| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came super close to replying in this thread a few times, but I've refrained. I don't like the tone that people have had in this thread one bit. You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that the best of us freelancers and Third-Party Folk (as well as Paizo designers and developers) balance our rules based on how the game IS, not on how any one specific person wishes it were.
The one thing that I will say, however, is that as Ricochet Toss's designer, anyone who thinks that Quick Draw and a BAB of +6 are a tax for Ricochet Toss is 150% missing the point of the feat and what its supposed to do.
Quick Draw is a tax. Once you have richochet toss you don't need to draw your weapons as fast as you can throw them.
If the pre-requisite feats don't actively affect the benefit of a feat then it is a tax.
Ex: Dodge and Mobility don't actually do anything for the feat Whirlwind attack except allow you to qualify for it. Hence tax.
Edit: I very much respect you as a designer and love most of the stuff you put out. Sometimes I feel you err to much on the side of caution when writing material for Pathfinder, which is ok as I understand a lot of players can be very skittish of seemingly powerful yet innocuous materials. We have people saying the Kineticist is OP when it's actually one of the more balanced classes to come out of Paizo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much respect you as a designer and love most of the stuff you put out. Sometimes I feel you err to much on the side of caution when writing material for Pathfinder, which is ok as I understand a lot of players can be very skittish of seemingly powerful yet innocuous materials. We have people saying the Kineticist is OP when it's actually one of the more balanced classes to come out of Paizo.
Hell, we've had people say that the Core Rogue was grossly overpowered and needed to be nerfed.
I came super close to replying in this thread a few times, but I've refrained. I don't like the tone that people have had in this thread one bit. You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that the best of us freelancers and Third-Party Folk (as well as Paizo designers and developers) balance our rules based on how the game IS, not on how any one specific person wishes it were.
The one thing that I will say, however, is that as Ricochet Toss's designer, anyone who thinks that Quick Draw and a BAB of +6 are a tax for Ricochet Toss is 150% missing the point of the feat and what its supposed to do.
I'm sorry if I have been insulting. I know that I have made plenty of comments disparaging aspects of the game's balance before. However, I did want to say that in my eyes Ricochet Toss is a prime example of how feats should be. I quite appreciate the mechanics of it. There was a lot of fine work in WMH from my opinion. I much prefer something that makes previously overlooked options come into consideration.
|
Ex: Dodge and Mobility don't actually do anything for the feat Whirlwind attack except allow you to qualify for it. Hence tax.Wait.
Dodge and Mobility both raise your AC. Mobility grants +4 AC vs AoOs. This can be very useful in getting into position to use Whirlwind Attack on the following round.
And combat expertise helps boost your AC so you're less likely to get hit when you try to trip someone but don't have improved trip because you have to take combat expertise first.
Edit: [/SARCASM] just in case it wasn't clear.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I came super close to replying in this thread a few times, but I've refrained. I don't like the tone that people have had in this thread one bit. You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that the best of us freelancers and Third-Party Folk (as well as Paizo designers and developers) balance our rules based on how the game IS, not on how any one specific person wishes it were.
That's an important point. The game has certain pre-set options and assumptions that any game with house Rules is gonna violate in several ways.
And, BTW, all nitpicking aside, thanks so much for the stuff you put in the WMH. Ricochet Toss and Startoss Style are amazing, and actually tempting me to make a throwing weapon build for the first time.
The one thing that I will say, however, is that as Ricochet Toss's designer, anyone who thinks that Quick Draw and a BAB of +6 are a tax for Ricochet Toss is 150% missing the point of the feat and what its supposed to do.
To clarify my own position, when I talked about a Feat Tax in this thread, I was referring to the fact that, once you have Ricochet Shot, Quick Draw's utility drops drastically for a thrown weapon build. Now, it's a logical progression, and, indeed, a Ricochet Toss type feat without Quick Draw as a prerequisite wouldn't make sense at all...but you're still spending two feats for pretty much Ricochet Toss by itself plus a very occasional benefit.
Now, spending two Feats for Ricochet Toss is a pretty reasonable price for what it does, actually...but that's still what's going on there. And the term for that in this messageboard is 'Feat Tax'.
Don't forget that one other feat used as a tax too. So its 3 feats for Richochet shot.
@Deadmanwalking: Since we jumped page did you see my offer in post 87?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's such a huge shame honestly. Among people who have taken the time to peruse some third party materials it's not an uncommon opinion that the writers have a greater love for the Pathfinder system and role playing than the developers at Paizo.
