So the Investigator's combat ability is being balanced against the Rogue, arguably the weakest combat class in the game, with the exception of Commoners, Experts, and possibly Adepts (the Warrior is more-than-likely better than a Rogue in a fight). Monk is it's only real competitor.
Also, I think every person in this thread has said that Studied Combat/Strike's mechanics are awful (but the flavor is great). Not even just 'one tweak to fix', just plain awful.
The inspiration for the ability is based off the Sherlock Holmes scenes. I think it's worth noting that in the movies, Holmes makes multiple bloody strikes, not One and Done!
I have to wonder why it is that the developers think everyone but themselves are idiots? We aren't 10 year olds that don't realize something is a bad idea until we've already started it. We are intelligent human beings, and we are fully capable of looking at something and saying, "Hey, that isn't a good idea" without having to play it first.
There are multiple points about the proposed changes to Studied Combat/Strike.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
First proposal:Anything that keeps the 'once per 24 hour period' limitation is trash unless the benefits are very powerful. For examples, look at the Witch's hexes.
If you want to keep the limitation, then the duration needs to be extended so that a boss can't do something as simple as turn invisible or go ethereal or teleport away, or simply evade the Investigator, and thereby denying him the use of his class ability.
You could do this by making the duration equal to the Investigator's level, or changing it to 'until dead' like Smite.
I would also suggest allowing Studied Strike applies to all of the attacks made against the object of the Studied Combat.
Second proposal: This is the better of the 3 options. The only thing I would like to add to this is that, like the first proposal, Studied Strike should apply to all attacks made against object of Studied Combat during its duration. Otherwise, you're likely to see people only using Studied Combat as a means of increasing the attack bonus, and never for damage.
I would prefer changing it though, to the Investigator being able to add his intelligence modifier to damage for the duration of Studied Combat. It's less damage than sneak attack (even the extra damage from studied strike), and helps distance the Investigator from the Rogue.
I should point out, that the 36 is, for the most part, the highest intelligence score you can get, and this is a +13 modifier. A normal Rogue gets 10d6 sneak attack at 20th level, which averages ~35 points of damage per hit.
Third proposal: I dislike this one the most (even above the first one). Studied Combat/Strike is full of amazing flavor, far more so than sneak attack is, and should be the 'combat' option going forward.
The Flame Arc is worthless. Beyond the fact that fire resistance is extremely common, it requires a touch attack and a reflex save.
Touch AC is basically your ability to dodge attacks incoming attacks. Reflex is your ability to dodge AoE abilities. So, the enemy being attacked by Flame Arc has to dodge the attack, then dodge it again?
How does that even make sense?
I would also have to say that all of the greater blast exploits are pretty much worthless except the Ice one, and that's only because they take Dex damage every round trapped in the ice. The Acid one is the next best as it has the potential to do some ~ok damage over time.
I think Improved Awesome Blow needs some clarification, as it stands, it's not worded very well.
Revised Brawler wrote:
Improved Awesome Blow (Ex): At 20th level, the brawler can use her awesome blow ability as an attack, rather than as a standard action. She may use it on creatures of any size, but takes a –5 penalty for each size category the opponent is larger than her. If the maneuver is successful, the brawler can immediately attempt to confirm the maneuver by rolling another awesome blow combat maneuver with all the same modifiers as the one just rolled; if the confirmation roll is successful, the attack deals double damage, and the damage from hitting an obstacle (if any) is doubled.
When it says you can use it as an attack, does that mean it operates similar to a wolf getting a free trip attempt on bites? Or that the Brawler has to declare his attacks to be awesome blows, potentially making a 'flurry of blows'? (see what I did there?)
If it operates similar to a wolf, I can understand the 'confirm the maneuver' as it's essentially a free maneuver on every attack. If, instead, the brawler can substitute Awesome Blow maneuvers for attack rolls (like with trip, disarm or sunder) then I'm not sure why he has to roll twice to succeed. It makes things like natural 20's on Awesome almost meaningless, because he has to roll twice to actually confirm the maneuver.
What I'd like to see, is the Brawler able to make a 'flurry of blows' which allows him to make a series of maneuvers, and add them all together before determining the distance and damage dealt.
For instance, the Brawler makes 5 attacks at 20th level, and hits with 3 of them. The enemy takes 3x weapon or unarmed strike damage, flies back 30 ft. in the direction of the brawler's choice, and if he hits something before flying the full distance, he takes 1d6 points of damage for every 10 ft. the enemy didn't travel. For example, he flies 10 ft. and hits a wall, and takes 2d6 points of damage, if he flies back 25 ft. and hits something, he takes 1d6 points of damage, and if he flies back 5 ft. and hits something, he takes the full 3d6 points of damage.
