| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue people are running into is that certain fighter builds hit the peaks of what you can accomplish in the character building phase early enough that feat selection stops being about trying to bring other builds up to that level for otherwise less effective combat styles, and necessarily has to be about “what else can you do?” Because more damage with your first attack is already topped out.
Also complicating the issue is that item usage is a huge party of hitting the maximum efficiency of character efficacy in a given encounter, and usually that ends up being more of a rock, paper, scissors type of game that works best when your allies help set you up or read the enemy’s game plan before they can get it off.
For example, The amount of additional damage you can do by targeting a weakness at higher level can sometimes mean that making as many attacks as possible, especially ones that do damage on a miss blows getting even 2 extra damage dice with a D12 weapon out of the water. Meanwhile, difficult to overcome resistances can make the exact opposite possible. Trying to fly up really high into melee against a fast, mobile, casting enemy like a dragon can see you laid out flat with a single dispel magic, other times it can be awesome.
What high level fighters do well is give themselves options, which can feel a little confusing since much of the mid game for fighters can feel like being pushed into single combat style specialization
Are people really trying to twist the narrative saying that fighters are bad now? Some of you guys are unbelievable.
I don't think anybody is saying the fighter is bad, just that the fighter isn't interesting. Which is probably a fair complaint since the fighter is one of the most straightforward classes in the game. But some class needs to be a good for onboardingrelatively inexperienced players and "I hit them with my axe- the class" is a good place for that to happen. It's also ideal that the straightforward, easy to play, entry-level mechanics class is also very strong.
Like "I am bored with my current character's schtick" is a better reason to pick a new class at the next opportunity than "my old character stunk."
A frost rooting gnome flickmace on a fighter will whirlwind and put something on the ground slowed 1 and unable imobilized. I mean that sounds fun not boring to me.
Not to mention the fighter doesnt need to dedicate many feats to be able to do this. Its mostly magic item support taking advantage of their better accuracy.
This leaves room to archtype into whatever you want to do more cool things. Fighter just lets you do so much because of all thats built into the class chassis.
Sweep was an awesome feat when fighting mounted enemies. One attack roll let me hero point into crits often in Extinction curse. With a greater fearsome maul, crits were “shows over.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter out damages ranger in both bows and two weapon combat so long as they can use two action attacks and unless your fighting at extreme ranges(I haven't tested impossible flurry though). Bow fighters can also have heavy armor while a two weapon fighter has heavy armor and can use a shield.
Having seen what I thought was a lower damage fighter (one handed weapon) destroy things in FotRP, I don't really see how anyone could say fighter is anything but top tier martial. Later levels they just grow in power so much, it starts overshadowing other martials in a bit of a negative way IMO
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...as to 'optimising the fun out of things' never understood that statement...It's basically talking about the phenomena that happens where a person that is playing a game finds the thing that is the best in their view and as a direct result now feels trapped; they have to use that option, and all other options look like a complete waste of space because "no one" would ever take them.
And often that same person will then lament not having more options. They don't want to be limited to just that small list they've self-selected, but there aren't more things that feel worth taking.
So you end up with someone saying phrases like this one:
I'm not looking for viable. I am looking for high performance.That show a lack of perspective.
Deriven thinks they've got the game figured out better than everyone else, and doesn't even entertain the idea that they might actually be bending the game into an odd shape as a result of their extensive experience and penchant for "high-performance" play and as a result not actually realizing all the builds I was talking about in my earlier post are "high--performance" rather than just "viable".
Much like how a car built to win drag races doesn't feature quite the same things as a car built to win rally races, but it's not really a reasonable stance to say "the drag car is better." even if it does have higher top speed.
Deriven doesn't care about what everyone else is doing. He thinks everyone else should play the way they have fun playing. So please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.
I use numbers measuring performance against comparative options and can determine the best option which I have done for years and years and prefer to play the game this way.
I'm certainly not going to let someone tell me something is true I know empirically is not true that I've already tested myself. I know what works the best the most often and that's what I care about.
If people want to do other things for personal enjoyment, I leave them to it. You should play this game the way that makes for the most fun for you. For me that fun is pushing performance as high as I can get it meaning highest damage, highest AC, best ability to control or win in combat. It's what I enjoy.
Fighter out damages ranger in both bows and two weapon combat so long as they can use two action attacks and unless your fighting at extreme ranges(I haven't tested impossible flurry though). Bow fighters can also have heavy armor while a two weapon fighter has heavy armor and can use a shield.
Having seen what I thought was a lower damage fighter (one handed weapon) destroy things in FotRP, I don't really see how anyone could say fighter is anything but top tier martial. Later levels they just grow in power so much, it starts overshadowing other martials in a bit of a negative way IMO
The fighter is the top tier martial. No one is arguing that. They are just boring and other classes get a lot more. If you all you want to do is hit things for good damage, a fighter is great for doing that.
If you want to do other things, other classes can be better. The rogue is the best martial in the game for overall abilities. I don't even know if it's that close. The rogue is just a crazy class at high level.
Maybe the monk is close to the rogue, but in a different way with all their damage stacking and crazy movement.
...I'm curious what Deriven thinks is the "one good fighter build."
Because in my experience there are several. Though it depends on party composition.
1. Two weapon fighting. Extremely good with a flurry ranger that can share edge at high level. Or a haste caster.
2. The knockdown chain. Best with a giant weapon, preferably one with reach. Especially decent if you have a caster who is also capable of knocking things prone - for instance, a cleric with naga domain or just anyone capable of casting command. Or someone capable of casting enlarge.
