| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My particular group is focused heavily on combat. I know combat is the primary focus of these types of games with some exceptions for those who enjoy non-combat elements. I'd like to hear how some of you rate the classes in battle after a year of playing.
Barbarian: This class starts off rough. You are almost always pretty easy to hit and crit, especially if Giant Instinct. But boy, you hit like a mack truck. If you get going with a string of good rolls, the barbarian starts mowing things down. Their crits are nuts, especially if using a greatpick.
You start to be able to absorb damage a little better once you get renewed vigor, which makes you more durable. If you're fighting creatures that are affected by your damage resistance, you do even better.
Barbarian is a very fun and powerful class. I put them on the upper end of the power scale with damage and abilities that scale very well.
Rogue: This class stays good from start to end. Damage scales very well. Tons of useful feats. You are the absolute master of skills. You can scout. You can clear hazards. You work in tandem with your party to rip things apart in combat. The rogue has been returned to it's pre-3rd edition glory.
Both the Ruffian and Thief are worthwhile. Either one performs at a high level.
Champion: Most annoying class to DM of all the classes. Hard to kill. Makes attacking anyone but them very costly. Not the highest damage, though with a good weapon very solid. Very powerful class in the group dynamic. Thematically cool. Overall Champion is an impressive class with powerful defensive capabilities that make them the best tank for a group.
Ranger: Ranger is a fun class. Really captures the old edition archer or two-weapon style specialist. Flurry and Precision are both great for combat. I think they are the best switchhitting class in the game given it takes one low level feat to be good at ranged or melee with action economy.
Good perception, reflex saves, and can be stealthy. They also can access an animal companion for a reasonable feat cost or group improvement abilities that are both useful.
Ranger archer or two-weapon fighter both feel like powerful, worthwhile options to play. They get better as your weapons and abilities scale up.
Fighter: Best version of the fighter I've seen in years. Defensive saves much better than in 3E/PF1. They truly are the best at fighting. The extra accuracy is meaningful and powerful. They are not the most interesting class in terms of feats and abilities, but the chassis is very well done if you want to make a powerful martial or a multiclass of some kind.
Fighter is very solid and effective that does good damage that scales well as their weapons improve.
Monk: Thematically interesting. The most versatile of the martial classes. Excellent mobility and defenses. On the low end of the damage scale for martials. Ki Powers don't scale well for damage. Makes them feel a bit lacking in a group environment as they do very standard damage without anything like increased accuracy to offset the lack of substantial damage increases. Monk feats are attractive and interesting, but I'm still not sure how to build one.
Monk feels very overshadowed in combat effectiveness in groups with other martials. Perhaps the one monk attempt hasn't found an optimal build, but in a party with a fighter and rogue the monk felt weak.
Swashbuckler: This class is very interesting. It's more active than most martial classes often requiring a non-combat roll during each round to power finishers. The swashbuckler is more defensive than most martials as well. Their AC tends to be higher than most of the other damage focused martials. They can get the benefits of a shield with Dueling Parry eventually having this every round from a stance. Their finisher damage can be quite high, especially if they crit.
Wit is a very good style. It allows a Swashbuckler to attack will saves to recover Panache as well as Tumble Through. The use Bon Mot to attack will sets up other casters with access to will save spells such as occult and arcane casters.
I'm not completely sure how to rate the Swashbuckler as bad rolls on Panache recovery or a finisher attack can lead to some bad rounds, just as good rolls can lead to a stellar round. It can be a swingy class. I would say somewhere above monk for damage, but not as consistent a damage dealer as most of the other martials.
Don't have enough info on the investigator to judge it. I'll rate the casters in the next post.
My particular group is focused heavily on combat. I know combat is the primary focus of these types of games with some exceptions for those who enjoy non-combat elements. I'd like to hear how some of you rate the classes in battle after a year of playing.
Barbarian: This class starts off rough. You are almost always pretty easy to hit and crit, especially if Giant Instinct. But boy, you hit like a mack truck. If you get going with a string of good rolls, the barbarian starts mowing things down. Their crits are nuts, especially if using a greatpick.
You start to be able to absorb damage a little better once you get renewed vigor, which makes you more durable. If you're fighting creatures that are affected by your damage resistance, you do even better.
Barbarian is a very fun and powerful class. I put them on the upper end of the power scale with damage and abilities that scale very well.
Rogue: This class stays good from start to end. Damage scales very well. Tons of useful feats. You are the absolute master of skills. You can scout. You can clear hazards. You work in tandem with your party to rip things apart in combat. The rogue has been returned to it's pre-3rd edition glory.
Both the Ruffian and Thief are worthwhile. Either one performs at a high level.
Champion: Most annoying class to DM of all the classes. Hard to kill. Makes attacking anyone but them very costly. Not the highest damage, though with a good weapon very solid. Very powerful class in the group dynamic. Thematically cool. Overall Champion is an impressive class with powerful defensive capabilities that make them the best tank for a group.
Ranger: Ranger is a fun class. Really captures the old edition archer or two-weapon style specialist. Flurry and Precision are both great for combat. I think they are the best switchhitting class in the game given it takes one low level feat to be good at ranged or melee with action economy.
