As Jason Bulmahn has indicated a narrow remaining window of time in which he will be paying attention to these 3 core classes, now's my chance, mwahhahhah!
The Cleric became the baseline of comparison to which all other spellcasters are measured in 3e, which remains true in the Pathfinder Beta rules set.
'Average' attack progression, two good saves, solid hit points, no worries about somantic spell failure, basic weapons proficiency (plus their Gawds' weapon of choice if it isn't already a simple one), heavy body armor and shields proficiency and full spellcasting prowess add up to a formidable character.
Add in Channelled Energy and Domain Powers, things get ugly.
Channelled Energy in and of itself is not an overpowering ability, so far from my limited playtest it has not been a "deal breaker".
Domain Abilities now, are another matter. The whole "listed spells" part appears to be erroneous (page 22), as there are none in the Pathfinder Beta hardcopy I'm perusing. However, a cleric gets TWO domains, each granting abilities of varying significance at levels 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20th totaling a whopping 14 abilities at 20th level!
I do believe that the Domains' abilities will quickly shed light on ones that become more heavily played than others, generally due to combat effectiveness. In particular the Magic Domain's Hand of the Acolyte is effectively the same as the generalist Wizard's Hand of the Apprentice, which rather rubs that in the poor Wizard's face given the Cleric's better BAB and presumably comparable primary ability modifiers.
By comparison to the Wizard's paltry 4 abilities from their one school at 20th level, this clearly needs to be corrected. By comparison to said Wizard's smaller attack bonus, smaller HD, ONE good saving throw, utter lack of armor/shield/weapon proficiencies and nominal concerns about somatic spell failures ... why bother playing a Wizard again ?
The Sorceror does not fair much better, gaining 5 abilities and 3 bonus feats at 20th level, only a hair better than half of the bonus abilities a Cleric gains at virtually the same expense in AB, HD, saves and ability.
As things presently stand, the Cleric remains the King of the Mountain of spellcasters. Arcane casters are expendable artillery by comparison.
The Druid is an odd class, always has been. 4 skill points beats the mere 2 points clerics get and they retain almost as much durability in terms of hit points, saving throw bonuses, body armor, shields and weaponry. They do not acquire the cleric's ability to use the heaviest armor, but Wild Shape renders that rather moot it would seem at a casual glance.
The Druid has better offensive output in general spellcasting than the Cleric does, but suffers in the curatives department in compensation.
All in all, the Druid core class in my estimate is fine as it stands compared the other core classes.
The Paladin, especially as revised by another post by Jason Bulmahn, is particularly effective against the classes' chosen foes. Based on the other posts I've seen, I do believe the Paladin will achieve a very desirable playability in due course.
As a bit of an experiment, I do want to examine the long-standing debate about a Paladin's melee prowess as compared to the Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger.
Lenny the 16th level Paladin, champion of Gawd, Smiter of Ebil, yadda yadda. Just like his Fighter brother, he's Human. Since STR and CHA are all that matter for a Paladin's offensive capability, we'll presume the pattern I've seen at the table for Paladins and assign Lenny's best two ability scores to them: STR 18 and after the Human ability score bonus a CHA of 18 as well. Thanks to level advancement and magic items, Lenny the Paladin has remembered he's the "Meat Shield of Gawd", adding 4 points of level advancement to his STR bringing it to just shy of the Fighter's at a score of 28 after a +6 STR item. He's also packing (at 16th level, he better be) a +6 CHA item, resulting in a CHA score of 24.
STR 28 (+9) and CHA 24 (+7) - not shabby at all. Same combat buff spells as before, tacking on a +6 attack bonus, +1 weapon damage bonus and an extra attack on a full attack action for Lenny. Base Attack of +16 and a +4 Greatsword sets Lenny up nicely. (Baseline Attack sequence of +35/+30/+25/+20/+35.)
FEATS: Lenny has selected Weapon Focus - Greatsword (1st level), Overhand Chop (Human), Backswing (7th level), Improved Critical - Greatsword (9th level), Vital Strike (11th level) and Devastating Blow (13th level). Note that unlike with the Barbarian and Fighter, not all of the Paladin's general feat slots were used - only most of them.
