| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people often misrepresent "not as good as" with "better" per se.
Yes, the Estoc is slightly better than the Rapier.
It's also an exotic weapon that requires a feat to properly use.
If we leave out aesthetics, given that estocs are like foil versions of a bastard sword, they don't exactly scream "elegant fencer" really.
What's the mechanical difference?
A medium sized creature's Rapier does 1d6 damage has a critical range of 18-20 and a critical multiplier of x2
An estoc does 2d6 damage, with 18-20 range and a x2 multiplier
Let's assume, the character has the same stats, +5 dex, slashing grace or whatever, so assume +9 to hit +5 damage and piranah strike.
So...
Estoc does between 11-17
Rapier does between 10-15Is anyone going to seriously argue that an average difference of 1-2 damage on is going to "let their team mates down" as it were?
Of course not.
That's silly.
I think a lot of people like to optimize, but not all. I think a lot of the anecdotal evidence of "everyone at my table optimizes" is because when one person optimizes the other players feel less useful and feel they have to follow suit.
I'd be shocked though if more than 30% of players optimized.
In two decades of gaming, I have seen a percentage pretty much what HWalsh is saying... roughly 1/3rd tweak characters.
This is not to say the other players make bad characters, they just usually do single class, decent (but not maxed) stats, rarely use archetypes or gear exploits.
My group usually has the optimizers play lower tier classes (like fighter) to try and balance the party out. It's been working well for us, so we have established our 'baseline'. It's very hard to quantify it though without printing everyones character sheet :D
So you agree that the game with real choices and 1000 false choices is more complicated than the game with 20 real choices, before you realize that 1000 choices are false, lol
Yes, I agree with that. But honestly, I don't see that many people in this situation:
a) Some come with experience from previous DnD games. Even having played other RPGs helps.
b) Some get help from more experienced players.
c) Some restrict themselves to Core only (or just a few books more).
Complexity overkill is still a problem, though.
There is no joy of discovery when you discover some feat you took is useless, it feels awful. There is no joy of discovery when you buy a splatbook and find only one usable feat, it feels like s@+@
Hmm, I can understand that, I prefer good crunch in new books myself. Some books are disappointing when it comes to that, so I read through reviews and (some) comments first.
I'm not necessarily calling a side here, but I did want to chime in and say that a very real version exists at the extreme end of SheepishEidolon's theory. The RIFTS RPG, with a whopping 124 books and counting (more if you count the shadow edits) probably sports the most character options of any game I can think of (maybe GURPS wins out).
Such options include sentient sea life and a race of cactus people.
I'm not necessarily calling a side here, but I did want to chime in and say that a very real version exists at the extreme end of SheepishEidolon's theory. The RIFTS RPG, with a whopping 124 books and counting (more if you count the shadow edits) probably sports the most character options of any game I can think of (maybe GURPS wins out).
Such options include sentient sea life and a race of cactus people.
As a powergamer, I absolutely adore Rifts.
Demi-god piloting a mecha and casting magic? SURE! :D
|
pathfinder has 1400 feats, and saying only 1000 of them are bad is being pretty generous
I can't say for all of the feats - but I went through the A's listed on the SRD on another thread and listed the 'bad' and 'solid at least sometimes' feats - and (if I remember correctly) just over 57% I listed as 'solid at least sometimes'.
No one complained about any of the ones I'd listed there, and several people called me out on a few I'd relegated as 'bad' actually being quite good in niche builds.
So - I'd guess that at least pretty close to 1/2 are potentially viable. Viable in most builds? Definitely not. Solid in interesting niche builds? Yes.
That is the point of a story. Pathfinder is a game. And in a game the player who picks the weak options (and isn't more skilled then the opponents) loses the game.The point of the story is that the hero still wins even with a substantial handicap.It's good to have sub-optimal options in the game. Sometimes it is fun to play that hero that only fights with a stick when everyone else is using real weapons. I think there was a Japanese hero like that (or perhaps I misremembered).Why can't you make that good though, instead of the worst garbage like pathfinder options?
