McPoyo's page

I've been involved with a couple that allowed all the completes, and it doesn't exactly work straight in. A lot of the core class mechanics have shifted just enough that a straight inclusion doesn't always work, or comes up with thoroughly useless or ridiculously strong options.

A lot of the extra base classes tend to fall a little flat (especially the non-casting ones. For example, Knight from the PHB2 can be done better using straight fighter levels, literally), and some of the feats don't tend to work right anymore.

A lot of the material is still useable with pathfinder, it just requires a little bit more thinking in order to get usability out of it, and the stuff that was a "must have" for 3.5 is still pretty much the same for pathfinder.

For the record, I was the one pushing to separate the channel and LoH again so it was useful.

Other than that, yeah, I second the gaining a second attack at your full BaB on the smite. It really would have made the difference between hitting and missing on a, in all honesty, not horribly optimized AC at all. In fact, it was fairly middling.

The new AnCo rules really make a difference in combat. It's like having a full-on second PC for frontlining, and it really helps shore up the melee line.

And yes, spellcasting is a rapidly falling away in usefulness ability. If the intent is to not require spell-buffing to +'s to hit, then the base class needs to change to reflect this, honestly. With some many defensive spells that stack with existing armor, it's way too easy to get a hard-to-hit AC at this stage in the game.

Yeah, you were being missed an epic asston. Good thing the casters weren't calling more attention to themselves than they were, since it made that fight quite a bit easier.

For reference, totally not a cleric capable of healing anybody hardly ever. More of a mobile tank (relatively speaking, he IS a dwarf), and comedic relief.

No a&+#~+& Knight means that comedic relief is missing again, had to put it in somehow. Someone's going to kill him out of annoyance, too, I'd wager.

Nope, gotta spend a feat to make it proc like that. A feat from a 3.5 wotc splatbook, no less.

In a campaign I'm running, we formerly had a Knight player. I pointed out several levels in that everything he could do, a Fighter could do just as well, if not better on an equivalent level basis. Knight's not exactly a new concept, it just filled a horrible gap in 3.x.

Swashbuckler, on the other hand...well I've never been a fan of having a base class that filled the same role as an easy to enter PrC, myself.

For reference, I don't think 1d4/character level of the individual being healed is a problem. ESPECIALLY since no one has a d4 HD anymore. A lot of games that allow non-magical healing throw in a costly time component (on a scale of hours), but restore 1d6 or even 1d8/level. Note, that's not the level of the person doing the check, but the person getting healed. Once per day + costly time component horribly outweighs the cost of magic being much quicker.

Even something as simple as applying a status effect afterward, like the fatigued condition or something, would be a step towards keeping "balance". If it's for NPCs, don't put it in the general skill section, that just confuses people. It definitely needs rebalancing.

Arcane fire (su) that's the big deal on this one: No spell failure, no caster level checks, no spell resistance, nothing, and it can be used with any level spell, meaning I can choose to do anywhere from 5d6 (0th level spell) to 14d6 (9th level spell) at extreme range.

Yes, but is still costs a spell slot. Yes, there are ways around that, but it's still just not worth it when there are no-SR, no Save RTA spells out there than can duplicate this for a much lower cost. Even without going out of "core".

Mastery of Counterspell Makes counterspelling worthwhile... sort of. Really needs Improved Counterspell to be worthwhile.

No, it needs Reactive Counterspell to be worthwhile. Otherwise, use the spell that does the same thing.

Mastery of the Elements Takes 4 splat book feats (in complete arcane) to come close to replacing this ability. On the fly changing of energy types between 5 energy types (fire, sonic, cold, electricity, or acid) is just what the sorcerer ordered, and very useful for wizards too.

On the fly is all well and good, but it's still not enough on it's own to be worth keeping the class. Plus, how often do you come up against enough things that you have to constantly swap damage types? This is, of course, assuming it's still more effective to deal energy based damage to such a foe rather than just SoD/SoS and controlling it to death.

Spell-like Ability This one isn't much anymore with wizard's already getting their bonus spells. But spell-like abilities don't provoke attacks of opportunity, and can't be counter.

Check page 388, as well as page 169 of your pathfinder book again. SLA's provoke AoO's. Only real difference between an SLA and a spell consists of arcane spell failure %'s. Still not worth it on its own.

Mostly everything else already mentioned involves my original statement: It's just not a good enough class feature to warrant keeping the class. I never said most of these (there were a few I did say this about) weren't worth it. They especially aren't worth sacrificing off high level spell slots for them. If the only defense that can be provided for why they are useful consists of "in straight core you can't do it", then there's an issue. Especially since pathfinder is being designed to be fully backwards compatible with 3.5.

I second making some of the more useful ones feats, or even advanced down the existing tree of feats that replicate what it can already do (Requiring energy sub and energy admix to get the energy alteration ability, for instance). With the new wizard changes, there's no longer a "Must Take Levels" mentality that can even begin to apply here, and even Sorcerers have ways around it. While all of the former Archmage's class abilities have strong situational use, in a game that focuses on economy of action, artificially restricting yourself of your most potent resource at the high levels, spells per day, for the possibility of more flexibility makes little to no sense, especially since the more common lower level ones can make up the difference well ahead of time. I really don't think Archmage needs to make a return as a PrC in any format.

Should have been a 5x5, unless I laid down the wrong tile. Considering how hard I was failing at life that night, I may have done exactly that.

LKL, the skeletons could only hit you on a 20. +1 for a standard medium sized human skeleton.

And it was 20 skeletons.

Out of the fights involved, two were on average CR (4), one was 2 below (the skeleton one), and one was 1 above. Also, none of them really warranted the paladin blowing a smite on. However, when we ended the session, there was that deactivation of one of those rings, and you DID hear what sounded like two big nasties about to try to crack your skulls open.

