I'm sorry Nero24200, but I think you are wasting your time. It's plain and simple, most people like things like this (And I will not say broken) especially if rules encourage it.
I can believe some of you said (don't know how to quote correctly, not important anyway) the solution was to keep monsters and NPC's away from the paladin's reach (I won't consider smitting at range, but that's just me. What you can certainly NOT allow is TWFing Paladins, that'd be just silly, no Monster would be capable of standing more than a sec, not even a full HD Tarrasque. And Epic fights like can't be short. So know Paladins or the PCs in general are supossed to take over the world that easily, hehe look at that. I Didn't know.
The alignment restriction and the code of conduct are not balancing features whatsoever. It might avoid minor incoherencies, yet those are things that will never come to pass if the player's desire is to play the role of a Paladin in first place.
In current campaign, the paladin (as well as other charaters which are also good), dealt non-lethal damage to a group of bandits that tried to rob them. The paladin said he also was not using any Power Attack, because he considered (as well as me) that Power Attack should be used against those you really want to harm, not just some people, no matter whether they are evil or not. They are just humans, they should be locked up, at most. He prefers to keep, and I'm thankfull for that, Smite Evil and that sort of things for more cinematical combats with sworn enemies.
That's ONE of the possible roles for a Paladin to play. And it's just because he wanted to play a Paladin, not a Fighter who happens to have Smite Evil and Cha to his saves.
What I'm trying to say is, rules should make them capable of great deeds, BUT story is what makes them Heroes and the very same thing is what makes them Epic, right in the end of the adventure or campaign, probably.
If I wanted to play a computer game to deal hundreds of Hps I would, but I'd like make this game experience as close to literature and movies as possible. With these sort of rules, I just can't. I can only play numbers, unless I house rule them all, that's not "Great". (For those who said Smite Evil was).
Tejón's house rule isn't bad though. :)
Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, not my intention, I assure you.
If you want to see the house rules for my campaign there you have. Some are from known books of course.
http://roleband.mforos.com/1733600/8264197-house-rules-and-variants-y-opini ones/
The Barbarian loves the house ruled Rage. We never liked how it always worked. Although some powers are going to be more powerful than Pathfinder's, you'll see why. I think only Rules are in English, everything else is in Spanish.
What you can certainly NOT allow is TWFing Paladins, that'd be just silly, no Monster would be capable of standing more than a sec, not even a full HD Tarrasque.Wanna bet that a full HD 3.5 tarrasque with no alterations will make mince meat of a TWF paladin, I'll put money on it
Seconded, Tarrasques are after all Neutral ;-)
Besides, if some of you want to make it like movies, one hit should cut it, that happened even with Arthur and Mordred, go figure eh?
Someone said something about killing a Pit Fiend at level 20 alone. That's what the paladin is supposed to do anyway. Specialy at that level.
Pit Fiends and Balor's are REALLY scary, but they are the paladin's natural enemy, they are supposed to use everything they got, and I gotta say, that I doubt a paladin would down ANY of them if they had the old smite, even if the DM plays badly.
Lets be realistic: anyone who cannot see that Smite Evil is now overpowered is at least slightly crazy :P just like people who prefer 4e instead of Pathfinder :P.
Insulting people is not the way to go. As I said before I pimp slapped the paladin. The correct phrase is that it is overpowered for your game
What level was the paladin that beat the pit fiend and how did the fight go? This remind of threads where people claim they were 12th level and defeated a dragon in 2 rounds, but when the details come up it was due to some nonsense.
|
At the end of the day, theres nothing to stop a particularly devout fighter from also having such a code of conduct, yet the fighter won't lose class features or gain benifits by having such a code. If it's really such a mechanical drawback, then I want every LG character to gain perks via being lawful...
That's because those other classes aren't expected to act in such a way. I also notice you purposefully didn't quote my "lay a paper trail" tactic. If the Paladin is supposed to be lawful good, then put him in situations where he has to choose to follow his code, and make notes when its apparent he is not. Maybe call out strikes when the paladin does something blatantly not lawful good. These are the sorts of things that tell the players "Hey, you're a paladin, you get nifty abilities, however you are also expected to act in a certain way, and if you don't you WILL be punished."
|
Not all opponents are evil, and not all opponents are demons or undead. That sounds like a pretty bland way to play.
The new smite evil is great, it gives paladins a truly awesome ability that can ONLY BE USED versus certain creatures. Making them worse than a fighter at ALL other times(especially with the new no movement penalty on heavy armor YIKES that's nuts, and the fact that in point buy at least they must blow tons of points on cha), and better at dealing massive damage to their sworn enemies.
Sounds like a perfect world to me, they're the best at smiting evil, literally, and worse than other core classes at other times. As levels go up, these gaps both increase. Paladins lag behind further and further in feats and mobility and raw damage, and the Smite Evil gets better and better.
If there is an issue, the REAL solution is not to nerf smite evil or other classes, but to MAKE MONSTERS HARDER and fight more intelligently. If smite evil is too good, then the monsters of PFRPG shouldn't be the wimpy pos giants and ogres from 3.5. They should also be upgraded as well. Same goes for other classes, give rogues and rangers some great abilities too rather than saying this one is too good.
It doesn't make sense if you're going to upgrade all the core classes, and then make sure we're fighting the same caliber of monsters that were supposed to be a challenge for 3.5 based classes. It's completely different, the power levels have increased, drastically, so should the opponents. I didn't think the point of Pathfinder RPG was to re-name 3.5 and balance it to tedium like 4.0, but to improve and innovate, on all aspects of the game.
What you can certainly NOT allow is TWFing Paladins, that'd be just silly, no Monster would be capable of standing more than a sec, not even a full HD Tarrasque. And Epic fights like can't be short.
As pointed out, the Tarrasque is Neutral and thus not subject to Smite Evil. Which points out one of the problems with the "Smite is overpowered!!11eleven!" crowd: they seem to be of the opinion that Smite works on every single creature and is usable infinite times per day. I don't know about the rest of you, but while evil foes are common in my game, they aren't the only alignment. I suggest stretching your DM wings a little if your games are otherwise.
And as far as this complaint:
can believe some of you said (don't know how to quote correctly, not important anyway) the solution was to keep monsters and NPC's away from the paladin's reac
So having the enemies be actually intelligent is bad ... how? Devils, dragons, and powerful undead (such as the paladin would actually be using his Smite on) are all extremely intelligent and generally quite wise as well. If the paladin is wielding a greatsword and focusing on them, they're going to move out of the paladin's reach. Very, very few "endgame" monsters prefer to stand toe-to-toe with an enemy they can easily negate by simply not being in range of.
So, in conclusion, complaints of DMs that refuse to use non-evil NPCs and refuse to play NPCs intelligently don't carry a lot of weight with me in a discussion about balance.
