|
Demons have DR /Good. Yes this means that their biggest antagonists can get through it, but that's because their primary antagonists are the only ones motivated enough. It would be like complaining than werewolves who are fighting a werewolf-hunting cadre are gimped because said cadre has lots of silver bullets.
This is just how alignment-based DR works. Deal with it.
I hate to burst your bubble but demon’s biggest antagonists are other demons and devils, and thus their damage reduction work against them. As for demons that travel onto the material plane, well majority of the inhabitants are neutral and with evil being more populace then good (look at all those “evil” races >.>).
Yes many pc are good and vastly out number evil pc, however they’re only a minuscule portion of the population. Not to mention due to evil beings are more willing to seek power they tend to be more powerful than other good inhabitants. Yes many good (and neutral) people do obtain power to defend others or whatever but once again this only smaller population. Think about it how many adventures have the BBEG is VS the Paladin, or even the good wizard.
So it’s more like werewolves complaining that they’re fighting pesky Halflings and the odd halfling just happens to have a silver bullet. Around level 20 a Paladin is going to be very likely going to be fighting Demons and Devils as such you might as well just toss that ability away. The exception is that there maybe a few foes who don’t have evil attacks but they tend to be spell casters anyway…
|
|
At 20th level, the paladin with 22 CHA can (in theory) heal 960 (!!!) HPs per day, or deal the same amount as damage to undead. Comparing to 3E, that’s a *HUGE* boost, and I’m not sure I like it, because to me it feels like an overkill.I feel the need to address this, since it is somewhat deceptive. In theory, you are indeed correct that a 20th level Paladin with 22 CHA (that's a rather high CHA though...) could heal 960 hit points per day, but that's assuming that he would roll all 6s on all his rolls. This is so incredibly unlikely as to be practically impossible. The probability of that happening is 1 in 6^160 which equals approximately 1 in 3.193 x 10^124 !! Yes, that's a more than 3 with 124 zeroes after it. Just for the sake of comparison, the observable universe is estimated to have approximately 10^80 atoms in it in total, which is many orders of magnitudes less than 3.193 x 10^124. We can safely say that a Paladin healing 960 hit points, even at 20th level and even with 22 Charisma, is impossible for all practical intents and purposes.
But here is the bonus: Even if it were somehow possible, it wouldn't be disastrous. Why? Because a typical 4-member 20th level party will have around 600 hit points (and that's assuming much, much lower Constitution scores than your assumption for the Paladin's Charisma), so the Paladin will not even be able to heal the party twice to full from a highly beaten-up state (and as I pointed out in the paragraph above, such amount of healing is practically impossible to achieve in practice).
One more thing to add: The total amount of healing per day only matters for the purposes of the length of the adventuring day of the party. The real place where healing can actually be broken is not total healing per day, but rather the amount of damage healed per round, since that matters in combat. In this regard, I think Channel Positive Energy (though not necessarily Lay on Hands) is indeed overpowered due to healing multiple targets at levels...
You're forgetting that average d6 is 3.5 cure light is 1d8+2 or 6.5 so LoH is weaker then then clw. Lvl 4 it's 7 vs 13, lvl 8 it's 14 vs 26. So LoH is weaker healing then appropriate level healing from a cleric. However this healing comes as a swift which does boost it's power, but if used on an ally it's not really a big deal.
Nevertheless A 3.5 at lvl2, 7 at lvl 4 and 14 at lvl 8 and is out paced by damage done by monsters. Even a cleric's cure spells tend to be out paced by monster's attacks anyway. There are arguments that it's more efficient for the cleric to attack instead of heal, even when everyone else is almost dead.
So that leaves paladins using LoH abilities for outside combat, which gives about average 560 HP at lvl 20 (3.5 x 10= 35 which average roll for LoH. Assuming 22 CHA which 6 bonus and extra 10 due to levels for total of 16. So that means they can give that 35 heal back 16 and 35x16 = 560. However you have to remember you're expected to have 4 encounters per day so that's an average 140 heals after each encounter. Then you might have to factor in that not just the paladin might need heals but your other 3 comrades. So factoring in healing your buddies would mean that 140 heal becomes a 35 per person after encounter.
Now before you say Channel Energy is over powered remember it takes 2 LoH per use. Which means that 35 heal could be used 8 times now but AoE, which gives you an average of 280 per day or 70 per encounter.
While 280 may sound like a lot of heal however a clw wand gives an average of 275 heal per use. So in effect a Paladin is only saving the party a clw each (or 3,000 gold for a party of 4). By level 20 the character wealth is 880,000 (according to the Pathfinder Beta). So if people want to argue about pc saving 3,000-4,500 (4-6 size party) at level 20. While 3,000-4,500 may sound a lot, just remember the pc should have 880,000 wealth. Even pc going from 19 to 20 are expected to accumulate an extra 195,000 wealth in gold.
I don't see why people are making a big deal for the party saving 3,000-4,500 worth of gold when they're earning 780,000 gold.
I very much like the new look for Paladin. Smite lasting a full round (or rounds at higher level) and giving an AC boost vs evil is terrific. I like how Lay On Hands and Channel Positive Energy look now. It makes a great deal of sense to me to link the two as all the other Paladin special healing-like abilities are the same way.
In particular, I like the new mount rules. It has never made sense to me for a Paladin special mount to be some temporary thing that shows up for a few hours a day and then vanishes until some time the next day. For that reason, I have never considered taking a mount. Implementing the new rules would make me reconsider that.
