Balance. Why do we need it?

[Necroticplague]

(I can go more detailed with the math if you need.)

Yes, I'd appreciate if you did, because I'm really not seeing it. that 10% seems to be coming pretty much out of nowhere, and I'm not seeing how you're getting a 10% increase of 30 average damage being 10.8. Crit chance is irrelevant, because the attack Weapon Focus allows you to land won't be criticals.

Under those scenarios, here's my own math on it:

Spoiler: Math

Show

Again, ignoring crits because that adds a s***-ton of complexity to this, and because WF-made attacks aren't gonna be threats in the first place (though they will have higher chances to confirm.
Average damage of a hit: 3.5*2+23=30.
Average damage of an attack: 30 (average damage of hit)*X(accuracy, as a decimal).
Average damage of an attack with WF: 30 (average damage of hit)*(X(accuracy, as a decimal)+.05 (increase in hit chance from Weapon Focus).
Some easy algebra later, we get that the damage increase of WF-attacks over non-WF attacks is .05*30=1.5.
This can be generalized out to other weapons/scenarios to be that Weapon Focus's benefit is .05*average damage of hit.
Which makes sense intuitively, as the benefit of Weapon Focus is improved accuracy, so its effect is how many more times it helps you hit things (5%)* the damage those attacks do.

[Eldariel]

Yes, I'd appreciate if you did, because I'm really not seeing it. that 10% seems to be coming pretty much out of nowhere, and I'm not seeing how you're getting a 10% increase of 30 average damage being 10.8. Crit chance is irrelevant, because the attack Weapon Focus allows you to land won't be criticals.

Under those scenarios, here's my own math on it:

Spoiler: Math

Show

Again, ignoring crits because that adds a s***-ton of complexity to this, and because WF-made attacks aren't gonna be threats in the first place (though they will have higher chances to confirm.
Average damage of a hit: 3.5*2+23=30.
Average damage of an attack: 30 (average damage of hit)*X(accuracy, as a decimal).
Average damage of an attack with WF: 30 (average damage of hit)*(X(accuracy, as a decimal)+.05 (increase in hit chance from Weapon Focus).
Some easy algebra later, we get that the damage increase of WF-attacks over non-WF attacks is .05*30=1.5.
This can be generalized out to other weapons/scenarios to be that Weapon Focus's benefit is .05*average damage of hit.
Which makes sense intuitively, as the benefit of Weapon Focus is improved accuracy, so its effect is how many more times it helps you hit things (5%)* the damage those attacks do.

This math is not accurate. Crits are really pretty easy to account for (Crit Chance % * Damage * Crit Multiplier + Hit % * Damage + No Hit % * 0 - 19-20/x2 is the same as 20/x3 in average damage) but remember that while the percentile point change is indeed 5%, the percentile change is variable. This is trivial to showcase: if you're hitting at +15 vs. AC 16, Weapon Focus is a 0% increase, while if you're hitting at +0 vs. 24 AC it's also 0%. Everywhere between that it varies from a rather minor shift (hitting on 3-20 to hitting on 2-20) to a massive change (hitting on 20 - hitting on 19-20, which is a 50% improvement). The main argument against it is opportunity cost - generally another feat does it better and other bonuses tend to eclipse this.

[CharonsHelper]

I would like to see the math. Not that I don't believe you. Trust but verify and all that.

Yes, I'd appreciate if you did, because I'm really not seeing it. that 10% seems to be coming pretty much out of nowhere, and I'm not seeing how you're getting a 10% increase of 30 average damage being 10.8. Crit chance is irrelevant, because the attack Weapon Focus allows you to land won't be criticals.

Sure.

First - I ball-parked the 10% on the estimate that you need an 11+ to hit your target without Weapon Focus. If you're hitting 50% of the time a +1 to your accuracy makes you hit 55% of the time, which is a 10% increase in damage (55/50 = 1.1). The harder of a time you have hitting your foe, the more beneficial Weapon Focus becomes.

