|
Jason,
I like all the upgrades you introduced on page one of this thread, except for the Special Mount stuff. I don't think Special Mounts should go the way of Animal Companions. The two systems should remain separate.
Instead, in order to avoid all the headaches of a "new unified theory of relativity" (i.e. Stephen Hawkins hasn't figured it out yet, so I don't think we will before August 2009! :P LOL!) I suggest you introduce the following wording in the Animal Companion, Animal Domain, Special Mount and Familiar class abilities text (under the Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and Wizard headings):
"This ability stacks with other class abilities which enhance animals. For instance, if a paladin also has druid or ranger levels, he stacks those unto the abilities of his mount. Other examples would include a wizard with a cat familiar who ends up taking 5 levels of paladin: he would then stack the Special Mount abilities unto his familiar or the other way around. Of course, if a paladin with a special mount elects to take druid, wizard or ranger levels, he can elect to keep his Special Mount the way it is and add a new animal to his reportoire, as applicable for the class taken. The option of stacking powers deriving from all class abilities unto *one* animal chosen by the character is purely optional, and meant to streamline play and increase game speed by reducing the amount of animals controlled by one character."
[...]After all, lets face it, most Dms are not going to let pcs die (at least permenantly) in a campaign. [...]
Sounds a bit like a parent playing D&d with her/his children. Sorry this argument is no good.
Hey, Let's nerf the LoH because the DM don't want to play the monsters to their full potential, because if he does a character might die. So therefore the monsters need their hit points - because the DM don't play the monsters to their full pontential...etc. etc.( is it "to their full potential" or "at their full potential").
We have had TPK in our campaigns and all of us had a character dying at least once (not counting the TPK:s). No problem just fun. Zark aka TomJohn
Make full attacks a standard action rather than a full round action [and other suggestions on how to rewrite the combat rules]
So melee classes suck? The Paldin suck? The Fighter, barbarian suck?
solution: let's rewrite the rules. This thread has turned into a monster and Dr. Frankenstein probably has a headache by now.This, "let's rewrite the Paladin or/and let's rewrite the rules or/and let's bicker until we lose track of the first post in the thread" attitude won't help the Paladin or the game. We're getting close to 1000 posts. How many time has Jason comented on the ideas in this thread? Ehren37 was perhaps right. Are we drifting into bizarro world?
My biggest concern with it is, will it disadvantage players too much because monsters will gain this now too. Or...would they?
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 Robert, the monsters should get the same benefits. . And if anyone don't agree, well free speech.
I don't like this "The herores get one set of rules, the monsters get another set of rules". I liked the 3.5 design in this matter, not the Paizo design. A moster with class levels should be treated as a monster with class levels. And a new set of combat rules should apply to all, dragons and PC:s. And rewriting the rules just because the Paladin don't shine? Are we drifting into bizarro world?/Z. Aka TomJohn
It all depends on game style I guess. In my campaigns death is death, I don't believe in the whole resurrection thing. I like to choose when and where I let pcs die for dramatic effect. I'm more concerned with the loh implications with undead pcs. not everyone plays the normal races or alignments. I prefer my campaign world to be grey with some areas of black and white. I should state that i don't allow an entire party of undead characters but i do allow other players from outside our group to play the adversaries just to add some chaos to my plans. all and all any arguement is moot. most gms will only use what rule they want and houserule everything else. Personally, i think the any detect alignment ability is counterproductive to roleplaying but thats just my tastes. I definetly like the aproach that Paizo has taken and using the message boards and forums to help shape their product earns an immeasurable amount of respect from me, as do the opinions of my fellow players. its nice to know that good old fashioned pen and paper rpgs still have a place in the world
I'm more concerned with the loh implications with undead pcs
Nerfing the Loh because a player want tp play an undead an evil monster? I see no need no nerf it. If you want a suggestion. Well in your campaign add a save, 10 + halv paldin level (rounded down) + charisma. Simple fix.
I don't think our DM ever has let a pcs die for dramatic effect. If we die, we have been over confident or stupid or both or very unlucky and stupid.No risk = no fun. Z. aka TomJohn
|
I'm more concerned with the loh implications with undead pcs. not everyone plays the normal races or alignments.
I agree that you can't nerf the paladin's powers just because some necrophiliac* wants to be a lich.
Anyone going down that path should do so, with their eye(-sockets) open, and weigh up the advantages of being immune to several schools of magic, various energy types and being healed by negative energy, vs the fact that they're hurt by positive energy.
I think there are much worse things for them to worry about, like a cleric with full uses of Channel, spontaneous cures or the Heal spell, rather than the, frankly, once in a blue moon chance they may get take a LOH off a paladin.
*By that, I'm referring to the character, not the player, but then again, I've seen some wierd groups...
Well it's not just the LoH to worry about...
After all they paladin could SMITE EVIL LAY ON HANDS!
The HORROR!
Ok, maybe not. But at level twenty that would be 10d6 from the lay on hands... and 10d6 from the smite evil... and since the capstone ability of the paladin maximizes the LoH, my question would be if the smite evil, as part of the LoH would get maximized too? I'm kind of thinking no, but I don't know for certain.
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
If you mean penalizing the enemy for attacking a character other than the defender, I agree it makes a good option. The alternative I mentioned is to let the paladin's attacks get stronger as his allies fall, so enemies learn it's dangerous to save the paladin for last. Either defense is troublesome for the enemy whether they choose to attack the paladin first or last.
two: allows an instand AoO on anyone who is threating the defender, but chooses to attack another instead.
This one is similar to what I was thinking. However, I wouldn't require the enemy to be threatening both the paladin and the ally. Please excuse my poor diagrams (no monospace font):
P = Paladin
A = Ally
E = Enemy <, ^, v, > = direction of attack
Here's the situation I think you're describing in idea #2:
P
A<E (enemy in range of paladin attacks ally adjacent to paladin)
or else
A<E_P (enemy between paladin and ally attacks ally)
I think the following situation also makes sense:
P_A<E (paladin behind ally)
and even these (paladin takes a 5-foot step diagonally to "x" to get in striking range):
P____
__x__
__A<E
______P
____x__
A<E____
In all of these cases a 5-foot step, if needed, puts the paladin in striking range. (The ability would be worded to allow a 5-foot step if it would enable the defensive AoO.)
three: allows the defender to share his shield bonus with adjacent allies.
I have trouble with that ability in the following case:
E1><P_A<E2
How is the paladin fighting E1 supposed to interpose his shield between the ally(A) and E2? Similarly, imagine a group of allies clustering around the paladin to benefit from his aura:
A_A_A<E1
A_P_A
A_A_A<E2
E3^
How is the paladin supposed to interpose his shield between all three targeted allies and the enemies attacking them? Protecting all these allies starts to feel like Captain America making his shield ricochet around the room.
So while the simplicity of #3 is nice, I fear it is too simplistic. A good shield mechanic to help allies is going to require some extra wording. Also, I prefer that the ability work without a shield, and the shield improves it, so every paladin in the world isn't forced to lug a shield around.
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.
I like defensive options for the paladin, but I think "king of defense" is going too far. More generally, I'd like to see the paladin being heroic, saving the day, and rescuing allies, which calls for offense at least as much as 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.
That's why I thought you might like the option of boosting the paladin's attacks when allies are in trouble.
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
No, I still vehemently disagree. Just because YOUR DM does not focus on these things does not make them all of the sudden not matter when it comes to balance. They are just as much a part of the class as the skills you get at level one.
In another post Asgetrion you also used the example of the paladin being immune to fear as a BIG class advantage. Well what of the games that dont ever make you take fear checks? Should we argue by your same logic that the paladins immunity to fear is worthless because not all groups make you worry about fear checks? Well then I guess the same could be said for their immunity to diseases! What about their abilities to remove curses/poisons...later on immunities to charm. All of those abilities must be worthless as well because not all DM's use them as part of their games.
I am sorry, this logic is wrong. Being restricted to an alignment is....I already said it....a restriction. Being forced to live by a code of conduct is an even BIGGER restriction.
