as BBEG and his baddies attack. Paladin tries to engage the BBEG... BBEG ignores him, sending his minions to engage the rest of the party instead because the pally isn't a threat. The party ultimately prevails the rogue chipped in again his usual 6d6+105 damage but the battle went longer and he was able to do an extra 2d6+10d6 for 8d6+140. the paladin was able to divine bond "holy" his sword and was able to do about 8d8+16d6 or 8d8+54, maybe he hit a few more doing 12d8+24d6 or 12d8+84 damage potential.

So in the end of the day of 4 combats, the paladin has accounted for 220 smite bonus damage + 84 divine bond damage + 28d8 weapon damage for total base "special" damage of 430 points. The rogue has done 130d6 (455 points) of bonus sneak damage plus 26d6 for total base damage of 546 damage, more than 100 better than the paladin.

I know my example isn't perfect but it lays down the baseline comparison of a similar ability of another class, one that isn't "historically" a primary combatant, at least not if you were comparing to the paladin. And also, the rogue could be sneak attacking with a ranged weapon to keep out of the fray.

So is the new smite really making the bad guys shake in their boots? not quite yet and it isn't on par with the sneak attack ability of the rogue. This tells me smite is still not working the way it should. So what do I think could be done...

Smite evil has to be worth the paladin using it, or saving it for later. I suggest that smite evil works like this:

Bonus to attack = paladin level.
Bonus to damage = 1d6 per paladin level
Bonus to AC = +1 at 1st level increasing to +2 at 5th level and +1 additional 4 levels. Actually I'm not a big fan of the "smite" bonus to AC and could take it or leave it.

So what would this smite version do for damage? Using my previous example he would have been able to do...

28d8 (126) weapon damage+ 84 divine bond damage + 160d6 (420) "normal" smite damage for a total of 630 "special" damage through out the course of a day's worth (4 combat encounters). Is this too much? It is 84 more than the rogue's "special" damage. Is this out of line for a primary melee class. I don't think so. This also helps the paladin at lower levels since the smite is always giving some kick and makes it worth using and looked forward to by the paladin player. Since it scales with level, it isn't a big attraction for level dipping but, then, i don't think level dipping is a real issue. Level dipping is something for each playing group to address individually, players and DM together.

I have been following the different paladin topics and not posting much of late. as it stands though here is a post...

I both like and dislike the concept of Paladin as prestige class as I have also mentioned in some of my other posts. This mainly is a "fear" that if paladin is no longer a core class then it is one step closer to being eliminated from the game all together. This was a valid concern back when 3e was being developed. That said, I think, when looking at the prestige concept as a whole in 3/3.5/PF, paladin as a class fits better as a prestige class.

Making paladin a PrC can allow for pre-requisites to be reintroduced for the class and this would result in paladins being more rare than they are as a core class. Devise sensible qualifications for the PrC Paladin, including some DM discretion regarding RP of would be paladins, and I think we can really make the paladin feel special.

I look forward to your concept of the prestige paladin and I have been thinking of some ideas as well. maybe it is best to start a new thread for a prestige paladin although i am not yet prepared to advocate for taking paladin from core class to prestige.

Regarding level dipping...

Level dipping for many classes will be hard to stop in the "design" of the game. I think this is where the Dm and the players have to agree on how such a thing will be addressed in their own game. I mean if a player in your group says "I am going to take a level of paladin", the Dm should say "Explain and justify this to me". IF the Dm and the players are having fun in their game level dipping away, who are we to tell someone how to play their game. Unless you are playing in a convention tournament or some other "professional RPG" setting, what does anyone care if their group doesn't allow dipping because of mutual agreement while another group, who they will never game with, allows it? If you have a player in your group who is always min-maxing with munchkin builds with heavy level dipping then tell that player to knock it off. Same to be said when a new player wants to join your group and bring a level dipped character with him. If it is a good sensible build and the person is a good player, what's the problem? Otherwise, lay down the ground rules for new people joining your group. IMO, this issue of level dipping really is a non-issue. Too many people worrying about how OTHER people are playing the game.

I think a common sense approach taken within the gaming group itself if the best way to handle level dipping.

And also, fixing base saves for multiclass characters is also required. That is something you fix in the core rules.

very intersting stuff

I am digesting what you have provided and I like that you have taken on the concept of divine paths and martial paths for the paladin. I was typing my other response before seeing your post. Well done and I have to give good thought to your ideas.

excellent stuff

Hi Vult,

Nice job on the summary.

