*mumbles grumbles* I hate when people began complaining that something looks to good... specially against quite specific circumstances... *mumbles grumbles*
Of course I'm going to hold judgement until I get to actually see the thing played and probably until I play myself. Too good or too bad can't be determined without some considerable playtime unless the object in question is so far outside that range it's ridiculous, which I'm not saying it is. I'm just voicing my initial concern up front and that I'll be looking into it before house-ruling it. But with any game that I play I look for a semblance of balance. And clearly the Pathfinder version is much more balanced, but I'm just voicing that it might have gone too far and that I'll be looking into it.
Why is that so wrong?
The problem stems that everything tides from the Paladin's now having their casting and channeling stat being the same making it their primary stat while the Cleric's casting stat is different than their channeling stat.
I don't consider this much of a problem. Ideally, every class should have some multiple attribute dependency - but not too much. The paladin's drive to maximize Charisma is going to compete with his drive for a decent Strength just as a cleric now may want to improve his Charisma as well as his Wisdom.
To look at it another way, a paladin's spellcasting is typically going to be a secondary aspect of the class at best. The fighting and smite/channeling will be more important for most characters. So it's a small thing that the paladin casts spells based on the channeling stat. His two main features - fighting and smite/channeling - are already based on two different stats. On the other hand, being a full and primary spellcaster is a big part of what the cleric is. So it's fair to break up his major features - spellcasting and channeling - across two stats.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Basically in the following which squares are hit by the aura if X is the person casting it.
A B C D E
F G H I J
K L X M N
O P Q R S
T U V W X
Y Z 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7Can I simultaneously get K and N in my aura?
Can I get A and E in my aura?
If there's a large ally in locations (U V Z 0) are they in my aura even though part of them isn't within 10 feet?Also references to FAQ or RAW would be very helpful. Honestly I'd really like some pictures and diagrams for this kind of stuff?
You generally pick an intersection with all spells, spell-like effects, and supernatural abilities. So if X chose the intersection to her front right you would include: C,D,H,I,M,N,J,G,L,Q,R, & herself.
Yes if only part of a Large ally is within the aura they receive the benefit, just as if only one square of a large creature got caught in a fireball.
--King of Vrock
|
*mumbles grumbles* I hate when people began complaining that something looks to good... specially against quite specific circumstances... *mumbles grumbles*Of course I'm going to hold judgement until I get to actually see the thing played and probably until I play myself. Too good or too bad can't be determined without some considerable playtime unless the object in question is so far outside that range it's ridiculous, which I'm not saying it is. I'm just voicing my initial concern up front and that I'll be looking into it before house-ruling it. But with any game that I play I look for a semblance of balance. And clearly the Pathfinder version is much more balanced, but I'm just voicing that it might have gone too far and that I'll be looking into it.
Why is that so wrong?
who says it wrong?
I just say that I hate when people began saying that... (about 3 persons or more already...) same way they hate when I say "i dislike they keep nerfing mage"everyone is entitled to their opinions... I just hate that commentary :P
Why give the Paladin the sunder feats? I just can'r see the reason for it. One it destroys the loot and second ir's not that easy to break stuff in the game. Hopefully the iconics in the final book have a better feat selection.To set Seelah up for becoming a blackguard as the bonus preview perhaps? Sunder is required for Blackguard...
SuperSheep...remember, clerics have all their heal spells as well...including HEAL itself which the paladin I believe still won't have access to. So while the Paladin CAN heal as well with their special abilities, they fall behind in the additional healing...a good balance in my personal opinion.
Also just realized that they don't get the whole list, but rather they get to pick a status ailment from a list and they don't get to pick that often. That's a lot more balanced that I originally thought when I thought they got all three at first level and then every other one they mentioned. Specialization makes that a lot more balanced.
My concern with a 16th level paladin was that they would lay-on-hands and simultaneously get a restoration spell out of it.
|
And yes, I'm aware of the inherent hypocrisy of praising each individual change (from a player POV) and then wringing my hands over whether or not it's 'too much' (from a DM POV).
LOL.
Oh, totally.
"Great, I don't have to hold their hands any more! The gloves can come off!"
followed by,
"Oh, crap, I need a new set of gloves..."
Yes of course. I didn't mean that dragons would be a walk in the park. I was just putting paladins new powers in to perspective. Valeros would do 156 points of damage from Seelah's ability in one round, but he'll never hit with all of those attacks. For example Arkrhyst from Rise of the Runelords (cr 15) has AC of 39, poor Valeros would need a 12 to hit with his first attack, and more with the rest. So yes, they are in trouble even with Seelah =). Still, there are lot of BBEG's I've run which would certainly drop in one round if the party gets near it with these abilities. I think that Bestiary will make certain monsters tougher and...
That looks right, but...Effectively, it's only the people on either side of the Paladin. It's only out to 10 feet, and if you leave that aura, you don't get the benefit. I'm assuming that's how it works, since all aura's only benefit while you are in the radius. So... nice and clumped up for an AOE, or a breath weapon, or bite/claw/claw/buffet/buffet/tail swipe combo (note that the Paladin in that case will become the 'Target or Preference' for the big bad black dragon, so he'll probably drop first round, honestly). And that clumping up around the paladin makes it very easy to tail swipe the entire party in one hit (talk about losing your spells as you try to cast them, nothing like having a dragon tail slam into you to force a spell-caster check).
Add on top of that the BBED is more likely to have some little grunts running around (spitting acid/fire/etc, depending on his color). A dozen 1st level kobolds running around the outside area of the fight throwing flask of acid/fire/etc at the PC's spaces (AOE, 5') is sure to ruin their day. And any self respecting BBED of sufficient level is going to have energy-alteration feats so he can breath a different element in his breath (Oh, you got acid resistance, how do you like sonics?).
Dragons is bad news, no matter what cool powers you got. Let them get their 'pants on' as a player in...