All in all, I would this looks like a very good start and a huge step in the right direction for Paladin. I hope the new rules will play as well as they look on paper.
|
A big thank you to everyone who made suggestions and commentary on the many paladin threads out there.
It's great to watch the work in progress and see it make a difference to the end product.
I have one player who would be happy to see most of this (playing Beta paladin in 3.5), since he spent a feat on improving his Smite, to achieve what now appears to be the standard.
I'll be offering to let him swap that feat for something else.
LoH/CE: Thank you for changing this!
Divine Bond:
Can he choose to take a mundane weapon, such as a masterwork longsword, and make it holy, without first adding a +1 enhancement bonus, or does it suffer from the restriction on creating magic items, where you may not add effects to a weapon until you first give it an enhancement bonus?
If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added.
It was easy to miss since it was buried inside a single large block of text.
What I'd like clarification on is if the minutes/rounds of using the celestial spirit need to be consecutive, or if they can be spread out over the course of the day:
The first bond allows her to enhance her weapon as a standard action by calling upon the aid of a celestial spirit for 1 minute per paladin level. ... A paladin can use this ability once per day at 5th level, and one additional time per day for every four levels beyond 5th, to a total of four times per day at 17th level.
So does this mean that at 20th level that a paladin can have his uberweapon for a total of 80 minutes a day, or that he can split up the 20 minutes a day however he likes?
20th Level: Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of aligned damage reduction, I whole-heartedly agree that DR 10/evil is inadequate as a capstone ability. I think Jason N's suggestion of DR 10/- vs. evil is much more inline with the Paladin's designed role as a bulwark against evil. If this is too big of an improvement, then limiting it to creatures with the [evil] subtype may suffice.
FWIW, I've always disliked DR/magic and DR/alignment. They've always struck me as forms of DR that are useful against creatures you don't need it for, and useless against the ones you do. In otherwords, it seems like a non-ability, and a false boost to effectiveness and CR.
|
|
divine bond- I really don't care for the weapon aspect of this in its current form. The paladin is primarily a fighter and will be upgrading his/her weapon as they can. If these weapon enhancements don't stack, they would not seem to be very useful. Maybe the weapon could be upgraded in different ways?
That part made me pause, too.
I could see the point, if the intent is that extra effects can be added to an existing weapon, so an existing bane weapon could be made holy/bane, but you cannot make a weapon 'doubleholy' or 'axiomaticplus'.
However, if the intent is to totally replace the weapon's usual properties, then I am not seeing the benefit. I would hope that most paladins are carrying at least one weapon of at least +1 by level 5, and +2 by level 8, etc.
Though the ability to customise the properties is nice.
SMITE THAT SLAAD!
As it is, I can see this really only helping a paladin who's been disarmed, as he can now turn his armoured feet into 'Boots of Bu++-Kicking', or clock someone over the back of the head with a 'Chair of Disruption'.
Can this please be clarified?
Divine bond: I like it. The only point of clarification I would add is making more clear whether adding +1 as an enhancement bonus (not a special power) adds +1 on top of whatever enhancement bonus it already has. The other powers don't stack, that's fine - no keen on top of keen, holy on top of holy, whatever. But if my sword is +1, can I make it +2 - more to the point, does that cost one or two pluses?
That was unclear to me too. I was also wondering how many powers can apply to the same weapon. The following statement
Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property’s cost.
needs a page reference to the section on magical weapon powers, otherwise it's easy to assume that a +1 cost for all powers is implied. It might also be nice to just spell out the costs right there, and save the player some trouble: axiomatic (+2), brilliant energy (+4), defending (+1), disruption (+2), etc.
Smite Evil:
This was crystal clear:
1 extra point of damage per paladin level
but the following less so:
1d6 points of damage per two levels the paladin possesses
Is that supposed to be "1d6 points of damage per two paladin levels" (as I'm assuming), or do other class levels apply?
Channel Energy:
I think it would be neat if the paladin's channel energy (or even all channel positive energy) zapped evil outsiders (and neg energy zapped good outsiders) like it does undead, but take that for what it's worth.
Makes sense, if you also allow clerics with the elemental domains to affect elementals with channel energy. Let it be specific to the paladin, though, like the domain-specific applications (present in 3.5 but apparently dropped in Pathfinder).
Do these upgrades, especially those made to smite evil, help to level the playing field for a paladin in melee? (Note that the paladin should not, generally speaking, equal the fighter unless the circumstances are favorable to the paladin). Does the change to lay on hands and channel energy allow the paladin to be a capable healer without overshadowing the cleric?
I think smite evil is well done. If it doesn't quite level the playing field, I wouldn't resort to the always-on bonus against evil that some are proposing. Other circumstantial powers would be more interesting, for example, a bonus triggered while an ally is helpless. I like the way Lay on Hands is combined with Channel Energy, but I am a little worried about making paladin level and effective cleric level equivalent.
I like the good will save. I'd rather not resort to feats like Mettle that provide paladin equivalents of benefits that don't really fit the paladin.
|
Marvellous fix -- this addresses the most glaring issues with the paladin.
I'll be testing this with our campaign's paladin starting this week. I'm very pleased to see smite evil fixed.
