The problem has nothing to do with the word "effective." It has everything to do with the OP using hyperbole, pure opinion, virtually no facts, and generally not really wanting to even consider what the fighter might be able to accomplish. Instead, he just hand waves everything the fighter has and declares victory. That's not how an argument is made.
I agree that evidence is good and that the OP does not make a good argument. It doesn't change that behind all the hyperbole and hand-waving gimmicks there is a solid foundation of truth to be found.
The paladin brings the same hit points, the same skill points (but probably wants to spend them differently), and the same Fortitude save (which I admit doesn't get nearly as much attention as Will saves even when we discount spells).
So basically, same, same, same, better.
The difference is that the paladin comes with a set of predetermined abilities and the fighter doesn't (for the most part). Because of this, the paladin is designed to play differently than a fighter.
Which is basically a non-issue. It doesn't matter how they play except to the individual. What matters is their capability. Paladins (and Rangers, and Barbarians) are just pretty much better than Fighters. They all do things differently but they can all fill the only role that a fighter brings (primary or secondary warrior) while doing more.
They can fill similar roles but not identical ones. No paladin can be as good as a pure fighter can at both melee and ranged combat, for example.
Possibly not. Fighters get primarily bonus feats, which makes it easy to go into specs that require a lot of feats (and as such make really great archers). Switch-hitting isn't particularly special though. Anyone can do it with some competency with only a few feats. This goes back to what I was saying. If you're 2nd banana in one event but 1st place in 5 others, you're winning. Lemme put it like this.
In the Olympics which were not long ago, everyone was keeping count as to how many medals each country was bringing, and the quality of those medals. If you have gold in 1 area, silver in 3 areas, and bronze in 4, you're loosing to the guy with silver in 5 areas and gold in 3.
Defeating the enemy faster can mean less use of support abilities which can help save on resources for the bigger fights.
The problem is that we're assuming that you can beat them down faster, and while that's not a poor bet if we're just comparing unbuffed damage per round numbers against a punching bag. Of course, in an actual game that can turn very, very quickly. Here's a rather simple but I think fair example.
Fighter has lots of nice +hit/+damage from his specialization with his favorite sort of weapon. However his defenses are bad. During an encounter, an enemy hits him with bestow curse. He fails his saving throw and now has all attacks, saves, and checks. Bummer. Or he loses his turn 50% of the time (also a bummer). Or has one of his ability scores reduced by 6 points (which is not damage and thus can disqualify him for feats). Also a bummer. Now Paladin probably won't fail his save to begin with, but he can also just heal and remove the curse and keep trucking. Again, we could replace remove curse with blindness, or glitterdust, or sound burst, or entangle, or ray of exhaustion, or poison.
From what I've seen in games, non-Fighters are more reliable. Paladins are exceptionally difficult to crowd-control or take their sting off, and Rangers and Barbarians can be as well. Fighters not so much.
The spells are limited use compared to a fighter's more consistent abilities. Yes, the spells are better, but that's because they are used less often.
Here's the thing. They aren't that hard to use regularly. Pearls of power aren't particularly expensive. Hell, a ranger can craft 1/day for 500 gp. A ranger can invest 3,000 gp into 1st level pearls of power and be walking around with 6 extra castings of his favorite spells (such as lead blades or delay poison or resist energy). Same with the Paladin, except in the Paladin's case the spells are bless weapon, divine favor, lesser restoration, protection from evil, grace and hero's defiance.
And then again, consistency only goes as far as you do. Fighters are inconsistently doing damage when they are A) crowd controlled, B) charmed/dominated, C)blinded, D)locked down, E) a statue, F) fatigued/exhausted, G) Confused, H) unconscious, I) shaken/frightened/panicked, J) sickened, or K) killed/incapacitated.
Just looking at the Paladin's features he can avoid/nullify most of these just by virtue of his class features. He can often assist his allies with them as well. He is better equipped to deal with poison, ability damage (such as from Shadows), fatigue, fear, moving through threatened spaces, and so forth. He can even heal himself and others throughout the day and gets access to a wide variety of good stuff through wands.
Note that a fighter has zero supernatural or spell-like abilities which can be a boon against creatures that want to dispel magic.
Supernatural effects can't be dispelled. Most classes lack spell-like abilities. Dispelling requires actions. Support and restorative spells cannot be dispelled (such as lesser restoration). That there may be a counter or disruption to your option is better than no option in the first place.
The fighter can easily get a consistent boost to his attacks and damage (and a human fighter can use some of those feats with a variety of weapons).A human gets 1 more feat. That's weapon focus in one extra weapon. Either Fighter does it or it doesn't.
This is not a bug. It's a feature. Barbarians and rangers are meaningless in this discussion simply because the topic is about paladins, anti-paladins, and fighters.
Ah, but the funny thing is the OP believes Paladins are better than Fighters. I'm saying quite simply I think that Paladins are well designed, along with Rangers and Barbarians and I'm saying they are all better than Fighters.
You can only compare like to like. You can't compare a paladin's lay on hands to a fighter's bravery because they don't even do similar things and that's what the OP is trying to do. You can compare smite with the weapon focus tree because they are similar enough and are meant to do similar things (increase attack and damage).
