Talk:Paladin, Project Heretica (3.5e Class)

Ratings
== Pleasantly Surprised ==

It warms my heart to see that people actually understand what the balance points fucking mean before posting stuff to this wiki. So on that account, congratulations - you made my day better.

A few things I wanted to note, however:


 * 1: Provided the paladin has sufficient Charisma to cast a spell of this level. - This text is redundant, simply because if you lack the Charisma to cast a spell, what level you are is irrelevant - you still can't cast it.


 * Why do you have smite abilities work off 10 + 1/2 level + mod and spells off 10 + spell level + mod? Paladins are still boned in spell DCs that way, and given that they're the weakest caster type in the game, that seems a bit nasty. I know it's a convention, but you've already shown yourself as willing to defy them, so why keep that one?


 * Blinding, resounding and stunning smites are nothing like balanced against each other. In particular, resounding smite is rather trashy compared to the other two.


 * Protector's Might is fucking awesome. Go you.


 * Consecration's bonus on turning checks and turning damage is something of a joke, given how badly that ability scales. I would advise either massively boosting that or just replacing it with something else.


 * Devotion's damage redirection is far too little, too late.


 * Retribution's damage return is far too little, too late.


 * The 14th level DR for Standing Before Adversity is a ha-ha-funny joke. In the sense that it's too small to matter.


 * I am disappoint to see that turning (already an ability that scales poorly and is given late to a paladin) is still nerfed in yours.


 * Divine Punishment doesn't discourage anyone from wailing on your allies at 6th level, due to the damage being far too little.


 * The maths for Lay On Hands is super-annoying. Isn't there a way to make it less so? Also, redlinks.


 * Granting Divine Grace at level 11 is a bit strange. If you don't like how it scales, change the scaling - don't give it at a point nobody notices.


 * The multiclassing restriction is kinda silly. I wouldn't keep it.

- MisterSinister 07:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the swift and nice reply. Don't tone off the harsh if you feel like it, tho.


 * The quip is partly convention, and partly a way to indicate "if you have the right amount of Charisma for bonus spell slots". It should be interpreted both ways. I can consider changing it to indicate gaining the ability if you have enough for bonus spells (again, redundant given that you'd have to be intentionally nerfing your Charisma, but in the strange case it actually happens...)


 * As you mentioned, conventions. Most of their spellcasting ability should be focused on self-buffing (with real buffs, not something like Aid at 7th level and Prayer at 11th when they stop mattering, whereas if reduced one level they still matter to a point), so spells requiring saving throws aren't as important. I'd focus on a non-class-based solution to that, much like with damage reduction. Though, I'd be willing to hear alternatives.


 * Yes, I am aware of that. Stunning is definitely better than the other. Resounding, though, is meant to eventually become the area-of-effect version of the smite, coupled with push-back; at 1st level, an area of effect smite might seem a bit too much, but by 5th level and eventually by 15th, it should be quite spectacular. Again, open to ideas on that one.


 * Ironically, I didn't add it on the first write-up. It was a response to noticing that the Paladin had poor offensive qualities at the first few levels, and I wanted to do something that made sword-and-board doable. Adding Charisma to attack and damage rolls while wielding a shield came just naturally. That said: odd to hear nothing about Divine Courage (certainly more fun than plain immunity to fear, I believe).


 * Actually, I'd consider boosting, but I don't want to jump the gun on that one. Particularly on the area of turn resistance; perhaps the aura negates turn resistance by an equal amount? Again; I'd rather solve turn undead directly rather than through a class, but unlike spell save DCs, it's much easier to tackle turning (and rebuking) than a system that can affect just about everything.


 * I'm ambivalent on that one. Direct damage redirection seems too little, but from what I've tested, the reduction seems just about par for the course (then again, between stacking that with actually-working damage reduction and even higher AC, perhaps it's not the best source of information). On area attacks, though, it's much harder: when you have to negate damage from 13 people because they just happened to be on the area of a spell, little is better (even with reduced damage). Yet again, open to ideas regarding how it should stack higher.


 * This one was actually following a suggestion that it should be nerfed (can you believe it?). Original was "equal to the damage received or 5 times the paladin’s Charisma modifier, whichever is lower".