Now, I have a somewhat supplementary question. Should celestial creatures that can smite evil use the same mechanic? We have a lot of summoned critters in our game...
|
|
I feel the need to address this, since it is somewhat deceptive. In theory, you are indeed correct that a 20th level Paladin with 22 CHA (that's a rather high CHA though...) could heal 960 hit points per day, but that's assuming that he would roll all 6s on all his rolls. This is so incredibly unlikely as to be practically impossible. The probability of that happening is 1 in 6^160 which equals approximately 1 in 3.193 x 10^124 !! Yes, that's a more than 3 with 124 zeroes after it. Just for the sake of comparison, the observable universe is estimated to have approximately 10^80 atoms in it in total, which is many orders of magnitudes less than 3.193 x 10^124. We can safely say that a Paladin healing 960 hit points, even at 20th level and even with 22 Charisma, is impossible for all practical intents and purposes.
Actually, a 20th level paladin automatically heals the max. amount every time he uses Lay on Hands, thanks to the Holy Champion ability. I know that it's a 20th level ability, and indeed it may not be such an issue before that, but even then it's a bit clunky mechanic which slows down combat rounds later on. I prefer the Beta system, but if Lay on Hands need a boost, then I think the 3E mechanic (CHA x LEVEL per day ; divided into as many uses as needed) is a better and also *quicker* way without rolling and claculating X dice. This could be upgraded to 2 x (CHA x LVL), or something like it in PF.
But here is the bonus: Even if it were somehow possible, it wouldn't be disastrous. Why? Because a typical 4-member 20th level party will have around 600 hit points (and that's assuming much, much lower Constitution scores than your assumption for the Paladin's Charisma), so the Paladin will not even be able to heal the party twice to full from a highly beaten-up state (and as I pointed out in the paragraph above, such amount of healing is practically impossible to achieve in practice).
He does get 'Heal', though, although using it means he spends his Lay on Hands -ability uses. All in all I think the Paladin's "role" in the group should not be that of a healer per se -- rather, I see him as a Holy Warrior who is effective in combat against evil opponents, *and* often acts as a leader/commander who boosts the morale and abilities of his allies. Having said that, I think it's better to include more auras and "smite powers", rather than upgrade his healing abilities.
I *do* know that high-level parties often run out of healing, but IMO that's not actually solved by making the paladin more effective healer -- it's a "problem" that's caused by a number of different factors. 4E solved this by giving everyone Second Winds, Healing Surges and whatnot -- PF has a different take on it, and it remains to be seen how succesfully it deals with this issue.
One more thing to add: The total amount of healing per day only matters for the purposes of the length of the adventuring day of the party. The real place where healing can actually be broken is not total healing per day, but rather the amount of damage healed per round, since that matters in combat. In this regard, I think Channel Positive Energy (though not necessarily Lay on Hands) is indeed overpowered due to healing multiple targets at levels...
We haven't yet playtested high-level clerics, so I cannot say anything about this, but so far we've liked that clerics and paladins can heal everyone with Channel Energy. Of course, at high levels even 200+ HPs per round may not be enough for the PCs -- I remember one instance in 3E in which my fighter was brought to negative HPs *TWICE* in a round *before* he had even acted! (I think it was close to 400 damage or something...)
I have just one perplexity, and that is about Smite Evil. As it is written now, it is (supposedly) more powerful against Evil Outsiders and Undead... at least, until the Paladin scores a Critical Hit.
As a flat bonus, I always multiplied the Smite Evil if a critical hit was scored when the Paladin was using it(woe to the evildoer hit by a Spirited-Charging Lance-armed Paladin!).
From the Beta PFRPG (pag. 131):
"Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied."
...and this is the case of the Smite Evil of the Paladin against his most hated foes. Extra damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, and what was their best shot suddenly is not anymore.
I humbly suggest a flat damage (perhaps 2 or 3 times the Paladin's level) against Evil Outsiders and Undead, instead of +1d6 for every 2 Paladin's level, in order to keep Critical Smite Evil a true evil-bane!
Any comments?
|
|
Jason, thank you for the [Design Focus] update! It's very much appreciated to get an idea for what playtest concepts are being looked at and considered by the design team. That being said, my thoughts on the changes to...
Detect Evil: Awesome. I love it, love it, love it!
Smite Evil: Thank you heartily for the changes you've made. While I would have loved to have not wasted a smite attempt on a miss, I can be happy with the changes you've made here.
Lay on Hands: I'm partial to the pool of points that 3.5 used, but this looks like good revision from the initial beta rules on the ability. Many thanks on this as well.
Channel Energy: I like how you tied this in with Lay on Hands; I feel that's definitely the way to go here. As other people have said, clarification will be needed with how the Paladin's version of Channel Energy mixes with the Cleric's and relevant feats.
Divine Bond: I love this ability (and thank you Paizo for an alternative to the mount!). Again as has already been mentioned some clarification on stacking effects for the weapon bonuses and how that will relate to DR will be needed. As far as the mount, I think it makes sense to have it roaming the celetial planes. If the weapon bond is a celestial spirit, why wouldn't the mount be celestial as well? Just seems to make sense for me.
Holy Champion: Jason Nelson proposed a DR 10/- vs. evil, which I think is one way to go. Another would be to give the paladin DR 10/good. She's still protected against her foes, but if she gets into a tussle with celestials she's on her own.
