One suggestion for streamlining the rules a little:
For Smite Evil, would you consider changing the part about smiting undead and evil outsiders from 1d6 damage every 2 paladin levels to 2 points of damage per paladin level? The math is similar (actually, slightly better overall) and it would speed up the resolution at the gaming table a bit.
I'm going to plug my favorite Smite fix one more time.
Thanks Quandry for suggesting it.
Targets/Day. It makes Smiting worth while at low levels, it isn't overpowered at high levels.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think evil cleric should be added to +1d6 per two paladin levels as they register just as evil as outsiders and even more evil then undead.
This gave me an idea. What if the bonus smite damage applied to any creature that was based on the strength of the evil using the detect evil guidelines? So, faint or less evil, 1 damage/paladin level, for moderate evil, +1d6 damage/2 paladin levels, and for strong or overwhelming evil, +1d6 damage/paladin level. (or alternatively, 1 dam/paladin level for faint, 2 dam/paladin level for moderate, and 4 dam/paladin level for strong or more).
I'm going to plug my favorite Smite fix one more time.
Thanks Quandry for suggesting it.
Targets/Day. It makes Smiting worth while at low levels, it isn't overpowered at high levels.
I think I like this, except the part about the smite lasting for the remainder of the day if the targeted enemy and the paladin break off fighting. Is that in case you meet the same enemy later in the day? I'd rather not trouble with the bookkeeping, and say the smite is lost at the end of the encounter if the bonus was applied to at least one attack roll.
After the first hit with the smite, I think the smite should last (against the targeted enemy) for the remainder of the round, plus one additional round at 8th level, and two additional rounds at 16th level (as originally proposed by the OP).
I will admit: I did stop reading the posts at the middle of the first page. Like the idea and the effects, and I'm going to try them next session.
Joel I LOVE that idea! It means that auras are something other than fluff and have an impact mechanically!
JASON READ HIS IDEA!
That would be absolutely perfect to me.
|
I think evil cleric should be added to +1d6 per two paladin levels as they register just as evil as outsiders and even more evil then undead.This gave me an idea. What if the bonus smite damage applied to any creature that was based on the strength of the evil using the detect evil guidelines? So, faint or less evil, 1 damage/paladin level, for moderate evil, +1d6 damage/2 paladin levels, and for strong or overwhelming evil, +1d6 damage/paladin level. (or alternatively, 1 dam/paladin level for faint, 2 dam/paladin level for moderate, and 4 dam/paladin level for strong or more).
I could definitely get behind this idea. Thematically, bigger evils require a bigger beatdown. It makes sense, and evil outsiders are big on that list already.
I'm also in favor of changing SE back to a flat #/paladin level for the damage bonus to make calculating damage faster. 2/paladin level is what I'm hoping for, or this alternative.
|
I too think this is a good idea.I think evil cleric should be added to +1d6 per two paladin levels as they register just as evil as outsiders and even more evil then undead.This gave me an idea. What if the bonus smite damage applied to any creature that was based on the strength of the evil using the detect evil guidelines? So, faint or less evil, 1 damage/paladin level, for moderate evil, +1d6 damage/2 paladin levels, and for strong or overwhelming evil, +1d6 damage/paladin level. (or alternatively, 1 dam/paladin level for faint, 2 dam/paladin level for moderate, and 4 dam/paladin level for strong or more).
Has anyone playtested just letting smite evil do 1d6 per 2 paladin levels against any evil. I have, hey guess what, I do decent damage less often than a rogue and it works perfectly fine. Doesn't come anywhere near stepping on the fighter's toes, and makes smite actually feel like a smite, not some pidlydink extra damage.
Isn't it a lot easier to just loose any annoying situational modifiers you have to figure out and just say, I smite, and roll your extra damage?
|
|
Here is an excerpt from my level four playtest, you can read the whole story here
Then the big ones come down the river and hit the opposite side from the swarming little ones. So I leave the little ones fighting mooks and my partner, and rush in to smite one of the big ones. Oh that new AC bonus works sooo well with my law devotion. Switching from AC to offense isn't listed as an action, just something I have to do at the beggining of my turn. So I can still switch, swift to smite.
But Kythons are abberations, so I do a whopping 4 extra damage for a total of 12 damage. How many times do I have to say underwhelming. If he had been an outsider I would have done 2d6 (I rolled 7, plus 8 from my weapon so 15 total, would have been much more satisfying but hardly overpowering, since the knight is hitting for an average of 12 and I'm hitting normally for an average of 7) Please Jason, just let the extra damage apply to any evil.
So that doesn't drop the thing (I think they had somewhere around 30hp) a few round later though I do drop it and move on to the next one. it had one of the mooks really hurt so I finally openly used my lay on hands to heal someone, rolled 8 healed. Nice, granted the next round the Kython hit with every single attack and left the mook as a puddle of human parts but still, Okay so I'm a convert, I love the new lay on hands mechanic, It works wonderfully, it actually does decent shots of healing for a touch, and the (su) means it doesn't provoke AoOs works when you have allies standing around you, at least for low levels, I'm sold.
Anywho, we wind up clearing out all of the freaking creatures. Out of 11 mooks we have 4 left, everyone is hurt, time to channel (I certainly couldn't channel with swarms of kythons surrounding us abberations are alive, even with selective channeling I would have left out 3 of the 20 or so kythons from getting healed) right? Wrong, the fight used up 4 of my 5 daily lay on hands. Now because Channel has been worked into LoH I went from having 4 weak channels to none. Granted if I could have channeled it would have healed more, but if I was invincible I wouldn't have gotten hurt in the first place so so much for ifs...
