Hey Mink, this is the very mentality we were talking about
I think you meant Asgetrion. :-)
No I meant you - I was indicating that his lack of enthusiasm at finding ways to improve the paladin - due to being worried about the fighter again. Which directly addressed a post you made about wondering why there's so little push for really considering making the paladin better and on par.
Whaddaya know, you were talking to me! :-) I don't think you addressed me before, so maybe I wasn't expecting it. Thanks for including me in the conversation, for your patient explanation, and sorry for being obtuse. I've read all your posts in this thread with great interest. My lack of response speaks to the excellence of your posts and my inability to add anything of value to the points you make.
Actually my post was more about new and interesting abilities to make the paladin cool, distinctive, and fun to play. Power equality, while also interesting, is not top on my list. I think I'm not that interested in achieving equality using mechanics already available to the fighter, even though part of me sympathizes with the desire to make the paladin more competent in melee. I think you want to emphasize the martial side of the paladin, for example opening weapon focus and weapon specialization. I'd prefer a completely new mechanic that emphasizes the paladin's reliance on strength derived from the rightness of his actions and the use of paladin-appropriate tactics in combat. It's not that I'm worried about stepping on the fighter's toes (I'd like to see the paladin be more effective than the fighter about 1/5 of the time, especially when it really counts, and seldom greatly inferior). It's more that I find it boring to tread where the fighter already walks, and I want to find a new path for the paladin.
So really I'm pushing for a more interesting paladin, and the fact that the paladin is currently sub-par (power-wise) is to me an opportunity to get something new to fill that gap, rather than a problem that greatly concerns me in and of itself. That said, a paladin is not much fun if, like Don Quixote, he's always getting his molars knocked out, so whatever that something is, it should make the paladin more effective in combat and not take rounds to set up, be prone to fizzle, or quick to run out and leave the paladin feeling gimpy rather than heroic.
FWIW, I like the fact that you double smite bonuses against "foes with Evil Descriptors and/or overwhelming evil (which should include the triple-Ds - devils, demons, dragons, and evil clerics among them - as well as a few evil undead nasty BBEGs.)" rather than simply anything with evil alignment. I would include all undead and anything whose evil is supernatural. Like you, "I'm all for adding tithing and a magic item limit back" or whatever appropriate restriction helps to justify making the paladin's abilities compelling. I think I understand why good will save is unappealing to you. I like the way it emphasizes the strength of the paladin's convictions.
I hope you consider me largely sympathetic to your views despite having somewhat different priorities in terms of what I hope we achieve.
If you'd stop playing that hippety hop and open your ears you'll see I never once put down your intelligence, I just said that we all get caught up in enthusiasm some time AND HAVE TO LET IT OUT VOCIFEROUSLY. Maybe if you weren't so distracte by holding your pants at knee level and singing about the "booty butt, booty butt, booty butt cheeks" and "that thugga luv" you mighta caught my drift, are you jiggy with it nah nah nah nah nah nah nah?
Yeesh you act like all I wanna do is zooma zoom zoom zoom in you boom boom.
hmmmm totally lost me here but that part of that sentence was not meant for you man. Looking at it now it definitely looked like it was though. It was meant for the other guy whose name I can not spell :) Asgetrion maybe?
|
[..]Nothing forces a cleric to not pump his cha[..]
Nothing forces a Paldin to not pump his str and dump his cha to 12, thus there is no problem with the Paladin anymore and we can all go home and have a cop of tea.
LKL we don't have to agree, it's OK, but try at least not just to read my post but try ask yourself: What are TomJohn talkin' about. Robert got and so can you.
No, actually if a paladin pumps his str and not his cha he is still behind the other martial classes and then doesn't have his class features to back up his martial side. So even in that instance he is behind.
A cleric however only needs about a 14-15 wisdom at the start of the game and then focus his spells around self buffing and healing (where saves aren't important), and could have all 10s in every other stat, meaning he could afford to pump his cha. Then use his buff spells to make up for his lack of physical stats in a way that the paladin can't because he doesn't have the # of spell slots. That's what I meant when I said that nothing forces a cleric not to pump his cha. That combined with selective channeling can actually make a pretty good character concept.
When it comes to the amount of damage dealt/healed its based on level so it's no stronger or weaker for either class. the fact that clerics gain 3+cha as it's own pool and paladins have to use an existing pool means that the cleric channels more often and isn't hurting himself to do so and therefor is still better than the paladin.
Now in most instances a cleric isn't going to do that so in general a paladin will have a better save and cause the creatures to run for a round or two more than the cleric. But since the cleric can do it more without other abilities suffering, the cleric is the more effective channeler.
That is what I mean when I say I don't get where you're coming from with the paladin being better at channeling. He isn't until he gets to around level 12+ where he actually has enoug LoH to be a competative channeler, which you said you didn't have a problem with him being better at higher levels.
Even a paladin with a 20 cha at level 4 can only channel 3 times a day at 4th level, where the cleric will most likely be doing it 4-6 times a day, without the fear of burning out his resources like the paladin would.
Now if we maintain the level-3 of a paladins channeling and seperate the pools then he needs to go back to having 3+cha channels a day and not that nerfed 1+cha of the beta. I've never seen channeling as the paladins bag so that wouldn't bother me. But it isn't fair to give the paladin weakened channeling and a weakened # of times per day. that is a terrible misjustice to the class and to balance. Since many suplement feats where designed around the assumption of the paladin having 3+cha turn undead a day.
If the channeling stays as strong as it is now and the pools are seperated I also wouldn't mind having 1+cha channels a day because the channels actually have some use.
Either of those suggestions is fine, but I am as opposed to going back to level-3 and 1+cha, uses per day as I am opposed to the combining of the two pools.
And i still maintain that the paladin isn't a better channeler right now than the cleric.
That being said - prior to the proposed upgrades, the paladin still channeled at -3 levels of a cleric; which i'm okay with. I think that improvement was unnecessary and did not specifically address the issues where the paladin was behind .I say move the channeling and Lay on hands back to seperate abilities - to allow them both to be used often enough. Simply increasing the pool would allow min/maxers to ignore one of those abilities and have way too many of the other; not to mention how do we regulate "extra channeling" and/or "extra lay on hands" feats.....
Furthermore, after seperating them out - return the channeling to cleric level -3, and improve the spellcasting to be the same (cleric level -3).
This will ultimately give the paladin about the same number of channeling at a bit higher DC - but less overall oomph.