Other thoughts: I think that the changes to Smite Evil were very positive and should help to level the playing field. Further playtesting will give us an answer there. I would still request that the Paladin get Tower Shield Proficiency to aid that end. I don't think the Paladin will have to worry about outshining the Cleric, but I do think the Paladin's caster level needs to be switched to Paladin level-3 (aka CL 1 @ 4th, CL 2 @ 5th, etc). Spontaneous casting would be a boon, but the caster level fix is almost a necessity. All in all, thank you heartily again for the changes. Back to playtesting!
Over all I like. I still would like to see smite hold it's charge, and I am lening toward it being 1d6/3 levels. 1d6/2 levels seems a bit much to me
Smite still fizzles on a miss for low levels.
If you have only one attack— as most paladins below 6th do— and you miss with your smite, you have blown your coolest class ability for the day on a miss.
Smite should be the power the player wants to throw at the toughest encounter of a given day. BBEGs are not known for low AC. Low level characters often want to smite precisely the opponents they are most likely to miss.
I think Mr. Bulmahn's fix is quite good for paladins of higher level, who get either extra attempts, extra rounds, or extra attacks within a round. It is also good for pallys with extra attacks from 2WF or Shield Bashing, but neither of those seems very paladinesque to me. They shouldn't be mandatory for an optimal smite.
This has actually made the first five levels of smite less rewarding in my campaign— before I could make the case for holding the charge because the duration was ambiguous like that. Now, he gets 1 round, and therefore 1 attack, to make it work.
This fix has a lot going for it, but every new pathfinder player is going to have to live through the first five levels— better make them fun. The crushing defeat of a fizzled miss is unbecoming of the Paladin.
1) d20, d6, d6, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p (full BAB)
2) d20, d6 ,d6, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p (hasted)
3) d20, d6, d6, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p( BAB-5)
4) d20, d6, d6, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p, d6p (BAB-10)
What, nobody casts fireball at your table?
Seriously though,
My suggestion to cut down on fistfulls of dice for iterative attacks: return Smiting to a single-attack ability. Allow multiple smites in a full attack, but the character must spend an attempt/day on it. And make it hold the charge. Please, please, make it hold the charge.
I hate to burst your bubble but demon’s biggest antagonists are other demons and devils, and thus their damage reduction work against them. As for demons that travel onto the material plane, well majority of the inhabitants are neutral and with evil being more populace then good (look at all those “evil” races >.>).
Their primary antagonist are the PCs, who are usually good. Of the PC classes, Divine casters are most likely to want them offed, and most of them have the ability to make their weapons good-aligned.
EDIT: Also, Demons and devils still get DR /Good.
An improvement in every way! I agree some add-on smite feats would be nice (especially something vs undead, like the Holy Champion banish).
I think this just about hits parity. The pally should not match the fighter in normal circumstances but should shine vs undead and demons.
Here's my thought exercise playtest. In Rise of the Runelords, towards the end (Xin-Shalast) we were level 14 and would have a day where we'd fight a good dozen major demon/devil/undead types (plus other "normal" monsters). A L14 pally at that point would have 5 smites, lasting 2 rounds each, +7d6 damage. So maybe smithing in half the rounds of combat versus the undead/outsider foes. Very decent, with a damage output rivalling fighters and rogues and Bo9S types, and adding the AC buff and DR penetration, it becomes better. So success, you want them to be better in that circumstance!
I like the merging channel and lay on hands. Awesome work!
|
I've finally had a chance to look at the modified paladin and I must say that i like what I see. The one issue that I have is Holy Champion. A lot of people here have said that the DR 10 should be against evil as opposed to DR 10/evil. I'm not so sure that I agree. On the one hand, it makes sense thematically, having her Damage Reduction be against evil. But in the end, that just limits the 20th level paladin, who, as a champion of the powers of good, should have some fundamental level of protection most of the time. With this proposal, this is not the case as it would apply only against evil creatures. I think that the overall protection effect is what Jason is going for. In my mind what would be better is having the DR be changed to DR 10/good, like another on this thread suggested. This way she keeps it all the time, even vs. evil critters, but it doesn't apply vs. the forces of good, who should be on his side anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Overall, a good step in the right direction. There are many people on the boards more passionate about the paladin than I am, so I'm going to sit back and let them make points (some of which I agree with, some not so much) and trust Jason to make a great final version.
There is one thing I wanted to point out on the smite evil damage vs. undead and evil outsiders. There are cases where the new version actually does less damage than the 1/level. If you roll poorly, you do less damage. For example, at 2nd level, you do 1d6 instead of 2 (as a flat 1/level bonus). If you roll a 1, you do less damage, if you roll a 2, you do the same damage. So 1/3 of the time, you do the same or worse. The same situation can happen at other levels too, though once more dice are added to the pool, it's less and less likely.
I'd suggest either changing the damage to 1d4 per paladin level, so you still at a minimum do the same damage as using 1 per paladin level, or use 1d6+1 per every 2 paladin levels (minimum 1d6+1).
*Sigh*
Guys, what you're proposing regarding their damage reduction is tantamount to saying that Bless Weapon shouldn't get around the Balor's DR.
3. If smite is going to stay, PLEASE don't make it only truly effective against fiends and undead. It's tantamount to dictating what the paladin has to do with his career. Don't continue to trap paladins in the ghetto of demons and vampires. There are so many, many other iniquities in the world! I would much rather see something like a +1/+1 every four levels vs. evil.I disagree with this. To me it makes perfect sense to me that Liches and Demons, the very exemplars of evil, should be affected more by Smiting than, say, a common bandit. However...