Look I understand that working it into LoH gives you a simplified mechanic to track. But this is hurting more than it helps and now I can say officially that it does so. If the mechanic hadn't been conjoined I could have either healed up our allies so that my other player hadn't had to give up 4 potions or I could have had another use of my law devotion feat (two if this was 3.5) to use if there are any more. As it is now, If I don't take 8 hours of rest, I am going into the next fight hurt (16 hp total) with no healing, no law devotion, and a single smite which we know is good for a whopping 4 extra damage max.
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT CHANNELING, I can't even take advantage of my DMs houserule that I can burn LoHs uses for divine feats at 1-1 instead of the 2-1 that the current system forces because with only 5 LoH a day they are too precious to waste, and Lay on Hands works wonderfully, it's awesome, so I'm not going to burn two for a channel unless I'm actually fighting undead. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE fix this, either split them back up, or have us gain an extra pool of LoH uses when we hit 4th level. Anything short of that severely nerfs our capabilities.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Since we are abot to move on from the paladin/cleric/druid playtest period, I'll throw out one last post on the subject:
1. I like the new LOH rules, but I think I would disaggregate them from channel energy. While both are capable of healing, they work in two very different ways, and they cause funny interactions with feats, magic items, and such that affect channeling turning unless we add in clunky support text.
2. As paladins are the kings of charisma (well, one of 'em), I have always thought it would be nice if they had an ability to inspire courage or some such thing.
I actually think Tholas' idea a few posts back of allowing a paladin to use a channel energy to either bolster/inspire allies or frighten enemies is a nice one. This could be achieved by one of the following, either as a standard application of the ability or else as a feat boost:
A. Shoot, just let a channel energy function as a bardic inspire courage from a bard of the paladin's class level.
B. When a paladin channels energy, he may also choose to aid another either the attack rolls or the AC of all allies within the burst.
C. When a paladin channels energy, he may make an Intimidate check against all evil creatures within the burst.
D. Add some of the following to the paladin's spell list: aid, heroism, good hope, divine power all good solid 2nd or 3rd level paladin spells (there's some precedent for them getting spells a level or so lower than a full caster might), and I'd add heroes' feast and righteous might as 4th level paladin spells.
3. As for smite evil, I like the new rules fairly well, but I wouldn't mind one of the following changes:
A. Activate it AFTER you hit, so no fizzles.
B. Turn it on, so you get the bonus to hit, but it keeps going without actually triggering UNTIL you hit. Call it holding the charge, call it whatever you like, but something that prevents the poor 1st-3rd level pally fizzle.
C. I'm fine with undead and EvO being the default pally enemies, but I can see the point of folks who object to the role constriction. (Then again, pallys ARE role-constricted. They are LG, not just "paladin for any alignment." Whatev). I can see selection of other smite-ables through feats or level advancement, though this does encroach on rangerness a little. Then again, an ability you can only use a few times a day for bigger effect vs. an always on ability for less is not much of a crossover to worry about.
D. I could see the point of just having smite be 1d6/2 levels (minimum 1d6) vs. ALL evil and let it go at that. It simplifies a lot of the argument about who is a paladin's primary foe; after all, it is smite evil not smite evil undead or smite evil dragon or whatever. Boo hoo for the crit-monster paladin concept cuz extra dice don't multiply, but I think I like it.
E. Assuming you don't want to just increase the flat amount of smite damage, I wonder about this as a feat idea:
Improved Smite:
Benefit: When smiting evil, your damage bonus is equal to twice your paladin level.
Normal: When smiting evil, your damage bonus is equal to your paladin level.
|
|
Wait does he stop working on them just because their two weeks are up, I thought he spent two weeks focusing on them, but continued to work on them and update in the meantime.
If he isn't going to change things after this two weeks can we a ruling splitting channel energy from lay on hands so I don't have to keep playing with increadibly limited healing.
The Paladin has been boosted with the changes Jason introduced and it was a needed boost, but people still seem to be clamoring for more. I must say that I am reluctant to boost Paladin further - I think he has been boosted to a sufficient level and although some corrective changes can be made, they should not overly boost his power further.
I am particularly fond of two changes: enabling LoH as a swift action to heal the Paladin himself and combining the mechanics for Channel Positive Energy and Lay on Hands (though I think the latter would have been cleaner if it were Channel Positive Energy powering a boosted Lay on Hands, rather than the other way around and such a reverse-working system would also address the complaints from lastknightleft in this regard).
The Paladin has been boosted with the changes Jason introduced and it was a needed boost, but people still seem to be clamoring for more. I must say that I am reluctant to boost Paladin further -
From my perspective, Paladin levels 1-5 hasn't received any improvement to smite, and that is where the power was most disappointing.
The Paladin has been boosted with the changes Jason introduced and it was a needed boost, but people still seem to be clamoring for more. I must say that I am reluctant to boost Paladin further -From my perspective, Paladin levels 1-5 hasn't received any improvement to smite, and that is where the power was most disappointing.
I agree, a boost yes. But the paladin needed that boost so terribly that now with the improvements to other classes it is still trying to keep up. So yes the changes are good and in the right direction but there is still a few things that should/could be done to really finish off the class.
|
|
The Paladin has been boosted with the changes Jason introduced and it was a needed boost, but people still seem to be clamoring for more. I must say that I am reluctant to boost Paladin further - I think he has been boosted to a sufficient level and although some corrective changes can be made, they should not overly boost his power further.