I'm thinking this way too about spells and channeling. Plus increase the channeling back to 3+cha.
|
|
I'm thinking this way too about spells and channeling. Plus increase the channeling back to 3+cha.
That being said - prior to the proposed upgrades, the paladin still channeled at -3 levels of a cleric; which i'm okay with. I think that improvement was unnecessary and did not specifically address the issues where the paladin was behind .I say move the channeling and Lay on hands back to seperate abilities - to allow them both to be used often enough. Simply increasing the pool would allow min/maxers to ignore one of those abilities and have way too many of the other; not to mention how do we regulate "extra channeling" and/or "extra lay on hands" feats.....
Furthermore, after seperating them out - return the channeling to cleric level -3, and improve the spellcasting to be the same (cleric level -3).
This will ultimately give the paladin about the same number of channeling at a bit higher DC - but less overall oomph.
Agreed I can live with crappy channeling as long as I'm not being told, "hey not only are you crappy at channeling, you have fewer than before as well. healing 1d6 is just too powerful to let you do it 6 or 7 times a day.
|
|
If you'd stop playing that hippety hop and open your ears you'll see I never once put down your intelligence, I just said that we all get caught up in enthusiasm some time AND HAVE TO LET IT OUT VOCIFEROUSLY. Maybe if you weren't so distracte by holding your pants at knee level and singing about the "booty butt, booty butt, booty butt cheeks" and "that thugga luv" you mighta caught my drift, are you jiggy with it nah nah nah nah nah nah nah?
Yeesh you act like all I wanna do is zooma zoom zoom zoom in you boom boom.
hmmmm totally lost me here but that part of that sentence was not meant for you man. Looking at it now it definitely looked like it was though. It was meant for the other guy whose name I can not spell :) Asgetrion maybe?
.....right now....I have no idea what you're talking about.... ;-/
LOL
Robert
Jeeze you guys are so white.
I was pretending to be an old guy telling off Vult. "booty butt cheecks" and "thugga luv" were the songs from rappers in the boondocks cartoon.
and then the last to lines are refrences to 80's hip hop where I just started getting silly. Gettin Jiggy with it means getting down, and All I wanna do is zooma zoom zoom zoom in your boom boom, mean I want to *bleep* you in the *bleep*
white people *rolls eyes*
|
Agreed I can live with crappy channeling as long as I'm not being told, "hey not only are you crappy at channeling, you have fewer than before as well. healing 1d6 is just too powerful to let you do it 6 or 7 times a day.I'm thinking this way too about spells and channeling. Plus increase the channeling back to 3+cha.
That being said - prior to the proposed upgrades, the paladin still channeled at -3 levels of a cleric; which i'm okay with. I think that improvement was unnecessary and did not specifically address the issues where the paladin was behind .I say move the channeling and Lay on hands back to seperate abilities - to allow them both to be used often enough. Simply increasing the pool would allow min/maxers to ignore one of those abilities and have way too many of the other; not to mention how do we regulate "extra channeling" and/or "extra lay on hands" feats.....
Furthermore, after seperating them out - return the channeling to cleric level -3, and improve the spellcasting to be the same (cleric level -3).
This will ultimately give the paladin about the same number of channeling at a bit higher DC - but less overall oomph.
I'm sure that the # of daily channels in BETA was reduced to 1+CHA was not so much that healing 1d6 was "too powerful", but most likely because due to the paladin having more of an emphasis on CHA than a cleric, he turning save DC for making undead become "FRIGHTENED" was more apt to be more effective - and thus that was probably what the designers were trying cut down on.
That being said - most paladins that ive ever seen use their channeling more for powering divine feats and less for actually healing or harming undead.
Right now it's really limited because the pool of uses shared with LAY ON HANDS is so small and channeling using TWO uses just drains them too fast to make any of those feats valuable any longer.
In summation - I think I understand why the designers felt they needed to limit the number of times per day initially - as I described above - but I feel that it should revert to cleric level -3 to make up for the usually higher CHA score, but still number of times as the 3.5 version (3+CHA) - because he really does need those to be able to use the divine feats that help him be better at his trade.
Perhaps instead, the cleric's # of channeling can increase as the cleric advances.....that will help seperate the true undead-slayer from the paladin.
Robert
Jeeze you guys are so white.
I was pretending to be an old guy telling off Vult. "booty butt cheecks" and "thugga luv" were the songs from rappers in the boondocks cartoon.
and then the last to lines are refrences to 80's hip hop where I just started getting silly. Gettin Jiggy with it means getting down, and All I wanna do is zooma zoom zoom zoom in your boom boom, mean I want to *bleep* you in the *bleep*
white people *rolls eyes*
HAH, okay man I knew the references I just did not understand where you were going with them. To "thug" for me I guess :)
|
|
I'm sure that the # of daily channels in BETA was reduced to 1+CHA was not so much that healing 1d6 was "too powerful", but most likely because due to the paladin having more of an emphasis on CHA than a cleric, he turning save DC for making undead become "FRIGHTENED" was more apt to be more effective - and thus that was probably what the designers were trying cut down on.
Then it was still an equally silly decision because the save is based on level as much as charisma, so the level -3 already lowered the DC and thus solved the problem and the 1+cha was an unnecessary nerf.
|
|
HAH, okay man I knew the references I just did not understand where you were going with them. To "thug" for me I guess :)Jeeze you guys are so white.
I was pretending to be an old guy telling off Vult. "booty butt cheecks" and "thugga luv" were the songs from rappers in the boondocks cartoon.
and then the last to lines are refrences to 80's hip hop where I just started getting silly. Gettin Jiggy with it means getting down, and All I wanna do is zooma zoom zoom zoom in your boom boom, mean I want to *bleep* you in the *bleep*
white people *rolls eyes*
Yup cause I just scream hardcore gangsta
|
|
Then it was still an equally silly decision because the save is based on level as much as charisma, so the level -3 already lowered the DC and thus solved the problem and the 1+cha was an unnecessary nerf.I'm sure that the # of daily channels in BETA was reduced to 1+CHA was not so much that healing 1d6 was "too powerful", but most likely because due to the paladin having more of an emphasis on CHA than a cleric, he turning save DC for making undead become "FRIGHTENED" was more apt to be more effective - and thus that was probably what the designers were trying cut down on.
Absolutely! Very savvy conclusion!
