...and with a quick hand-wave you sure dismissed the Paladins Lay-on-Hands ability; an ability 2 or 3 pages ago that was central to the argument about *why* Paladins are so great over Fighters.And that falls to the Cavalier.
The Paladin is only going to be healing in an emergency. And not all Clerics are going to be Combat Medics.
Wrong.
He'd only heal others in an emergency, since that requires him to stop fighting.
The earlier conversation was about how Paladins have more staying power since they can heal themselves (as a Swift action).
A Paladin cannot do both at the same time methinks. She can heal herself as she fights but she cannot serve as the party cleric AND fight at-the-same time.
I see Barbarian leaders as horde leaders, not regiment leaders. Building a fighter as a commander would be quite easy. They have the same available tools to be a leader as everyone else...except at least in our real world, the military leaders come up from the ranks and have "been there and done that.." and thus have credibility. From a role-playing perspective, I think *that* is where the leadership feat back-story would come from.
This assumes the Barbarian hasn't "been there and done that..." and built up that credibility.
There's no reason a Barbarian can't have grown up in the city and joined the army at 16 years old and been a Soldier from level 1.
So he'd be a barbarian/fighter then? That's a good concept, and would be fun to role-play. A soldier acting like a barbarian wouldn't get him far in a modern city army...the martial discipline instilled in professional soldiers makes the difference between an army and a horde.
A Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
You really haven't dealt with a lot of Trained Soldiers have you?
A Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
Then the fighter fulfilled the "meat-shield" role; engaged enemies in melee, consumed his consumable resource (hp) and allowed others in the party to fulfill their roles. Well done.
So a Fighter is meant to be Disposable? Okay then.
They also need to research the Berserkers who were TRAINED WARRIORS who entered a Combat Trance akin to a Barbarian's Rage.
Then the fighter fulfilled the "meat-shield" role; engaged enemies in melee, consumed his consumable resource (hp) and allowed others in the party to fulfill their roles. Well done.A Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
I'm still not understanding how the meat-shield who can touch himself to bring his meat back up to full strength is worse than the meat-shield who gets tired and goes limp after a while.
Obviously the role of the Fighter is to make healbot focused Clerics feel useful.
Since this thread is being pushed over into the next page and I haven't gotten a reply on this, I'm quoting myself hoping to get one, if Nobody Important would be so kind as to oblige me here.
Fighter and Rogues would strangely benefit from the same changes.
The biggest Problem? Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters all share the same role in the party. Paladins & Barbarians are the better of the 3 at the 2 jobs. Albeit they are better at one than the other.
So if the party Cleric goes down, and Paladin assumes his "backup" role as secondary healer...who fights up front?
Personally, I like to play barbarians, they are fun, but most professional soldiers won't be barbarians...and professional soldiers lead armies.
Problem 1: You're assuming the Cleric has the role of dedicated healer, when in my experience the Cleric has the role he's designed himself for, usually either being a Save or Suck caster, a Frontline fighter, or an Archer.
Problem 2: You assume most professional soldiers won't be barbarians, when I've seen a LOT of professional soldiers who have had a barbarian class underneath their Soldier profession. There's nothing in the barbarian class that requires you be a cultural barbarian. Hell barbarians aren't even illiterate anymore.
Problem 3: you assume the Paladin is Fighting up Front, when he could just as easily be a Mounted Charger or an Archer.
Dang, I need to delete some quotes...this is getting hard to format.
I didn't make any of those assumptions, but for clarities sake, assume that I assumed a "traditional" role for the fighter and the Cleric.Problem with Problem 1. If my assumption was wrong, and if not the cleric, who is the dedicated healer? The Paladin? So who fights up front?
Problem with Problem 2. Nothing wrong with a multi-class barbarian- fighter, that has some neat back-story potential. But, wheres from a leadership (not the feat) perspective, martial discipline in a professional army *is* the difference between a horde and a regiment.
Problem with Problem 3. Ditto for the fighter, or fighter-barbarian
So a Fighter is meant to be Disposable? Okay then.
