Director of Games
|
Hmmm.. the opponent based smite is interesting to me, and it certainly extends the paladin's ability, even at low levels. The one thing I am trying to avoid here is the obvious level dip, but with abilities based off the paladin's level, that should not be a problem.
I am going to give this some serious thought.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
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.
No i didn't know your name was Robert :P
Anywho what I'm trying to tell you, is that the switch from 3.5 to beta actually hurt Lay on Hands, cause it went from having one use in combat, to having no use in combat. Jason's current version of Lay on Hands is the first time I've ever fallen in love with a Paladin class feature. Now if the cost is as you say, the loss of all my channeling, and divine feats, no it isn't worth it. But do you really think that the original beta lay on hands is good? I looked at that character he was a full cleric with a two level paladin dip, he wasn't using lay on hands for anything. Try having lay on hands be your only source of healing. Even if a cleric is in the party is it fun to say, well I have a healing class feature that is outshone by a 1st level cleric spell?
But there is no reason we can't have them both seperately and keep Lay on Hands in its current version. The current version of lay on hands does not overpower the paladin, and it in no way will compete with a clerics full compliment of spells.
I'm telling you, having seen all three versions of lay on hands in play, that this version is the only decent one. I will fight you tooth and nail if you try to have Jason change it back to 1hp/level and I will call a voodoo pox upon your house for generations to come.
You don't me to do voodoo on you do you?
lastknightleft, I just want to thank you, because while I may have disagreed with you over the lay on hands swift action idea, you have actually been playing with these rules and basing a lot of what you are advocation on actual play.
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.
Yeah, I gotta give you this one. I've seen paladins take weapon focus every now and then, but not all that often. And the more I think about it, the less it seems like the paladin is quite up to par. I wouldn't say the fighter is either, but that's another discussion.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hmmm.. the opponent based smite is interesting to me, and it certainly extends the paladin's ability, even at low levels. The one thing I am trying to avoid here is the obvious level dip, but with abilities based off the paladin's level, that should not be a problem.
I am going to give this some serious thought.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Count me among those who at first really did not like the "smite vs. opponent" concept, but I have warmed up to it as I've thought more about it.
"Have at the, Smaug the Mighty, today thou shalt taste the righteous wrath of Iomedae! One shall stand and one shall fall! Chaaaarge!"
It certainly brings home the model of the paladin being the sworn foe of mighty dragons, evil high priests, and any number of other bad guys out there.
It has a downside in being far less useful when you're up against a gaggle of smaller foes, or even just a squad of equally tough bad guys.
Perhaps this is the happy medium: Smite Evil should give you a choice of one of two effects:
A. A sacred bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and AC vs. all evil foes. The smite lasts 1 minute and gives you a +1 bonus, +1/5 levels.
This would be your go-to smite when you are up against a gaggle of evil mooks or a group of relatively equal-toughness baddies.
B. Get your CHA bonus to AC and attack rolls and damage bonus of 1d6/2 levels (min 1d6) vs. one designated foe. Smite could last 1 minute, or until you defeat that enemy (or next sunrise or some other thematic expiration if you like).
This is your "nail the BBEG" smite of choice.
You could have them overlap, or you could have them stack, but I doubt that either is going to be juicy enough at levels 1-3 to have any drawing power whatsoever as a dip.
I can see the notion of not having one class ability that does two different things, but just call it a different application of the same. A focused smite vs. a general smite or some such.
By the way, for giggles, one simple alternate-smite mechanic, if anyone cares to bother reading yet one more:
1. Smite gives no bonus to hit.
2. You declare smite on a successful hit, so it NEVER fizzles (unless your target turns out not to be evil).
3. Bonus damage is equal to paladin level, doubled vs. anything with an aura of evil (evil clerics, evil outsiders).
4. Use it 1+CHA at 1st level.
Of course, this is only "alternate smite system #2,735" so feel free to ignore.
|
|
lastknightleft, I just want to thank you, because while I may have disagreed with you over the lay on hands swift action idea, you have actually been playing with these rules and basing a lot of what you are advocation on actual play.
Well thank you, like I said, I want what I talk about to be based on what happens in game. the first time I used the LoH ability I rolled badly and worried that I would be stingy with it, but when the situation arose and I used it again I rolled well, plus having my paladin actually hold the front line with healing himself while I ordered injured mooks to fall back and fresh units to take their place felt so much like what a paladin is supposed to be! As a result instead of the expected every "red shirt" dead that my DM said he pretty much intended, we saved 8 soldiers and the sorcerous. I also wound up using my LoH to help two mooks, one wound up puddle of blood anyways, but the other was actually saved.
But then after the fight was over and I could have actually used my Channel energy to save on healing potions, I had used all my LoH save one, so while I love the new lay on hands, like I said, I know that the cost of pretty much loosing my channeling and divine feats isn't worth it.
