The Paladin - A Divine Duskblade Rewrite [D&D 3.5]

[Ziegander]

The Paladin

http://download.minitokyo.net/Valkyrie.Profile.Wallpaper.260020.jpg

Alignment: A Paladin must be Lawful Good
Hit Die: 1d10

{table=head]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Special |0lvl|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th

1st|+1|+2|+0|+2|Aura of Good, Detect Evil|5|2|—|—|—|—

2nd|+2|+3|+0|+3|Somatic Weaponry|5|3|—|—|—|—

3rd|+3|+3|+1|+3|Divine Channeling|5|3|—|—|—|—

4th|+4|+4|+1|+4|Smite Evil +1d6/+1|6|4|—|—|—|—

5th|+5|+4|+1|+4|Special Mount|6|4|2|—|—|—

6th|+6/+1|+5|+2|+5||7|5|3|—|—|—

7th|+7/+2|+5|+2|+5|Shielded Casting|7|5|3|—|—|—

8th|+8/+3|+6|+2|+6|Smite Evil +2d6/+2|8|6|4|—|—|—

9th|+9/+4|+6|+3|+6||8|6|4|—|—|—

10th|+10/+5|+7|+3|+7||9|7|5|2|—|—

11th|+11/+6/+1|+7|+3|+7||9|7|5|3|—|—

12th|+12/+7/+2|+8|+4|+8|Smite Evil +3d6/+3|10|8|6|3|—|—

13th|+13/+8/+3|+8|+4|+8|Full Channeling|10|8|6|4|—|—

14th|+14/+9/+4|+9|+4|+9||10|9|7|4|2|—

15th|+15/+10/+5|+9|+5|+9||10|9|7|5|3|—

16th|+16/+11/+6/+1|+10|+5|+10|Smite Evil +4d6/+4|10|10|8|5|3|—

17th|+17/+12/+7/+2|+10|+5|+10||10|10|8|6|4|2

18th|+18/+13/+8/+3|+11|+6|+11||10|10|9|6|4|3

19th|+19/+14/+9/+4|+11|+6|+11||10|10|9|7|5|4

20th|+20/+15/+10/+5|+12|+6|+12|Smite Evil +5d6/+5|10|10|10|7|5|5
[/table]

Class Skills (4 + Int modifier): Climb, Concentration, Craft, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Religion), Listen, Perform, Ride, Sense Motive, Spot, and Swim.

Proficiencies: A Paladin is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, with light and medium armors, and with shields (but not Tower Shields).

Spells: A Paladin casts divine spells drawn from the Paladin spell list (see below). She knows each spell on her list, but she must designate a time during the day to pray and prepare spells like a Cleric does. She has a caster level equal to her character level and the saving throw DC of any spell she casts is equal to 10 + Spell Level + Charisma modifier. She must have a Wisdom score at least equal to 10 + Spell Level in order to cast a spell.

Paladin Spells

ORISONS - Create Water, Cure Minor Wounds, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Disrupt Undead, Guidance, Know Direction, Light, Mending, Prestidigitation, Purify Food and Drink, Read Magic, Virtue.

1ST LEVEL - Bane, Bless, Bless Water, Charm Animal, Command, Cure Light Wounds, Deathwatch, Divine Favor, Endure Elements, Hide from Undead, Jump, Lionheart*, Magic Weapon, Mount, Produce Flame, Protection from Chaos/Evil, Remove Fear, Resurgence*, Rhino's Rush*, Shocking Grasp, True Strike, Warning Shout*

2ND LEVEL - Aid, Align Weapon, Bear's Endurance, Blinding Touch*, Bull's Strength, Calm Emotions, Consecrate, Cure Moderate Wounds, Death Knell, Delay Poison, Divine Insight*, Eagle's Splendor, Electric Vengeance*, Knight's Move*, Lesser Restoration, Make Whole, Mass Resurgence*, Meteoric Strike*, Protection from Arrows, Remove Paralysis, Resist Energy, Shield Other, Spiritual Weapon, Tactical Precision*, Touch of Idiocy, Undetectable Alignment, Zone of Truth

3RD LEVEL - Bestow Curse, Call Lightning, Continual Flame, Create Food and Water, Cure Serious Wounds, Daylight, Dispelling Touch*, Find the Gap*, Flame Arrow, Glyph of Warding, Greater Magic Weapon, Halt Undead, Invisibility Purge, Lion's Charge*, Magic Circle Against Chaos/Evil, Magic Vestment, Minor Creation, Phantom Steed, Prayer, Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Curse, Remove Disease, Water Walk

4TH LEVEL - Break Enchantment, Charm Monster, Cure Critical Wounds, Death Ward, Discern Lies, Dispel Chaos/Evil, Fire Shield, Flame Strike, Greater Command, Greater Electric Vengeance*, Hallow, Holy Sword, Lawful Sword*, Neutralize Poison, Restoration, Righteous Might, Rusting Grasp, Spell Immunity

5TH LEVEL - Antimagic Field, Blade Barrier, Call Lightning Storm, Commune, Disrupting Weapon, Greater Glyph of Warding, Heroes' Feast, Major Creation, Mass Bear's Endurance, Mass Bull's Strength, Mass Cure Critical Wounds, Mass Eagle's Splendor, Plane Shift, Raise Dead, Slay Living, True Seeing, Undeath to Death

*This spell is not found in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm).



Aura of Good (Su): As Cleric.

