TomJohn's page

Aelryinth wrote:

The key thing here is Erastil is LG...not LN, not 'hidden' LE. HE's LAWFUL GOOD.

Exactly. Lawful Good. Not Lawful Anal, not Lawful Stupid! Erastil's paladin's won't smite you for jaywalking or slacking in the field, they won't smite you if you if you look at a woman and have "impure thoughts".

LOL

Zurai wrote:

I'm talking about Warlocks and Artificers. Scrolls they create are neither arcane nor divine

Yes, if they make typeless scrolls then they would require UME to use.

Zark wrote:

Page 109 "Use a Scroll: ... as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list."

UMD + Sroll cast by a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin or Ranger = No ASF.
As for fighter. They don't cast spells.

Hmm, interesting. So it all spins on what the DM interprets is happening:

1) The scrolls is cast as if the PC had both spell casting and the spell on their spell list.

2) The scroll is actually cast as if you had the required features to activate the scroll.

I'm to the point where I'm not sure which way is the "intended" way?

I would argue "you had a particular spell on your class spell list" means you cast it as you had an arcane spell on your class list, but you are still casting it as an arcane scroll. In that case you'll suffer ASF unless you are a bard in light armor, or any class in no armor.

Does clerics get a capstone ability?

Because it's no longer a single block of hard stone?

LOL :-)

TomJohn aka Zark

Thanx Stefan and Cormac / TomJohn aka Zark

To TomJohn Pathfinder Wiki list of iconics

Thanks / TomJohn aka Zark

Any meaningful Seltyiel preview would pretty much have to be level 10+...

/TomJohn aka Zark

Zark wrote:

Yes, but they had proficiency with it in the beta too, but they can't use it when using flurry of blows.
I still like 4 flurry attacks at lvl 8 :-)

Hmm. I thought that was a change from the beta. Well, that is what I get for having 5 versions of the rules floating around in my head.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

He is still Great :-)

....and yes we are all STILL blind.

And at level 9 he picks Improved Natural Attack as a feat. 2d6 to damage, nice :-) /Zark

You're right, it looks a bit more like a khopesh. A bit.

Yes indeed, it sure as hxxxll looks like a khopesh

/TomJohn AKA Zark

Demon Lord of Tribbles wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I do not want to have to shut this thread down, but the pointless bickering here has got to stop.

Jason, if you think this is bickering... wait until the Druid Preview, and you will see real bickering.. ;-)

I have my popcorn, flamethrower, basket of kittens and catapult all ready

Kittens?

KITTENS?

KITTENS?

KITTENS?

KITTENS!

<loud roar followed by sounds of tiger ripping a demon tribble to shreds and feeding>

"BURP!"

Pardon me, back to your reading now everyone, nothing to see here, move along...

yes. Dogs would be better. I like kittens ;-)

I have my popcorn, flamethrower, basket of kittens and catapult all ready

LOL.

/TomJohn aka Zark

Great. I will show this to my friends.
All feats at one place, nice. I hope you link the feats in the feat Description (the list of feats) to the actual feat.
TomJohn aka Zark

We make Richard look like a benefactor.

Who is Richard? /TomJohn aka Zark

Or, are we comparing an unbuffed fighter with no potions and no friends and crappy magic items against a fully prepared wizard who precast a dozen buff spells before the arena match?

yes, one wonders sometimes.

Bagpuss, FYI Zark and TomJohn are the same person.

well this is no secret

See my post Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 10:17 AM - this thread
it's Tomjohn aka Zark (aka = also known as)

Just a footnote ...

When comparing the Animated property versus the Dancing property, it would be useful to keep the following in mind (assuming that PF is keeping the same values as 3.5).
Animated is the equivalent of a +2 bonus for a shield.
Dancing is the equivalent of a +4 bonus for a weapon.
That's a huge difference in monetary/treasure value there!

yes. Animated should be +4

I think it's fine. It costs minimum 9000 gp and the only real benefit is that can use a 2 handed weapon. What's the big deal?

9 000 gp is nothing. At level 10 the average PC wealth is 49 000 gp,

at lvl 11 its 66 000 gp, at lvl 12 it's 88 000, At level 13 it's 110 000 gp, at level 15 it's 200 000 gp etc. etc.
Its a big big deal. PA and all other twohanded / str based feats.
2-weapon fighting
All divine spell casters have a hand free to cast spells.
TomJohn aka Zark

AC 12 is also, in my experience, more typical for a 1st-level wizard (and that tends higher with Mage Armour, which they're preparing by 3rd level at latest).

A first level wizard with an AC 12 flat footed?

And mage armor? If flat footed he would not have cast it yet.
Hence AC 10.
Normal HP for an NPC Wizard would be 8 or 9.
Fighter PC vs. wizard NPC and at 3 or 4:th level?
Well there we go againg. Fighter vs. Wizard. Boring.

I would say that less than DC 15 is pretty rare, with (say) a 20-point (PFRPG) wizard. [...]

