PDA

View Full Version : Fighter vs cleric (pathfinder)



Prax4788
2010-07-23, 01:40 AM
In my game today i was playing my cleric and i noticed that i wasnt having fun at all

after talking about what i will be playing next i mention i had a lot more fun with the fighter than i did with the cleric at which my dm snapped at me saying " they play exacly the game except cleric is beter in every way"

with fighter having the ability to me a master of his items and the long feat list i found them to be a fun and unique class depending on the style of the player

has anyone had any input in this and if they do in fact play the same and i just missed something ?

and also is they cleric really better than the fighter ?

Prax4788
2010-07-23, 01:49 AM
Any one fighter vs cleric ?

Dracons
2010-07-23, 01:50 AM
Only a few spells allow the cleric to have the exact attack bonus as a fighter, the exact same list of feats, and higher strength and con, even if they are low base.

Yeah, they are based on time frame, but most of the time, you'll be able to plow through all the encounters for the day with time to spare, only to repeat it the next.

In my opinion though?

Play the fighter if you want. Yeah, cleric can be better, but if your happy with the fighter, then be the fighter and let the DM know oyu have more fun with fighter then cleric.


EDIT:

Dude.... you only posted ten minutes ago. Give people freaking time to respond. Not everyone is up uber late prowing these boards.

Prax4788
2010-07-23, 01:53 AM
sounds like a good way to go

he was treating my choice to play a fighter like I was choosing a bard for a main caster

Harperfan7
2010-07-23, 01:57 AM
Some of us are up uber early, though.

And he's a pixie, chill.

Yeah, if you want to play a fighter, do it. (Honestly, I'd do it just to piss off that DM of yours)

Prax4788
2010-07-23, 02:02 AM
to tell u the truth in the end i decided to build a monk who throws shuriken's

nyjastul69
2010-07-23, 02:08 AM
In the long run casters are simply more powerful. Power does not equal fun. If you enjoy playing a fighter, have at it. I play in a game where one of the players just wants to tank-up and whack things with a stick. I suggested ToB to her, but I don't think she liked the flavor. If the other players are playing a standard D&D game it'll be some time before you're left behind.

Prax4788
2010-07-23, 02:28 AM
The game is core pathfinder with little feats from other books

faceroll
2010-07-23, 04:07 AM
A lot of the bread and butter cleric spells last minutes or rounds, which means that you only get to do it a few times a day, and you've got to spend a lot of time putting spells up to be as good as the fighter. As soon as the fighter's turn comes up, he's going to be laying down hurt. The cleric will have to spend a standard action or two to cast divine righteous cheese or whatever.

Eldan
2010-07-23, 05:30 AM
To explain a little more:

With spells like Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm) and a few follow-ups and other buffs, the cleric can easily beat the crap out of a fighter of equal level and, apart from that, has way more abilities which are useful out of combat. You can have higher stats, better weapons, better armour, can be bigger and have the same base attack as the fighter if you are willing to spend the spells on it.

However, as others have said:
Play what you think is fun. The wizard and druid might be the most powerful classes by a wide margin, especially in core only, but that doesn't mean that everyone wants to play them.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-23, 11:05 AM
Yeah, Clerics are leagues ahead of fighters in both power and versatility. Check out the Tier System (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=3im4cod1fa3mf81allaa9h3ed7&topic=5293.0) for more info.

As others have said though, play what you want. Especially for beginners (which I am assuming, correct me if I'm wrong), Clerics are a lot to handle, preparing from a ridiculously large list of spells and whatnot. Playing a fighter might not be a bad idea, just to until you get a better grasp of the rules, or are more familiar with the game.

Caphi
2010-07-23, 11:10 AM
1) They do not play exactly the same. This is a lie. The battle cleric maintains a list of auras that enable him to fight.

2) The battle cleric is more powerful than the fighter.

3) More powerful and better are two subtly different things, provided you define "better" in terms of your personal enjoyment.

Play the fighter if you will have more fun doing it. It probably won't kill you.

Now that I've said that, I'd like to point out that the barbarian does do the same job as a fighter but better, in the sense of "flip out and charge the baddies while having lots of HP", and also have rage, skill points, and a few other nice things.

Gnaeus
2010-07-23, 12:05 PM
Now that I've said that, I'd like to point out that the barbarian does do the same job as a fighter but better, in the sense of "flip out and charge the baddies while having lots of HP", and also have rage, skill points, and a few other nice things.

In 3.5 I agree. In core pathfinder, where the fighter gets bonuses to armor and weapon use and the barbarian gets the strange 4+con mod rounds of frenzy/day, I'm really not sure. The barbarian is still more flexible, but I bet the fighter wins more fights. (Results vary by exact level, weapon, the rage powers picked by the barbarian and whether the fighter has a high enough dex to benefit from the higher AC granted by his armor mastery).

shadmere
2010-07-23, 03:00 PM
The cleric is potentially stronger, but that's irrelevant if you don't like playing a cleric. Someone who doesn't like playing a cleric probably won't play a cleric very well, whereas they'd play a fighter they enjoyed much better.

Kind of weird if your DM actually snapped at you, too, IMO. DMs disallowing a class for balance is one thing, but there's a place where it becomes weird and overbearing.

tyckspoon
2010-07-23, 03:20 PM
In 3.5 I agree. In core pathfinder, where the fighter gets bonuses to armor and weapon use and the barbarian gets the strange 4+con mod rounds of frenzy/day, I'm really not sure. The barbarian is still more flexible, but I bet the fighter wins more fights. (Results vary by exact level, weapon, the rage powers picked by the barbarian and whether the fighter has a high enough dex to benefit from the higher AC granted by his armor mastery).

Barbarian starts higher and scales a little faster, thanks to higher Rage bonus and a few really useful low-level rage powers, but caps quicker because a lot of the Rage powers are just really lame after you've picked the good ones (Scent, the bite attack, the one that lets you take an AoO against somebody entering your threat zone, maybe the Acrobatics one if you're using 3.5 material alongside and can combine it with Leap Attack.) Fighter is better if you're playing a long game or starting at higher levels, when you can bring the greater weight of feats to bear (mind, I think the Pathfinder feats are still pretty lame, but they're a bit better than the 3.5 core selection for a fighter.) Of course, both are still much improved by dipping the other; a majority Fighter or Barbarian with 2-4 levels of the other class will be better off than single-classing either.

Gnaeus
2010-07-23, 04:19 PM
Barbarian starts higher and scales a little faster, thanks to higher Rage bonus and a few really useful low-level rage powers, but caps quicker because a lot of the Rage powers are just really lame after you've picked the good ones (Scent, the bite attack, the one that lets you take an AoO against somebody entering your threat zone, maybe the Acrobatics one if you're using 3.5 material alongside and can combine it with Leap Attack.) Fighter is better if you're playing a long game or starting at higher levels, when you can bring the greater weight of feats to bear (mind, I think the Pathfinder feats are still pretty lame, but they're a bit better than the 3.5 core selection for a fighter.) Of course, both are still much improved by dipping the other; a majority Fighter or Barbarian with 2-4 levels of the other class will be better off than single-classing either.

I don't think it is as clear as that. Few of the barbarian powers are really combat winners, and a straight +1 to hit, damage and AC at level 5 help all day long. It is much easier for fighters to present a credible second threat with ranged attacks (although the bite ability helps the Barbarian grapple).

Admittedly, the barbarian does have more utility than the fighter, but for a day full of combat, I think fighter often comes out better.

And yes, dipping almost always helps muggles.

Paul H
2010-07-23, 07:33 PM
Hi

Why not just play both?

Holy Warrior (PF Chronicles Pg 43) has D10 HP/lvl, Ftr BAB, Cleric spells/progression, but NO Domains (spells or powers). But you still Channel Energy. You also gain proficiency with your God's favoured weapon.

Now you CAN have your cake (and most other people's) and eat it! :smallbiggrin:

Cheers
Paul H

Mojo_Rat
2010-07-23, 09:01 PM
My experiende in Pathfinder doesnt seem to suggest Clerics nececarily can simply replace fighters any more. PF fighters can be pretty amazing in their damage dealing and fun to play.

Dont really think either class plays remotely the same though.

Paul H
2010-07-23, 09:53 PM
Hi

It's simpler to just play what you're used to.

I love/play/got decades of experience playing spellcasters of one sort or another. Any time I get to play a new system, I look out for spellcasters, so I can just concentrate on the game mechanics. Eg. If the party needs a Tank, then its Dwarf Cleric time.

PF Fighters are more powerful, but so is everything else.

But each to their own.

Thanks
Paul H

Dusk Eclipse
2010-07-23, 10:00 PM
@^: actually even core fighters in 3.5 mcan deal ridiculus amount of damage, nevermind when you get stuff like leap attack, shock trooper etc.

HunterOfJello
2010-07-23, 10:12 PM
Holy Warrior (PF Chronicles Pg 43) has D10 HP/lvl, Ftr BAB, Cleric spells/progression, but NO Domains (spells or powers). But you still Channel Energy. You also gain proficiency with your God's favoured weapon.



This.

~

Also, there's always multiclassing and prestige classing. Cleric dips are great and Fighter dips are equally also great.

If you like playing a Cleric and like playing a Fighter, find a way to mix it together so that you can have your cake, eat it and then smack your enemies if the face with it too.

Clerics are great because their casting isn't limited by anything that would stop them from working as effective Fighters. Wizards and Sorceres get spell failure and Druids get the no-metal armor rules, but Clerics get off with spellcasting scott-free.

Check out hybrid classes like the suggested Holy Warrior or Prestige classes that would boost your BAB, maybe give you some bonus feats and allow you to do mostly full casting.

Prax4788
2010-07-23, 10:42 PM
Yeah, Clerics are leagues ahead of fighters in both power and versatility. Check out the Tier System (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=3im4cod1fa3mf81allaa9h3ed7&topic=5293.0) for more info.

As others have said though, play what you want. Especially for beginners (which I am assuming, correct me if I'm wrong), Clerics are a lot to handle, preparing from a ridiculously large list of spells and whatnot. Playing a fighter might not be a bad idea, just to until you get a better grasp of the rules, or are more familiar with the game.

I'm far from a new player. But your point stands all the same

Stephen_E
2010-07-24, 04:40 AM
I emphasise the point others have made that in PF the Cleric=Fighter but better doesn't really apply in PF.
I suspect your DM is used to 3.5 and has readjusted his assumptions.

One of the major dents in that is that The Fighter gets the feats that he can easily set up to use Combat Manuvers, and the Combat Manuvers are easier to play and less likely to bit you back.

It's still true that a Battle Cleric is more powerful than a Fighter, but he isn't the same as a Fighter, and a Fighter can do combat options that the Cleric simply won't have available to him (disarm the evil cleric of her uber-weapon flicking it back for someone lese to grab and then trip her and give your allies an AOO. And if things go south run off and sell the bad guys uberweapon for lots of cash (done some of that with a simple 6th level Fighter :-) ).

But I will stress that if you want a Fighter that isn't a pale imitation of a Battle Cleric invest in at least 1 and preferably 2+ Combat Manuver types. Complimentry prereqs recommended, so Disarm and Trip work together well. IIRC Bull Rush/Over Run and Bull Rush/Shield Fighting work together well, although the latter requires good Dex.

Stephen E

faceroll
2010-07-24, 05:29 AM
To explain a little more:

With spells like Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm) and a few follow-ups and other buffs, the cleric can easily beat the crap out of a fighter of equal level and, apart from that, has way more abilities which are useful out of combat. You can have higher stats, better weapons, better armour, can be bigger and have the same base attack as the fighter if you are willing to spend the spells on it.

Not just spells, but actions. The best spells last minutes or rounds/level, and a DM can easily construct encounters such that you can only be as good or better than a fighter for a handful of them.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-24, 06:12 AM
Nitpick: Battle Cleric is from a Golarion product for 3.5 (campaing setting IIRC).

Technicallt, is NOT pathfinder. Moreover developers said that 9 level spell + full BAB all day is a bad idea and will not happen again in the future.

OP, I'm DMing a Pathfinder Core Only one-shot these days (last session yesterday). A friend of mine is playing a fighter 12 that is FOR COMBAT, a powerhouse. Of course does not heal or summons or flame strikes, but for the concept he wanted, a smart warrior that perfectly controls battlefield around him, works pretty well.

He took the Combat Expertise/Disarm/Trip, Power Attack/Bullrush, and Shield Slam/Shieldmaster tiers of feats mostly, BTW.

A not on the barbarian: in PF most people say that has been nerfed, and it's true that few rage powers are uninspiring.

Said this remember that fighter has several good statical bonuses, but Barbarian is "Mr Exploit". Barbarian has occasional explosions of physical prowess that are memorable. And uncanny dodge, along with defensive rage owers, make him more protected, exspecially from magic.

This time the adventure was an escape from a orcs and goblins fortress. Fighter struggled to find his specialized weapons (even if weapon groups helped). A barbarian rages and has bonuses even with a chair.

This time, for the first part, the real OP character was the monk :smallbiggrin:

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-24, 10:57 AM
I emphasise the point others have made that in PF the Cleric=Fighter but better doesn't really apply in PF.
I suspect your DM is used to 3.5 and has readjusted his assumptions.
I suspect you need to re-asses your assumptions about what actually changed in PF. Not much. The Tier System is still about the same, at least in relation to Fighters and Clerics.



One of the major dents in that is that The Fighter gets the feats that he can easily set up to use Combat Manuvers, and the Combat Manuvers are easier to play and less likely to bit you back.

The problem with this is that you actually need to invest more feats into combat maneuvers to make them worthwhile, when they weren't all that good in the first place. Tripping, the only really good one, now eats your AoOs so you can't hit them again when they get back up, and costs 2 feats!


It's still true that a Battle Cleric is more powerful than a Fighter, but he isn't the same as a Fighter, and a Fighter can do combat options that the Cleric simply won't have available to him (disarm the evil cleric of her uber-weapon flicking it back for someone lese to grab and then trip her and give your allies an AOO. And if things go south run off and sell the bad guys uberweapon for lots of cash (done some of that with a simple 6th level Fighter :-) ).
Why doesn't the Cleric have these options available to him? Because he's got better ones. Disarming isn't that great for a few reasons:
1: Nothing is stopping opponents from being smart and carrying more than 1 weapon.
2: Is simply doesn't work against a ton of enemies.
3: You spent your action on the possibility of doing something rather ineffectual. What does the Cleric do when you disarm him? He curses your ass and takes it right back, if he doesn't just conjure a new one, or pull out an ordinary mace and smash your face in.


But I will stress that if you want a Fighter that isn't a pale imitation of a Battle Cleric invest in at least 1 and preferably 2+ Combat Manuver types. Complimentry prereqs recommended, so Disarm and Trip work together well. IIRC Bull Rush/Over Run and Bull Rush/Shield Fighting work together well, although the latter requires good Dex.
You know all of those lovely combat feats you keep talking about? Clerics can get them too. They just have better things to spend their feats on. Combat Maneuvers other than trip, and sometimes disarm are complete jank that you should never spend 2-3 feats on.


Stephen E
So, Stephen E, could you tell what actually improved about the fighter in PF? Because Combat Maneuvers actually got worse.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-24, 12:48 PM
Tinydwarfman, I'm sorry, but

Combat Maneuvers Worse in PF = FALSE.

1) You don't need more feats. Basic feats are enough, and the secondary ones are a must only in the case of Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush. The latter is less mandatory tough, and Greater Trip causes AOO from every member of the party, as long as summoned monsters and cohorts. Can be VERY nasty if used smart.

2) Every bonus to hit add to CMB. This lead to play smart, seek for feints, flanks, stay at 30 feet from the bard and the like. If one don't like it, just play an archer or a two-hander with vital strike and critical feats.


Vs the cleric, you use disarm or sunder on his holy symbol.And, at least in my games, is hard be always buffed. Cleric buffs are great but, barring cheese, you can't keep up all the day.

The fighter has more static bonuses in PF. If added to the right weapons, come up to a +20% or greater chance to perform the maneuvers. And old tricks like wizard casting on you enlarge person works.

Yeah, the cleric has feats too. But in the reasoning of a level advancement, you take the maneuvers feats slower.

Finally, remember what I said aboove about battle cleric.

Of course, clerics are strong in general. But, 'til now, FOR THE MERE COMBAT fighter is more than playabel. YMMV, of course.

Nero24200
2010-07-24, 01:48 PM
Tinydwarfman, I'm sorry, but

Combat Maneuvers Worse in PF = FALSE.

1) You don't need more feats. Basic feats are enough, and the secondary ones are a must only in the case of Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush. The latter is less mandatory tough, and Greater Trip causes AOO from every member of the party, as long as summoned monsters and cohorts. Can be VERY nasty if used smart. Actually, Paizo even admitted they wanted combat manuvers played down, to the point that players would only use them if either they are either A) Heavily invested in or B)In a dire situation where only that manuver would work.

Saying "the latter is less mandatory" isn't strictly true. If you want to be good at tripping, no AOO's and a +2 bonus isn't really going to work. I'll use tripping since thats a good example.

PrePF - One feat allows you to ignore AOO, grants a +4 bonus to attempts and allows a free attack upon success.
AfterPF - Two feats are needed to ignore AOO and gain the +4 bonus, as well as the extra attack (though is should be noted, in PF the attack is treated as an AOO, so in taking it you use up your AOO for the turn).

You don't need to look hard to see that tripping was better in 3.5


2) Every bonus to hit add to CMB. This lead to play smart, seek for feints, flanks, stay at 30 feet from the bard and the like. If one don't like it, just play an archer or a two-hander with vital strike and critical feats. Considering alot of manuvers in 3.5 required attack rolls (like trip, sunder etc), gaining those bonuses would have been helpful for 3.5 characters. Nothing has really changed there.


Vs the cleric, you use disarm or sunder on his holy symbol.And, at least in my games, is hard be always buffed. Cleric buffs are great but, barring cheese, you can't keep up all the day. Firstly, a cleric's holy sumbol could be anything. I once played a divine character with his holy symbols tatooed on his hands, as well as being featured on his sheild. If you're good enough to chop limbs off and smash full suits of armour and sheilds, you don't really need to go for the holy symbol.

Also, all day buffs are overrated. I played in plenty of games and there has never been a shortage of "game days" where only a few combats are encountered (less than the recommended 4 a day). It should noted that some of these were Pathfinder adventure paths, but also modules produced by others as well such as the Sunless Citadel which, whilst features more encounters, doesn't impose a time limit and many of the encounters are close, allowing short-term buffs to last multiple fights. So less fights per day doesn't seem like too much of a novalty - which means short-term buffs are alot more powerful than origonally intended.

Besides, no class can go all day unless your fighters are avoiding every single attack made and never losing any hit points.


Finally, remember what I said aboove about battle cleric.

Of course, clerics are strong in general. But, 'til now, FOR THE MERE COMBAT fighter is more than playabel. YMMV, of course.
Personally, I feel these two sentences contradict each other. Lets look at the battle cleric....Full BAB, D10 Hit Dice, Two Good Saves, Up to 9th level spells at the same rate wizards gain spells (I.E second level spells at 3rd level, third level spells at 5th level etc). I don't see how the battle cleric can be less effective in combat that the fighter.

The 3.5 fighter was overshadowed easily by the cleric just using spells to gain full BAB. In PF, using the warrior cleric, clerics can gain even higher bonuses, especially since alot of the spells were changed from "You gain BAB equal to your level" to "You gain a bonus per X levels", which should stack with the warrior varient.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-24, 02:16 PM
Tinydwarfman, I'm sorry, but

Combat Maneuvers Worse in PF = FALSE.

1) You don't need more feats. Basic feats are enough, and the secondary ones are a must only in the case of Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush. The latter is less mandatory tough, and Greater Trip causes AOO from every member of the party, as long as summoned monsters and cohorts. Can be VERY nasty if used smart.

1: This doesn't change the fact that what you used to get for free, you now need to pay an extra feat for. I don't know how that doesn't qualify as weaker. Also, the AoO is actually a bad thing. Realtively few people can afford to take Combat Reflexes, and if you don't, you can only make one attack against the tripped enemy, where you could normally always make 2.


2) Every bonus to hit add to CMB. This lead to play smart, seek for feints, flanks, stay at 30 feet from the bard and the like. If one don't like it, just play an archer or a two-hander with vital strike and critical feats.
CMB/D is a great change, it simplifies and encourages smart play, but it's not a increase in power for the fighter


Vs the cleric, you use disarm or sunder on his holy symbol.And, at least in my games, is hard be always buffed. Cleric buffs are great but, barring cheese, you can't keep up all the day.
So... you stop his ability to turn/channel?

But yes, DMM is great, but the cleric is still tier 1 without it. A cleric only needs 1 turn to become just as good, if not better than a fighter. And in many fights, you will have a turn to get ready, or close with the enemy.


The fighter has more static bonuses in PF. If added to the right weapons, come up to a +20% or greater chance to perform the maneuvers. And old tricks like wizard casting on you enlarge person works.

