Search Posts
Damn useful stuff. (And considering how often I argue with you over every detail of something just to play Devil's advocate, the fact that I'm just going to go with praise here says a lot.)
EDIT: And I really wish I'd read Steve Geddes post above before posting my own, it seems we think alike.I thought the same as I read your post. I'd be interested to hear what you think true neutral entails? That's always the hardest and the one I change my mind on the most. Pragmatism. I'd say a TN character would try and balance the extremes of the other alignments in as practical a way as possible. They'd help others so long as it wasn't at too great a cost to themselves. At the same time, they'd be willing, when things are bad enough, to simply act in their own self interest. They'd work willingly with a group, but would be just as fine working alone if the situation warranted it. PS: One last comment- I think 2nd ed introduced CN as the 'crazy' alignment.. and I dislike that as I don't think that to be the case. It can be the case, but it does not have to be that. Crazy is separate from alignment. Agreed. I'm not sure exactly when it crept in, but somewhere along the line during 2nd edition even the designers seemed to decide that being chaotic meant acting randomly or without thought. (Or at least, that's the way it started to seem from the write-ups for chaotic NPCs, races, and outsiders).
What does alignment mean to you? To me, the two alignment axes are defined by what a character's goals are (Good vs. Evil) and how they try and attain them (Law vs. Chaos). Good characters choose actions that benefit others over themselves (or in addition to themselves).
EDIT: And I really wish I'd read Steve Geddes post above before posting my own, it seems we think alike.
It's certainly possible, but it would make it require a whole lot of work adapting the rules. My suggestion? If you'd like the feel of parrying without having to make massive changes to the rules, just switch who rolls during an attack. Let the attacker always have 10 + their bonuses to attack as a set DC, and the defender has to beat it on a d20 + their bonuses to AC or be struck. Crits on a 1 (or 2 or 3 for higher crit range weapons) and so on. Minimal change, no change at all to overall combat odds, and you get a lot of the feel of parrying. (Also, if you're not too worried about the defender rolling aspect, fighting defensively and total defense make a handy stand-in for parry. Just rename them parry and full parry and you're good to go.)
He's using a "pick any two good saves regardless of class" setup, so the bonus just basically gives monks back their all good saves.
Seriously though, you get Planar Binding (the normal version) as a 6th level spell. That means at Caster Level 11 you can bind a Trumpet Archon and have a 12 hit dice, 14th level Cleric (at least it was in 3.5) on your team for 11 days if you can make the opposed Cha check (circlet of persuasion helps here, as does Eagle's Splendor) At 13th level you can use a 7th level slot and Extend it instead, having your cleric for 22 days. A couple points I'd like to make in response here. First, you're kind of glossing over the pesky will save at the beginning and the possible consequences of failure. Lets assume (just to give the wizard/sorc/whoever is casting the spell the best possible odds) that he started with an 18 in his casting stat, has improved it at 4th and 8th level, and had a racial +2. Now throw a +4 attribute enhancement headband on, and you've got a 26, giving Planar Binding a save DC of 24. Not bad at all, you might think, but the average Trumpet Archon (per your suggestion) has a +14 to will saves, meaning you already have slightly less than 50/50 odds of succeeding, and if you fail, you've just angered someone you really, really don't want to anger. That 14th level clerical casting you were trying to get on your side really starts to look daunting when you realize it means the archon you just tried to pluck from the heavens has full access to spells like greater scry, plane shift, and commune (all the tools he'll need to track you down and offer you a lesson in why we do not attempt to summon Archons without permission). Second, there is a particular line towards the end of the spell that should give most casters pause... Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. (which gives the GM carte blanche to simply refuse any service he decides is unreasonable, which in my book at least would most definitely include "follow me around for 2 weeks and do everything I say, no matter what.")
Indeed it does. Although I've not posted them in the House Rules section, I also have the players roll almost all the dice. I don't make attack rolls for monsters; players make defense rolls instead. I don't roll monster saving throws; players roll magic checks, for example, when casting spells. This helps keep the players engaged even when it's not their turn, and also cuts down on the amount of stuff I have to keep track of. Hmmmm... I might have to try that next time I run something using Pathfinder. And it will help me avoid skipping my wifes turn. Not a good thing to do, lemme tell ya... Heh, I'd imagine not. One quick (and probably fairly obvious) tip, if all the monsters are going on one initiative, then as soon as they've acted the first time you can pretty much just say "Ok, now you all get to go" and just start switching off players -> monsters -> players -> monsters and so on.
I think I'm stealing the initiative rules from you. I like the freedom and speed having 'initiative groups' should bring to my combats. I'll just ask who rolled over the monsters init and who rolled under. Exactly what I ended up doing, and it really, really helps the flow of combat. Cuts down on players getting bored and losing attention while they wait for their turn to come up as well because everyone is getting in on the discussion about who should do what when.
Heh, well if it works it works, I definitely like 90% of what you have, I've just gamed with one too many people that like to heavily optimize things, so I start looking for ways people might break things right off the bat. (For example, I could see a fighter focusing on Archery being just frightening with the combination of better iterative attacks, high dex, armor training, and the option to pump AC by giving up some damage. I can also imagine the AC bump making a big difference for ray / touch attack based casters, -2 to the attack on touch attacks is a tiny price to pay in exchange for +4 AC that stacks with mage armor and shield. EDIT: Druids as well, considering how hard it is for them to get armor bonuses while wildshaping now.)
Love the initiative houserule as well, started using basically the same system at my table to speed things up and give everyone a chance to be a bit more creative in how they worked together.
Regarding the Expanded BAB trade-offs being "too good" I'll simply point out that they're the same trade-offs one gets using, say, Power Attack or Combat Expertise. Basically, I just made those feats standard abilities for all characters, and then removed the feats from play. Not quite, if you're trading attack for damage it's the same as power attack, yes, but combat expertise is 1 for 1 specifically because a +1 to AC is a lot more beneficial than a +1 to damage. If someone hits you on a 13 or better and you add 6 to your AC, you're cutting their damage by 75%. Similarly, if you need a 13 to hit someone, and you add +6 to your attacks, your damage is nearly doubling (175%).
