The problem with "symbiosis" is that you don't need half of it. It's parasitism - the martial class needs the caster, but the caster doesn't need the martial class. A fighter can be replaced with a cleric, or a druid's animal companion, or even a wizard who has shapeshifted or summoned a monster. The wizard cannot be replaced with a fighter.
disagree here. For the gamestyle of my group at least, you cannot do good without at least 1 meleer for a number of reasons.
The problem is this: Class (or prestige class or characters with feat) X gets a class feature, this feature is one of two things. It is either a really cool feature that people will like and in the next splat (or chapter) Spell Y will replicate it, or it is a rehash of Spell Y which was already designed, and invariably it will be more costly than the spell slot Spell Y occupied.
I agree here 'though.
The problem with "symbiosis" is that you don't need half of it. It's parasitism - the martial class needs the caster, but the caster doesn't need the martial class. A fighter can be replaced with a cleric, or a druid's animal companion, or even a wizard who has shapeshifted or summoned a monster. The wizard cannot be replaced with a fighter.
The problem is this: Class (or prestige class or characters with feat) X gets a class feature, this feature is one of two things. It is either a really cool feature that people will like and in the next splat (or chapter) Spell Y will replicate it, or it is a rehash of Spell Y which was already designed, and invariably it will be more costly than the spell slot Spell Y occupied.
I feel like statements like these are only qualified by saying that you are talking about really high level characters.
My party is about to hit 8th level, and I am already finding combat obnoxious at 7th. It takes the hasted many-shot ranger all day to roll his attacks, even if I just tell him what the AC is.
I don't understand how the game is fun past 10th. If wizards get to good then, that isn't the only reason to quit playing and start over at that point.
Why can't he roll multiple dice at once, and if he is not good at math then have someone who is sit next to him so they can speed the game up. When I play I normally add people's rolls up to speed things along. There are many threads on this site with hints on how to help slower players.
Why can't he roll multiple dice at once, and if he is not good at math then have someone who is sit next to him so they can speed the game up. When I play I normally add people's rolls up to speed things along. There are many threads on this site with hints on how to help slower players.The problem with "symbiosis" is that you don't need half of it. It's parasitism - the martial class needs the caster, but the caster doesn't need the martial class. A fighter can be replaced with a cleric, or a druid's animal companion, or even a wizard who has shapeshifted or summoned a monster. The wizard cannot be replaced with a fighter.
The problem is this: Class (or prestige class or characters with feat) X gets a class feature, this feature is one of two things. It is either a really cool feature that people will like and in the next splat (or chapter) Spell Y will replicate it, or it is a rehash of Spell Y which was already designed, and invariably it will be more costly than the spell slot Spell Y occupied.
I feel like statements like these are only qualified by saying that you are talking about really high level characters.
My party is about to hit 8th level, and I am already finding combat obnoxious at 7th. It takes the hasted many-shot ranger all day to roll his attacks, even if I just tell him what the AC is.
I don't understand how the game is fun past 10th. If wizards get to good then, that isn't the only reason to quit playing and start over at that point.
Darn I was ninja'd
The problem with "symbiosis" is that you don't need half of it. It's parasitism - the martial class needs the caster, but the caster doesn't need the martial class. A fighter can be replaced with a cleric, or a druid's animal companion, or even a wizard who has shapeshifted or summoned a monster. The wizard cannot be replaced with a fighter.disagree here. For the gamestyle of my group at least, you cannot do good without at least 1 meleer for a number of reasons.
I agree here 'though.
I recently got past level 15, and I am struggling to keep the fighter relevant. This started at around level 12 or 13. I have already decided that until I come up with some houserule I probably won't run a game past 15 again. I am really having to play dumb in a lot of fights.
If you are past level 13 I would like to know what you are doing.
Well, let's start with a question.. why the fighter is not relevant( in your game) ?
(I DM a large group of PF only at the moment, level 14).
Generally, I play monsters, barring certain random encounters, as well aware of the danger casters represent - so, smart and/or rich ones are able to afford protections.
This is particulary true if such monsters are part of a faction of sworn enemies of the PCs.
In dungeons and wilderness both, spellslots can be wasted because of hit and run tactics, and false alarms.
Moreover, encounters are not so "standards". Fight can happen in strange places, during any sort of event, and not necessarily against the expected enemies. A lot of times s sword or a grapple check is more reliable.
I use several NPCs as enemies, and in group with monsters (I prefer encounters of more enemies, over CR, and rarer in decisive part of the story) so casters do not "dominate", casters avoid people die.
Melee on the othr hand keep things away thorugh stuns, grapples, bull rushes, trip, or simple "if it's dead will not charge the wizard".
Moreover, a lot of times I read of "I win" spells, it seems odd to me. You can never say what you have in front of you, better buff up meleers and have them beat enemies up with their reliable physical attacks.
