Article with Analysis on Casters vs Martials:


Advice

151 to 200 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Stun 1 and slow 1 prevents the use of true strike on 2 action spells; which many see as a reason casters are "fine". It also prevents the use of 3 action spells and if you happen to be concentrating it limits you to 1 action spells.


Yes, of course they affect you. But when the Fighter is losing a third of it's damage output, you just change the spell you use and you're fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When comparing melee vs casters it is mandatory to leave the fighter class out of the play, because the +2 hit is game breaking.

Apart from that, it mostly Depends on how many encounters per day the players are supposed to face.

In the 5th edition, the warlock class was pretty much tied to the number of short rests too.

Many fights could have meant that he would have been recoveryng spells while other classes wouldn't.

So the more you proceed,the better for him.

Same goes for casters here.

If you Plan to make a long rest after 2 or 3 encounters, then probably you will deal massive damage by throwing everything.

If you are considering using cantrip too much, you are probably at low lvls, or trying to save spells instead of ending the fight earlier ( not a critic,but it is a choice ).

On single targets, it is obvious that melee classes would deal higher dmg, especially if they are supported ( bards song of courage or heroism ).

And fighters even more.
Guess rangers and barbarians too at some point. The first because +2 hit feat, the second because of flurry.

I don't really get why they decided to give flat hit or defense to classes like fighter, monk and champion, instead of choices among their talent, or simply depends the path.

But it is obvious that, given the specific system, a fighter with a +2 hit would be overpowered.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm somewhat confused as to why it's mandatory to leave the fighter out. Is there a caster that's so clearly above the curve we leave them out? Or a particular spell? For that matter why is everything a basic strike with no assumption of feats but the caster needs to be the optimal build? If we're comparing the optimal build caster vs what amounts to a skill-less bot running an auto attack routine and coming out even that I'd argue that there's a fairly significant issue.

Right now I see a ton of assumptions here and not much solid information that I can use to help me build my wizard beyond, "Take blast spells. Try and get as many opponents into the AoE as possible. Oh and hope that they're not good at reflex saves." That's...pretty basic stuff from such a lengthy article.


Even without Basic strikes a +2 hit is overpower.

Remember also that its counterpart, the paladin, starts to get his armor from lvl 7 instead of lvl 1.

Monks are slightly different, so they have their armor since lvl 1 ( maybe an errata will state they can't use shields, but until then they will be that way ).

Also the part about magic:

A caster can fly, become insiv, etc...

Everybody can with dedicatio ( which works fine until Basic spellcasting. Expert spellcasting should be a lvl 10 feat, and master spellcasting a lvl 16 ), or even magic items.

This is meant to be a high magic system, given the 10 or even 12 invested items.

And you could take the magic investiture since lvl 3.

If we consider x fight per day, a caster could achieve big numbers depends the nr of encounters.

You want to aoe?
Barbarian dragon path is what you are looking for.
Or eventually some stuff through dedication. Or whirling attack or even cleave with a sweep weapon.

At low level can be even more op.
I totally agree.

My point is that it's not that mid and lategame it becomes somehow balanced.


K1 wrote:
Even without Basic strikes a +2 hit is overpower.

I don't think so. That's really the only thing they get.

Quote:
Remember also that its counterpart, the paladin, starts to get his armor from lvl 7 instead of lvl 1.

Champions get lay on hands. That could easily be twice as much HP as a fighter at level 1.

Also, better reaction.

I'll have to do a run down of the martial classes.


Mellored wrote:
K1 wrote:
Even without Basic strikes a +2 hit is overpower.

I don't think so. That's really the only thing they get.

Quote:
Remember also that its counterpart, the paladin, starts to get his armor from lvl 7 instead of lvl 1.

Champions get lay on hands. That could easily be twice as much HP as a fighter at level 1.

Also, better reaction.

I'll have to do a run down of the martial classes.

The attack bonus count twice in this system.

So even if they don't get anything else, which is not true because stances are definitely a thing now.

Not to mention 2 extra feats and because of that better possibility to work on dedications.

About the reaction, I guess you mean the paladin reaction, and not the champion in general.

A paladin reaction could trigger more than a fighter, but not that much, especially if the fighter is good at positioning and uses polearms with reach.

But trust me, a 10% extra Normal hit and 10% extra critical hit is too much.


K1 wrote:
But trust me, a 10% extra Normal hit and 10% extra critical hit is too much.

I'll trust my math. Unless I made a mistake somewhere.

Here, I'll reposts it.

Fighter vs Barbarian:
level 4.

Fighter
50% chance to hit, 25% chance to crit + 45% chance to hit, 5% crit.
(.5 + .25*2)+(.45 + .05 *2) = 1.55
2d12+4 = 17 * 1.55
=26.35

Barbarian
50% hit, 15% crit + 35% hit, 5% crit
(.5 + .15*2)+(.35 + .05 *2) = 1.25
2d12+4+4 = 21 * 1.25
= 26.25

Level 15.

Fighter
50% chance to hit, 25% chance to crit + 45% chance to hit, 5% crit.
(.5 + .25*2)+(.45 + .05 *2) = 1.55
3d12+5+8 = 32.5 * 1.55
=50.375

Dragon Barbarian
50% hit, 15% crit + 35% hit, 5% crit
(.5 + .15*2)+(.35 + .05 *2) = 1.25
3d12+5+16 = 40.5 * 1.25
= 50.625

Will do the other classes at some point as well.
But again, Champions have extra HP and AC, monks have extra AC saves and speed, rogues get extra skills, rangers have... hunter's edge.

So I expect fighters/barbs to deal the most, since they have the least defense.


Sorry but I can't follow how a lvl 4 fighter and barbarian could have the same hit chances.