For example, if you are hitting on a 16+ (25% of the time) and increase that to 15+, that's a 20% increase in damage (30/25 = 1.2). However, if you are hitting on a 5+ (75% of the time) and increase that to 80% it's only a 6.7% increase (80/75=1.067).

Unless you are hitting on a 2+ without Weapon Focus, Weapon Focus ALWAYS increases damage more than 5%.

Second - yes, you do include criticals. And no, it's not that complex. Weapon focus usually doesn't help you to get a critical chance, but it helps you to confirm criticals. With a 17-20 critical you will crit 20% of the time (unless the foe is immune/resistant). So all you need to do is multiply your base damage by 1.2 (a 20% increase) because you will confirm the critical exactly 20% of the time which you hit.

So - the average of 30 damage per swing is correct. Then multiplied by 1.2 due to the (17-20) critical chance to 36 average damage per hit. (If you have a bonus to confirming criticals such as Critical Focus then that does make the math tricky. Otherwise it's really easy to include.)

Without Weapon Focus

Your first attack hits on a 6+ (75% chance), second on a 11+ (50% chance), third on a 16+ (25% chance). You hit an average of 1.5 times - which is multiplied by 36 for an average DPR (damage per round) of 54.

With Weapon Focus

Your first attack hits on a 5+ (80% chance), second on a 10+ (55% chance), third on a 15+ (30% chance). You hit an average of 1.65 times - which is multiplied by 36 for an average DPR (damage per round) of 59.4 - which is a 10% increase.

While my 10% if correct - I do now feel a bit sheepish about the "10.8" number, because doing it in my head I forgot to reduce that by the average accuracy of the initial example. My bad.

Nonetheless - Weapon Focus remains a solid albeit unexciting feat.

(hitting on 20 - hitting on 19-20, which is a 50% improvement)

I totally agree with your post's point, but to be nit-picky, that's actually a 100% improvement.

[Gnaeus]

I think it's harder to accidently anti-optimize a Fighter. Even your example naked weaponless fighter isn't technically useless if he has good physical stats and IUS, where the wizard is actually doing nothing, and has the potential to actually be detrimental. I've seen badly played BFC wizards be actively harmful to parties before. Overall point being that I think spellcasters have both a higher floor and a lower ceiling, it's fairly easy to pick spells that will make you actually useless and it's not exactly intuitive, whereas "strong man with stick and armor" is pretty simple.

For the record this player actually thought animate rope was useful, because he looked through the PHB transmutation spells and just picked that because magic rope sounded cool without realizing it had no combat abilities

1. That’s a good reason to take animate rope. It’s even a good reason to memorize animate rope. It’s not a good reason to memorize ONLY animate rope. There is no good reason for anyone to memorize only animate rope. It’s deliberately and counterintuitively gimping yourself.

2. Animate rope does have some combat abilities. I wouldn’t expect a low system mastery player to be able to read it and immediately determine how bad it is. I would expect a low system mastery player to use it a couple times, realize the suck, and never memorize it agin, or retrain it at the next even level. A poorly built fighter is still screwed unless retraining rules are in effect and he has significant downtime.

Basically, you are just flat wrong. No class above T5 has a lower optimization floor than the fighter. The sor/wiz list is so full of flashy sounding combat spells that it takes breathtaking stupidity to not build something that can do its job even if all you know are the dictionary synonyms for fiery (flaming, scorching, fire, etc). Plus utility spells like fly and invisibility that are immediately, obviously beneficial to anyone with sense. It takes 0 system mastery to realize that if you can fly up in the air and shoot things, that’s kinda helpful. Your animate rope guy should be 8 hours from a more useful spell than animate rope (even if he is picking spells by throwing darts at a dartboard, he probably has better level 1 spells he could put in a level 2 slot than animate rope just by dumb luck), and at level 4 he gets at least 2 more chances to get something phenomenal. Meanwhile, the TWF Guy has no non system mastery reason to know he has doomed himself to long term suckitude, and it’s unlikely to get better.

