The mechanics of the +1 to hit/dam for every remaining smite of the day = yay or 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?
Thanks for considering an alternative. I think oaths would work. I was thinking of putting all circumstantial bonuses under the umbrella of a new class ability called Heroics since the idea is to make the paladin more heroic in combat. Heroics make it possible for a paladin to get bonuses against non-smitable and non-evil opponents when the circumstances call for the paladin to be heroic. There's a lot of ways it could be implemented. An oath could make a particular theme of heroics available for the day, or activate one particular heroic for the entire day, but still let the paladin activate others for shorter duration (e.g. one encounter) when the situation calls for it (20/20 hindsight). The mechanics of when they stack for uber damage is the fun part that creates opportunities for the paladin to be better than the fighter, which I think would be great to implement entirely outside of the smite mechanic, so it stacks with smite, and so there isn't so much stress on smite to make up all the difference between fighter and paladin.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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 :(
I think you misunderstand me. His "role" is not as the king of defense. That was the mistake of 4th Ed, to pigeonhole and build character classes around tactical roles, so that you had a hard time being effective if you didn't do what the game said you were supposed to do.
My statement is that the paladin is the king of defense WHILE he is doing his other stuff. He doesn't have to "act defensively" at all. His role is the same aggressive role as the other fighterish types on the field of battle.
What makes him the king of defense is that he is much less susceptible to getting knocked off the board than are those characters who have a gaping exhaust port marked "insert proton torpedo here."
I've played and DMed plenty of 3rd Ed, high level and low, and fighters and rogues in particular have regularly taken out by fear, charm, paralysis, stunning, blinding, confusion, dazing, etc. that the paladins in the party easily shrugged off. Multiclassed paladin-monks, even more so. In fact, any opponent with a lick of sense will tend to avoid targeting the fighter dude with the giant holy symbol on his shield and go for the other martial types that are much more likely to fail saves.
Even at very low levels, where spellcasting enemies are more rare, the paladin's advantage is even more pronounced when they do show up.
Do they hit less hard than the heavy-offense characters? Absolutely. No argument whatsoever. (This, of course, could be ablated significantly by application of turn undead uses to divine feats, but that's a well of resources that will have to be rebuilt since those aren't OGL)
Do they get to keep playing the game after the weak-defense characters get zapped. Also, absolutely yes.
Their ROLE is not defensive. That would be boring. That is why the dwarven defender doesn't work that well as a PC class in a game where tactical movement is very important (3rd Ed and beyond).
No, the paladin's ABILITIES defend them WHILE they attack, fight, do whatever else they want to do.
P.S. Tower shield is just a logical addition, not really a fix for anything.
Just thought I would swing in and review the progress here.
Are people not liking the Targets/Day suggestion? It seems to address all of the problems recently mentioned.
The "hit list" thing is somebody's point against it— but swearing an oath to slay an evil being is still pretty cool. I'd say that's a feature, not a bug.
Were there any other issues? I'm using Targets/day, so if the math is bad or there's something I'm overlooking, I'd like to hear it.
|
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 1 round. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack rolls and deals 1d6 points of damage per two levels the paladin possesses (minimum +1d6) and the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by evil creatures. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, she does not gain any bonuses on attack or damage rolls, but she retains the AC bonus against evil creatures.
At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 4–9, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of the smite increases by 1 round, to a total of 3 rounds at 16th level.
That one change is all I need for me to say that smite is fixed, hell if you think it's too powerful, then drop the extended rounds at 8th and 16th.
Smite doesn't need an extended duration, the paladin needs another class feature to bring him up to parity. Make the simple fix to smite above and be done with it. We can then deal with his crap spellcasting and creating a decent always on ability.
|
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 have had several tower shields used, as a player and a DM. You want a turtle, Dwarf Fighter build. 20 con, +1 dex bonus, Full Plate, Tower Shield...Try to knock him out of a combat without an AOE or Charm...
I think the Paladin Should have the Tower shield, but I don't think that that has much to do with fixing the Paladin. He needs something to do his job better. Currently every other martial class is handing him his lunch, after having taken a big bite out of it, and laughing. The LOH as written now works fine. Lets fix the Offense
I have read a whole lot of posts to this point. I have seen so many versions of Smite Evil that I have lost track of what the current one is. Why isn't the Paladin's Smite effect on par with the Rogues Sneak Attack? Its not like they are going to be smiting every round the way the rogue does? Its 1 time a day at low levels, it should be powerful.
Honestly, are you worried as a DM that a warrior can, 1 time a day, toss the damage the rogue can when the rest of the day he is a tough version of that same rogue that can't find traps or dodge reflex spells? I would be far more worried that the people who want to play Paladins may rather take the Fighter Class and "Role Play" the Holy part...
|
|
I think the Paladin Should have the Tower shield, but I don't think that that has much to do with fixing the Paladin. He needs something to do his job better. Currently every other martial class is handing him his lunch, after having taken a big bite out of it, and laughing. The LOH as written now works fine. Lets fix the OffenseI have read a whole lot of posts to this point. I have seen so many versions of Smite Evil that I have lost track of what the current one is. Why isn't the Paladin's Smite effect on par with the Rogues Sneak Attack? Its not like they are going to be smiting every round the way the rogue does? Its 1 time a day at low levels, it should be powerful.
Honestly, are you worried as a DM that a warrior can, 1 time a day, toss the damage the rogue can when the rest of the day he is a tough version of that same rogue that can't find traps or dodge reflex spells? I would be far more worried that the people who want to play Paladins may rather take the Fighter Class and "Role Play" the Holy part...
heh, welcome to the argument I've been making for several weeks before the paladin threads even opened :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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 have had several tower shields used, as a player and a DM. You want a turtle, Dwarf Fighter build. 20 con, +1 dex bonus, Full Plate, Tower Shield...Try to knock him out of a combat without an AOE or Charm...
I think the Paladin Should have the Tower shield, but I don't think that that has much to do with fixing the Paladin. He needs something to do his job better. Currently every other martial class is handing him his lunch, after having taken a big bite out of it, and laughing. The LOH as written now works fine. Lets fix the Offense
I have read a whole lot of posts to this point. I have seen so many versions of Smite Evil that I have lost track of what the current one is. Why isn't the Paladin's Smite effect on par with the Rogues Sneak Attack? Its not like they are going to be smiting every round the way the rogue does? Its 1 time a day at low levels, it should be powerful.
Honestly, are you worried as a DM that a warrior can, 1 time a day, toss the damage the rogue can when the rest of the day he is a tough version of that same rogue that can't find traps or dodge reflex spells? I would be far more worried that the people who want to play Paladins may rather take the Fighter Class and "Role Play" the Holy part...
I'm not really worried about either thing.
I'm with LKL that the most current version of Smite Evil should be vs. ANY EVIL, not just undead and EvO. I like the extra d6, but I also don't mind a lot of other notions that have been thrown around, varying from +1/lvl to any evil and +2/lvl to things with the evil subtype, to +2/lvl to any evil, to things scaled based on the strength of the evil aura - these are all good, fun ideas.
Actually, I'm of the mind that smite should be 1 + CHA uses per day at 1st level, and that the bonus should be +1 to hit, +1d6 damage, increasing every 5 levels. I've playtested that model of smite and it worked well in my game, but that ship has long since been torpedoed.
I also proposed giving paladins a flat favored enemy-like bonus vs. evil of +1, +1/5 levels, that applied to damage and to Perception, Intimidate, and Sense Motive rolls. This as a separate power from smite.
Also, enabling paladins to use divine bond to add bane to weapons as a property would be a good add in my book, though this could potentially make the ranger look pretty obsolete with his favored enemy since the paladin could change it any time he wanted (he gets several uses a day). Perhaps that is in the land of feats (like the Dragonslayer feat I proposed).
