I think last time we talked about giving power attack more effects we talked about giving it a chance to fly out of your hands because your just swinging it that hard. Better make it a reflex save.
Hmmm... Does the character take a penalty to the Reflex save equal to their penalty to accuracy? If they don't, it wouldn't be balanced... Or realistic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These wouldn't have been valid critiques until the crane-wing nerf...
I think last time we talked about giving power attack more effects we talked about giving it a chance to fly out of your hands because your just swinging it that hard. Better make it a reflex save.Hmmm... Does the character take a penalty to the Reflex save equal to their penalty to accuracy? If they don't, it wouldn't be balanced... Or realistic.
Penalty equal to accuracy, DC equal to damage done +10. Just to be realistic. That is a lot of force your using.
I think last time we talked about giving power attack more effects we talked about giving it a chance to fly out of your hands because your just swinging it that hard. Better make it a reflex save.Better make it have a prerequisite of BAB +11 for the 1st feat... We don't want Fighters to be too unrealistic, so let's make PA only available by the time casters have 6th level spells... I mean, you obviously have to be some sort of demi-god to be able to deal extra damage in exchange for a penalty to accuracy.Still seems a bit too good. Let's make Skill Focus (Profession: Fighter) a requirement too to be safe.Ah, indeed. You make a great point, Chaoseffect!
Let's split Power Attack into PA, Improved PA and Greater PA! Hell, add Combat Expertise and Int 13 as prerequisites too!
That way Fighters would have a real advantage (because that's what feat chains do, right? They certainly don't cripple every martial class in the game and cheat Fighters out of their one class feature. No, sir. that would be silly. They surely make Fighters a better class).
Nah it should do damage to your weapon equal to the damage of your hit.
These wouldn't have been valid critiques until the crane-wing nerf...
It truly amazes me that a company responsible for so many great books can make some of the worst erratas I've ever seen.
These wouldn't have been valid critiques until the crane-wing nerf...It truly amazes me that a company responsible for so many great books can make some of the worst erratas I've ever seen.
My guess is that the creation team is not the maintenance team, and only has some crossover oversight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[deleted snarky crane wing response that doesn't add to the conversation, sorry folks]
These wouldn't have been valid critiques until the crane-wing nerf...U_U
OUCH! Salt.
Man, I can feel the threadlock looming.
And a couple of tempban perhaps
And a couple of tempban perhaps
Eh, hasn't been that bad. Helps to get back on subject and not talk about moderation.
Ok, what was this thread about?
Ok, what was this thread about?
Linear warriors, quadratic wizards.
Why are we the trope namer?
Ok, what was this thread about?
Depending on who you ask either "Why can't a fight jump 10ft in the air?" or "Why can't fighters cast wish and bind demons?"
Ok, what woudl be hte reasonable distance for a 20 level barbarian to be able to jump?
Ok, what woudl be hte reasonable distance for a 20 level barbarian to be able to jump?
You can exert 9,600 force lbs by then and you are moving maybe 400 mass lbs and the negative acceleration is 32 ft/s.
I estimate at least 24.0157 feet into the air.
Since most people weight less even with gear, I would think 30 feet into the air would be appropriate without skill ranks for someone with 38 strength. Which that at the moment is a DC 120 acrobatics check.
EDIT: Now to mimic real-world. A level one Olympic athlete (20 in the stat commoner) for the world record (roll a 20). Have both feats to boost the skill (easy for humans). That yields a 34. Which the current jump rules yield 8.5 feet while the world record is 8 feet, so close enough. Idk really know how to fix the jump rules, but I know the current rules don't scale sensically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more I read, the more I think people that want "Epic fighters" might be more happy with a superhero RPG? There are plenty of them out there, and allow "fighters" to split mountains with their bare hands and leap miles in a single bound.
I think, fundamentally, that the problem is that if you have a magic-based power source, by about 10th level you ARE playing a superhero game, but if you don't have a pile of magic at your command, you AREN'T. It's like if DC decided at some point "Wait, hang on, Superman gets to be a god because he's an alien and has super powers, but Batman doesn't get to do anything nearly as cool because he's just a crazy rich dude, and really, he should be limited by what real people can do."
I think that people who don't think of Pathfinder and 3.x D&D above about 10th level as superhero game aren't playing the same game I am. It's why I prefer something like E8 (or, lately, Savage Worlds). If I wanted to play superheroes I would be playing a different game, but nobody wants to be Batman in a game where he's limited to what's "realistic" while Superman isn't.
