Well, there's tons of melee feats that are nice now: Stand Still, Lunge, the Vital Strike chain, Step Up, the Critical Focus chain, Disruptive, Spellbreaker. The more good feats that exist, the better off the fighter is since that's their main class feature.
Also, fighters still get the attack and damage bonus for weapon training.
|
Yes, paladins didn't lose anything. You know why? Because the 3.5 paladin SUCKED. It was, at best, a 4-level dip class that you took on your way to something better. Pathfinder paladin is actually worth playing.
As for your barbarian disappointment, lets look at the math on rage. Your example of a 10th level Pathfinder barbarian has 29 rounds of rage, which equates to a Con of 24 before rage bonuses. A 10th level barbarian in 3.5 with the same Con can rage for 36 rounds; a full 7 rounds longer. However, those 36 rounds must be divided up into 3 equal portions of 12 rounds apiece! I really haven't seen all that many fights which go on for 12 rounds. The Pathfinder barbarian can stop raging whenever they want, and conserve rounds of rage for later battles.
Furthermore, a pre-raging Con 24 is very high for 10th level. Lower Con scores decrease the gap; a 10th level barbarian with a pre-raging Con of 20 has 27 rounds of rage in Pathfinder, and 30 rounds of rage in 3.5; only 3 rounds difference!
In short, the Pathfinder barbarian is considerably better than its 3.5 counterpart. It's much more versatile, and it gets rage powers, too.
|
|
I get where you're coming from. I just think that subtracting when you're trying to improve a 1 to a 10 is unintuitive. ^_^
To me, there really wasn't anything they could take away without hurting the class. Hell, from what I've heard (my order hasn't processed so I can't review the PDF) they didn't add enough for my tastes!
The fighter bonus feats aren't the equalizer they once were.The problem is that since everyone gets tons of feats...they don't matter as much...there aren't that many feats that a paladin can't grab the decent feats.
Also I don't really like the critical feats...I like feats that always are working. not 1 chance in 10 with a 19-20 crit range weapon. (yeah you can double it to 17 with improved crit...or keen) but they aren't that great.
and yeah. weapon training is nice...at 20 + 5/+5 is cool...and you can't be disarmed....
of course the paladin is smiting for +20 points of damage or +40 if its an evil outsider/undead/dragon....and ignoring the damage reduction...
for the entire combat, and getting an ac bonus.
I beg to differ. Everyone gets at least +3 feats over 3.5. That's good but still not a ton. The fighter still has 11 feats over most other characters, including that paladin. And the fighter even gets to swap out some old ones he's grown out of.
The critical feats are nothing to sneeze at (Blinding critical), I can understand that they may not come into play a whole lot. But the fighter's got some good choices in caster disruption that nobody else gets (Disruptive, Spellbreaker). The Cleave and Great Cleave feats are a lot less conditional to put into use. Step Up and Strike Back are pretty useful. There are a couple of additions to the Weapon Focus tree that only fighter's get. And then there's the Vital Strike feats. Every fighter type will want them, but who can afford to pick them up AND the critical feats, spellcaster disruptions, and so on? The fighter and only the fighter.
The smite is nice. No doubt about it. But the fighter's nothing to sneeze at because of his large number of feats.
|
|
So making up for another company's error is the way to go? I wasn't comparing 3.5 to 3.75....All of the classes are better than they were. I was doing a comparison BETWEEN the classes
Stating that the paladin was boosted is comparing it to 3.5, because that's the pre-boosted paladin's existence. You're comparing Pathfinder smite to 3.5 smite. Just by talking about improvements, you're comparing 3.5 to Pathfinder.
And yes, as far as I can tell, making up for another company's...interesting design choices..IS the way to go. It's certainly a goal of Pathfinder.
And you weren't comparing the classes. You were stating that two of them got shafted and the paladin got shiny new toys. That's an opinion, not a comparison.
Yeah...but...paladins aren't what I would consider a knight. They are holy in nature....so I can see the undead...and the demons...but when were religions anti-dragon?
Since the King James Bible largely used serpent, dragon, and devil interchangeably. Dragons have often symbolized evil incarnate in western mythology.
In D&D, paladins may be holy, but they fight evil of all sorts. A power tuned to taking on the BBEG? Right up the paladin's alley.
|
The fighter bonus feats aren't the equalizer they once were.The problem is that since everyone gets tons of feats...they don't matter as much...there aren't that many feats that a paladin can't grab the decent feats.
Opinions aside, the way feats are done now allows every class to specialize more and specifically allows fighters to generalize better, in that fighters don't have to have just one schtick. At least that's been my experience with it. It allows the fighter to get things that they normally wouldn't because they are trying to get to whirlwind as quickly as possible or some such. But now lightning reflexes or iron will or skill-focus( climbing ) is viable in the middle of getting your uber combination.
