Wimpy paladin
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Well, since he has a sword, it might make sense for him to have some kind of blade damage.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Perhaps, but you would still expect the Holy Mace or whatever to do the appropriate impact damage. The problem is not so much that "Holy" attacks are inherently weaker then expected against the living, but that one expects an augmented weapon to act normally against units that have no particular weakness to it, and deal additional "special" damage to those that are. The same would apply to flaming arrows or a sword of ice; but the way resistance effects are done now that isn't practical and I don't see that changing.appleide wrote:Maybe, if you change the name of his holy sword to something else, because his sword IS holy, IMHO. maybe give him a staff or something...scott wrote:Well, since he has a sword, it might make sense for him to have some kind of blade damage.
As an alternative attack though, why not do away with the sword but let him keep his lance, make it Holy, and give him the option of striking without having to Charge and risk double retaliation? Don't know how dropping the sword would affect RIPLIB but as an alternative pick it should be legitimate and would make him uniquely different from either the Grand Knight or Lancer.
Or, you could drop the Lance, give him a normal sword to use against the living and a Holy Mornginstar with lowered damage against the living but strength on the Undead. Either way, keep the healing, it's one of the things one does tend to asscoiate with Paladins/Templars.
-
Chris Byler
- Posts: 99
- Joined: April 14th, 2005, 2:32 pm
- Location: Blacksburg, VA, USA
I don't understand why making the sword holy causes it to lose its sharpness. Surely it could be used as a holy attack OR a blade attack, whichever is more damaging against a particular foe? Wesnoth doesn't currently support weapons that do more than one type of damage, so multipurpose weapons are represented as two "weapons" - in this case, the holy sword used as an instrument of righteous justice, or the same holy sword used as a sharp piece of steel. It's no different than a Halberdier having multiple "weapons" to represent different ways of wielding his one weapon.
The "right" fix would be to allow a weapon to have multiple damage types and automatically apply the target's lowest resistence among all the types, which I think is what ChowGuy is getting at too - but that would involve recoding which nobody wants to do right now (and possibly ever). Splitting it into multiple weapons is a reasonable workaround and it's not like that would give the Paladin unmanageably many weapons - three (counting the lance) is no more than many other units have.
I agree that he should keep the heal, even though its usefulness is marginal, it fits him flavor-wise and is better than nothing.
The "right" fix would be to allow a weapon to have multiple damage types and automatically apply the target's lowest resistence among all the types, which I think is what ChowGuy is getting at too - but that would involve recoding which nobody wants to do right now (and possibly ever). Splitting it into multiple weapons is a reasonable workaround and it's not like that would give the Paladin unmanageably many weapons - three (counting the lance) is no more than many other units have.
I agree that he should keep the heal, even though its usefulness is marginal, it fits him flavor-wise and is better than nothing.
I seem to be a bit odd in actually prefering the Paladin to the Grand Knight, mainly because he has healing. Unlike the White Mage or it's upgrade, I can rush him over the map from one front to the other to provide healing where it's needed the most (when it's not a cave map or something). If I concentrate several PAL units the healing can be quite effective, and I can also use a couple as a fast flanking unit whose members can heal each other. I have to admit, though, that he isn't very useful as a frontline unit, besides flanking in areas with low enemy activity.
For flanking, I find the GKN to be too slow, and as a melee unit, he just doesn't cut it in any way, IMO. The charge attack has the major downside of making the unit take a LOT of additional incoming damage, making it practically worthless. Maybe it would be more useful if the enemy could only retaliate as often as I attack, but this is not the case, and thus in most situations, I consider the whole attack method worthless.
But I disgress, maybe I should post about this in "Ideas".
Suming up my point, I like the Paladin, though giving him Illuminates certainly would improve his usability, if only by a tiny bit.
For flanking, I find the GKN to be too slow, and as a melee unit, he just doesn't cut it in any way, IMO. The charge attack has the major downside of making the unit take a LOT of additional incoming damage, making it practically worthless. Maybe it would be more useful if the enemy could only retaliate as often as I attack, but this is not the case, and thus in most situations, I consider the whole attack method worthless.
But I disgress, maybe I should post about this in "Ideas".
