But... that's part of your job, if there are issues you have with the mechanics, you should fix them in the way that players will notice the least. Not wanting to do that makes you lazy and therefore not very good at your job. Especially because not everyone agrees with your assessment of the rules.
I disagree, I think it's the DM's job to fix them in the way that's best, not the most invisible to the players. If not everyone agrees with what's best, the DM (well, everyone, but the DM primarily as a sort of moderator of the game) should towards and agreement, rather than fixing perceived issues unilaterally and deceptively.
|
But... that's part of your job, if there are issues you have with the mechanics, you should fix them in the way that players will notice the least. Not wanting to do that makes you lazy and therefore not very good at your job. Especially because not everyone agrees with your assessment of the rules.I disagree, I think it's the DM's job to fix them in the way that's best, not the most invisible to the players. If not everyone agrees with what's best, the DM (well, everyone, but the DM primarily as a sort of moderator of the game) should towards and agreement, rather than fixing perceived issues unilaterally and deceptively.
I said it that way, because typically the best way to resolve issues usually goes hand in hand with something that is the least noticeable by the players. I still think this is more of something you should solve by yourself instead of trying to change the game that thousands of players tested into the ground.
Your group's characters inhabit a very different world from my group's characters. My group's characters don't know from 1d8+260. They don't know from swift actions. They know that they're holding their entrails inside their bodies with their left hand and the holy warrior standing alongside them could spare a moment to mend their shredded flesh with a laying on of hands.
Or he could choose to mend his own flesh and leave them to bleed out in the mud, just because it's a little faster for him to touch himself rather than his companion.
OR he could choose to kill the angry red dragon that's about to eat the whole party unless he stops him and THEN tend to his companion needs. Doesn't it sound silly for him to turn his back on a dangerous foe so he could somewhat heal their shredded flesh?
Immediate threats first, healing can wait.
|
If the paladin truly is dominating combats, the last thing I want to do is have him dominate the plot as well.
I hear what you are saying...in general, however, paladins (and cavaliers too for that matter) typically "hog" the spotlight just by virtue of who and what they are. Obviously if you have the worlds biggest wallflower playing one, they will not, but if you play the class the way it is presented, just by virtue of the black and white type moral code interactions you will have with PCs and NPCs, you will be in the forefront most of the time. Both are typically "face of the party" type classes and almost always de facto leaders of the group. I can honestly never think of a time that the paladin in any of my groups was NOT seen as the leader by the outside world, even if he was not the true leader among the group. Which also increases the social pressure on them whenever they have to make tough moral decisions.
Frankly, if a GM isn't putting their paladins in situations from time to time where they have to make tough decisions code-wise or alignment-wise, the GM is doing them a dis-service. The paladin player (hopefully) chose to play the class not for its "uber skilz" but because of the RPing challenge involved. To ignore this is similar to giving every encounter SR when you have a wizard in the party, or DR when you have a strong melee. This is their chance to, as Faramir says in LOTR, "show their true quality".
Yes the LOH is a strong ability, but like some of the other posters here have said, its to balance out the fact that they are limited by their LG alignment and code of conduct. If living up to the code is hand-waved, then yes I would agree that LOH is too good. If they bleed, sacrifice, and struggle to maintain the code, at least from time to time, then I believe that LOH is balanced against this fairly well.
Honestly, I disagree with you entirely. First and foremost, the Paladin is granted powers to smite evil. That is his job. Saving people is secondary. If he has a choice between smiting evil and saving people, IMO he should choose to smite the evil. God will take care of the others, but he has a job to do, and failing that to save others is not acceptable. People die, with or without you, but evil will flourish if you do not stop it, and you have been given divine might to make sure it is destroyed.
Okay. You and I have a completely different notion of which of the paladin's duties is primary, and which secondary and/or tertiary.
