Every time I sit down to make a non spellcasting character, I feel like the mountain of extra feats that a fighter get allow them to take a better combat role than either of the two mentioned classes. And that the sideline abilities of those two classes are always met or provided by another caster in the party. In practice, I find the paladin to be a bigger problem than the ranger, but i'll get to that below.
My most recent run in with this was contemplating playing a sacred shield paladin, but then upon examining the shield variant fighters, that the feat acquisition was too useful to outweigh the other perks from the paladin, especially considering what the paladin has to give up for its archtype as compared to what a fighter has to give up.
Looking at a ranger for a two weapon fighter or archer, the class does provide some decent perk benefits, but nothing that a fighter can't pick up as well. And again, any additional skill selection is usually provided by another character in the party.
My biggest problem with the paladin, and this problem is usually only a bit noticeable in small parties, but the problem seems to grow exponentially in bigger parties, is the strict adherence to lawful good.
I think a party should have as little infighting as possible, and that a GM should provide as many ways for a party to overcome an encounter as the party can come up with sensibly. A character that must adhere to the lawful good stance of the paladin always seems to create more problems than it solves.
Now, I've only DM'd for maybe 30~ different people over my 24 some odd years of experience, so maybe it's just the people i've seen play them, but i've never said to myself, "Oh, so and so is playing a paladin. That'll make the party run better." It's almost universally the opposite, thinking what aspects of a campaign i have to change so there isn't an argument every other session amongst the party members.
Again, I say this is only in big groups. One of my most memorable campaigns was, in fact, a paladin, a ranger and a monk. The paladin and ranger really shine in these situations, as their jack of a few trades nature is a strength.
Does anyone else feel this way? I know the alignment change is as simple as stripping the alignment requirement, but I'm talking from a strictly as presented by the rules experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh boy.
This should be entertaining for a while.
Now with more substance!
Ranger specifically: They can ignore prerequisites for combat style feats. That's a huge advantage over any fighter. Due to this, they make the single best Switch Hitter (bow and two-handed weapon) fighter in the game, par none.
Paladins and rangers are not jack of all trades. They are magically augmented warriors.
A paladin can be built to be the best damage dealer in the game against certain foes, and be about equal to the fighter against all others.
The alignment is an issue, but as long as you work out explicitly what the paladin's Code is before hand, it shouldn't be an issue.
Or use the Unearthed Arcana variant paladin to be a CG paladin of freedom. Ain't nothing against that code.
|
Looking at a ranger for a two weapon fighter or archer, the class does provide some decent perk benefits, but nothing that a fighter can't pick up as well.
Improved Precise Shot at level 6 (ie, 5 levels earlier than the Fighter) and without the need for DEX 19 (ie, easier to focus on upping STR beyond 18).
Ummm.... No. (@OP)
As mentioned, Rangers bypass Feat Pre-Reqs. They can share their Class Abilities with allies if they so wish... The benefit of which scales up the more allies they have. If they have an Animal Companion, said Companion has more opportunities to Flank, possibly before Rangers´ own Initiative, with more party members.
Same goes for Paladins... I mean... Hello, AURA OF JUSTICE!?!?!?!? Paladin Mercies are also useful the more people you have in your party, since the Paladin themself is more unlikely to NEED them themself (given awesome saves, immunities), the more people in the party = the more people likely to need the Mercies in the first place. Things like Paladin Detect Evil is statistically more beneficial to large parties because the Paladin using their own action economy to Detect Evil impacts the OVERALL party action-economy less with large parties than with small parties.
More party members also means more ways to use both of each class´ spells.
More party members means that it´s easier for each PC to specialize more, meaning both Ranger and Paladin need to worry less about covering some group-useful ability, and can spend their fewer Feats wherever they want without worry, knowing that somebody else who is better at that job can cover that niche.
-------------------------------
re: Alignment, I don´t see the issue. You can just as easily have somebody in your small group who will conflict with your Code/etc. Maybe there is more chances in a large group, but you either have that conflict or you don´t... In a large group you may well have another party member who happens to be ideal at convincing/tricking said conflicted PC into ´playing along´ with your Code, so I´d say it pretty much equals out. If anything, large groups are more robust because the relation with a given party member CAN break-down in a situation, but there is more PCs to continue as a group (and the group is less impacted by the loss of 1 PC).
...So that about sums it up, it looks like :-)
Well, I think you've started the thread in about the best manner that such a thread could be started in, and will endeavor to do my best (as not great as that might be) to help keep it that way.
Paladins: The paladin's greatest abilities when not confronted with evil has to be (in my mind) it's almost proactive healing abilities and defensive measures. It has a whole suite of things that it becomes immune too and passes on great bonuses against for the entire party -- this can go much further than the caster trying to protection from evil the party or getting defensive buffs up. The fact the paladin doesn't have to retreat for healing and can heal in a fashion that doesn't interrupt his attacking gives him a huge advantage again that is very difficult (if not impossible) for the fighter to ever gain. Finally taking the divine weapon bond means that he has a situational versatility that allows him to be a stop gap against specific monsters a party might not have been prepared for at all (such as ghosts, or other incorporeals, specific immunity monsters and the like). While his spell casting is limited it comes from a stat he has good reason to boost (helps with his healing and save throws) and provides him a means to help the party against things that didn't stop him (because again he was immune)... he's almost like the party's save button in many ways. His damage isn't going to be as amazing as the fighter's -- that's a given, but his options for versatility in healing, defense, and offensive stop gap measures means that when times are desperate you know he's got your back... there are very few others that will give you that comfort while still standing tall on the front line.
