Anything a Fighter can do, a Paladin or Ranger can do better (and more) [Archive]

MaxWilson

2017-06-12, 02:13 PM

I saw this proposed in the "Casters Rule, Martials Drool" thread.

Is it true? Why or why not?

No. Fighters (specifically Eldritch Knights) make the best archers, for instance, thanks to their extra attacks, extra feats, and ability to enchant their own weapons (Magic Weapon spell). Rangers can keep up at low levels due to Horde Breaker, although it comes into play less reliably than you might think. By 11th level though, fighters are clearly better at inflicting single-target damage at range.

Rangers are still awesome in their sneakiness and ability to generate their own chaff, but they aren't better archers than the fighters are.

Also, if we're talking about non-multiclassed builds, melee EKs have advantages which keep them competitive with paladins, perhaps better. Notably, Shield and Absorb Elements are both available to Eldritch Knights, which makes them tankier than paladins. Action Surge and Divine Smite are roughly equivalent when it comes to burstiness. 3+ attacks per round, plus Action Surge if needed, makes them substantially better than paladins at physical control (grappling/shoving). Also note that since these things come on the base fighter chassis, even an archer fighter winds up being pretty decent at melee and physical control in a pinch.

Paladins are obviously better healers, thanks to aura spells, and pretty decent at crowd control in a non-physical, magical-oriented way (smite spells); the aura helps against magical threats; and of course the subtypes have their own value, e.g. Paladin of Devotion is obviously better than a melee fighter for fighting demons, because imposing disadvantage on all enemy attacks on the party is great. But they aren't better tanks than fighters are, and they might be outright worse except for the protection aura. You'd probably rather have one paladin and three fighters tanking in melee, instead of four paladins.

jaappleton

2017-06-12, 02:18 PM

I'd like to see a Paladin perform Action Surge, or have a 20 in a stat with standard array at level 6.

cotofpoffee

2017-06-12, 02:18 PM

That entire thread screams 3.5/Pathfinder mentality to me. Casters rule martials drool and Fighter sux were definitely true in that edition.

I remember being pretty impressed with how much better the Fighter is in this edition when I switched over. The Fighter does all-day pretty well, and they can nova quite decently when they need to. Paladins are still pretty awesome and Ranger I believe does better at ranged from level 1-10, which is where most games are played. But Fighters have a well established place in this edition which is way better than before.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-06-12, 02:18 PM

You'd probably rather have one paladin and three fighters tanking in melee, instead of four paladins.
I've seen a group with a vengeance two-hander paladin, a PAM battlemaster fighter, and a totem two-hander barbarian. Nothing got through them. NOTHING.

It was glorious.

Feuerphoenix

2017-06-12, 02:22 PM

No. Fighters (specifically Eldritch Knights) make the best archers, for instance, thanks to their extra attacks, extra feats, and ability to enchant their own weapons (Magic Weapon spell). Rangers can keep up at low levels due to Horde Breaker, although it comes into play less reliably than you might think. By 11th level though, fighters are clearly better at inflicting single-target damage at range.

Rangers are still awesome in their sneakiness and ability to generate their own chaff, but they aren't better archers than the fighters are.

Also, if we're talking about non-multiclassed builds, melee EKs have advantages which keep them competitive with paladins, perhaps better. Notably, Shield and Absorb Elements are both available to Eldritch Knights, which makes them tankier than paladins. Action Surge and Divine Smite are roughly equivalent when it comes to burstiness. 3+ attacks per round, plus Action Surge if needed, makes them substantially better than paladins at physical control (grappling/shoving). Also note that since these things come on the base fighter chassis, even an archer fighter winds up being pretty decent at melee and physical control in a pinch.

Paladins are obviously better healers, thanks to aura spells, and pretty decent at crowd control in a non-physical, magical-oriented way (smite spells); the aura helps against magical threats; and of course the subtypes have their own value, e.g. Paladin of Devotion is obviously better than a melee fighter for fighting demons, because imposing disadvantage on all enemy attacks on the party is great. But they aren't better tanks than fighters are, and they might be outright worse except for the protection aura. You'd probably rather have one paladin and three fighters tanking in melee, instead of four paladins.

Did I overlook something? I thought the spell effect only works for the pally oO

Specter

2017-06-12, 02:23 PM

If you could get the best of both Ranger and Paladin, then sure.

Ranger is the best martial against hordes (with or without Horde Breaker). Paladin is the best against a single enemy. Fighter aren't the best at neither, but they can adapt as needed.

RickAllison

2017-06-12, 02:34 PM

I would also point out that Fighters make incredible grapplers. Not because they are the best at grappling (other builds can do it much better), but because a fighter can become a great grappler without breaking stride in their fighteriness. While the bardic grapplers are giving up previous spells known and Expertise, even feats when they need the ASIs, the fighter can laugh and toss whatever they need at it and still have everything from their subclass and class to fall back on. A bardic grappler who faces something he can't grapple is weaker than normal. A fighter who can't just pulls out something to use his normally-open hand with.

Fighters are extremely adaptable. They get nice bonuses for specializing, but a fighter is one of the classes that really can make use of a armory of magic weapons with different effects. Toss a few Javelins of Lightning, use a Defender to get an AC boost, combine a Flametongue with an Icebrand to shatter metal, and so on.

thereaper

2017-06-12, 02:34 PM

My understanding is that the Fighter can do more damage in the long run, but the Paladin is a better class overall because of all its wonderful spells and features.

Incidentally, this also describes the relationship between casters and martials this edition: the martials aren't useless, but they aren't equal contributors, either.

Waazraath

2017-06-12, 02:43 PM

No, of course not. Fighter has several great features. Most common complains I read about them, is that they don't get enough at the higher levels, and that rerolls on saves are weak because the base saves are so low. Which is true, in theory, but in practice, you play in a team, with bless active, a pally nearby, a bardic inspiration die handy, magic items that increase saves, or etc. In those cases, rerolls are simply great. And they do great damage, and have enough ASI's to pick up a feat or 2 for versatility.

I love pally's, and think they are one of the most powerful classes in 5e, but they do work on limited resources. The fighter chasis is simply much better for a really long dungeon crawl (though he'll still want a pally in the party for his boost to saves)

MaxWilson

2017-06-12, 02:51 PM

Did I overlook something? I thought the spell effect only works for the pally oO

Oops! I've been misremembering the level 15 Paladin of Devotion ability. You're right, it only affects the paladin, which makes it significantly less good.

Pex

2017-06-12, 02:54 PM

That entire thread screams 3.5/Pathfinder mentality to me. Casters rule martials drool and Fighter sux were my opinion true in that edition.

Fixed that for you.

That is not a universal truth.

Findulidas

2017-06-12, 03:14 PM

I think people rate paladins higher than fighters cos most dms dont really follow the intended amount of fights per day. Seems to be lower on average.

Specter

2017-06-12, 03:29 PM

I think people rate paladins higher than fighters cos most dms dont really follow the intended amount of fights per day. Seems to be lower on average.

This. If you're pulling one or two fights a day, Paladins will pull well ahead. IIRC pallys have no short rest recharge features.

MaxWilson

2017-06-12, 03:37 PM

This. If you're pulling one or two fights a day, Paladins will pull well ahead. IIRC pallys have no short rest recharge features.

Channel Divinity: Sacred Weapon/Oath of Vengeance comes to mind.

Luvia

2017-06-12, 03:38 PM

Fixed that for you.

That is not a universal truth.

Hardly. Its pretty much an accepted truth. Any fluff or fun aside. Mechanically fighters or martails in general couldbt hold up compared to casters in 3.5/pathfinder. Belief otherwise is just a lack of understanding of the game.

Theodoxus

2017-06-12, 03:43 PM

Roleplaying has no universal truth.

Fixed that for you.

Everything in roleplaying is subjective, and highly based on how a particular game or campaign goes. Even the most useless class one could come up, if played to whatever meager strengths it does have, can create a memorable scene - one that is remembered by that group for decades.

It might not even be a conscious effort. If a player is lucky, rolls a ranger who's favored enemy is undead and just happens to end up in an undead centric campaign, well, he - and his table - will probably come out with the impression that rangers are far better than fighters... on the other hand, if he picks undead and the campaign is Princes of the Apocalypse... the party will probably come away thinking that rangers are underpowered.

Similar things can happen with casters too. My lingering impression of sorcerers is pretty dour. I didn't choose spells wisely for the campaign we were in, my metamagic was routinely foiled by DM fiat and the concept never gelled. I'd far rather play a bard or wizard as an arcanist than a sorcerer ever again, and I've seen a couple sorcs played exceedingly well since...

My life cleric was awesome for keeping things alive. But when trying to play a cleric as the Spirit Guardian / Spiritual Weapon DPR powerhouse so talked up on the forums, he was less than awesome. Mostly it was the campaign; limited useful encounters to use those particular spells coupled with a basic 15 minute day meant I could more easily afford to blow slots on arguably less useful spells in any other circumstance. (To be fair though, an encounter with hundreds of oozes would have ended very badly without the damage and crowd control of SG - but that one fight, of many dozens, does not make up for the tactic.)

Now, to the OP. Anything the fighter can do? A paladin simply can't shoot better than a fighter. Not unless you're looking at specific characters, and the fighter has a 8 Dex while the Paladin has a 20 - then, maybe... since the Paladin will hit more often than the fighter... but in general, nope. Thus, your proof fails and the hypothesis can be safely laid to rest.

Next!

mgshamster

2017-06-12, 03:51 PM

Now, to the OP. Anything the fighter can do? A paladin simply can't shoot better than a fighter. Not unless you're looking at specific characters, and the fighter has a 8 Dex while the Paladin has a 20 - then, maybe... since the Paladin will hit more often than the fighter... but in general, nope. Thus, your proof fails and the hypothesis can be safely laid to rest.

Next!

Well, it wasn't my hypothesis. It was a stated hypothesis in another thread, and I simply moved it to its own thread and posed the question.

But also, you didn't provide proof one way or another, you just made a statement and then derived a conclusion from the statement with no supporting evidence. I believe that's called begging the question.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the hypothesis is false, but I lack the proof for it. Therefore, I'm open to being wrong. Plus, I'm interested in seeing the arguments from all sides.

Corran

2017-06-12, 03:55 PM

Waazraath

2017-06-12, 03:55 PM

Fixed that for you.

That is not a universal truth.

I agree with this. Even in 3.5, when there was serious disbalance between classes, in play it wasn't a problem, often. The problems were mostly in the optimization boards. Barring pun-pun like nonsense, with creative DM'ing a campaign was cool up to level 10-15, even having both martials and full casters, in my experience. If the players were veterans, there was hardly a problem at all, even at higher levels. And when allowing rediculous optimization RAW tricks, it didn't matter because even a commoner would have infinite wealth (and as such, power) at lvl 1.

mgshamster

2017-06-12, 04:12 PM

MaxWilson

2017-06-12, 04:27 PM

Here is a question: How much of a negative impact would a game without feats have on the ''value'' of a fighter, compared to paladins and rangers?

I guess EK's would be fine, since they are MAD, but wouldn't a champion or a battlemaster be seriously hidered?

ps: Should I move this into a thread of its own op, or are you fine with me asking this here? If it's the first just say so, and I'll edit this comment.

I don't know about "value", but I would not want to play a (pure) fighter in a featless game. Fighters are all about being weapon masters, and in a featless game there isn't really any weapon mastery. In a featless game, if I want to play a nonmagical character, I'd probably wind up playing a multiclassed fighter/rogue so that if I can't be a weapon master, at least I can be a master sneak and pretty good with weapons.

I think the only time I'd play a pure fighter in a featless game would be if the game were using the Basic Rules only. If there's no multiclassing, no feats, and no classes except Evoker/Life Cleric/Thief/Champion, then Champion has a pretty clear niche as the tough guy with mighty weapons.

Squiddish

2017-06-12, 04:29 PM

Here is a question: How much of a negative impact would a game without feats have on the ''value'' of a fighter, compared to paladins and rangers?

I guess EK's would be fine, since they are MAD, but wouldn't a champion or a battlemaster be seriously hidered?

ps: Should I move this into a thread of its own op, or are you fine with me asking this here? If it's the first just say so, and I'll edit this comment.

Thank you for asking! It seems like a worthwhile question which can help address the topic of this thread. I feel as if it's appropriate for our current conversation.

I'd say feats are pretty much necessary. Not only do they give some neat new options for use in combat, they greatly expand out of combat ability. Plus, at a certain point the two extra ASIs don't really serve to distinguish you or end up spent on stats you don't really need or want, but feats help you carve out a very solid niche.

Drackolus

2017-06-12, 04:33 PM

I think the trouble is white-room theories. On your best days, the paladin can take out everything singlehandedly. On your worst days, the fighter is still pulling 80% of his usual weight - 90% if they're a champion. Take away all his weapons and armor and spell slots and stop him from resting after a full day of adventuring and the champion is picking up a rock and doing 1d4+7 (dueling) damage 3x a round and critting regularly.

Theodoxus

2017-06-12, 04:55 PM

Well, it wasn't my hypothesis. It was a stated hypothesis in another thread, and I simply moved it to its own thread and posed the question.

But also, you didn't provide proof one way or another, you just made a statement and then derived a conclusion from the statement with no supporting evidence. I believe that's called begging the question.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the hypothesis is false, but I lack the proof for it. Therefore, I'm open to being wrong. Plus, I'm interested in seeing the arguments from all sides.

Sorry I didn't have numbers to back me up.

Let's see - even the most casual of player, who is building two archers, one fighter, one paladin, is going to notice the glaring differences.
The fighter will pick Archery style, hands down. There is no reason not to, he wants to be an archer, it's in the name of the fighting style - get grabs it.

The paladin, once he gets to 2nd level, is sad to see there isn't an Archery fighting style option for him. He grabs Defense instead, but hey, armor is good!

Conclusion: All things being equal: Starting with a 16 Dex for both, the fighter is +7 to hit, the Paladin +5 at 2nd level

The disparity continues. The paladin gets no spells that help outside of magical weapon (if he picks the right Oath at 3rd level). The fighter, being generous, decides not to take Dex as his ASI at 4th, but grabs Sharpshooter instead. Now his highly accurate hits (being +8) are even more so (nothing but full cover blocks his shots). The paladin closes the gap, getting his dex to 18, so he's now +7 to hit! On top of that, if the fighter decides to use the -5/+10 attacks, the paladin will hit more often, but the fighter will hit for a lot more...

On up to level 11... The fighter gets a 3rd attack. The paladin gets improved smite - which doesn't apply to ranged attacks... In the meantime, the fighter has boosted his Dex to 20 (18 at 6th, 20 at 8th). The Paladin decides his kit literally provides no boons to archery and picks up Shield Master, going Rapier and Shield instead, sad that he can't reliably shoot, but much happier as his actual damage goes up considerably, and he gets to tick off the fighter by knocking prone his opponents, granting disad to the fighters ranged attacks.

If you want actual maths, I'm sure Kryx has a spreadsheet on the DPR differences between archery fighters and archery paladins. Because someone would ask...

Sigreid

2017-06-12, 05:00 PM

Gtdead

2017-06-12, 05:08 PM

While fighter is a fairly weak class, he has the best scaling in the game and can take advantage of offensive buffs better than anyone.

I would never pick him over a paladin generally, but he can trivialize some encounters just by pure damage output in the right party.

Pex

2017-06-12, 05:33 PM

Hardly. Its pretty much an accepted truth. Any fluff or fun aside. Mechanically fighters or martails in general couldbt hold up compared to casters in 3.5/pathfinder. Belief otherwise is just a lack of understanding of the game.

Nuh uh.

Psst: In my Pathfinder group there exists a druid and a fighter with both having fun, neither resenting the other, both contributing well in their ways. Also darn it the spellcasters do not always have the most perfect spell needed at the moment it would have been quite useful, and even when they do the bad guys are making their saving throws from time to time so the spellcasters aren't always saving the day doing everything. When the spell does work the warriors are quite happy about it.

