|
As for your above example, for one thing a paladin wouldn't lose his/her powers, he/she wasn't knowingly commiting an evil act, they were attacking what they beleived to be an evil wizard clearly intent on putting innocent lives at stake for his own amusment.
If I were the god of a paladin who did not use the Detect Evil power I granted him and simply followed his guts' feeling and smote his enemy without checking, I woul certainly ask him to atone for his lack of faith in the divine wisdom I put at his disposal. If I were a NG god, I might overlook it a little and strip him of his powers after killing the bad guy. If I were a LG god I would probably strip him on the spot. And If I were a LN god, I definitely would.
These powers might look like game mechanics to us players, but to the characters they are the symbol of a god's favor and must be revered as such.
|
If I were the god of a paladin who did not use the Detect Evil power I granted him and simply followed his guts' feeling and smote his enemy without checking, I woul certainly ask him to atone for his lack of faith in the divine wisdom I put at his disposal. If I were a NG god, I might overlook it a little and strip him of his powers after killing the bad guy. If I were a LG god I would probably strip him on the spot. And If I were a LN god, I definitely would.
These powers might look like game mechanics to us players, but to the characters they are the symbol of a god's favor and must be revered as such.
Really? Really really? You'd take away the paladin's powers because an evil wizard tricked him? You'd penalize him for trying to smite the wizard before he got off a spell?
This is a completely separate discussion from this threads, but I feel that smacks of adversarial DMing.
If I were the god of a paladin who did not use the Detect Evil power I granted him and simply followed his guts' feeling and smote his enemy without checking, I woul certainly ask him to atone for his lack of faith in the divine wisdom I put at his disposal.
Not that I'm trying to derail the topic, but killing a non-evil creature isn't an evil act, otherwise anyone who eats meat in a D'n'D setting would be evil since neutral creatures would have been killed for it.
Secondly, if the paladin already beleives the wizard to be evil (say by scanning him earlier) why would he feel the need to check again?
If I were a NG god, I might overlook it a little and strip him of his powers after killing the bad guy.
So a neutral good god wouldn't mind using the paladin despite not agreeing with his actions?
These powers might look like game mechanics to us players, but to the characters they are the symbol of a god's favor and must be revered as such.
Imposing role-playing drawbacks to a primarlity mechanical benifit doesn't make the benfit more balanced. How many players have you ever seen RP the barbarian's rage as "getting angry", yet still seem to get away with using it in just about any comabt situation, regardless of how mundane and unemotional it may be.
I can agree with stripping the powers of a paladin not trying to uphold hhonour and glory and all that jazz, but stripping his powers for attacking what he beleives to be an evil wizard and failing simply because the wizard is using magic to trick him? Come on, that isn't even a stretch.
What's next? A paladin acidently steps on a good-aligned beatle and loses his powers? As silly as that might sound, by your logic he should lose his powers if he does, such despite being unknowing and doing so unintentionally, he just harmed someone innocent.
I can agree with stripping the powers of a paladin not trying to uphold honour and glory and all that jazz, but stripping his powers for attacking what he beleives to be an evil wizard and failing simply because the wizard is using magic to trick him? Come on, that isn't even a stretch.
What's next? A paladin acidently steps on a good-aligned beatle and loses his powers? As silly as that might sound, by your logic he should lose his powers if he does, such despite being unknowing and doing so unintentionally, he just harmed someone innocent.
I guess it would depend of the God more than the Paladin ;-) "Good" is not always defined as "good intention" - that's in fact a very modern way to understand morality, developped around the 17th-18th centuries, mostly by german philosophers and was not exactly the case in the middle ages - and is not event taken into account in one of the most contemporary theory (utilitarianism).
But, basically, it was only a joke.
As for the dragon, my point stands - yes, there is not one perfect strategy that would overcome another - and we can still escalate : This power will kill you! - no, this power is better! - no this power counter your power! - Nah, my pokemon is better than yours!
But in the end, a lone paladin, even with smite evil, is no match for a dragon. You need a sorcerer friend, at the very least. And I would say probably more than that - a well prepared party.
So my point always was that smite evil may seems powerfull, but that power alone - not supported by other party members - will never be able to take out a clever foe.
Now you get something to contribute to the goup (and that is fun) but you'll never be unbalanced if unbalanced means, as someone stated earlier, that you can take out a wyrm by yourself as the rest of the party is taking another one down.
I was reacting to that statement - please take my previous comments in the proper context.
But then again, if your GM will let your Paladin shine and kill a dragon by himself... go for it! As long as you have fun - this is a game after all, play it like you want!
Just don't ask me to agree that the rules make your way of playing "better" or "correct"...
|
|
Really? Really really? You'd take away the paladin's powers because an evil wizard tricked him? You'd penalize him for trying to smite the wizard before he got off a spell?
This is a completely separate discussion from this threads, but I feel that smacks of adversarial DMing.
No, I would penalize him for having the divine means to avoid killing an innocent (ie Detect Evil) and not using them. If paladins have such great powers, they have to deserve them, at least in my opinion.
|
|
If I were a NG god, I might overlook it a little and strip him of his powers after killing the bad guy.So a neutral good god wouldn't mind using the paladin despite not agreeing with his actions?