From my standpoint, protecting others is the highest good. To invert your argument, the paladin is granted his powers to heal and protect those who need it. That is his job. Smiting evil is sometimes necessary, but secondary. If he has a choice between saving people and smiting evil, IMO he should choose to save those who can be saved. Evil can never truly escape its punishment, but a paladin's job is a mission of faith, so failing to save others in order to ensure that punishment comes at your own hands is not acceptable. Evil will always exist, with or without you, but people here and now will die if you don't stop it, and you've been given divine might to make sure that their lives are safe.
I will definitely cede to you that there are paladins within my game world who would side with you in this argument. My players view them largely as antagonists. A PC paladin at my table who played in the way you describe would be walking the edge of a razor.
Your group's characters inhabit a very different world from my group's characters. My group's characters don't know from 1d8+260. They don't know from swift actions. They know that they're holding their entrails inside their bodies with their left hand and the holy warrior standing alongside them could spare a moment to mend their shredded flesh with a laying on of hands.
Or he could choose to mend his own flesh and leave them to bleed out in the mud, just because it's a little faster for him to touch himself rather than his companion.
OR he could choose to kill the angry red dragon that's about to eat the whole party unless he stops him and THEN tend to his companion needs. Doesn't it sound silly for him to turn his back on a dangerous foe so he could somewhat heal their shredded flesh?
Immediate threats first, healing can wait.
You're right. It's a judgment call. In the scenario you present, letting an ally bleed a bit more to save the lives of everyone is a perfectly valid choice if you're the guy with the best chance of stopping this dragon right this second.
On the other hand, it's a different matter if the circumstances are a little altered. If the whole party is still up and fighting the dragon, but one party member is so badly wounded that he will flat-out die if this dragon hits him again, then you'd better be reasonably certain that your next round of attacks is going to be enough to finish the wyrm before he breathes fire and incinerates your buddy.
Immediate threats first, smiting can wait.
|
|
This is an example of one of those morality dilemmas that paladins have to deal with occasionally. Do I save the villagers who are dying, and let the demon escape, knowing that he will continue to kill others at a later date, or do I let the villagers die and smite the demon, knowing that they sacrificed their lives for others.
This is also why its important for the GM and player to have an indepth discussion about what the paladin's code means to each of them, so there are no misunderstandings. The way I would let the above play out is that there is no correct answer, both will have their rewards and their consequences. If the paladin let the villagers die and killed the demon, I would be sure to have his church let him know how grateful they were, but at the same time, have the grieving relatives of the dead come and curse him out to his face, and blame him for their deaths. If the paladin saved the villagers, then the village folk would love him as a hero, but his own church, or perhaps the next village the demon attacked might blame him for letting it get away.
As a GM, you don't always have to strip the paladin of his powers or have dark clouds rumble every time he mis-steps. Consequences for less than ideal actions can just as easily come from conventional social sources, and often times have more of a negative impact on the party or player. For example, what if a source of imformation in a later adventure turns out to be the brother of a slain villager? By his(or her) choice, the paladin, and party, have either garnered complete helpfulness, or angry disdain. No gods necessary, no power stripping necessary, just add guilt, social awkwardness, and inconvenience, and stir!
Overall though, it seems there is less blame on the paladin for always choosing to preserve life directly, and eventually giving evil its just due, rather than having the end justify the means.
Have your players perceived a problem with this? I haven't read the whole thread but I'm curious as their opinions weren't mentioned in the bits I did read. If they are unhappy, that's one thing, but if it is just the DM that may be another. Apologies if this has already been raised and dealt with.
The consensus roughly "it's hugely powerful, I guess, but better that at least the paladin has it than that Erik Mona kills us with his acid beetle swarms".
|
Your group's characters inhabit a very different world from my group's characters. My group's characters don't know from 1d8+260. They don't know from swift actions. They know that they're holding their entrails inside their bodies with their left hand and the holy warrior standing alongside them could spare a moment to mend their shredded flesh with a laying on of hands.Not that the players complain
-I'm gonna die
-You want me to heal you for 3d6?
-No, I want you to kill the %&$&er for 1d8+260!