Respectfully, YOU have chosen these to be the exemplars of evil. I have not. Is an imp or a skeleton really more evil than an ancient red dragon or a human who wants to destroy the entire world? Please don't pre-set what kind of evil I can be good at fighting.
Don't think of the power of smite as coming from the nature of the evil it fights. Rather, think of it as coming from the strength of the paladin's righteousness.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Smite: I like it. It's an improvement. I like that it's both offensive and defensive and lasts for a full round. Love the beats all DR.Just in case anyone missed it:
At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of the smite increases by 1 round, to a total of 3 rounds at 16th level.I assume the proposed Extend Smite or Extra Smiting feats are on top of that. Do you think such a feat could hold the charge when the smite misses, as others have proposed the paladin get for free?
Perhaps obviously, I missed it, but I'm happy to have it pointed out to me.
But yes, I would say that any Extend/Extra Smite feats would be on top of that.
If you want your paladin to be a smite machine, I would like you to be able to dump feats on beefing up that class ability. Other paladins will beef up channeling, spellcasting*, exotic mounts, etc. with their feats, or just take regular combat feats to beef up their general combat options.
* Perhaps something like this:
Improved Martial Caster
Requirements: Paladin or ranger level 4th, Wis 13+
Benefit: Your caster level for paladin or ranger spells is equal to your paladin or ranger level.
Normal: Your caster level for paladin or ranger spells is equal to half your paladin or ranger level.
Hrmm...overall, this is really, really good. It pushes the paladin in all the right directions, IMO.
My only complaint is that maybe the weapon bond thing should be better. Maybe it should work more like the arcane bond casters get and be an enhanceable ancestral blade(as if you had the craft arms and armor) or it should stack with existing magical properties (at 20th level, you'll usually have better than a +6 sword). Overall, though, I like everything else a lot.
As for the steed, please keep it the way it is. We really really don't need the pokemount back. I might expand the list of possible steeds, but that's an easy quite easy to houserule in without any conversion necessary. The only suggestion I'd make (and I'm not sure how to do this) is to somehow allow for something like a Pegasus or a griffin, though, this current system is good for making a steed that doesn't go over the top (as those options might be too much in some games).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Just thinking a little about smite evil.
I think it is getting better and more in line with what many of community members are looking for.
I have a couple ideas to put forward.
Should Dragon subtype also be added here for the smite to do more damage? Dragons are one of the triple Ds afterall and an iconic foe of the paladin.
Since smite has a limited number of uses per day, why not let it get a bonus to hit equal to double the cha bonus and let it do a notmal damage bonus of +1d6 per 2 levels and against the iconic baddies (evil outsiders, undead, and dragons) it does +1d6 per level. I would also stretch this to include chaotic neutral outsiders as well, at least for the "normal" smite.
You know I'm in the bag for smiting slaad, but rather than continue that crusade let me take up the dragon for a moment. This might be a good spot for a feat:
Dragonslayer
Prerequisite: Paladin level 5th
Benefit: When a paladin uses smite evil against an evil dragon, she inflicts bonus damage as if the dragon was an evil outsider or undead (i.e., 1d6 per 2 levels, rather than 1 per level). In addition, when using smite evil against an evil dragon she gains not only her Charisma bonus to AC but also to Reflex saves against an evil dragon's breath weapon. This bonus stacks with the bonus for divine grace.
If the paladin has the divine bond (weapon) ability, she may choose to add the bane (dragons) property to her weapon.
If the paladin has the divine bond (mount) ability, her mount enjoys the same benefits to AC and Reflex saves as the paladin does when the paladin uses smite evil against an evil dragon.
Thoughts?
|
|
I hate to burst your bubble but demon’s biggest antagonists are other demons and devils, and thus their damage reduction work against them. As for demons that travel onto the material plane, well majority of the inhabitants are neutral and with evil being more populace then good (look at all those “evil” races >.>).Their primary antagonist are the PCs, who are usually good. Of the PC classes, Divine casters are most likely to want them offed, and most of them have the ability to make their weapons good-aligned.
EDIT: Also, Demons and devils still get DR /Good.
arugh have you ever read the fluff of demons and devils? They attack each other and in most cases they're at war with each other. They also live in the world of unlimited evil with its members fighting for power. Which means their primary antagonist are other demons, devils and whatever lives on their world.
This unless of course world exists and revolves around the pc. Which means all npcs bend to the will of the pc and only exists nevermind their goals or personality. And roleplay be dammed because everything serves to the pc, and if they don't they're monsters.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
If the paladin has the divine bond (weapon) ability, she may choose to add the bane (dragons) property to her weapon.
If the paladin has the divine bond (mount) ability, her mount enjoys the same benefits to AC and Reflex saves as the paladin does when the paladin uses smite evil against an evil dragon.[/i]
Thoughts?
This bit of your dragonslayer feat brings up a good question. Should this type of ability already work with the divine bond, similar to how a ranger's favored enemies work with their animal companion?
I'd suggest that they should. This would mean on the regular divine bond (weapon) bane (evil outsider and undead) should get added to the list, and for the divine bond (mount) the mount should share the AC bonus from smite evil (at least while the paladin is riding it).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It seems that I will be at odds with many of the community members on this next one, but I really don't like divine bond - weapon as an ability. First, if it is still tied to deity's favored weapon that is too limiting and boring and, furthermore, it is a rather redundant ability since at the point where it has useful abilities to imbue, the character should already have magic items of similar or better power level. This is a good ability for a paladin who has been captured, stripped of all items and weapons and is now trying to escape and takes into possession a non-magic weapon because that's all he can get his hands on. Outside of this scenario it is a rather limited ability. I also don't giving the paladin a "free" magic item. I would rather see the enhancment benefits of this ability turned into always on bonuses to to-hit and damage for the paladin.
