|
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.
More defensive for his immunities - there is truth in that. Immunity to Disease however is not earth shattering considering it's a fort save and barbs and fighters arent going to fail too many of those - especially the dwarven fighters. Furthermore, the incubation period usually allows for a cure before any real effects take hold. Immunity to charms is a nice touch - that is worth staying the course to 8th level paladin. Immunity to fear is also a good one - course the fighter now has some built in bonuses to that now; furthermore, their abundance of feats can more than afford spending one on Iron Will. Lets not forget that both the paladins immunity to fear and charms provide a healthy bonus of +4 to his allies' saves, too - so his abilities are not just self-serving. I might point out the fear bonus provided by the paladin's aura STACKS with the fighters now bonus to fear saves. We have a halfling fighter in my group with my paladin - who took Iron Will for instance: he's now 7th level fighter: has a +13 to save vs fear with the help of my aura (and thats with just a 10 Wisdom).
AC's? Thanks to Tower shield as a free feat, and Armor Training, the fighter has about a 6 AC advantage at 7th level and 8 points better 11th level. Not to mention his plethora of feats combined with a lack of multiple ability score needs (less so than the paladin) he is far more likely to be helped by feats like Dodge, and Combat Expertise. In short, the fighter from a AC being hit and taking damage - who most likely will have more hit points because he can afford to have a better CON - is far superior. Furthermore, thanks to the fighter's Weapon Training, Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, and the avg of 2 more points of Str than a fighter, it pretty much guarantees, that a fighter can either fight defensively, or combat expert (or both!) and still have the same or better bonuses to hit ALL THE TIME against ALL CREATURES of ANY ALIGNMENT than the paladin and bump his AC not 6 or 8 as I previously stated - but about 12 points of AC higher with the SAME attacks bonus. So the paladin can cast Divine Favor - well that used up a round and now has a +1 better to hit (until 12th level), so he uses his divine bond and increase his to hit by +1 (thats another round), now he smites for a round - okay so he has a better chance to hit than the fighter that one round by a couple of points - after spending two rounds to buff, and he still has 6-12 points of AC worse. Don't tell me what I know! I have been playtesting these character concepts every week since the Alpha 1 came out!
So the moniker of "more defensive version of the fighter" is not necessarily accurate. He can heal himself, true - but his code also gives an overwhelming inference and obligation to use alot of his healing to aid his companions and selflessly put himself at risk to do so - thus the fighter who does not have such "defenses" as self-healing can always rest assured that his paladin buddy and cleric will always be there to heal him for him! So that the fighter doesnt' have to spend his actions worrying about healing....he can just let the others do that. There can be no arguement that the paladin has an onus on having to use his lift-saving measures on his allies - I'll argue with anyone who says otherwise. It is part of his responsibility to not let his allies die needlessly if he can do anything about it. It's just part of who a paladin is, and I'm confident most who know paladins would whole-heartedly agree.
That all being said - you're mistaken if you think that all I ever said was that I wanted all the offense and all the defense too.
I suggested moving Will saves back to fighter-standard. I suggested moving Divine Grace to grant scaled bonuses based on paladin levels as opposed to a sudden boost at only 2nd level (which would also help discourage min/max level dipping).
So my testimony is that yes paladins are good on defense - best armor, and great saves, not the best armor, and clerics, druids, and monks still give a run for money on AC and saves - and give them some time to buff - and they are superior yet - plus the ability to heal "giving them essentially more hit points" yada yada. So if your testimony is that the paladin is THE Best at all of these things, then I vehemently disagree. Furthermore, my testimony (as has been many others) that to play "just the defense guru" is old, stale, and frankly boring and unattractive. So I was willing to negotiate and sacrifice a little of that defense for the sake of gaining some more offense - which is what he needs the most.
Robert
|
|
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.
......my hero!
You, sir, just won the "Post of the Thread" award!
Having been a player since 82 - i've seen the evolution of the classes etc. I remember in 1st edition paladins could be 'double-specialized' In 2nd edition, i remember they could kick butt too as you've illustrated - then the Combat and Tactics book came out and provided a whole lot more combat goodness for our melee-masters (including the paladin!!!)
Robert
|
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 [b]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)...
Preaching to the quior, but I was just responding as to why I'm not on the fighter board pushing for fixing the fighters abilities, because the fighters abilities are feats. the other stuff he gets works, he doesn't have sub-optimal class features, now he may pick sub-optimal feats, but that's not the same. The paladin has wasteful abilities. ones that aren't worth taking the standard action to use them on. His spellcasting, his channeling etc. Those are things I can't fix in the feats section.
The fighter having suboptimal choices for feats, and no feats for high level abilities isn't something I can adress until we get to that area.
And I don't compare 3.5 to 2nd ed because I never played second ed, fighters and paladins could have shot ice cream sandwiches at the badguys and used mackeral for melee weapons for all I know :)
|
|
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.
I'm concerned that backwards compatibility and the viability of martial classes are design goals in direct conflict. It's up to Paizo to decide which should give way to the other, and thus far the balance seems to be in favor of maintaining longstanding martial vs. spellcasting imbalances rather than risk lowering the backwards compatibility of Pathfinder with 3.5.
Refusal to consider extra skill points for fighters because it's not backwards compatible enough was, frankly, mindboggling to me, and underscored that my understanding of where the "backwards compatibility threshold" was is vastly different from Paizo's. I figured changes to the classes indicated some pretty severe departures from 3.5 rules, and thus advocated an increase in skill point to non-spellcasting 2 skill point classes (fighters and paladins) in order to increase the out of combat enjoyability of these classes. The fact that this was shot down with a claim that it "broke backwards compatibility" pretty much confirmed that there's a serious disconnect in our various understandings of backwards compatibility and balance and playability.
I'm seeing that with primarily the fighter and the paladin, and to a lesser extent the monk and ranger.
All martial classes are generally underpowered compared to spellcasters as they leave low level play. How do we fix this? This requires some analysis. I will start by examining where each martial gains it's "power", and then we can better examine how to improve them in relation to spellcasters.
Fighter: The fighter gains his power from one high save, extra feats, some flat bonuses to saves against fear, flat bonuses to attack and AC, high BaB and heavy armor proficiencies.
Paladin: The paladin gains his power from two high saves, smite evil, bonuses to saves, immunities, auras that provide some bonuses to close allies, healing through lay on hands or turn attempts, very low level spellcasting, high BaB and heavy armor proficiencies.