I am particularly fond of two changes: enabling LoH as a swift action to heal the Paladin himself and combining the mechanics for Channel Positive Energy and Lay on Hands (though I think the latter would have been cleaner if it were Channel Positive Energy powering a boosted Lay on Hands, rather than the other way around and such a reverse-working system would also address the complaints from lastknightleft in this regard).
Then you haven't played a paladin from levels 1-5. I've always from the very begining said that a paladin at higher levels is allright, but that the poor low level paladin gets the shaft. The lay on hads improvement was a great fix, but the channel energy change then nerfed it right back so it wasn't an overall improvement, the smite fix is either perfect, or barely an improvement depending on your campaign.
Spellcasting is still aweful, 1/2 caster level and you have to memorize while getting fewer spells than a full caster, level 4 paladin is still crap compared cleric level 1, and until you can say I'd rather have paladin level 4 than cleric level 1 you haven't fixed the paladin.
The higher end stuff, I haven't an issue with, but I have an issue with the low level paladin which is what I've said from the very beggining, and the low level paladin hasn't been fixed at all.
|
|
A 20th level fighter would get +6 to hit and +8 on damage from Weapon Training, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.
A 20th level paladin who is able to cast Divine Favor and Righteous Might (both personal spells) would get +5 to hit and +6 on damage. in addition, the change in size would bump up the damage output so that the paladin would be probably be doing more damage than the fighter. If the target is evil, throw in Smite, and the paladin has a higher bonus to hit and on damage. The only problem here is that Divine Favor and Righteous Might are standard actions. I'd like to be able to get at least one off as a quickened spell by burning turning or lay on hand attempts.
As far as AC goes, as a fighter's AC climbs up at high levels, AC becomes much less important.
This is faulty logic at a minimum.
1st. Righteous Might is NOT on the Paladin's spell list. We can talk about what spells MIGHT or SHOULD be on the list until we're blue in the face - but at no point was it hinted that this was likely to change. What we're discussing currently are differences and things that need improved based on what the classes currently have!
2nd. Even with Divine Favor - it's a standard action to cast spending the first round getting better, the caster level is only 10 at that point - easily dispelled, and theres only so many times you can do that - even if thats the ONLY spell you memorize that day - to the point of losing any possible diversification.
3) AC is just as important at 20th level. With attack bonuses near +40 at that point by the high-end creatures, having even a 45AC means you're hit 75% of the time!
4) With your fighter's example you failed to include IMPROVED Weapon Focus and Specialization - making the disparity +7 and +10! - with Divine Favor in effect (after spending the first round activating it, and assuming you still have one left for the combat) it drops that diparity to +4 and +7.
Robert
Then you haven't played a paladin from levels 1-5. I've always from the very begining said that a paladin at higher levels is allright, but that the poor low level paladin gets the shaft. The lay on hads improvement was a great fix, but the channel energy change then nerfed it right back so it wasn't an overall improvement, the smite fix is either perfect, or barely an improvement depending on your campaign.
Spellcasting is still aweful, 1/2 caster level and you have to memorize while getting fewer spells than a full caster, level 4 paladin is still crap compared cleric level 1, and until you can say I'd rather have paladin level 4 than cleric level 1 you haven't fixed the paladin.
The higher end stuff, I haven't an issue with, but I have an issue with the low level paladin which is what I've said from the very beggining, and the low level paladin hasn't been fixed at all.
Having played paladins in three different games in the last two years, I agree totally. Paladins early on are dire, and the effects of Smite in the SRD/PHB are laughable. The spellcasting takes so long to kick in it's little more than an afterthought, although the same could be said about the Ranger.
I don't know, I sometimes wonder if it makes more sense for the amount of damage dealt in a Smite to come from the CR of the monster rather than the paladin's level. The greater the evil, the greater the divine power in the Smite that is given to confront it...?
Chobbly
|
|
I'm not offended. I never took part or read too much of those earlier discussions on this. I am hopefully not using what you call the poor fighter excuse.
I agree there could be something else available other than smite to aid in combat. I think the spells could fill this role. Don't remember if divine favor is on the paladin spell list, but a +3/+3 from a spell like that would go a long way here. Do you agree?
I have a fairly large post about the issue of people complaining about the paladin stepping on the fighters toes (yes I am tired of hearing it, no offense).
Also divine favor is a good spell yes, but it only lasts a few rounds and with it can be cast on anyone if i am not mistaken.
Yes it helps - but only slightly mitigates the gross disparity in the combat effectiveness of a paladin vs other full-BAB martial character classes.
Divine Favor provides a +1 per 3 level - which means you have to be 6th level before you can even have a +2.....OH WAIT, since paladins caster level is HALF that of a cleric the paladin has to be level 12 before even getting a +2 out of that bonus!!! YOu have to be 18th level to maximize its potential of +3!!
Robert
|
|
I'm going to plug my favorite Smite fix one more time.
Thanks Quandry for suggesting it.
Targets/Day. It makes Smiting worth while at low levels, it isn't overpowered at high levels.
This is overall - THE best suggestion to date. In fact it was one I have suggested (though slightly modified) numerous times - which I'm sure Vult and LastKnight can vouche.
Smites generally did a minor improvement - but not to the point that it went WOW! Fighters and barbarians still had better chances to hit, clerics and druids still have better buffs, and rogues still do far more damage with their sneak attacks.
