|
I dont know if you've all had a chance to read the new "fighter feats" that jason posted.......
Let me just say - OH MY GOD!
The next person that says "but then no one will want to play a paladin" I'm going to smack them upside the head with a divine bonded, divine favor buffed, holy avenger with a smite evil attempt!
....course, I'll probably miss again and waste my smite and the two rounds I spent buffing......
Regardless, excellent job on the smites - especially the critical hit-based ones.
In fact, I now know what I want my paladin to be when he grows up......
Can anyone out there throw some residual kick-back butt-kicking goodness this way so that paladin can get a whiff of that, too please....???
Robert
|
|
I think Zark's adjustment to Divine Grace is a good one as well. It will be a little hard for a pally with a high Cha to accept since he would have to hit 4th or 5th level before getting the full benefit of his stat but it is a good compromise if you see level dipping as a real problem or have experienced it to be a problem.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've suggested making DG be +1 at 2nd level, and additional +1 at every three levels after - to a max equal to CHA mod.
(+2 at 5th, +3 at 8th, +4 at 11th).
This is a trade-off I'm willing to accept if it means that paladin can get a signifcant boost to his offense (some means to hit his targets without having to use a 3 or 4 times per day smite).
My re-written paladin that I've been using in my games is following that build.
Robert
@Marty, Good post...though I still do think we need something "always on".
Everyone else...where are these fighter feats? I cant see them :(
|
They're in the announcements
I'd also like to point out that the fighter now can have an always on bypass to any DR except /-. This means that the argument that the paladins DR bypass being against any evil creature is to powerful holds no water because at least the paladin is limited to times per day.
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 you don't like it. OK. But I don't get "that could make it a non-ability if the CHA wasn't above 11 initially. " ? what do you mean? There would be no difference between my version and the official version with an 11 charisma score.
- Charisma 11 = Score Modifier +0 = save Modifier =0- Charisma 8 = Score Modifier -1 = save Modifier +0
- Charisma 14 = Score Modifier +2 = save Modifier +2
The same in my version and the same in the Paizo version
Charisma 18 = Score Modifier +4 = save mod +4 (Paizo version) +2 (my version). At level 3 it's save mod +4 (Paizo version) +3 (my version)...etc.
If you don't want to play a charisma Paladin, don't blame me, blame the game mechanics. Or did I misunderstand you somehow :-)
....and dipping? Well either you're a dipper or you're not.
Cleric or Sorcerer (Had a Sorcerers/Paladin in our group once. Really awesome). Or a rogue or a fighter with an average or better charisma score (who then boost their charisma by magic itens) would all bennefit from dipping 2 levels. Besides I like the progesion better. You get a nice bost and then the saves improves gradually as you gain level. And it's done in a nice pace (Roberts pace i sfar to slow, IMHO). I'd think a +4 bonus to all saves all at once just because of a 18 charisma score is a bit over the top at level 2. z. aka TomJohn
I am for anything that discourages "dipping" into paladin, nice work with this idea man. I would love to see this little notation added.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.
Thanx for the feedback :-) and I'm gonna drop my smite idea. No one likes it, and the mechanics are a bit awkward. z. aka Tomjohn
Hello Asgetrion. Nice to have you back. :-)
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).
a) Well +20 i still beter then +11, right?
b) fighters are all about feats. Feats = str +13, dex+13, int +13. If a barbarian or ranger dump his/her int - I'll get it. If a fighter does it, hey bad move. Don't blame game mechanics.c) how you spent your skills is a matter of taste. I always try to max perception, any class i play.
d) well 20 ranks i better thean 11 ranks, no? ;-)
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.
At high level games you always got to plan ahead. Divination, divination, divinatiom and teleport/greater teleport.
If the group cleric and wizard don't help out? Well don't blame the mechanics. There will always be odd players. "Hey, I got a 11 charisma score and I think the Paladin suck." Yes, right.
"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)"
You've got a point. I don't like the Mazed/Stunned/Dominated/Panicked conditions. I do like the new Confusion though.
Yeah, I also apologise for being snarky -- I guess I've had too much stress at work[...].
It' ok. To much work. I know the feeling. :-( ...but, "my boss pretends I've got a good salary, so I pretend I work." :-) z. aka tomjohn
Smite Evil:I prefer smite evil being a single massive attack. The Paladin gets limited number of smites per day as per the current table. When the paladin declares smite evil as a swift action, he gets a bonus melee attack at his highest BAB. He gets a bonus to attack equal to Cha modifier + paladin level. If he hits with the smite, he does bonus holy damage equal to 1d6 per paladin level. If he smites a monster of the Evil type, true dragon, or evil undead, the smite damage is doubled. If he misses with the smite, the smite is not lost. He may only smite once per round.
