# Fighter Vs Paladin



## Andor (Jun 23, 2008)

Fighter vs Paladin:
Armour: Fighter gets scale, Paladin gets Plate - Advantage Paladin
Defences: Fighter get +2, Paladin gets +3 - Advantage Paladin
HP: Same
Healing Surges: Paladin gets 1 more
Skills: Fighter gets 3, Paladin gets 4 - Advantage Paladin
Weapon Proficiencies: Fighter gets Military Ranged over Paladin. Which nets out to be a +2 to hit with bows, unless the Paladin is an Elf and gets them for free anyway. - Advantage Fighter, maybe.

Marking - Fighter has better means of marking, the Paladin mark is vastly stronger. - I call it a wash.

Role - Fighter has better control over NPCs (I.E. Leans towards controller.) Paladin has healing and ally boosts (I.E. Leans towards leader.)

Powers: Damage is a wash as far as I can see. The fighter has more powers that make him seem tougher, which are pretty much negated by the Paladins ability to heal himself at will. ... Looking more closely the Paladin can do _more_ damage and gets ranged attacks as well. - Coolness probably goes to the fighter but for usefullness I say advantage Paladin.

Why exactly should someone pick a Fighter over a Paladin? And don't say "Roleplaying", everytime someone complains they want an archer fighter or swashbuckly fighter they get pointed at the Ranger and told to imagine it has a different name, so obviously the same can be done here. So stuff it. Mechanically what does the fighter player have that the Paladin player envies?


----------



## Wormwood (Jun 23, 2008)

Don't forget that a fighter hits more often (+1 with either one or two-handed weapons).

edit: for completion's sake only. I'm on the fence regarding the OP's point.


----------



## pogminky (Jun 23, 2008)

Some fighter powers are reliable


----------



## Kzach (Jun 23, 2008)

I haven't seen a paladin in action as a tank but I've played a fighter a few times and hot damn if their class features aren't uber.

As far as sticking opponents to you and making them attack you instead of the paladin, I'd have to say the fighter is the better defender of the two.


----------



## krakenstar (Jun 23, 2008)

For me its this:

+1 to hit (2 levels nothing to scoff at)
Reliable powers
Tide of Iron At will.  is so strong indoor with hallways.

Most importantly for me - 

Combat Challenge + Shield Push (feat).  Until you've played this combo a couple of sessions and master it's usage, you haven't played a "defender".


----------



## Zurai (Jun 23, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Armour: Fighter gets scale, Paladin gets Plate - Advantage Paladin



Scale is the better armor, IMO. No need to go to plate.







> Marking - Fighter has better means of marking, the Paladin mark is vastly stronger. - I call it a wash.



How is the Paladin mark "vastly stronger"? Because it does damage? So does the Fighter's, thanks to the second paragraph of Combat Challenge. The paladin also has a drawback with his; the fighter's is free and clear. I'd call Combat Challenge _drastically_ better than Divine Challenge. Don't forget that Paladins can only Challenge one target at a time.


----------



## Thasmodious (Jun 23, 2008)

The fighter's mark is not just easier to apply, its a lot better.  The paladins can do some damage, but he must stay in contact and while there, is the likely target anyway.  A marked opponent of a fighter will have a hard time even moving around the fighter without getting smacked and the fighter can take a number of feats to improve his combat superiority even further.  The paladin doesn't touch the fighter in holding a line.  He's tough and can heal both himself and others, which is his area, but the fighter has the ball when it comes to standing his ground.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 23, 2008)

- Fighters get a bonus to hit with a particular weapon type
- Many Fighter Dailies are Reliable
- Fighters can Mark multiple foes.
- Combat Challenge

Mechanically, the Fighter is fine.  He favors defending against more enemies, where the Paladin is better against fewer enemies, or one BBG.  A 1-to-1 comparison of numbers in this case does not yield a final result.  I don't think you've given the class a fair shake.


----------



## Enthralled (Jun 23, 2008)

> A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.




I clearly must be reading this wrong. I read this as saying that the second time the fighter tried to put a mark on an enemy the first mark would go away. Thus the "supersedes" text. 

I can see how perhaps this was just trying to say that the fighter's mark could be overwritten by some other player's mark. 

I can see how the paladin mark explicitly lists marking another target as dropping the first mark in addition to the supersedes language which makes me think my initial reading of the fighter mark was wrong.

Could anyone point me to any rules that would clarify this?


