|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure where the misinterpretation came from, but making retributive strike an exclusive ability for LG paladins was the exact opposite of what playtesters like myself thought would be good for the game.
To clarify, I was one of the folks who wanted Paladins to be open to any alignment rather than just being Lawful Good, with my reasoning being that the ability to protect your allies and punish those who target them is something that every kind of force would want on their side and that possesses no intrinsic ties to Lawfulness or Goodness.
Beyond not making sense, this also creates a bit of a balance problem. Non-good parties have an inherent disadvantage in their defensive options, and I really don't think that defensive characters should be restricted based on fragile moral grounds.
You want Lawful Good Paladins to have some unique abilities? Give them Archon-themed magical abilities and holy auras and whatnot. The game shouldn't be imposing alignment restrictions on martial arts tactics
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a lot of people complaining about Liberator's narrow use of abilities because "grappling isn't gonna be frequent".
...Seriously people have you read the bestiary. Half of what's there will just grapple you without a save and then deal double damage next round. Liberator would be saving ass all day.
My complaint is that they took Enfeeble away from Retributive Strike. Debuffing enemies that don't attack you is a great ability. The fact that it's now the redeemer that does the debuff ("you make enemies sad") is kinda weird.
I absolutely loved my concept build that I had going in to chapter 5:
"Oh, you hit my friend? I block for them, then hit you in the face, and by the way, Enfeebled 2 that lasts until you start going after me."
which would be great, if paladin had ever been a defensive idea.. They aren't.I've seen a lot of people complaining about Liberator's narrow use of abilities because "grappling isn't gonna be frequent".
...Seriously people have you read the bestiary. Half of what's there will just grapple you without a save and then deal double damage next round. Liberator would be saving ass all day.
They are now!
which would be ok as a subclass, not as the only option.They are now!which would be great, if paladin had ever been a defensive idea.. They aren't.I've seen a lot of people complaining about Liberator's narrow use of abilities because "grappling isn't gonna be frequent".
...Seriously people have you read the bestiary. Half of what's there will just grapple you without a save and then deal double damage next round. Liberator would be saving ass all day.
It's great as the only option!
My complaint is that they took Enfeeble away from Retributive Strike. Debuffing enemies that don't attack you is a great ability. The fact that it's now the redeemer that does the debuff ("you make enemies sad") is kinda weird.
HARD agree. That they managed to implement a taunt so simply was my actually one of my favorite thing in the entire system.
Don't know what this business about paladins not being defensive is about. The ones classically depicted as having a minimum of half-plate on and a shield aren't defensive? I get there could be a mechanical argument but my understanding thematically...
The paladin is a champion of her deity who uses divine power to enhance her heroics and protect her allies.
You have powerful defenses that you share freely with your allies and innocent bystanders
As I understood it, the paladin was always a champion of justice (itself) empowered by the divine (as in the universe) and not some generic warrior of a deity with attitude.
Channeling the wrath of the gods is what clerics are for. Beating people up in the name of god is what a war priests are for. And screaming heresy and quoting Monty Python is what the inquisitor is for.
Concerning whether paladins only smite or only defend. They could previously do both. And they still can. Just because players tended to focus on the smiting before (because it was imba as a bag of kittens), doesn't mean they could not defend as well.
Those are just two approaches to the same problem. How to serve the cause of good. Hit people really hard until they stop being evil or defend the people from harm, so they in turn can rise up and destroy evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole argument of what paladins were in PF and D&D historically is somewhat irrelevant in any case. Some obviously played them as primarily defenders. Some played them as a weapon of the forces of good, as I mostly did.
What really matters is what we want them to be now, and I *hope* we can agree that locking a class, any class, into one particular playstyle is no bueno.
Retributive strike is too good a defensive ability to ignore, and too many of the Paladin's offensive options are tied to it. I consider that a problem for character choice.
Locking the types of reactions to alignment is another choice limiter that I can only see as being detrimental in the long run, but is secondary to my concern of not having compelling baseline offensive tools reminiscent of PF1e's smite.
Thread's getting pretty far from the initial topic.
