This is possibly true, but it varies by game. I once had a paladin give me the most trouble because his mercies kept removing status affects. If a GM does not use debuffers than the paladin's healing abilities don't mean as much.It's fun how in these "Fighters suck! Look how bad they suck compared to XXX!!!" threads, the other class is always up against an opponent or in a situation that allows them to maximize their special abilities. Not all bad guys are subject to Smite Evil, or are Favored Enemies, etc.Except that, as people have been repeatedly pointed out already in this thread, even against non-evil enemies Paladins have more than enough secondary abilities to offset the fighter's higher base DPR. Divine Grace, Lay on Hands+Mercy, the Paladin's auras, spells, and Divine Bond all work perfectly well against non-evil opponents.
Likewise, the Ranger still has spells (including Instant Enemy, which eliminates the whole issue of not fighting your Favored Enemies), a high Reflex save and Evasion, Quarry, and an Animal Companion.
There's only so many times you can say a thing before it becomes clear that people are choosing to ignore it, I'm afraid.
In combat a Paladin minus his Smite ability is still > Fighter.
Obviously every individual situation is... situational. But even discounting Mercies, at 20th level your average Paladin has between 1,000 and 1,200 more hit points at his disposal than Fighters do from the healing side of it, and that's regardless of the alignment of the opposition. Everyone considers Smite the class-defining ability but in my opinion Lay on Hands is more potent.
If someone wanted to 'balance' the Paladin class, I think a good start would be to remove that initial double damage aspect of Smite and to make Lay on Hands a standard action - or at the very least a move action - when used on oneself. The ability to heal oneself, remove conditions and still make a full attack action in a single round is just indomitable... especially when used in conjunction with Hero's Defiance.
You make a strong case for the superiority of paladins (which is apparently what this thread is about now) but it's worth acknowledging the drawbacks. Not just mechanical stuff (like you need a high charisma, while the fighter can dump it) but you need to act really lawful good. Depending on the campaign, that might require you to make serious sacrifices. A true paladin who finds a horde of magic items in a bandit camp should try to return them to their rightful owners or their heirs. A fighter would just keep them. Then again, most GMs probably allow paladins to get away with that stuff, or just give them more stuff until they're up to wealth-by-level.
So this thread seems to have turned into a Fighter vs Paladin debate.
To me, the Fighter seems balanced against the Barbarian and the Ranger. His DPR maybe be a little lower than those two other classes, but his AC will be way higher and he has the spare feats to take Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes. He can also use Tower Shields, something that should not be dismissed. So if Barbarian = Ranger = Fighter < Paladin, then is the Fighter really the problem here? ;)
EDIT: The Paladin used to be a mad class, since he required a high Str, Con, Wis and Cha. That was making up for his stronger class abilities. Now he only needs Str and Cha really. :\
just because you can heal yourself as a swift action doesn't mean you should dump constitution. that full attack can still possibly take you out in a single round. only, it's more likely. i'd recommend at least a 12.
|
It's fun how in these "Fighters suck! Look how bad they suck compared to XXX!!!" threads, the other class is always up against an opponent or in a situation that allows them to maximize their special abilities. Not all bad guys are subject to Smite Evil, or are Favored Enemies, etc.Except that, as people have been repeatedly pointed out already in this thread, even against non-evil enemies Paladins have more than enough secondary abilities to offset the fighter's higher base DPR. Divine Grace, Lay on Hands+Mercy, the Paladin's auras, spells, and Divine Bond all work perfectly well against non-evil opponents.
Likewise, the Ranger still has spells (including Instant Enemy, which eliminates the whole issue of not fighting your Favored Enemies), a high Reflex save and Evasion, Quarry, and an Animal Companion.
Instant Enemy is not as great as people make it out to be. You can use Instant Enemy against creature, not one creature type but that one creature itself so fighting against multiple types of creatures doesn't make the spell worth while.
Instant Enemy is not as great as people make it out to be. You can use Instant Enemy against creature, not one creature type but that one creature itself so fighting against multiple types of creatures doesn't make the spell worth while.
The spell has its limits, but it's still really useful for making sure you always get your Favored Enemy bonus against the most important baddies. The swift action casting time is rather nice too.
How does the paladin do agianst something like a bear at level 3 or something else powerful that is neutral.
At lower levels they are much closer. It is at higher levels that fighters pull away, damage wise, if smite is not activated.
I agree the swift action to heal the paladin is amazing. I think the biggest benefit for the fighter is not having to require "Evil, rages, Favored Enemy, Flanking, etc". Just the fighter vs the Bad guy..correction..."the other guy". Casters in the group can have pretty simple cut/dry tactics to help the fighter perform better. K.I.S.S Keep it simple stupid. I would think that is how a fighter shines. Keep him at modest health and not under the affects of a Will based effect, and he'll get the job done. Also, since buffing is such a hassle half the time, hopefully the casters might get one buff off for the fighter and there he goes.
