Those are examples. Not a definitive list. And insta reviving all of your allies during a fight is also way beyond the...A miracle can do any of the following things.
Duplicate any cleric spell of 8th level or lower.
Duplicate any other spell of 7th level or lower.
Undo the harmful effects of certain spells, such as feeblemind or insanity.
Have any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.Alternatively, a cleric can make a very powerful request. Casting such a miracle costs the cleric 25,000 gp in powdered diamond because of the powerful divine energies involved. Examples of especially powerful miracles of this sort could include the following:
Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting.
Moving you and your allies, with all your and their gear, from one plane to a specific locale through planar barriers with no chance of error.
Protecting a city from an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, or other major natural disaster.In any event, a request that is out of line with the deity's (or alignment's) nature is refused.
A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save DCs are as for a 9th-level spell. When a miracle spell duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 100 gp, you must provide that component.
Even with the 25000 gp you don't get to do "anything". The spell says you can make request. It never says those request get an automatic yes. Even if the GM allows you to cast all those spells at once which is doubtful*, spending 25000 gp everytime to make it happen gets expensive.
*A 1 time magic item that duplicated all of those spells would cost more than 25000 so I am doubting the GM is going to give you a free pass if you try to do it all the time. Those examples(which are not guaranteed) involving stopping natural disasters are likely 1 time request.
Hopefully you're not relying on a single very subjectively applied spell only gained at the very highest of levels to draw the two characters head-to-head... what about levels 1-19?
Run a Cleric solo against the forces of evil and then do the same with a Paladin and tell me which comes out ahead. I'll put my money on the guy with the higher BAB, the higher saves, the higher number of hit points, the ability to self-heal and remove conditions as a swift action, the ability to use more powerful weapons and heavier armor, etc.
Maybe that's just me.
Meanwhile, calling your deity to come get the bad guys because you can't handle them smacks less of being a 'bastion against evil' and more of being a 'tattletale against evil'. Doesn't seem like a great deal of satisfaction from a player's standpoint to me...
At level 1 the cleric will have better will saves from wisdom but divine grace helps balance it out at level 2.
Those are examples. Not a definitive list. And insta reviving all of your allies during a fight is also way beyond the...A miracle can do any of the following things.
Duplicate any cleric spell of 8th level or lower.
Duplicate any other spell of 7th level or lower.
Undo the harmful effects of certain spells, such as feeblemind or insanity.
Have any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.Alternatively, a cleric can make a very powerful request. Casting such a miracle costs the cleric 25,000 gp in powdered diamond because of the powerful divine energies involved. Examples of especially powerful miracles of this sort could include the following:
Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting.
Moving you and your allies, with all your and their gear, from one plane to a specific locale through planar barriers with no chance of error.
Protecting a city from an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, or other major natural disaster.In any event, a request that is out of line with the deity's (or alignment's) nature is refused.
A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save DCs are as for a 9th-level spell. When a miracle spell duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 100 gp, you must provide that component.
Even with the 25000 gp you don't get to do "anything". The spell says you can make request. It never says those request get an automatic yes. Even if the GM allows you to cast all those spells at once which is doubtful*, spending 25000 gp everytime to make it happen gets expensive.
*A 1 time magic item that duplicated all of those spells would cost more than 25000 so I am doubting the GM is going to give you a free pass if you try to do it all the time. Those examples(which are not guaranteed) involving stopping natural disasters are likely 1 time request.
The definitive list is under "can do". Everything else is up to the GM.
Player:Can I use Miracle to give myself a medusa's gaze attack for the next hour.
GM: No.
Personally I think that is a reasonable request, but there is no rule saying a player can use it to get a gaze attack.
The spells does say a player can get "Duplicate any cleric spell of 8th level or lower." Which means that if a player wants to use miracle to cast the Heal spell he has rules support.
You are trying to argue what is or is not reasonable. What is reasonable, and what is a rule are two completely different things.
