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 unholy toughness ability would be a good solution. But if undead possess it by default, things like lich sorcerers will be a bit too tough...
That's about what I thought when I saw it to begin with, particularly with lich sorcerers vs. lich wizards (more iconic). However Undead may also drop to d8 for HD - though I think that is somewhat more likely to remain the same for backwards compatibility issues. D12's were really just to make up for the lack of Con.
Badass Lich sorcerers sound pretty cool though...
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).
I've been running RotRL under Beta and have been having little trouble keeping things rather dangerous. Sure there are easy times - that's okay. But when I killed 3 characters (some NPCs) in one game, and took the two strongest to deep negatives the game before, it balanced out.
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.
Would that not indicate that casting heal using the two 6th and 7th level spell slots is unrealistic. You might have one memorized. But three?
Would that not indicate that casting heal using the two 6th and 7th level spell slots is unrealistic. You might have one memorized. But three?
It's not meant to be, it's just a comparison of potential, or ease of acting as a healer.
For instance a Paladin rarely will bother with many cure spells, their other spells are usually much much better (Holy Sword?, Bless Weapon?)
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).
It just seems unrealistic that the cleric would memorize 3 heals every day. What I'm kind of looking for is a realistic depiction of spells. Admittedly it does look like the cleric has way more healing that the paladin, though it would be interesting to see how that fairs at different levels (not actually suggesting you do the work, just thinking out loud).
All said though I still think this is an argument that can't be won either way since things still have to be assigned an equivalent value and that requires qualitative versus quantitative analysis and then we're just in fuzzy math territory and then we start the unwinnable religious wars.
While it's unrealistic to assume that anything other than a dedicated NPC cleric of a god of healing might have 3 heals prepped it seems likely that a cleric (especially with access to the healing domain) is going to be the primary healer for a party. I see the paladin finally being a viable alternative to a druid or cleric for party healing in a small party. More importantly I think that a paladin becomes a go-to class for parties with 5+ characters. That way you can have a dedicated basher (fighter or barbarian) and a primary divine spellcaster (cleric or druid) and have a secondary basher and divine spellcaster that is also pretty fly with the leadership role due to his high charisma.
Hopefully the other primary face character (Bard) will get some serious love next week or I see a big decline in the use of minstrels as utility players.
|
It just seems unrealistic that the cleric would memorize 3 heals every day. What I'm kind of looking for is a realistic depiction of spells. Admittedly it does look like the cleric has way more healing that the paladin, though it would be interesting to see how that fairs at different levels (not actually suggesting you do the work, just thinking out loud).
All said though I still think this is an argument that can't be won either way since things still have to be assigned an equivalent value and that requires qualitative versus quantitative analysis and then we're just in fuzzy math territory and then we start the unwinnable religious wars.
I completely agree. I sometimes just get this urge to finish something I was thinking about. I think my only point was to show that the cleric definitely can have more healing power at it's dispense. That being said, both classes have alot more spells that they should be prepping in their spell slots (as if a party needs THAT much healing in one day, there's something wrong). When it gets down to it, I think the spell selection of a cleric is roughly equal to the spells (remember Paladins get some great great spells as well that clerics don't get access to), defenses and attacks of a Paladin.
I'm almost interesting in seeing the numbers at different levels now... we'll see how bored I get later on tonight.
Would that not indicate that casting heal using the two 6th and 7th level spell slots is unrealistic. You might have one memorized. But three?It's not meant to be, it's just a comparison of potential, or ease of acting as a healer.
For instance a Paladin rarely will bother with many cure spells, their other spells are usually much much better (Holy Sword?, Bless Weapon?)
True, but it does seem that in comparing their channel energy ability alone, you end up with the paladins winning out and that if you include a spell effect like lesser restoration, cure disease, remove curse, and neutralize poison then you're getting an extra second or third level spell per. I have no problem with the raw healing. It just seems that the paladin is a better burst healer by getting effects as well as damage healed. I would like to see a similar mechanic introduced for clerics, but somehow I think that's unlikely. Perhaps I can get it house-ruled. It would be interesting to be able to drop a Cure Disease and use two channels to get a cure disease cast on everyone in range. Though that would be really insanely overpowered.