Shall we continue in another useless edition war or get back to the main conversation?

BoxANT

2017-06-12, 05:36 PM

Eldritch Knight with healer feat is a hipster paladin.

JAL_1138

2017-06-12, 06:19 PM

Short version: Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins do different things, or accomplish similar things in different ways. Paladins are kind of rubbish at ranged damage, Rangers are respectable at it, and Fighters can actually outshoot the Ranger. Ranger and Paladin get versatile spell lists and utility capability, both get some healing ability as well (Paladins get more healing, Rangers get more utility). Fighters and Paladins can be melee monsters; Ranger will be more of a skirmisher for the most part. Paladin gets aura effects that make it a good party buffer of sorts, but Fighters can out-tank them and can outlast them on long adventuring days. Etc., etc., so on and so forth. Different strengths and weaknesses for each. Fighters work best when feats are allowed (really, all three do), but, while less-effective, aren't totally worthless without them.

Shorter version: Fighters are good. They work, they're effective, and they're a solid addition to the party, and they can do some things better than Paladins and Rangers can, just as Paladins and Rangers do some things better than Fighters.

cotofpoffee

2017-06-12, 06:20 PM

Nuh uh.

Psst: In my Pathfinder group there exists a druid and a fighter with both having fun, neither resenting the other, both contributing well in their ways. Also darn it the spellcasters do not always have the most perfect spell needed at the moment it would have been quite useful, and even when they do the bad guys are making their saving throws from time to time so the spellcasters aren't always saving the day doing everything. When the spell does work the warriors are quite happy about it.

Shall we continue in another useless edition war or get back to the main conversation?

And in my Pathfinder group where we played from level 1-15, the gap between martials and spellcasters became more painfully apparent each level we climbed. Anecdotal experience doesn't really help when discussing power levels of classes. You and I have opposite experiences. Both experiences are valid. So where does nothing to move the conversation forward. This particular conversation is also not an edition war conversation. It's talking solely about our views on balance in Pathfinder.

The fact remains, there is a huge crowd in Pathfinder that think there are these imbalances. Look on their forums. You cannot simply say every single one of them is wrong. That's both ignorant and disrespectful. In fact, people who are for these imbalances are the ones actively suggesting ways to fix it and engaging in compelling arguments where they back up their claims with numbers.

One argument i see a lot, and it has even been posted on this thread already, is that anyone can make a character compelling if they're a good roleplayer. Yet that is not because of the class. That is because the player is awesome. Such a player could even make playing a commoner with no abilities good. That doesn't make Fighters back then good. In fact, it makes then worse because it requires a player to roleplay better to make up for its flaws.

A person who makes a strong character can be a good roleplayer. Optimization does not automatically mean a person won't or can't roleplay. It can for sure, but they are definitely not mutually exclusive. The best roleplayers I've met also make the strongest characters.

Citan

2017-06-12, 07:24 PM

I saw this proposed in the "Casters Rule, Martials Drool" thread.

Is it true? Why or why not?
I'd say not true at all.
Fighter will always win in the end (highest levels) on sustained damage to start with as long as feats are allowed (Sharpshooter / GWM).
There are also some niche that Fighters can fill in easier than Rangers and much easier than Paladins because...
a) They have 2 more ASI stat.
b) They are globally lesser attribute dependent.
A Ranger could "dump" WIS but would restrict his spelllist and reduce the efficiency of one of his primary role, tracking.
A Paladin would live this even worse, because Charisma affects prepared spells, Aura of Protection and some great archetype features.
Whereas even an Eldricht Knight could perfectly live fine with dumped INT, because he has not that many spells known and slots anyways so playing pure defensive is very valid, although a bit sad (Eldricht Strike is extremely good).

Meaning that, as far as weapon attacks are considered, Paladins and Rangers can be better than Fighters but usually at the cost of expending resources, whereas Fighter can use feats to get permanent advantages.

So, on ranged side, a Ranger could get the same essential feats as a Fighter (Sharshooter, Crossbow Expert, Mage Slayer) but couldn't afford also a Ritual Caster or Mobile for example.
With that said, Ranger has many features and spells that indeed a Fighter could never lay his hands on, so there are many things a Ranger would do better or be his exclusive field: scouting, tracking, sneaking, sustaining a party.

On melee side, a Paladin could grab probably GWM / Polearm Master and Sentinel, but anymore would become a hard choice, while Fighter could easily stack all weapon-related feats.
With that said, Paladin has many features and spells that indeed a Fighter could never lay his hands on, so there are many things a Paladin would do better or be his exclusive field: protecting the party, disabling an enemy, surviving attacks, sustaining a party...

However, a Fighter could easily come close to them in many of these fields, without having any opportunity cost relative to the efficiency of his basic class features. And a Fighter can go much beyond them in terms of sustained weapon efficiency by stacking feats granting non-resource benefits.

That is the main difference that makes all these three classes in fact very complementary. ;)

To give an illustration...

If I want someone to scout/track, I'll probably always prefer a Ranger (because even a Fighter with Observant won't beat Ranger's double proficiency in his Favored Terrains/Enemies - and Ranger has usually higher WIS and can take Observant too in the first place).

If I want someone to protect the party, I'll probably always prefer a (Ancients) Paladin because of his great self-resilience (Aura of Protection is much better than Indomitable overall) and his great party buffs (30 feets Aura of Protection / Aura of Warding / Circle of Power and can also take Protection Fighting Style, Lay on Hands / Cure Wounds people, Create Food and Water etc).

BUT... If I want someone to preemptively shut down a dangerous foe, especially a caster, I'll probably always take a (Battlemaster with Precision attack, second Eldricht Knight for Greater Invisibility) archer Fighter with maxed DEX, Sharpshooter, Magic Initiate: Cleric (Bless), Alert and maybe Crossbow Expert or Martial Adept and Lucky or Mobile or Healer or Ritual Caster or Skulker.

He will certainly start first (DEX + Alert + Lucky), can unleash 8 (Action Surge) or 9 (with Crossbow Expert) attacks, with 7 dice to spend on Precision Attack / Feinting Attack / Disarming Attack / Menacing Attack: either use Precision attack to ensure Sharshooter works, or use other dies which add to damage roll.
You can count on at least (1d8+5)*8 at worst, and probably add Sharpshooter +10 half of the time as an average. So a solid ~100 damage with average to bad luck, and well over it with a bit of luck.

MeeposFire

2017-06-12, 07:32 PM

It is hard for me to agree with the premise that 3e put weapon users on a similar footing as a caster when it is the only edition that made it a rule that moving 10 feet made most weapon users only deal potentially 25% or LESS damage than normal damage (only one attack instead of 4 or more at higher levels). Not saying you could not make it work or that many groups can ignore the problem (the local store group essentially plays without full atack actions because they do not understand the action economy but hey it works out better for them so I do not say anything) just that if you look at the mechanics from where they were there was a big buffing to casters from AD&D to 3e and a major restrictions and reductions in capability for warriors on the whole (they make you think you are ahead because you get feats but in reality compared to the 2e fighter the 3e fighter loses a lot even with the extra choices).

In 5e paladins make for a great way to deal damage quickly but once they are out of power (and in games I have seen they either run out of juice REALLY fast or they never use anything) they are not offensively all that impressive (though still fine and they still have some excellent abilities like the auras). Ranger has some neat exploration abilities and have some neat things to do against groups but does not excel in many areas that most people think about (such as single target damage, defense, etc). Fighters are effective and durable. They have good nova capability (not quite as nasty as a paladin in most cases) and great potential for constant damage (more attacks means every source of damage per hit is multiplied more times like dueling). They are highly effective at what a warrior is expected to do. Personally I do feel there are changes that could be made but they are mostly to bring back things I think the class is missing from its AD&D days (better saves and leadership abilities).

JAL_1138

2017-06-12, 07:57 PM

That is the main difference that makes all these three classes in fact very complementary. ;)

Now I'm thinking about how I'd build a party with a Pally, a Ranger, and a Fighter all in it. Probably want one or two fullcasters to round it out, to get a bit of AoE in and some good buffs for the three martials. There's several ways to go with it, and all of them would be really strong parties...they cover so much ground between the three of them, you could actually skip the fullcaster and roll with just those three, no fourth member, and still do quite well (unless you really needed flight or planar travel or something and the DM just didn't set up any alternatives to having those spells).

MaxWilson

2017-06-12, 08:01 PM

Whereas even an Eldricht Knight could perfectly live fine with dumped INT, because he has not that many spells known and slots anyways so playing pure defensive is very valid, although a bit sad (Eldricht Strike is extremely good).

I'd argue that Eldritch Strike exists specifically so that an Eldritch Knight can dump Int with no qualms. Without multiclassing, the EK doesn't have enough spells known to make serious investments in boosting spell DC worthwhile.

E.g.

Int 10 Eldritch Knight 13 casting Fireball on a Mummy Lord (Eldritch Strike active): DC 13 vs. Dex +0, 40% chance the Mummy Lord saves successfully
Int 20 Eldritch Knight 13 casting Fireball on a Mummy Lord (Eldritch Strike active): DC 18 vs. Dex +0, 15% chance the Mummy Lord saves successfully
Int 20 Evoker 13 casting Fireball on a Mummy Lord: DC 18 vs. Dex +0 (with advantage), 28% chance the Mummy Lord saves successfully
Int 18 Evoker 13 casting Fireball on a Mummy Lord: DC 17 vs. Dex +0 (with advantage), 36% chance the Mummy Lord saves successfully

Yes, by boosting your Int from 10 to 20, you can reduce the odds of the Mummy Lord saving against your Fireball from 40% to 15%, which will increase your average damage by (0.25 * avg(8d6/2)) = 3.5 points of damage (doubled to 7 for fire vulnerability). Not worth 10 stat points. Even if you leave your Int at 10, Eldritch Strike ensures you're about as successful as the Int 18 Evoker, and not that much worse than even the Int 20 Evoker.

With multiclassing, Eldritch Strike becomes more interesting because you have more spell slots to use on e.g. Bestow Curse. Against, say, an Ancient Red Dragon, it might look more like this:

Int 10 Eldritch Knight 11/Enchanter 7 [note: illegal multiclass with Int 10!] casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon (Eldritch Strike active): DC 14 vs. Wis +9 (disadvantage), 64% chance the dragon saves successfully
Int 13 Eldritch Knight 11/Enchanter 7 casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon (Eldritch Strike active): DC 15 vs. Wis +9 (disadvantage), 56% chance the dragon saves successfully
Int 16 Eldritch Knight 11/Enchanter 7 casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon (Eldritch Strike active): DC 17 vs. Wis +9 (disadvantage), 42% chance the dragon saves successfully
Int 20 Eldritch Knight 11/Enchanter 7 casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon (Eldritch Strike active): DC 19 vs. Wis +9 (disadvantage), 30% chance the dragon saves successfully
Int 20 Enchanter 18 casting Bestow Curse V on an Ancient Red Dragon: DC 19 vs. Wis +9, 55% chance the dragon saves successfully

Is it worth boosting Int for this scenario? Maybe. You have to boost to 13 anyway in order to multiclass; I probably wouldn't go past Int 16. And note that even the bare minimum Int 13 Eldritch Knight is doing as well as a specialized Enchanter could hope to do, at least when it comes to landing that initial curse.

TL;DR a pure Eldritch Knight doesn't cast enough spells to make seriously investing in Int worthwhile, but Eldritch Strike keeps his spells effective anyway.

=============================

On the topic of nova capability, a GWM-oriented fighter can sometimes, by 12th level, kick you in the chest to knock you prone and then power-attack you five times more for over a hundred points of total damage in one round. (Average damage would be somewhat less--I'm relating an anecdote here, not a formula. But a Battlemaster or a Lucky Eldritch Knight could hit at least four out of five times fairly reliably, especially with bardic inspiration dice or a magic weapon--the anecdote isn't much of an outlier.) I haven't ever seen a paladin nova that hard.

Ninja-Radish

2017-06-12, 08:51 PM

Sigreid

2017-06-12, 08:52 PM

Now I'm thinking about how I'd build a party with a Pally, a Ranger, and a Fighter all in it. Probably want one or two fullcasters to round it out, to get a bit of AoE in and some good buffs for the three martials. There's several ways to go with it, and all of them would be really strong parties...they cover so much ground between the three of them, you could actually skip the fullcaster and roll with just those three, no fourth member, and still do quite well (unless you really needed flight or planar travel or something and the DM just didn't set up any alternatives to having those spells).

I personally would skip the ranger and do fighter/pally/wolf totem barb for advantage given to the other two when the barb rages. Should be a world class murder fest.

Pex

2017-06-12, 11:11 PM

And in my Pathfinder group where we played from level 1-15, the gap between martials and spellcasters became more painfully apparent each level we climbed. Anecdotal experience doesn't really help when discussing power levels of classes. You and I have opposite experiences. Both experiences are valid. So where does nothing to move the conversation forward. This particular conversation is also not an edition war conversation. It's talking solely about our views on balance in Pathfinder.

The fact remains, there is a huge crowd in Pathfinder that think there are these imbalances. Look on their forums. You cannot simply say every single one of them is wrong. That's both ignorant and disrespectful. In fact, people who are for these imbalances are the ones actively suggesting ways to fix it and engaging in compelling arguments where they back up their claims with numbers.

One argument i see a lot, and it has even been posted on this thread already, is that anyone can make a character compelling if they're a good roleplayer. Yet that is not because of the class. That is because the player is awesome. Such a player could even make playing a commoner with no abilities good. That doesn't make Fighters back then good. In fact, it makes then worse because it requires a player to roleplay better to make up for its flaws.

A person who makes a strong character can be a good roleplayer. Optimization does not automatically mean a person won't or can't roleplay. It can for sure, but they are definitely not mutually exclusive. The best roleplayers I've met also make the strongest characters.

Of course people have issues with Pathfinder. My original point was that it wasn't a universal truth that everyone believes magic rules, warriors drool, fighters suck in Pathfinder. It's not an established fact of evidence.

mgshamster

2017-06-13, 07:18 AM

Q&D archery analysis

Thank you! That shores that up rather nicely.

And just to confirm, Kryx does not have a paladin archery analysis - because why would he?

MadBear

2017-06-13, 09:44 AM

Contrast

2017-06-13, 10:04 AM

Now I'm thinking about how I'd build a party with a Pally, a Ranger, and a Fighter all in it.

A human paladin, elven ranger and dwarven fighter can get along fine all on their own - they don't need no pesky aasimar sorcerors or groups of halfling rogues to back them up :smallwink:

alchahest

2017-06-13, 10:18 AM

I've found that eldritch knight is an incredibly versatile, fun class to play. I'm currently playing one at 13th level, full EK with no dips. Dex/Int/Con, with a rapier and a shield. I've got the warcaster feat, the skilled feat, and the UA Skill feat for investigation (former cop, basically) It's been really rewarding, contributing in and out of combat, and having three attacks per attack action is REALLY nice for those turns when not casting. Most of the spells I've selected don't have a material component, so there's no issue with weapon-dropping shenanigans, unless it's a specific use (I took wall of sand, for example, as a spell, and if I'm casting that, then I can drop my sword, cast it, then call the sword with a bonus action.)

We've had a battlemaster archer in the game at one point who was pretty darn decent, as well.

with that being said, having my spells recharge on long rest does limit my non-attack options and I can see how a champion (even one with the same feats) might feel like he's contributing less, if he gets a string of 17s or 18s, which would be great rolls, if they weren't just shy of allowing his class feature to activate.

Specter

2017-06-13, 10:38 AM

JAL_1138

2017-06-13, 10:39 AM

A human paladin, elven ranger and dwarven fighter can get along fine all on their own - they don't need no pesky aasimar sorcerors or groups of halfling rogues to back them up :smallwink:

Nice LotR reference aside (kudos), unless the DM throws situations that need particular spells or class features that none of them can get in order to solve, yeah, they'll be fine. Really, no sarcasm, that party could work quite decently in 5e.