I think the simplest idea is actually to ignore the attack roll bonus and have you declare smites after you hit, but I know some would say the paladin needs the attack bonus to GET that hit in the first place, and I don't necessarily disagree with that logic. As an ability, it would be strange to have Charisma affect it 3 different ways (# per day, AC, and attack bonus), but whatev.
I also posited allowing two alternate uses of smite:
A. A lower-level effect that lasts a minute (or an encounter); or,
B. A juicer effect that lasts a round (or two or three).
If you let those stack, you could double-dip in a fight and keep your lower-degree power burning while you light off a couple of flares.
Don't know how far that will go.
I think adding paladins to the gravy train on Weapon Spec, etc. is fine. Heck, why not add all the martial classes on there? Fighters already have their "trump you" bonus with weapon training. Rangers could use the buffs too. Barbarians, why not?
I'm also on board for adding rider effects on smite and proposed a number of them over on that thread. I sincerely hope some of those get picked up as smite-based feats if not class ability talents.
Of the current model, I think it is probably okay, but I would say:
1. Make it 1d6/2 levels (minimum 1d6) vs. all evil, regardless.
2. Make it 'hold the charge' on a miss.
#2 bothers me a little, because it seems like the paladin is getting fringe benefits for missing (the AC bonus hangs around longer), but I guess I visualize it like he lights the fuse on his sword and it just starts sizzling with holy power, and it keeps on sizzling and sizzling, until he finally busts loose. In the meanwhile, the paladin player has already suffered the in-game penalty for sitting there ineffectually flailing at his target for several rounds doing nothing. Is it such a big bone to throw him that he gets to have an AC bonus while he's at it?
Perhaps here is a solution:
The effects of smite evil last for a number of rounds equal to the paladin's Charisma bonus (minimum 1 round) or until the paladin makes a successful attack. Once triggered by a successful attack, the smite lasts 1 round (2 rounds at 8th, 3 rounds at 16th).
It's proactive rather than reactive. It's not holding the charge, it's the charge is already there and waiting. It's a two-stage effect (first AC and attack roll; then damage gets added in) without having to write a lot of kludgy text.
And if you're playing a paladin with a crap Charisma, well then too bad for you.
Thoughts?
|
I'm not really worried about either thing.
I'm with LKL that the most current version of Smite Evil should be vs. ANY EVIL, not just undead and EvO. I like the extra d6, but I also don't mind a lot of other notions that have been thrown around, varying from +1/lvl to any evil and +2/lvl to things with the evil subtype, to +2/lvl to any evil, to things scaled based on the strength of the evil aura - these are all good, fun ideas.
Jason,
if the bonus (1D6 per 2 paladin levels) applies against *all* evil beings, it would make the paladin way too powerful, IMO. In fact, it would probably make him the most "fun" class to play, and who would even care about fighters anymore?
In my experience most high-level campaigns have probably three to five encounters per day, each lasting for about three to five rounds. If the bonuses from Smite Evil last for longer than a round (per use), it means that the paladin inflicts something like 14D6 + (significant) bonuses with each attack (assuming a Great Sword and 'Holy' property), *AND* gets something like +10 to AC and *ALL* attacks... of course, not all enemies are evil, but most monsters and NPCs usually *are*. It would make me (as a DM) seriously reconsider using many, many more neutral beings in my adventures instead of evil ones...
A far more sensible approach would be something like +1D6 per 4 levels, and the effects lasting for one round per use. And, I'd also probably make the AC bonus equal to the paladin's Wisdom modifier...
if the bonus (1D6 per 2 paladin levels) applies against *all* evil beings, it would make the paladin way too powerful, IMO. In fact, it would probably make him the most "fun" class to play, and who would even care about fighters anymore?
I'm not sure that's true. The paladin has a limited number of smites, Rogues get sneak attack quite easily.
|
|
if the bonus (1D6 per 2 paladin levels) applies against *all* evil beings, it would make the paladin way too powerful, IMO. In fact, it would probably make him the most "fun" class to play, and who would even care about fighters anymore?
I do feel that 1d6/2 levels against all evil would be too lucrative.
But to answer your question: Anyone who doesn't like the restrictive nature of paladins. Most players I know do not like being restricted to the code of the paladin. Its the hardest character to play, and all those goodies are so easily stripped away if not played appropriately.
Robert
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'm not really worried about either thing.
I'm with LKL that the most current version of Smite Evil should be vs. ANY EVIL, not just undead and EvO. I like the extra d6, but I also don't mind a lot of other notions that have been thrown around, varying from +1/lvl to any evil and +2/lvl to things with the evil subtype, to +2/lvl to any evil, to things scaled based on the strength of the evil aura - these are all good, fun ideas.
Jason,
if the bonus (1D6 per 2 paladin levels) applies against *all* evil beings, it would make the paladin way too powerful, IMO. In fact, it would probably make him the most "fun" class to play, and who would even care about fighters anymore?
The same people who care about fighters now even though rogues get 1d6 per 2 levels (rounding UP instead of rounding down) on most of their attacks ALL THE TIME without having to limit it to either:
1. Evil creatures
2. Rounds of effect per day.
True, sneak attacks do require a smidgeon of tactics and don't affect some creatures (getting to be a pretty short list in PF). The rogue also has a raft of offensive, defensive, and miscellaneous abilities through rogue talents.
Plus, the ones who want to play fighters will be the ones who want to concentrate on being super-STR/CON (or DEX/CON) machines without having to worry about WIS/CHA stats, who want to get a bevy of free feats (that are promised to be better-scaled to higher level), and to get an always on scaling bonus to AC, attack, and damage rolls, plus more from WpnFoc/Spec that affects everything, every round, functions in antimagic, and need not be activated, spent, or saved.
In my experience most high-level campaigns have probably three to five encounters per day, each lasting for about three to five rounds. If the bonuses from Smite Evil last for longer than a round (per use), it means that the paladin inflicts something like 14D6 + (significant) bonuses with each attack (assuming a Great Sword and 'Holy' property), *AND* gets something like +10 to AC and *ALL* attacks...
Actually, a 15th level paladin, with 5 smites lasting 2 rounds each, would only get to use his supreme buttkickingness, if such it is, for approximately 2 to 2-1/2 combats, or about half of what you are calling the typical adventuring day at high levels. The other half of the day, or against foes that aren't evil, the paladin is swinging a rubber chicken by comparison to the fighter, barbarian, or rogue. Ranger... that depends on the campaign.
Others have crunched the numbers repeatedly in this thread and others, using equivalent stat point buy, equivalent character wealth, and assuming optimized build. The general outcome of those:
Can you build an effective combat paladin? Sure.
Will the paladin be as good as the fighter with smite evil?
- Pretty close, as long as it's evil outsiders/undead under the current system.
- Sorta kinda, if it's other evil under the current system.
- Not remotely, if it's not evil or if he runs out of smites
Also, you are assuming a bit of a false comparison in only thinking about high levels. What about the 1st level paladin, with ONE smite evil, that lasts for ONE round. Ummm... ? Or the 7th level paladin with 3 smite evils that last for ONE round. Or even the 12th level paladin, with 4 smite evils that each last for two rounds?
I could argue that statistically speaking, the vast majority of games never get past around 10th level, and even the PF adventure paths usually end around 15th, HL games are relatively rare, but rarity is not an excuse for imbalance.
I could also submit the postulate that the fact that the fighter has been kicking sand in the paladin's teeth for the past 15 levels should mean that fair is fair even if the paladin IS in fact a little better when he's fighting foes in his wheelhouse at 16th+.
of course, not all enemies are evil, but most monsters and NPCs usually *are*.
It's true. No argument here.
It would make me (as a DM) seriously reconsider using many, many more neutral beings in my adventures instead of evil ones...
That's fine. It actually would be kinda nice to have a campaign that DIDN'T end up with the PCs fighting a horde of demons and devils at high level for a change!
A far more sensible approach would be something like +1D6 per 4 levels, and the effects lasting for one round per use. And, I'd also probably make the AC bonus equal to the paladin's Wisdom modifier...