Besides, the symbol takes 1 hour to wear off after he leaves the radius of it's effect, anyhow. Still would be screwed at this point. I really find it funny how badly he failed that save.

I've got a universalist wizard in a game I'm running, and so far as has been shown, everything Crosswind said in his OP I agree with. Except for the enchanting like a wand thing. I really don't see that as overpowered at all, since you still have to have the prereq spell to enchant with. It's not like you couldn't just purchase a lower charge wand during character creation in the first place. Maybe that's just me though.

You know, just about everything the archmage could do are just slightly better (or worse, depending on the value of a spell slot of any given level) than an existing feat, or feat chain. The feats tend to be more restrictive, but there's ways around most of it.

Arcane Fire: Burn a 9th level slot, plus sacrificing off a spell? To deal 5d6 + Spell level d6 as a long range magic damage attack? Better and more effective ways to do this using lower level slots, and actual spells, in all honesty. Hell, empowered any-3rd-level-blasting-spell-of-your-choice-that-does-1d6/cl beats this, and for what, a 5th level slot instead?

Arcane Reach: There's a feat that replicates the first selection of this ability. It increases the spell level by 2, but we all know about reducing metamagic costs, right? Especially considering the Universalist 8th level ability. 1/2 levels, reduce the level adjustment of a MM feat on a spell? And you can do it more than once a round? Still potentially useful ability outside of the feat, just because of the lack of Metamagic requirement, and you can take it a second time to get a 60 foot reach instead.

Mastery of Counterspelling: There is a feat chain somewhere, iirc, that replicates this. I could be wrong though. In fact, I most likely am, so this is one ability that doesn't have a feat replication of which I'm aware. There are spells to do it though, and contingencies can help prepare for this.

Mastery of Elements: Feat to replicate this. It's not on the fly, and it only replaces to one element per time you take the feat, however...

Mastery of Shaping: Second ability without a feat or feat chain to replicate it, at present.

Spell Power: Numerous ways to replicate this for most spells.

Spell-like ability: Feat chain to do this, although it's more restrictive by quite a bit. Also, all wizards now receive this to a degree.

Now, combine in Universalist wizard abilities to MM a spell on the fly with no boost, metamagic rods, etc. and this starts to add up. Perhaps throw something in to make up for the two abilities that aren't replicatable instead? Do we really need something to replicate them?

I have to agree with Jason and Co on this one. Just not necessary. Flavorful? Yes. But entirely unnecessary when you can backwards it back in if you really feel like it adds mechanically to the game somehow.

I swear, if that's actually on a crit fumble card and I draw it. I'm ending the game right there :P

On topic of being constructive, this week will definitely see more of the "lower cr higher encounter rate" changes, so there will be a definitive side-by-side comparison. As it is, the cleric 1/sor 2 is out "Divine"ing the paladin 5. 1 level of cleric beats out paladin 5? what? Yes. It is.

Maybe we'll see how fighter 2/rogue 1 beats out the paladin in combat without flanking this week, hmm?

It depends on who is playing in my games. I generally tend to stay out of loot division issues unless someone's being disruptive and stalling the game out trying to hog things.

I've seen people do the same thing Tamec posted. I've seen parties not care about value and just divide up gear based on who could make the best use, sell the remainder, then split the cash equally. I've seen contracts and actual "charters" drawn up that a new character has to "sign" in order to be allowed to adventure with the rest, that covers things like reduced loot shares for infractions against the party, until a certain amount of time has passed in game, etc. I've seen a "I saw it first, so I'm taking it" approach, too. I've even seen it swap between them all when one character died and a new one was brought it. It all depends on the party dynamic, and the game style of the players.

Tamec has a point, I mean the trap he succeeded on was the most difficult, and might have caused some serious pain. The other two were pretty "minor" in comparison.

Swift vs immediate depends. From page 7 of the Rules Compendium, because it's easier than listing the 14 trillion other books it's squirreled away in some god-awful impossible to find location:

"An immediate action consumes a tiny amount of time. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time during a round, even when it isn’t your turn. Using an immediate action on your turn counts as your swift action for that turn. If you use an immediate action when it isn’t your turn, you can’t use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn. You can’t use an immediate action when you’re flat-footed."

Note the difference in the use of the word "Turn" instead of "Round". You can do both in any single combat round, it just depends on the order you do them in, and where your initiative falls in the combat round.

So has anyone seriously proposed making the Smites a per encounter ability instead of a per day ability?

It's already starting to slacken off at third level in one of the games I'm running, and it's only going to get worse later on. It's only slightly stronger than giving the wizard a crossbow as it is, since he gets to use his Int score for attacks and damage.

Yup, in the fight involving the owlbears, I rolled three times above a 3. Now, those three times hit hard, but only three times did I roll above a 3.

In terms of combat, the spiked-chain wielding fighter built using an "interesting" design philosophy is continuously doing the most damage, hands down. He's built for that, mind, but he has no issues, even on minimum damage rolls, of outdamaging most of the rest of the party. Well, unless the wizard hits with his Sudden Maximized Scorching Ray spell.

The new cleric is actually a cleric 1/ Sorc 2. And with only one level of cleric is consistently outhealing the paladin in every way using channels, and actually is holding up in combat fairly well.