One could argue summon can do the job, but banishments, protection and similar stuff a lot of times does not make summons and calling work 100%.
The same with defensive spells - yeah magic is powerful but this or that monsters has immunity or similar things and you can beat invisibility with flour if you have a chance...
I can see casters have more plot twisting spells, but meleers can "ruin" (I prefer say "change") my story with a surprise, powerful crit, and exploration (rogue do this a lot of times), or change and interact with the world using magic items, skills or simple RPG.
.. only for said enemies to get mowed down by the invisible fighter.
This is a thing I see happen a lot of time. The strategy is dictated by magic attack and defenses, but the RESOLUTION of the situation is based on melee.
Not that always happen - it would be boring having all the high level stuff happen in the same way.
Well, let's start with a question.. why the fighter is not relevant( in your game) ?
(I DM a large group of PF only at the moment, level 14).
Generally, I play monsters, barring certain random encounters, as well aware of the danger casters represent - so, smart and/or rich ones are able to afford protections.
This is particulary true if such monsters are part of a faction of sworn enemies of the PCs.
In dungeons and wilderness both, spellslots can be wasted because of hit and run tactics, and false alarms.
Moreover, encounters are not so "standards". Fight can happen in strange places, during any sort of event, and not necessarily against the expected enemies. A lot of times s sword or a grapple check is more reliable.
I use several NPCs as enemies, and in group with monsters (I prefer encounters of more enemies, over CR, and rarer in decisive part of the story) so casters do not "dominate", casters avoid people die.
Melee on the othr hand keep things away thorugh stuns, grapples, bull rushes, trip, or simple "if it's dead will not charge the wizard".
Moreover, a lot of times I read of "I win" spells, it seems odd to me. You can never say what you have in front of you, better buff up meleers and have them beat enemies up with their reliable physical attacks.
One could argue summon can do the job, but banishments, protection and similar stuff a lot of times does not make summons and calling work 100%.
The same with defensive spells - yeah magic is powerful but this or that monsters has immunity or similar things and you can beat invisibility with flour if you have a chance...
I can see casters have more plot twisting spells, but meleers can "ruin" (I prefer say "change") my story with a surprise, powerful crit, and exploration (rogue do this a lot of times), or change and interact with the world using magic items, skills or simple RPG.
Maze and Reverse Gravity owned him for one encounter. Wall spells also get in the way. That is just starting off. The next encounter he will be dealing with a monster that disarms or trips which will mess up his action economy.
Maze owns everybody, barring dimensional anchors or similar effects.
Reverse gravity is not that dire if you have backup ranged weapons, or manage to secure and then move next round.
Walls can be broken, barring prismatics. And even in that case, there are counter measures.
Next encounter, what will be CMB and CMD of the trip and disarm monster? What about quickdraw a second weapon? Use locked gauntlet? Just use teamwork to approach whitout offer AOOs? Use towershields for cover, drop towershields and attack? Stay ranged?
Moreover, to attempt maneuvers I guess the monster will be near the fighter (barring telekinesis) so hope for him maneuver lands - stay 1 round near an high level fighter is generally a bad idea.
Maze owns everybody, barring dimensional anchors or similar effects.
Reverse gravity is not that dire if you have backup ranged weapons, or manage to secure and then move next round.
Walls can be broken, barring prismatics. And even in that case, there are counter measures.
Next encounter, what will be CMB and CMD of the trip and disarm monster? What about quickdraw a second weapon? Use locked gauntlet? Just use teamwork to approach whitout offer AOOs? Use towershields for cover, drop towershields and attack? Stay ranged?
Moreover, to attempt maneuvers I guess the monster will be near the fighter (barring telekinesis) so hope for him maneuver lands - stay 1 round near an high level fighter is generally a bad idea.
If I maze a caster he can probably get out on his own with or without the intelligence check. They did figure out that flying out of reverse gravity works, but since I don't use the same spells for every fight they will be stuck again when the next idea comes up.
The CMB is high enough that the monsters will be hard pressed to not put the fighter on the defensive. Wall of Force is hard to break, and I will state the issue is more along the lines of the fighter not figuring out I am holding back.In short, the combat is not as believable since I know I can do more, but in the spirit of fun I don't always use the best tactic. That is why I was asking how you did it. The fighter does roll well, extremely well, but if he ever starts rolling dice like the rest of us he will get an unpleasant surprise.
So how are you keeping the fighter in the game without it being obvious that there is DM sleight of hand going on?
I wonder what manner of game people run that can completely negate the presence of martial characters. We get ambushed all the time, and hardly EVER have time to prepare summons, buffs and gods know what. We get hit, one or two might make the perception DC20+1d10+APL checks that seems to be the norm (except for the big clunkers), and there has been encounters where the casters have been taken out or even KILLED before they got to act. Because a caster does not have martial HP.
