|
And here I thought that the 75 posts since I last checked last night meant that some huge argument had broken out about the paladin mechanics...
Nope.. just the usual paladin arguments. I even saw the classic Batman vs Superman comparison...
Good times. Continue...
Jason
Hey you could at least let us know whether the issues with combined channeling and LoH have been dealt with in the final, you don't even have to give away the answers I'll be satisfied with either a "yes they were dealt with" "no I didn't deal with it" or an "I didn't think there was an issue so shut the hell up" That way at least I know wether to be excited about the final or worried.
|
And here I thought that the 75 posts since I last checked last night meant that some huge argument had broken out about the paladin mechanics...
Nope.. just the usual paladin arguments. I even saw the classic Batman vs Superman comparison...
Good times. Continue...
Jason
maybe because we already stated we liked them? he looks cool and now it feels like a champion of truth and justice?
|
|
Superman vs Batman.
Both are good...but supes would be the paladin style I imagine.
And that brings up another good point:
Most I think would agree that Superman was a "paladin" for all intents and purposes. Unbending, unyielding in his pursuite of justice, and goodness.
Someone mentioned that "Undetectable Alignment" being on the paladin spell list is evidence that bluffing or concealing is not a deal-breaker for a paladin.
I agree with this - with the following caveat: Some DMs mileage may vary and it may break some peoples notions of a paladin and for others they may be more lenient. Regardless, I feel that anytime a paladin is doing so for the sake of the greater good - so long as he repents/attones, etc in prayer and admits it wasn't the most honest thing - I feel that this is amicable. And as long as the intention for the bluff was in the pursuit of righteous goodness, the God would be apt to forgive and the paladin may in fact learn a valuable lesson in it all.
IF the bluff etc was for selfish reasons of avarice or wrath, then I can see it as a deal-breaker.
Case in point: As I said I think we can agree that Superman would be a good example of a paladin - and yet he bluffs and deceives every day of his life. Clark Kent is his deception. Without the double life, those closest to him would be prime targets of evil. Furthermore, serving as a reporter gives him many inside stories to find where he is needed most.
Fans of Smallville can see young Clark struggling with his desire to be honest about who he is....but not wanting to put the people that he loves in danger, he loses friends and his long time love of his life (lana) and is forced to basically live alone - because his pursuit of what is right and good must outweight his need for living comfortably and happy. It would be so easy to have what he wants - but he knows it is more responsible to sacrifice those things of happiness and comfort because he is needed for a higher purpose.
That is the life of a paladin many times.
As for bluffing: here are a few instances that I used 'Bluff' as my paladin (Kaerthoryn) in the Curse of Crimson Throne (spoiler used for those who don't wish to know anything about that adventure....or for those who just don't give a rats ass about my paladin...)
I went to the front door, figuring if I cant sneak in, I could at least give them some cover, or distraction to help them be successful.
I knocked on the front door and the female warriors came to the door (Grey Maidens) I kept their attention.
When they asked why I was there I said
Kaerthoryn: I have it on good authority that your lives may be in danger.
Maidens: What are you talking about?
Kaerthoryn: I am warning you that your lives are in jeapordy
Maidens: Who are you?
Kaerthoryn: My name is Kaerthoryn. And though I may not be known to you - some who are known to me are possibly planning harm to you.
Maidens: How do you know this?
Kaerthoryn: I heard them speaking of this.
Maidens: Who are these people you speak of?
Kaerthoryn: Who they are may not be nearly as important as what I can do to help you.
Maidens: You knocked on this door to help us?
Kaerthoryn: Yes.
Maidens: How do you intend to help us?
Kaerthoryn: By convincing you to surrender your arms.
Maidens: What? Are you insane....how is that helping us?
Kaerthoryn: No I am not insane to my knowledge, of course one who is insane usually does not know this - thus I suppose it is possible that I am indeed insane. That being said, by surrending your arms this will help you in that I will then be able to convince those who are intent on assalting you that you are no threat and they will be inclined to spare you life.
Of course - I knew that they wouldn't. Of course this caused them to attack me - which I knew it would. But it kept four of the maidens busy while they attacked me, while the other three companions snuck in the back door and was able to neutralize the resistance there, and I essentially broke up their force, relying on my defense and tower shield fighting defensively to keep them busy long enough until my companions fought through their area to join me and assist me. I had only dropped one by the time they got there, but they hadn't really hit me at all.....and once the others joined me, we defeated them easily and got inside without much of a problem.
Kaerthoryn: Ah, they have come. It is unfortunate that you did not believe me.
Later in chapter 5 when finishing up Scarwell.
The evil cleric of Zon-Kuthon Sial, agreed to go down into the "spike" (cant remember what they're called - but it is one of the spikes that holds Rovagug imprisoned) so he could show us where the sword was etc - it seemed we needed to "trust" him in order to continue the quest and find what we needed.
In order to "help" us, he made me "promise" that I would not attack him.
I said that "So long as your goals do not diametrically oppose ours, I shall not harm you."
Of course when we got down there and the dark spirit protector of the place wanted a replacement to stay there eternally to guard the place, Sial wanted nothing of this and was forcing the girl cleric with the spiked chain (Laori) to do so in his stead; which prompted Laori to attack him.
The rest of my party joined in the fight to help her defeat Sial (whom we all come to despise and hated over the course the campaign). But, So far his goals didn't diametrically oppose my cause, and thus I couldn't "harm" him as per my oath.
But I did spend the 3 of the 5 rounds of combat buffing the party, and spent the last two "aiding other" action to help Laori defeat Sial. But I never harmed him.
One other thing that comes to mind about the Lawful aspect - and having to follow evil laws - of course living in Korvosa as a paladin during that campaign was a challenge in and of itself.
