Is pathfinder's damage too high?

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would say that yes, it is. For many levels, the game is one shot and dead until the mid levels where you get some play, and then it is back to being very quick.

It seems like everything that does damage should be toned down, to allow combats to have more events happen. I am noticing in my games it is very much rocket tag, and it is rarely longer than 2 rounds of combat

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would say that yes, it is. For many levels, the game is one shot and dead until the mid levels where you get some play, and then it is back to being very quick.

It seems like everything that does damage should be toned down, to allow combats to have more events happen. I am noticing in my games it is very much rocket tag, and it is rarely longer than 2 rounds of combat

If you optimize then you are certainly correct. But it isnt just damage. Many spell and supernatural effects are save or lose/save or die. I would not be reasonable to cut damage for the fighter in a world where the wizard still has spells to take out an opponent in a single failed save.

Mostly i avoid the rocket tag effect by having slightly harder challenges that ALWAYS include at least 4-6 opponents. Generally in a 4 person party only 2 or so of them are true damage dealers. So if there are 6 opponents, the encounter cant be taken out in one round. Mind you if you have a party of 4 damage dealers, that is something else entirely (and entirely possible).

The game still assumes the classic fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric format.

If you have paladin, wildshape pounce druid, inquisitor, summoner as your party instead, thats like 3 times the damage output (since everyone in the party is churning out lots of damage). For that you need to adjust your encounters and its perfectly reasonable to increase CRs (preferably by adding monsters not boosting individual monsters, or by adding in environmental effects that limit party member's effectiveness) because you have a particularly combat capable party.

If you optimize then you are certainly correct. But it isnt just damage. Many spell and supernatural effects are save or lose/save or die. I would not be reasonable to cut damage for the fighter in a world where the wizard still has spells to take out an opponent in a single failed save.

True, but it work both ways. The martial builds need high damage to stay on reasonably equal footing with the spellcaster, spellcaster need spells that can stop martials in their track with a very high chance of success because almost any optimized martial will kill them in 1 round if he get to make a full attack.

Essentially the spellcasters do "high damage" with save or die/sucks spells, the martials with physical attacks. There is a glass cannon syndrome creeping in.

My group is more old school so we privilege more defense and less offence. We think that it is more fun that way than playing rocked tag.

Good lord combat is slow enough.

I think the high damage is part of balancing marshals with magics as has been said.

Thinks back to start of my current PFS PbP game. It took 2-3 hits to drop each oppenent in the first fight. It was still a trivial fight and we were never really at risk, but not one-shotting.

A two-handed, power attacking martial would have dropped one in a single hit with a good roll I think, but it wouldn't have been gauranteed and we didn't have one anyway.

I always thought the real rocket tag came in later and relied more on casters than martials. Or at least on casters setting up the martials for those full attack rounds.

Good lord combat is slow enough.

That can really vary based on group composition and challenges faced. In our Wrath of the Righteous campaign, most combats where action economy is equal or in the party's favor are resolved in 1-2 rounds. That works well for us and is about what we expect from the "random encounter" type fights, and we usually have about 1 fight a night (out of 3-6) that stretches into 5+ round territory. Some people might prefer a smaller number of more intense/epic encounters though, and hitting the right difficulty to set that tone can be hard, especially since the CR system isn't exactly intuitive. You'd expect an epic encounter to be one where you're faced with a near overwhelmingly powerful opponent and his hordes of evil minions, not your broke evil twins, but the CR system supports the second idea more than the first.

Like I said before though, there's lots of little ways to tweak encounters to make them more challenging. The most important thing is that everyone is having fun. If the group is steamrolling encounters a bit but everyone is having fun, there's probably no reason to change things. If everyone is finding that they'd prefer a greater challenge and more intense combats, there's a few ways to tweak things.