A fighter has 2 more on hit because of expert proficiency.

Even at lvl 15 the Gap will remain the same.

So both hit and critical hit would be 10% higher.

A barbarian under 50% hp, starting from lvl 16, with the reckles abandon, could gain +2 circ on his attacks.


The Hit chance is without the crit chance.


K1 wrote:
Sorry but I can't follow how a lvl 4 fighter and barbarian could have the same hit chances.

Hit from 5-15 (50%), crit from 16-20 (25%)

Hit from 7-17 (50%), crit from 18-20 (15%).

2 higher.

Edit: Should that be 45%?


I mean you could 75% chance to hit, 25% chance to crit + 50% chance to hit, 5% crit. And not double the crit.
But you get the same accuracy multiplier.

(.5 + .25*2)+(.45 + .05 *2) = 1.55
(.75 + .25)+(.50 + .05) = 1.55


puksone wrote:
The Hit chance is without the crit chance.

I was considering both as a hit, regardless the crit chance.

What is important is to underline is if a hit happened or not ( not that getting a crit is bad ).

A lvl 4 fighter vs a lvl 4 barbarian, against a 21 ac, sees the former with +13, and the latter +11

The chance to hit would be then 8+ for the fighter ( 6+ if flat footed ) and 10+ for the barbarian ( 8+ if flat footed ).

If a critical hit occours, great!
But the main point is not to miss.


K1 wrote:

If a critical hit occours, great!

But the main point is not to miss.

If your goal is just to hit, and not worry about how much you hit for, then yea, fighters are great.

Probably also want an agile weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mellored wrote:
K1 wrote:

If a critical hit occours, great!

But the main point is not to miss.

If your goal is just to hit, and not worry about how much you hit for, then yea, fighters are great.

Probably also want an agile weapon.

Fighters tend to be the best DPS specially since when you match with an opponent whose to hit is less than 50% it gets a bit favored in the fighter side... But in exchange for being the 'best melee' they get almost nothing in the cool side IMO. Oh barbarian got a dragon totem? Can fly. Can turn into a dragon. Wizard can bend people minds at will. Fighter can... Well hit with some more flair...

Might do more damage but is just a bit let's say more linear and boring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizards cant bend people's mind at will, not even close unless the target is a weak mook, but then you still have only so many spells. But then the Fighter just wrecks it and its friends, and all without spending a single resource (except maybe HP if they get lucky).

Idk about the linearity since everything is "linear" now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's check...

Fighter v barb, hard target vs easy target:

High level target.
Fighter
40% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit
(.4 + .05*2) = 0.5
2d12+4 = 17 * 0.5
=8.5

Barbarian
30% hit, 5% crit
(.3 + .05*2)=0.4
2d12+4+4 = 21 * .4
= 8.4

So fighter is slightly better against high level targets, but not all that much.

Low level target...
Fighter
50% chance to hit, 45% chance to crit
(.5 + .45*2) = 1.4
2d12+4 = 17 * 1.4
=23.8

Barbarian
50% hit, 35% crit
(.5 + .35*2)=1.2
2d12+4+4 = 21 * 1.2
= 25.2

So as I though. Fighter does better against high level targets, barb does better against low level ones.
But the difference is less than 5% either way.


So that probably should be 21 * 1.2 (not big deal just saying).

But, I'm curious where are you getting the extra +2 damage for barbarian, is it a rage power or something? Regular rage is only +2.

On that note if the barbarian is getting access to rage and other abilities, shouldn't the fighter get the use of at least 1 feat? But then again the equivalent to rage would be AoO and/or Shield Block.


Temperans wrote:
So that probably should be 21 * 1.2 (not big deal just saying).

Yes, fixed.

I calculated correctly, so same answer.

Quote:
But, I'm curious where are you getting the extra +2 damage for barbarian, is it a rage power or something? Regular rage is only +2.

Draconic barb is what I've been using. "While raging, you can increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 4".

Other rages get other more conditional stuff, so that seems like the one easiest to compare.

And I guess I could do shield fighter vs shield animal barb.

Quote:
On that note if the barbarian is getting access to rage and other abilities, shouldn't the fighter get the use of at least 1 feat? But then again the equivalent to rage would be AoO and/or Shield Block.

Right. 0 feats for either.

Though, I guess fighter having OA should count for some damage. No idea how much though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mellored wrote:
Temperans wrote:
So that probably should be 21 * 1.2 (not big deal just saying).

Yes, fixed.

I calculated correctly, so same answer.

Quote:
But, I'm curious where are you getting the extra +2 damage for barbarian, is it a rage power or something? Regular rage is only +2.

Draconic barb is what I've been using. "While raging, you can increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 4".

Other rages get other more conditional stuff, so that seems like the one easiest to compare.

And I guess I could do shield fighter vs shield animal barb.

Quote:
On that note if the barbarian is getting access to rage and other abilities, shouldn't the fighter get the use of at least 1 feat? But then again the equivalent to rage would be AoO and/or Shield Block.

Right. 0 feats for either.

Though, I guess fighter having OA should count for some damage. No idea how much though.

The zero feats for anyone is kind of my problem with your calculations. You're running what amounts to a bot that doesn't ever do anything but take the most basic actions with absolute minimal investment and comparing it to what is being referred to as "the optimal wizard build," followed up by dismissing differences in the numbers as Wizards having access to utility...only if my Wizard is blasting as frequently as you say there's zero room in the spell slots for those utility spells. I will grant that wands/scrolls/staves can stop-gap or resolve that problem, but so too do the magic items that a fighter can pick up and use without having to heavily invest in a magic using class while many of the items that used to be available to alleviate spell slot constraints have been removed from the game.

