Least gear dependant class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

What would be, in your opinion, the class that is the least dependant on gear in its progression? That would do the best in a magic items deprived world? (Considering crafting is impossible, or at least very impractical?)


full casters, their spells mimic most magic items anyway

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch (Druids need some boosts if they want to profit from combat-oriented wildshape, same with melee Cleric)


Cleric. Magic vestment and greater magic weapon easily replace a lot of gear. Tack on the protection domain and you don't have to worry about a cloak of protection. At that point it's simply a matter of what else you want to cover with your other domain choice and spells per day.


Melee : Monk, Ranger with Unarmed or Natural Weapon style, or Any Melee Class with Improved Unarmed Attack

Caster : Sorcerer (spells pre-memorized, no books needed), Oracle, Druid, or Witch. Maybe Cleric (but it's last choice due to equipment requirements).

Support/Mixed : Bard with Singing for his performance, Summoner,

I'm assuming the question is, what character has the most effectiveness if he has no equipment, as opposed to 'what can I play where I don't need to buy much equipment'.

Cleric : Needs Holy Symbol for several abilities.
Wizards : Need Spell books!
Rogues : Need armor and lockpicks and Weapons!
Alchemist : Needs alchemy kit!


The magus can be very gear independent too -- however that class isn't technically out yet.


Abraham spalding wrote:
The magus can be very gear independent too -- however that class isn't technically out yet.

Only if he's got Improved Unarmed Strike & can channel his spells through his own fists. Again, going with my interpretation of 'if he's naked, who can still function'. Note he would need eschew materials as well. So iffy in my book.


mdt wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
The magus can be very gear independent too -- however that class isn't technically out yet.
Only if he's got Improved Unarmed Strike & can channel his spells through his own fists. Again, going with my interpretation of 'if he's naked, who can still function'. Note he would need eschew materials as well. So iffy in my book.

Which is why I put "can" instead of "absolutely is".

He can use any weapon he's likely to come across -- at level 7 he doesn't *need* his spell book (but it is still rather helpful) and with eschew materials he can cast in most cases. He has several key defensive spells and the actual ability to cast them while fighting (a key point for any caster lacking general equipment). I would suggest such a magus takes a familiar at third level and improved familiar at 7th to get the silvanshee. The silvanshee's healing abilities mixed with the magus's better HP (than a wizard or multiclass character), BAB, and two good save throws puts you in great shape to actually use the silvanshee for more than a pet. The fact the silvanshee comes with a limited self buff, and much more useful gaseous form ability really clinches the deal for me.


Since wealth by level is universal for all classes, they are all equally dependent on gear. The dependence is more quantifiable for martial classes, but it is similar for all. For example, suggested WBL for a 10th level character is 62,000gp. Take all that away, and every class is going to be much less powerful.

All classes need cloaks of resistance, ability enhancing items, mobility items, defensive items, etc.

Classes that participate in combat need weapons and armor, although wizards and sorcerers usually use magic for most defenses, and spells for offense, but it is still a good idea to keep up your ac, and have an offensive wand or two. In order to have enough spells, and diversity of spells, to last several encounters, they need to have wands, scrolls, etc. If the whole party is relying on the cleric to heal, he isn't going to be able to use offensive magic or buff then fight in every encounter.


Wealth is not indicative of dependence on that wealth.


Fergie wrote:

Since wealth by level is universal for all classes, they are all equally dependent on gear. The dependence is more quantifiable for martial classes, but it is similar for all. For example, suggested WBL for a 10th level character is 62,000gp. Take all that away, and every class is going to be much less powerful.

Ok, a bit more context. No crafting, no picking your choice of item in a shop, no having your existing weapon/armor/wondrous item enhanced by a handy mage for a few 1000's gold.

You get whatever loot you find as treasure, that is randomly generated, but with control to prevent finding items that are too powerful.

Maybe buy the occasional potion or scroll. But good luck finding even a wand of CLW for sale.

Who's able to do the most when it's impossible to plan what kind of gear you'll have? (Mundane items are ok tough, the limit is on magical treasure and rare goods).


Rantman wrote:
Who's able to do the most when it's impossible to plan what kind of gear you'll have? (Mundane items are ok tough, the limit is on magical treasure and rare goods).

Sorcerer, hands down. Eschew Material feat for free.

Only a psion from Dreamscarred Press' Psionics Unleashed with The Mind's Eye power of Call Item beats that. With Call Item you can call any 10-gp or less item to your hand for 1 power point for one hour per level. It bumps up to 100 gp at level 4 and 1,000 gp at level 7. Add the PU powers of Call Weaponry, Inertial Armor, and Force Screen, and never need anything with a minimum AC of 18 at 2nd level.

Call Item - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20030829a


Rantman wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Since wealth by level is universal for all classes, they are all equally dependent on gear. The dependence is more quantifiable for martial classes, but it is similar for all. For example, suggested WBL for a 10th level character is 62,000gp. Take all that away, and every class is going to be much less powerful.

Ok, a bit more context. No crafting, no picking your choice of item in a shop, no having your existing weapon/armor/wondrous item enhanced by a handy mage for a few 1000's gold.

You get whatever loot you find as treasure, that is randomly generated, but with control to prevent finding items that are too powerful.

Maybe buy the occasional potion or scroll. But good luck finding even a wand of CLW for sale.

Who's able to do the most when it's impossible to plan what kind of gear you'll have? (Mundane items are ok tough, the limit is on magical treasure and rare goods).

The character I make for a different GMs game table is going to be the best option overall.


Rantman wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Since wealth by level is universal for all classes, they are all equally dependent on gear. The dependence is more quantifiable for martial classes, but it is similar for all. For example, suggested WBL for a 10th level character is 62,000gp. Take all that away, and every class is going to be much less powerful.

Ok, a bit more context. No crafting, no picking your choice of item in a shop, no having your existing weapon/armor/wondrous item enhanced by a handy mage for a few 1000's gold.

You get whatever loot you find as treasure, that is randomly generated, but with control to prevent finding items that are too powerful.

Maybe buy the occasional potion or scroll. But good luck finding even a wand of CLW for sale.