Altogether, Lenny is packing a baseline attack sequence of +36/+31/+26/+21/+36 dealing 2d6+18 Slashing, 17-20/x2 critical, with his +4 Greatsword and the weapon damage bonus from his buddies' buff spells. Presuming an AC 35 CR 18 foe, and rolling straight 9-11 on all six attack rolls, he connects on all but the next-to-last attack dealing an averaged total of 150 points. Assuming said foe is available for two rounds, that foe is disabled by the Paladin all by himself. Against an AC 35 opponent - 2 higher than expected for his character level as a 'routine' encounter - Lenny hits on nat 2+/nat 4+/nat 9+/nat 14+/nat 2+. Not shabby at all for a character lacking the higher attack bonus values his brothers the Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger have.
As usual, let us apply Lenny's feats and mix things up a bit.
Vital Strike cashiers his lowest attack bonus (+21) to tack on another +2d6 damage per swing. So, for nothing reliably lost except against the puniest lowest-AC foes, his average damage per full-round attack volley just leapt up another 35 points (+7 per attack for 5 attacks = 32 points each), totaling an averaged damage output of 160 points per full-round attack. Backswing makes that first swing nastier, adding another 14 points of damage on that first attack & increasing his per-round damage output to 174 hit points. Translation: generic CR 18 foe, AC 35, 300 hp, is killed not disabled, barring a CON of at least 70 or so or nearly 60 with the Diehard feat in two full-round attacks, all by himself.
Now we get to play with Lenny the Paladin's "big grin" goodies: Smite Evil and Divine Bond. Lenny the Paladin, like his brothers, is lazy about feeding pets and plants (and sometimes his own siblings), so he went with the 'holy weapon' option waay back at 5th level rather than muck around with another mouth to feed.
Smite Evil packs an additional +7 attack bonus and dealing either no additional damage , +16 additional damage or +8d6 additional damage <averaging an additional damage bonus of +28 points> with each of Lenny's lovely five attacks.
For the sake of simplicity, I am going with the averaged damage on the Smiting of Evil. 'Vanilla' Evil (+1 pt / lvl) totals 4d6+48 <62 points> on the first Backswing attack then 4d6+34 <48 points each> on each of the subsequent trio of attacks, totalling 206 hit points of damage in a single full-round attack. 'Extreme' Evil (the extra dice smiting) averages a total of 48 more points higher for the round, totalling 254 hit points in a single full-round attack. This literally doubles if Lenny was a crafty bugger and had - via luck or Bless Weapon - confirmed all four as critical hits: 508 hit points in one round. ouch...
Now let us turn to the Paladin's Divine Bond with his shiny +4 Greatsword, itself able to add on another +4 bonus' worth of goodies. Let us say that Lenny came into the fight with both the Holy and Axiomatic properties against a Chaotic Evil Outsider with the pertinent subtypes. These two beauties tack on another +4d6 bonus damage for each of Lenny's 4 attacks, totaling another 16d6 of damage that averages out at another 56 hit points for the 4-attack full round. Without either any criticals nor any misses, when smiting evil with this nasty weapon he's packing, Lenny the Paladin now averages 310 hit points of damage in a single round against a Chaotic Evil foe he's Smited mightily. Buh-bye oh demonic one ... we hardly new ye... sniffles.
Interesting post, but you didn't state what you felt needed to be done. I do however have the same sentiments about the Cleric as the be everything spell caster and in another thread suggested moving him to medium armor proficiency. As for the druid, a player in my campaign has been running one and it has not proved to be overpowering, but he also was never for min/maxing a character. I've always felt the Cleric had a lot more going for it than the wizard however the wizard in our party has still proved quite useful even at low levels.
Domain Abilities now, are another matter. The whole "listed spells" part appears to be erroneous (page 22), as there are none in the Pathfinder Beta hardcopy I'm perusing. However, a cleric gets TWO domains, each granting abilities of varying significance at levels 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20th totaling a whopping 14 abilities at 20th level!
Given the proliferation of spell-like abilities domains give in PF Bata and the fiddlyness of having additional domain spells in 3.5 I was trying to think of a backwards compatible alternaitve.