I'd say bleh on splitting off a paladin's combat effects onto yet another ability score. It's enough that they already need STR/CON (or rarely DEX/CON) like every other warrior. Whatever their special bonuses, have them play off one other stat.
I would also disagree that 1d6/4 levels is a sensible change, as it is actually substantially WORSE than just 1 point/level, being a lower average (3.5/4 levels) and also not multiplying on a crit. This is actually an even weaker smite than in the PF Beta, aside from lasting a round.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
if the bonus (1D6 per 2 paladin levels) applies against *all* evil beings, it would make the paladin way too powerful, IMO. In fact, it would probably make him the most "fun" class to play, and who would even care about fighters anymore?
I do feel that 1d6/2 levels against all evil would be too lucrative.
But to answer your question: Anyone who doesn't like the restrictive nature of paladins. Most players I know do not like being restricted to the code of the paladin. Its the hardest character to play, and all those goodies are so easily stripped away if not played appropriately.
Robert
Well said. I was speaking to the min-maxing issues, but the fact of the matter is that LOTS of players I've known just don't dig the whole paladin mindset and restrictions. Not their kind of character to play.
I can definitely see the AC bonus being either Wis mod (Divine Insight a la the Saint Template), or Charisma mod in a Divine reflection of the bonus many powerful Undead get to their AC's
Reading this thread while listenent to the song Citizen Soldier gives me a very specific image for the Paladin. Against the average opponent he should be a competent warrior. Against real evil, he should rise to the occasion matching their power with his own.
His power to deal damage should scale with the evil he faces. If using the version wher d6's are added it should be d6's versus evil alignment, d8'S versus undead or the ability to channel negative energy, d10's versus evil outsiders.
If it's the more standard version then Paladin level, level x2, and level x3 for bonus damage.
The Paladin should be equipped specifically to face evil and to defend against it. As such he definitely should be equipped with an array of defensive abilities, resistance and immunities. You don't send firefighters in without their gear do you?
|
|
I am a bit frustrated that the new Smite didn't address the missing problem. I would much prefer either a hold of the charge or the ability to activate the smite on a hit (ie no attack bonus but a significant damage bonus).
My concern with the holding the charge is the AC bonus. Someone is going to quickly figure out that you go for full defense or even just hoping for a whiff on the dice so the AC lasts longer. Either split the two powers or a lot of language would have to be added to allow a holding of the charge.
Something, maybe not one of these two solutions, but something, should be done to address the Paladins SMS (Smite Miss Syndrome).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I am a bit frustrated that the new Smite didn't address the missing problem. I would much prefer either a hold of the charge or the ability to activate the smite on a hit (ie no attack bonus but a significant damage bonus).
My concern with the holding the charge is the AC bonus. Someone is going to quickly figure out that you go for full defense or even just hoping for a whiff on the dice so the AC lasts longer. Either split the two powers or a lot of language would have to be added to allow a holding of the charge.
Something, maybe not one of these two solutions, but something, should be done to address the Paladins SMS (Smite Miss Syndrome).
It also strongly encourages the paladin to Power Attack/CombExp for all he's worth up until the moment when he actually hits. That way the first hit will be a doozy and in the meanwhile he's been super-tough to hit. After the first hit comes in and the REAL clock starts ticking on his smite, he can adjust his tactics as appropriate for the battle at hand.
It's a thorny problem, but not one easy to answer other than saying "suck it up and deal."
|
|
I think the Paladin Should have the Tower shield, but I don't think that that has much to do with fixing the Paladin. He needs something to do his job better. Currently every other martial class is handing him his lunch, after having taken a big bite out of it, and laughing. The LOH as written now works fine. Lets fix the Offense
@Jason, First off let me say this post of yours was one of my favorites on the thread that I've read to-date.
As for tower shields; I have thought many times that it SHOULD be available to paladins as well. It's funny that you mentioned that you've not seen one in play - the last two characters I've played have been paladins - the last one in FR campaign didn't even use a weapon - just a hvy shield and used it bash. The most recent whom I've been making posts about (Kaerthoryn) is a tower shield weilder. Of course in his case I took Fighter for 1 level first - both for the bonus feat and the free Tower Shield proficiency.
That being said - though it's fair to add it to the list IMO, you're right that it doesn't actually 'fix' the paladin - in fact what I have learned is that it actually creates another -2 to attack rolls - one that you know I have already professed is way behind the status quo of the other warriors. So it helps the AC, but hurts the already compromised attack rolls. I guess I figured I realized the paladin will never hit the high ACs of the BBEGs so I may as well be as defensive as possible. I wish I could afford Combat Expertise - but finding a 13 INT out of the point buy with a paladin is murder on his other stats.
At this point, I play Kaerthoryn mostly as just a roadblock and protector - I just set up the shield and cover/block a doorway buying time for the other heroes to get into place. Its often times unfun - but I play a paladin because I love playing such a character with those morals and codes of conduct. I would be better as a LG fighter who just uses those codes.....but there's something aesthetically rewarding to me to play a paladin and know I'm that beacon of hope and good - especially in a campaign like Curse of Crimson Throne - where were in a city of corrupt government and devil-worshipping citizens....the roleplaying opportunities is wonderful.
Actually, I'm of the mind that smite should be 1 + CHA uses per day at 1st level, and that the bonus should be +1 to hit, +1d6 damage, increasing every 5 levels. I've playtested that model of smite and it worked well in my game, but that ship has long since been torpedoed.I also proposed giving paladins a flat favored enemy-like bonus vs. evil of +1, +1/5 levels, that applied to damage and to Perception, Intimidate, and Sense Motive rolls. This as a separate power from smite.
After all the discussions about long-duration smites, targeted "marking" smites, and lots of extra smites - along with the playtesting testimonials, and the suggestions of ever-present ongoing effect that allows the paladins better combats, I think that you're on board here with what I think would work best.
The Flat Favored enemy vs evil is congruent to my idea of "always on" Divine Might ability or even better call it "Holy Avenger!"
+1 to hit and dmg evil at 1st level. Increase +1 at 5th and every 5 levels after.
This provides much of the help needed to make a paladin competent warrior with the others.
Then smites adding CHA bonus to AC as deflection, and + CHA mod to attacks for those gotta smackdown moments, and Paladin level for damage. Add Holy dmg of 1d6 per 2 paladin levels to any smite evil attack made on something with an evil descriptor or overwhelming evil.
The number of smites equal to the way it is or whatever - so long as it marks a target for the duration of the encounter, and all attack made are considered smite.
This is alot of potential damage - but only the few targets a day chosen to be smited, and only if they're "evil descriptored" and still less in the long run of what a rogue can do.
Also, enabling paladins to use divine bond to add bane to weapons as a property would be a good add in my book
I have often wondered by bane (certain types only: Outsiders, Dragons, Undead) should be offered as a potential allowed enhancement for Divine Bond.
I think adding paladins to the gravy train on Weapon Spec, etc. is fine.
I don't think this breaks anything either - the paladin still only gets less than half the number of feats that a fighter would - so taking these would hurt his diversification that he would be able to do with say channellng-based feats.
All in all I still think the target smite that 'marks' a target is better than just 'holding a charge'
Thanks for all the positive feedback on this thread you've provided. I've seen a markedly shift in your mentality towards this issue since these forums have started. What once I detected as guarded slight support for the paladin has evolved into you throwing major suppoort for the complete overhaul of the paladin that I proposed a while back.
For me - the paladin IS the D&D hero - and I miss that aspect from 1st edition when I fell in love with them. Unearthed Arcana RULED!
Happy gaming,
Robert
What about a whole new mechanic...up until now most of the attempts have been a reworking of the 3.5 version. Maybe explore new options, how about something nobody else has like an auto hit that does max damage, or a variation on something thats out there like adding d6's of holy damage versus evil opponents. It seems the current problem is that A) the smite is weaker than the marque abilities of every other melee class b) it frequently misses which is made to be even more frustrating by its meager number of uses c) the differing bonuses to damage and hit make the scaling uneven over the life of the character.