I actually admire your unwillingness to compromise on the idea that a smite is a single attack. However, with bonuses this massive, it seems only fair that the trade-off is an increased chance to whiff. Otherwise, how fair is it for the poor monster frantically dodging your smite (which now lasts as long as you need it to)? How many times can you whiff in a row before even the gods take the side of the evil creature and say "Enough!" My point is that you shouldn't expect a bigger payoff without a bigger gamble.
I like the idea from LKL that smite is a bonus attack made at highest BAB and does some hefty damage but still only a finite number of times per day. This means that a sucessful smite evil by a paladin is a big deal. He has a significant boost to help him hit which is important at higher levels and the damage done by the attack is significant which helps at all levels of course but is more meaningful at low levels. A 5th level paladin gets 2 smites per day, each capable of doing +5d6 damage. I think that is pretty fair and solid and meaningful in the game. The paladin will want to save his smites for the most important enemies or the most dire combats but when he does smite it should be worth it.
LKL's proposal adds d6 every two paladin levels, just like the original post, so I guess you like the extra attack idea when combined with more bonus damage.
We have to keep in mind that paladins are played at all levels and not just point to how powerful something looks at the highest levels. I think this smite evil option works well through all levels. Is limited by the number of targets of the smite - a single evil enemy and that it must be a melee attack which means the paladin is in harms way.
LKL's proposal scales like a dream compared to the original smite upgrade. It's unclear from LKL's description whether the one round of smiting (including the bonus attack) allows smites against multiple targets. LKL?
I think that other people here (VW, LKL,RB) have talked many more times about an always on ability to help the paladin in combat that would come from the "pool of smites" and last a certain duration of rounds. I think that RBs idea is my preferred one (1 +Cha bonus duration, ½ paladin level to hit, paladin level to damage IIRC).
Whatever the mechanic for this idea, I don't think it should draw from the same pool as Smite Evil. This is not an ability that the paladin should trade for another, and I don't want two versions of Smite Evil. Since smite already helps the paladin against evil, why not let the additional mechanic complement Smite Evil by working against a broader range of dangers? The paladin also has allies to protect and rescue, regardless of enemy alignment, and should not be without resources to do that.
The point I want to make is that there has to be a reason to want to use smite, that the smite should be meaningful in the game and an exciting event for the player. Getting to do this only so many finite number of times in a day means this should be a substantial thump.
An excellent reason for using smite is that there's no benefit for not using it. I really want it to stay that way. And yes, it should be a substantial thump, and it shouldn't leave me fretting, wondering if I should have spent the smite some other way. Let me have the complete satisfaction of a smite well spent with no regrets.
Should the damage be 1d6 for every 2 paladin level instead? Maybe but I don’t think that it is enough on a single smite attack that is done in melee and only affects a single target. Since the target doesn't get to save vs the smite perhaps that is the justification for the lower damage than my d6/level. Doubling the damage against certain types of evil targets might be too much but it would be good to actually test it out in game play.
Your version of damage seems reasonable if the smite is more prone to whiff. I'm more concerned about the attack bonus (Cha modifier + paladin level), which I don't think is reasonable.
Please throw your flaming balls ... I am preparing to duck... now.
This raises an interesting question: do paladins duck?
I think that LKL's idea for Smite is great as well.
That said I am still for something that is always on, no matter how you examine it, a few smites a day is still a small number. Especially after Snorters post about how all the "casters" now have spells that are unlimited daily.
I still say a bonus = to paladin level that is divided amongst hit/dam/ac is the best way to go.
And if we can have that a bonus = to the number of remaining smites to hit/dam/ac.
Either of those would be the final icing on the cake, and we would have a paladin that could stand on his own all the time, not just a few rounds a day.
|
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.
Come on, Matt, get with it. That Colour Spray obviously hasn't worn off yet.
If your Cha was less than 12, you'd get no benefit anyway, in either definition.
Or do you have an ulterior motive, trying to protect your previous PC from accusations of cheese-whoring...2 levels of paladin, then off to cleric, while wanging your Cha up to 33...<shudder>
[EDIT: I see you got Zarked, LOL]
I think that LKL's idea for Smite is great as well.
That said I am still for something that is always on, no matter how you examine it, a few smites a day is still a small number. Especially after Snorters post about how all the "casters" now have spells that are unlimited daily.
I still say a bonus = to paladin level that is divided amongst hit/dam/ac is the best way to go.
And if we can have that a bonus = to the number of remaining smites to hit/dam/ac.
Either of those would be the final icing on the cake, and we would have a paladin that could stand on his own all the time, not just a few rounds a day.
For me, this is one of the best arguments I've seen for paladin's having an minor but respectable 'always on' damage benefit against evil creatures. Having GM'd my second Pathfinder game the night before last, I can say that the ability of spellcasters (especially low-level ones) to cast even a few low level spells unlimited is a huge improvement, and IMHO it's exactly the same logic that applies to the paladin, especially low level ones, when attacking evil creatures.
Chobbly
I think that LKL's idea for Smite is great as well.