The upgraded smites help some; but the sad truth is that they're very limited in # of uses per day - and generally have a good chance of missing and doing nothing. Now if the paladin has as good or almost as good of a chance to hit all the time (as a fighter or barbarian) then missing in an attack roll wouldn't hurt so much - but when it's one of those prescious smite attacks - it really suck. And extending them to full rounds, or extra rounds at higher levels, still means that only one attack will be affect for the first 5 levels or so.
So my suggestion to have some sort of way to make the paladin have better attack adjustments when NOT smiting those few attacks a day, was to help in this matter. This received mixed responses - mostly on the nay-side.
Many people just think more smites or more damage is the way to fix it. Maybe. But theres so much combat when you're not smiting that although it may help that ability seem better, it doesn't fix the over-arking problem with the fact that the paladin does not have the tools to help him hit his evil foes when NOT smiting (which is about 90 - 95% of the day).
As a compromise - I suggested making the smites target a specific foe and lasting several rounds to help mitigate the disparity.
The only difference between yours and my idea was that my suggestion gave a level-based bonus to attack rolls instead of Charisma-based - so as to avoid temptation of level-dipping. I can forsee someone playing a bard, cleric, or a LG fighter taking a level of paladin and getting a +2 or +3 or so to attack one creature - it would seem worth it.
My idea then was:
+1 at first level, +1 each additional 3 levels (4, 7, 10, etc) (note - those are the same levels that you gain additional smites), and a bonus to damage equal to half-paladin level (round down - minimum 1). Also when fighting something with an EVIL descpriptor or overwhelming evil - these bonuses are doubled. Each Smite lasts a number of rounds equal to 1 + CHA modifier.
Robert
|
|
Many suggestions seem to think that just providing the bonus feats and opening them to Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization would magically "FIX" the palaidn.
This would help - but not by much.
On avg - (and I'm referring to a melee vs melee oriented character) a fighter will start 3 pts of STR higher than a paladin. By 8th level, both stat increases of the ftr will go to STR most likely, where as the paladin will probably split them up STR and CHA, and the fighter can afford to put all his eggs in one basket when it comes to stat enhancement item - +4 item to STR as opposed to Paladin needing a +2 STR and a +2 CHA. This makes the STR disparity about 6 by that point. Tack on Weapon Focus and IMP version for the fighter, Weapon Training x2 by that point, and you've got about a +7 point to attack roll advantage, and about +6 - +12 in damage depending on two-weapon fighting.
So those feeling that adding Weapon Focus and Specialization as bonus feats to a paladin can see that it will only close a +7 gap to +6 to in to hit rolls, and damage and cut down the disparity in damage by +2; this is not the end-all fix - and as a side note doesn't come CLOSE to stepping on the fighters toes - so those worried or arguing that measure is IMO crying wolf.
Robert
I think one big issue with smite is that the smite power scales 4 ways:
- Additional smites per day
- Duration of smites
- Damage increase from level
- Attack bonus increase due to with CHA increases
This makes the usefulness of it increase in an exponential way. It's horribly weak at low levels but if you improve the power at the lower end it quickly becomes overpowered at the higher end.
If you took away some of the scaling aspects to it, then you could make the lower level powers more relevant without increasing the higher levels. A simple suggestion would be to have paladins start the game with 5 smites/ day. This means he gets roughly one smite per encounter for his entire progression. At low levels it's still fairly weak but at least he gets 5 swings at it.
The only levels where this really significantly boosts his power is in the middle levels... 8-12 or so. You could take away the multi round duration to compensate for the boost in power but I really don't think it would be needed.
On avg - (and I'm referring to a melee vs melee oriented character) a fighter will start 3 pts of STR higher than a paladin. By 8th level, both stat increases of the ftr will go to STR most likely, where as the paladin will probably split them up STR and CHA, and the fighter can afford to put all his eggs in one basket when it comes to stat enhancement item - +4 item to STR as opposed to Paladin needing a +2 STR and a +2 CHA. This makes the STR disparity about 6 by that point. Tack on Weapon Focus and IMP version for the fighter, Weapon Training x2 by that point, and you've got about a +7 point to attack roll advantage, and about +6 - +12 in damage depending on two-weapon fighting.
That much of a difference in Strength is a bit of a stretch honestly. Even with a fairly restrictive 15 point buy you can set a paladin up with 15 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, and 15 Cha by dropping Int and Wisdom down to 8/7.
A fighter needs more Con than a Paladin, as he lacks any sort of in combat healing, and a fighter is probably going to want to keep their wisdom at least at a 10 to avoid making their already bad will saves even worse. Even if they're willing to take the hit to will saves and drop their skill points down to 1 per level, the best you're looking at is either 18 Str, 14 Dex, and 14 Con or 16 Str, 15 dex, and 16 Con. The second set is the better start in my opinion, for taking full advantage of Armor training down the line, but a lot of players are going to go for the first one instead, so I'll include them both. Average the two and the fighter has a 2 point advantage in STR, but only if the fighter is willing to make themselves a complete puppet every single time they encounter anything with a will save.
By level 8 the paladin has a 16 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, and a 16 Cha, and the fighter is at either 20 str/14 dex/14 con or 17 str, 16 dex, 16 con. Average the two and the fighter has a two and a half point advantage in STR. The fighter does get weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon spec, and 2 weapon trainings, which is a pretty decent +4 to hit and damage. On the other hand, an 8th level paladin can also take weapon focus, has much, much higher saves, immunity to two things that can completely disable a fighter (fear and charm effects), and a surprisingly powerful mount.
