I have been pretty critical of this new system so far, but I think I know what they are trying to do.
Change the focus of the game from numerical bonuses stacked through a myriad of means as the general path to power to one where the numbers are relatively even, but the actions and abilities vary. The old system, with the umpteen bonuses stacking, is a bit impenetrable to new players, since it requires knowing about a bonus existing at all in order to take advantage. Playing at optimal (or even just non-sub-optimal) levels demands system mastery.
SO everyone can have the same "bonus" to pretty much everything, but different classes do different things with those bonuses by virtue of having different class feats.
And this would theoretically extend to skill proficiency levels as well.
In order to save martial characters from becoming entirely pointless (not that they were doing much after lvl 15 anyway) this also requires a severe reduction in the power of spells. In practice, spells will have no great advantage over physical actions, since they are just another option for how to use your pretty-much-generic base number set.
The goal, then, is to radically shift the focus from numerical advantage to an 'available actions' advantage. IE: my proficiency in skill X allows me to do a special thing that requires that proficiency etc. numbers be damned.
All of that said, I think that the current implementation leaves a huge amount to be desired. Everything is WAY too safe and WAY too tight IMO. If the focus of the game is now meant to be on class-based feats-as-actions, then the actions really do need to become more diverse and more powerful for their specific task. The difference between Master and Trained should be far more significant than it is now, not numerically, but in how it opens up new possibilities. Same with class feats and same with regular feats.
Two problems here though:
1. That is really hard to design.. it is way easier to just slap a +2 bonus on something and call it a day.
2. If it is done poorly then you end up with what we have now, which is an overly tight system with an insurmountable numerical treadmill and not a lot of mechanical identity past the first few levels. Which means it actually draws more attention to the numbers. This is, as many have said, very much like 4e, and this failure to really make the powers distinct and interesting was the big failure point of that game's launch.
I am going to try to put this as succinctly as I can:
The scaling in PF1 is down to the acquisition of resources which are indeed gained through leveling. When you level, you can choose what class to advanced, where to put skills feats etc. Its a pretty granular system. For those stating that Fighters were a +1/lvl class because of BAB, for example, remember that no character was a Fighter. They could choose whatever class they wanted at each new Player level, so this too was an intentional expenditure of character building resources. One camp seems characterized by a desire to return to a system where leveling means gaining new resources to spend on building a character, and where essentially everything is a choice. A system where competency in some activity requires investment... or rather investment is rewarded with competency.
What we might call the "bound accuracy" camp, is a bit less traditional, but sees the opportunity to escape the treadmill altogether.. While the first camp is interested with having far more control over where they can overtake or be overtaken by the treadmill through player choice, this Bound camp wants to eliminate the treadmill entirely. Eschewing the more numerically dependent and arbitrary system for one that focuses more on abilities, action types etc. If the numbers aren't going to be an expression of character, and don;t really change the dynamic of success/failure in realistic encounters, then why have them at all?
I think both camps are trying to either regain control of or eliminate a system that feels alien to the character and overly forced. Since its narrative manifestation is almost always problematic whenever its mechanical implementation isn't almost entirely irrelevant.
To Summarize:
Bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers are being argued against using option
(A) Bigger numbers are fine but only for the sake of intentional character definition by the player through choices
or
(B) Just get rid of the bigger numbers entirely if they serve no other purpose than to make the numbers bigger.
So what if the vast majority of players played through say the full playtest were happy with the game. You would say that isn't an important detail? What if it came out somehow that the vast majority of negative feedback was from players who have played less than 3 sessions of the game. Wouldn't that mean statistically the game is just fun to play?
You really can't just read through a book and crunch some numbers and get an accurate estimate of how "fun" it is. At least that's my opinion. You can disagree with it but in my 15 yrs of experience, The numbers weren't the main component of our fun. It was the roleplaying and tactical teamwork that made it fun for us. And for my group 2e has improved tactical teamwork in combat for sure.
This is of course not to say that the game can't be tweaked and balanced better. But just running statistics isn't a good indication that you have a grasp on how the system plays.
Every playtest man.. there is always this guy with the 400 hours of playtime invested who hates rhetorical arguments and adamantly believes that complete system mastery of dozens of other games and decades of experience pales in comparison to his or her personal subjective experience.
You can see the arguments here right? You can read the posts and discuss the reasoning behind them, or lack thereof. You do not get to tell people that their opinion is disqualified because they have not met some arbitrary requirement that you set. Don't ask for proof of their doctorate, or their bonafide gamer card. Don't try to define other people's fun. If you can't speak to the argument as it reads, using rhetoric and logic, then don't participate at all.
Furthermore, if the vast majority of negative feedback comes from people who have played less than three sessions, you might actually want to ask yourself why they stopped playing your game.
But really, this is all down to the main thrust of PF2, which is: Keep everyone in line to make everything easier to control.
This has a name. It is called balance.
I am not certain at all whether you, Malkov, are for or against it, but I will say that the people against it are almost always the ones benefitted by the imbalance.
When children complain that something is "unfair" what they often mean is that it is not unfair in their favor. I think the folks at Paizo understand this and are accounting for it.
I am for it, that is why I spoke to it in the part of my post you did not quote.
Balance, however does not need to be achieved through homogenization. Its harder to do balance this way, I will grant you, but its not impossible, and I find it more engaging. Powerful things are not bad inherently, as long as everyone else has different, equivalently powerful things to do.
