I searched for this thread because I noticed the disparity between the ninja's (better, I think) assassinate ability. I think it's hard enough to justify taking the Assassin prestige as a rogue. Why make both the Rogue class and Assassin prestige class less attractive by giving the Ninja "Assassinate" as a optional class ability? This bothers me because the Ninja should be an optional class, not the go-to class for stealthy sneak-attack PCs. If this class doesn't get taken down a peg, then I agree that Paizo should publish errata fixing the Rogue and Assassin. What do you guys think about either giving the rogue and optional "Death Attack" ability as a Rogue Talent, or making the Assassin an Archetype instead of a prestige class? I'll leave off with this though, if your new class requires you to go back and change existing classes -- and as a disclaimer, I'm not totally convinced that this is the case with the Ninja, as I haven't made one as a PC or NPC -- isn't that a pretty clear indication that your new class is overpowered and broken? I dunno.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Agreed. I think the point DeathQuaker is trying to get at is this: Nothing is completely balanced in these kinds of games... unless you're talking about 4th ed. If the point is to give different types of classes different types of options--the end goal being to make every class feel individual--you're going to have disparages between them. I don't think Pathfinder favors either caster or martial classes. In the games I've been running everyone loves the options regardless of whether or not they're chucking a scorching ray or swinging a great sword; and no one so far feels like their class is being overshadowed by another. Great post DeathQuaker.
Frogboy wrote:
Four Words: PLAY THREE POINT FIVE. You've thrown down the gauntlet more than once on this cleric issue, and instead of listening to reason and contemplating what others are saying, you're rambling on and on about how the cleric got the shaft. I have news for you, it didn't. "Must be a small camp?" "better = more broken than ever?" What does that EVEN mean? Here, hold my hand, allow me to walk you down a little road I like to call Reason. (i) The Rogue is not broken, or overbalanced. (A statement I think we all can agree with.)
If we were to add to the Cleric a Heavy Armor prof, or a fighters BA progression, or any of the other absurd things you suggest, it would be the only class anyone would ever play, because it would be broken. I'm sorry the only class you ever played (presumably because it was unbalanced and you realized you could exploit this) got nerfed, I really am. But in the immortal words of Bob Dylan: you better start swimmin or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a'changin.
ShadowChemosh wrote:
But then why doesn't the feat SAY that? Clearly there are distinctions made about weapon abilities, with no mention of enhancement, and if it's just the weapon dice, then why not specifically state that. Instead it says "roll the damage dice for the ATTACK twice," if what you say is correct, it should say "roll the damage dice for your WEAPON twice." I could understand if they were trying to be clear about not adding the magic bonuses for your weapon but they clearly go into that right after. I agree that what you say seems balanced, but this is not at all what the feat states.
mdt wrote:
My point EXACTLY. Thank you MDT. Players shouldn't be prepared all the time, I understand that. And if my group were in a city, and should they be ambushed in some way, I wouldn't ever allow them to have loaded crossbows. Hell I make them don armor if the situation is appropriate, that's just good gaming.
Is this seriously happening, are we actually arguing about whether or not a crossbow can be loaded while a character moves? Why don't we debate the finer points of the Birther movement? Allow me to blow your collective minds with my blazing enlightenment: (i) Moving 30 feet as part of a move action is defined as walking. Its on pg. 172, table 7-6. (ii) If your DM says the bolt falls out while your WALKING then stop playing with him because, much to your dismay, he's the kind of person who's DM-ing when what he really likes to to is make up b#+++&@% to make sure you know he's in charge. There's a word for that kind of person, he's an "a@+#!&&." (iii) Based on his logic, casting a fireball should take more than one round, because according to the Poetic Edda, Odin clearly needed more than six seconds to summon the fire runes necessary for such advanced mag... ARE WE SERIOUS!? Also, if you've read the prose edda, don't reply all pissed off, I know Odin never casts a fireball so just stop right there. (vi) Also, you shouldn't be able to use Smite Evil as a paladin, because every time I pray to Athena to give me the strength to smite (insert x person-you-don't-like, I'm tired of trying to be funny.) You get the point. And the point is this: The act of having this debate, the very act itself, is ridiculous.
