PDA

View Full Version : (3.5) Capping damage



Zergrusheddie
2010-08-27, 06:41 PM
I am currently not involved in this DnD campaign, but I am interested to know what y'all think.

One of the party members managed to do like 140+ points of damage with his THF Paladin. It's a Paizo Paladin but the rest of the group is using basic 3.5. Apparently, the Paladin had several different buffs (Eagle's Splendor, Haste, and Enlarge at least) and performed a Full Attack Action on a Cleric. The DM was sort of shocked by the fact that a level 8 character managed to instantly kill an "uber cleric" with three hits and no crits.

There has been a lot of talk about nerfing X or Z but one of the ideas is to nerf the amount of damage that a character can do. Something like 10/level a round was purposed. I do not like this idea but am mostly unable to fully articulate my concerns, so I was wondering what you fine folks thought about it. Personally, I just think the DM is surprised because it is the first time that a THF Power Attacker has ever been used in the group.

Best of luck.
-Eddie

Amphetryon
2010-08-27, 06:48 PM
Damage is fundamentally the only thing most melee builds can do. Nerf that and you're eliminating the only thing that (barely) justifies playing anything other than a caster.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 06:49 PM
Damage is fundamentally the only thing most melee builds can do. Nerf that and you're eliminating the only thing that (barely) justifies playing anything other than a caster.

"Because I like playing them" isn't a valid justification for you, then? :smallconfused:

Greenish
2010-08-27, 06:53 PM
Damage cap would be just bandage. If one player is consistently doing a lot more damage than the others (specialized on it)*, it's time to discuss about the desired level of optimization in the game.

On the other hand, if a fully buffed character is just doing more damage than DM expected, well, next time he can toss something tougher at 'em.


*Or otherwise leaving the others to bite the dust in things they're supposed to be good at.

kyoryu
2010-08-27, 06:54 PM
If the player isn't using anything really out of the ordinary (and it doesn't sound like they are), then I think the DM should reconsider. Just up the HP of critters you're against to compensate for the damage potential you're dealing with.

Who buffed the Paladin? If it was another player, perhaps the DM should be reminded that it wasn't one player that did this - it was two players cooperating and combining their resources. So, really, *two* players combined did 140hp in a round. Which is remarkably in-line with the proposed 10 damage per level max.

Frosty
2010-08-27, 06:55 PM
If the paladin was buffed that much, then he deserves to do that much damage.

Think about it. The wizard spent his turn casting Enlarge Person. The sorcerer spent a turn casting Haste. The cleric spent a turn casting Eagle's Splendor. These aren't exactly long-term buffs, so they were probably cast in-combat.

If the three casters hadn't spend their turns doing something else, they could've done 8d6 damage three times...and that's with simple suboptimal blasting (and might hit multiple opponents). This is in additional to the normal unbuffed damage the paladin might've done.

So no...don't cap damage.

Amphetryon
2010-08-27, 06:57 PM
"Because I like playing them" isn't a valid justification for you, then? :smallconfused:

Given that 'classes' are a metagame-concept that can be entirely, and more efficiently, replicated by non-melee classes, nope, not really.

Dralnu
2010-08-27, 07:01 PM
This doesn't sound bad at all. It just sounds epic.

THW Power Attackers are supposed to do big damage. That's what they do. If the Paladin spent turns buffing himself and then managed to full attack a cleric stupid enough to stand beside him, yeah, big damage happens. Any barbarian will be doing relatively the same thing without needing to buff.

My most epic moment in D&D was very similar to this situation. I was the paladin in a level 12 group and we were up against a blue dragon. I couldn't fly but the rest of my group could and took the fight to the air. It was still too tough and was knocking players into the negatives.

I spent like 4 rounds just buffing myself, then readied an action to full attack, and got teleported on top of the dragon's back and unleashed a hasted full attack, max power attack, with smite, used turn undead attempts to do more damage via feats, and did like 300ish damage total. The dragon went down.

Overpowered? Not at all. Epic? Definitely.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 07:01 PM
Given that 'classes' are a metagame-concept that can be entirely, and more efficiently, replicated by non-melee classes, nope, not really.

"How dare you have fun! It's not optimized!" :smallannoyed:

Snake-Aes
2010-08-27, 07:52 PM
All the trash being spouted about optimization is irrelevant because the scenario is already set
1) pally did lots of damage at once
2) dm was surprised
3) dm wants to ban melee damage.


Whether or not the paladin and the party are optimized is not relevant compared to how much fun they have because of each other's influence. If the paladin isn't outshining the other players, calling either one optimized or not is unnecessary pedantry.