Ooh, hey, I really like the alternate rules for increasing your attributes every four levels. Seems much more balanced, and helps even out MAD issues. EDIT: I'm also liking the BAB expansion, although my gut feeling is that -3 to attacks or damage for +6 AC is too good. By the same token, -3 damage or AC for +6 to attacks seems too good. It might be better to make the bonus equal to the penalty for attacks and AC, and double for damage. EDIT 2: I'm also liking that alternate rules for iterative attacks, although I can see some corner cases where it might be abused. (Really optimized archers, for example) Although, since the game is limited to 8th level, those corner cases might just never come up.
Can you use Vital Strike with an Attack of Opportunity? That's been going around our gaming table for a while, and the group is divided on how the rules translate. What about mixing Awesome Blow with AOO, or even combat maneuvers such as disarm, trip or sunder?
I houseruled in my games that VS could be used with a charge, otherwise you wouldn't charge unless you had too. Plus, charge only benefits you when your more than your movement away. Yeah, I'd probably do the same and just reword charge to use the same "When you use the attack action..." trigger. Something like: Charge Houserule: Charge: When using the attack action with a melee weapon you can charge, moving directly towards an opponent before the attack. When you charge, you get a +2 bonus on the attack roll, but take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward a designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less and have at least a +1 base attack bonus, you can also draw a weapon during your movement. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge. If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
Technically, what they said (and what the feat itself says) was that you may only use Vital Strike with the Attack action, and using Cleave is a specific full round action, in much the same way that using Grapple or reading as scroll are specific standard actions. Good rule of thumb, if a feat says "As a full-round/standard/move-equivalent action..." then using it is not an Attack action, even if it involves making an attack roll. If a feat instead says, "When you use the attack action..." (like Vital Strike or the old 3.5 Spring Attack) then you can use it whenever you're using the standard Attack action.
A few problems with your example. First, catch off guard does not work in the way you suggest. While it does remove the penalties for using an improvised weapon, you still wouldn't threaten the area inside the glaive's reach, so you could not make attacks of opportunity there. (Otherwise, there would be no reason anyone with a polearm couldn't do exactly the same trick, just with a -4 to the attack roll.) Second, Cleave has far more specific conditions for positioning in Pathfinder than in it did in 3.5 (the tradeoff for it being usable without dropping a foe first, I suppose). To attack two targets with cleave they must both be within your reach and they must both be adjacent to one another. That second one gets harder and harder to fulfill as the area you're covering increases. Third, (and this is a major sticking point for me) you're comparing the effects of the Fighter using his full round of actions plus an additional action (either from a friendly caster buffing the fighter with enlarge person or from the fighter himself drinking a potion in a previous round) against the Eidolon alone (whose actions represent only half of what the summoner can do each round).
Our group still uses splat books. Throw in Telling Blow from PHB2... Yeah, there are several feats that add some flat effect to criticals that does not vary based on multiplier, and they can be problematic. I don't necessarily agree that's a problem with Keen and improved critical stacking, I think it's more of a problem with how the feats are written (for example, why with telling blow should someone suffer for using a pick over a scimitar? The entire purpose of military picks and awls was to punch a hole in armor and strike at vital locations.) That said, Telling blow is less of a benefit than you might think. From the previous example of an 11th level rogue with 6d6 sneak attack, telling blow with improved critical and keen is only adding 2.9925 more damage per attack than telling blow without stacking keen (a bit less than a flaming enchantment). 6d6 sneak (21 average damage) * .15 (the added chance to crit) * .95 (the very unrealistically high chance to confirm) = 2.9925 It's definitely a significant increase in damage, but once again, nowhere near game breaking.
On the other hand, the Fighter can't make a full attack after charging (ok, ok, you mentioned pounce, it bears repeating though), scale up to Huge (or Gargantuan with Enlarge Person), and cast a spell each round on top of the full attack. If their DM allows it a summoner could, in an emergency, resummon each round to double the number of actions their summons get because of the line "A summoner cannot have more than one summon monster or gate spell active in this way at one time. If this ability is used again, any existing summon monster or gate immediately ends." At least according to the flat reading of the rules, that would allow them to have their Eidolon Act, their current summon act, resummon, and have the new summon act as well (at least according to the wording of Summon Monster) giving them roughly three and a half times as many actions as most characters (3 standards and 4 move-equivalent actions). I probably wouldn't allow this as a DM, I imagine most wouldn't, just pointing out that RAW, it should work with how the ability is worded.
Yeah, alright, that's a perfectly valid complaint. More rolling can slow the game down, but a lot of groups roll the attack + potential confirmation + damage all at the same time anyways. As for the rest, the dislike of seeing crits come up more often, it's valid. but it's really just a matter of personal preference.
I was just saying that as a player it's like "holy crap a 12-20x2 weapon!" and as a DM it's like "O **** a 12-20x2 weapon." Even though a Rogue doesn't multiply sneak attack doesn't mean that a Rogue dual wielding Keen Kukri's (I'd spend a EWP feat or multi-class to do it) with improved critical won't be scary, he has a 40% chance to critical with each weapon and he's got between 2 and 6 attacks increasing his chances to critical even more and I mean after threatening he's only got to roll a 12 to confirm because that's another critical threat. Yeah, my point was that as a DM, it shouldn't be scary. That rogue has to be a minimum of 11th level before he can even take improved crit. Even assuming he somehow ends up with 5 attacks a round at that level (TWF, ITWF, and Haste maybe), somehow hits on anything but a 1, and has a very generous +10 damage with each hand (20 strength, +2 keen kukris and bardic song maybe), he's only gaining an additional ~8.9 average damage a round by allowing keen and improved critical to stack. EDIT: Actually, it's less than 8.9 even, I just did +2 Kukri w/ Improved Crit vs. +2 Keen Kukri w/ Improved Crit. If the rogue without stacking keen had +3 kukri's instead, he'd gain an additional 4.75 from the enhancement bonuses to damage. Meaning the Stacking rogue is only actually gaining 4.15 damage a round over the non-stacking rogue, and that's at level 11 in absolutely ideal conditions. If nine (or four) more points of damage is enough to destroy the balance of an encounter at level 11, or wipe out a party member, you might want to rethink the encounter design.