Agreed, it's very useful. If it is still in effect when poor Valeros attacks. :)
If the dragon beats him on initiative, Seelah ends up taking a face full of teeth, two claw attacks to the belly, two wing buffets to her arms, and a tail swipe to her legs, leaving her a broken, shattered, bleeding, unconscious or dead paladin. This means poor Valeros get's to make his regular damage instead of the boost damage. :)
But I agree, I can't see how the beastiary can't buff up some monsters. Frankly, the WoTC beastiary's had this issue. The MMI was relatively balanced against the core classes. By the time MMV came out, the MMI monsters were underclassed. I had a group of 5 8th and 9th level characters take an Adult black dragon down 200hp in 2 rounds (and that's after I boosted his HP by 25%) so he flew away. Granted, he ripped the duskblade apart and slaughtered him in those two rounds (They paid for a true ressurection for him).
Basically in the following which squares are hit by the aura if X is the person casting it.
A B C D E
F G H I J
K L X M N
O P Q R S
T U V W X
Y Z 0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7Can I simultaneously get K and N in my aura?
Can I get A and E in my aura?
If there's a large ally in locations (U V Z 0) are they in my aura even though part of them isn't within 10 feet?Also references to FAQ or RAW would be very helpful. Honestly I'd really like some pictures and diagrams for this kind of stuff?
You generally pick an intersection with all spells, spell-like effects, and supernatural abilities. So if X chose the intersection to her front right you would include: C,D,H,I,M,N,J,G,L,Q,R, & herself.
Yes if only part of a Large ally is within the aura they receive the benefit, just as if only one square of a large creature got caught in a fireball.
--King of Vrock
So K and N would not be simultaneously possible as was previously mentioned. Also the larger you are as a paladin the fewer squares of aura surrounds you.
|
I too fear they have become too good, but also better pure healers than the clerics. Mind you the cleric is still a better overall booster, but as healbot the paladin may be encroaching a little too much on the cleric's territory since they get free healing and status removal all in one. That's two spells burned. They're admittedly doing d6 heals instead of d8 heals, but if they're getting mingled together that's really, really good.
This assumes that the cleric doesn't cast any spells that heal characters. There was a rebalanced Paladin class on the WoTC forums where this exact same discussion went on. When you include spells the cleric can still heal something like 3-4 times as many hit points as a Paladin.
Secondly although the Paladin's casting stat is based off of CHA, just as Lay on Hands/Channeling are, she only receives a very small number of spells per day. At an equal level a cleric is sporting at least 2 (possibly 3) 7th level spells, whereas the Paladin only has 1 4th level. It makes a huge difference when even only one spell per spell level is "dedicated" to healing (Which is doesn't need to be because of spontaneous casting).
The point I will concede is that paladins are better at status removal because of versatility. I don't think that's too much of an issue though and fits with her role in the party.
*mumbles grumbles* I hate when people began complaining that something looks to good... specially against quite specific circumstances... *mumbles grumbles*Of course I'm going to hold judgement until I get to actually see the thing played ... but I'm just voicing that it might have gone too far and that I'll be looking into it.
Why is that so wrong?
It's not :) Just Montalve's favorite class got nerfed a bit :) You raise some good things to consider.
If Aura of Justice *does* give the entire party smite for 10 rounds, I'll be doing some nerfing of my own.
So K and N would not be simultaneously possible as was previously mentioned. Also the larger you are as a paladin the fewer squares of aura surrounds you.
I do disagree with this though. Aura extend from the creature's square(s), not a vertex. This would make any Gargantuan Paladin have no Aura at all practically.
Yes, but if this were a flamestrike (radius 10 feet), which is also radius I would have to pick an intersection and I couldn't get both K and N. Are aura's different?
Auras are different from spell radii in the sense that they do not originate from a single vertex. The aura of courage in the PH describes it as affecting any ally within 10 feet of the paladin, not one single vertex of the paladin's square. In effect, the covered area is within 10 feet of every vertex of the paladin's square.
For a paladin with a 5 foot space, it effectively means the diameter of the aura is actually 25 feet rather than the 20 feet you'd expect out of a 10 foot radius.|
|
At level 16
Cleric (18 cha): 8d6 channel 7/day
Paladin (22 cha): 8d6 lay-on-hands 14/day (or channel 7/day)So at 16th level the Paladin catches up with the cleric for Channeling...
Paladins *do* get Heal though, per Beta, for 3 uses of Lay on Hands. We'll see what made the final - it's far less needed now with all the mercies, for removing things like poison and all.
Can somebody explain this armor?: mithral full plate of speedThat is a "Special Armor" in the DMG/Beta (maybe the web enhancement) - it's +1 Mithral Full Plate, with 10 rounds of Haste usable per day (which do not need to be consecutive, activated as a free (maybe swift now) action).
Yes, but if this were a flamestrike (radius 10 feet), which is also radius I would have to pick an intersection and I couldn't get both K and N. Are aura's different?They pretty much have to be, yes. For the record, using an intersection for spells' area was a decision in 3.5 (a smart one I feel), so it hasn't been the default standard forever.
In my game it will radiate from the paladin, so if the paladin is large, it will still extend 10' from him. (even if he's large...this will require official clarification if it's not spelled out in the rules.)
(I like hexes so much more than squares...)
Interesting, that's one of those little 3.5 rules changes I didn't know about... makes sense for a spell, doesn't make sense for an aura that radiates from someone in the central square.
Yes, but if this were a flamestrike (radius 10 feet), which is also radius I would have to pick an intersection and I couldn't get both K and N. Are aura's different?Auras are different from spell radii in the sense that they do not originate from a single vertex. The aura of courage in the PH describes it as affecting any ally within 10 feet of the paladin, not one single vertex of the paladin's square. In effect, the covered area is within 10 feet of every vertex of the paladin's square.