Good perception, reflex saves, and can be stealthy. They also...
Really liking the rating and agree with them almost entirely.
absolutely loving this iteration of fighter, also rogue barbarian and ranger are not only mathematically good but they feels good to me.I still not had the chance to try a tenet of evil champion, can anyone that tried that share their experience and rate them? (combat oriented like the thread specify)
Flurry ranger uses haste and multiple actions best. That MAP reduction with a Flurry ranger when hasted is just ridiculous. I think Flurry scales better than precision myself, but Precision hits harder for those precision hits.
Flurry ranger uses haste and multiple actions best. That MAP reduction with a Flurry ranger when hasted is just ridiculous. I think Flurry scales better than precision myself, but Precision hits harder for those precision hits.But not rangers are flurry.
Also, a fighter with agile weapons is also good, and from lvl 10+ it is better than ranger until lvl 17.
Not sure about early levels in terms of calculations, but I'd prefer a higher roll on my first attack then a slightly extra hit on my last attacks ( because of critical hits ).
I found that if you have to build for maximal damage per attack to really make Flurry shine. If you do, it's huge damage with an animal companion and gang up.
And they are good switch hitters. One first level feat taken with Natural Ambition if human or half-elf to gain the action economy bonus for an archer. With flurry you can unload with a bow.
With rogue sneak attack, side by side, and goblinslicers a flurry ranger is +0, -2, -4 with 4 attacks and his animal companion flanking after it moves into place, usually by round 2. I've found the four rolls leads to a lot of crits. It was a very nasty, high damage build keeping up with a great weapon fighter far better than a monk. And if you get haste that haste attack hits easier too for up to 5 attacks in a round.
Maybe a fighter is a better and now you can get an animal companion with a fighter. I haven't tested it. A fighter hits more often, but doesn't get that Legendary Perception and Legendary Reflex saves which I like. Or the ability to move through difficult terrain with ease.
Ranger gets a lot of little perks that are fun. Even Gravity Weapon is nice, though better with Precision ranger I think.
I found that if you have to build for maximal damage per attack to really make Flurry shine. If you do, it's huge damage with an animal companion and gang up.
With rogue sneak attack, side by side, and goblinslicers a flurry ranger is +0, -2, -4 with 4 attacks and his animal companion flanking after it moves into place, usually by round 2. I've found the four rolls leads to a lot of crits. It was a very nasty, high damage build keeping up with a great weapon fighter far better than a monk. And if you get haste that haste attack hits easier too for up to 5 attacks in a round.
Ranger gets a lot of little perks that are fun. Even Gravity Weapon is nice, though better with Precision ranger I think.
Pick or d8 weapon with one doglicer works even better actually. Still 0,-2,-4,-4(,-4 hasted) with the first attack with pick/warhammer. The best crit option with a nice crit weapon. Add in second strike (for attack 3 and 4) at level 12 and the damage rises. You miss out on the first sneak attack, so effectiveness depends on the TH and crit chances of the enemy you're fighting.
But I choose ranger for lots of Recall knowledge at lvl 10 with Monster Hunter. One of those perks you mention.
Not sure about Gravity weapon, which only works on the first attack and doens't really add much. If it would've worked on the first hit, it would be better.
Better to use double slice.
0/0/-4/-4
Dedication is available by lvl 2.
That book wasn't out when I first made him. I think I will be switching to that. It's like bringing the flurry online early.
I found that if you have to build for maximal damage per attack to really make Flurry shine. If you do, it's huge damage with an animal companion and gang up.
With rogue sneak attack, side by side, and goblinslicers a flurry ranger is +0, -2, -4 with 4 attacks and his animal companion flanking after it moves into place, usually by round 2. I've found the four rolls leads to a lot of crits. It was a very nasty, high damage build keeping up with a great weapon fighter far better than a monk. And if you get haste that haste attack hits easier too for up to 5 attacks in a round.
Ranger gets a lot of little perks that are fun. Even Gravity Weapon is nice, though better with Precision ranger I think.
Pick or d8 weapon with one doglicer works even better actually. Still 0,-2,-4,-4(,-4 hasted) with the first attack with pick/warhammer. The best crit option with a nice crit weapon. Add in second strike (for attack 3 and 4) at level 12 and the damage rises. You miss out on the first sneak attack, so effectiveness depends on the TH and crit chances of the enemy you're fighting.
But I choose ranger for lots of Recall knowledge at lvl 10 with Monster Hunter. One of those perks you mention.
Not sure about Gravity weapon, which only works on the first attack and doens't really add much. If it would've worked on the first hit, it would be better.
It's up to a +8 status bonus to damage for the first strike with major striking of a round. That's pretty good bonus for 1 minute and 1 action.
I like picks, especially on barbarians or two-hander fighters. Those crits as nasty.
I was looking at the Sawtooth Sabre. That twin gets better and better as you level and your weapons get higher damage dice. It seems like a great choice for something like Impossible Flurry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I think about the classes that I've seen in play (I have had zero players pick up Ranger, which has been disappointing for me), I have to break down the class strengths much the same way, but... slightly differently.
