Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.
Can someone link where he said that, or provide the context in which it was said?
Thank you ever so much.
I don't see how you can prevent a smite with 2wf without also taking away sneak attack. 2 weapon sneak attack is one of the most over the top things in 3.5. It's not a problem with smite, it's a problem with 2wf.
Again, I don't see either as being a problem. They could just as easily (and in some cases more likely) pick-up a 2-hander and start working on the PowerAttack/Overhand Chop tree. The decision to take 2WF is synonymous with lower AC(than shield) & lower accuracy(than 2-hander).
If we were to fuss about things getting extra damage through a class ability then Monks shouldn't have Flurry(using weapons to do so) and Druids shouldn't have Wildshaping into something with 2 claws before BaB +6, etc.
Ref: Paladin; I just think to cry "NERF THIS" or " IT'S BROKEN" for an overwhelmingly small instance(times per day), is silly.
Ref: Rogue; Do you know what usually happens to one of those Rogues that get into combat and stab/kill someone? They draw aggro, if they don't something is wrong. And most "martial" characters are not going to need "extra" damage or attacks to show the Rogue that his health limited.
-------------------------------------------
The quote about Paladin Smite lasting until target opponent is dead came from the "D21 April Fool's Paizo page", it is no longer linked. From what I was told, the list by Jason B. was TRUTH and the "D21 system" announcement was the JOKE. *shrugs* I don't care, I'll see it soon enough in August.
Again, I don't see either as being a problem. They could just as easily (and in some cases more likely) pick-up a 2-hander and start working on the PowerAttack/Overhand Chop tree. The decision to take 2WF is synonymous with lower AC(than shield) & lower accuracy(than 2-hander).
But the whole basis of this thread is that the paladin has less reason to bother with 2-handers. And lower accuracy was never really a problem for a smiting paladin, and with the new boost to it in the pazio rules, the hit to AC is off-set too.
If we were to fuss about things getting extra damage through a class ability then Monks shouldn't have Flurry(using weapons to do so) and Druids shouldn't have Wildshaping into something with 2 claws before BaB +6, etc.
Neither example of which encourage the classes to fight in 1 particular fighting style. A druid can still achevie several different fighting styles whilst wildshaping (such as a finesses style, or a power-house strength based style, or even a caster using Natural spell) and a monk isn't limited to flurrying with simply his fists, he can do it with any weapon he or she uses.
Ref: Paladin; I just think to cry "NERF THIS" or " IT'S BROKEN" for an overwhelmingly small instance(times per day), is silly.
Small instance? Have you actually played a paladin IG? Evil creatures are more common foes than you think. What I've said on this topic is from actual play-test experience, the paladin smite is more powerful than 3.5, but it becomes simply a "win-button" in the case of a two-weapon paladin.
Ref: Rogue; Do you know what usually happens to one of those Rogues that get into combat and stab/kill someone? They draw aggro, if they don't something is wrong. And most "martial" characters are not going to need "extra" damage or attacks to show the Rogue that his health limited.
So what if a rogue draws aggro? Just being in combat is risky. A rogue has better hit dice int he PF rules and theres already ways to stop the foes going for others (such as a knights Sheild Ally ability of the Dutiful Guardian feat) and if there isn't, does that mean the rogue just shouldn't be useing his sneak attack? A rogue is not like a spellcaster, their use in combat is fairly limited to "stab them"
But the whole basis of this thread is that the paladin has less reason to bother with 2-handers. And lower accuracy was never really a problem for a smiting paladin, and with the new boost to it in the pazio rules, the hit to AC is off-set too.)
Again, I don't see either as being a problem. They could just as easily (and in some cases more likely) pick-up a 2-hander and start working on the PowerAttack/Overhand Chop tree. The decision to take 2WF is synonymous with lower AC(than shield) & lower accuracy(than 2-hander).
I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing, which seems to be the only reason you even replied to my post. The Beta is over, and the Final rules are unknown, if EVERYTHING in Beta is so gawd aweful, earth shattering, game breaking, world ending... just house-rule it out of your game and revert back to 3.5E.
I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing, which seems to be the only reason you even replied to my post.
So it can't just be that I agree with the OP? I replied because you seem to make a few assumptions in your post, such as lower AC and attack bonus being a problem for the paladin, and I was simply saying that it usally isn't.
And if you're not arguing for the sake of arguing, why are you replaying without anything else to say about the paladin, even though the whole point of this topic is to discuss the class?
And for the record, where are you getting this?
The Beta is over, and the Final rules are unknown, if EVERYTHING in Beta is so gawd aweful, earth shattering, game breaking, world ending... just house-rule it out of your game and revert back to 3.5E
I don't recall ever going off in such a tangent, in fact, with the exception of the paladin's smite I've not said anything else about the PFRPG beta in this topic.
I replied, the crappy messageboard ate it, the short short version.
