|
Just wondering. I'm pretty new to PFS, having just completed my third session today (yay 2nd level, here I come!).
I have played a Paladin for 2 of my 3 sessions. I liked it a lot.
One thing I've noticed is, in three different groups (two players listed below were the same for 2 of my 3 games), was a considerable lack of warriors.
I've seen:
1 Barbarian
2 Wizards - same player
2 Druids
1 Sorcerer
1 Magus - my first session
2 Monks - same player
1 Rogue
1 Summoner
Is this normal? I mean, is there more of a trend to avoid warrior-type characters in PFS?
You'll see pretty much everything.
Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Bloodrager, Cavalier, Slayer, Brawler, Gunslinger, and Swashbuckler all see play.
PFS, due to its focus on lower levels and the limitations on both Crafting and buying Magic Items leads to it tending to favor bulkier characters and those with higher BABs.
Therefore, you're actually more likely to see 6/9 spellcasters (who all have 3/4 BAB), Monks, Ninjas, Rogues, and Divine full-casters than you are to see straight Wizards, Sorcerers, and Arcanists, but you still have plenty of players utilizing Arcane full-casters.
You're also very likely to see at least one person at every Table playing a full Martial, since they tend to have full BAB, and sometimes have minor spellcasting (Paladin, Ranger, and Bloodrager)
5 of those listed are "warrior" type. what do you mean by warrior? pure martial? fighter? no magic?i guess I meant warrior in the "Full BAB sense" or maybe in the 2e AD&D sense (which is the game I'm most familiar with: Fighters/Paladins/Rangers (and Barbarians via kits).
Warriors abound in PFS, even in the sense you're thinking. You just haven't seen them much, yet - and you're not thinking about it in the right light.
From your own list, the barbarian fits nicely. Monks are also warrior types, and even though they're not a full BAB, the bonuses they get with flurry-of-blows is supposed to make up for that. The Magus is your classic fighter-wizard from 2E, basically a caster who buffs himself in order to melee attack. All these fit the warrior type nicely.
In my local region, Paladins, Rangers, and other classic warrior types abound. What I see as rare is the single-classed character. A lot of people in my region love trying to make a specific concet via multiple classes. Their goal is to make a character concept work, not play a specific class.
In my current group their are actually not any warriors. The closest thing we have is a monk unless you count the crazy goblin gunslinger as a warrior, or the rogue who seems to think he is a frontline fighter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen waves where there were a lot of melee types, then a shift to a lot of support types and lack of melee types, then going back to melee again.
People notice an "unfilled niche" in their environment, and a lot of them try to fill that niche at the same time. The system is in constant flux.
|
|
I've seen waves where there were a lot of melee types, then a shift to a lot of support types and lack of melee types, then going back to melee again.
People notice an "unfilled niche" in their environment, and a lot of them try to fill that niche at the same time. The system is in constant flux.
Yep.
|
I've seen waves where there were a lot of melee types, then a shift to a lot of support types and lack of melee types, then going back to melee again.
People notice an "unfilled niche" in their environment, and a lot of them try to fill that niche at the same time. The system is in constant flux.
This is why the longer I play in society games the more I try to have a character for almost any role. My preference is still for casters, but I have a pretty fun dervish dancing paladin of Sarenrae to pull out when I need to be a front liner.
|
It really seems mixed to me, I do not see many fighters (unless someone is using the Valeros pregen), but I chalk that up to people wanting to have some more out of combat options (skills, social, disarming traps, healing, etc). I don't blame them, it kinda gets boring when you have difficulty contributing (mechanically) for large portions of the game.
When I played PFS I saw mostly martials and mixed martial/caster types as well as melee-focused divine casters. So, there were rogues, barbarians, fighters, and then you had your beat-their-face-in style clerics. My friend and I were two of the very few "support" style characters - him playing a buffing cleric and me playing an Aid Another focused Fighter (Tactician).
I've been looking at getting back into PFS play with a better version of the aforementioned fighter.
Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cavalier, Antipaladin, Samurai, Gunslinger, Bloodrager, Brawler, Slayer, Swashbuckler - 12 full-BAB Classes
Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Shaman, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Arcanist - 8 full-Caster Classes
Monk, Rogue, Ninja - 3 3/4 BAB Scrapper-type Classes
Bard, Summoner, Magus, Skald, Inquisitor, Hunter, Warpriest, Alchemist, Investigator - 9 3/4 BAB, 2/3rd-Caster Classes
So basically the breakdown is that you have a fair spread between Full-BAB Martials, Full Casters, and 3/4 BAB classes (the bulk of whom follow the Bard design of 6th-Level spellcasting).
---
Therefore, you can expect, in theory, in a party of 8 or 2 Parties of 4 Combined:
3 Full-BAB frontliners
2 9th-level Casters
3 3/4 Scrappers and/or 6th-level Casters
In the campaign I am currently playing in we have:
1 Barbarian
1 Fighter
1 Rogue
1 Cleric
1 Illusionist
We have a good mix here locally, but sometimes a table will be all one type. I have been stuck at a table of Investigator, Summoner, Sorcerer, Wizard with both the sorcerer and wizard going all in on mind effecting because it was first level, then zombies attacked and it was almost a TPK. I have also been at a table of Barbarian, Bloodrager, Fighter, Swashbuckler, Swashbuckler and everyone had to spend hundreds of gold on cure potions because nobody had an Infernal Healing wand and nobody could use a CLW wand.