I'm also of the opinion that the LG-only restriction was too much, but I definitely don't want the "Paladins" of other alignments to have the same features - that wouldn't be as interesting to me as unique abilities by alignment. I really like how the three types (Defender, Redeemer, and Liberator) all have a unique addition to the standard damage reduction effect of their reaction. If later content releases variations for other alignments as well I'd hope they each had the same level of creative and thematic abilities.
I do agree that the iconic defensive class shouldn't be limited to a specific set of alignments, but as the Paladin class is so intrinsically tied to alignment I'd prefer to just have variants for each one individually. Then the defensive class would be accessible to all characters, but without simply removing the alignment component that helps give it such a strong identity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, we should be clear, Smite Evil doesn't have to be the same monster that it was in PF1e. It can be modest, it can provide a bonus against all enemies and be boosted against evil, it could be tied up in reactions again for whatever balance purpose that serves, it could purely circumvent DR and resistances.
I'm not married to PF1e smite, I just want some ability that reflects divine wrath.
Also on board with Rysky's idea for it being a selection and a branching path from there. Feels like where we're headed from the most recent update anyways with the Rogue/Ranger/Druid having playstyles that are largely dictated through their low level class feature choices. (retraining is still a thing, I'm not trying to say this route is restrictive)
Retraining will be almost impossible though.
Think: every feat you have that relies on that original choice needs to be retrained. And retrained first to something that is a valid choice.
Say, 3 feats.
So you retrain all 3.
Then you retrain the class feature.
Now you have to retrain those 3 feats again.
Its not viable in a campaign setting.
Retraining will be almost impossible though.
Think: every feat you have that relies on that original choice needs to be retrained. And retrained first to something that is a valid choice.Say, 3 feats.
So you retrain all 3.
Then you retrain the class feature.
Now you have to retrain those 3 feats again.
Its not viable in a campaign setting.
About 2.5 months of downtime yeah, I wouldn't say that's wholly nonviable in-game. Everyone has a different pace: to some retraining in general is nonviable, to others this idea is completely within reason.
2.5 months derived from: (1 week per feat trained into <arbitrary> -> 1 month for class feature swap -> 1 week per feat trained into <the things you want>) / (3 weeks + 4 weeks + 3 weeks)
FWIW, I couldn't even find two days (five, whatever it is) in one of my PF1 games to retrain a single class feature in order to pick up an archetype for my witch.
Fortunately as the GM is like "third party content? go nuts" I was able to find ways in which to grow the character (I already had every hex I could ever actually want at 3rd level and wanted to dump the rest into Hex Channeler--but it required retraining my 2nd level hex to be hex channeler, then pick up that same hex again as I hit 4th).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 1.6 lawful paladin (all paladins prior to 1.6) doesn't feel magical at all. I don't see any point with giving the class a religious theme or alignment restriction. Just call it Bodyguard and be done with it. The new versions feel somewhat more spiritual, but I still don't feel a need for alignment restrictions, especially not so strict ones.
If the PF2 paladin is to be the inheritor of the PF1 paladin, it should feel like something other than a mundane bodyguard.
or Smite is two actions, and adds +Cha Bonus good/lawful/anarchic damage, like a less swingy power attack, with at say 7th or so also adding a debuff.
Its still bad for all the reasons power attack is bad.
Also, Paladins have to wait until 8th to get it, whereas Fighters can get Power Attack at 1st.(Note: 8th is based off memory, but is in the right ballpark)
or Smite is two actions, and adds +Cha Bonus good/lawful/anarchic damage, like a less swingy power attack, with at say 7th or so also adding a debuff.Its still bad for all the reasons power attack is bad.
Also, Paladins have to wait until 8th to get it, whereas Fighters can get Power Attack at 1st.
(Note: 8th is based off memory, but is in the right ballpark)
First, it's actually a Level 12 feat for Defender Paladins only. Second, it's actually strictly superior to Power Attack when used against Evil creatures.
