For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume a classic party of four make-up made up of an arcane caster (Wizard or Sorcerer), a divine caster (Cleric or Druid), a skill/support character (Bard or Rogue) and then either the Fighter or the Paladin. Let's also assume this party plans to adventure together from levels 1 through 20. The question is who adds more to the group and why?
I've seen the Fighter vs. Paladin discussion before, but it always seems to devolve into a face-off comparison, as if the two were battling it out mano y mano... which isn't really a realistic place to begin or end the debate. This might put things into a better perspective for those with differing opinions to make their points, adventuring with a party where they can compliment others, fulfill various roles, be supported themselves and are expected to take rests when others must.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Let's also assume that the party is a good aligned one, for obvious reasons.
Depends partly on the makeup of the rest of the party. If it's a Druid and a Rogue, the party may need the Paladin's magical abilities (and abilities as a face-type character). With a Cleric and a Bard, the Fighter would probably be more use.
|
Depend on the campaign. If you are going to fight undead and evil outsiders, go Paladin. If it is just a dungeoncrawl about monsters and loots go fighter.
It should be noted that in a good party most of the time, you are going to face evil monsters, so even that, the paladin will get plenty of chance to use his smite evil.
Depends on Alignment. If Good Campaign, Paladin all the way; Here's why:
-Better Features (Smite/Detect Evil, Auras, Divine Bond)
-Better DPR (Again, Smite Evil and Divine Bond)
-Better Skills/HP per Level (and Class Skills too!)
-Better Survivability (Perfect Saves, Divine Health [or whatever it's called], Immunities to all kinds of things)
-Equal Playstyle Flexibility (Two-Handed, Sword and Board, or TWF? Paladin is just as good at it.)
-Equal Proficiencies (All Martials and all Armor and Shields)
-Plays Nicer with Classic Party (Cleric can do more than just be forced to heal or buff with a Paladin around helping out in that role; plus is a better frontliner than any Fighter, you name it, the Paladin's better at it.)
If Evil and/or Chaotic Campaign, you're forced to default to Fighter due to the Paladin's single flaw; Alignment Restriction. As long as you're with Lawful and Good players (well, Good for the most part, Law and Chaos is hardly enforced in a game, and even if it is, is not a major issue), you have no problems as a Paladin.
But to argue the whole PVP thing, it's actually a great method to compare and contrast class features, seeing what each class brings to the party. Let's face it, the only things that a Fighter could do better than a Paladin is maybe fight Neutral or Good characters, and wear armor better. That's it. The Paladin slaughters the Fighter in all other aspects, and you'd be a fool to not understand why that is, especially considering the numbers don't lie...
On a bad day for Smite Evil, the Fighter can out-DPR the Paladin. But basically, the Paladin is so much better than the Fighter at everything that it's not even funny.
Depends on Alignment. If Good Campaign, Paladin all the way; Here's why:
-Better Features (Smite/Detect Evil, Auras, Divine Bond)
-Better DPR (Again, Smite Evil and Divine Bond)
-Better Skills/HP per Level (and Class Skills too!)
-Better Survivability (Perfect Saves, Divine Health [or whatever it's called], Immunities to all kinds of things)
-Equal Playstyle Flexibility (Two-Handed, Sword and Board, or TWF? Paladin is just as good at it.)
-Equal Proficiencies (All Martials and all Armor and Shields)
-Plays Nicer with Classic Party (Cleric can do more than just be forced to heal or buff with a Paladin around helping out in that role; plus is a better frontliner than any Fighter, you name it, the Paladin's better at it.)
-Better Features=More limited features in many respects. That Siege Owlbear? TN. Same for the Adamantine Golem currently terrorizing the party. In the endgame, Fighter and Paladin can be rendered irrelevant by pretty much the same things.
-Better DPR=Won't argue here, Smite is pretty narsty against the specified targets but if you're looking at it from that perspective, ranger is just as good and his situational damage is not limited by daily uses.-Better Skills/HP=Not with archetypes, Lore Warden and Tactician can potentially blow a Paladin out of the water.
-Better Survivability=Better saves and immunities run the fighter ragged but Armor training will net you a better AC at least.
-Equal Playstyle=Heh, nope. The shear number of bonus feats mixed with weapon training mean you can actually invest in more than one feat tree and be pretty good at all of them.
