Personally, I think the idea of a balanced party where everyone contributes equally is MOSTLY just a myth. My gaming group has been together for over 20 years now, and I can only think of one campaign where everyone was fairly well balanced in comparison to each other.
The truth is the players themselves create most of the disparity, not the game system.....
The pharaoh is wise.
If actually played correctly, the rules support the paladin doing the rediculous and not ending up as just another melee unit to trod under giant boots, or draining the party healers for their daring and brash tactics. Unfortunately there aren't any rules to make this a game that awards roleplaying and when taken into a vacuum statistical analysis computer it is very easy to have a situation (or even a host of situations) where the paladin is going to look like superman reading the paper in a shooting range.
I remember playing a pally once when the party ended up destroying the water elemental that made sure that the towns well provided fresh water. As the party got back into town the paladin felt honor bound to go and report this to the town watch so that no villagers drank the spoiled water. Needless to say the rest of the party bailed on me. However through a few good rolls and an extremely extensive role-play, my pally came out smelling like roses, with not only the town's thanks but several converts to Pelor's faith as well.
Of course everyone has their ability to shine. In another game, Comyr: The tearing of the Weave, my ranger, with the encouragement of the DM, was a follower of Selune and had followers (Church) of Shar as my favored enemy. Kind ruined some of the fun for him though, when I used detect favored enemy and proceeded to uncover all of the hidden Sharrans :P. You just got to play to your strengths.
|
IOW, as if often the case when people whinge on about balance, the real issue is pacing. Get rid of the 15-Minute Adventuring Day, and all sorts of problems diminish or fade away entirely. OTOH, if the DM permits the sort of pacing that lets characters with limited uses per day abilities to go into most encounters at full or nearly full strength, then things get out of whack.Well, I am using a Pathfinder adventure, so I would have expected it to work in the Pathfinder RPG out of the box, rather than requiring me to, y'know, rework the basic framework of the game.
Where you have powers/day, this is just a function of the game. It was thus in 3e and in previous editions and is also in 4e too. If you are bothered about it, try throwing a series of "random" wandering monsters at them in a day (nothing too tough, but several encounters) and see how it goes before you get too bothered about what is essentially just another facet of a well-known fact - fresh PCs kick arse better than those that have expended resources in several previous encounters. And if it still bothers you, choose a less sandboxy ampaign and go for a tough meatgrinder where they have to husband their resources a lot more. I think you are blaming the system when in fact the "issue" is the scenario and maybe the choices the DM is making.
IOW, as if often the case when people whinge on about balance, the real issue is pacing. Get rid of the 15-Minute Adventuring Day, and all sorts of problems diminish or fade away entirely. OTOH, if the DM permits the sort of pacing that lets characters with limited uses per day abilities to go into most encounters at full or nearly full strength, then things get out of whack.Well, I am using a Pathfinder adventure, so I would have expected it to work in the Pathfinder RPG out of the box, rather than requiring me to, y'know, rework the basic framework of the game.
There is no way to design an adventure so it works no matter what the party composition is. Class choices and the way they are built are big contributors. I have ran Age of Worms with two different groups, and the skill level of one group had them struggling against minions at times.
You might not have to rewrite entire monsters, but adjustments will have to be make.
Is it?I am sorely tempted to FAQ that.That's a terrible, terrible mindset for a rules questions board.
Yes, I honestly think it is.
I've imagined lots of "design" problems in the game, then found my way out of them just by playing instead of questioning the intention of the design.
I've had similar experiences, which is why I've given the Pathfinder paladin the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that it seemed obviously overpowered on first reading, and simply played with it as written. It still seems overpowered. So yes, I've played the game, and it hasn't solved my problems.
In fact, I think questioning the intention of the design is inappropriate for a rules questions board, which should mainly provide answers. This thread already has provided an answer. Debating the balance of the design provides no answers.
As I've said, this sort of dismissive attitude bordering on idolatry is the most off-putting thing about the whole brand.
"Debating the balance of the design provides no answers"? Way to encourage crappy design.