These bonuses are very minor, and only marginally better than Weapon Focus. At 5th, the fighter has +1 to attack and damage, and at 9th they get +2. A 9th level Cleric quickens Divine Favor to get +3 to attack and damage. Big whoop.


Yeah, the cleric has feats too. But in the reasoning of a level advancement, you take the maneuvers feats slower.

Finally, remember what I said aboove about battle cleric.

Of course, clerics are strong in general. But, 'til now, FOR THE MERE COMBAT fighter is more than playabel. YMMV, of course.

But why do I want to take maneuver feats? I'd rather take stuff like Extend, or Quicken.

Also, of course anything is playable, a CW samurai is 'playable', but a cleric is far stronger in combat than a fighter.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-24, 02:20 PM
Actually, Paizo even admitted they wanted combat manuvers played down, to the point that players would only use them if either they are either A) Heavily invested in or B)In a dire situation where only that manuver would work.

How much must is to have "invested heavily"? 2 feats?



Saying "the latter is less mandatory" isn't strictly true. If you want to be good at tripping, no AOO's and a +2 bonus isn't really going to work. I'll use tripping since thats a good example.

PrePF - One feat allows you to ignore AOO, grants a +4 bonus to attempts and allows a free attack upon success.
AfterPF - Two feats are needed to ignore AOO and gain the +4 bonus, as well as the extra attack (though is should be noted, in PF the attack is treated as an AOO, so in taking it you use up your AOO for the turn).


+4 on an opposed roll. If you ask me, the feat could be merged and be fine, but +4 in 3.5 and +4 in PF is not the same things for maneuvers (see below).




You don't need to look hard to see that tripping was better in 3.5

Considering alot of manuvers in 3.5 required attack rolls (like trip, sunder etc), gaining those bonuses would have been helpful for 3.5 characters. Nothing has really changed there.


Sorry, but this is not correct. In 3.5, there was a touch attack followed by an opposed roll. It was WAY more easy to land the touch attack (barring exceptions, but high touch AC is less common). The +2 from the bard was not relevant. Tha point was win the OPPOSED ROLL. FAAR more difficult to pimp, unless you call Person_Man to the rescue.

In Pathfinder, there is ONE roll. An size matters less. And every bonus to attack matter. The flank matters. the bard matters. If you land it, you tripped. Yes, the second featfor the AOO is lame, but if well played with the group, is far mor destructive.



Firstly, a cleric's holy sumbol could be anything. I once played a divine character with his holy symbols tatooed on his hands, as well as being featured on his sheild. If you're good enough to chop limbs off and smash full suits of armour and sheilds, you don't really need to go for the holy symbol.


Core rulebook states prices and material of holy symbols among adventuring gear. Since, indeed, an holy symbol tatoo is very cool, I'd go with a sunder attempt to tear off that part of skin from your hands. :smallbiggrin:



Also, all day buffs are overrated. I played in plenty of games and there has never been a shortage of "game days" where only a few combats are encountered (less than the recommended 4 a day). It should noted that some of these were Pathfinder adventure paths, but also modules produced by others as well such as the Sunless Citadel which, whilst features more encounters, doesn't impose a time limit and many of the encounters are close, allowing short-term buffs to last multiple fights. So less fights per day doesn't seem like too much of a novalty - which means short-term buffs are alot more powerful than origonally intended.


Sometimes, at least in my games, you have not time to buff, or the fact that meleers gain time before heavy artillery opesn fire (or starts BF control) is part of the fun. And bufss can be dispelled.



Besides, no class can go all day unless your fighters are avoiding every single attack made and never losing any hit points.


This makes it unworthy to be played? Or makes his maneuvers less effective?I ask.



Personally, I feel these two sentences contradict each other. Lets look at the battle cleric....Full BAB, D10 Hit Dice, Two Good Saves, Up to 9th level spells at the same rate wizards gain spells (I.E second level spells at 3rd level, third level spells at 5th level etc). I don't see how the battle cleric can be less effective in combat that the fighter.


I was pointing out what said in post #25. Designers created Battle Cleric before rulebook and then said that in true pathfinder they would avoid full BAB +full castin. I was simply suggesting to carefully consider these lines before allow the battle cleric in a game. (Even if does not mean that the cleric is weak, see below).



The 3.5 fighter was overshadowed easily by the cleric just using spells to gain full BAB. In PF, using the warrior cleric, clerics can gain even higher bonuses, especially since alot of the spells were changed from "You gain BAB equal to your level" to "You gain a bonus per X levels", which should stack with the warrior varient.

I simply said that Fighter is worthy to be played, exspecially if a player, you know, wants to play it. I find weird that a DM disallow a fighter to make you play a full caster (unless such DM reads internet D&D forums too much).

Some people want simply swing a sword. OF course the cleric is a powerhouse, and is higher tier because does more and diverse things. BUt if the OP wants to play a fighter, let him play a freaking fighter, please.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-24, 02:38 PM
1: This doesn't change the fact that what you used to get for free, you now need to pay an extra feat for. I don't know how that doesn't qualify as weaker. Also, the AoO is actually a bad thing. Realtively few people can afford to take Combat Reflexes, and if you don't, you can only make one attack against the tripped enemy, where you could normally always make 2.


Few people? Few clerics maybe. Combat reflexes is a prereq for standstill, too. Fighter have class skills that encourage high dex score. even tripper in 3.5 took combat reflexes. Yeah, I'd prefer several feats merged in 3.5 or PF, but say that is not usable is way, way, way too much.



CMB/D is a great change, it simplifies and encourages smart play, but it's not a increase in power for the fighter

Is an increas in playability (see my post above) if you know what are you doing. if not, barbarian says hello. And actually, not even this, barbarian is not so straightforward anymore in PF.



So... you stop his ability to turn/channel?


Did you know that several divine spells have a divine spell focus?



But yes, DMM is great, but the cleric is still tier 1 without it. A cleric only needs 1 turn to become just as good, if not better than a fighter. And in many fights, you will have a turn to get ready, or close with the enemy.


None claims cleric is weak. But say that you shouldn't play a fighter insted is insulting. And again, buff time, availability and so on are very overrated. At least in my game where - funny thing - things work. Maybe is my gamestyle not so caster friendly, who knows.



These bonuses are very minor, and only marginally better than Weapon Focus. At 5th, the fighter has +1 to attack and damage, and at 9th they get +2. A 9th level Cleric quickens Divine Favor to get +3 to attack and damage. Big whoop.


A spell you have to cast, barring DMM. And again, nobody says that cleric is weak - I was only showing why ban a fighter is a bad idea. And see above about what PAIZO ITSELF said of battle cleric.



But why do I want to take maneuver feats? I'd rather take stuff like Extend, or Quicken.


Because maneuvers are fun? At least for me and maybe the OP, if wants to play a fighter. If I want a play a dude that casts spells, I play sorcerer. I want to play a good combatant that casts spells too, I play a cleric. But If I don't like the idea of spellcasting, PLEASE, let me play a fighter. Didn't found the original thread, but here (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/downWithGishThreadsLongLiveTheMagus) you can find a discussion on a hypotethical class and a poster remembering the declared mistake.



Also, of course anything is playable, a CW samurai is 'playable', but a cleric is far stronger in combat than a fighter.

Yeah, assuming ready buffs, cating time, DMM cheese (if allowed), assuming a lot of things people assume as standard rules before complaing about how the system is broken.

I'm sick of all of this. have fun with 4th edition

Wings of Peace
2010-07-24, 03:19 PM
If your dm is worried about power play a UA generic Warrior instead :)

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-24, 03:55 PM
Few people? Few clerics maybe. Combat reflexes is a prereq for standstill, too. Fighter have class skills that encourage high dex score. even tripper in 3.5 took combat reflexes. Yeah, I'd prefer several feats merged in 3.5 or PF, but say that is not usable is way, way, way too much.
Yes, but how many people in your party are going to take Combat Reflexes apart from you? I'm just saying, the AoO was not an upgrade.


Is an increas in playability (see my post above) if you know what are you doing. if not, barbarian says hello. And actually, not even this, barbarian is not so straightforward anymore in PF.
That's not the issue at hand though. I agree it's a good change, but again, it's not an increase in power, which is what this is all about.


Did you know that several divine spells have a divine spell focus?
Many, but not all. And really, what cleric only carries one holy symbol of his god? It's just thematically strange not to have more.


None claims cleric is weak. But say that you shouldn't play a fighter insted is insulting. And again, buff time, availability and so on are very overrated. At least in my game where - funny thing - things work. Maybe is my gamestyle not so caster friendly, who knows.
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, back up now. I never said that you shouldn't play a fighter, I actually suggested doing so. I'm just refuting your claim that the fighter can do things better than the cleric.

And what do you mean "things work" in your game? Because people have run the numbers that show how worth it it is to spend a round buffing.


A spell you have to cast, barring DMM. And again, nobody says that cleric is weak - I was only showing why ban a fighter is a bad idea. And see above about what PAIZO ITSELF said of battle cleric.
A spell you cast as a swift action. That does not hinder your ability to do other stuff. I also said that banning fighters was a bad idea, we are in agreement there.


Because maneuvers are fun? At least for me and maybe the OP, if wants to play a fighter. If I want a play a dude that casts spells, I play sorcerer. I want to play a good combatant that casts spells too, I play a cleric. But If I don't like the idea of spellcasting, PLEASE, let me play a fighter. Didn't found the original thread, but here (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/downWithGishThreadsLongLiveTheMagus) you can find a discussion on a hypotethical class and a poster remembering the declared mistake.

Again, I never said that anyone should not play the class they want to play. I am just saying that no matter how much you may like fighters, cleric can do pretty much anything fighters can, but better. Play a fighter if you like fighters, or better yet, a Warblade, but Clerics are the stronger melee combatants.


Yeah, assuming ready buffs, cating time, DMM cheese (if allowed), assuming a lot of things people assume as standard rules before complaing about how the system is broken.

I'm sick of all of this. have fun with 4th edition

Huh, funny thing, you know what the Tier System was based off of? Tons of real people, playing the exact same game, noticing the same things. No TO here, just facts.

Stephen_E
2010-07-24, 11:02 PM
Sorry I didn't realise there was an actual class "Battle Cleric".

When I referred to battle cleric I was talking about a stock Cleric designed to be a Fighter primarily.

Clerics don't have as many feats as a Fighter and don't get the various abilities that boost the Fighters CMB.

As has been pointed out, while the trip feats have been changed, which is often misunderstood as powered down because they are weaker if you try and play them as the old tripper, the CMB/D system has actually made CMBs more effective.

PF has actaully made Bull Rush and Overrun usable combat manuvers.

I'm aware that the designers didn't appear to intend this, but thankfully the designers aren't particully good at getting the rules to do what they intend.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2010-07-24, 11:26 PM
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, back up now. I never said that you shouldn't play a fighter, I actually suggested doing so. I'm just refuting your claim that the fighter can do things better than the cleric.

And they can. Combat Manuvers.


Again, I never said that anyone should not play the class they want to play. I am just saying that no matter how much you may like fighters, cleric can do pretty much anything fighters can, but better. Play a fighter if you like fighters, or better yet, a Warblade, but Clerics are the stronger melee combatants.

And in PF they aren't stronger melee characters.

They are more Powerful, assuming they get there buffs up, but that doesn't make them stronger melee characters. The Fighter with the bonuses they get that work with their Combat Manuvers, which they get the feats to take advantage of, have more flexibility and need no prepping. This makes them as strong or stronger at melee as a Cleric that specalise in melee battle.

As for Disarming an opponent. Sure they can pull out a backup NON-MAGICAL Weapon from their pack. I'd rather be fighting the bad guy with him having a lower to hit, damage and no funky abilities. And you are right, hordes of mooks make Disarm fairly useless. Fine, you chop the Mooks down. The fighter's strength is that he doesn't do just 1 thing for all situations.

Tripping - Your allies get an AOO on your tripping the person.
With luck the opponent may not still be around to to standup on it's turn.
PF is much more about working in a group abilities. Not a bad thing in my opinion. The Fighter gives his Fighting Cleric friend an extra hit with his trip, at a +4 to hit. Yes it uses the guys AOO but lets be honest. Most characters end a round with their AOO unused, so having a member who gives you the opportunity to use your AOO as a matter of course is advantageos.




Huh, funny thing, you know what the Tier System was based off of? Tons of real people, playing the exact same game, noticing the same things. No TO here, just facts.

Which since no one has disputed that Cleric are generally more powerful than Fighters, which is ALL the Tier system say, this is rather irrelevant.

Stephen E

Mojo_Rat
2010-07-24, 11:44 PM
My current group is doing Second Darkness Ap and is currently up to level 8.

Our Dwarf Fighter Dual Wielding has 4 attacks and i think a 30 ac unbuffed think he said buffed fighting defensively he has like a 36 or 38 Ac.

While some stuff can hit him its usualy only 'boss monsters' that are even a remote threat to him

there is no way in a million years that our Cleric could replace him.

Ultimately Clerics can make good melee combatants but it isnt their Job to replace the fighter and they shouldnt Try to.

The other thing i find odd about hese comparisons and ultimately one of the flaws in DND when its discusse dont eh boards is Its a group Game none of these discussins ever talk about what fighters ar elike Buffed but what the cleric is like buffed

A Buffed Fighter is a think of Beauty and Far exeeds a cleric in my opinon when it comes to raw combat.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-25, 09:14 AM
And they can. Combat Manuvers.

Yes, they can have more combat maneuvers than a cleric, but combat maneuvers are bad! 90% of the time, you are better off just full-attacking!


And in PF they aren't stronger melee characters.

They are more Powerful, assuming they get there buffs up, but that doesn't make them stronger melee characters. The Fighter with the bonuses they get that work with their Combat Manuvers, which they get the feats to take advantage of, have more flexibility and need no prepping. This makes them as strong or stronger at melee as a Cleric that specalise in melee battle.
And again, bonuses to combat maneuvers really don't matter! Even with all of those (actually very small) bonuses, a fighter is still better just full-attacking. The only thing a fighter can really do well is Chain Tripping, but oh wait, Spiked Chain got nerf-batted in PF!



As for Disarming an opponent. Sure they can pull out a backup NON-MAGICAL Weapon from their pack. I'd rather be fighting the bad guy with him having a lower to hit, damage and no funky abilities. And you are right, hordes of mooks make Disarm fairly useless. Fine, you chop the Mooks down. The fighter's strength is that he doesn't do just 1 thing for all situations.
Yes, but what you fail to realize if that you wasted your turn doing it! You've contributed nothing to ending the fight, just given him a minor debuff. An equivalent level caster would have done worse to a group of enemies. A caster, like say, a Cleric. So the cleric is better at debuffing. And for hordes of Mooks? Cleric does it just as well.


Tripping - Your allies get an AOO on your tripping the person.
With luck the opponent may not still be around to to standup on it's turn.
PF is much more about working in a group abilities. Not a bad thing in my opinion. The Fighter gives his Fighting Cleric friend an extra hit with his trip, at a +4 to hit. Yes it uses the guys AOO but lets be honest. Most characters end a round with their AOO unused, so having a member who gives you the opportunity to use your AOO as a matter of course is advantageos.
But my point is that is the PCs can hit the enemy when he falls, they should be able to smack him when he gets up, and are actually more likely to, since they can position themselves next to him. So it's not better or worse in PF, just different. Except for the fact that is costs 2 feats of course.


Which since no one has disputed that Cleric are generally more powerful than Fighters, which is ALL the Tier system say, this is rather irrelevant.

Stephen E
No, the tier system says that the cleric surpasses the fighter in every aspect of the game. He is better socially, solving puzzles, travelling, and in combat.


My current group is doing Second Darkness Ap and is currently up to level 8.

Our Dwarf Fighter Dual Wielding has 4 attacks and i think a 30 ac unbuffed think he said buffed fighting defensively he has like a 36 or 38 Ac.

While some stuff can hit him its usualy only 'boss monsters' that are even a remote threat to him

there is no way in a million years that our Cleric could replace him.
/scoff. You want AC? Here's some AC.

Dex (+2)
Bracers of Armor (+4)
Magic Vestment (+2)
Monk's Belt (+7)
Animated Shield (+3)

That's already 30, and I haven't even added any trinkets, buffs, or fighting defensively. Fully buffed and fighting defensively (that is, with 2 rounds to buff using first level spells) is AC 40, without any ranks in tumble. And he can still wield a two-handed weapon, so his damage output is higher. And it gets exponentially better as he levels.


Ultimately Clerics can make good melee combatants but it isnt their Job to replace the fighter and they shouldnt Try to.

The other thing i find odd about hese comparisons and ultimately one of the flaws in DND when its discusse dont eh boards is Its a group Game none of these discussins ever talk about what fighters ar elike Buffed but what the cleric is like buffed

A Buffed Fighter is a think of Beauty and Far exeeds a cleric in my opinon when it comes to raw combat.

1: why shouldn't a cleric fight melee?
2: Maybe because it's the cleric's only class ability to get buffs?
3: In many cases it is more efficient to buff a fighter, but I'd much rather have 2 clerics than a cleric and a fighter. Clerics are just as good buffing platforms.

Gametime
2010-07-25, 10:32 AM
But my point is that is the PCs can hit the enemy when he falls, they should be able to smack him when he gets up, and are actually more likely to, since they can position themselves next to him. So it's not better or worse in PF, just different. Except for the fact that is costs 2 feats of course.


Costing two feats in Pathfinder isn't quite as bad as it seems, since you do get more feats overall. It's still a nerf - you spend 20% of your feats on tripping instead of 14%, 18% from 12.5% if you're human - but it's not as big a nerf as it first appears.



/scoff. You want AC? Here's some AC.

Dex (+2)
Bracers of Armor (+4)
Magic Vestment (+2)
Monk's Belt (+7)
Animated Shield (+3)


Monk's Belt doesn't grant wisdom-to-AC in Pathfinder. Unarmored clerics are (marginally) less good than before.

Really, though, the issue isn't whether combat maneuvers are good. Sometimes they're useful (especially against humanoid foes); often they're useless. Properly used, they're nice to have. But this is all combat. We all agree that, one way or another, the fighter can fight.

The reason Clerics are better than Fighters is that their spells allow them to do so much more than fight, from heal to argue to defend to transport. Even without supplementary 3.5 spells (which, admittedly, contain most of the spells that allow decent skillmonkeying from a non-Cloistered Cleric), Clerics just do more.

But, as has already been said, which class is more powerful really shouldn't factor into which one you play so much as which class you enjoy more. Go nuts with the fighter. Unless your DM is running a particularly hard game or a non-combat-oriented game, you'll do fine and have a blast.

Stephen_E
2010-07-25, 11:05 AM
Yes, they can have more combat maneuvers than a cleric, but combat maneuvers are bad! 90% of the time, you are better off just full-attacking!

And you are showing a total lack of understanding of Combat manuvers.
They are Battlefield control. They are strong not because they are the best thing to use, but because when used correctly at the right time they are Hugely superior to just hitting the enemy. And this is aside from your ignoring that they can be used instead of a single attack, and can be used against enemies with ACs so high that you struggle to hit them. Because Combat Manuvers generally don't requiore a to hit roll. Not to mention that they can be used with true strike.


And again, bonuses to combat maneuvers really don't matter! Even with all of those (actually very small) bonuses, a fighter is still better just full-attacking. The only thing a fighter can really do well is Chain Tripping, but oh wait, Spiked Chain got nerf-batted in PF!

And again you show a considerable lack of knowledge regarding the subject.
And by the way you can happily replace the Spiked Chain with the Heavy Flail and Lunge.


(me) Quote:
As for Disarming an opponent. Sure they can pull out a backup NON-MAGICAL Weapon from their pack. I'd rather be fighting the bad guy with him having a lower to hit, damage and no funky abilities. And you are right, hordes of mooks make Disarm fairly useless. Fine, you chop the Mooks down. The fighter's strength is that he doesn't do just 1 thing for all situations.


Yes, but what you fail to realize if that you wasted your turn doing it! You've contributed nothing to ending the fight, just given him a minor debuff. An equivalent level caster would have done worse to a group of enemies. A caster, like say, a Cleric. So the cleric is better at debuffing. And for hordes of Mooks? Cleric does it just as well.

Gee, when a Wizard does a "you suck" action it's strong and awesome, but when a fighter does it, it's "You've contributed nothing to ending the fight". I'm glad that you are fair and balanced in your viewing of Fighters.:smalltongue:
And yes, Clerics are as good for Mook masses. Whopeedoo. If fighting mooks is your idea of what you design characters to do I think I'll happily avoid your games. Not my taste.

And your seemingly deliberate obtusness is tempting me to be rude.
No one other than you is comparing a full caster acting as a full caster with a Fighter. We all know that Full Casters have abilities beyond a Fighter.


But my point is that is the PCs can hit the enemy when he falls, they should be able to smack him when he gets up, and are actually more likely to, since they can position themselves next to him. So it's not better or worse in PF, just different. Except for the fact that is costs 2 feats of course.

