| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Say you take a level 15 Fighter and swap out his normal weapon and armor with +1 versions, does this character have a hope of meaningfully contributing, do they become a liability to the party?
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself a supplemental question: did, in practice, actual game play, not a "let's set up a hypothetical scenario" of PF1 a level 15 Fighter ever fight with anything less than a +3 weapon barring corner cases of being disarmed despite weapon cords/having her weapon stolen/sundered/antimagic field?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: I'm sincerely sceptical if any character who depend the bulk of their main class performance on additional attachments are even worth their salt on a team.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself a supplemental question: did, in practice, actual game play, not a "let's set up a hypothetical scenario" of PF1 a level 15 Fighter ever fight with anything less than a +3 weapon barring corner cases of being disarmed despite weapon cords/having her weapon stolen/sundered/antimagic field?
Yes, I've played numerous 3.5/PF1 games with GMs who think that magic items should be "special" and having anything more than, maybe, a +1 Flaming longsword at that level is "unrealistic" and that if you complain you're just being entitled.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself a supplemental question: did, in practice, actual game play, not a "let's set up a hypothetical scenario" of PF1 a level 15 Fighter ever fight with anything less than a +3 weapon barring corner cases of being disarmed despite weapon cords/having her weapon stolen/sundered/antimagic field?Yes, I've played numerous 3.5/PF1 games with GMs who think that magic items should be "special" and having anything more than, maybe, a +1 Flaming longsword at that level is "unrealistic" and that if you complain you're just being entitled.
I suggest feeding them to an owl bear.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lv13+ fighter is expected to have a +3 weapon (+4 weapons aren't expected until lv17). Let's call it a longsword for easy numbers.
The +2 to hit lost isn't too much of a big deal (harsh, but can be recovered with some buffs), but the 2d8 lost are. You go from an average of 23 damage per hit (4d8+5) to an average of 14 (40% damage loss), and many feats rely on the number of damage dice.
Coupled with the lost +2, you've basically halved the damage output if not worse. The answer is no, he's a liability (unless he uses specific feats that focus on doing non-damage, like combat grab).
Say you take a level 15 Fighter and swap out his normal weapon and armor with +1 versions, does this character have a hope of meaningfully contributing, do they become a liability to the party?
I'd say a fighter could still contribute, but the damage loss would be rather considerable.
Keep in mind this, you can apply this sentence to the Playtest and to 1st edition Pathfinder. In the first case it's the loss of the additional dice that hurts, in the second case it's the fact that pretty much every single Damage Reduction would apply to your attacks.
I actually think the Playtest Fighter wins out in this scenario, because at least they could switch to another tactic depending on the situation, like soaking up some damage or trying some combat manoeuver, because at least they won't be punished with AoOs for trying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They'd also lose AC and saves from the armor of course. If you've got excess healing in the party this may be OK, but it makes their value even more dubious.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you use a +1 weapon instead of a +3 weapon on lvl 15, you deal less damage than with a Cantrip (which is already very bad).
If you use a +1 armor instead of a +3 armor, you use 2 points of Saves and AC. This means, you have likely 10% more chance to crit fail a saving throw, and your enemies have likely 10% more chance to crit you on a attack.
(This is not true against underleveled enemies, but you already have not to worry about them).
Say you take a level 15 Fighter and swap out his normal weapon and armor with +1 versions, does this character have a hope of meaningfully contributing, do they become a liability to the party?
My groups haven't gotten to level 15 yet so I really don't know. I've been wondering this for low magic campaigns.
The good news is that it's easy to houserule (extra damage die to proficiency or what not) but that doesn't help Organized Play (which I don't do).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You effectively remove his last 7-9 levels of damage. You can easily equate this to removing the highest 4-5 spell levels of a caster. Fairly neutered but still better than an empty space.
Not sure of the relevance, other than looking at the effects of disarming a character. If the goal is to take them out of the fight, other CC feels more fair then taking away their weapons. If you simply are playing "low magic", than there isn't much point playing a fighter in 2e at higher level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself a supplemental question: did, in practice, actual game play, not a "let's set up a hypothetical scenario" of PF1 a level 15 Fighter ever fight with anything less than a +3 weapon barring corner cases of being disarmed despite weapon cords/having her weapon stolen/sundered/antimagic field?
