The paladin's spellcasting is so pathetic you have to remind people that they have it at all, and they still promptly forget about it. The spells they get are also usually not very useful, even the 4th level spells. So, I propose we let them cast spontaneously off their whole list, like Beguilers or Warmages. Also, it would probably be good to change their caster level to "paladin level -3." Finally, let's remove Remove Curse, Neutralize Poison, Break Enchantment, etc from their spell list, since that's what the LoH specials are for (though specify that they are still treated as having those as "spells on their list/spells known" for all other purposes).
Thoughts?
Shmeen!
Shmeen!
I believe that this is code, meaning that another option (one that would be more useful actually) would be to make paladins (and rangers) cast spells faster - i.e. as swift action instead of standard. That way, they can use them in combat while still bashing away at the evil thingies.
Either that or he's hungry for something sweet and sticky. Childer of Malkov can have weird cravings.
I believe that this is code, meaning that another option (one that would be more useful actually) would be to make paladins (and rangers) cast spells faster - i.e. as swift action instead of standard. That way, they can use them in combat while still bashing away at the evil thingies.
Well, if you look at the Paladin's spell list, it's mostly full of healing-type spells (which should almost always take an action to use in combat) and utility spells. This implies that they aren't supposed to be buffers, and buffs are the only spells that really need reduced casting action.
|
Well, if you look at the Paladin's spell list, it's mostly full of healing-type spells (which should almost always take an action to use in combat) and utility spells. This implies that they aren't supposed to be buffers, and buffs are the only spells that really need reduced casting action.
Except that if you're taking an action to heal, you're wasting your time.
Example:
Monster- Deals 5 damage.
Pally- Heals 5 damage.
Monster- Deals 5 damage.
You are in the exact same position and have burned a spell. Let's not forget that in general, the monster is going to be dealing twice the damage your healing at a minimum. You could insert buff spells instead and be even worse off than with the healing.
This is precisely why the paladin and ranger spells (for the most part) are not useful. You waste whole turns using them and then get creamed for your trouble. Making them swift actions allows you to contribute more to the combat.
Well, if you look at the Paladin's spell list, it's mostly full of healing-type spells (which should almost always take an action to use in combat) and utility spells. This implies that they aren't supposed to be buffers, and buffs are the only spells that really need reduced casting action.
This is a dangerous road to run down, because it can quickly lead to being overpowered. The more the Paladin's spell list is expanded, the more useful this ability is. Without some change, however, you are correct that a Paladin's spell-casting is rather anemic.
Given the changes that the designers are contemplating to a Paladin's lay on hands ability, I would advocate removing healing spells from the list entirely. Lay on hands can fill that gap, as can channeling energy. Instead, have a select few buff and party buff spells that are actually worth having. Bull's Strength, Bless, Heroism can all come more slowly than a Cleric's spell-casting, but the Paladin has access to useful spells.
Then let the Paladin spontaneously cast off the entire list, so when the time comes, they can use the spell that fits the job.
You don't need to reduce casting times then, because the tactical decision to use a practical spell or attack is one the player should make (as opposed to the tactical decision to attack or use a mediocre spell). It also prevents the Paladin from "super-charging" and using spell after spell to buff themselves up while still making full-attacks in combat.
The caster level should equal the Paladin's level. That just makes sense.
|
Finally, let's remove Remove Curse, Neutralize Poison, Break Enchantment, etc from their spell list, since that's what the LoH specials are for (though specify that they are still treated as having those as "spells on their list/spells known" for all other purposes).
Thoughts?
I think those spells should stay on the list, even though they have the option of using LOH charges. You never know when you may need to treat more people than you have LOH, in which case, the spells are useful.
You would have to add a paragraph of text to the class description (that could be missed) instead of the more upfront approach of keeping the entries in the spell list chapter, explicitly stating they are capable of activating items with those effects.
I would also ask that Detect Evil be added to the spell list, for precisely that reason. Despite the revised class ability being more immediately useful in combat, for back-compatibility and story purposes, the paladin should have the option of using a spell or wand charge to perform the 'full-room scan' version.
I agree almost entirely with the previous two posts.
Paladin spells as a swift action isn't a real fix. It's a surrender to the fact that 3E paladin's spell casting is a joke. It wasn't always that way.