That's because my group's characters are awesome :D
|
|
That's because my group's characters are awesome :DYour group's characters inhabit a very different world from my group's characters. My group's characters don't know from 1d8+260. They don't know from swift actions. They know that they're holding their entrails inside their bodies with their left hand and the holy warrior standing alongside them could spare a moment to mend their shredded flesh with a laying on of hands.Not that the players complain
-I'm gonna die
-You want me to heal you for 3d6?
-No, I want you to kill the %&$&er for 1d8+260!
Or they are metagaming. I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Frankly, if a GM isn't putting their paladins in situations from time to time where they have to make tough decisions code-wise or alignment-wise, the GM is doing them a dis-service.
Regardless of anything else said in the thread, I agree with this.
Incidentally, that's why I think it's a bad way to balance out powerful abilities: in my experience, players who play paladins want the code and the moral decisions.
Contrasting powerful abilities with the code as the downside seems a bit (not quite, lest I be accused of exaggerating, but a bit) like saying "sure, rage is very powerful, but remember that a barbarian is also expected to be a crazed slayer with anger-management issues!", and I've never seen anyone use that argument.
Sounds like a good story to me!I get what you're saying, and I agree that the paladin's code should feature prominently in any game with a paladin, but I strongly dislike trying to fix mechanical issues through in-game story means.
If there is a problem with the rules (regardless of whether there is one in the specific example of lay on hands), I think it should be fixed by adjusting the rules.
In some ways, weaving the game's story around it only makes it worse. Are you familiar with Spirit of the Century or other FATE-based games? In them, something like "Unbreakable Code of Honour" is considered an ability, not a disability, because it places the spotlight on your character.
If the paladin truly is dominating combats, the last thing I want to do is have him dominate the plot as well.
And anyway, I haven't perceived my paladin's behaviour as un-paladin-like. He did heal others when they were about to die, put himself in harm's way (much like any D&D melee warrior) &c. But the thing about lay on hands is that the swift action thing means that hogging most of it for yourself isn't selfish, it's the smart thing to do. Unless the guy next to you is about to die, you're helping him more by healing yourself as you keep whacking the monster, than healing him and then letting the monster take its turn.
In fact, I might have been less annoyed if it was a swift action to heal anyone. I'd probably still think it's overpowered, but then it's just a matter of adjusting numbers, or perhaps not even that, because the difference between 4d6 and 5d6 doesn't break the game. But the difference between standard and swift has a huge impact on the spending dynamic, and rewards being selfish, which seems very inappropriate for one of the paladin's signature abilities.
I completely understand your point about using fluff controls on crunch problems. It's a crippling weakness when used too often. But in D&D, paladins are the exception that proves the rule. The code of conduct is the single most important aspect of the class. They are holy warriors called upon by the gods to uphold all that is good. If that's not being handled properly, then a lot of the balance of the class is lost.
As far as making the paladin the center of the plot is concerned, I don't think it's necessary in order to make the paladin's code matter. Little details can go a long way.
In any event, I understand your concern about the swift action to heal himself. It's a potent ability, and definitely allows the pally to tank better than any other class, out of the box. It would seem that your main difficulty comes when it's combined with smite, allowing him to both tank and deal more damage than any of his compatriots.
I understand that you're using a Paizo adventure path, and are disappointed that the encounters presented seem to play to the paladin's strengths in this regard (a single big, evil monster for the whole party to fight together, with maybe some mook support on the side). Might I submit to you that the problem you're experiencing may be a design flaw of the adventure path, rather than the class itself. Every class has certain strengths that allow them to dominate in certain scenarios. In this case, the adventure writers seem not to have taken the paladin's mechanical strengths into account when designing their encounters. I've often thought that adventure designers should include sidebars on how to alter the encounters to deal with certain parties. Most, alas, do not, and so some adventure paths cater to certain classes. But I think you're starting at the wrong end, looking to redesign the class rather than the encounters that are allowing him to shine so brightly.