I've seen to many ways the GM can avoid the AOO for standing up. Getting a hit starigh away may remove the enemy straigh away. Of course with a Tripper in the party then it becomes sensible for those with decent Dex to take Combat reflexes. It's called coperative party building. Rather than each person building their PC in isolation or competition with the other PCs.:smallwink:


No, the tier system says that the cleric surpasses the fighter in every aspect of the game. He is better socially, solving puzzles, travelling, and in combat.

That is not what the tier system does. The tier system is simply a generic rating of the overall power of different classes. That's it!



scoff. You want AC? Here's some AC.

Dex (+2)
Bracers of Armor (+4)
Magic Vestment (+2)
Monk's Belt (+7)
Animated Shield (+3)

You can't use Bracers of AC and Magic Vestments. They both give an Armour bonus. The Magic Vestments treat clothing as giving an armour bonus of 0, which is a value. So you get Baracer of AC (+4) or Magic Vestment AC0 with +2 enhancement (+2). Not both.

Monks Belt doesn't exist in PF. Instead it' Robe, Monks, and doesn't add the Wisdom bonus to AC, so tough luck.

Basically as you are showing repeatedly you have the arguments down pat for 3.5. But the situation has changed some for PF.

I don't know if you have played Pathfinder, but if you have I suggest you do so some more and try exploring options you had previously written of under 3.5. You may well find that things work differently enough that "This is so" is no longer true.

Also I suggest you check stuff in the PF rules before claiming things are so based on 3.5 rules.

Stephen E

Powerfamiliar
2010-07-25, 11:28 AM
I'm currently DMing a PF only game at the moment with a cleric and a fighter. If you go with PF core only it is very very difficult for a cleric to replace a fighter. He might still be more powerful because full casting does give him much more versatility than a fighter. But I see no way a PF cleric can out fighter a fighter like they could in 3.5. When it comes to hitting things Barb/Pal/Ftr will outdo the cleric in PF core, hopefully that won't change with the new book.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-25, 11:50 AM
And you are showing a total lack of understanding of Combat manuvers.
They are Battlefield control. They are strong not because they are the best thing to use, but because when used correctly at the right time they are Hugely superior to just hitting the enemy. And this is aside from your ignoring that they can be used instead of a single attack, and can be used against enemies with ACs so high that you struggle to hit them. Because Combat Manuvers generally don't requiore a to hit roll. Not to mention that they can be used with true strike.

No, I understand what they are, I'm just saying they're bad battlefield control. If the upside of a fighter is that they can use maneuvers for BC, then they do it poorly because they are outclassed by every other form of BC.


And again you show a considerable lack of knowledge regarding the subject.
And by the way you can happily replace the Spiked Chain with the Heavy Flail and Lunge.
Lunge only gives you reach during your turn. The real reason you want reach is for the threatened squares. It doesn't even compare.


Gee, when a Wizard does a "you suck" action it's strong and awesome, but when a fighter does it, it's "You've contributed nothing to ending the fight". I'm glad that you are fair and balanced in your viewing of Fighters.:smalltongue:
No, a wizard's you suck action is strong and awesome because it actually diasbles the enemy! The fighter does not. Nothing a fighter has can compare to stinking cloud.


And yes, Clerics are as good for Mook masses. Whopeedoo. If fighting mooks is your idea of what you design characters to do I think I'll happily avoid your games. Not my taste.
Um, you were the one who brought up fighting mooks. I was just saying that fighters don't have any advantage there.


And your seemingly deliberate obtusness is tempting me to be rude.
No one other than you is comparing a full caster acting as a full caster with a Fighter. We all know that Full Casters have abilities beyond a Fighter.
Huh, I was under the impression you went past rude a few posts ago. :smallamused:

But really, why should you just ignore the capabilities of a cleric? Just because he kills enemies with spells doesn't make him any less of a melee combatant. It just means he can do more than just whack things.



I've seen to many ways the GM can avoid the AOO for standing up. Getting a hit starigh away may remove the enemy straigh away. Of course with a Tripper in the party then it becomes sensible for those with decent Dex to take Combat reflexes. It's called coperative party building. Rather than each person building their PC in isolation or competition with the other PCs.:smallwink:
Hmm, I do like your not so subtle allusions to me not being a team player. Very nice. But really, I already said that it's not a nerf, just different. And actually, how does the GM avoid the AoO getting up? (serious here) It's a +5 DC and a full round action to roll. I've tried to get out of it myself, and found myself wishing I had bought an Anklet of Translocation.


That is not what the tier system does. The tier system is simply a generic rating of the overall power of different classes. That's it!

Huh. You might appreciate this quote.


Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
Note the bolded line.


You can't use Bracers of AC and Magic Vestments. They both give an Armour bonus. The Magic Vestments treat clothing as giving an armour bonus of 0, which is a value. So you get Baracer of AC (+4) or Magic Vestment AC0 with +2 enhancement (+2). Not both.
Actually it's an enhancement bonus, so they do stack, otherwise there would be no point in ever enchanting armor.

You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).



Monks Belt doesn't exist in PF. Instead it' Robe, Monks, and doesn't add the Wisdom bonus to AC, so tough luck.
Yeah, my bad on that. Just looked it up. Still, you could do almost the same with armor, you'd just have worse maneuverability. A cleric ca still get much better AC.


Basically as you are showing repeatedly you have the arguments down pat for 3.5. But the situation has changed some for PF.
Not really. Like I said, PF changed very little about the base pf the game.


I don't know if you have played Pathfinder, but if you have I suggest you do so some more and try exploring options you had previously written of under 3.5. You may well find that things work differently enough that "This is so" is no longer true.

Also I suggest you check stuff in the PF rules before claiming things are so based on 3.5 rules.

Stephen E

Apart from the Monk's Belt mistake, what did I get wrong? :smallconfused: You're concentrating on one point and making that justification for your allegations that I don't know the PF rules. And yes, I have and am currently in a PF game. It's an improvement, but not a big one.

Powerfamiliar
2010-07-25, 12:12 PM
Yeah, my bad on that. Just looked it up. Still, you could do almost the same with armor, you'd just have worse maneuverability. A cleric ca still get much better AC.

I don't really see this one. A cleric and a fighter have pretty much the same tools available. A cleric can do it cheaper with magic vestment, but I don't really see how he can get it higher.

From your own example:


Dex (+2)
Bracers of Armor (+4)
Magic Vestment (+2)
Monk's Belt (+7)
Animated Shield (+3)


If you do replace the belt with armor you're left with:
Dex (+2)
Armor +6 (Best medium armor) or +9 if you use a feat for proficiency
Magic Vestment (+2)
Animated Shield (+3)

Vs

Dex (+2)
Armor (+12) (+1 Full plate)
Animated Shield (+3) (hard to afford for lvl 8, but your cleric had it)

That's 23 AC vs 27 AC, or 26 vs 27 is the cleric uses a feat in prof. The fighter spent 2k gp more on armor than the cleric. There's really not that many other ways for the cleric to buff his AC that the fighter doesn't also have access to.

Mojo_Rat
2010-07-25, 12:13 PM
/scoff. You want AC? Here's some AC.

Dex (+2)
Bracers of Armor (+4)
Magic Vestment (+2)
Monk's Belt (+7)
Animated Shield (+3)

That's already 30, and I haven't even added any trinkets, buffs, or fighting defensively. Fully buffed and fighting defensively (that is, with 2 rounds to buff using first level spells) is AC 40, without any ranks in tumble. And he can still wield a two-handed weapon, so his damage output is higher. And it gets exponentially better as he levels.
buffing platforms.

Other players have adressed this Mostly the items dont work like they useto.
Your example above also slightly exceeds wealth by level for level 8 but. obviously its possibe



1: why shouldn't a cleric fight melee?
2: Maybe because it's the cleric's only class ability to get buffs?
3: In many cases it is more efficient to buff a fighter, but I'd much rather have 2 clerics than a cleric and a fighter. Clerics are just as good buffing platforms.

1) Never said they should not

2)See thats your flaw there its not a clerics only class ability to get buffs. And other classes Can Buff they can buff the fighter they can also buff the cleric and alot of Cleric Buffs are easily obtainable in potions like shield of faith prot from evil etc.

3)That sounds like a personal play prefernce than the issue at hand

Really Two classes can do something similar and they dont have to replace Eachother Clerics are a great class with alot of Versitility. But they cant nore do they need to replace the fighter.


PF's fighter is in my view an amazing damage machine or Tank as needed or battlefield control master. The stuff they added like Armor mastery makes mid to high end fighters extremely strong.

The level 8 fighter i mentioned in my previus example is moving about in Mithril full plate +1 and an 18 dex and i think with armor mastry he has room still for more dex bonuses

Slightly off of the Fighter vs cleric vein though is that PF's skill rule mean you could make a Fighter whos not super awesome but good enough to be fun at non combat stuff while still being a pretty good melee combatant. This makes the class alot more fun than it was in 3.5 alone.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-25, 12:17 PM
I don't really see this one. A cleric and a fighter have pretty much the same tools available. A cleric can do it cheaper with magic vestment, but I don't really see how he can get it higher.

From your own example:


If you do replace the belt with armor you're left with:
Dex (+2)
Armor +6 (Best medium armor) or +9 if you use a feat for proficiency
Magic Vestment (+2)
Animated Shield (+3)

Vs

Dex (+2)
Armor (+12) (+1 Full plate)
Animated Shield (+3) (hard to afford for lvl 8, but your cleric had it)

That's 23 AC vs 27 AC, or 26 vs 27 is the cleric uses a feat in prof. The fighter spent 2k gp more on armor than the cleric. There's really not that many other ways for the cleric to buff his AC that the fighter doesn't also have access to.

My point was that however a fighter gets AC, a cleric can do as well, and then they can buff themselves. I don't see how a Cleric can have lower AC.


Other players have adressed this Mostly the items dont work like they useto.
Your example above also slightly exceeds wealth by level for level 8 but. obviously its possibe



1) Never said they should not

2)See thats your flaw there its not a clerics only class ability to get buffs. And other classes Can Buff they can buff the fighter they can also buff the cleric and alot of Cleric Buffs are easily obtainable in potions like shield of faith prot from evil etc.

3)That sounds like a personal play prefernce than the issue at hand

Really Two classes can do something similar and they dont have to replace Eachother Clerics are a great class with alot of Versitility. But they cant nore do they need to replace the fighter.


PF's fighter is in my view an amazing damage machine or Tank as needed or battlefield control master. The stuff they added like Armor mastery makes mid to high end fighters extremely strong.

The level 8 fighter i mentioned in my previus example is moving about in Mithril full plate +1 and an 18 dex and i think with armor mastry he has room still for more dex bonuses

Slightly off of the Fighter vs cleric vein though is that PF's skill rule mean you could make a Fighter whos not super awesome but good enough to be fun at non combat stuff while still being a pretty good melee combatant. This makes the class alot more fun than it was in 3.5 alone.

Yeah, I agree the fighter is better than before. It's probably tier 4 now, with Weapon and Armor Mastery.

Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't play a fighter, but what exactly has changed that has made the fighter so much better in PF? If you admit that the Cleric was better in 3.5, what has changed to make the fighter better?

Powerfamiliar
2010-07-25, 12:44 PM
My point was that however a fighter gets AC, a cleric can do as well, and then they can buff themselves. I don't see how a Cleric can have lower AC.

It's really not that hard to see in PF only at lvl 8.

Using 20 point buy, both humans:

Cleric: STR 14; DEX 14; CON 13; INT 8; WIS 18; CHA 10
Fighter: STR 18; DEX 16; CON 14; INT 10; WIS 13; CHA 8

Cleric AC: Dex (2) + Armor (6) + Magic Vestment (2) + Magic Shield (3) + Items (2) = 25
Fighter AC: Dex (3) + Magic Armor (13) + Magic Shield (3) = 29

25 vs 29. The 4k the fighter spent on armor the cleric spent on an amulet of nat armor and a ring of protection.

There aren't really any long lasting AC buffs in core. The cleric can use shield of faith to make it 27 vs 29.

I actually don't see any way a fighter can have less AC than a cleric in PF core. Technically the fighter also has better movement, but Travel domain makes it all equal again.

Stephen_E
2010-07-25, 12:57 PM
No, I understand what they are, I'm just saying they're bad battlefield control. If the upside of a fighter is that they can use maneuvers for BC, then they do it poorly because they are outclassed by every other form of BC.

They are different forms of BC.
Combat Manuver BC is more indivually centred, but in many ways harder to avoid if the Fighter actually reaches you.. Magic BC tends to be more area effect and the enemies that are most resistant to it are much less resistant to CM BC.
PC Magic BC rarely works on BBEM's but CM BC can, if the Fighter gets to the BBEM.



Lunge only gives you reach during your turn. The real reason you want reach is for the threatened squares. It doesn't even compare.

I've played Trip meisters in both 3.5 and PF. Tripping out of your turn due to reach was very rarely useful. Tumble and 5' steps generally made it pointless.


No, a wizard's you suck action is strong and awesome because it actually diasbles the enemy! The fighter does not. Nothing a fighter has can compare to stinking cloud.

Hmm, disarming and nicking the weapon that allowed the BBEM to do 2hW damage AND Str drain and the party running off with it and selling it for lots of loot was MUCH better than a stinking cloud. Seriously.


Um, you were the one who brought up fighting mooks. I was just saying that fighters don't have any advantage there.

Check the back posts. Someone anti-fighters (you I think) raised the topic of fighting mass enemies 1st, although I did use the term mooks 1st.


Huh, I was under the impression you went past rude a few posts ago. :smallamused:

Lol. I can't think of anything in previous posts that I'd remotely call rude. The last post was the closest with a few bits that are slightly snarky. I guess it comes down to what you consider rude. I've had someone tell me that sating "damn" was swearing.


But really, why should you just ignore the capabilities of a cleric? Just because he kills enemies with spells doesn't make him any less of a melee combatant. It just means he can do more than just whack things.

We should ignore it because we are discussing melee fighting ability.
I we were comparing peoples unarmed combat skills we would ignore their ability with firearms as irrelevant



Hmm, I do like your not so subtle allusions to me not being a team player. Very nice. But really, I already said that it's not a nerf, just different. And actually, how does the GM avoid the AoO getting up? (serious here) It's a +5 DC and a full round action to roll. I've tried to get out of it myself, and found myself wishing I had bought an Anklet of Translocation.

I have no idea whether you are a team player. I did not intend to suggest whether you were or weren't a team player. Your methodology for comparing classes is non-team player. And this is quite common in PC class discussions. My experiance suggests that this has little to do with how people actually play their PCs.

In 3.5 there were a number of class abilities that allowed people to standup from prone as a free action that did not attract AOOs.
Also you could do a kipup to stand as a free action that still suffered an AOO, but then GMs would sometimes allow players to use tumbles to avoid the AOO (I never thought much of this rulling, but it's suffciently openly worded on the tumble rules that arguing against a GM on it is rarely of much value)


Huh. You might appreciate this quote.



Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Note the bolded section.
"Often better than classes that specialize in that thing." is rather different from your -
"the cleric surpasses the fighter in every aspect of the game. He is better socially, solving puzzles, travelling, and in combat.":smallwink:



Actually it's an enhancement bonus, so they do stack, otherwise there would be no point in ever enchanting armor.

Magic Vestments gives an enhancement bonus to a set of armour.
Magic Bracers are a wonderous item gives you an magical armour Bonus.
You get the either the Armour bonus from Bracers, OR
You get the Armour bonus from the enchanted armour as well as the enhancement bonus from magical vestments enchanted on it.
You get whichever has the better total AC bonus.
You don't get to use the Armour bonus form the Bracers and the Armour enhancement from the armour/clothes that you cast Magic Vestments on.
You could only stack the Magic Vestments bonus to Bracer of AC if you cast it on the Bracers. And nothing I read indicates this is possible. Bracers aren't Armour, they are an item that give you a AC bonus.
PF goes into more detail on this than 3.5 (although it's there in 3.5 if you read through the DMG stacking bonuses, Bracers item and spell all together).


Not really. Like I said, PF changed very little about the base pf the game.

It's the subtle intereaction of relatively small changes that sometimes add up to significant differences. To be fair It wasn't until I built a Fighter to use Combat Manuvers and tarted using them that I realised that they were stronger. I would be unfair if I didn't admit that it's not obvious.
In PF you are very unlikely to disarm yourself due to a Trip or Disarm attempt. I've lost track in 3/5 how often I disarmed myself in a failed Trip attempt.:smallredface:

I do agree that nerfing was a poor move, but I persoanlly think PF is somewhat better despite some of the designers best efforts to make it worse.:smallwink:


Stephen E

balistafreak
2010-07-25, 01:17 PM
I simply said that Fighter is worthy to be played, exspecially if a player, you know, wants to play it. I find weird that a DM disallow a fighter to make you play a full caster (unless such DM reads internet D&D forums too much).

Some people want simply swing a sword. OF course the cleric is a powerhouse, and is higher tier because does more and diverse things. BUt if the OP wants to play a fighter, let him play a freaking fighter, please.

I've never liked this argument. To me, it reads, "Yes, Johnny, you may go out on the open ocean in your sailboat without a lifevest."

Sure, the lifevest isn't for everyone. Some people don't like it because it feels cumbersome, or they feel that it's a sort of handicap. In addition, depending on the weather and your own personal sense of balance, the lifevest may be completely unnecessary. However, when the storm kicks up and the wave washes you off of the boat, if you want to live, you're going to want that lifevest.

Some are (un?)lucky enough to have a DM benevolent enough to make this a non-issue; either the sea stays (relatively) calm the entire time, or dolphins mysteriously appear and carry you to shore. But assuming that at some point the weather is stormy, and you aren't going to have cetaceans showing up, you might as well assume that at some point you're going to need to swim. Some people want to feel the struggle of staying afloat by themselves unaided. Personally, I prefer living.

Most of us "optimizer" forum-goers are like skydivers - we want the adrenaline, but we want to survive it. For us, To hear "dude, just let him play a fighter if he wants to" is like hearing "dude, just let him jump out of the plane without a parachute if he wants to". Most of us are compassionate enough to stand up, wave our arms, and say, "No, don't do that."

I hope that sheds light onto the thought process of an optimizer. :smallwink:

Gametime
2010-07-25, 01:30 PM
Magic Vestments gives an enhancement bonus to a set of armour.
Magic Bracers are a wonderous item gives you an magical armour Bonus.
You get the either the Armour bonus from Bracers, OR
You get the Armour bonus from the enchanted armour as well as the enhancement bonus from magical vestments enchanted on it.
You get whichever has the better total AC bonus.
You don't get to use the Armour bonus form the Bracers and the Armour enhancement from the armour/clothes that you cast Magic Vestments on.
You could only stack the Magic Vestments bonus to Bracer of AC if you cast it on the Bracers. And nothing I read indicates this is possible. Bracers aren't Armour, they are an item that give you a AC bonus.
PF goes into more detail on this than 3.5 (although it's there in 3.5 if you read through the DMG stacking bonuses, Bracers item and spell all together).



There's actually ambiguity in the rules on this point, both in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Unless I'm missing a crucial passage (or unless it's in the book only and not the online SRD), Pathfinder says the exact same things about armor and enhancement bonuses: that enhancement bonuses stack with armor, that enhancement bonuses improve an existing armor bonus, and that enhancement bonuses to the same item don't stack.

RAMS would probably view the enhancement bonus as an improvement to an existing armor bonus, and just use the armor bonus stacking rules to rule out using both an item that grants armor and an item that has an enhancement bonus to armor. RAW is much less clear.

Of course, assuming PF keeps the Magic Item Compendium rules about adding common effects to existing items, you could just add an armor bonus to the Monk's Robes anyway. There wouldn't be much point since you can't get Wisdom-to-AC from it, but it's a magical alternative to mundane armor.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-25, 01:33 PM
It's really not that hard to see in PF only at lvl 8.

Using 20 point buy, both humans:

Cleric: STR 14; DEX 14; CON 13; INT 8; WIS 18; CHA 10
Fighter: STR 18; DEX 16; CON 14; INT 10; WIS 13; CHA 8

Cleric AC: Dex (2) + Armor (6) + Magic Vestment (2) + Magic Shield (3) + Items (2) = 25
Fighter AC: Dex (3) + Magic Armor (13) + Magic Shield (3) = 29

25 vs 29. The 4k the fighter spent on armor the cleric spent on an amulet of nat armor and a ring of protection.

There aren't really any long lasting AC buffs in core. The cleric can use shield of faith to make it 27 vs 29.

I actually don't see any way a fighter can have less AC than a cleric in PF core. Technically the fighter also has better movement, but Travel domain makes it all equal again.

:smallconfused: Why doesn't the Cleric have:
Dex (2) + Magic Armor (13) + Magic Shield (3) + Buffs? I wouldn't use Vestments if I weren't going unarmed. So 28/31 (shield of faith gives +3) vs 29.


They are different forms of BC.
Combat Manuver BC is more indivually centred, but in many ways harder to avoid if the Fighter actually reaches you.. Magic BC tends to be more area effect and the enemies that are most resistant to it are much less resistant to CM BC.
PC Magic BC rarely works on BBEM's but CM BC can, if the Fighter gets to the BBEM.