They don;t really have a range, they are either "usable" or "the worst trash, never take"
I think it would be more accurate to describe Pathfinder as a storytelling game (so both a story and a game). In my opinion attempting to win Pathfinder as though it were a mere game is missing the point.
pathfinder has 1400 feats, and saying only 1000 of them are bad is being pretty generousI can't say for all of the feats - but I went through the A's listed on the SRD on another thread and listed the 'bad' and 'solid at least sometimes' feats - and (if I remember correctly) just over 57% I listed as 'solid at least sometimes'.
No one complained about any of the ones I'd listed there, and several people called me out on a few I'd relegated as 'bad' actually being quite good in niche builds.
So - I'd guess that at least pretty close to 1/2 are potentially viable. Viable in most builds? Definitely not. Solid in interesting niche builds? Yes.
I remember that analysis and I too thought it was pretty accurate. If it really was true that most feats were useless then everyone would know what the optimum build was by now.
... Because an estoc is almost exactly the same weapon, has the same flavor, but is mechanically superior.It has a higher base-damage. 1d6 = 3.5 / 2d4 = 5. But it also costs a feat!
To determine if a weapon is truly "superior" you can not simply ignore the costs! Many say a feat is worth more then 1.5 damage, which would make an Estoc an infgerior (!) weapon to a Rapier. If you value a feat at leass then 1.5 damage it is a good choice - for you.
The value depends on player and even more on the build of your character. Some builds are very feat strapped, while others simply can spend several featchoices for minorish numerical bonus, instead of needing them all to unlock worthwile abilits at all.
If you checked the original thread that this discussion took place in, the OP was asking what would happen if you did not need to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency to get proficiency with Exotic Weapons, to which the reply was that only the best Exotic Weapons would get used, so no Rapier, etc. which is what prompted this thread. The comparison then is between Rapier and Estoc without cost.
That said, Rapier does have one thing going for it that Estoc doesn't. It can be used with Fencing Grace which RAW Estoc cannot. A Dex-based build with plenty of Feats might prefer Fencing Grace to getting an Agile weapon (or might not have access to Agile weapons) and therefore pick up a Rapier.
One thing I would say is that the only way to ensure that certain iconic weapons get used is to give all weapons the same stats, so all one handed weapons would be the same and you can call it what you like. I would imagine this would cause more horror than having a Rapier and an Estoc with different stats, though; Paizo have done a reasonable job of differentiating them and you would expect to have to pay a price to get premium weapons.
I can easily build a fighter with a good diplomacy and/or sense motive skill, who has a good AC, and can do well with a melee and ranged weapon, and still have feats to spare. But he won't be competing with Falchion Fred in the DPR contest, so many people would consider that unplayable...Yes, you can tank the one thing you do well in order to do something else half-assed. Then the higher-tier classes can generally do them both, better then you can do either one. At least Falchion Fred has something he's good at!
I think this gets the to heart of the issue - As a 10th level fighter, am I ruining my effectiveness as a PC if I spend 2 out of 10 feats on non-combat benefits?
Is a full BAB, a decent ability score, two feats toward a combat style, and weapon training class ability considered unplayable?I can have:
two feats toward ranged attack (point blank shot, rapid shot)
two feats toward melee attack (weapon focus, power attack)
two feats towards defense (iron will, improved iron will)
two feats towards combat maneuvers (combat expertise, improved trip)
two feats toward diplomacy and/or sense motive (persuasive, skill focus)
and If I am human, I still have two feats left over.
Is this character really so weak at combat that I have ruined him?
(Note: I'm not saying this is going to equal out the tiers or make the fighter into a god wizard by any means, just asking how much a fighter needs to be effective in combat?)
I can easily build a fighter with a good diplomacy and/or sense motive skill, who has a good AC, and can do well with a melee and ranged weapon, and still have feats to spare. But he won't be competing with Falchion Fred in the DPR contest, so many people would consider that unplayable...Yes, you can tank the one thing you do well in order to do something else half-assed. Then the higher-tier classes can generally do them both, better then you can do either one. At least Falchion Fred has something he's good at!I think this gets the to heart of the issue - As a 10th level fighter, am I ruining my effectiveness as a PC if I spend 2 out of 10 feats on non-combat benefits?
Is a full BAB, a decent ability score, two feats toward a combat style, and weapon training class ability considered unplayable?
