cmaczkow's page

Thraxus wrote:

Dissinger wrote:

I see no discrepancy. It was never there to begin with.

I don't think that is the point. With the addition of the other spells "remove speels" as mercies, why not also add remove disease to the spell list.

Personally, I think it was overlooked. Some of the changes have caused minor bumbs and questions elsewhere. This is just another example.

I say it makes a fair houserule.

But that's my point. It was never on the paladin's spell list, ever. So why would it magically do so? Forget that the other spells were made mercies for a second. We're focusing on Remove Disease which is what's being debated.

It was a spell like ability available once a week to paladins.

Now, its a mercy on an ability that is available to a paladin 1/2 level + cha mod times per day.

It was shifted to the lay of hands, that's all that happened. If you are hard pressed to keep up with disease, then by all means take the mercy. If you aren't, then don't choose it. THe ability as it was was hit or miss anyways.

I'm not arguing that because the other spells are mercies they should be removed. I'm arguing that they aren't going to add a spell that wasn't part of his list to the list, because they shifted his once a WEEK ability to a multiple times DAILY ability. It freely available if you want it, and you aren't forced to take it.

The point isn't how often they can do it, it's that ALL paladins used to be able to, and now only those who select it as a mercy are able to. Since the paladin's spell list includes other choices that effectively duplicate mercies, it is very odd that this was NOT added to the list in order to 1) allow an iconic ability to function similar to other spell-duplicated mercies, and 2) allow an iconic ability to remain available in some form to ALL paladins.

Nero24200 wrote:

"Oh look, another evil character, get to work I'll just sit here in the corner"

Simple fact is this is what the paladin used to do in EVERY encounter. Now that the paladin can actually stand there against evil and be a significant threat there are people who want to take that way. Not only take it away, they want to put it back the way it was.... I am not sure why it is unfair for a paladin to be able to take part in the combat and actually do something.

See...this is why it feels like any kind of criticism of the power of the new Paladin falls on deaf ears.

"Simple fact is this is what the paladin used to do in EVERY encounter." Come on. It wasn't THAT bad. There is a difference between underpowered and utterly useless.

"I am not sure why it is unfair for a paladin to be able to take part in the combat and actually do something." Really? Is that the sum total that is being taken from all that anyone has said about smite being too powerful over the last 380-some posts?

No one is out to emasculate the paladin or make the character worthless. It's about moderating things in an effort to keep one character from dwarfing the others in common situations. My own opinion: if a player had presented the new Paladin to me as a new variant class, there is no way I would have allowed it. Obviously everyone has different opinions, but again, the fact that there are almost 400 posts here indicates that something is probably amiss.

Takamonk wrote:

cmaczkow wrote:

Not quite a crossbow and don't have my math hat on but...if you were high level and used a longbow, would 4+ attacks (theoretically 1.5 seconds each, right?) offset the range decrease?

I'm excited to hear a sonic boom in my fantasy game!

You're making the incorrect assumption that by firing several volleys in quick succession means that you make your ammunition magically transport themselves to their target faster, which is grossly incorrect.

Throw a rock straight up in the air.

Throw 5 rocks straight up in the air, in quick succession using the same amount of force.

I don't think those rocks are going to come back down 5x faster than the first one did.

This is also where the D&D physics allow for some strangeness. In some game worlds (depending on a DM ruling) this might be true. Otherwise assuming you are firing off two shots, one at a arch & another straight, so that they reach the target at roughly the same time much as real life archers would do. If you watch around a table however, I'd agree that each shot is usually tallied and the damage dealt, before the next shot is fired.

Exactly what I was thinking. Since you can switch targets, the implication is that you get to see the result of each attack before making the next one, which means that they don't occur concurrently.

I did gap out the whip-as-sonic-boom though. Doh!

Kolokotroni wrote:

Lokie wrote:

Can a crossbow fire a bolt that can "break" the sound barrier?

Considering that under D&D physics all actions occur during 6 seconds makes for some fun effects sometimes. For example...

My favored sniping weapon for D&D outside of a firearm in the proper setting would be a Great Crossbow. Properly "tooled" you can make extremely long range shots and deal a serious amount of damage.

Starting with a Great Crossbow from Races of Stone as the base, you can modify the weapon with the mundane Long-Range weapon property from the Master's Forge article in Dragon #385. This adds 20 ft. to the range increment of the weapon for a total of 140 ft. Adding the distance weapon enhancement to the weapon doubles that range increment, to a total of 280 ft.