How about domains granting a special power at levels 1, 8 and 20 like wizards - but instead of granting additional spells or powers - each domain has a list of spells from levels 1 to 9 which the cleric can spontaniously cast in the place of a memorised spell?
This way clerics are not getting a massive list of additional spell-like abilities, not getting an extra domain spell to memorise, but gain the versitility to cast spells within their domains spontaniously.
Any comments?
I too agree that clerics should only have medium armour proficiency, if only from a pseudo-historical basis and game-play. Clerics don't need to be able to clank around in full plate without fighter training.
|
Wow, that's amazing, the paladin is too powerful and needs to be nerfed. How did all this amazing combat prowess slip by just about everyone who's ever played a paladin ever? I take back everything I've ever said about smite evil needing an improvement.
Okay, now that my sarcasm gland has stoped secreting, dude you are playing in one hell of a game. But here's the thing, in order to get to that level 16 where he's a god of combat, he had to get through levels 1-15, unless of course he was just created at level 16. specifically he had to get through level 1-10 where he doesn't have the godly power you're assigning him. And you didn't really do a fair comparison to a fighter, you paid a fighter lip service to make the claim of how powerful your paladin is. Despite the fact that the fighter in a game like that probably killed that monster during the 5 rounds you were applying all your buff spells, activating your divine bond (hope it doesn't get sundered). By the way, what paladin buff spell is giving him a +6 to attack, or where you including his smite bonus in that, I wasn't quite sure the way you wrote it?
So what you've proven is that on paper you can create a godly 16th level paladin, yeah, I've done it too, but then I actually try to play level 1-16 to get there and what you find out is that it really doesn't bear out the way you've presented it. And like I said I can create a godly fighter that can kill that monster while the paladin is still getting those buffs to get to the point that you were presenting. Which makes the paladin really shine.
Interesting post, but you didn't state what you felt needed to be done. I do however have the same sentiments about the Cleric as the be everything spell caster and in another thread suggested moving him to medium armor proficiency. As for the druid, a player in my campaign has been running one and it has not proved to be overpowering, but he also was never for min/maxing a character. I've always felt the Cleric had a lot more going for it than the wizard however the wizard in our party has still proved quite useful even at low levels.
I would have stated something to do, but that belongs in the "arcane casters" section when in opens up.
I do not disagree that Wizards are useful - just that they are getting seriously shortchanged.
Domain Abilities now, are another matter. The whole "listed spells" part appears to be erroneous (page 22), as there are none in the Pathfinder Beta hardcopy I'm perusing. However, a cleric gets TWO domains, each granting abilities of varying significance at levels 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20th totaling a whopping 14 abilities at 20th level!Given the proliferation of spell-like abilities domains give in PF Bata and the fiddlyness of having additional domain spells in 3.5 I was trying to think of a backwards compatible alternaitve.
How about domains granting a special power at levels 1, 8 and 20 like wizards - but instead of granting additional spells or powers - each domain has a list of spells from levels 1 to 9 which the cleric can spontaniously cast in the place of a memorised spell?
This way clerics are not getting a massive list of additional spell-like abilities, not getting an extra domain spell to memorise, but gain the versitility to cast spells within their domains spontaniously.
Any comments?
I had more in mind that "reasonable parity" should be brought to the four primary spellcasters. The armor proficiencies do not bother me amonst divine casters - it is when they're stacked up against sorcerors and wizards that the latter suffer as things presently stand.
Wow, that's amazing, the paladin is too powerful and needs to be nerfed. How did all this amazing combat prowess slip by just about everyone who's ever played a paladin ever? I take back everything I've ever said about smite evil needing an improvement.
Okay, now that my sarcasm gland has stoped secreting, dude you are playing in one hell of a game. But here's the thing, in order to get to that level 16 where he's a god of combat, he had to get through levels 1-15, unless of course he was just created at level 16. specifically he had to get through level 1-10 where he doesn't have the godly power you're assigning him. And you didn't really do a fair comparison to a fighter, you paid a fighter lip service to make the claim of how powerful your paladin is. Despite the fact that the fighter in a game like that probably killed that monster during the 5 rounds you were applying all your buff spells, activating your divine bond (hope it doesn't get sundered). By the way, what paladin buff spell is giving him a +6 to attack, or where you including his smite bonus in that, I wasn't quite sure the way you wrote it?