...yes? I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a martial character with more than a +2 weapon, and I've played quite a few APs to the end. (They all did fine, btw.) None of them were fighters per se, but they were still martial characters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself a supplemental question: did, in practice, actual game play, not a "let's set up a hypothetical scenario" of PF1 a level 15 Fighter ever fight with anything less than a +3 weapon barring corner cases of being disarmed despite weapon cords/having her weapon stolen/sundered/antimagic field?
To be fair, as a GM I've always wanted to run a "prison break" or "stranded on a deserted island" campaign where the PCs either had all their gear taken away or lost in the preceding events. While my players have expressed interest, I've never actually run them partially because I realized that martials (+wizard's due to spellbook), lose nearly everything the moment their favorite toys are taken away. Even the Monk's fists turn to jelly once you take his magic handwraps/amulet away, while non-wizard casters can still do awesome stuff even if you stripped them naked.
So even if this situation didn't frequently turn up for many tables in PF1, that could partially be because many GMs refused to create scenarios which would be selectively punishing to half their table and result in unhappy players. (Unhappy players typically resulting in a less than happy GM in my experience.)
Personally, I find this imbalance to be a bit troubling, especially in the Playtest where a martial worthy of being called "Legendary" in a weapon just hits slightly more often than a less proficient martial and doesn't even hit any harder. Legendary swordsmen of history and myth were sometimes thought to be so skilled that a mere stick would become a lethal weapon in their hands. Musashi in particular is said to have dueled & killed a master swordsman while using only a wooden sword he carved out of a boat oar on the way to the dueling site (& no, it wasn't some special magical oar or anything like that). Unfortunately, this situation is impossible to replicate in the Playtest due to how much damage comes from the weapon rather than the person wielding it. Which gives me the impression that it is the weapon which is special, and not the character wielding it.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is ANY PC still viable if they have no Wealth by Level to spend?
Is a Wizard who had his Spellbook stolen or Destroyed viable?
Is a Druid who is shackled in metal armor viable?
Is a Monk versus flying enemies viable?
...
This argument is painful.
Is a naked level 15 cleric still useful to a level 15 party? I dare say they could easily be.
Is a wizard with not a single gold spent (the spellbook is free) still useful? Bet they can be.
Most spellcasters can fake it without spent gold.
Martials cannot. Is this even really a debate? Is this questioned?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...what exactly does viable mean in this context?
To be fair, as a GM I've always wanted to run a "prison break" or "stranded on a deserted island" campaign where the PCs either had all their gear taken away or lost in the preceding events.
I did this in single adventures a few times, but mostly at low level. The one time I did it on mid-high level was with a lone Wizard who still had plenty of spells prepared, but no component satchel.
Yes, I had him find components on the way out. Individual components. Some he improvised from paperweights and loose equipments (a guard's gold satchel was burned to Summon a monster, for example).Was fun, but it took so much damn preparation... And it would not work in pf2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...what exactly does viable mean in this context?
Can a high level Fighter (or Barbarian or Ranger or whatever) contribute to the party at a level expected (or close to it) of a character of that level if she doesn't have a high level magic sword and/or armor?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...what exactly does viable mean in this context?Can a high level Fighter (or Barbarian or Ranger or whatever) contribute to the party at a level expected (or close to it) of a character of that level if she doesn't have a high level magic sword and/or armor?
With the caveat that I have yet to run high level sessions for the playtest yet...
I'd say no. There are probably some builds that are exceptions to this but, in general, they wouldn't be able to contribute to the party at a level expected of a character of their level.
I'm curious what this means for low magic campaigns.
Well...what exactly does viable mean in this context?Can a high level Fighter (or Barbarian or Ranger or whatever) contribute to the party at a level expected (or close to it) of a character of that level if she doesn't have a high level magic sword and/or armor?
With the tight math it seems like any martial will get murdered easily and it's not like caster will do that much better without their duelist things. It seems like PF2 is really item dependent even more than PF1. The power of the big 6 was mostly baked into other items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who would win a fight between a well-equipped level 15 2e character with NO class at all/feats/features and a non-magically equipped, say, fighter of same level? Who should win?
