|
Seriously, you're b~*!&ing about 4-6 healing a round, saying that it outclasses Clerics? You're so full of it. And it won't even be 4-6 a round if the Crusader is actually using offensive maneuvers, because none of the maneuvers available to Crusaders allow full attacks.
I really have no idea what your talking about here?
Are you contesting that a crusader can't heal 4 - 6 HP consistantly?
Or that 2 HP per hit is bad for a 1st level character, who can bump that up with actual Manuvers if immediate healing is needed right then?
Or that a Crusader can't attack and Heal at the same time? (I said nothing about using manuvers and full attacking, you put that in). What I did say is that it is in a "healing" crusader's best interests to attempt to get as many attacks to land in a round as possible, becasue each of them will heal.
2 hp isn't even all that useful for a first-level character. Even goblins deal more damage than that with a single attack. What you said is that Crusaders outclass Clerics because they can "be both an active combatant and a healbot at the same time", and that they could "go offense and heal at the same time". This is not really true. Crusaders cannot heal effectively if they're "going offensive" and cannot be an effective attacker if they're healing. They have to choose -- just like Clerics. Oh, sure, they can deal their 1d8 longsword damage and heal at the same time, but so freaking what? The Cleric can the entire party from 5,000 miles away (greater status).
Your contention was that, and I quote, Crusaders outclass Clerics. The only ways Crusaders outclass Clerics are in melee damage dealing (not surprising, since Clerics are medium BAB and have no built in melee combat abilities) and absorbing damage (not surprising, since Clerics can't wear heavy armor, can't use heavy shields if they want to cast spells, and only have d8 hit dice). Clerics blow Crusaders out of the water in regards to healing and everything else.
EDIT: The full-attack mention was because you claim Crusaders can heal 4-6 damage a round and you claim that Crusaders can "go offensive and heal at the same time". A Crusader that is healing 4-6 damage a round is full-attacking, which by definition means he is not "going offensive", because he doesn't have any maneuvers that work with full attacks, and maneuvers are his only real source of damage.
|
|
Your contention was that, and I quote, Crusaders outclass Clerics. The only ways Crusaders outclass Clerics are in melee damage dealing (not surprising, since Clerics are medium BAB and have no built in melee combat abilities) and absorbing damage (not surprising, since Clerics can't wear heavy armor, can't use heavy shields if they want to cast spells, and only have d8 hit dice). Clerics blow Crusaders out of the water in regards to healing and everything else.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that being able to attack and to heal is a better option than one or the other. Look back at the things I did mention. At low levels, they are going to be getting a lot more mileage (if they are acting as the party healer), by Two Weapon Fighting and Combat Reflexes.
I have said more than once that Clerics can heal much more at one time. What I am saying is that a Crusader can do so for longer, and because they do not run out of spells, the entire party can actually adventure for longer. Because the Crusader can deal damage and heal at once, even if it is normal damage, they are better off for the party as a whole than the Cleric (except for needing immediate heals), because they are potentually preventing later damage, rather than trying to keep up with it. Not even a Cleric can do that in combat. Now, if the cleric doesn't channel positive energy, they have no chance at it, while a Evil Crusader sufferes not at all. Crusaders also do not have to be in touch range for Cure spells, and are much better about staying alive themselves in order to heal the rest of the party.
I am not saying that Crusaders are better Clerics than Clerics are. Clerics are my favorate class, by the way, or where in 3E, anyway. I don't care for PF Domains at all.
I laugh at anyone who thinks he can use a Crusader as the party healer. I've played a Crusader in a fairly long campaign (up to 9th level). The fact that you have absolutely zero control over which maneuvers you have available at any given time, combined with the fact that you can only heal someone who is within 10' of an enemy, means that Crusaders are piss-poor party healers. They're super at keeping themselves alive, because they have the delayed damage, plus Stone Power, and can be assured that they will always be within 10' of themselves when they attack, but they're godawful lousy at combat healing and quite literally unable to heal outside of combat.