Who's able to do the most when it's impossible to plan what kind of gear you'll have? (Mundane items are ok tough, the limit is on magical treasure and rare goods).

Thats the way we play 90 percent of the time. If we buy gear and optimize off the magic tiem list like magi-mart, it ruins the game, at least for us.


Pendagast wrote:
Rantman wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Since wealth by level is universal for all classes, they are all equally dependent on gear. The dependence is more quantifiable for martial classes, but it is similar for all. For example, suggested WBL for a 10th level character is 62,000gp. Take all that away, and every class is going to be much less powerful.

Ok, a bit more context. No crafting, no picking your choice of item in a shop, no having your existing weapon/armor/wondrous item enhanced by a handy mage for a few 1000's gold.

You get whatever loot you find as treasure, that is randomly generated, but with control to prevent finding items that are too powerful.

Maybe buy the occasional potion or scroll. But good luck finding even a wand of CLW for sale.

Who's able to do the most when it's impossible to plan what kind of gear you'll have? (Mundane items are ok tough, the limit is on magical treasure and rare goods).

Thats the way we play 90 percent of the time. If we buy gear and optimize off the magic tiem list like magi-mart, it ruins the game, at least for us.

That type of game takes a very experienced GM to power down the encounters to compensate. That or your GM is pulling a lot of punches.


I suppose that the classes that can provide their own bonuses would be the most self sufficient, although in such a setting, they would often be called on to help support other party members (i.e. teamwork) with their magic. How powerful the caster makes his character, vs. how powerful the caster makes the group is largely determined by the player, not the game system.

If you have something like standard WBL, but it is controlled by the GM, then that is in my opinion the best playstyle. Controlling the magic items is a great way to keep characters equal in power, and decide what types of opponents to throw at them. I kind of consider this the AD&D style of gaming from back in the day. EDIT: You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

If you are talking about playing with 100% randomly generated treasoure, then I don't really know how that would work... I guess it could really be up to luck if the stuff you found was at all useful or not.

If you are talking about less then WBL, then some changes seem to occur in character power.

Wealth breakdown for 10th level martial

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

The trick here is not "who needs magic items" but rather "who needs specific magic items."

So the Fighter is out, because you'll want to get Weapon Specialization, and you won't find your specific weapon from random loot.

Monk is out: that class has very specific needs. Ditto for Alchemist.

Sorcerer is out: he relies upon having scrolls to suppliment is his lack of spells known.

---

Ranger does great, since a disproportionate amount of power comes from favored enemy / terrain. Also, for bows, the "mighty" is more important than the "enhancement" and the mighty is non-magical, and that sounds easy-to-get in your scenario.

Witch does great, since she gets a nice breadth of spells known, and then has hexes when she needs more staying power.

Other classes are more in the middle. Denying access to magi-marts hurts everybody. (and that's a good thing!)


The most gear dependent classes are any that require large amounts of gear to function, such as Fighters; since they literally need equipment to remain viable as their level advances (including, but not limited to, weapons of various materials, enhanced weapons and armor, various spell-like items allowing you to fly or protect yourself from magic, etc).

The least dependent would definitely be spellcasters in general. Even wizards don't really need much gear to be successful, as they begin with their spellbooks, and don't need more than a 5 gp tool to do their jobs, which can be avoided with a feat as well. Witches are basically wizards without a spellbook, though they have a slightly different spell selection (including some spells usually on divine lists).

The absolute least gear-dependent class in core, I think, would be the druid. They are full casters, with a very varied spell list (including blasting spells, utility spells, healing spells, buffing spells, etc), and they receive an (semi-expendable) animal companion to assist them, and they have access to wild-shape and various transmutation spells which can turn them and their companions into powerful warrior-wannabes. They can summon creatures spontaneously to help bolster their forces. Finally, their divine focus is free, and effectively weightless.

So I'd definitely say they are the least gear dependent of anyone. Their spell selection also gives them a wide selection of options should they have access to gear (perhaps through crafting themselves), which can cover a variety of roles; from party healer, to buffer, tank/off-tank, blaster, or controller.

Sorcerers probably come in at a close second, but sorcerers are far, far more limited in their spell selections, and don't have spontaneous casting like a druid (what I mean is, druids can prepare a wide variety of spells, and then spontaneously cast summoning spells, giving them a bit more versatility; whereas sorcerers are stuck with whatever they picked this level), but otherwise could function on the cheap.


That's going to depend on what you want from that class. If you are a caster and you want high DCs, you are going to need to boost your stats. If you want to be able to use a bunch of metamagic, you are going to need a bunch of rods. If you want utility spells that aren't memorized, you are going to need a bunch of scrolls and wands. The more you want to be able to accomplish, the more gear dependent you become.

No class can survive long without proper gear at each level. What that means will vary from campaign to campaign and player to player. I challenge anyone who thinks that their casters are not gear dependent to make one that doesn't use gear, or only uses half the gear, available at any given level. I'm willing to bet that the character will not last long against level appropriate challenges.


druids are also the only mechanically viable functioning candidates for a vow of poverty ala the book of exhalted deeds.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:

That's going to depend on what you want from that class. If you are a caster and you want high DCs, you are going to need to boost your stats. If you want to be able to use a bunch of metamagic, you are going to need a bunch of rods. If you want utility spells that aren't memorized, you are going to need a bunch of scrolls and wands. The more you want to be able to accomplish, the more gear dependent you become.

No class can survive long without proper gear at each level. What that means will vary from campaign to campaign and player to player. I challenge anyone who thinks that their casters are not gear dependent to make one that doesn't use gear, or only uses half the gear, available at any given level. I'm willing to bet that the character will not last long against level appropriate challenges.

Oh please understand, I agree fully. One of the reasons that I mentioned druids beat out sorcerers, because sorcerers have no utility outside of consumables. In a low-treasure game, wizard would also come out ahead of the sorcerer, assuming the wizard could have their spellbook, or ever make use of their own class abilities (scribing scrolls, for example).

