|
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 :
While I agree that there is a gross disparity and that an always-on effect will close that gap - I am able to seperate myself for my love of the paladin enough to play devils advocate and be a DM - enough to realize that such a concept is a bit-out there, it breaks the normal format mechanic for most characters to just have some arbitrary boost.
I am willing to concede that IF an ability like the Holy Avenger that I proposed or any other number of good suggestionst that I've seen in these 400+ posts that could grant a sufficient bonus for a few rounds each combat - in more than half of the daily combats, and still provide the means to hammer home a big hit using Smite Evil - then I think the biggest faults of the paladin will have successfully been addressed and corrected.
A few other minor tweaks - including the improved LoH (but seperated from Channeling), spellcasting bumped to Cleric level -3 (since honestly the spells of the paladin are no game breakers and are usually either personal buffs, or malady fixes), add mettle, tower shield, and either a couple doses of Armor Training and/or a few bonus feats, I think the class would then be on par with the leaders of the pack: the cleric, the rogue, the fighter, and the barbarian - who IMO are the status quo that all others need to be brought up to.
Robert
EDIT: Correction.....500+ posts!!!
|
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 :
While I agree that there is a gross disparity and that an always-on effect will close that gap - I am able to seperate myself for my love of the paladin enough to play devils advocate and be a DM - enough to realize that such a concept is a bit-out there, it breaks the normal format mechanic for most characters to just have some arbitrary boost.
I am willing to concede that IF an ability like the Holy Avenger that I proposed or any other number of good suggestionst that I've seen in these 400+ posts that could grant a sufficient bonus for a few rounds each combat - in more than half of the daily combats, and still provide the means to hammer home a big hit using Smite Evil - then I think the biggest faults of the paladin will have successfully been addressed and corrected.
A few other minor tweaks - including the improved LoH (but seperated from Channeling), spellcasting bumped to Cleric level -3 (since honestly the spells of the paladin are no game breakers and are usually either personal buffs, or malady fixes), add mettle, tower shield, and either a couple doses of Armor Training and/or a few bonus feats, I think the class would then be on par with the leaders of the pack: the cleric, the rogue, the fighter, and the barbarian - who IMO are the status quo that all others need to be brought up to.
Robert
Honestly I think I'd be happy with a decent smite and channeling seperated from LoH, although I do think a first level paladin needs something other than just a single smite each day, right now he's the only class that promotes the 15minute workday. Also I do posit that a paladin should have spontaneous casting from the whole list.
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.
Thanks! It's actually a fun idea to work with.
These on TOP of a workable version of Smite could do the trick.
That's a key point. I'm pretty sure there is no mention of smites anywhere in the description of oaths. If you lose the benefits of an oath for the day, you still have smites, and if you burn all your smites, you still have oaths. The paladin really shines when the two stack.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Honestly I think I'd be happy with a decent smite and channeling seperated from LoH, although I do think a first level paladin needs something other than just a single smite each day, right now he's the only class that promotes the 15minute workday. Also I do posit that a paladin should have spontaneous casting from the whole list.
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 :
While I agree that there is a gross disparity and that an always-on effect will close that gap - I am able to seperate myself for my love of the paladin enough to play devils advocate and be a DM - enough to realize that such a concept is a bit-out there, it breaks the normal format mechanic for most characters to just have some arbitrary boost.
I am willing to concede that IF an ability like the Holy Avenger that I proposed or any other number of good suggestionst that I've seen in these 400+ posts that could grant a sufficient bonus for a few rounds each combat - in more than half of the daily combats, and still provide the means to hammer home a big hit using Smite Evil - then I think the biggest faults of the paladin will have successfully been addressed and corrected.
A few other minor tweaks - including the improved LoH (but seperated from Channeling), spellcasting bumped to Cleric level -3 (since honestly the spells of the paladin are no game breakers and are usually either personal buffs, or malady fixes), add mettle, tower shield, and either a couple doses of Armor Training and/or a few bonus feats, I think the class would then be on par with the leaders of the pack: the cleric, the rogue, the fighter, and the barbarian - who IMO are the status quo that all others need to be brought up to.
Robert
If we're going for the mega-simple route, why not just give them channel energy at 1st level instead of 4th? Make it 1+Cha rather than 3+Cha if you really feel the need to differentiate from clerics. Is there really a problem with this? Lots of classes are shared at low levels by 2 classes.
evasion - monk/rogue
fast movement - monk/barb
uncanny dodge - barb/rogue
wild empathy - drd/rgr
Heck, even channeling is already shared by pal/clr. Why not just let em both have it. Will the poor cleric with his buttload of spells and domains really feel infringed on if the paladin also channels?
This doesn't do much for the paladin's offense except vs. undead groups (which are fairly common at low level, what with all the skels & zombs), but it is a nice ability that has good utility at low levels.
|
|
If we're going for the mega-simple route, why not just give them channel energy at 1st level instead of 4th? Make it 1+Cha rather than 3+Cha if you really feel the need to differentiate from clerics. Is there really a problem with this? Lots of classes are shared at low levels by 2 classes.
evasion - monk/rogue
fast movement - monk/barb
uncanny dodge - barb/rogue
wild empathy - drd/rgrHeck, even channeling is already shared by pal/clr. Why not just let em both have it. Will the poor cleric with his buttload of spells and domains really feel infringed on if the paladin also channels?