I've seen a number of folks post similar thoughts to these, and I just pulled out your post more or less at random to answer.
I would argue the opposite tack, that divine bond (weapon) as an ability is very powerful. It has one simple requirement: Don't choose a bonus your weapon already has!
It's not at all redundant unless the only magic items you are able to find/beg/borrow/steal/craft are the same ones on the paladin list. you are absolutely right that the paladin will have powers of a SIMILAR power level. Maybe even better. But not identical powers.
A paladin could happily go out and get himself a +1 frost lance and then add flaming to it at 5th level. Or buy a +1 keen scimitar and add flaming burst when you get +2 goodies with divine bond.
The ability is also very versatile, in that you can slap a holy divine bond on your cold iron weapon when you're up against demons or on your silver weapon when it's devil time. Then, when the slaad invasion comes you go with anarchic. Or at high enough level you fire up anarchic, merciful, and holy on your demon-slaying trip for an extra 5d6 damage on every hit (the fact that it's nonlethal doesn't make much diff when the end result of knocked out/killed is generally the same), stacked on top of your weapon that's already got a bunch of other enchantments on it.
It is reasonable to suppose that a paladin might want a holy weapon or other that was "on" all the time, so he didn't have to use divine bond? Sure. The ability isn't necessarily a free, always-on item. Still, I think it is an ability that is strangely underrated by most of the folks who have commented on it. With just a drop of creativity, I think it can be pretty hardcore.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I hate to burst your bubble but demon’s biggest antagonists are other demons and devils, and thus their damage reduction work against them. As for demons that travel onto the material plane, well majority of the inhabitants are neutral and with evil being more populace then good (look at all those “evil” races >.>).Their primary antagonist are the PCs, who are usually good. Of the PC classes, Divine casters are most likely to want them offed, and most of them have the ability to make their weapons good-aligned.
EDIT: Also, Demons and devils still get DR /Good.
arugh have you ever read the fluff of demons and devils? They attack each other and in most cases they're at war with each other. They also live in the world of unlimited evil with its members fighting for power. Which means their primary antagonist are other demons, devils and whatever lives on their world.
This unless of course world exists and revolves around the pc. Which means all npcs bend to the will of the pc and only exists nevermind their goals or personality. And roleplay be dammed because everything serves to the pc, and if they don't they're monsters.
I think the discussion on what alignment based DR is supposed to represent is focusing too much on: it should protect from the creature's biggest foes. Turning the issue around, the other interpretation is that alignment based DR instead represents the fact that a creature is SO strong of it's alignment, that the only thing that can harm it effectively is something equally strong of the opposite alignment. This (and apparently the current interpretation based on how the rule works) gives the creature protection from mortals that don't possess special magic or weapons, as well as outsiders and elementals that are from the same or non-opposite alignments.
From a planar cosmology stand point, this does make lots of sense. Angels etc. wouldn't want to be able to hurt each other easily if under mind control, tricked by illusions, etc., but true pure evil can pierce their defenses. Demons and devils fight and squabble all the time, amongst themselves, and in the blood war vs. each other. It's effectively a natural selection type mechanism to make sure they don't kill each other off too easily, and it goes a long way to explain why the blood war has gone on for eons without much change, since neither side can easily hurt each other. Since the DR is commonly 5 or 10, it can still be bypassed by high damage attacks, or by devils using cold iron and demons using silver against lesser types on the other side.
From a game standpoint, gaining DR/evil as a PC does have the vulnerability against evil outsiders and unholy weapons, but those things are SO evil that they break through. Against other foes, such as mortal evil beings, etc. the paladin's strong ties to supernatural good provide protection. It still comes up quite often in most campaigns, even at high levels, unless you're using a strong demon or devil themed story (such as the end few adventures in Savage Tide AP).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The d6p refers to the use of six sided dice with pips, to distinguish from numbered six sided dice that are probably being used for weapon damage.
The player needs a full array of color coded dice just to minimize how much he is slowing down the game. Without that, the other players can go on a lunch break while the damage is calculated.
Just cuz I'm curious... why would you use different dice for smite damage vs. sword damage? It's all d6's. Who cares?
Also, even if all those attacks hit, that attack is taking far time than the spellcaster's turn with his quickened/immediate spells, summoned allies, and multiple saves and such per round that both he and the DM have to co-adjudicate.
This is speaking as someone who is playing a high-level spellcaster in a campaign where another player is a high-level barbarian/druid/frenzied berseker with a holy sword and who rolls a lot of dice, and another player is a rogue-archer who is regularly doing greater invisible hasted sneak attacks with a fistful of d6's.
It's all part of high-level D&D, rolling big damage. Welcome to fun! :)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Then, when the slaad invasion comes you go with anarchic. Or at high enough level you fire up anarchic, merciful, and holy on...
I think you meant axiomatic instead of anarchic. Other than that, I agree with your post, I think the divine bond is a very strong ability, especially now that Jason B clarified that it doesn't replace existing magic on the weapon.
|
|
I hate to burst your bubble but demon’s biggest antagonists are other demons and devils, and thus their damage reduction work against them. As for demons that travel onto the material plane, well majority of the inhabitants are neutral and with evil being more populace then good (look at all those “evil” races >.>).Their primary antagonist are the PCs, who are usually good. Of the PC classes, Divine casters are most likely to want them offed, and most of them have the ability to make their weapons good-aligned.