What you can certainly NOT allow is TWFing Paladins, that'd be just silly, no Monster would be capable of standing more than a sec, not even a full HD Tarrasque. And Epic fights like can't be short.As pointed out, the Tarrasque is Neutral and thus not subject to Smite Evil. Which points out one of the problems with the "Smite is overpowered!!11eleven!" crowd: they seem to be of the opinion that Smite works on every single creature and is usable infinite times per day. I don't know about the rest of you, but while evil foes are common in my game, they aren't the only alignment. I suggest stretching your DM wings a little if your games are otherwise.
And as far as this complaint:
can believe some of you said (don't know how to quote correctly, not important anyway) the solution was to keep monsters and NPC's away from the paladin's reacSo having the enemies be actually intelligent is bad ... how? Devils, dragons, and powerful undead (such as the paladin would actually be using his Smite on) are all extremely intelligent and generally quite wise as well. If the paladin is wielding a greatsword and focusing on them, they're going to move out of the paladin's reach. Very, very few "endgame" monsters prefer to stand toe-to-toe with an enemy they can easily negate by simply not being in range of.
So, in conclusion, complaints of DMs that refuse to use non-evil NPCs and refuse to play NPCs intelligently don't carry a lot of weight with me in a discussion about balance.
Thank You!
|
I actually find it all hilarious that people get behind me thinking that when I say that smite shouldn't do double damage against certain creature types I say it cause I think it's overpowered. Smite evil is not overpowered, it's powerful, but it only affects one target per use (that includes the AC boost, it only works against the creature being smited), you only ever have 7 uses a day, and it is limited to evil creature (granted that's probably 80-90% of what you fight). I think smite evil is actually just right as is, then when the double damage vs. certain types is dropped, then it's a perfect ability.
Oh and by the way, comparing it to 9th level spells is a valid comparison if you aren't of the school that 9th level spells are broken or poorly designed. If you think that 9th level spells are of bad design and you think smite is overpowered that's fine, but don't say don't make the comparison because it's comparing a broken mechanic to another broken mechanic, because 9th level spells aren't a broken mechanic to a lot of players.
That's because those other classes aren't expected to act in such a way.
Actually, some are. That's why druids have a code of conduct. Besides, it's also poor reasoning. If playing a lawful good and hourble character bestows a mechanical drawback, it should also provide a bonus, but last I checked there was no "Flaw" entilted "Code of Conduct".
Pushing such things onto a paladin needlessly as a form of mechanical balance rather than for RP purposes is just simply a gamist view. If anyone is going to have codes of conducts in my game, it'll be because they should have them, rather than simply some silly idea of balance.
The paladin's still had this code in 3.5, yet the designers didn't feel any need to overpower the class to compensate then now did they? So why should a game that's supposed to incorporate a similer feel and be backwards compatable provide an overpowreing ability with such justification? It's unimgainative, and pushes IC compulsions OOC, somthing I'm not too fond off, especially since the class functions mechanically without the code.
Maybe call out strikes when the paladin does something blatantly not lawful good. These are the sorts of things that tell the players "Hey, you're a paladin, you get nifty abilities, however you are also expected to act in a certain way, and if you don't you WILL be punished."
Other classes gain more powerful abilities. Despite taking an armour hit, clerics can still be arguble one of the most powerful classes in the game. If the code is really such a balancing factor, then why doesn't the cleric have one slapped on? Hell, by RAW, you could play a cleric who worships a god of free will and spontainality, and you suddenly have free-reign to act how you like, since any action could could then be justified.
Or what about the "apparent" large list of overpowering non-core classes? Last I checked, not alot of non-core classes had codes of conducts, at least not the ones that are actually more powerful than some core classes. So why is the paladin the only one saddled with a code for mechanical purposes?
At the end of the day, you can say "X feature is balanced due to being limited in behaviour" all you want, it doesn't make anything more balanced by doing so. In fact, it makes the class more unbalanced if that's how it should be, since it also means that the paladin will either own everything in sight, or do nothing due to restrictions.
Think of it this way. Lets say we use the code as a balancing factor. You'll have one of two situations
No1: The Code isn't broken: All well and good, but it doesn't change that the class will still own a large portion of monsters and outshine others easily. So the overpowering aspects of the class are maintained. Therfore, it's not balanced.
No2: The Code is broken: The character becomes a fighter without bonus feats. How is having no class features a form of balance?
RP is the name of the game, and roleplaying restrictions should be played as what they are, Restrictions.
You surelly can make a Fighter that has a code of conduct, but if something happens along the lines that he loses his alignment or breaks his code there is not drawback matematically, there is in RP terms however depending on the DM and on the group, and yes, that is huge in some games, but in no way it hinders him unnefective.
Now, if u take the paladin and some other classes like the Druid they have class restrictions that should be taken into acount, cause they were when the Game was being designed.
If a DM is not using this restrictions in his game, he might as well only throw Neutral monsters in the paladin's way and that would not be strange at all.
Lets be realistic: anyone who cannot see that Smite Evil is now overpowered is at least slightly crazy :P just like people who prefer 4e instead of Pathfinder :P.
Insulting people is not the way to go. As I said before I pimp slapped the paladin. The correct phrase is that it is overpowered for your game
What level was the paladin that beat the pit fiend and how did the fight go? This remind of threads where people claim they were 12th level and defeated a dragon in 2 rounds, but when the details come up it was due to some nonsense.
What I said, he was teleported into melee range by the party wizard. Than did his full attack and hit three times doing around 280 damage. The Paladin was level 20. And no character is supposed to defeat a Pit Fiend in one round, something is broken if that happens.
If he would have two weapon fighting I'm sure he would have done at least 400 damage. Now I think of it, two-weapon fighting should be banned for Palladins with Smite Evil. Very brutal!
A Pit Fiend or Balor, should be downed in one round by a character that is mean for that, and of the same Level for that matter. That's the 20th level paladin.
And I might add, that the group was extremely lucky anyway, cause they won initiative +12 for the Pit Fiend, he was not invisible, as it is usual for him, he was not flying, he probably didn't use meteor swarm or power word stun on the spell caster, and many, many other options.
So, they pretty much jumped the Pit Fiend. It's unusual, but it happens. If this had not happened no way the Paladin would have a chance to do a full attack that easy.
Needless to say, I am using as example the CORE 3.5 Pit Fiend, not even gave him those 3 feats he deserved... and still, I find what they did pretty hard.
Ah, another thing, gladly the Pally had a silver weapon, or the Pit Fiend would regenerate.
Lets be realistic: anyone who cannot see that Smite Evil is now overpowered is at least slightly crazy :P just like people who prefer 4e instead of Pathfinder :P.