Good call, LKL
Robert
|
|
Then it was still an equally silly decision because the save is based on level as much as charisma, so the level -3 already lowered the DC and thus solved the problem and the 1+cha was an unnecessary nerf.I'm sure that the # of daily channels in BETA was reduced to 1+CHA was not so much that healing 1d6 was "too powerful", but most likely because due to the paladin having more of an emphasis on CHA than a cleric, he turning save DC for making undead become "FRIGHTENED" was more apt to be more effective - and thus that was probably what the designers were trying cut down on.
Absolutely! Very savvy conclusion!
Good call, LKL
Robert
I can't tell if that was sarcastic or serious, or you just completely disagree but don't want to say it cause I'm so gangsta?
|
|
I can't tell if that was sarcastic or serious, or you just completely disagree but don't want to say it cause I'm so gangsta?
It was genuine. No sarcasm at all.
Perhaps you were unable to tell the difference because you are so gangsta and thus explains your lack of common sense. :-P
Robert
Hey I'll have you know my lack of common sense is quite unexplainable thank you.
|
I'm sure that the # of daily channels in BETA was reduced to 1+CHA was not so much that healing 1d6 was "too powerful", but most likely because due to the paladin having more of an emphasis on CHA than a cleric, he turning save DC for making undead become "FRIGHTENED" was more apt to be more effective - and thus that was probably what the designers were trying cut down on.
If that is the reason, then it's utterly bizzarre.
That would be the equivalent of:
----------------wibbly wobbly dream-sequence special effect------------
<Staff member bursts into the office, yelling>
"Woah, guys, bad news! BAD NEWS!"
"What's up, staff-member-guy?"
"You know how clerics deal damage in melee?"
"Yeah, weapon dice, plus Strength bonus, right?"
"Well, apparently, someone made a major goof, because it seems that ALL THE CLASSES are still able to do it! We were too busy congratulating ourselves on giving them infinite orisons, and infinite domain powers, that we forgot to make sure that they were the best combat class!"
"But we castrated Power Attack and Combat Expertise, right? What does it matter if some lame-o classes deal the same damage, with each hit, as a cleric whose got no buffs running?"
"But that's just it! If they cannibalise their other stats (and leave themselves wide open to failing all their saves) they can afford to put a few more points in Strength! They could actually do a point or two EXTRA!
"Woah, I can't believe we left that loophole open! OK, we need to clamp down on this. We can't have dedicated melee classes dealing the same melee damage as a class that gets full spell progression..."
"...and infinite domain spells on top..."
"...and infinite domain spells on top..."
"...and infinite orisons..."
"...and infinite orisons..."
"...and extra spells if there's an 'R' in the month, and bonus spells if they wear matching socks..."
"No we dropped those. But only for space reasons."
"Oh, right. They'll be in 'The Moon on a Stick: What the hell MORE do we have to give you, to make you people play a cleric?' supplement."
"Back on topic; I think we'd better reduce the damage that everyone else deals with weapons. Clerics do normal damage, everyone else deals damage as though they were one size smaller? That should remove the unfair advantage these other classes have. No, scrub that, just cut the damage in half. Cleric with longsword? D8 plus Str. Fighter with longsword? D4 plus Str. Greatsword? D6. And cut their threat range. Make 'em roll 4 natural 20s to get an extra half damage."
"Woah? Damage-and-a-half? Are you sure that's not too good?"
"No! Not 'damage-and-a-half'! Get serious! I meant an extra 'half' damage, as in 'half a hit point'. Dear me..."
"Sorry, sir, my mistake! Good idea, I'll get on it right away!"
|
|
'The Moon on a Stick: What the hell MORE do we have to give you, to make you people play a cleric?'
I can't wait to get that book :D
But you do raise a good point. The Cleric has full spellcasting progression, two domain powers at will, and unlimited orisons. He on top of that gets the best channel energy? Why does this have to be the standard, why isn't it okay to let the paladin be the better chaneler just because he gets it at level 4?
Hey guys, while "beat the cleric" is a fun game any day, he'll just waste his spells healing himself, and we might want that for ourselves later on... back to fixing the paladin, eh?
The HA idea, would that bonus be only against evil? I know that everyone was wanting a general boost to the paladin's offensive capabilities, but if HA only works on evil, and then after you hit, you could flare up the smite for d6 per 2 paly levels, I think people would be hard pressed to say it was "too good".
I was also looking at the channeling feats, and the more I do, Turn Outsider, and turning smite are looking more and more like a feat tax... With turn outsider (or turning smite) you could take some extra lay on hands, and fake a smite evil that way, while still healing your allies (in fact if you do take selective turning too, it reduces the number of foes you have to choose if there are outsiders on the table, just let them suck damage instead).
(I realise I'm rambling a bit, just looking for some fresh perspective here)
new oath
Nice work! Since further discussion of oaths feels off-topic in this thread, I'll respond with
Thanks for the feedback. I remember the Justicar article. Whereas some people have a tendency to view bounty hunters as mercenaries, a criminal seeking paladin does so out of a sense of duty to his/her church, community or a rightful ruler. (Think U.S. Marshal service). In fact, the “real entity” sending the paladin to capture someone might be the paladin’s church.
Certainly, then again it might not. It could be a court, a talking magic item, or even a set of holy dice, as long as the community the paladin is trying to serve respects the verdict and the paladin is also convinced in her own mind that the legal mechanism is valid. That's why I was trying to find a label that carries fewer assumptions and is more campaign-neutral. "Subdue" might make it easier to remember the benefit of the oath.
Upon further reflection, I would modify the restriction to the Straight-Line requirement, and the preclusion of any lethal damage, to include smiting. (That's right, no smiting someone you’re trying to capture). Any infliction of lethal damage by the paladin ends the Oath right there. Of course, a high-level paladin endeavoring to bring back a bad guy might want to combine this Oath along with “Defend You With My Life” Oath.
I like it.
When it comes to the proposed “Inspire the Masses” Oath, I’d like to think of it more than just winning converts to one’s church. It could also serve to thwart evil not by force of arms, but by force of divine will channeled through the paladin. (Two deities that come to mind would be Rao from Greyhawk and possibly Majere from Dragonlance). It could come in handy for quelling a riot of desperate citizens or dissuade an enemy from preying on others. (Think of Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi, insisting that he could turn his father back to the good side of the Force). Upon further consideration, I’d also say that the number of alignment shifts from law and good should modify the DC to resist such effects. (Thus, chaotic evil foes would be somewhat resistant, but not immune). I’d also limit the use of this Oath to intelligent humanoids, and definitely not unintelligent undead, outsiders or elementals.
