There are to many threads going on that slam the paladin because someone feels the fighter is inadequate. The one I am currently involved in posting in is why I am posting this thread. I just dont understand, if we need to look at the classes this way then why are we not slamming the Cleric because the paladin cant do what he can? Or slamming the Wizard because the bard can't do what he can do?
Here is the most recent post of the other thread.
I am not saying, nor have I ever said that this is not the way it should be. I love that the fighter finally has a place to shine and things he is good at! My issue is that people keep throwing the fighter out there like he is some sort of bastard son of a three legged mule and we should weaken the paladin because we feel bad for the fighter "screw that". The fighter is awesome at what he does, if you dont feel that way dont play a fighter but dont try to use what you feel are weaknesses of the fighter as ammunition to reduce the paladin.If the paladin is better in every aspect for fighting evil, then there's no point in playing a fighter in 90% of campaigns.
Have we not proven on countless threads that the fighter is good at what he is supposed to do? Of course there are some classes that are weaker than others and some that are stronger! But damnit, the fighter is far from the weakest and the paladin is farfrom the strongest.
::Rents booth in thread::
There are to many threads going on that slam the paladin because someone feels the fighter is inadequate. The one I am currently involved in posting in is why I am posting this thread. I just dont understand, if we need to look at the classes this way then why are we not slamming the Cleric because the paladin cant do what he can? Or slamming the Wizard because the bard can't do what he can do?
Here is the most recent post of the other thread.
Have we not proven on countless threads that the fighter is good at what he is supposed to do? Of course there are some classes that are weaker than others and some that are stronger! But damnit, the fighter is far from the weakest and the paladin is farfrom the strongest.I am not saying, nor have I ever said that this is not the way it should be. I love that the fighter finally has a place to shine and things he is good at! My issue is that people keep throwing the fighter out there like he is some sort of bastard son of a three legged mule and we should weaken the paladin because we feel bad for the fighter "screw that". The fighter is awesome at what he does, if you dont feel that way dont play a fighter but dont try to use what you feel are weaknesses of the fighter as ammunition to reduce the paladin.If the paladin is better in every aspect for fighting evil, then there's no point in playing a fighter in 90% of campaigns.
Agreed. The fighter is great in his own right. He fights, He bites, he can move full speed in heavy armor, gets great fighter only feats that are always on, and he can dump Int, Wis, and Cha if he so chooses and be wonderful at what he does, namely hitting things in the face and taking a hit.
Yeah I wouldn't dump Wisdom if I was a fighter... the others sure but not wisdom.
It's never enough.
Now would that be the Epica version or the 5FDP version?
*slams paladin* oh yea personally I like the fighter.. don't like what is done with the paladin, I'll write my own version sometime. Prolly going to use some PRPG stuff I like and dump the rest in the recycling bin to make new tin cans.
I prefer the fighter over the Paladin. Sure the power of paladin against evil is great but not everything is evil. As well the Paladin is far too restrictive for my tastes and always causes party conflicts. I prefer to avoid that.
::Rents booth in thread::
Booth rental costs one constructive comment, otherwise "I say goodday!"
::Rents booth in thread::Booth rental costs one constructive comment, otherwise "I say goodday!"
I like both paladins and fighters, so everybody wins.
So if we all like the fighter and the paladin so much, and it seems so far that people still play the fighter in light of how overpowering and destructive the paladin is then why is it that we are constantly hearing the call to nerf the paladin?
Is there some other class out there that feels slighted by the paladin? Has the paladin stepped on the little baby toes of the ranger or sorcerer by some chance?
I may sound condecending but honestly it doesn't make sense to me. The only compairison we ever see is that the fighter's feelings are hurt because the paladin smites evil better than he does. Are there other classes that feel slighted because the paladin is the go to guy against evil?
Have we not proven on countless threads that the fighter is good at what he is supposed to do? Of course there are some classes that are weaker than others and some that are stronger! But damnit, the fighter is far from the weakest and the paladin is farfrom the strongest.
So who is the weakest?
In versatility? Fighter.In battlefield control? Debatable.
Healing? The Fighter.
Speed? The Fighter.
Overall, Fighter is weakest. It might not be weak in hitting, damage, etc but one should look at all statistics.
Paladin? Good attacks and good defense
He just has Code (less lenient in breaking, any violation not just Gross violations) worries.
So who is the weakest?
In versatility? Fighter.
In battlefield control? Debatable.
Healing? The Fighter.
Speed? The Fighter.
Weakest?
In versatility? Paladin.In battlefield control? Paladin.
Healing? Fighter
Speed? Paladin.
The fighter is faster, has more choices about how to do battlefield control due to having more feats, and can easily master any form of combat the paladin chooses -- and then two more to boot while still having room for other feats as well.
Have we not proven on countless threads that the fighter is good at what he is supposed to do? Of course there are some classes that are weaker than others and some that are stronger! But damnit, the fighter is far from the weakest and the paladin is farfrom the strongest.
So who is the weakest?
In versatility? Fighter.
In battlefield control? Debatable.
Healing? The Fighter.