Ranger: The ranger gains his power from two high saves, prechosen extra feats, weak animal companion, very low level spellcasting, skill point versatility and high BaB.
Monk: The monk gains his power from all high saves, prechosen extra feats, early extra attack, immunities, movement bonuses, limited self-healing, skill point versatility, multiple attributes to AC.
Honestly, looking at this list, there's not a ton of overlap in what would give all of them a boost to their ability to be relevent at high levels. In my opinion, to truly fix the problem requires a more fundamental adjustment in Pathfinder RPG gameplay.
There are multiple options for this. Some are simple, and some are complex.
Some things I've been considering:
- Make full attacks a standard action rather than a full round action
- Remove iterative attack penalties (this is important not only to help bring martial character up a bit, but since many monsters have multiattack and suffer small or no penalties to their multiattacks, this bring humanoid class leveled characters up to par a bit vs. monsters).
- Severely increase the difficulty in defensive casting, or remove the option entirely from the game (this is a nerf for spellcasters that I think is sorely needed).
- Severly increase the difficulty in succeeding on a concentration check to avoid losing a spell you're casting (as above).
- Feats meant to be taken by martial characters need to improve in effect as the character levels (or their BaB increases) to provide even minimal parity with spell increases in effectiveness and duration as caster level increases.
How does this relate to paladins? Well, you'll notice paladins are the only ones here who don't get extra feats as a source of martial power. They need another solution, whether that be some of the fundamental combat rule changes I introduced above, changes to paladin class features, or something I haven't brought up or thought of.
To briefly address offensive vs. defensive ability:
If the only ability of a character is they get hit less often, they're not terribly fun to play, and they're not contributing anything to the party unless they can not only ensure they stand longer than a party member being attacked in a similar manner, but they can force the enemy to focus attention on them rather than the squishier (and much more dangerous) party members.
I'm perfectly happy keeping a defensive focus on the paladin, but good game design requires two things here, I believe:
1. The defenses are active in some way, requiring player participation and encouraging fun gameplay
2. The defenses benefit the party, rather than just allow the paladin to die last.
In my perfect world, the paladin would be the quintessential sword and board fighter, and a party buffer. Sword and board is a very bad mechanical choice in PRPG at the moment, as it offers nearly no advantage for some hefty disadvantages. And the paladin currently is not a very strong buffer. But if his defenses took the form of rare flashes of true smiting power (keep smite much the same except it hits much harder and isn't used up on a miss) to draw enemy attention and wariness, the ability to defend his party by blocking / hampering enemy movement, the ability to "take hits" meant for his nearby squishy party members and the ability to extend his defenses out to a radius to protect party members (without making them more vulnerable as well, like bunching usually does), he'd at least have some useful roles.
As it is, he's the armored guy that stands around hoping he doesn't waste his one offensive power uselessly and healing other characters that get to do cool stuff.
I think Snorter has a huge point here. Feats are great but they are window dressing compared to the core abilities of a class. I always saw feats as a way to make your character flavorful to you, not as a way to really round them out for combat balance...that is except for the fighter, the guy who actually gets enough to do that...which he should, thats his area, no problem with him being the man when it comes to feats.
Of course there are ways to make the paladin "better" with feats, but are those fixes? I dont think so.
Make full attacks a standard action rather than a full round action
You listed some great ideas Jess...but this one is the best of them all.
This seems like such a simple fix, but it would go MILES in the area of fixing the melee/caster discrepancies!
|
|
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?
Actually it's DM or Dungeon Master ONLY if you're discussing D&D (Dungeons and Dragons). If we're discussing Pathfinder, it's GM or Game Master.
DM or Dungeon Master is actually a copyrighted term by TSR (bought out by WotC); Paizo and its Pathfinder RPG product have as much rights to that term as Mutants and Masterminds does.
The Pathfinder RPG clearly mentions GM throughout its products.
Robert
|
|
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.
Heh, thats something that many of us have pointed out and lamented about.
For the record - the cycle repeats itself at 6th level.
Barbarian: new rage power
Bard: gains a new Bardic Performance ability
Druid: gains an extra wildshape instance
Fighter: bonus feat
Monk: bonus feat
Ranger: bonus combat style feat
Rogue: new rogue talent/feat
Sorcerer: gains 3rd level spells
Wizard: new school power
Paladin: Remove Disease (with two uses of lay on hands....)
Robert
|
|
Make full attacks a standard action rather than a full round actionYou listed some great ideas Jess...but this one is the best of them all.
This seems like such a simple fix, but it would go MILES in the area of fixing the melee/caster discrepancies!
To me it just makes sense - if spells are, by and large, a standard action, then why can't martial characters do their thing - a full attack - in the same amount of actions.
and then, to carry it to the ultimate conclusion, have a Quicken Attack feat, that allows you to make a full attack as a swift action - maybe giving up one attack and the feat slot to do this.
To me it just makes sense - if spells are, by and large, a standard action, then why can't martial characters do their thing - a full attack - in the same amount of actions.Make full attacks a standard action rather than a full round actionYou listed some great ideas Jess...but this one is the best of them all. This seems like such a simple fix, but it would go MILES in the area of fixing the melee/caster discrepancies!
Even better, from a standpoint of "backwards compatibility," it doesn't impact Pathfinder's compatibility with previous (3.5e) adventures at all -- the change occurs across the board for everyone, and is almost certainly not referenced in any adventure text anywhere. So it's 100% compatible, from that standpoint.
|
|
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.
Well for the record, in order to have HA - whether at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, it would really only work to have it and Smite working out of the same pool, is IF that pool was enlarged to have a few of them at those low levels. That brings us back to that 1+Cha at first level, and increasing by 1 at 4th, 7th, etc.
If we were add HA to the paladin's repertoire and not provide a means to use it by increasing the # of daily smites, it would just be counter-productive.
Robert
|
|
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.
to piggyback on what LKL said of CoDzilla - it's a reference usually associated with those classes that are min/maxed perfectly to take advantage of the right feats - including persistant spell feat that has many buffs working permanently in concert with one another - in combination w/ Righteous Might and Divine Power to make clerics better than any fighter in combat, and druids having much of the same potential lethality between their animal companion and wild shapes.
The RPGA is rife with these combinations, because WotC in 3rd edition felt it was important to make a large improvement to the cleric class in order to make them more popular to be played - but too popular really, and so most of the characters in the RPGA are in fact clerics with these powerful builds - and druids are also very common for the same reason. Hence Cleric or Druid zilla.
