No one (except for maybe the OP, who disappeared after the first page) is claiming that you can't, or shouldn't play a fighter. The claim is that paladins are ultimately superior.
Saying a person can't play a certain class due to bias is no different than saying a person can't play a Gunslinger due to it not fitting the current campaign/setting, and that's a two-way street. That's hardly the argument I made.
Saying a person shouldn't play a certain class due to it being the same as another class, yet vastly inferior, is the argument I am making. Of course, people have made quite a few remarks (and possibly attacks) in regards to my two cents I put in for this topic. Was there hyperbole in my statement? No. I will agree that there was some exaggeration, though the general point I made for each section of my rant (should you even call it that) was that a Paladin in one way or another was quite superior to the Fighter.
If a person wants to play a class just to play a class, then that's no reason to turn them down in playing the class. If a person wants to play a class to see how they pan out in terms of effectiveness, then they might not want to play a certain class that either does not accomplish what they want to do, or their attempts to do so is significantly less concise than they would in playing another class.
Let's look at it this way; a Rogue V.S a Ninja. Player wants to be a sneaky guy who is skilled at assassination and infiltration. Rogue has a good amount of skill points, acceptable class skills, and their concept of Sneak Attack works quite nicely with the concept. Ninja has all of this, and other, more useful abilities that assist with the concept that is planned. Mathematically, which one is better at performing the concept that is infiltration and assassination?
That's the argument I'm making. Now let's apply this to the correlary that is this thread.
a Fighter V.S. a Paladin. Player wants to be up front guy who is great at killing things, but also wants some defensive powers so he isn't dying in 2 seconds. Fighter has the core skill points needed, some worthwhile class skills, and their extra feats can be used for both defense and offense. Paladin has the same amount of skill points, more useful class skills than the Fighter, ability to cast spells, Immunities, Divine Bonds, increased saves (in more than one way), and the list goes on. Mathematically, which one is better at performing the concept that is the invincible, yet destructive combatant?
The CR of the original creature is irrelevant. Its new CR is determined by the amount of hit dice it had in life.
An advanced T-rex zombie with 20 HD is the same CR as a balor zombie.
Fast Zombie is a template applied to zombies, dude. They increase the zombie's CR by 0, not the original creature.
|
Common Sense plus many many years of gaming back up what I say just fine.
Fine by me. If you refuse to back up your points in any way beyond "I'm right and you're wrong", I refuse to acknowledge them as valid. :P
Yes, well. I'm sure this is the same common sense that gives you your perspective on monks. Anecdotes that you don't provide don't convince anyone.
|
So your argument basically boils down to "I like playing Evil and possibly distruptive characters, thus I render your argument invalid" or something similar? Sorry to break the news to you dude, but that does not make the Paladin any less an option as a class. All you did was prove that a DM should ensure the party can work together instead of being a bunch of jerks to one another. It's also why I usually do not allow Chaotic Stupid of the "I am Chaotic Evil but I'll tell the DM I'm Chaotic Neutral instead" variety that piss me off to no end.
In my experience, characters like those listed above make for a very interesting campaign, and not all of those characters would qualify as evil. Some could easily called neutral.
And as for disruptive, I have to say those characters are less disruptive than the majority of paladins I have seen in games.
For instance: Detecting Evil and then smiting random townsfolk without evidence of any wrongdoing.
I'm of the opinion that Paladins are better than Rangers and Fighters, but I often disallow them because they frequently turn out to be more disruptive than a CN Rogue constantly robbing the party.
I will note that I don't assume a good aligned party - I assume the party will include neutral characters, and it *May* include good and/or evil characters as well.
Fighter test
Part 1:The Town Decent enough, but a bit disappointing. You also have the option of beating up the man and stealing it. Something a Paladin can't consider.
Part 2: Lizardmen Good plan, though the real danger is getting grappeld and pulled underwater. Water also lessens the effect of non-piercing weapons, so your sword is not quite the powerhouse it is on land. Still not as mobile as the Boss targets, but with the adamantine armor, you will be cleaning up the mooks much easier than expected. And only a fighter has armor training to pull of heavy armor underwater.Part 3: Quicksand This one seems good.
