upsidedownlamp's page

That sounds like a reasonable implementation.

Or retitle it from Favorites to Bookmark?

A stickied policy reminder at the top of the Rules subforum could go a ways. Mostly, the sort of common-sense and oft-quoted reminders to step back sometimes, to remember that Pathfinder is a pretty thick rulebook, and to understand the rules, but to ultimately to do what's best for your table.

Make the post community-positive, and ask mods to refer or quote from it. Posters may do so, as well. The intent is to take those "let's step back" and "do what's best for your table" things that get said from time to time, and make them a more forward and visible part of the community conversation.

In consulting the PRPG Beta section on Aura of Courage and Antimagic Field, it seems that you are correct: within an AMF a paladin is not immune to fear, and his allies do not get +4 on saves vs fear.

Well, dang. :) Thank you!

That's going to make some players awfully unhappy, though. :)

If that is the ruling, then they lose every single class feature except the immunity to disease. I might do something about that. :)

And the ride skill now getting an ACP. It makes the 2 point skills hurt that much worse for the classes who might use mounted combat.

Rogues are skill monkies, but given the consolidation it wouldn't hurt them to drop to 6. It doesn't hurt them to stay at 8, but the other classes really should have a 4 minimal.

After walking through an antimagic field, it seems odd the paladin would suddenly lose his/her courageousness inside it, but there you have it--it's a Supernatural ability.

Does it still do this under PF rules?

And I have no problem with any of these things as they all have a cost (be it money or spell slot). My issue with summonable mount as storage is that they get it free as a class feature.

Well, wizards get spells as a class feature, too. So do druids, and these spells are capable of doing so many similar things--summoning, carrying, or hiding loot. If a caster has to sacrifice a spell slot towards toting around loot, well...that's alright. :)

It's only one spell slot, one out of a thousand class features they receive. As it is, the silly paladin's turning one of their more powerful class features, out of a more limited set than the full caster, into a tote bag. It's not "free" from that angle. The paladin is, overall, a fairly weak class. Hence the "silly," which I say with all the fondness in the world. Seriously. I really don't care what someone does with their character--I'm certainly not going to tell them /how/ to play it. "Silly" just refers to a mechanical aspect.

So, they are losing something by doing that, mechanically, when they could pay the druid or wizard to do the job instead. It costs the caster even less, if they pull some tricks with rods (only money, afterall!).

Now, they don't /have/ to. From one view, it'd be "better" for them to. Yet nor does the DM have to allow it. Again, all this is simply for the sake of discussion.

I think what we're getting at here is, it's the player causing the issue that's upsetting. Or, it's just the /conceptual/ idea of a /mount/ being used as summonable /luggage rack/? I'm not really sure, here. The player's behavior does take a feature and turn it into a raw mechanic (push the button, push the button again), instead of something roleplay-based.

That's so many features a player can do that to, though.

It comes down to the DM, and their peer group, to encourage the type of gameplay they want, if style is our issue, here.

Yet this is less about your particular issue, though, or even mine. We all admit that issues are there, so...

What did you think of the three ideas I'd posted? :) Would they encourage less annoyingness? I received no reply to /those/. It makes me quite sad.

Do you see the sad face?

Of course you do.

That's why you're going to feel remorse, and answer my question.

I worked so hard on them, you see. Slaved, even.

And you...ignored them.

And please, let's stop with the "pokemount" business. It's fairly juvenile language, and with tempers flaring here and there, a little reduction could help. :)

I think it upsets you because you like the way the mount currently works but the comparison is too accurate for your liking.

Not at all. I think it's kinda cute, actually. And so was your spoiler, btw. :)

*gives you serious look*

I'm really disappointed, though. I really thought we knew eachother better than that.

Come on, now. I think the comparison's accurate? I like /exactly/ how the mount currently works?

And here I thought...I thought...we /could/ be friends.

That's all over, now. :(

BlaineTog wrote:

Freesword wrote:

Lets not forget the FACT that a summonable mount that just appears and can be called multiple times per day is easily (ab)used as a magical storage locker.

So?