Published encounters are set up for the "typical" adventuring party (which probably really doesn't exist except in Abadar's vault). A two-handed-weapon-wielding, raging, power-attacking barbarian may drop an opponent in a single round if she hits, but if hit point totals were adjusted so it's a longer fight for the barbarian it becomes almost unbeatable for the party whose fighter is a Dex-focused archer. Similarly, a handful of zombies might be a cakewalk for a party with a positive-energy channeler but a near-TPK for a group whose 'healer' is a bard or (non-life) oracle.

If you, as a GM, know that you have a party that skews toward the damage-dealing side of things, it's a very easy fix to simply give opponents max hp to make the fights last longer (assuming you're not in PFS, of course). Generally, you'll find that over the course of a campaign, it will balance out: The heavy-damage PCs may smash through encounters with ease at low-levels but will probably do poorly against mid-level foes that make them roll lots of saves.

Core Rulebook + Bestiary, damage is high. Almost anything past that gets into the crazy levels, IMO.

Two-handed power attack is the lower level exception - typically killing anything when it hits - which happens often enough. You want to keep your distance from those kind of brutes - kinda like the Red Viper vs. the Mountain.

Oh combat only lasts 2 or 3 rounds but that still takes 45 minutes.

Three of four characters in my 16th-level party optimized for damage (one, admittedly, not optimized well) and our combats still last a while.

Granted, if I just throw one enemy in front of them to beat on, it'll be over pretty darn quick. But throw in multiple opponents, terrain, or hindering status effects and you'll looking at four or five rounds.

It's high enough level I don't really need to be worried about killing people, though, which helps. If I throw too many enemies in one encounter, it'll sort itself out.

Cheers!
Landon

Try using more goons. By that I mean large numbers of very weak opponents: dire rats, kobolds, skeletons, 1st level warriors, etc. Maybe they need a 19 to hit a PC's armor class, and they'll go down fast, but there are a lot of them. And the intelligent ones can use tactics - sniping from behind cover, using flanking, triggering a prepared trap of some sort.

In many cases you don't even need to generate hit points for the goons. Just assume that any hit takes one out. The point is not to seriously endanger the party, but to let them revel in being badass by taking on a dozen or more enemies at a time. (Superhero comics do this a lot.)

Oh combat only lasts 2 or 3 rounds but that still takes 45 minutes.

Ouch. We run a timer on each turn to keep combat moving. If you hadn't decided and started executing your turn within 30 seconds, you're holding your initiative until you get it figured out. Combats are typically the least time consuming portion of our night, with way more time spent in exploration and/or making sure our painfully stereotypical party rogue doesn't pocket a shiny clue whose absence will turn a 5 minute puzzle into a 45 minute one.

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would say that yes, it is. For many levels, the game is one shot and dead until the mid levels where you get some play, and then it is back to being very quick.

It seems like everything that does damage should be toned down, to allow combats to have more events happen. I am noticing in my games it is very much rocket tag, and it is rarely longer than 2 rounds of combat

There are many players here who say their average combats last 5 rounds or more, but my experience is that it is closer to 3 rounds.

With that said you should probably give an example of how you run your games.

I would also avoid single opponent combats.

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would say that yes, it is. For many levels, the game is one shot and dead until the mid levels where you get some play, and then it is back to being very quick.

It seems like everything that does damage should be toned down, to allow combats to have more events happen. I am noticing in my games it is very much rocket tag, and it is rarely longer than 2 rounds of combat

These are not issues for me. I like fast and furious combat so I guess my answer is, no it is not too high.

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would say that yes, it is. For many levels, the game is one shot and dead until the mid levels where you get some play, and then it is back to being very quick.

It seems like everything that does damage should be toned down, to allow combats to have more events happen. I am noticing in my games it is very much rocket tag, and it is rarely longer than 2 rounds of combat

Well, we held a poll, and on average most combats last about 5-6 rounds. Now, yes, there were a good number that reported much shorter combats.