 * I agree, but that's a problem with DR itself. DR 5 is a joke just like DR 10 is a joke, particularly against people with you die amounts of damage. I'm partial to a more general fix dealing with DR as a percentage reduction, though I've heard it's a bad idea (then again: computers and calculators, and with some practice it can be done mentally), at a ratio of 1 point of DR = 5% reduction OR better equivalent (maximum 95% reduction). However, would you consider better DR 10 or DR 15, taking to mind the idea of percentage-based reduction (hence, 50% or 75% total reduction)? I suspect DR 10 at the very least (given how there's no critique to Hero of Legend's DR, which by 20th level it'd be DR 10 even though it eventually scales), but if you mention DR 15, I'll consider it.


 * Again, I find it a problem with turn undead. I don't want to make it better than a Cleric's one should be, and not so partial to making it exactly equal to the Cleric's one. It works mighty fine with Divine feats, but that doesn't make it better, particularly when the ability itself is troublesome, and would better be served if dealt with directly.


 * I can definitely consider improving it, but that's hard to gauge in order to keep it fit for a class aimed at Rogue levels. I might think class level + Str modifier, which scales much faster; do you agree with the idea, or do you suggest something stronger? Particularly: I want the Aura of Retribution + Divine Punishment combo to be a nasty combo, but toned down on the sickness (nothing like "you hit the Paladin, you die; you hit his allies, you still die"), and likewise the Aura of Devotion + Divine Punishment for creative crowd control.


 * (5 + class level) x Cha complicated? Now that's a first one... That said; how the fvck did I missed those, after I pretty much combed the page for redlinks? Thanks for pointing that out.


 * It doesn't has to do anything with scaling. I did it because one of the things that I fvcking hate about the core Paladin is that it only serves as a 2 level dip (4 if you want Turn Undead with your combo) because of this ability (otherwise, you wouldn't take levels in the class, period). This was my safeguard: if you came here for Divine Grace, you have to suck 10 levels for it (so far, I believe I did a good job on not making it suck, but that's me). I definitely don't want it on the first five levels; that said, it can be lowered towards the 6-10 level range, specifically 7th (only Lay on Hands, thus reuniting the couple once again) or 8th level (perfectly fitting with Mettle).


 * Out it is. Are the multiclassing boons fine, though? T.G. Oskar 09:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, someone who reads and can respond? Wow, am I going to win the lottery or something? Also, I'm amused that you've noted how incredibly acerbic I can be - I am indeed the Yelling Bird of this wiki. Don't worry - I pull no punched for anyone.


 * You've given me a lot to read, so I'll get back to it tomorrow and give you a proper writeup. However, I'm also very happy to see that you're responsive to criticism and willing to alter your work in response to that, while at the same time being able to actually give reasoning for what you do. So in a way, consider this an extended welcome, a pat on the back, and a promise of future evaluation and analysis all in one. - MisterSinister 09:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, as promised, analysis time. So, in order:


 * Regarding the 'only if you have enough Charisma' thing: The chief problem with this statement is that it is completely meaningless. It occupies space and the attention of your readers while doing nothing. Given that your class is quite literally several thousand words long, adding fully-redundant text which is explained the base rules themselves is both highly disingenuous and more than a little annoying. You don't want to force people to pay attention to things that don't mean anything and don't actually matter, since you're basically performing an assignment operation twice without ever doing anything in-between these assignments - basically just a waste of space.