I hereby lend all my support to the paladin being permitted to take weapon focus/spec tree of feats!

He so needs this! just to be a boost of the class's martial skills which have been completely ignored in 3/3.5/PF to date. The paladin has to have something that differentiates himself from the basic warrior NPC class when it comes to weapon skills. Barbarians can rage against any opponent, Rangers get multiweapon or archery paths, Fighters get all their good new bonuses and soon new fighter-specific feats.

There has to be something that says, even without all the divine aspects of the class abilities, this guy is a skilled fighter and that a couple CN street thugs should hesitate to jump in a dark alley.

I could even agree that the actual bonus feats can be dropped so long as the paladin is permitted within the rules to buy wpn focus/spec feat series with his normal feats.

3b. I would also make all of the WpnFoc/Spec tree available to classes besides fighters based on high BAB

I disagree about any full BAB class getting these feats, only the paladin and fighter are the "trained" martial characters but the paladin has nothing to show for this except a full BAB. At the same time, I'm not going to spend a lot of time fighting against this one if the game went that way.

3a. I WOULD, however, give Tower Shield prof as a cheap freebie to paladins.

I don't know why the tower shield prof is a big deal for the paladin to have for free. I would say no to giving the paladin this and get weapon spec instead, or exotic weapon prof.

Regarding Spontaneous Casting....

The paladin doesn't need this change. I don't think we need to see the paladin's spellcasting emphasized beyond this one following change: let him cast his spells with caster level equal to his pally level. (Do the same for the ranger as well) This idea of caster level = pally level -3 is really splitting hairs. either the paladin is a stronger caster than current rules or not. Does it matter if the 15th level paladin is casting as a 12th level dude or a 15th level dude? Just let him cast his meagre selection of 1st thru 4th level spells using his paladin level as caster level.

If we can let him have some spells that are done as a quick action to make them more useful in combat or have extended duration, that would make some sense as well. Afterall, the paladin has to have a good reason to cast a spell instead of making a base or full attack because he is supposed to be fighting the bad guys.

Regarding Smite Evil...

If the paladin needs to use a standard action to smite evil with one attack then this power is still not enough as described. There has to be a reason for a paladin, especially a high level paladin to give up all of his "full attacks" if he chooses to smite. If it is going to use a standard action then smite evil must do 1d6 damage per level fo the paladin with the paladin's level being the bonus to the attack roll. Against the "really evil guys" the paladin does double smite damage on a successful hit.

If the smite evil power keeps the duration that JB suggested at the start of his "paladin design upgrade thread" then the bonus damage of 1d6/2 levels is OK with half paladin's level as attack roll bonus.

Regarding Channel Energy...

This needs to be kept separate from LoH in my opinion.

For the most part I think I agree with everything else Vult has listed but I would like to suggest an option for then paladin to take one of two paths, one where he can focus on the channel energy, and healing powers, and such or one where he can trade the heal, and neut poison, and even CE itself for some martial abilities.

The paladin can do what HE thinks is a best thing to do and not what HIS GOD and ORDER thinks, but that does not mean that is the right thing.

I would like to suggest the character of Balian in the movie Kingdom of Heaven as a fairly nice example of an LG paladin-type character struggling with his own matters of faith and his attempts to do the right thing even when at odds with his masters and institution.

Balian is far from perfect and seeks redemption and forgiveness for his past sins. When he sees the conflict within the leadership of Jerusalem is under assault from various internal factions he does his best to support the legitimate leadership. When the warmongering corrupt faction takes over leadershp of the kingdom, he tries to fight from within, even though his voice falls on deaf ears. In the end, realizing that the leaders of the city do not have the good of the people and their safety at heart, he takes it upon himself, in defiance of the "legitimate authority" to stand and defend jerusalem against the enemy.

Maybe not a perfect summary of Balian's moral dilemma in the movie but it is a good example of an LG person trying to do his best and a good example for discussion in this thread, IMO. Although I don't intend for this to become a treatise on Kingdom of Heaven.

Holy Avenger + Smite (by Jason N.) - Check.

Please just don't call it Holy Avenger. Yes I'm being nitpicky but Holy Avenger in D&D means something different. I'm sure we can come up with a good name in time but i'd like to see Holy Avenger just refer to the magic weapon in keeping with tradition.

I know it's not a big deal at this point of discussion but just keep it in mind as things (hopefully) progress.