IMO a fighter makes life much easier for everyone else in the party. The paladin is next in line. The only disadvantage the paladin has is alignment, and a limited number of feats. Takes him a bit to get rolling, but catches up quickly with the fighter if you can manage the alignment restrictions.
edit----lol, this is also assuming the fighter isnt a mindless charging hackin/slash zombie running at everything on the board without some party cohension. lol. like that ever happens. hehe
How does the paladin do agianst something like a bear at level 3 or something else powerful that is neutral.
Discounting much higher saves and a few self-heals for the Paladin, and a couple of extra feats for the fighter, they are pretty much the same.
At low levels a Paladin with an 18 strength and Power Attack deals pretty much the same amount of damage as a Fighter with an 18 strength and Power Attack.
I will say this, in the Fighter build I posted way back in this thread, I have a Greatsword Weaponmaster built who had Whirlwind Attack at 4th level... I've yet to see a character of that level of ANY class capable of matching it.
I agree the swift action to heal the paladin is amazing. I think the biggest benefit for the fighter is not having to require "Evil, rages, Favored Enemy, Flanking, etc". Just the fighter vs the Bad guy..correction..."the other guy". Casters in the group can have pretty simple cut/dry tactics to help the fighter perform better. K.I.S.S Keep it simple stupid. I would think that is how a fighter shines. Keep him at modest health and not under the affects of a Will based effect, and he'll get the job done. Also, since buffing is such a hassle half the time, hopefully the casters might get one buff off for the fighter and there he goes.
IMO a fighter makes life much easier for everyone else in the party. The paladin is next in line. The only disadvantage the paladin has is alignment, and a limited number of feats. Takes him a bit to get rolling, but catches up quickly with the fighter if you can manage the alignment restrictions.
edit----lol, this is also assuming the fighter isnt a mindless charging hackin/slash zombie running at everything on the board without some party cohension. lol. like that ever happens. hehe
I would say that the Paladin makes life much easier on the party - he's less likely to fall victim to control spells - or any spells for that matter - will need less healing since he can heal himself and even has auras that benefit everyone else. A Fighter needs to be healed, needs to be protected from controls (or defended against if not) and so on in order to do his thing.
Paladins are vastly less survivable than Experts and are a huge danger to the party. As soon as something evil shows up that just can't be ignored, the Paladin basically forces the rest of the party into confrontation, where the Expert will say "Hey, why don't we just ignore that guy and do something a little less suicidal. Sure, everyone in the village will die, and that's terrible... but its not my village and I don't want to die."
So this thread seems to have turned into a Fighter vs Paladin debate.
Yes, which is kind of sad. I think Bob_Loblaw made some good point.
The fighter isn't what people expect it to be.
They can't compete with a Paladin when she smites evil, but they never were intended to.
The Fighter doesn't suck. It's one of the best damage dealers in the game.
Me? I think it is a bit boring, but there seem to be some cool feats in the new Advance race guide. I like the one giving human favored class bonus to skills and hit points.
As for fighters being not versatile enough, yes I think that is a problem, but It is also a matter of how you build it. If all your feats go into damage dealing feats like weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc. and defensive feats like Iron will, then your fighter won't be versatile.
You could give you're fighter some fun traits like making UMD a class skills, give your fighter 13 int and pick at least one Combat Maneuver. At higher levels your can swap it out. Just like cleave.
You can make a melee dude and pick some archer feats. You can tailor fighters to be a swashbuckler, even in heavy armor, or make it a shield dude, or give perception and stealth as class skills and pick skill focus on one or both and let them be a scout. They are an excellent class to multiclass with. Fighter with one level rogue, or one level ranger, or one or more levels bard.
If all you build up to is melee damage or archer damage. Then that is all you are going to get.
Why fighters suck?
Answer: They don't suck. Far from it.
.....but they are a bit boring. Some like them, some don't.
PS.
A fighter built for damage will outdamage any paladin that doesn't smite evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can build versatile fighters. I can build unique fighters. I can build specialized fighters. I can do it at all levels of play. In the end though what matters isn't how these theoretical characters look on a message board. What matters is how they play in an actual game. I know from experience that fighters can do their jobs well if the player understands how to build to a concept and the GM knows how to write and run an adventure that includes something for everyone. There will be times when one character will outshine another, but it shouldn't be all the time. If one character is hogging the spotlight it is usually a player/GM problem and not a character problem.
I can build versatile fighters. I can build unique fighters. I can build specialized fighters. I can do it at all levels of play. In the end though what matters isn't how these theoretical characters look on a message board. What matters is how they play in an actual game. I know from experience that fighters can do their jobs well if the player understands how to build to a concept and the GM knows how to write and run an adventure that includes something for everyone. There will be times when one character will outshine another, but it shouldn't be all the time. If one character is hogging the spotlight it is usually a player/GM problem and not a character problem.
Good points.
