[Design Focus] Paladin Upgrade


Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin

801 to 850 of 1,070 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

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.

Hmmm... thanks for contributing... absolutely nothing.

If you want to help then help. If you want to challenge the suggestions and ideas presented in this thread, or any other for that matter, then be constructive and back up what you have to say. Throwing mud around and exploding with exaggeration as you have says more about who the 10 year old probably is.

Your statement about the paladin being a "melee defense oriented class" should have the unsaid "so suck it up and live with it" added because that's what I think you mean. Well that statement flies in the face of the main sentiment of those posting in these paladin threads because, if I may speak in this instance for the majority of the paladin posters here, we are not happy with the "defense oriented paladin" and want offense put back in to the class that happens to be one of D&Ds iconic classes going back to AD&D, and a class that was seriously nerfed in 3/3.5/PF relative to the rest (excepting maybe bard).

800+ posts about the PF paladin speaks for the passion that exists for this class, and yes, these may be dominated by a smaller group of regular contributors. Does this make us "fanboyz"? well i don't see too many closed minded paladin advocates here saying "this is the way it must be or else!!!" The suggestions and debate here are pretty openminded... not the definition of fanboy last time i checked... but I am pretty certain I can tell who the paladin haters are.

So please prove you aren't just a hater and propose some constructive ideas to help the paladin that demonstrate the epitome of game balance and good design since I am so obviously ridiculously out of touch with them.

Happily awaiting your helpful ideas.


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.

Wow... I really like this. A lot. Solves the whole "offense or defense" thing, eliminates uses per day scrimping and saving and also the pain in the neck of tracking rounds of use left, it gives the poor guy something to do every round except just attack. My hat's off to you, Vult. I really hope they go with this, with the caveat that it should apply ONLY vs. evil (so if 1 10th level paladin puts +10 to AC, he gets +0 when attacked by a dire bear).


Kirth Gersen 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.
Wow... I really like this. A lot. Solves the whole "offense or defense" thing, eliminates uses per day scrimping and saving and also the pain in the neck of tracking rounds of use left, it gives the poor guy something to do every round except just attack. My hat's off to you, Vult. I really hope they go with this, with the caveat that it should apply ONLY vs. evil (so if 1 10th level paladin puts +10 to AC, he gets +0 when attacked by a dire bear).

Thank you for the positive response. Yes, definitely this should be only vs evil. That is supposed to be the paladins forte, that is where I want him to shine.

Though I am curious, do you really only dislike the idea of +1 per remaining smite because it would be hard to track? I really think the opposite, I think it could not be easier to track. You already know that your paladin has say...4 smites. So if I have 4 smites remaining for that day I have a +4, once I use one and only have 3 smites remaining I have +3 and so on.

I like this newer idea better, but I do still like the idea of +1 for each remaining smite, I think if that was used the bonus should be to hit, damage and AC...of course again, only VS. Evil.

Edit: Oh yea, and I think the added restriction that none of the bonuses you add to anything under this new idea could be greater than your Charisma...I know it is a small restriction but it is a restriction.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Though I am curious, do you really only dislike the idea of +1 per remaining smite because it would be hard to track?

Yes. You lost me at "per remaining." When I want to track daily resources, I play a wizard. Even then, if my caster level varied by uncast spells, I'd go nuts. Less is more. For the paladin, doubly so. And uses per day =/= fun when your whole schtick involves full attacking the bad guys!


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Just to reinterate:

Divine Bond can only add the following:
Straight Enhancement bonuses
Defending
Merciful
Flaming
Axiomatic
Holy
Disruption
Keen
Brillant Energy
Speed

That's all. The paladin isn't suddenly, "I beat the ranger becuase my weapon is always bane to what I want it."

Especially since he doesn't get that ability on Divine Bond, and also becuase at 5th-9th level he can only do this once per day.

We have suggested giving the paladin's bond ability bane, with the limitation of only undead or evil outsiders. I think this is a great choice that should be added. I also feel that the bond should last all day, you should have to do it in the morning and it should be there for the remainder of the day. If you role the dice and decide to add Bane - undead and get lucky enough to be up against some undead that day...good choice. But if not then that was a waste and you gained nothing from it.

As long as Divine Bond don't stack with the spell holy sword.


TomJohn you are worrying about nothing in this case:

"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."

bolded emphasis is mine, but quite clearly the spell already takes care of the issue you raise.

Not that your concern is misplaced, I do agree with you that they don't need to stack, just that we are safe on this one I believe.

About the only way to make it clearer would be to add a line, "this spell supercedes divine bond, and divine bond can not be activated while on a weapon that this spell is affecting."


Robert Brambley wrote:
TomJohn wrote:
McPoyo wrote:
So has anyone seriously proposed making the Smites a per encounter ability instead of a per day ability?

It will, be to powerful

I completely disagree. Once per encounter - one attack that you get a +5 or so to hit, and + paladin level to damage (lets say 8 at 8th level) is NOT going to break anything.

That being said - the "per encounter" is historically not part of D&D's design, until 4th edition [...] Robert

So how many "meaningful encounters" do you get per day? 1, 5 or 20?

Well, they may last for 3, 4, 8 or 16 rounds...or 300 rounds. We are now talking smite per encounters so rounds don't matter. That is we are talking "meaningful encounters". How many per day? I would say 2 or 3.
So at level 7 the 3 smites / day would equal an always on smite.

At level 10? If the encounters at level +10 lasts for 6 to 8 rounds the spell casters will be out of spells after 3 or 4 fights.
Now at level 10 a paladin get 4 smites per day. So, 3 - 4 fights and then go home and sleep. Obviously this equals an always on smite. With the feat "extra smite" it's definitely an always on effect.

And at level 13 it's 5 smites per day. At level 16 it's 6 smites per day. At what point is it broken, at what level is it an always on effect? We can argue but at some level - with or without extra smite feat - it will become an always on effect.

I do want the Paladin to get a boost, but to be honster a smite per encounter or a smite that last 1 round + char mod, well at higher level it will obviously have the same effect as an always on smite.

And Vult. Sorry, Paldin level to AC or Damage or Attack? It's to good. So a Level 20 paldin gets +5 to attack and +15 to AC. With his good saves and immunities and a godly AC The Paldin could just stand there and grind is foes back to oblivion while his/her party helps out.

but...

Robert Brambley wrote:


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

Yes, good point. So let's give the Paladin a boost to attack and some help at lower level without tippin the balance at later levels (Later level = 7, 8 or 9?).

And the the idea of +1 per remaining smite is to good. So at level 5 the paladin would get +2 to hit and +2 to damage as an always on effect. Why would he smite? It's like giving him weapon focus, greater wepon focus and weapon specialisation for free. But I think a +1 to attack per 2 remaining smite is a nice idea (minimum 1) or give the Paldin an always on moral bonus to attack. That won't be a problem at higher level since spell casters will cast heroism all the time (our party have always 2 bard wands with heroism, great for saves, attack and skill checks. Bard wands are cheaper).

But I like the idea of HA at level 2 and I like the divine bond to shield and i like and always on moral bonus to attack. Perhaps +1 at level 1 and +2 at level 5 etc. And a bonus that don't stack with smite so it won't brak at higher levels. Or just a constant bonus +1 moral that don't improve.

Once again - I'll try not write this again - Giving the Paldin a bonus feat and the rest of the good stuff at level one, is to good and promotes power dipping.
Level one is just level one. Not fun for the fighter, not fun for the paladin.
At level 1 the strength score of the fighter and Paldin will not differ that much.
15 or 16 to the paladin
16 or 17 to the fighter (17 or 18 to the barbarian). I don't see the fighter with a strength score of 18 (or 20) since the figher need +13 dex and +13 int for all the feats. Cause...fighter = feats.

what do the fighter get at level 1...a feat.
what do the Paldin get at level 1:
- smite (no god I know butv still),
- can use wands (can't aford wands yet, byt still),
- great social skills
- detect evil (don't need it when fighting rats or undead, but still),
- good will saves
.....now shall we really give the paldin a feat at level 1 as well?
.....now shall we really give the paldin HA at level 1 as well?