A level 8 character only has 33,000 gp total, so it's a pretty bad investment for the fighter to spend nearly half that (16k gp) on a +4 Str belt over a +2 (4k gp). The fighter is ahead about 4k gold, because he doesn't have to buy a headband to up his charisma, but on the other hand, the paladin can improve two stats for 8k, where the fighter would need 10k for a Belt of Physical Might. Fighters do end up with a slight advantage in equipment costs, but it's not severe, and the paladin's built in save bonuses and healing mean he has other areas he can afford to spend less in, so it evens out.
Overall, the fighter is going to do slightly more damage, but the paladin's mount, abilities, and in-combat healing might just make up for that. (Not to mention the nice bonuses like Bless Weapon, Lesser Restoration, Remove Disease, etc.)
I think leaving the number of smites the same but making it targets rather than attempts is the way to go, and I'm willing to keep beating that horse!
|
|
As for smite evil...I think those are all excellent points/suggestions for smite evil.
[T]he poor low level paladin gets the shaft.In my experience, the usefulness of the low-level paladin is entirely dependent upon the type of campaign you are running. In a default D&D-style adventure, he is one of the weakest characters. In a game that hinges more on intrigue than combat, he is one of the best; unless and until the DM has villains take specific precautions against omnipresent detect evil, a 1st-level paladin is the go-to guy in an intrigue campaign.
errr... no!
well yes from a DM point of view apaladin in an intrigue campaign is quite enjoyableI love how my players hate me
itsgreat the big evil villainthey should be smiting is so in deep with the politicians and the comunity... that if they lay a finger on him... the town will kill them... paladin allegations of evil villain executed non withstanding...
in fact when i presented 2 paladins with this situation in which they had an evil cleric whowas important in thecomunity and someone was trying to murder him , theyhad to protect him... of course... the paladin realiced the evil ontheclericinthe middle of the battle... the assassin was a bit less evil not being a cleric... but their duty called to stop the assassin not kill the cleric... so they tried to bluff thefact they knew the clericlittle dirty secret...
actually in that campaign with about 3 sides... one factions was commanded by "villians" who were a Paladins... one who behind the shadows used allies to root an evil organization while causing chaos in the country... so that in the middle of the chaos the other Paladin could declare Martial Law... round the rest of the evil organization and destroy them while protecting their king from their influence...
both were prepared to giveback power and submit themselves to the authority and be executed after that... yes... my paladins werein shock when they found that the villain they hated and persecuted was actualy a noble paladin who ready to sacrificy his life and his beliefs to protect his county and his king from a greater evil (including certain cleric)
you donot need to hide an enemy alignment in an intrigue... intrigues aredeadly because its in parta game of politics...if you do the wrong move you end deadby your mistakes... either politically, socialy... or literaly.
like my cleric says to the unexperienced paladin player in our RotRL Campaing... "i do not thrust 'Detect Evil' to do the job for me, ok it tells me they are amoral bastards... but it doesn't tell me they are looking for, and NO we can not hang or arrestthem justfor being amoral bastards... we need to have something on them... specially those with money and friends in power."
When I first thought of the "targets" for smite instead of uses I really did not like the idea. But I have to agree that if the smite (once activated for a particular enemy) lasted the whole day or until the enemy was defeated. This would truly eliminate the last of the problems with smite.
Something like: Once the paladin strikes or is struck by an evil creature he can mark that creature to be subject to his divine wrath. Until that creature is dead or a new sun rises the paladin gains all the listed abilities of "Smite Evil" against that person/creature. As this scales up in uses to more enemies per day the disparity in the paladins fighting capabilities would diminish greatly.
Even if this was done though there would still be room for some small boost to the paladins base attack damage. As I have said before, this should not be huge. Maybe starting at lvl 5 a +1/+1 against evil that goes up by 1 every 5 levels. Basically just showing his conviction in his quest to remove all evil from the world.
I honestly think we are on the right track here and if we stop worrying about the fighters toes then we could finally get the paladin this game deserves! Please stop talking about how this does this or that to the fighter. Giving the paladin anything does not WEAKEN the fighter. He already has such a huge increase in damage AND AC than the Paladin we are not going to crowd him so much that no one ever plays a fighter again. It would just be nice to see the paladin as the real go to guy when it comes to the fight against light and dark.
|
|
As for smite evil...I think those are all excellent points/suggestions for smite evil.
[T]he poor low level paladin gets the shaft.In my experience, the usefulness of the low-level paladin is entirely dependent upon the type of campaign you are running. In a default D&D-style adventure, he is one of the weakest characters. In a game that hinges more on intrigue than combat, he is one of the best; unless and until the DM has villains take specific precautions against omnipresent detect evil, a 1st-level paladin is the go-to guy in an intrigue campaign.errr... no!
well yes from a DM point of view apaladin in an intrigue campaign is quite enjoyable
I love how my players hate me
itsgreat the big evil villainthey should be smiting is so in deep with the politicians and the comunity... that if they lay a finger on him... the town will kill them... paladin allegations of evil villain executed non withstanding...in fact when i presented 2 paladins with this situation in which they had an evil cleric whowas important in thecomunity and someone was trying to murder him , theyhad to protect him... of course... the paladin realiced the evil ontheclericinthe middle of the battle... the assassin was a bit less evil not being a cleric... but their duty called to stop the assassin not kill the cleric... so they tried to bluff thefact they knew the clericlittle dirty secret...
actually in that campaign with about 3 sides... one factions was commanded by "villians" who were a Paladins... one who behind the shadows used allies to root an evil organization while causing chaos in the country... so that in the middle of the chaos the other Paladin could declare Martial Law... round the rest of the evil organization and destroy them while protecting their king from their influence...
both were prepared to giveback power and submit themselves to the authority and be executed after that... yes... my paladins werein shock...