The wizard (universalist) that replaced the player's former character (the Knight, God that character was an a~&@~#%), completes the spectrum shift from high defense, low damage party to low defense, high damage party. It's an interesting shift, and I'm actually looking forward to more playtesting with the paladin to see how he holds up with this change, especially as we move into a higher number of encounters per day. I'm intending to step it up into as many as 6 if I can work it in believably, since it'll really show the stretch of resources that way (prior to this, the only resources to burn were the paladin's LoH and Smites, really). If he can keep on par with the multiclass casters in terms of usefulness in combat, I'm willing to reluctantly say his per/day resources are a little tight, but okay. I'm going to prophesy here that he's going to fall back into near uselessness except as another set of actions to take in a round. Replaceable by a hired NPC character, more or less. We'll see after monday's game, though.

There was more I was going to chime in with, but I'm sleep deprived and can't remember it.

Tarren Dei wrote:

EDIT: NINJAed!

Fear my Ninja skills

It's because I'm a gnome, we're naturally inclined to the art of Gninjitsu

Fixed. The G is very important to remember there.

I fail to see why, with 6+int skill points, the bard fails to be a "jack-of-all-trades" character. Especially with the expansive class skills list he gets.

Why, i haven't very often seen a character with both of those feats together used together in the same round.

I have. Should see what splashing a level of sorc for true strike can do.

Yeah, there should have been a "not" in there. Posting from work while half-asleep on the graveyard shift ftl.

And I'd like to point out, seconding Last on this one, if an ability requires a good stat that isn't intrinsically tied into the the mechanic to function, it's a bad ability. Especially since, as he pointed out, +4 smote damage has the same "whoopitydo" effect with a +20 strength mod as a +1. It's still not enough.

Especially since, unless catering to the fact there's a paladin in the party, not everything is evil aligned. In fact, a good portion of the "foes" in the MM's are neutral in some way, or only evil part of the time. There are exceptions, but Defense rapidly increases faster than offense, so once you get up into those higher echelons, getting the chance to deal that extra damage is harder due to constant miss chances and high ACs.

LastKnightLeft: See that comment I made on Ad Hoc adjudication for the throwing, and that was using an enemy corpse (at least I remember it being a corpse) under my light load, which qualifies under the improvised weapon damage rules. :)

Still an Ad Hoc thing though.

TarrenDei: If the combat maneuver doesn't restrict or penalize the foe in some sort of way, it's useless. Situational potentially useful does not mean "useful". There's a reason why everyone can bull-rush/overrun/grapple/whathaveyou without needing a feat. It's too situational to ever spend a feat on.

Currently, bull-rushing is good if you need to knock a guy into a pit or into spikes or something else, perhaps if you need to knock him back a square or three for flanking benefits or something like that. Overrunning makes getting out of trapped corridors/corners possible, but rare in success unless they really don't care and allow you to provoke AoOs against them and step aside. Tripping was heavily "nerfed" down to be much less effective (and you aren't flat-footed when prone. Rogues don't get SA unless there is something else going on that strips their dex mod/flanks them. Which means the trip was pointless anyhow.). Grappling, if it weren't for the way CMB works in pathfinder, would still be the most useful of the maneuvers, especially since you can already move people while grappling as-is. Just not multiple squares while you don't move too. Sundering the opponent's gear is, as pointed out again by CoL and others, self-hindering unless you happen to be one of those lucky gamers where the DM makes up for the fact that you've just shot yourself in the foot against that treasure, unless it's a mundane weapon, holy symbol, spell component pouch, etc. AKA, something that doesn't have a lot of resale value/use out of it.

Nonspecific poster response: That whole "Not every creature carries blah blah" argument I've seen used multiple times by various people in this thread and similar ones makes little sense to me. I can understand if it's an animal or something similar where the spoils of their victories lie rotting in their lair, but if it's an intelligent, reasoning creature (read: Int 3+), then why would they keep around a bunch of highly valuable crap they can't use? If I've got npc wealth because I'm a "regular guy" and not someone blessed enough to be a full-time adventurer, I'm going to damned sure make it so what I do own is useful to me. Imagine a paraplegic getting a free Stairmaster. What's he going to do with it? Sell it and get something more useful to him/put the money in the bank until he can afford said more useful item.

In fact, there were a series of articles on the WotC boards at one time, iirc, on intelligently outfitting NPCs. Sure, there's a lot that's just useless wealth sinks, depending on the situation ("art" objects and the like), but when a guy has 5 grand in wealth laying around, do you honestly think he's going to own just a regular weapon? Unless it's just not available to him, he's going to at least want to make it masterwork. Why use a passable weapon to defend yourself when you could have a well-made one instead? Yes, there's always exceptions to the rules, but if you're only fighting animals, there's going to be a damned good reason, and it won't be "I want 2 mke lotz ov monies". That's why Sundering things shouldn't always be the first response answer to every attack against you. Now, in pathfinder you can just damage the object, inflicting the -2 and the like, which is a much better option than previously, where you had either "Break it entirely, or it doesn't really matter".

McPoyo wrote:

It's the K(Rel) I'm most interested in hearing everyone's opinion on, since there's an easy fix (just not change it), but it goes against what the Beta states for adjusting as it's primary guideline.

Most 3.x PrC skill requirements implicitly assumed that early-entry characters were buying the skill with class rank limits and late-entry characters were buying with cross-class rank limits, and the Beta guideline does a reasonably good job of converting those.

However, the 3.x Blackguard Knowledge (Religion) requirement was different; it implicitly assumed early-entry blackguards were buying it to cross-class skill limits instead. So the guideline breaks down for that. In this specific case, the pure-numeric PFRPG conversion would be a requirement for four ranks of Knowledge (Religion), since that's the same number of skill points a fighter/ranger/barbarian aiming for the blackguard class would have had to spend.

So four point buy-in should technically function as a single rank class, or 2 ranks CC? I don't think it works right though. It still needs a tweak, but it's that random odd-class out. I've yet to find another one with such stupid pre-reqs.