 * Regarding spell DCs: Both of your arguments are fundamentally stupid. Your 'its convention' argument is stupid, because you have already shown that you are willing to violate quite a few conventions and because a lot of the time, these conventions are pants-on-head retarded in the first place. Case in point: spell DCs scaling to level. Let's take a quick collision comparison - even for the paladin, who literally gets less than half of the available spell levels in the game, the difference between your lowest and highest DC is twenty fucking percent chance of success, which is intolerably large if you actually expect any of these abilities to, you know, work. Once you extend it to the regular casters, this becomes even more of a problem, because the difference in DCs from highest to lowest is ten fucking points on a random number generator that's literally only twenty points large. There is no scheme possible to make this balanced - if you balance to the centre, all your spells either rock or suck; if you balance to the low end, the high end rips people's fucking nuts off; if you balance to the high end, low-end spells suck super-fast, to the point when using anything other than your highest spell levels is basically a waste of time. All of these are undesirable and pointless, and your design encourages this. Therefore, your convention argument is both logically flawed as-relative your own work and as-relative the work of others.
 * As far as you claiming that paladins shouldn't rely on DCs, this is also very stupid, but for a different reason. If you examine the paladin list, you can see that it draws heavily from the cleric list, which actually contains no small number of spells which require saves. If you don't want paladins using such spells, you shouldn't make them available, because all you do by keeping them there is generate newbie traps and make analysis of worthwhile options harder. Neither of these things is desirable as part of the design process, as it literally sets up people to fail and gives everyone who uses your class more work to do - and, as not everyone is skilled at analysis, this is something which I believe is unnecessary and actually kinda insulting.
 * My alternative is super-simple - make all spell DCs equal to 10 + 1/2 level + Cha mod. It's very simple, and solves all the problems above with hardly a whimper.
 * Regarding Resounding Smite: First of all, it is never acceptable to make an ability chain unbalanced at some point in its progression in either direction. The reason is simply that DnD doesn't work like a credit card or savings account - you cannot buy things from the future by taking on ruinous interest rates that cost you in the long term, nor can you 'save up' for big bennies later. If every DnD game began at 1st level and ended at 20th, this would be almost defensible, but the fact is, that actually never happens at all - people regularly start games after 1st level, and finish them before 20th. This means that any kind of 'unbalanced now, balanced later' model is totally unworkable, whether it be with a class, an ability chain, a feat chain, whatever. If it has a logical progression by level, it should be level-appropriate at every level.
 * Secondly, the importance of 'horizontal balance' should never be ignored. By incorporating weak options next to strong ones in a progression, all you are doing, again, is creating newbie traps and adding an analysis requirement to your work which is neither required nor important. You want your class to be as user-friendly as possible, and thus, requiring that people analyze it for trap options is a point against it in principle. This is actually more offensive to me about Resounding Smite.
 * My suggestion: Resounding Smite could be reworked in several ways. Firstly, you could have it give the paladin an AoE attack (which, by the way, is not unbalanced at all, provided that you keep the damage in check), probably by 'splashing' the smite damage over a decent-sized area in addition to knocking back whatever you actually hit. Another option would be to make its push larger and deafen whoever you hit. Another option might be to make it break someone's gear if they fail a save. Any of those could work and be useful.
 * On turning more generally: It's good that I don't have to give you the turning lecture - it's something people are oddly resistant to. However, at the same time, if you're going to fix turning, I would suggest that you both post the fix here and cross-link it in the class to ensure that people know what you're talking about. For extras, I'd even note this in the class header. There are several good turning variants on this wiki that could do what you want quite well also.
 * However, it is absolutely imperative that the whole 'three levels lower' bullshit dies in a fucking fire. Again - an option should be level-appropriate, and turning at -3 levels is definitionally not. If you want to make paladins less efficient turners, give them fewer uses per day - that does the same thing overall, without actually forcing them to find ways to work around a shitty option (or just not use it and feed it to divine feats, which is actually a backdoor admission that paladin turning sucks balls).
 * About DR: The main problem with the DR values that you give is that, in order for DR to mean something, it needs to prevent a decent amount of damage, because otherwise, it's just super-annoying maths. To this end, I've come up with a few specifications for DR that I believe make it easier to use and helpful:


 * It needs to come in multiples of 5. Subtraction is actually harder than addition, especially if you use numbers people can't 'think' in quickly or that scale.
 * It needs to be of the '/-' type. The reason for this is that 'fancy' DR is a feature of puzzle monsters and is designed to give players another obstacle to overcome. If this is something player characters have, it just becomes another thing that the GM has to keep track of - and frankly, GMs have enough work as it is. Additionally, it's super-hard to balance DR that applies some times and not others, since it makes it very difficult to figure exactly how much damage it prevents on average.
 * It needs to be scaled to the damage dealt by monsters of that level. Once again, level-appropriateness is important - DR is actually another bit of maths you want people to do at your table, and thus, should be significant, because otherwise, all you're doing is adding annoying micromanagement to the game that people start to hate you for.


 * Now, your 14th level DR fails on all but one of those points. Let's take a quick look at how much damage CR 14 dorks actually deal to see how badly. I've ruled out 'obviously' casty monsters from this analysis:


 * Black Dragon, Mature Adult: Average attack damage with bite - 17. Average attack damage with claw - 11. Average attack damage with wing - 8.5. Average attack damage with tail slap - 19. Your DR of 5 feels small in the pants against all but the wing attacks.
 * Blue Dragon, Adult: Same numbers as above.
 * Nalfeshnee: Average attack damage with bite - 16. Average attack damage with claw - 7.5. Again, DR is small in the pants.
 * Nightwing: Average attack damage with bite - 24. Worst performance so far.


 * See what I mean? To make matters worse, if you run the analysis, you find that, at 14th level, your AC actually protects you more than your DR (by a huge margin) against attacks by creatures you could realistically expect to fight at that CR, which calls into question whether you even want the extra book-keeping at table-time that your DR at 14th level requires.