BBEM? Big Bad Evil Magic? Caster control is good against pretty much anything, because you can target their worst save. What would you rather do, Bestow curse to make him lose half of his turns, or -2 to attack and damage, and -2d6 damage? The action economy is always the biggest one.


I've played Trip meisters in both 3.5 and PF. Tripping out of your turn due to reach was very rarely useful. Tumble and 5' steps generally made it pointless.

:smallconfused: How do monsters approach you or your allies when you have 10-20 ft reach? IMO, reach is the most important thing to have.


Hmm, disarming and nicking the weapon that allowed the BBEM to do 2hW damage AND Str drain and the party running off with it and selling it for lots of loot was MUCH better than a stinking cloud. Seriously.
Better than killing him while he couldn't attack you and then taking the mace? I don't see how.


Check the back posts. Someone anti-fighters (you I think) raised the topic of fighting mass enemies 1st, although I did use the term mooks 1st.
For the last time, I'm not anti-fighter, I'm just pro-cleric. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't me, but w/e.


Lol. I can't think of anything in previous posts that I'd remotely call rude. The last post was the closest with a few bits that are slightly snarky. I guess it comes down to what you consider rude. I've had someone tell me that sating "damn" was swearing.
Deliberate obtuseness? Saying I play boring games with tons of mook killing? I don't really care, but it could be construed as a personal attack.


We should ignore it because we are discussing melee fighting ability.
I we were comparing peoples unarmed combat skills we would ignore their ability with firearms as irrelevant

If you're not going to let a Cleric has spells while they're smashing faces in on the front line, then yes, the fighter wins. But how is casting bestow curse any different than disarming? Both are debuffs, using the classes respective focus. Maybe we're talking about different things here, but I'm referring to overall combat effectiveness, with a focus on the front line. A glaivelock's ranged and casting capabilities should be noted even though he is a frontline fighter


I have no idea whether you are a team player. I did not intend to suggest whether you were or weren't a team player. Your methodology for comparing classes is non-team player. And this is quite common in PC class discussions. My experiance suggests that this has little to do with how people actually play their PCs.
The problem is that we can't effectively compare classes with regards to teams. There are too many uncertainties. A team playing cleric is probably going to buffing anyway.


In 3.5 there were a number of class abilities that allowed people to standup from prone as a free action that did not attract AOOs.
Also you could do a kipup to stand as a free action that still suffered an AOO, but then GMs would sometimes allow players to use tumbles to avoid the AOO (I never thought much of this rulling, but it's suffciently openly worded on the tumble rules that arguing against a GM on it is rarely of much value)

Really? Like what? And where are those rules?

Note the bolded section.
"Often better than classes that specialize in that thing." is rather different from your -
"the cleric surpasses the fighter in every aspect of the game. He is better socially, solving puzzles, travelling, and in combat.":smallwink:
Not really. "Tier 1 classes do everything well." This means they do well in all aspects of the game. "Often better than classes that specialize in that thing." This means it is better than the fighter at fighting. And everything else. How is this wrong?



Magic Vestments gives an enhancement bonus to a set of armour.
Magic Bracers are a wonderous item gives you an magical armour Bonus.
You get the either the Armour bonus from Bracers, OR
You get the Armour bonus from the enchanted armour as well as the enhancement bonus from magical vestments enchanted on it.
You get whichever has the better total AC bonus.
You don't get to use the Armour bonus form the Bracers and the Armour enhancement from the armour/clothes that you cast Magic Vestments on.
You could only stack the Magic Vestments bonus to Bracer of AC if you cast it on the Bracers. And nothing I read indicates this is possible. Bracers aren't Armour, they are an item that give you a AC bonus.
PF goes into more detail on this than 3.5 (although it's there in 3.5 if you read through the DMG stacking bonuses, Bracers item and spell all together).

No, I am enchanting a robe with Magic Vestments, which provides no Armor Bonus. There is no reason why they would not stack.



It's the subtle intereaction of relatively small changes that sometimes add up to significant differences. To be fair It wasn't until I built a Fighter to use Combat Manuvers and tarted using them that I realised that they were stronger. I would be unfair if I didn't admit that it's not obvious.
In PF you are very unlikely to disarm yourself due to a Trip or Disarm attempt. I've lost track in 3/5 how often I disarmed myself in a failed Trip attempt.:smallredface:

I do agree that nerfing was a poor move, but I persoanlly think PF is somewhat better despite some of the designers best efforts to make it worse.:smallwink:


Stephen E

I've played with the Combat maneuvers too, and I fail to see how they are stronger. They gained a bit and they lost a bit, most notably with size modifiers. Could you explain how they're stronger?

Powerfamiliar
2010-07-25, 01:40 PM
:smallconfused: Why doesn't the Cleric have:
Dex (2) + Magic Armor (13) + Magic Shield (3) + Buffs? I wouldn't use Vestments if I weren't going unarmed. So 28/31 (shield of faith gives +3) vs 29.

Well a cleric at that level can't get 13 armor. the 13 armor comes from: Fullplate (9) + Armor training (2) + Magic (2). Edit: really 11, my mistake.

The best a cleric can get would be: Breastplate (6) + Magic (2). I don't really see many clerics using a feat on heavy armor proficiency. I only added 2 from shield of faith because I also gave him a ring of protection.

So for a total of: Dex (2) + Armor (8) + Shield (3) + Shield of faith (3) = 26. 1 point lower than what I gave him because he spent the money on the armor and not on the amulet + ring. He does gain a new spell slot.

Fixing my armor training error it would be 26 vs 27 with shield of faith up.

Edit: I messed up my reading of armor training.

balistafreak
2010-07-25, 01:41 PM
PC Magic BC rarely works on BBEM's but CM BC can, if the Fighter gets to the BBEM.

Just going to point out that this statement doesn't say anything. "Rarely works" vs. "can" are basically saying the same thing here. Of course both have a chance of working.


I've played Trip meisters in both 3.5 and PF. Tripping out of your turn due to reach was very rarely useful. Tumble and 5' steps generally made it pointless.

Really, now? Have your tripmeisters never been charged/charged past by a man in medium or heavy armor, ever?

'Cause you can't tumble if your speed has been reduced by armor. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/tumble.htm)

And that's not even getting into the debate of whether or not you can tumble on a charge. (The line "tumble is part of a move action" inspires heated debate.)

I admit that your games might be full of chain-shirt wearing fighters who tumble, but I think most of us will agree that that is the exception, not the norm.


Hmm, disarming and nicking the weapon that allowed the BBEM to do 2hW damage AND Str drain and the party running off with it and selling it for lots of loot was MUCH better than a stinking cloud. Seriously.

Anecdotal evidence. Was this a far more reliable method than simply spamming SoDs? It may have worked, but that doesn't make it better.


Your methodology for comparing classes is non-team player. And this is quite common in PC class discussions. My experiance suggests that this has little to do with how people actually play their PCs.

A character who works well alone works even better with a team. I think this is a proven fact.

Sure, the proportional boost he gains from being part of a team might be smaller than another's, but that's not what we're looking for. Proportional gain !> overall power.

I'll concede that it might not be in the spirit of a team game to be able to operate by yourself, but I'd rather work with a team of professionals all able to take care of themselves than a team that falls apart like a house of cards when one is removed.


In 3.5 there were a number of class abilities that allowed people to standup from prone as a free action that did not attract AOOs.
Also you could do a kipup to stand as a free action that still suffered an AOO, but then GMs would sometimes allow players to use tumbles to avoid the AOO (I never thought much of this rulling, but it's suffciently openly worded on the tumble rules that arguing against a GM on it is rarely of much value)

... class abilities? My memory is failing me as to what class abilities allow such. The only things I can think of are spells/Abrupt Jaunt, and really high Tumble checks. Neither of which are really "class abilities", per se, given their other myriad and far more common applications.



Magic Vestments gives an enhancement bonus to a set of armour.

... as well as robes or clothing? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicvestment.htm)

Or was this a PF nerf?

Overall, I think you might be looking at Pathfinder through a pair of rose colored lenses, if that's at all possible for something more recent rather than something nostalgic. Personally, I wear glasses of jade instead.

Cynicism ensues. The truth must be heard. :smallcool:

tyckspoon
2010-07-25, 01:44 PM
:smallconfused: Why doesn't the Cleric have:
Dex (2) + Magic Armor (13) + Magic Shield (3) + Buffs? I wouldn't use Vestments if I weren't going unarmed. So 28/31 (shield of faith gives +3) vs 29.

Pathfinder Clerics do not have Heavy Armor proficiency by default, so unless AC is worth enough to you to spend another feat you're looking at a Breastplate instead of Full Plate for the Cleric. (They also modified Mithral so that the category decrease specifically does not apply to proficiencies- Mithral Full Plate is still Heavy armor w/respect to whether or not you suffer non-proficiency.)



No, I am enchanting a robe with Magic Vestments, which provides no Armor Bonus. There is no reason why they would not stack.


Specifically, the idea is that 'Armor Enhancement' and 'Armor' are not considered separate bonuses when stacking things. 'Armor Enhancement' is folded in and you just count the whole thing as one 'Armor' bonus, so you have Bracers +4 = +4 Armor bonus, and you have Vestment +2 Robes = +2 Armor bonus. I believe the Rules Compendium eventually got around to stating that explicitly in a published book, and there's.. I want to say it's an older Rules of the Game Article that also says it... but it can be derived as Probably What They Intended when you go through all the PHB and DMG references to X Enhancement things.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-25, 01:56 PM
Specifically, the idea is that 'Armor Enhancement' and 'Armor' are not considered separate bonuses when stacking things. 'Armor Enhancement' is folded in and you just count the whole thing as one 'Armor' bonus, so you have Bracers +4 = +4 Armor bonus, and you have Vestment +2 Robes = +2 Armor bonus. I believe the Rules Compendium eventually got around to stating that explicitly in a published book, and there's.. I want to say it's an older Rules of the Game Article that also says it... but it can be derived as Probably What They Intended when you go through all the PHB and DMG references to X Enhancement things.

Where does it say this? I have the rules compendium, and it still refers to them as separate 'Enhancement Bonuses'.

tyckspoon
2010-07-25, 02:22 PM
Where does it say this? I have the rules compendium, and it still refers to them as separate 'Enhancement Bonuses'.

Section A, 'Armor Class', sub-header 'Enhancement Bonuses'.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-25, 02:42 PM
Section A, 'Armor Class', sub-header 'Enhancement Bonuses'.

Hmm, I see what you mean. It's rather unclear though. I'll have to tell curmudgeon his trick doesn't work. The trick still works if you make your bracers of armor into a torso piece though.

tyckspoon
2010-07-25, 02:48 PM
Hmm, I see what you mean. It's rather unclear though. I'll have to tell curmudgeon his trick doesn't work. The trick still works if you make your bracers of armor into a torso piece though.

I don't see how 'stacks as if it were part of the bonus to which it applies' is at all unclear, but yes- the end goal can be very simply preserved by a basic reslotting of the Bracers effect, which is supported in the DMG and explicitly encouraged and made cheaper in the MIC.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-25, 02:54 PM
I don't see how 'stacks as if it were part of the bonus to which it applies' is at all unclear, but yes- the end goal can be very simply preserved by a basic reslotting of the Bracers effect, which is supported in the DMG and explicitly encouraged and made cheaper in the MIC.

I just meant that a lot of RC changes aren't obvious unless you're looking for them.

Gametime
2010-07-25, 03:24 PM
The fact that enhancement bonuses work differently depending on what they're enhancing is annoying, too. Enhancement to armor improves an existing bonus. Enhancement to weapons creates a bonus (and, actually, replaces an existing bonus for the to-hit part). Enhancement to abilities improves a stat.

The whole thing is pretty messy.

Paul H
2010-07-25, 08:53 PM
Hi

Erm - major Flame War going on here..........

Just pointing out to the AC sub-debate, I have a sub-optimal character in the PFS campaign (20 pt buy, limited access to higher level magic items).

Half Orc Sorc (Draconic) 3/Pal 2 Dex 14 AC 22 (25 vs Smite target)

And this with only Mithril Shirt +1, and Shield spell running. (Uses Gt Axe). Similar build with Halfling would have AC 25 (28 vs Smite target).

Anyone looked at a Ftr/Sor/Dragon Disciple Build? Nat Armour, +4 Str, +2 Con, +2 Int, Claws, Bite, Breath Wpn, bonus feats/spells, morph into Dragons, Blindsense, etc, etc. Prefer paladins smiting in Dragon Form, but ...........

Cheers
Paul H

Bosh
2010-07-25, 09:06 PM
to tell u the truth in the end i decided to build a monk who throws shuriken's

Now you're just trolling...

Stephen_E
2010-07-25, 10:31 PM
::smallconfused: How do monsters approach you or your allies when you have 10-20 ft reach? IMO, reach is the most important thing to have.

Because Monsters have reach?


Better than killing him while he couldn't attack you and then taking the mace? I don't see how.

Because we couldn't kill her. In that particular circumstance she was obviously going to fly off if she started losing. Even when we eventually managed to get the drop on her and were beating her she just DDed out. And Our Cleric wasn't high enough level to have Diemensional Anchor. And on her worst save she was needing to roll about a 7 to beat our casters, even if they got through the spell resistance which wasa 50/50 proposal.


Deliberate obtuseness? Saying I play boring games with tons of mook killing? I don't really care, but it could be construed as a personal attack.

Since that was the post that I made the comment that I was been tempted to be rude, you would need to quote a post before that if I had already been rude in previous posts.

Also I never said you play a boring game. I said it's a game I wouldn't want to play. There are reasons other than boredom that I don't like certain game styles. It's a matter of taste.
If I had meant to indicate that I thought it was a boring style of game I would have said "I would find such a style of game boring" or similiar words.


If you're not going to let a Cleric has spells while they're smashing faces in on the front line, then yes, the fighter wins. But how is casting bestow curse any different than disarming? Both are debuffs, using the classes respective focus. Maybe we're talking about different things here, but I'm referring to overall combat effectiveness, with a focus on the front line. A glaivelock's ranged and casting capabilities should be noted even though he is a frontline fighter

The OP was about the GM claiming the Cleric does everything the Fighter does but better. Therefore the point is to look at what the fighter specifically does and see if the Cleric played as a Fighter does it better. And the point was in PF they don't. Which you appear to have agreed with now.

Since "overall combat effectiveness" is 80%+ of DnD/PF if you are taking such a broadbrush approach then we would simply be discussing what tier the respective classes are, and no one was disputing Tier 1 and Tier 3, albeit a strong tier 3 under PF.


The problem is that we can't effectively compare classes with regards to teams. There are too many uncertainties. A team playing cleric is probably going to buffing anyway.

Actually you can. You can look at what other members of the party might reasonably have to help the specific PC's actions, and what they might have to benefit from the specific PC's actions and abilities.


Really? Like what? And where are those rules?

If you are asking about class abilities to get up as a free action without attracting an AOO - Thief-Acrobat from Complete Adventurer. This is 3.5, but that is where Spiked Chain existed as an effective weapon. The ability existed in other classes, but that's the 1 I can recall from memory.


Not really. "Tier 1 classes do everything well." This means they do well in all aspects of the game. "Often better than classes that specialize in that thing." This means it is better than the fighter at fighting. And everything else. How is this wrong?

"Often better than classes that specialize in that thing." =/= "it is better than the fighter at fighting."

"Often" does not mean "always". It doesn't even mean "Most of the time"!
Seriously look it up in the dictionary.
From my Pocket Oxford Dictionary -
Freqently, in many times, in many of the instances.

So NO, it does not mean the Cleric is better than the Fighter at fighting.
It means the Cleric MAY be better than the Fighter at fighting.
In 3.5 IMO they were. In PF, again IMO, they aren't.
Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you can't use the tier system to support your claim that the Cleric is better at fighting than the Fighter. Because that's not how the tier system works unless you are going to rewrite the english language.



No, I am enchanting a robe with Magic Vestments, which provides no Armor Bonus. There is no reason why they would not stack.

Read the spell. A robe gives an Armour Bonus of 0. Says so in the Magic Vestments spell. Zero IS a value.
You can justifiably claim a slight vagueness on the 3.5 part of how Bracers function with Armour, but PF has no vagueness about it at all.



I've played with the Combat maneuvers too, and I fail to see how they are stronger. They gained a bit and they lost a bit, most notably with size modifiers. Could you explain how they're stronger?

I already have. But I'll do so in more detail.
The single roll means that you can use True Strike to gain a +20 to your Combat Manuver (this requires a dip into Arcane casting - True Strike doesn't require an armour casting check, or a ring of spell storing).
The system of CMB + CMD removes the opposed attack roll and greatly reduces the chance of things go badly wrong with unpleasant results for the person attempting the CM.
The reduction of multiple rolls into 1 roll reduces the multiple points of failure.
Overrun had been effectively errated out as a manuver in 3.5, but has been brought back and made functional and viable again in PF.

To repeat in short form what I am saying.

In 3.5 a Cleric acting as a Fighter would be better than a Fighter acting as a Fighter.

In Pathfinder a Cleric acting as a Fighter isn't as good as a Fighter acting as a Fighter.

Both statements are assuming reasonably even character building skills.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2010-07-25, 11:08 PM
Just going to point out that this statement doesn't say anything. "Rarely works" vs. "can" are basically saying the same thing here. Of course both have a chance of working.

I should have been more precise, but even so "Rarely" is low probability.
"Can" in unspecific probability.

I would say that the Fighter's Combat Manuvers have a much higher chance of working - if they can get in contact with the BBEM.
I add they last proviso because that is a problem with Fighters regarding manuvering in DnD/Pathfinder (and not entirely restricted to Fighters either).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E
I've played Trip meisters in both 3.5 and PF. Tripping out of your turn due to reach was very rarely useful. Tumble and 5' steps generally made it pointless.


Really, now? Have your tripmeisters never been charged/charged past by a man in medium or heavy armor, ever?

See my use of the word "Rarely".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Hmm, disarming and nicking the weapon that allowed the BBEM to do 2hW damage AND Str drain and the party running off with it and selling it for lots of loot was MUCH better than a stinking cloud. Seriously.


Anecdotal evidence. Was this a far more reliable method than simply spamming SoDs? It may have worked, but that doesn't make it better.

He asked for an example. I gave him one. You have a problem with that?:smallconfused:
What is spamming SoDs? Not familiar with the term.




A character who works well alone works even better with a team. I think this is a proven fact.


Sure, the proportional boost he gains from being part of a team might be smaller than another's, but that's not what we're looking for. Proportional gain !> overall power.

Start power x proportional gain = overall power.
A lower start power with a bigger proportional gain can equal a greater overall power.

Whether it does or doesn't depends on the numbers.


I'll concede that it might not be in the spirit of a team game to be able to operate by yourself, but I'd rather work with a team of professionals all able to take care of themselves than a team that falls apart like a house of cards when one is removed.

And I'd rather work/play with something inbetween the extremes.
We are now down to a matter of taste of what style of game you want to play.
I have found that playing with 1 person of your approach was ok, but the more players like that the less enjoyable the game became for me. To each there own.
In terms of how the game progressed there was little difference because the GM shapes the game challenge for the party.





... as well as robes or clothing? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicvestment.htm)

Which is then treated as giving an Armour bonus of 0.
Straight 3.5


Overall, I think you might be looking at Pathfinder through a pair of rose colored lenses, if that's at all possible for something more recent rather than something nostalgic. Personally, I wear glasses of jade instead.

Given that I think many of the improvements of Pathfinder are despite the Head Designer/Designers rather than because of them, I really don't think I'm using rose coloured glasses. I could write a long post bitterly hewing into PF for failing to seize the opportunity to make a much better system because of poor philosophical approach. Namely buying into the whole "Roleplaying is better than Rollplaying" schitck. :smallmad: And yes you can use rose tinted glasses on things other than nostalga. :smallsmile:


Stephen E

ericgrau
2010-07-26, 12:28 AM
I don't think he was asking which is stronger, and he already made his decision. I believe this thread is derailed.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-26, 12:49 AM
Because Monsters have reach?
Not nearly enough for it to matter. There are very few things with 15 ft. reach, and even few with 20. The freaking terrasque only has 20 ft reach. I fail to comprehend how every other guide on tripping and every well known optimizer could be wrong about this.
[QUOTE]
Because we couldn't kill her. In that particular circumstance she was obviously going to fly off if she started losing. Even when we eventually managed to get the drop on her and were beating her she just DDed out. And Our Cleric wasn't high enough level to have Diemensional Anchor. And on her worst save she was needing to roll about a 7 to beat our casters, even if they got through the spell resistance which wasa 50/50 proposal.
So, she could escape no matter what you did, but she couldn't take you on? Oh yeah, that sounds like a frequently occurring situation.


The OP was about the GM claiming the Cleric does everything the Fighter does but better. Therefore the point is to look at what the fighter specifically does and see if the Cleric played as a Fighter does it better. And the point was in PF they don't. Which you appear to have agreed with now.

No, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is that fighters are supposed to be doing. That fighters use combat maneuvers better? A Cleric more than makes up for the small bonuses a fighter gets in buffs. But without buffs, yes, a fighter is better at using a subpar ability than a cleric.