That said, I do not think that those things should go away. They are important to the class, they are there for the flavor...it SHOULD be hard to play a paladin. But as you said again, the paladin also brings these restrictions to the group he is in. I do not know how to stress it enough that the paladin should bring considerable benefits to the group to outweigh this imbalance. So again, Balance is my focus...but you MUST take these things into account.
I love the discussion going on about the defensive side of the paladin, particularly the stuff dealing with the shield.
When I think of the sword/board fighters I think of Achillies from Troy and Leonidas from 300. These guys really did some amazing stuff with sword and shield.
Here is an issue that I am going to bring up in the combat section.
Shield Bash should not be based off of TWF....most of the guys using a shield will never have the dex to gain the benefit of TWF. A shield bash should be the simple act of bashing with your shield at your full BAB as an off hand attack where you loose your AC from your shield if you do so.
Given the movie examples above...it should be almost as common to see someone bashing with a shield as slicing with their sword. With the current game mechanics it is not, because there are to many feat requirements to do so.
That simple change above would do GREAT things for all shield fighters.
Now, the discussion about adding your defense to your allies.
I like the idea that the paladin can grant his shield bonus to his allies. Currently the paladins ability to protect his allies mainly comes from his Auras, which is fine except for that causes the group to "cluster". Which was my argument for Mettle becoming an aura at later levels...which was shot down but oh well.
But I also think that Mink brought up a good point.
If you mean penalizing the enemy for attacking a character other than the defender, I agree it makes a good option. The alternative I mentioned is to let the paladin's attacks get stronger as his allies fall, so enemies learn it's dangerous to save the paladin for last. Either defense is troublesome for the enemy whether they choose to attack the paladin first or last.
This is the essence of the problem with "defense". The enemies know it is going to be hard to drop the big guy in shinny armor with the holy symbol....so just dont attack him till the end. But if they also know, "hey that guy gets tougher and stronger as we are dropping his allies, we should deal with him now before he gets to mean".
That was the whole idea behind the "avenge the fallen" oath I came up with. It would make it advantageous to attack the paladin first, which by default causes the paladin to be the defense guy because his friends are not taking all those hits. Then on the flip side, if his allies all fall, he may be tough enough to save the day when it is all said and done.
This idea was initially proposed as an oath, but we could wrap it into a paladin ability just as easily.
We could cause the paladins hit/dam/AC/DR to increase as allies fall, or after so many rounds, or after so much damage. If you really want to make him the defense guy, he has to be some sort of threat. THREAT means offense, I am sorry it just does. So as the old saying goes, a good defense is a great offense. There is no aggro in this game, there are no taunts (technically). So for the paladin to get the bad guys attention, he needs to be able to hurt the guy. Right now the paladin is the fly being swatted at by the sleepy dragon, annoying but only until it decides he has had enough.
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.
[...] Just because YOUR DM does not focus on these things does not make them all of the sudden not matter [...]
I did not say so. I don't say the restriction don't matter I just say it's not a problem. The Code of Conduct and Lawful good alignment are only a problems if you don't like ethical dilemma.
Your Code of Conduct don't give you better or worse AC or a better or worse to hit or damage.I think the Code of Conduct helps role playing, just as skills like diplomacy, sense motiv and bluff and a great charisma score helps. Problem playing a rouge/Paladin? I'd say The Code of Conduct makes a rogue/Paladin very interesting to play.
There has been a debate in some thread (this?) if a Paladin can strike a deal with a lesser evil (e.g. a devil or a evil wizard or evil King) to fight a greater evil (Big bad evil guy) let's say a mighty demon. Can he, or can he not, strike a deal with a lesser evil in order to save the world?.............I don't see it as an yes or no answer. Anyway, it's a nice dilema. I don't see the Code of Conduct as a restriction but as an asset. Let's look at this Code.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good
alignment and loses all class abilities, except proficiencies,
if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
So I can't be a assassin/Paladin? Big Deal. It's the heroes vs. the monsters. So a Paladin can't commit evil acts. Can any good character willingly commits an evil acts and still be good?
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she
respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying,
not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those
in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or
chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
now, "respect legitimate authority" is very intressting. What if the king is LE (Lawful evil). I've played campaign where The local king is LE.
"help those in need" Yes but the Paladin can't help them all and what if those in need are Neutral good freedom fighters? How do I help them? Let's say I Think:- I help them by helping myself killing the Big bad evil guy. Right or wrong? It's not obviuos how or who i should help.
"punish those who harm or threaten innocents" and what if the Neutral good freedom fighters threaten innocent evil citizens or threaten innocent Lawful Neutral citizens who support the evil king?
...and innocents, who or how define innocents?
"provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends", so helping evil persons is OK provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends. Evil ends don't necessarily equal helping evil NPC:s or chaotic NPC:s.
So respect the legitimate authority of the evil king and whipe out the chaotic good freedom fighters? Freedom fighter or criminals? Take your pick.....OK so you don't kill em all, but you can't even help the chaotic good, "not use the help for evil or chaotic ends" and "respect legitimate authority".
I'm saying, even the Code of Conduc isn't all black or white. Z aka TomJohn
No doubt it makes roleplaying interesting, and I enjoy that part of it.
But ask yourself, does any other class have to worry about those interpretations and possible penalties IF they make the wrong decision? Sounds like a restriction to me.
Do not get me wrong, I have said it many times....having the code makes sense. But to many people play it off as if it does not matter. It is there for a reason and that reason is to balance out what SHOULD be considerable class advantages, the problem is, they arent what they should be.
Some people have brought up that the paladin used to have a vow of poverty or something, where he had to tithe and could only own so many magic items at one time. I think this was a great concept...but can you argue that these were not obvious restrictions as well? These were simply more obvious because they were put in numeric form, you could actually COUNT the restriction.
I would not even be against reinstating those, but again...you would have to make the paladin able to compensate for them.
No doubt it makes roleplaying interesting, and I enjoy that part of it. But ask yourself, does any other class have to worry about those interpretations and possible penalties IF they make the wrong decision? Sounds like a restriction to me.[...]But to many people play it off as if it does not matter [...]
Well I don't see the Code or the alignment as problems. And I don't play it off as if it does not matter. OK you can't be a Paladin and bard or Barbarian or druid, but apart from that, no problem. No point continue bickering. We don't agree. Simple and plain. z. aka TomJohn
No doubt it makes roleplaying interesting, and I enjoy that part of it. But ask yourself, does any other class have to worry about those interpretations and possible penalties IF they make the wrong decision? Sounds like a restriction to me.[...]But to many people play it off as if it does not matter [...]
Well I don't see the Code or the alignment as problems. And I don't play it off as if it does not matter. OK you can't be a Paladin and bard or Barbarian or druid, but apart from that, no problem. No point continue bickering. We don't agree. Simple and plain. z. aka TomJohn
No no, I dont think that we were bickering. Just a discussion...and I am not questioning how you Role play.
I am just emphasizing that while we are talking about design and balance we must consider those things, they can not pretend like they are not there because not everyone plays the same game, but we all use the same rules.
|
P = Paladin
A = Ally
E = Enemy <, ^, v, > = direction of attackHere's the situation I think you're describing in idea #2:
P
A<E (enemy in range of paladin attacks ally adjacent to paladin)
After successfully deciphering your hieroglyphics, I think you're correct in this part of it.
Essentially if both the paladin and the ally are threatened by the same enemy, and that enemy chooses to ignore the paladin and attack the ally (only), then it provokes and AoO, or bonuses to the paladin's next attacks.
As for the shield ally - I agree it doesn't make sense to be able to protect in a 360 degree circle with the shield for the adjacent ally. My original write-up and concept is that the 'fighter' begins the ability by only being able to shield one ally per round, and that ability gets strengthened with each additional talent you add - increasing it up to three adjacent allies maximum.