Ok my thoughts:

Basically leave paladin spellcasting as is.

Make caster level equal to paladin level.

Make more spells have better duration or be cast as swift actions or both.

As for spells from splatbooks...

As a DM, I would normally say no "brown books" (which is what i used to call the splatbooks.) unless I have read through and approved what the player wanted to use.

There were just too many books and as far as I was concerned I couldn't keep up with them so I had to take a stand.

IMO, There are only 2 Rule Books in D&D .. PHB and DMG. Everything else (including even MM) are options to be used or permitted at the DMs discretion. Houserules are agreed upon by everyone before going into play.

But i digressed.

Marty1000 wrote:

As for non-lawful martial artists, anyone can play a fighter or any other class for that matter who pumps feats into improved unarmed strike and related skills and feats.

But that's a lackluster option. There are a few good things in the Monk class not accessible through feats or skills and such that people play the Monk class for, and then the "Lawful Only, Shaolin, etc." stuff is just the other stuff they have to put up with.

Marty1000 wrote:

In D&DéPF, all characters of a monk class are martial artists but not all martial artists need be monks.

There shouldn't be a Monk class. There should be a Martial Artist class, the "Monk" being one way of describing said class. (Just like how there shouldn't be a Paladin class, but rather a Holy Warrior class, the LG version of which is commonly known as a Paladin.)

You could argue that point about the monk not existing and replacing it with a martial artist and such ideas are in supplements like oriental adventures, or at least it gives options for martial artists that are alternative to the monk class.

The monk class as presented in D&D is based on the shaolin monk. Could you change this? sure. but many of the powers presented in the monk come from that shaolin or similar tradition.

As for paladin just being an LG version of a holy warrior class... You are wrong. Being LG alignment is a restriction. It balances a paladin's (supposed)extra powers. Being of another alignment is not a restriction - they all allow for flexibility and options during moral and ethical quandaries that LG does not allow. If you want non-LG "paladins" then take the divine champion PrC or play 4ed.

Ok I`m going to try my hand at this.

Paladins as a core class have always been LG in D&D (excluding 4e).

Paladins get these great abilities that are derived from their deity and their devotion to the causes of LG. If you could make a score card comparing say a fighter, barbarian, and ranger with a paladin, if you added all the abilities of these character types together the paladin should come out on paper as being more powerful ( but we know since 3rd ed came out this isn`t true, paladin was nerfed but i digress).

since the paladin on paper is more powerful, he needs restrictions to balance this extra power. Hence the LG alignment and the paladin code of conduct.

LG is the hardest alignment to play. LG characters will face moral and thical dilemmas more than the other alignments and the paladin suffers penalties if he doesn`t play according to that alignment. Thus being LG is a restriction that from a game play point of view can effectively help to balance the extra power that paladins are supposed to possess.

Why aren`t playing other alignments the same? Because they all leave characters of those alignments leeway to act in various ways in when put in certain situations without breaking their alignments. A CG person will follow laws if they suit him, will break a law if he sees fit and doesn;t hurt someone. A CE person can act just like a LG person if he wants to or needs to, but he completely does so out of his own self interest or gratification. His true nature will come through in the end, but for him, the end justifies the means, mind you the CE probably doesn't care about justifying actions.

People who want to play holy warriors can pick the divine champion PrC or something similar, but they shouldn't get to be paladins, or even paladins with a different name.

No non-LG paladins.

Marty1000 wrote:

Can someone really tell me what is different between a neutral good person and a chaotic good person?

NG means you are good, but don't put too much an emphasis on either order or freedom. you are unbiased towards order - you will usually follow the laws, as long as they don't force you towards evil behaviour. You still value personal freedom, but think that this only goes so far, and sometimes laws might need to limit this for your own good.

CG means that you dislike order, tradition, and judgemental people, for the evil they bring. You have your own moral code, and follow it, but you won't let anyone else tell you where your moral compass should point to just because someone decided so. You don't quite propose anarchy, but that's just because there's evil people out there. In a situation where you know everyone's basically good-natured, you won't bother with laws - everyone will follow his own judgement, and whatever problems may arise can be dealt with by talking about it. You don't give a damn about traditions, especially if they hold anyone back. You might follow them, but that's more often by accident, as they mirror what you think is the best course of action.