Yeah...but...paladins aren't what I would consider a knight. They are holy in nature....so I can see the undead...and the demons...but when were religions anti-dragon?
Because when you have an evil dragon around that needs killing, you call in the knight in shining armor.
Oh, ever since St. George the Dragonslayer, one of the most venerated Christian saints and martyrs.
Traditionally until 3.0, Paladin were always more powerful than fighters. They have huge restrictions on how they can be role-played. You have to be a goodie goodie. I personally hate playing a Paladin because you have to be so one dimentional. II wouldn't want them to remove that though. That's a pretty integral part of DND and the Paladin class.
Then you'll see that the fighter has been vastly upgraded, and the barbarian has, more or less, been kept the same (pro: rage powers, con: rounds/day instead of uses)
I personally like the rounds/day. Before, if you wanted to rage and bust through a door, you wasted 9 rounds of rage or whatever to do it. Now it only costs you one (if you're successful).
I'm actually considering playing a Barbarian who ticks the Rogue off because he just charges through all of the traps in a furious rage instead of waiting for him to disarm them. :)
Yeah, I'm iffy on the double-smite-damage vs. certain opponents (and may well house-rule it out),
but I can see why Jason did it:
The Paladin is SUPPOSED to be THE Champion against Evil, not just *A* Champion against Evil.
Paladins tend to be "Black & White" types of people who stick with stereotypes, not wierdos who seek out the exceptions in the Grey in-between.
Smiting down Demons, Devils, and Dragons ARE WHAT DEFINE THE LEGENDS OF PALADIN-HOOD, what motivates someone to become a Paladin in the first place, much less stick it out to the end. Templated Oozes with Beguiler levels fulfill the WIERD Evil niche, but not the (Capital) E-vil niche. Paladins like their enemies exactly as evil as they imagines, their meals meat & potatoes, and their (chaste) loves (;-)) with long blond braids. (Exaggerations, of course)
Paladins clearly have the hugest restrictions of any class, which if they violate, their powers disappear. So lose your temper with the junk merchant pestering you when you're on your way to slay the dragon, and you won't have all your righteous smite juice when you arrive to your destination.
I'll still probabley remove the double-smite-damage vs. specific opponents in my home games though
Don't Paladins have to give away a decent percentage of their treasure/gold? This further limites their power as they level up as they get less money to buy magic items with.
|
|
So I'm looking at the paladins....and going Oh my GAWD...
IMO the Fighter got boosted even more than the Paladin, and rightly so. They both needed a boost to match those given to other classes. Ranger and Monk seem to be the two melees that didn't get a lot of love compared to 3.5. Both got some minor boosts, but in terms of raw power they both suffered compared to the Fighter and Paladin. I may be underestimating Ki for Monks, and Rangers did get quite a lot of nice utility abilities, but their combat power seems a bit lacking now. Certainly not enough that I wouldn't play one, however.
Rangers' Favored Enemy rocks. (applying on Stealth & Perception is HUGE)
Skill consolidation helps Skill-heavy classes just as much as Skill-poor ones.
The Animal Companion now trails Druids by 3 instead of @1/2.
There now is a Ranged version of Power Attack for Ranged Rangers (&-P)
and Double Slice and 2 Weapon Rend actually are bad-ass now, ESPECIALLY for 2WF Rangers with more STR than DEX.
But now that I've seen the book, hey really nerfed armor training by getting rid of the armor bonus,
This part did bother me a bit at first. Then I noticed the boost that heavy armor received (+9 for full plate). In addition, some of the feats now add to AC without many restrictions (Dodge and Sheild Focus come to mind).
I also love what they've done for the paladin class.
Paladins have an alignment restriction as well...or LOSE the abilities, something that requires proper role-playing...if you let your paladins get away with evil or chaotic acts, then yes they're more powerful, but you need to make those paladins role-play, instead of roll-play...
Nod. This part of the game is so often lost on C/O people. Dungeons and dragons (and Pathfinder) has more balancing it than just the pure numbers. Two of the classes widely regarded as the strongest in the game (cleric and druid), have never in my opinion been particularly wise choices given what I (and most of the Dm's I've played with) perceive as steep role playing costs associated with them.
The same is true for the Paladin, but to an even larger extent. One mistake and you become a fighter without the bonus feats or weapon training. You are held to a higher standard. You are expected to make personal sacrifices. Playing a Lawful Good character puts certain limitations on your actions that make life ore difficult for you (just like having to serve your god does).
Don't Paladins have to give away a decent percentage of their treasure/gold? This further limites their power as they level up as they get less money to buy magic items with.