So it can't just be that I agree with the OP? I replied because you seem to make a few assumptions in your post, such as lower AC and attack bonus being a problem for the paladin, and I was simply saying that it usally isn't.
I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing, which seems to be the only reason you even replied to my post.
I never flat-out said any of the above was a PROBLEM. I said depending on the weapon build you choose with your Paladin your Accuracy/AC/Damage will adjust, it's a matter of FACT.
Inherently....(without magic)Shield = Higher AC
2WF = Lower Accuracy
2-Hander = Higher Damage & Lower AC
1-Weapon/2-Hander = Higher Accuracy
All of those apply regardless of what Smite gives you, even if it gives you accuracy and damage bumps with a 2WF, without magical consideration, you will still be less accurate than a 1-Weapon/2-Hander and likely less damage than the 2-hander.
The Beta is over, and the Final rules are unknown, if EVERYTHING in Beta is so gawd aweful, earth shattering, game breaking, world ending... just house-rule it out of your game and revert back to 3.5EI don't recall ever going off in such a tangent, in fact, with the exception of the paladin's smite I've not said anything else about the PFRPG beta in this topic.
This was a blanket statement, not a directed one. "Core" mechanics are not exploits if they are in the book, they're rules.
Ref: Paladin; I just think to cry "NERF THIS" or " IT'S BROKEN" for an overwhelmingly small instance(times per day), is silly.Small instance? Have you actually played a paladin IG? Evil creatures are more common foes than you think. What I've said on this topic is from actual play-test experience, the paladin smite is more powerful than 3.5, but it becomes simply a "win-button" in the case of a two-weapon paladin.
This might be a bit overstated.
There are lots of enemies that are evil, but lots that are not.
Furthermore, a paladin who smites every goblin and his dog will quickly be out of smites when the bosses come around.
So paladins hoard their precious smites. They ration them out. They keep at least one ore two in reserve.
And some days, they make it to camp at the end of the adventuring day with many of their hoarded smites unused.
Now, if they add the ability for paladins to see the future and know when they can unload their precious few smites freely, and when they should conserve them because something more dangerous and/or more evil waits just around the next corner, then paladins could press their "win-button" as and when necessary rather than wasting them on the mooks, or wasting them by going to bed with some unused smites.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.Can someone link where he said that, or provide the context in which it was said?
Thank you ever so much.
Seconded.
I'd love to see the link to this. I've missed it. And now I'm playing a paladin (just level 2 so far, we just started RotRL, so I'll have plaenty of smiting to do before the campaign is finished.
I suppose I could go read the 1400-post paladin thread. It might be in there, or it might not. But if someone actually knows, please post the link.
Thanks in advance.
|
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.Can someone link where he said that, or provide the context in which it was said?
Thank you ever so much.
Seconded.
I'd love to see the link to this. I've missed it. And now I'm playing a paladin (just level 2 so far, we just started RotRL, so I'll have plaenty of smiting to do before the campaign is finished.
I suppose I could go read the 1400-post paladin thread. It might be in there, or it might not. But if someone actually knows, please post the link.
Thanks in advance.
It's not in that thread, trust me, I was on that thread from the first page to the last, and now they've dropped the d21 logo otherwise I'd link it, but it was in his serious part where they describe 21 ways in which PRPG is better than 3.5.
Now they don't go into any details so smite evil lasting till the enemy is dead may just mean the current revised version where at high level smite lasts three rounds, or it could mean he's changed smite entirely. That's the problem, just saying smite now lasts until the enemy is dead isn't really saying much because that could mean anything.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.Can someone link where he said that, or provide the context in which it was said?
Thank you ever so much.
Seconded.
I'd love to see the link to this. I've missed it. And now I'm playing a paladin (just level 2 so far, we just started RotRL, so I'll have plaenty of smiting to do before the campaign is finished.
I suppose I could go read the 1400-post paladin thread. It might be in there, or it might not. But if someone actually knows, please post the link.
Thanks in advance.
It's not in that thread, trust me, I was on that thread from the first page to the last, and now they've dropped the d21 logo otherwise I'd link it, but it was in his serious part where they describe 21 ways in which PRPG is better than 3.5.
Now they don't go into any details so smite evil lasting till the enemy is dead may just mean the current revised version where at high level smite lasts three rounds, or it could mean he's changed smite entirely. That's the problem, just saying smite now lasts until the enemy is dead isn't really saying much because that could mean anything.
Ah, well, that explains it.
The d21 logo was evidently an April Fool's prank. I wouldn't believe or quote anything from any page of text found in that silliness.
Now, if some of those ideas, in whole or in part, make it into the actual rules, then more power too them (as long as it's not the really bad ideas from d21).
But in general, I would disregard it entirely.
Which I did.
Which is why I didn't recognize the quote as being from that source.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Back to my houserule that paladins can smite for 1 full round/level.
To me a paladin who hides his aura is not really a paladin.