I could draw direction comparisons back and forth (such as Fear Immunity vs +1 vs Fear) but I prefer comparing what occurs in game. What occurs in game is Paladin defenses crush Fighter defenses (they can get pretty much identical ACs with roughly the same investments, Paladin saving throws are so high that they can still pull 90%+ success rates after a debuff-bomb, Paladins effectively have hundreds more HP due to Lay on Hands and can plow through status ailments without costing him or his allies action economy trying to fix the broken martial, tons of immunities, etc). Paladins are not far behind fighters in offense, and if the foe happens to be evil they look like a little star exploding on the poor hapless villain.
It comes down to 3 things.
1) Can they fight?
2) Can they survive/avoid debuff?
3) Can they contribute more?
Both have 1, Paladin has 2 and 3 on lockdown.
I can answer "yes" to each of those with any class.
Not honestly. At least, not by virtue of the class being good at it.
The problem comes down to how you and I want to define terms. Where I can say that the fighter is able to reduce the need for the wizard to use levitate because he can use Climb out of combat (or even in combat if needed), the definition of "out of combat" then becomes "Diplomacy and Knowledge skills." Every single conversation about the fighter's usefulness out of combat goes like this. You know it and I know it.
Which assumes there is something to climb on the first place. But you see, out of combat means a lot more than skills. Sure, Paladins can do skills but anyone can do skills. In Pathfinder, it's more about how many skill points you get and Paladins and Fighters are pretty much even in that department.
However the Paladin can heal his allies between combat (via wands or class features). The Paladin can break a curse placed on themselves or a party member. The Paladin can restore the ability score damage that someone took from poison, or from fighting shadows. A Paladin can provide water in a desert. A Paladin can ward someone for 24 hours against bad weather conditions. A Paladin can sense enemies with detect evil before battle is drawn (and possibly get hints to see through some disguises as a result). A Paladin can create holy water. A Paladin can identify and read scrolls. And I'm not even to 2nd level spells yet.
Paladins can protect their allies against energy damage (which can allow the bypassing of certain traps, safe passage through pools of acid or to survive contact with lava or magma, etc). Make someone immune to poison. Remove paralysis. Etc, etc, etc. They can even do this early on and without much trouble because they can buy scrolls of these spells and cast them out of combat.
Paladins can craft magic items (Fighters suck at this, Master Craftsman be damned), which is another way of helping and contributing to the party and the group's overall success. Taking Craft Wondrous Item means that the Paladin can craft useful items for himself and his allies, and when not actively working on anything big (which you can do while adventuring) he can produce small minor items like elixirs which hugely impact the options of the Paladin's party. In 7 days the Paladin can produce 7 different elixirs, each giving a +10 bonus to a skill for an hour. Party about to go into a hostile dungeon? Paladin hands the Rogue a +10 Perception elixir to spot traps. Worried someone isn't sneaky enough in their armor? Quaff a +10 Stealth elixir.
I'd take a Paladin over a Fighter in the party every day of the week and twice on Sundays. About the only way that a Fighter is going to be more useful than a Paladin is if the campaign takes place in a big antimagic field, and then I'd probably rather have a Barbarian.
|
I just find Fighters to be plain boring to play from level 1. If I can start playing a Fighter at 10+ it's not as bad, but that's never an option for me. There are quite a few reasons for that, but they all go back to the idea of feats just not being good enough to be your primary feature.1. The overwhelming majority of feats don't grant you any new ability. So many are "get +X to this", "use that Y more times per day," or "take less penalties for doing Z." Those are pretty boring imo. A +2 to Wil is pretty much necessary for a Fighter, when do I take that boring level for instance? However, this has gotten a little better with things like the ARG race feats and things like Eldrich Heritage.
2. There are too many feats that shouldn't be a feat. Unseat and Strike Back are two big examples of this. Along the same vein, there are too many feats that are limited in what they can be combined with. Things like not being able to Vital Strike and charge or not being able to use Stand Still with a reach weapon is frustrating, and limiting.
3. Feats don't scale well. Diminishing returns from feats like TWF, feats that require reinvestment to stay relevant (Vital Strike), or abilities that require lots of feats, but become worthless later on (Trip) are issues.
4. Stupid prerequisites and annoying feat chains. This is probably the biggest reason why I hate having feats as the major class feature. I mean, Whirlwind is a really cool option, but its got all that garbage in front of it. Now they aren't all terrible feats, but a lot of times those prerequisites aren't anything that I want or even need. If I am playing a Fighter, it may take me 6 months to get all the way to the end of the Whirlwind chain. And what other interesting things am I getting from the Fighter while I am leveling towards my goal? Boring static bonuses and abilities that run counter to how I am trying to build.
Yes, Fighters get a ton of Feats, but when I have to pay taxes to get stuff I want, it doesn't feel any different than having 8 "dead levels". Magic users add insult to injury. Not only can they cherry pick their spells, but they can cherry pick their feats. Can anyone deny that Metamagic and Crafting Feats are extremely powerful? Yet, almost all of those just have caster level prereqs, if that. That's pretty much the case for all of their feats...