Speed? The Fighter.Overall, Fighter is weakest. It might not be weak in hitting, damage, etc but one should look at all statistics.
Paladin? Good attacks and good defense
He just has Code (less lenient in breaking, any violation not just Gross violations) worries.
Really? The fighter is weaker at healing than the barbarian? or the monk? (ok they have small abilities that heal themselves ill give you that). What about the wizard or sorcerer? they dont heal.
Speed? The fighter gets to move at full speed in any armor.. pretty sure that keeps him from being the slowest.
Are you really saying the fighter is the least versatile?... come on man, please keep the thread going with a thread of sanity. I would argue that the fighter is one of the most versatile.
And Battlefield control?... well that is answered with the above statement on versatility. You want to control the field... take the feats that let you dot hat, the fighter has feats in bunches I hear.
*NINJAED* ahh,
+1 Abraham
Just cause I like to hit it earlier and often:
Also the paladin has fewer choices in action and versatility due to the code -- the fighter can use demons, lie, cheat, steal, poison and anything else that he thinks will win him the day -- the paladin can't.
Just cause I like to hit it earlier and often:
Also the paladin has fewer choices in action and versatility due to the code -- the fighter can use demons, lie, cheat, steal, poison and anything else that he thinks will win him the day -- the paladin can't.
Wait wait wait!... hold on, stop the train! Are you saying.... I mean could you be eluding that the fighter might be... dare I say it stronger than the paladin in any area?....
|
Also, the Fighter gets more feats that he can use to master multiple styles of fighting, whereas the Paladin will most likely have to choose one and stick to it. A fighter can afford to take a few ranged feats as well as some melee feats, and maybe even a few combat maneuver feats as well. Paladins will take one tree for most of their career. The trade off? They can heal themselves and kill evil things in the face really hard.
You should remember Pallys has spells to add to his versatility.
Wait wait wait!... hold on, stop the train! Are you saying.... I mean could you be eluding that the fighter might be... dare I say it stronger than the paladin in any area?....Just cause I like to hit it earlier and often:
Also the paladin has fewer choices in action and versatility due to the code -- the fighter can use demons, lie, cheat, steal, poison and anything else that he thinks will win him the day -- the paladin can't.
Not any area -- the paladin is great at healing, he's good on magical defenses, and when it comes to laying the smack down on evil he's top notch. He does get a mount if he chooses which can make things a lot more interesting -- but it doesn't guarantee it.
You should remember Pallys has spells to add to his versatility.
The paladin does have several really good spells to help him -- but unless he has invested in pearls of power he'll not have enough spell slots to use them to best effect. For the most part the spells are useful... but not something that will change the course of history.
I will agree he is a better spell caster than the fighter -- which makes sense -- the fighter isn't a spell caster. As far as versatility though it doesn't add too much.
You know who is more awesome than the paladin and the fighter put together?
I prefer the fighter to the paladin. I have never been a particular fan of paladins. In fact, to some extent I dislike paladins.
With that in mind, during the Core Rules alpha/beta, I argued that paladins were seriously underpowered and needed improvement.
Do I feel the paladin outshines the fighter? In a narrowly defined niche he can.
Would I choose a paladin over a fighter? Only if I were aiming for that narrowly defined niche.
Paladins shine in very specific circumstances, have some specific limitations, and otherwise hold their own next to a fighter.
If paladins are clearly overshadowing fighters in a campaign, then it has more to do with how the campaign is being run than the comparable strength of the two classes.
+1 Eloquently said!
I ain't good at playin paladins, cuz I ain't got the stick stuck in the right spot.
"If paladins are clearly overshadowing fighters in a campaign, then it has more to do with how the campaign is being run than the comparable strength of the two classes."
Agreed.
As I have said before, the problem with the Paladin is smite evil. Smite evil causes havoc with the single BBEG encounter, which was already a big problem in encounter design.
I would also say that few areas of the game are more subjective then alignment, and no one is more wrapped in their alignment then the paladin. In some campaigns paladins are just not an appropriate PC class, even in the hands of a good player. From an objective design standpoint, paladin should probably be an NPC class or something, but it is deeply rooted in the history of this game, and I wouldn't want it any other way!
|
Paladins...outshine? Well, maybe not ALL paladins, but my armor is quite the high-gloss, shiny mail compared to most fighters. I mean, I DO have a reputation to uphold. Can't have a Marshall of Abadar looking shabby now, can we?
Oh. OH! You were talking about combat prowess! Ah, I see.
Why, then, are you not including the barbarian in this debate? I mean, my good, yet utterly uncivilized, friend, Ostog, is quite effective in combat....
Ah. I see my party is ready to head out to the Devil's Platter again.
Carry on!
I ain't good at playin paladins, cuz I ain't got the stick stuck in the right spot.Keep trying to put it in your elbow?
I got two. Which one should I use?
Paladins...outshine? Well, maybe not ALL paladins, but my armor is quite the high-gloss, shiny mail compared to most fighters. I mean, I DO have a reputation to uphold. Can't have a Marshall of Abadar looking shabby now, can we?