No RPG works out of the box. They all require a GM.
+1. And the 15-Minute Adventuring Day is not part of the game's basic framework.
No RPG works out of the box. They all require a GM.
I didn't know they had RPG-related fortune cookies.
+1. And the 15-Minute Adventuring Day is not part of the game's basic framework.
And yet, it's such a commonly perceived phenomenon that there is a widely accepted term for it, properly capitalized, even.
|
The Fighter outdamages every other class.Are we talking about random encounters with wild boars and angry non-evil robbers while barbarian is out of rage rounds, or are we talking about the ecounters that actually matter?
You are still trying to be cool'n'hip without actually proving your statements with any real data.
Between weapon training, new feats and more feats than anybody else, a PF Fighter has the highest DPR of all classes. The Barbarian actually didn't get anything overtly cool to play with in PF Core - he gets his due in the APG, but then again, APG has some great Fighter stuff too.
And yes, we did the math on the boards here.
Which in no way makes it a part of the game itself.
It doesn't make it a part of the game, but it's an indication that it is a part of the game.
Alright Jasin, you say LoH is overpowered and I believe it is not. Where does this leave us?Me, on the moral high ground, because I at least attempted to provide a reasoned argument for my opinion, as opposed to devotions and platitudes.
BAHAHAHAHA
The "Moral High Ground" is a position to argue for genocide and little else.
|
|
And when did this become an issue of morality anyway? What you are talking about has been explained by play style, and you haven't really refuted it, just sort of whined a bit. A paladin's effectiveness works off these daily effects much more than a fighter's will. If he has them in hand, and can expect not to have to conserve them, he will blow them all in a single fight. Before you go off "on the moral high ground" I would challenge you to actually put them through their paces with a series of encounters one after another - not mega-tough, but level appropriate, and see how they do, and if there is still a problem after that then we might actually have some decent proof for your somewhat hyperbolic assertions.
EDIT: Well, at least you saw that you maybe got a little carried away there.
Before you go off "on the moral high ground" I would challenge you to actually put them through their paces with a series of encounters one after another - not mega-tough, but level appropriate, and see how they do, and if there is still a problem after that then we might actually have some decent proof for your somewhat hyperbolic assertions.
I am running Kingmaker. If I need to adjust Pathfinder adventures, the very adventures the Pathfinder RPG was published to run, to accommodate the paladin, I argue that's pretty solid indication that the paladin is problematic.
EDIT: Well, at least you saw that you maybe got a little carried away there.
Make no mistake: only because Evil Lincoln did.
The Fighter outdamages every other class.Are we talking about random encounters with wild boars and angry non-evil robbers while barbarian is out of rage rounds, or are we talking about the ecounters that actually matter?
Point being, that fighter must be played well. Sorry to be harsh, but it's not a class for everyone sometimes. You must be very careful in your choices both in the feats when you build it, and in the weapons and strategy on the battlefield.
The example above states that "the fighter has a +1 all the time". If you think that in 6 levels weapon focus is the only reliable thing the fighter took, I sugest to play the class more to discover what can offer.
Said this, if the fighter choose to go pure damage, it get worse and worse (for the enemies or every comparison) the more you raise in levels.
BTW, I think that the core barbarian is quite good, too even if the APG really loved him (pounce, come and get me..).
|
You are still trying to be cool'n'hip without actually proving your statements with any real data.
I'm trying to defend a poor little barbarian that has to get in the front row with awfully low AC. All he has going is damage dealing. If even a fighter beats him at his own thing, something must be terribly wrong with rage
Point being, that fighter must be played well. Sorry to be harsh, but it's not a class for everyone sometimes.You're not harsh to me, just to my group's fighter. Next time he plays, I'll force him to become better then the paladin *goes off to practice wedgies and indian burns*
Why should be he better when he could be different? Why say that the LoH is broken when the paladin can heal himself AND the fighter with it?
Why say that the LoH is broken when the paladin can heal himself AND the fighter with it?