-Equal Proficiencies=Yeah but the fighter is generally better at making use of them and can be more flexible with them.
-Plays Nicer with Classic Party=Eh, sure, but once again if you're looking for someone to take the weight off of other characters then you may want to go ranger.
On a bad day for Smite Evil, the Fighter can out-DPR the Paladin. But basically, the Paladin is so much better than the Fighter at everything that it's not even funny.
This is how it seems to me, but I want to hear some other opinions.
One of the 'big' things Fighters seem to have going for them is that their abilities never run out... (as opposed to Smites, spells, Rage, Bardic Performance, etc.) which is all well and good IF you're operating in a vacuum. But the truth is, the Fighter needs the support of his mates even more than then Paladin, meaning that when they have to stop, he has to stop, completely negating that perceived advantage. In fact, the very real likelihood that his greater need for support from his party means that they would have to rest more frequently than a Paladin who can self-heal, self-buff and is immune to so many things the Fighter might otherwise fall victim to. Rather than being a drain on party resources, the Paladin actually adds to them.
Another thing that seems to come up often in this comparison that I find fallacious is the Paladin's need for Smites to be effective in combat. Between spells, divine bond and everything else Paladins can do, Smite is just the icing on the cake to my mind. In fact, Fighters often become dependent on one type of weapon to be effective (Weapon Training, Focus & Specialization feats, etc.) whereas the Paladin rarely runs into such limitations. Smites are tremendous but without them, a Paladin is just a Fighter who can self-heal as a swift action, cast spells, customize magic items, can cloak himself in layer after layer of immunities and has higher saves than almost anyone else in the game. Truth be told, I find that in a well-built Paladin, Lay on Hands is a much more class-defining power than Smite.
Lastly, every time I see a Fighter/Paladin discussion, purchased gear always seems to play a key role in the Fighter's argument - but purchased gear shouldn't even be considered as part of the conversation. The discussion isn't a comparison between what the two characters can buy (presumably they can buy the same things), but rather what they can actually do. Saying a Fighter is better because he can buy Cloaks of Resistance or Gloves of Dueling is simply saying the Fighter isn't better.
The paladin's code is very restrictive depending on the GM. A fighter has no such problems.
Aside from that, the pally is hands down better.
-Except the Paladin can raise his weapon to a +4 to +5 Modifier via Divine Bond and not have to worry about DR. He can also add a slew of weapon properties that are relevant to the fight and help out that way. He could also choose to have a mount instead, as having bodies to absorb hits or force their hand is just as good. The Fighter just has to tough it out and hope his party members carry him, something proactive characters shouldn't plan for...
-If we were arguing Ranger, then you have a point. But we aren't.
-I suppose, but a Skill Monkey is a minor role, something that both classes aren't meant to fulfill. The Lore Warden's bonus skills is only good for Int-based Skills, so maybe Appraise, a couple Knowledge skills not normally known to him, or something equally pointless that another class in the standard 4 has covered; the Tactician has more flexibility, but will at best allow for skill dips without any sort of sacrifice.
-Assuming Core Fighter, an additional +4 MDB can be viewed as wasted, especially with an at-best +9 MDB, their investment is only good with on average a +7 MDB item (Mithril Full Plate), assuming +6 Enhancement and +5 Inherent bonus from a 14 Dexterity (which is generous in itself).
-To a point; a Paladin can pull off any playstyle the Fighter has and do it better just because of his offensive features. Not to mention Lay on Hands and Mercies more than make up for whatever flexibility the Paladin could lack.
-A Paladin can use any Armor or Shield as a Fighter can. As well as any Martial. The fact that they both have equally open options for weapon and armor choices only cements my point; their proficiencies are equal, and the Fighter trying to emphasize on several proficiencies is only going to be inoptimal, since by the end-game, Fighters not using a single weapon are bound to fall behind and fail.
-Classic Ranger can perform some of the things a Paladin can't for spells, namely Barkskin, but he's nowhere near as effective of a frontliner, considering he can't cast spells and swing his two swords at the same time. He's not more pro than the Magus like that. The point of a Paladin is a Frontliner through and through, and while the Ranger can be all like "Yup, I can do it," the Paladin is all like "Yup, I can do it better than you, and I don't have to sacrifice anything for it."
