Which Class is best going Commando?


Advice

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

In a low Magic, or infrequent Magic Shop type Adventure which Classes deal with the lack of bling best?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Any of them, as long as the encounters are scaled appropriately.

It depends on alot of things starting the encounters. You can tune encounters so that mages or ranged sign, or it could be ambushes in your face, in which avenue it's a fighter's world.

It also depends on how you define "low magic". There's no such thing as a consistent definition of what that term is supposed to mean. Your standard AP from Pathfinder after all does not assume "Magic-Mart". Would you call that "Low Magic"?

My definition of low magic means wizards and clerics don't exist, and neither do lots of the spells. It's not going to be the same as Fred's down the street.


Please clarify the exact steps taken to produce a low-magic, infrequent magic shop game?

I know what it means, but the method used to achieve it is actually really important. Especially concerning supernatural monsters and magic using classes.

Liberty's Edge

Casters. A martial without bling can't bypass damage reduction and has to plink at anything in the air with a non-magical bow. Casters are still zipping through the air, tossing out black tentacles, hastes, summons, fireballs, and what have you, they're just doing it at a lower dc.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Casters. A martial without bling can't bypass damage reduction and has to plink at anything in the air with a non-magical bow. Casters are still zipping through the air, tossing out black tentacles, hastes, summons, fireballs, and what have you, they're just doing it at a lower dc.

This + classes with self buffs can get around the low-magic limitations.

Paladin - very strong since smite evil allows you to ignore DR, you can make your weapon magical via celestion spirit, and you have a few self buffs.

Inquisitor - basically the paladin without full BAB, but with better self buffs.

Cleric/Oracle - lots of useful self buffs on the cleric list.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Do you realise what "going commando" means over on this side of the pond?


Where's the Weed? wrote:
In a low Magic, or infrequent Magic Shop type Adventure which Classes deal with the lack of bling best?

Casters.

Shadow Lodge

I'd have guessed casters, but in my experience, it doesn't really work out that way.

I've been playing in a low-magic campaign world now for about a year and a half, and the non-casters regularly deal with challenges better than the casters, who keep dropping quickly. There are a few things to keep in mind about this world, though:

  • There is no damage reduction that requires magic.
  • Opportunities to craft magic items are few and far between--we don't even have many scrolls.
  • Similarly, gaining an opposing wizard's spellbook doesn't mean you'll be able to add the spells to your own spellbook.
  • Powers of clerics and druids are more rigidly defined by deity; the full list is not guaranteed to be available.

I play a bard, and I regularly find that my physical attacks are FAR more important than my spells.

The big thing to keep in mind is that you don't often see a low-magic world that restricts magic item availability and stops there; often large swaths of spellcasting and crafting are affected as well.


InVinoVeritas wrote:


I've been playing in a low-magic campaign world now for about a year and a half, and the non-casters regularly deal with challenges better than the casters, who keep dropping quickly.

They should probably stay in the back. Most caster magic items are rods or ability enhancers. Those are useful but not necessary so a caster is little affected by low-magic vs normal game.

Quote:
I play a bard, and I regularly find that my physical attacks are FAR more important than my spells.

Well you're a Bard.

Shadow Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
InVinoVeritas wrote:


I've been playing in a low-magic campaign world now for about a year and a half, and the non-casters regularly deal with challenges better than the casters, who keep dropping quickly.

They should probably stay in the back. Most caster magic items are rods or ability enhancers. Those are useful but not necessary so a caster is little affected by low-magic vs normal game.

Sorry, I should say by "drop" I don't mean "killed," but "player quits because he feels like his character isn't contributing."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

All of them. Underwear is a fairly recent invention.

What?


Arcane archers are actually pretty good in such a scenario.


ANebulousMistress wrote:

All of them. Underwear is a fairly recent invention.

What?

You must've failed your Will Save to resist!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When I saw this thread, it had the thread "Underwear of Revelation" right below it. So you have adventurers with no underwear being followed by adventurers in crotchless underwear.


