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

[Gorgon Zee]

I ran some simulations of a Greatsword Fighter using power attack feat and a followup attack and Shield Fighter using double slice feat and the raise a shield action. I played smart with shield blocking. I would block as long as my shield wouldn't break (unless I would be downed otherwise).
Thoughts?

In most D&D games I've been in a power striker is a better defensive player, because although he takes damage, it's easier to protect or heal a high damage dealer than increase damage for a good blocker. So one on one, sure, send the tank. For a group, three barbarians with greatswords + a cleric I think will win against thee sword-and-board gals with a cleric.

Amusingly, I'm about to test this with my first post-playtest character; a half-orc warpriest cleric. I plan to start off as greatsword using self-buff magic weapon spell at level 1 to attack at +1 doing 2d12+3, and casting shield mostly for the AC, or when I need it to avoid dropping (orc ferocity will also help).

At level 3 I retrain orc ferocity to the orc weapon feat, since then I'll have access to the advanced orc weapons (made martial by the feat, made available by level 3 class feature), and switch to that plus a shield. It will be fun to see if that's a good switch or not!

 

[FrogReaver]

In most D&D games I've been in a power striker is a better defensive player, because although he takes damage, it's easier to protect or heal a high damage dealer than increase damage for a good blocker. So one on one, sure, send the tank. For a group, three barbarians with greatswords + a cleric I think will win against thee sword-and-board gals with a cleric.

Amusingly, I'm about to test this with my first post-playtest character; a half-orc warpriest cleric. I plan to start off as greatsword using self-buff magic weapon spell at level 1 to attack at +1 doing 2d12+3, and casting shield mostly for the AC, or when I need it to avoid dropping (orc ferocity will also help).

At level 3 I retrain orc ferocity to the orc weapon feat, since then I'll have access to the advanced orc weapons (made martial by the feat, made available by level 3 class feature), and switch to that plus a shield. It will be fun to see if that's a good switch or not!

Assuming a stand still fight where everyone focus fires on 1 member of the other group, it would be a closer fight than the 1v1 scenario. (Only 1 block vs 3 enemies instead of 1 block vs 1). That said, with proper stepping the defensive fighters probably could force the enemies to split up their attacks which starts to favor the defensive PC's.

That scenario is a lot more complex than I think you imagine.

 

[FrogReaver]

A level 1 fighter with power attack, a greatsword and +9 atk vs AC 18 would have a 50% chance to get a regular hit and do 2d12+4 damage with a 10% chance to do double that. On the second attack, taken at a -10 penalty, they would have a 5% chance to do 1d12+4 damage and a 5% chance to do double that. That would average 17 x .5 plus 34 x .1 or 11.9 damage on the first attack and 10.5 x .05 plus 21 x .05, or 1.575 damage on the second attack. Together that is 13.475 damage per round.

A level 1 fighter with exacting strike, a great pick, and +9 atk vs AC 18 would also have a 50% chance to get a regular hit on the first attack but would do 1d10+4 damage and 10% of the time would do double 1d12+4 damage plus an extra 1d12 damage. That first attack would average 9.5 x .5 plus 27.5 x .1 damage, or 7.5 damage. The second attack would be at a -5 penalty, so would get a regular hit 30% of the time, and a critical hit 5% of the time, so 9.5 x .3 plus 27.5 x .05, or 4.225 damage.

On the third attack things get interesting. 65% of the time you will be making an attack at a -5 penalty and 35% of the time you will attack at a -10 penalty. So you can take the same average damage as the second attack, 4.225 and multiply it by .65, and then you multiply the average for damage at -10 by .35. Or at least I think the average will work out properly that way. In any case the third attack will by 9.5 x .05 plus 27.5 x .05 , or 1.85. And 4.225 x .65 plus 1.85 x .35 comes out to 3.39375 damage. So all told the damage with the greatpick averages 15.11875.

If you use all three of your actions to attack (and your enemy does not have some kind of damage resistance) then the greatpick with exacting strike comes out on top. But... how many of your turns are going to be like versus how many where you get only 2 actions to attack or are facing an enemy with damage resistance? I think in play it certainly means exacting strike is playable, but it is not likely to be superior.

I've been meaning to come back to this post. Power Attack Has a feat that lowers the MAP penalty to -5 instead of -10. Once you get that feat power attack with a greatsword is better.

(I also think you made a miscalculation with the 65% and the 35%, but the overall conclusion was correct)

 

[Kaodi]

I've been meaning to come back to this post. Power Attack Has a feat that lowers the MAP penalty to -5 instead of -10. Once you get that feat power attack with a greatsword is better.

(I also think you made a miscalculation with the 65% and the 35%, but the overall conclusion was correct)

Yeah, I was not exactly double checking my work so that is possible. I am not sure how Furious Focus compares against other possible feats you could get at 6.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I was not exactly double checking my work so that is possible. I am not sure how Furious Focus compares against other possible feats you could get at 6.

I don't see many that would give you much of an opening attack, which is where any real gains would be found

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I was not exactly double checking my work so that is possible. I am not sure how Furious Focus compares against other possible feats you could get at 6.

I guess my biggest issue with furious focus, is that it requires you to make 3 attacks to gain benefit. Presumably, there's a lot of times you'll need to use an action to move or step, etc.

So while it would be a better style for the game we are showing, I'm not sure it would be a better style overall in actual play.

 

[Blue]

Shocking. Getting hit less results in taking less damage, thus outlasting your 2handed weapon using opponent.

And if it was the other way you could go "Shocking. Hits that do more damage drop an opponent faster then smaller hits."

 

[Simonb1]

The large breadth of history would disagree with 'common knowledge' there. Wading into melee without a shield is a movie thing. I mean, unless you weren't expecting to make it out alive, or were in a big formation of other two-handed weapon wielders for a specific purpose.

Man, I really want to look at these classes now.

Or wearing full plate, when you would be wielding a great weapon to penetrate.

 

[cooperjer]

I ran some simulations of a Greatsword Fighter using power attack feat and a followup attack and Shield Fighter using double slice feat and the raise a shield action. I played smart with shield blocking. I would block as long as my shield wouldn't break (unless I would be downed otherwise).

My results at level 4

Important stats were 18 str, 16 con, 12 dex.

Gear:
Breastplate
Sturdy Shield
Greatsword +1 and striking
Longsword +1 and striking

Sword and shield wins 12
ties 3 (higher initiative would win)
Greatsword wins 5

Essentially the sword and shield fighter won about 2/3 of the time.

Thoughts?

I feel like an analysis that reviewed performance versus an NPC combatant would be more informative to this audience. What are the results of the fighter vs one creature of equal level and what are the results of the fighter versus two creatures of 1 level lower? Did the fighter loose 1/2 of their resources (HP) or all of it?

You mentioned in one post that you smartly used the shield block to mitigate damage, but only when it made sense and didn't break the shield. I'm not sure a player would be able to make that judgement call in most encounters. I would recommend one of the following: always shield block, never shield block, or random shield block.

What conclusions did you make from your analysis?

 

[FrogReaver]

I feel like an analysis that reviewed performance versus an NPC combatant would be more informative to this audience. What are the results of the fighter vs one creature of equal level and what are the results of the fighter versus two creatures of 1 level lower? Did the fighter loose 1/2 of their resources (HP) or all of it?

You mentioned in one post that you smartly used the shield block to mitigate damage, but only when it made sense and didn't break the shield. I'm not sure a player would be able to make that judgement call in most encounters. I would recommend one of the following: always shield block, never shield block, or random shield block.

What conclusions did you make from your analysis?

My initial reading was that you get to know the damage before you use the reaction