Alashra

MongrelHorde's page

66 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

There is no spell attack roll with the spell, only a Reflex save.

If I were being an absolute stinker I would arbitrate nothing happens. But how lame is that?


On a critical failure Weapon Storm does double damage and,

"the target takes double damage and is subject to the weapon's critical specialization effect".

For almost all weapons this makes sense. But how does this apply for Axes?

"Choose one creature adjacent to the initial target and within reach. If its AC is lower than your attack roll result for the critical hit, you deal damage to that creature equal to the result of the weapon damage die you rolled (including extra dice for its potency rune, if any). This amount isn't doubled and no bonuses or other additional dice apply to this damage."


I think if Charisma gave you anymore, it would easily be one of the top stats, especially for some builds. For example, rogues couldn't care less for INT because they're getting Skill Feats EVERY Level.

Everyone benefits from Intimidate. The Wizard, the Archer, the Fighter, lady-dady-every-body.

I would personally peg INT as the weakest stat. Could be it's just not my style. If you have a reasonably put together party you can spread around the important skills. At some point Magic just takes care of language.


I haven't parsed enough of the arguments presented to really pass judgement on the rules.

I just wanted to say the concept is REALLY cool.

Imagine a monkey sitting on your forearm or maybe a special pouch/carrier on your chest, named Bo Bo, he wears a hat and a vest.

"CRANK BO BO, CRANK!" The sweaty Alchemist commanded as the raging Troll began to charge.

And there's little Bo Bo, cranking away on his master's crossbow.


I did some light digging around on the forums and couldn't find if this has already been discussed. If it has please point me in the right direction!

The restrictions on the bonus actions for haste is they must be used for Stride or Strike.

This would leave me to believe you may only use the extra action for those two specific actions as detailed in the (I think it's Encounter) section of the CRB.

And you couldn't use the extra action for say... Power Attack (even though Power Attack is in essence a 'strike')?


For some reason I can't go back and edit my post, or I'm blind.

Level 13 Wizard with Fighter Dedication. Takes power attack, has a +2 greater Striking Great Pick. Takes Bespel Weapon.

Every turn casts True Strike, Bespell Weapon, and then Power Attack.

To Hit Bonus:
Level: 13
Proficiency(expert): 4
Ability (str): 4
Item: 2
Total: 23

Damage
Normal hit:
3D10 Great Pick, 2D10 Power Attack
D6 from Bespell Weapon
Weapon Specialization: 2
Str: 4
Total Average: 37

Crit:
5D10 turns into 10D12 plus 1 from Fatal, total 11D12
2D6 Bespell Weapon
Spec: 4
Str: 8
Total: 90.5 (Nice)

Chance to Hit: ~65% Weighted Average: 24.01
Chance to Crit: ~19% Weighted Average: 17.29

Total Weighted Average Damage per turn: 41.30

The Worm Dies in 6.5 Turns.

Full caster Gish that can P O P off on fools.


[Placeholder for Wizard -> Fighter, True Strike + Bespell + Power Attack analysis once I get to it.]


Vlorax wrote:
corwyn42 wrote:

I like the "always in range" argument, so the comparison is only about damage and not wasting actions on closing the distance for melee focused gish characters.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how many rounds to go. Perhaps we should compare how many rounds does it take your character to kill the Purple Worm.

Is the Worm doing anything in this scenario? Just using True Strike + Bespell + Ki Strike and a Monk/Wiz kills it on the third turn.

RAVIOLI RAVIOLI SHOW ME THOSE NUMBEROLIES!!!!


corwyn42 wrote:

Perhaps a better use of this thread is to create actual full caster gish builds to level 13. Have it go 3 rounds against a standard/common Creature 13 entry from the Bestiary. Specify what actions your character would do for those 3 rounds and do the math so we have something concrete to compare.

So, requirements:

1. Character must start with a caster class:
- Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer or Wizard
2. Character must Archetype into at least one martial type:
- Alchemist, Barbarian, Champion, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue

3. You choose Ancestry, Background, Ability Scores, Skills, Feats advancing the character to level 13.

4. Select 2 items from the 13th Level Permanent Items (or lower) on the Treasure Table and 2 items from the 13th Level Consumables (or lower) and are able to spend up to 5000 gp for any kind of items/crafting/rune application, etc to outfit your character.

