That still proves that the enemies have more options than running away.
Something I find a bit irritating when talking about balance issues is that people's knee jerk response is "the monster should just use tactics". I find this something of a slippery slope, in that by that reasoning a room of low level kobolds can defeat a mid level party, and be called "balanced" with those characters, despite clearly not being so.
The above kobold encounter is actually considered a higher CR encounter due to planning, terrain advantage, etc. Yes, using tactics is desirable and appropriate in all situations, but having exactly the right spells prepped, terrain chosen, and options available is in fact a CR adjustment on the monster, as such as situation optimizes its abilities while minimizing those of the characters beyond the "monster-as-written".
----
To further state my reasoning behind the Archerdin problem:
Atts: (high fantasy, nothing lower than 10)
Dex 22(=16 +2 racial +2 level +2 enhancement), Cha 22(=16 +2 racial +4 enhancement), Str 10(=10 -2 racial +2 enhancement), Con 12(=10 +2 enhancement)
Items: (Bow +5, Belt of Perfection +2, headband of Cha +4)
Weapon Bond Ability: +3 (Speed)
Feats: PBS, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Precise Shot, Imp. Precise Shot, Imp. Initiative
Standard Attack Mods while Smiting: +27(x2 manyshot)/+27 (rapid shot)/+27 (speed)/+22/+17 (+11 BAB, +6 Dex, +6 Cha, +5 Bow, +1 PBS, -2 Rapid Shot)
This isn't the best archerdin you can make (better and more focused builds are out there I'm certain, with more optimized items/spells), but it is moderately min/maxed and displays what I see as the problems: +10 initiative, with four potential hits at a +27 to hit and +>22 dmg bonus per hit (with this particular build the base damage would be 28 per hit, avg 30). The paladin is likely to go first, and if even half hit the critter is taking 90 dmg. That's enough to drop many CR 10 outsiders/undead in the first round, and the attack bonus is enough that even the iterative attacks have a good chance of hitting.
Compared to the Gelugon (Ice Devil), a CR 13 with init +5, the Palladin is likely to go first, removing the +5 dex bonus of the creature (AC 27 at that point), allowing the palladins first four hits to auto (barring 1's) hit, and the other two will hit 75% and 50% of the time. Lets assume on one iterative hits, that's still 150 damage (they only have 147 hp) before the monster has acted, put up defenses, etc. The ability to solo (in one round no less) something at +3 CR to you is not in my opinion balanced, it has too large an effect on encounters imo.
Nero, the holy symbol is a divine focus. The divine focus should be a physical object just like the any material component. I never said it was unreasonable for other classes to have them(holy symbols). I am saying that is a way to identify the paladin. A rogue can get potions of blindsight or a scroll of true seeing to negate concealment.
That still proves that the enemies have more options than running away.Something I find a bit irritating when talking about balance issues is that people's knee jerk response is "the monster should just use tactics". I find this something of a slippery slope, in that by that reasoning a room of low level kobolds can defeat a mid level party, and be called "balanced" with those characters, despite clearly not being so.
The above kobold encounter is actually considered a higher CR encounter due to planning, terrain advantage, etc. Yes, using tactics is desirable and appropriate in all situations, but having exactly the right spells prepped, terrain chosen, and options available is in fact a CR adjustment on the monster, as such as situation optimizes its abilities while minimizing those of the characters beyond the "monster-as-written".
----
To further state my reasoning behind the Archerdin problem:
** spoiler omitted **This isn't the best archerdin you can make (better and more focused builds are out there I'm certain, with more optimized items/spells), but it is moderately min/maxed and displays what I see as the problems: +10 initiative, with four potential hits at a +27 to hit and +>22 dmg bonus per hit (with this particular build the base damage would be 28 per hit, avg 30). The paladin is likely to go first, and if even half hit the critter is taking 90 dmg. That's enough to drop many CR 10 outsiders/undead in the...
You could make an optimised (or as you said, a semi optimised) character of ANY class that will do the same thing if he gets to pull of his "trick". For some reason everyone thinks that they can just throw up a model of a paladin that kills something in one round and this proves its overpoweredness. If you (semi)optimised any class then it will be able to pull of the exact same thing.
This is not even taking into account that many other classes would be able to do this "trick" any number of times per day and against anything. And all of that without a Lawful good alignment restriction and a code of conduct. Now I know since I threw this last part in there someone will focus only on that and not the first paragraph but I still contend that ALL aspects of a character figure into its "balance". So if you want to ignore a restriction it has then you are already tipping the scales.
Come on Nero, you are smarter than that. You did see the graphic right?
I understand it's a lot of damage, but it has been proven that compared to a fighter the paladin is COMPLETELY balanced.We are not taking into acount any other abilities, but I gotta say in a fight against evil the paladin will have a greater damage output, sure. But I still think the fighter will have much more tricks up his sleeve.
The last thing the graph shows is that the Palladin is balanced. It shows the opposite, how unbalanced it is. It is to weak against anything non-evil. And it is to strong against everything of the evil dragon/outsider/undead subtype. The Palladin is balanced against all evil creatures that are not undead/dragon/outsider.
Fighter is balanced, that is correct.
Yeaaahhhh riiight... the graphic says the Pally is unbalanced, right?
I don't want to offend you or anything, but basically you are saying that to be balanced the graphic should be the same for all situations right? Let me see, what can be done for that to happen.... huuummm...I KNOW! Fighter only groups, now THAT is balance!
You could make an optimised (or as you said, a semi optimised) character of ANY class that will do the same thing if he gets to pull of his "trick". For some reason everyone thinks that they can just throw up a model of a paladin that kills something in one round and this proves its overpoweredness. If you (semi)optimised any class then it will be able to pull of the exact same thing.This is not even taking into account that many other classes would be able to do this "trick" any number of times per day...
No. A ranger, even with appropriate favored enemy, cannot do that. Nor can a fighter/barbarian, as even with a huge power attack they won't deal as much damage due to fewer hits and the requirement that they get in close, and even then will be losing + to hit in exchange for dmg. Even optimized. Even casters won't be putting out anywhere near this damage, between SR and ER on the monsters.
This build is also in no way "weak" outside of its specialty situations (which between undead/dragons/outsiders are a good chunk of the encounters in the mid to high levels), and it has nice supplemental abilities like energy channels to fall back on.
Yeaaahhhh riiight... the graphic says the Pally is unbalanced, right?
I don't want to offend you or anything, but basically you are saying that to be balanced the graphic should be the same for all situations right? Let me see, what can be done for that to happen.... huuummm...I KNOW! Fighter only groups, now THAT is balance!