From the perspective of a player, yes. My Elf Fighter with an Elven Curve Blade now crits on a 12-20 and deals so much damage that he now beats the Paladin at dragon slaying... well maybe. Not so much actually, that was the point of all the math a page back, unless you have decent odds to hit already (7-8 or better on the die) then keen and improved critical can never do more damage than, say, improved critical and a +1 weapon enhancement bonus. Even then, getting more out of keen than just another +1 takes a whole lot of base damage until you get down to hitting on a 4-5 or better. At it's absolute best, hitting on anything but a 1, the keen stacked guy is only going to deal about 10% to 12% more than he would have with a +1. From the perspective of a DM, no. Not only does it make the player characters with a 18-20x2 keen weapon and improved critical a devastating threat to BBEG's, it makes evil NPC's with those one of the scariest things a party can face, especially if it's a Rogue sneaking up behind the party to take out o... the Cleric? Meh, again, it's only adding 10-12% damage at the absolute best, and is helping rogues even less than other classes (due to significant portions of their damage coming from sneak, which is not multiplied on a crit). Everyone sees 12-20 and just flips their lid, but actually try it out in play sometime, it really, really isn't as bad as it seems.
Chill touch does specifically indicate that you can use its melee touch attack only once per round. Actually it says once per level (as in caster level) not once per round.
Yes, the toys came first, obviously. The gaming community that started using the term in this context however, was the UO community. People have no clue assume Ultima, but nothing links it to first even if you do research. It is sort of like how people believe a group of people thought the earth was flat. But if you do enough research, no one actually thought that. But the idea caught on so people spread it anyway. Oh really? From the website of Raph Koster, lead designer on UO:
For the record, the term "nerfing" entered online gaming vocabulary because of UO. At some point, we reduced the power of swords in melee combat, and players started complaining that they were hitting each other woth nerf swords. The rest is history...
Nerfing terms came before More-pigs arised. Referring to negative changes to a class as a "nerf" started in Ultima Online. (Seriously, google it.)
There are to many threads going on that slam the paladin because someone feels the fighter is inadequate. The one I am currently involved in posting in is why I am posting this thread. I just dont understand, if we need to look at the classes this way then why are we not slamming the Cleric because the paladin cant do what he can? Or slamming the Wizard because the bard can't do what he can do? The Fighter and the Paladin come up against one another in comparisons for the same reason that people often argued about Wizard vs. Sorcerer in 3.5, they're both classes that fill a common role in the party and perform in a very similar manner (albeit, through differing means). My issue is that people keep throwing the fighter out there like he is some sort of bastard son of a three legged mule and we should weaken the paladin because we feel bad for the fighter "screw that". The fighter is awesome at what he does, if you dont feel that way dont play a fighter but dont try to use what you feel are weaknesses of the fighter as ammunition to reduce the paladin. I don't know about everyone else involved in these sorts of discussions, but for me at least the point of having them is to come to a greater understanding of the rules. The best way I've found of finding out where your assumptions are wrong or you've made a mistake in your reading of something is to open up your ideas to critique by arguing them in front of those that may disagree. I don't understand the attitude some people seem to have that someone is trying to "nerf" their paladin (or fighter, or whatever class). This isn't a mmorpg! No one outside of your group can take anything away from or alter anything about how paladins work in your group unless you choose to allow it. The other argument I hear against having a discussion about class balance is it shouldn't matter, and everyone should just play what's fun or fits their character concept, and not worry about it. That's a false dichotomy though, there's no reason being interested in the relative effectiveness of two classes or even wanting to build an optimized character is necessarily opposed to also making a character that is fun or fits a character concept. Just my two cents.
I might have gone for a mix of CR 9, 10, 11, and 12 foes, as most adventures tend to have a range, but that's a fairly minor quibble. If you let Keen and improved crit stack, then for a level 10 fighter, Keen is better than a +1. The same is true for a level 8 paladin who is smiting evil or a level 10 barbarian in a rage. After this point keen keeps getting better than a +1. Yeah, for characters who have access to a wide array of bonuses to hit, or face lower AC foes, keen can outperform other equivalent weapon bonuses (I even pointed out the exact chance to hit at which this becomes possible in my original post). Similarly, for characters with lower attack bonuses, or who face higher AC foes, flat enhancement bonuses would be better. For characters that often face foes of a particular type, Bane would be better. For characters that have ready access to healing Vicious might be the better choice. My point was never that keen + improved critical cannot outperform other options, simply that the circumstances under which it does so are not universal, and that when it does, it doesn't become any more gamebreaking than many other choices. From your own example, on a single attack the fighter with keen is dealing 1.5% extra damage and on a full attack he is only dealing 0.4% extra damage. Not exactly overwhelming. So your contention is a for a level 10 paladin who is smiting, weapon focus + flaming gives them just the same benefit as improved crit + keen? No, my point was that the paladin, though effective, is likely not overwhelmingly more effective than they could have been using other feats and weapon enchantments. This is not to say that every feat + enchantment combo is going to perform equally, merely that there are enough other combinations available that do perform as well or nearly as well to make allowing keen and improved critical to stack something of a non-issue.
Sure they do, in that example they've given up the potential utility of whatever spell that party member would have had instead (a small cost), and since Keen Edge doesn't last long enough to be an all day buff, they've also likely eaten up a round of casting (a potentially quite significant cost). You cannot analyze the value of Keen by only looking at one source of Keen. Fair enough, considering the array of 3.5 material out there, I'm pretty sure tracking down and comparing the utility of every possible source of an improved critical range is way more work than I'm willing to put in. I can show that for the most common source of keen (weapon enchantments) it's not exactly gamebreaking to let it stack with improved critical. At level 9, a human fighter will have 12 feats. That is enough to take every damage increasing feat out there and still have room for utility feats like step up and disruptive. Patently (and provably) untrue, I've rolled up several fighters for playtests here and elsewhere and I have never run out of feats that I wanted or needed to take. Seeing as how Improved Critical is much better than most of the other damage increasing feats, the question becomes why wouldn't you take improved critical? Even a paladin, barbarian, or ranger will have feats to spare for something that is as good as improved critical. Why wouldn't you take Improved Critical now? With or without stacking keen, it still represents the same +10-15% damage, even in RAW, not needing keen means being able to take other enchantments that grant a similar level of damage, and yet, Improved Critical is hardly a universal feat (although, admittedly, most fighters are going to take it, along with the entire weapon focus/specialization chain).
