|
Smite needs to deliver. It either needs alot more uses per day at its current strength, or a great big heaping helping of uber steroids and kept at its current uses per day.
A 20th level paladin can use it twice per encounter (average).
A 1st level paladin can use ti *less often than a 1st level wizard has first level spells per day* and its supposed to be their main combat ability! That's absolutely terrible.
I wonder - Jason seems to be cool with extending a smite use to more than one attack, which I firmly agree with, but I'm curious. What would it take to make smite evil worthwhile as a single-attack benefit at its current uses per day?
I was thinking that it should be something like a +20 insight bonus to the attack and a damage bonus that scales like a sneak attack. Would that do it?
Smite needs to deliver. It either needs alot more uses per day at its current strength, or a great big heaping helping of uber steroids and kept at its current uses per day.
A 20th level paladin can use it twice per encounter (average).
A 1st level paladin can use ti *less often than a 1st level wizard has first level spells per day* and its supposed to be their main combat ability! That's absolutely terrible.I wonder - Jason seems to be cool with extending a smite use to more than one attack, which I firmly agree with, but I'm curious. What would it take to make smite evil worthwhile as a single-attack benefit at its current uses per day?
I was thinking that it should be something like a +20 insight bonus to the attack and a damage bonus that scales like a sneak attack. Would that do it?
9d6 (which is SA's best result) is an average of 31.5 damage per smack.
Given the paladin gets 4 (or 5) attacks a round at that level with the +20.. I'm not sure they'd all hit, but if they did that'd be +126-157 per Smite round not counting any other damage mods (such as Holy or whatnot that they had on the wep, or from spells).That actually sounds pretty good- especially since the damage is untyped (and therefore can't be reduced by resistances or whatnot).
At first level that would be what +1 insight and +1d6 damage? Not bad for 1 round per day but it still leaves them the rest of that encounter and the totality of every other encounter being the flat out worst person in the group.
It wouldn't be bad combined with the idea to tie Smite into LoH. that would still give it uses per day while giving them -more- uses. But not so many that they'd be smiting every single attack everyday.
I like it with more smite a day, but without you are still doing too little damage IMO.
(i mean- remember that Meteor swarm is doing equivalent damage and against multiple foes in a round and rogues are doing it with two weapons round after round all day.)
-S
I almost hate to say this since it seems almost hypocritical given how so many folk, myself included, are all for htem doing away with so many of hte super powered spells and such But:
If they are gonna keep smite at so small a use per day it really needs to Bang. And by bang, I mean it really needs to hurt. It needs to hurt on the level of a SOD or major SoSuck.
Their primary melee ability is usable so few times per day that it really needs to shine. That means when they use it, BBEG's need to die. They either need to be Awed (or shaken) into not being able to act for (pal's cha mod) in rounds on a passed save, or out right killed on a failed.
Even at its *best* the Smite is usable twice per big encounter and is usable against only one creature per smite. For that, it has to be a big number.
Wizards are Save or Sucking everyone they meet for every encounter starting from level 2 on. (at level 1 they are only doing i for 1-2 encounters a day).
Why shouldn't the Paladin- who only gets one ability 7 times at 20, compared to the wizard getting how many 10's of spells, do his thing at least as good if not better against the chosen foes of the Paladin?
Again- I don't like SoD or Save or Suck mechanics butit really seems to be the only way to make Smite worth the vast limits currently imposed on it.
That's probably too much, but.. eh.. thoughts?
-S
|
|
Incidentally, the point buy different is relatively large.
Paladin as you wrote it
S 16 = 10
D 12 = 2
C 14 = 5
I 8 = -2
W 10 = 0
Ch 12 = 2
= 17Fighter as you wrote it
S 16 (10 pts)
D 16 (10 pts)
C 14 (5 pts)
I 8 (-2 pts)
W 12 (2 pts)
Ch 8 (-2 pts)
= 23"Epic Fantasy", the highest listed, is a 25.
Actually those are the stats I put at all - I started with an 18 on Str for both characters and assumed a human race for +2 to str on top of that for a start of 20 STR.
Here are the stats I posted above to refresh your memory: (based on DMG 3.5 point buy with 34 instead of the usual 28....
As a human, he puts the +2 to STR.
S 18 (16 pts) total 20 with the +2
D 12 (4 pts)
C 14 (8 pts)
I 8 (0 pts)
W 10 (2 pts)
Ch 12 (4 pts)
At 5th level he's got BAB 5, 23 STR +6 mod (w/ +2 str enhancement item), and +2 Divine Might = +13
The fighter in the party takes the same build - human for +2 to STR
S 18 (16 pts)
D 16 (10 pts)
C 14 (6 pts)
I 8 (0 pts)
W 12 (12 pts)
Ch 8 (0 pts)
Robert
|
|
I, and others, are not just trying to brainstorm ideas. We're trying to come up with ideas they are likely to implement.
Do you really believe they'll import the fighter's new main class feature and tack it on to the paladin? If you do- there really isn't much I can say. It's very difficult to discuss pure opinion and that's all it really would be. My opinion saying they won't, and your opinion saying they will.
No, my opinion is that it is NEEDED. My opinion is that they should. Not necessarily that they will - just that they need to. And I didnt suggest adding a fighters ability I suggested creating a new ability for paladins that affect evil (yes I know its a large percentage of the critters - but not all), and it is not the same. Why can't we create new abilities? The rage abilities didn't exist in 3.5, the Armor/Weapon training didn't exist in 3.5, there's no reason that additional abilities that correct holes in other areas can't be created either.
My opinion isn't specifically that they will implement it - my gut feeling in fact suggests I'm just wasting my breath (...er fingers...), but I certainly believe it has a better chance of being taken seriously if more people are in agreement that there is in fact too big of a disparity between the fighter/barbarian and a lesser degree the ranger - and the ability of the paladin to make a difference in most (90% most) combats.
Whether you like my mechanic or not, you cannot say with clear conscious that the examples of the classes doesn't illustrate such a discrepancy. The only way the paladin held any kind of pace was to be fully decked out for melee at the expense of all other facets of him and only against the evil targets. Any other build falls far behind.
