Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Snorter, I think this is a cool idea but....
IMO the spellcasting system is complex enough without creating a hybrid spontaneous/ memorized system. I deal primarily with a group of players who are new to the game and this sort of system would really F* with their heads.
Memorized plus spontaneous XXX where XXX is one single effect is reasonably easy to lay down to them. Your hybrid system would be cool if the game were all advanced players but... lets have a little mercy on the new guys :)
LOL
Yeah; I've had players like that...
I agree, I'm OK with them being spontaneous casters, using the full list. That suggestion above was a possible compromise, to throw a bone to those who would have an aneurysm at the thought of paladins not setting their spells in stone at the crack of dawn.
It further rewards the character for having high Cha. Using that variant, not only do they get bonus spells, but a more flexible list. There comes a point at which the stat gives diminishing returns. An 18 Cha gives you all the bonus spells you'll ever get, most of the spells are buffs or cures, so increasing the save DC is not as relevant. You're making your saves on 2+. Social skills get better, but paladins don't get the skill points to abuse the game, like a Diplomancer Bard/Rogue. By contrast, a melee-type with less M.A.D. could have maxed his Str, and get a pay-off round after round.
Actually, CHA keeps on giving bonus spells after 18, because starting at 20 you get a second bonus spell at 1st, then 22 another 2nd, at 24 another 3rd, at 26 another 4th.
A 20th level paladin with say a 30 CHR, a not-unreasonable prospect, would be able to cast about SEVEN 1st & 2nd level spells and FIVE 3rd & 4th level spells per day. Interestingly, that's almost identical to the number of 1st-4th level spells a cleric or druid could cast with a 30 WIS.
One of the other subtle changes in the Beta pal/rgr is not just getting their spells at earlier levels (4/7/10/13 instead of 4/8/11/14) but also increasing their number at a faster rate. The ultimate total at 20th level isn't that much different (4/4/3/3 in Beta insted of 3/3/3/3 in SRD), but getting there is much nicer (e.g., 10th level is Beta 2/1/0/-, SRD is 1/1/-/-, 15th level is 3/2/1/1 Beta, SRD is 2/1/1/0).
Not a huge change, but a nice small one.
I would disagree with this, to the extent that if you have multiple bad guys out there and you activate the current "paladin upgrade" smite (lasting 1-3 rounds), then even if your allies whack the guy you intending to smite, you can still attack the other bad guys on the board. If there is only one target, then naturally there is no real difference.
The targeted smite is no real come-down from the old 3.0/3.5/original Beta smite (1 smite = 1 attack on 1 target), cuz there was no duration to speak of, but I think the direction of smite is going towards it having some kind of duration, and that is what provoked my concern about the targeted smite's duration becoming a nonfactor if the target gets whacked.
I enjoy a lot of the other suggestions, but they seem slightly more complicated. Also, any smite with a defined duration will fail to address the problem my player has voiced: when you hit something with the fist of an angry god, declaring the target as anathema to all that is good and right, at what point does your deity (or worse yet, your ideal) shrug its shoulders and capitualate "Well I gave it a crack, but you're on your own now, chuck."
I advocate Targets/Day as a solution that seems more persistent and Oath-like.
|
Actually, CHA keeps on giving bonus spells after 18, because starting at 20 you get a second bonus spell at 1st, then 22 another 2nd, at 24 another 3rd, at 26 another 4th.
A 20th level paladin with say a 30 CHR, a not-unreasonable prospect, would be able to cast about SEVEN 1st & 2nd level spells and FIVE 3rd & 4th level spells per day. Interestingly, that's almost identical to the number of 1st-4th level spells a cleric or druid could cast with a 30 WIS.
One of the other subtle changes in the Beta pal/rgr is not just getting their spells at earlier levels (4/7/10/13 instead of 4/8/11/14) but also increasing their number at a faster rate. The ultimate total at 20th level isn't that much different (4/4/3/3 in Beta insted of 3/3/3/3 in SRD), but getting there is much nicer (e.g., 10th level is Beta 2/1/0/-, SRD is 1/1/-/-, 15th level is 3/2/1/1 Beta, SRD is 2/1/1/0).
Not a huge change, but a nice small one.
And that is a good thing, but here is my problem with most of the fixes to the paladin. They are all good, but most of them don't take effect till level 10+, where the paladin is actually not that far behind and is coming into his own.
Levels 1-6 though haven't seen a lot in the way of improvement however, and this in my experience is where the paladin suffers.
I'll break it down.
Level 1: detect evil can actually be used in combat yay, too bad nothing at level 1 but clerics, undead, and demons show up as evil. So it's probably not going to do anything, that's a lot of move actions wasted since if your fighting a cleric you usually know it, same with undead and demons that can be fought at these CRs. Smite evil, okay the AC boost helps, but I don't know many campaigns (that's not saying there aren't any, but most don't) that have you fighting undead/demons at level 1. So if you do hit, your dealing an extra 1 damage, woot! after that you're mister NPC. Simple fix, give the paladin some minor ability so that after he uses the 1 smite per day he has something that sets him apart from an NPC warrior with the same stats. plenty have been suggested, my favorite is that aura of good takes on properties of protection from evil and grows with level suggested here
Level 2: the change to LoH was perfect, level 2 is fixed.
Level 3: the immunity to fear, might be useful, and you maybe will start fighting undead at this point. Thats a lot of maybe's needed in order for your abilities to feel useful. Fixing smite by removing the demon/undead aspect would at least give you two class feature that are useful. Instead of just continuing to depend on LoH as your only really decent class feature.
Level 4: Channeling was improved and made worse at the exact same time.
If you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot to do it, channeling is decent. Not good, decent. Simple fix, break it back from LoH and give the paladin 1+cha uses again. This will keep people from crying that the paladin isn't a cleric so he shouldn't channel like one, since the cleric gains 3+cha. Spellcasting is fixed by simply making him cast spontaneously from the whole list.
Level 5: Perfect the way it is.
Level 6: I agree that gaining the ability to cast remove disease is paramount to a dead level. Especially since most diseases (there are exceptions) have an incubation period so they don't effect combat, and by the time they would, the cleric has had time to memorize the spell. A simple fix would be to allow a paladins remove disease to actually restore all ability damage lost to the disease. A cleric would take two spells (remove disease and lesser restoration) to do that. Therefor it doesn't feel like a dead level.
I don't think any of these fixes really represent some huge boost in paladin power. I think that they would fix the crap feeling of these low levels, and then all the other fixes that have taken place will have the paladin feeling good at high levels.
|
|
Another "at-a-boy" for this post. Damn fine job good sir!
<triple-glee>
This is good going!
Only another 24,995 posters to convince before next Summer!