Yes, poor player performance can hurt anything. Blasting your party with BFC or fireball doesn’t mean you don’t have a valid character. It probably means you DO have a valid character and you just can’t be bothered to pay attention

[Necroticplague]

Unless you are hitting on a 2+ without Weapon Focus, Weapon Focus ALWAYS increases damage more than 5%.

No, it's always a 5% increase, unless it offers no benefit (as someone pointed out earlier). 50%->55% is a +5% increase. I see no reason why these percentage of a percentage methods are in any way useful, when we're looking at the overall performance.

Second - yes, you do include criticals. And no, it's not that complex. With a 17-20 critical you will crit 20% of the time (unless the foe is immune/resistant). So all you need to do is multiply your base damage by 1.2 (a 20% increase) because you will confirm the critical exactly 20% of the time which you hit.

You won't crit 20% of the time. You'll threaten a crit 20% of the time. You'll actually crit .2*(accuracy as decimal) of the time. And this isn't independent of the hitting, so i don't think a flat multiplier to damage is an appropriate way to represent the critical hits.

However, taking crits into account, I decided on an exhaustive tree for average damage would be easier on my math abilities. :

Spoiler: Results

Show

Assuming average 30 damage a hit, crit range 17-20, 55% accuracy
rolling 1-9: .45*0=0. The 45% of the time you miss.
Rolling 10-16:.35*30=10.5. When you hit and don't threaten a crit.
Rolling 17-20:.2*.45*30+.2*.55*60=9.3. When you threat, you either fail to confirm, and do normal damage (first part)+or, you confirm, and do crit damage(second part)
Average damage from attack: 19.8
Huh. Somewhat unintuitively, adding the crits is a 20% increase in damage, just like you said, albiet for different reasons.
Now, adding in WF changes that tree to this:

rolling 1-8: .4*0=0. The 40% of the time you miss.
Rolling 9-16:.4*30=12. When you hit and don't threaten a crit.
Rolling 17-20:.2*.4*30+.2*.60*60=9.6 When you threat, you either fail to confirm, and do normal damage (first part)+or, you confirm, and do crit damage(second part)
Average Damage from Attack: 21.6
Comparison: 21.6/19.8=1.091
So, not quiet the 10% increase you claim, but better than my 5% claim, and you were significantly closer to the truth. Sorry for wasting your time with my ignorance.

[CharonsHelper]

bad math...

I don't think that you should practice math-fu...

No, it's always a 5% increase

No - you are wrong. It makes you have a 5% additional chance to hit, which is an INCREASE of more than 5%.

You won't crit 20% of the time.

Good thing I didn't say that you would. You WILL crit on 20% of your hits.

[Zanos]

No, it's always a 5% increase, unless it offers no benefit (as someone pointed out earlier). 50%->55% is a +5% increase. I see no reason why these percentage of a percentage methods are in any way useful, when we're looking at the overall performance.

5% flat is not the same as 5% relative.

I didn't factor in crits, but here's my spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...iDXPLW/pubhtml

So WF is always worth more than 5% relative damage increase.

Basically, you are just flat wrong. No class above T5 has a lower optimization floor than the fighter.

A character being fixable isn't really part of it's "floor." The player fixing it means the player is becoming more skilled and is no longer operating at the classes floor.

I can show you a wizard that can't cast any spells. Show me a fighter that can't attack. I've never met a player who didn't understand the concept that armor = surviving and strength = damage and hitting. I've met plenty of players who were confused by spell availability at level 1 and made bad choices.

Wizard has a lower floor.

[Necroticplague]

I don't think that you should practice math-fu...

Is there anything wrong about the probabilities in that table? While I admit it's a fool's method of just going through all possibilities, I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. And it leads me to ultimately agree with you (it's a roughly 9% increase in damage, not 5%, at least at that accuracy level. Presumably, it gets better results for lower accuracies).

[digiman619]

A character being fixable isn't really part of it's "floor." The player fixing it means the player is becoming more skilled and is no longer operating at the classes floor.

I can show you a wizard that can't cast any spells. Show me a fighter that can't attack. I've never met a player who didn't understand the concept that armor = surviving and strength = damage and hitting. I've met plenty of players who were confused by spell availability at level 1 and made bad choices.