A +2 bonus (against) per alignment shift might work, but I have a hard time imagining that anything a paladin says could be inspiring to a ghoul. I would agree that evil outsiders are hopelessly beyond the paladin's influence, and I would extend that to all undead. The ability to influence even intelligent undead has the paladin rather unexpectedly stepping on the necromancer's toes :-) On the other hand, I don't think it needs to be limited to humanoids. It seems reasonable for a paladin to influence a lammasu or a ki-rin. I might go +4 on the good/evil axis, so that a lawful evil creature is not as easily inspired as a neutral creature. That's [LE: +8, N: +6] vs [LE: +4, N: +4] bonus against.
Now, here is another Oath…Blood of the Martyr
The paladin seeks to champion the greater cause of good through his/her own pain and suffering. For every round the paladin takes every ten points of hit point or ability damage, the bonuses from his/her auras (with the exception of the Aura of Justice) are increased by the paladin’s Charisma modifier. This bonus takes effect on the round following the damage inflicted. The paladin gets a +2 bonus on any saving throw based on pain (i.e. resisting a symbol of pain spell). If the paladin is reduced to zero or negative hit points, all auras, with the exception of the Aura of Justice, remain active for one more round. Restriction: the paladin cannot attempt any self-healing during the combat encounter and for one full turn afterward.
Cool idea! I might let the paladin turn this one on at will as a free action anytime while the oath is in effect, and not allow her to turn it off until the end of the current encounter without tripping the restriction, with the default consequence of voiding the oath for the day. That way, she can self-heal until she decides it's time to resort to martyrdom.
So, for 10 damage, a paladin with 17 charisma would gain the following aura boosts:
Aura of Courage: +4 morale bonus against fear => +7
Aura of Resolve: +4 morale bonus against charm => +7
Aura of Faith: weapons good-aligned vs DR => ??
Aura of Righteousness: +4 morale bonus against compulsion => +7
The boost could get ridiculous if the paladin has a lot of hit points, granting virtual immunity. I might instead extend the range of the aura 10 feet for every 10% of full HP (minimum 5) damage taken after activating the benefit, and improve the bonus by +1 along with each 10 foot increment. The dramatic range improvement could really make things interesting if paladins were allowed to channel energy to reinforce their auras against spell and breath weapon damage.
I'm hoping that Aura of Justice will be eliminated.
So the list of oaths is becoming quite varied:
Offense:
Scourge the Heretic (evil spell casters)
Banish Evil (evil outsiders)
Chastise the Lawless (chaotic outsiders)
Release the Damned (undead)
Slay the Wicked (BBEG)
Fight to the End ("always-on")
Avenge the Fallen
Subjugate the Sinner
Defense:
Defend You With My Life
Blood of the Martyr
Non-Combat:
Inspire the Masses
Here's another oath for buffing allies:
Lead Them to Victory: The paladin's reckless charge inspires allies to fight heroically. All allies who can see the paladin gain +1 to hit and damage, plus an additional +1 to hit and damage for every four of the paladin's levels above the first (1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th) for a number of rounds equal to the paladin's charisma modifier. The paladin applies the same bonus to all charge attacks. Restriction: The paladin must charge the center of the enemy front line at the start of the encounter in order to gain the benefit of the oath for that encounter (the benefit does apply to that charge). Once the benefit is gained, the paladin may not use the withdraw action or retreat from combat for the remainder of the encounter, or she loses the benefit of her oath for the day.
A rescue-themed oath that includes a "Guide My Sword" divination benefit like in Princess Bride might be fun.
|
|
Yes, yes, yes.
So LKL this is what I'm talking about. "Me no like big Paladin have betta DC then uggly Cleric".....and the DC not also "making undead become "FRIGHTENED" the DC affects damage (undead miss sabe = more damage)
I'm not saying the Paladin have more channel energy or that he is to powerful or anything else. Get it now?
Okay you were worried that the undead will save less often and therefor be taking more damage than they would if the cleric channels because in general a cleric has a 12-14 charisma where a paladin will have an 16-20 charisma. Okay then my question is this, why is that so important? If paladins are supposed to shine against undead and channel energy functions off of charisma, then doesn't it make sense that the paladin would be the better channeler? The cleric is still the better healer, but you would think that the guy who's life is dedicated to the eradication of evil would be better at confronting it. Why is it that the paladins should be weaker than the clerics? Is there any reason for that, because I can't see a reason that the cleric "has" to be the better channeler. For the cleric, channeling is supposed to be a healing tool and supplementary to their spells. For the paladin it's the exact opposite, and it's powered by his righteous cause. I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm really curious as to your justification for the paladin needing to be worse then the cleric when channeling.
Nice work! Since further discussion of oaths feels off-topic in this thread, I'll respond with
Not sure if you saw MY vision of the paladin, but I made sure to put the Oaths in there. Just want you to know that I am still on board with them :)
|
|
Okay you were worried that the undead will save less often and therefor be taking more damage than they would if the cleric channels because in general a cleric has a 12-14 charisma where a paladin will have an 16-20 charisma. Okay then my question is this, why is that so important? If paladins are supposed to shine against undead and channel energy functions off of charisma, then doesn't it make sense that the paladin would be the better channeler? The cleric is still the better healer, but you would think that the guy who's life is dedicated to the eradication of evil would be better at confronting it. Why is it that the paladins should be weaker than the clerics? Is there any reason for that, because I can't see a reason that the cleric "has" to be the better channeler. For the cleric, channeling is supposed to be a healing tool and supplementary to their spells. For the paladin it's the exact opposite, and it's powered by his righteous cause. I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm really curious as to your justification for the paladin needing to be worse then the cleric when channeling.
Yes, yes, yes.
So LKL this is what I'm talking about. "Me no like big Paladin have betta DC then uggly Cleric".....and the DC not also "making undead become "FRIGHTENED" the DC affects damage (undead miss sabe = more damage)
I'm not saying the Paladin have more channel energy or that he is to powerful or anything else. Get it now?
Well, to be frank - historically throughout all editions, the cleric has been the defeater of undead. Always has been. I have no problem with the cleric being better at it than the paladin - so long as the paladin is better at combat than the cleric. Currently, he's not - because both classes require buffs to be effective - but the clerics buffs are FAR better, and last longer, and much more of them. So apples to apples: when both spend the same amount of time to buff, the cleric becomes superior - not to mention the cleric can make excellent use of Greater Magic Weapon and Magical Vestment that last an hour per level. A cleric's GMW for instance is +3 on weapons at 12th level and lasts 12 hours (all day), while a paladin doesn't get a +2 from GMW, until he's 16th level!!!
