^^ Ninja'd by Master Mona ^^
"I think the Protection from Evil is what really irks me."
I think it still grants immunity to control or possession by evil creatures. It just does not act as an automatic 'Break Compulsion' spell
Evil summoned creatures still cant touch you. SR shouldn't be to tough unless the spell is from a scroll or wand.
It is a first level spell, it shouldn't cancel out half a dozen higher level spells - i.e. Dominate Monster
Bah I never liked the whole Paladins must be only Lawful Good in a game type of mentality. I use the Paladin Variant rules from Unneathed Arcana. If Clerics can be different alignemnts why not Paladins. It gives you the freedom to try something different and not play the same stale class over and over again.
1. Alignment does not mean personality, background, race, or any other of a million factors that lead into how you play the character. Give me five characters with the same alignment, and I'll give you seven personalities for them. The class is not stale the player's imagination is.
2. Because a paladin is not a Cleric. A paladin doesn't work for a god. A paladin isn't some "Holy champion". Even if the gods themselves fail a paladin will still stand, because someone has to do it and he refuses to fall.
3. A "variant" paladin is not a paladin, anymore than a "variant" wizard that doesn't use spells is a wizard. A paladin by definition must be lawful good. Anything else isn't a paladin.
[/repeatum ad nauseum]
So, I have a hard time accepting lauding the toning down of a Clerics' power, while simultaneously lauding the toning up of a Paladin (up to potentially overpowered) because they can "lose it all."I agree. Roleplaying restrictions are terrible balancing factors for mechanical abilities.
I am positive that Jason agrees with me, and that this did not factor into the mechanical balance of the new paladin class.
I believe most of us can agree on that.
And if it seemed I was suggesting that roleplaying restrictions did factor in, it wasn't intentional.
I swear all this nonsense about paladins being limited, or boring, or they must be annoying etc... sometimes I wonder how some people got into roleplaying games with no imagination.
I swear all this nonsense about paladins being limited, or boring, or they must be annoying etc... sometimes I wonder how some people got into roleplaying games with no imagination.
It could simply be they learned under GMs with no imagination...
Sorry I was involved it that..sorry to derail
|
Give him weak spells and the cleric is still a kick ass class. The cleric was two damned good in 3.0 and 3.5 by far. He was damned near hands down the best class ever with the spells as is.
He got more spells then a wizard, spells just as powerful, any armor he wanted good weapons x2 hd over a wizard a better BAB and 2 domains
so how do we bring him in?
Now we can't drop the HD, can't take away his armor, can't give him spell chance failure. To many cry foul if one domain goes
so what does that leave? spells. So they took a look a spells and the few spells that " broke" the game, the spells most abused the spells most used to mess folks games over and the spells 7 out of 10 posters used in examples of how over powered the cleric was or how the cleric made the fighter or what ever useless.
so you
A: nerf the cleric to a better power level , killing backward compatibilityB: you Nerf a few over the top spells to bring him more inline
You MUST do one. Which would you have done?
Saying that the cleric is way to powerful is purely a matter of opinion. I personally disagree with it unless you are looking specifically at mechanics and nothing else. But then that doesn't take into account the facts that clerics got the absolute fewest options in any book since the 3.0 PHB, (such as feats, prestige classes, spells, skill uses, and gear). That includes the divine books. It also doesn't acount for the fact that like 80% of their abilities are used to fix other characters screw ups, real fun there. Or the fact that without half decent ac and hp, they wouldn't be able to do what they are suppossed to do, (make sure everyone makes it out alive). The designers of 3.0 came out and said that the tried to make the cleric a little more to try to get at least a few people to play them. That is pretty much were the cleric has been since 3.0, with a few notable exceptions like divine vengence, divine metamagic, and things along that line. The only thing they had to do was make them more conceptually interesting.
That is until pathfinder gave some nice ideas, but then, IT SEEMS, ripped them and more back out. Back to the "interesting" that seems to be exactly what pathfinder is taking back. I say seems over and again because we don't know yet, but so far I see a lot of reason to think so, but none to say it is not.
Lastly, why does it have to be one or the other? It doesn't. Why can't the other classes be bumped up, and clerics just keep what they had? Or get a little boost, while others got a bigger one? That is the option I would go with.