Yes. Because the way I see it, stripping him on the spot would be putting the Law (do not misuse the powers I give you) above the Good (get rid of the evil guy).
Yes a Paladin needs to be supported by all the other party members, but with all this combat power that is given to the Paladin, the Paladin is ALWAYS the main focus of EVERY combat encounter. No one can ever outshine the Paladin in that regard. And a DM that runs a game where one character is ALWAYS the main focus point, the other players begin to feel like they are just playing NPC hirelings.
For that to happens, the DM would have to put the party only against evil ousiders / dragons... What about this loyal-neutral cleric tyrant using undead to rule his kingdom, or this dominated high level warrior, or this gargatuan fire elemental, or this chaotic-neutral psychotic mage, or this chaotic-good outlaw kidnapping the chancelor you have to deal with?
Again, bad GMing, not a rule issue.
|
|
No, I would penalize him for having the divine means to avoid killing an innocent (ie Detect Evil) and not using them. If paladins have such great powers, they have to deserve them, at least in my opinion.
I understand the point of paladins falling if they smite evil on every tavern brawler or random brigand they come across. But that still doesn't answer why he would fall because he failed to waste initiative detecting on a wizard we presume he knows is evil.
Yeah, I guess you are right, why would anyone aside from the paladin want to be able to fight against an evil opponent. :pBut this has nothing to do with bad DMing. When you have to start writing out iconic BBEGs out of your modules because one character is ALWAYS going to be the focal point against them, something is wrong. With the other classes you can do something to the BBEG to nerf someone a little out of touch without hurting the rest of the party (spell resistance, uncanny dodge, etc), but unless the BBEG has a immunity from smite spell...
Everybody can fight evil - it's just the Paladin is better at it. The Ranger will shine against it's favored ennemy, the wizard against another wizard, the fighter against non-evil warmonger.
Let them all shine, give something to everyone. Sure, if you have a game where every ennemy is the ranger favored ennemy, he will tend to shine more than his fellow party members. This is not a problem perticular to the Paladin as it can be a problem with every class.
Seems it's a problem only for monty-hauls campaigns. If you like to play that and feel in that perticular gaming situation the paladin is too strong, house-rule, but don't ask it to be an official rule, cause in most games he just gets his proper share of the shining...
Yes. Because the way I see it, stripping him on the spot would be putting the Law (do not misuse the powers I give you) above the Good (get rid of the evil guy).
Sorry, but that seems like a poor excuse. A paladin shouldn't be screwed-over simply because he doesn't scan every man and his dog, especially when he already has a good reason to beleive someone is evil, namly by kidnapping innocents and using them as pawns.
Should other paladins fall if they also fall for illusions? Should a paladin put into negative hit points also fall since he's no longer able to stop an evil creature from killing the innocent he was guarding?Sorry, but quite frankly if my paladin barged into an evil wizard's lair, fought his way through all the tricks and traps, and then charged the wizard to find it was really a innocent person with an illusion spell, my first instinct is "The DM is trying to screw me".
And personally, I think it's poor examples like this that cause the whole "paladins are anal" mentality, they would have to be to survive in your campaigns.
For that to happens, the DM would have to put the party only against evil ousiders / dragons... What about this loyal-neutral cleric tyrant using undead to rule his kingdom, or this dominated high level warrior, or this gargatuan fire elemental, or this chaotic-neutral psychotic mage, or this chaotic-good outlaw kidnapping the chancelor you have to deal with?
Well for one thing, the cleric would be evil. Tyranny is evil, in fact, the lawful evil paladin variation in UA is called "Paladin of Tyranny".
Secondly, why screw over three whole racial types unnessicerly (one of which, I might add, is commonly argued as being a weaker racial type). There was no need. A paladin's smite works just as well on a level one evil commoner as it does on a 20th level character with blackgaurd levels, so why does a shift in racial type provoke more power?If I want to use a dragon in my campaigns, I should be able to do so without fear that the party paladin is going to wipe the floor with him, making the dragon worthless as a threat. Unless of course, I play the dragon to full strength and making preperations for the PC's, but then again, with the powre a dragon has, if it knows your comming, you're screwed anyway. So it becomes a "what's the point" scenario. An unprepered evil dragon/outsider/undead will barely act as a speed bump (while prepered ones will still be as tough to fight as always).
So why? Why is it needed? It doesn't make the game better! Smite worked fine without the added boost to undead/outsiders/evil dragons, so why the need to put it in and why the desperate need to argue in it's defense.
And just a few minor things for the record.
Yes - I know a paladin can't take a dragon solo. But then again, even if overpowering taking something like that shouldn't always be easy. Have you ever read the "Logic Ninja's Guide to Batman"? Essentially it's a guide on how to power build wizard's like crazy, typically by doing things like taking spells which target every saving throw, taking spells with blanket immunites, spells which automatically overcome spell resistance etc. Do you know what the first thing this power build guide has in it? A description of best how to use party members. An overpowering character and a character able to take party equivilent monsters are two different things, you can still be overpowering and still require a party.
