Myth Busters - Pathfinder Edition!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Another thread got me thinking about the general assumptions that pop up on the boards during discussions.

The first myth I would like to debunk is the idea that wizards (and sorcerers) are squishy. This idea is often thrown out with the idea that casters need a fighter type to protect them or they will get taken out.

To debunk this myth, I would compare a 10th level fighter with a 10th level wizard.
Max die at 1st level + 9x happy side of average + 14 con + favored class
10 + 54 + 20 + 10= 94
6 + 36 + 20 + 10= 72

Note barbarians come in at 105, and d8 classes at 83.

Both have about equal access to the toughness feat, however, casters have a variety of options for temp hp. Wizards also have an edge in magical Con boosting, especially if they take craft wondrous item as a bonus feat.

In terms of actually taking damage, fighters have the hands down advantage in terms of AC, however casters generally rely on spells such as mirror image and displacement. Casters can also keep a decent AC through the lower levels with mage armor, shield, and protection from evil. Later in the game, casters are only truly squishy against opponents with True Seeing, which is fairly uncommon.

So select a myth, and either prove or disprove it!
Note: Please keep it to specific myths, not stupid statements such as "FighTerZ sUx!" or totally general statements like, "casters are overpowered". I would also like to keep things focused on what is probable, not bizarre corner cases. If you need a detailed specific build with just the right magic items, you are probably only going to prove that it is really difficult to achieve something.


When in doubt... bombs XD

Sovereign Court

"Mith busters" sounds like some sort of pun on striking workers in a mithril mine :P

Also, dot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

Both have about equal access to the toughness feat, however, casters have a variety of options for temp hp. Wizards also have an edge in magical Con boosting, especially if they take craft wondrous item as a bonus feat.

In terms of actually taking damage, fighters have the hands down advantage in terms of AC, however casters generally rely on spells such as mirror image and displacement. Casters can also keep a decent AC through the lower levels with mage armor, shield, and protection from evil. Later in the game, casters are only truly squishy against opponents with True Seeing, which is fairly uncommon.

To back up your debunking, my 10th level wizard has almost 100 hit points. More than that if I cast false life. That's using your same generous mathematics, too. In a party full of d8 and d10 classes, I have the second highest amount of hit points. My AC stinks, but flying at will (air school) and turning invisible takes care of that. And as far as protection spells go, every time there is some magical energy damaging trap, the party turns to me to slap on protection from energy and do their dirty work. I don't mind, though. I'm a badass teenaged female half-elf wizard. =)


I once, a long time ago, back in 2e even, on a lark, played a wizard tank.

He was surprisingly good at it. Even then with a d4 for hit points. Blur, Mage Armor, Shield, mirror image, etc.

Also, again on a lark, I took my regular 2e wizard and used him as a melee combatant using, if I recall correctly, "Tensor's Transformation" and he was pretty badass, even without all the buffs. Of course, again if I recall correctly, while transformed he could not cast spells, while the wizard tank could, and did.

In the end the wizard tank was killed, but so was the whole group, as I said it was just a one-off lark where we were deliberately twisting class roles around. The cleric was blasting, we didn't have a healer...

But I came away thinking "dang, I think a wizard tank might WORK."


Fergie wrote:

In terms of actually taking damage, fighters have the hands down advantage in terms of AC

Curiously that is not always te case, for example there is one build form te RD emporium

http://thefoolscourt.zxq.net/other/meredith.pdf


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Also, again on a lark, I took my regular 2e wizard and used him as a melee combatant using, if I recall correctly, "Tensor's Transformation"

Tenser´s if I recall correctly.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Also, again on a lark, I took my regular 2e wizard and used him as a melee combatant using, if I recall correctly, "Tensor's Transformation" and he was pretty badass, even without all the buffs. Of course, again if I recall correctly, while transformed he could not cast spells, while the wizard tank could, and did.

Is that the one that turns you into an unstoppable berserk warrior or summat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Also, again on a lark, I took my regular 2e wizard and used him as a melee combatant using, if I recall correctly, "Tensor's Transformation" and he was pretty badass, even without all the buffs. Of course, again if I recall correctly, while transformed he could not cast spells, while the wizard tank could, and did.
Is that the one that turns you into an unstoppable berserk warrior or summat?

Well, I dunno how "unstoppable" and I don't recall being "berserk", but yes, it basically transmogrified the wizard into a powerful warrior with magical armor, magical sword (or other weapon, I think you could choose) and more or less turned you into a fighter for the duration. But you couldn't cast spells. I only used it once and wasn't real happy because of the spell casting restriction. But that one time it worked OK.

