|
so I was wondering what everyone thoughts are on which martial classes are the "strongest" keep most casters out, IE, Magus, druid, ect. acceptable classes are anything that do not go above 4th level spells. (or, basically less than half total spell levels)
IMO, paladin is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest in this area. with inquisitor or ranger a close second.
Does Inquisitor count as martial class? What about Magus?
From the full BAB ones, I'd say Paladin = Barbarian, but with different focuses. Ranger is a very close second, followed by Gunslingers (who have higher DPR, but are very one-dimensional). Fighters are the runt of the litter... And I have no idea where Cavaliers fit, since I never cared about the class, but if I had to guess I'd put together with Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tied between Barbarian and Paladin imo.
Barbarians with the right build can get pounce, allowing movement and full round attacks.
Paladins with the right build can get Dimensional Dervish, allowing movement and full round attacks.
Both have great defensive capabilities, with class abilities that boost saves and AC, and eventually grant DR.
Both have great offensive capabilities, with Rage and/or Smite.
If ever I am asked to make a tanky character for a group, I always look to one of these classes first before considering something lesser, like a fighter, cavalier, or even a ranger.
|
|
Does Inquisitor count as martial class? What about Magus?
From the full BAB ones, I'd say Paladin = Barbarian, but with different focuses. Ranger is a very close second, followed by Gunslingers (who have higher DPR, but are very one-dimensional). Fighters are the runt of the litter... And I have no idea where Cavaliers fit, since I never cared about the class, but if I had to guess I'd put together with Fighter.
no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends. I think the Cavalier and Samurai click in the upper ranges, though Barbarian and Paladin are tough to top.
I'd probably say:
Paladin and Barbarian tied
Cavalier/Samurai and Ranger tied for second
Fighter pulling up third, unless Gunslinger is using either the Pistolero or Musket Master archetypes, in which case they jump up to second place and everyone else gets moved down a notch.
All other Gunslinger builds for 4th
And Rogue is probably 5th, though he's not quite as bad as he's made out to be.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?
I certainly read both. Which is why I think it's strange you said that the Paladin was the strongest, who does cast spells, after the title stated that you wanted to leave 'half' casters out of the discussion. And then followed up with the Inquisitor, who has 6 levels worth of spells, just like the magus, who you tried to exclude. After all, they both go above 4th level. Kinda strange, if you ask me.
If we're actually excluding casters, I like Cavaliers. Mounted combat is gnarly, if hard to pull off in dungeons. Otherwise, my vote usually goes for a Barbarian.
no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?I certainly read both. Which is why I think it's strange you said that the Paladin was the strongest, who does cast spells, after the title stated that you wanted to leave 'half' casters out of the discussion. And then followed up with the Inquisitor, who has 6 levels worth of spells, just like the magus, who you tried to exclude. After all, they both go above 4th level. Kinda strange, if you ask me.
If we're actually excluding casters, I like Cavaliers. Mounted combat is gnarly, if hard to pull off in dungeons. Otherwise, my vote usually goes for a Barbarian.
Perhaps they meant that arcane "half" casters are left out, but that just seems a bit arbitrary.
There are actually three levels of casters in the game -- four, if you count the complete muggles like the Fighter.
Full casters get 9 levels of spells.
Casters like the Magus or Summoner get 6 levels. From the OP, it's pretty obvious that he's calling them "half-casters" in this instance, a not uncommon use of the term. And he's excluding them. Inquisitor would of course be in this group, and hence excluded.
The Paladin and Ranger are on a lower tier altogether, getting four levels. Many people lump them in with the total muggles.
no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?I certainly read both. Which is why I think it's strange you said that the Paladin was the strongest, who does cast spells, after the title stated that you wanted to leave 'half' casters out of the discussion. And then followed up with the Inquisitor, who has 6 levels worth of spells, just like the magus, who you tried to exclude. After all, they both go above 4th level. Kinda strange, if you ask me.
If we're actually excluding casters, I like Cavaliers. Mounted combat is gnarly, if hard to pull off in dungeons. Otherwise, my vote usually goes for a Barbarian.
Emissary Cavaliers get Mounted Skirmisher for free which is essentially pounce, a small cavalier on a medium mount can do some dumb stuff now that I think about it, I would place them tied with rangers for second place.
no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?Does Inquisitor count as martial class? What about Magus?