Yes the disparity exists, and letting Imp Crit and Keen stack makes the disparity worse to the point that any weapon other than a falchion or a scimitar is a significant loss in damage after level 9. Unfortunately, the math doesn't back you up on this unless you fudge the numbers by making one of your underlying assumptions the availability of Keen without accounting for an equivalent loss of resources in other areas. (Which was sort of the point of comparing Keen vs. a +1 weapon enhancement)
And my point (which you have yet to address) was that Keen + Improved Critical is, under most conditions, providing no more of an advantage than any number of other similar combinations involving a feat and a weapon enhancement (With the exception of the critical effect feats, which I did note were a problem). If you let Keen and Improved crit stack, then paladins, rangers, barbarians, fighters, and maybe melee clerics are always going to get Keen and improved crit, because those 2 abilites represent a significant damage increase for those classes when their special abilities come into play. And what will they give up in exchange? What feat will they not take? What enchantment or spell slot will they not have? You cannot evaluate this in a vacuum. Having Keen and Improved Critical will mean giving up something else. At least in the most common examples, what you would be giving up for one or both would have been providing close to, the same, or a greater overall bonus under most circumstances.
Looking at keen vs a +1 is not really relevant as I can get a wizard friend to cast Keen Edge on my sword, and get Keen without having to pay to give up enhancement bonuses. Apples and oranges here, you're comparing a fighter with +X in enhancements to his weapon to a fighter with +X in enhancements to his weapon and a buff from a wizard friend. One of the earlier comments in the thread was that letting Keen and improved crit stack would make longswords obsolete, because no one in their right mind would ever choose a longsword over a scimitar. That is what I was looking at. Fair enough, my point was that a scimitar (or a heavy pick, or any other high crit weapon) scales more rapidly than a longsword already, and the scaling effect is not limited simply to keen or improved crit, but effects the magnitude of anything and everything that adds to your attack bonus and damage. (Well, at least everything that is multiplied on a crit, vital strike and sneak attack bonus damage wouldn't be increased). My base assumptions are, everyone gets keen. Everyone gets improved crit. I assumed that both weapons had the same chance to hit. I figured out how much +damage was required before the high crit weapon surpasses the low crit weapon. Finally, I created a hypothetical fighter with that much +damage to give an idea of how hard that level of +damage is to achieve. The problem with doing that sort of comparison is that it's misleading. You could just as easily use the same argument against almost any set of feats and enchantments enhancing your weapon, by saying the combination creates a disparity between simple and martial weapons or low crit and high crit weapons. For example, using the same math, with a rapier vs. a longsword: Rapier 1d6 (3.5 avg.), 18-20/x2
(3.5+d)*1.15 = (4.5+d)*1.10
Now if we assume both characters have weapon enhancement bonuses and, lets say, weapon spec/training: (3.5 + 6 + d)*1.15 = (4.5 + 6 + d)*1.10
And hey look, the additional damage needed to make the two weapons equivalent is down to 12.5. Interestingly enough, that shift from 18.5 to 12.5 is exactly the same relative shift you pointed out in comparing the greatsword and falchion with and without stacking keen (and that's without even taking into account the increased chance to hit). Yes, keen and improved critical stacking add to the damage of high crit weapons, but not particularly more than any of the other options already available.
This disparity already exists. As I showed earlier, in a great many cases keen adds no more than an equivalent enhancement bonus. If people aren't abandoning mid-crit weapons en masse already, they won't be with keen and improved crit stacking. 2. It increases the value of +damage. Classes with easy access to abilities that give +damage(high strength, Fighters, Paladins smiting, rangers against favored enemies, etc) become even better while classes who uses weapon finesse with high dex or sneak attack will fall behind. Again, a +1 enhancement bonus, due to the bonus to hit and the bonus to confirm criticals, adds as much or more to the efficacy of damage bonuses in a great many cases, and even in those cases where keen does outperform an enhancement bonus, the disparity is small. (10-12% at the maximum) 3. It increased the power of the critical feats beyond their intended power level. This I agree on, I don't necessarily see that as a problem with keen and improved critical though, I see it as a problem with how the critical effect feats are worded.
While I agree that this is a valid point to compare, it does not negate our comparison. Calling our comparison bad is incorrect. It is just proving a different point. We are showing how weapon balance is affected. You are showing how character performance is affected. Both matter. Fair enough, I'll grant you that keen + improved critical does widen the disparity between simple and martial weapons, as well as between low and high crit weapons. But so does absolutely everything else that adds anything to damage / to hit. Power attack, deadly aim, weapon focus, weapon specialization, weapon enhancement, etc. They all widen the gap between poorly scaling low crit weapons and quickly scaling high crit weapons. However, unless you can show that Keen + Improved Critical has a particularly greater effect than the other options available on relative weapon balance then it's not a good reason to exclude the combination.
Brodiggan, I am insulted that you said the math is bad, when your math is exactly the same. If you assume a 100% hit rate, your numbers = Charender's. I clearly included the odds of hitting. In fact, calculating the damage breakpoints at a particular chance to hit took up several paragraphs and had a chart attached. Perhaps you missed it. It is not incorrect to compare a longsword vs a scimitar, since that is the choice the player is making. Yes, they are not identical damage. That is why we are comparing them, to see what the differences are. His numbers stand true so long as you are hitting on your full crit range, since both weapons will have identical hit modifiers and thus be multiplied by the same value. It is incorrect to use a high crit weapon (such as the scimitar) as your baseline for a keen/improved crit setup, then use a low or moderate crit weapon as the comparison and claim the result somehow reflects the balance of keen. High crit weapons scale better than low or moderate crit weapons with or without keen, using dissimilar weapons for your example introduces differences unrelated to the question at hand into the mix. For 1 handed weapons, he is calculating where the (d-1)+.15*(d-1) = d+.1*d for the base weapon, (d-1)+.3*(d-1)=d+.2*d for keen weapons and (d-1)+.45*(d-1)=d+.3*d for keen and improve crit weapons. You can change the -1 to -2 for THS vs Falchion comparisons, and to 1.5 for THS vs ECB. By solving for d and then subtracting base weapon damage, you can figure out what bonus you need for the extra crit damage to exceed the lower average damage die. He is then comparing it to a fighter using power attack, and showing at what low levels the high crit range weapons start to do more damage. I'm quite aware of what his math showed, his mistakes, and that (at least in certain cases) he was comparing apples and oranges by comparing low/moderate crit weapons with high crit weapons. Giving one character a quarterstaff and the other a rapier, and claiming that the relatively low damage breakpoint somehow means keen is broken is ridiculous. The comparison to make, when looking at the possibility of stacking these two effects is: "IF we allow keen to stack with improved critical, how much more effective would a character be, given the same statistics, wealth, weapon, and feats if they chose to take keen as well as improved critical, instead of improved critical and an additional +1 weapon enhancement?" And as I showed, _that_ breakpoint is relatively high, and even at the most extreme (perfect odds of hitting + a high crit weapon) the difference is only 10-12% of the overall damage. A nice bonus, but if you're hitting 95% of the time, the fight probably isn't going to be all that challenging anyways.