Part 4: Nilbogs Eating the AoO for maneuvers may be less painful with DR, you still haven't stopped the threat. I would try using grapple and drowning them.
Part 5: Marsh Giant Good here, and you have the saves to stave of the curse, and decent perception for the fog cloud.
Part 6: Harpies Looks like this is the killer, but i must point out that stuffing your ears only gives a bonus to the save, not immunity.
Part 7: Devil Flock Yes, Cleave would be excellent, and unlike 3.5 it's not an automatic choice. You could probably hit any of the flock hard, but you'd be using a bow instead of the sword you favor for most of the fight. Also, how do you intend to protect the rest of the party from being carried off or captivated?
Thanks for the run through.
I have a few questions as well. (Same q's as Ashiel)
Q: Where do you feel the Fighter outshines the Paladin in this adventure?
Q: Where do you feel the Paladin outshines the Fighter in this adventure?
Q: What encounter would you be most worried about if you were playing in an actual game with your Fighter? What about with a Paladin?
Q: If you could make one adjustment to the Fighter (pretty much anything) what would be?
Q: Just because I'm curious, what did you like and dislike about this dungeon?
Q: If you were building a party, what would your ideal party of 2, 4, and 6 be?
Q: If you were going to build a party of a single class (say like the single class challenges in Final Fantasy games), what class would you choose?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's purely subjective. If you have some full proof data to back up that claim then I would like to see it. Ranger and Paladin may work best when pitted against certain creatures and situations but that doesn't make them over all mechanically better.That's the purpose of the adventures that have been posted. You're welcome to contribute by constructing a fighter and running it through them.
D&D is generally not played as a one on one adventure. Showing that a particular class does better in a arena or even a series of encounters is meaningless. A PC is part of a TEAM.
|
And that will prove absolutely nothing instead of what I said before. Some encounters work out better for some classes while not for others and some then the next encounter could work horribly for the classes that did well before and work great for the classes that didn't have such luck before.That's purely subjective. If you have some full proof data to back up that claim then I would like to see it. Ranger and Paladin may work best when pitted against certain creatures and situations but that doesn't make them over all mechanically better.That's the purpose of the adventures that have been posted. You're welcome to contribute by constructing a fighter and running it through them./
By your method there is no way to compare classes except from a completely subjective standpoint. I'm talking about tlraw numbers and you want to argue that every encounter is a beautiful and unique snowflake
That's because every encounter is. Ever have an encounter where everyone made the exact same decisions, rolled the exact same numbers on the dice, and everyone come out of the encounter exactly the same as they did the last encounter? Don't think so.
If you try and rely on pure numbers to prove the effectiveness of a class then I'm sorry to break the bad news to you but your findings will not be accurate because there will be factors you are missing.
Here's a piece of advice. When you've been playing D&D/Pathfinder long enough, you will know that certain classes can handle certain encounters better than others at times but that doesn't make it an overall better class.
|
|
That's because every encounter is [a beautiful and unique snowflake]. Ever have an encounter where everyone made the exact same decisions, rolled the exact same numbers on the dice, and everyone come out of the encounter exactly the same as they did the last encounter? Don't think so.
If you try and rely on pure numbers to prove the effectiveness of a class then I'm sorry to break the bad news to you but your findings will not be accurate because there will be factors you are missing.
Here's a piece of advice. When you've been playing D&D/Pathfinder long enough, you will know that certain classes can handle certain encounters better than others at times but that doesn't make it an overall better class.
I disagree with you.
Yes, luck, and quality of player tactics aren't things that can be easily taken into account, however, you can standardize them to compare the other elements, and in doing so, you can quantitatively state whether one class is objectively better than another or not, assuming you account for the other variables. It's not as simple as just calculating DPR, and it would actually involve alot of data entry and calculation. Perhaps spreadsheets, or an application would be needed to make it manageable in a reasonable amount of time, with any degree of useful evidence. But it can be done.
Sure, a more experienced player may be able to make them more effective than a less experienced player. Sure it's possible for a fantastic character of the most powerful class to roll nothing higher than a 3 for an entire evening. But neither of those things invalidates the above paragraph, as those things can happen to all the classes.