It's a point to consider that some will see as a beneficial feature and others (myself included) will see as so much cheese it should come with a case of wine and an fondue pot.

Those who dislike the mount will dislike the mount, and can take a pokesword. ;) If someone don't like the mount mechanics, change the theme.

If we'd like the mount to be able to be summoned more than once a day, and are concerned over feel and storage lockers, then perhaps making it take a few rounds to get there is the way to go. IE, it's less immediate.

An annoyed DM can ban "storage lockers" fairly easily. Just say: "only the mount's armor, saddle, and bridle can teleport with him/her. Everything else falls to the ground." Of course, a Handy Haversack and BoHs are even faster than a mount, and require less of an action to use (mount is currently a full-round action, then a standard to retrieve an item if it's strapped in, a move if it's easily available, and then often a standard to activate said item). BoHs are available at /far lower a level/. And, wizards and druids can be just masters of hidden storage. If it requires a spell slot to do, fine.

Quite honestly, then, I don't care about storage issues too much. :)

And please, let's stop with the "pokemount" business. It's fairly juvenile language, and with tempers flaring here and there, a little reduction could help. :)

Now, it's also a FACT that when wording was changed to "the paladin can teleport the mount in as opposed to summoning," alot of the resistance went away, even though teleporting it in created a great many more loopholes! So I think alot of it has to do with the "feel" of how the mount arrives. Personally, I play mine as a plea to the heavens. Or, the well-established mental link of calling forth an old friend when you really need them.

RP encouraged. Good times, mandatory. ;)

A few ideas:
1. Make the summoning take longer.
2. Give the summoning a different flavor.
3. Let summoning happen more often as the paladin levels up, but make it more difficult the more often that day the mount is summoned: ie, the Heavens gets Just a Little Tired of It. You know, the gods probably get pissed at a sacred, god-given mount being called in so many times a day "just" to be a storage locker. Make rules for it.

Whatever happens, the paladin /should/ be able to summon more times per day. ;)

Humans are fairly strong as they stand, so I don't think strength of the race is an issue. They're one of the original PHB races that always stayed strong.

As said, there really doesn't need to be another reason to make that fighter a human.

It'd be better, I think, if we're arguing for fairness, to see a rule in place that triggered whenever /any/ race's bonus overlapped with benefits from a class...

Which quite a few have proposed.

Except that happens quite a few times, with any given race in any given game. Be it skill points, weapon proficiencies, caster level stacking, and so forth and so on.

So if it's about fairness, well. Yeah. :) Make a rule for everyone who has an overlap. Or, I have to agree with Shisumo. I mean, what do you do with races whose racial levels stack with sorcerer or somesuch? Oops, I'm not a sorcerer? :)

ICly, even though you're a ranger and your people live in the wilderness, just because skills overlap--just means that character continues to have something in common with others. You all went to the same school. There's a benefit to that. Or, society could be like PE. That sorcerer picked up a little martial training just because his mates laughed at him. LEARN DODGEBALL OR ELSE, PUNYMAN.

And, no bastard swords. They're exotic for a reason, and proficiency in them is already required for a certain class or two (exotic weapons master and an increased str damage multiplier on a 2-hander, anyone?).

Here's an idea: again, overlap happens and has happened. How about if a race chooses not to take a granted weapon proficiency, just give them 2 skill points?

It's not alot. They're giving up some minor oomph, yes, but we're talking about flavor here. The sorcerer who hid from his mates at PE and away from learning battleaxes gets some compensation. He could instead spend those skill points in something flavorful that related to his character, something he'd done instead of getting hit with the dodgeball. He spent his time in the woods, experimenting on various plants. Or reading forbidden books in the library. Or maybe he just had a glib tongue and talked his way out of it all the time (he puts the points in bluff, and starts the game a little better off at lying).

And why 2? 2 is less than 3, which is what Skill Focus grants. 2 is what many classes start out with at first level, now. For a number of the classes, it's like a free level of skill points, and +2 to a skill is already an established racial feature. So is added skill points.

Too, often someone goes "against the grain" for roleplay. So, use the points to develop what your character was doing while he or she /wasn't/ doing the typical thing. It gives the character some building blocks.

