I agree there is no point in continuing this conversation. You have only one viewpoint, seem unable to understand that others viewpoints might differ and are not backing it up with any real facts or proof besides opinion.
I think it's less a question of opinion than one of defining terms. A paladin is traditionally defined, other than one of the 12 Peers of Charlemagne's court, as a paragon of chivalry - a fairly strict set of social behaviors, mores, and obligations. That's a fact.
It's also true that the definition of LG, of all of the alignments, fits that definition best. So is it any wonder that there are people who think that any holy warrior, any god's champion, that doesn't follow those codes is not really a paladin? Not really.
D&D defined the paladin character class along the commonly accepted definition and Paizo has chosen to follow that tradition in PF. That doesn't mean that an individual gaming group couldn't use the paladin class as a boilerplate for other holy warriors and exemplars of alignment extremism. But I would submit that, by calling the results of such designs "paladin", you wouldn't be putting the term to it's most appropriate use. It would be like the difference between certain kinds of glasses used to drink alcohol. They may both have stems but you wouldn't call a champaign flute a brandy snifter, or vice versa, even if they did come from some common boilerplate of a stemmed glass (which I'm not saying they did, I'm just speaking hypothetically).
One thing that strikes me about Seelah is how tough she is. Her AC is solid enough, but her saves are amazing and her HPS rather solid as well. I would hazard to bet adding in her healing ability and her spells she is just about the toughest iconic there will be. And as we have all seen none of these guys are optimized.
Guess what I am saying is Paladins are heavy duty damage sponges.
Ok.. I think we have seen just about enough of the paladin alignment banter in this preview thread.
This is not being changed, as a matter of fact, it cannot be changed at this point. Folks seem to be arguing back and forth about how this should go, but lets not forget that this is your game.. and by that, I mean each of you. If you want CG paladins in your game, with different powers, that is your perogative. No one on this board, including me can stop you (not that I would want to.. because its YOUR game.. not mine).
I have seen this exact argument flare up more than once on multiple boards.. and this preview thread, which previews things that are now set in stone, is not the place.
If folks want to continue the alignment debate.. start a new thread. Further posts will be suppressed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Further posts about anything in this thread, or just posts dealing with the alignment debate? I agree that there is no chance of anything being changed at this point (nor do I want it changed) but I hope this thread (in general) remains open for more general class reviews.
You know, I think I'll drop the double damage from smites vs. specific types in my games. I don't like the paladin stepping on the rangers toes the way this feature allows them to, and just doesn't feel right to me, I said that multiple times on the design board, but oh well, not everyone will be pleased. Still I just don't like the notion and think I'm gonna not allow it. Everything else will work just like the class says it will, just no double damage vs. types. Their immunities are allready what make them shine when fighting creatures of those types which heavily rely on many of those things paladins are immune too. I said it once and I'll say it again. A paladin doesn't consider one type of evil "more important" than another, this ability suggests that demons/devils/dragons that are evil are somehow worse than evil clerics/mind flayers/etc. and it just hurts the image of the paladin to me.
I do love that he moved the ignore DR to all enemies instead of just against those of the type that it deals double damage against. I hated that and glad to see my campaign to get that just become a feature of smite was listened to :)
I think the double damage is pretty important. It is what lets Paladins do better than Fighters (and Rangers) against specific evil foes, when all of their powers are "on." Comparing the non-doubled prowess of the Paladin to the output a Fighter could manage, and it isn't particularly overwhelming. I imagine similar care has gone toward making Rangers hold their own against Paladins, except in the very specific instance of the Paladin going double-down for a limited period of time.
Director of Games
|
Further posts about anything in this thread, or just posts dealing with the alignment debate? I agree that there is no chance of anything being changed at this point (nor do I want it changed) but I hope this thread (in general) remains open for more general class reviews.
Just the alignment debate. Everything else is just fine.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
One thing that strikes me about Seelah is how tough she is. Her AC is solid enough, but her saves are amazing and her HPS rather solid as well. I would hazard to bet adding in her healing ability and her spells she is just about the toughest iconic there will be. And as we have all seen none of these guys are optimized.
Guess what I am saying is Paladins are heavy duty damage sponges.
Oh, they are. Extra Lay on Hands is a cursed feat. It lets the Paladin think nothing of using it three rounds straight to heal himself of damage that took a Rakshasa five rounds to do. And he's hitting her with smite all the time as well!