By that rationale, while all the Player Character Classes can handle encounters better than the Commoner NPC Class, that doesn't mean they're better than a Commoner. I think that is just blatantly false.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PALADIN AM NOT KNOWING WHY FIGHTER NOT AM PALADIN. MAYBE AM LACKING IN CHARISMA DEPARTMENT.
AM FIGHTY! GET INTO ALL KIND OF FIGHTS. AM PALADIN MIGHT BE SLIGHTLY MORE EFFECTIVE THAN AM FIGHTY! AGAINST CERTAIN THREATS A FEW TIMES A DAY, BUT AM FIGHTY! PUTS AM PALADIN TO SHAME, GENERALLY SPEAKING. PLUS, AM FIGHTY!'S FRIENDS NOT HAVE TO TRICK AM FIGHTY! INTO EXAMINING ARCHITECTURE WHILE THEY DO STUFF. ALSO, AM FIGHTY! AM NOT INSUFFERABLE, HOLIER-THAN-THOU JERKASS.
This thread inspired a bit of creativity. Too bad I am lazy.
So, instead of making a video on youtube, just search for "periodic table song" by Tom Lehrer, and imagine them all to be neutral monsters that are commonly encountered. Or among the plethora where smiting hardly helps, such as with incorporeals and whatnot.
Sure, they have better saves, but my experience is that a paladin does not outfight a fighter, unless said fighter is evil and poorly optimized.
Suffice to say, there was a fighter and a paladin in my kingmaker campaign. The paladin rocked when he could smite. But the fighter did that level of damage to everything. Being able to dump cha and get full use of high dex already puts him ahead of that curve.
"But what about saves?"
There is this cool new thing called a "party" where there are people who know "magic" that can make you immune to the things that are a pain in the buttocks. Who knew?
|
|
This thread inspired a bit of creativity. Too bad I am lazy.
So, instead of making a video on youtube, just search for "periodic table song" by Tom Lehrer, and imagine them all to be neutral monsters that are commonly encountered. Or among the plethora where smiting hardly helps, such as with incorporeals and whatnot.
Sure, they have better saves, but my experience is that a paladin does not outfight a fighter, unless said fighter is evil and poorly optimized.
Suffice to say, there was a fighter and a paladin in my kingmaker campaign. The paladin rocked when he could smite. But the fighter did that level of damage to everything. Being able to dump cha and get full use of high dex already puts him ahead of that curve.
"But what about saves?"
There is this cool new thing called a "party" where there are people who know "magic" that can make you immune to the things that are a pain in the buttocks. Who knew?
Oh yeah.......teamwork!
Almost forgot about that :p
I have been playing since the end if first edition so its not just about time. Also as far as party reliance goes that's another feather in the pally cap. He consumes less resources can rock a wand of cure light and isn't screwed if the caster blows a save and cant protect you from that magic since your saves blow. Once again raw numbers and general usefullness tabor the pally in every situation except non evil dpt.
This is not a completely true statement by any means. It's very easy to build a fighter that can have decent saves and still pull his own weight. The only fighters that I see that can't are the ones that are used in these discussions to "prove" the fighter isn't up to par.
I also really think that this whole "party resources" argument is completely silly. If the fighter is taking out the enemy faster so that the casters or healers aren't needing to use those resources in the first place, I think that he's doing his job just fine. Besides, what if the fighter pays for those wands himself? It came out of his own resources.
In addition, Pathfinder is a group event. It is meant to be played with multiple characters all working together to accomplish a variety of goals. If you are so worried about having to drop a cure spell on a buddy, maybe you aren't playing in a cooperative environment and that is why certain classes may not meet your standards.
The paladin does just fine against non-evil creatures. He does better against evil creatures. The fighter does just fine against creatures of all alignments, types, and whatnot so long as the player doesn't build it as a one-trick pony. It's easy to get too focused and that's probably why people see the fighter fail. The fighter just needs to diversify a little bit and he can hold his own.
This thread inspired a bit of creativity. Too bad I am lazy.