Further to my musings above, I see it like this;
Paladin: "Silverhoof! Speak to me, Silverhoof!"
Silverhoof:<blech>
Paladin:"Oh, my valiant steed! Why must the good die young? I wish you were well!"
Paladin's Guardian Angel:<rolls eyes>
Silverhoof:<whinny>
Paladin:"Oh, Silverhoof! You're not injured at all! You had me worried, you silly thing!"
As far as the players round the table are concerned, the Paladin's player declares the 'casting of a spell', but as far as the characters in-game, he just seems to benefit from sheer, dumb luck.
{EDIT, for lastknight:} GLEESPLODE!
|
Level 6: I agree that gaining the ability to cast remove disease is paramount to a dead level. Especially since most diseases (there are exceptions) have an incubation period so they don't effect combat, and by the time they would, the cleric has had time to memorize the spell. A simple fix would be to allow a paladins remove disease to actually restore all ability damage lost to the disease. A cleric would take two spells (remove disease and lesser restoration) to do that. Therefor it doesn't feel like a dead level.
Excellent post, LKL. I think you broke things down quite succinctly. I woudln't say Divine Bond is perfect - but it's one of the best for levels 1-6. I still think that BANE vs Undead, Evil Outsiders and even Dragons is plausible; and I strongly believe that having the duration in minutes not need to be consecutive so as to save some of the duration over the course of a 12 hour adventuring day - not 15 minute day.
That all being said: I want to say about your idea for the 6th level - you're a freakin genius! I never even considered the possibility of such a great remedy in regards to this ability. I think - given the paladins divine health ability and their cliche' staunch immunity to such - that having the ability to just lay a hand on the afflicted and bring them back to full health - not just removing the disease, but removing the long-duration maladies as well - thats just perfect! I love this idea!
Robert
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Another "at-a-boy" for this post. Damn fine job good sir!<triple-glee>
This is good going!
Only another 24,995 posters to convince before next Summer!
Further to my musings above, I see it like this;
Paladin: "Silverhoof! Speak to me, Silverhoof!"
Silverhoof:<blech>
Paladin:"Oh, my valiant steed! Why must the good die young? I wish you were well!"
Paladin's Guardian Angel:<rolls eyes>
Silverhoof:<whinny>
Paladin:"Oh, Silverhoof! You're not injured at all! You had me worried, you silly thing!"
As far as the players round the table are concerned, the Paladin's player declares the 'casting of a spell', but as far as the characters in-game, he just seems to benefit from sheer, dumb luck.
{EDIT, for lastknight:} GLEESPLODE!
Very cute. If Elan were a paladin, that's exactly how it'd go down... :)
|
|
Um, wow, so I just had an idea that I think would fix the divine bond problem. The paladin when summoning a celestial spirit may use one of his +1 bonuses to make his weapon unbreakable.
Simple, easy, optional, and prevents the obvious, "Hey he's a paladin smash the sword."
Yeah it might work if the paladin thought having holy was more important, but then it might not...
|
|
Level 6: I agree that gaining the ability to cast remove disease is paramount to a dead level. Especially since most diseases (there are exceptions) have an incubation period so they don't effect combat, and by the time they would, the cleric has had time to memorize the spell. A simple fix would be to allow a paladins remove disease to actually restore all ability damage lost to the disease. A cleric would take two spells (remove disease and lesser restoration) to do that. Therefor it doesn't feel like a dead level.Excellent post, LKL. I think you broke things down quite succinctly. I woudln't say Divine Bond is perfect - but it's one of the best for levels 1-6. I still think that BANE vs Undead, Evil Outsiders and even Dragons is plausible; and I strongly believe that having the duration in minutes not need to be consecutive so as to save some of the duration over the course of a 12 hour adventuring day - not 15 minute day.
That all being said: I want to say about your idea for the 6th level - you're a freakin genius! I never even considered the possibility of such a great remedy in regards to this ability. I think - given the paladins divine health ability and their cliche' staunch immunity to such - that having the ability to just lay a hand on the afflicted and bring them back to full health - not just removing the disease, but removing the long-duration maladies as well - thats just perfect! I love this idea!
Robert
And Jesus was a paladin :)
By the way, thank you for the kind words.
|
|
Why strength?
The main stat for Paladins is char, right?
But from a melee point of view, what's char good for?
hey...at level 1, swite evil once per day.
The rest of the day your Paladin has to rely on his poor strength score.
And the poor strength score, well all because a A Paldain has to have a good charisma score.
And at level 2 to 4. Smite evil once per day, and then it's back to the poor strength score. A bit like a warrior.
...at level 5, hurray, it's 2 smite / day.
...at level 6 - 9 it's still.....hurray 2 smite / day.
etc. etc. etc.The Paladin will never be a good fighter typ.
Give him a really good AC and let him bash evil outsiders and undeads.
Leave the rest to fighters or barbarians.
or....give The paldin a godly AC and holy feats or combat feats.
And let Him pick these feats, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites. Feats like Divine Might or Divine Shield or mobility, Improved Disarm or something.
Just a thouhgt.
Ever played a character that couldn't get hit from a godly AC, but then couldn't actually do much offense wise? It's pretty dull after about 6 levels of it.
|
|
And Jesus was a paladin :)
Really??? I met him; I thought he was grandmother's groundskeeper though.
Talk about a double-life!
Robert
Good joke,
Seriously though, when I think paladins, I can't think of a more Paladin like character than Jesus. That has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in him.
I haven't kept up with this post in several days, but has someone proposed the following idea?
Basically, go back to the x/smite per day mechanic and it's good for one attack (instead of 1 round) as it is in the Pathfinder Beta:
Smite Evil (Su) Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil. The smite evil attempt lasts a number of rounds equal to her Charisma modifier or when discharged with a successful melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1d6 extra points of damage for every 2 class levels. If the creature is an evil outsider or undead, the smite deals a 1d6 extra points of damage per class level.
Keeps it simple and effective.
Thoughts?
|
|
I haven't kept up with this post in several days, but has someone proposed the following idea?
Basically, go back to the x/smite per day mechanic and it's good for one attack (instead of 1 round) as it is in the Pathfinder Beta:
Smite Evil (Su) Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil. The smite evil attempt lasts a number of rounds equal to her Charisma modifier or when discharged with a successful melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1d6 extra points of damage for every 2 class levels. If the creature is an evil outsider or undead, the smite deals a 1d6 extra points of damage per class level.
Keeps it simple and effective.
Thoughts?
Well, I'm not saying that its a bad idea - but the truth is that IMO the paladin's biggest issue is:
1) They do not typically have a good enough ability to have attack roll modifiers - meaning they're usually behind the curve and have few ways to effectively increase it.
Doing this with the smite isn't going to fix it. The smites affect so few attack rolls in an adventuring day that it doesn't make enough of difference.