-Archangel- wrote:
The feat's benefit is worded in this way because the rerolled attack damage includes damage from Power Attack (and similar abilities, if any), and from weapon enhancements, which are different than weapon abilities. A weapon enhancement is a magical bonus (from +1 to +5) that adds to your attack roll and damage roll. This IS added when you roll your weapon damage again. This is because the description of magic weapons on pg.467 clearly makes a distinction between "enhancement" and "ability;" and the feat description only prevents you from adding weapon "abilities" to the second damage roll. A weapon ability adds something like "flaming" or "frost" and is NOT added when you roll your attack damage again. Since Power Attack adds to "all melee damage rolls" at the cost of a penalty to "all melee attack rolls" for a round, it is applied to your damage when you use/activate Vital Strike. Since Vital Strike says you roll your attack damage again, given the various restrictions that follow, nothing is preventing you from adding the damage granted by Power Attack to that "rolled-again" damage. So, if we have a 6th level fighter, who has the feat Power Attack, Vital strike, a STR of 16, and who also possesses a +3 flaming greatsword (weapon enhancement +2, weapon ability "flaming"), the attack would play out as follows: Gerard (6th lvl fighter) moves 20ft to attack a Gnoll (seriously, it's always the Gnolls that'll get ya.) He declares that he is applying Power Attack and then uses his attack action (a standard action) to activate Vital Strike (because he REALLY hates Gnolls.) He hits and rolls the following damage:
If Gerard happened to roll a critical he would multiply 2D6+12 by 2 and roll up the rest of the damage. Let me know if that's helpful or not. ALSO!
Okay to sum up, clarify, and address unanswered questions: I believe the reason Vital Strike is worded: "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus..." is to make it clear that it can be used as a melee, ranged, or unarmed attack action. Think about this for a second, it makes sense. Though Cleave states nowhere in the description that the standard action is a melee attack, it's pretty clear from the prerequisites that Cleave can only be used as part of a melee attack (not to mention this is how it was stated in 3.5). But the text of the feat as it stands in Pathfinder says nothing about it being restricted as such, besides the obvious STR prerequisite along with a Power Attack (CLEARLY a melee restricted feat). In this case Cleave is an example of a feat that can be abused because of it's ambiguity, even though I can't imagine a player who would want to exploit it. This may have been a descriptive error. But, back on topic at hand, Vital Strike was most likely worded the way it is in order to be less ambiguous about what TYPE of attack action can activate it, namely by saying outright that any such attack action does. Put another way, its worded with the intention of avoiding the debacle Cleave is currently in.* Now, that attack action... As we've already realized through the diligence of other posters, is considered a standard action by Jason himself (something that is clear if you read the combat section). So if we merely put some Logic 101 to work for us, it becomes clear through the brilliance of hypothetical syllogism--namely that if A=B and B=C, then A=C--Vital Strike is clearly a feat that uses a standard action to activate. So in the interest of clarity: (i) Vital Strike cannot be used in conjunction with any other feat that requires a standard action to activate, i.e. Scorpion style, Cleave, Deadly Stroke etc. The weird description was only to clarify that it can be activated by a ranged attack, for instance. (ii) Vital Strike cannot be used as part of a combat maneuver, i.e. sundering a weapon. (iii) Vital Strike CAN be used to break down a door, in the same way that I would allow a player to use cleave on three adjacent doors (as ridiculous as that sounds.) I hope this sheds light on the issue. *I fully recognize that the restriction of "reach" in Cleave's description may make it less ambiguous. It depends on how well a player can argue that something 100ft away is within reach, as well as their ability to convince you that the feat isn't talking about a size-based melee weapon reach. My friends are very crafty players.
Enough already. Look everyone, I've been pouring over the book for almost a day--the Cleric gets Fireball as a third level spell if he/she chooses the Fire domain. Let me repeat that: Fireball; as a third level spell. Not fourth, not a watered down version of it, Fireball. Full stop. I would say this argument isn't a big deal if I didn't think that it SHOULDN'T be a DEAL at all. Explication: I'm not saying your opinions don't matter. They obviously do--but they matter to you, and all this squabbling serves less to change the minds of the contributors of the rulebook and more to insult and undermine their professional authority. In short: if you don't like it, get over it, house-rule it, and stop talking about it.
My group has gone over this many times. Even people who've picked D&D up fairly recently have realized the optimal nature of the Cleric. So allow me to lay it out for you: If the designer (Jason?) thought it would be appropriate to bring them down a peg then I agree, if only because I would like to see players use the medium armor group, and play classes like the druid more often. As it is, our sessions have ended up with more than one player choosing Cleric as a class. It's annoying. At the end of the day, a game needs to rest on balanced foundations. A game like this, rests--bets even--on the balance of its core classes. Without that, it's just another broken system that wont sell or get played, and anyone who's been around long enough to know what Cyberpunk 2020 is, can appreciate the value of that statement, because I don't know anyone (with the exception of myself) who still plays that game. The angry folks are most likely players who like playing Clerics; they're pissed because they can't have their cake and eat it too. The happy folks are most likely GMs, because they understand the importance of a stable system and how it's essential--in order for the whole group and not just one individual--to enjoy the game. It was an excellent decision; one that shows a finesse and aptitude with the system that justifies their roles as game-builders. I can say that because It's the kind of thing I would never have thought of, but put simply, perfectly balances the scales. |