Every lay on hands is spent on anyone except yourself is a standard action used up that didn't have to be.
Sometimes, of course, spending that extra standard action will be worth it, when someone is stunned or dazed or about to die. But most of the time... no.
You are still trying to be cool'n'hip without actually proving your statements with any real data.I'm trying to defend a poor little barbarian that has to get in the front row with awfully low AC. All he has going is damage dealing. If even a fighter beats him at his own thing, something must be terribly wrong with rage
Gorbacz is right here--APG changes notwithstanding, Fighters will eventually outdamage even raging Barbarians consistently (at low levels, the Barbarians have a solid advantage that dissipates over time). This is because at higher levels, their Weapon Training class feature of +4 to hit and damage will eventually cancel the Rage bonus to hit of even the level 20 Rage, and they have Greater Weapon Focus on top of that, with the Weapon Specialisations to fill in the damage deficit. And that's if you try to wield the same weapon as the Barbarian does--if you become an Archer instead, damage shoots way up (indeed, Archer Paladins are scary as well for just this reason).
That said, having played with the Pathfinder Paladin as-written since it came out (including the x2 damage until that was errataed), I believe that while, say, LoH itself may not be overpowered, and certainly nothing (except Aura of Justice) could even approach the status where it should be called "broken", the net package of Paladin is definitely significantly stronger in Adventure Path games that I have played and GMed (Rise of the Runelords and Council of Thieves) than other non-casters.
Is that a problem? Hasn't really been so far for our group, but Rise of the Runelords has two Paladins out of five PCs and Council of Thieves has three out of six (I am the GM in one and not playing a Paladin in the other, but the rest of my group has taken quite a shining to them). So while in a hypothetical world where I was trying to make everything more even-handed for the non-casters, I would do something about this, I don't have plans to change it for my own game. However, I have had to make some changes to AP opponents to make the game more fun for everyone given the Paladins, so perhaps this would be a concern for GMs who don't have the time to do this. Then again, I don't usually use published modules, but it's clear that doing that sort of adjusting is not unique to Paladins.
What's up with the condescending attitude in this thread? The OP came here with a problem he had in his game based on experience and not random speculation and a lot of you dismiss it with either sarcasm or something completely unrelated (Tongue of the Sun and the Moon? Seriously?).
Anyways, yeah, it is powerful. I've only run a game with a paladin up to about level 4 or 5, at which point it was fine, although a really useful ability, but I can see how it can become a problem at higher levels. The best solution would probably be and talk to the paladin player and try to change the rules to suit your game better without taking away from the player's fun.
|
|
What's up with the condescending attitude in this thread? The OP came here with a problem he had in his game based on experience and not random speculation and a lot of you dismiss it with either sarcasm or something completely unrelated (Tongue of the Sun and the Moon? Seriously?).
Anyways, yeah, it is powerful. I've only run a game with a paladin up to about level 4 or 5, at which point it was fine, although a really useful ability, but I can see how it can become a problem at higher levels. The best solution would probably be and talk to the paladin player and try to change the rules to suit your game better without taking away from the player's fun.
The problem is that the OP considers "broken" an ability that is, honestly, about as broken as a wand of cure light wounds is. We're trying to save his players having to suffer from unnecessary gimping of a well-balanced class.
|
|
I believe that while, say, LoH itself may not be overpowered, and certainly nothing (except Aura of Justice) could even approach the status where it should be called "broken", the net package of Paladin is definitely significantly stronger in Adventure Path games that I have played and GMed (Rise of the Runelords and Council of Thieves) than other non-casters.
Is that a problem?
It's not a world shattering problem. Like I said, in any edition prior to 4e you can play whoever you want without feeling weaker since the classes are so much different. But still, when one melee hitter holds the line while healing up, and the other dies a lot, you either need both of them or just the first one
I don't actually mind that at all, I'm mostly here to enjoy how people zealously defend any bit of PF ruleset, just for the sake of worshiping it. After this dies down, I might try reading up on the slumber hex :D
Is that a problem? Hasn't really been so far for our group, but Rise of the Runelords has two Paladins out of five PCs and Council of Thieves has three out of six
See, that's exactly what I'd like to avoid.