Detect Evil (Su): A Paladin is aware of the presence of evil creatures at all times, benefiting from a constant Detect Evil effect, as the spell except that she only detects creatures whose alignment entries specify that the creature is "Always Evil," and that the area is a 60ft emanation centered on the Paladin.

Somatic Weaponry: At 2nd level, a Paladin gains the Somatic Weaponry (http://dndtools.eu/feats/complete-mage--58/somatic-weaponry--2674/) feat as a bonus feat. She does not need to meet the feat's prerequisites.

Divine Channeling (Su): Starting at 3rd level, a Paladin may channel touch spells through her weapon. This ability works in exactly the same way as the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling class feature.

Smite Evil (Su): Starting at 4th level, whenever a Paladin attacks an Evil creature she deals +1d6 damage and adds +1 to the saving throw DC of any spell channeled through her attack. This ability improves, adding an extra 1d6 of damage and a further +1 to save DCs, at every four levels hereafter.

Special Mount (Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a Paladin gains the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy warhorse (for a Medium Paladin) or a warpony (for a Small Paladin).

Once per day, as a full-round action, a Paladin may magically call her mount (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm#thePaladinsMount) from the celestial realms in which it resides. This ability is the equivalent of a spell of a level equal to one-half the Paladin’s level (rounded down). The mount immediately appears adjacent to the Paladin and remains for 2 hours per class level; it may be dismissed at any time as a free action. The mount is the same creature each time it is summoned, though the Paladin may release a particular mount from service.

Each time the mount is called, it appears in full health, regardless of any damage it may have taken previously. The mount also appears wearing or carrying any gear it had when it was last dismissed. Calling a mount is a conjuration (calling) effect.

Should the Paladin’s mount die, it immediately disappears, leaving behind any equipment it was carrying. The Paladin may not summon another mount for thirty days or until she gains a class level, whichever comes first, even if the mount is somehow returned from the dead. During this thirty-day period, the Paladin takes a -1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.

Shielded Casting: At 7th level, a Paladin gains the Shielded Casting (http://dndtools.eu/feats/races-of-stone--82/shielded-casting--2598/) feat as a bonus feat. She does not need to meet the feat's prerequisites.

Full Channeling (Ex): Starting at 13th level, a Paladin may channel a touch spell into each attack she makes during a full attack. When she does, she gives up one of her attacks to channel the effects of a touch spell through the rest of her attacks. She may affect a creature more than once with the same spell if she hits that creature more than once during her full attack.

3
Alternate Class Features

Battle Blessing
In order to take this alternate class feature, a Paladin must be about to take her 5th class level.

Battle Blessing (Su): A number of times per day equal to 1 + her Wisdom modifier (minimum 1/day), a Paladin may cast any prepared spell as a swift action. Every four levels after 5th, a Paladin gains an additional use of this ability per day.

The Battle Blessing alternate class feature replaces the Paladin's Special Mount class feature.

Charging Smite
In order to take this alternate class feature, a Paladin must be about to take her 5th class level.

Charging Smite (Ex): Whenever the Paladin charges an evil creature she deals an extra 2d6 damage (in addition to the extra damage gained from her Smite Evil class feature), and she may channel a spell as if using her Divine Channeling class feature. If she channels a spell in this way, then the saving throw DC of that spell is increased by 2 (in addition to the increase she gains from her Smite Evil class feature).

The Charging Smite alternative class feature replaces the Paladin's Special Mount class feature.

[eftexar]

This is a pretty good translation. I especially like how smite evil was changed (the original paladin's sucked). And I like your staggered spell progression better (and the spell choices are a perfect fit as well). This reminds that I need to go find the psionics duskblade conversion now... I know you didn't ask for peach, but I'll assume since you posted it here you want it anyways (my bad if not).
While I know the original duskblade doesn't have anything at levels 15 and 19, why not add something there? I'm all for keeping patterns going.
I'm almost tempted to say to swap out quick cast for something more paladin-esque, maybe courage based abilities or something knightly. I don't think quick cast is as big of a deal with the new spell list (not that it was a huge help before but...).
Also I'm curious. Whats with the antimagic field spell? Not saying full casters don't need knocked down a peg, but the paladin can just whip up antimagic and smash the sorcerers face in (its basically insta-win on a 20 bab class).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Seems like a pretty solid conversion. I would add the Inflict X spells to the list, as otherwise there's not a lot of really nice damage-dealing spells to channel (at least, not until high levels-- can you save full attack slay living?)

One question, though-- is it meant to be a spontaneous caster, like the duskblade, or still a prepared caster, like the text seems to indicate? Also, do you mean to have the dual-stat casting dependency?

I would recommend sticking to one stat to reduce MAD-- he already needs the standard physical scores; let's not be too mean), and leaving him as a spontaneous caster. He's got a perfectly nice small list, and making it prepared casting seems like a kick in the face, both in terms of power (given how limited the list is) and fun (I hate hate hate prepared casting, and most people I've played with feel similarly).

[Ziegander]

Seems like a pretty solid conversion. I would add the Inflict X spells to the list, as otherwise there's not a lot of really nice damage-dealing spells to channel (at least, not until high levels-- can you save full attack slay living?)

Well, because of that Will halves entry, Produce Flame and/or Shocking Grasp are almost always going to be superior to Inflict X. Plus, I don't like the feel of giving the Paladin negative energy spells.