EDIT: Also, Demons and devils still get DR /Good.
arugh have you ever read the fluff of demons and devils? They attack each other and in most cases they're at war with each other. They also live in the world of unlimited evil with its members fighting for power. Which means their primary antagonist are other demons, devils and whatever lives on their world.
This unless of course world exists and revolves around the pc. Which means all npcs bend to the will of the pc and only exists nevermind their goals or personality. And roleplay be dammed because everything serves to the pc, and if they don't they're monsters.
I think the discussion on what alignment based DR is supposed to represent is focusing too much on: it should protect from the creature's biggest foes. Turning the issue around, the other interpretation is that alignment based DR instead represents the fact that a creature is SO strong of it's alignment, that the only thing that can harm it effectively is something equally strong of the opposite alignment. This (and apparently the current interpretation based on how the rule works) gives the creature protection from mortals that don't possess special magic or weapons, as well as outsiders and elementals that are from the same or non-opposite alignments.
From a planar cosmology stand point, this does make lots of sense. Angels etc. wouldn't want to be able to hurt each other easily if under...
That's a better argument then the other guy was saying. For that I'm willing say you're point is valid. So I'm willing to say Dr 10 vs evil or non good.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Smite still fizzles on a miss for low levels.
If you have only one attack— as most paladins below 6th do— and you miss with your smite, you have blown your coolest class ability for the day on a miss.
Smite should be the power the player wants to throw at the toughest encounter of a given day. BBEGs are not known for low AC. Low level characters often want to smite precisely the opponents they are most likely to miss.
I think Mr. Bulmahn's fix is quite good for paladins of higher level, who get either extra attempts, extra rounds, or extra attacks within a round. It is also good for pallys with extra attacks from 2WF or Shield Bashing, but neither of those seems very paladinesque to me. They shouldn't be mandatory for an optimal smite.
This has actually made the first five levels of smite less rewarding in my campaign— before I could make the case for holding the charge because the duration was ambiguous like that. Now, he gets 1 round, and therefore 1 attack, to make it work.
This fix has a lot going for it, but every new pathfinder player is going to have to live through the first five levels— better make them fun. The crushing defeat of a fizzled miss is unbecoming of the Paladin.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, I wanted to address the bolded sentence above and suggest this:
Don't think about smite evil in isolation. Think about the attack bonus that it gives as an enabler for Power Attack and/or Combat Expertise (or even just fighting defensively). That phat bonus you got to hit is a resource. You can keep it for your attack roll, or you can essentially spend it when you are smiting evil while using other tactics that give you goodies in exchange for spending your attack roll bonus.
My old 3.0 and later 3.5 paladin used to do this all the time when smiting. The same schtick applies to brilliant energy weapons vs. armored enemies or things like the psi feat Deep Impact - the relative benefit on your attack roll can be so big that most of it is lost in blow-through, so have a secondary ability around to soak up the overage and use it for something constructive.
Yes, I know, PA and CEx have certain caps now in PF (which I'm sure will be much argued when we get to feats), but even so they are handy enough for using in this situation.
My paladin player in my current campaign looks at his charisma bonus to hit as his "equalizer," and since he's low level, he's not nearly as concerned about the bonus to damage.
He also took monkey grip so he could use a large earth breaker, so it just barely puts him back to "even" with his penalties.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Overall, a good step in the right direction. There are many people on the boards more passionate about the paladin than I am, so I'm going to sit back and let them make points (some of which I agree with, some not so much) and trust Jason to make a great final version.
There is one thing I wanted to point out on the smite evil damage vs. undead and evil outsiders. There are cases where the new version actually does less damage than the 1/level. If you roll poorly, you do less damage. For example, at 2nd level, you do 1d6 instead of 2 (as a flat 1/level bonus). If you roll a 1, you do less damage, if you roll a 2, you do the same damage. So 1/3 of the time, you do the same or worse. The same situation can happen at other levels too, though once more dice are added to the pool, it's less and less likely.
I'd suggest either changing the damage to 1d4 per paladin level, so you still at a minimum do the same damage as using 1 per paladin level, or use 1d6+1 per every 2 paladin levels (minimum 1d6+1).
Actually, it's a little worse than that, because at 1st level you actually would inflict NO dice of bonus damage vs. undead and evil outsiders.
You only get one die per 2 levels. So at first level, you don't have 2 levels yet. In 3rd Ed, all fractions round down, so at 1st level on a smite vs. undead/EvO you would get 0d6.
Perhaps here is a compromise solution:
Smite Evil does +1/per paladin level to any evil creature. IN ADDITION, it inflicts 1d6/2 levels vs. evil outsiders/undead. These extra dice of damage are not multiplied on a critical hit.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hey there all,
Just a quick clarification. My intent was to have the weapon bond stack with the qualities of the weapon, but not duplicates. So no double flaming, but you can add flaming to your +1 longsword.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think that part is clear enough (I hope). Add flaming (a +1 quality) to +1 longsword and make it a +1 flaming longsword.
My original question was whether you could add +1 to your +1 longsword and make it a +2 longsword.
Or whether you would have to add +2 to your +1 longsword to make it a +2 longsword.