I can have:
two feats toward ranged attack (point blank shot, rapid shot)
two feats toward melee attack (weapon focus, power attack)
two feats towards defense (iron will, improved iron will)
two feats towards combat maneuvers (combat expertise, improved trip)
two feats toward diplomacy and/or sense motive (persuasive, skill focus)
and If I am human, I still have two feats left over.Is this character really so weak at combat that I have ruined him?
(Note: I'm not saying this is going to equal out the tiers or make the fighter into a god wizard by any means, just asking how much a fighter needs to be effective in combat?)
I don't think anyone would say that build is unplayable, but its definitely going to be on the weaker side of things. That feat distribution gives you classic "Jack of all trades, master of none" problem, and if you want the ability scores to support it you're going to end up looking very MAD too.
Strength: Needed for melee
Dexterity: Needed for ranged
Constitution: Needed to not die
Intelligence: Need at least 13 for Combat Expertise + trip
Wisdom: Needed for Sense Motive + Will saves
Charisma: Needed for Diplomacy
Basically the character is spread so thin that, while they'll be passably competent at a lot of things, they won't actually be good at anything. They'll always lose to someone whose feats/class abilities/ability scores are more focused.
Well, the idea is more that two feats per area does not a capable PC make.
Your stat array is hard pressed to perform, since you'll need a high strength, a decent dexterity, constitution, charisma, and strength, which only leaves intelligence and wisdom to dump except you need to keep INT at 13 to qualify for Combat Expertise.
Then we turn to the feats you have selected.
Weapon Focus and Power Attack do not a melee fighter make. Persuasive and Skill Focus do not a face make. Iron will and Improved are hardly enough to shore up your defenses at level 10. Combat Expertise is a total wash and Improved Trip is probably lagging behind at this level.
So the conclusion I arrive at is that you have sacrificed a good deal of your feats and resources without actually getting anything in return. It's not that you're weak necessarily, it's that you haven't gotten anything in exchange for choosing to focus on different areas. It leads me to question the point of doing so, at least mechanically.
At that point it's probably better for you to play a Whip Trip Bard. You don't need to invest feats into all those out of combat options, you can grab more trip feats, and you can do decent damage.
A Slayer would have only a few less combat feats, better Sense motive, similar damage, better ability to switch hit, and significantly more skill impact on the team.
For me a class is balanced if, with minimal optimization, the class is capable of contributing to at least 70% of situations even if they are not the best at it. The class should be able to do this without sacrificing the primary role of the class.
Minimal optimization defined as ability scores matching class requirements (Wisdom for Clerics, Str for Barbarians, ECT) and key feats being used (Power Attack for Barbarian, combat Reflexes for a reach denial build, ect). Nothing crazy like strategic dips or complicated feat chains.
Under this definition you find
Fighter is under powered since it can only contribute to at most 50% of situations. Only combat. If a Fighter tries to contribute competently out of combat then it significantly effects its primary roleSlayer is balanced since it can contribute to many situations in and out of combat while being competent in those areas and without sacrificing their primary role.
I should add the bolded part to my definition of balanced
S 14 +2 race
D 14
C 14
I 13
W 12
C 10
Ability scores are really not that different.
See above.
You get the traits that make sense motive and diplomacy class skills and give you a +1. Full ranks in both, plus +4 and +6 bonuses from feats means:
+3 class, +1 trait, +10 ranks, +1 ability, +4 feat = 19 sense motive
+3 class, +1 trait, +10 ranks, +6 feat = 20 diplomacy
So you invest 3/20 ability point buy points.
2/12 feats
2/2 traits (or 3/11 feats if you count traits as 1/2 feat)
2/3 skill points
So you invest all of that... to be worse than a Slayer?
So you invest all of that... to be worse than a Slayer?
All that? It really isn't much.
I can't find slayer in the PRD...I guess I'm kind of working from the older books. Except for traits, I think it is all Core.
I agree with Dragoon. You've invested a lot of resources for something that isn't particularly impressive (+19/+20 at 10th level). The character just isn't providing a valuable contribution to the game compared to what it has given up.
Permit me to paint a different picture. A more conservative one at least.
Take Irrepressible and Second Chance for your traits. That'll be good enough that you can leave your WIS at 10 and you won't need to invest in Iron Will.