Man, I LOVE this new paladin. Not only is it a viable character on its own, but the auras (particularly the "share smite" one) and condition-removers mean that you're an order of magnitude better if you play with a team.
Before, there was very little reason for a group to contain a paladin as opposed to picking an extra cleric instead. Now the paladin becomes a <"YES! We want one of THOSE!"> class in its own right.
|
I've played paladins in the past, because I liked the concept, if not the implementation, but now, with PRPG Beta, both my RotRL group and my Second Darkness group have had a Paladin as the main party healer, with a druid and wand of cure light wounds as healing backup. And thus far, it's worked surprisingly well! I love that clerics are no longer required for play if no one wants to be a cleric.
Man, I LOVE this new paladin. Not only is it a viable character on its own, but the auras (particularly the "share smite" one) and condition-removers mean that you're an order of magnitude better if you play with a team.
Before, there was little reason for a group to contain a paladin as opposed to picking an extra cleric instead. Now the paladin becomes a <"YES! We want one of THOSE!"> class in its own right.
<a Fighter walks dejectedly down a dirt road with lonely music playing in the background>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUWgE0EVQ9c;-P
|
|
True, but it does seem that in comparing their channel energy ability alone, you end up with the paladins winning out and that if you include a spell effect like lesser restoration, cure disease, remove curse, and neutralize poison then you're getting an extra second or third level spell per. I have no problem with the raw healing. It just seems that the paladin is a better burst healer by getting effects as well as damage healed. I would like to see a similar mechanic introduced for clerics, but somehow I think that's unlikely. Perhaps I can get it house-ruled. It would be interesting to be able to drop a Cure Disease and use two channels to get a cure disease cast on everyone in range. Though that would be really insanely overpowered.Would that not indicate that casting heal using the two 6th and 7th level spell slots is unrealistic. You might have one memorized. But three?It's not meant to be, it's just a comparison of potential, or ease of acting as a healer.
For instance a Paladin rarely will bother with many cure spells, their other spells are usually much much better (Holy Sword?, Bless Weapon?)
I think you're right about burst healing at lower levels. A paladin will be able to run over and heal equal / more amounts per day than a cleric (without spells). But once the cleric gets mass cure light or heal I think the burst suddenly switches to cleric. A paladins max curing capability at level 20 is 10d6 or 35 HP, that really pales in comparison to the 150 HP (250 HP if you count mass heal + items) that a cleric can do to one person.
She can bond with a horse, which acts like an animal companion (using the paladin's level as her effective druid level),
This is why I have so much respect for the Paizo folks.
Did we need another rule for a paladin's mount when the druid's compainion rules were already spelled out, No. To me this is just another example of Pathfinder taking 3.5 and cleaning it up in a nice simple way.
Nice job guys.
Now my question is will there be rules for a more fantastic mount like a unicorn or pegasus?
I've played paladins in the past, because I liked the concept, if not the implementation, but now, with PRPG Beta, both my RotRL group and my Second Darkness group have had a Paladin as the main party healer, with a druid and wand of cure light wounds as healing backup. And thus far, it's worked surprisingly well! I love that clerics are no longer required for play if no one wants to be a cleric.
We also have a paladin as our main healer with a "druid with wand" as our backup healer and it does just fine. We still loose people from time to time, but it's hardly a deal breaker and we're not even at a level where we would have level Raise Dead if we did have a cleric. The last time we had to raise someone we had to use our very rare Limited Wish scroll that we got after saving the head of a mage guild. Clerics are nice, but they're not always necessary.
