People don't play clerics like this, because it's not very fun for most people. People like to do damage. The life tank doesn't care about dealing damage. People like to feel danger. The life tank removes the danger from most encounters. And then there's just the fact that most people don't even consider doing things like this. They have a mindset that a healer needs to be protected, so it's counter-intuitive to take the healing and use it as tanking.
I mean, standard action healing in combat is generally inefficient in the sense of "you'll have to heal more in the long run if you spend your actions healing people instead of preventing the need for more healing (through violence)."
If you want to heal in combat, you really need to make some choices which make it vastly more efficient, notably the oradin who serves as an HP battery for the party with swift action self-healing, or the dual-life spirit guide oracle who has some other rider on their channel (fateful channel is rad).
So the cleric probably isn't even the best 9th level divine caster at "being tanky".
I never said the cleric made the best life tank. But they can certainly do it too, and they even have a few advantages over my favorite choice, which would be the double life spirit guide oracle. The cleric has the freedom of prepared divine spell casting, meaning he is still super versatile and useful outside of combat, where the oracle option is very limited in what spells he can know, while also pulling off the life tank role. The cleric also has some nice domain choices for this, and a better fort save than the other full casting options. But it does suffer a bit from not being as SAD, needing both wisdom and charisma, and it doesn't have the ridiculous number of channels the spirit guide can eventually get, but it really shouldn't ever need that many either. And while it'd be nice to have life link, that's mostly just a quality of life thing.
And combat channeling is better than usually theory-crafted, but in cases where things get tight, there is quick channel and reactive healing.
there is no comparaison between the paladin saves and anyone else saves.
This isn’t true.
Kineticist should have better fort and reflex saves
Most charisma casters with steadfast personality has better Will saves as does any wisdom based caster
Superstitious Barbarian with the human racial has better fort and Reflex saves and comparable will saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is no comparaison between the paladin saves and anyone else saves.This isn’t true.
Kineticist should have better fort and reflex saves
Most charisma casters with steadfast personality has better Will saves as does any wisdom based caster
Superstitious Barbarian with the human racial has better fort and Reflex saves and comparable will saves.
Kineticist will have better reflex, but the paladin's cha + con is as high if not higher than a kineticist's just con.
And his point is saves overall. Not that the paladin has THE BEST save in each save, but that his saves overall are the best. Like the paladin being 1 or 2 behind THE BEST save of these people often would have MUCH better fort and reflex saves than the caster.
Superstitious barb is the only thing that also can claim that and is comparable to the paladin's saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kineticist's will save always made me sorta nervous, iron will is probably more essential for the class than toughness. Even the wis-based Kineticist tanks its will save *hard* (in lieu of burn).
Kineticist's will save always made me sorta nervous, iron will is probably more essential for the class than toughness. Even the wis-based Kineticist tanks its will save *hard* (in lieu of burn).
I can build up the will save to a decent with some effort- usually using half elves. But yes, I would only view them as tanks against melee damage. Not a full tank.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kineticist will have better reflex, but the paladin's cha + con is as high if not higher than a kineticist's just con.there is no comparaison between the paladin saves and anyone else saves.This isn’t true.
Kineticist should have better fort and reflex saves
Most charisma casters with steadfast personality has better Will saves as does any wisdom based caster
Superstitious Barbarian with the human racial has better fort and Reflex saves and comparable will saves.
Paladin probably starts with 12-14 con and 14-16 Cha
Let’s say 14 and 15 with one level up bonus, so 14 and 16 with belt and headband and their base they should have 23.A kineticts should start with 16-18 con and with 2 or 3 level up investments,
Mine had 17 and I was aiming for 3 so let’s go with that. Add a belt and a Elemental overflow and you have 22 or 23 depending on if you put the 6 in Dex or con.
So they’re the same functionally the same in terms of con with typical investment. If the kineticts decides to pump con, or the Paladin pump Cha it could go either way.
And his point is saves overall.
really? Cause I thought his point was
there is no comparaison between the paladin saves and anyone else saves.
given that is literally what he said.
So I thought I’d take the opportunity to point out that this is in fact a myth.
Also add to my former list chained monks, who should have better will and reflex than paladins and still decent fort saves.
Not that the paladin has THE BEST save in each save, but that his saves overall are the best. Like the paladin being 1 or 2 behind THE BEST save of these people often would have MUCH better fort and reflex saves than the caster.Superstitious barb is the only thing that also can claim that and is comparable to the paladin's saves.
Chained Monk should have comparable saves with much higher Dex, comparable will and lower but still high fort.
And the superstitious bards aren’t comparable they’re better.