So what you've proven is that on paper you can create a godly 16th level paladin, yeah, I've done it too, but then I actually try to play level 1-16 to get there and what you find out is that it really doesn't bear out the way you've presented it. And like I said I can create a godly fighter that can kill that monster while the paladin is still getting those buffs to get to the point that you were presenting. Which makes the paladin really shine.
Correct, "on paper" Lenny the Paladin is a one-dimensional monster, with no real 'organic' growth as actually playing him would shape and mold his selection of feats, exact equippage, skill ranks, what he chose for a divine bond and so on. A real 16th level paladin would be much more organic - this one was strictly put together for the purposes of examing the complaints I've seen as to paladins being supposedly ineffective in combat as compared to the other trio of primary non-spellcaster combatant characters. Sarcasm/rants are almost always entertaining. ^_^
As far as the buff spells being applied, it seems that you misread the examples. I used exactly the same three spells for all four class' comparisons: Haste, Greater Heroism and Prayer, all of which can come from three allied PCs in a standard action per character. No bard inspiring massive additional bonuses, no items other than the bare ones assigned to demonstrate the combat-capable examples, nothing extraneous. Thus, the set up is legitimate enough for demonstrative purposes while negating your contention that the paladin has an extended "buffing" waiting time prior to commencing combat.
The smite bonus is purely his +7 CHA bonus to his attack bonus, which was its own paragraph. In effect, the combat examples for the barbarian, fighter, ranger and paladin are based on a "1 round and GO!" approach, which is sufficient to demonstrate averaged reliable damage output by a 16th level player character during a full-round attack sequence, plus options based upon the not-yet-too-familiar feats and/or class features thusfar presented in Pathfinder Beta.
All four combat examples were put together and posted with the expressed intent to demonstrate what one could reasonably expect to see coming the GM's way at the highest level of game play we can anticipate running the Pathfinder Adventure Path campaigns. I did not dabble with the Fighter's potential to simply unlimber a scythe and Devastating Blow the nearest sorry sod he can take a move action to and autocrit, although a friend already has done so and gone away cackling at the prospect of a 12th level Fighter reliably decaptitating something or someone to the tune of about 180 hit points. I could have, sure, but one would hope - as you seem to - that was not a routine occurance.
As things presently stand, I contend that the four combatant non-spellcasters compared thusfar stand to deal roughly on parity with each other in that they can reasonably expect in a total combat length of about two or three rounds to defeat any "generic" CR 18 AC 35 foe with 300 hit points by themselves. 'Two round wonder' is not the term I would wish to apply to any CR foe two levels above the Average Party Level.
It is my belief at present in PFRPG Beta that the barbarian is best for dealing with inanimate and animate objects as well as barriers; that the paladin is best at dealing with demons and undead; and that the fighter is best at dealing with everything else. The Archery Ranger follows closely behind in the paladins' AND fighters' roles with a combination of several class-specific bonuses that are too situational to be factored into a generic damage output estimation.
"Lenny" is a generic name I use for example and kamikaze characters, not for a 'real' character played from 1st level (or equivelant) FYI.
Each of the four in their element outshines the others, which is as it should be.
|
|
Correct, "on paper" Lenny the Paladin is a one-dimensional monster, with no real 'organic' growth as actually playing him would shape and mold his selection of feats, exact equippage, skill ranks, what he chose for a divine bond and so on. A real 16th level paladin would be much more organic - this one was strictly put together for the purposes of examing the complaints I've seen as to paladins being supposedly ineffective in...Wow, that's amazing, the paladin is too powerful and needs to be nerfed. How did all this amazing combat prowess slip by just about everyone who's ever played a paladin ever? I take back everything I've ever said about smite evil needing an improvement.
Okay, now that my sarcasm gland has stoped secreting, dude you are playing in one hell of a game. But here's the thing, in order to get to that level 16 where he's a god of combat, he had to get through levels 1-15, unless of course he was just created at level 16. specifically he had to get through level 1-10 where he doesn't have the godly power you're assigning him. And you didn't really do a fair comparison to a fighter, you paid a fighter lip service to make the claim of how powerful your paladin is. Despite the fact that the fighter in a game like that probably killed that monster during the 5 rounds you were applying all your buff spells, activating your divine bond (hope it doesn't get sundered). By the way, what paladin buff spell is giving him a +6 to attack, or where you including his smite bonus in that, I wasn't quite sure the way you wrote it?