As far as the other concerns:

a) Antimagic Field does not mean that a spellcaster keels over and dies to the Paladin. There are loads of ways for a caster to get around this, and casting it nerfs all of your own magic and magic items as well (it's a 10ft emanation).

b) Over a Duskblade, this Paladin has a number of advantages. Higher HD, more skills points per level, no spell failure, a more versatile spell list, knowledge of the entire spell list, boosted spell DCs, and the Full Channeling class feature. In light of all that, some disadvantages needed to come to bear, hence why it now loses heavy armor proficiency, does not get all Knowledges as class skills, has dual-stat casting, does not cast spontaneously, has fewer spell slots per day, and has fewer offensive spells.

c) Speaking of dual-stat casting, it's not as bad as it sounds. Because the Paladin only ever casts 5th level spells, she only needs to start with an 11 to cast for her entire career. You could buy up to a 13 and still have room for your other combat stats. However, I will go ahead and put True Strike back at 1st level to alleviate some of the stress.

d) In addition to being one of the disadvantages weighed against the Paladin's many advantages, the prepared casting is also thematically appropriate as divine casting being prayer-based like a Cleric's.

[Garryl]

It may just be the 1:00 in the morning talking, but this is kinda MAD. You need Str, Con, and a bit of Dex for the usual melee shtick, a good amount of Cha for spells, and another bit of Wis for spells, too. It wouldn't be as problematic if you got something other than raw spellcasting for your Wis/Cha.

... Actually, given your general lack of spells with saves (it's almost entirely buffs on the list), you can probably make do with very little Cha. In fact, if you do nothing but get a few items, you can probably work quite well with only a 12 in Wis and Cha to begin with. So maybe it's not that bad. Still not great (8 points of point buy, so the value is roughly equivalent to a 15 in a score).

The spell list could use some work. Other than buffs and healing spells, I counted only 6 9 spells you can channel (Shocking Grasp, Blinding Touch, Death Knell, Touch of Idiocy, Bestow Curse, Dispelling Touch, Rusting Grasp, Slay Living, and I think Plane Shift, not sure if it qualifies). Several of those are a bit situational, too. Buffs are good, but Divine Channeling is kind of the iconic class feature, and right now there's very little to use it with.

[nonsi]

Very nicely done.

My only gripe with this remake - as with most other Paladin remakes - is the class being tied to a single alignment.
I mean, there could be many motivations for one to be a zealot (and that's practically what a paladin is):
- Valor (LG)
- Justice (LN)
- Freedom (CG)
- Balance (TN)
- Tyranny (LE)
- Pestilence (NE)
- Slaughter (CE)

and these are just examples.

[Grod_The_Giant]

b) Over a Duskblade, this Paladin has a number of advantages. Higher HD, more skills points per level, no spell failure, a more versatile spell list, knowledge of the entire spell list, boosted spell DCs, and the Full Channeling class feature. In light of all that, some disadvantages needed to come to bear, hence why it now loses heavy armor proficiency, does not get all Knowledges as class skills, has dual-stat casting, does not cast spontaneously, has fewer spell slots per day, and has fewer offensive spells.

Here's the thing: the spell list is more versatile, but a lot of it is support magic. That's all well and good and fitting, and Quick Cast will certainly help with that, but you've lost almost all of the Duskblade's offensive punch.

Apart from Shocking Grasp (and why is that still on the list?), you've got Blinding Touch, Touch of Idiocy, Rusting Grasp, Plane Shift, and Slay living available to channel. (Produce Flame is not a touch spell, and thus can't be channeled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/produceFlame.htm).) That's two good debuffs, one semi-useful debuff, and two save-or-dies. There's really not a lot of options there, and you'll probably wind up using buff-and-bash tactics most of the time.

Right now, I would call the class a little more versatile and significantly less powerful in-combat. Remember, a Duskblade gets medium armor proficiency at 4th, so by mid-to-high levels he'll be in mithril plate. The statistical difference between a d8 and a d10 hit die can be made up with a single Improved Toughness feat. The skill points issue is deceptive, as Duskblades will have a nice high Intelligence for their spells. The save DC bonus is nice, but between lower-level spells and MAD, your DCs aren't going to be that great to begin with.

I will admit error on the part of the spellcasting-- I was under the impression that Duskblades know their entire list and cast spontaneously off it, which does not seem to be the case.

To boost the damage potential again, if you don't want to include the Inflict X-- the classic Cleric attack spell-- perhaps change Smite Evil to consume a prepared spell to inflict heavy damage?

[Ziegander]

Well, personally, I have allowed Produce Flame to be channeled and I assume lots of DMs would allow it, but good point.

What if I changed Smite Evil so that he deals Xd6 additional damage when he attacks an Evil creature where X is the bonus to save DCs? Seem okay? Too much compared to the normal Duskblade?

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's pretty low, but the bonus to save DCs would make up for it, if he had worthwhile spells to channel. I admit there's not a lot of good holy touch attacks on the Cleric list, but they're kind of the point of the Duskblade...

[Ziegander]

It's pretty low, but the bonus to save DCs would make up for it, if he had worthwhile spells to channel. I admit there's not a lot of good holy touch attacks on the Cleric list, but they're kind of the point of the Duskblade...

I really don't understand your sentiment. He has two spells at every spell level he can channel, and all of them seem fairly worthwhile to me. Compare this to Duskblade that has Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp, Dimension Hop, Ghoul Touch, Touch of Idiocy, Dispelling Touch, and Vampiric Touch. The Paladin actually has more touch spells to channel than the Duskblade. He doesn't have gems like Ghoul Touch or Vampiric Touch, but they aren't thematically appropriate, and instead he does have Bestow Curse, Dispel Evil, Rusting Grasp, Plane Shift, and Slay Living.