Can't speak for anyone else, but what I'm saying is that just because the average of two numbers is the same, does not mean it creates a balanced in game situation. Take for example a class that over the course of three encounters gets an average damage of [10/10/100] per hit. Compare to a character that gets [40/40/40]. The avg dmg on both is the same, but the character that gets the 100 in the third fight totally overwhelms the monsters in the third fight, while the other fights are mediocre at best... Yes, the numbers balance in the long run, but make the fights so wildly different that IN PLAY the character doesn't balance out.
Basically, I don't see the "balance by extremes" to be healthy for gameplay.
The balance comes from several factors, we all know that. The problem being discussed IS damage after all, and in the end it balances out. Cause no character should be alike in damage.
Some can hit harder than others, or kill outright, or fly and many, many other options. But in the long run Damgewise it is balanced.
What u r implying is the same as when a Barbarian crits, it will do tons of damage, but it is an IF and it does not come into acount DAMAGEWISE. Get it?
Compared to the Gelugon (Ice Devil) ... The ability to solo (in one round no less) something at +3 CR to you is not in my opinion balanced, it has too large an effect on encounters imo.
You're forgetting a few critical things.
First, you're forgetting that gelugons have unholy aura as an at-will SLA, meaning they will always have +4 deflection to AC that isn't accounted for in their stat block. That means even your flat-footed first strikes have a 15% chance to miss, which significantly lowers your damage output.
Second, you're forgetting that it takes a standard action to call forth the weapon spirit, meaning you can't attack in the round you add speed to your weapon. Since it only lasts 11 minutes at 11th level and can only be summoned twice a day at that point, it's not fair to have it already counted active at the start of the fight.
Third, you're forgetting that gelugons have regeneration except vs good weapons, and paladins don't get auto-good weapons until 14th. That means you're doing entirely nonlethal damage to it.
The culmination of all this is that your average damage is in the range of 70, not even half of its hit points, and it's all nonlethal.
And a 20th level Paladin SHOULD have an easy time against an effectively 13th level monster, should he not?
A 20th level character, in a situation where their signature ability can be used to the fullest, is going to make short work of any single enemy. It's like pitching a hanging breaking ball to a major league slugger - yeah, he's probably gonna make short work of it. But a knuckle-ball? An inside cutter? Any pitch from a side-winding or 3/4 pitcher? A good off-speed pitch?
I don't see why it's so hard to understand that an ability ISN'T imbalanced if there are plenty of ways to get around it, but is extremely helpful *sometimes*.
Okay, Paladins have good Will saves. What about Reflex saves? They tend to be heavily armored - what about Heat Metal? Spells that prevent the Paladin from getting near - Prismatic Sphere, for example. Or Wall of Force. What about hitting the rest of the party so that the Paladin has to heal them before dealing with the big bad?
This is no longer really a debate, this is a few people who look at raw numbers and forget that such models rarely reflect that actual game experience.
This is like the old arguments about the Glitter Boy in RIFTS.
And a 20th level Paladin SHOULD have an easy time against an effectively 13th level monster, should he not?
To be fair, the comparison was an 11th level paladin against a gelugon, not a 20th level paladin.
You're forgetting a few critical things...
I will admit I forgot about the unholy aura and that auto good wasn't gained until later levels, but I really don't feel that invalidates anything. Like I said, that was just a quick build, not terribly optimized. Much better stuff is out there. Switch around a +1 on the bow for the Holy ability (upping dmg output on evil by +6avg [7, -1 for the lost bonus]), add more dex, etc.
The weapon spirit can be called into effect at the point of entry into the dungeon/lair/whatever fairly safely in most cases imo. Unless there are traps every 10ft, traveling through a standard sized dungeon doesn't take that long, and since in the majority of instances you aren't going to go play with bandits, fight a dragon, raid a tomb, and go into a demon's lair all on the same day, it is generally safe to save both activations for the dungeon. In which case when the first activation falls, you can pause, refresh (heal, look around the room you just cleared, etc), and reactivate. If its a fight you knew was coming (unlike a surprise boss waiting at the end of a dungeon), then it's even easier to plan out.
So no, your damage really doesn't fall to 70 non-lethal. At most 1 more missed hit on avg, but with the simple addition of holy, the dmg stays roughly the same.
But... I retire from the battle for the time being. Enjoy.
Unless there are traps every 10ft, traveling through a standard sized dungeon doesn't take that long
What is a "standard sized dungeon"? That term is meaningless. It's even more meaningless when you consider that it's extremely rare for the characters to have any real idea how big a dungeon is when they first enter it. Even an 11th level character is likely to have only crawled maybe a half-dozen "dungeons" (there's only 7 or 8 depending on how you define "dungeon" in the entirety of Rise of the Runelords, which goes to 16th+ level), and each one is likely to have been wildly different in terms of size and complexity. Using RotR again as an example, of the 8 dungeons, Thistletop, the Fortress of the Stone Giants, the Runeforge, and the Spire of Xin-Shalast are all quite likely to take more time than the paladin has weapon bond duration even if the entire dungeon is done in combat-time.
What is a "standard sized dungeon"? That term is meaningless. It's even more meaningless when you consider that it's extremely rare for the characters to have any real idea how big a dungeon is when they first enter it. Even an 11th level character is likely to have only crawled maybe a half-dozen "dungeons" (there's only 7 or 8 depending on how you define "dungeon" in the entirety of Rise of the Runelords, which goes to 16th+ level), and each one is likely to have been wildly different in terms of size and complexity. Using RotR again as an example, of the 8 dungeons, Thistletop, the Fortress of the Stone Giants, the Runeforge, and the Spire of Xin-Shalast are all quite likely to take more time than the paladin has weapon bond duration even if the entire dungeon is done in combat-time.
I lied, sorta. I will comment again, briefly, just to define what I was referring to.
Every dungeon I've ever seen printed in a WotC module is tiny. If the whole dungeon, even the large ones, occur in combat time, then they are well under the 11min counter. With a rest break and a second activation, the time is even better.
Or, for practical example, take an office building or a walmart, both of which are larger than the standard building in a module.
Your office building will take several minutes of searching through cubicles, clearing out minions of the dark CEO, before you move into busting down the doors of middle management. Several more minutes of combat ensue. After everything is cleared out, you take a break, search the cubicles and offices for loot, and move to the magic portal (elevator), and take it to the dark lair of the CEO, where several security guards, trusted lackies, and the CEO itself wait for you in their large offices and meeting rooms. You probably won't linger too long in this whole process, b/c not only do your buffs wear down, but the CEO will summon its planar minions (police).
