Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Paladin / Anti-Paladin = Fighter, Except Better? (Why play a Fighter then?)


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

401 to 450 of 688 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

johnlocke90 wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Well if I am in a multi-opponent battle, a wizard wins outright thanks to large AoE damage and battlefield control.

Otherwise, I would command my minions to attack the one big mob.

Theres is a lot of big "IF" in there. without context there is not point to talk about prepared spellcasters.


Darkholme wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
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.

Wrath wrote:
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.

I agree. Paladins are definitely limited RP wise. However this depends on the party. Some parties want to play all good characters anyway, but others might want to rely on subtelty that a paladin lacks.


Nicos wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Well if I am in a multi-opponent battle, a wizard wins outright thanks to large AoE damage and battlefield control.

Otherwise, I would command my minions to attack the one big mob.

Theres is a lot of big "IF" in there. without context there is not point to talk about prepared spellcasters.

What is the if? Either its a multi opponent battle I win through AoE and on a boss monster I win through large numbers of minions eating up his turns.

Edit: Paladin would actually be very powerful with minions. He could give them all smite evil which would be a significant damage increase.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Well if I am in a multi-opponent battle, a wizard wins outright thanks to large AoE damage and battlefield control.

Otherwise, I would command my minions to attack the one big mob.

Theres is a lot of big "IF" in there. without context there is not point to talk about prepared spellcasters.

What is the if? Either its a multi opponent battle I win through AoE and on a boss monster I win through large numbers of minions eating up his turns.

Edit: Paladin would actually be very powerful with minions. He could give them all smite evil which would be a significant damage increase.

Nobody try to hit the wizard? Nobody try to target the wizard with and SLA or SU? nobody is fliying so landbound skeletons and tigers would be usseless? is the wizard´s defences always up? why there is not a BBEG with minions, why have to be the one or the other? Does the wizard always have the right spells? does that spells never run out? how your minions do not suffer your AoO? Do you always win initiative? there is no cleric to steal you the control of the skeletons?

etc...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

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.

Here you go.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-money

I think you are missing the point. The T-rex and skeletons aren't supposed to solo the encounter. They aren't even supposed to replace a player. They are meant to act as a shield and some damage(the role of the fighter). Either the enemy attacks them(wasting turns) or they have to try go around the minions and not get grappled by the T-rexes +32 CMB. Then you have the actual wizard who summoned him also dishing out save or dies, party buffs and enemy debuffs.

The fighter and (anti)Paladin need to be able to compete this in usefulness. Paladin brings good buffs, some offhealing and decent damage, while having good saves and self heals. The fighter may bring slightly more damage, but he isn't going to bring anything else or have the defenses of a paladin.


Nicos wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Well if I am in a multi-opponent battle, a wizard wins outright thanks to large AoE damage and battlefield control.

Otherwise, I would command my minions to attack the one big mob.

Theres is a lot of big "IF" in there. without context there is not point to talk about prepared spellcasters.

What is the if? Either its a multi opponent battle I win through AoE and on a boss monster I win through large numbers of minions eating up his turns.

Edit: Paladin would actually be very powerful with minions. He could give them all smite evil which would be a significant damage increase.

Nobody try to hit the wizard? Nobody try to target the wizard with and SLA or SU? nobody is fliying so landbound skeletons and tigers would be usseless? is the wizard´s defences always up? why there is not a BBEG with minions, why have to be the one or the other? Does the wizard always have the right spells? does that spells never run out? how your minions do not suffer your AoO? Do you always win initiative? there is no cleric to steal you the control of the skeletons?

etc...

Who said the skeletons were landbound? A mixture of a big bad with a group of minions would be the ideal situation for the wizard. He can send his minions to swarm the big bad while he destroys the minions with AoE. Skeletons definitely take lots of damage, but it doesn't matter as that means they are wasting enemy turns and you can always get more after the battle.(For free with Blood Money)


johnlocke90 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Nicos wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
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.

Well if I am in a multi-opponent battle, a wizard wins outright thanks to large AoE damage and battlefield control.

Otherwise, I would command my minions to attack the one big mob.

Theres is a lot of big "IF" in there. without context there is not point to talk about prepared spellcasters.

What is the if? Either its a multi opponent battle I win through AoE and on a boss monster I win through large numbers of minions eating up his turns.

Edit: Paladin would actually be very powerful with minions. He could give them all smite evil which would be a significant damage increase.

Nobody try to hit the wizard? Nobody try to target the wizard with and SLA or SU? nobody is fliying so landbound skeletons and tigers would be usseless? is the wizard´s defences always up? why there is not a BBEG with minions, why have to be the one or the other? Does the wizard always have the right spells? does that spells never run out? how your minions do not suffer your AoO? Do you always win initiative? there is no cleric to steal you the control of the skeletons?

etc...

