Is a high level martial character viable without high level magic weapons / armor?


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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?

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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?

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Definitely cases of back up weapons, or special ability weapons being used, like a +1 ghost touch weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A fighter? Well probably would still hit about as well as some other specific classes.. due to profiency. But.
They'd be pretty muted, probably like a fighter character a few levels lower.

They'd lose a ton from just those +2 to hit/extra die. that +2 isa pretty big deal these days.

Now if you took another off martial class? They'd sink, rather quickly. I believe in the same scenario


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.
Gorbacz wrote:
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.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
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.


Well depends on what you define as viable. A material and and likely also a caster would be quite hampered if they were reduced to the magical item for a 5th level instead of 15th level, the caster might be able to make up for it a bit easier. But I don't think you would count as level 15 in terms of calculating encounters fit for you, but rather 13 or 14.

And even with a reduced level to monsters, a HP nerf might be needed to make it less of a slugfest, since the damage output would be almost halved.


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.

Dark Archive

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).


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
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.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

6 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?

...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, no you won't be significantly contributing in PF2 at high levels without appropriate gear, absent some replacement factor (anybody remember Vow of Poverty from 3.5?). The "tight math" paradigm the designers are using includes an assumed item bonus on to-hit, AC and Saves, and increased damage dice from magical weapons. You will combine a significantly lower chance to hit, lower damage output, and severe vulnerability if you are +3 behind the expected.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

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?


Charon Onozuka wrote:
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.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
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.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
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.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
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.


2 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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lelomenia wrote:
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.
Lelomenia wrote:
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


Lelomenia wrote:
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.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Someone said wrote:
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.

One of them is legendary and the other a master which would mean he was likely 6 levels higher, so with the proficiency rules, he might actually still be able to beat him pretty easily without much gear. If the master is wearing a magical armor of his level it would be tricky, but if not I don't see why a level 13 vs a level 19 in a naked fight with the level 13 getting a +3 weapon would end up with the level 13 winning.

Would the same happen in pathfinder 1, sure.

If you want to run a low-magic campaign, well it's up to the DM to adjust things. You can't blame a gaming system that if you don't follow the recommend rules the balance is off. If you let one player get knights instead of foot soldiers in a game of risk it wouldn't be a fair fight, that is not an issue with the rules of risk, but rather the adjustment you make to one side, without balancing the other side.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Lelomenia wrote:
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.

yeah, trained in something to swing, and some minimal hp/level. Assume ability sscores distributed appropriately for feature-free combat. Offhand was figuring the huge damage die difference would overwhelm everything, but wasn’t sure if there were underlying mechanics I was missing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I would say the naked level 20 fighter in pathfinder 2 is a waaaaay stronger character than the level 20 naked fighter compared to fighting monsters.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
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.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Edit: I got ninja'd!!! I did give a different answer though

Appropriate considering the OP.

oholoko wrote:
...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.

oholoko wrote:
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.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

...unreasonably Awesome! It had to be said :)

More to your point, PF2 still gives some great options for non-geared casters. At 9th you have things like Elemental Form and Shadow Walk as options, 11th is Dragon Form and Disintegrate, 13th is Fiery Body and (Mordenkainen's) Magnificent Mansion (I cannot not give a shout out to 2nd edition Greyhawk).

Not playing martial classes myself much outside heavily magical and/or multiclassed into fantastic abilities versions, I do not have an opinion on whether the martial classes should be able to match things like those spells 'from scratch, without items available.' I can and will say that I really like the ability of casters to do those kinds of things apart from items, in both PF1 and the playtest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
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.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
oholoko wrote:
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.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
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.

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Edit: I got ninja'd!!! I did give a different answer though

Appropriate 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".


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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.
Awww, that must have been rough. Good luck finding GMs more suited to your play style!
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 ...

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.


To those asking why it's an issue: I have experience with some DMs who are really really bad about never giving the players any loot. That being said, most of them were sadistic control freaks who specifically powerbuild the enemies to counter the party. (Seriously, an undead turtle dragon with one elemental immunity and no elemental weaknesses against a party who'd dwindled to two rogues and a wizard. At level 11. Yeah, it was a nightmare. And that was before the lich showed up.)

AS for the issue at hand, it highly depends on how you play the character. If the issue is as stated above and the DM hasn't supplied you with magical weapons, hopefully they recognize that fact and adjust the enemies you're up against accordingly. If not, then I would recommend leaning the playstyle more into things that don't rely too heavily on the equipment you use, such as focusing more on grappling, or inflicting statuses on your opponents, or being creative with what the DM has around you (if that is something the DM allows).

The wonder of Pathfinder (and roleplaying games in general) is that the possibilities are endless. I had a gnome rogue character that woke up our sleeping fighter with a fart because I rolled a nat 20 and the DM was down for the insanity. Try that in a video game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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.
Awww, that must have been rough. Good luck finding GMs more suited to your play style!
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 ...
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 absolutely and geniuinely meant that I feel sorry about your bad experience and hope that you find people who game like you want to.


1 person 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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

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.

Right on, but if extra damage dice are essential, I would prefer them tied to Trained proficiency and Level (something like, see below). Though, I am not sold on this new fangled UTEML, another out of the blue deal, just not exciting, no wow-factor.

Trained Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level: Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws.

Level
1-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

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?

Hikash Vinzalf wrote:
If you simply are playing "low magic", than there isn't much point playing a fighter in 2e at higher level.

This is the real issue. Fighters, historically, are meant to be the most mundane of the classes. As in, if you all the way back to OD&D, they're the *only* non-casting class. And yet, they're one of the most dependent on magic items.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

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.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Is a high level martial character viable without high level magic weapons / armor? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.