Paizo - and the Pathfinder RPG has done a good job of trying to start eliminating these options.
Robert
|
|
Even better, from a standpoint of "backwards compatibility," it doesn't impact Pathfinder's compatibility with previous (3.5e) adventures at all -- the change occurs across the board for everyone, and is almost certainly not referenced in any adventure text anywhere. So it's 100% compatible, from that standpoint.To me it just makes sense - if spells are, by and large, a standard action, then why can't martial characters do their thing - a full attack - in the same amount of actions.Make full attacks a standard action rather than a full round actionYou listed some great ideas Jess...but this one is the best of them all. This seems like such a simple fix, but it would go MILES in the area of fixing the melee/caster discrepancies!
Not to continue threadjacking from the paladin - but this was early on suggestions and discussions that i was in involved in back in the Alpha stages of how to improve combat - though my caution was to limit the number of attacks per round to 3 or even only 2 if you're going to change the combat structure to allow full movement and full attacks.
Robert
|
|
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.
to piggyback on what LKL said of CoDzilla - it's a reference usually associated with those classes that are min/maxed perfectly to take advantage of the right feats - including persistant spell feat that has many buffs working permanently in concert with one another - in combination w/ Righteous Might and Divine Power to make clerics better than any fighter in combat, and druids having much of the same potential lethality between their animal companion and wild shapes.
The RPGA is rife with these combinations, because WotC in 3rd edition felt it was important to make a large improvement to the cleric class in order to make them more popular to be played - but too popular really, and so most of the characters in the RPGA are in fact clerics with these powerful builds - and druids are also very common for the same reason. Hence Cleric or Druid zilla.
Paizo - and the Pathfinder RPG has done a good job of trying to start eliminating these options.
Robert
Well if I didn't know that Jason said he wasn't increasing # per day I would agree, but I think that if we make smite good, and then make HA multiple rounds, and added weapon focus as a bonus feat, then the difference would be made. HA lasts 1+ cha rounds and does the +cha to attack and AC + level to damage right?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Make full attacks a standard action rather than a full round actionYou listed some great ideas Jess...but this one is the best of them all.
This seems like such a simple fix, but it would go MILES in the area of fixing the melee/caster discrepancies!
It's an idea I brought up back in the fighters playtest section and that we should probably bring up again when we get to the "combat" section of the playtest.
Somebody also mentioned limiting iterative attacks, and actually, I wouldn't mind it going back to a 1st/2nd Ed concept, where the fighter-type classes (including pal/barb/rgr) were the ONLY classes that got multiple attacks.
Monks get to cheat because they have the flurry of flows ability, but with this kind of model they would get multiple attacks only when flurrying.
Rogues are the class that would really get boned by this change.
Alas, this wouldn't be very "backwards compatible" to 3.5, so no matter.
Then again, we could also use a mechanism rather like what we have for Hide/Stealth and simialr things - where you can do a thing and move, but just take certain penalties for doing so.
F'rex:
Half move + full attack: -1
Full move + full attack: -2
Double move + full attack: -4
Just a notion.
|
|
Well if I didn't know that Jason said he wasn't increasing # per day I would agree, but I think that if we make smite good, and then make HA multiple rounds, and added weapon focus as a bonus feat, then the difference would be made. HA lasts 1+ cha rounds and does the +cha to attack and AC + level to damage right?
Robert
Irrespective of how many smite evil attempts a paladin winds up receiving at 1st level, if I were in charge of development/design, I would make the HA mechanic work like:
A number a rounds equal to 1+cha mod. At first level, HA provides a +1 bonus to AC and attack rolls against all evil targets. Every three levels after 1st, (4th, 7th, 10th etc) when a paladin would be granted an extra smite evil attempt these bonuses increases by +1. All successful attacks against an evil target while a paladin is using HA, he adds half his paladin level (rounded down - min 1) to the damage rolls.
(this way the ability does not work off of charisma at all - except for the number of rounds it is in effect).
The bonuses as they scale make up for: lack of armor training, less tendency to have access to dodge and/or combat expertise, etc. It also makes up for a slightly lesser Str score, weapon focus and greater and specialization and greater; or a barbarians rage, rangers bonus feats etc.
IMO the bonus is just enough to make for these other class related factors - but is not always in effect as it still drains from the same pool as the BIG BANG smite option - so its only as good as there are uses left to use it. and it is limited to the 80% of combatants who are evil
Then the other use of the pool is SMITE: + CHA mod to attack rolls, and 1d6/2 paladin levels of holy damage
(the smite returned to being _ PER ATTACK - not for round durations, and the only caveat added that a failed attack does not expend a use.)
Robert
|
|
Just a notion.
Good ideas all. I just brought this up because Jason Bulman seems to prefer feat changes over class features and/or skills to increase character usefullness, and this will not help the paladin at all. I think the issue is much more fundamental, and thus fundamental combat changes are needed. And as Kirth mentioned, making a full attack a standard action doesn't break backwards compatibility.
My biggest concern with it is, will it disadvantage players too much because monsters will gain this now too. Or...would they? Things to ruminate on. :)
|
|
Make full attacks a standard action rather than a full round actionYou listed some great ideas Jess...but this one is the best of them all.
This seems like such a simple fix, but it would go MILES in the area of fixing the melee/caster discrepancies!
It's an idea I brought up back in the fighters playtest section and that we should probably bring up again when we get to the "combat" section of the playtest.
Somebody also mentioned limiting iterative attacks, and actually, I wouldn't mind it going back to a 1st/2nd Ed concept, where the fighter-type classes (including pal/barb/rgr) were the ONLY classes that got multiple attacks.
Monks get to cheat because they have the flurry of flows ability, but with this kind of model they would get multiple attacks only when flurrying.
Rogues are the class that would really get boned by this change.
Alas, this wouldn't be very "backwards compatible" to 3.5, so no matter.
Then again, we could also use a mechanism rather like what we have for Hide/Stealth and simialr things - where you can do a thing and move, but just take certain penalties for doing so.
F'rex:
Half move + full attack: -1
Full move + full attack: -2
Double move + full attack: -4Just a notion.
My proposed design was not to limit other classes to no iterative attacks, but to limit sneak attack to being a one-time per round unless you dont take a move action that round. (since the combat redesign is for combatant to be able to make a full normal move and then a full complement of attacks, it would be too powerful for a rogue to be able to move about, flanking at will and getting full attacks with sneak attacks....really messed up with a two-weapon option - thus I limited it to 1 sneak attack a round unless you did not make a move action that round.)
