|
So I have a bit of a reputation within my gaming group of building relatively unhittable characters, mostly in the form fighters, Monks, and most recently a Dervish Dancer bard. The thing I've noticed with all on my characters is this: it is actually pretty difficult and requires a lot of planning to build a good AC monkey, whereas building someone who dishes out a crap ton of damage it relatively easy.
I'll clarify. It seems like most class features and feats are geared toward doing more damage, or making it easier for you to do more damage. Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Weapon Focus and Specialization are a few examples. And most classes apply bonuses to you ability to attack, such as a Fighter's weapon Training, a Ranger's Favored Enemy and Combat Style feats, and a Barbarian's Rage. Now, there are a few classes that give you bonuses to AC ( Monk, a couple fighter Archetypes, the Stalwart Defender, and Duelist come to mind), but it seems that Damage is the name of the game.
I'm not hating on the system, by any means. I love Pathfinder, and it is quite gratifying to hit evil monsters really hard. I guess my point is this: As an active member of the SCA, I'm accustom to strapping on medieval armor with my fiends and whaling on each other, and my experience has taught me that is is always easier too defend than it is to attack. And I guess I don't see that in Pathfinder.
I understand why, I guess. No one has fun sitting around a table, rolling a few dice and saying "Yup, I missed. Again," all session. So I guess I've answered my own question, and now I'm just curious to see what other people think.
Thoughts?