The weapons base damage is not a big deal in the long run but what all mods ya can add to it. Actually the equations I posted above do account for to-hit and damage modifiers from any source. When I said "base damage" I simply meant the average total damage you would deal, including all modifiers, on a single normal hit.
I did note that the critical effect feats specifically would be problematic, and suggested a solution. It would be fairly easy to generalize that solution to exclude "all additional effects based on a successful critical, such as vorpal and elemental burst weapons." One of the points that working out the math in detail really had for me was that if Keen or Improved Critical is balanced in combination with some effect, then generally Keen and Improved Critical stacked will similarly be balanced or unbalanced so long as that effect also takes into account the weapon's critical multiplier and is not simply an all or nothing effect (the various critical effect feats are a prime offender here). Sadly quite a few feats, spells, class abilities, and weapon enchantments have been written up over the years that don't meet this criterion, but (and this is an important point) allowing Keen and Improved Critical to stack is only -revealing- bad design or poorly balanced abilities that already existed and were simply obscured by limiting the bonuses to crit range. Almost anything that becomes heavily unbalanced with Keen and Imp. Crit. was already going to be somewhat unbalanced with either individually.
(For those that don't want to read the whole thing: Keen + Improved Crit doesn't scale as well as it looks like, and only really catches up when you have a fairly high attack bonus. Damage wise, stacking is probably fine, but the critical effect feats need fixing.) I can't help but notice that a lot of bad math is being bandied around in this thread, and comparisons being drawn between very dissimilar weapons. ---------------------------------------------
D = Base Damage
When you attack, there are three possible outcomes, you miss and deal no damage, you threaten and confirm and deal critical damage, or you simply hit and deal normal damage. The average damage for an attack is the sum of the chance of each of these outcomes times their average damage. Missing adds nothing to the sum, so we can simply set it's term to 0 regardless of the chance of missing. Avg. Damage = 0 + Damage on a crit is (usually) base damage D * M (crit. multiplier), and the odds of critting are simply C (chance to threaten) * H (Chance to hit/confirm). Avg. Damage = 0 + D*M*C*H + A normal hit obviously deals the base damage D. The odds of hitting (but not critting) are H (chance to hit) minus the chance of critting (as above). Avg. Damage = 0 + D*M*C*H + D*(H - (C*H)) At this point we can simplify things considerably with a little simple algebra, by pulling out the common terms (Damage and Chance to Hit). Avg. Damage = D*M*C*H + D*H - D*C*H
---------------------------------------------
20/x2 (low crit) Avg. Damage = D*H*(1 + 2*.05 - .05) = D*H*(1.05)
For this reason comparing a Longsword to a Scimitar is a mistake, the right comparison would be a Scimitar vs. a Heavy Pick or a Longsword vs. a Battleaxe. ---------------------------------------------
Keen Average Dmg. = D*H*(1 + M*2C - 2C)
Calculating the bonus damage from a +1 enhancement is a bit more difficult, as weapon enhancement bonuses modify both the base damage and the chance to hit, making them more valuable against higher AC targets. For example, if you need a 20 to hit, a +1 bonus is going to more than double damage, simply because of the improved odds of hitting (10% vs. 5%). +1 enhancement Avg. Damage = (D+1)*(H+0.05)*(1 + M*C - C)
Because of the dissimilar terms, it's impossible to make a blanket statement about the relative bonus to damage provided by keen vs. a +1 enhancement bonus, but it is possible to find the base damage at which keen adds more damage than a +1 enhancement bonus for a particular chance to hit. We know the values of (1 + M*C -C), (1 + M*2C -2C), and (1 + M*3C -3C) for each weapon type from figuring out average damage for keen and improved critical. Substituting in these values, and the particular chance to hit we're solving for (say, a 75% chance to hit for example, meaning H = .75) we should get something like the following: Improved Critical + Moderate Crit Weapon (Longsword), 75% chance to hit:
Now we can simply set the two equal and solve for D:
It is entirely possible to find that D has an impossible value at this point, being either negative or 0. This simply shows that, as the chance to hit with an attack goes down there is a point at which Keen cannot match the average damage of even a +1 enhancement bonus, no matter how high the base damage. The minimum chance to hit at which Keen can even possibly match an enhancement bonus is surprisingly high (60% to hit with moderate crit weapons, and 40% to hit with high crit weapons). The minimum to hit actually goes up by 5% on both when you run the numbers with improved critical + keen vs. improved critical + an enhancement bonus. Damage Breakpoints Chart (http://imgur.com/l2Km6.png) At it's most favorable, using a high crit weapon with a 95% chance to hit, stacking keen + improved critical would deal around 138% damage where a +1 enhancement bonus and improved critical would be dealing around ~124-125%. Works out to about 1 extra point of damage for every 7 points of base damage, hardly gamebreaking, and that's using the best possible case for Keen + Improved Crit. ---------------------------------------------
Usually, bonuses to attack rolls and AC specifically do not scale, because those bonuses are already part of a larger equation involving HP and Damage (which do scale, quite a bit). Given foes that have a 1 in 5 chance of hitting you (a not unreasonable number looking at the monster creation guidelines and doing some quick napkin math on average player AC), +1 AC from dodge (taking their chance to hit from 20% to 15%) means foes have to make an average of 34% more attacks to take you down. So if it took 3 swings before, on average, it's going to take 4 now. All swings are not equal though. At level 1 Dodge might really just be buying you 5-6 more HP, but at level 15 that one extra swing is the equivalent of more like 50-60 extra HP. Attack bonuses work in the same way, scaling exactly as fast as your total damage output.