PF2 seems to be trying very hard to push everything into a thin band of acceptable math. That is NOT to say that it is attempting to balance across archetypes or classes, but to say that it seems very opposed to the idea that one character, through heavy investment, can be far better than another in that very area of heavy investment.
Previously, balance was achieved through an equal distribution of character building resources. Cutting out or elevating bad choices, trap feats and weak options as well as, yes, nerfing the overpowered ones is great. It means everyone gets the same bang for their buck and it fixes the 'economy of character building'.
It feels (to me) like PF2 is attempting to severely reduce the impact of all of these choices in order to enforce homogeneity regardless of choice. If you invest heavily in something, it will be a coin-flip. If you don't.. it will be a slightly worse coin-flip.
I hope that clarifies things, and I will add that this is just my opinion. There is nothing fundamentally flawed with this sort of balancing or this kind of system... It's just not for me.
PF2 has down-powered absolutely everything to keep all classes and characters in a rather thin area of power distribution. Everything feels incredibly safe and rigid, to the point where it is hard to see where the fun comes from. Pathfinder has not traditionally been a gritty game of wild swings and unpredictability... but the new systems make almost everything a coin flip at every level.
For those of us used to PF!, we can look at the system and ask the simple question: How can I get ahead of this treadmill of coin-flips? And unlike before, the answer is: you can't.
That said, I think a heavy balance pass was warranted for spellcasters if we were ever going to make a game that didn't become a overly dependent on proper use of spellcasting at the higher levels. This means some nerfs were probably required to keep the non-casters relevant.
HOWEVER, with the current state of spellcasting, they really should have doubled the spells-per-day at every step for all casters. You are going from a 70-90% success rate down to 50% and the effects are completely neutered. I could live with more spells that are less impactful to some extent.
But really, this is all down to the main thrust of PF2, which is: Keep everyone in line to make everything easier to control.
You will always be a slave to the coin-flip.
Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.
From pg3 of the playtest doc.
What's interesting about this is that the goals are all framed in terms of ease of use and ease of adoption. What's missing is anything around making the game fun. Even the specific examples are framed around making it easier to build characters and NPC's.
As I dive into more and more details of the game I get the eerie feeling that the driving forces were making life easier on the GM and new players. Whether or not the game is fun to play seems to have taken a back seat.
Edited to add: I also agree with posters earlier in the thread who assert that PFS is a big component of the game design. Many of the rigid rule structures and class balancing decisions seem geared for problems that are found in Society play, where the GM has to rigidly adhere to published rules, and the party makeup is essentially random.
PF is hard to GM compared to a lot of systems even with PFS (and it has gotten harder as time goes on). Cutting down PC combos seems like the industry standard to make it easier to GM (at least that's what they did in 5e). Lack of GM's is one possible slow death of PF.
No one has ever said that 3.5 or PF was easy on new players (except with irony or a belly full of rotgut--Viva Thunderbird!). An aging player base plus few new players=another possible slow death of PF.
In short, the goal of PF2 is to prevent the slow death of PF. I think Paizo is shooting for the Goldie Locks spot of more...
I think that is why you see a pretty warm reception to things like the new action economy, and the severe reduction in stacking a bajillion magical items/bonuses.
These are ideas that attempt to fix real problems.
The flat level-based scaling for everything might be a good idea, but I am at a loss as to what it fixes (Wizards needed full BAB?), and I could say the same about the heavy restrictions on signature skills, skill uses, class feats, multiclassing etc. Are these things easier?
That is why I would like to know what exactly the intent was for these big system changes from the developers. The stated goals are far too vague and they don't relate to the systems that really seem to be stirring conflict.
Because the more I read PF2, the more I am liking PF1.
What is the penalty for rejecting Pathfinder 2.0?
I am not suggesting that there is any penalty, or that you should like what has been presented.
I am saying that if we have a list of the design principles that went into each the creation of each major game system (particularly those that are new or radically different) we could give better feedback.
It might be the case, that we just disagree with the premise, and can, as you say, disengage from the product. Pathfinder is a lot of different things to a lot of different people, so if they spoke to what exactly they were trying to achieve we could figure out if its the implementation or the goal that we like or dislike.
* I really hate magic weapons. Not only does it feel non-heroic when you notice that most of your melee damage is from your magic sword and not from you, it has some negative mechanical effects too.
Great post, and yes, I really detest extra weapon damage dice coming from magic (and to hit from item quality/magic bonus), if it is integral/expected, it should be tied to Trained proficiency and character level, something like:
Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice
I agree that its not good to have this absurd reliance on magic weapons, but they may have painted themselves into a bit of a corner with this one.
If you tie it to level alone, then we are even further down the homogenization railroad and martial characters seem even less well.. good at being martial in comparison to their allies? I don't know, both options feel bad to me.
If you tie it to proficiency then you create a severe problem for any class that isn't fighter.. because you can't just choose to increase proficiency in weapons. It effectively down-grades barbarian, paladin, rogue or any future class that wants to use a weapon pretty immensely.
Previously the bulk of damage came from a concordance of feats, items, ability scores, class features, etc... so there were lots of character building resources that went into increasing damage output. This new simplification that puts it all into one source, means that the source has to be universally accessible, and I think since a magic item at least has some opportunity cost associated with it, they felt this was the only way.... because a feat tree, for example, would also feel mandatory and kinda bad.
