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.
I have nothing to "let go". I have an opinion, the arguments I've heard so far have been insufficient to change it, I've made my decision not to change lay on hands in my game in the immediate future, and I have several options if I do decide to change it somewhere down the line.
I'm good. I've found out what I needed. As far as I'm concerned, the thread can die a natural death.
However, I don't see a need (or ability, really) to somehow authoritatively and definitively end the thread.
If people keep replying with stuff I feel needs to be addressed, I'll reply as well. And replying with "this thread should be over, why are you all replying!?" is kind of surreal. :)
If people keep replying with stuff I feel needs to be addressed, I'll reply as well. And replying with "this thread should be over, why are you all replying!?" is kind of surreal. :)
That was indeed my point :)
If the paladin isn't coming to the aid of other party members just because there is someone else that can, then they aren't upholding their code, and they should rightfully lose those powers.
Indeed. But he is coming to their aid, but by healing himself and killing the monster, rather than healing them, I don't think there's a credible argument for a breach of the code.
So the paladin gets to be the indestructible guy who kills monsters and rescues people, while the other party member gets to be people who need rescuing. Not good.
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.I have nothing to "let go". I have an opinion, the arguments I've heard so far have been insufficient to change it, I've made my decision not to change lay on hands in my game in the immediate future, and I have several options if I do decide to change it somewhere down the line.
I'm good. I've found out what I needed. As far as I'm concerned, the thread can die a natural death.
However, I don't see a need (or ability, really) to somehow authoritatively and definitively end the thread.
If people keep replying with stuff I feel needs to be addressed, I'll reply as well. And replying with "this thread should be over, why are you all replying!?" is kind of surreal. :)
Certainly if you feel strongly about something, then just about nothing would change your mind even if you heard a reasonable argument. That's how everyone works. Clearly, since you've had a need to post not just here but elsewhere, it's something you do feel adequately strong about.
My point is, you're probably asking for too much of something that isn't there. All people have to go on is number crunching and anecdotes in a game like this, and if that's not good enough, then nothing will be.
|
If the paladin isn't coming to the aid of other party members just because there is someone else that can, then they aren't upholding their code, and they should rightfully lose those powers.Indeed. But he is coming to their aid, but by healing himself and killing the monster, rather than healing them, I don't think there's a credible argument for a breach of the code.
So the paladin gets to be the indestructible guy who kills monsters and rescues people, while the other party member gets to be people who need rescuing. Not good.
That's debatable, and will never have a clear outcome, except that it's not really in the spirit of the concept. There are times when it's best to just keeping hitting the bad guy and times when it's a better idea to heal the party members.
One recent example I have is when I was fighting a lich and a dragon lich, I could have healed them, but that would have probably got them dead faster as they would have become threats again, or I could attack the lich, hopefully slowing down his spell casting. I opted for the second one because my healing power wouldn't have really helped that much, only 5d6 against a 20th level sorc/cleric and it's red dragon/lich mount. I also couldn't reach everyone in one go, but his fire storm (don't ask me how he cast that spell, but he did, I'm pretty sure it's because the guy running the monsters decided he wanted to, and the GM wasn't paying attention) could affect everyone.
Certainly if you feel strongly about something, then just about nothing would change your mind even if you heard a reasonable argument. That's how everyone works. Clearly, since you've had a need to post not just here but elsewhere, it's something you do feel adequately strong about.
My point is, you're probably asking for too much of something that isn't there. All people have to go on is number crunching and anecdotes in a game like this, and if that's not good enough, then nothing will be.
My bold.
As I said before I think jasin should let it go. But I don't like it when some people seem to have the need to turn jasin into a mentally ill person.Now where is "elsewhere"? and is posting in more than one thread a sign of obsession? The fact that most of the more well known posters are all over the messageboards. Does that make them crazy or obsessed?
If you like to be active on the messageboards and you have the time, why not. Some people like to take one glass of wine each day. In France that's OK. In some other country that's make you an alcoholic. Some people like to play WOW each day. Are they crazy?
Let's look at facts. The only thread I've found with jasin as the OP is this thread. The only thread I've found where Jasin is campaigning that LoH needs to be nerfed is this one.
He/she was active in the one yes old " called "Why the boosting of the paladin and nerfing the other melee classes?" . This thread was active just when the rules just got out, but he/she didn't start that thread and his/her the points in that thread was not that the Pathfinder Paladin needs to be nerf, but that the 3.5 Paladin was fine.