Thank you Montalve for putting that argument out there so I didn't have to.
also keep in mind that even in an intrigue campaign at levels 1-5 unless they are clerics, undead, or evil outsiders DETECT EVIL NO LONGER WORKS ON THEM check the spells, the chart that explains auras is about two pages before the detect spells. so maybe in 3.5 a paladin was awesome in an intrigue campaign (which is still silly to say cause any intrigue campaign it's so easy for evil people to mask their allignment if you know its evil it's because your DM wanted you to, or he's too lazy to do the work) So all the paladin gets levels 1-5 is once again a smite once or twice a day that'll probably miss cause lets face it, the guys you save smite for are always the guys with the highest armor class, and now lay on hands, which I've already said is an awesome fix.
It still doesn't change the fact that levels 1-5 are a suckfest for a paladin. And it definitely doesn't change the fact that level 4 is simply rediculous
Is there a single person out there who can explain to me why a paladin would take level 4 if he could instead take cleric level 1, and then paladin level 5 instead, anyone? most people just say oh well he's fine the way he is, but nobody is responding to that argument because nobody can. They just ignore it, pretend the problem doesn't exist and say the paladin is fine he doesn't need another boost. I haven't heard an argument yet that does so, which means that the paladin is still flawed.
|
|
As for my opinions on what the proposed changes do; after playtesting it Sunday with my 6th level paladin in Curse of Crimson Throne game.....
1) Detect Evil - is a good change. I dont love it per se - but it is helpful.
2) Smite Evil - the fact it lasts full rounds and multiple rounds as you advance, is helpful. This does NOT however help for levels less than 8 much at all - even at 6th and 7th level when you finally get a second attack - usually at -5 for the iterative attack - you're not going to hit. Sadly this doesn't help enough. Frankly it does nothing to mitigate the disparity that I have professed since the paladin discussions began. The extra damage vs undead and outsiders is cool - but doesn't increase with a critical. My paladin worships Sarenrae - and so I wield a Scimitar (so as to be able to take advantage of the Divine Bond weapon - as that is the favored weapon). Luckily the one bright spot of the scimitar is its nice crit-threat range - but when rolling that threat and actually confirming against the "daemon" we were fighting, the extra damage was not doubled - had I been smiting with the previous version - my +6 dmg would have been +12 for sure. Instead I rolled the 3d6 and got a total of 7! :-(
To make this better I would instead make the bonuses simply DOUBLE against creatures with the "evil descriptor" or "overwhelming evil" Not necessarily "undead and evil outsiders." Doubling vs rolling extra D6s seems to flow easier too - instead of rolling and adding etc.
Ultimately, as I said, - the smite is a good and needed improvement - but I still vehemently profess it does not fix the disparity in their combat since MOST of the combat attacks are not spent smiting.
3) LOH - good improvement. Channeling - removing the level -3 is a helpful. But combining the two more than negating the boost. I use to be able to LOH 6 times a day - even though it wasn't that good with each one - AND I was able to channel 4 times a day (16 CHA); now I have 6 times I day I can LOH and IF I channel, I diminish my pool by 2, meaning I could potentially get 3 channels. I'd rather have the full quantity at the lesser capacity and at the -3 level, frankly. I took the Turning Smite Feat for my 5th level feat - that has lost it's luster, now too - for now I can only do this 3 times a day instead of 4, and doing so robs me my chance to LOH also. This was not an improvment overall - it seems the heart was in the right place thematically, the truth in the mechanics is it's one step forward - two steps back.
4) WILL save increases. Who can be upset about better saves? But then again, I dont think it's necessary. Of all the problems the paladin faces, need for better saves is not one of them. They lack better combat options and ability to hit their enemies; its what myself and many others have professed ad naseum. If this was a "proposed fix" for the paladin, it unfortunately fails. Its a good boost - but not a fix. Besides, the paladin receives a number of immunities based on Will-saving throws. Thats akin to critics of the barbarian complaining about low ACs and asking for a fix and getting a resolution like, "A barbarian adds 1 additional hit point per level." They already have lots of hit points. Or critics of fighters complaining that fighters are too vulnerable against wizard's enchantment spells and asking for a fix - and getting a response like "Fighters gain a +1 to their attack rolls when they are fighting wizards." They really dont need additional modifiers to their attacks - especially against wizards. Or making rogues immune to fireballs. Thats completely superfluous considering their evasion and good reflex saves.
My point is this: although the better Will Saves are nothing to scoff at - it is not a fix for the actual problems with the paladin as I see them. Paladin's already have some of the best saves in the game, they lack the ability to defend themselves and have enough options to increase their attack rolls sufficiently. Its like the Will Save increase was just oil for the squeaky wheel without actually correcting overlying issue. If the Will save increase is done in lieu of combat prowess increases, then I feel that the paladin is better off returning to the regular saves and a different approach is found to fix the actual deficiencies.