Has this been a problem for others? Do people still find excuses for their paladin to "leave the room" when it's time to find out what the surviving cultist knows? I know torture shouldn't be sanctioned by most characters, but it seems that a paladin might draw the line a lot earlier (ie scary threats, sleep deprivation).
While this isn't really germane to this particular discussion, that's never been a problem for us - initially because no one ever tried to play a Paladin in a group that wasn't appropriate for one but more later because we redefined the Paladin's limitations into something more appropriate... first we defined them by their deity's will rather than 'lawful good' and later made them avatars of primal alignment forces/energy... meaning that there are Paladins who embody Good (whether lawful, neutral or chaotic), Evil (the same), Order (Lawful whether they're good, neutral or evil) and Chaos (again, the same). Its worked out very, very well as character options and I'd recommend adopting it to anyone.
Barbarian. I'd pick a 3rd option instead of being stuck with either. That said, I'd say its dependent on how the group handles a paladin and the type of game. That said, in a vacuum I'd rather have the paladin because I think fighter's are particularly boring and uninteresting in playstyle while the paladin has slightly more to offer, though not much.
On a bad day for Smite Evil, the Fighter can out-DPR the Paladin. But basically, the Paladin is so much better than the Fighter at everything that it's not even funny.This is how it seems to me, but I want to hear some other opinions.
One of the 'big' things Fighters seem to have going for them is that their abilities never run out... (as opposed to Smites, spells, Rage, Bardic Performance, etc.) which is all well and good IF you're operating in a vacuum. But the truth is, the Fighter needs the support of his mates even more than then Paladin, meaning that when they have to stop, he has to stop, completely negating that perceived advantage. In fact, the very real likelihood that his greater need for support from his party means that they would have to rest more frequently than a Paladin who can self-heal, self-buff and is immune to so many things the Fighter might otherwise fall victim to. Rather than being a drain on party resources, the Paladin actually adds to them.
Another thing that seems to come up often in this comparison that I find fallacious is the Paladin's need for Smites to be effective in combat. Between spells, divine bond and everything else Paladins can do, Smite is just the icing on the cake to my mind. In fact, Fighters often become dependent on one type of weapon to be effective (Weapon Training, Focus & Specialization feats, etc.) whereas the Paladin rarely runs into such limitations. Smites are tremendous but without them, a Paladin is just a Fighter who can self-heal as a swift action, cast spells, customize magic items, can cloak himself in layer after layer of immunities and has higher saves than almost anyone else in the game. Truth be told, I find that in a well-built Paladin, Lay on Hands is a much more class-defining power than Smite.
Lastly, every time I see a Fighter/Paladin discussion, purchased gear always seems to play a key role in the Fighter's argument - but purchased gear shouldn't even be considered as part of the conversation....
The Fighter's features enhance what the Fighter already has. Since he has no other features, he's junk without gear.
Armor Training enhances equipped Armor, Weapon Training enhances equipped Weapons; same is said for Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery. The only things that aren't equipment dependant (and that's debatable) are the Bonus Feats and Bravery. That's it.
Everything else depends on the gear the Fighter has, and whatever immunities/features the Fighter fails to get from his class, he has to pay out with his equipment; and equipment costs money. Lots of it.
This not only subtracts from the DPR he could potentially get if he didn't have to invest in defenses as much, but it also limits any other utility he could have because his investments can only ensure he is not a complete and utter liability. The utility slots are wasted on liability reduction, which is the Fighter's ultimate downfall.
Whereas the Paladin? Nowhere near as limited, since he can cast spells like Fly, and has Auras/Features that augment any liabilities he could possibly have. Disease? Pish posh. Mind-Affecting Effects? Permanencied PFE punks!
Cleric.
......what?
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume a classic party of four make-up made up of an arcane caster (Wizard or Sorcerer), a divine caster (Cleric or Druid), a skill/support character (Bard or Rogue) and then either the Fighter or the Paladin. Let's also assume this party plans to adventure together from levels 1 through 20. The question is who adds more to the group and why?
I've seen the Fighter vs. Paladin discussion before, but it always seems to devolve into a face-off comparison, as if the two were battling it out mano y mano... which isn't really a realistic place to begin or end the debate. This might put things into a better perspective for those with differing opinions to make their points, adventuring with a party where they can compliment others, fulfill various roles, be supported themselves and are expected to take rests when others must.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Let's also assume that the party is a good aligned one, for obvious reasons.