Just to be obnoxious. Technically, No Class would only have their Ancestry HP bonus so... OHKO?
But assuming that No Class inherits some baselines. There are probably some item combos that are exceptions to this but, in general, I still think the no magical item Fighter would win.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who would win a fight between a well-equipped level 15 2e character with NO class at all/feats/features and a non-magically equipped, say, fighter of same level? Who should win?
Well, the character with no class would probably die from not having any class hitpoints. Hand-waving that, the fighter with no magical equipment would probably lose because he would be far behind in damage and accuracy while his non-proficient opponent would only be behind in accuracy.
Edit: I got ninja'd!!! I did give a different answer though
Who would win a fight between a well-equipped level 15 2e character with NO class at all/feats/features and a non-magically equipped, say, fighter of same level? Who should win?
Definitely i vote for the well equipped one. The +3/4 to hit and the +3/4 to armor along with the use of trinkets, potency... I don't think it will even be much of a contest.
Edit: I am considering they get the same hit die or that the other guy is getting at least a 6HP per level, and that he has proef in what he does.
Well...what exactly does viable mean in this context?Can a high level Fighter (or Barbarian or Ranger or whatever) contribute to the party at a level expected (or close to it) of a character of that level if she doesn't have a high level magic sword and/or armor?
Maybe?
Okay okay, before some people jump on this; how do you count as Contributing?
-Combat?
-Social?
-Planning?
-RPing?
Well any character can do the last two, it's more dependent on the player coming up with ideas or solutions. Social, well you don't seem as behind when it comes to Diplomacy and other checks. Within the ball park before casting a spell for a boost. Maybe.
As for Contributing to combat(Because that's all we care about), I would say maybe yes? But it's dependent on your build and abilities. As an example, I don't think you need a magic sword to be good at Maneuvers.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "I can do all right naked and without any gear" builds in Pathfinder First Edition existed for any class at any level restricting to only the CRB, it was only because the arcane spell list was unreasonable at higher levels.
Well, the character with no class would probably die from not having any class hitpoints. Hand-waving that, the fighter with no magical equipment would probably lose because he would be far behind in damage and accuracy while his non-proficient opponent would only be behind in accuracy.
Are they just standing there and hitting each other? Fighter has abilities like Intimidating Strike/Knockdown/AoO. Let's say the Fighter actually starts with Knockdown* and then stands over the prone No Class - hitting with AoO when No Class tries to activate a magic item. Perhaps No Class has something that boosts Perception for Initiative...but Fighter is a Master and has access to Skill Feats (arguably a class feature as evidenced by Rogue). Now, perhaps, No Class turns invisible or flies or does something clever... Okay, now Fighter is at a disadvantage and may lose but then again Fighter may have Blind Fight or Fell Strike/Sudden Leap. Etc, etc. Class features/feats are a bigger deal than magic items - even if magic weapon/armor are really, really powerful right now.
*Feats usually interact more fluidly with the action economy than most magic items. This is a big advantage.
Edit: I got ninja'd!!! I did give a different answer though
Appropriate considering the OP.
...and that he has proef in what he does.
I assumed Trained proficiency. Outisde of skills, anything more than that usually comes from Class features. I suppose, technically, No Class would be untrained unless Ancestry helped out but I wasn't that unkind.
The +3/4 to hit and the +3/4 to armor along with the use of trinkets
Let's not forget that many trinkets have a proficiency or feat requirement. The +3/4 to hit and +3/4 to armor are significant...but less so after Fighter makes No Class Frightened and Flat Footed (no save) just by hitting once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assumed Trained proficiency. Outisde of skills, anything more than that usually comes from Class features. I suppose, technically, No Class would be untrained unless Ancestry helped out but I wasn't that unkind.Let's not forget that many trinkets have a proficiency or feat requirement. The +3/4 to hit and +3/4 to armor are significant...but less so after Fighter makes No Class Frightened and Flat Footed (no save) just by hitting once.
