|
I’ve played in campaigns in which rogues only rarely got an opportunity to use Sneak Attack due to fiendishly cunning DM tactics and also because half of the NPCs and monsters seemed to have Evasion… *Grrrr*).Ummm... evasion doesn't have anything to do with sneak attack.
Now if you're saying half the NPCs and monsters had Improved Uncanny Dodge (meaning they were all 5th+ level barbarians or 8th+ level rogues, since unlike with evasion there are NO monsters which innately possess IpvUnDodge as a special quality), that seems vanishingly unlikely.
I would agree that the rogue flank is not as automatic as some seem to think, but it is usually a pretty easy tactic to set up and one which is mostly within the control of the PC party to cause to occur, unlike many other class abilities (e.g., the ranger's favored enemy) that require DM cooperation to come into play.
Correct... yeah, I was so tired that I thought something and wrote something else. Yes, I meant Improved Uncanny Dodge, and yes, even all the kobolds we faced seemed to have it (note: almost all of the NPCs and monsters in that campaign had class levels, which we often argued and joked about with the DM).
Like I said, IMO it would be better if using Sneak Attack would be a standard action.
|
|
[...]
using caps a lot in your posts is also considered to be equivalent to shouting – please don’t do it. It does not “highlight” or “underline” any points you wish to make – at least not in a positive tone.
Yes, you're right. Let's all try to be civil here.
[...]how I think see the paladin as a versatile and capable melee combatant, a holy warrior, who is both a “defender” and a “backup” healer and who gets to “shine” against the most “vile” opponents (i.e. evil undead and outsiders)[...]
Yes I do agree, but since The Paladin got the MAD problem and bonus feats he is a bit of a eak melee combatant. So I still feel the Palladin needs a boost.
And I do agree he /she sould shine against undead and evil outsiders.
For me they are the essence of evil. All these creatures av damaged by holy water. And they can't ever be anything but evil.
Undead are made of negative energy, and Demons and devils are the evil of all evil.
Evil dragons or Evil kings? Well there are good dragons and good kings, and neutral kings etc. But there are no good demons or good devils.
....and Asgetrion, all undead are evil ;-)Hey you all. I came up with an Idea. Perhaaps a bit unusual.
What if the Paladin at higher levels get a bonus to charisma (and strength?), let's say at level 4 or level 6 and then later at level XX. That way the Paladin could start out with a decent strength score and the changes to the claas don't need to be as drastic.
MAD problem? Like I've posted, using point-buy, it's easy to dump your INT and WIS to get more points (the paladin in my group has 7 in both) to invest in STR (and CON). It's not different from the fighter needing a good STR and CON plus some DEX, to boot -- or the barbarian needing good STR and CON, as well. The ranger also needs DEX and STR and WIS (at least two of these three).
And, not all undead are evil -- not even in core (not to mention in FR, which has, for example, its share of non-evil Cursts and Archliches).
With a fifteen point buy I can grab the following for a paladin:
16 Str 10 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 7 Wis 16 Cha
Buying one of the 16's and getting a 14 and adding 2 to the other with a human.
Those stats are plenty good enough for me to run with, anything else I get would either be used to raise Str, or Con.
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.
So again, the only way to make the paladin "look" good is to make another class weaker? I am sorry....this is NOT the way to fix the paladin.
You are probably right, IF we had a lot of buffs and other nifty little things already prepared and ready then yes the paladin could do some decent damage, that is not something anyone could dispute. But the fact is that damage is possible for any class. If any class is prepared and ready for the fight (like all will be to the best of their ability) the numbers you talked about are possible. Of course for a round or 2 a day a paladin can get a smidgeon of extra damage if the target is evil....does that honestly make up the disparity between the other melee classes? I do not think it does.
stuffI 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'm proposing that a paladin's prowess in combat come from the rightness of his actions, the distress of others, and reliance on paladin-appropriate tactics. What ability from another class would that replicate? If you have something you can point to, point to it. If you think the oaths implementation is bizarre, implement something better, or visit this thread and tell us what's so bizarre, unusable, or redundant. Simply doubting the possibility of original thought is proof by lack of imagination.
|
|
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.So again, the only way to make the paladin "look" good is to make another class weaker? I am sorry....this is NOT the way to fix the paladin.
You are probably right, IF we had a lot of buffs and other nifty little things already prepared and ready then yes the paladin could do some decent damage, that is not something anyone could dispute. But the fact is that damage is possible for any class. If any class is prepared and ready for the fight (like all will be to the best of their ability) the numbers you talked about are possible. Of course for a round or 2 a day a paladin can get a smidgeon of extra damage if the target is evil....does that honestly make up the disparity between the other melee classes? I do not think it does.
Alright, I thought one of the biggest complaints in the rules was about "But the rogue can use Sneak Attack all the time in melee, which makes [Insert Class Here] *SUCK* in comparison"? I've seen this comparison made between the rogue and all the "melee" classes, and that would indicate that maybe it's not the *rest* of the classes that need "finetuning", but the rogue. So, instead of making all the classes better, stronger and faster (which could also seriously hurt game balance) wouldn't it be easier to adjust the class features of the "problematic" classes (e.g. the cleric, druid and rogue)?
As for the "one or two rounds per day", it's four or five at higher levels, and we must consider that, too. And how magical items and high-level spells might affect the paladin's abilities. For example, I'm currently playing in two high-level campaigns (a fighter in 3.0 and a paladin in 3.5) and the paladin completely overshadows the group's fighters in the 3.5 campaign (and, naturally, my paladin is overshadowed by the cleric). In 3.0 it feels more balanced, and my fighter is the "top dog" in melee, but loses in "staying power" to the paladin, even though he has 50+ HPs more than the paladin. Maybe the guys are not such good min-maxers as an average "Joe Gamer", but the ability to use 'Align Weapon' and multiple Smites per day helps a lot.
|
I'm proposing that a paladin's prowess in combat come from the rightness of his actions, the distress of others, and reliance on paladin-appropriate tactics. What ability from another class would that replicate? If you have something you can point to, point to it. If you think the oaths implementation is bizarre, implement something better, or visit this thread and tell us what's so bizarre, unusable, or redundant. Simply doubting the possibility of original thought is proof by lack of imagination.
I'm fine with abilities from other sources; it was just that a lot of people on the many, many paladin threads, were effectively implying that they would automatically shoot down any proposal that resembled an ability from another class, regardless of its merit. Hence Vult getting exasperated, and starting his 'Can't step on the Fighter's Toes' thread.
I'm not implying you were taking such a stubborn position, I simply quoted your post, as it was close to hand, and was asking for new proposals to be unique. I apologise if I was unclear.
I guess I don't place so much importance on an ability being 'unique', as much as it being 'effective'. So what if another class has it? There are lots of abilities common to two or more classes:
BAB
Hit Die
Combination of Good Saves
Evasion
Uncanny Dodge
Hide in Plain Sight
Fast Movement
Wild Empathy
Channel Energy
There's also a lot of abilities that seem to suffer from needless nit-pickery, as if the designers felt they had to make them different 'for the sake of being different'.