It seems if you allow everything from every supplement, plus a high Pt buy and are generous with the loot, then yes, the AP encounters are not a match for that sort of party. They are mostly built on a 15 pt buy CRB party.

Are you having fun? Are your players having fun?

Clearly you have never played 4e.

You regularly fight enemies with HP well into the hundreds. A solo mob designed to fight a party by itself could have in the range of 600-800 HP by mid tier (level 15).

A 4e optimized damage dealer would put the rapid fire full attacking archers of PF to shame.

Good lord combat is slow enough.

I think the high damage is part of balancing marshals with magics as has been said.

A fight will last a very small number of rounds. Resolving what happen in a round is time consuming. That has its drawback.

Changing that will require big changes to the mechanic of the game.

As a note, I feel like spells need to be nerfed into the ground since they are all sorts of overpowered.

This is actually unrelated to if martial/monster damage is too high.

Thanks for the responses! It gives me more to think about.

Also, something else:

While maybe people said their combats averaged 5 rounds, how many of those rounds was there a decision to make, and how many were just going through the motions to clean up? I think maybe I just stop thinking about combat once it is clear one side has no chance to win and is running/cultist fight to the deathing

While maybe people said their combats averaged 5 rounds, how many of those rounds was there a decision to make, and how many were just going through the motions to clean up? I think maybe I just stop thinking about combat once it is clear one side has no chance to win and is running/cultist fight to the deathing

From the roleplaying angle, that's a great time to play up the pathos. These poor deluded cultists, many of them not much more than children. They know they're going to die, with no chance of actually stopping the PCs, but they're still holding their ground. Is the party forced to simply slaughter them, or is there a chance some of them can still be saved? (Note: Don't bother trying this with evil PCs.)

As a note, I feel like spells need to be nerfed into the ground since they are all sorts of overpowered.

This is actually unrelated to if martial/monster damage is too high.

Thanks for the responses! It gives me more to think about.

Also, something else:

While maybe people said their combats averaged 5 rounds, how many of those rounds was there a decision to make, and how many were just going through the motions to clean up? I think maybe I just stop thinking about combat once it is clear one side has no chance to win and is running/cultist fight to the deathing

Well, once we have defeated the BBEG, sometimes there's a round or two of clean up, but sometimes our DM handwaves that.

We get a honest 6 rounds of combat.

At later levels you have rezes all the time so no one actually dies. Oh you died okay let me just buy heals

In our game last weekend, we had a fight go on for FIFTEEN rounds!

Why? Because the damned phase spiders and animate dreams wouldn't let anyone full attack.

;P

Everything has its place in a game and if you find your party is doing ridiculous amounts of damage, then start throwing additional things in there to block that issue.

For example... Zen Archer? Phalanx soldiers! A wall of Tower Shields will take care of that issue. Cover and concealment... Magic users destroying your fun? Anti-magic zones! Silence is also fun! Melee martial characters stomping evvvverything? Start throwing illusions around? Blur is awesome! Mirror image! Heck... flying enemies! There's plenty of them at lower levels.

Yes, characters can do a large amount of damage, especially if optimized and niche. If your PCs are niche, then find a way to make them break out of that mold.

Now here's the question... Are you guys having fun? If your the GM, are your players having fun? If you're a player and not enjoying things, broach the subject with your GM. There's lots of ways to change it up!

Good luck to you!

Also, something to think about... the randomness of dice can really change things up.

Use tactics as well. Well use tactics that the creature you're putting them up against would use.

If they're fighting goblins, use the tatics of having a massive amount of goblins. Sure the gobbies might get one or two-shotted (when they get hit high dex and all). However the sheer numbers is where the threat comes from.

Have intellegent foes use the terrain to their advantage. Use stealth, stage ambushes. Use Max hit points on your baddies.

There are low level spells and the like that make combat highly irritating.

Throw them up against a ghost, once they have a bit of magical gear. The 50% miss chance should slow them up a bit.