Rangers: Rangers in my opinion are a better scout options than rogues. He can have an animal companion for meat shielding if he gets in over his head (or flanking if not) he can engage as a full martial class without fear of dropping quickly, he can access combat methods without having to meet prerequisites, which means he can be a stronger two weapon fighter for example than the rogue could ever be and with less MAD than a fighter would have to do. Then he has his skill points, terrain abilities, spells and a very nice version of evasion. The ranger also suffers (in my opinion) from some of the best archetypes available (combine with some of the worse such options) many of which stack nicely with each other. The later books have done much to expand his role from simply scout with extreme prejudice to full on combatant and expert. The ranger can save the casters a lot of time and worry with his class abilities and spells since he's one person they don't have to worry as much about buffing or defending. He's got good save throws and honestly isn't going to need much party resources.
I do agree that the OP's post is well thought out and presented in the best possible way, but I am sure this'll be a popcorn thread like any other "Does X (suck|not work|die easily|spend too much money on equipment)" thread.
Ranger specifically: They can ignore prerequisites for combat style feats. That's a huge advantage over any fighter. Due to this, they make the single best Switch Hitter (bow and two-handed weapon) fighter in the game, par none.
I agree that when it comes to two weapon fighting, the ranger is given a little more freedom in stat planning, because they don't have the dex reqs to worry about, but how much of a benefit is that? The fighter will have to take the prereqs, giving him more abilities anyway, and a high dex would be a benefit in the first place, as it adds to a number of relevant abilities for their role.
The ranger gets nothing special for archery. They get some feats that a fighter would get anyway, minus any of the prereq feats that the fighter would be picking up anyway.
The paladin and ranger also have the pro/con of being situationally good. This problem again can be curbed from the amount of meta information you give your party, but how much should the DM have to reveal?
I generally don't have to reveal what the majority of alignment, creature type, or terrain the campaign will be going through for people to build their other base classes.
I'm i'm making a ranger, and the campaign starts with us in prison, or on a boat, should the DM make an exception for me and tell me the terrain and native creatures of wherever we're landing,or should he tell the party, and let them change their characters using the new information because I didn't want to pick a useless favored enemy or terrain?
I'm i'm making a ranger, and the campaign starts with us in prison, or on a boat, should the DM make an exception for me and tell me the terrain and native creatures of wherever we're landing,or should he tell the party, and let them change their characters using the new information because I didn't want to pick a useless favored enemy or terrain?
Paizo does in fact give a list of recommended Favored Enemy types for their APs.
You can just as equally apply this to many other classes abilities, including Feats that may be useless, or spell choices that may be useless, etc. Rangers also DON´T HAVE TO HAVE Favored Enemies or Terrains, there are Archetypes that swap those out. Bypassing DEX requirement is indeed not actually useful for Archer Rangers, but bypassing BAB requirements IS useful (as already mentioned), not to mention that not all Rangers/Fighters are Archers: 2WF Rangers are very viable for that reason, and Sword and Board Rangers get to bypass requirements that even Shielded Fighters don´t get too (although the Archetype reads as if they SHOULD, e.g. 2WF pre-reqs for Shield Feats).If you are ´only playing Core´ (no Archetypes), then Archer Fighters are wasting their Class Ability, since a max-DEX Archer Fighter will not use Heavy Armor and thus the ability to move un-encumbered in such is of no use to them, as is proficiency in Heavy Armor to begin with.
*blink*
Ummm.... No. (@OP)
As mentioned, Rangers bypass Feat Pre-Reqs. They can share their Class Abilities with allies if they so wish... The benefit of which scales up the more allies they have. If they have an Animal Companion, said Companion has more opportunities to Flank, possibly before Rangers´ own Initiative, with more party members.
Things like Paladin Detect Evil is statistically more beneficial to large parties because the Paladin using their own action economy to Detect Evil impacts the OVERALL party action-economy less with large parties than with small parties.
More party members also means more ways to use both of each class´ spells.
re: Alignment, I don´t see the issue. You can just as easily have somebody in your small group who will conflict with your Code/etc.
some good points. As i mentioned, it could be the players I've seen. Anytime a paladin or ranger could use a spell or ability at their disposal, it always seems like there's a wizard, cleric or druid that can do it more efficiently or better in the party.
The alignment is still an issue, because i can play a lawful good fighter, but i am allowed to occasionally look the other way on a choice and it doesn't wreck my character. Lawful good for every class but a paladin is a guideline, but for a paladin it's non-negotiable.
Sorry, I meant explicitly Two-Handed Fighting. As in, greatsword. The ranger doesn't need to have High Dex to be great at both archery and THF, since their BAB is quite good.
The ranger can also get the feats earlier, which is great if you are building the character from level 1 up.
Also, spells. Fighters won't be getting Gravity Bow (increases damage die of bow to 2d6, which is a fair chunk), Longstrider (hours per level +10 move speed), Aspect of the Falcon (19-20/x3 Bows, +1 to-hit. Which stacks with other crit-boosting effects), Arrow Eruption, or Bow Spirit.