Eg; do we really need Rogue's Sneak Attack, Ninja's Sudden Strike, and Scout's Skirmish? We get a paragraph about how these are slightly different, then another paragraph to reassure the reader that they are all similar enough, that having one counts toward pre-requisites as the other...? Whuh?
Why make things difficult? If I'm tinkering with a class variant, or a racial substitution level, I'm more likely than not to take an established mechanic that feels appropriate. If I invite a friend to stand in for an absent player, or ask for a co-DM to run some NPCs in a complicated encounter, I want to be able to toss them a character sheet, and know that they'll just 'get it', without needing a tutorial from me.
I did experimental builds of the NPC classes once, to make them actually competent at their jobs, and went through Mongoose's Ultimate Book of Feats (a compilation of many companies' work), and was struck by how many times people had reinvented the wheel, or possibly worked simultaneously at the same topic.
As such, I think we should use the opportunity of the PFRPG development period to take a good hard look at all the OGL material out there, and have a good spring-clean of all duplicated features lingering under different names. If it walks like a duck (etc) then it is a duck. If you want to give the paladin a constant competence bonus to hit and damage, with his deity's favoured weapon, then don't beat around the bush, calling it 'Focussed Weapon Training' or somesuch, just give him bonus Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec, and have done with it. Similarly, if you want there to be a permanent damage bonus versus evil outsiders, because they are constantly trained to fight them, then just give them Favoured Enemy, and be done with it.
I'm proposing that a paladin's prowess in combat come from the rightness of his actions, the distress of others, and reliance on paladin-appropriate tactics. What ability from another class would that replicate? If you have something you can point to, point to it. If you think the oaths implementation is bizarre, implement something better, or visit this thread and tell us what's so bizarre, unusable, or redundant. Simply doubting the possibility of original thought is proof by lack of imagination.I'm fine with abilities from other sources; it was just that a lot of people on the many, many paladin threads, were effectively implying that they would automatically shoot down any proposal that resembled an ability from another class, regardless of its merit. Hence Vult getting exasperated, and starting his 'Can't step on the Fighter's Toes' thread.
I'm not implying you were taking such a stubborn position, I simply quoted your post, as it was close to hand, and was asking for new proposals to be unique. I apologise if I was unclear.
No worries. I thought my proposal could be discredited less vaguely by someone with such a keen wit. It was actually nice to see someone taking time to think about the idea.
I guess I don't place so much importance on an ability being 'unique', as much as it being 'effective'. So what if another class has it? There are lots of abilities common to two or more classes:
BAB
Hit Die
Combination of Good Saves
Evasion
Uncanny Dodge
Hide in Plain Sight
Fast Movement
Wild Empathy
Channel EnergyThere's also a lot of abilities that seem to suffer from needless nit-pickery, as if the designers felt they had to make them different 'for the sake of being different'.
Eg; do we really need Rogue's Sneak Attack, Ninja's Sudden Strike, and Scout's Skirmish? We get a paragraph about how these are slightly different, then another paragraph to reassure the reader that they are all similar enough, that having one counts toward pre-requisites as the other...? Whuh?
Why make things difficult? If I'm tinkering with a class variant, or a racial substitution level, I'm more likely than not to take an established mechanic that feels appropriate. If I invite a friend to stand in for an absent player, or ask for a co-DM to run some NPCs in a complicated encounter, I want to be able to toss them a character sheet, and know that they'll just 'get it', without needing a tutorial from me.
I did experimental builds of the NPC classes once, to make them actually competent at their jobs, and went through Mongoose's Ultimate Book of Feats (a compilation of many companies' work), and was struck by how many times people had reinvented the wheel, or possibly worked simultaneously at the same topic.
I totally respect where you're coming from. I'll only point out that the idea is not entirely "different for the sake of being different". It's also about making the paladin more enjoyable by making it feel more like a paladin. The design goals are these:
a. Make the paladin better than the fighter in situations where you expect the paladin to shine.
b. Express the paladin's code of conduct as a game mechanic that plays out at the tactical level on the table.
As such, I think we should use the opportunity of the PFRPG development period to take a good hard look at all the OGL material out there, and have a good spring-clean of all duplicated features lingering under different names. If it walks like a duck (etc) then it is a duck.
You should be nicer to people who walk like ducks. ;-)
If you want to give the paladin a constant competence bonus to hit and damage
I don't.
with his deity's favoured weapon, then don't beat around the bush, calling it 'Focussed Weapon Training' or somesuch, just give him bonus Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec, and have done with it. Similarly, if you want there to be a permanent damage bonus versus evil outsiders, because they are constantly trained to fight them
I don't. That's kind of my point: I want the paladin's abilities to come from his ideals, not his training. If someone wants constant bonuses based on training, let them level dip as a fighter (I would favor making it easier for paladins to meet fighter feat requirements by level dipping).
, then just give them Favoured Enemy, and be done with it.
I'd like paladins to have bonuses that depend on the condition of their allies, to help paladins in their role of saving the day. Paladins who enjoy hunting can level dip as rangers.
I'm pretty confident that this basic idea in some form will go a long way toward giving the paladin it's own place as a core class.
So has anyone seriously proposed making the Smites a per encounter ability instead of a per day ability?
|
|
I totally respect where you're coming from. I'll only point out that the idea is not entirely "different for the sake of being different". It's also about making the paladin more enjoyable by making it feel more like a paladin. The design goals are these:
a. Make the paladin better than the fighter in situations where you expect the paladin to shine.
b. Express the paladin's code of conduct as a game mechanic that plays out at the tactical level on the table.
Again, I was speaking generally, and not about the Oaths.
I should be clearer.Having read them, I like the idea in principle.
It reminds me of the Black Templars Chapter, in Warhammer 40K, who used to be able to declare one of several oaths before dicing off for initiative. Effectively, you could take the same army list, from battle to battle, but have them play slightly differently, depending on the mission.
I am wary of enforcing obligatory actions, though, as some of them seem very strict, and will not account for the changing nature of combat. It also allows enemies to second-guess him, and force him to walk into traps, leave his allies unguarded, or else lose his advantage. I know I would play this aspect against them, if I were a BBEG. Throw a few wights into the melee, to use up his smites, or have a dretch taunt him from a tunnel, so he runs off into the darkness, abandoning the party.
As with the Paladin's Code, there needs to be some leeway, to allow for common-sense reactions to common scenarios. Their patron needs to trust them to act on their own initiative, their own discretion, in the spirit of the oath.
There are already lots of players who view paladins in a dim light, and assume they are rigid, stick-up-their-butt, Lawful Stupid. Having a fellow PC you cannot rely on, will make them seem more of a liability to have around.
Even the Chaotic, Raging, Barbarian, which must be the epitome of 'losing one's self' can still be played intelligently and tactically by the player. The Lawful, regimented, drilled paladin should be much more clear-headed and clinical in choosing his targets, and choosing when to expend his few smites of the day.