Since "overall combat effectiveness" is 80%+ of DnD/PF if you are taking such a broadbrush approach then we would simply be discussing what tier the respective classes are, and no one was disputing Tier 1 and Tier 3, albeit a strong tier 3 under PF.

No, we're talking about how good they are at being frontline combatants. A Cleric can tank, do more damage, debuff better, and control the battlefield better, but just because he can't use maneuvers as well, the fighter is a better fighter? :smallconfused: Also, where are you getting tier 3 from?


Actually you can. You can look at what other members of the party might reasonably have to help the specific PC's actions, and what they might have to benefit from the specific PC's actions and abilities.
Again, way too many unknown factors. How are you supposed to know what teammates he will have? Or even party size? Too many variables.



If you are asking about class abilities to get up as a free action without attracting an AOO - Thief-Acrobat from Complete Adventurer. This is 3.5, but that is where Spiked Chain existed as an effective weapon. The ability existed in other classes, but that's the 1 I can recall from memory.

Eh, that's dissapointing. I was hoping for another skill use in OA or something like that, oh well. :smallfrown:


"Often better than classes that specialize in that thing." =/= "it is better than the fighter at fighting."

"Often" does not mean "always". It doesn't even mean "Most of the time"!
Seriously look it up in the dictionary.
From my Pocket Oxford Dictionary -
Freqently, in many times, in many of the instances.

So NO, it does not mean the Cleric is better than the Fighter at fighting.
It means the Cleric MAY be better than the Fighter at fighting.
In 3.5 IMO they were. In PF, again IMO, they aren't.
Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you can't use the tier system to support your claim that the Cleric is better at fighting than the Fighter. Because that's not how the tier system works unless you are going to rewrite the english language.

I already have. But I'll do so in more detail.
The single roll means that you can use True Strike to gain a +20 to your Combat Manuver (this requires a dip into Arcane casting - True Strike doesn't require an armour casting check, or a ring of spell storing).
The system of CMB + CMD removes the opposed attack roll and greatly reduces the chance of things go badly wrong with unpleasant results for the person attempting the CM.
The reduction of multiple rolls into 1 roll reduces the multiple points of failure.
Overrun had been effectively errated out as a manuver in 3.5, but has been brought back and made functional and viable again in PF.

To repeat in short form what I am saying.

In 3.5 a Cleric acting as a Fighter would be better than a Fighter acting as a Fighter.

In Pathfinder a Cleric acting as a Fighter isn't as good as a Fighter acting as a Fighter.

Both statements are assuming reasonably even character building skills.

Stephen E

Bah, I'm too tired, I'll just skip to the end. Why is a cleric not as good at acting as a fighter in pathfinder? What has changed so much?

FatR
2010-07-26, 05:11 AM
Tinydwarfman, I'm sorry, but

Combat Maneuvers Worse in PF = FALSE.
No, this is TRUE. The only generally useful (without summoning supplement craziness to make it worthwhile) combat maneuver in 3.X was trip. Primarily at lower levels (because after that nearly everything you meet flies/is too huge and strong to be reliably tripped/is incorporeal/is a caster). In PF:
1)Effect of the trip was castrated, as it now eats AoOs.
2)You need two feats to pull it off, instead of one.
3)You can only get the full effect at 6th level, i.e. for at least half of the level range where trip actually does something it is not available.

Therefore trip was brutally nerfed into worthlessness. And as it was the only useful combat maneuver, this means combat maneuvers were nerfed. 1-1=0



Vs the cleric, you use disarm or sunder on his holy symbol.And, at least in my games, is hard be always buffed. Cleric buffs are great but, barring cheese, you can't keep up all the day.
You can. Read Paizo's own adventures. They basically assume that PCs nearly always have the time to pre-buff. And in very rare cases when they don't, the encounter is generally weak.

Also, since when disarming and sundering holy symbols actually does anything (except wasting actions)? Assuming the cleric even needs one at the moment, he can just keep spares.

Gametime
2010-07-26, 07:40 AM
Eh, that's dissapointing. I was hoping for another skill use in OA or something like that, oh well. :smallfrown:



It is in OA, actually. DC 35 Tumble check.

Stephen_E
2010-07-26, 11:57 AM
Re:Fighters at melee fighting vs Clerics at melee fighting in Pathfinder.

I've given the resons I think PF fighters are better for the purpose. A significant part of this is the use of Combat Manuvers.
If you beleive Combat Manuvers to be useless than obviously a large part of this argument makes no sense to you.I have gone into deatils and the responce has been "se tell me why you think this is so". I don't see the point in repeating stuff when it's clearly bouncing.

Whether those people who can't see it have a mental block, or play in a sufficiently different style of campaign that Combat Manuvers are either inffectaul due to GM approach, or not used because "everyone knows combat manuvers are useless" I don't know and are frankly past caring.


On one remaining issue -
Bracers of Armour and Magic Vestments.

Someone suggested that if you turn a robe in to Robe of Armour you can then cast Magic Vestments on it to give an Armour Enhancement to the Armour Bonus that the Robe gives you.

This doesn't work since the Magic of Bracers of Armour surrond the wearer in tangible field of force that gives then an Armour Bonus of "x".
Magic Vestments is cast on a set of armour, or clothing which is then treated as having an Armour Bonus of 0, with the Armour Enhancement "y" from the spell.
Magic Vestments doesn't give an Amour Enhancement to a forcefield created by the clothing. And the magic of a Robe of Armour doesn't give the Robe an Armour Bonus.

So if you cast Magic Vestments on a Robe of Armour you will have the choice of using the Armour Bonus from the Forcefield created by the Robe, OR, using the Armour Bonus of the Robe, 0, + the Armour Enhancement given it by the Magic Vestment spell.


Stephen E

Gametime
2010-07-26, 01:10 PM
If your DM refuses to allow magical robes that give you a bonus to armor to be enchanted with Magic Vestment when the spell affects both suits of armor and robes, I think they're being overly restrictive in their interpretation of the spell.

Regardless, the Robe of Armor is significantly less attractive in Pathfinder anyway since there's no way to get wisdom-to-AC for a cleric without just dipping.

Ashiel
2010-07-26, 02:20 PM
Just tossing in a few words from someone who is currently playing and running Pathfinder core + some 3.5 material, I must say that I believe that much of the 3.5 class issues have indeed gone the way of the dodo.

Clerics have more abilities, but many of their primary buffs that allowed them to out-do the fighter have been weakened and greatly reduced in duration, and so forth. Even still, a cleric must devote time and effort to equaling the fighter, whereas the same buffs turn the fighter into a devastating war-machine; since he starts out strong in Pathfinder and gets stronger with buffs.

I find the Fighter tends to get exceptionally strong results in Pathfinder with only a few feats invested. Combat maneuvers are by no means a bad deal in Pathfinder; and being invested in it (such as with the trip line of feats) allows you to preform strong tag-team maneuvers on your opponents; which is noteworthy and functions very well in actual play past the lower levels (when enemies aren't dropped in a single melee attack; where control becomes more important).

Just arguing numbers, a 20th level fighter should have a +7 to hit / +9 to damage with his favorite weapon, counting weapon training +5, and the weapon specialization line; which also apply to your combat maneuvers when you're using that weapon for things like disarming. He's currently ahead of the cleric by 60% chance to hit; and could take the -6 penalty for Power Attack or Deadly Aim to add +12-18 points of damage onto an attack without even dropping his accuracy to "as cleric".

The cleric's buffs such as divine power and righteous might won't even reach the fighter in this regard; but some of it can help. Even enlarged and with divine power, the unbuffed fighter can grapple the cleric and likely bind him, making it exceptionally difficult to cast spells (concentration is far harder in Pathfinder, and it is made against the fighter's CMD; which means it's likely hopeless for you if he's got his foot in your mouth).

Now, the fighter gets 20 feats over 20 levels (counting the 10 you get in PF from 1-20, plus the 10 you get from 20 fighter levels); so the fighter can also pickup a number of feats such as the Deadly Stroke line, or the critical feats which inflict some cruel penalties anytime the fighter scores a critical hit (and he automatically confirms hits at 20th); and have a few feats left over for some extra fun here and there.

Due to the skill system in Pathfinder, a fighter can be more useful outside of combat as well without multi-classing. You'll just be 15% less effective than a class that has the skill naturally; but by 20th you still can have a +20 to say, Diplomacy, before counting non-rank modifiers.

In a traditional party, the Fighter is golden. While casters can buff themselves like crazy (spending rounds & spell slots) to try to rival the fighter, casting buff spells on the fighter turns him into an unstoppable engine of destruction. Spells such as enlarge person, magic vestment, magic weapon, shield of faith, bless, heroism, haste, and even the polymorph line of spells are even more dangerous when cast on the party's fighter.

I've found in my experiences (of course, your mileage may vary, I guess), that PF clerics make excellent off-tanks; where if you have a fighter you can buff them and be the glue for your party, or function as the guy who holds the line when your fighter friend is outnumbered. Meanwhile, the fighter is less attractive in a solo-game; but in a team game shines greatly.

The battle cleric variant is very strong, but even then fighters in my groups haven't been outmatched. The battle clerics loose their domains (and granted spells and spell slots and domain powers) in exchange for an average of +1 HP per level, and a perfect BAB; which helps them fill in the fighter role exceptionally well; but even then they lack heavy armor proficiencies, the fighter's static buffs by level, and still have issues casting while up close and personal; so more often than not, I actually see the cleric as being less-useful as a Battle Cleric; but I like the option.

Just contributing to the topic. :smallsmile:

Stephen_E
2010-07-26, 07:20 PM
If your DM refuses to allow magical robes that give you a bonus to armor to be enchanted with Magic Vestment when the spell affects both suits of armor and robes, I think they're being overly restrictive in their interpretation of the spell.


1) It's not an interpretation of the spell. It's what the spell flat out says.
Clothing is treated as having a Armour Bonus of 0.
The magic of Bracers (or Robes) of Armour doesn't give the item an Armour Bonus or make it a set of armour. It is quite specific where the Armour Bonus comes from.

2) This restriction stops Arcane Casters been able to have Armour as good as a Fighters without any Dex penalties or Casting restrictions. We are talking about placing a minor restriction on Casters. You know, the classes called 1st tier! In what concievable way is this " overly restrictive "?


Stephen E

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-26, 09:03 PM
Clerics have more abilities, but many of their primary buffs that allowed them to out-do the fighter have been weakened and greatly reduced in duration, and so forth. Even still, a cleric must devote time and effort to equaling the fighter, whereas the same buffs turn the fighter into a devastating war-machine; since he starts out strong in Pathfinder and gets stronger with buffs.

Yes, I fully support the cleric as being in the secondary role. Like most tier 1's, a cleric functions best in a party, but can work completely alone.


I find the Fighter tends to get exceptionally strong results in Pathfinder with only a few feats invested. Combat maneuvers are by no means a bad deal in Pathfinder; and being invested in it (such as with the trip line of feats) allows you to preform strong tag-team maneuvers on your opponents; which is noteworthy and functions very well in actual play past the lower levels (when enemies aren't dropped in a single melee attack; where control becomes more important).

Eh, we could debate the effectiveness of combat maneuvers for a long time. I am currently not convinced of their effectiveness, as they were never amazing in 3.5 (trip being the best, but is now not as good), and they did not receive any real boosts.



Just arguing numbers, a 20th level fighter should have a +7 to hit / +9 to damage with his favorite weapon, counting weapon training +5, and the weapon specialization line; which also apply to your combat maneuvers when you're using that weapon for things like disarming. He's currently ahead of the cleric by 60% chance to hit; and could take the -6 penalty for Power Attack or Deadly Aim to add +12-18 points of damage onto an attack without even dropping his accuracy to "as cleric".
Numbers! Finally something indisputable. Lets compare.

20th level fighter: Has effectively +12 to hit and +9 to damage over the cleric unbuffed assuming the same equipment.

Now let's look at what a cleric would likely have up.
All day: Heroes Feast (+1 Attack, +1 Saves, 14 THP), Extended Magic Circle Against Evil (+2 AC, +2 Saves), Magic Vestment (+4 AC), Greater Magic Weapon (+4 Attack & Damage)
(if the cleric has encountered this foe before, or has reason to swear retribution, Bloodsworn Retribution can give you +5 to everything, which is very nice. However, that is both non-core, and situational.)

From that, that Cleric already has +5 to Attack, +4 to damage, +6 to AC (likely bringing him even if not greater than the fighter), and a slew of other defenses. If there is one thing the cleric does well, its defense.

Per Encounter:
The Cleric may lead with a Quickened Buff before doing anything, let's say Divine Power. (+6 Attack, Damage, & Str checks, +20 THP). This also lets the cleric make a better attack routine than the fighter, because the extra attack is at full BAB. If the Cleric even has one round to buff before closing, he can also pop Righteous Might for another huge bonus, sending him leagues ahead of the fighter.

All in all: Relative to an unbuffed Cleric, a fighter has +12 to hit, +9 Damage, and 20 HP more. A buffed cleric, without spending even 1 round to buff, has +11 Attack, +10 Damage, probably a bit more AC than the fighter, +34 HP, much better saves, a slew of other resistances, and is actually better at combat maneuvers, since Divine Power gives double the normal bonus. With only 1 round to buff (which happens a fair amount on it's own, with the cleric using a wall and giving the party extra time), he gets even stronger, DR 15, and more HP.

The fighter is not winning in bonuses here.



The cleric's buffs such as divine power and righteous might won't even reach the fighter in this regard; but some of it can help. Even enlarged and with divine power, the unbuffed fighter can grapple the cleric and likely bind him, making it exceptionally difficult to cast spells (concentration is far harder in Pathfinder, and it is made against the fighter's CMD; which means it's likely hopeless for you if he's got his foot in your mouth).


I disagree, assuming the fighter has Imp. and Greater Grapple, the Cleric still has +2 more than the fighter, because of Divine Power, more so if he has Righteous might up. You need to support your numbers better.

Stephen_E
2010-07-26, 10:02 PM
Now let's look at what a cleric would likely have up.
All day: Heroes Feast (+1 Attack, +1 Saves, 14 THP), Extended Magic Circle Against Evil (+2 AC, +2 Saves), Magic Vestment (+4 AC), Greater Magic Weapon (+4 Attack & Damage)
(if the cleric has encountered this foe before, or has reason to swear retribution, Bloodsworn Retribution can give you +5 to everything, which is very nice. However, that is both non-core, and situational.)


Because apparently only Clerics get to buff.:smalltongue:

The Fighter also gets the Heroes Feast.
The Extended Magic Circle against Evil also give the Fighter +2 deflection bonus to AC, unless he has a Ring of Prot (common equipment at this level) in which case the Prot from Evil doesn't give an AC bonus.
Magic Vestments (+4 AC) doesn't stack with the Magic Enhancement on the Armour. Which should be at least +3 and more probably +4 by this point.
Greater Magic Weapon again doesn't stack with the enhancement bvonus already on the weapon which should be at least +3 and more probably +4 at this point.

So basically most of the advantages you just gave the cleric don't actually exist.:smallsigh:

Stephen E

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-26, 10:12 PM
Because apparently only Clerics get to buff.:smalltongue:

The Fighter also gets the Heroes Feast.
The Extended Magic Circle against Evil also give the Fighter +2 deflection bonus to AC, unless he has a Ring of Prot (common equipment at this level) in which case the Prot from Evil doesn't give an AC bonus.
Magic Vestments (+4 AC) doesn't stack with the Magic Enhancement on the Armour. Which should be at least +3 and more probably +4 by this point.
Greater Magic Weapon again doesn't stack with the enhancement bvonus already on the weapon which should be at least +3 and more probably +4 at this point.

So basically most of the advantages you just gave the cleric don't actually exist.:smallsigh:

Stephen E

We're talking about what each class has of it's own virtue. So yes, unless the fighter is buffing himself, he doesn't get to buff. Is the fighter making the Heroes' Feast? I don't think so. Same with the circle, although it is true, one might have a ring of Prot. but one should probably try to obtain a natural armor bonus instead if you know you're going to be generating bonuses.

As for the Vestments/Magic Weapon, any smart Cleric should be getting special abilities on his weapon, since not only are they normally better, they synergize with his class abilities. So yes, they do stack.

Stephen_E
2010-07-26, 10:45 PM
We're talking about what each class has of it's own virtue. So yes, unless the fighter is buffing himself, he doesn't get to buff. Is the fighter making the Heroes' Feast? I don't think so. Same with the circle, although it is true, one might have a ring of Prot. but one should probably try to obtain a natural armor bonus instead if you know you're going to be generating bonuses.

You can get both Rings of Protection AND Amulets of NAC, and cost wise it is most effective to get both.

And if you are going to assume that each PC is all on there own with no support structure then the Fighter will die from starvation unless he has decent survivval skills because he can't create food and water. Just to show the lack of usefulness of this approach.

Or on the otherhand we could assume the Cleric hasn't had time to pray and get his spells back, so fiorget all that buffing.

Or we can make reasonable assumptions, such as the Fighter has access to supplys, the Cleric has his spells, and the Fighter has access to day long buffs that a cleric in the party would cast for everyone in the party, as well as both sides having access to magical equipment that DnD (and PF) assumes is an intergral part of the character.

That would be the sensible approach if you are actually interested in making a comparitive evaluation.


As for the Vestments/Magic Weapon, any smart Cleric should be getting special abilities on his weapon, since not only are they normally better, they synergize with his class abilities. So yes, they do stack.

Hmmm, I suspect we could have a thread just for debating the automatic assumption that special abilities are better than straight bonuses, but nonetheless
1) You have to have at least a +1 bonus, which doesn't stack, before adding abilities.
2) That doesn't change the fact that the fighter can have those enhancement bonuses that you are assuming are an advantage for the Cleric.
i.e. The Cleric has Greater Magic Weapon +4, and the Fighter has Magic Weapon +4. Therefore your example placing the Cleric as having +4 to the Fighters +0 is incorrect.

Stephen E

balistafreak
2010-07-26, 11:02 PM
Because apparently only Clerics get to buff.:smalltongue:

I hate it when I see this kind of sarcastic rebuttal. :smallannoyed:

That's because it's completely true, and you look like an idiot when you try and use it.

Receiving buffs is not a class feature restricted only to classes without spellcasting, ya know. It's not as if casters have personal antimagic fields over them.

Yes, a Fighter receives "greater benefit" from buffs. This is because he is weaker already.

It is very, very true a Fighter with buffs is more powerful in melee combat than a Cleric with buffs. If I had to assemble a party, I'd see very, very compelling reasons to take a Fighter and Cleric versus Clericx2. (I personally would still take Clericx2 due to a hilarious memory of a all-Cleric raid in DDO, but that's definitely personal bias right there. FighterxCleric is probably more powerful. :smalltongue:)

However, that a Fighter has a higher "power cap" means nothing if there is no one to buff him. This is why (power)players choose to play Clerics instead of Fighters - the best way to ensure that you can benefit from a buff is to cast it yourself.


You can get both Rings of Protection AND Amulets of NAC, and cost wise it is most effective to get both.

So you're saying Fighters need money to emulate what a Cleric can do for free? :smallconfused:


And if you are going to assume that each PC is all on there own with no support structure then the Fighter will die from starvation unless he has decent survivval skills because he can't create food and water. Just to show the lack of usefulness of this approach.

Hyperbole much? If you know you're going somewhere alone, why aren't you carrying rations? Heck, magic rations?

I never want to go camping with you. :smalltongue:


Or on the otherhand we could assume the Cleric hasn't had time to pray and get his spells back, so fiorget all that buffing.

I've always found that you run out of HP before you run out of spells. (Maybe I play higher-lethality games.) Well, you could start burning spontaneous cures, but then you'd have just HP and no spells, and have to rest anyways.


Or we can make reasonable assumptions, such as the Fighter has access to supplys, the Cleric has his spells, and the Fighter has access to day long buffs that a cleric in the party would cast for everyone in the party, as well as both sides having access to magical equipment that DnD (and PF) assumes is an intergral part of the character.

That would be the sensible approach if you are actually interested in making a comparitive evaluation.

Whoever said we were in a party situation? It's already been confirmed, I believe, that Fighter + Buffs > Cleric + Buffs. If you had to pick one character, though, it would be the Cleric, because without prior Knowledge of a Cleric to buff you up, the Fighter would be weaker.

Also note that "split the party" scenarios are relatively common. Everyone knows the situation; heck, it's a commonly cited (bad) reason why Monks are better than Fighters: they are more operational naked than Fighters. (Clerics are more operational naked than Fighters too, but unlike Monks they can still benefit from their equipment too.)