They can have a good deal of melee damage, ranged damage, defense/durability, healing, buffing, and utility; they can get a reasonable amount of control; about all they lack is much AoE, and they can get a little bit of that too as they level.

If the DM's not a jerk who specifically builds challenges to target their lack of certain low/mid-level spells or any spells over 5th level, or sets DCs so high that it's mathematically impossible to hit them without Expertise, or something like that, the three of them can cover so many roles adequately enough (with the right builds--not necessarily even particularly high-op builds, but they shouldn't all go exclusively melee or some such) that it'll work without too many problems.

Pex

2017-06-13, 12:03 PM

That really depends entirely on if the DM is living up to the game's expectations. Maybe it's warranted to critique the 6-8 encounters per day as a model for an adventuring day, but you can't really critique the classes if you don't follow that model.

I mean, that'd be like saying Mike Tyson was a terrible boxer because he didn't kick or use takedowns the way MMA fighters do.

So I guess what I'm saying is that, throughout these multiple threads, it sounds like your bigger and real issue isn't "Casters rule, Martials drool", but rather you have an issue with the expected adventuring day model.

There isn't many fixes to that model that work well with 5e, buy you might try the long rest variant. That way, you can have 1-2 fights on a given adventuring day, and only get a short rest out of it. That might fit your groups style better, and pull the classes back in line. That'd also mean you only get a long rest when you rest for a week, making it much better suited to only happening at the end of a dungeon.

How long in game a rest takes only matters for flavor text. For the play of the game what matters is the ratio of how many rests the players get per game session. Too few shorts rests warlocks, monks, and battlemasters will grow frustrated. Too few long rests paladins and spellcasters will grow frustrated. Too few rests at all makes everyone frustrated.

A game session that provides two short rests and a long rest at the end to start fresh the next game session in a real world week or two will be fine. It's also ok for the game to end on a cliff hangar, deal with it next session, then immediately after long rest and start again. If it's a mostly roleplay/exploration session where there was harldy even a combat then no rests are needed so that session won't count against anything. When it's a succession of combats without short rests, the spellcasters conserve spells but cast them and paladins smite the BBEG or Lieutenant, but the warlock is just doing Eldritch Blast all day while the monk and battlemaster say "I attack". When it's a day full of roleplay, exploration, and combat, but the adventure isn't over yet so that it's only been 3 in game hours for normal resting procedures or 2 game days for gritty realism resting procedures such that the party only gets a short rest or two a game session and this repeats for three game sessions, the warlocks are casting, the monks are kiing, the battlemasters are maneuvering, but the paladin says "I attack" and the spellcasters are flinging cantrips all day. When the party can't rest at all because the DM won't let them through interruptions of random encounters or rough weather with no shelter or the atmosphere is poisonous that only hurts you if you stay in one place too long, or some other excuse, all the warriors just say "I attack" and all the spellcasters are just casting cantrips.

Beelzebubba

2017-06-13, 12:09 PM

Fixed that for you.

That is not a universal truth.

Sure, an absolute idiot can build a caster that will lose to an optimized martial.

And, a 1.x Grognard like me can play a caster that won't outshine everyone up to about 10th level or so, because I play 'by the rules', buff party members instead of myself, focus on evocations, don't min/max DCs, etcetera.

But equalize that in any way with player optimizing skill, and it's absolutely true.

It's true to WoTC, too, considering the Concentration mechanic, huge reduction in spells cast per day at mid to high levels, elimination of stacking bonuses in almost all contexts, elimination of casting stat increasing number of spells known, elimination of spell save DC being driven by the spell's level, reduction in spell durations, addition of 'save every round' to escape 'save or suck' spells, rewriting magic items that grant stat bonuses to move to a flat 'cap' rather than stacking...they nerfed casters in SO MANY WAYS.

I mean, my fingers hurt typing this out, and I'm not even done.

Sorry dude, casters were RIDICULOUS in 3.X and literally broke the game. Just because you didn't break it at your table doesn't mean it isn't broken. You just weren't trying.

MadBear

2017-06-13, 12:10 PM

How long in game a rest takes only matters for flavor text. For the play of the game what matters is the ratio of how many rests the players get per game session. Too few shorts rests warlocks, monks, and battlemasters will grow frustrated. Too few long rests paladins and spellcasters will grow frustrated. Too few rests at all makes everyone frustrated.

While I overall agree, using the long rest variant can help with verisimilitude if your players work on the 5 minute adventuring day.

From my experience the groups that try and abuse the rest system, go in to a dungeon, nova it, walk out and camp. Rinse and repeat till the process is done. You make them wait a full week to get that long rest, and now it makes perfect sense that the dungeon is completely restocked with new baddies since a week is plenty of time for reinforcements to enter, and dungeons traps reset.

Having that happen during an 8-hour rest makes less sense.

Mikal

2017-06-13, 12:32 PM

Fixed that for you.

That is not a universal truth.

CoDzilla would like to have a word with you, as would the Batman Wizard.

Nuh uh.

Psst: In my Pathfinder group there exists a druid and a fighter with both having fun, neither resenting the other, both contributing well in their ways. Also darn it the spellcasters do not always have the most perfect spell needed at the moment it would have been quite useful, and even when they do the bad guys are making their saving throws from time to time so the spellcasters aren't always saving the day doing everything. When the spell does work the warriors are quite happy about it.

Shall we continue in another useless edition war or get back to the main conversation?

Optimized spellcasters did have the right spell at the right time, actually, and plenty of spells that allowed them to do anything a martial could, except better.
You can disagree, but you're factually incorrect. Martials were heavily mechanically disadvantaged compared to casters in the 3.x ruleset.

Also, having fun has nothing to do with whether something is inherently weaker than another.
Otherwise, you could argue a 1st level commoner is as equally viable as a 20th level wizard/incantatrix/archmage if both are having fun.

Theodoxus

2017-06-13, 12:52 PM

Matticusrex

2017-06-13, 01:00 PM

JNAProductions

2017-06-13, 01:02 PM

Matticusrex

2017-06-13, 01:03 PM

Do you have examples and numbers to back that up?

I kind of assumed we were all playing the same edition here.

JNAProductions

2017-06-13, 01:05 PM

I kind of assumed we were all playing the same edition here.

5E. We're talking 5E.

And when it comes to at-will damage, I don't think anyone beats the Fighter, except maybe a Reckless Attacking Barbarian (which has its own problems).

Corran

2017-06-13, 01:13 PM

Fighters have absolutely nothing on paladins. I think those two are the best example of imbalanced design with martials. Half-casters and above easily trounce pure martials in both combat and rollplay ability. Playing 5.e without homebrewing anything is like playing elder scrolls with no modes, It's okay but it looks like **** compared to a fully modded version.
I dont think I have ever played an edition where the fighter was worse than the paladin (started playing with 3e; never made the jump to 3.5, even though we were still playing 3e at the time, weird...).
I quite like their balance and their design (with a few minor exceptions) in 5e. I was surprised at this comment... (I assume a very short adventuring day)

Mikal

2017-06-13, 01:15 PM

I kind of assumed we were all playing the same edition here.

Then you should be able to easily provide your maths on this.

MadBear

2017-06-13, 01:17 PM

I kind of assumed we were all playing the same edition here.

Paladin's excel and single target DPS in short bursts, there's no doubt about that. You need the BBEG dead as quick as possible, the paladin's your man. But over the long haul, the fighter will deal more consistent damage to all foes and won't have to conserve their resources the way a paladin does.

But if there's something else you were trying to say, I'd suggest, that you give us some examples, so that we can see where you're coming from. Otherwise we're left making assumptions about your position, which doesn't benefit anyone.

Sigreid

2017-06-13, 01:29 PM

I've come to the conclusion that some people will never like the fighter unless it's given abilities that essentially make it something different than what it is.

Matticusrex

2017-06-13, 01:37 PM

5E. We're talking 5E.

And when it comes to at-will damage, I don't think anyone beats the Fighter, except maybe a Reckless Attacking Barbarian (which has its own problems).

Why the paladin is purely better than a fighter.

Lay on hands is the equivalent of gaining additional health equal to having a bonus maxed out constitution score, yet it can be dispersed between alleys in small spurts or huge bursts and can even cure diseases. Right off the bat the paladin is both a damage dealer and healer for the team without even having to do anything, if he tanks he gains a huge health pool, if ally tanks, they have a backbone to rely on if they fall.
Both them and fighter get the same health, fighting style choices, weapons armors, but then paladin gets spell-casting using the best casting stat in the game, Charisma. Charisma gives them very powerful rollplay tools while also buffing their spell-casting, its pretty hard to build a bad paladin when everything is served to you on a silver platter. With spell casting you can have even more healing, or give everyone on your team a +20% chance to both hit and succeed on saving throws, or have a permanent free horse, or boost everyone's damage with crusader's mantle, the list goes on but you get the point. Have spell slots to spare? You get one of the best guaranteed damage dealers in the game, Divine smite! Every crit you ever deal will now be a game changer guaranteed to make your DM regret not buffing the boss. Being radiant damage protects it from almost ever being resisted while a huge portion of the monster manual is weak to it, did anyone say quad damage? You can keep your action surge, the paladin is packing a holy hand grenade with a lot of uses. Oh hey its time to pick my archetype, and now I get channel divinity, another amazing power I can use every short rest which is also almost always going to be better than action surge, like oh I dont know, mass 30 foot radius fears, huge attack bonuses, or how about marking the big bad for dead? On to choosing an archetype. Do I wanted incredibly boss destruction for vengeance? Do I want to tank better than a barbarian with ancients? Maybe I should just break Great weapon master with devotion? How about I just go oath breaker and have a higher sustained attack than fighter. Every single archetype is powerful in its own way. When fighter picks in archetype you know what goes through your head? "which one of these suck the least?" Its sad how weak they are and people try to look for 20th level to justify them yet never even play a game at that level or even half that. SO you have your character defining archetype now you get aura of protection at level 6 and get to learn what a real party tank is, this one skill guarantees a slot for you in anyone's party. If you played your cards right you now give your other front-liners an average of a 20-40% chance to succeeding on their saving throws at will almost all the time. Traveling with the whole party? everyone gets the protection all the time. Aura of Protection is one of the strongest abilities in the game and it requires absolutely nothing from the paladin. You thought that aura was great? well through levels 7-8 you get another aura from your archetype! and it's just as amazingly strong! People standing next to you will feel untouchable as your mere existences grants them invincibility. Oh **** its level 10 did someone say more auras? Thats ****ing right, a 3rd ****ing aura thats at-will always on and requires nothing from you. Now you can shrivel the DM's **** as he trys to mass fear you all with every ****ing dragon from the monster manual. You are now a ****ing god at killing dragons and can bring your allys with you in your glorious crusade. Oh hey wheres my 3rd multiattack? oh whats this, improved Divine smite? on all my attacks? it doubles when I crit? It's ****ing radiant damage? Yeah keep your ****ing multiattack. Oh damn the fighter has indomitable and can remake his -2 wisdom saving throw, whoa so amazing! Oh hey I have cleansing touch, it removes EVERYTHING and I can use this **** 3-5 times a day. How many times can you use indomitable, mr.fighter? whoa twice a day? whoaaa 3 times at 17? daaaamn now you can fail your ****ty mental saving throws an extra 3 times a day! hey want to use my 3 auras? Well you see where I am going with this folks. If you want to talk about damage at max level I'm sure a fighter can inch out the paladin but at what cost? everything else, thats the cost.

Citan

2017-06-13, 01:42 PM

Paladin's excel and single target DPS in short bursts, there's no doubt about that. You need the BBEG dead as quick as possible, the paladin's your man. But over the long haul, the fighter will deal more consistent damage to all foes and won't have to conserve their resources the way a paladin does.

But if there's something else you were trying to say, I'd suggest, that you give us some examples, so that we can see where you're coming from. Otherwise we're left making assumptions about your position, which doesn't benefit anyone.
Even so, you could in fact argue that a few Fighter builds are pretty well built to compete with Paladin on nova strikes, especially Battlemasters (Action Surge + Precision Attack ensures Sharpshooter always hit or nearly).
And such kind of nova puts a much lesser dent in their resources than Paladin.

JNAProductions

2017-06-13, 01:51 PM

Lay on Hands is dinger-dang good. No arguments there. BUT! It does require actions to use, so it's not QUITE as good as actually having the HP. It does make them a far better healer than a Fighter, though.

They do NOT get the same Fighting Style choices. Fighter has all of them-Paladin has a limited amount.

You do realize needing Charisma is not a buff? It's making you MAD. SAD is good. MAD is bad. And, with the extra ASIs a Fighter gets, they can actually hit 20 Charisma easier than a Paladin.

Divine Smite is great, no arguments there. But it's hella limited-it might make you king for the first fight, and the second. But what about the third? Fourth? Fifth? Sixth? Or you save your smites... And contribute less than the Fighter for the earlier fights.

30' fear, if you happen to be facing the right type of enemies. Sacred Weapon takes an action and lasts a minute, so you better be able to be ready or you're gonna be useless for what can easily be a fourth of a fight. Gaining advantage on all attacks against a singular target is good, but it really falls flat when you're facing multiple people.

You don't tank better than a Barbarian. You take less damage from spells (assuming they're not Bear), but have less HP, and can't properly incentivize enemies to attack you like a Barbarian can.

Oathbreaker has serious RP flaws, but yeah, its damage is good.

Um... When I pick a Fighter Archetype, I think "Do I want simplicity, martial prowess, or spells?" Not which sucks the least. Because they all kick ass.

Aura of Protection is also great. It's also asking for a Fireball centered on the Paladin if you bunch up. Pros, cons.

Plus, Fighters have options Paladins don't have. Archery, for instance. More Dex support. Regeneration, if you run Champion. The ability to abuse GWM or Sharpshooter WITHOUT needing action economy, with Precise Strike on Battlemaster. Shield, for being nigh-untouchable in melee, for EKs.

Edit: Also, can you adjust your formatting? It's very "wall of text" which is annoying to read.

But yeah, I ask you to run the numbers. At pretty much every level, Fighter wins in at-will damage. Add in the archetypes, and they can burst pretty well. The Paladin is, almost always, going to be BETTER at bursting, but that's not the be-all end-all.

I will agree in general, though-a Paladin is better than a Fighter. They have more features that contribute to the party, and they're probably the most powerful class in the PHB. THAT BEING SAID! They don't OBSOLETE anything! A Fighter can do things a Paladin can't. Given the choice, I'd rather have a Paladin than a Fighter, but given the choice between two Paladins, two Fighters, or one of each, I'm taking one of each.

Specter

2017-06-13, 01:55 PM

Why the paladin is purely better than a fighter.