 * My suggestion is to simply remove it, or move it way back. Like, 3rd level or so back. At that stage, it's actually useful in making you 'tanky', and is worth tracking.


 * On damage redirection: Pretty much everything I have said above applies here, when you consider the hit points of things at equal CRs to when you get the abilities you mentioned. However, the point that you're trying to make here is that you want people to be punished for beating on your friends - an admirable goal. So the way to do that involves doing something like Iron Guard's Glare (which gives penalties for attacking your allies) or something like the Tome Knight's challenge (which makes you hit people super-hard if they don't hit you first). Dealing 'damage' to people for attacking your allies is always going to be hard to figure out the balance for, because hit point numbers become both wildly bloated and wildly divergent as you go up in levels. It's also rather annoying to track, especially when the numbers involved are as small as the ones you suggest. I would suggest that you look at specific abilities, namely Iron Guard's Glare, the Taunt feat, and the Tome Knight's challenge, for suggestions on how to do this better. Also - have the paladin start doing this sooner. Being able to protect your allies in this manner is a much bigger asset at 1st level than it is at 10th, because by that point, your squishy friends have their own ways of being safe.


 * On Divine Grace: Two things - first off, what you've described is a scaling problem in every sense of the word. People realize that the paladin's abilities blow chunks after between 2 and 4 levels, and thus they don't bother taking them. This shouldn't be addressed by trying to punish people for doing this - they're optimizing based on a very weak class which suffers from stupid design decisions. Since your class does neither (in my opinion), this kind of approach is both heavy-handed and totally not required.
 * Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, a save bonus of this manner is important to someone like a paladin, and it's important early, because at this time, save-reinforcing items and abilities are rare, and if the paladin is to be the party tank, he needs to be able to withstand what his enemies throw at him. By 11th level, the range of abilities that help you with saves is much larger than at 2nd, which is why I believe that ability should fundamentally be a low-level one.
 * Now, I think that there are two solutions to your problem (the third, being 'make a better paladin', you've already undertaken and largely succeeded at). The first is to do something like this:

Divine Grace : At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus to all saves equal to their Charisma modifier or their class level, whichever is less.


 * Or, perhaps something like this:

Divine Grace : At 2nd level, a paladin gains a bonus to all saves equal to their Charisma modifier. If you multiclass, you permanently lose this ability. If you multiclass after having more than 6 levels of paladin, you keep this ability.


 * Both of these solve your problem while at the same time keeping this important and useful ability accessible when it truly matters.
 * On multiclassing stuff: Generally-speaking, multiclassing restrictions actually bone organic characters more than they do pre-planned builds. This is... probably not what you want, and thus, I wouldn't recommend it. However, the benefits for multiclassed paladins that you give are a good idea, and I think they should be kept.


 * Whew, that was a fuckload of analysis. - MisterSinister 22:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Curse you MS! There's actually things in here I want to dispute, but I'm busy with life stuff :-(