Now, I know that what I said above is not applicable when the paladin uses his smite evil attacks - but as we've all lamented ad nauseum, there aren't enough smites to really worry about to make a fair comparison.
So I have to agree with him that the cleric SHOULD be the main channeler and have the better chance at hurting the undead.
Thus IMO, leaving the paldin at cleric level -3 does take away about 2 from the DC on the save - making them about even, it also does less dice damage / healing.
However, I don't want to see the paladin have fewer of them than 3.5 had - as I've said, he needs those typically to fuel his divine feats (if any) to help him become a better combatant - and some of them help the whole party.
So for my money, I would keep it at cleric -3 but 3+cha times per day.
THEN - add additional channeling to the cleric as he advances - OR add Extra Channeling as a bonus feat for the cleric at 2nd level.
Robert
|
|
Hey guys, while "beat the cleric" is a fun game any day, he'll just waste his spells healing himself, and we might want that for ourselves later on... back to fixing the paladin, eh?
The HA idea, would that bonus be only against evil? I know that everyone was wanting a general boost to the paladin's offensive capabilities, but if HA only works on evil, and then after you hit, you could flare up the smite for d6 per 2 paly levels, I think people would be hard pressed to say it was "too good".
I was also looking at the channeling feats, and the more I do, Turn Outsider, and turning smite are looking more and more like a feat tax... With turn outsider (or turning smite) you could take some extra lay on hands, and fake a smite evil that way, while still healing your allies (in fact if you do take selective turning too, it reduces the number of foes you have to choose if there are outsiders on the table, just let them suck damage instead).
(I realise I'm rambling a bit, just looking for some fresh perspective here)
The HA idea that I proposed is thematically meant to have the bonuses apply only to evil targets.
I know that alot of people say: but most everything you fight is evil.
Thats just not true: plants, vermin, animals, dire animals, oozes, constructs, mindless undead, elementals, animated objects, are all non-evil. Plus many NPCs, beasts, and outsiders are aligned neutrally.
As for your thought on channeling feats: my paladin as I said currently has Turning Smite (5th level), and I took Turn Outsider (at 7th), but as far as doing damage to outsiders with a channeling, my options include either hitting one of them with Turning Smite, or I can channel energy in a burst and do damage to them - in which case I dont need selective channeling since the outsiders in the burst take damage as if they were undead, and my allies in the burst would be healed by the same burst.
Obviously when fighting creatures that are neither outsiders or undead, I may accidentaly heal those in my burst that I'm fighting....but I rarely use channel energy for that purpose - only on a rare emergency. I usually use them to use Turning Smite, or heal the group after the combat. I only have 4 a day, so I use them quite judiciously.
Robert
Now, I know that what I said above is not applicable when the paladin uses his smite evil attacks - but as we've all lamented ad nauseum, there aren't enough smites to really worry about to make a fair comparison.
I know that alot of people say: but most everything you fight is evil.
Thats just not true: plants, vermin, animals, dire animals, oozes, constructs, mindless undead, elementals, animated objects, are all non-evil. Plus many NPCs, beasts, and outsiders are aligned neutrally.
Through all the discussion here and things like this, that are the simple truth. The more I think about it I think that the only real conclusion is the version of smite that I listed in my paladin thread about how I would build the paladin if I could....
Level 3: Smite Evil, Divine Grace.
Now that he can see the evil of the world and is no longer afraid of it, he can now strike out against it. His body is also strengthened by his convictions so that he can withstand the different attacks that the forces of evil will use against him.
Smite Evil: Every attack a paladin makes is a strike to rid the world of evil. A paladin must know that a subject is evil before using this power (by the use of his detect evil ability). Once he has confirmed that an enemy is in fact evil he may add his charisma mod to his roll to hit and his paladin level to his damage role. This damage is not multiplied on a critical. The damage does bypass any damage reduction.
We have said it again and again and again till we are all blue in the face. Even with many of the great suggestions we have listed I do not feel that we are closing that much ground with the other classes in our fight against evil. I know that the splat books and things have some good options but as we have also seen, many groups do not use those books. So the "core" paladin needs to be balanced with the "core" classes all around. I am sorry but this is my stance now, something like what I listed above is probably the only way we will see any justice for the paladin.
|
|
Thats just not true: plants, vermin, animals, dire animals, oozes, constructs, mindless undead , elementals, animated objects, are all non-evil. Plus many NPCs, beasts, and outsiders are aligned neutrally.
Um I know that many people think they shouldn't be, but mindless undead are actually evil. They aren't constructs, they're undead, the undead type is always evil. It doesn't matter if they are mindless or reformed, they register an evil aura, even if a reformed vampire has cleric levels he'd detect as both good and evil to the relevant spells, at least unless they change it for pathfinder.
|
|
Now, I know that what I said above is not applicable when the paladin uses his smite evil attacks - but as we've all lamented ad nauseum, there aren't enough smites to really worry about to make a fair comparison.
I know that alot of people say: but most everything you fight is evil.
Thats just not true: plants, vermin, animals, dire animals, oozes, constructs, mindless undead, elementals, animated objects, are all non-evil. Plus many NPCs, beasts, and outsiders are aligned neutrally.
Through all the discussion here and things like this, that are the simple truth. The more I think about it I think that the only real conclusion is the version of smite that I listed in my paladin thread about how I would build the paladin if I could....
Level 3: Smite Evil, Divine Grace.
Now that he can see the evil of the world and is no longer afraid of it, he can now strike out against it. His body is also strengthened by his convictions so that he can withstand the different attacks that the forces of evil will use against him.
Smite Evil: Every attack a paladin makes is a strike to rid the world of evil. A paladin must know that a subject is evil before using this power (by the use of his detect evil ability). Once he has confirmed that an enemy is in fact evil he may add his charisma mod to his roll to hit and his paladin level to his damage role. This damage is not multiplied on a critical. The damage does bypass any damage reduction.
We have said it again and again and again till we are all blue in the face. Even with many of the great suggestions we have listed I do not feel that we are closing that much ground with the other classes in our fight against evil. I know that the splat books and things have some good options but as we have also seen, many groups do not use those books. So the "core" paladin needs to be balanced with the "core" classes all around. I am sorry but this is my stance now, something like what I listed above is probably the...
Yeah but it's never going to happen. he doesn't want to change smites per day or the levels they're gained at.
|
|
Thats just not true: plants, vermin, animals, dire animals, oozes, constructs, mindless undead , elementals, animated objects, are all non-evil. Plus many NPCs, beasts, and outsiders are aligned neutrally.