Suming up my point, I like the Paladin, though giving him Illuminates certainly would improve his usability, if only by a tiny bit.
rezaf
"This pisses me off!"
Urinal, the Elvish Marshal
"This pisses me off!"
Urinal, the Elvish Marshal
[qote]I seem to be a bit odd in actually prefering the Paladin to the Grand Knight, mainly because he has healing. [/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. In my case it's not so much preferring the Paladin as it is, as seeing it as a viable addition. In campaigns at least it's nice to your choice of units for the starting lineup, and even a minor healer that unlike the Shaman can keep up with your front line and hold his place in it is definately an asset.
But I digress. Short of such changes we are left with either giving the Paladin two "uses" of the what is essentially the same weapon ala the Orcish Archer's bow 5-3 (Pierce) or 5-2 (Fire), or giving him a completely different bu in-charcter weapon choice. As a newbie at least I dislike the first; it might not be as hard to remember without checking the Damage Calculator who's more susceptible to Holy as it is to Fire, but general Principles apply. An impact mace versus a blade on the other hand is entirely appropriate choice for a [fast] mounted unit. More so really then Sword versus Lance since you can realatively easily change a single-handed hand weapon, but dropping and picking up a Lance in battle is not conducive to long life. GH can be allowed to get away with it since one assumes that like most heavy cavalry he dismounts to stand and fight, but the Paladin isn't desribed that why.
Likewise the Lance (Charge) doesn't really fit the generally less-agressive impression of a Paladin, and does nothing towards making him a better defender. My choice for an easily applied improvement then would be an 9-4 Sword, slightly short of the GH 8-5, but lose the Lance and go with a Holy impact-type. Possibly with a ranges ranged versus short option, which is why I suggestted the Morningstar although a auto-return throwable hammer ala Molinjer might work. Perhaps 9-3 nominal (7-3 effective againt most units, but nearly three time that against the Undead). That would still be a decent weapon for a Level 3, particularly if it had a 9-1 or so ranged option as that would give hime that much better defense against archers. Throw in an extra 1 move, and you might very well have a "preferred" unit.
I don't see either Illuminate or Leadership as appropriate though. Leadership is not since as others have noted, Leadership implies giving combat advice to others, which is not the normal role of a Paladin. Not to mention suddenly getting third level Leadership makes a major tactical change in how one uses Level 1's.
Likewise, although a Paladin takes priestly values, he is not himself a priest so I don't se "holyness" magically eminating from him which is basically what Illuminate infers. A morale boost that adds 10% or so defense to all adjacent friendly units day or night might be appropriate, but AFIK that's not currently supported by the code either.
Maybe, maybe not. In my case it's not so much preferring the Paladin as it is, as seeing it as a viable addition. In campaigns at least it's nice to your choice of units for the starting lineup, and even a minor healer that unlike the Shaman can keep up with your front line and hold his place in it is definately an asset.
Something like that, though what I had in mind was something more akin to what we see in other systems where the "enhancement" only affects certain units while the weapon acts normally for all others. In Nethack for example both Flame Brand and Frost Brand look and for the most part like normal Longswords other then the +d5 To Hit in that they use the same skill, but it's not the TH enchancement that makes them valuable, it's the X2 against Fire Hating/Cold Hating cretures, which is also why Frost Brand is a much better weapon in Hades where the big heavies are Cold Hating but Fire Immune Demons. But as you say that would require not code changes in the engine, but retweaking [/i]all[/i] of the unit's to account for new attributes since BfW's combat system based on damage types rather then weapon types is different from NH's. Damage types is good, because it's never made sense to me why a cutting weapon like a Longsword should be equally effective against armored opponents who should be attacked with impact weapons (that's why Greatswords were so heavy) but OTOH BfW does not have Weapon Skills which was a "stand up and applaud" addition to NH back when since it's also never made sense to why experience won from fighting with a bow or axe should automatically apply to picking up a sword or mace and vice versa. Perhaps in a perfect system we would see both, but that's probably for the next generation.The "right" fix would be to allow a weapon to have multiple damage types and automatically apply the target's lowest resistence among all the types, which I think is what ChowGuy is getting at too
But I digress. Short of such changes we are left with either giving the Paladin two "uses" of the what is essentially the same weapon ala the Orcish Archer's bow 5-3 (Pierce) or 5-2 (Fire), or giving him a completely different bu in-charcter weapon choice. As a newbie at least I dislike the first; it might not be as hard to remember without checking the Damage Calculator who's more susceptible to Holy as it is to Fire, but general Principles apply. An impact mace versus a blade on the other hand is entirely appropriate choice for a [fast] mounted unit. More so really then Sword versus Lance since you can realatively easily change a single-handed hand weapon, but dropping and picking up a Lance in battle is not conducive to long life. GH can be allowed to get away with it since one assumes that like most heavy cavalry he dismounts to stand and fight, but the Paladin isn't desribed that why.