He/she has also posted some stuff in the thread "The DPR Olympics - or "I'm not the mechanic here, Ironsides! I mostly just hurt people!" Here, he/she is not crusading against all paladin lovers saying the Paladin needs a nerf, but simply adding an example how a Paladin can be build. Kais86 on the other hand seem to be obsessed with stalking Jasin and making snark remarks directed at him/her.
So unless you can add links to a bunch of threads where Jasin is campaigning that LoH needs to be nerfed, you and others in this thread should apologies.
Swivl was talking about other forums, not elsewhere on the Paizo messageboards. I also posted the original post on RPGnet and Circvs Maximvs.
(Note that even though the prevailing opinion more or less matched the one expressed here, those threads have died down.)
Swivl was talking about other forums, not elsewhere on the Paizo messageboards. I also posted the original post on RPGnet and Circvs Maximvs.
(Note that even though the prevailing opinion more or less matched the one expressed here, those threads have died down.)
Seems a bit pointless posting in all these messageboards, espesially when you have the Paizo messageboards.
Anyway, since they read your posts in all messageboards, they do seem to be obsessed too.
Swivl was talking about other forums, not elsewhere on the Paizo messageboards. I also posted the original post on RPGnet and Circvs Maximvs.
(Note that even though the prevailing opinion more or less matched the one expressed here, those threads have died down.)
Seems a bit pointless posting in all these messageboards, espesially when you have the Paizo messageboards.
Anyway, since they read your posts in all messageboards, they do seem to be obsessed too.
It was mentioned up thread. I didn't actually read every thread, just this one. I also only had a couple of things to contribute to this discussion. Hardly obsessive if you ask me.
Seems a bit pointless posting in all these messageboards, espesially when you have the Paizo messageboards.
Anyway, since they read your posts in all messageboards, they do seem to be obsessed too.
Not necessarily. The communities have different opinion (generally speaking) on the game, so makes sense ask here and there.
On the same route, I post not only on paizo boards.. so it makes sense that I can see the OP topic here and there.
Not a big deal, I guess. Well, NOT EVEN A DEAL..
"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?
Healing is still far worse than actual hit points though. It spends his swift action (which is still a cost), it doesn't work in an antimagic field, and it doesn't help him with real hard-hitters or hit point related effects (such as Power Word).
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.
I think you're reading it wrong. When Power Attacking, the paladins attack bonus is +16/+11 and his damage 2d4+19. The fighter strikes at +20/+15 for 2d4+25. It's a difference of -4 to attack and -6 to damage. That's frakkin huge. Or am I missing something?
The difference in perception is a +2, so in 10% of cases, falchion fred would see what the paladin doesn't. And in 25% of cases where they see the same thing, fred gets to act before the opponent and the paladin after.
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.
He's got less hit points. A hit of 80-88 will take out the paladin, but leave the fighter standing. And it's easier for him to get critted since he's got lower AC.
Looking just at how much they can take and dish out under ideal circumstances is faulty. You have to see the whole picture (and yes, I think we shouldn't ignore the paladin's other strengths such as mount or mercies) and the fact that the fighter will have a greater chance of actually getting the ideal circumstances since he moves first, is quicker, and less vulnerable to an arrow in the head, trip attacks and the like means a lot. A paladin is far easier to outmaneouver; not only is he slower to react and move, and less perceptive, but he's got a threat range of 5ft. while the fighter can get his up to 10ft with lunge should he need to (and still have slightly better AC than the paladin). When the paladin attacks a sorcerer, the sorcerer can take a 5ft. step and cast but she can't do that against the fighter since he's got step up.
Yes, those are fairly specific issues, but they are many specific issues and several of them are fairly common. And it's worse to be weak against some than to not be strong against many; that is, a weakness usually hurt more in the long run than a strength feels good, since you need your strengths over and over but just a single exploitation of your weakness will render you dead.
If you do a "dragon slayer quest" where you fight one big baddie and the encounters start within 60ft of it, and then rest, then the fighter will look sucktastic compared to the paladin. If you do a "tame the wild" kind of quest where you fight lots of animals, giants, and fey with ranged weapons, then the paladin will be really, really bad where the fighter will shine. Most campaigns will be something in between, and thus they will shine at different spots.