If you're fighting a Paladin, forget damage, go for the few conditions they're not immune to.
I think the double damage is pretty important. It is what lets Paladins do better than Fighters (and Rangers) against specific evil foes, when all of their powers are "on."
Hmm, I don't entirely disagree, but the Paladin *already* does better than a Ranger against any evil creature, without doubling it (well better from 3rd level on).
A ranger could have +4 hit and damage vs. favored enemies at level 5. Paladin has +5 damage. 6 vs 10, 8 vs. 15, 10 vs. 20. Then doubled.
The limited targets per day of course counters this, but they are certainly *already* well ahead on the damage front.
I think the double damage is pretty important. It is what lets Paladins do better than Fighters (and Rangers) against specific evil foes, when all of their powers are "on."Hmm, I don't entirely disagree, but the Paladin *already* does better than a Ranger against any evil creature, without doubling it (well better from 3rd level on).
A ranger could have +4 hit and damage vs. favored enemies at level 5. Paladin has +5 damage. 6 vs 10, 8 vs. 15, 10 vs. 20. Then doubled.
The limited targets per day of course counters this, but they are certainly *already* well ahead on the damage front.
Don't forget the ranger environments.
It's all situational. If your party routinely fights undead and demons, well, the paladin is going to rock their world and the ranger will just watch in awe.
But if your party fights primarily dinosaurs and magical beasts, then the ranger is going to rattle their world and the paladin will by crying in his holy water.
And if you switch back and forth, fighting some of each, then the two classes are roughly balanced, each getting a chance to shine and each getting a chance to cry, but the barbarian is raging against everything, and the fighter is applying 73 combat feats against everything, and the... well, you get it.
I don't think it's too big a problem.
|
Holy crap. A short response from DM_Blake that I don't have any arguments with. I are amazed!
Also, I need to ask you to change your name to something like DM_Bob or DM_Basket or anything else. I can't tell you how many times I went to say "my avatar on the boards is 'Karui Kage' and 'Nethys'" at PaizoCon, got stopped around "my avatar on the boards is..." with other people saying "Oh, DM Blake?"
Bah! ;)
Don't forget the ranger environments.
Terrains are good, but they don't add to damage.
I can't tell you how many times I went to say "my avatar on the boards is 'Karui Kage' and 'Nethys'" at PaizoCon, got stopped around "my avatar on the boards is..." with other people saying "Oh, DM Blake?"
Did we manage to meet at PaizoCon? I know I didn't ever hear "Nethys" from anyone unfortunately.
Holy crap. A short response from DM_Blake that I don't have any arguments with. I are amazed!
Which amazes you more? The brevity, or the agreement?
Also, I need to ask you to change your name to something like DM_Bob or DM_Basket or anything else. I can't tell you how many times I went to say "my avatar on the boards is 'Karui Kage' and 'Nethys'" at PaizoCon, got stopped around "my avatar on the boards is..." with other people saying "Oh, DM Blake?"
Bah! ;)
LOL!
Now that's funny, but it would be unfair when Bob goes to a Paizo function, or Mr. Basket...
|
|
Don't forget the ranger environments.Terrains are good, but they don't add to damage.
I can't tell you how many times I went to say "my avatar on the boards is 'Karui Kage' and 'Nethys'" at PaizoCon, got stopped around "my avatar on the boards is..." with other people saying "Oh, DM Blake?"Did we manage to meet at PaizoCon? I know I didn't ever hear "Nethys" from anyone unfortunately.
I thought I saw you a few times, but I could be mistaken. I DM'd a couple Tide of Glory games, was in the big circle of awesome on Sunday in the lobby, and went to the after-'party' with everyone at the Bar and Grill. Hung mostly with Hugo, name was Blake... well, that's about it, haha.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2790077&l=207b85eade&id=50297 4877 <-- I'm the tall one.
We're going to need seperate name-tags. I decree myself Blake Alpha, you can be Blake Bravo. Since, you know, I'm awesome.
I decline.
Though, if I attend such an event, I'll be "DM Blake the Tarrasque". That will solve all my identity crises.
You're on your own...
Now that's funny, but it would be unfair when Bob goes to a Paizo function, or Mr. Basket...
That's Mr. 'Bahs-kay' to you.