This doesn't do much for the paladin's offense except vs. undead groups (which are fairly common at low level, what with all the skels & zombs), but it is a nice ability that has good utility at low levels.
I could see that, I don't think it has a snowballs chance in hell of happening, but I definitely think it's a worthy idea, it would certainly make LoH easier to work into channeling than the version we have now. I have nothing against joining the two, but it's got to be in a way that doesn't nerf the paladin like the current system does.
In two games with channeling I have yet to use it, My lay on hands are better, and I can't afford to burn it. Good idea, bad implementation.
But then you need something to replace it at level 4.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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.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.
I think of it similarly to a barbarian's rage, in the current "Design Update" version, where a barb gets 4+Con rounds per day at 1st level. You activate your rage round by round; rounds need not be contiguous. The barb gets slightly more uses at 1st level. Each round of use gives one round of effect.
CASE #1: Rage
Rage is better than HA because:
1. Works against all enemies.
2. Helps with STR checks.
3. Gives you more hit points (sort of... but you might die if your rage runs out before your HP do).
4. Gives +2 bonus to Fort & Will saves.
5. You get more uses at 1st level (4+Con).
6. Is directly tied to a combat-relevant stat (Con).
Rage is worse than HA because:
1. Leaves you fatigued every time you stop using it.
2. -2 to AC
3. Limits the actions you can do when you're raging.
4. Cannot be boosted in duration or effect by CON-boosting spells.
SCALING:
1. Duration: You get more rounds per day (2/level after 2nd)
2. Effect: The effects of rage don't get any better until you get pretty high level (11th, 20th; no fatigue at 15th).
3. Alternate uses: You can get a variety of rage powers that cost "extra uses" of rage.
CASE #2:
HA is better than rage because:
1. If your CHA is 16+, you get a bigger bonus to hit.
2. If your level is 3+, you get a bigger bonus to damage.
3. Rather than an AC penalty, you get an AC bonus
4. Can be boosted in effect by CHA-boosting spells.
HA is worse than rage because:
1. Only works vs. evil (may be a large factor or small, depending on campaign)
2. You get fewer uses at 1st level (1+Cha).
3. Is not directly tied to a combat-relevant stat (Cha).
SCALING:
1. Duration: Each "round" of use lasts longer as you go up in level (Jason B - 2 rds at 8th, 3 rds at 16th; Jason N 2 at 5th, 3 at 10th, etc.)
2. Effect: Attack bonus & AC do not increase directly but drifts upward as CHA increases. Damage bonus increases every level.
3. Alternate uses: Expend to Smite Evil (one big boom) or potentially Holy Bulwark or some kind of defensive power if you want that.
So, there's your comparison, rage vs. HA. Which power is better?
Or more to the point, since I don't think there's a clear winner between the two, to point out that it is IMO pretty darn close in effectiveness, better in some ways, less good in other ways, to an already extant martial ability of a martial class.
And BTW, what other abilities does a barbarian get vs. a paladin at 1st level?
1. Fast movement (lt/med armor only)
2. 2 more hp
3. 2 more skill points
What does a paladin get vs. a barbarian?
1. +2 will save (as of latest Paladin Upgrade)
2. Heavy armor prof
3. Detect evil
A little advantage for the barbarian, but not huge.
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.
Enticingly WHAT? LOL
I would think removing the AC bonus would make it much less enticingly dippalicious.
It's a perfectly cromulent word!
I dont want the paladin to be a "Dipping class" anyways.
Indeed. The PF ethos seems highly intent on dip-quashing, which is all to the good in my book.
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!
Then you have to be a little judicious, don't you. You have a budget to stick to just like everyone else. Resource management. When you powered up your Green Lantern ring for the morning, you had 7 charges. Use them as you will. Nova up and go crazy, or parcel them out here and there (which you can do better than the barbarian can, since you don't get fatigued if you take breaks in between).
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).
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.
By 16th level, a pal will probably have about, what, 6+CHA smites per day lasting 4 rounds each (in my version). With a probable CHA of around 24, you're talking about 13 x 4 = 52 rounds of HA at (+7 to hit, +7 to AC, +16 to damage, good vs. DR), and at any point in there you can declare BOOYAH after the fact on a hit with a smite for 8d6/16d6+shaken+beat any DR (at a cost of one smite, or 4 rounds of HA).
A 16th level barbarian with a 24 CON would have 41 rounds of rage per day, doing +6 STR/CON, +3 vs. Will/Fort, +7 vs. enchantment (indomitable will).
True, the barb's rage works vs. everything (see advantages & disads above), but offensively the bonuses are not close. Does this make up for the barb's super-THF/PA/chop style? Actually, the two characters could take the exact same feats if they wanted, having the same number of feat slots. The barb will have higher STR, sure, but THAT much higher?
Yes, the barb will have an average of 17 more hit points (65 more when raging) not counting higher CON bonus and 36 more skill points, but the pal will have a better Fort save by probably 4 points, better Ref by probably 6, and better Will save by by 10+, besides healing, spellcasting, etc.
But this isn't about all the rest of the pal's abilities vs. the barb's, it's about their signature, time-limited attack action, rage vs. HA.
I'd say HA stacks up pretty well with rage, actually.
Am I being convincing? :)
P.S. I'm not really "going there" with the paladin's abilities that help him not get taken out of the fight entirely. I assert those are valuable compensation for being less offensive, cuz he gets to be the last man standing. You beg to differ, at least in the value of them, so let's shake on it and move on...