Realistically, I think that the attribution of proficiencies being unlocked might be necessary, but then the optimization mindset will make it very hard to see why not to always take these weapon proficiencies (over armor or a saving throw or a skill) and we again lose identity for martial classes since they all need to invest in this thing...
but at least I know they aren't trying to claim that this system provides more customization, diversity or thematic mechanics.
I never understand this argument. Compare the customization, diversity and thematic mechanics of 2e to ONLY the core rulebook of 1e. I'm pretty sure the build choices and options are MORE diverse in 2e than in 1e right off the bat. Here's an example: Ranged attacker Rogues are actually pretty viable. There's no range limit on sneak attack anymore. And there are more ways to make creatures flat footed in order to get that sneak attack (intimidate for example, which comes online as early as 4th level and is actually pretty damn strong. I'm running the playtest with an intimidate rogue and it's really impressive.)
So the mechanics already existed in PF1.
You could make ranged sneak attacks, and cause enemies to be flat-footed.
But now you feel that those mechanics are stronger at a baseline level, and that is the same as more customization for you? Not just more powerful?
Well the power level of certain choices has shifted all over the place, (this is not irrelevant at all, but its not even across the board since some archetypes got considerably down-powered) so lets ignore that aspect for the moment, and ask the most relevant question:
Does the character creation and advancement system in PF2 offer me more character building resources or greater freedom in how I spend those resources?
I would argue that you get less choice, and that the choices offered have less impact. As I said I think the goal is to homogenize across all archetypes to ensure that any party makeup has access to everything, but this (in my opinion) is achieved at the cost of role diversity and customization.
That is not to say that such an approach is wrong. Lots of systems do it, but it would be helpful to know that so we aren't arguing over one game while the Devs are actively trying to make another.
It would actually be nice to see a list of goals rather than some over-arching philosophy.
Specifically, each contentious system could be described by what it is attempting to achieve.
To say "this is why resonance works the way it does, and this is what we are trying to achieve with its implementation" or "this is what we are trying to achieve by adding +1/level to everything".
If the Devs came out and said: "we want player choices in feats/class features to be less powerful/diversifying in order to homogenize playstyle and power level across archetypes in all situations of play", then I could at least say that they have achieved their goal... and we may even be able to talk about whether or not that is the kind of goal we are interested in seeing pursued.
The same with +lvl to everything... if they just say that they are trying to ensure that everyone can always participate in every part of an adventure, and that role diversity is something they are trying to avoid to make the sessions more inclusive (and to guarantee that every AP will always have access to the player skills they want) then OKAY. I may not like that idea, but at least I know they aren't trying to claim that this system provides more customization, diversity or thematic mechanics.
That is where the problem comes in. I agree that it is virtually impossible to get more than about a 4 to 8 point difference between the modifiers between the characters. Skill feats help a bit for that feeling of expertise, but that requires additional character creation cost.
So, why the competition? I am getting this vibe from a lot of the people that I read on this forum. It feels like the game is less about role playing and creating characters and having fun; it is not a cooperative game where you and your friends go adventuring. It becomes a competitive game where each player tries to build a character that can out-do the other characters in some field or other.
So why do you need your bard to be so much better than the other characters at bluff and deception?
It is a different point of view of the game than I have and I am trying to understand it. So please take my questions literally.
People here are used to Pathfinder, where one can have the mechanics of their character match their roleplaying intent.
We could, of course, all just flip coins for success or failure on everything and just roleplay it out. With a good GM, that would work out fine and be a fun night.
But if you like complex systems for describing what makes your character special in the world of the game, its nice to start with what makes them special compared to their fellow party-mates. It also allows the GM to really tailor certain encounters and role playing opportunities to specific players... giving each a time to shine.
In the current Pathfinder, player choices in the expenditure of character building resources have far more weight in determining how good a character is at something than in Pathfinder 2. And since this is ostensibly a forum of Pathfinder players, its not surprising to see a lot of negativity around this issue.
Even great heroes have flaws and weaknesses. It makes them more interesting.
Its also worth noting that being really good at something like Diplomacy is worth far more when no one else is. It makes your character essential in some way. It proves that the group of heroes need each other, because no one can be great at everything.
Doing it the other way, where everyone can do everything, is fine mechanically. It is a roleplaying game after all, and you make your own fun... but I do not like these mechanics, and I can take my roleplaying to any other system out there. Preferably one where I like both.
I think the biggest detriment to the +level to proficiency system is that a lot of people are not actually reading the full rules of it or try to understand what it is supposed to be doing, and deciding that proficiency gating works someway it is imagined in their head without actually thinking it out and having faith in a GM to arbitrate what can and cannot be done with skill checks...which is what has always been required unless you design skill challenges like some kind of numbers mini-game that has no room for creative problem solving.
I think that the biggest detriment to the +level system is that the rules never clearly state any of what you have said here. Aside from saying that the GM is the boss... which is not a feature of this system. That is just tabletop roleplaying.
You can perform(action) untrained with those bagpipes. Its pretty clear in the book. You need to be trained to 'stage a performance' (i.e. put on a musical).
More to the point, why have the +level at all if proficiency is what is important? Why give the barbarian +15 to perform checks and then tell them they can't use it? Most of these dice rolls ARE just a numbers mini-game, so why not cut out the middle man?
Want to pick an expert lock? Have expert or higher proficiency in Thievery.
Want to climb? Untrained you can climb with a rope or up a steep hill, trained you can climb a sheer surface with many sufficient handholds. Legendary you can climb a smooth wall one-handed at normal speed.
