I had a different experience last weekend. We converted from beta to the new rules in a RotRL game, and my players are currently in the Skinsaw Murders.The group's Paladin was trounced by ** spoiler omitted **
A single down-fall doesn't mean the class is balanced. It could very well just be a result of bad luck. Part of my beef with the new paladin is this assumption that evil creatures are supposedly uncommon, so tossing about "your level to damage and cha to attack and defense" is therfore more balanced. I've played in quite a few games where wer've fought good or neutral creatures, but I don't think theres ever been a single game I've played in which evil foes were not present.
Besides, theres not much point in relaying your actual gamming experience here, if folk don't agree with it they'll just flat out ignore it or call it "whining".
|
I suppose my opinion is fairly skewed by the fact I support Tome-style play. So given that I have no problems giving melee types +BAB to damage, the change to smite evil hardly fazes me. This and the Rebalanced Paladin from the WotC boards give me more of a reason to play a paladin.
|
In my Curse of the Crimson Throne game we've decided that Smite doesn't let you ignore DR. The paladin's player not only agreed, he helped suggest it. That's reduced it's potency from instant encounter killer to powerful ability. Smite does make the weapons good and magic though, so it does ignore quite a lot of the DR's it's facing, just when they hit things like demiliches (DR 20/Vorpal) they won't be able to completely ignore what is supposed to be a very powerful defence.
|
|
I suspect I may apply the following shifts to the paladin's abilities, and see how they do.
Smite Evil: Remove any reference to doubling the damage of smite evil against certain foes. Otherwise, it stays as is.
Aura of Justice: Replace entirely with: Whenever a paladin has an active smite evil target, all allies within 10 feet of the paladin get a bonus to damage rolls against that target. This bonus is equal to the paladin's Charisma modifier, and is a morale bonus. Evil creatures gain no benefit from this ability. This ability functions only when the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.
This moves the aura into being a passive, constant effect that only affects allies within 10 feet, like the other paladin auras. It could be altered to require the expenditure of additional uses of smite evil to activate the aura, or to make the bonus damage dependent on paladin level. (1/2 at most, and that'd be pushing it. Maybe 1/3 or 1/4.)
Smite Evil: Remove any reference to doubling the damage of smite evil against certain foes. Otherwise, it stays as is.Aura of Justice: Replace entirely with: Whenever a paladin has an active smite evil target, all allies within 10 feet of the paladin get a bonus to damage rolls against that target. This bonus is equal to the paladin's Charisma modifier, and is a morale bonus. Evil creatures gain no benefit from this ability. This ability functions only when the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.
I'd still say the smite is still overkill, I think in my games I'll be limiting it to one round per smite ala the beta. Though the change to Aura of Justice seems so much better in my opinion.
|
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.
St. George? Also, I believe the devil used to be symbolized by the dragon.
St. George? Also, I believe the devil used to be symbolized by the dragon.
Perhaps, but in D'n'D dragons aren't symbolic of evil outsiders, nor evil outsiders themselves, or even servents of evil outsiders. It's possible for evil dragons in D'n'D to exist completely outwith demons, devils and other evil outsider beings.
Dragons that are associated with evil outsiders though (such as hellfire wyverns) I can understand completely.
At higher levels (11+), I feel like the paladin is finally approaching a viable class, vis-a-vis the full casters. The fighter, ranger, and monk still have a way to go.
At higher levels (11+), I feel like the paladin is finally approaching a viable class, vis-a-vis the full casters. The fighter, ranger, and monk still have a way to go.
I'll be honest, I've always hated the "Melee classes are too weak" at high levels as an arugment for boosting classes. If they are so overpowering, then really, they should be toned now, rather than the other way around.
Besides, while I do agree casters are overpowering at high levels, it's because I see some overpowering spells or magical abilities which can do this and that and make them immune to this and that etc. When it comes to dealing damage martial characters never really had a problem anyway (in fact, one of the common arguments I see regarding spellcasters is that direct damage spells are underpowering), so if dealing damage isn't a problem, why is increasing the amount of damage avalible solving it?