Increasing their saves, increasing their LOH, increasing their spellcasting....all are good and certainly not smomething to bite and spit out - but its the combat ability of the paladin (when not smiting - I have to keep indicating that because too many people just think adding more damage when smiting fixes the thing....it doesnt) that really needs a jump-start. I want the paladin to hit hard and hit often. Spells are nice and all - but hes not meant to be a primary spellcasters. He's a warrior - always has been; he needs to kick ass - he needs to scare the crap out of the BBEGs when he draws his sword - not just stand there looking handsome and make the thing go, 'Oh it's a paladin.....okay so charming him is out the question.......'
Finally - one thing that would be nice in regards to the divine bonded weapon - make the duration "1 min per day per paladin level - but need not be consecutive minutes - the paladin can activate it and deactivate it as often as he sees fit - but must remain active for 1 minute incrments." So an 8th level paladin can have 8 uniterrupted minutes with the same enhancement, or can activate it 4 times each for 2 minutes - each with different enhancements, etc.
Robert
|
|
It still doesn't change the fact that levels 1-5 are a suckfest for a paladin. And it definitely doesn't change the fact that level 4 is simply rediculous
Is there a single person out there who can explain to me why a paladin would take level 4 if he could instead take cleric level 1, and then paladin level 5 instead, anyone? most people just say oh well he's fine the way he is, but nobody is responding to that argument because nobody can. They just ignore it, pretend the problem doesn't exist and say the paladin is fine he doesn't need another boost. I haven't heard an argument yet that does so, which means that the paladin is still flawed.
well, unfortunately you don't have much to look forward to at 6th level either. Once you reach that milestone, you can Cure Disease if you're willing to spend two of you LOH uses, which now has half as many uses since Channeling Energy uses the same pool....
Compare that to 6th level in other classes....
Fighter: Bonus feat
Monk: Bonus Feat
Ranger: Combat Style feat
Rogue: new talent/feat
Barbarian: new rage power
Druid: an extra wildshape
Wizard: new school power, and a new 2nd and 3rd level spell to cast
Paladin: Remove Disease
Any questions?
Robert
yep....they're definitely stepping on them fighter's toes....
|
|
That much of a difference in Strength is a bit of a stretch honestly. Even with a fairly restrictive 15 point buy you can set a paladin up with 15 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, and 15 Cha by dropping Int and Wisdom down to 8/7.
I typically agree with you Brod. In fact I love alot of your house rule changes that you've shared on numerous threads. I really enjoy them and have adopted a few.
That being said - I significantly disagree with you on a number of issues you countered here.
1) A fighter player is more apt to play a race to gain a +2 to STR than a paladin player - who is just as apt to pick one for CHA boost instead.
2) The fighter's hit points are the same HD as the paladins - their need for CON is not really that much more. By 10th level, not only would they have the same hit points, but the fighters AC can potentially be significantly higher. They have the option of a tower shield (without having to spend a feat - which they have 2-3 times as many of anyways), they have armor training x2 by 8th level, allowing optimally the armor to be 2 pts better and 2 more pts from better DEX; potentially having a better AC all totalled a minimum of +2 up to a better of +6! So he can afford to skimp on the hit points with that in mind - all things being equal.
3) The paladin of course is able to take Weapon Focus; between the two classes - which honestly do you see taking that feat more often - considering the # of feats each are provided.
Robert
|
|
well, unfortunately you don't have much to look forward to at 6th level either. Once you reach that milestone, you can Cure Disease if you're willing to spend two of you LOH uses, which now has half as many uses since Channeling Energy uses the same pool....
Compare that to 6th level in other classes....
Fighter: Bonus feat
Monk: Bonus Feat
Ranger: Combat Style feat
Rogue: new talent/feat
Barbarian: new rage power
Druid: an extra wildshape
Wizard: new school power, and a new 2nd and 3rd level spell to castPaladin: Remove Disease
Any questions?
Robert
yep....they're definitely stepping on them fighter's toes....
Well I always assumed that the ability to cure half as many diseases as before and an itterative attack were so game breakingly powerful seeing as how the paladin is the only one who could get them, that giving him anything else would seriously throw off game balance and make the new Pathfinder FoPzilla, seems to be the general theme of people arguing against changes to these classes.
For the record, FoPzilla means fighter or Palladin zilla, and is a refrence to 3.5 CoDzilla where druids or clerics were considered the most powerful classes in the game.
In all seriousness though the reason I say 1-5 is mearly because after that you have a slew of class features to choose from so that even though you are still subpar, at least you have options, so that you can be optionally subpar, whereas levels 1-5 you're just sub-par which is actually less fun.
|
|
In all seriousness though the reason I say 1-5 is mearly because after that you have a slew of class features to choose from so that even though you are still subpar, at least you have options, so that you can be optionally subpar, whereas levels 1-5 you're just sub-par which is actually less fun.
I know. And I'm saying that once you hit sixth level - it's not like a light shines on and suddenly you see this major boost in your repertoire that suddenly makes you bad-ass (as a paladin).
You're still pretty much the same.......
Robert
|
|
StuffAs usual, I say something, and Robert comes in behind me and says something increadibly similar yet says it in a way that's much more pursuasive and less whinny,
Robert, you're Colin Powell to my George Bush.
Seriously though; thanks for the recognition. I appreciate your kind words.
Since months ago in your paladin playtesting reports, it was pretty apparent that you and I see pretty much eye-to-eye with the paladin and its areas in need of vast improvements.
Robert
|
|
In all seriousness though the reason I say 1-5 is mearly because after that you have a slew of class features to choose from so that even though you are still subpar, at least you have options, so that you can be optionally subpar, whereas levels 1-5 you're just sub-par which is actually less fun.