You are trying to argue what is or is not reasonable. What is reasonable, and what is a rule are two completely different things.
No, not really what i was arguing at all. I was arguing that the cleric makes a better holy warrior than the paladin and was met with a " at 20th level, the paladin can do all of this: *insert stuff*"
To which i tried to point out the disparity of the comparison when the cleric has access to high level spells.
To which you said "You can't use use those spells to do those things."
To which i replied "Yes, you can do both those things."
To which you replied "But only if the gm allows, you are arguing what is reasonable for the gm to allow and what isn't!"
See? The conversation is going somewhere else entirely.
stuff
The cleric can summon creatures, heal more times per day with higher numbers than the paladin, deal damage with spells, enhance his weapon on the spot and pretty much anything you need for the encounter.
In fact, summoned archorns can cast buffs, mass cures and other utility spells on their own, further widening the gap.
I really hope you aren't unaware of the ability of the cleric to do all sorts of things outside my extreme example. It's the reason why he doesn't get a top off ability at 20th level.
My original point was that you were comparing a half caster to the fighter, which is a full martial class while ignoring all the other things he can do.
Just like you are ignoring the cleric's large pool of spells to choose from to say "The paladin is better in a fight" you are also ignoring the wide variety of effects that can be gained from feats and the static bonuses a fighter benefits from that a paladin does not.
A fighter can master multiple feat trees throughout his career. He can ignore damage reduction, deal additional damage, increase his defensive capabilities and even gain special attacks that can only be used x amount of times per day, just like other classes.
People tend to brush this aside with "anyone can get those feats" but tend to forget that not everyone can actually get as many. Not everyone can simultaneously benefit from all the feats a fighter can.
You can use those spells to do those things if the GM allows it. That means it is GM Fiat.
If I say I am using miracle to cast heal I should expect for any GM to allow it because the book says I can.
If I want to use miracle to suddenly give myself 10+ buffs all at once then I can't really cite a rule saying I can. I only try to argue that it might be reasonable if I am willing to spend 25,000
My point is basically this, when trying to prove a point on the boards it is assumed that if the rules say you can then you can, but if you have to ask the GM because it is not specifically stated then it is GM fiat. That keeps everyone on the same level, and keeps group playstyle out of the discussion.
You can not find a rules quote saying miracle lets you cast all of those spells at once or get an equivalent affect. I understand that the spell is very powerful and we both agree that the spell might allow such things for a limited time, but that does not mean the GM will allow it.
A buffed cleric is a hard thing to deal with, but getting all those buffs up and running, and having them running at the right time is hard to do.
I do think a cleric will have a bigger impact on the course of a game than a paladin in most campaigns, but he can not readily have all things a paladin has at all time.
I do think a cleric will have a bigger impact on the course of a game than a paladin in most campaigns, but he can not readily have all things a paladin has at all time.
We are on the same page, then.
At level 1 the cleric will have better will saves from wisdom but divine grace helps balance it out at level 2.
Human, 25 point attribute buy, +2 racial bonus to primary attribute:
1st level Cleric, Str 14, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 10
Fort +4
Ref +2
Will +6
1st level Paladin, Str 16, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 16
Fort +4
Ref +2
Will +2
2nd level Cleric, Str 14, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 10
Fort +5
Ref +2
Will +7
2nd level Paladin, Str 16, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 16
Fort +8
Ref +5
Will +5
Of course, the Paladin immunities to fear, charm and compulsion type spells make the Will save far less significant, bonuses to Charisma raise all saves at the same time and both immunity to disease and the ability to remove conditions as a swift action further layers defense against effects that might require a save.
stuff
I'm pretty sure, by inviting a fellow poster to build a 20th level Fighter for direct comparison, I'm not ignoring anything.
I think the debate between Clerics and Paladins is a very legitimate one, but that's actually not what this thread is about, nor the conversation within it we were having. The claim was made that Fighters were either 1) more capable because of their ability to engage in prolonged combat without rest or 2) superior damage dealers due to the Paladin's 'dependence' on a certain subset of foes. Both claims have been fundamentally and mathmatically disproven.