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.
Then don't use it, more precisely only bring it out if you really need it.
Honestly, I wouldn't think smite would see as much use as HA. You wouldn't blow it on low-grade mooks or even mid-grade henchmen. Your HA bonus is plenty for mopping the floor with them. You only bring out the big boomstick when you NEED the big boomstick.
Note, that the damage stacks. You are already getting bonuses to hit AND TO DAMAGE with HA. On every attack you make. If you drop the SMITE, you are getting extra-mega-super damage ON TOP OF the bonus damage you are already getting with HA.
So you don't have to use it "if you want to smite" in the sense that we are used to thinking about it. You use it "if you want to SMITE!!1!ZOMG!11!!1!1!" HA is your regular lower-case-s smite vs. all evil. SMITE is your anti-BBEG boomstick.
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.
On your second point, of course it doesn't exist, but the playtest design forum is all about what we think SHOULD exist, so I think it's a fair point.
On your first point, I would contend that the ability works as it is. If you want to be extra-soopa-smiterrific (as it seems likely a paladin you play would), then you take Extra Smiting. If you don't, then... don't.
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.
See above. You'll be using HA lots more than you use smite, because honestly you don't NEED to use both against most opponents. Smite is big because it needs to be big. It is for BBEGs. HA is for mooks and lieutenants.
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).
Ummm... yes... of course. Paladins can't smite paladins. That... would be silly. Yes, nothing to see here. These are not the droids you're looking for. (renews undetectable alignment spell and wonders why he has an ice devil for an avatar)
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
I live but to serve.
That, and make excessively long message board posts when I'm supposed to be working. sigh
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
And now, for no other reason than to say:
Post #1000.
bows
Probably half of which have been about paladins... :)
P.S. Actually, one on-topic idea to make smite better at 1st level, in the uber-simplest and least changerrific way:
Add 1d6 to the damage.
Vs. regular evil, 1d6+paladin level.
Vs. evil subtype (and undead in Jason B's version), 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels.
That way when you smite a goblin at 1st level, you don't go "whee yippee, one extra point of damage. You roll your weapon damage plus STR plus a 1d6+1 groin stomp vs. evil.
It's an insignificant bonus at higher levels but suddenly makes the ability much more fun to use at 1st level.
|
|
And now, for no other reason than to say:
Post #1000.
bows
Probably half of which have been about paladins... :)
P.S. Actually, one on-topic idea to make smite better at 1st level, in the uber-simplest and least changerrific way:
Add 1d6 to the damage.
Vs. regular evil, 1d6+paladin level.
Vs. evil subtype (and undead in Jason B's version), 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels.
That way when you smite a goblin at 1st level, you don't go "whee yippee, one extra point of damage. You roll your weapon damage plus STR plus a 1d6+1 groin stomp vs. evil.
It's an insignificant bonus at higher levels but suddenly makes the ability much more fun to use at 1st level.
I could live with that, I still want the DR break to be any evil.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I could live with that, I still want the DR break to be any evil.And now, for no other reason than to say:
Post #1000.
bows
Probably half of which have been about paladins... :)
P.S. Actually, one on-topic idea to make smite better at 1st level, in the uber-simplest and least changerrific way:
Add 1d6 to the damage.
Vs. regular evil, 1d6+paladin level.
Vs. evil subtype (and undead in Jason B's version), 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels.
That way when you smite a goblin at 1st level, you don't go "whee yippee, one extra point of damage. You roll your weapon damage plus STR plus a 1d6+1 groin stomp vs. evil.
It's an insignificant bonus at higher levels but suddenly makes the ability much more fun to use at 1st level.
The DR break?
That'sa little surprising. I thought you weren't that keen on the DR thing anyway and more into the big damage dice.
|
|
The DR break?
That'sa little surprising. I thought you weren't that keen on the DR thing anyway and more into the big damage dice.
I'm keen on smite being worth only doing it 7 times per day. Matching the rogue 7 times per day isn't a fair trade off to me, thus smites need some secondary offensive effect. The reason I'm not to keen on the DR break is because I think smite effects are a better way to go, one of those effects could just so happen to be "ignores any DR". But while I'm a fan of the damage dice, it's not enough if it stays 1d6/2 levels. Maybe if the attack bonus was cha mod + 1/2 level, so that you were less likely to miss I could be happy with just more damage, but if it's mostly a damage effect, at 7 per day, it's got to go BOOM!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'm keen on smite being worth only doing it 7 times per day. Matching the rogue 7 times per day isn't a fair trade off to me, thus smites need some secondary offensive effect. The reason I'm not to keen on the DR break is because I think smite effects are a better way to go, one of those effects could just so happen to be "ignores any DR". But while I'm a fan of the damage dice, it's not enough if it stays 1d6/2 levels. Maybe if the attack bonus was cha mod + 1/2 level, so that you were less likely to miss I could be happy with just more damage, but if it's mostly a damage effect, at 7 per day, it's got to go BOOM!
The DR break?
That'sa little surprising. I thought you weren't that keen on the DR thing anyway and more into the big damage dice.
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean when you say "DR break" then, cuz I'm while the above is coherent, I'm having trouble understanding its relationship to:
I could live with that, I still want the DR break to be any evil.