Agreed and seconded. I don't dislike playing fighters just boring. It's not for lack of trying to make it interesting. I play fighters to the fullest. Except because certain feats are also boring, not quite good or simply a feat tax it just feels more of the same. Yay I take weapon focus. Hooray for me. Improved Trip did not see that one coming. Each class has something interesting. Feats don't really scale or get more powerful. At least with 2E D&D the fighter class was the only class to really get weapon specilization. As well as keep and followers. With 2E like PF the Fighter is a walking tank. Yet with 2E the class had somethig that no one really had acess to.
"Hey, I'm now fifth level! I can make my sword +1 more for five minutes, once a day!"
"Also, you know, I can Smite Evil twice a day!"
"Hey, I'm now fifth level! I can make my sword +1 more for five minutes, once a day!"
"Also, you know, I can Smite Evil twice a day!"
At 5th level? Giant spiders? An ogre spider? Ettercaps? Holy crap, I'm glad we have a Paladin. Sounds like lots and lots of poison. Remember that stuff that totally nerfs your hit and damage? Yeah, that stuff is bad. Just so happens that the 5th level Paladin can heal all that ability damage via lesser restoration. At 25 gp per scroll, that's pretty awesome (and you may have a few of them to cast without scrolls). Of course, you saved a bit of cash on a +1 weapon for 2,000 gp and are just using a masterwork weapon because you know you can just divine bond or magic weapon or bless weapon if you need to overcome some DR, so instead you got a nice stockpile of useful scrolls.
Man, fighting those spiders and ettercaps is gonna be a breeze now. We may even make it to fight #3 against the ettercap riding giant super spiders with full strength! +1 to hit and damage is nothing in the face of 5d2 points of Strength damage and 6d2 points of Dexterity damage.
I don't want to quote walls of texts that end up being larger walls of texts so I'm going to summarize some things (warning, I've taken my medications so some parts may not make sense and for that I apologize):
1) Feats are in short supply for non-fighters. The paladin that is making elxirs doesn't do so until level 7 and with his limited skill points I doubt he's putting much into Spellcraft along with his other skills.
2) When I was speaking of the human versatility, I was specifically talking about the feats that let a human use his weapon-specific feats with any weapon in that group. This opens up options that human fighters didn't have before. Fast Learner and Toughness are also great ways to get more skill points and hit points. It takes some investing but a well built human fighter doesn't need to be limited to a single weapon anymore. Plus he can give up his bonus feat for up to 4 skill focus feats. I usually take skill focus anyway so giving up something that basically multiplies by 4 sounds like a good option for someone like me.
3) The fighter can remain more mobile on foot by virtue of his class ability (which saves him some money).
4) The class can be very boring and at certain levels it really is. If you haven't picked up Iron Will by level 5 or 7, then you are going to fall behind quickly. That's a must have for a fighter that doesn't rely on other means to boost his saves and should still be a should have in those cases.
5) I'm not a fan of feat taxes. I think that the fighter should be able to choose a stat that he can ignore the prerequisites for. He can choose one at level 5, 10, 15. and, 20. These each have to be different stats. I don't recall who came up with the ideas (wraithstrike?) but I like it. I also wouldn't have a problem with the fighter giving up his bonus feats even if they are part of a chain. So if the previously mentioned whirlwind attack was an option at level 4, you could Take Whirlwind, drop Combat Expertise, and then start another chain you have your eye on, like Diehard so you pick up Endurance and then you drop it at level 8 once you have Diehard and use that to begin a new feat chain.
The fighter can be a powerhouse in combat so that he can go get a beer in town while the rest of the party does their things out of combat. He can still aid in the adventure. He can put ranks in Survival and help provide for the party. He can put ranks in Swim or Climb or Handle Animal or Ride. He can even craft his own gear (not really magical really well) or repair his magical gear if it's damaged. Saving the party funds or resources.
I can definitely see how someone can get bored with the fighter. I enjoy building them. I enjoy playing them when I can. I prefer classes that require me to think in unusual ways. What do I do when I don't have the right tool for the job? It's why I like wizards and fighters. My wizards never seem to have the right spells prepared but they always seem to have a decent enough one ready.
I don't want to quote walls of texts that end up being larger walls of texts so I'm going to summarize some things (warning, I've taken my medications so some parts may not make sense and for that I apologize):
1) Feats are in short supply for non-fighters. The paladin that is making elxirs doesn't do so until level 7 and with his limited skill points I doubt he's putting much into Spellcraft along with his other skills.
Haha. Yeah, Bob, this isn't theorycraft. I'm talking about Paladins I have played and seen played. I've never felt starved for feats, I'm entirely fine picking up Craft Wondrous at 7th, occasionally pick up Craft Arms & Armor or Craft Wand at 9th (if there's nothing else I want), and Spellcraft is a class skill and I only need enough for what I want to make. It's not hard. Seriously.
2) When I was speaking of the human versatility, I was specifically talking about the feats that let a human use his weapon-specific feats with any weapon in that group. This opens up options that human fighters didn't have before.
