snip
I would like to reiterate that gamism to simulationism is a sliding scale. It is not just one or just the other. A purely simulationist game would be pretty funny, but would be more of a curiosity for most people than it would be a fun pastime. Most games will choose to juggle the competing interests of the two to create a good, widely-appealing result. A lot of what you're saying here is acting like the two are mutually exclusive, when they are not. Only the two extremes are mutually exclusive, and neither really shows up in practice.
EDIT: It's especially worth noting that TTRPGs tend to simulate bespoke fictional settings, and aspects of those settings can themselves be adjusted to make things like gameplay balance align better with diegetics.
===
This also ignores two things.
1) In a PvE game, balance is as much about whether characters can meet and clear the bar the game sets as it is about whether some classes are strictly better or strictly worse. Most PF1E APs can be cleared with parties of lower tiered characters if you know what you're doing. The existence of wizard isn't keeping a party of a fighter, a rogue, a monk, and a paladin from clearing APs. They'll have a worse time than if they had a 9th caster, but they're still plenty capable.
Sure, a samurai is likely to be shown up by a wizard at the table; the wizard can make the samurai's contributions look weak. But that doesn't mean a samurai is useless.
2) MMO players who kick you from parties for playing bad classes have a focus on clearing content, and that is that is their goal. TTRPGs have goals past clearing the campaign, and those goals provide solid incentive to play even poorer classes. Most people think kineticist isn't so hot in 1E, yeah. But there's a good reason to play one despite that: you get to include a guy who controls an element in your campaign story. That narrative incentive creates a huge difference between your MMO example and a TTRPG.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The downside of a tightly balanced system focused on combat is a lack of the build creativity available in other systems.This I don't understand at all. PF2 is THE system for buildcrafting. Most other systems don't come even close. PF1 is more involved, but is almost completely broken. 5e is broken and a complete joke for build crafting. Rules-light systems aren't build-oriented at all, there most situations are resolved with same rolls, there's basically no builds. Other systems are about on 5e level. There're also constructors I guess, like GURPS. There is a lot of character crafting there, but I'm not sure there's more 'creativity'. Whatever this would mean.No it isn't, you are handed a tightly curated set of tools, which interact in a very specific way, to come to a tiny range of results, you cannot go off the script (for instance Champions are tanks, you cannot build one as a wrath of god style smiter anymore, it just does not work)
You have to max out your character primary stat to function, you have to do the buff/debuff and position game, with appropriately classed characters, you cannot go off script.
That's they way the system is built, it's a rigidly designed team based combat game, the characters are game pieces who will never, by design, feel powerful alone, they party might, but individual characters will not.
Actually they will, if they play with 1 or 2 free levels.
Now, what they cannot do is build a character who completely on their own outshines other members of the party.
Which is actually great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I am growing increasingly tired of the “must max out your key attribute” narrative for PF2. There are many builds where it is true, and many more where a +3 is fine, especially if the campaign will end at 10th level, or even more so if it is something like a 4-12 campaign or a stand alone adventure starting at level 5.
But even in the increasingly rare 1-20 campaign, if you only really make 1 attack per round with your Key attribute, and otherwise mostly use skill actions or spells, being a point behind (and 2 at level 20) is not that detrimental to your character, especially if that extra +1 at low levels allows your build to function. I have started with less than a maxed out key attribute on many characters and literally the only one I ever noticed it on/felt like it was a mistake was a maul fighter for extra intelligence. On clerics, bards, champions, and even 2 rogues and one conjurer wizard , I often forgot by level 5 that I hadn’t started maxed out and was pleasantly surprised to be able to boost my key stat then.
It is far more important to say “PF2 expects you to be reasonably good at the actions you want to take the most” than it is to say it requires maxed out attributes to function. You might struggle a little more hitting solo monsters at low levels, but if it helps you learn how to play tactically and be a good team player and give and receive circumstance bonuses, a lower starting key stat will improve your game play experience.
The "must max out your key attribute" is, IMO, a holdover from PF1 or D&D3+. As mentioned, a +3 (or even +2 in some specific cases) at 1st level in the key ability score of a class (which does not always match the most important ability score for a character) is often perfectly fine. Because of the tight math, starting at +3 instead of +4 just means being at -1 for half the levels and ending at +5 instead of +6 at 20th level (before an apex item); even starting at +2, if you invest in increasing that score with one of the four attribute boosts gained every five levels, you can have +5 at 20th level.