I agree with Robert. If the Paldin should get HA give it at level 2. Perhaps as a bonus feat.

If the Paldin is no fun at level one because you want one more feat, Maybe play fighter or multiclass.
If the Paldin is no fun at level one because you want a more flexible character. Talk to your DM and use the 20 point buy.

But the Paldin is a problem. Our tank player first played a Paldin. After two levels he gave up and created a fighter. Now he is happy. In think level 2 is the problematic level. Our player gave up after level 2. Give the Paldin something usefull at level 2 from a melee POV.

At level 2
Fighter gets a feat.
Ranger gets a Combat style feat
The Barbarian gets rage powers (a bit like a feat)
Rogue gets rogue talent (a feat)
Monk get Bonus feat
The Paldin gets .....good saves and can heal some. Just want a melee tank need, not.

Why not a choose a feat from stuff like: extra smite, HA, weapon focus or a feat he can pick even if he does not have the normal prerequisites, why not dodge or mobility or some divine feat.

Last: I like to see LOH and CE splitt. Why? The divine feats that are built on turn undead (it's not core but as LKL said, backwards compatability). Feats like: Divine shield, Divine Might, Divine Cleansing, Divine Vigor and Sacred Vengeance are all really nice feats.
So, I rather see a crappy CE in a separate pool than a good one that use the same pool as LOH.

/Zark AKA TomJohn


Abraham spalding wrote:

TomJohn you are worrying about nothing in this case:

"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.[...]"

bolded emphasis is mine, but quite clearly the spell already takes care of the issue you raise.

Not that your concern is misplaced, I do agree with you that they don't need to stack, just that we are safe on this one I believe.

About the only way to make it clearer would be to add a line, "this spell supercedes divine bond, and divine bond can not be activated while on a weapon that this spell is affecting."

I have posted the spell desciption on this thread and I do understand it. But

a) divine bond is not a spell.
b) I think you are right, I agree with you - read my post on prev. page. I just want Jason do clarify and do the ruling.
OK? :-) /Zark aka TonJohn


Ehren37 wrote:
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.

.... one more thing. I have never stated that 10 rounds is our accepted standard in our game. The standard might be 4 or 5 rounds.

I (and robert) have talked about meaningful encounters. And meaningful encounters at level 16 don't last 3 to 4 rounds. They last longer. The standard in our games might be 10 or 8 I'm not sure. I know our rogue has a haste wand cl 6. Sometimes he use it two times per fight sometimes one, sometimes not at all. Why do our games last that long? Your suggestion:
a) Our DM is realy incompetent (or stupid?).
b) We, the players, are really incompetent (or stupid?).

or my suggestion:

c) Our DM play the monsters to their full potential. The bosses just don't wait for the heroes unprepared. The bad guys use buff spells, or summon monster, etc. And when the rogue comes the moster see to it so the rogue can't flank them all the time, etc.
d) We, the players, have not focused on offensive qualities but more on defensive qualities. Not so much let's make this character a killing machine.....is that bad?
So the roge have som charisma and not so much str. Is that bad? Not powergaming "lets kill all with a big axe in the head" enough?

I'd say 3 rounds as an accepted standard in a meaningful encounter in a highlevel game proves the DM is seriously underplaying monster effectiveness.

/Zark aka TomJohn


Ehren37 wrote:

[...] since we've obviously drifted into bizarro world.

Whatever anyone says to you: "drifted into bizarro world" is very funny (I'm not ironic). And I even though I don't like your tone I agree with you on "Adding Palain level to AC or damage" suggestion from Vult is to much. ............but..........if the paladin is a melee defense oriented clas, why hasn't he armor traing or a natural armor bonus equal to char bonus or something. Especially since a Paladins dex usually suck. Hey, deflection bonus to AC when he smites...not great.

Sovereign Court

TomJohn, you keep saying that the paladin gets too much at first level so HA needs to be at second.

HA at second level makes no sense, you don't need an ability at second level, second level gives you the paladins two best abilities in the game in the current iteration for dipping purposes. People don't dip for paladin level one, they dip for paladin level 2, HA at level 2 doesn't discourage dipping at all because people were allready dipping for divine grace and it's something they were allready doing in 3.5 when the paladin was aweful. So how does having HA at level 2 not encourage dipping any more? And I need to point this out, the monk gets a bonus feat at first level, in fact a first level monk will have three feats (imp. unarmed strike, bonus feat, and class feat) no matter what race whereas the fighter will have two. I haven't seen people choosing the monk over the fighter, have you? And once again it's not a bonus feat like a fighters bonus feat, its either combat expertise or weapon focus. two of the weakest feats in the game.

The only way having HA wouldn't encourage dipping is to move it to third level and then we are right back in the same boat that a first level paladin sucks after he uses his one smite per day. Hell first level paladin sucks when smiting. But here's the thing, HA is meant to be an extended weaker version of smite, so it doesn't make a difference if you get it at level one because you allready got smite at level 1. they work off of the same pool, you don't have a pool of HA and a pool of Smite evil, which means that it's an either or scenario. You don't want a bonus feat, fine, but then there is no reason not to give a paladin HA at level 1.


lastknightleft wrote:
TomJohn, you keep saying that the paladin gets too much at first level so HA needs to be at second. [...] But here's the thing, HA is meant to be an extended weaker version of smite, so it doesn't make a difference if you get it at level one because you allready got smite at level 1. they work off of the same pool, you don't have a pool of HA and a pool of Smite evil, which means that it's an either or scenario. You don't want a bonus feat, fine, but then there is no reason not to give a paladin HA at level 1.

Hm, perhaps you're right. You do have a good point about the HA. I will think about this. Thanx for a constructive respons :-)

Hey, LKL or anyone. What is ‘CoDzillas? / Zark aka TomJohn

Sovereign Court

Zark wrote:


what do the fighter get at level 1...a feat.
what do the Paldin get at level 1:
- smite (no god I know butv still),
- can use wands (can't aford wands yet, byt still),
- great social skills
- detect evil (don't need it when fighting rats or undead, but still),
- good will saves
.....now shall we really give the paldin a feat at level 1 as well?
.....now shall we really give the paldin HA at level 1 as well?

This is a terrible misrepresentation of the fighter. You use skills as an argument for the paladin, the fighter has the exact same # of class skills. so for your great social skills, the fighter has great physical skills

So what does the fighter get at first level

A feat
Tower Shield proficiency for free and since this is the only class that gets this it can actually be looked at as a second feat.
a great set of physical skills
a lot more customizability
All of which are all useful right away and all the time

A paladin gets
Smite, no good, unless fighting demons/undead till level 6 and once per day
Detect Evil, no good till level 4
Can use wands (although I don't know about this I thought you actually had to have the ability to cast spells to have a spell list which would mean that you wait till level 4)
a great set of social skills, but not better than the fighters set of skills.
Good will save.

I've bolded the two things that the paladin has that are actually useful at first level when choosing the paladin that the fighter doesn't get. Now for dipping purposes at higher levels detect becomes more useful, smite doesn't however. but you could also dip cleric instead and get detect evil, the same saves, the same armour proficiencies, pretty much the same skills. Not to mention every ability you get is useful right away and more powerful.