They also need to research the Berserkers who were TRAINED WARRIORS who entered a Combat Trance akin to a Barbarian's Rage.
I beleive it was called "battle-awen", and I think the Spanish conqueror El Cid is the best example. But in the end, the barbarian hordes lost out to martial armies, unless there are some barbian hordes still rampagin across Europe than I missed...
A Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
You really haven't dealt with a lot of Trained Soldiers have you?
6 years active duty, United States Marine Corps
Actually they were typically Absorbed into the Civilized Cultures. Such as the Gauls working as Mercenaries for the Romans.
Greek Barbarian: Pugilists.
...and with a quick hand-wave you sure dismissed the Paladins Lay-on-Hands ability; an ability 2 or 3 pages ago that was central to the argument about *why* Paladins are so great over Fighters.And that falls to the Cavalier.
The Paladin is only going to be healing in an emergency. And not all Clerics are going to be Combat Medics.
Wrong.
He'd only heal others in an emergency, since that requires him to stop fighting.
The earlier conversation was about how Paladins have more staying power since they can heal themselves (as a Swift action).
Making it a swift-action was pretty generous, whilst for Clerics its a standard action. Breaking the paladin doesn't make fighters bad...but whereas the Paladin's consumable resource is lay-on-hands X times per day, its high HP for the fighter.
Making it a swift-action was pretty generous, whilst for Clerics its a standard action. Breaking the paladin doesn't make fighters bad...but whereas the Paladin's consumable resource is lay-on-hands X times per day, its high HP for the fighter.
But the Paladin has the same hit dice as the Fighter.
Except Barbarians aren't 'HULK SMASH!!!'
They're Warriors who can enter a combat mode that grants +4 Strength, +4 Constitution, +2 to Will Saves, and -2 to AC.
Warriors who happen to develop Skills more easily (more skill points and class skills) but decided not to waste time learning how to fight in Heavy Armor.
Warriors who don't learn feats as fast.
Warriors who are about 1/3 faster than the average warrior.
The skills for a barbarian, IMHO, were meant to mimic the survival learning inherent in living in a tribal / barbairam soceity.
A barbarians consumable resource is his # of rounds of rage per day, for fighters its HP.
6 years active duty, United States Marine CorpsA Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
You really haven't dealt with a lot of Trained Soldiers have you?
What section?
Actually they were typically Absorbed into the Civilized Cultures. Such as the Gauls working as Mercenaries for the Romans.
Greek Barbarian: Pugilists.
I never accused the Romans of mass genocide in their conquer of old Europe...defeated doesn't mean eliminated, it means conquerored, and conquerored means taken-over. Of course they were assimilated. Conquering armies usually learn something from those that they conquered.
Problem with Problem 2. Nothing wrong with a multi-class barbarian- fighter, that has some neat back-story potential. But, wheres from a leadership (not the feat) perspective, martial discipline in a professional army *is* the difference between a horde and a regiment.
Which has nothing to do with fighters or barbarians. Neither class has anything to do with hordes or rank and file soldiers. They are both soldiers in a sense of the world as both possess martial training an expertise with weaponry, armor, and so forth. You are talking about something that is divorced from the classes here.
Then the fighter fulfilled the "meat-shield" role; engaged enemies in melee, consumed his consumable resource (hp) and allowed others in the party to fulfill their roles. Well done.
No, poorly done. See, clerics can do more than heal. And in the case the cleric is downed as in your example, the Fighter can do nothing to help solve the problem and is now out a healer (which means you're likely down a meat shield soon since he cannot help sustain himself).
A Paladin can continue to fight by healing himself. Now this grants the party increased durability and success values. Either the cleric can contribute more to the party achieving victory (such as dropping spells like holy smite, holy word, buffing, or swinging his weapon with his decent combat abilities). In either case the party benefits. Likewise, if the Paladin finds a moment to heal the cleric and get him back on his feet then he can do so. The fighter cannot. You are looking at a weakness and declaring it a strength, and I don't see why.