Early on in the campaign when we were all about 4th level or so, once when dealing the with "king of spiders"....
The King of Spiders (leader of a thieves guild of gamblers etc whose den was on adjacent moored boats at the docks) had a psuedo dragon as a slave and tormented it and tortured it with spiders etc - all of this was conveyed to me telepathically by the creature and begged for me to free it......
I couldn't just attack the rogue - even though he was indeed evil. I couldn't afford to pay the 'ransom' he suggested in order to free it. The laws supported his "owernership" of the creature. So being lawful I had to honor that.
What I did do, was I used my contacts after having impressed Cressida Kroft (Marshall of arms) and had as part of my reward for succeeding in the quest she gave to us - was to ask her to provide me the best legal minds and barristers that she had access to.
I had them dig up all the "code violations" and such the King of Spiders was breaking with his gambling, something to do with illegally moored boats etc, that would have cost the King of Spiders in taxes and fines than he was ransoming the creature for. Prior to that - no one was bold enough (or naively foolish enough) to bother looking at his operation for such legal matters.
I took this info to him and sold myself as someone that had legal ways to help him protect his assets, and suggested that without this info, someone may come along to try to harrass him legally and drown him in a pile of bereaucratic policies, fines, legal proceedings etc, and traded the 'dirt' I dug up on him for the release of the pseudodragon who became my characters friend for the rest of the campaign.
That I think is a good example of how to use the lawful side (even in an evil society of bad laws) to one's advantage and find a way to do good with it.
Robert
Director of Games
|
Hey you could at least let us know whether the issues with combined channeling and LoH have been dealt with in the final, you don't even have to give away the answers I'll be satisfied with either a "yes they were dealt with" "no I didn't deal with it" or an "I didn't think there was an issue so shut the hell up" That way at least I know wether to be excited about the final or worried.
"yes they were dealt with"
That is.. if you are referencing the issue with feats like Extra Channel... otherwise, i am not sure what you mean.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
A good answer, Montalve.I play a cleric of Desna who can never have a paladin. Does Desna have any holy champions? Who does she send when she needs someone to beat down the BBEG?her clerics?
that is the cleric's role... holy warrior for her god/dess cause...
thanks :)
I like the paladin... but i love the cleric :)|
|
Hey you could at least let us know whether the issues with combined channeling and LoH have been dealt with in the final, you don't even have to give away the answers I'll be satisfied with either a "yes they were dealt with" "no I didn't deal with it" or an "I didn't think there was an issue so shut the hell up" That way at least I know wether to be excited about the final or worried."yes they were dealt with"
That is.. if you are referencing the issue with feats like Extra Channel... otherwise, i am not sure what you mean.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That was one part and I'm glad you adressed it, the other part was feats like divine and domain feats that now are prohibitively expensive for a paladin where before they were more of a go to. I.E. since they are based on burning turns or channels as it were, does a paladin now have to burn two LoH to get the effect, which is especially hurtful for feats like domain feats where you burn three turns to get a second use, which would then cost the paladin 6 LoH uses.
|
|
I remember all of the great discussions and proposals about the paladin. As such, I hope Vult, minkscooter, and the others are happy as well.
And LastKnight! :-)
Yes - and it's fantastic that our discussions, playtest reports and suggestions were not only read, but truly considered legitimate enought to use some of them.
Another of the suggestions that I had made and championed pretty well that seems to have made it to print was the Smite working against a single target until dead.....
I found my old post in the Paladin playtest that discussed that.....
....having not only mechanical benefits, but roleplaying flair and fluff.
the paladin seeing the lich commander across the battlefield - ignoring the mooks attacking the rest of his party, draws his sword calling out across the field to the lich - "Markarth, too long have you walked the world a nightmare. Your reign of evil ends here and now! I, Kaerthoryn, will not rest until I see your bones resting in a hallowed grave! By the light of Sarenrae - Charge!"
Robert
|
|
That was one part and I'm glad you adressed it, the other part was feats like divine and domain feats that now are prohibitively expensive for a paladin where before they were more of a go to. I.E. since they are based on burning turns or channels as it were, does a paladin now have to burn two LoH to get the effect, which is especially hurtful for feats like domain feats where you burn three turns to get a second use, which would then cost the paladin 6 LoH uses.
How would Jason have dealt with those issues? Nothing in the SRD or any preview or playtest material we've seen lets you turn channeling/turning into something else. All of the feats and game concepts you refer to are not only WotC property but also completely outside the core rules; explaining what happens when Lay on Hands is converted into channeling is converted into something else would be downright bizarre because there's no visible way for that to happen in the rule book! It would have just been really confusing to any new reader.
|
|
Hey you could at least let us know whether the issues with combined channeling and LoH have been dealt with in the final, you don't even have to give away the answers I'll be satisfied with either a "yes they were dealt with" "no I didn't deal with it" or an "I didn't think there was an issue so shut the hell up" That way at least I know wether to be excited about the final or worried."yes they were dealt with"
That is.. if you are referencing the issue with feats like Extra Channel... otherwise, i am not sure what you mean.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hey Jason thanks for keeping tuned - I think what LKL was asking is "Does it still require two uses of LoH to Channel - thus using compatible feats like "Divine Shield" (complete Warrior) that uses channeling would still require two uses of LoH.
(as did feats in the Beta like "Turning Smite")
NOTE: This based off the 'changes' you made to the paladin after Beta at the beginning of the playtest discussion of the paladin.
Robert
|
|
Heres my take on the Pally alighnment discussion:
Paldain=Holy Warrior(or something similiar)
Holy=Good
Good need not be lawful.
So I see no reason for a paladin to always be lawful.
The reason for "lawful" isn't just about following societal laws.
Lawful is not just an adherrence to society standards, laws, and customs - though it is part of it.