For my money, the smites aren't broken; provide means for the paladin to hit more often during combat, and the smites are just gravy for those few attacks/day.
The proposed changes for smite (those posted by jason B.) does make that ability more in line with what most of us believe the ability should be able to do - however, again, there needs to be more functionality in the paladin's attack regime for the core parts of combat - irrespective of the smite ability.
Robert
|
|
Ever played a character that couldn't get hit from a godly AC, but then couldn't actually do much offense wise? It's pretty dull after about 6 levels of it.
6 levels!!!??? That gets dull after 6 rounds!
Robert
I guess considering before the LoH fix that's exactly what I was I can't really argue.
I was exactly what he was calling for, and I hated it.
|
|
Ever played a character that couldn't get hit from a godly AC, but then couldn't actually do much offense wise? It's pretty dull after about 6 levels of it.
6 levels!!!??? That gets dull after 6 rounds!
Robert
I guess considering before the LoH fix that's exactly what I was I can't really argue.
I was exactly what he was calling for, and I hated it.
I am playing that now - Kaerthoryn with a tower shield et al.
I do enjoy playing the guy that others look at to protect them and save them - and I try to keep my chin up and a good attitude about it - but it does get frustrating to see the cleric and rogue both outperform me nearly every combat - unless I've been the benefactor of all the cleric and sorceror buffs we have available.
But I do a good job of not complaining and belaboring my frustration - i just continue doing what I'm good at. It's enjoyable to a point - but it gets dull after 6 rounds - like I said. :-)
Robert
|
|
And Jesus was a paladin :)
Really??? I met him; I thought he was grandmother's groundskeeper though.
Talk about a double-life!
Robert
Good joke,
Seriously though, when I think paladins, I can't think of a more Paladin like character than Jesus. That has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in him.
Really?....I always considered him more of a cleric - of a pacifist god for sure - like Ilmater of Forgotten Realms.
I see paladins more of a combatant than Jesus was describle ("Love your enemy" mentality, "forgive" "Peace and love" etc). I never thought of Jesus as a in-your-face combatant.
I always considered Superman to be THE paladin-like character. Truth, Justice, staunch and hardy......but with enough chivalry not to kill needlessly - even the bad-guys.
Then again, considering our historical personal experience with playing paladins and their inability to really hurt anything effectively....you may have been spot-on with the Jesus comparison.
Robert
|
|
I enjoy a lot of the other suggestions, but they seem slightly more complicated. Also, any smite with a defined duration will fail to address the problem my player has voiced: when you hit something with the fist of an angry god, declaring the target as anathema to all that is good and right, at what point does your deity (or worse yet, your ideal) shrug its shoulders and capitualate "Well I gave it a crack, but you're on your own now, chuck."I advocate Targets/Day as a solution that seems more persistent and Oath-like.
I was a staunch supporter of the targets/day - in fact that was originally something I came up with and shared with everyone; but since reading Jason N's suggestion of two different kinds of 'smites' (one being a short duration - the other being a single big damage strike) I will say that my/your idea of targets/day is my favorite idea - UNLESS Jason's idea is taken seriously - it's the only thing I would want to see it replaced with.
Provided:
1) the duration version is a short duration like 1 rd + 1 rd/Cha Mod.
2) they both draw from the same pool
3) There's enough smites / day to allow both to be drawn from the same pool and used frequent enough to make a difference.
4) it would be a good idea to call the duration version by another name other than Smite (despite using the same pool of uses) so as to not confuse when stating oneo or the other is being activated.
The way I see it working is:
HOLY AVENGER: A paladin may focus divine energy from his god to course through his body and become an extension of its might. For 1 round + 1 rd per CHA MOD, the paladin gains a bonus to all attack rolls made against evil targets equal to their CHA mod, and an amount of damage equal to his paladin level. Also he gains a bonus to his AC equal to his CHA MOD as a Sacred Bonus. Using this ability uses one of his daily Smite Evil attempts.
SMITE EVIL: 1+CHA mod per day, the paladin may declare a strike to Smite Evil. During this attack, the paladin adds half his paladin level to his attack roll, and deals 1d6 of holy damage / 2 paladin levels. This smite is not used up for the day, if the paladin misses with his attack roll, but if he tries to smite a target that is not evil, the use if expended, but no benefits are gained from it.
Robert
|
|
The way I see it working is:
HOLY AVENGER: A paladin may focus divine energy from his god to course through his body and become an extension of its might. For 1 round + 1 rd per CHA MOD, the paladin gains a bonus to all attack rolls made against evil targets equal to their CHA mod, and an amount of damage equal to his paladin level. Also he gains a bonus to his AC equal to his CHA MOD as a Sacred Bonus. Using this ability uses one of his daily Smite Evil attempts.
SMITE EVIL: 1+CHA mod per day, the paladin may declare a strike to Smite Evil. During this attack, the paladin adds half his paladin level to his attack roll, and deals 1d6 of holy damage / 2 paladin levels. This smite is not used up for the day, if the paladin misses with his attack roll, but if he tries to smite a target that is not evil, the use if expended, but no benefits are gained from it.
Robert
I could get behind it this way. Don't forget to add that Smite Evil bypasses DR
|
|
I could get behind it this way. Don't forget to add that Smite Evil bypasses DR
Good call - and that he gains a new daily Smite at 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th.
Robert
Round him out with your idea for disease management, some bonus feats, access to Tower Shields, and change caster level to Pal Level -3, and re-seperate Channelling and Laying on Hands, and I think we have a winner!
I don't like the aura that allows everyone to smite evil (using up two of the precious uses to do so), replace that with Mettle, add the couple tweaks to the Divine Bond (bane, split up durations, split bonuses between shield and sword),
and we may have a winner!
Robert
|
|
You mean he gains another use that can be used either for smite or holy avenger at 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th right?I could get behind it this way. Don't forget to add that Smite Evil bypasses DR
Good call - and that he gains a new daily Smite at 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th.
Robert
Well yes - his Holy Avenger idea would use up a daily use of Smite.
So if his pool of smites increase, he can use more of them for Holy Avenger if that is what he allocates the use for, that day.
Robert
I advocate Targets/Day as a solution that seems more persistent and Oath-like.
The original intent of smite was a single hit, not a persistent effect. The Oaths idea proposed by Vult Wrathblades was separate from smite, so that the effects stack.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I enjoy a lot of the other suggestions, but they seem slightly more complicated. Also, any smite with a defined duration will fail to address the problem my player has voiced: when you hit something with the fist of an angry god, declaring the target as anathema to all that is good and right, at what point does your deity (or worse yet, your ideal) shrug its shoulders and capitualate "Well I gave it a crack, but you're on your own now, chuck."I advocate Targets/Day as a solution that seems more persistent and Oath-like.
