NYC Russ's page

QFT. A no-slot ring of counterspells with GDM on it is pretty much standard equipment for any high-level PC I play. In fact, it came in handy just last session in my STAP campaign when a nalfeshnee tried to GDM my PC, who had like 13 spells going at the time. DENIED!

When we get to feedback about magic items, I'll be suggesting/begging that an 8,000gp Ioun Stone of Counterspells be included. I see at least two flying around the heads of each of my PCs; one with DM and one with GDM.

NYC Russ wrote:

Robert Brambley wrote:

3) AC is just as important at 20th level. With attack bonuses near +40 at that point by the high-end creatures, having even a 45AC means you're hit 75% of the time!

AC is absolutely not as important at APL 20 as it is at APL 2 or 4. Buffed up enemies can have a +40 to hit at APL 12. At APL 20 you are getting hit far more often. AC at that point serves as a kind of DR because high AC can cause an opponent to readjust Power Attack. The types of defense that work well at high levels are miss chances. AC does not provide miss chances.

Here I don't agree. Our APL is 20, and bad guys still miss quite a bit based on AC. Not the super-beefiest enemies we face, sure, creatuers whose CRs are still several above our APL, but a great many creatures miss on something other than a 2.

We are playing Savage Tide and are in the final adventure of the AP now. Many of the enemies are demonic or demon-ish creatures, including a variety of demon lords (or aspects of them) and a fair number of high-level NPCs. Sure, the best...

I guess this view depends on playing experience. I've seen some very sick attack bonuses. I find that the best way to attack at high levels is for the party to blitzkrieg the enemy.

Hey there all,

I am going to be spending some time looking deeply into some of the math behind the monk. Specifically, I am going to be looking for solutions that do not raise the monk up to a full BAB. This will not be happening.

I am open to thoughts on how to make them work without this change. Let me hear them.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Hey Jason, here are my thoughts. Monks below 10th level can hold their own better than monks above 10th level. As part of powering up high level monks, I'd like to see:

1) Allow continued progression of Flurry of Blows at 13th and 17th level. This would bring the bonus to +17/+17+17/+12/+7 at 20th level.

2) At, or soon after, 10th level, allow monks to apply their wisdom bonus to attack and damage bonuses, on top of strength (and dex for ranged attacks.)

3) Accelerate the unarmed damage bonus progression (and AC bonus, as it currently progresses at the same rate.) The first three levels are at 1d6, and then each progression after this lasts for four levels. Why not make it three levels for each progression? This will give monks some needed extra umph at higher levels. Medium sized monks would do 2d10 damage at 16th through 18th levels, and 4d6(?) at 19th and 20th levels.

And for a minor request, how about giving monks long bow proficiency?

Thanks,

Russ...

NYC Russ wrote:

A 20th level fighter would get +6 to hit and +8 on damage from Weapon Training, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.

A 20th level paladin who is able to cast Divine Favor and Righteous Might (both personal spells) would get +5 to hit and +6 on damage. in addition, the change in size would bump up the damage output so that the paladin would be probably be doing more damage than the fighter. If the target is evil, throw in Smite, and the paladin has a higher bonus to hit and on damage. The only problem here is that Divine Favor and Righteous Might are standard actions. I'd like to be able to get at least one off as a quickened spell by burning turning or lay on hand attempts.

As far as AC goes, as a fighter's AC climbs up at high levels, AC becomes much less important.

This is faulty logic at a minimum.

1st. Righteous Might is NOT on the Paladin's spell list. We can talk about what spells MIGHT or SHOULD be on the list until we're blue in the face - but at no point was it hinted that this was likely to change. What we're discussing currently are differences and things that need improved based on what the classes currently have!

If you read what I wrote in this thread, you'll see that I suggested that Righteous Might should be added, just as Vult Wrathblades suggested that the full Weapon Focus tree should be added. The spirit of this thread is to comment on proposed changes. Suggesting that Paladins should get Righteous Might is just as valid as the suggestion that they should get the full Weapon Focus tree.