If I wanted to play a divine caster with a little armor, less hp, a few wizard pew-pews, and almost no in combat abilities, I would play a core 3.5 class, the freakin' Adept. That's what you discribe, and what I see this going towards.
Heh, didn't see the post huh. Happens to me all the time my friend
Alright folks, lets not drag the arguments from the cleric preview into this preview please. Otherwise, feel free to continue...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks.
And....I love the new Paladin. You have all done a great job.By the way, the new power attack / deadly aim seems promising.
Been talking to some of my friends from my tabletop game. We all agree the new Power attack / deadly aim looks good. The Beta PA/DA has been a problem to many of the palyers (yes, why can't they learn the rules....LOL)
This happens all the time (yes this STILL happens)
- Now when I'm level 5 and use PA with my great sword how much penalty do I get on the attack and how much damage boost do I get?
5 minutes later:
- Wait did you just cast bull's strength on me? What happened now? I get +2 on the attack right? Oh, not when I PA? It's only +1? ...but damage get a boost. How much? Oh wait, must write that down.
So new PA and DA looks good ;-)
I just like paladins being lawful good. It seems umm... Iconic. Everthing else seems to be something else. I truely enjoyed the Forgotten Realms comic with Priam Agrivar as the recovering alcoholic paladin. Never seemed pompus to me. And Paksenarion from "The Deed of Paksenarrion" will always be an example of a paladin to me.
Not to say that I don't like rogues too. The larcenous (mis)adventures of Vance's Cugel the Clever always leave me laughing.
Anyway, lots of mishmash to just type. LG Pally FTW.
|
And Paksenarion from "The Deed of Paksenarrion" will always be an example of a paladin to me.
I keep hearing this series held up as a prime example of paladins done right, and I have had the collected volume sitting in by bookshelf for around seven years now. I really need to get around to reading it....
I swear all this nonsense about paladins being limited, or boring, or they must be annoying etc... sometimes I wonder how some people got into roleplaying games with no imagination.
Well they are limited, but I like that. Agree they are not boring, annoying etc. It's up to the player. One of our players now play a CG paladin (house rule from DM). I don't like it. They turn out a bit like a fighter with spells. If you play a CG Paladin make sure you play it CG. The chaos side must mean something. I've played many Paladins. Not all of them have been nice.
|
|
I just like paladins being lawful good. It seems umm... Iconic. Everthing else seems to be something else. I truely enjoyed the Forgotten Realms comic with Priam Agrivar as the recovering alcoholic paladin. Never seemed pompus to me. And Paksenarion from "The Deed of Paksenarrion" will always be an example of a paladin to me.
I don't mean to imply that I think paladins should be a liitle rogueish(?). I just think an undercover cop should be an allowable concept, and that would be not lawful.
That, and there is nothing that has ever made want to play a paladin more than Boondock Saints. . . If you can find it it is well worth it.
Sadface. It took me almsot 30 mins to "text" write all that. . . And I live in country, so sending it is about the same speed as original dial up.Edit: Heh, didn't see the post huh. Happens to me all the time my friend
Well I did read it I just can't comment on it...Gods I don't even want to try to text that amount...you sir are dedicated
I just like paladins being lawful good. It seems umm... Iconic. Everthing else seems to be something else. I truely enjoyed the Forgotten Realms comic with Priam Agrivar as the recovering alcoholic paladin. Never seemed pompus to me. And Paksenarion from "The Deed of Paksenarrion" will always be an example of a paladin to me.I don't mean to imply that I think paladins should be a liitle rogueish(?). I just think an undercover cop should be an allowable concept, and that would be not lawful.
That, and there is nothing that has ever made want to play a paladin more than Boondock Saints. . . If you can find it it is well worth it.
Again that is not a paladin. A paladin does not compromise, a paladin does not back down, a paladin holds himself to the highest moral standards and does not ever give in to the easy road.
He walks a long, hard road, but he does not bend.
I keep hearing this series held up as a prime example of paladins done right, and I have had the collected volume sitting in by bookshelf for around seven years now. I really need to get around to reading it....
I enjoyed it. In fact, to prime myself for the August release of the rules, I will reread it again. Just to get my LG on.