I'm not a huge fan of clerics, but that's due more to my particular playstyle than any percieved lack in the class. I also think that despite the many benefits Paladins and Clerics both bring to a party, solo a Paladin would be far, far more successful than a Cleric at any level.
|
stuffI'm pretty sure, by inviting a fellow poster to build a 20th level Fighter for direct comparison, I'm not ignoring anything.
I think the debate between Clerics and Paladins is a very legitimate one, but that's actually not what this thread is about, nor the conversation within it we were having. The claim was made that Fighters were either 1) more capable because of their ability to engage in prolonged combat without rest or 2) superior damage dealers due to the Paladin's 'dependence' on a certain subset of foes. Both claims have been fundamentally and mathmatically disproven.
I'm not a huge fan of clerics, but that's due more to my particular playstyle than any percieved lack in the class. I also think that despite the many benefits Paladins and Clerics both bring to a party, solo a Paladin would be far, far more successful than a Cleric at any level.
Posting builds actually prove nothing and that has been proven as well. There are so many factors that come into play during the course of a game that you won't get any accurate info. Also, you have to take into account all the various archtypes for the classes.
What is true is the fact that fighters don't have to rely on certain types of creatures like the paladin and the ranger do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is true is the fact that fighters don't have to rely on certain types of creatures like the paladin and the ranger do.
That's just one of the most foolish and unsupported presumptions in the Pathfinder game right now. Paladins aren't ineffective against non-evil creatures - far from it. Even the most basic builds have them dealing about 80-90% of the DPR that Fighters can in those circumstances all the while being far more surviveable and versatile. And then, of course, against evil foes which make up the majority of what any campaigners might face, they exceed them in damage as well. As said before, it would be just as accurate, or perhaps even moreso, to suggest that Fighters are 'dependant' on foes that don't require them to make Will or Reflex saves.
At 20th level a Paladin can heal 60 points of damage and remove conditions - as a swift action - around 20 times a day. They are immune to mind-affecting spells and have much higher saves against everythign else than a Fighter could hope to... ALL of that against non-evil foes as well as evil ones. If a Fighter should get hurt, locked down or taken control of what can he do? He not only ceases becoming an asset, but he can very quickly become a threat...
A more accurate comparison to the fighter would be a cavalier or samurai. Paladins and rangers are half divine casters and not full martial characters. As such, you are comparing apples and oranges, not unlike comparing half arcane casters (such as the magus or bard) to a full arcane caster or a full divine caster (such as the cleric or druid)to a half divine caster.
In the end, if a class were to truly be far beyond inneffective, you are free to pass it off to the role of NPC only class and ignore it.
And then, you have to wonder about Monks. Everyone complains they are worse than fighters while we have a thread about how fighters are worse than everything else...
|
|
What is true is the fact that fighters don't have to rely on certain types of creatures like the paladin and the ranger do.Yeah, they instead rely on a certain type of weapon. While paladins can pick any pointy stick, cast GMW on it, then add the speed property, and then bless it.
I hate to break it to you but fighters usually carry more than one of the same weapon and it's a fact that monsters change more than a fighter losses his weapon.
|
|
What is true is the fact that fighters don't have to rely on certain types of creatures like the paladin and the ranger do.That's just one of the most foolish and unsupported presumptions in the Pathfinder game right now. Paladins aren't ineffective against non-evil creatures - far from it. Even the most basic builds have them dealing about 80-90% of the DPR that Fighters can in those circumstances all the while being far more surviveable and versatile. And then, of course, against evil foes which make up the majority of what any campaigners might face, they exceed them in damage as well. As said before, it would be just as accurate, or perhaps even moreso, to suggest that Fighters are 'dependant' on foes that don't require them to make Will or Reflex saves.