Consider: the paladin has managed to release the villagers from the prison compound (non-lawful, bandit-run), but not out of the woods (there are injured/young ones that need rest). They hide, but there are search parties on the lookout. These search parties know about the paladin and bring along 'detect good'.
The paladin refuses to hide his aura.
(or some variant of detect vs aura that would be correct in this context).
Discuss.
To me a paladin who hides his aura is not really a paladin.Consider: the paladin has managed to release the villagers from the prison compound (non-lawful, bandit-run), but not out of the woods (there are injured/young ones that need rest). They hide, but there are search parties on the lookout. These search parties know about the paladin and bring along 'detect good'.
The paladin refuses to hide his aura.
(or some variant of detect vs aura that would be correct in this context).
Discuss.
Why do you (not just you, lots of people do it) end the post with "Discuss"?
This is a forum. Discussion is what people do here. You make a post, especially one that invite controversy like this one, and people will either ignore it or duscuss it.
They'll do one of those two things regardless of whether you write "Discuss" at the end of your post.
I have to admit, my first reaction when I see "Discuss" is to be a little peeved that some poster is telling me what to do. My inclination is to do the opposite as a form of protest, a silent rebellion against those who push me around and give me orders.
All of which is futile in a public forum since nobody sees the lack of my posting as rebellion - they don't see the lack of my posting at all, since it isn't there for them to see.
So then my second reaction is to bristle, and grudgingly do what I'm told and "Discuss" because that is the lesser of two evils, the other of which is a futile silent rebellion.
It's lose-lose for me.
So here I am choosing the middle ground, expressing a vocal rebellion about being told to "Discuss". It's a lot like playing Chess to get a dra. It beats losing.
*********************************
To continue the discussion, if a paladin can't turn it off, then he can't. He has to live, or die, with it. And so do the people he's protecting.
If he can turn it off, then clearly his god has blessed him with a power that is his to use as he sees fit, including turn it off as he sees fit, and hopefully his god has granted him the wisdom to know when it's appropriate to do so.
Therefore, if the ruling is that the power has an on/off switch, then the paladin will be well within his right, and his alignment, to use that switch when the situation warrants.
QED
So paladins hoard their precious smites. They ration them out. They keep at least one ore two in reserve.
And some days, they make it to camp at the end of the adventuring day with many of their hoarded smites unused.
You know, so many problems like this one can be solved by changing some per day abilities to per encounter abilities! If paladins get smites/encounter based on their paladin level (maybe 1+Paladin level/3), they wouldn't *need* to hoard all of their smites.
You know, so many problems like this one can be solved by changing some per day abilities to per encounter abilities! If paladins get smites/encounter based on their paladin level (maybe 1+Paladin level/3), they wouldn't *need* to hoard all of their smites.So paladins hoard their precious smites. They ration them out. They keep at least one ore two in reserve.
And some days, they make it to camp at the end of the adventuring day with many of their hoarded smites unused.
Except I'm not sure it's a problem.
I was pointing it out as a counter to the poster who said Smite Evil is a giant "win button" for paladins, and demonstrating how there are many cases (no smites left, saving remaining fights for later, or non-evil foes) when the "win button" is disabled.
In those cases, the guys who have endless "win buttons" are the winners. Fighters with feats they can use all day long. Rogues with sneak attacks they can use all day long. They are the ones with the real "win buttons".
I don't mind daily power usage.
It's a staple of the D&D game (well, it was until 4e came along) and it's a staple of the genre. Besides, it introduces a little bit of strategy into how the characters are played. Without it, everyone just zaps the monsters with their per-encounter special goodness and every encounter becomes a cookie-cutter reproduction of the last encounter.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to use your class abilities to overcome encounters. My beguiler casts Haste and Solid Fog almost every combat. Does that mean I'm repetitive or does it mean I'm just choosing effective options?
Uber Chargers and Spiked Chain trippers pretty much try to do what they're built for, because that's all they can do really well.
What's so different about Paladins wanting their Smites when something Evil comes along? And hey, they can still use things like Bullrush and Disarm and Sunder if they really want to.
Funnily enough, back in 3.5, Smiting helps with Disarm because Smites give you an attack bonus and Disarm attempts were opposed attack rolls XD.
Yes if you use it up, the win button is disabled, but that makes it no less a win button usable X times a day on evil foes, when involving 2wf.
Slightly exaggerating here, but think of it as a no-save disintegrate spell with a range of melee.
How so? The paladin has a high base attack, and with his cha + str modifier applied to the to-hit it is unlikely he will miss many primary attacks on the target. This basically means 'double the extra damage' of a regular smiting paladin, minus some minor fractial stuff (like extra damage from overhead chop. A 2h doesnt really do more damage than 2 weapons since you still add 1.5 your str modifier to your attacks. Also with the present condition of the paladin you don't need 2 good magical swords, one will do, and you can divine bond the other to do the trick.)
Furthermore with the changes to the powerattack tree, a 2wf paladin furthermore benefits from his double attacks since he can't just take out as much patk as he wants with a 2h and benefit from the increased accuracy of the 2h (read: no 2wf penalties), so essentially you could say the bonus to-hit from smiting 'goes to waste'.