Not saying you're a bad GM, just saying that you may not be using everything you have to the full advantage.

Good lord combat is slow enough.

Slow? That seems to be more a problem of turn length than anything else. It tends to be pretty easy to end a fight in a round or three.

I think the high damage is part of balancing marshals with magics as has been said.

I think that's the idea, but it's a failed endeavor if that's the case. The real solution here is to drop damage down (or force reasonable trade offs for damage) and take away the spellcaster's instant win buttons. "Fail a save, out of the fight" is a lousy mechanic and you're absolutely right insofar as that it creates a pretty stupid arms race.

Gnomezrule wrote:

Good lord combat is slow enough.

I think the high damage is part of balancing marshals with magics as has been said.

A fight will last a very small number of rounds. Resolving what happen in a round is time consuming. That has its drawback.

The small number of round remove the option to use more complicated tactics or non swift in combat buffs. The slow resolution of a character action push the GM toward encounters with a small number of powerful enemies and that make the martial ability to continue to make attack as long as they have hp mostly irrelevant and advantage single massive attacks either with save or die spells or as the ability to deal large number of hp in a single attack for martial.

Changing that will require big changes to the mechanic of the game.

The one change I so wished had actually made it into the game was the idea to remove iterative attacks. Instead of making multiple attacks per round when your BaB hit the right level you would just add your weapon dice to the roll again.

Oh Well.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Gnomezrule wrote:

Good lord combat is slow enough.

I think the high damage is part of balancing marshals with magics as has been said.

A fight will last a very small number of rounds. Resolving what happen in a round is time consuming. That has its drawback.

The small number of round remove the option to use more complicated tactics or non swift in combat buffs. The slow resolution of a character action push the GM toward encounters with a small number of powerful enemies and that make the martial ability to continue to make attack as long as they have hp mostly irrelevant and advantage single massive attacks either with save or die spells or as the ability to deal large number of hp in a single attack for martial.

Changing that will require big changes to the mechanic of the game.

The one change I so wished had actually made it into the game was the idea to remove iterative attacks. Instead of making multiple attacks per round when your BaB hit the right level you would just add your weapon dice to the roll again.

1st level your long sword did 1D8+x but at 6th it would do 2D8+x. Made it SOOOO much easier to balance around and made vital strike, charge, power attack, etc. so much more valuable.
Plus balancing the HP's around that kind of damage output actually made evocation spells useful without needing massive amounts of feats, class dips.

Oh Well.

Also would let martial characters feel more mobile and less like turrets. Always felt silly to me that if an enemy is within five feet of my fighter I can turn him into lunchmeat, but if he's SIX feet away... well damn, I can barely even scratch him.

The one change I so wished had actually made it into the game was the idea to remove iterative attacks. Instead of making multiple attacks per round when your BaB hit the right level you would just add your weapon dice to the roll again.

1st level your long sword did 1D8+x but at 6th it would do 2D8+x. Made it SOOOO much easier to balance around and made vital strike, charge, power attack, etc. so much more valuable.
Plus balancing the HP's around that kind of damage output actually made evocation spells useful without needing massive amounts of feats, class dips.

Oh Well.

I agree that some sort of fix to the full attack problem is definitely needed, but perhaps to some people, it's a feature, not a bug! :)

My group tends to see combats lasting 3-6 rounds. With some heavy variance.
We play a home campaign with lots of extra rules, and an optimised damage dealer can get pretty nuts.

Compared to PFS encounters the party tank is unhittable and kills nearly anything in one hit. This is because PFS is designed to let the players win. Most encounters are CR +-1.