Still I think they should have some more fun class skills, some more skills per level and a boost to will saves, and all can be fixed with feats.A feat that let fighters get +2 skills per level.
A fighter only feat that let him/her take two new class skills (yes I know you can pick extra trait).
Improved bravery: in addition to the normal bonus from bravery you get a bonus to will saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are vastly less survivable than Experts and are a huge danger to the party. As soon as something evil shows up that just can't be ignored, the Paladin basically forces the rest of the party into confrontation, where the Expert will say "Hey, why don't we just ignore that guy and do something a little less suicidal. Sure, everyone in the village will die, and that's terrible... but its not my village and I don't want to die."
Well-run Paladins generally aren't the flavor of Lawful Stupid that insists on forcing the group into committing suicide.
PS.
A fighter built for damage will outdamage any paladin that doesn't smite evil.
Until of course, the Fighter dies due to running out of hit points or falls under the effects of some spell he was ill-equipped to save against... after that, I'd say the fact that the Paladin is still alive and viable gives him the chance to more than make up the difference.
The original point of this entire thread was that a Fighter's 'unique' strength was that it could keep going longer than other classes with more limited use class features. The Paladin respectfully disagrees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are vastly less survivable than Experts and are a huge danger to the party. As soon as something evil shows up that just can't be ignored, the Paladin basically forces the rest of the party into confrontation, where the Expert will say "Hey, why don't we just ignore that guy and do something a little less suicidal. Sure, everyone in the village will die, and that's terrible... but its not my village and I don't want to die."Well-run Paladins generally aren't the flavor of Lawful Stupid that insists on forcing the group into committing suicide.
Heh - yeah, the presumption that the only way to run Lawful Good is the stupid way, that a Paladin would be incapable of putting the 'greater good' ahead of immediate concerns just smacks of desperation to me. Personally I find the role-play 'restrictions' of the Paladin to be a meaningful and satisfying challenge... just as I've found the unique natures of every other character I've played.
Paladins are vastly less survivable than Experts and are a huge danger to the party. As soon as something evil shows up that just can't be ignored, the Paladin basically forces the rest of the party into confrontation, where the Expert will say "Hey, why don't we just ignore that guy and do something a little less suicidal. Sure, everyone in the village will die, and that's terrible... but its not my village and I don't want to die."Well-run Paladins generally aren't the flavor of Lawful Stupid that insists on forcing the group into committing suicide.
You don't have to be lawful stupid, but a paladin living by the code is going to take more risks than a lawful good fighter. I've seen it get people killed where the lawful good fighter would just feel guilty for a bit, but not worry weather atonement is required.
Yeah, paladins are powerful. Proper conduct of a paladin makes them need to be powerful though, because it forces more confrontations than other classes without conduct requirements.
Fighters could use a bit more juice I guess; Four skill points a level at the very least, and probably more saves if its going to be a protector class.
If you find yourself in an anti-magic zone, then a fighter kicks the paladins arse.
Until of course, the Fighter dies due to running out of hit points or falls under the effects of some spell he was ill-equipped to save against... after that, I'd say the fact that the Paladin is still alive and viable gives him the chance to more than make up the difference.
The original point of this entire thread was that a Fighter's 'unique' strength was that it could keep going longer than other classes with more limited use class features. The Paladin respectfully disagrees.
You could argue that losing saving throws isn't a big deal, especially if you have arcane support and a simple 1st level spell (Protection from Evil) solves almost every problem.
Also, if a Paladin heals themselves for 1d6 per two pally levels, that's not a lot. At 10th level, that's 5d6 (17 points of damage every round). I'm not sure what games you play in, but that's not enough to keep anyone standing in the games I play. Tactics (which are sometimes supported by feats) and intelligent play are much more important.
Paladins are also going to run out of smites, lay on hands, and spells, long before the wand of cure light wounds runs dry. A Fighter is going to be good for each and every combat.
I don't think anyone is debating that the Paladin is good. Just because the Paladin is good, doesn't make the Fighter bad. It's situational.
Fighters are not the ultimate damage dealers, they are the ultimate armored tank. You can't build a Paladin, a Cavalier, a Ranger or a Barbarian with an AC higher than a Fighter's AC. Other classes can beat the Fighter's AC, but only with spells and for a limited time. This superior AC can make up for his lack of self-healing ability against mudane attacks. If he uses a Tower Shield, he can become flat-out immune to ranged attack while providing cover to his allies. However, the Paladin is more resiliant to spells, spell-like abilities, touch attacks and everything that requires a saving throw.
Like Mercurial mentionned, the Fighter can learn also climb up feat trees faster than anyone else. They will always be the first to learn Spring Attack, Whirlind Attack, Improved Trip, Combat Patrol, Shatter Defenses, etc. During higher levels, than can even master more than one feat tree while any other classes can only master a single feat tree.