So a 2wf paladin gets double his level to damage, and double his str modifier to patk when he is smiting, effectively 'win buttoning' them for many cases.
Will the paladin's 2wf skills be useless in the rest of the battles? I don't really think so. In fact he will be dealing more damage than the paladin with the 2h, I think, if we're talking about a charisma based paladin. Will he be less of a tank with his decreased AC? Maybe, but paladins can now lay on hands on themselves as a swift action, so I think they can survive the drop to AC.
Yes its a choice, but it seems to me like the benefits of going 2wf heavily outweigh the benefits of any other style, when playing a charisma-based smiteadin (or charismadin). I personally can't think of a good reason for me not to play a 2wf paladin, other than that it bothers my mental eye to see the classic iconic paladin turned to another legolas or drizzt.
Except I'm not sure it's a problem.You know, so many problems like this one can be solved by changing some per day abilities to per encounter abilities! If paladins get smites/encounter based on their paladin level (maybe 1+Paladin level/3), they wouldn't *need* to hoard all of their smites.So paladins hoard their precious smites. They ration them out. They keep at least one ore two in reserve.
And some days, they make it to camp at the end of the adventuring day with many of their hoarded smites unused.
Only problem I see is that, that quote is not my quote. It's DM_Blake's, apparently missed a /quote in one of the above statements.
>>> <QUOTE="DM_Blake"> So paladins hoard their precious smites. They ration them out. They keep at least one ore two in reserve.
And some days, they make it to camp at the end of the adventuring day with many of their hoarded smites unused. </quote>
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.Can someone link where he said that, or provide the context in which it was said?
Thank you ever so much.
Seconded.
I'd love to see the link to this. I've missed it. And now I'm playing a paladin (just level 2 so far, we just started RotRL, so I'll have plaenty of smiting to do before the campaign is finished.
I suppose I could go read the 1400-post paladin thread. It might be in there, or it might not. But if someone actually knows, please post the link.
Thanks in advance.
You can find it here (almost on the bottom of the page, after the header 'How does the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game improve on the core 3.5 fantasy system?').
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.Can someone link where he said that, or provide the context in which it was said?
Thank you ever so much.
Seconded.
I'd love to see the link to this. I've missed it. And now I'm playing a paladin (just level 2 so far, we just started RotRL, so I'll have plaenty of smiting to do before the campaign is finished.
I suppose I could go read the 1400-post paladin thread. It might be in there, or it might not. But if someone actually knows, please post the link.
Thanks in advance.
You can find it here (almost on the bottom of the page, after the header 'How does the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game improve on the core 3.5 fantasy system?').
Thanks for that. That is interesting to say the least. My thoughts:
1. This is old information. Someone added that to the FAQ months ago, and maybe they planned to implement the rule but never did, and this never got removed from the FAQ when the rule wasn't implemented. Yes, the FAQ was last updated this month, but if this supposition is correct, the updaters keep overlooking this line item.
2. This is new information, so new it isn't in the BETA rules, nor is it mentioned officially in any forum threads, but it will appear in the official rules when they finally get published. If so, this is good news for paladins, but not too useful during the BETA, since we don't know the exact implementation.
3. This is misunderstood. Maybe the person who added it to the FAQ meant to imply that Smite Evil lasts longer (true at higher levels) so there is more time to kill the target before the Smite wears off. If this is true, then the FAQ would be more accurate if it said "Smite evil lasts longer, maybe even until your target is dead."
I have no idea which of those suppositions is correct, if any. Maybe I'll point my DM to this comment and get him to houserule Smite Evil to work like a 4e mark - put it on a target and until I put it somewhere else, or the target dies, it remains in effect, allowing me to increase my +HIT, +AC, and do extra damage until I kill the evil foe.
Discuss.Why do you (not just you, lots of people do it) end the post with "Discuss"?
Well, first off - sorry for peeving you. Not my intent. Second, glad you're not aiming your ire at me personally. I'd get upset.
'Discuss.' was not an order. I used it with 'Consider' at the top as part of a set phrase - It's a college/university trope that I thought was well-known. Obviously I was mistaken.
I also thought it was appropriate because the person I was quoting was indicating that a paladin was NOT acting correctly if they hid their aura. I wanted to provide an alternate view and invite discussion based on the contradiction between the two - rather than say "You're wrong. Here's why."
This is a forum. Discussion is what people do here. You make a post, especially one that invite controversy like this one, and people will either ignore it or duscuss it.
They'll do one of those two things regardless of whether you write "Discuss" at the end of your post.
Agreed. They'd do it even if you tell them not to!
I have to admit, my first reaction when I see "Discuss" is to be a little peeved that some poster is telling me what to do. My inclination is to do the opposite as a form of protest, a silent rebellion against those who push me around and give me orders.
Seriously. Was not an order. Promise!