For reference:
Cr-2 is laughably easy.
Cr-1 is a one round speed bump.
Cr+-0 is a minor brawl, someone might get hurt.
Cr+1 is a light threat, it might cost a big spell and a bucket of hp.
Cr+2 is a fight, it might drain a lot of spells and someone might get knocked out or killed.
Cr+3 a proper combat, expect casualties and drained characters once it's done.
Cr+4 is a relatively even battle mechanic wise. Both sides are equal in strength, the odds still favor the players simply because they have 4 minds against your 1. You can expect a lot of casualties.
Cr+5 is JUST enough to expectedly TPK a party of players, even then it depends on strategy.
All of the above then swing wildly up and down in actual CR depending on circumstance and optimisation. I've seen two level six optimised fighters take out a 13th level fighter in one round of average rolling.

Remember to adjust rewards by the victory method, CR is a measuring device to determine the average expenditure of resources to overcome a challenge, if CR is bypassed by some unique or incidental effect (commonly a save or suck/die spell) adjust appropriately. A CR+4 foe dropped in one spell on round 1, action 1 should most definitely not yield CR+4 xp for example.

.
If your party has a lot of damage output, in CR terms that means the effort required to complete combat encounters is lower than usual, to compensate consider increasing encounter CR by one (without increasing xp rewards), of course this applies only in encounters where damage output is revelant.
When you increase encounter difficulty remember that it is usually better to increase enemy numbers then individual stats. Stronger enemies will just induce more rocket-tag game play from your players.

I have a very basic core book only Barbarian 1/Rogue 3. I can normally deal around 15-25 damage per hit and I have cleave as well.

Base 2d6 great sword (avg 7)
Damage +6 strength (18, 2 handed weapon)

Average damage is 13 per hit but....

If I win initiative/flank that is another 7 points of damage (avge 20)
Rage adds another 3 for the +4 strength
and power attack adds another 3 points

Average damage is 26 at level 4 with sneak attack and 13 at the lowest and around 16 via power attack.

Feats
Improved Initiative
Power Attack
Cleave
Skill focus UMD.

Yes I know I could cheese this out even more with splat book material. Damage is to high at higher levels though even without cheese being used.

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Gnomezrule wrote:

Good lord combat is slow enough.

I think the high damage is part of balancing marshals with magics as has been said.

A fight will last a very small number of rounds. Resolving what happen in a round is time consuming. That has its drawback.

The small number of round remove the option to use more complicated tactics or non swift in combat buffs. The slow resolution of a character action push the GM toward encounters with a small number of powerful enemies and that make the martial ability to continue to make attack as long as they have hp mostly irrelevant and advantage single massive attacks either with save or die spells or as the ability to deal large number of hp in a single attack for martial.

Changing that will require big changes to the mechanic of the game.

The one change I so wished had actually made it into the game was the idea to remove iterative attacks. Instead of making multiple attacks per round when your BaB hit the right level you would just add your weapon dice to the roll again.

1st level your long sword did 1D8+x but at 6th it would do 2D8+x. Made it SOOOO much easier to balance around and made vital strike, charge, power attack, etc. so much more valuable.
Plus balancing the HP's around that kind of damage output actually made evocation spells useful without needing massive amounts of feats, class dips.

Oh Well.

Also would let martial characters feel more mobile and less like turrets. Always felt silly to me that if an enemy is within five feet of my fighter I can turn him into lunchmeat, but if he's SIX feet away... well damn, I can barely even scratch him.

This was one of the many things I liked about 4e, actually. Melee characters were able to go up to some and do all of their damage. Sure, you couldn't split it up amongst the enemies around you, unless you had an ability to let you do that, but there wasn't too much downside to that.

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Gnomezrule wrote:

Good lord combat is slow enough.

I think the high damage is part of balancing marshals with magics as has been said.

A fight will last a very small number of rounds. Resolving what happen in a round is time consuming. That has its drawback.

The small number of round remove the option to use more complicated tactics or non swift in combat buffs. The slow resolution of a character action push the GM toward encounters with a small number of powerful enemies and that make the martial ability to continue to make attack as long as they have hp mostly irrelevant and advantage single massive attacks either with save or die spells or as the ability to deal large number of hp in a single attack for martial.