1. I'll be honest, I've always hated the "Melee classes are too weak" at high levels as an arugment for boosting classes. If they are so overpowering, then really, they should be toned now, rather than the other way around.
2. Besides, while I do agree casters are overpowering at high levels, it's because I see some overpowering spells or magical abilities which can do this and that and make them immune to this and that etc. When it comes to dealing damage martial characters never really had a problem anyway (in fact, one of the common arguments I see regarding spellcasters is that direct damage spells are underpowering), so if dealing damage isn't a problem, why is increasing the amount of damage avalible solving it?
In reply:
1. Personally I agree, but from a time-constraint and backwards-compatibility standpoint, it IS a lot easier to boost the non-casters than it is to go through and redo every spell. (Also, I have a player who is violently anti-nerfing spells. He rages at damage caps and area of effect limits on fireballs, and insists that any nerf to a spell is no good. He wants the warriors boosted instead. While I might not totally agree, his stance IS closer to Paizo's than yours).
2. Again, the damage boost to the paladin doesn't impress me much. I like the fact that it isn't wasted on a miss; that the "remove conditions" ability got expanded to where it will see lots of use; that the other auras got added on; that the good Will save and additional immunities mean that he's no longer a liability in terms of soaking up the cleric's actions. In short, the overall paladin is a better character, especially when played as part of a group.
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.
Paladins had to tithe in AD&D.
A single down-fall doesn't mean the class is balanced. It could very well just be a result of bad luck. Part of my beef with the new paladin is this assumption that evil creatures are supposedly uncommon, so tossing about "your level to damage and cha to attack and defense" is therfore more balanced. I've played in quite a few games where wer've fought good or neutral creatures, but I don't think theres ever been a single game I've played in which evil foes were not present.
Besides, theres not much point in relaying your actual gamming experience here, if folk don't agree with it they'll just flat out ignore it or call it "whining".
I believe the problem with the paladin Smite ability is that it's "balancing factor" is the fact that it's, as so-called, "Situational". While you can say that, yes, "strictly" is balanced, I personally don't see it as a good design.
Using an absurd example to illustrate my point, imagin that we have an ability that for instance, instanly kills any creature of the Plant subtype, without save or SR. Would be a overpowered ability? Hell, no, how often do you face creatures of the plant subtype? But, would you consider it a well-designed ability?
I have no problem with situational abilities. But I strongly believe that the most powerful, defining ability of class should not be situational, or at least not so all-or-nothing situational. Isn't that the point of allowing rogues now to sneak attack undead and constructs? And to allow clerics to heal allies when they use turn undead?
Even if the ability is not overpowered on most situations, its mere existance may have annoying consequences. For instance, the GM may feel strongly disencouraged to use undead/evil dragon/evil outsider BBEGs for his campaign, simply because he doesn't want to see his greatest villains smashed in seconds by a party of 11th-level of higher boosted by the paladin's aura.
I believe the problem with the paladin Smite ability is that it's "balancing factor" is the fact that it's, as so-called, "Situational". While you can say that, yes, "strictly" is balanced, I personally don't see it as a good design.Using an absurd example to illustrate my point, imagin that we have an ability that for instance, instanly kills any creature of the Plant subtype, without save or SR. Would be a overpowered ability? Hell, no, how often do you face creatures of the plant subtype? But, would you consider it a well-designed ability?
I have no problem with situational abilities. But I strongly believe that the most powerful, defining ability of class should not be situational, or at least not so all-or-nothing situational. Isn't that the point of allowing rogues now to sneak attack undead and constructs? And to allow clerics to heal allies when they use turn undead?
Even if the ability is not overpowered on most situations, its mere existance may have annoying consequences. For instance, the GM may feel strongly disencouraged to use undead/evil dragon/evil outsider BBEGs for his campaign, simply because he doesn't want to see his greatest villains smashed in seconds by a party of 11th-level of higher boosted by the paladin's aura.