Extending smite to multiple uses per day, especially at lower levels where "most" campaigns tend to be (so folks keep saying) and adding on extra damage for those smites against foes paladin are supposed to be good against can't really be seen as anything but a good thing.
so if you're M.O. is to worry about arguing and lobbying for things that 'they' are likely to implement, then you're breaking your own tenents here. It's already been said, and repeated by me and others that Jason has alreayd indicated he's not intending to increase the frequency of smite. He may extend the duration of those already in play to 1 rd instead of 1 attack.
That is the band-aid on the broken bone I was indicating.
You're saying there is a problem; you're means of fixing it is by increasing the number of smites - but that isn't going to happen. Move on. Next idea please. Thats where I came in. Thats why I concocted a seperate mechanic to help the general round to round combat capabilities that I successfully illustrated is behind status quo.
Again, and I'll say it again as I've already said it repeatedly. I am NOT AGAINST BUFFING THE PALADIN. Please quit implying or saying that I am. I'm not the enemy, I'm just trying to be practical here.
Fair enough; I believe you. Unfortunately your idea to fix it does not seem plausible as it's already been shot down. Thus my frustration. You're poop-canning my idea but only continuing to lobby for something I know isnt going to fix it.
You can make smite evil do 9d6 damage; you can make smite evil force a save or possibly take 180 points of damage. The simple truth was and still is, there's not enough smites to make the other 95% of the rest of combats for that day seem fun. Since the smites aren't going to be increased in volume, I am lobbying for a way to get the paladin more tools to increase his attack ability MOST of the time. The barbarian, ranger, and fighter all have these. The cleric and druid have uber-buffing capability, and the rogue can become a living quisinart.
A difference of +6 or +7 (as was illustrated is the most likely difference between a paladin and a fighter or barbarian) to hit is about 30% less chance to hit 30% less chance to confirm a crit, and thus 30% less chance to do damage, so that exponentially reduces the amount of damage that one can do in the course of a combat. Thats just laughable and not even a threat. And yes it does such to only be defensive character - which I also illustrated they're not even the best at that - on top of the fighter being better, even the cleric and druid are more defensible when buffed with their own buffs and abilities.
I apologize if you felt I was attacking you or making it personal - that was not my intention - though I can see how it would be perceived that way considering my words - but frankly I'm tired of rehashing and rehearing the same defenses and arguments: that just might smite better or more frequent and the problem is solved. No it wont. It wont be more frequent. It wont fix the other 40 rounds today. So please let it go and move on. You come across as a very intelligent person - I know you can read between the lines and see the wisdom of my posts that the math doesn't lie - there is a grave disparity, and now you know it wont be fixed by smite. At least admit that there is a big difference in the capabilities - more than there should be. This is not the hexblade or the scout were talking about - this is the paladin! The heroic chilvaric knight in shining armor champion of good, rescuer of damsels and defeaters of legendary dragons! This is the LG regimented holy warrior chosen by his god to represent his faith. This is the most restrictive constrained class in existance both by alignment and code of conduct. Those restrictions should mean something - should be rewarded.
Robert
This is the most restrictive constrained class in existance both by alignment and code of conduct. Those restrictions should mean something - should be rewarded.
This is one aspect of "balancing" the paladin that I think has been overlooked in a lot of these discussions.
Consider, if you will, the Flaw/Bonus Feat mechanic introduced in Unearthed Arcana, and expanded upon even in many Class Acts articles in Dragon (Paizo's). Speaking in terms of the Flaw mechanic, the Paladin's alignment restriction could very well be considered such a flaw. Their Code of Conduct could likewise be considered a flaw.
However, rather than having a -4 penalty to attacks if they violate their flaw (ala many of the Paladin flaws that were published), instead the Paladin loses access to all their supernatural class features. That is a far bigger drawback than found in any of the character flaw. Considering that normal flaws grant something about as powerful as a single feat, it seems to me that the Paladin's built-in "flaws" should have a significantly larger benefit for the risk of losing it all if they mess up.
From this standpoint, I would say that "balancing" the Paladin should start with treating them as a regular melee class and making them somewhat comparable to one of the other non-supernatural classes. From there, the Risk vs. Reward factor of their "flaws" should then put them over the top in whatever fashion is appropriate to their party role. Right now, their current array of abilities doesn't do this.
Yes, this does in fact mean that a paladin should be "better" that his counterparts from other classes, however, this is necessitated by the need to internally balance the Paladin's risks with their rewards.
A flaming sword is nice, and more powerful than a regular sword, but if there's a good chance that you're going to get burned wielding it...
Those are the stats you posted.
However, Paizo's point buy is different. Which is what the rest of my post pointed out. It doesn't make a *huge* difference- but considering that in some of the math there were some issues of only a point or two in some areas, a point or two of attributes can in fact make a difference.
I am going to continue to be against your idea. You are likely to continue to be against mine. I don't really have a problem with that- there's no law saying we have to agree on everything.
I just simply don't believe that a class with such varied abilities such as the paladin deserves a "fix" of another class's base ability, retooled and hammered on. Maybe you're right and they'll do it- Kudos for you if they do. I just don't see it, personally.
Fighters got an extention of what they already had in the feats. More attack bonus, more damage bonus. Barbarians got an extention- actually a rewrite of what they already had. The barbarian had rage before- it has rage now- it's just been repackaged and retooled.
Paladin don't need a brand spankin new thing that's essentially another classes abilities tacked onto their own. What they need is for their own class abilities to be up to the task.
You you don't seem to like fixing smite- I get that from your posts- but it's the primary damage dealing ability they have. It stands to reason that if we want to fix their melee capability then it needs to stem from this ability. Its up to us to come up with a method for doing so that Jason agrees with and can add to the rules.
I like my ideas- and you like yours. I tend to think that both are good ideas, we just haven't hit on the right one yet. We'll know when we do, because everyone will quit arguing and agree. really solid good ideas seem to have that effect. We just need to keep tossing the class around, coming here with ideas until we find it. "We" meaning me, you, knight, and anyone else who comes in here to chime in with their opinions.
We both agree that something is needed, we just need to find that certain thing that nails it on the head while keeping the Paladin the Paladin.
Laithoron:
Yes, something is definitely up with the boards today. Not sure what, but I hope its resolved soon.