Lay on hands is the equivalent of gaining additional health equal to having a bonus maxed out constitution score, yet it can be dispersed between alleys in small spurts or huge bursts and can even cure diseases. Right off the bat the paladin is both a damage dealer and healer for the team without even having to do anything, if he tanks he gains a huge health pool, if ally tanks, they have a backbone to rely on if they fall.
Both them and fighter get the same health, fighting style choices, weapons armors, but then paladin gets spell-casting using the best casting stat in the game, Charisma. Charisma gives them very powerful rollplay tools while also buffing their spell-casting, its pretty hard to build a bad paladin when everything is served to you on a silver platter. With spell casting you can have even more healing, or give everyone on your team a +20% chance to both hit and succeed on saving throws, or have a permanent free horse, or boost everyone's damage with crusader's mantle, the list goes on but you get the point. Have spell slots to spare? You get one of the best guaranteed damage dealers in the game, Divine smite! Every crit you ever deal will now be a game changer guaranteed to make your DM regret not buffing the boss. Being radiant damage protects it from almost ever being resisted while a huge portion of the monster manual is weak to it, did anyone say quad damage? You can keep your action surge, the paladin is packing a holy hand grenade with a lot of uses. Oh hey its time to pick my archetype, and now I get channel divinity, another amazing power I can use every short rest which is also almost always going to be better than action surge, like oh I dont know, mass 30 foot radius fears, huge attack bonuses, or how about marking the big bad for dead? On to choosing an archetype. Do I wanted incredibly boss destruction for vengeance? Do I want to tank better than a barbarian with ancients? Maybe I should just break Great weapon master with devotion? How about I just go oath breaker and have a higher sustained attack than fighter. Every single archetype is powerful in its own way. When fighter picks in archetype you know what goes through your head? "which one of these suck the least?" Its sad how weak they are and people try to look for 20th level to justify them yet never even play a game at that level or even half that. SO you have your character defining archetype now you get aura of protection at level 6 and get to learn what a real party tank is, this one skill guarantees a slot for you in anyone's party. If you played your cards right you now give your other front-liners an average of a 20-40% chance to succeeding on their saving throws at will almost all the time. Traveling with the whole party? everyone gets the protection all the time. Aura of Protection is one of the strongest abilities in the game and it requires absolutely nothing from the paladin. You thought that aura was great? well through levels 7-8 you get another aura from your archetype! and it's just as amazingly strong! People standing next to you will feel untouchable as your mere existences grants them invincibility. Oh **** its level 10 did someone say more auras? Thats ****ing right, a 3rd ****ing aura thats at-will always on and requires nothing from you. Now you can shrivel the DM's **** as he trys to mass fear you all with every ****ing dragon from the monster manual. You are now a ****ing god at killing dragons and can bring your allys with you in your glorious crusade. Oh hey wheres my 3rd multiattack? oh whats this, improved Divine smite? on all my attacks? it doubles when I crit? It's ****ing radiant damage? Yeah keep your ****ing multiattack. Oh damn the fighter has indomitable and can remake his -2 wisdom saving throw, whoa so amazing! Oh hey I have cleansing touch, it removes EVERYTHING and I can use this **** 3-5 times a day. How many times can you use indomitable, mr.fighter? whoa twice a day? whoaaa 3 times at 17? daaaamn now you can fail your ****ty mental saving throws an extra 3 times a day! hey want to use my 3 auras? Well you see where I am going with this folks. If you want to talk about damage at max level I'm sure a fighter can inch out the paladin but at what cost? everything else, thats the cost.

OK, I'm too lazy to actually answer all of this semi-profanity but:

1) Why would you think Charisma is the best casting stat?
2) You can 'break' GWM with Devotion all you want, but that's once per rest and costs your action, meaning you're useless on the first round of combat. In that sense, shouldn't you really break it to make up for your delay in the fight?
3) How does a +5 max bonus of Charisma to saves gives others '20-40%' more chance of making a save? I believe you mean 15-25%.
4) Why would you assume Paladins are the 'gods at killing dragons' when they're probably the poorest class against area damage, something every dragon has?
5) What's with all this repressed cursing and hatred?

JNAProductions

2017-06-13, 01:57 PM

I missed the dragons bit.

Yeah, Paladins SUCK at killing dragons. Because dragons can fly. Paladins can't (barring capstone abilities, which are once/long rest, and last one minute, and are slower than dragons anyway) and have at best, decent archery.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-06-13, 02:14 PM

At level 1, the fighter gets a fighting style (increases offense or defense, either a +2 to attack, an effective +1 or +2 on damage, +1 AC, or a utility tanking maneuver) and second wind (1d10+level hp 1/short rest). A paladin gets divine sense (utility ability) and lay on hands (restores 5 hp/level long rest). A PHB ranger gets favored enemy (utility ability) and natural explorer (utility ability), worth mentioning they'll never have heavy armor. A Revised Ranger gets favored enemy (limited offensive increase of +2 damage alongside utility) and natural explorer (mobility improvements alongside utility), though still lacks heavy armor.

Analysis- a fighter starts the game with greater offensive and defensive potential and better staying power than either the paladin or the PHB ranger, at the cost of utility. The revised ranger is potentially the second best offensively, having good mobility and the possibility of extra damage where the other two do not.

At level 3, the fighter has the aforementioned (only second wind has scaled) as well as action surge (full second action 1/short rest) and their first subclass ability (either crit increase, 4d8's of attack or damage buffs with offensive and defensive utility, or three spells, two cantrips, two level 1 spells, and an offensive utility ability). Paladins get the aforementioned (lay on hands has scaled), a fighting style (all the same ones as fighter except two-weapon fighting which isn't optimal and archery, which is more notable), divine smite (1d8+level of spell slot, more against undead and fiends), spellcasting (1+cha spells prepared from their entire spell list each day, 3 level 1 slots), divine health (immunity to disease), and their first subclass ability (CD with offensive utility regardless of which form chosen and increased spell options). A PHB ranger gains a fighting style (all the same ones as fighter), spellcasting (3 spells known, 3 spell slots), primeval awareness (utility, uses a spell slot), and their first subclass ability (bonus damage or a pet with possible offensive and defensive options). The revised ranger has the aforementioned (no scaling) as well as a fighting style (all the same as a fighter except the notable lack of great weapon fighting and protection), spellcasting (3 spells known, 3 spell slots), primeval awareness (utility), and their first subclass ability (either a pet with a notably improved offensive and defensive potential, bonus damage, or offensive utility alongside an expanded spell list).

Analysis- the paladin can have the best damage out of the lot of them three times a day, which could mean a single combat. Overall, though, they're best at defensive utility compared to the other three. The best consistent damage is the beast master revised ranger, hands down, no contest. The fighter's second, and by a wide margin. With clever positioning, the revised ranger beast master is also a defensive juggernaut, simply having more hp than anyone else. The fighter's second and a bit closer here than offensively thanks to heavy armor and abilities like second wind, action surge, and potentially magic buffs or maneuvers to help mitigate damage better than anyone else at this level. The revised ranger also has greater general utility, while the paladin has better defensive utility in healing and support magic. The PHB ranger isn't really at the tops of any of these charts, but it's got decent general utility and its offense isn't that far behind.

At level 5, a fighter has all of the aforementioned (only second wind has scaled unless playing eldritch knight, which now knows four spells and can cast 3 level 1 spells) as well as an ASI and extra attack(offensive, possibly with utility and dramatic scaling in the hands of a battlemaster). A paladin has all the aforementioned (lay on hands and spellcasting has scaled, now has 4 level 1 slots and 2 level 2's, which are significant multipliers. Divine smite scales along with it) as well as an ASI and extra attack (offensive, can multiply dramatically with divine smites). A PHB ranger has all the aforementioned (spellcasting has scaled, now knows 4 spells and has 4 level 1 slots and 2 level 2's, significantly increasing utility and offensive potential) as well as an ASI and extra attack (only multiplier here is hunter's mark, I believe, which is significant). A revised ranger has all the aforementioned (spellcasting has scaled, now knows 4 spells and has 4 level 1 slots and 2 level 2's, significantly increasing utility and offensive potential, if beast conclave then the pet has improved a touch offensively and greatly defensively) as well as an ASI and another subclass feature (either improved offense from a pet or extra attack for general offense, which only scales with hunter's mark, I believe).

Analysis- the revised ranger beastmaster is still the king of DPR, though the paladin's closing the gap now that it has 6 smites in a day- enough for 1-2 heavy fights or a balanced limit of once per fight six times a day (though doing so gives them the worst DPR). Fighters can be somewhere in between them depending on subclass and options (battlemaster has burst more akin to the paladin but more potential uses given at least one short rest, and matches overall damage per day with two) or can be more towards the bottom of this list by focusing on utility and defense (EK), meeting up with the PHB ranger, which can actually out-damage an EK thanks to spells (assuming it mostly only uses them for hunter's mark). Defensively, the beastmaster is still insane when it comes to pure hp and options, while the EK still makes the best mitigator of the bunch. Defensive utility and buffs are still the domain of the paladin, and that gap is getting dramatically wider. It's worth mentioning that the PHB ranger can actually hold its own in most of these categories by now, though it requires very careful spell selection and usage.

I'll let other people continue this, or not. But during the crucial beginning of the game, as far as I can tell looking at the parts, the fighter class holds its own fine against paladins and rangers, even if its not simply above them in all categories. Also, non-beastmaster rangers aren't dramatically better than PHB rangers, just a lot less fiddly and annoying to use. It's something I didn't realize until sizing them up level-by-level like this.

Kuulvheysoon

2017-06-13, 02:25 PM

Why the paladin is purely better than a fighter.
Let's see if I can tackle one or two of these (from this giant block of text).

Lay on hands is the equivalent of gaining additional health equal to having a bonus maxed out constitution score, yet it can be dispersed between alleys in small spurts or huge bursts and can even cure diseases. Right off the bat the paladin is both a damage dealer and healer for the team without even having to do anything, if he tanks he gains a huge health pool, if ally tanks, they have a backbone to rely on if they fall.
At best, I'd call it equivalent. Yes, it's healing and can restore your (and your allies') hit points... but on the other hand, until used (which takes an action, therefore that's a turn you're not attacking), you'll still effectively have the "lower" health number, meaning that you're easier to knock down.

Both them and fighter get the same health, fighting style choices, weapons armors, but then paladin gets spell-casting using the best casting stat in the game, Charisma. Charisma gives them very powerful roleplay tools while also buffing their spell-casting, its pretty hard to build a bad paladin when everything is served to you on a silver platter. With spell casting you can have even more healing, or give everyone on your team a +20% chance to both hit and succeed on saving throws, or have a permanent free horse, or boost everyone's damage with crusader's mantle, the list goes on but you get the point.
Best casting stat in the game? Hardly. Personally, I'd consider Wisdom a better casting stat (due to the prevalence of Wisdom saves), but YMMV.

Have spell slots to spare? You get one of the best guaranteed damage dealers in the game, Divine smite! Every crit you ever deal will now be a game changer guaranteed to make your DM regret not buffing the boss. Being radiant damage protects it from almost ever being resisted while a huge portion of the monster manual is weak to it, did anyone say quad damage? You can keep your action surge, the paladin is packing a holy hand grenade with a lot of uses.
Yes, Divine Smite is good. No one can deny that. This is one of the reasons that the Paladin only gets the one Extra Attack, as any more would be verging into the insane territory. It also limits the Paladin in that it can only be used on a melee attack. So that right there is an obvious thign that the Fighter actually does better than the Paladin - having (roughly) the same damage, regardless of if he's attacking from range or melee. Get/keep a Paladin 60ft away from the opponent(s) and see how much damage he does compared to that "weak"
Fighter. That's one of the sacrifices that the Paladin makes in exchange for the gloriousness of Divine Smite - being hedged into the role of Melee Bruiser.

Oh hey its time to pick my archetype, and now I get channel divinity, another amazing power I can use every short rest which is also almost always going to be better than action surge, like oh I dont know, mass 30 foot radius fears, huge attack bonuses, or how about marking the big bad for dead? On to choosing an archetype. Do I wanted incredibly boss destruction for vengeance? Do I want to tank better than a barbarian with ancients? Maybe I should just break Great weapon master with devotion? How about I just go oath breaker and have a higher sustained attack than fighter. Every single archetype is powerful in its own way. When fighter picks in archetype you know what goes through your head? "which one of these suck the least?" Its sad how weak they are and people try to look for 20th level to justify them yet never even play a game at that level or even half that.
First off, you're exaggerating all of those Channel Divinities. Yes, they're good, but you're blowing them into game changers. The Oath of Ancients cannot tank better than a Bearbarian. It edges him when it comes to spell damage (as there's the action cost associated with raging), with the corner case of psychic damage, but that's a fairly rare energy type. As for the fear effect, I'm going to assume that that's UA, given as to how I can't find it in any of the four published oaths, so I'm not willing to give it that much credence. Sacred Weapon is an excellent CD, I will not deny that, but it's balanced out at least partly by the oath spells and other features, which are less impressive for this oath than the others (for the most part).

SO you have your character defining archetype now you get aura of protection at level 6 and get to learn what a real party tank is, this one skill guarantees a slot for you in anyone's party. If you played your cards right you now give your other front-liners an average of a 20-40% chance to succeeding on their saving throws at will almost all the time. Traveling with the whole party? everyone gets the protection all the time. Aura of Protection is one of the strongest abilities in the game and it requires absolutely nothing from the paladin. You thought that aura was great? well through levels 7-8 you get another aura from your archetype! and it's just as amazingly strong! People standing next to you will feel untouchable as your mere existences grants them invincibility. Oh **** its level 10 did someone say more auras? Thats ****ing right, a 3rd ****ing aura thats at-will always on and requires nothing from you. Now you can shrivel the DM's **** as he trys to mass fear you all with every ****ing dragon from the monster manual. You are now a ****ing god at killing dragons and can bring your allys with you in your glorious crusade. Oh hey wheres my 3rd multiattack? oh whats this, improved Divine smite? on all my attacks? it doubles when I crit? It's ****ing radiant damage? Yeah keep your ****ing multiattack. Oh damn the fighter has indomitable and can remake his -2 wisdom saving throw, whoa so amazing! Oh hey I have cleansing touch, it removes EVERYTHING and I can use this **** 3-5 times a day. How many times can you use indomitable, mr.fighter? whoa twice a day? whoaaa 3 times at 17? daaaamn now you can fail your ****ty mental saving throws an extra 3 times a day! hey want to use my 3 auras? Well you see where I am going with this folks. If you want to talk about damage at max level I'm sure a fighter can inch out the paladin but at what cost? everything else, thats the cost.
I'm not even going to touch this. At this point, I'm not sure if anyone can convince you that there's very clearly two sides to this argument.

JNAProductions

2017-06-13, 02:26 PM

He's talking about Turning with the fear thing.

So it does work... Against very specific enemies.

Kuulvheysoon

2017-06-13, 02:28 PM

He's talking about Turning with the fear thing.

So it does work... Against very specific enemies.

That's... a hilariously corner case. Oh dear.

And another thing - all of these cool options that a Paladin has? Not only do none of them have all of these options that are being spouted off (restricted to subclasses), but many of these are competing for the same resources, be they spell slots or Channel Divinity.

MadBear

2017-06-13, 02:35 PM

That's... a hilariously corner case. Oh dear.

And another thing - all of these cool options that a Paladin has? Not only do none of them have all of these options that are being spouted off (restricted to subclasses), but many of these are competing for the same resources, be they spell slots or Channel Divinity.

That'd be like me saying

"Fighters get bonus to initiative making them way better then those crumby paladins. Oh, you get spells that reset on a long rest? cute, I get maneuvers which reset on a short rest fool. Not to mention I get cantrips without spending any feats, that let me deal ranged damage, no need to add to dex. Not to mention INT is the best spellcasting stat Thanks you investigate which makes finding clues in the dungeon the most valuable".

Corran

2017-06-13, 02:56 PM

Yeah, Paladins SUCK at killing dragons.
That is a LIE!!!
And my 3e paladins would take great offense at this comment!
See, it was all about planning! About style too.
Potions of jump and cross-class skill points in balance (this means to plan ahead:smallbiggrin:), and there you had it; a tip-top dragonslayer!
ps: A ring of feather falling occured to me as a good idea, after having lost only 2 paladins against the same freaking dragon... (both times due to falling damage:smallfrown:)

Maxilian

2017-06-13, 03:13 PM

He's talking about Turning with the fear thing.

So it does work... Against very specific enemies.

As much as i like the Fear mechanic, its also one of the most resisted conditions

Maxilian

2017-06-13, 03:15 PM

I, in general, love Fighters, and i could go as far as saying that they are my favorite class, they get the double quantity of ASIS or Feats, so i'm less mad than the Paladin, if the Paladin wants to get some of the popular melee feats (mostly if go 2handed) then they have to sacrifice a lot, a fighter? a feat its not much of a problem.