There was a motivational poster out there somewhere too
Had a picture of the seven samurai and the caption was something like, "Lawful Good, Because someone has to save your crappy little village. "
wasgreg
that is why I kept using 3.0 magic for clerics :PI experimented with allowing unlimited cantrips/orisons per beta, but ultimately decided there were too many problematic spells to allow them to remain unlimited castings and I reverted my current campaign back to 3.5 rules for cantrips/orisons. As it is, I hope Jason did some serious tweaking on the known abusable cantrips/orisons when used in the unlimited rules (create water, mending etc). If not I'll have to decide to either tweak a few spells or just stick with 3.5 cantrip/orison rules. In case it matters, I happen to be one of those annoying old-schoolers that don't have a problem with spellcasters running out of spells and having to rely on their dagger/sling/staff/friends. Its part of the package of playing a spellcaster, eventually your cool stuff runs out whereas the meat-shield keeps on doing what he does best, hurting things and keeping you from getting hurt.
We went with 1/2 level + caster stat castings per day which rightly solved the problem.
Again that is not a paladin. A paladin does not compromise, a paladin does not back down, a paladin holds himself to the highest moral standards and does not ever give in to the easy road.He walks a long, hard road, but he does not bend.
Yah. like that.
1. Alignment does not mean personality, background, race, or any other of a million factors that lead into how you play the character. Give me five characters with the same alignment, and I'll give you seven personalities for them. The class is not stale the player's imagination is.
Agree and well put Abraham. Paladin need not be lawful stupid.
2. Because a paladin is not a Cleric. A paladin doesn't work for a god. A paladin isn't some "Holy champion". Even if the gods themselves fail a paladin will still stand, because someone has to do it and he refuses to fall.
They cast divine spells and channel eneryg can loose all their abilitiesw if they do something they shouldn't. I say they work for a god as much as a cleric does.
3. A "variant" paladin is not a paladin, anymore than a "variant" wizard that doesn't use spells is a wizard. A paladin by definition must be lawful good. Anything else isn't a paladin.
You are probably right here. A CG "Liberator" could work if it's a "free the slaves" campaign, but then the paladin must really be played as Chaotic not neutral. This would create problems with authorities and might be fun.
A Paladin is extreme and should be extreme. She is not only LG she is LAWFUL good. A CG Paladin should be Chaotic good.CG Paladin could perhaps work but not NG, LN, NN.
[...] I just think an undercover cop should be an allowable concept, and that would be not lawful.[...]
Why not? So undercover cops are criminals? I guess some cops would not agree with you.
When undercover it's nice to see a player get out of certain situations without a lie.There is a difference in english between lie and bluff, yes?
Not kaeyoss but gonna field some of this
You know rumour has it that not ever Paladin has to be giving all their money away or not wanting to be rich because their do-gooders. not everyone wants to play the sterotypical Paladin in every game.
A paladin destroy evil, he does not sale it, any paladin would destroy it over saleing an evil item.
A paladin never spreads evil
In a certain context as your example of the evil sword yes break it. But otherwise unless my character has taken a vow of poverty he does want something tangibl besides being a hero and the goodwill of the people. As much as some DM and players deny it you do need a certai namount of money to buy stuff and pay for good and services.Then do not sunder everything. If it's evil or may cause evil you destroy it damn the money.
right and rob the rest of the non-paladin party of hard fought treasure. because YOU and YOUR dumb god think it's evil.
that's the best argument to just STAB the damn pally in the face at first sight I've ever heard.treasure-hater!
Not kaeyoss but gonna field some of this
You know rumour has it that not ever Paladin has to be giving all their money away or not wanting to be rich because their do-gooders. not everyone wants to play the sterotypical Paladin in every game.A paladin destroy evil, he does not sale it, any paladin would destroy it over saleing an evil item.
A paladin never spreads evil
Then do not sunder everything. If it's evil or may cause evil you destroy it damn the money.
In a certain context as your example of the evil sword yes break it. But otherwise unless my character has taken a vow of poverty he does want something tangibl besides being a hero and the goodwill of the people. As much as some DM and players deny it you do need a certai namount of money to buy stuff and pay for good and services.right and rob the rest of the non-paladin party of hard fought treasure. because YOU and YOUR dumb god think it's evil.
that's the best argument to just STAB the damn pally in the face at first sight I've ever heard.
treasure-hater!