D&D is not PVP.

Let me ask, the folks who take the "fighter is lame" argument... would Pounce (i.e. full attack on a charge) as class ability or Fighter feat make the fighter more playable for you? Paizo could certainly do that if they like.

I also am not a fan of only being able to rain down destruction unless I full attack. But I also think being able to full attack and move my full movement all the time is a bit much. Now full attacking on a charge, which requires a few things going to work properly, seems to work okay for me. Makes the fighter's charge a scary thing to face, and properly dramatic as well. Although Dragonchess player's suggestion of adding damage to the charge may work as well.

What say you all?

Pounce? It's unbalanced. Se the post by Dragonchess Player.

TomJohn aka Zark

Armors do not need to be 'balanced'. the chainshirt was historically the best armor to be wearing when you were plannign to move around a bit. [...] Chainshirt is and most likely will continue to be my favorite piece of armor and, now that fighters increase maximum dex bonus on their armors, I can finally see archer specialized fighters wearing chainmail instead of getting rid of it and wearing obnoxious magic items like bracers of defense for their armor needs. Frack that. chainmail ftw

So Chainshirt is and most likely will continue to be your favorite piece of armor, but then you add: "I can finally see archer specialized fighters wearing chainmail...." Is it chainmail or Chainshirt?

And I agree. Keep the Chainshirt.

Thanx Kalyth and Abraham spalding for the info :-)
/Zark aka TomJohn

I've done quite a bit of spell research and discussion over the past few years - and although RoE has always been considered a very good spell - I've seldom seen it described as "broken"

For the empower argument - this has been discussed many times - and the answer is unclear. My personal rule is to always assume the more conservative view until proven otherwise...

Honestly - I would consider Grease, Silent Image, and other first level spells to be just as good as RoE (or better in the case of SI)

And that's BEFORE the 1 round/level thing...

Silent Image good? Explain that to me. How my I use it in a smart why? I really don't know how it could be used so it would be great to have some advice

:-)

Zark, Zurai "respectfully" made a strong comment directed at Adam, and you're the one who's turned this discussion into a condescending one, not to mention failed to offer up anything constructive. Make some suggestions on what/how to fix the Bard class, or go be snarky elsewhere please.

My intention was not to be snarky, sorry Zurai I you read me that way.

Cliff:
a) I thought "you havn't played a non-caster class nearly enough" was condescending.
b) Ny comment was directed at Zurai
c) so I "failed to offer up anything constructive"? Se my other posts. If yoy don't like them. Well I don't know.
Anyway.
Thanx Cliff about the info about the 1:st ed Bard. I never played A Bard in 1:st ed so your info is greatly appreciated (not irony).
And I agree with you - Perform as a skill isn't the problem, but Bards haveing to waste skills or 2, 3 or 4 different perform skills i just silly.
One quesion (can anyone help). Do anyone know:
Why Do Bards Get See Invisibility as a 3 level spell when it's a 2:nd level spell for Sorcerer and Wizards.
And.
Can or can't bards use shields when casting spells? Well Paizo don't seem to care about erata so can anyone help?
Also do anyone know:
"Fascinate (Sp): [...](DC 10 + 1/2 bard’s level + bard’s Cha modifier) to negate the effect. [...] Any potential threat requires the bard to make another Perform check and allows the creature a new saving throw against a DC equal to the new Perform check result .
...the new perform check?
Is the DC vs a perform check or vs 10 + 1/2 bard’s level + bard’s Cha modifier?
I will add this question in the erata thread but I doubt Paizo/Jason will answer it any time soon.
:-(
So I ask you all instead.
:-)
/Zark

lastknightleft wrote:

stuff

One thing to take note:

4 encounters per day was the given in the 3rd edition mechanics for resources etc. Paizo has been historically finding ways with Pathfinder Alpha/Beta to extend the day to include additional combats; with barbarians being able rage longer, spellcasters with unlimited features, etc, I think we need to start looking at the game mechanics with a new pair of eyes, and a new set of standards.
Their Adventure paths and modules seems to me to be moving more towards multiple combats etc, with crypts and such having 6-8 encounters before being able to find respite.
Again - using the exact math dynamics of 3rd edition, i think it's fair to assume 4 combats - but I don't think that's a fair assessment for PF-RPG, and as I said - many classes are having their abilities extended to last longer.
Robert

I do agree.

One more thing. lastknightleft lets get back to memory lane. I been thinking and I think you are right. This whole undead/evil outsider hunter Paldin is more a ranger thing.
Yes, I do change my mind. And I take pride in it :-)
I still like the "and the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess" rule. It's a Paladin thang :-) and I like it. z. aka TomJohn.

Asgetrion wrote:

Actually, it’s ‘Dungeon Master’, or DM for short. Now, there are plenty of RPGs which have GMs, but as you’ve pointed out, we’re discussing D&D and PF Beta here, right?