"Lawful" also speaks to one's own adherrence to himself. A lawful person is regimented, disciplined, has great attention to detail, honest, adheres to his own goals, morals, ethics, etc.
A lawful person is someone you can trust, keeps his word, strives for perfection.
This is also why a monk is "Lawful" (only).
This is why a paladin must be lawful - they are dedicated to their cause without fail - death before dishonor.
Robert
Hey Robert...you quoted me up top but did not write anything.... not sure if that was just a "QFT" or you just forgot to write something.
|
|
That was one part and I'm glad you adressed it, the other part was feats like divine and domain feats that now are prohibitively expensive for a paladin where before they were more of a go to. I.E. since they are based on burning turns or channels as it were, does a paladin now have to burn two LoH to get the effect, which is especially hurtful for feats like domain feats where you burn three turns to get a second use, which would then cost the paladin 6 LoH uses.Nothing in the SRD or any preview or playtest material we've seen lets you turn channeling/turning into something else.
You forgot the important word YET. and also there's the fact that a stated goal was backwards compatability. Going from being able to do something twice at 4th level in 3.5 to not being able to do it till 8th level (as happened in my playtest) is not backwards compatable. And while not able to directly adress specific feats, a line in the description of LoH when he gets the ability to channel that says something along the lines of
"feats and abilities that use channel energy uses can be used by a paladin, in these instances one use of lay on hands is the equivalent of one use of channel energy."
So yes it can be done, and considering that there is previous work that is being left in the dust by this change and any future work paizo does do in the supplement department might also need to deal with this, I don't think its such a rediculous thing to ask that it has been adressed.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
This is definitely my favorite preview so far. One of the weakest classes can now stand on its own two feat again.
LOL, why is she a "shiny happy people" in mithral full plate when she has no DEX mod. She really outta upgrade to adamantium.
Hey, does anyone know if the new rule that Smite Evil lasts until the foe is dead means:
1. You pick the target and your next attack gets the smite bonus, but that uses it up - the part that says "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack" sounds a bit like holding the charge, which may or may not mean that the "charge" of Smite Evil is expended (gone) when you finally hit the first time.
--or--
2. You pick the target and every attack you make from now until he dies gets the damage bonus - the part that says "smite evil really should last until your evil foe is vanquished" sounds like you use the ability one time and every attack gets the bonus until the enemy dies.
The wording could be interpreted either way. I really hope it's #1. I like it better that way.
414 posts down the road I'm sure it's been addressed, but it's #2.
That was one part and I'm glad you adressed it, the other part was feats like divine and domain feats that now are prohibitively expensive for a paladin where before they were more of a go to. I.E. since they are based on burning turns or channels as it were, does a paladin now have to burn two LoH to get the effect, which is especially hurtful for feats like domain feats where you burn three turns to get a second use, which would then cost the paladin 6 LoH uses.How would Jason have dealt with those issues? Nothing in the SRD or any preview or playtest material we've seen lets you turn channeling/turning into something else. All of the feats and game concepts you refer to are not only WotC property but also completely outside the core rules; explaining what happens when Lay on Hands is converted into channeling is converted into something else would be downright bizarre because there's no visible way for that to happen in the rule book! It would have just been really confusing to any new reader.
Agree.
And I have said it before: Chaneling is not turn undead.
You have a good point there LKL - though I don't think those feats are quite as widely used as in your game (I've only ever seen one used).
First let's consider actual relative uses (I don't see what you could do at 4th, and not until 8th now, by the way - I see potential for that sort of thing, but can't get the math on that to work).
I think we can assume a 16 Cha for now:
3.5:
Lay on hands: Cha X Level hp (12 at 4th level)
Turns: 3+Cha, 6 (as 1st level cleric at 4th level)
PF:
Lay on hands: 5 uses (1/2 level + Cha, ~35 hp at 4th level)
Channels: 2 Lays per use, max 2.5
If we assign Lays equal to the healing of 3.5 (~2), then we have 1.5 channels left, vs. 6 turns in 3.5
However 3.5 turns were static in number, other than scaling with Cha. In PF this is similar - Lays scale with level, as they did in 3.5, so Cha "half" scales the channels. But PF Lays are worth more so:
12th level (say 18 Cha):
3.5: 48 hp heal, 7 turns.
PF: 10 Lays for 6d6 (~210 hp) or 5 channels
OR 2 Lays (~42 hp) + 4 channels.
20th level (say 26 Cha):
3.5: 160 hp heal, 11 turns.
PF: 18 Lays for 10d6 (~630 hp) or 9 channels
OR 4 Lays (~140 hp) + 7 channels.
Lower Cha would favor PF by the way, at least on the conversion of turns. I really didn't like the 2-for-1 myself LKL, but it seems fairly well balanced, considering the massive increase in potential healing.
|
|
You forgot the important word YET. and also there's the fact that a stated goal was backwards compatability. Going from being able to do something twice at 4th level in 3.5 to not being able to do it till 8th level (as happened in my playtest) is not backwards compatable. And while not able to directly adress specific feats, a line in the description of LoH when he gets the ability to channel that says something along the lines of
"feats and abilities that use channel energy uses can be used by a paladin, in these instances one use of lay on hands is the equivalent of one use of channel energy."
So yes it can be done, and considering that there is previous work that is being left in the dust by this change and any future work paizo does do in the supplement department might also need to deal with this, I don't think its such a rediculous thing to ask that it has been adressed.
If such a line appeared in the core book, it would still confuse the heck out of any new reader, because there's nothing that would warrant such a line in the rules themselves.
If Paizo at some point puts out feats or abilities that use channel energy attempts as a resource, then that would be the logical time to address how paladins interact with such things - because that's when the rules would actually make sense in their context.