The walmart supercenter is a large floor plan, similar to the "open area with obstacles" model that many published adventures use, but larger by far. Still, a rapid search of the entire store front is less than 10 minutes, even assuming encounters (angry walmart stockers with box knives) and obstacles (wax traps, must go around). You could likely make it all the way to the back of the store on one activation, but if you wanted to be safe, you could use another activation once you reach the doors to the back, where the dreaded forklifts await you. Yet again, you aren't likely to be lingering as you do this, though you might take a round or two to steal the gems at the front of the store, or a few magical devices that you can carry from the electronics section.
Edit: you can also intuit where real threats are in most dungeon complexes (i.e. cave complexes that lead to ruined temples, etc). The GREAT EVIL(tm) isn't going to be hanging out in tunnel A4. Nor is it going to be in the random side tunnel that dead ends. Not only is it a lame place to spend your life (as dark overlord, you should have more plush accomodations), but it is most likely not tactically sound for the majority of major dragons/undead/outsiders at the mid/high levels, which usually lose more than they benefit from restricted passages and such.
This isn't the best archerdin you can make (better and more focused builds are out there I'm certain, with more optimized items/spells), but it is moderately min/maxed and displays what I see as the problems: +10 initiative, with four potential hits at a +27 to hit and +>22 dmg bonus per hit (with this particular build the base damage would be 28 per hit, avg 30). The paladin is likely to go first, and if even half hit the critter is taking 90 dmg. That's enough to drop many CR 10 outsiders/undead in the...
If that happens the way you described, the paladin wins.. no doubt. But what if the paladin is actually shooting the ice devil's persistent immage. Suddenly he finds himself in a wall of ice(no save). He tries to free himself(but he's an archerdin, not a smashadin) as the real devil appears, his friends fleeing in terror, as it summons other demonic creatures to aid it.. what's the pally doing spotting a creature and being allowed to roll initiative when it has +23 spot and hide?
Wow, I love the Bard and would like to force any of my players to play one, but according to us its so weak. When there is a bard in the party he usually has to stand back and watch out while the big guys take care of the monsters. Maybe you could give me some advice how to make a 'ok' Bard.
I saw a nice build on the board for a longspear bard, not sure the link but it was powerattack for +3DAM per BAB lost, arcane strike, level one magic weapon no need to buy masterwork, +5magic at level 20 (counts for natural weapons if you go dragon disciple route, though you'll only get +4 without practiced spellcaster), then you stand behind the fighter, level 1 human bard with 18 STR power attack and arcane strike can do 1d8 +7(before PA) magic with reach. That will kill anything at that point. Take things like mirror image as buffs and you have a nice bard.
Bards are proficient with whips so an alternative would be to use that and trip-disarm people from 15 ft away.
Also bards are the best buffers around. The bigger the party, the more damage bardic music gives. 6 person table has no reason not running a bard unless they're all tossing fireballs and charm type effects with no attackrolls.
edit: very off topic, sorry.. i mean..he's a paladin bard he wants cha to saves and smite bluff check 1 + 6 = 7.. failure
If that happens the way you described, the paladin wins.. no doubt. But what if the paladin is actually shooting the ice devil's persistent immage. Suddenly he finds himself in a wall of ice(no save). He tries to free himself(but he's an archerdin, not a smashadin) as the real devil appears, his friends fleeing in terror, as it summons other demonic creatures to aid it.. what's the pally doing spotting a creature and being allowed to roll initiative when it has +23 spot and hide?
Wall of Ice does have a save that disrupts the spell. Persistent image has a save as well. Pally saves are all higher than avg, in this case +6 higher. The persistent image would help, but not negate, the above scenario. It would just put it off a round, possibly allowing a CoC to go off. Or yes, as so many have suggested, it could decide to randomly attack a single character and steal its bow instead of dealing mass damage to the party and potentially killing any casters in it... because demons like to metagame too.
Really done this time. Homework calls.
If that happens the way you described, the paladin wins.. no doubt. But what if the paladin is actually shooting the ice devil's persistent immage. Suddenly he finds himself in a wall of ice(no save). He tries to free himself(but he's an archerdin, not a smashadin) as the real devil appears, his friends fleeing in terror, as it summons other demonic creatures to aid it.. what's the pally doing spotting a creature and being allowed to roll initiative when it has +23 spot and hide?
Wall of Ice does have a save that disrupts the spell. Persistent image has a save as well. Pally saves are all higher than avg, in this case +6 higher. The persistent image would help, but not negate, the above scenario. It would just put it off a round, possibly allowing a CoC to go off. Or yes, as so many have suggested, it could decide to randomly attack a single character and steal its bow instead of dealing mass damage to the party and potentially killing any casters in it... because demons like to metagame too.
Really done this time. Homework calls.
You only get the save for the wall if you're adjacent to it, not in the center of it. This should separate the group long enough to pick off the casters and summon reinforcements for the little guy wearing the medallion of Serenrae.. only level 11... can't smite them all.
On the upside all that time in a hemisphere of ice should allow the paladin time to be fully spelled to take on said minions.
Wall of Ice does have a save that disrupts the spell.
Only if it's created adjacent to the paladin. With a radius of 16 feet (gelugons are 13th level casters and wall of ice in hemisphere form is 3ft radius +1/level), there's no need whatsoever to place any edge of the wall adjacent to the paladin. So, no, it doesn't have a save. Sorry.
Persistent image has a save as well.
Only once it's been interacted with, meaning in this case shot at.
It seems that the group that is against the paladin assumes he will just walk in and do whatever he wants. I am not saying a paladin is not a force to be reckoned with. I am saying he can be neutralized, at least long enough to make the fight eventful. He can even be completely
nullified, but there is no fun in that. It has been noted that most of the people that have seen the pally in action dont think its to much to handle.
You can't assume the party will have a wizard to teleport the paladin because many groups just play with whatever they feel like playing with, disregarding the typical 4 class roles completely.
It keeps being assumed the pally will get a full attack and all attacks will hit.
It also keeps being assumed the monster wont have any minions.
The CR 14 malebranche(probably spelled wrong), will take most paladins out. Many monsters have a CMD high enough that once the paladin is grappled he cant get out. A nat 20 will allow you to automatically initiate a grapple, but it does not allow you to escape one. Aid another to boost a monsters defense is also a valid tactic.
Important part:
I guess if the paladin is causing some DM's a lot of trouble I cant say it's not overpowered, but if others of us are dealing with it then it can't be proven that it is overpowered either. Maybe it just depends on the group, but that could be said for many other classes, PrC's, feats, and so on. To each his own I guess.
Edit: made a grammatical correction, and labeled the important part.
I'm with you there Wraith. I gotta say that I ENJOY when I'm proven wrong, being wrong is a way to learn, imporve and evolve. I know most people do not take that approach, but what can I do?