To OP's DM: Melee classes are pretty much restricted to damage. Also, be aware that much of that damage comes from the party's investment on the paladin. Also, be aware that anything they use you can also use. Melee is easy to thwart. Keeping a melee character from full attacking is easily gimping half of the damage most can do.
Leave banning and handicapping as last options. Be creative.

Amphetryon
2010-08-27, 08:30 PM
"How dare you have fun! It's not optimized!" :smallannoyed:

And now the thing that allows you to have fun - dealing damage - is being nerfed? Anything else a melee character does is based off of skills that everyone has access to, or off of roleplay, which is not in any way restricted by what class you have listed on your sheet unless there's a specific houserule in play.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 08:32 PM
And now the thing that allows you to have fun - dealing damage - is being nerfed? Anything else a melee character does is based off of skills that everyone has access to, or off of roleplay, which is not in any way restricted by what class you have listed on your sheet unless there's a specific houserule in play.

Who said that dealing damage is what allowed me to have fun?

Snake-Aes
2010-08-27, 08:33 PM
Who said that dealing damage is what allowed me to have fun?
What's the point in bringing up how you can have fun without doing lots of damage when the op posts because he is not having fun at the prospect of being handicapped?

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 08:35 PM
What's the point in bringing up how you can have fun without doing lots of damage when the op posts because he is not having fun at the prospect of being handicapped?

That wasn't the point I was debating. I was debating the idea that dealing damage was fundamentally the only thing melee classes were capable of, and that the inability to do so effectively therefore made such classes not worth playing.

Too be more on topic, yes I think a damage cap is stupid, especially since a mixture of Massive Damage Rules and the Chunky Salsa Rule (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChunkySalsaRule) pretty much cover that already.

Hawk7915
2010-08-27, 08:48 PM
Capping damage is silly. Presumably, to pull this off at level 8...

- The paladin blew 1 of his "Smite Evils" to gain +8 damage and +X attack per hit.
- The paladin (or a cleric) blew a turn and a spell slot to Eagle's Splendor him.
- An arcane caster hasted and enlarged the Pally.

At this level, assuming a not super strong point buy/magic items, the Paladin boasts a +13 attack "base", and probably had an +18 or so with all those buffs. So he full power attacks, -9 attack, +18 damage (I'm assuming Pathfinder power attack rules aren't in effect here). Since the Paladin rolled three hits with a +10/+10/+5 attack routine, he both got fairly lucky and the Cleric had a lousy AC for an effective CR cleric to be sporting (a cleric of this level could easily justify a 23 AC before buffs, meaning the Paladin would have, statistically speaking, rolled only one hit in that round).

So yeah, show your DM that a damage cap is unnecessary because it was hugely situational, required a lot of resources from at least 2 (and possibly 3 or 4) party members, and can easily be avoided by making monsters who have a healthy amount of HP or a high enough AC to punish a full power attack.

Amphetryon
2010-08-27, 09:10 PM
Who said that dealing damage is what allowed me to have fun?

Please, enlighten me as to what the Paladin does, aside from a built-in full BAB, that a Cleric could not do? I ask specifically about Paladin because it's the OP's example of "overpowered" damage through melee, and the Cleric is the closest analogue that lacks that built-in BAB. Please, show me something that the Paladin can do that cannot be accomplished at least as well with a Cleric.

Greenish
2010-08-27, 09:14 PM
Please, show me something that the Paladin can do that cannot be accomplished at least as well with a Cleric.Falling in Eberron. :smalltongue:

jiriku
2010-08-27, 09:15 PM
Most probably the DM just isn't familiar with higher-level play. If anything, my advice to the DM would be:

"You're used to low-level D&D. It's a different game at higher levels. The numbers get a lot bigger. Your party used teamwork and cleverness to produce a whole that was greater than the sum its parts. Don't fight that -- reward it. And next time, give your cleric a higher Con score, an acolyte protecting him with shield other, and five burly bodyguards."

Amphetryon
2010-08-27, 09:16 PM
Falling in Eberron. :smalltongue:

I can roleplay forsaking my Clerical vows and never again accessing Cleric spells just fine. :smalltongue:

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 09:16 PM
Please, enlighten me as to what the Paladin does, aside from a built-in full BAB, that a Cleric could not do? I ask specifically about Paladin because it's the OP's example of "overpowered" damage through melee, and the Cleric is the closest analogue that lacks that built-in BAB. Please, show me something that the Paladin can do that cannot be accomplished at least as well with a Cleric.

Free mount? Detect Evil at will? Pre-packaged sense of selfrighteousness?

Thing is, I don't play DnD like a video game. If I were to play a Paladin, it would be for the storytelling opportunities it would supply. I can already tell from what you've said already that you consider fluff something to be discarded or altered whenever it's convienient, and I'm not going to bother debating with you over the merits of that worldview.

