|
Oh wow Vult, I hadn't caught that whole idea, I Like It! that actually sounds very cool, it would start as a paladin just has a +1 to hit and damage, and if he uses that smite on a BBEG it goes away, but ends with a +7/+7, now in order for that to work smiting definitely needs a boost, cause I can tell you right now, I wouldn't use even the current version of smite on enemies before level 15 or so because the +1/+1 bonus (which should be sacred) would be better, but I think you are really on to something here, and what's great is that it doesn't count as smiting so it doesn't fudge the non-OGL feats out there.
Holy Crap, the more I think about it the more I like it. Then we could just fix smite so that when you hit someone they know they've been hit with a smite, and it becomes a choice. Ooooh I really like it.
For every unused smite you get a +1 bonus to hit and damage, little, yellow, different.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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.
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?
I think it's an interesting idea and I kinda like it. It presents an interesting take on the 'reserve power' concept, like with psionic characters or some of the feats in Complete Mage I think it was - where you get certain benefits for holding onto spells or power points or whatever, but you always have the option of discharging the stored power for some other effect. You then lose the reserve effect but you get to do your one-shot power, whatever it is.
I don't know that it encourages you not to smite; it just encourages you to spend your smite power differently. Holding onto your smiting energy in a way that lets you fire it off all day long in smaller amounts is just as valid as a smite use that fires a couple of big shots and then is done. Honestly, it's better to have SOME benefit that is reduced by using your smites as big shots, rather than NO benefit that is unaffected by using your smites. You aren't losing anything vs. the current system.
Current: Nothing... nothing... SMITE... nothing... nothing... SMITE... nothing...
Your idea: +2... +2... SMITE... +1... +1... SMITE... nothing...
That said, for some reason I don't love it. Just something about the feel of it doesn't hit me in the sweet spot. Even though the logic is perfectly fine as I described above, it FEELS like you are losing your ability by using it. It's not really true, but something about it doesn't seem quite right.
|
|
That said, for some reason I don't love it. Just something about the feel of it doesn't hit me in the sweet spot. Even though the logic is perfectly fine as I described above, it FEELS like you are losing your ability by using it. It's not really true, but something about it doesn't seem quite right.
I know where you are coming from, but I think it's more a symptom of how measly smite has always been that it feels this way.
The way I envision it is that each day you are blessed with righteous power, the constant +1 per is what that represents, but when a truly vile foe rears its ugly head you can channel (poor word choice, but it is appropriate) that power into a truly impressive attack, however because the attack is so powerful it uses up that power. In order for this to work though as I've said numerous times, smite needs to be much more impressive. When you gain more smites its because you are being blessed with even more power.
I guess that doesn't really change anything for you, it's just how I see it cause I really like it. meh, hope you come around.
That said, for some reason I don't love it. Just something about the feel of it doesn't hit me in the sweet spot. Even though the logic is perfectly fine as I described above, it FEELS like you are losing your ability by using it. It's not really true, but something about it doesn't seem quite right.
I know where you are coming from, but I think it's more a symptom of how measly smite has always been that it feels this way.
The way I envision it is that each day you are blessed with righteous power, the constant +1 per is what that represents, but when a truly vile foe rears its ugly head you can channel (poor word choice, but it is appropriate) that power into a truly impressive attack, however because the attack is so powerful it uses up that power. In order for this to work though as I've said numerous times, smite needs to be much more impressive. When you gain more smites its because you are being blessed with even more power.
I guess that doesn't really change anything for you, it's just how I see it cause I really like it. meh, hope you come around.
YES, I am glad you like it as much as I do!! I really think this could be the fix we are looking for. I think with the whole "marking" your enemy for smite with +Char to hit and Paladin lvl X2 for damage this evens the field. With the idea of the guy being "marked" till he is dead, you are dead or the day is over, that smite actually becomes pretty powerful. Then the AC bonus on top of that makes really nice flavor.
@Jason Nelson: You have had some REALLY awesome ideas, I am not exactly sure why you dont love this one but I understand. If you could come up with a flavorful way to write the fluff or something maybe you would like it more. But I am happy that you like the mechanics of it.
@Robert Brambley: I do not want to take full credit for this. The whole "marked" idea and even the +1 per smite per day was all YOUR idea. I simply put them together in a different way and ask that the +1's go down as you use SMITES. So props to you man!
I hope we get some more positive feedback on this one. I agree with Lastknight, the +1's should be sacred damage. I also think that ALL the bonus damage from the SMITE should bypass DR.
Like I said above, if someone could write this up in a much more PHB esq way it would probably look a lot better. But man I really think this could be the fix we have been looking for, for our beloved Paladins for awhile now. Please throw your input into the hat here. Lets try to make this happen.
I am going to run some play testing tonight with a friend to see what we come up with, I hope the numbers do not end up being more powerful then they actually look here but as Lastknight has said many times, you need to experience it to argue it!
|
|
That said, for some reason I don't love it. Just something about the feel of it doesn't hit me in the sweet spot. Even though the logic is perfectly fine as I described above, it FEELS like you are losing your ability by using it. It's not really true, but something about it doesn't seem quite right.
I know where you are coming from, but I think it's more a symptom of how measly smite has always been that it feels this way.
The way I envision it is that each day you are blessed with righteous power, the constant +1 per is what that represents, but when a truly vile foe rears its ugly head you can channel (poor word choice, but it is appropriate) that power into a truly impressive attack, however because the attack is so powerful it uses up that power. In order for this to work though as I've said numerous times, smite needs to be much more impressive. When you gain more smites its because you are being blessed with even more power.
I guess that doesn't really change anything for you, it's just how I see it cause I really like it. meh, hope you come around.
YES, I am glad you like it as much as I do!! I really think this could be the fix we are looking for. I think with the whole "marking" your enemy for smite with +Char to hit and Paladin lvl X2 for damage this evens the field. With the idea of the guy being "marked" till he is dead, you are dead or the day is over, that smite actually becomes pretty powerful. Then the AC bonus on top of that makes really nice flavor.
@Jason Nelson: You have had some REALLY awesome ideas, I am not exactly sure why you dont love this one but I understand. If you could come up with a flavorful way to write the fluff or something maybe you would like it more. But I am happy that you like the mechanics of it.
@Robert Brambley: I do not want to take full credit for this. The whole "marked" idea and even the +1 per smite per day was all YOUR idea. I simply put them together in a different way...
Oh, um I need to add the caveat that I'm not in favor of the mark, just the constant +1 per unused smite against all foes. If I'm misunderstanding it, I'm sorry, I thought this was a way to give the paladin that constant bonus you were looking for while keeping smites, as a bonus to the attack, I guess I should have gone back and re-read your OP
For me I saw it as
Smite Evil: Each day a paladin is imbued with a certain amount of righteous power. He may make a smite during the round using whatever working bonus for smite we come up with. For each unused smite the paladin gains a +1 sacred bonus to attacks and damage.
If that wasn't what you were suggesting and that is just what i heard then I'm sorry. I like that, not so much the "marking" aspect. I have no opinion really on the whole smite being against an opponent thing.