Barbarian
Damage: (4/5) Just big, huge swingy alpha strikes, but I was actually surprised when what I mostly saw was the barbarian in our group getting off a massive hit and then... well, it felt like it lacked consistency.
Defense: (4/5) I think this is strange, but having seen both a Giant Barbarian who grabbed AoO with a reach weapon and a maneuver focused Animal barbarian, the barb actually seems like it could quite easily turn into a "protect the backline" sort of character quite easily, and it's how I prefer to play the class now. It's a little against type, but interesting.
Overall, thematic, cool, and fun. Wouldn't say no to anyone bringing this to a party.
Champion
Damage: (2/5) This one might be on me, as I built a very sword+board defensive paladin who just protected his allies. I also had a horrendous string of rolls. But I also don't think that there's a huge queue of people lining up for the damage potential of the champion. That said, I really want to see an evil champion in action.
Defense: (5/5) This seems obvious. The champion smack dab in the middle of the fight is practically immovable. Between combat heals, reactions, and a smattering of maneuvers, champions are defensive monsters. I actually had a sorcerer multiclass champion to grab lay on hands and Champion's Reaction and it was enough for him to protect the team, for the most part.
The champion is just so good. It's nearly a point of being too good in my local group since everyone mostly just nods and says, "Well, we're going to need a champion, of course." I just want someone to bite the bullet and play a tyrant or something already.
Fighter
Damage: (5/5) Where the barbarian gets this massive alpha strikes, the fighter gets that and more. Consistency, consistency, consistency. I have two newer players in my group and they've picked up some bad habits from the fighter ("Hell yeah I'll use my third action to Strike again!"), but I can't really blame them. Fighters, even built defensively, can be terrors on the battlefield.
Defense: (3/5) I'm going to sound crazy, but I played a sword+board fighter (I have a type, alright?) and ended up being more of the damage dealer of the party. I really wanted to protect my party, but the tools for it just weren't there in the same way that they are the champion. Getting asked to save someone typically meant charging in and beating the enemy down with my flail. I think the good thing about the fighter's defensive capabilities is that they don't in anyway detract from their offensive ones.
It goes without saying that the fighter is just great. They can't fly or burn a room to the ground, but they can apply a new coat of red paint to the walls.
Monk
Damage: (3/5) I... don't care about monk damage? Like, I appreciate the monk in there mixing it up and punching guys in the face and kicking people around, but looking over at the barbarian and the fighter, it's hard to stack up to that damage. I'm super happy to have someone show me an amazing damage build (I have not seen a dragon style monk and that's something that interests me). They can still do damage, but... it's sort of like what I see as a baseline.
Defense: (4/5) I have gotten to play with more tanky, defense-oriented monks, so my view may be wildly skewed. Watching mountain stance monks wade into combat and walk out the other side fairly unscathed has been wondrous. I also have a friend who happens to abuse Assurance + Flurry of Maneuvers the second he zeroes-in on those save DCs, which makes for a pretty helpful control element.
If you told me back in 3.X days that I would view the monk as a hardy battlefield control master, I would have laughed. That's the spot that I love the monk right now. Darting in and out and tripping, grappling, and scooting away. They're a blast to watch (and to play, too, I hope)!
Rogue
Damage: (4/5) I see nothing but consistent, even damage coming from rogues when I really thought it would be a lot more spike-y. I haven't seen a build yet that doesn't deliver on just being good at hurting things. We know what rogues can do, but what I want to talk about is...
Defense: (1/5) Actually, not this. What I would like to focus on is going to break the mold here a little.
Utility: (5/5) What the hell can't a rogue do? I've seen rogues take over the healing, I've had buffing rogues, I've had caster rogues, I've had annoyances on the battlefield just enabling everyone else to do their thing. A rogue slots so well into every party as long as they think about what sort of role they want to fulfill. Ugh, I love them.
Rogues are solid. Just fantastic, if only for their sheer versatility stacked on top of a reliable damage dealer and skill monkey.
Swashbuckler
Honorable mention here because I only got to see this in one session of a game of The Slithering. Which for those in the know, does not start off great for swashbucklers. This class looks like it's going to be really consistent and flavorful. And it looks like you can sort of turn the dials and set where you want your offense and defensive capabilities.
Better to use double slice.
0/0/-4/-4
Dedication is available by lvl 2.
Couple of reasons why it doesn't work so well:
- Can't use a combi of agile/non-agile weapons (pick/dogslicer)- Double slice means you can't use second sting (lvl 12)
- Won't be able to use DS non-hasted a lot, if you need to do other actions (move, AC)
I don't think the better second attack does much for a feat and the other actions you need to take. I looked at it, but decided to skip it. Purely for damage, it might work sometimes.
- You can. Your offhand has to be agile, while the main hand can be anything.- Why wouldn't you be able to do so? Also, you will simply use Twin Takedown as second third action.
- You will be using it everytime you can. If you can't, you will stick with twin takedown ( Until lvl 14 if you are a fighter ) + strike
I really doubt we will ever find something better than double slice to be honest.
As ranger, you'd do 3 actions with DS, TT @0,0,-4,-4. This is using two agile weapons. If you go for agile/non-ag, you get 0,0,-4,-6 using DS, TT.