And some abilities, I have been right about just by looking at them, but I'll be honest with the new lay on hands I was dead wrong, it is a great and thats the issue with looking at the abilities without playing them, if you do it that way, you'll always think you're right. Sometimes things surprise you.
So anyways, no no no no no no no no no on the combining the two, but yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes on keeping the beautiful new (and in no way overpowered because the creatures I was fighting would usually erase what I just healed with one hit) lay on hands mechanic.
And Robert (snorter), if you say again that you want the new lay on hands to go back to the original beta version, all I'm saying is don't be surprised if you wake up with horrible boils all over and that you mysteriously changed sexes in your sleep, and not in the good way like in the hot chick (well at least for the guy), the bad way like when Roy in OotS put on the girdle of masculinity/feminity way.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
What part of "I'd like to be able to get at least one off as a quickened spell by burning turning or lay on hand attempts" did you miss? Also, a Ring of Counterspells with Dispel magic works quite well. They are only 4,000 GP. Pay twice that and you can get a slotless one crafted.
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.
QFT. A no-slot ring of counterspells with GDM on it is pretty much standard equipment for any high-level PC I play. In fact, it came in handy just last session in my STAP campaign when a nalfeshnee tried to GDM my PC, who had like 13 spells going at the time. DENIED!
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!AC is absolutely not as important at APL 20 as it is at APL 2 or 4. Buffed up enemies can have a +40 to hit at APL 12. At APL 20 you are getting hit far more often. AC at that point serves as a kind of DR because high AC can cause an opponent to readjust Power Attack. The types of defense that work well at high levels are miss chances. AC does not provide miss chances.
Here I don't agree. Our APL is 20, and bad guys still miss quite a bit based on AC. Not the super-beefiest enemies we face, sure, creatuers whose CRs are still several above our APL, but a great many creatures miss on something other than a 2.
We are playing Savage Tide and are in the final adventure of the AP now. Many of the enemies are demonic or demon-ish creatures, including a variety of demon lords (or aspects of them) and a fair number of high-level NPCs. Sure, the best defense is to make sure you don't get attacked (my beguiler's regular AC is only around 24, and that is absolutely my tactic for survival - stay away from pointy things and cast spells!), but AC has still proven to be pretty important for the front-liners in most battles.
|
|
As for the Smite vs. Oponent thing, I don't know, I love the idea of smite as it is, the thing I don't like is that it's underwhelming. In the perfect world in my head where Snorter dances on my puppet strings agreeing with everything I say like a vice president, I would prefer the 7 smites a day to be added to attack rolls in some version like their current one, and a brand new ability to make up for the falling behind the fighter, which I have to admit I haven't really felt yet, granted I have an awesome feat, and weapon focus to close the gap, but I really wouldn't mind just having the weapon focus tree added. I know that others say that it doesn't close the gap. but it would be enough to satisfy me if smites were better.
Really I still think that if the damage were just changed to a constant level x2 instead of damage dice, and the abilities that are currently reserved for evil outsiders/undead opened to whoever you chose to smite as long as it was a legal choice. that I would be happy with smite.
Then have a second ability like the lightbringer or what others have proposed. I'm sure I could come up with something, but I have confidence that theres allready a good one up somewhere and that I would just be adding a redundant extra.
|
|
I looked at that character he was a full cleric with a two level paladin dip, he wasn't using lay on hands for anything.
I was more illustrating how much he loved Channeling uses, that he'd bang his Cha up to 33.
It's just more prestigious. Healing is something loads of people can do.By all means, keep the (new), new LOH, but please, Mr Developers, don't make us pay for it by gutting the Channeling, and making them claw it back at 2:1 rate.
|
|
I looked at that character he was a full cleric with a two level paladin dip, he wasn't using lay on hands for anything.I was more illustrating how much he loved Channeling uses, that he'd bang his Cha up to 33.
It's just more prestigious. Healing is something loads of people can do.By all means, keep the (new), new LOH, but please, Mr Developers, don't make us pay for it by gutting the Channeling, and making them claw it back at 2:1 rate.
There we go, dance my puppet dance... See the two greatest enemies on the paizo boards have come to a concensus, there shall be feasting and debauchery for years to come in honor of this day.
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).
As someone who was a proponent of combining the mechanics for LoH and CE, I was glad that Jason acted upon the suggestion. However, the implementation isn't quite what I had in mind.
What I'd hoped is that CE would power LoH, perhaps either empowering or maximizing the LoH vs. the normal amount healed via CE (i.e. since the energy was concentrated on just one target rather than an area).
Combining the two also presumed that the effective number of daily uses would remain more-or-less the same. i.e. A 16 Cha 4th level paladin would have about 10 uses of this ability: (1/2 level + Cha Bonus) × 2.