Until of course, the Fighter dies due to running out of hit points or falls under the effects of some spell he was ill-equipped to save against... after that, I'd say the fact that the Paladin is still alive and viable gives him the chance to more than make up the difference.
The original point of this entire thread was that a Fighter's 'unique' strength was that it could keep going longer than other classes with more limited use class features. The Paladin respectfully disagrees.
You could argue that losing saving throws isn't a big deal, especially if you have arcane support and a simple 1st level spell (Protection from Evil) solves almost every problem.
Also, if a Paladin heals themselves for 1d6 per two pally levels, that's not a lot. At 10th level, that's 5d6 (17 points of damage every round). I'm not sure what games you play in, but that's not enough to keep anyone standing in the games I play. Tactics (which are sometimes supported by feats) and intelligent play are much more important.
Paladins are also going to run out of smites, lay on hands, and spells, long before the wand of cure light wounds runs dry. A Fighter is going to be good for each and every combat.
I don't think anyone is debating that the Paladin is good. Just because the Paladin is good, doesn't make the Fighter bad. It's situational.
Arcane support... Protection from Evil... Wands of Cure Wounds...
Yeah, you're really making quite the case for the Fighter there.
I'm sure a lot of it is viewed through how you play the game. In our campaigns we don't have access to magical crutches like wands of cure wounds and whatnot. Characters are MUCH more dependent on their class features and how they play their characters than the generic magic item 'get out of jail free cards' I see discussed so often as intrinsic and necessary parts of a character. Any 'arcane support' that a Fighter could get I imagine a Paladin would get just as easily, no? Except that they won't need it near as much which frees up those resources for everyone else...
@Mercurial: You should probably cool down a bit. Yes the Paladin are defensively more powerful than the fighter and when she smites evil the fighter can't keep up damage wise. But weak will saves = suck?
The fighter isn't the only class with weak will saves. Alchemist, rogue, Ranger, etc. all have weak will saves. The Paladin is in fact the only full BAB class with good will saves. I'm not hearing people cry the Ranger suck.
The game is a group effort. The players should help each other. This isn't a PVP game. Fighters, just like Rangers, Gunslingers, Alchemists, Cavaliers, Rogues, Barbarians, Ninjas and Samurais will need help from casters and other allies.
That said, it is a bit strange that the fighter - that don't use spells or any supernatural abilities - is the only full BAB class that have weak will saves and two skill points per level. (It is actually the only class with weak will saves and 2 skills per level). The class is mostly designed to use a stick or a ranged weapon. Exactly how it should be versatile (more skills points etc.) and self reliant (better will savers) if the only way you can do it is by:
- giving it high int to get more skill points + play human
- giving it high wisdom + picking iron will (and improved iron will) + getting magic items + getting spells cast on you (by caster or potio)
but again, Fighter isn't the only class with weak class skills.
|
|
Until of course, the Fighter dies due to running out of hit points or falls under the effects of some spell he was ill-equipped to save against... after that, I'd say the fact that the Paladin is still alive and viable gives him the chance to more than make up the difference.
The original point of this entire thread was that a Fighter's 'unique' strength was that it could keep going longer than other classes with more limited use class features. The Paladin respectfully disagrees.
You could argue that losing saving throws isn't a big deal, especially if you have arcane support and a simple 1st level spell (Protection from Evil) solves almost every problem.
Also, if a Paladin heals themselves for 1d6 per two pally levels, that's not a lot. At 10th level, that's 5d6 (17 points of damage every round). I'm not sure what games you play in, but that's not enough to keep anyone standing in the games I play. Tactics (which are sometimes supported by feats) and intelligent play are much more important.
Paladins are also going to run out of smites, lay on hands, and spells, long before the wand of cure light wounds runs dry. A Fighter is going to be good for each and every combat.
I don't think anyone is debating that the Paladin is good. Just because the Paladin is good, doesn't make the Fighter bad. It's situational.
Arcane support... Protection from Evil... Wands of Cure Wounds...
Yeah, you're really making quite the case for the Fighter there.
I'm sure a lot of it is viewed through how you play the game. In our campaigns we don't have access to magical crutches like wands of cure wounds and whatnot. Characters are MUCH more dependent on their class features and how they play their characters than the generic magic item 'get out of jail free cards' I see discussed so often as intrinsic and necessary parts of a character. Any 'arcane support' that a Fighter could get I imagine a Paladin would get just as easily, no? Except that they...
The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. The buffs are there for a reason. Fighter's don't heal, they were never intended to be a class than can and you can't hold that against it. Yes Paladin's hell but so do clerics and druids but you can't sit there and say they are better than anyone else who can't heal.
Some classes do rely on a heal, big freaking deal? Does a fighter need a wand of cure light wounds? No they don't, that is what teammates are for but a fighter with a wand can get into the mix while the cleric or wizard can throw him some buffs while they make sure other players are healed.
Stop with the whole "fighters a p*#^!y unless he fights naked."