Thanks. you gave me more or less the description out of the books. Where I was going with my line of thought on this was that in the course of general game play and roleplaying, there isn't much of a tangible difference between a CG and NG character so just combining them into "Good" is a sensible simplification. But I am fine with D&Ds alignment system whether it exits as 9 alignments or 3 or 5 or 6.

And I think the only core class that needs the alignment restrition is paladin. I think lawful makes sense for the monk as described in the D&D and PF games.

As for non-lawful martial artists, anyone can play a fighter or any other class for that matter who pumps feats into improved unarmed strike and related skills and feats.

In D&DéPF, all characters of a monk class are martial artists but not all martial artists need be monks

Archangel:

The problem is that not donating is part of the code. And the Paladin won't abide folks who continually disregard his code. And won't stay with 'em.

Therefore, if the (insert CG person here) continually donates to (insert CG temple/ organization/or whatever) then that -person- is going against the Code.. presumably more than once- especially if the person is a cleric or lay person of the CG temple. They therefore are "continually" more or less going against the code. The paladin has to ditch group.

".. nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.""

And the moral code includes not donating to causes that support chaos or evil..
""provided they do not use it for chaotic or evil ends"

A CG temple is presumably going to use funds towards both chaotic and good ends. (an assumption I know, but- a fairly solid one I would think).

The Code needs to be changed to allow the Paladin to consort with any *good* creature.

-S

I think you are doing your very best to intentionally misinterpret the paladin and how he should be played.

The quote you give here ".. nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code." In most discussions about alignment in D&D that I have seen, "morals" reflects issues of good vs evil. And if a paladin is in a group where people are consistently (and that would mean intentionally) trying to screw with the paladin then your group is too immature to play with a paladin.

Does this mean every group should have a paladin? No. A dm should not allow a player to have a paladin in his campaign if the other players all want scoundrels. And also, as someone very nicely put it, some players just shouldn't be allowed to play a paladin.

And please find me anywhere in 3.5 or PF where it says anything about donating?

And at least the person in your example is supporting a "good" cause. Lawful Good doesn't mean all good plus all law, or one or the other being switched on and off. In discussions of a lawful good person faced with issues of law and justice they will see it is about justice and law tempered with mercy and compassion and meeting the spirit of the law as more important than following the letter of the law. But most importantly a paladin is Good. He can tolerate and even befriend those misguided others of non-evil alignments in the hope that his example will lead them to see that his way is best.

I personally think that you just don't "get" it and I also think that you don't want to get it.

And that is before you get to the oddest one of all to me- that they must help the poor /as long as they aren't chaotic/.. wth?
"3) help those in need (provided not evil or chaotic) "
Keep in mind- this isn't some vague guideline. the Paladin can not help those in need who are evil or chaotic. It's also part of "the code"- meaning that they can't consort with others who continually DO help GOOD folk who happen to be chaotic.

That's not what the code says

The code says:

help those in need (provided they do not use that help for evil or chaotic ends).

it does not say "help those who in need (provided not evil or chaotic)"

I think you need to refresh your reading on some of these issues.

You are taking a very extreme, narrow and rigid view of the paladin that pretty much makes the class unplayable in a D&D group and it seems like you are intentionally trying to make the paladin unplayable. I completely disagree with your take on how a paladin should or must be played.

Please don't form a mob to find me for saying this, but 4th ed to a step in the right direction for alignments. I'm as attached to anyone to our nine axioms of alignment, and I don't see a real need to retire them. But somethings do need to be changed.

The problem is they define too much of a character, and tend to be too simplistic in our role-playing intensive games. We use alignments less and less as a roleplaying tool and more and more as simply another function to determine whether a spell or ability affected a character.

All characters are locked into the alignment system. That's fine. But when you force certain classes to be locked in even further, you limit them too greatly and create inherent conflicts. Are all barbarians loners who never band together? Their chaotic natures would imply so. What about the barbarian in a recent game who was serving his father the chief because he was a dutiful son and loyal servant? He has to be chaotic, according to the rules, even though his rage is flavored more as a fighting style than internal anger.

Let alignments represent the core values of a character and their approach to others. Don't make it a statement of their internal motivations and demeanor. Let roleplaying do that.

The reason "just houserule it" doesn't work is because I play in four floating games with four seperate groups, and occasionally a number of pick-up games. Houserules don't always transfer well and in a casual pick-up setting you need a hard and fast set of rules to adhere to so that play can move forward without arguing about what means what.

I have to agree with you here on a few points Brother..