No, they don't have to, I don't know what you are thinking of here (maybe the vow of poverty), but they should to stay in keeping with their fluff. One of the things that has long bugged me about D&D is the expectation that you will spend all of your wealth, or the vast majority of it, on magic items to make you stronger. That is, simply put, not realistic.
If you are playing a multi-dimensional character you should be spending money on out of combat things. You should be developing additional relationships and procuring additional noncombat things. Be it the cleric making donations to her temple or building one herself, the paladin making donations to the needy, the wizard building a tower/joining a fellowship, or the fighter gaining a castle/home.
It's an aspect of the game too often overlooked in my opinion.
But now that I've seen the book, hey really nerfed armor training by getting rid of the armor bonus,This part did bother me a bit at first. Then I noticed the boost that heavy armor received (+9 for full plate). In addition, some of the feats now add to AC without many restrictions (Dodge and Sheild Focus come to mind).
Armor training had to get nerfed from a mechanical standpoint. Effectively netting +8 armor on the rest of the party (and every other front line combat character especially) leads to a discrepancy that cannot be accounted for within the rules. Generally monsters should be hitting between 30~60% of the time. Meaning a roll of a 6-12. When they need a natural 20 to hit the fighter and a 12 to hit everyone else problems come up in game design.
I know some will point to the Paladin getting their AC bonus - but I would point out it is a deflection bonus and thus overlaps with rings of protection.
Ag-
Bu-
Tgojw3q-
WHAT!?!?!
Smite affects EVERY attack now? Do they realize that, for a high level character, this is equivalent to like 30 smites per day? Did ANYONE playtest this!?!?
+(level) is an ENORMOUS damage bonus, to say nothing of +(levelx2)! Adding your level to every damage roll breaks the game- isn't that why they nerfed the bloody puss out of Power Attack?
Holy crap!
Okay, maybe it's not THAT big- to be fair, a 20th level paladin in 3.5 is very likely to use all 5 of his smites in the same fight. However, even he probably wouldn't be bold enough to use them all in the same ROUND (not if it means risking a +20 damage bonus on a -15 iterative, something that the 3.P paladin can do with impunity- no, something the 3.P paladin does automatically).
Throw in Aura of Justice and you'll find the paladin effortlessly increasing his party's damage output by hundreds of points per round.
This is insane.
I really, really want to hear what Jason has to say about this. There's gotta be some massive drawback that I'm missing.
This is why the X2 bonus vs. Outsiders/Undead/Dragons is insane:
IT'S NOT NEEDED, the normal Smite is good enough.
ESPECIALLY when you take into account the Auras boosting all allies (<30')
Of course, if you're talking 20th level, "insane" is pretty much par for course... ;-)
I think I illustrated the too high of AC during the high level playtest, with Grumble Grog, 54 AC that was boostable to around 62.
Even the nastiest dragon had to roll well to hit him...
Aura of justice comes at level 11, actually.
It would be incredibly easy for this to increase the average damage of a party by over 100 points per round, even at level 11. "Incredibly easy" means that you have three other party members (say a fighter, a rogue and a cleric) and their builds are pretty vanilla, no cheesy races or noncore feats for extra attacks. Yes, I'm only counting hits.
Can any other class account for over a hundred points of damage at level 11 as a swift action? For the duration of the fight, and for two or three fights per day?
And this is BEFORE we bring the cheese. Any charop board could, of course, put this figure well over a thousand at that level.
Right...
And I guess I'm fine with that level of power (normal Smites) for the Paladin, Champion of Good*.
But there's absolutely no need to DOUBLE it, including for Allies.
*of course, one realizes there are Champions of Evil as well... &-/
Right...
And I guess I'm fine with that level of power (normal Smites) for the Paladin, Champion of Good*.
You are a crazy person.
I think I illustrated the too high of AC during the high level playtest, with Grumble Grog, 54 AC that was boostable to around 62.
Even the nastiest dragon had to roll well to hit him...
I agree.
Some posters say they would have preferred giving up weapon training to keep armor training,
but weapon training is what makes fighters offensively comparable to barbarians/paladins..
the movement speed penalty negation seems much more balanced a change, and kicking in at 8th Fighter level (?), it sets up a balanced trade-off to multi-class w/ Fighter to get that Heavy Armor Training and have good mobility (along with other Fighter benefits) or stay straight Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger/etc.
You are a crazy person.
:-)
|
I have to say that the smite looks soooooo tasty that it must be crack. swift action lay on hands with auto remove ailments added onto two primary saves with CHA to all......sickness. the only balance that i can see is, dont let your paladin near water or slippery surfaces, hes gonna fall alot. he also cant climb his way out of a laundry basket (why the Barbarian can do backflips and balance on tree limbs and the Ranger cant....i may never know....)
What's a palandin?
....