So, instead of making a video on youtube, just search for "periodic table song" by Tom Lehrer, and imagine them all to be neutral monsters that are commonly encountered. Or among the plethora where smiting hardly helps, such as with incorporeals and whatnot.
Sure, they have better saves, but my experience is that a paladin does not outfight a fighter, unless said fighter is evil and poorly optimized.
Suffice to say, there was a fighter and a paladin in my kingmaker campaign. The paladin rocked when he could smite. But the fighter did that level of damage to everything. Being able to dump cha and get full use of high dex already puts him ahead of that curve.
"But what about saves?"
There is this cool new thing called a "party" where there are people who know "magic" that can make you immune to the things that are a pain in the buttocks. Who knew?
Oh yeah.......teamwork!
Almost forgot about that :p
Keep in mind this is also called 'leeching off other party members because I can't take care of myself' to a lot of people.
It's not a perception the paladin has. They tend to end up taking care of the others who don't cut the mustard.Also, kindly keep in mind that the fighter's dex bonus to AC only kicks in if they have a high dex...it's not just an AC bonus. Starting with a 12 Dex, the only way they are going to actually use their class ability is if they use Adamantine armor (which becomes useless at the level 19 capstone) AND post 14th when they finally buy their +6 dex booster and their class ability is now better then just wearing mithral armor.
In short, the fighter doesn't get anything out of his armor ability until it's better then just wearing mithral, AND he doesn't max out mithral + Armor training until 18th+ when he can finally afford to get +6 to dex AND +5 Inherent.
Note he'll have to start with a 13 dex to max mithral armor out with 24 dex, too.
Anybody can wear mithral armor and effectively get +2 Armor Training, and stay constant up to a 16 Dex. IF they wear Mithral BP, they can stay constant up to a 20 Dex.
And keep in mind that when a Fighter torches Charisma, the paladin just torches Wisdom. Stat wise, they tend to be built identically. Unless the fighter really wants to hamper his skill points with Int torching, in which case you can easily build a dumb paladin, too. The fighter does not have a stat advantage over the paladin unless he dumps ALL his mental stats. The paladin needs a 14 Cha to access 4th level spells...his Smite damage is level based, and he can get +Cha boosters as easily as the Fighter can + Wis Boosters.
I'd also like to point out that Crit effects from weapons allow saves, and a paladin is unlikely to fail the saves at the level they become relevant.
==Aelryinth
Fast Zombie is a template applied to zombies, dude. They increase the zombie's CR by 0, not the original creature.
Keep in mind that one very easy way to wipe a party is to apply +0 templates that stack on top of an enemy that can benefit inordinately from them.
Fast zombie on top of a 16 headed hydra is definitely a way to wipe a party clean by template abuse. You really are supposed to look at the numbers to find an appropriate CR. Fast zombie effectively turns that hydra from a one attack wonder back into a 3.5 killing machine. Hydras were THE undead minion of choice in 3.5 just because of the multiple attacks.
==Aelryinth
Anyone wanna remind how a Barbarian heals his own wounds?
Of the wizard, sorcerer, or several other classes? Yes, there are a handful of options for them but they pretty much rely on the divine classes too.
|
|
This thread inspired a bit of creativity. Too bad I am lazy.
So, instead of making a video on youtube, just search for "periodic table song" by Tom Lehrer, and imagine them all to be neutral monsters that are commonly encountered. Or among the plethora where smiting hardly helps, such as with incorporeals and whatnot.
Sure, they have better saves, but my experience is that a paladin does not outfight a fighter, unless said fighter is evil and poorly optimized.
Suffice to say, there was a fighter and a paladin in my kingmaker campaign. The paladin rocked when he could smite. But the fighter did that level of damage to everything. Being able to dump cha and get full use of high dex already puts him ahead of that curve.
"But what about saves?"
There is this cool new thing called a "party" where there are people who know "magic" that can make you immune to the things that are a pain in the buttocks. Who knew?
Oh yeah.......teamwork!
Almost forgot about that :p
Keep in mind this is also called 'leeching off other party members because I can't take care of myself' to a lot of people.