Cainen
2010-08-27, 09:25 PM
Free mount? Detect Evil at will? Pre-packaged sense of selfrighteousness?

Minor bennies does not a unique experience make.


Thing is, I don't play DnD like a video game. If I were to play a Paladin, it would be for the storytelling opportunities it would supply.

Nice sentiment, but it's a party-based game. Taking away the one thing melee can actually do is offensive when they're already on the lower end of capability. Playing said nerfbat is a BAD thing in a party; you are going to do nothing but drag them down unless the DM specifically balances around your limited abilities, which will likely make everyone else cut through everything like butter.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 09:31 PM
Nice sentiment, but it's a party-based game. Taking away the one thing melee can actually do is offensive when they're already on the lower end of capability. Playing said nerfbat is a BAD thing in a party; you are going to do nothing but drag them down unless the DM specifically balances around your limited abilities, which will likely make everyone else cut through everything like butter.

Kind of a minor concern for me. I'm probably fairly unique in this, but it's been a long damn time since I've run or played a campaign where getting into a fight was an even remotely good idea. Both I and most of the DMs I play under generally run under the belief system that if PC death is not probable in any given encounter, you're doin' it wrong.

Amphetryon
2010-08-27, 10:53 PM
Free Mount is available to any Druid, and any casting class that wants to invest a single Feat - sometimes not even that.

Detect Evil at will can be done through a 0-level spell in a wand. They're dirt cheap and if you need more than 50 charges, you're paranoid or playing the game differently than anyone I've ever seen.

Sense of self-righteousness is a fluff issue, not an RP one. Any character can be self-righteous, and Paladins can be humble instead. See also: Huma, and Raistlin.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 11:17 PM
Capping damage is silly. Presumably, to pull this off at level 8...

- The paladin blew 1 of his "Smite Evils" to gain +8 damage and +X attack per hit.
- The paladin (or a cleric) blew a turn and a spell slot to Eagle's Splendor him.
- An arcane caster hasted and enlarged the Pally.

Here we go. Yup, you can lump a lot of damage into one particular round by spending a lot of resources and actions preparing. If you couldn't...well, buffs and such would be pretty pointless, wouldn't they?

And of course, there's always the chance of those pesky dice not cooperating. Misses happen. But yeah, buffed up characters can do pretty good damage. That's the point of buffing them.

Nerfing physical damage will make melee rather boring, and it'll feel like they're handicapped. It'll also encourage others to just blast, rather than play strategically. Pure dps races are generally pretty lame fights, especially when your dps is artificially limited. That leads to "I keep attacking, roll for me" playing.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 11:18 PM
Detect Evil at will can be done through a 0-level spell in a wand. They're dirt cheap and if you need more than 50 charges, you're paranoid or playing the game differently than anyone I've ever seen.

You're assuming -- wrongly -- that wands are readily available at any corner market. In campaigns I've played or run receantly I've had the following scenarios:

1- We're in the northern end of civilization (if you can call it that), and you're lucky if you can find FOOD, let alone a magic wand.

2- The DM is heavily anti-magic mart. In a major shipping town, I managed to find a single silvered warhammer. This was the most magical item for sale in the city.

3- It's a setting where magic tends to cause Cthulhu to eat you. Wands are not readily for sale mainly because they're so damned dangerous.


Sense of self-righteousness is a fluff issue, not an RP one. Any character can be self-righteous, and Paladins can be humble instead. See also: Huma, and Raistlin.

I was just snarking at that point, actually.

Again, I view the system on a fundamentally different basis to you. To me, changing fluff is not something to be done casually, or AT ALL without the consent of the DM. So no, I can't just use a Cleric as a Paladin archetype, because Clerics work differently, fluff-wise.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 11:25 PM
You're assuming -- wrongly -- that wands are readily available at any corner market. In campaigns I've played or run receantly I've had the following scenarios:

3- It's a setting where magic tends to cause Cthulhu to eat you. Wands are not readily for sale mainly because they're so damned dangerous.


Well yeah, I wouldn't reccomend playing a paladin OR a cleric in call of cthulu. That'd be silly.

Playing a cleric and using wands is pretty safe in D&D, though, I suggest you try it out.

Drakevarg
2010-08-27, 11:29 PM
Well yeah, I wouldn't reccomend playing a paladin OR a cleric in call of cthulu. That'd be silly.

Playing a cleric and using wands is pretty safe in D&D, though, I suggest you try it out.

It's not Call of Cthulhu. Nor is it really Cthulhu that's eating you. Just an off-brand cosmic horror. Still not something you want to let out of it's box for something as simple as Detect Evil.