I was a staunch supporter of the targets/day - in fact that was originally something I came up with and shared with everyone; but since reading Jason N's suggestion of two different kinds of 'smites' (one being a short duration - the other being a single big damage strike) I will say that my/your idea of targets/day is my favorite idea - UNLESS Jason's idea is taken seriously - it's the only thing I would want to see it replaced with.
Provided:
1) the duration version is a short duration like 1 rd + 1 rd/Cha Mod.
2) they both draw from the same pool
3) There's enough smites / day to allow both to be drawn from the same pool and used frequent enough to make a difference.
4) it would be a good idea to call the duration version by another name other than Smite (despite using the same pool of uses) so as to not confuse when stating oneo or the other is being activated.The way I see it working is:
HOLY AVENGER: A paladin may focus divine energy from his god to course through his body and become an extension of its might. For 1 round + 1 rd per CHA MOD, the paladin gains a bonus to all attack rolls made against evil targets equal to their CHA mod, and an amount of damage equal to his paladin level. Also he gains a bonus to his AC equal to his CHA MOD as a Sacred Bonus. Using this ability uses one of his daily Smite Evil attempts.
The way I see it working is:
HOLY AVENGER: A paladin may focus divine energy from his god to course through his body and become an extension of its might. For 1 round + 1 rd per CHA MOD, the paladin gains a bonus to all attack rolls made against evil targets equal to their CHA mod, and an amount of damage equal to his paladin level. Also he gains a bonus to his AC equal to his CHA MOD as a Sacred Bonus. Using this ability uses one of his daily Smite Evil attempts.
SMITE EVIL: 1+CHA mod per day, the paladin may declare a strike to Smite Evil. During this attack, the paladin adds half his paladin level to his attack roll, and deals 1d6 of holy damage / 2 paladin levels. This smite is not used up for the day, if the paladin misses with his attack roll, but if he tries to smite a target that is not evil, the use if expended, but no benefits are gained from it.
Robert
At first I was thinking this was too much, and I don't like how Charisma affects the HA ability three different ways (duration, AC, attack rolls), but I've thought about it some more. I think one of two things should be true, but not both. To wit, either:
a. Charisma gives you more uses; or,
b. Charisma makes the uses last longer.
If these were two entirely separate powers, I think you could do what you like, but if they are linked, then I think allowing you to switch between uses at this high level of ongoing juice is too much.
Consider the 1st level paladin with an 18 CHA. He has 5 uses per day of a swift action power that lasts 5 rounds, giving him +4 to hit and +4 to AC and +1 to damage. THAT, I think would be a quite substantial temptation for dippification, esp. for CHA-happy rogues, bards, and clerics (I'm not worried about sorcs, but that's a pretty sweet AC bonus, being sacred so it stacks with almost everything).
I think I've come to a happy place with the following thought. See what you think of this.
This is your basic smite. You hit them after the fact, so no messy language about holding the charge. It's one smite = one attack, but it produces a nicely satisfying BOOM when you hit something. Something that really says SMITE!
This is your super-power-up for battle against multiple bad guys. Yes, at 1st level it only lasts for 1 round. You are correct. BUT, you also gain multiple uses at 1st level, so you can do it round after round if you wanna. Your CHA bonus is increasing the total duration you can do smites/HA per day, but you can segment it into one-round increments (or a couple-round increments at higher levels).
This is very similar to Jason B's proposed 'upgrade' smite evil effect, but for the following:
1. It specifies the bonus as sacred.
2. The HA ability only beats DR/good (to beat all DR you use your smite).
3. It is something you can do multiple times given the larger number of smites per day.
4. The duration increases at a faster rate.
5. It is something you can do IN ADDITION TO smite evil. That is, you can power up your Holy Avenger AND every time you hit a worthy BBEG you can smite evil on top if it to drop the big boom.
|
|
At first I was thinking this was too much, and I don't like how Charisma affects the HA ability three different ways (duration, AC, attack rolls), but I've thought about it some more. I think one of two things should be true, but not both. To wit, either:
I will agree the that triple-dip for Holy Avenger with the Charisma may be overdoing it. I certainly love the idea of yours for the two different methods (one duration based - one instant).
Here's where I disagree wholeheartedly:
Rounds of the HA should not be just 1 for levels 1-4, and 2 for levels 5-9. No way. If we're not using CHA mod for duration then some other means needs to be established. I would be alot happier if the AC bonus was divorced from the CHA mod. Perhaps that is what is scaled. +1 at first level, +1 each 3 levels thereafter (+2 at 4th, +3 at 7th, +4 at 10th).
Furthermore, the smiting as you word it - that you "hit then declare the smite" is not appealing to me.
As I've said dozens of times, the paladin needs to be ABLE to hit his target - thats where he has the hardest time in combat.
The smite needs to add a bonus to Hit! Doing damage IF you hit is irrelevant, if you cant actually hit your BBEG. So wording it as you put it is not helpful (to me), though I do advocate wording that the smite is not wasted if you miss.
Finally, I dont need the world; I am okay with the Holy Avenger not overcoming DR; the extra damage will do that anyways. So long as SMITE EVIL has that ability in it - thus making that 'single-strike' important against appropriate foes, and since the paladin gets to have his weapons act as such eventually anyway, I don't need the HA duration to have that benefit as well.
The point I'm making is I'd rather a longer duration with a bonus to the attack rolls that does not automatically overcome Damage Reduction, than a one round for levels 1-4 and 2 rounds 5-9 etc that does.
That all being said - I love the Shaken aspect, I think the 1d6 per pal level is too much, but I'm not sold one way or the other - as I do agree there should be an additional benefit vs Aura of Evil and Evil Descriptor creatures. It just makes sense.
Robert
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
At first I was thinking this was too much, and I don't like how Charisma affects the HA ability three different ways (duration, AC, attack rolls), but I've thought about it some more. I think one of two things should be true, but not both. To wit, either:I will agree the that triple-dip for Holy Avenger with the Charisma may be overdoing it. I certainly love the idea of yours for the two different methods (one duration based - one instant).
Here's where I disagree wholeheartedly:
Rounds of the HA should not be just 1 for levels 1-4, and 2 for levels 5-9. No way. If we're not using CHA mod for duration then some other means needs to be established.
Ah, but see, here's the thing. Charisma effectively IS determining the duration you can use it, because you get Charisma +1 uses per day, and each use lasts at least 1 round, and it's a free action to activate; therefore, you simply chain-use the HA from round to round using your multiple uses per day.
So at 1st level, your 18 CHR paladin doesn't have a 1-round smite, has a FIVE-round Holy Avenger to fire up; it's just represented game-mechanically as five 1-round HA smites. If he can't hit somebody evil in 5 rounds, then too bad for him.