Citan

2017-06-13, 05:07 PM

You do realize needing Charisma is not a buff? It's making you MAD. SAD is good. MAD is bad. And, with the extra ASIs a Fighter gets, they can actually hit 20 Charisma easier than a Paladin.

You don't tank better than a Barbarian. You take less damage from spells (assuming they're not Bear), but have less HP, and can't properly incentivize enemies to attack you like a Barbarian can.

Just want to react to that.
For Paladin, Charisma is not a weight on your character, it's a strength: you can still choose to put some of features aside to focus on STR, but that is a shame. Exactly as a Ranger except more keen.
When you bump CHA, you are not "losing an ASI because of MADness". You are investing into a precious source of features.
Would you say that a ranged Fighter is "losing an ASI to take Sharpshooter"? Of course not. Same with bumping DEX.

To say it otherwise, CHA gives you more spells, provides better effect to your offensive ones, affect healing and bonus to saves. So a single bump of your modifier is beneficial enough to be as good or better as most feats "value-wise".
To take a counter-example, a Shadow Monk has very little incentive to max WIS compared to taking feats: beyond Unarmored (not a big deal) and Stunning Strike, nothing really depends on WIS. So depending on the character, grabbing Mage Slayer, Magic Initiate and Warcaster (for several DC 10 saves on Attack + high DC save on reaction) or Mobile and Grappler (have somewhere with dim light, pals waiting. Rush through enemy lines to reach the caster, Grapple him then teleport back with him (NOT sure if it's legal by RAW. Check with your DM or wait for confirmation from people here. ;)).

And it's one of the reasons a Paladin does actually tank better than a Barbarian (which is also pretty MAD if you really want higher AC, unless feat/multiclass).
- Better AC: starting 20 AC, + potential Shield of Faith.
- Better healing: Auto-heal pool (Lay on Hands) + spells + end a spell as an action.
- Better effect resilience: immunity to disease, frightened, up to +5 on all saves, to which you can add Bless. Not including Oath benefits.
- If Ancients, resistance to all damage from spells (primary source of non-physical damage for quite some time).

And while I agree that you can't count on Aura of Protection as the answer for everything for most of your career, those Paladin that survived up until 18th level can then provide the benefit without inciting to mass AOE. I totally agree that at low levels, you'd better try to aggro by yourself or at least limit the cluttering to yourself and 1 other people usually.

Barbarian does have its shining moments obviously:
- as good or better DEX saves thanks to advantage.
- better die size and resistance to physical damage (which is in some way just a counterpart for lower AC).
- 1/long rest check to avoid 0 hp.
- and all damage resistant if Bear (better than Ancients because also affects magic weapons or creatures's abilities).
But its resilience comes after the fact (half-damage), while Paladin has a better chance to avoid the effect in the first place. ;)

Which is logical because Barbarian's main role is to be a meat shield and his primary way to attract enemies is being threatening (good to-hit, high damage) but not too hard to hit (lower AC + Reckless Attack). While Paladin has some spells to do so but is not supposed to spend his day at it. On the other hands, between Protection fightying Style, those spells (notably smite spells but not only) and situationally good CD, Paladin does have tanking features when needed, although in different ways.

Let's see if I can tackle one or two of these (from this giant block of text).
Best casting stat in the game? Hardly. Personally, I'd consider Wisdom a better casting stat (due to the prevalence of Wisdom saves), but YMMV.

I'd hazard a guess and say that he thinks it's the best because it is the one providing the most classes to mix with?
I don't see how or why one stat would be "better" than another overall though (on a side note though, your point is true but not that "strong" because barring Sorcerer -which gets instead great concentration- and Bard -which gets great against AOE-, all casters get Wisdom proficiency IIRC -so they will be at least "good", with Paladin being "great" in it).

Specter

2017-06-13, 05:27 PM

Just as a reminder @Citan, Paladins are not immune to poison, only disease. The poison add-on is for monks.

Citan

2017-06-13, 05:32 PM

Just as a reminder @Citan, Paladins are not immune to poison, only disease. The poison add-on is for monks.
Oooops sorry, thanks for the correction.
It's crazy that each time I dare trying to post only from memory I make mistakes such as those...
Well, I'm in time to edit previous post for oncoming readers for once... ^^

Eldritch Knight with healer and Inspiring Leader feats is a hipster paladin.
Fixed that for you. :smalltongue:
After all, an Eldricht Knight could easily afford that extra feat and Paladin are supposed to be charismatic people right? :smallbiggrin:

Now I'm thinking about how I'd build a party with a Pally, a Ranger, and a Fighter all in it. Probably want one or two fullcasters to round it out, to get a bit of AoE in and some good buffs for the three martials. There's several ways to go with it, and all of them would be really strong parties...they cover so much ground between the three of them, you could actually skip the fullcaster and roll with just those three, no fourth member, and still do quite well (unless you really needed flight or planar travel or something and the DM just didn't set up any alternatives to having those spells).
Reacting a bit late but wanted to say I totally agree with you.
Take...
- An Devotion/Crown Paladin (totally personal opinion but I feel these "transpire" charisma -as in inspiring, convincing- the most), a Hunter Ranger and an Eldricht Knight with Ritual Caster (Wizard).
- Who are all DEX-based because they are a band of brothers that always spent their time surviving as they could (agile, sneaky).
- Who all have at least 16 in casting stat (20 recommended for Paladin).

They should get plenty enough spells for exploration / traveling / survival.
All three get some utility/battlefield control spells, while each also has his particular niche (Paladin: buff/single-target debuff or damage/aggro, Ranger:sneak/utility especially with Conjure spells, Fighter AOE debuff/damage).

And they can easily share all the most important skills in every attribute easily.

Pex

2017-06-13, 05:36 PM

Sure, an absolute idiot can build a caster that will lose to an optimized martial.

And, a 1.x Grognard like me can play a caster that won't outshine everyone up to about 10th level or so, because I play 'by the rules', buff party members instead of myself, focus on evocations, don't min/max DCs, etcetera.

But equalize that in any way with player optimizing skill, and it's absolutely true.

It's true to WoTC, too, considering the Concentration mechanic, huge reduction in spells cast per day at mid to high levels, elimination of stacking bonuses in almost all contexts, elimination of casting stat increasing number of spells known, elimination of spell save DC being driven by the spell's level, reduction in spell durations, addition of 'save every round' to escape 'save or suck' spells, rewriting magic items that grant stat bonuses to move to a flat 'cap' rather than stacking...they nerfed casters in SO MANY WAYS.

I mean, my fingers hurt typing this out, and I'm not even done.

Sorry dude, casters were RIDICULOUS in 3.X and literally broke the game. Just because you didn't break it at your table doesn't mean it isn't broken. You just weren't trying.

CoDzilla would like to have a word with you, as would the Batman Wizard.

Optimized spellcasters did have the right spell at the right time, actually, and plenty of spells that allowed them to do anything a martial could, except better.
You can disagree, but you're factually incorrect. Martials were heavily mechanically disadvantaged compared to casters in the 3.x ruleset.

Also, having fun has nothing to do with whether something is inherently weaker than another.
Otherwise, you could argue a 1st level commoner is as equally viable as a 20th level wizard/incantatrix/archmage if both are having fun.

Me and my BadWrongFun.

Citan

2017-06-13, 05:53 PM

Why the paladin is purely better than a fighter.

Lay on hands is the equivalent of gaining additional health equal to having a bonus maxed out constitution score, yet it can be dispersed between alleys in small spurts or huge bursts and can even cure diseases. Right off the bat the paladin is both a damage dealer and healer for the team without even having to do anything, if he tanks he gains a huge health pool, if ally tanks, they have a backbone to rely on if they fall.
Both them and fighter get the same health, fighting style choices, weapons armors, but then paladin gets spell-casting using the best casting stat in the game, Charisma. Charisma gives them very powerful rollplay tools while also buffing their spell-casting, its pretty hard to build a bad paladin when everything is served to you on a silver platter. With spell casting you can have even more healing, or give everyone on your team a +20% chance to both hit and succeed on saving throws, or have a permanent free horse, or boost everyone's damage with crusader's mantle, the list goes on but you get the point. Have spell slots to spare? You get one of the best guaranteed damage dealers in the game, Divine smite! Every crit you ever deal will now be a game changer guaranteed to make your DM regret not buffing the boss. Being radiant damage protects it from almost ever being resisted while a huge portion of the monster manual is weak to it, did anyone say quad damage? You can keep your action surge, the paladin is packing a holy hand grenade with a lot of uses. Oh hey its time to pick my archetype, and now I get channel divinity, another amazing power I can use every short rest which is also almost always going to be better than action surge, like oh I dont know, mass 30 foot radius fears, huge attack bonuses, or how about marking the big bad for dead? On to choosing an archetype. Do I wanted incredibly boss destruction for vengeance? Do I want to tank better than a barbarian with ancients? Maybe I should just break Great weapon master with devotion? How about I just go oath breaker and have a higher sustained attack than fighter. Every single archetype is powerful in its own way. When fighter picks in archetype you know what goes through your head? "which one of these suck the least?" Its sad how weak they are and people try to look for 20th level to justify them yet never even play a game at that level or even half that. SO you have your character defining archetype now you get aura of protection at level 6 and get to learn what a real party tank is, this one skill guarantees a slot for you in anyone's party. If you played your cards right you now give your other front-liners an average of a 20-40% chance to succeeding on their saving throws at will almost all the time. Traveling with the whole party? everyone gets the protection all the time. Aura of Protection is one of the strongest abilities in the game and it requires absolutely nothing from the paladin. You thought that aura was great? well through levels 7-8 you get another aura from your archetype! and it's just as amazingly strong! People standing next to you will feel untouchable as your mere existences grants them invincibility. Oh **** its level 10 did someone say more auras? Thats ****ing right, a 3rd ****ing aura thats at-will always on and requires nothing from you. Now you can shrivel the DM's **** as he trys to mass fear you all with every ****ing dragon from the monster manual. You are now a ****ing god at killing dragons and can bring your allys with you in your glorious crusade. Oh hey wheres my 3rd multiattack? oh whats this, improved Divine smite? on all my attacks? it doubles when I crit? It's ****ing radiant damage? Yeah keep your ****ing multiattack. Oh damn the fighter has indomitable and can remake his -2 wisdom saving throw, whoa so amazing! Oh hey I have cleansing touch, it removes EVERYTHING and I can use this **** 3-5 times a day. How many times can you use indomitable, mr.fighter? whoa twice a day? whoaaa 3 times at 17? daaaamn now you can fail your ****ty mental saving throws an extra 3 times a day! hey want to use my 3 auras? Well you see where I am going with this folks. If you want to talk about damage at max level I'm sure a fighter can inch out the paladin but at what cost? everything else, thats the cost.
Honestly, when I first saw this post, I was sincerely motivated to read it and tackle it. Just enough. I had to go work instead, time has passed, and I see that people already had the courage to cope with this pile of *** and produce constructive answer. Congrats to them, really.
Note that I'm not judging your ideas at all. I didn't read it really.

People are really patient and understanding here especially with long posts (I know first-hand since I'm one of those who have much difficulty doing concise posts).
But this is a total lack of respect: over-lenghty sentences followed by flurry of short wild ones? Paired with useless injonctions and total lack of spaces?

Please. Make an effort. This will be good for others, then good for you in return. Thanks in advance.

JNAProductions

2017-06-13, 06:16 PM

TheUser

2017-06-13, 07:00 PM

Seeing a paladin out of resources is tragic. They are still useful but the lack of smites/slots catches up fast to them since they have half progression.

I think most fighters not hitting level 11 contributes to this misconception; fighters that get to attack 3x in one action feel great. They action surge hard and put out frightening burst. They have a lot of flexibility grapple/shoving with that extra attack and they can keep their ranged options open either with archery, easier dex due to no charisma requirement or a plethora of ranged cantrips where as paladins can get kited hard (making sentinel almost mandatory on them). The additional saves is probably the biggest advantage paladins have but the cost is crappy ranged options.

EK's in general feel amazing once Eldritch Strike kicks in allowing turn 2 hold person with a save at disadvantage then an action surge triple crit aftermath (quad if you have GWM).

Paladin healing is great out of combat whereas second wind is easy to use on a turn you are doing damage.

Rangers have great utility but don't keep up too well in DPR (still very competitive especially with their AoE). I honestly go Rogue after hitting level 5 on hunter ranger and it seems like a better ranger 9 times out of 10 (specialise in stealth and survival/perception).

Citan

2017-06-13, 07:08 PM

Oh, bumping Charisma on a Paladin is not a waste IN THE SLIGHTEST. I always max Charisma on my Paladins.

But needing more stats is not an advantage. Where a Fighter can just max Str or Dex by level 6, a Paladin has two main stats and will only see them maxed by level 12 at the earliest.

And Paladin might be MORE SURVIVABLE, but they ain't tankier. They have no real way of forcing enemies to focus on them, whereas Barbarians do. (Reckless Attack.)

Overall, though, not bad points. And definitely constructive!

Edit: After a little thinking, I don't think the Paladin is necessarily MAD. They need Str and Cha (secondary Con) to see their FULL POTENTIAL, but they can operate just fine (offensively) with a poor Charisma. That being said, on attributes, the Fighter wins due to two extra ASIs and being less MAD to reach full potential.
1. On stats.
Well, sure, a Fighter can just max STR or DEX and take feats instead. But then he won't have any of all those abilities a Paladin has, unless... He grab dedicated feats too.
Lay on Hands / healing spells > Inspiring Leader or Healer (well, its not quite similar but it's the same base goal).
Aura of Protection > Lucky to stack with Indomitable.
Single-target control/debuff (smite spells mainly) > Sentinel or Mage Slayer or Magic Initiate.

As you say, Fighters need only STR or DEX to fight at their full potential, whereas Paladin would also need Charima. But it's just because Fighters have a smaller potential: not in effectiveness, but in the scope of what they are supposed to do, which is essentially damage. Once you start expanding your Fighter focus to come closer to Paladin or Ranger (healing, buffing, sneaking, tracking, etc), you realize you succomb to some MADness, although in a lesser extent (because you won't reach the same "level" anyways since feats are still limited into what they enable -except Ritual Caster with a nice DM ;))).
Conversely, what you say for Paladin is also very true for Eldricht Knight. Why it's true that he has only a few spell slots so you may wonder "what the point", he has enough good offensive spells nevertheless to make bumping INT a great incentive, because doing that would make him much better as even a pure Wizard: let's not forget that spells such as Blindness, Hold Person, Slow etc require a save to just take effect or are purely wasted. AOE spells deal only half damge on a successful save, or none. Even if admiteddly the risk of failing should be not so high by the end of career, at level 10 an optimized Wizard is getting "only" 17 DC and +9 to attack. A "normal" EK (let's say starting 16, untouched) would have 15 DC As long as the creature has at least a +3 or more is still has some pretty good chance to save (more than a third). Imposing disadvantage will halve those chances following the probability rules, but reality often begs to differ: you are still heavily dependent on rolls themselves. And losing a spell slot is actually much harder on an EK since he has so few compared to a Wizard... So pushing up the spell DC is a great way to put all those evocation spells to good uses, as well as other great spells when you get them (with the greatest for an EK being Slow).
But that is exactly the same as stacking several weapon feats: you are spending some high-level resources (ASI/feats) to further push your efficiency in a particular aspect.

2. Paladin can't tank.
I'm sorry but that is untrue. He can't tank "as often" essentially because most of his means cost resources (CD / spell slots), but he can very well tank. Or rather, let's say "protect". Because "tank" has a connotation of "taking hits" whereas what we are really talking about is "lowering the general threat over allies".
And Paladin has many ways to do so: barring those provided by Oaths (Crown's CD "Compelled Duel" or taking hit instead of ally as a reaction, Ancient's Ensnaring Strike or Moonbeam, Devotion's Sanctuary, Vengeance's Abjure Enemy) he can impose disadvantage on one attack against other (Protection), impose disadvantage on all attacks against other (Wrathful smite / Compelled Duel), prevent any action (Command), force creature to attack him (Command)... Or instead act on the buff side (Heroism / Bless / Shield of Faith + Auras to diminish the actual hurt dealt to friendlies, higher-level Protection spells and the like, up to the Circle of Power one).