Though I think I might've just failed my Detect Sarcasm check. Or ignored it. I can't tell.

Lhurgyof
2010-08-27, 11:30 PM
Tell the DM to run more than one encounter a day, so that their nova-ing will be their downfall?

Greyfeld
2010-08-27, 11:38 PM
You're assuming -- wrongly -- that wands are readily available at any corner market. In campaigns I've played or run receantly I've had the following scenarios:

1- We're in the northern end of civilization (if you can call it that), and you're lucky if you can find FOOD, let alone a magic wand.

2- The DM is heavily anti-magic mart. In a major shipping town, I managed to find a single silvered warhammer. This was the most magical item for sale in the city.

3- It's a setting where magic tends to cause Cthulhu to eat you. Wands are not readily for sale mainly because they're so damned dangerous.

CoC =\= D&D

You can't sit there and compare what you and your DMs do in a combat-averse system to a system whose handbook focuses primarily around combat mechanics.



Again, I view the system on a fundamentally different basis to you. To me, changing fluff is not something to be done casually, or AT ALL without the consent of the DM. So no, I can't just use a Cleric as a Paladin archetype, because Clerics work differently, fluff-wise.

No, clerics work differently CRUNCH-wise. Clerics and Paladins have a very similar role within the church. I think you're confusing fluff with flavor.

Ravens_cry
2010-08-28, 12:05 AM
Yeah, Pathfinder Paladins are much more powerful then their 3.5 counterparts.
I was able to a bit over 100 damage on three attacks with a FALLEN paladin, with no buffs. With buffs and smite? Probably quite a bit more. And I don't think of myself as much of an optimiser, being pretty inexperienced.
The thing is though, Paladins are Holy Warriors of Justice. They should be good at this. As well, the player had several buffs going. They prepared for this fight, they should reap the rewards.
Capping damage just says to me as a player, "You can't be good at what you do.", to be frank.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 12:06 AM
Well yeah, I wouldn't reccomend playing a paladin OR a cleric in call of cthulu. That'd be silly.

I disagree. In fact, that'd be my preferred path. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidYouJustPunchOutCthulhu)

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 12:07 AM
CoC =\= D&D

You can't sit there and compare what you and your DMs do in a combat-averse system to a system whose handbook focuses primarily around combat mechanics.

Why does everyone assume that just because I mentioned Cthulhu I was talking about CoC? I was using Cthulhu as a generic term for "incomprehensible monstrosity that will eat you for giggles."

The only system I play is DnD 3.5.


No, clerics work differently CRUNCH-wise. Clerics and Paladins have a very similar role within the church. I think you're confusing fluff with flavor.

Clerics are essentially every single member of the clergy, whereas Paladins are strictly militant in their function. Though yes, I probably am confusing fluff with flavor.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 12:15 AM
Personally, I don't actually tend to pay much attention to the divine part of the Paladin. Mine tend to be general champions of good and whatnot, more than the soldiers of a deity.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-08-28, 12:16 AM
Clerics are essentially every single member of the clergy, whereas Paladins are strictly militant in their function. Though yes, I probably am confusing fluff with flavor.

You are indeed. :smallbiggrin:

The flavor of both are that they are holy missionaries/clerics/crusaders, often fighting for a religious or ideological cause. I can play a Cleric as a crusading warrior without altering the flavor of the class: I'm still a religious champion casting spells from the power of my God. I just kick more ass than the friar down the road. That's fluff.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 12:32 AM
Why does everyone assume that just because I mentioned Cthulhu I was talking about CoC? I was using Cthulhu as a generic term for "incomprehensible monstrosity that will eat you for giggles."

The only system I play is DnD 3.5.

Ah, well, you see, in 3.5, monsters don't eat you for using a wand of detect magic. Thus my assumption that you were playing a wildly different game.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 12:36 AM
Ah, well, you see, in 3.5, monsters don't eat you for using a wand of detect magic. Thus my assumption that you were playing a wildly different game.

They can, if the DM decides they do. While RAW is the baseline for most discussions, once someone (such as Psycho) has specifically described a point by which their standard environment deviates from RAW, that should be the new baseline if discussing their specific environment.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 12:39 AM
Ooh, so person A asks a question about paladins, hypothetically, then person B says that detect magic results in cthulu eating your brain.

So...the new topic and standard of discussion is cthulu eating your brain? And why does person B get to set the assumption of what person A's game is like, given that person A never mentioned such things?

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 12:44 AM
No, Person B gets to define what person B's game is like, once they've stated that they're doing so. Person A's game may be a separate topic, but one cannot go to Person B and tell them that they're wrong, detect magic does not cause Cthulhu to eat their brain.