And at level 10, they can cast Instant Enemy, giving them +6 to hit / damage vs the enemy it was cast on. This will whittle down strong enemies like no other. This is before the Fighter will get Improved Precise Shot, btw. For the low (relative to WBL) cost of 9k, you can get Pearls of Power for this. Or 4.5k if you make your own (which, to be honest, is a decent idea since the spell is that good.) The Spirit Bond archetype will let them cast this 2 times per day, without expending any slots, at 10th level.
The APG and UM gave a lot of ranger / paladin only spells that are really good. Perhaps people aren't using those spells to their full effect?
some good points. As i mentioned, it could be the players I've seen. Anytime a paladin or ranger could use a spell or ability at their disposal, it always seems like there's a wizard, cleric or druid that can do it more efficiently or better in the party.
Here's the thing for me -- there are things the primary caster can do that the paladin or ranger can not do. By leaving the things the paladin or ranger can do to them, the primary caster can focus his spells on other things that the paladin or ranger can't handle, or for more effective spells as a whole (see invisibility instead of resist energy -- dispel magic instead of remove curse, etc).
It actually acts as a force multiplier for the primary caster because now there are issues he can leave to others instead of having to shoulder on his own.
Yeah, I think it´s just your playing style/group...
Firstly, if you are playing a spell-casting Ranger/Paladin, the spells outside of Core are SIGNIFIGANTLY more useful than just Core spells. You also can swap out spell-casting for useful Class Abilities if you want to. If you do retain spell-casting, even ignoring the UNIQUE spells that work really great to augment a ´fighter type´, the ability for the Ranger/Paladin to cast those spells is usually better than having a FulL Caster do so: most of those spells are things that you either achive the effect or you don´t: The Full Caster can´t really do that ¨better´ than the Ranger/Paladin. And honestly, of all the thigns Full Casters can do with their spell slots, they have alot more powerful options (even with low-level slots) than doing stuff that Rangers/Paladins can replicate... So having a spellcasting Ranger/Paladin in the group DOES free those slots for other things.
...But if the spell-casting doesn´t seem useful to you, swap it out!
EDIT:
The alignment is still an issue, because i can play a lawful good fighter, but i am allowed to occasionally look the other way on a choice and it doesn't wreck my character. Lawful good for every class but a paladin is a guideline, but for a paladin it's non-negotiable.
Paizo made it more explicit that Paladins can work with Evil people, who presumably do Evil stuff sometimes. If you use Deity-specific codes, it´s even clear that some Paladins´ Code is even borderline by most people´s definition of Lawful Good (Torag vs. enemies of Dwarves). Not saying that a Paladin may not be more of a hard-ass than a ´typical´ LG Fighter, but there isn´t such a dividing line... And if you approach it from a role-playing/personality perspective, that LG Fighter may very well hold himself to a Code a well: I would expect there to be as many LG Fighters who DO that as those who don´t. Again, cooperating with Evil characters IS allowed, and you just need to be more comfortable with confronting that conflict IMHO. If other players aren´t willing to EVER accomodate you as a player of a Paladin, YES, you will have problems... but same thing if they aren´t willing to accomodate any other in-character belief (such a choice of worhsip of gods, vegetarianism, etc). Paladins, as sworn enemies of Evil, are going to go where they can carry own with battle most succesfully. If one PC is so much in conflict that they can´t work together to further the Paladin´s main goals, either the Paladin should go or the other PC should go... Given that the Paladin probably has a decent CHA, I´d say they are in the best position to Diplomatize the rest of the party to follow the Paladin and now the other PC has a problem not the Paladin. This is aside from the fact that, yeah, if every body just rolls up some totally random character concept whose goals and ideals don´t coincide, then yeah, they don´t really have any reason to work together... Having a Paladin Code is really just a specific example of that.
Yes the DM should give good recomendations for favored enemy and favored terrain.
And in nearly all games there are a lot evil foes so unless you play a game with a lot shades of gray then the paladin is ok.
On the alignment issue, in most cases the problem lies with some player(s) (might even be the paladin's player prob) or the DM, there are very few situations where the class to be blamed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW: Even though I disagreed with basiclly all your points, I thought the OP´s original posts was well written and good mannered: something I wish was true of more posters. That is obviously how he honestly has come to view the class from his experience... But I felt he wrote it being equally open to confirmation OR differing opinions, which is what helps to bring about actual communication IMHO. Welcome to the boards, Kakitamike!!! :-)
Ranger specifically: They can ignore prerequisites for combat style feats. That's a huge advantage over any fighter. Due to this, they make the single best Switch Hitter (bow and two-handed weapon) fighter in the game, par none.I agree that when it comes to two weapon fighting, the ranger is given a little more freedom in stat planning, because they don't have the dex reqs to worry about, but how much of a benefit is that? The fighter will have to take the prereqs, giving him more abilities anyway, and a high dex would be a benefit in the first place, as it adds to a number of relevant abilities for their role.
The ranger gets nothing special for archery. They get some feats that a fighter would get anyway, minus any of the prereq feats that the fighter would be picking up anyway.
Actually statistically speaking the ranger will hit harder as a two weapon fighter as he will need less Dex this means fights are over faster as flat top bonuses multiply on crits. For example a two kukri ranger will hit harder than a similar fighter. And as many TWF's end up opting for weapon finesse and then needs an agile enchantment to add Dex to damage. You don't have this "feat/equipment" tax to keep your attack and damage modifiers high. You are also mitigating what value of accessing a feat 5-6 levels ahead of anyone else is. This means in most cases that character can reliably do his thing more often and earlier.
