Lay on Hands.
I like the idea of being able to use it many times a day and then use those "charges" to create other effects - great stuff! But by limiting the Paladin to only being able to heal their HD in hit points per level it really kills their ability to stay on the front lines for as long. At any given level, the average amount of damage you take from an enemy hit will be higher than your HD meaning that using LoH on yourself in combat is now at best playing a game of catch-up and at worst a liability.
I think this could be easily fixed by allowing the character to "burn" more than one LoH "charge" at a time - perhaps scaled by level?
A code of conduct is not the same a following one's conscience. A code of conduct requires adherence to an external set of values even when those values might conflict with the character's immediate instincts. This is one of the differences between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good.
A CG character will do what they feel is right at that moment. An LG character will do what an external and structured value system tells him is right. This value system need not come from society. It can come from...well, anywhere, including the character's own mind, as long as it ends up as a structured set of behaviours that do not change simply because the situation has changed.
To be honest, we can characterise Robin Hood either way because I don't know if he jumped into each situation and handled it as he thought best at the time, or if he had a very strong set of ethics and morals he rigorously applied in order to justify his behaviour. But I think the character works both ways, and all I was really trying to do was give examples of lawful characters working outside what we might traditionally associate with that alignment.
CG is all about following your own moral compass and allowing for "true north" to change according to the circumstances you're in. LG is all about setting "true north" as unchangeable and sticking to it. Both are honourable because both are good, but it's how you go about it - structured and methodical or however feels right today - that makes that difference and that's a matter of personal character outlook. I really don't think it has anything to do with whether you follow your own views or society's as that basically means it would be impossible to be a lawful good character if you were raised in Hell for instance. Plus there are some very chaotic and neutral societies. So being a lawful good character in an anarchist society...how would you manage that if lawfulness is determined by "society"?
And I think that having an inviolable code of conduct means that you need to have a structured and disciplined personal outlook, or your instinct will be to abandon that code every time your personal compass points north-north-west.
(Note, I'm not trying to suggest one method is better or more honourable or more ethically correct, just trying to suggest that the difference is whether you think that you should tailor your response to the situation or stick to absolutes.)
I discussed the issue at length here, but basically I think that the paladin has to stay Lawful Good.
Because a paladin has a code of behaviour and adhering to that code makes them lawful.
Holy warriors of other alignments are fine, but they aren't paladins because a CG character, for instance, would never define themselves by a code of behaviour. And this can apply to even seemingly chaotic characters.
I think the example I gave in the linked thread is Robin Hood. Easy to say, oh, CG, for sure. But actually I think LG is more accurate. He doesn't abide by the law of the land, but he does abide by a very stringent code of moral behaviour.
I like the alignment restriction because it helps define the paladin, and its never made me feel I couldn't play a holy warrior of another alignment. Just...not a paladin.
That it EXISTS!
Also, charisma based spellcasting for the Paladin. Bloodlines for the Sorcerer. Everything about the CMB. The wonderful new flavoursome combat feats like Dazzling Display! The new flavour for the Gnome. Rehabbing classes like the Fighter and Barbarian to something I'd actually want to play. Returning to the 3.0 style of Bard. Weapon proficiencies for humans. The new attribute bonuses for races. The new skill system!!
Basically most stuff!
quest-master - regarding your concerns about using the mount as a storage beast, I don't think that that's a problem, honestly.
Anything that's as useful as a wand of dispelling wouldn't be something I'd be storing in a time-sensitive "locker" while out adventuring, and if it were, I fail to see how using the mount this way is any different to investing in a Bag of Holding. Probably less challenging to a DM since a mount has far less carrying capacity than even a small Bag of Holding.
As to using the amount of time the mount can be summoned for as a total daily limit, I'm fine with that, as long as it can be broken up into smaller chunks, though honestly after twelfth level the distinction is meaningless since it can be summoned for the whole day anyway.
And also I don't think the issue here is how long it can be summoned for, more that you may need/want to summon it multiple times a day. For instance to use for transport, then dismiss it while travelling through small passageways or a dungeon, or because you don't want to pay for stabling, then it needs to be summoned again later to either help in a fight or provide further transport.
