'the designers deliberately made it such that a level 20 fighter can't win against a level 15 wizard'
|
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.
It depends how much of what you do uses your key ability, I think. In my Agents of Edgewatch game, the Catfolk Cleric PC almost never cast offensive spells, and so started play with Wisdom as a dump stat and focused on Dexterity and Charisma. I can’t remember if it was a 12 or even a 10 with Voluntary Flaw, but it barely mattered because she spent most of her time sneaking around and healing the party.
But if you are going to be using the key ability regularly, I think the right math makes not having a +4 a hurdle. Bomber alchemists, for instance, basically can’t get a +4 Dex, and it can be a bit of a pain when it comes to their attack rolls.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 generally agree with this position, but I think the connection between Deity and Champion that is inherent in the Champion class makes it at least a partial exception. That said, I also think that a Fighter who grabs the Champion dedication establishes that link and is a Champion.
|
|
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.
In PF1E, I’m pretty sure a Ftr 20 or a Wiz 20 are each a CR 19 enemy unless given PC level gear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1E, I’m pretty sure a Ftr 20 or a Wiz 20 are each a CR 19 enemy unless given PC level gear.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.
While technically true, people experienced with PF1 will know that the level 20 wizard is a much much bigger threat than the level 20 fighter. The wizard is a threat in a way that the fighter can't really hope to be. The wizard can bind outsiders to their will and send them after a target, assailing them from a place that most could never reach (a demiplane). The fighter is terrifying if you get within range of them, but it is comparatively easy to not be in range of the fighter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with wanting a concept that the game hasn't been built for
The issue here is that options do exist, but the player in question is getting hung up on naming conventions. Frankly, as a 3.5 fan you should understand why that's bad for building a fun and effective character more than anyone.
I mean, in that case the majority of world shaking level 20s should be clerics and druids, the universally acknowledged strongest classes. Instead, it's wizards and alchemists, the latter definitely isn't anywhere near the top. I think PF1e intends for Int classes to be more narratively relevant, as distinct from being rawly stronger, so even though a level 20 fighter, cleric and alchemist are of the same power, only the alchemist will have a strong legacy.That's distinct from 'the designers deliberately made it such that a level 20 fighter can't win against a level 15 wizard' which was the PF1e as-played.
(There's an aspect of 3.PF1 that's really simulationist, and it's the skill system. Tragically, basically nothing except the nonmagical skill monkey classes interfaced with them as expected. I supposed a PF1e where magic does not exist would be simulationist...)
Few responses:
-I normally see wizard considered the strongest, though cleric and druid are always mentioned in the same breath. Can't say there's much difference, though; they all blow out the game.
-I don't know if 1E intends for INT classes to be more narratively relevant, so much as it is alchemists and wizards are just more common villains than evil clerics or druids. An evil druid bent on spreading a blight would be a fearsome villain, and their actions would have longlasting repercussions.
-The skill system is a really big part of why I feel PF1E leans more simulationist and a large place where I feel PF2E falters for me, so that checks out.
In PF1E, I’m pretty sure a Ftr 20 or a Wiz 20 are each a CR 19 enemy unless given PC level gear.I was assuming PC gear, yes, basically like a party going against a fully equipped end of campaign villain.
But as you also said, even if you assume low budget for gear they're still each considered CR19.
The main point here is the designers told us the CRs were equal given equal budgets for gear :)
The CR system is broken, and we've known it forever. It doesn't even really require dipping into wizards or spellcasting to break it; enemies can have abilities far more difficult for an unprepared party to counter than their CR would suggest. Ghouls are CR1, and a group of ghouls shouldn't be too difficult by the CR calculator. But we know how that can turn out. A gelatinous cube is pretty terrifying, given that it's a CR 3 that requires a DC15 perception check to notice it's there and not just walk into it before combat even starts and probably just die—and even after that, sure, engulf is DC12, but someone in a low level party of 4 is probably going to fail the check, and the paralysis save is DC 20 if its regular attack hits. There's a lot of encounters that can just tpk parties with only moderately bad luck.
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.It depends how much of what you do uses your key ability, I think. In my Agents of Edgewatch game, the Catfolk Cleric PC almost never cast offensive spells, and so started play with Wisdom as a dump stat and focused on Dexterity and Charisma. I can’t remember if it was a 12 or even a 10 with Voluntary Flaw, but it barely mattered because she spent most of her time sneaking around and healing the party.
But if you are going to be using the key ability regularly, I think the right math makes not having a +4 a hurdle. Bomber alchemists, for instance, basically can’t get a +4 Dex, and it can be a bit of a pain when it comes to their attack rolls.
This is mostly my point. The "key ability score" has a specific meaning and is determined solely by the character's class (some classes allow more than one choice). The "most important ability score" is what you are referring to with the bomber alchemist (Dex); because the alchemist's key ability score can only be Int, just like the thaumaturge's key ability score is Cha, the "must max out your key ability score" is not always the case. A thaumature (like the combat alchemist, if not more so) will probably be better off focusing on Str, Dex, and Con for combat effectiveness and starting with a Cha of +2 or +3.
Even for a class where the "key ability score" is one of the "most important ability scores," there may be some concepts where a +3 in two scores can be more appropriate (e.g., an elf bard that focuses on Recall Knowledge checks with the feats Assured Knowledge, Know-It-All, Enigma's Knowledge, etc. and ancestry feats to change the "known" skills each day; in addition to spells and probably Bon Mot).
|
|
The "most important ability score" is what you are referring to with the bomber alchemist (Dex); because the alchemist's key ability score can only be Int . . .