Second sting is a separate action, can't be combined with DS, TT. You need to use TT, SS, SS. Average damage for TT, SS, SS is higher then DS, TT on lvl 12-17. The more difficult the enemy, the bigger the difference (you'll be missing a lot).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now then, defense!
2. A much more representative monster would hit you on a 7.
Increasing your AC by +3 makes the monster hit you on a 10.
This reduces the incoming damage only by 3/14ths or 21%.
And even that is missing the point.Which is: even with the extra AC, your reliability as a defender is STILL very poor. Sure, on average you take 20% less damage. But in any given fight, you are still very likely to suffer just as much damage as without that AC. (The probability of the monster simply rolling few 7s 8s or 9s is considerable).
Not totally right. You need to consider both hit chance and crit chance. SO in your example, the hit chance (7) is 50% and the crit chance is 20%. By changing your AC you don't reduce the hit chance, still 50%, but you really reduce the crit chance to 5%, which is a lot.
Plus, to hit on a 7 doesn't sound very realistic. That is a very high level monster, or a very low AC.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not totally right. You need to consider both hit chance and crit chance. SO in your example, the hit chance (7) is 50% and the crit chance is 20%. By changing your AC you don't reduce the hit chance, still 50%, but you really reduce the crit chance to 5%, which is a lot.
Yeah, this. Plus it matters on the second attack, which is a common occurrence and matters a lot. Zapp is vastly undervaluing defense here.
Let's examine some math. With hitting on a 7 for, say, 25 damage a monster's DPR for two attacks (assuming non-agile on the second) is 32.5. Add +3 AC, meaning they hit on a 10, and that DPR goes to 23.75. That's about a 27% reduction in damage.
To look at how that actually plays, that takes a 10th level character (about the level who'll get hit for 25 damage per attack) who probably has just shy of 150 HP, from being taken out in four rounds, to being taken out in 6. That's a 50% increase in amount of time remaining standing without healing. And a big difference.
And that's actually less than a real defensive character gets. A real defensive character (like a Champion) might easily have more like +5 AC (for average damage of only 18.75, and 8 rounds up) counting a shield. The Shield, to be clear, at 10th, reduces that damage by another 13 by another 4 times on average (if Sturdy, which it will be), extending that character's survivability by another two rounds, maybe even three if they're lucky and have the full +5. That totals ten rounds up without healing, maybe even 11 in some cases.
Staying up for ten rounds rather than four vs. the same enemy is not a small difference. At all. And is very much the sort of added durability you can plan around.
Heck, even a non-Champion can get to 8 rounds and double what they started with just with Heavy Armor and a shield alone.
Now, a Cleric healing you is also a valid way to stay up, but that neglects the buffing and debuffing a caster can do, which Zapp is similarly undervaluing quite a lot, and even with a Cleric around and focused on healing, being vastly more durable and less in need of their help remains very useful.
Plus, to hit on a 7 doesn't sound very realistic. That is a very high level monster, or a very low AC.
No, a 7 is about right for most on level monsters vs. standard martial AC with their first attack. It's a tad lower at early levels, but only a tad (they hit on about a 9 at 1st) but by 13th, standard martial AC is 34 while standard monster attack bonus is around +27...which is very precisely hitting on a 7. Some people will have more than that, but some will have less.
Plus, to hit on a 7 doesn't sound very realistic. That is a very high level monster, or a very low AC.No, a 7 is about right for most on level monsters vs. standard martial AC with their first attack. It's a tad lower at early levels, but only a tad (they hit on about a 9 at 1st) but by 13th, standard martial AC is 34 while standard monster attack bonus is around +27...which is very precisely hitting on a 7. Some people will have more than that, but some will have less.
Ignoring shield, or parry feats (by this time you have stances) plus and buffs (party) and debuffs (enemy). So the 7 is still quite low, but I think otherwise we agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, what is and is not worth it in combat depends highly on the opponents.
You can have a severe-level encounter with a single creature that is at Party Level +3 or six creatures that are Party Level -2. In the former, you'll get slaughtered if you stand in one place and whack at the bad guy. In the latter, high-AC characters are much less likely to be hit or crit, allowing them to shine.
The level-based scale provides a lot of variance in encounters, making each one quite different based on the number, power level, and tactics of your opponents.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Discussing averages "staying up for six rounds instead of six" misses my point. And I expressly cautioned against this.
I understood what you said, I just disagree with you.
Since you can't plan on "staying up", the value of something like +2 AC is considerably reduced.
You really can. More specifically, you can plan on not going down or needing healing nearly as often.
Yes, a paladin with a shield has considerably better AC than a two-handed weapon warrior, which is why I stated that the Champion just might be the exception. IF you can make the monsters focus their fire mostly but not entirely on the Champion, just enough to Cleric healing keeps up, then yes, he or she earns their spot in the party. But that makes you reliant on a specific set up.
Every build tends to be reliant on a specific set up to some degree. I mean, your proposed 'all offense' suggestions rely heavily on having a dedicated healer. That's a big assumption.
Having a four man party consisting of three damage-dealing martials and a Cleric is more flexible, since the number of weak (and hard) points in the chain is minimized.
This really undervalues how powerful buffing and debuffing are in this edition. Bard is generally considered the best caster by a wide margin for a reason.