Also, you forget that enemies are intelligent. If the evil mastermind learns that there's a paladin he'll know that "stay away from that guy, hire a squad of hobgoblin archers to take him down or release the guard bears on him". A fighter doesn't by nature draw as much attention, and since he's got less glaring weaknesses (though less strengths too) it's harder to find that method of auto-killing him that 20 hobgoblin archers 80 ft. away is to a paladin.
|
|
Zark, in the "The DPR Olympics - or "I'm not the mechanic here, Ironsides! I mostly just hurt people!" thread, I didn't say squat to jasin until after he said something to me first. I mentioned how I thought the rogue should be able to use arcane strike, jasin said that's not how it works. I asked for proof, he provided it, and I accepted it. That's not stalking. I merely wanted to see more damage using bananas, I take it that's a horrible thing. That said, drop the issue, I already did a page ago. I also post in places not involving jasin, if you'd take a gander.
Healing is still far worse than actual hit points though. It spends his swift action (which is still a cost), it doesn't work in an antimagic field, and it doesn't help him with real hard-hitters or hit point related effects (such as Power Word).
Of course. But 89 hp + 15d6 healing is far more than 89 hp.
I think you're reading it wrong. When Power Attacking, the paladins attack bonus is +16/+11 and his damage 2d4+19. The fighter strikes at +20/+15 for 2d4+25. It's a difference of -4 to attack and -6 to damage. That's frakkin huge. Or am I missing something?
I guess I misread you. I though we were talking about attacking ranged enemies with your own ranged attacks.
He's got less hit points. A hit of 80-88 will take out the paladin, but leave the fighter standing.
He (if we're talking about the 10th-level paladin posted here and in the DPR thread, comparing him with Falchion Fred the fighter) only has less hit points because I neglected to include favoured class hp. Their correct hit points are the same: 10d10+30 or 89 hp.
And it's easier for him to get critted since he's got lower AC.
Ah, correct, of course, but it doesn't seem fair to bring that up as a separate item in an argument: "he's got lower AC and he's more likely to get critted!" That's pretty much the same thing.
Looking just at how much they can take and dish out under ideal circumstances is faulty.
Sure, but looking at how much they can take and dish our under typical circumstances is more useful than trying to account for absolutely every imaginable eventuality.
I'm not disputing that there are situations where the fighter is clearly superior to the paladin. I'm disputing that these situations come up often enough.
You have to see the whole picture (and yes, I think we shouldn't ignore the paladin's other strengths such as mount or mercies) and the fact that the fighter will have a greater chance of actually getting the ideal circumstances since he moves first, is quicker, and less vulnerable to an arrow in the head, trip attacks and the like means a lot. A paladin is far easier to outmaneouver; not only is he slower to react and move, and less perceptive, but he's got a threat range of 5ft. while the fighter can get his up to 10ft with lunge should he need to (and still have slightly better AC than the paladin). When the paladin attacks a sorcerer, the sorcerer can take a 5ft. step and cast but she can't do that against the fighter since he's got step up.
The paladin I posted could take Lunge and Step Up with the two feats I didn't spend because I couldn't find an easy way to directly make them applicable to the DPR thread.
And it's worse to be weak against some than to not be strong against many; that is, a weakness usually hurt more in the long run than a strength feels good, since you need your strengths over and over but just a single exploitation of your weakness will render you dead.
Actually, I disagree.
If you do a "dragon slayer quest" where you fight one big baddie and the encounters start within 60ft of it, and then rest, then the fighter will look sucktastic compared to the paladin. If you do a "tame the wild" kind of quest where you fight lots of animals, giants, and fey with ranged weapons, then the paladin will be really, really bad where the fighter will shine.
A "tame the wild" campaign would probably feature overland travel and fights in open spaces, where the paladin gets to use his mount and rule supreme.
Giants (the ones you fight at least) tend to be evil, and not come in hordes, so smite gets to shine.
Fey are often more dangerous as enchanters than archers: divine grace gets to shine.
The fighter rules against animals. But really, who is the mightier hero? The guy who kills giants and fey enchantresses, or the guy who kills animals?
Really, you can contrive situations so that the fighter gets to shine. But the very need to contrive them, and that it's not trivial, shows that the in typical situations, the paladin is better.
Also, you forget that enemies are intelligent. If the evil mastermind learns that there's a paladin he'll know that "stay away from that guy, hire a squad of hobgoblin archers to take him down or release the guard bears on him".
Again, the fact that the evil mastermind has to base his tactics around the paladin (and not the fighter, or the rogue, or the bard) shows that the paladin is more powerful, a more significant threat than the others.
