what is the problem with level 4 again?
|
what is the problem with level 4 again?
Can you give me one reason to take paladin level 4 instead of taking cleric level 1, especially if your DM will let you sub level 1 cleric so that you go straight to paladin level 5 next.
A paladin gets channel energy and spellcasting at level four, channeling is now == in strength but if you break down the way the new paladin system works you get fewer channels until much higher levels and that's if you don't use any LoH. Also the cost of burning channels for divine feats has skyrocketed.
Then there's the spellcasting, you get 0 level 1 spells (needing your bonus spell to actually get anything until level 5) from an increadably limited list, most of which are highly situational so you'd never bother to memorize them, whereas a first level cleric gets 1 spell, 2 domain abilities, and unlimited 0 level cantrips.
Having level 4 be significantly weaker than level one of another class with no other benefit, is aweful. The only thing you get is one extra smite, which until smite is fixed isn't == to the benefits of some of the domain powers.
I say the answer is seperate LoH and CE.
Give the paladin caster lvl -3.
Give the paladin a few more spells, the Holy, Divine...those sort of spells.
Then give the paladin spontaneous casting.
That fixes lvl 4.
|
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.
I feel the same way.
Although I don't want smite to be limited to specific types, I do think it would be good to double or otherwise enhance the smite benefits against certain foes: those with overwhelming evil auras and Evil descriptors.
As for your question to my weapon bane - I suggested dragonbane as a viable option (as well as the undead and evil outsider groups).
Thematically, the paladin vs the dragon is pretty dam iconic; perhaps it was more of a cavalier thing - but as far as a generic class - the paladin is the closes thing to such a thing.
Plus - not all paladins have to worship a god per se - such secular paladins make perfect sense to ride the lands saving the damsels, fighting off the dragons etc....you know....all that great fairy tale myth stuff!
Robert
|
|
Can you give me one reason to take paladin level 4 instead of taking cleric level 1, especially if your DM will let you sub level 1 cleric so that you go straight to paladin level 5 next.Same is true for 6th level paladin
(so sayeth this player of a recently advanced to 6th level paladin).
Robert
At least a level 1 cleric can't cure disease, isn't that a 2nd level spell? :P
|
|
I say the answer is seperate LoH and CE.
Give the paladin caster lvl -3.
Give the paladin a few more spells, the Holy, Divine...those sort of spells.
Then give the paladin spontaneous casting.
That fixes lvl 4.
I'd agree even without adding spells. A cleric has more spells, but he doesn't cast spontaneously. I even think that the paladin has a great spell list, lots of useful spells if he doesn't have to memorize them. It's when you make him pick which ones he needs for the day, combined with an increadibly limited amount of spells per day that you realize there are only one or two spells that are universally useful and won't be wasted if the situation doesn't come up, then what you have is every paladin memorizes the same spells, and except for the weapon or animal, looks alike.
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.
I feel the same way.
Although I don't want smite to be limited to specific types, I do think it would be good to double or otherwise enhance the smite benefits against certain foes: those with overwhelming evil auras and Evil descriptors.
As for your question to my weapon bane - I suggested dragonbane as a viable option (as well as the undead and evil outsider groups).
Thematically, the paladin vs the dragon is pretty dam iconic; perhaps it was more of a cavalier thing - but as far as a generic class - the paladin is the closes thing to such a thing.
Plus - not all paladins have to worship a god per se - such secular paladins make perfect sense to ride the lands saving the damsels, fighting off the dragons etc....you know....all that great fairy tale myth stuff!
Robert
The issue with giving smite abilities that work against some evils and not others is that you then feel obligated to save your very limited uses of smite for the times where it is really going to have some punch.
I mean you are going to feel terrible if you use your smite on an evil cleric, to then only find a Balor or Lich or something in the next room and you can not really hammer that guy like you should be able too. They are all evil, from the smallest goblin to the oldest red dragon, they should get the same smite.
I am with you on most of your ideas Robert, and I have gone over to your idea of the targeted smite, I like it now. But the damage should be the same across the board.
|
|
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.
I feel the same way.
Although I don't want smite to be limited to specific types, I do think it would be good to double or otherwise enhance the smite benefits against certain foes: those with overwhelming evil auras and Evil descriptors.
As for your question to my weapon bane - I suggested dragonbane as a viable option (as well as the undead and evil outsider groups).
Thematically, the paladin vs the dragon is pretty dam iconic; perhaps it was more of a cavalier thing - but as far as a generic class - the paladin is the closes thing to such a thing.
Plus - not all paladins have to worship a god per se - such secular paladins make perfect sense to ride the lands saving the damsels, fighting off the dragons etc....you know....all that great fairy tale myth stuff!
Robert
The issue with giving smite abilities that work against some evils and not others is that you then feel obligated to save your very limited uses of smite for the times where it is really going to have some punch.
I mean you are going to feel terrible if you use your smite on an evil cleric, to then only find a Balor or Lich or something in the next room and you can not really hammer that guy like you should be able too. They are all evil, from the smallest goblin to the oldest red dragon, they should get the same smite.
I've gotta say it, I agree 100% with the above.
|
I'd like to put in my two cp on the discussion and the "feel" of the paladin.
Regarding the idea of "targeting" or "marking a target": that feels like a ranger, not a paladin. When a paladin decides to hunt down a particular target, it's called a quest. If an evil being escapes being destroyed and the paladin goes after him, it's called a quest. When a paladin gets to the end of the quest, he calls down the might of god and smites the evil being. The smite has nothing to do with having finally caught up to his target. Smiting evil beings is just what he does.
Even when he's not smiting though, evil creatures of all types should fear the paladin. As it is now, if a paladin approaches the lair of the BBEG, Bob the evil lookout does not overly worry about the Paladin. After all he is only a little evil so the paladin isn't going to waste his precious Smite on him. Let's say Bob calls a team of evil red-shirts led by BillyJoe the evil seargent-at-arms. BillyJoe is probably far more worried about the fighter that's cutting his red-shirts to ribbons than he is about the paladin that's squared off against him, because he's too small and too weak to be worthy of a Smite. This is just wrong, everybody from Bob to BBEG should be going, "Oh crap, it's a Paladin."
I think the way to fix that is with a +x/+x bonus against all evil creatures. However, I think that should be based on level, not on smites left per day. Let's say that BBEG has the ability to summon so fairly serious evil minions. The Paladin ends up burning all his smites just to survive. Now, BBEG steps in and says with an evil laugh, "Your god has deserted you and you have no power against me." No, god has not deserted him, he just can't call down the big thunder. The +x/+x bonus should represent that the paladin serves the heavenly hosts and that they go where he goes. Smite represents the paladin calling on god for special strength against a particularly vile enemy.