Barb really should be aiming for 16 con before belt as a minimum
And Dex probably in the 14-16 range (for this lets say 14)
Wis probably 10-12 (for this lets say 12)
Put next to our Paladin from earlier, say he has 12 Dex since he’s likely in heavy Armor and wouldn’t benefit from more, and 12 wis because he is already pretty mad given his main stat is Str.
Bard with 12 from superstition + base + stat + 4 to will and fort for mighty rage.
Paladin is base + stat + charisma
So the barbs save vs the paladins is is
Fort: 34 vs 23
Ref: 23 vs 16
Will: 26 vs 22
They’re not comparable, the Barbarian is just untouchable.
Ehhh, tankiness is hard to quantify in Pathfinder as there aren´t very solid "taunt" or other control mechanics outside of spells, and you usually don´t want to be casting those on the "frontline".
The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.
In a vaccum: Paladin is the tankier/tougher than Cleric.
In reality well, Paladin is the better tank. Watch as it attracts all the Hate. Hate from monsters, evil NPCs, good NPCs, other players and even DMs.
I wouldn't expect it to survive the hate so Cleric or Warpriest. Reach Fighter maybe due to all the feats you could get.
|
@Chromantic Durgon
You are misrepresenting the numbers for your argument. Or perhaps more accurately you are cherry-picking specific situations and stats to suit your purposes, without doing the same for the Paladin.
Sure, a superstitous barbarian has decent saves. Sometimes. And if you play with a DM that lets you get away with 15 minute adventuring days, it is up often. But you also allocated class and stat choices towards having good saves, without doing the same for the Paladin.
And the same with monk. You picked options for the purpose of increasing saves, but again.. compared them to a apaladin who was not trying to increase saves.
Simply put... the default Paladin has better overall saves than either the Monk or the Barbarian. Because by default, most Paladin do prioritize charisma.
Now, yes, a save optimized member of another class can match them. Until said Paladin also chooses to save optimize.
|
|
Ehhh, tankiness is hard to quantify in Pathfinder as there aren´t very solid "taunt" or other control mechanics outside of spells, and you usually don´t want to be casting those on the "frontline".The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.
‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.
People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.
‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.
People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.
That's totaly true, but today, only the old players remember this... and it's quite hard to explain the newest players that there is, in fact, no tank in that game.
Yeah, DrDeth, a young newbie like you should listen to us veterans who remember the game as it was way back in the 90s. ;)
@Chromantic Durgon
You are misrepresenting the numbers for your argument. Or perhaps more accurately you are cherry-picking specific situations and stats to suit your purposes, without doing the same for the Paladin.
Nope, I actually gave the Paladin a more generous PB
14 con =5
15 Cha =7 +1 racial
12 wis =2
12 Dex =2
Total 16 before mai stat vs
15 con =7 +1 racial
12 wis =2
14 dex =5
Total of 14 before main stat, and Paladin has more incentive to invest in Int than a barb does to invest in Cha or int
Sure, a superstitous barbarian has decent saves.
the best in the game
Sometimes.
that Barbarian has 48 rounds of rage.
I did make a mistake though as I don’t think it stacks with their basic will bonus so his will save is actually the same as the Paladin
And if you play with a DM that lets you get away with 15 minute adventuring days, it is up often. But you also allocated class and stat choices towards having good saves, without doing the same for the Paladin.
Avearge fight 4 rounds, so that barb has 12 average fights in him.
Paladin is more likely to run out of smites and lay on hands
And the same with monk. You picked options for the purpose of increasing saves, but again.. compared them to a apaladin who was not trying to increase saves.
Given I picked literally no options for the monk I’m gonna go ahead and I assume you didn’t actually bother to properly read my post.
I picked superstition for the barb because I was making the point the Paladin isn’t actually god of saves superstition barb is and superstition is basically a god rage power that most people auto pick.
Simply put... the default Paladin has better overall saves than either the Monk or the Barbarian. Because by default, most Paladin do prioritize charisma.
I used the standard Paladin stat distribution
Any higher charisma investment and the Paladin is just gonna suck at actually killing things
Now, yes, a save optimized member of another class can match them. Until said Paladin also chooses to save optimize.
Superstition barb isn’t a super optimiser choice, it’s one rage power which is picked as a standard. The only way the Paladin could further optimise is by sinking feats into saves which the barb can do or over investing in charisma in which case they still have inferior reflex and fort saves and mildly superior will saves.
Paladin probably starts with 12-14 con and 14-16 Cha...
My paladins are usually Cha20 with headband by 4th CL, and I can't fathom why any player in their right mind would settle for less if they had a choice.