For that matter, the topic isn't even about Detect magic and cthulhu, it's about Wands being freely available for purchase to make Paladins irrelevant...which isn't a guarantee in any game either. The whole Cthulhu tangent was just a personal anecdote indirectly pointing out unusual circumstances that people seem to have latched on bizzarely to.

Greyfeld
2010-08-28, 12:45 AM
Ooh, so person A asks a question about paladins, hypothetically, then person B says that detect magic results in cthulu eating your brain.

So...the new topic and standard of discussion is cthulu eating your brain? And why does person B get to set the assumption of what person A's game is like, given that person A never mentioned such things?

Yeah, the issue under scrutiny is the potential for making a class worthless by gimping them based on RAW, unless stated otherwise. Psycho's approach to the topic makes too many assumptions that deviate too far away from RAW to be valid under the current argument.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 12:57 AM
Yeah, the issue under scrutiny is the potential for making a class worthless by gimping them based on RAW, unless stated otherwise.

Well, that's ONE of the issues under scrutiny. But as threads are wont to do, we've deviated a bit, gotten distracted, and there's a side discussion concerning the idea that a suboptimal character is inherently worthless and unfun to play.

From this deviation comes the statement that there's nothing a Paladin can do that a Cleric couldn't do just as well or better.

One of my rebutes was the ability for a Paladin to cast detect evil at will.

It was retorted that a Wand of Detect Evil could sufficiently replace this ability.

I stated that it's erroneous to assume that magic marts are readily available, and provided several personal anecdotes describing situations where a magic mart was either nonexistant, poorly stocked, or not available to the general public, one of which included the whole Cthulhu thing.

And then I said this, and then it was now, and then I don't know what happened.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 01:00 AM
Well, on the issue of cleric replacing paladin, detect evil is an extremely readily available spell, as spells go. It's low level, it's core, and it's a spell that is fairly unobjectionable in most settings.

It is also a cleric spell, and as they automatically know all spells on their list, they know this spell. So you only run into a problem if you believe a paladin HAS to have it infinitely.

And it seems a bit odd to posit a world in which you have to have a spell an infinite amount of times, but it's so rare that you can't find a wand of it.

Greyfeld
2010-08-28, 01:05 AM
From this deviation comes the statement that there's nothing a Paladin can do that a Cleric couldn't do just as well or better.

One of my rebutes was the ability for a Paladin to cast detect evil at will.

It was retorted that a Wand of Detect Evil could sufficiently replace this ability.

I stated that it's erroneous to assume that magic marts are readily available, and provided several personal anecdotes describing situations where a magic mart was either nonexistant, poorly stocked, or not available to the general public, one of which included the whole Cthulhu thing.


Firstly, I'd like to point out that spells like Detect Evil are extremely situational and rarely used RAW 3.5e. I would wager that the majority of other players would agree with this assessment. So using this particular ability in selling a class as "useful" is a weak assertion at best.

Secondly, I think it's erroneous to assume that magic (especially that as low level as a Detect Evil spell, which is a level 1 spell) is so incredibly rare and hard to come by that you can't find a wand for relatively cheap that could have all the charges of it you'd ever need. Considering that 3.5 RAW is a high magic system to begin with.

Greyfeld
2010-08-28, 01:06 AM
And it seems a bit odd to posit a world in which you have to have a spell an infinite amount of times, but it's so rare that you can't find a wand of it.

And I'd like to say SO MUCH THIS.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 01:17 AM
Firstly, I'd like to point out that spells like Detect Evil are extremely situational and rarely used RAW 3.5e. I would wager that the majority of other players would agree with this assessment. So using this particular ability in selling a class as "useful" is a weak assertion at best.

Perhaps I am a bit paranoid, but I generally use it on pretty much every named NPC I meet.


Secondly, I think it's erroneous to assume that magic (especially that as low level as a Detect Evil spell, which is a level 1 spell) is so incredibly rare and hard to come by that you can't find a wand for relatively cheap that could have all the charges of it you'd ever need. Considering that 3.5 RAW is a high magic system to begin with.

Well, admittedly my scenarios were extreme circumstances, but they were there to make a point. That being: Magic Marts should not be assumed to be available the second you need them, and even if they are, you shouldn't assume they have what you want in stock.

As for the other bit, despite being told "ur doin it wrong" on several occasions, I rather insistantly play DnD as low magic whenever possible.


And it seems a bit odd to posit a world in which you have to have a spell an infinite amount of times, but it's so rare that you can't find a wand of it.

It's more of a reaction to higher-level wands than the inherent danger of Detect Evil itself. Big wands cause big monsters to show up and eat everyone in town, so the local theocracy freaks right the hell out and says "no wands for anybody." They're still findable, but you need to know where to look, and it ain't Mages-R-Us.