3. The Eldritch Archer. Uses its very high attack bonus and imaginary weapon/telekinetic projectile to make enemies implode.
4. Sword and board. Got a fair bit better in the remaster with reinforcement runes. Focuses slightly less on damage and more on not dying and helping friends to not die.
I'd say #4 is probably the lowest damage, but having seen all four of the above in play they're all quite similarly "high performance" and I'd be hard pressed to declare one of them absolutely superior to the rest.
I'm not Deriven, but I'll give it a shot:
1. Two weapon fighting: Ranger has the better in-class support for this sort of build while also providing more freedom. 1 action twin takedown vs 2 action double slice really makes all the difference. While there is definitely room to argue, in the end I believe Rangers are best-in-class for this. However, see 4. I believe two-weapon fighting with shields is the way to go.
2. Deriven favors 2-handed trip focused fighters, and that is what this is. Exchanging a d12 weapon for a d10 or D8 reach weapon (preferably hammer or flail) and leaning into the fighter's reach feats is exchanging damage for more control which may be a good choice depending on your party. This sort of build makes the Fighter's accuracy and reactive strikes shine and no other class has better support for it. Two thumbs up. Very strong build, but turn-to-turn not much variety.
I don't see it myself. The champion's AC tops out higher. They get the extra Divine Reflexes Reaction and Extra Shield block action. Their shield stacks more hit points as well and at level 20 the hit points on a Champion's shield are nuts.
I find shield champions provide more bang for the buck for the group with the increased reactions and auras like Aura of Courage.
That 2 extra points of AC really does help. You wouldn't think it would, but it does and is very noticeable much like the fighter's extra hit bonus.
Straight attacks aren't as important in sword and board fighting, so that extra action to raise a shield isn't a big deal. The champion usually makes up for it with the additional reactions. Most champions usually pick up AoO to make their reactions even more optional.
You can also pick up Rogue Archetype on a Champion and get Mobility and Opportune Backstab at level 16 to further expand reaction options.
Champions are top tier if you want to play a shield using defensive character, best in the game followed by monks, then the fighter.
I'm curious what Deriven thinks is the "one good fighter build."
Because in my experience there are several. Though it depends on party composition.
1. Two weapon fighting. Extremely good with a flurry ranger that can share edge at high level. Or a haste caster.
2. The knockdown chain. Best with a giant weapon, preferably one with reach. Especially decent if you have a caster who is also capable of knocking things prone - for instance, a cleric with naga domain or just anyone capable of casting command. Or someone capable of casting enlarge.
3. The Eldritch Archer. Uses its very high attack bonus and imaginary weapon/telekinetic projectile to make enemies implode.
4. Sword and board. Got a fair bit better in the remaster with reinforcement runes. Focuses slightly less on damage and more on not dying and helping friends to not die.
I'd say #4 is probably the lowest damage, but having seen all four of the above in play they're all quite similarly "high performance" and I'd be hard pressed to declare one of them absolutely superior to the rest.
Good fighter builds.
Two-hander weapon striker which can usually be coupled with control trip fighter.
Archer. Fighters make very good archers and they have some nice nice slots like Debilitating Shot. There are plenty of ways to build around archery. Eldritch Archer with a fighter is very good as well. When you can crit more often, it greatly enhances bow damage. Biggest part of the fighter you give up with archery is reactive strikes as you want to operate at range and not enter melee range or use movement unnecessarily.
The fighter is a simple build class with two huge advantages.
1. +2 to hit with their preferred weapons. This leads to increased critical hits which means to maximize damage you want weapons that do the most damage on a critical hit.
2. Reactive Strikes. You are good at taking advantage of reactive strikes and can build up the reactive strike build, so you want to couple this with a fighting style that maximizes reactive strikes like trip.
Combine the above too elements and optimal fighting styles are ones that combined the highest damage weapons that allow you to provoke the most reactive strikes to take advantage of critical hits.
The archer is really good because you can build them like a poor man's starlit span magus eventually getting Psychic and picking up imaginary weapon. Then you have this big hit chance with a bow using a high damage cantrip that can you use for one big shot every round. You can mix this up with something like Debilitating Shot to do great damage while applying someone like a slow every round. This is an incredibly powerful combination I've seen in action. It's an absolute boss destroyer build.
Those are the two most potent fighter builds I've seen in action and their variations.
The fighter is a top end class as that +2 to hit above others always does well. The other fighter builds are viable as Gortle says. You're not going to push any crazy numbers, but you'll do well enough to enjoy your character and be effective enough for most games.
I don't see it myself. The champion's AC tops out higher. They get the extra Divine Reflexes Reaction and Extra Shield block action. Their shield stacks more hit points as well and at level 20 the hit points on a Champion's shield are nuts.
I find shield champions provide more bang for the buck for the group with the increased reactions and auras like Aura of Courage.
That 2 extra points of AC really does help. You wouldn't think it would, but it does and is very noticeable much like the fighter's extra hit point bonus.
Straight attacks aren't as important in sword and board fighting, so that extra action to raise a shield isn't a big deal. The champion usually makes up for it with the additional reactions. Most champions usually pick up AoO to make their reactions even more optional.
You can also pick up Rogue Archetype on a Champion and get Mobility and Opportune Backstab at level 16 to further expand reaction options.
Champions are top tier if you want to play a shield using defensive character, best in the game followed by monks, then the fighter.