A 9th level Bard can easily provide effectively +4 to hit to all other characters, as well as +1 AC, via Synesthesia + Dirge of Doom. Doing the math, that's a significantly bigger damage bump on two Fighters than just having a third Fighter is. By a fair bit, actually, and it increases their defenses. And that's just a single example. Debuffing in particular often effectively increases PC offense and defense simultaneously, and doing that is eminently worth having a character devoted to it in the party.
It also ignores area effect damage, which is very good for several reasons, but that gets a bit more subjective, since it's good vs. large numbers of foes, which tend to not be the toughest possible encounters in PF2.
Still, all these evaluations fail to take into account the vastly lower damage output. If your lower damage means the monsters stays alive for two more rounds, the ability to stay alive for two more rounds is worthless.
Sure, if your defensive increase is at the expense of that much damage. But it generally isn't.
The things you can do to increase defense as a non-Champion are basically two things (plus buffs, or debuffs on the enemy...see above for those):
1. Wear Heavy Armor. This is good and costs zero damage. It does cost mobility, but it's often still worth it.
2. Using a shield. This does cost damage...but not that much. At 10th, you're doing 2dX+2d6+8 as a Fighter. Dropping that X from 12 to 8, drops your damage per attack from 28 to 24. A difference of maybe 15%. Your DPR with the two-handed weapon is 37.8 with two attacks, which will take out an on-level foe in 6 rounds or so (if you're soloing them...obviously you're generally not). Dropping that to the 32.4 of the one-handed weapon increases that to 7 rounds, and only a single round more.
A one round increase in how long it takes you to remove foes for nearly doubled survivability is often a good trade, even though killing enemies in one less round is better than surviving them for one more. Killing them in one less is not better than surviving four more.
And, as I said, since monsters don't roll average dice, you have increased risk.
You don't roll average dice either. Relying on taking out opponents is also a risk. Sometimes your attacks will just not hit, and then if you lack defenses you can be screwed.
Will that happen as often? Depends on your party. Fighters in particular are the most resistant to a string of bad offensive rolls, but even they aren't immune.
Sure, in one combat the dice goes your way and everybody is safe. But what about the combats where the dice does not go your way?
Again, any combat where the dice don't go your way is gonna be ugly. Defensive focused characters tend to have more time for those rolls to average out (the fewer rolls, the spikier things can get), as well as more options to mitigate said bad rolls (using a shield does not involve you, the PC rolling, for example) than purely offensive characters do.
I'd probably rather be a shield user than a two-hander if all the rolls are going bad, I have more ways to survive that situation and more time for the probabilities to even out.
I suspect that prolonging the fights by focusing on defense only INCREASE risk over time. It means more combat rounds that can go disastrously wrong. Looking at averages is not the only metric you need to consider.
I think you're very wrong. The more rounds combats last, the more that combat will trend towards the mean. It's short combats that will spike more, both for good and ill. That's just how math works.
In my estimation, killing monsters is the only safe way to mitigate risk.
Killing monsters quickly is absolutely a good idea. But it's impossible to make it certain. By focusing on it and only on it, you're putting all your eggs in one basket. That's not always bad, but neither is hedging your bets by putting some resources into defense as well.
I do agree that, point for point and round quicker killing as opposed to round longer surviving, offense tends to be a better investment than defense. But contrariwise, defense is often cheaper to increase, at least in character resources (as opposed to gold), meaning some investment into it is often very doable at minimal cost to offense. Doing that is a pretty solid idea, and often even optimal.
That's a very different statement from 'defense is useless so why bother', which is what you said, and what I strongly disagree with.
And yes, all of this assumes very difficult combats.
If PF2 did a "5th Edition" and shifted the balance four or five points in favor of the player characters* I would give a very different summary. (My summary would then be "create whichever character you fancy, since survival isn't very difficult" :)
Honestly, PF2 is not that hard to create a survivable character in. You do need to optimize, but only to the extent of 'max out your attack stat and max AC in the armor you're gonna wear'. Everything beyond that is gravy.
For double slice and rangers, I think it's really good for precision ones, but flurry rangers probably want sneak attack from rogue dedication more.
It was interesting reading this thread. The main think I was interested in was the Monk. One of our players seems disappointed with the Monk because "he misses all the time". I have no idea how to help with that except to switch to Fighter/Flurry Ranger. He is coming from 5e and imo the difficulty in 5e is way way too easy unless the GM sends monsters extremely difficult.
Hopefully everything Zapp said about 3 Martials + 1 Cleric and damage being the only thing that matters is wrong... otherwise that would be a little disappointing with all the character options.
I am glad some people like the Fighter I just personally don't see much things interesting and kind of wish they went a different route. It seems like players sometimes just look a +2 hit/crit and get the impressions that they are better just buy that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard. Martials are blunt objects and most of the problems in this game are nails. Wizard is not great.This game set out to prevent Wizards from shining. It succeeded. The End.
Shame nobody considered that having a Wizard in your party is not mandatory. Nobody's interested in playing a sucky Wizard to atone for all the spotlight hogged during the PF1 years.