But you're right Jason - it's something to discuss more at length in the COMBAT section.
Robert
|
|
Just a notion.Good ideas all. I just brought this up because Jason Bulman seems to prefer feat changes over class features and/or skills to increase character usefullness, and this will not help the paladin at all. I think the issue is much more fundamental, and thus fundamental combat changes are needed. And as Kirth mentioned, making a full attack a standard action doesn't break backwards compatibility.
My biggest concern with it is, will it disadvantage players too much because monsters will gain this now too. Or...would they? Things to ruminate on. :)
well the actual truth is that it won't benefit the paladin any more than it would help anyone else - it would make melee vs spellcasting better - but it doesn't actually provide the paladin with better attack options and more potent ability to hit.
yes it would affect the monsters......and you better believe that a dragon making a full 150 ft flight and then making a Bite, two claws, two wings, a tail slap and a quickened breath weapon.......not a good day for the heroes....
Robert
yes it would affect the monsters......and you better believe that a dragon making a full 150 ft flight and then making a Bite, two claws, two wings, a tail slap and a quickened breath weapon.......not a good day for the heroes....
Heh, I remember using this example in response to your proposal in the Alpha discussion; didn't we end up deciding that, by phrasing it so iterative attacks only(for high BAB) were part of a standard action, we would eliminate this problem? Monsters with multiple attacks, and rogues with TWF, would still have to rely on things like the pounce ability or whatever splatbook feat lets you use an offhand weapon as part of a standard attack after a move.
|
|
yes it would affect the monsters......and you better believe that a dragon making a full 150 ft flight and then making a Bite, two claws, two wings, a tail slap and a quickened breath weapon.......not a good day for the heroes....Heh, I remember using this example in response to your proposal in the Alpha discussion; didn't we end up deciding that, by phrasing it so iterative attacks only(for high BAB) were part of a standard action, we would eliminate this problem? Monsters with multiple attacks, and rogues with TWF, would still have to rely on things like the pounce ability or whatever splatbook feat lets you use an offhand weapon as part of a standard attack after a move.
My biggest concern with it is, will it disadvantage players too much because monsters will gain this now too. Or...would they? Things to ruminate on. :)
(emphasis added)
Yeah, that's what I was wondering about...if you limited the full iterative attack to a standard action, that would keep the monsters somewhat in line, but allow meleers to get better.
And yes, fundamental combat rule changes won't help paladins more than other meleers, but it will help them a lot more than simply upping the value of feats to meleers. :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
yes it would affect the monsters......and you better believe that a dragon making a full 150 ft flight and then making a Bite, two claws, two wings, a tail slap and a quickened breath weapon.......not a good day for the heroes....Heh, I remember using this example in response to your proposal in the Alpha discussion; didn't we end up deciding that, by phrasing it so iterative attacks only(for high BAB) were part of a standard action, we would eliminate this problem? Monsters with multiple attacks, and rogues with TWF, would still have to rely on things like the pounce ability or whatever splatbook feat lets you use an offhand weapon as part of a standard attack after a move.
It's an excellent qualifier, and one that fulfills its intended purpose: making melee PCs more vicious in comparison to BOTH:
a. Spellcasters; and,
b. Super-vicious melee monsters.
It's an excellent qualifier, and one that fulfills its intended purpose: making melee PCs more vicious in comparison to BOTH: a. Spellcasters; and, b. Super-vicious melee monsters.
And since, at high levels, they're currently nigh-useless against both (well, if the wizard and cleric are present, anyway), that might be just what the doctor ordered...
|
|
yes it would affect the monsters......and you better believe that a dragon making a full 150 ft flight and then making a Bite, two claws, two wings, a tail slap and a quickened breath weapon.......not a good day for the heroes....Heh, I remember using this example in response to your proposal in the Alpha discussion; didn't we end up deciding that, by phrasing it so iterative attacks only(for high BAB) were part of a standard action, we would eliminate this problem? Monsters with multiple attacks, and rogues with TWF, would still have to rely on things like the pounce ability or whatever splatbook feat lets you use an offhand weapon as part of a standard attack after a move.
oh no no - monsters for sure get their full attacks, otherwise, that strongly favors that characters!
Robert
EDIT: But I'm just mean and sadistic that way. Of course an easy fix would be to give POUNCE ability to a lot of creatures.....like dragons! ;-)
But I seriously believe that monsters should get to make all their attacks, if all characters are too.
Robert
EDIT: [/threadjack]
Praise be to paladins!!!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
yes it would affect the monsters......and you better believe that a dragon making a full 150 ft flight and then making a Bite, two claws, two wings, a tail slap and a quickened breath weapon.......not a good day for the heroes....Heh, I remember using this example in response to your proposal in the Alpha discussion; didn't we end up deciding that, by phrasing it so iterative attacks only(for high BAB) were part of a standard action, we would eliminate this problem? Monsters with multiple attacks, and rogues with TWF, would still have to rely on things like the pounce ability or whatever splatbook feat lets you use an offhand weapon as part of a standard attack after a move.oh no no - monsters for sure get their full attacks, otherwise, that strongly favors that characters!
Robert
EDIT: But I'm just mean and sadistic that way. Of course an easy fix would be to give POUNCE ability to a lot of creatures.....like dragons! ;-)
But I seriously believe that monsters should get to make all their attacks, if all characters are too.
Robert
EDIT: [/threadjack]
Praise be to paladins!!!
The reason I feel the opposite is that the super-melee-monsters already have advantages that the fighter can never realistically hope to match - namely size, reach, and BAB over 20 - PLUS monsters with multiple attacks don't suffer iterative penalties for making more than one attack per round. Sure, they take -5 for all their secondary weapons, but I think the fighter would be happy to take -5 with all their secondary attacks too, instead of -5/-10/-15. A fighter would also like to be able to take one feat that reduced the penalty for all secondary attacks to -2. And a second (splatbook) feat to reduce it to nothing.
And in no case does a monster with natural attacks take TWF penalties for multiple attacks with natural weapons.
Look at the reach and BAB/Grp for some of these guys:
Tarrasque - 20', +48/81
Old red dragon - 15'/20', +28/+52
Those are CR 20, and on top of their attacks they have around triple (or more) the hit points of best fighter in the party at 20th level, even if that character.
