I would argue that the fighter is one of the most versatile.
'
+1Edit: As for the rest I really don't need to post anything as long as KaeYoss is doing such a great job :-)
so +1 to everything KaeYoss have posted in this thread.
|
Sure, the paladin could flee. But what if there were still innocents in harms way, like a group of schoolchildren in immediate danger from some strong wandering monster? I think that fleeing in a situation like that would be horrible enough for some DM's to start to question your paladin-hood, especially since you're (apparently) immune to fear.
stuff +
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.
I would say spells + LoH + channel Energy adds to versatility, but this is starting to look like who has the biggest d*ck. Or oddly enough who has the smallest.
Pally and fighter are both great and versatile in their own way.I di however think that the spells do add to much.
Protection from Evil/ Magic Circle against Evil, Remove Paralysis, Death Ward and Dispel Evil can really save the day. And spells like bless, bless weapon, Prayer and holy sword are all nice. Holy sword is actually great. Bless weapon can actuall be cast on the rogue's or fighter's weapon. Resist energy is also a great spell.
I guess I don't really have to go on. Both classes are good and KaeYoss is posting.
What is meant by battlefield control? Isn't channel energy battlefield control?
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.
But I would argue that sacrificing oneself for a cause can be among the coolest things in a game.
One of the crowning moments of awesome for a paladin PC in my group came when the adventurers were fleeing a huge water elemental that had them outmatched. The paladin stepped forward and faced the thing down alone, allowing the others to escape. Mind you, this is an elemental, not a demon, so all that goody-good smiting evil was useless. As it turned out, the paladin survived the fight with 1 hit point left and got her praises sung by all. Had the character died, though, I don't think there would have been many complaints around the table and it still would have been the type of story that the players talk about later.
Paladins can be among the most awesome characters to role-play, but they need to lead by example rather than be preachy.
In game terms, however, I'd go with a fighter most of the time due to the versatility. Paladins are great as specialty characters, while fighters can be molded into almost anything you want. I don't see that one really treads all that much on the other when you boil the two classes down to their core concepts.
|
But I would argue that sacrificing oneself for a cause can be among the coolest things in a game.
Which any character in game can do, and it's cooler when the player doesn't think he has to do so because of his Code or because "they have to".
Slightly on topic. A newish player made a apaldin for our game, and we went off in search of a bandit hideout by a lake. After an encounter with really big frogs, we came uopn a run-down shack. The DM told us we could hear a humming sound. Our cleric said he was going to knock on the door, at which point the paladin says he's going to open the door... with his warhammer!
The humming we heard? Wasps. Enough for a swarm. We nearly got TPK'd because of this.
My point is, during the fight when we were discussing ways to get away, the player leaned over to whisper to me "I can't run from them because I'm a paladin" and all I can do is look at him like he's crazy!
My point is, during the fight when we were discussing ways to get away, the player leaned over to whisper to me "I can't run from them because I'm a paladin" and all I can do is look at him like he's crazy!
Some DMs don't like Pallys that run (goes against their idea of a Pally) so the player was likely saying: he doesn't want to lose his powers.
Such an interesting conversation going on!
Im curious though.. if all we are seeing in this thread is true, then why do people still use the fighter in arguments to "nerf" the paladin?.. its pretty much a given in any "the paladin is OP" thread.
And if we are agreeing that the classes are pretty much equal and even some people saying the fighter is the stronger, why is it we have paladin errata effectively "nerfing" the paladin but nothing done to the fighter? (ill conclude that I dont want anything done to the fighter, I think he is great.)
|
|
My point is, during the fight when we were discussing ways to get away, the player leaned over to whisper to me "I can't run from them because I'm a paladin" and all I can do is look at him like he's crazy!
Some DMs don't like Pallys that run (goes against their idea of a Pally) so the player was likely saying: he doesn't want to lose his powers.
Oh no, the DM was okay with us running for it(over half the party jumped in the lake to get away from the swarm). The player actually thought he couldn'trun from something because he was lawful good.
