Paladins I find are one the weaker martial classes. For the Paladin to be better than the fighter you need two things. Really high stats and GM who will cater to the Paladin. When that happen the Paladin is quite a bit more powerful than any other class out there.
So what this means is the Paladin doesn't have dump stat. Sure you might think Wisdom but -2 to will save hurts. The fighter dump Chr and people just don't like him. So you need those high stats.
As for catering I mean through Evil BBEG to the slaughter. But consider this, what BBEG would ever allow that. I mean would the Paladin go by himself into the dragons lair? Of course not, he'd go with party. So why wouldn't the Dragon ally himself with equally tough bad guys. If you through a lone dragon against a party with Paladin you are catering to your Paladin and in this case Paladins are really tough.
Generally it's better to heal out of combat and wands are cheap. Swift action self heals are really nice but If you drop your opponents fast enough how fast you can heal isn't an issue. Paladins have superb saves fighters generally do not. Fighters deal more damage than a paladin who isn't smiting.
Magic items, wands for example.Hps are much more renewables.How do you figure? It takes days, unlike spells and abilities.
Can a Fighter use a healing wand? No.
Can a Paladin use a healing wand? Yes.
|
By the time healing runs out spell casters are tapped on spells or the group greatly misplanned their resources.Generally because they've been spent getting the Fighter out of unpleasant situations.
Lol, bad players are bad regardless of class. Ive seen the reverse a lot. This isn't a caster thread so ill stop there.
Meh. I can see that in a Good aligned party, a pally may be slightly better than a fighter, depending heavily on optimization skills and even loot drops.
But a Wizard is slightly better than a Sorc. Does that mean there’s no reason to play a Sorc? Why play a Sorc? Well, because to some players they are more fun to play.
I mean we know there’s a few classes that are pretty darn nerfed in PF- Monk, Rogue & Bard (but they all have some very cool archetypes) . Fighter isn’t one of them.
Heck, there’s been a HUGE argument on these boards from Day One that the pally, (due to how the oath is ruled by the DM) is nerfed to the max.
Only since the game came out.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890
Posted by Saph, 1/01/2010 “No more Bardic Knowledge; bards and loremasters just get a bonus on Knowledge checks instead.
Bardic Performance now only works for a number of rounds per day equal to 2 + Cha mod + (level x2); a huge nerf from 3.5, where a bard could play for ages multiple times per day.
The DC against a bard's fascinate/suggestion effect is now 10 + Cha mod + (bard level/2), which is far weaker than 3.5's skill check.
Verdict?
Poor Bards. Always the comic relief, and now they get a bunch of nerfs too. Bards used to have two signature tricks which they could do better than anyone else: long-term party buffing, and delivering suggestions at an impossibly high DC, both of which are now pretty weak. “
|
this is the first time I see someone saying the bard was nerfed.Meh. I can see that in a Good aligned party, a pally may be slightly better than a fighter, depending heavily on optimization skills and even loot drops.
But a Wizard is slightly better than a Sorc. Does that mean there’s no reason to play a Sorc? Why play a Sorc? Well, because to some players they are more fun to play.
I mean we know there’s a few classes that are pretty darn nerfed in PF- Monk, Rogue & Bard (but they all have some very cool archetypes) . Fighter isn’t one of them.
Heck, there’s been a HUGE argument on these boards from Day One that the pally, (due to how the oath is ruled by the DM) is nerfed to the max.
With the way Bardic performance works, you get less time to inspire courage. Also the bard lacks way to boost their bonus outside of third party (to include 3.5). On top of this paizo staff members have stated they want to avoid ways to boost inspire courage.
Meh. I can see that in a Good aligned party, a pally may be slightly better than a fighter, depending heavily on optimization skills and even loot drops.
But a Wizard is slightly better than a Sorc. Does that mean there’s no reason to play a Sorc? Why play a Sorc? Well, because to some players they are more fun to play.
I mean we know there’s a few classes that are pretty darn nerfed in PF- Monk, Rogue & Bard (but they all have some very cool archetypes) . Fighter isn’t one of them.
Heck, there’s been a HUGE argument on these boards from Day One that the pally, (due to how the oath is ruled by the DM) is nerfed to the max.
Yeah, the OP sounds like an optimizer, nothing wrong with that, but not everyone wants to play the optimal class. Some like me, try out every class at some point. Sometimes it's to try out an archetype on a class I've never played. I look for what is fun to play in a party who mostly aren't optimizers either. We play for fun, not for seeing who has the most optimized character.
