[Spell] Holy Sword

[Larethiel]

A level 4 paladin-spell. It allows the paladin to channel holy power into his/her sword, or any other melee weapon he/she chooses.

The weapon acts as a +5 holy weapon (+5 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls, extra 2d6 damage against evil opponents). It also emits a magic circle against evil effect (as the spell). If the magic circle ends, the sword creates a new one on your turn as a free action. The spell is automatically canceled 1 round after the weapon leaves your hand. You cannot have more than one holy sword at a time.

If this spell is cast on a magic weapon, the powers of the spell supercede any that the weapon normally has, rendering the normal enhancement bonus and powers of the weapon inoperative for the duration of the spell. This spell is not cumulative with bless weapon or any other spell that might modify the weapon in any way. This spell does not work on artifacts. A masterwork weapon's bonus to attack does not stack with an enhancement bonus to attack.

Maybe add a limit to the duration of this spell/prayer.

[Hrosskell]

I really like this spell, although I'd recommend that it be tuned down a bit at lower levels of training--as it stands, the biggest weapons I've seen thus far are masterwork elemental weapons; the elemental portion of their enchantment translates to roughly +3.5 damage on average, the masterwork giving +1 to hit. This could scale at +1/+1 at the lower skill levels, +2/+2 and +3/+3 at medium skill levels, then +4/+4 and +5/+5 at the highest skill levels--assuming that once those skill levels were obtained that the game would have progressed to similar alternatives. Adding it as a flat +5/+5 off the bat would give a massive power advantage to the mostly-martial paladin class, who weren't doing so bad the last time I fought one. Given, that was Andreas vs. Hrosskell and some time ago now, so maybe those with a better idea of how paladins stand (or class balance at large) now could chime in.

[Aldren]

I'd support this whether or not the bonuses are changed. Sorry Hrosskell, but your information is very out of date and paladins, as they stand now, are shrimp in the shadows of a modern fighter. As it is, paladin skills are very hindered (up to 4th attack), their abilities are weak (layonhands fails roughly 75% of the time, call mount fails 4/5 attempts) and their spells are lackluster at best (cure serious wounds is like putting a bandage over a pouring head wound).

Something like this would add to the flavour and ability of a class already lacking. In my opinion, they are the melee class who has seen the fewest changes over the years. Rogues and thieves have had bonus feats come in, crippling strike, arterial strike, etc. Rangers now have full dual wield feat trees. Fighters now receive roughly 2000* feat points before they are finished leveling. Wizards are still ungodly powerful.

Whether or not the bonuses are changed, I would support this to help out knights. Yes, they need help. No, they don't stand a chance against another fully-armoured melee combatant when they should be an equal if not a superior. I like this idea in any form it takes.

*information may or may not be accurate.

[Nylo]

I don't have a paladin but I absolutely support this. Paladins are supposed to be the champions of their deities, and they have an rp challenge like no other. They should have the abilities commensurate with that. Plus it's SRD.

[Alexan]

...
Fighters now receive roughly 2000* feat points before they are finished leveling.
...

*information may or may not be accurate.

I think Fighters got a bump up in the last update.


But more seriously, I support this. Holy sword is a massively useful spell that literally translates to the beliefs of the paladin (much like a smite). It allows imbuing themselves with goodness in an attempt to defeat overwhelming evil, which is kind of their specialty.

[Gwain]

I agree with Aldren. If anything the small number of Paladins will guarantee that abuse of this feat or ability/spell is non-existent. As Paladin knights are natural leaders, they should host powers that allow them to effectively support and contribute to groups in a fashion that is both essential and sought after, much like clerics, wizards or even fighters. This seems like a way to do that.

[Isolrem]

I am absolutely for paladins being able to evoke +5 weapons, with even some better buffs. But +2d6 irresistible damage against evil on every hit? Assuming 18 strength and a 1d8 longsword, that's an average of 20.5 damage per hit, about double that of a fighter with 20 strength and the best "regular" +3 weapon found in game. Even with fifth attacks it seems an insurmountable disadvantage for evils. How about 1d4 or something.

[Nylo]

I don't see why that's a problem. Of course they're extremely powerful against evil opponents, they are champions of their deities. They are already nerfed enough, why would we want to limit the potential they should have? ICly, as an evil fighter I should not even have a chance of defeating one in combat. As it stands currently, fighters are much more powerful.

[Hrosskell]

I don't see how it's IC for one person to beat another person because of class when class selection is an OOC decision. In my opinion, if PvP is going to be a standard for comparisons or even just a regular occurrence, we should strive for class balance.