Likewise the Lance (Charge) doesn't really fit the generally less-agressive impression of a Paladin, and does nothing towards making him a better defender. My choice for an easily applied improvement then would be an 9-4 Sword, slightly short of the GH 8-5, but lose the Lance and go with a Holy impact-type. Possibly with a ranges ranged versus short option, which is why I suggestted the Morningstar although a auto-return throwable hammer ala Molinjer might work. Perhaps 9-3 nominal (7-3 effective againt most units, but nearly three time that against the Undead). That would still be a decent weapon for a Level 3, particularly if it had a 9-1 or so ranged option as that would give hime that much better defense against archers. Throw in an extra 1 move, and you might very well have a "preferred" unit.
I don't see either Illuminate or Leadership as appropriate though. Leadership is not since as others have noted, Leadership implies giving combat advice to others, which is not the normal role of a Paladin. Not to mention suddenly getting third level Leadership makes a major tactical change in how one uses Level 1's.
Likewise, although a Paladin takes priestly values, he is not himself a priest so I don't se "holyness" magically eminating from him which is basically what Illuminate infers. A morale boost that adds 10% or so defense to all adjacent friendly units day or night might be appropriate, but AFIK that's not currently supported by the code either.
Yes, probably. Perhaps one the the friendly Mods could move this thread there?But I disgress, maybe I should post about this in "Ideas".
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
No, Illuminates is nothing but light. And WINR anyway.ChowGuy wrote:Likewise, although a Paladin takes priestly values, he is not himself a priest so I don't se "holyness" magically eminating from him which is basically what Illuminate infers.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
I take Illuminates as the presence that makes others feel more comfortable or brave in battle. Leadership would be the effectiveness gained by the tactical commandment of a superior.
Yes, i think illuminates would do well.
Also, i'm not sure as to how much a charge fits a Paladin. Although they should be very brave, i'm not usre it would be the piercing lance charge, but more like an engagement charge. How well it would fare giving him a holy hammer/mace and a common sword for his battles?.
Yes, i think illuminates would do well.
Also, i'm not sure as to how much a charge fits a Paladin. Although they should be very brave, i'm not usre it would be the piercing lance charge, but more like an engagement charge. How well it would fare giving him a holy hammer/mace and a common sword for his battles?.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me 
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Like make his lance into a Holy Mace and his sword into a bladed sword, so he does a holy charge? That would be cool. It would make his (ex-)lance more used, I think...
It would still have RIPLIB concerns, which is why the Grand Knight should have 8 moves.
It would still have RIPLIB concerns, which is why the Grand Knight should have 8 moves.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
I was accounting that a paladin charges not for piercing through the enemy (thereby enhancing danger for himself) but just until he gets to the enemies to fight them them. The Paladin wouldn't have (charge) special but a holy mace as a side weapon. Althought both options have merit.
I just thought of something extreme. How much would cost to make (holy) a weapon special?. It could work by making a calculation of which deals more damage, and choosing it for fighting. Then, when the holy damage doesn't surpass common damage, it means the enemy wouldn't feel the "holy smite", but if he isn't exactly lawful (undead) then the "holy smite" would fall with its complete power over the enemy.
Your weapon IS holy. But only those who really deserve it will recieve the holy smite. Its not up to you to decide who is unholy and who isn't.
I just thought of something extreme. How much would cost to make (holy) a weapon special?. It could work by making a calculation of which deals more damage, and choosing it for fighting. Then, when the holy damage doesn't surpass common damage, it means the enemy wouldn't feel the "holy smite", but if he isn't exactly lawful (undead) then the "holy smite" would fall with its complete power over the enemy.
