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?
Whether the cleric heals everyone or not, the paladin is still more durable than the fighter.
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?
You thought everything in 3.5 was sucky and uninspiring? How come you're interested in Pathfinder then? It' pretty similar to 3.5.
|
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.
I'm not saying they need to be, you said "You're forgetting his spells."
I stated that paladin's spells aren't very good and don't change combat that much.Whether the cleric heals everyone or not, the paladin is still more durable than the fighter.
Yes, but only against spells really, the cleric could ignore paladin who is selfishly healing only himself, and concentrate on the fighter, but the fighter is vulnerable to certain spells and abilities the paladin just ignores. Like I said earlier, the paladin is meant to be a defensive class, it's supposed to be tougher than the other classes. On top of that paladin does slightly more damage against evil creatures, but that's why things like the tarrasque are neutral.
I stated that paladin's spells aren't very good and don't change combat that much.
Don't change cobat much? Ah, funny you really are trolling.
Bless weapon (auto crit and make weapon good), Divine Favor (+3 to attack and damage), Bless (+1 to attack and +1 to some saves), Magic Weapon (+1 to attack and damage bypass DR and you can hurt incorporeals), Bull's str (+2 to attack and +2 or 3 to damage) All these spells stack and the don't change combat? They sure do and they sure do when the Paladin has run out of smites.
Deathward, Protection against evil and Resist Energy are some of the best protective spells in the game. Not getting Drained, Hurt/Killed or Dominated means you can attack. That change combat. Healing in combat usually means your tactic sucks, if that fireball don't hurt you you don't need healing. Again, can you connect the dots?
Prayer and Bless are great party buff spells that even stack with Inspire Courage if you got a bard in the party, if not they stack with each other.
Again I don't think the paladin is broken and I don't agree with Jasin on all that he/she says, but some of the arguments brought against him/her in this thread are just plain stupid or trolling or at best not very well thought thru.
Hey Jasin. You know there is a Flag button. When people call you sick in the head you can flag them. Not that I'm saying you should, but it is an option if thing gets more uggly.
|
|
I stated that paladin's spells aren't very good and don't change combat that much.Don't change cobat much? Ah, funny you really are trolling.
Bless weapon (auto crit and make weapon good), Divine Favor (+3 to attack and damage), Bless (+1 to attack and +1 to some saves), Magic Weapon (+1 to attack and damage bypass DR and you can hurt incorporeals), Bull's str (+2 to attack and +2 or 3 to damage) All these spells stack and the don't change combat? They sure do and they sure do when the Paladin has run out of smites.
Deathward, Protection against evil and Resist Energy are some of the best protective spells in the game. Not getting Drained, Hurt/Killed or Dominated means you can attack. That change combat. Healing in combat usually means your tactic sucks, if that fireball don't hurt you you don't need healing. Again, can you connect the dots?
Prayer and Bless are great party buff spells that even stack with Inspire Courage if you got a bard in the party, if not they stack with each other.
Again I don't think the paladin is broken and I don't agree with Jasin on all that he/she says, but some of the arguments brought against him/her in this thread are just plain stupid or trolling or at best not very well thought thru.
Hey Jasin. You know there is a Flag button. When people call you sick in the head you can flag them. Not that I'm saying you should, but it is an option if thing gets more uggly.
Bless weapon- useless against non-evil creatures
Divine favor- lasts 1 minute, no longer, no shorterBless- +1 hit, +1 to something the paladin is already immune to
Magic weapon- odds are pretty good that you will have an actual magic weapon by the time you get this, ergo: useless
Bull's Str-1 min/level, this one becomes useless when you get something that provides an enhancement bonus to your str, which actually could take awhile, making it moderately useful
Deathward is actually pretty good, too bad you don't get it until you are level 13, which can take an excruciatingly long time.
I said my piece on jasin, I'll say no more.
Yes, some of them do change combat, a little. Nothing significant, except death ward and holy sword. Most you are getting is +6 hit +6 damage, on a 2 handed weapon. Not really that spectacular.
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.
This is just partially true. While I don't remember the numbers for melee paladins and fighters, which could be radically different, the DPR Olympics showed that paladins where the clear undisputed winners when smiting evil dragons/outsiders (around 100 dpr), where slightly ahead when smiting evil (60 dpr vs. 58 dpr iirc), and where a lot behind when not smiting (~40 dpr). So I'd say the fighter can definately compete when the paladin is smiting evil, just not evil outsiders and dragons.
I'll search the thread and see if I can find a comparision of melee fighters and paladins.
|
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.This is just partially true. While I don't remember the numbers for melee paladins and fighters, which could be radically different, the DPR Olympics showed that paladins where the clear undisputed winners when smiting evil dragons/outsiders (around 100 dpr), where slightly ahead when smiting evil (60 dpr vs. 58 dpr iirc), and where a lot behind when not smiting (~40 dpr). So I'd say the fighter can definately compete when the paladin is smiting evil, just not evil outsiders and dragons.