I'd like these people who insists that animal companions, summons and polymorphs can do what a fighter, or even a paladin, can do at relevant level, to show me one (companion/summon etc) that is as good as a fighter, or paladin.
Without buffs outside hour/lv, because you will get ambushed, no matter how good you are.
Only using Core.
I wonder what manner of game people run that can completely negate the presence of martial characters. We get ambushed all the time, and hardly EVER have time to prepare summons, buffs and gods know what. We get hit, one or two might make the perception DC20+1d10+APL checks that seems to be the norm (except for the big clunkers), and there has been encounters where the casters have been taken out or even KILLED before they got to act. Because a caster does not have martial HP.
I'd like these people who insists that animal companions, summons and polymorphs can do what a fighter, or even a paladin, can do at relevant level, to show me one (companion/summon etc) that is as good as a fighter, or paladin.
Without buffs outside hour/lv, because you will get ambushed, no matter how good you are.
Only using Core.
I think the issue is that most people assume the best case scenarios(such as someone allowing you to hang out and cast a summon spell). The style of play issue is a big factor which is why it is better to use AP's. That takes away from the "well my DM..".
Looking at my current issue the player built a one-trick pony, and he can do a lot of damage, but does not have a lot of utility. I will try to work on that during the next session.
I wonder what manner of game people run that can completely negate the presence of martial characters. We get ambushed all the time, and hardly EVER have time to prepare summons, buffs and gods know what. We get hit, one or two might make the perception DC20+1d10+APL checks that seems to be the norm (except for the big clunkers), and there has been encounters where the casters have been taken out or even KILLED before they got to act. Because a caster does not have martial HP.
I'd like these people who insists that animal companions, summons and polymorphs can do what a fighter, or even a paladin, can do at relevant level, to show me one (companion/summon etc) that is as good as a fighter, or paladin.
Without buffs outside hour/lv, because you will get ambushed, no matter how good you are.
Only using Core.
I think the issue is that most people assume the best case scenarios(such as someone allowing you to hang out and cast a summon spell). The style of play issue is a big factor which is why it is better to use AP's. That takes away from the "well my DM..".
Looking at my current issue the player built a one-trick pony, and he can do a lot of damage, but does not have a lot of utility. I will try to work on that during the next session.
You can't escape 'well my GM' because even pre-published material suffers from it. Individual GMs come to different conclusions about how the material provided is run, they shape the module just by running it. Small differences in spell use, tactics, NPC portrail and much else besides can have fairly drastic effects on the efficacy of the various classes, even when running APs exactly as written. Which is not what the rules say you should be doing anyway. The rulebook says that you alter published material to better suit your players.
You can't escape 'well my GM' because even pre-published material suffers from it. Individual GMs come to different conclusions about how the material provided is run, they shape the module just by running it. Small differences in spell use, tactics, NPC portrayal and much else besides can have fairly drastic effects on the efficacy of the various classes, even when running APs exactly as written. Which is not what the rules say you should be doing anyway. The rulebook says that you alter published material to better suit your players.I wonder what manner of game people run that can completely negate the presence of martial characters. We get ambushed all the time, and hardly EVER have time to prepare summons, buffs and gods know what. We get hit, one or two might make the perception DC20+1d10+APL checks that seems to be the norm (except for the big clunkers), and there has been encounters where the casters have been taken out or even KILLED before they got to act. Because a caster does not have martial HP.
I'd like these people who insists that animal companions, summons and polymorphs can do what a fighter, or even a paladin, can do at relevant level, to show me one (companion/summon etc) that is as good as a fighter, or paladin.
Without buffs outside hour/lv, because you will get ambushed, no matter how good you are.
Only using Core.
I think the issue is that most people assume the best case scenarios(such as someone allowing you to hang out and cast a summon spell). The style of play issue is a big factor which is why it is better to use AP's. That takes away from the "well my DM..".
Looking at my current issue the player built a one-trick pony, and he can do a lot of damage, but does not have a lot of utility. I will try to work on that during the next session.
I understand, but AP's take some of it away. This is especially useful when X is too weak or strong comes up.
I understand, but AP's take some of it away. This is especially useful when X is too weak or strong comes up.You can't escape 'well my GM' because even pre-published material suffers from it. Individual GMs come to different conclusions about how the material provided is run, they shape the module just by running it. Small differences in spell use, tactics, NPC portrayal and much else besides can have fairly drastic effects on the efficacy of the various classes, even when running APs exactly as written. Which is not what the rules say you should be doing anyway. The rulebook says that you alter published material to better suit your players.I wonder what manner of game people run that can completely negate the presence of martial characters. We get ambushed all the time, and hardly EVER have time to prepare summons, buffs and gods know what. We get hit, one or two might make the perception DC20+1d10+APL checks that seems to be the norm (except for the big clunkers), and there has been encounters where the casters have been taken out or even KILLED before they got to act. Because a caster does not have martial HP.