Yes, humans are a cool race. Doesn't say much for fighters though. Fighters don't have that. Humans do. There's a big difference. Sure, it might be limited to humans that are also fighters, but it's limited to humans more than it is to fighters.
Fast Learner and Toughness are also great ways to get more skill points and hit points.
Toughness is available to everyone. Heck, I take it on most of my PCs (especially martials but also magic sorts). Fast learner. Hm, do you mean the human racial? Yep, back to humans are cool. You'd be better off referencing the Open Minded feat in the psionics book (+1 skill point / HD) but you might just be sticking to Pathfinder material (understandable). Still, nothing you mention here is something fighter exclusive. Or even really necessary. If you wanna talk about humans being awesome, we can do that too. I mean, for both Fighters and Paladins tanking humans to 7 Int and putting your favored class bonus into skill points nets you a minimum of 3 skill points per level. Open Minded makes it 4 per level. It's not like we need to have a huge arsenal of skills (and a few dips are plenty here and there).
It takes some investing but a well built human fighter doesn't need to be limited to a single weapon anymore. Plus he can give up his bonus feat for up to 4 skill focus feats. I usually take skill focus anyway so giving up something that basically multiplies by 4 sounds like a good option for someone like me.
An averagely built any-Paladin or any-Ranger or any-Barbarian has never been limited to a single weapon. I checked the feat you mentioned and you're still limited to your same weapon group. Kind of sad. For a moment (just a moment) I was thinking "Oh can we now spec ranged and melee for a single extra feat?" and then I realized it's more like drought insurance in case you need to be able to swing other swords 'cause you can't find the sword type you specialized in (aw, lil' guy can't seem to find falcatas very often so he has to use a longsword anyway).
3) The fighter can remain more mobile on foot by virtue of his class ability (which saves him some money).
If I had to convert the cost of covering the fighter's ass in comparison to the Paladin, I'd be rich enough to afford many a pair of boots of speed (or the cheap boots of striding). You think moving 2 extra spaces in heavier armor saves you some money? You're going to want mithral celestial plate anyway. Wanna know what saves Paladins some money? Removing their own curses. Healing their own ability damage. Recovering their own hit points. Being immune to fear. Being immune to compulsions. Being able to spontaneously apply magic to weapons. Not having to be raised because you can make saving throws and such is nice too (curse those expensive diamonds!). Heck at high levels a Paladin can pick up a generic club and turn it into a +5 holy club 'cause he feels like it. Yeah, that's right. A Paladin can just spawn a +7 equivalent weapon that has a continuous magic circle against evil (that allows you to turn anything you're holding into a 278,000 gp weapon on demand) and it lasts a minimum of 13 rounds (and you can buy a scroll of it for 1,300 gp or a wand for 780 gp per charge).
4) The class can be very boring and at certain levels it really is. If you haven't picked up Iron Will by level 5 or 7, then you are going to fall behind quickly. That's a must have for a fighter that doesn't rely on other means to boost his saves and should still be a should have in those cases.
Yeah. It's pretty much a definite feat-tax. Fortunately all you need to be an effective Paladin is Power Attack, maybe Furious Focus, and possibly a few archery feats (but you can live without them). Everything is pretty much gravy. I tend to like taking Unsanctioned Knowledge to grab animate dead (hur hur, watch people whine and complain now) and divine power (because up to a +6 bonus to hit and damage, extra Hp, and an extra attack per round is kind of sexy) and some other feats, and that one feat that adds +2 hp / die to Lay on Hands. Good times.
5) I'm not a fan of feat taxes. I think that the fighter should be able to choose a stat that he can ignore the prerequisites for. He can choose one at level 5, 10, 15. and, 20. These each have to be different stats. I don't recall who came up with the ideas (wraithstrike?) but I like it. I also wouldn't have a problem with the fighter giving up his bonus feats even if they are part of a chain. So if the previously mentioned whirlwind attack was an option at level 4, you could Take Whirlwind, drop Combat Expertise, and then start another chain you have your eye on, like Diehard so you pick up Endurance and then you drop it at level 8 once you have Diehard and use that to begin a new feat chain.
That would be a pretty powerful ability for the fighter to have if he had it, I agree. I'm not sure what I think of that idea. Ignoring prerequisites is normal for bonus feats, but qualifying and then un-qualifying and still retaining feats just sounds weird to me, and I get the feeling it would increase bookkeeping and increase likelihood of making mistakes.
The fighter can be a powerhouse in combat so that he can go get a beer in town while the rest of the party does their things out of combat. He can still aid in the adventure. He can put ranks in Survival and help provide for the party. He can put ranks in Swim or Climb or Handle Animal or Ride. He can even craft his own gear (not really magical really well) or repair his magical gear if it's damaged. Saving the party funds or resources.
Nothing you mention here is particularly special. Quite literally everything you mention the Paladin can do and better, except for the Survival bit (the Paladin will be -15% behind the Fighter on Survival, but Survival isn't a skill you need a lot of investment in anyway, as a +5 is plenty in most cases).