If you are worried about a favored enemy because the GM has given you no details (which is a red flag for me personally) go with FE: Human it applies to 3 of the base races Human, Half-elves, and half-orcs. It doesn't ever have to go up after 1st level if you don't want it to. You can add the bonuses to the ones at 5, 10 etc if you never end up fighting humans and their close kin. The other solid I have no idea what this game will be choices are animals and magical beasts. Or, as Quandary suggested go with the Guide archetype and ditch favored enemy and be able to apply favored terrain and pass without trace to the entire party which means the more players the better it is. A 2500 GP(? i may be wrong on the price) investment in boots lets you add a terrain you don't have.
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here, but I could be wrong.
But yes a well reasoned OP, I hope we can convince you to change your position.
Wow, where to start.
Almost every class is situational. With a fighter, that situation is almost anything outside of combat. Need someone to talk your way out of a situation? Paladin or Ranger will (likely) be better. Paladin's have higher charisma (or should) and Rangers have far more skills to play with. Need to up your own Combat abilities to adjust for a difficult situation? Ranger and Paladin have spells to take care of that. Sure a wizard could probably cast more varied and powerful spells. The difference is that the Ranger and the Paladin have spells that are designed to augment their own abilities and skill sets. Is what the group fighting on Team Evil(evil outsider, dragon or Undead)? Paladins will wreck that s**t. They will just go to town and make it a goo pile. Fighters will look on in awe. Thats what the Paladin was designed to do. They can also help out combatants by spot healing, removing status ailments and pointing out when something is inherently evil very quickly.
Can a fighter track like a ranger? Nope. Can a fighter take advantage of terrains and enemy types to deal more damage? Nope. Should a GM let the ranger know what types of terrain will be most common and what enemy types will be most common? The GM doesn't have to, but in my opinion they sure should. That information is not game breaking and allows players to make smart decisions. If they have a list and choose to ignore it, that's their problem.
Yes, Paladin and Ranger are situational. Thankfully, combat is not the only aspect of a game. If it were, just have all your players roll fighters and enjoy. Otherwise, the two classes can fill a variety of roles and perform far better than a fighter in those areas.
I do agree that the OP's post is well thought out and presented in the best possible way, but I am sure this'll be a popcorn thread like any other "Does X (suck|not work|die easily|spend too much money on equipment)" thread.
It's bound to happen in most threads, but isn't that an indicator of something being wrong? Anyway, enough of thinking out loud. If you ask me, the Paladin does better than the Fighter except when fighting non-evil creatures. Also, like others have pointed out, Rangers gain abilities that Fighter feats cannot replicate (and more skill ranks).
So, to answer the thread title, no. They are NOT underpowered.
In my experience, they're both really good classes, even compared to a fighter. Neither of them is a bigger all-around damage machine, but they're both situationally in the race and they both generally have much more versatility / utility / defenses than the fighter.
Which isn't to say that the fighter is bad compared to the paladin or ranger, either.
In terms of combat potential, the biggest thing to notice about the ranger is its ability to ignore feat prereqs, especially stat prereqs. Unless you use some kind of insane stat generation system far, far more generous than anything in the book, being able to ignore the stat pre-reqs can be fairly huge.
Wait, you're serious about this? Oh my! I need to make a bag of popcorn for this one. Paladins and Rangers are two of the more potent classes. Paladins are especially impressive against those poor saps who chose the wrong alignment. Rangers also do horrible things, about as well as the paladin does, to the targets of their choice as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ the OP:
Rangers might not be quite as good at being fighters as fighters themselves, but I'd say they are no slouches. They will give you more skills, minor casting (enough for a few decent wands and the like) and can also moonlight as scouts or trapfinders. It's essentially a fighter/rogue/druid package, and while you can replicate one of those features with another class, you can't quite replicate them all. Besides, sometimes having another skill character (there are, after all, tpo many in PF for one or two characters to master even most options) or another warrior is a good thing.
Paladins are not only masters of unleashing the smackdown on any evil enemy AS WELL as potent healbots, but tend to also make pretty decent "faces" of a group that doesn't mind being "old skool" heroes and actually roleplaying their good alignment. Now, many people can think of ways that villains can attempt to screw paladins when they are aware of their orders, but to most non-hostile NPCs paladins represent moral and possibly temporal authority, and can mean that the PCs receive much warmer welcome wherever they go. See, when there's a paladin around, Joe Peasant doesn't mind letting them sleep in his house - he can trust that these strangers in his house won't dishonor his daughter or steal his family keepsake. Jane Priestess-of-Iomedae provides her spells on the cheap, as she knows that a paladin who tells us he and his comrades have been fighting the gnoll slavers is telling the truth - and thus doing her goddess' work. Jurgen the Mayor of Lower Nowhereburg takes his statement of the party having cleansed the forest of bandits (who, incidentally, have a bounty on their heads) much more seriously. A paladin's code can be a pain at times, but their reputation for sticking to it can be quite handy with some NPCs.
As for the paladin alignment, I think group cohesion is best considered before the group even starts playing. Paladins are for heroic campaigns, basically, but in all campaigns it helps if players are aware of each other's characters and fit their own PCs not just mechanically, but socially. It's not necessarily a problem having a paladin and a rogue in the same party, but not a paladin who would break the hand of every thief and a sociopathic kleptomaniac.