The bonus damage from Smite Evil allows him to compete with Vampiric Touch, and increases his damage without the expenditure of spell slots. Honestly... I'm finding it harder and harder to not see this Paladin rewrite as strictly better than the Duskblade.

[bobthe6th]

I would allow for sacrifice a prepared spell for his main shtick(a staple of divine casting). perhaps sac a spell for level d8 damage caped at four the spells level? only to evil, with good alignment thrown on top?

also, cool idea for filling dead levels, ki silver/cold iron. so at 15 he gets one, and any weapon counts as that, then at 18 he gets the other, and they both apply?

[Straybow]

Whoah, Mass CCW?? That's an 8th level spell for Clerics, 9th for Druids. No way should a minor caster have something that powerful.

Given that 5th is the highest for this class I can see it being better than Mass CLW (5th, 6th for Druid), maybe Mass CMW, or a modified Mass CSW with half as many subjects (1 per 2 levels).

[Ziegander]

Whoah, Mass CCW?? That's an 8th level spell for Clerics, 9th for Druids. No way should a minor caster have something that powerful.

Given that 5th is the highest for this class I can see it being better than Mass CLW (5th, 6th for Druid), maybe Mass CMW, or a modified Mass CSW with half as many subjects (1 per 2 levels).

Uh... so, I could have given him Harm and Heal on his spell list and you wouldn't bat an eye, but Cure Critical Wounds Mass is too powerful just because the SRD says it's as powerful as stuff like Dimensional Lock, Symbol of Death, and Shapechange? I'm sorry, no. I wanted to give the Paladin a healing spell at 5th, but Heal felt like too much of a huge power leap from Cure Critical Wounds, so I went with the much more tame Mass CCW. Yes, it is MUCH weaker than Heal despite the fact that it can hit multiple people at once.

[Straybow]

Uh... so, I could have given him Harm and Heal on his spell list and you wouldn't bat an eye... That's quite a leap of illogic, maybe a bit defensive there?

I would have problems with Harm for obvious reasons. As for Heal, I don't see how you jumped straight from Heal (6th or 7th) being "too much of a huge power leap from Cure Critical Wounds" (4th/5th, 4d8+17 healed at 17th level) and then skip over MCMW (6th/7th, 34d8+289@17th) and MCSW (7th/8th, 51d8+289@17th) all the way to the extreme MCCW (68d8+289@17th).

Now, I realize that Heal does a whole lot more than just hit points, but the enormous leap in total healing power is too much, since nothing prevents mass cure effects from applying multiple times to creatures in the area of effect AFAIK (a quick search of Sage advice shows nothing). MCMW averages 442 points, probably enough to heal any party of four.

[Knight13]

Now, I realize that Heal does a whole lot more than just hit points, but the enormous leap in total healing power is too much, since nothing prevents mass cure effects from applying multiple times to creatures in the area of effect AFAIK (a quick search of Sage advice shows nothing). MCMW averages 442 points, probably enough to heal any party of four.
What? There are actually DMs that would let you get away with something that absurd? If you're going to pull something as nuts as stacking the effect of a Mass Cure, you may as well stack the effect of a Mass Inflict on one target as well. Or cast a Fireball on a Large creature and say that, because it occupies 4 squares, it gets hit 4 times.

[Siosilvar]

Now, I realize that Heal does a whole lot more than just hit points, but the enormous leap in total healing power is too much, since nothing prevents mass cure effects from applying multiple times to creatures in the area of effect AFAIK (a quick search of Sage advice shows nothing). MCMW averages 442 points, probably enough to heal any party of four.

Actually, everything prevents that. The only core spells that you can actually stack on one target are Magic Missile and Scorching Ray, both of which have lines specifically allowing it. You might be able to choose the same target more than once, but the spell will only take effect once on any given target, just like if you wind up with the same feat multiple times, you only get its benefits once without a "may be chosen multiple times stacking with itself" line.

[Straybow]

What? There are actually DMs that would let you get away with something that absurd? If you're going to pull something as nuts as stacking the effect of a Mass Cure, you may as well stack the effect of a Mass Inflict on one target as well. Or cast a Fireball on a Large creature and say that, because it occupies 4 squares, it gets hit 4 times. Well, that's not the same at all. A fireball's effect is defined as a "spread," which in turn is defined. The Mass CLW description for target says only "One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart." The definition for targeting multiple creatures only says "as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target." There is no restriction against selecting one target multiple times.

That's why I use more carefully worded definitions for mass cures that specifically allow multiple applications to creatures by swift action touch for each application, and burst effect for ranged application.


Actually, everything prevents that. The only core spells that you can actually stack on one target are Magic Missile and Scorching Ray, both of which have lines specifically allowing it. You might be able to choose the same target more than once, but the spell will only take effect once on any given target, just like if you wind up with the same feat multiple times, you only get its benefits once without a "may be chosen multiple times stacking with itself" line. No, I don't think a spell effect is at all comparable to feats. It is true that those spells specifically mention targeting the same creature more than once. It would have been clearer had the mass CLW effect been specified as a burst or the language limiting one application per creature included in the wording.

[bobthe6th]

so MICW at 17th is 68d8+289(561 average)damage with a save for half(280)? even MILW at 9th is 9d8+81(average 117) damage? thats insane!