To your question, are you serious? I mean, seriously? Getting someone out of the way fast in a spectacular manner is not only useful but fun as heck. I mean, come on. Darth Vader throwing the Emperor into the open core of the reactor. Throwing someone over the bar into the bottle rack. A guards getting thrown down a flight of stairs into the reinforcements. Heck, Yeah! That's what I want to do when I play/I want to see when I DM. Seriously!

Vader ended that fight with that throw (and coincidentally, it was more of a pin, move, move, release grapple, than a true "throw"). Throwing someone into the bottle rack in bar fight is more cinematic than "useful" and can really function more through DM adjudication for whatever fits the cinematic feel of the campaign. Guards down stairs would work using bullrush and falling damage, again. Nothing described there is truly "useful" for ending an encounter that's not already covered by the rules, or would vary based on the playstyle of the individual game. Ad Hoc and adjudication covers all that.

Moving someone about isn't "useful" unless it somehow detriments the individual in some way moreso than stabbing him again for a full-round. Yes, it's pretty. Is it effective? Not one damned bit. Now if the mechanics allow it to be effective in addition to the prettiness, sweet. Otherwise, Not In My Game does it need a specific mechanic separate from the rest.

I'm kind of interested on what everyone's take for converting skill reqs under pathfinder is for the blackguard. According to the book, you subtract 3 off the reqs, and use that number if it's a class skill, or double it for CC skills. Blackguard has 5 ranks in Hide (or stealth in this case) and 2 ranks in Knowledge (Religion). It's the K(Rel) I'm most interested in hearing everyone's opinion on, since there's an easy fix (just not change it), but it goes against what the Beta states for adjusting as it's primary guideline.

Pro's and Con's of each? Remove it entirely since it doesn't even thematically fit?

The OA book had rules on throwing people in grapples, iirc.

Races of Stone also had some feats for it (pages 139 and 140, Fling Ally and Fling Enemy feats, respectively). It's a basic CMB check under the conversion, but it uses a grapple check to simulate a Bull rush with a larger increment, and didn't require a pin first. It really wouldn't be hard at all to just reflavor a bullrush with some dungeoncrasher ACF type damage add-in to the grapple options, and would be much more streamlined, in all honesty.

Also, I fully agree with CoL here. It either needs to be worth doing as opposed to what you would normally be doing (damage, control, etc), or it's wasted and pointless. There's no reason something people always try to do because "it would be cool" has to be thoroughly ineffective, but just keep in mind there's a lot of creatures out there with ridiculous CMBs that could easily end encounters by throwing PCs everywhere in return. That's going to be the balance issue.

Also, what point does something like this serve in combat except to deal damage? Seriously?

For reference, the entire tree of "focus" feats are a trap. This includes the spec tree, as well. Anything that costs a feat should be run into the ground by a first level spell, especially if it costs multiple feats. That's just bad.

Do people seriously stop reading after the first couple sentences of the OP? Since when has this ever been about combat effectiveness, or anything else for that matter, outside of whether the abilities (which happen to be independent of stats aside from uses/day) are working properly and how effective they are.

[sarcasm]I've decided, as the DM of the game, that I'm going to secretly treat the paladin as having a 22 strength for everything, because then he'll be a much better character.[/sarcasm]

For the record, we converse much more in person, phone, and email than here. I'm just posting in this thread because it gives a view from behind the screen of the analysis, in case things differ in view (like they slightly have in a few cases, see above).

Lrn2read noobs.

Don't forget in Complete Champion, you have the Battlecaster feat, which lets a paladin cast all his spells as swift actions instead of standards, so there's technically already a precedent.

I've yet to see any paladin played since the release of CC not take that feat, or not plan to take that feat. Just my personal gaming experience there.

So what, exactly, are the things that are "paladin-y"? I mean, it's clearly not fighting (that's the fighter), and it's clearly not clericing (that's the cleric). So we've got straight combat and spellcasting covered, what does that leave as the paladin's niche?

Fighting evil? I'd like to point out that, right now, a fighter 13/cleric 7 outfights evil better than a paladin 20. So what is this special ability that makes a paladin mechanically better at it's role than a multiclassed character? What is the specific thing that a paladin should be used to do, and excel at?

Agreed. I'd love to see variant classes for other cultural settings, but for the core book I'd really prefer they have the same roles/feel as the regular core classes. (Some classes with serious improvements, but still the same role.) EDIT: (Sorry lastknight, I gotta go with the haters on this one.)

So the fact that it's an option, and not a requirement, means it can't be core? I fail to see how that recurring argument makes any sense, tbqh.

If you don't feel it fits your type of barbarian, just don't take it. Bam, easy-peasy.

Much easier than making it something you have to opt in, imho.

For reference, the little kythons (17 of them) had 11 hp, the three bigger ones had 41. The allied mooks were level 2, plus one level 3 battlefield control sorceress with lots of disposable magic items. The Web scroll she got off tied up over half the combatants for a large portion of the fight.

And yeah, that healed mook getting shredded was just amazing dice. All in all, it was a pretty even fight. There was a lot of whiffing from the kythons due to strong AC with the Allied party, but when they hit, they hurt (2d6 base damage on their bite).

Otherwise, what Last wrote.

All of the discussions on the healing classes are missing the main change to healing that PathfinderRPG has introduced. Clerics and Paladins have been given an innate ability heretofore unheard of: the ability to heal allies AT RANGE.

I have no clue if this has already been pointed out, since I really CBA to find it right now, but this ability has existed since 3.0.

Reach Spell (Complete Divine page 84). Druids can get it, too. Granted, it's got a steep MM adjustment, and I don't know of anyone who would take it with that adjustment purely to heal, but it's still there.