And I think you're rather wrong about the way backwards compatibility works. If you are bringing 3.5 material into a Pathfinder game, then the place to start on conversion is with the 3.5 material, not the Pathfinder stuff. I wouldn't expect Pathfinder to include details on how to modify all the beast shape spells to skeletal versions of themselves just because the blighter PrC exists - instead, I should start working on how to modify the blighter PrC to match up with the way beast shape works.
That's particularly true with what you are worried about here. The divine and domain feats were created in an environment where turning undead was basically useless for clerics after about 8th level, and useless for paladins pretty much throughout. That's simply not the case anymore; channeling energy is a big part of both classes, and particularly for the paladin, given how it ties into her lay on hands. A direct conversion, whether it runs off of lay on hands or channel energy, is just way too expensive. Those feats need to be rewritten to take the new rules into account, and the Pathfinder RPG is not the place to do it.
|
|
the thing is that with 3+cha you got 6 turns in 3.5 at fourth level and domain feats require that you burn three turn attempts to re-use the ability once per day. that means at 4th level I could do it twice with a 16 charisma.
Now in pathfinder you have 1/2 your level + cha, which with a 16 cha is 5 LoH at 4th level which is 2 Channels which means you cant even recharge one use of a domain feat until 6th level where you have 6 LoH and then you've litterally killed all your healing for the day. to get two extra uses of the domain feat you need to be level 16 where you get eight LoH from level and +4 from your by then 18 cha for a total of 12 LoH which converts to six channel energies.
while dissapointed in the merger I'm fine with it if the burn ratio is 1-1 for feats like that and LoH, otherwise it's not backwards compatable and seriously hurts any paladin that doesn't want to be the healing type. At least with a 1-1 burn ratio the feat can remain somewhat useful to a paladin player.
|
|
And I think you're rather wrong about the way backwards compatibility works.
Really, cause I think the same thing about what you just wrote. a backwards compatable system you can plug in previous things and expect them to work. If you need to convert those things, then it isn't backwards compatable.
It's like saying okay in order for blu-ray to be backwards compatable you need to take all of your DVDs and put them in a computer and burn them onto new blu-ray writable discs. See blu-ray is backwards compatable with all of your old DVDs.
Now I'm not expecting the conversion to be perfect in every way, but this is one where the fix is easy and shouldn't be unexpected.
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.so... you say you would sell the evil weapon... yoursef being good... so it can later be again in the market and used agains you... (ok only in 1 on 3 of your cases, but it could be used to kill your other allies, and the allies besides the party)
interesting... not the smartest choice I would say... but any master knows it worth would use that against the party... they are basically arming their future enemies :P for a bit of gold...
really smart let me tell you.
an evil weapon serves one purpose... its not a person that becoem evil... its a weapon infused with evil so througly that it will corrupt or destroy anyone who uses it...
Boromir used your argument and sacrificed his life after discovering that the One Ring had corrupted him so throughly that he could not serve his people any more... "Let use against its master" was his saying... it didn't serve him well
Read what you actually quoted please. Did I say that I would sell it? No. I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth please.
That having been said, a non-aligned weapon, or a scroll of disintegrate, or non magical bow and arrows could just as easily be used to kill your party members by someone else so that point is moot.
Evil weapons have only one purpose? To corrupt those who wield it? What rules set are you playing with? Unless it is an intelligent item with a high ego I don't see this happening. You're just making yourself look silly now.
We're not talking about the One Ring, nor are we talking about LotR. We're talking about a +1 Unholy longsword for all you know, which would be a perfectly acceptable weapon for the CN rogue until something better comes along. I happen to think that the morally grey area is much more interesting than straight Paladin vs. BBEG struggles and those are the characters I play and the games I run.
My only point, if it was missed, is that in a game where one is playing such a morally grey (yet still heroic!) character, having a Paladin whis his inanely strict code of ethics puts a crimp in one's style.
EDIT: Furthermore, in a campaign where we're aligning with the Githzerai against invading Slaad (to pick any old non good vs. evil grudge) or working with the king to bring in the local Robin Hood type (CG) the paladin once again becomes a rather underpowered class compared to the fighter. The solution that I suggested was to make a class as malleable as the Cleric (and whose LG version is called a Paladin) so one has more options (which is always good) and so that in a nonstandard campaign setting all the classes would be of use to the PCs.
Really, cause I think the same thing about what you just wrote. a backwards compatable system you can plug in previous things and expect them to work. If you need to convert those things, then it isn't backwards compatable.
And I think you're rather wrong about the way backwards compatibility works.
Paizo has never said: backwards compatibility = plug and play.
You do need to convert things. Paizo has never denied this.Pahtfinder is based on OGL, not on splatter books.
Context. Splatter book where created in a 3.5 context not in the Pathfinder context.
backwards compatibility does not mean everything is the same and works the same. Let me quote Majuba from another thread
So I agree with
As for the debate: Extra Turning =/= Extra Channeling.
Extra turning gave *4* extra turns per day. Now you only get two extra channels. That indicates that channeling *is* more powerful than turning and, perhaps, that quicken channeling at no cost would be over powered (as if it wasn't already).
If you are bringing 3.5 material into a Pathfinder game, then the place to start on conversion is with the 3.5 material, not the Pathfinder stuff. I wouldn't expect Pathfinder to include details on how to modify all the beast shape spells to skeletal versions of themselves just because the blighter PrC exists - instead, I should start working on how to modify the blighter PrC to match up with the way beast shape works.That's particularly true with what you are worried about here. The divine and domain feats were created in an environment where turning undead was basically useless for clerics after about 8th level, and useless for paladins pretty much throughout. That's simply not the case anymore; channeling energy is a big part of both classes, and particularly for the paladin, given how it ties into her lay on hands. A direct conversion, whether it runs off of lay on hands or channel energy, is just way too expensive. Those feats need to be rewritten to take the new rules into account, and the Pathfinder RPG is not the place to do it.