-S
<irrelevant digression>
Personally (not from a "they should do this" perspective, but from an "i wish it were this way" perspective), the paladin should actually be a prestige class. it should be a d10 full bab partial spell casting progression prestige class open primarily to fighters and clerics who want to go down the "holy warrior" road.
It should require either weapon spec or War domain (to allow both classes entrance) and it should build on the better "combat" abilities of both classes while adding onto that the better defenses of the Paladin.
Myself, I wish it had been drawn up that way.
(the bard, incidentally, could receive similar treatment with rogue or sorc being the primary entrance classes... but that's another theoretical thread for another theoretical time)
It would allow them more leeway to "beef the class" without quite so much problem with where it fit between the Fighter and Ranger since it would be, by its very nature, a potential extension of either.
It would take abit of work, but it wouldn't make for a bad houserule overall. (and would solve the problem of "but my paladin sucks at 1st level! since there would by definition be no "level 1" paladin anymore).
</irrelevant digression>
-S
Selgard, thanks for the heads-up about the boards acting up.
Also, have you seen the Prestige Paladin, Ranger, and Bard from Unearthed Arcana? I think d20srd.org has them on there, but the site isn't loading for me right now.
I have to say I am not for adding armor training to the paladin. They have many things as is they do not need even more stuff from other classes.
Unless I missed a post (which is possible, with how goofy the boards have been) they are just advocating an attack/damage progression to the Paladin to the tune of a +7 to both at 20th level. (or 19th level.. one of the two).
They aren't advocating increasing their armor class- he was listing their comparative armor to show that the paladin tends to fall behind the fighter in a pure armor comparison.
-S
|
|
You you don't seem to like fixing smite- I get that from your posts- but it's the primary damage dealing ability they have. It stands to reason that if we want to fix their melee capability then it needs to stem from this ability. Its up to us to come up with a method for doing so that Jason agrees with and can add to the rules.
Its not that I dont like fixing smite - its that smite as written in the mechanics, and the frequency of it, is going to fix the paladin.
On the other foot, you don't seem to like my point that there is a legitimate discrepancy in combat prowess between the paladin and the other classes - irrespective of the smite.
Once I know you agree with at least that observation, I think we can move on to what to do to fix it.
In the interim - to at least show good-will, I have an idea for how to fix smite - so as to not create a new system/mechanic/ability but instead build upon the one in existance - as you propose.
Smite Evil (Su): At 1st level, a paladin receives a +1 to hit and damage to all creatures that have an evil alignment. This bonus increases by +1 every three level after first. (+2 at 4th, +3 at 7th, max +7 at 19th). These bonuses are doubled against any creature with the evil descriptor. Furthermore, the paladin can release a wave of divine energy from his god a number of times per day equal to the bonus this ability has granted him based on his paladin level. This release of energy grants an additional bonus to hit equal to the paladin charisma modifier and an amount of damage equal to the paladin's level. This bonus to the paladins attacks last until the paladin's next turn. For example, a 7th level paladin adds +3 to all attacks and damage against evil creatures, or +6 against foes with an evil descriptor, and furthermore can unlease the wave of divine energy 3 times that day for an additional bonus to attack rolls equal to the paladin's Cha Mod, and and additonal 7 points of damage.
Thats all I could come up with off the cuff - but it's good...for starters.
Robert
|
|
Unless I missed a post (which is possible, with how goofy the boards have been) they are just advocating an attack/damage progression to the Paladin to the tune of a +7 to both at 20th level. (or 19th level.. one of the two).
They aren't advocating increasing their armor class- he was listing their comparative armor to show that the paladin tends to fall behind the fighter in a pure armor comparison.
-S
Actually in the original post I made on this thread, armor training was one of the suggestions I made for consideration to help the paladin - albeit x2 instead of x4 that the fighter has - and not Armor Mastery in fact.
Afterall you said it yourself - the paladin is a defensive guru.
I wasn't indicating that all such suggestions need to be included - just listing a number of possiblities that I had considered for others to consider.
Robert
Oh they are definitely behind the curve in offense.
The issue is whether it needs to be fixed- as an issue against /every creature/ or if they should remain more or less mediocre in general while kicking *tail* against the things Paladin are renowned for kicking tail against.
"vs evil" is just too broad, in my mind at least, to warrant justification of his main ability being used repeatedly only against them. My problem isn't so much that +7 attack/damage is too much against undead/demons/evil outsiders/whatever as it is the fact that *most* of the major enemies the PC's face are evil. And by major enemy I mean anything with intellect. Paladin aren't killing neutral foes usually, and absent *very* strange circumstances they aren't out there killing good folk either. The paladin is fighting evil! Its what they do. So saying "lets give them a ton of attack/damage vs only evil" is akin to saying "lets give them high AC but only when something is attacking them".. it's a false modifier. (not completely- yes, I concede that the party will occasionally kill animals, dire animals, vermin and oozes- but most campaigns include those as occasional filler rather than as the adventure objectives).
Your Smite Evil.
Excepting the first part- where smite evil grants a flat bonus to attack and damage rolls across the board- I rather like the idea. I especially like the extra damage against specific descriptors. (rather than just "evil alignments") since most undead now, and alot of the outsiders have that tag attached.
I did miss the armor bit and apologize for that.
-S
Laithoron;
I might have glanced through them but to be honest, before all the Paizo discussion came up, I didn't see much need for it all.
It just seems that now we have a chance to really fix the classes as they should have been- and its a pity we Can't make some of the "core classes" into prestige classes.
Ranger, bard, paladin.. perhaps some others.
-S
|
|
Your Smite Evil.
Excepting the first part- where smite evil grants a flat bonus to attack and damage rolls across the board- I rather like the idea. I especially like the extra damage against specific descriptors. (rather than just "evil alignments") since most undead now, and alot of the outsiders have that tag attached.
-S
excepting the first part - all thats left is what smite evil already does.....
Robert
|
|
At first level that would be what +1 insight and +1d6 damage? Not bad for 1 round per day but it still leaves them the rest of that encounter and the totality of every other encounter being the flat out worst person in the group.
Actually, I was suggesting just a single attack, not an entire round - but I was also suggesting a full +20 attack (the equivalent of a casting of true strike) at first level, not having it scale with level. The idea being that it should essentially be an auto-hit, even with Power Attack if desired, since it's such a limited-use thing.