I think you're right about burst healing at lower levels. A paladin will be able to run over and heal equal / more amounts per day than a cleric (without spells). But once the cleric gets mass cure light or heal I think the burst suddenly switches to cleric. A paladins max curing capability at level 20 is 10d6 or 35 HP, that really pales in comparison to the 150 HP (250 HP if you count mass heal + items) that a cleric can do to one person.True, but it does seem that in comparing their channel energy ability alone, you end up with the paladins winning out and that if you include a spell effect like lesser restoration, cure disease, remove curse, and neutralize poison then you're getting an extra second or third level spell per. I have no problem with the raw healing. It just seems that the paladin is a better burst healer by getting effects as well as damage healed. I would like to see a similar mechanic introduced for clerics, but somehow I think that's unlikely. Perhaps I can get it house-ruled. It would be interesting to be able to drop a Cure Disease and use two channels to get a cure disease cast on everyone in range. Though that would be really insanely overpowered.Would that not indicate that casting heal using the two 6th and 7th level spell slots is unrealistic. You might have one memorized. But three?It's not meant to be, it's just a comparison of potential, or ease of acting as a healer.
For instance a Paladin rarely will bother with many cure spells, their other spells are usually much much better (Holy Sword?, Bless Weapon?)
Yes admittedly as soon as you add Mass Cure Light and especially heal the tables turn very quickly, but before that when the cleric's best spell is Cure Critical Wounds for 4d8 + 7 you're only looking at 25 average healing which is barely better raw numbers than their 4d6 channel which happens to hit everyone.
Admittedly going back to my qualitative versus quantitative analysis I tend to play lower leveled campaigns. Say 1-10. I rarely see the upper level stuff so it's very likely my "gut" viewpoint is skewed severely.
|
|
Admittedly going back to my qualitative versus quantitative analysis I tend to play lower leveled campaigns. Say 1-10. I rarely see the upper level stuff so it's very likely my "gut" viewpoint is skewed severely.
Hey I thouroughly tested the low level paladin in BETA and I can assure you that the healing does not get anywhere near touching the clerics. As a melee character you wind up in battle using more LoH on yourself and only occasionally popping a LoH as needed on an ally. For the most part you don't channel because you have to save LoH for yourself, and that's even including a high AC defensive build. Trust me, it seems like a lot but it really isn't, and the mercies will be beneficial but I garuntee that it'll be you get to apply one effect to be cured with each LoH and I don't think it will be applied when you channel, only when you LoH. The LoH will be the pally's bread and butter, and Channeling a rarely used and from my experience overpriced ability.
|
|
Yes admittedly as soon as you add Mass Cure Light and especially heal the tables turn very quickly, but before that when the cleric's best spell is Cure Critical Wounds for 4d8 + 7 you're only looking at 25 average healing which is barely better raw numbers than their 4d6 channel which happens to hit everyone.
Admittedly going back to my qualitative...
That could do it. Our campaigns tend to be very very long. Usually starting 1-4 and ending in the mid to upper teens. We tend to see the entire gamut of the level scheme, all for one character. Also remember that feats (granted, non-Paizo, non-OGL feats) like Augment Healing help the healing spells significantly. And channel energy (granted... not Lay on Hands) does heal your enemies too.
That could do it. Our campaigns tend to be very very long. Usually starting 1-4 and ending in the mid to upper teens. We tend to see the entire gamut of the level scheme, all for one character. Also remember that feats (granted, non-Paizo, non-OGL feats) like Augment Healing help the healing spells significantly. And channel energy (granted... not Lay on Hands) does heal your enemies too.Yes admittedly as soon as you add Mass Cure Light and especially heal the tables turn very quickly, but before that when the cleric's best spell is Cure Critical Wounds for 4d8 + 7 you're only looking at 25 average healing which is barely better raw numbers than their 4d6 channel which happens to hit everyone.
Admittedly going back to my qualitative...
Yeah, but we're Paizo only at this point. We don't do splat books or even PHB 2. But in the early levels you're looking about about one less channel per day and the same amount of damage healed per channel. I think I'm O.K. with it now after having discussed it to death. It's just one of those things where you have a gut feeling about something, but you just have to get enough information about it and spend enough time thinking about it that you become comfortable with it.