Dipping is a power gamers argument, roleplayers aren't the ones who dip, they'll take a level of commoner because it fits the character. So when discussing dipping you have to look at what you are getting for it. Now if someone who was allready lawful good wanted to dip for full BAB and the weapon proficiency suite, has a good charisma and they didn't mind getting stuck with a code of conduct, then yes they might dip paladin instead of fighter. But that is a lot of ifs to argue against giving someone an extra ability at first level.

Sovereign Court

Zark wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
TomJohn, you keep saying that the paladin gets too much at first level so HA needs to be at second. [...] But here's the thing, HA is meant to be an extended weaker version of smite, so it doesn't make a difference if you get it at level one because you allready got smite at level 1. they work off of the same pool, you don't have a pool of HA and a pool of Smite evil, which means that it's an either or scenario. You don't want a bonus feat, fine, but then there is no reason not to give a paladin HA at level 1.

Hm, perhaps you're right. You do have a good point about the HA. I will think about this. Thanx for a constructive respons :-)

Hey, LKL or anyone. What is ‘CoDzillas? / Zark aka TomJohn

CoDzilla is a refrence to Cleric or Druid zilla, basically from a powergamers perspective the two strongest classes in D&D 3.5 are cleric or druid. This was because they were full spellcasters with full armor (or in the druids case wild shape and natural spell) who were equally capable of mixing it up in melee or hanging back and blasting with spells. They had the most going for them in terms of versatility and power, and thus the expression became CoDzilla, king of D&D like Godzilla, king of monsters.

Sovereign Court

and naturally halfway into writing a post you allready concede the point meaning I wasted my breath with the second post ;)


Zark wrote:


And the the idea of +1 per remaining smite is to good. So at level 5 the paladin would get +2 to hit and +2 to damage as an always on effect. Why would he smite? It's like giving him weapon focus, greater wepon focus and weapon specialisation for free. But I think a +1 to attack per 2 remaining smite is a nice idea (minimum 1) or give the Paldin an always on moral bonus to attack. That won't be a problem at higher level since spell casters will cast heroism all the time (our party have always 2 bard wands with heroism, great for saves, attack and skill checks. Bard wands are cheaper).

I am sorry, here again I think you have just proved my point. If the paladin can have an "alway active bonus" that gets lowered when he smites...why would he smite? So true, that is because smite is to weak, smite does not = even a +1 (as was said by LKL) so how is it even remotely equal?

I will concede, the paladin level to hit/damage/AC could be to much, if I did not add the idea of Charisma as a limit to each. Ok, even then, you can argue that one...fine ill concede again.

But this suggestion of a +1 for every remaining smite is not to much. I feel this idea has balance and fairness at its core. So on the best of days the paladin could have a +7 to hit and damage (I would suggest AC as well) when fighting evil. By that time the fighter (who probably has better str, and AC) is at an always on bonus of +6 to hit and +8 to damage against everything, all the time. So Obviously we have not stepped on his toes here.

This concept gives the player the choice. Do I keep my +3 to hit/damage/AC or do I nail that BBEG with a good smite! If smite was actually worth hitting with (and it is getting closer) then yes I believe people would be OK with loosing that +1 so that they can really lay the hammer down.

Possibly with this idea we would want to manipulate smite a little. Maybe as Jason N. proposed a while ago it could be something that you do AFTER a successful hit. Though I would say you would want it to be 1D6 per paladin level damage to any evil. I think this would even the field for the paladin's offensive gimpyness.


lastknightleft wrote:
Zark wrote:


what do the fighter get at level 1...a feat.
what do the Paldin get at level 1:
- smite (no god I know butv still),
- can use wands (can't aford wands yet, byt still),
- great social skills
- detect evil (don't need it when fighting rats or undead, but still),
- good will saves
.....now shall we really give the paldin a feat at level 1 as well?
.....now shall we really give the paldin HA at level 1 as well?

This is a terrible misrepresentation of the fighter. You use skills as an argument for the paladin, the fighter has the exact same # of class skills. so for your great social skills, the fighter has great physical skills

So what does the fighter get at first level

A feat
Tower Shield proficiency for free and since this is the only class that gets this it can actually be looked at as a second feat.
a great set of physical skills
a lot more customizability
All of which are all useful right away and all the time

A paladin gets
Smite, no good, unless fighting demons/undead till level 6 and once per day
Detect Evil, no good till level 4
Can use wands (although I don't know about this I thought you actually had to have the ability to cast spells to have a spell list which would mean that you wait till level 4)
a great set of social skills, but not better than the fighters set of skills.
Good will save.

I've bolded the two things that the paladin has that are actually useful at first level when choosing the paladin that the fighter doesn't get. Now for dipping purposes at higher levels detect becomes more useful, smite doesn't however. but you could also dip cleric instead and get detect evil, the same saves, the same armour proficiencies, pretty much the same skills. Not to mention every ability you get is useful right away and more powerful.

Dipping is a power gamers argument, roleplayers aren't the ones who dip, they'll take a level of commoner because it fits the character. So when discussing dipping you have to look at what you are getting for it. Now if someone who was allready lawful good wanted to dip for full BAB and the weapon proficiency suite, has a good charisma and they didn't mind getting stuck with a code of conduct, then yes they might dip paladin instead of fighter. But that is a lot of ifs to argue against giving someone an extra ability at first level.

Guys..you both forgot two other things the paladin also gets at first level.

Lawful good alignment restriction
Code of Conduct

Everyone seems to forget that. But it is part of the class for a reason. I know I talk about them as restrictions, but for the way I RP that is fun for me. But when we talk about "balance" you can not forget those are there, and they are not just there to discourage level dipping.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
I will concede, the paladin level to hit/damage/AC could be too much, if I did not add the idea of Charisma as a limit to each. Ok, even then, you can argue that one...fine ill concede again.

Wait... I have a 20th level paladin with Cha 22. +6 to AC, attacks, and damage is too much? Compared to the wizard, who gates in a Solar helper for the whole day? Or the cleric, who gets +6 to attacks and damage all day with a persistent divine favor, and +6 deflection all day with a persistent shield of faith? Something that makes a melee character able to do his job at 20th level isn't a bad thing -- currently they're obsolete by 11th. If it bothers people too much, make it +1, with an additional +1/2 levels. Then the 20th level paladin is only getting +11 total, with no more than +6 in any one category.


Marty1000 wrote:
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.

Hmmm... thanks for contributing... absolutely nothing.

If you want to help then help. If you want to challenge the suggestions and ideas presented in this thread, or any other for that matter, then be constructive and back up what you have to say. Throwing mud around and exploding with exaggeration as you have says more about who the 10 year old probably is.

I'll stand by my statement. The suggestions here are pretty much on par with what you get from archery or katana spazzes, who demand that their pet weapon grossly out-perform everything else.

Quote:


Your statement about the paladin being a "melee defense oriented class" should have the unsaid "so suck it up and live with it" added because that's what I think you mean.

Its exactly what I mean. If you want to design a squishy, low HP, low save "holy smiter" class, go for it. But tacking on massive damage to the paladin's already massive defense is piss poor balance. The rabid paladin fans know it, but try and hide behind the shoddy defense of "paladins are fighters of evil!" as though 95% of your combat in D&D isnt against evil things.

Quote:


Well that statement flies in the face of the main sentiment of those posting in these paladin threads because, if I may speak in this instance for the majority of the paladin posters here, we are not happy with the "defense oriented paladin" and want offense put back in to the class that happens to be one of D&Ds iconic classes going back to AD&D, and a class that was seriously nerfed in 3/3.5/PF relative to the rest (excepting maybe bard).

The paladin had offense in 2nd edition? News to me. He was pretty much a more defensive version of the fighter (better saves, functionally extra HP due to Lay on Hands, some immunities). He lacked specialization, so he had fewer attacks. You see the tradeoff? More defense, less offense.