Insulting people is not the way to go. As I said before I pimp slapped the paladin. The correct phrase is that it is overpowered for your game
What level was the paladin that beat the pit fiend and how did the fight go? This remind of threads where people claim they were 12th level and defeated a dragon in 2 rounds, but when the details come up it was due to some nonsense.
What I said, he was teleported into melee range by the party wizard. Than did his full attack and hit three times doing around 280 damage. The Paladin was level 20. And no character is supposed to defeat a Pit Fiend in one round, something is broken if that happens.
If he would have two weapon fighting I'm sure he would have done at least 400 damage. Now I think of it, two-weapon fighting should be banned for Palladins with Smite Evil. Very brutal!
A 20th level character (at full capacity) should be able to kill a CR 20 monster. Especially if your using a PF character class vs a 3.5 monster, since the monsters are due for a boost (look at the bestiary preview/bonus bestiary, they are getting a boost to). And I'm going to guess that the Pit Fiend was just kinda chilling, and didn't really have much in the way of defensive abilities up, or even have been fighting from what it would have considered a tactically sound position (like, say, inside a globe of darkness in a cavern, while invisible and flying around?)
All these threads about Smite Evil being overpowered, and we haven't even seen the whole monster book yet. For all we know, Undead/Dragons/Outsiders could have gotten the same boost PC classes did, and all of a sudden, the Pit Fiend looks at 280 points of damage and sneers at the paladin before laying the unholy smackdown on him.
Lets be realistic: anyone who cannot see that Smite Evil is now overpowered is at least slightly crazy :P just like people who prefer 4e instead of Pathfinder :P.
Insulting people is not the way to go. As I said before I pimp slapped the paladin. The correct phrase is that it is overpowered for your game
What level was the paladin that beat the pit fiend and how did the fight go? This remind of threads where people claim they were 12th level and defeated a dragon in 2 rounds, but when the details come up it was due to some nonsense.
What I said, he was teleported into melee range by the party wizard. Than did his full attack and hit three times doing around 280 damage. The Paladin was level 20. And no character is supposed to defeat a Pit Fiend in one round, something is broken if that happens.
If he would have two weapon fighting I'm sure he would have done at least 400 damage. Now I think of it, two-weapon fighting should be banned for Palladins with Smite Evil. Very brutal!
You and I are of the mindset that the Pit fiend is a boss level character and this is normally true, but against a 20th level party it is only a standard encounter. It is only a boss against a 15 or 16 level party. Laying the smack down on something that has a CR equal to your level does you make it broken.
The Pit Fiend and Balor are not the be all, end all of monsters. You can't expect them to always be challenging. If you wanted a tough fight you should have advanced his HD, and tried to let him get a surprise round in. Let him have two weapon fighting, that just takes away from his defense.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't notice at the entrance the sign that reads "Word Carefully". Please!, it was just an example, instead of a tarrasque I could have named any monster with an absurd amount of Hps, twas not the point. I cant believe you wrote that much on that.
Also, if you look at the Bestiary Preview, Monsters' Hps do not seem to have increased much... I'd say there has been no boost whatsoever. I know, it's only a preview... who knows...
And yes, a 20th level character should be able to slay a CR20 Monster, but it should also be a though fight, at least a bit challenging. Here, even if you gave the Balor 100 extra Hps or even 200, The Paladin would obliterate him within a few secs, without necessarily being a 20th level character. And TWF?? He would kill 2 balors maybe. I won't do the math, I just don't care anymore.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't notice at the entrance the sign that reads "Word Carefully". Please!, it was just an example, instead of a tarrasque I could have named any monster with an absurd amount of Hps, twas not the point. I cant believe you wrote that much on that.
Also, if you look at the Bestiary Preview, Monsters' Hps do not seem to have increased much... I'd say there has been no boost whatsoever. I know, it's only a preview... who knows...
And yes, a 20th level character should be able to slay a CR20 Monster, but it should also be a though fight, at least a bit challenging. Here, even if you gave the Balor 100 extra Hps or even 200, The Paladin would obliterate him within a few secs, without necessarily being a 20th level character. And TWF?? He would kill 2 balors maybe. I won't do the math, I just don't care anymore.
If you are going to name a specific monster people are going to call you on it, just like I am on the pit fiend balor issue, and earlier I brought up the dragon example I ran over the weekend.
As far as the Pit Fiend they also beat its initiative. At higher levels if you don't go first you often don't get to go unless the DM is being nice to you. As intelligent as a Pit Fiend is I don't even see how he got jumped. The wizard probably could have taken the monster out itself, but felt like it was more efficient to just teleport the paladin over there and let him do it. How is a paladin going to TWF anything without a full attack action? The monster should be flying around, and I know the paladin can find a way to fly at those levels, but the Pit Fiend should be fast enough to move away and still harass the party with spell like abilities.
The people who are talking about smite being overpowered make it seem like the paladin can just walk up to the Pit Fiend/other monster of choice, and get full attacks at will. Any monster that just allows you to full attack it while knowing you are threat,is not being ran properly. Why should a CR 20 monster be tough for an equal level party? It is no different than a CR 5 monster versus a level 5 party. Most of the time the fight is a cakewalk. A standard fight is not supposed to be hard, iconic monster or not. If the paladin did not have the wizard's help he would not have won so easily. He might have actually lost.
Reading it again well-rested and not drunk, I still like my idea on the last page. But it seems nobody else noticed it, because flamewars are more fun. :P
Reading it again well-rested and not drunk, I still like my idea on the last page. But it seems nobody else noticed it, because flamewars are more fun. :P
If this was a thread on how to balance the ability it might have been noticed, but the current debate is whether or not the ability is overpowered. It's not a bad idea for those that dont like the new smite, but for those that like it we really have no reason to comment on it.
|
|
Reading it again well-rested and not drunk, I still like my idea on the last page. But it seems nobody else noticed it, because flamewars are more fun. :P
no buddy I noticed it, and I didn't really care much for it honestly, not that it was a bad idea, it just didn't strike me as something I would really get behind, I like resource management, and honestly I like the new smite (other than the double damage vs. creature types just to keep beating that dead horse) so I'm not really big on "fixes" for the ability yet, especially when the final monster book hasn't come out to let us know if fixes are necessary.
|
|
That's because those other classes aren't expected to act in such a way.Actually, some are. That's why druids have a code of conduct. Besides, it's also poor reasoning. If playing a lawful good and hourble character bestows a mechanical drawback, it should also provide a bonus, but last I checked there was no "Flaw" entilted "Code of Conduct".
Pushing such things onto a paladin needlessly as a form of mechanical balance rather than for RP purposes is just simply a gamist view. If anyone is going to have codes of conducts in my game, it'll be because they should have them, rather than simply some silly idea of balance.