The point is, if you guys think it is TOO much, change it, do as you wish but don't say it's unbalanced if that has been proven wrong. Just beware if no one in the group want to play a Pally anymore.
My initial reaction on reading the Paladin class features was "Holy Crap - he got a huge boost!" On reading through this topic I've found my initial shock reduced a fair amount, but my gut feeling is that there is still an issue with the class's overall balance.
With opinions on the pally ranging from "just right" to "severely overpowered", I don't think the ultimate solution lies on either extreme. I definitely don't think a complete overhaul of the smite power is needed. On the other hand, I just as strongly feel that you can't have wave any issues away by simply saying that the GM needs to use different tactics.
To me, the fact that there are 8 pages worth of posts here indicates that this is definitely an area that the game designers should review quite thoroughly, and I have complete confidence that they will do so. :)
|
You could make an optimised (or as you said, a semi optimised) character of ANY class that will do the same thing if he gets to pull of his "trick". For some reason everyone thinks that they can just throw up a model of a paladin that kills something in one round and this proves its overpoweredness. If you (semi)optimised any class then it will be able to pull of the exact same thing.This is not even taking into account that many other classes would be able to do this "trick" any number of times per day...
No. A ranger, even with appropriate favored enemy, cannot do that. Nor can a fighter/barbarian, as even with a huge power attack they won't deal as much damage due to fewer hits and the requirement that they get in close, and even then will be losing + to hit in exchange for dmg. Even optimized. Even casters won't be putting out anywhere near this damage, between SR and ER on the monsters.
This build is also in no way "weak" outside of its specialty situations (which between undead/dragons/outsiders are a good chunk of the encounters in the mid to high levels), and it has nice supplemental abilities like energy channels to fall back on.
Againast the dragon;
Favored Enemy Dragons +10/+10
Deadly aim for max -6/+10
Many Shot for a free extra attack
Fast Shot for another attack -2 to all attacks
While Yes, the Paladin can take a lot of these the fact is the ranger doesn't need to qualify for some of them, and can take even more feats atop it, like zen archery or the like. This also means he can go Compound Bow even more because he'll likely have the strength that the Paladin would lack going archery build.
In no particular order:
Wall of Ice
Someone is going to be adjacent to the wall when it forms, or the whole party will be in it and protected from the fight until the wall is gone. No party I've ever seen has each individuals wandering about 15' away from every other member, not even in open fields, and much less in dungeons where room is limited. I'd draw what I'm talking about for you, but I'm not terribly good with using letters to make pictures... Hmm... imagine a line, and you want to make a circle around a part of the line. You will have touch the line with the circle if you want to do so (pc's tend to like walking in lines, or side by side, or both).
Assuming Full Attack/All Hits
Were I talking melee, I'd agree, they won't get full attacks. But we aren't. Archers don't have to move to take full attacks. The archerdin is also going to be way above the curve on to hit rolls against evil stuff, due to the +cha... So yeah, they are pretty likely to hit on most of their attacks. Finally, remember that they end up easily getting 3 extra attacks at their full BAB, or close to it, meaning a lot more hits on average.
Ranger bonuses
Yes, rangers get more feats for free, that's true. However, just adding the bonuses, rangers still get lower damage, and likely a lower to hit bonus, when using deadly aim against their primary favored enemy, than a paladin does against 3 different categories. Yes, it is unlimited, which lets you deal with hordes of critters better (which really only applies to undead, since demons and dragons usually don't come in hordes until epic), however they tend not to be as threatening, and the ranger only gets a single category to be awesome at killing.
And... I'm done with this thread. I'll stop by and read it, but I don't think I want to post anymore. Its turning into minutia and no one is listening to anyone else. I get what you're saying guys, I really do. I just don't think that a single character should be as swingy as the paladin can be. And yes, you can use tactics to control the paladin, with enough meta-game and an optimized board, but that applies to anyone/anything in the game. And just b/c you can doesn't mean its appropriate.
Someone asked a while back, "what would you do to fix it?" I'll leave on that note:
fix 1: limit smite to melee only
or
fix 2: make damage = to level in all cases
or
fix 3: have paladins pick one of the 3 categories that their double damage is allowed to apply to (paladin A hunts dragons, paladin B hunts undead, and so on; still a bit swingy, but less so)
edit: my favorite fix is probably #2 or #3. I actually really like the archerdin, for novelty. Holy warriors with bows are fun. They just tend to be a more capable of abusing the double damage thing... But if you limit the damage, or you limit the number of things it applies to, I think its not so bad.
And yes, you can use tactics to control the paladin, with enough meta-game
How is having a major enemy (evil-subtype outsider, major undead, and evil dragons all tend to be at the very least lieutenants to the BBEG) act intelligently in combat metagaming? How is having the BBEG be aware of who the characters are metagaming?
fix 3: have paladins pick one of the 3 categories that their double damage is allowed to apply to (paladin A hunts dragons, paladin B hunts undead, and so on; still a bit swingy, but less so)
Irony, rydil is thy name. That is no less swingy, it's just swingy less often -- and yet it's your preferred fix. Seems you don't really have a problem with it being swingy, after all.
Important part:
I guess if the paladin is causing some DM's a lot of trouble I cant say it's not overpowered, but if others of us are dealing with it then it can't be proven that it is overpowered either. Maybe it just depends on the group, but that could be said for many other classes, PrC's, feats, and so on. To each his own I guess.
I suppose that's why I dislike it so much. I can see it being a huge problem for me as a player, since in the presence of evil the party paladin is going to outshine me no-end, even if I play a ranger focused on fighting evil and undead and such (which is a real possibility, considering just a few days before the release of PF I told my DM what my new character was going to be...guess what? A ranger who focuses on fighting demons and devils. Another player then said "I want to be a paladin").
And I can see it causing problems as a DM, I will need to re-write encounters. If I decide to throw an evil foe at the party, I best be prepered to have him vastly more powerful (in which case, the rest of the party might as well go get something to eat since they'll be able to really do jack) or just play the evil foe normally, in which case the pally will beat him down too easily.
And just plainly, alot the "balancing" factors don't work for me. Limiting it to one foe is one thing, but most powerful bosses don't feel the need to bring their buiddies. I've never seen anyone throw multiple balors at a single party.
It only affects evil? Again fine, but the majority of encounters I've seen in years of experience involve evil. That's not a coincidence - If a party of good NPC's challenge the party, unless you're playing a party of evil PC's, odds are you'll be able to talk your way out of it. On the other hand, evil assassins, murderous bandits, or just simply greedy monsters who are hungry (like vampires) and likely to attack the party regardless of their diplomatic skills.
And well...the lasting for the whole fight as well grats on me. One of the few advantages an evil fighting ranger has over a paladin is that they can go all day - But they don't need to, they only need to be able to go whilst fighting their favoured foes, and so can paladins now.