[Ziegander]

You are literally the only person I've ever encountered in my 10+ years playing D&D 3.0/3.5 that has ever presumed that the same creature can be targeted multiple times by spells with the "One creature/level" entry. I'm not saying that you are objectively wrong, because I can't find conclusive evidence that says you are, but you are the first to ever bring this up.

What I can find is this: "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

The above is from the SRD, specifically the Stacking Effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#stackingEffects) section of the Magic Overview (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/magicOverview.htm).

Consider what you're suggesting to be true, but applied to other spells. Mass Charm Monster can be used, at 15th level, to cause a single creature to make up to 15 Will saves vs Charm. Mass Inflict Light Wounds can be used, at 9th level, to deal 9d8+81 damage (average 121.5) to a single, living creature with 9 seperate Will saves, each of which will reduce the total damage by 1/18th. Mass Enlarge Person could be applied to a single creature, and when cast by a 7th level Wizard could increase that creature's size category seven times. Sure, the Strength bonus would only apply once, but who cares when your medium ally just grew to Colossal+++ size?

Actually, at this point I am going to say, objectively, that you are wrong. Because what you're suggesting isn't even a wording issue over viable "targets," what you are suggesting is that "One creature/level" is the same as "produce this spell's effect a number of times equal to your caster level; you may divide the spell effects in any way you choose up to one creature per level." Which is just staggeringly false.

[Straybow]

so MICW at 17th is 68d8+289(561 average)damage with a save for half(280)? even MILW at 9th is 9d8+81(average 117) damage? thats insane! Except, please note, that my rewrite for multiple effects upon one subject requires touch. For an MICW spell that functioned as a reversed MCCW that would require one touch attack per application; good luck with that. Of course, I rewrote IxW spells as separate spells with more clearly defined and limited effects in addition to requiring touch attacks. That, and touch attacks can't bypass AoOs as easily in my homebrew... well, enough said.

FYI, I also use a spell point system in which spells that damage or heal have a cost per die, so that it would be rare to apply a healing or harming spell of that power at full value. To do so would probably cost the caster the majority of spell point reserve and induce incapacitating fatigue.

[bobthe6th]

and I added some new rules to alignment, negating the idea of evil, good, and so smite evil is broken. please taking this into account for your classes balance.

[Straybow]

and I added some new rules to alignment, negating the idea of evil, good, and so smite evil is broken. please taking this into account for your classes balance. Haha! Don't hate, bro. Can't help it if I think outside the box.


You are literally the only person I've ever encountered in my 10+ years playing D&D 3.0/3.5 that has ever presumed that the same creature can be targeted multiple times by spells with the "One creature/level" entry. I'm not saying that you are objectively wrong, because I can't find conclusive evidence that says you are, but you are the first to ever bring this up. No, I don't presume, I read and it is neither encouraged nor enjoined.


What I can find is this: "The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts."

... Consider what you're suggesting to be true, but applied to other spells. Mass Charm Monster can be used, at 15th level, to cause a single creature to make up to 15 Will saves vs Charm... Not a clear comparison. First, the effects of multiple cure spells do "stack" as long as the subject has hit points to be healed. Second, the effects of cure spells are essentially instantaneous, so a subsequent application is not overlapping the effect.

Charm is not an instantaneous effect, and doesn't stack. The "last instance" clause would apply for mass charm, if it were deemed to apply sequentially. The process described indicates that the targeted creatures are selected individually within the area of effect until the HD limit is reached, although one creature of any number of HD may be targeted. That makes multiple applications to one creature very hard to read into it. But the limit is expressed in HD total, not number of creatures, which scotches the comparison to mass cure wording and even more thoroughly scotches the idea of doubling up on one creature.

MM only specifies "up to five creatures," and one must read the description to find the level limit on the number of missiles and the specifics of targeting those missiles individually or together. The balance of "one creature per level" spells mostly have effects that specifically cannot stack (e.g., ability score enhancements) or are specifically prohibited (e.g., enlarge person says, "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack"), or that effect a group instantaneously (teleportation) or have an effect that can't be overlapped based on the description (mass overland flight).


Actually, at this point I am going to say, objectively, that you are wrong. Because what you're suggesting isn't even a wording issue over viable "targets," what you are suggesting is that "One creature/level" is the same as "produce this spell's effect a number of times equal to your caster level; you may divide the spell effects in any way you choose up to one creature per level." Which is just staggeringly false. I might indeed be wrong, but not for that reason. I don't know conventional d20, I use the SRD for homebrew and I rewrite what is broken, unclear, etc. for this reason.

Again, the description for selecting multiple targets is that they must be seen or touched. That begs the question of how many can be touched in a round, and whether the same creature can be touched more than once. Does it not?

[Straybow]

Sorry, Z, I don't mean to hijack the discussion. This could be continued elsewhere...

[Ziegander]

When you select targets, you choose which creatures or objects you wish for your spell to target. You're implying, that for Cure spells only, you can "spend" any "unused" targets on creatures you've already targeted in order to multiply the spell's effect.

EDIT: Reality does work like that. Reality does not work like that.

If you have selected a creature as a target, then it is a target. If you have selected two creatures each as a target of your spell, then each of those two creatures are targets. It's a binary state. Something either is or is not a target of your spell.