A paladin who took Divine Power(from the Unsanctioned Knowledge Feat), will get a +5 to hit and damage when he activates it.For a few rounds- at the cost of a feat.
|
Okay, lets look at the numbers.
Sure, let's. The real numbers, that is.
At level 15 a fighter is getting a +3 bonus from weapon training and an extra +2 to damage and a +1 to hit from special fighter feats.
A paladin who took Divine Power(from the Unsanctioned Knowledge Feat), will get a +5 to hit and damage when he activates it. And another +4 from his his divine bond with his weapon. This is assuming he can't smite.
The Fighter has an additional +2 to hit and +4 to damage over what you listed (gloves of dueling and Greater Weapon Specialization) and also bypasses 5 points of typed DR.
The Paladin does not have any additional (flat) bonuses to hit or to damage from Divine Bond because they're both using +5 weapons by level 15. Divine power only lasts 11 rounds at this level and requires a standard action to cast, meaning it's very hard to pre-buff with it and casting it in combat means you aren't making an attack that round.
Granted, without spells or abilities a fighter will have a +5 to damage and a +4 to hit over the fighter [sic] and he will get extra feats which let him do other things(but those things generally require ability score investment)
The Fighter will have +6 to hit and +9 to damage over the Paladin against targets not being Smote. That +6 to hit is absolutely massive in terms of overall damage output -- it's more than 1 iterative attack's worth, which means the Fighter will hit one more time per full attack, on average, than the Paladin against the same target, resulting in a lot more damage every round. Similarly, the Fighter doesn't have to buff to get his bonuses, so he's free to attack every round. If we're comparing archers, he's a full attack ahead of the Paladin; if we're comparing melee builds, he may be a full attack or just a charge ahead of the paladin depending on distance to target (Paladin is slower and can't charge or double move the first round since he's using a standard action to buff).
EDIT: Also, by level 15 the Fighter absolutely has had the spare feats to pick up Iron Will and Improved Iron Will, unless they're going for an extremely feat-intensive build which the Paladin couldn't even attempt. Also the Fighter can use the same stat array as the Paladin except Wis instead of Cha, so he's got at least a +2 to Will from that (since your Paladin is casting 4th level spells he has at least a 14 Cha). That puts the Fighter at a +16 Will save (5 base, +2 Wis, +4 feats, +5 cloak of resistance). Saves higher than level is generally going to be enough to be competent defensively, if not impenetrable (and he's got a re-roll if something particularly bad gets through). For reference, that's a 50% chance to save against a CR 20's "primary ability DC" and an 85% chance against their "secondary ability DC", without even spending an item slot that is useless otherwise (headband) on it.
Does this thread assume this in regards to 'only' AP's?
Because all the groups i play with dont play the APs at all, and we fight people of society much much more than monsters.
So in many games for me and the groups i am in, the fighter that takes alot of the manuever feats never fade out in usefulness at higher levels.
Our adventures also tend to have multiple encounters in a day, or prolonged scenarios where you use up your resources. A fighter never has to worry about running out of juju.
I am pretty sure there is many others that dont play APs, so many of the opinions here are limited in scope.
New dnd players that just started with PF unfortunately prolly don't know or experienced what real gm'ing skills are, as they are not the ability to read a scripted encounter in small rooms, which are quite far from natural interaction/ with no RP, but really this is a debate for another thread.
For me it's not a matter of DPR. I never claimed that Paladins outdamage Fighters (or Rangers for that matter) when not smiting, or even had the same level of damage. I'd still take Paladin because I find their damage output to remain pretty consistent since it's hard to marginalize their contribution, and they provide more for their parties.
I am a firm believer that enough damage is enough damage. It's kind of like why you don't need Power Attack at 1st level. At 1st level you're going to kill stuff without it (the average damage with a greatsword with a +2 Strength modifier is 10.5, and most enemies at low levels can't stand up to that).
I agree that a fighter needs something more in the non-combat department, but I think is not as critical as preseted in the forum. with 4+int in skills I would be pleased.For me it's not a matter of DPR. I never claimed that Paladins outdamage Fighters (or Rangers for that matter) when not smiting, or even had the same level of damage. I'd still take Paladin because I find their damage output to remain pretty consistent since it's hard to marginalize their contribution, and they provide more for their parties.
4+int and slightly better class skills is really all the fight needs for non-combat.