Healing at range isn't anything new to pathfinder due to that, although after the first 3-4 levels for a cleric (when the channel could be considered comparable/better than the cure spells available), there's very little usefulness to using a channel to heal in battle at all. Paladin's never have a use for channeling in combat for healing purposes. But that's another thread entirely.

Once again, I apologize if this was already covered.

Also, and I may be wrong, but it seems the inability to take as many On-level encounters with your group two stems from the fact that one of your Big classes, the cleric, misses sessions. In group one, he's a fighter, and you still retain the conjuration wizard, a cleric, and a spiked-chain type character. No clue how the rogue plays his guy, but the cleric/wizard makes for some strong encounter endings in most use. Having a druid, a barbarian, and a fighter just doesn't have the same amount of encounter ending punch, assuming both parties are equally competently built. I think if it were the cleric character who was constantly there, and either your full-plate fighter or the barbarian who were missing sessions, you'd see those encounter numbers climbing back up closer to group 1's.

So, sticking with the assumption that you pick another ability of any list up to your current level each time you get another smite per day, and can use them however you wish, here's the new list, along with my reservations/issues in Bold. I didn't convert the Alpha list over since there's a couple different mechanics involved, and I wasn't about to rework the entire paladin just for the sake of Smiting. I've already got a fix I like, and I'm only doing this for ease of archival/playtest/brainstorming.

I've also got this in a wordpad file I can email to people if need be, just request it and give me an address to send it to. Are there PMs here? How do I check them if so? *Goes off to investigate*

Level 1
- Smite the Unbeliever: Doom if target is evil, Will save DC= 10+ 1/2 paladin level+ cha mod.

- Hampering Smite: At first level a paladin may make a hampering smite. If he deals damage with this smite the enemy must make a fort save DC = 10 + 1/2 paladin level + cha mod. If he fails his speed is reduced by 10ft, and he may not make 5 foot steps.

- Frightening Smite: At first level a paladin may make a frightening smite. If he successfully deals damage with his smite the enemy must make a will save DC = 10 + 1/2 paladin level + cha mod or be shaken for 1d4 rounds.

- Overwhelming Smite: At first level when a paladin hits with an overwhelming smite, he gets a free bullrush attempt against the target of his smite. This does not provoke an AoO, if successful he may make a free 5 foot step to follow as long as it is not difficult terrain.

- Focused Smite: At first level the paladin may make a focused smite, this smite ignores partial cover.

- Seeking Smite: At first level the paladin may make a seeking smite, this smite ignores concealment less than total. I still don't like this at all. This is a first level ability that, while only lasting one smite, negates several second level spells (blur, invisibility, etc), and potentially opens up the door to negate spells like Mirror Image depending on DM adjudication. I can see a lot of abuse coming out of this, through things like "I Seeking Smite the invisible guy that I know is somewhere around me". Even if it's required you know where the guy is, it needs to be reworded. This is too strong for a level 1 effect for what it grants, unless it was restricted to things like low-visibility from lighting effects of obscuring mist or something. This needs a change.

Level 2 - No Ability

Level 3 - No Ability

Level 4
- Rule of Law: Sound Burst if target is chaotic, will save DC= 10+ 1/2 paladin level+ cha mod

- Brilliant Smite: At 4th level a paladin may attempt to hit a foe with a Brilliant Smite. If the smite hits, the target must make a fortitude save, DC= 10+ 1/2 paladin level+ cha mod, or be blinded for 1 round as the smiting blow erupts in a cascade of holy light. Any evil creatures within 10 feet of the target are dazzled for 1 round (no save).

- Stunning Smite: At fourth level a paladin may choose to make stunning smites. When he hits with an attack in this round the enemy struck must make a fort save DC= 10+ 1/2 paladin level+ cha mod. If he fails he is stunned for 1 round.

- Unstoppable Smite: At fourth level if the paladin has focused smite he may make an unstoppable smite, this smite ignores total cover. For the record, I see this as possibly abusable through striking through doors, walls, etc. since they grant total cover

- Unerring Smite: At fourth level if the paladin has Seeking smite he may make an Unerring smite, this smite ignores all concealment. Same issues I had with Seeking Smite, except the only way to get 100% conceal is to be on the ethereal, since even invisibility only grants a 50% conceal. So it's effectively a free hit on an invisible foe on the ethereal, which is pretty much just throwing Ghost Touch onto the Seeking Smite ability. See that ability for issues.

Level 5 - No Ability

Level 6 - No Ability

Level 7
- Dispelling Smite: At 7th level a paladin that deals damage with a smite attempt may make a targeted dispel magic caster check as per the dispel magic spell. His caster level for the purposes of this check is his paladin level.

- Wracking Smite: At 7th level, when a paladin successfully hits an evil creature with his smiting attack, the target must make a fortitude save, DC = 10 + 1/2 paladin level + cha mod, or be nauseated for 1 round, wracked by the agony of its own sin turning upon it.

- Breaching Smite: at 7th level a paladin may make a breaching smite. He ignores any DR or hardness when making his attacks. still advocating making this "may treat DR or Hardness of his target as reduced by his paladin class level for any attacks he makes this round" instead. I see a level 7 ability blowing through the hardness of adamantine to be a little silly, personally.

- Impeding Smite: At 7th level, if the paladin already has Hampering Smite, he may make an impeding strike. If he damages the enemy, they get a fort save DC = 15 + 1/2 paladin level + cha mod. If the enemy fails he may only move at half speed and may not take 5 foot steps. Duration?

- Improved stunning smite: A 7th level paladin with the stunning smite ability may make an improved stunning smite. This ability functions just like Stunning Smite except that the save is 15+ 1/2 paladin level + cha mod, and the duration lasts 1d4 rounds.