If a spell does not specifically state something to the effect of, "you may choose the same creature as a target more than once; if you do the effects stack," then you can't do that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Haha! Don't hate, bro. Can't help it if I think outside the box.

Thinking outside the box is one thing. Evaluating someone else's homebrew class on the basis of how your own homebrew interpretation of the rules works is quite another.

Anyway, the new spells look nice, and give you some more interesting tactical things to do with your spell slots. I do still feel like it needs... I don't know, something to make it more paladin-y... maybe add the mount back in? I know it takes away a little bit from the straight Duskblade conversion, but it's definitely paladin flavor, and the ability and its upgrades could fill up a lot of those dead levels quite nicely.

Oh, and important question: How does this revision work with the Battle Blessing feat? I don't feel like anything too dangerous would happen if it still worked, but I might be wrong. And if it does apply, it renders Quick Cast near moot.

[Ziegander]

Anyway, the new spells look nice, and give you some more interesting tactical things to do with your spell slots. I do still feel like it needs... I don't know, something to make it more paladin-y... maybe add the mount back in? I know it takes away a little bit from the straight Duskblade conversion, but it's definitely paladin flavor, and the ability and its upgrades could fill up a lot of those dead levels quite nicely.

Oh, and important question: How does this revision work with the Battle Blessing feat? I don't feel like anything too dangerous would happen if it still worked, but I might be wrong. And if it does apply, it renders Quick Cast near moot.

Well, first, I don't think Battle Blessing should apply to this revision. It's essentially a whole new class, and Battle Blessing wasn't designed for this one, it was designed for the PHB one.

Second, I could see ditching the Quick Cast progression for a Special Mount. It's a meaningful trade-off, especially since I included Mount and Phantom Steed in the spell-list (Phantom Steed being a particularly useful spell). Special Mount could be gained at 5th level (as normal) and progress as normal, and since it gets more powerful as the Paladin gains levels I wouldn't feel bad about the levels that would then be empty because of the removal of Quick Cast.

[bobthe6th]

ooch, swift action sure strike lance charge gone... that was a hit.

[Ziegander]

ooch, swift action sure strike lance charge gone... that was a hit.

Well, you can still do that with Quick Cast the Battle Blessing Alternate Class Feature. I just think that taking a feat to turn all of your spells into quickened spells is a little too strong for this class with its much improved class features, spell list, and spells per day.

[Siosilvar]

MM only specifies "up to five creatures," and one must read the description to find the level limit on the number of missiles and the specifics of targeting those missiles individually or together.

But you have to read the description to know what the spell does in the first place. That's not a valid concern.

The fact that Magic Missile and Scorching Ray have the lines "If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures." and "The rays may be fired at the same or different targets" strongly implies that all other spells that have multiple targets don't let you choose the same target more than once; if it were a general rule, similar text would be on either all spells of this sort or none of them. It ought to be directly stated, but I think it's clear enough that three nines of people would agree that you can't stack spell effects of any sort without that line.1I should probably comment on the actual class; I don't have too much to say, though I do like the class, especially the new versions of Smite and Detect Evil. Would the new Detect still ping on a black dragon that happened to be Good?

[Ziegander]

Would the new Detect still ping on a black dragon that happened to be Good?

Um... probably not? That's a very campaign-specific question. If the DM decides to ignore the alignment entry of Black Dragons that says Black Dragons are always evil and tosses a Good Black Dragon at the players, then, by virtue of said Good Black Dragon's existence, all Black Dragons are not always evil. That being the case, then, in that campaign, no, the new Detect would not ping on that Good Black Dragon (or any other Black Dragons in that campaign for that matter).

[Garryl]

Alignment entries of Always X are still only 90-something% (95% or 99%, I think) according to the MM. So, the vast majority, but not the entirety. AFB at the moment, so I can't confirm it, though.

[Ziegander]

Alignment entries of Always X are still only 90-something% (95% or 99%, I think) according to the MM. So, the vast majority, but not the entirety. AFB at the moment, so I can't confirm it, though.

Hrm, well if that's true, then I suppose it would ping against a Good Black Dragon. Shrug. It doesn't particularly bother me that way.

[Straybow]

But you have to read the description to know what the spell does in the first place. That's not a valid concern. I did read the description: "You channel positive energy to cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) in each selected creature."

So how do you select creatures? "Target: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart"

So how do you target multiple creatures? "Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell."

So now I've cast the spell and I'm selecting targets. Nothing says no target is effected until all targets are selected. The duration is instantaneous, so once selected by touch the target could be effected immediately. Nothing prohibits touching the same creature again, as written.


Thinking outside the box is one thing. Evaluating someone else's homebrew class on the basis of how your own homebrew interpretation of the rules works is quite another. Not really... this multiple touch issue for mass cure came to mind when I studied the new d20 spells the first time (that was 2003 when 3.5 came out). I never considered that might not be the way others read it.

[Ziegander]

Nothing prohibits touching the same creature again, as written.

You're absolutely right. Nothing prohibits you from touching the same creature again. Using that logic, nothing in the spellcasting/targeting rules prohibits you from touching one creature any number of times whenever you cast any touch-based spell, regardless of how many targets there are. When you cast Shocking Grasp, you can touch the same creature 400 times with that standard action if you really want to. The only thing that matters here is that you do not copy the spell for each touch. That is an absurd interpretation that is not supported by any rules. Whether you touch a creature once or a thousand times, the first time you touch it you designate it as a target of the spell. Unless the spell says otherwise, a creature can only be targeted by the same spell once. Like I said earlier in the thread, generally, this is a binary state: either a creature (or object) is a target or it is not a target. Logic dictates that one creature (or object) cannot be more than one target unless the spell specifically says so.