Instead, the current implementation not only didn't grant any extra uses when the Paladin gained CE, instead it knocked a hole in the gas tank while increasing the price of fuel! I hadn't really noticed this upon first reading thru the latest revisions, but fortunately LKL and the Roberts pointed it out.
I still like the idea of having LoH and CE use the same pool, but the way in which that singular pool is used needs some heavy work.
My suggestion would be:
* When the Paladin gains CE, LoH uses are maximized.
* The combined pool increases to Paladin Level + Cha Modifier.
* CE costs just 1 use instead of 2.
* The non-HP uses of LoH decrease in cost by 1 use each.
Lastly, I agree that many of the extra methods of employing LoH are about equivalent to taking a dead level. IMO, a bonus divine feat is also called for.
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?
|
Actually the recommendation, at least my recommendatyion, is that the paladin be eligible to buy all of the weapon focus and spec feats including the "greater" versions. A paladin spending 4 feats here gets to add +2 to hit and damage and if you add that to the recommended divine might/martial prowess/weapon of choice ability granting flat to hit and damage of +1 to hit and damage every 'X' levels the paladin will close the gap in combat with the fighter to +2 or so. Will we get this from jason and the devs?
QFT, and I whole-heartedly believe its needed; but i also unfortunately believe it'll never be seen or taken seriously.
Robert
|
|
If you read what I wrote in this thread, you'll see that I suggested that Righteous Might should be added, just as Vult Wrathblades suggested that the full Weapon Focus tree should be added. The spirit of this thread is to comment on proposed changes. Suggesting that Paladins should get Righteous Might is just as valid as the suggestion that they should get the full Weapon Focus tree.
well that was my point - we can't really argue how good a paladin is with things he doesn't "have" yet - which is what I thought you were doing I read that you were arguing against something being too powerful or status quo - after he casts divine favor and righteous might.....
which requires the leap of faith that he will eventually HAVE that spell - which I doubt will happen.
Second as for the AC - you're right for the most part in reqards to the AC not being overly useful against the BBEG - especially his first attack. But with two and three iterative attacks at that level, the AC DOES do wonders for limiting not only the amount of power attacking allowed, but how many other attacks actually hit you that round from that same creature.
Robert
|
|
Instead, the current implementation not only didn't grant any extra uses when the Paladin gained CE, instead it knocked a hole in the gas tank while increasing the price of fuel! I hadn't really noticed this upon first reading thru the latest revisions, but fortunately LKL and the Roberts pointed it out.
LOL! That's too funny. great analogy! Unfortunately with the price of gas as it is - it's one all too familiar and easy to identify with.
Robert
|
|
Count me among those who at first really did not like the "smite vs. opponent" concept, but I have warmed up to it as I've thought more about it.
"Have at the, Smaug the Mighty, today thou shalt taste the righteous wrath of Iomedae! One shall stand and one shall fall! Chaaaarge!"
It certainly brings home the model of the paladin being the sworn foe of mighty dragons, evil high priests, and any number of other bad guys out there.
Thats exactly how I posed it the first time I made a suggestion of it; as having not only mechanical benefits, but roleplaying flair and fluff.
the paladin seeing the lich commander across the battlefield - ignoring the mooks attacking the rest of his party, draws his sword calling out across the field to the lich - "Markarth, too long have you walked the world a nightmare. Your reign of evil ends here and now! I, Kaerthoryn, will not rest until I see your bones resting in a hallowed grave! By the light of Sarenrae - Charge!"
B. Get your CHA bonus to AC and attack rolls and damage bonus of 1d6/2 levels (min 1d6) vs. one designated foe. Smite could last 1 minute, or until you defeat that enemy (or next sunrise or some other thematic expiration if you like).
This is your "nail the BBEG" smite of choice.
Once again - my concern, as well as Jason B's expressed concern would be one of level-dipping to have such a front-loaded math mechanic at low level.
This is why I suggested the +1 at first level to hit and def AC; with a +1 every three levels thereafter (4th, 7th, 10th -- same levels as you earn extra smites) and a bonus damage equal to half-paladin level (rounded down - minimum 1). The damage bypasses damage reduction.
Bonuses are doubled against foes with Evil Descriptors and/or overwhelming evil (which should include the triple-Ds - devils, demons, dragons, and evil clerics among them - as well as a few evil undead nasty BBEGs.)
As for your last suggestion in Smite (in the spoiler); no bonus to hit is not going to work. As I've always said - the paladin needs more help HITTING the target than he does doing damage.
His problem primarily is that he falls behind in the attack curve - which prevents him from doing any damage - let alone special smite damage or power attack.
Robert
|
|
Yeah, I gotta give you this one. I've seen paladins take weapon focus every now and then, but not all that often. And the more I think about it, the less it seems like the paladin is quite up to par. I wouldn't say the fighter is either, but that's another discussion.
Thank you Brod. I appreciate you admitting that.