That said I am still for something that is always on, no matter how you examine it, a few smites a day is still a small number. Especially after Snorters post about how all the "casters" now have spells that are unlimited daily.
I still say a bonus = to paladin level that is divided amongst hit/dam/ac is the best way to go.
And if we can have that a bonus = to the number of remaining smites to hit/dam/ac.
Either of those would be the final icing on the cake, and we would have a paladin that could stand on his own all the time, not just a few rounds a day.
For me, this is one of the best arguments I've seen for paladin's having an minor but respectable 'always on' damage benefit against evil creatures. Having GM'd my second Pathfinder game the night before last, I can say that the ability of spellcasters (especially low-level ones) to cast even a few low level spells unlimited is a huge improvement, and IMHO it's exactly the same logic that applies to the paladin, especially low level ones, when attacking evil creatures.
Chobbly
I could not agree more!
|
|
It doesn't necessarily have to be an attack/damage ability, it could just as well be it's own always on ability that does some interesting effect like a protection ability. It just has to be something the paladin can do all the time and it doesn't wear out. Howsabout
Shield Ally (Ex): as a standard action a paladin may guard another willing adjacent creatre. The paladin may switch positions with said creature without provoking an AoO and until the start of the next round any creature that takes a 5 foot step provokes an AoO.
I don't know, it seems a little clunky, but the idea is the paladin forgoes an attack but he gets to get an ally out of immeadiate danger and if creatures just try to shift past him to get to his ally he smacks them down. It does leave you vulnerable because they can just choose to hit you, but that's the paladins thing to save allies in need. Since it's a standard you could always LoH yourself to bolster your HP.
If you don't like it. OK. But I don't get "that could make it a non-ability if the CHA wasn't above 11 initially. " ? what do you mean? There would be no difference between my version and the official version with an 11 charisma score.
-snip examples-
If you don't want to play a charisma Paladin, don't blame me, blame the game mechanics. Or did I misunderstand you somehow :-)
I think I misunderstood you :-)
I thought you were trying to move divine grace away from Charisma and into levels of paladin. But not every paladin would have a + CHA so they'd be the same as the current rules. Which is what you were after in the first place. My bad.
....and dipping? Well either you're a dipper or you're not.
Well, to risk going OT for a sec, I consider dipping to be good for flavour, but notsomuch for power or optimisation. A cleric or sorcerer would lag an entire level of spells behind, rogues lose skill points and sneak attack progression, fighters lose a feat and weapon specialization prereq levels. It's a matter of choice... not cheese :-)
But then, I would defend my own actions, wouldn't I?
|
|
stuff
Geeze I made the point about the 5 minute work day when I first posted my paladin thread before the paladin section even came up. You make a joke about it and you're a genius...:P
What a perceptive chap you are!
Yes, comedy can cut straight to the heart of the issues.
There's many a true word said in jest, and it might (crosses fingers) stick in the minds of our target audience.
@Marty, Good post...though I still do think we need something "always on".
Everyone else...where are these fighter feats? I cant see them :(
I think you will see that I hid away in my post a comment that I like Robert Brambley's modified "minor" smite that lasts a limited duration but its use takes away a smite "point"
but I think an always on bonus to hit and damage (not necessarily AC) as you have described is valid. I'm just not sure that I like it limited to number of smites left. It gives me a feeling of the battery running out of power. A wizards spells for examples don't have a lesser effect because they have already used so many spells of that same level.
Exactly. And its an incentive not to smite. I totally agree with you. If Vult wants an always-on bonus, why does he want to tie it to smites? It doesn't make sense.
What if the paladin could divide his cha bonus up between to hit, damage and AC, with the total bonus not being greater than paladin level? This would be limited to evil enemies and chaotic neutral outsiders (as i have said before - i hate those slaadi toads!)... but i could live with just against evil.. i suppose.
Why does every proposed paladin feature have to be just like smite and limited by alignment? This feature was originally proposed by Iron Sentinel (link here), and I agree with Vult it works well as an always-on ability that the paladin gets just for being righteous.
Hi Mink,
Sorry. My cha bonus + paladin level to attack roll was a left over from my thoughts that if you are doing +1d6/paladin level holy damage then the smite is done as a standard action. You don't full attack and then smite as a bonus... even though that I said that you do...lost my train of thought there. So if you are just smiting as your attack action for the round, then having the big bonus to attack and then of course to damage should apply.
I kind of thought it might have been left over from an earlier proposal.
Otherwise, if LKL's smite is still doing 1d6/2 paladin levels as the bonus attack then that is substantial and doesn't need to be 1d6 every level. I do suggest though that it do double damage against the triple Ds and undead if that isn't already in there.
I like that idea.
I think something to consider is this:A 20th level paladin gets 4 attacks per round if he can full attack.