If you want this smite machine on legs, start offering suggestions to gut the paladin's defenses, and then you can up its damage.

Oh wait, you guys dont want that. You want to outfight the fighter, out damage the rogue (but only against evil!) with cleric spells, better saves, immunities, etc.

pquote]
800+ posts about the PF paladin speaks for the passion that exists for this class, and yes, these may be dominated by a smaller group of regular contributors. Does this make us "fanboyz"? well i don't see too many closed minded paladin advocates here saying "this is the way it must be or else!!!" The suggestions and debate here are pretty openminded... not the definition of fanboy last time i checked... but I am pretty certain I can tell who the...

Over half the posts come from the same few guys, who, to summarize, are pretty much saying "zomg, moar powerz! moar damage!". When you have the main poster actually suggesting crap like adding the paladin level to damage or AC, you pretty much lose all credibility.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
I will concede, the paladin level to hit/damage/AC could be too much, if I did not add the idea of Charisma as a limit to each. Ok, even then, you can argue that one...fine ill concede again.

Wait... I have a 20th level paladin with Cha 22. +6 to AC, attacks, and damage is too much? Compared to the wizard, who gates in a Solar helper for the whole day? Or the cleric, who gets +6 to attacks and damage all day with a persistent divine favor, and +6 deflection all day with a persistent shield of faith? Something that makes a melee character able to do his job at 20th level isn't a bad thing -- currently they're obsolete by 11th. If it bothers people too much, make it +1, with an additional +1/2 levels. Then the 20th level paladin is only getting +11 total, with no more than +6 in any one category.

I do agree with you Kirth, though it seems that I have become the "he wants the paladin to be overpowered" guy now.

I really like this option as well, but each time I throw out an idea that I really like, I get a couple people who really love it, and a couple people who think it is the worst most over powering idea ever heard of.

Personally I think that this idea or the +1 to hit/dam/ac for each remaining smite are the best two. I think they are balanced, I think they give the paladin what he deserves, and I do not think they over power him beyond what he should be.

There is just no middle ground where you can even make the majority of people happy. We have obviously seen that with all the other ideas for smite, Smite does not even = a +1 to hit/dam that is always active. So why should we be happy with a very slightly improved smite...I do not believe we should.

With what we have not, all the other melee types still outshine the paladin against evil, that is just not acceptable...that is why I keep trying to come up with ideas that we can work with to get the paladin where he should be. But no matter what I come up with I can only make 1 or 2 people happy while I piss everyone else off.

I am very happy that you like this idea, so do I. But you and I seem to be the minority here....what are we going to do?


Vult Wrathblades wrote:
But you and I seem to be the minority here....what are we going to do?

Dunno about you, but I already see I'm going to have to houserule Pathfinder all over the place, as I did with 3e. In the core 3.0/3.5/3.PF rules, melee classes (especially fighters and paladins) mostly stop contributing after 11th level or so. Pathfinder has a chance to fix that, but it doesn't look as if things are going in that direction.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:


With what we have not, all the other melee types still outshine the paladin against evil, that is just not acceptable...that is why I keep trying to come up with ideas that we can work with to get the paladin where he should be. But no matter what I come up...

To be honest Vult, everyone on here has their own ideas about how the paladin should be. Rules by committee rarely work, especially when it's something that people feel passionate about, like the paladin. Some things are more important to different people - backwards compatibility is more important to me, which is why I suggested going back to the base definition of Smite Evil and making the arguably poor damage bonus continuous against evil foes.

I can only speak for myself, but if Paizo went with your +1 per remaining Smite idea would it stop me playing a paladin? Of course not - I've played three paladins in three separate campaigns in the last two years with the abysmal 3.5 paladin.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:

[Guys..you both forgot two other things the paladin also gets at first level.

Lawful good alignment restriction
Code of Conduct

Everyone seems to forget that. But it is part of the class for a reason. I know I talk about them as restrictions, but for the way I RP that is fun for me. But when we talk about "balance" you can not forget those are there, and they are not just there to discourage level dipping.

Those arent restrictions, and they cant be used for mechanical balance. Being Lawful Good shouldnt, and does not, get you extra goodies. Does the fighter get extra feats for picking Lawful Good? Does a chaotic neutral cleric get less spells, because his alignment poses fewer perceived restrictions? Those issues are up tot he DM.

Frankly, the paladin's code restricts the group as much as the paladin (which is why the class is loved by drama whores). We refer to any such "restrictions" as a BA Baracus flaw. In the A Team, BA Baracus had a crippling fear of flying. Any time a mission required flight, the team would trick BA into drinking drugged milk. His supposed character flaw wasnt an actual hinderance on BA, it was a hinderance to everyone else. Much like how many interpretations fo the paladin's code discourage sneaking (and flat out discourage lying). If the DM creates a scenario where such tactics are require/advantageous, its not the paladin who suffers alone, its the entire team. As such, you cant slap extra powers on the paladin as compensation for a dubious drawback (if anything,. I'd argue the paladin's party deserves the extra powers). Moreover, whether the code could be perceived as a hinderance at all is entirely dependent on the type of campaign being run and the DM. If everyone signs on to run a Dudley Do-Rite sort of thing and plays accordingly, EVERYONE is playing more or less up tot he code. A chaotic neutral bard might be at more of a disadvantage than the paladin, due to his shifty nature creating disruptions.

Not that you guys want to hear this sort of thing. Go back to yammering about how totally sweet it would be if paladins added their smite bonus to every hit or whatever the overpowered idea du jour is.

Scarab Sages

Zark wrote:

.... one more thing. I have never stated that 10 rounds is our accepted standard in our game. The standard might be 4 or 5 rounds.

I (and robert) have talked about meaningful encounters. And meaningful encounters at level 16 don't last 3 to 4 rounds. They last longer. The standard in our games might be 10 or 8 I'm not sure. I know our rogue has a haste wand cl 6. Sometimes he use it two times per fight sometimes one, sometimes not at all. Why do our games last that long? Your suggestion:
a) Our DM is realy incompetent (or stupid?).
b) We, the players, are really incompetent (or stupid?).

or my suggestion:

c) Our DM play the monsters to their full potential. The bosses just don't wait for the heroes unprepared. The bad guys use buff spells, or summon monster, etc. And when the rogue comes the moster see to it so the rogue can't flank them all the time, etc.
d) We, the players, have not focused on offensive qualities but more on defensive qualities. Not so much let's make this character a killing machine.....is that bad?
So the roge have som charisma and not so much str. Is that bad? Not powergaming "lets kill all with a big axe in the head" enough?

I'd say 3 rounds as an accepted standard in a meaningful encounter in a highlevel game proves the DM is seriously underplaying monster effectiveness.

/Zark aka TomJohn

The latest fight in my AoW game was a 12-round monster of a brawl (plus several minutes of trash-talking before and after), that straddled part of two nights, so I can empathise with this.

(Chapter 1, The Feral Dog, PC level 2, for any AoW fans out there).

Why so long? Well, partly, it was the cramped nature of the battlefield, cutting off lines of charge, insolent (but not innocent)bystanders making a nuisance of themselves ("You trod on my dawg!"), people being KO'd, stunned, dazed, blinded, tripped, enfeebled, thrown into the dogfighting pit, and the resulting actions needed by their fellows to cancel these debilitating conditions, and cure wounds, instead of just being focussed on dishing out damage, round after round.

But mostly, it's because I see the DM's job as being to play the NPCs as real people, who have no wish to get themselves killed.
They'll spend time on defensive buffs, they'll fight defensively, to play for time (and reinforcements), they'll set up the field so they don't get flanked, and they'll generally take as much care over staying alive as a PC. Several times, I had the option of a coup de gras, but knew that doing so would result in being mobbed next round, and undoubtedly, killed in return. So they focussed on downing someone else, or healed themselves. To do otherwise would be DM-vs-Player, OOC metagaming.