Let's all use a nice tone to each other, shall we.
OK here's the dealA) Big bad evil guy has a +3 flaming longsword. = no problem. Guy is evil sword is not
B) Big bad evil guy has a +3 unholy longsword = problem. This sword is evil and designed to kill good people efficiently.
C) You don't have to be a paladin to destroy the unholy sword. Just good (or lawful if the King is good or anti evil)
Same goes for chaotic stuff if you are lawful.
If the consept is getting more money and more power regardless of good vs. evil or law vs. chaos a Paladin would never join the group.
I also like how dragons are added to evil outsiders and undead for extra damage from smite.
That was my push!!!
I'm so happy!
:::careful not to break arm while patting myself on back:::
Robert
Yes, I remember :) I thought of crediting you by name; I was hoping you'd speak up!
Well done, sir!
The paladin playtest was a lot of fun, and it looks like there's a lot of reasons to be happy with the outcome.
Why should it. Paladins aren't fighters. Fighters don't get to fly into a rage, cast spells, or lay on hands, after all.Did the paladin's access to fighter feats improve?
I didn't say they should. Actually I was against making the paladin more like a fighter, and I made a case for abilites unique to paladins when the subject of fighter feats came up.
Hmmm, I have to say, Paladin is looking awesome. Now it seems the only thing I need to get through is getting players who can play them as something other than lawful stupid. :P
"Lawful Stupid" may not be that far off the paladin class concept. I see them as the opposite of rogues in that they neglect cunning in favor of heroism. When you're in trouble, you can hope the paladin is "stupid" enough to risk his life trying to save you.
right and rob the rest of the non-paladin party of hard fought treasure. because YOU and YOUR dumb god think it's evil.
that's the best argument to just STAB the damn pally in the face at first sight I've ever heard.
treasure-hater!
So you only play CE nice to know.
Thats an evil party pure and simple. even neutral party will think twice before saleing an evil weapon. hell even LE and some NE would think twice as it might be used on them and they get blamed for the killing as they sold it to the killerEvil Pc's would use it or sale it in such a way it can't fall back on them. Good pc should never sale evil anything if they do well they are not good then are they
right and rob the rest of the non-paladin party of hard fought treasure. because YOU and YOUR dumb god think it's evil.
that's the best argument to just STAB the damn pally in the face at first sight I've ever heard.
treasure-hater!
I don't think you have to worry about a paladin joining your party... sounds more like you need to *really* worry about being on the wrong side of that smite evil thing :D
I don't think you have to worry about a paladin joining your party... sounds more like you need to *really* worry about being on the wrong side of that smite evil thing :Dright and rob the rest of the non-paladin party of hard fought treasure. because YOU and YOUR dumb god think it's evil.
that's the best argument to just STAB the damn pally in the face at first sight I've ever heard.
treasure-hater!
Lol, yeah, sounds like Ol' Meatrace will live about 2 rounds after meeting his first paladin.
Round 1: Paladin detects evil. Meatrace glows like the moon.
Round 2: Paladin smites Meatrace into oblivion.
Round 3: Tarrasque pouts that the paladin robbed the tarrasque of some good meaty snacking (pun intended).
I also like how dragons are added to evil outsiders and undead for extra damage from smite.
That was my push!!!
I'm so happy!
:::careful not to break arm while patting myself on back:::
Robert
Yes, I remember :) I thought of crediting you by name; I was hoping you'd speak up!
Well done, sir!
The paladin playtest was a lot of fun, and it looks like there's a lot of reasons to be happy with the outcome.
I agree that the new Paladin is great! :)
By mentioning you wanted to credit Robert Brambley by name, you actually raise an interesting question. Will some of the playtesters be credited/listed by name in Pathfinder RPG as playtesters? I can think of several posters who originated some of the mechanics that seem to have made it into the final game (and actually many with multiple such mechanics). Robert Brambley with some of the smite concepts (extra damage and adding dragons), myself with the skill point per level of favored class (instead of the hit point), KaeYoss with trapfinding being always on (instead of finding traps with DC 20+) and so on and so on. Then again with 50 thousand or so unique downloads, there are obviously far too many playtesters to list and determining whom to list as a playtester out of such a vast number would be rather complex. Oh well, this is really irrelevant to the topic at hand, so sorry for the diversion, it's just my thought process about this was sparked by this.