5. Specify the actions for 3 rounds of combat against a Purple Worm which starts 120 feet away and will not use the burrow speed during any of those rounds (so that it can always be targeted). The Purple Worm only moves 40 feet closer each round (no other actions). The gish goes first.

6. Calculate the damage done for those 3 rounds
(Avg damage for damage rolls * % chance to hit or failed save, etc)

7. We are able to compare/comment about the strengths/weaknesses of each build.

Sound reasonable?

I like this. I might say we just use the stats of a Purple Worm as a punching bag that's always in range. Quantifying melee damage vs ranged utility is hard. A melee gish will do more damage than a ranged gish, but only if they can be in ranged. So we just make the distinction, this is a range / melee (or both).

I'm also ok with however many rounds people want as well. OP's build requires a few rounds to get going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Salamileg wrote:
While I don't think the OP's gish is the most optimized thing in the world, I do think it's a little unfair to compare a divine gish to the highest damage output build in the game. It's the same reason people day you shouldn't compare bonuses to hit to the fighter. Accuracy is the fighter's thing, while damage is the barbarian's thing. Gishes are better off compared to monks, rangers, and champions.

I agree. I more or less took offense to the claim below.

Martialmasters wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
I'm still a bit puzzled by the title: Why "best" gish?

First one I've seen that is a full caster and is capable of similar damage from range as a raging barbarian in melee.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
MongrelHorde wrote:

I also agree with puksone.

I highly doubt your character comes close to the DPR of a semi-optimized barbarian. A +3 to hit is a big deal. Additionally an 11th Barbarian does a lot of damage.

You've thrown words at us, now throw numbers : )

Barbarian level 13 3 attacks.

Assuming a enemy required 10 to hit on his first attack.

10/15/20 for barbarian

13/18/23 for the cleric.

First thing to note is you won't be attacking 3x with your shortbow as the cleric. Your first attack is a spell.

So your 13/18 is equivalent action to the barbarian 15/20. His first hit should be compared to your spell you led with. . . .

So in this scenario. Comparing the 2nd and 3rd attacks.

A barbarian and cloistered cleric with a greater striking rune. Both are 13th level, the Barbarian is Giant Instinct, both have greater striking. The Barbarian has a D12 weapon.

The Barbarian, on average, will do 3x the damage as the cleric gish.

Barbarian damage is 3D12 (average of 16.5), plus Str mod of 5, plus weapon spec of 3, plus rage of 10. Total of 34.5

The cleric gish does 5D6, 3D6 from the short bow, 2D6 from emblazoned energy and divine weapon. Total of 17.5, plus 2 from weapon spec. Total of 19.5

The barbarian's chance to hit on the 2nd and 3rd attacks are:

25% to hit, 5% to crit, weighted average total of 12.075 Dmg.

5% to crit, weighted average total of 3.45

Total: 15.525

The gish's chance to hit on the 2nd and 3rd attacks are:

10% to hit, 5% crit, weighted average total of 3.09

5% to hit, weighted average total of 0.975.

Total: 4.07

---------------------------------------------------

This was a pretty straight forward scenario. And there are other variables that can swing it more one way or the other, but there's a huge gap when it comes to DPR.

edit: Some wording


I also agree with puksone.

I highly doubt your character comes close to the DPR of a semi-optimized barbarian. A +3 to hit is a big deal. Additionally an 11th Barbarian does a lot of damage.

You've thrown words at us, now throw numbers : )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally Ok with Champions being able to heal X every 10 minutes, especially because mostly anyone can get similar effects with Medicine.


You are a player on a Mount that is your Animal Companion.

You command your animal companion, giving it 2 actions. The mount uses one of it's two actions to Tumble through an enemy... while you are mounted. Mount makes an acrobatics role vs enemies Reflex...

And that's it? You, the rider / the player don't have to make any checks?

That's how I see the rules as written, coming here to get some perspective.


@SuperBidi

Which of the three Alchemist paths will you play? I ask because you seem to have a different view on the Alchemist than most. Also, tone doesn't go over well over the internet, but I'm not trying to be patronizing.


Whip also has half the die size, which is why people are "CUCKO FOR THE GNOMISH FLICKMACE!"

And because it's ancestral you can make it simple...? I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
puksone wrote:

I don't get the flickmace hype. Ranseur has reach, one-handed and a D10 dmg. The crit specialization is a little bit situational.