I tend to think the people at Paizo just have more on their shoulders. They take a lot of crap (especially on the internet) in a way that 3PP just don't (if only due to comparative obscurity) and the Paizo folks thus wind up a bit cautious when dealing with people online.
Well Mark Seifter is the exception. It's obvious just how much he loves RPGs, role playing, writing, and giving to the fans based on how he conducts himself with the playtesters. Writers and developers like Mark, who love the fans and the game dearly, are the kind of people you find in the third party market for Pathfinder.
Mark Seifter is pretty awesome, but I generally find all the people at Paizo pretty pleasant most of the time.
On a side note there are a large subsection of 3PP who do their best to create only classes that have narrative power and publish feats that are useful instead of merely taxes. Even the non-magical feats/classes.
I honestly believe you. I've heard nothing but good things about a number of 3PP. I just have this lack of time (well, and a lack of unlimited funds, but mostly time) that keeps me from reading through everything out there.
If you're willing I'll buy you a copy of Ultimate Battle Lord and you can tell me what you think of it. I personally write up at least 2-3 for every campaign for use as NPCs because they fit their role so absolutely perfectly. If you're willing to give it a shot shoot me a PM with your email address to gift it too.
If you feel that strongly, I'll certainly give it a shot. PM sent.
EDIT:
Don't forget that one other feat used as a tax too. So its 3 feats for Richochet shot.
Not for Fighters. And Martial Master gives +1 damage and opens the gate for several other Feats (not just Ricochet Toss), so it's much less of a tax by the definitions I'd use.
It is maybe one too many prerequisites (though even that's debatable), but it's a useful one in its own right.
@Deadmanwalking: Since we jumped page did you see my offer in post 87?
I did. :)
The one thing that I will say, however, is that as Ricochet Toss's designer, anyone who thinks that Quick Draw and a BAB of +6 are a tax for Ricochet Toss is 150% missing the point of the feat and what its supposed to do.
My thoughts on Ricochet Toss' prerequisites. Admittedly some of these concerns really aren't important, but I figure I'd mention everything.
Quick Draw
Why it makes sense: Quick draw is the quintessential thrower talent and thematically it sort of matches up with Ricochet Toss' effects
Why it's bad: Quick Draw is the quintessential thrower talent primarily because it's just required just to make the style work with its traditional options (blinkback belt, bandolier of shurikens). Not a fun feat
Why it's weird: Ricochet Toss' effect completely obviates the need for Quick Draw.
BAB+6
Why it makes sense: It's a feature that enables full attacks that you can take when you earn a second iterative.
Why it's bad: You're still chasing after thrown daggers for your first 6 levels at minimum. 7 if you don't have a bonus feat or retraining. 8 if you're 3/4ths BAB and 9 if you're 3/4ths BAB without a bonus feat or retraining. That's no fun.
Weapon Training
Why it makes sense: Book about giving fighters new stuff gives fighters the easiest access to this style enhancing feat. Even if you're not a fighter, there's a feat for you to gain access to it and the tried and true blinkback belt if that doesn't appeal either
Why it's bad: This is my biggest issue with the feat. Giving fighters cool tricks is awesome. Ricochet Toss, however, is not a cool trick. It's letting you full attack. The most basic thing every mid to high level martial needs to be able to do to function. Which brings us to Martial Focus, which is basically the definition of a feat tax. It has more to it, but that more is half of Weapon Specialization, which is a feat people bring up to point out how bad other feats are. Heck, if you're throwing daggers (which isn't a long shot), it's half of a TRAIT (River Rat) and it's not even a particularly great trait. It's doubly painful because throwing is to begin with one of the most feat intensive styles in the game.
Why it's bad: Quick Draw is the quintessential thrower talent primarily because it's just required just to make the style work with its traditional options (blinkback belt, bandolier of shurikens). Not a fun feat
Actually, one thing I think people are missing is that you are required to have Quick Draw to ever attack at full BaB with thrown weapons. At least as far as I remember. I can't find it referenced besides from the description of Quick Draw and I think this was a 3.5e or earlier mechanic. It's a secondary part of the feat I think people here are overlooking. It's also not that bad of a feat for people using small concealed weapons either. RaW it is impossible if you remove quick draw to use iteratives even if they bounce back.