Secondly - Just an FYI to those aruging against me, while the X2 thing is partly why I think smite is overpowering, it's not my only reason for thinking so. The smite lasting the entire encounter is a big contributing factor as well. Even with the X2 damage, I still think it'd be overpowering, but no where near as much so.
OK...heres a question for all of you saying the paladin outshines the fighter in your games.
Are you actually following the restrictions of smite evil?
I checked in my book (print and updated PDF), and there are restrictions besides just being limited to evil.
The paladin choses a target. A target...one, uno, ett, single target. His smite bonuses only apply versus THAT one target. Not against all evil targets he fights until that one target is dead...that ONE target.
There is a limited number of uses per day. While this one is a no brainer, take it into consideration as much as you would take a spellcasters amount of available spells per day, or any other limited daily use resource.
And while this one is a bit of a no brainer...it only effects evil. When the party gets into combat, does the paladin stand there and detect evil to find the biggest evil target? If so, he's sitting a few rounds (if he's lucky...the detect evil paladin ability only effects a single target at a time.) Or does he make a judgement call on who the biggest threat is, and hope that a) they are evil and b) they really are the biggest threat?
And on the topic of double damage...its against three classes of monsters. All three of whom tend to have large HP pools (especially when you max them out.) All three of which tend to be resistant to many, many forms of damage. All three of whome are powerhouses of evil...they may not be the worst evil (I'd say some intelligent abberations garner that one), or the most common (how many goblinoid races are a plague?), but they are the iconic representation of evil. The exact same foes a paladin is designed to kill. Yes, his signiture abilities should lay a serious smackdown on them, mainly because they can lay a serious smackdown on him as well, and when you need the gates of Hell broken open, or the undead tyrant taking over the surface world, or the psychotic flight of red wyrms taken down...you do call in a paladin (of more if you can...I hear the gods are on the side of the army with the biggest battalions). Its kinda what they do...much like clerics call in divine favors, wizards master arcane mysteries, rogues get where others can't easier, and so on. Why shouldn't they shine in their area of expertise?
Smite evil is good. No arguement. It is one of the most powerful class ability revisions Paizo did. But they didn't overpower the one ability. Poor DMing can make it overpowered, if the party runs into less encounters between resting, or takes breaks frequently (stay at home adventuring my group calls it), or has encounters comprising one enemy at a time, then yes, its quite likely the paladin could seem over the top. If the tone of the game is pure black and white in terms of good and evil, then yes, the DM is probably making the paladins job easier, but if theres shades of gray (like...oh, say a nice shiny spitpolished dictator tyrant using the life force of his subjects to power a spell, and his opponent who want peace and justice are a ragtag motley crew that looks like a bunch of cutthroats and ruffians), he can't just willy nilly pop a smite...he'll probably try and make sure before blowing his attempt.
Anyway...the point is...any ability can seem overpowered or broken if its built in limitations aren't followed. Even if they are, it can seem broken if the DM doesn't actually build the adventure around the party. Even the adventure paths have room for tweaking and modification to be more suitable for a DMs group. Its part of the game (and what makes being a DM fun, for me anyway...I get to play with all the toys in the toybox, and have some fun with my friends...and give them a good challenge.)
And if it still really bothers you...house rule it to something different. That whole golden rule thing.
|
Everybody can fight evil - it's just the Paladin is better at it. The Ranger will shine against it's favored ennemy, the wizard against another wizard, the fighter against non-evil warmonger.
except that now what happens if the ranger takes favored enemy demon or favored enemy undead and you have a paladin in the party?
Are you actually following the restrictions of smite evil?I checked in my book (print and updated PDF), and there are restrictions besides just being limited to evil.
Well considering every example we use revolves around dragons, undead and evil outsiders, I think everyone is aware.
The paladin choses a target. A target...one, uno, ett, single target. His smite bonuses only apply versus THAT one target. Not against all evil targets he fights until that one target is dead...that ONE target.
I've never seen anyone throw multiple high-powered dragons at a party, just one is usally enough to make an encounter on it's own (I say "usally" since with the new paladin that won't always be the case).
There is a limited number of uses per day. While this one is a no brainer, take it into consideration as much as you would take a spellcasters amount of available spells per day, or any other limited daily use resource.
*Sighes* Once again "Something else is overpowering" isn't justification, it's just a poor excuse.
And while this one is a bit of a no brainer...it only effects evil. When the party gets into combat, does the paladin stand there and detect evil to find the biggest evil target? If so, he's sitting a few rounds
Yeah um...except that the creatures most vulnurble to it are always evil. Besides, if a group of monsters just jump out an attack you, assuming they're evil is a fairly safe bet.
And on the topic of double damage...its against three classes of monsters. All three of whom tend to have large HP pools (especially when you max them out.) All three of which tend to be resistant to many, many forms of damage.
Well firstly, the paladin automatically overcomes some of those defenses (ignores Damage Reduction) and the 3 catagories mentioned just happen to include the largest and most varied collection of monsters in dungeons and dragons (barring maybe elves if you include every subrace).