For a paladin with a 5 foot space, it effectively means the diameter of the aura is actually 25 feet rather than the 20 feet you'd expect out of a 10 foot radius.
Ok so my next question is is that the same for things like Magic Circle of Protection cast on an individual? Again official resources would be great on this.
I too fear they have become too good, but also better pure healers than the clerics. Mind you the cleric is still a better overall booster, but as healbot the paladin may be encroaching a little too much on the cleric's territory since they get free healing and status removal all in one. That's two spells burned. They're admittedly doing d6 heals instead of d8 heals, but if they're getting mingled together that's really, really good.This assumes that the cleric doesn't cast any spells that heal characters. There was a rebalanced Paladin class on the WoTC forums where this exact same discussion went on. When you include spells the cleric can still heal something like 3-4 times as many hit points as a Paladin.
Secondly although the Paladin's casting stat is based off of CHA, just as Lay on Hands/Channeling are, she only receives a very small number of spells per day. At an equal level a cleric is sporting at least 2 (possibly 3) 7th level spells, whereas the Paladin only has 1 4th level. It makes a huge difference when even only one spell per spell level is "dedicated" to healing (Which is doesn't need to be because of spontaneous casting).
The point I will concede is that paladins are better at status removal because of versatility. I don't think that's too much of an issue though and fits with her role in the party.
While I'm not nearly as concerned as I was when I thought they could heal an increasingly large number of status effects as they healed, I'm still concerned because If the paladin could heal anywhere near as much as a cleric and still punt the BBEG into next week then we'd have a significant balance problem. The question is, "Is the difference in healing sufficient to balance against the other boosts the paladin gets (e.g. full BAB, Mercies, CHA boost to saves, Divine Bond) doesn't make it overpowered?" I'm not saying it does, but I am saying that you can't look at the fact that the cleric does more healing... the question is does the cleric do way more healing?
|
|
Auras are different from spell radii in the sense that they do not originate from a single vertex. The aura of courage in the PH describes it as affecting any ally within 10 feet of the paladin, not one single vertex of the paladin's square. In effect, the covered area is within 10 feet of every vertex of the paladin's square.
For a paladin with a 5 foot space, it effectively means the diameter of the aura is actually 25 feet rather than the 20 feet you'd expect out of a 10 foot radius.
From what I understand (and looking at the SRD for the Aura of Courage description) a Paladin's aura would extend as such:
BXXX
XXXXX
XXPXX
XXXXX
BXXX
(B is a blank space since I apparently suck at using this kind of grid in a post)
Hypothetically getting 20 people within the aura.
At level 16
Cleric (18 cha): 8d6 channel 7/day
Paladin (22 cha): 8d6 lay-on-hands 14/day (or channel 7/day)So at 16th level the Paladin catches up with the cleric for Channeling...
Paladins *do* get Heal though, per Beta, for 3 uses of Lay on Hands. We'll see what made the final - it's far less needed now with all the mercies, for removing things like poison and all.
Can somebody explain this armor?: mithral full plate of speedThat is a "Special Armor" in the DMG/Beta (maybe the web enhancement) - it's +1 Mithral Full Plate, with 10 rounds of Haste usable per day (which do not need to be consecutive, activated as a free (maybe swift now) action).
Yes, but if this were a flamestrike (radius 10 feet), which is also radius I would have to pick an intersection and I couldn't get both K and N. Are aura's different?They pretty much have to be, yes. For the record, using an intersection for spells' area was a decision in 3.5 (a smart one I feel), so it hasn't been the default standard forever.In my game it will radiate from the paladin, so if the paladin is large, it will still extend 10' from him. (even if he's large...this will require official clarification if it's not spelled out in the rules.)
(I like hexes so much more than squares...)
Interesting, that's one of those little 3.5 rules changes I didn't know about... makes sense for a spell, doesn't make sense for an aura that radiates from someone in the central square.
Though this also has a problem as it increases the radius even further from 25' to 30'. Either way you're either gimping it a little bit when it gets bigger or increasing it when the paladin increases in size as well. Either way changing the size of the paladin changes the number of squares affected. I really do wish they'd clear this up. Let's hoping it's in the final rules.
|
|
While I'm not nearly as concerned as I was when I thought they could heal an increasingly large number of status effects as they healed, I'm still concerned because If the paladin could heal anywhere near as much as a cleric and still punt the BBEG into next week then we'd have a significant balance problem. The question is, "Is the difference in healing sufficient to balance against the other boosts the paladin gets (e.g. full BAB, Mercies, CHA boost to saves, Divine Bond) doesn't make it overpowered?" I'm not saying it does, but I am saying that you can't look at the fact that the cleric does more healing... the question is...I too fear they have become too good, but also better pure healers than the clerics. Mind you the cleric is still a better overall booster, but as healbot the paladin may be encroaching a little too much on the cleric's territory since they get free healing and status removal all in one. That's two spells burned. They're admittedly doing d6 heals instead of d8 heals, but if they're getting mingled together that's really, really good.This assumes that the cleric doesn't cast any spells that heal characters. There was a rebalanced Paladin class on the WoTC forums where this exact same discussion went on. When you include spells the cleric can still heal something like 3-4 times as many hit points as a Paladin.
Secondly although the Paladin's casting stat is based off of CHA, just as Lay on Hands/Channeling are, she only receives a very small number of spells per day. At an equal level a cleric is sporting at least 2 (possibly 3) 7th level spells, whereas the Paladin only has 1 4th level. It makes a huge difference when even only one spell per spell level is "dedicated" to healing (Which is doesn't need to be because of spontaneous casting).
The point I will concede is that paladins are better at status removal because of versatility. I don't think that's too much of an issue though and fits with her role in the party.
Let me do some of the math as a comparison. I'll try to do it from what I remember in the WoTC thread.