Paizo did get rid of some additional ranged attack sillyness by modifying the Far shot feat. (A nice change as reduced penalties are always good.)

Ok, so our sniping weapon now has a range increment of 280 feet. You can fire out to a range of 10 increments. This allows you to fire a bolt that travels 2800 feet in six seconds, or roughly 466 ft. per second.

As a little bit of google-fu informs me that the speed of sound is not a "set" thing but based on air density and other variables, it does tend to make narrowing down how fast our crossbow bolt would need to travel to become supersonic a little hard. Yet, the basic concept that the farther the bolt travels in a single round, the faster it moves to reach its target, is rather a fun thought.

To hopefully ensure your bolt would achieve supersonic flight, I'd suggest three levels in the Cragtop Archer PrC. At 3rd level you gain an ability called "Arching Shot" that allows you to fire your weapon out to 15 range increments given proper overhead clearance.

This would allow our bolt to travel at a blistering 4200 feet in one round... or 700 ft. per second.

Well it doesn't have to be six seconds now does it? Technically the bolt is fired and the hit resolved

...

Not quite a crossbow and don't have my math hat on but...if you were high level and used a longbow, would 4+ attacks (theoretically 1.5 seconds each, right?) offset the range decrease?

I'm excited to hear a sonic boom in my fantasy game!

My initial reaction on reading the Paladin class features was "Holy Crap - he got a huge boost!" On reading through this topic I've found my initial shock reduced a fair amount, but my gut feeling is that there is still an issue with the class's overall balance.

With opinions on the pally ranging from "just right" to "severely overpowered", I don't think the ultimate solution lies on either extreme. I definitely don't think a complete overhaul of the smite power is needed. On the other hand, I just as strongly feel that you can't have wave any issues away by simply saying that the GM needs to use different tactics.

To me, the fact that there are 8 pages worth of posts here indicates that this is definitely an area that the game designers should review quite thoroughly, and I have complete confidence that they will do so. :)

rydi123 wrote:

My two cents:

The paladin isn't mathematically unbalanced in the long haul, but rather is too swingy in the situations that their Smite comes into play.

For example, I sent a 10th level party up against a Gelugon (CR 13 demon) while playtesting the rules, and it would likely have killed them, but the archerdin killed it in a round and a half after the first Cone of Cold hit the party. By himself.

The cool Smite ability of the pally is balanced by its situational nature in terms of the other classes... But not in terms of encounters. A palladin effectively reduces the CR of encounters by ~2 to ~3, especially once higher level abilities come into play. This is not appropriate imo, as it drastically alters the way the GM has to think of designing encounters and the play experience of the rest of the group.

That is no different than what any other class does. When a ranger is up against his favored enemy the CR is lowerd. When a Wizard is flying and throwing out all his power spells the CR is lowered.

Hell if you have a cleric in the party AT ALL the CR is lowered.

That is effectively what should happen when one of the characters gets to do what he is supposed to do!

If you lowered a paladins bonus to 1/2 his level to damage against evil then all you are doing is making him ONLY as good as a fighter (or ranger with favored enemy) but the paladin still only gets it against evil and he still only gets it a few times a day.... this is not balance.

There needs to be a destinct variance between what a paladin can do when he gets to do "his thing" and what another class can do "all the time".

I guess it would also be unbalanced if a wizard got to drop all his fireballs on mobs that for some reason were all grouped up. Man that would be a TON of damage! But of course we know if a wizard is in the party we are gonna spread out the baddies as to not have this occur.

This is not simply a quantitative issue (which even if it was has been proven by the graph to...

I think rydi123 makes a great point, though: the paladin's smite ability is more encounter-changing than any other class's ability against equal CR creatures. Yes, a <i>fireball</i> GREATLY changes encounters with groups of foes, and sneak attack can make an enormous difference against a single foe. But this singular special ability makes an enormous amount of difference against foes that are traditionally the BBEG types. It DOES seem to make one character seem far more important than all the others at the table at what is often a climax that has been built up to for some time.

The paladin was too weak in 3.5 - I haven't seen many arguments about that. But the combination of smite, bonded weapon, and lay on hands makes this character shine TOO brightly in what tend to be the most dramatic encounters. To (it seems like) a lot of people, they have enough unique features (and advantages over fighters - heck, the bonus to will saves ALONE is huge) that the magnitude of the boost to the smite ability just seems like far too much.