Perhaps you do not see average/minimum strength as greater power, and simply look at the largest possible number achievable. With all due respect, there is a tax on this kind of person, and that is the lottery. (Okay, I admit, that was a bit much. The odds of you being split from the party Cleric are far less likely than you losing the lottery. :smalltongue:)


Hmmm, I suspect we could have a thread just for debating the automatic assumption that special abilities are better than straight bonuses, but nonetheless
1) You have to have at least a +1 bonus, which doesn't stack, before adding abilities.
2) That doesn't change the fact that the fighter can have those enhancement bonuses that you are assuming are an advantage for the Cleric.
i.e. The Cleric has Greater Magic Weapon +4, and the Fighter has Magic Weapon +4. Therefore your example placing the Cleric as having +4 to the Fighters +0 is incorrect.


You are correct about the original +1 not stacking. It still means that the Cleric is paying less than a Fighter for his +9000 Magic Sword of Pure Awesome, and does not refute the standing point.

Magical weapons, like the aforementioned ability to receive buffs, are not a Fighter class feature. Both, I assume, are something that is equal for both characters, a fundamental assumption of gameplay. The Cleric having +4 to the Fighter's +0 is 100% correct in a comparative situation like this.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-26, 11:14 PM
You can get both Rings of Protection AND Amulets of NAC, and cost wise it is most effective to get both.

Meh, it's more cost effective not to but them at all, and still get an equivalent bonus from spells, and then but some useful wands or something. It's definitely not worthless. Far from it.


And if you are going to assume that each PC is all on there own with no support structure then the Fighter will die from starvation unless he has decent survivval skills because he can't create food and water. Just to show the lack of usefulness of this approach.

Or on the otherhand we could assume the Cleric hasn't had time to pray and get his spells back, so fiorget all that buffing.

Or we can make reasonable assumptions, such as the Fighter has access to supplys, the Cleric has his spells, and the Fighter has access to day long buffs that a cleric in the party would cast for everyone in the party, as well as both sides having access to magical equipment that DnD (and PF) assumes is an intergral part of the character.
See, the problem here is that your 'reasonable assumption' is hinging on getting free resources from a non-existent person. If there was another fighter in the party, why would the cleric be swinging it front-line? He would be making himself much more useful by buffing and slinging SoD/Control spells. If there was another cleric already in the party, why would you be trying to decide whether to chose between cleric or fighter? No point in overlapping two roles. If we are giving the fighter a teammate who buffs him, why is the party wizard not stacking on buffs onto the cleric? The same principals apply.



Hmmm, I suspect we could have a thread just for debating the automatic assumption that special abilities are better than straight bonuses, but nonetheless
1) You have to have at least a +1 bonus, which doesn't stack, before adding abilities.
2) That doesn't change the fact that the fighter can have those enhancement bonuses that you are assuming are an advantage for the Cleric.
i.e. The Cleric has Greater Magic Weapon +4, and the Fighter has Magic Weapon +4. Therefore your example placing the Cleric as having +4 to the Fighters +0 is incorrect.

Stephen E

Every single guide or conversation I have ever read has advocated getting special abilities. But if you think otherwise, I'd like to hear why. But anyway:
1) I know, that's why it's +4 and not +5.
2) Yes, but then the fighter is missing out on the special abilities which are at least as good as straight enhancements, so it's still +4 equivalent.

Also, what he /\ said.

Stephen_E
2010-07-27, 12:16 AM
Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Because apparently only Clerics get to buff.


I hate it when I see this kind of sarcastic rebuttal.

That's because it's completely true, and you look like an idiot when you try and use it.

Yes it is completely true, the accurate sarcasm of the rebuutal that is.

Whenever I see these comparisons between a caster and noncaster in melee combat it almost inevitably starts with the caster been assumed to have everything they want going, and the non-caster been damned near naked.

Since the discussion is how effective the PCs in the party are (at least that does appear to be what the other person was arguing) when the Cleric casts Heroes Feast on himself, he's going to share it with every other member of the group, after all it doesn't cost him anything to do so. It doesn't require using another spell or anything. So the Fighter gets it as well.

As the last few posts have shown the Cleric side of these comparisons inevitably goes "the fighter doesn't get to count this, that and the other thing, but the Cleric gets to count everything (the Fighter version has everything happening in anti-magic fields).

If you are going to do a stacked comparison why bother?
No one is disputing that Clerics are 1st tier and Fighters aren't.
But a pre-stacked in favour of Clerics comparison is not going to demonstrate anything about the comparitive melee combat abilities of them.

That means not setting it up as if it was an Arena fight, and not assuming they've been on there own for the last day, or are stripped of their equipment in full or part. They simply aren't realistic comparisons.

It should be noted that a realistic comparison IS hard work.
You need to work out the equipment for both PCs, as well as a rough sketch of the Party makeup, so that you can make a reasonable estimate of what day long buffs the members might have, and possibly what they might reasonably receive in combat. Also a general situational layout, any time for pre-comabt buffing ecetre, did they know how tough the situation would be. Is it a "blow the wad or there will be no tommorrow" situation? And no stuff that clearly favours one side (no anti-magic field, no fighter not around when the day long buffs given out).

Stephen E

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-27, 12:50 AM
Yes it is completely true, the accurate sarcasm of the rebuutal that is.

Whenever I see these comparisons between a caster and noncaster in melee combat it almost inevitably starts with the caster been assumed to have everything they want going, and the non-caster been damned near naked.

How is the cleric having everything he wants going? My comparison doesn't even give the cleric 1 round of buffing time, and he is still superior. And what is with this 'naked non-caster' stuff? They are assumed to have the exact same equipment. Even when the cleric could have more equips because of crafting, but again, too many variables.


Since the discussion is how effective the PCs in the party are (at least that does appear to be what the other person was arguing) when the Cleric casts Heroes Feast on himself, he's going to share it with every other member of the group, after all it doesn't cost him anything to do so. It doesn't require using another spell or anything. So the Fighter gets it as well.
What happens if there is no Cleric? Ever thought that the fighter might be alone with a wizard and rogue? You can't give bonuses to a fighter that he not only may not have, but do not come from him at all.


As the last few posts have shown the Cleric side of these comparisons inevitably goes "the fighter doesn't get to count this, that and the other thing, but the Cleric gets to count everything (the Fighter version has everything happening in anti-magic fields).
What isn't the fighter counting? What are we dismissing? And please, comparing the fighter getting 1 small extra buff to world-wide AMF is ridiculous.


If you are going to do a stacked comparison why bother?
No one is disputing that Clerics are 1st tier and Fighters aren't.
But a pre-stacked in favour of Clerics comparison is not going to demonstrate anything about the comparitive melee combat abilities of them.

That means not setting it up as if it was an Arena fight, and not assuming they've been on there own for the last day, or are stripped of their equipment in full or part. They simply aren't realistic comparisons.
Where is the equipment stripping?



It should be noted that a realistic comparison IS hard work.
You need to work out the equipment for both PCs, as well as a rough sketch of the Party makeup, so that you can make a reasonable estimate of what day long buffs the members might have, and possibly what they might reasonably receive in combat. Also a general situational layout, any time for pre-comabt buffing ecetre, did they know how tough the situation would be. Is it a "blow the wad or there will be no tommorrow" situation? And no stuff that clearly favours one side (no anti-magic field, no fighter not around when the day long buffs given out).

Stephen E

You know what? You can have the Heroes' Feast! The Cleric still has bigger bonuses! What exactly would be a fair comparison if we doing so much wrong? What should we give to the fighter that he does not have?

Stephen_E
2010-07-27, 01:42 AM
What happens if there is no Cleric? Ever thought that the fighter might be alone with a wizard and rogue? You can't give bonuses to a fighter that he not only may not have, but do not come from him at all.


If there is no Cleric, just a Rogue and aWizard then the Fighter is the best melee combat person in the party. End of story.:smallconfused:

But ok. I'll play.

What level and what stats do the Characters have? The fighter should have a good Dex because at high levels they can have upto +7 AC from Dex while in Fullplate
I assume standard Wealth by level.
Straight Fighter vs Straight Cleric.
Do you want to do the feats as well (w/o them the Clerics limited to Medium Armour).
Core Pathfinder?

If you are taking abilities on your weapons can you specify what they are?
(in answer to your earlier point regarding abilities over straight enhancement my point was that there are a lot of conditionals in there. They are often theoretically better but most of them are situationally variable, even the uber ones such as Vorpal and Holy. +1 to hit and +1 damage are always +1 to hit and +1 to damage. They are reliable, which in actual game play vs optimising, are often more valuable).

Will be interesting to see how the numbers come out.

Stephen E

grimbold
2010-07-27, 04:50 AM
ok the pros of the fighter are- initially very strong, combat specialist, feats keep him still pretty strong through 20th lvl. The cons are, he never really learns anything new :( and eventually he starts to be harder to play.

However he is critical to the party as a protector of the spell casters because he has all that combat prowess. He is essential because he can keep the baddies back while you whip up spells to own them. Without him clerics would have no time to cast spells b/c you would be defending yourself and getting owned w/ attacks of opportunity all the time. Also it is good to have varied modes of attack to overcome various resistances (namely spell resistance.

The cleric does significantly higher damage at later levels and can also partake in combat, but not to the same degree. This is mainly because of a lower bab. However his spells have a limit.

I think that in a fight they would be of similar strength at any level below 15th assuming the fighter took the appropriate feats. after 15th level the cleric would win tho.

I say- they both have their integreal part of the party and complement each other. If you like the fighter play it. If you need to be a cleric consider some combat oriented cleric prestige classes like the divine hammer, found in Ultimate Prestige classes volume 1

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-27, 07:42 AM
If there is no Cleric, just a Rogue and aWizard then the Fighter is the best melee combat person in the party. End of story.:smallconfused:

But ok. I'll play.

What level and what stats do the Characters have? The fighter should have a good Dex because at high levels they can have upto +7 AC from Dex while in Fullplate
I assume standard Wealth by level.
Straight Fighter vs Straight Cleric.
Do you want to do the feats as well (w/o them the Clerics limited to Medium Armour).
Core Pathfinder?

If you are taking abilities on your weapons can you specify what they are?
(in answer to your earlier point regarding abilities over straight enhancement my point was that there are a lot of conditionals in there. They are often theoretically better but most of them are situationally variable, even the uber ones such as Vorpal and Holy. +1 to hit and +1 damage are always +1 to hit and +1 to damage. They are reliable, which in actual game play vs optimising, are often more valuable).

Will be interesting to see how the numbers come out.

Stephen E

Since the poster above seems to think that the tipping point is 15th, shall we try that? I'd say that or 10th level. I'd say 25 pf point buy. The real issue is core vs. non-core. The fighter gets to choose actually good feats non-core, and the cleric's spell list gets expanded. I'd say it's a similar power boost I think, so we should probably stay in core just to keep it simple.

On special Abilities: I guess they would get slightly weaker core only, with only a few of them to choose, but often the situational ones are the strongest of the lot. Magebane for example, is +2 to hit and +2d6 damage any against any casters or monsters with SLAs. It's well worth it for only +1. Also, Vorpal is the single worst thing you can ever get. It's absolutely useless most of the time for a +5, and when it isn't useless it's campaign breaking. I would probably choose stuff like Speed, it's always useful, and more powerful than +3 attack and damage.

Stephen_E
2010-07-27, 08:46 AM
I Consider Speed Weak myself because it can be done better through a Hast spell or Boots of Speed.

Can do 15th and 10th level. Same stats.
We are doing PF so better use Core.
I only have the Core rules and SRD for it.
Adding 3.5 splats essentailly means we are talking 3.5, and I think we both know where that goes. :smallsmile:
We've agreed on THAT comparison.:smallbiggrin:

I'll do a 25pt buy for the Fighter.
Using PF rules.

Stephen

Stephen_E
2010-07-27, 09:06 AM
62,000 gp of equipment at 10th
240,000 gp of equipment at 15th level
Standard race choice or both Human?
I'm fine either, but Dwarfs are the Cleric Race in PF for most purposes.


Stephen E

9mm
2010-07-27, 09:33 AM
Now you're just trolling...

if he's trolling... he's trolling smartly as that is a damn good idea for monks in pf to do thanks to deadly aim.

balistafreak
2010-07-27, 12:24 PM
Since the discussion is how effective the PCs in the party are (at least that does appear to be what the other person was arguing) when the Cleric casts Heroes Feast on himself, he's going to share it with every other member of the group, after all it doesn't cost him anything to do so. It doesn't require using another spell or anything. So the Fighter gets it as well.

:smallsigh:

Again, receiving free buffs is not a Fighter class feature.

Giving free buffs, on the other hand, is a Cleric class feature.

Yes, a Fighter in the same party as a Cleric will be better at fighting than the Cleric. We are not arguing this fact. You seem to be fixated on a "fair party" in which the Fighter can shoulder all the buffs his Cleric/Wizard mates can shower on him. This is entirely possible, and in fact an extremely common occurrence. It is also the "optimal situation", one that any Cleric/Wizard/Fighter party will go for. If I am a Cleric in that party, I am not at all surprised when the Fighter reaches a level of power that faroutstrips my own. I expect this - what else did I cast the buffs on him for?

But then, why do we keep insisting "Cleric > Fighter" for melee combat?

Because, once again, if you had a choice between slotting a Cleric or a Fighter into a party with neither, you'd pick the Cleric. Not only does he cast, he also fights in melee better than the Fighter when the Fighter can't receive Cleric buffs.

However, your rebuttal to this is that "well, in a fair party, the Fighter will be better than a Cleric". Which we've already realized, understood, and even pointed out. From an argumentative point of view, you are losing our Cleric > Fighter argument the moment you shifted the premise of the debate by saying "well, in a fair party"

To put it in perspective, we're saying, "It's a bad idea to jump out of a plane without a parachute." You're rebutting with, "You can jump out of a plane just fine with a parachute." To which we just scratch our heads, because your statement is perfectly true, but it's not within the same premise, and thus makes no sense as an argument.

There's no need for a hot-headed duel when it can easily be settled with words. I don't need to "win" anything to know I've made my true, logical point.

Feel free to shoot me down. I'll commend you and learn something new if you do. :smallwink:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-27, 12:59 PM
Minor note on the buffs: Fighters can't receive the delicious personal only cleric buffs as only the cleric casting said buffs can benefit from them without blowing money on something like a ring of spellstoring.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-27, 01:46 PM
So, I guess I'll be making the Cleric?

The further we go with this the more it feels like I'm gearing up for an arena. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :smallbiggrin:

Ashiel
2010-07-27, 02:17 PM
Tinydwarf, I'd like to say I usually agree with most of your posts on GitP. That being said, I figured I'd conflict with a few of your points in this case.

Magic Circle grants a +2 deflection and resistance bonus. Assuming WBL, these bonuses don't really mean much since deflection and resistance are common staples on magic items. If the fighter doesn't have access to these sorts of items, then the game is not being played as it was designed for and it becomes a moot argument, since it devolves into hypothetical points (and hypothetically, imagine there was a pink elephant next to me...).

The same with magic vestment and greater magic weapon. By those levels, it is expected that you will have weapons of a similar strength; and humorously even with greater magic weapon and heroes feast, you're not reaching the fighter's baseline Atk/Dmg bonuses; who can also burn -1 more attack accuracy than you (and still have more accuracy with his attacks) and get +3 more points of damage with each swing of a 2 hander (or +2 with a 1 hander).

Basically, assuming they are both high level characters wearing starter equipment, the cleric rivals his combat prowess far better. But that's not D&D or Pathfinder; as both expect magic items which ultimately do not stack with the majority of the mentioned buffs. Pathfinder even goes so far as to give a feat that allows non-casters to craft magic items (2 feats will get you the ability to craft wondrous or magic arms and armor, 3 feats to craft both); if for some reason you can't buy your staples.

As to the guy who mentioned that fighters benefit more than the clerics is because fighters are so far below is strait out wrong. As I've just pointed out, you have by default More HP, far, far more attack accuracy, more static damage, more armor class, and more combat feats (which some of the higher level ones in Pathfinder are pretty nice). The clerics can nearly match them by buffing themselves with their spell slots (and while I'm not suggesting that the spell slots are in some way limited at higher levels, I am saying they could be put to better use); whereas casting the same spells on the fighter push him into a higher dimension of ass-kickery.

For a visual aid, let's go with this.
----------------------------

Fighter begins as Warrior+
Cleric begins as Warrior--.
The cleric can buff worth two +s; so the cleric buffs to Warrior.
Alternatively, the cleric buffs the warrior to Warrior+++.

----------------------------

Then we also run into the problem that while most of the fighter's staple buffs like their deflection, enhancement, and resistance bonuses are from magic items - which if dispelled begin working again in 1-4 rounds automatically; the cleric can be stripped of his buffs in the middle of combat via a focused greater dispel magic which means he either must continue to fight as a diminished warrior, or begin re-buffing in the middle of combat; whereas the fighter is still fighting on the same level with the cleric for a little while.

But, let's pause here for a moment and use a WoW reference.

In WoW, Warriors are typically considered to be inferior to Paladins, Death Knights, and sometimes even off-tank classes. However, in battlegrounds they are devastating. Why is this? Because the warrior is naturally strong but in team play the buffs they receive from their allies (those same Paladins, Death Knights, and Priests) turn them into powerful engines of destruction. This is because they have no magical access, but they're naturally stronger to help compensate. Combine this with Magic, and you end up with something brutally effective.

So let's pretend...
That Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder are social, team based, games about going on adventures with your friends and overcoming challenges and obstacles together by combining the strengths and talents of multiple people to overcome obstacles such as monsters, traps, villains, and other disasters.

I realize that the game is probably more like a competitive game with PvP in full effect, where the point of the game is to measure penis size with your allies; but let's pretend. :smallsmile:

Let's Also Pretend...
That the batman wizard doesn't teach us that buffing the party members who are better at dealing damage, soaking damage, and general maiming and mayhem, wins battles faster than trying to out-damage them yourself.

:smalltongue:

Gametime
2010-07-27, 03:39 PM
1) It's not an interpretation of the spell. It's what the spell flat out says.
Clothing is treated as having a Armour Bonus of 0.

Regular clothing is treated as having an armor bonus of 0. It says nothing about magical clothing. You've got a spell that can give an enhancement bonus to armor. It also works on normal clothes. If it can also work on magical armor, why can't it also work on magical clothes?

For that matter, I find the fact that the same item is giving you an armor bonus to AC and an enhancement bonus to armor but they don't because they're "different" to be silly. It's in the rules, sure, but that doesn't make it not silly.


2) This restriction stops Arcane Casters been able to have Armour as good as a Fighters without any Dex penalties or Casting restrictions. We are talking about placing a minor restriction on Casters. You know, the classes called 1st tier! In what concievable way is this " overly restrictive "?

Magic vestment accounts for a whopping +5 Armor Class at 20th level. I really don't think that's the reason casters are going to be breaking your games. The ability of a caster to dominate has very little to do with attacks missing him, anyway, and much more to do with attacks never getting a chance to hit him.

Not allowing magic vestment to work on robes of armor also penalizes the monk, which I view as a more serious concern since they're worse off to begin with.




But, let's pause here for a moment and use a WoW reference.

In WoW, Warriors are typically considered to be inferior to Paladins, Death Knights, and sometimes even off-tank classes. However, in battlegrounds they are devastating. Why is this? Because the warrior is naturally strong but in team play the buffs they receive from their allies (those same Paladins, Death Knights, and Priests) turn them into powerful engines of destruction. This is because they have no magical access, but they're naturally stronger to help compensate. Combine this with Magic, and you end up with something brutally effective.


Nitpick: Warriors are currently quite competitive as a tanking class, although opinions constantly shift as to the "best," and have been rockin' as DPS for a while now.

It's true that a warrior with a pet healer in a battleground is a force of nature, though.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-27, 03:50 PM
Tinydwarf, I'd like to say I usually agree with most of your posts on GitP. That being said, I figured I'd conflict with a few of your points in this case.
Well that's nice to hear, even if you're arguing against me. :smallsmile:


Magic Circle grants a +2 deflection and resistance bonus. Assuming WBL, these bonuses don't really mean much since deflection and resistance are common staples on magic items. If the fighter doesn't have access to these sorts of items, then the game is not being played as it was designed for and it becomes a moot argument, since it devolves into hypothetical points (and hypothetically, imagine there was a pink elephant next to me...).
It's not that the fighter won't have those items, it's that these spells enable a cleric to either 1: spend more money on other magic items, or 2: Buy amulets of Natural Armor instead and get more AC.


The same with magic vestment and greater magic weapon. By those levels, it is expected that you will have weapons of a similar strength; and humorously even with greater magic weapon and heroes feast, you're not reaching the fighter's baseline Atk/Dmg bonuses; who can also burn -1 more attack accuracy than you (and still have more accuracy with his attacks) and get +3 more points of damage with each swing of a 2 hander (or +2 with a 1 hander).
Indeed, which is why the cleric uses a Quickened Buff to exceed the fighter, or Walls and lets the entire party buff unhindered. And also, there is no reason why why GMW or Vestments shouldn't stack. See posts about weapon special abilities.


Basically, assuming they are both high level characters wearing starter equipment, the cleric rivals his combat prowess far better. But that's not D&D or Pathfinder; as both expect magic items which ultimately do not stack with the majority of the mentioned buffs. Pathfinder even goes so far as to give a feat that allows non-casters to craft magic items (2 feats will get you the ability to craft wondrous or magic arms and armor, 3 feats to craft both); if for some reason you can't buy your staples.