I guess we won't agree.
|
"Lawful" also speaks to one's own adherrence to himself. A lawful person is regimented, disciplined, has great attention to detail, honest, adheres to his own goals, morals, ethics, etc.
A lawful person is someone you can trust, keeps his word, strives for perfection.
A chaotic person can do the same, just different each time.
This is also why a monk is "Lawful" (only).
Robert
I will not dispute the monk, some are raised that way, while a paladin can ignore the 'calling' and answer it at a later time. Monks can do something akin to that, but this is not the thread to discuss it.
414 posts down the road I'm sure it's been addressed, but it's #2.This is definitely my favorite preview so far. One of the weakest classes can now stand on its own two feat again.
LOL, why is she a "shiny happy people" in mithral full plate when she has no DEX mod. She really outta upgrade to adamantium.
Hey, does anyone know if the new rule that Smite Evil lasts until the foe is dead means:
1. You pick the target and your next attack gets the smite bonus, but that uses it up - the part that says "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack" sounds a bit like holding the charge, which may or may not mean that the "charge" of Smite Evil is expended (gone) when you finally hit the first time.
--or--
2. You pick the target and every attack you make from now until he dies gets the damage bonus - the part that says "smite evil really should last until your evil foe is vanquished" sounds like you use the ability one time and every attack gets the bonus until the enemy dies.
The wording could be interpreted either way. I really hope it's #1. I like it better that way.
One or two people from the community chimed in their vote for #2, but I haven't seen anything official.
Interestingly, I did some cutting and pasting of my original questions, and somehow reversed my own numbers. I was hoping for #2 all along but didn't spot my typo until now.
I still think the phrase "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack" muddies the waters a bit. It really does sound like "If you miss with your first attack, you still have another chance" which feels like there is only one chance, and you can keep trying to achieve it round after round until you do.
Not the ruling I'm hoping for, but the wording opens the door that this is the intent.
"Lawful" also speaks to one's own adherrence to himself. A lawful person is regimented, disciplined, has great attention to detail, honest, adheres to his own goals, morals, ethics, etc.
QFT.
A varient of a class is still that class. A monk using Decisive Strike is still a monk, a battle sorcerer is still a sorcerer, and a domain wizard is still a wizard.
But a paladin is LG anything else is something new not a paladin.
I never have liked the ideal that a blackgaurd is just a reverse paladin. He should be his own thing not just a mirror image.
Still if you do like such things easy enough to houserule
Yeah, I don't see this thread running out of steam before the Bard Preview's released...
Yeah, I don't see this thread running out of steam before the Bard Preview's released...
Especially when the Cleric thread is still going strong... crazies are over there.
If turning Undead is its own feat now, that would suggest you would need that feat in order to take any of the Divine feats from the old WotC books...
And here I thought that the 75 posts since I last checked last night meant that some huge argument had broken out about the paladin mechanics...
Nope.. just the usual paladin arguments. I even saw the classic Batman vs Superman comparison...
Good times. Continue...
Jason
That's a good thing.
We all looked at the changes and for once there was an almost universal approval. Then, since we had no arguments to hash out about the mechanics, we turned to the old ethical turf wars instead.
Good job on the paladin!
Well I didn't want to wreck the party so I shut up, but now I won't
I like the new Paladin ....and I don't.I'm no big fan of the dragon slaying paladin or the boost vs. undead and evil outsiders. That is In don't like the double damage vs. thease creatues. Why? It make fighters and especially rangers suck.
I have no problem with Smite attacks also ignore any damage reduction and deflection bonus to her AC, but the double damage and the aura of justice. Paladin can dump wisdom since he now has good will saves and cast spells using char.
OK here comes lvl 13 paladin and lvl 13 ranger vs Dragon.
- Paladin
+ 26 damage vs dragon, charisma bonus, lets say +6 (with Eagle’s Splendor or items) to attack and she ignore any damage reduction. She can spend smite evil to give smite evil to her friends for 1 minute. Spells like bless weapon, divine favor, Holy sword.
...and I almost forgot. Divine bond give the Paldin even more boost to his weapon, so does the holy sword. ....and channel and LoH and fullplate.
- Ranger
+ 6 to attack and + 6 damage vs. Dragon. Fun spells like Longstrider (OK barkskin is good but he will need the AC). He can use the hunter's bond class feature, which allows him to grant any allies within 30 feet half of his favored enemy bonus against one foe as a move action. Once given, this bonus lasts for 3 rounds... 3 round = wisdom modifier(?).
Let me quote Jason:
Now, this is not exactly a fair fight, as Harsk is built to kill giants in caves, but rangers are built to excel in specific circumstances. Against other enemies or in other environments, they are still capable combatants, but they really shine when hunting their favored enemies or while adventuring in their favored terrain.
"excel in specific circumstances"? "shine when hunting their favored enemies". I say the Paldin excel and shines, not the ranger.
The Paladin is the dragon slayer not the Ranger. And no, "this is not exactly a fair fight".
But I'm OK with it. I loved the Previews so far, I only hope the Bard is better of than the Beta bard.
And sadly, the vast majority of the commentary has nothing to do with the PFRPG version of the class, but rather the same old arguments about the class that always come up when the class is mentioned.
And sadly, the vast majority of the commentary has nothing to do with the PFRPG version of the class, but rather the same old arguments about the class that always come up when the class is mentioned.
However one argument has been left out: "Why play a paladin when the class stinks!"
I would play this class to twenty levels without even cracking another book.