Who said the skeletons were landbound? A mixture of a big bad with a group of minions would be the ideal situation for the wizard. He can send his minions to swarm the big bad while he destroys the minions with...

Iam not saying it is not a good or very good tactic, but it is hardly an always win button.


Oh, we're talking Wizards now? From the Paladin theme I was expecting this to derail into a discussion of the Paladin's code, not into a generic martials versus casters discussion.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Oh, we're talking Wizards now? From the Paladin theme I was expecting this to derail into a discussion of the Paladin's code, not into a generic martials versus casters discussion.

A thread like this is condemed to always go without direction.


First, here's what the PRD says about Speaking as an action:

Quote:

Speak

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

It doesn't go any further than this. We do know that handling an animal is a move action, and that's actually getting it to do something it's trained to do. I don't see why it should be much different for other creatures.

As for Blood Money, did you notice that you're losing Strength? 4 castings of that is 4d6 damage plus 4 Strength. I highly doubt that you would be doing this often.

When you aren't doing this, you already had it and the summoned spells prepared but you've also managed to have some AoEs too? I'm not convinced that this is a viable tactic for all day management. And yes, you did say that this was meant to replace the fighter.

Your words:

Quote:
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.

As for the original argument, I still haven't been convinced that the paladin is superior in every way to the fighter. In fact, one of the biggest complaints about the fighter is something that the paladin deals with: lack of skill points.

Silver Crusade

Summoning that T-Rex is going to take a full round action anyway and then Black Tentacles is going to take a standard. Fighter is already in front dishing out damage before you are fully setup.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

First, here's what the PRD says about Speaking as an action:

Quote:

Speak

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

It doesn't go any further than this. We do know that handling an animal is a move action, and that's actually getting it to do something it's trained to do. I don't see why it should be much different for other creatures.

As for Blood Money, did you notice that you're losing Strength? 4 castings of that is 4d6 damage plus 4 Strength. I highly doubt that you would be doing this often.

When you aren't doing this, you already had it and the summoned spells prepared but you've also managed to have some AoEs too? I'm not convinced that this is a viable tactic for all day management. And yes, you did say that this was meant to replace the fighter.

Your words:

Quote:
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.
As for the original argument, I still haven't been convinced that the paladin is superior in every way to the fighter. In fact, one of the biggest complaints about the fighter is something that the paladin deals with: lack of skill points.

Animate Dead is something you do at the end of an adventure. After I wipe up the final boss, I will generally animate him and any of his minions that are good targets. The strength damage doesn't matter at this point because I am in no hurry. This isn't something I would do in the middle of an adventure.

I don't see why its so hard to believe that I have a a summon monsters and a AoEs prepared. At level 8, I have 4 4th level spells + 1 any level spell from my bonded object. Conjuration is probably the best school anyway due to the swift action dimension doors(teleportation subschool). Thats two summons+Black tentacles+enervate. Then I have 6 third level spells, which will be a mixture of AoE and haste.

Also, while paladins do have limited skill points. They benefit from charisma so are less screwed skill wise than a fighter. My antipaladin is very good at bluff, and intimidate with decent diplomacy.

Fighter class features don't benefit from good skill points.

Cheliax

Nicos wrote:
Even if all what you say is true, exactly why people have to build fighter for one sinlgle thing?

Building a fighter to do 3 or 4 things, means the fighter is good at none of them.


Darkholme wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Even if all what you say is true, exactly why people have to build fighter for one sinlgle thing?
Building a fighter to do 3 or 4 things, means the fighter is good at none of them.

this isnt true...

a fighter who builds for ac, damage and ranged damage can be very effective characters. i mean they alone get to wield tower shields without massive penalties, and just having access to one gives a massive net to ac and survivability.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree. The fighter has enough feats to pick a specialization (either melee or ranged) and be devastating in that specialization while still being pretty darn effective at the other.

Yes, you can make the claim that he's only good at combat, but being damn good at the thing that comprises roughly 90% of the game doesn't really strike me as being that bad of a deal. Because let's be honest, as much as some of you like to denigrate old-school play, Pathfinder is still a game of killing the bad guys and taking their stuff.

Cheliax

@Kthulhu

Ah.

For some of us, combat takes up 60% of the time in a session or less.


Not everyone wants to play in a pure murder hobo playstyle though and the lack of skillpoints for the fighter typical result in a character that isn't really good outside of the combat niche. Poor saves also limit the Fighter because sooner or later the Fighter will fail a save and then slice into his teammates as he now considers that Succubus to be his best friend.


while i agree that combat is the focus of 3.5, i will also say that roleplaying makes this game great. i dont need a skill check to roleplay, i only need to be in my characters mindset. the need for diplomacy can be sated by having a non fighter in the group, and nothing stops me from attempting an assist for that diplomacy roll with my -5 cha and 0 skill ranks in diplomacy.

fighter "hail, how are you today?"

npc "good, how are you?"