Change the encounters, and the paladin's star recedes, even as another class' rises. For example, in any scenario where the party is given accurate advance knowledge of their enemy and the ability to choose the time and manner of attack, the wizard rules the roost. If the party is somehow deprived of their equipment for any length of time, the monk, sorcerer, and druid are the only classes with anything to recommend them. If most of the encounters are traps and puzzles, the rogue rises to the top of the heap.
And, if the majority of encounters consist of a single powerful evil monster, you can expect the paladin to whoop that a$$ with startling regularity.
A PC paladin at my table who played in the way you describe would be walking the edge of a razor.
Which is no big deal since he can heal any cuts as a swift action. :)
|
|
We enjoy fighting the merciless tpk-in-a-box paizo adventures, so combat easily becomes a number-crunching boardgame. Hence this threadOr they are metagaming. I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
That's because my group's characters are awesome :D
What? I've ran 1 paizo adventure and played in 2 others, the one I ran was completed by a single player. The others I played were easily bested.
Ederin Elswyr, thanks for a surprisingly level-headed response, considering the standard we've set in this thread. :)
Frankly, if a GM isn't putting their paladins in situations from time to time where they have to make tough decisions code-wise or alignment-wise, the GM is doing them a dis-service.Regardless of anything else said in the thread, I agree with this.
Incidentally, that's why I think it's a bad way to balance out powerful abilities: in my experience, players who play paladins want the code and the moral decisions.
Contrasting powerful abilities with the code as the downside seems a bit (not quite, lest I be accused of exaggerating, but a bit) like saying "sure, rage is very powerful, but remember that a barbarian is also expected to be a crazed slayer with anger-management issues!", and I've never seen anyone use that argument.
I agree with you here, Jasin, insofar as the players who pick the paladin want the code as much as they want the smite-y goodness.
However, I think that you're viewing the idea of enforcing that code as a punishment. It's not the class' "downside," it's the reason for the class and all the cool abilities that come with it. It is a balancing factor, but one for which the player willingly signed up. So give them what they want and make them uphold what they swore to protect.
I see what you're saying about the barbarian, but I think the exaggeration takes it a bridge too far. The frenzied berserker PrC existed for a reason. Notice that there wasn't ever a paladin prestige class that said, "Now with code of conduct, but we really mean it this time!"
|
|
Contrasting powerful abilities with the code as the downside seems a bit (not quite, lest I be accused of exaggerating, but a bit) like saying "sure, rage is very powerful, but remember that a barbarian is also expected to be a crazed slayer with anger-management issues!", and I've never seen anyone use that argument.
Not sure I understand your comparison...the point I was trying to make is that since a paladin playing his alignment and code is going to have to put himself between harm and innocents, and also stand and fight when other classes have the option to run away (and perhaps let someone die or evil succeed), it makes sense that they have a good healing ability to help them through these situations. I am not saying paladins can't retreat, just that it is usually not an option for them. By the same token, it seems likely to me that unless you have an overzealous healer in your group, the paladin is going to end up using some of his LOH for others and not as a quick action in combat. This is what I meant by balancing the ability vs his code/alignment.
Might I submit to you that the problem you're experiencing may be a design flaw of the adventure path, rather than the class itself
I totally agree with this if you have not gotten to the latter parts of the Varnhold Vanishing and beyond, the encounter pacing is such that the paladin will dominate easily. Most encounters will be met with full LOH and smites for the day, and pretty much most of the non-evil combat encounters will be animals, which is handled with a solid druid in the party or quick thinking. Things change as you progress later into this AP, so the paladin is not quite the same level of superstar.
A PC paladin at my table who played in the way you describe would be walking the edge of a razor.Which is no big deal since he can heal any cuts as a swift action. :)
Ah, but Acrobatics is not a class skill for him, and his armor check penalty isn't doing him any favors. It's the balance, not the blade, that will do him in. ;)
|
|
I completely understand your point about using fluff controls on crunch problems. It's a crippling weakness when used too often. But in D&D, paladins are the exception that...