He has a +5 holy long sword let's say. At that level has an 18 strength. So he can do 1d8+4 str bonus+5 weapon bonus plus 2d6 holy damage on a normal attack roll. 1d8+9+2d6 x 4 (assume all attacks hit). 4d8+36+8d6 damage to his evil foe. 82 points of damage per round based on average dice damage.
A single smite as i proposed will do 1d8+9+2d6 (assuming this holy sword damage will stack with smite) + 20d6 = 90 points damage based on average damage dice. This is only 8 more than he would do if he hit with all of his full attacks. That actually isn't that much. He basically has traded his full attacks for one shot at a better "attack" percentage to do the same damage.
Ah, I didn't realize you were suggesting that smite takes the place of full attack.
In this case smite evil really should be a bonus attack done at full BAB + cha bonus to hit) damage of 1d6 + 1d6 every 2 paladin levels. Double damage vs Evil creature type, undead, or dragon. I don't think it is too much to add paladin level to the attack role as well. But perhaps limit how long he has to do a successful smite to rounds equal to his cha bonus. If a paladin with 18 cha can't hit with his smite within 4 rounds, too bad. it is gone.
I really don't want to track smite, which sounds like an instant effect, for multiple rounds. Limited to a single round with a bonus attack, smite has a good chance of hitting. If the damage is good enough, no one has any cause to complain if they miss sometimes.
I can't say for sure. I am not really a paladin. I only play one on weekends.
This raises an interesting question: do paladins duck?
Of course :-) Still, the question is a puzzler. Maybe Vult had a good point about Mettle shrugging off fireball as if the paladin had evaded it.
It doesn't necessarily have to be an attack/damage ability, it could just as well be it's own always on ability that does some interesting effect like a protection ability. It just has to be something the paladin can do all the time and it doesn't wear out.
I applaud this way of thinking!
Shield Ally (Ex):
Doesn't seem particularly strong, but a few nice abilities like this add some tactical flavor and differentiate the paladin as a core class.
Exactly. And its an incentive not to smite. I totally agree with you. If Vult wants an always-on bonus, why does he want to tie it to smites? It doesn't make sense.
That was an idea i proposed some time ago. I think I partially proposed the idea to keep it "in check" as I have been seen as the guy who wants the paladin to be the most uber, over powered bad ass around with no care for balance. So that proposal was based with a give/take idea in mind.
I prefer the idea of giving the paladin a bonus = to his paladin level that is divided between hit/dam/AC and can be no greater in any one category than the paladin's Char mod. This idea could work like IS's idea as well, which would show that the paladin is a martial class but he gains his power more from his strength of purpose and power of his will than the muscle in his arm. I think the paladin should be seen as a more than capable combatant any situation just as Marty said, even the street thugs that are not evil should fear tangling with a paladin. But his ability should not come from the same training a fighter goes through, it should be because of his convictions that he can hit harder and shrug off attacks that would fell lesser men.
Of course :-) Still, the question is a puzzler. Maybe Vult had a good point about Mettle shrugging off fireball as if the paladin had evaded it.
Ahhh we say it in jest but does that not feel right? The paladin with his shield held high, splitting the flames of the dragon as his allies stand safely behind him?
It doesn't necessarily have to be an attack/damage ability, it could just as well be it's own always on ability that does some interesting effect like a protection ability. It just has to be something the paladin can do all the time and it doesn't wear out.I applaud this way of thinking!
Shield Ally (Ex):Doesn't seem particularly strong, but a few nice abilities like this add some tactical flavor and differentiate the paladin as a core class.
I agree, it could be something other than a numeric effect, but what? What is going to make him enough of a threat that enemies dont just see him as a speed bump they have to get around so they can get at everyone else....and save the juicy paladin for last?
|
|
I agree, it could be something other than a numeric effect, but what? What is going to make him enough of a threat that enemies dont just see him as a speed bump they have to get around so they can get at everyone else....and save the juicy paladin for last?It doesn't necessarily have to be an attack/damage ability, it could just as well be it's own always on ability that does some interesting effect like a protection ability. It just has to be something the paladin can do all the time and it doesn't wear out.I applaud this way of thinking!
Shield Ally (Ex):Doesn't seem particularly strong, but a few nice abilities like this add some tactical flavor and differentiate the paladin as a core class.
Well did you look at my ability, while it doesn't stop the enemy from moving away, it does allow you to save your ally and then smack the bad guy each time he does try to ignore you. I think after the first or second time you do that, the bad guy is going to give up and focus on you unless he doesn't mind the damage again and again and again.
|
|
It doesn't necessarily have to be an attack/damage ability, it could just as well be it's own always on ability that does some interesting effect like a protection ability. It just has to be something the paladin can do all the time and it doesn't wear out.I applaud this way of thinking!
Shield Ally (Ex):Doesn't seem particularly strong,
that was the point, something at first level that wasn't particularly strong so as not to encourage dipping, but good enough to add flavor, options, and an always on ability to the paladin.