InVinoVeritas wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
InVinoVeritas wrote:


I've been playing in a low-magic campaign world now for about a year and a half, and the non-casters regularly deal with challenges better than the casters, who keep dropping quickly.

They should probably stay in the back. Most caster magic items are rods or ability enhancers. Those are useful but not necessary so a caster is little affected by low-magic vs normal game.

Sorry, I should say by "drop" I don't mean "killed," but "player quits because he feels like his character isn't contributing."

That's even worse. The players are incompetent or your GM is a hardass. Casters are the most versatile classes to play, bar none.

Shadow Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
InVinoVeritas wrote:
Sorry, I should say by "drop" I don't mean "killed," but "player quits because he feels like his character isn't contributing."
That's even worse. The players are incompetent or your GM is a hardass. Casters are the most versatile classes to play, bar none.

I think we've just found proof that "GM is a hardass" > "Casters are the most versatile."

Therefore, the answer to "Which class is best?" is "Depends on your GM."


InVinoVeritas wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
InVinoVeritas wrote:
Sorry, I should say by "drop" I don't mean "killed," but "player quits because he feels like his character isn't contributing."
That's even worse. The players are incompetent or your GM is a hardass. Casters are the most versatile classes to play, bar none.

I think we've just found proof that "GM is a hardass" > "Casters are the most versatile."

Therefore, the answer to "Which class is best?" is "Depends on your GM."

Yes, if your GM makes an active effort to undercut casters (see basically any post by someone who is against "god wizards" for examples), then it "depends on your GM."

Shadow Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
Yes, if your GM makes an active effort to undercut casters (see basically any post by someone who is against "god wizards" for examples), then it "depends on your GM."

Of course, if the main reason "god wizards" are "god" wizards is because of the overwhelming sense of entitlement that so many players AND GMs have that strengths should be emphasized and their weaknesses marginalized, if not blatantly ignored.

Liberty's Edge

InVinoVeritas wrote:

Similarly, gaining an opposing wizard's spellbook doesn't mean you'll be able to add the spells to your own spellbook.

Powers of clerics and druids are more rigidly defined by deity; the full list is not guaranteed to be available.

When you have to specifically gimp certain classes, that doesn't mean those classes aren't able to deal with challenges, that means those classes deal with the challenges too well and so the dm decided to institute house rules to deal with them.


Where's the Weed? wrote:
In a low Magic, or infrequent Magic Shop type Adventure which Classes deal with the lack of bling best?

Please give us your campaign's rules for magic. Quick, before this turns into a 500 post discussion about casters vs. melee!

Scarab Sages

Tim Statler wrote:
When I saw this thread, it had the thread "Underwear of Revelation" right below it. So you have adventurers with no underwear being followed by adventurers in crotchless underwear.

Yeah, I thought it was another 'We want more Beefcake!' thread.

Dark Archive

Inquisitor would be my first choice, Ranger for a close second.

Shadow Lodge

ShadowcatX wrote:
InVinoVeritas wrote:

Similarly, gaining an opposing wizard's spellbook doesn't mean you'll be able to add the spells to your own spellbook.

Powers of clerics and druids are more rigidly defined by deity; the full list is not guaranteed to be available.
When you have to specifically gimp certain classes, that doesn't mean those classes aren't able to deal with challenges, that means those classes deal with the challenges too well and so the dm decided to institute house rules to deal with them.

True, but a low-magic campaign is already, essentially, a house-ruled campaign. My point is that a low-magic GM is not likely going to stop with just magic item market availability.


InVinoVeritas wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
InVinoVeritas wrote:

Similarly, gaining an opposing wizard's spellbook doesn't mean you'll be able to add the spells to your own spellbook.

Powers of clerics and druids are more rigidly defined by deity; the full list is not guaranteed to be available.
When you have to specifically gimp certain classes, that doesn't mean those classes aren't able to deal with challenges, that means those classes deal with the challenges too well and so the dm decided to institute house rules to deal with them.
True, but a low-magic campaign is already, essentially, a house-ruled campaign. My point is that a low-magic GM is not likely going to stop with just magic item market availability.