If I were going to re-write smite I would go with making it two abilities in which a paladin gets a flat +1 to hit versus evil over his total levels at a rate of 1 every 4 or so.
Then I would add a damage modifier with the the dieties chosen weapon,and only versus evil, perhaps a + 1d4 or the like but only on the chosen weapon...this would grant some deviation in being a paladin to different dieties.
|
|
Good Post Warmaster, just one thing...
Then I would add a damage modifier with the the dieties chosen weapon,and only versus evil, perhaps a + 1d4 or the like but only on the chosen weapon...this would grant some deviation in being a paladin to different dieties.
Why the Diety's Favored Weapon? What about the poor Pally who chose, instead of a god, to serve the Order of the Blue Monkey (yes absurd, but only for fun and affect)? How about the Paladin who loves their Diety, but not the Diety's Favored Weapon? You know like the Really Cool Blade of Innefectiveness or some such silliness (1d2-3 damage)?
Like the idea, please dump the favored weapon. (that or send a note to the Gawds that they need to stop liking those odd weapons that sound really cool until you pick one up as a Paladin and try to look impressive with it)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
@Jason, First off let me say this post of yours was one of my favorites on the thread that I've read to-date.
I think the Paladin Should have the Tower shield, but I don't think that that has much to do with fixing the Paladin. He needs something to do his job better. Currently every other martial class is handing him his lunch, after having taken a big bite out of it, and laughing. The LOH as written now works fine. Lets fix the Offense
Ironic, given that the above quote is from someone else, attributed to me... :)
As for tower shields; I have thought many times that it SHOULD be available to paladins as well. It's funny that you mentioned that you've not seen one in play - the last two characters I've played have been paladins - the last one in FR campaign didn't even use a weapon - just a hvy shield and used it bash.
My cohort in STAP is a ranger/scout/PrC whose main weapon is a spiked bashing shield. He has other weapons, but that's the primary one.
That being said - though it's fair to add it to the list IMO, you're right that it doesn't actually 'fix' the paladin - in fact what I have learned is that it actually creates another -2 to attack rolls
This is probably the main reason no one ever takes in the games I've played in or run - nobody wants to suck up the weight, the -2 to attack rolls, and the MINUS TEN armor check penalty. Ouch.
As for the rest (which of course the messageboard doesn't wanna quote and I don't wanna bother fighting with it over), it's odd that you feel like I've been anything other than an advocate for the paladin. I'm less enthusiastic about some of the proposed fixes (the always-on bonuses and the 'marking smite') than some others are, although I have proposed versions of each of those. I certainly did bring up a lot of that legwork by others when the notion was advanced of the paladin being OVERpowered in combat by pretty much any flavor of smite that has come down the pike thus far.
I don't agree with the basic premise that the paladin needs to be as much of a nutcrusher offensively as a fighter, because their defensive juice is huge and I've had plenty of play experience showing the paladin still standing and still kicking bad guy heinie after the "super-tough" fighters and damage-monster sneak-attackers have been knocked out of the fight entirely. Paladins are more balanced as characters and have a staying power the others lack.
BUT...
I do think that all of their abilities, offensive, defensive, and miscellaneous, can stand an upgrade. Being 50% of this, 50% of that, and 50% of something else, in a game that rewards specialization, does not add up to 150%, and in fact it doesn't even add up to 100%.
If I were rewriting the paladin class, I would probably do this:
1. Make channel energy a 1st level ability, just like clerics get, 3 + CHA per day.
2. Add the ability to Inspire Courage as a specific application of channel energy. Works just like the bard ability but does not require Perform skills, just that you spend a channel.
3. Make LOH a specific application of channel energy that affects one creature and does double the normal amount of healing. Doing it on yourself as a swift action is cool by me.
4. Make Smite Evil a specific application of channel energy (swift action) that can do one of two things:
a. Add bonus to damage = channel energy dice (i.e., 1d6/2 levels, min 1d6) to evil creatures for a number of consecutive ATTACKS equal to your CHA bonus, damage doubled vs. creatures with [evil] subtype (which is pretty much evil outsiders, evil clerics, and blackguards). If you miss, boo hoo, you got plenty of chances, EVEN AT LOW LEVEL.
b. Add sacred bonus of +1 to attack/dmg/AC vs. evil (+1/5 levels) for ROUNDS = CHA bonus.
And yes, you can use both kinds of smite at the same time. And yes, they are sacred and inspire courage is morale so you can triple-dip, and you can use the morale vs. anybody not just vs. evil.
Putting all of these under Channel Energy lets you take ONE feat (Extra Channeling) to get extra uses of all of them. No need for Extra Smiting, Extra LOH, Extra whatever.
5. Allow a paladin to use channel energy to damage creatures with the [evil] subtype and command/rebuke creatures with the [good] subtype.
6. Throw in Tower Shield Prof while we're at it.
7. Let you make a Divine Bond with your shield as well as your weapon (or both on the same, if you want to be a shield-fighting paladin).
8. Add some spells to the paladin list and make caster level = level -3
9. At higher-level add an ability that broadened detect evil to give blindsense vs. evil, then higher up blindsight vs. evil.
10. I don't know whether it's fully needed, but I could go with a the "favored enemy vs. evil" concept, +1 competence bonus to weapon damage, Intimidate, Perception, and Sense Motive checks vs. evil, +1/5 levels.
There's 10 changes I think I would make and call it good. I don't know if that makes me a "true believer" or not, but they fit with the design aesethetics I think I like, they enable a paladin to stack up some different bonuses vs. regular opponents and vs. evil, and the tie most of the abilities to a single fixed mechanic rather than relying on disparate subsystems.
And just in time for the paladin part of the discussion to be almost over... :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
PS - Maybe because I came from the 1st Ed pre-Arcana side, I always thought the UA Cavalier-Paladin was perhaps the most horrifically overpowered munchified class in the history of D&D. It was everything that was disgusting about the 1st Ed Cavalier plus everything that was disgusting about the 1st Ed. Paladin rolled into ONE! Those classes were awesome enough on their own! :)
|
|
I would Quote you Jason Nelson, but that looks like a lot of stuff to weed through. Many of your ideas are good. I am dubious that you could work so many mechanics off of 1 pool of 3+cha channels though. You would in effect be stuck having to grab the extra turning feat and boom, you would always have the same number of powers only waiting for spells to add to your class. Not to mention you have so loaded the 1st level that you would see far to many 1st level Paladins, nth level [insert your favorite other class here].
I definitely like what you've done with Detect Evil. Full support on that one.
I'd like to see the Paladin, as has been said before, have access to Tower Shield proficiency and the Weapon Specialization feat tree. I don't think it hurts the fighter at all (since he now gets his training bonus).
I think his spellcasting definitely needs a bump. I'd propose that he be bumped to full caster level, but if that is too much then how about Paladin level minus 3 (I'd like to see that mirrored with the Ranger's spellcasting and Animal Companion, but that's another story/thread).
The Lay on Hands mechanic is great. And though I'm parroting others with this: how does the paladin handle/interact with the Extra Turning/Channeling feat?
Smite Evil: It needs to be against any creature of Evil alignment. If he is going to be the champion of good he must be able to effectively deal with evil. All evil. I'm okay with an extra 1/level damage vs vanilla evil and I'm thinking 1d4/level vs the real nasty critters (undead and evil outsiders). I will say that the increase in duration is excellent and much needed.
Holy Champion: I'd also like to see this changed to DR 10/- vs Evil.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would Quote you Jason Nelson, but that looks like a lot of stuff to weed through. Many of your ideas are good. I am dubious that you could work so many mechanics off of 1 pool of 3+cha channels though. You would in effect be stuck having to grab the extra turning feat and boom, you would always have the same number of powers only waiting for spells to add to your class. Not to mention you have so loaded the 1st level that you would see far to many 1st level Paladins, nth level [insert your favorite other class here].