Chiming in as one of the players in tfad's game - I approve this playtest report!
For the record, I'm the one who is worried about the sudden drop in the Paladin's ability to heal per round (though I'm also ECSTATIC that they are now charisma-based casters), but I've left my thoughts on that in more detail in the think-tank.
I also come down on the side of, "Did what you could while keeping back-compatibility," regarding the Monk.
As to the Ranger, just to wave a hand as also thinking other options would be great. It wouldn't step on the fighter's toes as the Ranger still has less than half their number of feats and the Ranger is also required to "theme" their fighting style. So even if we included skirmishers, mounted combat, etc., the Ranger would still be limited to taking a certain "chain" of feats while the fighter can customise.
So the fighter not only wins in terms of sheer numbers of feats, but also in terms of flexibility.
Also, no one is currently arguing that a Ranger steps on the fighter's toes because they are able to use two-weapon fighting or specialise in bow-use - both of which are skills that a fighter might choose to specialise in. Because a fighter would be better at it, or could be as good as the ranger and have a whole other bunch of abilities.
As a longtime Paladin fan, I was generally very pleased with the paladin rewrite. I like the idea of giving them broader healing abilities (neutralize poison/remove curse, etc.) tied to their Lay on Hands, and by increasing the number of times you get that but decreasing the energy channelling I think it works quite well.
I also really, really like the fact that spellcasting is now charisma-based as it helps address the Paladin's mulit-stat dependency without removing their charismatic feel by going with wisdom instead. I always liked the flavour the charisma-association added to the class.
There are, however, two issues I'd like to raise, one small the other, in my opinion, fairly large.
The small issue is that the abilities associated with boosting your holy weapon are now able to be used multiple times a day, but no such revision has occured for the paladin's mount, which remains as only being summonable once a day.
The larger issue is the way Lay on Hands has changed in terms of healing. While I know that the overall effect is that the Paladin can heal more hitpoints per day total, the fact that the number you can heal in a round is limited by your hit dice is worrying to me.
I liked it when you could choose to expend all of your LoH in order to really recover during a fight, but now, because you can only ever heal your hit dice, you will always be healing significantly less than the average damaging hit you receive. In effect, healing yourself in combat will become dangerous as you're likely to heal less damage than you'll take if you get hit.
It's like being stuck with Cure Light Wounds in the Big League Fights.
I know that the difference for some paladins might be small (characters who only ever had a +1 or +2 modifier) but I've always considered Charisma to be a paladin's most important stat (and am very happy to see an increase in its importance - see above). And this now means that my 17th level Paladin, who's managed to slowly up her charisma to 20, has gone from healing a potential 85 hit points a round (albeit only able to do so once a day) to 17. True, she can do so many, many times, and can now heal over 200 HP per day, but to do so requires many rounds. Effectively she can no longer afford to let herself get to low hitpoints, then top up quickly and stay in the fight.
I'm by no means a mechanics obsessed person. In general I absolutely prefer story over dice rolls. But I do feel that removing the ability to top up quickly and in a large amount fundamentally changes the way a paladin will play in a fight.
Perhaps this is more obvious to me as the way I built my character involved skimping on Con and HP and maxing on Cha specifically to make up for that deficit.
Anyway, I was a little disappointed by that change.
I do love the fact that eventually they can use more than one LoH in order to cast Heal. That's a stellar idea. But 18th level is...so high it's not something you can "hold out for" it's a reward for sticking with the class. Perhaps there could be some sort of sliding level-based scale reagarding how many LoH charges you were allowed to expend in a single round?
So at low levels you were limited to healing your HD, but after a while you were allowed to heal 2HD or 3HD?
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Overall awesome job!
Personally, while I like the idea of extra flexibility based on feats to allow a Paladin a wider variety of options on who to smite and when and how to detect alignments (one of my favourite new feats in Pathfinder is the ability to turn types of outsiders), my preference would be for a Sacred Challenge type feat with the Smite and Detect Evil remaining as core parts of the class.