Yeah, my bad. I never noticed that.
Why it's bad: Quick Draw is the quintessential thrower talent primarily because it's just required just to make the style work with its traditional options (blinkback belt, bandolier of shurikens). Not a fun featActually, one thing I think people are missing is that you are required to have Quick Draw to ever attack at full BaB with thrown weapons. At least as far as I remember. I can't find it referenced besides from the description of Quick Draw and I think this was a 3.5e or earlier mechanic. It's a secondary part of the feat I think people here are overlooking. It's also not that bad of a feat for people using small concealed weapons either. RaW it is impossible if you remove quick draw to use iteratives even if the bounce back.
That reads more as an explanation that you can interrupt your attacks with draw free actions so that you can free attack. With Richochet toss you no longer need draw actions.
|
|
If there was any other way to make drawing a weapon a free action, that would also allow full attacks with thrown weapons. There isn't a specific prohibition against it, it's merely not possible due to drawing them being a move action.
The Feat notes that it makes it possible because it's the only mechanical way to do so I can think of, not because some other way couldn't exist.
But yeah, Quick Draw is universally needed to do that. Because the Ricochet Toss feat has it as a prerequisite (Ricochet Toss would work fine without Quick Draw if that were possible).
I'm pretty sure that Quick Draw does nothing if the weapon is already in your hand. What excerpt makes you think otherwise Mort?
Actually, one thing I think people are missing is that you are required to have Quick Draw to ever attack at full BaB with thrown weapons.
That's not true. The quote "may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks" is referring to being able to draw and throw, "much like a character with a bow" has to draw his ammo. A fighter with a BAB of 6 and holding two daggers has no problem throwing "at his full normal rate of attacks" for one round at least.
As such, the Richochet toss feat eliminates the need to draw new weapons which means that quickdraw is ONLY useful the first round when you have the other feat.
EDIT: ninja'd
Actually, one thing I think people are missing is that you are required to have Quick Draw to ever attack at full BaB with thrown weapons.That's not true. The quote "may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks" is referring to being able to draw and throw, "much like a character with a bow" has to draw his ammo. A fighter with a BAB of 6 and holding two daggers has no problem throwing "at his full normal rate of attacks" for one round at least.
As such, the Richochet toss feat eliminates the need to draw new weapons which means that quickdraw is ONLY useful the first round when you have the other feat.
EDIT: ninja'd
Even on the first round you likely have your weapon drawn. In Paizo APs ou generally know combat is upcoming at least 75% of the time and already have your weapon drawn before the fight.
Actually, one thing I think people are missing is that you are required to have Quick Draw to ever attack at full BaB with thrown weapons.That's not true. The quote "may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks" is referring to being able to draw and throw, "much like a character with a bow" has to draw his ammo. A fighter with a BAB of 6 and holding two daggers has no problem throwing "at his full normal rate of attacks" for one round at least.
As such, the Richochet toss feat eliminates the need to draw new weapons which means that quickdraw is ONLY useful the first round when you have the other feat.
That reading is reasonable. I don't have the time or inclination to go digging through book after book for thrown weapon rules (many of which I am not sure if they would apply to Pathfinder or not).
What I can say, is that I remember in 3.5e throwing a weapon is explicate a standard action or full-round action with two-handed weapons. If that's different in Pathfinder, I don't have a source. I can only remember supporting feats that suggest those are still the rules. The combat section of Pathfinder is woefully missing thrown weapon rules. Except for calling out two-weapon fighting for throwing:
Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.
Make your own judgements from there, but keep in mind the writing on several older feats are not exactly written in the same exact language as modern Pathfinder.
And yes, this reading would mean a Fighter holding two weapons would throw them at -4/-8 without TWF.
Ooh, okay, I get what you're saying now. The rule is found in Two-Handed Thrower; it has a special effect where, if you have Quick Draw, you can use a 2-handed throwing weapon with your normal iteratives.
This is, of course, not required for 1-handed throwers using daggers, javelins, etc.
You only take TWF minuses when you are getting an extra attack from TWF. You take no minuses for using your BAB attacks even if you make those attacks with different weapons. There is an FAQ on this. SO throwing your +6 attack with your right hand dagger and making your +1 attack with your left hand dagger takes no TWF minuses. Or to put it another way, "throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks".
As far as the rest, it's the same. Throwing a non two-handed weapon is standard action just like an attack with other weapons [see attack action], "Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight."