I can definitely see how someone can get bored with the fighter. I enjoy building them. I enjoy playing them when I can. I prefer classes that require me to think in unusual ways. What do I do when I don't have the right tool for the job? It's why I like wizards and fighters. My wizards never seem to have the right spells prepared but they always seem to have a decent enough one ready.
I too enjoy building characters and thinking outside the box. I spend a good while thinking of backstories and plot hooks and connected NPCs, a few family members, current relations and so forth. I'd rather a class not require you "think in unusual ways" to make it good however. I'm not even saying the Fighter is useless, or shouldn't be played. Merely that, at the end of the day, I would rather have a Paladin, a Ranger, or even a Barbarian before a Fighter for the aforementioned reasons.
Lots of lameness in this thread. Total exaggeration and hypothetical optimization.
I can have a ton of fun and bring a lot to the party as a fighter or a paladin. I think I will enjoy the fighter in a more RP game and the paladin in a hackfest.
That sounds very logical. Paladin is much safer in a hackfest game because such games tend to emphasize combat encounters, which fighters have difficulty with (especially as levels rise). Whereas in a heavy RP game with little fighting it often matters little as to what your class can do, or how good your saving throws are, and so forth. That being said, Paladins kind of excel in those games too (their spells and skills provide a lot of cool ways to interact with the world in a less-combat sort of game).
A buddy of mine once boiled it down to the fact that the fighter can be deadly in just about any situation. Drop him in an antimagic shell with nought but his superman underoos and a wooden spoon, and he'll still gut you like a fish.
if he has the specialization to make the wooden spoon effective. a dragon could use that same strategy and take out a whole adventuring party.
Because if you have no paladin, nobody else could possibly use those scrolls! (or potions, or wands) And your paladin's damage is going to be pretty stellar if he stops attacking to kill that poison.
I didn't say nobody else can use them. Just like the Fighter isn't declaring swords his alone. I said they bring them to the table. Said Paladin can provide healing for such things himself. If the party was going into a forest full of spiders (such as the Cloakwood in the Forgotten Realms) then he might prep some counters against poison. Also, stopping to cast lesser restoration in the middle of the combat is just brain-dead stupid. Kill the spiders first. It's not hard. A 5th level Paladin or a 5th level Fighter are going to crunch them underfoot effortlessly (especially if they have a wizard or something to buff them) since giant spiders aren't very tough (you'll rarely if ever miss them and you'll take 'em out in about 2 swings anyway) if we're talking about the medium variety. However, after the party has been bitten up a bit, the Paladin can restore some ability damage back to recover the party's strengths before the next encounters, and can heal his own wounds (if he spent a feat, at 5th level he's healing about 11 hp / LoH at 6-16 per heal).
Personally, I'd rather have one of the back line take care of that kinda stuff and let the front line keep on fighting. But even my monk has UMD as a class skill, and pops low level scrolls with little trouble. Citing a spell the paladin can cast perhaps once a day as a reason to take them over the fighter is rather silly.
What a specialized monk you must have! At 5th level and so easily making DC 21+ checks on a non-class skill with an iconic monk dumpstat. I bet you must have taken Skill Focus. :P
EDIT: Also, it's amusing to see you are apparently not aware of how many times a day a Paladin can cast said spell on his own. With no investment, we're looking at 2/day for free. However, Paladins and Rangers get incredible mileage and expanded versatility out of pearls of power. A few pearls of power can allow Paladins to cast useful things all adventure long.And you totally undervalue the flexibility that tons of feats brings. The fighter can finish feat intensive builds much, much earlier than any of the other classes. If I want to play a whirlwinding, lunging, area denial trip machine, I don't want to wait til 15 to do it.
Lunge can be taken by anyone. Whirlwind Attack is made of fail. I prefer Combat Patrol (which a Fighter should probably have). Thing is, most fighters don't really have tons of feats. In general a good 4 feats minimum are used for specialization (because the bonuses to hit and damage from weapon training alone can't even keep up with a barbarian, and that's with dueling gloves). Then you have 6 more feats to use out of your fighter bonus feats to round out your class, but you need Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will as a tax, so now you're down to 4. Enough to spec maybe 1 tree.
Fighter can be doing it by like 6th level. And you have enough feats to shore up your defenses as well.
That's cute, but it looks like a badly built one trick pony from this side of the fence, Hoss. :P
|
|
if he has the specialization to make the wooden spoon effective. a dragon could use that same strategy and take out a whole adventuring party.
It was an extreme example, to be sure, but he was illustrating the point that the million-zillion* feats the fighter gets gives them a real edge in combat.
They can go really deep into a number of combat feat trees (WF-Wooden Spoon/improved crit wooden spoon/weapon spec. wooden spoon + vital strike/improved vital strike/super-duper vital strike + some feats I made up to make cotton underwear as good as full plate etc..) instead of just one or two. This gives them the abilty to contribute to every battle without having to depend on limited use/day abilities or situational modifiers. You can run out of smites, but a wooden spoon is forever**.Don't get me wrong, I love paladins, rangers and barbarians. They are awesome, but they just don't have the potential for depth that the fighter does.