And I'd like to think that the resulting combat, with the ebb and flow of potential victory and defeat swinging from one pendulum to the other, was far more exciting and enjoyable than a 3-round, 100% offence, 0% defence, smackfest with a gang of glass-cannon idiot foes.


Ehren37 wrote:

I'll stand by my statement. The suggestions here are pretty much on par with what you get from archery or katana spazzes, who demand that their pet weapon grossly out-perform everything else.

Quote:


Your statement about the paladin being a "melee defense oriented class" should have the unsaid "so suck it up and live with it" added because that's what I think you mean.
Its exactly what I mean. If you want to design a squishy, low HP, low save "holy smiter" class, go for it. But tacking on massive damage to the paladin's already massive defense is piss poor balance. The rabid paladin fans know it, but try and hide behind the shoddy defense of "paladins are fighters of evil!" as though 95% of your combat in D&D isnt against evil things.

Ok, even if your % is correct, which I disagree about...does the fighter not get his bonuses 100% of the time? What about the barbarian? Cant he still rage as long as he has the points? So this agrument does not really hold to much weight.

"shoddy defense" of Paladins are fighters of evil? No sarcasm here at all, do you understand what a paladin is? Im pretty sure you do, and I think you said it "Paladins are fighters of evil" So since that is what they ARE...why is it that we can not use that as part of our argument?

Ehren37 wrote:


Well that statement flies in the face of the main sentiment of those posting in these paladin threads because, if I may speak in this instance for the majority of the paladin posters here, we are not happy with the "defense oriented paladin" and want offense put back in to the class that happens to be one of D&Ds iconic classes going back to AD&D, and a class that was seriously nerfed in 3/3.5/PF relative to the rest (excepting maybe bard).
The paladin had offense in 2nd edition? News to me. He was pretty much a more defensive version of the fighter (better saves, functionally extra HP due to Lay on Hands, some immunities). He lacked specialization, so he had fewer attacks. You see the tradeoff? More defense, less offense.

If you want this smite machine on legs, start offering suggestions to gut the paladin's defenses, and then you can up its damage.

Oh wait, you guys dont want that. You want to outfight the fighter, out damage the rogue (but only against evil!) with cleric spells, better saves, immunities, etc.

OK, if we are going for trade offs here...what does the paladin gain because he also took on the restriction of being lawful good and having a code of conduct? Are either one of those worth a little offense?

We have gone of this argument many times before, Being the static defensive guy is not "fun" for most of us. Also, even if the paladin is the last man standing...what did that do for the group?

"Yay, I resisted all of your spells, my companions are dead! I get to be the last to die because I can not kill you!"

If all you have is defense you are not a threat to anything, so why would your enemies even worry about the guy in shiny armor with a holy symbol? You can not have ALL defense in this game, it is not World of Warcraft against static monsters that dont understand they should kill certain enemies first. There are not "tanks" in this game.

Ehren37 wrote:


800+ posts about the PF paladin speaks for the passion that exists for this class, and yes, these may be dominated by a smaller group of regular contributors. Does this make us "fanboyz"? well i don't see too many closed minded paladin advocates here saying "this is the way it must be or else!!!" The suggestions and debate here are pretty openminded... not the definition of fanboy last time i checked... but I am pretty certain I can tell who the...
Over half the posts come from the same few guys, who, to summarize, are pretty much saying "zomg, moar powerz! moar damage!". When you have the main poster actually suggesting crap like adding the paladin level to damage or AC, you pretty much lose all credibility.

Obviously you must be talking about me here. I appreciate that you think I may be the "main" poster...but even if that were true that does not make me the one controlling the discussion. I am just as passionate about the paladin as any of these other guys who care to take the time to come here and discuss how we can work on this problem.

We have around 10 people who really care to come here and post. One of those 10 feels that the other 9 are off base and wrong. 1 of those ten can not post without being offensive and rude to the other people that are just trying to work for something we can all be happy with. The other 9, even though they disagree very frequently can do it with respect and dignity. I will admit, I have been frustrated at times, and if I said something out of line I have apologized for it.

Yes, I post here a lot. I love this class and I want to have fun playing it. The simple truth is, as the paladin stands, to do what most of us here want to do we would be better served playing a fighter who is very devout to his convictions and role plays with the paladin code of conduct. Is that right? Is that what you want? Should we just remove the paladin from the game because we can not come up with a proper place for him to fit in? I am with Marty here, over 800 posts proves that this class is loved by at least the people who care enough to come here. The paladin deserves is place to shine just like all the other classes. We are here discussing that end so that we can have a paladin we all enjoy.

Your dislike of our ideas has been noted. We all know that you think we have not done anything constructive here. Though you do seem to be the voice of the minority vote here, so I dont think any of these other people who are passionate about the paladin are going to be swayed by your comments. I am going to keep proposing ideas that I feel will help fix the paladin's issues. Those that can respond with respect will keep agreeing or disagreeing with me as they see fit. We are working with balance in mind, the fact that you do not see that does not mean it is not true.

I did say that I was finished replying to these sorts of posts, I dont like wasting my time in this Paladin DESIGN focus thread, arguing with people like you...but as I was addressed specifically I had to reply. So that said, I do not believe there is anything more I have to say to you. If you have something constructive to add or you can take part without being an asshat then I would very much enjoy reading and replying to you. But until then this is the last time you will gain an post or quote from me.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
But you and I seem to be the minority here....what are we going to do?
Dunno about you, but I already see I'm going to have to houserule Pathfinder all over the place, as I did with 3e. In the core 3.0/3.5/3.PF rules, melee classes (especially fighters and paladins) mostly stop contributing after 11th level or so. Pathfinder has a chance to fix that, but it doesn't look as if things are going in that direction.

Well I think your melee class players will be thankful of that my friend. I do not have a DM that will do that for us...so I have to fight for as much as I can get out of the core. Good luck with what you do, I would love to read some of your house rules though :)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
I will concede, the paladin level to hit/damage/AC could be too much, if I did not add the idea of Charisma as a limit to each. Ok, even then, you can argue that one...fine ill concede again.
Wait... I have a 20th level paladin with Cha 22. +6 to AC, attacks, and damage is too much?
Quote:

Yes. What's the fighter's bonuses looking like at that level? Less? So the paladin, which is a hybrid of fighter and cleric, should get LESS bonuses than the parent class. Welcome to design 101. Go back and ramp up the fighter if you want moar powerz.

Quote:


Compared to the wizard, who gates in a Solar helper for the whole day? Or the cleric, who gets +6 to attacks and damage all day with a persistent divine favor, and +6 deflection all day with a persistent shield of faith? Something that makes a melee character able to do his job at 20th level isn't a bad thing -- currently they're obsolete by 11th. If it bothers people too much, make it +1, with an additional +1/2 levels. Then the 20th level paladin is only getting +11 total, with no more than +6 in any one category.

I agree. They need to royally gut the power of casters.


Chobbly wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:


With what we have not, all the other melee types still outshine the paladin against evil, that is just not acceptable...that is why I keep trying to come up with ideas that we can work with to get the paladin where he should be. But no matter what I come up...

To be honest Vult, everyone on here has their own ideas about how the paladin should be. Rules by committee rarely work, especially when it's something that people feel passionate about, like the paladin. Some things are more important to different people - backwards compatibility is more important to me, which is why I suggested going back to the base definition of Smite Evil and making the arguably poor damage bonus continuous against evil foes.

I can only speak for myself, but if Paizo went with your +1 per remaining Smite idea would it stop me playing a paladin? Of course not - I've played three paladins in three separate campaigns in the last two years with the abysmal 3.5 paladin.