All three of whome are powerhouses of evil...they may not be the worst evil (I'd say some intelligent abberations garner that one), or the most common (how many goblinoid races are a plague?), but they are the iconic representation of evil. The exact same foes a paladin is designed to kill.
A paladin is designed to fight evil as a whole. A ranger focusing entirely on fighting a single racial type isn't as effective. I think you seem to be missing the "Evil creatures are common enemies" argument. Actually look at any monster manual/adventure path. 3 out of 4 of the monsters will be evil.
Are you actually following the restrictions of smite evil?I checked in my book (print and updated PDF), and there are restrictions besides just being limited to evil.
Well considering every example we use revolves around dragons, undead and evil outsiders, I think everyone is aware.
The paladin choses a target. A target...one, uno, ett, single target. His smite bonuses only apply versus THAT one target. Not against all evil targets he fights until that one target is dead...that ONE target.I've never seen anyone throw multiple high-powered dragons at a party, just one is usally enough to make an encounter on it's own (I say "usally" since with the new paladin that won't always be the case).
There is a limited number of uses per day. While this one is a no brainer, take it into consideration as much as you would take a spellcasters amount of available spells per day, or any other limited daily use resource.*Sighes* Once again "Something else is overpowering" isn't justification, it's just a poor excuse.
While I don't mind debates, this starts to get old, since it seems like your deliberatly ignoring the intent of what I say to nitpick on the inconsequential stuff.
No, most DM's aren't going to use multiple evil dragons. Then again, I suppose the dragon can't have minions (charmed, dominated or even paid or conned into it), and is going to be all alone, waiting patiently for the paladin to come kill him, letting the paladin and his friends to stroll into his lair unchallenged. Cause he got so old being so dumb...
I wasn't saying something else is overpowering (or do you consider spellcasters overpowering...if so...why do play this type of game...) what I said is that Smite Evil is a limited resource in terms of how many times per day, and many beings per day it can effect.
While I don't mind debates, this starts to get old, since it seems like your deliberatly ignoring the intent of what I say to nitpick on the inconsequential stuff.
Sorry if you feel that way, but I'm not. In fact, I feel like you're ignoring alot of mine.
No, most DM's aren't going to use multiple evil dragons. Then again, I suppose the dragon can't have minions (charmed, dominated or even paid or conned into it), and is going to be all alone, waiting patiently for the paladin to come kill him, letting the paladin and his friends to stroll into his lair unchallenged. Cause he got so old being so dumb...
I wasn't saying something else is overpowering (or do you consider spellcasters overpowering...
Erm..you were. You were saying that a handful of times a day isn't much compared to the number of spells spellcasters gain. The only justification that really gives for the paladin begin absurdly powerful is that spells are the same, thats the only justification anyone can really take from such an argument.
if so...why do play this type of game...) what I said is that Smite Evil is a limited resource in terms of how many times per day, and many beings per day it can effect.
Considering the rules are designed under the assumption of 4 encounters per day, the uses of smtie are more than plenty. And as said plenty of times, evil creatures aren't exactly rare in typical D'n'D games either. While the term "circumstancial" is true, it also grossly exagerrates just how easily a paladin can get a smite off and how often
While I don't mind debates, this starts to get old, since it seems like your deliberatly ignoring the intent of what I say to nitpick on the inconsequential stuff.Sorry if you feel that way, but I'm not. In fact, I feel like you're ignoring alot of mine.
No, most DM's aren't going to use multiple evil dragons. Then again, I suppose the dragon can't have minions (charmed, dominated or even paid or conned into it), and is going to be all alone, waiting patiently for the paladin to come kill him, letting the paladin and his friends to stroll into his lair unchallenged. Cause he got so old being so dumb...I wasn't saying something else is overpowering (or do you consider spellcasters overpowering...Erm..you were. You were saying that a handful of times a day isn't much compared to the number of spells spellcasters gain. The only justification that really gives for the paladin begin absurdly powerful is that spells are the same, thats the only justification anyone can really take from such an argument.
if so...why do play this type of game...) what I said is that Smite Evil is a limited resource in terms of how many times per day, and many beings per day it can effect.Considering the rules are designed under the assumption of 4 encounters per day, the uses of smtie are more than plenty. And as said plenty of times, evil creatures aren't exactly rare in typical D'n'D games either. While the term "circumstancial" is true, it also grossly exagerrates just how easily a paladin can get a smite off and how often
I'm not ignoring what you say. I do have to admit, I'm a bit foggy on how you are reaching your conclusion, since you logic seems to boil down to "Paladins can smite any evil target, and can smite an unlimted amount of targets in an encounter." Which, by RAW, is flat wrong. So I'm giving you some credit, and assuming that your problem is with the paladins potential damage output to a limited number of targets (1 per day at 1st level, 7 per day max at 20th), and even moreso, the potential damage output vs an even more limited number of targets(outsiders, undead, and dragons).