*not a real number
**I would be remiss if I didn't mention the pointed stick as a perfectly acceptable weapon choice as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument basically boils down to "I like playing Evil and possibly distruptive characters, thus I render your argument invalid" or something similar?
In my experience, it's the Paladin that is disruptive more often than not.
And what right does a DM have to tell me what choices my character can and cannot make in the process of playing the game? If that's the case, why don't we just go play a video game.
As the person whose responsibility is making sure everyone at the table is having fun, he has every right to restrict the actions of PCs when those actions make other players uncomfortable. That includes when the actions of your PCs are incompatible with the moral alignment of the rest of the group.
Me, I just let nature take its course. If you make the Paladin feel like he has to smite you to stay true to his Code, I'm going to let the Paladin smite you-- and then I'm going to let the rest of the party decide whose side they're going to take.
By the time the paladin get up his buffs and become as good as a fighter, the fighter has already made his first kills. This is for me the key of the fighter: you see an enemy and BAM, you strike it at full power. BTW, that's the reason why magi are that good.
Also, paladins have limited resources. This come up more times than you think, for example when an ally kills the enemy you were smiting (and it's not paladinesque to b#%** about stolen kills) or when you are smiting an opponent and have to focus on another one to help your dying ally (and choose between being ineffective or wasting another smite, two if later you go back to the first enemy).
Paladins learn a nice bunch of useful spells for different situations.
The Fighter learns no spells whatsoever, limiting their overall versatility.
Also, paladins have limited resources. This come up more times than you think, for example when an ally kills the enemy you were smiting (and it's not paladinesque to b!$!% about stolen kills) or when you are smiting an opponent and have to focus on another one to help your dying ally (and choose between being ineffective or wasting another smite, two if later you go back to the first enemy).
You seem to speak as though a Paladin has to smite everything he or she comes across. That seems incredibly strange. Do wizards have to blow their highest level spells as every fight, as soon as they encounter the enemy? Overkill is a waste.
Ashiel - true or false... A Fighter will out-damage a non-smiting Paladin?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins will generally have more skill points ...and... just as much feats to spend
OK, I'm convinced.
Ashiel - true or false... A Fighter will out-damage a non-smiting Paladin?
True. Absolutely. I'm most fond of archery builds on Paladins (followed by TWF builds, as their static damage applies nicely to each). Now would probably be a great time to inset my customary "I don't hate this class, I've played this class, I've enjoyed this class; I just think this other class brings more to the table and/or has more practical capabilities". Just recently I posted in a thread were I was talking about a core fighter crushing the Tarrasque at 20th level with no real problems, and then killing it with a DC 170+ (give or take a bit) fortitude save before a spellcaster in the party nailed the coffin lid shut.
My problem with the fighter is I find it lacks substance. The fighter is all sweets and candy on its damage, but it is a very lopsided meal. It has no wholesome grains, fruits, vegetables, or proteins in it. It's sweet, tasty damage, right up until your sugar rush keels over and you find yourself crashing and burning like the Hindenburg.
I prefer consistent, reliable damage, and as strange as it might sound with the fighter being heralded as the ultimate leader in consistent, reliable damage, I just do not find that to be the case. He's not consistent and he's not reliable. Against a dumb punching bag? Absolutely. Sucker will tear a punching back into tiny bits, blend it into past, and then write his name in that past on the next punching bag. But in an actual adventure, where things fight back, fight dirty, use magic, and so forth? He's about as consistent as a hyperactive kid with ADHD on a garage mixture of crack cocaine and gasoline smoked through a florescent lightbulb. He looks wired to blow while he's up but he's not gonna last long.
In a tactical sort of game, what are you really gonna do? I mean, throw a couple of kobold sorcerers (level 1 variety) at him at 5th level and he'll cry uncle. Cause fear will send the lad running on his merry way for 1d4 rounds. Hope nobody needed his help. Grease is kind of a pain in the butt. With that shoddy Reflex save he won't hold onto his weapon for long, which is a shame since he needs that to be any better than a Paladin or Ranger. At least he's immune to sleep at 5th level. Of course, charm person and a good-Charisma caster and we'll see how well your party likes your awesome damage output. But we're level 5 so we might want to watch out for the likes of hideous laughter while we're here, and scare, and shatter. Problems for every class to be sure but it is nice to have defensive abilities like bonuses to saving throws to stop such things, or the comfort in knowing that you can just grab a backup weapon and keep going.
Those giant spiders folks mentioned before pretty mean. What with their DC 14 poison. That's not so bad for those folks with a +4 fortitude save at 5th level, but that's only a 55% chance to make the save alone, and every spider that bites you during a round increases the DC and duration by +2. In a forest of spiders and ettercaps like that one poster mentioned, somebody's getting poisoned and I'd have a bit of a mind to say it was probably the guy who has a shoddy Perception check, walks in the lead, and gets entangled easily by webs. Yeah, that's probably the guy. Unfortunately Strength damage sucks and we still have more encounters to go today. Good thing to. All those extra encounters with the spiders and ettercaps will really give us a good chance to show off our increased longevity over those classes who can heal themselves and cure status ailments on their own multiple times per day, who have as much HP as we do, swing swords as often as we do, swap to different weapons based on different situations as easily as we do, cast from scrolls and wands better than we do, and have more resistances and immunities than we do. We'll show 'em. Let's find more spiders whose ability damage requires us to milk spell slots off the cleric in the party. Oh wait, do we even have a cleric in the party? MEDIC!!