Nothing I can really say to that, your've summed up how I feel about it perfectly.
|
|
For instance, the GM may feel strongly disencouraged to use undead/evil dragon/evil outsider BBEGs for his campaign, simply because he doesn't want to see his greatest villains smashed in seconds by a party of 11th-level of higher boosted by the paladin's aura.
How sad, then that GMs will have to be a little more creative when it comes to BBEG. Because I feel that most of those used to date belonged to one of the THREE types of creature you mentioned.
So, maybe it was not such an unexpected consequence/oversight on Paizo's part ;-)
|
|
St. George? Also, I believe the devil used to be symbolized by the dragon.Perhaps, but in D'n'D dragons aren't symbolic of evil outsiders, nor evil outsiders themselves, or even servents of evil outsiders. It's possible for evil dragons in D'n'D to exist completely outwith demons, devils and other evil outsider beings.
Dragons that are associated with evil outsiders though (such as hellfire wyverns) I can understand completely.
When I read about the inclusion of evil dragons in the liste of valid targets for an increased Smite Evil, I came with the following rationale :
That the paladin is enabled to dish out more damage to evil creatures with primal links to a plane.
Evil outsiders obviously have primal ties to their home planes and the undead have primal ties to the Negative Energy plane.
With their strong tangible nature as well as their link to the many elemental forces, dragons can be construed as having primal links to the Prime Material plane itself.
|
|
Yeah right, now we will have to have ton's of neutral characters to fight...
and we can find out what makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Or Power? Or are they just born with a heart full of neutrality? (I miss futurama)
My beef was with the very limited scope of BBEG in many scenarios. Not with BBEG being of the evil alignment ;-)
How sad, then that GMs will have to be a little more creative when it comes to BBEG. Because I feel that most of those used to date belonged to one of the THREE types of creature you mentioned.
So basically, if we want a fight that lasts longer than a few seconds, we have to "be creative" and not use evil foes? For one thing, that means the majority (if not all) of the Paizo adventure paths suddenly become problems, since 3/4 bosses in them are evil.
There are far better ways to give the paladin a boost, doing somthing like this doesn't. It makes the paladin a "hit and miss" class now, it'll either completely dominate an enounter, or provide as much help as an NPC warrior could.
I am not sure, so someone clue me in. Is the smite ability supposed to be on every attack the paladin makes against the chosen foe until it is dead, or is the ability to smite supposed to last until a single hit is made against the chosen foe (unless it dies first)?
I am not sure, so someone clue me in. Is the smite ability supposed to be on every attack the paladin makes against the chosen foe until it is dead, or is the ability to smite supposed to last until a single hit is made against the chosen foe (unless it dies first)?
No, its for all atatcks until the foe is dead.
And I don't see what the complaint is...at 20th level, the paladin gets +20 damage against the one foe he designates (double for undead, evil outsiders, and evil dragons.) A figther at level 20, gets +4 for Weapon Spec and Geater Weapon Spec, +4 for Weapon training, at total of +6 to hit and thats just from those rather easy chains. Oh...and the fighters abilities apply as long as he has the right weapon in his hands, no matter who he is hitting. Depending on his feat selection and weapon of choice, the fighters damage potential goes way up, across the board. The paladins...not so much.
So, paladins have an ability that can on a limited basis bump them up to be slightly better than fighters in combat against certain foes they are supposed to be that effective against (Yes, I see it that way...when a demon pops up and starts going ape, I'm guessing the townspeople want a paladin to go kick its ass, not the fighter...call it perks of being a white knight...). Its not like undead/outsiders/dragons are the only BBEG options is it?
St. George? Also, I believe the devil used to be symbolized by the dragon.Perhaps, but in D'n'D dragons aren't symbolic of evil outsiders, nor evil outsiders themselves, or even servents of evil outsiders. It's possible for evil dragons in D'n'D to exist completely outwith demons, devils and other evil outsider beings.
Dragons that are associated with evil outsiders though (such as hellfire wyverns) I can understand completely.