****
DB3, and that is exactly why you are not a paladin.
well Most of us like the class some wont, but Ya wont get the screams of OMG casters are now useless or OMG fighters still suck or the like
Well wait for Druid and monk...oh you just wait
And sadly, the vast majority of the commentary has nothing to do with the PFRPG version of the class, but rather the same old arguments about the class that always come up when the class is mentioned.However one argument has been left out: "Why play a paladin when the class stinks!"
I would play this class to twenty levels without even cracking another book.
****
DB3, and that is exactly why you are not a paladin.
Oh yes paladin is now back to well being what it should be and would love to play this one
Interestingly, I did some cutting and pasting of my original questions, and somehow reversed my own numbers. I was hoping for #2 all along but didn't spot my typo until now.
I still think the phrase "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack" muddies the waters a bit. It really does sound like "If you miss with your first attack, you still have another chance" which feels like there is only one chance, and you can keep trying to achieve it round after round until you do.
Not the ruling I'm hoping for, but the wording opens the door that this is the intent.
Well I think and hope it's 2. It says "last until your evil foe is vanquished" it don't says "until foe is hit". So until vanquished, not until hit.
|
|
Read what you actually quoted please. Did I say that I would sell it? No. I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth please.
That having been said, a non-aligned weapon, or a scroll of disintegrate, or non magical bow and arrows could just as easily be used to kill your party members by someone else so that point is moot.
Evil weapons have only one purpose? To corrupt those who wield it? What rules set are you playing with? Unless it is an intelligent item with a high ego I don't see this happening. You're just making yourself look silly now.
We're not talking about the One Ring, nor are we talking about LotR. We're talking about a +1 Unholy longsword for all you know, which would be a perfectly acceptable weapon for the CN rogue until something better comes along. I happen to think that the morally grey area is much more interesting than...
We're not talking about the One Ring, nor are we talking about LotR. We're talking about a +1 Unholy longsword for all you know, which would be a perfectly acceptable weapon for the CN rogue until something better comes along. I happen to think that the morally grey area is much more interesting than straight Paladin vs. BBEG struggles and those are the characters I play and the games I run.
My only point, if it was missed, is that in a game where one is playing such a morally grey (yet still heroic!) character, having a Paladin whis his inanely strict code of ethics puts a crimp in one's style.
EDIT: Furthermore, in a campaign where we're aligning with the Githzerai against invading Slaad (to pick any old non good vs. evil grudge) or working with the king to bring in the local Robin Hood type (CG) the paladin once again becomes a rather underpowered class compared to the fighter. The solution that I suggested was to make a class as malleable as the Cleric (and whose LG version is called a Paladin) so one has more options (which is always good) and so that in a nonstandard campaign setting all the classes would be of use to the PCs.
i beg to differ becuse i have played such campaigns... the paladin doesn't need to be underpowered in such situations... just played smart and low profile... but still he needs to upholds a level of honor... its what is fun of playing a paladin... try against all odds to be better... if you feel that in such campaigns the Fighter is a better option, then play a fighter miexed withe cleric or wizard... obviously the paladin is not what you are looking for... if you want check splat books nd use variant clases... if in your table they don't like paladins... ok then ban the paladin... (pretty jerk attitude if you ask me...)
read alignments sections again... I suppose a CN would not care much who he kills but the moment the kills become more evil than neutral is the right of the DM to make a call and say "sorry pal... your alignment now is this one..." in older editions you would receive a experience penalty until you got to the next level... is not only about the item, but how you use it... yes, any weapon can be used to kill, but as some people have pointed out evil aligned weapons were created to kill and destroy those of good alignment...
lets consider you play a grey area game... then its better not to use artificial alignemnts like good or evil, check this in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, believe me it would fit more your style of game and i am sure you would like the Champion (Light, Live, Death, Dark, and I don't remember the rest...)
now not to offend or anything like that... the paladin by the developers has been said to be Lawful Good... a myriad people find it fun to play it Lawful Good... and for the history it has... they won't be changing it any time soon...
you might disagree... but that is life... not everyone gets what they wants... check the cleric's thread ther eI rant like there was no tomorrow :P
|
|
One or two people from the community chimed in their vote for #2, but I haven't seen anything official.
Interestingly, I did some cutting and pasting of my original questions, and somehow reversed my own numbers. I was hoping for #2 all along but didn't spot my typo until now.
I still think the phrase "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack" muddies the waters a bit. It really does sound like "If you miss with your first attack, you still have another chance" which feels like there is only one chance, and you can keep trying to achieve it round after round until you do.
Not the ruling I'm hoping for, but the wording opens the door that this is the intent.
well Jason's description said "until vanquished" vanquished = defeated...
also Jason Nelson is contributor so he has a better chance to have seen the rules by now
i like the new rule... it makes it useful without the paladin needing a magic weapon to be able to 'vanquish evil'
Yes the new Paldin rock and he has one of the best spell list in the came (unlike the ranger)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I remember all of the great discussions and proposals about the paladin. As such, I hope Vult, minkscooter, and the others are happy as well.Hey Iron Sentinel! This kind of feels like a reunion, so I have to restrain myself from going nostalgic and listing off names of all the people I'm happy to see again :) The giant paladin thread was my favorite part of the beta playtest. Hopefully Vult will chime in, though I haven't seen his posts in a while. Seems like Jason Nelson ought to make a celebrity appearance as well.
But yeah, I know what you mean. Glad to see that most of the people who showed up for this party seem pretty happy :)
Ouch and I didn't even get an honorable mention :'(
You'd think I wasn't on that discussion from about page three when I first saw it to the very last page arguing till I was blue in the face. Oh well, nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms.