From my experience and Optimization ways, it really comes down to 3 things: The campaign, your other players, and difficulty level set by the DM. These three factors can make the Paladin and Ranger shine or become a burden to your party. Let me explain;
The campaign is the first indication of what sort of use your Paladin or Ranger is going to have. Paladins are versatile in that they are heavily armored meat shields, minor healing, negative effect neutralizers, and diplomatic. But they're combat functions are extreamly limited to Evil beings and their alignment restrictions can cause problems. The rangers too can be versatile too, acting like scouts, good with ranged/melee attacks, and great in certain terrain. But again their class features are nullified if they don't go against their favored enemies, walk on their favored terrain, and so on. So in campaigns that favor these attributes, then they're pretty solid choices but in campaigns where these aren't common, then they're sorta wasted.
Your other players/allies at the table will greatly effect these two classes. If people are playing with optimization in mind, where they want their characters to be superb mechanically then I think you'll see less effectiveness in your typical Paladin/Ranger. If they're casual gamers who tend to stick to the basics, don't pour through each and every supplement for that one great feat or spell, then they do play better.
DM difficulty is basically his expectations of what you, as a player, should be able to handle at a given level. I've had DM expect players to perform far above the normal and put us against creatures with a range from CR of normal level (CR 1 for a 1st level party) to CR + 4, 5, 6 of our level and expect us to beat or over come the challenge in some way. IN these extreme (and yes, they were extreme) circumstances the Paladin and Ranger do not perform as well as other basic classes or a multiclass version of those classes.
From my own Optimized opinion, I'd never play a Paladin unless I had access to Awesome Smite and Battle Blessing feats from Complete Champion, Charging Smite class features from Player's Handbook 2, and the Spell Compendium (all v3.5 supplements) period. Pathfinder did make certain aspects better for the Paladin such as Charisma-fueled spells, smite working against a monster for the encounter, and lay on hands having a much better impact. Still, the staple points of the Divine-fused weapon or Spiritual Charger aspects just aren't that potent, at least compared to Charging Smite.
For Rangers, while they remove restrictions from their feats it's usually better to actually meet those requirements for the full benefits of those feats. Rangers who put little into Dex are going to suck at archery because it's requirement is Dex. Better for the Ranger to Max out Dex and use light weapons with Weapon Finesse so that they can be successful at both Melee/Ranged attacks by focusing on one stat.
|
Rangers post-core book have my vote as the most powerful characters. Favored enemy has been improved by instant enemy / scout upgrades, they have early acess to Improved Precise, which is often +4 to hit for ranged attackers, and they can access a powerful melee companion. I'm all for low-dex two handed fighting; I'm not as big a fan of "switch hitting" as many here (core book it was good, these days feat lines for all fighting archtypes are far deeper). When in doubt, consider they get feats at half the rate of the fighter (1 every 4), but also solid spell access, lots of skills, and tons of special tricks no other class duplicates.
Paladin is probably the best full-BAB class now that Oath of Vengence came out, and was a contender before. Now beginning level 4 an 18 Cha pally can smite 7 times per day, gaining +4 to hit/damage/AC. Yes there are enemies it does not work on, but in most campaigns it works more often than not. They also get an animal to fight alongside them and spells, along with the highest effective hp thanks to swift-action self lay on hands (though this does cost a little).
Fighters are still good, and got great archetypes. They are the #1 if you are building a feat-intensive line (like most combat maneuver masters) and get the best non-circumstantial to hit. But the tricks of the others usually outpower this if you are going for straight combat monstering.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Paladin brings a ton to the table:
1) arguably best saves in the game, and certainly better than fighter. Solid AC and HPs and immunities to some sucky conditions make paladin a very good defensive class with little investment.
2) best in combat healing ability
3) smite - which keeps dpr up and lets you do good dpr over several kinds of builds (for example, while shield fighter may have some advantages, a shield paladin with improved shield bash has very solid defense and very solid smite dpr)
4) auras - at 11th level paladins get one of the nastiest buffs in the game
Rangers get powerful things from other as well. Remember after third level rangers who do not replace endurence can sleep in medium armor without feat expenditure. Archery can also be dependent on campiagn. If the battlefield is to cluttered with things that block line of sight then archery losses a lot of effectiveness with a loss of full attack from rapid shot and manyshot.
Tangential, but somewhat applicable.
"When the Buddha refuses to be drawn into the net of these dogmatic views of existence and nonexistence, he has two things in mind: the ethical consequences of these two views, and the fact that the views of absolute existence and nonexistence do not correspond to the way things really are."
With all respect to the Buddha, replace existance with good and nonexistance with lawful in the above statement. In a way, popcorn arguments are two halves where "this side" believes firmly one thing, and the straw man over there firmly believes another. They tend to be opinions that have, for one reason or the other, taken one side of the fence.
Hopefully I'm making sense, here. It's too easy to be drawn into absolutes within a view or an argument, which tends to ignore the reality of the situation.
Your other players/allies at the table will greatly effect these two classes. If people are playing with optimization in mind, where they want their characters to be superb mechanically then I think you'll see less effectiveness in your typical Paladin/Ranger.