Basic Attack Routine versus Optimal Build seems disingenuous at best and deliberately or maliciously obtuse at worst. Currently, especially in the low level play I'm working through, my wizard (who is an evoker and so these numbers are particularly relevant to) feels *extremely* lacklustre. Even the Cloistered Cleric with a longbow was out doing my damage output regularly.


Mabtik wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Temperans wrote:
So that probably should be 21 * 1.2 (not big deal just saying).

Yes, fixed.

I calculated correctly, so same answer.

Quote:
But, I'm curious where are you getting the extra +2 damage for barbarian, is it a rage power or something? Regular rage is only +2.

Draconic barb is what I've been using. "While raging, you can increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 4".

Other rages get other more conditional stuff, so that seems like the one easiest to compare.

And I guess I could do shield fighter vs shield animal barb.

Quote:
On that note if the barbarian is getting access to rage and other abilities, shouldn't the fighter get the use of at least 1 feat? But then again the equivalent to rage would be AoO and/or Shield Block.

Right. 0 feats for either.

Though, I guess fighter having OA should count for some damage. No idea how much though.

The zero feats for anyone is kind of my problem with your calculations. You're running what amounts to a bot that doesn't ever do anything but take the most basic actions with absolute minimal investment and comparing it to what is being referred to as "the optimal wizard build," followed up by dismissing differences in the numbers as Wizards having access to utility...only if my Wizard is blasting as frequently as you say there's zero room in the spell slots for those utility spells. I will grant that wands/scrolls/staves can stop-gap or resolve that problem, but so too do the magic items that a fighter can pick up and use without having to heavily invest in a magic using class while many of the items that used to be available to alleviate spell slot constraints have been removed from the game.

Basic Attack Routine versus Optimal Build seems disingenuous at best and deliberately or maliciously obtuse at worst. Currently, especially in the low level play I'm working through, my wizard (who is an evoker and so these numbers are particularly relevant to) feels *extremely* lacklustre....

Yeah but the thing is that... Fighters feats are made for combat. Every fighter feat i think it's made for combat. While other classes get some cooler stuff. I mean barbarians get a climb speed and a swim speed with a feat. Rangers get tracking, traps, an pet that outside of combat make so that you can be in two places at once and do a lot more... If we compare fighter with feats he tends to be better than other classes at combat while classes with other feats gain a lot more fun stuff. That's what i feel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
oholoko wrote:
Mabtik wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Temperans wrote:
So that probably should be 21 * 1.2 (not big deal just saying).

Yes, fixed.

I calculated correctly, so same answer.

Quote:
But, I'm curious where are you getting the extra +2 damage for barbarian, is it a rage power or something? Regular rage is only +2.

Draconic barb is what I've been using. "While raging, you can increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 4".

Other rages get other more conditional stuff, so that seems like the one easiest to compare.

And I guess I could do shield fighter vs shield animal barb.

Quote:
On that note if the barbarian is getting access to rage and other abilities, shouldn't the fighter get the use of at least 1 feat? But then again the equivalent to rage would be AoO and/or Shield Block.

Right. 0 feats for either.

Though, I guess fighter having OA should count for some damage. No idea how much though.

The zero feats for anyone is kind of my problem with your calculations. You're running what amounts to a bot that doesn't ever do anything but take the most basic actions with absolute minimal investment and comparing it to what is being referred to as "the optimal wizard build," followed up by dismissing differences in the numbers as Wizards having access to utility...only if my Wizard is blasting as frequently as you say there's zero room in the spell slots for those utility spells. I will grant that wands/scrolls/staves can stop-gap or resolve that problem, but so too do the magic items that a fighter can pick up and use without having to heavily invest in a magic using class while many of the items that used to be available to alleviate spell slot constraints have been removed from the game.

Basic Attack Routine versus Optimal Build seems disingenuous at best and deliberately or maliciously obtuse at worst. Currently, especially in the low level play I'm working through, my wizard (who is an evoker and so these numbers are particularly relevant to) feels

...

Which actually contributes to my point. If a fighter continues to move further outside the curve when their combat feats are included, and the math assumes a Wizard who is primarily, or exclusively, preparing combat spells why aren't we also assuming that the fighter is equally dedicated to their combat role? And if we're assuming that the Wizard is making up the short fall in combat effectiveness via utility spells why aren't we considering all the utility feats that the other classes get that mimic or duplicate utility spells?

Dark Archive

Mabtik wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Temperans wrote:
So that probably should be 21 * 1.2 (not big deal just saying).

Yes, fixed.

I calculated correctly, so same answer.

Quote:
But, I'm curious where are you getting the extra +2 damage for barbarian, is it a rage power or something? Regular rage is only +2.

Draconic barb is what I've been using. "While raging, you can increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 4".

Other rages get other more conditional stuff, so that seems like the one easiest to compare.

And I guess I could do shield fighter vs shield animal barb.

Quote:
On that note if the barbarian is getting access to rage and other abilities, shouldn't the fighter get the use of at least 1 feat? But then again the equivalent to rage would be AoO and/or Shield Block.

Right. 0 feats for either.

Though, I guess fighter having OA should count for some damage. No idea how much though.

The zero feats for anyone is kind of my problem with your calculations. You're running what amounts to a bot that doesn't ever do anything but take the most basic actions with absolute minimal investment and comparing it to what is being referred to as "the optimal wizard build," followed up by dismissing differences in the numbers as Wizards having access to utility...only if my Wizard is blasting as frequently as you say there's zero room in the spell slots for those utility spells. I will grant that wands/scrolls/staves can stop-gap or resolve that problem, but so too do the magic items that a fighter can pick up and use without having to heavily invest in a magic using class while many of the items that used to be available to alleviate spell slot constraints have been removed from the game.