In a campaign where the plot revolves around devils corrupting wizards into necromancy and unleashing the evil dragons of legend on the world, I guarantee the Paladin is going to outperform the fighter all day long. That's just the nature of things, really. OTOH, if you are busy fighting off the attempts of a chaotic neutral cult to bring an end to the order of the world and ressurect the Neo-titan Chaos, a fighter is very likely going to be a better choice.
So the balance of the classes depends on the type of campaign and not in some sort of compairison between the two, am I getting this right?
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.
Oh it's definitely my players. They always go to such extremes when it comes to Lawful. It's not just the Paladin, had the same problem when one my guys tried to play Hell Knight. What's really odd is they can play Lawful monks with out problems and I keep telling them to play the Paladin like their Monk. It's like the Paladin hat goes on and lawful stupid appears.
|
I agree with most of the sentiment here... both have their place. I personally tend to prefer Pallys, but only because of their uber-saves. And even that can be circumvented... Dwarven trip-monkey may be my next character, and he has 14 in all 3 save stats + the dwarven +2 to all major saves. Fighters pound-for-pound dish out more damage and have better ACs; as well as many more options. Pallys have an awesome ability for BBEG killing, but when fighting large swarms of guys just isn't going to do as well. Fighter also generally has better physical stats since he has more "dump" stats (not true of my dwarf, but he's an exception).
Pallys make better horsemasters obviously (having a mount that levels is requiired here; though a fighter / Druid combo might be sick). Fighters have more staying power vs mobs (simply put they generally have better ACs). They both have their place.
If we want pitchforks and "classes that shouldn't exist", you need to bring up Barbarians, Rangers, or Monks.
Put the monster on a cliff, or a lake, or surrounded by natural pit-falls and hazards. The paladin can't do physical skills, and needs someone to hold his hand when he is outside the dungeon.
Unless the paladin in question is riding a giant lizard that can climb and swim, in which case he deserves to win on basis of being freaking awesome.
Both are incredibly powerful in Pathfinder imo. Maybe too good compared to casters now.
3.X and PF are always throwing in "just another attack" and "just another +1 damage". It's gotten a little out of control imo. In my campaigns, the superstars are the barbs and fighters, casters are situational and often not needed, classes like Bards are just useless. At the last Gencon I played 8 scenarios, this was definitely the case in all of them.
If we want pitchforks and "classes that shouldn't exist", you need to bring up Barbarians, Rangers, or Monks.
This thead was not about pitchforks. It was about everytime someone screams "the pally is OP" or one of his abilities is OP they compare him to the fighter. For some reason people think the fighter is the fighter of 3.5 and thus the paladin should be the same aswell. This thead is about how both of these classes are not their 3.5 counterparts, they are very much improved.
I think the Ranger is a very good class and the monk can stand on his own though there are a few things about him that need a buff.
I think the Barbarian is the weakest martial class because the bonus he gets from rage progresses to slowly and peaks to low, and because the rage powers are basically weak all around except for a select few.
But this thead was not meant to address anything except the mismatched compairison between Paladin and Fighter.
There is no war between fighter lovers and Paladin lovers.
There was - more or less - consensus that the smite needed a nerf. Now Jason nerfed it and most people are pleased. A small extreme minority are still complaining. But they are few.
You're only putting out the fire with gasoline.
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?
The Fighter and the Paladin come up against one another in comparisons for the same reason that people often argued about Wizard vs. Sorcerer in 3.5, they're both classes that fill a common role in the party and perform in a very similar manner (albeit, through differing means).
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.
I don't know about everyone else involved in these sorts of discussions, but for me at least the point of having them is to come to a greater understanding of the rules. The best way I've found of finding out where your assumptions are wrong or you've made a mistake in your reading of something is to open up your ideas to critique by arguing them in front of those that may disagree.
I don't understand the attitude some people seem to have that someone is trying to "nerf" their paladin (or fighter, or whatever class). This isn't a mmorpg! No one outside of your group can take anything away from or alter anything about how paladins work in your group unless you choose to allow it.