I'm reminded of Leonidas' conversation with the hunchbacked giant in '300', where he regrets that war is a serious business, where each man must be able to rely on his brother beside him, holding his ground, and shielding him. It is not an arena for chasing off after personal duels and glory. (I'm not suggesting that the 300 Spartans were all paladins, by the way, but I think we can all agree their society was strictly Lawful, in D&D terms.)
And Vult - Yes I do see it all over Paizo, Don't step on the fighters toes.
Thank you, that is one of my biggest beefs! I am so tired of hearing that argument it is not even funny.
I am glad you want to keep the discussion focused on the paladin, as you said, this is a paladin thread.
I understand where the argument about the rogue is coming from, and again I agree with you. We can NOT cripple the other classes to make the paladin "look" better....that is not the way to solve this problem. The paladin needs some respect, I think he has it and I think the enormity of this thread shows that.
So lets take all of that and turn it into a paladin we can all love. I do not care if it takes a full rewrite of the paladin to do it. We have so many people here who care about what happens to him, we could come up with the rewrite that Jason B could just cut/past and be done with it.
The OTHER classes are not broken, they are fine. The paladin is the broken class, we are here to fix him....like you said again, if you want to worry about the fighter...go to the fighter boards.
I would love to see us stop arguing about IF the paladin has a problem or not....I think we have beat that to death and found out that it was already dead. The paladin is NOT on par with the other classes for the things we want him to do. That is where our discussion should be. He should shine in specific areas. Right now....you are better served to play another class if you want to shine in those areas. Why do we get so much resistance while trying to make the paladin what the paladin SHOULD be...that is what I am arguing for...that is why I keep coming back to these boards day after day.
Now dance!
Ole!
Haha...man those are some MAD skills (oooo pun not intended).
So has anyone seriously proposed making the Smites a per encounter ability instead of a per day ability?It will, be to powerful
I do not agree that it would be to powerful. It is already situational...what is wrong with letting the paladin be a bad ass where he should be a bad ass? When it's evil the paladin should be the go to guy.
Honestly McPoyo, I dont feel that going Per encounter is enough...I feel it should just be an at will ability, period.
Anyone playing WH40K 5th Edition confirm if this is still an option?
Yes, Black Templars are awesome! I currently play a full Grey Knight list (no surprise there huh).
Far as I know the BT's can still use their vows....no new codex for them yet, so they should still be there. I hope that does not change...very original and flavorful for them.
Same could be said about the paladin.
I am wary of enforcing obligatory actions, though, as some of them seem very strict, and will not account for the changing nature of combat. It also allows enemies to second-guess him, and force him to walk into traps, leave his allies unguarded, or else lose his advantage. I know I would play this aspect against them, if I were a BBEG. Throw a few wights into the melee, to use up his smites, or have a dretch taunt him from a tunnel, so he runs off into the darkness, abandoning the party.
As with the Paladin's Code, there needs to be some leeway, to allow for common-sense reactions to common scenarios. Their patron needs to trust them to act on their own initiative, their own discretion, in the spirit of the oath.
There are already lots of players who view paladins in a dim light, and assume they are rigid, stick-up-their-butt, Lawful Stupid. Having a fellow PC you cannot rely on, will make them seem more of a liability to have around.
Even the Chaotic, Raging, Barbarian, which must be the epitome of 'losing one's self' can still be played intelligently and tactically by the player. The Lawful, regimented, drilled paladin should be much more clear-headed and clinical in choosing his targets, and choosing when to expend his few smites of the day.
I'm reminded of Leonidas' conversation with the hunchbacked giant in '300', where he regrets that war is a serious business, where each man must be able to rely on his brother beside him, holding his ground, and shielding him. It is not an arena for chasing off after personal duels and glory. (I'm not suggesting that the 300 Spartans were all paladins, by the way, but I think we can all agree their society was strictly Lawful, in D&D terms.)
You make some really good points here. The first of them being "Throw a few wights into the melee, to use up his smites" Yet another reason to have smites at will...This is to easy to abuse. And honestly, a smart DM would do that. Why would any BBEG (knowing paladins even exist) not surround himself with other evils that will weaken (yes using all or even some of his few smites weakens him) the paladin before he can face the BBEG.
I see what you are saying with the oaths. I think that was why I did not use the "shortest route" restriction with all of my first suggested oaths. (Mink I think we should address that, and didnt you mention somewhere that maybe we should have FEWER oaths? Ill check the other thread). Though I think the option to forgo the oath is still there, if the situation calls that it would make more sense for the paladin to divert from his oath for the day in light of the tactical situation...then all he looses is that oath for the day.
"The Lawful, regimented, drilled paladin should be much more clear-headed and clinical in choosing his targets, and choosing when to expend his few smites of the day." I see where you were going with this...but for me it is just another argument against the paladin's inability to "keep up" when the s#!@ hits the fan.
Fighter - "Paladin get up here and smite this wight! It is killing us!"
Paladin - "I cant man, the BBEG might be around the next corner...what do you want me to do then, use harsh language?"
That is now how the paladin should play, but unfortunately that IS how he plays.
Your 300 reference is awesome. I have thought many times that the mindset of the 300 was much like the paladin. We are strong because that is who we are (except the paladin isnt strong because of who he is). Even if you threw 1 of the 300 into a group of regular old joes (potters and blacksmiths) they would be inspired to have someone like that in their ranks. They would feel stronger because he fights with them, and they would fight harder to live up to what he will be doing. Thats how I see the paladin. Lead by example...though you have to be able to SET that example if you are going to lead by it.
|
|
Yes, Black Templars are awesome! I currently play a full Grey Knight list (no surprise there huh).
PURGE THE UNCLEAN!
I've been out of touch with the current state of WH40K, so I didn't know if the Templars' Oaths had been included as one of the options in the 'Build Your Own Chapter-A la Carte Menu' in the general Space Marine Codex.
Actually, looking at Space Marines, especially the Grey Knights, is the effect I'd like to see for paladins. Being able to withstand psychic attack, and power up their weapons bathing them in the Warp Energy wasted by the enemy, and fling it back in their face, would be awesome.
Free smite/day, per successful Will save vs [Evil] attacks?
BE PURE
BE VIGILANT
BEHAVE
Yes, Black Templars are awesome! I currently play a full Grey Knight list (no surprise there huh).PURGE THE UNCLEAN!
Actually, looking at Space Marines, especially the Grey Knights, is the effect I'd like to see for paladins. Being able to withstand psychic attack, and power up their weapons bathing them in the Warp Energy wasted by the enemy, and fling it back in their face, would be awesome.
Free smite/day, per successful Will save vs [Evil] attacks?
BE PURE
BE VIGILANT
BEHAVE
I like where you are going (though again I would take it further). When I read the Grey Knight codex I immediately knew that was the army for me. They are elite so you do not get as many. But in war it is better to send 5 lion than 500 sheep :)
This example is perfect for why the Paladins should have a good will save and Mettle. That is what they do. They resist the worst the world has to throw at them, they shine light into the darkest places (even the hearts of men!) The go into the black and come out victorious. Paladins are supposed to be prepared to go into the darkest of situations (Aura of Courage, Divine Health/Grace.....) and look into the eyes of the most evil things ever thought of, and say
Now you will recieve us.