What is the best dpr build for a fighter?

Flickmace isn't really focused on maximizing DPR, it's about having reach, and a shield, while rolling a decent Die size.

So it's really good with a Champion build, almost always allowing them to get their AoO when allies are struck (with a certain 1st level feat.. the name escapes me).

As for highest Fighter DPR build citricking has a google sheet, somewhere, that shows all the different Fighter attack routines at different levels with a Greatsword.

I don't think there will be 1 build that's just best, but more like 1 build at a level that's best. And the weapon includes either a Greatsword or a GreatPick.

Can we MC with this theoretically highest fighter DPR? Or Just straight Fighter?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean... spells are also generally AoE, whereas strikes aren't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Flickmace fighters and paladin champions are heavily underrated.

Being able to proc an AoO is huge for DPR, especially if you can get multiple AoO's in a turn at higher level. Another attack at no MAP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greg.Everham wrote:
I'm prone to calling Natural Ambition a top tier ancestry feat, as well.

I think Sky Blue is a fair rating. I had the opposite opinion on 1st and 2nd level Barbarian Feats.

I think some classes REAALLLY want those class feats (Alchemist) and others are pretty meh. I think Rogue is pretty meh, Sorc, Wizard, and Barbarian are the ones I remember thinking I should Multi class with these classes because their early feats felt underwhelming.

Also, you only get benefit from Sudden Charge if you needed that extra Stride increment.


If you're a Level 1 martial (not Fighter) and you're fighting this dude.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=165

a +1 to hit will not increase your chances to crit. And that's not to say anything for any monster that has an AC of 16, and uses Raise Shield to give themselves more AC.

Claxon wrote:

To know you're relative chance to hit requires having a target AC score to go against. Which is one of the reason this is again bad.

You don't know target ACs most of the time, and it changes as you level and the enemies change. You can pick an average AC value to do the math against, but that doesn't change the problem.

I mean... we're operating is a system with bounded accuracy. So we absolutely know the range of AC values people will fight at a given level.

I find value in the relative increase / decrease of events happening. I think it is a mistake to try and dissuade people from using it in their analysis.


I will say shroudb's initial post about the crit was enlightening to me. Because the axiom:

"+1 to hit is a 5% increase to hit AND crit"

isn't true, for reasons they've already pointed out.

For me personally thinking about things relatively is enormously helpful. Because you can get a sense for how much crits make up your average DPR, and knowing the relative increase in Crits you could then apply that (quickly) to someone's DPR; where you can't really do that with knowing the absolute chance to crit. (You could, but you'd end up converting it back to a relative increase and applying that to the ratio of normal:crit damage).

Also, if someone gets turned around by fairly simple statistical concepts, I don't know if I want them at the table talking about Mathematical modeling.


Oh yea, that would probably do it.


shroudb wrote:
plus, Agile may indeed be a trap.

So just doing some Quick Maths. Comparing a D6 weapon to a D8. With a +23 to damage and the Three extra weapon dice the Agile weapon will do more damage, just barely. With the differences being more pronounced the higher the AC. The Agile weapon being anywhere from like 2% - 8% more DPR with those parameters.


shroudb wrote:

i also feel that a straight up ranger two wielding is pretty crazy in pure dpr numbers.

i mean, 6 attacks at -2, 7 attacks if hasted, is no joke.

and even before that, having only -1/-2 MAP is pretty insane.

as for burst, i think that paladin can do a nasty 2 turn setup if he chooses to use his focus on litanies, but not sure.

How is the Ranger getting 6 attacks? Twin Takedown is flourish, so only 1 per turn = (


From some reasonably simple modeling I've done, a Giant Instinct Barbarian, MC into Fighter to get Double Slice took the cake. Moving to flank, then double slice with non-agile weapons.

Then, once Rogues get Gang Up and ... Backstab? (The Reaction that lets them attack someone their buddies attacked) they were our top contender.

However, I haven't tested how Weapon Scaling changes any of our base calculations, nor weapon specialization.

But if I had to put money on the most absurd Damage it would be a Rogue, who's hasted, who is flanking (Gang up) and has Backstab (so effectively 5 strike actions, 4 base + 1 for Backstab) who MC'd into ranger to get the 1 action 2 attacks, who has a Ranger buddy who gives him the Hunter's Edge benefits, and just rips into someone.