The other argument I hear against having a discussion about class balance is it shouldn't matter, and everyone should just play what's fun or fits their character concept, and not worry about it. That's a false dichotomy though, there's no reason being interested in the relative effectiveness of two classes or even wanting to build an optimized character is necessarily opposed to also making a character that is fun or fits a character concept.
Just my two cents.
I don't understand the attitude some people seem to have that someone is trying to "nerf" their paladin (or fighter, or whatever class). This isn't a mmorpg! No one outside of your group can take anything away from or alter anything about how paladins work in your group unless you choose to allow it.
The other argument I hear against having a discussion about class balance is it shouldn't matter, and everyone should just play what's fun or fits their character concept, and not worry about...
Nerfing terms came before More-pigs arised.
DMs that listen to the official errata cause the players Pally to be nerfed.
Thus, this is about some people nerfing their Pally.
Nerfing terms came before More-pigs arised.
Referring to negative changes to a class as a "nerf" started in Ultima Online. (Seriously, google it.)
Hello, my name is Trevor,
and I am a paladin.
Nerfing terms came before More-pigs arised.Referring to negative changes to a class as a "nerf" started in Ultima Online. (Seriously, google it.)
Nope the toys came first:
Originally, this was a product line of foam based toys for children. It was adopted by the online gaming community to refer to the reduction in power of a game feature for the sake of balance.People have no clue assume Ultima, but nothing links it to first even if you do research. It is sort of like how people believe a group of people thought the earth was flat. But if you do enough research, no one actually thought that. But the idea caught on so people spread it anyway.
http://gmtristan.com/the-origins-of-nerf/
Nope the toys came first:
Originally, this was a product line of foam based toys for children. It was adopted by the online gaming community to refer to the reduction in power of a game feature for the sake of balance.
Yes, the toys came first, obviously. The gaming community that started using the term in this context however, was the UO community.
People have no clue assume Ultima, but nothing links it to first even if you do research. It is sort of like how people believe a group of people thought the earth was flat. But if you do enough research, no one actually thought that. But the idea caught on so people spread it anyway.
Oh really?
From the website of Raph Koster, lead designer on UO:
For the record, the term "nerfing" entered online gaming vocabulary because of UO. At some point, we reduced the power of swords in melee combat, and players started complaining that they were hitting each other woth nerf swords. The rest is history...
There is no war between fighter lovers and Paladin lovers.
There was - more or less - consensus that the smite needed a nerf. Now Jason nerfed it and most people are pleased. A small extreme minority are still complaining. But they are few.
You're only putting out the fire with gasoline.
The point I am trying to make here is that many times someone starts up a thread stating the paladin is OP, or some aspect of the paladin is OP and they continually refer to the fighter to prove their point. I feel this thread so far is disproving that way of thinking.
The "consensus that the smite needed a nerf" came from a lot of threads just like what I mentioned above. So I wanted to start a thread that addressed the issues I have with that. Thus far, the consensus of this thread has been that the classes are different, they both do what they are supposed to do well, and there are many ways you can and many ways you can't compare the two. So when someone says, Smite is to powerful because the fighter can't keep up with the damage he does, that argument does not hold any weight.
Do I disagree with the nerf of smite however small? yes I do.
Why do I disagree? Because I feel it was balanced the way it was and I feel that the nerf came from the reasons I stated above.
Broddigan said that if you dont like it dont use it, but that does not work in every community. Some people have flown so far off the handle about smite that they house rulled it all the way down to nearly where it was in 3.5. Some group, like mine, try their best to stay exactly with what is in the book because to many house rules leads to unnecessary complications and can take away from the fun.
Many of these knee jerk reactions simply come from an encounter where the paladin had the chance to do exactly what he was supposed to do and someone got upset because for a small moment their character was not in the spotlight.
Of course I will still play a paladin, nerf or no nerf. I played one in 3.5 and struggled through the classes obvious faults. I enjoy it for what it is not what it can do, but the new things it can do are so much more fun I cringe at those being taken away.
If we want pitchforks and "classes that shouldn't exist", you need to bring up Barbarians, Rangers, or Monks.
HEY.