Smite Evil: Each day a paladin is imbued with a certain amount of righteous power. He may make a smite during the round using whatever working bonus for smite we come up with. For each unused smite the paladin gains a +1 sacred bonus to attacks and damage.
If that wasn't what you were suggesting and that is just what i heard then I'm sorry. I like that, not so much the "marking" aspect. I have no opinion really on the whole smite being against an opponent thing.
This seems like a cool mechanic, but I think smite is the wrong power for it. It might make an interesting higher-level Feat for Paladins, but there are still problems.
It creates another disincentive to smite. Getting a +3 to strike and damage on all my attacks (or all attacks against evil, or some such) is a superior benefit to any sort of 3/day power. The payoff for losing your bonus would have to be absolutely great, and I haven't seen a suggestion that would be worth it.
|
|
Smite Evil: Each day a paladin is imbued with a certain amount of righteous power. He may make a smite during the round using whatever working bonus for smite we come up with. For each unused smite the paladin gains a +1 sacred bonus to attacks and damage.
If that wasn't what you were suggesting and that is just what i heard then I'm sorry. I like that, not so much the "marking" aspect. I have no opinion really on the whole smite being against an opponent thing.
This seems like a cool mechanic, but I think smite is the wrong power for it. It might make an interesting higher-level Feat for Paladins, but there are still problems.
It creates another disincentive to smite. Getting a +3 to strike and damage on all my attacks (or all attacks against evil, or some such) is a superior benefit to any sort of 3/day power. The payoff for losing your bonus would have to be absolutely great, and I haven't seen a suggestion that would be worth it.
Which is why I keep saying we need to make smite kick ass, which it doesn't in it's current form
Which is why I keep saying we need to make smite kick ass, which it doesn't in it's current form
Conversely, any power that just gives you a straight-up bonus to hit and damage is intrinsically worthwhile. In order to give up such a power during play as you suggest, it would have to be an instant-kill, or actually better, an encounter-ending type of power. Otherwise, why would I give up my bonus when I can just use it on the enemies that would be smited?
A thought just came to me in regards to Site Evil. I know there are ideas already presented similar to this, but since Site Evil is so limited in number of times per day (especially at low levels) and that the smite is wasted if you miss (again, a high probability at low levels), what if the smite was resolved similar to how a duskblade can cast spells through his weapon? That way, a paladin can use his one smite per day when he successfully hits with it, and thus not waste it. It could perhaps be a SLA.
The Cha bonus to hit when smiting wouldn't exist in this case, but I think this is a better trade-off.
I'm not making any proposals as to if the smite itself does enough damage or not in this post, just it's application.
Lastknight you are correct about how that part of the mechanic I suggested would work.
Though I have to admit I do not see why you think it would not be worthwhile to use the SMITE I suggested in combination with that. How is +Char to hit, Paladin lvl x2 in damage and Char mod to AC not worth giving up one +1 to hit/dam. So long as the SMITE lasts until the opponent is dead or the next day arises.
Toyrobots suggested that an "instant kill" would be the only thing worth that. I have to disagree. If you are able to smite with the REAL smite until the creature is dead that is a big bonus, definitely worth a +1/+1 to me. This lets the paladin really hammer that BBEG but there is still a fight there. I dont like the idea of smite being some form of instant death mechanic.
But basically you are saying that you like the always on mechanic that gets weaker as you use smites. So what would have to be there in a smite to be worth a +1/+1 to you?
|
|
Lastknight you are correct about how that part of the mechanic I suggested would work.
Though I have to admit I do not see why you think it would not be worthwhile to use the SMITE I suggested in combination with that. How is +Char to hit, Paladin lvl x2 in damage and Char mod to AC not worth giving up one +1 to hit/dam. So long as the SMITE lasts until the opponent is dead or the next day arises.
Toyrobots suggested that an "instant kill" would be the only thing worth that. I have to disagree. If you are able to smite with the REAL smite until the creature is dead that is a big bonus, definitely worth a +1/+1 to me. This lets the paladin really hammer that BBEG but there is still a fight there. I dont like the idea of smite being some form of instant death mechanic.
But basically you are saying that you like the always on mechanic that gets weaker as you use smites. So what would have to be there in a smite to be worth a +1/+1 to you?
I didn't have a problem with that, did I say I had a problem with that? I mearly meant that I am personally not a fan of the till the enemy dies, "mark" mechanic, it just doesn't feel like the smackdown, when I smite I like the Idea of it being on round where you for that one round are just pumelling the hell out of the guy. That feels like smite to me. +cha mod to hit, Paladin lvlx2 damage and the AC boost are worth giving it up if its going to last the encounter. But if it is only going to last the 1 round it isn't enough.
And I disagree that it has to be a save or die. It could be a rather good effect like stunned for a round shaken for x rounds plus all the already in place boosts that Vult suggests and the bypassing DR and I could see myself giving up a +1, especially if I had more, or could suplement it by casting say divine favor. I may not use all of my smites unless I know I'm fighting the vile dread-lord blogedygook, but I'd definitely use a few a day.
Ahhhh I see, so you are saying that "until the guy dies" will be to fast? I was thinking it would be a lich, or cleric with huge AC, or huge demon or dragon...things like that which are not going to die in one round anyway...even with a good smite.
So at least we are on the same page with the +1 per smite left and loosing one per smite use mechanic. (I think).
I will still stick with the "marked target" idea. At first I did not like it but if you think about it lasting until that target is finished then I kind of do.
I suppose I would be fine even with the current version of Smite if the additional +1 hit/dam per smite left was added to it. This is what I have been looking for for awhile now.
|
|
Ahhhh I see, so you are saying that "until the guy dies" will be to fast? I was thinking it would be a lich, or cleric with huge AC, or huge demon or dragon...things like that which are not going to die in one round anyway...even with a good smite.
So at least we are on the same page with the +1 per smite left and loosing one per smite use mechanic. (I think).
I will still stick with the "marked target" idea. At first I did not like it but if you think about it lasting until that target is finished then I kind of do.
I suppose I would be fine even with the current version of Smite if the additional +1 hit/dam per smite left was added to it. This is what I have been looking for for awhile now.
Umm no, I'm saying I like smite to be a one round duration, I like chosing for one round to lay all hell into the guy, I don't care if its the BBEG or a single goblin I just need to kill, I don't like the idea of smite being until the guy dies, I don't care if it's five rounds or 500 it just doesn't feel like what I want smite to represent. I know that it must drive you crazy because this has nothing to do with mechanics, It's just not the feel that I want "smite" to have.
Now if I were going to get behind an until the guy dies mechanic I think yours is fine. That's just not something that I see in my head when I think "SMITE". Honestly anything past one round kinda bugs me. This is all just personal and has nothing to do with mechanics. It's lame and I'm sure frustrating as all hell, as it is when someone tells me that they don't like the feel of spontaneous casting for paladins. Especially since for the most part feel is mutable and all you have to do is find a way to envision how it fits your image. But with smite, I don't know, my imagination hits a roadblock and I just want my smite to be calling down the thunder for a single round. Therefor when using it, it has to really be calling down the THUNDER, whereas right now its calling down the light drizzle.