If it was me, I'd balance smite with the following
1: Limit it to one round. Give back the ranger's advantage of going for longer. Keep the level to damage, keep the bonus to attack and AC, even allow the paladin to strike seperate foes so he won't be reluctent to use it against a mob.
2: Remove the double-damage. There was no such bonus in 3.5 and I don't see why theres a need for it in PF. Level to damage can put a real dent in a foe, but double damage is just plain overkill. You can argue that it's better if you like, but at the end of the day there wasn't any need to add it.
3: Allow it to do something against non-evil foes. Even if it's only something like "No bonus to attack, half level to damage" that way it becomes less situational. If you channel divine energy into your attack, it should hurt. Besides, many alignment based spells such as Holy Word affect non-evil, so it's not like such a change would be completely out the ordinary.
Have those changes and suddenly we get a holy empowered who fights a little better against evil. Although fighting better against powerful evil foes hes not underpowering against mobs and non-evil.
Important part:
I guess if the paladin is causing some DM's a lot of trouble I cant say it's not overpowered, but if others of us are dealing with it then it can't be proven that it is overpowered either. Maybe it just depends on the group, but that could be said for many other classes, PrC's, feats, and so on. To each his own I guess.Edit: made a grammatical correction, and labeled the important part.
Palladin is ok, and there are enough tricks so he can't profit from his Smites. In a combat we had last week, the Palladin completly wasted two of his smites on opponents that were very mobile with movement and minor magic.
But I guess my point is, that once the party gets to fight a lot of evil Undead, Outsiders and/or Dragons, the Palladin becomes an incredible force that influences your entire campaign. And since those creatures play an important role in my current campaign, I would have to adjust half of the creatures accordingly. Since practically you can't let any of those monsters enter melee with the Palladin since he will completly and uterly destroy them.
Maybe we kinda agree than, hehe.
In no particular order:
Wall of Ice
Someone is going to be adjacent to the wall when it forms, or the whole party will be in it and protected from the fight until the wall is gone. No party I've ever seen has each individuals wandering about 15' away from every other member, not even in open fields, and much less in dungeons where room is limited. I'd draw what I'm talking about for you, but I'm not terribly good with using letters to make pictures... Hmm... imagine a line, and you want to make a circle around a part of the line. You will have touch the line with the circle if you want to do so (pc's tend to like walking in lines, or side by side, or both).Assuming Full Attack/All Hits
Were I talking melee, I'd agree, they won't get full attacks. But we aren't. Archers don't have to move to take full attacks. The archerdin is also going to be way above the curve on to hit rolls against evil stuff, due to the +cha... So yeah, they are pretty likely to hit on most of their attacks. Finally, remember that they end up easily getting 3 extra attacks at their full BAB, or close to it, meaning a lot more hits on average.Ranger bonuses
Yes, rangers get more feats for free, that's true. However, just adding the bonuses, rangers still get lower damage, and likely a lower to hit bonus, when using deadly aim against their primary favored enemy, than a paladin does against 3 different categories. Yes, it is unlimited, which lets you deal with hordes of critters better (which really only applies to undead, since demons and dragons usually don't come in hordes until epic), however they tend not to be as threatening, and the ranger only gets a single category to be awesome at killing.And... I'm done with this thread. I'll stop by and read it, but I don't think I want to post anymore. Its turning into minutia and no one is listening to anyone else. I get what you're saying guys, I really do. I just don't think that a single character should be as swingy as the paladin can be. And yes, you can use...
Rydi instead of just assuming the paladin will hit when all the time how about setting up mock battles at various levels and trying to stop the paladin. It seems all you are doing is assuming he can hit at will. My groups never walks right beside each other unless they are forced to. Fireballs and the like make that a bad idea. I guess this is just an example of how different groups can be. I would just use cone of cold if they were all together, but that is why my group keeps a certain distance from each other to make sure I cant get all of them. Maybe you have a way of killing a party member, even if they are less than 20 feet away from the cleric so they all stay close.
I actually plan to overload my pally with undead so he uses all his smites before he gets to the boss for that chapter. I will let you guys know how that strategy work out after I get to try it.
If it was me, I'd balance smite with the following
1: Limit it to one round. Give back the ranger's advantage of going for longer. Keep the level to damage, keep the bonus to attack and AC, even allow the paladin to strike seperate foes so he won't be reluctent to use it against a mob.
2: Remove the double-damage. There was no such bonus in 3.5 and I don't see why theres a need for it in PF. Level to damage can put a real dent in a foe, but double damage is just plain overkill. You can argue that it's better if you like, but at the end of the day there wasn't any need to add it.
3: Allow it to do something against non-evil foes. Even if it's only something like "No bonus to attack, half level to damage" that way it becomes less situational. If you channel divine energy into your attack, it should hurt. Besides, many alignment based spells such as Holy Word affect non-evil, so it's not like such a change would be completely out the ordinary.
This nudders smite to the point of empitence. The one round use was one of the HUGE problems with 3.5. It is a joke.
Your #3 makes no sense for what a paladin is. He does not get bonuses against non evil foes. He draws all his powers from his gods will to fight against evil.
Important part:
I guess if the paladin is causing some DM's a lot of trouble I cant say it's not overpowered, but if others of us are dealing with it then it can't be proven that it is overpowered either. Maybe it just depends on the group, but that could be said for many other classes, PrC's, feats, and so on. To each his own I guess.Edit: made a grammatical correction, and labeled the important part.
Palladin is ok, and there are enough tricks so he can't profit from his Smites. In a combat we had last week, the Palladin completly wasted two of his smites on opponents that were very mobile with movement and minor magic.
But I guess my point is, that once the party gets to fight a lot of evil Undead, Outsiders and/or Dragons, the Palladin becomes an incredible force that influences your entire campaign. And since those creatures play an important role in my current campaign, I would have to adjust half of the creatures accordingly. Since practically you can't let any of those monsters enter melee with the Palladin since he will completly and uterly destroy them.
Maybe we kinda agree than, hehe.
So are you saying that you saw firsthand that the paladin can be neutralized thus proving that he is not overpowered?
Because obvously if your first line is true then the same can be true for the BBEG's and so on and so forth. Thus what we have been trying to say for pages you finally see as true?
This nudders smite to the point of empitence. The one round use was one of the HUGE problems with 3.5. It is a joke.
So unless a class is gaining it's level twice to damage it's not worth it? You must really hate every other class in the game.
What exactaly "nudders" smite in my variation?
