All,
This Sunday, we will be making characters for our Pathfinder game. There will be 5 players (including whoever is GM). So there will be 4 PCs at any given time. However, the game is multi-GM. About 40% of the time I will GM, 40% of the time the usual regular GM will GM, and about 20% of the time, one of the other players may GM a short adventure or two.
We have decided that all the characters will all be the same level, even a GMs PC if he runs 6 weeks and then plays. So nobody falls behind. But rewards will be divided by those who play. Therefore, GMs who often run will have lass cash but more downtime.
With this in mind, we would all like your thoughts on which Pathfinder (core, apg, um, uc) classes are the least affected by having less magic and money, and which are most dependent. We will be using a 25 point buy, btw.
Can anyone perhaps rank or compare class effectiveness in these circumstances?
Thanks!
Just a thought, but have you and the other gms given any thought to replacing the wealth system of the game? I have done so in my current campaign and it has worked ok so far. The pcs gain ingrained benefits and bonuses chosen as they level instead of magic items, and instead magical equipement AND wealth are signficantly curtailed (each character will have only one or two magical items over the course of their entire career)
For "nekked" chars...
Sorcerers (eschew materials)
Monks
Any build which focuses on unarmed combat (though their lifespan will be LOW)
Druids
Wizards that take Eschew Materials, and burn feats on Spell Mastery
Divine casters with a holy-symbol birthmark (trait)
I think that would require a level of effort, and of understanding (the impact) that probably none of us are ready for. We are still trying to learn the differences between 3.5 and PF.
So for now I am just interested in gear/wealth/magic dependence so that the more regular GMs can make a more informed/practical character choice.
Thanks!
|
To answer the question, straight support are the least dependent on money. So wizards, sorcs, Evangalist clerics, and master summoners can go around at pretty much any level with just a stat item bonus if they can afford it and ideally a cloak of resistance. You don't want tanks and especially not people who try to fill multiple rolls (combat clerics, inquisitors).
How does Spell Mastery help? You still have to spend the cost to get the spells. I figured Wizard would be the hardest to play because your spell list will be the most severely limited (spell mastery or not).
Monks are simultaneously the class that doesn't need magic and the class that really needs magic items. They need to be at the both the bottom and top of the scale.
If no one in the group has ANY gear, then the monk is incredible in comparison to his fellows.
If the group has AVERAGE gear, then the monk is weak unless he has the right kind of gear.
If the group has AWESOME gear, then the monk can easily overtake nearly any other class in ability.
Now, that being said, the sorcerer is also pretty solid without gear, as is the druid (but it depends on how no gear is defined--without his divine focus, the druid is screwed).
Fighters, rogues, rangers, barbarians, paladins, clerics, and wizards all require gear to some degree or another.
Master Arminas
It wont be severely low gear. 3 of the 5 characters will have 90% to 100% of the wealth they would normally have.
The other regular GM and I will probably have around 50% of the wealth level we would normally expect.
Thanks!
Given BOTH gms would be in this predicament, why not just put in a few extra items tailored to the pc the gms are playing when they are playing? So if you are playing a monk, and are behind in the power curve have the gm throw extra treasure for a monk (magic brass knuckles, amulet of mighty fists, monks robe etc) and you do the same for him? If you know the dms will fall behind in wealth why cant there be an agreement the whole group is aware of to help them make up for it?
How does Spell Mastery help? You still have to spend the cost to get the spells. I figured Wizard would be the hardest to play because your spell list will be the most severely limited (spell mastery or not).