And those types of players really need to stick with games that only involve one person.
Now if we want to go down that route then what happens when the fighter stops killing things and let the creatures run past him to get to those other guys. The fighter can be in the front, putting his ass on the line which in turn keeps those casters from harm and yet if the fighter needs anything, because God forbid he can't do everything, then he is considered "leeching".
Got it.
|
|
Anyone wanna remind how a Barbarian heals his own wounds?Of the wizard, sorcerer, or several other classes? Yes, there are a handful of options for them but they pretty much rely on the divine classes too.
And if I am correct, a Barbarian usually has a good bit more HP, less AC, and usually ends up being hit more which costs more resources to be used on Barbarians than Fighters but yet it's the Fighters that get the crap about being leeches.
Do people not realize that buff spells and healing are all there for a reason? They're not there just to decorate your character sheet.
|
|
This thread inspired a bit of creativity. Too bad I am lazy.
So, instead of making a video on youtube, just search for "periodic table song" by Tom Lehrer, and imagine them all to be neutral monsters that are commonly encountered. Or among the plethora where smiting hardly helps, such as with incorporeals and whatnot.
Sure, they have better saves, but my experience is that a paladin does not outfight a fighter, unless said fighter is evil and poorly optimized.
Suffice to say, there was a fighter and a paladin in my kingmaker campaign. The paladin rocked when he could smite. But the fighter did that level of damage to everything. Being able to dump cha and get full use of high dex already puts him ahead of that curve.
"But what about saves?"
There is this cool new thing called a "party" where there are people who know "magic" that can make you immune to the things that are a pain in the buttocks. Who knew?
Oh yeah.......teamwork!
Almost forgot about that :p
Keep in mind this is also called 'leeching off other party members because I can't take care of myself' to a lot of people.
And those types of players really need to stick with games that only involve one person.
Now if we want to go down that route then what happens when the fighter stops killing things and let the creatures run past him to get to those other guys. The fighter can be in the front, putting his ass on the line which in turn keeps those casters from harm and yet if the fighter needs anything, because God forbid he can't do everything, then he is considered "leeching".
Got it.
My T-rex, animated skeletons and Black Tentacles also stays on the front line controlling enemies(and has a much higher CMB than a fighter) without needing healing.
Sure, a fighter can put out decent damage and defense, but another wizard with another T-rex would be more helpful. Once you start getting past...
Mind posting that Wizard build and that most likely takes a few rounds to get together?
Edit:Black Tentacles is Caster Level + 4 + 1 for CMB. Fighter has enough feats and strength and full BAB to blow your Black Tentacles out of the water.
My T-rex, animated skeletons and Black Tentacles also stays on the front line controlling enemies(and has a much higher CMB than a fighter) without needing healing.
Sure, a fighter can put out decent damage and defense, but another wizard with another T-rex would be more helpful. Once you start getting past level 8, you need something more than that.
How does your T-Rex do against flying enemies or against smarter enemies? How well do your tactics work for more than one fight a day? You also don't have that many skeletons that are going to be of much use in CR appropriate fights. Animating skeletons costs time and money and certainly won't win you many friends in town.
At level 8, you don't have enough Black Tentacles spells to be using that tactic often. You certainly aren't summoning a T-Rex (that requires you to be level 15). The T-Rex is only CR 9 at that point. I would much rather have a level 15 fighter than a CR 9 creature that is only there for 1.5 minutes at a time.
It doesn't really matter though since this thread is about (anti)paladins compared to fighters.
|
|
I understand that this is something of a sticking point with you and instead of reading my post you re-posted your fighter argument 101. My only statement was that based on just base numbers that...I have been playing since the end if first edition so its not just about time. Also as far as party reliance goes that's another feather in the pally cap. He consumes less resources can rock a wand of cure light and isn't screwed if the caster blows a save and cant protect you from that magic since your saves blow. Once again raw numbers and general usefullness tabor the pally in every situation except non evil dpt.This is not a completely true statement by any means. It's very easy to build a fighter that can have decent saves and still pull his own weight. The only fighters that I see that can't are the ones that are used in these discussions to "prove" the fighter isn't up to par.