What does "the DR break to be any evil" mean? I was thinking you meant "the ability to beat any DR vs. an evil creature," but now I think maybe you were going somewhere else with that.
|
|
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean when you say "DR break" then, cuz I'm while the above is coherent, I'm having trouble understanding its relationship to:I could live with that, I still want the DR break to be any evil.What does "the DR break to be any evil" mean? I was thinking you meant "the ability to beat any DR vs. an evil creature," but now I think maybe you were going somewhere else with that.
That's exactly whay I meant.
I meant I could live with adding just 1d6 to the damage of the 1/level smite as long as the smite still bypassed all DR vs. anyone evil. If the DR still applies then 1d6 + 1/level isn't enough, heck if the DR still applies then 1d6/2 levels isn't enough. The simple fact is, that weapon bond and Smite evil are the paladins only offensive capabilities, both have a very limited duration, if they don't kick butt, then what good is it. You might as well play a cleric devoted to law and good, and be done with it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean when you say "DR break" then, cuz I'm while the above is coherent, I'm having trouble understanding its relationship to:I could live with that, I still want the DR break to be any evil.What does "the DR break to be any evil" mean? I was thinking you meant "the ability to beat any DR vs. an evil creature," but now I think maybe you were going somewhere else with that.That's exactly whay I meant.
I meant I could live with adding just 1d6 to the damage of the 1/level smite as long as the smite still bypassed all DR vs. anyone evil. If the DR still applies then 1d6 + 1/level isn't enough, heck if the DR still applies then 1d6/2 levels isn't enough. The simple fact is, that weapon bond and Smite evil are the paladins only offensive capabilities, both have a very limited duration, if they don't kick butt, then what good is it. You might as well play a cleric devoted to law and good, and be done with it.
Yay, my ability to parse the English language is still intact! Had me worried for a minute.
Yes, I think boomie smite should definitely bypass all DR vs. evil.
For anyone who, for whatever reason, thinks 1d6+level (or 1d6 + 1d6/2 or whatever) is too much at low levels, besides pointing them in the direction of any number of spells that do this or better, I would say this:
It is at low levels when the paladin is LEAST likely to be fighting evil. Animals, vermin, non-evil but nevertheless hostile guards, barbarians, bandits, and hooligans of every stripe are common as dirt at low levels. Add that to the fact that even low-grade evils don't radiate evil (which I personally think is kinda silly - they just kind move "faint" to "nothing"), and a paladin has fewer targets upon which to lay the smite than they would at high levels, when it's usually demon/devil/undead/dragon/giant/EEEEevil NPC city.
Ok Jason N. and Robert B. You have convinced me. I am on board with HA and Smite. The comparison to Barbarian is what did it for me. I like this a lot. I am behind this idea and I hope we can get it put in!
This sounds like the first one we are all starting to really scream yes for. I am curious what else we are agreeing on.
Holy Avenger + Smite (by Jason N.) - Check.
Lay on Hands + Channel positive energy - ???
Mettle - ???
Caster level of paladin level minus 3 - ???
Spontaneous casting from whole list - ???
Add bonded shield - ???
Those 6 things have my support, make that happen and I am totally satisfied with the paladin.
I'll have another shot with this updated dwarven paladin in a new campaign. It's the SD AP, and he'll start at 2nd level. I'll post as often as I can on how he works out (or not).
I just played a 7th level dwarven Pathfinder paladin in Gallery of Evil.
yes, I hope you do post your results...I like reading paladin play tests.
|
|
This sounds like the first one we are all starting to really scream yes for. I am curious what else we are agreeing on.
Holy Avenger + Smite (by Jason N.) - Check.
Lay on Hands + Channel positive energy - depends on what your asking for with them I for instance want them both to stay at their current power levels but be seperate abilities with their own pools
Mettle - I've said it once I'll say it again, non-issue for me, maybe if it's a first level power, but I could really care less about this one
Caster level of paladin level minus 3 - Much needed change
Spontaneous casting from whole list - Much needed change
Add bonded shield - I'll support an either or position
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Ok Jason N. and Robert B. You have convinced me. I am on board with HA and Smite. The comparison to Barbarian is what did it for me. I like this a lot. I am behind this idea and I hope we can get it put in!
This sounds like the first one we are all starting to really scream yes for. I am curious what else we are agreeing on.
Holy Avenger + Smite (by Jason N.) - Check.
Lay on Hands + Channel positive energy -
Either:
a. Separate the abilities completely;
b. Have them run off the same pool but cost the same with either use; or
c. Have LOH twice the amount as channel energy but to one target (in other words, LOH should cost HALF of channel, channel shouldn't cost DOUBLE LOH - mathematically the same but oh so very different).Of course, I've also suggested just giving channel energy at 1st level rather than 4th, or supplanting it with a 'holy channeling' or 'channel divine energy' power, so I've advanced a number of positions on the subject.
Mettle - nice if renamed to something OGL-friendly, but kinda meh
Caster level of paladin level minus 3 - absolutely, if not full level
Spontaneous casting from whole list - I can see the point of it and it would be nice, but not an issue I'm worked up about
Add bonded shield - It's a fun option and makes logical sense, but not one I'll lose sleep over if it doesn't go in.
Those 6 things have my support, make that happen and I am totally satisfied with the paladin.
The paladin has other abilities that help his group if they are so close to him, they should not suffer if an AOE is dropped on his head because they stood by him to gain his bonuses.
What if the paladin could channel energy to reinforce her aura with something like elemental resistance against AoE spells? If LoH and CE both drew from a channel energy pool, aura reinforcement could draw from the same pool.