Did we manage to meet at PaizoCon? I know I didn't ever hear "Nethys" from anyone unfortunately.I thought I saw you a few times, but I could be mistaken. I DM'd a couple Tide of Glory games, was in the big circle of awesome on Sunday in the lobby, and went to the after-'party' with everyone at the Bar and Grill. Hung mostly with Hugo, name was Blake... well, that's about it, haha.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2790077&l=207b85eade&id=50297 4877 <-- I'm the tall one.
Ahh yes. Who did you play at the Convocation? (if anyone...) [few cameras managed to capture me]
Paladins rock and stuff!
One thing the paladin cannot do as well is find the bloody things, nor can he understand them as well as a ranger can, who's studied them more thoroughly. A ranger tracks them, understands them, can maneuver through the wilderness and find them wherever they've gone. They have the skill points to develop tactics, understand their surroundings, and make the hunt a successful one.
When they find it, they can call in their buddy the paladin who can't track, who can't be hidden, but who also becomes a great ally to someone specializing in undead, or any of these "greater evils."
I like this, and the way it's headed. I can definitely see a duo pair of a ranger and a paladin making a deadly team with a strong focus between them, with their skills complimenting one another. And in DnD, I prefer it when things come down to teamwork.
Which makes the auras happy, too.
I'm really hoping I'll get a chance to explore this in the next campaign.
|
One thing the paladin cannot do as well is find the bloody things, nor can he understand them as well as a ranger can, who's studied them more thoroughly. A ranger tracks them, understands them, can maneuver through the wilderness and find them wherever they've gone. They have the skill points to develop tactics, understand their surroundings, and make the hunt a successful one.
When they find it, they can call in their buddy the paladin who can't track, who can't be hidden, but who also becomes a great ally to someone specializing in undead, or any of these "greater evils."
I like this, and the way it's headed. I can definitely see a duo pair of a ranger and a paladin making a deadly team with a strong focus between them, with their skills complimenting one another. And in DnD, I prefer it when things come down to teamwork.
Which makes the auras happy, too.
I'm really hoping I'll get a chance to explore this in the next campaign.
Okay first thing I want to make clear are my changes have nothing to do with class balance, but with flavor and feel. The exact same reasons I made the Warmage an Int based class that had to memorize spells.
Also the quoted statement is true whether or not the pally does double damage to creature types thanks to his immunities and high saves that allow him to wade into the den of undead filled with paralyzing creatures and disease ridden filth. The double damage as far as I'm concerned is superfluous and encourages the paladin focusing on the "greater evils" instead of focusing on "Evil" in general.
I'm sorry, I don't think a vile cleric of lamashtu seeking to birth a monstrousity from the depths of a madmans psychotic imaginations to somehow be less worthy of smiting than a vampire, but you put the two in the room with a paladin in the current version with only one smite and what's he gonna smite? It's not a choice of who is currently performing the most evil, it's who will he do the most damage to, and I'm sorry I don't like it. I just don't. So in my games it won't be there.
Unless someone can actually show me how this double damage is needed on top of his already great smite that bypasses DR.
I'm sorry, I don't think a vile cleric of lamashtu seeking to birth a monstrousity from the depths of a madmans psychotic imaginations to somehow be less worthy of smiting than a vampire, but you put the two in the room with a paladin in the current version with only one smite and what's he gonna smite? It's not a choice of who is currently performing the most evil, it's who will he do the most damage to, and I'm sorry I don't like it. I just don't. So in my games it won't be there.
All well and good, your game, your flavor.
If it were my paladin, he would smite the cleric before the vampire. As a "player", I know I'm giving up a chunk of damage for it, but as a "roleplayer" I'll play my paladin to do what he thinks is best to destroy the greatest evil.
Unless that vampire is dominating the cleric and is really the evil power behind everything else, in which case, he might get the smack down first if there seems to be time to deal with both threats.
|
|
I'm sorry, I don't think a vile cleric of lamashtu seeking to birth a monstrousity from the depths of a madmans psychotic imaginations to somehow be less worthy of smiting than a vampire, but you put the two in the room with a paladin in the current version with only one smite and what's he gonna smite? It's not a choice of who is currently performing the most evil, it's who will he do the most damage to, and I'm sorry I don't like it. I just don't. So in my games it won't be there.All well and good, your game, your flavor.
If it were my paladin, he would smite the cleric before the vampire. As a "player", I know I'm giving up a chunk of damage for it, but as a "roleplayer" I'll play my paladin to do what he thinks is best to destroy the greatest evil.