Drop Combat Expertise entirely in favor of Dirty Fighting from the Dirty Tactics Toolbox. It counts as having INT 13 as well as Combat Expertise and gives you a bonus to all combat maneuvers. If you really want to trip you can keep Improved Trip, and Dirty Fighting will push it up to a +4 which is nice.
Drop Persuasive entirely and switch your focus to Intimidate which will actually net you a combat benefit compared to Diplomacy. From there invest in Cornugon Smash and Intimidating Prowess, possibly Hurtful if you aren't planning on doing much of anything with your swift actions.
Meanwhile swap Skill Focus to survival and start picking up the Eldritch Heritage feats for the Orc Bloodline. Plan on Quicken Spell-Like Ability for Touch of Rage at 12th level, meanwhile Eldritch Heritage will boost your STR, AC, and make you immune to fear.
Your Stat array is simplified to STR>CON>CHA>DEX>WIS>INT
You'll never need more than 17 CHA which means you'll be able to focus entirely on STR and CON.
Best of all your characters feats are actually synergizing and providing you a meager benefit to your combat ability compared to having a +20 to Diplomacy while still maintaining the core concept of the character as a social/combat mix.
I can't find slayer in the PRD...
I guess I'm kind of working from the older books. Except for traits, I think it is all Core.
Information on the slayer hybrid class can be found in the PRD. It comes from Advanced Class Guide and many think of it as a melee focused Rogue. It works well for a number of concepts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you invest all of that... to be worse than a Slayer?All that? It really isn't much.
I can't find slayer in the PRD...
I guess I'm kind of working from the older books. Except for traits, I think it is all Core.
A long time ago I built a Fighter that was a pretty good party face (despite having Cha 7) and still managed to be a great front-liner.
You can see the build here at levels 1, 3, 6 and 10.
I don't think anyone reasonable would say it can't be done.. Only that it takes a disproportionately high amount of resources to still be worse at it than literally any other class in the game.
I think this gets the to heart of the issue - As a 10th level fighter, am I ruining my effectiveness as a PC if I spend 2 out of 10 feats on non-combat benefits?
Is a full BAB, a decent ability score, two feats toward a combat style, and weapon training class ability considered unplayable?
I can have:
two feats toward ranged attack (point blank shot, rapid shot)
two feats toward melee attack (weapon focus, power attack)
two feats towards defense (iron will, improved iron will)
two feats towards combat maneuvers (combat expertise, improved trip)
two feats toward diplomacy and/or sense motive (persuasive, skill focus)
and If I am human, I still have two feats left over.Is this character really so weak at combat that I have ruined him?
(Note: I'm not saying this is going to equal out the tiers or make the fighter into a god wizard by any means, just asking how much a fighter needs to be effective in combat?)
The simple answer is yes. Such a fighter would be worse at ranged combat than a dedicated Rogue, worse at melee attack than a dedicated Cleric, worse at being a face than a dedicated sorcerer and worse at maneuvers than a dedicated Monk. Pathfinder is designed such that you have to build your character in only a few directions in order to maintain effectiveness. You can be an effective ranged attacker/melee attacker (that's called a switch hitter - though ranger probably does it better as they don't have to invest in Dex so much), or you can be a melee attacker/maneuver master, but trying for all three means you start dropping some of the balls you are trying to juggle.
I have no problem with you investing a couple of feats in non-combat areas if that's what you want (though I would be wondering why you chose to play a Fighter if that's what you want. If you want to be a face, why not play a Paladin, Bard or Sorceror? or a swashbuckler?), so long as the rest of your Feats are dedicated to one or two areas that actually make you effective.
What's so great about the estoc? The rapier is nearly as good and DOESN'T require an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.
That makes them pretty equal in my eyes. The only time taking up an estoc would be the obvious choice is when you are somehow proficient with both without having to spend one of your precious feats.
What's so great about the estoc? The rapier is nearly as good and DOESN'T require an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.
That makes them pretty equal in my eyes. The only time taking up an estoc would be the obvious choice is when you are somehow proficient with both without having to spend one of your precious feats.
That was the premise though, that the exotic weapons suddenly didn't require the feat expenditure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Information on the slayer hybrid class can be found in the PRD. It comes from Advanced Class Guide and many think of it as a melee focused Rogue. It works well for a number of concepts.
Did you even look at the link you provided?
Here is a working link.