Something I always wondered (I know it's late in the game for this) is a paladin's vulnerability to energy drain and becoming undead. Considering energy drain is a regular and huge tool of evil you'd think the paladin would have some defense against it, and why would the forces of good and law allow one of their prized paladins become a simple zombie or ghost when they die after all the paladin has done to promote these causes?
Could someone please post a definition of Mettle? Many people on this thread have asked for paladins to get it, so it would help to know exactly what it is. Someone says it substitutes Will save for Reflex save, or shrugs off fireball as if it had been evaded (without the need to take evasive action). Another says it helps when a successful Fort or Will save would otherwise still allow reduced damage or effect. Of the two versions, I prefer the latter. Someone's idea of aura reinforcement (however implemented) could help in the former case if needed.
Detect Evil: I’d make it a Perception vs. Bluff check – that way there’s at least a chance that the paladin isn’t running around and exposing evil NPCs everywhere (which might very easily destroy any intrigue-laden campaign).
Good call.
The spell also needs to be fixed or there's not much point in changing it just for the paladin. I totally agree this is a story killer. Why not just say that detect evil only works against supernatural evil? Also get rid of the following text from the spell:
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
If a low level spell can pierce intention so easily, what need is there for Perception? I don't think anything needs to be said in the paladin class description. Let anyone who wants take points in Perception, and let the spell (or ability) have nothing to do with it.
From Tome of Battle:
Mettle (Ex): You can resist magical attacks with greater effectiveness than other warriors. By drawing on your boundless energy and dedication to your cause, you can shrug off effects that would hinder even the toughest warrior. If you succeed on a Fortitude or Will save against an attack that would normally produce a lesser effect on a successful save (such as a spell with a saving throw entry of Will half or Fortitude partial), you instead negate the effect. You do not gain the benefit of mettle when you are unconscious or sleeping.
While I was searching this I also came to a wild Idea about Smite Evil. Basically works a little like Mountain hammer or Divine Surge:
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a single melee attack taken as a standard action or as part of a charge, a Paladin may Smite Evil. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack roll and deals 1d8 extra damage per level . Smite Evil automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess. If you miss with a Smite, you don't lose it. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level. At 20 level Paladin's Smite Evil Damage is automatically maximized as a part of Holy champion.
EDIT: In Complete Divine Mettle is a Supernatural ability (which it IMO in case of a Paladin should be)
From Tome of Battle:
Mettle (Ex):
Thanks!
Something I always wondered (I know it's late in the game for this) is a paladin's vulnerability to energy drain and becoming undead. Considering energy drain is a regular and huge tool of evil you'd think the paladin would have some defense against it, and why would the forces of good and law allow one of their prized paladins become a simple zombie or ghost when they die after all the paladin has done to promote these causes?
Good question. Now I'm wondering too...
I hope I didn't wake up too late...
Holy Avenger + Smite - See my post above
Lay on Hands + Channel positive energy - Separate abilities would be best IMO. Lay hands 1d6/2 levels is OK
Mettle - Would be OK at 11th level replacing aura of justice
Caster level of paladin level minus 3 - I support this, But the Ranger should then also get this.
Spontaneous casting from whole list - I think casting is okay like it is now (and with Battle Blessings from Complete Champion)
Add bonded shield - Check.
I also think that channel positive energy at cleric level -3 was OK. Paladin doesn't need to be as good as a Cleric in it.
Oh yeah. And maybe an always on magic Circle Against evil (at 20 level?) would be nice.
|
|
While I was searching this I also came to a wild Idea about Smite Evil. Basically works a little like Mountain hammer or Divine Surge:
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a single melee attack taken as a standard action or as part of a charge, a Paladin may Smite Evil. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack roll and deals 1d8 extra damage per level . Smite Evil automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess. If you miss with a Smite, you don't lose it. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level. At 20 level Paladin's Smite Evil Damage is automatically maximized as a part of Holy champion.
Dude, that would be one heck of a whammy, but considering how much people fight us saying that 1d6/2 levels and bypassing DR is too strong *rolls eyes*, I don't think 1d8/level has a snowballs chance in heck of happening.
|
|
From Tome of Battle:
Mettle (Ex): You can resist magical attacks with greater effectiveness than other warriors. By drawing on your boundless energy and dedication to your cause, you can shrug off effects that would hinder even the toughest warrior. If you succeed on a Fortitude or Will save against an attack that would normally produce a lesser effect on a successful save (such as a spell with a saving throw entry of Will half or Fortitude partial), you instead negate the effect. You do not gain the benefit of mettle when you are unconscious or sleeping.
That's a big difference from the version posted for the Hexblade, IIRC.
Didn't that version only apply to effects that dealt hit point damage (as per Evasion)?
IE: it makes a difference vs Disintegrate (Damage 2d6 per caster level/Save for 5d6). But not vs Cloudkill (Damage 1d4 Con/Save for 1d4/2 Con).
Maybe that confusion over definition is the factor making people wary of allowing it? I can see more people accepting the 'take no hit points' version, but not the 'ignore everything' version.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Could someone please post a definition of Mettle? Many people on this thread have asked for paladins to get it, so it would help to know exactly what it is. Someone says it substitutes Will save for Reflex save, or shrugs off fireball as if it had been evaded (without the need to take evasive action). Another says it helps when a successful Fort or Will save would otherwise still allow reduced damage or effect. Of the two versions, I prefer the latter. Someone's idea of aura reinforcement (however implemented) could help in the former case if needed.