The other reason I prefer the level basis is that Static Bonuses are easier to keep track of than Dynamic Bonuses, especially in the heat and confusion of combat. The bonus should be a Sacred Bonus so that it stacks with Prayer or Bardic song and other party buffers; since this benefit is a function of the Paladin's individual faith.
Smite should affect all evil creatures equally. I understand that god may look down and see the evil goblin sorcerer and say, "It is mortal, this too shall pass." Demons are forever though, and god doesn't want them running around the yard ruining the grass so he puts the real smack down on them. However, gods shouldn't see things in shades of grey. They are gods, and all things are or are not. It is evil, or it is not evil. If it is evil, destroy it.
As for the calculation of Smite damage, I agree it should be 1d6/2 Paladin levels. From a "feel" standpoint, the power of god flowing through you does not increase just because you got a lucky hit. From a rules standpoint, I think increasing it to 2/Paladin level can become too powerful in scenarios with mulitple itterative attacks, especially if Bless Weapon is in place auto-confirming all crits. Besides, 1d6/2 levels works well for rogues and is an established rule that people are familiar with. It also gives paladin players an opportunity pick up a buttload of dice and throw down, which we really don't get to do very often.
Ultimately, the rules for a paladin should serve the purpose of making him THE go to guy when evil hordes appear, not just when the BBEG comes along.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
what is the problem with level 4 again?Can you give me one reason to take paladin level 4 instead of taking cleric level 1, especially if your DM will let you sub level 1 cleric so that you go straight to paladin level 5 next.
Um, well, gee, you could say pretty much the same about ANY 1st level class if the DM let you just skip relatively 'dead' levels and multiclass without losing anything and just keeping on going.
Is there an objection to level 4 that doesn't completely discount normal multiclassing rules?
I mean, I would agree that, given your postulate, a Pal4 is less good (except for BAB) than a Pal3/Clr1 in PF Beta.
But where do you go from there?
The reason why Pal4 beats Pal3/Clr1 is that you can't get to Pal5 (and beyond) without going through Pal4. If you can just freely mix and match from other classes, then obvious multiclassing rules. Let's see, I'll take the 2nd level of ranger for TWF but I don't really want track so I'll skip the first level of that, then the second level of monk for the bonus feat and Evasion, plus that level has BAB and 1st level monk doesn't, then first level of cleric...
Come on. While I don't disagree with your basic idea that Pal4 should/could be better (and it might be, if there are divine feats coming down the pike that use channel energy to do Complete Divine style tricks), but that line of argument to cherry-pick specific levels of a class and dodge other ones you don't like is silly.
|
|
At least a level 1 cleric can't cure disease, isn't that a 2nd level spell? :P
Yeah - but by 6th level - he's been doing it for 2 levels already. And since MOST diseases dont even have problems associated with them until an onset/incubation period of a day or more, the cleric typically can rest and memorize it before there's a major problem.
I already posted a breakdown of what the other classes get at that level in comparison.....
Robert
I'd like to put in my two cp on the discussion and the "feel" of the paladin.
Regarding the idea of "targeting" or "marking a target": that feels like a ranger, not a paladin. When a paladin decides to hunt down a particular target, it's called a quest. If an evil being escapes being destroyed and the paladin goes after him, it's called a quest. When a paladin gets to the end of the quest, he calls down the might of god and smites the evil being. The smite has nothing to do with having finally caught up to his target. Smiting evil beings is just what he does.
Even when he's not smiting though, evil creatures of all types should fear the paladin. As it is now, if a paladin approaches the lair of the BBEG, Bob the evil lookout does not overly worry about the Paladin. After all he is only a little evil so the paladin isn't going to waste his precious Smite on him. Let's say Bob calls a team of evil red-shirts led by BillyJoe the evil seargent-at-arms. BillyJoe is probably far more worried about the fighter that's cutting his red-shirts to ribbons than he is about the paladin that's squared off against him, because he's too small and too weak to be worthy of a Smite. This is just wrong, everybody from Bob to BBEG should be going, "Oh crap, it's a Paladin."
I think the way to fix that is with a +x/+x bonus against all evil creatures. However, I think that should be based on level, not on smites left per day. Let's say that BBEG has the ability to summon so fairly serious evil minions. The Paladin ends up burning all his smites just to survive. Now, BBEG steps in and says with an evil laugh, "Your god has deserted you and you have no power against me." No, god has not deserted him, he just can't call down the big thunder. The +x/+x bonus should represent that the paladin serves the heavenly hosts and that they go where he goes. Smite represents the paladin calling on god for special strength against a particularly vile enemy.
The other reason I prefer the level basis is that Static Bonuses are easier to keep track of than Dynamic Bonuses, especially in the heat and confusion of combat. The bonus should be a Sacred Bonus so that it stacks with Prayer or Bardic song and other party buffers; since this benefit is a function of the Paladin's individual faith.Smite should affect all evil creatures equally. I understand that god may look down and see the evil goblin sorcerer and say, "It is mortal, this too shall pass." Demons are forever though, and god doesn't want them running around the yard ruining the grass so he puts the real smack down on them. However, gods shouldn't see things in shades of grey. They are gods, and all things are or are not. It is evil, or it is not evil. If it is evil, destroy it.
As for the calculation of Smite damage, I agree it should be 1d6/2 Paladin levels. From a "feel" standpoint, the power of god flowing through you does not increase just because you got a lucky hit. From a rules standpoint, I think increasing it to 2/Paladin level can become too powerful in scenarios with mulitple itterative attacks, especially if Bless Weapon is in place auto-confirming all crits. Besides, 1d6/2 levels works well for rogues and is an established rule that people are familiar with. It also gives paladin players an opportunity pick up a buttload of dice and throw down, which we really don't get to do very often.
Ultimately, the rules for a paladin should serve the purpose of making him THE go to guy when evil hordes appear, not just when the BBEG comes along.
I really like what you said here. You are spot on. If we could get a +x/+x bonus that does not have any limitation (something like Lightbringer that I suggested much earlier in this discussion) then I would be all for this!
I do like the targetting idea but I see what you are saying and I think you make a good point.
The part about bob the evil lookout is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say and I think you said it well. These "little" evil guys are not worried about the paladin and that should not be! They should all quake in their boots because someone is about to drop the divine wrath on them for their dark hearts!!!
Please, Jason....the paladin needs this always on mechanic, he is being laughed at by bob the lookout!! for shame!
|
|
I've gotta say it, I agree 100% with the above.
I mean you are going to feel terrible if you use your smite on an evil cleric, to then only find a Balor or Lich or something in the next room and you can not really hammer that guy like you should be able too. They are all evil, from the smallest goblin to the oldest red dragon, they should get the same smite.