Wizard has a lower floor.

That's not a floor, that's a subbasement of stupidity.

[Gnaeus]

That's not a floor, that's a subbasement of stupidity.

Exactly.

A Sor/Wiz needs a few decent spells. That’s all. The mistakes are irrelevant, you just don’t memorize/cast them. Animate rope guy sits down next to me at table, I don’t have to tell him to jump off a bridge, I just point him at a couple better level 2 spells and he’s golden. A fighter needs a good build. Not even good feats, that’s not enough. He needs good feats that work well together towards a design goal like tripping or charging. That’s a whole other level of required mastery. You can’t make a bad wizard with all good spells. You can easily, with the best intentions, make an awful fighter who has only good feats but no focus or synergy.

Again, my standard. My 11 year old, who is intelligent but has never read a guide, can make a perfectly solid wizard. She can't make a solid fighter. Id give better than 50/50 odds that the wizard she built and played could outperform over a campaign a single classed 3.5 fighter built from a guide and played by a forum veteran.

[AvatarVecna]

Crits aren't that hard to take into account as long as you approach it with a particular range/multiplier in mind. Trying to account for every combo is where it'd get interesting, but the only difficult bit for a set crit rate is when you get to the point where you roll within your crit threat range but still miss.

Spoiler: Table Of Values, assuming 17-20/x2 crits

Show

x is your normal hit damage, assuming no bonus damage dice that wouldn't get multiplied on a crit.

Attack hits on...	Chance You Miss (deals 0x)	Chance You Hit (deals x)	Chance You Crit (deals 2x)	Avg Dmg
2	5%	76%	19%	1.14x
3	10%	72%	18%	1.08x
4	15%	68%	17%	1.02x
5	20%	64%	16%	0.96x
6	25%	60%	15%	0.90x
7	30%	56%	14%	0.84x
8	35%	52%	13%	0.78x
9	40%	48%	12%	0.72x
10	45%	44%	11%	0.66x
11	50%	40%	10%	0.60x
12	55%	36%	9%	0.54x
13	60%	32%	8%	0.48x
14	65%	28%	7%	0.42x
15	70%	24%	6%	0.36x
16	75%	20%	5%	0.3x
17	80%	16%	4%	0.24x
18	85%	12.75%	2.25%	0.1725x
19	90%	9%	1%	0.11x
20	95%	4.75%	0.25%	0.0525x

The problem with Weapon Focus - which is mentioned partially in the post that guy was responding to - is that, while it doesn't strictly make you worse at your job, it doesn't make you as good as other options do. But the problem is exacerbated by the existence of feat trees: Weapon Focus on its own is just kinda eh, and is vaguely comparable to some individual feats, but the Weapon Focus line is pretty awful and compares poorly with others. Since we're talking about a lvl 11 Fighter, lets use that as our baseline: this dude is getting 3 attacks with a weapon that deals x damage with a 17-20/x2 crit threat range (could any 19-20/x2 weapon with Improved Critical or Keen or whatever). Since we're being optimistic by expecting a competent Fighter with a nice attack bonus, let's assume that this guy's three attacks are hitting on a 4, 9, and 14 on the die (since that's in line with iterative penalties). That dude would have DPR of 2.16x. Throw on Haste (turning 4/9/14 into 3/3/8/13) and DPR is 3.42x.

Now, if he takes Weapon Focus, each of those hit numbers gets shifted up (to 3, 8, and 13), increasing DPR to 2.34x. Throw Haste on that (changing 3/8/13 to 2/2/7/12) and DPR is 3.66x.

If he instead took Rapid Shot, he's shifting all those numbers down 2 but is getting an additional attack at his highest bonus (so now instead of 4/9/14, it's 6/6/11/16), changing DPR to 2.7x. Throw Haste on that (for 5/5/5/10/15) and DPR is now 3.9x.