Make the paladin's CL equal to his class level. Give him a list of spells that are potent choices for a character of his level. Let him cast spontaneously. His spells go off Charisma now, so it fits well with existing rules.
Leave all of the cure spells, remove curse, etc. on the list. You want a paladin to be able to use a wand of healing, or help out in a hospital in non-combat situation. Cut out the spells so weak that even a cleric would never use them.
I imagine all of this is mostly true for the ranger, although ranger's have historically been weaker casters than paladins.
So, I propose we let them cast spontaneously off their whole list, like Beguilers or Warmages.
While I like the idea, those classes you mentioned have spell lists that have never been expanded. The Paladin spell list has easily doubled from core over the course of various supplements. This is the primary complication that must be addressed if such a change is to be implemented. Paizo has no control over those spells yet still has to take them into account with regard to backward compatibility. What I mean by this is in the sense of "these things exist and someone will try to use them". Ignoring them completely can have game breaking results. I'm not saying each and every spell needs review, but that the fact that a significant amount of material exists means that it's existence (rather than content) needs to be a consideration.
A fair point, but I would rather entrust each DM to make a case by case basis. There's so many books out there with new spells that PRPG can't possibly address them all, and so to limit the new Paladin to account for old spells makes backwards compatibility superior to revamping the classes.
You guys are right: I had totally forgotten about noncore spells. As a simple fix, maybe we can pull a Spirit Shaman and let the Paladin ready X number of spells per day as his day-to-day spontaneous casting, and set X as the number of spells in the core rules, or just under. In other words, you can swap them out on a one-for-one basis. Though I suspect that that wouldn't really mean anything anyway, since there are a lot of slush spells in the core list. Thoughts?
And Snorter, the Paladin Upgrade only adds to Detect Evil. You can still use it like you could before, it's just additionally better.
As a simple fix, maybe we can pull a Spirit Shaman and let the Paladin ready X number of spells per day as his day-to-day spontaneous casting...
It's blasphemy to say it, I know, but I believe that's what 4E has done with wizards. It could work.
|
|
And Snorter, the Paladin Upgrade only adds to Detect Evil. You can still use it like you could before, it's just additionally better.
Hmm; I'd read the second sentence as a rewrite, or qualifier, or caveat, of the normal spell parameters, as in '...can use Detect Evil, as the spell, except that she can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual...'.
Maybe we need an initial line, stating 'This can take two forms; firstly, as a cone, as per the standard spell description, or secondly, she can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual...'.
Paladin spells as a swift action isn't a real fix. It's a surrender to the fact that 3E paladin's spell casting is a joke.
They're not supposed to be archmages in full plate. They are supposed to have weak magical ability that augments and supplements their martial power.
I'd agree with full caster level, and maybe magic that's a bit more powerful, but their spells aren't supposed to be on par with a cleric's.
They're not supposed to be archmages in full plate. They are supposed to have weak magical ability that augments and supplements their martial power.
I'd agree with full caster level, and maybe magic that's a bit more powerful, but their spells aren't supposed to be on par with a cleric's.
No one said their spells were supposed to be on par with the cleric. But their magic is not supposed to be weak. The paladin has historically been a strong caster, but got gypped in 3E.
Character abilities are added so that characters will use them, so they need to be viable combat options when weighed against other actions the paladin might take.
|
Hey nice this sounds increadibly familiar and it wasn't even an original idea when I posted it, Hey Kae Yoss, I prefer that Paladins match the charisma caster motiff and cast sponateously as normal and the ranger get all his spells that are standard actions as swift that way the classes all have their unique caster niches, and if a pally wants to cast as swifts Hey there's already a non-OGL feat for that.
As for the level -3 restriction I've been giving it a lot of thought. but in the end, a class feature you get at level 4 shouldn't be weaker than a class feature someone gets at level one. Also levels 1-5 are the worst levels for the paladin and level -3 when he finally gets his casting makes it even worse albeit better in the long run. So I say give him full caster level, and make him spontaneous. Simple easy fix for paladin spellcasting.
