[Design Focus] Paladin Upgrade


Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin

751 to 800 of 1,070 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

Abraham spalding wrote:

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.

Exactly...


And the thread continues...

There is a lot being said about smite. So let me chime in as well.

First smite evil,

As presented by Jason, smite evil will last for 1 round at levels 1-7, 2 rounds worth at levels 8-15, and 3 rounds at levels 16+. The paladin gets his cha bonus to attack and AC and bonus damage equal to level except when fighting Evil or Undead type beasties.

Excepting attacks of opportunity and "haste" effects, smite progression will look like this, if the paladin can do a full attack:

Levels 1-3 1 smite per day with 1 attack per smite over 1 round
Levels 4-5 2 smites per day with 1 attack per smite over 1 round
Level 6 2 smites per day with 2 attacks per smite over 1 round
Level 7 3 smites per day with 2 attacks per smite over 1 round
Levels 8-9 3 smites per day with 2 attacks per smite over 2 rounds
Level 10 4 smites per day with 2 attacks per smite over 2 rounds
Levels 11-12 4 smites per day with 3 attacks per smite over 2 rounds
Levels 13-15 5 smites per day with 3 attacks per smite over 2 rounds
Level 16-18 6 smites per day with 4 attacks per smite over 3 rounds
Level 19-20 7 smites per day with 4 attacks per smite over 3 rounds

So at low levels 1-5 the smite hasn't really done much for the pally reletive to the original beta smite unless he is fighting undead or evil-type. He'll do his +1 to +5 of bonus damage or he gets an extra +1d6 or +2d6 against those "special" enemies. And he's done smiting after 1 or 2 events at these levels.

I will now use the rogue sneak attack as a comparison of class abilities that are more or less supposed to be an "equivalent" of smite.

Meantime the rogue in the party is using the engagement of the paladin and other party members to set up "flanks" and sneak attack doing his +1d6, +2d6, or +3d6 per attack against any opponent he can flank and he can do this with a missile weapon too. He can do this every round of combat that he can set up a "flank". He never "runs out of sneak attacks". Ok good for the rogue. He then boosts his sneak damage to +4d6 at 7th level and then +5d6 at 9th. That's even better for the rogue. good for him.

So the paladin is going to be saving his smite at low level. He has to make it count but what is he really going to getting from saving up? Not a lot making him a pretty un-fun combatant for the player. So we still have a low to mid level problem with the paladin with new modified smite up until about 8th-10th level. He's maybe done 3 to 5 attacks that if all were successful (unlikely) will have done base weapon damage (let's say 1d8)+ smiting damage.

A 10th level paladin could at best get off 16 smite attacks in a day equating to 16d8+160 total damage potential (i'm ignoring all strength and enhancement bonuses to keep my math simple, and fighting rogue "could" focus on a decent strength if he wanted, a d6 does avergae 3.5 damage per die and a d8 does 4.5 damage per die roll..). He has to split these up into 4 smite uses so 4d8+40 potential damage per smite use. Our rogue friend is fighting in the same battles and is also 10th level. The fights are lasting 5 rounds lets say. He can set up sucessful flanks in 3 rounds of each fight. So he gets 2 attacks per round hits 6 sneaks in the combat with his short sword doing 6d6+30d6 damage total damage potential so 6d6+105 points in one combat. The paladin spends 1 smite in that battle so his potential was 4d8+40 damage. BBEG had sent standard evil nasties at the crack of dawn. Combat 1 finished. Party has mid morning tea. BBEG is annoyed, he doesn't like to see the party drinking tea so he unleashes some nasty evil outsiders at the party. Paladin says - OK now it's really smite time! He powers up and in the course of the combat he lets loose 2 uses of smite ( he only has 1 left) he unloads 8d8+40d6 for 8d8+140 damage potential. The rogue has chipped in his usual 6d6+105 again. The paladin looks satisfied and so does the rogue. Battle 2 done. High fives and extra scones all around. Party sits down for lunch then gets back on their way to find the BBEG. BBEG is really ticked. How dare these pukes think to challenge me, drinking their tea and eating along the way? He calls forth his frost giant gang to punish them. Battle number 3 begins. Fire giants, not quite one of the triple Ds but nasty all the same. Paladin sees the fire giant captain and says. Smite time. He lays in, does 4d8+40.... the fire giant staggers back, and then shakes it off because he still has well about 65% of his hit points and the paladin is all smited out. back to 1d8+some bonuses (prob +6 to +8 range) He and the paladin trade blows and then the fire giant staggers and falls, multiple short sword wounds in his back as the rogue has chipped in yet again with his 6d6+105 damage potential. The paladin thanks the rogue for saving his life and suggests the party find a place to rest and recover because he can't contribute to the fights enough to help. But the BBEGs stronghold is in sight! OK says the paladin I have no fear, I'll be ineffectual but perhaps i can help to keep us alive with some healing. BBEG has watched the battle from scrying. He knows now is the time to attack the party! The paladin can not smite and he and his demonic or undead servants can attack under cover of darkness when night falls. Combat 4 begins as BBEG and his baddies attack. Paladin tries to engage the BBEG... BBEG ignores him, sending his minions to engage the rest of the party instead because the pally isn't a threat. The party ultimately prevails the rogue chipped in again his usual 6d6+105 damage but the battle went longer and he was able to do an extra 2d6+10d6 for 8d6+140. the paladin was able to divine bond "holy" his sword and was able to do about 8d8+16d6 or 8d8+54, maybe he hit a few more doing 12d8+24d6 or 12d8+84 damage potential.

So in the end of the day of 4 combats, the paladin has accounted for 220 smite bonus damage + 84 divine bond damage + 28d8 weapon damage for total base "special" damage of 430 points. The rogue has done 130d6 (455 points) of bonus sneak damage plus 26d6 for total base damage of 546 damage, more than 100 better than the paladin.

I know my example isn't perfect but it lays down the baseline comparison of a similar ability of another class, one that isn't "historically" a primary combatant, at least not if you were comparing to the paladin. And also, the rogue could be sneak attacking with a ranged weapon to keep out of the fray.

So is the new smite really making the bad guys shake in their boots? not quite yet and it isn't on par with the sneak attack ability of the rogue. This tells me smite is still not working the way it should. So what do I think could be done...

Smite evil has to be worth the paladin using it, or saving it for later. I suggest that smite evil works like this:

Bonus to attack = paladin level.
Bonus to damage = 1d6 per paladin level
Bonus to AC = +1 at 1st level increasing to +2 at 5th level and +1 additional 4 levels. Actually I'm not a big fan of the "smite" bonus to AC and could take it or leave it.

So what would this smite version do for damage? Using my previous example he would have been able to do...

28d8 (126) weapon damage+ 84 divine bond damage + 160d6 (420) "normal" smite damage for a total of 630 "special" damage through out the course of a day's worth (4 combat encounters). Is this too much? It is 84 more than the rogue's "special" damage. Is this out of line for a primary melee class. I don't think so. This also helps the paladin at lower levels since the smite is always giving some kick and makes it worth using and looked forward to by the paladin player. Since it scales with level, it isn't a big attraction for level dipping but, then, i don't think level dipping is a real issue. Level dipping is something for each playing group to address individually, players and DM together.


Ehren37 wrote:

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.

Quote:


Is holy sword game breaking? [...]
- 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.

Holy Sword:

"If this spell is cast on a magic weapon, the powers of the spell supersede any that the weapon normally has, rendering the normal enhancement bonus and powers of the weapon inoperative for the duration of the spell. This spell is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way. This spell does not work on artifacts. A masterwork weapon’s bonus to attack does not stack with an enhancement bonus to attack."

"use the divine bond to give it the appropriate bane (+2 to hit and damage, +2d6 damage) against the main enemy type"
A) divine bond don't have bane.
B) It's not clear if divine bond can be combined with the spell Holy sword but I doubt it. The intention of the spell is: Holy sword overrides all magical aspects. You can have a silver holy sword, or cold iron holy sword. But magically it's just a holy sword. But yes, I do think Jason should make it clear if divine bond can or can't be added to the holy sword spell.

"3-4 is the generally accepted length in design discussions"
I've been playing D&D for 12 years, our GM has played it for more than 20 years, And so have most of our players. Our GM is also GM at some play by posts.

Neither I, nor any other player I've talked with or my GM have ever heard of a "3-4 as the accepted length of an meaningful encounter. What's your GM feeding you at level 16? Goblins?
I go with Robert here.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Ehren37 wrote:
Stuff about the spell holy sword

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....

Thanx Vult. Spot on as usual.

Vult Wrathblades wrote:


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?"

Very funny and true

I still say, I thin the Paldin mainly need a boost between level 2 and 11.
Level 1 decent, level 13 decent.
Level 2 not decent, level 10 not decent.


Marty1000 wrote:
some good stuff

Good example Marty. I think you were exactly right with your assessment. I do however think that Smite should have a different concept. I see no reason that the paladin's smite can not be always active. It already has the restriction that the target must be evil...yea yea some say that 90% of things are evil, but the Rogue will get his flank 90% of the time too. The fighter and barbarian will have their powers all of the time. So letting the paladin smite all the time is not out of line IMHO.