Unless that vampire is dominating the cleric and is really the evil power behind everything else, in which case, he might get the smack down first if there seems to be time to deal with both threats.
Right, I guess I just don't like to see mechanically encouraging a type of evil to smite and unless theres a good reason to make it necessary, I'd prefer it not to be there.
One thing the paladin cannot do as well is find the bloody things, nor can he understand them as well as a ranger can, who's studied them more thoroughly. A ranger tracks them, understands them, can maneuver through the wilderness and find them wherever they've gone. They have the skill points to develop tactics, understand their surroundings, and make the hunt a successful one.
When they find it, they can call in their buddy the paladin who can't track, who can't be hidden, but who also becomes a great ally to someone specializing in undead, or any of these "greater evils."
I like this, and the way it's headed. I can definitely see a duo pair of a ranger and a paladin making a deadly team with a strong focus between them, with their skills complimenting one another. And in DnD, I prefer it when things come down to teamwork.
Which makes the auras happy, too.
I'm really hoping I'll get a chance to explore this in the next campaign.
Man, a ranger with dragons as a favored enemy combined with a paladin being able to extend his smite evil ability to said ranger would be a scary pair of dragon hunters. Especially if the ranger makes a specific dragon his quarry.
It would make for an interesting adventure when the evil dragons in the area decide to launch a preemptive strike against those dangerous do-gooders...
One thing the paladin cannot do as well is find the bloody things, nor can he understand them as well as a ranger can, who's studied them more thoroughly. A ranger tracks them, understands them, can maneuver through the wilderness and find them wherever they've gone. They have the skill points to develop tactics, understand their surroundings, and make the hunt a successful one.
When they find it, they can call in their buddy the paladin who can't track, who can't be hidden, but who also becomes a great ally to someone specializing in undead, or any of these "greater evils."
I like this, and the way it's headed. I can definitely see a duo pair of a ranger and a paladin making a deadly team with a strong focus between them, with their skills complimenting one another. And in DnD, I prefer it when things come down to teamwork.
Which makes the auras happy, too.
I'm really hoping I'll get a chance to explore this in the next campaign.
Man, a ranger with dragons as a favored enemy combined with a paladin being able to extend his smite evil ability to said ranger would be a scary pair of dragon hunters. Especially if the ranger makes a specific dragon his quarry.
It would make for an interesting adventure when the evil dragons in the area decide to launch a preemptive strike against those dangerous do-gooders...
Of course, such a pre-emptive strike is complicated by actually finding the dynamic duo, so these evil dragons naturally decide to rain fire and brimstone down on the local downs to lure the caped crusaders out into a battle that suits the dragons...
Of course, such a pre-emptive strike is complicated by actually finding the dynamic duo, so these evil dragons naturally decide to rain fire and brimstone down on the local downs to lure the caped crusaders out into a battle that suits the dragons...
That's part of the wonder of it. The two would have incentive to work as a team, and a goal to do the best they could (or not, if they went with more bumbling fools personas). A DM running a scenario with them might just enjoy the challenge. Teamwork is a great thing. I think it could make a good story.
Anyhow. Props for the new ranger and the new paladin. I hope the change gets added to divine feats. Just a few words would fix a whole lot.
Hey Greg, nice to meet another Jack Vance fan at this party :)Ahem!]
SO Kirth? How is retirement after finally finishing your lifes work so young? Find a new purpose? And would you mind printing me up a few SVU?
:P
wasgreg
Hey Kirth! Have you resumed your lessons with the wooden flute? I recall you did not have much talent for it. And yet your avatar looks like a pipe player...
Thanks for getting my attention. Great to see you here! :)
At first I liked the bonus damage to certain creature types, but then lastknightleft and some other pointed out that bonus damage to certain creature types is a ranger thing. Why should the Paladin get it?
(If it loooks like a renger and smells like a ranger).
I know the Paladin will do more damage than a ranger when she smites, but the double damage is just to much.
"The rangers bonus is always on!" That argument is not really true and it's not relevant. A lvl 13 Paladin have 5 smites per day and each smite, probably, lasts the whole encounter.
How many meaningful encounters do you get per day?
Also. The Ranger's attack and damage bonus is NOT always on. Only when he meets his favored enemy. The ranger may well spend 13 levels and only meet one or two dragons (or none). Fun? And if he meet a dragon, undead or evil outsider the paladin will make the ranger look weak.