Actually it's DM or Dungeon Master ONLY if you're discussing D&D (Dungeons and Dragons). If we're discussing Pathfinder, it's GM or Game Master. DM or Dungeon Master is actually a copyrighted term by TSR (bought out by WotC); Paizo and its Pathfinder RPG product have as much rights to that term as Mutants and Masterminds does. The Pathfinder RPG clearly mentions GM throughout its products.

Robert

Thanx Robert. Now I know the difference.

See Asgetrion, was that so hard? Explaining the differemce to me and all others who don't know DM from GM.

[...] since we've obviously drifted into bizarro world.

Whatever anyone says to you: "drifted into bizarro world" is very funny (I'm not ironic). And I even though I don't like your tone I agree with you on "Adding Palain level to AC or damage" suggestion from Vult is to much. ............but..........if the paladin is a melee defense oriented clas, why hasn't he armor traing or a natural armor bonus equal to char bonus or something. Especially since a Paladins dex usually suck. Hey, deflection bonus to AC when he smites...not great.

[...]

I am considering ditching the Int bonus on damage.. it is a bit too good.

Some kind of bonus would be nice, otherwise it would be a bit ...not so good. What about half int bonus to damage (rounded down, 20 = +2 ).

At lower levels our wizard sometimes outshone ny rogue but that's OK. Now at level 4 The hand of the Apprentice is no longer so über. Still good but not gamebreaking. If you remove the whole int bonus it would not be any good.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Just to reinterate:

Divine Bond can only add the following:
Straight Enhancement bonuses
Defending
Merciful
Flaming
Axiomatic
Holy
Disruption
Keen
Brillant Energy
Speed

That's all. The paladin isn't suddenly, "I beat the ranger becuase my weapon is always bane to what I want it."

Especially since he doesn't get that ability on Divine Bond, and also becuase at 5th-9th level he can only do this once per day.

We have suggested giving the paladin's bond ability bane, with the limitation of only undead or evil outsiders. I think this is a great choice that should be added. I also feel that the bond should last all day, you should have to do it in the morning and it should be there for the remainder of the day. If you role the dice and decide to add Bane - undead and get lucky enough to be up against some undead that day...good choice. But if not then that was a waste and you gained nothing from it.

As long as Divine Bond don't stack with the spell holy sword.

stuff

Again, your players are terrible at dispatching enemies (and your DM seriously underplaying monster effectiveness), if 10 rounds is your accepted standard.

Now I don't get, but you may explain this to me.

If our DM (a really stupid person with a Ph.D) is seriously underplaying monster effectiveness then we would be able to be dispatch the monsters in 2 - 3 round, or am I wrong?
Ah, the solution. We, the players, are terrible at dispatching enemies.
So both the players and the DM are really stupid. Right?

[...]

Here is a question you've [Asgetrion] come down on a lot of things on the against side, but I can't remember if there has been a single change you've said was good. Has there been? If so what was it. Please don't think this is me being snide or sarcastic, I'm not, this has just gotten to epic lengths as a thread and my memory isn't that great.

good point LKL

I was talking about how to make the paladin (and other “melee” classes) feel “better” without losing any game balance

Where are your posts about how to make the Paladin feel better? - No Ironi or sarkasm from my part.

your [posts] pretty much implies that you feel passionately about the paladin, i.e. you seem to have a ‘personal agenda’, so let me quote you: “a person with a personal agenda is never to be trusted.” So why should *I* take your suggestions and opinions seriously

We all have a personal agenda. But some agendas are hidden, mine has never been hidden. I want the Paldin at lover level to get a boost and I want the Paldain to get a boost to it's spell casting.

What I implied (wrongfully it seems) was that you had a hidden agenda.

[...]

Here is a question you've [Asgetrion] come down on a lot of things on the against side, but I can't remember if there has been a single change you've said was good. Has there been? If so what was it. Please don't think this is me being snide or sarcastic, I'm not, this has just gotten to epic lengths as a thread and my memory isn't that great.

good point LKL

your [posts] pretty much implies that you feel passionately about the paladin, i.e. you seem to have a ‘personal agenda’, so let me quote you: “a person with a personal agenda is never to be trusted.” So why should *I* take your suggestions and opinions seriously

We all have a personal agenda. But some agendas are hidden, mine has never been hidden. I want the Paldin at lover level to get a boost and I want the Paldain to get a boost to it's spell casting.

What I implied (wrongfully it seems) was that you had a hidden agenda.

Sfuff

OK, fair enough. I apologize for the remarks made at you that where rude and unjustefied.

My agenda is not to make the Paldin a superhero, and if you've read my posts you would have notice a lot of the time I do not agree with Vult, LKL and others. I have again and again claimed the 'rewrite' of the Paldin suggested in this thread is going to make the Paldin overpowered.

I still say, There is a campaign all over the threads aiming to make the fighter better and crippeling others and I'm fed up. Your "fighter vs the rogue" in this thread suggested to me you're one of those people. If yoy're not - I apologize again, but the remark stands. If you want to debate "fighter vs. rogue" pick another thread.