And on and on...sounds neat.
But that is not the system in the book unless you do all the work to arbitrate everything yourself, in which case its as good as not having a system at all.
"The system is nonsense, but the GM can fix it" is not a great sales pitch.
I was under the impression people were mostly just saying, "It's simpler," or "It reduces certain types of imbalance between high-level PCs," or "It makes us less dependent on getting AC and saving throw bonuses from multiple items."
You know I keep waiting for someone to directly answer the question in the title of this thread, and no one has yet... but these are a pretty good distillation of the points made by the 'pro' side of this discussion.
My response would be:
1. It's simpler
A: No it isn't. The PF2 rulebook is really at just about the exact same level of complexity as the core PF1 rulebook. The numbers are just different. I would argue that the formatting and action qualities are actually more complicated, but I can attribute that to its newness. So they are essentially the same.
2.It reduces certain types of imbalance between high-level PCs
A: Yes it sure does. Everything that auto-scales, which is everything mundane characters can do, will... well... auto-scale, for everyone. And this fixes that problem that PF1 had where mundane (i.e. non-spellcaster) characters were just too darn good at high level compared to their spellcaster friends, who lets face it, were just useless past level 13. Sarcasm aside, I can see how shrinking the gap of min-maxed vs. un-optimized is a good thing, but this system took a gap of +25-40 on a roll and made it +3, which is probably way too much homogenization for a game that advertises 'customization' as a feature. e.g:"Everyone can only play the Fighter class" also "fixes" this issue, but that doesn't mean its a good idea.
3."It makes us less dependent on getting AC and saving throw bonuses from multiple items
A: This one is just plain false. Fixing items and how they give bonuses along with adjusting the monster math fixes this, it has nothing to do with +1/lvl to everything.
4."It is to make levels feel impactful"
They were already hugely impactful. This sort of comment came up a lot in this thread and its really confusing to me, so I won't pretend to understand it.
In short, I can agree with almost every problem that anyone here has accused PF1 of having... but that does not mean that this is the best solution to any of those problems, as it is quite obviously not satisfactory to a large group of players.
I think it needs a serious re-think and some very clearly defined goals for the community to chew on.
I like the cantrips.
I like the action economy.
I like the severe reduction in necessary magic items.
I like the idea of backgrounds
I like the unified arcane divine etc. spell lists
I think resonance is a ham-fisted solution and should be changed.
I think martial damage scaling should not be tied to magic weapons.
(You did so well the rest of the magic item stuff why mess up this one so badly?)
I think that the idea of proficiencies gating certain skill-based actions is a good idea, but its implemented badly.
And I think that flat +1/lvl scaling for everything (coupled with the increbibly low impact of character class-feats, ability choices, stat allocation etc.) is so dull and homogenizing that it makes me completely disinterested in playing PF2 at all.
There is a lot here that could work if it was really refined.
There are many problems to tackle from PF1.
I still do not understand the problem that this specific game system fixes, and why it is the best way to fix it. Which makes it hard to swallow the new problems that it creates.
So if anyone can help me understand... please do. I really do not get it.
Just to offer some counter points. I don't want to be argumentative, so let me say first that I am just giving a different viewpoint. I think all of your points are credible.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Do you really think it's unreasonable for someone whose had 7 extra levels of real-world experience to be able make Arcana checks slightly better than a 1st level character whose only book smart?
Yes.
For some things.
Absurd hyperbolic example: "Of course Bill is a better programmer than you! You just got out of college, but he has been a carpenter for over 25 years!"
The point here is less about the effect and more about the impact that spending character resources has. Whether or not its relevant in the game is not my argument. You could previously choose to learn skills to do something others could not (because they chose to learn different skills). That is no longer the case.
Probably works fine, doesn't feel good to me.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
This is demonstrably not true. All you have to do is go up against level appropriate challenges rather than level 1 challenges. If level 1 challenges make up a regular part of your high level play then you're going to struggle to have fun in PF2e, but I'd have to question how much fun you actually had in PF1e.
True if the DCs all scale.
But then why scale the bonus and the DC at all. Its the definition of a treadmill. And at mid-level in PF1, the specialists were far more than +1-3 points ahead of their party-mates, which contributes to making a character feel special when their "thing" comes up in play.
Again, just my opinion.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
The world's greatest swordsman will be able to switch between any melee fighting style (shield+sword, TWFing with swords, two-handed sword and one hand sword and free hand) freely between battles whether he needs to become more defensive or stay focused on offense.
With the current form of magic weapons, this is actually less true than it was in PF1. Way more of your damage comes from you magic weapon, and you can't afford to have 2 or 3 lying around RAW.
So you are not adaptable once magic weapons become a thing.
This, I think, has some hope to see a change.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
There are a lot of benefits and ways for someone who has devoted their resources to the craft of fighting with a sword to be significantly better than a wizard whose decided to pick up a sword and fight with it with no resources invested.
Just far far less than PF1. Give wizards a full BAB in PF1 and there would STILL be more separation than in PF2. Martial feats are currently quite under-powered (my opinion), arcane spell failure is gone so no more full-plate advantage, and the majority of martial damage comes from the weapon rather than the wielder.
A PF2 fighter IS better with a weapon than the Wizard... the gap has simply closed an extraordinary amount. This is directly related to the +1/lvl to everything system.