Paladin smite evil + The aura of justice + divine bond vs. Ranger favored enemy + favored terrain + hunter's bond (companions) + quarry.
I'd pick the paladin. And the Paldin got MUCH better spells.
And The paladin also have paladin only spells. And lay on hands and channel, etc.
lvl 13 Ranger: hunter's bond grant any allies within 30 feet +3 to attack and damage for 3 rounds vs one creature (dragon)
lvl 13 Paladin: The aura of justice grant the ability to smite evil to all allies within 10 feet...for 10 round. That is. +6 to attack and +26 to damage, etc.
Yeah, Zark...
but the ranger will be very effective against every kind of his enemies, regardless of alignment...paladin only vs evil ones (this difference is especially important talking about dragons of course).
It makes sense that the paladin is the best against the iconic evil monsters that afflict every world.
Yeah, Zark...
but the ranger will be very effective against every kind of his enemies, regardless of alignment...paladin only vs evil ones (this difference is especially important talking about dragons of course).
It makes sense that the paladin is the best against the iconic evil monsters that afflict every world.
Most enemies are evil.
Player A: My character got special bonus vs. evil outsiders, dragons, and undeads.
Player B: Oh he is a Paladin?
Player A: No he is a Ranger
Player B: LOL
Player A: But he has many skill points
Player B: LOL
Player B, would not be me. Those skill points are nice I want. Being able to actually Hide, and Perceive, and gain bonuses from two different directions at once (environment and monster type) are nice.
Don't forget: A Half Red Dragon troll counts as both dragon and giant... you could theoretically double up on creature damage that way.
Not to mention that the paladin can smite down one foe per use of the smite evil... the ranger can do it to any foe that is favored or on his favored terrain.
Player B, would not be me. Those skill points are nice I want. Being able to actually Hide, and Perceive, and gain bonuses from two different directions at once (environment and monster type) are nice.
Don't forget: A Half Red Dragon troll counts as both dragon and giant... you could theoretically double up on creature damage that way.
Not to mention that the paladin can smite down one foe per use of the smite evil... the ranger can do it to any foe that is favored or on his favored terrain.
Just off the top of my head, it looks as though the ranger has a new "quarry" ability, also, which comes with an autoconfirm of criticals, and an additional bonus to hit. Combined with 2wf, a bow, this looks like it could be rather devastating, or just alot of fun. :)
The ranger's going to know how to get to the enemy, corner it--and be effective at getting rid of it.
Let me be a little blunt, here, and if I am, just write it up for enthusiasm. See, if there's a choice, I want rangers in my party. If I'm hunting a dragon, I want a ranger. If I'm going after a vampire, I want a ranger. I stand a much, much better chance of staying alive because of what the ranger can do, what he knows, and how effective he is against his enemies, especially when there are groups of them. He can get a party in in, he understands the enemy, and he can maneuver effectively and set my character up so instead of charging in (lawful stupid), it's done tactically, and our party has a chance of survival.
I want a ranger in my party, and I can't say that enough. :) If I have DM_Blake, I want two. They're a class that has the tools to play it smart, and the damage capability to make it matter when they do. I like them better than wizards for this purpose--spells are too iffy, and there's something about being able to get down in the dirt and saying, "I know what the bugbear did last summer, and when I find you, boy, it will HURT."
Rangers are fairly damn awesome, in short, and I'll stop the bluntness, here. :) As it stands, there's quite a bit of difference between the two classes, enough I don't think a mild conceptual overlap is going to do too much. And sure, there's some additional damage, but it's applied differently, works differently, and each ability is so much more complex than "add two."
Anyhow. I hope that didn't come across as /too/ enthusiastic. ;)
Player B, would not be me. Those skill points are nice I want. Being able to actually Hide, and Perceive, and gain bonuses from two different directions at once (environment and monster type) are nice.
Yes you are right. skills are nice but I was taking damage and taking damage. Majuba said: "Terrains are good, but they don't add to damage." Well neighter do skills.
Don't forget: A Half Red Dragon troll counts as both dragon and giant... you could theoretically double up on creature damage that way.
They didn't stack in 3.x or in the Alpa or in the Beta. Why would they stack in the final version?
Not to mention that the paladin can smite down one foe per use of the smite evil... the ranger can do it to any foe that is favored or on his favored terrain.
A) "paladin can smite down one foe per use of the smite evil." - that's no problem. How many fights do you get per day? And most foes are evil so he will pe able to smite his foes.