The paladin's still had this code in 3.5, yet the designers didn't feel any need to overpower the class to compensate then now did they? So why should a game that's supposed to incorporate a similer feel and be backwards compatable provide an overpowreing ability with such justification? It's unimgainative, and pushes IC compulsions OOC, somthing I'm not too fond off, especially since the class functions mechanically without the code.
Hold on there bucko. Have you SEEN 3.5 Smite? There is a reason Paladin was a 4 level dip at MOST. Don't even begin to argue that line, unless for some god forsaken reason, you think the paladin was balanced earlier.
Other classes gain more powerful abilities. Despite taking an armour hit, clerics can still be arguble one of the most powerful classes in the game. If the code is really such a balancing factor, then why doesn't the cleric have one slapped on? Hell, by RAW, you could play a cleric who worships a god of free will and spontainality, and you suddenly have free-reign to act how you like, since any action could could then be justified.
Maybe call out strikes when the paladin does something blatantly not lawful good. These are the sorts of things that tell the players "Hey, you're a paladin, you get nifty abilities, however you are also expected to act in a certain way, and if you don't you WILL be punished."
And hey guess what, clerics DO have a code of ethics too. Most people forget clerics can lose their powers if they work against their gods wishes. And even gods of "free will and spontaneity" will require their clerics to go out and preach the word, and encourage such acts.
Cayden Cailean, a god of freedom, justice, and beer says that you should fight slavers at every chance, because they are restricting the freedom of others.
If you just walk by them, I think your god is going to have issues with you.
And like I said, cleric do have a code of conduct, you just didn't read the part about ex-clerics.
Or what about the "apparent" large list of overpowering non-core classes? Last I checked, not alot of non-core classes had codes of conducts, at least not the ones that are actually more powerful than some core classes. So why is the paladin the only one saddled with a code for mechanical purposes?
Whoa whoa whoa, you're saying the Kensai who basically enchants his weapon for a greatly reduced price, and the Knight who is by far more of a battlefield controller than the fighter and paladin can ASPIRE to are dreadfully weaker than core classes?
Am I hearing your argument right?
At the end of the day, you can say "X feature is balanced due to being limited in behaviour" all you want, it doesn't make anything more balanced by doing so. In fact, it makes the class more unbalanced if that's how it should be, since it also means that the paladin will either own everything in sight, or do nothing due to restrictions.
At the end of the day I'm reminding you of a GM's job when handling paladins. You are to remind the player they took up a moral code, and you are to enforce it. Now you don't have to go overboard, but if something happens, and you knwo for a fact the Paladin should do some (like a mugging in the street) and he keeps going without even stopping to help the poor victim get back on his feet, then that Paladin isn't lawful Good.
But god forbid I impinge on a characters freedom by forcing them to roleplay their CLASS. Especially when there are mechanical repercussions for NOT DOING SO.
Think of it this way. Lets say we use the code as a balancing factor. You'll have one of two situations
No1: The Code isn't broken: All well and good, but it doesn't change that the class will still own a large portion of monsters and outshine others easily. So the overpowering aspects of the class are maintained. Therfore, it's not balanced.
No2: The Code is broken: The character becomes a fighter without bonus feats. How is having no class features a form of balance?
If by large portions of monsters you mean, Undead, Dragons, and Evil Outsiders, then I guess that's all you roleplay with. Me? I roleplay with Goblins and ogres and trolls and aberrations and dire animals and the rest of the book.Encounter design gets boring when all your opponents are the Chaotic or Lawful Evil variety. At least the Lawful Evil variety can tie up a paladin with the morality of the situation. Technically the villain has done nothing wrong, but ethics dictate otherwise. That's when you start the whole Exalted vs. Heroic debate, and really that brings in things I just would rather let rest in the old 3.5 splat books.
Really this argument has gone on long enough. You're someone who doesn't like telling his players what to do, and you're looking for a fight because you saw double your level damage and forgot the part that says single target, and further the part that says the target must be evil.
I can see a Chaotic Neutral Sorceror creating a riot so he can steal from a bank. Yeah, its an evil act, but its an evil act enabled by his ability to do so. He's in it for the cash, and while he might feel a little bad about it, and be considered evil by those people, he's written off that guilt. The paladin that declares smite on him, is going to find that he's just selfish, not horribly evil.
And to answer your "code is broken", its a punishment for the player breaking the trust of his god. He should be lucky the god didn't strike him dead. Go read Order of the Stick, it has a very good way of showing how the paladin's code is brought in line with the reality of the situation.
It's silly I still have to explain this to seasoned warriors. Nevertheless, I will try to do it again.
It was a suprise encounter for the party and the Pit Fiend, yes they won initiatief and killed the beast. The point is that the Palladin spoils the fight for the rest of the party by being so incredibly important during all encounters with evil outsiders or undead. Once he is gone, the same monster can kill the party, while the Pally kills the little creature in just 1 or 2 rounds.
What I want to add is that I like the Palladin being powerfull now, but I think they have overdone it slightly, there is no shame in that. And people who really want to defend Paizo, I'm not attacking them, I love Pathfinder but everyone makes mistakes and no-one is perfect. Now we need to solve the issue of the Palladin being overpowered.
And please, invisbility, flying, code of conduct, running away, gender: are all no compensations for the Palladins brute power. His damage output is simply too high against evil undead, outsiders and dragons - it is simple math and it spoils the game.
|
It's silly I still have to explain this to seasoned warriors. Nevertheless, I will try to do it again.
It was a suprise encounter for the party and the Pit Fiend, yes they won initiatief and killed the beast. The point is that the Palladin spoils the fight for the rest of the party by being so incredibly important during all encounters with evil outsiders or undead. Once he is gone, the same monster can kill the party, while the Pally kills the little creature in just 1 or 2 rounds.
What I want to add is that I like the Palladin being powerfull now, but I think they have overdone it slightly, there is no shame in that. And people who really want to defend Paizo, I'm not attacking them, I love Pathfinder but everyone makes mistakes and no-one is perfect. Now we need to solve the issue of the Palladin being overpowered.
And please, invisbility, flying, code of conduct, running away, gender: are all no compensations for the Palladins brute power. His damage output is simply too high against evil undead, outsiders and dragons - it is simple math and it spoils the game.
Try that encounter again without the Wizard (so no teleport) and come back to us. Paaldin's can't teleport and so the Pit Fiend is easily able to avoid him. Paladin's are clearly too weak without a Wizard backing him up.
Try that encounter again without the Wizard (so no teleport) and come back to us. Paaldin's can't teleport and so the Pit Fiend is easily able to avoid him. Paladin's are clearly too weak without a Wizard backing him up.