2nd. Even with Divine Favor - it's a standard action to cast spending the first round getting better, the caster level is only 10 at that point - easily dispelled, and theres only so many times you can do that - even if thats the ONLY spell you memorize that day - to the point of losing any possible diversification.

What part of "I'd like to be able to get at least one off as a quickened spell by burning turning or lay on hand attempts" did you miss? Also, a Ring of Counterspells with Dispel magic works quite well. They are only 4,000 GP. Pay twice that and you can get a slotless one crafted.

3) AC is just as important at 20th level. With attack bonuses near +40 at that point by the high-end creatures, having even a 45AC means you're hit 75% of the time!

AC is absolutely not as important at APL 20 as it is at APL 2 or 4. Buffed up enemies can have a +40 to hit at APL 12. At APL 20 you are getting hit far more often. AC at that point serves as a kind of DR because high AC can cause an opponent to readjust Power Attack. The types of defense that work well at high levels are miss chances. AC does not provide miss chances.

4) With your fighter's example you failed to include IMPROVED Weapon Focus and Specialization - making the disparity +7 and +10! - with Divine Favor in effect (after spending the first round activating it, and assuming you still have one left for the combat) it drops that diparity to +4 and +7.

Uh, no I didn't. GREATER Weapon Focus brings the total to hit bonus from that feat tree to +2, and GREATER Weapon Specialization brings the damage bonus to +4 from that tree. Weapon Training offers a maximum bonus of +4/+4 to one group of weapons.

I think that average BAB is fine for the monk, if the penalty for using Flurry of Blows is removed... it's really punishing at low levels.

I completely agree. If they get full BAB, it will become practically mandatory for martial characters to take a 2 level dip into monk. By removing the Flurry of Blows penalty, monks will be able to fight as if they have full BAB.

How about if the Monk always gets the normal benefits of strength, but after he reaches a certain level, he gets to add wisdom to attack and damage as well?

The paladin's spellcasting is so pathetic you have to remind people that they have it at all, and they still promptly forget about it. The spells they get are also usually not very useful, even the 4th level spells. So, I propose we let them cast spontaneously off their whole list, like Beguilers or Warmages. Also, it would probably be good to change their caster level to "paladin level -3." Finally, let's remove Remove Curse, Neutralize Poison, Break Enchantment, etc from their spell list, since that's what the LoH specials are for (though specify that they are still treated as having those as "spells on their list/spells known" for all other purposes).

Thoughts?

I really thought that spontaneous casting for paladins was agood idea until I remembered something. Pearls of Power. Some of the best paladin spells are ones that have short durations. I'd rather have to prepare the spells, and still have access to PoPs.

Tolkein... The Lord of the Rings stories, which spawned the general outline of most of the type of fantasy that D&D is inspired by, described the Elves as being taller than humans... I've always disliked the "Keebler" approach to elves in previous editions. I was thrilled to see the elves taller in Pathfinder.

Tolkien Elves can slamdunk a basketball on a NBA regulation court from a standing start. They're not short.

One suggestion for streamlining the rules a little:

For Smite Evil, would you consider changing the part about smiting undead and evil outsiders from 1d6 damage every 2 paladin levels to 2 points of damage per paladin level? The math is similar (actually, slightly better overall) and it would speed up the resolution at the gaming table a bit.

Agreed.

Smite Against Evil & Chaos
What does everyone think of this: Instead of bonus damage against Evil Outsiders and Undead, make the smite work against anyone who is evil and/or chaotic. If the foe is chaotic evil, then the smite damage doubles.

You mean the constant bonus to GROUPS of weapons they get from weapon training? or do you mean the huge increase to their AC from armor training? Maybe you are talking about the fact that these abilities are ALWAYS ACTIVE. Allowing the paladin to take weapon focus and spec does not hurt the fighter at all. I am not going to get into the whole shpeel about people worrying about the fighters toes, ive said that till im blue in the face.