Perhaps the paladin, since he spins so much off of his channeling, should get extra channels every even-numbered level (or every 3 after 1st, which is the current smite progression).
It's an interesting dilemma, isn't it, about how much to put at which early level.
I actually didn't specify a level for any of those abilities except for channel energy itself.
I think I would probably go:
1st level - channel energy, smite evil, detect evil
maybe favored enemy (evil).
I suppose Tower Shield goes in here too, but that isn't listed as a class ability.
2nd level - lay on hands, divine grace
3rd level - inspire courage, aura of courage, divine health
4th level - divine rebuke (the channel for damage vs. evil, rebuke vs. good), extra channel +1
5th level - divine bond (weapon & shield, or perhaps it should be weapon OR shield. Just split up your bonus up to +6 between 'em)
You know what, maybe the favored enemy (evil) should come in at 5th level and just be +1/5, drop fractions.
6th level - remove disease, Sense Evil (i.e., blindsense vs. evil) Start at 5-foot radius. Every 3 levels get another 5 feet.
15th level - break enchantment, Greater Sense Evil (i.e., blindsight vs. evil) = half the radius of blindsense (so at this level it's 10' r.)
I had put forward an always on evil detection that would work like arcane sight (but emulating a quick, always on DE instead of detect magic). Could work in there somewhere.
Just ideas...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I am good with the current write up of DE I think. I won't comment on the higher levels that you have put up, since I haven't really thought much about them and need to process the idea a bit.
I actually like it as well. I have just thought it might be nice to give pally's an upcharged ability in the same vein at higher levels.
|
|
PS - Maybe because I came from the 1st Ed pre-Arcana side, I always thought the UA Cavalier-Paladin was perhaps the most horrifically overpowered munchified class in the history of D&D. It was everything that was disgusting about the 1st Ed Cavalier plus everything that was disgusting about the 1st Ed. Paladin rolled into ONE! Those classes were awesome enough on their own! :)It was very overpowered but needed oodles of experience to go up each level and had crazy ability pre-reqs Str 15, Dex 15 Con 15, Cha 17, Wis 12, Int 9, not to mention all of the old restrictions (magic items limit, tithing, etc. in addition to LG align and code). 1e/2e has uneven level progression and pre-reqs to even the imbalance between the classes, something done away with in 3/3.5/PF.
I don't think the 1st ed paladin was "disgusting". It was a great class with meaningful restrictions and hard to qualify for. there was a meaningful price paid to play a paladin. These roots of the paladin are part of the problem with how some people in the community, like me, see the paladin compared to those who only know the paladin since 3e or 3.5 came out. The fact that all the classes need to be ``balanced`to each other is part of the problem where the paladin is concerned. As much as I hate to say it, the game mechanics that would make a paladin ``special`` fit into the prestige system of 3e/3.5 better than as a base class. I don't want the paladin to disappear as a base class, I am just recognizing that the prestige system seems more appropriate for the paladin as I think about it. 1e pallys were rare and special. 3e/3.5 pallys are dime a dozen and that really bothers me.
I'm all for adding tithing and a magic item limit back into the class to balance out him being kick-ass. Of course that means - he needs to be kick-ass!!! But that just me. :-)
Robert
PS - Maybe because I came from the 1st Ed pre-Arcana side, I always thought the UA Cavalier-Paladin was perhaps the most horrifically overpowered munchified class in the history of D&D. It was everything that was disgusting about the 1st Ed Cavalier plus everything that was disgusting about the 1st Ed. Paladin rolled into ONE! Those classes were awesome enough on their own! :)
We never played it as a cavalier paladin but yeah the cavalier was absurd, it needed less exp to go up levels, gained multiple attacks faster, was the only class in 1st ed that could improve its own stats and had a type of improved diehard ability - munchkin here I come!!
Just thought I would swing in and review the progress here.
Are people not liking the Targets/Day suggestion? It seems to address all of the problems recently mentioned.
The "hit list" thing is somebody's point against it— but swearing an oath to slay an evil being is still pretty cool. I'd say that's a feature, not a bug.
That wasn't a point against; I'm for the idea. I was just trying to smooth down a rough edge. The incentive for the paladin to track down the target of a smite starts to make the character feel like a ranger, and role plays as an obsessiveness that feels beneath the paladin. If the enemy flees, the smite is spent, and the paladin is victorious.
As far as I can tell, people are liking the targets/day idea.
Thanks for considering an alternative. I think oaths would work. I was thinking of putting all circumstantial bonuses under the umbrella of a new class ability called Heroics since the idea is to make the paladin more heroic in combat. Heroics make it possible for a paladin to get bonuses against non-smitable and non-evil opponents when the circumstances call for the paladin to be heroic. There's a lot of ways it could be implemented. An oath could make a particular theme of heroics available for the day, or activate one particular heroic for the entire day, but still let the paladin activate others for shorter duration (e.g. one encounter) when the situation calls for it (20/20 hindsight). The mechanics of when they stack for uber damage is the fun part that creates opportunities for the paladin to be better than the fighter, which I think would be great to implement entirely outside of the smite mechanic, so it stacks with smite, and so there isn't so much stress on smite to make up all the difference between fighter and paladin.
I think this could be an interesting and new idea. Something that the paladin selects at the start of the day or the beginning of combat (probably the start of the day to prevent metagaming) that gives him a bonus throughout the day. Maybe make 3 oaths that he can pick from at 1st level that give a bonus in particular circumstances. Then at lvl 10 he can pick 2 of the three per day and then say he gets all 3 at level 20. This could be a great thing, now to decide what those oaths/circumstances should be. A lot of the sugestions that you listed earlier are solid, i will look through them again!
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 :(
I think you misunderstand me. His "role" is not as the king of defense. That was the mistake of 4th Ed, to pigeonhole and build character classes around tactical roles, so that you had a hard time being effective if you didn't do what the game said you were supposed to do.
My statement is that the paladin is the king of defense WHILE he is doing his other stuff. He doesn't have to "act defensively" at all. His role is the same aggressive role as the other fighterish types on the field of battle.
What makes him the king of defense is that he is much less susceptible to getting knocked off the board than are those characters who have a gaping exhaust port marked "insert proton torpedo here."
I've played and DMed plenty of 3rd Ed, high level and low, and fighters and rogues in particular have regularly taken out by fear, charm, paralysis, stunning, blinding, confusion, dazing, etc. that the paladins in the party easily shrugged off. Multiclassed paladin-monks, even more so. In fact, any opponent with a lick of sense will tend to avoid targeting the fighter dude with the giant holy symbol on his shield and go for the other martial types that are much more likely to fail saves.
Even at very low levels, where spellcasting enemies are more rare, the paladin's advantage is even more pronounced when they do show up.
Do they hit less hard than the heavy-offense characters? Absolutely. No argument whatsoever. (This, of course, could be ablated significantly by application of turn undead uses to divine feats, but that's a well of resources that will have to be rebuilt since those...
OK, yes I did misunderstand. This makes much more sense. I totally agree with you and these are the reasons that we can not let the paladin OVER power the fighter (or other melee types). But we are still stuck with the fact that to actually DO anything in combat you have to have some offense, just the way the game works. You are right, the paladin will probably be the last man standing, like he should. But what good did that do him if he can not deal with the threats that are left so that he could save his friends? We have to find some sort of common ground so that we can fix this extreme disparity in power.
5th level - divine bond (weapon & shield, or perhaps it should be weapon OR shield. Just split up your bonus up to +6 between 'em)
This is an AWESOME idea. I think it should be 1 for weapon and 1 for shield, but either way is amazing. I do not know why this has not been said before but I am TOTALLY on board with this one!!