 * So short, poorly justified version. Level -2/3/4 abilities are totally fine for setting people up to be less effective at something. It sets it up as a secondary shtick, not a primary one. Which is fine as long as that's intended and they have a good primary shtick. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Swift and to the point response. I like it. That said:
 * The quip about Charisma is gone then. It's following the convention of spontaneous spellcasters, but the clearer the better.
 * So, if I gather correctly, you don't mind a scaling progression of spell save DCs using the typical spellcasting progression (hence, why you point the contrast between the Smite DCs and the spell save DCs, which leads me to think you were worried that I was following a stupid convention compared to the Smites which follow a more natural convention). I would show concerns about the cascade effect (basically, how it'd affect other spellcasters), but I won't bother you with that because I can already imagine the response. Still, I'm quite frankly surprised that "10 + 1/2 character level + ability score modifier" seems reasonable enough for a proper progression, when I had the idea that it's weaker. Feel free to correct me on that one. Regarding the spell list, though, it's mostly an analysis based on their access through Core spells, but such an observation becomes invalid once you add splats, as the nature of the spell list expansion was to utterly crush the divide between the limitless expansion of Cleric spells compared to the pitiful expansion of Paladin spells (and why the fvck the Paladin can't have awesome spells like Righteous Might, Shield of Faith, Conviction and others when it would definitely fit them better). In short: Core-wise, the paladin's bulk of spells are mostly buffing and healing spells, with some attack spells spread in. That doesn't change anything (after all, you want those low-level spells that have saves to matter because it's the only thing they get, and I can agree with that), but I'll expand on it despite being only academical. At 1st level, going exclusively with Core, the only spells the Paladin has access that involve saves are Command, Cure Light Wounds (if used offensively) and Sanctuary (3 out of 22 spells); 2nd level has Calm Emotions, Cure Moderate Wounds (if used offensively), Hold Person, Prayer, Shatter, Sound Burst and Zone of Truth (8 spells out of 28); 3rd level has only Cure Serious Wounds (if used offensively) and Discern Lies (2 out of 24 spells) and 4th level has Cure Critical Wounds (if used offensively), Dismissal (which adds a special modifier) Dispel Chaos (it also includes Dispel Evil, which I count as 1 spell as it does exactly the same effect for purposes of avoiding redundancy), and Holy Smite (4 out of 21 spells). That's a total of 17 spells (exclusively in Core) that use saves, of a total of 95 (roughly 2 spells for every 11 Paladin spells), which doesn't make the bulk of Paladin spells. Again, this is only academical, as the idea of making those 16 spells actually fvcking worthwhile is just as important as making the class important, so there's no reason why not to do so.
 * No need to explain about horizontal balance, sir. I'm well aware that a breadth of equally valuable options is worth more than an "I win" button and several useless others. Thus, why I always ask for ideas: I can't think of all of them by myself, can I? I like the first and second suggestions, but not the third (Sunder needs to be made more useful, but without sacrificing your hard-earned loot if part of it involves the items worn by the creature). Curiously enough, I didn't thought of deafening as a rider effect; it tempts me to make the spread damage sonic just because it fits with Resounding, but it works fine without it either. So, 1st tier of Resounding should be AoE + deafening right from the beginning; still stumbled on how the 2nd tier should progress, with 3rd remaining essentially the same.
 * Fair enough. I'm tempted to either reduce the amount of Turn Undead and keep the Cleric's uses as-is, or do the opposite: keep the Paladin's uses as-is but increase those of the Cleric. It'll be the same effect, and would justify boosting the effective cleric level to full without any problems.
 * I still find some troubles with Damage Reduction, in particular because I want to make it effective against both multiple, slow damage hits and huge one-shots (hence, why using the more complex damage reduction based off percentages). However, there's two main concerns I wish to address regarding your suggestions, which also deal with other concerns (specifically with Divine Grace). The first concern is the reduction, because it breaks some of the methodology I use for homebrewing classes; essentially, while it's mechanically sound, it's not aesthetic in terms of arrangement. You may notice that Standing before Adversity progresses every five levels starting from 4th level, which has a small boon based off the amount of HP you currently have: 4th level has a bonus to Intimidate checks, 9th level has temporary HP, 14th level has DR and 19th level has "stave off death 1/encounter", and all abilities progress neatly. If I were to put DR at 4th level, it breaks up several things with how abilities are arranged, such as having a very loaded 3rd level (I don't like to have levels, particularly early ones, too "loaded" which may suggest early drop points, as per Core Paladin and Core Monk) and leaving 14th level as a dead level (yes, it has a bonus feat and access to 4th level spells; even then, I consider it a dead level), not to mention it breaks the progression of Standing Before Adversity. Likewise, having Divine Grace at 11th level means another dead level, which definitely sucks (that doesn't mean it can't be reduced; it just means filling that level with a good ability will take some serious thinking). Now, I can agree to take DR to 4th level and remove the bonus on Intimidate checks (it's good, but it sees little use unless you go high Intimidate + Imperious Command + Never Outnumbered), and make it scale properly (DR 5 at 4th, DR 10 at 9th, DR 15 at 14th and DR 20 at 19th or just keep it at DR 15 because "screw you death" is awesome enough), but not lower, because it starts to stretch good taste. The second concern is mostly with the differences between us regarding how DR should be. I know it's hard to make DR actually useful AND easy to use without reaching some compromises, but what you mentioned were the chumps of CR 14 (if that's what you refer by "dorks"); woe if you meet the real challenges of CR 14 in terms of damage, which make DR pointless. That, or just using Power Attack (but, I don't want to dwell there as I'm not sure what are your thoughts on including damage-overflowing builds in a serious discussion). Just through observation, while DR 5 is pointless, DR 15 definitely reduces some of the damage you take from all of these enemies (save for a Nalfeshnee with a magic weapon or having Magic Fang cast upon them); I presume the earlier suggestion addresses that point effectively (but we'd have to make a proper calculation regarding CR 4-8 vs. DR 5, CR 9-13 vs. DR 10 and CR 14-beyond vs. DR 15; you might answer the 9-13 range effectively just by telling how good would be Stoneskin with and without the maximum damage absorption thing).
 * Your suggestion about making damage redirection appear faster causes another conflict with my methodology: 1st level is WAY too early, IMO, for damage redirection (level 3, however, isn't), and ruins the positioning really bad (6th level becomes a dead level in terms that it only gets a bonus feat and nothing else; keeps a gaping hole between 3rd level and 9th level, and kills all synergy with Divine Deterrence). I checked the alternatives: Iron Guard's Glare I'm already familiar with; thus, I had to check the Tome Knight, whereas I couldn't find the Taunt "feat" and instead found a Taunt "maneuver" (was this what you asked me to look? It seems like aggro-pulling mechanics, and I'm not sure about your stance on it). The Tome Knight's challenge ability, though (Designated Opponent?) is functionally similar to Divine Punishment but on a short degree (more damage, but involves having the character strike the enemy, thus the character must have a ranged weapon or superb movement capabilities), which would suggest one of two things: either replace damage with a penalty, or make it threatening damage. The first suggestion for Divine Punishment would easily coexist with the current one (deal damage and impose a penalty, no save, hence you feel even more "compelled" to remove the Paladin from play); the second is basically turning static damage into dynamic damage (which would suggest that the Paladin should do an amount of retributive damage equal to 3.5 points per level?) but limiting its effectiveness to one combatant (worked right, it can work against many, though). I can deliver a better response after seeing the third suggestion, but the two suggestions work as an opening point to deal with, at least, Divine Deterrence. Also: would this also have to apply to Aura of Retribution, which is damage redirection at its purest but opposite to Aura of Devotion and Divine Punishment (aka, it makes people NOT hit the Paladin)?
 * As I mentioned at the point dealing with Damage Reduction, shifting Divine Grace from 11th level to any level leaves yet another gaping maw in terms of class abilities (though not as gaping if you consider spellcasting progression, if going through the straight definition of "dead levels" as done by the author, gaining spellcasting abilities does not excuse from having dead levels; that said, I DON'T subscribe entirely to that idea, especially to the solutions he proposes). Placing Divine Grace at 2nd level, though, is something I find troubling because I find you load the level way too much (Cha to saves AND to attack/damage rolls at the same level if wielding a shield? Notice what's my concern here?); a bit later I don't see that problem, but too early... However, while I await the counter-argument, and assuming I WILL move the ability from level (I agree with you that 11th level was too excessive, and since I have on good merit that I shouldn't concern too much about putting Divine Grace that late because otherwise the class works fine, so it can be dropped to an earlier level): what ability should level 11th have? Being a prime number, it means you can introduce a new ability you feel the Paladin might be missing, so go wild.
 * Good to know that. As you can see, the multiclassing restriction is dropped.