I'd actually be OK with smite becoming a nigh auto-hit (i.e. adding the True Strike effect), for a single attack. Mind you, I think it would also need to do a considerable amount of additional damage (dice rather than a flat bonus), but that's another matter.
While this alone wouldn't "fix" the PfRPG paladin, it's perhaps one of the ingredients in a remedy...
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Smite needs to deliver. It either needs alot more uses per day at its current strength, or a great big heaping helping of uber steroids and kept at its current uses per day.
A 20th level paladin can use it twice per encounter (average).
A 1st level paladin can use ti *less often than a 1st level wizard has first level spells per day* and its supposed to be their main combat ability! That's absolutely terrible.I wonder - Jason seems to be cool with extending a smite use to more than one attack, which I firmly agree with, but I'm curious. What would it take to make smite evil worthwhile as a single-attack benefit at its current uses per day?
I was thinking that it should be something like a +20 insight bonus to the attack and a damage bonus that scales like a sneak attack. Would that do it?
Actually, having smite do a true strike vs. evil for 1 full round would be pretty sweet.
It would be an enabler for Power Attack and Combat Expertise and would get past those pesky spellcasters and their tricksiness.
Perhaps that would be a smiting power to add on.
|
|
To save on space I'll just use numbers to reference your proposed changes and my thoughts on them...
#1: I think that's a perfectly fine idea. Stays true to the theme of the Paladin without being overly intrusive; and that little extra might help him shine a little more against that BBEG.
#2: I don't know how I feel about Smite Evil being a targeted effect similar to the Knight's Challenge in 3.5... I'd be more comfortable with it affecting all of the Paladin's attacks for a single round. I'd also be behind causing an effect (scale-able DC to negate perhaps) to keep Smite effective at higher levels.
#3: I would agree with making Lay on Hands = 2xPaladin level. This scales much better than as currently written in the beta. I think using CHA x Paladin level becomes overkill, however, since for most Paladins that I've seen Charisma is the highest ability they have. Thus at 10th level a paladin with a 22 Charisma can LoH for 60 hp a shot. Given the number of times a day that Paladins can use LoH now, that's a bit crazy.
#4: As thematic as this idea is, I don't think it's really necessary.
#5: On the one hand I agree with this idea. On the other hand, I find the weapon and armor training as some cool concepts that should be unique to the Fighter class.
#6: My vote is for caster equal to Paladin level-3. Paladin's don't have access to spells before then, so why give them a full caster level? I am in favor of making them spontaneous casters though. Even if you introduce a "Spells Known" table for the Paladin, spontaneous casting makes a world of difference when you only get a couple spells a day.
#7: I think the number of Smites per day is fine as is as long as the attempt isn't wasted if you miss.
#8: I don't agree with this for the same reason as #5. While it would be a cool ability, if you do this you take some of the pizazz out of the Paladin. Maybe make this ability a mid- or upper-level Divine feat?
#9: I haven't seen Divine Grace as a level-dipping issue. If the consensus is that it is a problem, maybe just change the level at which the Paladin acquires it? I don't like the idea of scaling this power.
#10: I don't see a problem with the Paladin's turning ability. I've always seen a Paladin as more likely to smash the skeleton than to turn it. That's more of a Cleric thing anyways.
#11: I can understand the skill point frustration, but I don't think it's something that needs to be fixed. Prior to 3e, you had to be human to be a Paladin--now that would give you those extra 2 skill points (+1 for human and +1 for favored class). I think that if you condense the ability demand a bit (perhaps by making a Paladin's spells work off of Charisma, as was already suggested) this wouldn't be as much of a problem.
But even then, isn't part of the class that the Paladin needs to be kind of a "Superman" in that he needs lots of high stats? Good STR, CON, and CHA... you really only need a DEX of 12 or 14 ('cause we know you're wearing plate) and you only need a WIS of 14 to cast the highest level Paladin spells. So again, while I understand your pain at the ability score demands of the class, I think that's part of the flavor of it.
I'm curious about something: the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin all have Good BAB, equaling at 20th level a +20/+15/+10/+5 series of attacks. Yet, according to some, the Paladin(even though he as the same bonuses to attack as the others) is not a offensive class. Am i missing something here? Did the definition of offense change when i wasn't looking and i missed the memo? Just because in 3.5 the Paladin was better suited to defense does not mean he needs to have the same role in Pathfinder. What his role SHOULD be is that of the Holy Warrior. Yes, re-read that last word 4 or 5 times, it does say WARRIOR. Now, since we seem to be confused let us summon the power of the mighty Online Dictionary:
Warrior:
a man engaged or experienced in warfare.
Sounds like somebody who goes out and puts the hurt on others. Now your generic Warrior, one who can puts a whooping on every enemy he faces, regardless of race, creed, or biological(or lack thereof) build is called a Fighter. He has a friend, who fuels his big, nasty beatstick with a burning anger, also known as Rage. This friend is called a Barbarian. Sometimes the two go into the woods, and when they want a sneaky, stealthy guide, who can put a solid whooping on the enemies they might find in the woods(or any other natural terrain) they call upon the Ranger.
Now these three are walking through the woods, whopping on bad guys left and right, when suddenly, they stumble upon a vile scene: a filthy, evil, altar where EVIL, EVIL beings are about to sacrifice an innocent villager. they all turn to their fourth buddy the mighty Paladin, champion of Good and righter of wrongs, and proclaim "Holy Warrior, whoop these vile creatures" and the Paladin stares down the Evil people then looks to his companions with a sad look to his face.
"I'm sorry" he says. "But not only have i used up all of my Smites for the day, but supposedly I am not to be an offensive person, so I'll just raise my shield and hold the line"
WTF??....dude, seriously? that's what your suggesting we regulate one of the 4 classes with full BAB to??....Drugs are obviously the problem here, because i can not possibly fathom your feeling this way if you weren't under the influence.
Now then, the Paladin is the SUPPOSED to be the ultimate foil vs Super Evil(after all, its Paladin in Hell, not Fighter or Wizard in Hell) So let's try and come with some ways to make him more badass vs the 3 big Ds:
1) his smite needs to be waaay more useful and hopefully more frequent. I know Jason currently disagrees with this, but let's try and rally around somehow getting more uses per day. MAYBE just maybe, He'll break.