No one said classes have to be perfectly balanced, and obviously every campaign is going to have its unique challenges. But from a design standpoint, every class should have its time to shine, and ideally those times (and the brightness of the shining) should be about equal to maximize the fun for everyone involved. I think it is a verey legitimate concern that the paladin now tends to shine so brightly as to drown out many other characters at the most dramatic moments in the game.

Anguish wrote:

Situational awareness is king. You ignore elements of the battlefield at extreme peril.

I couldn't agree more, but if Situational awareness is king and Wisdom is defined as a characters awarness of his suroundings, why is it a dump stat for tanks?

I just figured I'd throw in another take on the whole thing. As a DM I go with the "automatic 20" for all attacks AND COMBAT MANEUVERS by ignored opponents, plus they are treated as invisible and get attacks of opportunity. So, they automatically get a threat if they attack, and they get a free attack when I attack the real threat.

This has worked so far, because it allows characters to ignore those few situations in which an opponent is literally not a threat AT ALL. If I have DR 10 and the Monster Summoning I creature that does 1d3(x2) is behind me, I can decide to give him all of those "being ignored" advantages to focus on the 12th level rogue; I know he can't possibly hurt me. On the other hand...if that creature is intelligent enough to try and trip me, it gets an automatic 20 on its attempt.

So - if I am facing a kobold, or a *really really smart* chihuahua, I won't be ignoring it anytime soon, because if I do, it basically gets to trip me automatically, which leaves me in even worse shape for the rogue. On the other hand, there has to be at least some credible danger present for a flank to occur.

Just another opinion.

So, if I have a ring of wizardry I, does that mean I get to cast twice my number of first level spell slots worth of empowered maximized magic missiles? Because, hey, it's still a first level spell, right? And spell slots are different from spell levels...

If you're looking for a great old-school series, try the Avernum games by Spiderweb software. There are now six of them (well, five with one coming in the spring if you use a PC), and they are shareware, so you can play a good quarter or so of each for free to see if they are your thing. They have a lot of very devoted fans - they're definitely worth checking out.

Threadjacking back to original question:

Likes:
1. I LOVE how effects that used to be dramatic and instantaneous happen in degrees (e.g. Petrification).
2. I prefer the 4E dying rules to 3E's.
3. I really like the recharging system for monster abilities - while there was a certain grand unity in having monsters and characters playing by the same rules, in practice it was far from elegant.
4. The infamous Page 42 is really handy and gives DM's a tool that takes a lot of gueswork out of things.

Dislikes:
1. Residium is right next to midi-chlorians in terms of things that get my nerd rage flowing.
2. Squares? Really? We're playing a game that involves tons of modifiers and numbers to keep track of, and somehow using feet is too much to ask? Sorry, but you can keep your cube effects and magically fast diagonal movement.
3. Adding 1/2 level to attrubute checks, to me, completely overlooks the whole point in making attributes different from skills and and other abilities.
4. I know lots of people love minions but...the whole concept of something that can be Level 27 and have 1 hit point is utterly and totally ridiculous. If you want hoards of weaker monsters, use hoards of weaker monsters.
5. The whole idea of basing everything around powers just doesn't FEEL right to me. When you have all of these concrete, detailed specific cool things you can do, you're implicitly discouraged from trying to do something unique that isn't explicitly covered.

I'm not trying to fan any edition war flames. I honestly love a few of the things 4E put in place. But, as many others have stated...to me, the whole "feel" of the game is much more boardgame-y (especially the use of squares). In general, that is my single BIGGEST dislike.

Maybe not the most popular position but...

Limit rogues to one sneak attack per round. As mentioned earlier, rogues have a million non-combat abilities; there is simply no reason that they have to be a melee nuke as well. Making the sneak attack damage more universally applicable helped ensure they would always be useful in combat, but the dual-wielding high level rogue should not alternate between moderate threat and ultimate death-dealing machine because of a one square difference on the battlefield. Sneak attack is a great feature, but it shouldn't be the overwhelming one it is now.

If anyone can think of an example of partial concealment that isn't magically created (and as such adjudicated by the spell), I'd be interesting in hearing it.

CR

I always thought degrees of concealment were based not on how much of a target was covered, but on the opaqueness of whatever is concealing the entire target. Thus, someone 10' away in a fog, in shadows, or something similar would have partial concealment, while an invisible or completely hidden target would have total concealment. That's how we have always interpreted it, at any rate...