Shoot, I didn't get in until page 9, but it says something and a half that this thread got such a gigantic flood of posts. Whether people love paladins or not, they sure love TALKING about paladins!
btw, as far as whether "divine feats" go, should they ever appear in PF, that's when I suppose there will be a precedent set as to what equivalency they should use for paladins. It might very well be "expend a use of channel energy or lay on hands" to use the ability. Impossible to say, since no such feats exist in the Paizo world yet.
Backwards compatibility (esp. with closed content) can't be 100% or else no changes could be made at all, so anything from any book you wanna use with PF outside of the core is going to take SOME level of adjustment. Shoot, skill ranks for PrCs need changing, since PF got rid of 4x SP at 1st level, just to name one. The overall SYSTEM is backwards compatible, but details have been changed, and if you wanna play Core-Plus-Anything then you're gonna have to account for the changes that were made.
You've hit upon an unusual corner case, where unusual power costing (a power that takes THREE turn attempts to use is almost unique) even in 3.5 hits an unfortunate synergy (if the interpretation of 2LOH=1CE=1TU for powering the feat), along with a transition from a static use quota (3+CHA, does not change ever) to a scaling use quota (1/2LVL+CHA), which means almost by definition you'll have fewer uses of the ability at low level anyway - it's kind of a perfect storm designed to personaly and precisely screw you and your Law-domain-or-whatever-it's-called paladin.
Of course, if you simply rule that 1LOH=1TU for recharge purposes, then all of a sudden your character is virtually identical (gets 2 uses of the power at 6th level instead of 4th), except that they get better as they go up more levels (3 at 12th, 4 at 18th).
I think you need to accept that this particular case is a rarity and not something the PF designers rationally could be accepted to address in the core rules. It may be forthcoming in future rules when they expand back into doing something like divine feats, or if they publish any kind of "conversion supplement," but I think I'd side with the people who say, "Since there aren't any divine feats actually IN the PF core rules, it wouldn't make sense to expect to see dealing with them referenced in the PF core rules."
I'm happy to see so many good ideas worked into the paladin (I don't know that I can take credit for "smite bypasses ALL DR" but I definitely went to bat for it in the forums, along with "extra damage from smite but not JUST against demons," and was happy to see them in there) and that our favorite class is feeling the love and ready to bring the pain to the bad guys. I'm sorry the rules didn't go quite as far as you'd have liked on that point, but we'll see what the future holds.
Montalve, once again you have missed my point. If they went with my idea it would IN NO WAY infringe upon anyone's fun playing a LG paladin, it would just be a choice. More options, as long as they are balanced across levels and between classes, always makes for a better game IMHO. The Paladin, as written, is far too restrictive for general use IMO. But I'm done ranting in this thread as it doesn't really matter.
"Lawful" also speaks to one's own adherrence to himself. A lawful person is regimented, disciplined, has great attention to detail, honest, adheres to his own goals, morals, ethics, etc.
Sometimes there's a real contradiction here. Very often, RL people will lie (chaotic act) in order to adhere to social norms (lawful outlook). There are also people like myself who are insubordinate and who abandon many social traditions (chaotic outlook) because traditional authority and many norms conflict with a personal code (lawful self-discipline). The D&D alignment system is absurdly ill-equipped to acknowledge these situations, much less model them adequately.
Furthermore, in a campaign where we're aligning with the Githzerai against invading Slaad (to pick any old non good vs. evil grudge) or working with the king to bring in the local Robin Hood type (CG) the paladin once again becomes a rather underpowered class compared to the fighter. The solution that I suggested was to make a class as malleable as the Cleric (and whose LG version is called a Paladin) so one has more options (which is always good) and so that in a nonstandard campaign setting all the classes would be of use to the PCs....
Yeah, hopefully Paizo has done SOMETHING about that gaping problem playing Wizards in no-magic campaign worlds...
2+INT skill points, Poor BAB and no functioning Class Abilities just don't cut it.I've also been pissed at my Rogue character's "power level" in this all-Undead & Ooze campaign I've been playing. Allowing Sneak Attack against corporeal Undead is a start, but what about Oozes? There's just no way I can keep up with the party Cleric with the "Ooze" Domain from the Complete Extraplanar Cheese book.
At least I like how the half-Orc picture in the racial line-up looks.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
[OK here comes lvl 13 paladin and lvl 13 ranger vs Dragon.
- Paladin
+ 26 damage vs dragon, charisma bonus, lets say +6 (with Eagle’s Splendor or items) to attack and she ignore any damage reduction. She can spend smite evil to give smite evil to her friends for 1 minute. Spells like bless weapon, divine favor, Holy sword.
...and I almost forgot. Divine bond give the Paldin even more boost to his weapon, so does the holy sword. ....and channel and LoH and fullplate.- Ranger
+ 6 to attack and + 6 damage vs. Dragon. Fun spells like Longstrider (OK barkskin is good but he will need the AC). He can use the hunter's bond class feature, which allows him to grant any allies within 30 feet half of his favored enemy bonus against one foe as a move action. Once given, this bonus lasts for 3 rounds... 3 round = wisdom modifier(?).Let me quote Jason:
Now, this is not exactly a fair...
The advantage goes to the paladin in solo battles vs. single BBEGs, because the numbers are bigger.
The advantage goes to the ranger in battles vs. multiple targets, because SE only affects ONE target.
Since dragons are usually encountered singly, this DOES put the pally at a dragon advantage vs. a ranger. Vs. demons or undead, which are usually (or at least often) fought in groups, not so much.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
One or two people from the community chimed in their vote for #2, but I haven't seen anything official.
Interestingly, I did some cutting and pasting of my original questions, and somehow reversed my own numbers. I was hoping for #2 all along but didn't spot my typo until now.