And no, I wasn't comparing apples to oranges with the spellcasters. I was saying that a DM takes into consideration the resources available to a party. Part of those resources are abilities that once expended, can't be gotten back again until the next day, like a paladins smite, a monks ki pool, a spell casters spells, a barbarians rage, and so on. Those are all resources, who's amount of use is limited, I did not say they were equal in power or scope.
Yes, 4 encounters a day is the assumption. How many opponents is that, exactly? Someone (maybe you, not real sure who said it exactly) the paladin, even in their low level game, was outshining the fighter. I'll assume they were talking about combat (comparing a fighters healing potential to a paladins would be pointless). Considering that at those levels, a paladin can smite one target...one whole opponent per day...I'd say either a) the fighter just sucked b) the paladin and the fighter had grossly different stat totals (rolled stats vs point buy or array) in favor of the paladin or c) the paladin and the GM were mis-using smite.
So I'm giving you some credit, and assuming that your problem is with the paladins potential damage output to a limited number of targets (1 per day at 1st level, 7 per day max at 20th), and even moreso, the potential damage output vs an even more limited number of targets(outsiders, undead, and dragons).
Yeah pretty much. In my experience, very low level games aren't as comabt orientated (mostly since it's easier to kill PC's at low levels, and only a handful of combats are needed at low-levels to level up). So generally, the paladin can be smiting for quite a large portion of the time.
It's also the fact that once a paladin begins smiting a target, you may as well remove them, since the paladin is going to have the obscene bonuses round after round after round, and it only gets worse is, using Aura of Justice, the paladin bestows the effect to their allies. My annoyance comes from the fact that against certain encounters, they're going to be far too overpowering, even, as said before, comapred to heavily focused rangers. The ranger is the most circumstancial class out there, only gaining his/her main class feature against a select group of foes, yet even if focused entirely, the paladin will still outweight his/her abilities heavily if it just happens to be within those 3 racial catagories. It also acts as an annoyance that if a paladin is in the party, I can't really use such monsters and consider them viable threats, unless they're really prepered for the paladin, but in such a case the rest of the party will likely be useless or worse, it might result in TPK if the paladin gets unlucky.
No, I hate monty-hauls campaigns (isn't it a bit early to start throwing out insults). The PF paladin seems fine for people who want to ROLL play instead of Role Play, but if that is your kind of gaming you do, that is fine, house-rule the paladin into a GURPS character, but don't ask that it to be an official rule so all the other characters can be his/her hirelings.I look forward to when my character meets his personal nemesis that evil dragon, so I can watch the party's paly carve it a new one. I know that my party's fighter is looking forward to finally meeting his nemesis, that evil lich so he an watch the party's paly carve it a new one.
Sorry if you felt insulted... it really never was my intention - Maunty-hauls is not an insult to me, it's a style. Some people have fun playing that style, and some prefer roll-play too, not me, but hey, as I said, it's a game! There is nothing wrong with having fun in this way, really.
Ok - The Paladin is in your group, and as the fighter, you are meeting, at last, that evil lich who killed your father, Mr. Greenhilt.
Will the paladin (un)kill it and steal the show? No - because he is supposed to respect the fact it is your honnor at stake and step aside - just tell him it's important for you. If he does not step aside, that's pride and selfishness - automatic loss of powers in front of the lich - bye bye paladin.
I agree with you 2/3 of the alignment is a lot - but only outsiders dragons and undeads are a problem because they get the crazy x2 damage multiplier. You won't meet those 2/3 of the time in most games - not more than the ranger favored ennemies.
And, Rangers abilities may seem weak in comparison to paladin's - but they do get skill points, you know...
By the way, I'm not a paladin's fan, I never played one, and probably never will. But as a GM and a player, I would have no problem having one in the group.
Where are the developers? Can ANYONE tell me why they decided that the paladin NEEDED this much stuff? Every other class is fairly balanced, bard prob on the low scale, Monk at the high end, but with in reason....except for the paladin which is just awful.
I'll provide a 1-word answer: full casters. The paladin is viable at higher levels now alongside the wizard and cleric, as a valued member of his team, rather than as a lackey. The fighter, monk, ranger, and rogue still lack that distinction.
I'll provide a 1-word answer: full casters. The paladin is viable at higher levels now alongside the wizard and cleric, as a valued member of his team, rather than as a lackey. The fighter, monk, ranger, and rogue still lack that distinction.
*sighes* Once again, how does granting a huge boost to melee damage make a character more powerful against a full caster? Every argument I have ever seen revolving around caster's being overpowering relies on save or suck/death effects, targeting weak saving throws and blanket immunites.
Direct Damage is considered the weakest form of spell casting when pure power is discussed. So explain to me exactly how a huge boost to direct damage makes the paladin able to dish out these save or suck/death abilities, target weak saves or provide him with blanket immunites?
So I'm giving you some credit, and assuming that your problem is with the paladins potential damage output to a limited number of targets (1 per day at 1st level, 7 per day max at 20th), and even moreso, the potential damage output vs an even more limited number of targets(outsiders, undead, and dragons).Yeah pretty much. In my experience, very low level games aren't as comabt orientated (mostly since it's easier to kill PC's at low levels, and only a handful of combats are needed at low-levels to level up). So generally, the paladin can be smiting for quite a large portion of the time.