Yeah but don't change the fact that he has a lot less AC(+3 is quite a bit after all i mean it's literally 15% chance of crit and 15% to hit) and that some trinkets are just great for combat. Besides that some shields and materials are just flat out insane. I mean a shield wearing fighter will have something like 15ish? DR over the other fighter with raise shield.(I am considering the guy has access to everything a 15 level guy will have, +3/4 armor, +3/+4 weapon and basically resonance items galore of course if you only consider weapon,armor, one potency and nothing else it seems like a more fair match)
I just feels like items make the char this edition... And i kind of love that actually.EDIT: Also weirdly enough the best way to close the fighter gap is to say that the fighter could get several spell slots and multiclass unlike the no class one... With Dedications the classed item-less fighter crushes him just because of his versatility.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DR over the other fighter with raise shield.
At the cost of an action and a reaction. While Fighter - depending on how high level this is - can raise a shield for free and shield block two attacks a round.
Anyway. We could go back and forth for a long time. I'd start asking which items and coming up with specific counters. You'd counter with other items that undermine those counters. Rinse and repeat.
DR over the other fighter with raise shield.At the cost of an action and a reaction. While Fighter - depending on how high level this is - can raise a shield for free and shield block two attacks a round.
Anyway. We could go back and forth for a long time. I'd start asking which items and coming up with specific counters. You'd counter with other items that undermine those counters. Rinse and repeat.
Fair enough. But i still see no fault with a system dependent on items really. I was so happy when i saw trinkets, i mean it's a nice way to give fighters exclusive items that can happen once in a while.
Well, the character with no class would probably die from not having any class hitpoints. Hand-waving that, the fighter with no magical equipment would probably lose because he would be far behind in damage and accuracy while his non-proficient opponent would only be behind in accuracy.Are they just standing there and hitting each other? Fighter has abilities like Intimidating Strike/Knockdown/AoO. Let's say the Fighter actually starts with Knockdown* and then stands over the prone No Class - hitting with AoO when No Class tries to activate a magic item. Perhaps No Class has something that boosts Perception for Initiative...but Fighter is a Master and has access to Skill Feats (arguably a class feature as evidenced by Rogue). Now, perhaps, No Class turns invisible or flies or does something clever... Okay, now Fighter is at a disadvantage and may lose but then again Fighter may have Blind Fight or Fell Strike/Sudden Leap. Etc, etc. Class features/feats are a bigger deal than magic items - even if magic weapon/armor are really, really powerful right now.
*Feats usually interact more fluidly with the action economy than most magic items. This is a big advantage.
Edit: I got ninja'd!!! I did give a different answer thoughAppropriate considering the OP.
I am saying that the talentless rich boy even wins the slugfest.
Even if knockdown means that the magically naked fighter can hit and crit more often, his untrained jerk of an opponent is probably wielding a +4 weapon greatsword or whatever and is probably doing more damage on a basic success than the fighter can do on a hit (5d12+Str for the ensorcelled fool vs. the naked fighter's 2d12+2xstr on a hit). Also, knockdown is pretty much trading one of the fighter's actions for one of the fool's actions to stand along with a +2 on the followup attack.
The fool's accuracy isn't amazing since his +4 magic sword pretty much just offset their -4 proficiency penalty, but that puts them just +1 behind the fighter (after the fool's belt of bull's strength) and that +1 difference more than double's the fool's damage. The fool comes out way ahead if he is an elf/halforc/halfling/etc. and he is able to pick up weapon proficiency from their race. Also, the fool may come out ahead of the fighter in AC if they opt for bracers of armor and a higher dex score.
There are assumptions here of course. I am essentially assuming that you still get racial feats and stat increases even while being "classless".
I'm not sure why you're being a condescending jerk because I asked a question about the playtest system and the play styles it can support ...Awww, that must have been rough. Good luck finding GMs more suited to your play style!Ask yourself a supplemental question: did, in practice, actual game play, not a "let's set up a hypothetical scenario" of PF1 a level 15 Fighter ever fight with anything less than a +3 weapon barring corner cases of being disarmed despite weapon cords/having her weapon stolen/sundered/antimagic field?Yes, I've played numerous 3.5/PF1 games with GMs who think that magic items should be "special" and having anything more than, maybe, a +1 Flaming longsword at that level is "unrealistic" and that if you complain you're just being entitled.