Allow me to put it this way. You would have more success with a party of Bard, Cleric, Wizard + Ranger, Barbarian, or Paladin, before Fighter. Because in all cases Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians fill the Fighter's meatshield/beatstick role while also bringing more options and problem solving capabilities to the party.
|
What they were meant for doesn't change what they're used for.
Also, what about a Professional Soldier who's training includes... oh I don't know... wilderness survival and scouting? That's kind of a big deal in armies I'm familiar with.
What exactly are you getting at?
Scout builds have already been presented that do the job perfectly.
What they were meant for doesn't change what they're used for.
Also, what about a Professional Soldier who's training includes... oh I don't know... wilderness survival and scouting? That's kind of a big deal in armies I'm familiar with.
Good point...very good point. I'd call them fighter - rangers. I work at a Special Forces base now, Torii Station, the soldiers in the green-beret company I currently work for could hardly be called barbarians though.
Perhaps real-life has colored my definition barbarian.
But the Paladin has the same hit dice as the Fighter.Making it a swift-action was pretty generous, whilst for Clerics its a standard action. Breaking the paladin doesn't make fighters bad...but whereas the Paladin's consumable resource is lay-on-hands X times per day, its high HP for the fighter.
...so they're even on hit points...so the Paladin is generously granted an extra consumable resource, at the expense of feats albeit.
You really haven't played a lot of fighters have you?A Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
You really haven't dealt with a lot of Trained Soldiers have you?
I have. I also hang out with military guys all the time. Fighters are not by default military soldiers anymore than barbarians or rangers are. In fact, barbarians and rangers have more skills suited for being in a military force. Especially if we're talking elite military force (such as special operations soldiers like rangers, marines, or seals).
What section?6 years active duty, United States Marine CorpsA Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
You really haven't dealt with a lot of Trained Soldiers have you?
"C" Company, 1/1 1st Marine Division
I have. I also hang out with military guys all the time. Fighters are not by default military soldiers anymore than barbarians or rangers are. In fact, barbarians and rangers have more skills suited for being in a military force. Especially if we're talking elite military force (such as special operations soldiers like rangers, marines, or seals).You really haven't played a lot of fighters have you?A Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
You really haven't dealt with a lot of Trained Soldiers have you?
...suited for a *modern* military force. In the genre of DnD I think more like rank and file soldiers (warriors led by fighters) defending the kingdom from hordes of barbarians. Todays warfare is more assymmetrical. (spelling?)
What they were meant for doesn't change what they're used for.
Also, what about a Professional Soldier who's training includes... oh I don't know... wilderness survival and scouting? That's kind of a big deal in armies I'm familiar with.
Good point...very good point. I'd call them fighter - rangers. I work at a Special Forces base now, Torii Station, the soldiers in the green-beret company I currently work for could hardly be called barbarians though.
Perhaps real-life has colored my definition barbarian.
It's possible. You're getting preconception mixed up with what is. What is fact is that barbarians are exceptionally strong, highly athletic, skilled individuals who are capable of pushing everything except combat out of their mind as needed. It doesn't matter if they are clad in furs or wearing a medal of honor over their kevlar vest. They are the guys who pull a hatchet or combat knife and in a violent burst of adrenaline tear some poor guy apart before lifting up their wounded companion and running like a marathon man through incoming fire like it was his job.
Fighters have no more HP than Paladins, nor Rangers, and less than Barbarians. Paladins are the best tanks in the game. Rangers are martial specialists. Barbarians are the hardcore warrior. It is not the fault of those classes who are all well balanced between each other and whom fit very well in an adventuring party or various conceptual roles. If the fighter is behind them it's not because the Paladin is overpowered, nor the Barbarian, nor the Ranger. The Fighter is under powered. He is the odd man out in this case. He is the one who is found lacking. He is the one who lacks options in a game that is about interacting with a living world. One cannot blame Lay on Hands for the fighter being poor, nor any other feature.
Indeed you might call them fighter - rangers. And frankly in game terms they would likely be a mix, with some of them being Rangers with Favored Enemy: Human, and others being Barbarians.
The Barbarian class isn't tied to barbaric culture, nor does it have any mandatory fluff related to that.