I think you hit on many of the experiences that have shaped my opinion, the above being the most common. All the people in my games are number crunchers, pouring over every little tool for optimization in their role, and everybody sits down to make sure any problem that comes up, it can be answered by someone in the party.
Recently one of my players was trying to decide which of 13 different characters, each of which included 4 levels of cat shaman, would be the most effective for the party. A few years ago, a DM running a module for my players, afterward said he felt like he was running a game for a swat team.
I'm not saying the above is what every player/dm wants to experience, it just is what it is.
And again, I'm not saying these two classes are universally unattractive, I just feel they are overshadowed in bigger parties. Most games i'm in/run tend to field 6-8 players.
And again, I'm not saying these two classes are universally unattractive, I just feel they are overshadowed in bigger parties. Most games i'm in/run tend to field 6-8 players.
In a game with a bunch of SWAT mindset oriented players (Shadowruns Fields of Fire FTW) The Ranger brings a ton to the party I am failing to see how it would be overshadowed other than the high end C-M Disparity issue.
Can you elaborate.
How is a paladin overshadowed by other classes? It's the single toughest class in the game, bar none. Give them enough time and they can hit harder than pretty much any other class, the DPR might disagree, I'm not sure, but I do know that they can ignore DR, which is pretty friggin' important.
Every time I sit down to make a non spellcasting character, I feel like the mountain of extra feats that a fighter get allow them to take a better combat role than either of the two mentioned classes. And that the sideline abilities of those two classes are always met or provided by another caster in the party. In practice, I find the paladin to be a bigger problem than the ranger, but i'll get to that below.
My most recent run in with this was contemplating playing a sacred shield paladin, but then upon examining the shield variant fighters, that the feat acquisition was too useful to outweigh the other perks from the paladin, especially considering what the paladin has to give up for its archtype as compared to what a fighter has to give up.
Looking at a ranger for a two weapon fighter or archer, the class does provide some decent perk benefits, but nothing that a fighter can't pick up as well. And again, any additional skill selection is usually provided by another character in the party.
My biggest problem with the paladin, and this problem is usually only a bit noticeable in small parties, but the problem seems to grow exponentially in bigger parties, is the strict adherence to lawful good.
I think a party should have as little infighting as possible, and that a GM should provide as many ways for a party to overcome an encounter as the party can come up with sensibly. A character that must adhere to the lawful good stance of the paladin always seems to create more problems than it solves.
Now, I've only DM'd for maybe 30~ different people over my 24 some odd years of experience, so maybe it's just the people i've seen play them, but i've never said to myself, "Oh, so and so is playing a paladin. That'll make the party run better." It's almost universally the opposite, thinking what aspects of a campaign i have to change so there isn't an argument every other session amongst the party members.
snipped for space
I think paladins and rangers are great. I think paladins work better in an least a neutral party, but I don't see them as an issue since most parties are good anyway.
As for damage, even a nonsmiting pally, or a ranger not fighting a favorite enemy puts out decent damage, and they have a decent skill set also. When smiting or fighting a favorite enemy they actually outdamage a fighter.
Paladins and ranger also bring utility with their spells and other abilities.
I think group playstyle may be the issue, since I have yet to see a paladin or ranger not pull their weight.
Ranger specifically: They can ignore prerequisites for combat style feats. That's a huge advantage over any fighter. Due to this, they make the single best Switch Hitter (bow and two-handed weapon) fighter in the game, par none.I agree that when it comes to two weapon fighting, the ranger is given a little more freedom in stat planning, because they don't have the dex reqs to worry about, but how much of a benefit is that? The fighter will have to take the prereqs, giving him more abilities anyway, and a high dex would be a benefit in the first place, as it adds to a number of relevant abilities for their role.
The ranger gets nothing special for archery. They get some feats that a fighter would get anyway, minus any of the prereq feats that the fighter would be picking up anyway.
The paladin and ranger also have the pro/con of being situationally good. This problem again can be curbed from the amount of meta information you give your party, but how much should the DM have to reveal?
I generally don't have to reveal what the majority of alignment, creature type, or terrain the campaign will be going through for people to build their other base classes.
I'm i'm making a ranger, and the campaign starts with us in prison, or on a boat, should the DM make an exception for me and tell me the terrain and native creatures of wherever we're landing,or should he tell the party, and let them change their characters using the new information because I didn't want to pick a useless favored enemy or terrain?
Ranger get early access to those feats, and many GM's will help a ranger by suggesting what sort of favored enemies are there without giving away spoilers.
Now some GM's don't do this, but in that case I suggest the guide variant. They get to select an enemy to apply to favored enemy bonuses to a limited number of times per day. Even when the favored enemy bonuses are not being applied they will bring the pain, and utility.
Rangers get powerful things from other as well. Remember after third level rangers who do not replace endurence can sleep in medium armor without feat expenditure. Archery can also be dependent on campiagn. If the battlefield is to cluttered with things that block line of sight then archery losses a lot of effectiveness with a loss of full attack from rapid shot and manyshot.
Loss of line of sight screws everyone though.
And again, I'm not saying these two classes are universally unattractive, I just feel they are overshadowed in bigger parties. Most games i'm in/run tend to field 6-8 players.In a game with a bunch of SWAT mindset oriented players (Shadowruns Fields of Fire FTW) The Ranger brings a ton to the party I am failing to see how it would be overshadowed other than the high end C-M Disparity issue.
Can you elaborate.