Finally, I guess I missed your idea of granting the paladin special benefits if/when an ally is knocked unconscious. An ability called "Last Man Standing" sounds cool - granting a +1 to hit and damage with each ally that is laying on the ground....?
Robert
|
|
No doubt it makes roleplaying interesting, and I enjoy that part of it. But ask yourself, does any other class have to worry about those interpretations and possible penalties IF they make the wrong decision? Sounds like a restriction to me.[...]But to many people play it off as if it does not matter [...]
Well I don't see the Code or the alignment as problems. And I don't play it off as if it does not matter. OK you can't be a Paladin and bard or Barbarian or druid, but apart from that, no problem. No point continue bickering. We don't agree. Simple and plain. z. aka TomJohn
The alignment is definitely a restriction, but many classes have some sore of restriction - however, the paladin has only one choice - where as most with restrictions have at least three. Regardless, many characters can be LG, but the paladin has more than just the alignment restriction - he has the code of conduct that further restricts how much wiggle room one has within the LG arena. Furthermore, if he strays outside that code and/or alignment, all that he's worked for in his class restrictions are to be stripped away. No other class has THAT restriction. Yes, it is a restriction on fluff and is relative to how stringent a DM follows such concepts of good/evil or alignments, but I've know DMs that don't worry about equipment and weight allowances, and I've known DMs that don't worry about used resources such as oil, torches, rope, rations; so should we consider Darkvision a useless ability since he's not counting the torches PCs are carrying.... or small-sized characters with low strength to be too powerful because some DMs won't adhere to the concepts of encumbrance....?
The point is, like all other checks and balances, they are designed with the concept of being used in a balanced and fair game; if you ignore or chance any such balancing feature of the core rules, you'll potentially disrupt balance somewhere else.
Now is the code of conduct and alignment restriction so horrible that no one will play it? No, of course not, and I'm not trying to sell it as the reason that a paladin should have free reign for being a 'god' in it's class creation; but they do prevent a lot of people from playing them - as many people simply detest having those restrictions on them; people who much prefer playing the lawless, or mischievious sorts that just want to be able to do and attack anything in any manner they want. And there's a lot of those. No restrictions, no penalties.
Robert
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.
Given that its a playtest post, and there are people clamoring for mroe buffs, remaining quiet wont have the desired effect. Arguiing against overpowered buffs will.
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...
Being lawful good isnt a hinderance. Being chaotic evil isnt an advantage. Presumably if you didnt want to be a paragon of virtue, you wouldnt play a paladin (or a LG fighter, or a LG wizard, or whatever) in the first place. You shouldnt get mechanical bonuses for picking a character concept and RPing that. The chaotic neutral barbarian doesnt get extra benefits for playing something that could cause him trouble with law enforcement officials.
|
|
Given that its a playtest post, and there are people clamoring for mroe buffs, remaining quiet wont have the desired effect. Arguiing against overpowered buffs will.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.
No this is a design focus post, where we focus on Design. Playtest reports are up higher, and you can report how your paladin stacks up in play and jason will see hey there's a guy who has a good paladin who doesn't think that it needs more. But you can also argue against changes as asgertion does without getting insulting. Which I notice you have stopped doing so thank you for being reasonable. And if you want to argue against changes feel free. I have no problem with countering what you say with my own experience. So if you think the new version of the paladins smite is so powerful does this mean you like or dislike my suggestion where multiple rounds are dropped in favor of always just granting an extra attack at your highest bonus. It helps at low levels, stays relevant at high levels, and doesn't leave you smiting every round which seemed to be your fear earlier?
Being lawful good isnt a hinderance. Being chaotic evil isnt an advantage. Presumably if you didnt want to be a paragon of virtue, you wouldnt play a paladin (or a LG fighter, or a LG wizard, or whatever) in the first place. You shouldnt get mechanical bonuses for picking a character concept and RPing that. The chaotic neutral barbarian doesnt get extra benefits for playing something that could cause him trouble with law enforcement officials.
First. Wellcome back Ehren37. I hope you stay :-)
Yes Ehren37, I do agree.Now I do think the Paladin need a slight boost. Yes, I do.
Should the Paladin get a boost because of the Code or his/her Alignment? No.
Should the druid, Bard, monk or barbarian get a boost because or their Alignment? No.
Frankly, the paladin's code restricts the group as much as the paladin
Well if you don't want a Paladin in the group - kick him out.
Frankly, the Neutral evil druid restricts the group as much as the evil bastard.We have a new player in the group. He first wanted to play an evil charecter. we said no.
We had another who wanted to play chaotic neutral in the same group with a Paladin the DM said no. Z. aka TomJohn.
|
|
Okay so let's look at the high level breakdown.
Some people argue that a typical fight lasts 3-4 rounds.
Not everyone agrees but lets look at it from their point of view and see their concern
The current smite will at 20th level be active for 3 rounds at 7 times a day that = 21 rounds, 4 fights (the supposed normal limit) at 4 rounds per day, and at high level powerful demons can be an expected foe. That does equate to an always on hit and AC boost and a significant damage boost, that is better than the rogues.
So when people who have combats say that the paladin doesn't need a boost, it's probably because they are playing at an average of 3-4 round combats.
My suggestion changes from multiple rounds to a single round but with an extra attack at your highest bonus
Since the second round would actually grant you that extra attack at your highest bonus, this version is actually significantly weaker. However being available right away does represent a useful ability at low levels where many people argue it struggles.
At 20th level you have seven per day. that equals 7 rounds out of 12-16 rounds. While your damage output for a single round is higher than before, you are no longer able to gain these bonuses every round in combat at high level.
The issue with my version is that it leaves you weak if your combats last for more rounds per day. If your average combat at high level is lasting 6-7 rounds, that equals 24-28 rounds of combat with Jason's version that means you'll have just shy of an always on boost. With my suggestion you are significantly behind in # of rounds. For me the compromise is that smite works the same for all enemies instead of the current works for some not for others version that turns the paladin into a ranger light. I think this makes those seven smites something to be feared and worthwile, but their limited # of times per day keeps you from going nova with them every combat.
|
|
Okay so let's look at the high level breakdown.
Some people argue that a typical fight lasts 3-4 rounds.
Not everyone agrees but lets look at it from their point of view and see their concern
The current smite will at 20th level be active for 3 rounds at 7 times a day that = 21 rounds, 4 fights (the supposed normal limit) at 4 rounds per day, and at high level powerful demons can be an expected foe. That does equate to an always on hit and AC boost and a significant damage boost, that is better than the rogues.
So when people who have combats say that the paladin doesn't need a boost, it's probably because they are playing at an average of 3-4 round combats.
My suggestion changes from multiple rounds to a single round but with an extra attack at your highest bonus
Since the second round would actually grant you that extra attack at your highest bonus, this version is actually significantly weaker. However being available right away does represent a useful ability at low levels where many people argue it struggles.
At 20th level you have seven per day. that equals 7 rounds out of 12-16 rounds. While your damage output for a single round is higher than before, you are no longer able to gain these bonuses every round in combat at high level.
The issue with my version is that it leaves you weak if your combats last for more rounds per day. If your average combat at high level is lasting 6-7 rounds, that equals 24-28 rounds of combat with Jason's version that means you'll have just shy of an always on boost. With my suggestion you are significantly behind in # of rounds. For me the compromise is that smite works the same for all enemies instead of the current works for some not for others version that turns the paladin into a ranger light. I think this makes those seven smites something to be feared and worthwile, but their limited # of times per day keeps you from going nova with them every combat.
One thing to take note:
4 encounters per day was the given in the 3rd edition mechanics for resources etc. Paizo has been historically finding ways with Pathfinder Alpha/Beta to extend the day to include additional combats; with barbarians being able rage longer, spellcasters with unlimited features, etc, I think we need to start looking at the game mechanics with a new pair of eyes, and a new set of standards.
Their Adventure paths and modules seems to me to be moving more towards multiple combats etc, with crypts and such having 6-8 encounters before being able to find respite.