2) Giving them Mettle is a spectacular idea, and I'm all for this.
3) somebody mentioned taking some abilities from the Templar. Well played lad, i second this notion.
4) I really, really think we need to create some Divine Feats that the Pally can take per a few levels. obviously this will be better discussed in the Feats section, but i think at least four bonus Divine Feats as a class feature would rock.
finally, whoever it was that quoted George Carlin before when they said "I'm a simple man, and i do not posses an engineering degree" should get a free plate of Lilth's cookies(is she still around?)
Ok, say that smite is changed to do some incredibly amazing damage (over a hundred as you said for a round). And the number of times a day is the same.
Most of the time these BBEG's are behind a mob of little evil bad guys. So just for fun lets design a little scenario.
A paladin a fighter and a barbarian walk into a bar...:)
Each one has 6 evil minions between them and the Big bad evil bartender.
The only way for each of them to REACH this BBEG bartender is through these 6 bad guys. They each pick a lane.
The Barbarian rages, and the fighter does his ALWAYS available damage. The paladin "auto attacks" which is an MMO term but if you want to use it fine.
IF the Paladin burns through his Smites then he MIGHT make it to the BBEG by the time the fighter or barbarian do but when they get their they are still kicking ass and taking names...the paladin is...alas back to "auto attacking".
IF the paladin DOES NOT use his smites and hopes to save them for the BBEG then he will get there in time to see the fighter and barbarian tipping back an ale over the aformentioned corpse of the BBEG bartender.
MANY of my combats have went just this way. You dont usually walk into a room and the BBEG is just standing there going, hah you found me and wow i did not make the paladin waste all of his smites already to get here...oh crap I am in trouble now.
The increases to Smite are a must, you are correct!
But without some other increase then the paladin will probably NEVER get to use those increases on the BBEG LIKE HE SHOULD.
|
Having gotten a crit in my last game that stunned the BBEG for a single round. I know that stunning is an excellent gift, the enemy drops whatever he is carrying, and can take no actions. As such I think that smite needs a fort save or the enemy is stunned for 1d4 rounds. Something along the lines of DC 10 + cha mod +1/2 level. Now don't get me wrong, it needs more than that, but I think I like the idea of a smite whomping the guy and he is so taken back by the blow that he is unable to move.
The paladin could be buffed in a bunch of ways. Keep in mind that if smite made a paladin = to the fighter when smite is used that still doesn't make the paladin better than the fighter or even equal to the fighter because he can only do it at the most 7 rounds at 20th level.
Have you actually made any suggestions for boosting the paladin or have you just been saying give them good stats?
Actually I had. But apparently because I disagreed with you, it didnt take.
|
|
Back to the main event.
From 1st-4th level the Paladin is little better than the Warrior NPC class. At 4th his class abilities are beginning to approach the point of being adequate (and would be adequate if they reached this point at 2nd level). 1st - 5th levels the paladin is the most lack luster and underpowered base class in the game. Every other class gets more benefit from their class abilities.
SMITE EVIL
The Paladin's Signature and Primary Combat ability is Smite Evil. The bonus to hit is adequate, the damage is not. It should be 2 x Paladin Level (still unimpressive at 1st level, but scales up quickly and consistently) and I think granting a +1 increase to critical multiplier for Smites is not unreasonable (will only apply conditionally but is still a boost). Extra Bane damage to creatures with the Evil subtype would also not be out of line or over the top. It should NOT be expended on a miss and this should be clearly stated in the rules. Expanding it to the entire round is nice, but almost useless until 6th level when a Paladin gains a second attack (barring TWF or AoO).
Robert, you are absolutely correct that just increasing damage is a band-aid on a broken leg.
Robert Brambley wrote:
The simple truth was and still is, there's not enough smites to make the other 95% of the rest of combats for that day seem fun.
The current /day limit provides an insignificant boost to a melee class.
You have also suggested instead of being a single attack or round of attacks that Smite designate a target and be active for 1 + CHA rounds in another thread. I have also voiced support for this. This barely offsets the daily use limit.
Smite Evil was a special attack that was meant to be feared by a Paladin's opponents. Making it an "always on" ability only serves to water it down. Also, the evil alignment is too common in opponents and the Evil subtype only applies to about a dozen non-Outsiders. You end up with it being too broad or too limited.
Freesword, thank you for chiming in and giving some positive feedback.
I cannot argue that "always on" does give a hokey feeling of 'watering down.'
What I have been struggling with is how to convey and correct a glaring disparity in the ability to be effective in combat - not only are their attack modifiers typically signifcantly lower, they tend to do far less damage. When you combine the fact that you're hitting less often, and doing less damage when you do hit, the effect is an exponentially decreased avg dmg per combat - during the general combat since the smite can only be done a few times per day for just a round a pop.
The barbarian and fighter both have a greater emphasis on strength and a lot less need for other stats affording them the ability to start off with more attack oomph; the fighter can add feats and weapon training to stack on this. The barbarian can rage and now has all sorts of new rage talents that further augment this. Jason has further promised to jack up the fighter-only feats and make him even better once we get to the feats section. The ranger gains bonus feats in a combat style that offer more attacks, or more accuracy with a bow and can really turn on the damage when he needs to.
My examples show on avg a +5 to +8 difference in the usual attacks between the paladin and the other three warrior classes by the time we hit 10th or 11th level. Not to mention that the AC is signifantly lower than the fighter, too, so the paladin isn't even the cats meow on defense - and wont likely have the ability to have an INT enough to take Combat Expert - compared to the fighter.
With the emphasis on single-class construction of characters in PF, this seems counter to that - who woulnd't want to dip in fighter for 2-5 levels to get some feats and weapon/armor training.
Since I can't argue with the 'water down' or hokey feeling that Smite Evil becomes with an 'always on', and were not likely to have a dozen or so smites a day at level worth getting them (read: not waiting till high-level where most games fall apart, DMs pull out their hair and say "do over!") what suggestion might you have to help the paladin out in making his general combat prowess more effective.
His spells can help buff, but spending rounds doing it is counter-productive - even making them swife action, there's really not a lot of them to bother, and you alway get those chowderhead arm-chair PC players that say, "Why are you using your spells on yourself, the paladin is suppose to be all about helping the party...."