I could say that the fighter is a boss because he doesn't have to rely on powers.
|
|
@Mercurial: You should probably cool down a bit. Yes the Paladin are defensively more powerful than the fighter and when she smites evil the fighter can't keep up damage wise. But weak will saves = suck?
The fighter isn't the only class with weak will saves. Alchemist, rogue, Ranger, etc. all have weak will saves. The Paladin is in fact the only full BAB class with good will saves. I'm not hearing people cry the Ranger suck.
The game is a group effort. The players should help each other. This isn't a PVP game. Fighters, just like Rangers, Gunslingers, Alchemists, Cavaliers, Rogues, Barbarians, Ninjas and Samurais will need help from casters and other allies.
That said, it is a bit strange that the fighter - that don't use spells or any supernatural abilities - is the only full BAB class that have weak will saves and two skill points per level. (It is actually the only class with weak will saves and 2 skills per level). The class is mostly designed to use a stick or a ranged weapon. Exactly how it should be versatile (more skills points etc.) and self reliant (better will savers) if the only way you can do it is by:
- giving it high int to get more skill points + play human
- giving it high wisdom + picking iron will (and improved iron will) + getting magic items + getting spells cast on you (by caster or potio)but again, Fighter isn't the only class with weak class skills.
What makes the fighter so great is the fact that if you want a more skilled fighter you can just build one with the many archtypes that are available. Bob did this several times in the other fighter thread.
Arcane support... Protection from Evil... Wands of Cure Wounds...Yeah, you're really making quite the case for the Fighter there.
I'm sure a lot of it is viewed through how you play the game. In our campaigns we don't have access to magical crutches like wands of cure wounds and whatnot. Characters are MUCH more dependent on their class features and how they play their characters than the generic magic item 'get out of jail free cards' I see discussed so often as intrinsic and necessary parts of a character. Any 'arcane support' that a Fighter could get I imagine a Paladin would get just as easily, no? Except that they won't need it near as much which frees up those resources for everyone else...
Basically what you are saying is that in your house-ruled game paladins are better.
You can't use corner cases to argue a point. You can word it however you want, but the game assume people are supporting each other, not trying to best to be their own man.As long as everyone does what they are supposed to do the resource issue should not be an issue. It is only when someone is not pulling their weight, and someone has to give you a shoulder to lean on that things are an issue.
Example: I played in a game as a druid with a rogue. The rogue dumped wisdom, and I knew it would get us lit up by trapped. I compensated by buying eyes of the eagle. That is 2500 gp that could have went to a handy haversack or another +1 to my AC.
So, yeah in a game where everyone is expected to take care of themselves the fighter is not as good, but even in team games it is not like the fighter is soaking up all the wizard's spells. Unless the game is a low wealth game the fighter should be ok for the most part.
PS:I am not saying you are playing the game wrong. I am saying that something not working in your game does not mean that which does not work is the issue. Low constitution based characters don't fair well in my games, while some players have told me a low con does not really matter. I think that is largely because I target fort saves and use monster that do large amounts of hit point damage if they hit.
In short don't bring low con characters to my table or fighters to your table because neither one will do well most likely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. The buffs are there for a reason. Fighter's don't heal, they were never intended to be a class than can and you can't hold that against it. Yes Paladin's hell but so do clerics and druids but you can't sit there and say they are better than anyone else who can't heal.
Some classes do rely on a heal, big freaking deal? Does a fighter need a wand of cure light wounds? No they don't, that is what teammates are for but a fighter with a wand can get into the mix while the cleric or wizard can throw him some buffs while they make sure other players are healed.
Stop with the whole "fighters a p*#^!y unless he fights naked."
I could say that the fighter is a boss because he doesn't have to rely on powers.
But the premise of the thread is the myth of Fighter Endurance: That the Fighter can keep on fighting all day, because he doesn't rely on spells. Which is obviously b@%%*$!% if you've ever actually played the game.
We comment on the solo Fighter because that's what the OP started with.
"The fighter is good because he does not rely on a LIMITED amount of spells or spell-like abilities to remain effective."
Wizard and Cleric: "Oh man it was a stressful day calling down pillars of flame from the sky to smite my foes and fundamentally warping the laws of the universe in fun and profitable ways. So fighter what have you been doing all day?"
Fighter: ...hitting things with my sword.
And the the Wizard and Cleric high five and laugh.
The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. The buffs are there for a reason. Fighter's don't heal, they were never intended to be a class than can and you can't hold that against it. Yes Paladin's hell but so do clerics and druids but you can't sit there and say they are better than anyone else who can't heal.
Some classes do rely on a heal, big freaking deal? Does a fighter need a wand of cure light wounds? No they don't, that is what teammates are for but a fighter with a wand can get into the mix while the cleric or wizard can throw him some buffs while they make sure other players are healed.
Stop with the whole "fighters a p*#^!y unless he fights naked."
I could say that the fighter is a boss because he doesn't have to rely on powers.