Hmm, the forum snipped this quote mid-sentence. Anyway... 3e knight showed us how fluff can nicely be done through the rules. He had a code and it included not getting the flank bonuses and similar limits. If paladin's RAW told us that he can heal others more easily then self, it would make sense, and we would all be like "wow, this is awesome, he is so LG that he can heal others more easily then self". Current RAW, as you describe it, consists of "paladin can heal self more easily then others, but he really shouldn't, probably, I guess". Of course that people can fix any rule in-house, but still...
Hmm, the forum snipped this quote mid-sentence. Anyway... 3e knight showed us how fluff can nicely be done through the rules. He had a code and it included not getting the flank bonuses and similar limits. If paladin's RAW told us that he can heal others more easily then self, it would make sense, and we would all be like "wow, this is awesome, he is so LG that he can heal others more easily then self". Current RAW, as you describe it, consists of "paladin can heal self more easily then others, but he really shouldn't, probably, I guess". Of course that people can fix any rule in-house, but still...
I completely understand your point about using fluff controls on crunch problems. It's a crippling weakness when used too often. But in D&D, paladins are the exception that...
An interesting point. On the other hand, if you mean to suggest that the mechanics of the LoH ability actively encourages a paladin to use it only selfishly, then I'd like to point you to the mercies, which only activate when the paladin uses LoH on another.
I think the swift action to Lay Hands On himself is there to allow the paladin to fight on in the face of overwhelming odds, when only he stands between evil and its aims. So allowing it as a swift action makes perfect sense with the fluff. It isn't allowed as a swift action on others because no ability in the game allows you to reach out and touch another creature as a swift action, without serious investments in feats and/or magic.
|
|
What? I've ran 1 paizo adventure and played in 2 others, the one I ran was completed by a single player. The others I played were easily bested.
How easily did that single player kill a CR2 werewolf in chainmail with AC21? I won't spoil the stronger monsters throughout AP's, but they are notorious for their nasty surprises
Ederin Elswyr, thanks for a surprisingly level-headed response, considering the standard we've set in this thread. :)
I've no interest in breathing fire. Leave it to the dragons.
|
|
How easily did that single player kill a CR2 werewolf in chainmail with AC21? I won't spoil the stronger monsters throughout AP's, but they are notorious for their nasty surprises
What? I've ran 1 paizo adventure and played in 2 others, the one I ran was completed by a single player. The others I played were easily bested.
One swing at a time.
AC doesn't mean much when you have enough hit.
Which AP was that again? I'll just look at the first encounter.
|
|
Kingmaker random encounter appropriate for first level explorers :D
Which AP was that again? I'll just look at the first encounter.
Hardly, CR2 implies it's made for four level 2 characters. Which does change it a great deal. I'm fairly confident the player I had could deal with it, he was competent.
If the Paladin and I are fighting the beastie, and I drop. I want the Paladin to do 3 things in order.
1: Put himself between the beastie and me.
2: KILL THAT **** BEASTIE!!!
3: Heal me. (That is, if the Cleric/Druid/Bard/Ranger/UMD Rogue hasn't already done so.)
To do otherwise is just bad tactics. If I drop and the Paladin heals me, (for LESS than the beastie hit me) not only did the beastie not take damage this round, but I'm at low HP. If the Beastie hits me again, he could likely drop be below negative Con and kill me dead. Best case, I drop again, and this time it takes the Paladin 2 rounds and 2 LoH to get me back up. At which point the beastie drops me again. Not only am I wasting a party member's resources, but I've deprived the party of a second member who now isn't contributing to the combat, i.e. the other beastie who is now turning the squishy wizard to paste.
If there's a 3rd front-liner, this changes. The Pally can heal me while the other Fighter holds the line. After which, I DO NOT run back in and get dropped again. I drink a fist full of potions, go ranged, or at the very least fight defensively.
|
Do you see some problem with this, beyond the fact that you don't agree with my assertion? The question is on topic on all of these forums, and while there are a significant overlaps in readership, there's also a significant number of people who read only one of them. I read all of them, at least occasionally.