I realize I misspoke. I didnt mean that amount of damage etc of a "smite evil" once/twice/three times a day be magnified - I meant that in a mechanic for the continuos ever-present or always on - "Divine Might" or Heroics or Lightbringer, or Holy Avenger or by whatever title - simply provides a bonus all the time vs evil.
IMO that should always be true - and then you can "mark" one target a day - 2 at 4th, 3 at 7th etc, that gives sudden boost to attacks/damage on top of it; also perhaps the smite can do something else to that target with your smites. (like the smiting abilities that have been floating around).
Those based on a list of talents: holy damage, stunning, blinding, dispelling, etc.
Robert
what is the problem with level 4 again?Can you give me one reason to take paladin level 4 instead of taking cleric level 1, especially if your DM will let you sub level 1 cleric so that you go straight to paladin level 5 next.Um, well, gee, you could say pretty much the same about ANY 1st level class if the DM let you just skip relatively 'dead' levels and multiclass without losing anything and just keeping on going.
Is there an objection to level 4 that doesn't completely discount normal multiclassing rules?
I mean, I would agree that, given your postulate, a Pal4 is less good (except for BAB) than a Pal3/Clr1 in PF Beta.
But where do you go from there?
The reason why Pal4 beats Pal3/Clr1 is that you can't get to Pal5 (and beyond) without going through Pal4. If you can just freely mix and match from other classes, then obvious multiclassing rules. Let's see, I'll take the 2nd level of ranger for TWF but I don't really want track so I'll skip the first level of that, then the second level of monk for the bonus feat and Evasion, plus that level has BAB and 1st level monk doesn't, then first level of cleric...
Come on. While I don't disagree with your basic idea that Pal4 should/could be better (and it might be, if there are divine feats coming down the pike that use channel energy to do Complete Divine style tricks), but that line of argument to cherry-pick specific levels of a class and dodge other ones you don't like is silly.
Thats not exaclty what LKL is saying. The point is that the paladin lvl 4 is not even as good as the cleric LEVEL ONE. That is bad. What should the first level of one class ever be better than the 4th level of another. I understand what you are saying about mixing and matching and that should not be allowed. But another class should not beat what you are doing at lvl 4 with their FIRST level. That was the issue here, not that we should be able to jump around the levels whenever/where ever we want. I know some levels are not as good as others and you have to work through them to get to the goodies, but you should not have completely worthless levels.
|
|
At least a level 1 cleric can't cure disease, isn't that a 2nd level spell? :P
Yeah - but by 6th level - he's been doing it for 2 levels already. And since MOST diseases dont even have problems associated with them until an onset/incubation period of a day or more, the cleric typically can rest and memorize it before there's a major problem.
I already posted a breakdown of what the other classes get at that level in comparison.....
Robert
I know that, but my specific argument is comparing it to what a 1st level cleric can do lol, your suckage is at least not replicable by taking a single level of cleric. I'm not saying it doesn't suck compared to the goodies others get, but level 4 is beaten by level 1 in the current system, that's much worse than being beaten by the other level 6's
I've gotta say it, I agree 100% with the above.
I mean you are going to feel terrible if you use your smite on an evil cleric, to then only find a Balor or Lich or something in the next room and you can not really hammer that guy like you should be able too. They are all evil, from the smallest goblin to the oldest red dragon, they should get the same smite.
I realize I misspoke. I didnt mean that amount of damage etc of a "smite evil" once/twice/three times a day be magnified - I meant that in a mechanic for the continuos ever-present or always on - "Divine Might" or Heroics or Lightbringer, or Holy Avenger or by whatever title - simply provides a bonus all the time vs evil.
IMO that should always be true - and then you can "mark" one target a day - 2 at 4th, 3 at 7th etc, that gives sudden boost to attacks/damage on top of it; also perhaps the smite can do something else to that target with your smites. (like the smiting abilities that have been floating around).
Those based on a list of talents: holy damage, stunning, blinding, dispelling, etc.
Robert
OK, right on I am with you then! We really need this always on mechanic...It really is the only that that is truly going to help!
|
|
stuff
Not my point, let me see if I can rephrase that:
Seperate the levels ignore progression. Don't think of them as paladin level 4 and cleric level 1.
Just think of them as Paladin level x and Cleric level x
Now lets compare the two.
Paladin gets a +1 BAB, channel energy, and 0 1st level spells.
Cleric gets +0 BAB, channel energy, 1 1 level spell, unlimited cantrips, and two domain powers.
Now look at channel energy the cleric gets 3+cha # of uses, spent 1-1. with a cha of 12 he gets 4 uses.
The paladin gets no extra uses and has to fuel his uses from his pool of another ability at a rate of 2-1, even if the player had a maxed out cha it would be 4 uses per day.
Now when comparing the two classes that get identical class features, the only thing the paladin gets in comparison is a +1BAB
Which one of these levels if you didn't know, would you say was the higher level?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Thats not exaclty what LKL is saying. The point is that the paladin lvl 4 is not even as good as the cleric LEVEL ONE. That is bad. What should the first level of one class ever be better than the 4th level of another. I understand what you are saying about mixing and matching and that should not be allowed. But another class should not beat what you are doing at lvl 4 with their FIRST level. That was the issue here, not that we should be able to jump around the levels whenever/where ever we want. I know some levels are not as good as others and you have to work through them to get to the goodies, but you should not have completely worthless levels.
I would actually venture to say that almost every class' level ONE is better than other class' level 3 or 4. Shoot, a CLERIC'S level 1 is better than their level 3 or level 4:
Barbarian:
3rd - trap sense +1
4th - one new rage power
Bard
3rd - inspire competence
4th - nothing, (1 2nd level spell)
Cleric
3rd - nothing (1 2nd level spell)
4th - domain power
Druid
3rd - nothing (1 2nd level spell)
4th - resist nature's lure, WILD SHAPE
Fighter
3rd - armor training
4th - a feat
Monk -
3rd - maneuver training (= almost zero at this level, better higher up), still mind
4th - ki pool, slow fall
Paladin-
3rd - aura of courage, divine health
4th - channel energy, extra smite, 1st level spell
Ranger -
3rd - endurance, favored terrain
4th - hunter's bond, 1st level spell
Rogue
3rd - sneak attack, trap sense
4th - talent, uncanny dodge
Sorcerer
3rd - bloodline power
4th - nothing (2nd level spells)
Wizard
3rd - nothing (2nd level spells)
4th - school power
Some of those are pretty good (rogue 4, druid 4), some of those are pretty lame (umm, lots of em).