I do believe, fully, that a druid is the best candidate for a "treasure drought" game, however; for the aforementioned reasons. As for casters, if you're focusing on save DCs, then you will assuredly need good stat boosters; though there are alternative methods for playing a good caster with a low prime-stat (such as using spells and effects that don't allow saving throws, for example; which are often less powerful but still good options).

I do think a druid could make for a solid force even at 1/2 wealth by level; but it would require a very specific playstyle (and likely a strong sense of self preservation). At low levels the druid would rely mostly on her companion and herself tag-teaming, most likely with healing and/or buff spells, or spells like entangle beating out spells like produce flames.

As levels progressed, I would attempt to funnel wealth into defensive items as a priority, for both self and companion. Armor, armor enhancements (such as protection from evil and deathward), resistance bonuses (like a cloak of resistance), and the like. Picking up craft wand would allow summoning as a standard action, which would help as well, if only to flood a battlefield with meat-shields. Basically, anything to help protect and/or improve survivability; with additional things for backup. For stat buffs, I'd probably have to try and make due with various animal affinity spells, possibly with the Extend Metamagic feat, which even at 1/2 wealth wouldn't be terribly expensive by mid levels. Healing would be done between combats via wands if possible. Most of the daily spells would go towards buffs for the low-level spells, and most of the higher level spells would probably revolve around summoning and/or transforming into various things for utility and/or strength.

But honestly, such a prospect seems more like one of those solo-challenges from the Baldur's Gate series of games (or another infinity-engine game), not a real D&D game.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Yeah, I'm going to put another vote in for Sorcerer here. No need for scrolls/spellbooks, Eschew Materials for free, and plenty of handy bloodline powers (some more so than others) to fill in for lack of weaponry. Focus primarily on touch/ranged touch spells that don't require saves and you should be okay without stat-boosting items.


Monks for me. Their the best with no gear, and the best with the most gear. It's the middle ground where they struggle to find a balance.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sorcerer. I saw a sorcerer survive all the way to Big M in Rise of the Runelords without buying a bit of equipment, only taking what the party gave him, and even there she only died when he used Flesh to Stone on her, and she barely failed her save. And she was using Natural flight, so... *shatter*


Majuba wrote:
Monks for me. Their the best with no gear, and the best with the most gear. It's the middle ground where they struggle to find a balance.

Seeing as monks are one of the most magic item dependent classes in the game (even more so than Fighters), could you explain this, Majuba?


Ashiel wrote:
Majuba wrote:
Monks for me. Their the best with no gear, and the best with the most gear. It's the middle ground where they struggle to find a balance.
Seeing as monks are one of the most magic item dependent classes in the game (even more so than Fighters), could you explain this, Majuba?

Everyone sees "fists as weapons" and "generates own armor" and thinks "omg, doesn't need items!"


Monks, Druids, Sorcerers, Witches, and possibly Cleric (depending on domain selection) are probably the easiest to play with little and/or random gear. Notice I did not say no gear; no class can do well without any gear. The classes mentioned above have the advantage of being able to self generate many of the needed defense and attack modifiers, while not being overly tied to any particular item. It is important to note that standard builds need not apply if you are going to do this, irregardless of class, and tactics become much more vital to success. Direct damage is probably not going to be the primary concern for any class in a low magic build; rather, they would be best focusing on defensive items and tactics that give them durability while they wear their enemy down slowly but surely, as well as lots of knowledge and information gathering skills and working out ways to control when and where battles occur. It would not work particularly well for the traditional dungeon crawl unless both the party and the DM were really careful how they went about setting things up and playing them out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Druid, hands down.

Has an animal companion to be his frontliner.

Has wildshape later on to improve his melee ability.

Has spells that can boost his stats to replicate the missing magic items.

Has spells to heal himself faster than any melee character.

Has spells to defeat enemies by himself.

No other class has all of this. Some have parts, but the druid gets them all in one package.

The Exchange

I'll throw out Monk of the Empty hand as they can use and randm magic weapon you find. They also don't need to worry about armour either.

Grand Lodge

Why do people think that wizards and magus are gear independent?!? No spell book = commoner and warrior. Sounds pretty attached to gear to me. I agree with TOZ, the druid is best. Not 3.5 good...but still is pretty butch naked.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Why do people think that wizards and magus are gear independent?!? No spell book = commoner and warrior. Sounds pretty attached to gear to me. I agree with TOZ, the druid is best. Not 3.5 good...but still is pretty butch naked.

Because, frankly, a wizard doesn't need a lot of gear to function. If the spellbook is all you need to function adequately, then you're not very gear dependent in D&D terms. However, sorcerer would probably be less gear dependent in some scenarios.

The question is, what you mean by gear dependent. If you mean "needs expected gear", then yeah, wizards are actually good options (they can make their own gear, or function on pocket change). If you mean "no gear at all", which is even more extreme, then stuff like sorcerer - and definitely druid - will be far more appealing.

However...

Quote:

"Monks, Druids, Sorcerers, Witches, and possibly Cleric (depending on domain selection) are probably the easiest to play with little and/or random gear."

and

"I'll throw out Monk of the Empty hand as they can use and randm magic weapon you find. They also don't need to worry about armour either."

The above quotes are just plain false. They spread misinformation that someone might mistakenly believe, and base their choices on. The fact of the matter, however, is that monks are one of the most gear dependent classes in the game; heavily reliant upon loads of specific magical equipment to be able to function at any level near reasonable against expected challenges.

A standard monk (15 pb, or anything not sporting a pair of 18s and a few other solid scores) requires heavy investments to keep their AC up (no armor or shields), requires heavy investments to keep their damage up (various enhanced monk weapons or incredibly expensive amulets), they need a wide variety of magical items to deal with creatures that fly (with the exception of Zen Archers, they don't have access to any good ranged weapons), and they need incredible stat buffs (strength, constitution, wisdom) to keep up with a warrior.