The Sacred Challenge is certainly an interesting and fun notion, and I'm all for increasing the importance of Charisma to a Paladin (not so that players would feel the need to put more into Charisma, but just so that they'd get more out of the points they'd already assigned. As a long-time Paladin player I'm convinced it's the most important Paladin stat, but I'm aware I'm probably in a minority there!).
It's also interesting to pull in the notion of branding someone an enemy of the faith and granting minor bonuses based on that.
But for me - and perhaps partly it's just because I'm used to it, but I feel how I feel - the notion of a blazing, glorious single stroke is more in keeping with the mythic idea of a Paladin than a small ongoing bonus. While it might be balanced, or even superior, in terms of crunch, it just doesn't have the same Heroic Moment of Epicness factor for me, and I'd much rather keep the Smite as the iconic Paladin Ability.
I'd also say that a Paladin ought to remain Lawful Good. This isn't because I think that CG, NG or, heck, any neutral or evil characters, couldn't be champions of their faith or holy heroes. It's that they aren't Paladins. A Paladin is defined by a code of conduct, and essentially attempts to be a paragon of an ideal.
The fact that a Paladin is so defined by obediance to their god and cause and their code of conduct means that they are fundamentally lawful. You cannot play a chaotic character who's primary responsibility is to live in accordance with a code. You can play an honourable character or a heroic character, or even a character who follows a rough guide to good behaviour most of the time, but you can't play a choatic character who is defined by a code of behaviour.
I think that any worries about these ideas restricting roleplay are usually easily resolved by moving away from the stereotypes usually associated with alignments.
For instance, Robin Hood is often heralded as a chaotic good character, but I think that we could just as easily - perhaps more easily - argue that he is a lawful good character. He may not live by the laws of the land, but he lives by a very strict set of his own morals.
Basically I guess what I'm saying is, a Paladin needs a code. If a Paladin has an inviolable code - that Paladin will be lawful. The code is all that's required to fit under that alignment umbrella. But that code itself can be absolutely anything as long as it doesn't move away from the "good" part of the alignment. The Paladin's personality can be absolutely any type of personality. Like Robin Hood, the Paladin can appear utterly chaotic and jovial, or like Batman he can appear dark, brooding, ordered and frightening.
For instance, my current Paladin character is LG, but follows a Chaotic god. Part of her code involves an acceptance and reverance for the forces of Chaos even though she doesn't instinctively understand them. So basically, this means, she will quite often, and very methodically, stand back and refuse to impose order (unless her "good" alignment requires this). Or she will sit and methodically determine the best way to randomly make a choice - for instance working out the pros and cons of a variety of choices, then praying before allowing a dice roll to make the decision for her. It's great roleplaying fun to play as such an ordered character trying to apply ordered logic in order to forward the cause of chaos.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's the adherence to the code that makes the Paladin lawful: but the code itself doesn't...necessarily have to be promoting a lawful outcome?
Hi all -
Paladin player (in the playtest game) reporting in.
Just to say I totally agree with tfad's post above. While I think the idea of viewing "detect evil" as a privacy issue is a really interesting idea, in this game, I do tend to run around going, "Ooooh, is s/he evil?"
But my motivation isn't, "Cus if s/he is, I can SMITE him/her!" it's a combination of curiosity and information gathering.
To be honest, most of the time it's a "confirmation" issue rather than anything else. Unless the Bad Guy is actively trying to hide their nature and intentions (see below), it's probably fairly clear who you're supposed to be fighting in any given situation. And if it isn't, then that's interesting, and, as a player, is going to make me think carefully about my actions regardless of who I can tell is evil.
I understand, I suppose, the problems some GMs have with it, but I guess my feeling is that it's a very specific problem and one that's easily fixed. If a character is sneaky enough to want to try to bluff the PCs, they're probably sneaky enough to get some kind of undetectable alignment spell. Perhaps this comes from playing in Planescape so often where alignment is something that's frequently an issue: perhaps when playing in a game where alignment is nearly never an issue until the Paladin cries out, "Is she evil?!" makes for a different experience, but I think the point still holds.