The only other change that springs to mind would be trimming back some of the feat trees that go a bit too far into Feat tax territory, but that would effect just about every martial class. It does sadden me that some fairly basic martial concepts (Sword and Shield, Two Weapon Fighting) can't be done in the game without paying a hefty feat tax and meeting some painful ability score prerequisites.
|
The paladin's biggest problem is that his effectiveness is tied directly to whatever type of game you are playing.
If you are playing an evil game...well you likely just can't be a paladin, unless your GM is giving you HUGE liberty with the class, but lets not assume GM fiat here.
If you're playing a game with many neutral and even some good enemies...we'll you're going to have a problem as the paladin. I've played more than one game where the party paladin flatly sat out an encounter because his alignment wouldn't allow it. They will not be taking part in any prison breaks, breaking into the local lord's mansion to steal an artifact the party needs to complete the quest, or anything else that's going to violate their LG alignment.
And that can be a problem.
Fighters, obviously, don't have that problem. They can pretty much do whatever they want and are universally effective in combat. Yes, they have other flaws, but every class needs flaws or it's not balanced.
If you are playing an evil game...well you likely just can't be a paladin, unless your GM is giving you HUGE liberty with the class, but lets not assume GM fiat here.
That's what the antipaladin is there for.
|
|
If you are playing an evil game...well you likely just can't be a paladin, unless your GM is giving you HUGE liberty with the class, but lets not assume GM fiat here.That's what the antipaladin is there for.
Anti-Paladin isn't quite as good as a Paladin because of the nature of hostile vs. friendly effects. Touch of Corruption isn't as good as Lay on Hands.
I agree that a fighter needs something more in the non-combat department, but I think is not as critical as preseted in the forum. with 4+int in skills I would be pleased.For me it's not a matter of DPR. I never claimed that Paladins outdamage Fighters (or Rangers for that matter) when not smiting, or even had the same level of damage. I'd still take Paladin because I find their damage output to remain pretty consistent since it's hard to marginalize their contribution, and they provide more for their parties.
I can make a fighter who has useful skills. Not really a big concern. I feel the fighter suffers in combat because his defenses are atrocious and he's all offense. I find the Paladin, Ranger, and other classes to be more well rounded with plenty of offense and better defense. You can't really do much fighting while you're dead, dazed, charmed, confused, petrified, playing slip & slide, blind, unconscious, stunned, staggered, slowed, cursed, or wetting your pants.
I'd rather have a non-fighter in my party so we'd be better at fighting AND better at out of combat problems.
The game still pretty much presupposes the all-good or all-good + neutral party. Paladins might not always agree with LN or CG allies but they generally get along pretty decently.
When you start using Evil PC especially CE and to a lesser extent NE PCs a lot of the default assumptions of campaign design kinda go out the window. Why fight monsters when you can just enslave the population, etc.
I just don't feel like roleplaying restrictions are necessarily worth a huge deal in the current age as opposed to the 1e days where the Paladin really was a fighter ++ class.
As for the fighter vs paladin issue:
I think skill points is a definite issue, in the interest of backwards compatibility they avoided dealing with the skill points issue. Giving the fighter 4+Int plus better skill choices kinda helps but it also has a tendency of making the rogue even less desirable because skills are it's thing (personally I think the rogue should also be revised to be more accurate).
Paladin also has dreadful skill points but due to their higher average charisma and slightly better skill list generally don't completely suck at skill usage. They should be 4+Int though as well.
Saves are definitely an issue because it shouldn't be a requirement for the fighter to invest in 2 iron will feats and the best cloak of resistance to not get completely screwed over every time someone wants to will save dominate him into tearing into his allies.
|
|
Anti-Paladin isn't quite as good as a Paladin because of the nature of hostile vs. friendly effects. Touch of Corruption isn't as good as Lay on Hands.If you are playing an evil game...well you likely just can't be a paladin, unless your GM is giving you HUGE liberty with the class, but lets not assume GM fiat here.That's what the antipaladin is there for.I completely disagree and think the exact opposite is true.
For one, cruelties are better than mercies. The number of things you can blind or stun is way higher than the number of things that you can cure blind or stun from.
Second, with a conductive weapon you get to use touch of corruption on an enemy every round in addition to your ordinary attacks. At level 6 you do an extra 3d6 damage for 3 rounds of combat and force the enemy to make a DC 23 fort save to avoid being shaken. Which lowers they saves by an additional 2.
Third, you make all of the enemies saves lower by standing next to them. This synergizes amazingly with any casters in your party and with touch of corruption in addition to your touch of corruption. You lose your immunity to fear and charm, but antipaladins already have high will saves so its not a big loss.