How about these guys:
CR12 - Colossal monstrous scorpion - 30', +30/+58
CR11 - Elder earth elemental - 15', +18/+37
Again, at least double the hit points.
Even if you consider nothing else, no special abilities, "playing the monsters with brains," no buffing, no equipment, no DM shenanigans, no nothing, just the sheer scale of those advantages in reach, BAB, and size require a massive balancing mechanism to give a high-level fighter type some means of being relevant.
The reason I feel the opposite is that the super-melee-monsters already have advantages that the fighter can never realistically hope to match - namely size, reach, and BAB over 20 - PLUS monsters with multiple attacks don't suffer iterative penalties for making more than one attack per round. Sure, they take -5 for all their secondary weapons, but I think the fighter would be happy to take -5 with all their secondary attacks too, instead of -5/-10/-15. A fighter would also like to be able to take one feat that reduced the penalty for all secondary attacks to -2. And a second (splatbook) feat to reduce it to nothing.
And in no case does a monster with natural attacks take TWF penalties for multiple attacks with natural weapons.
Look at the reach and BAB/Grp for some of these guys:
Tarrasque -...
well, the fighter is not fighting the monster alone. The tank vs. the moster image don't ring true. Playing, it's a team thang.
and now, something else.
I've seen the "fighter has the tower shield Proficiency and he paladin don't" argument from time to time in this thread. IMHO it doesn't hold much water,... at least not at lower levels. The tower shild sucks at lower levels.
"When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance."
That's bye bye weapon focus more.
And then there's the max +2 dex and the ACP -10 and the weight.
Tower shield are actually meant to be used i war and the like.
I can't really see a first level fighter use one if he/she want to rule in melee. And most of us agree the Paldin problem is mainly a lower level problem. am I wrong? / Zark aka TomJohn
I've had and been a player that uses a tower shield regularly at all levels, and it does make quite the difference at lower level.
A first level dwarven Fighter with a tower shield (30 gp) and a chain shirt (100 gp) has an average of 45 gp left, and an AC of 18. Compared to the Paladin with a heavy shield and a chain shirt having an AC of 16. At lower levels this is a huge difference in how often you are hit. Granted there is the dex limit to consider... but unless the player is doing a character like Benny he probably doesn't have that much Dex to begin with.
While there is the big armor check penalty, you don't have to use the tower shield all the time, when you need to do something that the shield will get in the way of you can set it down. If you need to get it across a river or up a cliff or some such you can tie a rope on it to drag it behind you. Weight yes, armor check penalty no.
|
|
I've had and been a player that uses a tower shield regularly at all levels, and it does make quite the difference at lower level.
A first level dwarven Fighter with a tower shield (30 gp) and a chain shirt (100 gp) has an average of 45 gp left, and an AC of 18. Compared to the Paladin with a heavy shield and a chain shirt having an AC of 16. At lower levels this is a huge difference in how often you are hit. Granted there is the dex limit to consider... but unless the player is doing a character like Benny he probably doesn't have that much Dex to begin with.
While there is the big armor check penalty, you don't have to use the tower shield all the time, when you need to do something that the shield will get in the way of you can set it down. If you need to get it across a river or up a cliff or some such you can tie a rope on it to drag it behind you. Weight yes, armor check penalty no.
Agreed. Furthermore, in regards to most of the opposition towards making the paladin better - seems to be from the "he's suppose to be the king of defense" camp.
To which I riposte with 'put the money where the mouth is.' If you're going to pigeon-hole the paladin as a king of defense, then give him the tools to do so.
The tower shields main boon is the ability to get full cover - and keep your allies/friends behind you giving them cover and such from enemy spells, ranged attacks etc. A palaind with a tower shield could hold off a hallway in full defense cover for a few rounds while he waits for his friends to properly buff etc and then move as a unit when they're ready.
The point is - so many people want to be to quick to limit the paladin to just being the defense guy - but unfortunately between tower shield and armor training, the fighters is still the cat's meow on that, too.
Robert
Furthermore, my testimony (as has been many others) that to play "just the defense guru" is old, stale, and frankly boring and unattractive. So I was willing to negotiate and sacrifice a little of that defense for the sake of gaining some more offense - which is what he needs the most
Except that if you still can't hit the bastard who's casting the spells, you're eventually [...] join your friends who are all laying at your feet.
Furthermore, in regards to most of the opposition towards making the paladin better - seems to be from the "he's suppose to be the king of defense" camp. To which I riposte with 'put the money where the mouth is.' If you're going to pigeon-hole the paladin as a king of defense, then give him the tools to do so. The tower shields main boon is the ability to get full cover - and keep your allies/friends behind you giving them cover and such from enemy spells, ranged attacks etc. A palaind with a tower shield could hold off a hallway in full defense cover for a few rounds while he waits for his friends to properly buff etc and then move as a unit when they're ready.The point is - so many people want to be to quick to limit the paladin to just being the defense guy - but unfortunately between tower shield and armor training, the fighters is still the cat's meow on that, too.
Well I now put my money where my mouth is.
"When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls." Tower shield = -2 on attack rolls. So you get a + 2 to AC and the you get a -2 on attack rolls. A -2 on attack rolls is basically the same as giving the monsters a +2 AC.Now.. didn't you just say the paladin needed som "more offense", a tower shield don't help.
Didn't you just say "the defense guru" is old, stale and frankly boring and unattractive".
At level one a fighter with a tower shield would take the role of "the defense guru" = boring.
He/she don't get hit often and is now as useless/good as the Paldin at hitting "the bastard"..."if you still can't hit the bastard" well you can't hurt him ..right?.
A -2 on attack rolls at level 1 is not good.
And you don't need to be Proficiency tower shield to hide behind it.
A palaind with a tower shield could hold off a hallway in full defense cover for a few rounds while he waits for his friends to properly buff etc and then move as a unit when they're ready
So yes, you are right. The Paladin can "hold off a hallway in full defense cover for a few rounds while he waits for his friends to properly buff etc and then move as a unit when they're ready[/b]..using a tower shield - with or without the Proficiency. /zark aka TomJohn
|
Guys..you both forgot two other things the paladin also gets at first level.
Lawful good alignment restriction
Code of ConductEveryone 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.
But Code of Conduct and LG alignment do not actually "enforce" very much, because they depend so much on personal interpretation and DM adjudication. As I've said before, we *do* care about alignment violations and powergaming in my group, but I also (occasionally) play in campaigns which have a more "liberal" approach (i.e. the players are free to do pretty much anything -- regardless of class or alignment). Therefore, in my opinion, it's not valid to claim that they're a balancing factor.
|
|
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...