I say we just make it Char mod to hit, paladin level to damage, is not multiplied on a crit, it bypasses all damage reduction. And you must know that the target you are attacking is evil (through detect evil). Then at later levels this would boost a little allowing it to crit and also crit against creatures that are immune to crits (Critting that wight that has been hurting the party would be pretty dramatic.)

I just absolutely do not feel that this is over powered in any way....it simply lets the paladin shine where he is supposed to...and he has not become useless in combats, as per your example.


TomJohn wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Ehren37 wrote:
Stuff about the spell holy sword

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....

Thanx Vult. Spot on as usual.

Vult Wrathblades wrote:


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?"

Very funny and true

I still say, I thin the Paldin mainly need a boost between level 2 and 11.
Level 1 decent, level 13 decent.
Level 2 not decent, level 10 not decent.

Thank you...it is a shame that situations like that are true...the paladin should be shinning there, saving the party. But unfortunately he is doing what he will have to do most of the time....stand in the back or jump up there and just be in the way.

Sovereign Court

TomJohn wrote:

I still say, I thin the Paldin mainly need a boost between level 2 and 11.
Level 1 decent, level 13 decent.
Level 2 not decent, level 10 not decent.

Well I agree that low levels are the ones that need work I disagree on your breakdown.

Level 1 isn't decent. You get two abilities that don't do anything until around level 4 and one smite per day.

Level 2 is actually decent now.

Level 3 you get two abilities that may never come into play.

Level 4 you get a second smite, and too expensive channeling, and too weak spells. But detect evil is starting to do something.

Level 5 Decent

Level 6 needs a lot of work.

Level 7 another smite, not sure if this level is decent

Level 8 Smite finally gets the much needed boost it needs to be worthwile.

Levels 9-up I'm not sure I'll tell you when I get there :)


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Marty1000 wrote:
some good stuff

Good example Marty. I think you were exactly right with your assessment. I do however think that Smite should have a different concept. I see no reason that the paladin's smite can not be always active. It already has the restriction that the target must be evil...yea yea some say that 90% of things are evil, but the Rogue will get his flank 90% of the time too. The fighter and barbarian will have their powers all of the time. So letting the paladin smite all the time is not out of line IMHO.

I say we just make it Char mod to hit, paladin level to damage, is not multiplied on a crit, it bypasses all damage reduction. And you must know that the target you are attacking is evil (through detect evil). Then at later levels this would boost a little allowing it to crit and also crit against creatures that are immune to crits (Critting that wight that has been hurting the party would be pretty dramatic.)

I just absolutely do not feel that this is over powered in any way....it simply lets the paladin shine where he is supposed to...and he has not become useless in combats, as per your example.

I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

However, I would propose that the "always on power" be a completely separate ability from smite evil.

When the paladin encounters evil enemies (and i would also argue CN enemies) that he gets his "quickening" ala highlander. The paladin goes the turbo kicks in as he battles his evil foes. This is the "always on" power. When he meets up with BBEG, or triple Ds, or evil undead, or slaadi (i hate those toads!), he hits the nitrous oxide boost which of course is his smite evil. A limited duration, big impact ability with limited number of uses per day. Major damage to the EVIL dudes.


Marty1000 wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Marty1000 wrote:
some good stuff

Good example Marty. I think you were exactly right with your assessment. I do however think that Smite should have a different concept. I see no reason that the paladin's smite can not be always active. It already has the restriction that the target must be evil...yea yea some say that 90% of things are evil, but the Rogue will get his flank 90% of the time too. The fighter and barbarian will have their powers all of the time. So letting the paladin smite all the time is not out of line IMHO.

I say we just make it Char mod to hit, paladin level to damage, is not multiplied on a crit, it bypasses all damage reduction. And you must know that the target you are attacking is evil (through detect evil). Then at later levels this would boost a little allowing it to crit and also crit against creatures that are immune to crits (Critting that wight that has been hurting the party would be pretty dramatic.)

I just absolutely do not feel that this is over powered in any way....it simply lets the paladin shine where he is supposed to...and he has not become useless in combats, as per your example.

I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

However, I would propose that the "always on power" be a completely separate ability from smite evil.

When the paladin encounters evil enemies (and i would also argue CN enemies) that he gets his "quickening" ala highlander. The paladin goes the turbo kicks in as he battles his evil foes. This is the "always on" power. When he meets up with BBEG, or triple Ds, or evil undead, or slaadi (i hate those toads!), he hits the nitrous oxide boost which of course is his smite evil. A limited duration, big impact ability with limited number of uses per day. Major damage to the EVIL dudes.

Great, great ideas, I can really get behind these. How about something like (both at first level):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

Divine Might (Su): Devoted to fighting evil, the devout paladin gains a boost to her damage against evil foes. When attacking a creature that the paladin knows is evil, either through spells or use of the paladin's Detect Evil ability, the paladin deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level against the evil creature. This extra damage applies to all melee, unarmed and natural attacks against the evil creature, including Smite Evil attempts.

So, a 1st level paladin may only be able to smite once a day with a special attack, but he has a single point bonus to damage against evil foes all the time. It links well into the Detect Evil ability.

Feats that give extra Smites still work, but they give only extra Smite attempts. Feats that give a damage boost (i.e. +1d6 damage on a smite) still work, but on a Smite attempt.

Smite Evils can be ranged attacks too, so ranged paladins can still work, but the physical 'might' applies to melee, unarmed and natural attacks, delivered in hand to hand.

Plus, and maybe more importantly, the number of Smites can stay as they are now, because the Divine Might boost is always active.

Thoughts?

Chobbly

Sovereign Court

Chobbly wrote:

Great, great ideas, I can really get behind these. How about something like (both at first level):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

Divine Might (Su): Devoted to fighting evil, the devout paladin gains a boost to her damage against evil foes. When attacking a creature that the paladin knows is evil, either through spells or use of the paladin's Detect Evil ability, the paladin deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level against the evil creature. This extra damage applies to all melee, unarmed and natural attacks against the evil creature, including Smite Evil attempts.

So, a 1st level paladin may only be able to smite once a day with a special attack, but he has a single point bonus to damage against evil foes all the time. It links well into the Detect Evil ability.

Feats that give extra Smites still work, but they give only extra Smite attempts. Feats that give a damage boost (i.e. +1d6 damage on a smite) still work, but on a Smite attempt.

Smite Evils can be ranged attacks too, so ranged paladins can still work, but the physical 'might' applies to melee, unarmed and natural attacks, delivered in hand to hand.

Plus, and maybe more importantly, the number of Smites can stay as they are now, because the Divine Might boost is always active.

Thoughts?

Chobbly

Umm if I'm reading this right the only thing smite does is give you your charisma to hit? And with the change to detect evil. Creatures with less than 5HD unless they are outsiders, undead, or clerics, do not have an evil aura, which means, that you would only get the divine might bonus vs. demons and undead, until level 4-5. I would rather take ranger then I'd get a +2 to hit always on, and a +2 to damage vs. the exact same thing.


lastknightleft wrote:
Chobbly wrote:

Great, great ideas, I can really get behind these. How about something like (both at first level):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

Divine Might (Su): Devoted to fighting evil, the devout paladin gains a boost to her damage against evil foes. When attacking a creature that the paladin knows is evil, either through spells or use of the paladin's Detect Evil ability, the paladin deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level against the evil creature. This extra damage applies to all melee, unarmed and natural attacks against the evil creature, including Smite Evil attempts.

So, a 1st level paladin may only be able to smite once a day with a special attack, but he has a single point bonus to damage against evil foes all the time. It links well into the Detect Evil ability.

Feats that give extra Smites still work, but they give only extra Smite attempts. Feats that give a damage boost (i.e. +1d6 damage on a smite) still work, but on a Smite attempt.

Smite Evils can be ranged attacks too, so ranged paladins can still work, but the physical 'might' applies to melee, unarmed and natural attacks, delivered in hand to hand.

Plus, and maybe more importantly, the number of Smites can stay as they are now, because the Divine Might boost is always active.

Thoughts?

Chobbly

Umm if I'm reading this right the only thing smite does is give you your charisma to hit? And with the change to detect evil. Creatures with less than 5HD unless they are outsiders, undead, or clerics, do not have an evil aura, which means, that you would only get the divine might bonus vs. demons and undead, until level 4-5. I would rather take...

Yes, although maybe this is where you could add in the alternate Smite type effects (perhaps not extra damage), staggering the target for 1d6 turns, the bonus to AC, the Smite ignoring DR, etc or something else.

How about (with Divine Might):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. A successful Smite attempt ignores all damage resistance that the target possesses. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

It's the concept of spliting Smite bonus to hit and damage against evil foes which is interesting.

Chobbly

Liberty's Edge

Chobbly wrote:
Marty1000 wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Marty1000 wrote:
some good stuff

Good example Marty. I think you were exactly right with your assessment. I do however think that Smite should have a different concept. I see no reason that the paladin's smite can not be always active. It already has the restriction that the target must be evil...yea yea some say that 90% of things are evil, but the Rogue will get his flank 90% of the time too. The fighter and barbarian will have their powers all of the time. So letting the paladin smite all the time is not out of line IMHO.

I say we just make it Char mod to hit, paladin level to damage, is not multiplied on a crit, it bypasses all damage reduction. And you must know that the target you are attacking is evil (through detect evil). Then at later levels this would boost a little allowing it to crit and also crit against creatures that are immune to crits (Critting that wight that has been hurting the party would be pretty dramatic.)