Greyfeld
2010-08-28, 01:25 AM
Perhaps I am a bit paranoid, but I generally use it on pretty much every named NPC I meet.



Well, admittedly my scenarios were extreme circumstances, but they were there to make a point. That being: Magic Marts should not be assumed to be available the second you need them, and even if they are, you shouldn't assume they have what you want in stock.

As for the other bit, despite being told "ur doin it wrong" on several occasions, I rather insistantly play DnD as low magic whenever possible.



It's more of a reaction to higher-level wands than the inherent danger of Detect Evil itself. Big wands cause big monsters to show up and eat everyone in town, so the local theocracy freaks right the hell out and says "no wands for anybody." They're still findable, but you need to know where to look, and it ain't Mages-R-Us.

Again, this may be true of the games that your group, specifically, runs and plays in. But this is not the case for the TC's group, or those who play RAW.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 01:29 AM
Again, this may be true of the games that your group, specifically, runs and plays in. But this is not the case for the TC's group, or those who play RAW.

TC?

This is a sentance.

Demons_eye
2010-08-28, 01:36 AM
TC?

This is a sentance.

I could be wrong but I think he means Thread Creator's

Greyfeld
2010-08-28, 01:45 AM
I could be wrong but I think he means Thread Creator's

yeah, that. I can't keep up with the abbreviation every different website uses to basically say "the person who made the thread" so i just stick with TC.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 01:59 AM
Around here I think it's "OP" for Original Poster. Of course, if the OP is asking if something is OP (overpowered), it gets a bit confusing.:smallbiggrin:

Amphetryon
2010-08-28, 05:45 AM
Perhaps I am a bit paranoid, but I generally use it on pretty much every named NPC I meet.1. Given that a spell exists to hide Alignment in Core, I'd fully expect a DM to start using Undetectable Alignment on at least a couple 'named NPCs' once this pattern became self-evident. If a character is being paranoid, the best thing a DM can do is to justify that paranoia, at least on a small scale.

2. Given that Detect Evil alerts the caster to Alignment without specifying action, constant use of Detect Evil reads - from here, and from my experience in games and in reading D&D boards - as a really good way to end up with a fallen Paladin. Sooner or later he'll end up pulling a Miko by simply Smiting every perceived evil in sight. And then he doesn't even get to keep the free access he had to easily replaceable minor Class features. At least he can be an angst-y Fighter without the cumbersome Bonus Feats, I guess.

:smallsmile:

Greenish
2010-08-28, 10:40 AM
Clerics are essentially every single member of the clergy, whereas Paladins are strictly militant in their function. Though yes, I probably am confusing fluff with flavor.Most church functionaries, priests and so forth are just experts with Know: Religion.

Clerics are the honoured champions of their deities.


Eberron. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-08-28, 04:40 PM
2. Given that Detect Evil alerts the caster to Alignment without specifying action, constant use of Detect Evil reads - from here, and from my experience in games and in reading D&D boards - as a really good way to end up with a fallen Paladin. Sooner or later he'll end up pulling a Miko by simply Smiting every perceived evil in sight. And then he doesn't even get to keep the free access he had to easily replaceable minor Class features. At least he can be an angst-y Fighter without the cumbersome Bonus Feats, I guess.

:smallsmile:

It's also capable of detecting Evil wrongly- clerics of Evil gods detect as Evil, even if they are LN or CN.

Not to mention that, depending on the DM, Evil may not always mean "Deserves to be attacked by the paladin"- an Evil character might be "innocent" enough that attacking him becomes murder. Eberron in particular suggests this, and Heroes of Horror implies it, saying that characters who kill based solely on Detect Evil can expect to be charged with murder.

Vangor
2010-08-28, 05:28 PM
Well, admittedly my scenarios were extreme circumstances, but they were there to make a point. That being: Magic Marts should not be assumed to be available the second you need them, and even if they are, you shouldn't assume they have what you want in stock.

Extreme circumstances violate assumptions but do not alter assumptions. I expect the party to be able to procure any non-unique magical item from a town of sufficient wealth given enough time. My expectation may be wrong given the campaign, but the base assumption in D&D is availability of magical items due to the availability of magic. Want to remove wands of detect evil? Clerics need to become scarce.

Of course, detect evil itself is a pretty negligible ability, and were I to play any divine warrior my starting point would be cleric, not paladin. For one, the mechanics of the cleric are significantly stronger and epitomize being empowered by the divine with domains chosen from the deity you choose to follow and a much more expansive and capable list of spells. Further, the paladin is scarcely much for roleplaying because you have little to no choice in the matter of how you play.