A 20th level fighter would get +6 to hit and +8 on damage from Weapon Training, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.

A 20th level paladin who is able to cast Divine Favor and Righteous Might (both personal spells) would get +5 to hit and +6 on damage. in addition, the change in size would bump up the damage output so that the paladin would be probably be doing more damage than the fighter. If the target is evil, throw in Smite, and the paladin has a higher bonus to hit and on damage. The only problem here is that Divine Favor and Righteous Might are standard actions. I'd like to be able to get at least one off as a quickened spell by burning turning or lay on hand attempts.

As far as AC goes, as a fighter's AC climbs up at high levels, AC becomes much less important.

As for Mettle being an Aura. Yes I think it is powerful but does it not also seem right? I mean look at all his other auras, of course groups are going to want to group around the paladin (within 10 feet) to gain these advantages. No, they will probably not do it all the time, but the bonuses are nice. Then once they do this and the AoE's start dropping you are going to see less use out of the paladin's auras, part of the reason people are saying the paladin is "tough enough". Yes I would settle for just mettle but I want to protect my group, how else am I going to do that?

Giving paladins Mettle is a huge bonus. Allowing them to extend it to the party by way of an aura seems overpowered to me.

Looking over the whole post I see a few trends....

Most agree with the addition of Mettle, I can not describe how much sense this makes.

I really like the idea of adding Mettle. This was one of the reasons for ever popular 4 level dip into Pious Templar.

On top of Mettle I still want to argue for making it some form of Aura. As I said above many of the paladins auras already ask that the paladin's group members bunch up around him. This could be the making of many TPK's. If you allow the paladin to keep them in his "bubble" that allows for the abilities to be used and the group to be protected.

Does this become too powerful?

Next is the always on effect or even the addition of bonus feats that also allow you to select from the weapon focus/spec tree. Any combination of this would be great. With those bonus feats paladins could choose weather or not they want to be more martial oriented or more caster oriented, this is a needed option for the paladin.

Is a more caster oriented paladin really needed? It sounds like a cleric to me. As far as the weapon focus/specialization tree, I like the idea that it is for fighters only. Fighters need some kind of advantage.

How about using existing abilities to boost offensive output? Using turn attempts or lay on hand attempts to be able to quicken a few spells like Divine Favor would be a huge help. Also, adding Righteous Might to the spell list seems to me like a move in the right direction.

Lastly I think many people want to see some form of increase to caster level. This has been suggested in many forms. Some want full CL or even CL - 3. Either of those would be fine with me.

Full CL seems overboard. They don't start casting until 4th level. Cl -3 would be nice.

Others are even suggesting spontaneous casting which I could get on board with because he is supposed to be in the front lines and his spells are not that world breaking.

Paladins have so few spells on their spell list, that this could work out well.

FWIW, I rather enjoy throwing a fistful of dice when I cast blade barrier... :)

Oh, I think that we all enjoy rolling a fistful of dice. Under the proposed rules on this thread's first post, a hasted 20th level paladin, who is smiting an evil outsider or undead, while making a full attack with a great sword would have 65 dice to roll! And that's without a critical threat. I don't now how big your hands are, but that's a lot more than a fistful for me.

NYC Russ wrote:

The d6p refers to the use of six sided dice with pips, to distinguish from numbered six sided dice that are probably being used for weapon damage.

The player needs a full array of color coded dice just to minimize how much he is slowing down the game. Without that, the other players can go on a lunch break while the damage is calculated.

Just cuz I'm curious... why would you use different dice for smite damage vs. sword damage? It's all d6's. Who cares?

Let's say a paladin is standing next to BBEG#1 and BBEG#2. The player does not know if they are both evil. The PC party is concentrating fire on BBEG#1. The player rolls a bag full of dice for the Paladin, all at once, to attack BBEG#1. The DM informs the player that BBEG#1 is evil. After the third attack hits, BBEG#1 drops to the ground. The Paladin directs his last two attacks, already rolled, against BBEG#2. The DM announces that BBEG#2 is not evil. The player can easily pull the pipped dice aside, and calculate the damage.