Um I know that many people think they shouldn't be, but mindless undead are actually evil. They aren't constructs, they're undead, the undead type is always evil. It doesn't matter if they are mindless or reformed, they register an evil aura, even if a reformed vampire has cleric levels he'd detect as both good and evil to the relevant spells, at least unless they change it for pathfinder.
I sit corrected - you are right - I am thinking on earlier editions of D&D when skeltons and zombies were neutral.
Regardless, my illustration above shows that quite a number of creatures are in fact non-evil.
Robert
|
|
to be frank - historically throughout all editions, the cleric has been the defeater of undead. Always has been. I have no problem with the cleric being better at it than the paladin - so long as the paladin is better at combat than the cleric. Currently, he's not - because both classes require buffs to be effective - but the clerics buffs are FAR better, and last longer, and much more of them. So apples to apples: when both spend the same amount of time to buff, the cleric becomes superior - not to mention the cleric can make excellent use of Greater Magic Weapon and Magical Vestment that last an hour per level. A cleric's GMW for instance is +3 on weapons at 12th level and lasts 12 hours (all day), while a paladin doesn't get a +2 from GMW, until he's 16th level!!!
Exactly, he isn't, as good as the cleric. You've just illustrated all the reason that unless he gets some good new abilities he ought to be better at channeling, even if he never has been. And believe me, I don't want the fix to the paladin to be spells and channeling, but considering what we've been given to work with, it looks like that is where we have to look to try and fix him.
Now, I know that what I said above is not applicable when the paladin uses his smite evil attacks - but as we've all lamented ad nauseum, there aren't enough smites to really worry about to make a fair comparison.So I have to agree with him that the cleric SHOULD be the main channeler and have the better chance at hurting the undead.
I don't think there's any should be, i think that there's just this, it's always kinda been like this. I don't really care like I said, but barring other fixes I don't think we SHOULD be saying the cleric SHOULD be anything.
Thus IMO, leaving the paldin at cleric level -3 does take away about 2 from the DC on the save - making them about even, it also does less dice damage / healing.However, I don't want to see the paladin have fewer of them than 3.5 had - as I've said, he needs those typically to fuel his divine feats (if any) to help him become a better combatant - and some of them help the whole party.
So for my money, I would keep it at cleric -3 but 3+cha times per day.
Right, I've said before and I'll say it now, I'm fine with that. I will accept that if it comes to it, I can live with that. I just can't live with the current version or the original beta version.
THEN - add additional channeling to the cleric as he advances - OR add Extra Channeling as a bonus feat for the cleric at 2nd level.Robert
And you've lost me, no no no no no no no no no. Sorry, no. There is no reason to give the cleric more. The cleric isn't suffering. and definitely not 2nd level, if you had said 5th or 8th or 10th I might not be vociferous but even then, no. There is no reason to give the cleric a boost. The cleric does just fine. If there was an issue then fix it, don't just start throwing powerful classes uneeded freebies because then you need to boost the weaker classes even further.
|
|
THEN - add additional channeling to the cleric as he advances - OR add Extra Channeling as a bonus feat for the cleric at 2nd level.
You may need to save that for the afore-mentioned 'Moon on a Stick: Clerics Improved Yet Again-The Complete Guide to Whinging Bedwetters Who Need Bribing Before They Will Lower Themselves to Play One of the Most Powerful Classes in the History of the Game'.
Yeah but it's never going to happen. he doesn't want to change smites per day or the levels they're gained at.
I know you are right but it has to be said. Trying to figure out how to "even" the playing field with the limitations that are set for the paladin is becoming a mind numbing experience. I understand that you are really looking more at the healing (channeling/LoH) stuff and that is fine. I think those things are going to get better. But the martial side still leaves so much to be desired it is not funny. Without a proper fix to smite (which I am not inclined to believe can happen unless it is "always on") the paladin is NEVER going to attain any sort of "balance" in comparison to the other melee oriented classes. We have tossed it around for weeks and we have not come up with anything that really levels the field.
The only thing that is going to smooth it out and let the paladin be the true warrior against evil is something drastic.
You are right, it is not going to happen...but that does not mean that we can not say that is what SHOULD happen.
well at least there is a splat book feat you can fall back on still. Which is why Backwards compatibility is good :D
well at least there is a splat book feat you can fall back on still. Which is why Backwards compatibility is good :D
I wish that was true for everyone...not everyone uses those books. Why is it that we can not balance the "core" paladin with the core classes? If the feats and such in those splat books are necessities then they should be in the core.
Yeah I deserve to have that thrown at me, I used the same argument for improving the bard :D. I agree with you it's not tops... but it is definitely a point you've made well, and often. IF Jason has kept up with this thread I'm sure he'll see the points you've made, a lack of response may just be a lack of time to get to it. He does have the rogue, bard, monk, sorcerer, and wizard to worry about too now.
|
|
Yeah I deserve to have that thrown at me, I used the same argument for improving the bard :D. I agree with you it's not tops... but it is definitely a point you've made well, and often. IF Jason has kept up with this thread I'm sure he'll see the points you've made, a lack of response may just be a lack of time to get to it. He does have the rogue, bard, monk, sorcerer, and wizard to worry about too now.
The bard being the only one of them that really needed any work; almost as much as the paladin in fact.
Robert
Yeah I deserve to have that thrown at me, I used the same argument for improving the bard :D. I agree with you it's not tops... but it is definitely a point you've made well, and often. IF Jason has kept up with this thread I'm sure he'll see the points you've made, a lack of response may just be a lack of time to get to it. He does have the rogue, bard, monk, sorcerer, and wizard to worry about too now.
na man, I am not trying to throw anything at you. I understand what you are trying to say...but we really should be balancing core for core...not worrying about how many infinite possible options we have because of splat books that people may or may not use.
I have no idea if Jason is still looking at this thread, it is so big I doubt he could miss it. But I am sure he is very busy...he has a lot on his plate with all the other classes and stuff. But I really do hope that the outcry that has happened here with this thread shows that the current state of the paladin is horrible. We have put so much effort into un-crippling this class but I am not sure how far we have gotten. I think many of the classes were fairly good before hand so they did not need as much tweeking. But the paladin, many he was in a sorry state. It is going to take some work to get him on par with the others.
Truth is we have not even been arguing so much for total balance, just really balance amongst the melee classes. We all already know that the casters that can hit 9th level spells are so far ahead we can not hope to catch up. So grudgingly accepting that fate, we hope to stand on the same line as the other guys who wear armor do their fighting where they can get hurt too. But so far we have not even figured out a way to do that.