Thank you for replying man. I do understand that we all have our own views..I did not mean to come off as saying otherwise. I just wish we could find some sort of common ground. We are taking 2 steps forward and 2 steps back all the time. There are some really really good ideas floating around in this thread, I just hope we see some of them implemented.

I respect that you really care about backwards compatibility, but as for me that is not even an issue in the least. For me this is a new game and I would love to see it stand by itself. As for the other areas of backwards comp, those could be house ruled to each group as they see fit, IMHO.


Vult Wrathblades wrote:


Ok, even if your % is correct, which I disagree about...does the fighter not get his bonuses 100% of the time? What about the barbarian? Cant he still rage as long as he has the points? So this agrument does not really hold to much weight.

No, I wouldnt expect it to with you. Call me when those guys get spells, immunities, extra saves, etc. They are OFFENSE ORIENTED melee. They should ALWAYS outperform the paladin in damage. The paladin, on occasion, should maybe MATCH them, since he pretty much ALWAYS outperforms them on the defensive end.

Quote:


"shoddy defense" of Paladins are fighters of evil? No sarcasm here at all, do you understand what a paladin is? Im pretty sure you do, and I think you said it "Paladins are fighters of evil" So since that is what they ARE...why is it that we can not use that as part of our argument?

Because you dont give 2 farts about balance. Also, the paladin is a holy warrior. Being the "go to guy" for 95% of all combats isnt a role, its an overpowered design goal. How about this. Fighters are FIGHTERS of everything. Also, since they have the word fighter in their name, they should be the best at fighting. Welcome to your own faulty logic flung back at you.

Man, the quoting feature is god awful on these boards.

Quote:
OK, if we are going for trade offs here...what does the paladin gain because he also took on the restriction of being lawful good and having a code of conduct? Are either one of those worth a little offense?

No. The lawful good cleric doesnt get extra stuff, does he? See my above post for why its not actually a paladin restriction, but a party restriction. You dont get extra stuff for playing a role, be it an impulsive rogue, a cowardly wizard, or a knight in shining armor.

Quote:


Obviously you must be talking about me here. I appreciate that you think I may be the "main" poster...but even if that were true that does not make me the one controlling the discussion. I am just as passionate about the paladin as any of these other guys who care to take the time to come here and discuss how we can work on this problem.
Quote:

Duly noted. You're the paladin fanboy equivalent of the guy who thinks katanas can cut a tank in half with one stroke.

Quote:


Yes, I post here a lot. I love this class and I want to have fun playing it. The simple truth is, as the paladin stands, to do what most of us here want to do we would be better served playing a fighter who is very devout to his convictions and role plays with the paladin code of conduct. Is that right? Is that what you want?

Yes, by and large, yes. If all you want to do is fight, and dont value the other benefits (immunities, saves, spells) the paladin gets, go roll a fighter and you'll have what you want.

But you dont want that. You want it all. Spells, special abilities, immunities, etc. Oh, and great offense. But "only" against evil.

Quote:


Should we just remove the paladin from the game because we can not come up with a proper place for him to fit in?
Quote:

He has a place to fit in. He's the more defensive version of the fighter. He has self healing, which translates into effectively more HP. He gets immunities, and has better saves. He trades offense for that.

He has a niche. YOU JUST DONT LIKE IT. Its like going into the rogue play test and b!$#$ing he cant stand toe to toe against a great wyrm, and that he needs more HP, AC etc. Also, his BAB is too low. He needs fighter BAB. Also he needs more feats....

Quote:


I did say that I was finished replying to these sorts of posts, I dont like wasting my time in this Paladin DESIGN focus thread, arguing with people like you...but as I was addressed specifically I had to reply. So that said, I do not believe there is anything more I have to say to you. If you have something constructive to add or you can take part without being an asshat then I would very much enjoy reading and replying to you. But until then this is the last time you will gain an post or quote from me.

Of course. Caught up in your groupthink, you dont want to hear anyone state "no, the paladin is fine". Its not being constructive if you cant think of ways to ramp up the class.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
But you and I seem to be the minority here....what are we going to do?
Dunno about you, but I already see I'm going to have to houserule Pathfinder all over the place, as I did with 3e. In the core 3.0/3.5/3.PF rules, melee classes (especially fighters and paladins) mostly stop contributing after 11th level or so. Pathfinder has a chance to fix that, but it doesn't look as if things are going in that direction.

Hey Kirth, long time no banter. (i dont think we've quoted each other since the "Minions Template" thread....) Don't throw in the towel just yet - Jason has mentioned on the Fighter's thread that he intends to include fighter-only combat feats designed to improve on the fighters capabilities for levels 10+ Much like the PHB2 did.

So all we then will have left to better assist is the paladin - which I think is being seriously considered - how can a thread his large go unnoticed? :-)

Robert

Sovereign Court

Let's look at my current suggestions

Smite Evil: drop the multiple round duration, drop the against demons/undead caveat, add an extra attack in a round

Channel energy: bring it back to its own pool like 3.5 at level-3

Spells: level-3, but cast spontaneously (while I prefer that he not have the level - 3 I know that most people are uncomfortable with it)

a choice of weak bonus feats at 1st, 5th, and 10th and 15th

O GODS THAT'S SO OVERPOWERED IT'S THE BEST CLASS IN THE GAME CLERIC IS THE SUXXORS IN COMPARISON, NO ONE WILL EV4R PLAY TEH FITOR!

Yeah, I have no idea about balance, or maybe you have never played in a game with a cleric or wizard or druid. Or maybe you're just to imature and need to get a better grasp of mechanics and balance then you think you have. Fighter 13/Cleric 7 is better than a paladin, let alone Cleric 20. And what we are trying to do is come up with as many ideas as possible to help. We aren't saying JASON YOU MUST USE THIS. We are making "suggestions" so that Jason can see them and say hey that's not a bad idea I'll change it like this but that can work. Not just coming in and telling people who have shown more well reasoned ideas and willingness to take critic than you that they are 10 year old fanbois.

Sovereign Court

Robert Brambley wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
But you and I seem to be the minority here....what are we going to do?
Dunno about you, but I already see I'm going to have to houserule Pathfinder all over the place, as I did with 3e. In the core 3.0/3.5/3.PF rules, melee classes (especially fighters and paladins) mostly stop contributing after 11th level or so. Pathfinder has a chance to fix that, but it doesn't look as if things are going in that direction.

Hey Kirth, long time no banter. (i dont think we've quoted each other since the "Minions Template" thread....) Don't throw in the towel just yet - Jason has mentioned on the Fighter's thread that he intends to include fighter-only combat feats designed to improve on the fighters capabilities for levels 10+ Much like the PHB2 did.

So all we then will have left to better assist is the paladin - which I think is being seriously considered - how can a thread his large go unnoticed? :-)

Robert

Because Ehren started talking and no one listens to people like that?

Scarab Sages

Ehren37 wrote:
Man, the quoting feature is god awful on these boards.

Not quite. But "the preponderence of posters who can't figure out the quoting feature" is god-awful at times.


William Bradbury wrote:

Yes. What's the fighter's bonuses looking like at that level? Less? So the paladin, which is a hybrid of fighter and cleric, should get LESS bonuses than the parent class. Welcome to design 101. Go back and ramp up the fighter if you want moar powerz.

I intend to, because after 11th level, the fighter and paladin both are totally obsolete. Saying "anyone who is better than the current fighter is overpowered!" is very much like saying "anyone better than the commoner is overpowered!"

Design 101 back atcha: compare the cleric and the fighter. Do you disallow clerics because they're overpowered?