My suggestion to cut down on fistfulls of dice for iterative attacks: return Smiting to a single-attack ability. Allow multiple smites in a full attack, but the character must spend an attempt/day on it. And make it hold the charge. Please, please, make it hold the charge.

Reducing smite back to one per attack, as opposed to one per round, reduces the offensive effectiveness of paladins back to where they are now.

===========================

Here are some more thoughts that I've had to beef up paladins:

Divine Favor
Allow this to be cast as a quickened action with uses of the Lay on Hands ability or Turning attempts.

Righteous Might
Add this to the Paladin's spell list as a 4th level spell. Allow it to be cast as a quickened action with uses of the Lay on Hands ability or Turning attempts.

NYC Russ wrote:

Hi Jason, these are great improvements. I do have a few suggestions.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Smite Evil (Su): ...If the creature hit by a paladin using smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype or undead creature, the bonus to damage increases to 1d6 points of damage per two levels the paladin possesses (minimum +1d6) and the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess...

Rather than the 1d6 per two levels, how about just increasing then bonus damage from 1hp per level to 2hp per level? This should keep the game moving along faster.

i do like it more the +1d6 per 2 levels, the paladin has not thatmuch smite evils per day to really slow the game... andi know my players would prefer to roll damage

As the proposed smite changes are written in this thread's first post, there would far more attacks with smite per day. Keep in mind that high level combat typically lasts 1-2 rounds, and that everyone is hasted and dim-doored to a target for a full round of attacks.

A paladin's attack with a great sword at APL12 would be something like this:
1) d20, d6, d6 (full BAB)
2) d20, d6 ,d6 (hasted)
3) d20, d6, d6 (BAB-5)
4) d20, d6, d6 (BAB-10)

If this is an attack that evokes the proposed enhanced smite damage, the rolls will be like this:
A paladin's attack with a great sword at APL12 would be something like this:
1) d20, d6, d6, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p (full BAB)
2) d20, d6 ,d6, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p (hasted)
3) d20, d6, d6, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p( BAB-5)
4) d20, d6, d6, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p (BAB-10)

The d6p refers to the use of six sided dice with pips, to distinguish from numbered six sided dice that are probably being used for weapon damage.

The player needs a full array of color coded dice just to minimize how much he is slowing down the game. Without that, the other players can go on a lunch break while the damage is calculated.

NYC Russ:

Does an effect that lasts 1minute/level really need to be a swift action? You can't sacrifice a single round in combat to make your weapon ultra-brutal for the rest of the combat?

At high levels, taking a round to buff is a luxury that is often not there.

Hi Jason, these are great improvements. I do have a few suggestions.

Smite Evil (Su): ...If the creature hit by a paladin using smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype or undead creature, the bonus to damage increases to 1d6 points of damage per two levels the paladin possesses (minimum +1d6) and the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess...

Rather than the 1d6 per two levels, how about just increasing then bonus damage from 1hp per level to 2hp per level? This should keep the game moving along faster.

Divine Bond (Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god. This bond can take one of two forms.

The first bond allows her to enhance her weapon as a standard action by calling upon the aid of a celestial spirit for 1 minute per paladin level.

This is a great feature, but needing a standard action limits its utility, particularly at higher levels. It would be much better as a swift action. If this makes the feature too strong, than how about needing a standard action at 5th level, but at 10th level the feature improves to only needing a swift action (and allowing both the swift action for Smite and Divine Bond in the same round?)

Thanks for all your hard work making the game better!

This is a minor pet peeve, but can we have the artwork depict Elven ears as normal sized and pojnty, rather than freakishly huge and pointy?

The artwork in the 2E Complete Book of Elves has it right. Look at page 35, that's perfect.