B) the ranger can do it to any foe that is favored or on his favored terrain. - well if he get to meet them. He hardly will in every encounter unless you play something like ravenloft and your favored enemy is undead. Favored terrain give no damage bonus and the terrain will not always be his Favored terrain.
Just off the top of my head, it looks as though the ranger has a new "quarry" ability, also, which comes with an autoconfirm of criticals, and an additional bonus to hit. Combined with 2wf, a bow, this looks like it could be rather devastating, or just alot of fun. :)
Agree.
But the Pladin have bless weapon. A Wand cost 750 gp. At lvl 13 that's no big deal.
The ranger's going to know how to get to the enemy, corner it--and be effective at getting rid of it.
I'd say if you know how to play smart it's because you are a smart player. Not because you got a smart class. That's at least my experience.
Let me be a little blunt, here, and if I am, just write it up for enthusiasm. See, if there's a choice, I want rangers in my party. If I'm hunting a dragon, I want a ranger. If I'm going after a vampire, I want a ranger. I stand a much, much better chance of staying alive because of what the ranger can do, what he knows, and how effective he is against his enemies, especially when there are groups of them. He can get a party in in, he understands the enemy, and he can maneuver effectively and set my character up so instead of charging in (lawful stupid), it's done tactically, and our party has a chance of survival.
Well first I don't think you are blunt,....well the lawaful stupid commentary was a bit blunt ;-)
You have a point. Rangers got other stuff going for them. Paladins can't be rangers and rangers can't be Paladins. That's why I don't like the Paladin stepping on the rangers toes. Giving Paladins some sort of favored enemy bonus to damage. and I'm sorry to say it, but if you know how to play smart it's because you are a smart player.
I want a ranger in my party, and I can't say that enough. :) If I have DM_Blake, I want two. They're a class that has the tools to play it smart, and the damage capability to make it matter when they do. I like them better than wizards for this purpose--spells are too iffy, and there's something about being able to get down in the dirt and saying, "I know what the bugbear did last summer, and when I find you, boy, it will HURT."Rangers are fairly damn awesome, in short,...
Yes rangers are nice but let rangers be rangers and paladins be Paladins.
Ok...nub Q here.
I was talking with a budy of mine and I could not answer the question exactly.
Regarding a paladin critting while he smites (and im sorry if it has been addressed before). I know damage from things like flaming or holy are not doubled, but what about the smite damage? It is a set amount like his STR bonus, so part of me says it is supposed to be and part of me sees why it wouldnt be because it is extra.
Anyone have a definative answer?
Ok...nub Q here.
I was talking with a budy of mine and I could not answer the question exactly.
Regarding a paladin critting while he smites (and im sorry if it has been addressed before). I know damage from things like flaming or holy are not doubled, but what about the smite damage? It is a set amount like his STR bonus, so part of me says it is supposed to be and part of me sees why it wouldnt be because it is extra.
Anyone have a definative answer?
Page 131:
"Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied."
This should anwer your question.
It's the main reason of my old concerns regarding the Beta (Plus) Smite Evil, which gave 1d6 extra damage for every 2 Paladin Levels against Evil Outsiders and Undead; those damage would not have been multiplied (but this is no longer the case).
Let's put it in another way: would you multiply the Weapon Training Bonus, the (Greater)Weapon Specialization bonus, the Inspire Courage bonus, or the Favored Enemy bonus, if scoring a Critical Hit? Because the Smite Evil bonus is akin to those.
My aswer would be 'yes'.
If your answer would be 'no', then even those bonuses could not multiplied.
Just my 2c.
... some hints from other sources. All point to the "lock on and keep smashing" interpretation of smite.
It *IS* mind-bogglingly powerful, such that most of us are collectively saying "what? - they can't mean that!?!" That's how it looks to be though.
Yeah, that's kind of how I reacted. I was reluctant to say anything about smite evil until I had a little time for it to sink in. It's not the version I was asking for. However, I do like it better than the multi-round version proposed in the beta paladin enhancement, and the more I think about it, the more I see its advantages:
1. It's powerful
2. It's really powerful
3. It's simple
In spite of the preference I stated earlier, if smite ends when the enemy is either a) vanquished or b) gone away, it loses some of its simplicity. What if the paladin chases the retreating foe? If she catches up soon enough, is the smite still good? "Until vanquished" puts an end to such fretful questions. On the down side, it encourages the paladin to doggedly hunt down an escaped foe like a ranger to get the most out of her smite, but in practice, it may not play out that way often enough to matter. At least it doesn't encourage tracking a foe for days (since it's a daily power). I assume that a smite declared against a foe that remains unvanquished expires, at the latest, when the paladin decides to bed down for the night. In the morning, it is once again assignable to any foe, and there is no particular incentive to favor a grudge from the previous day over more immediate evils. Also, in spite of my concern that the paladin is encouraged to act outside of its class concept, in some cases pursuing the enemy is the action that's most in character, for example when the enemy has escaped with a captive.