We may have to agree to disagree. Having played a sword-and-board champion, I personally found it to be a little sad. Redeemer has a lot of issues bouncing off things that use finesse weapons or spells (it's a lot more than you'd think at first glance), and its reaction isn't very repeatable - once someone is enfeebled, enfeebling them again doesn't help. So your core boost at high level ("get more champion reactions") winds up being weaker than it should be. Meanwhile liberator falls off the more reach enemies get (which is especially true at higher level), since the step can't get your ally out of range. And the evil champions (especially desecrator and antipaladin) just don't have good reactions.
The only really good champion option at higher level is paladin, but its reaction is pretty similar to reactive strike - and has the usual issues of being lower damage because you're wielding a 1-handed weapon...
Well, another controversial take I guess would be I would not play any Champion other than a paladin if I wanted to build an optimal champion. At least if focusing on other than evil or what used to be evil champions.
Redeemer is ok. I've seen one played. Forcing someone to not attack or take a penalty isn't the worst ability I've seen. But Champion Paladin is the optimal champion.
Liberator might be great in a specific type of campaign or very occasionally, but they are not great for general play.
If you're comparing a sword and board fighter to a redeemer, then maybe the fighter is better. I don't know. Redeemer is not a particularly well built class.
One of their best abilities of damage shielding their allies still requires them be within 15 feet of their enemy. This is a terrible design choice as things doing AoE damage are rarely within 15 feet. Dragons often blast from the air. Casters launch from distance much greater than 15 feet. That 15 foot limitation greatly reduces the effectiveness of the redeemer. I hope in the champion remaster they expand the aura and get rid of the enemy within 15 foot limitation for classes like the redeemer. That redeemer high level ability would be pretty good if it deflected damage within 30 feet for allies and didn't even bother affecting the enemy or worrying about how far away they were. It would be a more pure defensive champion, but that would be a cool option for some as they like playing defense.
If you're building a great champion, there is only the paladin for the good side. I haven't toyed around too much with the evil champions. Or holy and unholy now I imagine.
I still think the Legendary Armor alone makes the champion worth playing over the fighter for a shield user. Their damage comes from building out reactions. I would build out their reactions to boost damage. You can also choose to switch it up. You'll have the same AC as the fighter with a shield using a two-handed weapon. So it's not a big deal if you switch it up.
The fighter is the top tier martial. No one is arguing that. They are just boring and other classes get a lot more. If you all you want to do is hit things for good damage, a fighter is great for doing that.
If you want to do other things, other classes can be better. The rogue is the best martial in the game for overall abilities. I don't even know if it's that close. The rogue is just a crazy class at high level.
Maybe the monk is close to the rogue, but in a different way with all their damage stacking and crazy movement.
I agree that the Rogue is amazing at high level. If only Precision Immunity didn't exist I would rate the Thief Rogue as the strongest class in the game.
The fighter is the top tier martial. No one is arguing that.Fighter out damages ranger in both bows and two weapon combat so long as they can use two action attacks and unless your fighting at extreme ranges(I haven't tested impossible flurry though). Bow fighters can also have heavy armor while a two weapon fighter has heavy armor and can use a shield.
Having seen what I thought was a lower damage fighter (one handed weapon) destroy things in FotRP, I don't really see how anyone could say fighter is anything but top tier martial. Later levels they just grow in power so much, it starts overshadowing other martials in a bit of a negative way IMO
Did you read the thread title, the original post, or any of the OPs posts since? They still haven't gotten over the feels weak, even though there's not much support for it.
Did you read the thread title, the original post, or any of the OPs posts since? They still haven't gotten over the feels weak, even though there's not much support for it.The fighter is the top tier martial. No one is arguing that.Fighter out damages ranger in both bows and two weapon combat so long as they can use two action attacks and unless your fighting at extreme ranges(I haven't tested impossible flurry though). Bow fighters can also have heavy armor while a two weapon fighter has heavy armor and can use a shield.
Having seen what I thought was a lower damage fighter (one handed weapon) destroy things in FotRP, I don't really see how anyone could say fighter is anything but top tier martial. Later levels they just grow in power so much, it starts overshadowing other martials in a bit of a negative way IMO
Yes. Read his posts closer and his responses. He knows the fighter is not weak, he wants things they will never add to the class like improved saves and other things when the fighter is built to do one thing well: hit things.
That one thing is deemed very powerful and because of it nothing else will be added. They are set where they are at as the top single target damage dealer with a two-handed weapon.
|
Currently playing what I consider one of the top builds in the game - fighter with alchemist dedication for feral mutagen (L16) and monk dedication for flurry of blows. It has an unarmed D12 bite, D10 agile claw, lots of elixirs for buffing and healing and hands to use a shield.
So you get the defenses of a shield with damage of a 2H weapon user with flurry of blows. The kicker is that MAP is only -3 on the claw because of agile grace and you get the bonus of 2 attacks for 1 action (flurry of blows).
You need Martial Artist dedication to get your improved Fighter proficiency with unarmed attacks.
I'm kind of expecting Champion to get something for raising shields in PC2. They have it now at level 20, which is just too late for most campaigns to matter (especially now that Paizo is doing fewer long APs most of the published material doesn't get to 20 anymore).
Aside from that they use shields really well in terms of defending others. Shield of Reckoning does real work in any case where you can use it, which is still a fair bit even at higher level. Use your second reaction for another Champions reaction and if you dip into Bastion for Quick Shield Block, you still have one to defend yourself.