I'll search the thread and see if I can find a comparision of melee fighters and paladins.
I believe that thread was made before the change to smite so the DPR against evil outsiders/Dragons/undead will probably be off
Whether the cleric heals everyone or not, the paladin is still more durable than the fighter.
Paladin is more durable, fighter deals more damage over time. Is this really a problem? Do we want classes exactly identical, because play the game around the differences is too complicated? Are we sure that we want to go on this route? Because already happened, and the results is.. well, you know what I am referring to.
You thought everything in 3.5 was sucky and uninspiring? How come you're interested in Pathfinder then? It' pretty similar to 3.5.
One can enjoy the warrior NPC class too. But cool mechanics are cool mechanics. I enjoyed the 3.5 fighter, but the way maneuvers and feat combos interact in PF make me enjoy it more.
The same way, one can enjoy 3.5 paladin.. but look at me and say that remove desease X times a week is an interesting, well tought mechanic. Of course, 3.5 paladin is less "troublesome" for the DM because iss less likely to mess his plans up. But I dare to say that the PF one is far more enjoyable.
I LOVED 3.5, but there were thing not designed well. Make a better paladin makes a more enjoyable paladin.. a more troublesome paladin, but we finally have a defender of weaks and punisher of the evildores. Now that FINALLY the goddamn paladin mechanics match the archetype, we want to nerf it because is "too durable"? Who wrote this thread, Franz Kafka?
Fighters perform more maneuvers, AC and damage overall increases better, is more mobile, and has no troubles regarding his alignment. Paladin is more durable (better saves, protective spells) and X times/day beats the **** out evildoers.
Adjust the monsters or slightly nerf, at least for low levels, the class if needed. Each campaign is unique. But generally speaking, I think that is better that every class is different, even with occasional imbalances, than dumb down everything at the same level. Differences and troublesome choices (like the ones implied in the Paladin alignment) are among the things that make campaigns interesting and stories epic.
And yeah, fighters can be great in control (short range) and in disabling several kind of enemies. In that way are less subject to punishment. If built to deal damage, they deal a crapload of it, but need far more heals and support.
One should keep this in mind, and understand that switch a weapon, use terrain or take lunge sometimes is enough to improve the fighter. Before criticize LoH, one should at least ask hiself few questions.
Above is of course just an advice - as I said before, each campaign is unique. If you need to switch LoH to a move action, go for it. I just state that, myself, I find it quite weird, in a game with planar bindings, teleports, auto-crit blows, bears that shoot lightinings, and so on.
Yes, but only against spells really, the cleric could ignore paladin who is selfishly healing only himself, and concentrate on the fighter, but the fighter is vulnerable to certain spells and abilities the paladin just ignores.
If the fighter needs a cleric to let him keep up, that's a pretty good indication that the paladin is too powerful.
Like I said earlier, the paladin is meant to be a defensive class, it's supposed to be tougher than the other classes. On top of that paladin does slightly more damage against evil creatures, but that's why things like the tarrasque are neutral.
In my experience, evil creatures, and even more narrowly, evil dragons, undead, and outsiders, come up in an actual game more than tarrasques.
The same way, one can enjoy 3.5 paladin.. but look at me and say that remove desease X times a week is an interesting, well tought mechanic.
It was mostly a nod to Three Hearts and Three Lions, kind of neat when it came up, but so situational that I've seen people forget they had it even when someone was diseased and they could use it.
So, yeah, it wasn't really a good mechanic.
Of course, 3.5 paladin is less "troublesome" for the DM because iss less likely to mess his plans up. But I dare to say that the PF one is far more enjoyable.
That's another thing that bothers me about lay on hands, which I haven't made explicit: I would enjoy it more as a player if didn't allow you to heal yourself more easily than others. I hate the feeling of knowing that what I want to because of my character's personality or concept is bad tactics, because I feel these are two different aspects of the game and that I shouldn't be forced to trade off between the two. I want to be able to be faithful to my concept and my characters's personality, but at the same time, I want the play tactical combat minigame and win. I hate being told, "here's your paladin, and you can have him act like a paladin, but that's pretty dumb, or you can have him act like a troll, which is pretty smart".
Fighters perform more maneuvers, AC and damage overall increases better, is more mobile, and has no troubles regarding his alignment. Paladin is more durable (better saves, protective spells) and X times/day beats the **** out evildoers.
This is the same reasoning used to justify the gross imbalances between casters and non-casters. Sure, the wizard can maze people and summon angels and kill with a word, but it's only X/day.
It didn't really work that way, and it still doesn't really work that way.
But generally speaking, I think that is better that every class is different, even with occasional imbalances, than dumb down everything at the same level.
In general terms, I agree.