Like I have said before, clerics buffs won't interfere with items most of the time, and when they do, it just gives a cleric more money to spend on other useful items!


But
As to the guy who mentioned that fighters benefit more than the clerics is because fighters are so far below is strait out wrong. As I've just pointed out, you have by default More HP, far, far more attack accuracy, more static damage, more armor class, and more combat feats (which some of the higher level ones in Pathfinder are pretty nice). The clerics can nearly match them by buffing themselves with their spell slots (and while I'm not suggesting that the spell slots are in some way limited at higher levels, I am saying they could be put to better use); whereas casting the same spells on the fighter push him into a higher dimension of ass-kickery.

For a visual aid, let's go with this.
----------------------------

Fighter begins as Warrior+
Cleric begins as Warrior--.
The cleric can buff worth two +s; so the cleric buffs to Warrior.
Alternatively, the cleric buffs the warrior to Warrior+++.

----------------------------
Indeed, but we are comparing situations where the fighter/Cleric is the sole beatstick, with no one to back him up.
Also, you are forgetting the in combat buffs a cleric can use. 1 before the fighting actually begins, and every turn thereafter the cleric gets even stronger. I say the visual aid should look something like this:

Fighter begins as Warrior
Cleric Begins as Warrior --
Cleric uses all day buffs and becomes Warrior -1/2
Cleric sasts encounter bufs and becomes Warrior +
Cleric Buffs Fighter for Warrior + (since he can't use the best cleric buffs)
Wizard buff both to Warrior ++
Druid buffs both to Warrior +++
Bard Buffs both to Warrior +++++++++++++++++++++
etc.

Basically, if cleric buffs fighter, why does wizard not buff cleric when he has the option to? Or the Druid? Or the Bard? Because if the fighter has an extra party member, so should the cleric.


Then we also run into the problem that while most of the fighter's staple buffs like their deflection, enhancement, and resistance bonuses are from magic items - which if dispelled begin working again in 1-4 rounds automatically; the cleric can be stripped of his buffs in the middle of combat via a focused greater dispel magic which means he either must continue to fight as a diminished warrior, or begin re-buffing in the middle of combat; whereas the fighter is still fighting on the same level with the cleric for a little while.
This can be a problem, but it's only one of the few cleric weaknesses. What happens if the fighter cannot hit AC? Or if the enemy is flying? or Invisible? or just slings high DC will saves? A fighter has many more weaknesses than a Cleric.


But, let's pause here for a moment and use a WoW reference.

Don't play WoW unfortunately. Stupid subscription costs... *grumble grumble*



So let's pretend...
That Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder are social, team based, games about going on adventures with your friends and overcoming challenges and obstacles together by combining the strengths and talents of multiple people to overcome obstacles such as monsters, traps, villains, and other disasters.

I realize that the game is probably more like a competitive game with PvP in full effect, where the point of the game is to measure penis size with your allies; but let's pretend. :smallsmile:


Let's Also Pretend...
That the batman wizard doesn't teach us that buffing the party members who are better at dealing damage, soaking damage, and general maiming and mayhem, wins battles faster than trying to out-damage them yourself.

:smalltongue:
Lets review. We are speaking of a situation where there is either a cleric or a fighter who is buffing solo, otherwise there would be no debate. Assume party of Wizard, Rogue, and X (Cleric or Fighter)

Ashiel
2010-07-27, 08:32 PM
Well that's nice to hear, even if you're arguing against me.
Yeah man, you're smart, and you're a good, logical debater from what I've seen; and you seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders for keeping things civil. All fine points, in my book. :smallsmile:


Indeed, which is why the cleric uses a Quickened Buff to exceed the fighter, or Walls and lets the entire party buff unhindered. And also, there is no reason why why GMW or Vestments shouldn't stack. See posts about weapon special abilities.

Ok. Here we notice that the cleric must take a feat and cast his lower level buff spells as higher level buff spells. Divine Metamagic was broken in 3.5, and it's not in Pathfinder unless you add it in; so the cleric has to do it the old fashioned way. This means you're burning 1 feat and higher level spell slots on keeping up with the fighter.

Walls are situational; but I do love a good wall spell. That is indeed a very good tactic to buy some time to buff.

And yes, there is a reason why GMW and MV not only shouldn't stack, but don't. They both provide enhancement bonuses, which don't stack with a magic weapon's enhancement bonus; though the best way to curb this into the cleric's favor is by buying +1 magic items loaded with special +X equivalent enhancements and then get your weapon's enhancement bonus higher than +1 by overlapping magic weapon or vestment; which can help the cleric match the fighter a bit better.


It's not that the fighter won't have those items, it's that these spells enable a cleric to either 1: spend more money on other magic items, or 2: Buy amulets of Natural Armor instead and get more AC.

Fighters have a higher armor class by default, so the cleric at first begins by trying to match their AC. The +2 deflection modifier is great at lower levels, but protection from and magic circle both are situational, since plenty of enemies are neutral or the wrong alignments (though Evil is probably the safest in most campaigns). A Pathfinder fighter by merely 7th level, for example, reduces all armor check penalties by -2, increases maximum dex by +2, and can move at full speed in heavy armor; allowing them to prance around in full-plate without troubles.

So again, the cleric in this case is still keeping up.


Like I have said before, clerics buffs won't interfere with items most of the time, and when they do, it just gives a cleric more money to spend on other useful items!
The clerics get spells and domains but lesser base statistics. It becomes a trade-off. A cleric's power comes in their spells and domain powers. You're trading your spells for pretend equipment, and pretend fighter abilities; it becomes a question as to whether you would be more useful using those spells for something else. Resource management. Sometimes it'd be better to cast those spells on allies, sometimes on you, sometimes convert to healing in a pinch; but you will use your resources in some way.

Now you could even use the money saved on magic items to buy stuff to enhance your spellcasting; such as wands, scrolls, staffs, pearls, and so forth; which can help; but in one form or another you're still spending that money to remain more or less equivalent. Of course, how you go about managing your money is important in this too.


Indeed, but we are comparing situations where the fighter/Cleric is the sole beatstick, with no one to back him up.
Also, you are forgetting the in combat buffs a cleric can use. 1 before the fighting actually begins, and every turn thereafter the cleric gets even stronger. I say the visual aid should look something like this:
*snip*
Basically, if cleric buffs fighter, why does wizard not buff cleric when he has the option to? Or the Druid? Or the Bard? Because if the fighter has an extra party member, so should the cleric.

Well I missed that. I wasn't aware that were were comparing them in a vacuum. In this case the cleric will have the edge since he can half-do two different roles, which the fighter cannot. The cleric can spend part of his magic to keep himself buffed and protected, and the other half doing things like healing himself and some other options.

That being said, it's not that extreme. The fighter still has the edge in the physical combat side of things; and using expected WBL and wealth per encounter, the fighter can easily afford a few minor long term buffs (such as quaffing a CL 1 potion of enlarge person).

In a party situation, I would expect everyone to share the love. Generally I prefer beginning with mass buffs such as haste and inspire courage; while piling super buffs like enlarge person, barkskin, and shield of faith on the most potent warrior type (be that the cleric, fighter, barbarian, or druid). In the ideal situation, I would say this would be a fighter or barbarian (or Paladin or Druid, depending); since they will stand to draw the most raw power out of it.

This is especially important since it's arguably wasteful for a spell-caster to be doing the warrior's job instead of using magic to help control the battlefield and hold your group together. A cleric could indeed take up the role as the prime warrior, but it would likely be more effective to hang back and cast summon monster I-IX, Prayer, and so forth.

Couple this with Pathfinder's nerf on spellcasters in the form of Concentration, which is now a level + key ability check, with DCs that get much higher than in 3.5 - if you're grappled you could be looking at DCs as high as 40-50, with an expected modifier of +30; making casting much more difficult than the "I succeed" of 3.x - and you find that being in the heat of combat may really mean you are going to need to decide on casting or not casting; since it becomes much harder to do while in the thick of it.

The same holds true for the Pathfinder druid. Even with Natural Spell, the druid is really only an off-tank; much like the cleric. In a small party, they are exceptionally good since they can try to take on more than one role; though they're not the best. The fighter is the focused one; who is the best at his own role, but lacks in the other. Hence they are ideal in a party where they have quicker access to buffs to make them devastating.

A good example would be the batman wizard. You could cast polymorph on yourself to turn into a monstrous engine of destruction; or you could cast polymorph on your party's fighter and turn it into a monstrous engine of destruction that also has full BAB, more Hp, higher base stats, and as well as combat feats which carry over to his monstrous form. He can't cast polymorph himself, but he and the wizard are both great assets to one another. Though a Barbarian may be even more fun in these cases since he can rage no matter what form he's in; since the fighter looses a number of his static benefits while being turned into some beasties.


This can be a problem, but it's only one of the few cleric weaknesses. What happens if the fighter cannot hit AC? Or if the enemy is flying? or Invisible? or just slings high DC will saves? A fighter has many more weaknesses than a Cleric.

If the fighter cannot hit the AC, the creature is probably far, far above your CR expectancy. Creating Monsters (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html) shows the expected AC of opponents by CR for Pathfinder; and a fighter will generally exceed these numbers by leaps and bounds thanks to their high static modifiers (it's not difficult to have +20 from BAB, +10 from strength w/general buffs, +7 from weapon training and specialization, and that's before counting magic weapons, haste, or other beneficial buffs; making it trivial for the fighter to give a monster the boot even while taking a -6 via PF-Power Attack to add +12-18 points of damage to each hit).

Flying is a nice strategy, but far less effective past 10th level. Parties have access to fly by 5th level, and at later levels the cost of a potion is trivial. Combine with the vast numbers of items that grant flying in some form (cloak of the bat, celestial armor, boots of flying, flying mounts, magic carpets, horseshoes of the zypher, etc) the fighter is in no more trouble than the cleric. Invisibility likewise has a number of fairly easy methods for getting around, but merely having the blind-fight feat can reduce most of the penalties; but then again everyone who hasn't prepared for invisibility has trouble with invisible foes. By high levels, invisibility is as trivial as flying opponents - if not more so - since its counters are likewise many, and often less expensive.

As for slinging high will saves, that can be a problem. The fighter is generally 80% more likely to fail a will save than a cleric. A terrible weakness indeed. While a mere potion of protection from evil protects against the devastating mind control effects; there's a lot of nastiness that can come by will-saves; so the cleric definitely is in favor here. I'd say the cleric is better by default at tanking certain spells; just like the ranger is better at tanking AoEs.


Lets review. We are speaking of a situation where there is either a cleric or a fighter who is buffing solo, otherwise there would be no debate. Assume party of Wizard, Rogue, and X (Cleric or Fighter)

In a party of three, the cleric appears more appealing as it can off-tank and be a healer and buffer. If I were planning for a gauntlet of overcoming challenges, I would likely desire a multi-class wizard 19 / rogue 1, cleric, fighter; since you would have strong access to both types of magic, a trap-nerfer, a main-tank, and an off-tank. If you were stuck with Wizard and Rogue, then I'd pick Cleric since it has an off-tank capability.

Ultimately, the smaller your party is, the more useful versatility becomes over specialization. In a solo-game, a Bard or Druid would be ideal, since they can off-X several classes; but excel at only a few things, for example. Likewise, a wizard would be better off than a barbarian because the wizard could conceivably overcome more; but would still be able to do more with a barbarian companion (allowing him to focus more of his time to being a wizard).


Don't play WoW unfortunately. Stupid subscription costs... *grumble grumble*
I've never been able to afford it. I play on private servers which run emulation software which you can play on. However, such servers are buggy, and can have technical problems; as well as being unable to give the full WoW experience. If you have the money, you should definitely play retail - it's much better.

But you can learn a solid amount about the game and how it is played from a good private server. I'd recommend it to people. Also, if you ever play it, you'll probably find that a WoW Paladin is more akin to a 3.x Cleric than a Priest is.


Nitpick: Warriors are currently quite competitive as a tanking class, although opinions constantly shift as to the "best," and have been rockin' as DPS for a while now.

It's true that a warrior with a pet healer in a battleground is a force of nature, though.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply they weren't. For both solo play and 1 on 1 PvP combat, Paladins tend to work better than warriors because they can do stuff like heal themselves, heal diseases and poisons, and have a number of nice buffs; but warriors were the best tanks last time I played; and having Paladin allies only makes them better tanks (blessing of sanctuary is pretty key), and the warriors excel when backed by a top-notch healer. Whereas in a small party the Paladin might seem more appealing because they can off-heal themselves in less difficult dungeons when combat fatigue is getting the healers down. Basically, I enjoy playing them because they are more versatile - though not as strong as a strait warrior in many cases.

It sucks for a Paladin though when he gets silenced; which is a particular bad when he's tanking in certain dungeons; since most of his goodies shut down and he has trouble drawing aggro, healing himself, or holding his ground; which warriors don't have to worry about.

Speaking of which, that also applies in D&D. Clerics in D&D get hit hard by effects such as silence and dispel magic, whereas fighters are unhindered (actually it's more like a buff) by the first, and mildly hurt by the 2nd. A very fun strategy is to half the party's cleric cast silence on the party's fighter and then have him rush into beat the crap out of verbal casters. :smalltongue:

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-27, 10:47 PM
Yeah man, you're smart, and you're a good, logical debater from what I've seen; and you seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders for keeping things civil. All fine points, in my book. :smallsmile:
Wow, I'd want to sig that if it wasn't such an obvious ego-quote. Thanks.


Ok. Here we notice that the cleric must take a feat and cast his lower level buff spells as higher level buff spells. Divine Metamagic was broken in 3.5, and it's not in Pathfinder unless you add it in; so the cleric has to do it the old fashioned way. This means you're burning 1 feat and higher level spell slots on keeping up with the fighter.
Yes, but I'd say that while the day-long spells are all playing catch up, the per-encounter spells are ridonkulously powerful enough for more than just catch-up. + a lot to attack and damage, +double that to maneuvers, and an extra attack makes a cleric 100% even stat-wise, and then Righteous Might makes you an engine of doom.


Walls are situational; but I do love a good wall spell. That is indeed a very good tactic to buy some time to buff.
I agree, and even better is invisibility or Meld Into Stone if you're alone, but walls are nice for the whole team, even if wizards do it slightly better.



And yes, there is a reason why GMW and MV not only shouldn't stack, but don't. They both provide enhancement bonuses, which don't stack with a magic weapon's enhancement bonus; though the best way to curb this into the cleric's favor is by buying +1 magic items loaded with special +X equivalent enhancements and then get your weapon's enhancement bonus higher than +1 by overlapping magic weapon or vestment; which can help the cleric match the fighter a bit better.
That is... exactly what I said before. It's the reason why it was +4 instead of 5.



Fighters have a higher armor class by default, so the cleric at first begins by trying to match their AC. The +2 deflection modifier is great at lower levels, but protection from and magic circle both are situational, since plenty of enemies are neutral or the wrong alignments (though Evil is probably the safest in most campaigns). A Pathfinder fighter by merely 7th level, for example, reduces all armor check penalties by -2, increases maximum dex by +2, and can move at full speed in heavy armor; allowing them to prance around in full-plate without troubles.
Well, his AC is higher by 3, which is mitigated by taking a feat or multi-classing. I don't really think that most fighters can really afford to max out DEX, but we'll see soon enough.



The clerics get spells and domains but lesser base statistics. It becomes a trade-off. A cleric's power comes in their spells and domain powers. You're trading your spells for pretend equipment, and pretend fighter abilities; it becomes a question as to whether you would be more useful using those spells for something else. Resource management. Sometimes it'd be better to cast those spells on allies, sometimes on you, sometimes convert to healing in a pinch; but you will use your resources in some way.
Yes, domain powers are a nifty little boost in PF, but I haven't talked about any of them mostly because there is too much choice, like a fighter's feats.
We are in total agreement here though. If the cleric can play a support role in core, he should. He contributes so much more to the party when he is actually allows to use non-buff spells :smalltongue:


Now you could even use the money saved on magic items to buy stuff to enhance your spellcasting; such as wands, scrolls, staffs, pearls, and so forth; which can help; but in one form or another you're still spending that money to remain more or less equivalent. Of course, how you go about managing your money is important in this too.

Indeed, in cases like these, arenas can be nice to see just how much gain you get from those items. But arenas also tend to a reflection of Opti-fu more than class usually though.


Well I missed that. I wasn't aware that were were comparing them in a vacuum. In this case the cleric will have the edge since he can half-do two different roles, which the fighter cannot. The cleric can spend part of his magic to keep himself buffed and protected, and the other half doing things like healing himself and some other options.
Which has been part of my point the whole time. Even if he just barely catches up in stats, he is still so much more versatile in combat and options that he surpasses the fighter.


That being said, it's not that extreme. The fighter still has the edge in the physical combat side of things; and using expected WBL and wealth per encounter, the fighter can easily afford a few minor long term buffs (such as quaffing a CL 1 potion of enlarge person).
Indeed, magic items are the 2nd most powerful resource after magic items, and you should make use of them. But be careful, for down that path lies the Giamonk, in all it's non-nonsensical glory.


In a party situation, I would expect everyone to share the love. Generally I prefer beginning with mass buffs such as haste and inspire courage; while piling super buffs like enlarge person, barkskin, and shield of faith on the most potent warrior type (be that the cleric, fighter, barbarian, or druid). In the ideal situation, I would say this would be a fighter or barbarian (or Paladin or Druid, depending); since they will stand to draw the most raw power out of it.
All of which a cleric benefits just as much out of as a fighter. As a side-note however, I should say I think that depending on your campaign, the new paladin is great, and can out-do any other melee in PF. The paladin was PF's best change IMO.


This is especially important since it's arguably wasteful for a spell-caster to be doing the warrior's job instead of using magic to help control the battlefield and hold your group together. A cleric could indeed take up the role as the prime warrior, but it would likely be more effective to hang back and cast summon monster I-IX, Prayer, and so forth.
Totally agree here. But when you have so much to start with, wasting just isn't quite as painful. :smallwink:


Couple this with Pathfinder's nerf on spellcasters in the form of Concentration, which is now a level + key ability check, with DCs that get much higher than in 3.5 - if you're grappled you could be looking at DCs as high as 40-50, with an expected modifier of +30; making casting much more difficult than the "I succeed" of 3.x - and you find that being in the heat of combat may really mean you are going to need to decide on casting or not casting; since it becomes much harder to do while in the thick of it.
This is true, and very painful, but it should be noted that once the cleric is high enough level, quickened buffs provoke no AoOs, and Divine Power makes him a better grappler than someone who actually took imp. and greater grapple.



The same holds true for the Pathfinder druid. Even with Natural Spell, the druid is really only an off-tank; much like the cleric. In a small party, they are exceptionally good since they can try to take on more than one role; though they're not the best. The fighter is the focused one; who is the best at his own role, but lacks in the other. Hence they are ideal in a party where they have quicker access to buffs to make them devastating.
I think the Druid is more of an off-tank in PF because of the wildshape nerfs rather than casting in combat. A druid really didn't need to cast any buffs in a good form.


A good example would be the batman wizard. You could cast polymorph on yourself to turn into a monstrous engine of destruction; or you could cast polymorph on your party's fighter and turn it into a monstrous engine of destruction that also has full BAB, more Hp, higher base stats, and as well as combat feats which carry over to his monstrous form. He can't cast polymorph himself, but he and the wizard are both great assets to one another. Though a Barbarian may be even more fun in these cases since he can rage no matter what form he's in; since the fighter looses a number of his static benefits while being turned into some beasties.
Indeed, in pathfinder, I actually hesitate to take all-caster team for this reason, as you really do need someone to play melee for you. Of course, I'd rather choose a bard than a fighter, but the point still stands.



If the fighter cannot hit the AC, the creature is probably far, far above your CR expectancy. Creating Monsters (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html) shows the expected AC of opponents by CR for Pathfinder; and a fighter will generally exceed these numbers by leaps and bounds thanks to their high static modifiers (it's not difficult to have +20 from BAB, +10 from strength w/general buffs, +7 from weapon training and specialization, and that's before counting magic weapons, haste, or other beneficial buffs; making it trivial for the fighter to give a monster the boot even while taking a -6 via PF-Power Attack to add +12-18 points of damage to each hit).
I know, but many DMs that I have played with have thrown really high AC enemies at us one time or another, or just ones buffed to high hell. I'm not talking about your standard enemies here.


Flying is a nice strategy, but far less effective past 10th level. Parties have access to fly by 5th level, and at later levels the cost of a potion is trivial. Combine with the vast numbers of items that grant flying in some form (cloak of the bat, celestial armor, boots of flying, flying mounts, magic carpets, horseshoes of the zypher, etc) the fighter is in no more trouble than the cleric. Invisibility likewise has a number of fairly easy methods for getting around, but merely having the blind-fight feat can reduce most of the penalties; but then again everyone who hasn't prepared for invisibility has trouble with invisible foes. By high levels, invisibility is as trivial as flying opponents - if not more so - since its counters are likewise many, and often less expensive.
Flying may be relatively easy to acquire mid-game, but a fighter still has to spend a lot of extra resources if he doesn't want to burn potions every other flight.
As for invisibility, Blind Fight is fairly pathetic, and is easily negated by some minor tactics. Again though, these are resources a fighter has to spend that a cleric gets simply by being a cleric.