Also glad to have another member convinced of the need for help for the paladins combat ability.
Robert
A. A sacred bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and AC vs. all evil foes. The smite lasts 1 minute and gives you a +1 bonus, +1/5 levels.
This would be your go-to smite when you are up against a gaggle of evil mooks or a group of relatively equal-toughness baddies.
B. Get your CHA bonus to AC and attack rolls and damage bonus of 1d6/2 levels (min 1d6) vs. one designated foe. Smite could last 1 minute, or until you defeat that enemy (or next sunrise or some other thematic expiration if you like).
OK, I think I like those two suggestions...we are starting to get in line on what each of us expect. What about this idea...
Smite Evil: The paladin may smite evil 1 time at first level. Once he has struck or been attacked in some way by an evil creature he may choose to smite that creature. The paladin gains his charisma mod (if any) as a bonus to hit that creature and his paladin level X2 to damage during the active period of the smite. He also gains his Charisma mod as a bonus to AC against evil (all evil)while it is active. Smite is active until the creature who it was activated on is defeated or until the next day, whichever comes first.
If the paladin has not used smite on any creature that day he gains a +1 to hit and Damage for each smite he currently has per day until he uses one, then the number is decreased by the number of smites spent. EXAMPLE: A paladin that can use 3 smites a day has a +3 to hit and damage on all attacks. Once the paladin smites a creature this bonus drops to +2, then +1 if he smites 2, and the bonus is gone once he has used smite 3 times in one day.
The paladin may smite evil 1 additional time per day per 3 levels. 2 at lvl 4, 3 at lvl 7 and so on.
I really like this idea. I think it fills the gap that many of us have wanted for an "always on" mechanic and finally makes SMITE really worth its time. I mean an evil creature no matter what it is would NOT want to be the subject of a paladins smite...EVER! That is how it should be. And while the paladin is fighting his way to this BBEG he has a small bonus to keep him in the fight until he gets there.
Hmmm.. the opponent based smite is interesting to me, and it certainly extends the paladin's ability, even at low levels. The one thing I am trying to avoid here is the obvious level dip, but with abilities based off the paladin's level, that should not be a problem.
I am going to give this some serious thought.
Excellent!
I will do you one better and playtest it come Sunday.
|
|
Hmmm.. the opponent based smite is interesting to me, and it certainly extends the paladin's ability, even at low levels. The one thing I am trying to avoid here is the obvious level dip, but with abilities based off the paladin's level, that should not be a problem.
The prevention of benefiting from level dipping is why I was such an advocate of a "Smite effect" mechanic, much like the Barbarian's Rage Powers.
A full test version of a mechanic of this nature would help me in playtesting if anyone has the time to glom one together. Unfortunately between work, community volunteering, and raising four children (plus a grandchild), time is a rare commodity for me.
The multiclass restiction about not going back to paladin is already there.
Unless I've missed something, the multiclass restriction is currently not there.
|
|
The multiclass restiction about not going back to paladin is already there.Unless I've missed something, the multiclass restriction is currently not there.
It's gone, finito, byebye. and no I'm definitely opposed to seeing you must take x levels of this class to keep your powers. simply not toploading the ability if we make the switch, or as Jason Bulhman said, keeping it based on paladin level is enough. although I'm worried because in general the abilities that have been based on a 1=1 level basis have so far not turned out so well (no offense seriously but the 1 damage per level effects, and the 1 hp per level effects have all been pretty weak)
I agree that no class should be too front-loaded, but you know what? I like a little level-dipping. I once played an arcane paladin. He was a wizard who viewed himself as a paladin using magic instead of a sword. (Yes, I know that later they came out with a prestige class that basically did the same thing, but this was before.) I took a couple levels and then did straight wizard. As has been pointed out, he still had to play with all of the restrictions of a paladin. That was a great character.
|
|
I agree that no class should be too front-loaded, but you know what? I like a little level-dipping. I once played an arcane paladin. He was a wizard who viewed himself as a paladin using magic instead of a sword. (Yes, I know that later they came out with a prestige class that basically did the same thing, but this was before.) I took a couple levels and then did straight wizard. As has been pointed out, he still had to play with all of the restrictions of a paladin. That was a great character.
and having features that aren't top-heavy doesn't invalidate a character like that. but it does help dicourage the dip and drop nature of 3.5
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Count me among those who at first really did not like the "smite vs. opponent" concept, but I have warmed up to it as I've thought more about it.
"Have at the, Smaug the Mighty, today thou shalt taste the righteous wrath of Iomedae! One shall stand and one shall fall! Chaaaarge!"
It certainly brings home the model of the paladin being the sworn foe of mighty dragons, evil high priests, and any number of other bad guys out there.