Webstore Gninja Minion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fixed thread title.


It bugged you that much, eh Liz?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Also, again on a lark, I took my regular 2e wizard and used him as a melee combatant using, if I recall correctly, "Tensor's Transformation"
Tenser´s if I recall correctly.

Aww, and here I was getting all excited, thinking the spell was another easter egg from 1e that I didn't find until I got educated.

As for the OP, I realized that when I ran a scenario with a level 4 Ezren with noticeably more HP than my level 3 fighter. I just hadn't done the math.

For my myth busting, one of my pet peeves is that the Falchion is always sold as being better than the Greatsword. Yes, crit range will eventually trump damage dice, but how much static damage do you need to be doing before the Falchion becomes better? Are you likely to get to that point in your campaign?

Math:

For the sake of simplicity, assume you hit on an 11+ (50% hit rate.) This makes the math simpler but doesn't change the outcome, the end result is the is the same from a 5% hit rate to a 95% hit rate.

Damage = Hit%*(weapon damage + static damage) + Crit%*Hit%*(crit multiplier-1)*(weapon damage + static damage)

Since Falchions and Greatswords are both x2 crit weapons:

-19-20 crit range = 0.5(base damage) +0.1*0.5*(base damage) = 0.55 base damage
-18-20 crit range = 0.5(base damage) +0.15*0.5*(base damage) = 0.575 base damage
-17-20 crit range = 0.5(base damage) +0.2*0.5*(base damage) = 0.6 base damage
-15-20 crit range = 0.5(base damage) +0.3*0.5*(base damage) = 0.65 base damage

So a Falchion does (0.575/0.55) = 1.045, 4.5% more base damage than the Greatsword, but the Falcata's average weapon damage is 5 while the Greatsword's is 7. So, how much weapon + other damage does it take to make up for that two point difference in weapon damage? 0.045x=2, x=44. For keen weapons, the difference is [0.65/0.6=1.083, 2/0.083=24.1)

You have to be doing weapon damage plus 44 for a Falchion to equal a Greatsword. If you're using keen weapons it's plus 24, which is much more reasonable, but still requires you to be at least mid level.

In reality, unless you're planning for high level play, don't worry about the Falchion verses Greatsword thing. Until you get to very high damage (weapon damage +24 if you're using the keen enchant, +44 if not), the Greatsword does better. And the difference is only a couple points until you get to obscene damage levels. I.e. if you're using keen weapons, doing weapon damage +44, and hitting on anything higher than a 1, the Falchion will average 2.4 more damage per hit than the Greatsword.


Liz Courts wrote:
Fixed thread title.

So that's why those Discovery goons knocked on my door in the middle of the night ("You's didn' bust nuthin'!")... I had planned on using some sort of "mythic busters" or something, but didn't want this confused with the play testing threads.

The next myth I'm going to address is: Paralysis isn't deadly. Whether it is from a hold person spell, a ghoul attack, poison, or something else, many people claim that paralysis isn't much worse then being stunned, nauseated, or dazed. The key difference and that paralysis allows opponents the option of using a coup de grace on you.

Which I guess leads to the second part of this myth, that coup de grace's are hard to pull off. While it is true that CdG can be a tough move in some cases, it is generally easy to pull off if you have intelligent allies working together. All it takes is a little readying or delaying, and if you have a reach weapon and/or high crit multiplier, it gets even more easy and deadly. It does provoke an attack of opportunity, and takes a full round action, but the victim isn't making AoO's, and full round actions can be broken into two standard actions. It generally isn't even the damage that kills you, it is the Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) that is going to kill you.
While I would not say paralysis is a death sentence, I would say it is highly likely that intelligent opponents (such as ghouls) could make survival very difficult indeed. At least far more deadly then their CR 1 would indicate.

Coup de Grace:
Coup de Grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to “find” the creature once you've determined what square it's in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).


Since when are those two myths? CDGs and Paralysis terrify my parties, and I haven't even used one on them yet!

Kingmaker Spoilers:
That'll be changing next chapter when they meet the lich though....

Silver Crusade

Orthos wrote:

Since when are those two myths? CDGs and Paralysis terrify my parties, and I haven't even used one on them yet!

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, I gotta disagree with those being myths, too. Hold Person is a little weak these days, due to fresh saving throws every round, but it's still a great spell. My cleric always has it prepared.