We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry.
We do not want your tired and sick.
It is your corrupt we claim.
It is your evil that will be sought by us.
With every breath we shall hunt them down.
Each day we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies.
Do not kill! Do not rape! Do not steal!
These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
These are not polite suggestions. These are cause of behavior.
And those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
There are varying degrees of evil.
We urge you lesser forms of filth...
...not to push the bounds and cross over...
...into true corruption, into our domain.
But if you do...
...one day you will look behind you and you will see we three.
And on that day you will repent!
And we will send you towards ever god, you wish.
And shepherds we shall be for Thee, my Lord, for Thee
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand.
That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
So we shall flow a river forth to Thee,
and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
You gave some 300 references...which is the SECOND best movie of all time :) So anyone who has not seen Boondock Saints, if you love paladins...please do yourself a favor and go enjoy!
I know that quote does not EXACTLY fit for my argument of the paladin (all forms of evil should be slain) but the intent is the same. Yea you are big and bad and scary evil...but I AM A PALADIN!!! YOU should FEAR ME! *Smite evil, all day long*
|
So you and LKL actually has one thing in common? No role play just power gaming? I whould never drop int. No skills no role playing. Nor would a I dump wisdom. Why lose the only good stuff a paladin now has at level 1,...
OK where the hell did that come from. If I recall you were the one on my thread telling me that playing a Paladin with an 11 str was a process in whining and making a thread where I talk to my DM. Now I can argue a power gamers prospective if I need to, but you want to throw out an insult like that please make sure you can back it up.
The closest I've come to arguing about power gaming was to say that a cleric can have ten in every stat except wisdom and charisma. I didn't say 7 I said 10, 10 is supposed to be human average. So is it hard to imagine roleplaying a cleric who is a normal person with increadible spiritual power?
My problem is that people with no understanding of the game tend to focus on stats instead of the surrounding mechanics. Stats can be rendered irrelevant around say level 6. It doesn't matter if you had an 8 in the stat or an 18, you can use magic to get that stat where it needs to be for your purposes.
I really don't want to get into another argument with you about things like this though so please leave me out of your throwing around insults.
Yes, you're right. Let's all try to be civil here.
Hmm maybe you should listen to your own advice?
|
|
I see what you are saying with the oaths. I think that was why I did not use the "shortest route" restriction with all of my first suggested oaths. (Mink I think we should address that, and didnt you mention somewhere that maybe we should have FEWER oaths? I'll check the other thread). Though I think the option to forgo the oath is still there, if the situation calls that it would make more sense for the paladin to divert from his oath for the day in light of the tactical situation...then all he looses is that oath for the day.
Trouble is, if all it takes is for one round of 'non-oath' activity to blow the benefit for the rest of the day, you're either going to see a lot of tactically-dumb decisions, or else the paladin is going to get a couple of rounds use out of it, before he's forced to attack a minion, LOH, Channel, cast a spell, drink a potion, etc, and be stripped back down to NPC Warrior again.
It's OK to say that the bonuses don't apply while performing non-oath actions, but they should, ideally, resume once he jumps back into the fray.
This way, they can heal a downed comrade, break down a door, stop to give orders to troops, cast, LOH, channel, fight a Neutral mercenary goon, help an ally in trouble, give a flank bonus to his Rogue buddy (so he can sneak-gut his opponent and BOTH be free to rush the boss)...
This gives the player options, and addresses the 'initiative, discretion, and spirit of the oath'.
He may not get his oath bonus while doing these things, but they may well be more important, and swing the day. Once done, he can mutter "Now, where was I? Oh, yes...YOU!<>We have unfinished business!"<>
I am wary of enforcing obligatory actions, though, as some of them seem very strict, and will not account for the changing nature of combat.
Most of the oaths use the shortest path restriction, where the worst that can happen is you forgo the benefit of the oath for the remainder of the encounter. In fact, you are more likely to forgo only part of the benefit. The idea is that the more crafty or cautious your tactics, the more you lose the benefit of your idealism. There are no obligatory actions. I was careful to make oaths strict only in the case of abandoning an ally, since that is dishonorable enough to carry a penalty.
It also allows enemies to second-guess him, and force him to walk into traps, leave his allies unguarded, or else lose his advantage. I know I would play this aspect against them, if I were a BBEG. Throw a few wights into the melee, to use up his smites, or have a dretch taunt him from a tunnel, so he runs off into the darkness, abandoning the party.
That's actually an appropriate vulnerability for a paladin, I think, just as in super-hero comics, the villains take advantage of the hero's idealism to lure him into a disadvantageous situation.
If you're worried about a few wights using up the paladin's smites, you must be thinking of the original version, not the rewrite (link here). Benefiting from earlier feedback (from you and LKL), I was careful to avoid any resource burning requirements. Specifically there is no mention of smite anywhere in the description of oaths. Smites are independent and stack with oaths at the paladin's discretion.
didnt you mention somewhere that maybe we should have FEWER oaths?
The more the merrier. Iron Sentinel has added quite a few good ones, and we should compile a complete list somewhere, along with guidelines for new ones. Ideally the guidelines would satisfy all of Snorter's qualms.
EDIT: Probably you meant fewer oaths per day. I was actually thinking slightly more per day, or at least multiple oaths at earlier levels.
|
|
If you're worried about a few wights using up the paladin's smites, you must be thinking of the original version, not the rewrite (link here). Benefiting from earlier feedback (from you and LKL), I was careful to avoid any resource burning requirements. Specifically there is no mention of smite anywhere in the description of oaths. Smites are independent and stack with oaths at the paladin's discretion.
Fair enough; I'm still working through the posts, and commenting as I go.
As for there not being any obligatory actions, the fact that you lose a bonus, even if only till the end of the encounter, is still harsh enough for many players to consider it an 'obligation'.
BE PURE
BE VIGILANT
BEHAVE
I think you're mixing up a little torquemada from nemesis the warlock in there...
|
It's OK to say that the bonuses don't apply while performing non-oath actions, but they should, ideally, resume once he jumps back into the fray.
This way, they can heal a downed comrade, break down a door, stop to give orders to troops, cast, LOH, channel, fight a Neutral mercenary goon, help an ally in trouble, give a flank bonus to his Rogue buddy (so he can sneak-gut his opponent and BOTH be free to rush the boss)...
This gives the player options, and addresses the 'initiative, discretion, and spirit of the oath'.
He may not get his oath bonus while doing these things, but they may well be more important, and swing the day. Once done, he can mutter "Now, where was I? Oh, yes...YOU!<>We have unfinished business!"<>
Good point!
|
OK where the hell did that come from. If I recall you were the one on my thread telling me that playing a Paladin with an 11 str was a process in whining and making a thread where I talk to my DM. Now I can argue a power gamers prospective if I need to, but you want to throw out an insult like that please make sure you can back it up.