If he instead Power Attack, he could push his numbers down the track by n in exchange for changing {x} to {x+2n}. Let's crank the penalty to -4 (changing numbers to 8/13/18 and changing {x} to {x+8}. Now DPR is 1.4325x+11.46. Throw Haste on that (changing numbers to 7/7/12/17 and changing {x} to {x+8}) and DPR becomes 2.46x+19.68.

Here's a table comparing those options:

Feat	Normal	Is the best when x is...	Haste	Is the best when x is...
Weapon Focus	2.34x	-	3.66x	-
Rapid Shot	2.7x	9<x	3.9x	13<x
Power Attack (-4)	1.4325x+11.46	x<10	2.46x+19.68	x<14

And that's individual feats. Let's throw four feats each into the mix: Weapon Focus+Weapon Specialization+Greater Weapon Focus+Greater Weapon Specialization, Point Blank Shot+Rapid Shot+Weapon Focus+Dead Eye, and Power Attack+Improved Bull Rush+Shock Trooper+Leap Attack (ignoring charge bonus to attack). Let's also shift the basic assumption down to 5/10/15 to avoid cutting Slasher short.

Slasher turns 5/10/15 into 3/8/13 and turns {x} into {x+4}. DPR becomes 2.34x+9.36. Throw on Haste (for 2/2/7/12 and x+4) and DPR becomes 3.66x+14.64.

Shooter turns 5/10/15 into 6/6/11/16 and turns {x} into {x+7}. DPR becomes 2.7x+18.9. throw on Haste (for 5/5/5/10/15 and x+5) and DPR becomes 3.9x+27.3.

Pouncer takes a -4 to AC to turn {x} to {x+12} (not a small penalty, but not a large one either). Their DPR is 1.98x+23.76. Throw on Haste (for 4/4/9/14 and x+12) and DPR becomes 3.18x+38.16.

Also, for an additional category, let's take a person who's take an Int 16 Human Cloistered Cleric (with Divine Power for full BAB) and give them Knowledge Devotion+Item Familiar+Power Attack, full ranks in Concentration/the 6 monster knowledge skills/Spellcraft (with all skill points invested for +7 to each of the 6 knowledge skills), and the Collector Of Stories skill power. Now, for monster knowledge checks, you're effectively looking at +30, so you've got a great chance to always get that +5 Attack/Damage, giving you some wiggle room for PA tradeoffs. That build takes a -2 PA tradeoff to go from 5/10/15 to 2/7/12 and from {x} to {x+9}. Their DPR is 2.52x+22.68. Throw on Haste and increasing the PA penalty by 1 (changing it to 2/2/7/12 and to x+11) and DPR becomes 3.66x+40.26. Here's another chart:

Role	Normal	Is the best when x is...	Haste	Is the best when x is...
Slasher	2.34x+9.36	-	3.66x+14.64	-
Shooter	2.7x+18.9	20<x	3.9x+27.3	54<x
Pouncer (-4)	1.98x+23.76	3<x	3.18x+38.16	-
Knower	2.52x+22.68	1<x<22	3.66x+40.26	x<55

Shooter has Weapon Focus too, but only 'cause it's a pre-req; you could ignore the WF bonus it gets and it'd still be objectively better than Slasher. All four of these builds could do better by expanding their option even further, but it serves to illustrate the point of why people call Weapon Focus a terrible feat: it's not that it makes you bad, it's just that it makes you worse than you could be. When you take Weapon Focus instead of Power Attack or Rapid Shot or Knowledge Devotion, you're ever-so-slightly shooting yourself in the foot...but only a little bit. The problem is that the Weapon Focus feat tree is the obvious and intended bread-and-butter of every Fighter in existence, and the whole feat tree gives Attack +2/Damage +4. Shooter is better because it's getting Attack +2/Damage +7/+1 iterative, Knower is objectively better because it's getting Attack +5/Damage +5, and Pouncer is usually better because it's getting Attack +0/Damage +12.

When you take one feat that improves DPR by 10% instead of another feat that improves DPR by 15%...big deal, that's probably just a couple points difference in the end. When you take 4 feats that improve DPR by 10% instead of four feats that improve DPR by 15%, that's now a 20% difference, much more significant.