Well, I wonder how much “fun” a commoner was mechanically to play, since they don’t get *any* abilities at all, and are mechanically significantly weaker than the paladin. And I do think that the paladin gets some nice abilities (e.g. his CHA bonus to all saves and immunity to fear) at low levels (ever had an epic level fighter running in fright from an encounter? I have).
So far the paladin has “outshined” the fighter in my own playtest campaign, ever since the 1st level, because (in addition to STR and CON) the fighter’s player has invested in DEX and INT to get Combat Expertise, Dodge and Mobility. The paladin’s player maxed out his CHA and STR and put the rest of the points in CON… at the expense of INT and WIS (both “dump stats”). He dishes out more damage than the barbarian (except when he rages) and nearly as much as the fighter (the difference is something like 2 or 3 points). So he can “save” his smites for BBEGs. Of course, it helps that the group has three melee-focused PCs, plus a cleric of a war deity, so this may not be how it works “usually”.
To be honest… no, I can’t recall a single suggestion that I have liked on this thread, but as you said, this thread has gotten pretty lengthy and I can’t remember anymore what was posted on the first ten or so pages. I *do* remember that I especially didn’t like the ‘Oaths’, because they provide weird static bonuses (e.g. +1 to hit and +3 to dmg, IIRC) and I’d like more *dynamic* options if there will be mechanical changes to the class.
|
|
Where are your posts about how to make the Paladin feel better? - No Ironi or sarkasm from my part.
Well, I did suggest that SA (a big beef with a lot of posters, who feel that the rogue inflicts more damage per round than any other class) would be made a once/round ability -- that would also result that the paladin becomes "better" in "combat efficiency" as well. Also, I have posted some fifty or more (haven't counted them) new Paladin Auras and "Smite Powers" on another thread. You see, I think that instead of increasing the damage dice, the paladin would actually benefit more from having tactical "rider" effects (e.g. Dazing/Stunning/Intimidating/Dispelling/Blinding/etc. Smite) linked to his smite. But I don't see that happening, because it would too great a change in terms of backwards compatibility.
|
|
Well, I wonder how much “fun” a commoner was mechanically to play, since they don’t get *any* abilities at all, and are mechanically significantly weaker than the paladin.
The difference being you know that going in. when you look at the commoner class you can see hey, this is mechanically the weakest class. In fact the DMG comes right out and says hey PCs shouldn't play this class. But it was a solo campaign and I was playing a goblin and it was a blast. I wasn't under any illusions though. The paladin isn't like that, it has full bab and a few abilities at first level and the PH doesn't make the point of saying hey, this class is only fun after you get to higher levels.
And I do think that the paladin gets some nice abilities (e.g. his CHA bonus to all saves and immunity to fear) at low levels (ever had an epic level fighter running in fright from an encounter? I have).
Yes I've been out of a game because of fear before, but then I've also played in games and run games where fear never came up. And I'm not denying that the saves aren't a good thing. they are however a very static thing that isn't much fun. And when the fun ability sucks i.e. smite, then the static boosts being good don't make up the difference. I'm not one of the people who thinks an always on ability is really needed, I just think smite needs to be good so that when you are smiting you feel good about it and not I did two extra damage whopie. I like the idea of a +1 per unused smite, but I'm not going to cry if no always on ability is added. I am going to cry if smite 1 per day is the only ability at first level that a paladin gets that can be used (because right now with detect evil in its current form it is)
So far the paladin has “outshined” the fighter in my own playtest campaign, ever since the 1st level, because (in addition to STR and CON) the fighter’s player has invested in DEX and INT to get Combat Expertise, Dodge and Mobility. The paladin’s player maxed out his CHA and STR and put the rest of the points in CON… at the expense of INT and WIS (both “dump stats”).
Well as people are so fond of telling me in my playtest, that is the result of the build your fighter chose. You can't expect a character that goes MAD to compete with a character that dumps everything but the two stats he needs. As he gets higher level though his feat choices should quickly close the gap in ability and if not then there is something up.
|
|
Well, I did suggest that SA (a big beef with a lot of posters, who feel that the rogue inflicts more damage per round than any other class) would be made a once/round ability -- that would also result that the paladin becomes "better" in "combat efficiency" as well. Also, I have posted some fifty or more (haven't counted them) new Paladin Auras and "Smite Powers" on another thread. You see, I think that instead of increasing the damage dice, the paladin would actually benefit more from having tactical "rider" effects (e.g. Dazing/Stunning/Intimidating/Dispelling/Blinding/etc. Smite) linked to his smite. But I don't see that happening, because it would too great a change in terms of backwards compatibility.Where are your posts about how to make the Paladin feel better? - No Ironi or sarkasm from my part.
Yeah the rider effects were the best idea suggested so far whoever first suggested them before I championed them was quite clever. but I disagree that no boost to damage is needed, regardless of the situation some kind of damage boost is needed, Jason made it a boost by adding more rounds at higher levels which has never been where the paladin had a problem. I still say that most of the work needs to be done at levels one through five.
Here is a question Asgertion, what did you think of my suggestion of instead of multiple rounds at higher level, smite just gives you an extra attack at your full attack bonus. It never gets better, you don't get more attacks at higher level, just more damage, but this helps with the low level use it and loose it miss factor by at least giving you a second chance. and the fact that its once per day means it's not abusable.
|
|
Here is a question Asgertion, what did you think of my suggestion of instead of multiple rounds at higher level, smite just gives you an extra attack at your full attack bonus. It never gets better, you don't get more attacks at higher level, just more damage, but this helps with the low level use it and loose it miss factor by at least giving you a second chance. and the fact that its once per day means it's not abusable.
Actually, I missed that one, but it would be a far more reasonable change than bonus dice to damage. One of the things I've thought about is the "reliable" powers in 4E -- why couldn't the paladin "hold the charge", if he misses? That way you would never "waste" a Smite -- if you miss, you can use the Smite again on your next attack.
|
|
Here is a question Asgertion, what did you think of my suggestion of instead of multiple rounds at higher level, smite just gives you an extra attack at your full attack bonus. It never gets better, you don't get more attacks at higher level, just more damage, but this helps with the low level use it and loose it miss factor by at least giving you a second chance. and the fact that its once per day means it's not abusable.Actually, I missed that one, but it would be a far more reasonable change than bonus dice to damage. One of the things I've thought about is the "reliable" powers in 4E -- why couldn't the paladin "hold the charge", if he misses? That way you would never "waste" a Smite -- if you miss, you can use the Smite again on your next attack.