Wizards still learn 2 spells per level
|
My thoughts
Least need equipment
Druid - 1 (Animal companion + summons + spell to create wpns & attack)
Sorceror - 2 (No need for components, lots of spells per day)
Witch - 3 (Capable of Arcane & Divine spells - free brew potion)
Oracle - 4 (no divine focus needed, armor & wpn reliant, healer)
Summoner - 5 (Summons & Eidolon, but still need equip depends on build)
Monk - 6 (Lower lvl doesn't need it so much, but changes at higher lvls)
Wizard - 7 (Scribing Scrolls & learning spells is expensive)
Cleric - 8 (Armor & Wpn Reliant, healer, needs divine focus)
Bard - 9 (Can be played with minimal equip if focus on party buff)
Magus - 10 (Able to enchant wpn helps lower costs)
Inquisitor - 11 (Combat heavy, needs good wpn & armor, healer )
Ninja - 12 (Sup. abilities & Unarmed Strike make it better than Rogue)
Rogue - 13 (Relies entirely on stealth & equipment, sneak attack)
Paladin - 14 (Heavy Armor needed to fill role of Tank/Support)
Barbarian - 15 (Can be done with little equip, but less effective)
Ranger - 16 (Reliant on equipment, but class feature that can bypass)
Alchemist - 17 (All class abilities require equipment)
Fighter - 18 (Same as Barbaria, but more reliant)
Samurai/Cavalier - 19 - Neither really is different enough for the purpose of this list to have different equipment requirements
Gunslinger - 20 (Most expensive class in the system to date)
Maybe not the most accurate, but intouch with the classes that could survive with the least or no equipment.
|
|
2 spells / lvl is plenty, and copying them is cheap enough, even with half gold. Wizards like meta rods and the spare party wands, but they aren't necessary, just add a little flexibility. By 5 they need a +2 stat item, and every 5 levels add 2 to that. Belts of con and save items are bonus.
At 10 with 32K they'd want
+4 cast-stat item
+2 Con item
Lesser wands (extend, widen)
+2 cloak of resistance
And they'll keep up with the party just fine. Higher save items and utility scrolls / wands would just make them a little more utilitarian.
|
|
And Druids are generally the most expensive; they try to tank and cast, and need multiple amulets of mighty fist and stat-bump items. Wizard, Evangalist cleric, sorcerer, wizard, oracle of nature are the "tie for not needing magic items". Monks also are very expensive, even low; their AC bonuses are not cheap.
|
I have to say that I don't think this a great idea. Character power level increases with two things. 1. level 2. wealth. The cr system is specifically designed with a certain amount of power coming from a character's wealth.
Magical +1 weapons, bonuses to casting stats, ect., are all very important to retaining parity between the classes.
Reducing wealth is not much different than having gm characters play at a level or two behind the rest of the pc's. And it only gets worse as you go up the cr scale.
That being said...
The synthesist summoner can be quite terrifying without magical gear.
Any martial class will be handicapped, with the 3/4 bab classes being hurt much more. So avoid those.
Pure caster classes will do better, since they just need to boost their primary casting stats. Pearls of power are nice, but not mandatory. Wizards, clerics, and druids. Not sorcerers or oracles since the slower access to spells will hurt even more.
Monks... just no. :p They can be great, but not with 40% less wealth than the rest of the party.
|
|
And Druids are generally the most expensive; they try to tank and cast, and need multiple amulets of mighty fist and stat-bump items. Wizard, Evangalist cleric, sorcerer, wizard, oracle of nature are the "tie for not needing magic items". Monks also are very expensive, even low; their AC bonuses are not cheap.
Eh, a druid who is trying to be a primary caster AND dps is doing something wrong.
A druid who is a primary caster will get extra bumps to scores from elemental forms, which helps reduce the need for magical equipment.
A druid who is a primary meeler will have the same issues as any front line combatant when their weapon is 40% weaker than the next meleer.
My druid was converted from 3.5. She was raised in a dryad grove and had virtually zero contact with civilization before becoming a druid as her backstory. For her first five levels she did not recognize the value of gold and other than a couple of unique non-combat magic items, her only material goods were the clothes on her back, her bow and arrows, all of which she made herself.
She did just fine. On joining a new group for an adventure campaign one of the party members took it upon themselves to teach her about wealth. Since then she's gained +1 armor, a +1 RoP, a +1 bow, a couple of pearls of power and a lesser rod of extend. She's definitely gained some effectiveness, but not really that much. Her main effectiveness still comes from her basic abilities. I think she would still be a perfectly acceptable party member at level 8 if she still only had her own bow and arrows.