Compare this to the 1st level paladin current "paladin upgrade" in Jason's original post here (1 smite, 1 round) or the Beta or SRD paladin (1 smite, 1 ATTACK).
I would be alot happier if the AC bonus was divorced from the CHA mod. Perhaps that is what is scaled. +1 at first level, +1 each 3 levels thereafter (+2 at 4th, +3 at 7th, +4 at 10th).
I would think removing the AC bonus would make it much less enticingly dippalicious.
Perhaps what is really needed is a separate ability:
Furthermore, the smiting as you word it - that you "hit then declare the smite" is not appealing to me.
As I've said dozens of times, the paladin needs to be ABLE to hit his target - thats where he has the hardest time in combat.
I agree to a point, but I guess I left unspoken two things:
1. I am almost assuming that a paladin will ALWAYS use Holy Avenger first, so he already HAS his bonus to hit from that. This was an assumption in my head which I realize I didn't put down in print.
2. At lower levels the paladin is only slightly behind the fighter ni his ability to hit targets. The gap widens at higher levels, but by the time the paladin reaches higher levels his ancillary abilities are making up the gap in defense and versatility. I think we agree that the paladin's problems are not at high levels, that they do just fine there, but it's at lower levels where the paladin feels sucky. I would contend that it's not the attack roll disparity causing the problem at low levels, so we don't need to solve the attack roll problem.
The smite needs to add a bonus to Hit! Doing damage IF you hit is irrelevant, if you cant actually hit your BBEG. So wording it as you put it is not helpful (to me), though I do advocate wording that the smite is not wasted if you miss.
See above. HA is already going, and then when you hit your BBEG with that, then you bring the thunder with the smite.
Finally, I dont need the world; I am okay with the Holy Avenger not overcoming DR; the extra damage will do that anyways. So long as SMITE EVIL has that ability in it - thus making that 'single-strike' important against appropriate foes, and since the paladin gets to have his weapons act as such eventually anyway, I don't need the HA duration to have that benefit as well.
Well, the paladin CAN get to have weapons act as lawful or good, but he's boned vs. DR/metal or DR/- or DR/slashpokebonk unless he's lucky to have the right item.
I like the "vs. good" as a duration and a "vs. EVERYTHING" with the smite - as has been said so many times, when the smite comes down, the bad guys SHOULD be quaking in their boots instead of laughing behind their defenses.
The point I'm making is I'd rather a longer duration with a bonus to the attack rolls that does not automatically overcome Damage Reduction, than a one round for levels 1-4 and 2 rounds 5-9 etc that does.
But remember the uses per day (and not even counting the fact that you could take a presumptive Extra Smiting feat to get 2-4 more uses per day).
Look, even taking a very modest example, say a 14 CHA paladin who never gets a stat booster or puts a point in CHA, you still get 3 rounds at level 1-3, 4 rounds at 4th, 8 rounds at 5th-6th, 10 rounds at 7th-9th, 18 rounds at 10th, and on up the list. Heck, throw in an eagle's splendor buff spell and cash in.
Still not enough?
That all being said - I love the Shaken aspect, I think the 1d6 per pal level is too much, but I'm not sold one way or the other - as I do agree there should be an additional benefit vs Aura of Evil and Evil Descriptor creatures. It just makes sense.
Robert
I'm glad you like the shaken concept; I thought it was a fun little add. As for 1d6/level, that sounds like a lot until you remember that it consumes a daily resource, requires a successful melee attack (not melee touch), and only works vs. a small subset of evil bad guys, and only affects one target. Shoot, a 10th level paladin is only doing an average of 35 points of damage with that ability. A 10th level wizard is doing that to a 60-foot CONE of enemies. Yes, I know it has advantages (supernatural so no SR, no save for half so no evasion/mettle).
If you think it's too much, you could rule that you can only SMITE a particular target once per round, so you don't end up with a paratrooping 20th-level paladin with a speed weapon on his divine bond (or a haste spell) doesn't get dim-doored next to your Friendly Local Demon Lord and smite him five times for an average of 450 points of smite + holy avenger damage (plus weapon damage, of course) in one round.
But said paladin COULD smite the paladin and his two balor bodyguards for 90 points (plus weapon damage) each, which would still be pretty swanky.
|
|
Ah, but see, here's the thing. Charisma effectively IS determining the duration you can use it, because you get Charisma +1 uses per day, and each use lasts at least 1 round, and it's a free action to activate; therefore, you simply chain-use the HA from round to round using your multiple uses per day.
So at 1st level, your 18 CHR paladin doesn't have a 1-round smite, has a FIVE-round Holy Avenger to fire up; it's just represented game-mechanically as five 1-round HA smites. If he can't hit somebody evil in 5 rounds, then too bad for him.
But my concern is having to burn all daily smites to do so. If the duration even at 1st level for the Holy Avenger idea was just a few rounds, then you're only using 1. Considering that using the Smite uses another use of this ability, they pool of them won't last forever - and will in fact be exhausted too quickly if there's only 1 round.
Compare this to the 1st level paladin current "paladin upgrade" in Jason's original post here (1 smite, 1 round) or the Beta or SRD paladin (1 smite, 1 ATTACK).
And most of us were pretty clear that although it helped the smite evil ability become better - it still didn't fix the glaring problem with the paladin overall.
I would think removing the AC bonus would make it much less enticingly dippalicious.
Enticingly WHAT? LOL
I dont want the paladin to be a "Dipping class" anyways.
Perhaps what is really needed is a separate ability:[ooc]Holy Bulwark (Su): At 6th level, by expending a use of her smite evil ability a paladin may shield herself with divine energy against the powers of evil. She gains a sacred bonus to AC equal to...
Meh, that's just another drain on the smite evil - now we have three....
And as I said - I dont need the world - getting spell resistance isn't something I feel I need - he's already going to be one of the best at making saving throws....
1. I am almost assuming that a paladin will ALWAYS use Holy Avenger first, so he already HAS his bonus to hit from that. This was an assumption in my head which I realize I didn't put down in print.
I'm certainly not. That would use at least two smites per combat - every combat.
I see the Holy Avenger being very useful in a combat when you're fighting a bunch of powerful, but lower level fodder encounters - the 6 hezrous and 3 Vrocks; and the Smite Evil for the next encounter when you fight just the Glabrezu lord.
Im thinking if we assume we'll use the HA every combat so that it's in effect when you want to smite, you'll be out of daily smites to use the smite!
2. At lower levels the paladin is only slightly behind the fighter ni his ability to hit targets. The gap widens at higher levels, but by the time the paladin reaches higher levels his ancillary abilities are making up the gap in defense and versatility. I think we agree that the paladin's problems are not at high levels, that they do just fine there, but it's at lower levels where the paladin feels sucky. I would contend that it's not the attack roll disparity causing the problem at low levels, so we don't need to solve the attack roll problem.