...I'm going to have to dust off my old halfling rogue/paladin one of these days and rebuild him with all the new stuff. Evasion and +7 to all saves (before cloak) was pretty slick.
What a weird game where you include a Level 18+ Barbarian w/ Superstitious yet don't include any boosted stats, despite the fact that even inherent boosts should be easy to come by at this level. Superstitious Barbarian scales with level. Paladin scales with stats.
Also, do note that Superstitious does nothing against Extraordinary abilities, or anything else non-magical in nature. You'd be surprised how many of those exist.In comparison, Divine Grace works on everything.
Plus, I have a personal fondness for Enlightened Paladins, and they can easily get ludicrously high saves.
But I honestly think that the winner of the "Saves War" is actually the Inquisitor. Mostly because they're one of the only classes to get Stalwart, allowing you to negate a myriad of "Fort/Will Partial" spells.
Like Blasphemy when cast by someone with a Caster Level higher than your HD + 5, which still paralyzes you for one round even if you make the save. Unless you're an Inquisitor.
Paladin probably starts with 12-14 con and 14-16 Cha...My paladins are usually Cha20 with headband by 4th CL, and I can't fathom why any player in their right mind would settle for less if they had a choice.
...I'm going to have to dust off my old halfling rogue/paladin one of these days and rebuild him with all the new stuff. Evasion and +7 to all saves (before cloak) was pretty slick.
Show me your 20 point buy for your paladin then. When the paladin also needs strength for attack and constitution for tanking, then they don't exactly have a ton of points left over for their charisma.
So for CL 4 is that level 8 so presumably a +4 headband?
So pre racial you had 14 Cha? Or 12-13 with Level Investment
So the low end of the point buy range I suggested? Or the high end with a +2 headband
What a weird game where you include a Level 18+ Barbarian w/ Superstitious yet don't include any boosted stats, despite the fact that even inherent boosts should be easy to come by at this level. Superstitious Barbarian scales with level. Paladin scales with stats.
I did include headbands and belts in all the calculations.
Also, do note that Superstitious does nothing against Extraordinary abilities, or anything else non-magical in nature. You'd be surprised how many of those exist.In comparison, Divine Grace works on everything.
True in those cases Barbs have comparable fort and ref but worse will.
Plus, I have a personal fondness for Enlightened Paladins, and they can easily get ludicrously high saves.
at no point was the poster I replied to making explicit or from what I am aware implicit reference to that archetype.
But I honestly think that the winner of the "Saves War" is actually the Inquisitor. Mostly because they're one of the only classes to get Stalwart, allowing you to negate a myriad of "Fort/Will Partial" spells.
Interesting, there is also some bloodragers builds which are flat immune to a lot of things.
Id say spiritualists are the king of will saves.
I explained why earlier: the "tank" is a role that only exist when there is a rely mechanic of aggro management in the combat system.
Pathfinder doesn't have one.
The term "tank" was used for a type of character long before a role. A tank is a character that can take a lot of enemy fire without being destroyed - like the armored vehicle it's named after.
Yes, a tank is useless in a party if he can't somehow make enemies attack him rather then his teammates, but it's still a tank.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't "tank" harken back to the pre-D&D wargaming days in which someone might say a thing that is hard to bring down is "like a tank" (because these game sometimes included actual miniature tanks).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Original RPG definition of tank: someone who can survive a lot of attacks.
Post-WoW definition of tank: someone who can survive a lot of attacks and also stop allies from being attacked.
It was unclear which the OP meant.
Sorry, I do not get your point here...
Does it change anything to my statement that the tank -role- never truly existed in pathfinder from the very beggining?
It sort of depends on what you mean by "role". Like, a mithral waffle iron is an item you could buy, and you can have max ranks in "Profession (Chef)" and take skill focus in it, so you can make a character who is really amazing at making waffles. If anything comes up for which waffles are the answer, you're golden.
But it's not especially likely that this is going to be a big asset to the party, so the question is really about "is a tank/defender an important part of a party" and the answer is really "Maybe, it depends on what the rest of the party does, what the campaign is, and how well you can do it".
It's sort of not productive to think of party composition as "filling a number of set roles that are needed" since lots of weird parties do fine. But the rule of thumb is that unless you're committing to something hyperefficient (like the dual-life oracle) you don't want to sacrifice offense for defense, but you'll still need quite a bit of the latter to survive on the frontline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you think than wondering if the OP used a definition outdated since 1999 (because it changed during Everquest, not WoW) is a bit far-stretched?
Nope:
Indeed when I say tankiness, I do refer to survivability.
Any time there's a five-foot-wide corridor or doorway, you can be an effective tank.