[Grenwyn]

I don't see how it's IC for one person to beat another person because of class when class selection is an OOC decision. In my opinion, if PvP is going to be a standard for comparisons or even just a regular occurrence, we should strive for class balance.

The roleplay of the paladin class versus the fighter class is an IC decision though, and one that takes a lot of effort. It makes sense that there would be some IC compensation for that.

[Hrosskell]

I disagree. In DND, there is no extra mile to leap--the standards we have here are imposed for OOC reasons, ensuring our paladins meet a minimum standard of roleplay. It doesn't mean that every single paladin automatically does more roleplay than every other character--just that he has minimum standards to adhere to. I dare say that in most cases this is a boon; "how does my paladin react in X situation" is covered almost entirely by the paladin code.

[Enig]

Well, if a paladin gains an average of about +6 damage vs. evil opponents that doesn't strike me as too unbalanced compared to a fighter's bonus of +4 damage vs. all opponents (via weapon specialisation). Though I could agree with reducing the enhancement bonus to something more in-line with current FK loot, ie +2 or +3.

I don't see how it's IC for one person to beat another person because of class when class selection is an OOC decision. In my opinion, if PvP is going to be a standard for comparisons or even just a regular occurrence, we should strive for class balance.

For what it's worth this reads as complete nonsense to me. If your character doesn't have enough history to have logically ICly chosen their profession at one point, you're doing it wrong, and as with any IC choice there are pros and cons. A bard might be more well-liked, but less able to defend themselves. A fighter may be more generally useful (weapon specialisation) but less useful against specific opponents than, say, a paladin (vs. evil), a cleric (vs. undead), or a wizard (vs. physical resistant enemies like golems).

[Alitar]

PvP can at times play like rock/paper/scissors but I'm not sure that should be intentional. We don't have the whole class list here so we're still missing bits from the rock/paper/scissors equation.
I love the idea of this spell but I think that +5 is fairly excessive. In Canon anyone could get that and be able to compete. Here it's not the same. I'd rather see the /real/ issues with Paladins get fixed. They shouldn't be failing their lay on hands or their call mount as often as they have been, or at all really.

[Althasizor]

+5 is excessive in the hands of a fighter for sure. I wouldn't say it is for a paladin, though. For one, they go through a lot of well-done RP just to get to the point they'd be able to cast this spell(Over nine months to even become a paladin), something that fighters do not have to do no matter how well the player of said fighter can roleplay. And yes, I think they should be rewarded for it. They also have to spread their stat points out more evenly than fighters do, even though I'm sure there's high wisdom fighters out there somewhere. Fighters get bonus feats, greater weapon specialisation, etc..

But there's more to the game than PvP, and there's no reason to make it into a class vs. class thing. I've seen (and heard of) paladins getting harried by things in PvE that most others just run over. Which isn't to argue that the class is weak, just that it could use some love. With that said, and not having a paladin or squire myself, I think this spell sounds awesome. And more important than "look at me blast this thing apart with my glory sword of amazing divine favour", I think that it could add something to their RP as Holy Champions. I'd be all for it.

Alitar does bring up a good point about lay on hands and the like, but not as an alternative to progress and evolution of the classes.

[Alitar]

I've been thinking about this more and more and I've decided I was wrong in my last post on the accounts of balance. I played about with the math a little and with how much Paladins currently suffer, a +5 bonus weapon spell really might be exactly what is required to level the playing field for them. As for the bonus they recieve against evils, they are the Champions of Good. I genuinely believe Evils should be loathe to fight a Paladin. I genuinely hope that someday a Paladin beats my own evil villain alt but as it stands right now, that might just not be possible.

As well as having this appropriate canon spell added to their spell list, I really think that their skills need some adjustments. Lay on Hands failing is just mind-boggling to me.

[Valyn]

I was doing some looking at the Paladin spell lists. I saw this and agree - this spell should be part of the Paladin repertoire.

A Paladin's advantage over evil is what makes them a foe to be reckoned with beyond the danger of merely being a skilled warrior.

I don't think the damage ability of the current state of weapons is something that should be taken into account to evaluate whether or not this should be available to Paladins.

This bonus would be pretty massive in any tabletop campaign even with a higher magic world

[Briek]

Having read over this I can see some entirely sensible comments.

One theme that seems to come out of it is that Paladins aren't as potent against evils as they should be.

This is also reflected in smite evil being fairly pathetic?

I think it would be a good addition, although that said my opinion isn't entirely objective.