Thats exactly how I posed it the first time I made a suggestion of it; as having not only mechanical benefits, but roleplaying flair and fluff.
the paladin seeing the lich commander across the battlefield - ignoring the mooks attacking the rest of his party, draws his sword calling out across the field to the lich - "Markarth, too long have you walked the world a nightmare. Your reign of evil ends here and now! I, Kaerthoryn, will not rest until I see your bones resting in a hallowed grave! By the light of Sarenrae - Charge!"
B. Get your CHA bonus to AC and attack rolls and damage bonus of 1d6/2 levels (min 1d6) vs. one designated foe. Smite could last 1 minute, or until you defeat that enemy (or next sunrise or some other thematic expiration if you like).
This is your "nail the BBEG" smite of choice.
Once again - my concern, as well as Jason B's expressed concern would be one of level-dipping to have such a front-loaded math mechanic at low level.
As for your last suggestion...
I don't see the dip as being all that great.
Worst-case scenario is a high-CHA bard or rogue taking a level of pal.
Sure, he gets attacks for one minute against one opponent at +CHA to hit and +1d6 damage.
In exchange for that, he has kicked a caster level and a level of bardic music (for a bard) or a level of progression towards sneak attack that he can use all day long, or towards getting his next rogue talent or class ability.
Even a fighter who for some reason kicks his CHA up is not going to kick it high enough to make it worth much. Even if he does, he's losing a level of feats, weapon/armor training, etc.
Is it worth doing? It's not a bad dip.
Is it so great that it screams TAKE ME? Doesn't seem like it to me.
It's nowhere near something like divine grace or evasion in terms of temptation for dippage.
Wait:
Someone would consider dipping for +Cha to Strike and +1 or +1d6 to damage vs. a single target per day?
Honestly. Detect Evil At Will is a way bigger temptation than that.
Question about the new paladin stuff:
What happens if you take Extra Turning as a paladin?
Do you get 4 more uses of lay on hands?
Or do you just get two independent uses of Channel Positive Energy?
Or can you just not take the Extra Turning feat?
Has anyone else thought about this yet?
|
Honestly I’m not sure I like all the proposed changes. I do think the Smite Evil power as it stands now is crap and really needs a boost – I like to think that fighting evil creatures is the premiere reason for having a paladin class and they should definitely receive a bump there – especially against the truly evil or malign (like evil outsiders, evil clerics and blackguards for example), not just the petty criminal or your average goblin necessarily.
As for the changes to channeling, I’m not even sure why paladins have the ability – do they need a supplemental cure spell or the ability to turn undead (somewhat poorly)? Maybe some paladins, like Peleor’s perhaps, might have/need this ability, but it never sit too well with me, especially if paladins could do it as well as a cleric (I like to think channeling/turning undead is the premiere/defining ability of the cleric alone). And the emphasis on boosting healing abilities and caster levels is also unnecessary for similar reasons the paladin is a holy warrior, not a caster or a healer. I like the idea of introducing divine feats as class bonus feats – as someone here mentioned - and perhaps a series of options along the lines of the lesser and greater rogue abilities would work here as well.
|
Question about the new paladin stuff:
What happens if you take Extra Turning as a paladin?
Do you get 4 more uses of lay on hands?
Or do you just get two independent uses of Channel Positive Energy?
Or can you just not take the Extra Turning feat?Has anyone else thought about this yet?
I played the Pathfinder paladin recently and can answer this question.
The Pathfinder paladin uses two Lay On Hands when using Channel Energy. Thus, I took the "Extra Lay on Hands" feat to give him two more uses for a total of eight Lay on Hands.
The multiclass restiction about not going back to paladin is already there.Unless I've missed something, the multiclass restriction is currently not there.You are correct. It isn't there in PF Beta. I must have had a 3e/3.5 relapse. Ok. Why not put in the multiclass restriction like in 3/3.5?
I would say that the multiclassing restriction did more to encourage dipping for monk and paladin than to fix it.
If a low level character (Fighter 2) gained a level in paladin, they either had to keep being a paladin (with a dip into fighter) or go into another class maybe into their original one (with a dip into paladin).
It doesn't seem to make dipping with paladin hard, it just makes it more difficult to multiclass without dipping in my opinion.
I understand you can take the Extra Lay on Hands feat but technically the Pally still qualifies for the Extra Turning feat so this probably needs to be addressed.
I looked at that character he was a full cleric with a two level paladin dip, he wasn't using lay on hands for anything.I was more illustrating how much he loved Channeling uses, that he'd bang his Cha up to 33.
It's just more prestigious. Healing is something loads of people can do.
Well, in fairness I was using LOH quite a bit - the DM let me stack blade of heironeous levels on top of paladin levels for effective paladin level. So I got quite a bit of healing in there.*
But my LOH always paled in comparison to what I was doing with channeling.