Fun facts:
An Ancients Paladin is the best protector: several battlefield control spells (Moonbeam/Plant Growth), Aura that reduces damage and self-reliance (drop to 0 > 1, regen) makes him trump Crown Paladin, although the latter comes damn close with Mass Compelled Duel and reaction meat shield.
A Vengance Paladin could be good too strangely: with Haste active, he could sacrifice his usual Attack to instead use only the "single attack" Attack from Haste, and instead use his normal Action to get Ready to run toward whoever first among ally is targeted by a spell immediately as the casting starts: with double speed, you have enough reach to get "in time" while avoiding the usual "AOE spell attractor" effect. ;) It's very niche but nice when it happens. ^^

JNAProductions

2017-06-13, 07:14 PM

Citan

2017-06-14, 04:40 AM

I do agree a Paladin has a higher ceiling than a Fighter, just with class features. (I believe that, even for burst damage, ridiculously high-OP Fighters beat Paladins, but we're talking 90 magic items, level 20, perfect circumstances OP.) I think the Paladin is stronger than the Fighter, but not to the point that a Fighter is made irrelevant.

I disagree on the tankiness, but you do make a good point. I'll agree that Paladins can be tankier than FIGHTERS, but they're not the tankiest. Barbarians have that crown.

In summary... I dunno. Good points are raised by you, even if I don't agree with them entirely.

Something I'd like to see if we agree on-while a Paladin might kick a lot of ass, a Fighter does too, and both classes are good to have in the game.

(Also, Paladins suffer against more numerous, weaker foes or anyone who requires ranged.)
We can totally agree on both last paragraphs, and I also concur that imo Fighter is the best on pure damage as soon as Sharpshooter or GWM are involved. Because as you said, he can spend many feats otherwise so he can easily pick up feats that improve his action economy (Polearm Master / Sentinel / Crossbow Expert / Mage Slayer) or plain damage (Magic Initiate, Spell Sniper, Warcaster).

As for whichever holds "tank" crown, I'd say we cannot agree because we don't put the same meaning in it.
For you tanking seems to be primarily having ways to aggro hits and survive them. In that regard Bear Barbarian certainly is the best, simply because its features are either permanent or depend on a resource that ultimately ends unlimited (Rage). I'd really argue about all the other Barb (barring UA because, well, beyond the fact they are unbalanced imo, it's unofficial content) though: taking the brunt of every non-physical damage will make your HP go down fast at higher levels considering how many creatures have such abilities.

For me tanking is about protecting allies in whatever way and being overall resilient. And in that regard, Paladin obviously trumps Barbarian: much lesser chance of being frightened (which strongly reduces your offensiveness), since immune, or charmed (which could end in turning on your allies in worst cases), because native Wisdom proficient and +CHA bonus.
A Paladin has generally better saves in WIS, INT and CHA, generally lesser but "close to" saves in DEX (advantage VS Aura of Protection, unless you build a DEX Paladin which can work well) and STR (Aura of Protection VS native proficiency), and significantly lesser save in CON (you can't beat proficiency + 16 CON ^^). But a Paladin can also end spell effects himself (unless the spell blocks his action directly or through a condition).

Creatures as low as CR 3 can put you against DC 10 checks/saves, and it ramps up regularly up until DC 14 are common. At highest level, you can face DC 18 saves.
At level 6, against DC 10 usually (considering usual optimized Paladin that starts with 16 STR, CHA, uses first ASI to bump STR), Paladin will have +2 in his worst save (8 INT), +6 in WIS and STR and +9 in CHA, DEX and CON getting at least +3.
Barb (considering 16 STR, 16 CON, 14 DEX) will have +6 in STR and CON, probably a +2 (with advantage though) in DEX (medium armor + shield), and -1 to +1 in all others.
So Paladin is as good as Barb in saves against restraining effects (STR and CON), worse in DEX, much better everywhere else.

At level 12 against DC 14 (18 CHA usually although myself maxes CHA first ^^), Paladin will have at least +8 in WIS, +12 CHA, +9 STR +3 in INT, +4 or more everywhere else.
Barb (considering max STR and Resilient: Wisdom because it's the smart thing to do) will still be stuck with -1/+1 in all saves he's not proficient in (DEX aside). He will have comparable STR (+9) and DEX (+2advantage VS +4 or more), and a -3 or -4 everywhere else compared to a Paladin (WIS +5 at best, other +1 at best or -1 at worse).

Let's remember some conditions.
- Frightened: Paladin outright immune, not THAT bad for Barb (Rage/Reckless attacks compensate, you "just" lose advantage).
- Restrained: can't move, attacks against you have advantage, you have disadvantage on attacks and DEX saves. Good thing is those effects usually target STR saves, which Paladin and Barb are both good at. But on a fail, a Paladin can at worse uses and action to immediately escape. Barb is stuck on waiting for a successful save, except for those spells such as Entangle for which a STR check is enough (which should be a breeze for Barb unless he lost his rage).
- Charmed: at best, you just became worthless against one enemy. At worst, you became your friends's new major threat. Targets WIS save. DC 14 means nearly 1/2 chance to save for Barb, compared to nearly 2/3 for Paladin.
- Blinded: lose advantage / provide advantage. Good thing it's often from a CON save.
- Stunned: incapacitated, auto fail STR/DEX saves. Often a WIS save.
Other dangerous spells (non-exhaustive): Polymorph (WIS), Bestow Curse (WIS), Bane (CHA), Banish (CHA), Phantasmal Force (INT), Command (WIS), Slow (WIS), Hold (WIS), Dominate (WIS) etc...
Also, all creatures's special abilities...

In short, you should not forget that there are many ways to cripple your ability to "tank", the worse of it being by turning you against your allies.
A plain Barbarian will be a weight to his party because of +1 on WIS saves at best. A minimum smart Barbarian will have a slightly better chance to save, but will still force another member to waste an action (Lesser Restoration, Greater Restoration, Lay on Hands, etc) in most cases. So double loss (self-efficiency + ally's action economy).
Whereas a Paladin will have far higher chance to avoid the nastiest effects and in several cases will still be able to take care of himself with Lay on Hands.

As for AC...
Most Barbarians will start with 16 AC at best (medium armor + shield), compared to Paladin 20.
Even 1/4 CR creatures have usually +4 to hit, so 45% chance to hit Barb vs 25% chance against Paladin (with a drop to 12,5% if Paladin goes turtle with Shield of Faith but that's not usually the best choice).
Even worse if Barb uses Reckless Attack, putting a 70% chance to hit him for enemies. Even while raging (physical resistance) he could still be downed fast if he tries to aggro a group of 3 or more, and he's especially weak against archers or casters (which get advantage too). Even worse when out of rage.
1/4 creatures deal average 5, CR 1 average 7, and so on. Barb would start with 15 HP, will probably have around 40 HP at level 3. Yeah, it's great, but it goes down quickly, especially with Barb having no self-heal.
Paladin would probably get something around 30 HP at level 3, but has 15 HP (Lay on Hands) + at least one Cure Wounds if he's selfish. ^^
I know I'm darkening the situation quite a bit: you are supposed to self-heal on short rests too, and you usually don't go into adventuring without at least one potion. Also, you are not supposed to be alone, there is a fat chance someone in the party has some "heal other" ability or even buffs (Cleric I won't say your name). It was just for the sake of theorycraft demonstration :)
"Yeah, but then he just has to be careful and draw only one enemy".
Which Paladin can do too, although it costs him slots. I would advise against a Paladin using Command/Compelled Duel/Wrathful smite before level 5 (proficiency and CHA bump) to be honest, because I'm very careful and usually unlucky ^^.
But "in general" starting at level 1 you already have a 8+2+3 = 13 DC. Most creatures of that level will have 0 at best, so it's a gamble but a somewhat safe one.

Also I didn't talk about later level Paladin Oath features because, well, they ARE high level so many people won't ever have a chance to play with, but they are very great.

In short: with point-buy, Barbarian is less resilient than Paladin overall, that's why, in spite of apparences, you have to be careful about how and when using its features and accurately evaluate the risk before jumping into the middle of enemies. To note...
- Ancients Paladin shares the throne with Bear Barbarian: first will laugh in the face of enemy spells, while the other will laugh in the face of enemy's native abilities. Whichever is better will heavily depend on your campaign.
- With great rolls a Barb can match Paladin's AC (high DEX + high CON) and trump him easy in DEX saves, making him more "tanky" against direct damage by far, but will still generally fall behind against crippling spells.

Mikal

2017-06-14, 07:26 AM

Just want to react to that.
For Paladin, Charisma is not a weight on your character, it's a strength: you can still choose to put some of features aside to focus on STR, but that is a shame. Exactly as a Ranger except more keen.
When you bump CHA, you are not "losing an ASI because of MADness". You are investing into a precious source of features.

It's the actual fact of being forced to split those precious resources into more locations that is the weight.
If I have 10 points to divide over 2 areas, and you have 10 points to divide over 3, then I have an advantage there, especially if both classes are considered to be mostly equal (not exactly equal, but fighter has some advantages Paladins don't and vice versa, making them both equally playable in the end).

Me and my BadWrongFun.

Stop being disingenuous. The discussion regarding whether 3.x casters are mechanically stronger than 3.x martials is not a discussion regarding fun. It's a discussion regarding who is stronger.

I can have just as much fun playing quarterback in a game of football with my friends as Joe Montana did playing for the 49ers, but that doesn't mean Montana beats me in every metric possible wrt actual ability.

JNAProductions

2017-06-14, 08:15 AM

Citan

2017-06-14, 08:42 AM

The issue I hold with your definition of tankiness, Citan, is that under that umbrella, offense can be considered the best defense. While that's certainly true IN PRACTICE, I wouldn't consider that so much tanking as it is simple offense.

But eh. Agree to disagree on that.
Hmm. I don't understand why you would say that? Command people to attack you is not hurting them in any way, as would be Compelled Duel. Using an action to cast Shield of Faith or Lay on Hands either. ^^

And while it's certain that killing an enemy fast is usually the best way to reduce his threat XD, there are many situations where it's just not a possible choice (enemies out of reach, too high defense for your character to have a decent chance of succeeding) or a plain underwhelming one (= damage you could deal won't make any difference in the flow of the encounter, while the next in turn in your group has a high chance to deal a decisive blow > Helping him in any way is the best course) or a short-sighted one (you can pull the finishing blow to an enemy this turn, but it means high chance of death for a close friend for example. Until you have someone with Revivify -or at worse Gentle Repose, this is usually an underwhelming choice).

For example, let's say you face several orcs or the like with a caster friend who cannot cast Shield for whatever reason and whose turn comes last. As a Barb, you can probably rush in and kill one of them, enticing them to attack you. But, if they prefer run to your friend because he seems much more vulnerable in the end, there is nothing you can do about it, except making an OA at most. Your best bet then would be to try and Grapple them, but it's a bit impractical.
Meanwhile, a Crown Paladin could try and use his Channel Divinity. An Ancients Paladin could try to Ensnare one enemy then grapple another, but would require some luck. He could also cast a Moonbeam to make a run to squishy more costly.
Any Paladin could (up)cast Command them to Flee, Grovel or Halt.
In all those cases, you didn't inflict any damage, but you also diverted several enemies attacks from targeting your friends. Which is exactly what a Barbarian tries to do, just in a different and more resource-consuming way.

That's why I think a Long Death Monk who bumps WIS as a priority is actually in the top tier of the best protectors ('"tanks") of the game, maybe even the best at mid-levels. Fear as an Action does seem underwhelming at first, but considering how potent the frightened condition is, it's an extremely good mass defense for your party. And it's stack on the most resilient -martial- chassis (obviously a high level Abjuration Wizard will trump because so many ways to prevent or divert attacks and spells). ;)
Although I would certainly forego the highest levels to get early Spiritual Weapon / Heat Metal / whatever else to deal some damage as bonus action.

Vogonjeltz

2017-06-16, 08:18 PM

Alot of people bring up that Fighters don't have many long rest resources like the Paladin and Ranger, but considering nearly every other class runs on long rest resources, is that really a benefit?

It's very difficult to squeeze 6 encounters into an adventuring day, so the Pally and Ranger's limited resources rarely end up hurting them, while the Fighter's "tortoise-like" consistency generally doesn't help much.

Literally every module written so far provides 6-8 encounters per day.

I don't see a rational basis for your claim.

While I overall agree, using the long rest variant can help with verisimilitude if your players work on the 5 minute adventuring day.

From my experience the groups that try and abuse the rest system, go in to a dungeon, nova it, walk out and camp. Rinse and repeat till the process is done. You make them wait a full week to get that long rest, and now it makes perfect sense that the dungeon is completely restocked with new baddies since a week is plenty of time for reinforcements to enter, and dungeons traps reset.

Having that happen during an 8-hour rest makes less sense.

Every single module given so far has had (and the DMG recommends this for any setting the DM creates) random encounter tables that address this attempt to meta-game the system.

They have one encounter and try to overwhelm, then camp? Boom, wandering monsters hit them up 7 times before the night happens. Furthermore, you can only benefit from one every 24 hours, so they'd have to sit around all day waiting for nightfall (or whenever the timer started from the previous long rest) anyway.

Plenty of time for those wandering gnolls, goblins, giant rats, ogre, competing adventuring party or whatever, to show up interested in the same dungeon. That last one is pretty much a way of saying "You snooze, you lose guys".

5E. We're talking 5E.

And when it comes to at-will damage, I don't think anyone beats the Fighter, except maybe a Reckless Attacking Barbarian (which has its own problems).

Not even then.

Lay on hands is the equivalent of gaining additional health equal to having a bonus maxed out constitution score, yet it can be dispersed between alleys in small spurts or huge bursts and can even cure diseases. Right off the bat the paladin is both a damage dealer and healer for the team without even having to do anything, if he tanks he gains a huge health pool, if ally tanks, they have a backbone to rely on if they fall.

Counterpoint, Fighter is simply better at his job (fighting) than the Paladin is thanks to a Fighting Style and Second Wind vs Divine Sense and Lay on Hands.

Fighting Style actually contributes to combat, Second Wind is a bonus action and heals more on average (6.5) than the Lay on Hands Pool (5) which also requires an action to use. For the Paladin to use their ability requires them to forgo actual combat for an entire round, making it basically useless in combat.

Round goes to: Fighter.

Both them and fighter get the same health, fighting style choices, weapons armors, but then paladin gets spell-casting using the best casting stat in the game, Charisma.

Eventually they both get the same Fighting style, but not at the same level, and when the Paladin does get theirs, the Fighter has gotten Action Surge, probably the single best ability in the game because it grants action economy superior to any other class.

Charisma gives them very powerful rollplay tools while also buffing their spell-casting, its pretty hard to build a bad paladin when everything is served to you on a silver platter.

It also requires the Paladin to boost a stat other than Str/Dex and Con. This is made all the more problematic when one considers that the Paladin has 2 fewer ASI to work with.

With spell casting you can have even more healing, or give everyone on your team a +20% chance to both hit and succeed on saving throws, or have a permanent free horse, or boost everyone's damage with crusader's mantle, the list goes on but you get the point. Have spell slots to spare?

Yes, spells are nice enough, but they are also extremely limited in use. Contrast that with the short or No rest abilities of the Fighter chassis. Also nice, but pretty much always there.

You get one of the best guaranteed damage dealers in the game, Divine smite! Every crit you ever deal will now be a game changer guaranteed to make your DM regret not buffing the boss.