Two handed thrown weapons are a full round action without the Two Handed Thrower feat.
Ooh, okay, I get what you're saying now. The rule is found in Two-Handed Thrower; it has a special effect where, if you have Quick Draw, you can use a 2-handed throwing weapon with your normal iteratives.
This is, of course, not required for 1-handed throwers using daggers, javelins, etc.
Well, not quite.
As I understand it this is a normal rule for all thrown weapons. Maybe this is a holdover view point from d20 that is wrong for Pathfinder. The problem I have with both the FAQ and combat rules is that neither addresses thrown weapons separately, and yet all the feats I can think of for thrown weapons still apply to this older ruleset. Which means one of two things to me.
A) The Combat rules are missing a section.
B) The feats are wrong, and half of Two-Handed Thrower's effect does not work.
Regardless, the language in both Quick Draw and Two-Handed Thrower are near identical, which implies to me the restriction that you need Quick Draw to ever get iteratives. Personally, I would FAQ this.
So I'm gonna take a random guess and say the point of the +6 BAB requirement is because Martial Focus has a +5 BAB requirement and iirc no classes get bonus combat feats at Level 5. The fact that full-bab classes are getting another attack then is slightly coincidental. Martial Focus has a +5 BAB requirement because the developers don't want other classes getting access to Weapon Mastery feats before the fighter.
The argument I'm seeing most often is "This is something that shouldn't even require as much investment as this to achieve because it's a substandard style that requires even more feats than archery already". While this is a valid complaint it's not really something that can (or should) be addressed in a Player Companion as it's more of a fault with the system than anything else. The lack of support for thrown weapons over the years has always vexed me since it's such a popular trope, so I'm glad it has received so much support in this book, but the issue isn't going to be fixed without reworking feat chains and the balance between different weapon styles.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quick Draw is a tax. Once you have richochet toss you don't need to draw your weapons as fast as you can throw them.
If the pre-requisite feats don't actively affect the benefit of a feat then it is a tax.
Ex: Dodge and Mobility don't actually do anything for the feat Whirlwind attack except allow you to qualify for it. Hence tax.
Edit: I very much respect you as a designer and love most of the stuff you put out. Sometimes I feel you err to much on the side of caution when writing material for Pathfinder, which is ok as I understand a lot of players can be very skittish of seemingly powerful yet innocuous materials. We have people saying the Kineticist is OP when it's actually one of the more balanced classes to come out of Paizo.
So you're looking for a literal chain in power when both of the examples you've described have a thematic chain. Allow me to explain.
Ricochet Toss's benefits supercede Quick Draw, but only because they take Quick Draw and make it better at what it does. Ricochet Toss's purpose is to allow you to make a full attack with a single thrown weapon, hence the whole "it always comes back to you." To that end, Quick Draw's purpose (among other things) is to enable you to full attack with thrown weapons at all; normally its a move action to draw a weapon, and by changing that to a free action, you can make iterative with thrown weapons. Having Quick Draw as a prerequisite is the only thing that keeps Ricochet Toss from being power creep, because you would NEVER pick Quick Draw over Ricochet Toss normally. Ricochet Toss is basically Quick Draw Plus.
Mobility into Spring Attack has a similar relation. Mobility gives you a circumstantial bonus on moving throught threatened areas, while one of Spring Attack's benefits is to completely avoid an attack of opportunity through one target's threatened area. Just as how Quick Draw isn't completely subsumed by Ricochet Toss, Mobility still has uses if you also have Spring Attack, but Spring Attack's "I don't provoke from one target during my movement," is directly building off of an improving upon Mobility's schtick. For Spring Attack to be balanced AND not have Mobility as a prerequisite, it would have to look like Fly-By Attack. (Fly-By Attack has the move-and-attack-at-any-point-during-the-move bit, but unlike Spring Attack Fly-By Attack's movement provokes attacks of opportunity.)
It is a very subtle lesson of designing for the 3.5 engine. I hope this helps out!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to talk about a real feat tax, there's the Dual Strike weapon trick, which requires Improved Vital Strike.
Dual Strike basically allows you to make 2 attacks, one with each weapon, as a standard action, or basically everytime you can make an attack as a standard action, you get a bonus attack with your off-hand weapon. Moving, Charging, Surprise Round, name it... except AoO sinc ethere's another trick to allow that.