To quote a small portion of an earlier post of mine that likely got lost in the shuffle (you've had many people talking to you and handled the pressure well my friend)
I've had Samurai Barbarians, Rank and File Barbarians, Athlete Barbarians, Street-punk Barbarians (Combat Rhythm anyone?), Monk Barbarians (Achieve perfect focus towards a single thing, grasshopper, and you will achieve perfect victory) the list goes on and on.
Page 31, Pathfinder Core Rule Book
"...they are not soldiers or professional warriors--they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war"
Doesn't sound very martial to me...
...so they're even on hit points...so the Paladin is generously granted an extra consumable resource, at the expense of feats albeit.
I think you highly overestimate the value of bonus Feats. While Feats are nice, unless you're going for a ridiculously Feat intensive build they don't really help the Fighter even advance in a certain Feat tree all that much due to BaB restrictions.
The Paladin can fight as well as a Fighter, being behind around 2 to-hit and damage.
His AC is likely to be just as high as the Fighter's.
His HP is as high as Fighter's, but he can heal himself and remove conditions from himself as well. He flat out wins the Tank/Meatshield game, period.
A few times per day he can activate his "You're in for a world of pain now boi" attack and blow the Fighter (though to be fair, any martial class) out of the water in terms of damage and have a significant boost to-hit.
He can enchant his weapon for free if he ever finds himself without his primary. Or he has a neat horse, one or the other.
His saves are all around better and he has immunity to quite a few debilitating effects (Disease, Fear, Charms/Compulsions later on). This plus Mercy essentially makes him the walking bane of status effects/conditions.
And all he gives up are Greater Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization, a bit of speed, and some bonus Feats.
But don't get me wrong and turn this around on "Oh well the Paladin just gets too much" because plenty of other classes have a bunch of things like that going for them. It's just that the Fighter does not have anything but that faster move speed in armor and that "+1 every 5 levels with x weapon group" deal.
Edit: This reminds me I need to make those builds for Nicos.
...Tomorrow.
What they were meant for doesn't change what they're used for.
Also, what about a Professional Soldier who's training includes... oh I don't know... wilderness survival and scouting? That's kind of a big deal in armies I'm familiar with.
Good point...very good point. I'd call them fighter - rangers. I work at a Special Forces base now, Torii Station, the soldiers in the green-beret company I currently work for could hardly be called barbarians though.
Perhaps real-life has colored my definition barbarian.
It's possible. You're getting preconception mixed up with what is. What is fact is that barbarians are exceptionally strong, highly athletic, skilled individuals who are capable of pushing everything except combat out of their mind as needed. It doesn't matter if they are clad in furs or wearing a medal of honor over their kevlar vest. They are the guys who pull a hatchet or combat knife and in a violent burst of adrenaline tear some poor guy apart before lifting up their wounded companion and running like a marathon man through incoming fire like it was his job.
Fighters have no more HP than Paladins, nor Rangers, and less than Barbarians. Paladins are the best tanks in the game. Rangers are martial specialists. Barbarians are the hardcore warrior. It is not the fault of those classes who are all well balanced between each other and whom fit very well in an adventuring party or various conceptual roles. If the fighter is behind them it's not because the Paladin is overpowered, nor the Barbarian, nor the Ranger. The Fighter is under powered. He is the odd man out in this case. He is the one who is found lacking. He is the one who lacks options in a game that is about interacting with a living world. One cannot blame Lay on Hands for the fighter being poor, nor any other feature.
You are indeed a good writer. But, Paladins came into the game long after the fighter. They were made *deliberatly* over-powered, just like a lot of things, to sell more books. I'm sorry you fell for it.
...suited for a *modern* military force. In the genre of DnD I think more like rank and file soldiers (warriors led by fighters) defending the kingdom from hordes of barbarians. Todays warfare is more assymmetrical. (spelling?)I have. I also hang out with military guys all the time. Fighters are not by default military soldiers anymore than barbarians or rangers are. In fact, barbarians and rangers have more skills suited for being in a military force. Especially if we're talking elite military force (such as special operations soldiers like rangers, marines, or seals).You really haven't played a lot of fighters have you?A Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
You really haven't dealt with a lot of Trained Soldiers have you?