Dude, really, going two weapon fighting is the worst worst WORST thing you could do as an crusader, EVER!
Let me explain:
First, you need high dex for it, so other stats will suffer. Second, you can´t use ANY of your maneuvers with it. Third, you would do little damage per hit (with lower str and no manover) and you hit less often due to your penaltys. And you loose your mobility on the battlefield, too. (A thing that makes Bo9S-Classes so awesome is that you can move and still deal damage, you don´t have to rely on fullattacks).
5th, you don´t buff your party as you would normaly do if you go this route.
Why would any player not out of his mind take a Crusader and make him a twf?
And all that so you can heal 2 hp per hit?
Most first level enemies will nonetheless kill you in 2-3 hits, in the first level you need to kill first in order to not get killed as the weapondice swings widely and can surpass your hitdice...
I think it's cute that Beckett thinks I follow him around to attack him, when I posted in this thread first :3. Who's following who?
My issue with Beckett is that he talks a lot about optimization and balance, but he effectively knows little about it. If someone is uninterested in crunch, I have zero problems with that. Seriously, that's great, play the game how you want and have fun with it. The problem comes up when that someone who doesn't know or doesn't care about crunch then tries to talk down to others about it. Like, say, Beckett.
Is the crusader maneuver that casts Heal good? Yes. But it's their ninth level maneuver. You don't compare it to the Heal spell, you compare it with things like Time Stop or Miracle. Are you seriously going to claim that being able to cast Heal once and do a single attack is equal to or better then Gate or Miracle? God, I hope not.
You put way, way too much importance on healing. In most casts, healing during combat is a terrible idea. You heal for significantly less then the damage enemies do. If you're trying to do combat tactically, you're far better off killing the enemies first - something clerics are pretty damn good at - and then healing after the battle. 2 HP healed every hit is pathetic. Even at level 1, it's pathetic. Fast healing like that is meant for out of combat healing, to get the party back on their feet without burning any major healing spells that might be useful later on - except crusaders cannot heal out of battle. Their own healing option is literally the worst one.
Crusaders make good tanks. They're better tanks then the other two ToB classes. However, there's a trade off - Crusaders do significantly less damage and have significantly fewer maneuvers then the other to classes, and on top of that, they can't control when or what maneuvers they get in battle. They can take a lot of hits, but they can't meet the damage output of a Warblade...nor can they meet the damage output of a Pathfinder Fighter.
I really don't see why. Your entiteled to your opinion, obviously, but I have played a main healer Crusader at it worked just fine. There are issues at times, but so what, everything has issues sometimes.
Well, you can do that, but then you are no longer a combatant that deals any meaningfull damage (on mid to high levels ~2d6+8 is really nothing as monster HP range from 80 to 400).
Just as a cleric would if he was the healer of the group. Once again: balanced!
guys, this again a matter of style and a level of optimization. In a highly optimized game, healing 2hp from an attack is a stance the crusader will never be in after 1st level (maybe even not at 1st). There are more optimal choices. Not to mention, most that are focused on optimization will be using maneuvers for most of their attacks. Again limiting the usefullness of such an abiltiy. Beckett's table clearly isnt fully optimized, as crusaders in his group have obviously attempted to make the most of this stance.
That was what I was trying to say about the book of nine swords. The book's usefullness and relative power depends on how you treat your characters from core and other material. You wont see eye to eye here because you are in different worlds.
Anyway, to answer the original post:
Bo9S works quite well with Pathfinder. Where in 3.5 the initiator classes overshadowed the martial base classes (and indeed were intended to; Warblades were intended to replace Fighters, Crusaders were intended to replace Paladins, and Swordsages were intended to replace Monks or Rogues depending on who you ask), Paizo boosted those classes enough that they're roughly on the same level now. The initiator classes are more versatile than Fighters still, because Fighters still only have the option to deal damage, but all the other classes got some nice versatility upgrades (even Barbarians and Monks). They are not, however, more powerful than Fighters; in fact, a Fighter will drastically out-damage a martial adept.
|
I'm done arguing over this. You are welcome to your opinions, but experience leads me to different views.