I'd like these people who insists that animal companions, summons and polymorphs can do what a fighter, or even a paladin, can do at relevant level, to show me one (companion/summon etc) that is as good as a fighter, or paladin.
Without buffs outside hour/lv, because you will get ambushed, no matter how good you are.
Only using Core.
I think the issue is that most people assume the best case scenarios(such as someone allowing you to hang out and cast a summon spell). The style of play issue is a big factor which is why it is better to use AP's. That takes away from the "well my DM..".
Looking at my current issue the player built a one-trick pony, and he can do a lot of damage, but does not have a lot of utility. I will try to work on that during the next session.
Exactly. While even a mediocre wizard can TPK the rest of his classis party consisting of a rogue, a fighter and a cleric given enough time and the element of surprise, most adventure paths rarely, if ever, allow the players to be prepared for everything.
My paladin is the only character out of the original party that has NEVER died in our serpent skull campaign, even back when we tried Hero Points, that saved the rogue/wizard from death. The cleric has died twice, once we had a raise scroll, the other we found someone who subjected him to Reincarnation. The ranger died and was mangled beyond our means of revival last session.
This is because Serpent Skull is merciless in it's use of super-stealthy monsters, constantly hitting us with DCs over 30 already at lv4, and recently closer to, or even above 40 at lv7. Monsters are in our midst before we even get to act most of the time, hitting us with poisonous bites and pounce-full attacks. No time to summon, rarely much time to buff. It's teamwork or death.
This is because Serpent Skull is merciless in it's use of super-stealthy monsters, constantly hitting us with DCs over 30 already at lv4, and recently closer to, or even above 40 at lv7. Monsters are in our midst before we even get to act most of the time, hitting us with poisonous bites and pounce-full attacks. No time to summon, rarely much time to buff. It's teamwork or death.
Now I regret canceling my subscription when I did. I have the first book due to the double up on the last Kingmaker/first SS shipement.
If I maze a caster he can probably get out on his own with or without the intelligence check. They did figure out that flying out of reverse gravity works, but since I don't use the same spells for every fight they will be stuck again when the next idea comes up.
The CMB is high enough that the monsters will be hard pressed to not put the fighter on the defensive. Wall of Force is hard to break, and I will state the issue is more along the lines of the fighter not figuring out I am holding back.
In short, the combat is not as believable since I know I can do more, but in the spirit of fun I don't always use the best tactic. That is why I was asking how you did it. The fighter does roll well, extremely well, but if he ever starts rolling dice like the rest of us he will get an unpleasant surprise.
So how are you keeping the fighter in the game without it being obvious that there is DM sleight of hand going on?
Well, how exactly the caster gets out? With plane shift? Remember to scatter 5d100 miles then. Wizard COULD then teleport back, barring forbiddances - but druid?
You can just JUMP OUT from reverse gravity if the terrain allows it, or you managed the reflex save anyway. Seriously, Maze is a nasty, nasty and maybe overpowered spell but reverse gravity is not (at least ALONE).
Moreover - ok, a wizard cast maze and one party memer could be screwed for a combat - barring anchors, barring simply roll high. Does it happens every time? Attacks screwing a certain kind of character exist. No knockout poison attacks (maybe pimped by an alchemist or a poisoner rogue) because otherwise low fortitude playrs are removed from play?
An high level Weapon Master can easy cut a wall of force. A barbarian can ignore hardness. And that's not even the point. Ward party mind, counter control and heal are caster shtick - nothing wrong if it's a disintegrate to manage the wall of force.
I wish t point out that I talk to understand and maybe point out possible fault of he game Wraithstrike - I do not want to say "I game right you game wrong". Moreover, high level game(which I love) is actually a mess first times one hit it. IIRC, we had a thread some times ago in that regard.
Paladin can boost friends, heal and smite far better now.
Spells are few and limited, smites are few and limited, auras are few and limited, channeling is few and limited, LoH is few and liited, bound is a mount or a limited weapon boost - but all these things stacked brings in a good all day support.
Play one and see.
Barring tha fact that continue to use power attack as an example of melee nerf is just plain wrong. If you assume Shocktrooper and touch attacks as a default, I strongly suggest to slow down your games.
Same for "lol scouting fails". If in your games works this way, sorry for you.
Well, not even that. You are free to play as you want - but do not assume this as general rule.
"Amuse Evil" in a melee heavy group is freakin scary, if used wisely in the right istance.
Seriously, assuming considering useful the tier system (debatable), don't move Paladin to 4 from 5 in the 3.5 ---> PF swich means you do not understand either the class works now, or the tier system itself. Pick one of the two.