From the full BAB ones, I'd say Paladin = Barbarian, but with different focuses. Ranger is a very close second, followed by Gunslingers (who have higher DPR, but are very one-dimensional). Fighters are the runt of the litter... And I have no idea where Cavaliers fit, since I never cared about the class, but if I had to guess I'd put together with Fighter.
I did. I was just surprised about the inclusion of Inquisitors, since most people usually use "martial class" as a term meaning "classes with full BAB and/or totally devoted to combat", and Inquisitor is neither.
(I did miss the mention of Magus, though. My bad)
I like barbarian if I have to eschew spells completely. I think I might rather have a 3rd party option than the pathfinder core though. Full attacking can only entertain you for so long.
I did. I was just surprised about the inclusion of Inquisitors,no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?Does Inquisitor count as martial class? What about Magus?
From the full BAB ones, I'd say Paladin = Barbarian, but with different focuses. Ranger is a very close second, followed by Gunslingers (who have higher DPR, but are very one-dimensional). Fighters are the runt of the litter... And I have no idea where Cavaliers fit, since I never cared about the class, but if I had to guess I'd put together with Fighter.
So am I, since they were specifically NOT INCLUDED in the opening post.
"Hey, who's the best player in American football? Keep non-football players out, IE Babe Ruth, Jesse Owens, Arthur Ashe, ect. Acceptable players are anyone who played football at the college or professional level."
"Does Tiger Woods count as a football player? How about Gabby Douglas??"
<facepalm>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did. I was just surprised about the inclusion of Inquisitors,no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?Does Inquisitor count as martial class? What about Magus?
From the full BAB ones, I'd say Paladin = Barbarian, but with different focuses. Ranger is a very close second, followed by Gunslingers (who have higher DPR, but are very one-dimensional). Fighters are the runt of the litter... And I have no idea where Cavaliers fit, since I never cared about the class, but if I had to guess I'd put together with Fighter.
So am I, since they were specifically NOT INCLUDED in the opening post.
"Hey, who's the best player in American football? Keep non-football players out, IE Babe Ruth, Jesse Owens, Arthur Ashe, ect. Acceptable players are anyone who played football at the college or professional level."
"Does Tiger Woods count as a football player? How about Gabby Douglas??"
<facepalm>
I'm fairly certain that "with inquisitor or ranger a close second." could be interpreted as including inquisitors in the first post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, paladin is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest in this area. with inquisitor or ranger a close second.
Hence why the confusion. They were indeed included.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are actually three levels of casters in the game -- four, if you count the complete muggles like the Fighter.
Five with the adept.
On topic: Barbarian, archer fighter, and gunslingers if they have access to any firearm they want within WBL.
What about Zen Archer Monks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does "strongest" mean?
The classes fill different roles, as do builds of a particular class.
Tied between Barbarian and Paladin imo.
Barbarians with the right build can get pounce, allowing movement and full round attacks.
Paladins with the right build can get Dimensional Dervish, allowing movement and full round attacks.
Both have great defensive capabilities, with class abilities that boost saves and AC, and eventually grant DR.
Both have great offensive capabilities, with Rage and/or Smite.
If ever I am asked to make a tanky character for a group, I always look to one of these classes first before considering something lesser, like a fighter, cavalier, or even a ranger.
wait woah what D Dervish paladin? how?
so I was wondering what everyone thoughts are on which martial classes are the "strongest" keep most casters out, IE, Magus, druid, ect. acceptable classes are anything that do not go above 4th level spells. (or, basically less than half total spell levels)
IMO, paladin is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest in this area. with inquisitor or ranger a close second.
Honestly...
Barbarian is strongest if you just want to dish out the hurt. However, he's much more melee focussed than the other combat classes, and basically his tactics come down to "I rage and charge the enemy!" He can get good AC, decent defences (thank you Superstition), and he has the hit points to soak damage while he deals out huge amounts of it.
Paladin is stronger defensively than the barbarian, arguably the strongest defensive class in the game. He's not an awesome damage dealer unless he smites, but while smite is limited it's basically "I win" in a box. He tends not to be very mobile, but he can use ranged weapons as easily as melee weapons. On top of that he has spells and is a great healer (self-healing mid-fight makes him excellent). I rate him joint top.