Oh. OH! You were talking about combat prowess! Ah, I see.
Why, then, are you not including the barbarian in this debate? I mean, my good, yet utterly uncivilized, friend, Ostog, is quite effective in combat....
Ah. I see my party is ready to head out to the Devil's Platter again.
Carry on!
I'm not sure I'm understanding the Barbarian Humor.
|
Funnily enough, my 2 current PF characters are a fighter and a paladin.
The fighter smooshes pretty much every critter from RotRL in one hit.
The paladin takes such a beating in LoF that without Lay on Hands he'd gave failed at everything like 10 times over.
They each have their strength but I couldn't pick one to enjoy over the other.
One of the glaring problems is those people who can only stand 'the best' and cannot stand anyone or anything else being 'the best'.
Their sole focus is being 'the best' and they see anything that is not 'the best' as nonsense and stupid.
They have lost sight of the fact that variety is good and with variety often comes fun.
Those who complaim are usually more hung up on the math than they are on the possibility of fun.
I prefer the fighter to the paladin. I have never been a particular fan of paladins. In fact, to some extent I dislike paladins.
With that in mind, during the Core Rules alpha/beta, I argued that paladins were seriously underpowered and needed improvement.
Do I feel the paladin outshines the fighter? In a narrowly defined niche he can.
Would I choose a paladin over a fighter? Only if I were aiming for that narrowly defined niche.
Paladins shine in very specific circumstances, have some specific limitations, and otherwise hold their own next to a fighter.
If paladins are clearly overshadowing fighters in a campaign, then it has more to do with how the campaign is being run than the comparable strength of the two classes.
+1. I would add something, but you said whatever I would have thought of.
*buys pitchfork, uses it to roast 3 marshmallows at once*
This is all very interesting so far... I hope a lot of people are reading.
We currently have both a fighter and a paladin in our LoF game. It has been interesting.
Stats:
Fighter
str 16, dex 16 con 14 int 14 wis 14 cha 10 (this is after a belt of giant's strength +2)
paladin
str 20 dex 12 Wis 9 Cha 18 (I think)
The paladin is the mounted type with power attack and the needed mounted combat/ride by attack/ spirited charge.
The fighter is a falcata specialist using the collegiate fighter feature from the pathfinder chronicles.
In general the paladin started out with more damage however the fighter has quickly over taken him in regular damage output. That being said the paladin still does good damage in general (better when he can be mounted but not quite as good as the fighter regularly gets) and does have other powers... the fighter however has use magic device as a class skill (dangerously curious is one of her traits) and has better AC.
TWO CLASSES ENTER ONE CLASS LEAVES
THOSE ARE THE RULES OF THUNDERDOME
Fighter can take advantage of unarmed foes, kick sand in an opponents eyes, fight "dirty", lie about stuff, cheat in combat, flee to protect himself, and is all around way more versatile in my opinion.
A Paladin cannot do any of those things.
Gimme the quick and dirty fighter any day.
What stops a paladin from killing an unarmed opponent or fighting dirty. How can one cheat in combat? Why can't a paladin retreat if he is overmatched?
I'll give you everything but escaping. A tactical retreat is totally allowable by a paladin. They don't all find the nearest dragon to hurl themselves against at level 1, you know.
always causes party conflicts.
Wow. My exaggeration monitor just exploded, was thrown across the command deck and hit a strategically placed ensign!
You almost had another, but maybe next time.
I've seen, and played, paladins that didn't cause party conflicts. In fact, paladins have never caused conflicts in my game. In some cases, it was players not understanding the class causing conflicts. But most of the time, it's players using the paladin as an excuse to be a$&@$#@@s that cause the conflict.
So who is the weakest?
In versatility? Fighter.
In battlefield control? Debatable.
Healing? The Fighter.
Speed? The Fighter.Overall, Fighter is weakest.
Don't you forget something? Like the single most important aspect of warrior-type classes?
I'll solve: It's fighting!
Plus, fighters of 3rd level or more can move without penalty in medium armour. At 7th level, they can do it in heavy armour. Plus their maximum dexterity bonus increases in armour, while their armour penalty decreases.
So how are paladins faster than fighters?
The fighter is great. The paladin is great. They have their strengths. They have their weaknesses. They both rock.
Neither has to hide behind the other.
|
The fighter is great. The paladin is great. They have their strengths. They have their weaknesses. They both rock.
Neither has to hide behind the other.
I agree...
And the problem is when people try to 'balance' the game because they can't learn how to roll with the punches as a GM. Most of the threads I've seen had examples of people whining over spilt Paladins and not attempting to learn from the situation given to them.
|
Damage aside. Which is better in a roleplaying situation? I mean fighters have lot more books written about them where you think "cool" Paladins mostly end up sacrificing themselves for some cause. So for me fighters win because you don't have to single-handly slow the Tarrsque down to allow the innocents to escape.
S.
Sorry that it's kinda offtopic here, but I have a major beef with Clerics losing their heavy armor proficency ... ;-)
+1 Throwback-Wish-It-Was-2009-Awesome bonus.
Zo