- Chain of Smiting: At 7th level the paladin may make a chain of smiting. The paladin may choose a first level smite effect and make an attack, if the smite hits the smite may continue beyond the first target to affect another evil creature within 10' of the paladin's choosing. Only smite damage (and the chosen smite effect) is carried over, and if the paladin chooses a non-evil creature the chain is wasted. Note: Also, I recommend upping the smite damage to 1d6 for every 2 paladin levels, minimum 1d6. This makes the Chain of Smiting ability worthwhile.

Level 8 - No Ability

Level 9 - No Ability

Level 10
- Debilitating Smite: At 10th level, if the paladin already has impeding smite he may make a debilitating smite. This ability functions just like Stunning Smite, except that the save is DC=20 + half paladin level+ cha mod, and if the enemy fails his speed is reduced to 5 feet and may not use full round actions (standard and move only). I'm not sure I understand the logic behind no full-round actions. If you are intent on preventing the individual moving more than 5 feet, put in some mumbo-jumbo about the "powers of Good binding his movement speed to 5 ft", so it can't be enhanced by things such as exped. retreat or the like. Also, DC of 30+ cha at minimum seems a little high to me, can anyone pull some positive proof one way or the other though? MM comparisons might be good.

Level 11 - No Ability

Level 13
-Smite of Power: Divine Power on paladin if target is evil divine caster. I still need an explanation on this one to understand what is meant here.

- Wave of Smiting: At 13th level if the paladin has chain of smiting as a full round action he may make a wave of smiting. He may choose up to a 4th level rider effect and sends out a wave of positive energy, dealing smite damage to all evil creatures within 10', plus any non-damage smite effect chosen. Need a defined list of "rider" effects, for simplicity's sake.

Level 14 - No Ability

Level 16
- Truedeath Smite: Disruption (as Disrupting Weapon) if target is evil undead. I personally think this is weak for a level 16 ability.

- Smite of Final Judgment: At 16th level, when a paladin successfully hits an evil creature with his smiting attack, the target must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + 1/2 paladin level + cha mod) or be disintegrated. Either this save needs to be brought in line with every other save, or this ability needs to be reworked.

Level 17 - No Ability

Level 19
- Holy Champion: Banishment if target is evil outsider. Dunno if anyone would use this when they could just disintegrate them 3 levels earlier.

Technically, the bears did try to run away after you guys hit them for more than 1 damage. You just managed to kill them with the AoOs in the process :P

And don't forget, your 3.5 average heal at range can effect multiple people. Zomg broken, right? That's stepping on the Cleric's toes :P

The paladin's channeling is worthless for anything outside of fueling Devotion or Divine feats. It's not worth the action to do for the piddly amount it restores, and you have to take a feat to not heal your enemies as well. Well, some of the enemies. If it's a large group you're still healing them. Even as a cleric it's not all that hot. Useful, but not in combat itself unless you're actually turning undead.

Useful in limited circumstances != good. Especially since the image of the Paladin as the brave fighter of evil (which undead most certainly are), and the fact they get all this positive energy manipulation (LoH, Channeling, smite to a degree, etc) I fail to see why they are so bad at channeling the direct power of their god. Maybe that's just my personal point of view though.

That's about all I can throw in from last session that Last didn't already cover.

edit: I'm also very disappointed in the changes to Poison. Makes it almost entirely useless with the new save system, not to mention the long drag out effect for what they cost. Still not happy about Darkness spell either :(

Doesn't Holy cause auto-confirms to crit threats? Or am I thinking of the Holy Sword spell?

I'm probably not going to get a chance before tuesday afternoon, at the earliest, to recompile this thread for ease of reading due to schedule issues, if someone wants to copy my previous one into a new compilation.

That said, I'd probably try to unify the list from the Alpha thread with the existing mechanic running with the compilation I posted earlier, just to see the two side by side, and give two views of potential mechanics.

Hey McPoyo, the level 11 power should be a level ten power, I thought it was 11 because of misreading the danged chart again. Seriously when it comes to editing I really hope they bring back 3.5 alternating color charts so I can stop making dumb mistakes like that.

And you're right, it was meant to be able to choose lower level powers in place of higher level powers. The levels are meant to be minimum requirements, just like needing other powers to get the advanced version.

Fix'd.

Also, may as well cross post the alpha stuff, I'll throw it all into one big list if there's not already one and we can all go from there :P

<Note Section> Because reading through this thread got a little hard, I figured I'd compile all the suggestions, and the latest adjustment suggested to them. Anything that's not a straight copy-paste or a minor grammar fix that was bothering me, like corrections I immediately saw in verbage or the like, will be in bold to easily differentiate it from the quoted parts. I swapped any instances of "hits" with "deals damage" that caused an immediate effect based upon damaging the opponent. There is a precedent for activated abilities tripping off of damage dealt, due to things like DR or immunities, hence the change. I left it intact in the places I felt you wouldn't necessarily have to hurt the target to effect them (Bull rush, etc). Feel free to agree/disagree, but please mention why.

I'm going to operate under the assumption that you can pick any of the lower level smite powers instead of one that must be taken at that level, sort of like a "These aren't your choices at these levels, but your minimum level needed to select them" type thing, at levels 1,4,7,11,13,16,20 as currently listed to the abilities. I might suggest changing Holy Champion to 19 to reflect the levels you gain smite advancement of 1,4,7,10,13,16,19 instead (and the name to Banishing Smite).

Hope I got everything everyone posted.

WARNING: WALL OF TEXT AHEAD

Take if from here guys :)
</note section>

Level 1 - Smite the Unbeliever: Doom if target is evil <- DC?