Help the party? At this point I can barely help myself? My LOH are junk, I have no Concentration/Spellcraft so if I cast I'll likley lose the spell, I can channel, but unless I used one of my feats that I don't get any bonus ones of on Select Channleing, then I'm healing the same guys your fighting!
Hell even ROGUES get bonus feats now to make them better in combat!!!
Thanks for the thoughts
Robert
The progression of feats really do make quite a difference, look at my build which won't be complete till level 11 that i could have done with a fighter by level 5. See I say we make the improvements to the class that way we know what we need to do when we get to the feat section to make fighters unique. If we hold off now and the feat section comes the fighter'll get a pleasant boost and the pally will be stuck in his same bag of incompletence. I do like that word. it's almost as good as the current quizibuk we have with the paladin right now
Just because it is not "scheduled pally fixing time" doesnt mean a class wont see some sort of change.
And the pally can still see major boosts down the line in the "fix spells" portion long after final adjustments have beenmade to a fighter. Most of what a palladin lacks in weapon focus feat chains can be surpassed by low level spells already. A 7th level paladin with a +2 WIS can replicate the effects of Greater Weapon Focus AND Weapon specialisation.And let them do something like "stick sanctuary on the paladin list" and clever use in dungeon corridors would go a long way to making the pally a preferred tanker class.
|
|
But even then, isn't part of the class that the Paladin needs to be kind of a "Superman" in that he needs lots of high stats? Good STR, CON, and CHA... you really only need a DEX of 12 or 14 ('cause we know you're wearing plate) and you only need a WIS of 14 to cast the highest level Paladin spells. So again, while I understand your pain at the ability score demands of the class, I think that's part of the flavor of it.
This was true in previous editions where you HAD to have high stats not to be a good paladin....but just to QUALIFY to be a paladin at all. By that very design they were superman and why paladins were so rare; because you had to have really lucky good set of dice rolls to qualify (stat-point buys were much more uncommon at gaming groups than they are now).
Now anyone can become a paladin, the high stats are not near as likely to occur since most use the point buys, but you still need the same level of "superman" stats to be as good as a non-paladin warrior type with mediocre to good stats.
Otherwise Superman winds up looking like Robin. And for the record, I don't need my paladin to outshine everyone or anyone - but as for right now, he's just a sidekick; and thats very disheartening.
I think nostalgically about the Unearthed Arcana of first edition....now THAT was a paladin!!! That was superman. Thats when and why I fell in love with that class, and have always played them regardless of how feeble they were - because I enjoy portraying the noble chivalric knight in shining armor death before dishonor righteous holy warrior sacrifice himself for the good of mankind superman-like mentality.
Robert
|
|
Thats when and why I fell in love with that class, and have always played them regardless of how feeble they were - because I enjoy portraying the noble chivalric knight in shining armor death before dishonor righteous holy warrior sacrifice himself for the good of mankind superman-like mentality.
Robert
Other than the whole stuff about older editions this is why I play paladins too, and why it's important to me that they are at the very least mechanically equal to the other classes.
|
|
I'm curious about something: the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin all have Good BAB, equaling at 20th level a +20/+15/+10/+5 series of attacks. Yet, according to some, the Paladin(even though he as the same bonuses to attack as the others) is not a offensive class. Am i missing something here? Did the definition of offense change when i wasn't looking and i missed the memo? Just because in 3.5 the Paladin was better suited to defense does not mean he needs to have the same role in Pathfinder. What his role SHOULD be is that of the Holy Warrior. Yes, re-read that last word 4 or 5 times, it does say WARRIOR. Now, since we seem to be confused let us summon the power of the mighty Online Dictionary:
Warrior:
a man engaged or experienced in warfare.Sounds like somebody who goes out and puts the hurt on others. Now your generic Warrior, one who can puts a whooping on every enemy he faces, regardless of race, creed, or biological(or lack thereof) build is called a Fighter. He has a friend, who fuels his big, nasty beatstick with a burning anger, also known as Rage. This friend is called a Barbarian. Sometimes the two go into the woods, and when they want a sneaky, stealthy guide, who can put a solid whooping on the enemies they might find in the woods(or any other natural terrain) they call upon the Ranger.
Now these three are walking through the woods, whopping on bad guys left and right, when suddenly, they stumble upon a vile scene: a filthy, evil, altar where EVIL, EVIL beings are about to sacrifice an innocent villager. they all turn to their fourth buddy the mighty Paladin, champion of Good and righter of wrongs, and proclaim "Holy Warrior, whoop these vile creatures" and the Paladin stares down the Evil people then looks to his companions with a sad look to his face.
"I'm sorry" he says. "But not only have i used up all of my Smites for the day, but supposedly I am not to be an offensive person, so I'll just raise my shield and hold the line"WTF??....dude, seriously? that's what your suggesting we regulate one of the 4 classes with full BAB to??....Drugs are obviously the problem here, because i can not possibly fathom your feeling this way if you weren't under the influence.
You sir get the "post of the week" from me. Well said, succinct and point made; and hilarious too! I've been trying to contain my laughter while here at work.....too funny!
finally, whoever it was that quoted George Carlin before when they said "I'm a simple man, and i do not posses an engineering degree" should get a free plate of Lilth's cookies(is she still around?)
That would be me. And I think you mirrored one yourself with the "Did the definition of offense change when i wasn't looking and i missed the memo?" I remember him talking about the work Urban with that reference. George is and was my "Budha" (if-you-will) for most of my adult life. He was my mentor and philosopher and a spiritual guide to me, not unlike someone's reverend. He is sorely missed.
Robert
We can't really design the game around what house-rules individual groups are going to use though. The maximum standard point buy in PfRPG is currently 25-points. If a DM chooses to give out more points than 25, they are effectively house-ruling which is the same as signing a waiver for any responsibility Paizo could take for things getting out of whack.
Given 25-points as a max then, and given an 18 costs 17 points, there is no way that (at the same number of points), a Fighter or Barbarian will be able to max-out their two primary stats to the point where they are then spending points on "nice but not essential" stats like Int — even a pair of 17's would still be 26 points.