Do you see how this works?

vuron: i dont know about that...

only scary thing a Succy has in pathfinder is a once perday SLA dominate, which can easily be dispelled at 5th level.


Darkholme wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Even if all what you say is true, exactly why people have to build fighter for one sinlgle thing?
Building a fighter to do 3 or 4 things, means the fighter is good at none of them.

That have been proveen to be not true several times int hte past.

Silver Crusade

Darkholme wrote:

@Kthulhu

Ah.

For some of us, combat takes up 60% of the time in a session or less.

Then I recommend speaking with Bob, he has some great builds that are right up your alley.


If there are 4 characters in the group, 3 of which have decent social skills, why does the 4th need his social skills at all? How many people need to make the diplomacy check? When it comes to knowledge, how many people need to make a knowledge check? Do your characters not share information or work with each other?

The fighter can take his few skill points (which are equal to a paladin, sorcerer, and cleric) and do what he wants with them. Nothing says a fighter needs to dump Charisma. Nothing says that he can't put ranks in non-class skills. There are some archetypes that open up new class skills too. With his plethora of feats, he can afford to drop a feat or two on Skill Focus on one of the other skill feats.

As Jupp points out, the fighter can Aid Another which is simply a DC 10 with no penalty for failure. So it's not like he can't contribute anyway. He just won't be the primary speaker.

Silver Crusade

vuron wrote:
Not everyone wants to play in a pure murder hobo playstyle though and the lack of skillpoints for the fighter typical result in a character that isn't really good outside of the combat niche. Poor saves also limit the Fighter because sooner or later the Fighter will fail a save and then slice into his teammates as he now considers that Succubus to be his best friend.

Other classes fail saves so I'm not sure what makes the fighter so special.


vuron wrote:
Not everyone wants to play in a pure murder hobo playstyle though and the lack of skillpoints for the fighter typical result in a character that isn't really good outside of the combat niche. Poor saves also limit the Fighter because sooner or later the Fighter will fail a save and then slice into his teammates as he now considers that Succubus to be his best friend.

How Oracles, druids, clerics, sorcere, paladins will outskills fighters?

How cavaliers, alchemist, rangers will have clearly better will saves?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because other classes when they fail their saves don't chop into the rest of the party quite so thoroughly as the Fighter does, and they usually have class features which help their will save.

The Fighter has none of these.

The complaint on Fighters and skill points is because Fighters don't have magic, so why does their skill points and skill list suck so bad? You don't complain about paladins because they have a ton of versatility...and Diplomacy goes with the Cha that helps their class abilities.

A fighter in combat MUST have the dispel for that dominate, which will have a 50% chance of success, or he might well murder the party's spellcaster in one round. And while you're trying to stop your +7 Will save fighter from butchering you, you're not stopping the BBEG from doing something else.

It's this vulnerability to being turned against the rest of the party so easily, or being put out of commission and forcing the rest of the party to spend the actions to get the fighter out of trouble that tends to grind on the party as a whole. Generally speaking, you have to do this a lot less or none at all with paladins.

Fighters have no class features that help with any form of recovery, no class defenses outside of a bonus to AC which doesn't get actualized until late levels, and precious little for any social interaction. They simply have to rely on what anyone can do...and if they have to do that, then why be a Fighter?

A good way to fix a Fighter is all good saves and 4 skill points. That gives them mundane defensive strength that perfectly matches the rest of them, and 4 skill points gives them the ability to spend on non-class skills without penalizing anything key, even if they have an Int Penalty. All good saves would give them strong defenses without actually being imbalanced...and make them better then a warrior.

But saying that a Fighter is strong because the rest of the party can take care of him is ignoring the fact that the rest of the party is not a class feature, and the rest of the party having to care for him drags on the rest of the party. Sure, the fighter is better against some niche foes during the day, but every round spent not dispelling the dominated fighter is a round spent tearing down the enemy throwing the dominates. It's the cost to the action economy of the whole party that tends to annoy the other players, not the fighter's damage output (or the paladin's, for that matter).

==Aelryinth

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Because other classes when they fail their saves don't chop into the rest of the party quite so thoroughly as the Fighter does, and they usually have class features which help their will save.

The Fighter has none of these.

The complaint on Fighters and skill points is because Fighters don't have magic, so why does their skill points and skill list suck so bad? You don't complain about paladins because they have a ton of versatility...and Diplomacy goes with the Cha that helps their class abilities.

A fighter in combat MUST have the dispel for that dominate, which will have a 50% chance of success, or he might well murder the party's spellcaster in one round. And while you're trying to stop your +7 Will save fighter from butchering you, you're not stopping the BBEG from doing something else.

It's this vulnerability to being turned against the rest of the party so easily, or being put out of commission and forcing the rest of the party to spend the actions to get the fighter out of trouble that tends to grind on the party as a whole. Generally speaking, you have to do this a lot less or none at all with paladins.