* For those of you going "Eh?" round about now, the Glittering Blade is just like the Shining Blade except that instead of full BAB and 1/2 spells, he gets cleric BAB and full spells (and stacking paladin levels). Or, to put it another way, it's just like the cleric except he loses turn undead effectiveness and gains the temp weapon enhancing abilities (and stacking paladin levels). It's righteous. :-)
A. A sacred bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and AC vs. all evil foes. The smite lasts 1 minute and gives you a +1 bonus, +1/5 levels.
This would be your go-to smite when you are up against a gaggle of evil mooks or a group of relatively equal-toughness baddies.
B. Get your CHA bonus to AC and attack rolls and damage bonus of 1d6/2 levels (min 1d6) vs. one designated foe. Smite could last 1 minute, or until you defeat that enemy (or next sunrise or some other thematic expiration if you like).
OK, I think I like those two suggestions...we are starting to get in line on what each of us expect. What about this idea...
Smite Evil: The paladin may smite evil 1 time at first level. Once he has struck or been attacked in some way by an evil creature he may choose to smite that creature. The paladin gains his charisma mod (if any) as a bonus to hit that creature and his paladin level X2 to damage during the active period of the smite. He also gains his Charisma mod as a bonus to AC against evil (all evil)while it is active. Smite is active until the creature who it was activated on is defeated or until the next day, whichever comes first.
If the paladin has not used smite on any creature that day he gains a +1 to hit and Damage for each smite he currently has per day until he uses one, then the number is decreased by the number of smites spent. EXAMPLE: A paladin that can use 3 smites a day has a +3 to hit and damage on all attacks. Once the paladin smites a creature this bonus drops to +2, then +1 if he smites 2, and the bonus is gone once he has used smite 3 times in one day.
The paladin may smite evil 1 additional time per day per 3 levels. 2 at lvl 4, 3 at lvl 7 and so on.
I really like this idea. I think it fills the gap that many of us have wanted for an "always on" mechanic and finally makes SMITE really worth its time. I mean an evil creature no matter what it is would NOT want to be the subject of a paladins smite...EVER! That is how it should be. And while the paladin is fighting his way to this BBEG he has a small bonus to keep him in the fight until he gets there.
Hmmm I thought maybe I would have had at least one comment on this one. I truly think this is GREAT. I am sorry if my writting is not that good I was writing it in a hurry, I just really like it. Could someone else put it in a little more PHB esq style?
Does anyone like this? hate it? thoughts at all?
The Improved Martial Caster seems overpowered, but I can't suggest an alternative that's as clean as what you propose. <snip>I know the proposed feat sounds extra-juicy, but consider:
1. How few spells a paladin gets per day.
2. How low-level their spells are (max 4th, at high levels).
3. How short their spell list is, and how few (i.e., no) gamebreaking spells are on it.
4. How often a paladin will have other things to do (like fighting) that would make casting a suboptimal choice.
Just from where I sit, I don't know that there's anything you could do with the paladin's spellcasting that would make it OVERpowered. YMMV.
OK, you're starting to convince me. However, I'm not sure it should be so easy for a paladin to Dispel Magic against all effects created by a same-level wizard. That should require the right kind of circumstances that favor the paladin. On the other hand, for spells like Discern Lies and Dispel Evil that the paladin can access at a lower spell level than the cleric, the paladin should get full caster level even without the benefit of a feat.
Maybe the paladin gets the benefit to some spells automatically, and taking the feat lets the paladin add the benefit to a few more spells of her choice (maybe spell levels totaling the paladin level plus Cha modifier), like a preferred repertoire. Or maybe for rangers it could work only against favored enemies and for paladins only against evil targets or while rescuing allies from harm.
But again, your proposal is cleaner, and I could probably be talked into it. Mostly I worry about how this feat interacts with other ideas like shortening a paladin's casting times or improving her defensive casting, plus expanding her spell roster with supplements.
Smite Evil: ... Once he has struck or been attacked in some way by an evil creature he may choose to smite that creature.
Why should it matter if the paladin has been attacked? Shouldn't an attack against an ally be at least as likely to trigger the paladin's righteous anger?
Smite is active until the creature who it was activated on is defeated or until the next day, whichever comes first.
I like the target idea proposed by toyrobots, but I still think it should expire at the end of the encounter to avoid bookkeeping.
If the paladin has not used smite on any creature that day he gains a +1 to hit and Damage for each smite he currently has per day until he uses one, then the number is decreased by the number of smites spent. <snip> I think it fills the gap that many of us have wanted for an "always on" mechanic ...
I still prefer circumstantial bonuses over always-on effects for paladins, and I would like to see some creative ideas along those lines that are good enough to satisfy even those who want always-on effects, but that have interesting paladin-themed triggers. I'm all for making the paladin better in combat, especially making her a truly terrifying force against evil, I just want to see how far we can take the flavor and uniqueness of the paladin at the same time.