Not necessarily IMO. Yes the paladin is going to be behind by about 2 modifier points to his attack rolls, which does get bad at about 8th - 10 level by about 7 points. But I don't see that changing a whole lot at 15th - 18th level; with the fighters continued Weapon Training for attacks, Armor Training for AC.....sure the paladin has immunities that the fighter wont have and better saving throws, but his ability to hit is not diminished in its disparity. His Divine Favor can be used (as a standard action that uses up a round of buffing), but until the paladin is 18th level, the bonus is +2 to hit from levels 12-17, with really not other major way to increase his attack bonuses (when not smiting or using HA).
The smite needs to add a bonus to Hit! Doing damage IF you hit is irrelevant, if you cant actually hit your BBEG. So wording it as you put it is not helpful (to me), though I do advocate wording that the smite is not wasted if you miss.See above. HA is already going, and then when you hit your BBEG with that, then you bring the thunder with the smite.
Once again - this is obtaining by spending at least two of the daily smites every time you want to smite. Not a good use of the resource IMO.
Finally, I dont need the world; I am okay with the Holy Avenger not overcoming DR; the extra damage will do that anyways. So long as SMITE EVIL has that ability in it - thus making that 'single-strike' important against appropriate foes, and since the paladin gets to have his weapons act as such eventually anyway, I don't need the HA duration to have that benefit as well.Well, the paladin CAN get to have weapons act as lawful or good, but he's boned vs. DR/metal or DR/- or DR/slashpokebonk unless he's lucky to have the right item.
I like the "vs. good" as a duration and a "vs. EVERYTHING" with the smite - as has been said so many times, when the smite comes down, the bad guys SHOULD be quaking in their boots instead of laughing behind their defenses.
Okay - consider me convinced.
The point I'm making is I'd rather a longer duration with a bonus to the attack rolls that does not automatically overcome Damage Reduction, than a one round for levels 1-4 and 2 rounds 5-9 etc that does.But remember the uses per day (and not even counting the fact that you could take a presumptive Extra Smiting feat to get 2-4 more uses per day).
CAN take that feat; I think its wrong to base an ability on making it truly effective based on an optional feat - that by the way does not exist currently in PF rulebook I might add.
Look, even taking a very modest example, say a 14 CHA paladin who never gets a stat booster or puts a point in CHA, you still get 3 rounds at level 1-3, 4 rounds at 4th, 8 rounds at 5th-6th, 10 rounds at 7th-9th, 18 rounds at 10th, and on up the list. Heck, throw in an eagle's splendor buff spell and cash in.Still not enough?
Those are the number of rounds are not indicative if you're assuming you're using both HA and SE off of the same pool every combat. Thats why my proposal for a HA that lasts a few rounds - 3-5 rounds per - is more appropriate IMO - since everytime you choose to SMITE and bring the thunder, you'll using another of the smites and reducing the number of times you can use HA.
I'm glad you like the shaken concept; I thought it was a fun little add. As for 1d6/level, that sounds like a lot until you remember that it consumes a daily resource, requires a successful melee attack (not melee touch), and only works vs. a small subset of evil bad guys, and only affects one target. Shoot, a 10th level paladin is only doing an average of 35 points of damage with that ability. A 10th level wizard is doing that to a 60-foot CONE of enemies. Yes, I know it has advantages (supernatural so no SR, no save for half so no evasion/mettle).If you think it's too much, you could rule that you can only SMITE a particular target once per round, so you don't end up with a paratrooping 20th-level paladin with a speed weapon on his divine bond (or a haste spell) doesn't get dim-doored next to your Friendly Local Demon Lord and smite him five times for an average of 450 points of smite + holy avenger damage (plus weapon damage, of course) in one round.
But said paladin COULD smite the paladin and his two balor bodyguards for 90 points (plus weapon damage) each, which would still be pretty swanky.
YES! Consider me once again convinced. You are right when compared to the ever-present ability of sneak attack damage. (except that I'm sure you didn't mean that the paladin could smite 'the paladin and his two balor body guards' - i'm guessing you meant evil cleric or blackguard or something).
If I was the designer, I would indeed limit it to ONCE per ROUND - make it a swift action or something to eliminate that potential.
But the swanky damage you supposed in this - thats starting to sound like the paladin that i want to play! Gimmeee gimeeee gimmmeeee!
I would LOVE to play that paladin! That sounds like it harkons back to what the paladin should be doing!
Thanks for convincing me.
Robert
@Jason and Robert.
Doesnt the idea of gaining + to hit/damage = the number of smites remaining in a day give you something very close to what you were going for there with a lot less text?
Basically breaking down the whole Holy Avenger/Smite Evil the way it has been suggested comes down to. Holy avenger until you get to a bad guy then drop the smite. Eventually running out of smites which ends your HA as well.
Why not just give the paladin that always on bonus = to his remaining smites of the day, as he uses them this bonus drops. I think it in essence does the same thing with a much easier mechanic.
I like all that you guys have said, but I like this one better.
Just leave Smite Evil the way Jason B. wrote it (but change the damage to +1D6/2 paladin levels against everything, I dont like the bonus damage...he should hit them all the same.) and say that he also gains a +1/+1 for every remaining smite he has left. You could even say this adds to AC if you want.
Robert proposed something like this a long time ago and I was not initially on board. With this slight modification I like it a lot. Plus it avoids level dipping and does not mess with backwards compatibility.
|
|
@Jason and Robert.
Doesnt the idea of gaining + to hit/damage = the number of smites remaining in a day give you something very close to what you were going for there with a lot less text?
Well with all due respect, Vult, I'm not a fan of that mechanic for two reasons: 1) it creates memory problems - like Dirty Harry...."Have I used 6 smites or only 5?" thus making it more work to keep track what my always on ability equates to currently. 2) It would tend to make me more gunshy - not wanting to use any smites so as to keep the highest amount on all the time with hopes of meeting that one encounter I've saved the smites for, and even when it's there, still wondering if there's another even bigger one around the corner....as opposed to just slinging it.
It's not a bad idea, in truth; just not something that I personally would want to have to deal with - neither as a player, or as a DM to oversee players using it appropriately and adjusting the math all the time.
Robert
Why not just have a feat that gives you a few more smites a day? If you want them take them if not don't.
We got extra rage, extra turning, extra ki, extra lay on hands, seems easy enough to add an "extra smiting".
|
@Jason and Robert.
Doesnt the idea of gaining + to hit/damage = the number of smites remaining in a day give you something very close to what you were going for there with a lot less text?