"Actually, it’s ‘Dungeon Master’, or DM for short. Now, there are plenty of RPGs which have GMs, but as you’ve pointed out, we’re discussing D&D and PF Beta here, right?"

I wrote GM insted of DM - I made a mistake.

Is "but as you’ve pointed out, we’re discussing D&D and PF Beta here, right?" supposed to be a taunting remark? Because I do know we are discussing D&D and PF Beta here and so do you. So If you want to make fun out of me be more clear since my english isn't to good.
I have always use DM, but I've seen GM used again and again so I thoght this is an american term. You may continue to pick on my bad english as long as you tell me how it's supposed to be.
So what is GM?

Not to mention the previous editions, because that’s where the Beta is rooted in, right? And how can you give any decent playtest feedback, unless you have a point of reference to 3.0 and 3.5 and how the rules/changes feel and play now, hmm?

You have a point, and yet I would say your wrong.

The fighter in 3.0 and 3.5 didn't have Weapon traing and Armor traing and Bravery and all the new cool feats. At lvl 20 they could only have 11 ranks in a cross class skill. skills like:
perception - great all the time, especially vs rogues and assasins..and others.
Sence motiv: great sicial skill and great when someone rogue or assassin or others try to feint you in battle.
Acrobatics, etc, etc.
All these skills now are: 1 level = 1 rank.
This is a change to all classes.
Have you any idea how hard it is now for the DM to make the assassin sneak up behind the fighter (or any class) and make a sneak attack if you max your perception.
So I don't really think it is relevant to talk about any class and compare the Beta to 3.0 or 3.5. Also I don't se the point in bringing in other feats than from the core rule book, feats like divine might or stuff from Forgotten Realms

You can do pretty well without investing in both of them [dex and con} – for example, you could have a very effective elven melee build without a high CON. Personally, I think DEX is the “better” investment of the two, because it often plays a greater role in combat (i.e. because it affects your Initiative and AC)

Yes, true. But you do better if you investing in both of them.

You can do pretty well as a fighter without investing in str. Just 13 in str, 13 in dex and 13 int so you can pick all the feats and the rest to charisma, You can do pretty well but is that enough?

And, let’s not forget that in a less combat-heavy campaign, INT, WIS and CHA may be much more relevant abilities than DEX and CON

Yes. True. And I have not said otherwise. That's why I made the remark about Powergaming.

But D&D is about roleplaying and fights. And the Paladin, Fighter and Barabarian (and some times celric) are the tanks. So they still need str, dex and con. And all other classes need dex and con. That don't make all classes MAD classes.

but I wonder how many 10+ level campaigns you've played in

I've been doing it (and playing lower levels) since march 2005. Is that good enough? We've been been playing many campaigns at the sime time.

I'm currently plaing:
- Pladin/cleric/divine agent - level 17
- Wizard - level 16
- Holy Warrior of rontra - level 16 (I play hjimn sometimes - a NPS we bring along)
- Cleric level 7
- Rogue - level 4
- Fighter/rogue/Dervish - level 8
And I have been playing other classes as well, like fighter/bard and ranger/barbarian. - I like to multiclass :-) I started about ten years ago. The first 6 years it was lower levels 1 to 9. We played first ed until 3.0 came and changed to 3.5 when it came. We now play 3.5 and the Beta. Any other question? :-)

I've skipped a lot of sessions as a player when my character was zapped with a Save-or-Die effect.

I do agree, high level games are not as fun. But Save-or-Die effect are no problem with good planing, that is good team play. You need to invest i scrolls and have a smart player playing the cleric. Or at least a smart player helping the player who play the cleric.

Death ward - very nice spell (not as good in the beta but OK as 3.5).
Holy Aura - very nice spell
Mind blank - nice spell (not as good in the beta as 3.5 but OK).
...Save-or-Die effect are usually fortitude saves. Clerics, and all the tanks have good fort. saves don't they? And if you invest in good cloaks and boost your con. with magic items your home free.

(BTW, if you see “don’t step on the fighter’s toes” all over Paizo, doesn’t it perhaps imply that the majority of the posters don’t want to see the paladin “outshining” the fighter in melee? Or are they all simply “wrong”?)

The majority are always right? Well The majority of all players don't even post.

the so called majority seems not only to ne worried about the Paldin “outshining” the fighter, the worry about the druid, the clerc, the wizard, and the rogue “outshining” the fighter.
Do I think the are wrong. ....Yes I do.
The majority argument suck. So you are wrong just because The majority on this thread don't agree with you?

[/sarcasm]

Once again. I'm sorry for my rude and crude remarks. Good thing you pointed that out to me, but two wrong don't equal one right. If you like me to be civil, show me how it's done. It's the best way.

the paladin *does* have good AC

Compared to the barbarian - yes

Compared to the fighter - no

What is ‘CoDzillas’?