I am waiting to hear this too because even in a number crunching party they should be competent, and pull their own weight.
Yeah...
Honestly, I fail to see how Paladins or Rangers are any less min-maxable than Fighters... If anything they are MORE.
I think the issue may be that the OP is less of a min-max freak than his fellow players,
and his fellow players are possibly still operating under 3.x assumptions where Feats were King...
I`m also interested in what sort of opposition the GM is throwing at you... Assuming such a min-maxing group, he pretty much NEEDS to be throwing higher CR opposition at them routinely, in one way or another. The base-line for balance is 15 point buy... If you are above that, NPCs also should be, and if you guys optimize hard then the NPCs should also be above par and be using intelligent tactics where appropriate. If NPCs are throwing min-maxed Will Saves around, how exactly would the Fighter be so great? Is the assumption accurate that the group feels having ONE person with Skill X maxed is sufficient? And the GM`m game style accomodates that?
And actually, I don`t think the OP ever said: what are the other classes in the group that are most over-shadowing him? Not that other Classes certainly can`t make themselves shine, but each class should be able to challenged... Perhaps the Gm just isn`t doing that. Tough opposition should be able to 1-shot Crit Kill most Casters... does that ever happen? Are the other players constantly getting to play out their `uber optimal full damage routine`? Because they shouldn`t, the game is supposed to be varied enough that one trick doesn`t always work, and if you start on your back foot you may well scurrying to catch up.
Honestly, if the difference is really just a difference in min-max `knowledge`/preference, that is something that is independent of class choices... Because you can certainly build Rangers and Paladins that utterly rock on any metric you want to choose. As I first wrote, they definitely do not do worse in large groups... It doesn`t matter if you have a Cleric, Paladin still is useful, it doesn`t matter if you have a Rogue and a Druid, Ranger can still be useful.
Likewise, if you are using Favored Enemy/Terrain, 99% of GMs should give you a list of stuff that will be somewhat useful... not necessarily in ranked order, but you will get use out of that stuff. If your GM refuses (maybe he doesn`t know where the campaign is going) there are Archetypes that don`t depend on those things. If you are a Paladin, you should be fighting Evil that you can Smite, and probably `Big Evil` to boot. If you aren`t running into that (Neutral opposition) it doesn`t seem like the Campaign would actually hold a real Paladin`s interest very long, and he should go roam to where he can pursue his calling.
Just because someone else in the group can do something doesn't mean you can't contribute. Look at combat for example, everyone contributes there. So to say skills don't matter because someone else has skills doesn't cut it for me. I've seen rangers catch things the rogue missed on perception for example. Aid another is also useful, some diplomacy check are almost impossible with out aid another. The there is stealth, nothing a rogue likes better than to have ranger along on stealth mission in case combat happens. The ranger is someone to flank with and the ranger dishes out great damage. A Paladin channeling right along side the cleric can make quick work of undead. As well with Paladin as secondary healer the cleric is free to use his spells for other things than cure spells. So he can use a divine favor instead of holding it back to spontaneously cast cure light wounds.
In the end I find Paladins and Rangers really help a party out more than straight fighter in a lot of circumstances.
|
|
Paladin is far more defensible (save bonuses, swift action heal) than his fighter counterpart even if he doesn't fight evil. He can also gain cleric domains (giving him access to a bevy of powers) or give everyone a teamwork feat (many are very good distributed en mass) or be Vengence-smiteathon (which is terrible in a non-evil campaign, but Often good).
Can you elaborate.
I can't elaborate too much, as I'll have to ask my players what leads their decision. Why they work on a ranger, but decide in the end to go some fighter, rogue or druid archetype instead.
From my own experience, in trying to make either class, I always run out of levels before I run out of feats I want to take. So I make a fighter. Or i feel weak on skills, so i make a rogue. The situational stuff always feels like a drawback to me. I look at smite, and see, so only evil? Same with the favored abilities of a ranger.
As for the 'swat' aspect of the people i play with, i feel like it's one of the best things about my group.
I'm not a big storyteller, as far as trying to take on different voices, or grand sweeping roleplaying/acting sessions. I also get annoyed when someone tells me a story about a game they played in, and it revolves around some magic item. "Oh yeah, it was great because i had this +5 longsword of world domination and i killed 50 somethingorothers."
The heart of our games, are about tactics. Assessing a situation and finding that strategy that gets through it. Looking at the impossible and then preparing yourself so that it ends up being cake.
If we could invite a historical figure to the table, it probably wouldn't be Shakespeare or Genghis Khan, but Sun Tzu or Hannibal
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Screw Sun Tzu or Hannibal, if we're going for figures from the past, I'm going for Darth Vader.
Not so much for me -- he was a whiny butt that really wasn't all that tactically capable. He had to keep being led by the nose by the emperor even in the old movies -- I mean go back and actually watch the guy. He constantly makes poor decisions (tactically speaking) and doesn't understand when someone points out better ones or the obvious.
"He will come to me?" -- NO DUH! I bet the emperor wanted to simply force smack him around several times due to blatant stupidity.
Can you elaborate.I can't elaborate too much, as I'll have to ask my players what leads their decision. Why they work on a ranger, but decide in the end to go some fighter, rogue or druid archetype instead.