The main limitations on Smite Evil are that the bonus damage only applies to Evil creatures and it takes two actions to use. However, the benefits more than make up for the cost. It adds the same bonus damage dice that Power Attack adds at that level, but also applies anything that triggers on Retributive Strike (like the persistent Good damage from Divine Smite). That alone could shift the balance, but then it also changes all damage dealt to Good damage, meaning it triggers more Weaknesses and is affected by less Resistances. That's pretty solid, but then there's still one more detail - it doesn't count as two attacks. That means you can make another attack at just a -5 instead of a -10, which is a significant increase in damage. Smite Evil is actually pretty good.
First, it's actually a Level 12 feat for Defender Paladins only. Second, it's actually strictly superior to Power Attack when used against Evil creatures.
12th, there we go. I remembered that I had the option of taking it for my chapter 5 character and looked at what I had already and said "f%*+ no."
And I wouldn't say it's "strictly superior to Power Attack" under any circumstances. I'd say it's "exactly as good as Power Attack (against Evil things)." The damage gets converted to Good damage, which may have a benefit, but that's not guaranteed (Evil humans don't have Weakness (Good) so that effect is irrelevant).
Essentially:
- The bonus damage is just as good/bad as PA
- The action economy is just as good/bad as PA
- It only works against Evil targets (that you have personally witnessed committing evil acts).
[You smite] a foe that you have witnessed harming an ally or innocent [...and] if the target of your Strike is evil [you get bonus damage]
you do get a lot more damage than power attack.
you get persistent holy damage on top of the extra dices.you also proc a full extra attack from for ALL your allies.
By "all" you mean "those that are in melee."
The extra attack from your allies requires that they be within 10 feet, it has to be a melee strike, and they take a -2 to the hit.
that's insanely more powerful than power attack.
But is it better than attacking twice?
Is it better than attacking twice when the target is not evil?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smite Evil counting as one attack accounts for a major damage increase on the second Strike you make that round as compared with Power Attack. It doesn't just strictly deal more damage than Power Attack thanks to Persistent damage and bypassing most resistances, it deals more damage by virtue of being able to make a second attack that still contributes a decent amount to your overall DPR.
Fighter
Strike 1: 22.5
Strike 2: 2.45
Total: 24.95
Paladin
Strike 1: 20.625
Strike 2: 7.35
Total: 27.975
What about at Level 15? Using a +3 weapon with STR 23 against AC 35:
Fighter
Strike 1: 36
Strike 2: 6.4
Total: 42.4
Paladin
Strike 1: 31.5
Strike 2: 12.8
Total: 44.3
What about at Level 20, with maxed-out STR and potency runes vs AC 44?
Fighter
Strike 1: 41.3
Strike 2: 6.9
Total: 48.2
Paladin
Strike 1: 35.4
Strike 2: 16.1
Total: 51.5
Note that I'm not considering the impact of Resistances potentially bypassed, Weaknesses potentially triggered, persistent Good damage, or any extra attacks generated. Even in spite of the Fighter's overall superior accuracy, Smite Evil counting as one attack instead of two significantly increases the value of the ability. And for the record, it's also strictly better to use Smite Evil than to make three attacks.
As for whether it's worth using Smite Evil + Strike as opposed to Strike x3 against non-Evil opponents, that's entirely dependant on whether the Smite bypasses any Resistances and on the Persistant Damage you deal. There's a strange gap in the Bestiary enemies from Levels 14-17 where Resistance isn't very common, but otherwise from Level 12 and up it becomes increasingly common with average resistances ranging from 10 to 20. Once the Bestiary is filled out some more at higher levels I suspect we'll see more creatures with Resistance at those levels, though.
Smite Evil counting as one attack instead of two significantly increases the value of the ability
Mm, good catch on that. I completely overlooked it.
It's still not...a great improvement over the fighter, but I will retract my general complaint. I still think the Paladin gets it too late in the progression, but it's at least not a complete trap.
It's still on the order of about 2-3 DPR against an ideal target. Letting allies hit it too (even if just one) certainly adds a nice kicker. Persistent damage is hard to calculate, though I have seen things die to persistent damage (chp 5 the 3 big things that show up, we critically injured one, it teleported away and tried to be a rouge (stab us in the back) and it died to 2d4 bleed damage after a couple rounds).