 * Sorry if I'm excessively verbose (I swear, I love hearing myself), but I love argumenting how I should improve my stuff even more, especially if it forces me to think. Hopefully the amount of proper thinking isn't dragged down by all the crap of "but my class is perfect the way it is!" or "but this is the way the game should be played!"; I'm always considered to be on a learning process regarding the game.


 * Oh, and Tarkis: go nuts with the long version. I'd love to hear that concern deeply enough. --T.G. Oskar 03:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC) - P.S.:I can't help but love complexity.


 * Ok, slightly longer version. I'm with MS on the level appropriate concerns in general, in that if you're going to put something in as an option it had better compete with other options available to people at the same level. At least for these balance ranges anyway. Where I differ with him is the idea that there is no "range" of appropriate there, and that it's all level appropriate or nothing. If you don't get to give people some things at a slightly worse rate than other people you rule out things like 2/3 caster advancement. More importantly, you give up things that you can add on to a class for some additional utility or power that isn't intended to be their primary shtick and isn't intended to be as large a powerup. And I'm not willing to give those up.


 * It's important to remember that giving someone an ability at level-2/3/4 is giving them an ability that they could get if they picked up a cohort, and maybe get better for some of those numbers (for similar reasons, you should probably never grant an ability at less than level-4 if you want it taken seriously). That may be because the cohort rules are fucking stupid, but it still impacts the value of abilities with delayed progression like that. They are not as valuable as fully level appropriate class features, and should not be valued as such. But there's nothing wrong with them, because they're not any worse than cohort stuff and the only cost you're paying is a small opportunity cost (in that you could have picked a different class). Level-4 abilities are just a bit behind the curve and less effective, but they're not off of it entirely. So they can function nicely as a secondary set of abilities for a class, and are basically fine as long as the class has enough fully level appropriate abilities over their progression. I think that level appropriate abilities every odd level with secondary stuff filling in even levels is enough, but YMMV.