Fighters have no class features that help with any form of recovery, no class defenses outside of a bonus to AC which doesn't get actualized until late levels, and precious little for any social interaction. They simply have to rely on what anyone can do...and if they have to do that, then why be a Fighter?

A good way to fix a Fighter is all good saves and 4 skill points. That gives them mundane defensive strength that perfectly matches the rest of them, and 4 skill points gives them the ability to spend on non-class skills without penalizing anything key, even if they have an Int Penalty. All good saves would give them strong defenses without actually being imbalanced...and make them better then a warrior.

But saying that a Fighter is strong because the rest of the party can take care of him is ignoring the fact that the rest of the party is not a class feature, and the rest of...

So, what's stopping the Barbarian from being targeted by that Dominate or Calm Emotions to shut down that rage? Barbs get a little boost but it's like the fighter taking Iron Will. I know my fighters always invest in Wis, Iron Will, and maybe even a headband at times. It's not difficult to take care of a fighters will power.


let alone the fact that fighters are one of the few classes that willingly take improved iron will as a feat choice. if i saw a barbarian do that i would question it.


Jupp wrote:
let alone the fact that fighters are one of the few classes that willingly take improved iron will as a feat choice. if i saw a barbarian do that i would question it.

My 17th level Barbarian has taken both Clear Mind and Improved Iron Will. They have proven invaluable.

As I always say: you can never have too many re-roll abilities.


@Aelyrinth - Looks like the Fighter you want is a Samurai.


Aelryinth wrote:

**Because other classes when they fail their saves don't chop into the rest of the party quite so thoroughly as the Fighter does, and they usually have class features which help their will save.

**why does their skill points and skill list suck so bad?

**A fighter in combat MUST have the dispel for that dominate, which will have a 50% chance of success

**your +7 Will save fighter from butchering you, you're not stopping the BBEG from doing something else.

**It's this vulnerability to being turned against the rest of the party so easily, or being put out of commission and forcing the rest of the party to spend the actions to get the fighter out of trouble that tends to grind on the party as a whole. Generally speaking, you have to do this a lot less or none at all with paladins.

Fighters have no class features that help with any form of recovery, no class defenses outside of a bonus to AC which doesn't get actualized until late levels, and precious little for any social interaction. They simply have to rely on what anyone can do...and if they have to do that, then why be a Fighter?

**A good way to fix a Fighter is all good saves and 4 skill points. That gives them mundane defensive strength that perfectly matches the rest of them, and 4 skill points gives them the ability to spend on non-class skills without penalizing anything key, even if they have an Int Penalty. All good saves would give them strong defenses without actually being imbalanced...and make them better then a warrior.

**But saying that a Fighter is strong because the rest of the party can take care of him is ignoring the fact that the rest of the party is not a class feature, and the rest of the party having to care for him drags on the rest of the party. Sure, the fighter is better against some niche foes during the day, but every round spent not dispelling the dominated fighter is a round spent tearing down the enemy throwing the dominates. It's the cost to the action economy of the whole party that tends to annoy the other players, not the fighter's damage output (or the paladin's, for that matter).

im seeing quite a bit of fallacy in your arguement.

1 any class that gets dominated will disrupt the party drastically.

2 there skill list does not suck, it gives you everything a fighter would need. survival, climb, knowledge engineering, dungoneering, ect.. there skills list fits there role.

3 any group that does not have a dispell magic available is going to fail no matter what, because if there was no fighter the rogue would be hit by it, or the ninja, or the cavalier ect..

4. thats why the standard group consists of 4+ players to keep the BBEG busy while they deal with any other threats in the area.

5. making them monks is not going to fix the fighter, especially since its not broken.

6. so your concept of a strong character is one that is completely self sufficent? i hate to break this to you, but even a paladin needs a group to survive an adventure.

and who are these players that are so annoyed?

all in all i feel like you didnt contribute anything in your post, but your own prejudices. fighter are a good class, so are paladins one is not better then the other.

princeimrahil wrote:


My 17th level Barbarian has taken both Clear Mind and Improved Iron Will. They have proven invaluable.

As I always say: you can never have too many re-roll abilities.

at 17th level you have surpassed every organic campaign i have ever been in. i have never once been in a 1-20 campaign, they usually stop between 6-14.

not to say i haven't played in an epic level game or a game that levels excessively quick. by 17th level you have all the feats you need as staples, powerattack and what have you, to do that but before ten i wouldn't think many barbarians would do that.


shallowsoul wrote:

So, what's stopping the Barbarian from being targeted by that Dominate or Calm Emotions to shut down that rage? Barbs get a little boost but it's like the fighter taking Iron Will. I know my fighters always invest in Wis, Iron Will, and maybe even a headband at times. It's not difficult to take care of a fighters will power.

Barbarians get rage powers that help against magic.