All of which is futile in a public forum since nobody sees the lack of my posting as rebellion - they don't see the lack of my posting at all, since it isn't there for them to see.
So then my second reaction is to bristle, and grudgingly do what I'm told and "Discuss" because that is the lesser of two evils, the other of which is a futile silent rebellion.
It's lose-lose for me.
So here I am choosing the middle ground, expressing a vocal rebellion about being told to "Discuss". It's a lot like playing Chess to get a draw. It beats losing.
You could always reply "I will not post my really clever answer to this post unless the poster (Me) withdraws the 'discuss' order".
What happens if someone types "What does everyone think." at the end of their posts?
I'll reply to your 'actual' post on another post I think...
:-)
To continue the discussion, if a paladin can't turn it off, then he can't. He has to live, or die, with it. And so do the people he's protecting.
Yeah! So he'll decide to leave them and draw away the scouts from their position. Not optimal, as he would be best placed near the escapees but based on circumstances, the next best option.
If he can turn it off, then clearly his god has blessed him with a power that is his to use as he sees fit, including turn it off as he sees fit, and hopefully his god has granted him the wisdom to know when it's appropriate to do so.
Again, makes sense.
Therefore, if the ruling is that the power has an on/off switch, then the paladin will be well within his right, and his alignment, to use that switch when the situation warrants.
QED
But the person I quoted believed that even if the paladin had the means to hide it, they shouldn't. Which doesn't sound right to me. Even if the 'off switch' isn't built into the power, I still think it's allowable. Otherwise, the pally would have to avoid thick walls, as it would 'hide his aura' to people behind it, and a lead plate factory would be right out. Unless there's an 'Inadvertent Aura Blocking Allowed' clause in his paladin code.
if a paladin can't turn it off, then he can't. He has to live, or die, with it. And so do the people he's protecting.Yeah! So he'll decide to leave them and draw away the scouts from their position. Not optimal, as he would be best placed near the escapees but based on circumstances, the next best option.
Leaving helpless people to die at the hands of their enemies is no more acceptable to the paladin code than deceiving the enemies by hiding his aura, or staying with them to die with them trying to save them.
It's all a lose-lose scenario for the paladin with no off switch, but surely if he acts in the way that seems wisest, and most honorable, and in the best interest of those he's protecting, then his alignment remains intact and his place is secure in whatever heaven his particular deity calls home.
If he can turn it off, then clearly his god has blessed him with a power that is his to use as he sees fit, including turn it off as he sees fit, and hopefully his god has granted him the wisdom to know when it's appropriate to do so.Again, makes sense.
But the person I quoted believed that even if the paladin had the means to hide it, they shouldn't. Which doesn't sound right to me.Therefore, if the ruling is that the power has an on/off switch, then the paladin will be well within his right, and his alignment, to use that switch when the situation warrants.
QED
We're talking a world where gods grant powers to their faithful. Real powers their faithful paladins, clerics, and other priests can use daily, and in some cases, at will.
In this imaginary world there is no atheism. There is no question of whether those gods exist. Proof abounds.
And for the paladin, there is no question that his god grants him his powers. None.
So if the granted power has an off switch, then it is because his deity wants the power to have an off switch. In which case, his deity expects the paladin to use the off switch as circumstances dictate. If it were otherwise, his deity would not have included the off switch in the first place.
Ergo, turning off the holy aura cannot possibly be contradictory to the paladin's deity's rules, unless the paladin misuses the off switch for inappropriate reasons.
Even if the 'off switch' isn't built into the power, I still think it's allowable.
Well, if it's not built in, it would be hard to turn off the power.
Furthermore, if the off-switch is not provided by the paladin's deity, then it's realistically arguable that the deity would consider turning off the power to be a violation of the paladin code, perhaps even a sacrilege to the deity's religion. So asking a mage to use antimagic, or hiding behind a lead wall, might get a paladin kicked out of his church, fallen to mere fighterhood, for misusing (hiding) his true nature against his deity's wishes.
Otherwise, the pally would have to avoid thick walls, as it would 'hide his aura' to people behind it, and a lead plate factory would be right out. Unless there's an 'Inadvertent Aura Blocking Allowed' clause in his paladin code.
It's a truly strict, severe deity, way beyond "vain and jealous", who would punish truly inadvertent violations.
Surely the paladin code would allow the paladin to live in a castle of a cathedral with stone walls. If someone on the other side of the wall can't see the aura, well, they can't see the paladin either, so it's a moot point - unless the paladin is deliberately hiding behind the wall to avoid detection.
Actually paladin's are allowed by the core rules to hide their auras:
Undetectable Alignment is a second level paladin spell.
Sense it's a spell given to paladins (who, by the way, don't require a god to be a paladin) then they are obviously allowed to use that spell, which means they can use that spell when deemed necessary.
|
|
Actually paladin's are allowed by the core rules to hide their auras:
Undetectable Alignment is a second level paladin spell.