I too could be fine with the current version of smite if it lost that annoying "against undead/outsiders" and was a straight level x2 damage that way it was multiplied on a crit. Then we could add your +1 to hit and damage per unused and call it a day.
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.
I don't want my paladin's daily bookkeeping to read like a hit list. As for the BBEG running away, Jess Door had an interesting idea for dealing with that
A paladin is ready for even craven actions by the enemy. Withdrawal actions still provoke an attack of opportunity from a Paladin that moves less than 5' during his action. This lasts until the end of his next turn.
To make the defensive option more interesting, we could make the effect even more punishing. If the enemy still manages to flee, the smite is spent; the paladin is victorious. Of course, if smites were stronger, the enemy would less likely have the opportunity to flee.
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.
I'm a fan of the smite effects idea, and linked to that thread earlier in this one. If I'm not posting there, maybe it means I haven't had any ideas better than the ones already presented there.
|
|
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.I'm a fan of the smite effects idea, and linked to that thread earlier in this one. If I'm not posting there, maybe it means I haven't had any ideas better than the ones already presented there.
Yeah I'm a big fan of it, I guess customizable paladins with interesting abilities just isn't what we're going for though.
I don't want my paladin's daily bookkeeping to read like a hit list.
We definitely differ here. So long as that list is full of BBEG's I DO want my bookkeeping to look like a hit list. That is what paladins are supposed to do, smite evil...kinda makes a hit list of bad guys if it is done right.
@Lastknight: Sorry we can not get on the same page for this smite thing, I wish we could come up with something that we are all going to like. At least you said you like (or are ok with) the +1 per unused smite. If you do not like the "marked" idea i dont see any reason you could just modify your use of smite to say that it lasts one round and then it is gone, even if the book says that it lasts until that particular BBEG (or even lowly goblin) is destroyed.
This brings up a sad story. In my last session almost 2 weeks ago our group went up against a group of goblins. 12 goblins, 6 members with APL of 4. I am a lvl 5 paladin and we are still in 3.5 for the time being. These goblins ended up having class levels and magic items. With that said we had to flee and while running I switch to two handed with my longsword, full power attacked (+10 damage) and used smite twice! This still did not drop a goblin....A GOBLIN!!!! Two smites and full power attacking, actually hitting with both (rolled 2 18's) and the goblin did not drop...what a sad day!
Now in PF this would probably still be a problem. This is where I REALLY agree with Lastknight. The +1D6 for undead and EO's is a poor choice. The extra damage should apply to all evil.
Back on topic. I wish we could all come up with something that we did not bicker about. Each of us has tried so hard to come up with a solution and we can not agree on anything! This is getting us nowhere! The simple truth is we are not all going to be TOTALLY pleased with the result. So why can we not just agree on things that we like and hopefully something will happen. Currently the only thing that we do agree on (most of us) is that Smite even with the update is not powerful enough. What are we as a community working diligently to fix this problem going to do about it?
I still contest that my solution is sound. I think that it works within the rules of the game (including backwards comp). Gives all the "always on" people (myself included) what they were looking for, even though there is a slight drawback. And then gives the people that want the "targeted smite" what they wanted. This in turn upsets a few people that dont exactly love the design or fluff of the idea. But please take a minute to think about the mechanics. Do they work? are they sound? As I said before, if you do not want your smite to keep a target ("smote" hehe) until it is dead then change the fluff yourself and say that your smite only works for 1 round. No DM in the world would tell you that you could not change something about your character that actually made him WEAKER.
I do not say any of this with any malice. Please do not take it that way. I am simply trying to pull our efforts together into something that we can all be happy with, even if we do not COMPLETELY agree on EVERY aspect of it.
Just give it some honest thought and then give it a yay or nay.
Even break it down into 2 parts...The mechanics of the Target = yay or nay?
The mechanics of the +1 to hit/dam for every remaining smite of the day = yay or nay?
Yeah I'm a big fan of it, I guess customizable paladins with interesting abilities just isn't what we're going for though.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.I'm a fan of the smite effects idea, and linked to that thread earlier in this one. If I'm not posting there, maybe it means I haven't had any ideas better than the ones already presented there.
I think adding other effects to the smite is a GREAT idea as well. Is there any reason we can not just do this with feats? Just add a few feats with the smite pre req that add a stun effect, a dispell effect...or any one of the other great suggestions made in that thread? I know I would use a couple feats to give my smite some added abilities.
|
*la sigh* always forgotten when ideas are being repackaged, here's what I'd do using Vults latest idea, on the use of the smite (expending the charge) I'd basically make it an auto critical for the damage component keeping thhe charisma modifier to hit, would that be sufficiently poky for those who think they'd be losing something.
I had smiten(what the hell is the past tense of smite?)
smote.
I am reading this thread but I just don't have the time to contribute more than the simple fare I have offered here - but lastknightleft is carrying my faith, so to speak. I'll let him know if he lets me down :-)
I love paladins.
|
|
stuff
It's not that it wouldn't work I've said it a dozen times, its that it really does mess with backwards compatability in the feats that I have stressed a dozen times. Would the mechanic work, yes. Would my DM let me use the tactical smite feats from the complete champion or the feats from some of my divine class pdfs, probably not.
And if we do have an effect that lasts till the enemy falls those new smite feats instead of class abilities would have to be worded carefully to allow a certain # of uses per day, to prevent someone stunning an enemy every single round.
And here is the problem I have with making them feats:
Rogue talents
Barbarian Rage Powers
Fighters Feats Plethora
Wizards specializations (and giant spell selection)
Druids Animal Companions or Domains (and giant spell selection)
Sorcerers Bloodlines (and giant spell selection)
Clerics Domains (and giant spell selection)
Rangers favored enemies
Monks Bonus Feats
Bards Spells learned and performance types (although I'll admit that the monk and the bard are pretty limited too)
Paladins either mount or sword.
Everyone has lots of ways to make themselves unique and interesting, a paladin has to do it with his 10 feats which everyone else gets. The class features don't allow for the customizability of any other class, yet if we want said customizability to a class feature, it has to be done with feats, when everyone else already has those choices built into their class.
But if I have no other choice in the matter, yes they can work as feats *grumble*
And remember, We could all be in consensus about a single idea and Jason still doesn't have to implement it. It's actually probably best that we all keep disagreeing cause it keeps us continually thinking of little ways to make it more acceptable and keeps people trying to think up new ideas. Hopefully Jason knows a good idea when he hears it, I wish he was a little more open with what he was opposed to. I also wish he would tell us what he thinks the class features are meant to be so that we know where he's coming from to suggest ideas instead of just all taking our different images, but it hasn't happened so we keep trying.
|
|
I had smiten(what the hell is the past tense of smite?)smote.
I am reading this thread but I just don't have the time to contribute more than the simple fare I have offered here - but lastknightleft is carrying my faith, so to speak. I'll let him know if he lets me down :-)
I love paladins.
Wow, I have a fan, I haven't had a fan since I was doing theatre (i had this kinda creepy old man who came to see shows and would always tell me how much he loved my performances and how whenever he saw me it just made him smile, he reminded me of the old man from family guy) Wait a minute, you're him aren't you?