Here's an example:

6th Level Human Monk, 15 PB + PC Wealth (16,000 gp)
Str 20 (16+2+2), Dex 14, Con 14 (13+1), Int 7, Wis 16 (14+2), Cha 7.
Hp 42.5 (6d8+12), AC 19 (+2 dex, +3 wisdom, +2 natural, +2 deflection), Fort +9, Ref +9, Will +9 (+2 Resistance); Melee Unarmed Strike +9 (1d8+5, average 9.5) or Flurry +9/+9/+4 (average 9.5 per hit); Ranged Shuriken +6 (1d2+5, average 6.5) or Flurry +6/+6/+1 (average 6.5 per hit) within 50 ft; Speed 50 ft;
Gear: Gauntlets of Strength +2 (4,000 gp), Headband of Wisdom +2 (4,000 gp), Ring of Protection +1 (2,000 gp), Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2,500 gp), Cloak of Resistance +2 (4,000 gp); total 16,500 gp (a bit over).

Comments - Kind of frail (low HP/AC), good saves, decent speed but can't take advantage of it and make Flurry attempts; flurry is decent but damage is terrible without it; fully geared.

6th Level Human Warrior NPC, 3 PB + CR 2 NPC wealth (780 gp)
Str 16 (14+2), Dex 12, Con 14 (13+1), Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 7.
Hp 45 (6d10+12), AC 18 (+1 dex, +8 armor), Fort +7, Ref +4, Will +4; Melee Mwk Greataxe +9/+4 (1d12+4/x3, average 10.5 per hit w/out criticals) or Power Attack +7/+2 (1d12+4+6/x3, average 16.5 per hit), Ranged Longbow w/ Deadly Aim +5/+0 (1d8+4/x3, average 9.5 per hit before criticals);
Gear: Mwk Greataxe (320 gp), Longbow (75 gp), Banded Mail (250 gp), Armored Kilt (20 gp), potion of enlarge person (50 gp), potion of magic weapon (50 gp); total 768 (a bit under).

Comments - Amazingly similar to the Monk's stats, except that the warrior has a bit more HP, and noticeably lower saves (not as low as they probably should be comparatively, though). The sad part is, the warrior is just a generic NPC; CR 2 at best, a weenie. He's got pitiful gear, and could take the monk apart in a fair fight. The best hope the monk has is that he could get a stunning fist off against the CR 2 NPC warrior (beats it on an 8, or 35% chance to stun). Otherwise, the Warrior will probably eat him, or the monk could try to run away (which he could definitely do).

Now this is the PC-Monk vs a CR 2 trivial NPC, 15 point buy vs 3 point buy. Now if we were to strip the monk down to the warrior's meager allotment of equipment, he would destroy the monk.

Telling people that monks are not gear dependent is, from where I'm sitting, comparable to outright lying.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

And the monk argument begins anew.

A primer for those who haven't heard how bad monks are.

Some of those points no longer apply in Pathfinder. But the point still stands, that monks need gear as much or more than the fighter.

Edit: Random thought from reading the stat blocks above.

Why do monks get their unarmed damage with gauntlets of strength but do not with ordinary gauntlets? :P


On the whole it appears that divine casters can function well with limited gear. Healing, defensive and offensive augments, etc.

Druids make a strong case for tops for all of the reasons listed

A cleric with travel and protection domains can make a case for themselves. Negates the "need" for one of the big 6. Increased base speed and bonus spells/domain abilities that provide mobility as folks have brought up mobility as one of the measures of success in this thread.

I think inquisitor could be a contender. Domain selection here may be a major factor. Is there something I am missing that would take them out of the running?


I am not saying that monks don't need gear; I am saying that built right, they are not quite as gear dependent as some other classes. They just don't need specific gear as much as fighters or barbarians. Certain builds certainly need specific gear, but not all monk builds have to be built around pure damage. Flying creatures will cause any melee build headaches, so monks are no more dependent or independent on gear in that respect than a melee built fighter or barbarian. Monks at least can generate some defenses without gear, which the fighter cannot, and they have a speed bonus, and later minor dimension door capabilities that makes them reasonably effective at hit and run tactics, something that the barbarian can mimic somewhat, but fighters cannot even begin to copy.

In the end, monks are similar to sorcerers in relation to gear; with the right tactics, preparation, foreknowledge, and a lot of patience, both can manage do to reasonably well, as long as major damage is not expected from them, at least compared to similar classes. Fighters and barbarians can also be built around hit and run, non specific weapon builds, but the speed gives the monk an edge. Likewise, neither wizards nor sorcerers absolutely need a lot of gear to function, and both will likely suffer in a prolonged fight or multiple fights over the same day, but sorcerers gets eschew materials for free, and doesn't need a spell book, giving them a slight edge over wizards.

Again, it is not that monk or sorcerer or any of the other classes I mentioned can get away with no gear, it's that they have just enough advantages over similar classes in what the base class is able to give them that they are the ones I would probably go for in the type of campaign described, especially with the various archetypes available now, and anything I made would be built in such a manner as to minimize gear dependence and the necessity for toe to toe melee fighting.

As a side note, while druids are good in this scenario, they are not as good as some people seem to think, especially in Pathfinder with the changes made to wild shape. Wild shape in Pathfinder is still useful, but hardly creates combat machines out of nothing; in order for melee to be effective with wild shape, one's physical stats have to be pretty decent already. Wild shape just gives you the attacks to take advantage of those decent stats in most cases. Even in 3.5, wild shape had some severe limitations; you could get an 18 or higher strength, but your dexterity would take an equally sharp hit, leaving you quite vulnerable to touch attacks, and the natural armor frequently just canceling out the severe hit to dexterity. Druids are still probably the easiest to make without the need for a lot of gear, but not significantly more so than any other divine caster, which as a whole seem be the most overall balanced of all the classes.


Dragonsong wrote:

On the whole it appears that divine casters can function well with limited gear. Healing, defensive and offensive augments, etc.

Druids make a strong case for tops for all of the reasons listed

A cleric with travel and protection domains can make a case for themselves. Negates the "need" for one of the big 6. Increased base speed and bonus spells/domain abilities that provide mobility as folks have brought up mobility as one of the measures of success in this thread.

I think inquisitor could be a contender. Domain selection here may be a major factor. Is there something I am missing that would take them out of the running?