A good DM won't, but you would be surprised at the number of DMs who think "low-magic campaign" means "No magic items" and don't do anything to limit the power of spell casters.

This is why people are requesting all of the house rules, because normally "low-magic" means "limited magic items". If there are other house rules, then we need to know them before we can make an accurate reccomentation.


I was using general terms, sorry if that confused some.

I really mean a campaign like Savage Tide, or Serpents Skull, where the access to magic items is very limited until you can Teleport.


There's also the question of magic item tailoring by the GM. Most GMs are gamist, and they don't roll treasure in a manner that a simulationist would consider 'honest'. If the fighter in their group uses some exotic weapon, that weapon type shows up in the treasure FAR more often than it would do so randomly.
So besides magic-shop availability there's also the variable of how much the GM tailors the treasure. If the GM just gives you what you would've bought anyway, is it functionally any different?


Monk?


The casters.

Druid/summoner is a self/pet buffing machine with or without magic items

Cleric: note the general lack of items that increase healing done: its wand of CLW or bust.

wizard/sorcerer/witch The only real effect of equipment wizards is to increase their save DC's. However since no one has cloaks of resistance it balances out.

Alchemist: There's no items for them anyway.

Fighters on the other hand absolutely need magic swords and armor to hit the high ac monsters and to avoid being hit by them.

Barbarians do a little better on their own, but have even more armor class problems.

People think monks do well naked... they don't. Magic items help their MAD somewhat and magic enhancement to their unarmed attacks help their hit and damage.


Keltoi wrote:
ANebulousMistress wrote:

All of them. Underwear is a fairly recent invention.

What?

You must've failed your Will Save to resist!

And your Knowledge (religion) check.

Really.

The description of the high priest's garments in Exodus includes boxer shorts.


Atarlost wrote:
Keltoi wrote:
ANebulousMistress wrote:

All of them. Underwear is a fairly recent invention.

What?

You must've failed your Will Save to resist!

And your Knowledge (religion) check.

Really.

The description of the high priest's garments in Exodus includes boxer shorts.

Good thing I was making Knowledge (history) checks then.


Kthulhu wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Yes, if your GM makes an active effort to undercut casters (see basically any post by someone who is against "god wizards" for examples), then it "depends on your GM."
Of course, if the main reason "god wizards" are "god" wizards is because of the overwhelming sense of entitlement that so many players AND GMs have that strengths should be emphasized and their weaknesses marginalized, if not blatantly ignored.

Because Sorcerers totally don't have magic powers.


I'll join the crowd and say: Casters

More precisely Druid and Cleric, since getting the whole spell list free is really a boon in that case.


If casters are taken, consider a blade-bound Magus. You get spells and a magic weapon built into the class. If you build him like a tank, you won't need a huge spellbook - boost strength and pick spells that buff and maybe a few utilities. Stay away from spells with a saving throw because you won't have the room for Spell Focus feats. You won't need magic armor because you'll have Mage Armor. You won't need DR because you'll have your sword.

If you do go full caster, and spellbooks/scrolls are hard to come by, then a Sorcerer might actually be better than a wizard.

Without magic items, a bard would probably greatly benefit your party.


ANebulousMistress wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Keltoi wrote:
ANebulousMistress wrote:

All of them. Underwear is a fairly recent invention.

What?

You must've failed your Will Save to resist!

And your Knowledge (religion) check.

Really.

The description of the high priest's garments in Exodus includes boxer shorts.

Good thing I was making Knowledge (history) checks then.

You need to try all knowledge checks when doing prior art searches.

Or by recent do you mean in the Cenozoic Epoch?


Where's the Weed? wrote:


I really mean a campaign like Savage Tide, or Serpents Skull, where the access to magic items is very limited until you can Teleport.

I'd say the cleric, for the unlimited spells known and the magical healing.


Where's the Weed? wrote:
In a low Magic, or infrequent Magic Shop type Adventure which Classes deal with the lack of bling best?

Probably monks, of all the non-casters.