A fighter doesn't by nature draw as much attention, and since he's got less glaring weaknesses (though less strengths too) it's harder to find that method of auto-killing him that 20 hobgoblin archers 80 ft. away is to a paladin.
I haven't done the numbers, so I can't make a claim with certainty, but: who do you figure will last longer against 20 hobgoblin archers 80 ft. away, Falchion Fred, or the paladin I posted in the DPR thread? (I'm assuming that the hobgoblins are built to be a reasonable encounter for the party, so CR somewhere between 9 and 13.)
Remember that the paladin heals 5d6 per round while he's killing the hobgoblins.
16 Ftr5 hobgoblins are CR 12, a hard fight for 10th-level characters. Want to build an archery focused hobgoblin and try to figure out who'd do better?
|
|
Most evil masterminds will provide a plan for each member of a party, frankly speaking, they could just use elementals. The only class that has a real edge on elementals are rangers. For them you'd have to use something obscure, but elementals work on everything, are neutral, and most of them have several bags worth of nasty tricks. Now if your evil mastermind doesn't have a plan for each character, then he's terrible at his job and should be called an evil adeptmind, because he's clearly not good enough to be a master.
I'm thinking Bestiary hobgoblins, improved to Ftr5 with Weapon Focus (longbow), Weapon Specialization (longbow), Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, plus Toughness and something like Far Shot or Manyshot or Precise Shot which isn't directly relevant in the first approximation.
So longbow +10 (1d8+4/x3) or rapid longbow for +8/+8 (1d8+4/x3): +5 BAB, +3 Dex (increased at Ftr4 from the Bestiary baseline), +1 focus, +1 masterwork.
Against the AC 25 fighter, they'll hit on 17+ and do 0.2 * 8.5 * 2 * 16 * 1.1 = 59 damage in a round.
Against the AC 22 paladin, they'll hit on 14+ and do 0.35 * 8.5 * 2 * 16 * 1.1 = 104 damage in a round.
Huh. The fighter handily wins this one, since he's still alive. However, unless the party manages to kill over half the goblins in a single round, he's dead the next time the goblins are up.
This is a CR 12 "hard" fight for the entire party. What happens if half the hobgoblins target the warrior, while the other half handles the rest of the party?
29 damage for the fighter vs. 52 damage for the paladin. When the paladin's turn is up, he heals for 17 hp. And so on. The fighter goes down after 4 volleys, the paladin is down after 3.
So granted, this is one situation where the fighter does much better.
The question remains: how often do hard ambushes by large squads of low-level archers come up vs. the situations where the paladin does much better (dragons, fiends, undead, few big opponents as opposed to hordes of little ones, open ground suitable for mounted charging, spellcasters or similar save-or-screwed opponents)?
Most evil masterminds will provide a plan for each member of a party, frankly speaking, they could just use elementals. The only class that has a real edge on elementals are rangers. For them you'd have to use something obscure, but elementals work on everything, are neutral, and most of them have several bags worth of nasty tricks. Now if your evil mastermind doesn't have a plan for each character, then he's terrible at his job and should be called an evil adeptmind, because he's clearly not good enough to be a master.
Underestimating the heroes to the point of his downfall instead of than custom-tailoring his entire scheme and tactics to revolve around the heroes is precisely what evil masterminds do.
In the fighter vs ranged thing, did someone think of the children? NOBODY THINK TO THE CHILDREN, EVER!
And to tower shield proficency (related to terrain).
It was mentioned up thread. I didn't actually read every thread, just this one. I also only had a couple of things to contribute to this discussion. Hardly obsessive if you ask me.Swivl was talking about other forums, not elsewhere on the Paizo messageboards. I also posted the original post on RPGnet and Circvs Maximvs.
(Note that even though the prevailing opinion more or less matched the one expressed here, those threads have died down.)
Seems a bit pointless posting in all these messageboards, espesially when you have the Paizo messageboards.
Anyway, since they read your posts in all messageboards, they do seem to be obsessed too.
True
The question remains: how often do hard ambushes by large squads of low-level archers come up vs. the situations where the paladin does much better (dragons, fiends, undead, few big opponents as opposed to hordes of little ones, open ground suitable for mounted charging, spellcasters or similar save-or-screwed opponents)?