So you and LKL actually has one thing in common? No role play just power gaming? I whould never drop int. No skills no role playing. Nor would a I dump wisdom. Why lose the only good stuff a paladin now has at level 1,...
I'm not defending one way or the other as to the veracity of TJs comments....
That being said - I think the mistake lies with automatically assuming that powergaming is an insult.
This is a major soapbox of mine: I do not like labels, and D&D culture has creates its fair share to pigeon-hole someone and put everyone in a nice little box - that somehow indicates its disfavorable or insulting to be in one of them; furthermore, its assumed once in one of those labeled boxes, it's impossible to be in multiple boxes.....
Power-gamer, wargamer, roleplayer, min/maxer, rules-lawyer, story-teller, etc etc.
These may be easily identifiable descriptions as to one's play-style - but D&D has no "wrong way" to play. No where in the DMG or PHB does it say, "Those who wish to play with less emphasis on story-telling, and more on power-gaming are simply doing it wrong and those doing so should be publicly called out and kicked out of the gaming community from this point forward"
I'm confident that the caliber of my posts here, combined with many of the reasons why I love playing the paladin - should paint a picture that I do enjoy role-playing and I think I'm pretty dam good at it (if I say so myself) and most whom I've played with will tell you the same!
that being said - I enjoy some degree of min/maxing, I love to power game when I can, I love story-telling, not so much on the rule-lawyer, but I have been prone to letting the rules get in the way of the story from time to time.
The point is, none of those are wrong, nor should using such a moniker be considered an insult. As far as D&D goes, there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with any of those play styles - some are less compatible with others if you have a group of one style and one person is the other.....but a good group of players will ultimately have a ecclectic mix of these personalities. The game means different things to each of us, and each person wants to draw something different from their gaming experience.
Finally to dismiss someone's opinions, posts, comments, etc simply because you want to shoehorn someone into a little label is grossly unfair.
I can role-play any power-gamed min/max character as well as anyone, or as well as I can roleplay a character who has nothing going for him.
I'm simply sick and tired of people (elitists) who point fingers and say - "you're not a real D&D gamer because you're not a true-roleplayer - you're just a power-gamer....." I simply refuse to see the credit of some attitudes that think just because you aren't playing a "handi-capped, blinded halfling barbarian with a whip made from corn husks that his father passed to him before he died of heart-attack after he saw blood for the first time" that you're not a real role-player.
"what are you playing?"
"I'm an elf ranger with a bow."
"Power-gamer!!! Min/Maxer! You're only playing that cuz that's a great combination!"
Bullcrap - it's a great combination, because the game is set up to stereo-type elven rangers with a bow!!!
LKL - your paladin certainly doesn't have the sound of a character most people labeled as power-gamers would play. But whether you are or are not, should not dismiss your thoughts on paladins, and certainly shouldn't be insulting. Play how you want to play - there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with however you play this game!
Robert
[/soapbox rant]
|
|
So has anyone seriously proposed making the Smites a per encounter ability instead of a per day ability?It will, be to powerful
I completely disagree. Once per encounter - one attack that you get a +5 or so to hit, and + paladin level to damage (lets say 8 at 8th level) is NOT going to break anything.
That being said - the "per encounter" is historically not part of D&D's design, until 4th edition, and I would guess that a) not adopting per encounter appeases some semblance of backwards compatibility to the 3rd edition PF is trying to emulate, and b) so many people are so close-minded to even consider adopting anything that has a ring of 4E to it.
I'm not saying "per encounter" is a bad thing at all. I've been using house rules for this for a long time, and my upcoming campaign in which I've completely rewritten the mechanics on combat etc, many class abilities are going to be per encounter - including smite evil.
Regardless of what affects my home game and home-rules, I'm still here to help design an acceptable means of a paladin for the general population of Pathfinder enthusiasts. (which I am - but not a fan of 3rd edition combat).
Robert
|
|
So has anyone seriously proposed making the Smites a per encounter ability instead of a per day ability?
I talked about that being a houserule that I used with the game you played in with those guys on red bug lake rd. But the guy still retired the character because he wasn't having any fun with his crap class features (which coincidentally were very similar in nature to the current fixes for detect evil) and didn't actually want to live up to a code.
|
|
So has anyone seriously proposed making the Smites a per encounter ability instead of a per day ability?I talked about that being a houserule that I used with the game you played in with those guys on red bug lake rd. But the guy still retired the character because he wasn't having any fun with his crap class features (which coincidentally were very similar in nature to the current fixes for detect evil) and didn't actually want to live up to a code.
For the record, I have suggested a number of times (on other threads) that certain abilities be a "per encounter" along with a "pool" of additional uses that one gains as he advances that he can distribute among the encounters as he chooses. Thus he can drain his entire pool all in the first encounter and then have only the 1/encounter remaining for the rest of the adventuring day - or he can add one or two per encounter as he sees fit.
This is how I use Smite Evil and other things in my game. Channel Energy for Clerics is another, and so is the casting of the first spell specialist wizards receivess, and stunning fists for monks.
So for the case Smite Evil and channel energy for clerics, both receive 1+CHA mod at first level as a pool. Then they get one use every encounter on top of that. Then they gain one additional use to their pool every so often (3rd, 7th, 10th for Smite), and (4th 8th, 12th) for channel). Same idea with Stunning Fist and the Monk - but based off of Wisdom. I also use the barbarian's rage the same way - but the duration is much shorter - which allows him to rage more than once in a combat if he wants.
So a cleric can channel 3 times in his first combat and he's used two of his daily uses, etc.
This ensure that one of the main aspects of the character's class features is able to be used every combat. IMO why shouldn't a character be able to use a staplepoint of his character every combat at least once.
However, when I have historically made such suggestions - as I said in a previous post - it was usually met with a lot of "D&D is not based on per/encounter - thats more of an MMO thing......and now more of a 4E thing......"
So the ideas whether good/bad or indifferent are usually dismissed quite readily.
Robert
So has anyone seriously proposed making the Smites a per encounter ability instead of a per day ability?It will, be to powerful
I do not agree that it would be to powerful. It is already situational...what is wrong with letting the paladin be a bad ass where he should be a bad ass? When it's evil the paladin should be the go to guy.[/qu79ote]
Because 95% of the stuff you fight is evil. As such, the paladin cant be the "better than the fighter" fighter of evil.
The current proposed version of smite evil is so stupidly overpowered its a joke. It lasts 3 rounds at 16+, which is the about the duration of mist high level combats. You can use it 7 times per day. Its effectively always on.
That it was even proposed is dubious design, that people are whining its not good enough is ludicrous.
|
|
The current proposed version of smite evil is so stupidly overpowered its a joke. It lasts 3 rounds at 16+, which is the about the duration of mist high level combats. You can use it 7 times per day. Its effectively always on.
That it was even proposed is dubious design, that people are whining its not good enough is ludicrous.
Lets look at this realistically - youre spouting off numbers for a character and game that is at 16+ level.