The latter is correct.
In essence, Mettle is to Fort/Will saves what Evasion is to Ref saves. That is to say, a successful save negates all effects, not just reduces them.
Dude, that would be one heck of a whammy, but considering how much people fight us saying that 1d6/2 levels and bypassing DR is too strong *rolls eyes*, I don't think 1d8/level has a snowballs chance in heck of happening.While I was searching this I also came to a wild Idea about Smite Evil. Basically works a little like Mountain hammer or Divine Surge:
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a single melee attack taken as a standard action or as part of a charge, a Paladin may Smite Evil. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack roll and deals 1d8 extra damage per level . Smite Evil automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess. If you miss with a Smite, you don't lose it. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level. At 20 level Paladin's Smite Evil Damage is automatically maximized as a part of Holy champion.
Yeah it would. And I hope there was a chance it could happen...
It would be very strong, but not overpowered because
1. As a standard action it's just one attack in a round and only a few times per day.
2. As Extra dice it would not be multiplied on a lance/spirited charge or with a crit.
As a Comparison, some of Tome of Battle maneuvers, which basically can be done every other round unlimited times per day if you are a Warblade:
1.Mountain Hammers +2d6 (3rd char level), +6d6 (9th char level), +12d6 damage (13th char level) and they all overcome DR and hardness;
2.Divine Surge: +8d8 damage (7th char level)
3.The 9th level maneuvers (17 char level) that do +100 dmg or kill
or Charging Smite variant from PHBII which deals smite + 2xsmite dmg(total 3x smite dmg) on a charge and if it misses, smite is not used. With a Lance and spirited charge at 10th level it would be 3x(1d8[Lance]+30[smite])=3d8+90 (Another, weaker interpretation would be 3d8[lance]+30[smite]+20[charging smite]). Of course I would not allow charging smite when using my version.
or (I almost forgot): Fireball 1d6/level, multiple targets.
I haven't calculated how much damage the upgraded PF paladin would do on average in a round considering the chance to hit. But if both attacks hit, a paladin armed with a plain longsword and 18 str, 2 attacks at 10th level, would do +22 from smites or ~35 if enemy is evil outsider and 2d8+8 (=39/52 dmg).
With smite 1d8/level it would only be one attack with ~45 smite dmg +1d8+4 for an average total of 53,5 dmg. Of course chance to hit with best attack is better than with others.
Well, to tone it down a little Smite could also be +1d6/level and bypass DR or 1d8/level and not. (I would still stick in my 1d8 and bypass DR).
I hope I didn't post too long and confuse all to get my point.
In any case I think Smite Evil should be a single attack that does massive amounts of damage against evil.
Something I always wondered (I know it's late in the game for this) is a paladin's vulnerability to energy drain and becoming undead. Considering energy drain is a regular and huge tool of evil you'd think the paladin would have some defense against it, and why would the forces of good and law allow one of their prized paladins become a simple zombie or ghost when they die after all the paladin has done to promote these causes?
I think with these feats from Libris Mortis (and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, check also the PrC Knight of the Raven) the paladin has nothing to fear:
ENDURING LIFE [GENERAL]
You can ignore the effect of negative levels for a short time.
Benefit: Whenever you would gain a negative level, you can ignore the penalties and other ill effects associated with that negative level for a number of minutes equal to your Constitution bonus (if any). For example, if Tordek (Con 15) is struck by a wight, he gains one negative level. However, he can ignore the –1 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks associated with that negative level for 2 minutes, since his Constitution bonus is +2. (If Tordek were a spellcaster, he would also avoid losing a spell slot for 2 minutes.)
You also gain a +4 bonus on Fortitude saves to remove negative
levels.
LASTING LIFE [GENERAL]
You can shed negative levels with an act of will.
Prerequisites: Endurance, Enduring Life.
Benefit: Once per round as a standard action, you can attempt to remove a negative level from yourself by attempting a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 attacker’s HD + attacker’s Cha modifi er). If the saving throw succeeds, the negative level goes away. You make a separate saving throw for each negative level you have gained. If the save fails, you retain the negative level, but you can try again next round to remove it.
|
|
From Tome of Battle:
Mettle (Ex): You can resist magical attacks with greater effectiveness than other warriors. By drawing on your boundless energy and dedication to your cause, you can shrug off effects that would hinder even the toughest warrior. If you succeed on a Fortitude or Will save against an attack that would normally produce a lesser effect on a successful save (such as a spell with a saving throw entry of Will half or Fortitude partial), you instead negate the effect. You do not gain the benefit of mettle when you are unconscious or sleeping.That's a big difference from the version posted for the Hexblade, IIRC.
Didn't that version only apply to effects that dealt hit point damage (as per Evasion)?
IE: it makes a difference vs Disintegrate (Damage 2d6 per caster level/Save for 5d6). But not vs Cloudkill (Damage 1d4 Con/Save for 1d4/2 Con).
Maybe that confusion over definition is the factor making people wary of allowing it? I can see more people accepting the 'take no hit points' version, but not the 'ignore everything' version.
Snorter - its te right description - and same as with the Hexblade - I think you're just misunderstanding its mechanic.
Neither Disintigrate or Cloudkill (or Slay Living, Inflict Wounds, Chaos Hammer, etc) would have no effect on a character with Mettle if they make their will or fort save - as each of those spells have a lesser effect if the save is successful.