[upho]

I was in a game about a dozen years ago. /telling example cut short for brevity/

I have similar experiences. And I've been in a 3.5 game where caster optimization was taken to its extreme by my RL brother, playing a very seriously optimized sorcerer. Meaning his character had almost the complete "Ultimate Sorcerer Cheese Megapack" (ie Incantatrix with Persistent Spell, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, extreme race (petal) with the perfect templates (such as White Dragonspawn) and LA buy-off, perfectly tailored items, spamming silly stuff like wings of cover/flurry, polymorph (= party of hasted wartrolls) and enervation, metamagic-ed to the high heavens, all at a CL above ECL, and so on - you get the picture). By the time we decided to end the campaign (Monte Cook's Ptolus) at 12th level, the specific mechanics of the other four PCs in the party were of course completely irrelevant, regardless of the type and difficulty of the challenges we faced. And my brother had written his Short Sorcerer Handbook (necro-ed on EN World), which is largely based on what he learned building his sorcerer.

I like Druids. I think they are fun to play, and while I had the intelligence to build a solid one I didn’t have the wisdom to know I shouldn’t.

It appears you're very far from alone in having had this very problem arising from such an ability score distribution! More seriously, I think this particular trap is very difficult to avoid when you're the first to try building a truly strong full caster in a group not used to more serious optimization. And at least for my group, I think my brother's silly sorcerer was a very valuable lesson, giving us a much deeper understanding of the system's strengths and weaknesses, as well as a healthier and more useful ultimate goal for the practical optimization of PCs created for later games.

1. A Druid (and when I think of Druid I think of an old guy with a sickle, not a death machine) can casually outfight 3 PCs who are theoretically frontline melee combatants.

Yeah. I'd only add that it may be worth noting also a fighter managed to "casually outfight 3 PCs". Meaning that the lower op the rest of the group is, the less impact class choices have on whether an optimized build will dominate the mechanics-heavy parts of the game. But of course, building a druid capable of doing this would of course require less system mastery and a considerably lower level of optimization than building the fighter.

2. Fighter is so wildly erratic by optimization that it swings from competent to incompetent based on whether he read a guide (or in that case had solid opti-fu himself) and followed it closely. Even wizards aren’t so optimization dependent.

I'm not sure about that.

A wizard is easier to optimize passably, but I've seen wizards who would be sub-par next to the swash & monk from your anecdote. I ran into one in PFS who had decided that dipping one level into Rogue & one into Cleric were both good ideas, and he spent much of each fight using Magic Missile & Acid Arrow.

I think I agree with CharonsHelper. Especially when it comes to wizards; I don't think any other class comes with as many abilities where failing to read, understand and act according to the fine print may have extremely dire in-game consequences. And not just for the wizard or the party, but potentially for everyone in an entire region, country or even world.

[Psyren]

That's not a floor, that's a subbasement of stupidity.

I would view the fighter player, sitting there week after week and not having fun or asking his friends/GM (same thing, hopefully) for help with his character, to be no less stupid. The game is mutable.

[Gnaeus]

I would view the fighter player, sitting there week after week and not having fun or asking his friends/GM (same thing, hopefully) for help with his character, to be no less stupid. The game is mutable.

Oh, I would also. But the fighter is much more likely to be stuck, both mechanically and conceptually. Conceptually, the handful of archetypes that make the PF fighter decent may not be appropriate IC to an existing character, and that’s much worse in 3.5 (so your Italian rapier dilettante is going to become a dungeoncrasher from Zhentil Keep? Why?)
Mechanically, retraining feats is expensive and time consuming, if the DM uses those rules at all. You may also need to adjust stats to provide the right prerequisites, and/or sell gear at a loss in a higher level party. Asking your friends for help isn’t great if the mechanically superior advice is to start over. I’d think a good DM would be likely to allow at least a conceptual rebuild, but I think good DMs would do a lot of things that are not apparently common, and there’s certainly no guarantee that the fighter is fixable at all.