Why on Golarion do I need TWO Vital Strike feats again? I would have taken Improved Two-Weapon Fighting instead, seriously, not to mention that Vital Strike isn't useful at all in a TWF build... or in any build in general...
Actually, one thing I think people are missing is that you are required to have Quick Draw to ever attack at full BaB with thrown weapons.That's not true. The quote "may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks" is referring to being able to draw and throw, "much like a character with a bow" has to draw his ammo. A fighter with a BAB of 6 and holding two daggers has no problem throwing "at his full normal rate of attacks" for one round at least.
As such, the Richochet toss feat eliminates the need to draw new weapons which means that quickdraw is ONLY useful the first round when you have the other feat.
EDIT: ninja'd
Shurikens are ammo weapons and thus are free action drew. Granted shurikens have bad damage/range.
Which still doesn't let you go above 20 STR for a damage modifier, the highest listed composite bow.Question: where do you see that ruling in adaptive?
An adaptive bow responds to the strength of its wielder, acting as a bow with a strength rating equal to its wielder's Strength bonus.Also adaptive cost 1k, so to your 5, the answer is always "burn 1k and 1 day to get it adaptive." Players get 'better' weapons all the time they can't use. Ask anyone who wields an exotic weapon. Sure it might end up as more than the belt, but you still have a belt slot, which is worth FAR more.
Moreover, there are in the game composite bows with a rating higher than 5. For example the Solar has a bow with a +9 Str modifier
Quick Draw is a tax. Once you have richochet toss you don't need to draw your weapons as fast as you can throw them.
If the pre-requisite feats don't actively affect the benefit of a feat then it is a tax.
Ex: Dodge and Mobility don't actually do anything for the feat Whirlwind attack except allow you to qualify for it. Hence tax.
Edit: I very much respect you as a designer and love most of the stuff you put out. Sometimes I feel you err to much on the side of caution when writing material for Pathfinder, which is ok as I understand a lot of players can be very skittish of seemingly powerful yet innocuous materials. We have people saying the Kineticist is OP when it's actually one of the more balanced classes to come out of Paizo.
So you're looking for a literal chain in power when both of the examples you've described have a thematic chain. Allow me to explain.
Ricochet Toss's benefits supercede Quick Draw, but only because they take Quick Draw and make it better at what it does. Ricochet Toss's purpose is to allow you to make a full attack with a single thrown weapon, hence the whole "it always comes back to you." To that end, Quick Draw's purpose (among other things) is to enable you to full attack with thrown weapons at all; normally its a move action to draw a weapon, and by changing that to a free action, you can make iterative with thrown weapons. Having Quick Draw as a prerequisite is the only thing that keeps Ricochet Toss from being power creep, because you would NEVER pick Quick Draw over Ricochet Toss normally. Ricochet Toss is basically Quick Draw Plus.
Mobility into Spring Attack has a similar relation. Mobility gives you a circumstantial bonus on moving throught threatened areas, while one of Spring Attack's benefits is to completely avoid an attack of opportunity through one target's threatened area. Just as how Quick Draw isn't completely subsumed by Ricochet Toss, Mobility still has uses if you also have Spring Attack, but Spring Attack's "I don't provoke from one target during my movement," is directly building off of an improving upon Mobility's schtick. For Spring Attack to be balanced AND not have Mobility as a prerequisite, it would have to look like Fly-By Attack. (Fly-By Attack has the move-and-attack-at-any-point-during-the-move bit, but unlike Spring Attack Fly-By Attack's movement provokes attacks of opportunity.)
It is a very subtle lesson of designing for the 3.5 engine. I hope this helps out!
Without any offense, it is you who does not understand. We get that combat feats build in theme and power in the chain. We just disagree with the method. Let me explain with a caster example: Spell Focus & Spell Specialization. You must take one before you take the other. The Specialization builds upon the Focus, is thematically and power-wise logical continuation of it, and yet it does not negate benefits of it. And it is much more flexible than say W.Focus &W.Spec.
In-system, WMH is probably the most genius book to address fighter issues and some combat styles. We just disagree with the base system's treatment of fighter and throwing weapons. And would like that combat feats function more like Spell Focus&Spell Specialization rather than W.Focus &W.Specialization or Spring-Whirlwind Attack chain.You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that the best of us freelancers and Third-Party Folk (as well as Paizo designers and developers) balance our rules based on how the game IS, not on how any one specific person wishes it were.