 * On top of that, my experience and understanding of psych leads me to believe that people use underperforming but more generously granted abilities more easily and often than they do regularly performing more limited abilities. Since I want any granted ability to be used rather than hoarded, I prefer more generous granted amounts (except in the case of spells).


 * Don't take that to mean that I think half level abilities are ok though. At low levels they're more or less indistinguishable from the fully advancing class feature, which is bad for differentiation, and at high levels they're substantially worse than cohort abilities. They're ok at mid levels, sort of, but they're not worth it. They don't work very well at all, and I only support them as class features from level 9 and up when you throw them on in addition to everything else a class gets. Yes, I think them basically worthless, and that includes the delayed start half caster progression (so thanks for moving away from that). - Tarkisflux Talk 17:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Took me a while to understand (I was thinking you were speaking about abilities located at 2nd, 3rd and 4th class levels and that they weren't up to poise), but I see what you mean. Certainly, turning is a secondary ability for the Paladin (as their main abilities are smiting and the auras, with spells borderline between primary and secondary), so it shouldn't be at full power. On the other hand, MS's concern is valid: Clerics already struggle with turning, as it's an all or nothing thing for them (to a point: either you turn/destroy them or not, but the way it's dealt with ensures you affect at least one creature). Any reduction to their turning ability makes Turn Undead less useful, to the point of worthlessness at latter levels (in effect, it makes Turn Undead an ability to clear undead mooks, when it should have an effect on the big undead creatures as well, particularly when making them cower can make some of the nastier undead easier to handle). Paladins have a penalty to their turning ability, which is definitely troubling: for example, against level-appropriate ghosts, the paladin affected half of the group (2 out of 4 ghosts), which could have been a problem if the ghost were a real challenge (turns out they were Fighters, and they held no magic greatswords so they couldn't affect the party due to the lack of incorporeal touch attacks). It was a fortune that the Paladin was actually about 2 levels higher than them and that the roll was high enough, but the combination of low effective level plus turn resistance could have made the Paladin lose their turn doing nothing (instead of what he did to deal with the other two ghosts, which was Smite + Awesome Smite feat -> Seeking Smite tactical maneuver). Many other undead by that level have loads of turn resistance, which makes the turning ability of clerics already difficult to work with. Thus, his concern: even if it's a secondary ability for them, the fact that it's almost entirely useless is troubling, as its primary use will rarely be truly effective. Now, the problem IMO is definitely how Turn Undead is written: as it stands, if you can't reach the right Cleric level, you lose the turn (unless you moved, but then again you don't make a proper contribution in the round), and even then you only affect a small amount of them, when you want turning to be actually capable of affecting a decent amount of people. Turning checks aren't much of a problem in that regard, except that HD tends to scale faster than CR for most of them, in comparison to levels. Turning damage, on the other hand, never scales properly (level + Charisma essentially ensures you'll affect at most one, and 2d6 means you can reliably add 7 to the amount of HD), particularly when turn resistance kicks in. I believe MisterSinister wouldn't have argued against the (lack of) effectiveness of Turn Undead if it was actually very useful to the Cleric in its concept, but the Cleric already has troubles dealing with them (and Turn Undead can't ever compare to Undeath to Death), which is what he was pressing about. That doesn't invalidate your claim, but in this particular situation, his position has a lot of merit (which made me reconsider it). The alternative (less uses, so that the Cleric's effect was actually more competitive as it's one of its main schticks) exists to indicate Turn Undead is more of a secondary ability to them (though it can be a primary tactic, based on Aura of Consecration and gearing spells to enhance Turning, such as Seek the Eternal Rest and the spells from Complete Champion, mixed with Blinding Smite at its Devastating tier). In any case, if you feel there's something else to handle, go ahead. It was a fun rant. - T.G. Oskar 18:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that was his concern actually, but it's taking you in reasonable places to read it that way so let's not worry about it.


 * In this specific instance, Turn is already behind for the cleric because of HD inflation and turn resistance. It functions as a secondary ability for them if they don't put work into fixing it. And since you've already mentioned a turning fix / adustment, any discussion of how the paladin's turning should function in relation to the clerics is probably premature. For example, if your fix was 'replace instances of "hit dice" with "challenge rating" in the turn checks' and 'do something to make turning damage scale better', suddenly turning like a cleric two levels lower isn't as big of a deal. It's an effective -6 to your turning check, which is still plenty large to deal with chaff and let the paladin go cut down the big undeads, and that sounds pretty genre appropriate to me. In that case, there's no need to give them limited uses, and it would probably be genre inappropriate to give them a better turn anyway.