I just absolutely do not feel that this is over powered in any way....it simply lets the paladin shine where he is supposed to...and he has not become useless in combats, as per your example.

I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

However, I would propose that the "always on power" be a completely separate ability from smite evil.

When the paladin encounters evil enemies (and i would also argue CN enemies) that he gets his "quickening" ala highlander. The paladin goes the turbo kicks in as he battles his evil foes. This is the "always on" power. When he meets up with BBEG, or triple Ds, or evil undead, or slaadi (i hate those toads!), he hits the nitrous oxide boost which of course is his smite evil. A limited duration, big impact ability with limited number of uses per day. Major damage to the EVIL dudes.

Great, great ideas, I can really get behind these. How about something...

uh...guys....these were already discussed many times.

Divine Might was one of the names of the ability - as was Divine Wrath, Holy Avenger.

But it needs to have a bonus to hit - not just damage. Doing damage is irrelevant if you cant hit - and so far, my biggest complaint is that the paladin lacks the tools to improve his attack bonuses.

Barbarians typically have more strength and can rage, fighters have Greater Weapon focus, and Weapon training (and usually a higher strength) and rangers gain a number of bonus feats that builds on their combat strength.

Paladins are left in the dust - Divine Favor as a standard action can grant a +1 to hit at 4th level - which isn't improved to +2 until 12th level (thanks to half-caster level for spells).

So I invite the two of you to read the previous threads, you'll see that I have Divine Might/Holy Avenger and smite working off of two seperate abilities and mechanics - but can stack when you need the "nitros boost" as you put it.

Difference is I suggest DM/HA to be granted at 2nd level - not first - to prevent a single level dip.

Robert


Marty1000 wrote:

I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

However, I would propose that the "always on power" be a completely separate ability from smite evil.

When the paladin encounters evil enemies (and i would also argue CN enemies) that he gets his "quickening" ala highlander. The paladin goes the turbo kicks in as he battles his evil foes. This is the "always on" power. When he meets up with BBEG, or triple Ds, or evil undead, or slaadi (i hate those toads!), he hits the nitrous oxide boost which of course is his smite evil. A limited duration, big impact ability with limited number of uses per day. Major damage to the EVIL dudes.

Now you are back to the Lightbringer or Divine Might (Wrath) ideas that Robert Brambley and I proposed at the very beginning of this debate.

I could totally get on board with either of those as separate concepts from Smite. However it is done, the paladin needs something that ALWAYS works against evil.

Sovereign Court

Chobbly wrote:

Yes, although maybe this is where you could add in the alternate Smite type effects (perhaps not extra damage), staggering the target for 1d6 turns, the bonus to AC, the Smite ignoring DR, etc or something else.

How about (with Divine Might):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. A successful Smite attempt ignores all damage resistance that the target possesses. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

It's the concept of spliting Smite bonus to hit and damage against evil foes which is interesting.

Chobbly

First: To Robert, believe me I know, but I'm bored at work and no one is discussing anything else.

To Chobbly, as a once per day power it's weak. True strike does the same thing better, adding the DR break helps, but if it's only a single attack then this goes right back to the problem that was that smite evil is underwhelming as a class ability. + cha to hit to deal an extra 1 damage at first level or even an extra 5 at 5th level.

Then you also haven't adressed the fact that at low levels since detect evil doesn't work on creatures with less than 5 HD the abilities won't do anything at all even if the creature is evil.


lastknightleft wrote:
Chobbly wrote:

Yes, although maybe this is where you could add in the alternate Smite type effects (perhaps not extra damage), staggering the target for 1d6 turns, the bonus to AC, the Smite ignoring DR, etc or something else.

How about (with Divine Might):

Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. A successful Smite attempt ignores all damage resistance that the target possesses. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day.

It's the concept of spliting Smite bonus to hit and damage against evil foes which is interesting.

Chobbly

First: To Robert, believe me I know, but I'm bored at work and no one is discussing anything else.

To Chobbly, as a once per day power it's weak. True strike does the same thing better, adding the DR break helps, but if it's only a single attack then this goes right back to the problem that was that smite evil is underwhelming as a class ability. + cha to hit to deal an extra 1 damage at first level or even an extra 5 at 5th level.

Then you also haven't adressed the fact that at low levels since detect evil doesn't work on creatures with less than 5 HD the abilities won't do anything at all even if the creature is evil.

Detect Evil would need to be altered (maybe back) to allow the paladin to mark out evil foes. As many have said, the paladin needs two abilities - one continuous one to take out low level foes and one to do serious damage to high level characters.

With the suggestion, the paladin always gets the damage of Smite Evil against recognised evil foes in the form of Divine Might - but the Smite Evil attack itself just makes the attack more likely to deal damage with DR being ignored.

It's just an idea, needs lots of refining, and maybe the concept is done better elsewhere.

Dark Archive

TomJohn wrote:

So here it comes. The fighter vs the rogue - In a Paldine thread. If you want to continue your "let's cripple all classes so they don't step anywhere near the fighters toes" campaign please do it in a fighter thread. If you and your posse see it fit to wage war on all people who don't bow down the the fighters might Paizos messageboard will go tho hell (well it's allready started to go to hell). It would be a shame.

Me and which posse? And wage war… against who? Because I happen to disagree with the changes proposed on this thread? Sheesh. Go take a look at some EnWorld or WoTC threads to see how people “wage war”. And, by the way, in case you didn’t notice, you and “your posse” are the only ones posting on this thread (and have been, for some while). I guess it has something to do with the hostility that some people respond with to anyone disagreeing with their opinions and/or suggestions.

As for your first sentence… I though we were discussing the paladin class and its abilities and how they relate to those of the other classes, and whether they need to be improved or not beyond Jason's OP? And, if you want to discuss game balance in any serious detail, you also need to bring in the other classes to the discussion every now and then. If I were babbling about “how wizards suck” or “why D20? Why not D100?”, *then* I would be off-topic, so to speak. But, as you surely noticed, I was talking about how to make the paladin (and other “melee” classes) feel “better” without losing any game balance. And the bottom line is that there is a lot of talk going on about SA (and whether to limit to it or not) on the PF threads, so evidently a lot of people feel that it may be too powerful as it is.

And, by the way, I’m a *cleric* fan, and yet I would like to see their abilities “crippled” (to use your expression) a bit, because they tend to “outshine” all non-spellcasters by the 7th level, and even more at higher levels.

I use the fighter as my “measuring stick”, because they don’t have any “dynamic” abilities or tactical options or “tricks” beyond their chosen feats – unlike the barbarian or the rogue, for example. Therefore, every change proposed to the “martial” classes should, in my opinion, be weighed against the fighter’s “effectiveness”, i.e. when and if and how often does this mechanical change “step on the fighter’s toes”. Does it make the barbarian/rogue/ranger/paladin more “appealing” to play than the fighter as a melee-specialist? It has nothing to do with me “rallying my posse” in favour of the fighter. See below what I wrote more about powergamers and game balance.

TomJohn wrote:


So you and your posse state - I and others don't agree.

Again, which ‘posse’? I’m here all by myself, unless you refer to some other posters on these threads? I can’t speak for them, although there surely are many who seem to think that there are problems with SA. And which posters are you including in agreeing with you?

TomJohn wrote:


Yes, let's cripple the cleric, druid and rogue and keep the Paladin as it is in the Beta or as it is in 3.5...keep it preferably under the fighters boot.

Did I say ‘cripple’? That’s not what I said… I think I said that wouldn’t it be easier to *adjust* the abilities of certain classes that many people seem to consider to be problematic or even “overpowered” in 3E (e.g. the problem with ‘CoDzillas’). If you don’t believe me, take a look at some of the threads here and other forums.

BTW, your last sentence pretty much implies that you feel passionately about the paladin, i.e. you seem to have a ‘personal agenda’, so let me quote you: “a person with a personal agenda is never to be trusted.” So why should *I* take your suggestions and opinions seriously?

TomJohn wrote:


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, e.g. good will saves. But hey, that's not realy the point. A paladin has to start with at least 16 charisma. All other melee classes can dumb charisma to 7. And both the fighter abnd the barbarian will continue to and points to strength at every 4 level, while the ranger boost his dex. 16 to 7 that's a lot of points to be saved.

Don’t assume anything about my preferences or playing style, okay? I’m into character immersion and role-playing as much as the next guy, and the campaigns I DM and play in are role-playing heavy (and, BTW, your assertion that skills = role-playing doesn't hold water -- role-playing is about playing and immersing in your character, whether he has INT and X number of skills or not).

Here’s the thing: when you participate in game design, you have to think about the “Big Picture” at all times, and in D&D it’s (in my opinion) pretty much about:

1) Balance between the classes
2) Balance between the PCs, monsters and NPCs
3) Fun

That’s how I’d put it in a highly simplified form. And it’s really important to think about how each change and minor “tweak” to the rules would affect balance. For example, cleric got a huge boost in the 3E rules, but the designers consciously did it to increase the popularity of the class. They surely knew that at higher levels the cleric would “step on everyone’s toes”, but they thought it was “justified”, because more clerics = more healing for the party, which also equals that the “15 min. adventuring day”-dilemma would become less of an issue in the game. Did it? Many people seem to think that in this case it only made matters worse.