- Hampering Smite: At first level a paladin may make a hampering smite. If he deals damage with this smite the enemy must make a fort save DC = 10 + 1/2 paladin level + cha mod. If he fails his speed is reduced by 10ft, and he may not make 5 foot steps. Explanatory Note: This is for the paladin sick of enemies just running away from him because he is in heavy armor.

- Frightening Smite: At first level a paladin may choose to make a frightening smite. If he successfully deals damagewith his smite the enemy must make a will save DC = 10 + 1/2 paladin level + cha mod or is shaken for 1d6 rounds. I'd personally change this to 1d4 rounds, as a first level ability it would be in line with the spell Cause Fear in terms of power.

- Overwhelming Smite: At first level when a paladin hits with a smite (deleted) he gets a free bullrush attempt against the target of his smite. This does not provoke an AoO, if successful he may make a free 5 foot step to follow as long as it is not difficult terrain.

- Focused Smite: At first level the paladin may make a focused smite, this smite ignores soft cover. What's "soft" cover?

- Seeking Smite: At first level the paladin may make a seeking smite, this smite ignores concealment less than total. Is there a way to get this type effect earlier than 3 or 4 any other way? May need to be upped in level.

Level 2 - Nothing Suggested

Level 3 - Nothing Suggested

Level 4 - Rule of Law: Sound Burst if target is chaotic <- DC?

- Brilliant Smite: At 4th level a paladin may attempt to hit a foe with a Brilliant Smite. If the smite hits, the target must make a save or be blinded for 1 round as the smiting blow erupts in a cascade of holy light. Any evil creatures within 10 feet of the target are dazzled for 1 round (no save). <- DC for blind needed? I'm assuming it's a fortitude save, to match the Blindness/Deafness second level spell.

- Stunning Smite: At fourth level a paladin may choose to make stunning smites. When he hits with an attack in this round the enemy struck must make a fort save DC= 10+ 1/2 paladin level+ cha mod. If he fails he is stunned for 1d4 rounds.

- Unstoppable Smite: At fourth level if the paladin has focused smite he may make an unstoppable smite, this smite ignores all cover. Same thing here, what's "Hard" cover?

- Unerring Smite: At fourth level if the paladin has Seeking smite he may make an Unerring smite, this smite ignores all concealment. Same thing here as with Seeking Smite. Seems early to ignore all concealment, which includes things like Blur, Invisibility, etc.

Level 5 - Nothing Suggested

Level 6 - Nothing Suggested

Level 7 - Dispelling Smite: At 7th level a paladin that deals damage with a smite attempt may make a targeted dispel magic caster check as per the dispel magic spell. His caster level for the purposes of this check is his paladin level + his cha mod (deleted).

- Wracking Smite: At 7th level, when a paladin successfully hits an evil creature with his smiting attack, the target must make a save or be nauseated for 1 round, wracked by the agony of its own sin turning upon it.

- Breaching Smite: at 7th level a paladin may make a breaching smite. He ignores any DR or hardness when making his attacks. (May want to make this "may treat DR or Hardness of his target as reduced by his paladin class level for any attacks he makes this round" instead. I see a level 7 ability blowing through the hardness of adamantine to be a little silly, personally.)

- Impeding Smite: At 7th level, if the paladin already has Hampering Smite, he may make an impeding strike. If he damages the enemy, they get a fort save DC = 15 + 1/2 character level + cha mod. If the enemy fails he may only move at half speed and may not take 5 foot steps. Duration?

- Improved stunning smite: A 7th level paladin with the stunning smite ability may make an improved stunning smite. This ability functions just like Stunning Smite except that the save is 15+ 1/2 level + cha mod, and the duration lasts 1d4 rounds.

- Chain of Smiting: At 7th level the paladin may make a chain of smiting. The paladin may choose a first level smite effect and make an attack, if the smite hits the smite may continue beyond the first target to affect another evil creature within 10' of the paladin's choosing. Only smite damage (and the chosen smite effect) is carried over, and if the paladin chooses a non-evil creature the chain is wasted. Note: Also, I recommend upping the smite damage to 1d6 for every 2 paladin levels, minimum 1d6. This makes the Chain of Smiting ability worthwhile.

Level 8 - Nothing Suggested

Level 9 - Nothing Suggested

Level 10 - Debilitating Smite: At 10th level, if the paladin already has impeding smite he may make a debilitating smite. This ability functions just like Stunning Smite, except that the save is DC=20 + half character level+ cha mod, and if the enemy fails his speed is reduced to 5 feet and may not use full round actions (standard and move only). I'm not sure I understand the logic behind no full-round actions. If you are intent on preventing the individual moving more than 5 feet, put in some mumbo-jumbo about the "powers of Good binding his movement speed to 5 ft", so it can't be enhanced by things such as exped. retreat or the like.

Level 11 - Nothing Suggested

Level 12 - Nothing Suggested

Level 13 -Smite of Power: Divine Power on paladin if target is evil divine caster I need an explanation on this one to understand what is meant here

- Wave of Smiting: At 13th level if the paladin has chain of smiting as a full round action he may make a wave of smiting. He may choose up to a 4th level rider effect and sends out a wave of positive energy, dealing smite damage to all evil creatures within 10', plus any non-damage smite effect chosen. Need a defined list of "rider" effects, for simplicity's sake.

Level 14 - Nothing Suggested

Level 15 - Nothing Suggested

Level 16 - Truedeath Smite: Disruption (as Disrupting Weapon) if target is evil undead

- Smite of Final Judgment: At 16th level, when a paladin successfully hits an evil creature with his smiting attack, the target must succeed at a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 lvl + CHA) or be disintegrated.