[Straybow]

You're absolutely right. Nothing prohibits you from touching the same creature again. Using that logic, nothing in the spellcasting/targeting rules prohibits you from touching one creature any number of times whenever you cast any touch-based spell, regardless of how many targets there are. When you cast Shocking Grasp, you can touch the same creature 400 times with that standard action if you really want to. The only thing that matters here is that you do not copy the spell for each touch. That argument would work... if shocking grasp were not targeted to a singular "Creature or object touched." Once that singular creature is touched the spell is discharged and it doesn't matter what you touch.


That is an absurd interpretation that is not supported by any rules. Whether you touch a creature once or a thousand times, the first time you touch it you designate it as a target of the spell. Unless the spell says otherwise, a creature can only be targeted by the same spell once. Like I said earlier in the thread, generally, this is a binary state: either a creature (or object) is a target or it is not a target. Logic dictates that one creature (or object) cannot be more than one target unless the spell specifically says so. Yes, generally, that is true because of the description of the spell as something that doesn't have stacking effect as written, and then the corresponding rule indicates that targeting more than once just means only the final instance has any effect. Wording that rule in that way indicates that targeting a creature more than once is not logically excluded.

Logic does not dictate that a spell with multiple targets cannot target the same creature more than once unless something in the wording compels that interpretation. For example, chain lightning specifically says no creature may be targeted more than once. It is clear that the "one secondary target per level" is a sequential effect and it could double back to hit a target again if not prohibited. On the other hand, teleport says that you bring a number of creatures with you by touch, and obviously all selected creatures travel simultaneously. The effect is not clearly simultaneous for mass cure, nor is it clearly sequential.

Sometimes the desire to be concise is the enemy of clarity. It should be spelled out if in any way unclear.

[Ziegander]

That argument would work... if shocking grasp were not targeted to a singular "Creature or object touched." Once that singular creature is touched the spell is discharged and it doesn't matter what you touch.

Dude. It's very simple. You cast a spell. It has an effect. It has an effect once. Not an arbitrary number of times based on the number of targets. It has one effect among an arbitrary number of chosen targets. A creature or object is either a target or it isn't.

Also, you keep talking about "touching" and "touching multiple targets" as if those words and phrases somehow apply to Mass Cure X Wounds. They don't. You don't touch any of the chosen targets (or you don't have to, I suppose you could if you wanted).

Here's how casting an instantaneous spell works, you choose the targets as part of the action of casting the spell, and then, for each target, the effect occurs simultaneously. Even if you had cast a spell that can target multiple creatures and you actually did have to touch all of the potential targets, then you make all of those touches as part of the action required to cast the spell and then the effect occurs once for each chosen target.

I can't comprehend how this doesn't make sense to you, or how it is "logical" to you that one creature can be three targets unless the spell says otherwise. 1 =/= 3. That's logic. What you're trying to twist into being "logical" is insanity. Yes, WotC accounted for the possibility that, by using strange applications of spell effects, a single creature or object might be targeted by the same spell more than once. This is called an exception. Accounting for exceptions doesn't make completely logical statements like, "a single creature or object can only be a single target" somehow false, it merely allows them to design spells that are also exceptions and have precedent in their Magic Overview.

[Straybow]

Dude. It's very simple. I agree that it is logical to interpret it that way, but since it isn't written that way, anywhere, it isn't a rule. That means it isn't simple, however much one may desire a simple solution. One logical reading does not preclude other readings from being equally logical. That is the nature of language and thought, that equally valid conclusions must find resolution by convention or revision of the ambiguous statement.


Also, you keep talking about "touching" and "touching multiple targets" as if those words and phrases somehow apply to Mass Cure X Wounds. They don't. You don't touch any of the chosen targets (or you don't have to, I suppose you could if you wanted). No, that is the point. You can designate targets that way if desired, which leaves the matter open within the rules. As I said, it was the first thing that occurred to me when reading the mass cure spell as written. Convention may well have been established to head the issue off at the pass, I don't think anybody here knows. But we do know it wasn't amended in the 3.5 release. It could be hidden in the depths of Sage Advice archives, but a simple search didn't turn up anything.


Here's how casting an instantaneous spell works, you choose the targets as part of the action of casting the spell, and then, for each target, the effect occurs simultaneously. Even if you had cast a spell that can target multiple creatures and you actually did have to touch all of the potential targets, then you make all of those touches as part of the action required to cast the spell and then the effect occurs once for each chosen target. By convention that is correct, as I have conceded. But that is not RAW, is it? You have searched the SRD, and your memory of all your printed source books. No rule has turned up.


Yes, WotC accounted for the possibility that, by using strange applications of spell effects, a single creature or object might be targeted by the same spell more than once. This is called an exception. Accounting for exceptions doesn't make completely logical statements like, "a single creature or object can only be a single target" somehow false, it merely allows them to design spells that are also exceptions and have precedent in their Magic Overview. No, they didn't account for it as a possibility, since it isn't mentioned one way or the other in the general rule. It is left open.

Nor is it "strange" given that a first level spell has worked that way since AD&D, or maybe even original D&D. It is left open.

They did not specify either way in the general rule, therefore neither way is a default. It is left open.