Again - using the exact math dynamics of 3rd edition, i think it's fair to assume 4 combats - but I don't think that's a fair assessment for PF-RPG, and as I said - many classes are having their abilities extended to last longer.
Robert
|
|
I do agree.One more thing. lastknightleft lets get back to memory lane. I been thinking and I think you are right. This whole undead/evil outsider hunter Paldin is more a ranger thing.
Yes, I do change my mind. And I take pride in it :-)
I still like the "and the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess" rule. It's a Paladin thang :-) and I like it. z. aka TomJohn.
I don't know if I ever explicitly stated this: I agree with the assessment - I would prefer to do away with the bonus damage simply due to creature "type"
I do think having it work better against creatures of "overwhelming evil" or "evil descriptor" is appropriate, however.
Robert
I'm more concerned with the loh implications with undead pcsNerfing the Loh because a player want tp play an undead an evil monster? I see no need no nerf it. If you want a suggestion. Well in your campaign add a save, 10 + halv paldin level (rounded down) + charisma. Simple fix.
I don't think our DM ever has let a pcs die for dramatic effect. If we die, we have been over confident or stupid or both or very unlucky and stupid.
No risk = no fun. Z. aka TomJohn
Agreed. already had the save dc in place before i posted (i also implemented this to all positive/negative cleric abilities). I added saves as a safegard so cleric and "antipaladin" npcs wouldn't over power the pcs(boss npcs tend to be significantly higher in level compared to a single pc from the group) not to add flame to the fire but rather than adding to the power and abilities of the base classes in general couldn't we just add feats to accomplish what we want. i.e. "divine salvation": by spending 1 use of loh a paladin can spend multiple uses of loh L(capped by cha mod) as a standard action and/or spend another 1 use of loh to make it a swift action rather than make one uber class, couldn't we start with a base and use feats, skills or alternate class abilities of similar power to diversify (the precedence has been set with the various specialist school wizards and also by James Jacobs in the article Blackgards in Dragon #312) personally, I think the paladin is a powerful class already. When one speaks, people listen. its their archtype to be inspirational leaders Roleplay a class's advantages (nobody trust the rogue, admire the cleric etc.) as for no risk = no fun I agree. My current group just has different tastes than mine.
P = Paladin
A = Ally
E = Enemy <, ^, v, > = direction of attackHere's the situation I think you're describing in idea #2:
P
A<E (enemy in range of paladin attacks ally adjacent to paladin)After successfully deciphering your hieroglyphics, I think you're correct in this part of it.
Essentially if both the paladin and the ally are threatened by the same enemy, and that enemy chooses to ignore the paladin and attack the ally (only), then it provokes and AoO, or bonuses to the paladin's next attacks.
Oh well, I hoped that the diagrams would illustrate why I like the 5-foot step. That extends the paladin's defensive range to roughly the range of his aura, and occasionally helps him to arrive just in time.
As for the shield ally - I agree it doesn't make sense to be able to protect in a 360 degree circle with the shield for the adjacent ally. My original write-up and concept is that the 'fighter' begins the ability by only being able to shield one ally per round, and that ability gets strengthened with each additional talent you add - increasing it up to three adjacent allies maximum.
I think you noticed it doesn't always make sense for even one adjacent ally. I was also wondering why can't a paladin block attacks without a shield?
Finally, I guess I missed your idea of granting the paladin special benefits if/when an ally is knocked unconscious. An ability called "Last Man Standing" sounds cool - granting a +1 to hit and damage with each ally that is laying on the ground....?
I'm glad you liked that. Vult and I were considering a more powerful version: +2 per fallen ally, along with DR 2/-, applied a maximum number of times equal to the paladin's Charisma modifier or two plus a third of his paladin level, whichever is higher; although this more powerful version adds a restriction (you lose the ability for the day if you retreat while an ally is fallen, and take -2 Charisma until the end of the next encounter).
One more thing. lastknightleft lets get back to memory lane. I been thinking and I think you are right. This whole undead/evil outsider hunter Paldin is more a ranger thing. [...] I still like the "and the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess" rule. It's a Paladin thang :-) and I like it. z. aka TomJohn.I don't know if I ever explicitly stated this: I agree with the assessment - I would prefer to do away with the bonus damage simply due to creature "type"
I do think having it work better against creatures of "overwhelming evil" or "evil descriptor" is appropriate, however.
Robert
hm, very good point. I must tell our GM about you suggestion. I still however like "bypasses any DR the creature might possess" vs. undead and evil outsider. z. aka TomJohn
So the Paladin needs a boost at lower level but she is OK at higher levels. And it wouldn't be good to give the Paladin all the good stuff at level one, right? So here is my suggestion. Please give me feedback.
I do think the Paladin should get more smites at lower levels without provoking power dipping and without tipping the balans at higher levels.
Level 1 - 3
Smite evil, lesser:
This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 1 attack. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) or her Paladin level (whichever is lower) to one attack roll and deal 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the creature hit by a paladin using smite evil is an undead creature the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess. The Paladin also get's a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) or to her Paladin level (whichever is lower) to her AC against attacks made by evil creatures for one round. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, she does not gain any bonuses on attack or damage rolls, but she retains the AC bonus against evil creatures
This ability can be used once per day per paladin level + 1d4 times per day.
At level 4.
Smite evil (replaces smite evil, lesser):
A paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 1 round. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack rolls and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level whenever she attacks an evil creature. If the creature hit by a paladin using smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype or undead creature the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess.
In addition , while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by evil creatures. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, she does not gain any bonuses on attack or damage rolls, but she retains the AC bonus against evil creatures
This ability can be used 2 +1d4 times per day (maximum five times per day).
At level 7,
Smite Evil, extended (replaces Smite evil).
The same as level 4 but with the following changes:
Smite evil can be used 3 times per day. This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 2 round.
At 10 level.
Smite evil, Greater (replaces smite evil):
4 times per day a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil and chaos. This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 2 round. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack rolls and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level whenever she attacks an evil creature. If the creature hit by a paladin using smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype or undead creature the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a sacred bonus equal to half her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by evil creatures. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, she does not gain any bonuses on attack or damage rolls, but she retains the AC bonus against evil creatures.
At 13 th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level. At 16th level the duration of the smite increases by 1 round to a total of 3 rounds.
Also it would be great to add a damage bonus at level 10. I think Roberts idea is intresting
I would prefer to do away with the bonus damage simply due to creature "type" I do think having it work better against creatures of "overwhelming evil" or "evil descriptor" is appropriate, however.
My wordning is not so neat, and the smites / day at lower levels can be changed. I like the fact that at level 1 to 3 the paladin only gets bonus to attacks per day. This prevents power dipping, because if they level up and get higher BAB with more attacks per round they still only get a maximum 5 attacks per day. So she could just as well get six smites per day at level 1 - 3 or something. Should a Paladin get an AC bonus vs. chaotic creatures at higher levels (7 or 10) as well? Should the Paladin get the sacred AC bonus at level 4, 7 or 10? Is the Sacred AC bonus a bad idea (I think not)?
And let's have a look at Divine Grace at level 2.
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) or a a bonus equal her paladin level (whichever is lower) on all saving throws.
Zark aka TomJohn.
So the Paladin needs a boost at lower level but she is OK at higher levels.
Wait, I'm not sure the paladin is OK at higher levels...
Level 1 - 3
Smite evil, lesser:
I don't like the idea of splitting Smite Evil into two forms. Can't you just refine the scaling mechanic a little so it works across all levels as a single ability? Also, Smite Evil, lesser is weak enough that it hardly feels like a smite any more, so getting more per day just seems shrugworthy.
I thought LKL's idea (an extra attack at full BAB) already scales well. What's the problem with it? If the paladin needs to be smiting the majority of rounds spent fighting, clearly something else is wrong besides Smite Evil. (And the ability no longer serves to make any of your attacks feel special.)
And let's have a look at Divine Grace at level 2.
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) or a a bonus equal her paladin level (whichever is lower) on all saving throws.