It is essentially the Fort/Will version of Evasion.
Robert
|
|
Ok Jason N. and Robert B. You have convinced me. I am on board with HA and Smite. The comparison to Barbarian is what did it for me. I like this a lot. I am behind this idea and I hope we can get it put in!
This sounds like the first one we are all starting to really scream yes for. I am curious what else we are agreeing on.
Holy Avenger + Smite (by Jason N.) - Check.
Lay on Hands + Channel positive energy - ???
Mettle - ???
Caster level of paladin level minus 3 - ???
Spontaneous casting from whole list - ???
Add bonded shield - ???Those 6 things have my support, make that happen and I am totally satisfied with the paladin.
HA + Smite: absolutely
LoH and Channel: seperate back out - not a universal pool of daily uses.Mettle: Should be 11th level ability - replace the aura that allows party to use smite evil.
Caster level: Cleric -3, and even full caster level is not unfair - considering the paladin spells are not game-breakers and mostly just personal buffs and/or malady remedies.
Spontaneous Casting - Not necessary
Bonded Shield - being able to split the enhancement bonus between sword and shield makes sense. I wont pout if its not implemented, but it makes sense and would be cool.
One last comment; the designers thought to increase the Will save to that of a cleric as one of the interventions to make the paladin better - I wholeheartedly feel that this is not the way to fix it - if the above is implemented at the expense of reducing the saves back to the way they were, Im all for that.
I firmly feel that the above it what is needed to fix the paladin - NOT the increase in will saves, and not spell resistance as has been a suggestion a few times.
The paladin already has some of the best saves, and most of the Will Saving throw issues are irrelevant as the paladin advances anyways: Charms, Compulsions and Fear all become no-issues eventually.
So if the Will save increase was done for the purpose of that being the oil on our squeaky wheel, I have to call foul and say thats the wrong approach, the other aspects is what is needed, so if something has to be taken back away from the paladin to facilitate these power increases - then have at it. I'm okay without the better Will saves.
Robert
These bonuses can be added to the weapon or they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: axiomatic, brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, flaming burst, holy, keen, merciful, and speed. Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property’s cost. These bonuses do not stack with any properties the weapon already has.
I just wanted to clarify this statement: whenever you say that "these bonuses do not stack with any properties the weapon already has", you mean to say that you cannot stack the Flaming property on a sword that already has the Flaming property, correct?
|
|
These bonuses can be added to the weapon or they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: axiomatic, brilliant energy, defending, disruption, flaming, flaming burst, holy, keen, merciful, and speed. Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property’s cost. These bonuses do not stack with any properties the weapon already has.I just wanted to clarify this statement: whenever you say that "these bonuses do not stack with any properties the weapon already has", you mean to say that you cannot stack the Flaming property on a sword that already has the Flaming property, correct?
Absolutely! That was asked before and clarified.
You can add a +1 enhancement to a +1 weapon and make it a +2; you can add flaming to a +1 weapon, you can add keen to a +1 flaming weapon, but you cannot add keen to a +1 keen weapon or flaming to a +1 flaming weapon
Robert
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.
FWIW, there is no mention of a sacred bonus in Pathfinder Beta. Is that why you chose it, to allow stacking?
Also, I agree with Marty1000 that "Holy Avenger" should be reserved for the well-known magic sword.
I think we should keep smites simple, as close to the original intent as possible (a single hit), while solving the major complaint (the whiff factor). I like the upgraded smite proposed by Jason B. Or I could go with the idea proposed by anothony Valente (here), assuming it's limited to the intended target of the smite (and maybe not quite so many dice). Or I could go with the targets per day idea, as long as the duration of the targeting is short.
|
|
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." (...)Very good point.
Thank you, I'm glad you weren't put off from paladin discussions by me snapping at you.
I think we should keep smites simple, as close to the original intent as possible (a single hit), while solving the major complaint (the whiff factor). I like the upgraded smite proposed by Jason B. Or I could go with the idea proposed by anothony Valente (here), assuming it's limited to the intended target of the smite (and maybe not quite so many dice). Or I could go with the targets per day idea, as long as the duration of the targeting is short.
I agree. Whilst it's nice in some ways lasting a round (especially the AC boost, I'd be happy for that to stay) the Smite Evil attempt to me should be one blow, one single attack, strong enough so that even the target's ancestors can feel it. When a paladin smites evil, other evil creatures around it should be shaken at the display of divine power. You could throw in some staggered effect as well or something similar, but it should be one blow.
Apart from that, Will Saves improvement I like, tweaks to spell levels I like. For me, the paladin's pretty much there apart from Smite Evil - LastKnightLeft's suggestion of more Smites at first level is sorely needed. The 1d6+level damage idea is also good for the viability of low level paladins. Everything else I haven't got a major opinion about at the moment.
Chobbly
Okay, I´ve been trying to develop this Holy Avenger thing a little further. Here's my take about Smite and HA.
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day + one additional time per day for each point of charisma bonus, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a single melee attack taken as a standard action or as part of a charge, a Paladin may Smite Evil. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack roll and deals 1d8 extra damage per level. Smite Evil automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess. In addition, the target is automatically shaken for 1 round, or 1 minute if its hit dice are lower than the paladin's class level. If the Smite misses, the Paladin doesn't lose it. However if he accidentally Smites a non evil creature, he does. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day to a maximum of seven times per day + his charisma bonus at 19th level. At 20 level Paladin's Smite Evil Damage is automatically maximized as a part of Holy champion.