That said, as for the smiting. I am going to stick with my most recent suggestion. I really like the targetting idea now that I have given it a lot more thought. I would be ok with it ending at the end of the encounter if that is what others want. Though as it stands the damage should be paladin level X2 period. I see the point of all the additions of more damage if you are MORE evil but I think it is more black and white than that for a paladin. Evil is evil, smite them ALL!! I am not going to do less of a smite if you are just pseudo evil, na you get the full ride buddy. You decided to be evil, it was your unlucky day to meet a paladin!
Then after this the paladin really needs some form of this always on mechanic. Yes weapon focus/spec should be there no doubt.
Through parts of my other threads we stumbled on an "oaths" idea. This could take many forms. The simplest of these could be something like. An oath against evil outsiders, thus the paladin gains a bonus (possibly a +2 hit/dam for every evil outsider in the combat). Then an oath against undead, maybe +1 hit/dam for every undead in the combat. So on and so forth with the paladin being able to take more oaths per day as his level rises. These oaths would of course have to be active all day and would take say 10 minutes of prayer in the morning or something. But I am really starting to like this idea! I am going to think on it more so I can propose a more thought out group of Oaths.
|
|
I see the point of all the additions of more damage if you are MORE evil but I think it is more black and white than that for a paladin. Evil is evil, smite them ALL!! I am not going to do less of a smite if you are just pseudo evil, na you get the full ride buddy. You decided to be evil, it was your unlucky day to meet a paladin!
Thank you, thats all I'm saying, hating a group of creatures, go ranger. Hating evil, go paladin.
I know we disagree on what we want to smite, but I hate the lame discussion going on that paladins powers should be based on the "Level" of evil. NO! that is the most annoying idea ever. A paragon of virtue doesn't see a difference between a guy who kills one person for the wrong reasons, and a guy who kills twenty people for the wrong wreasons, evil is evil and wrong is wrong, and equivocation is for the fighter, I'm going to smite them all, and I SHOULDN'T NEED A FEAT TO DO IT! Not to mention it's great that it deals more damage when fighting stronger evils, but when do you fight stronger evils. HIGHER LEVELS. How many people here are fighting creatures with overwhelming evil auras at levels 1-6 which are still pure crap (well less so now thanks to LoH, if that is we can split channel from it) for a paladin unless you happen to be an optimizer/ min/maxer/ powergamer.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
PS - Maybe because I came from the 1st Ed pre-Arcana side, I always thought the UA Cavalier-Paladin was perhaps the most horrifically overpowered munchified class in the history of D&D. It was everything that was disgusting about the 1st Ed Cavalier plus everything that was disgusting about the 1st Ed. Paladin rolled into ONE! Those classes were awesome enough on their own! :)It was very overpowered but needed oodles of experience to go up each level and had crazy ability pre-reqs Str 15, Dex 15 Con 15, Cha 17, Wis 12, Int 9, not to mention all of the old restrictions (magic items limit, tithing, etc. in addition to LG align and code). 1e/2e has uneven level progression and pre-reqs to even the imbalance between the classes, something done away with in 3/3.5/PF.
Strangely, the requirements for the UA Cav/Pal were actually a tiny bit looser than for the PH Pal - you could have 6 magic weapons instead of only 4.
Also, the stat minimums in UA were irrelevant, since using Method V in the UA you could always qualify with the minimums for any class. You rolled your fistful of dice for each stat in order; if didn't get the minimum for that stat, you assigned it the minimum qualifying stat. For that matter, depending on your rolls you could completely cash in with that method, if you rolled well with your only-a-few-dice stat rolls you got to keep them, but if you rolled poorly for your prime stats you were still guaranteed a good score. Check it out; it's in there!
Besides, stat minimums are only a balancing factor in assigning character rarity in the world, not for balancing it as a PC class. It simply guarantees that anyone who DOES qualify for the class already HAS good stats. Think about it. Only a small fraction of the world's adventurers will have the good stats needed for a paladin. BUT, 100% of all paladins in the world will have good stats, by definition. That's not a limitation.
Yes, the xp table was hardcore, but aside from thieves (and during the middle levels around 4-8, druids and strangely magic-users had a very quick table) you'd rarely be more than a level behind.
I don't think the 1st ed paladin was "disgusting".
Sorry, I suddenly realize that I used an old-school D&D slang, wherein "disgusting" is a euphemism for "extremely hardcore awesome, to the point of being super-impressive and overshadowing others," (the grognards will be familiar with the tale of the International Union of Disgusting Characters), not that it actually evokes feelings of revulsion.
It was a great class with meaningful restrictions and hard to qualify for. there was a meaningful price paid to play a paladin. These roots of the paladin are part of the problem with how some people in the community, like me, see the paladin compared to those who only know the paladin since 3e or 3.5 came out. The fact that all the classes need to be ``balanced`to each other is part of the problem where the paladin is concerned. As much as I hate to say it, the game mechanics that would make a paladin ``special`` fit into the prestige system of 3e/3.5 better than as a base class. I don't want the paladin to disappear as a base class, I am just recognizing that the prestige system seems more appropriate for the paladin as I think about it. 1e pallys were rare and special. 3e/3.5 pallys are dime a dozen and that really bothers me.
Part of the 3rd Ed concept was that anyone should be able to play anything they want. No more racial restrictions on classes, max racial levels, ability score minimums for classes (other than indirect mins for prestige classes, if they had a prereq feat with a stat min). I get it. I even rather like it.
But it is a different feel than 1st/2nd Ed for sure. You aren't part of an elite club any more. The paladin is just another adventurer. My first character was a paladin and I still love the class as my favoritest in the game. I think the conceptual coolness of the paladin is still there. The mechanics need some catching up. The exclusivity; I agree that a certain something was lost there, but I can be a tad wistful about that while still feeling like it's a good thing, for more people to be able to play the coolest class there is.
I see the point of all the additions of more damage if you are MORE evil but I think it is more black and white than that for a paladin. Evil is evil, smite them ALL!! I am not going to do less of a smite if you are just pseudo evil, na you get the full ride buddy. You decided to be evil, it was your unlucky day to meet a paladin!Thank you, thats all I'm saying, hating a group of creatures, go ranger. Hating evil, go paladin.
I know we disagree on what we want to smite, but I hate the lame discussion going on that paladins powers should be based on the "Level" of evil. NO! that is the most annoying idea ever. A paragon of virtue doesn't see a difference between a guy who kills one person for the wrong reasons, and a guy who kills twenty people for the wrong wreasons, evil is evil and wrong is wrong, and equivocation is for the fighter, I'm going to smite them all, and I SHOULDN'T NEED A FEAT TO DO IT! Not to mention it's great that it deals more damage when fighting stronger evils, but when do you fight stronger evils. HIGHER LEVELS. How many people here are fighting creatures with overwhelming evil auras at levels 1-6 which are still pure crap (well less so now thanks to LoH, if that is we can split channel from it) for a paladin unless you happen to be an optimizer/ min/maxer/ powergamer.
I know one thing is true, you and I definitely agree on this subject. There should be no holding back, and that is what it feels like if I get to do more damage against something that is MORE evil. I say bring it back to per paladin level damage at X2 per level, or just make the 1D6 every 2 levels verse everything.
I really like Jason Nelson's idea behind the bonded weapon also applying to the Shield. I think it should just be added that the bonus you get for your weapon you get an equal bonus for your shield! Of course we will have to add in a group of shield appropriate options that could be applied there as well but that would not take much to add. This is a GREAT idea as I really do enjoy the idea of the sword/board paladin and this would finally give that build some benefit.
I would also like to step on the bandwagon of adding BANE to the list of abilities for the weapon. THIS would be the place for the paladin to gain extra damage against the big baddies. Limit the bane to undead and evil outsiders (possibly even evil dragons).
I am still working on some Oath ideas, got a few but I will post them later.
|
|
I would also like to step on the bandwagon of adding BANE to the list of abilities for the weapon. THIS would be the place for the paladin to gain extra damage against the big baddies. Limit the bane to undead and evil outsiders (possibly even evil dragons).