----------



## useridunavailable (Jun 23, 2008)

You seem to be missing the point of the defender role, which I find to be pretty common.  When comparing powers, you equate "healing oneself" to "seeming tougher" (by which I have to assume you mean "provoking aggro").  The first problem here is that you cite the Paladin's ability to heal himself while completely disregarding the fact that the Fighter _also_ has powers which allow him to heal himself.  Therefore, it is entirely inaccurate to equate "Paladin healing" to "Fighter aggro generation".  The only valid comparisons here are between "Paladin healing" and "Fighter healing" and between "Paladin aggro generation" and "Fighter aggro generation".

The second problem with the above comparison is that you completely disregard the fact that _the absolute most important function of a "defender" is to *"defend"*_.  In order to do this, while I will grant that he has to remain alive in the long run, he must primarily (before health even becomes a factor) be able to stop the baddies from going after and squishing the clothies in the back ranks.  Aggro generation is the most effective method of doing this.

You also factor damage output into the equation, which - although a nice bonus - has very little to do with the primary function of the defender role.  If I'm in a party as a squishy wizard type and the tank is worried more about his damage output than his damage intake, he's fired.  Tanks should be about damage output only insofar as it relates to their aggro generation.  Beyond that, I don't care if the tank misses on every single attack - as long as he's getting attacked instead of me, he's doing his job.


----------



## Kordeth (Jun 23, 2008)

Enthralled said:
			
		

> I clearly must be reading this wrong. I read this as saying that the second time the fighter tried to put a mark on an enemy the first mark would go away. Thus the "supersedes" text.




That entire section is talking about marks _on creatures._ It's not talking about how many a fighter can have at once, just that a creature cannot be subject to more than one mark at a time.



> I can see how perhaps this was just trying to say that the fighter's mark could be overwritten by some other player's mark.




That's exactly what it's saying.



> I can see how the paladin mark explicitly lists marking another target as dropping the first mark in addition to the supersedes language which makes me think my initial reading of the fighter mark was wrong.




Yep. Fighters can mark as many enemies as they can hit in one round.



> Could anyone point me to any rules that would clarify this?




PHB p. 76: "_Every time _you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target."


----------



## Kraydak (Jun 23, 2008)

pogminky said:
			
		

> Some fighter powers are reliable




For single-target effects, Reliable is, at best, a wash compared to half-effect on miss.  With multiple targets, the math may change depending on whether you read the RAW (any miss lets you keep the power) or rule that the RAI was for any hit to expend the power.  I wouldn't call the latter interpretation a slam-dunk, mind.


----------



## Mengu (Jun 23, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Why exactly should someone pick a Fighter over a Paladin?



Honestly, I'm having difficulty coming up with reasons as well. Here is an attempt. I would pick a fighter over paladin if I:

Prefer battle field control over buffs and debuffs.
Want better attack bonuses and more reliable powers.
Want to play a Human or Eladrin Defender.
Want to play a character better suited for Athletics and Endurance.
Want to avoid MAD problems

I'm afraid if I made a list of why I would pick a paladin over fighter, the list would be much longer.


----------



## Yaezakura (Jun 23, 2008)

> Armour: Fighter gets scale, Paladin gets Plate - Advantage Paladin



The Paladin has the advantage in straight AC bonus. However, Scale has no check penalty, while Plate has a -2. With the Armor Specialization feats, Scale gains 1 AC and removes its movement penalty. Plate simply gains 1 AC. I'd say they're even, if anything, and perhaps with Scale even beating out Plate. But Paladins can still use Scale, so they're even.



> Defences: Fighter get +2, Paladin gets +3 - Advantage Paladin



The Fighter is really good at one defense, the Paladin is kinda good at all three. I almost wanna call this one a wash, but I suppose we can give it to the Paladin.



> HP: Same
> Healing Surges: Paladin gets 1 more



Same HP, Paladin has one extra healing surge, to play into his role as a Defender/Leader. That extra healing surge is meant to be used in a Lay on Hands.



> Skills: Fighter gets 3, Paladin gets 4 - Advantage Paladin



Yeah, this one goes to the Paladin, even though it's basically 3.5 skills, since one is forced.



> Weapon Proficiencies: Fighter gets Military Ranged over Paladin. Which nets out to be a +2 to hit with bows, unless the Paladin is an Elf and gets them for free anyway. - Advantage Fighter, maybe.



Fighter definitely wins in the weapon department. On top of having more proficiencies, he's better at wielding his weapons than the Paladin is.



> Marking - Fighter has better means of marking, the Paladin mark is vastly stronger. - I call it a wash.