Look you can post it across the net in every forum and every discussion board. I was just curious as to why. It seems that both here and rpg.net your question has been answered why continue with a thread that imo for all purposes has been answered.
I see what you're saying about the barbarian, but I think the exaggeration takes it a bridge too far. The frenzied berserker PrC existed for a reason. Notice that there wasn't ever a paladin prestige class that said, "Now with code of conduct, but we really mean it this time!"
Fair enough.
3e knight showed us how fluff can nicely be done through the rules. He had a code and it included not getting the flank bonuses and similar limits. If paladin's RAW told us that he can heal others more easily then self, it would make sense, and we would all be like "wow, this is awesome, he is so LG that he can heal others more easily then self". Current RAW, as you describe it, consists of "paladin can heal self more easily then others, but he really shouldn't, probably, I guess". Of course that people can fix any rule in-house, but still...
Through this discussion, this emerged as the primary problem with lay on hands in my mind: because of the actions required, it rewards selfishness over selflessness.
An interesting point. On the other hand, if you mean to suggest that the mechanics of the LoH ability actively encourages a paladin to use it only selfishly, then I'd like to point you to the mercies, which only activate when the paladin uses LoH on another.
Reading this improved my impression of lay on hands a bit, but looking at the ability, I don't think it's correct:
Mercy (Su): At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, a paladin can select one mercy. Each mercy adds an effect to the paladin's lay on hands ability. Whenever the paladin uses lay on hands to heal damage to one target, the target also receives the additional effects from all of the mercies possessed by the paladin.
I don't think "one target" is meant to exclude yourself, just to make it clear that mercies don't apply when the paladin is channeling energy to area-heal.
By the same token, it seems likely to me that unless you have an overzealous healer in your group, the paladin is going to end up using some of his LOH for others and not as a quick action in combat.
I'm assuming that, as a default, there will be a healer. If the default party is fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, I'm assuming a paladin will stand in for the fighter, not both the cleric and the fighter.
Hardly, CR2 implies it's made for four level 2 characters. Which does change it a great deal. I'm fairly confident the player I had could deal with it, he was competent.
Competent enough to complete an adventure intended for four characters with a single one? That's... pretty competent.
I think the swift action to Lay Hands On himself is there to allow the paladin to fight on in the face of overwhelming odds, when only he stands between evil and its aims. So allowing it as a swift action makes perfect sense with the fluff. It isn't allowed as a swift action on others because no ability in the game allows you to reach out and touch another creature as a swift action, without serious investments in feats and/or magic.
This. And paladin, later, is able to cast cure spell, too. In this way ia able to cure himslef, move, and heal an ally (or heal an ally, himslef, and then move himself between the ally and the enemy).
|
|
Hardly, CR2 implies it's made for four level 2 characters. Which does change it a great deal. I'm fairly confident the player I had could deal with it, he was competent.Competent enough to complete an adventure intended for four characters with a single one? That's... pretty competent.
Well he was gaining xp meant for four players. He was at least 2 levels higher than the module expected him to be.
|
|
Hardly, CR2 implies it's made for four level 2 characters. Which does change it a great deal. I'm fairly confident the player I had could deal with it, he was competent.
It's made for 4 level 2 characters to kill him easily, by expending only 25% of his resources. He had enough AC (which equals time since we can hit him for only quarter of the time and the lucky blows must bypass the DR) to drop one and infect two characters. He didn't kill us, the wolfsbane did :D
The werewolf is just one example. Everyone playing enough adventures can give you more wonderful TPK-inducing encounters, from angels that turn evil in a way that makes them immune to both holy and unholy damage, across a marylith that turns into a diminutive bug and then casts blade barriers through a keyhole, to a cr8 (i think it was 8 ) illithid advanced to have mind blast DC 27.
So yes, we love that but we also metagame during combat :D
Well he was gaining xp meant for four players. He was at least 2 levels higher than the module expected him to be.