This would allow Brawlers to rapidly send a group of mooks flying, clearing the path for someone else to charge, or, make a series of attacks against a powerful enemy, that slams them into a wall.
I also have to second the notion that Martial Maneuvers needs to, inherently, have more uses per day.
Keep in mind, that your Sound Striker/Dirgesinger is also going to be expending 1 round of bardic performance per word. So in that one 'breaking bad' scenario where the Bard was unleashing 8-10 words a round, the Bard would also be using up 8-10 rounds of bardic performance per round as well. Meaning the Bard is likely only able to keep that up for 2-4 rounds before running out of rounds of bardic performance.
You mentioned it's nothing the Magus couldn't do with a Fireball, but with the proposed changes, it'd be like the Magus expending 1/3 of all of his spells to unleash a Fireball as cast by a 5th level wizard.
Wow, just looked that FAQ up, and it is a stupid ruling.
Archer rogue can get sneak attack on each arrow fired in a full attack, but a Scorching Ray only gets sneak attack on one ray... why?
Archer's have neigh-infinite arrows (multiple efficient quivers) while casting Scorching Ray (from a staff, wand, spell slot etc) expends limited use resources. Sure, the 210 damage seems great on paper, but Scorching Ray is fire damage (one of the most commonly defended against elements), and has SR.
Well, as a side note, I will *not* be upholding this FAQ in my games, that's for sure.
As for the original idea (sneak attack on Weird Words), I would imagine the limit of 1 sneak attack on simultaneous spells would transfer over to Weird Words, though it's possible I could be wrong.
Neume, I see that you have a Thundercaller and Sound Striker Bard in play, and you mentioned you retired the Sound Striker because of the confusion and hassle of running the original Weird Words. I'm assuming you played the Sound Striker to 11th, and shelved him.
As best as your memory can provide, how did the original Sound Striker perform when compared to your Thundercaller? Also, how did the original Weird Words damage work over all? As your levels went up, and DR became more common, did you find yourself using Weird Words much or at all? How about against people you knew didn't have any DR, would you use it then? If so, how frequently?
I kind of want to pick your brain on this issue as you are the only person I recall actually 'playing' a Sound Striker in this thread. Others mentioned having seen them in play, and that the multiple dice were a big hassle, but I don't recall, off the top of my head, of anyone else that is still posting having actually played one.
My mistake, I was thinking of the Surprise Spells capstone for the Arcane Trickster.
Surprise Spells wrote:
At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.
It's worth noting, that at 14th level in the above build, the Arcane Trickster is only 2 levels away from the capstone.
[Edit] Hmm.... this is making me want to roll up a Rime Spell Arcane Trickster that uses Wall of Fire in the surprise round to get the Sneak Attack + entangle.
The Beard wrote:
If a character wanted to do that, he could just go Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster so he can cast a Scorching Ray + Quickened Scorching Ray (with as many bonus damage such as empower, maximize etc) to have 6 attacks at 4d6 fire damage + 6d6 sneak attack damage on each ray. This totals 24d6 fire damage and 36d6 sneak attack damage and averages 84 fire damage and 126 sneak attack damage. Mind you, this requires a 14th level character to pull off, but a potential 210 average damage right off the bat is nothing to sneeze at.
To top it off, he's effectively an 11th level wizard, and can sneak attack with fireballs, lightning bolts, walls of fire etc.
What was the date of this podcast? I don't see it on youtube or3.5 sanctuary.
Ryan. Costello wrote:
Ellis Mirari wrote:
Deadly with their fists, brawlers eschew using the fighter’s heavy armor and the monk’s mysticism, focusing instead on perfecting many styles of brutal unarmed combat. Versatile, agile, and able to adapt to most enemy attacks, a brawler’s body is a powerful weapon.
It eschews the monk's mysticism, yet retains 'magical' punches.
If you think this is fine, then I have this magnificent all electric car that runs off gasoline for you. Amazing deal, since it's electric, you don't need to go to the gas station (except when you want to drive the car)!
James Risner wrote:
You actually don't. PDT wants to replace suggestion with a 'weak' combat ability. So any 'weak' combat ability isn't going to be dealing 'good' damage.
If you don't think they haven't replaced Suggestion with a strong combat ability in the past, then you seriously need to go back and actually read the abilities replaced. Either that or you have no concept of what is or is not 'strong'.