I wouldn't call the Paladin's mark stronger. He can have one foe marked, and deal damage to it if the enemy doesn't attack him. With a few Close Blast (say, Dragon Breath for a Dragonborn) or Close Burst 1 powers, the Fighter can mark multiple enemies. The Fighter can also easily increase his damage done by marking, with better weapons, feats, stats, and magic items. The Paladin can only increase his mark damage via stat increases. Advantage: Fighter.



> Role - Fighter has better control over NPCs (I.E. Leans towards controller.) Paladin has healing and ally boosts (I.E. Leans towards leader.)



Actually, you've got their roles a bit mixed up. The Paladin is, indeed, a Defender/Leader. However, the Fighter is a Defender/Striker. And well, there's just no winning this one. They serve two different purposes. ^_^ The Paladin is better at aiding his allies, the Fighter is better at kicking enemy butt.



> Powers: Damage is a wash as far as I can see. The fighter has more powers that make him seem tougher, which are pretty much negated by the Paladins ability to heal himself at will. ... Looking more closely the Paladin can do _more_ damage and gets ranged attacks as well. - Coolness probably goes to the fighter but for usefullness I say advantage Paladin.



I have to say the Fighter wins this one hands down. The damage may seem roughly equal, but keep in mind that the Fighter is making FAR more attacks. He gets OAs when everyone else simply doesn't. He also hits more often than the Paladin thanks to his +1 attack for One/Two Handed weapons.



> Why exactly should someone pick a Fighter over a Paladin? And don't say "Roleplaying", everytime someone complains they want an archer fighter or swashbuckly fighter they get pointed at the Ranger and told to imagine it has a different name, so obviously the same can be done here. So stuff it. Mechanically what does the fighter player have that the Paladin player envies?



What does the Fighter have that the Paladin envies?

A better Marking mechanic.
Better chance to hit.
Higher damage output.

They also simply play entirely differently. A Defender/Leader and Defender/Striker are two very different beasts. Some people would be attracted more to one than the other.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 23, 2008)

Is this based on armchair speculation, or how they work in play?

-O


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 23, 2008)

Our group's resident min-maxer switched his 1st level paladin to a fighter. In the 11th level game he's playing a paladin. Don't know what it means, but it's data.


----------



## Victim (Jun 23, 2008)

IMO, Paladin marking sucks.  They aren't very sticky, since they inflict some damage without interfering with movement.  However, they have some powers to take hits for people, seem to have more buffs and heals (especially for others; the fighter does have some self heal effects).  Plus they start with heavier armors.  In theory, the ability to take hits or fix the damage inflicted to others is probably supposed to make up for their inability to restrict enemy movement.

As far as hitting goes, fighters have Reliable and Weapon Talent, and pallies have more non-AC attacks and Valiant Strike (for STR pallies, Valiant is always at least a +1 attack bonus).

Paladins have a harder time with their stats, especially when you look at feats.  They have 2 attack stats, and use WIS for lay on hands.  Plus Con for surges.  And then most weapon and armor feats require either Con or Dex.  So most pallies will have fewer effective power choices at each level, and probably won't be able to the feats to specialize in their gear. 

Plate isn't a easy choice over scale.  It's +1 AC, yes.  But scale has no check penalty, and loses its speed penalty with the specialization feat.  Those penalized skill checks are used to escape things like Grabs, so it is a combat penalty.  

I don't think that damage is a throwaway feature on a defender.  Sure, they're probably not doing the most damage.  But let's look at some numbers:  The warlock in our group does about 3d6+11 with Eyebite (which should be even on average with EB, since she has a feat to improve psychic damage).  And my fighter does 1d8+11.  So the warlock is doing about 40% more damage.  That's a noticeable edge, yes, but it's not as if the fighter damage is negligible.  My character's damage dealing ability is still an important contribution to the group. 

While not backed up by extensive play experience, I found it easier to pick fighter powers that seemed to work together than paladin ones.  When I made a pally, I was just sort of picking stuff that seemed good.  But fighter powers begged to be used in combination.  Fire off Come and Get It while going into Rain of Steel stance as a minor: now a bunch of enemies are marked and takes damage automatically on their turns (bye bye minions).  Or how about Griffon's Wrath or Crack the Shell with a multi striking power like Rain of Blows or Dragon's Fang.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Jun 23, 2008)

As the gamemaster of my group, and having had our first session yesterday, I can say that the Fighter exerts a presence on the battlefield that, mechanically, a Paladin doesn't.  I found myself multiple times _per encounter_ cursing the fact that the Fighter was not a Paladin, and I'm the OpForce.