Smite Evil: ... Once he has struck or been attacked in some way by an evil creature he may choose to smite that creature.Why should it matter if the paladin has been attacked? Shouldn't an attack against an ally be at least as likely to trigger the paladin's righteous anger?
Smite is active until the creature who it was activated on is defeated or until the next day, whichever comes first.I like the target idea proposed by toyrobots, but I still think it should expire at the end of the encounter to avoid bookkeeping.
If the paladin has not used smite on any creature that day he gains a +1 to hit and Damage for each smite he currently has per day until he uses one, then the number is decreased by the number of smites spent. <snip> I think it fills the gap that many of us have wanted for an "always on" mechanic ...I still prefer circumstantial bonuses over always-on effects for paladins, and I would like to see some creative ideas along those lines that are good enough to satisfy even those who want always-on effects, but that have interesting paladin-themed triggers. I'm all for making the paladin better in combat, especially making her a truly terrifying force against evil, I just want to see how far we can take the flavor and uniqueness of the paladin at the same time.
I was throwing the attack or has been attacked by, as making there be some form of contact between the two. But you are right it is not necessary.
I think the targeting ideas have been good, and as Robert will probably attest I was not initially inclined to agree to that type of smite. Though If you make it last for a long duration against that ONE EVIL creature then I am good with it. If you make it last till the end of the encounter then the BBEG's just have to run away and all of the sudden they are not being "called out" for righteous wrath?...dont really like that.
Then as for the alway son mechanic. I think this could satisfy those of us that want that and then as you use your smites your "always on" gets a little weaker, seems unique to the paladin to me.
The original paladin 1e/2e became a dispelling machine only after he was able to get his hands finally on a Holy Avenger. This used to be a bada$$ sword before being relatively neutered in 3.5. It had a constant dispel magic effect that the paladin could use at his level. However, a holy avenger wouldn't show up in a game until the paladin was probably minimum 14th level. So the paladin being able to dispell magic and such with great effectiveness is thematically correct and consistent with the history of the class.
I concede the point. I just thought that the lead dev's comment about fighters could apply equally well to wizards:
(Note that the paladin should not, generally speaking, equal the fighter unless the circumstances are favorable to the paladin)
The holy avenger could be seen as a favorable circumstance.
Dispel Magic is available to a paladin at 10th level. In 1e, dispel magic became available at 13th level. As far as I can tell, 1e let the paladin cast at full caster level (without a feat, of course). I like making the power available sooner, but weaker unless the paladin chooses to focus on it at the expense of something else (difficult choices are interesting). Maybe I worry about the paladin stepping on the wizard's toes :-)
Anyway, you're clearly right about this. It might be nice to let the paladin select a handful of spells to cast at full caster level even without the benefit of a feat, so that paladins can choose to be greatly effective at dispel magic by sacrificing effectiveness at other spells rather than sacrificing a feat.
Then as for the alway son mechanic. I think this could satisfy those of us that want that and then as you use your smites your "always on" gets a little weaker, seems unique to the paladin to me.
Except that it's potentially an incentive not to smite evil at all (playing out of character), whereas the current mechanic rewards you for getting the most out of all your smites. A paladin should not hesitate to smite evil!
|
|
the only thing I'll say is the same thing I've said whenever extended duration smites comes up.
No enemy that ever faces me will be standing up during the fight, ever. Nor had they face me near a cliff, I'll be easily pushing them over. I'm not opposed to it, just remember. that there already exist feats that give rider effects to smites, Extended duration smites will let me do that every single round against that enemy. Unless you rule that those feats can't be used anymore which would bust backwards compatability. Which is why the smite effects thread was the best solution to me, and I don't understand why it isn't being looked at. Being able to have a series of different effects produced by the smites would solve the underwhelming nature of the class feature and add customizability to a class that is one of the least customizable in the game. How come extended durations and always on against a foe can be considered and given heavy thought. But the idea that smites can be used to do something instead of just bonus damage, and that gosh forbid, the paladin can choose from instead of the only difference being whether a sword or a horse. And if someone says spells add customizability to a paladin, I'll say "Have you seen the spell list?" Almost every paladin ever memorizes the exact same spells. Also why paladins need spontaneous casting.
Then as for the alway son mechanic. I think this could satisfy those of us that want that and then as you use your smites your "always on" gets a little weaker, seems unique to the paladin to me.Except that it's potentially an incentive not to smite evil at all (playing out of character), whereas the current mechanic rewards you for getting the most out of all your smites. A paladin should not hesitate to smite evil!
I do not think that is true at all. The bonus that the paladin would gain by HOLDING his smites is very small compared to the bonus he would get by using that smite to drop the BBEG. I dont think anyone would think that keeping a small bonus to hit/dam all the time would be worth holding that smite which might save the day.