The individual "build" in PF2, where you focus as much as possible on one or two options for the biggest numbers, is much less important than setting up multiple "combos" between your character and the other PCs. Success in PF2 is a team sport, where everyone is supposed to use the three action economy to add bonuses to allies and/or penalties to enemies on a round-by-round basis, instead of mashing the "I win" button of performing the same action over and over.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "must max out your key attribute" is, IMO, a holdover from PF1 or D&D3+.
I don't entirely agree here. A character with a 16 in their KAS in PF1 generally feels a lot more stable than a character with a +2 in their KAS in PF2. I'm sorry but if you tell me a Barbarian with +2 Strength is actually really good I don't think I could believe you.
In PF1 point buy, maxing your main stat was extremely expensive, to the point where it was arguably detrimental in many cases to even do so.
PF2 basically removed that mechanic entirely, which leads to more literally min-maxed builds at low levels (because investing in your KAS is almost always a better idea and there's no longer a reward for making more diversified statlines).
Not to mention PF2's math and critical hit changes make those bonuses significantly more important out the gate.
It's unequivocal that maxing your main stat is a bigger deal in PF2 than PF1. That's not just a vibe or subjective feeling it's designed that way on purpose.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...for instance Champions are tanks, you cannot build one as a wrath of god style smiter anymore, it just does not work)...
You totally can. All you gotta do is make a fighter or other offensive class, then multiclass into Champion.
Then you will have a "wrath of [a] god style smiter" in no time at all.
|
|
...for instance Champions are tanks, you cannot build one as a wrath of god style smiter anymore, it just does not work)...You totally can. All you gotta do is make a fighter or other offensive class, then multiclass into Champion.
Then you will have a "wrath of [a] god style smiter" in no time at all.
This exactly.
You start with your concept and use the building blocks of class and archetypes to implement it.
What you should NOT do is take a PF1 character and try to translate them directly into a PF2 build without going back to their core concept.
|
Also, I am growing increasingly tired of the “must max out your key attribute” narrative for PF2. There are many builds where it is true, and many more where a +3 is fine, especially if the campaign will end at 10th level, or even more so if it is something like a 4-12 campaign or a stand alone adventure starting at level 5.
But even in the increasingly rare 1-20 campaign, if you only really make 1 attack per round with your Key attribute, and otherwise mostly use skill actions or spells, being a point behind (and 2 at level 20) is not that detrimental to your character, especially if that extra +1 at low levels allows your build to function. I have started with less than a maxed out key attribute on many characters and literally the only one I ever noticed it on/felt like it was a mistake was a maul fighter for extra intelligence. On clerics, bards, champions, and even 2 rogues and one conjurer wizard , I often forgot by level 5 that I hadn’t started maxed out and was pleasantly surprised to be able to boost my key stat then.
It is far more important to say “PF2 expects you to be reasonably good at the actions you want to take the most” than it is to say it requires maxed out attributes to function. You might struggle a little more hitting solo monsters at low levels, but if it helps you learn how to play tactically and be a good team player and give and receive circumstance bonuses, a lower starting key stat will improve your game play experience.
This, 1000%. I have as many characters that start with 2 +3's as I do characters that start with a +4. I've never felt hampered by being +1 behind the theoretical max in 10 out of the 20 levels.
I also believe that the key to being a top tier character in the endgame is to have minimized the number of wasted stat bumps.(ie half of the stat bumps you use increasing above +4).
How bad it is for your KAS to be behind by 1 depends a lot on the campaign difficulty. I think it's a fairly big deal in earlier, harder campaigns. But I wouldn't sweat it in something like Season of Ghosts.
I do think that mixing characters with a maxed KAS and characters without them does feel a bit against the design ethos of the game, though. It ever-so-slightly erodes that balance pf2e is known for. And the game feels made by balancing performance -ceilings- against each other, not so much things below it. But again, I think how noticeable it'll be will depend a LOT on campaign difficulty.
|
|
How bad it is for your KAS to be behind by 1 depends a lot on the campaign difficulty. I think it's a fairly big deal in earlier, harder campaigns. But I wouldn't sweat it in something like Season of Ghosts.