Honestly spellcasters are the least reliant on gear but it seems relatively easy to fix without worrying. In each of your games when you write for four players give out treasure for five and have them belong to a mercenary company ran by the gm's who split the loot evenly with the fifth player who did the tax returns with the "insert ruling nation here" with the nations most boring tax collecter while everyone else got to have the fun of being violent hobos.
And Druids are generally the most expensive; they try to tank and cast, and need multiple amulets of mighty fist and stat-bump items. Wizard, Evangalist cleric, sorcerer, wizard, oracle of nature are the "tie for not needing magic items". Monks also are very expensive, even low; their AC bonuses are not cheap.Eh, a druid who is trying to be a primary caster AND dps is doing something wrong.
A druid who is a primary caster will get extra bumps to scores from elemental forms, which helps reduce the need for magical equipment.
A druid who is a primary meeler will have the same issues as any front line combatant when their weapon is 40% weaker than the next meleer.
Wait, are we talking about gear dependence for optimized characters only? I thought it was just about gear dependence by class in general.
A druid is a primary spellcaster no matter what they do outside of being a primary spellcaster. Just as a cleric is. That's why the whole "CoDzilla" argument rose in the first place.
In general at least at low to mid levels, I would say in my experience that a druid is one of the least dependent classes on wealth, certainly not nearly the most. I've never played druid at epic levels where they are trying to be Thor the Thunder God, so I don't know how they do, but my guess is there is no class that doesn't depend entirely on treasure to be optmized at epic levels. At that point I think they are all close enough to be considered the same.
Thanks for the replies.
We certainly could just take the effort to hand out appropriate treasure for the other GM as needed. That could work.
I think the other GM is planning on a Dwarven Drunken Barbarian. We just wondered how screwed he would be with less gear.
As for me, I was going to go Inquisitor until one of the other players decided to make an elven inquisitor. Then I was going to make a falchion-wielding half-orc rogue, but my vision didnt really mesh with the practical.
So I was thinking that since I am undecided, I would pick with low wealth in mind.
Btw the other two will be halfling bard and human gunslinger.
Anyway, this is all perhaps compounded by the fact that we may try for a low magic mutability setting. Meaning, we plan to give out decent magic, but severely limit how easy it is to just sell an item and pick up a preferred stat booster or a custom item or any particular scroll or spell you expect to get. Maybe hand out normal levels of magic, but halve the values and/or numbers of items available in a community.
But thats a different issue.
How does Spell Mastery help? You still have to spend the cost to get the spells. I figured Wizard would be the hardest to play because your spell list will be the most severely limited (spell mastery or not).Wizards still learn 2 spells per level
Which go into your (free) spellbook for free. Still don't see how this saves gold.
Also Eschew Material Components doesn't help with costly spell components... the feat would save the player a whopping 5g overall (assuming his pouch doesn't get sundered every time he turns around)
I've been playing in an unintentionally low-wealth game for the last few months (gm decided most gear was rare and hard to build). Darwinian character selection has proven the most successful characters to be the wizard, monk, and alchemist. The monk is a psychotically effective tank with spell/extract support, and the vivisectionist alchemist build has pulled impressive rogue DPS thanks to monk flanking and stunning fists.
While alchemists do require a fair amount of equipment in general, its all cheap stuff. The most extensive alchemical kit costs less than a single +1 suit of armor, and gets you everything you need to brew for levels and levels.
Also, about wizards needing spells... Human alt. favored class bonus, +1 spell of one level lower then you're highest. So make that 3 spells per level.
I'd think that with a single stat item, a lesser meta-magic rod and cloak of resistance by mid levels and you would be ok with a wizard.
Any non-magical melee type is going to be the worst choice. Restrict a Fighter/Barb/Rogues toys and it becomes hard for them to keep up.
I bet a Witch could do the same, and be even better off with Hex's as an added bonus.