But the premise of the thread is the myth of Fighter Endurance: That the Fighter can keep on fighting all day, because he doesn't rely on spells. Which is obviously b%@%#$~~ if you've ever actually played the game.
We comment on the solo Fighter because that's what the OP started with.
And this is the ENTIRE point I'm trying to make and respond to. Others change the argument as it gets lost.
As long as everyone does what they are supposed to do the resource issue should not be an issue. It is only when someone is not pulling their weight, and someone has to give you a shoulder to lean on that things are an issue.
Example: I played in a game as a druid with a rogue. The rogue dumped wisdom, and I knew it would get us lit up by trapped. I compensated by buying eyes of the eagle. That is 2500 gp that could have went to a handy haversack or another +1 to my AC.
So, yeah in a game where everyone is expected to take care of themselves the fighter is not as good, but even in team games it is not like the fighter is soaking up all the wizard's spells. Unless the game is a low wealth game the fighter should be ok for the most part.
You understand that the OP, and the entire point of this thread, is that the Fighter is superior because he doesn't rely on limited spells and class features like everyone else? And the entire point of my argument is that I disagree with that?
If he had come on here and said 'Fighters are awesome because when they get their weaknesses shored up by magic items and other players they can really shine', I would have said 'meh, that's the same with every class' and moved on. But that's not what was said and not what we're debating.
Every class is strong and fairly well-balanced as part of an organized team, the Fighter is certainly not alone in that... but when comparing a specific class with all its abilities AND ONLY WITH ITS ABILITIES as the OP intended, then the Paladin in my opinion far outshines the Fighter - unless you have a desire to play some very specific and specialized type of build (like a trip-monkey).
I get that there is no 'wrong' way to play the game so long as everyone involved has fun... at our table, we don't approach it like some sort of video game with 'power-ups' and '1-up's and cheat codes, we don't approach magic items as if they are like baseball cards to be collected, traded, bought and sold on every street corner. Things like Wands of Cure Wounds take away every aspect of the game that might be found fun or exciting for us... they are a crutch which makes the game ultimately pointless, that make the game more about what treasure you've found than what you can actually do. That's just not for us.
Also, for what its worth (and I realize this is going far afield), the idea of divine items like scrolls and wands collectively troubles us all. Arcane magic items being available for trade and profit is one thing, but bottling your deity's divine power and selling it off to be used however one wishes just seems... wrong. There are no divine wands, potions or scrolls in our game.
I find fighters with a ring of regeneration don't have to worry about HPs being a limit any more. A fighter should have more than enough hit points to last one encounter. By the time they hit the next encounter the ring will have them back at full hit points. So a fighter can go for as many encounters per day as they want as long as they get 10 minute break between them.
The caster will eventually run out of spells. For some this may be an issue for other casters not so much.
|
I think the the point is that aside from hit points (which EVERYONE has to worry about, and most classes more so than fighters), the fighter doesn't have to worry about any sort of limited resource. And unlike most classes, they're at their best at all times, not only when some certain per-requisites are met.
And this is the ENTIRE point I'm trying to make and respond to. Others change the argument as it gets lost.The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. The buffs are there for a reason. Fighter's don't heal, they were never intended to be a class than can and you can't hold that against it. Yes Paladin's hell but so do clerics and druids but you can't sit there and say they are better than anyone else who can't heal.
Some classes do rely on a heal, big freaking deal? Does a fighter need a wand of cure light wounds? No they don't, that is what teammates are for but a fighter with a wand can get into the mix while the cleric or wizard can throw him some buffs while they make sure other players are healed.
Stop with the whole "fighters a p*#^!y unless he fights naked."
I could say that the fighter is a boss because he doesn't have to rely on powers.
But the premise of the thread is the myth of Fighter Endurance: That the Fighter can keep on fighting all day, because he doesn't rely on spells. Which is obviously b%@%#$~~ if you've ever actually played the game.
We comment on the solo Fighter because that's what the OP started with.
I think it is the way you are saying it though. It came off a lot differently than what you were trying to say. I do agree the OP is 100% incorrect.
I find fighters with a ring of regeneration don't have to worry about HPs being a limit any more. A fighter should have more than enough hit points to last one encounter. By the time they hit the next encounter the ring will have them back at full hit points. So a fighter can go for as many encounters per day as they want as long as they get 10 minute break between them.
The caster will eventually run out of spells. For some this may be an issue for other casters not so much.
That ring is 90,000 gp. If he can live long enough to afford it then he was probably doing ok anyway and does not need it.
|
|
The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. The buffs are there for a reason. Fighter's don't heal, they were never intended to be a class than can and you can't hold that against it. Yes Paladin's hell but so do clerics and druids but you can't sit there and say they are better than anyone else who can't heal.
Some classes do rely on a heal, big freaking deal? Does a fighter need a wand of cure light wounds? No they don't, that is what teammates are for but a fighter with a wand can get into the mix while the cleric or wizard can throw him some buffs while they make sure other players are healed.