From my own experience, in trying to make either class, I always run out of levels before I run out of feats I want to take. So I make a fighter. Or i feel weak on skills, so i make a rogue. The situational stuff always feels like a drawback to me. I look at smite, and see, so only evil? Same with the favored abilities of a ranger.
As for the 'swat' aspect of the people i play with, i feel like it's one of the best things about my group.
I'm not a big storyteller, as far as trying to take on different voices, or grand sweeping roleplaying/acting sessions. I also get annoyed when someone tells me a story about a game they played in, and it revolves around some magic item. "Oh yeah, it was great because i had this +5 longsword of world domination and i killed 50 somethingorothers."
The heart of our games, are about tactics. Assessing a situation and finding that strategy that gets through it. Looking at the impossible and then preparing yourself so that it ends up being cake.
If we could invite a historical figure to the table, it probably wouldn't be Shakespeare or Genghis Khan, but Sun Tzu or Hannibal
I think he was asking for a scenario in which the ranger or paladin would be left out(not feeling useful).
If not then I would like to know of one.Describing a "swat" scenario from your group would also help.
Paladin is far more defensible (save bonuses, swift action heal) than his fighter counterpart even if he doesn't fight evil. He can also gain cleric domains (giving him access to a bevy of powers) or give everyone a teamwork feat (many are very good distributed en mass) or be Vengence-smiteathon (which is terrible in a non-evil campaign, but Often good).Paladins do not get domains.
Unless they are a Sacred Servant.
Uh... by ´he can get cleric domains´ I would assume he´s talking about Archetypes that allow that.
ALL Paladins don´t get domains, but some do, and you ´can´ choose those Archetypes if you so wish.
Just as you ´can´ choose the Vengeance Oath option for the benefits he mentions.
So, as I thought, it comes down to Feat Fixation.
Personally, I quickly realized that for the most part, you can get alot of Feats as ´low lying Fruit´ and Class Abilities can equal or surpass bonus Feats of a Fighter. Fighters can still not have enough Feats for everything they want as well.
What Feat gives CHA to Saves and Immunities to boot?
What Feat gives free additional 5´ steps to be used as you want?
Taking an Archer Ranger, they can decide to never take Point Blank Shot, for example.
Domain Paladins can gain bonus Feats from Domain in some cases.
If your group uses alot of PRPG books, you really have to compare all the Archtype options for these classes, which allows you bypass the Favored Enemy/Terrain restriction if you don´t like those... Although the baseline for the game, as seen by Paizo´s own APs is the GM informing players of good choices for those.
The entire Paladin class in utterly intertwined with role-playing concerns... If you aren´t into roleplaying and just like war gaming vs. any and every enemy, i.e. don´t care about pursuing a personal quest agaisnt Evil, Paladin isn´t really your class. But Pathfinder IS called a role-playing game, not a tactical war game, for a reason: it assumes role-playing is a serious part of your game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not quite free, but skirmisher (APG) lets you choose:
Surprise Shift (Ex): The ranger can move 5 feet as a swift action. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity and does not count as a 5-foot step. (1/2 ranger level + WIS usages per day normally, expandable via Feats I THINK, although the base amount is more than enough for single-class Ranger IMHO)
also shapeshifter (APG) lets you choose:
Form of the Jackal: The ranger becomes thin and hyperactive, his movements taking on a nervous spryness. While in this form, the ranger can spend a move action to move up to 1/2 his speed without provoking attacks of opportunity. (and eventually all your movement period doesn´t provoke)
and also the guide (APG) grants:
Inspired Moment (Ex): At 11th level, the guide can have an inspired moment once per day as a free action... His speed increases by 10 feet. He can take an extra move or swift action on his turn. He gains a +4 bonus to AC and on attack rolls, skill checks, or ability checks. Finally, he automatically confirms any critical threat he scores. He can use this ability one additional time per day at 19th level. (AC bonus stacks with Mobility if the bonus to Acrobatics wasn´t enough)
note that guide and skirmisher are compatable archetypes, thus you can leverage Inspired Moment´s extra swift action for a THIRD 5´ step (that doesn´t count as a 5´ step, so enemies can´t Step Up, etc?) ...while getting +4 to hit, auto-Crit Confirm, +4 AC and skills, etc... I´m PRETTY sure that as an Ex ability, anything that gives you a full day´s rest would let you start over on daily usages of Inspired Moment, although I´m not sure... Inspired Moment is likewise compatable with the Form of Jackal Move Action ability, and AFAIK you can take Shapeshifter along with Guide and Skirmisher since they replace different stuff (Fav Enemy, Terrain, Hunter Bond, Evasion, Quarry, Camouflage, Spells). YIKES.
|
|
I do appreciate the feat starved fighters... I play a whirlwind attacking reach weapon combat reflexes fighter that one day hopes to trip everyone down and power attack for a lot of damage; he can't have enough feats, even as a human fighter.
Most fighters just plan to swing a big sword as hard as they can. These are a waste as fighters; an Oath Pally will do this more often and their save bonuses / free healing far outweighs anything the fighters get out of feats.
Rangers by 10 are down only 3 feats from fighters (1, 4, and 8; they get them at 2/6/10), and they had Improved Precise (effectively +4 to hit) since level 6. They also have tons of skills and useful spells (including the oft-sighted instant enemy, effective +6 hit/damage).
So each have their place, again, point for point the Pally usually comes out on top, but I value defense (especially saves) a great deal as long as they come with a good offensive package.