There's two ways to go:
(1) Nerf all casters to hell and back. Cap spells at 5th or 6th level.
(2) Massively boost melee guys so that they're at least semi-relevant at higher levels.

Option (1) might be satisfying, but it's not going to happen. So option (2) is all we have going for us.

Liberty's Edge

Ehren37 wrote:

Man, the quoting feature is god awful on these boards.

Oh I know.....they're horrible. I wouldn't put up with it if I were you - in fact I'd just leave and never come back if I were you.

Actually, that's a good idea....I insist......

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
Hey Kirth, long time no banter. (i dont think we've quoted each other since the "Minions Template" thread....) Don't throw in the towel just yet - Jason has mentioned on the Fighter's thread that he intends to include fighter-only combat feats designed to improve on the fighters capabilities for levels 10+ Much like the PHB2 did.

Hey, Robert, nice to see you again.

Man, I sure hope Jason re-designs the current combat feats as well, so that they scale with BAB (rather than Int or acrobatics ranks or whatever) -- like Dodge should be prereq BAB +1, and give +1 AC, +1/3 points of BAB... Spells scale with caster level, and casters get a lot more spells than fighters get feats.

But paladins will still suck.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
William Bradbury wrote:

Yes. What's the fighter's bonuses looking like at that level? Less? So the paladin, which is a hybrid of fighter and cleric, should get LESS bonuses than the parent class. Welcome to design 101. Go back and ramp up the fighter if you want moar powerz.

I intend to, because after 11th level, the fighter and paladin both are totally obsolete. Saying "anyone who is better than the current fighter is overpowered!" is very much like saying "anyone better than the commoner is overpowered!"

Design 101 back atcha: compare the cleric and the fighter. Do you disallow clerics because they're overpowered?

There's two ways to go:
(1) Nerf all casters to hell and back. Cap spells at 5th or 6th level.
(2) Massively boost melee guys so that they're at least semi-relevant at higher levels.

Option (1) might be satisfying, but it's not going to happen. So option (2) is all we have going for us.

So go post in the fighter thread. Remove the stupid full BAB cleric option. I'm posting based on the baseline that's been set.

If you want to improve the paladin at low levels, make the smites available more often, and not wasted on a miss. Make them flat damage dice, so they arent boosted by crits and damage multipliers to prevent grotesque damage spikes at upper levels. There's wayt o improve abilities from a QoL perspective other than just "more more more!"

I agree with the proposed caster level -3 changes on caster level. If you get spells, they should be should be meaningful. Hell, bump them to 5th level spells. There's more room for improvement on the cleric end than the fighter end.

But there's way too much focus on how to make paladins all smites all the time, which shifts the design too much from what their role has historically been.


Ehren37 wrote:

Those arent restrictions, and they cant be used for mechanical balance. Being Lawful Good shouldnt, and does not, get you extra goodies. Does the fighter get extra feats for picking Lawful Good? Does a chaotic neutral cleric get less spells, because his alignment poses fewer perceived restrictions? Those issues are up tot he DM.

Frankly, the paladin's code restricts the group as much as the paladin (which is why the class is loved by drama whores). We refer to any such "restrictions" as a BA Baracus flaw. In the A Team, BA Baracus had a crippling fear of flying. Any time a mission required flight, the team would trick BA into drinking drugged milk. His supposed character flaw wasnt an actual hinderance on BA, it was a hinderance to everyone else. Much like how many interpretations fo the paladin's code discourage sneaking (and flat out discourage lying). If the DM creates a scenario where such tactics are require/advantageous, its not the paladin who suffers alone, its the entire team. As such, you cant slap extra powers on the paladin as compensation for a dubious drawback (if anything,. I'd argue the paladin's party deserves the extra powers). Moreover, whether the code could be perceived as a hinderance at all is entirely dependent on the type of campaign being run and the DM. If everyone signs on to run a Dudley Do-Rite sort of thing and plays accordingly, EVERYONE is playing more or less up tot he code. A chaotic neutral bard might be at more of a disadvantage than the paladin, due to his shifty nature creating disruptions.

Not that you guys want to hear this sort of thing. Go back to yammering about how totally sweet it would be if paladins added their smite bonus to every hit or whatever the overpowered idea du jour is.

OK, ok, that was almost civil..ill bite.

So you are saying that a fighter CHOOOOOSING to be Lawful good is the exact same thing as a paladin being FORCED to be lawful good? Ok, I see how you see balance now.

But then you are also saying that the current paladin is more of a hindrance than a help the the party because of his code. You are exactly right here....Thus the paladin should get a boost because he is SUCH a drag on the rest of the party. He should have something to offer that outweighs his obvious drawbacks that keep the party down so badly!

I watched the A-Team too...Yea BA had a fear of flights but he was also THE man when it came to throwing people over cars and kicking ass in melee...so I guess that balanced out too huh?

Scarab Sages

William Bradbury wrote:
Welcome to design 101. Go back and ramp up the fighter if you want moar powerz.

Can we quote you on that?

You seem to be under the (quite widespread) delusion that the posters on the paladin threads are posting solely on the paladin threads, at the expense of the Fighter class.

As it happens, most have been very active across the boards, asking for upgrades for all the martial classes, to keep them relevant with the later stages of the game.

Protesting that any specific martial class cannot be improved beyond the current level of the PF Fighter (or vice versa) is ignoring the fact that there is much work still to be done (on the Feats chapter, in particular), and hampering the chances of all martial classes standing proudly together, and being given the further boosts they require.

Liberty's Edge

Snorter wrote:
William Bradbury wrote:
Welcome to design 101. Go back and ramp up the fighter if you want moar powerz.

Can we quote you on that?

You seem to be under the (quite widespread) delusion that the posters on the paladin threads are posting solely on the paladin threads, at the expense of the Fighter class.

As it happens, most have been very active across the boards, asking for upgrades for all the martial classes, to keep them relevant with the later stages of the game.

Protesting that any specific martial class cannot be improved beyond the current level of the PF Fighter (or vice versa) is ignoring the fact that there is much work still to be done (on the Feats chapter, in particular), and hampering the chances of all martial classes standing proudly together, and being given the further boosts they require.

Shhhh, Snorter - that sounds too much like logic and just makes sense......we wouldn't want to confuse the conversation with facts and logic!

Robert

Sovereign Court

Ehren37 wrote:
Of course. Caught up in your groupthink, you dont want to hear anyone state "no, the paladin is fine". Its not being constructive if you cant think of ways to ramp up the class.

Oh quite on the contrary, we just disagree. We'll state why, and we'll move on. We don't call the people who come on and say it 10 year olds, or say they're just caught up in group think.

You think the paladin is fine?

Then go play and stop flaming the people who disagree with you.


I'm not thrilled with the direction this thread has taken. William Bradbury/Ehren37 I appreciate that you have an opinion and that you're dedicated to your opinion but I'd like to see you tone down the hyperbole. As for everyone else, stop poking the angry guy. You poke the angry guy, he gets more angry.

When these threads turn in to screaming matches, only the moderators are watching. So if you think this back-and-forth is getting Jason's attention, you're wrong.


Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I'm not thrilled with the direction this thread has taken. William Bradbury/Ehren37 I appreciate that you have an opinion and that you're dedicated to your opinion but I'd like to see you tone down the hyperbole. As for everyone else, stop poking the angry guy. You poke the angry guy, he gets more angry.

When these threads turn in to screaming matches, only the moderators are watching. So if you think this back-and-forth is getting Jason's attention, you're wrong.

This is exactly right. And the problem is that it is people like those two (hell might even be the same guy) who would actually come here to cause this sort of problem.

"If I can throw it all into a shambles I can still get what I want in the end".

Joshua is right, I am finished replying to those two. All they want is to ruin a perfectly good conversation about how we should help the paladin.