While they do lose the swift action healing each round, they make up for it with more damage and amazing debuffs.
If you want real hilarity, work with an intimidate inquisitor or barbarian. Antipaladins will remove the immunity to fear from the enemy, which means you can fear anything and they take -4 on their saves against it.
1st: Cruelties offer a saving throw. A FORTITUDE saving throw. You're typically going to be in Melee with creatures with good fort saves.
2nd: Your conductive weapon uses up two of your Cruelties. I'd rather heal myself 6 times a day as a swift action and fight over dealing extra damage 3 times a day. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Also, it requires you have a 8,000g weapon.
3rd: How in the world do you have a DC 23 save for Cruelties at 6th level. The DC is 10 + 1/2 Level (3) + CHA. Assuming a 20 Charisma (unlikely) your save DC is only an 18. Where are you getting that extra +5 for the DC?
4th: You not only lose your immunity to fear and charm, but also the ability to boost your allies saves.
Ranger have a better reflex save but it is not like they have superior defenses compared to a fighter.I agree that a fighter needs something more in the non-combat department, but I think is not as critical as preseted in the forum. with 4+int in skills I would be pleased.For me it's not a matter of DPR. I never claimed that Paladins outdamage Fighters (or Rangers for that matter) when not smiting, or even had the same level of damage. I'd still take Paladin because I find their damage output to remain pretty consistent since it's hard to marginalize their contribution, and they provide more for their parties.
I can make a fighter who has useful skills. Not really a big concern. I feel the fighter suffers in combat because his defenses are atrocious and he's all offense. I find the Paladin, Ranger, and other classes to be more well rounded with plenty of offense and better defense. You can't really do much fighting while you're dead, dazed, charmed, confused, petrified, playing slip & slide, blind, unconscious, stunned, staggered, slowed, cursed, or wetting your pants.
I'd rather have a non-fighter in my party so we'd be better at fighting AND better at out of combat problems.
Do they not? Rangers match ACs with the fighter at low levels and can do so at high levels too. Rangers have better Reflex saves (roughly about the same as taking Lightning Reflexes at 1st, 8th, and 20th level over the Fighter), Evasion in medium armor, the ability to sleep in armor without fatigue, and then have a variety of spells that can improve their survivability without having to drain party resources (spells such as delay poison which makes the IMMUNE to poison for 1 hour / level-3, resist energy for 10 min. / level-3 which provides significant damage mitigation against both opposing and friendly spells of a certain element (and can turn encounters with certain creatures into a cakewalk, such as if you face a Hellhound, Fire Elemental, or Winter Wolves). At higher levels they have spells like wind wall and many battlefield control spells that don't mind their low-save DCs. They also have access to spells like freedom of movement which immunizes you to things like being grappled/swallowed (unless you want to be), being held, being entangled, being paralyzed, etc).
If anything their defenses are comparable to fighters in terms of AC, and they have the opportunity for additional defenses beyond what fighters can bring to the table without mooching off the spell slots of PCs that may or may not be there (not all parties consist of lots of primary spellcasters), have more opportunities to avoid damage, have an animal companion to share aggro with, and so forth. That's before we consider that they crush Fighters in skill points as well (fighters with a 14 Intelligence get the same skill points as a Ranger with a 6 Intelligence).
But Paladins have better defenses than Rangers. I consider Ranger and Paladin to be very well balanced. They look pretty good next to Barbarian as well, because that oiled up god of war tends to wreck s~*@ and chew bubblegum.
1st: Cruelties offer a saving throw. A FORTITUDE saving throw. You're typically going to be in Melee with creatures with good fort saves.
2nd: Your conductive weapon uses up two of your Cruelties. I'd rather heal myself 6 times a day as a swift action and fight over dealing extra damage 3 times a day. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Also, it requires you have a 8,000g weapon.
3rd: How in the world do you have a DC 23 save for Cruelties at 6th level. The DC is 10 + 1/2 Level (3) + CHA. Assuming a 20 Charisma (unlikely) your save DC is only an 18. Where are you getting that extra +5 for the DC?
4th: You not only lose your immunity to fear and charm, but also the ability to boost your allies saves.