Compare it to a specialist ranger
Smite - Lasts for a full encounter
Favourered Enemy - Same
No advantage one way there
Smite - Adds level to damage, twice in some cases
Favoured Enemy - If focused, can add up to 10 points of damage, unfocsed it could add anything as low as 2. In most cases no bonus damage.
Clear advantage to smite
Smite - Adds bonuses to attack and AC.
Favoured Enemy - Gains a bonus to attack based on FE bonuses
Advatage goes to a very heavy speicalist ranger here, otherwise to the paladin again.
If I remove the lengh, theres still little reason to play a ranger since the damage is so high compared, and if you remove the excessive damage, it still lasts as long in a fight.
Even with my surgested changes it is still an ability spontainiously allowing you to add your charisma to attack and AC and your level to damage, saying "it's weak" just sounds silly. I think what you mean to say is "it's not as powerful as I'd like". If that's the case you aren't going to like my change anyway, since the point was to bring it down a notch.
Your #3 makes no sense for what a paladin is. He does not get bonuses against non evil foes. He draws all his powers from his gods will to fight against evil.
And? As I even said underneath theres plenty of "Holy spells meant to fight evil" that harm non-evil creatures.
If a wizard throws a fireball at a group of evil goblins intending to kill them, the fireball still hurts if they're not evil. A paladin's smite only effects evil because how the designers made it. How does it not make any sense to say "It can affect non-evil". It's not like it's a standard "I smite, you're hurt" effect, it has a lesser effect on non-evil.
Why don't we actually have a good look at other "holy" powers? The 1st domain power granted to a cleric with the "Good" domain is the ability to bestow a bonus to a few rolls. It works on evil creatures as well as allies.
Holy smite, just like my smite idea, deals only half the damage and doesn't quite gain all the bonuses against evil creatures. Why are the good gods so eager to protect folk from a paladins smite but not this spell? Even though, as an area of effect spell, it's easier for innocents to accidently get hurt if they're too close to the area of effect.
Holy Word harms neutral creatures just as much as it harms evil - Now if you said "It shoudn't affect good" using this spell as an example I could see where you're comming from, but still harming neutral is valid using this spell as a base.
So in otherwords, saying "It doesn't make sense to only affect evil" isn't true. It's not unreasonable to say it should only affect evil, but that doesn't have to be that way.
The point of my surgestion was to bring it down. The additional damage against certain foes was an unnessicery change, and the 1-round mechanic enables the paladin to shine, but not completely outshine others. In fact, during the Beta people actually complained about two-weapon paladins being overkill, and that was back when it was only 1 round. How does making it longer fix things? It doesn't, it just pushes it more towards ranger territotry.
|
|
I haven't really thought about it much, but with all the wall of x spells, fly, teleport, traps, blur, displacement, etc it seems that there are plenty of ways to make sure a ranged/melee attacker has issues hitting you. Heck, even wind stance would help. As a side note, there is a spell in the cheliax book that makes a dome with 20 hardness and 10hp/caster level. It lasts for 1 round per caster level. It takes 1 immediate action. Even if the paladin goes first the evil/demonic/undead/dragon/caster can pop the dome and then the paladin needs to get through the dome before it can get to the creature. And he doesn't get any bonus damage to piercing the dome.
As a side note, there is a spell in the cheliax book that makes a dome with 20 hardness and 10hp/caster level. It lasts for 1 round per caster level. It takes 1 immediate action. Even if the paladin goes first the evil/demonic/undead/dragon/caster can pop the dome and then the paladin needs to get through the dome before it can get to the creature. And he doesn't get any bonus damage to piercing the dome.
Can't use immediate actions when flat-footed.
Nero, conversing with you is almost a headche. You only throw in the aspects of an argument you want to make it look like you have a point.
Smite lasts for a full encounter against one enemy. The rangers last for as long as there are enemies of that type. Its very different thus hard to compare. Advantage to the situation.
Smite adds level to damage (double in some cases) against one enemy. Favored enemy again works against as many enemies as there are of that type, again hard to compair. Advantage to the situation.
Smite adds a bonus to AC against the one enemy smited. FE works against all enemies of that type. Advantage to the situation.
Also, when we talk about damage you have to figure in the Rangers animal companion. Isnt the Ranger's wolf or whatever he takes going to take part in the combat and add to the Rangers total damage output?
So, there are plenty of reason to play a ranger. It all depends on what you want to be good at. Paladins stomp a few bad guys a day and take a lot of restrictions for doing so. Rangers pick a few types of bad guys that they are gonna stomp all day, every day, all the time with every attack and take no restrictions for doing so.
Dont forget that Rangers also gain bonuses to specific skill checks as well against their foes. And we have not even mentioned favored terain. These bonuses are extremely valuable, the paladin gets nothing like that.
So basically against one evil enemy a day the paladin gets to be the man, but against any number of favored enemies a day the ranger runs into he gets to be the man.
Choose your poison, its about getting a chance to do what you are good at period.
Lastly, your reasoning for allowing smite to work against other things. I can not even start to comprehend the logic behind this. It is smite evil not inconvenience evil and sometimes look mean at stuff that is neutral. If you wanna talk about stepping on the rangers toes, this suggestion does exactly that.
I think you are more upset because in your specific scenario you feel as though you have been slighted by paladins because you chose to play a ranger that also hunts the stuff paladins are best at fighting. Maybe you should look at this more as a boon than a curse. You are the ranger, you hunt them, track them and fight really well against all of their minions and the BBEG but you throw in the paladin when you need to deliver a knockout punch to a BBEG or similar. I think that concept is awesome! Id love to run a paladin alongside a ranger with that concept, what a team!
But since you dont get to be the guy that throws down the most damage against the BBEG somehow that makes your contributions to the battle worthless and obviously the paladin is OP.... *sigh*
I haven't really thought about it much, but with all the wall of x spells, fly, teleport, traps, blur, displacement, etc it seems that there are plenty of ways to make sure a ranged/melee attacker has issues hitting you. Heck, even wind stance would help. As a side note, there is a spell in the cheliax book that makes a dome with 20 hardness and 10hp/caster level. It lasts for 1 round per caster level. It takes 1 immediate action. Even if the paladin goes first the evil/demonic/undead/dragon/caster can pop the dome and then the paladin needs to get through the dome before it can get to the creature. And he doesn't get any bonus damage to piercing the dome.
Something like that wouldn't hinder a paladin anymore than it would hinder other classes, so how does it balance?
As said before, I find "other classes can do this" to be a poor form of balance. I havn't seen the spell myself, so I'm not too sure of it's effects. But my first thought is "What does the wizard do afterwards?" He's stuck in a dome. He can buff sure, but so can the party, and the pally's smite won't be wasted since it'll last until the end of the encounter. A smart party will buff and just wait for it to drop, mean-while the wizard has wasted a spell slot and is still within' smiting range.