Hey Jasin. You know there is a Flag button. When people call you sick in the head you can flag them. Not that I'm saying you should, but it is an option if thing gets more uggly.
I'm against it on general principle.
I enjoy the more open, honest atmosphere that comes from people saying what they think, even if it's insulting. Heavy-handed moderation often results in people simply learning to be more underhanded with insults. I'd rather have someone tell me I'm insane, than vaguely suggest it while trying to maintain plausible deniability. Given some critical mass of smart people, I think a community can moderate itself adequately with minimal direct intervention, just like in real life: consistently be needlessly insulting, and people will learn to not take you seriously, even if the moderator doesn't remove your posts.
And ultimately, we're talking about the best way to pretend to be an elf. People might get stubborn or lose their temper, but ultimately, it's a pretty inappropriate thing over which to hold any real grudge.
This is just partially true. While I don't remember the numbers for melee paladins and fighters, which could be radically different, the DPR Olympics showed that paladins where the clear undisputed winners when smiting evil dragons/outsiders (around 100 dpr), where slightly ahead when smiting evil (60 dpr vs. 58 dpr iirc), and where a lot behind when not smiting (~40 dpr). So I'd say the fighter can definately compete when the paladin is smiting evil, just not evil outsiders and dragons.
I'll search the thread and see if I can find a comparision of melee fighters and paladins.
That'd be very informative, thanks.
That'd be very informative, thanks.This is just partially true. While I don't remember the numbers for melee paladins and fighters, which could be radically different, the DPR Olympics showed that paladins where the clear undisputed winners when smiting evil dragons/outsiders (around 100 dpr), where slightly ahead when smiting evil (60 dpr vs. 58 dpr iirc), and where a lot behind when not smiting (~40 dpr). So I'd say the fighter can definately compete when the paladin is smiting evil, just not evil outsiders and dragons.
I'll search the thread and see if I can find a comparision of melee fighters and paladins.
I went through the thread but couldn't find any melee builds for paladin. I'm not a good optimizer, but I welcome you to try and make a melee paladin entry for the thread.
Here's a 2WF paladin and a 2WF fighter.
If you think you can squeeze some more damage out of the classes by the limits of that thread, go ahead and post your build. I'm not an optimizer so I won't even try.
Now, I had to recalculate the smite damage of the paladin compared to thread because of the change in the final release (x2 damage against undead/outsider/dragon only on first attack). You might want to double-check the math, as I did only a quick method; I took (10*.75)+(10*.3*.75) because his bonus is 10 damage, chance to hit is .75, and chance to threaten is .3. I added this unto his normal smite damage. To me, it seems that would be correct, but I'm not that good with math so correct me if I'm off.
The 2WF fighter has:
DPR: 61.37
89 HP, 24 AC
30ft movement
10/7/7 saves
The 2WF paladin has:
DPR smiting evil dragon/outsider/undead: 76.38
DPR smiting other bad guy: 66.63
DPR not smiting: 31.40
89 HP, 21 AC
20ft movement
10/8/8 saves
So yeah, he does noticeably more damage than the fighter when smiting (although I wouldn't say the fighter can't compete for damage, it's off by 5 points of damage) and outshines the fighter against royal bad guys, but whenever he's not smiting (it's bound to happen at least once per day as long as there's at least five enemies he has to fight, or if at least one per day is a construct, animal or other neutral or good creature - quite probable in most games) his DPR is abysmal and a DR of even 5 will make him cry (with his d4+8 damage, it's really horrible).
He's slightly better at saves and due to lay on hands has more hit points (5d6, 6/day), but he's far less mobile and has a really bad AC (average CR 10 monster will hit him on a 3+). This gives him a boon when fighting several weak enemies for an extended amount of time, where his LoH can shine, but makes him very vulnerable to strong monsters as he's quite immobile and easily would fall to a critical. This is ironic since smiting big bad guys is what he does best, and he sucks at fighting several small guys.
When one-on-one with a big baddie, the fight will end quickly; either he gets killed in the first or second turn (A CR 12 hits him on a 1+ dealing an average of 55 damage - a lucky hit will kill him alright) or he slays the baddie quickly. Of course, against a big baddie, if he wins initiative, he'll smite for a +1 to his AC against the baddie, helping somewhat but not much.
When against a group of weaker enemies, combats will probably draw long; he deals abysmal damage, but can keep up for quite a while due to his healing.
The fighter is more stable all-around; he does far less damage against a single royal baddie and slightly less against a single normal baddie, but fairs better when against several or non-evil opponents.
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.
Just because you do not like the idea of a Paladin healing themselves does not mean that is not what the ability was designed to do. They included the extra ability for the Paladin to swift action heal themselves, which is obviously mechanicly better than normal healing. The obvious conclusion is that the ability should be used to heal themselves. Since their primary purpose is to and beat evil things in the face, not help people, and this allows them to do that, I'd say it is working correctly. The whole concept that the Paladin is based off of is the ego-centric self-righteous crusader, and this plays perfectly with it.