In terms of simply "which type of character would be a greater mechanical addition to the party" it's Paladin most of the time, by a level that will grow wider and wider as the party grows higher in level (the fighter may have an edge at very low levels before most of the paladin's class features and spells come online).
By higher levels, a solidly built Paladin is more than capable of outperforming a fighter when battling even Neutral foes, to say nothing of what happens when he smites someone. Weapon bond, great saves, swift healing/condition removal, and a spell preparation customized for fighting nonevil foes (because against evil, anything more than Smite is usually overkill) make the high level Paladin a very formidable and versatile opponent.
A fighter would probably fare a bit better with a sorcerer and bard than a wizard and rogue, because he's going to need more and more support in order to do his thing the higher level the party gets. A bard is obviously helpful on that, and a sorcerer is better than a wizard since a fighter is probably going to need similar spells all the time, not once or twice a day. A Paladin is better equipped to roll with either; since he's going to need intervention in combat less frequently, that puts less strain on a wizardly caster who likely only has one of a particular spell.
From the perspective of one of the other three members of the party, paladin is the better choice by far. The paladin's strong defenses keep her from being a liability and she makes everyone else in the party better. Having another person in the party who can heal and remove status effects is really nice. Aura of justice is pretty great for use against big bads. The paladin spell list has some nice spells on it. She has the Charisma and class skills to contribute to social encounters.
The fighter, on the other hand, doesn't contribute much back to party resources. The paladin can memorize lesser restoration, saving the cleric spell slots. Depending on the mercies she picks up, she may save the cleric even more slots. She can cast resist energy on others. The fighter cannot do any of this. Sure, the fighter can keep going at her full strength when everyone runs out of resources. But if everyone else is out of resources (which doesn't happen often past really low levels), then not taking a break is risky.
The paladin is just much better at being a team player than the fighter.
In a party that fights every monster they come across the paladin is an attractive choice. A party that avoids unnecessary conflict by treachery (lies, bribes, dissembling, trickery, misdirection, and general skullduggery) is better served by a fighter*.
[rogue] "You really don't want to see what he's capable of when he gets righteous. I can tell he's starting to get righteous even now. Are you sure you don't want to take the bribe and call it a day before he gets within earshot?"
[potential enemy] "..."
|
Well, from a pure mechanical standpoint, a Paladin is supposedly superior. Because the paladin gets more self-healing, prepared casting for more flexibility, and a fair deal of DPR.
Now, I personally would choose something else that can do melee just as well or possibly better, because often enough I play 12INT humans because I feel like my character is skill-starved.
Of course, if it varies vastly between campaigns. For instance, if you are in Wrath of the Righteous, a paladin will outclass even the "I can't miss" gunslinger[not joking, I've seen it], but playing a paladin in Way of the Wicked is a good way to either fall from grace or get CdG'd by the party.
While this may not be the intent of your question, if I were the player trying to fill this fourth slot (and debating only between paladin and fighter), I would definitely pick the paladin. As a player, the main issues with fighters is that they feel very boring, only having one meaningful way in which to contribute to the party. The paladin, on the other hand, can actually contribute outside of combat and still be a beast in combat.
Furthermore, the paladin can really take care of herself. Between stupendous saves, a swift action heal, and mercies, she is often much less of a drain on party resources than the fighter would be. Also, aura of justice is one of those abilities that can completely shift the tide of a fight in favor of the party. Oh, and go with the bard instead of the rogue.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume a classic party of four make-up made up of an arcane caster (Wizard or Sorcerer), a divine caster (Cleric or Druid), a skill/support character (Bard or Rogue) and then either the Fighter or the Paladin. Let's also assume this party plans to adventure together from levels 1 through 20. The question is who adds more to the group and why?
I've seen the Fighter vs. Paladin discussion before, but it always seems to devolve into a face-off comparison, as if the two were battling it out mano y mano... which isn't really a realistic place to begin or end the debate. This might put things into a better perspective for those with differing opinions to make their points, adventuring with a party where they can compliment others, fulfill various roles, be supported themselves and are expected to take rests when others must.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Let's also assume that the party is a good aligned one, for obvious reasons.