So what you've proven is that on paper you can create a godly 16th level paladin, yeah, I've done it too, but then I actually try to play level 1-16 to get there and what you find out is that it really doesn't bear out the way you've presented it. And like I said I can create a godly fighter that can kill that monster while the paladin is still getting those buffs to get to the point that you were presenting. Which makes the paladin really shine.
Well I'm glad that you stated that, see I was unaware that you had made any other post comparison, or that you were exemplifying these as Top Tier.
The issue I have is when did the paladin go from scourge of evil, to scourge of undead/outsiders. Who one day said that the paladin is going to be an increadibly limited ranger.
And just for my curiosity how does "lenny" stack up to the other martial classes in their top teirs when not fighting against an undead/outsider (which still bothers me)
Well I'm glad that you stated that, see I was unaware that you had made any other post comparison, or that you were exemplifying these as Top Tier.
The issue I have is when did the paladin go from scourge of evil, to scourge of undead/outsiders. Who one day said that the paladin is going to be an increadibly limited ranger.
And just for my curiosity how does "lenny" stack up to the other martial classes in their top teirs when not fighting against an undead/outsider (which still bothers me)
Always glad to clarify things, which is not always my strongest suite.
Lenny the Barbarian averaged a full-round attack damage output of 188 hit points with the combination of Backswing, Vital Strike, Greater Rage and the Rage Power 'Powerful Blow' into the mix. He couldn't really do much of anything else except hack things with his Greatsword however. His attack sequence for this was +40/+35/+30/+40.
Lenny the Fighter averaged a full-round attack damage output of 224 hit points with the combination of all of his goodies. He has an attack sequence of +41/+36/+31/+26/+41 at 2d6+27 with 2d6+47 on his first swing due to the Backswing feat. I'd preferred using Improved Vital Strike but it is 'less than optimal' for raw damage output. Vital Strike does do well as a general rule of thumb, especially against higher-AC opponents. I do believe that my calculations for the Fighter did not take into account 'only' using Vital Strike, instead going straight to Improved Vital Strike. Sighs at the discrepency. :-(
Doing so now: Vital Strike cashiers his +26 attack in exchange for improving his other four attacks to 4d6+47 <61 hp> on the first swing and 4d6+27 <41 hp> on the remaining four attacks of the round for a combined averaged damage output of 225 hit points. Basically identical damage output, although he will generally deliver it MUCH more consistently due to Vital Strike.
I do believe Samuel Leming is correct is stating that Improved Vital Strike is not necessarily the best feat to use as a matter of course from a purely statistical point of view until you are looking at ACs well in excess of your character's lowest attack bonus. Lenny the Fighter could really rumble though, with the Intimidating aspect via Dazzling Display-Stunning Defense-Deadly Stroke "tree" as well as having access to Devastating Blow to make the most of 'cheap shot' attacks. Alas, as I have not-too-much-later found out to my humbling, Deadly Stroke and Devastating Blow cannot be combined as I had first thought that they could be, which pretty much tosses my combination of the two into the midden.
Devastating Blow is not necessarily the 'best balanced' feat either, simply because the temptation to routinely pack a scythe or heavy pick to maximize that feat's lethality is FAR too tempting to resist for the combat 'munchkins'. On the other paw, Devastating Blow can keep those who have it "contributing" nicely in the damage output end of things during high-mobility combats, which is perhaps its 'behind the scenes' intention. Say, when fighting dragons, as an easy example.
Lenny the Archery Ranger averaged a full-round damage output of 115 hit points. It is reasonable to presume that I left out the benefits of the Manyshot feat, which would probably improve that to 120-130 hit points or so per round from the extra arrow on the first shot/attack. His attack sequence for this is +42/+37/+32/+27/+42 (five arrows per round, six with Manyshot). I hope he carries a LOT of arrows...