Clerics and Inquisitors that take the animal domain also get an animal companion that, while weaker than the druids, allows for similar tactics. Not as strong an option for inquisitor as cleric, due to the relative weakness of the spells, but still solid, especially for a second domain. In 3.5 I would have given the druid a solid advantage in gear independence, but with the expansion of the domain powers in Pathfinder, I would say any divine caster is about the same, given the right build, with the possible exception of the oracle, which I haven't played or seen played yet much, so I am uncertain how the revelations stack up.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Why do people think that wizards and magus are gear independent?!? No spell book = commoner and warrior. Sounds pretty attached to gear to me.

..but that's all you need. And you get it for free when you start the class.

Gear independent classes: Druid -> Wizard -> Sorcerer -> Cleric


TriOmegaZero wrote:

And the monk argument begins anew.

A primer for those who haven't heard how bad monks are.

Some of those points no longer apply in Pathfinder. But the point still stands, that monks need gear as much or more than the fighter.

Edit: Random thought from reading the stat blocks above.

Why do monks get their unarmed damage with gauntlets of strength but do not with ordinary gauntlets? :P

Well there are two things I can say on the matter.

1) The Gauntlets in Pathfinder specifically say that except for allowing for lethal damage, they are in all other cases considered unarmed strikes; ergo, I think people really have no grounds to stand on in that argument anymore. You wouldn't even suffer proficiency penalties 'cause it's just an unarmed strike.

2) Even if they did bar unarmed strike damage (say by some wildly inept GM ruling), you're allowed to make unarmed strikes with other portions of your body, but your Strength score is still raised, so in either case, you win. And you should win, 'cause you ain't getting much else.

3) While it's unrelated, I actually think that as written, a set of masterwork and/or enhanced gauntlets would work just fine for the monk. As best as I can tell, brass knuckles didn't add anything to the PF Monk that they didn't have in core; since you could easily get enhancements such as masterwork on your unarmed strike through gauntlets under the PF-RAW.

For reference:

PRD wrote:
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
SunShadow21 wrote:
I am not saying that monks don't need gear; I am saying that built right, they are not quite as gear dependent as some other classes. They just don't need specific gear as much as fighters or barbarians. Certain builds certainly need specific gear, but not all monk builds have to be built around pure damage. Flying creatures will cause any melee build headaches, so monks are no more dependent or independent on gear in that respect than a melee built fighter or barbarian. Monks at least can generate some defenses without gear, which the fighter cannot, and they have a speed bonus, and later minor dimension door capabilities that makes them reasonably effective at hit and run tactics, something that the barbarian can mimic somewhat, but fighters cannot even begin to copy.

Not to burst your bubble, but without some very specific magic items, the monk really isn't very good at hit and run tactics. They suffer from low AC, and they have a very terrible damage output if you try and build them defensively, and they lack reach weapons which will shut them down pretty fast (I intentionally gave the warrior a greatsword in the example, simply because giving him a pole arm would have made it no contest).

Unlike Monks, Barbarians and Fighters don't really even need to specialize heavily in ranged weapons to at least make some use of them, which allows them to at least contribute against flying creatures. A mere sling allows a strength-based Barbarian or Fighter to inflict fair strength-based damage at long ranges; and a composite bow alone can do the rest (and is much cheaper than any magic item I mentioned on the monk's list). This also applies to Strength based Paladins and Rangers. They can often hit opponents by virtue of their BAB alone, and can convert excess BAB into more damage with a single feat; making even an under-geared barbarian a far better ally against flying creatures than a monk without flight. A monk cannot throw a shuriken further than 50ft with a -10 penalty to hit, so that's a lost cause. Likewise, for pocket change, the barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger can be carrying around a couple of cold iron and silver arrows. Finally, they have the strength scores to carry it all.

In a game that was even going to be "gear lite", where you could only purchase mundane equipment, I'd take any of the core melee classes over a monk in virtually all situations (especially since Stunning Fist lags without stat buffs; though taking Ability Focus could help; if I really, really wanted stunning fist, I'd multiclass monk).

An in a no-gear game, again, I'd take a whole party of druids, or 2 druids + 1 summoner + 1 sorcerer, which would give a large variety of options, the least gear dependence of anything I can think of, and allows you to sport a selection of minions who advance with your level, summoned monsters galore, a wide variety of buffs and party buffs, all of which could actually make a no-gear party look good.


We will just have to agree to disagree on the monk. I don't find it a class that is going to excel in doing damage no matter how you build it, so loss of damage is not particularly a concern, especially since any defensive minded character is going to suffer here; he may have low AC's but compared to everybody else, he would about equal with everyone except those wearing heavy armor, which I have never given any character I have ever made, so on score, he at least breaks even, and his AC bonus is also good against touch attacks; reach weapons are annoying, but can be dealt with easily with the dodge and mobility feats, and the feats in the APG that are higher up this feat chain are also good for dealing with the AC problem, especially while moving, so hit and run tactics are indeed perfectly viable; ranged attacks are the only weakness that the monk cannot quickly overcome without spending feats or taking a level in some other class, neither of which is particularly difficult, but that is what the rest of the party is for. Again, a standard build monk is not going to do well, but then neither will a standard build fighter or barbarian.

In the end, monk, fighter, and barbarian are all fairly close, but with the archetype selections available, I have to give the slight edge to the monk, just because of the speed and the higher saving throws.

The complaints about damage are legitimate to a point, but since no class is likely going to be focusing on raw damage, it affects everyone more or less equally; the only real advantage the fighters and barbarians have in that department is that they have the bab to afford the use of power attack, which simply counters either the movement or the high saves of the monk, but not both.


to answer to the OP:
Wizard - as I understood you, you get your spellbook. Also wizards in the whole world have spellbooks. Your group can sell them as loot, but can't really do anything with the money. The inscribing ink is no real magical item, so you should be able to get it. Also the money you have, it will be hard to use it, so bribing a wizard to let you copy more spells is neat.

In short, the wizard gets the best use of money without buying magical items, plus the wizard is all in all a decent class (in my opinion). And as so many have said, spellcasting class can make magic without the need of magical items.

Tip: summoning will be very neat, because of your gear you will be below your challenge rating at your level, but your summonings will still be on par.


Cartigan wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Why do people think that wizards and magus are gear independent?!? No spell book = commoner and warrior. Sounds pretty attached to gear to me.