*SMITE**whiff*
Damn!
Seriously though, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I guess it is just to a point where I am getting really frustrated. I am sure I am not the only one here.
It is not like I want this all to happen yesterday, I know it takes time but it feels like we are taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back. There are a LOT of great ideas here but we can only pick one that is actually going to make it into the books. Well by we I mean Jason can only pick one that is going into the books.
When we brake it all the way down the paladin has so many flaws it is hard to decide what to fix first. Then once you start fixing something that was SOOOOOO broken you almost feel obligated to concede to weakening something else to satisfy the ones who are worried about so and so's toes. I want balance to remain, I dont want the paladin to be the god slayer or anything like that but he deserves a fair shake!
The discussion about LoH and CE is going well. Personally I am ok with the original change listed by Jason but that is because I am in favor of an offensive based Paladin. Though saying that does not mean that I do not like the other changes that people have talked about. Yes, why not give the paladin the LoH as it is written by Jason, and then still separate the CE from that while allowing it to be at full cleric level. I think this is where Jason has fallen into the same trap as some of the rest of us, build it up and sacrifice something else.
Honestly, with the paladin the way it is we should not have to do that. We can give him full CE as if he was a cleric but we can not give him anything "full fighter"? I know that the CE with the current restriction is not as good as the clerics (because of uses per day and all) but it is closer nonetheless. So we have again not worried about how we step on the cleric's toes but still hamstring ourselves when it comes to the martial abilities of the Paladin.
Wow, sorry for that rant...I am just trying to make sense of it all. We all want the same thing in the end, a paladin that does what the vision of paladins in our heads does! For some that is being the last man standing, or healing your friends in situations where maybe the cleric would die trying. Others want him to give defensive capabilities to allies and be the immovable object. While others of us still want to see some divine wrath brought down on the heads of the truly wicked!
I know I may be flamed for saying it, but why not give him ALL of that? Groups should be proud to have a paladin with them, restrictions and all! If they bring something to the table that the cleric can not do, or the fighter can not do then we can accomplish that.
Ok ive gone on long enough. To some I may be getting my point across and to others I may seem completely scatter brained, but to be totally honest that may be true. I really just want to achieve a paladin that can be a hero...right now we dont have that. We are making steps in the right direction but the implementation does not play out the way the rules would make it seem. Ill post some play test results in the morning.
|
|
Dude, you know I've always been on your side about giving him more combat stuff right? I just want to make sure you know that. I agree that he needs *more* combat stuff, but that doesn't mean change smite so that it does all of that, it means add more stuff. Jason hasn't even said that he wouldn't add more abilities, this thread he even says that he is considering abilities to add and these are just the fixes for the existing class features. When I think the paladin needs *more* I think as *in addition* to smiting, then smiting can stay how i envision it, and he gets that combat utility we all crave.
stuffIt's not that it wouldn't work I've said it a dozen times, its that it really does mess with backwards compatability in the feats that I have stressed a dozen times. Would the mechanic work, yes. Would my DM let me use the tactical smite feats from the complete champion or the feats from some of my divine class pdfs, probably not.
And if we do have an effect that lasts till the enemy falls those new smite feats instead of class abilities would have to be worded carefully to allow a certain # of uses per day, to prevent someone stunning an enemy every single round.
And here is the problem I have with making them feats:
Rogue talents
Barbarian Rage Powers
Fighters Feats Plethora
Wizards specializations (and giant spell selection)
Druids Animal Companions or Domains (and giant spell selection)
Sorcerers Bloodlines (and giant spell selection)
Clerics Domains (and giant spell selection)
Rangers favored enemies
Monks Bonus Feats
Bards Spells learned and performance types (although I'll admit that the monk and the bard are pretty limited too)Paladins either mount or sword.
Everyone has lots of ways to make themselves unique and interesting, a paladin has to do it with his 10 feats which everyone else gets. The class features don't allow for the customizability of any other class, yet if we want said customizability to a class feature, it has to be done with feats, when everyone else already has those choices built into their class.
I gotta say, you've got a pretty good point there. Admittedly, all the primary caster classes make their specialization choices at 1st level (Sorcerer Bloodlines, Cleric Domains, etc.) but they get to choose spells as they level (or in some cases, every day) so that gives them a second route to customization.
The Paladin is pretty lacking in any sort of significant customization choices as they level. I'd like to see the various Auras and Lay on Hands effects changed from a preset progression into something more like the rogue talents, with a couple tiers of options that you can choose from as you level up.
The same sort of system would be an easy way to include the sort of Smite effects that everyone has been talking about.
Dude, you know I've always been on your side about giving him more combat stuff right? I just want to make sure you know that. I agree that he needs *more* combat stuff, but that doesn't mean change smite so that it does all of that, it means add more stuff. Jason hasn't even said that he wouldn't add more abilities, this thread he even says that he is considering abilities to add and these are just the fixes for the existing class features. When I think the paladin needs *more* I think as *in addition* to smiting, then smiting can stay how i envision it, and he gets that combat utility we all crave.
No man, I know you have been one of the biggest supporters of helping the paladin...all around, combat included. And I can not think of one change that you have suggested that I did not agree with as well.
I think my frustration is because it looks like some parts of the paladin may get what they should. Looks like healing is getting a boost (though you are right and I tested it tonight, the LoH and CE should be separate) the divine bond got a boost (well the mount part at least), we got the boost to will saves (that should have been there all along!). But it seems that the offense is the part we are the furthest away from.
I think Jason is doing a great job, please do not get me wrong. But if we finish this discussion and the paladins offensive abilities get left by the wayside then I will totally feel that we failed here. I know we are not going to out heal/buff clerics, we are not going to out fight fighters or barbarians (or rangers or rogues...maybe not even monks...) but could we at least be the man when it comes to taking out evil? It is going to take some serious work for this to happen. The question is, how do we let the paladin really kick evil in the balls without making him a better melee combatant then all the others? Truth is; we cant! I dont think we can actually give the paladin the skills he needs if we leave in the restriction of not allowing him to be better at damaging/surviving against evil than the other classes.
So how about we at least make them AS good as these other guys with the limitation of only against evil.....well that argument gets shot in the foot by all the "almost everything is evil" people. So yet something else we can not do because another class has their toes stepped on.
So what does that leave us with? I am failing to see any other roads for the paladin here. He cant be the defense specialist because quite honestly he is not supposed to just be the guy that evil cant kill....he is supposed to be the guy that SMITES EVIL too!
Wow I am really getting long winded here but there are so few of us actually putting up a fight for the paladin we need to do all we can.
Basically it comes down to this. Let the paladin CE like a cleric, he still cant cast spells like a cleric, which is where the REAL power is. Let his LoH work like Lastknight has suggested (and I agree, I dont like that he gets a benefit for healing himself) or even just make any of his LoH be a swift action, he would still have to be next to a friend to use it. Lastly, give him his offensive and defensive powers that REALLY do some GOOD, with the limitation of only vs. Evil and be done with it. I have said it before and I swear ill say it a million times. If you can deal with the restrictions of a paladin (YES, they MATTER!!!) and you think he heals/buffs better than a cleric or fights (evil!) better than the other melee classes....PLAY A PALADIN!!!