6 attacks. in this order. +0, +0, -2, -4, -4, -4

Glorious.


Draco18s wrote:
Oh hey, Power Attack is lower than SSS pretty much across the board.

... Did you look at the spreadsheet? It's glorious, and their doing God's work. And that's not at all what the analysis shows.

It shows SSS scales better with more To-Hit (or lower AC enemies). And Power Attack is not great at certain breakpoints (i.e between 4 and 6).

Finally the disparity between Power Attack and SSS between 1 and 5 is closer than what they have modeled, as striking, then power attacking is the more optimal routine before Furious Focus.


Two-Weapon Flurry is a Flourish (also Press), which means you can only do it once.

Given the verbiage of Double Slice, I'm going to assume each Strike applies it's own MAP.

So something like Strike (+0), Flurry(-5, -10), strike(-10)


Great Analysis, I love it. I agree with your sentiments that Electrical Arc is busted (for being a spammable cantrip). Maybe Reflex saves will be easier to come by (and Evasion) in the game, thus decreasing it's actual effectiveness.

Also, in regards to weapon attacks decreasing in scaling it should be important to note that you can get AoO's with Weapons. Strikes can be modified (with things like Power Attack or what have you) and their effectiveness in the moment can be increased (flanking, bard buffs, debuffing the enemy, etc. . .)

So I'm not sure how worried I am about the decrease in scaling of Martials weapon strikes.

Not to say that could actually be a problem (if someone provides the numbers to back up said claim), but that just in my gut of guts, it doesn't feel like a problem.

citricking wrote:
The thing is it's only weapon damage that's going down. Electric arc damage stays pretty level as a portion of HP.

How, or where, are you determining the average (Reflex?) save for Electrical Arc? But, Electrical Arc has crazy good scaling, so that statement wouldn't surprise me.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cool. Just checking. Is that including flanking or not? It probably won't make a general trend difference but it's gonna be very common and I'm curious.

This would just shift the trend line up on the y-axis, it wouldn't change the scaling. So it would still be a downward trend.

Faenor wrote:

Wow great analysis. So based on this, it looks like animal companions are pretty garbage and not worth the feats and action investment.

Only benefit I can see outside of flavor really is for a rogue with ranger/druid dedication to get a flanking buddy...

That's not what this analysis shows, it just shows the relative scaling of an animal companion, and their advances. NOT that it's a DPR decrease relative to other options for a Druid/Ranger. That would be a much more extensive analysis.

I haven't done a Level 1 -> 20 analysis, because of time, but at early levels Animal Companions are a juicy increase in DPR.

You're trading your lowest efficiency attack, for two more attacks (or a gnarly support buff) at a higher efficiency.

Not to mention when Animal Companions just get free actions, even if you don't command them (I think at 4 for Druid, unsure on Ranger).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I noticed this as well, and if a player brought it up I would allow it.

This "cheeze" is the spice of life that made me love Pathfinder 1 over other editions, so it warms my heart to know there are nuggets of this in Second.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Skimming through the Bestiary it takes effort to find a Creature between level 2 and 4 that has a Fortitude save of less than +7. A front-liner at level 4 is more likely to have a save of +10 - +12, so N O T E V E N C L O S E.

Where as our to-hit calculation needs an AC of 19; plenty of those between levels 2 and 4.

The monsters I found were Dhampir and Ghast, who had a Fort of +6 or less, and WERENT level 1.

So Channel Smite is actually, super good. Especially at lower levels.


Upon further reflection, I think Channel smite is actually a lot better than anyone here is willing to sit down and do the math for. Also, OP's average damage for a 60% chance to fail the save is wrong, and also super unlikely

Lets assume you're the type of cleric that wants to hit stuff, and use Channel Smite. The max your Wis is going to be at Level 4 is a +3. You're trained in spell proficiency.

So at 4th level your DC is going to be (10 base, +4 level, +3 wis, +2 trained) for a total of a DC of 19.

In order for someone to have a 60% chance to fail (50% chance to fail and a 10% chance to critically fail) a creature would need NO Con mod. They would at least be trained (that puts them at a +6), meaning they succeed on a 13+.

Having recalculated my numbers to be correct OP's initial assumptions are true. A Strike + a Harm is better than Channeled smite... Until you flank, and then Channel Smite is better.