I suspect that this is why some of us are contending that it's a phantom concern to say that increased point-buys will advantage the Paladin more than other classes. Within the scope of the rules, there simply aren't enough points to do so. We also can't "idiot-proof" every rule against what DM X is going to come up with that goes against RAW. If we try to, then we'll not only fail, but we'll waste a lot...
Yes, but the point buy system is pretty much the standard for testing. Most people who play d20 roll stats. You wont find us going to "league play" at conventions because we have kids, jobs, etc.
The suggestion I made for smite was allow it to target one creature with its use and ALL attacks for several rounds gain that benefit - then and only then could 'smite' be considered potentially able to close the gap. Right now it's used for a half-dozen rounds a day - and still doesn't make up that +7 attack difference on avg, or the +16 difference on damage on avg. There's no other way to explain it. My examples are concise from many angles, and you simply can't ignore its veracity.
And I could cut that +7 to attack the fighter gets with Curse and then the pally looks a good deal better off in the comparison. Or when your Sorc gets confused? What is the fighter going to do, besides knock them out or hold them down grappled.
|
|
And I could cut that +7 to attack the fighter gets with Curse and then the pally looks a good deal better off in the comparison. Or when your Sorc gets confused? What is the fighter going to do, besides knock them out or hold them down grappled.The suggestion I made for smite was allow it to target one creature with its use and ALL attacks for several rounds gain that benefit - then and only then could 'smite' be considered potentially able to close the gap. Right now it's used for a half-dozen rounds a day - and still doesn't make up that +7 attack difference on avg, or the +16 difference on damage on avg. There's no other way to explain it. My examples are concise from many angles, and you simply can't ignore its veracity.
Thats a great point! You know what I never thought of it that way. I withdraw my persistence to give the paladin more combat ability for that would just screw everything up when the fighter gets cursed. Thank you for enlightening me and showing me the way.
Robert
Wouldnt it help to actually cause some change if we all rallied behind a change?
Not really. If an idea is good it will stand on its own merits. Not because of any sort of clamor.
I'd like ot see some sort of party wide buff ability. Like give Aura of Courage the same effect of Inspire Courage. It doesnt step on the Bard's toes (imo) because the bard could have it earlier, more often (proposed change intact), more spells, and more skills.I'd also like to see SE given the effect of Holy (since it seems logical).
I'd also like to see LoH become a free action.
But I'm not going ot "fall in" with other ideas that I dont like just because they apply to the same class.
Smite needs to deliver. It either needs alot more uses per day at its current strength, or a great big heaping helping of uber steroids and kept at its current uses per day.
A 20th level paladin can use it twice per encounter (average).
A 1st level paladin can use ti *less often than a 1st level wizard has first level spells per day* and its supposed to be their main combat ability! That's absolutely terrible.I wonder - Jason seems to be cool with extending a smite use to more than one attack, which I firmly agree with, but I'm curious. What would it take to make smite evil worthwhile as a single-attack benefit at its current uses per day?
I was thinking that it should be something like a +20 insight bonus to the attack and a damage bonus that scales like a sneak attack. Would that do it?
I'm thinking something like Banish, maybe. If Smite was almost a "save or die" for the bad guy.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I was thinking that perhaps Smite Evil could work like the dispel evil spell - that while you have it fired up the holy power gives you a deflection bonus to AC vs. evil, and once you connect you can banish an EvO or auto-dispel an evil enchantment.
It's a thought.
<irrelevant digression>
Personally (not from a "they should do this" perspective, but from an "i wish it were this way" perspective), the paladin should actually be a prestige class.
Heck, Yes! And in earlier editions it was the precursor to a prestige class in that you had to be a name level fighter of lawful alignment to become one.
A 7th level paladin with a +2 WIS can replicate the effects of Greater Weapon Focus AND Weapon specialisation.
How? I don't understand. The paladin has an ability to have this all the time for every attack during the day in every encounter with just a +2 WIS? Please explain.
Robert
Greater Weapon Focus is +2to-Hit. Weapon Spec is +2 toDamage.
Bull's Strength gives +2 to both (and any STR skill). And I can provide this bonus to anybody in the party. The fighter cant. For that aspect I only get to use it half as much as the fighter does his feats (4 encounters/day)And the fighter has to use 3 feats to mimic the effect of one spell.
And I could cut that +7 to attack the fighter gets with Curse and then the pally looks a good deal better off in the comparison. Or when your Sorc gets confused? What is the fighter going to do, besides knock them out or hold them down grappled.The suggestion I made for smite was allow it to target one creature with its use and ALL attacks for several rounds gain that benefit - then and only then could 'smite' be considered potentially able to close the gap. Right now it's used for a half-dozen rounds a day - and still doesn't make up that +7 attack difference on avg, or the +16 difference on damage on avg. There's no other way to explain it. My examples are concise from many angles, and you simply can't ignore its veracity.
Thats a great point! You know what I never thought of it that way. I withdraw my persistence to give the paladin more combat ability for that would just screw everything up when the fighter gets cursed. Thank you for enlightening me and showing me the way.
Robert
You should.
At least your persistant quest to make the paladin on a par with the fighter in melee. The fighter will never cast spells and that is an edge that you have glossed over several times in your comparisons.
I was thinking that perhaps Smite Evil could work like the dispel evil spell - that while you have it fired up the holy power gives you a deflection bonus to AC vs. evil, and once you connect you can banish an EvO or auto-dispel an evil enchantment.
It's a thought.
good one
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Heck, Yes! And in earlier editions it was the precursor to a prestige class in that you had to be a name level fighter of lawful alignment to become one.<irrelevant digression>
Personally (not from a "they should do this" perspective, but from an "i wish it were this way" perspective), the paladin should actually be a prestige class.
I assume you refer to the Companion rules. Amusingly, those were the precursors of prestige classes.
But... you rather overstate your case.
The Paladin in BECMI rules was an adaptation of the pre-existing paladin, which was its own freestanding class, in AD&D. It also was only one previous edition, and at that an offshoot branch from the 'main' evolutionary tree of D&D development, not something that existed across "earlier editions."
|
|
A 7th level paladin with a +2 WIS can replicate the effects of Greater Weapon Focus AND Weapon specialisation.
How? I don't understand. The paladin has an ability to have this all the time for every attack during the day in every encounter with just a +2 WIS? Please explain.