Coming from a guy who fixed a couple of broken/flawed (IMO) subsystems of the base game in his own 3pp, this kinda sounds wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I really like WMH and judging by the reviews I'll love Ultimate Charisma as soon as it hits some kind of sale, but problem with WMH is that it is backwardly patching a flawed (sub)system(s), and as such cannot achieve what it could have achieved if you started with a clean slate (for example, if fighter got the Unchaining).
Quick Draw is a tax. Once you have richochet toss you don't need to draw your weapons as fast as you can throw them.
If the pre-requisite feats don't actively affect the benefit of a feat then it is a tax.
Ex: Dodge and Mobility don't actually do anything for the feat Whirlwind attack except allow you to qualify for it. Hence tax.
Edit: I very much respect you as a designer and love most of the stuff you put out. Sometimes I feel you err to much on the side of caution when writing material for Pathfinder, which is ok as I understand a lot of players can be very skittish of seemingly powerful yet innocuous materials. We have people saying the Kineticist is OP when it's actually one of the more balanced classes to come out of Paizo.
So you're looking for a literal chain in power when both of the examples you've described have a thematic chain. Allow me to explain.
Ricochet Toss's benefits supercede Quick Draw, but only because they take Quick Draw and make it better at what it does. Ricochet Toss's purpose is to allow you to make a full attack with a single thrown weapon, hence the whole "it always comes back to you." To that end, Quick Draw's purpose (among other things) is to enable you to full attack with thrown weapons at all; normally its a move action to draw a weapon, and by changing that to a free action, you can make iterative with thrown weapons. Having Quick Draw as a prerequisite is the only thing that keeps Ricochet Toss from being power creep, because you would NEVER pick Quick Draw over Ricochet Toss normally. Ricochet Toss is basically Quick Draw Plus.
Mobility into Spring Attack has a similar relation. Mobility gives you a circumstantial bonus on moving through threatened areas, while one of Spring Attack's benefits is to completely avoid an attack of opportunity through one target's threatened area. Just as how Quick Draw isn't completely subsumed by Ricochet Toss, Mobility still has uses if you also have Spring Attack, but Spring Attack's "I...
Dodge, Mobility, Spring attack makes a lot of sense though as a progession of ability. Whether the ability is worth spending 3 feats for is debateable, but it is a clear progression. Though we ended up discussing the wrong feat and taxes, I was using Whirlwind attack as an example.The things I said they were a tax for is Whirlwind Attack since you have to stand still to Whirlwind attack, so mobility and Spring attack don't actually come into play despite being pre-reqs.
Having Quick Draw as a prerequisite is the only thing that keeps Ricochet Toss from being power creep, because you would NEVER pick Quick Draw over Ricochet Toss normally.
Power creep means increasing the average power level. Now, the question is: Would Richocet Toss without those prereqs make thrown weapon stronger than archery? If the answer is no, then there would be no power creep.
Where is the thematic chain between "better at movement" (Mobility) and "stand still and attack" (Whirlwind Attack)? And why does that "thematic chain" stuff only apply to martials and not to casters?
You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that the best of us freelancers and Third-Party Folk (as well as Paizo designers and developers) balance our rules based on how the game IS, not on how any one specific person wishes it were.
No offense, but you just wrote what amounts to the best designers keep even the greatest imbalances. What, because two-weapon fighting sucks, it has to always stay that way? Also, "how the game IS" is that fighter is mostly only good for dipping. You made fighter a stronger class to stay in, so why is making thrown weapons a possible primary playstyle not ok? Isn't developing new stuff without inducing power creep means all about giving new options, including making some weak, existing thing viable?
Is Unchained the only book allowed to improve game balance? Is there a "make sure the tiar list stays" that Paizo orders freelancers to do?Now, please don't get me wrong, I don't lay the (primary) blame on you freelancers and ordinary developers. I blame it on Paizo's lack of someone who actually handles balancing.
Why on Golarion do I need TWO Vital Strike feats again? I would have taken Improved Two-Weapon Fighting instead, seriously, not to mention that Vital Strike isn't useful at all in a TWF build... or in any build in general...
What, spending five feats to do something that should be included in the very first feat (TWF), and that the Unchained Action Economy gave for free, doesn't sound fair to you? Pesky peasants, constantly complaining!