Of course this doesn´t mean squat of course, over hard numbers. Did the DM pull punches? Did you play using skewed monster list? Was there any houserules in place? Saying it´s broke because I saw it in one of my games means pretty much nil unless that game was an AP run as written. Then we can talk. Or if your playing a crusader over 1-20 under several different DM in several different games...then yeah your opinions may have some weight...one game under one DM under unspecified levels means zip.
Invisible posts again?
Actually, a Martial Adept using Standard actions will consistently out damage a Fighter or Barbarian with the stronger manuvers. It's the biggest strength of the class. And their defensive abilities are VASTLY higher.
In full attacks, however, PF Fighters definitely have an edge. Those bonuses add up!
==Aelryinth
Dude, really, going two weapon fighting is the worst worst WORST thing you could do as an crusader, EVER!
Let me explain:
First, you need high dex for it, so other stats will suffer. Second, you can´t use ANY of your maneuvers with it. Third, you would do little damage per hit (with lower str and no manover) and you hit less often due to your penaltys. And you loose your mobility on the battlefield, too. (A thing that makes Bo9S-Classes so awesome is that you can move and still deal damage, you don´t have to rely on fullattacks).
5th, you don´t buff your party as you would normaly do if you go this route.Why would any player not out of his mind take a Crusader and make him a twf?
And all that so you can heal 2 hp per hit?
Most first level enemies will nonetheless kill you in 2-3 hits, in the first level you need to kill first in order to not get killed as the weapondice swings widely and can surpass your hitdice...
Actually...
taking ONE level of Crusader and then making that character a TWF effectively makes you a self-healing machine using that stance. You'd have to build your character concept around it, however, and I'd much rather have Thicket of Blades for all the AoO's it can generate.
==Aelryinth
In full attacks, however, PF Fighters definitely have an edge. Those bonuses add up!
Don't forget the Vital Strike chain and the Penetrating Strike chain. Fighters can at least keep up with standard actions now, although they won't get all the special effects associated with maneuvers.
Nah, Improved Vital Strike costs THREE feats to top out. The big strikes you can actually swap out the lessers for the better ones.
Consider:
Going by intention, a PF Fighter gets 4x weapon dmg (d8 to 2d6) + normal bonuses, so +4 from class and maybe +6 from the spec tree. Let's assume a Greatsword, so bonus is avg 21 dmg +10 = 31, + Str/Magic.
A Warblade has 3 Powerful Strikes - Diamond Nightmare blade (x4 dmg), the big Iron Heart strike (+100 dmg), the x3 Concentration Check Diamond Mind Strike, and the Big Stone Dragon Strike that does 2-8 Con dmg.
Diamond Nightmare blade multiplies EVERYTHING...it's a full attack in a can at maximum TH. Blows Vital Strike out of the water.
+100 dmg + normal damage is strictly waaaaaay better then +31.
The Diamond Mind saves and the strikes basically force you to get Skill boosters to maximize the power of Concentration checks. Let's just go +10. That's probably about +40 to your check (Ranks + Con mod), which is an average check of 50, which is 150 dmg. Also better then Vital Strike. And you can do it wielding a paper fan, or a ballpoint pen.
And the Stone Dragon strike? Well, it punches all DR, + does con dmg. You're only going to cycle it in against Big Critters...you know, 20 HD+? At 5 Con, that's 40-60 extra dmg, + lowers fort save, and it can't be regenned or fast healed. against a Dragon with 40 hd? That's 80-120 dmg. Wounding in a can.
Add in Iron Heart Surge to remove all conditions/status effects, and the Iron Heart healing, and yeah, Martial Adepts are tons more flexible then Fighters.
==Aelryinth
Going by intention, a PF Fighter gets 4x weapon dmg (d8 to 2d6) + normal bonuses, so +4 from class and maybe +6 from the spec tree. Let's assume a Greatsword, so bonus is avg 21 dmg +10 = 31, + Str/Magic.