I'm in general with you one this. Of course exceptions exist, in a dragonlance game I would likely leave it, in a Babalonian game I would leave it, but in general I think they shouldn't be included.
I'm in general with you one this. Of course exceptions exist, in a dragonlance game I would likely leave it, in a Babalonian game I would leave it, but in general I think they shouldn't be included.
St. George? Also, I believe the devil used to be symbolized by the dragon.Perhaps, but in D'n'D dragons aren't symbolic of evil outsiders, nor evil outsiders themselves, or even servents of evil outsiders. It's possible for evil dragons in D'n'D to exist completely outwith demons, devils and other evil outsider beings.
Dragons that are associated with evil outsiders though (such as hellfire wyverns) I can understand completely.
I dunno...I think evil dragons fit pretty well actually. The explify alot of evil traits, in a way, you could call them primal forces of evil. Greedy, arrogant, evil for the sake of being evil, hostile to lesser life forms (read non-dragons from their point of view), petty, cruel, vindictive, capable of massive levels of destructions, and, just to top it off, pretty much immortal. Hmmm...that reads like a list of evil outsider traits and evil undead traits to. Seems like ti fits to me.
Actually in at least 1 version of D&D(maybe second or first) Paladin's were limited to a certain number of specific magic items and had to give a 90%(I think) tithe of everything above thier expenses....I think that is what Frogboy had in mind....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.
Both actually. They were limited to 10 magic items (total, and restrictions on what those were to...), and had to donate 10% of their gold, and in 1st edition, were on top of the 10% tithe, required to keep only enough extra to survive on.
A figther at level 20, gets +4 for Weapon Spec and Geater Weapon Spec, +4 for Weapon training, at total of +6 to hit and thats just from those rather easy chains.
Umm..theres a big difference between +6 damage per hit and +20 (or +40) damage per hit.
If you honestly don't think 14 points of damage per hit is really worth anything, don't even look at power attack, it'll be useless to you.
Oh...and the fighters abilities apply as long as he has the right weapon in his hands, no matter who he is hitting.
Which can also be a bit of a bane as well. If you have a fighter focused on a greatsword, well he might as well sit on the sidlines against any flying creature unless someone happened to prep fly or something else to give him a boost, since those nice lovely bonuses won't apply to his bow.
What about if a foe disarms him? What about grappiling him? If a tentacle-riddled monster just happens to disarm and grapple the paladin, that smiting head-butt still packs one hell of a punch.
What about sundering? The last time I played a spellcaster, his first strategy against any particular tough foes was to UMD and cast shatter on their weapon. So unless the fighter carries a golf-bag of weapons of the same type around, it's possible for those bonuses to still be taken away easily.
So, paladins have an ability that can on a limited basis bump them up to be slightly better than fighters in combat against certain foes they are supposed to be that effective against
Well for one thing, it lasts pretty long. In fact, once a paladin uses smite, it won't end until the encounter is over.
Besides, while it only works on "certain" foes, these foes, as I've tried to say quite alot here, and very common. Actually look at the monster manural, and the Bestiary when it comes out. The majority of creatures statted there are evil.
Its not like undead/outsiders/dragons are the only BBEG options is it?
They won't even act as speed-bumps for high level paladins, so yes, players may need to find other BBEG. But should we really? I don't see anyone saying in 3.5 "not to bother with certain racial types for bosses since the rogues sneak attack would decimate them". I never heard anyone say "don't bother throwing the rangers favoured enemy as a boss". No other class gains an overpowering ability based on the assumption that certain types are fought, at least not to such an extent, why should the paladin? Hell, a ranger could focus his entire favoured enemy on a racial type, and he'll never be as powerful against that type as a paladin will against all evil creatrues.
A figther at level 20, gets +4 for Weapon Spec and Geater Weapon Spec, +4 for Weapon training, at total of +6 to hit and thats just from those rather easy chains.Umm..theres a big difference between +6 damage per hit and +20 (or +40) damage per hit.