And that's nothing to say how that shakes out if they DO have a Con mod, or are Expert in Fortitude (which I imagine many front liners would have).


sherlock1701 wrote:

A single weapon attack deals:

(4.5+4)*(.45+.15*2)=6.375 damage

Also OP's math is off slightly, If you're hitting 60% of the time your average damage for a D8 and 4 str should be 5.95 not 6.375 damage.

A 60% chance to hit would mean you need a 9 on the die, meaning you would crit on a 19 or 20, only giving you a 10% chance to crit, not 15%.

I loosely agree with the Harm numbers. I'm not sure I agree that someone failing on a 14 is equivalent to hitting on a 9.

That puts the Strike + Harm at 16.125, with a channel smite doing
13.65

Strike + Harm + Flanking = 17.825
Channel Smite + Flanking = 17.55

Strike + Harm + 3 instead of just +2 = 18.675
Channel smite + 3 = 19.5

If you have a bard belting tunes and you're flanking you will do more damage Channeling Smite. And again, I'm not sure I agree with the underlying assumption of needing to roll a 15 on a fort save to success is equivalent to needing a 9 to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

Problem is that channel smite also operates on your melee attack proficiency, which is at best expert, that's effectively a -2 to hit as compared to normal melees. If you consider that you get legendary proficiency in spells from cloistered cleric, it's -4 relative to that...

There's also no way to get this as a multiclass I believe, as it requires harming/healing font, and multiclassing, as it turns out, really can't give you what you want from another class sometimes.

We're comparing a cleric to a cleric, not a cleric that's comparing themselves to another Martial. So I think the fact they only get "expert" in a weapon is moot.

The cloistered cleric doesn't get Master until 15th, and for the Warpriest not until 19th. (In casting)

So the relative -2 to -4 (master vs Legendary) only applies to mega high level characters.

The Strength of Channel smite is that it scales on to-hit.

Got a bard in the party beltiong some tunes? Channel Smite is better.

Got into flanking position? Channel smite is better.

Multi-classed to give yourself True Strike? Channel Smite.

If the enemy you strike is immune to negative/positive damage nothing gets expended.

No attacks of opportunity.

Not to mention it's dope A F to roll just a garbage pile of dice.

Edit: Also, if you have a reach weapon you wouldn't be able to Strike + Cast Harm for the same number of actions.


Does the Dangerous Sorcery feat, the 1st level Sorcerer Feat, apply to other spell casting sources?

For example, I'm a Wizard who multi classes into Sorc, and take the feat, and then cast a 3rd level Fireball from my Wizard Spell Slots. So I get the benefits of Dangerous Sorcery?

The Feat:
Dangerous Sorcery: Feat 1, Sorcerer trait.
Your legacy grants you great destructive power. When you Cast a Spell from your spell slots, if the spell deals damage and doesn't have a duration, you gain a status bonus to that spell's damage equal to the spell's level.


Somantic Actions have the manipulate trait. So you would be avoiding a potential AoO.

Also, the base assumption could be expanded to look at a range of ACs. We also don't know what the average Fort Save for a creature at a given level is, presumably if they're a "front liner" it'll be higher.

Also, as everyone has said, increasing your chance to hit, via buffs and debuffs greatly favors Channel Smite, as your chance to hit and crit goes up.

Channel smite also literally don't care what your Wis modifier is, where as Strike + Harm is more MAD. Channel Smite only wants 1 thing... STRENGTH


Yes, I see now. Strike is an actual Action, not a description of Actions. Where I read it it seemed to be a kind of "meta-tag" on attack actions, but it's a real action.


You, a Rogue, who Multiclasses into Monk.

You take the Crushing Grab feat and make a successful grapple against an enemy... Do you get your sneak Attack dice?

Crushing Grab wrote:
Like a powerful constrictor, you crush targets in your unyielding grasp. When you successfully Grapple a creature, you can deal bludgeoning damage to that creature equal to your Strength modifier. You can make this attack nonlethal with no penalty.

Sneak Attack:

Sneak Attack wrote:
When your enemy can’t properly defend itself, you take advantage to deal extra damage. If you Strike a creature that has the flat-footed condition (page 620) with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged weapon attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.

"Strike" Definition:

Strike wrote:
Strike is an action that has the attack trait and that allows you to attack with a weapon you’re wielding or an unarmed attack (such as a fist).