Use your same logic and look at one at 8th level.
MOST games played happen from 3rd to 12th level. Most campaingns and games are not spent exploring levels at 16+.
Even the PF adventure paths are only supporting up to about 15-16th level.
So worrying about the potential damage at 16-20th level is worth discussing - but should not be the end of a discussion.
Furthermore - 3 rounds being the length of a combat???? I must disagree. The characters In my Sackled City game who just reached 16th level last game - their combats usually last 6-15 rounds.
usually about 8-10.
I don't know too many lasting only 3!
Thank for chiming in (albeit signifantly late to the party), but I have to say that I strongly disagree with your truncated synopsis.
Robert
The current proposed version of smite evil is so stupidly overpowered its a joke. It lasts 3 rounds at 16+, which is the about the duration of mist high level combats. You can use it 7 times per day. Its effectively always on.
That it was even proposed is dubious design, that people are whining its not good enough is ludicrous.
Lets look at this realistically - youre spouting off numbers for a character and game that is at 16+ level.
Use your same logic and look at one at 8th level.
Lets. You can use it 3 times a day, for 2 rounds. That is 3 out of the suggested 4 "meaningful" encounters, for 2 rounds each. On most of the time vs real battles, and allowing you to make a full attack at least 3 times per day with an extra 8 points of damage per attack. On top of his freebie Greater Than Greater Magic Weapon (we can assume an appropriate bane on there for an extra +2 to hit and damage, and 2d6 to damage). The fighter gets a paltry +1 from his class abilities.
If you guys wanted to give the paladin offense of this magnitude, you should have been pushing for the fighter to start forcing save or die effects on crits in the fighter playtest. The paladin should be a lesser fighter than the fighter, since all the fighter does is... drumroll... fight.
This current setup is way too much offense, way too much defense, plus spells and special abilities. The fighter gets a few feats, and its core damage feat, power attack, has been gutted. The feats in pathfinder arent particularly great (many being standard actions, which preclude a charge), and there arent enough noteworthy that are fighter only.
If you want to buff the hybrid, go back and address the parent class.
MOST games played happen from 3rd to 12th level. Most campaingns and games are not spent exploring levels at 16+.Even the PF adventure paths are only supporting up to about 15-16th level.
So its ok that its just somewhat broken at mid level, and utterly broken at upper levels?
Furthermore - 3 rounds being the length of a combat???? I must disagree. The characters In my Sackled City game who just reached 16th level last game - their combats usually last 6-15 rounds.usually about 8-10.
I don't know too many lasting only 3!
I'm not sure what game you're playing where its NOT resolved that fast. Damage grossly outstrips defense, and casters quickly get fight ending spells.
I am wary of enforcing obligatory actions, though, as some of them seem very strict, and will not account for the changing nature of combat.
It's OK to say that the bonuses don't apply while performing non-oath actions, but they should, ideally, resume once he jumps back into the fray.
This way, they can heal a downed comrade, break down a door, stop to give orders to troops, cast, LOH, channel, fight a Neutral mercenary goon, help an ally in trouble, give a flank bonus to his Rogue buddy (so he can sneak-gut his opponent and BOTH be free to rush the boss)...
This gives the player options, and addresses the 'initiative, discretion, and spirit of the oath'.
Thanks. I added a post (link here) that should answer most or all of these objections.
|
|
Thanx for clarify things.
LKL I wasn't insulting you. I'm just saying your focus are not on roleplaying. The paladin (even with a strength score of 11) is a great class for role playing. Great social skills, high charisma and detect evil. I haven't seen too much of that in your playtest.
To be honest, there's not much roleplaying you can do with a bag of teeth trying to eat your face. Though there was a truce arranged with one of their previous enemies.
And it's not really the place for discussing RP. That's what you expect from an in-character campaign journal, not a playtest report.
Every class can roleplay, every player can roleplay with any class. Sure, having high Cha can help, as can playing a Rogue or Bard with high skill points and relevant class skills. It's also an area of the game where the player's own Cha clouds the outcome. And it's outside the scope of the new ruleset, and outside the power of Paizo to change, how much any group engages in RP.
Reading about it, isn't much fun if you weren't there, since it's just "I said...He said...I said...She said...They said....". Yawn. Cut to the meat, just say "We negotiated a deal with NPC X", and get back to testing the mechanics.
|
|
OK where the hell did that come from. If I recall you were the one on my thread telling me that playing a Paladin with an 11 str was a process in whining and making a thread where I talk to my DM. Now I can argue a power gamers prospective if I need to, but you want to throw out an insult like that please make sure you can back it up.
StuffI'm not defending one way or the other as to the veracity of TJs comments....
That being said - I think the mistake lies with automatically assuming that powergaming is an insult. [...]
Thanx for clarify things.
LKL I wasn't insulting you. I'm just saying your focus are not on roleplaying. Tha paladin (even with a strength score of 11) is a great class for role playing. Great social scills, high charisma and detect evil. I haven't seen to much of that in your playtest.
Next time you come down on someone, please read your posts. You will notice your not so gentle all the time.
That's because roleplaying isn't affected by mechanics. So there is no point in talking about roleplaying in a playtest report. If I'm playing a fighter or a paladin or a commoner, no change to mechanics is going to affect how the roleplaying goes. And I don't deny that I get harsh with people, but I don't run around throwing out insults like zero roleplaying when I'm talking to other people, If I'm responding harshly to someone it's based off of something they've said to me. I haven't when talking to Robert said something like Oh so you're just like TomJohn, you'll say something you can't back up and then say you weren't trying to be insulting (Robert, I'm not saying this about you, just picking a random name) and yes telling someone that they don't role play is insulting.
If you read through any of the playtest reports what you don't hear is people saying, oh I love this class mechanically, but it really suffers in the roleplaying department. Because roleplaying is independant of mechanics and telling Jason that the roleplay is rewarding doesn't help a playtest at all. At all, unless of course you can tell me how I can't roleplay a commoner exactly like the paragon of virtue that I play my paladin as.
You want roleplay? I haven't fought in a single fight with people that I haven't taken prisoners. I've swallowed my pride and not called for duels of honor when fellow players have slung racial insults at me for my half-orc heritage. I've destroyed both a wand of animate dead and fireball because of either the fact that they are evil or indiscriminate weapons of mass murder instead of just re-selling them as party treasure. That's party treasure that I've forgone for roleplaying. One of my legacy items hasn't been unlocked yet because my character doesn't know it's history. Despite the fact that I'm about to hit level six and I could have unlocked it if I wasn't roleplaying, at level five. Oh how about the fact that in my playtest report I mentioned that when my boar joined the game I tried to set up a touching emotional scene where my character realized that it was possesed by the spirit of his dead mother that was ruined by my DM making a furry joke? Oh, let's see I've given over 3000 dollars of personal treasure away, to either other party members or to communitys ravaged by what we fight. Oh, then there's the fact that my character carries enough clothing on him to always be wearing a clean outfit, and when I got to my manor and amongst my people, I wore my nobles outfit and went everywhere without my armor on, because I wanted my people to see me as a symbol, despite the fact that there had been as recently as the day before, a surprise attack on the manor, so I could have wound up in a fight with an 13 AC.