But compare them to the 1st level powers of every class. For the most part, EVERY class has better 1st level abilities than any of these 3rd or 4th level. On one level, it's always better to take 1 to 2 levels of everything and pile up a giant stack of shiny class abilities.
That's the joy of multiclassing.
But then you get lots of neat intro powers but never build up to anything bigger.
That's the pain of multiclassing.
Also, not every class does everything at the same level.
Is it unfair that rogues and monks get evasion at level 2 and rangers get it at level nine?
Is it unfair that barbarians get uncanny dodge at level 2 and rogues at level 4?
Boo hoo. The paladin's primary power, as it currently stands in the rules, is NOT channeling energy or casting spells. That's why they get it later on. OF COURSE they're not as good at either as a class that specializes in it. They're not primary casters, so they don't get cantrips, period, and their spell list is shorter and more focused. If they wanted to be a cleric, they could be a cleric. The paladin has some cleric stuff going on, but they aren't, won't, and shouldn't be as good at cleric-ing as the cleric is, even a lower-level cleric! If you want to be better at cleric stuff, then by all means multiclass and beef up your cleric portfolio. That's actually a fairly popular multiclass and it works just fine.
You want more channel energy, double-dip in cleric and get way more channel energy uses. You'll be a more clericy paladin.
Just like if you want to fighter up, you dip over into fighter and take a couple of levels of fighter! You'll be a more fightery paladin.
Or just be a fighter/cleric and don't worry about paladin at all, if you don't want the benefits that being a paladin DOES offer.
A paladin lives in between them and will never be as good at either of their specialties as they are. I don't see that as a problem. I would like to enhance the things that are uniquely paladinly and emphasize them for power-ups rather than worrying about whether the cleric or the fighter is better at clericing or fightering.
|
|
But compare them to the 1st level powers of every class. For the most part, EVERY class has better 1st level abilities than any of these 3rd or 4th level. On one level, it's always better to take 1 to 2 levels of...
By your argument there's nothing wrong with the class whatsoever lets move on.
It's not about being = to or even better than the cleric. It's about getting the exact same thing as the other class and it being weaker. I'm not even trying to power up level 4 and your focus on powering up level 4 to be stronger is annoying because that's never been my intent. Look at your list. No other class gets something that is exactly mimic'd by another class and yet weaker.
I don't want the paladin strengthened, I want it different so that you aren't getting the exact same crap but weaker. That's my argument. Not make his features better, make them different. Stop focusing on the power and focus on the pathetic nature it is to get a level that exactly mimics another class and yet is weak. Your right they aren't clerics and they shouldn't be THEN WHY DO THEY GET THE EXACT SAME CLASS FEATURE ONLY AS CRAP. If they shouldn't be clerics lets give them something that the cleric doesn't get.
A paladin lives in between them and will never be as good at either of their specialties as they are. I don't see that as a problem. I would like to enhance the things that are uniquely paladinly and emphasize them for power-ups rather than worrying about whether the cleric or the fighter is better at clericing or fightering.
Dude that is a step back for all of us. We have been saying that all along. None of us want to be a beter cleric than the cleric or a better fighter than the fighter.
I will conceed the fight for spells and things, I think the changes that have been talked about them are necessary but fine...lets let that dog lie.
I want the always on mechanic, I want the +x/+x all the time. This is where the change needs to be made IMHO. Bob the evil lookout (thanx to someone above, sorry cant remember name) should FEAR the paladin, he should probably have to make a fear check to see if he does not run away from the righteous wrath that is about to be dropped on his head. But again as was said above, he knows the paladin is not going to waste his precious wrath on him, he only gets so much so he has to save it for his BBEG master, so he is basically immune to the paladin's only offensive ability. This is terrible :(
So I will not get into an argument with you about paladin level 4, I agree with LKL but ok, no fight here so I can focus on what I really want to see. Give the paladin the offensive abilities to make the forces of evil know that they are not immune to his righteous wrath unless they are evilly enough...
|
|
Is it unfair that rogues and monks get evasion at level 2 and rangers get it at level nine?
Is it unfair that barbarians get uncanny dodge at level 2 and rogues at level 4?
Is it fair then that since the ranger isn't a rogue we specify that his evasion only works against fire based spells?
Is it fair then that since the rogue isn't a barbarian we make the rogues uncanny dodge only give half the bonus?
By your argument that's what we need to do. After all, they progress with their other abilitys and they aren't that class.
It's not that the paladin gets them, its that he gets them and they are weaker.
So if that's fair then we need to weaken a rangers evasion and a rogues uncanny dodge. After all, they aren't rogues and barbarians and they aren't supposed to be.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
stuffNot my point, let me see if I can rephrase that:
Seperate the levels ignore progression. Don't think of them as paladin level 4 and cleric level 1.
Just think of them as Paladin level x and Cleric level x
Now lets compare the two.
Paladin gets a +1 BAB, channel energy, and 0 1st level spells.
Cleric gets +0 BAB, channel energy, 1 1 level spell, unlimited cantrips, and two domain powers.
Now look at channel energy the cleric gets 3+cha # of uses, spent 1-1. with a cha of 12 he gets 4 uses.
The paladin gets no extra uses and has to fuel his uses from his pool of another ability at a rate of 2-1, even if the player had a maxed out cha it would be 4 uses per day.
Now when comparing the two classes that get identical class features, the only thing the paladin gets in comparison is a +1BAB
Which one of these levels if you didn't know, would you say was the higher level?
I would say that most likely the cleric one was the 1st level of a character class, because only the 1st level of a class would be so heavily frontloaded with abilities.
Perhaps that's metagaming, but it's also simply true.
1st level:
Wizard: arcane bond, cantrips, school power, scribe scroll, 1st level spells, 1 good save, no armor, bad weapons
Sorcerer: bloodine power, cantrips, eschew materials, 1st level spells, 1 good save, no armor, simple weapons
Rogue: sneak attack, trapfinding, light armor, decent weapons
Ranger: favored enemy, track, wild empathy, +1 BAB, 2 good saves, light/med armor, martial weapons
Paladin: smite evil, detect evil, +1 BAB, 2 good saves, heavy armor, martial weapons (I'm not dignifying "aura of good" as a class ability)
Monk: bonus feat, flurry of blows, unarmed strike, AC bonus, 3 good saves, no armor, decent weapons
Fighter: bonus feat, +1 BAB, 1 good save, heavy armor, tower shield, martial weapons
Druid: nature bond, nature sense, orisons, wild empathy, 1st level spells, 2 good saves, crummy armor, decent weapons
Cleric: you already covered it
Bard: bardic knowledge, bardic performance, cantrips, countersong, distraction, fascinate, inspire courage, 1st level spells, 2 good saves, light armor, decent weapons
Barbarian: fast movement, rage, +1 BAB, 1 good save, med armor, martial weapons
Everybody gets a raft of good abilities at 1st level.