Lenny the Two-Weapon Ranger averaged a full-round damage output of 104 hit points, using an attack sequence of +35/+30/+25/+30 with a rapier & +37/+32/+27 with a kukri. If I am in error on Haste applying an additional attack per weapon on a full-round attack, the total improves to 113.5 hit points for the round.
Lenny the Paladin, simply for the sake of completion, while somewhat less accurate against non-Evil foes, averaged a full-round damage output of 174 hit points without using any Smiting nor Divine Bond, just the same +4 Greatsword as the Barbarian and Fighter. His attack sequence for this is +36/+31/+26/+36. He benefits greatly from the Vital Strike feat, cashiering his most-likely-to-miss +21 attack to add 2d6 to his other five swings for the round.
The Paladin stacks up remarkably close to the Barbarian, exactly missing only on the 8 point STR difference in terms of attack bonus and damage, all but 2 STR is due to Greater Rage. This I hope is a good thing, as the two are only lacking in that 2 STR difference without the Barbarian's Greater Rage.
The Paladin is slightly better than either Ranger in attack bonus and considerably better in raw damage output.
The only one the Paladin pales to in comparison to is the Fighter in general melee. The Paladin has 5 points less of an attack bonus and averages almost 50 points less damage per round over the same spread of 4 attacks per full-round.
I do not know if the 16th level discrepencies that have come to light are intentional or were simply tested with lower standardized starting ability score arrays. If this last is true, I am of the opinion that it is a mistake to base playtesting on fixed ability score arrays lower than the highest possible, at the least for the 'primary' ability scores for a particular class.
|
|
Well I'm glad that you stated that, see I was unaware that you had made any other post comparison, or that you were exemplifying these as Top Tier.
The issue I have is when did the paladin go from scourge of evil, to scourge of undead/outsiders. Who one day said that the paladin is going to be an increadibly limited ranger.
And just for my curiosity how does "lenny" stack up to the other martial classes in their top teirs when not fighting against an undead/outsider (which still bothers me)
Always glad to clarify things, which is not always my strongest suite.
Lenny the Barbarian averaged a full-round attack damage output of 188 hit points with the combination of Backswing, Vital Strike, Greater Rage and the Rage Power 'Powerful Blow' into the mix. He couldn't really do much of anything else except hack things with his Greatsword however. His attack sequence for this was +40/+35/+30/+40.
Lenny the Fighter averaged a full-round attack damage output of 224 hit points with the combination of all of his goodies. He has an attack sequence of +41/+36/+31/+26/+41 at 2d6+27 with 2d6+47 on his first swing due to the Backswing feat. I'd preferred using Improved Vital Strike but it is 'less than optimal' for raw damage output. Vital Strike does do well as a general rule of thumb, especially against higher-AC opponents. I do believe that my calculations for the Fighter did not take into account 'only' using Vital Strike, instead going straight to Improved Vital Strike. Sighs at the discrepency. :-(
Doing so now: Vital Strike cashiers his +26 attack in exchange for improving his other four attacks to 4d6+47 <61 hp> on the first swing and 4d6+27 <41 hp> on the remaining four attacks of the round for a combined averaged damage output of 225 hit points. Basically identical damage output, although he will generally deliver it MUCH more consistently due to Vital Strike.
I do believe Samuel Leming is correct is stating that Improved Vital...
so basically the only way the paladin compares with a fighter to be about = is when smiting. The Ranger is always behind (did you take into account the damage done by his AC or just the ranger himself?) The Barbarian is ahead when raging, and = when not. Am I getting the jist of this?
I did not factor in the Rangers' potential damage output with an animal companion - although at "druid level 8" the animal companion would not amount to anything better than 0 with any reliability against the same foe the Ranger is perforating. That would be an interesting component to consider though with "druid level 13" factored in. The Ranger actually pulls an extra 40 or 56 points of damage per round (archery and two-weapon, respectively) not accounting for an animal companion against thier first favored enemy, lessening rapidly with later favored enemies. Against that first favored enemy a Ranger probably is on rough parity with the Paladins' non-Smiting/Divine Weapon Bond damage output. That is actually pretty impressive considering that the Ranger is lacking the substantial two-handed melee weapon damage output increases.