Also, I will agree that Barbarians are a weak class. DPR calculations show they do significantly less damage than a fighter and don't get nearly as much to make up for it.


johnlocke90 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

So, what's stopping the Barbarian from being targeted by that Dominate or Calm Emotions to shut down that rage? Barbs get a little boost but it's like the fighter taking Iron Will. I know my fighters always invest in Wis, Iron Will, and maybe even a headband at times. It's not difficult to take care of a fighters will power.

Barbarians get rage powers that help against magic.

Also, I will agree that Barbarians are a weak class. DPR calculations show they do significantly less damage than a fighter and don't get nearly as much to make up for it.

And cavaliers, alchemist, rangers and gunslingers? what make they clearly superios thatn fighters against a domiente person?

Shadow Lodge

Darkholme wrote:

@Kthulhu

Ah.

For some of us, combat takes up 60% of the time in a session or less.

I'm not really talking about game time, I'm talking about ultimate conflict resolution.

How many D&D/Pathfinder games have you honestly every played where they big problem put before the party was resolved using any other means than violence. Please note, I'm not talking about smaller sub-problems like the hatfield s blaming the McCoys and vice-versa, I'm talking about what you do when you discover the band of goblins that was attacking BOTH families.

Do you usually negotiate a peace treaty with the goblins? Or do you show them the pointy end of your sword?

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Well, I do recall our party finishing the first issue of Curse of the Crimson Throne without killing a single person. Does that count? We didn't get the chance to continue the game. :(

Shadow Lodge

Mr Orcus, could you please not implement your nefarious scheme? 'K, thanks, bye!

* rolls nat 20 diplomacy check *

Yeah! Orcus is mah b@#+~!

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Natural 20's don't automatically succeed on skill checks.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Admittedly, not a great example since diplomacy is just about as likely to work as violence when you come face-to-face with Orcus.

Spoiler:
At the end of Rappan Athuk, you die!


Maybe this is the wrong crowd to offer up this as a reason, but in response to the OP's question (why play a fighter?):

You might be playing a fighter for his or her story?

I like having a tough character who's well built with keen things to pull out of a hat when monsters show up and need to be punched in the fangs, but I also like having a character who has a reason for being in a situation where he or she would be out actively punching monsters in the fangs.

I've played a paladin once, and I loved her abilities and benefits, but I chose to play her as a paladin because I had this idea for a paladin that I wanted to play. The fighters I've played were fighters for the same reason (rogues, monks and witches, too!). If you're primarily concerned with who is better by the numbers then I really couldn't answer that. I don't think there's a way to lay out all the variables to say with absolute certainty (hence the pages and pages of posts).

But if you'd rather play a paladin than a fighter then there's no real reason to play a fighter.

But if you'd rather play a fighter (say, a chaotic, rabble-rousing sword-swinger whose story has no ties to faith, holiness or magic)... well, there's no reason to make her a paladin, is there?

Qadira

PF has a feat,skill,or item to fill any classes's weakness and they don't have to be expensive either.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pippi, is Story a feat or an ability?

I can't seem to find it in the Core Rulebook while I was calculating whether or not it would help my Paladin gain a 6. 2569333 (repeating, of course) percent statistical DPRBBQ advantage over my fighter.


Lamontius wrote:


Pippi, is Story a feat or an ability?

I can't seem to find it in the Core Rulebook while I was calculating whether or not it would help my Paladin gain a 6. 2569333 (repeating, of course) percent statistical DPRBBQ advantage over my fighter.

I think it's a trait, actually. I know some people don't pay much attention to those. ;P

Seriously, though, if stats and numbers are the better part of the game for you, I still have no idea how you could say which is "better". There are so many crazy variables and sundry situations where one could be marginally more handy than the other. I still think there might be some "flavor" factoring into a decision to side with one over the other.

Of course, I'm not the best optimizer in the world, either, so I might just be projecting. I just wuss out and say that I think they're both neat, and I've had a lot of fun playing both. :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quoting Jupp:
im seeing quite a bit of fallacy in your arguement.

1 any class that gets dominated will disrupt the party drastically.

2 there skill list does not suck, it gives you everything a fighter would need. survival, climb, knowledge engineering, dungoneering, ect.. there skills list fits there role.

3 any group that does not have a dispell magic available is going to fail no matter what, because if there was no fighter the rogue would be hit by it, or the ninja, or the cavalier ect..

4. thats why the standard group consists of 4+ players to keep the BBEG busy while they deal with any other threats in the area.

5. making them monks is not going to fix the fighter, especially since its not broken.

6. so your concept of a strong character is one that is completely self sufficent? i hate to break this to you, but even a paladin needs a group to survive an adventure.

and who are these players that are so annoyed?

all in all i feel like you didnt contribute anything in your post, but your own prejudices. fighter are a good class, so are paladins one is not better then the other.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Replying:
The fallacy is yours, for selective looks at classes.