OK, to those saying the build would not be effective, what would you consider an effective attack roll, CMB, diplomacy check, or whatever for a 10th level character? How many feats or whatever do you need?
Again, I'm not trying to be the BEST at anything, just trying to contribute my 25% of a 4 person party...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, to those saying the build would not be effective, what would you consider an effective attack roll, CMB, diplomacy check, or whatever for a 10th level character? How many feats or whatever do you need?
Again, I'm not trying to be the BEST at anything, just trying to contribute my 25% of a 4 person party...
For Wizards: 16 int and good spell choices
For Clerics: 16 wisdom some buff and healing spells.
For Damaging: A fighter with a starting 16 strength and a two handed weapon.; Certain fighting styles are going to have to work at it to get up here and weren't all that viable until recently.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'd never choose the estoc over the rapier to build a fencer because I don't consider the estoc to be a fencing weapon. The estoc losing the feat cost wouldn't change anything about that.
The thing is that my rapier wielding fencer would still be a viable, playable character. Yeah I could do a bit more damage with the estoc, But I'd lose the fun in playing this character because I know that an estoc isn't a fencing sword. So there's a choice to make and I chose the rapier. YMMV, of course.
There's too much hyperbole on both sides of the story. Power gaming and optimization doesn't make for bad roleplaying, it just takes into account some parts of the game the non-optimizer may not particularly care for.
On the other hand, suboptimal isn't a synonym for badwrongfun in any known language. Most sub-optimal choices don't fall into the category Kirth Gersen's sunglasses would fall into and don't damage an otherwise perfectly playable character too much. It also generally doesn't kill the other party members. Maybe I'm lucky but I have yet to experience a game ruined by the participation of a fighter in a game with wizards,druids and clerics (or vice versa).
So that is kinda my baseline: This great game serves different styles and tastes and there's no style or taste superior to others. You want to optimize? You're surely free to do so. You don't want to? Well, it's an equally valid choice.
And if you're really convinced that my gaming style is badwrongfun? Well, to be honest, I don't give a damn.
OK, to those saying the build would not be effective, what would you consider an effective attack roll, CMB, diplomacy check, or whatever for a 10th level character? How many feats or whatever do you need?
Again, I'm not trying to be the BEST at anything, just trying to contribute my 25% of a 4 person party...
I consider something effective if it synergizes with class features.
Int on a Wizard synergizes with his role and class features.
Charisma and Intelligence don't synergize with Fighter class features.
You can definitely play a Fighter the way you describe, but you don't have synergy. Your choices synergize with the Slayer class much more. Then again you didn't know a Slayer existed till today, so I can't really blame you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think many people are missing the point of this thread. The goal of this is not to maximize one particular part of the character but rather to figure out what an adequate contribution is in the first place. For example, I can come up with many different characters that can do the same basic types of things. No one is arguing that they are all going to be equal. The question is, what level of competency is required to get into the "Viable PC Club"? For those saying it is more or less then presented, please explain where the line is in your opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, to those saying the build would not be effective, what would you consider an effective attack roll, CMB, diplomacy check, or whatever for a 10th level character? How many feats or whatever do you need?
Again, I'm not trying to be the BEST at anything, just trying to contribute my 25% of a 4 person party...
If you can meet the median values on these tables the majority of the time with your character, then you'll get along just fine.
I think many people are missing the point of this thread. The goal of this is not to maximize one particular part of the character but rather to figure out what an adequate contribution is in the first place. For example, I can come up with many different characters that can do the same basic types of things. No one is arguing that they are all going to be equal. The question is, what level of competency is required to get into the "Viable PC Club"? For those saying it is more or less then presented, please explain where the line is in your opinion.
Reference the values in the Monster Creation guidelines and Encounter Design guidelines to understand what a character is assumed to be able to do at any given CR.
Thats definitely going to give you a clearer set of goal posts to aim for. The CR system should work out to giving you even odds of fighting something with a CR equal to your level. One of the reasons why people say rogues and fighters are weak has to do with the difficulty they have with this sort of test in the latter part of the games progression.
Here you go!If you can meet the median values on these tables the majority of the time with your character, then you'll get along just fine.