The Paladin outshines the Fighter when powered up with Smite Evil and Divine Bond (weapon), both in terms of accuracy (higher attack bonus, beating the Fighter by 2 points) and raw damage output (beating the Fighter by only 2 points against 'generic evil' or by I believe 30 points or so against 'Big Evil'). I am presently of the opinion, without having 'crunched the numbers', that the Paladins' Warhorse would not contribute as much damage output as the Weapon can. At 16th level play, the weapon is probably easier to repair and replace in the field than the warhorse as well.
The Barbarian is only 14 points per round ahead of the Paladin with Greater Rage, and lags behind the Paladin (not counting being Fatigued or Exhausted of course) both in terms of attack bonus and damage output without it. This is probably even more pronounced when factoring in Smite/Weapon Bond.
|
|
Thanks for the on paper analysis (seriously, I'm worried you'll take on paper as some kinda insult for not having playtested, but I don't mean anything by it I really am greatful)
I think that what you are showing here is important, granted that this is typically running counter to most actual playtesting experience (when having to schlog through the lower levels) but it is good to know for basic comparison purposes.
Here is a question for you, I'm getting a lot of difficulty with people saying if a paladin was to spontaneously cast that his spell list would have to be reduced. I think that he should have full access to his spell list ala the warmage, can you crunch the #s and see if that would significantly change the characters damage output? because I don't think it would make a difference at all, since he's probably already memorizing the boosters he needs. But you already have the basic character down so it'd take you a lot less time to crunch the difference then me.
By the way as a side note I am glad that the AC was switched to level-3 and am also glad that that brings some parity to the rangers damage output.
Thanks for the on paper analysis (seriously, I'm worried you'll take on paper as some kinda insult for not having playtested, but I don't mean anything by it I really am greatful)
I think that what you are showing here is important, granted that this is typically running counter to most actual playtesting experience (when having to schlog through the lower levels) but it is good to know for basic comparison purposes.
Here is a question for you, I'm getting a lot of difficulty with people saying if a paladin was to spontaneously cast that his spell list would have to be reduced. I think that he should have full access to his spell list ala the warmage, can you crunch the #s and see if that would significantly change the characters damage output? because I don't think it would make a difference at all, since he's probably already memorizing the boosters he needs. But you already have the basic character down so it'd take you a lot less time to crunch the difference then me.
By the way as a side note I am glad that the AC was switched to level-3 and am also glad that that brings some parity to the rangers damage output.
"Livetesting" is good for many things - except for attaining more impartial results. So no, I do not take "testing on paper" as an insult. :) What Live Testing could have shown me is stuff like "you're interpreting such-and-so feats wrong" or "those two don't GO there!" and so on that 'paper testing' will miss if not corrected by some other vector.
Interestingly, I rather think they should permit all spellcasters to cast spontaneously from their spell lists.
As long as spellcasters cannot cast spontaneously as a swift action (save via Quickened Spell metamagic), then it spells actions/rounds being spent casting prior to going in and thwacking bad guys. In summary, spontaneous access to one's class' entire spells roster for a Paladin will not speed up immediate damage output and would instead I believe permit the Paladin, Ranger and any other spellcasters to attempt to adapt to their specific situation.
Of course, this also means bad guys can do the same in return (cast whatever they have the components/foci to cast from their spell list). What would the sorceror and bard get ? Simple - their entire class spell list and more of it than the other classes. The drawback? Well, this could require some serious retooling of the Wizard of course (as the Wizard would not have a bloodline), but the Bard spell list is a pretty sweet one that I could see being of use if fully available. I can see a potential modification/alterations to Wizards being done along the lines of ... well, all this would be the start of any number of alternative threads once that section opens up to discussion.
And this would make Dragons REALLY dangerous once they access their innate sorceror spellcasting, as it will with any other critter with innate spell-chucking abilities.
An aside relating to my own threadjack: If the standard 'preparative' spellcasters are really made over into spontaneous spellcasters, what would be the advantage of remaining a normal spontaneous caster (bard or sorceror)?
I can see a number of ways - perhaps wizards, clerics and druids prepare but can spontaneously convert to their spells lists, at the horribly inefficient 'price' of costing TWO spells of the same level or higher to do so. Perhaps Wizards are the only preparative class that can 'cocoon' themselves in near-peristent magic with ease whilst bards and sorcerors cannot.