1) the fighter is the most easily dominated, and as everyone has been HAPPY to say, has NO PROBLEMS with the damage department. You instantly lose your meat shield AND he's killing you. Very effectively killing you. And he's probably not evil, and the paladin is going to have problems stopping him.

2) It doesn't have Perception. It doesn't have Balance. It doesn't have any social skills. They have the worst skill list in the game.

3) This isn't an argument about having a dispel magic. It's about having to use it on your own party member because he can't make a will save instead of, for instance, using it to bring down the buffs of the BBEG.

4)4 other player characters are not a class feature of the fighter, we're talking about fighters, not the rest of the party. The party is relevant only in context to what the fighter brings to them, not what they cover for the fighter.

5) Giving them all good saves doesn't make them a monk, any more then giving a monk d10 hd makes them a fighter. Note the Ranger gets a good Reflex save...AND EVASION. The paladin gets a good Will save...and then immunity to virtually everything that REQUIRES a Will save. Giving a Fighter all good saves without the follow-on would be fine, and unlike a monk, they don't have Wisdom synergy...Wis is their 4th stat.

6) An ideal character can bring something to every encounter, combat or non, without being a drag on the rest of the party, and what he brings should be unique enough that it is hard to replace, or hard to do as well by another party member.
+++++++++++++++

Kindly note the barbarian at levels gets a LOT of damage buffs, can get Pounce, can get Robilar's Gam- er, Come and Get me, Strength Surge ...AND they get Superstitious and a flat bonus on Will saves while raging that scales with levels, and other resistance/immunities to magic. A Furious Weapon is exactly as effective as Gloves of Dueling, and they can get one five levels sooner...but note magic items aren't a class feature.

And Iron Will/Improved Iron Will are general feats, they can take those exactly as easily as a fighter, and they WILL end up with higher saves in combat. however, with Superstitious, they likely won't need to.

Kindly note that the Alchemist has class abilities that can buff his Will save (potions cum spells, etc), and the ninja and rogue at the very least get Slippery Mind which allows two saves, and are generally much less dangerous if turned against the party then a fighter is.

Fighters should be the poster boys of the non-magic fighting set. Barbarians actually use supernatural powers...the fighter gets none of those, so why can't fighters delve into the anti-magic, human paragon not relying on magic shtick?

Makes no sense.

==+Aelryinth


@Aelryinth
Again
And cavaliers, alchemist, rangers and gunslingers? what make they clearly superior than fighters against a dominate person?

Alchemist rarely buff his wisdom, and fighters can have potions too (class or no class featured potions are there).


here is the error of your counter argument:

1. so a fighter is more easily dominated then any other class... would you like to make a bet on that? if a fighter can fail a will save so easily, then he can do it twice you would agree? then why wouldn't your caster cast any number of spells that target will or reflex to stop that fighter? create pit is a second level spell that will knock that fighter out for a few rounds. do you see how biased your mentality is?

2. perception can be gained by a trait. paladins dont get it, wizards dont get it, so im guessing they have s%+*ty spell lists also? any social skill can also be attained by a trait selection. you want diplomacy because you dont have a rogue to fill that role GET THE TRAIT! if i had an amazing spell list then rogues and bards would be useless, use your brain man.

3. dispell magic is so important that you should buy a wand for your wizard. who ever in the party can cast dispell magic is the person who should be doing it. the fighter does not need to have it, BECAUSE ITS A TEAM GAME, other classes help you fill in your faults. sounds to me like you want one class to rule them all.

4. see answer 3

5. only monks have good saves across the board. so you would be turning them into monks. if you cant see that then im sorry, but you're proving your bias, so keep up the good work.

6. please explain to me how anyone is a "drag on the party" perhaps you are misusing a word or phrase but in no way is a fighter unable to role play with npc's. you dont need to be a CHA based character to role play with an npc, and as long as you have your bard, rogue, paladin, ect with you he can make all those diplomacy checks for you.

and now for the lesson.

this game is made with the concept of teamwork in mind. i cant do diplomacy so that teammate does it for me. i dont need to do everything to be successful i only need to fulfill my role in the group. the fighters role in the group is to be a fighter. that means not the face, not the healer, not the trap smith, it means im the FIGHTER. if you dont like that aspect of the class then you choose to not play that role.

now to counter your arguement that a barbarian bring more to the table then a fighter, everything your barbarian can do i can do as well.

you want a pouncer? play a mobile fighter, they can even "pounce" with a bow.

you want spell sunder? fighter get that now with the ARG release.

i can keep going but ive proved my point and you are using fail logic and your own prejudice as a basis for your argument. that means having a rational discussion is impossible, and we will go in circles getting no where.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Little hint Jupp: If you have to say I proved my point in a post you probably didn't.

Listen I understand that people are fighter enthusiasts and they are fine with the fighter being a full attack + 5' move class. I understand that many or even most groups don't limit a class's non-combat utility to their skill points. I even get that many groups operate with a spotlight balance model where it's okay for one character to suck because someone else can pick up the load.