DM Blake, I also contend with many of your points. Especially those concerning when you are observed. I contend that you are not observed until someone actively succeeds a perception check against you, and therefore you can make a stealth check out in the open when dashing from cover to cover. I'm siding with Caineach on this one. Really though, this is the big irreducible point of contention that almost all the stealth discussions come down to, "When is a creature/foe observing you? What is the definition of 'observe'? etc." At my table I'd rule that the section in Stealth that talks about needing Cover and Concealment only applies while you are already being observed, not generally. If your foes are unaware of your presence, you should be able to move quickly from cover to cover and maintain stealth, albeit, probably at a penalty. This just makes more sense from a simulationist standpoint (it's more realistic), from a narrativist standpoint (thematically, it seems like the sort of thing stealthy characters should be able to do), and from a gamist standpoint (it's more "fair", no automatic failure or success, there's some tactics involved, and it makes the game more interesting). In my opinion, it also follows the RAW more closely. Looking at the Stealth skill, I see the following. First it gives the general rule: "Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you." Then several lines with bonuses and penalties for movement and size: "You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging. A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16." Then an exception to the general rule: "If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth." And then two conditions under which this exception does not apply: "Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth." and "If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast." The big point here being that neither of these two conditions matters one bit, unless you are already being observed.
Not necessarily. It's not a matter of straight addition. For example, The bonuses to hit from having weapon focus make it even more likely you'll connect with each hit and gain the bonus damage from power attack. My rough guess would be that a character with neither Power Attack nor Weapon Focus/Specialization would be ~72-80 points of damage per round behind.
That's something of an artifact of the levels I chose to pick up equipment for the character. There are a couple points where it shot up in damage because I hit some breakpoint (for example, picking up 1 additional point of Strength at 16 from leveling and simultaneously taking a Tome of Gainful Exercise +3, for a total of one big +4 jump in strength). Even at levels where a specific feat isn't adding much to the total damage output, the overall trend is always up. It's also worth noting that the rate at which the HP of most foes you'll face grows also tapers off. Going from CR 1/2 to CR 8 the average HP of your foes grows 10 fold, but from there all the way up to 18 you only get another 3 fold growth. I always see people do math on and chart Fighter damage. As a comparison, what damage is an Evoker (with Spell Focus, obviously) doing at comparable levels? Clearly, this cannot be a "bonus damage" graph, but it would be worth comparison. Better yet, it would be nice to see a non-base-subtracted Fighter Damage side-by-side with an Evoker for the sake of comparison. Do Fighters really keep up? That's a muuuuuuch trickier question to answer, because there are so many tiny details (spell selection, opponents good/bad saves, etc.) that can drastically change the damage output of casters and because the overall average damage casters deal is so dependent on the number of rounds of combat they have to deal with throughout the day. I could make a reasonable attempt at evaluating the best damage an evoker could deal at each level with their highest, second highest, and third highest level spells, and it might be useful information, but wouldn't be really directly comparable to the fighter model. Toughness and Dodge are better because their HP/AC benefits apply against all attack forms or all opponents Heh, don't forget foes that charm, poison, debuff, or attack from stealth. Toughness and Dodge are very broadly applicable (as are most of the baseline feats), but there are certain situations where they don't apply.
But you get to pick the weapon, so barring some really drastic outside events that force you to use something else, you'll almost always be able to apply the bonus to your attacks. (In exactly the same way that you get to choose the spells you're memorizing each day, so you can usually ensure that you get to use mostly spells from the school you focus on.)
Sure he does. I can count the foes that require a specific weapon type (as opposed to a specific material or enchantment) on one hand. All you need is focus in your primary weapon, and you are almost certainly good to go. If a Fighter is truly a "Focused Specialist" then there is no problem with them dealing out truly massive bonus damage against enemies that have hundreds of HP and high DR when using their singular type of Focused weapon. Fighters already get significant bonuses from weapon training and access to fighter only feats; significant enough bonuses that in terms of raw damage per round they're near the top of the heap (or at the top of the heap for archery based Fighters) Every class is a specialist in some area, why should fighters alone get some extra over the top benefit? IMO, If Weapon Focus is going to balance against the other three (primarily SpF) at a mere +1 bonus, then it needs to apply to Classes/Categories of weapons, just like SpF applies to entire Schools of spells. Reduce weapons to ... oh ... say, 8 Weapon Categories, and I'd be much happier with it. Then a Fighter can reasonable Focus something from a melee and a ranged Category, or a slashing, a bludgeoning and a piercing Category (note that I wouldn't Categorize by damage-type, though). So thus a Sword & Board could Focus and Specialize in the Sword Weapon Category and, similar to a feudal Samurai, carry both a longsword and a shortsword, using one for slashing damage and the other when he needs to deal piercing damage. Now he spends two more feats on the Morningstar/Mace Category and he's solved most of his non-material-type and non-alignment DR issues. Depending upon his build/personality, he could pick up the Polearms or Bows Categories and truly become a "Master at Arms". Ok, that's a reasonable enough idea. (Although I think forcing fighters to choose a particular weapon type to focus and specialize in was sort of the point. Yes it means rarely they have to face a foe they are less effective against... in exactly the same way specialist Enchanters have to sometimes face Golems or mindless undead.)
I think I'm seeing it. It's visually confusing for me to see the "damage line" without these feats remain flat as BAB goes up when I know that damage does indeed go up even without these feats. That said, pointing it out, I can visualize what the chart will look like in my head now. Basically, whatever the line that shows how much damage you do without the Weapon Focus Feats looks like, the existing lines would be that much higher on the graph, am I right? Yep, dead on.