It's also the fact that once a paladin begins smiting a target, you may as well remove them, since the paladin is going to have the obscene bonuses round after round after round, and it only gets worse is, using Aura of Justice, the paladin bestows the effect to their allies. My annoyance comes from the fact that against certain encounters, they're going to be far too overpowering, even, as said before, comapred to heavily focused rangers. The ranger is the most circumstancial class out there, only gaining his/her main class feature against a select group of foes, yet even if focused entirely, the paladin will still outweight his/her abilities heavily if it just happens to be within those 3 racial catagories. It also acts as an annoyance that if a paladin is in the party, I can't really use such monsters and consider them viable threats, unless they're really prepered for the paladin, but in such a case the rest of the party will likely be useless or worse, it might result in TPK if the paladin gets unlucky.
Ah, ok, now I have a better idea of where you are coming from.
As a DM, I don't use single opponent encounters very often, especially at high levels. Dragons are a notable exception, after the part has chewed thru its minions, but then, dragons in my games are a little tougher than printed (I like dragons, what can I say). So the limitations on Smite Evil will keep it within reason in games I run. BBEG's don't face the party mano a party...they have their bodyguards, and maybe an advisor or two on hand as well.
Certain encounters have always been rendered trivial by certain things, which is ok with me. As a DM, it challenges me, and encourages me, to try new things and think creatively...after 15 years of DMing, its nice to not be able to do the same old thing.
Rangers have, in my opinion at least, not been a frontline combat class since 2nd edition. I'd like to see them get a boost up. Fighetrs finally got the boost they needed. True, while in certain encounters, he might not hit quite as hard as the paladin, he makes up for that in versatility, which is a quality of its own. Yes, the paladin has versatility, but in terms of raw fighting potential, across the board, the fighter is king.
And I'm not so sure the monsters will be so vulnerable to the smite mechanic. As things stand right now, we are having to base that off of 3.0 and 3.5 versions of the monsters. We haven't seen the bestiary yet, and who knows what the new undead/outsiders/dragons will be like. They boosted the classes, why not the monsters? Or in other words...lets not jump the gun saying monsters we don't have PF stats for are going to be underpowered.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'll just throw in that, to me, the biggest balancing feature of Smite is the single-target bit, which is relevant in two main ways:
1. If you are fighting multiple opponents.
The way most written adventures seem to play out, #1 will occur more often at lower levels, as high-level adventures often fall into the trap of a SINGLE super-mega-uber bad guy. Paradoxically, this is the worst possible design move, because the economy of actions at higher levels only slants more and more in the party's direction at higher levels (quickened spells and other free/swift/immediate actions).
If most of your combats are gang-ups on single big-power enemies, then yes, Smite Evil becomes overpowered because everything you fight is right in your wheelhouse. This is the same "problem" with so many of the "save or suck" spells people railed against during the playtest. Finger of Death or Flesh to Stone or Maximized Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement are hardcore... as long as you only have to fight one thing at a time.
If that's the way your campaigns typically run, then you should probably tone down smite.
2. If your character can't get to the target they want to smite.
For the most part, evil enemies aren't completely dumb, and paladins tend to kind of stick out. I exaggerate the point here, because you could just as easily have a paladin that dressed like Westley from the Princess Bride as one that looked like Sir Lancelot from Excalibur, but grant for the moment the notion the idea that a reasonably bright BBEG knows a paladin when they see one, especially once they start invoking smite evil.
For all of that juice to be worth anything, the paladin has to get there first. Smite doesn't help them carve through minions, bypass barriers, see through illusions or invisibility, reach flying creatures, chase teleporters, or any of the rest. Also, that slower foot speed becomes more of an issue when the bad guy decides not to stick around to let the pally carve him a new one, and instead to use their superior maneuverability and reach to target the OTHER party members, whittling them off until only the paladin is left.
Smite lets the paladin lay the hurt on big time... but they have to catch the bad guy first. Otherwise, it's a lot of light and noise.
So, again, if most of your BBEGs are content to melee with the paladin and/or lack the means to divert the paladin's attacks, outmaneuver the paladin, or direct their attacks at the paladin's allies instead (and I'd venture to suggest that NONE of these are true for most evil undead, outsiders, and dragons, who aside from the weakest varieties are well able to do all of these things), then you might want to tone down smite.
Or get some smarter monsters.
I was very much in the camp that said Smite Evil needed to be improved and I think it was improved very well. I think the single-target smite is a very effective limitation all by itself, especially given the accompanying paucity of skill points and feats that the pally gets compared to the other martial classes. I wouldn't actually mind it if they had given smite evil a duration of use like they did with bardic music and rage; if the power irks you that much, just model the power on that one and you'll be home free.
Anyway, back to work!
Once again, how does granting a huge boost to melee damage make a character more powerful against a full caster?