Akerlof wrote:


As for the OP, I realized that when I ran a scenario with a level 4 Ezren with noticeably more HP than my level 3 fighter. I just hadn't done the math.

For my myth busting, one of my pet peeves is that the Falchion is always sold as being better than the Greatsword. Yes, crit range will eventually trump damage dice, but how much static damage do you need to be doing before the Falchion becomes better? Are you likely to get to that point in your campaign?

** spoiler omitted **

You have to be doing weapon damage plus 44 for a Falchion to equal a Greatsword. If you're using keen weapons it's plus 24, which is much more reasonable, but still requires you to be at least mid level.

In reality, unless you're planning for high level play, don't worry about the Falchion verses Greatsword thing. Until you get to very high damage (weapon damage +24 if you're using the keen enchant, +44 if not), the Greatsword does better. And the difference is only a couple points until you get to obscene damage levels. I.e. if you're using keen weapons, doing weapon damage +44, and hitting on anything higher than a 1, the Falchion will average 2.4 more damage per hit than the Greatsword.

Truth to be told, the old claim is that the falchion is better at mid levesl when you static damage is good enough and keen or improved crit comes into play. So you basically confirm the myth.


Myth: The forum dice hate you.

Result: See for yourself!

One thing I'll note here is that the result could be either confirmed/denied depending on your outlook; on the one hand, the roller really is random. On the other hand, if you continually roll horribly despite the fact that the dice roller is indeed random, you could look at that as proof that the roller hates you personally.


Nicos wrote:
Akerlof wrote:


As for the OP, I realized that when I ran a scenario with a level 4 Ezren with noticeably more HP than my level 3 fighter. I just hadn't done the math.

For my myth busting, one of my pet peeves is that the Falchion is always sold as being better than the Greatsword. Yes, crit range will eventually trump damage dice, but how much static damage do you need to be doing before the Falchion becomes better? Are you likely to get to that point in your campaign?

** spoiler omitted **

You have to be doing weapon damage plus 44 for a Falchion to equal a Greatsword. If you're using keen weapons it's plus 24, which is much more reasonable, but still requires you to be at least mid level.

In reality, unless you're planning for high level play, don't worry about the Falchion verses Greatsword thing. Until you get to very high damage (weapon damage +24 if you're using the keen enchant, +44 if not), the Greatsword does better. And the difference is only a couple points until you get to obscene damage levels. I.e. if you're using keen weapons, doing weapon damage +44, and hitting on anything higher than a 1, the Falchion will average 2.4 more damage per hit than the Greatsword.

Truth to be told, the old claim is that the falchion is better at mid leves, when you static damage is good enough and keen or improved crit comes into play. So you basically confirm the myth.

I think you're both right. The well-reasoned original claim is, "A falchion deals more damage than a greatsword if X,Y, and Z are true." The myth is, "Falchion is better."


Akerlof wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Also, again on a lark, I took my regular 2e wizard and used him as a melee combatant using, if I recall correctly, "Tensor's Transformation"
Tenser´s if I recall correctly.

Aww, and here I was getting all excited, thinking the spell was another easter egg from 1e that I didn't find until I got educated.

As for the OP, I realized that when I ran a scenario with a level 4 Ezren with noticeably more HP than my level 3 fighter. I just hadn't done the math.

For my myth busting, one of my pet peeves is that the Falchion is always sold as being better than the Greatsword. Yes, crit range will eventually trump damage dice, but how much static damage do you need to be doing before the Falchion becomes better? Are you likely to get to that point in your campaign?

** spoiler omitted **

You have to be doing weapon damage plus 44 for a Falchion to equal a...

The falchion adventage is not only the average damage. Things like Staggering critical make it much better.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
The falchion adventage is not only the average damage. Things like Staggering critical make it much better.

Yeah there are a lot of flaws with the inital premise that Wizards aren't squishy too. While a Wizard is wasting all their actions buffing themselves, and trying to avoid AoO, the Fighter is killing the bad guy. Sure after 3 rounds the Wizard has almost as many hitpoints and around the same AC, and then BEGINS the fight, in the 4th round the Wizard has at a minimum 5% chance to be hit, while the Fighter has a 0% chance to be hit because the monster is already dead.

With the Falchion, all things being equal, average difference between it and a greatsword is a whopping 1 point per hit. That will QUICKLY get outclassed by the improved crit range.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Next Myth: The opinions on the forums are a pretty accurate representation of the game playerbase.