I do think that mixing characters with a maxed KAS and characters without them does feel a bit against the design ethos of the game, though. It ever-so-slightly erodes that balance pf2e is known for. And the game feels made by balancing performance -ceilings- against each other, not so much things below it. But again, I think how noticeable it'll be will depend a LOT on campaign difficulty.
More than Campaign difficulty, it matters what levels you are playing at. It *only* makes a difference at levels 1-4, 10-14, & 20. If the levels you care about aren't at those levels, there is no advantage to maxing your KAS at L1. (And *not* maxing your KAS is better if you want to keep two stats at 0 and maximize your stats for the target range.)
Fighters and barbarians make a lot of attacks. I have one pre-remaster barbarian build I would try as a raging thrower with a +2 in STR and a +3 in Dex, but the vast majority I would go +4STR, but that is because attacking with all that damage bonus/chance to crit for fighters is their role in the party. Blaster casters are in a similar place, but those are not the majority of martial or caster builds. Making one attack a round with a +3 after making a crucial skill check with a +3 is very fine at low levels and can often make an entire party work better than everyone just trying to strike/vlast for max damage every turn.
So I would actually strongly disagree that some characters with a +3 and some with a +4 key stat is an unbalanced party. It is far more important that the party is balanced around being good (not absolute best) at all the things they do very often, and are not trying to hyper specialize into massive gaps in what they can accomplish if they don’t get to only do the hyper specialized action.
More than Campaign difficulty, it matters what levels you are playing at. It *only* makes a difference at levels 1-4, 10-14, & 20. If the levels you care about aren't at those levels, there is no advantage to maxing your KAS at L1. (And *not* maxing your KAS is better if you want to keep two stats at 0 and maximize your stats for the target range.)
Was admittedly thinking more of APs, which span ~10 levels, making it hard to dodge levels where you're punished. This is fair for modules, homebrew, oneshots in the 5-9/15-19 range and so on; you're 100% correct.
Making one attack a round with a +3 after making a crucial skill check with a +3 is very fine at low levels and can often make an entire party work better than everyone just trying to strike/vlast for max damage every turn.
I feel the need to poke at this because it contains several things that are false.
1) You can't have more than two stats at 3, but having your secondary stat at 3 isn't mutually exclusive with having your KAS maxed. Your typical options are 4311 and 4221. If you don't max your KAS, you could get 3321, which is a bit of a weird spread, but maybe required for an extremely MAD multiclass build. Of the normal options, only 4221 doesn't have your secondary stat at three
2) Most of your crucial skill checks will be made with a stat matching your KAS on a good build. Bon Mot goes on the high CHA character. Athletics goes on the STR character. And so on. There are some exceptions (stuff like a pistolero gunslinger using their intimidate+reload comes to mind), but even then, they'll often be using their secondary stat.
3) There is no "hyper-specialization" occurring when someone takes 4311 or 4221 and specs into what those stats make them good at. That's just normal. The game doesn't let characters be good at too many things at once because of its niche protection anyways, and you want to be good at the things you're allowed to be. Most characters aren't stat-starved in the way you're implying.
...Dedications are deliberately total and utter traps.
This is just provably, objectively wrong. Champion dedication is a pretty good pickup on its own (armor training + skill training x2), and better than a lot of class feats. Champion reaction is one of the best feats in the game for a character in melee range.
Psychic dedication on magus disproves that dedications are trap choices in general.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) You can't have more than two stats at 3, but having your secondary stat at 3 isn't mutually exclusive with having your KAS maxed. Your typical options are 4311 and 4221. If you don't max your KAS, you could get 3321, which is a bit of a weird spread, but maybe required for an extremely MAD multiclass build. Of the normal options, only 4221 doesn't have your secondary stat at three
I run the ancestry stat spread with flaws. I know I have made 3322-1, and I *think* I have made 3331-1.
(I always use the ancestry flaws because I find working around the stat penalty to be an interesting exercise.)