I think this discussion has shown that we are actually talking about two different things that people want:

1) Psionics (and the different/alien flavor it includes)
2) A point-based spell system (and the different flavor and mechanics it involves).

Personally, I have always hated the idea of psionics in a fantasy campaign - it just feels too "science-fiction-y", and the fact that it has always been a totally separate system reinforces this mindset.

However, if you were to incorporate psionics as a third power source (as others have mentioned, in addition to divine and arcane) that uses essentially a vancian magic system...I think it would feel far more integrated into the game.

You could then ALSO present a point-based alternative or template or option or whatever, that could be applied to ANY spell-using class. The issues that pertain to such a system would still need to be worked out, obviously, but there have been several good ideas mentioned already.

I truly believe this kind of approach is the only way to incorporate psionics without annoying a large chunk of the player base. By presenting it this way, you would be allowing more possibilities, without presenting anything that has to be fundamentally alien to the game. You'd be able to draw in people that have always hated psionics (such as myself!) by presenting it in a more compatable way, while also giving those desiring a separate system the ability to use one. (Being able to satisfy the significant number of users that would like a point-based spell system would be an added benefit!).

Encumbrance and carrying capacity always to me seemed like a litmus test of just how rules-focused a particular gaming group was. Some groups pay no heed at all (the battering ram in the backpack syndrome) whereas others calculate the weight of every last coin.

I guess an alternative - if it was really necessary - would be to incorporate part of the old encumbrance rules and provide, for each item, a value for weight along with an encumbrance/"load unit" value in coins. That way, containers could be given a capacity in coins to determine how much could be stuffed inside ("coins" being an elegant core unit), while items would still have a weight value for purposes of character encumbrance.

No matter how you do it, a strong helping of common sense is probably going to be the best method of handling the issue in the end.

I think this is an outstanding idea. It's elegant because it works in terms of game mechanics (great balancing tool) and verisimiltude (if a prestige class is supposed to represent further focus of a character, in most cases it is pretty silly to be able to change this focus repeatedly).

In the interests of flexibility (and backwards compatibility), perhaps it should be worded in such a way that suggests that additional prestige class acquisition (beyond the first that has not been completed) is only possible under extremely unusual circumstances. This still leaves it clear that it is ultimately up to the DM to decide that specific instances might still be allowed if they fit thematically, while still providing a solid general rule that discourages level-dipping and general munchkinism.

I am 100% behind Set on this one. The whole concept of Prestige Classes always reminded me of the original Wizardry computer game, where there were certain classes (like Samurai and Ninja) that were just plain better than the others, and the "basic" classes ended up seeming very dull in comparison.

I love the approach taken by PFRPG to make the core classes just as appealing as theses prestige classes. But, to me, this just screams: what's the point of having them? To me, what REALLY makes sense is to take prestige classes and divide them into two other areas:

1) Alternate class paths/variants/abilities. Prestige classes that are closely tied to a single class (e.g. dragon disciple) would work well here. This could even be expanded to include other similar options that don't, on their own, provide enough "meat" to be an entire prestige class. Several big advantages here: the simplicity of not needing all new classes, the prevention of level dipping (as these options generally don't open up until mid-high levels), and (my favorite) the addition of even more variety within every class.

2) Feats/feat chains. Prestige classes that work for several base classes could be more elegantly simulated through feats or feat chains. Want to be a dwarven defender? Well, now any class could theoretically take the feats that would emulate the prestige class (although naturally fighter-types will be better suited). Big advantages: characters can better tailor their characters to their liking, cool abilities can be encountered in any PC/NPC (maybe that ranger CAN hide in plain sight...great element of surprise!), and when combined with the alternate class paths, all kinds of interesting builds become available.

I've always firmly felt that it should be up to the DM to create the world in which characters are developed - NOT the ruleset. If one DM is fine with "gnomish" defenders, the rules themselves shouldnt discourage this; rather, they should present options that encourage creativity and open character building (in a balanced manner, of course). To me, prestige classes always seemed to present fascinating gaming concepts in a way that was far too focused and restrictive. As far as backwards compatibility goes, perhaps a paragraph could be included for each of the 3.5 core prestige classes that would explain the new feats/class options for conversion purposes.

In reading the Paizo materials, I am confident they could skillfully implement a system like this without using significantly more space than the prestige class section already would.