Here's the thing, the big draw of the Paladin's Divine Smite is that it provides burst capability. The drawback of waiting for a critical hit (to get a bigger burst)...is that you're waiting for godot. That critical statistically will happen every 20 rounds (unless the paladin is using dual-wielding with a light weapon and forgoing the protection of a shield to fish for it) until the Paladin hits level 5, then it's once every 10 rounds on average. If the Paladin doesn't want the combat to last 10 rounds, they are probably going to just smite smite smite till daddy takes the t-bird away, you saavy?

Ok, great...except that smite is just 2d8 damage, scaling at 1d8 for each precious spell level used to cap at 5d8 for 4th and 5th level spell slots. At 9 ave damage for a 1st level slot that's not a great return (Divine Favor is better adding +2.5 damage per hit, potentially adds 50-75 damage) it's something you use in a desperation ploy or to try and end a combat quickly.

Contrast that with the Champion's improved critical, it adds 8.333 (with GWFS) to the same...except with no limit per day. Or the Battlemaster's Superiority dice (+4d8 damage per short rest, effectively, easily exceeding the Paladin's 6d8 (12d8 if they literally only use it on a critical hit...except if the BM did the same they'd get 32d8, so, still no comparison)

Being radiant damage protects it from almost ever being resisted while a huge portion of the monster manual is weak to it, did anyone say quad damage? You can keep your action surge, the paladin is packing a holy hand grenade with a lot of uses. Oh hey its time to pick my archetype, and now I get channel divinity, another amazing power I can use every short rest which is also almost always going to be better than action surge, like oh I dont know, mass 30 foot radius fears, huge attack bonuses, or how about marking the big bad for dead?

That 30 foot fear is specific to fiends and undead, the attack bonus is limited to charisma score...yay?, and the marking is advantage...for the Paladin. Conversely, the Fighter could just use one of their attacks to knock the subject prone, giving the entire group advantage on melee attacks. Seems better, and it doesn't eat up a limited use ability.

On to choosing an archetype. Do I wanted incredibly boss destruction for vengeance? Do I want to tank better than a barbarian with ancients? Maybe I should just break Great weapon master with devotion? How about I just go oath breaker and have a higher sustained attack than fighter. Every single archetype is powerful in its own way. When fighter picks in archetype you know what goes through your head? "which one of these suck the least?" Its sad how weak they are and people try to look for 20th level to justify them yet never even play a game at that level or even half that.

Just gonna pick out one thing for questioning (amongst many); What are you looking at that makes you say "tank better than a barbarian with ancients"?

SO you have your character defining archetype now you get aura of protection at level 6 and get to learn what a real party tank is, this one skill guarantees a slot for you in anyone's party. If you played your cards right you now give your other front-liners an average of a 20-40% chance to succeeding on their saving throws at will almost all the time. Traveling with the whole party? everyone gets the protection all the time. Aura of Protection is one of the strongest abilities in the game and it requires absolutely nothing from the paladin. You thought that aura was great? well through levels 7-8 you get another aura from your archetype! and it's just as amazingly strong! People standing next to you will feel untouchable as your mere existences grants them invincibility. Oh **** its level 10 did someone say more auras? Thats ****ing right, a 3rd ****ing aura thats at-will always on and requires nothing from you.

I mean, auras are great and all for what they do... but they do nothing to make the Paladin better at combat.

Now you can shrivel the DM's **** as he trys to mass fear you all with every ****ing dragon from the monster manual. You are now a ****ing god at killing dragons and can bring your allys with you in your glorious crusade. Oh hey wheres my 3rd multiattack? oh whats this, improved Divine smite? on all my attacks? it doubles when I crit? It's ****ing radiant damage? Yeah keep your ****ing multiattack. Oh damn the fighter has indomitable and can remake his -2 wisdom saving throw, whoa so amazing! Oh hey I have cleansing touch, it removes EVERYTHING and I can use this **** 3-5 times a day. How many times can you use indomitable, mr.fighter? whoa twice a day? whoaaa 3 times at 17? daaaamn now you can fail your ****ty mental saving throws an extra 3 times a day! hey want to use my 3 auras? Well you see where I am going with this folks. If you want to talk about damage at max level I'm sure a fighter can inch out the paladin but at what cost? everything else, thats the cost.

Not much cost at all, apparently.

A PHB ranger gains a fighting style (all the same ones as fighter)

They don't get GWFS or Protection (same way a Paladin lacks TWFS and Archery)

djreynolds

2017-06-16, 08:47 PM

Paladins are good for one thing:

Going after evil, telling the party "if you stick next to me, my belief will protect us" and then whole party squeezes into a ten foot area and gets burned, electrocuted, and squashed to death.

Here is the thing, the fighter originally was the average man. He needed a 9 in strength, if you rolled well you could be a ranger, rolled a 17 for charisma and you could play a paladin.

Classes are not meant to be equal. They are meant to fulfill a role in society.

To be a paladin is special. Your Oath is everything. In your fulfillment of that oath, some may say you are suicidal and others claim you're a saint and martyr.

Rangers are not just hunters in the woods in neon orange, these are individuals, like the paladin who are hell bent on killing a particular quarry.

So when the ranger and paladin are racing in to spear the dragon, or giant, or demon. The fighter can simply say, "right behind you," and let them die.

The fighter is us, the average dude or gal, who wants a nice comfortable life and understands that this life costs money and adventuring will provide that money.

The fighter is "not" out there because their village was burned by orcs and assassins, or they really hate mind flayers and other aberrations, or some silly watery wench walked out of a swamp and handed them a sword. They are there for the adventure, the money, the glory, the pay day.

So there should be in society lots of fighters, and very few rangers, and a handful of paladins (including the dead paladins in that handful)

mgshamster

2017-06-16, 09:01 PM

Literally every module written so far provides 6-8 encounters per day.

The AL modules do it really well, but I ran Out of the Abyss to it's completion and it certainly did not do the 6-8 encounters per day thing. There were a handful of sections that acted like a dungeon that had 6-8 encounters with planned short rests, but they were rare.

To compensate for it, I added a mechanic where every long rest the PCs had a cumulative 10% chance to have nightmares, and did not gain the benefits of a long rest. This could be ignored if you were in a sanctified location, such as a temple or place of worship to a non-evil deity.

I also removed it near the 3/4 point as a quest reward/gift from a god.

Klorox

2017-06-16, 10:50 PM

In terms of power, the three classes should go like this:

Paladin
Fighter

Ranger

qube

2017-06-17, 07:35 AM

CoDzilla would like to have a word with you, as would the Batman Wizard.

Optimized spellcasters did have the right spell at the right time, actually, and plenty of spells that allowed them to do anything a martial could, except better.Aaah, nostalgia.

Wanna martial class that cast spells better then a wizard? Take 1 cross class rank use magic device, get +30 bonus from boost items. use scrolls instead of spell list. Fixed. Seeing there are tons of tricks to get infinite gold, money ain't an issue anyway. A spell list only limited to your carrying capacity (& amount of bags of holding you buy), and no class restriction.

Like ma peeps from the old CharOp boards will tell ya: in 3.5, one class isn't more powerful then the other - one class is easier to optimize then the other.

Otherwise, you could argue a 1st level commoner is as equally viable as a 20th level wizard/incantatrix/archmage if both are having fun.Case in point: Pun pun has been obtained as level 1 commoner. So, yeah, my level 1 commoner can beat the living daylight out of your 20th level wizard/incantatrix/archmage as free action (unless he's also Pun pun).

That critical statistically will happen every 20 rounds (unless the paladin is using dual-wielding with a light weapon and forgoing the protection of a shield to fish for it) until the Paladin hits level 5, then it's once every 10 rounds on average.two notes: veng paladins get advantage = twice the dice & two attacks = 5 rounds.

However: While crits can happen earlier, and even multiple times, there's also about a 1/3 chance of not getting a crit by the 20th die roll*

(*: X rolls of a 1/X chance never getting a specific score goes to 1/e the higher X is)

Specter

2017-06-17, 08:46 AM

In terms of power, the three classes should go like this:

Paladin
Fighter

Ranger

Only if your campaign features only boss fights.

Klorox

2017-06-17, 07:30 PM

Only if your campaign features only boss fights.

No, I'm referring to the fact that, mechanically, there is nothing that a ranger does better than anybody.

Squiddish

2017-06-17, 07:58 PM

No, I'm referring to the fact that, mechanically, there is nothing that a ranger does better than anybody.

Exploration in certain terrains, fighting large groups (to an extent).

Klorox

2017-06-17, 08:40 PM

Exploration in certain terrains, fighting large groups (to an extent).

Take a level of rogue with expertise in survival and you're a better explorer than the PHB ranger.

I'm not trying to argue with you, it's pretty common knowledge that the PHB ranger doesn't stack up crunch-wise to the other classes.

If you enjoy playing them, that's cool. If they did stack up ok, UA wouldn't have released so many ranger class "fixes"

MadBear

2017-06-17, 08:54 PM

Take a level of rogue with expertise in survival and you're a better explorer than the PHB ranger.

I'm not trying to argue with you, it's pretty common knowledge that the PHB ranger doesn't stack up crunch-wise to the other classes.

If you enjoy playing them, that's cool. If they did stack up ok, UA wouldn't have released so many ranger class "fixes"

The ranged hunter ranger is 100% fine straight out of the book. It fulfills it's DPS role quite well. The biggest issue with the ranger was mainly the beastmaster and even then it wasn't a dps thing so much as the mechanics felt clunky.

But seriously, an elven ranger using a bow is devastating to groups.

Snowbluff

2017-06-17, 11:12 PM

scalyfreak

2017-06-17, 11:16 PM

Casters all the way. I don't have to be worried about doing the same thing each turn.

You say that like it's a bad thing. :smallamused:

MadBear

2017-06-17, 11:55 PM

Meh fighter sucks to play anywhere. You get like what, 2 maneuver dice if you play the type that gets actual options in combat.

Casters all the way. I don't have to be worried about doing the same thing each turn.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a7/a711e3ed2203db12612ea5db83375b678d4f61cc9120d7bdef cbd54856229401.jpg

djreynolds

2017-06-18, 12:16 AM

The ranged hunter ranger is 100% fine straight out of the book. It fulfills it's DPS role quite well. The biggest issue with the ranger was mainly the beastmaster and even then it wasn't a dps thing so much as the mechanics felt clunky.

But seriously, an elven ranger using a bow is devastating to groups.

Very true, I like the ranger. It's a fun class. I actually didn't mind the beast master, I just took a new beast when I went to different areas that fit the area.

Its like that thread, why people do not like forgotten realms.

Some players want this pokemon super psychic powerful jedis..... I like to play simply, as if "I" was there.

Its like playing star war battlefront... as a trooper. Some like to play as a jedi.

And in 5E, you can play a stormtrooper, or Darth Vader, or Boba Fett.

It you choice, sometimes I want be a jedi and all powerful and kick a**, and sometimes I want to be a simple scout in Rogue One

Vogonjeltz

2017-06-21, 07:59 PM

The AL modules do it really well, but I ran Out of the Abyss to it's completion and it certainly did not do the 6-8 encounters per day thing. There were a handful of sections that acted like a dungeon that had 6-8 encounters with planned short rests, but they were rare.

To compensate for it, I added a mechanic where every long rest the PCs had a cumulative 10% chance to have nightmares, and did not gain the benefits of a long rest. This could be ignored if you were in a sanctified location, such as a temple or place of worship to a non-evil deity.

I also removed it near the 3/4 point as a quest reward/gift from a god.

Away from book, but aren't there several tables for random encounters for the journey portions in between towns?

No, I'm referring to the fact that, mechanically, there is nothing that a ranger does better than anybody.

Rangers do the wilderness like nobody else:
Difficult terrain doesn't slow, Stealth doesn't slow, forage for double (basically no chance of starvation) expertise on all wisdom/intelligence proficiencies, remains alert for danger even while navigating/tracking/foraging, can't get lost for nonmagical reasons, get actual information about enemies in the region.

They also ambush and fight in difficult circumstances like nobody else (Hide in Plain Sight, Vanish, and Feral Senses).

Take a level of rogue with expertise in survival and you're a better explorer than the PHB ranger.

The rogue has to choose one: Stay aware of danger, Don't get lost, Forage for food, Track.

If they want to not get lost in the wilderness or stave off starvation, they can't be alert for that ambush. Plus if they want to try and be stealthy, their rate of movement is going to be halved, and if they hit difficult terrain now it's down to a quarter.

That means a Ranger can travel stealthed at 300 feet per minute (3 miles per hour, 24 miles per day) and the Rogue can do 6 miles per day...possibly getting lost in the process requiring many more days of travel.

The Ranger already has expertise in survival, it's a Wisdom check. The Rogue gets nothing on the Ranger.

If they did stack up ok, UA wouldn't have released so many ranger class "fixes"

The actual stated reason for the UA is because people didn't like the feel of the PHB Beastmaster mechanics.

What's ironic is the UA one deals less damage.

Psikerlord

2017-06-21, 09:47 PM

In my experience, yes paladins can do everyting a fighter can, but better. Paladins are OP in 5e imo. Smite should have been a bonus action, for starters.

Malifice

2017-06-21, 10:12 PM

In my experience, yes paladins can do everyting a fighter can, but better. Paladins are OP in 5e imo. Smite should have been a bonus action, for starters.

But surely you acknowledge that this is a DM created issue?

Like; if you played at a table where the DM used the gritty realism rest variant (or otherwise used an encounter heavy/ short rest free adventuring day) the opposite is in fact true.

Assume I'm DMing and I routinely enforce 8 encounters between long rests, but give enough time for multiple (3) short rests. (Note this is within the 6-8 encounters and 2-3 short rests that the game assumes DMs are using). Note also that this is the upper end of the mechanical balance point of the game.

Wanna compare the damage output of a Battlemaster vs a Paladin under those conditions? At 3rd level the fighter is spamming 16d8 extra damage (plus riders), action surging 4 times, and healing 4d10 plus 12 hit points from second wind (33 hit points of healing).

This totally owns the Paladins 6d8 damage from smites, 4 divine channels, and 15 hit points of healing from lay on hands.

If your DM is running his game outside of the games expected 6 or so encounters and 2 or so short rests (only 1 or 2 encounters a day) then of course you'll notice long rest based classes (such as the Paladin) dominating.

mgshamster

2017-06-21, 11:08 PM

Away from book, but aren't there several tables for random encounters for the journey portions in between towns?

Yeah. Roll twice a day with a 65% chance of "no encounter" in the first half of the book. Guaranteed event twice a day in second half of book, but only 45% of events have a chance for an enemy (but all of them may have something that drains resources).

Psikerlord

2017-06-22, 06:31 PM

But surely you acknowledge that this is a DM created issue?

Like; if you played at a table where the DM used the gritty realism rest variant (or otherwise used an encounter heavy/ short rest free adventuring day) the opposite is in fact true.

Assume I'm DMing and I routinely enforce 8 encounters between long rests, but give enough time for multiple (3) short rests. (Note this is within the 6-8 encounters and 2-3 short rests that the game assumes DMs are using). Note also that this is the upper end of the mechanical balance point of the game.

Wanna compare the damage output of a Battlemaster vs a Paladin under those conditions? At 3rd level the fighter is spamming 16d8 extra damage (plus riders), action surging 4 times, and healing 4d10 plus 12 hit points from second wind (33 hit points of healing).

This totally owns the Paladins 6d8 damage from smites, 4 divine channels, and 15 hit points of healing from lay on hands.

If your DM is running his game outside of the games expected 6 or so encounters and 2 or so short rests (only 1 or 2 encounters a day) then of course you'll notice long rest based classes (such as the Paladin) dominating.
GMs simply cant have 8 fights a day, all day every day. So it's not really a GM problem. It's a fundamental problem with how 5e refreshes everything overnight, from which paladins benefit too greatly.

Klorox

2017-06-22, 08:32 PM

Away from book, but aren't there several tables for random encounters for the journey portions in between towns?