The whole concept that the Paladin is based off of is the ego-centric self-righteous crusader, and this plays perfectly with it.
Interesting. I look forward to see where you're going with this.
I'd say it is working correctly. The whole concept that the Paladin is based off of is the ego-centric self-righteous crusader, and this plays perfectly with it.
I don't think that the swift action heal is needed for the self righteous fake good paladin you want to imply.
I see it more likely to work with:
- swift heal and charge the evildoer
- swift heal and bull rush the evildoer away from the bard
- swif heal and continue to keep away the evildoer from the party.
The OP finds it too powerful (IMO is not, but each one his own). But I don't think that designers made the rules to play a Jerkass paladin - they made it to make a warrior able to keep up and be ready to save his fellows's **s.
I'd say it is working correctly. The whole concept that the Paladin is based off of is the ego-centric self-righteous crusader, and this plays perfectly with it.I don't think that the swift action heal is needed for the self righteous fake good paladin you want to imply.
I see it more likely to work with:
- swift heal and charge the evildoer
- swift heal and bull rush the evildoer away from the bard
- swif heal and continue to keep away the evildoer from the party.
The OP finds it too powerful (IMO is not, but each one his own). But I don't think that designers made the rules to play a Jerkass paladin - they made it to make a warrior able to keep up and be ready to save his fellows's **s.
What makes the ego-centric self-righteous crusader not good? You describe his actions perfectly.
Here's a 2WF paladin and a 2WF fighter.
Huh, at first glance there seems to be a lot of mistakes.
Both the paladin and the fighter have Con 13 and Toughness, they should have 10d10+20 hp, not 10d10+30.
The fighter has Con 13, a cloak of resistance +1, he should have +9 Fort, not +10.
The paladin has a full plate +1, ring of protection and Dex 12+, he should have AC 22, touch 12, flat-footed 21, not AC 21, touch 11, flat-footed 20.
Not really relevant for damage, but makes me suspicious about the maths in general.
Also, I note that the paladin has Cha 12. I haven't done the numbers, so that might be the way to get the absolute most damage, but my guess is that higher Cha at the expense of something else will be overall more favourable: more lay on hands, better saves (which will quite literally be the difference between life and death in an actual game), better smite attacks, better smite AC...
Quickly doing some numbers: swap Dex for Cha. Swap two +3 kukris for a +3 falchion and a circlet of Cha +4. Swap the two-weapon feats for Power Attack.
You get +4 Fort, +2 Ref, +4 Will, lay on hands uses increase by 4 (some 75 hp, a whole 'nother paladin worth of staying power). Damage when not smiting and damage when smiting are basically the same (increased ever so slightly). Much better damage on a standard action attack. Still two feats left over to play with. Perhaps Extra Lay on Hands twice, for yet another paladin-worth of healing?
STR: 20 (+5) (14 base, +2 racial, +4 belt)
DEX: 12 (+1)
CON: 13 (+1)
INT: 10 (+0)
WIS: 8 (-1)
CHA: 21 (+5) (15 base, +2 level, +4 circlet)
HP: 79 HP (10d10+20)
Saving Throws
Fort: +14 Ref: +10 Will: +12
AC: 22 - Touch 12, Flatfooted 21 (+10 +1 full plate, +1 dex, +1 Ring of Protection)
Attacks: Falchion +19/+14, 2d4+10 dmg (15-20/x2)
( 0.8 + 0.55 ) * 15 * 1.3 = 26.33
PA: Falchion +16/+11, 2d4+19 dmg (15-20/x2)
( 0.65 + 0.40 ) * 24 * 1.3 = 32.76
Smite: Falchion +24/+19, 2d4+20 dmg (15-20/x2)
( 0.95 + 0.8 ) * 25 * 1.3 = 56.88
PA: Falchion +21/+16, 2d4+29 dmg (15-20/x2)
( 0.9 + 0.65 ) * 34 * 1.3 = 68.51
Class Abilities:
Smite Evil 4/day (+5 to hit, +10/+20 damage)
Divine Bond
Divine Grace
Other stuff, I am lazy
BAB: +10 CMB: +15 CMD: 26
Feats:
(not Two Weapon Fighting?)
Toughness
Weapon Focus (greatsword)
Power Attack
(not Improved Two Weapon Fighting?)
Improved Critical (falchion)
Skills:
Stuff
Gear:
+3 falchion
Circlet of +4 Cha
Belt of +4 str
+1 full plate
Cloak of Resistance +1
Handy Haversack
Masterwork composite longbow (+6 str mod)
Ring of protection +1
734 GP in miscellaneous consumables, gear, non-portable goods, etc.
What makes the ego-centric self-righteous crusader not good? You describe his actions perfectly.
self-righteous does not match weel with selfless.