Of the casters, any of them with crafting feats.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
joeyfixit wrote:

If casters are taken, consider a blade-bound Magus. You get spells and a magic weapon built into the class. If you build him like a tank, you won't need a huge spellbook - boost strength and pick spells that buff and maybe a few utilities. Stay away from spells with a saving throw because you won't have the room for Spell Focus feats. You won't need magic armor because you'll have Mage Armor. You won't need DR because you'll have your sword.

If you do go full caster, and spellbooks/scrolls are hard to come by, then a Sorcerer might actually be better than a wizard.

Without magic items, a bard would probably greatly benefit your party.

A true low-magic world means that some classes need to be off the table as well. The magus, at least most certainly the blade-bound magus would be one of them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Where's the Weed? wrote:
In a low Magic, or infrequent Magic Shop type Adventure which Classes deal with the lack of bling best?

Probably monks, of all the non-casters.

Of the casters, any of them with crafting feats.

If you're trying to implement a low item count world as well crafting feats have to go... with the possible exception of Scribe scroll.


LazarX wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:

If casters are taken, consider a blade-bound Magus. You get spells and a magic weapon built into the class. If you build him like a tank, you won't need a huge spellbook - boost strength and pick spells that buff and maybe a few utilities. Stay away from spells with a saving throw because you won't have the room for Spell Focus feats. You won't need magic armor because you'll have Mage Armor. You won't need DR because you'll have your sword.

If you do go full caster, and spellbooks/scrolls are hard to come by, then a Sorcerer might actually be better than a wizard.

Without magic items, a bard would probably greatly benefit your party.

A true low-magic world means that some classes need to be off the table as well. The magus, at least most certainly the blade-bound magus would be one of them.

Not what was specified by OP. He said magic items/magic shops were rare, not "true low magic world" per say.


Fighter, surprisingly.

I find that the people here are theorycrafters and undervalue the following Fighter abilities, because they don't actually play the game at a table, they just do calculations and average damages, and assume that every wizard everywhere wins initiative all the time, while flying around invisibly with multiple mirror image spells up.

(Just had a PFS game where, surprise, the evil wizard did not win initiative, the fighter held an action and shot her with a composite shortbow. Do you know that arrows cause things to bleed? And can force Concentration checks?)

Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Greater Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Specialization
Weapon Training

A STR 18/DEX 16 fighter with no magical gear at all, using their preferred weapon at 5th level looks like this:

MW Plate Armor: +9 AC, +2 DEX (Armor training), large shield +2 AC = 23 AC. Add Shield Focus and Dodge...and that goes up to 25 AC. At 7th level it goes up to 26 AC from Armor Training II.

Weapon: +5 BAB, +4 STR, +1 MW Weapon, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon Training = +11 to hit. +4 STR, +2 Weapon Spec, +1 Weapon Training = +7 Damage. Throw in Power Attack, and you've got +9/+11 instead of +11/+7.

In a game where there aren't many magic items and no magic item shops - including no ready access to Cleric Happy Sticks, AC and Hit Points are king.

I find that the SINGLE MOST POWERFUL ability of a wizard or sorcerer is the ability to use wands.


Dabbler wrote:
Where's the Weed? wrote:
In a low Magic, or infrequent Magic Shop type Adventure which Classes deal with the lack of bling best?

Probably monks, of all the non-casters.

Of the casters, any of them with crafting feats.

Ow, no. Monks are very dependent on magic items. They get a lot of class features, but they are criminally underpowered and most are finite due to being based on Ki. Not only that, but they are one of the most MAD classes with little to show for it. If you want to make a tank in a low magic world, MAYBE take a Monk. But the problem arises tanking sucks and is impossible.

Full casters -> 3/4 casters -> Paladins -> Rogues -> Fighters -> Barbarians -> Rangers/Cavaliers -> Monks

Liberty's Edge

AdAstraGames wrote:
A bunch of pro-fighter stuff.

And you have a will save of what, +2? At best? If the wizard goes first, roll a 15+ or loose. If the wizard goes last, you hit him for 15 damage, maybe half his hp if he hasn't buffed, then roll a 15+ or loose.