At 20th level a Paladin can heal 60 points of damage and remove conditions - as a swift action - around 20 times a day. They are immune to mind-affecting spells and have much higher saves against everythign else than a Fighter could hope to... ALL of that against non-evil foes as well as evil ones. If a Fighter should get hurt, locked down or taken control of what can he do? He not only ceases becoming an asset, but he can very quickly become a threat...
LOL! It's supported and it sure as hell is supported I'm afraid.
I can tell you right now that as a DM I don't have every monster that I face against the paladin be evil or undead and I don't always have the rangers favored enemy show up.
Guess I just showed how foolish and unsupported my fact was.
A more accurate comparison to the fighter would be a cavalier or samurai. Paladins and rangers are half divine casters and not full martial characters. As such, you are comparing apples and oranges, not unlike comparing half arcane casters (such as the magus or bard) to a full arcane caster or a full divine caster (such as the cleric or druid)to a half divine caster.
Actually, I think I would say that they are full martial characters who can cast. After all they get the same BAB as Fighters, use the same HD and have even better saves - they just exchange extra feats for some pretty impressive abilities and, oh yeah, have a limited number of spells at their disposal. Paladins even get the same weapon and armor profeciences as the Fighter as well.
In your opinion, what do they lack that makes them 'not full martial characters'?
What is true is the fact that fighters don't have to rely on certain types of creatures like the paladin and the ranger do.That's just one of the most foolish and unsupported presumptions in the Pathfinder game right now. Paladins aren't ineffective against non-evil creatures - far from it. Even the most basic builds have them dealing about 80-90% of the DPR that Fighters can in those circumstances all the while being far more surviveable and versatile. And then, of course, against evil foes which make up the majority of what any campaigners might face, they exceed them in damage as well. As said before, it would be just as accurate, or perhaps even moreso, to suggest that Fighters are 'dependant' on foes that don't require them to make Will or Reflex saves.
At 20th level a Paladin can heal 60 points of damage and remove conditions - as a swift action - around 20 times a day. They are immune to mind-affecting spells and have much higher saves against everythign else than a Fighter could hope to... ALL of that against non-evil foes as well as evil ones. If a Fighter should get hurt, locked down or taken control of what can he do? He not only ceases becoming an asset, but he can very quickly become a threat...
LOL! It's supported and it sure as hell is supported I'm afraid.
I can tell you right now that as a DM I don't have every monster that I face against the paladin be evil or undead and I don't always have the rangers favored enemy show up.
Guess I just showed how foolish and unsupported my fact was.
Again, you completely - completely - miss the point. Solo, a Paladin can take on a greater number of equivalent level non-Evil foes than a Fighter can, plain and simple...
...you know what, I've already gone through this twice, clearly and in detail. Just believe what you want. It won't change the math.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem that most people are having with fighters (as evidenced in this very thread) is that they want the fighter to do something it was never intended to do. The fighter is supposed to be the guy that doesn't need to rely on supernatural or spell-like abilities to get the job done. The class absolutely can do that. For some people it is easy. For others it's not so easy. That is not a fault of the class though. It's because the players' and/or GM's play style doesn't match with the fighter concept...and that is perfectly ok.
Comparing one class to another doesn't really do any good. The classes aren't meant to work that way (although there are NPCs, they tend to have less gear which can make a significant difference). The classes should be compared to what they are going to face. The classes should be compared using their class features in mind. Every class should have strengths and weaknesses. Every class should be able to fill its design concept.
The fighter is meant to hit things hard and often. It can definitely pull this off. If you want more from the class, then you should consider playing a different class. If you build from concept first, you might find that there are other classes that fit your concept better. You might find that the fighter fits it well. The fighter isn't a paladin, or samurai, or cavalier, or monk, or cleric, or anything other than a fighter.
How about this - pick a level or two and post me a build for a fighter that you think is representative of a high DPR and I'll post a Paladin of the same level and we'll see where we're at. No magical equipment, just the character's feats and class features for direct...