OK, for CR 10 we have:
24 AC126 HP
+17 to hit
+14.4 BAB
CMB/CMD +19/+32
So you would need:
+14 to hit
32 Damage on a full attack
28 AC
CMB/CMD +22/29
Is that right?
Here you go!If you can meet the median values on these tables the majority of the time with your character, then you'll get along just fine.
OK, for CR 10 we have:
24 AC
126 HP
+17 to hit
+14.4 BAB
CMB/CMD +19/+32So you would need:
+14 to hit
32 Damage on a full attack
28 AC
CMB/CMD +22/29Is that right?
It's good enough, at least. Though I'm not entirely sure where you got your damage measurement because I didn't see it on the excel sheet. The Monster Creation guidelines list a CR 10 creature doing between 33-45 on a successful full attack, so I think your value above is probably a little low.
|
|
The question is, what level of competency is required to get into the "Viable PC Club"?
For me, that would be any character who has, with a bit of luck and skill (and knowing, when to run), a chance to survive an Adventure Path as presented in the books.
And to achieve that, you don't need to optimize much, if at all. That's not meant as an argument against optimising, by the way. It's just that in my experience, if the players start to optimize, the GM eventually starts upping the challenge and that that's what makes the real problems for the "weak" characters.
Here you go!If you can meet the median values on these tables the majority of the time with your character, then you'll get along just fine.
OK, for CR 10 we have:
24 AC
126 HP
+17 to hit
+14.4 BAB
CMB/CMD +19/+32So you would need:
+14 to hit
32 Damage on a full attack
28 AC
CMB/CMD +22/29Is that right?
A level 10 Barbarian who starts with 18 str at picks up a +2 Furious weapon and a +4 str belt rolls with ~+20/+15 Dice+25. The DPR I calculated was about 60ish depending on weapon and supporting feats. My personal favorites being the Falchion and Improved Critical.
A character is unlikely to hit 28 unbuffed AC at level 10 unless they spend a lot of money on defense, picked a defense focused class, got some buffs from a spellcaster, or dipped around.
This is all on a random Barbarian. If this seems impressive then I suggest never letting one of your players touch the Hunter class as it makes all but RAGELANCEPOUNCE builds look like a joke.
And this is why you aren't going to be good.Again, I'm not trying to be the BEST at anything, just trying to contribute my 25% of a 4 person party...
Yup. At the end of the day Pathfinder (and pretty much all cooperative group RPGs) are designed to reward specialization. Spreading your character too thin is fighting against the system, and gives you a guy who's mediocre at everything.
Basically, imagine the characters are all applying for a job that requires a college degree. The guy who actually picked a major, focused on it, and got a degree is a lot better off than the guy who has 10 years of college education, but never graduated because every semester he picked a new major.
Hwalsh, I have never in my career seen an optimized party as you described. It sounds more like a party of players who read an optimization guide then built a character based off it without proper understanding of why they pick X and Y options.
A party who is okay at everything is definitely viable, it's just not optimal. Also I would point out that in many cases, the most optimal choice is the most versatile one, which is exactly why wizards are considered the "optimal class" and why there's no such thing as a "perception guy" (most rolled skill in the game). An optimal party would be a party that can completely steamroll everything, otherwise chances are, they're pretty shoddy as far as optimal goes.
A party who is okay at everything is definitely viable, it's just not optimal. Also I would point out that in many cases, the most optimal choice is the most versatile one, which is exactly why wizards are considered the "optimal class" and why there's no such thing as a "perception guy" (most rolled skill in the game). An optimal party would be a party that can completely steamroll everything, otherwise chances are, they're pretty shoddy as far as optimal goes.
The Wizard is cheating because his specialization is utility. Wizards don't count.
Yeah, that's about baseline average for a Barbarian. It makes sense enough for Barbs to start with 18 str and I see it often. +4 str belt because, yes Barby. Furious weapon? It was literally made for Barbies. All of these options make the most sense for someone who goes in saying "I'm a Stronk Barbarian! Am Smash!"
Wait, so you're saying Barbarians are not strong? Also Belts of Giant Strength are still caster level 8th and a +3 weapon is CL 9th, so it's not hard at all to find someone to craft said weapon, heck said crafter may in fact be your party Wizard or Cleric! Additionally going to a major city and purchasing another +1 onto your weapon is an expected part of the game.