The Fighter can control anyone he can hit.  The Paladin can control any one person he can get near.  This means that the Fighter is far superior in a 'group on group' combat and against melee attackers, while the Paladin is generally superior in dealing with a single monster (especially a solo monster) and people safe behind their own battle lines.

Trust me, the Fighter is just as good as a Paladin.


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 23, 2008)

*Combat Superiority*

I got the impression this is one of the better fighter traits: helps keep enemies by him and away from everyone else.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 23, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Skills: Fighter gets 3, Paladin gets 4 - Advantage Paladin



The fighter's are better (imo) and don't come stuck with an armor check penalty unless the fighter has a shield, and even then, his armor check penalty is lower than that of a comparably equipped paladin.

Also, the fighter ends up at +1 to attacks.  

And he's got less ability score spread.  A paladin has to either go Str, Cha, or Str and Cha at one time.  All three have drawbacks.  A Str paladin gets a nerfed divine challenge, because its based on Cha, and misses out on some power options he might have wanted.  A Cha paladin gets a good divine challenge, but sucks at charges, opportunity attacks, etc.  A dual stat paladin avoids these problems but takes a slight penalty to his ability scores in order to get the dual stat setup.


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 23, 2008)

Fighters rawk.  I haven't seen a paladin in play yet, but I'm sure they rawk too.  Best of both worlds!


----------



## Sphyre (Jun 23, 2008)

From what it looks like on paper:


The fighter is better at controlling and defending against multiple opponents.
The paladin is better at locking down and punishing a single foe

This is purely from reading through, but I honestly like the way the fighter looks much more than the paladin.  The paladin may have a scant few powers that allow him to mark multiple opponents.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 23, 2008)

This is a minor point but the Pally suffers a bit from MAD relative to the fighter.   All fighter exploits use STR, so the fighter need only keep STR maxxed, the pally's are split between STR & CHA, while he can just choose one or the other, that restricts the range of prayers he can use effectively.  If he chooses CHA, his OAs aren't as good, if he chooses STR, he misses out on quite a few good prayers (or any at all, notoriously, at a particularly level).  The fighter just needs STR & WIS, and does't need WIS that badly.  He can pick DEX or CON to concentrate on, depending on his chosen weapon (mostly to qualify for feats, though DEX also helps his REF).  The sword & shield fighter has it pretty easy for stats.  He taks a reasonable DEX to qualify for heavy-blade feats, high STR and moderately good WIS which also qualifies him a desirable feat or two.  At paragon, he qualifies both scale & shield specializations.  Though the Paladin's plate is great, it does take CON to specialize in, while Shields to DEX - and scale specialization is pretty cool because it gives you back your movement.  

It seems to me that fighters have it pretty good.


----------



## Victim (Jun 23, 2008)

Note that Shield Spec and Armor Spec have stacking issues - most characters will want one or the other, not both.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 23, 2008)

Honestly, I'd say the Fighter and Paladin are about equally useful/potent.  The main benefits of a fighter are:

+1 to hit with a class of weapons
Generally does more damage than a Paladin
Stance powers (last until end of the encounter)- this is HUGE
Tide. of. Iron.  - holy crap that is a great ability!

Paladin benefits:

Lay on Hands
More defensive abilities
Greater ability to affect more than one target and ranged abilities
Better controlling abilities

I've been playing a human Paladin, and I've paired up in battles with the dwarf Fighter.  We both maneuver quite a bit and work off each other well.  The dwarf typically kills things quicker than me, but I tend to inflict ongoing conditions on targets and can soak up the hits better.  From what I've seen we're roughly equal, although a Paladin has to plan a little more with his abilities to get full use of out of them.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 23, 2008)

At higher levels where status effects come into play, the Paladin's Divine Mettle is a huge benefit.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 23, 2008)

Sphyre said:
			
		

> From what it looks like on paper:
> 
> 
> The fighter is better at controlling and defending against multiple opponents.
> The paladin is better at locking down and punishing a single foe



Yup, that was my impression, too. It's all theoretical, but when I read the powers, I thought, the Paladin was a secondary leader while the Fighter looked almost like a secondary controller, especially at the higher levels.

All in all, I'd prefer playing a Fighter over a Paladin unless the party was lacking in the leader department.