The problem is that the OP considers "broken" an ability that is, honestly, about as broken as a wand of cure light wounds is.
Is it a Quickened Empowered wand of cure light wounds?
I believe that while, say, LoH itself may not be overpowered, and certainly nothing (except Aura of Justice) could even approach the status where it should be called "broken", the net package of Paladin is definitely significantly stronger in Adventure Path games that I have played and GMed (Rise of the Runelords and Council of Thieves) than other non-casters.
Is that a problem?
It's not a world shattering problem. Like I said, in any edition prior to 4e you can play whoever you want without feeling weaker since the classes are so much different. But still, when one melee hitter holds the line while healing up, and the other dies a lot, you either need both of them or just the first one
I don't actually mind that at all, I'm mostly here to enjoy how people zealously defend any bit of PF ruleset, just for the sake of worshiping it. After this dies down, I might try reading up on the slumber hex :D
Ah, I see. Yeah, Pathfinder Paladins can hold the line and how. In one particular example, the party at low levels was up against an invisible, regenerating, flying opponent with DR that they couldn't overcome (except the Paladin's Smite). The entire party dropped except the Paladin, who proceeded to fight the enemy to the point where the enemy fled invisibly to regenerate, at which point the Paladin slowly broke down the magically locked door that she had trapped them in (this wasn't their first time fighting this enemy, and she didn't want to run away like last time) and began dragging his friends out of the dungeon, one at a time, punctuated by the enemy returning at full health for the Paladin to beat her from full health again and again. He managed to drag them all completely out of the dungeon and must have defeated her at least 17 times during the process. This was a combination of his high AC normally, his Smite Charisma bonus to AC, his LoH ability, his Smite Charisma bonus to hit (her AC was very high), his Smite ability to penetrate DR (and at the time, though it was only a two damage difference because he was level 2, the x2 damage against evil outsiders). This is an epic tale that we retell amongst our group. It was awesome. On the other hand, even the player of the Paladin admitted that the whole ensemble of abilities was very strong.
Jasin,
The paladin is by far the most powerful melee class, and the problem is exacerbated by running Kingmaker where many encounters are the once per day type due to the exploration style of adventure that Kingmaker is.
If this continues to be a problem for you, I would remove the self swift option from Lay on Hands. That should help.
|
|
The problem is that the OP considers "broken" an ability that is, honestly, about as broken as a wand of cure light wounds is.Is it a Quickened Empowered wand of cure light wounds?
Look, healing never was and never is a problem in D&D, because combat by attrition is a Bad Idea. You get to live longer - great, what are the other opponents doing ? Going around and killing your buddies.
D&D combat is always about Killing Things Quickly. That's why the vast majority of combat-related feats boost offensive, not defensive. What you want is to end combats quick to save resources. Abilities that allow you to prolong combat are counter-effective, except for corner cases such as uber-AC monks.
EDIT: A few seconds of post history browsing later, now I remember that you were the guy who didn't see problems with 3.5 paladins. That kind of speaks a lot about how you perceive class balance.
What's up with the condescending attitude in this thread?
Its the paizo boards where someone has dared to question the almighty Pathfinder RPG.
I'm surprised there haven't been calls for a public tar and feathering.
Is that a problem? Hasn't really been so far for our group, but Rise of the Runelords has two Paladins out of five PCs and Council of Thieves has three out of sixSee, that's exactly what I'd like to avoid.
To be fair, it doesn't stunt roleplaying. They're all very different, with only two out of the five remotely similar (and those across two different campaigns). Many are also multiclassed into things other than Paladin (too many threads that talk about Smite Evil focus on the extra damage that scales with Paladin level, but really the +Cha to hit and AC are more important).