Fighters, again, have nothing to contribute to the leadership of warriors other than presumably being more powerful on a level by level basis (and yet based on CR calculations, NPCs treat NPC levels as never being key and so you actually get +2 levels of warrior to every 1 level of fighter which is superior in literally every way to a fighter). Fighters have no abilities that make them good as leaders. Nor anything that even places them in a military environment by default.
A class that is actually more akin to being a fine leader in an army would perhaps be something like a Bard who can use Perform (Oratory) to give tactical instructions to his troops and it have a meaningful effect. Similar to William Wallace in Braveheart with his speeches.
You are indeed a good writer. But, Paladins came into the game long after the fighter. They were made *deliberatly* over-powered, just like a lot of things, to sell more books. I'm sorry you fell for it.
But they are not, in fact, overpowered when compared to any class that isn't Fighter/Monk/Rogue.
|
|
What they were meant for doesn't change what they're used for.
Also, what about a Professional Soldier who's training includes... oh I don't know... wilderness survival and scouting? That's kind of a big deal in armies I'm familiar with.
Good point...very good point. I'd call them fighter - rangers. I work at a Special Forces base now, Torii Station, the soldiers in the green-beret company I currently work for could hardly be called barbarians though.
Perhaps real-life has colored my definition barbarian.
It's possible. You're getting preconception mixed up with what is. What is fact is that barbarians are exceptionally strong, highly athletic, skilled individuals who are capable of pushing everything except combat out of their mind as needed. It doesn't matter if they are clad in furs or wearing a medal of honor over their kevlar vest. They are the guys who pull a hatchet or combat knife and in a violent burst of adrenaline tear some poor guy apart before lifting up their wounded companion and running like a marathon man through incoming fire like it was his job.
Fighters have no more HP than Paladins, nor Rangers, and less than Barbarians. Paladins are the best tanks in the game. Rangers are martial specialists. Barbarians are the hardcore warrior. It is not the fault of those classes who are all well balanced between each other and whom fit very well in an adventuring party or various conceptual roles. If the fighter is behind them it's not because the Paladin is overpowered, nor the Barbarian, nor the Ranger. The Fighter is under powered. He is the odd man out in this case. He is the one who is found lacking. He is the one who lacks options in a game that is about interacting with a living world. One cannot blame Lay on Hands for the fighter being poor, nor any other feature.
Paladins being the best tank in the game is purely subjective and you know that. Fighters have ways to lock down opponents and do the damage necessary to take them out. Paladins are good against a specific type of enemy.
I have family that are military and they would highly disagree with you about your barbarian assessment. Trained soldiers are not, by default, blood thirsty killers who use their rage to kill. Might want to check your info before you go posting.
You are indeed a good writer. But, Paladins came into the game long after the fighter. They were made *deliberatly* over-powered, just like a lot of things, to sell more books. I'm sorry you fell for it.
Again, thank you. But you need to learn that you are not playing 1E D&D. Paladins have been core for quite a while and were actually very underpowered in 3.0 and 3.5 (as were all the core martials barring perhaps, maybe, the 3.5 ranger). Now the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are all very well balanced in Pathfinder core. They were not added in to sell more books. The fighter, unfortunately, has not received a good rebalancing treatment from 3.5 to Pathfinder like the other martials did.
|
|
Paladins came into Early Dungeons and Dragons long after the fighter.
Paladin has been in 3.X from the start, started out about as bad as the fighter (worse in some ways, better in others) and got way more out of the transition to Pathfinder than the Fighter did.
All we're asking is the Fighter be brought the rest of the way up to parity with the rest of the martial classes.
But before that can happen you need to actually prove that the fighter is behind the other martial classes.
...so they're even on hit points...so the Paladin is generously granted an extra consumable resource, at the expense of feats albeit.I think you highly overestimate the value of bonus Feats. While Feats are nice, unless you're going for a ridiculously Feat intensive build they don't really help the Fighter even advance in a certain Feat tree all that much due to BaB restrictions.