Where I have problems with the fighter and why I heavily revise the fighter for my own games is because the fighter was significantly revised in the transition from 2e to 3.x to go from one of the classes with the best defenses in the game to a class that has significant defensive weakness. From a class that was almost by default the leader of the group to a class that is basically expected to be quiet and glower at people. I dislike that the class went from being pretty mobile to a class that is often slow and limited to 5' moves in order to maximize their effectiveness.

For me I solved the problem of the fighter being outclassed by the paladin by making getting rid of the normal paladin class and making a prestige paladin (15 levels). Personally I love the fighter but from a strict evaluation of the classes bonus feats simply pale in comparison to the paladin class abilities. Yeah the fighter is arguably a better chopper than the paladin but the percentage of the game that revolves around being a ginsumatic simply isn't worth being relatively useless during long stretches of the game. So for me at least the fighter gets revised.

But don't feel sad I also revise the rogue and all the other common classes so that they fit my vision of no class being utterly worthless for long periods of the game.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Nicos wrote:

@Aelryinth

Again
And cavaliers, alchemist, rangers and gunslingers? what make they clearly superior than fighters against a dominate person?

Alchemist rarely buff his wisdom, and fighters can have potions too (class or no class featured potions are there).

Rangers have good Reflex saves + evasion. It's a tradeoff. But Wisdom has more synergy with their class skills, from casting to tracking to perception. FUrthermore, unless their FE's are the rest of the party, which is unlikely, they aren't nearly as dangerous turned against the party.

Cavaliers are the same boat as fighters, except they aren't quite as horrible turned against the party. It's not like they're going to spend a challenge while dominated, neh?

Gunslingers also gain a good reflex save, evasion, and improved uncanny dodge eventually. On top of that, they get a flat dodge bonus to AC which is better then the +Dex to armor bonus a fighter gets...and they don't need a 24 dex to max it out, either, they only have to wear light armor. see, trade-off.

Alchemists can spend spells on the fly to empower potions to buff their saves as extracts, just like any spellcaster can...and for some reason get both good Fort and Reflex saves. For a non-fighting class. (scratches head).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jupp wrote:

here is the error of your counter argument:

1. so a fighter is more easily dominated then any other class... would you like to make a bet on that? if a fighter can fail a will save so easily, then he can do it twice you would agree? then why wouldn't your caster cast any number of spells that target will or reflex to stop that fighter? create pit is a second level spell that will knock that fighter out for a few rounds. do you see how biased your mentality is?

2. perception can be gained by a trait. paladins dont get it, wizards dont get it, so im guessing they have s&@%ty spell lists also? any social skill can also be attained by a trait selection. you want diplomacy because you dont have a rogue to fill that role GET THE TRAIT! if i had an amazing spell list then rogues and bards would be useless, use your brain man.

3. dispell magic is so important that you should buy a wand for your wizard. who ever in the party can cast dispell magic is the person who should be doing it. the fighter does not need to have it, BECAUSE ITS A TEAM GAME, other classes help you fill in your faults. sounds to me like you want one class to rule them all.

4. see answer 3

5. only monks have good saves across the board. so you would be turning them into monks. if you cant see that then im sorry, but you're proving your bias, so keep up the good work.

6. please explain to me how anyone is a "drag on the party" perhaps you are misusing a word or phrase but in no way is a fighter unable to role play with npc's. you dont need to be a CHA based character to role play with an npc, and as long as you have your bard, rogue, paladin, ect with you he can make all those diplomacy checks for you.

and now for the lesson.

this game is made with the concept of teamwork in mind. i cant do diplomacy so that teammate does it for me. i dont need to do everything to be successful i only need to fulfill my role in the group. the fighters role in the group is to be a fighter. that means not the face, not the healer, not...

Your own bias is showing through and failing to consider the points being made.

1) The enemy spellcaster will target the will save because a) taking the fighter and turning him against the party is far more useful then sticking him in a pit he can actually get out of by himself b)freeing the fighter requires the party waste actions on the fighter, not the caster c) the fighter can KILL members of his own party while also leaving holes in their defense and d) the fighter is likely to have a higher dex score then Wisdom as a default, meaning a better Reflex save.

In other words, given the choice, the casters will indeed use the Will save...why do you think it's quoted so often? (not to mention there are more useful Will save core spells, not expanded). If Pits are all they have, they'll use those...but they aren't nearly as useful. When's the last time you saw a monster with Create Pit vs some form of enchantment or charm effect?

2) Traits are not class features. And we are talking the fighter class, not other classes. Thank you, stay on topic. 'Because I can blow traits and General Feats to cover a glaring weakness' is admission there's a glaring weakness, or you wouldn't be trying to cover it.