I keep on mentioning “…from a powergamer’s POV”, because I know a lot of guys who’re great at abusing the rules and finding loopholes and building so “uber” characters that it simply isn’t fun anymore. Just take a look at the “Character Optimization Boards”. I’ve “banned” a lot of Prestige Classes and Feats in my campaigns, but often it availed very little – these guys find another angle or loophole and the end result is usually that all “non-powergamers” in the group (especially “newbies”) find the game less fun, unless everyone does it in the group and all happen to like “min-maxing”. Now, I don’t think it’s possible to achieve “perfect balance” or “waterproof” design with D&D rules, but any good designer should ask himself with each change to the mechanics: how does this change impact the rules in general, and can it be abused in some ways? How does it specifically affect rules X, Y and Z, and does it affect the balance and appeal between the classes?

TomJohn wrote:


Yes it is. All classes want dex (for AC,saves and Initiativ) and con (for Hit Point and saves).

You can do pretty well without investing in both of them – for example, you could have a very effective elven melee build without a high CON. Personally, I think DEX is the “better” investment of the two, because it often plays a greater role in combat (i.e. because it affects your Initiative and AC). And, let’s not forget that in a less combat-heavy campaign, INT, WIS and CHA may be much more relevant abilities than DEX and CON.

TomJohn wrote:


99 % of them are evil, all execept the shadowdancers companion; some ghosts and some obscure ones. If not your GM is an idiot.

Actually, it’s ‘Dungeon Master’, or DM for short. Now, there are plenty of RPGs which have GMs, but as you’ve pointed out, we’re discussing D&D and PF Beta here, right?

I’m a DM myself, even though I also happen to play in several D&D campaigns. In my own campaigns (and the DMs in some of the campaigns I play in) I like to use non-evil undead from time to time, just for variety’s sake, for plot-related reasons and to keep the players on their toes. Does it make me an idiot?

TomJohn wrote:


Really?
Well:
A) we're not talking 3.0 or 3.5 here. Where talking Paizos Beta and the new Paladin.
B) I wouldn't trust your playreport for the world. A person with a personal agenda is never to be trusted. If you go as far as to pull the old "fighter vs. rogue" ploy in a Paladin thread, you have proven to be a person with a personal agenda tied to something very different then having a beneficial discussion.

And Vult - Yes I do see it all over Paizo, Don't step on the fighters toes.

A personal agenda? I think not. And, as I wrote above, it’s actually relevant *and* surely beneficial to discuss the other classes on this thread, too. Not to mention the previous editions, because that’s where the Beta is rooted in, right? And how can you give any decent playtest feedback, unless you have a point of reference to 3.0 and 3.5 and how the rules/changes feel and play now, hmm?

[sarcasm]

(BTW, if you see “don’t step on the fighter’s toes” all over Paizo, doesn’t it perhaps imply that the majority of the posters don’t want to see the paladin “outshining” the fighter in melee? Or are they all simply “wrong”?)

[/sarcasm]


Regarding the Smite; what happened to the proposal that a Paladin get a +1 to hit and damage vs all evil per smite evil remaining continuous effect?
I kinda liked the simplicity of it. Was there something wrong with it?

Sovereign Court

Asgetrion wrote:
So here it comes.

Hey, let me know if I go too far in disagreeing with you, I know I get acerbic sometimes, but I do respect your opinion. I just disagree that the paladin is better than the fighter at the current power level. I am however biased by my personal experience and am focused on low level improvements that hopefully won't change the overall scope of the paladins power at high level.

That's really why I like the HA idea though, you have a choice of multiple rounds at lower damage thresholds or smite one round at higher damage thresholds but with no increase in your amount per day. That plus a bonus feat at first and every fifth level except 20th, and splitting channeling back into it's own pool at level -3 are all changes made with balance very much in mind.

So here is my question to you if the only changes made were to create the smite/Holy Attack, and the spelled out bonus feats (I can repost them for you to review if you don't want to scroll back and see them), make channeling it's own pool again at level-3, and make spellcasting level-3 instead of 1/2 caster level, do you see that as overpowered and if so why?

We honestly disagree to the power level of the paladin, that's fine, but we are concerned with balance and none of those changes are unbalanced or make the paladin better than the fighter, if you disagree tell me why.

Dark Archive

Vult Wrathblades wrote:
TomJohn wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Ehren37 wrote:
Stuff about the spell holy sword

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....

Thanx Vult. Spot on as usual.

Vult Wrathblades wrote:


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?"

Very funny and true

I still say, I thin the Paldin mainly need a boost between level 2 and 11.
Level 1 decent, level 13 decent.
Level 2 not decent, level 10 not decent.

Thank you...it is a shame that situations like that are true...the paladin should be shinning there, saving the party. But unfortunately he is doing what he will have to do most of the time....stand in the back or jump up there and just be in the way.

I wouldn't dare to say that to a paladin, mind you. Seriously, the paladin *does* have good AC, BAB and HPs even without smite. My group's Beta paladin can dish out nearly as much damage as the fighter without any boosts -- the real differences begin to show after 8th level, and even then the paladin is no "wallflower" in combat.

And, at higher levels (10+), IMO the paladin really shines whenever he's hit with a spell or spell-like ability. You seem to think it's a minor advantage, but I wonder how many 10+ level campaigns you've played in, because I've skipped a lot of sessions as a player when my character was zapped with a Save-or-Die effect. The very existence and the lethality of these effects emphasizes the importance of saving throws in the current rules -- if they were to be "downplayed" or removed (e.g. in the similar style that 4E uses the "Save Ends"-mechanic), *then* it would indeed affect the game balance, and reduce the paladin's overall effectiveness. Now often too much is at stake on a single roll -- and if you're not lucky, you might end up reading comic books or playing the computer for the rest of the session, or even skip the next one. I don't know about you, but in my group this happens all too often -- virtually during every session in one of the high-level campaigns the player of the figher or the rogue or the barbarian ends up being stunned, mind-controlled or dead for hours (in real time).

Sovereign Court

Asgetrion wrote:


I wouldn't dare to say that to a paladin, mind you. Seriously, the paladin *does* have good AC, BAB and HPs even without smite. My group's Beta paladin can dish out nearly as much damage as the fighter without any boosts -- the real differences begin to show after 8th level, and even then the paladin is no "wallflower" in combat.

And, at higher levels (10+), IMO the paladin really shines whenever he's hit with a spell or spell-like ability. You seem to think it's a minor advantage, but I wonder how many 10+ level campaigns you've played in, because I've skipped a lot of sessions as a player when my character was zapped with a Save-or-Die effect. The very existence and the lethality of these effects emphasizes the importance of saving throws in the current rules -- if they were...

No you are right, high saves are good. but at first level you don't have those high saves, at first level everything you can do two other classes do better. Then second hits, and second is a good level now. Lay on Hands for the first time in the paladins history is good for more than a one round boost, and that is a huge change that does give the class staying power. The saves are also good, no one denies that. But saves alone don't make a class, and neither does being an average healer. Look at the cleric, he's a great healer, and after buffing a great combatant and people still don't take him that often.

Level two and five right now makes paladin play till level 8 the only thing that makes it enjoyable, channeling, too expensive to use. I've even followed thread where they like the paladin, but I haven't seen a single thread where paladins are really using channeling. Because the cleric does it and it doesn't cost them anything. I have yet to see a thread where a paladin player is using channeling unless the cleric has burned through his. Spellcasting for the paladin is seriously a joke. I mean you have to wait till level 12-16 to get what other players are getting at level 6. and if you do get it all on and don't get them dispelled then I bet without looking at your character sheet I can tell you what spells you've cast.

And even when you are getting the paladin up and running, in order to really shine in a fight you have to burn all your resources and then you fall into the 15-minute work day area that every other class has gotten past.

But seriously a paladin isn't fun. Let me repeat that, isn't fun, except in roleplay, which is independant from stats, till level 8. Mechanically the class just isn't fun. You say fun is one of your designs for balance. Well I'm telling you then you have to accept some boosts at the low levels. Seriously, I have played a wizard and a commoner at level 1-5 and had a blast, I played the paladin and I begged to level up. I am a huge roleplayer, and I love the roleplay but when it comes to the paladin the mechanics don't start = the roleplay until level 8+

Here is a question you've come down on a lot of things on the against side, but I can't remember if there has been a single change you've said was good. Has there been? If so what was it. Please don't think this is me being snide or sarcastic, I'm not, this has just gotten to epic lengths as a thread and my memory isn't that great.

Sovereign Court

Camris wrote:

Regarding the Smite; what happened to the proposal that a Paladin get a +1 to hit and damage vs all evil per smite evil remaining continuous effect?

I kinda liked the simplicity of it. Was there something wrong with it?

I liked it too, but half of the people didn't seem too. especially with the current version of smite there were people saying they would never use smite because a +1 all the time was better, and frankly unless smite is improved or I'm fighting undead/demons that I know for a fact have DR I agree.

Sovereign Court

Asgetrion wrote:


I wouldn't dare to say that to a paladin, mind you. Seriously, the paladin *does* have good AC, BAB and HPs even without smite. My group's Beta paladin can dish out nearly as much damage as the fighter without any boosts -- the real differences begin to show after 8th level, and even then the paladin is no "wallflower" in combat.