In my games, more often than you might think. I have a natural bias against big CR critters showing up too regularly. It's a bit of a feature at my table that the world doesn't level up whenever the PCs do. The big critters are rarely seen in civilized lands, unless they're wreaking major havoc or ruling over a swath of countryside.
I recently had my level 9 PCs assisting the Imperial army in repelling a frost giant incursion. Due to their ability to travel through icy wastes much faster than the army, they were serving as an advanced skirmishing and scouting force, providing intelligence on the giants' movements and setting up ambushes to attempt a bit of attrition. It was scary stuff for them, as a single frost giant provides a CR 9, and we were talking about a good sized tribe of them, plus winter wolves and ogres. The players nonetheless pressed on, as they feared that if they didn't manage to whittle down the frost giant's forces, the army wouldn't stand a chance.
Long story short, the final twist of the adventure was when the army finally caught up, using the intelligence the players had provided to intercept the giants quite a few days north of any human settlements. Although the PCs were definitely effective in killing and managing some giants, the two companies of veteran crossbow and pikemen ("veteran" infantry equates to Warrior 2 in my world, with low level cleric and bardic support) proved a match for what remained of the tribe, thanks to smart tactics and massed attacks. They suffered heavy casualties, to be certain, but the final result was a tribe of dead or routed giants. I had worked out all the math for the soldiers before the battle, to minimize dice rolling and keep the action moving.
At the end of the day, my players all remarked in awestruck tones that an army matters. Before this, a few of them had questioned my assertion that a military force could successfully defend a nation from the sorts of threats that D&D brings to the table.
Anyhow, the point of this (way too long) ramble is that, at some gaming tables, groups of low CR foes are much more commonplace than a single big baddie. My 9th level PCs are much more likely to face a baker's dozen bugbears (Encounter Level 9ish) than they are a single osyluth (EL 9).
I'm not sure that the premise "paladins can chase down, survive, and kill all the baddies, so they are the hero and everyone else is the sidekick" is a fair one to start with. Surely the other players were doing things? They weren't sitting back in lawn chairs drinking wine and saying, "Woot! Paladins Rock!" I'm sure they were participating.
In a 4th level 3.5 campaign once, I played a cleric along with a knight, a ranger, a rogue, and a wizard. Inevitably, due to the nature of our enemies and the terrain, the battles wound down to "The knight stood strong on the front line, issuing a challenge to draw the enemies forth as the cleric enlarged him, Prayer'd the group, Bull Strength'd the knight and Shield Other'd the ranger; the ranger fired at any enemies who held back; and the wizard and the rogue set up traps and spells to fight off any enemies trying to slip past the knight to the rest of the group." Occassionally, the ranger and/or the cleric would join the front line, too.
In my example, everyone played their character concept, and everyone felt important. And, to the GM, the knight who killed the big-bads wasn't seen as the unbalancing character (or the hero), it was the cleric that enhanced the knight from 'barely able survive a few rounds' to 'able to wipe out the enemies in two rounds, without healing.' As such, the enemies ended up seeing the cleric as the primary target of the later sessions.
I think that it all comes down to perspective. If your paladin is becoming the focus of every battle, is it because of LoH or is it because of his Smite ability? Or, is it because he rolled superior stats? Or, is it because he's an experienced player and the others are not?
No matter what, though, I'd never personally trade the ability to prevent damage by killing the enemy faster for the ability to heal damage each round...
|
I'm not sure how relevent this is to the current point in the discussion, but it's relevent to the "situational usefulness" part of the thread.
Last night we had to fight a solar and a slew of other creatures, but it started out with one solar and a handful of other celestial creatures.
I'm the parties damage dealer. Fighter 2/Wizard 2/Bard 1/Dragon Disciple (silver) 7/Paladin 2. Granted I know that's a monstrosity, but I like multiclassing :)
Anywho, I'm the primary damage dealer, with the stacking of my greatsword, smite, breath weapons, etc....
As part of the campaign, we have these crystals imbedded in us that enhance our natural ability, mine for example counts all my classes as 3 higher for purposes of special abilities, like school powers, dragon disciple abilities, smite, etc...
So, here we are, fighting the celestials, and I'm hurting in usefulness. I'm super good aligned, so I'm not able to pierce their damage reduction, and the energy type I can dish out is cold... so yeah...
Anywho, we were able to eventually finish it with a combination of Divine Vessel (my sword can use it once a day) and an alchemist in our party, so all was well. But I went from dealing the massive damage to being half useless... So there's a prime example of how situation can make a character less than what they could be.