@BG: wouldn't it be better to just figure things w/out equipment, etc in there? I'm looking mostly at feat function after all, not "kit" or "feat chains" etc. So, the "baseline" would be the better comparison, no? Since everything else is variable to game, setting, GM, and group (not necessarily in that order) - it's all subject to change. You did an even comparison (even if you tossed in the kitchen sink in analysis), so that's cool and I'd think results would be similar overall. Just wondering about this ... I'll give it a shot later, it shouldn't make too much of a difference in relative terms, but it might. (I will say, the fewer bonuses available to the players, the more powerful any extra scaling from weapon focus will become, I just don't think it's going to be a huge difference.) Wpn Specialization's scaling, at 1+ 1/4 bab I think I'll keep - I like your more gradual distribution overall. It's still going to be fighter only, though. Yeah, I still had it as fighter only, I just removed the requirement for being 4th level. (So even a 1st level fighter could take it and get a +1 to their damage). Wpn Focus - +1 base and delay the gains a bit more, say per each +8 bab? (so only full bab's would end up with a +3 to hit overall by level 16) Yeah, that should work fine. Basically the same bonuses up to 15th level, then a slight perk from 16 up. Sounds alright to me. Went ahead and typed up the changes:
EDIT: Removed the "to a maximum of X at X level" bits, because it struck me that it's based on BAB not level, so that bit was inaccurate.
That line is the X axis. I subtracted out the baseline damage from each total, so the only thing on the chart is the added damage above and beyond what a fighter without each feat would be dealing.
Thanks for the graph, B ... I'm not savvy enough to follow exactly what it is/means. I'm figuring it to be BAB and damage somehow? (axis - yes?) Yeah, the level range is along the X axis, so level 1 on the far left, level 20 on the far right, and the amount of damage that each feat or combination of feats adds is on the Y axis. This is not the total bab, this is the difference between the damage of a character with and without the feats. The orange line is the damage with just the scaling weapon focus and standard weapon specialization, the red line adds scaling weapon specialization as well (and scaling weapon specialization by the way was just fine in terms of overall effect), the grey-hashed area is the damage that power attack adds, and the blue area is the damage that the standard weapon focus/weapon spec adds. How are you figuring the damage? How's the PA overlay? I'm just not following the spread, but I'm certainly seeing a leap. I made some educated guesses on equipment and stat bumps from leveling, chose a common weapon (greatsword), and plotted out the average base damage at each level. Then I used the same reasonable guesses about equipment and whatnot to calculate what the fighters total bonuses to hit were with each attack at each level. I could then use the suggested values for creature statistics by CR from the bestiary to calculate the odds of each attack hitting and critting. With the odds of hit and crit and the base damage total in hand, I pretty easily find the total average damage on a full attack, single attack, etc. For each line, the only variable was whether or not the character had a specific feat or feat chain. I ran the numbers once with, and once without, and subtracted the damage the character dealt without the feat(s) I was testing from the damage they did with the feat(s), to find the total damage that was being added by that feat or feat chain. Cross' snark aside, this is really pretty awesome - I was expecting a simple chart or something - not a huge breakdown turned into a graph. Thanks, I'll do some similar charts when I get a chance for other situations, single attacks, non-full BAB characters, etc. Overall, it would seem that the progression/scaling works, but needs to be capped lower than +5 - that's what I'm seeing from this. The Weapon Specialization scaling works just fine, the weapon focus scaling is way too much, even just scaling up to +3 would give it enough oomph to beat out power attack in terms of total damage (although a +3 might be close enough not to cause too many problems). My suggestion would be to have Weapon Focus start at +1, scale to +2 at 10th level, and if you still feel like it needs something, give it some additional side benefit. (Bonuses vs disarm? Bonuses to appraise/craft weapons of the same type? Something imaginative without adding directly to combat capability.)
Chart is done, you can find it here (http://imgur.com/apcVJ.png) I subtracted out the baseline damage to just give a rough idea of how much bonus damage each of the various feat sets is providing. I built the chart based on a greatsword wielding fighter, and I added power attack to the chart as a frame of reference, as it's a pretty commonly accepted top tier, must-have melee damage feat. The standard Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec fell right in line with power attack, in terms of the total bonus they provide. The scaling version of weapon focus/weapon spec blew the top of the chart, easily exceeding even the amount of damage that power attack provides when used with a big two handed weapon. The scaling version of weapon specialization was fairly balanced in the end, really the culprit was the scaling weapon focus (which scaled way too well). If you want to make weapon focus more attractive as a feat, I'd suggest giving it some other side benefit, or expanding it to effect a wider array of weapons, instead of increasing it's numeric bonus. EDIT: One last note, I was _not_ running the numbers for the scaling weapon focus adding to BAB for iterative attacks, or it would have been even more nuts. I also need to run the numbers for non-full BAB classes at some point, but probably not tonight. @Broddigan: For the wpn focus, keep it as a +1 minimum, but only increase by multiples of 4 (ie: +1 up to 4 bab, and at 8 bab up one more, etc - it'll end up at +5 by 20 bab base). Well, the version I ran the numbers with is pretty close to that, because I had it gaining the +1 at +4 BAB (the same as power attack and the like) there are a few levels where it's 1 higher, but for the most part it's the same. I'll rerun the numbers tomorrow with the increase delayed by a level and see if it makes any difference. wpn sp is still fighters only, but I want to maintain the same damage increases - I *think* you did this in multiples of 4 vs. my 8 - I like yours better with starting at 4th level (or we could keep it exactly the same and leave the only requirement as Fighter - no more 4th level stuff). It would have exactly the same sort of progression I think ... I didn't quite follow what you had, but by the end point it should be a +6. Maybe if it granted a 1 first and then a +1 for every 4 (keep the wpn focus as +5 max, though). Yeah, that's pretty much what I had up there. If you took it before 4th level it would be a +1 to damage, +2 from 4th to 7th (same as standard weapon spec), then +3 from 8th to 11th, +4 from 12th to 15th (once again falling in line with greater weapon spec), +5 from 16th to 19th, and then +6 at 20.
Is it better to be unhittable (harder to hit) or be able to take a hit (boats of HP). I think it is better to be unhittable, never getting hits means you don't need massive HP. Then again I also think you need to balance it out since you can only raise HP and AC at different rates. Depends on the environment. Fighting foes that swing for enough damage they threaten to one shot you? Better to be hard to hit, and buy as many rounds as you can. Fighting foes that have multiple small attacks or hit very consistently? Better to have lots of HP, to soak up damage as long as possible. Most games though? It's better to have an even balance of both.