That makes sense. I always thought Divine Grace was pretty good for a two level dip.
Wait, I'm not sure the paladin is OK at higher levels...
OK. So don't bother about my suggestion. Thanx for the feedback anyway :-) I'd say a smite that lasts at 3 rounds per smite at level 16 i good enough. And by level 16 you got 6 smites per day, and spells, and auras and good svaes and lay on hands and channel etc.
I think the paladin at level 16 rocks. And he is good enough at level 13. But if you're not sure. OK then we don't agree :-)
I thought LKL's idea (an extra attack at full BAB) already scales well. What's the problem with it? If the paladin needs to be smiting the majority of rounds spent fighting, clearly something else is wrong besides Smite Evil. (And the ability no longer serves to make any of your attacks feel special.)
I must have missed LKL's idea. If it's an allways on idea then I say - to good. If it's an extra attack at full BAB per smite it doesn't help at lower levels.
"If the paladin needs to be smiting the majority of rounds spent fighting, clearly something else is wrong besides Smite Evil."Perhaps. But I suggested an always on attackbonus to the Paladin, let's say a +1 moral (or luck) bonus to attacks at lvl 2. I didn't get any feedback.
That makes sense. I always thought Divine Grace was pretty good for a two level dip.And let's have a look at Divine Grace at level 2.
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) or a a bonus equal her paladin level (whichever is lower) on all saving throws.
me to :-) z. aka TomJohn
|
|
And let's have a look at Divine Grace at level 2.
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) or a a bonus equal her paladin level (whichever is lower) on all saving throws.
That makes sense. I always thought Divine Grace was pretty good for a two level dip.
Agreed; anyone taking just the two levels gets a good bonus (equivalent to Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will, combined), assuming they have Cha 14+. Even if that's all they get, they can still feel to have got their money's worth.
Those with higher Cha (naturally or enhanced), who devote themselves to the class, get progressively higher scaling benefits, as is deserved.
The reason Paladin 2 was such a common dip, was that the player could multi-class out, keep bumping their Cha, and Divine Grace would keep paying out more and more.
That was seen as the equivalent of multiclassing out of wizard, but still increasing your effective caster level.
Wait, I'm not sure the paladin is OK at higher levels...
OK. So don't bother about my suggestion. Thanx for the feedback anyway :-) I'd say a smite that lasts at 3 rounds per smite at level 16 i good enough. And by level 16 you got 6 smites per day, and spells, and auras and good svaes and lay on hands and channel etc.
I think the paladin at level 16 rocks. And he is good enough at level 13. But if you're not sure. OK then we don't agree :-)
I just said I wasn't sure. I was trying to understand why people think this.
I must have missed LKL's idea. If it's an allways on idea then I say - to good. If it's an extra attack at full BAB per smite it doesn't help at lower levels.
I thought LKL's idea (an extra attack at full BAB) already scales well. What's the problem with it? If the paladin needs to be smiting the majority of rounds spent fighting, clearly something else is wrong besides Smite Evil. (And the ability no longer serves to make any of your attacks feel special.)
It's the latter, and LKL proposed it specifically to help at lower levels (and tone it down at higher levels). It's kind of like skim milk, I can't go back to 2%. After reading LKL's suggestion, I just can't accept Smite Evil lasting multiple rounds any more.
If the paladin needs to be smiting the majority of rounds spent fighting, clearly something else is wrong besides Smite Evil.Perhaps. But I suggested an always on attackbonus to the Paladin, let's say a +1 moral (or luck) bonus to attacks at lvl 2. I didn't get any feedback.
I don't think that indicates lack of interest in an always-on boost. Many always-on and often-on abilities have been proposed. I think the most popular are a long-lasting bonus called Holy Avenger (and other names) and opening up the weapon specialization feats.
|
|
One thing to take note:
4 encounters per day was the given in the 3rd edition mechanics for resources etc. Paizo has been historically finding ways with Pathfinder Alpha/Beta to extend the day to include additional combats; with barbarians being able rage longer, spellcasters with unlimited features, etc, I think we need to start looking at the game mechanics with a new pair of eyes, and a new set of standards.
Their Adventure paths and modules seems to me to be moving more towards multiple combats etc, with crypts and such having 6-8 encounters before being able to find respite.
Again - using the exact math dynamics of 3rd edition, i think it's fair to assume 4 combats - but I don't think that's a fair assessment for PF-RPG, and as I said - many classes are having their abilities extended to last longer.
Robert
(bolding mine)
This is the clincher.
We now have;
Wizards with infinite cantrips and infinite school powers.
Clerics with infinite orisons, and infinite domain powers.
Druids have infinite orisons.
Sorcerors have infinite bloodline powers.
Rogues can now sneak attack all creature types.
Etc.
A typical session now looks like this;
Wizard:Fwa-Ding!Ka-Blammo!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh! Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoos h!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwo osh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!etc...
Cleric:Buff!Cure!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Py eeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeee ow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow! Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!etc...
Druid:I Choose You! Dazzle! Cure! Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzl e!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Daz zle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!D azzle!etc...
Sorceror:Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Sha zam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!S hazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam !Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!etc....
Rogue:Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt !Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shni kt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Sh nikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!etc...
Paladin:act like NPC warrior,SMITE!,act like NPC warrior,...err, hey guys, wait up. Can we find somewhere to rest up?
Can anyone out there, objecting to an at-will ability, or an always-on bonus, care to respond to that? Because I really feel they're looking at the class in isolation, and comparing the capabilities to the assumptions of a totally different game. One that went out of print 8 years ago.
|
|
So the Paladin needs a boost at lower level but she is OK at higher levels. And it wouldn't be good to give the Paladin all the good stuff at level one, right? So here is my suggestion. Please give me feedback.
I do think the Paladin should get more smites at lower levels without provoking power dipping and without tipping the balans at higher levels.Level 1 - 3
Smite evil, lesser:
This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 1 attack. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) or her Paladin level (whichever is lower) to one attack roll and deal 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the creature hit by a paladin using smite evil is an undead creature the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess. The Paladin also get's a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) or to her Paladin level (whichever is lower) to her AC against attacks made by evil creatures for one round. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, she does not gain any bonuses on attack or damage rolls, but she retains the AC bonus against evil creaturesThis ability can be used once per day per paladin level + 1d4 times per day.
Two things, Jason has already said he will not change the # of times per day, and even if he did, +1d4 times per day is a wonky mechanic, is that rolled when he gets the ability, or is it daily? No other class feature has a times per day based on a random die roll and I really don't think it fits the paladin for a thematic ability, I'm a paragon of law and order, but my main ability is pretty chaotic. That would work for some kind of chaotic class like a wild mage.
At level 4.
Smite evil (replaces smite evil, lesser):
A paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 1 round. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack rolls and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level whenever she attacks an evil creature. If the creature hit by a paladin using smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype or undead creature the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess.
In addition , while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by evil creatures. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, she does not gain any bonuses on attack or damage rolls, but she retains the AC bonus against evil creaturesThis ability can be used 2 +1d4 times per day (maximum five times per day).
My problem is you are continuing with the 1hp/level damage mechanic that will continue to be underwhelming. and previously stated dislike of the random d4 per day. Keep in mind that this equates at level one to a whoping 2-5 average extra damage per day, but only 1 per smite. And then at level 4 8-20 extra damage per day but only 4 per smite. This still is weak until the paladin hits 6th level and gets a second attack in a round. especially since you had an even weaker smite from levels 1-3.
At level 7,
Smite Evil, extended (replaces Smite evil).
The same as level 4 but with the following changes:
Smite evil can be used 3 times per day. This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 2 round.
so now we drop the d4 and gain it for two rounds one level earlier am I understanding that correctly?
At 10 level.
Smite evil, Greater (replaces smite evil):
4 times per day a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil and chaos. This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 2 round. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack rolls and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level whenever she attacks an evil creature. If the creature hit by a paladin using smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype or undead creature the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess.In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a sacred bonus equal to half her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by evil creatures. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, she does not gain any bonuses on attack or damage rolls, but she retains the AC bonus against evil creatures.