It doesn't. Granting the ability to remove conditions, and to render entire parties immune to a number of conditions in the first place, are a lot better. The paladin doesn't dish out conditions; he protects himself and all his friends from them, so that his friends can concentrate on dishing them out. Any damage bonuses on top of that are only icing on the cake -- to my mind the auras and mercies are way better than the smiting.
The weakness to Smite Evil is hordes of monsters. Defending the wall against an army of hobgoblins as a example. A paladin's smite evil is not as valuable as an ranger's favorite enemy in this situation. There are several places in Golarion where facing hordes would not be unexpected; Mendev (demons) and Last Wall (orcs). I can think of a couple of places where hordes of undead would be reasonable. The paladin while greatly enhanced is not going to eclipse all of the other warrior classes.
Or get some smarter monsters.
Yes! The boost to smite-evil will maybe, I hope, have the effect to force Gms to take into account those high Int scores of powerfull evil outsiders, dragons, and intelligent undeads...
If not, well, house-rule and have fun!
Or get some smarter monsters.Yes! The boost to smite-evil will maybe, I hope, have the effect to force Gms to take into account those high Int scores of powerfull evil outsiders, dragons, and intelligent undeads...
If not, well, house-rule and have fun!
So for those of us that already did that it...forces us to play them even smarter? I thought I was supposed to give my players a chance...
except that now what happens if the ranger takes favored enemy demon or favored enemy undead and you have a paladin in the party?
Everybody can fight evil - it's just the Paladin is better at it. The Ranger will shine against it's favored ennemy, the wizard against another wizard, the fighter against non-evil warmonger.
Then that demon, undead or undead demon is really, really screwed
So for those of us that already did that it...forces us to play them even smarter? I thought I was supposed to give my players a chance...Or get some smarter monsters.Yes! The boost to smite-evil will maybe, I hope, have the effect to force Gms to take into account those high Int scores of powerfull evil outsiders, dragons, and intelligent undeads...
If not, well, house-rule and have fun!
You gave them a chance - the paladin can smite evil! ;-)
Like I said want to fix the paladin problem, just remove the double damage vs. certain types.
You know you could just make the paladin pick which of the three he gets the double damage against. Let's paladins be a little different from each other, Dragonsalyer, Demonslayer, UndeadSlayer....limiting things but allowing them to truly shine against one of the three.
|
I've been reading this thread without posting for a while, but I do have to say... I would suggest playing the class first before saying that something is broken or not. It may sound broken on paper, but mean something completely different in gameplay. There are many times that a paladin, even at 20th level, can run out of smites per day and not get to use it on the BBEG. If you still think so, then I suggest playing the paladin first for a couple sessions then coming back here.
I posted the link to the Rebalanced Paladin earlier in the thread. This rework of the paladin took the idea that she needed more smites per day and did a flat conversion of smites per day to smites per encounter. This meant that a paladin would get 4 smites per day (on average) at level 1... upwards of 28 smites at top level. I played this character from level ~16 to 20. While I was a powerful character I wasn't outshining anyone. For a few rounds I would be better, then the cleric or Rogue would be outdamaging me by a significant amount. Now the paladin has other advantages than smite he isn't as hard to kill by magic, although he is slightly weaker to physical than a fighter. He also has some spells and can act as a healer (Albeit not as good as a cleric can, please see above thread with discussion about buffed lay on hands versus cleric healing, and the Lay on Hands for the rebalanced version was much more incredibly powerful than lay on hands + mercies in PRPG).
Finally, on your "darn can only move 20" comment, it isn't just only moving 20. It's moving 20 and having melee as your only option. A fighter is pretty much by default going to be much better at ranged than you are. In fact he may even have point blank shot and precise shot. Past that he's going to have higher dex than the paladin. If you have a flying creature, or any level 3 class and above with a few tanglefoot bags, the paladin is almost rendered useless. Throw a tanglefoot bag and watch the spellcasters/Ranged characters kill the paladin. Trust me, there are definite disadvantages to being a paladin.
I have been DMing a game with the new rules and we had 3 sessions with PF-converted paladins. I must say they are great now, but in my experience they do not dominate the game in any way. Their lack of mobility hinders their ability to do full attacks easily.*sighes* As said before I've actually played a PC able to add twice his level to damage IG (using the old power attack rules). He was effective, too effective for my groups liking. He had a holy weapon which affected every foe we fought after gaining it (this was using a paizo written module) and he never, and I mean never had to add twice his level more than 2 or 3 times per day.
You can throw all the hypotetical crap around all you want, I've actually play-tested somthing like this. Practise what you preach, actually allow such a paladin in your games and see if he starts owning those evil encoutners.
what level are you DMing?
The domination over other combat classes would likely not occur until about 7th+ level IMO.
I have been DMing a game with the new rules and we had 3 sessions with PF-converted paladins. I must say they are great now, but in my experience they do not dominate the game in any way. Their lack of mobility hinders their ability to do full attacks easily.*sighes* As said before I've actually played a PC able to add twice his level to damage IG (using the old power attack rules). He was effective, too effective for my groups liking. He had a holy weapon which affected every foe we fought after gaining it (this was using a paizo written module) and he never, and I mean never had to add twice his level more than 2 or 3 times per day.