@CoDzilla: Tanking is not a viable concept in high level play. This much is obvious. That is why I base myself on being nigh invincible in terms of saves (14+ in all saves at lv8) and HP, and have a strong offense (aka making sure I can euthanize stuff the casters tie down in short order). For what I CAN tank, I do. Saved our hides several times, but then again, as you say, the APs are tailored towards making all manner of characters useful. ("Humoring martial characters")
Getting around is not all that easy anymore, since Acrobatics no longer really works, being enlarged and carrying a reach weapon has given me rather good battlefield control... for now. Higher level play has monsters teleport around and whatnot.
Would also argue that smite is not "amuse" anymore. Got +5 to hit and AC, +7 to damage. Helps, but the real boon is going through ALL kinds of damage reduction without spending an action applying gunk to my weapon of choice.
What I AM useful for is buffs. Warrior of Holy Light archetype allows me to buff the other members' AC and saves, provide "fortification" to resist crits, give energy resistance and more in ONE standard action, as well as heal ability damage without expending actions, on top of the regular +4 to fear/charm/etc.
This has increased our survivability dramatically. Also, the new Lay on Hands has freed up a lot of spells for the cleric in terms of fixing debuffs. All in all, I feel like there are lots of ways to contribute. Not quite on par with a caster, that much is obvious, but I will argue that paladins, with the APG, now deserve a higher slot in the "tier" system.
I should just point out that CoD plays a fairly heavily house-ruled version of the game that uses Spell Compendium and (I assume) other non-pathfinder materials.
Based on the number of things that are "irrelevant" to him, (HP damage, SR, AC, crits, traps, scouting, etc.) I'm guessing that you won't influence him based on options from Core and APG. He is simply put, playing a different game.
As for the topic of the thread, I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know how to challenge everyone when 8th-9th level spells are being spammed in every combat. However, until the game reaches that point, there are several ways to allow everyone to shine, without excessive handholding of some classes.
The easiest is to have a lot of opponents in each encounter. This keeps everyone busy, and prevents a single spell or super-crit from ending the encounter.
Another option is to give the party responsibility for a large group. A caravan, platoon, refugee camp, etc. This forces casters to use their spells for more then just SoS/SoD, and allows characters with social skills a constant background of interaction.
Have the party stalked by something powerful. If the party has to keep something in reserve, and not allow their guard to drop, they will have to play a more strategic, reserved game.
Don't allow characters to buy every magic item in the book, whenever they want. If characters can completely custom tailor their items, it results in overpowered options. Likewise some limits on crafting can go a long way in keeping casters in check.
Also, at higher levels, intelligent enemies with large resources are a must. This way you have a logical reason not to repeat enemy tactics that completely failed in the past. It also provides the GM with much more options to custom tailor enemy encounters that are challenging.
|
Power Attack. On top of the usual MAD. And the fact Paladins were a 2-5 level class to begin with.
Smite is irrelevant, because the uses per day is still far too low to matter.
Power Attack really isn't that bad. It's much more efficient than it was in 3.5, at the cost of falling behind at 3rd and every four levels thereafter. However, at levels 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc, it's much better than it was in 3.5.
Let's think this through. The formula for DPR is h(d+s)+tchd. "h" is your percent chance of hitting, "d" is your normal damage that can be multiplied on a crit, "s" is damage that isn't multiplied on crits, such as precision-based or extra elemental damage, "t" is your percent chance of threatening a critical, and "c" is your critical multiplier -1. Using this, let's take a look at Power Attack at levels 4 and 7 in both Pathfinder and 3.5 versions. These won't be based on all the optimization I can muster, since I'm really only taking a look at Power Attack itself.
Our Fighter is Bob the Brute, a greatsword-wielding half-orc with 22 Strength. Let's assume a +1 weapon. Here is his average damage-per-round as a 4th level Fighter using Pathfinder's Power Attack:
Bob's bonus to hit is +9 with Power Attack penalties factored in (+4 base, +1 weapon, +6 Strength, -2 PA). The Bestiary lists the target AC for a CR 4 creature as 17, which Bob hits on an 8, a 60% chance. So:
.6(23)+.1*.6*23=15.18
Now, let's try this with 3.5 Power Attack. All other factors are still the same, but the Power Attack is now -4 to hit for +8 damage instead of -2 to hit for +6 damage.
.5(25)+.1*.5*25=13.75
So at 4th level, Bob is better off with Pathfinder's PA than 3.5's. Now for 7th level.
Bob now has 24 Strength (better stat-boosting item) and a +2 weapon. Additionally, he has Weapon Training +1 for large blades, giving him a further +1 to attack and damage.Using Pathfinder PA for -2 hit +6 damage, his bonus to hit is +14, Bob has a 75% chance of hitting the Bestiary-listed standard AC for a CR 7 creature of 20 on his first attack and a 50% on the second attack. So:
.75(26)+.1*.75*25=21.45
.5(26)+.1*.5*26=14.3
Bob's average DPR with Pathfinder PA on a full-attack is 35.75 Now let's try it with 3.5. I'll assume that Bob is going all-out on the Power Attack for -7 to hit and +14 to damage first. On a full-attack.