See this is why I love you dude, we may want different things for abilities, but then you'll go and throw in an idea that I can get behind.
See I was opposed to adding Bane to the weapons properties because I felt that steped on the rangers favored enemy, but you make an amazing compromise and a way to get rid of that annoying bonus in smite.
I fully support giving Bane (undead) and Bane (Evil Outsiders) to the list of abilities a paladin can add to his weapon. That is a tremendous idea that fits the paladin without opening up Bane (constructs) and other sillyness the paladin shouldn't have.
So smite goes to the fix I posted above and the weapon properties above get added to righteous bond. Everyone is happy, those who want more damage against those two and those of us who want smite normal evil not to suck.
As for Divine bond, I'm for either shield or weapon. I don't like the idea of both.
I think we are all overlooking a valuable resource when it comes to the Paladin. Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might. I mean isn't Monte sorta / kinda on the project too ? Here are some thoughts....
Godhammer - the Paladin gains a +1 Bonus to Damage, +1 per 3 Levels when wielding his Diety's Favored weapon, and only on the first strike in a round. We could drop the favored weapon thing. in later levels it could apply to all attacks in a round.
Divine Inspiration - Using a Standard action you grant all allies within 30 feet a +1 Luck Bonus to any of the following :
Attack & Damage Rolls or
Saving Thorws, ability checks, & skill checks or
Armor Class
This Bonus increases by +1 for every 5 levels, and it lasts for 1 round.
We could add increased duration at some point too, if we wanted to.
Holy Aura - A faint halo of power surrounds the Paladin. It grants a +1 Deflection Bonus to AC, +1 per 5 levels. This should totally replace Aura of Good.
Holy Weapon - any weapon you wield overcomes damage reduction as if it were good aligned. The enhancements are it confirms all criticals against Evil foes it strikes, and it eventually gains the Holy property. These are both at later levels, of course. This could replace the Divine Weapon Bond aspect. Personally, I like this better. Its less cluttered.
Now for some preferences :
Spellcaster level should be Level -3. This is so, so necessary. All Spells should be cast as a Swift Action, too. There is even a Feat in a splat book that allows this, so it can't be too, too broken.
Mettle - Yes. Double Yes. If any class should have Mettle, it is the Paladin. It should NOT be an aura, however.
Hope fully Mr. Buhlman will see these, as I sorta came to the party late.
So, these are my two coppers. Take them for what they are worth.
|
|
Hope fully Mr. Buhlman will see these, as I sorta came to the party late.
So, these are my two coppers. Take them for what they are worth.
He said he was going to be looking at these threads for the rest of the week, so he should. People have sort of stoped talking though, unless they are the few of us who are dedicated to the paladin not continuing to be shafted.
Oaths. Okay there has been a lot of talk about different flavorful ways to give the paladin more abilities in combat (mostly having to do with his hit/damage). One of those ideas that, through some discussion I have thought of is "Oaths". I am still an advocate of my recent proposal in this thread. I like the idea of the paladin always gaining a +1 to hit/damage for every unused smite he has for the day. I think this is a simple and easy fix. But as someone else said the more ideas we throw out there the more options Jason has, so the closer we will get to the final version of the paladin we all want.
Okay, on to the idea of Oaths.
Oaths: Each morning the paladin may swear an oath. It takes 10 minutes of uninterupted prayer to initiate his oath for the day. These oaths take many different forms and as the paladin gains in experience he may take more than one oath per day. He may take one oath each day at lvl 1 another oath at lvl 10 and lastly a third oath at lvl 20.
Avenge the fallen: When the paladin takes this oath he vows that any wound done to his comrads will be avenged. As they fall he grows stronger and ignores damage that would usually stop him in his tracks. He will keep fighting till the last in hopes that his efforts will save his friends in the end. Whenever a comrade falls in a battle (this means durring an initiative and includes any friendly character involved in that initiative, and falls means reduced to 0 HP or less) the paladin gains a +3 bonus to hit, +3 bonus to damage and DR of 3/-. This bonus stacks for each comrade that falls. While this oath is in effect the paladin may not retreat from battle if even one of his frieds has fallen.
Scourge the Heritic: When a paladin takes this oath he vows to destroy any who would use magic for evil means. He will do all he can to get to grips with these evil spell casters. Whenever an evil spell caster (evil cleric, wizard, etc.) are involved in an initiative that the paladin is also involved in the paladin gains +3 to hit, +3 to damage and +10 to his movement. This bonus stacks for each evil spell caster involved in that initiative. While this oath is in effect the paladin must move to get as close to the caster durring each of his turns so long as it does not cause him to be the victim of more than one AoO.
Purge the demon: When a paladin takes this oath he vows to destroy any demon who has strayed into this world. Whenever an evil outsider is involved in an initiative that the paladin is also involved in the paladin gains +5 to hit and +5 to damage and his attacks are good aligned for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction. This bonus stacks for each evil outsider that is involved in that initiative. While this oath is in effect the paladin must use his smite ability anytime he can, as often as he can against any evil outsider that is in his threatened area.
Release the damned: When a paladin takes this oath he vows to destroy all undead who he crosses paths with. Whenever any undead is involved in the same inititative that the paladin is involved in the paladin gains +2 to hit and +2 to damage and his channel energy ability does the maximum possible damage to undead each time it is used. This bonus stacks for each undead that is involved in that initiative. While this oath is in effect the paladin must channel energy every round that he can so long as at least one undead is withing its area of effect.
I know that these oaths sound powerful, but they are very situational. Also there is a small restriction to each one. This is just another idea to bring the paladin into his own for what he is supposed to be good at.
Thoughts?
I would also like to step on the bandwagon of adding BANE to the list of abilities for the weapon. THIS would be the place for the paladin to gain extra damage against the big baddies. Limit the bane to undead and evil outsiders (possibly even evil dragons).See this is why I love you dude, we may want different things for abilities, but then you'll go and throw in an idea that I can get behind.
See I was opposed to adding Bane to the weapons properties because I felt that steped on the rangers favored enemy, but you make an amazing compromise and a way to get rid of that annoying bonus in smite.
I fully support giving Bane (undead) and Bane (Evil Outsiders) to the list of abilities a paladin can add to his weapon. That is a tremendous idea that fits the paladin without opening up Bane (constructs) and other sillyness the paladin shouldn't have.
So smite goes to the fix I posted above and the weapon properties above get added to righteous bond. Everyone is happy, those who want more damage against those two and those of us who want smite normal evil not to suck.
As for Divine bond, I'm for either shield or weapon. I don't like the idea of both.
I dont think I was the first to say that about Bane but I think it is GREAT and man would it really work well!
As for the weapon and shield, I still like the idea of both but I dont think you should have to one or the other. Either give the bonus option for each so when the weapon would have a +1 then the shield would also have a +1. Or let the bonus add to either one you want, thus you could divide the bonus however you want between weapon or shield. This would be awesome!
|
|
I fully support giving Bane (undead) and Bane (Evil Outsiders) to the list of abilities a paladin can add to his weapon. That is a tremendous idea that fits the paladin without opening up Bane (constructs) and other sillyness the paladin shouldn't have.
And Dragons doesn't seem illogical.
An important point I think is one I made a while ago - that the Divine Bond - though limited to 1 min / pal level, should be able to be break up the duration so as to not keep it one continuous duration - though the duration must be in minute increments. So an 8th level paladin could have 8 1-minute durations - each activated seperately and each with a different enhancment, or 4 2-minute durations, or 2 4-minute durations etc.
Each re-activation does still take a standard action, but it would allow you to break up the duration over the course of a few encounters instead of just 1. A single activation - even lasting 12 minutes may only apply to one encounter that day - unless you're doing the "15-minute adventuring day" mentality and having all your encounters all at once!
Robert
I think we are all overlooking a valuable resource when it comes to the Paladin. Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might. I mean isn't Monte sorta / kinda on the project too ? Here are some thoughts....