Stop with the whole "fighters a p*#^!y unless he fights naked."
I could say that the fighter is a boss because he doesn't have to rely on powers.
But the premise of the thread is the myth of Fighter Endurance: That the Fighter can keep on fighting all day, because he doesn't rely on spells. Which is obviously b#*!$~&+ if you've ever actually played the game.
We comment on the solo Fighter because that's what the OP started with.
I have played the game, actually I've been playing 3rd edition since it came out and I stick to what I say. The fighter can keep going all day while spellcasters and those with limited abilities try and rest every chance they get.
In Pathfinder a fighter can use his wand of cure light to take care of himself.
|
|
As long as everyone does what they are supposed to do the resource issue should not be an issue. It is only when someone is not pulling their weight, and someone has to give you a shoulder to lean on that things are an issue.
Example: I played in a game as a druid with a rogue. The rogue dumped wisdom, and I knew it would get us lit up by trapped. I compensated by buying eyes of the eagle. That is 2500 gp that could have went to a handy haversack or another +1 to my AC.
So, yeah in a game where everyone is expected to take care of themselves the fighter is not as good, but even in team games it is not like the fighter is soaking up all the wizard's spells. Unless the game is a low wealth game the fighter should be ok for the most part.
You understand that the OP, and the entire point of this thread, is that the Fighter is superior because he doesn't rely on limited spells and class features like everyone else? And the entire point of my argument is that I disagree with that?
You can disagree all you want but I'm afraid you will still be wrong. The fighter, as a class, has no limitations. None of his abilities have X/per day. That is the whole point, once your pally pops all of his Smites for the day he has no more to use until the next day. The fighter is not limited in this way. Hit points don't really count because hit points aren't a class feature, everyone has hit points. We are talking about the fighter itself and the fighter class has no limitations what so ever.
The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. The buffs are there for a reason. Fighter's don't heal, they were never intended to be a class than can and you can't hold that against it. Yes Paladin's hell but so do clerics and druids but you can't sit there and say they are better than anyone else who can't heal.
Some classes do rely on a heal, big freaking deal? Does a fighter need a wand of cure light wounds? No they don't, that is what teammates are for but a fighter with a wand can get into the mix while the cleric or wizard can throw him some buffs while they make sure other players are healed.
Stop with the whole "fighters a p*#^!y unless he fights naked."
I could say that the fighter is a boss because he doesn't have to rely on powers.
But the premise of the thread is the myth of Fighter Endurance: That the Fighter can keep on fighting all day, because he doesn't rely on spells. Which is obviously b#*!$~&+ if you've ever actually played the game.
We comment on the solo Fighter because that's what the OP started with.
I have played the game, actually I've been playing 3rd edition since it came out and I stick to what I say. The fighter can keep going all day while spellcasters and those with limited abilities try and rest every chance they get.
In Pathfinder a fighter can use his wand of cure light to take care of himself.
Depends on the group and player. There is no class that has to rest within an 8 hour adventuring period and no class that can go all day either.
Factors:
What level is the game being played at?
How many encounters are there?
How hard are they?
How well is the class in question played?
Other circumstances...
|
|
"The fighter is good because he does not rely on a LIMITED amount of spells or spell-like abilities to remain effective."
Wizard and Cleric: "Oh man it was a stressful day calling down pillars of flame from the sky to smite my foes and fundamentally warping the laws of the universe in fun and profitable ways. So fighter what have you been doing all day?"
Fighter: ...hitting things with my sword.And the the Wizard and Cleric high five and laugh.
Are you supposed to be taking the piss or something?
|
|
The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. The buffs are there for a reason. Fighter's don't heal, they were never intended to be a class than can and you can't hold that against it. Yes Paladin's hell but so do clerics and druids but you can't sit there and say they are better than anyone else who can't heal.
Some classes do rely on a heal, big freaking deal? Does a fighter need a wand of cure light wounds? No they don't, that is what teammates are for but a fighter with a wand can get into the mix while the cleric or wizard can throw him some buffs while they make sure other players are healed.
Stop with the whole "fighters a p*#^!y unless he fights naked."
I could say that the fighter is a boss because he doesn't have to rely on powers.
But the premise of the thread is the myth of Fighter Endurance: That the Fighter can keep on fighting all day, because he doesn't rely on spells. Which is obviously b#*!$~&+ if you've ever actually played the game.
We comment on the solo Fighter because that's what the OP started with.
I have played the game, actually I've been playing 3rd edition since it came out and I stick to what I say. The fighter can keep going all day while spellcasters and those with limited abilities try and rest every chance they get.
In Pathfinder a fighter can use his wand of cure light to take care of himself.
Depends on the group and player. There is no class that has to rest within an 8 hour adventuring period and no class that can go all day either.
Factors:
What level is the game being played at?
How many encounters are there?