It's a decent package.
Liberating Stride also gives Liberators some help against larger monsters since it will let people move farther away and for anyone with 30' of movement (which at that level isn't uncommon), they can move 15' away which is out of the reach of most things.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm certainly not going to let someone tell me something is true I know empirically is not true that I've already tested myself. I know what works the best the most often and that's what I care about.
I'm glad to hear that we have empirical evidence that the most effective fighter is a 2-handed fighter using Slam Down and a reach weapon. My next campaign is going to be The Slithering (But With More Oozes; Maybe Only Oozes Actually) and the GM rules that oozes can't be tripped, but empirical evidence shows that I should still play this reach weapon + Slam Down fighter. Without this empirical evidence, I almost would've been tempted to alter my character's build to accommodate the different assumptions of this campaign.
Don't think anyone should be complaining about Fighters. Specially not after they have been unnecessarily buffed.
Their main shtick is "Being best at Fighting", which to my chagrin, they are. They're doing what they supposed to do and being what they're supposed to be. A Mechanically Flavorless Class that is designed to be good at mechanics (which is my problem with it, but I digress). The same goes for Rogues. Which were also buffed.
The "cost" the Fighter pays at higher level is having mechanically good, but largely flavorless, feats.
Using the examples highlighted. Savage Critical is good for MAP attacks and high AC monsters that would only allow criticals on nat20 even for the fighter (buffs, cover, debuffs, etc).
Other feats behave the same, they smooth the grinding gears of the mechanics.The difference now is that the Fighter Engine hits the ground running at level 1 while other classes are running but are a bit clunky and fiddly early game. But late game, the Fighter's engine is running smoothly and strongly, while everyone else have they smooth engines that also fly and do other things, which makes the Fighter's not look as shiny anymore even if it's still good.
That's your trade off. If everyone is running on the Fighter's lane, they win every time, any time. But PF2e is, thankfully, a game of many roads.
Another wrinkle in all of this is whether a table is playing FA or not. If you are not playing free archetype, and every combat style has a must-take, style-defining feat each available level, then the class is pretty much prevented from taking archetype feats (besides being about impossible to do in a balanced manner).
So some combat styles basically being done with a handful of lower level feats makes it a lot easier for players to use the robust archetype system to make a wide breath of characters, and for other classes to engage with that combat style through multiclassing.
All it really takes is one more higher level feat in the 14+ range to be enough to still have fighters stay queens of their queendoms. Then the fighter can decide to either branch out into other fighting styles or go somewhere else with their feats.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I think there are two separate observations here.
One is fighter power, which I disagree with, high level fighters are amazing, they're always amazing.
But the second is pointing out that scaling in PF2 is really weird. There's a lot of internal inconsistency between different class features that mean a class' relative power can jump a lot from level to level. It's notable with save progression, but it's also probably most noticeable for Champions and Alchemists with their armor and weapon proficiency being sometimes unique and sometimes martial standard at seemingly arbitrary levels that have nothing to do with balance.
It's always, imo, been one of the more baffling bits of design in PF2.
I have no clue why they designed it this way but I mostly like the effect it mostly has.
If you compare builds at different levels then it is pretty much the case (yeah, there are exceptions) that
1) at any level the differences between two well designed characters is fairly small and both will be contributing to group success
2) to the extent the comparison makes any sense, the relative ordering of different characters will vary from level to level. Ie, A will be better than B sometimes, B better than A sometimes, and basically on par sometimes
The problem I have is that it's somehow intended to be balanced across a progression, but you never play a progression, you play a character at a specific level. Not only is the potential to be hypothetically ahead of/behind the curve later not matter now, but not every campaign is going to experience those curves in the same way. That's not hypothetical either, Paizo's own printed adventures often take place at discrete level brackets.
A level 7 champion has better AC than anyone else in the game. A level 6 champion doesn't. A level 11 champion is tied with the fighter. Which of these correctly assesses how good the Champion's AC should be relative to the game's baseline?
An Alchemist is as accurate with a sword as a sorcerer at level 6, but as accurate as a ranger at level 7, ends up kind of halfway between them at 10 (give or take on ability scores) then goes back to sorcerer accuracy at level 13. So how accurate should the alchemist be?
To the OP's point. A level 3 fighter has arguably the best saves in the game (E/E/E and fear save upgrades). But a level 9 Fighter has (sans bravery) the same saves as a Wizard, one of the classes with the worst progression.
.. To contrast, a fighter's bonus to-hit is always +2 better than the martial baseline, and increases at the same time as other martial's weapon proficiency to maintain that edge. Would the class and the game be better if there were levels where the fighter just lost their proficiency edge?
IMO it's frankly just kind of weird and a little nonsensical. Naturally, certain classes are going to vary slightly in their performance over time as new options are unlocked, but that's different than hard-coding good levels/bad levels into the game by disrupting progression curves.
Currently playing what I consider one of the top builds in the game - fighter with alchemist dedication for feral mutagen (L16) and monk dedication for flurry of blows. It has an unarmed D12 bite, D10 agile claw, lots of elixirs for buffing and healing and hands to use a shield.
So you get the defenses of a shield with damage of a 2H weapon user with flurry of blows. The kicker is that MAP is only -3 on the claw because of agile grace and you get the bonus of 2 attacks for 1 action (flurry of blows).