To be honest I would have loved to have seen some shield based stuff. I really like the idea of the paladin being sword/board. But the new feats favor the fighter in that role.
Even an ability that allowed the paladin to shield bash once a round at his full BAB, then become something more defensive later on would be awesome. Of course I think that is how Shield bash should work in general.
Some form of progression with this could be cool, possibly...
lvl 1, Shield bash, one a round at full BAB (that would be one shield bash attack, one sword attack of course). Unless the paladin improved bash he would still loose his AC bonus from the shield if he used the bash. I really like this because it would nearly kill the paladin to commit to the feat trees and dex ability to gain two weapon fighting to actually take advantage of shield bashing.
lvl 5, The paladin can add his shield bonus (in addition to himself) to one adjacent ally to himself. I did not specify where this ally must stand because (IIRC) there is no "facing".
lvl 10, When using a heavy shield the paladin can gain the benefits of full cover as if he was using a tower shield without any minuses.
lvl 15, The paladin gains damage reduction of 2/- when using a shield.
Something like this would go a long way for me, this would even replace the concept of some form of always on attack. It is different and I really like how it fits the paladin.
|
|
To be honest I would have loved to have seen some shield based stuff. I really like the idea of the paladin being sword/board. But the new feats favor the fighter in that role.
True - but that being said - I am not going to nitpick and show irritation about this; as throughout the alpha and now beta playtesting in regards to fighters, many (including myself) have begged to see better fighter feat; especially those that support and sword and boarder that does not specifically include or cater towards shield bashing and two-weapon fighting.
It's nice to see that taken seriously and responded to.
Furthermore, the new feats finally let me feel justified and vindicated towards all those naysayers of the paladin that was so worried about "no one will ever play a fighter if you make the paladin better....."
To which I didn't believe then for a second....and certainly am convinced that now such a statement would be rediculous. Don't get me wrong - the fighter needs to be THE GUY with his feats - as that is his ONLY true class ability that has any flavor (his feats); but now that he is by far and away the king of combat - I think it's time to see so true test of love thrown towards the paladin's offense - specifically his ability to actually add enough to most of his attacks, and some lucrative damage output potential.
Now he's not even close to being the king of defense anymore either.
Robert
I think that LKL's idea for Smite is great as well. [Mr V want always on] Especially after Snorters post about how all the "casters" now have spells that are unlimited daily.
I still say a bonus = to paladin level that is divided amongst hit/dam/ac is the best way to go. And if we can have that a bonus = to the number of remaining smites to hit/dam/ac.
Either of those would be the final icing on the cake, and we would have a paladin that could stand on his own all the time, not just a few rounds a day.
Do you mean a 4 level paladin could have an always on:
+1 to attack = weapon focus+1 to ac = dodge feat with using a swift action
+2 to damage = weapon Specialization
So is this the always on? Or is this the always on due to smites not used or what? Can you just explain this to me one more time please.
One more thing: "the "casters" now have spells that are unlimited daily."
A) They only have unlimiteduse of 0-level spells.
B) Paladin, fighters, monks, children, wolfs etc. etc. can use their sword, fists, bites or maces unlimited times per day.
Please, please, please stop: let's just talk about cons for tanks and pros for magic users. If you do - use valid arguments. unlimited use of 0-level spells are not a big issue at level 4 or 8 or 12 or....1.
And all this stuff abouy the clerics (or druids) Domain powers. Let's see:
"Fire Bolt (Su): As a standard action, you can unleash a fire bolt targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The fire bolt deals 1d6 points of fire damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess."
At level 1 it's 1d6 at level 1.
A level 1 Paladin have an averedge 1d8+2 (or +3).
A level 1 cleric have a 1d8+1 and most clerics don't have Precise Shot so it would be better if they use a morning star: 1d8+1
And it's the same with other domains:
Acid Dart (earth Domain), Icicle (water domain), Storm Burst (weather domain), Lightning Arc (Air domain).
It is't über, it's just convenient. z aka TomJohn
To be honest I would have loved to have seen some shield based stuff. I really like the idea of the paladin being sword/board. But the new feats favor the fighter in that role.
True - but that being said - I am not going to nitpick and show irritation about this; as throughout the alpha and now beta playtesting in regards to fighters, many (including myself) have begged to see better fighter feat; especially those that support and sword and boarder that does not specifically include or cater towards shield bashing and two-weapon fighting.
It's nice to see that taken seriously and responded to.
Furthermore, the new feats finally let me feel justified and vindicated towards all those naysayers of the paladin that was so worried about "no one will ever play a fighter if you make the paladin better....."
To which I didn't believe then for a second....and certainly am convinced that now such a statement would be rediculous. Don't get me wrong - the fighter needs to be THE GUY with his feats - as that is his ONLY true class ability that has any flavor (his feats); but now that he is by far and away the king of combat - I think it's time to see so true test of love thrown towards the paladin's offense - specifically his ability to actually add enough to most of his attacks, and some lucrative damage output potential.