It is certainly very reasonably argued that ALL casters are just a step away from spontaneous, but that it is considered 'too powerful' to be able to select-and-cast when others cannot. Well, if the latter is no longer the situation, what happens then? Playing field levels for all practical purposes.
Bards' spells are VERY JoaT and thus (will full list access) become more truly JoaT than before.
Clerics and Druids can respond with greater flexibility to a given day's events rather than attempting to guess.
Rangers and Paladins have narrow, very narrow spell lists, so I do not see a realistic problem with this. If nothing else, since Pathfinder deliberately lacks Mass *Buff Whatever* spells that are not already in the OGL, those characters can buff themselves (at least to a degree), with a few twists unique to themselves.
Sorcerors can literally fire MORE arcane firepower down range than Wizards. Yet Wizards are supposed to be the 'most flexible'. If they can cast spontaneously (say, out of their spellbook) with the usual 'full round cast' cost of spontaneous casting, that could go a long way to 'levelling the playing field' between the two big Arcane casting core classes.
ANYhoo, direct crunching of numbers will take time, probably some time during the coming week or so.
I love the great... hmm... The EPIC Lenny family, and all the work you have put in to them Turin! I was hoping that you would get around to do the paladin, when I read the other Comparisons.
It seem that sweet 16 is gonna be just that -sweet- for all the martial classes, with every one shining in there own field. That said i agree with lastknightleft on the steep mountain climb from lv1-6 were most abilitys are very situational or inactive as stat bonuses... but that is for the other treats - this on is for the love of numbers, and the ones that "crunch" them.
thx
[edit: "crunch" not "crutch"... thoughtful?]
I love the great... hmm... The EPIC Lenny family, and all the work you have put in to them Turin! I was hoping that you would get around to do the paladin, when I read the other Comparisons.
It seem that sweet 16 is gonna be just that -sweet- for all the martial classes, with every one shining in there own field. That said i agree with lastknightleft on the steep mountain climb from lv1-6 were most abilitys are very situational or inactive as stat bonuses... but that is for the other treats - this on is for the love of numbers, and the ones that "crunch" them.
thx
[edit: "crunch" not "crutch"... thoughtful?]
Bows to Sir Andreasen for the praise.
The Lenny family could be extended to the other classes, but it is not in the cards to do so.
Inadvertently it would seem that 'sweet 16' applies particularly well to Pathfinder characters in general. While the capstone abilities are all nice and well, I've come to the opinion that 16th level is pretty much where characters should really shine regardless of class. This is especially true as things presently stand with running post-magazine Pathfinder Adventure Path campaigns, which generally wind out at that same sweet spot.
Naturally, as rules-and-numbers dependant as 3.5 has become/always has been, number-crunching strikes me as a requirement. A 'shake down' of the rules set as it were - especially as it has for most of 3e's existance that buried within the crunchy tasty fluffy-kitten goodness of same that the bane of many a campaign is unvieled.
To witness, the Ur Priest, Frenzied Berserker and Whirling Dervish prestige classes, just from WotC prestige classes alone. Not counting various untested variant class features et al...
Thanks for the kudo! ^_^
That said i agree with lastknightleft on the steep mountain climb from lv1-6 were most abilitys are very situational or inactive as stat bonuses...Thanks
Agreed, that seems to me a consistent point of Sir lastknightleft's, that the worst time for situational bonuses to be cropping up is very specifically at the low levels of play when generalized bonuses are far more often called for.
Of course, I tend to define "low-level" as 8th and lower, "mid-level" as 9th-14th, "high level" as 15th-21st and "epic" as 22nd+.
|
|
That said i agree with lastknightleft on the steep mountain climb from lv1-6 were most abilitys are very situational or inactive as stat bonuses...ThanksAgreed, that seems to me a consistent point of Sir lastknightleft's, that the worst time for situational bonuses to be cropping up is very specifically at the low levels of play when generalized bonuses are far more often called for.
Of course, I tend to define "low-level" as 8th and lower, "mid-level" as 9th-14th, "high level" as 15th-21st and "epic" as 22nd+.
Well my cap for low level was always 5th-6th level, but yours is just as fitting.