I'm game (but mostly cuz I like playing around with builds, not because I have a dog in this fight). This build doesn't seem particularly optimized, but I'd say it could compete pretty well with a comparable Paladin for general combat-worthiness.
Level 8 Human Fighter
(15 Pt buy)
Str 15 (+2 Racial, +1 Level 4) = 18
Dex 13 (+1 level 8) = 14
Con 14
Wis 12
Int 10
Cha 8
Feats (10): Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Greater Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Specialization: Greatsword, Power Attack, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Toughness, Quickdraw, Dodge, Combat Reflexes
HP: 10 (Lvl 1) +42 (lvl 2-8) + 8 (FC) + 8 (Toughness) + 16 (Con) = 84
Fort: +6 (Base) + 2 (Con) = +8 Ref: +2 (Base) +2 (Dex) +2 Feat = +6 Will: +2 (Base) +2 (Feat) +1 (Wis) = +5
Attack: 8 BAB + 4 Str + 1 Mstwk Weapon + 1 WF + 1 GWF +1 WT = +16/+11
Damage: 2d6+6 Str + 2 WS + 1 WT = 2d6+9
Power Attack: -3 attack/+9 damage
AC: 10 Base + 2 Dex + 1 Dodge + 9 Full Plate = 22
Speed: 30'
Armor Check Penalty: -3
EDIT: I just realized this guy could qualify for Improved Critical, so I suppose a better build would swap out Quickdraw for Improv. Crit. and switch him from a Greatsword to a Falchion. But you get the idea.
Stuff
Big +1 Bob. You always have something good to contribute in every thread.
|
Fighters have built in bonses that mean their plus to hit and Ac bonuses increase without the need to spend gold on expensive modifiers to increase this. Paladins need to spend gold on a weapon that increases to hit chance in order to keep up with that.
As a consequence, the fighter can more easily afford to buy a range of gear that allows he or she to reinforce weak areas of defence (will power) and provide specialised weapons for creatures. A +1 holy long sword in a fighters hand makes him or her as powerful as a paladin in fighting evil, without the need to use limited resources. Yes the Paladin can have one of those as well, but the fighter is still better at hitting with it than the Paladin since he has class mechanics which make him more effective with weapons.
Paladins have spells which can make them more versatile at times. They can heal out of combat as well. That makes them a great class. However, they are aligment restricted and roleplay restricted in terms of their code. That's a major drawback in many campaigns.
Fighters are the gods of malleable concept.
When building one, remember you don't have to better than everyone else at hitting your enemy, you only have to be better than the enemy. Spend money to buff glaring weaknesses rather than mindlessly going for more hittiness (new word, I call dibs on its patent). Invest on weapons that give special abilities (bane vs evil or holy) but have low + mods, you don't need them to keep up like the pther classes do. Buy items that allow for flight or limited telporting if they become available, better still, something that hastes you without waiting for your mage friends to do this.
Fighters are no longer required to buy ever increasing amounts of gear to keep up with AC, it's built into the class to help with just that problem. Fighters are more complex to build well than most people give them credit for too, this sometimes comes across in gamelplay as a number of folk fall into the trap of bigger number to hit means better.
Oh, and Feat per level is king. Paladins get spells to help them cope with the lack of feats. Barbarians get rage powers for the same.
I think fighters are perfectly fine (so does my group). Your opinion may differ.
Fighters have built in bonses that mean their plus to hit and Ac bonuses increase without the need to spend gold on expensive modifiers to increase this. Paladins need to spend gold on a weapon that increases to hit chance in order to keep up with that.
As a consequence, the fighter can more easily afford to buy a range of gear that allows he or she to reinforce weak areas of defence (will power) and provide specialised weapons for creatures. A +1 holy long sword in a fighters hand makes him or her as powerful as a paladin in fighting evil, without the need to use limited resources. Yes the Paladin can have one of those as well, but the fighter is still better at hitting with it than the Paladin since he has class mechanics which make him more effective with weapons.