I also really think that this whole "party resources" argument is completely silly. If the fighter is taking out the enemy faster so that the casters or healers aren't needing to use those resources in the first place, I think that he's doing his job just fine. Besides, what if the fighter pays for those wands himself? It came out of his own resources.
In addition, Pathfinder is a group event. It is meant to be played with multiple characters all working together to accomplish a variety of goals. If you are so worried about having to drop a cure spell on a buddy, maybe you aren't playing in a cooperative environment and that is why certain classes may not meet your standards.
The paladin does just fine against non-evil creatures. He does better against evil creatures. The fighter does just fine against creatures of all alignments, types, and whatnot so long as the player doesn't build it as a one-trick pony. It's easy to get too focused and that's probably why people see the fighter fail. The fighter just needs to diversify a little bit and he can hold his own.
I will say that Bob has posted many fighter builds that are very effective and do very different things. People would ask for proof, Bob would deliver, and it would get ignored.
Paladins, like all classes, handle certain situations better than others. If you ran a game that had a small number of encounters per day, few actual numbers of creatures in those encounters, made them all evil, all deliver diseases, and all generated fear like there is no tomorrow then the Paladin could come out ahead but since all encounters are not built around catering to a specific class then that doesn't hold as much water.
I understand that this is something of a sticking point with you and instead of reading my post you re-posted your fighter argument 101. My only statement was that based on just base numbers that the paladin class is built with more points than the base fighter. Not that fighters aren't effective or useful. The above was a response to the other persons statement that basically there was no way to objectively measure classes because every situation is unique.I have been playing since the end if first edition so its not just about time. Also as far as party reliance goes that's another feather in the pally cap. He consumes less resources can rock a wand of cure light and isn't screwed if the caster blows a save and cant protect you from that magic since your saves blow. Once again raw numbers and general usefullness tabor the pally in every situation except non evil dpt.This is not a completely true statement by any means. It's very easy to build a fighter that can have decent saves and still pull his own weight. The only fighters that I see that can't are the ones that are used in these discussions to "prove" the fighter isn't up to par.
I also really think that this whole "party resources" argument is completely silly. If the fighter is taking out the enemy faster so that the casters or healers aren't needing to use those resources in the first place, I think that he's doing his job just fine. Besides, what if the fighter pays for those wands himself? It came out of his own resources.
In addition, Pathfinder is a group event. It is meant to be played with multiple characters all working together to accomplish a variety of goals. If you are so worried about having to drop a cure spell on a buddy, maybe you aren't playing in a cooperative environment and that is why certain classes may not meet your standards.
The paladin does just fine against non-evil creatures. He does better against evil creatures. The fighter does just fine against creatures of all alignments, types, and whatnot so long as the player doesn't build it as a one-trick pony. It's easy to get too focused and that's probably why people see the fighter fail. The fighter just needs to diversify a little bit and he can hold his own.
I did read it. I disagreed with your position that the fighter's saves "blow" and that "raw numbers and general usefullness tabor the pally in every situation except non evil dpt."
The fighter's saves are a weakness that can be dealt with in a number of ways. Yes, the paladin's saves rock. They are superior to pretty much every other class. That doesn't mean that the others "blow." Rocking the cure light wounds doesn't seem like it's all that special when half the classes can do that too and some can do even more. Besides, it's already been shown that the fighter can use the wand with very little investment so that argument is null and void.
The paladin is a great class that brings its own unique set of abilities to the game. It has its place and, in the right player's hands, will be formidable. I can say the same thing about the fighter. I've been playing for a long time too and I haven't seen the same issues you have. Then again, my groups play differently so we are going to see different results.
I disagree with your disagreement only because your own expertise has somewhat blinded you. Yes you can build a fighter that meets or exceeds the benchmark set on several threads, but Bob while there is no way to really measure how much game knowledge and theorycraft ability that someone has yours has ranged(from my perception) from significantly above average to amazing. I have no doubt you could build an expert or an aristocrat that met the benchmark in several threads and that you assume others possess the same level of skill. They don't.