And last.
non-evil undead are supposed to be an exception. If you and other DM:s what to change that. Go ahead. Claiming it's not the exception, well that's something different.

Ehren37 wrote:

Stuff about the spell holy sword

Yes, that is a powerful ability....and this MIGHT cause some sort of disparity IF...wait for it....the fighter could not have that same exact sword!

Come on now...lets make this amazing magical sword, lets give it all the perfect powers for some specific encounter....lets say that the paladin has not used his smites and he gets to do everything all at once in this one encounter....

Thanx Vult. Spot on as usual.

Fighter - "Paladin get up here and smite this wight! It is killing us!"
Paladin - "I cant man, the BBEG might be around the next corner...what do you want me to do then, use harsh language?"

Very funny and true

I still say, I thin the Paldin mainly need a boost between level 2 and 11.
Level 1 decent, level 13 decent.
Level 2 not decent, level 10 not decent.

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

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

Quote:

Is holy sword game breaking? [...]
- HS is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way.

It actually is. It lets you effectively get a double strength weapon, for free, with on demand special properties. You buy regular "plusses" with your cash, and use the divine bond to give it the appropriate bane (+2 to hit and damage, +2d6 damage) against the main enemy type of the encounter. At 8th level you can add an energy type to it as well. So for the entire fight, you're dealing +2 to hit and +3d6 damage.

Holy Sword:

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

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

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

Neither I, nor any other player I've talked with or my GM have ever heard of a "3-4 as the accepted length of an meaningful encounter. What's your GM feeding you at level 16? Goblins?
I go with Robert here.

Robert Brambley wrote:

William Bradbury wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Even the PF adventure paths are only supporting up to about 15-16th level.
So its ok that its just somewhat broken at mid level, and utterly broken at upper levels?

Quote:

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

usually about 8-10.

I don't know too many lasting only 3!
I'm not sure what game you're playing where its NOT resolved that fast. Damage grossly outstrips defense, and casters quickly get fight ending spells.

Good Post.

Well first. I do agree, combats usually last 8 - 10 rounds.
We now, play 2 games. One 16+ and one at level 4.
High level encounter don't take 3 rounds.

"MOST games played happen from 3rd to 12th level"
Very good point. And let me quote Sergel

Selgard: "Low level classes are just that- low level. None of them are particularly whiz-bang.".

That is. The New Paldin don't suck. The new smite don't suck.
The Problem as I see it isn't level 1 or level 15+, heck at level 13 a Paladin with an averedge charisma score of 22 have:

- spells like Divine Favor, Holy sword and Dispel Evil (dispel Evil is great)
- 5 smite per day. That's 15 attacks / day. And hasted it's 20 attacks per day. That's + 6 to attack and + 13 to damage each attack.
- divine Bond
- Aura of Resolve
- good saves
- and other stuf.

The way I see it. The problem is the paladin level 2 - 6
Level 1. Not really a problem.
Fighter get: a Feat
Barbarian get: Fast movement, rage, great skills
Paladin get: good will saves, can use wands, smite evil once per day, detect evil at will.....and you want to give the paladin at level one a bonus feat? Get real.

Paladin level 2. Divine grace, lay on hands.
Fighter: one more feat, bravery.
Barbarian: Rage power, uncanny dodge

well here it begins. The Paldin isn't bad. He got great saves.....and. Yes he can smite one attack per day adn that's + 3 to attack and + 2 to damage once per day.
I'd say. At level one it's OK. But from a melee point of veiw level 2 to 4, well i doesn't get better does he. AT level 5 he have 2 smites = 2 attacks / day.
While a fighter has Weapon Specialization, wepon focus, Weapon training (and probably a greater strength score) = + 3 to damage every hit + PA + Strength.
Also he's AC will be better since he has Armor training and can spend some points do dex since he/she don't charisma.
And the barbarian is also superior when it comes to hit and hurt (even though he has an AC problem).
At level 6 it's get a little bringter for the paladin: He/She gets a feat like everybody. So it's still only 2 smites / day, but now he has BAB +6/+1. So it's 4 attacks / day with a + 3 to hit and a + 6 to damage. .
So from my poin of view, The paladin is seriously under powered from level 2 to level 5 as a melee charcter. And level 6 isn't much better.

At level 7 it's better. It's 3 smites / day but it's still isn't good.

at level 10 it's starting to look better. 4 smites per day = 8 smite attacks per day. Not good but better. But by now you get to fighet evil outsiders and powerful undead so smite is better. Level 3 spells? Well no caster level so spells like greater magic weapon suck.

At level 11 it's OK. Not great. Now we have 4 smite / day and 3 attacks / round. The Paldin now has 12 smite attacks per day. The charisma by now is probably 20 (inluding headband). THat's + 5 to attack and + 11 do damage. Also the Paldin can power attack with more safety than a fighter or barbarian because he probably have no more than 16 to strength. On the other hand the rest of the time the paladin is stuck with his poor strength score.