And you know why none of that is reported in my playtest? Because it doesn't change a dang thing about the paladins abilities.
Detect Evil, is only now actually starting to work because I'm finally 5th level and fighting things with 5HD or more. Before that, nothing would have shown evil except Kaine. So how would it affect roleplaying at all?
Smite Evil, hmm, all that roleplaying still hasn't changed a dang thing about it has it.
LoH, wow, I even stated how now, LoH actually does fit the flavor of the paladin, must have just been the power gamer in me.
Channel energy, still completely sucks, and isn't more powerful than the clerics, cause the cleric can actually afford to use his and I can't which means I never channel.
Spells still suck, I've cast one spell since getting them. and it's the same spell every time. because there are only a few worth memorizing.
My Boar, yeah I can see how I've done nothing but talk about how the spirit of my mother yada yada is just a complete lack of focus on roleplay.
I didn't take the power gaming as an insult, I took no roleplay as an insult. And the fact is, that I haven't gotten abrasive with you once TomJohn without you getting abrasive with me first. So don't you dare presume to know where my focus is. My focus is on fixing the paladin abilities that don't work. Roleplaying isn't one of those, because there's nothing you can do to fix roleplay. But if I need to go back and re-quote every time where I've talked about the image, or the flavor, or the idea of the paladin and how I don't prefer someones suggested mechanic because it doesn't match that flavor to me I can. In the meantime the closest thing to roleplay you've brought up is, oh I don't want the paladin better than the cleric at channeling. That isn't roleplaying, that's arbitrarilly deciding who's better. And what you have said to me elsewhere actually runs counter to what you are saying now. So if you want to talk about mechanics and fixing the paladin feel free, but if you want to talk about me, go gossip on your blog or in e-mail where I don't have to de-rail the thread to defend myself.
I'm not even sure how you drag a high level fight out to 10 rounds. Play nothing but spring attacking bards? We're talking 3rd edition, and not 4th, right?
3-4 is the generally accepted length in design discussions.
Is holy sword game breaking? No.
Lets see:
- a +5 sword? By now we all have +3 weapon. If not, ask your wizard or clerc to cast greater magic weapon. You now have a +4 sword ...for 13 hours. If you got an evil ousider bane or undead bane it,s now +6 vs undead or evil outsiders.
- Holy? Well nice but it's only 2d6 extra.
- magic circle against evil. By now all have a deflection bonus and resistance of at least +2.
- HS is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way.
It actually is. It lets you effectively get a double strength weapon, for free, with on demand special properties. You buy regular "plusses" with your cash, and use the divine bond to give it the appropriate bane (+2 to hit and damage, +2d6 damage) against the main enemy type of the encounter. At 8th level you can add an energy type to it as well. So for the entire fight, you're dealing +2 to hit and +3d6 damage. Compared to the fighters sad little +1 from weapon training and +2 from weapon specialization. On top of cha to hit and +8 damage per attack (4d6 extra if its undead or evil outsider!) for 2 rounds (multiple times per day).
Way to much offense, way too much defense. Both of these abilities need to be toned down. Ditch the multiple rounds on smite for a starter, restore it to a single attack, but make it reliable where it isnt expended on a miss.
Yeah except that's 1 fight out of 4 for the day, the fighter still has his bonuses... and the paladin doesn't. The paladin might get 2 fights out of his Divine Bond... Hope no one sunders him... but even then the 'appropriate bane isn't available on demand (divine bond doesn't give bane) and the fighter could have a 'bane' weapon too if he wants to pay for it.
The fighter will always have his weapon training, and probably his weapon specialization and greater weapon focus at the levels discussed for divine bond, giving him +3 to hit + 3 damage, against everything he fights. Golems, Oozes, or demons tactics may change but the bonuses remain the same for the fighter.
I'm not even sure how you drag a high level fight out to 10 rounds. Play nothing but spring attacking bards? We're talking 3rd edition, and not 4th, right?
3-4 is the generally accepted length in design discussions.
Is holy sword game breaking? No.
Lets see:
- a +5 sword? By now we all have +3 weapon. If not, ask your wizard or clerc to cast greater magic weapon. You now have a +4 sword ...for 13 hours. If you got an evil ousider bane or undead bane it,s now +6 vs undead or evil outsiders.
- Holy? Well nice but it's only 2d6 extra.
- magic circle against evil. By now all have a deflection bonus and resistance of at least +2.
- HS is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way.It actually is. It lets you effectively get a double strength weapon, for free, with on demand special properties. You buy regular "plusses" with your cash, and use the divine bond to give it the appropriate bane (+2 to hit and damage, +2d6 damage) against the main enemy type of the encounter. At 8th level you can add an energy type to it as well. So for the entire fight, you're dealing +2 to hit and +3d6 damage. Compared to the fighters sad little +1 from weapon training and +2 from weapon specialization. On top of cha to hit and +8 damage per attack (4d6 extra if its undead or evil outsider!) for 2 rounds (multiple times per day).
Way to much offense, way too much defense. Both of these abilities need to be toned down. Ditch the multiple rounds on smite for a starter, restore it to a single attack, but make it reliable where it isnt expended on a miss.
Yes, that is a powerful ability....and this MIGHT cause some sort of disparity IF...wait for it....the fighter could not have that same exact sword!
Come on now...lets make this amazing magical sword, lets give it all the perfect powers for some specific encounter....lets say that the paladin has not used his smites and he gets to do everything all at once in this one encounter. Wow...thats pretty good. Except for over half of your argument is nothing that the fighter can not also have.
Can a fighter have a +5 holy, bane, flaming burst great sword? YES
Can the fighter use this in every encounter? yes...
Does the fighter run out of his "always on bonuses" after that encounter? nope!So can we actually argue what the CLASS can do...not what the class could do if it had amazing magical items? yea the paladin has some spells...are any of them very good? na not really.
Yes the paladin can buff his sword a little...but it is really going to take some time for this bonus to add up to anything.
Just to reinterate:
Divine Bond can only add the following:
Straight Enhancement bonuses
Defending
Merciful
Flaming
Axiomatic
Holy
Disruption
Keen
Brillant Energy
Speed
That's all. The paladin isn't suddenly, "I beat the ranger becuase my weapon is always bane to what I want it."
Especially since he doesn't get that ability on Divine Bond, and also becuase at 5th-9th level he can only do this once per day.
We finally have a few extra people chimming in on this discussion...that is a good thing.
The bad thing is, that now that we have a few extra voices we are spending half our time rehashing arguments that have already been covered in this thread. Please go back and reread it, many of the arguments that are being brought up were already covered. We have went over the numbers numerous times to discuss the possible damage output of the classes.
I do not know how to underscore this enough....this is a paladin thread...if you want to talk about the fighters poor little toes, please go to the fighter design forum. I can not speak for everyone else, but I come here to discuss possible fixes to the paladin, not the fighter. I think the fighter is great the way he is, and is supposed to be getting better.