What I gain from those stat spreads is usually better overall defenses (except for the hole where the flaw is) but might be a functional INT or CHA in a class that doesn't usually feature that.
I run the ancestry stat spread with flaws. I know I have made 3322-1, and I *think* I have made 3331-1.
(I always use the ancestry flaws because I find working around the stat penalty to be an interesting exercise.)
What I gain from those stat spreads is usually better overall defenses (except for the hole where the flaw is) but might be a functional INT or CHA in a class that doesn't usually feature that.
Hmmm. You -can- make 3331-1 for sure, which I (pretty foolishly) hadn't considered. Does require some fairly specific choices, though, and ideally an INT or CHA flaw on a character intending to not use that stat. Thanks for pointing out the blind spot.
I don't know if I'd immediately agree that 3331-1 is a valuable option compared to 4321-1, but it is an option. I'm gonna let the thought simmer, and see if there's anything I might find personally interesting or strong to do with it. My first gut reaction to 3331-1 isn't all that negative. I might come around on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a fighter, not a champion. Dedications are deliberately total and utter traps....for instance Champions are tanks, you cannot build one as a wrath of god style smiter anymore, it just does not work)...You totally can. All you gotta do is make a fighter or other offensive class, then multiclass into Champion.
Then you will have a "wrath of [a] god style smiter" in no time at all.
*Laughs in snark*
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Champion dedication is one of the best feats in the game, what are you talking about. scaling armor is incredible for everything without native heavy armor training, and for classes with heavy armor the champions reaction at level 6 is so good that it's almost a meme how often optimizers take it. A fighter with a champion archetype not only fits you're concept perfectly, it is also one of the best builds in the gameThat is a fighter, not a champion. Dedications are deliberately total and utter traps....for instance Champions are tanks, you cannot build one as a wrath of god style smiter anymore, it just does not work)...You totally can. All you gotta do is make a fighter or other offensive class, then multiclass into Champion.
Then you will have a "wrath of [a] god style smiter" in no time at all.
Ignoring the inbuilt feat tax of dedications, a fighter with a champion dedication is not a champion, the clue Is in the name, one writes fighter on the character sheet, the other writes champion. This is like me asking about a horse and getting advice about a grey hound.
Oh and as a multi class. System? Dedications are the worst I have ever seen, Dual Classing in ADnD second edition was better.
So, you like PF1 and dislike PF2. Does not make the latter a bad game though.
Odd choice to come and disparage it on PF2 boards though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bit of a sideline interjection towards grapple again
If the player wants to do awesome martial arts and have grapples that can be really *really* powerful
The player might want to check out the third edition of Exalted
in itself you can grab the enemy, push them around, throw them around, savage them and bash them into stuff
and then there are martial arts and 'class' specific abilities that can be stacked of top
its a lot of rolling with a lot of dice, but (after pathfinder2e) one of my favourite systems (which of course has it's very own problems)
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring the inbuilt feat tax of dedications, a fighter with a champion dedication is not a champion, the clue Is in the name, one writes fighter on the character sheet, the other writes champion. This is like me asking about a horse and getting advice about a grey hound.
Classes are more of an ability based concept.
You can be a barbarian with only fighter-levels, you can be a rogue with only wizard levels, you can be whatever you want. How competent you are depends on the mechanical choices, but the text you write on your character sheet in the "class" entry means nothing to your played persona.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring the inbuilt feat tax of dedications, a fighter with a champion dedication is not a champion, the clue Is in the name, one writes fighter on the character sheet, the other writes champion. This is like me asking about a horse and getting advice about a grey hound.Classes are more of an ability based concept.
You can be a barbarian with only fighter-levels, you can be a rogue with only wizard levels, you can be whatever you want. How competent you are depends on the mechanical choices, but the text you write on your character sheet in the "class" entry means nothing to your played persona.
I was going to say something along these lines too.
Like a fighter that dedicates into storm druid is every bit as much a storm druid at that point as a character that picked a storm druid at level 1 as their class.But that fighter with storm druid dedication is never giving up on training as a fighter they just spent some time learning the basics of druid stuff.
It is very different from how dnd and for that matter advanced dnd did multi classing.