Chuck on an Enlarge Person and use Trip as AoO on any intelligent humanoid who tries to run past you to attack the squishier party members; now you can be a fairly effective tank even in a 30 foot corridor.
Show me your 20 point buy for your paladin then. When the paladin also needs strength for attack and constitution for tanking, then they don't exactly have a ton of points left over for their charisma.Paladin probably starts with 12-14 con and 14-16 Cha...My paladins are usually Cha20 with headband by 4th CL, and I can't fathom why any player in their right mind would settle for less if they had a choice.
...I'm going to have to dust off my old halfling rogue/paladin one of these days and rebuild him with all the new stuff. Evasion and +7 to all saves (before cloak) was pretty slick.
halfling, 20pt 15,14,14,14,12,7 array
str- 12
dex+ 16
con 14
int 12
wis 7
cha+ 17
The 15 is racially bumped, then becomes 18 at 4th, in time for the headband bringing it to 20. -- Not bad for only 7 point-buy into the stat.
I played him in the early days of PFS before most of the recent splats; he had two levels of rogue multiclassed in. UMD'd mage armor and longstrider off wands. At 4th, as a p2/r2, his Will saves was +8 (3 from paladin, 1 from halfling, 1 from cloak, 5 from charisma, -2 from wisdom), fort save was +12, and reflex was +13, also with Evasion. Lots of skills, typical face-rogue stuff, low-level charging w/lance on a dog, or going afoot doing stabbystabby w/TWF+Piranha Strike.
He did quite well, even thought I completely forgot -- over his entire career -- that Pathfinder paladins double their level bonus to Smite damage versus evil outsiders, dragons, and undead. (Hello, Derp; a clueless halfling is here to see you.) With the Cha deflection bonus to AC on a smite, it was tough for BBEGs to connect, and almost impossible if I went full-defense.
Ultimately I think this comes down to what do you view the "Role" of a tank as being? So let me add some more the the couple of definitions we have floating around. Is it:
1) One who runs up and gets in the middle of a fight and distracts enemies while other party members are primary damage dealers? Typically this can involve dealing damage yourself and in my experience is the typical way people "tank" in TTRPGs. It amounts to - person willing to take damage / willing to deal with status effects.
2) Disruptive to the point where enemy can't ignore you (ala MOBAs such as LoL). These tanks "might" have a "taunt" ability but typically provide so much crowd control that it is hard / impossible to ignore them. In order to survive, they build for health and damage resistance. They also allow your damage dealers to focus their fire on a designated enemy (typically their glass cannon damage dealers) and then supports clean up efforts after primary dangers are eliminated. Typically their damage potential is negligible but still adds up while the enemy is unable to act.
3) MMO PvE tanks who use "taunt" skills to acquire the wrath of enemies who proceed to dumbly beat on the health and damage reduction stick. Fights are won based on who dies first, the tank or the monster as non-tanky characters fold like a wet napkin if targeted.
4) MMO PvP tanks (usually taunt mechanics are disabled in PvP in my experience) build similarly to a MOBA tank where they sacrifice some damage for survivability. They then get in the face of enemies in an effort to get people to fight the thing that is in front of them first. Smarter players ignore them if they don't pack disruption abilities. This is how I personally view a "tank"
5) Mobile, hard-to-kill, artillery (ala an Abrams M1A2). While slow moving compared to other vehicles, these machines can pack a punch in enemy defenses. As such, they get targeted by the enemy so pack on some armor to protect them. I personally view this as a spell-casting focused cleric (or oracle) that spends a feat on Heavy armor and maybe some others on saves.
Depending on your party, almost all classes can be built for the specific purpose of a tank that you have. Reach clerics/warpriests mixed with bad touch provide great disruption, especially if improved trips or dirty tricks are involved. Paladins can be very disruptive but more importantly have great AC, Saves, and Self-heals. Barbarians make for great hard-hitting, hard-to-kill front-line tanks.
|
|
Almost all Paladin characters I know tend to start with 17 or 19 charisma, because it’s a Paladin’s defining stat. Always has been. Maybe not the most optimizing stat, but the defining stat.
Claiming paladins need to optimize strength to be effective is just that... optimizing. 14 str is more than enough for a melee Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ehhh, tankiness is hard to quantify in Pathfinder as there aren´t very solid "taunt" or other control mechanics outside of spells, and you usually don´t want to be casting those on the "frontline".The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.
People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.
Nope, we were using Tank back in 1st Ad days, in fact one Fighter Dwarf was named "Sherman" as he was such a great tank. Tank was common nomenclature out here.
