Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Low-level Wizards in PF2 - are they still underpowered?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7788391" data-attributes="member: 53980"><p>I don't see how a fighter would do so meaningfully at 1st level. I suppose you could use an Agile weapon, but that only changes the hit chance to 65%, 45%, and 25% respectively. But Agile weapons tend to do less damage.</p><p></p><p>On top of that, those numbers are for the fighter, who ruins the curve so to speak. No other class starts with Expert weapon proficiency. Non-fighters are looking at 55%, 30%, and 5% (55%, 35%, and 15% with Agile) base hit rates. Asserting that they get three attacks is somewhat misleading when the second attack has about a 1 in 3 chance of landing, and the third attack amounts to hoping for a natural 20.</p><p></p><p>I'll grant that there are a few outliers; the Flurry Ranger with an Agile weapon being the prime candidate IMO. That build will want to attack with all three actions every chance they can get. However, it is reliant on Hunt Prey (which costs an action) meaning that it's closer to two attacks. If the prey is tough enough to take 5 attacks from the ranger to kill, you're still only looking at 2.5 attacks per round even under optimal conditions (you don't need to waste an action to Stride in order to get into melee).</p><p></p><p>It looks to me like, even being generous, in most circumstances you're looking at one and a half attacks. You might roll three d20s on your turn, but the second attack is unreliable, while the third is a shot in the dark. Effectively, it's closer to one and a half. IMO, optimized play involves finding alternate uses for your third (and possibly even your second) action that don't suffer MAP. That's if you even have the actions available, as melee might need to spend a few actions to get into position. For most builds, using all three actions to attack is likely to be a sub-optimal tactic.</p><p></p><p>Spells may be largely unchanged (I haven't done a thorough read through of the spells chapter yet and couldn't say). However, the warrior classes generally were only improved from 1 attack to 1.5 from what I can see. On top of that, cantrips were greatly improved. So while the high end of warrior damage at 1st level was increased, the same can be said for the low end of caster damage. Which isn't true parity, but is a rough sort of equivalence.</p><p></p><p>I agree with you that warrior types are probably in a stronger place at 1st level compared to casters, but I just don't see the difference in power being as large as you seem to be suggesting it is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 7788391, member: 53980"] I don't see how a fighter would do so meaningfully at 1st level. I suppose you could use an Agile weapon, but that only changes the hit chance to 65%, 45%, and 25% respectively. But Agile weapons tend to do less damage. On top of that, those numbers are for the fighter, who ruins the curve so to speak. No other class starts with Expert weapon proficiency. Non-fighters are looking at 55%, 30%, and 5% (55%, 35%, and 15% with Agile) base hit rates. Asserting that they get three attacks is somewhat misleading when the second attack has about a 1 in 3 chance of landing, and the third attack amounts to hoping for a natural 20. I'll grant that there are a few outliers; the Flurry Ranger with an Agile weapon being the prime candidate IMO. That build will want to attack with all three actions every chance they can get. However, it is reliant on Hunt Prey (which costs an action) meaning that it's closer to two attacks. If the prey is tough enough to take 5 attacks from the ranger to kill, you're still only looking at 2.5 attacks per round even under optimal conditions (you don't need to waste an action to Stride in order to get into melee). It looks to me like, even being generous, in most circumstances you're looking at one and a half attacks. You might roll three d20s on your turn, but the second attack is unreliable, while the third is a shot in the dark. Effectively, it's closer to one and a half. IMO, optimized play involves finding alternate uses for your third (and possibly even your second) action that don't suffer MAP. That's if you even have the actions available, as melee might need to spend a few actions to get into position. For most builds, using all three actions to attack is likely to be a sub-optimal tactic. Spells may be largely unchanged (I haven't done a thorough read through of the spells chapter yet and couldn't say). However, the warrior classes generally were only improved from 1 attack to 1.5 from what I can see. On top of that, cantrips were greatly improved. So while the high end of warrior damage at 1st level was increased, the same can be said for the low end of caster damage. Which isn't true parity, but is a rough sort of equivalence. I agree with you that warrior types are probably in a stronger place at 1st level compared to casters, but I just don't see the difference in power being as large as you seem to be suggesting it is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Low-level Wizards in PF2 - are they still underpowered?
Top