I've never tried this build. I know Super Bidi swears by it. It looks like it could be pretty amazing for damage with d12 claws. How is it going in actual play? Are you crushing your enemies for tons of damage? Do you have enough elixirs to last all day?
I'm certainly not going to let someone tell me something is true I know empirically is not true that I've already tested myself. I know what works the best the most often and that's what I care about.I'm glad to hear that we have empirical evidence that the most effective fighter is a 2-handed fighter using Slam Down and a reach weapon. My next campaign is going to be The Slithering (But With More Oozes; Maybe Only Oozes Actually) and the GM rules that oozes can't be tripped, but empirical evidence shows that I should still play this reach weapon + Slam Down fighter. Without this empirical evidence, I almost would've been tempted to alter my character's build to accommodate the different assumptions of this campaign.
No, empirical evidence doesn't show that. That is why it is empirical evidence. If the DM artificially makes your build ineffective, then you adjust using the same process you used to determine the high performance of the Slam Down build. You find out how to best kill oozes and make a build accordingly.
That's why using a scientific like process is the best way to find the best builds which provides you with empirical evidence as to what works best in a given circumstance.
If you know what empirical evidence is, then you know how it works. It doesn't work by mindlessly accepting a build when empirically that build is proving ineffective in a given circumstance. That is why it is empirical to begin with because you're using evidence in the circumstances you find yourself in.
Don't think anyone should be complaining about Fighters. Specially not after they have been unnecessarily buffed.
Their main shtick is "Being best at Fighting", which to my chagrin, they are. They're doing what they supposed to do and being what they're supposed to be. A Mechanically Flavorless Class that is designed to be good at mechanics (which is my problem with it, but I digress). The same goes for Rogues. Which were also buffed.
The "cost" the Fighter pays at higher level is having mechanically good, but largely flavorless, feats.
Using the examples highlighted. Savage Critical is good for MAP attacks and high AC monsters that would only allow criticals on nat20 even for the fighter (buffs, cover, debuffs, etc).
Other feats behave the same, they smooth the grinding gears of the mechanics.The difference now is that the Fighter Engine hits the ground running at level 1 while other classes are running but are a bit clunky and fiddly early game. But late game, the Fighter's engine is running smoothly and strongly, while everyone else have they smooth engines that also fly and do other things, which makes the Fighter's not look as shiny anymore even if it's still good.
That's your trade off. If everyone is running on the Fighter's lane, they win every time, any time. But PF2e is, thankfully, a game of many roads.
How were they buffed? They seem mostly the same.
The rogue was definitely buffed. One of the best classes became even better.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm certainly not going to let someone tell me something is true I know empirically is not true that I've already tested myself. I know what works the best the most often and that's what I care about.I'm glad to hear that we have empirical evidence that the most effective fighter is a 2-handed fighter using Slam Down and a reach weapon. My next campaign is going to be The Slithering (But With More Oozes; Maybe Only Oozes Actually) and the GM rules that oozes can't be tripped, but empirical evidence shows that I should still play this reach weapon + Slam Down fighter. Without this empirical evidence, I almost would've been tempted to alter my character's build to accommodate the different assumptions of this campaign.No, empirical evidence doesn't show that. That is why it is empirical evidence. If the DM artificially makes your build ineffective, then you adjust using the same process you used to determine the high performance of the Slam Down build. You find out how to best kill oozes and make a build accordingly.
That's why using a scientific like process is the best way to find the best builds which provides you with empirical evidence as to what works best in a given circumstance.
If you know what empirical evidence is, then you know how it works. It doesn't work by mindlessly accepting a build when empirically that build is proving ineffective in a given circumstance. That is why it is empirical to begin with because you're using evidence in the circumstances you find yourself in.
I wholeheartedly agree that the empirical evidence that you have described is only applicable to the context in which it was gathered, which is why I find it strange that you are claiming that you "know what works the best the most often". I agree that you need to figure out what build works best given the specific circumstances in which you're playing. But I find it ironic that you're stating this, and particularly that your evidence doesn't work by mindlessly accepting it but requires adaptation, when you've consistently been posting on these forums detailing that you objectively know the best builds, including literally in the quote I was responding to. That is fundamentally incompatible with the viewpoint you're stating now, unless the assumptions in which you've played cover all possibilities, or are somehow the "normal" or "most optimal" assumptions for gameplay. How can you say something like "The best way to build a fighter is make them a trip fighter with knockdown. Take the boosted reactive strike. Knock stuff down, hit it when they get up. This does the most damage." while also acknowledging that you have to adapt to the assumptions of a specific campaign?
In particular, this framing of "the DM artificially making your build ineffective" when faced with circumstances that differ from the ones you've grown used to seems to carry with it this baggage of assuming that your way is the normal way, or maybe the correct way. Taken to the extreme that I did of an adventure that is literally all Oozes it would feel rather targeted (though I imagine more to the rogue or swashbuckler than the fighter), but The Slithering is absolutely an adventure that has been published and one could easily run with no malice or artificial alterations of your perceived-correct gameplay present that would substantially alter the assumptions you're touting as the only way to play the game.