The Weapon Master's Handbook has a lot of great tools for martial characters and is often brought up (along with the other recent martial sourcebooks) as making fighters not suck anymore.
But did it put too much emphasis on the fighter to the detriment of other characters?
My key example here is the Ricochets Toss feat. You take this feat, throw a weapon and it instantly returns to your hand.
This basically single handedly makes full attacking with throw weapons functional and removes the need to rely on the availability of a 5000 gold magic item that locks you out of your belt slot.
Except it's fighter only (well, some archetypes too, but still). That means that this feat that makes a terrible combat style kinda functional is just not available to anyone else. Which seems terrible. Because fighters aren't the only class that uses throwing weapons. In fact I see a lot more rogues and ninjas try and fail to throw daggers than anything else.
There's a lot more examples, but that one always stuck out to me really badly.
Hasn't it been a repititive chime that Fighters were the class most lacking in things to call wholly their own? Since fighters are supposed to be the supreme weapon master class, it makes sense that the book catered most strongly to them.
If you want to talk about a real feat tax, there's the Dual Strike weapon trick, which requires Improved Vital Strike.
Dual Strike basically allows you to make 2 attacks, one with each weapon, as a standard action, or basically everytime you can make an attack as a standard action, you get a bonus attack with your off-hand weapon. Moving, Charging, Surprise Round, name it... except AoO sinc ethere's another trick to allow that.
Why on Golarion do I need TWO Vital Strike feats again? I would have taken Improved Two-Weapon Fighting instead, seriously, not to mention that Vital Strike isn't useful at all in a TWF build... or in any build in general...
Vital Strike is extremely useful in a campaign where the GM makes use of environment or other factors which determine that you can't count on making full attacks in every combat phase. Or that it's more important to pile on as much damage in one hit as opposed to making several. And Fighters unlike other martials can spare an auxilary feat slot or two.
I can't respond to that.
I've said many times, you'll never get a real Fighter fix without a feat fix. They are too reliant on feats. And yes, the feat system is grossly imbalanced, mostly because it has no scaling mechanism in place internally, like, say, spellcasting does.
Paizo got the bones of this with the Stamina system - basically forcing them to do ad hoc add-ons to every combat feat there is. However, the system is clunky, not supported in base literature, and the sheer size of it discourages people from using it.
==Aelryinth
It's poasible to address someones points without addressing their tone and attitude. Try your best to state your argument using tone neutral terms.
Yes it's dry, but at least it doesn't escalate.
quotey quote starknife > bow quote subtract walloftext
Better add "rendered completely useless against a foe with Snatch Arrows feat" to starknife :P
I don't think 20ft is a sufficient range to full attack every round.
Sniper rogue getting better is not power creep. Sniper rogue being better than melee rogue and/or other archers would be power creep.
HWalsh: Ammo is a pro not a con. Need to get through DR, pull out the right arrow and get full magic to it. How many thrown weapons are you enchanting...?
AoO? You know what you need to take snapshot? Feats you'd most likely take anyway. Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus.
Also getting melee attacks is an assumption on your part. There are thrown weapons like the javelin, that are as useful in melee a bow. Try making your argument based off a Boomerang user once.
Throwing weapons should not even be like a combat style, they should be an universal tool.
From the beginning, it would had made sense to make throwing weapons a tool to alter combat scenarios rather than another main combat style. Small daggers for debilitating your enemy with aimed throws, large javelins capable of hamstringing large beasts and causing flying beasts to be unable to fly, shurikens for looking cool. I mean, having few throwing axes when you really need to stop that mage over there from casting. Something something.
So you do not need something silly as let you bounce them around to reuse them.
Unfortunately, the system is set up in a way where any weapon other than the One Weapon You Use is entirely worthless past the first few levels. When everything has DR/good and cold iron you better have specialized in that javelin if you want to use it at all.
|
I've said many times, you'll never get a real Fighter fix without a feat fix. They are too reliant on feats. And yes, the feat system is grossly imbalanced, mostly because it has no scaling mechanism in place internally, like, say, spellcasting does.
Paizo got the bones of this with the Stamina system - basically forcing them to do ad hoc add-ons to every combat feat there is. However, the system is clunky, not supported in base literature, and the sheer size of it discourages people from using it.
==Aelryinth
I'm afraid the fighters woes go far deeper than just feats. It's a class without an identity. Think about it Rangers are nature fighters, cavilers are mounted fighters, barbarians are angry fighters, paladins are holy fighters, brawlers/monks are Street Fighter II.