LOL @ thread. Don't play a fighter, then, and cry when a well-built archer fighter kills everything before you can even get to it.
Yes, rangers are awesome. Someone already mentioned that. What does that have to do with anything?
A paladin with his weapon bond going is about statistically equal to a fighter. at higher levels, he can supplement this with Divine Favor and similar spells if need be, and he can have it going for every single encounter.
If you have a BBEG, the paladin is going to win hands down.
Being able to do damage 'all day' is the Warlock Fallacy. It doesn't matter if you can do damage all day if you don't NEED to do damage all day. You need to do damage for the number of fights a day you have. As they level, the paladin gets better and better at covering his weakness. The Fighter stays in the same area...good with his best weapon, and meh with the rest.
The paladin is not going to be taken out of combat or turned against the party with the frequency of the fighter. I consider this alone the biggest glaring weakness in the fighter...his bad saves (and STILL don't understand it!) and other defenses. There's too many ways to sub for the additional +1's a fighter gets.
==Aelryinth
You disagree with my opinion, but you cannot say that my claim is false since there is plenty of proof that Paladin spells are no joke.
The paladin's divine bond can be used a maximum of 4 times per day at level 17. He can't use it all day. It's very useful and I love the ability but let's not ignore its limitations.
As for Ashiel's argument about "human fighter" and "fighter" I don't see a difference. Different races bring different things to each class and they shouldn't be discounted. The martial versatility feat and other similar feats are combat feats and are therefore fighter options.
Let me make something clear because I think there is probably something being misunderstood. I think that paladins and fighters are pretty equal to each other in the overall scheme of things. In some areas, each has the option of doing better than the other. There are some people who are arguing that the paladin is far above the fighter to the point that the fighter should not even be considered an option (heck, that's the title of the thread).
Every ability will have a different impact on the character in different games. In my games, the armor training ability came in really handy when the two fighters needed to use some of their skills. It also helped when they were wearing heavy armor and had modest boosts to their Dexterity. It gave them higher ACs which helped them survive encounters. They needed less healing because they were hit less often. They were able to fight while climbing or swimming or balancing with fewer problems than other, similarly armored characters.
So if the GM doesn't use certain things in the game, of course some abilities are going to be less effective.
You disagree with my opinion, but you cannot say that my claim is false since there is plenty of proof that Paladin spells are no joke.
Your claim and the OP claims aren't the same thing though. The tone of the OP is that the spells are so powerful that they discount anything that the fighter can possibly bring to the table under any circumstances. Your stance is that the spells are very good spells.
I recall there being a big thread with this premise a year or so ago. You could search around to find some more opinoins too.
Ashiel - given your hyperbolic response I'm not even going to try and reasonably reply.
All I'll say is that I definitely don't find fighters anywhere near as bad as you're making them out - and there is an especially hefty gulf between the two in direct combat output at low levels.
|
Lol paladins have more int/skill points? That's completely made up.
If anything a fighter doesn't need chr so he has more options for a higher int. also a paladin is heavily pushed to have a good chr for LoH and divine grace.
Fighter beta done away from books while waiting in a parking lot, so be kind if unimportant things are wrong. Also i didnt fiddle with retraining or bonus stats from leveling or equipment.
Level 11
Str 16
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 14
Wis 12
Chr 8
HP: 103
Human: fast learner
1st: power attack
Fighter: combat expertise
Fighter: dodge
3: mobility
fighter: spring attack
5: weapon focus
Fighter: whirlwind
7: second chance
Fighter:greater weapon focus
9: iron will
Fighter: furious focus
11: weapon spec
Fighter: greater weapon spec
Skill ranks 6/level
Climb 5
Swim 5
Survival 5
Ride 1
Acrobatics 3
Perception 11
Diplomacy 10
Sense motive: 0
K(arcana) 8
K(religion) 8
Spell craft: 10
UMD: 0
Featherstep slippers
Goz mask
Cloak of resistance +3
Weapon +3
Potions of stuff x10
Belt +2
Headband +2
Armor + x
Back up shield +x
This is just one build that satisfies what I expect from a fighter. Obviously a dumb fighter can be more of a beast but I want skills.
What does he fail to do, that is a huge flaw to the fighter class/role?
Edit: I wish I could add UMD and skill focus UMD. Maybe when I get around to playing/planning this guy I will fit them in. Ooh gloves of dueling this guy should have them if its in the budget.
Can't we just go back to arguing about monks instead?
has anyone ever played where the pace of things took the group to the limit of their daily uses?
Barbarian out of rages? casters out of or low on spells? Paladin out of daily uses, rangers animal companion unconscious and riding in a nap sack but you have to do this one more thing? Fight your way out of a dungeon? sneak past the sleeping giant only to step on that dang twig?