Just the really vocal ones.

People who are happy with the system, or at least don't have enough problems to make a fuss about or quietly and calmly houserule the things that bother them, don't go on the internet to complain.

But then, that's true of every hobby, every interest, and every community on the internet ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
People who are happy with the system... don't go on the internet to complain.

Heh.

"Evil Paizo! You made too good a game and now I'm having to spend lots of MONIES and have lots of fun and it's JUST NOT FAIR!"

... like that?


Jodokai wrote:
With the Falchion, all things being equal, average difference between it and a greatsword is a whopping 1 point per hit. That will QUICKLY get outclassed by the improved crit range.

I'll just have to say that your definition of quickly and my definition of quickly are pretty different. If you can get to hitting for weapon damage +44, or weapon damage +24 and Keen/Improved Critical quickly, then the Falchion is for you. Even then, the damage output won't be very different: The Falchion only averages 2.4 more damage per hit than a greatsword when you have both +44 damage and keen.

Like gustavo iglesias says, the real advantage of the Falchion is in the critical feats like Sickening Critical, and those don't kick in until BAB 11.


Oladon wrote:
Orthos wrote:
People who are happy with the system... don't go on the internet to complain.

Heh.

"Evil Paizo! You made too good a game and now I'm having to spend lots of MONIES and have lots of fun and it's JUST NOT FAIR!"

... like that?

HAH. I think I recall someone posting something like that once!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

MYTH: “In combat healing is rarely a good choice”. Not true. If you need to save your companion, it is always a good choice, unless of course you group treats PC’s as ‘toons’ and everyone keeps a stack of new ones, ready to drop in at a moments notice (or if your tables dynamics are such that combats only last a couple of rounds, so the monster is always dead next round anyway).

Of course, we agree that “topping off’ in combat usually is suboptimal, and a party boost spell can often be better. Certainly, ymmv, as I listed only two exceptions. But if your table is one of those exceptions, don’t try and apply the way you play to everyone elses. Heck, it’s even possible that those two exceptions are a majority of tables out there. I hope not, but it still doesn’t mean that your way is the only way.

MYTH: that “gritty” is somehow better and low magic is gritty. I quote a Cracked Writer Daniel O’ Brien: “Grrr! Roar! Scary! Grit! As we, as a movie-going nation, get older, it looks like we're mistaking too-cool cynicism and ironic detachment for maturity and sophistication. Everything -- everything -- is gritty now” .


Gritsters!


Orthos wrote:
Oladon wrote:
Orthos wrote:
People who are happy with the system... don't go on the internet to complain.

Heh.

"Evil Paizo! You made too good a game and now I'm having to spend lots of MONIES and have lots of fun and it's JUST NOT FAIR!"

... like that?

HAH. I think I recall someone posting something like that once!

I do concede that, as you said, it doesn't happen with nearly a high enough frequency.


The problem is that it usually just boils down to an opinion. "Wizards are squishy", "Summoners are overpowered", "rogues suck", etc. can't be proven with math or science. There are just too many subjective variables and measurements to consider.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
MYTH: that “gritty” is somehow better and low magic is gritty. I quote a Cracked Writer Daniel O’ Brien: “Grrr! Roar! Scary! Grit! As we, as a movie-going nation, get older, it looks like we're mistaking too-cool cynicism and ironic detachment for maturity and sophistication. Everything -- everything -- is gritty now” .

I agree. These forums contain hundreds of threads with GMs making "grittier" games featuring, LESS MAGIC!, LOWER ATTRIBUTES!, MORE DEATH!

Of course, part of this is a reaction to games that go too far the other way, giving out so much power that the PCs are never challenged.


Blueluck wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
MYTH: that “gritty” is somehow better and low magic is gritty. I quote a Cracked Writer Daniel O’ Brien: “Grrr! Roar! Scary! Grit! As we, as a movie-going nation, get older, it looks like we're mistaking too-cool cynicism and ironic detachment for maturity and sophistication. Everything -- everything -- is gritty now” .

I agree. These forums contain hundreds of threads with GMs making "grittier" games featuring, LESS MAGIC!, LOWER ATTRIBUTES!, MORE DEATH!

Of course, part of this is a reaction to games that go too far the other way, giving out so much power that the PCs are never challenged.

Yep, and it’s nearly always DM’s that want to tweek things for lower powered games, as they have trouble handling stuff like PC’s being able to T-port past obstacles.