Fighter is a solid performer, he can really churn out damage and he can excel against enemies others don't seem to be able to even hit. He also has the feats to take several combat styles rather than one - a well-build fighter can be a solid melee combatant, dangerous at range, and still have a few maneuvers up his sleeve. His biggest weakness is his lack of utility outside a fight and some poor saves (but those can be fixed). He's third on my list.
Ranger is an oddball. His favoured enemy bonus is great, but he has to pick the RIGHT favoured enemy for the campaign, or else he's just not performing most of the time. It's far more situational than the paladin's smite, which is why I rate the ranger last. He has the barbarian's AC but without the hit points, although is saves are OK. His bonus feats for combat style are nice, as are his spells, but he's not a stellar performer - unless he gets his favoured enemy in his sights, then he's awesome. What he does have that the others do not is a lot more out-of-combat utility, especially as a scout. I rate him 4th.
Cavalier is a little different. He's great when mounted, but less inspiring when not. He's got some neat tricks, but overall he's average. Unlike the other combat classes, he doesn't get a +X to hit, but he does function pretty well in spite of that. It's hard to rate the cavalier, I think he's probably a match for the fighter overall, but like the ranger it's situational. I'd rate him joint 4th because of this.
Monk is the real runt of the litter. He's definitely a combat class, but his 3/4 BAB is supplied with no buffs save flurry of blows, which clashes with his best feature, his mobility. He's defensively very good, save in terms of hit points, but offensively he just doesn't cut it. Unless you take a Qingong monk, the poor core monk is stuck with a host of abilities that don't add up to much. Essentially he's a defensive master in a game which demands and rewards offensive tactics. I rate the monk bottom of the list.
I have included the rogue here (he's not a combat class) or the 2/3 casters as they are out of the parameters of the question.
Maybe you should just give a list of classes to compare. You also need to define what you mean by strongest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
no offense, but did you read my post or just the title?Does Inquisitor count as martial class? What about Magus?
From the full BAB ones, I'd say Paladin = Barbarian, but with different focuses. Ranger is a very close second, followed by Gunslingers (who have higher DPR, but are very one-dimensional). Fighters are the runt of the litter... And I have no idea where Cavaliers fit, since I never cared about the class, but if I had to guess I'd put together with Fighter.
No offense, but maybe you should read your own post since you violated your own parameters right off the bat.
To the OP:
In combat: barbarian and paladin
Out of combat: Ranger
wait woah what D Dervish paladin? how?Tied between Barbarian and Paladin imo.
Barbarians with the right build can get pounce, allowing movement and full round attacks.
Paladins with the right build can get Dimensional Dervish, allowing movement and full round attacks.
Both have great defensive capabilities, with class abilities that boost saves and AC, and eventually grant DR.
Both have great offensive capabilities, with Rage and/or Smite.
If ever I am asked to make a tanky character for a group, I always look to one of these classes first before considering something lesser, like a fighter, cavalier, or even a ranger.
Sacred Servant with Travel Domain, or pick up Dimension Door with Unsanctioned Knowledge off the Bard list.
Maybe you should just give a list of classes to compare. You also need to define what you mean by strongest.
Bob's back! :) How the heck are you. PF missed its mild-mannered poster. First I've seen you post in some time.
==Aelryinth
Maybe you should just give a list of classes to compare. You also need to define what you mean by strongest.Bob's back! :) How the heck are you. PF missed its mild-mannered poster. First I've seen you post in some time.
==Aelryinth
I never left. I just stopped posting for awhile. I found I was getting into too many petty arguments and I needed to step back. I've been alright. I'm trying to run a game with a bunch of new gamers who have delusions of grandeur at first level. This Serpent's Skull campaign is going to be interesting...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is "Synthesist Summoner who voluntarily gives up all of his 5th and 6th level spell slots for absolutely nothing in return" a valid choice?
Is "Synthesist Summoner who voluntarily gives up all of his 5th and 6th level spell slots for absolutely nothing in return" a valid choice?
Not really because they would suck then. (Assuming you cut out all spell casting. Just removing 5th and 6th gives them a really OP fast 1-4th progression)
Well, Pal and Ranger get to 4th level, but I see your point. Could just get rid of their progression entirely for the Paladin/Ranger one (though it either needs more spell slots or to also be a prepared caster like them...fair IS fair) instead.
And it'd still be the best martial class.