Edit I include myself in the they mentioned above.
Some of what I have done certainly comes from system mastery but a lot really doesn't. Much of it is simply paying attention to the campaign and building the character to do well in that campaign. It's something I would hope that everyone does with every character. If the GM is using a lot of spells and spell-like abilities that target Will saves, I would hope that the players improve their Will saves. If the game sees more fights starting at 100 feet or more, I would hope that the players grab some ranged weapons (and learn how to use them effectively). If the campaign takes place in town dealing mostly with NPCs, I would hope that the players put more ranks in social skills than survival.
Most of the campaigns I run have a theme, an overall story arch and some smaller arches for each character. This gives the players an idea of what to expect as well as ensures that options they chose at level 1 aren't obsolete at level 10. I try to make sure that every feat or skill that a character has can be used at some point. I also try to ensure that every weakness is exploited at some point. If your fighter dumped Wisdom and chose to forgo Iron Will, you will regret that choice at some point. It won't be all the time but it will happen. If your wizard decides that he can get by on just black tentacles and summoned creatures, he's going to be in for a surprise when he realizes that there are some creatures that simply don't care about those tentacles (I know you didn't make that claim, I'm just continuing from another thought). If your cleric put ranks in Heal, I will give you situations where you can use that skill more often. Some skills are harder to implement than others and sometimes I expect the players to get creative with the use of their skills (using profession instead of diplomacy when talking to someone in the same field).
A lot of what I managed to do with the fighter came from 3.5 and reading about how much it sucked. I wanted to see if that was true. I tried to see if I could do what "they" said couldn't be done. There were some roles that were harder than others, certainly, and some that simply didn't work out at all. The problem wasn't the class though. The problem was the expectation the player had of the class. If someone wants a character that can rock some wands, perhaps a class with magic would be a better choice than one that has only extraordinary abilities.
The fighter and paladin fill similar roles but they aren't exactly the same. I see both classes as equals overall. The paladin can shine brighter at times but the fighter remains consistently reliable. Both are equally valid choices. The anti-paladin (mentioned in the OP) is probably not as much of an option simply because it's evil and isn't going to be in most heroic games.
Skeletons are free with Blood Money. T-rex is at level 13. And while sure a fighter would outdo a T-rex, its a T-rex+a wizard+skeletons he has to compete with.
My point is that you have to bring more to the party than just dealing damage and distracting the enemies. Pallies and antipallies provide buffs, debuffs, heals and CC.
Where is Blood Money from? I don't see it in the PRD.
I stand corrected on the T-Rex, but it doesn't really change my argument. You stated level 8 on up and you can't use a T-Rex until 5 levels later.
At level 13, you can control 52 HD worth of undead. Let's skip the very specific material component (that's a lot of onyxes that will cost you 650 gp per casting), you're making, at best, four CR 6 skeletons. I'm not really impressed. You've got one T-Rex (CR 9) and four skeletons (CR 6) to deal with CR appropriate encounters. Would you send a party of one level 10 character along with four level 7 characters to battle a CR 13 monster? Why or why not?
I'm not saying that the tactic is a bad one. What I'm saying is that it isn't an "all the time" tactic as you are implying. With cost of creating those skeletons and having to either use up your precious 4th level slots (you don't have that many at level 13 to replace your skeletons) or use scrolls (which costs money and take time to scribe), I don't see it as cost effective in the long run either.
I also don't see it being used in campaigns with paladins since creating undead is evil (the descriptor says it's evil) and this thread is about paladins and fighters. Of course, if you are using anti-paladins then you are probably not running into the problem.
What about Archetypes? Fighters have several great archetypes which are much superior to the base class, whereas Paladins have barely any good archetypes, the Oath of Vengeance being the one I see the most often cited.
i dont understand why people get into these pissing contests on these message boards... i guess its just internet culture.
anyway a fighter and paladin are both amazing characters. nither are godly and nither completely make the other useless. a fighter is the master of mundane and paladins are self sufficient.
personally i would take a fighter over a paladin, because i cant play lawful good for to many session before i get board. not to mention that i like having flexibility in how i fight, i hate only being ranged or only being melee.
|
|
Skeletons are free with Blood Money. T-rex is at level 13. And while sure a fighter would outdo a T-rex, its a T-rex+a wizard+skeletons he has to compete with.