You have to understand the tactical difference between a Paladin and an Antipaladin. An antipaladin is a debuff-god, and the best friend to mages when it comes to offensive tactics. Yes, cruelties a Fortitude saving throw. But at low levels saving throws are swingy. At higher levels you are inflicting a -6 penalty vs fear effects and -2 penalty vs everything else, Intimidate shakens enemies bringing them to -4, Touch of Corruption inflicts xd6 damage and then either kicker Curse sickened, dazed or staggered, frightened, exhaustion, blindness, paralyzed, or stunned, depending on situation and level).
EDIT: In short, the Antipaladin is the guy you want to use to take down hard bosses. He has the HP and AC comparable to a Fighter, enough damage as a martial to mop up mooks no issues, and his abilities crush big bads under a wave of negative levels. At high levels, grabbing a life drinker and death ward will pretty much ensure that you are an absolute monster to your enemies.
10 (ranks) + 0 (cha) + 4 (trait) + 6(feat) =20.Anyone can use wands, it's an easy skill check auto passing by level 10 if you try at all.Please explain how a typical level 10 fighter can 'auto-pass' a DC20 UMD check to use a wand of CLW, when 'taking 10' is not useable with UMD.
Feat +6? trait +4???
Charisma 8 (-2) + 10 ranks + 6 Skill Focus +4 Magical Aptitude +4 Trait (becomes class skill and +1 bonus) = +22. Note that he said "if you try at all" not "typical fighter."
Why not just make a custom +5 competence bonus item to UMD? It's only 2500 (1250 if made by a PC crafter). Burning a feat + trait in order to UMD seems pretty extreme.
|
|
10 (ranks) + 0 (cha) + 4 (trait) + 6(feat) =20.Anyone can use wands, it's an easy skill check auto passing by level 10 if you try at all.Please explain how a typical level 10 fighter can 'auto-pass' a DC20 UMD check to use a wand of CLW, when 'taking 10' is not useable with UMD.
Masterwork tool for another +2.
|
|
Feat +6? trait +4???10 (ranks) + 0 (cha) + 4 (trait) + 6(feat) =20.Anyone can use wands, it's an easy skill check auto passing by level 10 if you try at all.Please explain how a typical level 10 fighter can 'auto-pass' a DC20 UMD check to use a wand of CLW, when 'taking 10' is not useable with UMD.
Skill Focus gives +6 when you have 10 ranks.
|
|
Charisma 8 (-2) + 10 ranks + 6 Skill Focus +4 Magical Aptitude +4 Trait (becomes class skill and +1 bonus) = +22. Note that he said "if you try at all" not "typical fighter."
You're right. Burning two whole feats and half your traits just so you can use a CLW wand by 10th lvl is not a typical fighter!
This means your feats at 7th and 9th, when a 'typical' fighter would be choosing Vital Strike, Improved Critical and the like, rather than a +3 to UMD at 7th and a +2 to UMD and Spellcraft at 9th....!
That's not trivial. For the entirety of 7th, 8th and 9th levels (that's a lot of adventuring) you're not getting the combat feats that a 7th/9th level fighter usually takes!
I think a fighter who does this loses to a fighter who doesn't, even after 10th level!
|
|
Masterwork tool for another +2.10 (ranks) + 0 (cha) + 4 (trait) + 6(feat) =20.Anyone can use wands, it's an easy skill check auto passing by level 10 if you try at all.Please explain how a typical level 10 fighter can 'auto-pass' a DC20 UMD check to use a wand of CLW, when 'taking 10' is not useable with UMD.
Masterwork tool????
Tell me you're joking!
If you're not, what tool helps you make a UMD check?
Charisma 8 (-2) + 10 ranks + 6 Skill Focus +4 Magical Aptitude +4 Trait (becomes class skill and +1 bonus) = +22. Note that he said "if you try at all" not "typical fighter."You're right. Burning two whole feats and half your traits just so you can use a CLW wand by 10th lvl is not a typical fighter!
This means your feats at 7th and 9th, when a 'typical' fighter would be choosing Vital Strike, Improved Critical and the like, rather than a +3 to UMD at 7th and a +2 to UMD and Spellcraft at 9th....!
That's not trivial. For the entirety of 7th, 8th and 9th levels (that's a lot of adventuring) you're not getting the combat feats that a 7th/9th level fighter usually takes!
I think a fighter who does this loses to a fighter who doesn't, even after 10th level!
I don't think it's that big of a deal either. If you want to play a fighter that can use some magic items, then it's a small investment. Heck, you can drop the Magical Aptitude feat and still be at +18. That's not bad and you have a penalty to Charisma. The fighter who wants to play with magic isn't typical and will probably be built accordingly. I know I would take into account that I had a decent UMD check.