Basic Attack Routine versus Optimal Build seems disingenuous at best and deliberately or maliciously obtuse at worst. Currently, especially in the low level play I'm working through, my wizard (who is an evoker and so these numbers are particularly relevant to) feels *extremely* lacklustre....

If you’re willing to do the math for optimal builds at multiple levels for fighter, barbarian, wizard, cleric, bard, and sorcerer at different levels, I’d be glad to read through it (I listed a few because I think it’s good to have a few options of the supposed disparity between martials and casters). From what I’ve experienced playing a bard with another character as a cleric, there’s not much of a disparity, or at least, we always felt essential to the group in fulfilling whatever roles we wanted to: aoe damage (not me as the bard), single target damage, support, dot (damage over time), and debuffing.

Now, I’m playing a rogue, who through mostly use of skills almost soloed the monster that tpked our original team. Although skills aren’t casting, I’d like to make the point that having bigger numbers for to-hit is not the end-all, be-all that many people are making it out to be. An all fighter party will not be as effective as a party made up of varied classes, unless the adventure is just a slog through nigh-never ending opponents to fight on featureless maps, at least that is what I believe based on my experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well the 0 feats is because the original supposition was "fighters are over powered because of the +2" so you strip it down to as core feature as you can get to see if that is true. Turns out it's not so now we shift the goal posts to not being about that.


Mabtik wrote:
Basic Attack Routine versus Optimal Build seems disingenuous at best and deliberately or maliciously obtuse at worst.

Why do you think the barb is the optimal build? What feat will give the fighter a huge boost over the barb?

I gave them the same stats, same weapons, and same level. If I look at the same feast (sudden charge, swipe, sudden leap, and whirlwind).
None of which changes the damage ratio.

Quote:
Currently, especially in the low level play I'm working through, my wizard (who is an evoker and so these numbers are particularly relevant to) feels *extremely* lacklustre....

Yes. The math shows that casters start off weak, but they get powerful at higher levels.

I'm currently adding +stat to low level damage spells (burning hands/snowball/acid arrow/etc).
And adding +5 speed to level 7 martials, +10 at 15.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mellored wrote:
Mabtik wrote:
Basic Attack Routine versus Optimal Build seems disingenuous at best and deliberately or maliciously obtuse at worst.

Why do you think the barb is the optimal build? What feat will give the fighter a huge boost over the barb?

I gave them the same stats, same weapons, and same level. If I look at the same feast (sudden charge, swipe, sudden leap, and whirlwind).
None of which changes the damage ratio.

Quote:
Currently, especially in the low level play I'm working through, my wizard (who is an evoker and so these numbers are particularly relevant to) feels *extremely* lacklustre....

Yes. The math shows that casters start off weak, but they get powerful at higher levels.

I'm currently adding +stat to low level damage spells (burning hands/snowball/acid arrow/etc).
And adding +5 speed to level 7 martials, +10 at 15.

Because I'm talking about Wizards and not Barbarians, and when the point of Wizards being about more than just DD/AoE blasting was made the response from the person that wrote this particular article stated that Blasting was the optimal Wizard build.

I tend to be fairly proficient at character building and like to use these sorts of guides and articles as benchmarks. As long as I'm coming close to the projected numbers I'm fairly happy playing my character. During the playtest my Illusionist wizard functioned well below personal expectations of how a studious magic slinging crowd control specialist would perform. As a result I made a blaster for a complete change of pace and because it looked like it would utilize the magic system, items, abilities, and mechanics I saw during the play test better. I was quite surprised to find out that all of the accuracy and, almost all, spell slot assisting items had been completely removed from the items section. Leaving me somewhat in a lurch as to how to proceed, granted that's more of a mental stumbling block regarding changing plans rather than an actual issue.

Actual table play has continued to reinforce that not only is early level Wizard play boring and almost entirely dice dependent (which is a personal pet peeve), but looking forward via theory crafting I'm not seeing things get significantly better. I was hoping to find some articles or guides that changed this perception but so far it has only been further reinforced. This becomes worse when I look at how my fellow players are performing, progressing, and theory crafting their own characters hence my frustration that the articles I'm finding keep deliberately excluding key build conditions. That, at least, is my perception. If I'm mistake please correct me, but so far I've repeatedly run out of viable spell slots extremely early in the day while the rest of my party continues to be able to do cool things. Discussion with the DM has also made it clear that as the adventure progresses only my high(er) level blasting spell slots will do sufficient damage to keep pace, while the only way to get significant durations out of many utility spells is to prepare them in those same spell slots...meaning that even with spell blending I'm picking between having enough spell slots to contribute during combat or using magic to solve problems but then I start looking through the other classes and see that they have class and skills feats that allow them to come close to duplicating many utility spells and if they don't there are a fair number of magic items that they can purchase to do so. All of this is a long way of staying that I don't really feel like my Wizard really has a dedicated party niche other than allowing the rest of my party to be fairly careless in their build options.


Wizards are indeed in a bad spot, currently.

I would consider bringing a dragon barbarian to make aoe instead.

1d6/2lvl aoe dmg every minute is pretty nice.

However, on out tabletop the fighter is overperforming compared to the other classes ( hit and overall dmg ).

And Fortunately he didn't take power attack as first talent


Mabtik wrote:
Because I'm talking about Wizards and not Barbarians, and when the point of Wizards being about more than just DD/AoE blasting was made the response from the person that wrote this particular article stated that Blasting was the optimal Wizard build.

Any idea how to calculate how much damage dazzled is worth?

But, that does make me think a better houserule might be to give the same total number of slots per day at high and low level. But scale them..
So something like this...