If they nerf Weird Words as much as the PDT is proposing, then they need to just delete the entire archetype. Period. You are otherwise intentionally introducing trap options that will be completely useless.
Wordstrike is already completely awful already. Someone mentioned using Wordstrike to 'sunder' wands, and other items.
Physical Description:A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce. Most wands are wood, but some are bone, metal, or even crystal. A typical wand has Armor Class 7, 5 hit points, hardness 5, and a break DC of 16.
So your typical wand is hardness 5 with 5 hp. Wordstrike deals 1d4 + level to an object. However it's automatically halved (energy damage) and then it has to overcome hardness.
A 10th level Bard deals 1d4+10 points of damage (average 12.5) and against a wand, it deals 6.25 point of damage. So, on average, it deals 1 hp of damage to a wand. The 10th level bard could probably spit on it and deal more damage.
At 20th level, you deal an average of 22.5 points of damage, or 11.25 points of damage against an object. You are only just barely able to break a f@+*ing wand using Wordstrike at 20th level!
So, the PDT wants to change out a moderately useful ability, for a weak one, with the net result of the class having a worthless Wordstrike and a trap-filled Weird Words.
Expect to never see this archetype see play again.
Create Water + Ray of Frost + Prestidigitation (color, flavor, create minor item) = Snow Cones!
Arae Garven wrote:
My understanding is he wants Favored Weapon to work with any weapon with which you are proficient if you don't worship a God, instead of only working with simple weapons.
Basically, it makes it more advantageous to 'not' worship a God, than to worship a God, which kind of flies in the face of Clerics.
A Cleric can worship a God, or worship an Ideal. If he worships a God, his domains are limited, but he gains proficiency in the Gods weapon. If he worships an ideal, he gains flexible domains, but doesn't gain a bonus weapon of any sort.
Conversely, if a Warpriest worships a God, he gets proficiency and Focused Weapon with the Gods chosen weapon. If he doesn't worship a God, he gets Focused Weapon with any simple weapon instead.
He wants it expanded to allows Focused Weapon with any weapon the Warpriest is proficient with. To me, this is a problem as Martial Weapons are far more powerful than simple weapons (most of the time).
My point was that Cleric's don't get a favored weapon AT ALL if they don't worship a deity, while Warpriests do. You should be grateful for that favored weapon, because you wouldn't get it otherwise.
You should be happy that you gain a Favored Weapon at all. If a Cleric doesn't worship a Deity, he doesn't gain proficiency with any bonus weapon. A Warpriest still gains the Favored Weapon bonus with a simple weapon, something Cleric's don't get.
Alexander, they weren't saying multiclassing was bad, it's just that in 3.5 there was a tendency for characters to have half a dozen class levels. Not necessarily for flavor either, it was because those combos were pretty powerful, if not game breaking.
It wasn't even just a 'small group' deal, it was pretty rampant. It seemed like it was rarer to find a dual classed character, than a character who had less than 5 classes.
I knew a guy that was playing a Minotaur/fighter/monk/paladin/kensai, this same guy also built a character that had 27 attacks at level 6 or something like that, through multiclassing.
The point is, there was an overwhelming ridiculousness in 3.5 that, in order to play an effective character, you needed to multiclass in the extreme.
Dash a good witty...
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
When was the last time you hear the words marauder or reaver brought up in everyday conversation (not pertaining to Pathfinder/fantasy)?
I'm not a hunter, and neither are most of my friends, but the word hunter and hunting have been brought up 3 times in the last 5 days alone. At least for me.
Granted, part of that is due to living in Alaska, but I doubt 'Marauder' or 'Reaver' especially are all that common in every day conversation.
A wizard can just charge other wizards to copy spells out of his spellbook. He doesn't need to have the spells prepared in order to sell them.
With the release of Alchemists, Arcanists, Magus' and Witches, all Int casters that can learn 'any number of spells/extracts', a Wizard probably has a huge supply of people willing to purchase spells from him.
Screaming child in a stroller at Starbucks decided to start throwing the merchandise around to make sure he got noticed. Which is normal enough; manners have to be learned, after all. The problem was, after a day of driving hither and yon amidst pre-holiday crowds, I was also feeling a bit frayed, and the little tyke had quite an arm on him. His mother apologized very sincerely, but I'm afraid my reassurances may not have been all they could have been. I blame Cosmo for any potential lapse of manners on the part of my overwrought self.
Did you apologize for devouring the youngling?