These considerations led me to think back on the giant paladin thread, and I remembered that one of the things we asked for (particularly Vult) was an always on offensive bonus to bring paladins up to par with fighters. The final version of smite may be another indication that Jason listened to our feedback. The new smite, it appears, is always on, at least toward the enemies that the paladin designates as highest priority. Boosting the paladin's offense more generally against all enemies just makes the paladin indistinguishable from a fighter, whereas the new smite lets the paladin outshine the fighter only under special circumstances and gives the paladin some discretion as to when those circumstances occur. (Snorter ought to appreciate that last part.)
Finally, this version turns an iconic ability into an even more fundamental part of what it means to be a paladin by investing in it more rather than less of the paladin's total fund of class abilities. Even though I was in favor de-emphasizing smite in favor of brand new abilities, going all the way with smite does the job using what the class already had.
The use of cunning in combat more properly belongs to fighters, rogues, rangers, and barbarians.
... except when the barbarian rages. It dawned on me that what we idealize in a barbarian (the cerebral disengagement lever) we shudder to allow in a paladin. Here we have a case that exceeds the worst we can say about the ill considered tactics of a lawful stupid paladin. The game already has a mechanic that turns what for anyone else would be an ill-considered tactic (raging) into a power that, for a barbarian, succeeds in spite of itself. Why can't we consider that something similar might also be true for a paladin? The paladin's approach to fighting is unique, worth preserving if only for the sake of variety. If we express notions like honor and heroism with an in-game mechanic, the paladin's code takes on a less nebulous role by playing out at the tactical level on the table. Restrictions against things like flanking or attacking from the rear could apply penalties or forgo bonuses only while the paladin resorts to tactics outside the code, or at worst for the remainder of the day (for well-defined cases that are considered the most unheroic), so that whatever such an experimental house rule discourages or rewards, the paladin's discretion remains intact.
A Charisma penalty applied when a paladin neglects an ally in distress has a neat little effect on role-playing and repercussions on spellcasting. A heroic charge or a decision to warn your enemy before attacking could impart bonuses to mitigate the incurred hazards and disadvantages. A few simple incentives to uphold the paladin's code could add spice to combat and distinguish the paladin as a core class appealing for its tactical possibilities, just as the rogue has been appealing for its tactical possibilities.
|
Now I've had a little while to mull over the PFRPG paladin, I've managed to get over my first 'Whoa, that seems really powerful!' reaction. I think, to be honest, that the paladin is quite nicely balanced, new smite and all. Sure, smite evil is very strong, but you get single-digit uses per day. Furthermore, the rest of the time, you should be doing mediocre damage compared to a fighter. The major reason for this is that paladin's are the quintessential sword-and-board fighters; they can't easily afford to use a two-handed weapon because that puts their AC in the toilet, and they don't have the feats for a two-weapon build. Plus, they're the archetypal knightly figures, the ones you actually expect to be sword-and-boarding. Unlike a fighter, a paladin has difficulty getting good Str, Dex and Con all at once, because they need a good Cha. If I had to choose, I'd put Cha as either the most or second most important stat for a paladin, while a fighter can just ditch it and shrug. I do, however, feel I should add a caveat to my enthusiasm about the paladin here; the groups I play with do make use of the PHB II feats, which include a couple of *very* nice fighter only feats, which I believe go a long way towards redeeming the 3.5 fighter and may do quite nicely in PFRPG, too.
The only part of the new paladin that I find myself wary of is the improved Will save. To me, this increase feels unnecessary. Paladins already get two stats added to each of their saving throws; I don't think they really needed another good save as well. If I was going to houserule any part of the paladin, it would be the second good save.
As a whole, I'm happy with the PFRPG paladin. It feels like a class I'd actually like to play, and doesn't feel like it overpowers other classes. YMMV, IMHO, etc.
Ok...nub Q here.