Okay, honestly, I can't help but ask:
Forget the "x2" for a sec. How is it okay for a class to grant the power to deal hundreds of extra points of damage per round every round of a fight for multiple fights per day as a swift action, and have a slew of powerful class features on top of that??
This is seriously one of those things which looks so broken that I would not play in a game where it was used, regardless of the actual character builds or who the players were.
|
The horrifying thing is, while the 3.5 paladin was bad, the 3.0 paladin was even worse.
And there are lots of neutral monsters that the paladin can't smite.
TWF rangers also profit from their ability to use their combat styles while wearing medium armor, reducing their need for dexterity. Take three levels of fighter and you can play a ranger running around in a mithral fullplate while dual wielding.
|
|
....
Okay, honestly, I can't help but ask:
Forget the "x2" for a sec. How is it okay for a class to grant the power to deal hundreds of extra points of damage per round every round of a fight for multiple fights per day as a swift action, and have a slew of powerful class features on top of that??
This is seriously one of those things which looks so broken that I would not play in a game where it was used, regardless of the actual character builds or who the players were.
Hundreds? methinks one exaggerates
For every 5 attacks landed by anyone in the party (at +20 damage each), that's 100 points of damage on the paladin's tab.
It's also not accounting for the bonus to-hit provided by charisma, which will be a contribution of (paladin's CHA x .05) x average-damage-per-hit.
Nor is it accounting for the x2 against evil outsiders/undead/dragons/whatever.
And that definitely isn't assuming that the other party members are built to maximize their to-hit or attacks/round.
If we add a monk (5-man party), attack bonuses are high, the barbarian is duel-wielding and making bite attacks, the rogue is duel-wielding and making opportunist attacks, everyone is hasted, somebody crits at some point in the round, etc, etc, this could easily approach 1,000 points of extra damage.
That's not min/maxing. Min/maxing is when we start talking about multi-armed races...
|
|
I think the important part about the smites is to realize that the paladin is not going to get to use it on EVERY attack. Just against the evil creatures he's marked.
So when the party faces down the Tarrasque, or that cabal of LN assassins, he's not getting that +Cha/+level on every attack.
He's highly specialized in fighting evil. Don't take his tools away.
Edit for spelling.
raging climb? raging swim?
oooo that darn river makes me SO MAD!!!
Perhaps one of the influences of this barbarian is Wired News' The Alternative Hulk
....
Okay, honestly, I can't help but ask:
Forget the "x2" for a sec. How is it okay for a class to grant the power to deal hundreds of extra points of damage per round every round of a fight for multiple fights per day as a swift action
The bard has always been able to do this. +7 to hit and +7 to damage adds up really fast. Yes, they could even do it as a swift action with some creative dipping and/or feat selecting.
|
|
....
Okay, honestly, I can't help but ask:
Forget the "x2" for a sec. How is it okay for a class to grant the power to deal hundreds of extra points of damage per round every round of a fight for multiple fights per day as a swift action
Firstly, because your 'multiple fights per day' is 3 fights at most, and that's at 16th level. It's 1 fight at 4th, and 2 fights at 10th. Secondly, it only grants the ability to allies within 10 feet, necessitating the party to bunch up to recieve the bonus. Thirdly, all affected targets must then use the ability by the start of the paladin's next turn, or lose it. If they do use it, it lasts for 1 minute. And finally, the smite only applies against one target. Once that target is dead, you're done.
And if you want to balance it, you could always alter the wording to 'a paladin can expend two uses of smite evil to grant the benefits of her smite evil to all allies within 10 ft.' That way, it'd only apply against one target in totality, which you could all go and massively overkill.
I too would like to hear Jasons explanation for why the changes to the paladin, both mechanical and flavour reasons- because they have me baffled.
Don't Paladins have to give away a decent percentage of their treasure/gold? This further limites their power as they level up as they get less money to buy magic items with.No, they don't have to, I don't know what you are thinking of here (maybe the vow of poverty), but they should to stay in keeping with their fluff. One of the things that has long bugged me about D&D is the expectation that you will spend all of your wealth, or the vast majority of it, on magic items to make you stronger. That is, simply put, not realistic.
Might be a throw back to earlier editions of DND. Maybe not. I was thinking it was something like 10%.
I know what you mean about spending money on things other than magic items. That's what most people probably end up doing though.
This doesn't bother me at all because of the limited usage, the single-enemy usage, and the fact that in the beta the pally was still lagging towards the back of the class a bit.
So the pally gets to party like a rockstar against one or two enemies during the course of a gaming session... I dig that. It will also add kind of a fun element to gameplay (where perhaps the goal of evil outsiders won't always be to hamstring the spellcasters).
I am in complete agreement on overhand chop/backswing though *tear*