HOWEVER: I still wish that it would have been changed to a generic crusader class. Being LG is too restrictive both to the player and to a campaign, and at least in games that I play in the paladin will have large patches where he is virtually useless because his abilities are SOO specific and alignment based. Core book antipaladins is the best way to go.
My 2cp.
Well that's not a paladin then. To many people a Paladin is LG anything else is not really a paladin.
Exactly. The class wouldn't really fit other alignments. So I think we need variants whose abilities are tailored to the alignment and the core concepts behind them. A CG champion class would be all about freedom, liberation, courage/fortitude. A LE champion would be all about tyranny, suppression, striking fear into the heart of the enemy. CE would be all about violating, destroying, unmaking, ending.
I guess what I'm saying is this: Sure, mechanically Paladins are HUGELY less suck than they were in 3.x. However, they are still goody two shoes stuck up SOBs and if anyone tried to play one they'd find my knife in their back before the end of the first session. A less alignment restrictive class (even if it were "any good") would be much more accomodating to a wide swath of players. Clerics have rules built in which let them do radically different things depending on their alignment/deity and I don't quite know why this can't be worked into the Paladin class to make it more universal. *shrug*
Hey I thouroughly tested the low level paladin in BETA and I can assure you that the healing does not get anywhere near touching the clerics. As a melee character you wind up in battle using more LoH on yourself and only occasionally popping a LoH as needed on an ally. For the most part you don't channel because you have to save LoH for yourself, and that's even including a high AC defensive build. Trust me, it seems like a lot but it really isn't, and the mercies will be beneficial but I garuntee that it'll be you get to apply one effect to be cured with each LoH and I don't think it will be applied when you channel, only when you LoH. The LoH will be the pally's bread and butter, and Channeling a rarely used and from my experience overpriced ability.Admittedly going back to my qualitative versus quantitative analysis I tend to play lower leveled campaigns. Say 1-10. I rarely see the upper level stuff so it's very likely my "gut" viewpoint is skewed severely.
Yes LKL. Our Paldin do the same. LoH on himself - rarely use channeling.
And he won't pick Selective Channeling (he got other feats tom pick).Also why waste LoH on channeling when they got cool stuff to do - mercies.
I'm surprised. No post has mentioned.....
Fullplate is now +9 !!! :-)
Trust me, it seems like a lot but it really isn't, and the mercies will be beneficial but I garuntee that it'll be you get to apply one effect to be cured with each LoH...Really.. you guarantee that... interesting.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
LOL
smite evil lasts "until your evil foe is vanquished".Some think until you hit, some think until foe is dead or run away.
You don't have to tell us how smite evil works but will the wording in the book be clearer? I read until foe is dead or run away.
Director of Games
|
I guess what I'm saying is this: Sure, mechanically Paladins are HUGELY less suck than they were in 3.x. However, they are still goody two shoes stuck up SOBs and if anyone tried to play one they'd find my knife in their back before the end of the first session. A less alignment restrictive class (even if it were "any good") would be much more accomodating to a wide swath of players. Clerics have rules built in which let them do radically different things depending on their alignment/deity and I don't quite know why this can't be worked into the Paladin class to make it more universal. *shrug*
Because then it would no longer be a paladin. The class has a history in the game, one that I find valuable to the narrative that makes up this shared experience. I could have opened it up, but then it would cease to be the class that many of us have been playing for 20 years.
That said, there is probably room for classes similar to this based on other alignments or alignment ranges. One in particular comes to mind, but that is for a later book.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I guess what I'm saying is this: they are still goody two shoes stuck up SOBs.
Evidently you've never seen True Grit?
Every LG character and/or paladin doesn't have to be "Superman" -- they can just as easily be a "Rooster Cogburn" instead.