Sense it's a spell given to paladins (who, by the way, don't require a god to be a paladin) then they are obviously allowed to use that spell, which means they can use that spell when deemed necessary.
And the argument that the god wouldn't want them to turn off their powers as necessary wouldn't hold water because if that was the case the god wouldn't allow that spell in the paladins bag of tricks in the first place, also I'm seconding the fact that there can be secular paladins
And as for another part that dealt with atheism as impossible that's actually untrue. yes higher power beings exist that can grant magic powers but then again concepts in d&d grant powers, so do demons, so do a plethora of things including the outer planes and the void (alienists and entropomancers) Its entirely plausible to believe that gods are nothing more than more powerful creatures than we are and so our primitive minds call them gods, and as proof I merely worship chaos and change and look I still have power and no god has struck me down. (in fact I think you've just inspired my next D&D character, a cleric of atheism) In fact if I crush this anthill I'm sure the ants will think of me as a god of destruction, it doesn't make it true oh man I'm cooking with gas here. Thanks for making that argument I am loving this concept.
Its entirely plausible to believe that gods are nothing more than more powerful creatures than we are and so our primitive minds call them gods, and as proof I merely worship chaos and change and look I still have power and no god has struck me down. (in fact I think you've just inspired my next D&D character, a cleric of atheism)
Exactly. Some Campaigns like Forgottem Realms have Gods that walk among mortals and give them powers - and require mortals to worship them, in order to have an afterlife (or become the bricks of the Wall of the Faithless...); other Campaigns like Eberron have clerics that can cast spells even from Gods that are actually nothing else than powerful creatures - the Path of Light is a concept of peace and harmony, the Silver Flame is the worshipping of a gestalt between a martyr human Paladin and a martyr Couatl
It's a common concept of the old Planescape Campaign, actually... belief is power.
Jason Bulmahn wrote: Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.You can find it here (almost on the bottom of the page, after the header 'How does the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game improve on the core 3.5 fantasy system?').
Thanks for that. That is interesting to say the least. My thoughts:
1. This is old information. Someone added that to the FAQ months ago, and maybe they planned to implement the rule but never did, and this never got removed from the FAQ when the rule wasn't implemented. Yes, the FAQ was last updated this month, but if this supposition is correct, the updaters keep overlooking this line item.
2. This is new information, so new it isn't in the BETA rules, nor is it mentioned officially in any forum threads, but it will appear in the official rules when they finally get published. If so, this is good news for paladins, but not too useful during the BETA, since we don't know the exact implementation.
3. This is misunderstood. Maybe the person who added it to the FAQ meant to imply that Smite Evil lasts longer (true at higher levels) so there is more time to kill the target before the Smite wears off. If this is true, then the FAQ would be more accurate if it said "Smite evil lasts longer, maybe even until your target is dead."
For the record, this is not #1 (old information) - it was added when the April Fool's D21 page was removed. That is the information that was under the "More Info" hide-away. Since they couldn't leave the joke up forever, it got moved to the FAQ. This was confirmed by Paizo.
As for #2 vs. #3 - no clue here.
And as for another part that dealt with atheism as impossible that's actually untrue. yes higher power beings exist that can grant magic powers but then again concepts in d&d grant powers, so do demons, so do a plethora of things including the outer planes and the void (alienists and entropomancers) Its entirely plausible to believe that gods are nothing more than more powerful creatures than we are and so our primitive minds call them gods, and as proof I merely worship chaos and change and look I still have power and no god has struck me down. (in fact I think you've just inspired my next D&D character, a cleric of atheism) In fact if I crush this anthill I'm sure the ants will think of me as a god of destruction, it doesn't make it true oh man I'm cooking with gas here. Thanks for making that argument I am loving this concept.
It's just semantics.
Whether a god is a super-powerful entity that has a hand in creating our reality and manipulating our lives, or whether he is just some creature that is way more powerful than us, either way, he's a super-powerful being that smites mountains and creates races and answers prayers.
Regardless of his origins, he fits the definition of god or he doesn't.
If he doesn't fit the definition (unable to answer prayers, powerful but not divinely powerful, or whatever) then he's not a god and shouldn't be called one.
If he fits the definition, then he's a god, no matter how he came to be defined/called a god. At this point, it's just semantics.
|
|
And as for another part that dealt with atheism as impossible that's actually untrue. yes higher power beings exist that can grant magic powers but then again concepts in d&d grant powers, so do demons, so do a plethora of things including the outer planes and the void (alienists and entropomancers) Its entirely plausible to believe that gods are nothing more than more powerful creatures than we are and so our primitive minds call them gods, and as proof I merely worship chaos and change and look I still have power and no god has struck me down. (in fact I think you've just inspired my next D&D character, a cleric of atheism) In fact if I crush this anthill I'm sure the ants will think of me as a god of destruction, it doesn't make it true oh man I'm cooking with gas here. Thanks for making that argument I am loving this concept.It's just semantics.