Agreed, it's very useful. If it is still in effect when poor Valeros attacks. :)
If the dragon beats him on initiative, Seelah ends up taking a face full of teeth, two claw attacks to the belly, two wing buffets to her arms, and a tail swipe to her legs, leaving her a broken, shattered, bleeding, unconscious or dead paladin. This means poor Valeros get's to make his regular damage instead of the boost damage. :)But I agree, I can't see how the beastiary can't buff up some monsters. Frankly, the WoTC beastiary's had this issue. The MMI was relatively balanced against the core classes. By the time MMV came out, the MMI monsters were underclassed. I had a group of 5 8th and 9th level characters take an Adult black dragon down 200hp in 2 rounds (and that's after I boosted his HP by 25%) so he flew away. Granted, he ripped the duskblade apart and slaughtered him in those two rounds (They paid for a true ressurection for him).
I calculated that if the example dragon (Arkhryst) from my previous post made a full attack against Seelah (missing her only with natural one) dealing average damage, Seelah would be left standing with 5 hitpoints. Now if every party member would gain Seelah's smite in addition to their own damage, it would be possible to drop the dragon. Far from easy, but possible. Of course direct confrontation would not be the wisest action to take, but this is just speculation about new melee abilities in PRPG. Maybe it would be better to judge paladin's aura of justice with an opponent with not-so-insane AC =).
While I'm not nearly as concerned as I was when I thought they could heal an increasingly large number of status effects as they healed, I'm still concerned because If the paladin could heal anywhere near as much as a cleric and still punt the BBEG into next week then we'd have a significant balance problem. The question is, "Is the difference in healing sufficient to balance against the other boosts the paladin gets (e.g. full BAB, Mercies, CHA boost to saves, Divine Bond) doesn't make it overpowered?" I'm not saying it does, but I am saying that you can't look at the fact that the cleric does more...I too fear they have become too good, but also better pure healers than the clerics. Mind you the cleric is still a better overall booster, but as healbot the paladin may be encroaching a little too much on the cleric's territory since they get free healing and status removal all in one. That's two spells burned. They're admittedly doing d6 heals instead of d8 heals, but if they're getting mingled together that's really, really good.This assumes that the cleric doesn't cast any spells that heal characters. There was a rebalanced Paladin class on the WoTC forums where this exact same discussion went on. When you include spells the cleric can still heal something like 3-4 times as many hit points as a Paladin.
Secondly although the Paladin's casting stat is based off of CHA, just as Lay on Hands/Channeling are, she only receives a very small number of spells per day. At an equal level a cleric is sporting at least 2 (possibly 3) 7th level spells, whereas the Paladin only has 1 4th level. It makes a huge difference when even only one spell per spell level is "dedicated" to healing (Which is doesn't need to be because of spontaneous casting).
The point I will concede is that paladins are better at status removal because of versatility. I don't think that's too much of an issue though and fits with her role in the party.
I guess my real question is, "Once the paladin has healed all they can (raw damage and status), and the cleric has healed the same amount, then what does the cleric have left?" Of course what complicates this dramatically is that we're really comparing apples and oranges as the mechanics are different, and some judgement call is going to be made which is why I'm not going to push it any further. Each GM and player is going to have to make a determination based on what ultimately ends up being a gut decision based on valuation. How much more valuable is a full BAB over a 3/4 BAB for instance. Again, I'm not going to fret about it anymore.
B-B-B-BAAAD AAASSSS...
As mentioned, Paladins now seem the #2 healer next to Clerics... Druids eat their heart out :-)
The Cleric still uniquely has stuff like Resurrection/ et al as well as better spells overall + domains, but at the level of Hit Point "maintenance" (and status removal with the Mercies), the Paladin looks to be a viable Cleric "stand-in", if not out-and-out replacement. (The increased Caster level will also facilitate early Wand/Scroll access to Paladins' max Spell Levels)
The double Smite bonus vs. Undead/Dragons/Outsiders is big. BIIIGGG.
I have a feeling that at a minimum, I will rule that allies affected by the Paladins' aura only receive the 'normal' Smite bonus to att/dmg (and/or limit the 100% DR bypassing to the Paladin herself). Can't just give away ALL the glory, y'know.
Of course, the Preview is limited, so that could already be how it works :-)
Quibble: This wording seems slightly wierd/ confusing:
I think you're trying to explain that it's higher than what people are expecting (from 3.5/Beta), but the current wording confusingly suggests that by the (PFRPG) RAW, Seelah's Will Save should be lower, but she is somehow (?) bypassing it.
Prot. from Evil: Interesting change to a staple spell. It feels more in line with a 1st Level spell to me. ++
And just to comment on the Concentration changes in the last preview, I have a feeling I'll at least try out for comparison using CON as the stat instead of (Caster Stat). Caster Level vs. 2xSpell Level already scales roughly evenly (more than evenly for Rangers & Paladins), so using the "prime Caster Stat" means the highest castable Spell Level progressively gets relatively easier to cast assuming normal Stat Bumps & Enhancements (while opponent CMB doesn't seem to be a factor): With Combat Casting, that gets very close to auto-pass at the highest levels, which was the area this change was meant to address, as I understood. CON is also more consistent with Concentration "historically", wheareas INT (Wizard Caster Stat) was only associated during Beta's consolidation of Spellcraft & Concentration. I'm curious to see if Know(Arcana) & Spellcraft ended up tying the knot now that Concentration fled the altar.
|
|
Ok so my next question is is that the same for things like Magic Circle of Protection cast on an individual? Again official resources would be great on this.
Yes, but if this were a flamestrike (radius 10 feet), which is also radius I would have to pick an intersection and I couldn't get both K and N. Are aura's different?Auras are different from spell radii in the sense that they do not originate from a single vertex. The aura of courage in the PH describes it as affecting any ally within 10 feet of the paladin, not one single vertex of the paladin's square. In effect, the covered area is within 10 feet of every vertex of the paladin's square.