Akerlof wrote:
In reality, unless you're planning for high level play, don't worry about the Falchion verses Greatsword thing. Until you get to very high damage (weapon damage +24 if you're using the keen enchant, +44 if not), the Greatsword does better. And the difference is only a couple points until you get to obscene damage levels. I.e. if you're using keen weapons, doing weapon damage +44, and hitting on anything higher than a 1, the Falchion will average 2.4 more damage per hit than the Greatsword.

Let's see...

Str 20
+4 item or Bull's Strength
+4 barbarian rage
___
28 (+9)

13 Str (2-handed weapon)
6 Power Attack (BAB +4)
+1 enhancement bonus on weapon
____
20 damage

I don't think it would be too difficult to find another 4 damage somewhere in the level 4-6 range to get high enough for a Keen falchion to be stronger than a greatsword simply for DPS.

For a paladin:
Str 20
+4 item/Bull's
___
24 (+7)

+10 (Str 2-handed)
+6 PA
+1 enhancement
+4 Smite Evil
___
21 damage at level 4

Pushing it a little on the starting 20 Str, maybe, but that's still illustrating the point--an archetype, a buff or two, some feats, slightly better treasure than Wealth By Level, and you're at that +24 damage between level 4 and 6 fairly easily, which is not exactly "high level play." Yeah, a greatsword is definitely better than a falchion at low level, and if you aren't adding much to your damage, but by the low end of mid-levels, the falchion starts to pull ahead.


Thanks for bringing up healing DrDeth! The "Healing in combat is doing it wrong" myth has even been busted by the developers, but I see it crop up on these boards from time to time.

Another healing related myth is that healing can't keep up with damage, and that short of the Heal spell, healing doesn't even come close.

While it is true that healing can't keep up with damage indefinitely, it most certainly can be effective enough to be a very important action. For example, take a 10th level cleric with the healing domain, casting cure critical wounds- 4d8+10 empowered averages about 38 healing per round. If almost 40 hp of healing/round isn't keeping the character (who probably has about 100hp) in the fight, you probably need to switch up your tactics. Especially considering that the "high avg damage" of a CR 11 creature is only 50.

If multiple characters have gotten banged up, a channel will heal 5d6 (avg 17hp). while this isn't a very big chunk of hp at 10th level, if you hit everyone in the party, and a summoned creature, mount, familiar, etc. It could likely be almost 100hp of healing.

Considering that neither of these options uses any substantial resources, or requires any special feats, equipment, build (other then healing domain), I would say that healing is VERY effective!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Another healing related myth is that healing can't keep up with damage, and that short of the Heal spell, healing doesn't even come close.

You claim it's a myth that "healing can't keep up with damage", but even in the example you give, which is a mid-level cleric with the Healing domain, casting the most powerful single target "Cure" spell, the cleric only heals 38 hp (by expending a 4th level spell, a 5/day resource), while the monster deals 50 hp (by expending nothing).

"It's always wrong to cast healing spells in combat." is a myth.

"It's usually a bad idea to cast healing spells in combat unless it's going to directly save a companion's life or return him to the battle." is not a myth. It's a very reasonable statement.

"Healing can't doesn't up with damage." is not a myth. It is, in most circumstances where it would matter, a demonstrable statement of fact.


Attacks of Opportunity: I see this a lot.

Myth: you can only make on AoO against a single target in one round.

Truth: You can make more than one if there are more than 1 triggers. For instance, if someone moves out of your threatened square and then casts a spell while still in reach.


yeti1069 wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
In reality, unless you're planning for high level play, don't worry about the Falchion verses Greatsword thing. Until you get to very high damage (weapon damage +24 if you're using the keen enchant, +44 if not), the Greatsword does better. And the difference is only a couple points until you get to obscene damage levels. I.e. if you're using keen weapons, doing weapon damage +44, and hitting on anything higher than a 1, the Falchion will average 2.4 more damage per hit than the Greatsword.

Let's see...

Str 20
+4 item or Bull's Strength
+4 barbarian rage
___
28 (+9)

13 Str (2-handed weapon)
6 Power Attack (BAB +4)
+1 enhancement bonus on weapon
____
20 damage

I don't think it would be too difficult to find another 4 damage somewhere in the level 4-6 range to get high enough for a Keen falchion to be stronger than a greatsword simply for DPS.