I see the paladin above as taking blows in place of other. I recognize that the behaviours could be de facto indiscernible.
Take your pick.
But the Paladin will go blind from "Laying Hands" on himself so much, and in the middle of a fight too. :P
/thread
What makes the ego-centric self-righteous crusader not good? You describe his actions perfectly.self-righteous does not match weel with selfless.
I see the paladin above as taking blows in place of other. I recognize that the behaviours could be de facto indiscernible.
Take your pick.
1. Believing yourself to be right all the time and devoting yourself to helping others are not mutually exclusive.
2. Nothing requires a Paladin to be selfless. The closest they must do is help others in need. You can amass a small personal fortune and do this within the bounds of your code.
|
|
Yes, but only against spells really, the cleric could ignore paladin who is selfishly healing only himself, and concentrate on the fighter, but the fighter is vulnerable to certain spells and abilities the paladin just ignores.If the fighter needs a cleric to let him keep up, that's a pretty good indication that the paladin is too powerful.
Like I said earlier, the paladin is meant to be a defensive class, it's supposed to be tougher than the other classes. On top of that paladin does slightly more damage against evil creatures, but that's why things like the tarrasque are neutral.In my experience, evil creatures, and even more narrowly, evil dragons, undead, and outsiders, come up in an actual game more than tarrasques.
No, *clout
Being more durable isn't a sign of being overpowered, is a wall overpowered because it's adamantine? No, but an adamantine wall is hard to break.
The fighter has always needed someone else to keep him alive, this has been the way it is for decades, suddenly the paladin gains some decent healing power making it more of a hybrid than it was before making it more durable, but he can only keep it up so long before he runs out, and given that he doesn't heal for very much in relation to clerics, he's still far more likely to fold faster than a fighter with a cleric.
The Tarrasque was an example, there are neutral creatures of all shapes and sizes you can use instead of evil outsiders, undead, and dragons.
|
Due to the code (the "help those in need" and "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" provisions), the paladin should get into more fights than any other fighting type.
Also due to the code (the "act with honor" restriction on "cheating, using poison and so forth"), he should also expect to be hurt more than those same other fighting types who do not have to absolutely play by this kind of rules.
I believe that it is a very good thing that he can heal himself of all this damage he sustained due to his adherence to the code so as to keep on fighting as long as the other guys ;-)
Here's a 2WF paladin and a 2WF fighter.Huh, at first glance there seems to be a lot of mistakes.
Both the paladin and the fighter have Con 13 and Toughness, they should have 10d10+20 hp, not 10d10+30.
The fighter has Con 13, a cloak of resistance +1, he should have +9 Fort, not +10.
The paladin has a full plate +1, ring of protection and Dex 12+, he should have AC 22, touch 12, flat-footed 21, not AC 21, touch 11, flat-footed 20.
Not really relevant for damage, but makes me suspicious about the maths in general.
The saves and AC are probably actual errors (I think AMiB said he'd modified a previous version of the TWF fighter and that it lost +1 to saves in the process, so it's probably copypasta), but the hit points are right - in both cases, it's the favored class bonus.
Also, I note that the paladin has Cha 12. I haven't done the numbers, so that might be the way to get the absolute most damage, but my guess is that higher Cha at the expense of something else will be overall more favourable: more lay on hands, better saves (which will quite literally be the difference between life and death in an actual game), better smite attacks, better smite AC...
Quickly doing some numbers: swap Dex for Cha. Swap two +3 kukris for a +3 falchion and a circlet of Cha +4. Swap the two-weapon feats for Power Attack.
You get +4 Fort, +2 Ref, +4 Will, lay on hands uses increase by 4 (some 75 hp, a whole 'nother paladin worth of staying power). Damage when not smiting and damage when smiting are basically the same (increased ever so slightly). Much better damage on a standard action attack. Still two feats left over to play with. Perhaps Extra Lay on Hands twice, for yet another paladin-worth of healing?
Might want to head over to the thread for these kinda comments... we're always happy to have another player!
The saves and AC are probably actual errors (I think AMiB said he'd modified a previous version of the TWF fighter and that it lost +1 to saves in the process, so it's probably copypasta), but the hit points are right - in both cases, it's the favored class bonus.
Damn, still not used to all the new stuff in Pathfinder. :)
Is this still going? For Christmas' sake just houserule standard action for the paladin to loh himself and swift to loh other already, getting sick of seeing this nonsense bumped constantly.
Is this still going? For Christmas' sake just houserule standard action for the paladin to loh himself and swift to loh other already, getting sick of seeing this nonsense bumped constantly.
You do realize that you bumped it when you replied?
|
If you feel it should be a swift in both cases, or a standard in both cases, that's up to you.
But to have it be a swift to cure others, and a standard to heal oneself?
That's a strange way to go; I don't think there's any precedent for spells/SLAs cast on others being easier or more effective than on the caster. Quite the opposite.