I may be digging a hole with such course statements but someone has to say it. We have to stop holding back with what we are going to do (to a degree) or we are not going to achieve what we should here.
Disclaimer: The last part of this thread was not directed at anyone in particular. I hope no one takes offense, this is just my feeling about how the discussion has went. You will now be returned to your regularly scheduled politically correct discussion.
Ok, I did some play testing last night too. We just sit and did some situational things that tested out the paladin abilities that have been discussed. As the controversy has been mainly with fighters and clerics, we ran an equal level fighter and cleric through the same instances.
I am not going to post all the numbers, there are a LOT! But here is what we got.
LoH was as Lastknight has said. It works GREAT for the paladin but you tend to horde it and use it only on yourself. The mechanic for how it works now is good but keeping it to yourself is not. I ran it with the limitation of it using the same pool as CE and without. Of course I liked it more without, but it was pretty strong.
CE: When I ran this using the same pool as LoH I tended not to use it as much, except for the one time the fighter went into negatives to stabalize him from a short distance away. This only because I would have had to double move to get into base contact with him. Otherwise I would have just use a LoH to do that. When we played it without the same pool as LoH it became stronger but since I did not take selective channeling I was still reluctant to use it in combat. Though when combat was over it allowed our cleric to save some of his spells, which I really liked.
Smite: Of course this is where I wanted to focus much of my play testing. We simulated levels 3, 8 and 13 (to take advantage of iterative attacks and such). I equipped the fighter exactly the same as the paladin, just to test out how they would progress with equal limitations. They were both sword and board. At level 3 there was not much difference. The fighter did a little better when testing the original concept for smite here on this thread, but the paladin kept up equally when using my most recent suggestion (he had a +1 hit/dam from having 1 smite). The fighter had a 1 better bonus to Str so it equaled out. Once we closed with the BBEG I activated the original smite first. I actually hit which was nice and the damage was ok. As it was not undead or an evil outsider the damage was minimal. When using my suggestion I was able to out pace the fighter at lvl 3. When we scaled up to the other levels the contests were much the same. Except as the fighter gained more feats his baseline damage scaled higher than mine until I was able to smite. Both versions of smite worked equally well here, as at lvl 8 I had 2 rounds with 2 attacks equaling 4 actual smites. Actually, both suggestions for smite worked exactly the same, as the BBEG was dead after 2 rounds from me and the fighter. Only hitting with 3 still helped out a lot, so again I was able to drop the BBEG, but the fighter was right there and would have had the killing blow if not missing with his second iterative attack before my next action. Lastly at lvl 13, the fighter was mowing things down like wheat! With his weapon training and weapon focus/spec tree maxed out, the damage output on the little guys was doing exactly what it should do! Also adding in cleave/great cleave there caused some serious destruction. The fighter easily dropped twice as many enemies as the paladin in those rounds. Though when we ran it with my suggestion the paladin kept up better. He did not kill near as many but the ratio was not off so horribly. He had a +5/+5 at this point and was standing to to toe with the Fighter. But taking more hits aswell because his AC was a good portion lower (armor training and Dex making the difference there). But the new version of LoH really helped keep the paladin in the fight. At the BBEG we both waded into him, it was bad. The fighter got to him first and had him disarmed by the time I got there. I did not start smiting until my next round because I wanted to take full advantage of my iterative attacks (with the OP version). That gave the fighter one more round to really hammer the guy and he was almost dead as I finished him off with my second attack from smite.
I am sorry if that was confusing, there were a lot of scenarios to run and we tried to do it pretty fast. But I really wanted to test some of these mechanics that I have been arguing for for so long. I can not do it in the current game I am playing because we still have not even switched to PF (few weeks more and we will!).
What I basically came up with was what I had expected/hoped to see. And I also found that even if you separate LoH and CE in the current suggestions it will not be overly powerful. That is unless the paladin uses one of his feats to buy selective channeling, then it may be pretty tough but I dont think overpowered would be the word for it. And then the cleric could actually use his other spells instead of being the first aid kit for the whole fight!
As for smiting and doing damage alongside the fighter. Without the paladin having some form of always on mechanic (whatever that may be). It was pretty sad to see how badly he out performed the paladin. I mean with his generally superior Str, weapon training, and weapon focus/spec he is doing some pretty crushing hits. This on top of having the feats for cleave, great cleave, disarm...lots of good stuff. The fighter can really stand his ground in battles like that. I agree I tried to make it JUST a melee fight, not a lot of spells flying around. But the fighter really shined! I am not against that, he deserves to! But this was also ALL evil foes and without also having an always on mechanic the paladin was really left in the dust! Of course when I did test it that way the paladin did not do MORE than the fighter but was able to keep up. Then when we reached the BBEG we both just really destroyed him. We also did not do another test where the paladin would have been doing less per hit because he had used a smite, we just ran out of time. But I would imagine the results would have started to move in favor of the fighter as of course the paladin would be doing 1/1 less after each time he used his smite.
I know this playtest did not have everything. I did not fully test each of the classes but there just was not time. I wanted to throw some spells in there and see what happened then, see if the fighter could keep up while spells were being launched at him as well but like I said, time. I think in that situation the paladin would have shone a little brighter.
I was actually hoping that something would happen to change my mind about at least one area of the paladin. That way I could have reported that something was over powered or just to good....but it did not happen, at least with my limited test.
I dont know if this well help anyone else, or if anyone will even take the time to read the whole thing but it really helped me. I am glad I took the time to do it and the results really strengthened my feelings towards what we need to work at achieving.
|
|
Guys,
We tested out the new smite mechanic and found it very powerful, but I believe not unreasonably so.
The report is at:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/playtest/archadesOngoingPlaytestReports&page=1#792937
Well I have posted there and I'll do so here as well just for good measure. What I saw from your playtest wasn't as powerful as it sounds, you made smite work against a creature that as written, it wouldn't have, you had the archivist adding an additional 2d6. and you were running a game where you were fighting evil outsiders.
If the fight with the beautific one had been run as writen the bonus damage would have been 7 and DR would have applied. would the smite still seem powerful, or even worth it? Honestly, and I hope that doesn't sound dismisive, I have no idea what the beautific ones stats are. Also would it have been as bad without the archivist bonus damage. And if a rogue in the party had been flanking what would his damage have been in comparison?
I am glad that the smite ability was powerful but not unreasonably so, it should be, it's only 7 per day at 20th level. but the simple fact that it is good is why I think the change should be made so that it works against any evil, not situational evil that may never come up in your campaign.
The mechanics of the Target = yay or nay?
Yay
as long as the smite expires at the end of the encounter.
The mechanics of the +1 to hit/dam for every remaining smite of the day = yay or nay?