In a party of three, the cleric appears more appealing as it can off-tank and be a healer and buffer. If I were planning for a gauntlet of overcoming challenges, I would likely desire a multi-class wizard 19 / rogue 1, cleric, fighter; since you would have strong access to both types of magic, a trap-nerfer, a main-tank, and an off-tank. If you were stuck with Wizard and Rogue, then I'd pick Cleric since it has an off-tank capability.


Ultimately, the smaller your party is, the more useful versatility becomes over specialization. In a solo-game, a Bard or Druid would be ideal, since they can off-X several classes; but excel at only a few things, for example. Likewise, a wizard would be better off than a barbarian because the wizard could conceivably overcome more; but would still be able to do more with a barbarian companion (allowing him to focus more of his time to being a wizard).

How would you feel if a paladin or druid were added to the party?


I've never been able to afford it. I play on private servers which run emulation software which you can play on. However, such servers are buggy, and can have technical problems; as well as being unable to give the full WoW experience. If you have the money, you should definitely play retail - it's much better.

Actually I've heard of these before. Care to recommend a good one?

Stephen_E
2010-07-27, 11:37 PM
So, I guess I'll be making the Cleric?

The further we go with this the more it feels like I'm gearing up for an arena. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :smallbiggrin:

Well it was tempting to go arena but I'm actually focusing on comboing with the Rogue.
Basically I'm going for the best bonuses I can get along with the the best possibility of taking advantage of situation possibilities.

This means I'm taking Combat Manuver stuff. While the numbers can be compared, the Combat Manuver and Combo stuff will have to be evaluted on a "how useful is this option in actual gaming", which is obviously opinion based, but hopefully we can get some approx consensus.

I didn't realise you guys were seriously taking the line -
We have a Wizard and a Rogue, do we take a Fighter or a Cleric?

I was approaching from the - We have a Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Fighter. Who is better at Melee Combat, the Fighter or the Cleric?
Which from other posts is what other's were thinking as well.

I'll try and do both.
For the former feel free to use day long buffs for the Clric that I won't get on the Fighter.


Stephen E

Ashiel
2010-07-28, 01:29 AM
Wow, I'd want to sig that if it wasn't such an obvious ego-quote. Thanks.
No problem. :smallsmile:


Yes, but I'd say that while the day-long spells are all playing catch up, the per-encounter spells are ridonkulously powerful enough for more than just catch-up. + a lot to attack and damage, +double that to maneuvers, and an extra attack makes a cleric 100% even stat-wise, and then Righteous Might makes you an engine of doom.

...

This is true, and very painful, but it should be noted that once the cleric is high enough level, quickened buffs provoke no AoOs, and Divine Power makes him a better grappler than someone who actually took imp. and greater grapple.

Indeed. A cleric who is going the tank route definitely needs the quicken feat; and it's good that swift-castings don't provoke or else we'd be mighty screwed. That being said, there's a few things to note. Righteous Might is pretty awesome, but it's also basically enlarge person on the 'roids. Divine power is nice as well, reaching up to +6, and granting an extra attack - but this extra attack doesn't stack with effects such as haste or speed weapons; as noted in its entry.

But they are brutal. Wonderful spells the both of them. However, a large drawback to them is they only last 1 round per level, making pre-combat buffing far more difficult for the cleric with these spells; so they may or may not be that appealing. Quickening divine power and casting Righteous Might is a good option though; but it'll burn two 5th level spell slots when you do.

I don't mean to harp on dispel vulnerabilities either; but really, I mean in tactical combat dispelling is a major tactic. Not merely spell-casters but a number of creatures have the ability to dispel via Sp. Abilities and the like; which can tear your buffs off; which requires you to rebuff. Additionally, you're burning at least 2 5th level spells per fight to 1 round buff; which is kind of painful.

Also enlarge person doesn't stack with righteous might, which is a saving grace for the fighter in this case (since a huge cleric would indeed take the cake, hands down :smalltongue:).


All of which a cleric benefits just as much out of as a fighter. As a side-note however, I should say I think that depending on your campaign, the new paladin is great, and can out-do any other melee in PF. The paladin was PF's best change IMO.
Oh I agree so much. The new Paladin is absolutely wonderful. Remind me to link you to my Paladin of Wee Jass who will become an Archlich down the road. :smallbiggrin:

That being said, the cleric vs fighter as a buff target comes back down to the question of what you start with. While a cleric definitely benefits wizardly buffs (except less benefit with haste or enlarge person once you get divine power and righteous might up) the Fighter is naturally stronger; making them a more appealing target for the buffs.

For example, the cleric buffs to become as strong as the fighter. The fighter buffs to become stronger than the fighter. The fighter likewise enjoys a number of nice feat options in Pathfinder; and likely is loaded with more feats which often give him more options. Again, I'm not saying that feats are all that amazing, but like with the polymorphed wizard example from my last post; you could either turn the caster into a monster, or you could turn the fighter into a monster with tons of bonus feats just for good measure.


Which has been part of my point the whole time. Even if he just barely catches up in stats, he is still so much more versatile in combat and options that he surpasses the fighter.

The cleric is much more versatile than the fighter. It's hard not to be, since it's a spell-caster and can adapt roles. The fighter is specialized however. He gives up versatility for enhanced killing and tanking power; and he has to rely on allies to give him buffs; again much like the Warrior from WoW (as Gametime said, a Warrior with a healer/buff buddy is a force of nature :smalltongue:).

I guess it all comes down to what kind of game you're playing at the time. As noted, if you have the option to function as a coherent team, then I think a Pathfinder fighter is a very strong option (and I believe a Paladin is as well; I wasn't trying to imply previously that the Paladin wasn't a good target for buffs; as my own Paladin of Wee Jass carries a few potions of enlarge person and some partially charged wands :smalltongue:).

I guess the more team-based the game is, the more the fighter will shine. For example; Pathfinder made it even more appealing to craft magic items for your party members (no XP costs); so if you've got at least one caster in your group (or have the Master Craftsman feat) then you should be able to get efficient gear for your whole party (technically the fighter can craft items himself now, but it requires him to burn 2-3 of his 20 feats so I hadn't mentioned it previously). So when I'm playing a caster, I generally try to craft magical goodies for my party on the cheap as well (Pathfinder seems to expect you to craft your own stuff by default - especially if you look at WBL compared to the GP limits of towns).


How would you feel if a paladin or druid were added to the party?

Well the Paladin is very nice. Not quite the static-bonus tank that the Fighter is, but their party support in the auras is nice; their immunities excellent; their lay on hands is awesome; divine grace makes them a great tank vs magic; and their smite evil is made of so much win; especially with their higher level ability to grant smite to their allies. :smallbiggrin:

Truthfully, I think the following party would be particularly awesome in a 4 person squad. 1 Fighter, 1 Paladin, 1 Wizard/Rogue, 1 Cleric or Druid. The cleric is better at healing, while the druid comes pre-made for summoning and has a nice animal companion to run interference; and both can buff very well; while the druid is an off-blaster. The Paladin and Fighter make a great wing-man team; and the Paladin can off-heal via wands and lay on hands. The fighter likely functions as main DPS, while the Paladin will completely destroy anything that made the mistake of being Evil. Both are effective tanks; and can tag-team foes (two warrior types with reach weapons are mean as hell). The wizard/rogue can deal with traps while not loosing 9th level spells, while also serving as battlefield control. Druid or Cleric can heal and summon, while also having the option to join the fray.

For the record, I think the PF rogue is nice; and I'm not trying to leave it out of the 4 person party; it's just I tend to prefer the simpler party structure of 2 tanks + 2 casters. :smallsmile:


Actually I've heard of these before. Care to recommend a good one?
I sure can. I'll PM you with the details.

FatR
2010-07-28, 03:14 AM
ok the pros of the fighter are- initially very strong, combat specialist, feats keep him still pretty strong through 20th lvl. The cons are, he never really learns anything new :( and eventually he starts to be harder to play.

However he is critical to the party as a protector of the spell casters because he has all that combat prowess.
In PF the fighter absolutely suck at protecting anything. Trip controllers were nerfed out of existence with changes to trip and spiked chain. And they were the only build that actually stood a chance of not letting foes move towards a party member of their choice without GM contriving circumstances specifically for that.

FatR
2010-07-28, 03:23 AM
Fighter begins as Warrior+
Cleric begins as Warrior--.
The cleric can buff worth two +s; so the cleric buffs to Warrior.
Alternatively, the cleric buffs the warrior to Warrior+++.
The best cleric buffs are yourself only. Moreover, the cleric with buffs is not mildly inferior, but far superior to a fighter.

And to be frank the whole "but clerics are so awesome, that they can even make fighters into combatants equal or slightly better than themselves, if they care, therefore clerics are not as good as fighters" line of reasoning looks utterly illogical to me.

Ashiel
2010-07-28, 05:41 AM
The best cleric buffs are yourself only. Moreover, the cleric with buffs is not mildly inferior, but far superior to a fighter.

And to be frank the whole "but clerics are so awesome, that they can even make fighters into combatants equal or slightly better than themselves, if they care, therefore clerics are not as good as fighters" line of reasoning looks utterly illogical to me.

Yeah. The best cleric buffs, being divine power and righteous might allow the cleric to pretend to be a fighter; and can be mostly replicated on a fighter via the longer lasting and much sooner available enlarge person; whereas divine power allows the cleric to get hit/damage comparable to a fighter of equal level. If clerics could cast divine power and righteous might on a fighter it would actually be way too good.

Also, for the record, Fighters do not need chain-tripping to be a successful Standstill build. In fact, Pathfinder fighters can do it with Combat Reflexes and Stand Still. They are arguably better since they likewise gain more static bonuses to both attack and damage which helps with Stand Still; and also being better at tripping since they can make trip attacks with a Ranseur and may apply their BAB and other bonuses to the attempt; whereas in 3.5 you are pretty much hosed by any creature that is A) bigger than you, B) stronger than you, C) has more legs than you, or D) all of the above.

In Pathfinder, even if it is "all of the above", you're still capable of being competitive as you apply your full BAB to the check, as well as additional static modifiers (such as the +7 from weapon training + weapon specialization; up to +5 for your weapon enhancement, as well as the feats themselves such as Improved Trip); likewise while you cannot score an extra hit against a foe only with Improved Trip as you could in 3.5; Pathfinder's Greater Trip not only returns this ability but makes you opponent provoke attacks from everyone threatening them (thus you get an attack, as well as anyone else fighting the opponent).

Additionally, he can grab Combat Reflexes, which now allows AoOs even while you're flat footed; as well as having a number of status inflicting ailments; and combo maneuvers. A great example is the standard-action Deadly Stroke feat; which the fighter can either use on an opponent that he has set-up himself, or against an opponent stunned or rendered flat-footed by an ally. Deadly Stroke is a fighter-only feat which allows you to - as a standard action - hit an opponent for double damage and inflict a point of constitution bleed on them (meaning they loose -1 con every round if they do not or cannot heal); which if you have Deadly Stroke you also have an AoE intimidate; and if you have these feats then you will also have Shatter Defenses; which forces any opponent who was Shaken, Frightened, or Panicked that you hit to be flat-footed against you until the end of your next turn (which also denies them their dexterity bonus to their CMD; and again sets them up for Deadly Stroke).

Additionally, the cleric has a lot of exceptionally good buff spells that make the fighter even more devastating. For example, by giving the fighter a life-drinker and then buffing him with death ward he will inflict -2 levels on every enemy he strikes; which in turn inflicts -2 atk, saves, checks, and -10 Hp on top of damage or effects which occur when he strikes them.

Stephen_E
2010-07-28, 07:05 AM
Just a note.
The Fighter can have Righteous Might and Divine Power cast on him. Although Divine Favour is more cost effective than Divine Power.

It's expensive but quite possibly worth it.
You use Ring of Spell Storing and does need a handy Cleric.
But essentailly the Cleric gets the option of storing a spell/s for the Fighter to buff himself at a later time.
3 spell leves = 9k gp
5 spell levels = 25k gp
10 spell levels = 100k gp.

Stephen E

Ps. TinyDwarfMan - Finished the 10th lev build. Extending it to 15th lev now.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-28, 07:39 AM
Just a note.
The Fighter can have Righteous Might and Divine Power cast on him. Although Divine Favour is more cost effective than Divine Power.

It's expensive but quite possibly worth it.
You use Ring of Spell Storing and does need a handy Cleric.
But essentailly the Cleric gets the option of storing a spell/s for the Fighter to buff himself at a later time.
3 spell leves = 9k gp
5 spell levels = 25k gp
10 spell levels = 100k gp.

Stephen E

Ps. TinyDwarfMan - Finished the 10th lev build. Extending it to 15th lev now.

Actually the price is double what you have listed there, 18k for 3, 50k for 5, and 200k for 10.

Also: :smalleek: I've hardly started the cleric. I've got exams today/tommorow, so not much time. But building a core character shouldn't be too hard.

Stephen_E
2010-07-28, 08:11 AM
Actually the price is double what you have listed there, 18k for 3, 50k for 5, and 200k for 10.


Doh!

I took the construction price.:smallredface:

No prob on the PC construction.
Kind of fun looking at some options that hadn't previously occurred to me.
Gesalt stuff. Abilities that a nice on their own, but when added to another characters abilities becomes really nice.

Of course having read the thread about a Troll PC I realise that playing a Troll Fighter under PF really does out match the Cleric in a 3 person party.
He doesn't need healing so his abilities lose the "until you run out of hit points" limit and doesn't miss not having a Cleric to heal him.:smallbiggrin:

:smallsigh: Sadly we restricted ourselves to standard races.:smallwink:

Stephen E

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-28, 10:53 AM
Doh!

I took the construction price.:smallredface:

No prob on the PC construction.
Kind of fun looking at some options that hadn't previously occurred to me.
Gesalt stuff. Abilities that a nice on their own, but when added to another characters abilities becomes really nice.

Of course having read the thread about a Troll PC I realise that playing a Troll Fighter under PF really does out match the Cleric in a 3 person party.
He doesn't need healing so his abilities lose the "until you run out of hit points" limit and doesn't miss not having a Cleric to heal him.:smallbiggrin:

:smallsigh: Sadly we restricted ourselves to standard races.:smallwink:

Stephen E

There's a reason trolls don't have a "Player Race" segment. No GM in their right mind would let a player get regeneration. Also, They're probably at least LA+5, if not more than that.

But yeah, there's a reason trolls are one of the most popular polymorph forms. They're pretty awesome.

Doug Lampert
2010-07-28, 11:38 AM
The best cleric buffs are yourself only. Moreover, the cleric with buffs is not mildly inferior, but far superior to a fighter.

And to be frank the whole "but clerics are so awesome, that they can even make fighters into combatants equal or slightly better than themselves, if they care, therefore clerics are not as good as fighters" line of reasoning looks utterly illogical to me.

A class or role isn't an island, it functions in a party. PCs don't fight each other, they fight monsters. The question on the table is, "Do clerics make a better fighter than the fighter?"

Not: "Are clerics more powerful than fighters?"

And that shouldn't be judged by one on one combat. But rather by "can a party of "Cleric, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue fill the fighter role better than a party of Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue while still doing everything else it needs to and when faced with an array of fairly typical challenges."

This is VERY situational, but outside of very low level play or a disfunctional party the Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue group WILL buff the fighter some, so a somewhat buffed fighter is a reasonable basis for comparison.

IMAO the reason there's any question is that the above party only has 2 full casters, and it's got four people to buff (and needs about 1.5 people's worth of spells for other functions). They WILL run out of buffs (even the wizard wants AC buffed, his casting stat buffed, his Con buffed, and maybe one or two others, everyone wants buffs). They probably can't even manage all the long duration buffs everyone would want without seriously depleting their spells and resources.

Cleric, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue has added another pure caster, if "other spell using stuff" like healing and transportation and blasting remain roughly constant at 1.5 full casters then they've got about three times as many buff spells available for the same size group. They CAN fully buff.

So can two fully buffed clerics (one built for melee and the other for general support) and a fully buffed rogue out melee three partially buffed characters: a fighter, a general support cleric, and a Rogue?

I'd say that's a yes, but it's not a simple question.

Ashiel
2010-07-28, 01:42 PM
A class or role isn't an island, it functions in a party. PCs don't fight each other, they fight monsters. The question on the table is, "Do clerics make a better fighter than the fighter?"

Not: "Are clerics more powerful than fighters?"

And that shouldn't be judged by one on one combat. But rather by "can a party of "Cleric, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue fill the fighter role better than a party of Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue while still doing everything else it needs to and when faced with an array of fairly typical challenges."

This is VERY situational, but outside of very low level play or a disfunctional party the Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue group WILL buff the fighter some, so a somewhat buffed fighter is a reasonable basis for comparison.

IMAO the reason there's any question is that the above party only has 2 full casters, and it's got four people to buff (and needs about 1.5 people's worth of spells for other functions). They WILL run out of buffs (even the wizard wants AC buffed, his casting stat buffed, his Con buffed, and maybe one or two others, everyone wants buffs). They probably can't even manage all the long duration buffs everyone would want without seriously depleting their spells and resources.

Cleric, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue has added another pure caster, if "other spell using stuff" like healing and transportation and blasting remain roughly constant at 1.5 full casters then they've got about three times as many buff spells available for the same size group. They CAN fully buff.

So can two fully buffed clerics (one built for melee and the other for general support) and a fully buffed rogue out melee three partially buffed characters: a fighter, a general support cleric, and a Rogue?

I'd say that's a yes, but it's not a simple question.

I pretty much agree with the above.

I once GMed for a party completely made of Pathfinder clerics. They were all built to be generalists (they were kind-of combatants, kind-of caster focused), and they turned their weaknesses into strengths; using undead to help tank and damage opponents; and the whole lot of them were exceptionally good at keeping each other alive (since there was no dedicated healer but they could all drop heal-bombs when in need).

They tended to have trouble with a number of encounters though. They didn't have a whole lot of battlefield control, and if their undead or them couldn't crack it very well (say because of damage reductions), then it tended to be a race to see who could drop who before the healing ran out.

This particular group did have an edge of most Pathfinder clerics since I said they could use Tomb Tainted Soul; and all four clerics were negative energy undead-raising clerics (allowing them to generally keep up both offense and defense amazingly easy). Of course, none of these clerics ever bothered to even touch Divine Power or Righteous Might because they were generally dropping mass buffs due to minion mongering.

In the end, a lot of it is playing to your strengths and trying to cover your weaknesses. None of the clerics bothered to really fill the primary tank position; because they went about it an alternative way. They focused almost entirely on party-healing and minions; which worked great for them.

So I do think cleric/cleric/arcane/other would be a very effective group if the clerics play to their strengths and take advantage of their resources and abilities (such as spontaneous healing, or two clerics dropping Channel Energy in the same turn); but I do solemnly believe that a well prepared fighter would serve as much of a role in a group as almost any other character.

Fighters don't need a lot of major buffs, and they don't need every buff every fight. I think this is one of the largest things to remember. A fighter can generally function with no buffs; but even at low levels carry a CL 1 Potion of enlarge person for his own use (since 10 rounds of enlargement is usually good enough); and it never really gets old; so with a few consumables (or even better x/day items or x round/day items) can really go a long way if you need to take a bit of the buff-strain off.

A 20th level fighter, before buffs (assuming rolls of 10, and a strength of 30 which assumes starting 15, +5 from levels, +4 inherent, and +6 enhancement item, and a +5 enhancement weapon) will have the following attack rolls, and damage rolls before buffs such as enlarge person or anything else:

Attacks - 46/41/36/31
Damage: 52/52/52/52 (assuming 5 average damage via guisarme)
Assuming Haste or a Speed weapon, you get an additional 46 to hit, and another 52 to damage. He confirms all critical hits (very few things are immune in Pathfinder), and his critical multiplier is increased by +1 if it's his 20th level weapon of choice. It assumes 5 feats (weapon focus/specialization line and power attack). Add in Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike and the Fighter ignores 10 points of any DR (5pts vs DR/-); leaving 13 more feats to to choose from; which could be used to grab Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, Dazzling Display, Shatter Defenses, and Deadly Stroke (just 'cause these are fun to me), leaving 8 feats; so we'll grab Improved Trip and Greater Trip (so we can force opponents to provoke attacks from ourselves and our allies); Iron Will ('cause we can), Lightning Reflexes ('cause we can), Great Fortitude ('cause we can), and we've got 3 feats to play around with.

But, I'm gonna stop here. I think I made my points a few threads back, and I feel like I'm beating a pony here. The only thing I really set out to do was make note that the Pathfinder Fighter is quite a valuable member of an adventuring party; not try to suggest that Fighter should always been chosen of another class (I'm quite fond of Paladins and Barbarians, like Tinydwarfman). :smallsmile: