|
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.
No, I'm assuming that the barbarian is getting hit an average of twice per round during that 15 minute period. This includes periods where no hitting occurs and periods where he gets hit up to 32 times (surrounded by 8 enemies who land all 4 attacks) in a single round. At no point did I say he was always under fire. Just to use your own statement, however. The paladin would also need to be hit on a regular basis for his LoH to mean anything. In either situation, if no one is getting hit, the argument is moot. This is about potentiality, not reasonability.
Which brings me to your second point. If you are having issues with a specific ability in a certain context, hyperspecialized builds are exactly what is needed in order to prove/disprove the perceived imbalance. Using an average only shows subtle differences, whereas extremes show how very far out of whack things really are. Any imbalance should always be approached as though someone were optimizing for that very attribute in order to determine the level of imbalance.
Not anymore than a LG fighter, or a CG barbarian (if the BBEG has Axiomatic instead of Anarchic).
Agreed, but a paladin is the only class that you know FOR SURE is a specific alignment. If I were prepping to fight a religious order that tended toward a certain alignment, certain properties would be a big help, but if I'm prepping to fight an order that HAS to be a certain alignment, not having those certain properties would be foolish. Of course, this is only from a metagame perspective.
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.
And I honestly feel that Paizo has hit the mark pretty close to dead on in this regard. The paladin only has an advantage over the slew of evil enemies that come at him a (very) limited number of times per day.
The fact that some imbalances, however slight, will always be present in no way implies that no imbalance, however gross, is worth addressing.
I never said no imbalance was is worth addressing. Certainly, the more imbalances that are properly addressed, the more of a balanced system we can create. However, it will NEVER be a perfectly balanced system. I've never had a problem with any one class being the darling of the party to the extent that there was an issue. Of course, the group I play with tends to have a wide range of fluff and crunch optimized characters that all have their moments in the sun.
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.)
I know this isn't what you intended to get across, but what I get from this statement is "I want Paizo to do everything short of actually sit in the GM's chair." A publishing company can only do so much with the deadlines and price constraints that they have set. Any perceived "space" in a published adventure is an opportunity for a GM to customize and tailor the adventure to his, the party's, and the players' needs. If the adventure you're running doesn't have enough combat to sate the appetite of the barbarian, you need to toss in a couple more encounters so he can wet his blade. Not enough loot for your rogue? That's what hoards are for. Your bard needs some more social time? Maybe he inherits a bar.
The point I'm trying to get across here is that an AP, no matter how detailed, is only a starting point and should always be treated as such.
Also,
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.
I will gladly accept and devour said cookie. ^_^
|
A 40 charisma isn't impossible, in fact it's highly plausible with the methods I and a few others discussed in the suffocating a Tarrasque thread. Here's the link http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/suffocatingTheTarrasque&page=2#58
Yes it isn't that easy to get a hold of, but all you really need is a single 18 before racial stats and it's game on. Technically you can muster even more than that if you try hard enough, it's not impossible to make a half-fiend a vampire, which gives you a 44 charisma.
|
|
A 40 charisma isn't impossible, in fact it's highly plausible with the methods I and a few others discussed in the suffocating a Tarrasque thread. Here's the link http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/suffocatingTheTarrasque&page=2#58
Yes it isn't that easy to get a hold of, but all you really need is a single 18 before racial stats and it's game on. Technically you can muster even more than that if you try hard enough, it's not impossible to make a half-fiend a vampire, which gives you a 44 charisma.
Indeed. Base 18, 2 from racial bonus, 5 from level advancement, 5 from inherent bonus, 6 from enhancement bonus.
That nets you a 36 WITHOUT doing anything crazy aside from dropping a lot of gold on a +5 Tome and a +6 headband.
|
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.)
Admittedly, earlier APs from Paizo suffered more from this than more recent ones. They have gotten progressively better at adding material to assist the GM in sidetreks, what ifs, etc. In fact, Kingmaker was the first AP where they have a whole section in AP6 about how to keep going after the AP is over.
All that being said, its still an AP, and not tailored to your group of gamers and classes. A druid, ranger, cavalier, or paladin are going to rock the early APs in Kingmaker much more than say a rogue, because simply put its a wilderness type adventure and nature skills and mounts are a bigger advantage in those settings. Archer types are also going to flourish when you can get three free rounds into the enemy before they close with you. Have a talk with the paladin player and tell him of your concern. It has been my experience that players will often times exercise tighter restraint on an ability rather than risk a nerf, thereby resolving the issue. Otherwise, all I can suggest is to keep an eye on the imbalance and see if it gets better or worse as the characters level up and the storyline changes. My guess is that your pure casters are going to be of far greater concern very soon than your paladin, though YMMV in your group.
This is about potentiality, not reasonability.
I'm not interested, then.
It's important to me whether the ability is overpowered in a typical game, with reasonable levels of optimization (meaning a player who invests as much is feasible without crippling other aspects). Not whether it can, maybe, in theory, be abused, in contrived, extreme situations.
Which brings me to your second point. If you are having issues with a specific ability in a certain context, hyperspecialized builds are exactly what is needed in order to prove/disprove the perceived imbalance. Using an average only shows subtle differences, whereas extremes show how very far out of whack things really are. Any imbalance should always be approached as though someone were optimizing for that very attribute in order to determine the level of imbalance.
This is true, but this is a much weaker statement than the above.
Cha 40 for a paladin, even at 20th level, seems to me much more in the realm of "potentiality" than simply "optimizing for that very attribute".
Cha 17, a +6 item, +5 from level increases, and +5 from wishes/tomes only get to 33. Go much further beyond that, and it's musing about the bounds of the system, rather than trying to predict behaviour in play, just like the barbarian who gets hit 300 times in a day.
And I honestly feel that Paizo has hit the mark pretty close to dead on in this regard. The paladin only has an advantage over the slew of evil enemies that come at him a (very) limited number of times per day.[/quote
This is how most Paizo adventures work out, in my experience, so I don't agree that "only" having the advantage in those cases (i.e. most of the time) is very close to the mark.I know this isn't what you intended to get across, but what I get from this statement is "I want Paizo to do everything short of actually sit in the GM's chair." A publishing company can only do so much with the deadlines and price constraints that they have set. Any perceived "space" in a published adventure is an opportunity for a GM to customize and tailor the adventure to his, the party's, and the players' needs.I'll say again, I'm perceiving "space" in the rules, not the adventures. I well know, accept, and like the fact that the adventures will have PC go up against powerful evil opponents, often dragons and outsiders at the high end, and mostly let them tackle problems at their own pace rather.
With that as a given, I think lay on hands is too good, and telling me "well, just change the adventure then" doesn't appear to disprove this.
Have a talk with the paladin player and tell him of your concern. It has been my experience that players will often times exercise tighter restraint on an ability rather than risk a nerf, thereby resolving the issue.
This is a very good, and I think somewhat subtle, point.
With an ability that you have to consciously use, and that can be parceled out in many little packages, just telling the player to lay off unless it's really necessary might be enough. (Unlike, say, the fighter's weapon training bonus... "don't over use the +4, man" doesn't really work. :) )
This is why Eberron artificers worked fine for us. Sure, if they dumped all they had in one place, they could get ridiculous, but that would just annoy the DM, so they didn't. Instead they did all sorts of little utility work, and let loose with the ridiculousness only when we would have died otherwise.
Paladins get to lay on hands. That's a good thing. Rather than worrying about this or that class feature, why not just embrace what the characters are capable of, design encounters to be fun and memorable, and let everyone have as good a time as possible?If I were content to have some characters consistently and significantly outshine the others and having the others relegated to a sidekick/follower role, why would I have bought Pathfinder? I could've kept playing 3E.
Ah, one more "the Paladin is too powerful" thread. Is she or is she not? I would say sometimes she is.
Edit:Do you think 3E was balance? Playing 3E and using all it's splatbooks I would say it's far from balanced. If you just look at the 3.5 corebook the monk and bard really sucked (and the Barbarian was far from good). The Paladin and Ranger was theoretically good but playing a paladin was not fun. When you hit level 6 and had two attacks per round, but you could smite two times per day. That's two attacks per day. At level 12 when you have 3 attacks per round and possibly boot of speed and could hit 4 times per round you could smite evil 3 attacks per day, at the same time the Fighter with his greater weapon specialization and greater weapon focus could mop the floor with any enemy all day long and the Paladin would stand beside his Fighter friend in envy.
Implying 3E is balanced is just as silly as saying a Paladin with Cha 40 isn't extreme. Yep, I agree with you a Paladin with cha 40 is extreme and saying it isn't is silly. The Paladin's main stat is Str, not Cha. I also agree with you that defensively the Paladin is perhaps a bit too good. Looking at the Paladin some classes do come out short. I think the Monk, Barbarian and Bard is still too weak (although I must admit the APG has fixed some of this issues, at least the Barbarian got a nice boost). That said I do think that Pathfinder is way more balanced than 3E and the Monk, Barbarian and Bard are far better than 3E and they are much more fun.
In our last campaign the Paladin rocked all the time, and with the damage bonus vs evil dragons, undeads, and evil outsiders he was just too good, but that has been fixed now by errata.
In our current campaign our tank is a fighter. I could never believe how much damage a high level fighter could to. True he needs healing some times and some buff spells (haste, barkskin, resist energy, etc.) but he is real Juggernaut. Our fighter isn't even optimized and he has approximately half the wealth he should have at his level and yet he is fantastic.
Yep, the paladin is perhaps a bit to good sometimes and she, unlike fighters and barbarian, only needs two stats. Str and char. But implying the Paladin is broken is just not fair, and implying that 3E is more balanced then Pathfinder is either trolling or not very thought through.
If you think the Paladin needs some nerfing here are some suggestions. If you want more suggestions just let me know :-)
- Remove or nerf the AC bonus when smiting. A simple fix would be that it only last for one round or that the AC bonus is half the char modifier.
- Nerf the duration of the smite. Either let it last for 3 or 4 rounds or let it last for char modifier.
- Nerf the bypassing of DR when smiting.
Let the smite bypass DR in the same way a +5 weapon bypass DR. (So it won't bypass DR bludgeoning, piercing or slashing).
Or, instead of bypassing all DR, the smite attacks are made as if the paladin has the feat Greater Penetrating Strike.
Or, let the bypassing of DR improve as the Paladin gain levels. At level 1 The Paladin get the benefit of Penetrating Strike when she smites, at level 4 the smite ignore up to 10 points of damage reduction with a type. At level 7 The Paladin get the benefit Greater Penetrating Strike when she smites. At level 10 The smite ignore up to 15 points of damage reduction with a type and 10 without a type. At level 13 the smite ignores all DR.
Regardless of how you chose to nerf the smite you should at least let all smite attacks act as if the weapon was Magic, Good and Lawful.
I think picking one of the nerfs will be enough, but you could use all of them. Me I would nerf the AC bonus ...and perhaps also nerf the bypassing of DR.
Anyway, If you like 3E more go for it, but I suggest you try Pathfinder some more.
Don't let some of the more stupid arguments in this thread get to you.
If that was entirely true, we would not be seeing builds such as the Hospitaler. But part of a Paladin's code is also about protecting and looking out for others. If his only concern was destruction to the enemies of the faith, he wouldn't be a Paladin, he'd be an Inquisitor.
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.
+1
Do you think 3E was balance?
Not really, not even at its best, much less using all the splatbooks. However, I did feel that the 3E paladin was better balanced with anyone else in 3E except the spellcasters than the Pathfinder paladin is with anyone else in Pathfinder except the spellcasters.
The Paladin and Ranger was theoretically good but playing a paladin was not fun. When you hit level 6 and had two attacks per round, but you could smite two times per day. That's two attacks per day. At level 12 when you have 3 attacks per round and possibly boot of speed and could hit 4 times per round you could smite evil 3 attacks per day, at the same time the Fighter with his greater weapon specialization and greater weapon focus could mop the floor with any enemy all day long and the Paladin would stand beside his Fighter friend in envy.
My experience is that while the fighter would get dominated, or feared, or dropped because the cleric couldn't get to him at the critical moment, the paladin kept fighting.
If the fight was anywhere with enough room for Large creature to move freely (which was a lot of time, since many of the opponents are Large as well), the paladin tended to be on his warhorse, which also fought on its own. At low levels, the warhorse was almost like another warrior in the party. At higher levels, it obviously didn't really keep up with Greater Weapon Specialization, but it still meant extra attacks.
If a fight was in an open space, the paladin was making Ride-By Attacks and didn't get hit at all unless the enemies readied their attacks (in which case he could just attack someone else, or not attack at all, effectively having used up the whole of the enemies actions for the round), or ran this way and that after the mounted paladin (in which case they were splitting up and/or taking AoOs), or the paladin deliberately put himself in harm's way to protect someone else.
And in the really big fights, the paladin was making Spirited Charge Ride-By Attacks with smite evil and Power Attack, for 3d8 + 3 x Str +3 x enhancement, with a +3 to damage for each -1 to attack from Power Attacks, while the two-handed weapon wielders were getting +2 for -1. I've seen a succubus go down in a single attack like that from an equal-level paladin.
Regardless of what the Pathfinder paladin is like, I really can't relate with this bit about the 3E paladin being weak or not fun.
But implying the Paladin is broken is just not fair, and implying that 3E is more balanced then Pathfinder is either trolling or not very thought through.
I wasn't implying that. I basically said "if I was content with unbalanced, I would've kept playing 3E". I expected better from Pathfinder, and I mostly got it, but the paladin really sticks out as an exception.
Don't let some of the more stupid arguments in this thread get to you.
Thanks. :)
The 3.5 Paladin was not good enough in my opinion. Only ever got a 2 level dip from me before converting to cleric. Smite just wasn't good enough, to be frank. And the mount was nice, but horribly circumstantial, unless you could get a flying beast.
The PF Paladin is much more in line with what is needed for the type of character a paladin is, and what his code requires him to do.
Just don't use lots of 3.5 splat with the PF paladin, or you'll come up against what I perceived as the "the paladin is crap, let's give him some better spells and feats to make up for this horrible oversight" mentality, and end up overcompensating for issues that are no longer there.
But, to be honest, this whole thread is so circumstantial and relative to the groups involved I'm not sure how much value can be added here.
Zark has offered some advice, which I don't necessarily agree with, but again it's all relative.
VikingIrishman has weighed in with some good statistics (the 15 minute adventuring day does not mean 15 minutes elapsed time by the way. It's 15 mins spent fighting).
I would just recommend getting some consensus from your group, and that's about it.
"I wasn't implying that. I basically said "if I was content with unbalanced, I would've kept playing 3E". I expected better from Pathfinder, and I mostly got it, but the paladin really sticks out as an exception."
Ok. I read you wrong. Sorry. However I still don't agree on the 3.5 Paladin.
I too expected better from Pathfinder. Some classes still need a nerf and some classes still need a boost. I guess we just have to houserule. Yes the paladin sticks out. That's why I gave you some suggestions on how to nerf her.
The 3.5 Paladin was not good enough in my opinion. Only ever got a 2 level dip from me before converting to cleric. Smite just wasn't good enough, to be frank. And the mount was nice, but horribly circumstantial, unless you could get a flying beast.
+1
Just don't use lots of 3.5 splat with the PF paladin, or you'll come up against what I perceived as the "the paladin is crap, let's give him some better spells and feats to make up for this horrible oversight" mentality, and end up overcompensating for issues that are no longer there.
I actually feel he is overcompensated.
Charisma to cast spells.Caster level = Level -3
Better spell progression
Good Will saves AND immunities
Smite last the whole fight AND that bypass all DR, even bludgeoning, piercing or slashing.
Charisma bonus to AC when smiting.
More smites per day
Divine bond
Mercies.
etc, etc.
But as you pointed out, it's all relative.
I actually feel he is overcompensated.
Charisma to cast spells.
Caster level = Level -3
Better spell progression
Good Will saves AND immunities
Smite last the whole fight AND that bypass all DR, even bludgeoning, piercing or slashing.
Charisma bonus to AC when smiting.
More smites per day
Divine bond
Mercies.
etc, etc.
But as you pointed out, it's all relative.
Imagine all that lot AND some 3.5 splat goodness shovelled on top! I have just heard my mind think "Boggle!" on that one...
Just don't use lots of 3.5 splat with the PF paladin, or you'll come up against what I perceived as the "the paladin is crap, let's give him some better spells and feats to make up for this horrible oversight" mentality, and end up overcompensating for issues that are no longer there.
Like the new APG spell which lets you lay on hands as an immediate action when (before) you're dropped to negatives? :)
VikingIrishman has weighed in with some good statistics (the 15 minute adventuring day does not mean 15 minutes elapsed time by the way. It's 15 mins spent fighting).
No, it means 15 minutes elapsed time, which is why it's criticized for silliness, breaking suspense of disbelief, &c. It means the casters cast their buffs, and the party adventures for as long as the 1 minute/level buffs (like the all-powerful, all-important polymorph) last, which is usually enough to explore a room or five in a dungeon, and then they retreat or hole up in a rope trick or a Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion.
15 minutes spent fighting in a day is a 150 rounds spent fighting, 150 rounds spent tracking initiative. I've never seen or heard about anything even close to that happening in 3E. You'd simply run out of healing and hit points much sooner than that, unless you were a high-level character "fighting" some sort of peasant that can't hurt you.
I too expected better from Pathfinder. Some classes still need a nerf and some classes still need a boost. I guess we just have to houserule. Yes the paladin sticks out. That's why I gave you some suggestions on how to nerf her.
Sure, I didn't mean to dismiss your suggestions, I just didn't reply specifically to that part because they're all OK and I had nothing particular to add on that point. :)
|
|
I'm not interested, then.
It's important to me whether the ability is overpowered in a typical game, with reasonable levels of optimization (meaning a player who invests as much is feasible without crippling other aspects). Not whether it can, maybe, in theory, be abused, in contrived, extreme situations.
Okay, if that's your schtick then let's look at it this way. a 10th level paladin with 14 Charisma and no Extra Lay on Hands feats can heal 5d6 HP 7 times per day. 122.5 HP per day average.
The barbarian will have DR2/- by 10th level. Averaging those 50 rounds to 2 hits per round still comes out to 200 damage prevented. Even at only 30 total rounds of combat per day, the barbarian breaks almost even with the paladin.
This is true, but this is a much weaker statement than the above.
Cha 40 for a paladin, even at 20th level, seems to me much more in the realm of "potentiality" than simply "optimizing for that very attribute".
Cha 17, a +6 item, +5 from level increases, and +5 from wishes/tomes only get to 33. Go much further beyond that, and it's musing about the bounds of the system, rather than trying to predict behaviour in play, just like the barbarian who gets hit 300 times in a day.
The intent was to display how overboard players have a tendency to go. That and I was pulling numbers for an example, rather than attempting to build these characters. See above response for a more realistic example.
This is how most Paizo adventures work out, in my experience, so I don't agree that "only" having the advantage in those cases (i.e. most of the time) is very close to the mark.
You may have misunderstood me, or I may have not made myself clear enough. Regardless of how many Undead, Demons, Evil Wizards tha paladin fights per day, he can still only Smite Evil (and thus have those bonuses) a limited number of times per day. Our level 10 paladin can Smite Evil four times per day. If he fights evil things during the course of the day, he has to make the choice between being extra effective now, or saving his extra effectiveness for something that may prove to be a bigger challenge.
Of course, if you follow the "15 Minute Workday" it becomes an issue, but any game that actually takes time into consideration is much less imbalanced.
I'll say again, I'm perceiving "space" in the rules, not the adventures. I well know, accept, and like the fact that the adventures will have PC go up against powerful evil opponents, often dragons and outsiders at the high end, and mostly let them tackle problems at their own pace rather.
With that as a given, I think lay on hands is too good, and telling me "well, just change the adventure then" doesn't appear to disprove this.
And I'll say again that no system is perfect. Issues are bound to slip through the cracks, and it falls to the GM to be the final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed.
Regardless, the intent of this thread was reached long ago. You asked for opinions. Many have presented them, both in and against your favor, with and without supporting "proof" to augment their argument. It now falls to you to make the final decision about what to do with Lay on Hands.
Let me ask you this. Have you actually tried to implement a fix for Lay on Hands? Or have you simply been arguing the point, hoping to get developer attention and have them come in and rescue the ability? I haven't seen you present any kind of solution yet.
Try dropping it to d4 instead of d6. Or 3+Cha mod per day. Or really ANYTHING that may change it to something more suitable for you.
|
|
I think what he really wants is to have Paizo cater to his opinion. No one would argue a set of of rules as specific as Lay on Hands, unless they were stubbornly set in their ways and refused to let the subject go until an official change was made, certainly not this long, at this point it is by-definition madness. We are at 7 pages, most of which are filled with good ways to work around what he perceives to be a problem, yet he's still arguing it. I'm not devolving into ad hominem, I'm just pointing out something I have decided on.
No, it means 15 minutes elapsed time, which is why it's criticized for silliness, breaking suspense of disbelief, &c. It means the casters cast their buffs, and the party adventures for as long as the 1 minute/level buffs (like the all-powerful, all-important polymorph) last, which is usually enough to explore a room or five in a dungeon, and then they retreat or hole up in a rope trick or a Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion.
15 minutes spent fighting in a day is a 150 rounds spent fighting, 150 rounds spent tracking initiative. I've never seen or heard about anything even close to that happening in 3E. You'd simply run out of healing and hit points much sooner than that, unless you were a high-level character "fighting" some sort of peasant that can't hurt you.
Oops. My head is not working - obviously borked from thinking about 3.5 splat on a pf pally!
Even at only 30 total rounds of combat per day, the barbarian breaks almost even with the paladin.
That's still a lot of combat rounds in a single day. I've never actually kept track of a session that way - and it might be an interesting experiment to do so - but I think you'd be (un)lucky to hit 15. As to whether you'd actually get hit each one of those rounds, that's another thing as well, though I admit barbarians are the most likely to take some serious punishment, thanks to their AC issues...
Where your analysis is falling down, though, is that, for the paladin, it doesn't matter how many rounds the combat lasts or how often they get hit during it - the central fact is that the paladin has the healing when they need it, whenever that is.
|
|
Even at only 30 total rounds of combat per day, the barbarian breaks almost even with the paladin.That's still a lot of combat rounds in a single day. I've never actually kept track of a session that way - and it might be an interesting experiment to do so - but I think you'd be (un)lucky to hit 15. As to whether you'd actually get hit each one of those rounds, that's another thing as well, though I admit barbarians are the most likely to take some serious punishment, thanks to their AC issues...
Where your analysis is falling down, though, is that, for the paladin, it doesn't matter how many rounds the combat lasts or how often they get hit during it - the central fact is that the paladin has the healing when they need it, whenever that is.
Except when unconscious or in an antimagic zone, where the barbarian still has his damage reduction, or (most importantly) when out of uses. It also costs the barbarian no action to use his damage reduction.
And to your first point, maybe I just grew up with brutal DMs and adopted their style since it was the norm for me, but days in my games are long and hard, and having the opportunity to actually rest mid-delve is something that rarely happens. Stopping to sleep in the tomb almost assures you'll be there forever.
Sure, I didn't mean to dismiss your suggestions, I just didn't reply specifically to that part because they're all OK and I had nothing particular to add on that point. :)
No Problem :-)
15 minutes spent fighting in a day is a 150 rounds spent fighting, 150 rounds spent tracking initiative. I've never seen or heard about anything even close to that happening in 3E. You'd simply run out of healing and hit points much sooner than that, unless you were a high-level character "fighting" some sort of peasant that can't hurt you.
Jasin this is where things are getting silly.
You are totally right. 150 rounds is just silly.Jason said in the Bard preview thread that they based their calculations on a fight being 5 rounds on average. How many meaningful encounters do you have in one day? 3, 4, 5 or 30?
After fighting for 20 rounds the most spell casters are out of spells, or at least spells that matter.
I never experienced one days fighting top last more than 30 rounds or perhaps 40 rounds in extreme cases.
|
|
15 minutes spent fighting in a day is a 150 rounds spent fighting, 150 rounds spent tracking initiative. I've never seen or heard about anything even close to that happening in 3E. You'd simply run out of healing and hit points much sooner than that, unless you were a high-level character "fighting" some sort of peasant that can't hurt you.
Oops. My head is not working - obviously borked from thinking about 3.5 splat on a pf pally!
Bloody Hell!
I know you think I'm a harsh taskmaster, who likes some big, grinding fights, but even I'd go pale at the prospect of 150!
Oops. My head is not working - obviously borked from thinking about 3.5 splat on a pf pally!
LOL
Except when unconscious or in an antimagic zone, where the barbarian still has his damage reduction, or (most importantly) when out of uses. It also costs the barbarian no action to use his damage reduction.
when is the Paladin is unconscious? - not often. That's pretty much the problem. He seldom or never becomes unconscious.
"or in an antimagic zone"
Yes, right this is really a BIG problem beacause it happens all the time, ...not. Why not talk about a campaign without evil foes when you're at it
|
|
Except when unconscious or in an antimagic zone, where the barbarian still has his damage reduction, or (most importantly) when out of uses. It also costs the barbarian no action to use his damage reduction.when is the Paladin is unconscious? - not often. That's pretty much the problem. He seldom or never becomes unconscious.
"or in an antimagic zone"
Yes, right this is really a BIG problem beacause it happens all the time, ...not. Why not talk about a campaign without evil foes when you're at it
So I take it that all the paladins in your games never encounter heavy hitters that can dish out enough damage to pace/exceed the HP that Lay on Hands can restore? Once again, maybe my GMing style is too harsh.
Regardless, the frequency of such conditions is not the point I was trying to make, simply that even an unconscious barbarian in an antimagic field still benefits from his damage reduction, whereas a paladin wouldn't benefit from his Lay on Hands in similar conditions.
And I have played campaigns with minimal evil enemies, though they tend to be more about roleplaying than combat.
So I take it that all the paladins in your games never encounter heavy hitters that can dish out enough damage to pace/exceed the HP that Lay on Hands can restore?
Sure. That's not realy the issue. The point is: it's much easier to Neutralize a barbarian or fighter than a Paladin. If the DM wants to kill a charcter he/she will do it.
Regardless, the frequency of such conditions is not the point I was trying to make, simply that even an unconscious barbarian in an antimagic field still benefits from his damage reduction, whereas a paladin wouldn't benefit from his Lay on Hands in similar conditions.And I have played campaigns with minimal evil enemies, though they tend to be more about roleplaying than combat.
And my point is those examples are theoratical. They might never happen in a campaign or happen very seldom.
|
|
Sure. That's not realy the issue. The point is: it's much easier to Neutralize a barbarian or fighter than a Paladin. If the DM wants to kill a charcter he/she will do it.
I felt I needed to bold that last line so you could think about it.
And my point is those examples are theoratical. They might never happen in a campaign or happen very seldom.
But you have to look at those possibilities if you're looking at an ability and not how it interacts with an adventure, which is what the OP is getting at. Jasin's issue is with the ability itself. If there were willingness to customize an adventure, there wouldn't be such an issue.
I think Jasin raises a good point about the lay on hands ability tilting the balance of power to favor the paladin, especially in the adventure paths.
The ability to heal yourself multiple times per day as a swift action and the durability of the paladin increases quite a bit when compared to other melee centric classes.
In terms of action economy it does not make sense to heal others as a standard action unless it is absolutely required. Especially if an extra round of full attacks could potentially fell the evil threat that could kill the part with it's next action.
This ability lends itself to have the paladin as the frontliner of the party taking the brunt of the blows in order to save others. If a lot of the combat encounters are standard hack and slash the paladin is likely to shine and appear to not need the rest of the party.
Once you introduce more variety within the encounters this could change though. A heavily trapped dungeon filled with pitfalls and poison darts could have the rogue looking like the party's saviour after disarming numerous traps.
Ultimately it boils down to the role each person in the party decides to play, be it battlefield control, a skill monkey with a solution for puzzles, the party face with great diplomacy skills or magical strengths to make obstacles easier. Everyone should have moments to shine but we rely on the DM to give the players those opportunities.
I think Jasin raises a good point about the lay on hands ability tilting the balance of power to favor the paladin, especially in the adventure paths.
The ability to heal yourself multiple times per day as a swift action and the durability of the paladin increases quite a bit when compared to other melee centric classes.
In terms of action economy it does not make sense to heal others as a standard action unless it is absolutely required. Especially if an extra round of full attacks could potentially fell the evil threat that could kill the part with it's next action.
This ability lends itself to have the paladin as the frontliner of the party taking the brunt of the blows in order to save others. If a lot of the combat encounters are standard hack and slash the paladin is likely to shine and appear to not need the rest of the party.
Once you introduce more variety within the encounters this could change though. A heavily trapped dungeon filled with pitfalls and poison darts could have the rogue looking like the party's saviour after disarming numerous traps.
Ultimately it boils down to the role each person in the party decides to play, be it battlefield control, a skill monkey with a solution for puzzles, the party face with great diplomacy skills or magical strengths to make obstacles easier. Everyone should have moments to shine but we rely on the DM to give the players those opportunities.
+1
The best rule system ever won't make up for a mediocre DM.
Okay, if that's your schtick then let's look at it this way. a 10th level paladin with 14 Charisma and no Extra Lay on Hands feats can heal 5d6 HP 7 times per day. 122.5 HP per day average.
The barbarian will have DR2/- by 10th level. Averaging those 50 rounds to 2 hits per round still comes out to 200 damage prevented. Even at only 30 total rounds of combat per day, the barbarian breaks almost even with the paladin.
That's a much more convincing argument. But I still think you're overestimating how much the barbarian will get hit before the end of a day. How much damage do 10th-level monsters deal in an attack? Some 15-20? At least 10?
If it's at least 10, and the barbarian's DR prevented 120 damage, he will have taken 480 damage. Will a 10th-level party really be able and willing suffer through that without calling for a rest?
You may have misunderstood me, or I may have not made myself clear enough. Regardless of how many Undead, Demons, Evil Wizards tha paladin fights per day, he can still only Smite Evil (and thus have those bonuses) a limited number of times per day. Our level 10 paladin can Smite Evil four times per day.
Doesn't that mean he's smiting the most powerful opponent in every fight in a typical adventuring day? I'm still not seeing how this is some huge limitation. (At lower levels, it is more noticeable.)
Regardless, the intent of this thread was reached long ago. You asked for opinions. Many have presented them, both in and against your favor, with and without supporting "proof" to augment their argument. It now falls to you to make the final decision about what to do with Lay on Hands.
Indeed, I have already done so. Since the players didn't see a pressing reason to change it, I let it remain as it is, for now.
If it should prove to be a problem later, the option that seems more sensible to me is to require two uses for a swift action lay on hands, but also allow it to target others.
Let me ask you this. Have you actually tried to implement a fix for Lay on Hands? Or have you simply been arguing the point, hoping to get developer attention and have them come in and rescue the ability?
That would be nice too, yes, but it isn't my intent.
I haven't seen you present any kind of solution yet.
I though I had? Maybe not. There is a disadvantage of discussing the same things on multiple forums.
Anyway, I don't think the discussion reached the point where that would be truly relevant. We'd have to agree that a rule needs to be changed, before we can meaningfully discuss how the rule should be changed, no?
If you think lay on hands is just fine as it is, and I decide to change it anyway, why would I take your advice on how precisely it should be changed? You think it's just fine as it is! You might offer different suggestions, as you did, but you'll think all of them misguided or unnecessary. None of them really represent your informed opinion, since your informed opinion is that it shouldn't be changed at all.
I think what he really wants is to have Paizo cater to his opinion.
Don't we all? :)
No one would argue a set of of rules as specific as Lay on Hands, unless they were stubbornly set in their ways and refused to let the subject go until an official change was made, certainly not this long, at this point it is by-definition madness. We are at 7 pages, most of which are filled with good ways to work around what he perceives to be a problem, yet he's still arguing it. I'm not devolving into ad hominem, I'm just pointing out something I have decided on.
You're not devolving into ad hominem, just continuing the discussion to point out that my continuing the discussion suggests I'm mentally ill?
Anyway, you think I'm arguing in order to somehow bully the designers into changing the official rule? Do you conceive that as even remotely possible? I hadn't, but if it is, that'd be a pretty good reason to keep arguing!
That's still a lot of combat rounds in a single day. I've never actually kept track of a session that way - and it might be an interesting experiment to do so - but I think you'd be (un)lucky to hit 15. As to whether you'd actually get hit each one of those rounds, that's another thing as well, though I admit barbarians are the most likely to take some serious punishment, thanks to their AC issues...
Actually, times-hit-per-day is what's important to VikingIrishman's argument, not combat-round-per-day, and it's probably easier to track: just put down a mark each time you take damage. As you say, it might be interesting to try it!
|
|
I think what he really wants is to have Paizo cater to his opinion.Don't we all? :)
No one would argue a set of of rules as specific as Lay on Hands, unless they were stubbornly set in their ways and refused to let the subject go until an official change was made, certainly not this long, at this point it is by-definition madness. We are at 7 pages, most of which are filled with good ways to work around what he perceives to be a problem, yet he's still arguing it. I'm not devolving into ad hominem, I'm just pointing out something I have decided on.You're not devolving into ad hominem, just continuing the discussion to point out that my continuing the discussion suggests I'm mentally ill?
Anyway, you think I'm arguing in order to somehow bully the designers into changing the official rule? Do you conceive that as even remotely possible? I hadn't, but if it is, that'd be a pretty good reason to keep arguing!
No, actually I don't want them to cater to my opinion, I want them to cater to a consensus amongst me and thousands other players Because I'm not always right, what I think may be balanced might be incredibly unbalanced. But when we all agree that a specific way we can balance it is to the best of our vast and numerous imaginations, then it probably is as balanced as it is going to get.
When it goes this far and this much conversation has been had about one minor thing that won't even come up unless someone uses the class, then yes I would classify that as, at minimum, so form of mental illness or damage. Because this is ridiculous. Certainly when numerous and imaginative alternate methods of dealing with it have been given, there has to be at least some level of over-obsession with it. Not that obsessions revolving around a pen and paper game is healthy in any manner.
I have no idea what is going on through your head, I don't pretend to. Yes it is rather presumptuous of me to say that I think you are trying to have the game changed, but that was the only logical conclusion I could come up with at this stage.
No, actually I don't want them to cater to my opinion, I want them to cater to a consensus amongst me and thousands other players
Of course. After all, if you has a game that's perfectly to your tastes, and no-one else wants to play it, you have nothing.
No reason, however, not to try to shift that consensus towards your own tastes and best judgments.
what I think may be balanced might be incredibly unbalanced.
Well, yes, I can see how that might work for you, but that doesn't happen very often to me at all.
When it goes this far and this much conversation has been had about one minor thing that won't even come up unless someone uses the class,
You make it sound as if you believe "someone uses the class" is some sort of remote contingency.
then yes I would classify that as, at minimum, so form of mental illness or damage.
At a minimum? You don't say!
Because this is ridiculous. Certainly when numerous and imaginative alternate methods of dealing with it have been given, there has to be at least some level of over-obsession with it. Not that obsessions revolving around a pen and paper game is healthy in any manner.
I have no idea what is going on through your head, I don't pretend to.
Yes, you do. You pretend to have diagnosed me with some form of mental illness or damage. At a minimum!
It invites the question: how do you diagnose yourself, considering you're also choosing to continue the discussion? I'd go with hypocrisy myself.
when is the Paladin is unconscious? - not often. That's pretty much the problem. He seldom or never becomes unconscious.
Hey... When an elf summons an Earth Elemental on top of you and you're at level 5 (To be fair I was a Sorcerer Paladin) bad stuff can happen...
Edit: ><; I was the sorcerer/paladin at level 5
|
when is the Paladin is unconscious? - not often. That's pretty much the problem. He seldom or never becomes unconscious.Hey... When an elf summons an Earth Elemental on top of you and you're at level 5 (To be fair it was a Sorcerer Paladin) bad stuff can happen...
I just got interested in this!
Summon moster 3 can summon an ape which is large... hmmm... Meh, haste is still better
stuff
+1.
And just a reminder.Don't let some of the more stupid arguments in this thread get to you ;-)
The same goes for the rude remarks.
I really enjoy reading this thread, some of your antagonist just come off as xxxx and you don't :-)
|
|
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.
Umm, no. No, no, no. Did you even read what I wrote? The whole point of Lay on Hands is to Lay those Hands on OTHER PEOPLE who are DYING. Paladins are defenders of the weak. Rescuers of the injured. Allowing them to use all their healing on themselves really plays this down and may turn them into ego-centric self-righteous crusaders.
Which I do not prefer my paladins to be.