We have a self-aggrandizing Sword and Board Paladin of Iomedae (the one from my last post) who hopes to go the path of his goddess and rise to deity status, an Archer Paladin/Celestial Sorcerer/Arcane Archer that became the lady of a small fort in Varisia where her Grand Vizier is the PC Cleric (secretly of Zon Kuthon, since after all he's the Grand Vizier), a Sword and Board Half-Orc Paladin of Shelyn who struggles with his self-loathing due to disgustat things that are not beautiful and his attempts to reconcile this with Shelyn's commandments not to look down on those who aren't beautiful but to help them, a Greatsword-wielding Tiefling (part demon) Paladin of Shelyn who used to be a prostitute in her youth and is dedicated to emotionally councilling disturbed folk and teaching people to live their lives for moments of beauty and pleasure, and a rapier-wielding Paladin/Duelist of Torag who is all about the night life.
I do get where you're coming from--I'm in a bit of an awkward place in terms of this debate because I don't think any big changes are required because it hopefully won't imbalance your game more than a little, but I do disagree with the posters on this thread who are insulting your original post as being a troll and saying there is nothing to your assertions.
So in the hopes of not offending either side, I'd like to take a more moderate stance and say that the Paladin ensemble has proven empiricially, through our testing for the last year and a bit, to be better in our group than the other melee classes, but it wasn't "broken" or "game-breaking" or anything like that, and we have skilled GMs willing to make some changes to published modules, so we had no need to change Paladin. Side note--since we roll our stats, using a method like 15 Point Buy that produces lower than average stats will mean that the Paladin is not as strong in such a game as it is in ours.
Look, healing never was and never is a problem in D&D, because combat by attrition is a Bad Idea. You get to live longer - great, what are the other opponents doing ? Going around and killing your buddies.
Which is exactly why lay on hands is so powerful! The paladin gets to heal himself while keeping on doing whatever he was doing anyway, since it's a swift action!
EDIT: A few seconds of post history browsing later, now I remember that you were the guy who didn't see problems with 3.5 paladins. That kind of speaks a lot about how you perceive class balance.
Correctly?
Look, healing never was and never is a problem in D&D, because combat by attrition is a Bad Idea. You get to live longer - great, what are the other opponents doing ? Going around and killing your buddiesThe problem is that the OP considers "broken" an ability that is, honestly, about as broken as a wand of cure light wounds is.Is it a Quickened Empowered wand of cure light wounds?
I think you're the one that hasn't seen paladins in action. Paladin's don't have to make a choice between healing and doing something else. They can do it at the same time. Healing in D&D has never been a problem because until Pathfinder paladins, it has never been reduced to a swift action. Paladins can live longer and fight the enemies at the same time, meaning your opponents aren't going around killing your buddies.
I am running Kingmaker. If I need to adjust Pathfinder adventures, the very adventures the Pathfinder RPG was published to run, to accommodate the paladin, I argue that's pretty solid indication that the paladin is problematic.
It will be interesting to see how my Kingmaker campaign unfolds. We start this week and a paladin is one of the four party members.
Even with this thread I am not too worried and I think things will work fine, partly because the paladin can help fulfill the role they often have attributed to them - a damage sponge. But it will be interesting to see if I have to come back to this thread and eat my words!
... Healing in D&D has never been a problem because until Pathfinder paladins, it has never been reduced to a swift action. Paladins can live longer and fight the enemies at the same time, meaning your opponents aren't going around killing your buddies.
But isn't this sort of the role one expects of paladins? It is just in past editions they were not really able to do so, now in Pathfinder they can actually fill the role that one (well, okay me - can't speak for everyone) sort of expects from paladins in combat.
|
|
I think you're the one that hasn't seen paladins in action. Paladin's don't have to make a choice between healing and doing something else. They can do it at the same time. Healing in D&D has never been a problem because until Pathfinder paladins, it has never been reduced to a swift action. Paladins can live longer and fight the enemies at the same time, meaning your opponents aren't going around killing your buddies.Look, healing never was and never is a problem in D&D, because combat by attrition is a Bad Idea. You get to live longer - great, what are the other opponents doing ? Going around and killing your buddiesThe problem is that the OP considers "broken" an ability that is, honestly, about as broken as a wand of cure light wounds is.Is it a Quickened Empowered wand of cure light wounds?