Back to the Paladin:
I think that overall, the Paladin can now be considered to be approximately on par with the new full spell casters in terms of power, which is great.
I also love the fact that the Paladin can now act as a legitimate healer (but the Cleric still remains better at it, which is also good :) ).
I guess I am just really pleased with the Paladin, and this is coming from somebody, who generally comments how he would do something differently, even if he likes the thing being commented on.
I don't think you have to worry about a paladin joining your party... sounds more like you need to *really* worry about being on the wrong side of that smite evil thing :Dright and rob the rest of the non-paladin party of hard fought treasure. because YOU and YOUR dumb god think it's evil.
that's the best argument to just STAB the damn pally in the face at first sight I've ever heard.
treasure-hater!Lol, yeah, sounds like Ol' Meatrace will live about 2 rounds after meeting his first paladin.
Round 1: Paladin detects evil. Meatrace glows like the moon.
Round 2: Paladin smites Meatrace into oblivion.
Round 3: Tarrasque pouts that the paladin robbed the tarrasque of some good meaty snacking (pun intended).
I don't have to be evil to dislike people who are jerks. I see no reason not to use an evil weapon to fight for good, or try to redeem the weapon through feats of heroism.
As it happens I usually play TN, CN or CG characters.|
|
[...] I just think an undercover cop should be an allowable concept, and that would be not lawful.[...]Why not? So undercover cops are criminals? I guess some cops would not agree with you.
When undercover it's nice to see a player get out of certain situations without a lie.
There is a difference in english between lie and bluff, yes?
Well yes, in a certain sense undercover cops are criminals. Depends on your point of view. They do illegal and sometimes immoral things to catch bigger criminals. But the point I am trying to make is that D&D paladins canlt really do that sort of thing due to their code, unless your DM is very leinent. 3.0/5 did sort of cute the code down some, but it is also pretty open for the DM to rule things as they want.
The other point I was trying to make is that lawful and good do not always serve the same causes. Sometimes that can be fun for players, but most of the time it isn't. That's why I suggested just Neutral Good. They can focus on good and not worry about law vs chaos, neither of which is morally better or more good than the other, but can both do more harm.
Well yes, in a certain sense undercover cops are criminals. Depends on your point of view. They do illegal and sometimes immoral things to catch bigger criminals.
They do?
Or are you just getting your data from TV shows?
Because if they do, and one whiff of this gets into the courtroom, the cop loses his job and the criminal goes free. I tend to believe that undercover cops try just as hard as uniformed cops to follow the letter of the law.
Sure, OK, once it a while any kind of cop might do criminal things. Some percentage of civilians commit crimes, and I'm sure some percentage of cops commit crimes.
But a blanket statement that all undercover cops commit crimes must be very far from the truth.
I would comment on the cop issue but I don't want to derail this topic more than it already has been.
I liked the Pally right up, first time in a long time it made me intrigued at the idea of playing one.
Not to derail it in some other direction, but I have to ask...
Everyone says it's bad when DMs railroad their players. They also frequently say that when a DM does railroad their players, that the players are well-justified in derailing the DM.
But, everyone seems to agree that it's wrong to derail a forum thread.
Why is derailing sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing?
Personally, I think derailing is like drow. Everyone agrees that drow are bad things, but people frequently (dare I say usually) play drow characters as misunderstood good guys.
So think of thread derailing as drow. I think it will make the drailed threads more angsty.
/wink
|
|
Well yes, in a certain sense undercover cops are criminals. Depends on your point of view. They do illegal and sometimes immoral things to catch bigger criminals.They do?
Or are you just getting your data from TV shows?
Because if they do, and one whiff of this gets into the courtroom, the cop loses his job and the criminal goes free. I tend to believe that undercover cops try just as hard as uniformed cops to follow the letter of the law.
Sure, OK, once it a while any kind of cop might do criminal things. Some percentage of civilians commit crimes, and I'm sure some percentage of cops commit crimes.
But a blanket statement that all undercover cops commit crimes must be very far from the truth.
It is just an example. It would also depend on what country we are talking about. In US, each state dictates what is and not permissable, in addition to federal statuets. But lets go with the tv idea of an undercover cop that has to pretend to be a criminal, to keep tabs on bigger criminals. In D&D, there was the shadow stalker, and some weird class in complete champion, but neither really did mechanically the concepts well.