For a paladin:
Str 20
+4 item/Bull's
___
24 (+7)

+10 (Str 2-handed)
+6 PA
+1 enhancement
+4 Smite Evil
___
21 damage at level 4

Pushing it a little on the starting 20 Str, maybe, but that's still illustrating the point--an archetype, a buff or two, some feats, slightly better treasure than Wealth By Level, and you're at that +24 damage between level 4 and 6 fairly easily, which is not exactly "high level play." Yeah, a greatsword is definitely better than a falchion at low level, and if you aren't adding much to your damage, but by the low end of mid-levels, the falchion starts to pull ahead.

It also looks like you could catch Greatsword around level 5 with a Falcata or Nodachi by doing the following.

Strength 18(Starting) + 2(Racial) = 20(+5) -> +7 with two handed weapons.

Power attack = +6

Weapon +1 Keen = +1 Damage

Total bonus damage is 14

Weapon Damage die:

Greatsword: 7

Falcata: 4.5

Nodachi: 5.5

Total Damage:

Greatsword: 21

Falcata: 18.5

Nodachi: 19.5

DPR @ 95% chance to hit:

Greatsword:

(.95*21)+(.95*.2*1*21) = 23.94

Falcata:

(.95*18.5)+(.95*.2*2*18.5) = 24.605

Nodachi:

(.95*19.5)+(.95*.3*1*19.5) = 24.0825

DPR @ 5% chance to hit:

Greatsword:

(.05*21)+(.05*.2*1*21) = 1.26

Falcata:

(.05*18.5)+(.05*..2*2*18.5) = 1.295

Nodachi:

(.05*19.5)+(.05*.3*1*19.5) = 1.2675

After some Excel play, I found the break even points are as follows.

Falcata VS Greatsword

Without Keen: 23 additional damage

With Keen: 10.5 additional damage

So past about level 5-6 Falcata will outperform all other two handed weapons.

It does outperform Nodachi. However Nodachi is outperforming greatsword in this scenario as well.

The break even points for Nodachi vs Greatsword are:

Without Keen: 27.5 additional damage

With Keen: 12.5 additional damage

What this means is that for anyone who does not already possess Nodachi or Greatsword proficiency that Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Falcata) is generally going to be a better choice than Martial Weapon Proficiency (Greatsword or Nodachi) unless playing below level 5-6 mostly.

It also means that post level 5-6 generally Nodachi will be better than Greatsword.

It is interesting to note that the only limiting factor on when these weapons pull away from one another is WBL. As if "Keen" was available at level one Falcata would always be better.

Another fun fact is that even at level 20 with extraordinary numbers the difference is not that extreme.
Strength: 36 (+19)
Weapon: +5 Keen
PA: +18
Total: +42

@ 95%
Falcata DPR: 61.845
GreatSword DPR: 55.86
Nodachi DPR: 58.6625

A difference of only the following:
GS VS Fal: 5.985
GS VS No: 2.8025
Fal VS No: 3.1825

This means to me that weapon choice is honestly not as important as static modifiers, unless your build includes the effect on critical feats.

Now things like barbarian rage, fighter weapon training and in an interesting case the fighter capstone do inflate these numbers however with the exception of the fighter capstone the weapon order remains the same.

For those interested the fighter capstone lets Nodachi slightly outdo Falcata at level 20, by about 1.5 DPR under these conditions

Anyway Just some math for fun.


Komoda wrote:

Attacks of Opportunity: I see this a lot.

Myth: you can only make on AoO against a single target in one round.

Truth: You can make more than one if there are more than 1 triggers. For instance, if someone moves out of your threatened square and then casts a spell while still in reach.

If you have Combat Reflexes, yes. Otherwise, it's just one per round per attacker-of-opportunity, isn't it?


Attacks of Opportunity

"If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus."

I think the part that causes the myth is, "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent." When you want to charge a Storm Giant with 15' of reach, you only provoke once, so people say, "you an only provoke an enemy once per turn." But, if you want to run up to the giant, then cast a spell, you've provoked him twice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Blueluck wrote:
But, if you want to run up to the giant, then cast a spell, you've provoked him twice.

Man, very few people are going to make a bad move like that and live to tell the tale.


Feros wrote:
Blueluck wrote:
But, if you want to run up to the giant, then cast a spell, you've provoked him twice.
Man, very few people are going to make a bad move like that and live to tell the tale.