Paladins have spells which can make them more versatile at times. They can heal out of combat as well. That makes them a great class. However, they are aligment restricted and roleplay restricted in terms of their code. That's a major drawback in many campaigns.
Fighters are the gods of malleable concept.
When building one, remember you don't have to better than everyone else at hitting your enemy, you only have to be better than the enemy. Spend money to buff glaring weaknesses rather than mindlessly going for more hittiness (new word, I call dibs on its patent). Invest on weapons that give special abilities (bane vs evil or holy) but have low + mods, you don't need them to keep up like the pther classes do. Buy items that allow for flight or limited telporting if they become available, better still, something that hastes you without waiting for your mage friends to do this.
Fighters are no longer required to buy ever increasing amounts of gear to keep up with AC, it's built into the class to help with just that problem. Fighters are more complex to build well than most people give them credit for too, this sometimes comes across in gamelplay as a number of folk fall into the trap of bigger number to hit means better.
Oh, and Feat per level is king. Paladins get spells to help them cope with the lack of feats. Barbarians get rage powers for the same.
I think fighters are perfectly fine (so does my group). Your opinion may differ.
Fighters don't need to focus on increasing their attack bonus but they can't forgo their AC. They don't have enough in-class abilities to increase AC without getting magic items. I can make a fighter that can hit often without magic items but I can't make one that doesn't get hit. However, he does have enough hit points that he can go a couple of rounds and could win the fight, depending on the actual enemy.
|
|
@ bob,
Yep, AC can be a problem, but at high levels trying to keep up with AC becomes almost moot anyway. My guys try to get concealment effects instead if possible. Alot of it comes down to what the GM allows that way, but they are out there.
Also, build a more dextrous fighter and your AC increases nicely given the armour training ability. Make up for con loss by not getting hit as often.
All I'm saying is fighters can most afford to shop around now out of all the damage dealing classes. Feats and raw ability make up for the rest.
Cheers
|
If you bring archetypes into this fighters have allot of options to beef up their damage. The weapon master Archetype, two weapon fighter, and two handed fighter to name a few.
Of course with all the bonus feats the fighter can focus on maneuver feats, with a high enough AB and +s from weapon and maneuver feats the fighter can Trip, Disarm, Sunder ect... an enemy into uselessness. The fighter is versatile even if focused and specialized in a weapon will have enough extra feats to pull off an impressive array of combat stunts.
Not to take anything away from the paladin, their lay on hands, smite, Holy bond and spells certainly are an impressive trade off for a restrictive alignment and code of conduct.
If you bring archetypes into this fighters have allot of options to beef up their damage. The weapon master Archetype, two weapon fighter, and two handed fighter to name a few.
Of course with all the bonus feats the fighter can focus on maneuver feats, with a high enough AB and +s from weapon and maneuver feats the fighter can Trip, Disarm, Sunder ect... an enemy into uselessness. The fighter is versatile even if focused and specialized in a weapon will have enough extra feats to pull off an impressive array of combat stunts.
Not to take anything away from the paladin, their lay on hands, smite, Holy bond and spells certainly are an impressive trade off for a restrictive alignment and code of conduct.
On this very thread I posted the Fighter build I use - one of my favorite characters of all time for his ability to do things that no one else can... but he's still reliant on others to heal him, remove conditions and protect him from magic spells - the same others that the OP initially decried.
Also, for all the talk of equipment, we tend to play in a lower magic environment, without having items available for purchase, sale or trade like baseball cards... as such the builds become very important, and your character tends to rely on class features, rather than a wide array of magical crutches to make up for all they lack.
|
1. If the paladin's never getting a full attack off, neither is the flyer.
2. You never provoke attacks of opportunity from flying specifically. Even when you fail your fly check to remain hovering or after being attacked.