I wholeheartedly agree that the empirical evidence that you have described is only applicable to the context in which it was gathered, which is why I find it strange that you are claiming that you "know what works the best the most often". I agree that you need to figure out what build works best given the specific circumstances in which you're playing. But I find it ironic that you're stating this, and particularly...I'm certainly not going to let someone tell me something is true I know empirically is not true that I've already tested myself. I know what works the best the most often and that's what I care about.I'm glad to hear that we have empirical evidence that the most effective fighter is a 2-handed fighter using Slam Down and a reach weapon. My next campaign is going to be The Slithering (But With More Oozes; Maybe Only Oozes Actually) and the GM rules that oozes can't be tripped, but empirical evidence shows that I should still play this reach weapon + Slam Down fighter. Without this empirical evidence, I almost would've been tempted to alter my character's build to accommodate the different assumptions of this campaign.No, empirical evidence doesn't show that. That is why it is empirical evidence. If the DM artificially makes your build ineffective, then you adjust using the same process you used to determine the high performance of the Slam Down build. You find out how to best kill oozes and make a build accordingly.
That's why using a scientific like process is the best way to find the best builds which provides you with empirical evidence as to what works best in a given circumstance.
If you know what empirical evidence is, then you know how it works. It doesn't work by mindlessly accepting a build when empirically that build is proving ineffective in a given circumstance. That is why it is empirical to begin with because you're using evidence in the circumstances you find yourself in.
I would perform this well at any table I sit down at as I always have. My builds work at any table unless as you have done what you did above to artificially limit them. It won't matter if you DM or Gortle or The Noble Drake. I would show you the numerical superiority and explain why it was occurring.
That two-hander trip melee is the best build for a fighter given a common spread of enemies without an artificial constraint to defeat it. The only build I've seen that could likely outdo it is the alchemist claw build I haven't tested.
Why you believe that an empirical process can't determine the best options in PF2 is beyond me. It has noting to do with how I run the game or the campaign I play with.
It has everything to do with a base understanding the fighter's specific strengths and how to best leverage them.
The high hit chance crits the most. Big weapons do the highest damage crits. Reactive strikes key off certain actions. The easiest way to provoke this reaction is to force a bad position by tripping a target, when they stand up you hit them. If they don't stand up, you debuff them.
Seeing this optimal playstyle for classes like the barbarian and fighter is not rocket science. I'm not sure why it is such a controversial point of view on these forums.
Adapting to an encounter or letting someone else shine when your optimal schtick doesn't work as well is part of the game. You change for that encounter or let someone with a better ability step up. Still doesn't change how the fighter performs best.
One type of campaign can incorporate situations that are impossible to take head on. Too many foes, or some magic is making a foe too powerful, crime boss is legally protected unless you catch him in the act. Sometimes this puts you in infiltration territory and there skills make the difference before encounters can be fought and won. These are kinds of situations the fighter has to rely on their team until a winable fight presents itself.
These situations take more than using sound battle tactics they require players coming up with clever ideas for using their skills and characters need to succeed at skill checks before the encounter to change the game state in their favor enough to make it a fight where tactics are now enough to win whats left of the encounter.
In those situations characters that can do things other than swing a weapon well not only matter, their success is necessary to even have a chance.
One type of campaign can incorporate situations that are impossible to take head on. Too many foes, or some magic is making a foe too powerful, crime boss is legally protected unless you catch him in the act. Sometimes this puts you in infiltration territory and there skills make the difference before encounters can be fought and won. These are kinds of situations the fighter has to rely on their team until a winable fight presents itself.
These situations take more than using sound battle tactics they require players coming up with clever ideas for using their skills and characters need to succeed at skill checks before the encounter to change the game state in their favor enough to make it a fight where tactics are now enough to win whats left of the encounter.In those situations characters that can do things other than swing a weapon well not only matter, their success is necessary to even have a chance.
Optimizing is about building off the strengths a of given class and has very little to do with campaign specifics.
Campaign optimization is a completely different category of optimization. In the example given with an ooze campaign, I would not even make a fighter or any type of frontline martial.
The usual way we deal with oozes is with casters. Oozes are golem equivalent to a martial. They are immune to a lot of what a martial does. If someone wanted to make an all ooze campaign and actually told their players in advance, then you build a stronger caster party to hammer oozes with their often low reflex saves and generally weak defenses against casters.
Just like if doing an undead campaign, then you maybe have more clerics and any class that can deal positive energy damage.
Campaign optimization and class optimization are completely separate forms of optimization working off different information.
Class optimization builds off the strengths of a given class.
Campaign optimization builds off some key component of a campaign like all oozes that can't be tripped. In such a campaign, you may not even want to play quite a few classes because they are generally bad against oozes, this would make other classes with better capabilities against a particular type of creature more optimal.
Absent any information on the campaign, you want to optimize of the class strengths and for the fighters it's crits and reactive strikes. Nothing builds off that better than a two-handed trip fighter. A two-weapon fighter would be cool if the reactive strike allowed you to hit with two weapons when reactive striking, but it doesn't. So max damage on reactive strikes, you need the high damage dice or a slightly lower damage dice with a better crit outcome like an ogre hook.
My builds work at any table unless as you have done what you did above to artificially limit them.That two-hander trip melee is the best build for a fighter given a common spread of enemies without an artificial constraint to defeat it.So... anything that doesn't adhere to your expectations is "artificial" or not "a common spread of enemies"?
I guess that would mean you can tell me what "a common spread of enemies" is in specific terms and it won't be literally the same as any arbitrarily selected grouping of creatures? You'll be able to show, step by step and with book references, exactly why those creatures rather than different ones of the same levels are not "artificial" but others would be.
Why you believe that an empirical process can't determine the best options in PF2 is beyond me. It has noting to do with how I run the game or the campaign I play with.The reason it is "beyond you" appears to be a complete blindspot for the reality that yes, everything you think about the game absolutely does have to do with how you run the game and the campaign you play with.