I'll take a Paladin any day of the weak. The difference in combat ability is surprisingly little due to the options the Paladin has such as scaling buffs. However, what the Paladin has in leaps and bounds is survivability. Paladin lay on hands saves the entire party a lot in resources, allows rapid action-efficient recovery, and the Paladin's immunities, party friendly passive buffs, and Divine Grace (which gives a Paladin saving throws that are off the charts), the Paladin is the more solid option.
The Paladin is a safer option. It's harder to remove him from the equation. Crowd Control, dominations, charms, fears, diseases, poisons, everything has a harder time working on the Paladin. Meanwhile the Paladin is also a spellcaster (which means if your party's traditional healer gets knocked out, the Paladin can revive him). If you take the Ultimate Mercy feat, the Paladin can raise dead without the components during downtime. The Paladin also has a variety of unique options such as their first level spell bless weapon which allows them to auto-confirm crits vs evil creatures.
Even against non-evil foes, the Paladin is packing more than enough goodies to make them a formidable martial, and is better in endurance runs where the party doesn't have much time to devote to resting, because unlike the Fighter the Paladin adds resources to the party rather than just being a drain on them.
Definitely the fighter. The paladin still puts far too much of an onus on the party with his ridiculously restrictive code.
Without the paladin, the party can resort to underhanded, even evil tactics and plans, if hard-pressed. The paladin's divine stick-up-butt just gets in the way.
I'd take a Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Trapper Ranger over Fighter or Paladin.
Though Paladin is a good second choice.
Definitely the fighter. The paladin still puts far too much of an onus on the party with his ridiculously restrictive code.
Without the paladin, the party can resort to underhanded, even evil tactics and plans, if hard-pressed. The paladin's divine stick-up-butt just gets in the way.
Man, isn't it just awful when you hands down reject a character because 9 times out of 10 it ends in pain and suffering?
Antipaladins would also function better in a less than good-aligned party. They are basically almost as defensive as Paladins sans lay on hands, but they get a better paladin bond option (a fiendish minion), and they are far more offensive. They are a spellcaster's best friend with their effects DC 10 + 1/2 level + Cha + ability focus Cruelties landing bestow curse on enemies (-4 to all attacks, saves, and checks), giving a -4 vs fear and removing fear immunities, and -2 to all saves other than fear at 8th level.
An antipaladin can simply engage an opponent and give them a -2 to all saves. A standard-action Intimidate adds the Shaken condition (-2 to all saves) without provoking an attack. Now just for getting into the face of his opponent, his opponent has -2 to all attacks and checks, and a -4 to saving throws. If on his next turn he uses a touch-attack (unlikely to miss since he has a full BAB), he deals some damage and forces a save (at -4) vs a permanent -4 to all attacks, saves, and checks (stacks with shaken and his auras).
For both Paladins and Anti-Paladins, a life-drinker is a good option. For Paladins, you can cast death ward on yourself to make you an amazing debuffer (2 negative levels per hit) and an antipaladin bumming a death ward off the party cleric is just going to ruin enemies that much faster.
Antipaladins also get a ton of love from spell-storing weapons with spells like vampiric touch, bestow curse, dispel magic, blindness/deafness, silence, hold person, inflict spells, and death knell. All of which are good options for a spell-storing weapon, especially since the lower save DCs on some of these spells don't mean as much when you're debuffing the heck out of their saves with your very being.
Antipaladins also have amazing spells like greater invisibility, nondetection, disguise self, animate dead, and greater magic weapon.
Depends on the Point Buy, Paladin wants the same stats as a Fighter, plus good Charisma.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume a classic party of four make-up made up of an arcane caster (Wizard or Sorcerer), a divine caster (Cleric or Druid), a skill/support character (Bard or Rogue) and then either the Fighter or the Paladin. Let's also assume this party plans to adventure together from levels 1 through 20. The question is who adds more to the group and why?
Thoughts?
EDIT: Let's also assume that the party is a good aligned one, for obvious reasons.
Defensive: Both classes can have excellent AC, with the fighter being more mobile than the paladin and maybe having the edge in dex bonus. The paladin, by the flip side, has better defences in other ways, probably the best in the game in terms of saves and immunities.
Offensive: The fighter is more accurate and delivers damage consistently, but the paladin's smite, while conditional and limited in uses, is basically an "I win" button whenever he faces an evil foe.