.5(34)+.1*.5*34=18.7
.25(34)+.1*.25*34=9.35
Bob's average DPR with a full-out 3.5 PA is 28.05. You'll note that bonuses to hit are often better than bonuses to damage. So, let's assume Bob has figured this out and tries to be more cautious with a -5 to hit and a +10 to damage on his Power Attack.
.6(30)+.1*.6*30=19.8
.35(30)+.1*.35*20=11.55
So on this more cautious Power Attack, Bob nets 31.35 DPR, which is still lower than if he were using the Pathfinder version of Power Attack. But what if he were even more cautious? What if he took a -4 to hit and a +8 to damage?
.65(28)+.1*.65*28=20.2
.4(28)+.1*.4*28=12.32
On this most cautious of Power Attacks, Bob ends up with an average DPR of 32.52. If he Power Attacks any less than this, he's now getting equal to or less damage than the Pathfinder Power Attack for a bigger or same penalty to hit.
So, even at Pathfinder Power Attack's worst level compared to 3.5 where it's fallen behind the most, it's still better than 3.5's PA.
If there's anything wrong with my calculations or anything I left out, please tell me. I'd hate to be perpetuating misinformation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Smite Evil being irrelevant, you speak as if it were the Paladin's only class feature. Lay on Hands has been improved and can be used on yourself as only a swift action instead of a standard action, so you can use it on a fairly regularly basis on yourself during combat for a bit of an extra boost, and it can remove conditions to boot. Paladin spells have been switched to Charisma, alleviating their need for Wisdom above 10. Smite Evil gets more uses as you level it up, so it can take you through the hardest fights on a regular basis. You really don't need it for easy battles. Paladins also now have both Fortitude and Will as good saves, and with their Charisma added in, they'll be nearly invincible in that department. So, I fail to see how Paladin is a bad class.
@CoDzilla: Tanking is not a viable concept in high level play. This much is obvious. That is why I base myself on being nigh invincible in terms of saves (14+ in all saves at lv8) and HP, and have a strong offense (aka making sure I can euthanize stuff the casters tie down in short order). For what I CAN tank, I do. Saved our hides several times, but then again, as you say, the APs are tailored towards making all manner of characters useful. ("Humoring martial characters")Wrong. By humoring you, I meant having the enemies forget they can calmly saunter around.
Kinda losing you here. If I threaten 20' in all directions, including the area where my allies are, how do they saunter about and ignore me to strike at the casters? Not all enemies have 50+ movement speed. Oh, wait, you mean they take the hits and keep on walking? Yeah, if they have sufficient HP, sure, I see that.
I do not find it enjoyable to have my sole purpose in existence be to feed the monsters.
Me neither. But you didn't answer my question. You didn't compared the old and the new version of the class- you just declared it non functional. Which, pretty much, equates to "I don't have actual arguments".
That kind of damage output is required just to be a blip on the radar. If you don't have it you cannot do damage. And it's Shock Trooper or touch attacks, not both.
Take a look in DPR threads and in bestiary. Nothing else to say.
THE game works this way. Ever seen enemy Perception checks? They get one of those every single round. You fail one, you get spotted. This was also true in 3.5, but less stuff had keen vision then, and you could get much higher stealth scores, to the point of auto success (which is the only way stealth works at all, since so many things foil it).
Are you considering distraction, distance, and the fact that GNs are not forced to up to the wazoo the perception of every opponent?
No, you can not laugh the enemy to death.
Again, no true arguments bringed here.
I understand the class fine. It has to nova to do anything at all which means it either loses, or wins but has to rest after fight 1. Even first level Wizards have more endurance. And that assumes everything works in your favor. If it doesn't, you'll see more losing and less barely winning.Paladins are borderline Tier 6 in PF.
Dropped a tier? There is no reason to do it. It makes no sense. Everything in the class has been improved. Sorry, but if you DROP them a tier too, I can only think you are here just for fun, with no idea of how the class changed. If you were seriously thinking what you said, you'd have kept the Paladin there (wrong again, but coherent). In this way I doubt you are even serious.
And the go nova thing is false to. You can switch to offense or defense or heal basing on buffs, smite turned on, position (and allies influenced by auras), combat feats, spells. You have absolutely no need to go nova with paladins.
For the most part I am good at deciphering CoDzilla logic, but I want to hear about the whole walking around part.
Scouting would be much move viable if monsters had a passive perception (were forced to take 10), as they currently basically have a passive score at 20 + perception modifier, if they are given enough rolls.