Ok, I'm going to generate some tables showing average damage at each level under the current rules (with and without Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Specialization) and with scaling Weapon Focus and weapon Specialization (based on BAB). I went through pg. 1 and tried to compile a version of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with roughly the changes you presented, and I want to run this by you to make sure I'm getting it all:
If those work for you, I'll check out the numbers on both and chart it all up. EDIT: One suggestion, if you're going to have them scale, just for ease of use I'd have them scale at the same breakpoints as Power Attack, Deadly Aim, etc. If you're dropping them out of a tree, you might as well just make the requirement for weapon specialization "Fighter" and have them both give a +1 bonus that goes up by 1 every 4 BAB and caps out at +6. Something like:
Much easier to read, and easy to remember when it increases and to what total bonus.
And if I crunch the numbers and the math shows that the house rule you're thinking of implementing is vastly unbalanced? What then? Nay saying and defending the status quo is the OPPOSITE of helpful here. Pointing out that some of your assumptions about and impressions of the status quo are flawed was my intent. I'm not saying "You must leave everything as is" I'm saying "the changes you're making are based on some bad assumptions, here's some info (and evidence backing it up) so that you can make informed design decisions." Aggressively running off anyone that disagrees with you after you've asked for feedback just turns the whole process into a hall of mirrors.
Sorry BG, it looked like you were putting them on even footing at 1st glance. I see your point more clearly now. No worries, looking back at the old post it was pretty easy to miss those bits.
i just read both of those and neither one directly states retro active skill points but imply that you gain more skill points for that level. I'd suggest looking up the Headband of Vast Intellect, as after 24 hours it's bonuses change from temporary to permanent, and it specifically adds 1 skill rank per HD for each +2 Int it confers. Also, the line "This might cause you to gain skill points" pretty clearly indicates that you gain skill points retroactively, as there would be no need to note the potential for gaining skill points otherwise as it would simply be handled using the normal rules the next time you leveled. It's worth noting that this phrase was specifically added in the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
No. Not quite. I'd take feat that gave +2 to a stat over any of these feats any day. At best, they perform equal to a portion of what a +2 bonus to a stat would do, and then, in some instsances, in a limited fashion. Not saying that's bad, just pointing out that they aren't equivalent. Right.. which is exactly what I said. That these baseline feats were "roughly equivalent to +2 to <attribute> when calculating <derived attribute X>". Heck, you even quoted the part where I said "roughly +2 to one stat (in a specific circumstance that comes up fairly often)"
is this listed any where in the pfsrd web site. On the PFSRD it can be found under the Ability Scores entry. On the PRD it can be found in the Glossary, under Ability Score Bonuses. EDIT: Also, when it comes to settling rules disputes, the PFSRD is great for reference, but not everything there is official. You should probably double check against the PRD, which is maintained by Paizo and is official.
Wow, really? Are you even reading my posts? Someone asked if the percentage bonus from weapon focus was enough to keep up with monster HD scaling, and I was simply showing why it didn't really matter for balancing weapon focus. (Whether what you're fighting has 100 hp or 10,00 hp, all that matters is that you're doing significantly more damage than you would be without weapon focus. As long as the amount of bonus damage you're dealing is in line with the benefits other feats can provide, it's balanced.)
Weapon Focus- Roughly equivalent to two extra Str (or Dex for ranged weapons) when calculating attack bonus. Toughness- Roughly equivalent to two extra Con when calculating HP.Dodge- Roughly equivalent to two extra Dex when calculating AC. Spell Focus- Roughly equivalent to two extra Int/Wis/Cha when calculating spell DC. There are solid reasons why these feats are all roughly +2 to one stat (in a specific circumstance that comes up fairly often). They represent really the baseline for a lot of the other feats, providing a useful but not overpowering advantage that applies almost all the time for characters that tend to take the feat. As feats become more specific, and limited in the circumstances they apply to, they tend to become more powerful. (Hence the reason feats like Iron will and Self Sufficient are the rough equivalent of +4 to a stat for the purpose of calculating one save or a pair of skills and feats like Skill Focus are the equivalent of +6 to a stat for the purpose of calculating that one skill bonus). In other posts I (and others) went through the math on why this is a bad idea and why Weapon Focus is not only balanced, it's one of the best feats you can take for dealing damage. Now I've gone over the basic design philosophy that feats seem to follow. If none of that is enough to persuade you, have at it, it's your game after all and there's nothing necessarily wrong with running it any way you want, I'd just suggest preparing for some really, really seriously broken PCs (and potentially some very broken encounters if you extend these changes to creatures as well.)
Asserting that "everything's fine, move along" is not engaging this design/revision at all. Yes, yes it is. You've presented an idea for a houserule, and given a list of reasons why you feel it would improve your game. Critical feedback pointing out flaws in your reasoning or math are perfectly valid responses. Hit me with something specific if you're here to complain and point things out. Ok, making weapon focus scale up to +5 will cause it to scale too well. The additional bonus to hit, on top of the scaling it's already receiving from extra attacks, higher base damage, haste effects, and the like will move it from being an underrated but reasonable feat that is perfectly in line with feats like Toughness and Dodge, to being a must-take feat for everyone who makes any sort of attack roll (which is pretty much everyone). By almost guaranteeing that every primary melee character will hit on anything but a 1 by the time they're max level, it will also alter the balance of feats like power attack and combat expertise, essentially canceling out their costs and just leaving the (now overpowered) benefit. +1 to hit - is really not a big deal at all, especially when it's always +1 from level 1 up to level 20 - completely insignificant, IMO. Feats should be useful for the life of the character and never be looked at like a "tax" only. So long as the AC of foes you face and your attack bonuses scale at roughly the same rate, weapon focus remains relevant all the way to twenty, as I detailed earlier.
Doesn't matter, as long as the average damage output of the PC scales at least as well as the increase in their opponents HP. And for most characters, damage output scales much more quickly than the average HP of monsters of their CR. Even if the average HP of the foes you faced scaled enormously, it wouldn't actually matter to this argument, because that 7-12% bump is always a percentage increase in the base damage you would be dealing at each level, so it scales at the same rate as your damage scales. For example, at 1st level, when you might only be averaging 7 points of damage in a round, it might get you an extra 1/2 an hp of average damage each round. By 10th level, when you're averaging 60 or 70 points of damage on a full attack, that same +1 to hit is adding an average 7 or 8 points of damage every round. If your base damage doubles, the total benefit of weapon focus doubles. If it triples, the benefit of weapon focus triples. The feat scales perfectly fine as is because the damage PCs can do scales perfectly fine as is.
Sign in to create or edit a product review. |