I love the game as much as the next person, and I'm not shy about pointing out flaws, but it's nothing to get angry over.
I can however be angry over the fact that after 15 years the developers still don't know better.
Unfortunately, the system is set up in a way where any weapon other than the One Weapon You Use is entirely worthless past the first few levels. When everything has DR/good and cold iron you better have specialized in that javelin if you want to use it at all.
"DR is a horrible way to make enemies difficult" is another point but there is no proper time and place for deconstruction whole ruleset is there
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without any offense, it is you who does not understand. We get that combat feats build in theme and power in the chain. We just disagree with the method. Let me explain with a caster example: Spell Focus & Spell Specialization. You must take one before you take the other. The Specialization builds upon the Focus, is thematically and power-wise logical continuation of it, and yet it does not negate benefits of it. And it is much more flexible than say W.Focus &W.Spec.
As a general rule, if you tell someone that you mean no offense, then you're being offensive.
Spell Focus and Spell Specialization, actually, is a pretty poor example. Spell Focus gives a DC bonus to an entire school of spells while Spell Specialization gives a caster level bonus to a single spell. They don't negate the benefits of each other because they do radically different things. Your Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization choice is actually an apt comparison because the one feat focuses on attack rolls and the other on damage rolls.
In-system, WMH is probably the most genius book to address fighter issues and some combat styles. We just disagree with the base system's treatment of fighter and throwing weapons. And would like that combat feats function more like Spell Focus&Spell Specialization rather than W.Focus &W.Specialization or Spring-Whirlwind Attack chain.
Both of the posts I've made, however, haven't been about the base system's treatment of fighters. They've been in defense of the feat prerequisites of several of the options in that book. Having feats that build upon each other is a GOOD thing, and just because the new feat adds on to the bonus of the old feat doesn't mean that the old feat is now "useless."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though we ended up discussing the wrong feat and taxes, I was using Whirlwind attack as an example.The things I said they were a tax for is Whirlwind Attack since you have to stand still to Whirlwind attack, so mobility and Spring attack don't actually come into play despite being pre-reqs.
I think that's fair; Whirlwind Attack's prerequisites don't have much to do with Whirlwind Attack itself.
That being said, we (Paizo/Pathfinder) inherited that feat progression from 3.5; as a matter of fact, I think a lot of the problem chains are ones we've inherited. I think that more "substitute feats" like Dirty Fighting is a good fix for that problem, because going back and making "Pathfinder 2E" or whatever just to remove Combat Expertise as a prerequisite from everything seems like a literal waste of paper and resources to me.
I've said many times, you'll never get a real Fighter fix without a feat fix. They are too reliant on feats. And yes, the feat system is grossly imbalanced, mostly because it has no scaling mechanism in place internally, like, say, spellcasting does.
Paizo got the bones of this with the Stamina system - basically forcing them to do ad hoc add-ons to every combat feat there is. However, the system is clunky, not supported in base literature, and the sheer size of it discourages people from using it.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, I said very much the same thing earlier. A Player Companion isn't the place to do sweeping reworks of the feat system.
Though we ended up discussing the wrong feat and taxes, I was using Whirlwind attack as an example.The things I said they were a tax for is Whirlwind Attack since you have to stand still to Whirlwind attack, so mobility and Spring attack don't actually come into play despite being pre-reqs.I think that's fair; Whirlwind Attack's prerequisites don't have much to do with Whirlwind Attack itself.
That being said, we (Paizo/Pathfinder) inherited that feat progression from 3.5; as a matter of fact, I think a lot of the problem chains are ones we've inherited. I think that more "substitute feats" like Dirty Fighting is a good fix for that problem, because going back and making "Pathfinder 2E" or whatever just to remove Combat Expertise as a prerequisite from everything seems like a literal waste of paper and resources to me.
More "replacement feats" like Dirty Fighting I would be OK with.
Dirty Fighting does many things. It replaces a prereq that you don't use and it gives you an additional bonus for tactical play.
A+ feat there
I guess I sorta wished something like Richochet Shot was more like that. Something a player could take early to enable a combat style many find iconic. I would have liked to see Fighter throwers get something unique for throwing that nobody else could do. Instead they got almost exclusive access to throwing and anyone else who wants to be a thrower has to sink 3 feats.