    1 10 — — — — — — — — —
    2 15 — — — — — — — — —
    3 8 7 — — — — — — — —
    4 5 10 — — — — — — — —
    5 5 5 5 — — — — — — —
    6 4 4 7 — — — — — — —
    7 4 4 4 3 — — — — — —
    8 3 3 3 6 — — — — — —
    9 3 3 3 3 3 — — — — —
    10 2 2 3 4 4 — — — — —
    11 2 2 2 3 4 2 — — — —
    12 2 2 2 2 3 4 — — — —
    13 — 2 2 2 3 4 2 — — —
    14 — 2 2 2 3 3 3 — — —
    15 — — 2 2 3 3 3 2 — —
    16 — — 2 2 2 3 3 3 — —
    17 — — — 2 2 3 3 3 2 —
    18 — — — 2 2 2 3 3 3 —
    19 — — — 2 2 2 3 3 3 1
    20 — — — 2 2 2 3 3 3 1

Really bumps the lowest levels, and reduces things a little at high levels.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Dazzled is worth about a 20% miss chance, the dirtiest way to calculate that would be to just reduce output by 20% although that's somewhat wonky as it's really a 0% or 100% damage reduction depending on if it hits or misses.

As for the spell slot distribution idea it really looks like you're copying the spell blending thesis once you leave the low levels..?

At higher levels a specialist wizard is already at 4 slots per spell level per day (except 10th), and if you take spell blending you can stack it up to 5 in the spell levels you're most concerned with. That's about 5 combats per day at max level, or five rounds depending on what sort of fights you're running into. Naturally this presupposes you've navigated the pitfalls of high/low saves, immunities, resistances, etcetera that are common at that level. It also assumes your opponents aren't intermixed with your allies if you're leaning on the AoE's to generate that damage curve which is a bigger problem given the plethora of mobility feats, abilities, class features, and so on.

I understand that this is a white room math calculation, but I would hope that the assumptions made would reflect the class they're attempting to calculate, unfortunately this appears to be incorrect. As such it is mostly useless for assisting me in modeling Wizard expectations at the very least. Thank you for the math on the other classes, that appears to be useful for determining when class feats should be used to enhance damage and when it's okay to sit back and just make basic attacks.


Mabtik wrote:
Dazzled is worth about a 20% miss chance, the dirtiest way to calculate that would be to just reduce output by 20% although that's somewhat wonky as it's really a 0% or 100% damage reduction depending on if it hits or misses.

Same is true for any attack.

A wizard who rolls a 20 will do infinite more damage than a fighter who rolls a 1.

Quote:
As for the spell slot distribution idea it really looks like you're copying the spell blending thesis once you leave the low levels..?

I just grabbed the total number of wizard slots at level 10 (15), then just quickly spread them out. Didn't do any particular calculations or analysis on them beyond making sure they added to 15 slots.

Quote:
aturally this presupposes you've navigated the pitfalls of high/low saves, immunities, resistances, etcetera that are common at that level

If you want count all the monsters and give me the stats, by all means, go ahead. I'll redo the calculations with those numbers.

I'm up for (trying) multi-variable calculus. I just don't want to flip though all the pages adding everything.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mellored wrote:
Mabtik wrote:
Dazzled is worth about a 20% miss chance, the dirtiest way to calculate that would be to just reduce output by 20% although that's somewhat wonky as it's really a 0% or 100% damage reduction depending on if it hits or misses.

Same is true for any attack.

A wizard who rolls a 20 will do infinite more damage than a fighter who rolls a 1.

Quote:
As for the spell slot distribution idea it really looks like you're copying the spell blending thesis once you leave the low levels..?

I just grabbed the total number of wizard slots at level 10 (15), then just quickly spread them out. Didn't do any particular calculations or analysis on them beyond making sure they added to 15 slots.

Quote:
aturally this presupposes you've navigated the pitfalls of high/low saves, immunities, resistances, etcetera that are common at that level

If you want count all the monsters and give me the stats, by all means, go ahead. I'll redo the calculations with those numbers.

I'm up for (trying) multi-variable calculus. I just don't want to flip though all the pages adding everything.

I'm good enough at math to get through these sorts of articles without getting lost. That sort of thing is beyond my personal ability to do. Trying to figure out what's missing, or paging through and brute forcing my own basic math is something I'll probably end up doing on my own time if there's a lull at work.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My issue is martials get this cool new 3 action thing. They get to try and do a bunch more stuff each turn. Casters get to move and cast a spell, or stand there and cast a full round spell, exactly like they did in 1st edition. I don't care what the reasoning is behind it, it is lame. Non casters effectively get to do 50% more stuff per round. It's like you get punished for playing a spellcaster by not being allowed to play as much. That's just plain not fun.

Dark Archive

Mabtik wrote:


I understand that this is a white room math calculation, but I would hope that the assumptions made would reflect the class they're attempting to calculate, unfortunately this appears to be incorrect. As such it is mostly useless for assisting me in modeling Wizard expectations at the very least. Thank you for the math on the other classes, that appears to be useful for determining when class feats should be used to enhance damage and when it's okay to sit back and just make basic attacks.

I’d like to know what build of fighter you’re doing that makes it so much better than a wizard. From what I’m looking at, fighter’s have raw single target damage, while wizards have higher multi-target damage as well as greater versatility. For damage, I would make an evocation wizard with a bow and a bespell weapon, focusing on enemy weaknesses. That should put damage somewhere in the ballpark of fighter’s damage, especially when using a weapon that is level appropriate. Of course, I wouldn’t play a wizard just to have the best single target damage, debuffs, buffs, and aoe damage in the group. I would try to focus on spells or a play style that would be definitive of my character.