I know it will not be widely accepted but I think we need to take a firmer stance....without drastic change the paladin will still be relegated to the same horrendous fate he was before....
|
|
Yeah I deserve to have that thrown at me, I used the same argument for improving the bard :D. I agree with you it's not tops... but it is definitely a point you've made well, and often. IF Jason has kept up with this thread I'm sure he'll see the points you've made, a lack of response may just be a lack of time to get to it. He does have the rogue, bard, monk, sorcerer, and wizard to worry about too now.The bard being the only one of them that really needed any work; almost as much as the paladin in fact.
Robert
You know I've never felt the bard needed work, I've DMed them and played them and always seen them do quite well in their niche and be enjoyed by the players playing them.
I've always felt the poor monk needed work unless you were playing a monster race monk, monk as a class was just made for monsters. I had a great time with my minotaur monk. But when I've seen player races take the monk I've never been particularly impressed.
Vult I wasn't taking offense, I just like the irony that my own argument was coming back full circle.
I do agree that core should be balanced, and everything else should be options not fixes . I got a load of issues with bards (mainly I see them in the same place the paladin is/was), but that's neither here nor now.
I like having a smite that lasts a couple of rounds, it gives a kind of "empowered paladin" feel that's nice... however if you don't have a good charisma you aren't going to hit as much, and the damage against any evil other than outsider or undead is just underwhelming at the lower levels (and slightly better than that at the higher). I realise that it could make things difficult for a DM, but I really liked the damage based off of strengthed of evil aura concept. I'm tired of seeing all these classes and monsters that have auras that have absolutely no effect other than to make them targets.
I do agree that core should be balanced, and everything else should be options not fixes
This is exactly how I feel. I think we have been throwing a lot of window dressing on a problem that is not going to go away with "times per day". I truly feel the only way to put the paladin on his feet, standing with the other classes is to make smite as I suggested above.
|
|
Okay you were worried that the undead will save less often and therefor be taking more damage than they would if the cleric channels because in general a cleric has a 12-14 charisma where a paladin will have an 16-20 charisma. Okay then my question is this, why is that so important? If paladins are supposed to shine against undead and channel energy functions off of charisma, then doesn't it make sense that the paladin would be the better channeler? The cleric is still the better healer, but you would think that the guy who's life is dedicated to the eradication of evil would be better at confronting it. Why is it that the paladins should be weaker than the clerics? Is there any reason for that, because I can't see a reason that the cleric "has" to be the better channeler. For the cleric, channeling is supposed to be a healing tool and supplementary to their spells. For the paladin it's the exact opposite, and it's powered by his righteous cause. I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm really curious as to your justification for the paladin needing to be worse then the cleric when channeling.
Yes, yes, yes.
So LKL this is what I'm talking about. "Me no like big Paladin have betta DC then uggly Cleric".....and the DC not also "making undead become "FRIGHTENED" the DC affects damage (undead miss sabe = more damage)
I'm not saying the Paladin have more channel energy or that he is to powerful or anything else. Get it now?"Why is it that the paladins should be weaker than the clerics"
I'm not saying the Pladin should be weaker when it comes to kick undead but. I just think, the cleic is the master of possitive energy (spontaneous casting cure spells, the big healer, mass heal and all that). Channeling energy now is all about possitive energy. ..and I always thought the turn undaed should be a cleric thing. IMHO.
Yes, that's what think, and by the way LKL ..I'm sticking to it.
That's fine, stick to your guns. It doesn't really make a difference one way or another if we agree on it. I just don't see the cleric that way. To me the cleric is just a conduit. He doesn't really shape or control what he's given he just asks his god for it. The paladin though doesn't ask anyone for it, he is so righteous in his cause he channels the energy by the force of his will.
But I could care less, like I said. I wouldn't care if he still had turn undead without channeling energy at all, so long as I wasn't being forced to give up on all my divine feat goodness. In the current version the cleric gets even better by sheer expedience of not being forced to use up his other resources when he burns. the paldin has to give up half his bag of tricks.
Yeah but it's never going to happen. he doesn't want to change smites per day or the levels they're gained at.
Level 3: Smite Evil, Divine Grace.Smite Evil: Every attack a paladin makes is a strike to rid the world of evil.
I still think that a smite should stay as close to the original intent as possible: a single devastating hit. Some compromise is needed to fix the major complaint of smite being ineffective, but I hope it stays close to something you declare before rolling to hit, and with short duration. Jason B's smite upgrade works for me. I also like the idea of rider effects, like the ones discussed here. I don't think these ideas are mere window dressing, since they succeed at raising the fun level.
The improved smite only looks like a failure when we equate fixing smite with closing the power gap between the paladin and the fighter. By that definition, smite will never be fixed. Someone even wondered what all the discussion here was about once smite appeared to be fixed. Smite Evil is just one paladin class feature, and there are other ways we can achieve parity with the fighter. Keep smite fun and don't put too much stress on it to close the power gap. I'd like to see more discussion about strengthening the paladin on other fronts, including some brand new abilities to breathe life into the class.
EDIT: Specifically, other abilities besides Smite Evil can strengthen the melee side of the paladin. Several such bonuses, both always-on and circumstantial, have been discussed, and they can potentially stack with smite.
|
|
The improved smite only looks like a failure when we equate fixing smite with closing the power gap between the paladin and the fighter.
Wrong, It also looks like a failure if your campaign involves no undead or demons. In my game I have yet to fight either, and honestly if they were added it would feel kind of shoehorned in to the storyline just so that I could look good. There is one demon story we know about, but dealing with that would require abandoning what we are dealing with now. As such all I ever do is smite for 5 damage. I'm sorry I'm not comparing it to what the fighter can do I'm comparing it to what other per day powers at this level can do. Smite is still underwhelming unless you are involved with demons/undead and as such is not fixed because it's okay for an always on power to only be good against certain types, But a per day power that is only good against certain types is a fail when it's really your only offensive power. Which coincidentally it is till level 5. Now I have two offensive powers, which means smite isn't the only thing doing extra damage, but that doesn't change the fact that smite evil sucks in a non demon/undead situation.
|
|
Just going back to something said earlier...