Spoiler:
Good catch on the bad math at some places. It's a good build, and with the extra feats left over you might squeeze some extra damage from him. Note that currently though, compared to a falchion fighter (first page on the thread), the situation is this: The paladin has +9 DPR when smiting, has better saves, and can LOH. However, his damage is still abysmally bad when not smiting, and the AC is still reaaally bad.
The fighter though, has +5 initiative (important!), +10 hit points, +3 AC, +1/+2 CMB/CMD, is better at ranged attacks, and has lunge and step up (important for a tank).
So on the whole, I think still it's quite a fair exchange. The fighter will have the upper hand during long days or when fighting non-evil or several enemies at the same time, paladin will be better when smiting the BBEG.
To tie this back to the original topic of this thread, it seems to me that it'd be a fair exchange if it weren't for lay on hands.
In damage and AC, the paladin is slightly better when smiting, and significantly worse when not. I'll still argue that he'll be smiting most of the time, when you weight for importance (the fighter is way better against random encounter wolves, but random encounter wolves don't kill adventurers, level-draining undead barbarian warlords do), so I'd call that about even.
When the fighter gets damaged, however, someone's actions need to be used to get him back into shape. When the paladin gets damaged, he can heal up to 50d6 damage in a day, without anyone in the party missing a single action.
I'll be playing a paladin in the next game we run (thanks to all these threads), so any thoughts on the PF version will be fresh in my mind by then. Until that time, though, I find myself agreeing with people that generally are on the opposing side of debates like this. I think LoH is fine; it's good, unexpectedly good even, but I don't think it's an unfair advantage.
FWIW, in my AoW game, our Oracle of Battle does the healing in our party, and she heals herself sometimes, and she kicks butt in combat, and I think it's fantastic. We'd be dead several times over without her healing.
It's just with a game like this, it's hard to argue that healing, of all things, is what's out of balance.
|
|
When the fighter gets damaged, however, someone's actions need to be used to get him back into shape. When the paladin gets damaged, he can heal up to 50d6 damage in a day, without anyone in the party missing a single action.
That's the minimum, at 20 sure, but they won't be casting or getting much out of their other powers with a 10-11 Cha, also it would just be a flat 300 hp at that point. Paladin's level 20 ability makes lay on hands hit for maximum, every use. Not like a cleric can't heal for 40d8+200 plus an additional 30d6, never once using a spell over 4th level. Using a higher level spell the cleric can simply heal all of their allies for 250 points of damage and remove most ailments, admittedly they would have to be level 25 to do it, when limiting them to level 20, they would heal for 200. All without a charisma mod. They still would need a 19 Wis to do the last one though, and a minimum 14 wis to do the healing through spells, which is very easy for a cleric.
Yeah, but the Fighter gets damaged less often (higher AC) and can take more damage before he needs the healing anyway (higher HP).
So it kinda evens out, or at least cuts the difference back to negligible level.
This.
+ its only 7 times a day and at that level you will have to take a lot more damage each round so it will help you little in the end to be able to heal an average of 10 HP especially because you use up your channeling which is also needed for other purposes.Sure paladins can suck up a lot of damage with this but they also have to. Like fighters and barbarians they are the guys who are supposed to hold enemy attacks off the casters, so naturally they have a way of taking damage and surviving.
So do fighters (who can spend a lot more on their constitution and dexterity to gain more HP than the paladin and (with armor training) more AC than the paladon whichn also helps them to not take damage in the first place and on top of that usually deal more damage so that they take out more enemies in less time and thus avoid some potential attacks from them) and Barbarians (who also can spend much more on constitution, have better hit dice in the first place, gain damage reduction/-, and some extra-extra hit points when raging, plus barbarians also do more damage thanks to rage and thus also take out enemies faster)
Sure Paladins do more damage when smiting but not every enemy is evil. A lot of powerful enemies are actually neutral, most monsters like magical beasts, dragons and aberrations are. And even when he gets to smite a lot thats only 7 uses a day at maximum level.
|
|
So do fighters (who can spend a lot more on their constitution and dexterity to gain more HP than the paladin and (with armor training) more AC than the paladon whichn also helps them to not take damage in the first place and on top of that usually deal more damage so that they take out more enemies in less time and thus avoid some potential attacks from them) and Barbarians (who also can spend much more on constitution, have better hit dice in the first place, gain damage reduction/-, and some extra-extra hit points when raging, plus barbarians also do more damage thanks to rage and thus also take out enemies faster)
To be fair, fighter, barbarian, and paladin all gain DR.
To be fair, fighter, barbarian, and paladin all gain DR.
Ah sorry, thats right, but Paladin's DR is useless as soon as he fights anything that he is supposed to be good against: Evil
He either gets to smite or his DR.
I think most people play Paladin as if everyone was their sidekick anyway. I know I play casters as if everyone else is cannon fodder.
