Pathfinder 2E Greatsword Fighter vs Sword and Shield Fighter (2E Pathfinder)

[CapnZapp]

On a group level, gearing up your fighter to do damage might well be the superior option even though in isolation, that same choice is inferior. Killing off foes always is the better damage mitigator... until it isn't (because the enemy manages to kill you before you kill it). This crucial pivot point depends on many factors, but your 1:1 performance certainly isn't one of the significant ones.

People have pitted PCs against PCs in every edition of every game, and my advice remains the same: please do not draw any conclusions or base any chargen decisions based on such experiments.

 

[FrogReaver]

On a group level, gearing up your fighter to do damage might well be the superior option even though in isolation, that same choice is inferior.

Usually gearing up for defense is the better option for group play. Enemies tend to focus on the front liners. The only D&D style game I've found that to be an exception in is 5e, and that's nearly solely because whack-a-mole.

Killing off foes always is the better damage mitigator... until it isn't (because the enemy manages to kill you before you kill it).

That's objectively untrue. If a foe does 10 damage per round and you can kill it in 3 rounds with no defense or in 4 rounds while taking half damage then you objectively took less damage in the 4 rounds fight.

This crucial pivot point depends on many factors, but your 1:1 performance certainly isn't one of the significant ones.

1. Why not?
2. Why do you think this fight isn't fairly representative of pathfinder 2e at level fights against melee focused enemies?

People have pitted PCs against PCs in every edition of every game, and my advice remains the same: please do not draw any conclusions or base any chargen decisions based on such experiments.

Yep, and usually PC's are so different than monsters that doing such is a terrible idea. But when the 2 builds are nearly equivalent except for 1-2 features then it's not a far stretch that a test of them against each other would be strong evidence for which is typically better (at least against foes similar to class in question).

 

[Ancalagon]

2. Why do you think this fight isn't fairly representative of pathfinder 2e at level fights against melee focused enemies?

Because your character isn't some kind of duelist, fighting 1 vs 1 battles all the time. They are part of a team. The rest of the team does things too!

If your team has a lot of high damage dealers (archers, evokers) then your main goal is to protect them while they are dealing the damage. In such a situation, the shield fighter is probably superior. If your team has a lot of battle field control types, debuffers, or buffers, then the situation is reversed a bit - they set them up, you knock them down - in other words, it's the fighter's job to be the main damage dealer. For such a situation, a damage optimized character is best.

So "how is this fighter going to best work in this group" is not answered by your analysis.

 

[CapnZapp]

Usually gearing up for defense is the better option for group play.

Let's just agree to disagree. The best debuff is a dead monster. Going defensive is only something you should do to survive a fight. Otherwise killing the monster faster = less damage to you.

 

[FrogReaver]

Going defensive is only something you should do to survive a fight. Otherwise killing the monster faster = less damage to you.

I've already provided proof by counter example that what you are claiming isn't a universal principle. Disagree with that fact all you want.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because your character isn't some kind of duelist, fighting 1 vs 1 battles all the time. They are part of a team. The rest of the team does things too!

Ironically, that's the exact reason defense would likely have been better even if it didn't win the 1v1 fights. Because it's a team game and the front line soldier tends to take significantly more attacks and so having him play toward defense is actually a greater strategy.

If your team has a lot of high damage dealers (archers, evokers) then your main goal is to protect them while they are dealing the damage. In such a situation, the shield fighter is probably superior.

If the team has any other PC's that do damage at all then you are likely better off with defense. They don't even have to be high damage dealers. 3 other PC's even doing low damage will typically outdamage the 1 PC. At that point the difference in team damage with the greatsword fighter vs the team with the shield fighter starts to be pretty negligible. The defense can be pretty negligible too, if enemies spread out and attack your allies as often as they attack you. In my experience, enemies tend to focus significantly more attacks on the front liners.

If your team has a lot of battle field control types, debuffers, or buffers, then the situation is reversed a bit - they set them up, you knock them down - in other words, it's the fighter's job to be the main damage dealer. For such a situation, a damage optimized character is best.

If my allies are capable of greatly boosting my offense i'd much rather have the built in defense of being a shield fighter. However, the flip side is that if they are capable of debuffing the enemies offense then I might be better focusing on offense myself.

With that said, it seems that most scenarios are favoring the shield fighter. 1v1. Team play with damage dealing teammates. Team play with offensive buffing allies.

So "how is this fighter going to best work in this group" is not answered by your analysis.

Sure, the answer to that question is pretty obvious for most groups. See the above analysis.

 

[fuksone]

I've already provided proof by counter example that what you are claiming isn't a universal principle. Disagree with that fact all you want.

Haven't played PF2 enough to say if playing defensively is bad or not but in PF1 playing defensivly was just super bad.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've already provided proof by counter example that what you are claiming isn't a universal principle. Disagree with that fact all you want.

You seem determined to ignore everything I just said? But no, I will leave it be once more.

 

[Ancalagon]

@FrogReaver, I agree with your analysis, I just am saying that the 1vs1 contest doesn't prove it.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver, I agree with your analysis, I just am saying that the 1vs1 contest doesn't prove it.

It’s evidence