——————————————————————————————
I’ve also seen many people focus on the lower saving throw, but even when an opponent fails, the damage is halved on many of the damage spells. Those that require attack rolls may be best to use in conjunction with true strike, but that will only really be necessary at higher levels when lower level spells can be spared, as cantrips are awesome at low levels (1-4 or so). Pushing all spell DCs and attacks to the same levels as fighters would just make spell casting an obvious choice, as half damage on spell would be obviously superior than no damage on a failed attack roll, especially with the nigh-equal amounts currently. The current solution is to give casters a set number of tools that when used over a few encounters makes them about equal to martials. Having fewer encounters makes them more powerful, but more encounter makes them a little weaker (slightly), so a balance must be struck. And giving casters an at-will equal to martials in damage would just cause this edition to have the same “problems” as fourth edition.


Mabtik wrote:


Basic Attack Routine versus Optimal Build seems disingenuous at best and deliberately or maliciously obtuse at worst.

That's a pretty horrible thing to imply. I don't think people realise how much work it can take to simulate this. As someone else pointed out it is always a good idea to have a clear logic to how you work through simulations of different scenarios. The default assumption should be that someone is actually trying to produce a simulation that answers a useful question. It may not be the question that you are interested in.


Narxiso wrote:
Mabtik wrote:


I understand that this is a white room math calculation, but I would hope that the assumptions made would reflect the class they're attempting to calculate, unfortunately this appears to be incorrect. As such it is mostly useless for assisting me in modeling Wizard expectations at the very least. Thank you for the math on the other classes, that appears to be useful for determining when class feats should be used to enhance damage and when it's okay to sit back and just make basic attacks.

I’d like to know what build of fighter you’re doing that makes it so much better than a wizard. From what I’m looking at, fighter’s have raw single target damage, while wizards have higher multi-target damage as well as greater versatility. For damage, I would make an evocation wizard with a bow and a bespell weapon, focusing on enemy weaknesses. That should put damage somewhere in the ballpark of fighter’s damage, especially when using a weapon that is level appropriate. Of course, I wouldn’t play a wizard just to have the best single target damage, debuffs, buffs, and aoe damage in the group. I would try to focus on spells or a play style that would be definitive of my character.

——————————————————————————————
I’ve also seen many people focus on the lower saving throw, but even when an opponent fails, the damage is halved on many of the damage spells. Those that require attack rolls may be best to use in conjunction with true strike, but that will only really be necessary at higher levels when lower level spells can be spared, as cantrips are awesome at low levels (1-4 or so). Pushing all spell DCs and attacks to the same levels as fighters would just make spell casting an obvious choice, as half damage on spell would be obviously superior than no damage on a failed attack roll, especially with the nigh-equal amounts currently. The current solution is to give casters a set number of tools that when used over a few encounters makes them about equal to martials. Having fewer encounters...

A fighter with a 2h axe is good both for single and aoe.

A fighter has a +2 hit and it will also gain a +1 circumstance from the sweep bonus in a swipe scenario.

A crit will delete the 2 opponents.

And a fighter is used to crit.

You should also consider that the calculations here are not only in the whitest room ever, but we are not considering somebody buffing the fighter .

Which is non likely to happens.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

You should also consider that the calculations here are not only in the whitest room ever, but we are not considering somebody buffing the fighter .

Which is non likely to happens.

You're totally right. This is an awesome strategy. An awesome strategy entirely predicated on having a caster to buff the Fighter. At least, if you want to do it regularly.

Nobody is saying Fighters aren't good. Just that there are things casters do better...like buffing, for example.


K1 wrote:

A fighter with a 2h axe is good both for single and aoe.

A fighter has a +2 hit and it will also gain a +1 circumstance from the sweep bonus in a swipe scenario.

A crit will delete the 2 opponents.

I was comparing a barbarian with sweep. Fighter would do the same damage.

And a high level wizard would delete 5 opponent.

Quote:

we are not considering somebody buffing the fighter .

Which is non likely to happens.

I can compare a buff caster to a blast caster.

What buffs do you want? (Pick some high and low level ones)


Heroism.

Are there any other buffs for a melee?

At high lvl However the barbarian will always win. It is supposed to start with slightly less than half life, and have a big hp pool with toughness and the dwarf heritage toughness.

Dark Archive

K1 wrote:

A fighter with a 2h axe is good both for single and aoe.

A fighter has a +2 hit and it will also gain a +1 circumstance from the sweep bonus in a swipe scenario.

A crit will delete the 2 opponents.

And a fighter is used to crit.

You should also consider that the calculations here are not only in the whitest room ever, but we are not considering somebody buffing the fighter .

Which is non likely to happens.

I agree that swipe is really good for a fighter in the correct situation, but I’m not too sure how often that situation will play out since swipe requires both targets to be in melee range and right next to each other. Still, it is an excellent feat when it can be executed. I don’t know if I would consider swipe an aoe (of course others might), in the same way that I wouldn’t consider electric arc an aoe.

As for the white room calculations, I’m not sure what you’d want. If you’re willing to do the calculations for every single class combination, feat choice, terrain variable, and possible action, I’d be more than happy to take a look. I would also like to point out that while fighter’s can be buffed, the same is possible for enemies as well as allies (including casters, and conversely, debuffs can be thrown around. For me, if I were playing a wizard, I would love if some gave my target the fear condition or paralyzed condition. If you’re saying that the math doesn’t show that fighters are superior because of white-room calculations, then I have to ask whether you think all the things that martials (especially melee martials) have to do in order to being our all their tricks.


Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Narxiso wrote:


I’d like to know what build of fighter you’re doing that makes it so much better than a wizard. From what I’m looking at, fighter’s have raw single target damage, while wizards have higher multi-target damage as well as greater versatility. For damage, I would make an evocation wizard with a bow and a bespell weapon, focusing on enemy weaknesses. That should put damage somewhere in the ballpark of fighter’s damage, especially when using a weapon that is level appropriate. Of course, I wouldn’t play a wizard just to have the best single target damage, debuffs, buffs, and aoe damage in the group. I would try to focus on spells or a play style that would be definitive of my character.