Whether a god is a super-powerful entity that has a hand in creating our reality and manipulating our lives, or whether he is just some creature that is way more powerful than us, either way, he's a super-powerful being that smites mountains and creates races and answers prayers.
Regardless of his origins, he fits the definition of god or he doesn't.
If he doesn't fit the definition (unable to answer prayers, powerful but not divinely powerful, or whatever) then he's not a god and shouldn't be called one.
If he fits the definition, then he's a god, no matter how he came to be defined/called a god. At this point, it's just semantics.
That's my point though, everything grants spells and answers prayers. In any campaign setting by the core rules you can worship travel celerity and have power.
I think if you can worship quickness of action and going to other places and get spells you can make an arguement that the gods aren't really gods. So yes you can have athiesm, heck I could see an athiesm domain, there are rules for creating your own domains, you can have it in any game where the DM doesn't houserule it to be impossible.
|
|
In this imaginary world there is no atheism. There is no question of whether those gods exist. Proof abounds.
This is the only part I was really responding to, was the statement there is no athiesm. I was just showing how there is plenty of justification for athiesm. Your right there's no question those beings exist, hell in many settings they walk amongst the people. I'm just pointing out that that doesn't preclude athiesm.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.Can someone link where he said that, or provide the context in which it was said?
Thank you ever so much.
Do you still want the link? here it is.
So what do they say? I leave you a little taste.- Clerics can actually cast their prepared spells instead of converting them into healing.
- Bards don't suck. Now they can make you die with laughter.
- Monks don't suck. When they use flurry of blows they actually hit.
- Paladins don't suck. Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.
- Rangers don't suck. You really do not want to be a ranger's quarry.
- Sorcerers don't suck. Bloodlines give you a host of cool powers and abilities.
- There is now a reason to wear medium armor. With a good Dexterity score, you can get an AC of 19 by just wearing a breastplate.
- Spellcasters do not have to spend a bunch of ranks on Concentration (or any other skill) to be able to cast their spells in the middle of combat.
- At high levels, a fighter can cause a character to become blinded and stunned with a critical hit.
- At high levels, a paladin can cure a character that is blinded and stunned with a touch.
"Bards don't suck. Now they can make you die with laughter", I guess this means Bards suck until he/she hits level 20. But 3:ed made the Bard a hopeless case so I don't blame Paizo.
Jason is interviewed at Kobold Quarterly: Interview
I believe this contains the first concrete snippets of information about the final version of the Pathfinder RPG. Brief summary:
Paladins can continue to smite a designated evil opponent until he drops
Paladins have 'Mercy' that they can add to Lay on Hands to cure disease and so on
Domains revert to something closer to 3.5E, but somehow many of the new domain powers and abilities are preserved
Dispel Magic only takes one roll to resolve
There will be rules for stairsBeyond that there are also the usual more general comments, such as that the final version will be more compatible with 3.5E than the Beta was and so on.
Got this from another thread, Thanx Roman, whereever you are.
I guess you want all the snippets on the Paladin so here they are:- "Take the paladin for example. There are a number of changes to their smite evil, to make it
a more useful option in the game (when you smite evil, you pick a target and the smite lasts
until that target is defeated). In addition, paladins get a new ability called Mercy.
Each mercy adds an effect to the paladin’s Lay on Hands ability, allowing the paladin to remove
conditions and other ailments."
Let them do it. If they want to add Dex to Str, Con and Cha as stats they need. They need to start with Dex 15 for this, and if they want all three off-hand attacks, they need to boost it to 19.
This means that str and cha (other damage stats) and con (HP stat) will suffer. Together with the fact that their attacks now suffer -2, the attacks they have will hit less often.
Well spoken. And they won't get the AC from the shield. And the rest of the time, when they don't smite, they will suck. And high dex? They need charisma and some strength and some con. me, I don't want to dump Int. So Char, Str, Some con and high Dex? How are they going to hit anything? When not smiting the damage will be poor. With high dex and high charisma the damage won't be that good even when smiting.
I think a TWF Paladin could be fun, but she won't be (too) good. She'll probably have to use a short sword because she wants weapon focus and improved crit (rapier won't do - it's not a light weapon).A TWF Paladin wouldn be a litlle like the Bard. Jack of all trades, master of none. A no charisma Paladin, a no Str Paladin, just a lot of dex and not much more. Great fun - not.
If not playing a S&B Paladin I rather boost str and have 12 (or 13) dex and use a great sword as soon as I can get my hand on a fullplate (level 4 in our campaign). Human Paladin, 20 Point Buy: Str 18, dex 12, con 12, int 10, wis 7, char 16
If GM use 15 point buy: Str 18, dex 12, con 12, int 10, wis 7, char 14
I see what you're saying and I can't say you aren't right in a degree, but from experience, I still think that if pathfinder were to have the RPG influence 3d edition has had on rpg society, all paladins will eventually end up using 2 weapons.