I do agree that the differences begin to show after 8th level, I just think it's wrong to play a class that is unfun at low level because once I hit 8th I'll be better. What level is the paladin in your campaign?

In fact in my original paladin thread I openly stated that after level 10 the paladin is a decent class. now that bar has been lowered to level 8. I'll even argue that the class starts being fun around 5th even though a fighter two levels lower is consistently out damaging me, I don't have fear like he does that I'll wind up blinded for half of combat. I still think the paladin needs his class features other than LoH and saves to not suck until level 8


Camris wrote:

Regarding the Smite; what happened to the proposal that a Paladin get a +1 to hit and damage vs all evil per smite evil remaining continuous effect?

I kinda liked the simplicity of it. Was there something wrong with it?

I think what you are talking about is something I suggested. I really liked that Idea, it got mixed comments though. I am glad to hear you liked it...I thought it was original and reasonable.


lastknightleft wrote:
Camris wrote:

Regarding the Smite; what happened to the proposal that a Paladin get a +1 to hit and damage vs all evil per smite evil remaining continuous effect?

I kinda liked the simplicity of it. Was there something wrong with it?
I liked it too, but half of the people didn't seem too. especially with the current version of smite there were people saying they would never use smite because a +1 all the time was better, and frankly unless smite is improved or I'm fighting undead/demons that I know for a fact have DR I agree.

You know, that really just serves to prove the point. Smite is not as good as a +1 all the time? Really? I think this basically sums it all up, the current version of smite is to weak if people would not use it if you only had to give up a +1 to do it...that says it all for me. I propose this, if we can not use a mechanic like that.

1st. Make Smite Evil +1D6 per 2 levels vs everything (evil of course)...other than that leave it as Jason B. suggested.

2nd. We choose ONE Of these options to use...

a. The bonus of +1 to hit and damage for every remaining smite...
b. +Charisma to hit and half paladin level to damage all the time...
c. Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

Thoughts?


Asgetrion wrote:
And, at higher levels (10+), IMO the paladin really shines whenever he's hit with a spell or spell-like ability. You seem to think it's a minor advantage, but I wonder how many 10+ level campaigns you've played in, because I've skipped a lot of sessions as a player when my character was zapped with a Save-or-Die effect. The very existence and the lethality of these effects emphasizes the importance of saving throws in the current rules -- if they were to be "downplayed" or removed (e.g. in the similar style that 4E uses the "Save Ends"-mechanic), *then* it would indeed affect the game balance, and reduce the paladin's overall effectiveness. Now often too much is at stake on a single roll -- and if you're not lucky, you might end up reading comic books or playing the computer for the rest of the session, or even skip the next one. I don't know about you, but in my group this happens all too often -- virtually during every session in one of the high-level campaigns the player of the figher or the rogue or the barbarian ends up being stunned, mind-controlled or dead for hours (in real time).

You are really starting to sound like my DM. He runs a good game that I am very involved in...but there is a weakness there because he seems to be trying to teach us a lesson all the time instead of just letting us play and explore his game.

That said, you have a point. No I have not played a Character past lvl 10...but I bet MOST people have not played that far. The majority of games (this statement comes from over 15 years of RPing different systems) happens within the first five levels...MOST games never see anything past that. So as LKL has been saying, we really need to fix this area.

I have not played past level 10 but I can add numbers just like everyone else. Being able to *do* something in combat is what is fun. Standing there waiting to make a saving throw...while very important...just sucks as the defining ability to a class. At some point it is going to come down for most every class that you only fail on a 1. Then does the paladin even shine there anymore? Nope, still fails 5%, no matter HOW big his save is.

I have been snarky and sarcastic with you in the past, but I do understand you are here to help the paladin, otherwise you would not take the time. I just hope that you realize that there IS a problem. I hope that you do not disagree that the paladins place to shine should be when fighting evil. My problem is that to "fight" that evil he needs to be able to *DO* something against it...not just make saving throws. Currently nearly every class can *do* more than the paladin to actually stop that evil. This is a problem and what we need to focus on.

I really think we are doing some good work here but we have to stay on task. The bickering needs to stop...we need to work on saving the paladin.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know...I really like this one. At later levels we could even allow the paladin to bestow this bonus on a companion...or make that a feat.

We could allow it to become an aura, something like everything within 5 feet gains the bonus...but the paladin takes a -5 penalty to the bonuses he can manipulate because of the area of effect (IE. if he is lvl 7 and he wanted to effect a 5 foot area he would thus only have 2 points he could use to boost to hit, damage or AC), then even out to 10 feet with a -10 modifier.

This fills Robert's problems of "to hit"...it gives the paladin a boost where he needs it when fighting evil....If he needs to be more accurate he can be. If he really needs to dish out some hurt, he can...if he needs to stand firm like a bulwark against evil, he can do that too.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Sovereign Court

Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know...I really like this one. At later levels we could even allow the paladin to bestow this bonus on a companion...or make that a feat.

We could allow it to become an aura, something like everything within 5 feet gains the bonus...but the paladin takes a -5 penalty to the bonuses he can manipulate because of the area of effect (IE. if he is lvl 7 and he wanted to effect a 5 foot area he would thus only have 2 points he could use to boost to hit, damage or AC), then even out to 10 feet with a -10 modifier.

This fills Robert's problems of "to hit"...it gives the paladin a boost where he needs it when fighting evil....If he needs to be more accurate he can be. If he really needs to dish out some hurt, he can...if he needs to stand firm like a bulwark against evil, he can do that too.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Is this a permanent thing or does it have a limited duration?


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know...I really like this one. At later levels we could even allow the paladin to bestow this bonus on a companion...or make that a feat.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Interesting idea this one. It gives the paladin a lot of flexibility. That said, it affects other things, like feats. Power Attack and Combat Expertise are in some ways much less useful, apart from being a prerequisite to allow other feats. In fact, with this ability and Power Attack paladins could become two-handed weapon monsters - a level 4/Str 18 paladin with a greatsword could in theory have a +8 to damage, and have no to-hit penalty by applying this new +4 bonus to his melee attack roll, negating the -4 for Power Attack.

The reason why I posted about splitting the current Smite Evil mechanic is that it's already there in the SRD, albeit woefully underpowered. The fact that it is so underpowered makes it, or some of it, more suited to be an 'always on' style ability.

I think there is worth in looking at splitting out Smite Evil into two abilities, the 'divine blow' part with maybe a DR avoiding/good aligned/staggering type effect, and the paladin level damage part as an ongoing effect against evil. Maybe the paladin doesn't even have to Detect Evil for the ongoing damage to be applied against evil foes, as the GM will know if the creature is evil, even if the paladin doesn't.

The advantage of doing this is, I think, mainly backwards compatibility. Feats like Silver Smite from the Eberron setting and Ranged Smite from BoED still track. Extra Smiting from Complete Warrior still works fine. The Grey Guard class's Smite Evil damage, which stacks with the paladin, can still track with little changes, applying instead to the ongoing damage.

Although it may sound like heresy, if a level 1 paladin gets a boost to damage against all evil foes, even if only a single point, does this compensate for only one Smite per day at first level?

Chobbly


Asgetrion wrote:

Sfuff

OK, fair enough. I apologize for the remarks made at you that where rude and unjustefied.

My agenda is not to make the Paldin a superhero, and if you've read my posts you would have notice a lot of the time I do not agree with Vult, LKL and others. I have again and again claimed the 'rewrite' of the Paldin suggested in this thread is going to make the Paldin overpowered.

I still say, There is a campaign all over the threads aiming to make the fighter better and crippeling others and I'm fed up. Your "fighter vs the rogue" in this thread suggested to me you're one of those people. If yoy're not - I apologize again, but the remark stands. If you want to debate "fighter vs. rogue" pick another thread.

Asgetrion wrote:


"Actually, it’s ‘Dungeon Master’, or DM for short. Now, there are plenty of RPGs which have GMs, but as you’ve pointed out, we’re discussing D&D and PF Beta here, right?"

I wrote GM insted of DM - I made a mistake.

Is "but as you’ve pointed out, we’re discussing D&D and PF Beta here, right?" supposed to be a taunting remark? Because I do know we are discussing D&D and PF Beta here and so do you. So If you want to make fun out of me be more clear since my english isn't to good.
I have always use DM, but I've seen GM used again and again so I thoght this is an american term. You may continue to pick on my bad english as long as you tell me how it's supposed to be.
So what is GM?

Asgetrion wrote:


Not to mention the previous editions, because that’s where the Beta is rooted in, right? And how can you give any decent playtest feedback, unless you have a point of reference to 3.0 and 3.5 and how the rules/changes feel and play now, hmm?

You have a point, and yet I would say your wrong.