You completly miss the point, no matter if the entire party cooperates or if the Palladin has wings or if the wizard can teleport him. He could buy a pair of boots of teleportation as well. Thats exactly not the point. A DM can always put the party in a unfortunate situation where no one can get into reach with the monster. In such cases niether the ranger nor the rogue, nor the palladin nor the fighter really matter. But realisticly there are always encounters where the party can go into melee and the point is:
The point is that in such cases the Palladin DOES TOO MUCH DAMAGE against Evil outsiders/undead/dragons and not only at level 20 but also at level 10 and level 6.
|
|
The point is that in such cases the Palladin DOES TOO MUCH DAMAGE against Evil outsiders/undead/dragons and not only at level 20 but also at level 10 and level 6.
at level 6 the paladin has two, so he wastes two monsters a day, and the rest of the time is looking jealously at the fighter and the only thing he can do is touch himself (lay on hands :D) at level ten he has 3 uses per day. He isn't even wasting a monster in each encounter in a standard adventuring day yet, and that's assuming each fight is against 1 monster each. Ive seen a fighter wade into battles at that level and not take a single hit while still killing off 5-7 guys, while the paladin, also hard to hit, had killed about 2-3 even if his smite had lasted against the guys that wouldn't have significantly increased his kill count. if not for LoH the paladin would have died, because he wasn't gonna smite the mooks surrounding him when he could see the BBEG on the field, but he couldn't kill off the mooks before they were surrounding and flanking. I've seen mages take out groups of enemies with one standard action and fighters kill of guys left and right. The paladin can make mince meat of the guy he smites, and the rest of the time is a weaker fighter with some nice healing abilities. At no point does the paladin get so powerful that he can function without a party, nor does he get to a point that he can do something another party member couldn't (a fighter at 20th level would only need a mithral magic weapon but if teleported in the same way should be doing similar albeit slightly weaker damage, and his attack bonus just based off of feats and stats alone should be about the same as the paladins when smiting.) and an arcane caster could get off a baleful polymorph or similar save or suck. The only time the paladin is any real threat is when he gets his smite on, even at 20th thats 7 guys a day, throw 10 at the paladin and his features don't look so overpowered, make 5 of those nuetral creatures and the paladin has even less power, make 5 of them not of a type the paladin gets bonuses against and suddenly he's not overpowered either.
Look houserule out the double damage and the paladin ability is tolerable even to those screaming "overpowered". But you aren't convincing us that the paladin has become some ubermench.
You completly miss the point, no matter if the entire party cooperates or if the Palladin has wings or if the wizard can teleport him. He could buy a pair of boots of teleportation as well
what you're missing is no matter what, without another party member moving him the paladin wouldn't have gotten off a full attack. Any of those methods you're talking about either take move actions of standard actions to close the gap unless I'm missing something and one of those things the paladin could have had activate on a swift action. In this case it was the wizard who made the difference, or in other words teamwork. Because otherwise the Pit fiend moves each round and regenerates a portion of the damage your pally is doing, while responding to the paladins single attack with some nasty spell like abilities.
Hold on there bucko. Have you SEEN 3.5 Smite? There is a reason Paladin was a 4 level dip at MOST. Don't even begin to argue that line, unless for some god forsaken reason, you think the paladin was balanced earlier.
I think it was far more balanced than this version. Balance doesn't mean more powerful, it means just that, balanced, as in not too powerful or too weak. Flipping the class from one end of the spectrum to the other does nothing to enchance balance.
And hey guess what, clerics DO have a code of ethics too. Most people forget clerics can lose their powers if they work against their gods wishes. And even gods of "free will and spontaneity" will require their clerics to go out and preach the word, and encourage such acts.
Unless the cleric just happens to follow gods with very specific ideals, they are never going to be stuck with a code as restrictive as the paladins. So by your logic, paladins should be the strongest class in the game, and classes like clerics are weaker.
And clearly your've never heard of a "Cleric of a Cause".
And like I said, cleric do have a code of conduct, you just didn't read the part about ex-clerics.
I did, I just reckon it's somthing I'm rarely ever going to see being an issue. Theres a reason why the paladin's code is a hotly debated subject, and the cleric following a god isn't.
Whoa whoa whoa, you're saying the Kensai who basically enchants his weapon for a greatly reduced price, and the Knight who is by far more of a battlefield controller than the fighter and paladin can ASPIRE to are dreadfully weaker than core classes?
Enchanting weapons for a greatly redcued price? You mean that handy thing paladins can now do? And if you consider the knight overpowering, I think you're having problems reading the class. They are anything but overpowering, yet they have a code as well, is that also a balancing factor?
What about classes from TOB? These classes are widely regarded here as being overpowering, none have a code of conduct.
At the end of the day I'm reminding you of a GM's job when handling paladins. You are to remind the player they took up a moral code, and you are to enforce it. Now you don't have to go overboard, but if something happens, and you knwo for a fact the Paladin should do some (like a mugging in the street) and he keeps going without even stopping to help the poor victim get back on his feet, then that Paladin isn't lawful Good.
But god forbid I impinge on a characters freedom by forcing them to roleplay their CLASS. Especially when there are mechanical repercussions for NOT DOING SO.
Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying? I have no problems stripping a paladin of their powers if they deserve it. I'm just syaing it shouldn't be used as some sort of balancing factor and justification for overpowering abilities. A code should be a code, not a gamist means of stopping a class from being too powerful.
You're someone who doesn't like telling his players what to do, and you're looking for a fight because you saw double your level damage and forgot the part that says single target, and further the part that says the target must be evil.
No, heaven forefend I actually think the ability is poorly designed. Contrary to what you may think, Paizo aren't infallible, is is actually a possibility for them to *gasp* make a mistake! You think evil creatures are uncommon? Try playing a paizo adventure path. Or better yet, try playing with a group other than your own, evil creatures are common encoutners because, quite simply, it's alot easier to justify evil creatures randomly attacking the aprty than non-evil.
And for the record, I'm already aware of only affecting a single target, and the double damage to only certain creatures. Maybe, just maybe, the reason I think it's overpowering is because just getting one big foe is enough, or that paladins can still smite, then smite another, or the fact that they can grant the ability to their allies as well.
I think you're not actually reading any of the concearns here, if you did, you'd know that I'm already aware of all this, and the problem isn't solely the double damage. It also stems from the smite lasting the entire fight and bestowing it to allies for the majority of fights as well (come on, 1 minute? How many high level fights do you see lasting more than 1 minute?). Remove double damage, make it last a single round (like in the beta) and alter the ability granting it to allies (like say..only granting it for one round and the bonus damage for a single attack) and I'll considier it more balanced. In fact, do that and I'd be fine with the class as a whole.
|
|
bestowing it to allies for the majority of fights as well (come on, 1 minute? How many high level fights do you see lasting more than 1 minute?). Remove double damage, make it last a single round (like in the beta) and alter the ability granting it to allies (like say..only granting it for one round and the bonus damage for a single attack) and I'll considier it more balanced. In fact, do that and I'd be fine with the class as a whole
Okay so let me get this straight your problem isn't smite evil, it's smite evil AND aura of justice. You do understand that aura of justice isn't smite evil right? so your on a thread about smite evil complaining about two abilities not just one.