I really think you should build a mid-level PF2 wizard that works toward being a fighter (still gets full spellcasting) and compare that to a straight up PF2 fighter.
Its not a great comparison.
The class budget previously tied up in full BAB has not been given a charitable refund here. It used to justify not getting powerful tools like spells. Now you have to compare spellcasting to.... a slightly better proficiency bonus and some more hp.
But hey, maybe its just me. Like I said, this is more about how this feels to me than anything else.
Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.
And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.
The level bonus makes other bonuses numerically a smaller percentage, but since everything (except static DCs) scales at the same rate, the fighter having +3 on attacks on top of his level will still be 15% better at everything than the wizard with +0.
If monsters didn't scale the same, then it'd matter. But since you get the exact same results from an equal-level encounter regardless of whether everything has +level or not, it doesn't end up mattering that the +level becomes a larger single bonus than everything else.
That is why I said that it diminishes the "sense" that meaningful choices have been made. Devoting everything you've got (ie class levels, feats etc.) to be the worlds greatest swordsman should separate you more from those who do not. Perhaps, mechanically this is enough at +3, but it doesn't feel good (to me). Its actually good, in my opinion, for players to feel that there is something their group really counts on them for, because they are really far superior at it (ie more than having an extra +1 to a check in system with a variance of 1-20 as the starting point). It offers a role to play which is supported by the mechanics. Some don't care about this, and more power to 'em.
The previous gaps between characters grew immensely over levels. Probably way too much. But now the single largest contributor to any regular (i.e. non-magical) check is a bonus that everyone gets.
And this goes for skills and martial combat and everything... exceeept spellcasting.
This is an issue for me now, where it wasn't before, because as the fighter, one could previously, without spells, do things that the wizard couldn't, and feel good about it. Magic is the ultimate trump card in the end, but you could contribute in a party in ways they couldn't.
The fighter is 15% better at fighting.
The wizard is 15% worse and gets spells.
It might function, sure. I have already conceded that point, but I do not like how it feels, and that is something I consider just as important.
As I said, this is a big split and it is unlikely to change or be resolved, but I am offering my opinion nonetheless.
Bulk is a system that seems smart and simple, but is basically dumb and complicated in practice.
It abstracts weight in such a way as to hide how strong your character actually is... thus creating massive confusion every time people need to try and translate the alien nonsense units into physical strength that is actually relatable so they can figure out if the character can do something involving strength.
Horrible 'so smart it is stupid' system that creates a mass of confusion just save people from doing some grade school addition to sum up weight numbers by replacing it with the need to do grade school addition to sum up bulk numbers and Ls that have no real meaning to the person.
Yeah this was my first reaction as well.
Realistically, they could have just rounded all of the item weights, and said that everything is either negligible weight (i.e.0 lbs), 5 lbs, 10 lbs or some greater multiple of 10 lbs to make the math easier, which is the only annoying part of the previous system.
As is , this seems like a redefinition that exists solely to be a redefinition. The term "Carrying-Capacity" as expressed in pounds or kilograms is just about as intuitive as you can get... no one will have a hard time understanding what that means or what it allows you to do.
This seems to be the main split on the reception of this rules set.
If you think it makes characters very quickly become far more powerful than enemies that once seemed powerful, you are correct.
If you think its a treadmill, you are also correct.
Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.
And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.
It can still work, bu they need to tune up the impact of these differentiating factors. Perhaps make Proficiency bonuses double at 5-10-15 etc. Or make them determine your per level scaling entirely, I don't know. But this is the biggest flaw in the system as I see it.
add to this that at some levels FOUR atributes are raised by 2 levels unless above 18, then 1.
Raising your 4 lower abilities is optimizing, you could build 1 over 18, but very few people will raise 2 atributes above 18.
Level 1 characters will be different, with these differences diminishing with level due to the +1/level and the atributes, besides for spellcasters, the low number of spells will make them choose the most effective ones.
My guess is that after 6 months there will be a power build for every archetype, with very few outliers and even them very similar.
I agree, this will lead to further homogenization as players learn to optimize.
There is an argument for making the gap between a character that dedicates no resources to a skill or action type versus a character that has invested as much as possible shrink. I think that it can open up space for more thematic or marginalized archetypes if you can put a hard ceiling on the benefits of min-maxing, while minimizing the cost of un-optimized choices.
However,
The stated goals of the system include 'customization' as a key feature. And customization ONLY acts as such if it has weight and impact. To use a hyperbolic example: In a game where the average damage total is 1,000, getting an ability that adds +1 damage is not real customization since its will be subsumed by the scale of the system.
Here we do have a similar result. The unique class identifiers of proficiency and feats are very small nudges that don't have a dramatic impact on the result.... at least not in comparison to the flat level bonus in mid to late levels.
I can't say that it is 'wrong'. Only that it feels bad.
And you might argue that comparisons between PCs are irrelevant, and I would agree to the extent that the game is not about PCs fighting PCs... but you really DO want the Fighter to feel very much like the best Fighter in the group, and to allow them to emphasize that role rather than see their early level advantage slowly erode away to the point where they start to wonder how 9 levels of spellcasting is somehow equivalent to their extra +2 on attacks.
This seems to be the main split on the reception of this rules set.
If you think it makes characters very quickly become far more powerful than enemies that once seemed powerful, you are correct.
If you think its a treadmill, you are also correct.
Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.
And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.