Reminds me of one of the earliest stories of my Neverwinter Nights days. My party was running around killing stuff and I accidentally misclicked while trying to cast a spell, sending my character - a mid-level Sorc - charging off into the thick of melee. Got clubbed a few times but managed to be rescued by the fighters in the party before I got squished, and got this gem from the Dex-fighting Rapier master:

"No sorceress in her wrong mind should charge fire giants!"

Liberty's Edge

Komoda wrote:

Attacks of Opportunity: I see this a lot.

Myth: you can only make on AoO against a single target in one round.

Truth: You can make more than one if there are more than 1 triggers. For instance, if someone moves out of your threatened square and then casts a spell while still in reach.

I can do a bit better than that (with a character I actually play).

I trip my opponent, so he falls prone. AoO #1 - I have vicious stomp.

On her turn, my flanking buddy now gets to attack the (prone) opponent.
She scores one (or more) critical hits - I get another AoO each time, because we have the Outflank teamwork feat.

The opponent now stands up (provoking) and casts a spell (and again). [Poor tactics, admittedly]

If somebody else knocks the opponent down later on in the round, then I get another AoO (vicious stomp again).

That's 5 attacks of opportunity this round, and I've still got one remaining.


Blueluck wrote:

You claim it's a myth that "healing can't keep up with damage", but even in the example you give, which is a mid-level cleric with the Healing domain, casting the most powerful single target "Cure" spell, the cleric only heals 38 hp (by expending a 4th level spell, a 5/day resource), while the monster deals 50 hp (by expending nothing).

...
"Healing can't doesn't up with damage." is not a myth. It is, in most circumstances where it would matter, a demonstrable statement of fact.

As I said, healing can't keep up with damage, indefinitely but very few combats last long enough for it to matter. If you are able to keep a party member in the fight against ferocious incoming damage (for example, taking full attacks from a higher CR foe), your healing can be a highly effective tactic in many circumstances.

I should have also added more details about the incoming damage. First of all, the example I gave used a CR 11 creature and a level 10 cleric. It also assumes that the creature focuses all of its attacks against a single opponent (likely), and that ALL attacks hit (highly unlikely). Cases where 10th level parties consistently face 50+ damage a round are generally not close to CR appropriate.

Finally, for a 10th level cleric to swap out a 4th level spell to heal is not a big deal. You have at least 4, and it isn't even your highest level spell. There are probably a variety of ways to increase healing beyond my example, especially using more then just core.

I guess one man's, "...demonstrable statement of fact." is another man's myth.


Blueluck wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Another healing related myth is that healing can't keep up with damage, and that short of the Heal spell, healing doesn't even come close.
You claim it's a myth that "healing can't keep up with damage", but even in the example you give, which is a mid-level cleric with the Healing domain, casting the most powerful single target "Cure" spell, the cleric only heals 38 hp (by expending a 4th level spell, a 5/day resource), while the monster deals 50 hp (by expending nothing).

It should be noted that that is 50 damage _supposing all attacks hit_. It is very possible the monster only has the option to attack the tanking fighter, dealing 20 or so damage due to awesome AC. For this challenging encounter, a creature with high attack bonus has +19 avg, and having an ac in the mid 30's by this level is quite easy if building defensively (even focusing more on offense many classes can hit 30 at this point).

Then again, I do think cure spells are rarely worth it in combat. Channeling however, can be very useful if combined with a wand of Shield Other (and of course with the right party dynamics). It's a resource you've got on top of spells so there's no competition for that, and by healing xd6 to the whole party (using shield other to spread the damage around) you can keep up with many monsters, at least long enough to finish the job.


Is the "Full BAB characters always hit on a 2 or less with their first attack" statement true? Not even counting stuff like Power Attack, I just don't see it unless they're spending nearly all their WBL on attack-boosting items, and sometimes not even then.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Is the "Full BAB characters always hit on a 2 or less with their first attack" statement true? Not even counting stuff like Power Attack, I just don't see it unless they're spending nearly all their WBL on attack-boosting items, and sometimes not even then.

Alway No, but afhter levels 13-15 it is probably true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Is the "Full BAB characters always hit on a 2 or less with their first attack" statement true? Not even counting stuff like Power Attack, I just don't see it unless they're spending nearly all their WBL on attack-boosting items, and sometimes not even then.

Honestly, this depends on what they are facing, as well as their group make-up and any buffs they currently have.

If you're facing an as-is book creature with a martial PC @ WBL gear at level 10 or higher, it's definitely a possibility.