Well with all due respect, Vult, I'm not a fan of that mechanic for two reasons: 1) it creates memory problems - like Dirty Harry...."Have I used 6 smites or only 5?" thus making it more work to keep track what my always on ability equates to currently. 2) It would tend to make me more gunshy - not wanting to use any smites so as to keep the highest amount on all the time with hopes of meeting that one encounter I've saved the smites for, and even when it's there, still wondering if there's another even bigger one around the corner....as opposed to just slinging it.
It's not a bad idea, in truth; just not something that I personally would want to have to deal with - neither as a player, or as a DM to oversee players using it appropriately and adjusting the math all the time.
Robert
Yet monks have a varient on that particular mechanic.
Well with all due respect, Vult, I'm not a fan of that mechanic for two reasons: 1) it creates memory problems - like Dirty Harry...."Have I used 6 smites or only 5?" thus making it more work to keep track what my always on ability equates to currently.
Robert
Hey, I respect your argument. But your #1 reason is the same as saying that you could not remember the number of smites you have left on any given day. Thats not to tough.
I understand what you mean about being gunshy...but even with any of these proposed rules that is always going to be. Even with Holy Avenger, it does not last that long so if I use it on these "little" evil guys then there better not be 2 or 3 big ones around the next conner...ill be out of Smites.
I like the idea that you and Jason are proposing but it is getting away from something that is always on. It will still come down to the same old problem that once the paladin has "blown his load" of smites for the day he is done. While the other classes are still raging, backstabbing and if your a fighter just pumping out the same huge damage as always.
The perfect solution is your older proposed Divine Might or my Lightbringer (or whatever we want to name them). But people do not respond well to anything to do with paladins + extra damage unless there is some form of restriction to it :( Thus limiting smite (and HA) to still SO FEW uses a day, or having a constant bonus that gets smaller as you use smites.
What if it was the reverse? What if you gained a constant +1 for every smite you had USED? This lets the paladin gain a little each day so AFTER he has used a smite he is not finished.
I really like that one...probably more than the original...hmmm
Thoughts?
I really like the Oaths idea proposed by Vult Wrathblades and decided to give it another revision. This is intended as a new class feature for the paladin.
Thanks to Iron Sentinel for contributing the BBEG takedown oath (renamed Slay the Wicked).
Oaths:
Each morning the paladin may swear an oath. It takes 10 minutes of uninterrupted prayer to initiate an oath, and the effects last for one day. Oaths take many different forms. Starting at 1st level the paladin may choose one oath per day from among the oaths listed below. At 10th level she gains a second oath, and at 20th level she may swear three oaths per day. Note that each oath comes with a restriction. Not abiding by the restriction normally causes the paladin to lose the benefit of the oath for the remainder of the day, but other penalties are possible, as noted in each oath's description.
All bonuses conferred by an oath are heroic and stack with bonuses of any other type. Bonuses to hit are limited to the paladin's charisma modifier or one plus half the paladin's level, whichever is higher. If multiple instances of a qualifying condition allow a bonus to apply once for each instance, such as +3 damage for each evil outsider, that bonus may be applied a number of times up to the maximum bonus to hit. For example, a 1st level paladin with a +3 charisma modifier who has sworn to scourge the heretic may gain at most +3 to hit, +6 damage, and +15 feet to movement.
Scourge the Heretic: The paladin vows to destroy those who use magic for evil. For each evil spell caster (cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard) participating in the sequence of initiative she gains +1 to hit, +2 damage, and +5 feet to movement. Moreover, her weapon gains dispelling attack (per the rogue ability, at paladin level plus three). Restriction: Shortest Path to the Enemy (see below).
Banish Evil: The paladin vows to destroy any demon or devil that has strayed into this world. For each evil outsider participating in the sequence of initiative she gains +1 to hit, +3 to damage, and her attacks are good-aligned for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. Restriction: Shortest Path to the Enemy (see below).
Chastise the Lawless: The paladin vows to destroy any demon or slaad that has strayed into this world. For each chaotic evil or chaotic neutral outsider participating in the sequence of initiative she gains +1 to hit, +3 to damage, and her attacks are lawful-aligned for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. Restriction: Shortest Path to the Enemy (see below).
Release the Damned: The paladin vows to destroy the undead. For each undead participating in the sequence of initiative she gains +1 to hit, +2 damage, and increases her channel energy DC by +1. Restriction: Shortest Path to the Enemy (see below).
Slay the Wicked: The paladin vows to end the life of a specific individual creature. The paladin does not need to know the individual's name, but must be able to recognize or otherwise know the target creature on sight. While the target creature is visible to the paladin and the paladin is either fighting that creature or fighting to get to that creature, the paladin gains +1 to hit and damage, plus an additional +1 to hit and damage for every four paladin levels above the first. Moreover, the critical threat range of any weapon used by the paladin, as well as the critical threat confirmation roll, is increased by the paladin's Charisma modifier. Restriction: Shortest Path to the Enemy (see below).
Fight to the End: The paladin vows not to retreat. She gains +1 to hit and damage, plus an additional +1 to hit and damage for every four paladin levels above the first (1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th). Restriction: The paladin may not use the withdraw action or retreat from combat, or she loses the benefit of her oath for the day.
Avenge the Fallen: The paladin vows to avenge her fallen comrades. As her allies fall she grows stronger and ignores damage that would usually stop her in her tracks. When an ally falls in battle (any ally participating in the sequence of initiative that has fallen to zero hit points or less) the paladin gains +2 to hit, +2 damage, and DR 2/- until the end of the encounter. For each additional ally that falls, she adds +1 to hit, +1 damage, and DR 1/-. Moreover, she may return the damage that felled her comrade point for point. For example, if the comrade fell to an attack dealing 11 hp damage, the paladin adds 11 damage to her first hit against that enemy. Restriction: The paladin may not use the withdraw action or retreat from combat after an ally has fallen, or she loses the benefit of all oaths for the day.
Defend You With My Life: The paladin vows to defend a specific individual to the death. The designated ward must have a lower base attack bonus than the paladin. The paladin gains an immediate attack of opportunity in response to any attack against the designated ward from an enemy within range of the paladin. If a 5-foot step would put the paladin in range, a 5-foot step is also allowed. The paladin's counter-attack is resolved before the enemy's attack, and it does not count against the paladin's attack of opportunity for that round. The paladin may also choose to negate the enemy attack by incurring one half the damage to herself, if she wins an opposed Charisma check. She may apply her shield bonus (including magical enhancement) to the check and reduce the damage by 10% per +1 shield bonus. Restriction: If the designated ward falls to zero hit points or less, the paladin is stunned for one round and loses the benefit of all oaths for the day. If the designated ward is killed, the paladin must additionally seek atonement.