That is in no way a proof text that anything is better than anything else.
To reply to your quick test, which is the higher level?
Class A: Woodland stride, 0 2nd level spells, +1 BAB
Class B: Woodland stride, 1 0-level spell, 1 1st level spell, +1 Fort/Will, +1 BAB
It's 7th level ranger vs. 2nd level druid.
What does that prove? Nothing.
How about:
Class C: bonus feat (from a limited list), +1 BAB, +1 to all saves
Class D: bonus feat (from a limited list), +1 BAB, +1 to all saves
C is 14th level monk (no I'm not going to dignify 10 more feet of slow fall by calling it a class ability)
D is 6th level fighter.
What does that prove? Nothing.
Really, we shouldn't fight about stuff like this. It's silly. We both want paladins to be more awesome.
I think the argument that the incremental increase from Pal3 to Pal4 is bad BECAUSE you could duplicate a lot of it (and better in some ways) with 1 lower level of cleric is a meaningless argument, especially given how front-loaded everybody's 1st level is, but also because lots of classes have lots of abilities that they get at lots of different levels, and comparing one to another like there's some sort of absolute scale is... not a worthwhile comparison.
If you think it's bad because it's a bad level OF THE PALADIN CLASS, then we have something to talk about.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
By your argument there's nothing wrong with the class whatsoever lets move on.
But compare them to the 1st level powers of every class. For the most part, EVERY class has better 1st level abilities than any of these 3rd or 4th level. On one level, it's always better to take 1 to 2 levels of...
Hmm. Strange. I don't seem to recall ever saying anything of the sort.
It's not about being = to or even better than the cleric. It's about getting the exact same thing as the other class and it being weaker. I'm not even trying to power up level 4 and your focus on powering up level 4 to be stronger is annoying because that's never been my intent. Look at your list. No other class gets something that is exactly mimic'd by another class and yet weaker.
I don't want the paladin strengthened, I want it different so that you aren't getting the exact same crap but weaker. That's my argument. Not make his features better, make them different. Stop focusing on the power and focus on the pathetic nature it is to get a level that exactly mimics another class and yet is weak. Your right they aren't clerics and they shouldn't be THEN WHY DO THEY GET THE EXACT SAME CLASS FEATURE ONLY AS CRAP. If they shouldn't be clerics lets give them something that the cleric doesn't get.
Works for me. Lets.
Let's give them a channeling of divine power rather than positive energy that heals those with good alignmnt and damages those that are evil, rather than living/undead. Which I previously suggested in this thread.
Or, in the alternative, give them channel energy at 1st level just like clerics get it, with the same number of uses that clerics get. Which is what I have also proposed in this thread previously.
Or, either decouple the two abilities (as in Beta) or have LOH be a subset of channeling rather than the other way around, using ONE attempt per attempt (not two), and beinga touch effect for double healing. Which is also what I have proposed in the thread previously.
I'm missing the part where I said the class is perfectly fine and should never be changed.
By the way, the feature is only "crap" in that:
1. You get 2 less uses of it than a cleric does (though that is probably equilibrated by design team by the assumption that a paladin will have a CHA score on average 4 points higher than a cleric's, so it works out to the same amount).
2. You forget that it was restored in the "upgrade" to full level rather than half.
3. The curious decision to tie channel energy to LOH uses.
Aside from the latter point, the paladin's channel energy, as it stands, is virtually indistinguishable from a cleric's, except for the fact that it does DOUBLE the curing/damaging that a 1st level cleric's would do. Even if you do get half the uses (because of #3), you are doing twice the effect (because of #2) of a 1st level cleric. It's the same overall effect, only more economical cuz it only requires half the actions to accomplish the same effect.
I'm not seeing the "crap" aspect of it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Is it unfair that rogues and monks get evasion at level 2 and rangers get it at level nine?
Is it unfair that barbarians get uncanny dodge at level 2 and rogues at level 4?
Is it fair then that since the ranger isn't a rogue we specify that his evasion only works against fire based spells?
Is it fair then that since the rogue isn't a barbarian we make the rogues uncanny dodge only give half the bonus?
By your argument that's what we need to do. After all, they progress with their other abilitys and they aren't that class.
It's not that the paladin gets them, its that he gets them and they are weaker.
So if that's fair then we need to weaken a rangers evasion and a rogues uncanny dodge. After all, they aren't rogues and barbarians and they aren't supposed to be.
If you like, though not all abilities progress with level.
Evasion and uncanny dodge do not (other than scaling in usefulness with your Dex/Ref save).
Channel energy and spellcasting do scale with level.
All class abilities are not equal or equivalent.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Fine then level 4 is crap. spontaneous casting and making channel energy its own ability again fixes the problem. wow that was a lot of arguing on your part to change nothing about what I said.
On my part? Seems like we were both arguing. You said you were posting angry. Also, an argument is not necessarily about swaying a person to change their position. It is about enabling everyone around the argument to examine their own position, where they started from and how they reached their conclusions.
It's fine to say 4th level paladin sucks, but why does it suck? I think the comparison to 1st level cleric (or 1st level anything) is misleading and wanted to point that out, because aping a 1st level suite of class abilities at 4th level would be horrifically broken IMO.
Its comparison of suckitude should be judged against other levels in the same neighborhood of 3rd-5th level, and solutions should be the kinds of solutions we would put in around that level.
As for spontaneous casting, do you think it will fix the problem of 4th level. At best it's one spell. Handy, but not much to write home about. I could see spontaneous casting being very nice starting around 7th or 8th level, when you actually have a couple of spell slots to play with, but I don't see it helping much at 4th.
If we aren't going to move channel energy down to 1st level (which was one of my suggestions, and tying smite and LOH and an inspire courage ability off of its use), then certainly it needs to be its own separate ability, and either scaled as a cleric of equal level (so you start right out at 2d6) or at worst a cleric level -3. Half level is insanity and pointlessness. I think we all agree on that.
|
|
If you're going to talk about improving a specific level of advancement for a class, you should look at it in terms of balance vs other classes. On that basis, Paladin doesn't do bad. Access to spells at the same level as other secondary caster classes, check. Increase in the number of uses for a core class ability, check. Improved use of a previous ability, check. Advancement at 4th is comparable.