The fighter in 3.0 and 3.5 didn't have Weapon traing and Armor traing and Bravery and all the new cool feats. At lvl 20 they could only have 11 ranks in a cross class skill. skills like:
perception - great all the time, especially vs rogues and assasins..and others.
Sence motiv: great sicial skill and great when someone rogue or assassin or others try to feint you in battle.
Acrobatics, etc, etc.
All these skills now are: 1 level = 1 rank.
This is a change to all classes.
Have you any idea how hard it is now for the DM to make the assassin sneak up behind the fighter (or any class) and make a sneak attack if you max your perception.
So I don't really think it is relevant to talk about any class and compare the Beta to 3.0 or 3.5. Also I don't se the point in bringing in other feats than from the core rule book, feats like divine might or stuff from Forgotten Realms

Asgetrion wrote:


You can do pretty well without investing in both of them [dex and con} – for example, you could have a very effective elven melee build without a high CON. Personally, I think DEX is the “better” investment of the two, because it often plays a greater role in combat (i.e. because it affects your Initiative and AC)

Yes, true. But you do better if you investing in both of them.

You can do pretty well as a fighter without investing in str. Just 13 in str, 13 in dex and 13 int so you can pick all the feats and the rest to charisma, You can do pretty well but is that enough?

Asgetrion wrote:


And, let’s not forget that in a less combat-heavy campaign, INT, WIS and CHA may be much more relevant abilities than DEX and CON

Yes. True. And I have not said otherwise. That's why I made the remark about Powergaming.

But D&D is about roleplaying and fights. And the Paladin, Fighter and Barabarian (and some times celric) are the tanks. So they still need str, dex and con. And all other classes need dex and con. That don't make all classes MAD classes.
Asgetrion wrote:


but I wonder how many 10+ level campaigns you've played in

I've been doing it (and playing lower levels) since march 2005. Is that good enough? We've been been playing many campaigns at the sime time.

I'm currently plaing:
- Pladin/cleric/divine agent - level 17
- Wizard - level 16
- Holy Warrior of rontra - level 16 (I play hjimn sometimes - a NPS we bring along)
- Cleric level 7
- Rogue - level 4
- Fighter/rogue/Dervish - level 8
And I have been playing other classes as well, like fighter/bard and ranger/barbarian. - I like to multiclass :-) I started about ten years ago. The first 6 years it was lower levels 1 to 9. We played first ed until 3.0 came and changed to 3.5 when it came. We now play 3.5 and the Beta. Any other question? :-)

Asgetrion wrote:


I've skipped a lot of sessions as a player when my character was zapped with a Save-or-Die effect.

I do agree, high level games are not as fun. But Save-or-Die effect are no problem with good planing, that is good team play. You need to invest i scrolls and have a smart player playing the cleric. Or at least a smart player helping the player who play the cleric.

Death ward - very nice spell (not as good in the beta but OK as 3.5).
Holy Aura - very nice spell
Mind blank - nice spell (not as good in the beta as 3.5 but OK).
...Save-or-Die effect are usually fortitude saves. Clerics, and all the tanks have good fort. saves don't they? And if you invest in good cloaks and boost your con. with magic items your home free.

Asgetrion wrote:


(BTW, if you see “don’t step on the fighter’s toes” all over Paizo, doesn’t it perhaps imply that the majority of the posters don’t want to see the paladin “outshining” the fighter in melee? Or are they all simply “wrong”?)

The majority are always right? Well The majority of all players don't even post.

the so called majority seems not only to ne worried about the Paldin “outshining” the fighter, the worry about the druid, the clerc, the wizard, and the rogue “outshining” the fighter.
Do I think the are wrong. ....Yes I do.
The majority argument suck. So you are wrong just because The majority on this thread don't agree with you?

Asgetrion wrote:


[/sarcasm]

Once again. I'm sorry for my rude and crude remarks. Good thing you pointed that out to me, but two wrong don't equal one right. If you like me to be civil, show me how it's done. It's the best way.

Asgetrion wrote:


the paladin *does* have good AC

Compared to the barbarian - yes

Compared to the fighter - no

What is ‘CoDzillas’?

And last.
non-evil undead are supposed to be an exception. If you and other DM:s what to change that. Go ahead. Claiming it's not the exception, well that's something different.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
especially with the current version of smite there were people saying they would never use smite because a +1 all the time was better, and frankly unless smite is improved or I'm fighting undead/demons that I know for a fact have DR I agree.

You know, that really just serves to prove the point. Smite is not as good as a +1 all the time? Really? I think this basically sums it all up

Vult, I gotta hand it to you, you found a clever way to make your point :-) The math is interesting: How many smites does it take to equal +1 all the time? If you swapped that many smites on the paladin's level progression table, the always-on bonus would look a little anemic.


lastknightleft wrote:

[...]

Here is a question you've [Asgetrion] come down on a lot of things on the against side, but I can't remember if there has been a single change you've said was good. Has there been? If so what was it. Please don't think this is me being snide or sarcastic, I'm not, this has just gotten to epic lengths as a thread and my memory isn't that great.

good point LKL

Asgetrion wrote:

your [posts] pretty much implies that you feel passionately about the paladin, i.e. you seem to have a ‘personal agenda’, so let me quote you: “a person with a personal agenda is never to be trusted.” So why should *I* take your suggestions and opinions seriously

We all have a personal agenda. But some agendas are hidden, mine has never been hidden. I want the Paldin at lover level to get a boost and I want the Paldain to get a boost to it's spell casting.

What I implied (wrongfully it seems) was that you had a hidden agenda.


lastknightleft wrote:

[...]

Here is a question you've [Asgetrion] come down on a lot of things on the against side, but I can't remember if there has been a single change you've said was good. Has there been? If so what was it. Please don't think this is me being snide or sarcastic, I'm not, this has just gotten to epic lengths as a thread and my memory isn't that great.

good point LKL

Asgetrion wrote:


I was talking about how to make the paladin (and other “melee” classes) feel “better” without losing any game balance

Where are your posts about how to make the Paladin feel better? - No Ironi or sarkasm from my part.

Asgetrion wrote:

your [posts] pretty much implies that you feel passionately about the paladin, i.e. you seem to have a ‘personal agenda’, so let me quote you: “a person with a personal agenda is never to be trusted.” So why should *I* take your suggestions and opinions seriously

We all have a personal agenda. But some agendas are hidden, mine has never been hidden. I want the Paldin at lover level to get a boost and I want the Paldain to get a boost to it's spell casting.

What I implied (wrongfully it seems) was that you had a hidden agenda.


minkscooter wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
especially with the current version of smite there were people saying they would never use smite because a +1 all the time was better, and frankly unless smite is improved or I'm fighting undead/demons that I know for a fact have DR I agree.

You know, that really just serves to prove the point. Smite is not as good as a +1 all the time? Really? I think this basically sums it all up

Vult, I gotta hand it to you, you found a clever way to make your point :-) The math is interesting: How many smites does it take to equal +1 all the time? If you swapped that many smites on the paladin's level progression table, the always-on bonus would look a little anemic.

Thanks...it just seems painfully obvious to me. I think we need something "always on" because as we have already seen, 1 smite does not = 1 always on. This is a glaring weakness, it needs to be addressed. We have been trying to do it though we keep getting so much resistance.

Personally I would just make smite at will and call it a day...but we KNOW that is not going to happen.

So what about one of the other always on abilities. I personally like either,

1. a +1 to hit and damage for every remaining smite (possibly to AC too!) all the time.

2. Charisma mod to hit all the time, and paladin level to damage (or half paladin level to damage) all the time.

3. Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

Any of those would suffice to basically solve this issue for me. I personally think option 1 is the most realistic choice. 3 is probably my favorite if I can not just have smite at will. And of course, none of these should happen at lvl 1. Probably somewhere between 2 and 5.

But the point is the same.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Marty1000 wrote:

I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

However, I would propose that the "always on power" be a completely separate ability from smite evil.

When the paladin encounters evil enemies (and i would also argue CN enemies) that he gets his "quickening" ala highlander. The paladin goes the turbo kicks in as he battles his evil foes. This is the "always on" power. When he meets up with BBEG, or triple Ds, or evil undead, or slaadi (i hate those toads!), he hits the nitrous oxide boost which of course is his smite evil. A limited duration, big impact ability with limited number of uses per day. Major damage to the EVIL dudes.

Now you are back to the Lightbringer or Divine Might (Wrath) ideas that Robert Brambley and I proposed at the very beginning of this debate.

I could totally get on board with either of those as separate concepts from Smite. However it is done, the paladin needs something that ALWAYS works against evil.

Hi guys,

I've read every post in this thread. Sorry that I didn't refer to the always on ability by one of its "names". Vult brought up "always on" in response to my post about smite as proposed by JB at the start of this thread. I merely replied with how always on works "in concept" compared to "smite" and that I think it should be kept as a completely separate ability. I don't like the idea of tying "light bringer" or "divine might" or "hoochie power" to the number of smites remaining in a day as previously suggested by Vult. It was an oversight on my part to not make that clear in my post in hindsight. "Always On" is either "on" or it's not "Always On"

So "Yay" to bumped up smite evil (1d6 per level) but so far it isn't bumped up enough.

And a "yay" to an always on paladin combat power vs. evil opponents. Just tie it to paladin level and not cha bonus.

Melee only for both. As for ranged smite, there is a feat to pay for that capability in one of the "splat books" (books that i tend to not use since there are too many of them to keep track of as a DM).