One thing I can imagine is that it is a lot easier to balance a fighter or any class if the nuts and bolts remain the same even if there is the potential to pick up abilities from other classes. A lot harder to balance a fighter that stops gaining basic bonuses as fighter and starts gaining them as druid gaining all level 1 abilities now of druid. because then there are all combinations which now have to all be balanced against all other combinations. And if any level can be a changing point for class then the number of combinations increase.
|
|
Champion dedication is one of the best feats in the game, what are you talking about. scaling armor is incredible for everything without native heavy armor training, and for classes with heavy armor the champions reaction at level 6 is so good that it's almost a meme how often optimizers take it. A fighter with a champion archetype not only fits you're concept perfectly, it is also one of the best builds in the gameThat is a fighter, not a champion. Dedications are deliberately total and utter traps....for instance Champions are tanks, you cannot build one as a wrath of god style smiter anymore, it just does not work)...You totally can. All you gotta do is make a fighter or other offensive class, then multiclass into Champion.
Then you will have a "wrath of [a] god style smiter" in no time at all.
Ignoring the inbuilt feat tax of dedications, a fighter with a champion dedication is not a champion, the clue Is in the name, one writes fighter on the character sheet, the other writes champion. This is like me asking about a horse and getting advice about a grey hound.
Oh and as a multi class. System? Dedications are the worst I have ever seen, Dual Classing in ADnD second edition was better.
So, you like PF1 and dislike PF2. Does not make the latter a bad game though.
Odd choice to come and disparage it on PF2 boards though.
Didn't say it was, only that you cannot build a smite champion, and that I find the dedication system to be so bad I refuse to use it. (Part of that is RP, you cannot play a character that abandons a class, they are a (for instance) cleric forever, even if they become maltheists and never cast another spell, they keep levelling as cleric...)
Telling me to build a fighter does not let me build a wrath of god champion.
Reason to be on this board: my PF1 group is moving on to PF2, so I...
As I posted earlier, you have to start from the concept, not the class.
What do you want your PC to be good at ?
That said, I agree that the PF2 MC system is bad at simulating an early career change. It actually requires changing your class, which is not supported by the system (no retraining your class or ability boosts) but pretty easy to homebrew.
The "must max out your key attribute" is, IMO, a holdover from PF1 or D&D3+.I don't entirely agree here. A character with a 16 in their KAS in PF1 generally feels a lot more stable than a character with a +2 in their KAS in PF2. I'm sorry but if you tell me a Barbarian with +2 Strength is actually really good I don't think I could believe you.
Counter-example: Combat alchemist (probably bomber; not mutagenist, considering how underwhelming PF2 mutagens are) going into mauler. Str +3 and Dex +2 or +3 are more useful early on than Int +3 vs. +2...
Also, note my exact words (which you cut and seem to have ignored): "a +3 (or even +2 in some specific cases) at 1st level in the key ability score of a class (which does not always match the most important ability score for a character)..."
To me, it sounds like there was a mismatch between player expectations and results. The player expected once they grappled the enemy caster, they would have them in a completely effective submission hold. But that's not what grapple represents in Pathfinder. It represents varying stages of engagement, only defeating the opponent when you get a pin or deplete their hit points.
In fact, I would say it's not very realistic to walk up to a dangerous opponent and render them essentially helpless in six seconds by aggressively grappling them. If you visualize the scene, the enemy caster is obviously moving around and trying to avoid being grappled.
...the diagetic of PF1e is that a level 20 fighter and a level 20 wizard are equally strong.
I had to read all this a few times. But I think your assertion is that PF1E's diegetics are that they're equal, and the gameplay is they're not, right?
I've never gotten that impression from PF1E—that diegetically, a 20 Fighter should be as strong as a 20 Wizard. I don't think PF1E intends them to be the worlds apart they are, but the tropes PF1E emulates consistently have wizards at the top of the totem pole in power, and most of the 1E APs and stories I've looked at indulge these tropes. Magic is typically stronger than the mundane in high fantasy. (Admittedly, by incorporating so many wizard and magician tropes at once, PF1E blows out the high fantasy scale and ends up in its own world. But anyways.) The game does bear that out mechanically, and the gap only gets wider as levels progress. I think every game designer can tell you the class with wish (or even just limited wish, when it becomes available) blows out the class without it. You'd have to ascribe incredible ignorance to a designer to think they were trying to balance fighter to be exactly as strong as wizard and gave you PF1E fighter and wizard. I would assume PF1 designers wanted to lessen the gap, but knew they could not (and did not even try) to remove it entirely with spells as they were. You'd have to break 3.x compatibility to do that. (And PF2E did, and succeeded almost too well at balancing them.)