——————————————————————————————
I’ve also seen many people focus on the lower saving throw, but even when an opponent fails, the damage is halved on many of the damage spells. Those that require attack rolls may be best to use in conjunction with true strike, but that will only really be necessary at higher levels when lower level spells can be spared, as cantrips are awesome at low levels (1-4 or so). Pushing all spell DCs and attacks to the same levels as fighters would just make spell casting an obvious choice, as half damage on spell would be obviously superior than no damage on a failed attack roll, especially with the nigh-equal amounts currently. The current solution is to give casters a set number of tools that when used over a few encounters makes them about equal to martials. Having fewer encounters...

I'm actually most frustrated by the fact that I spend most my turns standing around like a turret attempting to keep up with the rest of the party. Utility and buff/debuff spells would be my chosen role except I have a pretty harshly limited number of times per day I can apply those and the durations are short enough the pre-buffing isn't really a great option. There aren't any options I've seen for avoiding doing damage to an ally that's in the AoE of a spell and with the new action economy lines get mixed *fast* so if you don't roll well on initiative you've got to try and figure out how to get your AoE into position without blowing up your own team.

If you focus in on single target you run into accuracy issues fairly frequently between poor dice rolls (which happen to all classes but casters feel the effect more keenly when one of your 3-4 spells per day at that level does 0 damage) and just plain lower accuracy due to Spell Attack rolls having a lower bonus and no identifiable item fixing, unlike weapons. This carries over to your bow as your weapon proficiencies are also relatively low but at least you can buy runes for that. Also keep in mind that fighters do at least get Certain Strike at 10 allowing them to deal guaranteed damage with their strikes. It's not a ton of damage but if you're having trouble you'll at least chip away at your foes unlike a wizard who is having trouble landing shots.

Palinurus wrote:


That's a pretty horrible thing to imply. I don't think people realise how much work it can take to simulate this. As someone else pointed out it is always a good idea to have a clear logic to how you work through simulations of different scenarios. The default assumption should be that someone is actually trying to produce a simulation that answers a useful question. It may not be the question that you are interested in.

I'm aware of the amount of math required. The point was intentional. The question asked for parity between Martials and Casters. The supposition was that they are equal and here is why. However, the field used appears to be unequal when we include the commentary made by the author. The math for the chart may be fine, although I have dug in deeply enough to absolutely determine if 2d6 per level is viable my surface examination shows that it's roughly so, although it requires some die conversion or the assumption that I'm just using heightened burning hands/fireball as a wizard for the most part.

When the author is describing a blast focused caster as the optimal wizard build and then states that Strike x2 was used for martials and that casters are fine on the curve assuming that their counterparts use zero feats, it's an important thing to note. It shows that there's a potential for the builds being compared are intentionally skewed. The result appears to be, "You're fine because at end game your spells are really good, and your power increases consistently spike you above baseline for abit." The issue I take with that result is that we are, judging by the author's own statements, comparing what the author considers to be optimal for one side (blasting caster) for baseline for the other (simple strike x2). This opens the results up to irregularities or question without further clarification from the author.

My character's goal is to be an impactful and helpful participant in the party. So far that's only come up because our martial characters didn't bring bludgeoning weapons with them and we ran into skeletons. Oh, and I've caused us to camp and rest earlier than the rest of the party did several times when I ran out of spells and was failing to contribute with cantrips, although that was mostly dice.


K1 wrote:

Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.

I don't think so. I think it will depends on the AC, if the AC is too low if the AC is too high fighters also do more. If the AC is the average/low the barbarian will do a lot more. At least that's what i think will happen.


oholoko wrote:
K1 wrote:

Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.

I don't think so. I think it will depends on the AC, if the AC is too low if the AC is too high fighters also do more. If the AC is the average/low the barbarian will do a lot more. At least that's what i think will happen.

You don't get what I meant.

Starting from lvl 16 a barbarian will have the same attack of a fighter, by using the feat which gives him +2 circumstance hit on all attacks, until he remains under half hp.

And since a barbarian has a huge hp pool, extra hp from both toughnesd and dwarf mountain stoutness, and temporary hp on demand, this won't be a problem at all.

Dark Archive

K1 wrote:

Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.

I honestly wouldn’t wast a rune on shifting, especially since other runes can be put on that increase damage more often (as an aside, pick is great single target). Also, an optimal build probably would focus on more complementary feats for a specific weapon instead of spreading so thin. And with the cost of weapon upkeep, it wouldn’t be worth it to me to keep a set of each either.

Mabtik wrote:
Latest Post

Honestly, I didn’t even realize that there was no way to mitigate damage on allies within an aoe. I definitely though there was a feat available specifically for that (it may have been in the playtest and I just overlooked it not being present).

At least for early levels, I didn’t really see that much of an accuracy discrepancy between myself and the martials (granted we didn’t have a fighter) even after they got magic weapons, and this was with me using telekinetic projectile the way it is entered into fantasy grounds, being a ranged attack that uses dexterity instead of spellcasting modifier. My main role in the group was buffing with secondary being damage and healing, so I didn’t personally do debuffing, but another character did, and it worked out very well for our group. Even with my damage, I always felt like I was greatly contributing to the group with damage, defeating one of the stronger enemies in an AP while most of my group was just healed (conscious and ready to stand up to make and attack) up from dying. I would really like to know what you’ve been doing as a wizard and how you’ve been playing it, as I have not played wizard, just read through it a bit. I do disagree that blaster is the optimal (except to deal damage) way to play wizard, but I also think that prebuffing is terrible and another reason why I hate first edition.