Now he's not even close to being the king of defense anymore either.
Robert
Yes you are right there is no doubt the fighter needed love...and got it! I still dont like fighter only feats but that is not a concern for this thread.
I agree with you again that the current state of the paladin should lead to a more favorable look towards the paladin, I hope that is something we see.
|
|
Do you mean a 4 level paladin could have an always on:
+1 to attack = weapon focus
+1 to ac = dodge feat with using a swift action
+2 to damage = weapon Specialization
So is this the always on? Or is this the always on due to smites not used or what? Can you just explain this to me one more time please.
Um so because they can have something that every other class can have too? and actually, if they use dodge they can't smite, both are swift actions so the paladin has to choose which he wants to do, he can't do both and therefore the dodge boost isn't "always" on. Paladins in this version also cannot take weapon specialization so that one isn't there, not to mention that when we talk about it we specifically say that he would have it as a choice of bonus feat at 5th level so no a 4th level paladin wouldn't have it. and yes a paladin can have an always on bonus to hit from weapon focus. So can a wizard. It's not a boost to the paladin class if everyone can get it, it's a boost to everyone and therefor doesn't fix the paladin. If it were given as a bonus feat then yes it would count, but you don't want them to have first level bonus feats because that encourages dipping remember?
One more thing: "the "casters" now have spells that are unlimited daily."
A) They only have unlimiteduse of 0-level spells.
Sorry Zark but this is patently untrue, every single spellcasting class also has a first level ability granted by school/bloodline/domain. The only spellcasting classes who don't are the paladin and the ranger. The ranger has the always on favored enemy, which leaves the paladin who has as been pointed out nothing.
B) Paladin, fighters, monks, children, wolfs etc. etc. can use their sword, fists, bites or maces unlimited times per day.
yeah and so can a wizard/druid/cleric
Please, please, please stop: let's just talk about cons for tanks and pros for magic users. If you do - use valid arguments. unlimited use of 0-level spells are not a big issue at level 4 or 8 or 12 or....1.
And all this stuff abouy the clerics (or druids) Domain powers. Let's see:"Fire Bolt (Su): As a standard action, you can unleash a fire bolt targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The fire bolt deals 1d6 points of fire damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess."
At level 1 it's 1d6 at level 1.
A level 1 Paladin have an averedge 1d8+2 (or +3).
A level 1 cleric have a 1d8+1 and most clerics don't have Precise Shot so it would be better if they use a morning star: 1d8+1
And it's the same with other domains:
Acid Dart (earth Domain), Icicle (water domain), Storm Burst (weather domain), Lightning Arc (Air domain).
It is't über, it's just convenient. z aka TomJohn
Um a touch attack ability is a lot more useful than a weapon. So saying that the darts/domain powers are somehow less useful than a weapon is absurd. The average touch ac at low levels is around 12, the to hit ac is around 15, the BAB difference between a full BAB class and a partial BAB class is 1, which means that it's better to have the touch ability than the normal attack. 1d6 that reliably hits is better than 1d8 that hits half the time. You're the one who isn't using valid arguements to coin your phrase, not us.
|
|
Also, an at-will magic bolt allows the PC to bypass body-searches, not radiate magic from his equipment, bypass DR, bypass armour, bypass natural armour, use his better ability score to hit (Dex vs Str for arcane caster?), burn/dissolve/freeze objects without having to dig out his flint/vial/brown mold tin.
Yes, many spells are better, but many of the spells are overkill, when you just need to pop that goblin or dire rat. You can save the magic missile, or the burning hands, or the spiritual weapon, or the produce flame, etc, for use in a much more efficient way, or use the slot for something else entirely, widening their repertoire, and their power.
It used to be argued that spells needed to be that good, because that's all the caster got to cast in one day. Since the number of spells/day has risen in every edition, and now casters have abilities at will, is it time to reduce the effectiveness of all spells?
|
|
Do you mean a 4 level paladin could have an always on:
+1 to attack = weapon focus
+1 to ac = dodge feat with using a swift action
+2 to damage = weapon Specialization
So is this the always on? Or is this the always on due to smites not used or what? Can you just explain this to me one more time please.
Something to that effect. Note that it doesn't have to be an "always on new ability or mechanic." These mechanics work fine - BUT what I have been saying all along is that the paladin lacks those customizable options typically granted to most other classes to make their "in combat modifiable statistics" better. Those feats are indeed the equivalent of an "always on" effect. Furthermore, is there truly a harm in a 4th level paladin having such a bonus against evil creatures? A barbarians rage certainly adds +2 to hit, and +3 to damage most likely, a rogues gains a free weapon finesse - adding likely +3 to hit, a ranger adds point blank shot adding +1 to hit and damage, or rapid shot offering a second attack option, or adding a lucrative off-hand attack with two-weapon fighting, or two-weapon defense bolstering it's one weak spot (AC), and the fighter who has 5-6 feats (based on race) by that point which could include both weapon focus and specialization, and shield focus, AND armor training allowing for 2 more points of AC from the same armor as the paladin is wearing. All of these will continue to get better and better, and the fighter will start adding Weapon Training modifiers, in as well!