Nay
If needed, an always-on effect separate from the smites per day mechanic would be better. What I'd like even better is an often-on effect triggered by something paladin-themed. For example, a +1 to hit and damage (up to [2 + paladin level] / 3) for every effect in the party caused by a failed will save, or the same for every magic-using evil enemy within the paladin's aura, or every smitable enemy beyond the first within the paladin's aura. Or how about +1 for every enemy whose evil the paladin takes the time to fully comprehend with detect evil? Knock yourself out, there's got to be dozens of such possibilities that are more interesting than a flat bonus. You could try an against-the-odds theme that adds +1 for every adjacent enemy beyond the first two, evil or not (Into the Fray), or every HD a single enemy has above the paladin's HD (including non-evil, such as a sea serpent). If you want to avoid giving away the exact HD right away, you could add the bonus +1 at a time each round. For a defensive theme, the paladin could specify a designated ward with lower BAB and gain +1 for every enemy beyond the first two adjacent to that ally, or for every negative status effect on that ally (including those already cured by the paladin), or each round that ally takes damage in combat while failing to deliver any, or for each enemy adjacent to that ally taken down by the paladin until the end of the encounter.
There are so many possibilities, the paladin could pre-select from a list and activate one circumstance bonus at a time like spells. These could all be heroic bonuses that stack with other bonus types, including smite effects. You could allow two circumstance bonuses of different theme to stack for higher damage, but not attack bonus (only the higher applies). The mechanic should be fleshed out enough (admittedly a lot of work, but probably fun) to make the paladin stronger than a fighter of equal level when the circumstances are right. Even if that's only 1/5 of the time on average (without factoring in smite evil and divine bond), the memorable nature of those encounters will more than make up for it. Also, as Archades play test revealed, the upgraded smite evil is now able to make up more of the difference.
|
Well I have posted there and I'll do so here as well just for good measure. What I saw from your playtest wasn't as powerful as it sounds, you made smite work against a creature that as written, it wouldn't have, you had the archivist adding an additional 2d6. and you were running a game where you were fighting evil outsiders.
Okay, the Beatific One was CR 9, with DR 10/good, and 85 hp. It took 3 rounds to take this creature down, and with three smites (2 from the paladin, 1 from the celestial lion) it went down with some collateral damage to the party.
The Darksphinx, however, was CR 10, with DR 10/good, SR 22, and 76 hit points. It went down in 2 rounds, leaving the rest of the party wondering was that the real big bad guy of the adventure, since it went down so quickly. Now, the party did soften up the creature with Spirit Jaws (a grappling damaging spell), a Ray of Clumsiness, and a handful of damage that slipped through the DR, but the paladin's smite handily dealt with the creatures.
The real benefit of smite was its ability to ignore DR. Yes, the paladin's boost from the archivist helped as well, but the paladin had its moment to shine. I think smite is good as-is. Any more powerful, and the rest of the party members would have been superfluous, which isn't what we are aiming for,
|
|
Also, as Archades play test revealed, the upgraded smite evil is now able to make up more of the difference.
As long as the creature is undead or an evil[subtype] outsider. Ohterwise no, no it doesn't. he just happened to be fighting in a game where he got to fight those.
Don't get me wrong, if the new smite mechanic was applicable to any evil, I would rub my hands together, call smite evil a good fix and move on to other important fights (like level 4 which if you haven't heard from me yet is just aweful for the paladin). But the situational benefit means that it really isn't fixed. It is fixed in the situation for which it is good, and then remains the suckfest that is the underwhelming smite for every other situation. Say, the evil cleric of Magublyet just so happens to have some terrifying, yet native creature in his service. Yes this is the kind of thing a paladin was born to fight, but he'll be outshone by the fighter because the cleric nor the pet were undead. And as Archade's playtest revealed. If the smite is changed to work against them, then smite is actually as good as it should be and while powerful isn't overpowered.
The mechanics of the Target = yay or nay?Yay
as long as the smite expires at the end of the encounter.
You know, I really wouldnt mind this. I like all day but this is strong too.
The mechanics of the +1 to hit/dam for every remaining smite of the day = yay or nay?Nay
OK, you dont agree with that particular mechanic but something like it would be ok...something always on with a different trigger. That is also fine with me.
This is what I really want, I think this is where the paladin really needs the boost. All of your suggestions are interesting and I could go with them. What about a list of these that triggers the paladin's smite...maybe "oaths" he can take in the morning. When the situation matches the oath he gains the benefit. Then as he levels he can take more oaths per day?
What I like the most about these changes is that Smite evil works with any kind of weapons.
Bow Paladins here we come. Also now very cool for Two-weapon fighting. Someone say awesome two-weapon weapon smite!!
|
|
And here is the problem I have with making them feats:
Rogue talents
Barbarian Rage Powers
Fighters Feats Plethora
Wizards specializations (and giant spell selection)
Druids Animal Companions or Domains (and giant spell selection)
Sorcerers Bloodlines (and giant spell selection)
Clerics Domains (and giant spell selection)
Rangers favored enemies
Monks Bonus Feats
Bards Spells learned and performance types (although I'll admit that the monk and the bard are pretty limited too)Paladins either mount or sword.
Everyone has lots of ways to make themselves unique and interesting, a paladin has to do it with his 10 feats which everyone else gets. The class features don't allow for the customizability of any other class, yet if we want said customizability to a class feature, it has to be done with feats, when everyone else already has those choices built into their class.
I agree; all the features relevant to allowing a class to do their job, should be hard-wired into the actual class features, of their class.
Bonus Paladin Feats would be a good way to distinguish followers of different gods, different churches within that god's faith, or even different arms of the same church.
There should be many ways to send a paladin PC down branching paths, rather than the current model, which boils down to 'Horse or Sword?'.
The feats gained at every odd character level, are independent of class, and so should be a totally free choice, for the player to spend on hobbies and interests that fit them as an individual.
They could, of course, choose to spend them on feats that synergise with their specific class, but they should not be forced to do so.
How would people react if we forced wizards to spend a feat to be able to access a new level of spells? (Hey, don't laugh; they get them those feats at the same level as they'd jump a spell level...)
Did I mention that all class features should be made class features?
|
|
I had smiten(what the hell is the past tense of smite?)You were smitten?
Pray tell, who is this vision of beauty, that has ensnared you so?I've heard flowers and chocolates work well.
Failing that, fish and chips, a litre of White Lightning, and a van with a mattress in the back.
It was a kython, basically a zergling, so lovely.
|
|
this conversation was had about his playtest in resonse to me asking about if he had run it as written instead of ruling the creature fought an evil subtype monster. the part not quoted was my response.
+7 damage, with no ability to overcome DR? That would have put the paladin in the same ballpark as the party's 8th level knight, or 8th level archivist in combat ability, maybe a little better because he was wielding a two-handed weapon with a high strength, but that's it.
Against small-e-evil creatures, I see the paladin having a marginal ability, against big-e-evil creatures, the paladin gets to shine.
Nice observation of smite evil vs sneak attack. Of course, the paladin doesn't need to flank, it lasts for multiple rounds, and he gets a +3 to his AC while he is smiting. I'd say the abilities are comparable, with the paladin having access to his ability only a couple times per day. But the paladin is a fair fighter and a dabbling spellcaster without it, never mind its holy bond ability or its raft of resistances and immunities ...