And honestly I don't like aura of justice, I don't make the mistake of considering it a part of smite evil. My fix for aura of justice, if one winds up being necessary (still gonna wait till I get the Bestiary) is to make it cost two uses per person you are granting it to, want to give it to another party member, pay two uses, want to grant it to the rest of the party, pay 6 uses. and they still have to be within 10ft.
I like resource management
Just to counter: are there insufficient resources for the paladin to manage? Lay hands, channel energy, spells...
Anyway, the two side effects of the new smite rules that I really don't like are the push toward two-weapon fighting, and the "save it for the zombie" effect. You like removing the double-damage component to fix the latter, and while it does reduce the sheer stupid damage output against certain foes, it doesn't remove the TWF incentive... to me that's a bigger beef than losing one resource management component. Honestly I think that's probably the only place we differ on the subject, because yours is my second-favorite solution. :)
Smite Evil seems slightly OP, especially since it is working on all damage rolls and is now a DEBUFF and not a BUFF.
Unless I am mistaken, once the paladin has debuffed an undead with SE, any Channel Energy from the paladin vs that undead should deal normal damage + SE damage bonus.
Now let's say a Paladin of Nethys takes a level of sor/wiz. He can freely use arcane wands. Said paladin (8 pal/1 sor) has a 7th lvl magic missile wand, using it he should be able to release 5 missiles worth each 1d4 + 9 and "slightly" more vs his nemesis.
Some will say won't work on such spells or only on 1 missile... Well what about touch and ranged touch spells: 7th scorching ray wand, same paladin would deal (very likely considering his bab and ranged touch) 4d6 + 8 on each ray. That's 8d6 + 32 vs Mr evil outsider.
Guess I don't need to give examples with a paladin taking a cleric level and be able to use clerics wand, nor sorting out magic items dealing damage.
Domain/School/Bloodline powers : pretty nice damage boost for those damaging ablilities.
There's also the oriented UMD paladin.
All right most of this implies spending some cash.
And of course, when meleing well smite evil is handy as discussed throughout this thread.
Nero... your solution is making them as awful as they were before, is that it?
|
|
I like resource managementJust to counter: are there insufficient resources for the paladin to manage? Lay hands, channel energy, spells...
Anyway, the two side effects of the new smite rules that I really don't like are the push toward two-weapon fighting, and the "save it for the zombie" effect. You like removing the double-damage component to fix the latter, and while it does reduce the sheer stupid damage output against certain foes, it doesn't remove the TWF incentive... to me that's a bigger beef than losing one resource management component. Honestly I think that's probably the only place we differ on the subject, because yours is my second-favorite solution. :)
Ahh see I just don't have a problem with TWF paladins, the fact that a TWF goes lower armor and the cha bonus to hit is partially negated by the TWF penalties is enough for me.
|
|
I love this kind of debate so pardon my pontificating
For years I played paladins in basic, AD&D,2nd AD&D,3.0,3,5.Pathfinder Beta, All those years I sucked and I sucked hard. I rigoursly played a code that many times made things incredibly dificult. I remember being in a bar and an open follwer of Vecna came in. I left only because I couldn't lawfully harras him but I didn't tolerate evil. I left only to be taunted by lawful good party members. Finally a paladin has some magic in it and is more than just a really hard class to qualify for. Drop an ooze on a paladin and watch all those powers go for naught. A paladin should have a distinct advantage over evil because they are expected to fight it whenever possible. A fighter regardless of alginment is not required to make that choice. Comparing a paladin's code to being lawful good is certainly not valid. You can have shades of lawful good. Does your paladin have a vow of povery? Is he or she limited in their companions? Do you require honesty that is more than averting eyes to scurrilous actions by other party members? In a characters background should be that code that binds them. My paladins don't even tolerate the use of the intimdation skill. What of virtue? Honesty that doesn't tell the truth is not honesty, mercy that isn't mericful is obviously not mericful, this includes giving foes a chance to surrender. If a paladin doesn't do these things they should not only lose their power but should suffer. The DM should remind the player of what they had and it's loss. Which doesn't happen to any other class. Druids these days have a lot more latitude. Perhaps rangers should be just as good out on the city streets as out in the wild? Part of the fun of having a paladin in a party is putting them in hard moral choices. If PCs aren't making hard moral choices in my opinion, they are playing a lawful good fighter. Depowering the paladin in my mind is like saying I am warrior in the battle against evil but I am no better at it then anybody else. So evil sort of beware. Why be a paladin if you get depowered for being really good at the thing you are supposed to be good at? Would you depower a balor because it has a really distinct advantage over good?
Amen Brother!
And yes, a 20th level character should be able to slay a CR20 Monster, but it should also be a though fight, at least a bit challenging.
Incorrect. A Pit Fiend vs a party of four level 20 characters is an "easy if handled properly" fight (which becomes a "challenging" fight if not handled properly). Handling it properly involves negating its advantages, which include regeneration and very high mobility. By having your Paladin blow 1/7 of his daily smites and your wizard blow one of his higher-level spell slots to teleport at extremely short ranges, you handled the fight properly, making it an easy fight.
An encounter must be higher CR than the average party level to be considered even possibly "tough".
And believe me, if that Pit Fiend was well played he woul take at least one of those 4 guys with him, unless they were REALLY prepared for a fight.
Try that encounter again without the Wizard (so no teleport) and come back to us. Paaldin's can't teleport and so the Pit Fiend is easily able to avoid him. Paladin's are clearly too weak without a Wizard backing him up.You completly miss the point, no matter if the entire party cooperates or if the Palladin has wings or if the wizard can teleport him. He could buy a pair of boots of teleportation as well. Thats exactly not the point. A DM can always put the party in a unfortunate situation where no one can get into reach with the monster. In such cases niether the ranger nor the rogue, nor the palladin nor the fighter really matter. But realisticly there are always encounters where the party can go into melee and the point is:
The point is that in such cases the Palladin DOES TOO MUCH DAMAGE against Evil outsiders/undead/dragons and not only at level 20 but also at level 10 and level 6.
So basically even though a monster can normally avoid a full attack you, want us to use your convenient extraordinary circumstance as a valid point? That makes no sense.
Of course the paladin will eventually enter melee, but that does not equal a full round attack, and where are these boots of teleportation you speak of?
¨Incorrect. A Pit Fiend vs a party of four level 20 characters is an "easy if handled properly.
Read again what I wrote, I´ve said nothing of any ¨party¨, I said ¨a 20th level character¨ (one, only one).
I think, I understood. It´s something someone brought up before, problem is what sort of game experience you´d prefer this game to have as its ¨base¨, without alterations, I personally like mid powered games, so I can later increase or decrease powers or magic or whatever as I see fit, and not to be obliged to deal with high power from the very beginning.