Our 6th level Arcanist has 5 spells of first level, 5 spells of second level and 3 spells of third level. At 6th level, their maximum reservoir is 18, since they star off with 4 points each day, they could consume all of their second level spells for 10 points (totaling 14 in the pool), and then a 3rd level spell and a 1st level spell to top off at 18 points in the pool.
To get to 217 rounds, the Arcanist has already spent 10 of his 18 points with Tinker. He can then spend 8 more points to keep extending his 1 round per level spell (I'll choose Vanish as an example).
217 (10) = 325 (11) = 487 (12) = 730 (13) = 1,095 (14) = 1642 (15) = 2,463 (16) = 3,694 (17) = 5,541 (18)
So the Arcanist has used up 18 Reservoir Points to extend his Vanish spell to 5,541 rounds or a little over 9 hours. At this point, the Arcanist can consume the rest of his spells (3 first level and 2 third level remaining) for another 9 reservoir points. This drops his rounds down to 5,536 remaining at which points he extends again.
5,536 (9) = 8,304 (8) = 12,456 (7) = 18,684 (6) = 28,026 (5) = 42,039 (4) = 63,058 (3) = 94,587 (2) = 141,880 (1) = 212,820 or 354.8 hours if I do my math right. (212,820 multiplied by 6 to get the total number of seconds, then divide that total by 60 to get the number of minutes, then divide by 60 for the number of hours)
So a 6th level Arcanist could spend all of his spells and AR points in a day off at home, to tinker/extend a 1 round per level spell, like Vanish, to last for 354.8 hours, or 14.7 days.
Not broken at all...
Yes, but for Siphon Spell to work, the spell has to have a caster level equal to or exceeding your own.
An Arcanist that uses False Focus with a focus of at least 50 gp can cast Continual Flame for free.
During his off days, or even during battle days, he can expend all of his remaining spell slots of 2nd level or higher to cast as many Continual Flames as he can.
Then, he can use Disrupt Spell and Siphon Spell to try and Siphon as many Arcane points as he can.
Since he is casting the Continual Flames, they are of his level and therefore qualify. The downside is that there is a risk of him no succeeding the dispel check by 5 or more, and he loses a an AR point, and if he only makes it by 5 or more, then he doesn't lose a point, nor does he gain a point. It's only when he succeeds by 10 or more that he has a net gain.
Basically, carry around a bag full of pebbles that have Continual Flame cast upon them. Every time you gain a level, cast Greater Dispel (area) to automatically dispel all of the Continual Flames (as you always succeed in dispelling your own spells) to wipe the slate clean and start over again.
It's not fool proof, or 100% guaranteed, but it's the cheapest method of regaining AR points. This also requires an Arcanist of at least 13th level to perform, so it won't be happening in PFS.
DM Beckett wrote:
Jason Bulmahn said in the podcast that there will be new spells. If they, at first, decided against new spells, it seems they may have changed their mind since then.
I blame Cosmo.
I didn't get a chance to play with that version of the knuckles, but I did have some characters designed around it.
Between hinting on a podcast that this is going to be one of the three most radically changed classes in the second PDF, and seeing an internal playtest stat line dumping str and pumping the hell out of cha, it seems to me the thing to do right now is just to wait for that to hit and focus on some of the other classes for now.
James also mentioned he had a lot of comments on the design of the class. So it could be that he played a Swashbuckler and didn't like how it turned out, and his comments could be along the line of what most people here have been saying.
I agree, though at this stage the difference is not huge. After talking with the player more today he's decided to stick with the monk after we discussed what he would be able to do with Snake Risoste next level, he decided that this could still be fun. You also have to bear in mind that he is comparing himself to a barbarian wielding a +3-equivelant weapon. I am going to drop in an item for him in the next treasure-hoard, as most other characters have something cool by now: the sorcerer has a wand of wall of fire, the ranger has the stag helm, while the cleric has picked up a lot of minor items. The rogue and magus could use something nice as well, I think, and I know what to equip them with.
Ugh, I know what that's like. My Monk using my own house rules is sometimes compared by the group to the Falchion wielding Fighter or the Barbarian that my GM just gave a +6 equivalent (+5 with a property) weapon at level 9.
I told my GM he'd regret giving that weapon to the Barbarian, for some reason, he thinks it won't be an issue.
That's kind of the point people keep making. Swashbucklers should be dexterous and charismatic, but, currently, the best way to play a Swashbuckler is to dump Charisma, take an Extra Grit feat, and go Strength Prime.
What about Lucky Charms? I hear they're magically delicious...