The followup question was how that interacted with Pathfinder's "higher enhancement bonus = beats certain kinds of DR" rule.
Thanks.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Then, when the slaad invasion comes you go with anarchic. Or at high enough level you fire up anarchic, merciful, and holy on...I think you meant axiomatic instead of anarchic. Other than that, I agree with your post, I think the divine bond is a very strong ability, especially now that Jason B clarified that it doesn't replace existing magic on the weapon.
Oops. I did indeed...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Let's say a paladin is standing next to BBEG#1 and BBEG#2. The player does not know if they are both evil. The PC party is concentrating fire on BBEG#1. The player rolls a bag full of dice for the Paladin, all at once, to attack BBEG#1. The DM informs the player that BBEG#1 is evil. After the third attack hits, BBEG#1 drops to the ground. The Paladin directs his last two attacks, already rolled, against BBEG#2. The DM announces that BBEG#2 is not evil. The player can easily pull the pipped dice aside, and calculate the damage.Just cuz I'm curious... why would you use different dice for smite damage vs. sword damage? It's all d6's. Who cares?The d6p refers to the use of six sided dice with pips, to distinguish from numbered six sided dice that are probably being used for weapon damage.
The player needs a full array of color coded dice just to minimize how much he is slowing down the game. Without that, the other players can go on a lunch break while the damage is calculated.
Fair enuf (though to be anal-retentive, #2 would only be a BBG, not a BBEG, by definition!)
FWIW, I rather enjoy throwing a fistful of dice when I cast blade barrier... :)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Overall, a good step in the right direction. There are many people on the boards more passionate about the paladin than I am, so I'm going to sit back and let them make points (some of which I agree with, some not so much) and trust Jason to make a great final version.
There is one thing I wanted to point out on the smite evil damage vs. undead and evil outsiders. There are cases where the new version actually does less damage than the 1/level. If you roll poorly, you do less damage. For example, at 2nd level, you do 1d6 instead of 2 (as a flat 1/level bonus). If you roll a 1, you do less damage, if you roll a 2, you do the same damage. So 1/3 of the time, you do the same or worse. The same situation can happen at other levels too, though once more dice are added to the pool, it's less and less likely.
I'd suggest either changing the damage to 1d4 per paladin level, so you still at a minimum do the same damage as using 1 per paladin level, or use 1d6+1 per every 2 paladin levels (minimum 1d6+1).
Actually, it's a little worse than that, because at 1st level you actually would inflict NO dice of bonus damage vs. undead and evil outsiders.
You only get one die per 2 levels. So at first level, you don't have 2 levels yet. In 3rd Ed, all fractions round down, so at 1st level on a smite vs. undead/EvO you would get 0d6.
Perhaps here is a compromise solution:
Smite Evil does +1/per paladin level to any evil creature. IN ADDITION, it inflicts 1d6/2 levels vs. evil outsiders/undead. These extra dice of damage are not multiplied on a critical hit.
Actually, you do get the 1d6 at first level, since the text mentions a minimum of 1d6. You compromise of adding the d6s to the 1/paladin level works fine.
Don't think about smite evil in isolation. Think about the attack bonus that it gives as an enabler for Power Attack and/or Combat Expertise (or even just fighting defensively). That phat bonus you got to hit is a resource. You can keep it for your attack roll, or you can essentially spend it when you are smiting evil while using other tactics that give you goodies in exchange for spending your attack roll bonus.
Your point is well taken, but until the Pally has a chance to become a competent fighter, this version of smite is still a let down for the first five levels.
I am running runelords. The pally has been saving his smites for targets that seem evil enough (he's roleplaying). Routinely, every time the opportunity has presented itself, the roll was a miss, even when he did everything he should. The subsequent rolls bear out and he does damage like a weak fighter, but the once-per-day smite is gone.
He is now 3rd level, and has yet to successfully smite. Without this play experience, I don't know if I would see this as a problem, but all three other PCs have had their moments, and smite continues to be a recipe for disappointment.
I don't have math analysis or CharOp motives for driving this issue, all I know is it is making the game less fun for one of my players, and this looks like a mechanical issue.
I agree, a Paladin should not "use up" their Smite when they miss. This could be added onto the new wording, so once ONE attack hits, the Smite is used, and applies until the Paladin's next round (or later when longer Smites are acquired) This could most simply be achieved by making Smite a free-instantaneous action that you use AFTER the attack roll, so you can decide to activate it if you hit anyways, or the Smite would MAKE you hit, and if it wouldn't, don't activate it...
As an alternative, could be to change Smite to X OPPONENTS/day, and would apply to all of the Paladin's attacks against that opponent for as long as needed....??? Though that would probably need to make Smite somewhat weaker...
I think the first option is easily do-able, though...
As an alternate approach to what Jason's "Experimental" Post took,
could be to change Smite to X OPPONENTS/day, and would apply to all of the Paladin's attacks against that opponent for as long as needed....???
My player suggested this. In his exact words: "I guess the thing I don't like is that you could be facing some horrible evil monster, you smite it, hit it for a few extra points of damage, and then your god says "Well, my work here is done." Just seems out of place. I'd rather have it do less damage and last longer."
Target-based smites might be the way to go. It is a good compromise between holding-the-charge and allowing higher level paladins to use their extra attacks. It absolves us from tracking the durations of Smite in rounds, and takes the guesswork out of when to use the power. Best of all, it is far more likely to pay off for low level paladins.
Please, let's consider this further.