Fighter Vs Paladin

[FireLance]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.