Um, just one thing, by your statement you seem to imply that the rogues sneak attack doesn't last multiple rounds lol. I know that wasn't your intent, but when making a comparison and saying that it lasts for multiple rounds...
lets see, okay I take it your 8th level, so 8 damage instead. and you have three smites that last 2 rounds each. When the paladin smites small evil you said that his ability is compatable to that of the knight or archivist and unless I'm mistaken their abilities always work (unless the knight is fighting something non-intelligent, which also means non-evil ususally so it's not like the paladin has an advantage then). So what you are saying is that for 6 rounds in a day, unless its the big evil the paladin is comparable, which means that if combat lasts more than 6 rounds in a day then the paladin is behind when fighting evil. So the paladin only gets to shine for six rounds a day against big evil, and if it isn't big evil then the paladin gets to be on par for six round before being behind, and if it isn't evil at all he lags behind the entire combat. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound right to me. I know in my games I have had several combats that last at least 6 rounds. the last fight i was in lasted 12, and I was only 4th level which means that I was on par to the 4th level knight in my game for 1 round in the game. I didn't want to use both smites since I wasn't sure if this was the only fight we'd have.
So really in a fight against evil I got 1 round to be on par. Your paladin has six, that's one whole fight if he's lucky.
The paladin should be on par to the knight and fighter when fighting evil, be behind when not, and shine when fighting the big evil. by your own words he's got the shine when fighting big evil, but he's behind every other point in the day.
I'll be honest, pre-Pathfinder I had already house-ruled that paladins did double damage when smiting, so I see the current bonus as an improvment. You are right about small-e-evil, and if I were playing a paladin, and I came across a group of bandits, I wouldn't bother with my ability against mooks, I MIGHT use it against the bandit leader, but it wouldn't add up to much. The question remains - is this a good thing or not?In other thoughts, it occurs to me -- small e evil smites double on a critical, big e evil smites do not. Wierd, no?
For the record, no it is not a good thing that the paladin is always behind unless he is fighting undead or outsiders. If he is fighting small-e-evil, then he should be on par, not needing to smite to be on par.
|
Ok, I did some play testing last night too. We just sit and did some situational things that tested out the paladin abilities that have been discussed. As the controversy has been mainly with fighters and clerics, we ran an equal level fighter and cleric through the same instances.
Thanks for the feedback on your playtesting, Vult. Your results are not surprising and sound right on par with what I would expect, and what I have been professing - mainly than a decked out fighter with superior strength (which is expected), weapon training, and access to great weapon foucs tree etc, on top of their multiple other feats that they can take to open up their combat options, makes them far and way better combatants and will always leave the paladin in the dust - except for those few moments of smiting. Currently the options the paladin has - even with spells - does not counter that diparity.
The changes to smite evil have helped - but only in those few rounds you mentioned.
What your playtesting didn't necessarily address - is a prolonged adventuring day with 6 encounters in a dungeon or so.
How quickly would the paladin disolve to being a side-kick warrior having exhaused all his smites and channeling, while the fighter continues to mow down his targets with never-ending martial prowess.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not bashing the fighter - his never-ending martial prowess and mowing down enemies is what he's suppose to do.
But the paladin is leagues behind, with little end in sight, and his optimal effectiveness is highly situational at best: 2 encounters a day - vs undead or evil outsiders only.
Robert
|
|
Um, just one thing, by your statement you seem to imply that the rogues sneak attack doesn't last multiple rounds lol. I know that wasn't your intent, but when making a comparison and saying that it lasts for multiple rounds...
Good feedback LastKnight. Indeed, the rogue will still usually outdamage the paladin - even more so now that rogues sneak attack affects far more types of creatures than they ever have in the past.
For comparison, the paladin's six rounds of ultimate effectiveness (using Smite Evil vs a perfect target - an evil outsider) would allow for the additional damage.....
But for an average good module - 5 encounters that day - each lasting avg of 6 rounds, thats 30 rounds of combat. How many of those rounds would a rogue in a party of adventures NOT flank a target? I would say a rogue would find a way to flank 50% of the time, and thats a low number I think. Thats 15 rounds - 250% of the number of rounds that the paladin's smite was in effect.
In my game in which I am playing Kaerthoryn my 6th level Paladin in the Curse of Crimson Throne; my wife is playing a halfling rogue with two weapons and all the cool feats designed to help that fighting style.
While I stand toe to do duking it out with the baddies barely hitting etc, she is constantly coming up flanking - making full attacks and getting 3d6 sneak attack x two weapons......showing me up over and over again, while I'm swinging away with my scimitar doing 1d6+4 points of damage - or 1d6+10 on those 2 smites a day.
There is no comparison at this point.
Last game, I had Divine Faith cast, I activated my divine bond weapon to give an extra +1 to my scimitar, and the cleric cast Bull's Strength on me, and finally I activated my last smite.
It was the most productive I have ever been. I had +5 to hit from my Str, +3 from my CHA for the smite, +1 for divine favor, and +2 for my weapon. with BAB +6, I had a total of +17 to hit! I actually hit with my first attack, and I did 1d6+5 for str, +1 for Diving Favor, +2 for my sword, and +6 for my smite. I rolled a 5 on the d6 and did 19 points of damage to the creature!
Tilly, the rogue played by my wife, took a 5' step to flank the creature - gets +6 to hit with her DEX, +1 with her weapon, +1 for size, +2 for flanking, and has a BAB of +4 for a total of +14 just slightly behind me), hit with her attack, and did 1d4 +1 for her weapon, and 3d6 rolled 14 and did 18 points of damage with her hit.
I had Bulls Strength cast on me, spend the first round activating my divine sword the first round, the next round casting Divine Favor, and used my smite the third round. What did Tilly do? Took a 5' step.
The next round? My smite was used up. I went back to +14 to hit (same as the rogue), I hit with my first attack, doing 11 points of damage - Tilly made a full attack - hit with both her daggers, and did 32 points of damage to kill the Evil cleric - nearly three times the amount of damage that i did - with NO strength modifier.
Robert
Ok, I did some play testing last night too. We just sit and did some situational things that tested out the paladin abilities that have been discussed. As the controversy has been mainly with fighters and clerics, we ran an equal level fighter and cleric through the same instances.
Thanks for the feedback on your playtesting, Vult. Your results are not surprising and sound right on par with what I would expect, and what I have been professing - mainly than a decked out fighter with superior strength (which is expected), weapon training, and access to great weapon foucs tree etc, on top of their multiple other feats that they can take to open up their combat options, makes them far and way better combatants and will always leave the paladin in the dust - except for those few moments of smiting. Currently the options the paladin has - even with spells - does not counter that diparity.
The changes to smite evil have helped - but only in those few rounds you mentioned.
What your playtesting didn't necessarily address - is a prolonged adventuring day with 6 encounters in a dungeon or so.
How quickly would the paladin disolve to being a side-kick warrior having exhaused all his smites and channeling, while the fighter continues to mow down his targets with never-ending martial prowess.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not bashing the fighter - his never-ending martial prowess and mowing down enemies is what he's suppose to do.