Changing that will require big changes to the mechanic of the game.

The one change I so wished had actually made it into the game was the idea to remove iterative attacks. Instead of making multiple attacks per round when your BaB hit the right level you would just add your weapon dice to the roll again.

1st level your long sword did 1D8+x but at 6th it would do 2D8+x. Made it SOOOO much easier to balance around and made vital strike, charge, power attack, etc. so much more valuable.
Plus balancing the HP's around that kind of damage output actually made evocation spells useful without needing massive amounts of feats, class dips.

Oh Well.

Also would let martial characters feel more mobile and less like turrets. Always felt silly to me that if an enemy is within five feet of my fighter I can turn him into lunchmeat, but if he's SIX feet away... well damn, I can barely even scratch him.

On the other hand the martials would do way less damage (the static bonuses are way more relevant than the weapon damage dice) and increasing the number of enemies as a way to balance the martials and spellcaster strengths would be even less of a option.

Currently the martial punching a hole in the line of mooks defending the beeg, downing 2 or 3 enemies in one round is feasible, especially if they have already been weakened by a friend. If we give them a single powerful attack they would be capable to kill only 1 enemy during their round.

On the other hand the martials would do way less damage (the static bonuses are way more relevant than the weapon damage dice) and increasing the number of enemies as a way to balance the martials and spellcaster strengths would be even less of a option.

Currently the martial punching a hole in the line of mooks defending the beeg, downing 2 or 3 enemies in one round is feasible, especially if they have already been weakened by a friend. If we give them a single powerful attack they would be capable to kill only 1 enemy during their round.

That would be what stuff like Cleave/Great Cleave and Vital Strike should have been useful for. Single attacks could have been built to be not an inferior option to full attacks ala mythic vital strike.

And currently, no not even due to the simplest of tactics and the constraints of the full attack paradigm. You move up to the line of mooks and now you only have one attack. Next round the mooks could easily readjust positioning and still deny you your full attack or the ability to kill any more than one of them.

As a note, I feel like spells need to be nerfed into the ground since they are all sorts of overpowered.

This is actually unrelated to if martial/monster damage is too high.

Thanks for the responses! It gives me more to think about.

Also, something else:

While maybe people said their combats averaged 5 rounds, how many of those rounds was there a decision to make, and how many were just going through the motions to clean up? I think maybe I just stop thinking about combat once it is clear one side has no chance to win and is running/cultist fight to the deathing

Actually this conversation has come up more than one. One time it was closer to 3-4 rounds. Another time it was 5+ rounds. Some GM's admitted to artificially extending the combats by fudging dice and/or just tacking on extra hit points.

Normally in my experience the fight is in mop up mode by the end of round 3, no matter if it ends in round 4 or round 7.

edit: I don't have a problem with most spells though.

At later levels you have rezes all the time so no one actually dies. Oh you died okay let me just buy heals

When this happens I don't just give them the money back to replace what they lost. That way it actually has some meaning, even if it is not permanent.

fights are usually in mop up mode by Round 2, rounds 3 and after usually amount to going through the motions of a janitor. the only time this isn't truly the case, is when the DM fudges dice or tacks on extra hit points to extend cleanup, as Weekly William has done before. but Weekly William is more likely to use waves to extend encounters, but a new wave might as well be a new fight.

CWheezy wrote:

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I would say that yes, it is. For many levels, the game is one shot and dead until the mid levels where you get some play, and then it is back to being very quick.

It seems like everything that does damage should be toned down, to allow combats to have more events happen. I am noticing in my games it is very much rocket tag, and it is rarely longer than 2 rounds of combat

If you optimize then you are certainly correct. But it isnt just damage. Many spell and supernatural effects are save or lose/save or die. I would not be reasonable to cut damage for the fighter in a world where the wizard still has spells to take out an opponent in a single failed save.

