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
You're right. I went back and ready it. It says regardless of target, not regardless of alignment. It must be stating that it doesn't matter if it's evil, evil outsider, evil undead, or evil dragon it overcomes their DR. Too bad.. I was just starting to think paladins could call on their god for help when they weren't fighting evil dragons.
You're right. I went back and ready it. It says regardless of target, not regardless of alignment. It must be stating that it doesn't matter if it's evil, evil outsider, evil undead, or evil dragon it overcomes their DR. Too bad.. I was just starting to think paladins could call on their god for help when they weren't fighting evil dragons.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
This leads to another way badies might trick a paladin into not smiting them. Shield their alignment so detect evil won't work, paladin will think they're neutral or an illusion or something like that.
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... that clears up some stuff. Geeze all I can say is *sigh*
I don't have my book on me, can someone put the Smite description here for us to discuss this DR issue?
Just a reminder. If you do not have your book on you, but you have internet access (as you obviously do lol) then you can always access the rules at d20pfsrd.com.
Nero said
Something like that wouldn't hinder a paladin anymore than it would hinder other classes, so how does it balance?
I am sure that if I went out of my way to do something special you would say that fact that I had to do so meant the pally was over powred. So which is it? Should I use special means, or something that works against everyone to prove the pally is not special
Nero said "What does the wizard do afterwards?" He's stuck in a dome.
He can turn invisible. Teleport out of the dome. Do mass status affect, and force the pally to free his friends or attack him. That was just off the top of my head. I think your issue is you are not trying to find a soluation to the problem other than saying nerf.
Nero said
Eh? Paladins mount? The pally has his own pet to add to the playing field, gained at the same level as well.
Earlier people were claiming the bond with the weapon was an issue. So are you going to use the weapon or mount. Do you really think the mount will do anything or did you just feel like bringing up the fact that the pally has one?
Nero have you DM'd against a paladin, and made any effort to slow him down?
cmaczkow said
Obviously everyone has different opinions, but again, the fact that there are almost 400 posts here indicates that something is probably amiss/
What does the number of post do with anything? What if it was only 399 post? What about the fact that there are many ways to stop a paladin, and many of them have yet to be countered. If its so easy for a paladin or any martial melee character to get a full round attack off then why is one of the complaints that melee characters almost never get full round attacks at high levels? Does the paladin have a special ability that solves this problem?
Paladin is fine. He'll work good in play. Against evil one round in four will be shaved off.
It's clear that the people with issues are having 'player regret' that exists in MMO'S - they've invested time in their PC's and feel that the rule changes make their choice less cool.
It's an objective truth that the paladin does the same average damage as the fighter when a comparison is done. (see the chart) It's also an objective truth that everyone is running in their own campaign with their own types of issues (Style, tone, enemies, tactics)
There is nothing wrong with the Pathfinder paladin; There is something wrong with people attempting to use a messageboard thread to strong arm their DM's into nerfing their friends characters.
Save an electron, have a conversation with your dungeon master.
This nudders smite to the point of empitence.
I am unable to locate a definition for empitence.
What does this word mean and where can I find a definition.
I think he meant impotence.
This nudders smite to the point of empitence.I am unable to locate a definition for empitence.
What does this word mean and where can I find a definition.
He misspelled an awful lot of letters if that is the case.
|
He misspelled an awful lot of letters if that is the case.I think he meant impotence.
This nudders smite to the point of empitence.I am unable to locate a definition for empitence.
What does this word mean and where can I find a definition.
I'm guessing he didn't care because he wasn't writing his college thesis. Or perhaps is in high school? I don't know, point is he doesn't care about clarity obviously.
It took me a while, but I finally realized that "nudders" is "neuters." (Funny, because later he spelled "neutralize" just fine.)
So, "neutered to the point of impotence."
Closer to "murdered to the point of death", technically speaking. I laughed anyway. :)
Ok... sorry that my spelling is horrendous. Point is the same though.
I think that if you have some super evil enemy that you want to not go down like a chump then give them some type of resistance to good, so that the dragon or lich will not be an easy fight.
Not exactly smite-related, but while we're on the subject of paladins, I wanted to raise a gripe.
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the only things NOT affected by a paladins Aura of Righteousness are evil creatures?
- Another paladin hits him? Take 5 damage off.
- A commoner whacks him? Take 5 damage off.
- A sabertooth tiger chews on him? Take 5 damage off.
- A skeleton claws at him? WHOA! HE HAS NO DR VS. IT BECAUSE ITS EVIL!!!
So basically, his protection protects him vs. everything that is NOT evil.
Aura of Righteousness (Su):
At 17th level, a paladin gains DR 5/evil and immunity to compulsion spells and spell-like abilities. Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against compulsion effects.
This ability functions only while the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.
This is really more a problem with DR though. It would have been cool if Paizo could have stretched the definition of DR a tiny bit so that you could have DR that is good vs. ONLY ONE THING, and not good vs. ALL BUT ONE THING.
In other words, I would have it be DR5(vs. evil only) instead of DR5/evil.
Just my thoughts.
On a side-note, isn't the second half of this sentence redundant?
"This ability functions only while the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead."
Meaning, it already says it only functions while the paladin is conscious. In what circumstance might the paladin be conscious AND unconscious, or conscious AND dead? The first sentence covers the second half, ie, everything after the comma is unnecessary.
Not exactly smite-related, but while we're on the subject of paladins, I wanted to raise a gripe.
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the only things NOT affected by a paladins Aura of Righteousness are evil creatures?