You can throw all the hypotetical crap around all you want, I've actually play-tested somthing like this. Practise what you preach, actually allow such a paladin in your games and see if he starts owning those evil encoutners.
what level are you DMing?
The domination over other combat classes would likely not occur until about 7th+ level IMO.
What assumtions/standards are you basing that opinion off of Werecorpse? More specifically, how many encounters per day, and how many monsters per encounter, are there equal stats between all characters(point buy/array or rolled stats)?
|
|
Sorry, but quite frankly if my paladin barged into an evil wizard's lair, fought his way through all the tricks and traps, and then charged the wizard to find it was really a innocent person with an illusion spell, my first instinct is "The DM is trying to screw me".
I guess that's the difference between you and me. I would think : "Damn, the DM is playing the bad guy as smart and devious."
Which, in my opinion, is EXACTLY as it should be.
|
|
Looking at the way this thread is going, I realize that the sense of the paladin being unbalanced or not seems to come from whether we see the LG and paladin's code constraints as restrictive or not.
It seems to me that the posters who see these constraints as rather light are the same ones who feel that the paladin comes out of PFRPG far better than the other fighting classes.
While those, like me, who think that it is very restrictive to follow the alignment and code constraints are often the same ones who feel the paladin is pretty balanced with other fighting classes now.
Thus, there is no need to keep on arguing, as our differing opinions are based on rather irreconciliable takes on how restrictive the constraints are and not on how efficient the paladin is (we basically all agree that he is efficient and powerful indeed).
Go in peace. All is well.
|
|
I guess that's the difference between you and me. I would think : "Damn, the DM is playing the bad guy as smart and devious."
Which, in my opinion, is EXACTLY as it should be.
I agree totally with you. But I do NOT agree that a LG god of justice would be so intolerant of a mistake as to take away his servants powers.
Now if the illusion were of the wizard mocking the paladin and daring him to attack, showing no sign of preparing to attack, and the paladin failed to consider the possibility of a trap, THAT would be closer to 'not relying on the divine gifts he was given'.
So if a Paladin is overzealous and "forgets" to detect evil, but a "enemy" is showing evil behaviour than it`s a shame, but nothing that will take away his powers,
If the evildoer is going around setting churches on fire and lopping the heads off innocent people, then I agree.
On the other hand, if he's standing there taunting the Paladin and daring him to attack, then the Paladin does deserve to lose his powers if he throws reason out the window and tries to smite without considering the consequences.
|
|
I don`t think a god is watching over every little servant all the time.
Well, I do.
Then you don`t have to forget about the wisdom of the god.
He will be more patient than the average human-dungeonmaster.
The god is inhumanly wiser, that's for sure. But at the same time, the human DM is far more adaptable as he is not so completely bound to the precepts of his alignment (as I feel the god is).
I am really sure that a paladin isn`t that kind of chained to a absolute perfect attitude.
I do not see it as absolutely perfect, which cannot be expected from a mortal, but akin to the jedi way : serenity in all things. Not acting out of fear or anger or impulse or bloodlust, but out of faith and harmony.
Sure he don`t has to KNOWINGLY commit evil acts.
And if something turns out to be a evil act afterwards he can do penance.
In other words, he atones for it. And guess what, there is a spell for it and it is even called Atonement. And indeed once the paladin gets this spell cast on himself, he recovers his abilities.
To me, it all nicely fits together.
I see Atonement as regretting your wayward act, even an unwilling one, and sincerely and solemnly renewing your commitment to the aligment and the code.
IMO, it is not just a reset button to be used whenever the player felt like having his paladin stray from the code.
There is a spell named "Atonement".
If the DM has any chops, however, it's not going to be as simple as casting the spell and you're done. Casting Atonement just gives you the chance to request forgiveness - you're likely going to need to do something else in order to actually receive it.
An atonement quest is quite likely to be a whole adventure in and of itself.
|
|
There is a spell named "Atonement".
If the DM has any chops, however, it's not going to be as simple as casting the spell and you're done. Casting Atonement just gives you the chance to request forgiveness - you're likely going to need to do something else in order to actually receive it.
An atonement quest is quite likely to be a whole adventure in and of itself.
Depends on exactly how serious the offence was. In Black Raven's example, I'd be unlikely to make them fall, but if I did the attonement quest would be something non-violent. For the Paladin that lashes out at the innocent without trickery because he's pissed, it's going to be a lot tougher to get back into the deity/power's good graces.
Also, while the Paladin may feel the need for repentence and atonment for an act committed unwillingly, such as the aforementioned trickery, that doesn't automatically mean he loses his powers. Atonement as role-playing is a big thing for paladins.
Also the god's ability to sense evil isn't that great. It's blocked by one second level spell (Undetectable Alignment) and confused by another (Misdirection). In fact, if that wizard's got any kind of trickery gene, he'd cast Misdirection on the innocent and target an evil thing, so the Paladin would justly believe he was smiting true evil. Would he still fall? He still struck down the innocent, after all.