When you start to worry about the fighter dont forget that if you wanted to play a class that can detect evil, smite evil...cast a few weak spells, do a little healing...and you could deal with the restrictions that the paladin has...then you probably should play a paladin.
I think many people want to bring up these arguments and simply dismiss the requirements the paladin has. You can not make the argument without factoring that in. It is part of the class...does the fighter worry about loosing ALL his powers if he does certain things? Nope, he gets to keep on truckin with his always on bonuses and ability for self preservation.
So after the rest of us have spent weeks discussing the paladin, and gone over so many different areas of pro's and con's....we have come to some conclusions that we feel really helps this class. I personally think we are still a little shy of what the paladin should be...but we are better than we were.
The Barbarian has his place the stand...
The fighter has his place to stand...
The cleric has his...
The rogue, his...
Every class has their "special" area...
The paladin's area just happens to be evil (or should be). The fact that many things are evil does not matter. You want to worry that *name any class* will not have a place to shine if the paladin gets to do what he should get to do. I say by giving the paladin the ability to shine where he should, against evil...you have not made any other class weaker, you have just let the paladin have a place to stand too.
This discussion is really getting old, I can not understand why we are still talking about the fighter here. He is good, he has great offense and defense, MANY separate play tests have shown exactly how good he is. And those have even been listed HERE in the paladin design forum, just to prove points. AND, he does not have ANY of the restrictions of the paladin....period!
The truth is that the arguments for the fighter only serve to reinforce the arguments for the paladin. The paladin should shine against evil, currently he is shown up consistently by all the other classes. So you dont want the fighter to get shown up in combat....we dont want the paladin to get shown up against evil...is he? YES HE IS.
I dont know what else to say...I am just going to start ignoring the arguments about the fighters little piggies, I cant stand to waste one more minute on that crap. He is a great class, he is even going to get better. That argument is finished, the fighter won....let it rest. The paladin argument still remains, he is in trouble and we are 4th and goal from the 10 yard line!
|
|
I'm not even sure how you drag a high level fight out to 10 rounds. Play nothing but spring attacking bards? We're talking 3rd edition, and not 4th, right?
3-4 is the generally accepted length in design discussions.
It actually is. It lets you effectively get a double strength weapon, for free, with on demand special properties. You buy regular "plusses" with your cash, and use the divine bond to give it the appropriate bane (+2 to hit and damage, +2d6 damage) against the main enemy type of the encounter. At 8th level you can add an energy type to it as well. So for the entire fight, you're dealing +2 to hit and +3d6 damage. Compared to the fighters sad little +1 from weapon training and +2 from weapon specialization. On top of cha to hit and +8 damage per attack (4d6 extra if its undead or evil outsider!) for 2 rounds (multiple times per day).
Is holy sword game breaking? No.
Lets see:
- a +5 sword? By now we all have +3 weapon. If not, ask your wizard or clerc to cast greater magic weapon. You now have a +4 sword ...for 13 hours. If you got an evil ousider bane or undead bane it,s now +6 vs undead or evil outsiders.
- Holy? Well nice but it's only 2d6 extra.
- magic circle against evil. By now all have a deflection bonus and resistance of at least +2.
- HS is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way.
Oh and a constant +2 to armor training, and if he has weapon spec then he has weapon focus, so +2 to hit, +2 to damage, + 2 to AC always on, oh yeah and four more feats than the pally, lets see... I'm going to stay with core since that's the discussion. Power Attack, Overhand Chop, Backswing, and vital strike. We're 8th level and if I've been foolish enough to get weapon spec I'm foolish enough to get Greater weapon focus. So that's a +3 to hit, double strength damage double weapon damage +2, +2 to AC, and power attack damage, which remember, double weapon is also double the amount. The paladin will have probably a +5 to hit and AC and a +8 to damage for 6 rounds in the day. And will be able to add holy and flaming to his sword. he will also have 4-5 buff spells, all of which are still providing +1s to hit and damage and some DR Bypass if evil, probably bull's strength. First fight in the day he'll blow a spell, probably a smite, and divine bond.
Well there's the big damage, he wasted two rounds to get it, in the meantime the fighter during those two rounds was actually swinging and connecting. So you've probably evened out in damage output. If that's your only fight for the day, you'll be good. But if you have a second fight, well there's another one round to buff. lets say you get a whammy smite on an enemy that was a demon with DR so you really outpace the fighter for two rounds. except he hit during the round you buffed so once you're only one attack ahead even though this is where you're supposed to shine. Even if you only use one smite per fight you still have one fight in the standard adventuring day that you aren't getting to smite nor have divine bond. lets say you very carefully ration your resources that way you have a little bit for every fight (i.e. one smite for each fight and then D.B. on last fight) since you rationed you'll be doing less than the fighter consistently and if you fought non-demon/undead you'll be well under damage output. That's where your defenses come in. LoH will make you suck less healing from the cleric, who will just pour it into the fighter instead, assuming he isn't just buffing up and outshinning you every fight. But this is at 8th level where I've stated things start to even out. You still had to suck worse than every other class for levels 1-7 and you won't really be always on par till about 12th level. Oh but wait, Jason has stated several times that he intends to add some serious meat to the fighter when we get to the feat section, so we probably can't expect that equality till about 16th level.Way to much offense, way too much defense. Both of these abilities need to be toned down. Ditch the multiple rounds on smite for a starter, restore it to a single attack, but make it reliable where it isnt expended on a miss.
Where's the way too much Defense? If it is dropped back to a single round then how does the paladin have too much defense? Which I've actually already said I support doing as long as the demon/undead stuff is removed, I have no problem with smite evil being a single round as long as it isn't + level damage.
Just to reinterate:
Divine Bond can only add the following:
Straight Enhancement bonuses
Defending
Merciful
Flaming
Axiomatic
Holy
Disruption
Keen
Brillant Energy
SpeedThat's all. The paladin isn't suddenly, "I beat the ranger becuase my weapon is always bane to what I want it."
Especially since he doesn't get that ability on Divine Bond, and also becuase at 5th-9th level he can only do this once per day.
We have suggested giving the paladin's bond ability bane, with the limitation of only undead or evil outsiders. I think this is a great choice that should be added. I also feel that the bond should last all day, you should have to do it in the morning and it should be there for the remainder of the day. If you role the dice and decide to add Bane - undead and get lucky enough to be up against some undead that day...good choice. But if not then that was a waste and you gained nothing from it.
Ah, ok I see the difference now.
Hmm.... an all day bonus of + 1 something... still not convinced that it's overpowering.
Even if you grab demon or undead bane, what are you facing at those levels that meet either requirement? At higher levels it could become more of an issue, but at those same levels fighters get a stacking +x bonus to hit and damage, against all things. Sure the bane weapon might do 5~6 more points of damage a hit to a specific monster type but, if the fighter knows he's going to be fighting demons, he can get that too on his weapon.