Jason already came down as not interested in that idea in a thread specifically about it.
But seriously I want the damage changed. I want the damage changed to d6/2 levels against anyone. +1 level damage even if on two attacks at low level is still lame. even at high level where you have multiple attacks and level damage on several attacks isn't as fun as rolling extra dice. But my main beef is still with levels 1 through 5. Although the extra damage from that second attack does make the difference so If it did just become an extra attack where the bonus damage stayed 1 per level I would accept it.
WOW I suggested something Asgertion didn't dislike, I feel like I've failed in some way, I need a shower to get clean, i feel dirty ;)
See this is why we continue with discussion, because eventually someone throws an idea out that people like.
|
|
Well I now put my money where my mouth is.
"When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls." Tower shield = -2 on attack rolls. So you get a + 2 to AC and the you get a -2 on attack rolls. A -2 on attack rolls is basically the same as giving the monsters a +2 AC.
Now.. didn't you just say the paladin needed som "more offense", a tower shield don't help.
Didn't you just say "the defense guru" is old, stale and frankly boring and unattractive".
At level one a fighter with a tower shield would take the role of "the defense guru" = boring.
He/she don't get hit often and is now as useless/good as the Paldin at hitting "the bastard"..."if you still can't hit the bastard" well you can't hurt him ..right?.
A -2 on attack rolls at level 1 is not good.
True - and I do still vehemently believe that the paladin is far behind the curve in his ability to hit creatures consistently.
That being said - there's an overwhelming agreement among others that the paladin is better suited for defense (only), to which I contested and feel that if that is to be so - then adding tower shield as an option and proficiency not only makes sense, but helps alot in that endeavor - at least as an option for those that will simply go forward with the defensive guru aspect of him.
As it stands, its an option for fighters, but few take advantage of it - preferring the more offensive builds most of the time. For my part, I say make it an option to help excel the paladin at what he was designed for (whether I'm thrill of that design or not - the fact remains that he is - though could be better), and an option that can be ignored, if someone wants to go across the grain and make an offense oriented. (which would probably entail less emphasis on Charisma which directly lesses his saves and channeling and spellcasting in favor of more strength and Dex or Con)
Robert
If the only ability of a character is they get hit less often, they're not terribly fun to play, and they're not contributing anything to the party unless they can not only ensure they stand longer than a party member being attacked in a similar manner, but they can force the enemy to focus attention on them rather than the squishier (and much more dangerous) party members.
I'm perfectly happy keeping a defensive focus on the paladin, but good game design requires two things here, I believe:
1. The defenses are active in some way, requiring player participation and encouraging fun gameplay
2. The defenses benefit the party, rather than just allow the paladin to die last.
Interestingly, the paladin is the only iconic character in Pathfinder depicted holding a shield, so the defensive focus may be what gamers expect. I looked at a copy of Diablo 2 the other day, and it shows the paladin the same way: in heavy armor with a shield and sword.
I want the paladin to have defensive options, but I think "focus" is too strong a word. Why is the most conspicuous class feature Smite Evil if the paladin is focused on defense?
I like your point about the defense being active rather than passive. Interfering with enemy attacks against allies is fun, but the most active defense I can think of is a counter-attack. The 1e barbarian in Unearthed Arcana had a 5% chance per level to detect and counter attacks from the rear. I thought it would be fun to let the paladin counter melee attacks directed against allies, if either the ally or the attacker are in a space threatened by the paladin. Also, to give enemies some motivation to attack the paladin first before squishier allies, a class feature could make the paladin's attacks get stronger as her allies fall. This also helps the paladin save the day, rather than simply be the last one standing.
what did you think of my suggestion of instead of multiple rounds at higher level, smite just gives you an extra attack at your full attack bonus.
I’ve liked several smite ideas proposed in this thread, but this one is the best I've seen.
Jason made it a boost by adding more rounds at higher levels which has never been where the paladin had a problem. I still say that most of the work needs to be done at levels one through five.
If the paladin is weak at low levels, I don't see anything at higher levels to make the situation better, except for more smites. How is it that higher levels have never been a problem for the paladin? I don't see any big change at 6th level except a second swing when full attacking (nothing special for a melee class). Also, the whiff problem Jason was trying to solve ruined smites at high level too, you were just more likely to have a smite or two left. So are you only calling it a problem when the paladin can't pull off a smite or two each day?
But Code of Conduct and LG alignment do not actually "enforce" very much, because they depend so much on personal interpretation and DM adjudication. As I've said before, we *do* care about alignment violations and powergaming in my group, but I also (occasionally) play in campaigns which have a more "liberal" approach (i.e. the players are free to do pretty much anything -- regardless of class or alignment). Therefore, in my opinion, it's not valid to claim that they're a balancing factor.Guys..you both forgot two other things the paladin also gets at first level.
Lawful good alignment restriction
Code of ConductEveryone 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.
True. This whole 'Code of Conduct Lawful good alignment restriction' argument is just a lot of nonsense. How you Play your Paladin is a mattter of taste...and the Beta has a "liberal" approach on alignment.
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity.
It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.
Each alignment represents a broad range of personality
types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the
same alignment can still be quite different from each other
in addition, few people are completely consistent.".
So a Paladin cant't lie. Can he bluff?
Well our DM would allow some lies sometimes but not all the time. I have Played all kind of Paladins and one of them was a very stingy and unpleasant person. And what the Paladin may or may not do is closely conected to the campaign and to what your DM rule.....
.....in the end it's a matter of taste not balance - Do you like ethical dilemma or not?
Yes Asgetrion, you are spot on :-) Zark aka TomJohn
|
|
Well, I wonder how much “fun” a commoner was mechanically to play, since they don’t get *any* abilities at all, and are mechanically significantly weaker than the paladin.
Well, the Commoner could fill up several twenty-page threads on his own. Why is that class so utterly worthless?
The Wizard gets the same Hit Die and BAB! The Wizard! Who sits on his arse all day! Reading! And he knows more weapons!
Because obviously far more fights break out down the library than in the local spit'n'sawdust tavern.