Now, if you want to talk about overall design concept, that's another discussion altogether. I agree that channeling should be independent of Lay on Hands. As it stands now, Paladins should not have access to Extra Channeling or any Channeling-based feats, since channeling is a function of LoH. If they do have access to channeling based feats, they will hardly get to use them since doing so will burn their ability to heal and support their party. I think if your going to make one a function of the other, LoH should be a Paladin only function of channeling. In that case, Paladins would need access to channeling sooner. If you want to deny paladins access to channeling feats, then call the paladin ability something else and make it specific to the effects you want it to have. If you want paladins to be limited in the amount of channeling they can do, then just limit it. Don't call it a dog and expect it to act like a cat.
I don't have a problem with Paladins not being able to channel as well as clerics. Clerics are conduits of the power of god for all kinds of purposes. Paladins are conduits of god's power for the purpose of putting the smack down on evil. If you want to say a paladin can only channel as well as a cleric 3 levels below his own, so be it. If you want to say a paladin can only chanel 1/day/4 levels, its all good. Channeling definitely needs to be separate from LoH though. If for no other reason than for ease of book-keeping and rule clarification.
Let's give them a channeling of divine power rather than positive energy that heals those with good alignmnt and damages those that are evil, rather than living/undead. Which I previously suggested in this thread
I really like this, I could totally get on board with this one. That is different and still works very well! I like it!
|
|
Let's give them a channeling of divine power rather than positive energy that heals those with good alignmnt and damages those that are evil, rather than living/undead. Which I previously suggested in this thread.
I like this. This is cool and very unique and fits well in the concept of paladin as conduit of good.
Spontaneous casting is the providence of Sorc's and Bards. Leave it to them. In order for Paladins to be able to spontaneous cast, each would have to further narrow an already narrow selection to just a couple of viable spells. guess what, everybody will take the same spells and paladins will still be carbon copies. Only now they won't have any flexibility to change as the situation changes. I say leave the spell casting alone since it is comparable to other secondary caster classes and let's focus on the area where Paladins really need help.
EDIT: Either great minds think alike or you guys need to get out of my head. :-)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Let's give them a channeling of divine power rather than positive energy that heals those with good alignmnt and damages those that are evil, rather than living/undead. Which I previously suggested in this threadI really like this, I could totally get on board with this one. That is different and still works very well! I like it!
I think my original concept was that it worked twice as well against creatures that had the [good] or [evil] subtype as it did against those who were just good/evil aligned.
What I don't recall was whether I said:
1. It worked DOUBLY well against the subtypes (i.e., 1d6/level) and normal vs. aligned; or,
2. Normal vs. subtypes and HALF as well as aligned (i.e., 1d6/4 levels).
As an additional note, remember that channel energy is not just about damage. It is also:
3. An AoE fear effect (which in this case would be vs. evil - I'd say shaken for regular evil, frightened for [evil] subtype); and,
4. An AoE bolstering effect - for any good I would say gives a new save vs. fear (as channeling negative energy does for undead who've been turned) and for [good] it should let you command them, just like an evil cleric commands undead.
I think the "paladin commanding the forces of absolute good" makes TOTAL sense. He has soopa-charisma and is the paragon of good and virtue, but also is all about order, discipline, teamwork, community, working together, and taking command to lead.
The ability is capped by HD = paladin level, and intelligent goods can make a new save every day to regain their independence (and would as well if the paladin tried to dick them around), but in the meanwhile they are captivated by the paladin's purity of heart and force of will and are happy to help on his behalf.
***
As for sheer damage numbers, I could sort of see it going either way. Given that this is vastly more selective than the normal channel energy (you'd never have to worry about healing the bad guys with this) even though it may ace out some allies (too bad for you if you're neutral, but I actually think that kind of judgmental attitude could fit with a paladin), plus the ancillary effects above, I would lean more towards #2 in terms of how much healing channeling divine power would do. I dunno, I could be swayed.
Healing allies WHILE you blast your enemies is a neat trick if you can manage it, especially as a supernatural ability (no SR, no AoO, no dispel) when you get other neat stuff along with it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
About divine favor, that's a spell that gives a luck bonus to attack & damage rolls, and it stacks with most other buffs because few give luck bonuses (the prayer spell being an exception)
Reading your post again, though, I think you mean the paladin's Divine Bond class ability to add things to his weapon. Actually, you've read it wrong in one way and maybe in another way.
1. Regardless of the enhancement bonus of your weapon, you can add any weapon property to it that it doesn't already have. If you're 5th level, you only have +1 to add, so you can only add stuff like defending, flaming, keen, merciful. If your sword is already flaming, you can't add flaming, but you could add one of the others.
At 8th level, you can add +2 worth of stuff (either two of the above or axiomatic, holy, flaming burst), as long as it's not a property your weapon already has.
2. The thing that is less clear is what about straight-up enhancement bonus. Say you're 5th level and have a +1 sword. You have +1 worth of Divine Bond goodies you can put on it. Can you make it a +2 sword? The way it's written, the answer seems to be no, strange as that may seem. At 8th level, you have +2 worth of divine bond, so you could spend them BOTH to make your sword +2. Which is lame, since that is not remotely as good as a +1 sword with +2 worth of extra goodies on it.
Hope that clarifies...
Some quick questions folks - I've downloaded the paladin upgrade PDF and read through it, and gone over it with my lone paladin player... who had a question or two that I can't answer (and don't see answers to in the thread here after some looking), so, in the time-honored tradition....
1) The revision states that the paladin's mount can be 'called to them' once a day. Where is it outside of that? The revision doesn't state, so it could be anyplace from wherever it was last left to a celestial plane.
2) Can they send it back when they're done, or is it now stuck wherever they are until called again? Can they, at 9th level, use their second daily summons to send it back, or is the transport one-way only?
3) Would it be possible to put some thought into mounts suitable for urban paladins? Warhorses are all well and good, but they don't do much for you in a back alley in Absalom, or a crowded street where they're not even going to fit. I'm not sure what can be done about it to be honest - at least not for human-sized characters, anyway, although I can see several possibilities for, say, halfling, dwarf, or gnome paladins beyond the boar and dog listed just on the animal companion revision list.
Thanks!
So what, exactly, are the things that are "paladin-y"? I mean, it's clearly not fighting (that's the fighter), and it's clearly not clericing (that's the cleric). So we've got straight combat and spellcasting covered, what does that leave as the paladin's niche?
Fighting evil? I'd like to point out that, right now, a fighter 13/cleric 7 outfights evil better than a paladin 20. So what is this special ability that makes a paladin mechanically better at it's role than a multiclassed character? What is the specific thing that a paladin should be used to do, and excel at?
Well some of the capstone powers of the paladin really do help with the fight evil.
But a paladin is more than that, it is also community service (or party service) while holding the line, and keeping that dragon/succubus/lich/etc from running the battle line off with fear/enchantments/fear again/etc.