Marty1000 wrote:

Hi guys,

I've read every post in this thread. Sorry that I didn't refer to the always on ability by one of its "names". Vult brought up "always on" in response to my post about smite as proposed by JB at the start of this thread. I merely replied with how always on works "in concept" compared to "smite" and that I think it should be kept as a completely separate ability. I don't like the idea of tying "light bringer" or "divine might" or "hoochie power" to the number of smites remaining in a day as previously suggested by Vult. It was an oversight on my part to not make that clear in my post in hindsight. "Always On" is either "on" or it's not "Always On"

So "Yay" to bumped up smite evil (1d6 per level) but so far it isn't bumped up enough.

And a "yay" to an always on paladin combat power vs. evil opponents. Just tie it to paladin level and not cha bonus.

Melee only for both. As for ranged smite, there is a feat to pay for that capability in one of the "splat books" (books that i tend to not use since there are too many of them to keep track of as a DM).

We dont use splat books either...so it is really important to me to get it right in the core.

So you dont like the +1 bonus for every remaining smite...okay.

What about,

3. Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

I think that one is pretty good. I like how it allows you to manipulate your divine power where the paladin may need it most. This would of course be a completely separate ability from smite.


3. Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know, with this one we could even say that no bonus to hit/damage or AC could be greater than Char mod.

So for example, a 10th lvl paladin with only an 18 Char (I know it will probably be higher then) would only be able to add +4 to two, and +2 to another, or a 4 and two 3's...however.

Though I really dont want to tie it into Charisma, this would be some limitation that will probably never allow the paladin to add it all to one category if he reaches lvl 20.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:


3. Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know, with this one we could even say that no bonus to hit/damage or AC could be greater than Char mod.

So for example, a 10th lvl paladin with only an 18 Char (I know it will probably be higher then) would only be able to add +4 to two, and +2 to another, or a 4 and two 3's...however.

Though I really dont want to tie it into Charisma, this would be some limitation that will probably never allow the paladin to add it all to one category if he reaches lvl 20.

This is the one I like the best. It's flexible and supports a defensive option, which feels right for a paladin. I like the idea of limiting the bonus to any one aspect by Charisma modifier. I would make it 1 + Cha mod for the hypothetical case of a paladin who decides to nerf Charisma, and to allow a higher maximum bonus to any one aspect. I would just like to see this ability tied to some kind of restriction, for example it is only in effect while the paladin fights honorably (as defined by an explicit mechanic, for example one that denies the paladin a flanking bonus), or drops by one each time the paladin retreats, or something like that.

Sovereign Court

TomJohn wrote:
So I don't really think it is relevant to talk about any class and compare the Beta to 3.0 or 3.5. Also I don't se the point in bringing in other feats than from the core rule book, feats like divine might or stuff from Forgotten Realms

The point is that backwards compatability is a stated design goal. Therefor you have to bring up feats from non-core sources because if the discussion is just "core" then there is no such thing as backwards compatability, everything in "core" is automatically backwards compatable. Even if your DM only lets you play core only games, you have to consider all the potential splat books you're invalidating with design because otherwise you loose that backwards compatable goal.

It's annoying maybe, but that's why fighters and paladins are remaining 2+int skill points, and monks a partial BAB class. You can't say keep the discussion core. It just doesn't work with the stated design goal.

Sovereign Court

Vult Wrathblades wrote:


3. Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know, with this one we could even say that no bonus to hit/damage or AC could be greater than Char mod.

So for example, a 10th lvl paladin with only an 18 Char (I know it will probably be higher then) would only be able to add +4 to two, and +2 to another, or a 4 and two 3's...however.

Though I really dont want to tie it into Charisma, this would be some limitation that will probably never allow the paladin to add it all to one category if he reaches lvl 20.

I'm not liking it, seems inelegant. Honestly if the lousy demon/undead caveat was dropped from smite and that was just how it always worked that would be worth a +1 to me.

and honestly I think the big problem is that Jason made high level smites good without fixing the low level smite. So until you hit level 8 you just have to accept a weak class feature. Once level 8 hits things get better.

So here's an idea, what if smite gave you one extra attack in the round at your highest bonus? Then even at low levels you would have two chances to hit. That with the current version of smite would be worth a constant +1 to damage to me. Then you could drop the multiple round duration and just have the damage always be 1d6/2 paladin levels.


lastknightleft wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:


3. Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know, with this one we could even say that no bonus to hit/damage or AC could be greater than Char mod.

So for example, a 10th lvl paladin with only an 18 Char (I know it will probably be higher then) would only be able to add +4 to two, and +2 to another, or a 4 and two 3's...however.

Though I really dont want to tie it into Charisma, this would be some limitation that will probably never allow the paladin to add it all to one category if he reaches lvl 20.

I'm not liking it, seems inelegant.

You could avoid some dithering at the table by making the paladin decide how the bonuses will be distributed at the start of the initiative and sticking with it. Changing the distribution every round could result in confusion, because AC applies when it's not the paladin's turn.

lastknightleft wrote:


Honestly if the lousy demon/undead caveat was dropped from smite and that was just how it always worked that would be worth a +1 to me.

and honestly I think the big problem is that Jason made high level smites good without fixing the low level smite. So until you hit level 8 you just have to accept a weak class feature. Once level 8 hits things get better.

So here's an idea, what if smite gave you one extra attack in the round at your highest bonus? Then even at low levels you would have two chances to hit. That with the current version of smite would be worth a constant +1 to damage to me. Then you could drop the multiple round duration and just have the damage always be 1d6/2 paladin levels.

I really like the idea of upgrading smite without extending the duration beyond the round in which it's declared. Seems like a compromise that's closer to the original intention (a single hit) and there's no tracking or bookkeeping, as with the targets/day idea. An extra attack works for me, and I like how it helps at low level.

Would you drop the requirement that the target is evil?

EDIT: I still like the idea of another more or less always-on bonus that is independent of smite and stacks with it. For that I think Vult's idea is still appealing.

Sovereign Court

minkscooter wrote:


I really like the idea of upgrading smite without extending the duration beyond the round in which it's declared. Seems like a compromise

Thanks, that's what I was going for

minkscooter wrote:
Would you drop the requirement that the target is evil?

Oh goodness no, and I'm sorry for giving you that impression. No I think that's the defining element of a paladin that he smites evil. I just hate that that has changed to "the paladin smites demons/undead and inconveniences other evil"

minkscooter wrote:
I still like the idea of another more or less always-on bonus that is independent of smite and stacks with it. For that I think Vult's idea is still appealing.

Well my idea was that this could be combined with the +1 to hit and damage for each unused smite, and it would actually be worth loosing a +1 bonus for. I know you prefer it be independant of smite, but I really think the bonus feat tree we proposed was the best way to get the always on boost.

Liberty's Edge

Chobbly wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Each round, a paladin is able to add amounts equaling his paladin level to his to hit, his damage OR his AC when fighting evil. This bonus can be manipulated each round as the paladin desires. The bonus can be added all to one or divided amongst the three in any way.

You know...I really like this one. At later levels we could even allow the paladin to bestow this bonus on a companion...or make that a feat.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Interesting idea this one. It gives the paladin a lot of flexibility. That said, it affects other things, like feats. Power Attack and Combat Expertise are in some ways much less useful, apart from being a prerequisite to allow other feats. In fact, with this ability and Power Attack paladins could become two-handed weapon monsters - a level 4/Str 18 paladin with a greatsword could in theory have a +8 to damage, and have no to-hit penalty by applying this new +4 bonus to his melee attack roll, negating the -4 for Power Attack.

The reason why I posted about splitting the current Smite Evil mechanic is that it's already there in the SRD, albeit woefully underpowered. The fact that it is so underpowered makes it, or some of it, more suited to be an 'always on' style ability.

I think there is worth in looking at splitting out Smite Evil into two abilities, the 'divine blow' part with maybe a DR avoiding/good aligned/staggering type effect, and the paladin level damage part as an ongoing effect against evil. Maybe the paladin doesn't even have to Detect Evil for the ongoing damage to be applied against evil foes, as the GM will know if the creature is evil, even if the paladin doesn't.

The advantage of doing this is, I think, mainly backwards compatibility. Feats like Silver Smite from the Eberron setting and Ranged Smite from BoED still track. Extra Smiting from Complete Warrior still works fine. The Grey Guard class's Smite Evil damage, which stacks with the paladin, can still track with little changes,...

For the record; the abilities that some have spoken about (including myself) in the past such as "holy avenger" or "Divine Might" or whatever you want to call it - that allows for a "rage" like component lasting a few rounds providing bonues to AC, attacks and dmg vs evil opponents would be a seperate mechanic from Smite - but to prevent it getting used too often, it would drain from the same pool of uses as Smite Evil does - which does a single massive bang of attack bonuses and holy damage mirroring sneak attack (1d6/2paladin levels)

the only way for this to work fairly would be to provide a greater number of uses of smite each day; suggested was 1+cha at 1st level and increases by 1 every 3 levels after (broken out like the smite advancement is already listed.)

In such a case, a well-designed paladin at 7th level would have about 7 smites a day. In all three combats he can activate his "holy avenger" for about 5 rounds each gaining attack/AC/Dmg bonus vs his evil opponents, and 4 attacks that day (not rounds - but individual attack rolls) against a boss-guy, he can leave a whollopping of holy damage equal to what a rogue has been doing with every sneak attack.

Advance that to 13th level: probably 3 more smites gained by that point - so four combats you can HA for about 6 rounds each now (maybe a round or two short of the entire combat), and 6 attacks (again not 6 round of multiple attacks - 6 attack rolls) that day he can do holy damage equivalent of a rogues sneak attack that he has endless attacks at.