Were you a cleric you could be lawful good, a priest of tyr, a warrior, etc., and comparable fluff wise to a paladin while having a much more divine dependent flavor with domains, spells, and so forth rather than fairly static bonuses or abilities plus the addition of stronger mechanics.

DanReiv
2010-08-28, 05:56 PM
I don't see the problem tbh. 140 isn't that much for a full attack from a standard buffed melee character at lvl 8, especially if smite was involved.

As stated above it's the easiest form of damage to mitigate. AC alone is enough for stopping power attack, and then there's concealment, DR, movement and whatnot.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 06:06 PM
Extreme circumstances violate assumptions but do not alter assumptions. I expect the party to be able to procure any non-unique magical item from a town of sufficient wealth given enough time. My expectation may be wrong given the campaign, but the base assumption in D&D is availability of magical items due to the availability of magic. Want to remove wands of detect evil? Clerics need to become scarce.

It's possible I've also been grossly misdetermining the availability of magic. To me Clerics, or at least Clerics above Level 1, ARE scarce. As in, "about one in every 1000 people" scarce. Which in a city like Rome, sure, you've got 1000 Clerics running around. Almost certaintly some of them are wandmakers. But even a major, non ridiculously-huge-for-its-era city of maybe 20,000, your chances of getting what you need is not nessicarily probable.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 06:12 PM
Maybe setting-specific, but going by the guidelines in the DMG, they're quite a bit more common than that. For your example, a 20,000 population city would be a Large City according to the chart on page 139. That's a +9 community modifier, and rolls 3 times, so it'd include 3 clerics of minimum level 10-15, with increasing numbers of lower-level clerics*. If you're in a low-magic world, that would be ridiculous, but in the standard high-magic world where such wands are freely available, the high-level NPCs to make them are all over the place - a Large City would have items of up to 40,000GP for sale, and a Wand of Detect Evil goes for 750GP, I think.

*It's half the level for double the number, so one 10th level cleric (minimum) would create 2 5th level, 4 3rd level, 8 2nd level, and 16 1st level. So the typical Large City by the guidelines, with 3 such clerics of that level or higher, would have 45 clerics above 1st level, roughly twice your estimate.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 06:14 PM
Maybe setting-specific, but going by the guidelines in the DMG, they're quite a bit more common than that. For your example, a 20,000 population city would be a Large City according to the chart on page 139. That's a +9 community modifier, and rolls 3 times, so it'd include 3 clerics of minimum level 10-15, with increasing numbers of lower-level clerics. If you're in a low-magic world, that would be ridiculous, but in the standard high-magic world where such wands are freely available, the high-level NPCs to make them are all over the place - a Large City would have items of up to 40,000GP for sale, and a Wand of Detect Evil goes for 750GP, I think.

And with this many Clerics -- let alone other classes -- the world is ever always in danger WHY?

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 06:16 PM
I dunno - I didn't write the rules, I'm just quoting them.:smallbiggrin: Considering those same rules also allow for a Level 25 Commoner to exist in our Large City, I wouldn't take them strictly by the book either.

*It's half the level for double the number, so one 10th level cleric (minimum) would create 2 5th level, 4 3rd level, 8 2nd level, and 16 1st level. So the typical Large City by the guidelines, with 3 such clerics of that level or higher, would have 45 clerics above 1st level, roughly twice your estimate.

Greenish
2010-08-28, 06:21 PM
And with this many Clerics -- let alone other classes -- the world is ever always in danger WHY?Because there are so many clerics (let alone other classes). Bound to have more than a few bad apples there. :smallamused:

Detect Evil at will can be grabbed at ECL 4 with cleric 3/church inquisitor 1, should one consider it necessary to call himself a paladin.

ericgrau
2010-08-28, 06:21 PM
I am currently not involved in this DnD campaign, but I am interested to know what y'all think.

One of the party members managed to do like 140+ points of damage with his THF Paladin. It's a Paizo Paladin but the rest of the group is using basic 3.5. Apparently, the Paladin had several different buffs (Eagle's Splendor, Haste, and Enlarge at least) and performed a Full Attack Action on a Cleric. The DM was sort of shocked by the fact that a level 8 character managed to instantly kill an "uber cleric" with three hits and no crits.

There has been a lot of talk about nerfing X or Z but one of the ideas is to nerf the amount of damage that a character can do. Something like 10/level a round was purposed. I do not like this idea but am mostly unable to fully articulate my concerns, so I was wondering what you fine folks thought about it. Personally, I just think the DM is surprised because it is the first time that a THF Power Attacker has ever been used in the group.