I am not saying that the ability should play out exactly as I wrote it but I think the concept is sound. It fills in the holes and follows the idea of paladins singling out (until you get more smites) one target for his divine wrath.
The "always on" bonus does not get huge and as you use smites (which are WAY better than the small bonus of the always on) it gets weaker. We could even say that the paladin gets the +1/+1 for every 2 smites he has if people start to think that this is to much.
A paladin should not hesitate to smite evil!
On another note you are EXACTLY right here. He should not hesitate. But what does he do right now? Wow, ive only got 1 or 2 smites a day, I better hold off in case I run up against something really big and mean. The current system reinforces holding your smites much more than any of the proposed ideas. That is something we have been trying to stop for some time now. I completely agree with you, no evil being should be safe from a paladin's smite. That is why I have been fighting for some form of always on mechanic for so long. It is obvious that we are not going to get away from the "per day" limitation. So if we have to keep that then why not adopt something like I have suggested? This gives you the ability to keep up some form of "smite" ability through the masses of fodder that the BBEG will throw at you and then use your SMITE against the BBEG himself or even (as you get more uses) his more powerful minions.
|
|
A paladin should not hesitate to smite evil!On another note you are EXACTLY right here. He should not hesitate. But what does he do right now? Wow, ive only got 1 or 2 smites a day, I better hold off in case I run up against something really big and mean. The current system reinforces holding your smites much more than any of the proposed ideas. That is something we have been trying to stop for some time now. I completely agree with you, no evil being should be safe from a paladin's smite. That is why I have been fighting for some form of always on mechanic for so long. It is obvious that we are not going to get away from the "per day" limitation. So if we have to keep that then why not adopt something like I have suggested? This gives you the ability to keep up some form of "smite" ability through the masses of fodder that the BBEG will throw at you and then use your SMITE against the BBEG himself or even (as you get more uses) his more powerful minions.
Problem is that doesn't change if you have them last the full encounter against a single opponent.
In my game for example, when the guy I tried to heal got turned into puppy chow I wanted to smite in response, but I only had one left and this was only our first encounter with these things, who knew if there were more. I had smiten(what the hell is the past tense of smite?) an enemy earlier so I wasn't going to use it on him. Thats a symptom of having so few smites, and the only thing that can fix that is something Jason isn't willing to change. Give the paladin more smites.
A paladin should not hesitate to smite evil!On another note you are EXACTLY right here. He should not hesitate. But what does he do right now? Wow, ive only got 1 or 2 smites a day, I better hold off in case I run up against something really big and mean. The current system reinforces holding your smites much more than any of the proposed ideas. That is something we have been trying to stop for some time now. I completely agree with you, no evil being should be safe from a paladin's smite. That is why I have been fighting for some form of always on mechanic for so long. It is obvious that we are not going to get away from the "per day" limitation. So if we have to keep that then why not adopt something like I have suggested? This gives you the ability to keep up some form of "smite" ability through the masses of fodder that the BBEG will throw at you and then use your SMITE against the BBEG himself or even (as you get more uses) his more powerful minions.Problem is that doesn't change if you have them last the full encounter against a single opponent.
In my game for example, when the guy I tried to heal got turned into puppy chow I wanted to smite in response, but I only had one left and this was only our first encounter with these things, who knew if there were more. I had smiten(what the hell is the past tense of smite?) an enemy earlier so I wasn't going to use it on him. Thats a symptom of having so few smites, and the only thing that can fix that is something Jason isn't willing to change. Give the paladin more smites.
That is why I want the bonus of +1 to hit/dam for every smite you have left for the day. You use your SMITE on the things that really need hurt and then the bonus you have left helps you throughout the day. It gets reduced every time you use it but it is there nonetheless.
The "challenge" or marking an opponent idea actually does give you "more" smites. That means you are smiting every round until he drops or you drop or the next day happens. I think the mechanic of smite is good, but it is what leads up to using that smite that needs fixed. You are going to have plenty of encounters that lead up to that BBEG, why does the paladin not gain any sort of bonus for all the "little" evil guys he will face? HE SHOULD! They are evil too, HOW evil is not as important, that should be up to the paladin to choose who is hit with a SMITE. Like you have said before, it should not be just undead or EO's. With this small bonus from still having our smites we become capable combatants until we start really unleashing our wrath.
Basically by giving us only so many smites a day they are saying, "You can not smite all the evil you will face, you may pick X enemies a day to smite." I am saying, I dont like that but ok that is what I have to work with. In a perfect world the paladin would get the full benefit of smite against everything that is evil on every attack! But balance is an issue (even though I am not worried about the fighters toes, I do not want him to be left with no where to stand either) and we must consider this. So giving the paladin a small bonus that last all the time but gets smaller as he has less smites gives him a fighting chance to actually have some effect on combats when a good chance to use your smite has not come up.
Oh yea, and is the past tense of smite, smote? I think it is...