Yes, plus strength/magic. So, 8d6+ 4 (weapon training)+4 (specialization)+19 (36 strength)+5 (enhancement)+ 18 (Power Attack)+ xd6 (elemental damage). Let's assume just 2d6 from a holy weapon (or a flaming frost weapon, etc).
That gives us 10d6 + 50 damage. That's 85 average. That's competitive with Strike of Perfect Clarity. It's not as good, but he can do it every single round instead of every other round.
you aren't paying attention!
The Martial Adept is going to have the same Strength as the Fighter. He's going to have the same magic weapon. Everything is going to be the same...except you have Fighter abilities against Warblade abilities...and I didn't even figure in the stackable Int bonus to stuff.
So when I say +31, it's +21 from the extra 3x Greatsword dmg for the feat (which the MA won't have),+ 4 from CLass (which the MA won't have) and maybe +6 from the weapon spec tree (which a Warblade COULD have). THEN, tack it on to your normal Weapon + Magic + Strength.
The MA then uses that SAME Weapon + Magic + Strength, and instead of Vital Strike, Spec and Fighter Buffs, uses Manuvers.
So it's +31 dmg (On top of everything else) vs +100 dmg (vs everything else).
Keep in mind that if a Feat tree is obscenely useful, the MA will pick it up too, especially if it stacks. A Martial weapon takes care of a lot of any TH problems, and POwer Attack is a given.
The Manuvers don't stop normal Weapon dmg. They are On TOP of it. Which is why Manuvers can rock so hard.
==Aelryinth
I cleaned up a few posts that made things a little too personal, and references to the above.
Please behave like adults.
you aren't paying attention!
Neither are you. You're assuming the MA is going to use Strike of Perfect Clarity every round. He can't do that. He does it every other round at best. Thus, when you average it out, the Greater Vital Striking Fighter is roughly equivalent to the Warblade. Which is all I claimed. Here's what I specifically said, so you can stop arguing about claims I never made:
Fighters can at least keep up with standard actions now, although they won't get all the special effects associated with maneuvers.
====
That's competitive with Strike of Perfect Clarity. It's not as good, but he can do it every single round instead of every other round.
And when talking about Diamond Nightmare Blade, you're leaving out that it isn't an automatic 4x damage; he has to make a Concentration check over the target's AC to get the bonus damage. That's far from guaranteed, especially if the DM translates it literally into the Pathfinder version of a Concentration check (which would be just initiator level + relevant stat, rather than level + 3 + stat + skill boosters).
Seriously, you're b~*!&ing about 4-6 healing a round, saying that it outclasses Clerics? You're so full of it. And it won't even be 4-6 a round if the Crusader is actually using offensive maneuvers, because none of the maneuvers available to Crusaders allow full attacks.I really have no idea what your talking about here?
Are you contesting that a crusader can't heal 4 - 6 HP consistantly?
Or that 2 HP per hit is bad for a 1st level character, who can bump that up with actual Manuvers if immediate healing is needed right then?
Or that a Crusader can't attack and Heal at the same time? (I said nothing about using manuvers and full attacking, you put that in). What I did say is that it is in a "healing" crusader's best interests to attempt to get as many attacks to land in a round as possible, becasue each of them will heal.
The point is that the amount of healing is so small that it in no way outclasses a cleric, and to say it outclasses a cleric the healing would have to apply across several levels, be done enough to matter, and heal enough hp to matter. The Crusader can't do it.
I really don't see why. Your entiteled to your opinion, obviously, but I have played a main healer Crusader at it worked just fine. There are issues at times, but so what, everything has issues sometimes.
Beckett I am going to need an example of this main healer in a boss fight*. I doubt it would work in any game I have seen or played in.
*No I am not demanding that you do anything, but what you are posting is so far from what anyone(most people in this thread) else has seen that it is the exception. I could not see a crusader being the main healer in any game I ran if the party got into trouble. The party would be TPK'd unless I started to fudge rolls and use DM Fiat to save them. Now if your party rarely gets into trouble then any class(even the bard) can take the cleric spot.