I have always held a relaxed opinion on alignments in general except for where it applied in an important way such as a requirement for the paladin class. And mainly, this is the class that stirs up the alignment debate the most. I believe that a paladin should be LG and played as such to the best of a player's abilities. LG is the hardest alignment to play and that is why it is a balancing restriction for the abilties that a paladin player gets.

With regards to the monk, the D&D monk is based on the shaolin monk. Clearly a lawful conept. All of the many martial arts movies, that have martial artists as the central figures, aren't necessarily about monks - many are warriors or fighters who specialize in martial arts - or in D&D: improved unarmed strike, except that concept for D&D has nearly zero flavor ha So is drunken master a monk? or was he? not necessarily... unless the movie said so.

OK getting out my tower shield...I agree that 4th ed is a step in the right direction for alignments. Can someone really tell me what is different between a neutral good person and a chaotic good person? there really isn't any sort meaningful one. So just combing these ones and saying "Good" covers both bases. I think lawful good stands on its own and you can argue for what it is. Conversely, what is the real difference between chaotic evil and neutral evil? tough call. Unfortunately 4th ed missed here and left chaotic evil as the two name evil when I think it should have been Lawful Evil. I think Unaligned is a good change from true neutral. That was a bogus alignment and if you think about it, the strict adherance to the "balance" of the old true neutal; is really a very lawful concept. If I was going to break out my new alignments I would do it this way

Lawful good
Good - includes NG and CG
Lawful - old LN
Unaligned - includes N and CN
Lawful Evil
Evil - includes CE and NE

Six "alignments" covers it all but that is just my opinion.

So, bards should be allowed to be any alignment. The whole point of barbarians is that they aren't supposed to be civilized but does that mean they can't be lawful in any concept... they would follow tribal rules after all? but in the scope of D&D i see how a lawful barbarian would be stretch but still possible. the D&D monk, in the concept of the shaolin monk is, lawful.

Furthermore, the smiting as you word it - that you "hit then declare the smite" is not appealing to me.

As I've said dozens of times, the paladin needs to be ABLE to hit his target - thats where he has the hardest time in combat.

The smite needs to add a bonus to Hit! Doing damage IF you hit is irrelevant, if you cant actually hit your BBEG. So wording it as you put it is not helpful (to me), though I do advocate wording that the smite is not wasted if you miss.

I fully agree. The paladin needs a bonus to hit with smite. It should be substantial and i think it should be the paladin's level as the bonus to hit. Forget cha bonus let it be level, or if you want cha bonus, then level + cha bonus.

The way I see it working is:

HOLY AVENGER:

SMITE EVIL: 1+CHA mod...

Me thinks that I like this. Not 100% sure but I could get behind this idea.

Although, if a "full smite" is to be a single attack per use why not let the damage just be a flat 1d6 for each level of the paladin?

Rogues can sneak attack all day long doing 1d6 per 2 levels. If a paladin is burning one of a finite number, let him blast at 1d6 per level. Let him add his full pally level to the attack roll. Let him do double smite damage against [Evil] nasties. Now that's a smite!

This can't be unbalancing or overpowered compared to sneak attack. Sneak attack is unlimited uses per day and the situational prerequisite (minimum flank opponent) is easy to achieve.

Not only MUST the paladin abide by those rules, but they can't consort with those who do not also follow the code....

...Being a Paladin in a group means /the group must act like the paladin/....

...Because the Paladin can't consort with people who do not uphold the Paladin code....

Hi Selgard. Good post.

This assertion that the paladin can not consort with those who do not follow the paladin code is incorrect.

There have been many articles, discussions over the years that a paladin has been in the game - from lawful good doesn't mean awful stupid to just paladin RP in general - the paladin can and must consort with people who don't follow the paladin's code because most people are not paladins. He can lead by example but he will not force others to act the same way. He can point out their errors, in his view, or stop an action they believe to be evil or injust as they must, but this does not mean he can't consort or even befriend characters who don't meet the ideals of a paladin.

The restriction on the paladin right out of the 3.5 PHB is:

"While she may adventure with those of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen,followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Nowhere does it say that the other characters must behave like paladins. A character consistently offending the paladin's moral code is not the same as saying that every character must follow the paldin's code of conduct. If there is an evil character in the party who hides their nature and deeds from the paladin keeping the paladin unaware, the paladin may continue to adventure with that character up until that characters nature is revealed. perhaps the paladin catches that person in the act? that can make for a great roleplaying situation, maybe the paladin makes it his goal to redeeem the evil PC or maybe he decides to turn him in. Would he go so far as to want to kill the evil character? maybe so.