If you honestly don't think 14 points of damage per hit is really worth anything, don't even look at power attack, it'll be useless to you.
Oh...and the fighters abilities apply as long as he has the right weapon in his hands, no matter who he is hitting.Which can also be a bit of a bane as well. If you have a fighter focused on a greatsword, well he might as well sit on the sidlines against any flying creature unless someone happened to prep fly or something else to give him a boost, since those nice lovely bonuses won't apply to his bow.
What about if a foe disarms him? What about grappiling him? If a tentacle-riddled monster just happens to disarm and grapple the paladin, that smiting head-butt still packs one hell of a punch.
What about sundering? The last time I played a spellcaster, his first strategy against any particular tough foes was to UMD and cast shatter on their weapon. So unless the fighter carries a golf-bag of weapons of the same type around, it's possible for those bonuses to still be taken away easily.
So, paladins have an ability that can on a limited basis bump them up to be slightly better than fighters in combat against certain foes they are supposed to be that effective againstWell for one thing, it lasts pretty long. In fact, once a paladin uses smite, it won't end until the encounter is over.
Besides, while it only works on "certain" foes, these foes, as I've tried to say quite alot here, and very common. Actually look at the monster manural, and the Bestiary when it comes out. The majority of creatures statted there are evil.
Its not like undead/outsiders/dragons are the only BBEG options is it?...
Dude...a fighter at 20 weilding a specialized weapon is at +6 to hit +8 to damage just off of 4 feats and a class ability, is immune to being disarmed, and has dr 5/-. that doesn't count his other class abilities and feat chains. A fighters offense is based on his chocies, and usable pretty much all the time as long as he choses to use it, or plans ahead.
At 20th level, a Paladin, on a DAILY basis, can use smite 7 times. thats seven evil creatures he can smite. 7 targets he is that good against. In a day. Now, I'm not sure about the other DM's, but 'generally' speaking, I haven't let a party get to the BBEG (well, guys, I rarely use just one) in pristine health, fully reasted with all their abilities recharged (I did once...generated a TPK at 19th level that way...made me feel bad...they misunderstood the vampires invitation to dinner with his family *grin* But there some seriously bad choices made by the party, compounded by very bad dice rolls that day). So...if the paladins ability vs a dragon is so scary to you, as a DM, then instead using 1 dragon...make it a mated pair...then the paladin can duel one solo, the rest of the party can take the other. Heck...make it a race.
I hope you get my point. The paladins smite ability is a limited use thing...kinda like high level spell slots. Sure, at 20th level (well, 19th) the paladin can rock up to 7 creatures worlds, really hard. So can most high level spellcasters, and honesly, high level fighters can rock just about anythings world, and their limit on how often they can do it is every other charcters...their HP.
|
They won't even act as speed-bumps for high level paladins, so yes, players may need to find other BBEG. But should we really? I don't see anyone saying in 3.5 "not to bother with certain racial types for bosses since the rogues sneak attack would decimate them".
exactly, you don't hear that, yet a rouge does 10-60 damage per attack with his attack and isn't limited by day. Now I agree that the double damage to certain types should be removed, but the Pallys smite without the double damage bit is in no way any worse than a rogues sneak attack.
Hell, a ranger could focus his entire favoured enemy on a racial type, and he'll never be as powerful against that type as a paladin will against all evil creatrues.
except the paladin isn't a bad ass against all evil creatures, he's a badass against 7 a day at 20th level. what about level 1-4 where he only has 1, is he as bad ass against said monsters as the ranger? then 4-8 where he only has 2. Even when he gets 4 which is smiting one enemy per combat in an average adventuring day, does he match a ranger if you're fighting more than one creature each fight. Assuming of course every creature fought is evil and of a ranger type. And what if they don't have DR but a high fast healing. Suddenly that paladin smite is only good for keeping the healing down and he's pretty much doing weapon damage. Looking at a 20th level paladin is rediculous for comparing the classes. The fact is that this ability isn't that overwhelmingly powerful until the levels of the game where even with them he'll be looking at the wizard and cleric wondering why he ever bothered learning to use the sword.