Other Abilities: The fighter can follow several combat paths at once, and he can thus be more flexible in combat. Out of it, he's got very little. The paladin has healing, and spells, and some nifty auras that buff the party.
Restrictions: The fighter has no restrictions on his actions, he can be any alignment. The paladin has to follow his code; to be a butt-kicking all smiting servant of a god...you have to be a pretty dedicated servant of said god.
If the party is good, paladin. If not, fighter. If you get the chance, both, because once Aura of Justice kicks in the paladin turns the fighter into the meanest killing machine the world has seen...
Depends on the Point Buy, Paladin wants the same stats as a Fighter, plus good Charisma.
Paladins can get away with lower Con and Wis than fighters. Adding Cha to all saves increases their Fort and Will. Plus they have better base saves to begin with. Immunity to fear, charm, and compulsion on top of that help to avoid some of the worst consequences of a failed will save. For hitpoints, healing yourself as a swift action really helps. Unless you take enough damage to die in one round, the 5d6 (plus more with the right feats, etc.) healed back by the 10th level paladin more than makes up for having a max HP 10 lower than the 10th level fighter.
Definitely the fighter. The paladin still puts far too much of an onus on the party with his ridiculously restrictive code.
Without the paladin, the party can resort to underhanded, even evil tactics and plans, if hard-pressed. The paladin's divine stick-up-butt just gets in the way.
That's much more a reflection on the GM and/or the player than on the class. We've run through two and a half AP's with a Paladin in the group and never had near as many issues as we would have had with, say, an evil character.
Depends on the Point Buy, Paladin wants the same stats as a Fighter, plus good Charisma.
I disagree, the paladin needs two good stats: Strength (or Dexterity for an archer paladin) and Charisma.
He does not need high Constitution, he can self-heal as a swift action for hit points and adds his Charisma bonus to his Fort saves. He does not need high Dexterity because he can rely on heavy armour and again his Charisma boosts his Reflex save as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the Point Buy, Paladin wants the same stats as a Fighter, plus good Charisma.Paladins can get away with lower Con and Wis than fighters. Adding Cha to all saves increases their Fort and Will. Plus they have better base saves to begin with. Immunity to fear, charm, and compulsion on top of that help to avoid some of the worst consequences of a failed will save. For hitpoints, healing yourself as a swift action really helps. Unless you take enough damage to die in one round, the 5d6 (plus more with the right feats, etc.) healed back by the 10th level paladin more than makes up for having a max HP 10 lower than the 10th level fighter.
There's the additive property as well.
Every time a character attacks or casts a spell when he otherwise would have been affected by enchantments, that's an attack or spell the Paladin is responsible for. Every time a heal that would have been needed on a Fighter is cast on someone else, that's a heal you can thank the Paladin for. He stretches party resources across the board.
In boss fights he smashes face better than the Fighter (except for those incredibly rare 'neutral' bosses of course). In big battles he tanks better than the Fighter. In social situations he shines more than the Fighter. I have a couple of Fighter builds I love but at the end of the day it seems like an easy answer to me.
For those trying to say that in a "non-good" party that often resorts to underhanded means to do things... I would like to introduce you to the Anti-Paladin. Turns out, he is rather strong, has the same immunities, AND doesn't give a rat's arse about you guys smacking a guy around and breaking into his home... Oh, and he is a template of the paladin....
Fighters not using a single weapon are bound to fall behind and fail.If you mean that have a bigger weapon is better than have multiple weak ones then that is a feature of the game.
If you mean that the fighter have to have the weapon focus /weapon specialization feats then your statement is just wrong.
And guess what? People don't play games based off of optimization, and that's fine. I'm one of those people, and I'm enjoying my imperfect two-handed Fighter tank with the rules we're playing with.
But my rules are different than what's expected here, and the OP made this thread based on the premise of optimization.
The former is convenient for when stuff hits the fan, but when you're looking at optimization, once you reach that point you lost any optimization edge you may have had versus any other person who is also optimizing. That's why a lot of optimization leads to prevention of loss of optimal advantages.
The latter is also incorrect, as any Fighter who doesn't take Weapon Focus or Specialization is losing out on potential hits as well as not capitalizing on their iterative attacks. Those who optimize know this, and not doing it makes the character weaker. (I know this is a flaw with my Fighter Tank, but I have other feats to invest in besides damage.)