It's also all well can good to say things like "Well, a wizard can just use wind-wall", and yes, it'll screw over ranged paladins, but it'll screw over other ranged characters too, so it doesn't really balance out the paladin. "Someone gains XY or Z" doesn't change what other classes get.
|
The point of my surgestion was to bring it down. The additional damage against certain foes was an unnessicery change, and the 1-round mechanic enables the paladin to shine, but not completely outshine others. In fact, during the Beta people actually complained about two-weapon paladins being overkill, and that was back when it was only 1 round. How does making it longer fix things? It doesn't, it just pushes it more towards ranger territotry.
No it didn't last one round in the BETA, it lasted one round in the beta for the first 6 levels, at that point you only have 1-2 smites per day, and since you lacked itterative attacks you missed with your smite and it was wasted. It lasted multiple rounds at higher levels. People were complaining about two weapon fighting because it didn't fit the image they associated with paladin, they weren't complaining about it being overpowered because of two weapon fighting. I never saw them complaining about smiting TWF paladins being a problem because of power, but because it didn't match the flavor of paladins, but a full round mechanic encourages getting as many attacks in said round as possible.
Why not actually try doing the fix one at a time instead of running in and turning it back into the 3.5 smite evil why not try fixing it one step at a time, and seeing how that affects it rather then throwing a bunch of nerfs at it all at once. Just take away the double damage. See how that runs for a while, then if you need more you can further alter it, but i seriously think that with just limiting it to not do double damage against certain types, and the limit of being at most 7 creatures per day, that it won't overwhelm your BBEGs like you're worried about.
Nero, conversing with you is almost a headche. You only throw in the aspects of an argument you want to make it look like you have a point.
Anywhere near as much as everyone else on this topic?
Smite lasts for a full encounter against one enemy. The rangers last for as long as there are enemies of that type. Its very different thus hard to compare. Advantage to the situation.
It's alot easier than you imagine. Encounters are designed so that more monstesr = weaker monsters. It's easy to take on mobs with normal forms of attacks.
Smite adds a bonus to AC against the one enemy smited. FE works against all enemies of that type. Advantage to the situation.
Sometimes just one is enough.
Also, when we talk about damage you have to figure in the Rangers animal companion. Isnt the Ranger's wolf or whatever he takes going to take part in the combat and add to the Rangers total damage output?
Eh? Paladins mount? The pally has his own pet to add to the playing feild, gained at the same level as well.
Dont forget that Rangers also gain bonuses to specific skill checks as well against their foes.
The skills are nice, but they don't even come close to breaking a game, I think the paladin's smite does.
And we have not even mentioned favored terain. These bonuses are extremely valuable, the paladin gets nothing like that.
Of course, how could I forget a bonus to certain skills and initaitive? Thanks, I can't beleive I overlooked something so significant.
Lastly, your reasoning for allowing smite to work against other things. I can not even start to comprehend the logic behind this. It is smite evil not inconvenience evil
So basically, unless smite is a game breaker against evil, you won't be happy? Some of use actually care about other characters being useful.
I think you are more upset because in your specific scenario you feel as though you have been slighted by paladins because you chose to play a ranger that also hunts the stuff paladins are best at fighting. Maybe you should look at this more as a boon than a curse. You are the ranger, you hunt them, track them and fight really well against all of their minions and the BBEG but you throw in the paladin when you need to deliver a knockout punch to a BBEG or similar. I think that concept is awesome! Id love to run a paladin alongside a ranger with that concept, what a team!
I wouldn't mind my ranger being outshone by the paladin, since is is a specialist hunter. But since my character is specialising too, I'd rather not lag anywhere near behind as he will. I want my full bab, bonus feat and martial weapon prof combat class to actually be competent in combat compared to others.
But since you dont get to be the guy that throws down the most damage against the BBEG somehow that makes your contributions to the battle worthless and obviously the paladin is OP.... *sigh*
Forgive me for thinking D'n'D was a combat game, it's not like 3/4's of the spells, abitlies and other such things revolve around combat. I'm not wanting my ranger to WTFPWN these things, but I don't want him to just go "Oh look, another evil character, get to work I'll just sit here in the corner".
A paladin can still do his job without having such power, and yet you'll still argue that he deserves it. You think arguing with me is a headache? Have a look from my view, have a look at the number of posts which relate the same points over and over despite that fact that they don't actually change anything. Happy to say things like "Have you play-tested it" when they themselves havn't, or insist that because someone has a chart that instantly someone saying "the paladin isn't OP" is some sort of fact.
I think this thread is a good example of fans getting what they want, I personally think that no matter how overpowering such an ability might be, there will always be people willing to say it isn't.
Well you won't need to argue anymore with me. As I said, I don't think anyone here pro-smite is really going to listen, no matter how legitimate my claims are. Even if I was 100% factlly right when I say OP, I'll still get folk saying otherwise. So I'm done with this thread.
"Oh look, another evil character, get to work I'll just sit here in the corner"
Simple fact is this is what the paladin used to do in EVERY encounter. Now that the paladin can actually stand there against evil and be a significant threat there are people who want to take that way. Not only take it away, they want to put it back the way it was.... I am not sure why it is unfair for a paladin to be able to take part in the combat and actually do something.
"Oh look, another evil character, get to work I'll just sit here in the corner"Simple fact is this is what the paladin used to do in EVERY encounter. Now that the paladin can actually stand there against evil and be a significant threat there are people who want to take that way. Not only take it away, they want to put it back the way it was.... I am not sure why it is unfair for a paladin to be able to take part in the combat and actually do something.
See...this is why it feels like any kind of criticism of the power of the new Paladin falls on deaf ears.
"Simple fact is this is what the paladin used to do in EVERY encounter." Come on. It wasn't THAT bad. There is a difference between underpowered and utterly useless.
"I am not sure why it is unfair for a paladin to be able to take part in the combat and actually do something." Really? Is that the sum total that is being taken from all that anyone has said about smite being too powerful over the last 380-some posts?
No one is out to emasculate the paladin or make the character worthless. It's about moderating things in an effort to keep one character from dwarfing the others in common situations. My own opinion: if a player had presented the new Paladin to me as a new variant class, there is no way I would have allowed it. Obviously everyone has different opinions, but again, the fact that there are almost 400 posts here indicates that something is probably amiss.
Lastly, your reasoning for allowing smite to work against other things. I can not even start to comprehend the logic behind this. It is smite evil not inconvenience evil and sometimes look mean at stuff that is neutral. If you wanna talk about stepping on the rangers toes, this suggestion does exactly that.
I agree. The paladin takes out the BBEG because he has 1 smite left.. the ranger takes out all the minions because he has sideways 8 favored enemies left.