Now I do agree that it was a bad thing to give it double damage vs. certain types, but for a reason of flavor and prefrence, not because it's that much overpowered.
I believe the problem with the paladin Smite ability is that it's "balancing factor" is the fact that it's, as so-called, "Situational". While you can say that, yes, "strictly" is balanced, I personally don't see it as a good design.
Using an absurd example to illustrate my point, imagin that we have an ability that for instance, instanly kills any creature of the Plant subtype, without save or SR. Would be a overpowered ability? Hell, no, how often do you face creatures of the plant subtype? But, would you consider it a well-designed ability?
I have no problem with situational abilities. But I strongly believe that the most powerful, defining ability of class should not be situational, or at least not so all-or-nothing situational. Isn't that the point of allowing rogues now to sneak attack undead and constructs? And to allow clerics to heal allies when they use turn undead?
Even if the ability is not overpowered on most situations, its mere existance may have annoying consequences. For instance, the GM may feel strongly disencouraged to use undead/evil dragon/evil outsider BBEGs for his campaign, simply because he doesn't want to see his greatest villains smashed in seconds by a party of 11th-level of higher boosted by the paladin's aura.
That's a really good summary which it's getting slightly nerfed in my games. Even a nerfed version is pretty good imo!
A fighter can bypass DR if they take some fighter-only feats. This fighter-only bypass works against any opponent, all the time. They're more set up to take advantage of the new PA, with its greater damage gifts for 1H and 2H fighters, with their inherit fighter to-hit bonuses than anyone else. Their critical feats, which other classes can take to a degree but not master, add status effects to their hits even on a successful save, and they can use these so often as a fighter can hit. Fighters excel at hitting. They can get items, and apply a scabbard or two, to push that crit range down to 15-20.
A 25 percent chance every hit that an opponent will suffer a status effect. Even if the opponent succeeds on their save.
Fighters have not been "nerfed."
Their class abilities will only expand as more books are published. Jason's made it clear that he likes the concept of fighter-only feats. I imagine we'll see more of them.
It's a very, very nice class, now.
Some Paizo folks on these boards have also mentioned that the AC of upper-level monsters, in several cases, will be going up. This puts the fighter at a distinct advantage with their to-hit bonuses, from feats, from fighter-only feats, from their automatic class abilities, and so on.
The rogue...the rogue now gets free feats, and their SA works against nearly everything imaginable, and continues to work, and work, and work, so long as they get a flank. Skill consolidation makes their base skill points a fantastic ability that lets them put on a pair of sunglasses and go, "I know the Matrix."
They're a very, very nice class now.
I think the title should read: all melee classes received a buff.
A fighter can bypass DR if they take some fighter-only feats. This fighter-only bypass works against any opponent, all the time. They're more set up to take advantage of the new PA, with its greater damage gifts for 1H and 2H fighters, with their inherit fighter to-hit bonuses than anyone else. Their critical feats, which other classes can take to a degree but not master, add status effects to their hits even on a successful save, and they can use these so often as a fighter can hit. Fighters excel at hitting. They can get items, and apply a scabbard or two, to push that crit range down to 15-20.
A 25 percent chance every hit that an opponent will suffer a status effect. Even if the opponent succeeds on their save.
Fighters have not been "nerfed."
Their class abilities will only expand as more books are published. Jason's made it clear that he likes the concept of fighter-only feats. I imagine we'll see more of them.
It's a very, very nice class, now.
Some Paizo folks on these boards have also mentioned that the AC of upper-level monsters, in several cases, will be going up. This puts the fighter at a distinct advantage with their to-hit bonuses, from feats, from fighter-only feats, from their automatic class abilities, and so on.
The rogue...the rogue now gets free feats, and their SA works against nearly everything imaginable, and continues to work, and work, and work, so long as they get a flank. Skill consolidation makes their base skill points a fantastic ability that lets them put on a pair of sunglasses and go, "I know the Matrix."