I might challenge these two, Dabbler.
Offensive: The fighter is more accurate and delivers damage consistently
I haven't found "consistent" to be an accurate description of a fighter's damage, at all. But even laying my own personal experience aside, I'd find it really hard to see why a fighter's damage should be more consistent than a paladin's.
If anything, the fact that the fighter possesses high offensive numbers but such weak saves, lack of self-healing, condition removal, immunities, etc, should mean that the Paladin is likely delivering a more consistent offense, because he's probably still in there making his attacks when the fighter is confused or dominated, fatigued, blinded, just plain injured, whatever. Whereas the figher's contribution is likely to reach high burst levels in ideal circumstances, but to be much less consistent.
Of course, the paladin can reach high burst levels in ideal circumstances too, that's kind of what Smite is known for.
Other Abilities: The fighter can follow several combat paths at once, and he can thus be more flexible in combat.
I kind of enjoy that a high level paladin can do things like make his weapon Brilliant Energy so that he can go to town with Dazing Assault and Power Attack (at once) against an armored human boss, for example, but then not be stuck with a brilliant energy weapon when the lich comes along. Weapon Bond is at least as flexible a class feature as anything the Fighter gets.
To say nothing of spells. A paladin (or antipaladin) doesn't get a ton of narrative power spells like Teleport or Plane Shift or whatever... but his spell list, being heavily combat focused, can make him very flexible when it comes to combat. If the annoying Spring Attacking BBEG challenges the fighter to a duel at dawn, it's not like the fighter is going to be able to respond flexibly to this foe. If he didn't already know the feat to shut down Spring Attack, it's not like he can chant the flexibility mantra and adapt his feat selection to the challenge to come.
The Paladin (or antipaladin) can just go ahead and prepare fires of entanglement. And then later when he's heading into the crypt to confront the mummy lord not known for springing around the battlefield, he can prepare something else instead. Much more flexible.
So I'm not necessarily seeing that one either.
Fighter: "You know, there can be only one of us..."
Paladin: "I know. So, how about a test of skill? Us against something we'll actually see in a dungeon? See who's better."
Fighter: "I'm up for it!"
Paladin: "Good! I had the wizard put a prismatic wall over the only exit and then slap it with permanency. I'll follow you out."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put me in the "it really depends on what the party needs" camp.
The paladin certainly has more magical resources, and especially if your party is a little short on healing, or buff/support, the paladin can provide that to some extent for himself, as well as in a limited way for others. The paladin of course has way better saves. The paladin can provide, within his limited skill points, some party face abilities. As others mentioned above, in something like an oracle/druid, rogue, wizard/sorcerer party, I'd go with a paladin.
The fighter has a large degree of non-magical combat versatility. You can certainly put your eggs into one weapon specialization basket, or you can have a switch hitter that is effective. The fighter has some unique feats that a good character builder can put to good use (and I suppose that's also a key point; if your tank player isn't into planning out a build, paladin might be better, but a good planner might enjoy and more effectively play a fighter). One little overlooked factor is many fighters have more mobility because of armor training -- your heavy armor paladin is running around at 20 foot move, your heavy armored fighter at level 7 and up is keeping up with 30 ft (presuming a Medium size character). This can seem negligible, but sometimes that extra movement can make a lot of difference, especially if it's crucial the melee character engages something like a spellcaster before the enemy gets out of range. You can feel a little freer with how you distribute the fighter's ability scores -- and if your party is low on skills, you can afford to build a smarter fighter than you can a paladin, and the fighter has some good class skills if he's got the points to spend on them (intimidate, knowledge dungeoneering, survival). Of course the fighter is more magic gear dependent (or dependent on different magic gear) and has lower saves, but if you're in a party that's buff heavy, that may not matter. In a cleric, bard/alchemist, wizard/sorcerer/summoner party, I'd go with a fighter. Likewise, if your fourth party member is rather than a full d8 support class but instead a hybrid like a ranger, then I might also go with fighter.
Specifics of build can also matter a lot--race, skills, feats, etc. can also affect how they contribute and how potential weaknesses are shored up (fighters are often noted as having low saves, but, say, a dwarf fighter, with a better than average Wisdom and bonus to saves versus all spells and SLAs may handle saves than you might otherwise expect--even if she doesn't necessarily compete with an aasimar paladin).