I still think the phrase "making this ability useful even if you miss with your first attack" muddies the waters a bit. It really does sound like "If you miss with your first attack, you still have another chance" which feels like there is only one chance, and you can keep trying to achieve it round after round until you do.
Not the ruling I'm hoping for, but the wording opens the door that this is the intent.
well Jason's description said "until vanquished" vanquished = defeated...
also Jason Nelson is contributor so he has a better chance to have seen the rules by now
i like the new rule... it makes it useful without the paladin needing a magic weapon to be able to 'vanquish evil'
I probably shouldn't have said anything, since I can neither confirm nor deny that I have seen the new rules.
I'll simply encourage one and all to read the preview again and see what it says, noting that the two statements (not wasted if you miss the first round + lasts until foe is vanquished) are not mutually exclusive categories.
Whether people love paladins or not, they sure love TALKING about paladins!
You know how it is, Paladins, like Wizards, are a class that people either loves or loves to hate, but for one reason or another they can't leave them well enough alone.
|
|
Montalve, once again you have missed my point. If they went with my idea it would IN NO WAY infringe upon anyone's fun playing a LG paladin, it would just be a choice. More options, as long as they are balanced across levels and between classes, always makes for a better game IMHO. The Paladin, as written, is far too restrictive for general use IMO. But I'm done ranting in this thread as it doesn't really matter.
usually I would agree that more options make a better game... but this is the one topic where I can't concede such thing... still to each its own
Whether people love paladins or not, they sure love TALKING about paladins!You know how it is, Paladins, like Wizards, are a class that people either loves or loves to hate, but for one reason or another they can't leave them well enough alone.
Except Paladins get it a little more because lets face it: It's safer to poke a paladin than a wizard.
Montalve, once again you have missed my point. If they went with my idea it would IN NO WAY infringe upon anyone's fun playing a LG paladin, it would just be a choice. More options, as long as they are balanced across levels and between classes, always makes for a better game IMHO. The Paladin, as written, is far too restrictive for general use IMO. But I'm done ranting in this thread as it doesn't really matter.usually I would agree that more options make a better game...
but this is the one topic where I can't concede such thing... still to each its own
Options...
Like... Class Variants...Which will likely work just about as well under Pathfinder as under 3.5.
Am I missing something?
|
|
Montalve, once again you have missed my point. If they went with my idea it would IN NO WAY infringe upon anyone's fun playing a LG paladin, it would just be a choice. More options, as long as they are balanced across levels and between classes, always makes for a better game IMHO. The Paladin, as written, is far too restrictive for general use IMO. But I'm done ranting in this thread as it doesn't really matter.usually I would agree that more options make a better game...
but this is the one topic where I can't concede such thing... still to each its ownOptions...
Like... Class Variants...
Which will likely work just about as well under Pathfinder as under 3.5.Am I missing something?
my dislike of spaltbook classes surely :)
for classes I adhere to what comes in the PHB, because usually you will find that some are uderdeveloped and other outrageusly.. besides why a new classes if with the base classes and some extra skills you have the conept covered?
|
Amen. That's an incredible story...I'd love to know how it was all roleplayed out. What kind of relationship was there between the owners of the two characters, I wonder? That whole story is just..wow."There was this Neutral wizard..."
Wow! that must've been- wow....
one of the great moments.
The two players are just good friends, they played together pretty frequently. I wasn't there for the whole campaign; it had a core of four players who went the whole way, with a number of people coming and going as things went on. I sort of drifted in for a while and then out, then back in in time for the finale. I was lucky enough to be there when it all went down though.
Apparently, the wizard's player just checked with the paladin's player to make sure he was okay with some moral quandries coming his way from her character, but assured him that it wasn't anything set up to try and make him fall. The GM ran with it and allowed the wizard to do a number of things in secret via notes and stepping into another room when necessary. The other players knew something was going on but they were never certain what. They certainly weren't expecting her character to break down like she did. The pally's player said he couldn't shake the feeling out of game that the wizard was going to turn on them eventually, or that she was using the party for her own ends. He was genuinely taken by surprise, which made his reaction and what he did next that much more awesome.
After that there was a lot more open talk between the two and the rest of the party about where they wanted to go with their characters. The party was a lot tighter after that.
That is very cool. It's also nice to know that tabletop D&D gaming can be real roleplaying and not just about mechanics. I play in two different systems GURPS and D&D and while I don't think the system matters as much I've noticed that the GURPS game takes place on couches with no table and it much more comfortable and so it's hard to focus on your character sheet. That game tends to have an amazing amount of roleplaying. The D&D game is on a traditional table and we focus a lot more on our character sheets and there's not as much roleplaying. I'm just curious, in this kind of session, what's your physical setup?
In that game, they did have a coffee table for game aids and maps and such, but it was pretty much a circle of couches. More time spent looking and talking to each other rather than poring over their sheets and maps. It was really the players that made that group though, they really got invested in it.
Montalve, once again you have missed my point. If they went with my idea it would IN NO WAY infringe upon anyone's fun playing a LG paladin, it would just be a choice. More options, as long as they are balanced across levels and between classes, always makes for a better game IMHO. The Paladin, as written, is far too restrictive for general use IMO. But I'm done ranting in this thread as it doesn't really matter.
Solution: Copy all of the text from the paladin to a new class. Allow it to be any alignment. Call it whatever you want other than Paladin. Done.
More ranting in the spoiler.
You see where I'm going with this? Some things are just the way they are because that's the point. You don't play a dwarf if you want a tall, charming, happy, woodland dude who shoots arrows. You don't play a fighter if you want to cast spells. You don't play a paladin if you want to be sneaky and do shady things.
Its just not what a paladin is. Play a cleric if you want more options. Play a variant paladin from Unearthed Arcana. Why must the core Paladin be changed? Just for you?