One thing to recognize is this: there are many players and some DMs out there who love to trip up and mess with the paladin. and there are those players and some DMs who don't know how a paladin "should" best be played. Either extreme is wrong and a happy middle ground needs to be found in the group. A paladin who is tries to be a role model to others in the group who don't meet the paladin's ideals and perhaps attempts to provide guidance here and there is a good example of that middle ground.

So can the paladin consort with those who don't live up to the paladin code? The answer is "Yes".

I think this is a good suggestion. it makes sense and gives these CON-less enemies more toughness that they lack.

I must say that I thought taking the CON scores away for undead, constructs and such wasn't my favorite thing in 3/3.5. The idea of say a fighter with a high con being turned into a vampire could actually lose hitpoints. that didn't make sense to me.

wrote about oaths and other good stuff

Hi Vult, and others. I commend you on the concept of the Oaths. It is not my preferred way to go but I think it is something that I could get behind. same thinking about the +/+ for unused smites - nice idea one i could support but not my preferred way to go.

I have been thinking about a few "always on" mechanics, among other things, and I think these are fairly simple and they fit well with the paladin concept. I will list them, and some are repeated from my past posts and other people’s ideas.

1. Weapon of Choice. The paladin is a skilled warrior who must hone his skills to best serve the cause of good. The paladin selects one weapon at first level as his weapon of choice.

1st level he gains +1 to hit and damage with his weapon of choice.
7th level he gains +2
13th level +3
19th level +4
This serves to make the paladin a cut above a character of the NPC warrior class in skill at arms. This is only good with one weapon and it stays a step behind the fighter’s weapon training (except at 1st level). Also, the fighter will be combining weapon training (good with many weapons) and the weapon focus/spec feats along the way and will quickly overtake the paladin’s initial 1st level bonus.

2. Pure Strike. starting at 1st level, all of a paladin's attacks are considered "Good Aligned" for the purpose of striking creatures and bypassing DR.
Why shouldn't a paladin get this right away, aside from level dipping?

3. Just Strike. starting at 5th level, all of a paladin's attacks are considered "Lawful aligned" for the purpose of striking creatures and bypassing DR.

4. Evil's Bane. starting at 6th level, all of a paladin's attacks are considered "Holy" when striking evil creatures. He adds +1d6 bonus holy damage to his successful attacks. This damage stacks on top of damage from his smite evil power. This bonus damage increases to +2d6 at 12th level.

4. Bane of Chaos. starting at 9th level, all of a paladin's attacks are considered axiomatic. He adds +1d6 axiomatic damage to his successful attacks against chaotic enemies. This ability is more an extension of his Evil's Bane ability so the damage does not stack with the bonus damage from that ability. This bonus damage increases to +2d6 at 15th level.

5. Holy Avenger. This power actually focuses on the once glorious Holy Avenger sword instead of directly on the paladin, but of course the two are related, and seeks to restore some of that previous lustre. Notice in the DMG and PF this is a CL 18th weapon, same as a vorpal one, but doesn’t feel like it.

Holy Avenger weapons are crafted from adamantine and infused with the powers of good. They are the ultimate weapons in the battle against evil. In the hands of anyone but a paladin, a holy avenger acts as a standard +2 adamantine weapon. If the wielder is evil, they suffer 2d6 damage plus 1 negative level for each round that they hold the weapon in hand.

In the hands of a paladin, a holy avenger’s true powers are revealed. The weapon becomes a +5 holy weapon. As a PFRPG weapon with a +5 enhancement bonus, this weapon can bypass all DR of less than Epic level.

In addition, the sword grants the following powers to its wielder:
Spell Resistance equal to 10 plus the paladin level of the wielder and anyone adjacent to her. The original 1e holy sword granted MR of 50%, SR 10+level is about the equivalent in 3e/3.5.

The wielder may use greater dispel magic once per round as a standard action (area dispel only) using the paladin’s level as the caster level. In addition, on a successful critical hit with the weapon, the wielder may trigger a targeted greater dispel magic against his struck foe. In any case, the wielder may not use the weapon’s dispel function more than once per round.