The TROUBLE with resolving this issue is that it cuts to sacred cows of the game. Either spellcasters have to end up with significantly less power to completely rewrite the setting, or martial types have to end up with powers that look and work like magic. And either way is messy.
Games like Savage Worlds or Dragon Age do the first. Spellcasting types have significant limitations, which mostly don't go away as they go up in power. They can do stuff - cool stuff - but you don't have the sort of epic craziness in what they can do that you see in something like Pathfinder or the Forgotten Realms. A single powerful wizard cannot kill a nation like he can in Pathfinder, but he is a nightmare for a couple of dozen soldiers, just like a high-level fighter type is. They both have to work together with their allies to kill an epic nasty like a powerful demon - the wizard can't just ignore the fighter and deal with the problem in one spell, because the spells he throws aren't going to end the combat in one action any more than the fighter is going kill everything in one shot.
4th edition D&D mostly did the latter, with a smattering of the former (the loss of most noncombat spells and the ritual system). Spellcasters and martials both have single-target nasty attacks, area effect attacks, control effects, etc. Your power source is mostly inconsequential - what matters is your role (leader, controller, defender, or striker). It's not that important if you're a guy with a bow that can machine-gun arrows (a ranger in a ranged striker role) or a guy blasting enemies with magic (a warlock doing the same thing). Mostly the difference is in what secondary focus you have (the ranger might be a secondary defender while the warlock is a secondary controller - my 4e details are pretty rusty). The trouble with that approach is that your character isn't that important, just his job. You still end up with a bunch of very similar powers, regardless of what you're playing. There's not a lot of difference between anybody, because there's only so many mechanical fiddly bits to adjust.
4e also really changed the nature of spellcasters by eliminating most noncombat magic. Rituals were an interesting way to approach it - only spellcasters could learn them, but they were pretty limited and expensive, and it was the only access to most non-combat, game-altering effects you'd think of from 3.x and Pathfinder.
At this point Pathfinder has settled on its choices, and is unlikely to change to any significant degree. The designers have settled things, and decided to stick with the power curve as set up in 3.x. If that bothers you, you're either going to have to consider extensive house rules or a different game.
2) Why in god's name are you using a fighter for mounted combat? If you want a mounted combatant, you use the Cavalier, the paladin, the barbarian, the ranger, or the Summoner... The fighter is worse than all of them at mounted combat...
The fighter has the feats to take advantage of mounted combat and still be fully effective when they get off the mount. It is a tool, a means to an end. Mounted skirmisher provides full attacks while being mobile outdoors. When it's dungeon time, put the mount away and keep going.
So can a Cavalier/Paladin/Barbarian/Summoner...
Hell, if anything, the Summoner/Barbarian/Paladin are BETTER at doing both at the same time than the fighter...
2) Why in god's name are you using a fighter for mounted combat? If you want a mounted combatant, you use the Cavalier, the paladin, the barbarian, the ranger, or the Summoner... The fighter is worse than all of them at mounted combat...
The fighter has the feats to take advantage of mounted combat and still be fully effective when they get off the mount. It is a tool, a means to an end. Mounted skirmisher provides full attacks while being mobile outdoors. When it's dungeon time, put the mount away and keep going.
So can a Cavalier/Paladin/Barbarian/Summoner...
Hell, if anything, the Summoner/Barbarian/Paladin are BETTER at doing both at the same time than the fighter...
See some classes being better doesn't mean the class they are better than is too weak.
Examples have to be drawn where they fail to actually play the game, not where they don't measure up to other classes. Because without the former, it can be interpreted that those classes are simply too strong.
Arthantos is right, in the way that Magic Items and a great deal of optimization can make the fighter more supernatural than she is by virtue of being a fighter.
But he's also wrong : it's not the fighter class that allows her to do those tasks, it's everything else ! You could take any class (even NPC class) and do almost the same choices and be able to do the same tasks !
A commoner, a warrior, a noble, an expert or any other character with the same items, feats or traits can do the same. It doesn't come from the class !
Skill DC are way too high for some things (perception from a distance and jump come to my mind pretty easily), or stop at very low DC for other (swim, most knowledge, ride, heal, sense motive for anything not opposed, craft, fly, survival except for tracking, ...).
The fact that the fighter doesn't seem that epic comes from the fact that everything she does is mundane even when her companions are shaping reality either by their magical knowledge, rewards from faith or anything else similar. Some of us would like the fighter to be more extraordinary or supernatural by herself, something that comes from the character and not from items.
I think that improving the skill system and giving something extraordinary to the fighter would make him way more in line with other classes, while still being the "mundane combattant" at low/mid levels.