Godhammer - the Paladin gains a +1 Bonus to Damage, +1 per 3 Levels when wielding his Diety's Favored weapon, and only on the first strike in a round. We could drop the favored weapon thing. in later levels it could apply to all attacks in a round.
Divine Inspiration - Using a Standard action you grant all allies within 30 feet a +1 Luck Bonus to any of the following :
Attack & Damage Rolls or
Saving Thorws, ability checks, & skill checks or
Armor Class
This Bonus increases by +1 for every 5 levels, and it lasts for 1 round.
We could add increased duration at some point too, if we wanted to.Holy Aura - A faint halo of power surrounds the Paladin. It grants a +1 Deflection Bonus to AC, +1 per 5 levels. This should totally replace Aura of Good.
Holy Weapon - any weapon you wield overcomes damage reduction as if it were good aligned. The enhancements are it confirms all criticals against Evil foes it strikes, and it eventually gains the Holy property. These are both at later levels, of course. This could replace the Divine Weapon Bond aspect. Personally, I like this better. Its less cluttered.
Now for some preferences :
Spellcaster level should be Level -3. This is so, so necessary. All Spells should be cast as a Swift Action, too. There is even a Feat in a splat book that allows this, so it can't be too, too broken.
Mettle - Yes. Double Yes. If any class should have Mettle, it is the Paladin. It should NOT be an aura, however.
Hope fully Mr. Buhlman will see these, as I sorta came to the party late.
So, these are my two coppers. Take them for what they are worth.
I think those are ALL good ideas, especially Mettle. I have never read that book but those all sound like perfect fits for the paladin. I really like the Holy Aura too....you are exactly right, this should replace the Aura of Good.
Very good post, you have my support on all of the changes you suggested, though we can not forget the offense the paladin NEEDS!
I fully support giving Bane (undead) and Bane (Evil Outsiders) to the list of abilities a paladin can add to his weapon. That is a tremendous idea that fits the paladin without opening up Bane (constructs) and other sillyness the paladin shouldn't have.
And Dragons doesn't seem illogical.
An important point I think is one I made a while ago - that the Divine Bond - though limited to 1 min / pal level, should be able to be break up the duration so as to not keep it one continuous duration - though the duration must be in minute increments. So an 8th level paladin could have 8 1-minute durations - each activated seperately and each with a different enhancment, or 4 2-minute durations, or 2 4-minute durations etc.
Each re-activation does still take a standard action, but it would allow you to break up the duration over the course of a few encounters instead of just 1. A single activation - even lasting 12 minutes may only apply to one encounter that day - unless you're doing the "15-minute adventuring day" mentality and having all your encounters all at once!
Robert
Yet another idea I fully support, you are dead on Robert. With the addition of (EVIL) dragons and the breaking up the weapon usage timelimit.
|
|
Oaths. Okay there has been a lot of talk about different flavorful ways to give the paladin more abilities in combat (mostly having to do with his hit/damage). One of those ideas that, through some discussion I have thought of is "Oaths". I am still an advocate of my recent proposal in this thread. I like the idea of the paladin always gaining a +1 to hit/damage for every unused smite he has for the day. I think this is a simple and easy fix. But as someone else said the more ideas we throw out there the more options Jason has, so the closer we will get to the final version of the paladin we all want.
Okay, on to the idea of Oaths.
Oaths: Each morning the paladin may swear an oath. It takes 10 minutes of uninterupted prayer to initiate his oath for the day. These oaths take many different forms and as the paladin gains in experience he may take more than one oath per day. He may take one oath each day at lvl 1 another oath at lvl 10 and lastly a third oath at lvl 20.
Avenge the fallen: When the paladin takes this oath he vows that any wound done to his comrads will be avenged. As they fall he grows stronger and ignores damage that would usually stop him in his tracks. He will keep fighting till the last in hopes that his efforts will save his friends in the end. Whenever a comrade falls in a battle (this means durring an initiative and includes any friendly character involved in that initiative, and falls means reduced to 0 HP or less) the paladin gains a +3 bonus to hit, +3 bonus to damage and DR of 3/-. This bonus stacks for each comrade that falls. While this oath is in effect the paladin may not retreat from battle if even one of his frieds has fallen.
Scourge the Heritic: When a paladin takes this oath he vows to destroy any who would use magic for evil means. He will do all he can to get to grips with these evil spell casters. Whenever an evil spell caster (evil cleric, wizard, etc.) are involved in an initiative that the paladin is also involved in the paladin gains +3 to...
I'd rather they were weaker and not force certain actions. I understand you're intentions behind them, but I don't want to get stuck having to burn through my channels in the first undead fight and then not have them in subsequent fights, same with smite. Your system basically encourages the DM to throw a weaker sub fight in before any boss fight that way the paladin is out of resources by the fight with the bbeg.
|
|
I fully support giving Bane (undead) and Bane (Evil Outsiders) to the list of abilities a paladin can add to his weapon. That is a tremendous idea that fits the paladin without opening up Bane (constructs) and other sillyness the paladin shouldn't have.
And Dragons doesn't seem illogical.
Robert
I'm not sure if by that statement you are for bane dragons or against. If you note, I didn't have Bane (Dragons) on my list, because I don't think dragons are specific paladin foes. For Dragons the paladin will have his smites (this is assuming Jason listens and drops that horrible caveat of demons/undead) and defenses. But if Jason feels dragons are something that bane can be added I have no objections.
If I haven't made it clear I am in every way to the core of my being opposed to any "fix" to smite evil that limits it to a creature type.
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. This ability is activated as a swift action and lasts for 1 round. When smiting evil, a paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) on her attack rolls and deals 1d6 points of damage per two levels the paladin possesses (minimum +1d6) and the damage automatically bypasses any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by evil creatures. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, she does not gain any bonuses on attack or damage rolls, but she retains the AC bonus against evil creatures.
At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 4–9, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level. At 8th level and 16th level, the duration of the smite increases by 1 round, to a total of 3 rounds at 16th level.
That one change is all I need for me to say that smite is fixed, hell if you think it's too powerful, then drop the extended rounds at 8th and 16th.
Smite doesn't need an extended duration, the paladin needs another class feature to bring him up to parity. Make the simple fix to smite above and be done with it. We can then deal with his crap spellcasting and creating a decent always on ability. just wanted to say it one last time before I dropped it and moved on.
I'd rather they were weaker and not force certain actions. I understand you're intentions behind them, but I don't want to get stuck having to burn through my channels in the first undead fight and then not have them in subsequent fights, same with smite. Your system basically encourages the DM to throw a weaker sub fight in before any boss fight that way the paladin is out of resources by the fight with the bbeg.
Nothing says that we could not weaken them a little, and then we could weaken the restrictions. Say you have to use at least ONE smite or ONE channel energy...not ALL.
As I said at the start I still prefer the idea of +1 hit/dam for each remaining smite of the day, I think that idea works GREAT!!! The Oaths was just another option.
Just so it's known I'm still reading and following this thread, I just don't have anything to add to address the smite evil problem right now.
|
|
As I said at the start I still prefer the idea of +1 hit/dam for each remaining smite of the day, I think that idea works GREAT!!! The Oaths was just another option.
I agree, I think with the improved smite based off of Jason's ealier fix and your +1 to hit and damage per unused smite, we have a paladin that has actual use in game play. I would move on to fixing level 4. Just out of curiosity, no one else really seems to talk much about it, am I the only person who sees it as an issue?
I agree, I think with the improved smite based off of Jason's ealier fix and your +1 to hit and damage per unused smite, we have a paladin that has actual use in game play. I would move on to fixing level 4. Just out of curiosity, no one else really seems to talk much about it, am I the only person who sees it as an issue?
As I said at the start I still prefer the idea of +1 hit/dam for each remaining smite of the day, I think that idea works GREAT!!! The Oaths was just another option.
I am all about it, I think that fixes things!!
I will take a look at lvl 4 and comment on that next. I just hope thse changes are not overlooked :)