It should be said that 5th Edition too forgot the original reason why anyone would ever want to play a frail Wizard: because they're compensated for their fragility by (eventually) being able to do stuff parties otherwise simply couldn't do, stuff the parties need to avoid actual inconvenience! Adventures and rulesets nowadays don't require Wizards. Even the arcane list itself no longer has exclusive access to the cool stuff.
Give the Wizard maybe 50% more damage (especially at single-digit levels) and unshackle their single-target save or die spells so we at least reach the power level of 5E Wizards, I say. Nothing is especially great about 5E Wizards, but that game at least managed to contain 3E-era imbalance without making Wizards actively suck.
In conclusion, there is no real reason to ever play a PF2 Wizard. There is real reason to play a Fighter or a Rogue, but not a Wizard. You can of course still play one if you think it brings you fun, but the original notion, that parties accept the burden of bringing along an arcane caster for actual reasons, has simply been lost to the game designers.
If the wizard in my game dealt 50% more damage, the monsters in my game wouldn't have room to breathe. She's already one of the highest damage characters I've seen, mainly against groups.
As for why someone would want to play a wizard, 4 slots per level of prepared arcane spellcasting is enough for her. She's enabling plans that would never be possible if she were playing a Druid or Fighter. Next session, the party will be preparing to assassinate someone. She's going to:
- Craft four scrolls of Invisibility to cast on the party as they go in. She's also going to craft an extra bag of holding that will be used later.
- Prepare a Lightning Bolt to take advantage of a -4 to reflex saves an unconscious creature takes.
- She's also got a lot of other infiltration spells that she's learning and preparing specifically for this that I can't remember off the top of my head right now. I know she's preparing some Nondetections to make them harder to track.
- And she's preparing a Stone Shape and is planning on using Drain Bonded Item. She's going to stuff the body in the bag of holding and use her two castings of Stone Shape to hide it in any stone she can find to prevent the body from being scryed on.
No other class barring maybe arcane witch can pull all this off on her own, and the party (Barbarian, Champion, Divine Sorcerer) would be completely unable to safely pull this off without her. Between the versatility of the arcane spell list and the ability to completely change up your spells daily, that's why people play wizards.
EDIT: I realize now that this isn't the spellcasters thread, and what I posted isn't strictly combat relevant, but I'm going to keep it here anyways. I want to avoid derailing the thread though.
Oh hey, another one of these threads that went from "a bad idea" to straight-up toxic in less than a day.
Who would ever have guessed?!
This mostly happens when people instead of sticking to the original thread question, in this case stating their opinion about a certain topic, start discussing other peoples opinion.
Wizard. Martials are blunt objects and most of the problems in this game are nails. Wizard is not great.This game set out to prevent Wizards from shining. It succeeded. The End.
Shame nobody considered that having a Wizard in your party is not mandatory. Nobody's interested in playing a sucky Wizard to atone for all the spotlight hogged during the PF1 years.
It should be said that 5th Edition too forgot the original reason why anyone would ever want to play a frail Wizard: because they're compensated for their fragility by (eventually) being able to do stuff parties otherwise simply couldn't do, stuff the parties need to avoid actual inconvenience! Adventures and rulesets nowadays don't require Wizards. Even the arcane list itself no longer has exclusive access to the cool stuff.
Give the Wizard maybe 50% more damage (especially at single-digit levels) and unshackle their single-target save or die spells so we at least reach the power level of 5E Wizards, I say. Nothing is especially great about 5E Wizards, but that game at least managed to contain 3E-era imbalance without making Wizards actively suck.
In conclusion, there is no real reason to ever play a PF2 Wizard. There is real reason to play a Fighter or a Rogue, but not a Wizard. You can of course still play one if you think it brings you fun, but the original notion, that parties accept the burden of bringing along an arcane caster for actual reasons, has simply been lost to the game designers.
a honest and straight to the point person great that is so rare to find these days
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Monk needs to find non-attack ways of deriving advantage from its extra action over other martials. This isn't too hard right now and is only going to get easier as more books come out.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My particular group is focused heavily on combat. I know combat is the primary focus of these types of games with some exceptions for those who enjoy non-combat elements. I'd like to hear how some of you rate the classes in battle after a year of playing.Let's begin by looking at the overall picture.
In our experience, Pathfinder 2 is yet another D&D iteration underestimating the utility of
1) Targeted Offense
and
2) MobilityDefense, however, is not really worth it. More on that shortly. Area damage is severely overcosted in PF2. The only spellcaster truly worth having is someone that can cast 2-action Heals. (Now I'm ruthlessly evaluating combat performance, not "player fun")
Instead of bringing a Wizard that can put -1 nerfs on monsters, why not simply bring a martial that kill the monster? The ability to deal awesome area damage is non-existent during levels 1-10. The ability to shut down a BBEG is basically shut down altogether. Any save or suck spell pretty much must have several targets or it's useless. (You NEVER waste your high-level slots on a spell intended for a BBEG if it has the Incapacitate trait, since that slot can be put to so much better use) Sure, you can switch out one martial at maybe level 11 for that Wizard, but that's too late for me to give the spellcasting system of PF2 a pass: most D&D games only force casters to endure 4 levels of suckitude at most.