For a paladin with a 5 foot space, it effectively means the diameter of the aura is actually 25 feet rather than the 20 feet you'd expect out of a 10 foot radius.
I believe this is where I come in.
In the top-left, in yellow, is an example of the Paladin's aura. This radiates 10 feet out from the Paladin in question, effecting all targets in the other yellow squares.
In the bottom-right, in green, is an example of a spell's area, whether it be a burst, area-effect, etc. The example is of a 10-foot one. Assuming the final rules have not changed in this matter:
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.
The red dot shows where the spell was targeted, and spread out.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
I calculated that if the example dragon (Arkhryst) from my previous post made a full attack against Seelah (missing her only with natural one) dealing average damage, Seelah would be left standing with 5 hitpoints. Now if every party member would gain Seelah's smite in addition to their own damage, it would be possible to drop the dragon. Far from easy, but possible. Of course direct confrontation would not be the wisest action to take, but this is just speculation about new melee abilities in PRPG. Maybe it would be better to judge paladin's aura of justice with an opponent with not-so-insane AC =).Agreed, it's very useful. If it is still in effect when poor Valeros attacks. :)
If the dragon beats him on initiative, Seelah ends up taking a face full of teeth, two claw attacks to the belly, two wing buffets to her arms, and a tail swipe to her legs, leaving her a broken, shattered, bleeding, unconscious or dead paladin. This means poor Valeros get's to make his regular damage instead of the boost damage. :)But I agree, I can't see how the beastiary can't buff up some monsters. Frankly, the WoTC beastiary's had this issue. The MMI was relatively balanced against the core classes. By the time MMV came out, the MMI monsters were underclassed. I had a group of 5 8th and 9th level characters take an Adult black dragon down 200hp in 2 rounds (and that's after I boosted his HP by 25%) so he flew away. Granted, he ripped the duskblade apart and slaughtered him in those two rounds (They paid for a true ressurection for him).
Then she drops.
No offense, but, if you look at a dragon, it's got at just an Adult age range, a +24 with it's primary weapon (bite) and a +22 with it's other attacks (claws, wing buffets). So... he only misses Seelah on a 1 with his primary, and on a 1-3 with his secondary. So, very very unlikely. Now, up that for another size category (where he gains tail swipe) and his to-hits are even better. That's the thing I don't like about dragons as enemies. They never miss with any physical attack. You can't get an AC high enough to even give them a reasonable chance of missing. If you're in reach, you get slaughtered. Basically, he's got just about as much chance of critting with one of his attacks as he does of missing, which tends to balance out.
|
|
While I know it's not a huge issue, just wanted to finish the calculations for my own sake.
Comparing full healing capacity of Paladin and Cleric. Assumptions: Level 13. Cleric has 20 wis, 14 Cha, Paladin has 18 cha. Cleric uses all spell slots available except for domain spells (left those open) and does NOT have healing domain. Cleric uses both 6th and 7th level slots for Heal spell. And 5th for mass cure light wounds. Paladin likewise uses all spell slots available as well as casting all second level spells as CLW (as she has no 2nd level cure spell). Assuming each casting with "multiple targets" hits 2 targets. Using average dice rolls.
Cleric totals: 1243
Paladin totals: 422
What does the paladin still get? She gets to remove status ailments through her lay on hands, whereas the cleric would not be able to. Other than that the Paladin will hit better (higher BAB), higher saves (Divine Grace), higher HP, but won't necessarily have higher AC. Take that as you will.
Spell Lvl| Per Day| Average / spell| Total
1| 7| 9.5| 66.5|
2| 6| 19| 114|
3| 5| 26.5| 132.5|
4| 5| 31| 155|
5| 4| 35| 140|
6| 2| 130| 260|
7| 1| 130| 130|
Channel| 5| 49| 245|
Total: 1243|
Spell Lvl| Per Day| Average / spell| Total
1| 4| 9.5| 38|
2| 3| 9.5| 28.5|
3| 2| 19| 38|
4| 1| 23.5| 23.5|
Channel| 6| 49| 294|
Total: 422|
Just filling out the details (I'm OC, I know).
Mature Adult Dragon (CR 14)
HP's : 253
STR: 27 (+8)
Primary Attack: +28
Secondary Attacks: +26 (Assuming Multiattack feat)
Miss chance on each attack? 1 on d20
Bite: 2d8+8 (Avg: 17hp)
Claw: 2d6+4 (Avg: 11hp)
Wing: 1d8+4 (Avg: 8.5hp)
Tail: 2d6+12 (Avg: 19hp)
Total for Round, on average: 17 + 11 + 11 + 8.5 + 8.5 + 19 = 75
Seelah has 110, so she's got 35 left after the round is over. Assuming average damage. That's not as bad as previously stated, so she's probably ok. Until next round. If he rolls high, she's dead, if low, she's fine. Still, that's 75% of her hp's in one round. Just from the dragon's physical attacks. And the dragon's AC is 29 (33 with Mage Armor, which he'd be insane not to put on if he's got time to put up spells). With all the changes to the way Smite Evil works, and with her weapon bond variable abilities, it's hard to say what her to-hit would be, but somewhere in the 8 to 12 range is reasonable guess.
Another illustration of why I hate dragon fights, it's big bam boom 2 round fights. Either you kill the dragon, drive it off, or it slaughters your party, all in 2-3 rounds.
Then she drops.
No offense, but, if you look at a dragon, it's got at just an Adult age range, a +24 with it's primary weapon (bite) and a +22 with it's other attacks (claws, wing buffets). So... he only misses Seelah on a 1 with his primary, and on a 1-3 with his secondary. So, very very unlikely. Now, up that for another size category (where he gains tail swipe) and his to-hits are even better. That's the thing I don't like...
Well none of this is happening in a vacuum. If the dragon is focusing it's full attacks on a paladin, fighter and rogue beating on it in melee it's distracted for a round or two versus the mage and cleric slinging various spells at it.