Grabbed Condition:

Grabbed wrote:
You’re held in place by another creature, giving you the flat-footed and immobilized conditions. If you attempt a manipulate action while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; roll the check after spending the action, but before any effects are applied.


Lanathar wrote:
Out of legitimate interest - what are the main benefits of barbarian multiclassing into fighter? I assume the stuff from 4 onwards?

Yea, you bite the bullet at 2 to get those Juicy Fighter feats, like Dual strike (I don't remember if that's the exact name, but the 2 action feat that hits someone twice).

But why take just only 1 Dedication feat?

Only a few of the classes, in my opinion, have super interesting feats at 1 and 2. Wizards did not make that list imo, so MC'ing at 2 is w/e. Barbarians were another where I felt like their feat choices didn't start to get exciting until 6.

Stone Dog wrote:
greatsword rogue

I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember Greatsword could not be used with Sneak attack. I remember thinking it was capped at a D8 weapon size, but don't have my book in front of me.

Midnightoker wrote:

The Wizard got no such benefit for 7 levels buddy.

3rd level for First General to get Simple, 7th General to get Halberd.

They get Spear at 3, which is just a better version of a Staff (i.e. reach), and then Halberd at 7.

Also at 7 you can use Bows, Greatswords, Mauls, etc. . .

So for as long as they have the General Feat they get a measurable benefit.

Also, if hypothetically the General feat is a "trap" for this one specific build, that doesn't mean it's a "trap" for the other, nearly infinite, builds that exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
And in the case of the Barbarian, there is almost 0 incentive to MC into Fighter, so you have to eat crow or stick to traditional.

huh? That's so not true.

Midnightoker wrote:
it's about the General Feat not being a trap.

You're obsessed with this idea that the General feat is a trap. I'm going to infer that by "trap" you mean a sub optimal choice.

And if that's the case wielding a Halberd AT ALL is a trap (as a wizard).

It would be more optimal to hit a mook with a crossbow and then cast electrical arc, and just eschew the whole Halberd thing.

And that's ignoring the fact that there is an objective, tangible, measurable benefit for the General feats from Level x -> 12.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting back to the OP,

I honestly am pretty happy that Power Attack no longer has the open trait. This makes Power Attack more useful that it was in the Playtest.

There are class feat combos I can't help but think about.

ALSO the Goblin feat that lets you make equipment out of TRASH? YESS!!


So, I figured the greatest gap disadvantage a Wizard using their "best" native melee weapon a 2 handed staff verse their trained "best" martial a Greatsword was at level 13 when Wizard's get Weapon Specialization with Expert Weapons.

The summary of which the Staff is better. At it's absolute best it's 25% more Damage per round. If you're standing still and attacking 3 times a round. But generally it's somewhere around 7 - 15% more DPR (AC depending).

This assuming:
For the staff:
+2 Potency Rune, Expert +4, and a Str of +4 (Start at 16, boost it twice by lvl 13) for a total of +10 to hit, level adjusted.

Damage was: Wielding it 2 handed (D8), greater striking rune (2D8), Strength +4, and Weapon Specialization (+2).

Great Sword was
+2 for Trained, +2 for Potency, +4 for Str for a +8 total level adjusted to-hit.

D12 for damage, 2D12 Greater striking, and 4 for strength.

The AC is level adjusted. Without Weapon specialization it's much tighter.

Roll AC In Favor of Staff
7 15 3.09%
8 16 5.87%
9 17 9.53%
10 18 14.59%
11 19 15.25%
12 20 8.91%
13 21 6.69%
14 22 10.64%
15 23 16.17%
16 24 24.47%
17 25 18.54%

However, I still maintain you want to be a weapon wielding Wizard, take Fighter Dedication feat.

The General level feat is still worth it for a ton of levels. Certainly through levels 7 -> 12.

Below is No weapon specialization for the staff. With the Greatsword being super close until needing a 15 on the die.

Roll | AC | No Weapon Spec.
7 15 8.08%
8 16 5.25%
9 17 1.73%
10 18 -2.76%
11 19 -3.31%
12 20 2.31%
13 21 4.44%
14 22 0.71%
15 23 -4.08%
16 24 -10.48%
17 25 -6.00%

Edit: The formating of the tables is jacked, and I gotta run. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Midnightoker wrote:

Except Shield Block, Uncanny Acumen (an expert save increase), increased Magic Item limit Feat, More hitpoints, and any skill feat.