..but that's all you need. And you get it for free when you start the class.

Gear independent classes: Druid -> Wizard -> Sorcerer -> Cleric

How do they do that? They have fewer spells per day and lower DCs without gear. Can they really survive the 4-5 encounters per day without any gear at all? Does it become easier or harder as they level and the opponents get tougher? As the casters use their spells, they see a diminishing rate of returns. Each spell level being weaker than the the next. In addition, how do the spellcasters defend themselves against opponents that have higher attack bonuses, area of effects, and have higher DCs?

There is no such thing as a gear independent class, at least not in a "standard" campaign. I challenge anyone to make a truly gear independent caster that can handle 4-5 encounters daily of the appropriate challenge rating. I would like to see the builds from level 1 through 20. I expect the lower level casters to actually be ok but I suspect that they will have more problems as they increase in level and their opponents get more powerful.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:


How do they do that? They have fewer spells per day and lower DCs without gear. Can they really survive the 4-5 encounters per day without any gear at all? Does it become easier or harder as they level and the opponents get tougher? As the casters use their spells, they see a diminishing rate of returns. Each spell level being weaker than the the next. In addition, how do the spellcasters defend themselves against opponents that have higher attack bonuses, area of effects, and have higher DCs?

Magical defenses, magical offenses, OTHER party members to prevent creatures from reaching the spellcasters.

Who do you think makes all those items all the classes need? Spellcasters. How do they do that? By casting the spells that do what the magic items are going to do.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Why do people think that wizards and magus are gear independent?!? No spell book = commoner and warrior. Sounds pretty attached to gear to me.

..but that's all you need. And you get it for free when you start the class.

Gear independent classes: Druid -> Wizard -> Sorcerer -> Cleric

How do they do that? They have fewer spells per day and lower DCs without gear. Can they really survive the 4-5 encounters per day without any gear at all? Does it become easier or harder as they level and the opponents get tougher? As the casters use their spells, they see a diminishing rate of returns. Each spell level being weaker than the the next. In addition, how do the spellcasters defend themselves against opponents that have higher attack bonuses, area of effects, and have higher DCs?

There is no such thing as a gear independent class, at least not in a "standard" campaign. I challenge anyone to make a truly gear independent caster that can handle 4-5 encounters daily of the appropriate challenge rating. I would like to see the builds from level 1 through 20. I expect the lower level casters to actually be ok but I suspect that they will have more problems as they increase in level and their opponents get more powerful.

Wizard 1-20

Str 7
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 20->30 at lv20
Wis 7
Cha 7

Get Fox's Cunning at lv3, cast first round of combat. DC17+spell level on spells from lv3. Fewer spells than if you have your headband, but not terminally so. At lv8 this increases by 1, at lv16 it increases by another. At lv17+ you can start using wish to increase stats, so you get to 30 at lv20.


sunshadow21 wrote:
We will just have to agree to disagree on the monk. I don't find it a class that is going to excel in doing damage no matter how you build it, so loss of damage is not particularly a concern, especially since any defensive minded character is going to suffer here; he may have low AC's but compared to everybody else, he would about equal with everyone except those wearing heavy armor, which I have never given any character I have ever made, so on score, he at least breaks even, and his AC bonus is also good against touch attacks; reach weapons are annoying, but can be dealt with easily with the dodge and mobility feats, and the feats in the APG that are higher up this feat chain are also good for dealing with the AC problem, especially while moving, so hit and run tactics are indeed perfectly viable; ranged attacks are the only weakness that the monk cannot quickly overcome without spending feats or taking a level in some other class, neither of which is particularly difficult, but that is what the rest of the party is for. Again, a standard build monk is not going to do well, but then neither will a standard build fighter or barbarian.

I'm cool with agreeing to disagree, but this is a public forum and people may get the wrong idea; and I don't really want people getting the wrong idea. People can/will come, read the forum, read that monks are non-gear independent and think that it's true; which can give them a very poor starting point when making their characters.

So for sake of the community, and honesty, I feel like I should respond on the subject. So I'll run through your statements a bit, to give some alternatives.

1) While monk AC is strong vs touch attacks, the monk's AC is also fairly easy to rob from them through Dex-to-AC loss effects, and it doesn't matter too much if your actual AC is poor. The monk I posted sported a significant portion of his WBL towards his AC, while a standard character can support a much higher AC with the same gear; and short of incorporeal creatures (which there is a cheap armor enhancement to overcome), the main touch effects are spellcasters (and they don't need touch-spells to excel against monks or other warriors).

You say you've never used heavier armors, so it seems like you severely underestimate them. You're loosing a bit of speed at first, which is later offset by fairly cheap effects, but you're gaining a significant armor class, which you don't loose when you're flat-footed; making ambushes much more survivable.

2) You say that monks don't need to be able to deal damage, and then you suggest using hit and run tactics and spring attack, so you're very suggestion is "provoke attacks, hope they don't hit you, and deal little to no real damage", which means that you will likely be dead beforehand. Even if your foe is just getting in their AoO and a readied action against you, then you're still going down first.

If you're focusing on spamming Stunning Fist to disable foes, then you need a great wisdom and still a good strength to hit, or a feat tax and a great dexterity as well, and even with mobility (+4 dodge to AC) your AC is still lower than a Fighter's without mobility in most cases.

3) I pointed out how a standard warrior-based class can adept to a variety of situations without much investment. You suggest that the method of overcoming the drawbacks of a monk would be to multiclass into these other classes, which I'm inclined to agree with. However, I could also just have a Fighter multiclass 2 levels of monk for a quick +3 to all saves, improved unarmed fighting, evasion, a couple bonus feats, and so forth; and be better for it as a Fighter.

This doesn't make the monk any more viable/gear independent. If you're primarily a monk, you'll still lag further behind by multiclassing (you won't have as much BAB to invest, you have to spread your stats thinner, etc).

4) You say reach weapons are annoying but can be overcome. How so? The warriors can simply wear a spiked gauntlet + reach weapon and hit you even if you're tumbling into their space. They can readied actions to hurt you when you close distances (meaning you get no +4 dodge bonus from Mobility), and is beating you at your own game (1 hit hit vs 1 hit), 'cause you cannot deal damage.