I'm not seeing a difference between this and the 7th level ability except that you get 1 extra use per day, am I missing it? Also, you've actually gone further than I have by nerfing the damage significantly compared to the current version by removing the d6/2 paladin levels against demons undead. This represents an even bigger blow to the paladin than my suggestion.
At 13 th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level. At 16th level the duration of the smite increases by 1 round to a total of 3 rounds.Also it would be great to add a damage bonus at level 10. I think Roberts idea is intresting
Robert Brambley wrote:
I would prefer to do away with the bonus damage simply due to creature "type" I do think having it work better against creatures of "overwhelming evil" or "evil descriptor" is appropriate, however.My wordning is not so neat, and the smites / day at lower levels can be changed. I like the fact that at level 1 to 3 the paladin only gets bonus to attacks per day. This prevents power dipping, because if they level up and get higher BAB with more attacks per round they still only get a maximum 5 attacks per day. So she could just as well get six smites per day at level 1 - 3 or something. Should a Paladin get an AC bonus vs. chaotic creatures at higher levels (7 or 10) as well? Should the Paladin get the sacred AC bonus at level 4, 7 or 10? Is the Sacred AC bonus a bad idea (I think not)?
And let's have a look at Divine Grace at level 2.
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) or a a bonus equal her paladin level (whichever is lower) on all saving throws.Zark aka TomJohn.
I'm fine with a damage boost against stronger evil as long as we kill the 1hp/level which is the weakest and worst idea ever. Also my suggestion wasn't to get rid of the DR bypass, just the demon/undead thing.
Whenever a paladin smites in my version it bypasses DR for that hit. it also deals 1d6/2 paladin levels.
As a side note I actually like your fix for Divine Grace.
|
|
Agreed. already had the save dc in place before i posted (i also implemented this to all positive/negative cleric abilities). I added saves as a safegard so cleric and "antipaladin" npcs wouldn't over power the pcs(boss npcs tend to be significantly higher in level compared to a single pc from the group) not to add flame to the fire but rather than adding to the power and abilities of the base classes in general couldn't we just add feats to accomplish what we want. i.e. "divine salvation": by spending 1 use of loh a paladin can spend multiple uses of loh L(capped by cha mod) as a standard action and/or spend another 1 use of loh to make it a swift action rather than make one uber class, couldn't we start with a base and use feats, skills or alternate class abilities of similar power to diversify (the precedence has been set with the various specialist school wizards and also by James Jacobs in the article Blackgards in Dragon #312) personally, I think the paladin is a powerful class already. When one speaks, people listen. its their archtype to be inspirational leaders Roleplay a class's advantages (nobody trust the rogue, admire the cleric etc.) as for no risk = no fun I agree. My current group just has different tastes than mine.I'm more concerned with the loh implications with undead pcsNerfing the Loh because a player want tp play an undead an evil monster? I see no need no nerf it. If you want a suggestion. Well in your campaign add a save, 10 + halv paldin level (rounded down) + charisma. Simple fix.
I don't think our DM ever has let a pcs die for dramatic effect. If we die, we have been over confident or stupid or both or very unlucky and stupid.
No risk = no fun. Z. aka TomJohn
You can't use feats to fix broken class features. all that winds up happening is that every paladin built winds up with those feats. Take for instance my character who is by story winding up more and more martial. but because of needing it just to make a class feature usable will be taking battle blessing at some point. Why? because I need it, not because I want it for my character. I have a choice between ignoring the existance of a class feature, or taking a feat I don't want, whopie yay, can I play a fighter?
And just as an aside, LoH is fixed and works great now. Let's leave it alone and focus on broken (by broken I mean they don't work, not that they are overpowered) abilities, namely smite and channeling and spellcasting, and the use LoH to cure disease and poison etc. There are still tons of bad paladin abilities, lets leave the good one be
The reason Paladin 2 was such a common dip, was that the player could multi-class out, keep bumping their Cha, and Divine Grace would keep paying out more and more.
That was seen as the equivalent of multiclassing out of wizard, but still increasing your effective caster level.
I don't think it's as powerful as that. For one, you have to devote a positive score to a dump stat for practically every other martial class in the game (anyone else know a base class with d10 HD that needs CHA?)
And it's two levels without much payback. Lay on hands and one smite that do knack all (again unless you devote a good score to CHA). Detect evil is good, but not uber. Aura of good is almost a penalty. No feats.
I think Divine Grace is as it should be. It should be linked still to CHA and I would not recommend the 'whichever is lower' route, as that could make it a non-ability if the CHA wasn't above 11 initially.
|
|
If it's an extra attack at full BAB per smite it doesn't help at lower levels.
Okay that makes no sense how does having an extra attack at low levels not help? Okay maybe I'm not making myself clear let me put it out as a whole ability to clear up any confusion.
Smite Evil(Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil as a swift action. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1d6/2 paladin levels extra points of damage that automatically bypasses DR. When smiting a paladin gains 1 additional attack at her highest attack bonus. She also gains a bonus to AC equal to her charisma bonus, these bonuses last until the start of her next turn. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on able 4–9, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
If it's an extra attack at full BAB per smite it doesn't help at lower levels.
Okay that makes no sense how does having an extra attack at low levels not help? Okay maybe I'm not making myself clear let me put it out as a whole ability to clear up any confusion.
Smite Evil(Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil as a swift action. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1d6/2 paladin levels extra points of damage that automatically bypasses DR. When smiting a paladin gains 1 additional attack at her highest attack bonus. She also gains a bonus to AC equal to her charisma bonus, these bonuses last until the start of her next turn. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on able 4–9, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
In this wording, it sounds like only the bonus damage bypasses DR. Jason B was clear that all the damage bypasses DR:
the bonus to damage increases to 1d6 points of damage per two levels the paladin possesses (minimum +1d6) and the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess.
Also, in Jason B's version, if you waste your smite by attacking a non-evil creature, you still get the deflection bonus to AC (only against evil creatures).
Are these differences intentional?
|
|
If it's an extra attack at full BAB per smite it doesn't help at lower levels.
Okay that makes no sense how does having an extra attack at low levels not help? Okay maybe I'm not making myself clear let me put it out as a whole ability to clear up any confusion.
Smite Evil(Su): Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil as a swift action. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1d6/2 paladin levels extra points of damage, all damage dealt while smiting automatically bypasses DR. When smiting a paladin gains 1 additional attack at her highest attack bonus. She also gains a bonus to AC equal to her charisma bonus, these bonuses last until the start of her next turn. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on able 4–9, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
|
|
Are these differences intentional?
no they weren't I just copy/pasted the smite description from the beta and edited it, I didn't copy/paste the design focus version
However after the fact yes it is intentional that if you smite a non-evil creature you loose your AC bonus. I like that and I don't think you should be able to take advantage of smiting some random non-evil mook to get an AC bonus for the round.
Are these differences intentional?no they weren't I just copy/pasted the smite description from the beta and edited it, I didn't copy/paste the design focus version
However after the fact yes it is intentional that if you smite a non-evil creature you loose your AC bonus. I like that and I don't think you should be able to take advantage of smiting some random non-evil mook to get an AC bonus for the round.
I agree with you. Seems like the smiting power shouldn't activate at all in this case. And when it does activate, all the damage beats DR.
So this is exactly how I'd like Smite Evil to work, except that I house rule that Detect Evil (including the spell) and Smite Evil only work against supernatural evil (including dragons). I just don't like how story intrigue is spoiled by these abilities.
Thanks for posting this!
|
OK, fair enough. I apologize for the remarks made at you that where rude and unjustefied.
My agenda is not to make the Paldin a superhero, and if you've read my posts you would have notice a lot of the time I do not agree with Vult, LKL and others. I have again and again claimed the 'rewrite' of the Paldin suggested in this thread is going to make the Paldin overpowered.