But the point I am trying to make is that D&D paladins canlt really do that sort of thing due to their code, unless your DM is very leinent. 3.0/5 did sort of cute the code down some, but it is also pretty open for the DM to rule things as they want.When undercover it's nice to see a player get out of certain situations without a lie.
There is a difference in english between lie and bluff, yes?
I don't think DM has to be leinent. But you are right. It's DM's call.
The other point I was trying to make is that lawful and good do not always serve the same causes.
Yes. And that is interesting.
Sometimes that can be fun for players, but most of the time it isn't.
Well change rules or don't play Paladin.
That's why I suggested just Neutral Good. They can focus on good and not worry about law vs chaos, neither of which is morally better or more good than the other, but can both do more harm.
Neutral Good = just hero = just level up get more money and more power = might as well be a fighter or cleric.
I think NG is one of the most lame aligments in the game. Let's me quote seekerofshadowlight.
[...] A paladin does not compromise, a paladin does not back down, a paladin holds himself to the highest moral standards and does not ever give in to the easy road.He walks a long, hard road, but he does not bend.
Does not compromise is the key as I see it.
Good vs. EvilLaw vs. Chaos.
That's way I think a CG Pladin could work, but NG is just lame....IMHO.
Last. Can those of you who who KNOW help me here? Is there a difference in english between lie and bluff?
I would comment on the cop issue but I don't want to derail this topic more than it already has been.
I liked the Pally right up, first time in a long time it made me intrigued at the idea of playing one.
Not to derail it in some other direction, but I have to ask...
Please use spoiler so the thread stays on subject or creat a new thread. Me I use spoilers sometimes/ wink
I guess I have always seen paladins as examples. They stand in the light. They have the charisma to sway crowds and inspire others. When I think of an under cover operative.. I think more of a ranger.. a stalker. A skilled agent working good behind the scenes.
Superman vs Batman.
Both are good...but supes would be the paladin style I imagine.
Much like one can be a lawful good fighter or cleric that follows the tenants of ( lets pick a LG ) Iomedae. They all may be stand up people...the pally just embodies those ideals in the form of a poster boy warrior champion. ( complete with trumpets and fanfare )
Aside. could there be a paladin feat Trumpets and Fanfare?
wasgreg :P
It is just an example.
Ok.
Let's get back on track. Paladin no fun can't do bad things if he is undercover. "Hey my paladin suck. I'm undercover and can't kill, torture, and rape men, women and children. My evil master wants me to prove myself evil before I can meet the big boss".No good character would do that!!! The cool thing about playing a Paldin (or good character) as a undercover cop is the way you salve the problem. I'm good but I must pretend to be evil. I'm lawful but must pretend to break the law. dilemmas. But your DM needs to help you. If he/she don't the too bad. :-( I sure would have.
Well, besides wondering to myself "just who is that girl", I myself would mind seeing a succubi paladin.
"I'm good. . . Honest . . ."
LONG LONG ago... I played in a group where we had an npc paladin join us in our crusade against big ebil. Much later we found out the pally was no pally at all..but a succi in disguise leading us astray and doing BAD things. Wasn't a party wipe...but our fighter/thief decided he liked the opposition better than he did us :( Coulda used Seelah that day.
wasgreg
Can those of you who who KNOW help me here? Is there a difference in english between lie and bluff?
"Bluff" as an adjective is used to describe a person who is outspoken or boisterous.
But those are not what you want.
"Bluff" as a verb is almost always used to indicate deception. In cards, you "bluff" your opponents into believing you have a good hand when you really don't. So in practice, there is virtually no difference in English between "lie" and "bluff".
Oddly enough, "bluffing" is usually perceived as not as bad as "lying". You might gain entrance into a banquet by bluffing the doorman into thinking you have an invitation. Really, no harm in that (or very little harm). But if you trick him into giving you his life savings so that you can invest it for him when really you're just going to take his money and disappear, that's no a bluff, it's a lie.
So one might argue that minor or harmless deception can be called a lie or a bluff, but flagrant and/or abusive deception is never called a bluff, which ultimately means there is, in fact, a little difference in how the two words are used.