It doesn't do a thing for the races whose "racial levels don't stack with their non-sorcerer class for determining abilities," though. Maybe give then 2 skill points/hit dice if they agree to drop their bonus weapon proficiency?

Then again, what limits do we set on the trade-in?

It's possible a simple change to the language and method could solve both issues. Call it "gating in the mount," where the paladin actually yes, opens a limited gate to the heavens. Teleports it, in other words, but limited in scope: the teleport affects only the mount itself.

Or have the paladin summon his mount through a ritual. The paladin is described as sending an elaborate prayer to his or her god, who hears and grants the return of the Celestial Being that serves his chosen warrior. This call takes some time--the paladin's mount arrives a few rounds later.

Could keep it interesting by: the god will listen the first time, but the second time requires a level or diplomacy check. Negociating with the deity, in other words. Use some of that Charisma.

Keep in mind, by eliminating a "summon" on the mount, you're getting rid of:
- Free healing.
- The ability of the mount to accompany the paladin to the lair of the BBEG, almost anywhere the BBEG resides.

I'd be more in favor of changing the wording or altering the method somewhat. Have the mount arrive by alternate means. In another thread, teleporting was suggested and folks jumped on the bandwagon, even though it was very similar (in end result) to summoning. The description, and method, was simply changed in flavor.

That suggests, to me, that a compromise is possible. And that there could be an "inbetween" method.

So, instead of explaining below "why I hate/love the mount," or statements with "my problem is..." why not work for a compromise? Don't like flavor as it is? Describe something else.

The way the mount is summoned has the potential for alot of flavor. The paladin's about flavor. Let's see some more of that.

If the paladin's mount becomes unsummonable, it should potentially gain something to make up for its losses.

Indeed. Other posters are even chiming in, elsewhere on this board, these same folks asking for a revamp, to toss a big nerf on the paladin's mount: eliminate the summonability, at least until higher levels.

The summonability has been the one thing that's let me, as a player of paladins, keep the mount in play. This is a big nerf. ;) This means I'm not going to get any, if at all, use of my mount in a greater majority of scenes.

So, think again. They care about the flavor of the class. They're willing to take hits for it.

But, it seems as though the other message is coming through clearly enough: paladins should be the "go-to" guy for the battle against demon horde. They're not. So, how do you fix that?

Have suggestions? Please go post them in the appropriate threads. There are several, all discussing a variety of ideas. Just the number of them should say something!

And, a decent will save makes sense, especially from an IC point of view!

To throw something out: many of the features I've seen suggested in these boards echo the Pious Templar.

Would it be a bad thing, perhaps, to look at the PT an example for changes we'd like to see in the paladin? I emphasize example. Not verbatim.

And, yes. The overwhelming vote is fairly much, the paladin needs some help. I think many of the nay-saying comes out of concern for fighters.

Those are two related, but very different concerns.

One of my favorite examples of paladin involves something that you can really only bring into well in a mature game: the concept of love and chivalry. Now, don't roll your eyes just yet. Hear me out. :)

A paladin has a lover for a number of years, but this, for whichever reason, must be done in secret so as to not dishonor the lady (or man), perhaps because of race, social position, a threat to his or her life, and so on and so forth.

So, if asked about this love, do they lie to protect someone else's honor? Do they act to keep it secret? Love itself is a high virtue (Book of Exalted Deeds has a discussion on it, I believe), and paladins can just be forced into bad situations just like anyone else is. A truly chivalrous knight would have the same issue.

Now, a paladin doesn't have to be chivalrous, but I hope what I'm trying to say here makes sense.

The RP opportunities are stunning.

I like paladins in my games because I know they'll tend to act. And I like lawful characters in general because I favor that over a "do anything you want" PC, which many "neutral" alignments can be. Don't have to be. But I've seen them end up that way somewhat too often.

Probably bothers me as much as the "stick up the ass" does others. It's all bad roleplaying.

In response to that: we have to start somewhere. We've probably all played the elven ranger who sleeps in trees. Hopefully, we get past that. And hopefully, if we don't, others are there to help us.

If we don't, still, well. I just don't let them in my group.