I still say, There is a campaign all over the threads aiming to make the fighter better and crippeling others and I'm fed up. Your "fighter vs the rogue" in this thread suggested to me you're one of those people. If yoy're not - I apologize again, but the remark stands. If you want to debate "fighter vs. rogue" pick another thread.
No, I don’t – I merely wanted to point out that it’s relevant to compare the combat abilities of the core classes with each other. Like I posted, a lot of the arguments on these boards (and even on this thread) seem to stem from how rogue can use SA to easily gain +30D6 bonus damage each round – therefore, which is a better way to increase game balance : to boost every class to bring them to the same “level”, *or*, perhaps, to tone down SA? If this was done, would the paladin even need any boosts? That was my point.
I wrote GM insted of DM - I made a mistake.
Is "but as you’ve pointed out, we’re discussing D&D and PF Beta here, right?" supposed to be a taunting remark? Because I do know we are discussing D&D and PF Beta here and so do you. So If you want to make fun out of me be more clear since my english isn't to good.
I have always use DM, but I've seen GM used again and again so I thoght this is an american term. You may continue to pick on my bad english as long as you tell me how it's supposed to be.
So what is GM?
As was pointed out (and somehow I’ve still read it as ‘DM’ -- old habits die hard, I guess ;)) it *is* GM in PF. However, you referred to “my GM” (I play under several DMs in addition to DMing 3E and PF) and since I’m the only one of us running PF at the moment, the proper term in this case was indeed DM and not GM. Yet I did not wish mock your English (which is perfectly fine, by the way! :)). Besides, I’m not a native speaker myself, so I would never do that. I suspect that some of the grammatical nuances may escape me, and that results in me occasionally sounding a lot “harsher” or "snarkier" than I intend to be?
You have a point, and yet I would say your wrong.
The fighter in 3.0 and 3.5 didn't have Weapon traing and Armor traing and Bravery and all the new cool feats. At lvl 20 they could only have 11 ranks in a cross class skill. skills like:
perception - great all the time, especially vs rogues and assasins..and others.
Sence motiv: great sicial skill and great when someone rogue or assassin or others try to feint you in battle.
Acrobatics, etc, etc.
All these skills now are: 1 level = 1 rank.
This is a change to all classes.
Have you any idea how hard it is now for the DM to make the assassin sneak up behind the fighter (or any class) and make a sneak attack if you max your perception.
So I don't really think it is relevant to talk about any class and compare the Beta to 3.0 or 3.5. Also I don't se the point in bringing in other feats than from the core rule book, feats like divine might or stuff from Forgotten Realms
Weapon and Armor Training are good, but these bonuses are pretty insignificant before you hit 10+ levels. Bravery is a nice try, but the bonus is not that much, if you’ve got +6 on your base Will save – the paladin is *fearless*, after all. Like I’ve posted, I’ve had an epic-level fighter running from fights due to failed Will saves (and he happens to have WIS 14 and Iron Will).
I wonder how many fighters really want to spend their preciously few ranks in non-class skills – at most I’ve seen a fighter having +8 Spot with the Alertness feat. In PF Beta you *could* put one of your two points (assuming INT is not your “dump stat”) into Perception, but here’s how it works in my group: every character have put 1 rank into all class skills, because that nets them +3 on all their skills. That’s far more reasonable –- especially if you only get 1 or 2 ranks per level. So, they’ve all ended up with 4 ranks in many skills (plus ability modifiers, naturally), which means that most of them will have +7 to +10 at their highest skills. And that means that at some point they will begin to fail skill checks regularly -- except perhaps for the high-INT PCs.
So, it will be easy for any assassin to surprise most of the PCs in my group. Even if someone maxed-out their Perception, I doubt that +20 would be enough for a 20th level assassin’s 23 ranks plus his DEX modifier (and even more, if he's taken Feats to increase his Stealth).
Again, it *is* relevant to compare changes to 3E, because that’s how you get a point of reference –- for example, I could say that: “In my opinion the paladin performs now much better in combat that it did in 3E, due to the fact that he gets more feats and the Divine Bond. However, his Lay on Hands ability was not well-received by the paladin’s player, and he said that he liked the 3E version more, because now the healing is more gradual and not as useful in combat. He did agree that it’s thematically more appropriate now, but felt that he cannot customize his combat options as much as in 3E, because there are not enough Divine Feats to do that. He likes the Channeling in PF over Turning Undead, and felt that it also helps the cleric a lot as he doesn’t need to waste as much spells for spontaneous healing as he did in 3E..” Now, that is a simple example, but it’s useful information for the designers, because it tells them which elements work better in PF and which don’t – after all, they wish to have some concrete, playtest feedback on what they’ve managed to improve from 3E, and how do the changes affect game balance.
Also, let’s not forget that one of the *Design Goals* is *backwards compatibility*, i.e. that you can still use 3E stuff in your PF RPG campaigns.
Yes, true. But you do better if you investing in both of them.
You can do pretty well as a fighter without investing in str. Just 13 in str, 13 in dex and 13 int so you can pick all the feats and the rest to charisma, You can do pretty well but is that enough?
That depends entirely on the campaign – for example, in a less combat-focused campaign a Paladin with CHA 18 and 12 in all the other ability scores may fare better than a barbarian with STR and CON 18.
Yes. True. And I have not said otherwise. That's why I made the remark about Powergaming.
But D&D is about roleplaying and fights. And the Paladin, Fighter and Barabarian (and some times celric) are the tanks. So they still need str, dex and con. And all other classes need dex and con. That don't make all classes MAD classes.
It’s about whatever you want it be about, but D&D encourages “gamist” play in its mechanics, and sadly, character optimization is often the “best” way to go in a typical campaign. MAD means (to me, at least) that the class abilities depend on multiple ability scores, but what the paladin really needs is CHA and some STR. He doesn’t have any abilities linked to CON, unlike the barbarian, for example.
In my own campaigns I try to discuss the “rough” campaign outline with my players, for example: “This is going to be a role-playing heavy campaign with a lot of intrigue and interaction, but less combat. Some ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate and Craft or Profession will go a long way.” or “Your characters know that there’s a war looming on the horizon, and you’re probably going to participate in it, so there will a lot of combat encounters.”.
I do agree, high level games are not as fun. But Save-or-Die effect are no problem with good planing, that is good team play. You need to invest i scrolls and have a smart player playing the cleric. Or at least a smart player helping the player who play the cleric.
Death ward - very nice spell (not as good in the beta but OK as 3.5).
Holy Aura - very nice spell
Mind blank - nice spell (not as good in the beta as 3.5 but OK).
...Save-or-Die effect are usually fortitude saves. Clerics, and all the tanks have good fort. saves don't they? And if you invest in good cloaks and boost your con. with magic items your home free.
And that cleric is spending his first rounds casting ”buffs” on you to rack up your save bonuses, right? And what if you’re caught unprepared? You see, the problem with the system is that at high levels you’re expected to have a certain number of protections at all times – either from spells or magic items. Yet, if your DM is not generous with magical items, or if the spellcasters don’t use “buffs” extensively, it often results in character deaths – especially with rogues and fighters. If PF does away with save-or-die effects, it helps a lot. Also, note that I also equal the Mazed/Stunned/Dominated/Panicked/Confused conditions with save-or-die effects, because at higher levels the effects last usually for the rest of the encounter (and therefore, often the rest of the session, in my experience).
The majority are always right? Well The majority of all players don't even post.
the so called majority seems not only to ne worried about the Paldin “outshining” the fighter, the worry about the druid, the clerc, the wizard, and the rogue “outshining” the fighter.
Do I think the are wrong. ....Yes I do.
The majority argument suck. So you are wrong just because The majority on this thread don't agree with you?
Well, I *did* say “the majority of the *posters*”, didn’t I? I never claimed that the majority of the *gamers* or PF fans would feel so. And, if we count the number of posters for and against the changes on this thread (which is still significantly a lower number that the people posting “all over Paizo”) I guess that it’s fifty-fifty at most. As has been previously noted, most of the posts were written by the same people (i.e. a “handful” of posters).