To the smite evil affecting non-evils... it does. You can now smite an archon and remove it's DR.. but I would say they're more likely to be smiting say an iron golem to remove it's DR. That is still useful even if you don't get the bonus damage. This is one of the best fixes the designers made to the paladin, he can now fight the evil guys constructs.. I wonder if you could smite a door to break it down.. by RAW hardness vs DR no, however if you had a good RP reason I would allow it.
"Oh look, another evil character, get to work I'll just sit here in the corner"Simple fact is this is what the paladin used to do in EVERY encounter. Now that the paladin can actually stand there against evil and be a significant threat there are people who want to take that way. Not only take it away, they want to put it back the way it was.... I am not sure why it is unfair for a paladin to be able to take part in the combat and actually do something.See...this is why it feels like any kind of criticism of the power of the new Paladin falls on deaf ears.
"Simple fact is this is what the paladin used to do in EVERY encounter." Come on. It wasn't THAT bad. There is a difference between underpowered and utterly useless.
"I am not sure why it is unfair for a paladin to be able to take part in the combat and actually do something." Really? Is that the sum total that is being taken from all that anyone has said about smite being too powerful over the last 380-some posts?
No one is out to emasculate the paladin or make the character worthless. It's about moderating things in an effort to keep one character from dwarfing the others in common situations. My own opinion: if a player had presented the new Paladin to me as a new variant class, there is no way I would have allowed it. Obviously everyone has different opinions, but again, the fact that there are almost 400 posts here indicates that something is probably amiss.
It was pretty bad in 3.5. You had one shot (which usually missed) to do some damage while everyone else had their bonuses that worked nearly constantly.
You are right, the sum is not that bad. But for some like Nero, who's suggestion puts the paladins smite back to 3.5 it is.
I dont think it indicates that something is amiss with the character I think it indicates that there are a lot of people who dont want to see the character prematurely "renerfed" because a few want to scream OP before the game has been on the shelves two months. The original Paladin thread in the playtest was over 1000 posts, that indicated that there was a BIG problem with the class. What we got was very close to what we worked for. And now because a few people think that their chars will be overshadowed they are screaming nerf before it has been played.
Even in the face of a chart that shows the paladins average damage people still scream OP.
I love the paladin class for what it stands for and I love how it works in PF (was terrible in 3.5). But the best thing PF has done is show the imbalance from full casters to melee classes. Look at the classes that got the most work, it proves there was a drastic problem with the power levels in 3.5. Now that the melee (and look what class probably got the most work, the paladin) classes it finally starts to look apealing to those of us who like a guy with a sword over a guy with a wand.
Those of us who are finally getting to play something that is as tough as a full caster without playing a different full caster are happy. We are gonna defend this, that is why there are so many posts. And that is why there will continue to be, because if we allow a few people to complain then it will go back to the way it was and we dont want that.
Lastly, your reasoning for allowing smite to work against other things. I can not even start to comprehend the logic behind this. It is smite evil not inconvenience evil and sometimes look mean at stuff that is neutral. If you wanna talk about stepping on the rangers toes, this suggestion does exactly that.
I agree. The paladin takes out the BBEG because he has 1 smite left.. the ranger takes out all the minions because he has sideways 8 favored enemies left.
To the smite evil affecting non-evils... it does. You can now smite an archon and remove it's DR.. but I would say they're more likely to be smiting say an iron golem to remove it's DR. That is still useful even if you don't get the bonus damage. This is one of the best fixes the designers made to the paladin, he can now fight the evil guys constructs.. I wonder if you could smite a door to break it down.. by RAW hardness vs DR no, however if you had a good RP reason I would allow it.
Hold on.. you lost me man. How is it that the paladin can smite an Iron golem or any other construct? Have I missed a line in the rules somewhere?
Hold on.. you lost me man. How is it that the paladin can smite an Iron golem or any other construct? Have I missed a line in the rules somewhere?Lastly, your reasoning for allowing smite to work against other things. I can not even start to comprehend the logic behind this. It is smite evil not inconvenience evil and sometimes look mean at stuff that is neutral. If you wanna talk about stepping on the rangers toes, this suggestion does exactly that.
I agree. The paladin takes out the BBEG because he has 1 smite left.. the ranger takes out all the minions because he has sideways 8 favored enemies left.
To the smite evil affecting non-evils... it does. You can now smite an archon and remove it's DR.. but I would say they're more likely to be smiting say an iron golem to remove it's DR. That is still useful even if you don't get the bonus damage. This is one of the best fixes the designers made to the paladin, he can now fight the evil guys constructs.. I wonder if you could smite a door to break it down.. by RAW hardness vs DR no, however if you had a good RP reason I would allow it.
Read the smite. After it talkes about the damage it says regardless of the alignment it overcomes DR. That's the best thing because if you don't fight evil all day the paladin can still use his ability. To a lesser degree mind you, but it's still useful to overcome that DR if your scimitar wielding paladin of Serenrae doesn't have an adamantine morningstar.
Wow, I totally overlooked that line. I will have to read closer. I wonder if that was the intent?
Wow, I totally overlooked that line. I will have to read closer. I wonder if that was the intent?
It's very specifically spelled out that it works regardless of alignment. If they only wanted it to work with evils I would think they would have said it immediately after describing the damage to evils.
|
|
I suppose that's why I dislike it so much. I can see it being a huge problem for me as a player, since in the presence of evil the party paladin is going to outshine me no-end, even if I play a ranger focused on fighting evil and undead and such (which is a real possibility, considering just a few days before the release of PF I told my DM what my new character was going to be...guess what? A ranger who focuses on fighting demons and devils. Another player then said "I want to be a paladin").
As many of you are or are not aware I am the DM that Nero is referring to and I feel I have to clear a point up here which has really annoyed me and that is the player who said he wanted to play a Paladin has been saying that he wanted to play a Paladin long before Nero mentioned his Killoren Ranger in fact he has been saying it for about 6 or so months since he finished Dming one of his campaigns, (Character was originally going to be the daughter of one of his NPC'S in that. This was back when we were using the Beta rules so his character choice actually had nothing to do with the Smite ability.
|
|
Wow, I totally overlooked that line. I will have to read closer. I wonder if that was the intent?It's very specifically spelled out that it works regardless of alignment. If they only wanted it to work with evils I would think they would have said it immediately after describing the damage to evils.
If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
It says this later in the entry, so no you can't target an iron golem and get DR bypassing
I don't have my book on me, can someone put the Smite description here for us to discuss this DR issue?
And I say it once more Smite is nice the way it is ;)
|
|
Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider withthe evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess. In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect. The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 3–11, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
I've bolded the relevant portions