But the paladin is leagues behind, with little end in sight, and his optimal effectiveness is highly situational at best: 2 encounters a day - vs undead or evil outsiders only.
Robert
Robert you are exactly right. I knew what I was getting into when I started the play test, but I had to do it.
As for the fighter, I agree with you again he should do exactly what he does (maybe a little more battlefield control) and he really does it well. The bad part is how far behind the paladin EVEN when fighting evil. The limitations to smite are just so extremely dampening that he can not hope to keep up.
This is why we must have some form of always active mechanic. There is just no other way to do it. Unless you let paladins smite ANYTHING that is evil, which we all know would be to powerful. So what are our options?
There have been a ton of great ideas passed around for always on mechanics and nearly any of them would work great, we just need something to be implemented. The paladin should not be watching someone else eliminate the evil he was specifically tasked with destroying.
Good feedback LastKnight. Indeed, the rogue will still usually outdamage the paladin - even more so now that rogues sneak attack affects far more types of creatures than they ever have in the past.
For comparison, the paladin's six rounds of ultimate effectiveness (using Smite Evil vs a perfect target - an evil outsider) would allow for the additional damage.....
But for an average good module - 5 encounters that day - each lasting avg of 6 rounds, thats 30 rounds of combat. How many of those rounds would a rogue in a party of adventures NOT flank a target? I would say a rogue would find a way to flank 50% of the time, and thats a low number I think. Thats 15 rounds - 250% of the number of rounds that the paladin's smite was in effect.
In my game in which I am playing Kaerthoryn my 6th level Paladin in the Curse of Crimson Throne; my wife is playing a halfling rogue with two weapons and all the cool feats designed to help that fighting style.
While I stand toe to do duking it out with the baddies barely hitting etc, she is constantly coming up flanking - making full attacks and getting 3d6 sneak attack x two weapons......showing me up over and over again, while I'm swinging away with my scimitar doing 1d6+4 points of damage - or 1d6+10 on those 2 smites a day.
There is no comparison at this point.
Last game, I had Divine Faith cast, I activated my divine bond weapon to give an extra +1 to my scimitar, and the cleric cast Bull's Strength on me, and finally I activated my last smite.
It was the most productive I have ever been. I had +5 to hit from my Str, +3 from my CHA for the smite, +1 for divine favor, and +2 for my weapon. with BAB +6, I had a total of +17 to hit! I actually hit with my first attack, and I did 1d6+5 for str, +1 for Diving Favor, +2 for my sword, and +6 for my smite. I rolled a 5 on the d6 and did 19 points of damage to the creature!
Tilly, the rogue played by my wife, took a 5' step to flank the creature - gets +6 to hit with her DEX, +1 with her weapon, +1 for size, +2 for flanking, and has a BAB of +4 for a total of +14 just slightly behind me), hit with her attack, and did 1d4 +1 for her weapon, and 3d6 rolled 14 and did 18 points of damage with her hit.
I had Bulls Strength cast on me, spend the first round activating my divine sword the first round, the next round casting Divine Favor, and used my smite the third round. What did Tilly do? Took a 5' step.
The next round? My smite was used up. I went back to +14 to hit (same as the rogue), I hit with my first attack, doing 11 points of damage - Tilly made a full attack - hit with both her daggers, and did 32 points of damage to kill the Evil cleric - nearly three times the amount of damage that i did - with NO strength modifier.
Robert
WOW...that is disgusting to me!! You know after reading that (and KNOWING that it is true) I am apt to say why not just let paladins smite everything? +Char to hit and paladin level to damage would STILL not outclass many other classes. This would be the simplest fix! Hell, watching the paladin have to take 3 rounds buffing to be ONE point of damage ahead of a ROGUE...I am sorry that is simply disgusting!!
Please do something, this can not be allowed to continue!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I've been enjoying the back and forth and the constant questing to make the paladin more offensive, but while I agree up to a point, I also feel like you have both lost sight of the fact that the pally is the King of Defense.
Maybe that sucks as a class role, but it's true.
All that extra damage the fighter, barbarian, and the rogue get to do? It all turns to zilch the minute they fail a Will save. At low levels, the bad guy drops a color spray and BAM the rogue and the fighter hit the dirt. The paladin gets to keep on playing the game.
The fighters gets torched by every Ref half attack, the rogue gets crushed by every failed Fort save. The paladin keeps on truckin'.
Does it all even out? Well, I suppose that depends on how often take-out effects happen in your game. If your DM is loath to use them because they are un-fun for the other players, then they are perhaps unintentionally nerfing the paladin's greatest advantage, to keep bringing the pain after the Ftr/Rog/Brb have been taken out of action. Those classes all have at least one glaring weak spot; punch them once or twice in that glass jaw and they go down like a house of cards and their offensive advantages are knocked right off the chessboard.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for a little more beef on the paladin's whacking side, but I think in focusing so hard on that part you are undervaluing the paladin's super defenses.
P.S. I would be all for adding tower shield prof to the paladin, though honestly, for whatever reason, I have literally NEVER seen a player use one in 3rd Ed, and can only think of one adventure with an NPC using one. Odd that it doesn't seem to come up.
I didn't go through all 295 entries so if this was asked I apologize...
Under the new smite mechanic, against evil outsiders and undead a Paladin does smite damage equal to a rogues Sneak attack damage. I think that's great.
But does the smite damage apply to every one of the paladin's iterative attacks? If so, that can but quite a large amount.
Based on the PRPG write up, it seems that the sneak attack damage applies to every one of the rogue's iterative attacks but something in the back of my mind said ‘no it didn't’.
Cheers
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I didn't go through all 295 entries so if this was asked I apologize...
Under the new smite mechanic, against evil outsiders and undead a Paladin does smite damage equal to a rogues Sneak attack damage. I think that's great.
But does the smite damage apply to every one of the paladin's iterative attacks? If so, that can but quite a large amount.
Based on the PRPG write up, it seems that the sneak attack damage applies to every one of the rogue's iterative attacks but something in the back of my mind said ‘no it didn't’.
Cheers
Jason's current smite evil revision lasts for one or more full rounds, so it affects all attacks you make (including iterative and AoOs).
Sneak attack applies to all your attacks as long as the condition that grants it still applies. If you're flanking, you get it on every flanking attack. If you're invisible or hiding, it applies to the first attack (against which your target is flat-footed), but then you become visible and the rest of your attacks are not sneaky. If you have greater invis., blink, or other similar effects, you can sneak with all attacks.
I really must disagree with the defense thing. I dont have a lot of time so I will reply to it later, but I do not think that he is the king of defense. I also do not think that adding tower shield will fix this either.
I am sorry I dont have time to really get into it but I just had to post that I disagree....that is not the case and what a boring role that would be in D&D :(
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
my question is does it apply to AoOs, I think it does because the AC bonus makes no sense if it doesn't last to the begining of your next turn. So if the AC bonus lasts, why wouldn't the smite ability.
If it lasts 1 round, it lasts 1 round from the point when you use it, which unless otherwise stated will be until immediately before your next turn.
If it lasts "until the end of your turn" it will say so.