I want to apologize to Gorbacz (and everyone else discussing the topic) for this comment, I was already in a bad mood and interpreted his comment as condescending in tone, but maybe he was being genuine and I read it wrong. Either way it wasn't warranted to call him a jerk over it. Sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an example, I don't think you need a magic sword to be good at Maneuvers.
Kind of true. You want a magic guisarme or whatever to be good at tripping, shove (neé bull rush) wants a magic mace or similar, grapple is unaffected by weapons, disarm is too bad to be worth using. Magic swords are unhelpful in all cases.
|
|
I want to apologize to Gorbacz (and everyone else discussing the topic) for this comment, I was already in a bad mood and interpreted his comment as condescending in tone, but maybe he was being genuine and I read it wrong. Either way it wasn't warranted to call him a jerk over it. Sorry.I'm not sure why you're being a condescending jerk because I asked a question about the playtest system and the play styles it can support ...Awww, that must have been rough. Good luck finding GMs more suited to your play style!Ask yourself a supplemental question: did, in practice, actual game play, not a "let's set up a hypothetical scenario" of PF1 a level 15 Fighter ever fight with anything less than a +3 weapon barring corner cases of being disarmed despite weapon cords/having her weapon stolen/sundered/antimagic field?Yes, I've played numerous 3.5/PF1 games with GMs who think that magic items should be "special" and having anything more than, maybe, a +1 Flaming longsword at that level is "unrealistic" and that if you complain you're just being entitled.
I absolutely and geniuinely meant that I feel sorry about your bad experience and hope that you find people who game like you want to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reliance on item bonuses, and magic weapons to keep up, damage dice-wise, is one of my biggest peeves with the new iteration.
As much as magic items are essential in 3rd Ed/PF1, something I have always disliked, the Playtest is taking it up a notch. One page to take from 5th Ed, would be to diminish reliance on magic items, so they are purely /extra/, and magical, not essential and perfunctory.
Obviously, PF2 should not take too much from 5th Ed, but it seems they are going so far out of their way, for it not to be like 5th Ed, that it could be to the game's detriment. 5th Ed took quite a bit from 4th Ed (3rd Ed is obviously the base), they just "styled it out", as they say.
Agreed 100%.
No potency, or a flat potency rune that adds one damage die to what the character can unleash.An accuracy rune may add +1 to hit. The rest should be like flaming and the others, competing with each other in efficacy and making weapons more different from each other.
You still want your legendary sword, because of the +3 to hit and the capacity to hold more runes, but when switching to another weapon (or your fists) you can still do meaningful damage.
Prices may be a bit hard to adjust, though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is a Wizard who had his Spellbook stolen or Destroyed viable?
Is a Druid who is shackled in metal armor viable?
Well how many spells does the wizard have left? And how did the druid even wind up in metal armor in the first place?
If the spellbook is stolen or destroyed they'd get whatever number the had prepared from the last time they DID have it. Until they replace it they simply CANT prepare new spells. Additionally, I have literally NEVER played in a game where the most expensive non-artifact/real estate piece of property WASN"T the Wizards Spellbook/Collection of Spellbooks. For every GP a Fighter invests in their Weapon & Armor the Wizard should almost certainly be putting into their Spellbook.
Pinning a Druid and pulling an oversized Chainshirt over their head is an OLD trick to taking out Druids, you only even need to get it on for 1 round and BOOM they can't cast spells, shapeshift, or use any class abilities for 24 hours, even if they take it off. It works even easier if you can Beguiling Gift them a Metal Shield since they only need to fail 1 Save and they're instantly powerless minions.
My point is, just about every class has it's weaknesses, and trying to say that 1 Class suffering IF they are HARD COUNTERED by the GM is worthy of upending the entire Damage and Combat Balance as established by the Potency System is just ludicrous.
The Fighter is no more reliant on his weapon than a Spellcaster is reliant on their Focus/Spellbook and a good nights rest, which by the way, is WAY easier to take away from the PCs than a good Sword.