Tell me at which point did the Paladin achieve some kind of ability that allows him to keep his enemies from walking away from him and eating his buddies, because I am clearly missing something here.
|
|
But isn't this sort of the role one expects of paladins? It is just in past editions they were not really able to do so, now in Pathfinder they can actually fill the role that one (well, okay me - can't speak for everyone) sort of expects from paladins in combat.
It's all a very good idea since it reduces the absolute need for clerics. As long as the baddies keep hitting the paladin and as long as he regenerates while hitting, it's like christmas for the whole party
But it is a bit stronger then it should be. Not a huge problem, but it's still a little wtf
It's all a very good idea since it reduces the absolute need for clerics. As long as the baddies keep hitting the paladin and as long as he regenerates while hitting, it's like christmas for the whole party
Yeah, that could be a big if depending on the encounter. I would suspect that in some encounters the paladin will shine and in others it will still be the wizard or fighter that shine depending on circumstances.
But it is a bit stronger then it should be. Not a huge problem, but it's still a little wtf
I'll have firsthand experience soon to make a better judgment call as to how the paladin plays in my group. My Kingmaker campaign starts this week and our stronger player is playing the paladin. So give me another month or so of play and I will have a better idea of how the paladin fits in with the rest of the party. I don't really have concerns going in, but that could always change! ;)
What's up with the condescending attitude in this thread?Its the paizo boards where someone has dared to question the almighty Pathfinder RPG.
I'm surprised there haven't been calls for a public tar and feathering.
Point being, that since I've seen the Paladin being so and so for 3.0 and 3.5, I'm fairly surprised to see someone complain what is, for me, an example of well done class.
Speaking for myself, I pointed out what I think are flaws of this or hat rule quite often. So I'm a little bit upset of this charge of zaelotry.
If I see someone say that the fighter is outshined because he has only a +1 all the day at level 6, I dare to respectfully disagree.
Moreover, generally people consider game breking things that trash encounters, not that make one dude more durable. Myself, I'm just a little bit surprised, I guess that for other people could be the same.
I anyway think that any doubt about the rule is worthy to be pointed out, if done politely, so I agree with the OP about it.
Anyway, if the power is a problem, make it a move action on the paladin. If at high levels te table turns, restore the swift action.
|
|
Tell me at which point did the Paladin achieve some kind of ability that allows him to keep his enemies from walking away from him and eating his buddies, because I am clearly missing something here.There's the problem! If he really did have that ability, it might fix a few issues
That's the problem of all melee classes in 3.5ed. Pathfinder tries some kind of workaround with Stand Still, Step Up and few other feats, but it still isn't MMO tanking.
It seems that many people here assume that a bad guy will just stand there and duke it out with the Paladin becuase, erm, it's so very climatic that the knight in shining armor battles the mighty evil foe while lightining strikes around and Hans Zimmer soundtrack goes off.
Truth is, anybody half intelligent upon seeing a Paladin would make sure to put as much obstacles/mooks/distance between, and go for the squishies behind the Paladin. And mobility isn't Paladins forte, that's where Monks (very), Barbarian (quite) and Fighters (heck, armor training ftw) all run circles around him, literally.
It isn't that LoH is "overpowered," it's that all other healing spells are terrible.
Quite frankly LoH is what every healing spell or ability should be.
It's like, hey, FINALLY something for in-combat healing is worthwhile to reduce the rocket-tag nature of combat. And you want to nerf or kill it? Why?
Post the party paladins stats, level, and equipment, and the same of the rest of the party, before we jump to wild conclusions and name calling.
Seeing as this thread is 149 posts it may be too far for the latter.
Lay on Hands overpowered ... what next, Tongue of the Sun and Moon blowing up the game in half ?Perhaps.
I'm increasingly convinced that "overpowered" and "broken" are mostly just DM buzz words for "messed with my game by not letting the encounter go the way I planned".
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
+1