AM / CAGM barbarian could do well in this setting though, he's going to be pumping out unreal amounts of damage. Healing will be a problem, but such is life. And the paladin's ability to bond to a weapon would be huge.

Edit: I would also argue that rangers would be good, seems to me a low magic setting means that most everyone will be human. . . (Assuming the DM doesn't house rule favored enemy when it becomes too good.)


AdAstraGames wrote:

Fighter, surprisingly.

Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Greater Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Specialization
Weapon Training

Not discussing witch class is the most powerful/usable for the party, but who would lose most in a pre made adventure path in witch you aren't guaranteed to have an equipment of your choice. I think fighter loses the most as your feat choises suggest a fighter really needs a specific type of weapon to be effective.


Riku Riekkinen wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:

Fighter, surprisingly.

Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Greater Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Specialization
Weapon Training

Not discussing witch class is the most powerful/usable for the party, but who would lose most in a pre made adventure path in witch you aren't guaranteed to have an equipment of your choice. I think fighter loses the most as your feat choises suggest a fighter really needs a specific type of weapon to be effective.

But that is NOT what we are discussing. We are not discussing a blind booster tournament, we are discussing a world in which it is hard to find magic items, not a longsword


Summoner, definately summoner. The eidolon is badass with or without magic items, and the summoner can get by hiding behind his eidolon, and contributing here or there.


Witch with slumber, accursed hex and then ice tomb. Add augment summoning, and try to get (greater) invisibility for everyone.


I am going to join the choir and say casters.


ShadowcatX wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
A bunch of pro-fighter stuff.
And you have a will save of what, +2? At best? If the wizard goes first, roll a 15+ or loose. If the wizard goes last, you hit him for 15 damage, maybe half his hp if he hasn't buffed, then roll a 15+ or loose.

Evidently, you have never built a fighter, like ever.

Fighter Build:

16+2 STR [10], 15+1 DEX (7), 13 CON [3], 10 INT [0], 12 WIS [2], 8 CHA [-2]

Traits: Reactive, +1 Will Save
Feats: Weapon Focus, Iron Will; Improved Initiative; Power Attack; Weapon Spec; Rapid Shot

Fort: +5, Ref: +5, Will: +6, +7 vs Fear. Init: +3+2+4=+9. AC of 10+9+2+2=23. If I'm willing to go breastplate, it's 10+6+2+3=21 and a move of 30' per turn.

Wizard Build:

STR 8 [-2], DEX 14 [5], CON 12 [2], INT 18+2+1=21 [17], WIS 10 [0], CHA 8 [-2]

Traits: Reactive, Magical Lineage
Feats: Toughness, Improved Initiative, Scribe Scroll; Spell Focus; Greater Spell Focus; Wizard Metamagic of Choice

Fort: +3, Ref: +4, Will: +6. Init +8. AC is 10+4+2=16 (I'm assuming one of your 1st level spells is Mage Armor.)

Fighter has better saves across the board.

This being a nobody gets magic items theorycrafting lunacy, Mr. Wizard has only the spells he gains each level...there's no convenient "Yeah, I'll spend XXX GP and get the entire list" option. If that's allowed, Mr. Fighter gets a few other things as well. Like a potion of Fly...

So, Mr. Wizard gets:
9 1st level spells,
4 2nd level spells,
2 3rd level spells.

Which ones do you pick?

Scarab Sages

Your going to want reasonable defense, reasonable damage, self healing, and utility if your going at it alone.

Bards, clerics, cleric/monk hybrids, synthesists, wizard/rogue/arcane trickster hybrids. It depends on your style of play.

Personally: I'm a fan of either the a high ac cleric/monk hybrid or a stealth based arcane trickster. Both play very differently.

Choose a style that suits you, but remember, in a low magic world heal potions may not always be available.


AdAstraGames wrote:
Fighter has better saves across the board.

You're right, instead of "roll a 15+ or lose", it's "roll a 14+ or lose".

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Which Class is best going Commando? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.