This.

fights are usually in mop up mode by Round 2, rounds 3 and after usually amount to going through the motions of a janitor. the only time this isn't truly the case, is when the DM fudges dice or tacks on extra hit points to extend cleanup, as Weekly William has done before. but Weekly William is more likely to use waves to extend encounters, but a new wave might as well be a new fight.

My experience is totally different. Most intelligent adversaries keep the distance, try to minimize damage and so on.

The fight with the wizard with fly, mirror image, some summoned critter on the door of the room in which he is and several other defensive spells rarely reach the "mop up point" in a couple of rounds.
Same thing for the large number of creatures with darkness or deeper darkness and the ability to see in them.
Incorporeal creatures hiding in the walls and using spring attack.
Etc., etc.

No need to fudge dices or hit points when clever tactics are sufficient.

I think many GM's use offensive monsters like giants that will try to match damage with the players, but they also might have low will saves meaning a quick fight due to casters.

Our fights tend to be long affairs, but most don't take more than 3 rounds (there are exceptions). Round 1 is generally spent buffing, moving, and absorbing the attacks of the enemies. Round 2 is full attacking, hitting the enemy hard, round 3 is cleanup.

However, with our large group (6 players) and currently high level (13-14), even "short" combats can take a while to run as people look over options, check on buffs and spell effects, etc. It's not uncommon for a 3-round fight to take well over an hour to run. It's our first foray with high-level Pathfinder combat, though, and we have a number of spell casters in our party (oracle, wizard, bard, and cleric).

Overall, our group can dish out some serious damage (probably too much if things go just right) but in general we deal reasonable amounts of damage and so do the enemies we fight. But that is with the knowledge that our group goes for a more middle-of-the-road approach to our characters. I can see how it would get ridiculous if we wanted it to, and I don't like that aspect of the game. As long as we (our group of players) moderate ourselves we can keep things reasonable.

Diego Rossi wrote:

On the other hand the martials would do way less damage (the static bonuses are way more relevant than the weapon damage dice) and increasing the number of enemies as a way to balance the martials and spellcaster strengths would be even less of a option.

Currently the martial punching a hole in the line of mooks defending the beeg, downing 2 or 3 enemies in one round is feasible, especially if they have already been weakened by a friend. If we give them a single powerful attack they would be capable to kill only 1 enemy during their round.

That would be what stuff like Cleave/Great Cleave and Vital Strike should have been useful for. Single attacks could have been built to be not an inferior option to full attacks ala mythic vital strike.

And currently, no not even due to the simplest of tactics and the constraints of the full attack paradigm. You move up to the line of mooks and now you only have one attack. Next round the mooks could easily readjust positioning and still deny you your full attack or the ability to kill any more than one of them.

Yup, Cleave and it's ilk would become significantly more useful. We'd also get away from the hyper-inflation of opponent HP's necessary to make things survive the 2-300pt burst damage that the game has grown into these days.

Devs Vult!

Ha!

Yup, Cleave and it's ilk would become significantly more useful. We'd also get away from the hyper-inflation of opponent HP's necessary to make things survive the 2-300pt burst damage that the game has grown into these days.

Best thing is it would put casters and martials back to the same action efficiency. Move and cast vs. move and attack, simple and elegant so of course it's never going to happen.

That's what I would like to see going forward as well. Changing up the way criticals work (remove the multiplier effect) would be next on my list.

I find myself wanting to see some actual play from these games, where every combat encounter is resolved in 3 rounds. I'm still uncertain how exactly this stance, that combat is over the moment it starts, has become so prevalent among the boardposters.

-Nearyn

I find myself wanting to see some actual play from these games, where every combat encounter is resolved in 3 rounds. I'm still uncertain how exactly this stance, that combat is over the moment it starts, has become so prevalent among the boardposters.

The one time I saw it, we had 6 super-optimized PCs (everything from any PF book was allowed, and a 25 pt buy) vs standard AP encounters.

Not a style I enjoy.