Well, Pal and Ranger get to 4th level, but I see your point. Could just get rid of their progression entirely for the Paladin/Ranger one (though it either needs more spell slots or to also be a prepared caster like them...fair IS fair) instead.
And it'd still be the best martial class.
Well we're not talking about house rules. So you just have to axe all the spellcasting.
Does Share Spells benefits apply to wand use?
The major thing I'd even want the spells for is the ability to Enlarge Person the bio-suit despite it technically not being a "person." Of course, Mage Armor, Summon Eidolon, Lesser Evo Surge and other spells would be nice but could be wands or scrolls easily.
If you just refused to cast any spells but made use of the fact that you can use wands/scrolls of Summoner spells (just like a Pal or Ranger can for their spell items...before they even have an actual caster level!), it'd still work. The only point of concern would be the enlarging..
Does Share Spells benefits apply to wand use?
If I remember correctly, yes, if its on the spell list of the caster. A sylvan sorcerer has access to the whole sorc/wiz spell list through it. That said, synthesis rules are wonky(Look at all those FAQs!). The eidolon itself though gets access to a lot of things the other classes wish they had though because it uses monsterish rules. Pounce at level one and the ability to put trip, grab, and other nasty things on my attacks? Innate flight? Yes please! Comes with a free buff buddy too.
My vote goes to cross-blooded Orc/Draconic Sorcerer with a lil dip into Dragon Disciple.
He can jack his Str up to 50+, use his growth bloodline power and Transformation sla to be a large size greatsword wielding ball of destruction. (Without spells) Or FoD into a Huge dragon for tons of Nat attacks and then Transformation to just… be ridiculous.
...Or wizard. Yeah, change my mind, my vote is wizard.
|
words like "strongest" are so subjective (and flamebait)
i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"
i can make a case for why the monk is the "strongest"
same for paladin, barbarian, gunslingers, rogues, rangers and the new ACG classes.
in your terms, Roreck55, how do you define strongest.
i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"
I'd like to see that.
i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.
Two-Handed Fighter with a Scythe at level 20. Explosion crits that destroy parts of the world around them from the sheer damage.
250ish damage from a standard attack is terrifying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.
It's easy! Just define "strongest" as having the most feats. Then a human fighter 20 is the strongest. Except not really. A fighter 18/monk 1/alchemist 1 would have 4 feats more than the fighter 20, and hence be the most strongest! I'm sure you could find even more dips like this. But fighter is definitely the strongest single-classed character.
Now, this does have the problem that this definition of strongest has very little to do with character effectiveness or power or versatility or anything. But that's okay, because "strongest" is subjective or something.
i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.Two-Handed Fighter with a Scythe at level 20. Explosion crits that destroy parts of the world around them from the sheer damage.
250ish damage from a standard attack is terrifying.
Kind of wish crits worked like that...
Kind of wish crits worked like that...i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.Two-Handed Fighter with a Scythe at level 20. Explosion crits that destroy parts of the world around them from the sheer damage.
250ish damage from a standard attack is terrifying.
At level 20, thats what I imagine. The party are pretty much demi-god power anyways.
Plus scenery gore is cool.
|
|
i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.Two-Handed Fighter with a Scythe at level 20. Explosion crits that destroy parts of the world around them from the sheer damage.
250ish damage from a standard attack is terrifying.
this is why i hate open opinion terms like "strongest" or "best" because most people use DPR as a basis for what is "strongest" or "best". many characters are more functional and dont do a single point of damage, in optimal conditions.
this is why i hate open opinion terms like "strongest" or "best" because most people use DPR as a basis for what is "strongest" or "best". many characters are more functional and dont do a single point of damage, in optimal conditions.i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.Two-Handed Fighter with a Scythe at level 20. Explosion crits that destroy parts of the world around them from the sheer damage.
250ish damage from a standard attack is terrifying.
but the only thing fighters have going for them is DPR...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but the only thing fighters have going for them is DPR...this is why i hate open opinion terms like "strongest" or "best" because most people use DPR as a basis for what is "strongest" or "best". many characters are more functional and dont do a single point of damage, in optimal conditions.i can make a case for why the fighter is the "strongest"I'd like to see that.Two-Handed Fighter with a Scythe at level 20. Explosion crits that destroy parts of the world around them from the sheer damage.
250ish damage from a standard attack is terrifying.
you play really bad fighters then