Wizards, sorcerers, fighters, rangers, monks, and rogues all gain bonus feats that can synergize, or augment their class capabilities. Barbarians gain similar aspects too - they have rage powers that grant bonuses to hit, and bonuses to damage and bonuses to AC that mirror the above mentioned core mechanics.
A paladin (as written), with exception of the few attacks that can include a smite evil attack per day, lack the EXTRA options to help strengthen or diversify their class capabilities.
Many paladins will not be able to afford a 13 DEX, so dodge isn't always an option. Weapon focus is nice - everyone can take it - most classes have bonus feats etc, where even if they can't take weapon Focus as a bonus feat - they at least can spend a regular one on it, knowing that they still can take a class-related feat as a freebie, as well. (it CAN be taken by rogue as one of their bonus feats, however). Weapon specialization - not an option for the paladin - and now the bonus shield feats posted for fighters that make the shield better are similarly not available.
My point now - and always has been, that the paladin does not have the nearly the opportunities to add these features as most other classes. They have only the core minimum number of feats, and if he wants to spend each one trying to make them attack better, he sorely loses out and continues to be a piss-poor channeler. On the flip side, he can spend all of his feats trying to be an adequate channeler and will simply fade into the background with his offense attack options.
With combat days being extended by way of making unlimited use resources for other classes (which I applaud by the way and am all for), and the limited number of attacks that smite can be effective, the ineffective caster level to make their spells far less powerful, it just continues to be a colossal gap in the combat modifiers that are avaialable to a paladin.
Those mechanics you mention above are a perfect way to help close the gap and would be equivalent of an ever-on ability; but as I illustrated above - as it stands, it's not a possible, and even if they could spend their first 3 or so feats on adding these miniscule rewards, it simply robs them of making other valid choices that other character classes seem to be able to take advantage of.
One more thing: "the "casters" now have spells that are unlimited daily."
A) They only have unlimiteduse of 0-level spells.
B) Paladin, fighters, monks, children, wolfs etc. etc. can use their sword, fists, bites or maces unlimited times per day.Please, please, please stop: let's just talk about cons for tanks and pros for magic users. If you do - use valid arguments. unlimited use of 0-level spells are not a big issue at level 4 or 8 or 12 or....1.
And all this stuff abouy the clerics (or druids) Domain powers. Let's see:"Fire Bolt (Su): As a standard action, you can unleash a fire bolt targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The fire bolt deals 1d6 points of fire damage +1 for every two caster levels you possess."
At level 1 it's 1d6 at level 1.
A level 1 Paladin have an averedge 1d8+2 (or +3).
A level 1 cleric have a 1d8+1 and most clerics don't have Precise Shot so it would be better if they use a morning star: 1d8+1
And it's the same with other domains:
Acid Dart (earth Domain), Icicle (water domain), Storm Burst (weather domain), Lightning Arc (Air domain).
It is't über, it's just convenient. z aka TomJohn
Come on - you don't really expect us to believe that you consider a "touch attack" to be anything like a weapon attack. Sure the damage is minimal in comparison to what a barbarian or fighter could do with a weapon......
but compare a wiz or sorc (neither of which has any MAD) to a paladin: their DEX mod is probably on par with the paladins STR. At 6th level, the BAB is only 3 different. MOST creatures Touch AC is far more than 3 worse than their normal AC.
Sure paladins can increase their attacks with a Divine Favor (+1 to hit), and spend one of his three feats on Weapon Focus (+1), and have a magic +1 weapon; wizards can have Cat's Grace just as easily as the paladin has Divine Favor, and wizard is just as capable of taking weapon focus feat - and/or Point blank shot.
Meanwhile the touch attack is trying to hit AC 12, and the Paladin is trying to hit AC 20
Sure the paladin can use his two smites for the day to even up the odds and hit.......but the wizard hasn't run out of his fire bolt in the second combat....
Again - I'm not trying to sell the notion that the Fire Bolt or 0 level spells are game breaker - they're not - that's why they're unlimited - but please dont try to sell that simply because they dont do 14 points of damage that they pale in comparison to someone having to hit a real AC with a weapon, and the a 'ranged touch attack' is a real obstacle most of the time.....
Furthermore, the spellcasters dont just have "fire bolt"; there's domain powers, school powers, and bloodline powers that grant abilities throughout the day as well.
Robert
|
|
Also, an at-will magic bolt allows the PC to bypass body-searches, not radiate magic from his equipment, bypass DR, bypass armour, bypass natural armour, use his better ability score to hit (Dex vs Str for arcane caster?), burn/dissolve/freeze objects without having to dig out his flint/vial/brown mold tin.