Because what you are trying to say is that there is a specific set of "normal" parameters for a campaign, and your comments make it clear that this set is not - in your mind - "whatever the GM chooses."
So to you there's a "normal campaign" and an "artificially constrained campaign" where as to reality there are dozens of different equally normal themes for campaigns that have different parameters but are no more or less artificial than any other potentiality because there is no "fighting a dragon right now would be normal, but fighting demons instead is artificially constrained".
To make sure the example is relevant; there's no specifically called-out-by-the-game-as-normal ratio of enemies that are harder to trip you'll be facing. An ooze-heavy adventure is as normal as a goblin-heavy adventure is as normal...
I explained to you the concept of optimization.
Optimizing builds off class strengths. It doesn't care about types of campaigns unless that information becomes relevant.
I am still not sure why this is such a hard idea to comprehend or why it turns into these contentious discussions.
Optimizing off class strengths works. It isn't debatable.
If you want to do something else, go ahead. No one is stopping you. If you don't want to build optimal characters, no one cares. Just don't expect to be as effective if someone like me shows up at your table and you want to play a two-weapon fighter and this other player optimizes into a two-hander trip fighter and is doing 15 to 20 percent more damage than you consistently as well as controlling the target by tripping them.
Basically, if you want to play a suboptimal character don't complain when the optimal character shows up at your table and is crushing everything.
I've had that happen so many times that it gets tiresome. You're not going to talk me to into playing some suboptimal or inferior character because you believe there is no such thing as "optimal." If you want to believe that, you can do so. It won't change that optimal choices exist and I seek to use them.
And I'll leave it there as this line of discussion has gone on way too long for something that should be extraordinarily easy to comprehend, especially considering optimization has been a part of the game for decades.
One type of campaign can incorporate situations that are impossible to take head on. Too many foes, or some magic is making a foe too powerful, crime boss is legally protected unless you catch him in the act. Sometimes this puts you in infiltration territory and there skills make the difference before encounters can be fought and won. These are kinds of situations the fighter has to rely on their team until a winable fight presents itself.
These situations take more than using sound battle tactics they require players coming up with clever ideas for using their skills and characters need to succeed at skill checks before the encounter to change the game state in their favor enough to make it a fight where tactics are now enough to win whats left of the encounter.In those situations characters that can do things other than swing a weapon well not only matter, their success is necessary to even have a chance.
Optimizing is about building off the strengths a of given class and has very little to do with campaign specifics.
Campaign optimization is a completely different category of optimization. In the example given with an ooze campaign, I would not even make a fighter or any type of frontline martial.
The usual way we deal with oozes is with casters. Oozes are golem equivalent to a martial. They are immune to a lot of what a martial does. If someone wanted to make an all ooze campaign and actually told their players in advance, then you build a stronger caster party to hammer oozes with their often low reflex saves and generally weak defenses against casters.
Just like if doing an undead campaign, then you maybe have more clerics and any class that can deal positive energy damage.
Campaign optimization and class optimization are completely separate forms of optimization working off different information.
Class optimization builds off the strengths of a given class.
Campaign optimization builds off some key component of a campaign like all oozes that...
I like to write campaigns that mix different kinds of challenges. Players that invested in skills will have their moments and players that went heavy into combat will have theirs. Players that come up with good ideas along with some good rolls can even beat an encounter without a single strike.
But i will say this. if the party optimizes for combat they will get hard fights. Thats the kind of game they are ready to handle and want to play. If the party is a mix of things they will get a mix of challenges that engage everyone's strengths because thats the kind of game they want to play.
...One type of campaign can incorporate situations that are impossible to take head on. Too many foes, or some magic is making a foe too powerful, crime boss is legally protected unless you catch him in the act. Sometimes this puts you in infiltration territory and there skills make the difference before encounters can be fought and won. These are kinds of situations the fighter has to rely on their team until a winable fight presents itself.
These situations take more than using sound battle tactics they require players coming up with clever ideas for using their skills and characters need to succeed at skill checks before the encounter to change the game state in their favor enough to make it a fight where tactics are now enough to win whats left of the encounter.In those situations characters that can do things other than swing a weapon well not only matter, their success is necessary to even have a chance.
Optimizing is about building off the strengths a of given class and has very little to do with campaign specifics.
Campaign optimization is a completely different category of optimization. In the example given with an ooze campaign, I would not even make a fighter or any type of frontline martial.
The usual way we deal with oozes is with casters. Oozes are golem equivalent to a martial. They are immune to a lot of what a martial does. If someone wanted to make an all ooze campaign and actually told their players in advance, then you build a stronger caster party to hammer oozes with their often low reflex saves and generally weak defenses against casters.
Just like if doing an undead campaign, then you maybe have more clerics and any class that can deal positive energy damage.
Campaign optimization and class optimization are completely separate forms of optimization working off different information.
Class optimization builds off the strengths of a given class.
Campaign optimization builds off some key component
There is another aspect of optimization that doesn't get muched talked about: limited optimal builds make the class less fun in situations where their schtick doesn't work.
This is one of the reason I don't enjoy the fighter much. It's a very limited class doing a very simple thing well. It doesn't have interesting build options unless you branch into archetypes and even then you still feel limited.