If there is no default then neither case is an exception. It is something that needs to be clarified in the individual spell description given the absence of a stated default. Otherwise, it is still left open.

They covered the matter for effects that don't "stack," but healing "stacks." That still leaves the matter open within the rules.


I can't comprehend how this doesn't make sense to you, or how it is "logical" to you that one creature can be three targets unless the spell says otherwise. 1 =/= 3. That's logic. A creature could be targeted more than once, logically, or else it would never have to be forbidden in the description. But it is stated in many cases to preclude the logical option of targeting more than once. The mass cure spell is not described as taking effect the way you have described. Every other case you have cited is worded differently and is covered by specific rules. This one isn't covered in the rules.

One can appeal ad populum to establish by convention, or ad consequentiam by citing possible bad results of the interpretation, or ex silentio in that it is not stated clearly that way. None of these are valid logic to exclude another reading. I have already conceded to the convention but you guys keep arguing the fallacies. As written, mass cure does not exclude repeat targeting.

I understand the desire to buttress convention with supposedly infallible logic. People do it all the time without the benefit of consensus and with less convincing arguments. This logic as derived from the RAW isn't exclusive, it is inclusive. Both are logically valid interpretations, but only one has the weight of convention.

Don't be afraid to stand on convention, it is part of the game. If someone comes along and finds a loophole that nobody else has brought up, just say, "I never saw that before... we don't do it that way because of this and that." If you instead attack with faulty reasoning, the argument never ends...

[eftexar]

Guess I'll get in on the argument about targets:Actually look at what you said straybow,


I did read the description: "You channel positive energy to cure 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) in each selected creature."

So how do you select creatures? "Target: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart"

So how do you target multiple creatures? "Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell."

, with the quoted areas directly from the Players Handbook itself.

A target is defined as "any point or area aimed at; the object of an attack or a takeover bid." We could go with several other definitions, but they all refer to a single object by virtue of their grammer. By this we can derive that each object (or creature) is a target. Multiple targets would include multiple points or multiple objects.

Beyond that the spell also says "one creature/level," so at level 5 you could target 5 creatures. Creatures ends with an s and so is plural. Plural meaning multiple creatures.

Proper English grammar dictates, through several nuances here, that it must target multiple different targets.

Edit > But beyond that is the issue of balance. I'm not going to go into the specifics, but after over a year of homebrewing I have read the rules inside and out and have an extensive idea of balance. While obviously I don't agree with many people on some issues, I think most people would agree with me on this one.
There are certain things that are just completely unbalanced. Even if what you said was true no sane DM would allow it (so lets just assume you are for a moment for the sake of the following argument). Spells are already insanely powerful compared to other options, without applying the idea that you can target the same creature multiple times. I'm sure there is a damaging spell that work similarly (at level 8 or 9 no less), and probably deals more damage than that spell heals. Can you imagine what even low level spells could do?
Beyond that cure spells work that way then why does the mass version heal less or the same amount as the non-mass version at similar levels? From a design standpoint that is just redundant and a waste. And as many things as wotc screwed up, being redundant was not one of them.
I'm not saying there aren't broken spells (limited wish, wish, miracle, and every power word spell out there), but what you say isn't explicitly written and doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things.


But back to whats important at hand, ziegander's class:
I think the changes you made work quite well and the balance is great, specifically how you did smite evil. Increasing save DCs against evil targets was pretty ingenious. While it is a bit more powerful than the duskblade, the duskblade in my opinion, had a too limited range of options.
I'm curious why you didn't add in some sort of oath though. One of my favorite iterations of a paladin oath was thecipherthe3vil's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230354).

[Straybow]

We shall whisper quietly, so as not to disturb the readers who wish to ignore the debate:

Beyond that the spell also says "one creature/level," so at level 5 you could target 5 creatures. Creatures ends with an s and so is plural. Plural meaning multiple creatures.

Proper English grammar dictates, through several nuances here, that it must target multiple different targets. By that logic, "creatures" only requires two targets, and those two could be targeted multiple times... but that wasn't then and isn't now my point. It is that there is no default for whether a spell targeting multiple creatures can or cannot target a creature more than once. It is up to the spell description, and when the spell description fails to specify, the matter is open.


There are certain things that are just completely unbalanced. Even if what you said was true no sane DM would allow it. Spells are already insanely powerful compared to other options, without applying the idea that you can target the same creature multiple times.

I'm sure there is a damaging spell that deals similar, and probably more damage, can you imagine what even low level spells would deal. Ah, so the hold-up for you is over mass inflict... In that case, the issue is somewhat or completely nerfed.

My reading is dependent on the ability to select those targets by touch. To touch an unwilling subject requires a touch attack, which is then governed by the rules for touch attacks. Everything I can find indicates touch is a singular attack. If that is the case, the matter is moot.

Even if a full touch attack were possible, the attacks would be subject to full attack rules and limits. Now you're down to one target only, with only two or three touches for a non-fighter, or four as a high level Pally. If all four succeed it is powerful, but you've earned it with four touch attacks.

Then we apply rule zero: each touch attack in the sequence should provoke a separate AoO from the target. The first attack and AoO are subject to the normal rules and limits for AoOs, so if the target has used up all AoOs he's out of luck. The extended AoOs apply outside the target's limits on opportunity attacks, and feats that normally allow touches without provoking don't apply. Call it the default "I dare you to stick your hand out again" feat, part of the character's pre-adolescent playground training.

[gorfnab]

5th level spell suggestion: Atonement.