----------



## Zsig (Jun 23, 2008)

Generally speaking:

Fighters = Passive awesomeness
Paladins = Active awesomeness

Most Fighter's stuff works in a way he doesn't necessarily needs to actively use. Combat Challenge extra attack, Combat Superiority that triggers on an Op. Attack, even his "passive" bonus to attacks over the paladin demonstrates that. They are most often tiny little passive bonuses that adds up and makes the difference in the long run.

Most of the Paladin's stuff deals with actively searching and thus smart thinking "who am I going to mark?" "who am I going to heal?", also, most of his abilities demands tactical planning much moreso than the fighter, and they even reward you for that, with more flashy and powerful effects.

Bottom line (IMO), Paladins are more "powerful" but demands intelligent thinking and planning of your choices. Fighters are weaker in terms of power, but they trade this extra power for passive abilities that helps them no matter what, regardless of the choices you make (either in combat or in character development) you're still good.

In the end, they're both equally good. It just depends on playstyle.

All that being said though, this is a general statement.


----------



## Victim (Jun 23, 2008)

Zsig said:
			
		

> Most Fighter's stuff works in a way he doesn't necessarily needs to actively use. Combat Challenge extra attack, Combat Superiority that triggers on an Op. Attack, even his "passive" bonus to attacks over the paladin demonstrates that. They are most often tiny little passive bonuses that adds up and makes the difference in the long run.
> 
> Most of the Paladin's stuff deals with actively searching and thus smart thinking "who am I going to mark?" "who am I going to heal?", also, most of his abilities demands tactical planning much moreso than the fighter, and they even reward you for that, with more flashy and powerful effects.
> 
> ...




That's funny.  I considered it to be the other way around.  

The paladin class seemed full of panic button abilities.  It brings extra heals and the ability to directly take hits for people to make up for when it fails at defending other characters conventionally.  The extra heals (especially as a minor) and Valiant Strike also help when the pally bites off more than he can chew.  Oops, the pally gets outmanuevered?  Don't worry, he can still fix it with some teleport trick.

The fighter doesn't have the same options for fixing his mistakes, so he had better be right the first time.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 23, 2008)

The fighter has the level 7 encounter power "Come and get it" which is awesome. (Some people dislike the implications, see the 6+ page thread about that...)

The fighter has a lot of close burst 1 powers that works well with come and get it, lets him tank and damage multiple foes in a very good manner.

Personally I like the two classes a lot, and I would play any of them without complaint.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 24, 2008)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> In the 11th level game he's playing a paladin. Don't know what it means, but it's data.



Check out the Champion of Order paragon path's 11th level attack, Certain Justice. Now imagine the paladin using it against a solo monster.


----------



## mdonais (Jun 24, 2008)

Having played both, I would say that the fighter had a lot more impact on the battles.

The simple ability to mark everything you swing at is huge.
Also a free swing at everyone who is marked this way (if they don't go after you) is huge.

Paladins don't mark everything they swing at.
Paladins must spend a minor action to mark one person.
The paladin has a few higher level aoe marks but those don't do any damage if the marked creature doesn't attack him.

The fighter also has more multi-target powers than the paladin, effectively multiplying his damage and allowing him to mark lots of things without even using his minor action.

The paladin certainly has some advantages, but fighter may be the most powerful class in the game right now.

Mike.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (Jun 24, 2008)

Blackbrrd said:
			
		

> The fighter has the level 7 encounter power "Come and get it" which is awesome. (Some people dislike the implications, see the 6+ page thread about that...)
> 
> The fighter has a lot of close burst 1 powers that works well with come and get it, lets him tank and damage multiple foes in a very good manner.



These are awesome, and fighters' Stance powers make them even better at this.  Rain of Steel (D5), Unyielding Avalanche (D15), and Reaper's Stance (D25) all let a fighter inflict 1[W] damage on every opponent that starts its turn adjacent to him, in addition to other effects.  Unyielding Avalanche almost evens the self-healing too, since it gives the fighter regeneration equal to his Con bonus for the rest of the encounter or 5 minutes.

As others have pointed out, fighters also suffer from less MAD, because they don't need a high Cha or Wis to be effective.  If a fighter wants, he could increase his Con or Dex to qualify for some great paragon and epic feats.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jun 24, 2008)

The fighter is the better defender.

The Paladin takes a bit of a hit in his defender duty by erring a bit on the leader side.

On their own, they are just as powerful.  On a party, one or the other can be a substantially better choice depending on party size and composition.

Ex ; In a shorthanded party with no leader, Paladin are much better than fighter.  These handful of lay on hands gain incredible value.

On a large team (5) with two leader, the Fighter is substantially more useful.