At level 11 the fighter will have Armor traing + 3, Weapon training +2, bravery +3 and lots of feats and a great strength score.
At level 11 the Barbarian will have greater rage, 4 rage powers and damage reduction, trap sense +3, uncanny dodge, and Improved uncanny dodge great strength score.

at level 12. A feat for us all.
The paldin: Neutralize poison - hurra
The fighter: Armor traing + 3, Weapon training +2, Greater Weapon Specialization (and possably Devastating Blow. With a great axe that's nasty).
The barbarian: new Rage power, trap sense +4

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

So Palain no good melee from level 2 to 5 (and possibly 6).
from level 7 to 10 its better, especially since evil ousiders and powerful undeads are more frequent.
At level 11 it's OK but not good.
At level 13 it's good but not overpowered.

And this talk about smite evil For 1 round + 1 rd per CHA MOD or one smite per encounter. Get real.

a) Smite 1 round + 1 rd per CHA MOD: At level 10 a paldin will have a charisma score of at least 20 (including head band). that's 4 smites per day that would last 6 round per smite.
b) smite per encounter: At level 10 a paladin will have 4 smites per day. that's an alway on smite for 5 encounter. How many "meaningful encounters" do you get per day? 10?
-How many "meaningful encounters" do our level 4 party get per day? Maximum 3. And other encounters? yes sure, but still just another 2 or 3 encounters.

AA) Smite 1 round + 1 rd per CHA MOD: At level 16 a charsima score of at least 24. And 6 smites per day. That's 8 rounds per smite 6 times a day.
BB) smite per encounter: at level 16 that's 6 encounters per day.
- How many "meaningful encounters" do our high level part get per day? Maximum 2. And other encounters? Yes sure, but still just another 1 or 2. A meaningful encounters at this level can actually take a 2 hours to play (including story telling and getting to the place and using divination).

And then the feat extra smite, well it get's silly.
People, we all wanna make the paldin better, let's get to work and stop dreaming.
Yes, Asgetrion has a point. Jasons new Paladin isn't that bad. And what's been suggested in thread (a total rewrite) is going to make the Paldin overpowered. I just think he/she needs a minor adjustment.
How I don't know. Caster level equal paladin level -3 is a start. And one a bonus feat at level 2 might be something. But bonus feat at level 1? No way.

....IMHO.

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[...]

My GM read and nor rule: SA and IA in same round, so thanx.

Nut he also pointed out, Rules Compendium is not a core book. So Jason should clarify.
But thanx for the help, me happy now
:-)

lastknightleft wrote:

TomJohn wrote:

Stuff

OK where the hell did that come from. If I recall you were the one on my thread telling me that playing a Paladin with an 11 str was a process in whining and making a thread where I talk to my DM. Now I can argue a power gamers prospective if I need to, but you want to throw out an insult like that please make sure you can back it up.

I'm not defending one way or the other as to the veracity of TJs comments....

That being said - I think the mistake lies with automatically assuming that powergaming is an insult. [...]

Thanx for clarify things.

LKL I wasn't insulting you. I'm just saying your focus are not on roleplaying. Tha paladin (even with a strength score of 11) is a great class for role playing. Great social scills, high charisma and detect evil. I haven't seen to much of that in your playtest.
Next time you come down on someone, please read your posts. You will notice your not so gentle all the time.

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.

hm,... it doesn't really say you can use a swift action and an immediate action in the same round. Thanx, but I do think Jason should clarify this. Don't you.

I will tell my GM to read your post. Thanx again.

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

It will, be to powerful

or using Sneak Attack was a standard action (which is one change I was hoping for), I think a lot of people would complain less about the "ineffectiveness" of the paladin.

So here it comes. The fighter vs the rogue - In a Paldine thread.

If you want to continue your "let's cripple all classes so they don't step anywhere near the fighters toes" campaign please do it in a fighter thread. If you and your posse see it fit to wage war on all people who don't bow down the the fighters might Paizos messageboard will go tho hell (well it's allready started to go to hell). It would be a shame.

Alright, I thought one of the biggest complaints in the rules was about "But the rogue can use Sneak Attack all the time in melee, which makes [Insert Class Here] *SUCK* in comparison"? I've seen this comparison made between the rogue and all the "melee" classes, and that would indicate that maybe it's not the *rest* of the classes that need "finetuning", but the rogue.

So you and your posse state - I and others don't agree.

wouldn't it be easier to adjust the class features of the "problematic" classes (e.g. the cleric, druid and rogue)?

Yes, let's cripple the cleric, druid and rogue and keep the Paladin as it is in the Beta or as it is in 3.5...keep it preferably under the fighters boot.

MAD problem? Like I've posted, using point-buy, it's easy to dump your INT and WIS to get more points (the paladin in my group has 7 in both) to invest in STR (and CON). It's not different from the fighter needing a good STR and CON plus some DEX, to boot -- or the barbarian needing good STR and CON, as well. The ranger also needs DEX and STR and WIS (at least two of these three).