Whereas a rogue you're all over the place in what you can build. Six legendary skills. A skill feat every level. Legendary perception. Legendary reflex. master Will. All types of debilitations. You can build for stealth or social skills or stealing or so much.
Casters obtain versatility through spells. Wizard players love the versatility provided by a wide spell list they can adapt as needed. This is the appeal of the wizard to many players.
Sorcs can at least do a bit social skill work with the high charisma.
Wisdom classes are good in medicine, religion, and nature and can build another stat since their casting stat is taken care of.
But barbs and fighters are built to hit stuff real hard. Building to do much else is possible, but not as fun as other classes with more traits built to reward other types of activities.
That's why I don't greatly enjoy fighters as strong as they are. It was fun the first few times to crit hammer stuff, but it got old when you were still just hitting stuff while rogues or casters were involved in tons of other stuff they could do as well as bring the damage hammer.
What I think might be good about the fighter is if you have some other things you want to branch out to you can go all out on that limb and the fighter chassis will carry you in combat.
What I think might be good about the fighter is if you have some other things you want to branch out to you can go all out on that limb and the fighter chassis will carry you in combat.
It will. Out of the few fighters I've built, one branched into Champion and Cleric archetypes eventually around a very simple maul trip build. I picked up cleric casting to heroism myself and max the possibility of crits. It did a ton of damage and was highly effective, but not the most versatile. The other guy was a pick fighter with rogue archetype and mobility with opportune riposte. Trip people, hammer them down, Reactive Strike when they stand up and Opportune Backstab when your buddy hits them. It was pretty crazy damage at high level, but still kind of boring.
I have the most fun with the rogue and magus as martials.
I like playing lots of druids and sorcs.
I was trying to build a Thaumaturge, but their combat schtick is weird. It looks effective single target, but it takes work to make their strong single target damage work. At higher levels AoE damage is often king, so a single target character with a convoluted combat schtick makes the class less attractive to try.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would perform this well at any table I sit down at as I always have. My builds work at any table unless as you have done what you did above to artificially limit them. It won't matter if you DM or Gortle or The Noble Drake. I would show you the numerical superiority and explain why it was occurring.
I agree with you that this discussion has gone on too long, so this will be my last post on the topic in this thread too. I think the quote above shows my issue with your perspective best; what does "artificially limit" mean in the context of a game where there is no presumed baseline? You're trying to split up class vs campaign optimization, but that assumes that there's a default, "normal" campaign that you only have to change your optimization from if you're in an 'artificially limiting' campaign. That will be entirely true for you and the tables you've played at! I think almost all tables have a baseline they work off of, and it will naturally feel like the default. These will be impacted by how you got started with Pathfinder and ttRPGs in general - one of my groups got started with PFS, and you can see how the episodic nature, focus on skills, and lack of consistency in party members has impacted their playstyle. Another started with long-form campaigns with roughly the same set of players now as when they started 8-9 years ago, and their playstyle is influenced in different ways. But I've also played in different places around the world enough to know that this is highly variable; I was surprised upon moving to Sweden to find out there's a greater focus given to Darkvision and similar options among many players here. That may be because there's a strong history of non-D&D games here, many of which are horror-focused - maybe that means these more mundane-feeling options like lighting are more important? I do not know, pure speculation on my behalf (and it might also be limited to the city I'm living in, or just random chance from the people I've met!).
However, all of this variability means that I am confident that you have not figured out how to build these builds that are always the optimal choice unless 'artificially' limited, unless you define 'artificial' limiting as anything that deviates from the playstyle you're most familiar with. For an example that has no connection with the GM at all, I recently finished running a campaign that prominently featured sandbox-y exploration of a forest. My party, which was predominantly melee characters, often chose to try and confront creatures in confined spaces to limit their ability to make use of ranged options and mobility. In this context, I imagine your builds would've worked at roughly full expected performance. However, a different set of players (I'd imagine more likely those coming from combat-as-war instead of combat-as-sport backgrounds) could well have chosen to focus on engaging enemies from 500 feet away. In a party doing this - say a ranger with Far Shot and a composite longbow, a caster specializing in long-range spells like fireball, and maybe a buff-focused character like an archer bard - I am confident that the most effective fighter is not going to be your build that focuses on trip and AoO; you'd spend all your actions moving towards the enemy, and if somehow there was still a meaningful fight left when you survived, you'd be the only target for most of the enemies and you'd die quickly. There is nothing artificial about this set-up; it is the same campaign that I ran with the same GMing style, and nothing I as a GM did to alter the campaign to make it bad for your builds. Despite that, the playstyle of those involved in the campaign means that you'd really struggle to be effective with these builds. Given you don't know what sort of campaign a player is participating in - both in terms of the constraints imposed by the narrative, such as an ooze-heavy campaign, and in terms of the playstyle of the table - your totalizing statements of knowing better than everyone else come off as arrogant and inflexible, at least to me.
Alchemist dedication gives you a lot of elixirs. Main problem is that until high level, they are very low level. Once you hit high level, you can do a lot of healing; and use soothing and numbing tonics for more sustainability in combat
I usually run to 15 plus level. I may give the Wolverine build a shot just to see how it works. Theoretically it looks nuts. As long as you can sustain the mutagen, you can rip things apart.
Maybe even call it a Jekyll and Hyde build.
I am interested in trying it if the right campaign for it comes along. I'll see how well I can optimize it. Maybe the new Alchemist will make it better to do as an alchemist than as a fighter. That would be nice as the Alchemist should be the best at using a mutagen to become a melee monster.