Empirically you have a non-issue here, it just feels like an issue because humans aren't built to see empirical evidence easily.
No, I don't think so. I think you are wrong.
I mean how long has it been since rogues went from holding a single dagger to being trademarked multi-weapon fighters that always fight with 2 pointy things in their hands? I know for sure they rarely held two weapons in 2nd, and they only started appearing with 2 weapons when 3d came out, and the 'exploit' of using 2 swords in combination with sneak attack came to play.
I've been playing for 8 - 10 years. TWF rogues have not been common. I made one once, didn't like it. High DPS + low AC = death. Our other players did's like it, they prefered spring attack. Our latest rogue player is also going for spring attack.
It probably is a non-issue, as you say, but I think that charisma-based paladins, that I like to call Charismadins or Smitadins when I'm joking around, are generally weak with non-smite attacks so the miss chance when not smiting is pretty high in any rate. The -2 penalty however does become nearly obsolete with a high charisma. Of course with a 2h you can take better advantage of the better attack bonus with power attack but it still won't outweigh the doubled damage taken from 2 weapon fighting.
I actually think a 2H do outweigh the doubled damage. Some aspects
- a 2H would hit more often- Power attack (The new PA don't grant as much damage to light or off hand weaapons)
- the devestaing blow chain
- higher str (and probaly higher char)= more damage.
- a 2H do more damage when not smiting (and will hit more often)
- a 2H can heal hearself during battle (using LoH or spells) without dropping the sword. A TWF can't unless she drops a sword (she wouldn't want to sheathe it). So LoH (or spells) and then the TWF Paladin only have one weapon.
In the end, this is probably not enough a reason to call full round smites as a reason, but I do think it deserves some better looking into to see if there's a better option [...]
I say Abraham Spalding is right. This is a non-issue.
- Power attack (The new PA don't grant as much damage to light or off hand weaapons)
I just want to point out that this is questionable at best (agree with most of the rest - I don't think there will be *too* large a bias towards TWF).
The preview of Valeros showed that Power Attack for him gave X (4 for him) to his off-hand/light weapon, and 2X (8) to his primary/one-handed weapon. We do not have a preview of a two-handed weapon, but there is certainly a likelihood that it adds 3X.
For a Paladin dual-wielding, they would be at least equal to a two-hander if wielding longsword/shortsword. Wielding shortsword/shortsword, the answer would depend on if the deliminator is primary vs. off-hand or one-handed vs. light. If it's primary vs. off-hand, he would still do +2X/+X. If one-handed vs. light, *then* he would only do +X/+X vs. the two-hander getting +3X.
The deliniator better be primary/off-hand, if it's one handed/light, then be ready to see a bunch of people take oversized two weapon fighting and weild 2 longswords, or the hated 2 scimitars
Oversized two weapon fighting is not a core/Paizo feat.
And even so I don't think "there will be *too* large a bias towards TWF" as Majuba put it.In don't see the Paldin as a dex class. And if you do build a dex Paladin you had better use weapon finess and then you do need a light weapon....in both hands. If anyone want to go TWF Paldin. That's fine by me. And as KaeYoss pointed out
Let them do it. If they want to add Dex to Str, Con and Cha as stats they need. They need to start with Dex 15 for this, and if they want all three off-hand attacks, they need to boost it to 19.
This means that str and cha (other damage stats) and con (HP stat) will suffer. Together with the fact that their attacks now suffer -2, the attacks they have will hit less often.
Sure, you can dump wis and int and settle with a 12 charisma score and just go str and dex. And then the GM can toss you all the Chaotic neutral foes he / she can find. Rules are never perfect, that's one of the reasons you got a GM.
|
|
The deliniator better be primary/off-hand, if it's one handed/light, then be ready to see a bunch of people take oversized two weapon fighting and weild 2 longswords, or the hated 2 scimitarsOversized two weapon fighting is not a core/Paizo feat.
No you're right, it's not a core feat, however it does exist and this is supposed to be a backwards compatable system, and the feat was released by WotC so has the best argument from a players standpoint to be included. In my opinion while you can't account for every feat in 3.5, it would be an oversight if he redid the PA rules to include two weapon fighting and then didn't account for that feat.
No you're right, it's not a core feat, however it does exist and this is supposed to be a backwards compatable system, and the feat was released by WotC so has the best argument from a players standpoint to be included. In my opinion while you can't account for every feat in 3.5, it would be an oversight if he redid the PA rules to include two weapon fighting and then didn't account for that feat.The deliniator better be primary/off-hand, if it's one handed/light, then be ready to see a bunch of people take oversized two weapon fighting and weild 2 longswords, or the hated 2 scimitarsOversized two weapon fighting is not a core/Paizo feat.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It's GM's call anyway.
I think a lot of the stuff (feats, spells, prestige classes, etc.) are very unbalenced. To me it just semms like WOTC wanted to sell more and more books.When I say unbalenced I mean some of the stuff was too good and some of the stuff was far from good.