Throwing a final jab on your way out of a thread is also not helpful.

Sovereign Court

William Bradbury wrote:
So go post in the fighter thread.

We are waiting till the feat section where the fighter is supposed to get the creme de la creme of his abilities according to Jason

William Bradbury wrote:


Remove the stupid full BAB cleric option.

Oh I'm totally with you here, in fact I've also supported removing heavy armor proficiency from clerics, but it's not our call is it?

William Bradbury wrote:

If you want to improve the paladin at low levels, make the smites available more often, and not wasted on a miss. Make them flat damage dice, so they arent boosted by crits and damage multipliers to prevent grotesque damage spikes at upper levels. There's wayt o improve abilities from a QoL perspective other than just "more more more!"

wow that was almost exactly what I posted originally for the paladin. to the letter. To bad Jason has allready stated that he isn't interested in either, does that mean we need to stop talking period?

William Bradbury wrote:


I agree with the proposed caster level -3 changes on caster level. If you get spells, they should be should be meaningful. Hell, bump them to 5th level spells. There's more room for improvement on the cleric end than the fighter end.

glad we have something we can agree on.

William Bradbury wrote:


But there's way too much focus on how to make paladins all smites all the time, which shifts the design too much from what their role has historically been.

I've pretty much avoided trying to have the paladin stay all smites all the time, so have others. We've suggested a lot of ways to fix smite so that it stays one round and stays at 7 per day at 20th level. Those suggestions tend to not get much discussion.


Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Throwing a final jab on your way out of a thread is also not helpful.

That was not intended to be a jab. I simply want everyone to stop getting involved in this debate spiraling out of control. As I have said on earlier posts. I feel that was the intent of those posters.

Sovereign Court

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I'm not thrilled with the direction this thread has taken. William Bradbury/Ehren37 I appreciate that you have an opinion and that you're dedicated to your opinion but I'd like to see you tone down the hyperbole. As for everyone else, stop poking the angry guy. You poke the angry guy, he gets more angry.

*poke* sorry, just had to find out if you were angry :) sorry for bringing it to the level that it needed moderation. It wasn't an attempt to get Jason's attention, it's just really hard to ignore insults and keep from getting personal sometimes.


I'm not sure the 'HA' idea has me sold yet to be truthful. I keep finding I like it... then it wears off again. I agree smite doesn't quite do it, but the all day bonus against evil keeps coming off like a buffing spell to me rather than an actual fix to a problem with the smite.

And yeah I don't actually have anything useful to replace it with yet, let me go blow out my mind with work tonight and I'll see if I can get something new to bring to the table.

Edit:

Something new maybe (probably just more of the same that I missed reading):

What if smite gave you one of two options:

Option 1: full round action + Cha Mod (or class level whichever is higher) to hit, +d6 damage per paladin level.

Option 2: (empower self) Swift action to activate, works like the current smite evil (without the bonus against undead or evil outsiders) but lasts 1/round per paladin level, with the AC bonus being sacred or luck instead of deflection.

************************** New Area **************************

I really, really want to like the aura features, however with such a short area of effect they almost seem like simple personal buffs. Maybe if you use the second option from above the auras expand by 10 ft. while empowered?


Snorter wrote:
Zark/tomJohn wrote:

stuff.

The latest fight in my AoW game was a 12-round monster of a brawl (plus several minutes of trash-talking before and after), that straddled part of two nights, so I can empathise with this.

(Chapter 1, The Feral Dog, PC level 2, for any AoW fans out there).
Why so long? Well, partly, it was the cramped nature of the battlefield, cutting off lines of charge, insolent (but not innocent)bystanders making a nuisance of themselves ("You trod on my dawg!"), people being KO'd, stunned, dazed, blinded, tripped, enfeebled, thrown into the dogfighting pit, and the resulting actions needed by their fellows to cancel these debilitating conditions, and cure wounds, instead of just being focussed on dishing out damage, round after round.

But mostly, it's because I see the DM's job as being to play the NPCs as real people, who have no wish to get themselves killed.
They'll spend time on defensive buffs, they'll fight defensively, to play for time (and reinforcements), they'll set up the field so they don't get flanked, and they'll generally take as much care over staying alive as a PC. Several times, I had the option of a coup de gras, but knew that doing so would result in being mobbed next round, and undoubtedly, killed in return. So they focussed on downing someone else, or healed themselves. To do otherwise would be DM-vs-Player, OOC metagaming.

And I'd like to think that the resulting combat, with the ebb and flow of potential victory and defeat swinging from one pendulum to the other, was far more exciting and enjoyable than a 3-round, 100% offence, 0% defence, smackfest with a gang of glass-cannon idiot foes.

Thanx. I'm not great with words but you are spot on ..or what you say in english.

:-)

And I don't get the calme your self William Bradbury stuff.

William Bradbury wrote:


If you want to improve the paladin at low levels, make the smites available more often, and not wasted on a miss. Make them flat damage dice, so they arent boosted by crits and damage multipliers to prevent grotesque damage spikes at upper levels. There's wayt o improve abilities from a QoL perspective other than just "more more more!"

I agree with the proposed caster level -3 changes on caster level. If you get spells, they should be should be meaningful. Hell, bump them to 5th level spells. There's more room for improvement on the cleric end than the fighter end.

But there's way too much focus on how to make paladins all smites all the time, which shifts the design too much from what their role has historically been.

What's so rud here? I think this post was valid. Or am I missing something due to my poor english (not ironi).

zark aka tomjohn

Scarab Sages

lastknightleft wrote:
We are waiting till the feat section where the fighter is supposed to get the creme de la creme of his abilities according to Jason.

Improving the value of the martial Feats will result in an increase in power and versatility across the board for all martial classes, however, it should be remembered that, even with the increased rate of feat progression in Beta, there is a limit to the number that can be gained, even by the Fighter, the King of Feats.

Proclaiming that a current problem has been resolved, because 'there's now a feat for that', is not going to be valid, if it takes a PC all his feats to buy a chain of pre-requisites, that leave a gaping hole in some other area.

This became noticeable in the latter stages of 3.5, when several books worth of feats were available, but simply weren't being taken, since all PCs had too few choices to cover the basics. Knowing that there are flavourful feats X, Y and Z, does not help, when you are obliged to take essential feats A, B and C, to perform basic maneuvers that should really be possible untrained.

On one of the numerous threads about the inability to disrupt spellcasting, Kirth and I explained to posters who were only familiar with 3.0/3.5 about the difference between the assumptions in 1st/2nd/3rd Edition, and showed how the earlier versions of the Fighter/Ranger/Paladin were all capable of being Ambidextrous, Two Weapon, Spring Attack (with Full Attack, and zero multi-attack or off-hand penalties), Weapon Focussed, Weapon Specialised mobile combatants, who auto-disrupted casting with so much as a scratch, using only the proficiencies available at level 1, and still had slots left over to buy Lance Proficiency, and spend one non-weapon proficiency on Ride, to gain the effects of (deep breath) Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge and Trample.

At first level.

I make that a grand total of 11 feats in the 3.5 system (including the waste-of time pre-requisites like Dodge) that [b]still fail to equal the possibilities of a novice adventurer in 1st/2nd Edition (since the 3.5 PC would have the -2/-2 TWF penalty).

And your bonus attacks, which you'd get at level 7/8 and up, would have no iterative penalty, and could be made on the run, as well.

11 feats. 4 more feats than a 3.5 paladin would get in his entire career (or 3 more, if he was human).

Even in Beta, that Paladin would blow virtually his entire ration of feats, to gain the basic tools of his class.

Now, is the problem clear?

Adding 300 splatbook feats will not make any difference, to a class with no slots to spare.

1 to 50 of 1,070 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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