I guess what I'm saying is this: Sure, mechanically Paladins are HUGELY less suck than they were in 3.x. However, they are still goody two shoes stuck up SOBs and if anyone tried to play one they'd find my knife in their back before the end of the first session. A less alignment restrictive class (even if it were "any good") would be much more accomodating to a wide swath of players. Clerics have rules built in which let them do radically different things depending on their alignment/deity and I don't quite know why this can't be worked into the Paladin class to make it more universal. *shrug*Because then it would no longer be a paladin. The class has a history in the game, one that I find valuable to the narrative that makes up this shared experience. I could have opened it up, but then it would cease to be the class that many of us have been playing for 20 years.
That said, there is probably room for classes similar to this based on other alignments or alignment ranges. One in particular comes to mind, but that is for a later book.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Oooh do tell. I'd love a chaotic paladin-esque class for my Desnan priest.
But anyways my hope is that the rules on the range of auras (see many posts above) are much clearer than they currently are, because I still have arguments with my GM on it and have yet to find an official answer on it. Same with Circle of Protection. Really anything that's in a square and an emanation (light spells, auras, CoP) rather than an instantaneous burst (say fireball) isn't something I've ever found a completely clear rule on.
This also may seem odd, but based on how it's ruled you could end up someone who could touch the paladin not being in their 10 foot aura if the paladin was enlarged. This I guess is what never made sense to me.
Because then it would no longer be a paladin. The class has a history in the game, one that I find valuable to the narrative that makes up this shared experience. I could have opened it up, but then it would cease to be the class that many of us have been playing for 20 years.
Not really though, because if you want to play a LG paladin then that's what you'd get. One of my favorite issues of Dragon was the alternate paladin classes for just this reason, and because clearly my experience is different. You see I played a CN anti-paladin which was my first character ever, and as you can imagine what you remember from your childhood flavors your perception of the game. The game that I've been playing for only 12 years involves rolling your eyes when someone wants to play a Paladin because they will just be a jerk, it's written in the class!
Okay.... I think I may have a problem. Not just with this preview or the cleric one or... It's a terrible big and unwielding problem... Yes I can see it coming.. I may soon be diagnosed with multiple character distress syndrome... So far every preview has made me go Mmmm! Yeah, Baby! I'm so gonna play a (insert class here) next time around.
But in the end, it may be a good thing, because it must mean that the classes have been expertly balanced by the amazing team at Paizo HQ. Now I'm eagerly awaiting the Bardic preview, because if there ever was a guy that needit an overhaul, this was your guy. So thank you JB and the rest of you guys. Thank you for making the decision of which class to play ever so much harder ;-)
Never did like the beta smite.
A paladin + smite + great cleave + spiked chain + enlarge person. Not heroic but über. Now it's "you and me evil"!
|
Director of Games
|
Not really though, because if you want to play a LG paladin then that's what you'd get. One of my favorite issues of Dragon was the alternate paladin classes for just this reason, and because clearly my experience is different. You see I played a CN anti-paladin which was my first character ever, and as you can imagine what you remember from your childhood flavors your perception of the game. The game that I've been playing for only 12 years involves rolling your eyes when someone wants to play a Paladin because they will just be a jerk, it's written in the class!
Because then it would no longer be a paladin. The class has a history in the game, one that I find valuable to the narrative that makes up this shared experience. I could have opened it up, but then it would cease to be the class that many of us have been playing for 20 years.
I agree that the Dragon article was great, but it did not totally redefine the class. The paladin has be an LG class since its inception and I was not interesting in slaying this particular Sacred Cow. As for being jerks, well, that really depends on the player. I have often found that the only paladin jerks are usually jerks regardless of the class they are playing. But that is an entirely different discussion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Not really though, because if you want to play a LG paladin then that's what you'd get. One of my favorite issues of Dragon was the alternate paladin classes for just this reason, and because clearly my experience is different. You see I played a CN anti-paladin which was my first character ever, and as you can imagine what you remember from your childhood flavors your perception of the game. The game that I've been playing for only 12 years involves rolling your eyes when someone wants to play a Paladin because they will just be a jerk, it's written in the class!