As an example when I ran AoW I had a creature hitting for 15 points of damage per hit, and around 45 per round. This was against 4th level characters. I also had vital strike and cleave so either one party member was taking over 20 points of damage if I could not get a full round attack in, or I was cleaving if anyone tried to get a flank in. There would have been nothing the crusader could have done to keep the party alive. The cleric's channeling and healing belts helped a lot, as I was taking party members out.
Regarding PF classes vs ToB, my thoughts:
Crusader vs Paladin: I've always thought that Crusader wasn't that good of a paladin-alike and held the two apart from each other, and that's even more apparent to me now. They're very much two different classes. I think PF Paladin is better, in all honesty, but Crusader can be more varied. That said, PF paladin now has a better smite, better auras, and better lay on hands, along with a choice of mount of weapon spirit. You could probably have both a PF paladin and crusader in the same party and see a lot of differences, in my opinion.
Monk vs Swordsage: Monks are terrible in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Swordsage is everything a monk is supposed to be. The end.
Fighter vs Warblade: Warblade is more versatile and more varied, while fighter can pound for pound pump out more damage. This makes sense - the warblade was made to address the concern that fighters didn't have enough to do, and the PF fighter was made to address the concern that fighters didn't do any damage. Two in the same party probably will have overlap, but I think they both have their own strengths and weaknesses. The only worry for warblade overshadowing fighter is in simple fun in my opinion. Warblade simply has more things to do then just full attack, and while fighter can indeed pump out more damage then warblade, it'll get kinda boring.
Yeah, I always rather liked the concept of the blade bravos over the "old school" types along the lines of "I full attack. I full attack again. Now let me Cleave that monster. I full attack ... yet again."
How much more fun to say "I Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip the beast in twain, boosting for Rabid Mongoose or some other stuff! A-HA! He quails in agony! Now for my next trick..."... O:-)
But all in all, yes, I agree. The classes now don't seem overpowered anymore. Also seeing as you can't combine most maneuvers with a combat maneuver or damage-boosting feats any longer.
I <3 Martial Adepts.
^^
This thread.
Dude, really, going two weapon fighting is the worst worst WORST thing you could do as an crusader, EVER!
Actually I would think attacking your allies would be the worst thing you could do as a crusader. Or maybe take a nap in the middle on combat. Putting broken glass in your companions' rations? tying their shoelaces together while you are on night watch and then yelling "Goblins are attacking!!"
Or maybe not just attack your allies, but going on a crusade to wipe out all of their families as well and then enslave entire nations to build grand monuments to yourself that you will just destroy so that they can have the pleasure of building them over and over and over again for all eternity. *That's* worse than two weapon fighting, I would think. But I suppose it's all relative.
:) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
I removed some posts. Calm down. Let things go. Arguing on the internet is one of the least productive things there is.
I removed more posts.
Stop picking fights.
I removed some posts. Calm down. Let things go. Arguing on the internet is one of the least productive things there is.
No it is not!
I removed some posts. Calm down. Let things go. Arguing on the internet is one of the least productive things there is.No it is not!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!I removed some posts. Calm down. Let things go. Arguing on the internet is one of the least productive things there is.No it is not!
Not!
Not!Yes it is!I removed some posts. Calm down. Let things go. Arguing on the internet is one of the least productive things there is.No it is not!
Is!
Is!Not!Yes it is!I removed some posts. Calm down. Let things go. Arguing on the internet is one of the least productive things there is.No it is not!
Not!
One of Tiamat's brood? ^^ That dragon bi...ggy gets cranky when someone touches her hoard during "that time of the century".
I agree with Beckett, from experience playing a crusader. The Bo9S is a bit to powerful for pathfinder. I would use it with caution, especially the crusader.
This always confuses me, since crusader is the least damaging of the three.
Like ok, you think ToB is powerful. You're wrong, but alright. But then you say Crusader is the worst part, and my brain just starts to glaze over a bit.