The ability to deal awesome area damage is non-existent during levels 1-10.
I don't know why you keep making this statement as it a complete falsehood. My druid has dealt meaningful AoE damage many times prior to lvl 10. It's a lie that you continue to state as though it is true. Please stop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zapp's just going to respond with the canned response about playing Official Paizo Adventure Paths on the Default Difficulty Setting and how what they're talking about only corresponds to that. *yawn*
It was interesting reading this thread. The main think I was interested in was the Monk. One of our players seems disappointed with the Monk because "he misses all the time". I have no idea how to help with that except to switch to Fighter/Flurry Ranger. He is coming from 5e and imo the difficulty in 5e is way way too easy unless the GM sends monsters extremely difficult.
Hopefully everything Zapp said about 3 Martials + 1 Cleric and damage being the only thing that matters is wrong... otherwise that would be a little disappointing with all the character options.
I am glad some people like the Fighter I just personally don't see much things interesting and kind of wish they went a different route. It seems like players sometimes just look a +2 hit/crit and get the impressions that they are better just buy that.
This is a thread about absolute combat minmaxing. Monk and spellcasters are in no way "underpowered". Pf2 is pretty balanced, compared to pf1 for example. And while combat is important. 3 martials and cleric might be a super strong minmaxed way of playing but that doesnt mean other groups arent viable, or that much weaker. And combat isnt everything for every group.
And on topic of monk. Monk still has the most damage for one action, you just dont want to use a third attack. Then monks hit chance shouldnt be much worse than flurry ranger. And compared to 5e monk pf2 monk is still miles better, 5e monk is rather disappointing and is far more behind on damage compared to other martials than pf2 monk is.
In pf2 it might be "slightly" worse than other classes, which from a min max perspective is enough to disregard it, but you wont feel it that much in actual play.Personally like minmaxing and its fun theorizing but dont let yourself ge discouraged by that.
It's much worse than flurry ranger. You should look at the flurry ranger. It's 4 points worse. That is substantially worse. 1 action for 2 attacks making their damage on an average damage tool does not make it so in the actual game.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're very wrong. The more rounds combats last, the more that combat will trend towards the mean. It's short combats that will spike more, both for good and ill. That's just how math works.No. Any given round contains the potential for disaster. (And enormous luck, but winning a combat quickly is not a problem)
The only way to mitigate this is to bring the number of rounds down. That's just how math works.
One round is seldom gonna be a 'disaster' by the metrics I'd use for disaster. It can be very bad, but there's a huge difference between 'bad' and 'disaster'.
Generally, for a round to be a disaster, I'd say more than one PC has to go unconscious or something similarly verging on the unrecoverable needs to happen. That happening in one round verges on impossible for most of the game vs. most foes if you're using even halfway decent tactics.
Now, ordinary bad rounds (a single PC going down, for example) can turn the encounter into a disaster pretty rapidly if followed by other bad rounds if you don't have ways to mitigate or recover from them...but in many ways doing things to mitigate or recover from a round like that is exactly what defensive options are designed to do. Which is to say that, IMO, defensive options often prevent a bad round from becoming a disaster.
All this is a bit less true at very low levels, which are inherently a bit swingier, but only a bit.
Stop looking at the averages. I've said it twice, I'm saying it again. It's not a 20% lower average that kills you in this game. (Defense-wise, I mean. A 20% lower offense can certainly kill you in that you're exposed to bad luck for longer)
Yes it does. Probably the biggest way those 'bad rounds' you're talking about happen, and can spiral into disaster, is crits by the enemy, and a few points of AC make those vastly rarer. Like way more than 20% rarer.
If the enemy hits you on a 7, they crit 20% of the time. +3 AC drops that to critting 5% of the time, and having an on-level Sturdy Shield can easily mitigate such a turn as well. That almost eliminates critting as a way for this to all go bad. It certainly reduces it by a factor of more like 75% than 20%. Making a bad turn 75% less likely is a huge deal.
Vs. a Level +3 boss the numbers aren't quite as impressive but even there it's pretty huge. I mean, by default they'll hit on a 4 and crit 35% of the time...but +3 AC drops that to 20% and a shield still helps mitigate that damage as well. Their second attack also goes from, if Agile, a 15% chance to crit to a 5% chance, which is obviously huge.
That's still almost a 45% reduction in how likely a bad round is to happen just on the first attack, but actually reduces the odds of two crits (a really bad round, and one that might easily take a PC out right there) from over 5% to only 1%. That's an enormous difference.
So, if a bad round is defined by getting crit (and it often is), vs. on-level opposition, +3 AC reduces the odds of that by around 75%, and even vs. bosses it does so by 45%. That's an enormous reduction in the number of 'bad rounds' even if it makes you take 20% longer (and that's an exaggeration, as I noted previously, it's mote like a 13% reduction in damage than a 20% one).
I mean, just looking at that math, in 100 rounds, vs. on-level opposition, the defensive guy will have 9.75 rounds where he is crit vs. an on-level foe (the second attack also has a 5% chance to crit). That's less than 1 in 10. They'll have 24 vs. bosses. That's one in four.