And Snorter, the Paladin Upgrade only adds to Detect Evil. You can still use it like you could before, it's just additionally better.Hmm; I'd read the second sentence as a rewrite, or qualifier, or caveat, of the normal spell parameters, as in '...can use Detect Evil, as the spell, except that she can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual...'.
Maybe we need an initial line, stating 'This can take two forms; firstly, as a cone, as per the standard spell description, or secondly, she can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual...'.
You're reading it wrong Snort-ster. the DE effect is normal unless the pally changes it.
Paladins should not be spontaneous casters. Not only does this not work for backwards compatibility, but it doesn't make much sense that the paladin is more versatile, despite being from a "structured" background, than a cleric is.
As a side note, if any change in the prepared/spontaneous status quo makes sense, it would be to make druids and rangers spontaneous casters and leave clerics and paladins as prepared spellcasters, at least thematically speaking.
However, I wouldn't push for this since I know its a big disconnect from 3.5, and would fudge up a lot of backwards compatibility in one fell swoop.
To be honest, this gets back into a bit of my trepidation way back in Alpha 3 about paladins being charisma casters. Not only does it encourage the zealous idiot stereotype, but it blurs the line between cha=spontaneous, int or wis=prepared paradigm.
I know that people were concerned about the MAD syndrome, but personally, you also shouldn't be able to get by on being "optimized" by having one or two good stats either. I would have much rather seen something like a feat that allowed a paladin to base his wis based powers off of charisma instead, so that the class isn't just "automatically awesome," but that is still involves some choices on the player's part.
In fact, I'm seeing a lot of suggestions for class abilities across the board that I think would be handled a lot better as a feat. Yes, you have to choose between that class ability feat optimization, or say, toughness, but then that's part of the game.
As far as swift action casting goes, I actually don't mind it, but again, I don't think it should be the default. There is a feat for this in the non-OGL Complete Champion called Battle Blessing, but honestly, I don't think its such a unique idea that you can't OGL up a feat to accomplish this.
|
|
Any ideas why level 6 is a dead level for improving spells/day?
Because remove disease and an itterative attack are so powerful that gaining an extra spell per day would make paladins the most powerful class in PRPG?
You forgot to put your [sarcasm] tags on.
Now the developers believe you, and they're taking all the new abilities away, and it's all your fault...:(
|
|
You're reading it wrong Snort-ster. the DE effect is normal unless the pally changes it.
I can see it being read either way, and I'm a guy who's actively trying to boost the class. I'm the one suggested Lee give the Beta version a spin, since I think the 3.5 class is gimped, and I didn't want to see another player take a 2-level dip (hint).
Imagine if, instead of a kindly DM like me, this came up with another DM, who didn't much care for paladins, and disliked the player 'ruining his plots' with that 'spinning on the spot like a lighthouse all night' trick that Lee did (and which did cause me extra work).
He could be a hard-ass about it, and say that the new definition was a restrictive one, ie as the spell, except one target, etc.
What's the player going to do?
|
|
However, I wouldn't push for this since I know its a big disconnect from 3.5, and would fudge up a lot of backwards compatibility in one fell swoop.
to accomplish this.
Just one question, HOW? how in any way does it in any way mess with backwards compatability, show me one class feature or feat balanced around the paladin memorizing spells. Show me one stat block that would have to be altered if the paladin had sontaneous casting like the warmage and I will shut up and never argue for it again.
Now my turn. If spontaneous casting doesn't fit a structured archtype how do you explain the warmage? or did you just ban them from your games?
Have you ever played a paladin level 1-20 KnightErrantJR? I don't mean that to sound snide or dismissive, I'm honestly asking, have you ever? I'm curious because just about everyone I've ever known who has tried has generaly agreed with me that paladins get shafted. I know you fear powercreep, but your talking to someone who took mounted combat feats for a character who had ride as a cross class skill in 3.5 I make story dictate build and the last two characters I built were rolled iron man style. So even though I have a mind for mechanics I let roleplaying dictate my characters, and I've gotta tell you, the paladin is the only class I've ever played ever that I've hated playing levels 1-5. Those are usually my favorite levels. So please explain to me how the paladin even if it gets a significant boost will be an optimized class.
|
|
Any ideas why level 6 is a dead level for improving spells/day?Because remove disease and an itterative attack are so powerful that gaining an extra spell per day would make paladins the most powerful class in PRPG?You forgot to put your [sarcasm] tags on.