I keep hearing Brian Blessed in Black Adder I. "Ah yes arrow fodder"
Yeah, but the Fighter gets damaged less often (higher AC) and can take more damage before he needs the healing anyway (higher HP).
Comparing the paladin and the fighter in the other thread, the fighter will take less damage against mooks and exceptions, while the paladin will take less against most powerful opponents in the game, and they have exactly the same hp.
It's just with a game like this, it's hard to argue that healing, of all things, is what's out of balance.
Before I started this thread I would've agreed. On first reading, lay on hands seemed nice, while smite evil seemed utterly insane.
In play, smite evil is impressive, and lay on hands is annoyingly powerful.
Looking at the DPR thread, smite evil seems to be necessary to let the paladin keep up with the fighter, overall, and then lay on hands comes on top of that.
Lay on hands seems to be what's off, specifically, the swift action thing, which lets it be more than just healing: it's healing while you fight unhindered.
So do fighters (who can spend a lot more on their constitution and dexterity to gain more HP than the paladin and (with armor training) more AC than the paladon whichn also helps them to not take damage in the first place and on top of that usually deal more damage so that they take out more enemies in less time and thus avoid some potential attacks from them) and Barbarians (who also can spend much more on constitution, have better hit dice in the first place, gain damage reduction/-, and some extra-extra hit points when raging, plus barbarians also do more damage thanks to rage and thus also take out enemies faster)
Have you checked out the actual numbers? Have you checked out the DPR thread?
Unless the paladin is crushed in a couple of rounds, before he can get much use out of lay on hands, it will let him take more punishment than the fighter or the barbarian and still keep going. And if the paladin is crushed in a couple of rounds without being able to prevent it by swift-healing himself for 1d6/2 levels, how long can the fighter or the barbarian expect to last?
Sure Paladins do more damage when smiting but not every enemy is evil. A lot of powerful enemies are actually neutral, most monsters like magical beasts, dragons and aberrations are.
Wait, what? Dragons are either Good or Evil. And paladins get a little boost against Evil ones on top of what they get against most Evil foes. Wyverns are Neutral, but that's the issue, which is going to be the more difficult fight, the more important fight, the fight where you need all you've got to survive, the fight where true stars take to the stage: the one against a wyvern, where the fighter might do better; or the one against the red dragon, where the paladin outshines the fighter utterly?
Unless the paladin is crushed in a couple of rounds, before he can get much use out of lay on hands, it will let him take more punishment than the fighter or the barbarian and still keep going. And if the paladin is crushed in a couple of rounds without being able to prevent it by swift-healing himself for 1d6/2 levels, how long can the fighter or the barbarian expect to last?
"A couple of rounds" is more or less a whole battle. Few fights lasts more than four rounds.
And I'm not sure I agree. The paladin is far more vulnerable to ranged enemies, for one. Not only is he worse at attacking them, but he has a below-average initiative, while the fighter has an above average initiative. He'll have a worse perception score than the fighter. The paladin is thus more vulnerable to ambushes.
And the paladin moves far slower. Far, far slower. A group of giants, bugbear archers, or anything else that uses ranged attacks will spank the paladins sorry butt, while the fighter can get into their face (or use his bow). The paladin is also much more vulnerable to critical hits.
"A couple of rounds" is more or less a whole battle. Few fights lasts more than four rounds.
Agreed. I was thinking more along the lines of a round or two when i wrote that. In three or four rounds, the paladin will have healed 15d6-20d6 (52-70), compared to his and the fighter's 10d10+30 (89) hp. That's 60-80% more damage he can suffer before he drops. Even when not smiting, with AC 22 compared to the fighter's AC 25, is really he taking 60-80% more damage than the fighter?
Initiative is certainly true, but the difference in perception is minor (a couple of points?) and he's not that much worse at attacking. The paladin posted in the DPR thread is at -2 to attack and -2 to damage compared to the falchion fighter if he's not smiting. If he is, he's at +3/+8 atk/dmg.And the paladin moves far slower. Far, far slower. A group of giants, bugbear archers, or anything else that uses ranged attacks will spank the paladins sorry butt, while the fighter can get into their face (or use his bow).Unless the paladin is mounted.
But yes, in general, the speed reduction is one significant weakness the fighter doesn't have.
The paladin is also much more vulnerable to critical hits.How so?
But these are pretty specific details, aren't they? I've been looking at basic combat ability, how much punishment a character typically dishes out, and how much punishment they can typically take. The situation gets way more complex and unclear when you start considering secondary abilities like initiative or Perception (and considering the paladin gets divine grace, I don't think that comparison looks very favourable for the fighter either).
|
|
It makes logical sense that they can heal themselves easier than another- but I don't like it from a player perspective. I've played a lot of WoW, and bad paladins are famous for spamming heals into themselves while their companions fall dead around them.