Also, the warrior has the option to change his style by simply picking up a different piece of equipment. If you need a very high armor class for a short period (say to buy time) then you can grab a shield. A Fighter can use a tower shield to block an antimagic field for the wizard behind him, while pimpin' his AC at the same time.

The monk, as you describe, cannot. And by your own admission, cannot do much else (cannot deal effective damage, must focus entirely on easy-to-counter AC advancement, can still be beaten down by NPC warriors, not a spellcaster so he doesn't bring much to the table otherwise).

The only thing your hit and run monk might be able to do effectively is dive into a fray early, hopefully before opponents can react, burn stunning fist uses and hope you A) hit, and B) force a failed save; potentially allowing you to temporarily disable a foe (I say temporarily because unless you have an ally to finish them off, you may still be in trouble since you cannot coup de grace them for being stunned).

Quote:
In the end, monk, fighter, and barbarian are all fairly close, but with the archetype selections available, I have to give the slight edge to the monk, just because of the speed and the higher saving throws.

I would appreciate it if you would show us why, rather than saying so with nothing to back it up. If you are going to be forced into melee range to function, cannot damage opponents reliably, cannot soak damage reliably, and provoke attacks for moving around a lot (also, your Acrobatics check is vs CMD, meaning it's far from automatic), your speed accounts for little in this close-range environment.

Quote:
The complaints about damage are legitimate to a point, but since no class is likely going to be focusing on raw damage, it affects everyone more or less equally; the only real advantage the fighters and barbarians have in that department is that they have the bab to afford the use of power attack, which simply counters either the movement or the high saves of the monk, but not both.

A 6th level Barbarian with only a 14 strength, while not raging, can still outdamage the 6th level monk I posted earlier, sheerly by virtue of their better combat prowess (Mwk Glaive +7, 1d10+3+6 = 14.5 average damage w/reach), a speed of 40 ft with a +1 chain shirt, and an equal armor class with the same gear (+4 armor, +3 Dex, +1 natural, +1 deflection = 19) and a better one if you don't mind the speed (30ft with a breastplate = AC 21). A 6th level Fighter also sports a 30ft speed in medium armor or a 30ft in heavy armor at 7th level; and makes your AC laughable.

As for saves, the monk does have those. However, at monk 20 you've only got the Fighter beat by 30% on his weakest saves, and since you suggested that dipping into a real warrior class to make up for range problems, then the Fighter or Barbarian can dip 1-2 levels of monk for a quick +10-15% to their saving throws and a few bonus feats.

-----
So all I'm asking is, please, if you are going to say these things, then post something actually explaining it rather than passing it off as truth, so new players don't get the wrong idea here.

Sovereign Court

Ashiel wrote:
Not to burst your bubble, but without some very specific magic items, the monk really isn't very good at hit and run tactics. They suffer from low AC, and they have a very terrible damage output if you try and build them defensively, and they lack reach weapons which will shut them down pretty fast (I intentionally gave the warrior a greatsword in the example, simply because giving him a pole arm would have made it no contest).

Monks are competent at many tasks, yet master of none.

Their low AC is not far from the AC of many of other party members. While needing no armor. Their Dex should be 1-2 points higher than a fighter and they get their AC bonus to help compensate for lack or armor.

Average:@ 1st a fighter gets a +5-ish armor at best, +shield +1-2 for dex, leaving their damage in the 1-8/1-10 range...not bad for a guy that has as his MAIN objective to deal HP damage while putting themselves in the spot to take the most attacks...

Average: Monk gets +3-4 for dex + 2-3 for wis...both applying on both touch attacks and wis applying on flatfooted...not as high as the fighter by about 2-3ish, but he is a secondary melee role...damage is 1-6...not that sexy but just average...which gets better as he goes up in level, while the fighter weapon damage does not...just like they will get a boost to AC a handful of times as they level.

As for the G.Sword or Polearm...meh that takes another feat to support for best effectiveness...cool concept...not the deal breaker you mention though.

Ashiel wrote:
Unlike Monks, Barbarians and Fighters don't really even need to specialize heavily in ranged weapons to at least make some use of them, which allows them to at least contribute against flying creatures. A mere sling allows a strength-based Barbarian or Fighter to inflict fair strength-based damage at long ranges; and a composite bow alone can do the rest (and is much cheaper than any magic item I mentioned on the monk's list). This also applies to Strength based Paladins and Rangers. They can often hit opponents by virtue of their BAB alone, and can convert excess BAB into more damage with a single feat; making even an under-geared barbarian a far better ally against flying creatures than a monk without flight. A monk cannot throw a shuriken further than 50ft with a -10 penalty to hit, so that's a lost cause. Likewise, for pocket change, the barbarian, fighter, paladin, or ranger can be carrying around a couple of cold iron and silver arrows. Finally, they have the strength scores to carry it all.

The though exercise here is to ignore the ability to get magic and rare material items...unless I miss my guess. The monks ability to become magical, to have his flurry improve to be equal BAB as his level makes his flurry attack closer to equal to a fighter's full attack than in the previous edition.

As for long range...hmmm...monk proficient with X-bow...they can contribute against fliers.

Ashiel wrote:
In a game that was even going to be "gear lite", where you could only purchase mundane equipment, I'd take any of the core melee classes over a monk in virtually all situations (especially since Stunning Fist lags without stat buffs; though taking Ability Focus could help; if I really, really wanted stunning fist, I'd multiclass monk).

While I can agree if it was only about gear-lite a fighter is a damn sexy choice monk is not that bad.

He is secondary in virtually ALL things. a support PC if you will. He does not do massive damage on a single swing, but can bat "clean up" for the fighter. Add his status effects, which are more reliable at lower levels than higher ones, especially with no stat booster items.

It is not as bad as you portray.

Liberty's Edge

Well, there's two ways of saying what "gear dependent" means.