It can still work, bu they need to tune up the impact of these differentiating factors. Perhaps make Proficiency bonuses double at 5-10-15 etc. Or make them determine your per level scaling entirely, I don't know. But this is the biggest flaw in the system as I see it.
It's doubly odd since Rogues get an ability that makes it so that they aren't flat footed to sensed and unseen targets. That's an irrelevant defense, isn't it?
No, because something can still be unseen without relying on stealth.
Or the rogue could be blinded.
This only applies very specifically to the use of the stealth skill to stay Unseen.
That said.. this does seem incredibly silly. Especially since they are keeping the name "Sneak Attack". If you Sneak up to make an attack... you do not gain the benefits of sneak attack. (unless the target has not acted in combat, in which case they are flat-footed, but the sneaking part then also becomes completely irrelevant)
Speaking of Constitution, does anyone know if CON mod boosts affect your total HP retroactively? It obviously did in PF1, but I have found nothing in the playtest to suggest it works that way.
I believe that it 'should' based on the wording for the 'Potent' magic items, where it very clearly states that you get any benefits retroactively (i.e. additional trained skill/skills for an intelligence boosting item).
And the treadmill becomes so obvious and static that they may as well never add any bonuses at all.
In fact, since the limited number of flat advantages that any character gets from ability score or proficiency will inevitably be dwarfed by their simple level bonus, characters will ultimately feel more and more homogenized and less and less unique as they advance. Which feels backward.
This is maybe the most absurd change.
It makes almost everything a coin flip attack at best.
There are ways of toning down the numbers without making the best fighter in the group suffer with a permanent 40% miss chance. These sorts of outcomes feel bad (and slow) in a binary-result game with such a limited set of actions. And then feel worse when you can see quite clearly that there is no way to improve the situation.
I am not suggesting that the old armor class setup was particularly good, but this is not the way to fix it.
There are now about a bajillion feats for each character... let them invest in what they want to be good at. And let them be far better than those that do not invest in those same abilities.
Its okay for the 12th level wizard who has never used a bow and arrow to be worse than the 4th level fighter in an archery contest.
There's definitely something about Glitterdust that suggests it would act otherwise: It's a magical spell.
There's a pretty big difference between tossing a handful of mundane, inexpensive flour onto an invisible creature, and tossing a handful of spell-created magical dust - the purpose of which is to negate invisibility - onto a creature who then tries to turn invisible.
It is a conjuration spell, which means that it creates physical objects made of real substance. There is nothing to suggest that those objects (the dust) are somehow immune to invisibility, which I will note, is also a magical spell.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
If what you were saying were true then Glitterdust would work like mundane powder, it would just become invisible a moment after touching the target.
Except that doesn't happen, a mundane bag of flour really can outline an invisible creature. If you pick up an object it does not become invisible unless you can hide it under your invisible clothes, cloak etc.
From CRB:"If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away)."
In fact, there are a lot of cases where power attacking is a terrible idea. Two weapon fighting rogues know this to be true.
ANd it all comes down to the same things it came down to in 3e... too much accuracy is a waste, so dropping some of that for damage is a great option.
Example:
CR 12 monsters have an average AC of 28
If you are a level 14 fighter, you will likely see a lot of these, plus some CR 14 monsters that are meant to be solo according to the CR tables.
So example level 14 fighter has:
Str 24
Weapon Focus
Greater Weapon Focus
Weapon Training +3, plus gloves of dueling for another +2
A +3 Greatsword
BAB +14
So a total bonus to hit of +31
Against a 28 AC, this is just wasted bonus.
If they power attack, then their attack bonus drop to +27, but they get +12 damage with their two-hander. So its a great trade off.
Adding some more feats (W.Spec., G.W.Spec just to show static damage)
Full attack without power attack (+31/+26/+21), 2d6+22
With power attack (+27/+22/+17), 2d6+34
Against 28 AC, he will average 2.6 hits per full attack without power attack, and 2.2 hits per full attack with power attack.
That means, that before crits, the DPR without power attack is 75.4
With power attack it is 90.2
So obviously a good trade... crits will also fall in favor of power attacking, especially since critical focus can pump up the confirm roll, and a fighter is pretty much always going to hit with the threat roll anyway.
And this all makes sense... the fighter goes from an average damage per hit of 29 to an average hit of 41 when power attacking. That means that his attacks are dealing 41% more damage. But he is only taking a -4 to attack rolls... Going from a +31 to a +27 is a difference of about 13%.
You can't just look at the flat 5% per -1 concept here, because everything is multiplicative... so you need to think about the ratios.
Effectively DPR = Accuracy X Damage.
Attack bonus = A
Damage = D
Power attack accuracy reduction = X
Power attack damage increase = Y
Ratio of Damage Change = (D+Y)/D
Ratio of accuracy Change = (A-X)/A
To get the DPR change, just multiply these two results.
If these ratios multiplied are greater than 1, then power attacking is a good idea... but as you can see, the higher D is before adding Y, and the lower A is before subtracting X, the worse power attack will be.
In the fighter's case, we see an actual DPR change of +23%
So plug in some other numbers... lets say that you have a +10 to hit, and deal an average of 40 damage per hit. You can power attack for -3/+6.
Damage Change = (40+6)/40 = 1.15
Accuracy Change = (10-3)/10 = 0.7
Multiplied we get 0.805, so in this case, power attacking will reduce the character's damage output by about 20%.
There is also SR to deal with at higher levels. Unless you are pushing your DC's relying on saves is a bad idea.