While we're mentioning stepping on toes--let's not forget the Barbarian's Powerful Blow. It's pretty much a smite (level damage, add the +2 from rage to hit), just not limited to alignment or aura--and tied to rage points.

Not only does the barbarian get a better smite (and smite being one of the paladin's iconic features), he does it better and more often, without the limitations a paladin has.

He gets quite a few other features, too, that make him even better in combat. Which he should be.

But, well, damn. ;) Better at smiting? +level damage, +2 to hit (equivalent to a 14 Cha), could do it more often, and no alignment restrictions? Bonus damage applies to anything you'd use it against?

While I'm at it, I could mention Renewed Vigor, also. A needed ability, but tied to one of the Barb's strongest stats: con. It's a d8+Con heal. Similar to LoH as LoH is used now if employed in combat.

Which well, few do anymore. It just doesn't do much.

Paladin's bring such a hindrance to groups they are with because of their alignment and there code, this should be balanced with their other abilities....people should be HAPPY to have paladins in their groups even with the restrictions!

They're willing to for RP purposes, but aye. Paladins often "color" a scene. Their code of conduct is a Big Thing. But, no one's going to really ask you along for your ability to tackle a demon. :(

Paladins can get cut out of scenes, too--party members working "around" them when it comes to handling a bad guy. This isn't frequent, in the games I play, but it /does/ happen.

Still, there's very little that you do add in the end, that the fighter or barbarian cannot do better.

The paladin should be the go-to guy when it comes to driving off evil. As it is, he's...very clearly not.

He's the guy who ends up with the healing wand and standing back out of the way while the "big fighters" handle the demon.

Based on all the threads here, the paladin definitely needs some help.

I was excited when the PF paladin initially came out. They gained many new abilities, many focused on healing. The paladin has access to several healing abilities, many of them through spells, or already-existing class features.

What wasn't strengthened as much was his martial role in the party.

It needs addressed in a big way.

Would it break the Paladin to allow him to Lay on Hands as a swift action? This would allow him to use the ability and still move and fight, would allow him to heal himself while still moving and fighting, and would allow him to use up to three of his lay on hands in one round if he needed to, if you allow him to use his move action and standard action to power the ability.

I can't agree enough. Too, it helps keep his focus on the martial role he's supposed to have.

Jason N:

Just wanted to chime in and say, loving the ideas so far. I also believe these ideas further stratify armor into heavy, medium, light, and add some much needed differences and flavor.

Keep it up, please. :)

Dang, looking it over, the Pathfinder paladin is pretty lackluster. In fact, it's about as inspiring as a limp dishrag. Too bad, since I was hoping to be able to run a one-book game. *Sigh*

I've...got to agree, here. I play a combat-focused paladin, and he's often shunted to the "spare combat medic" role, while the "big boys" go in and deal out damage against the evil black knight. And, once my smites run out, my combat ability is fairly shot for the day, the black knight isn't dead yet, and now the "real" fighters are just more effective than I am. At this point, I start tanking and using a CMW wand to keep them alive.

I'd rather be smiting the guy. :(

I was happy to see the mount alternative, yet many of the added abilities focused on healing, which the paladin already had quite some ability to do, between LoH, Remove Disease, and spells. I don't mind these, I just would have preferred more "lay down the smack" on evil.

I'll also give a nod to the barbarian, here, who received Powerful Blow: add their class level to the damage of a single hit. With rage giving them a +2 to hit already, this is very similar to a paladin with a 14 Cha (+2 to hit) using her smite for the day (+dmg equal to class level).

But the barbarian's works against any opponent. It might cost 4 points to do, but for raw numbers, it's a little too similar for comfort and covers a much wider range of opponents where he adds his class level as damage.

Paladin needs some love, folks. I love the RP of the class. But, damn.

They need some love.

While there's alot of focus on the fighter in this thread, the paladin shouldn't be forgotten. A little Weapon Specialization, potentially with their diety's favored weapon as a limitation, really wouldn't be out of order with their flavor as holy warriors.

But personally, I'd just love for them to see a few more combat options. Not as crazy as the fighter, of course, but that's another thread. :)