That's the fighter, holding up his shield swinging his sword wildly "run for your lives, Ill hold him off!"
IVe seen this same argument go with wizards vs fighters and barbarians go with fighters, it all comes down to how long can you adventure for? What's your staying power.
The fighters candle burns a little less bright on the individual encounter (but this is all theory craft) but has better staying power than his other melee companions.
The pally is so cool (and the barbarian as well) because their DM let's them sit and rest, oh ok I'm out of my goodies now it's time to stop.
Well so fortunate are you to have a DM that let's that happen.
How far do you press into a dungeon before turning back, what about wandering monsters (which is so down played these days)
It's the contrived stopping when it suits the party that makes the uses per day classes shine more than they should.
|
I think this thread is ignoring something important:
Fighter classes tend to be the "Baseline" for balance in a game system. That is to say: "How does it compare to a Fighter?"
If the argument is true (and I'm not saying it is) that Paladins and Rangers and Barbarians are all better than Fighters...doesn't that mean that Paladins and Rangers and Barbarians are all overpowered?
Because at the end of the day, a Fighter is the purest expression of a martial character.
I won't lie, I'm not a fighter fan myself. However, I have found much satisfaction with the Lore Warden archetype: a good set of skills, relevant abilities, and can actually contribute a great deal to the party.
I think the thing that most peps need to remember is that while you don't have any 'class abilities' per say, you do have access to more feats than you can possibly imagine:
Butterfly Sting, Step Up, Pin Down, Viscous Stomp, Greater Trip, Iron Will, Spring Attack.
Pretty much almost every single feat becomes a 'class ability'.
Depending on the type of 'fighter' you are constructing, you can easily make the feats into something very unique and powerful, but the problem I've seen with most fighter's is that they simple invest EVERYTHING into dealing more damage.
Again, this isn't bad, but a lack of investment in other areas WILL make you into a very bland character.
On a side note, never forget that traits can also give you access to a wider variety of skills, which is something that a fighter should definitely take advantage of.
And heck, if you're human, you can even take the 'focused study' option to basically gain 3 bonus feats of 'skill focus' rather than getting your normal bonus feat (which again, helps to make you better outside of combat).
has anyone ever played where the pace of things took the group to the limit of their daily uses?
Often. Maybe 1 in 3 playing sessions. Not giving the party the opportunity to rest, trying to beat the BBEG from achieving a deadline - this happens all the time. Note we homebrew always, never playing APs, unless I'm playtesting a Kaidan adventure. We've had 10th level wizards reduced to 1st level spells is all she had left.
has anyone ever played where the pace of things took the group to the limit of their daily uses?
Barbarian out of rages? Casters out of or low on spells? Paladin out of daily uses, rangers animal companion unconscious and riding in a nap sack but you have to do this one more thing? Fight your way out of a dungeon? sneak past the sleeping giant only to step on that dang twig?
That's the fighter, holding up his shield swinging his sword wildly "run for your lives, Ill hold him off!"
IVe seen this same argument go with wizards vs fighters and barbarians go with fighters, it all comes down to how long can you adventure for? What's your staying power.
The fighters candle burns a little less bright on the individual encounter (but this is all theory craft) but has better staying power than his other melee companions.
The pally is so cool (and the barbarian as well) because their DM let's them sit and rest, oh ok I'm out of my goodies now it's time to stop.
Well so fortunate are you to have a DM that let's that happen.
How far do you press into a dungeon before turning back, what about wandering monsters (which is so down played these days)
It's the contrived stopping when it suits the party that makes the uses per day classes shine more than they should.
The Fighter has a limit, which is called HP.
|
|
HP isn't a limit for anyone, if it is a limit they do really well for them selves.
They avoid damage with range and mobility
They avoid getting hit with AC
They have a d10
They can have DR
They can use wands reliably like anyone else
They have potions
They have other party members to help heal with channel or spells
They can use the heal skill
By the time healing runs out spell casters are tapped on spells or the group greatly misplanned their resources.
Halfling paladins can have lots of HP from LoH but their total per round HP is much lower.
The Fighter is underpowered when compared to the Paladin. Against a neutral encounter the Fighter is going to outpace the Paladin in terms of DPR but against BBEG smite is going to close a lot of that distance.
What the Fighter arguably has is the ability to be really good at melee as well as being pretty decent at ranged due to the ability to invest in ranged feats as well as melee feats. Archer fighters and Archer paladins reverse this of course. Further because Fighters can generally get by with not worrying about any mental stat but Wisdom they can generally afford to have their physical stats slightly higher than the Paladin.
The problem is that the fighter generally is a mediocre character in exploration (bad skill points), has poor defenses other than AC and Fort (poor will is a killer), and isn't great at social interaction (poor skill points and charisma is generally low).
The Paladin has more durability (better saves and LoH), is generally slightly better at social (charisma being a major class ability), and is mediocre in exploration (poor skill points).
Both are combat focused character classes but there are definite advantages and disadvantages to both. It would help if the Fighter wasn't mediocre in terms of skill points though but I guess fixing that would require fixing the rogue.