TLDR: “just memorize scorching ray and mirror image” is a lot easier than “just become a completely different person, and let me rebuild your guy from the roots up”.

[Psyren]

TLDR: “just memorize scorching ray and mirror image” is a lot easier than “just become a completely different person, and let me rebuild your guy from the roots up”.

In-universe, maybe. But in reality as we all sit around a table, it's erasing some pencil from a sheet of paper and replacing it with other pencil. Or if you use ink, making a new sheet. It's hardly invasive surgery.

What matters most, above everything else, is that the folks at that table are having fun. I'd rather take 15 minutes to fluff a drastic change, than watch one of my friends just not have fun for hours or days.

[AvatarVecna]

In-universe, maybe. But in reality as we all sit around a table, it's erasing some pencil from a sheet of paper and replacing it with other pencil. Or if you use ink, making a new sheet. It's hardly invasive surgery.

What matters most, above everything else, is that the folks at that table are having fun. I'd rather take 15 minutes to fluff a drastic change, than watch one of my friends just not have fun for hours or days.

Pieces of paper though they may be, they represent a lot more than just numbers. It's one thing to tell a wizard that he picked some bad spells, but not to sweat it because he can prepared better ones tomorrow. It's another thing entirely to tell a person that their character concept is inherently incompetent and they need to build their character some way other than the intuitive way they built it.

EDIT: The fighter isn't even the one that gets the worst of this kinda stick, that'd be the monk. You could probably build a Barbarian or Paladin or Ranger and call it a gladiator/soldier/hunter -type Fighter and it wouldn't be a huge issue; sure, the class that most directly fits your concept might not be all that competent at it, but you can go with another class that has a lot of the same feel while being a lot more capable and you'll be fine. But Monk? Beyond just giving up and playing an Unarmed Swordsage, you could maybe put together a decent martial artist build with a Ranger or Scout or Swift Hunter, maybe a decent ninja build with a Scout or Rogue or Swift Ambusher (but ironically, notNninja), but you'll likely remain disappointed in some aspect or another. Or hey, you could go Cloistered Cleric and DMM: Persist your way to being an all-day badass unarmed warrior!

[Gnaeus]

In-universe, maybe. But in reality as we all sit around a table, it's erasing some pencil from a sheet of paper and replacing it with other pencil. Or if you use ink, making a new sheet. It's hardly invasive surgery.

What matters most, above everything else, is that the folks at that table are having fun. I'd rather take 15 minutes to fluff a drastic change, than watch one of my friends just not have fun for hours or days.

Again, I’m not disputing that’s the best solution, Psyren. But unless you have just become everyone’s DM, you have no way to make that happen. PFS, for example, if it’s after level 1, you are retraining, and I’ve seen DMs who aren’t even that generous.

And that’s assuming that you even get a good response to a query that’s essentially a polite “your guy sucks, let me rebuild it”. I’ve met a lot of people who would be ok with you buying them a scroll, who get really bent out of shape when you are suggesting they rewrite their guy to specific parameters.

[Psyren]

I've seen enough of the horror stories on this forum to know that I am not, in fact, everyone's GM. That doesn't change the fact that "play with better people who care about your happiness" is the only practical solution besides homebrew, because errata ain't happening.

And that’s assuming that you even get a good response to a query that’s essentially a polite “your guy sucks, let me rebuild it”. I’ve met a lot of people who would be ok with you buying them a scroll, who get really bent out of shape when you are suggesting they rewrite their guy to specific parameters.

Why would they react that way unless they were actually having fun? And if they're having fun, yeah, leave it alone.

[Gnaeus]

Why would they react that way unless they were actually having fun? And if they're having fun, yeah, leave it alone.

Some people have this weird idea they want to build their own character
Some people think that charop is a sign of wicked munchkinry.
Sometimes they feel that the problem isn’t their character, it’s the fault of the players whose characters can do their job.
Sometimes they are having fun, but the fact that their fighter can’t do its job endangers or angers other players, especially if you are in an adventure where the DM is using prepublished games without fitting challenges to characters.

Ultimately, I don’t know. But many people will.