The first is the oldest: you get captured or knocked out or otherwise separated from all your stuff. In this scenario, you may have to get out of a crystalline prison alone, or escape through tunnels filled with Germlaine, or find your way out of the sky palace... or maybe you lost your gear during a fight, and you have to throttle the dragon-lord. If you have to leave stealthily and have nothing, you can clearly see how a rogue, monk, sorcerer, would be better off than a wizard or fighter. But in that last case, the monk would be barely inconvenienced.

In all these cases, the situation your character in is dire, and a lot of how it turns out depends on who you have with you. The fighter gets a lot stronger as soon as the group overpowers a guard and he has a small shortsword to deal damage with- as lame is it is, it's better than punching.

The second definition is, who gets better as the gear gets better- in other words, if your character is stranded in nothing but his underwear with 200 gold to equip himself with, who is better off? Or what if you have four times or thirty times your expected character wealth by level? Who is even better off than normal, who can leverage that advantage into more damage or safety or tricks?

Sovereign Court

Ashiel wrote:

1) While monk AC is strong vs touch attacks, the monk's AC is also fairly easy to rob from them through Dex-to-AC loss effects, and it doesn't matter too much if your actual AC is poor. The monk I posted sported a significant portion of his WBL towards his AC, while a standard character can support a much higher AC with the same gear; and short of incorporeal creatures (which there is a cheap armor enhancement to overcome), the main touch effects are spellcasters (and they don't need touch-spells to excel against monks or other warriors).

You say you've never used heavier armors, so it seems like you severely underestimate them. You're loosing a bit of speed at first, which is later offset by fairly cheap effects, but you're gaining a significant armor class, which you don't loose when you're flat-footed; making ambushes much more survivable.

I am not familiar with you Dex to AC loss effects...please clarify.

The monk defences are better over all...hands down...many ray attack (like spells, like beholders...etc) will miss a monk while easily hitting a character that relies on armor.

Flat footed for an armor wearer will always be lower than a monk's...always...their touch will always be lower..always...their AC will be a bit higher...1 out of three is not a win situation...

But remember this is a thought exercise...no magic...no rare materials...

Ashiel wrote:

2) You say that monks don't need to be able to deal damage, and then you suggest using hit and run tactics and spring attack, so you're very suggestion is "provoke attacks, hope they don't hit you, and deal little to no real damage", which means that you will likely be dead beforehand. Even if your foe is just getting in their AoO and a readied action against you, then you're still going down first.

If you're focusing on spamming Stunning Fist to disable foes, then you need a great wisdom and still a good strength to hit, or a feat tax and a great dexterity as well, and even with mobility (+4 dodge to AC) your AC is still lower than a Fighter's without mobility in most cases.

Like the feat tax that is Power Attack? Wisdom and Dex are the monk's primary stats...having feats and abilities that base off of them is good. No high Str, no big deal. One feat and you are on equal footing in that regard to hitting with your attacks.

ACs are not that far apart. I have shown that.

Ashiel wrote:

3) I pointed out how a standard warrior-based class can adept to a variety of situations without much investment. You suggest that the method of overcoming the drawbacks of a monk would be to multiclass into these other classes, which I'm inclined to agree with. However, I could also just have a Fighter multiclass 2 levels of monk for a quick +3 to all saves, improved unarmed fighting, evasion, a couple bonus feats, and so forth; and be better for it as a Fighter.

This doesn't make the monk any more viable/gear independent. If you're primarily a monk, you'll still lag further behind by multiclassing (you won't have as much BAB to invest, you have to spread your stats thinner, etc).

But the monk that dips fighter levels keeps the BAB,HPs and feats...fighters that dip monk lose evasion, monk AC bonus, flurry and fast move. a large staple of the monk features in the first few levels.

Huh, less BAB to invest if dipping fighter? you gained BAB. And no need to spread stats...Dex and Wis FtW...

Ashiel wrote:

4) You say reach weapons are annoying but can be overcome. How so? The warriors can simply wear a spiked gauntlet + reach weapon and hit you even if you're tumbling into their space. They can readied actions to hurt you when you close distances (meaning you get no +4 dodge bonus from Mobility), and is beating you at your own game (1 hit hit vs 1 hit), 'cause you cannot deal damage.

Also, the warrior has the option to change his style by simply picking up a different piece of equipment. If you need a very high armor class for a short period (say to buy time) then you can grab a shield. A Fighter can use a tower shield to block an antimagic field for the wizard behind him, while pimpin' his AC at the same time.

The monk, as you describe, cannot. And by your own admission, cannot do much else (cannot deal effective damage, must focus entirely on easy-to-counter AC advancement, can still be beaten down by NPC warriors, not a spellcaster so he doesn't bring much to the table otherwise).

The only thing your hit and run monk might be able to do effectively is dive into a fray early, hopefully before opponents can react, burn stunning fist uses and hope you A) hit, and B) force a failed save; potentially allowing you to temporarily disable a foe (I say temporarily because unless you have an ally to finish them off, you may still be in trouble since you cannot coup de grace them for being stunned).

One readied action. That is all he gets. No AoO due to tumble, which monk is good at due to class skill and dex primary...

That fighter just traded his actions economy to switch tactics. He traded his higher damage potential for higher AC.

No bad but not deal breakers.

Grand Lodge

The OP's question was who does best with NO gear. No holy symbols, no spell books...not needs the least amount of gear. So yes wizards do suck quite horribly in that scenerio.

Liberty's Edge

Shadow_of_death wrote:
full casters, their spells mimic most magic items anyway

+1


Cold Napalm wrote:
The OP's question was who does best with NO gear. No holy symbols, no spell books...not needs the least amount of gear. So yes wizards do suck quite horribly in that scenerio.

Did you read a different OP than I did?

Liberty's Edge

Cold Napalm wrote:
The OP's question was who does best with NO gear. No holy symbols, no spell books...not needs the least amount of gear. So yes wizards do suck quite horribly in that scenerio.

While the OP did ask who was least reliant on gear, he also specified that it was for a campaign in which magic items were rare, and crafting difficult.

He never said you woke up completely naked in the middle of nowhere. Yes, naked wizards kind of suck. Wizards with spell books and underpants, not so much.

Monks would win the completely naked contest, though.

1 to 50 of 316 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Least gear dependant class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.