Best of luck.
-Eddie
How did all 3 attacks hit if the "uber cleric" had anything resembling a reasonable AC? Just digging up a simplistic fighter build the chances of hitting should have been 50%/50%/25%. Maybe 65%/65%/40% ish on a smite. If he rolled high then ok fine. If he smited and his strength + charisma is much over 30-35, then it's the DM's fault for giving out such high stats. Likewise if the paladin has anything beyond a +2 weapon.

I assume 140 damage means he smited 3 times on a full attack, otherwise it's time to look for things like shock trooper and get rid of them. I mean if he used power attack without shock trooper then, again, how did he hit??

Finally, why wasn't the party being attacked during all those buffs? Spells require a strong voice to cast. Easy to hear and respond to.

Gray Mage
2010-08-28, 06:22 PM
And with this many Clerics -- let alone other classes -- the world is ever always in danger WHY?

Maybe because not all of those cleric are good you know? I mean there's a huge amount of good clerics that try to stop more or less the same huge amount of evil clerics.

Greenish
2010-08-28, 06:26 PM
How did all 3 attacks hit if the "uber cleric" had anything resembling a reasonable AC?Luck?


I assume 140 damage means he smited 3 times on a full attackPF paladin, as per OP. Smite lasts until the baddie is dead or the paladin rests.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 06:28 PM
I dunno - I didn't write the rules, I'm just quoting them.:smallbiggrin: Considering those same rules also allow for a Level 25 Commoner to exist in our Large City, I wouldn't take them strictly by the book either.

*It's half the level for double the number, so one 10th level cleric (minimum) would create 2 5th level, 4 3rd level, 8 2nd level, and 16 1st level. So the typical Large City by the guidelines, with 3 such clerics of that level or higher, would have 45 clerics above 1st level, roughly twice your estimate.

And though the numbers are almost certaintly inconsistant across the board (I'm sure there's more rogues and fighters than barbarians and sorcerers in any given city), simple extrapolation would say there are about 500 people with at least two levels in a PC class in such a city. Meaning 1 in 40 people are professional adventurers.

So evidently the only thing that makes the PCs even remotely important is that they actually get off their ass and get things done.


Maybe because not all of those cleric are good you know? I mean there's a huge amount of good clerics that try to stop more or less the same huge amount of evil clerics.

That doesn't take into account say, Paladins, who are by definition good. Even if the rest of the PC class-having population was evenly dispersed throughout the alignments (skewed to account for monks, rogues, barbarians and druids), that would still give LG a 10% advantage over the other alignments.

Gorram it, now I'm gonna have to chart this out or I'll be thinking about it all day...

ericgrau
2010-08-28, 06:29 PM
Perhaps PF is to blame them. No time to check the PF pally details right now.

Drakevarg
2010-08-28, 06:45 PM
With a sample size of 45 members of each base class, equally distributed amongst the alignments where allowed, the figures are:

Lawful Good: 90
Neutral Good: 54
Chaotic Good: 45

Lawful Neutral: 54
True Neutral: 54
Chaotic Neutral: 54

Lawful Evil: 45
Neutral Evil: 54
Chaotic Evil: 45

So akshully, LG has at worst a 66% advantage over the other alignments. And Good has a 30% advantage over Evil, even if Neutral decides to help out/stay out in equal proportions.

Greenish
2010-08-28, 06:55 PM
Perhaps PF is to blame them. No time to check the PF pally details right now.PF smite is just cha to hit and paladin level to damage (or paladin level twice for undead and evil outsiders and dragons).

Aside from Divine Bond (at level 8, +2 in extra enchantments on your weapon 1/day), no other PF stuff would have increased the damage.

Bayar
2010-08-28, 06:56 PM
Man, my DM already hands out monsters with high AC's and tons of HP, if he would cap the damage my warforged juggernaut would do in a single round...it would drag even more into pointless dice rolling just to chip at the block o' HP. Might as well play WoW again...

Knaight
2010-08-28, 07:10 PM
With a sample size of 45 members of each base class, equally distributed amongst the alignments where allowed, the figures are:

Lawful Good: 90
Neutral Good: 54
Chaotic Good: 45

Lawful Neutral: 54
True Neutral: 54
Chaotic Neutral: 54

Lawful Evil: 45
Neutral Evil: 54
Chaotic Evil: 45

So akshully, LG has at worst a 66% advantage over the other alignments. And Good has a 30% advantage over Evil, even if Neutral decides to help out/stay out in equal proportions.

It specifies class distribution to some extent as well, so it evens out a bit more. That said, it is horribly designed and loads the world up with an absurdly high number of high level characters that makes the notion of a "save the world" mission absurd. Oddly enough, those are extremely common in the genre D&D is trying to emulate. Hence the aforementioned horrible design.