Basically nothing.

You're the one going on about false equivalency. I see a lot of Defensive options, but no Offensive Options (which is the underlying request).

Quote:
No it absolutely is not. Not even in the ballpark. -10% chance to hit in no way equates to the loss in damage.

So I can't actually model the specific scenario, because I don't have my book on me. Which I will do once I get home to shed some light on all of this.

But, based on my preliminary assumptions, the +2 to hit only overtakes the +2 to damage when the +2 to dmg needs to roll a 15 on the die. And then it's only 2% better. And the higher damage is going to benefit from flanking, other circumstance bonuses to hit, item bonus to hit, etc. . .

Whereas there is not a ton you can do to increase your damage, other than be a barbarian or pick up a heavier weapon.

But, I've done a lot of modeling, and a 1 to hit and 1 to damage are very close in equivalency.

Quote:

Oh, let me clear it up for you:

It is true.

I'd be interested in seeing how you arrived to this.

Quote:
Two, you literally just admitted it's a trap.

I admitted nothing. I admitted there are weaker choices and stronger choices, and in second it's more ok to make weaker choices for flavor.

The implication being if hypothetically only being trained in Halberds was a weaker choice, who cares, it's fine.


Yea, I'm firmly in the RAW camp on this one. To say the General feat is a trap, feels disingenuous.

1: There's not a lot you can do with a General Feat.

2: You absolutely get objectively better benefits from level X -> 11.

3: a -2 to hit is super close to 2 dmg.

4: I disagree with the assumption that Monster's AC scales at the same pace as PC's weapon proficiency. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. I want to see analysis on the bestiary. From my rough napkin math I'm leaning towards PC's to-hit out scales Monster's AC as they level.

5: Retraining.

Finally, there is literally a mechanic in game to achieve the OP's request.

There will always be sub-optimal choices. But in Second you are punished FAAAR less for making those "sub-optimal" choices than you were in 1st.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baron Iveagh wrote:
Its 4e, and I'm cancelling my subs. I got both Adventure paths at the same time yesterday. My reaction was best described as 'I can't even...'

What about the AP's made you conclude Second is a 4E clone? The first thing I did when I got my books was read the synopsis for Age of Ashe.

While there were hints on the forums about how it was going to shake out, I was genuinely more excited to play Second once I learned the truth.

The end choices for the AP are the kind of thing my group revels in.


Quote:
Many did.
Quote:
I mean, they kind of did, didn't they?
Quote:
A lot of us did.

Mea Culpa! I guess I was (incorrectly) assuming my groups dislike for 5E was universal. Clearly not the case.

I would be lying if I didn't say I have my fingers crossed for PF2's success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
It's all well and good to talk about character customization, 'depth' and so on, but in my experience most groups tend to gravitate towards simpler systems as their players increase in age and experience within the hobby.

Logically I don't think this is true for a few reasons. If the main driving force for older (and/or more experienced) players was complexity of a given system people would not have rebuked 4E and moved to Pathfinder.

If that was true people would have left PF en masse to 5E.

Finally, if that were true across time (more simpler systems being more attractive) there would be large groups of people who would play with no system and would just play out a story.

Crayon wrote:
It is debatable whether PF2 is more or less complicated than PF1, but it is definitely more complicated than D&D 5e so I just can't see many groups making the change particularly as 5e is at least as ubiquitous as Pathfinder these days if not more so...

I think anyone who took up the side that PF2 is more complicated than PF1 would lose that argument at least 99 times out of 100.

I don't have to learn how to calculate the conditional probability of an event happening to figure out my weighted average damage for an attack routine in PF2... like I did for Pathfinder 1. Nor the correct mix of multi-classes to maximize my combat feats at a given level.

But, I do agree that PF2 is more complicated than 5E.


So I don't know the exact details, as I haven't read cleric very thoroughly, but I do remember their Focus spells being bomb.

Do War priests never get Domains? And are focus spells tied to domain? If that's the case, I think I'm ok with it. Because Boy Howdy, those cleric Focus spells.


Would you mind giving one (or two?) specific cases where not being able to advance X weapon as Y would stink?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
painted_green wrote:
Halfling Luck does not let you take the better result; you have to use the second one.

That's a change from the Playtest then. I only have the playtest PDF at work.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>