Divine Wrath (Su): As a free action, 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 +1 bonus to all attack rolls, damage rolls and AC. These modifiers are Sacred Bonuses and only effective against evil targets. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, these bonuses increase by +1, to a maximum of +7 at 19th level. Using this ability uses one of his daily Smite Evil attempts.
You can use both of these powers at the same time. It's effects stack.
So, what do you think? Does the paladin still get too few Smites? Is the Smite too powerful? Is the hit bonus too low? Is the divine Wrath too weak or it's duration too short? Or is it too strong (for example when compared to barbarian rage).
Pekias I like it, but with that smite evil it's one hit and the BBEG (if evil) is toast. Kind of kills the drama a bit, almost anti-climatical. Maybe the damage should be every other level.
Here is another version based on the original beta Barbarian Rage system:
Pool of Divinity (Su): Starting at 1st level, a paladin gains a number of divinity points equal to 4 + her Charisma modifier. At each level after 1st, he gains 2 additional divinity points.
Divine Wrath (Su): As a free action, A paladin may focus divine energy from his god to course through his body and become an extension of its might. The paladin gains a +1 bonus to all attack rolls, damage rolls and AC. These modifiers are Sacred Bonuses and only effective against evil targets. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, these bonuses increase by +1, to a maximum of +7 at 19th level. A paladin must spend one divinity point to enter Divine Wrath and one additional point at the start of any round spent in Divine Wrath.
Smite Evil (Su): A paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a single melee attack taken as a standard action or as part of a charge, a Paladin may Smite Evil. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack roll and deals 1d8 extra damage per level. Smite Evil automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess. In addition, the target is automatically shaken for 1 round, or 1 minute if its hit dice are lower than the paladin's class level. If the Smite misses, the Paladin doesn't lose it. However if he accidentally Smites a non evil creature, he does. At 20 level Paladin's Smite Evil Damage is automatically maximized as a part of Holy champion. Using Smite Evil successfully consumes 4 points from his Pool of divinity.
You can use both of these powers at the same time. It's effects stack.
I think lay on hands could also be combined into this system, but then the paladin should get more points per level.
What do you think about this one?
Pekias I like it, but with that smite evil it's one hit and the BBEG (if evil) is toast. Kind of kills the drama a bit, almost anti-climatical. Maybe the damage should be every other level.
You might be right. However when compared to rogue (sneak attack 1d6/2 levels, multiple hits per round), wizard (Fireballs), or per encounter maneuvers from Tome of battle (for example divine surge +8d8 dmg, available at 7th level or the +100 dmg's at 17th level), I think it isn't too much.
I don't disagree that it isn't much, my only problem is the fact this is a straight up BBEG killer. Yes Yes everyone else got to have good fun getting to that point while the paladin was lackluster (maybe) but once you're there and the paladin takes one swing and the deal is done... it kind of steals the thunder...
I hate being contrary on this issue... I LOVE your idea, but I can see where DM's are going to be screaming and then never putting BIG evil in your way again.
|
|
I don't disagree that it isn't much, my only problem is the fact this is a straight up BBEG killer. Yes Yes everyone else got to have good fun getting to that point while the paladin was lackluster (maybe) but once you're there and the paladin takes one swing and the deal is done... it kind of steals the thunder...
I hate being contrary on this issue... I LOVE your idea, but I can see where DM's are going to be screaming and then never putting BIG evil in your way again.
He's got a point though, do they do that now whenever there's a tome of battle class in the game?
|
|
I not sure your right. Wisdom now will probably become a dumpstat since The Class now casts spells using charsima. Also The Paladin still has a problem hitting his foes. So he need all the strength he can get and I think wisdom will suffer.
...though I'm worried outher classes might want to pick one level Paladin just to get good will saves an be able to use wands and not losing BAB.You are right that the wis will be a little lower now - probably 2 less on the will saves.
But paladins still have access to Divine Grace at 2nd level which I'm willing to bet will raise most characters' saves by +3 across the board at that point.
By 8th level with points added to CHA, and a CHA enhancement item you're probably looking at +5 to all saves - along with the base of +2 - thats +7 to Will Saves at 8th level.
Compare that to a Sorc/Wizard - where Wis is definitely a dump stat - they have +6
Rogue with bad will save and usually low wis - +3
only the cleric and possibly the monk will have better Will Save.
The paladin will also have about +7 or +8 for REF/ the sorc/wiz would have about +4, the cleric +3,
And of course the fort will be better than everyone at about +12.
So he's better that most classs in REF all but one or two in WILL, and all classes in FORT. (except perhaps when a barbarian is raging).
Robert
|
|
Divine Wrath (Su):
....a rose by any other name....
Of course I'm a fan of the mechanic as it was one I helped suggest and put together.
I only used Holy Avenger for the nostalgia - since a Holy Avenger weapon no longer really exists in 3rd edition; but does bring back pleasant memories of paladin's of yore.
other names:
Righteous Wrath
Heroic Stand
Divine Fury
Divine Might
Bastion of Vengence
Using the Force ;-)
Robert
I don't know I haven't played in a game where Tomb of Battle has been used (I'm about the most liberal it gets around these parts with letting people have whatever they can find).
Most everything here tends to stick to core.