Because then it would no longer be a paladin. The class has a history in the game, one that I find valuable to the narrative that makes up this shared experience. I could have opened it up, but then it would cease to be the class that many of us have been playing for 20 years.
Hmmmm? I think, I may be wrong here I know, but it may be more an issue with the players than the actual paladin class... But experiences may vary, I know.
Jason,
I'm pretty sure there's an issue with the hit-points or skill-points in the Blog. Looks like Favored class applied to both.
[Or am I missing something people?]
For the record, I've never seen a Paladin jerk among the many played under me. The closest was some.. back and forth conflicts between one and a priestess of death... but that was quite mutual, and a friendly (out of game) rivalry really. [Basically they fought over who got to sacrifice a prisoner.. sorta]
As for being jerks, well, that really depends on the player. I have often found that the only paladin jerks are usually jerks regardless of the class they are playing.
Do you know Bill too?
The game that I've been playing for only 12 years involves rolling your eyes when someone wants to play a Paladin because they will just be a jerk, it's written in the class!
No, I do not think that it is written in the class. To me it seems more that someone confuses Lawfull Good with Lawfull Stupid if he plays a paladin as a jerk.
--
So, where did I put this blasted key?
The game that I've been playing for only 12 years involves rolling your eyes when someone wants to play a Paladin because they will just be a jerk, it's written in the class!No, I do not think that it is written in the class. To me it seems more that someone confuses Lawfull Good with Lawfull Stupid if he plays a paladin as a jerk.
--
So, where did I put this blasted key?
That happens to quite a few players, but there's nothing I find inherent about being a paladin and a jerk. You can be lawful, good and respectful of other cultures. But it's also just as possible to be lawful good and a jerk. I usually adjust it somewhat based on the deity I'm being a paladin for. Is my deity a jerk? If so, then it's much more likely I'll play mine that way as well.
LOL, why is she a "shiny happy people" in mithral full plate when she has no DEX mod. She really outta upgrade to adamantium.
Nah, marvel would sue, and we don't want to see Wolvie delivering subpoenas... now adamantite, that's something she could wear. =)
(lol j/k)
I like the final version of the paladin, trading Smite Evil's damage for ability of it lasting until the damn thing is DEAD was nice, and from all the iconics presented so far, Seelah is by far the less min/maxed and the more functional (poor Valeros, a lvl 3 Cleric with Hold Person can wtf0wn him).
As for being jerks, well, that really depends on the player. I have often found that the only paladin jerks are usually jerks regardless of the class they are playing.Do you know Bill too?
For me it was Jeremy.
|
The game that I've been playing for only 12 years involves rolling your eyes when someone wants to play a Paladin because they will just be a jerk, it's written in the class!No, I do not think that it is written in the class. To me it seems more that someone confuses Lawfull Good with Lawfull Stupid if he plays a paladin as a jerk.
I agree. Too many people why try and play a paladin get the lawful part just fine but have no idea how to act good. I suspect it may have something to do with their not knowing how to act good in real life, either, because I've seen some wonderfully played paladins created by people who happen to be very good people in real life as well.
|
Director of Games
|
Jason,
I'm pretty sure there's an issue with the hit-points or skill-points in the Blog. Looks like Favored class applied to both.
[Or am I missing something people?]
I think you may be assuming Seelah put maximum ranks in all of her skills. This is not the case.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Too many people why try and play a paladin get the lawful part just fine but have no idea how to act good. I suspect it may have something to do with their not knowing how to act good in real life, either.
QFT.
I agree. Too many people why try and play a paladin get the lawful part just fine but have no idea how to act good. I suspect it may have something to do with their not knowing how to act good in real life, either, because I've seen some wonderfully played paladins created by people who happen to be very good people in real life as well.
O-Chul is a good example of a Lawful GOOD Paladin.
Jason,
I'm pretty sure there's an issue with the hit-points or skill-points in the Blog. Looks like Favored class applied to both.
[Or am I missing something people?]