Hint: They're called 'simple weapons' for a reason. In that you'd have to be simple (to a medically-diagnosable level) not to know how they work. And don't get me started on polearms and 'exotic' oriental weapons; the whole point of these is that they were based on tools the peasants used every day. Looks like the Commoners are even incapable of forming a mob with torches and pithforks, now. It has to be torches or pitchforks, no hang on, just torches, since the concept of a 'fork' is beyond the processing power of their feeble brain-stem.
Baron: "Is the harvest in?"
Bailiff: "No, it appears half the workers killed themselves by grabbing the wrong end of the pitchfork, and bled to death (what with none of them having any Heal ranks, either)"
Baron: "Right; you survivors! Pick up those shovels and bury these dead folk!"
Remaining Peasants; <grab shovels by the blade, ram handles into dirt, severing their fingers>"Mmmmnnnnuuuhhhh!"
Is it some bias by the designers, who think, if you're not living in the chic hip city, sipping lattes with your pinky finger out, that you must be a feeble-bodied, unskilled moron?
Were the 3.5 designers bullied at school, by some farmer's kids? Is this their roundabout revenge?
"Just you wait! Twenty years from now, I will write a role-playing game that slanders all your blue-collar kind! You see if I don't! And then who'll be sorry? Hmm?"
()
To the people who want the paladin to be "king of defense," what does that actually mean in terms of game play? Tower shield proficiency doesn't do it, either -- nor would big bonuses to AC -- because then all the bad guys would just ignore the paladin and proceed to butcher his party instead. Someone mentioned a hallway, which is good when you're in a 5' corridor, but in all other situations you're left saying "Wait! We can't fight you yet! We need to find a 5' corridior first!"
Now, if the paladin had Knight-like class features that let him force enemies to attack him, that let him apply his shield bonus to all adjacent allies... and maybe an aura that let him apply his divine grace to allies within, say, 30 ft., now we're starting to get somewhere. Suggestions?
To the people who want the paladin to be "king of defense," what does that actually mean in terms of game play? Tower shield proficiency doesn't do it, either -- nor would big bonuses to AC -- because then all the bad guys would just ignore the paladin and proceed to butcher his party instead. Someone mentioned a hallway, which is good when you're in a 5' corridor, but in all other situations you're left saying "Wait! We can't fight you yet! We need to find a 5' corridior first!"
Now, if the paladin had Knight-like class features that let him force enemies to attack him, that let him apply his shield bonus to all adjacent allies... and maybe an aura that let him apply his divine grace to allies within, say, 30 ft., now we're starting to get somewhere. Suggestions?
Let the paladin counter attacks against a designated ward. Applying shield bonus to all adjacent allies is a little hard to visualize, but one adjacent ally (like a defense of opportunity) makes sense, maybe with better than +1 AC. Channeling energy to reinforce the paladin's aura against breath weapon and elemental spell damage makes the aura something other than a deathtrap for allies. Extending the paladin's charisma bonus to nearby allies' saves is nice, although the auras in Pathfinder are generally 10 foot radius. What if at will a paladin could challenge a specific enemy (at most one per initiative), who gets a combat penalty against anyone but the paladin if that enemy fails a Will save? Since we're being careful not to force the paladin's actions with code of conduct restrictions, it seems unfair for the paladin to force an enemy's actions.
|
|
Hmm so something like
Shield ally: 1 per day/2 paladin levels as an immeadiate action you may bestow the benefits of your defense on an adjacent ally. until the start of your next round that as long as that ally is adjacent to you his AC is treated as your AC against one creature, designated when you activate this ability. If an attack beats his AC then you take the damage.
I was thinking something like,
Shield Ward (Combat)
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: You may choose to apply your shield bonus to AC to one ally in an adjacent square, in addition to yourself. This active protection counts as an attack of opportunity on your part.
|
|
I was thinking something like,
Shield Ward (Combat)
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: You may choose to apply your shield bonus to AC to one ally in an adjacent square, in addition to yourself. This active protection counts as an attack of opportunity on your part.
The problem with that unless the ally has a sizable defense already a +2 isn't going to make all that much of a difference. a tower shield does, but then we are right back to that poor offense thing we all talk about.
I was thinking something like,
Shield Ward (Combat)
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: You may choose to apply your shield bonus to AC to one ally in an adjacent square, in addition to yourself. This active protection counts as an attack of opportunity on your part.
Seems like a poor way to squander an AoO to me. Why not give the paladin a number of Defenses of Opportunity equal to their number of AoO's? That way the feat-starved paladin gets more bang for the buck from Combat Reflexes.
EDIT: Or if you're going to charge an AoO, at least allow the paladin a counter-attack.
|
|
I like your point about the defense being active rather than passive. Interfering with enemy attacks against allies is fun, but the most active defense I can think of is a counter-attack. The 1e barbarian in Unearthed Arcana had a 5% chance per level to detect and counter attacks from the rear. I thought it would be fun to let the paladin counter melee attacks directed against allies, if either the ally or the attacker are in a space threatened by the paladin. Also, to give enemies some motivation to attack the paladin first before squishier allies, a class feature could make the paladin's attacks get stronger as her allies fall. This also helps the paladin save the day, rather than simply be the last one standing.
i love all these shield ally, counter-attacking, shield ward stuff you all have been posting.
Months ago I was taking part in a lengthy thread about fighter options; to which I designed alot of fighter talents (basically fighter-only feats) that built on one of three iconic builds (sword and board, two-handed juggernauts, and flashy one handed swashbuckler types).
The talents in the sword & board design had some that mirrored your concepts. My favorite are two specifically.
One: forces the opponent only to attack he with the shield
two: allows an instand AoO on anyone who is threating the defender, but chooses to attack another instead.
three: allows the defender to share his shield bonus with adjacent allies.
I really like these - and especially #2 and they make great sense for the paladin if were going to continue to build upon the king of defense. but it doesn't do anything for issue that the paladin still can't bump up his attack rolls enough. Its just building his defense even more - not helping his offensive ineffectiveness.
Robert
All and all a solid class upgrade but not allowing an intelligent, free willed undead a foe a save vs loh damage seems a little too strong. After all, part of the drama of a good fight is the conflict and risk. Unintelligent undead jobbers deserve to go down by the dozens, but a carefully constructed Undead leader/boss deserves a fighting chance. After all, lets face it, most Dms are not going to let pcs die (at least permenantly) in a campaign. Pcs have enough advantages and to allow a single, popular category of monsters an achille's heel vs a class seems unbalancing. On the otherside of the coin, maybe I'm just watching out for all of you evil pcs with grandiose ambitions; and plans that require decades to come to fruition!