Rangers do the wilderness like nobody else:
Difficult terrain doesn't slow, Stealth doesn't slow, forage for double (basically no chance of starvation) expertise on all wisdom/intelligence proficiencies, remains alert for danger even while navigating/tracking/foraging, can't get lost for nonmagical reasons, get actual information about enemies in the region.

They also ambush and fight in difficult circumstances like nobody else (Hide in Plain Sight, Vanish, and Feral Senses).

The rogue has to choose one: Stay aware of danger, Don't get lost, Forage for food, Track.

If they want to not get lost in the wilderness or stave off starvation, they can't be alert for that ambush. Plus if they want to try and be stealthy, their rate of movement is going to be halved, and if they hit difficult terrain now it's down to a quarter.

That means a Ranger can travel stealthed at 300 feet per minute (3 miles per hour, 24 miles per day) and the Rogue can do 6 miles per day...possibly getting lost in the process requiring many more days of travel.

The Ranger already has expertise in survival, it's a Wisdom check. The Rogue gets nothing on the Ranger.

The actual stated reason for the UA is because people didn't like the feel of the PHB Beastmaster mechanics.

What's ironic is the UA one deals less damage.

Take a few levels of druid, get all that plus some spells.

You can make a better character that feels like a ranger than an actual ranger in this edition with some multiclassing.

I know WotC keeps on trying to address this with all the UA ranger replacemnts we've seen. I lean towards AL rules only, so I don't see too much of this.

I loved 1e rangers. I hope that WotC can replicate that more closely.

Specter

2017-06-22, 10:50 PM

Take a few levels of druid, get all that plus some spells.

You can make a better character that feels like a ranger than an actual ranger in this edition with some multiclassing.

I know WotC keeps on trying to address this with all the UA ranger replacemnts we've seen. I lean towards AL rules only, so I don't see too much of this.

I loved 1e rangers. I hope that WotC can replicate that more closely.

Literally everything that Vogonjeltz mentioned is not available to Druids, except for Land's Stride, which is Land only.

I'm starting to think the reason people don't value the ranger is because they play with lazy DMs that say "you went from this point to this point. Done."

Malifice

2017-06-22, 11:52 PM

GMs simply cant have 8 fights a day, all day every day. So it's not really a GM problem. It's a fundamental problem with how 5e refreshes everything overnight, from which paladins benefit too greatly.

No-one is suggesting that they DO have 8 encounters per day, every day.

Some days it will be 8+ encounters with little chance to short rest. Advantage Rogue (who has little if any rest dependent class features barring HP and HD).

Some days it will be 8+ encounters with many (3+) chances to short rest. Advantage Fighter (and Monk and Warlock) who have many short rest dependent features, and few long rest dependent ones. Full casters, paladins and barbarians will stuggle on these days, particularly if they 'nova' the first few encounters.

Some days it will only be 1 or 2 encounters. Advantage full spell casters, barbarians and paladins who can safely nova.

Some days it will be 6-8 encounters, and 2-3 short rests, and every class is on par with every other class.

As long as the campaign sticks to an overall median of (roughly) 6-8 encounters per long rest, with opportunity for around 2-3 short rests, the classes overall balance. Some days will favor the Paladin, some days will favor the Fighter. The spotlight moves and different classes have different opportunities to shine.

Get it yet? This argument is moot. It entirely depends on your DM. If your DM sticks to the DMG and polices the adventuring day, and builds the campaign around the baseline of 6-8 medium to hard encounters between long rests, broken up by 2-3 short rests as a median, Fighters and Paladins balance fine.

On longer days (with more short rests) advantage fighter. On shorter days (with fewer encounters) advantage paladin.

If Paladins are dominating your game, and Fighter suck, its because your DM isnt policing the adventuring day (either by design, or by defiance or by ignorance of the rules) and you are getting too few encounters per long rest and/or too few opportunities for short rests.

If Fighers are king, then the opposite is true (you're getting too many short rests, and a lot of encounters between long rests).

Its entirely a DM controlled phenomenon. He can dial up the encounter frequency (a timed quest is simple enough to insert) at will. He can set up waves of monsters, followed by a short rest, then rinse and repeat one or two more times before allowing the PCs a long rest. If all else fails he can use the rest variants in the DMG (bump short rests down to 5 minutes, or bump long rests up to 1 whole week in town, or both).

If you're DMing a game with only 0-2 encounters per 'in game day' and Paladins are dominating, then you should be using the 'gritty realism' variant.

Putting that aside, if the DM is running his game outside of the '6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest' median expected by the game (the point where encounter and class balance occurs) then of course the classes are going to go out of kilter. The DM is to blame.

If he sticks to the 6-8 encounter/ 2-3 short rest median, both classes balance.

This argument is pointless without context. In my games Fighters could be mega awesome because I ensure the PCs dont get long rests until they have had at least 10 encounters, and I am loose with short rests (allowing them to be taken at will).

Now you might have an issue with the [6-8/2-3 short rest] balance point. Thats a different question though. In a campaign adhering to the [6-8/2-3 short rest] meta, Paladin and Fighter balance perfectly.

Zardnaar

2017-06-23, 01:27 AM

Sort of yes. The fighter shines late in career around level 11. Paladins and Rangers switch on a or earlier.
I think the Paladins the best overall. I suspect most players are not playing high level 5E or the 6 to 8 encounters qhich RAW are easy anyway.

We probably lean more towards 4 to 6 encounters asvits hard to get in more in a 4 or 5 hour session.

Zardnaar

2017-06-23, 01:28 AM

And some classes in 5E peak early/later. Moon Druids at lvl 2 for example.

Zardnaar

2017-06-23, 01:31 AM

No, I'm referring to the fact that, mechanically, there is nothing that a ranger does better than anybody.

Single target or horde damage lvl 1 to 10. The hunter can make Paladins and Fightets weep at level 1 to 10 and they can rock exploration and do things like faerie fire and pass without trace.

MeeposFire

2017-06-23, 02:49 PM

One thing you can do if your game is not getting enough encounters to make short rest characters feel adequete but you like how long rest characters are doing change the amount of time it takes to complete a short rest but DO NOT change the long rest.

On the low end at five minutes you can be almost sure that classes like the fighter will get thier features on every encounter (like action surge). You could go with 30 minutes, 10 minutes, or 15 just find the amount of time that it hits your sweet spot.

Just figure out how many encounters you tend to do in a day and then pick an amount of time that will tend to give your short abilities to be used about 3 times in a day.

Specter

2017-06-23, 04:01 PM

Single target or horde damage lvl 1 to 10. The hunter can make Paladins and Fightets weep at level 1 to 10 and they can rock exploration and do things like faerie fire and pass without trace.

At level 11, Hunter gets the only at-will AoE in the game. Essentially, you can attack up to 16 enemies a round, provided they're inside a 20-foot cube. That's why I said Ranger sucks only if your campaign features only bosses, a one-enemy-per-room system (in which case you are still good, just not the best).

Those weirdos that play halfings riding giant snakes also get a considerable boost in DPR by level 11; the master and the pet make three attacks a round. Average damage considering max DEX on the halfling (with a rapier) is 41 DPR. That's considering the enemy saves successfully against poison, otherwise it's 51.5. Yeah, like a Fighter, but with poison involved.

Vogonjeltz

2017-06-23, 06:30 PM

Literally everything that Vogonjeltz mentioned is not available to Druids, except for Land's Stride, which is Land only.

I'm starting to think the reason people don't value the ranger is because they play with lazy DMs that say "you went from this point to this point. Done."

Haha. Yeah, thank you for that. It does sound like there must be a great number of DMs who just link scene location to scene location, with no decision points or interruptions in between. Maybe it's the same crowd who can't figure out how to include 6-8 encounters in 24 hours of travel over ~24 miles of terrain?

I wonder how they handle Out of the Abyss and other modules with extensive traveling components that a Ranger would really shine in.

Citan

2017-06-23, 07:03 PM

Zardnaar

2017-06-23, 07:13 PM

At level 11, Hunter gets the only at-will AoE in the game. Essentially, you can attack up to 16 enemies a round, provided they're inside a 20-foot cube. That's why I said Ranger sucks only if your campaign features only bosses, a one-enemy-per-room system (in which case you are still good, just not the best).

Those weirdos that play halfings riding giant snakes also get a considerable boost in DPR by level 11; the master and the pet make three attacks a round. Average damage considering max DEX on the halfling (with a rapier) is 41 DPR. That's considering the enemy saves successfully against poison, otherwise it's 51.5. Yeah, like a Fighter, but with poison involved.

You are preaching to the converted.

A basic hunter ranger build at low levels gets the same amount of atacks as a fighter but gets an extra 1d8 and 1d6 damage on them via colossus slayer/hunters quarry so will actually out damage a fighters action surge 1/ short rest.

At level 11 a Ranger might fall behind a fighters 3rd attack but even then the difference won't be that great and the Ranger does get volley.

I also allow the Tempest Ranger into the game. Its an EN5ider archetype and it gets an extra attack if both attacks hit while duel wielding. If the hunter Ranger is a horde breaker that thing is a boss fight killer. When we started 5E we took colossus slayer at 3rd level, now we are leaning towards Hordebreaker.

I think the extra damage, spells and situational extra attacks balance out the fighters 3rd attack. I think the key thing with a Ranger is knowing how to build it, what class features to take, what spells to use, and if you are a Hunter Ranger play an archer.

Without concentration saves a Ranger is a bit meh at melee if you want to use Hunters Quarry and dual wielding is a bit under powered with feats in the game. You can almost build a 1E type Ranger though in heavy armor and a great weapons I just think if you try and play a wider rogue a'la 3E or 4E OP striker dual wielder you might be disappointed.

At worst the Ranger is competitive with the fighter damage wise and smokes it in the exploration pillar/versatility.

mr-mercer

2017-06-24, 08:41 AM

I've never been one for optimisation so I can't help in that regard, but as far as flavour I'd probably pick fighters all the time even if they were the worst class in the game, because they are the foremost representatives of the character archetype I love the most: the guy who, in a world filled with reality-warping monstrosities, goes about his duties with nothing but a sharp metal stick and a determined expression, and wins. Nothing speaks to me more than the badass normals (which is why I'm salty about monks being inherently magical) and nothing represents that better than the fighter.

As far as the ranger, though, I've just had a thought. I do agree that rangers are hampered by the fact that many DMs ignore travel, but I think this is a symptom of something related to the ranger, or perhaps the other classes instead. Namely, the ranger's focus on survival is completely unique. Everyone gets benefits to combat and even things like stealth can be used to the benefit of non-rogues, but as far as I'm aware the ranger is the only class that gains anything from tracking, travelling and that sort of thing. I can tell you from a very limited amount of experience that the section in the DMG related to that is also extremely intimidating, and I've been putting off reading it for ages because it looks way more complicated than anything else so far.

With that in mind, perhaps it is the case that rangers get shafted precisely because they can do what no one else can? A DM would look at the section on survival and get spooked, and figure that hey, it's not that big of a deal if I just drop this, right? I mean, it's just a bunch of busywork that no one really gets much out of, right? It's not as if anyone will miss it, right?

I'm going to remain doing this for quite some time, because I'm scared of that section, but I am trying to take the party ranger's abilities into account in other ways (e.g. giving automatic perception checks to detect enemies while travelling in his chosen terrain, making it easier to get advantage on his favoured enemies, etc.) It's probably messy as hell, but I feel like it gives him the opportunity to feel powerful in the scenarios he's supposed to.

Specter

2017-06-24, 09:01 AM

Haha. Yeah, thank you for that. It does sound like there must be a great number of DMs who just link scene location to scene location, with no decision points or interruptions in between. Maybe it's the same crowd who can't figure out how to include 6-8 encounters in 24 hours of travel over ~24 miles of terrain?

I wonder how they handle Out of the Abyss and other modules with extensive traveling components that a Ranger would really shine in.

Yep. For some reason, sleeping in a kobold forest sometimes is as safe as sleeping in an inn. Shame!

To react on the first part, Ranger is probably the best martial to buff for this reason exactly. And when paired with at least one capable ally, he can wreak havoc.
I'd really like to play in a "nature" party made of Hunter Ranger, Nature Cleric and Land Druid. Cleric buffs all three then goes towards a point and cast Command or uses Thorns Whip together with Land Druid. Ranger peppers with Sharpshooter once enough people is in range.

Even better: Ranger, Lore Bard, Nature Cleric: Cleric casts Bless, Bard upcasts Elemental Weapon on Ranger's bow, then both of them use the same tactics aforementiond to draw enemies inside an area made of Plant Growth and Spirit Guardians. As they progress, grab Warcaster and Sentinel to add insult to injury. ;)

Crowd control is absolutely of the essence, and the Ranger could even do it himself with Spike Growth/Grasping Vine.

You are preaching to the converted.

A basic hunter ranger build at low levels gets the same amount of atacks as a fighter but gets an extra 1d8 and 1d6 damage on them via colossus slayer/hunters quarry so will actually out damage a fighters action surge 1/ short rest.

At level 11 a Ranger might fall behind a fighters 3rd attack but even then the difference won't be that great and the Ranger does get volley.

I also allow the Tempest Ranger into the game. Its an EN5ider archetype and it gets an extra attack if both attacks hit while duel wielding. If the hunter Ranger is a horde breaker that thing is a boss fight killer. When we started 5E we took colossus slayer at 3rd level, now we are leaning towards Hordebreaker.

I think the extra damage, spells and situational extra attacks balance out the fighters 3rd attack. I think the key thing with a Ranger is knowing how to build it, what class features to take, what spells to use, and if you are a Hunter Ranger play an archer.

Without concentration saves a Ranger is a bit meh at melee if you want to use Hunters Quarry and dual wielding is a bit under powered with feats in the game. You can almost build a 1E type Ranger though in heavy armor and a great weapons I just think if you try and play a wider rogue a'la 3E or 4E OP striker dual wielder you might be disappointed.

At worst the Ranger is competitive with the fighter damage wise and smokes it in the exploration pillar/versatility.

I wasn't convincing you, just expanding on your point. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I've never been one for optimisation so I can't help in that regard, but as far as flavour I'd probably pick fighters all the time even if they were the worst class in the game, because they are the foremost representatives of the character archetype I love the most: the guy who, in a world filled with reality-warping monstrosities, goes about his duties with nothing but a sharp metal stick and a determined expression, and wins. Nothing speaks to me more than the badass normals (which is why I'm salty about monks being inherently magical) and nothing represents that better than the fighter.

As far as the ranger, though, I've just had a thought. I do agree that rangers are hampered by the fact that many DMs ignore travel, but I think this is a symptom of something related to the ranger, or perhaps the other classes instead. Namely, the ranger's focus on survival is completely unique. Everyone gets benefits to combat and even things like stealth can be used to the benefit of non-rogues, but as far as I'm aware the ranger is the only class that gains anything from tracking, travelling and that sort of thing. I can tell you from a very limited amount of experience that the section in the DMG related to that is also extremely intimidating, and I've been putting off reading it for ages because it looks way more complicated than anything else so far.

With that in mind, perhaps it is the case that rangers get shafted precisely because they can do what no one else can? A DM would look at the section on survival and get spooked, and figure that hey, it's not that big of a deal if I just drop this, right? I mean, it's just a bunch of busywork that no one really gets much out of, right? It's not as if anyone will miss it, right?

I'm going to remain doing this for quite some time, because I'm scared of that section, but I am trying to take the party ranger's abilities into account in other ways (e.g. giving automatic perception checks to detect enemies while travelling in his chosen terrain, making it easier to get advantage on his favoured enemies, etc.) It's probably messy as hell, but I feel like it gives him the opportunity to feel powerful in the scenarios he's supposed to.

Yep. It's laziness. One should never feel as comfortable in the wild as they would elsewhere.

If you want to make exploration matter more, you have to think about dangers outside of monsters: a snake hidden in the grass, traps made by nearby villagers for hunting, a cold caused by heavy rain, sandstorms, poisoned food...