Here in Pathfinder, I was looking for flavour more than anything, such as the changes in the sorcerer, the barbarian (although I still don´t like the Rage ability, but I like the abilities or powers idea). Fighter is great, but too powerful (for my game, maybe, maybe not), same goes for the Paladin, thing is I didn´t like the Smite Evil, not only because I think is too powerful (I mean, Fighter is too), but I preferred the idea of the Powerful attack, a single powerful attack (or more than one if several uses were used during a fullattack), maybe it was not THAT powerful, but in my games, it was ok. (Another thing: save for special occasions, days or even weeks pass between ¨encounters¨ or combat situation in my games, so, uses in my case aren´t a problem, as I said before, I like movies and books, and dungeon crawling, while it might occur, it´s very very rare).
Tejón´s is quite good of a change, I might use it... (I think I said that before)
Read again what I wrote, I´ve said nothing of any ¨party¨, I said ¨a 20th level character¨ (one, only one).
A solo level 20 paladin has zero chance against a pit fiend who isn't totally and completely ambushed (or feebleminded). The pit fiend will almost certainly win initiative (with a +12 vs the paladin's generally very very low initiative), and that means he's going to either A) take flight against a melee paladin, or B) grapple a ranged paladin. The paladin will never get the chance to use smite against a properly played pit fiend if he's alone. Without smite, the paladin is up a creek without a canoe, let alone a paddle.
Read again what I wrote, I´ve said nothing of any ¨party¨, I said ¨a 20th level character¨ (one, only one).A solo level 20 paladin has zero chance against a pit fiend who isn't totally and completely ambushed (or feebleminded). The pit fiend will almost certainly win initiative (with a +12 vs the paladin's generally very very low initiative), and that means he's going to either A) take flight against a melee paladin, or B) grapple a ranged paladin. The paladin will never get the chance to use smite against a properly played pit fiend if he's alone. Without smite, the paladin is up a creek without a canoe, let alone a paddle.
He could also sunder the bow and then take flight, or a number of other things to toy with the paladin before finishing him off.
So far the paladin is still being kicked in the head by dragons, and outsiders with the evil subtype.
The only opponent especially affected by smite are undead
Most higher level undead that are end bosses, since that seems to be what people are worried about, will be vampires or liches.
Vampires will probably win initiative. The vampire is built on class levels and probably is the paladin's best chance of taking the boss out alone.
Liches are casters. The ways in which a caster can take a meleer are more than I care to count.
Well guys, you certainly have de special ability of drawing the least important of someone's "speech".
Since you like playing with odd possiblities, this paladin could be an expert wrestler, or at least have Imp. Un. Strike., enough to divine bond his fist, or/and smite the fiend to the bones, to much damage even with 1d3 damage fists. At that level the paladin is immune to almost every ability the pitfiend (3.5) has to offer.
And the paladin fist damage including smite is by far greater than pitfiend's attacks. And just in case he is in need, which I sincerely doubt, he could heal 60hp with his lay on hands as a swift action.
Two weapon fighter, archer, fist fighter einhander, whatever he may be...
(propably the first would be the most... say... "unbalanced". But really, I don't want to say that word again.
Sorry, but the pitfind would not endure, maybe he gets the chance to run away, always the banishment ability hasn't worked on him.... (If he hasn't used his once per year wish... maybe, he could come up with something, hehe)
Well guys, you certainly have de special ability of drawing the least important of someone's "speech".
Since you like playing with odd possiblities, this paladin could be an expert wrestler, or at least have Imp. Un. Strike., enough to divine bond his fist, or/and smite the fiend to the bones, to much damage even with 1d3 damage fists. At that level the paladin is immune to almost every ability the pitfiend (3.5) has to offer.
And the paladin fist damage including smite is by far greater than pitfiend's attacks. And just in case he is in need, which I sincerely doubt, he could heal 60hp with his lay on hands as a swift action.
Two weapon fighter, archer, fist fighter einhander, whatever he may be...
(propably the first would be the most... say... "unbalanced". But really, I don't want to say that word again.
Sorry, but the pitfind would not endure, maybe he gets the chance to run away, always the banishment ability hasn't worked on him.... (If he hasn't used his once per year wish... maybe, he could come up with something, hehe)
Nobody is playing with your speech. When you are online people most likely will take the words exactly as written since we dont have the option of listening to tone of voice, or other cues to tell what you might actually mean. The only advice I can give you is say what you mean.
You keep assuming the pit fiend will be in melee. I will correct that. You keep assuming he will be withing the paladin's melee range.
You might want to tell us how the paladin is going to get to the pit fiend to do any of this damage, and exactly what you think the paladin is immune to.
Eventually the pally will be subject to power word stun, and at that point its game over.
5.5*20=110
4*20=80
The pally will have about 200 HP. He will have his Hp reduced and when he is bloodied he will stay stunned until his hp is low enough for a meteor swarm. Even if he saves he might not live, and if he does he is still stunned.
Well guys, you certainly have de special ability of drawing the least important of someone's "speech".
Since you like playing with odd possiblities, this paladin could be an expert wrestler, or at least have Imp. Un. Strike., enough to divine bond his fist, or/and smite the fiend to the bones, to much damage even with 1d3 damage fists. At that level the paladin is immune to almost every ability the pitfiend (3.5) has to offer.
I have never seen nor heard of a paladin with improved unarmed strike. Now you're just making shit up. Still, let's roll with it.
A 3.5 pit fiend has 225 hit points and a 40 AC. A pathfinder paladin will have in the range of 150-170 hit points at level 20, and probably around 30-35 base AC. His charisma will probably be in the 20-24 range. We'll call it 24 just to give him the best possible result. His BAB is +20 and his strength is probably in the 24-28 range. Again, we'll go with the highest possible.
So, the pit fiend starts out the fight invisible, flying, unholy aura'd, and magic circled, because all those spells have decently long durations (and it flies naturally) and it can cast them at will, meaning there's no reason for them to ever be down. Even if the paladin can see invisible somehow, the pit fiend will still almost certainly win initiative.
Its first action is to cast a quickened fireball with a DC of 21. Our paladin with a +7 charisma mod probably saves against that, so the pit fiend "only" does 31 damage with its swift action, leaving the paladin with <150 hit points. The pit fiend then casts power word: stun with its standard action, stunning the paladin without a chance to save for 1d4 rounds.