What adventure were you running?
Well he was gaining xp meant for four players. He was at least 2 levels higher than the module expected him to be.Hardly, CR2 implies it's made for four level 2 characters. Which does change it a great deal. I'm fairly confident the player I had could deal with it, he was competent.Competent enough to complete an adventure intended for four characters with a single one? That's... pretty competent.
I guess all he came up against was the action economy then... and sheer numbers.
|
|
I think I've identified your problem. Your paladin is under the mistaken impression that he's a barbarian with regeneration rather than a holy knight defender of all that's good and pure, and he's been allowed to get away with it....
+1
Paladins who are selfish all the time become fallen paladins, eventually.|
|
You know, there's a possible house-rule that I think fits the paladin very, very well:
- Paladins may not LoH to heal themselves (except as part of an area burst).
- If that's too harsh, paladins may only lay hands upon themselves under a certain % of HP.
Why not? Because the gods didn't give you that power so you could heal yourself, they gave you that power to bless others. To save other people. It's not for you.
If your paladin is using the healing on himself only all the time, perhaps this rule could be appropriate.
You know, there's a possible house-rule that I think fits the paladin very, very well:
- Paladins may not LoH to heal themselves (except as part of an area burst).
- If that's too harsh, paladins may only lay hands upon themselves under a certain % of HP.Why not? Because the gods didn't give you that power so you could heal yourself, they gave you that power to bless others. To save other people. It's not for you.
If your paladin is using the healing on himself only all the time, perhaps this rule could be appropriate.
ok, so you take an ability, the whole point of which is to heal yourself, and make it so that it cannot be used to heal yourself.
|
|
Burnt Offerings would be very easy for someone higher in level range than the adventure, especially the beginning parts of it. I would say he should have difficulty with
I had to really revamp Burnt Offerings encounters for Pathfinder, as some were fairly easy with the new classes.
|
|
I apologize for anything that I say that has already been said, but I really didn't feel like wading through any more than the first 3 pages.
Alright, let's look at it this way. A Paladin dedicated ENTIRELY to Lay on Hands (Let's say 40 Charisma at level 20 to be generous, and EVERY feat spent on Extra Lay on Hands) would be able to heal 60 HP 45 times per day (2700 HP per day).
A Barbarian dedicated ENTIRELY to his DR is able to prevent 10 damage per hit by going the Invulnerable Rager route, without picking up any extraneous feats that may increase his DR. This enables him to prevent a total of 144000 Damage per day (14400 rounds per day at 10 damage per round) and that's only including single attacks, and not multiple attacks per round.
Let's break it into a 150 round (15 minute) day.
That's 2700 damage restored to the paladin, and 1500 prevented from the barbarian. If that barbarian gets hit an average of twice per round (entirely feasible) that goes up to 3000 damage prevented. Already more efficient than the paladin without having to expend Swift actions, and we haven't even gotten into longer days.
It's all about HOW the class prevents damage. Barbarian prevents damage by just simply shrugging it off, fighter prevents damage by not getting hit, paladin "prevents" damage by healing it away.
And let's not forget that BBEGs have access to Unholy and Anarchistic weapons to pump out even more damage to said paladin.
The complaint I'm seeing most from the OP is that because Paizo publishes APs, that they should be perfectly balanced for any party size and composition out of the box. Impossible.
EVERY party is different, even ones containing identical character played by the same players. Adjustments must ALWAYS be made.
NO party is ever perfectly balanced. There is ALWAYS a point where one character eats up, however slightly, more stage than the other players. Mostly it stems from poorly run adventures in which GMs only ever present one type of challenge, usually combat, which tend to favor a specific type of character. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to populate even a premade AP with more traps/social encounters/bags full of rabid kittens to make the AP more accessible to other character types.
|
|
Burnt Offerings would be very easy for someone higher in level range than the adventure, especially the beginning parts of it. I would say he should have difficulty with ** spoiler omitted **
I had to really revamp Burnt Offerings encounters for Pathfinder, as some were fairly easy with the new classes.