Certainly if an undetectable alignment magic is not an option, then the obfuscation can be done in reverse, as it were, by introducing the notion that "detect evil" can't be used as a scanning tool to find all the "bad guys" immediately. Introduce some petty crooks, or a guy who has nothing to do with the adventure but is sat in the corner of the bar radiating a ton of evil, or a character trying to atone, or an evil character who's still extremely lawful and useful to the characters.
I guess I just think it would be a shame to lose such a flavourful and fun ability, because sometimes it requires a bit of lateral thinking on the part of the GM for some characters.
Perhaps it's also worth noting that a far more decisive clue as to an NPC's intentions toward the characters (rather than an alignment which might indicate a certain attitude), is a boatload of ranks in Sense Motive, but we don't often hear about the unbalancing effects of that skill?
Hi all!
I'm the Paladin player mentioned briefly above.
In general, I love the new Alpha rules. They make a lot of great revisions, do a lot to smoothe over gameplay, while maintaining the flexible feel of 3.x.
The post above is a great summary of our gaming experience, and I'll just go ahead and talk about a few of the points that specifically apply to my experience.
None of us liked the new skill system for the reasons given. A twentieth level fighter shouldn't suddenly be as good a musician as a fifth level bard immediately after taking the skill. And while I understand I may be in the minority in finding it hilarious when I'm playing a sorceror with nothing in Knowledge Arcana, and that most players would never turn down someting "free", I enjoyed taking the skill points I would have had to spend on that skill and putting a few here, a few there, and developing a smattering of unusual abilities at low levels. My sorcerer ended up as a passable sneak, survivalist and tattoo artist, for the cost of a few points here an there spread across a number of levels.
Again, I understand that some people feel it's more complex than needed, or that I could have achieved the same goal with my sorcerer by simply choosing those skills as I levelled up, but I really feel that this system doesn't allow for as much variety. The choice to become extremely good at a handful, or marginally proficient at a plethora, isn't available here.
Also, I was the player concerned about the hit point for favoured class issue. This is because I really like playing against type - gnome barbarians, dwarven thieves, etc. - and I think I'd feel a little cheated that other players were being "rewarded" for playing with type, while I have to "pay" for choosing a different class.
Though I want to note - since I'm clearly in danger of coming off as some crackpot gamer who wants to play inept social outcasts! :p - I don't think it's a game breaking issue, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit I really liked the sudden boost those extra hit points gave my human paladin in our playtest.
I'm just a little worried that people dithering over classes will go ahead and default to the "stereotype" due to the extra HP incentive, even if they'd rather play another class.
Regarding some paladin specific issues, I love the new turning rules. The fact that I have to make a judgement call and choose whether or not to risk healing my enemies in the vicinity is totally worth the fact that I now have yet more powerful healing at my disposal, as well as a far simplified way of dealing with undead. It's a tactical decision, and one that I think fits thematically with what I feel turning "should" be. So that gets two thumbs up from me.
I'm not against tfad's suggestion that a number of foes equal to a character's WIS modifier can be excluded from the positive energy, but there again, I'm perfectly happy with the ability as it stands.
More healing and a cool in-game effect is more than worth the price of having to choose where and when to unleash it a little more tactically.
Finally the feat that lets you choose to turn outsiders. I'm a HUGE fan of this conceptually, but there really needs to be some clarification on the damage rules. Do you unleash something other than positive energy (in which case, is the healing effect lost)? Do you unleash positive energy but in this instance it's harming the named type of outsider?
As read, it seems that it heals the outsiders (unless they're also vulnerable to being damaged by positive energy), but allows a chance to make them cower in fear.
If that's he case then the feat isn't worth taking as tfad notes. Because all you'd be doing is healing your enemies who'd have a fairly good chance at resisting your attempts to cow them. Dazzling Display would be a much better choice, in that instance!
Oh - which reminds me - I was also the player who took Dazzling Display and it's AWESOME! :)
|