Currently a paladin covers immediate healing on the front line WITHOUT spells (SU instead close but still different) and can still help the other front lines fight because of good defense ability (mainly from armor and the normal mundane means) and the ability to still swing a weapon decently (though not as good as a fighter, barbarian in rage, or ranger against a favored foe). However against evil (mainly outsiders and undead) the paladin is going to deliver some rightous damage (hopefully) and draw the evil's ire so the others aren't the targets as much.
Truthfully I see the paladin more as a full armored full BAB healing Martyr right now.
|
|
Fighting evil? I'd like to point out that, right now, a fighter 13/cleric 7 outfights evil better than a paladin 20. So what is this special ability that makes a paladin mechanically better at it's role than a multiclassed character? What is the specific thing that a paladin should be used to do, and excel at?
Spontaneously dispelling magical wards/protections/buffs on his enemies as he smacks em down (like the old Holy Avenger used to do).
Spontaneously overcome Damage Reductions
Challenge evil descriptor type creatures and be capable at actually hitting them. (remember - its not their damage that suffers as much as their ability to hit the high ACs. - without things like greater Weap focus, weapon training, rage, bonus feats, combat fighting styles, and an ability to ignore other ability scores for the purpose of only focusing on strength all leave him behind the other warriors.)
Surrounding his good-aligned (only) comrades with auras that protect them from evil spellcasting; rallying them, and healing them as he smacks down his enemy.
Spontaneously sending his fiendish foes "back to hell"
Robert
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.
It's simplicity is a virtue, but on the downside it's flat. I mean that in two ways:
1. It's less interesting than a mechanic that gives you options with trade-offs.2. It simply closes the gap with the fighter without providing new opportunities for the paladin to be better than the fighter. A more thematic situational mechanic gives up some or all of that flat bonus in most cases in exchange for the opportunity to spike above the flat bonus when it counts. Valleys and peaks.
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.
Sounds about right for a day-long effect.
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.
I would penalize the paladin for retreating rather than disallow it, maybe require her to seek atonement to regain full paladin abilities. I'm not against the bonus being strong, but this one could get out of hand. I might change it to +2 for the first comrade and +1 for each subsequent, with the option to return damage point for point as an additional bonus. (If the comrade fell to an attack dealing 11 hp damage, the paladin adds 11 damage to her first hit against that enemy, whether or not the enemy is evil.)
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.
This one is also thematically good. I assume you mean +10 feet to movement, or +2 squares. I like the bit about the shortest path to the enemy that does not incur more than one AoO. Like other awesome paladin abilities, it comes with a restrction that hurts a little, and it's a great incentive to play like a paladin. Sometimes a hero must throw caution to the wind.
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.
I admire the effort to find a different restriction for each oath. This oath has enough in common with the previous oath, however, that you might be better off reusing the same restriction. The shortest path idea is rich with tactical and role-playing possibilities while having the virtue of simplicity. Also, there's the bummer factor noted by lastknightleft, when the DM takes advantage of the smite-burning restriction to deplete the paladin's resources with weak enemies before bringing out the BBEG.
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.
Again, I'd reuse the shortest-path restriction to avoid the bummer factor of resource burning.
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.
This really looks like a step in the right direction to me. The thematic bonuses and restrictions make the paladin more fun. If the numbers are off on the first pass, so what? There are plenty of people who can help with that. Count me a fan of the oaths idea.
A bunch of stuff that we still agree on!
Well said man, you and I have been on the same page from day one I think. This is the attitude we need to get some change here!
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.It's simplicity is a virtue, but on the downside it's flat. I mean that in two ways:
1. It's less interesting than a mechanic that gives you options with trade-offs.
2. It simply closes the gap with the fighter without providing new opportunities for the paladin to be better than the fighter. A more thematic situational mechanic gives up some or all of that flat bonus in most cases in exchange for the opportunity to spike above the flat bonus when it counts. Valleys and peaks.
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.
Sounds about right for a day-long effect.
I would penalize the paladin for retreating rather than disallow it, maybe require her to seek atonement to regain full paladin abilities. I'm not against the bonus being strong, but this one...
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.
Hey man, I am really glad you liked them. I did not get much else in the way of good or bad. Thanx for replying with such detail.
Yes I still like the flat bonus but these could really work. I wanted to keep the bonuses sort of high because it is totally possible that you will not come up against anything you took an oath on that day, this could happen a lot leaving you with nothing, chance you take I guess.
You could be right about using the same "restrictive" mechanic. I wanted something different but yes that could be abused by the DM. But on the other hand, arent all of the paladin restrictions abused by the DM? Alignment, code....I know my DM forces me to RP around this stuff. I like it. Yea I guess blowing all your CE or Smites would be a bit much, I did suggest that possibly making you use just 1 would suffice. *shrug* It is a work in progress.
If you have any other ideas let me know.
|
Vult, I love your idea for oaths.
What would you folks think of an oath like this
"Oath of Righteous Vengeance" -fueled and focused by his or her dedication to their diety, the paladin is further enabled to end the life of a specific individual creature. (The red-dragon so-and-so, or the anti-paladin Lord such-and-such). The paladin does not need to know the individual's name, but must be able to recognize or otherwise know the target creature on sight. While the oath is in effect, the critical threat range of any weapon used by the paladin, against the targeted creature, is increased by the paladin's Charisma bonus. Moreover, the criticial threat confirmation roll is also modified by the paladin's Charisma bonus.
"Oath of Righteous Vengeance" -fueled and focused by his or her dedication to their diety, the paladin is further enabled to end the life of a specific individual creature. (The red-dragon so-and-so, or the anti-paladin Lord such-and-such). The paladin does not need to know the individual's name, but must be able to recognize or otherwise know the target creature on sight. While the oath is in effect, the critical threat range of any weapon used by the paladin, against the targeted creature, is increased by the paladin's Charisma bonus. Moreover, the criticial threat confirmation roll is also modified by the paladin's Charisma bonus.
Sweet. Adding the shortest path restriction suggested earlier by Vult Wrathblades seems fitting here as well. Since the theme is vengeance, you might also require the death of a good-aligned creature known to the paladin and caused (directly or indirectly) by the BBEG. Stacking a smite on top of this one could be truly awesome.
I'd like to put in my two cp on the discussion and the "feel" of the paladin.
Regarding the idea of "targeting" or "marking a target": that feels like a ranger, not a paladin. When a paladin decides to hunt down a particular target, it's called a quest. If an evil being escapes being destroyed and the paladin goes after him, it's called a quest. When a paladin gets to the end of the quest, he calls down the might of god and smites the evil being. The smite has nothing to do with having finally caught up to his target. Smiting evil beings is just what he does.