How hard are they?
How well is the class in question played?
Other circumstances...
No class "needs" to rest with in 8 hours but those with limited abilities seem to feel like their character needs to be at maximum to be effective. The fighter does not, he swings his sword with the same exact accuracy as he did at the start of the day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not being at max effectiveness and "needing to rest" can have a lot of space in between the two.
|
|
Not being at max effectiveness and "needing to rest" can have a lot of space in between the two.
I have been in many gaming groups where everyone would be at almost max HP but still need to rest because they needed to regain all their buffs or change out their spell selections.
Please don't try and pretend that it doesn't happen with a lot of groups that post on these forums. Don't try and dodge the fact that fighters can keep on trucking all day long without a need to rest and regain any special attacks or abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure they rested once their resources got low which only reinforces my point that not being at max and needing to rest or not the same thing.
If I can cast 6th level spells, and I am down to 4th level spells I say fight on. If I am down to 1st level spells and cantrips, it might be time to rest. <---That is what I was referring to.
The fighter can't truck on by themselves*, and I never said fighters needed to recharge/regain anything. I only said that your premise as written is not 100% accurate, and that there are other factors involved.
*I am sure some of those spent resources went to help the fighter.
My issue was the "........rest every chance they get" which makes it sound like fighter never need to rest, and anyone else is trying to get a break after every fight.
It might be true in your games, but it is not an across the board fact.
|
|
I am sure they rested once their resources got low which only reinforces my point that not being at max and needing to rest or not the same thing.
If I can cast 6th level spells, and I am down to 4th level spells I say fight on. If I am down to 1st level spells and cantrips, it might be time to rest. <---That is what I was referring to.The fighter can't truck on by themselves*, and I never said fighters needed to recharge/regain anything. I only said that your premise as written is not 100% accurate, and that there are other factors involved.
*I am sure some of those spent resources went to help the fighter.
My issue was the "........rest every chance they get" which makes it sound like fighter never need to rest, and anyone else is trying to get a break after every fight.
It might be true in your games, but it is not an across the board fact.
The only factor that comes into play for the fighter are hit points and death and these have nothing to do with class.
If we are talking about the "fighter" class, which is what I think the OP is referring to then no it has no limitations.
I'm aware that not having a ranged weapon will hurt you versus flying creatures but that's not a class problem but a player one.
The only factor that comes into play for the fighter are hit points and death and these have nothing to do with class.I am sure they rested once their resources got low which only reinforces my point that not being at max and needing to rest or not the same thing.
If I can cast 6th level spells, and I am down to 4th level spells I say fight on. If I am down to 1st level spells and cantrips, it might be time to rest. <---That is what I was referring to.The fighter can't truck on by themselves*, and I never said fighters needed to recharge/regain anything. I only said that your premise as written is not 100% accurate, and that there are other factors involved.
*I am sure some of those spent resources went to help the fighter.
My issue was the "........rest every chance they get" which makes it sound like fighter never need to rest, and anyone else is trying to get a break after every fight.
It might be true in your games, but it is not an across the board fact.
There is more to a class than death and hit points. Saves and "variety of non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks" or a lack of that variety is a factor, etc. etc.
If we are talking about the "fighter" class, which is what I think the OP is referring to then no it has no limitations.
First, I'm not sure if that is what the OP is taking about. It seems he is taking about the rhetoric when people debate if the fighter suck or not.
Second, no limitations? Weak will saves is a limitation, 2 skills per level is a limitation, crappy class skills is a limitation, not having the ability to heal yourself without the use of potions is a limitation (yes they can use wands at level +10), not having any "variety of non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks" is a limitation.
The main class feature - feats - doesn't proved the fighter anything unique. The only "fighter only feat" out there are feats designed to make the fighter better at using their stick/bow.
Not feats that give them more skills points per level or let them rerole will saves once per round/battle, or feats that let them use the heal skill as a swift action, or a feat that give them "non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks".
Look at "the fighter only feats" vs. Rage powers or rogue talents and you get an idea of what I mean.
The fighter feats are usually just improvements on what the fighter already can do, 'murder or combat Maneuvers'. A lot of the murder feat are mandatory if you want to keep up with the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin damage wise. A lot of people see that as feet taxes.
"The fighter we have isn't very good at anything but murder, and even then his skillset is pretty limited." as A Man In Black put it. (I would probably say good at anything but murder or Combat Maneuvers.). He has a point.
Limited resources like the paladins LoH or the cleric channeling or bardic performance are still resources.
I'm aware that not having a ranged weapon will hurt you versus flying creatures but that's not a class problem but a player one.
True, but the fighter is designed to specialize in one weapon, classes like the ranger and paladin are not. The ranger is actually a better switch hitter than the fighter and the ranger is far more versatile than the fighter.
In Pathfinder a fighter can use his wand of cure light to take care of himself.
What happens when the wand runs out of charges?
Who made the wand?