Paladin having to nova I CAN see, if you are required to bring down the baddies on 1 round, which seems to be required... hmm... if they have instant-kills, yeah, I can see the argument that having to roll against save or loses is a bad thing and eventually WILL kill you. Even when I make them on a ridiculously low roll. Luckily, most of them are heavily nerfed, which means better survival rate for the saving throw club.
But then again, I don't think death is so bad after a certain level. I kinda expect to die a few times throughout any given character's career.
|
For the most part I am good at deciphering CoDzilla logic, but I want to hear about the whole walking around part.
Basically, monsters have no reason to NOT walk around a melee character to the caster that is the true threat. Attacks of Opportunity do not stop movement without certain abilities, and unless you are super-optimized to kill in one hit, the monster is better off taking the hit (provided you can even hit it, especially if it has miss chances) and killing the enemy that CAN take it out in one hit.
This is incredibly metagamey, in that your average monster will NOT be psychologically prepared to accept pain in such a way, or will be mindless and autoattack the nearest target unless programmed otherwise.
However, it is still an accurate statement on the state of the ruleset as roleplay conventions do not change how rule interactions work. AoOs are only effective in preventing PC/NPC moves due to preconceived notions on the part of the players.
|
|
However, it is still an accurate statement on the state of the ruleset as roleplay conventions do not change how rule interactions work. AoOs are only effective in preventing PC/NPC moves due to preconceived notions on the part of the players.
They're also effective in preventing movement if you take Stand Still.
They're also effective in preventing movement if you take Stand Still.
However, it is still an accurate statement on the state of the ruleset as roleplay conventions do not change how rule interactions work. AoOs are only effective in preventing PC/NPC moves due to preconceived notions on the part of the players.
Well, that's not only that.
A fighter could trip, or double slice 2 attacks and drop you. Or bash you back with a shield.
A monk could stun or force a will save to not stop immediately.
A barbarian could Knockback or Knockdown
A cavalier could use Protect the Meek, Stem the Tide and similar stuff.
Paladins have standard melee options, and few "aggro managent" spells.
Averybody can standstill, use manuvers, even disperately if needed. Or critical feats and assault feats BEFORE the enemy escapes. Or just the option to kill quickly, expecially high level rogues, rangers and inquisitors.
Is there room for improvement? I definitively think so. But melee is not without tools. Just look for them.
Kinda losing you here. If I threaten 20' in all directions, including the area where my allies are, how do they saunter about and ignore me to strike at the casters? Not all enemies have 50+ movement speed. Oh, wait, you mean they take the hits and keep on walking? Yeah, if they have sufficient HP, sure, I see that.@CoDzilla: Tanking is not a viable concept in high level play. This much is obvious. That is why I base myself on being nigh invincible in terms of saves (14+ in all saves at lv8) and HP, and have a strong offense (aka making sure I can euthanize stuff the casters tie down in short order). For what I CAN tank, I do. Saved our hides several times, but then again, as you say, the APs are tailored towards making all manner of characters useful. ("Humoring martial characters")Wrong. By humoring you, I meant having the enemies forget they can calmly saunter around.
At high levels for a fighter can easily effectively denigh 166,375 cubic feet(or 274,625 cubic feet with reach) of the battle field to enemy movement. Those who violate said space being subjct to potentially multiple AoOs, each of which can potentially ends the movement of the invader or inflict layers of status effects onto them effectively reducing their combat effectiveness.
While combat maneuvers and Stand Still is all well and nice in theory, the gap between monster CMD and player CMB leaves much to be desired in terms of their usefulness.
Good against... well... stuff that doesn't want to muscle through...
|
|
They're also effective in preventing movement if you take Stand Still.
However, it is still an accurate statement on the state of the ruleset as roleplay conventions do not change how rule interactions work. AoOs are only effective in preventing PC/NPC moves due to preconceived notions on the part of the players.
Only if you believe Combat Maneuvers work. For those of us who do not, because melee monsters have insane CMDs, it is ineffective.
Well, that's not only that.
A fighter could trip, or double slice 2 attacks and drop you. Or bash you back with a shield.A monk could stun or force a will save to not stop immediately.
A barbarian could Knockback or Knockdown
A cavalier could use Protect the Meek, Stem the Tide and similar stuff.
Paladins have standard melee options, and few "aggro managent" spells.
Averybody can standstill, use manuvers, even disperately if needed. Or critical feats and assault feats BEFORE the enemy escapes. Or just the option to kill quickly, expecially high level rogues, rangers and inquisitors.
Is there room for improvement? I definitively think so. But melee is not withou tools. Just look for them.
Trip is a CM, falls under the above. Double Slice does not allow you to make two attacks on an AoO. Does Shield Bash end movement when used on an AoO?
Stun is possible, but high Fort makes it iffy. Not sure what Will save effect you are referring to.
Does Bull Rush end movement? If not, monster can continue moving.