A fighter can be epic and not realistic, while at the same time being mundane.
Especially if mundane just means "not magic".
A fighter can be epic and not realistic, while at the same time being mundane.
Especially if mundane just means "not magic".
That's kinda what I wish would happen... Fighters shouldn't get magic abilities, they should get Charles Atlas' superpowers. Exaggeration of mundane abilities that would theoretically be possible if one had enough strength/dexterity/stamina/etc.
It's really annoys me that a Monk could run 120ft in 6 seconds, but can't possibly move 10ft and still have time to full attack... As a quick fix, why not allow characters to full attack if they move less than half their movement speed?
A fighter can be epic and not realistic, while at the same time being mundane.
Especially if mundane just means "not magic".
That's kinda what I wish would happen... Fighters shouldn't get magic abilities, they should get Charles Atlas' superpowers. Exaggeration of mundane abilities that would theoretically be possible if one had enough strength/dexterity/stamina/etc.
It's really annoys me that a Monk could run 120ft in 6 seconds, but can't possibly move 10ft and still have time to full attack... As a quick fix, why not allow characters to full attack if they move less than half their movement speed?
Full attacks are too strong for something like that to be added without dramatically changing game balance.
Combat prowess doesn't really need a buff, but "not-full attack" options could stand a buff.
High level martials have a lot of destructive forces, I don't see why a level 20 fighter can't crush castle walls or jump to the top of said walls.
What I don't want to see is the fighter sundering baleful polymorph off his allies, or shooting ki-blast out of his hands, or moving so fast that he basically teleports, or the superman logic for flying (he flies because of how strong he is).
EDIT: Now I could see things like the fighter striking the ground and sending out a shock-wave. I don't see any reason why a high level fighter shouldn't view his surroundings as basically tissue paper.
Narrative Power: I can crack the foundation of your castle, redirect rivers, and cause avalanches.
Full attacks are too strong for something like that to be added without dramatically changing game balance.
Better they be a bit too powerful than make it so they are basically no threat when they move 10ft. I never had any problem GMing for pouncers or archers, despite their ability to full-attack at will and supposed OPness. In any casa, I do have a different house rule that allows for "partial" full attacks at BAB +6 and BAB +11.
EDIT: Now I could see things like the fighter striking the ground and sending out a shock-wave. I don't see any reason why a high level fighter shouldn't view his surroundings as basically tissue paper.
Narrative Power: I can crack the foundation of your castle, redirect rivers, and cause avalanches.
Yup. That's what I'd love to see from mundane characters at high levels. Epic skill checks were a nice idea, but the DCs made them unachievable anyway. :(
Full attacks are too strong for something like that to be added without dramatically changing game balance.Better they be a bit too powerful than make it so they are basically no threat when they move 10ft. I never had any problem GMing for pouncers or archers, despite their ability to full-attack at will and supposed OPness. In any casa, I do have a different house rule that allows for "partial" full attacks at BAB +6 and BAB +11.
Yup. That's what I'd love to see from mundane characters at high levels. Epic skill checks were a nice idea, but the DCs made them unachievable anyway. :(EDIT: Now I could see things like the fighter striking the ground and sending out a shock-wave. I don't see any reason why a high level fighter shouldn't view his surroundings as basically tissue paper.
Narrative Power: I can crack the foundation of your castle, redirect rivers, and cause avalanches.
Eh a single great sword swing does like 15d6 equivalent damage. While a vital strike is pushing 20-21. And then you can cleave lunge for AOE damage (they should remove the adjacent requirement on cleave, having to hit still makes it different enough from whirlwind attack which needs a rework, but you also can't trip cleave so it's not like the restriction needs to be there to keep things different).
So like 5 single attack could kill a balor, making it a 30 second fight.
I guess I can make up high level strength checks, or sunder DCs. I can handwave a lot of that. It's the jump rules that are more unmanageable.
Your role models of what high level Fighters should be like aren't very accurate. Heracles was awesome because his daddy was a god. Gilgamesh had two gods for parents. Cu Chulainn seems much more likely to be a Barbarian (or, now, a Bloodrager) than a Fighter with his warp-spasm, and Sir Roland would be more likely a Paladin and he cleaved the mountain due to the awesomeness of his sword Durendal not because he was that awesome. And THOR! HA! He is a god, and even his power is dependent on the use of magic items.
Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, John Henry, The Six Who Went Far in the World. Folklore and Fairy tales all over the world are full of people who performed superhuman feats simply because they were that badass.
20d6 is 35 damage... That's far from impressive... Especially considering you just positioned yourself in the perfect spot to take a full attack. Good luck lasting 5 rounds against that Balor.