Perhaps it would be best to simply charge paladins with a move or standard action when they want to heal themselves, and a move action to heal someone adjacent. That way they can fight and heal another in the same round, and gain little from healing themselves.
|
|
That's a much more convincing argument. But I still think you're overestimating how much the barbarian will get hit before the end of a day. How much damage do 10th-level monsters deal in an attack? Some 15-20? At least 10?
If it's at least 10, and the barbarian's DR prevented 120 damage, he will have taken 480 damage. Will a 10th-level party really be able and willing suffer through that without calling for a rest?
Once again, I may have too harsh of a GMing style.
Doesn't that mean he's smiting the most powerful opponent in every fight in a typical adventuring day? I'm still not seeing how this is some huge limitation. (At lower levels, it is more noticeable.)
If he anticipates fighting not much that day? Yes. But as I said before, days in my games are long and hard, so the paladins have a tendency to conserve their Smite Evils for things that are OBVIOUSLY BBEGs, and often that results in not using all of their Smite Evils for fear of something worse around the corner.
Indeed, I have already done so. Since the players didn't see a pressing reason to change it, I let it remain as it is, for now.
If it should prove to be a problem later, the option that seems more sensible to me is to require two uses for a swift action lay on hands, but also allow it to target others.
Or just a flat Standard for one use? Sounds reasonable to me.
I though I had? Maybe not. There is a disadvantage of discussing the same things on multiple forums.
As I said before, I only read the first three pages, so you may have said something between pages 4 and 6 that I missed.
Anyway, I don't think the discussion reached the point where that would be truly relevant. We'd have to agree that a rule needs to be changed, before we can meaningfully discuss how the rule should be changed, no?
If you think lay on hands is just fine as it is, and I decide to change it anyway, why would I take your advice on how precisely it should be changed? You think it's just fine as it is! You might offer different suggestions, as you did, but you'll think all of them misguided or unnecessary. None of them really represent your informed opinion, since your informed opinion is that it shouldn't be changed at all.
Not necessarily. From an objective perspective, I can see all of your points. Just because I don't personally agree with them doesn't mean I'm incapable of working with you to create a workaround that is an honestly suitable workaround. Plus, if I ever perceive the same kind of imbalance, I've already logically extended myself through the process and have my answer.
That being said, I have a lot of house rules, some of which make Lay on Hands better, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of balancing a class. I like my paladins to be epic (as most of them die holding off terrifying things so the rest of the party can survive), but I'll work with anybody to find a solution to their problem.
|
|
No, actually I don't want them to cater to my opinion, I want them to cater to a consensus amongst me and thousands other playersOf course. After all, if you has a game that's perfectly to your tastes, and no-one else wants to play it, you have nothing.
No reason, however, not to try to shift that consensus towards your own tastes and best judgments.
what I think may be balanced might be incredibly unbalanced.
Well, yes, I can see how that might work for you, but that doesn't happen very often to me at all.
Just because no one has told you, that you are wrong, doesn't mean you are right. You are so convinced that you are right, you haven't even considered the possibility that you could be wrong here. While I've not been wrong very often I'm more than willing to admit when I am, usually when there has been 7 pages of people telling me I'm either wrong or showing me other ways of doing it, I get the message. Though it rarely takes me that long.
When it goes this far and this much conversation has been had about one minor thing that won't even come up unless someone uses the class,You make it sound as if you believe "someone uses the class" is some sort of remote contingency.
Relatively speaking, yes it is fairly remote, depending on group size and player preferences, even campaign and setting can affect the player's decision to use one of the many classes available.
You are complaining that the paladin is overpowered because it's hard to kill in relation to other classes, but that's just it, the paladin is a defensive class, even their best offense, smite evil, grants defenses against evil targets. Once the paladin can't smite evil he loses most of his damage. Paladins do weapon damage+str+divine bond, if they even have that up, against non-evil targets, and targets not worth smiting, the fighter does weapon damage+str+feats+weapon training+whatever else they can get their mits on, barbarians do weapon damage+str which doesn't seem like much until you take into consideration that the barbarian has the biggest hit die so he doesn't have to worry that much about con, and he has THE highest str in the game amongst any player characters and is probably using a 2-handed weapon. Rangers might be the weakest of the core classes with a full BaB, but they are purpose-built for hunting down certain species and killing those, at which point they are about on par with the fighter, still below barbarian, but still above paladin in terms of damage. The paladin and ranger require the most stats for their bang, but even the ranger doesn't need them as badly as paladin does.
then yes I would classify that as, at minimum, so form of mental illness or damage.
At a minimum? You don't say!
Because this is ridiculous. Certainly when numerous and imaginative alternate methods of dealing with it have been given, there has to be at least some level of over-obsession with it. Not that obsessions revolving around a pen and paper game is healthy in any manner.
I have no idea what is going on through your head, I don't pretend to.
Yes, you do. You pretend to have diagnosed me with some form of mental illness or damage. At a minimum!
It invites the question: how do you diagnose yourself, considering you're also choosing to continue the discussion? I'd go with hypocrisy myself.
No, I don't. This was the best guess I could come up with given how much effort you have put into trying to convince dozens of other people, some of them agree with you most do not.
I'm crazy in my own ways, everyone is, some far worse than others. I don't like making mistakes to the point that when I see the potential for making mistakes I will go well out of my way to avoid them, except this usually leads me to making other mistakes. I'm stubborn to the point it could be classified as a mental illness, I don't quit even when it's, by all appearances, futile. This thread being a fairly good example of that. I collect things in a borderline OCD fashion.
You are complaining that the paladin is overpowered because it's hard to kill in relation to other classes, but that's just it, the paladin is a defensive class, even their best offense, smite evil, grants defenses against evil targets. Once the paladin can't smite evil he loses most of his damage. Paladins do weapon damage+str+divine bond, if they even have that up, against non-evil targets, and targets not worth smiting,
You're forgetting his spells. At lower levels the limitation of smite per day is a problem. But at higher levels it's not a problem. The Paladin takes care of the BBEG and let the rest of the party deal with his minions. Even when not smiting the Paladin still do a lot of damage. As I've said before. How many meaningful encounters do you get during a day?
the fighter does weapon damage+str+feats+weapon training+whatever else they can get their mits on,
Yes, the fighters are great, but fighter especialy melee fighters are MAD characters since they want to be able to pick all necessary feat. They need str, dex 13, con 14 and int 13 and since will saves are one of their weak spot they don't want to dump wisdom. Most of my fighter designs have wis 12, at least when using 20 PB. They do damage all the time but can't compete with a Paladin when she smites evil, nor is the fighter as durable as a Paladin. But I agree, fighters are great if they get some help. After all this is not a PVP game.
barbarians do weapon damage+str which doesn't seem like much until you take into consideration that the barbarian has the biggest hit die so he doesn't have to worry that much about con, and he has THE highest str in the game amongst any player characters and is probably using a 2-handed weapon.