Of course, this may not include extra bonuses from both the PC's adventures as well as the modifications made to the creature from the GM.

For estimation purposes, taking a Dragon or Golem type creature (which both generally have crazy-high AC and/or CMB/CMD), these creatures will most likely have DR (which may or may not be easily bypassed by the PC), as well as an AC where the PC has to roll a fair amount above average (let's say 13 or higher) just to land a hit.

Some monsters have significantly lower AC, and the martial will probably only need a 7 or higher (without Power Attack) to land a hit.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Is the "Full BAB characters always hit on a 2 or less with their first attack" statement true? Not even counting stuff like Power Attack, I just don't see it unless they're spending nearly all their WBL on attack-boosting items, and sometimes not even then.

Like many of the other "myths" here, this oversimplification is false.

It is entirely possible for a full BAB's single attack to hit many enemies on a roll of 2+. It's most likely to happen with a fighter with Weapon Focus and Weapon Training wielding his chosen weapon, a ranger fighting his favored enemy, a Paladin with Smite Evil up, etc. Inspire Courage, Haste, charging, and other common buffs help too, of course. Obviously, a 2+ hit situation will occur against CR- enemies far more frequently than CR+ enemies, and who do you want to optimize your character to fight, mooks or bosses?

"Fighters hit on a 2+ anyway, so I'll skip attack bonuses in favor of other benefits," is rarely good advice. Even if you hit on a 3+, a +1 attack bonus is probably better for your damage output than a +1 damage bonus.


Blueluck wrote:
Obviously, a 2+ hit situation will occur against CR- enemies far more frequently than CR+ enemies, and who do you want to optimize your character to fight, mooks or bosses?

I'm not sure focusing on being good at beating single high-CR monsters is good advice - as has been noted by many, single high-CR monsters often are quite easy anyway due to action economy. The dangerous fights are more often against many weaker enemies using good teamwork, at least that's what PC's in my campaigns usually die of. Nowadays they pretty much always have a character that is good at countering mooks (an archer, an arcanist with some investment into blasting, a defensive buffer)


Ilja wrote:
Blueluck wrote:
Obviously, a 2+ hit situation will occur against CR- enemies far more frequently than CR+ enemies, and who do you want to optimize your character to fight, mooks or bosses?
I'm not sure focusing on being good at beating single high-CR monsters is good advice - as has been noted by many, single high-CR monsters often are quite easy anyway due to action economy. The dangerous fights are more often against many weaker enemies using good teamwork, at least that's what PC's in my campaigns usually die of. Nowadays they pretty much always have a character that is good at countering mooks (an archer, an arcanist with some investment into blasting, a defensive buffer)

I suppose I could have stated that a little better. I did accidentally imply "single enemy" when I said "bosses".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:


The first myth I would like to debunk is the idea that wizards (and sorcerers) are squishy. This idea is often thrown out with the idea that casters need a fighter type to protect them or they will get taken out.

In terms of actually taking damage, fighters have the hands down advantage in terms of AC, however casters generally rely on spells such as mirror image and displacement. Casters can also keep a decent AC through the lower levels with mage armor, shield, and protection from evil. Later in the game, casters are only truly squishy against opponents with True Seeing, which is fairly uncommon.

Uhm, not to belabor the point, but you missed something. Those spells are NOT always active. I routinely as GM take advantage of that fact. In a surprise round, the Wizards and Sorcerers are hosed, as they also are if they lose initiative to the enemy. After the first round, they can get Mage Armor active, the second Shield (but that only lasts for minutes, so you can't depend on it still being active in the next encounter). Nobody can keep using Shield for every encounter, because even Sorcerers run out eventually.

Wizards and Sorcerers ARE squishy, they have been for a long time, despite now getting a d6 for hit points instead of the lowly d4. Favored class helps somewhat, as does Toughness. But permanent AC is a total b&&$@ to get one's hands on. Either you do it with feats (which are more precious than experience levels) or you spend LOTS of gold to get Bracers of Defense etc. Plus, they get a nice Will save, but that's the least used saving throw in the game. Better to have Fortitude, but that's one of their crappy saves.

Worse, the rules for defensive spellcasting to negate attacks of opportunity incurred for casting spells at point blank range have gotten much tougher. Even worse yet, the rules for overcoming Spell Resistance are a massive b$!@&. You don't even know if your spells will get through, even WITH Spell Penetration and its upgrade.

So they are still plenty squishy, imho.

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Myth Busters - Pathfinder Edition! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.