3. He can drink a potion of air walk instead.
Or maybe just use divine bond on his bow, getting at least as good a weapon (if not better) than the fighter who is switching to his backup bow.
Mercurial also posted a build which was to be compared to a melee heavy fighter. If a melee/ranged balanced fighter was posted, he probably would have put up a melee/ranged balanced paladin.
Paladins also have heavy roleplaying restrictions.
No. It's the other way around.
Their alignment restrictions make them really fun and challenging to play.
So what happens to the paladin if your GM says enough and throws a "neutral" creature at you? One of your biggest bonuses is now absolutely worthless. Big bonus to fighter. He doesn't change with his enemies. He affects everyone with strong consistent damage.
Can't even come close to saying that with paladin or ranger. It's tadaa! this guy is neutral. Congrats that good ol smites worthless
I love Fighters. Love 'em. Still, my Paladin outdamages them even against neutral foes if only by a little... but more importantly has swift self-heals which the Fighter doesn't, self-buffs which the Fighter doesn't, ridiculously high saves which the Fighter doesn't, the ability to custom make a magic weapon on the spot which the Fighter doesn't and the ability to continuously buff and protect my allies through auras as well as remove conditions, which the Fighter doesn't. All the while he's getting the same full BAB as the fighter, the same number of attacks per round, the same benefits from Power Attack and so on...
Its not a knock on the Fighter - along with Master Summoners I think that Oath of Vengeance Paladins are the strongest character options out there - but the Paladin's reliance on foes being evil is woefully over-stated.
+1
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AM NINJA AM RETURN
AM MOST VERSATILE MARTIAL
AM NINJA HAVE KI POOL, USE MAGIC DEVICE, QUICKENED GREATER INVISIBILITY, LOAD OF SKILLS SNEAK ATTACK AND HIDDEN MASTER.
AM NINJA TARGET FLAT FOOTED ARMOR CLASS WITH TWIN WAKAZASHI, MONSTER AM LOSE DEX, EVEN IF HAVE UNCANNY DODGE.
AM NINJA MAY NOT DEAL AS MUCH DAMAGE AS SECOND COUSIN AM BARBARIAN BUT AM NINJA AM UNDETECTABLE, HAVE LOAD OF SKILLS, ABLE TO DISSAPEAR ON A WHIM, AND KILL MOST FOES WITH TWIN AGILE WAKAZASHI.
AM NINJA ALWAYS HAVE UTILITARIAN SCROLL OR WAND FOR JOB
"Fighter Endurance" is a myth. They rely on spells to keep fighting, and need caster support constantly.
Removed some unhelpful posts. Please remember that other people do not have the same play style, group, or class preferences as you.
Dwarf Lore Warden.
Required feats/traits-
Glory of old+Steel Soul+Imp Unarmed Strike+.Kirin Style = +7 to saves vs spells
Blindfight+Combat Exp+Moonlight Stalker+Wpn Train+Know thy enemy+Gtr Weapon Fcs/Spl+ Gloves+Cloak of Displacement = +12 to hit/+14 to damage
Just as good as smite. Works all day, everyday.
Bit of a corner case. Only a dwarf gets that high a save bonus.
Still plenty of feats.
For the record I think paladin does offer more.
Why is this a thing? We've been over this. Everything that could be said has been said.
It's fun how in these "Fighters suck! Look how bad they suck compared to XXX!!!" threads, the other class is always up against an opponent or in a situation that allows them to maximize their special abilities. Not all bad guys are subject to Smite Evil, or are Favored Enemies, etc.
Except that, as people have been repeatedly pointed out already in this thread, even against non-evil enemies Paladins have more than enough secondary abilities to offset the fighter's higher base DPR. Divine Grace, Lay on Hands+Mercy, the Paladin's auras, spells, and Divine Bond all work perfectly well against non-evil opponents.