3) Dispel Magic and/or condition removal are not class features of the fighter. You don't have an argument there for fighters. You have an argument for a well-rounded party. We aren't talking about the party. Stay on topic.

4)See answer 3.

5) that's not an argument to make them into monks. Only rogues have 'just' good reflex saves. So every class with good reflex saves are now rogues? Paladins end up with better saves then monks because of their Cha to all saves. Are you going to call them monks, too? You have a logical fallacy there. Are Brawler Archetypes now monks because they start with Improved Unarmed Strike now? Are ninjas now monks because they get Ki pools? Are cavaliers now rangers because they get an animal companion? Are wizards now alchemists because they can make Discoveries?
See how that example just doesn't work?

6) In other words, you're letting the party do the work because your fighter can't perform himself. Which is exactly what we're talking about. Thanks for making the point we're trying to put across. You can roleplay to your heart's content, and then it comes time to roll and you don't have anything to contribute that comes from being a Fighter.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Nicos wrote:

@Aelryinth

Again
And cavaliers, alchemist, rangers and gunslingers? what make they clearly superior than fighters against a dominate person?

Alchemist rarely buff his wisdom, and fighters can have potions too (class or no class featured potions are there).

Rangers have good Reflex saves + evasion. It's a tradeoff. But Wisdom has more synergy with their class skills, from casting to tracking to perception. FUrthermore, unless their FE's are the rest of the party, which is unlikely, they aren't nearly as dangerous turned against the party.

Cavaliers are the same boat as fighters, except they aren't quite as horrible turned against the party. It's not like they're going to spend a challenge while dominated, neh?

Gunslingers also gain a good reflex save, evasion, and improved uncanny dodge eventually. On top of that, they get a flat dodge bonus to AC which is better then the +Dex to armor bonus a fighter gets...and they don't need a 24 dex to max it out, either, they only have to wear light armor. see, trade-off.

Alchemists can spend spells on the fly to empower potions to buff their saves as extracts, just like any spellcaster can...and for some reason get both good Fort and Reflex saves. For a non-fighting class. (scratches head).

I hihgly doubtful that rangers would have higher Wisdom than fighters, and I do not see how a charging cavalir and a full attacking gunslinger would not be a threat as big as a fighter.

Rnagers and gunslingers have better reflex save though, but that was not the question because that was not your initial statement against fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pippi wrote:

You might be playing a fighter for his or her story?

Madness - but don't worry, there's a cure! I'll start by emailing you spreadsheets for DPR calculations and then we'll move on to optimal will saves by level once you've mastered that.

After all this is done you'll come to understand that both fighters and paladins are non-top tier classes and we'll all only wizards and clerics for the rest of our PF careers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Humphrey Boggard wrote:
Pippi wrote:

You might be playing a fighter for his or her story?

Madness - but don't worry, there's a cure! I'll start by emailing you spreadsheets for DPR calculations and then we'll move on to optimal will saves by level once you've mastered that.

After all this is done you'll come to understand that both fighters and paladins are non-top tier classes and we'll all only wizards and clerics for the rest of our PF careers.

I think the concept of tiers is vastly overrated. Yes, they exist, but not to the extent that people push them. On a humorous note, I've never once used a spreadsheet for a character. It always seemed more invested than I cared. :P

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:


I hihgly doubtful that rangers would have higher Wisdom than fighters, and I do not see how a charging cavalir and a full attacking gunslinger would not be a threat as big as a fighter.

Rnagers and gunslingers have better reflex save though, but that was not the question because that was not your initial statement against fighters.

Rangers will, if just to get better perception. they need that 14 for level 4 spells. They are more likely to buff it then a fighter.

A fighter might want expertise, after all, and a Ranger can afford to turf intelligence because he has so many skill points.

A cavalier in a party dominated to turn against the party likely is not going to be able to charge them, on his horse, or otherwise, because he's right in the middle of them.

Gunslinger, also going to be in the m iddle of them, which means provoking AoO for trying to use a missile weapon in melee.

So, neither quite as good as the brute fighter.

Seriously, take the 4 man party. You're a monster with a Charm attack and some brains.
Do you dominate the cleric? Great will save and wisdom. No.
Do you dominate the mage? Great will save and likely spells helping his saves. No.
Do you dominate the rogue? Weak will save, but might slippery mind it. But less effective in melee without a flanking partner, and certianly isn't going to catch his fellows flat footed.
Fighter? Oh, yeah. poor will save, and getting rid of him removes your best melee threat, and turns their offense into YOUR offense. Pick on fighter...it's the only reasonably target.
If that target is a Paladin? Feh. better off picking on the wizard or rogue.
If a ranger...well, yeah, except having FE undead, aberrations and evil outsiders isn't likely to hurt the party like a weapon specced fighter.

the monsters vote for more fighters in the parties of people.

===Aelryinth

401 to 450 of 688 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Paladin / Anti-Paladin = Fighter, Except Better? (Why play a Fighter then?) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.