Now compare that to the Smite of extended rounds - that some people were concerned that it applies to too many attacks at 16th+ level (which most of us know that we spend so little time playing those levels that it's nearly irrelevant), I think that my suggestions above help to limit that power creep at 16th+ level - since the boom-smites are per attack - not for extended rounds including AoOs, and hasted attacks, or two-weapon fighting.....

The way that the smite is set up now, the most wicked smite-usage would be to somehow get a dex capable of two-weapon fighting and shield bash feats, and get that smite to affect both his weapon and his shield bashing.....

Other ideas for improving upon or making a different mechanic for smite - that I proposed was instead of a duration-based Holy Avenger mechanic that affects all (evil) opponents, but make it work more like a "holy challenge" which the paladin targets one specific enemy and his bonuses apply to THAT guy with every attack he makes - to illustrate the paladin's righteous efforts to remove one evil being from society.

Both such ideas IMO help create more offensive capability of the paladin, and use the same smite pool so as to not allow an unlimited amount (like sneak attack, or weapon training combined with feats like Greaster Weapon Focus and Specialization) - but more like Rage or Ki that must be managed - but enough of them that it doesn't play into the 15 min adventuring day.

The sad truth is the paladin just doesn't have enough capabilities to increase his attack capability. Some are present - but they provide issues of their own - time spent buffing, low caster levels, short duration, not a lot of oomph really. They don't get bonus feats - hell, even a rogue can take Weapon Focus as a bonus feat!!! They dont rage, rangers get feats to help allow them additional attacks, or excel in their fighting style, and of course the fighter and his weapon training and weapon feats simply hold the gold-standard for combat effectivenes.

The paladin has none of these things. Only a few smites a day (at this point). And thematically the paladin is suppose to be the guy you rely on to combat and take out some of the really big nasties.....the problem is those big nasties usually have big ACs, and as I have seen all too often, without a lot of time for buffing, the paladin just doesn't have the readily available resources to increase his attack bonuses compared to other combatants. in fact the cleric can spend the same amount of time buffing as the paladin and wind up far better in comparison. (of course all the while the buffing is going the bad guys are kicking butt, and the other warrior types (barbarian, fighter, ranger and even rogue) are dealing lots of damage with the ever ready, martial capabilities).

Others have said that the paladins forte' is that so many times they're the only ones that survived the save or die spells: true - I'll give you that. Except that if you still can't hit the bastard who's casting the spells, you're eventually going to roll a 1 against those saves, and eventually you'll join your friends who are all laying at your feet. Furthermore, since we are discussing Pathfinder, the Save or Dies have significantly been reduced in power - and simply do additional damage - not instantly kill - thus the barbarian and fighter now have better chances of surviving them based on the fact they'll typically have higher hit points. Sure the paladin may make his save and take less of that damage.....but that just means he'll be able to stand and heal the fighter and barbarian on his turn to make sure that they continue to kick butt with all their martial capability while the paladin once again waits to make a saving throw or heal the apparent real heroes.

Robert


TomJohn wrote:


Holy Sword:
"If this spell is cast on a magic weapon, the powers of the spell supersede any that the weapon normally has, rendering the normal enhancement bonus and powers of the weapon inoperative for the duration of the spell. This spell is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way. This spell does not work on artifacts. A masterwork weapon’s bonus to attack does not stack with an enhancement bonus to attack."

"use the divine bond to give it the appropriate bane (+2 to hit and damage, +2d6 damage) against the main enemy type"
A) divine bond don't have bane.
B) It's not clear if divine bond can be combined with the spell Holy sword but I doubt it. The intention of the spell is: Holy sword overrides all magical aspects. You can have a silver holy sword, or cold iron holy sword. But magically it's just a holy sword. But yes, I do think Jason should make it clear if divine bond can or can't be added to the holy sword spell.

With no bane on demand, it is more fair. I had missed that part.

Quote:


"3-4 is the generally accepted length in design discussions"
I've been playing D&D for 12 years, our GM has played it for more than 20 years, And so have most of our players. Our GM is also GM at some play by...

I've been playing for over 20 years myself, and have played 3rd edition extensively since release (converting to 3.5). I have seen one fight go 10 rounds (a solo bard against a naga that had special tunnels it could move through). The overwhelming majority of 3rd edition fights are 3-4 rounds. Increasing the number of rounds of combat was a stated design goal of 4th edition in order to combat this. Again, your players are terrible at dispatching enemies (and your DM seriously underplaying monster effectiveness), if 10 rounds is your accepted standard.


Marty1000 wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Marty1000 wrote:
some good stuff

I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

Of course you are. You and the other 10 year old paladin fanboys in the thread dont care about balance or good design.

Hell, I'll toss my vote for a holy damage meteor swarm usable as a swift action an unlimited number of times per day. Why not, since we've obviously drifted into bizarro world.

Adding your level to AC or damage? Why not! Paledins kil evils!1!

That anyone would even try and bring up the rogue's damage output shows how rediculously out of touch you are with balance. The rogue is a melee damage class. The paladin is a melee defense oriented class.


Marty1000 wrote:


I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

I'd actually rather see the (more or less) always-on power work irrespective of evil, and let smite be limited to supernatural and overwhelming evil.

Liberty's Edge

Ehren37 wrote:


Of course you are. You and the other 10 year old paladin fanboys in the thread dont care about balance or good design.

Hell, I'll toss my vote for a holy damage meteor swarm usable as a swift action an unlimited number of times per day. Why not, since we've obviously drifted into bizarro world.

Adding your level to AC or damage? Why not! Paledins kil evils!1!

That anyone would even try and bring up the rogue's damage output shows how rediculously out of touch you are with balance. The rogue is a melee damage class. The paladin is a melee defense oriented class.

10 year old? Perhaps. And yet, your posts are the most obnoxiously unhelpful hyperbole and rhetoric and the most immature example of comments that I've seen on here.

I dont know what makes you think it's acceptable to make such accusations and others that people are 'out of touch', opinionated judgement that players and DMs don't know what they're doing if their combats last longer than 4 rounds, as if your way is the only correct way to be done.

These elitist "my way is the only way" mentalities are not new, however, there are old reels of such footage in black and white in the 40s....but it's hard to understand as it's narrated in german.

You're neither funny, cute, nor entertaining; simply obnxious and immature.

I'll refrain from saying anything more - but suffice it to say that in order for you posts to ever be considered with any amount of sincerity, my suggestion would be for to learn a bit of common courtesy and respect with how you present your posts here.

Robert

Sovereign Court

Ehren37 wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:

I'm on board with the "always on attack power" vs evil for the paladin. I wanted to break down JBs smite as proposed at the start of this thread.

Of course you are. You and the other 10 year old paladin fanboys in the thread dont care about balance or good design.

Hell, I'll toss my vote for a holy damage meteor swarm usable as a swift action an unlimited number of times per day. Why not, since we've obviously drifted into bizarro world.

Adding your level to AC or damage? Why not! Paledins kil evils!1!

That anyone would even try and bring up the rogue's damage output shows how rediculously out of touch you are with balance. The rogue is a melee damage class. The paladin is a melee defense oriented class.

Hmmm, fanbois, gee well, not that that isn't immature but I think just about everyone at some point or another has come down against one of vults suggestions because we thought it was to unbalanced. Honestly Vult does throw too much power at the paladin because he sees the restrictions as == to the power. The thing is we all know that the paladin isn't going to get everything we suggest. We are however continuing to throw ideas out because the paladin does still need work. When it doesn't suck to slough through the first 6 levels to get to the fun at least I'll stop talking. but that hasn't happened yet. the only fixed paladin ability is lay on hands. What we aren't doing is coming in and insulting others without provocation.

Scarab Sages

Snorter wrote:

BE PURE

BE VIGILANT

BEHAVE

Matt Devney wrote:
I think you're mixing up a little torquemada from nemesis the warlock in there...

Florix Grabunde, Earthlet!

Your reading habits fill me with joy!

Award yourself the Squaxx dec Thargo, forthwith!


TomJohn wrote:

stuff

Ehren37 wrote:


Again, your players are terrible at dispatching enemies (and your DM seriously underplaying monster effectiveness), if 10 rounds is your accepted standard.

Now I don't get, but you may explain this to me.

If our DM (a really stupid person with a Ph.D) is seriously underplaying monster effectiveness then we would be able to be dispatch the monsters in 2 - 3 round, or am I wrong?
Ah, the solution. We, the players, are terrible at dispatching enemies.
So both the players and the DM are really stupid. Right?


Ehren37 wrote:

Of course you are. You and the other 10 year old paladin fanboys in the thread dont care about balance or good design.

Hell, I'll toss my vote for a holy damage meteor swarm usable as a swift action an unlimited number of times per day. Why not, since we've obviously drifted into bizarro world.

Adding your level to AC or damage? Why not! Paledins kil evils!1!

That anyone would even try and bring up the rogue's damage output shows how rediculously out of touch you are with balance. The rogue is a melee damage class. The paladin is a melee defense oriented class.

Less of this, please. You can disagree with someone without resorting to this sort of behavior.

751 to 800 of 1,070 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin / [Design Focus] Paladin Upgrade All Messageboards