YES! Excellent points, Snorter, as usual.
Yes, many spells are better, but many of the spells are overkill, when you just need to pop that goblin or dire rat. You can save the magic missile, or the burning hands, or the spiritual weapon, or the produce flame, etc, for use in a much more efficient way, or use the slot for something else entirely, widening their repertoire, and their power.It used to be argued that spells needed to be that good, because that's all the caster got to cast in one day. Since the number of spells/day has risen in every edition, and now casters have abilities at will, is it time to reduce the effectiveness of all spells?
And while I'll concede that many spells that were considered uber:overpowered have been reduced in their overall potency, I will say that it is still a valid point that instead of just reducing all spells, it makes logical sense to argue that their always available unlimited options makes a new mindset for long-time D&D players that we need to forget about the 15 minute adventuring day and expect PCs to have 8, 9, or even 10 encounters in a day!
And the Paladin, however, still cannot cope with that; which is the crux of my stand on that issue.
By the way - most of the changes to the super-powerful spells, I'm completely in favor of. I think it's another step towards continuing the fun of the game. No one enjoys having their character disintigrated, or rolling a 1 on a Slay Living spell, or being locked in a forcecage for 16 hours. These are the incidents that drove many gamers away from a table and over the Xbox and playstation while everybody else enjoyed the game......hence MMOs existance, and eventually 4E which developed their game to fit the mindset of those who turned to MMOs.
Robert
|
|
I still say that giving a paladin a choice of weapon focus or combat expertise at first level (no need to meet pre-reqs) is the best way to go. I just don't see someone who wasn't considering dipping before suddenly saying "Weapon focus for free? How can they just give such a powerful feat away I have to take this now" and people who were already considering dipping were doing so for the already existing benefits.
Still only one or two people actually responded to my shield ally suggestion so I guess it wasn't that good.
|
|
I still say that giving a paladin a choice of weapon focus or combat expertise at first level (no need to meet pre-reqs) is the best way to go. I just don't see someone who wasn't considering dipping before suddenly saying "Weapon focus for free? How can they just give such a powerful feat away I have to take this now" and people who were already considering dipping were doing so for the already existing benefits.
Still only one or two people actually responded to my shield ally suggestion so I guess it wasn't that good.
Well, actually, I already (as well as Mink) already had dialogue about an ability like that - so I thought my support of such an idea was a given.
Also I disagree about a bonus feat at 1st level - 2nd level does make sense however.
Robert
|
|
I still say that giving a paladin a choice of weapon focus or combat expertise at first level (no need to meet pre-reqs) is the best way to go. I just don't see someone who wasn't considering dipping before suddenly saying "Weapon focus for free? How can they just give such a powerful feat away I have to take this now" and people who were already considering dipping were doing so for the already existing benefits.
Still only one or two people actually responded to my shield ally suggestion so I guess it wasn't that good.
Well, actually, I already (as well as Mink) already had dialogue about an ability like that - so I thought my support of such an idea was a given.
Also I disagree about a bonus feat at 1st level - 2nd level does make sense however.
Robert
right you and he were the one or two people ;)
What makes second level make sense? monks and fighters get theirs at first why not the pally? I think second level is one of the best for a paladin as it stands, why would you throw more abilities at such a good level? If first doesn't make sense second doesn't either and then we are back to giving it at level three, too little too late.
|
|
What makes second level make sense? monks and fighters get theirs at first why not the pally? I think second level is one of the best for a paladin as it stands, why would you throw more abilities at such a good level? If first doesn't make sense second doesn't either and then we are back to giving it at level three, too little too late.
I dont really have a reason other than it just seemed more appropriate not to front load too much at 1st level - to spread out the benefits if you will.
With this caveat: i'm going forward with the assumption that paladins should get more than just one smite evil at 1st level.
With a 1+CHA mod as I have been pushing for, I would say that the b.feat should be pushed back to 2nd level.
Robert
|
|
In my RotR playtest this week, we noticed that there's no way for a paladin to increase the number of times they can smite evil in a day. I think this would be a nice addition, to allow the same amount of class-ability-focus as you would for any other class who can take a feat to get more of a specific class feature.This one makes sense to me as well, but I am a little bit more hesitant, since Smite is undergoing a deal of change.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason posted this on the feats thread. Sounds promising.... I'll keep my fingers croseed - in truth I do have a lot of faith in the developers here - so far the proof has been in the pudding - they know what they're doing.
Robert
Lastknight, Benchak says he's done the runes on your pick-axe.
And this is a shameless way to bump this thread past 1000 posts...
Your's was number 999 fella. This one is number 1000.
Can't wait to see what Smite is going to end up looking like...
EDIT: Looks like I'm wrong, but I swear, Snorter's said 999 on it when I replied. And my post appears to be 1001 of 1000.
Eh?