You should check my profile, I come in very very early in D&D history.
That's totaly true, but today, only the old players remember this... and it's quite hard to explain the newest players that there is, in fact, no tank in that game.‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.
People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.
You dont get much "older" than me, and yes, we used "tank" back in the 1970's.
The term "Tank" cames in D&D before WoW. It means to be able to absorb damage, not taunt.‘Tank’ in D&D is a very new term. It came from online MUDs, and was popularized with the advent of Everquest. It was never actually a D&D term.
People almost never used the term tank in D&D until long after 3rd edition had come out. If you asked someone pre-2005 or so, the term that was used was simply ‘front-liner’ or the like.
That's totaly true, but today, only the old players remember this... and it's quite hard to explain the newest players that there is, in fact, no tank in that game.Yeah, DrDeth, a young newbie like you should listen to us veterans who remember the game as it was way back in the 90s. ;)
LOL!!
Matthew knows who I am, clearly! ;-)
I'd say Paladin. That it's defense is so innately good, it can spend it's resources (Money and feats) on offense. And tanks need great defense, with good offense.
There's also smite. It can, quite easily, trivialize boss encounters. When a Paladin's in the party, it's usually in the back of everyone's mind, "Phew, we have him to protect us from seriously dangerous stuff." Protect, being the operative word there. A tank is usually what a team's offense is structured around, and squishier members rely on that tank being there not dying and relentlessly attacking. For a BBEG, you want to be closer to a Paladin's (Insert AoE buff here) while he's beating the enemy with righteous fury.
Speaking of AoE buffs, most of what makes a Paladin amazing is that it's strongest abilities don't interfere with action economy, meaning they're free to position and attack without having to slowly shift into top gear like most buffing melee do, not that that's not a great idea, but even spell swords could use a good tank to give them a second to get set up (Such as the cleric).
That makes it the best tank to me. Well, an argument can be made for the Fighter, but I don't need another "Fighter debate" caused migraine in my life.
Cleric simply can't compete with the Paladin saves, I understand. But the ability to re-roll a save as an immediate action (as is the case with the Fate subdomain, Borrow Fortune spell) in the clutch, is a godsend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Activating smite is a swift action too - not even the paladin can follow Moonheart's plan.
That said a cleric can, sort of. The contingent spell feat allows for no-action healing, and quicken spell lets a cleric buff as a swift action. It's not terribly efficient but it is possible.
You dont get much "older" than me, and yes, we used "tank" back in the 1970's.
LOL So it's an old off is it... Let me blow off my blackmoor pamphlet and make up a hobbit. If you have the greyhawk supplement 1, you can have a paladin. ;)
You dont get much "older" than me, and yes, we used "tank" back in the 1970's.LOL So it's an old off is it... Let me blow off my blackmoor pamphlet and make up a hobbit. If you have the greyhawk supplement 1, you can have a paladin. ;)
We don't do that there newfangled blackmoor stuff, yew got yer 3 Volume set and you like it. Get off my lawn! :-)
I invented the Thief class. "Old" enuf for you? ;-)
To chime in on the paladin saves discussion
Meh... The paladin already won this one.
Get off my lawn! :-)
You know my chainmail figures and my crate of dice hurt when thrown [and make fine improvised caltrops]. Now come closer so I don't throw out my back when I toss them. :P
I invented the Thief class. "Old" enuf for you? ;-)
I remember when chainmail didn't have spells or a thief! Or when chainmail was LGTSA medieval miniatures rules. [bonus points if you know off hand what LGTSA means! ;)
Paladin based on this all on its lonesome.
Activating smite is a swift action too - not even the paladin can follow Moonheart's plan.
That said a cleric can, sort of. The contingent spell feat allows for no-action healing, and quicken spell lets a cleric buff as a swift action. It's not terribly efficient but it is possible.
It's important to note that a typical Paladin is two handed power attacker, meaning the rest of their feats may be dedicated to Lay On Hands, and oath of vengeance makes it the strongest build I can think of that takes that mane Extra X feats.
Smite being a swift action isn't even bad. It's the first thing you do for whatever you want very dead very soon, and after that one swift action, I can't think of anything in class a Paladin needs for their swift action.
Cleric also struggles to keep pace with damage. Less Bab means worse aim and damage, which can be remedied within spells, but that's, say, two spells. If two standard spells, then the Pally is already ahead since it's smite, then smash. Even with quicken, that's a swift action a Paladin of Vengeance uses on smite, and tho a cleric may be able to buff to make up for the damage and accuracy of a base Paladin, but nothing really compares to a Smiting Paladin in melee (Where a tank is supposed to be at all times).