Robert
Greater Weapon Focus is +2to-Hit. Weapon Spec is +2 toDamage.
Bull's Strength gives +2 to both (and any STR skill). And I can provide this bonus to anybody in the party. The fighter cant. For that aspect I only get to use it half as much as the fighter does his feats (4 encounters/day)And the fighter has to use 3 feats to mimic the effect of one spell.
Theres a modicum of flaws in your logic, however.
1. A 7th level paladin MAY be able to cast Bull Strength 1 x day; most likely yes, but only if he has a 12+ CHA. At 8th level he should be able to do so 2 x day. Regardless - in order for a 7th level paladin to cast that 4 x day, he would need a 38 Charisma.
2. The paladin's caster level is 1/2 that of cleric - thus casting the 1 Bull's Strength will last 3 whole minutes. (one encounter - MAYBE two if they happen imediately following the first).
3. It doesn't stack with Gauntlets of Ogre Power - which a 7th level Fighter is sure to have a +2 Str enhancing item - maybe even the paladin too; thus the spell isn't getting its full effect under most circumstances.
4. Comparing a single-shot/use spell with a short duration is nothing compared to the always active ability of a weapon focus/specialization or weapon training ability - the latter takes no action to activate it, it's always in effect, cannot be dispelled, works in magic-dead areas, and the paladin memorizing such a spell just means that they aren't memorizing a different spell that might be more helpful elsewhere - like Eagle's Splendor to boost his Charisma, or Shield Other to help a comrade.
Overall, that spell will lose it's novelty as levels increase when enhancement items are more common and prevalent, will eventually - about 9th level not even make a difference in catching the fighter because he'll have a +4 str item most likely by that point anyways; the spell doesn't last very long, and it doesn't scale.
I won't dispute that is useful under certain circumstances at level 7; but it doesn't "close the gap" that you were addressing of my concerns.
Robert
|
|
by the way you all suck for not discussing my idea of adding stunning to smite.
Sorry, bud. That is a good idea. It was something that I discussed in another thread as being one of many possible "add-ons" to smite evil that can affect the opponent.
Suggestion I made were:
Stun 1 rd
Blind 1 rd
Dispel magic (to rid a magical protection)
Stagger 1 rd
Add bonus to CMB check vs that opponent.
Someone else recently added the Banishment which I like or Dismissal would work (as a less effective).
Robert
Heck, Yes! And in earlier editions it was the precursor to a prestige class in that you had to be a name level fighter of lawful alignment to become one.<irrelevant digression>
Personally (not from a "they should do this" perspective, but from an "i wish it were this way" perspective), the paladin should actually be a prestige class.I assume you refer to the Companion rules. Amusingly, those were the precursors of prestige classes.
But... you rather overstate your case.
The Paladin in BECMI rules was an adaptation of the pre-existing paladin, which was its own freestanding class, in AD&D. It also was only one previous edition, and at that an offshoot branch from the 'main' evolutionary tree of D&D development, not something that existed across "earlier editions."
I was counting the Basic Rules and the Expert Rules as different editions (and so on with each box).
whoops
by the way you all suck for not discussing my idea of adding stunning to smite.
Because I latched onto the idea that SE should have a Banish/Dispel Evil effect, dude. Sorry
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
And I could cut that +7 to attack the fighter gets with Curse and then the pally looks a good deal better off in the comparison. Or when your Sorc gets confused? What is the fighter going to do, besides knock them out or hold them down grappled.The suggestion I made for smite was allow it to target one creature with its use and ALL attacks for several rounds gain that benefit - then and only then could 'smite' be considered potentially able to close the gap. Right now it's used for a half-dozen rounds a day - and still doesn't make up that +7 attack difference on avg, or the +16 difference on damage on avg. There's no other way to explain it. My examples are concise from many angles, and you simply can't ignore its veracity.
Thats a great point! You know what I never thought of it that way. I withdraw my persistence to give the paladin more combat ability for that would just screw everything up when the fighter gets cursed. Thank you for enlightening me and showing me the way.
Robert
You should.
At least your persistant quest to make the paladin on a par with the fighter in melee. The fighter will never cast spells and that is an edge that you have glossed over several times in your comparisons.
The paladin's ability to cast spells is seen by many as a questionable benefit, because they get so few and their caster level is so low. A bump in this realm would go a long way towards making their non-fighting abilities more relevant.
But your point is absolutely correct. Fighters cannot cast spells. At all.
Also lost in the shuffle of "my paladin's spellcasting sucks" is the fact that they can use spell-completion/spell-trigger devices. A paladin can pick up a wand of cure light/mod/ser wounds or lesser restoration/neutralize poison (or could take Craft Wand and make it himself if he really wanted) and cure up the party after fights. A fighter can't. Heck, with the abolition of cross-class skills, paladins can be good at UMD and use wizard wands and such if they want to.
A paladin already can do lots of things a fighter can't. The problem is that they are also supposed to be fighter-types, and that's where depression sets in; if you don't value the things they CAN do then of course you only see the stuff they CAN'T do. Still, given that they are primarily build as fighting types, their non-fighting abilities are not at present good enough to counteract their relative incompletence :) at fighting COMPARED TO the other fighting classes.
Now, all of the above stated, Robert's proposal is that paladins should be comparably good fighting EVIL that fighters are at fighting ANYTHING. The counter-point that MOST of what D&D characters fight is evil is also an apt one. I think there needs to be some meeting in the middle there, and an ability usable only a few times a day would have to be pretty frickin boss to level the scales, and even then... well, it ain't easy.
Hence the testy conversations across all of these boards. Maybe it's just me, but it looks like we have a more convo around the paladin than we do around the cleric and druid combined. Just an impression, could be wrong.
3. It doesn't stack with Gauntlets of Ogre Power - which a 7th level Fighter is sure to have a +2 Str enhancing item - maybe even the paladin too; thus the spell isn't getting its full effect under most circumstances.
Whatever, dude. I never got any gauntlets of ogre power issued to my fighters. And I couldnt stroll into a "magic store" and buy none, either. I did have plenty of plustas on my weapons. But not nearly as many on my stats. Thats why I think you underrate your spell buffs. You were playing with a monty haul DM.