Furthermore, the bonus +2d6 damage from the holy avenger’s holy ability stacks with a paladin's holy strike ability for a total of +3d6 or +4d6 damage. Together, these abilities both stack with the damage inflicted by a paladin’s smite evil ability. i think a paladin's abilities should stack where appropriate when using a holy avenger because that way a paladin's powers aren't just redundant and paladins would really want to quest for one.

And as the last ability, a paladin who finds a holy avenger weapon that is different from his weapon of choice, may perform a ritual that will transform the holy avenger into the same weapon type as his weapon of choice. I would make the components of the ritual the objectives of a quest that the paladin must perform and could be the subject of a nice adventure. This could also involve the paladin actually transferring the “essence” of the holy avenger weapon into a new masterwork adamantine weapon that the paladin must produce or commission. Just an alternative idea but in any case a significant ritual and quest must be performed.

As an aside, I never liked the changes to DR in 3.5 and I always thought it dumb that in 3.5 a holy avenger only worked against demons (good and cold iron) and not against devils (good and silver required-So much for the paladin in Hell!) I’ve always stayed with 3e DR but I like the PFRPG changes to DR (page 394 of beta). If I was forced to use 3.5 DR, then I would give the holy avenger an additional power allowing the paladin to transform the weapon’s material as a full round action to be effective for bypassing DR. Just my opinion here. Anyway, maybe I should have saved the comments about the Holy Avenger for the magic items discussion, whenever it may appear.

At any rate, if the paladin is to remain a base class, he needs a melee boost and to be “The Man” against evil. I think these changes accomplish that without overtaking the fighter in straight up combat ability and really focus the paladin on battling evil enemies and a few of the nastier Chaotic ones...Watch out Slaad bast@ards!! You are no longer safe from the paladin’s righteous wrath!

thanks for reading

About divine favor, that's a spell that gives a luck bonus to attack & damage rolls, and it stacks with most other buffs because few give luck bonuses (the prayer spell being an exception)

Reading your post again, though, I think you mean the paladin's Divine Bond class ability to add things to his weapon. Actually, you've read it wrong in one way and maybe in another way.

1. Regardless of the enhancement bonus of your weapon, you can add any weapon property to it that it doesn't already have. If you're 5th level, you only have +1 to add, so you can only add stuff like defending, flaming, keen, merciful. If your sword is already flaming, you can't add flaming, but you could add one of the others.

At 8th level, you can add +2 worth of stuff (either two of the above or axiomatic, holy, flaming burst), as long as it's not a property your weapon already has.

2. The thing that is less clear is what about straight-up enhancement bonus. Say you're 5th level and have a +1 sword. You have +1 worth of Divine Bond goodies you can put on it. Can you make it a +2 sword? The way it's written, the answer seems to be no, strange as that may seem. At 8th level, you have +2 worth of divine bond, so you could spend them BOTH to make your sword +2. Which is lame, since that is not remotely as good as a +1 sword with +2 worth of extra goodies on it.

Hope that clarifies...

yep... i meant Bond. ha ha thanks

and that makes the ability more useful when being able to add extra powers to a weapon.

I have no problem with the way Pathfinder has implemented Multiclassing so far.

If a player wants to maximize his saves by switching classes, that is fine. He gets great saves, can't hit a thing, and can't cast a spell worth preparing.

I look at all these multiclassing builds and just shrug. Sure they get some cool abilities, and get crap for BAB and loose out on spell progression. Sounds like balance is built in to me.

While I am not a fan of taking a dozen prestige classes, I figure if it works for someone else that is fine.

Muticlassing has its own penalties built right in.

1) You need to have the basic ability scores to to succeed and meet requirements.
2) You gain really fantastic saves at the expense of BAB and spell progression.
3) You gain really cool abilities at the expense of other cool abilities.

I think there are enough penalties built in to balance the positves of multiclassing.

of course if you are a 1/1 fighter/ranger for example you have a character witth a +2 BAB +4 Fort +2 ref save, will save still 0.

I think the way the base save bonus is allowed to stack is a mistake made by the devs and allowed to become part of the game instead of being fixed. PF should fix mistakes, not accept a mistake and say it can't be fixed because of backwards compatibility issues.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Multiclassing never penalized prestige classes (PrC's where exempt like favored classes where) only core classes, and I haven't seen anywhere in beta yet where you take penalties for having more than one class.