Well he finished at level 5, he didn't have much trouble with Nualia, mostly because he managed to convince the NPC who is supposed to be the big bad in Skinsaw, which is okay because I already had a plan for that. I tried playing up the character's annoyance factor, but my player very patiently dealt with it, and convinced him to go adventuring with the player. I'm willing to change the story if the players go sideways on it, so he wasn't completely alone when he went through Thistletop, then again I think he would have done just fine up there on his own.
Before you say "why wasn't the alarm set off" the alarms were manned by freaking goblins, worse they were already stated as being not likely to actually be paying attention to what is going on, so I rolled on it, and with the range penalties, the goblins did not perceive the combats happening in other places. So the player managed to go through each encounter one at a time, even when he got into the catacombs.
He was basically running around like it was a Metal Gear Solid game, all stealth and guile until action was needed, at which point he would swiftly and brutally kill his enemies.
I apologize for anything that I say that has already been said, but I really didn't feel like wading through any more than the first 3 pages.
(cogent and well-stated argument follows)
I think the Viking Irishman and I are very much on the same page, although he added the value of a quick math breakdown that demonstrates how other classes achieve the same mechanical ends. Well played, sir.
You are hereby entitled to a single cookie.
Alright, let's look at it this way. A Paladin dedicated ENTIRELY to Lay on Hands (Let's say 40 Charisma at level 20 to be generous, and EVERY feat spent on Extra Lay on Hands) would be able to heal 60 HP 45 times per day (2700 HP per day).
A Barbarian dedicated ENTIRELY to his DR is able to prevent 10 damage per hit by going the Invulnerable Rager route, without picking up any extraneous feats that may increase his DR. This enables him to prevent a total of 144000 Damage per day (14400 rounds per day at 10 damage per round) and that's only including single attacks, and not multiple attacks per round.
Let's break it into a 150 round (15 minute) day.
That's 2700 damage restored to the paladin, and 1500 prevented from the barbarian. If that barbarian gets hit an average of twice per round (entirely feasible) that goes up to 3000 damage prevented.
You're assuming that the barbarian is getting hit for the entire duration of the 15 minutes. That's a pretty outrageous assumption.
I'd guess that most adventuring days, whether 15-minute ones or stretched out over more thematically reasonable periods, will have some 1-5 fights, lasting some 2-10 rounds each. 50 rounds of active combat in a day is already a grueling, dragged-out attrition marathon. I'd be surprised if 150 in a day occurred even once in a given 1st-20th campaign.
Then again, Cha 40 for the paladin is just as extreme.
I'd be more interested in a comparison between reasonably build mid-level characters (say, 10th level, 15 point buy) than between 20th-level hyperspecialized extremes.
And let's not forget that BBEGs have access to Unholy and Anarchistic weapons to pump out even more damage to said paladin.
Not anymore than a LG fighter, or a CG barbarian (if the BBEG has Axiomatic instead of Anarchic).
The complaint I'm seeing most from the OP is that because Paizo publishes APs, that they should be perfectly balanced for any party size and composition out of the box. Impossible.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they should be reasonably balanced for most parties of standard sizes and compositions not featuring unusually built characters, and that's certainly possible.
NO party is ever perfectly balanced. There is ALWAYS a point where one character eats up, however slightly, more stage than the other players.
The fact that some imbalances, however slight, will always be present in no way implies that no imbalance, however gross, is worth addressing.
Mostly it stems from poorly run adventures in which GMs only ever present one type of challenge, usually combat, which tend to favor a specific type of character. It doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to populate even a premade AP with more traps/social encounters/bags full of rabid kittens to make the AP more accessible to other character types.
To put it simply, I want the Paizo guys to do this kind of work for me, and I expect it to be done well, because I'm paying real life money for it. (And I'm arguing it is done well, and that the any issues I'm having are stemming from flaws in the rules, not flaws in the adventures.)