Community

nonsi wrote:

I have a lot of quarrels with the concept of only-LG-paladin. But you've done quite an impressive job (a bit overpowered, but an impressive job nontheless). Just consider revising 'Vigilance' into 'Freedom of Movement' (Travel domain granted ability).

Could you please demonstrate how it is overpowered? I'm always willing to change anything that seems to be too powerful, and indeed have altered this a lot during the creation. No offense or anything, but I find that MANY claims of overpowered are... rather unsubstantiated. This is, of course, fully intended to be more powerful than core melee classes, but that's because those classes are, at least in the opinion of many, underpowered. My Pally's supposed to be more on the level with things like the Psychic Warrior or Tome of Battle Classes or the Rogue in usefulness.

One thing. You forgot to describe 'Aura of Protection'.

Thank you for catching this! That's actually a typo, and should read "Aura of Devotion." Fixed.

Nexis wrote:

Are you still planning on adding the two weapon fighting Specialization?

Probably. Seerow didn't care for the idea too much, but I think that enough people have been asking for it that I will be adding it anyways.

This is very cool. I'd love to try it out in my next campaign, if you don't mind.

One thing I really like is how you've written the class. It's a lot more clear than the PHB is.

Great, the other thread was getting too fat anyway

Glad to here to what is to come

So The Blackguard will be a 1-20 class right?

Otto the Bugbear wrote:

If you're going to make Blackguard 1-20, consider adding a sidebar for trading in levels for a fallen paladin.

Also, perhaps a sidebar to explain using the other alignments. I'd suggest
Paladin: LG
Liberator: CG
Ravager: CE
Blackguard: LE

If not, that's ok. That may be a lot of extra work.

Honestly, I'd probably make Blackguard "Any Evil" and for the Liberator all I'd really do is slightly adjust the spell list (Change any "lawful" spells to their "chaotic" equivelent)... but seeing as how I have next to no interest in the liberator I'll probably take forever getting around to it.

I would definitely make a note of trading in levels, however.

Fenris_Lathiin wrote:

One thing I really like is how you've written the class. It's a lot more clear than the PHB is.

I have an unfair advantage: It's digital.

Fenris_Lathiin wrote:

This is very cool. I'd love to try it out in my next campaign, if you don't mind.

Of course I don't mind... it was written up here for everyone's benefit, after all

Obsidianjaerc wrote:

I still like this quite a bit. A few qualms remain.

Cold damage, I suspect.

Ah yes, I'll fix that. Good catch. I wonder why you used code for the rest of your comments, though...

Honestly, I still find all the spells to be too much, on top of all the other cool stuff they get.

Basically, the spells Seerow and I have given the Paladin are an altogether appropriate boost in our minds, and fixes a sore problem with the paladin... being that 90% of their spell list is absolutely useless and completely irrelevant at the level they get it. For all some can say "Oooh, these spells are really nice!" it's a wholly different matter when you get to cast *2* at level *16* with a reduced caster and spell level (Which you still do). Only a few spells were actually *useful* for the paladin. Most of these were either on his first level spell list or came from supplements. Things like Righteous Fury seem to indicate that Wizards, too, felt that the paladin's spells needed an appropriate boost.

With the idea that Righteous Fury is a 3rd level spell for the paladin, the other spell choices are weighed a bit against that. Divine Power, for example, is probably a bit weaker in most cases than Righteous Fury, so it's on the 3rd level list.

Healing spells definitely needed a boost, because at the level the paladin got them they had absolutely no use and you could get more temporary hp out of Righteous Fury (along with your attack boosts) than you could heal. There was really no reason for the paladin to ever prepare a healing spell, and no one ever did. Now, they're still not one of his better spells, but at least they aren't totally useless.

Why the reduction in level of break enchantment and restoration?

So that you get them at an appropriate level. Reduction of level is a common practice, and indeed the core paladin already gets a lot of it.

As a general rule, the spell equivelences are like...

Paladin level 1: Cleric level 1-2
Paladin level 2: Cleric level 2-3
Paladin level 3: Cleric level 3-4
Paladin level 4: Cleric level 4-5

The only area where this is an issue would be in the cases of Artificers and Archivists, who could exploit such things (and already can with core)... but that's easy to fix. I suggest using the relevant house rule in my sig to avoid the issue.

Freedom of movement seems like a buff that others should cast on the paladin. Spell immunity also seems strange for the paladin to have.