Scourge the Heretic, Banish Evil, Chastise the Lawless, Release the Damned, and Slay the Wicked all have the following restriction:
Shortest Path to the Enemy: When choosing a path to the enemy, the paladin takes -1 to the bonus conferred by the oath for every attack of opportunity avoided on the chosen path that would have been incurred on the shortest path. Each -1 reduces the bonus to hit by one and each other bonus by the corresponding amount. For example, -1 to Scourge the Heretic reduces the bonus by -1 to hit, -2 damage, and -5 feet to movement. The bonus reduction lasts until the end of the encounter.
Similarly, the paladin must attempt anything with a reasonable DC (anything the paladin could accomplish by taking 10) that would shorten the distance of the path in the same or less time, in spite of any risk entailed, or the bonus conferred by the oath is reduced by one for the duration of the encounter.
If more than one enemy qualifies, the paladin may choose the shortest path to any one of them.
The Fight to the End oath overlaps with the always-on mechanic that many have asked for, so that oaths can function in that capacity if the player chooses. The shortest path restriction
captures an aspect of the paladin concept that none of her other abilities really captures: The paladin is quixotic. The mechanic encourages an anti-stealth, direct, sometimes foolhardy approach to combat that feels righteous, in character for the paladin.
I really like the Oaths idea proposed by Vult Wrathblades and decided to give it another revision. This is intended as a new class feature for the paladin.
Mink, good job here. Those all look very interesting and I think they would work. I could get on board with this sort of addition to the paladin. These on TOP of a workable version of Smite could do the trick.
|
|
Mink, good job here. Those all look very interesting and I think they would work. I could get on board with this sort of addition to the paladin. These on TOP of a workable version of Smite could do the trick.I really like the Oaths idea proposed by Vult Wrathblades and decided to give it another revision. This is intended as a new class feature for the paladin.
No all you need to do is give them an 18 str and that fixes everything.
Sorry, still fuming over a post in my playtest thread.
Hmm, I think I could get behind oaths. I don't know the likelyhood of them being implemented, but with the proposed fixes by mink and the solid idea from vult, I think we have something here that if adopted could work well and leave open several ideas for other types of oaths.
|
|
I like the idea that you and Jason are proposing but it is getting away from something that is always on. It will still come down to the same old problem that once the paladin has "blown his load" of smites for the day he is done. While the other classes are still raging, backstabbing and if your a fighter just pumping out the same huge damage as always.
The perfect solution is your older proposed Divine Might or my Lightbringer (or whatever we want to name them).
This may be true - but the reality is that there really wasn't any additional support for such an idea, and I got the impression that it was pretty much ignored by most, including the developers - so I moved on and tried to find a more agreeable method.
Hence the Holy Avenger idea - is enough to give the 'illusion' of an always on since it'll be able to be cast in probably half of the daily combats if not more, and last for about half of each combat. Its a middle ground IMO of 'always on' and 'never on' smite-like bonuses.
Then the Smite was the effect left and improved to really lay a whollopping on something when you really need to hit heavy hit hard!
Robert
|
|
Just as a general question to those still paying attention, does anyone think 1 damage per level with no DR bypassing is a decent effect for a once per day power? even if it does get accompanied by an AC and attack boost and you have a decent str score? Because I'm under the impression that smite evil has always and will continue to kind of suck as long as the damage is a straight 1 per level.
As a side note, in my game I got the smite off and did an extra 4 damage, if it had been an outsider/undead, it would have been 6 extra, I don't get how people think that giving the paladin d6 at half level is overpowering at all.
LKL, what was said in your playtest about an 18 Str? I love how people disregard the whole argument with something so rudimentary like that fixes the problem.
You are right, 1 point per level is NOT enough. I recently went up against a GOBLIN in my game and as we were running away I hit it with smite twice! at level 5 i did not even kill a GOBLIN with TWO!!! smites...come on :(
Robert, I understand where you are coming from, it is a shame that those ideas did not get enough support. I think though that it is the idea that they didnt have a chance that got them looked over (I had another post or thread about this very same thing somewhere else).
I just dont see how we REALLY make a "fix" without an always active boost. I just dont see how that gets us out of the "Ive done what I can do, I dont have any more smites for you, call a fighter" syndrome :(
|
|
LKL, what was said in your playtest about an 18 Str? I love how people disregard the whole argument with something so rudimentary like that fixes the problem.
You are right, 1 point per level is NOT enough. I recently went up against a GOBLIN in my game and as we were running away I hit it with smite twice! at level 5 i did not even kill a GOBLIN with TWO!!! smites...come on :(
Robert, I understand where you are coming from, it is a shame that those ideas did not get enough support. I think though that it is the idea that they didnt have a chance that got them looked over (I had another post or thread about this very same thing somewhere else).
I just dont see how we REALLY make a "fix" without an always active boost. I just dont see how that gets us out of the "Ive done what I can do, I dont have any more smites for you, call a fighter" syndrome :(
OK but in all fairness you said that the DM gave them class levels, but didn't say how many. For all we know you were smiting a level 10 barbarian goblin in which case how should we expect them to drop to two smites. Now I'm guessing they weren't and that you probably dealt what 14-18 damage a smite a smite, which I would have survived at level 3. Now that's not an excuse for smite being underwhelming. Did you roll to see how much extra damage you would have done if they had been evil outsiders?
|
|
LKL, what was said in your playtest about an 18 Str? I love how people disregard the whole argument with something so rudimentary like that fixes the problem.
You are right, 1 point per level is NOT enough. I recently went up against a GOBLIN in my game and as we were running away I hit it with smite twice! at level 5 i did not even kill a GOBLIN with TWO!!! smites...come on :(
Robert, I understand where you are coming from, it is a shame that those ideas did not get enough support. I think though that it is the idea that they didnt have a chance that got them looked over (I had another post or thread about this very same thing somewhere else).
I just dont see how we REALLY make a "fix" without an always active boost. I just dont see how that gets us out of the "Ive done what I can do, I dont have any more smites for you, call a fighter" syndrome :(
He didn't say that an 18 fixed it, he said that my thread was a complaint that paladins suck when my paladin has a 10 str. despite the fact that I focused on the paladins abilities when reporting and a change in str would do nothing to change the outcomes of my abilities.
Basically I just get annoyed when people somehow think that the paladins underpar abilities are ok cause they are supposed to have good stats to make up for how much suck their abilities have.
Also they tend to behave as if a person is somehow unaware that if they have a lower strength they'll be weaker. Like I can't somehow (and did in fact several times) say, okay my str is low so I can't expect to be a melee powerhouse, but that being said here's what sucks and why. Somehow their magnificent brain is the only one capable of catching that fact, and I should be greatful to them for taking the time to point it out to me.