Fighter get better synergy than the strenght paladin with the Warlord.  FAR better synergy than with the charisma paladin.  Fighter get better synergy with rogue focusing on melee than paladins.  In a team with a warlord and a rogue, fighter are hands down more powerful.


----------



## Destil (Jun 24, 2008)

If you're playing a squishy archery ranger staring down a solo brute, which do you want?

A fighter who marks him with a thrown hammer on round 1, closes to melee keeps him there.

Or the paladin marking with a minor on round 1, then dealing 6 radiant damage as it charges past and knocks a quarter of your HP off with a good hit. Next round hopefully he'll get a chance to give you that back with lay on hands...

Well?


----------



## Krensus (Jun 24, 2008)

I haven't seen a paladin in action yet, but I will this Friday.  The Fighter in our group so far has literally controlled the battlefield with his marks.

The main benefit of a fighter's mark comes from his Combat Superiority, more specifically the ability to stop the movement of opponents with his opportunity attacks.  The 3rd level fighter in our group took Sweeping Blow at level 3 and barreled into the fray, hitting and marking 5 foes and effectively blocking the corridor.  On that round, even an attempt to shift by those enemies provoked attacks from him, and they didn't get to shift if he hit.  Enemies that had not been marked faced similar consequences, their movement halted as soon as he took a swing.  Sure, they can double move, but that's all they're doing on their turn.  

A paladin in a similar situation would have been able to mark one of these monsters, and if it had ignored him, it would have taken a little damage.  This, I believe, is the main benefit of a fighter over a paladin as a tank.  Fighters have the power to lock down the enemies around him so they can't cause damage to his allies, at least not this turn.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 24, 2008)

Many fighter builds happily buy 20 strength.
Sure, wis is nice, con is nice, dex is nice, but a fighter with 20 str makes a statement.
Says, "ignore me and die."


----------



## Mort_Q (Jun 24, 2008)

useridunavailable said:
			
		

> Tanks should be about damage output only insofar as it relates to their aggro generation.  Beyond that, I don't care if the tank misses on every single attack - as long as he's getting attacked instead of me, he's doing his job.




His job.  Keeping 'em in bunches for the Strikers and away from the Artillery.  Squishy or not.


----------



## Andor (Jun 24, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> Fighter get better synergy with rogue focusing on melee than paladins.  In a team with a warlord and a rogue, fighter are hands down more powerful.




Are you sure about that? On paper Pally's have a lot of powers that grant CA against a foe to their allies. CA makes happy rogues. 

So Combat Superiority seems to be a Fighters meat and potatos, using it to try and control the movement of baddies.

Paladins do lack the movement control, but between healing and a plethora of abilities to take the hit for an ally they do their damage mitigation in other ways.

And they do come closer to true MAD than anybody else in 4e. 

Okay, I'll buy the fighter as a viable class compared to the pally, but I'm still baffled why they get fewer skills. :\


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 24, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Role - Fighter has better control over NPCs (I.E. Leans towards controller.) Paladin has healing and ally boosts (I.E. Leans towards leader.)




IMO, leaning towards Controller implies that the Fighter is a better Defender.  Helping teammates is only a nice-to-have for the Defender role, while having tricks for dealing with swarms is nearly a must have.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jun 24, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Are you sure about that? On paper Pally's have a lot of powers that grant CA against a foe to their allies. CA makes happy rogues.




Fighter are better at helping the rogue gain flanking bonus and getting him out of trouble if he gets too much heat.  Things like covering attack and get over here (both available by level 2) are pretty good for this.

As for directly granting combat advantage

From level 1 to 10 :

Paladin have 1 daily (Radiant Delirium) and 1 encounter (divine reverence)

Fighter have 1 encounter (Spinning Sweep).

So in a day of 5 encounter, the 10th level fighter can directly grant 5 combat advantage and the Paladin 6.

Neither are particularly gifted at inflicting conditions that grant sneak attack. Other classes do it better.  It's more about setting up flanking situation.  Fighters have more powers that help get the rogue in an out of flanking position and have better means of keeping the neighbouring monsters focused on him.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Jun 24, 2008)

But what if your rogue uses a crossbow?
Now it's hardly an optimised rogue, but the point remains ... rogues do not have to be stabby.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Jun 24, 2008)

Danceofmasks said:
			
		

> But what if your rogue uses a crossbow?
> Now it's hardly an optimised rogue, but the point remains ... rogues do not have to be stabby.




They usually are, and if they are not, it's with the wizard and warlocks that they will find good synergies, not with the paladin.


----------