So you and LKL actually has one thing in common? No role play just power gaming? I whould never drop int. No skills no role playing. Nor would a I dump wisdom. Why lose the only good stuff a paladin now has at level 1, e.g. good will saves. But hey, that's not realy the point. A paladin has to start with at least 16 charisma. All other melee classes can dumb charisma to 7. And both the fighter abnd the barbarian will continue to and points to strength at every 4 level, while the ranger boost his dex. 16 to 7 that's a lot of points to be saved.

"It's not different from the fighter needing a good STR and CON plus some DEX, to boot"
Yes it is. All classes want dex (for AC,saves and Initiativ) and con (for Hit Point and saves).

And, not all undead are evil -- not even in core

99 % of them are evil, all execept the shadowdancers companion; some ghosts and some obscure ones. If not your GM is an idiot.

I'm currently playing in two high-level campaigns (a fighter in 3.0 and a paladin in 3.5)and the paladin completely overshadows the group's fighters in the 3.5 campaign [...]

Really?

Well:
A) we're not talking 3.0 or 3.5 here. Where talking Paizos Beta and the new Paladin.
B) I wouldn't trust your playreport for the world. A person with a personal agenda is never to be trusted. If you go as far as to pull the old "fighter vs. rogue" ploy in a Paladin thread, you have proven to be a person with a personal agenda tied to something very different then having a beneficial discussion.

And Vult - Yes I do see it all over Paizo, Don't step on the fighters toes.

TomJohn wrote:

Yes, yes, yes.
So LKL this is what I'm talking about. "Me no like big Paladin have betta DC then uggly Cleric".....and the DC not also "making undead become "FRIGHTENED" the DC affects damage (undead miss sabe = more damage)
I'm not saying the Paladin have more channel energy or that he is to powerful or anything else. Get it now?

Okay you were worried that the undead will save less often and therefor be taking more damage than they would if the cleric channels because in general a cleric has a 12-14 charisma where a paladin will have an 16-20 charisma. Okay then my question is this, why is that so important? If paladins are supposed to shine against undead and channel energy functions off of charisma, then doesn't it make sense that the paladin would be the better channeler? The cleric is still the better healer, but you would think that the guy who's life is dedicated to the eradication of evil would be better at confronting it. Why is it that the paladins should be weaker than the clerics? Is there any reason for that, because I can't see a reason that the cleric "has" to be the better channeler. For the cleric, channeling is supposed to be a healing tool and supplementary to their spells. For the paladin it's the exact opposite, and it's powered by his righteous cause. I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm really curious as to your justification for the paladin needing to be worse then the cleric when channeling.

"Why is it that the paladins should be weaker than the clerics"

I'm not saying the Pladin should be weaker when it comes to kick undead but. I just think, the cleic is the master of possitive energy (spontaneous casting cure spells, the big healer, mass heal and all that). Channeling energy now is all about possitive energy. ..and I always thought the turn undaed should be a cleric thing. IMHO.
Yes, that's what think, and by the way LKL ..I'm sticking to it.

[...]Furthermore, after seperating them out - return the channeling to cleric level -3, and improve the spellcasting to be the same (cleric level -3).

This will ultimately give the paladin about the same number of channeling at a bit higher DC - but less overall oomph.

and

I'm sure that the # of daily channels in BETA was reduced to 1+CHA was not so much that healing 1d6 was "too powerful", but most likely because due to the paladin having more of an emphasis on CHA than a cleric, he turning save DC for making undead become "FRIGHTENED" was more apt to be more effective - and thus that was probably what the designers were trying cut down on.

That being said - most paladins that ive ever seen use their channeling more for powering divine feats and less for actually healing or harming undead.

Right now it's really limited because the pool of uses shared with LAY ON HANDS is so small and channeling using TWO uses just drains them too fast to make any of those feats valuable any longer.

In summation - I think I understand why the designers felt they needed to limit the number of times per day initially - as I described above - but I feel that it should revert to cleric level -3 to make up for the usually higher CHA score, but still number of times as the 3.5 version (3+CHA) - because he really does need those to be able to use the divine feats that help him be better at his trade.

Yes, yes, yes.

So LKL this is what I'm talking about. "Me no like big Paladin have betta DC then uggly Cleric".....and the DC not also "making undead become "FRIGHTENED" the DC affects damage (undead miss sabe = more damage)
I'm not saying the Paladin have more channel energy or that he is to powerful or anything else. Get it now?

I think I understand his dilema[...]

Thanx :-)

That being said - prior to the proposed upgrades, the paladin still channeled at -3 levels of a cleric; which i'm okay with. I think that improvement was unnecessary and did not specifically address the issues where the paladin was behind .

I say move the channeling and Lay on hands back to seperate abilities - to allow them both to be used often enough. Simply increasing the pool would allow min/maxers to ignore one of those abilities and have way too many of the other; not to mention how do we regulate "extra channeling" and/or "extra lay on hands" feats.....