Level 17 - Nothing Suggested

Level 18 - Nothing Suggested

Level 19 - Nothing Suggested

Level 20 - Holy Champion: Banishment if target is evil outsider

:edit - I can't spell "wouldn't" apparently.

I figured I'd finally chime in, as the DM of this game, to give a perspective from behind the screen on having a PC Paladin in the party.

Just some stuff to put into perspective as to why some things have gone the way they have:
Seeing as how this is a playtest, I've been fairly loathe to throw single strong enemies against the two-man group until I've had a feel for how things fully sync together, especially as they don't have a spellcaster character in the party (see note on Half-fiend, below). However, the paladin's build isn't really to blame here at all on this one.

Most of the things they've been fighting are npc class characters. Mostly warrior and expert npc type stuff, low level. I've been trying to give the game a "PCs are heroic, they are awesome compared to normal people in the world" type feel. It's been working pretty well so far. They have no issues getting through combats, since they are well armored enough only extremly large numbers of enemies with strong situational modifiers (aka, flanking, assist, etc) combined stand much of a chance of regularly hitting them, but even the stronger "BBEG"s of the combats they stand up against fairly well (See half-fiend portion, again). It takes a lot to hit the PCs, it takes an even bigger amount to seriously hurt them, and the npcs die fairly quickly (usually within 1-2 attacks most of the time so far). Combats tend to run a little on the longer side (usually 5-12 rounds) due to only having two players, but they run quick and clean. Better than a 4 person group that only took 2-3 rounds, imo. Their biggest issue thus far has been downtime healing in between large fights. Even without full healing, they are still getting through the fights without any punches being pulled on my part. I will admit I've been consistently throwing cr+1-3 (adjusted for a two man party) fights against them on a regular basis, this is being looked at from a playtest point of view, after all, and I'd like to see how the changes work out. During on-CR or below-CR fights they blow through like a knife through melted butter, as to be expected from lower level melee powerhouses, with hardly any damage taken at all. In fact, the only thing to really hurt them in the opening fight were magic missiles, despite being outnumberd 4:1. The only reason they took that much damage was due to a battle tactics error on their part, which has yet to be repeated.

Last's physical stats aren't going to change that he feels like a warrior. I could give him 18's in all three and it wouldn't change that. What he's referring to are his lack of combat options. His tactics are limited by lack of feats that would apply in changing up what he does, outside of "I move I swing". He would have needed at least a +8 strength modifier to hit when he rolled that 3. That would have hit the target AC of 14. Any explanation on hitting a 26 strength at level 2?

The chance to use the abilities is presented, usually multiple times a session, but once again, 1/day just doesn't do a whole lot. Maybe if it were 1/encounter, there'd be a difference. Right now, I'm fairly confident in saying Last would prefer single large fights each game day to multiple smaller ones, since he'd get more of a chance to use his smite, technically speaking.

The detect evil has been used a lot more since he's started kicking it on as he approaches before combat is actually joined, then dropping it once he gets a feel for the enemies, it's just not revealed a whole lot of use thus far. It lets him know who to keep an eye on as a possible ringleader in the fights, but the followup smite is pretty lackluster.

The Half-Fiend. Now, Last knew this guy was evil from the first time he met him. He's kind of been a recurring individual, but the role he's appeared to play has kept shifting ("Bodyguard", scout, assassin, and pissed-off-arrogant-jerk to name a few), and neither of the player's are 100% sure what to make of him just yet, although Last has had some pretty interesting theories thus far (one of the reasons I enjoy writing out villains, so I can see how the party reacts to them). He has attempted to smite, once successfully, but seeing as how the guy isn't undead, his 2 damage/use LoH isn't going to help a lot, especially with a "BBEG" that is melee focused dishing damage right back out. The AoO provoking non-lethal kick to the head was kind of a slap in the face move that accentuated that. Rolling a 1, did that. I have been nothing but unimpressed with the paladin's class features thus far in terms of flexibility, or combat use. At least in 3.x, LoH could be dumped in one big use to get yourself or an ally back on your feet in an emergency. Not so in Pathfinder. This seriously needs a look at. When Last hit's fourth level, he gets access to turning. I'd like to point out how quickly that's going to outpace LoH, not even including the feat that lets him preclude certain enemies within range from it's effect.

Another thing, in combat PC vs NPC, smiting favors the NPCs. Always. Enemy HD have a trend to increase faster than their challenge does with certain types, and unless it's an on-CR type fight, the NPC is going to have more HD most of the time. It makes their smite hit harder, simple fact. The one hit that dropped Last from 23 to 8 was a near max damage smite attack, and then the guy was pretty spent with how I had designed him into the encounter. The critical hit deck nearly killed off the guy through status effects (He has some low value fast heal, btw. That's why that second set of low-level bleed didn't kill him, but both characters had already figured that out through perception checks and watching wounds close), even with everything else. That one surprised me, but it was a pretty amazing mirror of the previous face-planting-into-the-dust that occured the last time the two characters had "dueled".

Paladin's definitely need a boost to smiting. x2 level wouldn't be a bad start, especially considering the limited scope of targets (only Evil).

edit: One more thing, for hitpoints (PC only), we used the HD + Con + Racial method. That should help explain the HP totals for the PCs.

Not to mention, newer DMs may not see the issue with a character until it hits that "broken" stage, at which point they're going to scramble to figure out how to fix the issue, or go into knee-jerk "omgbanz" anything remotely resembling said character (whether there is any possibility of breaking the game at all or not) in all future games because of it. Just because a good DM would say "No" once they realize what's going on, doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed in the first place. After all, just because you can mop it up afterward is no excuse to continue to use an overflowing toilet and not fix it.