Not familiar with Cavalier or Paladin options.
Using a maneuver desperately translates to 'please roll a 20 so I don't waste my AoO'. Same for hoping for a crit. SoD abilities on rogues and the like are subject to the same high Fort saves mentioned before.
Melee has tools that some of us do not believe work.
It it also metagamey to assume that every monster knows which person in the party is the caster, and who can cast what spell and will. Unless the PC /has/ mowed down a slew of critters in sight of the "ye olde beast of doom" then why does it automatically know to walk around the paladin and smite the guy in the back? It should at least have to roll some sort of knowledge check to figure out "hey, the guy in back is the real threat".
Even then- unless the melee person is completely ineffective (misses, or doesn't penetrate DR at all) the critter is *still* more likely to turn and attack it rather than the "maybe" of the dude who hasn't done anything yet to it. Afterall- killing the "other" guy does it no good if the guy with the sword turns it into kibbles in the mean time.
That isn't to say intelligent creatures won't act intelligently.. but bestowing upon every DM controlled creature the knowledge of the DM is faulty.
-S
Only if you believe Combat Maneuvers work. For those of us who do not, because melee monsters have insane CMDs, it is ineffective.They're also effective in preventing movement if you take Stand Still.
However, it is still an accurate statement on the state of the ruleset as roleplay conventions do not change how rule interactions work. AoOs are only effective in preventing PC/NPC moves due to preconceived notions on the part of the players.
Why are you using CMDs against melee monsters? More likely the monsters are using them on you, and you hopefully boosted your own CMD enough to defend yourself against them.
I would used them on magic/range-based characters and creatures. Get close to someone and sunder their bow, etc. Sure, a good ranged character is going to stay out of melee, but it's a matter of who's better at moving in versus staying out of the way--someone has to lose that battle.
And indeed, the example with Stand Still is an excellent one. For example, a clever melee warrior has managed to engage with a spellcaster. The spellcaster attempts to maneuver away from the warrior; Stand Still stops them, as spellcaster likely has poor CMD.
Combat Maneuvers work if you use them tactically... just like everything else in this game.
Probably we disagree here TOZ. CM benefit from every bonus to hit - so weapon enhancements, bards, flanks, superior position and similar stuff pimp them. Weapon Focus, Fighter class features and Strenght Surge (barbarian power) apply. For what I've seen in my games, the "hard ones" are outsiders. Outsiders are nasty for everybody I guess.
I don't know if bull rush ends movement, but depending on the situation, if rushed in the right direction, the monster could not have enough movement, or simply being dropped into a pit, black tentacles, or raging barbarian.
The will save for monks is Touch of Serenity (SRD).
BTW, hit bonus to CMB this is why Stand Still is "meh" because you cannot perform it with a weapon. There is an exception to that: The Stem the Tide feature of the Order of the Shield (Order of the Tank) Cavalier. Take a look in the SRD: maybe you like maybe not, but could be useful for your houserules book, or at least I hope so ;)
Challenge Evil, Knight Calling and King's Castle are APG spells related to "tanking". take a look in the SRD (and see above for your rules).
Maneuver disperately fail if there is an AOO, if the AOO hits (barring miss chance, I could have a miss chance on me), and there is not way to "pimp" CMB (as an example, the good old strenght surge above).
For the high level SoD.. Dunno. The alternative would be no save, it seems a little to much for me (what would you do instead? genuinely curious).
While combat maneuvers and Stand Still is all well and nice in theory, the gap between monster CMD and player CMB leaves much to be desired in terms of their usefulness.
Good against... well... stuff that doesn't want to muscle through...
Mmm, i am pretty sure that a level 20 fighter can with reasonable reliablity stop every CR20 monster but the Tarn Linnorm, Nightwave and Iathavos, before it has gone more than 15' through his or her threatened area. Even those three it can stop fairly often before it get to anyone else. With an addition of just a bard to the party, even the Tarn Linnorm, Nightwave and Iathavos will struggle to get more than 15 feet into the protected zone.
I'm kind of a noob at high level play.
Why can't fighter's defend casters? They have a metric ton of feats. Assume the guy playing the fighter knows that spells wins encounters and he wants to be sure the caster can do what he does, why doesn't taking the following defend the caster well enough:
Combat Reflexes
In Harms Way
Combat Patrol
Lunge
Stand Still
Monkey LungeBy level 20, that is less than 1/3 of your feats. You could still have a ton of stuff besides this.
Well, is ont that simple. Fighter has pretty much feats only (less true in PF but still...) so 1/3 is a lot.
Moreover, monkey lunge is bad, IMHO. It's out, but for combat patrol you need mobility, so dodge too.
And here we touch the real issue - you never have enough feats ;). At high level you coauld have managed several combos, but in the meantime, depending from choices, strategy and rules, reach that point could be harsh.