Now the developers believe you, and they're taking all the new abilities away, and it's all your fault...:(
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *pant pant pant* NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Now my turn. If spontaneous casting doesn't fit a structured archtype how do you explain the warmage? or did you just ban them from your games?Have you ever played a paladin level 1-20 KnightErrantJR? I don't mean that to sound snide or dismissive, I'm honestly asking, have you ever? I'm curious because just about everyone I've ever known who has tried has generaly agreed with me that paladins get shafted. I know you fear powercreep, but your talking to someone who took mounted combat feats for a character who had ride as a cross class skill in 3.5 I make story dictate build and the last two characters I built were rolled iron man style. So even though I have a mind for mechanics I let roleplaying dictate my characters, and I've gotta tell you, the paladin is the only class I've ever played ever that I've hated playing levels 1-5. Those are usually my favorite levels. So please explain to me how the paladin even if it gets a significant boost will be an optimized class.
Okay, here goes, I'll explain parts of this . . .
Fist off, no, I've not played a paladin, since I mainly DM, and when I have played in other's campaigns, I usually played a fighter or a cleric (usually because no on else wanted to play them, and that made me want to play them more just to show I could still have fun with them, but that's a whole other issue).
I actually agree that paladins get shafted a bit. I have been all for a few tweaks here or there to give them a bit of a boost. I just don't feel like spontaneous casting is a good fit, however, I will point out that you make a good point, but taken to where I'd like to see it, it makes the class' spellcasting more complicated than I think a primary "tank" should be.
Here goes . . . you really did make a good point with the Warmage. The flavor of the Warmage is that they are drilled and drilled to use the spells on their spell list, and only that small amount of spells, so that all they ever get (except for their learning ability giving them a few more spells here and there).
If you were to say that a paladin was much like this, i.e. they have a very small spell list that they can choose to spontaneously cast from, I think it would work, thematically, but that would mean that you are cutting off paladins from using any non-OGL or third party paladin spell if you do this.
You could introduce an "expanded theology" ability that lets them add a spell to their spell list, but then you either have the problem of what spells you allow. Some higher level paladin spells are more powerful than their "level" would indicate, and unlike the Warmage or Beguiler where you can say that they can learn Evocations, Illusions, or Charms, how do you draw the line for paladins? Do you just allow free access to clerical spells?
On the other hand, if you go the Bard route, and only let them choose a handful of spells that they know, but let the player choose them, and allow them all to be "on the spell list," in general, the balancing point for this kind of restriction has been to make the number of spells per day go up more than a prepared spellcaster.
|
|
Okay, here goes, I'll explain parts of this . . .
Fist off, no, I've not played a paladin, since I mainly DM, and when I have played in other's campaigns, I usually played a fighter or a cleric (usually because no on else wanted to play them, and that made me want to play them more just to show I could still have fun with them, but that's a whole other issue).
I actually agree that paladins get shafted a bit. I have been all for a few tweaks here or there to give them a bit of a boost. I just don't feel like spontaneous casting is a good fit, however, I will point out that you make a good point, but taken to where I'd like to see it, it makes the class' spellcasting more complicated than I think a primary "tank" should be.
okay I just wanted to make sure I understood where you were coming from. Now I can respond to your current concerns
Here goes . . . you really did make a good point with the Warmage. The flavor of the Warmage is that they are drilled and drilled to use the spells on their spell list, and only that small amount of spells, so that all they ever get (except for their learning ability giving them a few more spells here and there).If you were to say that a paladin was much like this, i.e. they have a very small spell list that they can choose to spontaneously cast from, I think it would work, thematically, but that would mean that you are cutting off paladins from using any non-OGL or third party paladin spell if you do this.
Okay here is the thing though, the paladin automatically gains access to all the spells on his list. So he already had all of those spells to begin with. The only really powerful spells that are out of there level range that you worry about, are the level 4 spells, which he doesn't get till level 13 in game and will only have 4 per day at level 20. I can still guaruntee that with a memorization based wizard, I can do way more damage with my selection of 9th level core spells, let alone the splat books that if the paladin has access too, I have access to. And the paladin would memorize those powerful spells anyways so switching him to spontaneous doesn't actually change anything. The only thing it lets him do is maybe actually cast some of those spells that are only good situationally that before he just never would have bothered to memorize.