[upho]

in Pathfinder TWF builds have the highest DPR in the game, being 15-20% higher than a two-handed build. (though with drawbacks due to feat cost, DR, and lower damage on single attacks)

Really? I don't see how TWF could possibly generate the highest DPR possible in PF, regardless of whether you're only measuring theoretical on-paper DPR during a certain level or not. Actually, I don't see it even should the comparison be limited to only 20th level melee builds with say at least 16 levels in martial classes (those granting a maximum of 4th spells/extracts). AFAIK, no TWF build will be able to match the DPR numbers of the actual heavy-hitters in PF, at any level. And neither will any 2H builds to my knowledge, which makes the comparison weird in my eyes.

In addition, I believe this claim becomes even less true if looking at greater level spans or actual in-game DPR, as the drawbacks you mention tend to be pretty significant in a real game IME.

But maybe I've missed something important, and I'd really appreciate if you or anyone else could explain how TWF is the superior combat style for DPR in PF.

[upho]

Some people have this weird idea they want to build their own character
Some people think that charop is a sign of wicked munchkinry.
Sometimes they feel that the problem isn’t their character, it’s the fault of the players whose characters can do their job.
Sometimes they are having fun, but the fact that their fighter can’t do its job endangers or angers other players, especially if you are in an adventure where the DM is using prepublished games without fitting challenges to characters.

Ultimately, I don’t know. But many people will.

I've very rarely encountered these reactions in the groups I've played in, and only in a mild form. But judging from what I've heard/read about other groups over the years, I'd agree this does indeed seem to be the case. Moreover, it also seems to me that the risk of upsetting a fellow player with well-meaning char-op advice increases if the player is neither 1) very new to the game or 2) one who normally builds competent characters.

Which I believe does make some sense from a psychological perspective. Meaning the players which tend to get upset are more likely to instinctively perceive friendly advice as a thinly veiled personal insult, aimed at a weakness in their person, or as an attempt to lessen their power to influence how the game is played. In contrast, new players are usually well aware of their own relative ignorance and have no reason to view their mistakes as personal flaws, and those normally competent usually have enough system mastery to realize that they cannot be expected to not make mistakes.

Anyhow, to me these issues primarily illustrate the importance of the group/GM having decided upon and clearly defined the power level for the game before the players start building their characters.

[Psyren]

Ultimately, I don’t know. But many people will.

Well, I can only say those people are beyond help. I don't think trying to design around them is a particularly productive use of dev resources. Either they'll evolve and learn to accept help, or they'll keep not having fun and eventually abandon the hobby; either way, problem solves itself.

[Lans]

My big issue with weapon focus is that its significantly weaker than knowledge devotion, shape soulmeld, and weapon mastery

Anyone who thinks the reason the Fighter can't compete is "not enough skills" needs to get their head examined. Skills (with like three exceptions) are garbage. If you can fly, no one cares how big your climb check nominally is.
.

That depends on how good your flight is, you can get really bad flight from feats, or the truenamer's invocations that don't overshadow climbing and jump as much.

[Powerdork]

Either they'll evolve and learn to accept help, or they'll keep not having fun and eventually abandon the hobby; either way, problem solves itself.

An attitude that can kill gaming.

[Psyren]

An attitude that can kill gaming.

Only if you exclusively play with unfeeling robots instead of with friends. Most of us don't.

[Zanos]

Only if you exclusively play with unfeeling robots instead of with friends. Most of us don't.

Are you implying that unfeeling robots can't be friends with each other?

My group resents that remark. Beep boop.

[Psyren]

Are you implying that unfeeling robots can't be friends with each other?

My group resents that remark. Beep boop.

I mean, friendship is a feeling, or so I'm told. Beep boop.

[EldritchWeaver]

I mean, friendship is a feeling, or so I'm told. Beep boop.

Friendship is Magic!

[Calthropstu]

Friendship is Magic!

... This comment makes me want to shoot ponies.

[AvatarVecna]

... This comment makes me want to shoot ponies.

Spoiler: HISSSSSSS

Show