Your weapon IS holy. But only those who really deserve it will recieve the holy smite. Its not up to you to decide who is unholy and who isn't.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Too many people here are criticizing the Paladin's holy sword from a realism perspective; however, in terms of gameplay, it's fine, albeit a bit weak.
Yes, the Paladin should get illuminates (only), but on the following conditions:
Yes, the Paladin should get illuminates (only), but on the following conditions:
- It should get silvery-white armor with its holy sword held up, illuminating the area
- Its holy sword attack is increased to 9-5
- The Grand Knight gets 8 moves (that's right EP) to balance out the Paladin's new powers
- It takes 135 exp to level up to either of them since both are now more powerful
Last edited by Gamabunta on September 13th, 2005, 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
khamul
- Posts: 164
- Joined: February 28th, 2005, 5:21 pm
- Location: Somewhere solid, looking for a long enough lever
Slight variation on the theme - keep the Paladin's attacks as they are now, but make the sword magical. Maybe drop the number of attacks by 1 to compensate.
That way you get to choose between the Grand Knight, with the potential to do more damage, or the faster, lighter, and more accurate Paladin. The sword's already Holy, so it's clearly not normal - I think having it magical would fit.
The Paladin would become the melee unit of choice against elusivefoot - for example, a way to deal with Orcish Assassins without being poisoned - but not that much better otherwise. It's still cavalry, so you still can't take it into high defense terrains like hills and forests without significant risk, so it'll mostly be fighting units on plains, where the CTH isn't that much improved. But it gives you more options in rooting units out of villages, or anchoring your line against hills, etc.
That said, I like the illuminates idea too.
That way you get to choose between the Grand Knight, with the potential to do more damage, or the faster, lighter, and more accurate Paladin. The sword's already Holy, so it's clearly not normal - I think having it magical would fit.
The Paladin would become the melee unit of choice against elusivefoot - for example, a way to deal with Orcish Assassins without being poisoned - but not that much better otherwise. It's still cavalry, so you still can't take it into high defense terrains like hills and forests without significant risk, so it'll mostly be fighting units on plains, where the CTH isn't that much improved. But it gives you more options in rooting units out of villages, or anchoring your line against hills, etc.
That said, I like the illuminates idea too.
If life gives you Lions, Make Lionade.
-
Casual User
- Posts: 475
- Joined: March 11th, 2005, 5:05 pm
Good morning!
7-5 holy damage, even with magical, is too weak for a level 3 unit. It would make the knight deal strictly more damage in nearly all situations except undead. I also don't see why paladins would be so effective at flushing people out of a castle...
A holy charge... That would be rather great against undead. I remember there once was a suggestion to make the sword bladed and the lance holy. I still think illuminates has more tactical depth though.
About the 8 moves grand knight, I don't know ... maybe, but I rather like the way he gets lower movement, it's more realistic.
Heals really is too weak. Any unit which has fought at least once will probably have lost 4 hp, and since heals is limited to 8 healing a turn, you would usually just make each unit heal 1 or 2 hp. A grand knight could prevent that damage, or more of it, by eliminating more sources of damage...
7-5 holy damage, even with magical, is too weak for a level 3 unit. It would make the knight deal strictly more damage in nearly all situations except undead. I also don't see why paladins would be so effective at flushing people out of a castle...
A holy charge... That would be rather great against undead. I remember there once was a suggestion to make the sword bladed and the lance holy. I still think illuminates has more tactical depth though.
About the 8 moves grand knight, I don't know ... maybe, but I rather like the way he gets lower movement, it's more realistic.
Heals really is too weak. Any unit which has fought at least once will probably have lost 4 hp, and since heals is limited to 8 healing a turn, you would usually just make each unit heal 1 or 2 hp. A grand knight could prevent that damage, or more of it, by eliminating more sources of damage...
But heals + illuminates wouldn't be too weak while avoiding the usage problems of giving cures to a front-line fighter. I think you should fix the bladed/holy damage first, then see if it needs illuminates or something. There's no reason to be drastic.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Wesnoth acronym guide.