The Paladin can fight as well as a Fighter, being behind around 2 to-hit and damage.
His AC is likely to be just as high as the Fighter's.
His HP is as high as Fighter's, but he can heal himself and remove conditions from himself as well. He flat out wins the Tank/Meatshield game, period.
A few times per day he can activate his "You're in for a world of pain now boi" attack and blow the Fighter (though to be fair, any martial class) out of the water in terms of damage and have a significant boost to-hit.
He can enchant his weapon for free if he ever finds himself without his primary. Or he has a neat horse, one or the other.
His saves are all around better and he has immunity to quite a few debilitating effects (Disease, Fear, Charms/Compulsions later on). This plus Mercy essentially makes him the walking bane of status effects/conditions.
And all he gives up are Greater Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization, a bit of speed, and some bonus Feats.
But don't get me wrong and turn this around on "Oh well the Paladin just gets too much" because plenty of other classes have a bunch of things like that going for them. It's just that the Fighter does not have anything but that faster move speed in armor and that "+1 every 5 levels with x weapon group" deal.
Edit: This reminds me I need to make those builds for Nicos.
...Tomorrow.
OK, Ryn, you win, I concede. You made your case. Paladins are better than fighters.
You really haven't played a lot of fighters have you?A Paladin can fight and heal themselves.
Usually the Fighter ends up needing the most healing out of the Party.
You really haven't dealt with a lot of Trained Soldiers have you?
Probably a lot more than you!
Paladins being the best tank in the game is purely subjective and you know that. Fighters have ways to lock down opponents and do the damage necessary to take them out. Paladins are good against a specific type of enemy.
No, I'm pretty sure they are the best tanks in the game. They can get high ACs easily, have the most HP of any class in the game due to their Lay on Hands (not even a barbarian can match the staying power of a Paladin), they have a wide variety of immunities, the ability to heal immediately when they would get dropped, and they can fight just fine and be threatening enough to not be ignored. They also have saving throws that crush a fighter's (because tanking means not being CC'd easily, and it also means being able to shrug off spells too).
I have family that are military and they would highly disagree with you about your barbarian assessment. Trained soldiers are not, by default, blood thirsty killers who use their rage to kill. Might want to check your info before you go posting.
Neither are Barbarians. I'm calling them as I see them. The barbarian class is not blood thirsty. What it is consists of a highly skilled and powerful athletic warrior that can enter a heightened state of combat focus similar to that of an adrenaline rush.
OK, Ryn, you win, I concede. You made your case. Paladins are better than fighters.
Now let's talk about Rangers!
Maybe I'll add another project to the pile of random ones tomorrow. I think I've done all I can on Freeform Class Selection for the nonce and I'm just not feeling the Liberator any more, so on my off day lessee if I can whip up a decent "Fighter: Remastered" concept.
Which I'll probably forget about in a week but hey.
Adrenaline Rush is no where near the "Rage or Trance" a trained combatant can enter.
I have family that are military and they would highly disagree with you about your barbarian assessment. Trained soldiers are not, by default, blood thirsty killers who use their rage to kill. Might want to check your info before you go posting.Barbarians are not- by Rules- bloodthirsty killers who use their rage to kill.
In-fact, last I checked bloodthirsty tended to shift one's alignment towards the Evil axis, and Barbarians have no naturally Evil inclinations.
Rather, Barbarians are warriors who use a combat ability labelled Rage, which grants +4 to Strength, +4 Constitution, +2 Will Saves, and -2 AC, in order to be better Warriors.
This could be serving in a disciplined rank and file unit, just like the Fighter.
Allow me to repeat this once more.
There is nothing explicitly undisciplined about the Barbarian class. Sure they can't be Lawful, but they don't have to be Chaotic either, and while some exceptionally disciplined soldiers may be Lawful, the average will be Neutral.
Neutral soldiers tend to get article 15'd out in the real world. Lawful soldeiers are required to...what does the promotion warrant state..."...obey ALL lawful orders..." (emphasis added) hardly sounds neutral.