Yeah (although for some reason they left out the exemption for Prestige Classes in the 3.5 PhB, despite it being in the 3.0 books, and never edited it back in; there was a correction in the FAQ, though). My assumption at present is that, because there's no mention of xp penalty in the favoured classes Designer Note on page 11 of the Beta, that there are no xp penalties across the board (and that would fit with the general lack of xp costs, such as with removing xp cost from spells and also making the post-resurrection level loss Restorable).

Correct me if I'm wrong but Beta doesn't contain any rules for multiclassing, except for the odd reference here and there. We are all assuming that multiclass in PF is the 3.5 rules by default. I don't think there is anything wrong with that assumption for the time being but so far PFRPG hasn't taken on multiclassing issues.

stuff... and it was good stuff

OK I'm not sure how to get all the quotes in here right so i chopped them and just went with "good stuff".

I take some of your points and we can agree to disagree on some points but for the most part I think we are near the same page if not entirely on it.

The comments about the variant methods for rolling up classes in old UA allowing anyone to role up the character they want, are only partially correct. That method would do the job but your DM and your group had to agree to let players use it. If your gaming group used a traditional "4d6 drop lowest" method it would be hard to qualify for the UA cav/pal. you'd have to be lucky to get the chance to play that class so that makes it rare and while in and of itself is not a limitation to the class's power, when you are levels behind the rest of the party because they need less xp to advance, that was a balancing factor. OK that was before 3e, and we need to be current.

I get the changes to 3e/3.5 and opening the class, the problem is the paaldin was very much nerfed to the point where the character as a concept is still cool and great but the actual effectiveness of the class in the game has been so reduced to make many players ignore the class. We can talk about what a great "defender" the class is, and that's debateable, but who wants to play a character who is most effective letting the action come to him. The paladin is a "doer" not a "waiter" and characters in an adventuring group are trying to make things happen and the nature of the game is for the PCs to mainly be on the offensive. To have a character class that can't really do that loses its place in the game. We need to put a good amount of kickass back in the paladin and the hesitation of so many to let the paladin be effective in melee where he is conceptually supposed to be effective everyone worries about the fighter's role and the barbs and rangers and the... Rogues.. what? the rogues? come on! and then when we throw out the issue that the paladin should be not just at his best against evil, but THE best against evil, there's again this "hold on.. too many monsters are evil and we need to worry about the paladin treading on the fighters and the barbs, and the rangers, and the... Rogues"... rogues? come on!

Smite evil should do plain and simple +1d6/2 paladin levels at the least. a bloody rogue gets this on nearly every attack during every round of combat because the "character will be flanking", why can't a paladin, especially a low level one considering JB's suggested new smites lasting a whole round or more, get to do some decent damage one or twice per day? is it that much? that unbalancing? please.

and why doesn't everyone worry about the ranger and barbarian stepping on the fighter's toes? paladin has been around longer as a base class than barbarian has. maybe these other classes have stepped on the paladin's toes for too long.

OK i've lost my way here and i'm not sure how to get back to where I was. so i'll end my post and try and think of something useful to contribute... and these last few paragraphs are not directed at jason N whose post I started it with, it's just aimed at this sense that I seem to detect towards the paladin that many people don't like the class and wish it would go away. I like paladins, I believe that they should be a good, effective, fun class to play and that their checks and balances have meaning. Tying all of the paladins offense into smite isn't the right way to go, although the improvement to the ability is a good one and needed, the smiting paladin gets to choose from levels 1-7 just a few encounters to smite in each day. In a good combat oriented adventure, he'll be smited out and if he tries to save his smites then he is just a character swinging a sword with a good BAB. as i read it, his divine bond weapon ability doesn't stack if he already has a magic weapon thatis higher plus than he can grant. i.e. his divine favor bonus is +3. Ih he already has a +3 weapon, he can't use divine favor to give that weapon an added ability. He would need a +4 divine favor to tack on an extra "power or bonus". Maybe i read it wrong but i don't think that I did.

I'm really enjoying all of the ideas and there is a great effort here to improve the paladin as a class, but in my humble opinion and take it for what it's worth, until the paladin is allowed to take the gloves off as a primary melee combatant where he can be effective and a genuine threat against his enemies in the frontline of combat, the problem with the class will not be fixed. all of the channeling, spells, and divine bonding won't accomplish that. the paladin needs "something" to make it better than just a good BAB with it's melee attacks and daily uses of smite. I hope JB comes through for us and I like the way he has been listening so far. let's keep up the fight... sorry for the rambling ;-)