Well he is talking about spell perfection... so I sort of assume that he will be getting the +8 to break SR from spell pen/greater spell pen... and the +4 DC from focus feats.
And the free metamagic application can be the delightfully diabolical "persistent spell". I loved that feat as a witch... quickened ill-omen (level 6 spell, no save) into a persistent SoS spell...
So, they have to roll 2d20, pick the lowest to make their save. If successful, they have to roll 2d20, pick the lowest, again to make their save... so basically roll 4 saves, and if you fail any of them, you fail the save.
Even if the monster has a 75% chance to make the save normally, with this combo, that chance goes down to about 30%.
I have been in a few games where the GM is far to pliable... and allows any player that asks incessantly to bypass prerequisites or take things that are not normally allowed.
As a player with a fair degree of system mastery and one who never tries to step around rules, I find this a bit obnoxious. You do not need to 'cheat' the system to make a strong character.. and balance is there for a reason. I do not like feeling marginalized because I was not the squeakiest wheel.
OTOH I do much appreciate when a GM is willing to allow for improvisation in actions during the course of play, even if I dislike rewriting the balancing factors that are built in to keep certain classes and powers in check.
Well... I think that the constant search for RAW answers actually does damage some things. Gygax was probably correct in asserting that the game has become a bit too 'rules heavy'.
For example, just this week I read a thread asking if a character climbing a wall on a rope could toss a grappling hook to pull an enemy off of the wall that was shooting down at him. That is a great idea, full of flavor and cinematic action... but the RAW says that you need to score a crit to grapple a target with a grappling hook (it is detailed as a weapon in the ISWG) so the RAW puts a real damper on that idea.
Oftentimes, the attempt to fill in the blanks with RAW instead of imagination makes for a less dramatic game. The "open space" becomes a great area for a good GM to make the game better.... and the more you fill those things in, the less room there is for cool-factor to overcome specific rules.
I am not opposed to granularity... but some things really should be written as methods for adjudication without spelling out specific applications. Things like Power Attack seem like they could very reasonably just fit into a set of basic combat options. Most combat maneuvers work similarly, but then the specific applications tend to make those maneuvers that are given rule-space the only ones that are usable.
This, of course, extends to Improved Maneuver feats, where it becomes rather rare that a character without a maneuver feat will truly attempt one. Prerequisites also have that odd effect... you need a 13 intelligence to learn how to really trip someone appropriately... it steps on the ideas of how that sort of combat tactic might crop up.
I guess what I am saying is that there is a tipping point, where RAW has become so robust and inclusive of so many contingencies... that anything outside of that seems like it is somehow "breaking the rules". Anzyr's ideas about planar binding are a great example. By RAW he is probably correct... but that sort of rigid rules-lawyering really damages the game. RAW ends up getting used as a weapon to say "no" to all sorts of things... but the whole point of the game is to craft a story. As soon as a player can start pointing to RAW to say that logic is somehow overridden (EG: planar creatures cannot intervene as I murder their compatriots because I have this single sentence in a spell description) you have a problem. And the GM can then be seen as the bad guy for doing things that really just make sense.
RAI is what really matters... the story is what really matters. Quibbling about the absolute RAW is pointless... because the RAW is just a set of guidelines. If you forget that... if you miss out on the goal of the rules and get stuck following everything to the letter... you are missing out on what makes TTRPGs great.
Man, I love those schools... enchantment in particular. Probably why I love the Witch spell list....
Frankly, my least favorite school is Evocation... fireballs and lightning bolts are flashy and all, but you can just flat-out dominate a fight with good control spells.
I suggest looking up Brewer's guide to the Blockbuster Wizard. It'll give you a new perspective on blowing the crap out of stuff.
I really seriously doubt it.
I know my blasters... I know how to pimp out the damage to its theorectical limit....
That said... If I had to give up a school of magic... it would be evocation. Damage is nice.. its helpful... it can win fights... but the thing is that EVERY other class can deal damage. Frankly I just don't worry about it. Let the barbarian deal damage. He is good at it, and moreover he isn't good at much else. As a full caster, I would much prefer to focus on taking care of everything else.
This sort of thing can be seen all over the place, and the issue is that this saving throw is really really hard for the fighter, but laughable for the cleric... and a lot of the saves are built so that they can challenge the cleric....
If you want to challenge the cleric you are going to need a DC high enough to ensure that the fighter is going to need to roll a natural 20 to pass his save.
I see your point. My question was intended to be more philosophical. From a "game" perspective, is it desirable to have the higher levels become harder for the players? Is that what was originally intended? Or is it more desirable that the game's difficulty remain constant as players level?
I could imagine that this kind of difficulty scaling might have been intended by the Gygax era designers. Many older "modules" (such as the infamous "Tomb of Horrors") were designed specifically to test a player's mettle as they avoided being killed. My sense is that having a high level character was meant to be an achievement back then. So I would speculate that difficulty scaling may be a vestige of that era. But assuming that is true, my question is: is this "legacy feature" desirable?
Well, I guess that the issue is that it isn't actually difficult... its actually easier in many ways. Magic starts to sidestep a lot of things that could previously have posed a challenge.
If you go through all the proper set-up, which is pretty easy with the right magic... then you know how to go about each fight before it happens... or your enemies know how to counter you. Some of it is, at least, fairly interesting in this phase of things, but its one of the areas where martials feel pretty well left out. SO it can be interesting for the Wizard.. but the fighter is left twiddling his thumbs and then being pointed at a monster like an attack dog.