A dragon that is appropriate for a mid to high level party shouldn't be easy to punk. The paladin just gives the party an additional (if risky) tool for laying a beatdown in close. In my mind that just encourages the dragon to adopt fly-by strategies until the party is weakened to the state that the dragon can pick them off on by one. If the dragon stays in close and asks to be a punching bag then the DM has nobody to blame but himself.
Melee based undead and evil outsiders are definitely going to be hurting but spellcasting outsiders and undead should be able to use their minions to slow down the paladin onslaught.
Then she drops.
No offense, but, if you look at a dragon, it's got at just an Adult age range, a +24 with it's primary weapon (bite) and a +22 with it's other attacks (claws, wing buffets). So... he only misses Seelah on a 1 with his primary, and on a 1-3 with his secondary. So, very very unlikely. Now, up that for another size category (where he gains tail swipe) and his to-hits are even better. That's the thing I don't like...
Well none of this is happening in a vacuum. If the dragon is focusing it's full attacks on a paladin, fighter and rogue beating on it in melee it's distracted for a round or two versus the mage and cleric slinging various spells at it.
A dragon that is appropriate for a mid to high level party shouldn't be easy to punk. The paladin just gives the party an additional (if risky) tool for laying a beatdown in close. In my mind that just encourages the dragon to adopt fly-by strategies until the party is weakened to the state that the dragon can pick them off on by one. If the dragon stays in close and asks to be a punching bag then the DM has nobody to blame but himself.
Melee based undead and evil outsiders are definitely going to be hurting but spellcasting outsiders and undead should be able to use their minions to slow down the paladin onslaught.
I agree in all counts. Dragons should be hard in melee. These new additions to melee classes make it possible for melee characters to drop the dragon (as opposed to straight 3.5 core characters). I like the changes overall.
I agree in all counts. Dragons should be hard in melee. These new additions to melee classes make it possible for melee characters to drop the dragon (as opposed to straight 3.5 core characters). I like the changes overall.
Then she drops.
No offense, but, if you look at a dragon, it's got at just an Adult age range, a +24 with it's primary weapon (bite) and a +22 with it's other attacks (claws, wing buffets). So... he only misses Seelah on a 1 with his primary, and on a 1-3 with his secondary. So, very very unlikely. Now, up that for another size category (where he gains tail swipe) and his to-hits are even better. That's the thing I don't like...
Well none of this is happening in a vacuum. If the dragon is focusing it's full attacks on a paladin, fighter and rogue beating on it in melee it's distracted for a round or two versus the mage and cleric slinging various spells at it.
A dragon that is appropriate for a mid to high level party shouldn't be easy to punk. The paladin just gives the party an additional (if risky) tool for laying a beatdown in close. In my mind that just encourages the dragon to adopt fly-by strategies until the party is weakened to the state that the dragon can pick them off on by one. If the dragon stays in close and asks to be a punching bag then the DM has nobody to blame but himself.
Melee based undead and evil outsiders are definitely going to be hurting but spellcasting outsiders and undead should be able to use their minions to slow down the paladin onslaught.
Don't get me wrong, I like the changes too. All around. I'm just commenting that the dragon will be changing his primary target now to the Paladin. The problem I have with fly-by breath attacks is that they are very ineffective if the adventuring party has elemental resistance spells up. Most of this is just me not being happy with dragons as a creature to fight, is all.
Just filling out the details (I'm OC, I know).
Mature Adult Dragon (CR 14)
HP's : 253
STR: 27 (+8)
Primary Attack: +28
Secondary Attacks: +26 (Assuming Multiattack feat)Miss chance on each attack? 1 on d20
Bite: 2d8+8 (Avg: 17hp)
Claw: 2d6+4 (Avg: 11hp)
Wing: 1d8+4 (Avg: 8.5hp)
Tail: 2d6+12 (Avg: 19hp)Total for Round, on average: 17 + 11 + 11 + 8.5 + 8.5 + 19 = 75
Seelah has 110, so she's got 35 left after the round is over. Assuming average damage. That's not as bad as previously stated, so she's probably ok. Until next round. If he rolls high, she's dead, if low, she's fine. Still, that's 75% of her hp's in one round. Just from the dragon's physical attacks. And the dragon's AC is 29 (33 with Mage Armor, which he'd be insane not to put on if he's got time to put up spells). With all the changes to the way Smite Evil works, and with her weapon bond variable abilities, it's hard to say what her to-hit would be, but somewhere in the 8 to 12 range is reasonable guess.
Another illustration of why I hate dragon fights, it's big bam boom 2 round fights. Either you kill the dragon, drive it off, or it slaughters your party, all in 2-3 rounds.
I think you're forgetting that Seelah will have her cha bonus to AC against the dragon. Of course she already has a ring of protection +2, so I think Smite only increases her AC by two. So with dragon's secondary attacks, she misses with a 2 too =). Anyway, if the dragon focuses on paladin only, I'm pretty sure the party could take it down with only one or two casualities. And I think it's the way it should go with CR 14 dragon and four 14th level characters. Of course when we take tactics and good strategies into play, it can go either way =).
|
|
The new paladin simply rocks! I am so happy I could scream. I can't wait for the RPG to be released!!! Good job! We really don't give enough credit to the Paizo staff for actually paying attention to our pleas and playtesting feedback - and actually heeding some of it!!!