Narxiso wrote:
K1 wrote:

Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.

I honestly wouldn’t wast a rune on shifting, especially since other runes can be put on that increase damage more often (as an aside, pick is great single target). Also, an optimal build probably would focus on more complementary feats for a specific weapon instead of spreading so thin. And with the cost of weapon upkeep, it wouldn’t be worth it to me to keep a set of each either.

Mabtik wrote:

Latest Post

Honestly, I didn’t even realize that there was no way to mitigate damage on allies within an aoe. I definitely though there was a feat available specifically for that (it may have been in the playtest and I just overlooked it not being

Apart from power attack, furious focus and swipe i don't think i will need anything else.

I could even go with 2x dedications, since I will have 2 extra feats which i can change whenever i want.

A shifting rune could come from a champion divine blade, so not a big deal. And even if I wouldn't go champion, the last action to swap weapon would be better than any extra feat if it could allow me to hit better or deal better dmg.

Dark Archive

K1 wrote:
oholoko wrote:
K1 wrote:

Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.

I don't think so. I think it will depends on the AC, if the AC is too low if the AC is too high fighters also do more. If the AC is the average/low the barbarian will do a lot more. At least that's what i think will happen.

You don't get what I meant.

Starting from lvl 16 a barbarian will have the same attack of a fighter, by using the feat which gives him +2 circumstance hit on all attacks, until he remains under half hp.

And since a barbarian has a huge hp pool, extra hp from both toughnesd and dwarf mountain stoutness, and temporary hp on demand, this won't be a problem at all.

I think you’re making a lot of assumptions about how everyone will build their barbarians. I’m not sure if I would take that feat, as that is a -2 (or -3 if rage’s -1 stacks) to AC (-3 or -4 with giant slayer), which may not be worth it to many people. Also, for dragon barbarians, there the dragon transformation at that level. Also, collateral thrash is thematic for Hulk barbarians.


Not assumptions, just comparisons.

I concede you it is a min max and less flavor.


K1 wrote:
oholoko wrote:
K1 wrote:

Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.

I don't think so. I think it will depends on the AC, if the AC is too low if the AC is too high fighters also do more. If the AC is the average/low the barbarian will do a lot more. At least that's what i think will happen.

You don't get what I meant.

Starting from lvl 16 a barbarian will have the same attack of a fighter, by using the feat which gives him +2 circumstance hit on all attacks, until he remains under half hp.

And since a barbarian has a huge hp pool, extra hp from both toughnesd and dwarf mountain stoutness, and temporary hp on demand, this won't be a problem at all.

Well it's just that circunstance bonus at least on my table most of the times are already in play. I mean +1 circ bonus is almost assumed on the first strike and there's better ways than get -2 on top of your -1 already(Of your AC) and +2 on your roll that probably has a +1 already.

It might be bias due to my table taking a lot help actions and circustance bonuses being the easiest ones to get.


oholoko wrote:
K1 wrote:
oholoko wrote:
K1 wrote:

Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.

I don't think so. I think it will depends on the AC, if the AC is too low if the AC is too high fighters also do more. If the AC is the average/low the barbarian will do a lot more. At least that's what i think will happen.

You don't get what I meant.

Starting from lvl 16 a barbarian will have the same attack of a fighter, by using the feat which gives him +2 circumstance hit on all attacks, until he remains under half hp.

And since a barbarian has a huge hp pool, extra hp from both toughnesd and dwarf mountain stoutness, and temporary hp on demand, this won't be a problem at all.

Well it's just that circunstance bonus at least on my table most of the times are already in play. I mean +1 circ bonus is almost assumed on the first strike and there's better ways than get -2 on top of your -1 already(Of your AC) and +2 on your roll that probably has a +1 already.

It might be bias due to my table taking a lot help actions and circustance bonuses being the easiest ones to get.

Depends who you play with.

If your DM will leave a push the Cart dc the same as help your friend hitting an ancient dragon, you will be probably right.

Also is just the first hit, while +2 would allow a barbarian to even land a 2nd attack.

Depends.

I will lvl DCs depends thr task.
The 20 flat dc is out of any consideration because it doesn't take the task lvl in consideration.


oholoko wrote:
K1 wrote:
oholoko wrote:
K1 wrote:

Obviously you will be pick for critical on single target, axe for swipe and a polearms for reach.

Shifting rune is what you are looking for.

And as said above, a min max barbarian will definitely surpass a fighter from lvl 16.

I don't think so. I think it will depends on the AC, if the AC is too low if the AC is too high fighters also do more. If the AC is the average/low the barbarian will do a lot more. At least that's what i think will happen.

You don't get what I meant.

Starting from lvl 16 a barbarian will have the same attack of a fighter, by using the feat which gives him +2 circumstance hit on all attacks, until he remains under half hp.

And since a barbarian has a huge hp pool, extra hp from both toughnesd and dwarf mountain stoutness, and temporary hp on demand, this won't be a problem at all.

Well it's just that circunstance bonus at least on my table most of the times are already in play. I mean +1 circ bonus is almost assumed on the first strike and there's better ways than get -2 on top of your -1 already(Of your AC) and +2 on your roll that probably has a +1 already.

It might be bias due to my table taking a lot help actions and circustance bonuses being the easiest ones to get.

Depends who you play with.

If your DM will leave a push the Cart dc the same as help your friend hitting an ancient dragon, you will be probably right.

Also is just the first hit, while +2 would allow a barbarian to even land a 2nd attack.

Depends.

I will lvl DCs depends thr task.
The 20 flat dc is out of any consideration because it doesn't take the task lvl in consideration.

151 to 200 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Article with Analysis on Casters vs Martials: All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.