My point is that you have to bring more to the party than just dealing damage and distracting the enemies. Pallies and antipallies provide buffs, debuffs, heals and CC.
Where is Blood Money from? I don't see it in the PRD.
I stand corrected on the T-Rex, but it doesn't really change my argument. You stated level 8 on up and you can't use a T-Rex until 5 levels later.
At level 13, you can control 52 HD worth of undead. Let's skip the very specific material component (that's a lot of onyxes that will cost you 650 gp per casting), you're making, at best, four CR 6 skeletons. I'm not really impressed. You've got one T-Rex (CR 9) and four skeletons (CR 6) to deal with CR appropriate encounters. Would you send a party of one level 10 character along with four level 7 characters to battle a CR 13 monster? Why or why not?
I'm not saying that the tactic is a bad one. What I'm saying is that it isn't an "all the time" tactic as you are implying. With cost of creating those skeletons and having to either use up your precious 4th level slots (you don't have that many at level 13 to replace your skeletons) or use scrolls (which costs money and take time to scribe), I don't see it as cost effective in the long run either.
I also don't see it being used in campaigns with paladins since creating undead is evil (the descriptor says it's evil) and this thread is about paladins and fighters. Of course, if you are using anti-paladins then you are probably not running into the problem.
There's also that thing called action economy.
|
Paladins are Lawful Good, and more specifically they have a strict set of codes they must adhere to. Who wants to be limited by that ball and chain?
In my experience, Paldins tend to ruin the fun of other players more than contribute to a party. This isn't because the players running them are dicks or the GM is being one, it just tends to limit a large amount of creative aproaches to dealing with situations. When your players spend time at the table trying to work around another players alignment issues, it detracts from everyone's fun.
I understand other characters can be lawful good as well, but they don't come with the caveat of losing all thier abilities if they stray from alignment and code.
Fighters rock. If he changes alignment through his actions in a cmpaign, a fighter gets to keep his abilities. He just changes the colour of his cloak.
Cheers
There's also that thing called action economy.
What's the action needed to control 5+ creatures? They aren't all free actions and if there is more than one opponent to deal with I don't think that there is a lot of savings in action economy. Speaking more than a single sentence is beyond a free action (the PRD says as much). So if you have 5+ creatures to attack multiple opponents, I don't think you're using free actions to pull it off. I also am not convinced that there are many wizards who speak T-Rex, which would be very limiting in what you can have it do.
|
|
Of the wizard, sorcerer, or several other classes? Yes, there are a handful of options for them but they pretty much rely on the divine classes too.
Wizard has infernal healing.
Sorcerer has infernal healing. And they can get up to cure critical wounds at the same level as a cleric (or any other divine spell level 1-4 at the same level that class gets them) using a ring of spell knowledge - though yes, you can only wear two of them at a time due to ring slots. Bards can take the Rings of Spell Knowledge too.
Fighters can pull their own weight much more than a barbarian, rogue, or monk, but that doesn't put them at the same level as rangers and paladins.
In my experience, Paladins tend to ruin the fun of other players more than contribute to a party. This isn't because the players running them are dicks or the GM is being one, it just tends to limit a large amount of creative approaches to dealing with situations. When your players spend time at the table trying to work around another players alignment issues, it detracts from everyone's fun.
This too. I'm a firm believer that the Paladin is a better class than a fighter, and yet I don't play them and often disallow them due to experiences of them getting in the way of the rest of the party having fun. Fighters are in the same ballpark as a Paladin or Ranger in terms of power (and they're better than barbarians), but the Ranger and Paladin also have huge amounts of versatility the fighter just doesn't doesn't have.
The problem with the fighter isn't that he's too weak in comparison to the other melee characters. He's about as strong as the paladin, and a bit stronger than a ranger. Unfortunately, he's not much stronger, and the ranger and paladin are both better at a bunch of other stuff, and the fighter is only really good at the one thing you build him for.