Alternatively, WoD goes all in on the fact that XP is not equivalent. There are builds that can earn XP faster. Monster design don't get pegged to XP, they get pegged to stat thresholds and number of abilities.
There is a homebrew world somewhere where wizards mind-control peasants to take NPC classes at level up to serve as XP pinatas for their apprentices, where the calculus of warfare includes how many level ups your opponent's PC party is likely to get, where you can get kicked out of an adventuring party for taking the wrong class level. PF1e would simulate that world well. That world is not Golarion.
I feel like this goes back to viewing simulation as a success term instead of an intent term, and only acknowledging things on the far simulationist end of the spectrum as simulationist.
That homebrew world is sort of like a deconstruction of the narrative gap between PF1E's mechanics and intended storytelling. That gap can exist even in obviously simulationist games; imagine an exceptionally heavy wargame that forgets that airplanes even need fuel, so the GM lampshades it by making airplanes run off some mysterious limitless energy source that vanishes from existence if used in anything but an airplane.
I feel like we're more or less just arguing about where the fuzzy, outer edge of simulationism is.
The rulebook literally tells you that a level 20 fighter and a level 20 wizard are both CR20 enemies.But I think your assertion is that PF1E's diegetics are that they're equal, and the gameplay is they're not, right?
I've never gotten that impression from PF1E.
That is inconsistency between mechanics (class power) and mechanics (the CR system for evaluating encounter difficulty). That doesn't dip into narrative.
Champion dedication is one of the best feats in the game, what are you talking about. scaling armor is incredible for everything without native heavy armor training, and for classes with heavy armor the champions reaction at level 6 is so good that it's almost a meme how often optimizers take it. A fighter with a champion archetype not only fits you're concept perfectly, it is also one of the best builds in the gameThat is a fighter, not a champion. Dedications are deliberately total and utter traps....for instance Champions are tanks, you cannot build one as a wrath of god style smiter anymore, it just does not work)...You totally can. All you gotta do is make a fighter or other offensive class, then multiclass into Champion.
Then you will have a "wrath of [a] god style smiter" in no time at all.
Ignoring the inbuilt feat tax of dedications, a fighter with a champion dedication is not a champion, the clue Is in the name, one writes fighter on the character sheet, the other writes champion. This is like me asking about a horse and getting advice about a grey hound.
Oh and as a multi class. System? Dedications are the worst I have ever seen, Dual Classing in ADnD second edition was better.
So, because you write one word on a specific spot on a character sheet, and not another, you believe that you don't qualify as that type of class? Tell that to the Edicts and Anathemas you have to follow when you pick up the Champion dedication. "Oh, I don't have to follow those rules set forth by the god I champion because I don't have Champion written on the class entry of my character sheet." Yeah, I wouldn't even bother to stop the GM that chooses to throw their book at you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 character builds open up a lot if you step back from some of the prescribed meta-analysis about how characters have to be built, especially with your first characters.
The idea that you HAVE to maximize every single defense as much as possible, for example, is kind of true, but "as possible" doesn't have to mean "with every single attribute point, feat, and gold expenditure. It can mean your character has one or even two areas of particular weakness that you really spend alternative resources to minimize in other ways.
Casters and AC is a classic example of this. Casters want decent Armor Class, but dumping every possible resource into boosting AC as soon as possible, especially when you find that your AC gets targeted about 1/3 or less than other members of your party, can actually be building your character sub-optimally for the tactical needs of the party. If your caster isn't drawing fire because the back lines don't often get attacked, then something (item, feat, spell) that moves your character before or after receiving an attack, or lets you trade spaces with an ally with better AC might be a much better use of resources for the party.