Furthermore, after seperating them out - return the channeling to cleric level -3, and improve the spellcasting to be the same (cleric level -3).

This will ultimately give the paladin about the same number of channeling at a bit higher DC - but less overall oomph.

Very good points.

[..]Nothing forces a cleric to not pump his cha[..]

Nothing forces a Paldin to not pump his str and dump his cha to 12, thus there is no problem with the Paladin anymore and we can all go home and have a cop of tea.

LKL we don't have to agree, it's OK, but try at least not just to read my post but try ask yourself: What are TomJohn talkin' about. Robert got and so can you.

[...]
using caps a lot in your posts is also considered to be equivalent to shouting – please don’t do it. It does not “highlight” or “underline” any points you wish to make – at least not in a positive tone.

Yes, you're right. Let's all try to be civil here.

[...]how I think see the paladin as a versatile and capable melee combatant, a holy warrior, who is both a “defender” and a “backup” healer and who gets to “shine” against the most “vile” opponents (i.e. evil undead and outsiders)[...]

Yes I do agree, but since The Paladin got the MAD problem and bonus feats he is a bit of a eak melee combatant. So I still feel the Palladin needs a boost.

And I do agree he /she sould shine against undead and evil outsiders.
For me they are the essence of evil. All these creatures av damaged by holy water. And they can't ever be anything but evil.
Undead are made of negative energy, and Demons and devils are the evil of all evil.
Evil dragons or Evil kings? Well there are good dragons and good kings, and neutral kings etc. But there are no good demons or good devils.
....and Asgetrion, all undead are evil ;-)

Hey you all. I came up with an Idea. Perhaaps a bit unusual.
What if the Paladin at higher levels get a bonus to charisma (and strength?), let's say at level 4 or level 6 and then later at level XX. That way the Paladin could start out with a decent strength score and the changes to the claas don't need to be as drastic.

It would take years for the type of playtest you are talking about.

Yes I know. I'm not saying we have to before we write anything. I'm just saying we can't be sure we (or Jason Bulmahn) have the right solution. So I thought I would be good to step back and let go of the details for a moment and just do a summarize. Look at my post as a complement.

i must tell you I think we HAVE been looking at the big picture.

I wasn't criticizing you. When I use the phrase "looking at the big picture" I was refering to, "not getting in to details".

TomJohn wrote:

Also, I don't like the paldin now channel energt better than the cleric, In My Humble Opinion

Um okay what's funny is you had me agreeing with you completely through that whole scpheel, then you said this...

WHAT? channeling isn't stat dependant, it's level dependant. And the cleric has a constant pool, the paladin has his based on his LoH, which is his cha mod +1/2 his level. Which does mean at higher levels if the cleric hasn't pumped his cha, then yes the paladin has more uses, but he had fewer for the majority of the game. And the amount healed is = to what the cleric does, so in what way is the paladin better at channeling?

Sorry, I'm a bit vague again. My poor English and all :-)

I mean, the Paladin don't outshines the cleric. Nor does he outshine the clerc when we talk healing. Nor is the Paldins channel energy overpowered.
Want I ment is, when it comes to hurt undead by channeling the Paladin is mightier than the cleric, starting av level 4. Don't like it.
OK if he get a boost and outshines the cleric at level 20 I don't care. At level 20 a cleric can cast 4, 5 or 6 mass heal per day.
I'm just saying a level 4 Paldin shouldn't beat a cleric when it comes to hurt undead by channeling energy.
So the proble is not that the Paldin is to good - he/she isn't.
So the proble is not that a level 4 Paldin is better tha a level 4 cleric - because he/she isn't.
The problem is, the DC is based on charisma. And the Paldin will always beat the cleic.

So I hope I don't seam to crazy

This is one of the best posts I have read by you.

Thanx :-)

That said I have 2 issues.
First, MOST of the suggestions that have been listed earlier HAVE been play tested.

Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer) posted the new Paladin Fri, Oct 10, 2008, 11:06 PM .

Have it been playtested from level 1 to 20 or even from level 1 to 12?
Well I don't think so.

Have your / our paldin been playtested? Have it been playtested from level 1 to 20 or even from level one to 12? I don't think so. But it's still good people are enthusiastic.

Second, the issues that you summarized are mostly correct. The solution? That is what we have been debating for over 600 posts. The solution is in there...it just needs to be implemented. I personally feel that my thread with a summary of this one hit the high points of this debate. I feel that the changes listed there are the necessary steps to the paladin we want.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps not. I just thought it might be helpful just to look at the big picture too.

I'm pretty sure that if you've used your swift action in the round you don't get to use your immediate action that round. So you wouldn't have been able to use that immediate action in the first place, though I could be wrong.

Yes it's confusing. Even our GM finds it confusing. He's been playing since 1:st ed (and he's got a Ph.D.).

In any case. No immediate action in the same round as swift action equals
most immediate action Rage power suck.
:-(