Of course in my actual games, what's most important is both what the player wants to play, and what they're most adept at playing.
The fighter has a large degree of non-magical combat versatility.
What versatility does he have?
Fighter! you aready have a cleric, trust in your team.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter has a large degree of non-magical combat versatility.What versatility does he have?
I answer that in the following sentences of the same post you quote:
You can certainly put your eggs into one weapon specialization basket, or you can have a switch hitter that is effective. The fighter has some unique feats that a good character builder can put to good use.
You could also do a good CM build for that matter, and still deal solid damage, if you feel that build would suit the party's needs best.
And if it's not clear, because of his having a feat every level, and having fighter-only feats like specialization, disruptive, penetrating strike, etc.
Also, note the qualifiers "non-magical" and "combat."
You're welcome to disagree, but having played fighters to decent effect I feel I can do a lot more with my combat style builds than I can with most other classes. Note, with my combat style builds -- I am not talking about anything else.
I could elaborate further, but I imagine that's fruitless. I have stated my opinion based on my personal experience actually playing the game, not on who thinks what is most popular on the message board, or who the wrongbadfun haters are railing on today. Take it or leave it.
Fighter! you aready have a cleric, trust in your team.
There is a difference between trust in a team, and placing insurance in your team. The Fighter is forced to do the former because he has no other option.
In few cases, the Paladin has to do the former, whereas most of the time, he does the latter. Paladin has more useful resources than a Fighter will ever have, period, and does the same job on a better scale.
As I've said; you name it, the Paladin is better at it than any two-bit sellsword that is a Fighter.
I answer that in the following sentences of the same post you quote:The fighter has a large degree of non-magical combat versatility.What versatility does he have?
Oh... I thought you meant they had some actual unique versatility. Not that they can do slightly more of what everyone else can do. Only takes 2 feats to switch hit.
The fighter has a large degree of non-magical combat versatility.What versatility does he have?
Long ago when I used to see this claim on the Wizards boards in early 3.0, at first I just thought it was wrong. Since then I've come to realize that it often just results from speaking about different definitions of versatility (or flexibility or whatever word of choice).
There's versatility insofar as having a lot of choices when you build a character, and then there's characters who, once built, are versatile. Fighters have the former, but in my own experience, I haven't found them to possess the latter quality, because for better or worse one characteristic of [Combat] feats is that they a great number of them are very narrowly specialized, dealing with a single piece of equipment, a single maneuver, etc.
I remember this same discussion with AD before.
There's versatility insofar as having a lot of choices when you build a character, and then there's characters who, once built, are versatile. Fighters have the former, but in my own experience, I haven't found them to possess the latter quality, because for better or worse one characteristic of [Combat] feats is that they a great number of them are very narrowly specialized, dealing with a single piece of equipment, a single maneuver, etc.
Yarr, unfortunately what the prior turns into is a very dip friendly class, and the latter is where the meat and power is. If that makes much sense.
The latter is also incorrect, as any Fighter who doesn't take Weapon Focus or Specialization is losing out on potential hits as well as not capitalizing on their iterative attacks. Those who optimize know this, and not doing it makes the character weaker. (I know this is a flaw with my Fighter Tank, but I have other feats to invest in besides damage.)You are making the mistake of equating optimization with DPR. Yes, weapon focus+weapon specilization are the way to do more damage, but doing more damage is not the only way to do strong builds.
A high enough DPR leads to a one-round, one-turn encounter. Why would you bother building anything else (besides maybe Initiative, which is hardly a hurt on any other investments) than a frontliner who maximizes DPR?
But I'll argue your side, and say DPR isn't the answer. So we should build a bunch of AC and Saves, making myself almost immune to any sort of lockdown, and wait until they decide to either fight me after they slaughtered the rest of my team, or run away and not bother me again?
Sure, I'll do that; except most competent GM's with encounters expect a Tank to be more than just taking hits or laughing at lockdowns. The DPR and/or Lockdown is what makes a character a threat in combat, and when your defenses are so high it doesn't matter, why even bother fighting them? If defense is their only attribute, and their offense is a complete joke, what do I have to gain by attacking them (first)?
Point is, DPR makes the Frontliner a threat, and it keeps the other Frontliners wanting to deal with the Frontliner that's a threat, not the squishies behind said Frontliner.