They're a very, very nice class now.
I think the title should read: all melee classes received a buff.
How is PA doing greater damage now? The version I saw limited you to your BAB or your strength mod, whichever was less. If I somehow misread the rules I have no problem being corrected.
why should Gms have problems using Dragons, I dont understand? Lets see airborne dragon, land bounded paladin lets see...Breath weapon, what else Spells and Spells...The paladin is clearly at a disadvantage...
Lets take an example of the undead creature the devourer. It calls a lesser planar ally and uses it to distract the party. It may have controlled undead minions which can also serve as bait. While the party is engaged with these small monsters, said devourer is hidden somewhere using its spell like abilites against the party, spectral hand and energy drain among many. The paladin will have to use his detect evil to find the creature and then fight his way through minions and is probably being subjected to the energy draining attacks of the devourer all along. If he doesnt have that deathward up from the cleric he is probably dead before he engages in combat with the devourer.
The paladin probably has the fly spell but he can't fly as fast as the dragon so the dragon should still be able to lay the smack down on him.
If the devourer is hiding it should be detectable by mudane or magical means. The devourer only gets 2 claw attacks and I am sure Mr.Save can still make a 19 fort save. Another thing to remember is that the paladin is not alone, and the cleric will most likely be removing those energy drains in short order. Even if there is no cleric the pally should be able to remove the devourer from existance, even using PF's rule of adding the cha mod to an undead's hit points. I am sure he can do at least 50. The rest of the party can take care of the rest of the hit points.
I really want to play the paladin to see how it works in a real campaign instead of theoretically.
exactly, you don't hear that, yet a rouge does 10-60 damage per attack with his attack and isn't limited by day. Now I agree that the double damage to certain types should be removed, but the Pallys smite without the double damage bit is in no way any worse than a rogues sneak attack.
Despite not being restricted to alignments, I feel a rogue's sneak attack won't happen as often. Put a paladin against a devil or some such, he'll start smiting right away and get it constantly. A rogue will only gain such advantage during a surprise one (so for one attack) or when moving into postion. Besides, being restricted to light armour and with D8 hit dice, a rogue is easier to take down.
except the paladin isn't a bad ass against all evil creatures, he's a badass against 7 a day at 20th level.
7 times can be alot at high level, especially considering that the game is designed assuming the party will handle roughly 4 enounters per day.
Even when he gets 4 which is smiting one enemy per combat in an average adventuring day, does he match a ranger if you're fighting more than one creature each fight. Assuming of course every creature fought is evil and of a ranger type.
Considering that evil creatures will be far more common than one type of creature (barring specific campaigns) and that the paladin's ability deals twice as much damage, yes.
And what if they don't have DR but a high fast healing. Suddenly that paladin smite is only good for keeping the healing down and he's pretty much doing weapon damage.
If a creature's fast healing is able to negate the additional damage easily, then I'd rethink the encounter altogether. If an 11th level creature has the capcity to heal the a paladins smite damage per round (which, in the case of two weapon paladins will be 60 damage before criticals) then somthing just ain't right.
Looking at a 20th level paladin is rediculous for comparing the classes. The fact is that this ability isn't that overwhelmingly powerful until the levels of the game where even with them he'll be looking at the wizard and cleric wondering why he ever bothered learning to use the sword.
Sorry, but "Another class is overpowering" is a really, really poor excuse.
At 1st level I can make Pun-Pun, does that instantly mean that at any game, ever, that people playing with me are jsutified in making overpowering characters simply because a broken one is possible?
Try comparing the paladin to other martial classes if you consider spellcasters to be overpowering.
Now I do agree that it was a bad thing to give it double damage vs. certain types, but for a reason of flavor and prefrence, not because it's that much overpowered.
The smite still had plenty of flavour, why the strong need to add more? Especially when alot of people are questioning if the flavour is any good (not saying if I agree or not, but just mentionting that people are questioning it).