Whether the majority is “right” or “wrong” is highly subjective. For example, I happen to think that the Alpha 1 skill system would have worked a lot better than the skill system in Beta, but apparently the majority of the posters didn’t agree with this and therefore it was changed to conform to their wishes.
Once again. I'm sorry for my rude and crude remarks. Good thing you pointed that out to me, but two wrong don't equal one right. If you like me to be civil, show me how it's done. It's the best way.
Yeah, I also apologise for being snarky -- I guess I've had too much stress at work, and lately I've had less and less time to post (which you guys have probably noticed). It's temporary, though, and I should be back to the "normal" routine in a couple of weeks.
Compared to the barbarian - yes
Compared to the fighter - no
Again, the real differences show only after 10+ levels, and even then a paladin with a couple of magical items could have a better AC. Both can use full plate and shield, so it's more of a case-by-case thing.
non-evil undead are supposed to be an exception. If you and other DM:s what to change that. Go ahead. Claiming it's not the exception, well that's something different.
I didn’t say that most undead wouldn’t be evil –- just that there are exceptions to the rule.
|
|
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.
RobertThanx Robert. Now I know the difference.
See Asgetrion, was that so hard? Explaining the differemce to me and all others who don't know DM from GM.
Hehehe, like I posted, I admit that I've still read it as 'DM' -- so, my mistake, but as I also posted, in this case 'DM' was the proper term (as all "my" DMs are still running 3E and not PF). ;)
That makes sense. I always thought Divine Grace was pretty good for a two level dip.And let's have a look at Divine Grace at level 2.
Divine Grace (Su): At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) or a a bonus equal her paladin level (whichever is lower) on all saving throws.
I am not on board with your smite suggestions Zark, but this change to Divine Grace is very good.
I am for anything that discourages "dipping" into paladin, nice work with this idea man. I would love to see this little notation added.
This is the clincher.
We now have;Wizards with infinite cantrips and infinite school powers.
Clerics with infinite orisons, and infinite domain powers.
Druids have infinite orisons.
Sorcerors have infinite bloodline powers.
Rogues can now sneak attack all creature types.
Etc.A typical session now looks like this;
Wizard:Fwa-Ding!Ka-Blammo!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh! Fwoosh! Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoos h!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwo osh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!etc...
Cleric:Buff!Cure!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Py eeeow!P yeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyee eow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow !Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!etc...
Druid:I Choose You! Dazzle! Cure! Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzl e!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Daz zle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!Dazzle!D azzle!etc...
Sorceror:Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Sha zam!Shaza m!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Sha zam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!S hazam!Shazam!Shazam!Shazam!etc....
Rogue:Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt !Shnik t!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shn ikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!S hnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!Shnikt!etc...
Paladin:act like NPC warrior,SMITE!,act like NPC warrior,...err, hey guys, wait up. Can we find somewhere to rest up?
Can anyone out there, objecting to an at-will ability, or an always-on bonus, care to respond to that? Because I really feel they're looking at the class in isolation, and comparing the capabilities to the assumptions of a totally different game. One that went out of print 8 years ago.
Snorter, I commend you yet again! Please continue the sermon!
|
|
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 TomJohnNo, I still vehemently disagree. Just because YOUR DM does not focus on these things does not make them all of the sudden not matter when it comes to balance. They are just as much a part of the class as the skills you get at level one.
In another post Asgetrion you also used the example of the paladin being immune to fear as a BIG class advantage. Well what of the games that dont ever make you take fear checks? Should we argue by your same logic that the paladins immunity to fear is worthless because not all groups make you worry about fear checks? Well then I guess the same could be said for their immunity to diseases! What about their abilities to remove curses/poisons...later on immunities to charm. All of those abilities must be worthless as well because not all DM's use them as part of their games.
I am sorry, this logic is wrong. Being restricted to an alignment is....I already said it....a restriction. Being forced to live by a code of conduct is an even BIGGER restriction.
That said, I do not think that those things should go away. They are important to the class, they are there for the flavor...it SHOULD be hard to play a paladin. But as you said again, the paladin also brings these restrictions to the group he is in. I do not know how to stress it enough that the paladin should bring considerable benefits to the group to outweigh this imbalance. So again, Balance is my focus...but you MUST take these things into account.
Now, I've participated on a number of discussions on three other boards over whether alignment is a "straitjacket" or not, and here's the thing: everyone seems to have their own opinion on that, since every DM adjudicates and interprets alignment and alignment violations in their own way. For example, in my own group we take alignment "seriously", but I've played in campaigns in which LG characters would kill and loot (without hesitation) any NPC regardless of their alignment -- and the DM was fine with that. Ironically, in one such situation a paladin I played almost had to fight the other PCs, as he couldn't condone their behaviour. On the other hand, I remember a paladin having to undergo a "penance time" for ignoring his god's vision (and the poor guy didn't do it on purpose -- things were just out of his hands). Also, I know some DMs who enforce alignment change to good PCs for *any* "evil" act, such as lying or dealing with known Evil beings in non-aggressive manner. And yet, I've heard some players say (on a forum) that their DM doesn't let their paladin use lethal damage -- even against EVIL foes -- because that would be an "evil" act.
The alignment rules in RAW are purposefully left open to interpretation and DM adjudication, so that each group can find their "own way". Otherwise, we'd need a HUGE list of good, neutral and evil acts, so there would be no room for interpretatation.
As I've said, there's a vast difference between interpreting alignment rules and Code of Conduct and, say, ignoring Will saves against Fear.
The rules dictate quite clearly what happens if you fail a saving throw, but the don't say what penalties a LG character should have for, say, killing an innocent bystander or looting the shrine of a good deity.
|
|
This is the clincher.
We now have;Wizards with infinite cantrips and infinite school powers.
Clerics with infinite orisons, and infinite domain powers.
Druids have infinite orisons.
Sorcerors have infinite bloodline powers.
Rogues can now sneak attack all creature types.
Etc.A typical session now looks like this;
Wizard:Fwa-Ding!Ka-Blammo!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh! Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoos h!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwo osh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!Fwoosh!etc...
Cleric:Buff!Cure!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Py eeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeee ow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow! Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!Pyeeeow!etc...
Druid:I Choose You! Dazzle! Cure!...
DAM that was funny, Snorter!!! LOL
We're in the third book of CotCT series - already 4 times have we simply continued on encounter after encounter after encounter - the most recent one, two games ago, I'd say we had 9 encounters before we had a chance for any respite - and many of them were a couple ELs higher than our APL.
Half way through it, I was already out of spells, out of smites, used up my divine bond, and all of my channeling - that was at the end of the 5th combat - and we still had four to go! Our rogue was fine, the sorcerer was fine - that dam halfling fighter with a +14 to saving throws vs Fear and an AC 5 points higher than mine just f-n rocked! and the cleric still had a channel left, and a few domain powers working. I was the "NPC" you mentioned - and I was worn out and tired, too! It didn't help that I had three negative levels, either....that paladin....king of defense and saving throws.....not a whole lot of help against Enervation! Sure I have the best avg saves in the party - (the halfling rog naturally has the best REF, and the Cleric has the best Will naturally - since we're not using the updated Paladin rules yet of higher will saves) but that just didnt help.
DM: Ok, Mr tank......whats your touch AC?
ME: Uh.......11?
DM: Oooops......
But not to worry.....it only lasts 7 FREAKIN HOURS!!!
Robert
|
|
So, it will be easy for any assassin to surprise most of the PCs in my group. Even if someone maxed-out their Perception, I doubt that +20 would be enough for a 20th level assassin’s 23 ranks plus his DEX modifier (and even more, if he's taken Feats to increase his Stealth).
True enough - but you're comparing the XFL to the NFL.
You're comparing an avg 20th level character to the paragon of stealth.
However, I'm sure for the status quo of encounters, a +23 is pretty darn serviceable if not lucrative.
Robert