Likewise, the Ranger still has spells (including Instant Enemy, which eliminates the whole issue of not fighting your Favored Enemies), a high Reflex save and Evasion, Quarry, and an Animal Companion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter only sucks if you want to do more than just hit things, and do it well before special abilities kick in. Sometimes that is all people want. Now if you want spells, and skills etc...then you are better off with another class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the design goals behind the fighter and paladin are very different, so comparing the fighter with the paladin is like comparing apples to oranges. The fighter with it's bonus feats and lack of burst powers and emphasis on static bonus means the class is built for people who love customization. The paladin does have some customization, but it's not nearly as dynamic, instead he gets useful burst abilities, and perhaps more power in the right players hands. It's really hard to compare the two.
I always thought the fighter could use a little more in the way of raw power though, but let him do what he does best instead of loading him up with burst abilities.
In my current games, and most past games I have played, I have found that retreat and/or resting is usually, though of course not always, linked to our frontliners (and occasionally other characters, but most often the frontliners) having taken too much damage than to our wizards running out of spells. I have also found that when casters do run out of spells, many of those spells turn out to have been spent supporting the frontliners.
Does this mean the frontliners are useless? No. Does it in any way support the assertion that fighters will outlast wizards over the course of an adventuring day? Also no. In my experience, there is little truth in that assertion.
Maybe I am lucky and I have never been in groups that had at least open spell caster vs fighters problems. We have had issues where our fighter has refused to rest so the casters could get their spells back since we were running on empty and 2/3rds of the way done with the dungeon.
Sorry, i couldnt respond to some messages i saw because they were locked, so here is my 2 cents on why some people think fighters suck.
From levels 1-7, my fighter has outperformed every PC I've encountered (with the exception of a Ranger archer in certain situations), even with the 15 minute day. All I need basically is someone to use a wand of Infernal Healing between fights and I'm good to go.
I don't feel bad for fighters. Maybe they're not the most powerful class, but they're certainly not the weakest either.
RE: Resting every 3 encounters. Not all GMs / modules / scenarios allow this. Sometimes yes, mostly no. It's more of a problem with the GM.
It's fun how in these "Fighters suck! Look how bad they suck compared to XXX!!!" threads, the other class is always up against an opponent or in a situation that allows them to maximize their special abilities. Not all bad guys are subject to Smite Evil, or are Favored Enemies, etc.Except that, as people have been repeatedly pointed out already in this thread, even against non-evil enemies Paladins have more than enough secondary abilities to offset the fighter's higher base DPR. Divine Grace, Lay on Hands+Mercy, the Paladin's auras, spells, and Divine Bond all work perfectly well against non-evil opponents.
Likewise, the Ranger still has spells (including Instant Enemy, which eliminates the whole issue of not fighting your Favored Enemies), a high Reflex save and Evasion, Quarry, and an Animal Companion.
There's only so many times you can say a thing before it becomes clear that people are choosing to ignore it, I'm afraid.
In combat a Paladin minus his Smite ability is still > Fighter.
It's fun how in these "Fighters suck! Look how bad they suck compared to XXX!!!" threads, the other class is always up against an opponent or in a situation that allows them to maximize their special abilities. Not all bad guys are subject to Smite Evil, or are Favored Enemies, etc.Except that, as people have been repeatedly pointed out already in this thread, even against non-evil enemies Paladins have more than enough secondary abilities to offset the fighter's higher base DPR. Divine Grace, Lay on Hands+Mercy, the Paladin's auras, spells, and Divine Bond all work perfectly well against non-evil opponents.
Likewise, the Ranger still has spells (including Instant Enemy, which eliminates the whole issue of not fighting your Favored Enemies), a high Reflex save and Evasion, Quarry, and an Animal Companion.
There's only so many times you can say a thing before it becomes clear that people are choosing to ignore it, I'm afraid.
In combat a Paladin minus his Smite ability is still > Fighter.
This is possibly true, but it varies by game. I once had a paladin give me the most trouble because his mercies kept removing status affects. If a GM does not use debuffers than the paladin's healing abilities don't mean as much.