Even when he's not smiting though, evil creatures of all types should fear the paladin. As it is now, if a paladin approaches the lair of the BBEG, Bob the evil lookout does not overly worry about the Paladin. After all he is only a little evil so the paladin isn't going to waste his precious Smite on him. Let's say Bob calls a team of evil red-shirts led by BillyJoe the evil seargent-at-arms. BillyJoe is probably far more worried about the fighter that's cutting his red-shirts to ribbons than he is about the paladin that's squared off against him, because he's too small and too weak to be worthy of a Smite. This is just wrong, everybody from Bob to BBEG should be going, "Oh crap, it's a Paladin."
I think the way to fix that is with a +x/+x bonus against all evil creatures. However, I think that should be based on level, not on smites left per day. Let's say that BBEG has the ability to summon so fairly serious evil minions. The Paladin ends up burning all his smites just to survive. Now, BBEG steps in and says with an evil laugh, "Your god has deserted you and you have no power against me." No, god has not deserted him, he just can't call down the big thunder. The +x/+x bonus should represent that the paladin serves the heavenly hosts and that they go where he goes. Smite represents the paladin calling on god for special strength against a particularly vile enemy.
The other reason I prefer the level basis is that Static Bonuses...
Amen!
There is one thing that bothers me a little about Paladin bonuses vs. evil creatures however (even Smite Evil). People have even suggested that if you use Smite on a non-evil creature that you shouldn't loose it. My thought is that you shouldn't try to use Smite on a non-evil creature in the first place. If Paladins are going to be champions against evil (or if you take the route that they shouldn't have to be lg, then champions against the opposite of what they stand for), then they should know if what they are attacking is in fact evil.The way Detect Evil now works makes this a little easier to do, however it would still take the Paladin out of the fight for a few rounds if there is more than one enemy (as there almost always is) and the Paladin needs to see if they are evil. With some creatures it's obvious. If there's a demon or a devil, yeah it's evil. There's no need to try to detect it.
However say you're coming up against an army of redshirts. Let's say you have the +x/+x bonus vs any evil creature. You're pretty sure the BBEG necromancer is evil, but what about these guys? If you don't have to detect evil, then you're counting on your GM to add the bonus for you (and if they're an honest GM that shouldn't be a problem), but shouldn't a Paladin know? So you detect evil. And concentrate for ten rounds because you're going up against ten red shirts. Even if you take a round to concentrate on one, kill it, then take another round to concentrate on another one, it would take a bloody long time and take you out of the fight for a while. Since we don't the +x/+x bonus right now, that doesn't matter right now, but if it does get implemented it's something to think about.
I can see the argument that you shouldn't have to use detect evil to see if they are evil in order to get a bonus against them. You're a champion for good, it should just happen. However if that's the case, then why do we need Detect Evil at all? If it always works, or if you can attempt to Smite and not loose anything if it's not evil, then why bother wasting time to detect it? If anything, I think there should be a penalty for attempting to Smite a non-evil creature because as Paladin you should know better.
Anyway...I like the idea of the +x/+x bonus vs. evil. Fighting evil really is what Paladin is supposed to do and if they can't do that any better than a fighter (especially if they're even worse than a fighter), then they may as well just be a fighter.
((I still like the new way healing works. It makes sense to me, and there is an extra lay on hands feat that can be taken more than once.))
I'd rather they were weaker and not force certain actions.
Okay, on to the idea of Oaths.
I like the mechanic that every oath should come with a restriction, but that doesn't have to force the paladin's actions. As a general rule we could say that if you fail to abide by the restriction, you simply lose the benefit of the oath for that day, and leave penalties to those few oaths that really warrant them (for example, leaving an ally to die after swearing to defend him). Restrictions that give the paladin some latitude in how they are satisfied ought to be encouraged over restrictions that turn the paladin into a bot. For example, the shortest path restriction could be tweaked as follows:
When choosing a path to the enemy, the paladin may not choose a path that incurs fewer attacks of opportunity than the shortest path.
In other words, you can choose a longer path, but not for the purpose of avoiding attacks of opportunity. To give even more latitude, we could even say that the bonus is simply decreased by one for each AoO less then the AoOs incurred on the shortest path (i.e. -1 for each AoO that you avoid).
When choosing a path to the enemy, the paladin takes -1 to the bonus conferred by the oath for every attack of opportunity avoided on the chosen path that would have been incurred on the shortest path.
I have been thinking about a few "always on" mechanics, among other things, and I think these are fairly simple and they fit well with the paladin concept. I will list them, and some are repeated from my past posts and other people’s ideas.1. Weapon of Choice.
Not my cup of tea, and anyway I think Divine Bond covers this, or ought to.
2. Pure Strike. starting at 1st level, all of a paladin's attacks are considered "Good Aligned" for the purpose of striking creatures and bypassing DR.
Why shouldn't a paladin get this right away, aside from level dipping?
This one I like. To discourage level-dipping, what if you said that you overcome 1/DR per paladin level?
3. Just Strike. starting at 5th level, all of a paladin's attacks are considered "Lawful aligned" for the purpose of striking creatures and bypassing DR.4. Evil's Bane. starting at 6th level, all of a paladin's attacks are considered "Holy" when striking evil creatures. He adds +1d6 bonus holy damage to his successful attacks. This damage stacks on top of damage from his smite evil power. This bonus damage increases to +2d6 at 12th level.
I appreciate that it stacks with smite. The paladin should get some chances to be better than the fighter.
4. Bane of Chaos. starting at 9th level, all of a paladin's attacks are considered axiomatic. He adds +1d6 axiomatic damage to his successful attacks against chaotic enemies. This ability is more an extension of his Evil's Bane ability so the damage does not stack with the bonus damage from that ability. This bonus damage increases to +2d6 at 15th level.
I assume you were thinking of slaads here. I wonder if you intend these bonuses to work against good enemies? I would assume the bonus is lost against a good enemy, since it's purely alignment-triggered and not situational. (To say nothing about violating the paladin's code.)
5. Holy Avenger.
I kind of thought the idea of Divine Bond was to give similar benefits to Holy Avenger without requiring the paladin to find a specific item. I might prefer to boost divine bond with some of the Holy Avenger powers you describe, like spell resistance and dispel magic. Then you'd either have to boost the paladin mount alternative, or else just give the paladin both, but allow special boosts only for one.
As an aside, I never liked the changes to DR in 3.5
I'll stray off topic by adding that I wish there were some low level monsters with DR less than 5. I never understood why DR had to be in increments of 5. (Similarly, I like more beatable SRs.)
At any rate, if the paladin is to remain a base class
Paladin should definitely remain a base class. It's too interesting for anything less.