- Another paladin hits him? Take 5 damage off.
- A commoner whacks him? Take 5 damage off.
- A sabertooth tiger chews on him? Take 5 damage off.
- A skeleton claws at him? WHOA! HE HAS NO DR VS. IT BECAUSE ITS EVIL!!!
So basically, his protection protects him vs. everything that is NOT evil.
Aura of Righteousness (Su):** spoiler omitted **
This is really more a problem with DR though. It would have been cool if Paizo could have stretched the definition of DR a tiny bit so that you could have DR that is good vs. ONLY ONE THING, and not good vs. ALL BUT ONE THING.
In other words, I would have it be DR5(vs. evil only) instead of DR5/evil.
Just my thoughts.
On a side-note, isn't the second half of this sentence redundant?
"This ability functions only while the paladin is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead."
Meaning, it already says it only functions while the paladin is conscious. In what circumstance might the paladin be conscious AND unconscious, or conscious AND dead? The first sentence covers the second half, ie, everything after the comma is unnecessary.
The enemy does not have to be evil. It just has to have an evil aligned weapon. I think Angels are the same way.
The enemy does not have to be evil. It just has to have an evil aligned weapon. I think Angels are the same way.
Oh yes, I know. I'm just saying that the way that DR works is that it protects you from everything BUT the thing after the slash. It seems odd to me that angels and paladins weakness is to evil creatures, when it should be just the reverse. They are MORE protected vs. evil creatures, not less. But alas, that's just not how DR works. There's no such thing as DR5(vs. evil only). No, its just DR#/<something> with no deviations.
Closer to "murdered to the point of death", technically speaking. I laughed anyway. :)
That's actually what I typed at first, but then it occurred to me: impotence is generally a temporary condition, in contrast to the rather permanent neutering process. Was trying to mirror that. :)
It would have been cool if Paizo could have stretched the definition of DR a tiny bit so that you could have DR that is good vs. ONLY ONE THING, and not good vs. ALL BUT ONE THING.
DR 5/non-evil
|
Personally, I think the Paladin is just a touch too potent.
Some suggested reductions in power.
1) DR is overcome by adding the Paladin's Charisma to the plus of his weapon for purposes of overcoming DR. This will mean that DR x/- is still there as it's pure toughness. It also means things like a skeletons resilience to slashing weapons (because he has no soft parts to cut away) also remain. As most Paladins will have a very high charisma, this still means that most DR will be ignored.
2) Limit double damage to undead and [Evil] Outsiders, creatures that are basically pure evil. If you must, allow feats to expand the double damage. That way a Paladin can specialise a bit by hunting aberrations in the Darklands instead of being St George. Yuo could give him just one and then use feats to grants the rest if you wanted to limit things more. (Personal preference and nothing to do with limiting the Paladin's power)
3) Reduce the Channel Energy power (say as Cleric-3). This would make Lay on Hands more viable as it would do more healing and not stomp on the cleric's toes so much while still enabling a lot of additional healing.
4) Limit the maximum number of rounds a single Smite works for to the Paladin's Charisma bonus. (In mot cases this will be 3. or 6 art higher levels. This should be more than sufficient to make a difference in most fights.)
5) Don't make mercies automatic. For each mercy, you reduce the healing by 1d6. You can reduce the healing further to increase the level check, if required.
None of those hurt the Paladin a lot, but all slightly reduce the potency. I don't think he needs to be nerfed to the Nine Hells and back again, but in our game he is outshining the other melee combatants by a large margin. Even the Paladin player is thinking the new smite might be a bit much. Of course, that might be due to him wielding a scimitar and having improved critical as well rather than just being a Paladin.
On the DR, it basically functions as the Paladin is infused by pure Good that blunts attacks but pure Evil is anathema to the Paladin so still hurts him. It's the same reason that a Fire Elemental is hurt by Cold. It's inimical to the very essence of the creature.
We just played RotRL's Fortress of the Stone Giants - 6 Player Party. Our GM tends to increase the monsters and we are a level lower, with less magic items (in gp), than the character levels that are suggested. This was our first trial using the PFRPG.
Generally our GM added 2hp per level to monsters and this seemed to work + Monsters as necessary. However, on our end of weekend review, we found PFRPG to have increased power - which we think isn't necessarily a good thing. But this is our opinion - PFRPG is 3.5 add Sugar.
Funnily enough the PFRPG Paladins Smite never made it to the table. It had very quickly been nerfed over email prior - no 2x and no AC bonus. At least I had got 3 cbt rounds out of my initial trial of a 5th Level Crusader (Book of 9 Swords) before it too was nerfed - players and GMs started to note my 10hp / rnd regeneration...
Sean
3) Reduce the Channel Energy power (say as Cleric-3). This would make Lay on Hands more viable as it would do more healing and not stomp on the cleric's toes so much while still enabling a lot of additional healing.
The cleric channel is barely effective as it is. If the paladin had a lesser version all healing would default back to the cleric, and the cleric being stuck in healbot mode was one thing many people did not like about 3.5. I like the fact that the paladin gives the cleric a chance to do something different.
Edit:Barely effective was a bit much, but any less and it may not be worth having is a better way to say it.
The brokenness of something depends on how much effort someone believes they should have to put into stopping it or slowing it down. Some of us want it to be fairly simple, while others dont mind putting more thought into it. Another factor is how much the issue disrupts our games. If there is an occasional disruption here and there its ok, but to others even the occasional disruption is to much. There are some that dont even see a disruption existing. I doubt this debate will ever really end, even when the thread dies out.