I was talking with a budy of mine and I could not answer the question exactly.
Regarding a paladin critting while he smites (and im sorry if it has been addressed before). I know damage from things like flaming or holy are not doubled, but what about the smite damage? It is a set amount like his STR bonus, so part of me says it is supposed to be and part of me sees why it wouldnt be because it is extra.
Anyone have a definative answer?
Page 131:
"Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.
Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied."This should anwer your question.
It's the main reason of my old concerns regarding the Beta (Plus) Smite Evil, which gave 1d6 extra damage for every 2 Paladin Levels against Evil Outsiders and Undead; those damage would not have been multiplied (but this is no longer the case).Let's put it in another way: would you multiply the Weapon Training Bonus, the (Greater)Weapon Specialization bonus, the Inspire Courage bonus, or the Favored Enemy bonus, if scoring a Critical Hit? Because the Smite Evil bonus is akin to those.
My aswer would be 'yes'.
If your answer would be 'no', then even those bonuses could not multiplied.Just my 2c.
TY man, that clears it up!
I can understand the scrutiny of Smite...it is powerful but it also makes sense and was necessary. The paladin is supposed to be the go to guy against evil. Before he most certainly was not....now he can at least stand beside his fighter/ranger/rogue and barbarian buddies and say "YEA, I can hurt this guy too!"
The thing I can NOT understand is the scrutiny of the good will saves. This change makes the most sense to me of everything. Paladins should have good fort and will saves. They are the guys you call on to go into the deepest darkest pits of evil and you expect them to come out victorious and untainted. A paladins body must be able to resist the things he is honor bound to face, and his mind should be impervious to the horrors that he will see while making the world a better place.
Basically he can deal with the stuff that would make others puke, he can refuse the sirens call, he can look at the dragon's treasure horde and not be tempted.
All of these things speak of willpower to me.
|
|
I can understand the scrutiny of Smite...it is powerful but it also makes sense and was necessary. The paladin is supposed to be the go to guy against evil. Before he most certainly was not....now he can at least stand beside his fighter/ranger/rogue and barbarian buddies and say "YEA, I can hurt this guy too!"
The thing I can NOT understand is the scrutiny of the good will saves. This change makes the most sense to me of everything. Paladins should have good fort and will saves. They are the guys you call on to go into the deepest darkest pits of evil and you expect them to come out victorious and untainted. A paladins body must be able to resist the things he is honor bound to face, and his mind should be impervious to the horrors that he will see while making the world a better place.
Basically he can deal with the stuff that would make others puke, he can refuse the sirens call, he can look at the dragon's treasure horde and not be tempted.
All of these things speak of willpower to me.
My scrutiny of good will saves is mainly due to the paladin's other abilities. The paladin gets auras that render them utterly immune to charm and fear, nevermind rolling a save against the effect! That sounds like 'resisting the siren's call' to me, and allows them to boldly face dragons and the like without flinching. Adding those immunities to the fact that they get to add their Charisma modifier to every single saving throw, I don't really believe that a good Will save progression was necessary.
I think it makes sense, however at higher levels (when they finally gain the benefit of those immunities) the paladin truthfully almost never needs to actually make a will save (and few fortitude saves). Which again makes sense too. In the end I don't see it as a huge thing, however let us also remember that if a paladin falls he keeps his save bonuses... so while he wouldn't be immune anymore, he would still have the remaining scraps of his incredible will power to cling too while trying to redeem himself.
Of Course a Ranger/Paladin....Two words: "Favored Smite"
Think we found the undead hunter
it can be dealt with, but I can see one working for oh say Kelemvor. Humm always wanted to make a paladin of kelemvor.
Played a forum version beta Paladin 10 ranger 2 elf.
Best. Saves. Ever.
F- +19, R- +18, W- +15
TWF - curveblade, and damn good with a bow.
The bonded weapon was fantastic, as was the channel/ lay o' the hands.
Favored Enemy: Dragon.
Built this character after a TPK, so I was eager to min/max it up. Listened to 'The thing that should not be' from Master of Puppets, and came up with the idea of a dragon slayer to go after the most evil and foul of dragons - the Hunter of the Shadows. (CotCT campaigners might guess who TPK'd us around lvl 12...) After having been brutally disappointed playing a similar level paladin in v3.5, it was everything a paladin should be.
But I still went back the the wizard who I had raised from level 1, when the time was right in the story for him to be raised from the dead.