Fighters ability to shrug off the frightened condition might mean that having a weak will save might not be a big deal for them, especially if someone else in the party has ways of countering control spells on them, or even casting command against them if they get temporarily controlled, since their will save will be pretty low.
At the point you realize you can have a monk with a high Strength and Charisma (16+), if you are willing to tank Dex, and that the monk has an excellent spellcasting DC progression for a martial, you can suddenly do a lot of interesting things with scrolls and spells, and still hit like a cannon (albeit a fairly glass one). But if you have decent HP and a champion in the party, being the obvious target for enemies that will draw champion reactions and be a focus for party healing can turn a low AC into a party asset, especially on a class like the monk that can make up the reflex save issues within their own class chassis.
I strongly recommend starting character building by coming up with a concept that isn't first tied to a specific game mechanic, then seeing if you can find the mechanics that enable it. So if your concept is "magical warrior who stabs often with 2 daggers" many players might say "not possible" because there is no 2 weapon magus, and because daggers are not great weapons for any "warrior class" in the game. But functionally, how aesthetically different, especially in modern fantasy, is fighting with something like short swords, or a clan dagger/parrying dagger? And what do you mean by "magic warrior?" because the Magic Warrior dedication only takes a focus spell, so something like a monk with monk weapons can probably be a very interesting magic warrior with twin dagger-like weapons capable of casting mostly focus spells, or if you are looking for something very different, something like twin weapon fighter with a Magus dedication can switch up between spell striking with one weapon (maybe a dagger variant with a D8 deadly die), and then otherwise using buffing spells and twin take down.
PF2 character builds open up a lot if you step back from some of the prescribed meta-analysis about how characters have to be built, especially with your first characters.
The idea that you HAVE to maximize every single defense as much as possible, for example, is kind of true, but "as possible" doesn't have to mean "with every single attribute point, feat, and gold expenditure. It can mean your character has one or even two areas of particular weakness that you really spend alternative resources to minimize in other ways.
Casters and AC is a classic example of this. Casters want decent Armor Class, but dumping every possible resource into boosting AC as soon as possible, especially when you find that your AC gets targeted about 1/3 or less than other members of your party, can actually be building your character sub-optimally for the tactical needs of the party. If your caster isn't drawing fire because the back lines don't often get attacked, then something (item, feat, spell) that moves your character before or after receiving an attack, or lets you trade spaces with an ally with better AC might be a much better use of resources for the party.
Fighters ability to shrug off the frightened condition might mean that having a weak will save might not be a big deal for them, especially if someone else in the party has ways of countering control spells on them, or even casting command against them if they get temporarily controlled, since their will save will be pretty low.
At the point you realize you can have a monk with a high Strength and Charisma (16+), if you are willing to tank Dex, and that the monk has an excellent spellcasting DC progression for a martial, you can suddenly do a lot of interesting things with scrolls and spells, and still hit like a cannon (albeit a fairly glass one). But if you have decent HP and a champion in the party, being the obvious target for enemies that will draw champion reactions and be a focus for party healing can turn a low AC into a party asset,...
Caster AC is pretty relevant, even when using spells like mirror image to help compensate. Enemies have ranged attacks, can sneak up on you, or can simply come in sufficient quantity to charge multiple people. I would say that if the caster is getting targeted 33% of the time that your frontliners are, the GM is either tunnelvisioning martials or throwing too many low enemy count encounters at you. Range cheesing with a caster isn't that much of a thing in PF2E.
You can't "compensate" for being worse at saves with built-in proficiency bumps. You get the proficiency bumps regardless. You are worse than you would be if you just put stats into your save. It is a straight loss.
This whole digression about a STR CHA monk dumping dex is cool, but champion is right there with the same spell save progression, heavy armor proficiency meaning no need for DEX for AC, easy access to bulwark, and access to cleric focus spells. You can have two champions in a party, and it's better than a champion and a monk with bad AC.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally a Champion would be a holy striker with little or no reactions focused on crushing the enemies of their faith.
So you don't even want to play a Champion in the first place.
I'm sorry but a lot of these issues seem really self-made here. You're getting stuck on a specific class instead of just building a character that does what you want it to. Yeah, PF2 isn't the world's most versatile game and has issues if you want to color outside the lines, but that doesn't seem to be the problem here.