You could introduce an "expanded theology" ability that lets them add a spell to their spell list, but then you either have the problem of what spells you allow. Some higher level paladin spells are more powerful than their "level" would indicate, and unlike the Warmage or Beguiler where you can say that they can learn Evocations, Illusions, or Charms, how do you draw the line for paladins? Do you just allow free access to clerical spells?
There are later supplements that expanded even those class lists that were released by wizards.
On the other hand, if you go the Bard route, and only let them choose a handful of spells that they know, but let the player choose them, and allow them all to be "on the spell list," in general, the balancing point for this kind of restriction has been to make the number of spells per day go up more than a prepared spellcaster.
I'm opposed to this, adding a spells known list actually does hurt backwards compatability and garuntees that those situational spells never get used. Remember the paladin would just memorize any spells that he would learn anyways so the only way to make this work would be to mess with his spells per day list, which f*s with backwards compatability.
I think mostly what you are opposed to is that you don't see the flavor as a good fit. But see I it as a paladins righteous spirit calling forth the power he needs to survive in the situation at hand and when I think of it like that, several iconic images come to mind.
Eh, I'm not saying I wouldn't test it (or ask my paladin player to test it), if it comes up, I'm just saying that its a bit outside of my comfort zone for what I'd like to see in the paladin. Thanks for responding though. We may not agree, but you do tend to make good points.
|
|
eh, I make good points because unless I hear a really good alternative, I tend to not give up. The problem that currently stands with paladin casting is that you wait the many levels to get it, and then when you get it, you get it at a weaker version then what another class got at level 1, your other abilities are supposed to make up for it, but they don't for several levels, in fact as it stands right now, there is no reason (and I know you've probably heard this from me a hundred times because we frequent the same threads, but no one has been able to counter it yet) not to just substitute the level 4 paladin, with level 1 cleric, and then take paladin level 5. You'd actually be better off. I know you are uncomfortable with it, but spontaneous casting does solve that problem because it's something the cleric can't imitate and do better at 1st level. That doesn't mean the spellcasting then doesn't need to loose that 1/2 caster level hit, but it does mean that finally there is a reason not to take cleric level 1 as a sub. Now if someone can show me a way that the paladin gets level 4 and it wouldn't leave him better off to sub the cleric level, I will drop the crusade for spontaneous casting. And I truly mean that. Give me a reason to not want a level of cleric instead, and I will stop asking for spontaneous casting.
You're reading it wrong Snort-ster. the DE effect is normal unless the pally changes it.I can see it being read either way, and I'm a guy who's actively trying to boost the class. I'm the one suggested Lee give the Beta version a spin, since I think the 3.5 class is gimped, and I didn't want to see another player take a 2-level dip (hint).
Is that a hint to me or to Lee? My change to a paladin was entirely story-based, and I would've probably taken it further but the party needed a high-level healer. Even then, a 2 level dip spoiled things somewhat. I never got 9th level spells for instance. If I was optimizing properly, I would never get the paladin levels, Divine Grace notwithstanding.
Imagine if, instead of a kindly DM like me, this came up with another DM, who didn't much care for paladins, and disliked the player 'ruining his plots' with that 'spinning on the spot like a lighthouse all night' trick that Lee did (and which did cause me extra work).
He could be a hard-ass about it, and say that the new definition was a restrictive one, ie as the spell, except one target, etc.
What's the player going to do?
Point taken. Change the wording.
Don't forget in Complete Champion, you have the Battlecaster feat, which lets a paladin cast all his spells as swift actions instead of standards, so there's technically already a precedent.
I've yet to see any paladin played since the release of CC not take that feat, or not plan to take that feat. Just my personal gaming experience there.
|
|
Don't forget in Complete Champion, you have the Battlecaster feat, which lets a paladin cast all his spells as swift actions instead of standards, so there's technically already a precedent.
I've yet to see any paladin played since the release of CC not take that feat, or not plan to take that feat. Just my personal gaming experience there.
I know I'm taking it, it's stupid not to, it's the only way for my spellcasting to be useful with a cleric joining the game.