The paladin then drops whatever he's holding and cannot act on at least his next turn. Since it has power word: stun as an at-will spell-like ability, the pit fiend continues to cast them at the paladin mixed in with other abilities until the paladin dies. It can get off three fireballs with swift actions before it runs out of them, dealing around 90 damage to the paladin, dropping him under the 100 hit point threshold for power word: stun, increasing the stun duration to 2d4 rounds and ensuring that the paladin never, ever gets an action. At this point, it can toy with the paladin however it wants to, alternating an attack, taunt, or whatever with a power word: stun every other round. The paladin is permanently stunned and completely unable to do anything at all to the pit fiend.
Note that he's been this way since the pit fiend's very first action.
Flawless victory: pit fiend.
Well guys, you certainly have de special ability of drawing the least important of someone's "speech".
Since you like playing with odd possiblities, this paladin could be an expert wrestler, or at least have Imp. Un. Strike., enough to divine bond his fist, or/and smite the fiend to the bones, to much damage even with 1d3 damage fists. At that level the paladin is immune to almost every ability the pitfiend (3.5) has to offer.
I have never seen nor heard of a paladin with improved unarmed strike. Now you're just making s%#& up. Still, let's roll with it.
A 3.5 pit fiend has 225 hit points and a 40 AC. A pathfinder paladin will have in the range of 150-170 hit points at level 20, and probably around 30-35 base AC. His charisma will probably be in the 20-24 range. We'll call it 24 just to give him the best possible result. His BAB is +20 and his strength is probably in the 24-28 range. Again, we'll go with the highest possible.
So, the pit fiend starts out the fight invisible, flying, unholy aura'd, and magic circled, because all those spells have decently long durations (and it flies naturally) and it can cast them at will, meaning there's no reason for them to ever be down. Even if the paladin can see invisible somehow, the pit fiend will still almost certainly win initiative.
Its first action is to cast a quickened fireball with a DC of 21. Our paladin with a +7 charisma mod probably saves against that, so the pit fiend "only" does 31 damage with its swift action, leaving the paladin with <150 hit points. The pit fiend then casts power word: stun with its standard action, stunning the paladin without a chance to save for 1d4 rounds.
The paladin then drops whatever he's holding and cannot act on at least his next turn. Since it has power word: stun as an at-will spell-like ability, the pit fiend continues to cast them at the paladin mixed in with other abilities until the paladin dies. It can get off three fireballs with swift actions...
Zurai my long lost brother how I have missed you. I remember the times we used to game together.
Either that or we both know that a pit fiend that sits on the ground and allows itself to be slapped around by anyone, paladin or not, is not being run properly.
Is 31 hp your half damage for a Fireball? or was it maximized?
What about resistance to fire? Fighting with pitfiends and balors... probably he's got "some" don't you think?
Also, since fist fighting is quite common in main charaters from books and movies, many players like the idea of knowing his character can handle some people without drawing his weapon.
110hp average for a paladin plus his constitution modifier... at that level... its total is above 200 for sure.
And... I've never seen a fight less cool, cinematic or "realistic" (hehe), in which the demon "appears" with all those spells already cast. At will doesn't mean continuous, anyway, if the pitfiend is at range, the paladin could fly if he has the proper item or draw a bow and even divine bond it.
(After the pitfiend's first attack, he'd be visible. Although, since he's going on his own fighting these things... I'd say he would have some way to "see invisibility". Fly and second level spells such as invisibility should not be a problem for 20th level character whatever they are... I don't know)
Wraithstrike, again, when I said that thing about the least important in the posts, I meant that I said things much more relevant (to the discussion) than those quoted. Just that.
EDIT:
The fact is that we play different games, and that we consider rules to be based on distinct fantasy worlds. So, it will be hard to reach an agreement... I even dare to say impossible. Since we all might be right.
Is 31 hp your half damage for a Fireball? or was it maximized?
What about resistance to fire? Fighting with pitfiends and balors... probably he's got "some" don't you think?
He might, but that does not stop the pit fiend from nickel and diming him.
And... I've never seen a fight less cool, cinematic or "realistic" (hehe), in which the demon "appears" with all those spells already cast. At will doesn't mean continuous, anyway, if the pitfiend is at range, the paladin could fly if he has the proper item or draw a bow and even divine bond it.
At will means once every round as a standard action I can _____. You also have to deal with persistent image, and you dont get your will save until you interact with it. He can also summon ice devils and horn devils. You still have to get within his melee range to attack him. Most likely provoking an AoO.
A paladin has quiet a few obstacles to overcome, while the pit fiend plays keep away. Greater Dispel Magic can suppress magic items.
Edit: I changed few to quiet a few
Also, since fist fighting is quite common in main charaters from books and movies, many players like the idea of knowing his character can handle some people without drawing his weapon.
No, not really. I can't recall the last time I've seen or read any King Arthur or Charlemagne style movie/literature that involved fisticuffs to any real degree.
110hp average for a paladin plus his constitution modifier... at that level... its total is above 200 for sure.
The average roll of 1d10 is 5.5; 5.5 * 20 = 110. First level is maximized, yes, but that's only 4.5 "extra" hit points.
And... I've never seen a fight less cool, cinematic or "realistic" (hehe), in which the demon "apears" with all those spells already cast. At will doesn't mean continuous, and if the pitfiend is at range, the paladin could fly if he has the proper item or draw a bow and even divine bond it.
Cinematic and realistic are polar opposites. What I suggested is extremely realistic. It's not very cinematic, but D&D isn't a very cinematic game.
At will doesn't mean continuous, but when referring to buff spells it does effectively mean continuous because there's no reason for them to ever not be active. As for unholy aura, the MM specifically states that the pit fiend (and balor, for that matter) always have that active, and it's the shortest duration of all the pit fiend's buff spells at 18 rounds.
At will DOES mean that it's continually usable (ie, every single turn, if the creature so desires). A pit fiend is entirely within its ability to use power word: stun 14,400 times per day if it wants to. That's 10 rounds a minute, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day.
---
As for the fireball damage, I did forget that fireball is capped at 10d6. That lowers the average damage for a successful save to 17, meaning it may take two fireballs to be able to stunlock the paladin. The pit fiend can easily stay out of the paladin's range until that point, however, because even with a potion of fly or winged boots, the pit fiend still moves at least as fast as the paladin does and starts out beyond charge range. Note also that the pit fiend has greater dispel magic as an at-will spell-like ability, so it can automatically dispel the fly spell cast by either (DC 16 vs 1d20+18 for the potion and DC 19 vs 1d20+18 for the boots).
---
Seriously, there's no way in the Nine Hells that a solo level 20 paladin can beat a solo pit fiend unless the pit fiend is severely handicapped in some manner.
EDIT:
The fact is that we play different games, and that we consider rules to be based on distinct fantasy worlds. So, it will be hard to reach an agreement... I even dare to say impossible. Since we all might be right.
Well if you play the game cinematically, where the boss wades into combat against the hero then the paladin might need to be redone, since a full attack on the pit fiend is not a good cinematic end to a fight.
I was coming at it from a purely tactical perspective.