I think you may be assuming Seelah put maximum ranks in all of her skills. This is not the case.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
She took 3 levels of extra hit points, but only has 12 ranks in all her skills except Know (Religion) which has 13 ranks meaning she's 3 ranks shy on what she could have put in. That's where the 3 hit points came from.
However 13d10 + 39 does not equal 115. It equals 110
13*5.5 = 71.5 + 39 = 110 (rounded down).
That's about what I thought when I saw it to begin with, particularly with lich sorcerers vs. lich wizards (more iconic). However Undead may also drop to d8 for HD - though I think that is somewhat more likely to remain the same for backwards compatibility issues. D12's were really just to make up for the lack of Con.
Badass Lich sorcerers sound pretty cool though...
That makes sense. Monster wise its a very good idea.
Though it still gives an unfair advantage to undead that use their charisma as their main stat.(sorcerers and bards )
However 13d10 + 39 does not equal 115. It equals 110
13*5.5 = 71.5 + 39 = 110 (rounded down).
If you give her max hit points at first level, that gives you an extra 5 hit points.
|
She took 3 levels of extra hit points, but only has 12 ranks in all her skills except Know (Religion) which has 13 ranks meaning she's 3 ranks shy on what she could have put in. That's where the 3 hit points came from.Jason,
I'm pretty sure there's an issue with the hit-points or skill-points in the Blog. Looks like Favored class applied to both.
[Or am I missing something people?]
I think you may be assuming Seelah put maximum ranks in all of her skills. This is not the case.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think you are a bit mistaken. To break it down:
Skill Points: 2 (Base) + 1 (Human) x 13 (Levels) = 39
Skills:
Diplomacy +16 = 4 (Charisma) + 3 (Class) + 9 (Ranks)
Heal +14 = 1 (Wisdom) + 3 (Class) + 10 (Ranks)
Knowledge (religion) +13 = 0 (Intelligence) + 3 (Class) + 10 (Ranks)
Sense Motive +14 = 1 (Wisdom) + 3 (Class) + 10 (Ranks)
Skill Points Spent: 9 + 10 + 10 + 10 = 39
No extras. Ergo, any favored class bonuses went into Hit Points.
Her Hit Points are labeled as 13d10+39. 26 of the 39 is from her +2 Con (2 x 13 = 26). This leaves the 13, all of which are from her Favored Class.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
|
|
However 13d10 + 39 does not equal 115. It equals 11013*5.5 = 71.5 + 39 = 110 (rounded down).
Hit Points are maxed at first level. This is where the extra 5 comes in.
10 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6
=
10 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11
=
10 + 66
=
76
Add to that her 39 from before, and you get 115.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
However 13d10 + 39 does not equal 115. It equals 11013*5.5 = 71.5 + 39 = 110 (rounded down).
Hit Points are maxed at first level. This is where the extra 5 comes in.
10 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 6
=
10 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11
=
10 + 66
=
76Add to that her 39 from before, and you get 115.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Duh.. Been doing monster hit points too much recently.
|
Regarding playing a paladin and the paladin's code: The funny thing I've discovered over the past few decades is that the paladin-at-the-table problem comes from both directions. I've seen a few examples of the Lawful Stupid paladin, of course. But I've lost count of the times where a player announces he is running a paladin, which immediately causes another player to announce that since we have a paladin in the group, he'll be playing a CE multi-classed Mass Murderer/Church Defiler/Unwanted Intimate Encounter Specialist.
Jerk can come from either side of the paladin equation.
----
As for the preview, it's a grand return to form for the paladin! I haven't seen this many people interested in this class since 1st edition! Excellent upgrade.
____
On a side note, does the Smite Evil work with ranged attacks? I can't recall if it was melee specific or not. If so, this could get quite nasty if a few archer types hang around in the Aura of Justice...
|
|
Because then it would no longer be a paladin. The class has a history in the game, one that I find valuable to the narrative that makes up this shared experience. I could have opened it up, but then it would cease to be the class that many of us have been playing for 20 years.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
amen!