 * Also, I need to retract my jot at your moving away from half caster progressions. I had your work confused with someone else, since you obviously still have that progression in. I'm not about to complain about it though, because I haven't looked the class over sufficiently well to have an opinion on what it's contributing. My sense is that you have enough good class features that crap spellcasting being tacked on is fine. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Parentheses and Article Names
Parentheses, well, extra parentheses not around the page tag cause the article to show up weirdly in the listings because of the way they are coded. The class shows up as "Paladin (3.5e Class)" currently. Easiest solution is to move the article to "Paladin, Project Heretica (3.5e Class)" since commas work just fine. --Ganteka Future 22:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Would "Project Heretica/Paladin (3.5 Class) work equally? As you may see, it is only a part of a small project to tackle all of the issues of the Paladin, and after a small search, I believe it's better that it follows the format of homebrew projects. T.G. Oskar 22:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see the talk page for your Project Heretica category for an easy solution to this problem. - MisterSinister 22:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It would work equally well if you didn't want your paladin in the class navigation for some reason. Generally, we prefer to keep stand-alone articles, even those tied to other material, in their own pages in case someone else wanted to use it in a project. So the comma version is generally preferred, and then it can be transcluded or linked into a project if you decide to go that route. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Made the move and Tarkis was kind enough to delete the article, but the table still shows wrong in the listings. I assume this'll change automatically, but just to point that out. T.G. Oskar 03:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Boosting Resounding Smite and comparisons to the Blackguard
Alright, so after a while, I decided for Resounding Smite to change completely, based off some of MisterSinister's suggestions. I went for AoE damage and deafening right from the start, with knock-down and push back at higher levels. I'll drop confusion, though, as between deafening, knock-down and push back there's enough rider effects. Also, fitting with the Resounding theme, creatures vulnerable to sonic damage take increased damage, even if the attack doesn't deal sonic damage (it'd also be the only instance of "sonic" damage punching through an area of silence). Hopefully this'll make it comparable to the other smite attacks.

Speaking of comparable: you'll notice the Blackguard is complete*, so I'll address some issues. If you see it's essentially the evil version of the Paladin, you're right. This is intentional. The Paladin is an example of a class limited by two alignments, whereas the Blackguard (and eventually the Justiciar and Anarch) are examples of three-alignment classes. Ideally, there should be a representation of a class with a specific alignment (Liberator) and a class that has no alignment restriction, which would encompass ALL of the material here. This is, once again, intentional: since some people have ideas that the Paladin MUST be good (myself included, and particularly so in terms that it must be GOOD and inclined towards law), a Paladin sorta like that of 4e would be a bit baffling. The "superclass" would essentially be showcasing the chassis shared by all Project Heretica base classes, and potentially allowing a more diverse set of options (thus making fluff solve the situation). Likewise, there will be "patches" for those who like the 3.5e Paladin but want a few changes to it (and thus neglect a fully homebrewed class; believe me, people like that exist).

That said, you may notice the focus of the Blackguard is less towards tanking and damage redirection and more towards all-out offensive. Most of the options are essentially the negatives of the Paladin's abilities, but whenever possible, altered so that they have weight of their own. I mention this here because any changes done to the Paladin that involve changing the chassis of the Paladin will affect the Blackguard as well (and also the Anarch and the Justiciar, or as I like to call it, the "PBAJ/Peanut Butter And Jelly" classes). This means that, in a future, whenever I settle with Divine Grace, that'll also affect the Blackguard's Dark Blessing, and anything that affects the Blackguard or any of the other classes will probably affect the Paladin as well.

So, while you can keep doing suggestions to improve the class, by the moment I make the "superclass", any effect that would alter the chassis (as in, "change Divine Grace from 11th level to 2nd level") would better be placed there. However, if the suggestion is exclusive to the class (as in, "alter Divine Punishment to add a rider effect other than damage"), keep it on the class' talk pages if you may. T.G. Oskar 17:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

* Not complete by the time I wrote this (see the sig), but it'll be complete once the red link turns blue. It should be shortly enough; probably not more than a day.

Formatting
There's some wall of text bits in here that I think could be cleaned up and made more readable in wiki format, but I wanted to make sure it was ok with you first. - Tarkisflux Talk 02:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Be my guest. I definitely need an editor sometimes, because I feel people think I love to hear myself talk or something. T.G. Oskar 03:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)