For some this may just be a great rewrite - for me - the Paladin has been the iconic champion knight character that has always meant to me what being a heroic D&D character is all about. It has always been my favorite character class to play- having been a die-hard Superman fan growing up - the Paladin was the mideval version of my childhood hero. Unfortunately, not since 1985 when the Unearthed Arcana (which was a gift to me from my Aunt) was released has there been a paladin worthy of this concept, where a paladin could be "double specialized" in a weapon and was all-around kick-ass. That was 24 YEARS!!! All through 2nd edition and 3rd edition the paladin has been expected to be an iconic righteous figure meant to stop evil, perpetuate goodness, and save everyone - and was actually one of the weakest characters in the bunch (except for saving throws). They flat out sucked! They simply were expected to fill too many roles and did not have the needed options to do so - and they were the most penalized and restricted character, to boot! Since the release of 2nd edition in 1988, I have begged for a paladin that was worth the restrictions and worthy of praise and capable of holding up to the ideals and expectations of his role. I am so ecstatic to see this write-up! Finally! It was worth the wait! Once again, I can be Superman in Fullplate! (though my touch AC may still suck!) On another note: I feel quite prideful because I know in my heart that I helped this happen. It was my (forgive the expression...) 'crusade' to ensure a paladin worthy of praise, and the threads and message thread on their playtesting was nearly twice as long as any other class (nearly 1100 posts). This is why I chose to play a paladin of the Beta rules in our CotCT game that started last year when Beta was released - so that I could post accurate first-hand accounts of worked and didn't. I am so thrilled that Jason and Paizo listened. Thank you Paizo! Kaerthoryn (my paladin in the CotCT game which starts chapter 6 next week!) has paved the way for so many more of my paladins to come......
Robert
Don't get me wrong, I like the changes too. All around. I'm just commenting that the dragon will be changing his primary target now to the Paladin. The problem I have with fly-by breath attacks is that they are very ineffective if the adventuring party has elemental resistance spells up. Most of this is just me not being happy with dragons as a creature to fight, is all.
Well Fly-by breath attacks are often substandard but with the changes to grappling and thus fly-by snatch actions I could see the dragon making a fly-by snatch attempts on the wizard (likely has a poor CMD)in the early rounds and if successful neutralizing the major spell threat. With fast flight the dragon should be able to stay out of range of any flying melee specialists and neutralize the ranged threats (mage, cleric, and archers) before ripping into the party in close. That gives the dragon the ability to retreat if necessary and fight again another day. Unfortunately the standard trope is to have the dragon fight like a big beached behemoth on top of his stash rather than make him a flexible mobile opponent
Ok so my next question is is that the same for things like Magic Circle of Protection cast on an individual? Again official resources would be great on this.
Yes, but if this were a flamestrike (radius 10 feet), which is also radius I would have to pick an intersection and I couldn't get both K and N. Are aura's different?Auras are different from spell radii in the sense that they do not originate from a single vertex. The aura of courage in the PH describes it as affecting any ally within 10 feet of the paladin, not one single vertex of the paladin's square. In effect, the covered area is within 10 feet of every vertex of the paladin's square.
For a paladin with a 5 foot space, it effectively means the diameter of the aura is actually 25 feet rather than the 20 feet you'd expect out of a 10 foot radius.I believe this is where I come in.
In the top-left, in yellow, is an example of the Paladin's aura. This radiates 10 feet out from the Paladin in question, effecting all targets in the other yellow squares.
In the bottom-right, in green, is an example of a spell's area, whether it be a burst, area-effect, etc. The example is of a 10-foot one. Assuming the final rules have not changed in this matter:
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.The red dot shows where the spell was targeted, and spread out.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Shouldn't the paladin also hit the knight's positions (i.e. over one two down) as well?
The new paladin simply rocks! I am so happy I could scream. ..
Awesome Robert! I've had a soft spot for paladin's myself and agree that it's been a long time since they were worthy of the title paladin. I'm excited about the new rules too, because the more that gets revealed about the rules, the more I see our playtesting feedback intertwined with the final rules.
Long live the paladin!
The new paladin simply rocks! I am so happy I could scream. ..Awesome Robert! I've had a soft spot for paladin's myself and agree that it's been a long time since they were worthy of the title paladin. I'm excited about the new rules too, because the more that gets revealed about the rules, the more I see our playtesting feedback intertwined with the final rules.
Long live the paladin!
I've only once played a paladin, tackled it through 10-levels or so in Faerun. If I had this book in my hands back then, those god forsaken baddies would have felt my wrath instead of my annoying little hatred =).
While I know it's not a huge issue, just wanted to finish the calculations for my own sake.
Comparing full healing capacity of Paladin and Cleric. Assumptions: Level 13. Cleric has 20 wis, 14 Cha, Paladin has 18 cha. Cleric uses all spell slots available except for domain spells (left those open) and does NOT have healing domain. Cleric uses both 6th and 7th level slots for Heal spell. And 5th for mass cure light wounds. Paladin likewise uses all spell slots available as well as casting all second level spells as CLW (as she has no 2nd level cure spell). Assuming each casting with "multiple targets" hits 2 targets. Using average dice rolls.
Cleric totals: 1243
Paladin totals: 422What does the paladin still get? She gets to remove status ailments through her lay on hands, whereas the cleric would not be able to. Other than that the Paladin will hit better (higher BAB), higher saves (Divine Grace), higher HP, but won't necessarily have higher AC. Take that as you will.
Spell Lvl| Per Day| Average / spell| Total
1| 7| 9.5| 66.5|
2| 6| 19| 114|
3| 5| 26.5| 132.5|
4| 5| 31| 155|
5| 4| 35| 140|
6| 2| 130| 260|
7| 1| 130| 130|
Channel| 5| 49| 245|
Total: 1243|Spell Lvl| Per Day| Average / spell| Total
1| 4| 9.5| 38|
2| 3| 9.5| 28.5|
3| 2| 19| 38|
4| 1| 23.5| 23.5|
Channel| 6| 49| 294|
Total: 422|
While my intention is not to get back into this, it raises a question for me. Can you drop a spell for Heal? My understanding is that it had to have the word "Cure" in it. Though I would expect a paladin of this level to have a 20 cha. Also party wide heals should heal about 2 1/2 times their base value rather than 1 times their base value to represent multiple people being healed.
|
|
Hm...the paladin hasn't been badass in a long time. Cool to see it come back to its own.