Between its full attack and amazing SLA and (Su) abilities, even a half-brained Balor will screw you over.
I'm not against moving and attacking not causing as much damage as an standard full attack, but the gap is too wide.
20d6 is 35 damage... That's far from impressive... Especially considering you just positioned yourself in the perfect spot to take a full attack. Good luck lasting 5 rounds against that Balor.
Between its full attack and amazing SLA and (Su) abilities, even a half-brained Balor will screw you over.
I'm not against moving and attacking not causing as much damage as an standard full attack, but the gap is too wide.
20d6 is 70 damage...
If the balor full attacks you, he's dead because you then can full attack.
The SLAs, dominate monster is countered by a 50g potion. Implosion is a fort save and the rest are delaying tactics or once per day decent damage.
The delaying tactics gives something for the caster to counter so they don't feel unnecessary, or the caster could try for that 50% fail SR and super fort/will saves, or damage spells, or the caster can try something stupid that causes a 30 minute rule debate.
It's simple. There's a large group of people who believe that Martial = realistic. If someone couldn't do it in real life, they protest. They tend to ignore all the things that the martials can already do that completely laugh at realism.
Mid Level Martials should be like RWBY characters. Those who disagree can take it up with Ruby. (Seriously... counting days til season 2 here...)
Except Jean, That's more low level.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the balor full attacks you, he's dead because you then can full attack.
A fight between two martials is truly an epic one that has to be seen to be believed. Many epic techniques, crafted, requiring deep thought, passed down through family for generations are used back and forth in a many round fight, leading to a climax and epic finale!
"I full attack!" "Well I full attack!" "Well I full attack!" "you can't full attack!" "Why not?" "Cuz you dead!".
Personally, I think there could be a simple way to fix a lot of problems... Allow Cleave and great Cleave and similiar feats to work with Vital Strike. If you made Vital Strike as a simple basic attack, so that it could be combined with things like Iajistu Strike and Cleave, it could actually create for some pretty strong melee builds than can move about hte battlefield and still just about full attack with proper positioning...
I wonder which will run out first, your potions of protection from evil or his at will greater dispel magic?
As far as casters go he is barely a threat at the level you are likely to meet him as you have spell perfection by then. SR31 is a joke and a +17 reflex save is just asking to be dazed into oblivion.
I write up casters all the time. Not once have I considered spell perfection. So I won't assume it's "standard caster" feat. Nor do I assume fighters grab weapon focus.
Dazing spell, spell perfection, these were bad additions. Maybe not separately, but together...
The other problem I see with trying to give martials many of those cool abilities is that you have too many people who immediately scream "WEABOO FIGHTAN MAGIC!!!" and "I DONT WANT ANIME!!!" which force martials in this weird grey area...
Personally, I think there could be a simple way to fix a lot of problems... Allow Cleave and great Cleave and similiar feats to work with Vital Strike. If you made Vital Strike as a simple basic attack, so that it could be combined with things like Iajistu Strike and Cleave, it could actually create for some pretty strong melee builds than can move about hte battlefield and still just about full attack with proper positioning...
For 3 feats. Vital strike should replace ALL single melee attacks.
The current version would be better served as one feat.
My problems with Vital Strike are two-fold.
First, there's the fact that it relies so heavily on weapon damage dice, leaving those who use smaller weapons out of most of its value.
Second is the fact that it's a giant series of feat taxes. Vital Strike was an interesting idea integrated poorly into the rules.
Oh yeah! I forgot that, if Vital Strike was a single feat that kept progressing as your BAB increased that would help alot...
20d6 is 70 damage...
Indeed. My bad. (Still not impressive, though)
If the balor full attacks you, he's dead because you then can full attack.
Assuming you survive... And that the Balor is alone... And that he didn't make you Entangled with an AoO. And each melee attack you and forces you to make a DC 26 Fort save... Which is not high, 'til you have to make it multiple times. Or he could use his quickend Telekinesis to trip/bull rush/disarm/whatever the Fighter (who is already 1 full attack behind, let's not forget).
And heavens forbid the GM allows the Balor to actually put its wealth to use.
The SLAs, dominate monster is countered by a 50g potion. Implosion is a fort save and the rest are delaying tactics or once per day decent damage.
The delaying tactics gives something for the caster to counter so they don't feel unnecessary, or the caster could try for that 50% fail SR and super fort/will saves, or damage spells, or the caster can try something stupid that causes a 30 minute rule debate.
By the time you are facing Balors, you really don't have to worry about casters feeling necessary.