If a PRFPG paladin does this, he is not "helping those in need", thus he breaks the code. Presto, no more laying on hands (among many many other losses).
I am amazed that, when comparing damage-dealers, people seem to forget about all the nice tricky underhanded things that any other fighting type can use (especially poison) that are strictly off-limits to the paladin.
I am amazed that, when comparing damage-dealers, people seem to forget about all the nice tricky underhanded things that any other fighting type can use (especially poison) that are strictly off-limits to the paladin.
Most heroes would disdain using poison. It's not "strictly off-limits" like it is for the paladin, but really, your typical heroic PC fighter or even rogue probably doesn't stoop to using poison either.
Perhaps more importantly for any balance/optimization discussion, poison is hideously expensive. Unless you can get it through privileged channels (like, you know, NPCs do), it's more efficient to simply fight fairly.
Which is as it should be; I'm just saying that if you have to point out the restriction on poison use as some significant disadvantage of the paladin, you're kind of scraping the bottom.
Bless weapon- useless against non-evil creatures
Divine favor- lasts 1 minute, no longer, no shorter
Bless- +1 hit, +1 to something the paladin is already immune to
Magic weapon- odds are pretty good that you will have an actual magic weapon by the time you get this, ergo: useless
Bull's Str-1 min/level, this one becomes useless when you get something that provides an enhancement bonus to your str, which actually could take awhile, making it moderately usefulDeathward is actually pretty good, too bad you don't get it until you are level 13, which can take an excruciatingly long time
Bless weapon- useless against non-evil creatures? Well a lot of creatures are evil.
Divine favor- lasts 1 minute, no longer, no shorter? cap at +3 to hit and +3 to damage. Not bad. Works with range weapons too. Last 1 minute. So how long are your fights? 2 minutes?
Bless +1 to hit, stacks with Magic weapon, Divine Favour and bulls str and give a boost her alies.
"Magic weapon- odds are pretty good that you will have an actual magic weapon by the time you get this, ergo: useless." -
You don't always have a magic weapon at this level, but I agree you bprobaly will. although you might need to use more than one kind of weapon. My bet is she won't have 4 magic weapons (one +1 blunt, one +1 slashing, one +1 range´d, one +1 piersing).
I agree you can't always buff before a fight, but sometimes you can. Casting some or all of these spells will boost the paladin and help her out when she can't or won't use her smite evil.
"Most you are getting is +6 hit +6 damage, on a 2 handed weapon. Not really that spectacular." I guess you think bard sucks.
"Deathward is actually pretty good, too bad you don't get it until you are level 13, which can take an excruciatingly long time." It's still a darn good spell even at level 13, or 14 or 15 :-)
"I said my piece on jasin, I'll say no more."
Could you say that again ;-)
Seriously, I kind of agree with you. I think Jasin should let it go. No point in flogging a dead horse, but as long as keep poking her/him this thread will go on. I also find some of the arguments you and others use are not top notch.
Being more durable isn't a sign of being overpowered
good argument
is a wall overpowered because it's adamantine? No, but an adamantine wall is hard to break.
Bad argumnet
A wizard that can cast wall of stone is sure more powerful than some odd class that only can cast wall of newspapers ;-)
"A couple of rounds" is more or less a whole battle. Few fights lasts more than four rounds.
Is that why 1 minute spells suck? LOL
|
|
The spell lasting 1 minute sucks because it will only last 1 combat and even then it eats your first action if you aren't given prep time.
A lot of creatures are also neutral.
You might not have one of each weapon but you can rather easily have 3 of them, a morning star (bludgeoning and piercing) and either a dagger (slashing or piercing) or a bow(ranged), and none of those require martial weapon proficiency.
Well, no I don't think bards suck, I also don't think they are amazing for combat either, but I've yet to see someone play them. I've always thought of the bard as being awesome for an NPC.
You say wall of newspapers is probably unimpressive, but I'll point you to the movie Read or Die, where the main character's shtick is manipulating paper, and she is utterly terrifying. She is the definition of a badass bookworm, if that phrase ever makes it into the dictionary, it should have a picture of her next to it.
The spell lasting 1 minute sucks because it will only last 1 combat and even then it eats your first action if you aren't given prep time.
A lot of creatures are also neutral.
You might not have one of each weapon but you can rather easily have 3 of them, a morning star (bludgeoning and piercing) and either a dagger (slashing or piercing) or a bow(ranged), and none of those require martial weapon proficiency.
Well, no I don't think bards suck, I also don't think they are amazing for combat either, but I've yet to see someone play them. I've always thought of the bard as being awesome for an NPC.
You say wall of newspapers is probably unimpressive, but I'll point you to the movie Read or Die, where the main character's shtick is manipulating paper, and she is utterly terrifying. She is the definition of a badass bookworm, if that phrase ever makes it into the dictionary, it should have a picture of her next to it.