While I kinda agree on Freedom of Movement, I wasn't the only one who had a say in this. *Shrug*. As for Spell Immunity, why on earth would it seem strange for the paladin to have a divine spell of protection?

Banishment doesn't seem like the paladins cup of tea. Why not simply kill the evil outsider? I am not pleased with flame strike, seeing it as the purview of clerics to call heavenly flames. Blatent evocation isn't needed for this melee character, especially given the Smite feats. The same goes for Heroes' Feast.

Then don't prepare it for your character! You don't like the flavor, don't use it. Others may like the flavor... so they will use it. Same thing goes and always has for clerics and their seemingly unlimited spell selection. For example, some might enjoy the idea of an exorcist type of paladin (Which indeed is a flavor promoted in some settings). Then again, Banishment isn't particularly good for the Paladin, because his save DCs are going to suck. Same thing for Flame Strike: It'll never work for the paladin in a way at all comparable to the way it works for the Cleric.

Heal is incredibly powerful for a character who already has Lay on Hands and access to all the other Cure (mass) spells. Overkill and potentially (though I hate this word) unbalanced.

At level 16? With very limited spells per day? And ultimately significantly less healing potential than the Cleric? How? I certainly don't get it.

I'm a bit iffy on Raise Dead. By the time paladin's get it, it would be useless to a party of that level.

Yet you think he should only have Cure Serious Wounds by that time? :p

Alright, well, Raise Dead is useful for parties without Clerics or Druids.

Righteous Might seems like overkill as well. It made up for the clerics 3/4 BAB in melee combat. When applied to the paladin it's just ungodly.

Clerics use Divine Power to... not have 3/4 BAB. And for the paladin, it's a much higher level ability than it is for the Cleric (they get it at what, level 9 vs level 14?). And you have to use your highest level spell slot, for which you'll have one or two spells a day. And you get a lower caster level, which affects what it does. And it's easier to dispel.

True Seeing also seems a little over the top. Why the need for self-sufficiency for these buff spells? The paladin has a party to back him up. Spell Resistance has the same issue but I can see more justification for that than the other.

Again, True Seeing uses up one of those precious highest level spell slots, and you get it at a very late level.

A very good job overall. I am much enamored of A Hero Never Falls, and like several of the smite feats although a few rub me the wrong way. I am also pleased with the per encounter smites, I am quite sure that per encounter ability are the way of the future ala ToB.

Thanks.

Finally I am pleased to see another fan of JAE's art work.

JAE is quite awesome.

___

By the way, if anyone's looking for an Epic progression for this, I'll say up front that I'm not going to do it, because I have minimal (read: None) experience with epic level play, and I don't intend to use Epic rules anytime soon (since all I ever hear is... well, not too positive things, and I find 20th level to be epic enough for my tastes).

Blackguard will be 1-20.

Also, I'm currently playtesting the Paladin in an Eberron campaign. Currently up to level 5.

thought: Since admittedly, raise dead is, by the time it's available to the party, not something they'd quite want... (After all, it's a pain to have to try to get that level back, and it places you behind everyone else... well, I at least would rather my party find a cleric and pay him whatever they have to to get me back whole...)...

Why not make it the ultimate LOH expenditure? Give it a time limit on the order of hours or even minutes to work, rather than days, but no level loss, and it's not a spell.
It'd have to be pretty expensive- wipe out even a good paladin's entire LOH pool (until they get a chance to recharge- essentially killing one of their limited recharges), but this would give it more immediate utility, value, versatility, possibly silence some complaints, and as a special ability, is more in line (I think) with the paladin flavor (since he's all about the special abilities, as opposed to all about the spells).

(edit) Note: I'm picturing this barely bringing them back- to maybe 1d10 HP or something like that- otherwise it could be used as a cheap way to bring your HP-heavy barbar buddy back up to full mid-bossfight. Reviving Touch, perhaps? Either just a base cost that brings them to, say, a single hit die; or perhaps something along the lines of "You are now able to heal HP damage even beyond -10 by paying a base cost of X points of LOH + double amount of damage they last took" so someone right at -10 would take x + 20 LOH points just to bring to 0... while someone who's more of a -20HP paste than a corpse would take more...? Could bring them back fatigued, or who knows... whatever helps keep this from being abusable or overpowered, but doesn't levy any permanent drains or loss.