Yeah, I was just using Bomber as an example of the pain caused by regularly using a less-than-maxed ability, not confusing Dex for the Bomber's key ability. Just some sloppy language on my part.
Even for a class where the "key ability score" is one of the "most important ability scores," there may be some concepts where a +3 in two scores can be more appropriate (e.g., an elf bard that focuses on Recall Knowledge checks with the feats Assured Knowledge, Know-It-All, Enigma's Knowledge, etc. and ancestry feats to change the "known" skills each day; in addition to spells and probably Bon Mot).
I'd probably build a little more conservatively in that case, and go 4/3/1/1/0/0 for that Elf, but I can see the temptation to spread the boosts out a bit more.
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)..."
Before the Remaster, there was definitely a place for a low Int Bonus Alchemist... particularly Mutagenist. I built a highly successful Str +3 Cha +3 Int +1 Mutagenist, and played it to 10th Level.
With how Resources work for the Player Core 2 Alchemist, every Alchemist needs to max out their Int Bonus. Every point less than Max is one fewer Advanced Alchemy Item per day and one less Versatile Vial per Encounter.
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.It depends how much of what you do uses your key ability, I think. In my Agents of Edgewatch game, the Catfolk Cleric PC almost never cast offensive spells, and so started play with Wisdom as a dump stat and focused on Dexterity and Charisma. I can’t remember if it was a 12 or even a 10 with Voluntary Flaw, but it barely mattered because she spent most of her time sneaking around and healing the party.
But if you are going to be using the key ability regularly, I think the right math makes not having a +4 a hurdle. Bomber alchemists, for instance, basically can’t get a +4 Dex, and it can be a bit of a pain when it comes to their attack rolls.
This is mostly my point. The "key ability score" has a specific meaning and is determined solely by the character's class (some classes allow more than one choice). The "most important ability score" is what you are referring to with the bomber alchemist (Dex); because the alchemist's key ability score can only be Int, just like the thaumaturge's key ability score is Cha, the "must max out your key ability score" is not always the case. A thaumature (like the combat alchemist, if not more so) will probably be better off focusing on Str, Dex, and Con for combat effectiveness and starting with a Cha of +2 or +3.
Even for a class where the "key ability score" is one of the "most important ability scores," there may be some concepts where a +3 in two scores can be more appropriate (e.g., an elf bard that focuses on Recall Knowledge checks with the feats Assured Knowledge, Know-It-All, Enigma's Knowledge, etc. and ancestry feats to change the "known" skills each day; in addition to spells and probably Bon...
On this topic specifically, I do wish classes (and especially sub-classes) gave more options for key ability score. Well, maybe not key ability score exactly but a choice to increase an alternative ability at character creation. Paizo did it to help guide players toward making the "right" selection, but it doing so has unintentionally left certain play styles less supported. Such as the bomber alchemist.
If an alchemist chooses bomber specialization, they should have the option to increase dex instead of int.
A cleric that chooses warpriest doctrine should be able to choose any 1 of strength, dex, or con.
Again, not as a key ability (because that sets your class DC, and I do think that should stay fixed) but giving an option to increase a different stat.
In a home game, I think it's straightforward for a GM to say "Yeah, you know what you're doing you can make a different choice", but something officially stating that would be nice.
If an alchemist chooses bomber specialization, they should have the option to increase dex instead of int.Are you sure it wasn't an explicit design decision that alchs couldn't be the perfect ranged attackers (including with bombs) considering everything else they have? So they aren't that accurate but they have the whole arsenal still. And dedication can be better at throwing, but can make less things.
Well, they still wont be "perfect" ranged attackers. They only go up to master in proficiency, and only for simple and alchemical weapons. So when using their alchemical item attacks, they can be on par with a martial character (except Fighters and Gunslingers) if they had the same dex.
I think allowing them a trade off of number of items they can make vs accuracy isn't a bad thing.
Well, they still wont be "perfect" ranged attackers. They only go up to master in proficiency, and only for simple and alchemical weapons. So when using their alchemical item attacks, they can be on par with a martial character (except Fighters and Gunslingers) if they had the same dex.Yeah, sure. Not perfect then, just (delayed) baseline competent. Even master only at 15th.
I think part of the "feels bad man" that players have with not having their desired stat higher at char gen is the delay that you're referring to. Sure, you end up at mostly the same place. But the path you take there isn't equal.
The alchemist as mentioned get's their increases at levels 7 and 15. While most martials get their increases at 5 and 13. So the level 5 alchemist is like 3 points behind their attack from 5 & 6. And same from 13 & 14. So 4 out of 20 levels their kind of substantially behind. Which doesn't sound like that much when phrased that way, but it's 20% of level progression.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're a bit off with Alchemist accuracy. The big thing is, Alchemists have Mutagens, and Mutagens help.
I have a Bomber in PFS, currently 11th level. With the Remaster rules, his accuracy compared to a Rogue looks like this:
-2: 13 & 14
-1: 2, 5, 6, 10
Even: 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 20
+1: 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 19
I tend to discount the -1 levels. I've played through them three times so far, pre-Remaster. It really doesn't make much of an impact.
So that leaves 13 & 14 as the only truly painful levels. Which sucks, but at least it's only two levels.