Rangers are good >:|
...I got nothin' on barbarians and monks.
stuff
Actually this thread doesn't prove a thing.
If those who think the paladin still need a nerf or/and the fighters still need some love spot this and are willing to spend time and energy posting here you will get money's worth ;-)I think some of the arguments brought up by the Fighter lobby during the BETA-test was far from sensible, but over all I've come to the conclution that a lot of their points was good and valid.
A lot of people was disapointed when the previews hit the blogg.
The fighter lobby took it gracefully, caster lovers didn't (and Yes I was one of the people who displaced ungraceful manners).
So my point is. The Paladin got a nerf and most people from the "fighter lobby" doesn't bother anymore. They know they have to use houserules and they have no need to start a flamewar. But if you keep pushing it some of them might give you hard time. That is they might give you the truth..or at least their truth.
edit:
As for fighter vs. Paladin, well in a normal campaign were you fight evil foes the Paladin will probably from level 7 or 8 be more powerful than the fighter if using 15 BP. But as KaeYoss said.
"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 Nerf was good enough. And I still think aura of justice should be nerfed too.
I like the paladin and the fighter, but Smite against team evil was a bit much, even for the guy playing the paladin, at 20th level +40 to EVERY hit, without DR with greater chance to hit and all... unecessary. Smite is still a shiny beacon, I would say it's the most powerful feature of any class in the game, and it still is, nothing is changed.
Not to stir up a hornet's nest, but I didn't (surprisingly enough) see a comparison of either with the cavalier, at least on a quickish search.
So what do people think of it? Challenge is sort of a smite evil light, but doesn't require the enemy be evil, so it removes that variability in usefulness form campaign to campaign...on the other hand, they're made to work with a mount, which can be harder to pull off in some sorts of campaigns than others...
stuffActually this thread doesn't prove a thing.
But as KaeYoss said.
"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."
Im sorry, but wasn't that the same thing I said aswell?
I hope anyone who cares enough spots this thread. I hope they read it all and post honestly.
I'm just happy the fighter and the paladin are both awesome again. I don't have a problem playing either.
I think the only thing that can really be said about any of the classes is that none can stand alone. The game was designed to require a balanced group of arcanist, divine caster/healer, martial type and trap finder. The players and their characters have to balance their goals and work together. That's what interesting about the game.
stuffActually this thread doesn't prove a thing.
But as KaeYoss said.
"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."
Im sorry, but wasn't that the same thing I said aswell?
Thus far, the consensus of this thread has been that the classes are different, they both do what they are supposed to do well, and there are many ways you can and many ways you can't compare the two. So when someone says, Smite is to powerful because the fighter can't keep up with the damage he does, that argument does not hold any weight.
No, obviously not.
Zark, it seems to me that you are the one throwing gasoline on this fire.
You said
But as KaeYoss said.
"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."
but I obviously am not saying that very same thing?...
Did you even read the title of this thread?
|
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.
Wizard and sorcerer have vamp touch. Also false life. Temp HP may not be healing...but it's more then what the fighter has.
Aura of justice. Actually I would have been happy with the aura getting nerfed/nixed and leaving smite be.
+1
I 100% fully and whole heartedly agree with you here.
|
My 13th level fighter just died. He was awesome. Fighter is the only class with enough feats to make it Shield Master. So I'll miss my power attacking, shield master, stand stilling, step upping fighter. He really owned the battlefield.
I just rolled a paladin 13 for my next character. +26 damage vs undead and evil outsider when Smite Evil is active is not bad at all... especially when he can give that to the whole party vs. Aura of Justice... just wow...
Still page 2...so for Sebastian's benefit:
Lawful Good is Lawful Stupid!
The thing I like about the fighter now is his superiority with a large range of weapons types and enough feats to take advantage of it. You can actually have both a pretty damn good archer and a sword and shield style fighter rolled into one package with feats to spare for even more options.
If your average pally doesn't have a superbad to charge at he's kind of subpar. If your superbad is smart enough to put mooks/golems/neutral monsters in the way of the paladin he's still subpar.