Actually my post was more about new and interesting abilities to make the paladin cool, distinctive, and fun to play. Power equality, while also interesting, is not top on my list. I think I'm not that interested in achieving equality using mechanics already available to the fighter, even though part of me sympathizes with the desire to make the paladin more competent in melee. I think you want to emphasize the martial side of the paladin, for example opening weapon focus and weapon specialization. I'd prefer a completely new mechanic that emphasizes the paladin's reliance on strength derived from the rightness of his actions and the use of paladin-appropriate tactics in combat. It's not that I'm worried about stepping on the fighter's toes (I'd like to see the paladin be more effective than the fighter about 1/5 of the time, especially when it really counts, and seldom greatly inferior). It's more that I find it boring to tread where the fighter already walks, and I want to find a new path for the paladin.
I sympathize with this view, to an extent, but wonder if it is even possible to suggest something totally original, without it being utterly bizarre, and thus, unlikely to be adopted.
Given the huge amount of d20/OGL material out there, there's a high chance that someone could point to it and say "That's been done".And I would hate for us to find the ultimate solution, only to bin it for fear of replicating an ability from another class.
I sympathize with this view, to an extent, but wonder if it is even possible to suggest something totally original, without it being utterly bizarre, and thus, unlikely to be adopted.
Given the huge amount of d20/OGL material out there, there's a high chance that someone could point to it and say "That's been done".
And I would hate for us to find the ultimate solution, only to bin it for fear of replicating an ability from another class.
I am still totally and advocate of an "always on" smite. I personally think that is the only fix that will make any real difference.
But I think maybe you read over the idea of "oaths" to quickly. I will admit I do not have a vast knowledge of all the splat stuff out there for D&D, but has this option been done? If it has not, I feel that it could feel that gap Mink is talking about. It is original (I think), it fits the paladin "feel" and it actually does something for his lack of power.
I just dont feel the oaths have gotten a fair shake, they seem like a really good idea to me.
Just going back to something said earlier...
Actually my post was more about new and interesting abilities to make the paladin cool, distinctive, and fun to play. Power equality, while also interesting, is not top on my list. I think I'm not that interested in achieving equality using mechanics already available to the fighter, even though part of me sympathizes with the desire to make the paladin more competent in melee. I think you want to emphasize the martial side of the paladin, for example opening weapon focus and weapon specialization. I'd prefer a completely new mechanic that emphasizes the paladin's reliance on strength derived from the rightness of his actions and the use of paladin-appropriate tactics in combat. It's not that I'm worried about stepping on the fighter's toes (I'd like to see the paladin be more effective than the fighter about 1/5 of the time, especially when it really counts, and seldom greatly inferior). It's more that I find it boring to tread where the fighter already walks, and I want to find a new path for the paladin.I sympathize with this view, to an extent, but wonder if it is even possible to suggest something totally original, without it being utterly bizarre, and thus, unlikely to be adopted.
Given the huge amount of d20/OGL material out there, there's a high chance that someone could point to it and say "That's been done".
And I would hate for us to find the ultimate solution, only to bin it for fear of replicating an ability from another class.
If anyone can point to it, please do! If it's OGL, why not adopt it for the paladin? I'd say if the shoe fits, wear it, even if it was found in a rogue's wardrobe (she probably stole it).
I'm hopeful that something along these lines will eventually be adopted, even if it takes a while. It will catch on because it's fun.
The improved smite only looks like a failure when we equate fixing smite with closing the power gap between the paladin and the fighter.Wrong, It also looks like a failure if your campaign involves no undead or demons.
Still, the upgraded effectiveness doesn't help you at all? Anyway, I was assuming Robert Brambley's idea of adding the smite bonus against anything with the evil descriptor or supernatural or overwhelming evil, including dragons. Don't know if that helps. My point is just that I want to redefine what we mean by fixing smite.
|
In my opinion ‘Divine Favor’ and ‘Align Weapon’ are enough (in a hurry you only need the latter) – then just use Divine Might to add your CHA to damage as a Swift action. That’s something like +2D6+ 8 extra damage on all your attacks, which I consider to be a lot more than the fighter’s Greater Weapon Specialization and Weapon Training bonus – and the paladin has access to these bonuses at mid levels.No combination of divine favor, align weapon, and divine might will add 2d6+8 extra damage. Maybe we have found the root of the comparison problem going on here.
Align weapon doesn't make your weapon holy (giving +2d6 damage vs. evil). It just makes it good (or evil/lawful/chaotic) for the purpose of overcoming DR. Perhaps this is one of the reasons you have thought so highly of the paladin's damage-dealing abilities, because you have been using a radically overpowered misinterpretation of a 2nd level spell.
Divine Might is great as a splat feat. But it's not in PF because it can't be, so it makes kind of a hard thing to take into account when trying to balance the PF Paladin as a core class with other PF core classes.
So you spend 2 rounds and a turn attempt on the above buffs, for a paladin who is, say, 8th level (and so gets a 2nd level spell), with an 18 CHR and you get:
+1 to hit and damage for 1 minute (DF)
+4 to damage for 1 round (DM)
weapon beats DR/good for 1 minute/2 paladin levels (AW)That's rather a different thing from +2d6+8 bonus damage. In fact, on average it's a only a third (5 points, instead of an average of 15).
Alright, here is a good example of what happens when you post when you're tired... my mistake... indeed, I *meant* 'Holy Sword' (and/or 'Lawful Sword', if the opponent is Chaotic), and yet wrote 'Align Weapon'. FR also has the 2nd level spell 'Undead Bane Weapon' (the bonuses and the Bane property stack with all other bonuses and bonuses your weapon might have). However, you could just use your Divine Bond to make your sword Holy, which makes 'Holy Sword' more or less needless.
Your estimation of CHA 18 for an 8th level paladin is (in my experience) quite rare -- CHA 22 seems to be the "norm" more often than not, especially now in PF (also in my own playtest campaign). Therefore, using that feat you'd get +6 to your damage for one round. I also noticed that you didn't include any STR bonus, while the paladin in my group gets +4 for that (more if he has 'Bull's Strength'). You're correct, though, that DM is a non-Core feat.
Using Divine Bond and the changes to Smite Evil proposed on this thread, at higher levels, the paladin can easily rack up the bonuses to something like +11D6 pr attack (at 14th level) against CE opponents (+9D6 against non-Chaotic but Evil opponents). That's a lot of damage, if you ask me. Now, of course, it's not dramatically more than say, a rogue's Sneak Attack, but it's still a lot more than a fighter can do. *IF*, the benefits from Sneak Attack applied only to one attack per round, or using Sneak Attack was a standard action (which is one change I was hoping for), I think a lot of people would complain less about the "ineffectiveness" of the paladin.