I know. And I'm saying that once you hit sixth level - it's not like a light shines on and suddenly you see this major boost in your repertoire that suddenly makes you bad-ass (as a paladin).
You're still pretty much the same.......
Robert
Oh I know, but I've never actually seen a paladin in play past the levels I'm worried about so i tend to focus on what I know rather than go thread to thread spouting off about x and y when I've never actually seen them in play, bad memories of the old wizards forums and war-mage is too overpowered, or favored soul makes clerics pointless. and other things you'd hear when people looked at the paper and didn't play it. I kinda vowed to just shut my mouth if I hadn't either run it or played it.
|
|
3) LOH - good improvement. Channeling - removing the level -3 is a helpful. But combining the two more than negating the boost. I use to be able to LOH 6 times a day - even though it wasn't that good with each one - AND I was able to channel 4 times a day (16 CHA); now I have 6 times I day I can LOH and IF I channel, I diminish my pool by 2, meaning I could potentially get 3 channels. I'd rather have the full quantity at the lesser capacity and at the -3 level, frankly. I took the Turning Smite Feat for my 5th level feat - that has lost it's luster, now too - for now I can only do this 3 times a day instead of 4, and doing so robs me my chance to LOH also. This was not an improvment overall - it seems the heart was in the right place thematically, the truth in the mechanics is it's one step forward - two steps back.
Count this as another vote against combining the two pools.
A paladin needs a LOH pool, and a Channel pool, with, perhaps, the ability to spontaneously convert them being a nice option. The revised version is too far 'either/or'.Yes, their LOH output increased, and their effective channeling level was boosted, but, in my experience;
- most groups will not be relying on a paladin to replace a full divine caster, so the revised, revised LOH is overkill (Level 10, Cha 20, in Beta, cures {10x10hp=100hp}, in Beta+, would cure {10x5d6=175hp}, on top of the cures from the full caster, and
- most paladins were resigned to the fact their turning would only affect weak undead, and traded channeling for uses of Divine Feats.
It is these Divine Feats which allowed players to customise their paladin PCs, and need to be reworded into OGL versions, and possibly granted as bonus feats.
As it stands, if you ignore the general feats (gained by character level), and look only at the class, there is only one point at which the player makes a choice of path, and that is the Divine Bond. Adding bonus Divine Feats, to allow alternate uses of channeling, would help differentiate the different orders.
Some great posts as always Robert and Lastknight.
My biggest concern is have we done and said all we can do for the paladin now? Have we spoke up until we were blue in the face and our fingers tired for trying to save our favorite class?
As you have both agreed, the changes while good are truly not enough. They are better but they do not "finish" the "fix" that the paladin needs.
I have posted and posted. Some of my posts and ideas have been have had kind receptions, some have not. I would say that my biggest battle over the last 2 weeks ended up being my post about the paladin deserving a place to stand too. That one sort of felt like a small win. I just got so tired of hearing people complain about what it does to the fighter if you give the paladin ANYTHING that looks like it is fighterish! But giving more clericish stuff was fine.
What else can we do? Is there anything else we can say? I will continue to post here, till the final version of PF is released. I just want to do all I can to help the paladin....
|
|
Count this as another vote against combining the two pools.
A paladin needs a LOH pool, and a Channel pool, with, perhaps, the ability to spontaneously convert them being a nice option. The revised version is too far 'either/or'.
Yay another fighter in the war against being weakened.
Yes, their LOH output increased, and their effective channeling level was boosted, but, in my experience;
- most groups will not be relying on a paladin to replace a full divine caster, so the revised, revised LOH is overkill (Level 10, Cha 20, in Beta, cures {10x10hp=100hp}, in Beta+, would cure {10x5d6=175hp},
Huh, bite your tounge unbeliever. Jason don't listen to anything this man says past his first statement, clearly seeing the truth was too much for him so he slipped into a delusional state. Lay on Hands has real utility for the first time in 3.X (in 3.5 it only really had utility as a once per day dump of healing, and please don't make me relive the horror of 1hp/level that was original beta) and you think it's overkill, have you actually tried this in play with a cleric or are you just looking at it from the page? When I ran it I found that what it allows a paladin to do is really mix it up toe to toe with the enemies, most of the lay on hands will be used on himself with the ocassional use on a needed ally. If there's a cleric in the party, he can actually just ignore the paladin, and focus on the rest of the party, and maybe for once actually use his spells instead of dumping them to bring up the meleer again.
Jason, fix the channeling, but lay on hands works, please don't listen to this heathen and nerf it. It's the only low level ability really helping at this point.
PS Snorter you know I'm just messing with you when I say things like heathen and delusional right?
|
|
Jason, fix the channeling, but lay on hands works, please don't listen to this heathen and nerf it. It's the only low level ability really helping at this point.
PS Snorter you know I'm just messing with you when I say things like heathen and delusional right?
LOL
Just to be clear, I'm OK with the increase in LOH between 3.5 and Beta, it's the further increase that seems like adding sprinkles to your jam; it's already as sweet as it's going to get, or needs to be.
Especially if the price for that extra healing is to lose the ability to Channel, any meaningful number of times per day.
Half the classes in the game can heal, and can obtain wands to ensure they have enough. Channeling is an ability unique to clerics and paladins, so is much more iconic, and characterful.
If the intent was to say "Hey! Have another 75hp of healing! Oh, but we'll have to take away your 8 Channeling attempts, and any possibility of using Divine Feats, unless you cripple that free healing we just gave you...", then errrmmm...thanks, but no thanks.
I think I know which my players would rather have.