Edit: Oh, and for the dragon. Well, as I said earlier, a paladin can smite with anything. If theyr'e getting twice their level in damage, I think the paladin can "suck it up" and switch to a bow, they'll still tear it to peices.
lastknightleft wrote:
exactly, you don't hear that, yet a rouge does 10-60 damage per attack with his attack and isn't limited by day. Now I agree that the double damage to certain types should be removed, but the Pallys smite without the double damage bit is in no way any worse than a rogues sneak attack.Despite not being restricted to alignments, I feel a rogue's sneak attack won't happen as often. Put a paladin against a devil or some such, he'll start smiting right away and get it constantly. A rogue will only gain such advantage during a surprise one (so for one attack) or when moving into postion. Besides, being restricted to light armour and with D8 hit dice, a rogue is easier to take down.
lastknightleft wrote:
except the paladin isn't a bad ass against all evil creatures, he's a badass against 7 a day at 20th level.7 times can be alot at high level, especially considering that the game is designed assuming the party will handle roughly 4 enounters per day.
lastknightleft wrote:
Even when he gets 4 which is smiting one enemy per combat in an average adventuring day, does he match a ranger if you're fighting more than one creature each fight. Assuming of course every creature fought is evil and of a ranger type.Considering that evil creatures will be far more common than one type of creature (barring specific campaigns) and that the paladin's ability deals twice as much damage, yes.
lastknightleft wrote:
And what if they don't have DR but a high fast healing. Suddenly that paladin smite is only good for keeping the healing down and he's pretty much doing weapon damage.If a creature's fast healing is able to negate the additional damage easily, then I'd rethink the encounter altogether. If an 11th level creature has the capcity to heal the a paladins smite damage per round (which, in the case of two weapon paladins will be 60 damage before criticals) then somthing just ain't right.
lastknightleft wrote:
Looking at a 20th level paladin is rediculous for comparing the classes. The fact is that this ability isn't that overwhelmingly powerful until the levels of the game where even with them he'll be looking at the wizard and cleric wondering why he ever bothered learning to use the sword.Sorry, but "Another class is overpowering" is a really, really poor excuse.
At 1st level I can make Pun-Pun, does that instantly mean that at any game, ever, that people playing with me are jsutified in making overpowering characters simply because a broken one is possible?
Try comparing the paladin to other martial classes if you consider spellcasters to be overpowering.
A rogues sneak attack also aplies when flanking...so unless the rogue just can't flank the target, Sneak attack applies against more than 7 targets a day, for many more attacks usually.
All the classes are pretty nasty at 20, the paladin is no exception.
The paladins ability doeals more damage than a rangers favored enemy per hit used, yes, but the ranger can apply it to far more targets than the paladin (7 a day at 20th, no limit for the ranger)
No, fast healing probably won't negate smiting, but, all in all, the limiting factor is how many creaturs he can use it against.
OK, compare a paladins super killy vs 7 evil cretures per day against a fighters super killiness vs anything. On a daily basis, the fighter puts out far more damage. On top of which, the fighter has access to many more feats to allow him to be even more super killy. Heck, put an evil outsider fighter 20 vs a paladin 20, my money is on the fighter (that is with no extra bonuses from being an evil outsider, just a type change with no added bonuses to any stat).
So really...as I keep saying. I don't see what the complaint is.
Well I think its double damage and bypass Damage reduction which everyone is seeing and not the power as a whole and in comparison with other classes.
He does double his level instead of his level in bonus damage against certain opponents...so what? He bypasses damage reduction...so what, so do alot of other characters with their weapons. Heck, fighters can even do it regardless of what they are smacking (a portion anyway...and that 10 points a 20th level fighter is ignore is what alot of mosnters have anyway)
I think its one ability that yes, is powerful, and against a paladins iconic foes, is devestating. Its also limited in how often it can be used, and against how many foes it can be used against (7 per day maximum). The other classes all have equally powerful, butch abilities as well. I don't see why the outrage against a paladin, who (as it has been stated earlier I beleive) can lose all their abilities, for not using smite if they don't 'see' a need because they want to save it.