So he doesn't have to worry that much about con? Get you facts straight. 12HD will gives you an average of 6,5 HP + con when rolling a dice. 10HD will gives you an average of 5,5 HP + con. Take into consideration con grants her more rage per day and she need con 15 to take Raging Vitality. Also they can't use heavy armor and they, unlike the Paladin, get a penalty to AC when they use their class ability. This actually mean they will have to start with at least 14 dex if they want to survive until they can get a mithral full plate. So the Barbarian is a 3-attribute MAD class, and she probably should go for 12 wisdom.
The highest str score does not equal the highest damage output, this has been proven in the thread, The DPR Olympics - or "I'm not the mechanic here, Ironsides! I mostly just hurt people!"In fact the Barbarian is one of the weaker full BAB classes. I guess the APG has changed this somewhat.
"and is probably using a 2-handed weapon." Yes, thus she need con and dex to survive.
The Paladin is another class that benefit from not using a shield (or using a buckler). She doesn't need the shield, she can use full plate and get AC bonus when smiting and if she does get hurt she can heal herself. Also not using a shield gives her the advantage of being able to cast spells and/or use lay on hands without dropping her weapon or shield.
Rangers might be the weakest of the core classes with a full BaB, but they are purpose-built for hunting down certain species and killing those, at which point they are about on par with the fighter, still below barbarian, but still above paladin in terms of damage.
Wrong. Still above the paladin in terms of damage if they meet their Favored Enemies and the Paladin is not smiting. Anyway the Ranger is not designed primarily do damage.
The paladin and ranger require the most stats for their bang, but even the ranger doesn't need them as badly as paladin does.
This is a myth. A TWF ranger doesn't need dex. They can boost their str far higher than any class using TWF fighting. They got healing and Barksin to boost their AC. At highter levels they can pick a Mithral full plate if they waste a feat.
The whole idea that a Paladin is a MAD character is nothing but a myth. They need str and char. Nothing more. Most Paladins can star with a str score higher than both the fighter and the barbarian.Paladin 15 PB (and I have not dumped dex or int)
Str 18
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 7
Char 15
At level 4 she raise char to 16. At level 8, 12, etc he raise str. Or she could start with char 16 and str 17 raise str to 18 at level 4.
|
|
No, I'm not forgetting his spells, the paladin spells aren't really that awesome in combat until he gets Holy Sword. Paladins don't do as much as a fighter or barbarian do against normal stuff.
You are the one forcing those stats on your fighter, you don't actually need them, all a fighter really needs is a high str, same with barbarian. The ranger still needs str and wisdom, the paladin str and cha. That still makes them require more stats than the barbarian and fighter.
Statistically speaking the barbarian's hit die gives him 1 more hp, that's 1 less con you have to buy, and even then the barbarian gets extra con when raging, thus he needs even less con than that.
They don't need all of those extraneous stats, those are something you have imposed on them, something many players can work around by using stealth and guile.
Okay, it goes like this: Fighter hits all day long for his damage, barbarian will run out of rage eventually, the ranger might not be fighting his type of prey, the paladin can't smite neutral targets and even if he can smite will run out eventually, by that I mean he'll kill his smite target and more will pop up. That's how the damage breakdown works. The reason the ranger comes out over paladin is because rangers can pick multiple types of enemy, they can get a varied enough number of favored enemies to gain extra damage in most situations, a paladin has to wait for the right type. You say it isn't an issue with higher level paladins, to which I respond Aura of Justice. Using Aura of justice takes two smites away but it grants your smite power to all of your allies in 10 feet, now what Mr. Wizard? That's right, everyone in the party is now sharing that paladin's smite evil power. Thus he's probably doing the least amount of damage, because the fighter still gets all of his stuff, the barbarian still gets his rage, and the ranger is probably getting his favored enemy. This spell even applies to some spells you cast at your enemies. Frankly speaking that's also one of the best opening actions a paladin can make.
You can quite easily go into enough combats a day when you have 1+(level-1[/3]) smite evils a day, you are limited to 4 smite evils by the time you get aura of justice, that's 4 enemies you can rock by yourself. That's a very small number of enemies.
You are the one forcing those stats on your fighter, you don't actually need them, all a fighter really needs is a high str, same with barbarian.
Safe to say I don't agree.
Fighters are all about feats. If you just go str the fighter will be very limited, or probably worse: he will suck. So I say you are wrong... or perhaps you are just trolling.As for the barbarian with medium armor, no shield and -2 to ac every time she rages, she sure needs some dex and con.
Edit
"The ranger still needs str and wisdom" He only have level 1 to 4 spells so he need a max of 14 wis when if he wants to cast level 4 spells.
12 wisdom will do. The same wis I would give to a fighter and a barbarian. Calling a ranger a MAD class because he needs 12 wis is just sky high rethoric.
So we can agree on not agreeing?
I don't think the Paladin is broken, but she might need a nerf. If the problem is LoH or smite or something else I'm not sure.
A nice fix on the LoH problem would be to make it a move action, that is if LoH is the problem.
No, I'm not forgetting his spells, the paladin spells aren't really that awesome in combat until he gets Holy Sword.
They don't need to be awesome in combat, they only need to be good.
Bless weapon, Divine Favor, Protection against evil, Bless, Magic Weapon, Lesser Restoration (as a 1.st level spell - nice)Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy, Bull's str,
Magic Circle against Evil, Greater Magic Weapon, Prayer,
Death Ward, Dispel Evil, etc
They are all good or great spells.
With the Magical Knack trait they are even better.
Really, the paladin needs a nerf because is more durable.. because in this specific situation the Cleric does not heals the fighter, and the fighter itself seems (correct me if I'm wrong) not use his class features?
Did someone remember the 3.5, or it's only myself? We want to go back on that route? Everything must be sucky and uninspiring so the DM has a good control of it?