The game will get bonus points if they make holy avenger swords kick ass again, too.
Paladins are one of the few classes that I don't worry about being overpowered. The paladin's code tends to be one of the few role-playing restrictions that works to balance out extra abilities in my games.
Wholeheartedly agree.
For those players/gamers who run out and suddenly play a paladin now because it seems to be the newest power-character fad, so long as their DMs are mitigating the creep by continuing to enforce Lawful-Good behavior at all costs......it should balance things out nicely.
The first time one such player has the character doing things for self-centered maliscious intents.....gone goes the power and the player is slapping his forehead going "D'oh! I should have just stuck with the fighter!"
IMO - so long as they're played correctly - their bad-assness is to every other players benefit as well.
Its when a character is too one-man-army type powerful and acts in a self-serving way full of avarice and spite is when the broken aspects are really obvious.
I've seen a lot of people on here stating that they've never seen paladins be played - validation that the paladin was always a sub-standard choice for many play-groups (either due to restrictive nature, or their overall suckiness in power level - most likely both); but I have played paladins in all editions all the time. In fact the of the last 4 characters I've played over the past 8 years in campaigns, have been (1 Human Barbarian/Thief, 1 dwarven wizard, and the last two have been Human paladins - 1 in Eberron with 3.5 rules, and 1 with Beta in Golarion)
And in second Edition, I also played a paladin for a couple years, and my first favorite character in 1st edition when the Unearthed Arcana came out was a paladin that I played.
So I've stuck with them - and they've been my favorite - not because of what their powers were so much as their "role" in the party and society. Now I can finally be on par with the other characters power level or even better perhaps and still fill that coveted role that I love to play and not feel bitter about the rogue and wizard and cleric stealing all thunder all the time.
Robert
|
If there's any quibble about the Paladin being able to remove minor status effects (and eventually major ones) with a Lay on Hands, it could always be added to the Cleric as a Feat option, either one to focus Channeling, or to add a 'kicker' to a Cure X Wounds spell.
And that opens up the door for status-effect-imposing 'kickers' to Inflict X Wound spells for the naughty Clerics... Mwahaha.
I believe Undead will now have Charisma bonus to hit-points, in place of Constitution. (That was in the Beta towards the back I believe). Zombies and such will probably be up'd to 10 Cha or so so they don't have -5 to hp per die :)
The unholly toughness ability would be a good solution. But if undead possess it by default, things like lich sorcerers will be a bit too tough...
Doesn't this mostly depend on the DM? I tend to run dragons more like cats. They don't like to risk getting hurt so they play with the party, fly by breath, maybe disappear for a round or two and return invisible and cast a spell from a range (I like them using spells that have a differing energy type from their breath weapon). Some dragons will want to smash into the party and stand and fight but many others will take advantage of their mobility and use hit-and-run tactics. If the party is bunched up for the paladin's aura they are also all within breath weapon/ area effect spell range.
Dragons are IMO a bit difficult to run because there are so many things they can be good at.
Wow. I have no idea how to deal with the power level of this class. I've been running RotRL with Beta made characters, boosting monsters by adding HP as recommended, and keeping the characters 2 levels (nearly 3 now) *behind* the normal levels for the AP. And so far, it's so easy it gets boring at times (for the players and DM as well).
My thoughts are that the bestiary will be significantly beefed up, and the new APs too. But I hope Paizo offers some better guidelines to what mods should be applied to past APs (and 3.5 material in general) to retain some form of play value.
Wow. I have no idea how to deal with the power level of this class. I've been running RotRL with Beta made characters, boosting monsters by adding HP as recommended, and keeping the characters 2 levels (nearly 3 now) *behind* the normal levels for the AP. And so far, it's so easy it gets boring at times (for the players and DM as well).
My thoughts are that the bestiary will be significantly beefed up, and the new APs too. But I hope Paizo offers some better guidelines to what mods should be applied to past APs (and 3.5 material in general) to retain some form of play value.
On the whole while it clearly appears the melee centric characters will be vastly more powerful in Pathfinder then in Beta or 3.5, it also appears the casters will at best be as powerful in Pathfinder and almost certainly less powerful then their Beta or 3.5 version. If that balances things for your group it might help. For instance your Beta Cleric will be vastly less powerful once you convert to Pathfinder.
Yes, but if this were a flamestrike (radius 10 feet), which is also radius I would have to pick an intersection and I couldn't get both K and N. Are aura's different?
Auras should be treated as emanation-style AoE. I think flamestrike is a burst effect. In the case of the aura, the point of origin is the character and not a point in space (as for flame strike).
From the SRD:
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.
While my intention is not to get back into this, it raises a question for me. Can you drop a spell for Heal? My understanding is that it had to have the word "Cure" in it. Though I would expect a paladin of this level to have a 20 cha. Also party wide heals should heal about 2 1/2 times their base value rather than 1 times their base value to represent multiple people being healed.
In 3.x, the spell had to contain the word "Cure". Also, in the PfBeta there is a new 5th level Cleric spell named "Breath of Life" that Paizo was considering renaming as "Cure xxx" so that it could be used spontaneously.
|
|
While my intention is not to get back into this, it raises a question for me. Can you drop a spell for Heal? My understanding is that it had to have the word "Cure" in it. Though I would expect a paladin of this level to have a 20 cha. Also party wide heals should heal about 2 1/2 times their base value rather than 1 times their base value to represent multiple people being healed.
Nope, you can't spontaneously cast heal... I counted those as prepped, whereas the 5th level and lower spells didn't have to be. And I just based the 18 cha off of the Seelah preview... either way would work. I used 2 times for the area ones (a 5th level mass cure light does 17.5 average at 13th level to each person, therefore the 35 up on the chart I used).