The high offense guy, in contrast, will only have 87 rounds, but 20.9 of them will involve being crit by an on-level foe, or almost one in four, certainly more than one in five, over double the number of the defensive guy. Vs. bosses they will have 38.9 where they are crit, or almost one in two (over 45% of the time), and almost twice as often.
So you'll get crit, and thus likely have a bad round more than twice as often going pure offense, even taking into account the lower number of total rounds.
If high AC didn't drop the number of crits you receive, it would be a lot worse, but mitigating crits just vastly decreases the number of rounds where things go bad by such a large degree that it's often worth it for that reason alone. A reason you are just flatly ignoring.
Honestly, PF2 is not that hard to create a survivable character in. You do need to optimize, but only to the extent of 'max out your attack stat and max AC in the armor you're gonna wear'. Everything beyond that is gravy.You can't create a survivable character in PF2. Even if you max out on defense, the first APL+3 boss you meet will probably 1-round KO you. It's all about the d20 and how it flies for you that day.Yes of course.
It's my entire point: for a defense increase to be valuable, defense itself needs to be valuable. Defense in PF2 is very far from being good enough that a further increase makes a difference.
But this isn't true. 'Survivable' and 'will never go unconscious, no matter what' are very different things. PF2 is not a game where your character will never, under any circumstances, be knocked out. But being knocked out very occasionally does not mean a character is not survivable.
Also, while a Level +3 enemy allowed to take their turn whaling on you will definitely be a bad scene, there are a lot of ways to prevent that from happening, almost none of which are 'more offense'. A level +3 enemy is effectively impossible to take out in one round most of the time, so you need to be careful and work on ways you utilize your superior action economy to screw over its action economy, not just move in and attack it. Debuffs, tactical movement to force it to spend actions getting to you, and similar things are all necessary in order to properly manage the terrible threat that a Level+3 monster is.
Hopefully everything Zapp said about 3 Martials + 1 Cleric and damage being the only thing that matters is wrong... otherwise that would be a little disappointing with all the character options.I hope so too... (I didn't actually say that)
Based on player feedback casters that actually don't rely on slotted spells so much, such as Druids and Bards, can work great. It's the slotted spells that are nerfed right to the bone.
The easier the combat difficulty the more room there is for "fun" (but not especially effective) builds. Good luck with your game!
Spell slot spells can be really good. Several of Bard and Druid's best tricks are slotted spells (Synesthesia is just brokenly good, for example). The issue tends to be which spells are good has radically changed from PF1. If you play a PF2 caster like a PF1 caster you will suffer...but that doesn't make them bad, it just means you need a paradigm shift in how they operate.
- You can. Your offhand has to be agile, while the main hand can be anything.- Why wouldn't you be able to do so? Also, you will simply use Twin Takedown as second third action.
- You will be using it everytime you can. If you can't, you will stick with twin takedown ( Until lvl 14 if you are a fighter ) + strike
I really doubt we will ever find something better than double slice to be honest.
As ranger, you'd do 3 actions with DS, TT @0,0,-4,-4. This is using two agile weapons. If you go for agile/non-ag, you get 0,0,-4,-6 using DS, TT.
Second sting is a separate action, can't be combined with DS, TT. You need to use TT, SS, SS. Average damage for TT, SS, SS is higher then DS, TT on lvl 12-17. The more difficult the enemy, the bigger the difference (you'll be missing a lot).
Thanks for stating the built in expectation of the game.
Casters have certain defensive spells that are helpful, but RAW Ac is only expected to reach an adequate level as higher AC and damage resistance slows the game down substantially, just like when you fight a golem.
So to speed up play PF2 eliminated much of the defense to create a default level of defense that makes combat faster and more back and forth.
Mobility only helps if the combat area is big enough to make it useful unless you mean the simple mobility of getting to the creature. That is "duh" idea.
Anyway, to give my opinions on the classes I've seen in play:
Barbarian: Very strong in combat, and can effortlessly be the highest damage dealer in the party. However, I feel like they have more accuracy problems than other martials due to making fewer attacks and not being able to use agile weapons effectively.
Cleric: A healing don't cleric can make just about any party composition work due to being able to effectively undo mistakes at the press of a button. The only cleric I've seen was a dedicated healbot, so I can't comment on other builds.
Champion: A defensive beast, great in just about any party with at least one other mel in character. Can be a little frailer than expected before level 7 if you don't pick Shield Ally.
Druid: A strong spell list, but power varies a lot by subclass. If you're a Leaf druid, Order Explorer is basically required to be effective. My personal least favorite caster I've seen in play.
Monk: Not on the highest end of damage, particularly since I've only seen a dex monk. However, rarely goes down in combat.
Sorcerer: Can be very powerful and versatile in combat, as long as their chosen spells allow it. I feel picking niche spells hurts them more than other casters, but being able to unload a single spell over and over when necessary is great.
Witch: Not quite as versatile as other casters, but still serviceable. The focus cantrips vary in usefulness a lot but focus spell hexes are generally strong.
Wizard: Decent blasting, and can be deadly when able to know what comes up ahead. Great buffing capabilities. I feel like it's a bit of a GM/AP dependant caster, though, based on how frequently they can properly prepare and how often scrolls and spellbooks are loot.