Zark, it seems to me that you are the one throwing gasoline on this fire.
You said
But as KaeYoss said.
"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."
but I obviously am not saying that very same thing?...
Did you even read the title of this thread?
I Edisoned your Tesla ;-P
|
I always find it funny when someone says this class is stronger than that class, etc. While there is a slight power difference here and there (*cough* monk *cough), I find that the player has more to do with what is OP than the class itself. I have some players in my game that will make a machine gun out of a toothpick and obliterate everything in their way. I have other players that I could give a machine gun to and they would use it as a club to hit their enemies with. Point is, I have found its less about what the available capabilities are and more about how resourceful and effective the player is with the "raw materials" their class provides them. There is a ranger in my current game that I have found is more effective in combat and wrecking the combat plans of the monsters than the fighter (whose dead now), the barbarian, or the paladin. He has a weaker AC, is doing 2 wep fighting(so no archery), slower (dwarf), and made dex his high stat so he does'nt hit as hard. Yet somehow he always seems to be in the right place or do the right thing, have the right skill, etc.
I Edisoned your Tesla ;-P
HAH you sure did :) I think Zark wanted it that way.
@redcelt32
Great post, I think you are exactly right when you say a lot of what a character can do is how you play it. Like poker is not 100% a game of chance neither is Pathfinder (or any other RPG for that matter) a game of what is written on your character sheet. +1 to you sir.
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.
I can't believe you killed Azul the Osirian (yes, it was stolen from Azul the Cerulian) by taking away his con score. Azul has a few things the falcata fighter does not. He has his trusty sidekick Lance to shine his armor, polish his boots, and bring him cool drinks and backup weapons. Azul did successfully smite the
I always find it funny when someone says this class is stronger than that class, etc. While there is a slight power difference here and there (*cough* monk *cough), I find that the player has more to do with what is OP than the class itself. I have some players in my game that will make a machine gun out of a toothpick and obliterate everything in their way. I have other players that I could give a machine gun to and they would use it as a club to hit their enemies with. Point is, I have found its less about what the available capabilities are and more about how resourceful and effective the player is with the "raw materials" their class provides them. There is a ranger in my current game that I have found is more effective in combat and wrecking the combat plans of the monsters than the fighter (whose dead now), the barbarian, or the paladin. He has a weaker AC, is doing 2 wep fighting(so no archery), slower (dwarf), and made dex his high stat so he does'nt hit as hard. Yet somehow he always seems to be in the right place or do the right thing, have the right skill, etc.
The player's skill do matter, but not everyone thinks outside the box. It also depends on far a DM is willing to stretch the rules.
In the hands of evenly talented players some classes will be a lot more useful than others. If you give a player a monk, and give his clone(assuming clones existed) a wizard the wizard will be more valuable to the party. In the end the class does matter.
I can't believe you killed Azul the Osirian (yes, it was stolen from Azul the Cerulian) by taking away his con score. Azul has a few things the falcata fighter does not. He has his trusty sidekick Lance to shine his armor, polish his boots, and bring him cool drinks and backup weapons. Azul did successfully smite the ** spoiler omitted ** and as a half-orc he has a HUGE ** spoiler omitted **
Couldn't remember it. :Shrugs: he does have Lance and a couple of mounts and does great damage in general -- I won't say otherwise -- I was simply putting up the combat parts of it because the falcata user could have a side kick and mounts too if she wants.
Couldn't remember it. :Shrugs: he does have Lance and a couple of mounts and does great damage in general -- I won't say otherwise -- I was simply putting up the combat parts of it because the falcata user could have a side kick and mounts too if she wants.
I can't believe you killed Azul the Osirian (yes, it was stolen from Azul the Cerulian) by taking away his con score. Azul has a few things the falcata fighter does not. He has his trusty sidekick Lance to shine his armor, polish his boots, and bring him cool drinks and backup weapons. Azul did successfully smite the ** spoiler omitted ** and as a half-orc he has a HUGE ** spoiler omitted **
But can she make Horkies I ask! That is the realm of a true Cer.. er Osirian