Monsters have pretty specific strengths and weaknesses, and magic has the right kind of specificity to exploit that. Magic also become the entirety of the non-combat set up, exploration, information gathering, etc. Which leaves martials pretty far out in the cold. Then when combat does happen, the right defensive spells are 100% necessary... really those are the big difference makers. Offensive magic is wonderful, but the major input from the casters needs to be shutting down the absolute lethality of high level enemies. Martials, then, just sort of mop up the rest... martials actually end up doing most of the damage, but everyone there knows that the battle is won or lost by the casters.
Still, your enemies have access to all of the same set-up time and resources as your heroes... so it can often be a game of who has the most diabolical plan. Which may seem like a good thing... but it isn't. The opportunities for fun cinematic action, and entertaining ad-libbing just disappear. When things go right, the party obliterates everything. When things go badly.. its not a clown-car of comical errors and over use of resources anymore... its just death.
A great way to put this is that low level combats depend on a ton of dice rolls... which means that a lot of the fun of randomness enters the game. Everyone can make or fail saves, hit or miss attacks, look good or look terrible in each combat.
At high level, combats can hinge on a single roll of the die, and sometimes the odds are so stacked that even that roll becomes a foregone conclusion.
The party no longer really needs to interact with anyone either... no more need to "ask around town" for information. No need to buy items... just make them yourself. Make a timeless demi-plane and the ticking clocks are no longer an issue. Long journeys are side-stepped by a single travel spell... as are long dungeons.
LOTR with 20th level characters in Pathfinder would just be a simple teleportation spell... simple and done. Even dimensional locks just mean that you teleport close and then burrow or fly to the end. So the story is greatly compromised.
You CAN have fun at high level... but in my experience, you either need a GM that spends a lot of time slapping down the magical work-arounds, or a group that chooses not to use them... which sort of defeats the purpose.
Your rogue needs a 14 to save. Your cleric needs a 3.
Is that a feature or a bug? In other words, is it intended that the cleric is the example not be at risk for the will saves while other classes are at risk? is not being at risk an intended benefit of being a cleric?
Its a benefit to one and a huge liability to the other.
Say you have a level 1 cleric with an 18 wisdom... will save +6
And you have a level 1 fighter with a 12 wisdom... will save +1
DC 15 will save: 60% chance for the cleric, 30% for the fighter.
At level 20, you have a cleric with a 34 wisdom... will save +29
(wisdom bonuses, +5 levels, +5 inherent, +6 headband)
Fighter with a now 14 wisdom... will save +13
(less likely to put his resources into wisdom, but should have some small bonus)
DC 30 will save: 95% for the cleric, 15% for the fighter.
This sort of thing can be seen all over the place, and the issue is that this saving throw is really really hard for the fighter, but laughable for the cleric... and a lot of the saves are built so that they can challenge the cleric....
If you want to challenge the cleric you are going to need a DC high enough to ensure that the fighter is going to need to roll a natural 20 to pass his save.
Firstly, Damage scales far faster than HP and survivability. Effectively, its a bit of an arms race, and when you get to a certain point, enemies and players can easily be killed in a single round. That generally means that he who goes first wins the fight. This is where the term Rocket-Tag comes into play.
The same scaling issue occurs with accuracy versus AC, accuracy outscales AC at the high end.
Saving throws also get very tough. If you are a caster that does not put a serious focus on breaking SR and building up DCs, you will see most of your spells fail. Monster DCs scale very well, and the second part of this is that any weak save becomes a huge liability. DCs scale much faster than weak saves. At 20 you are likely to see save DCs of 30+ and your weak save caps out at +11 base with a +5 cloak.
Magic, then, becomes the most important side-stepper. With access to powerful divination and travel spells, casters can side-step a ton of previously difficult content. Having the right protective spells can completely shut down certain tactics, but the greater impact is that surviving one round means that you will likely win the Rocket-Tag game.
So its often about what you can do with a single action... and eventually that just goes nuclear. For all the bluster about caster dominance, they are just as dead if a barbarian can pounce on them... easily in one full-attack. Divination, then, needs to be used to increase effective range on both sides... travel spells to get in or get out. Massive damage in every fight either obliterates one side very quickly.
The other way to explain it is that the strong areas of a character grow very quickly and the weak areas grow very slowly. At low level, the D20 is a huge part of your check results, and the difference between the things you have focused on and the things you haven't is rather slight. As you gain levels, that gap increases, and the D20 is a less and less relevant factor in determining success. The bounds shift and you start seeing the the things you focus on have very high odds of success, and the things that are your weaknesses become more pronounced.
This creates a sort of rock-paper-scissors scenario. If you hit my rogue with a debilitating will save... he is in real trouble. If you hit him with a reflex save, he laughs at you. The middle ground, in effect, largely disappears. And the consequences for success or failure are always escalating.
Simply put, what happens if you fail a fort save at level 1? What happens when you fail at level 20? Big differences.
What is a strong save at 1? +2 more than a weak save
What is it at level 20? +6 more than a weak save.
This all makes the game far more deadly and far more swingy. Monster X getting a full attack on you first at level 1 is usually not that big of a deal... at level 20 it can easily spell death.
So, ultimately, the issue is that offenses scale faster than defenses, and once the gap becomes too large, things break down into a game of predicting the enemy, the enemy predicting you or trying to prevent your prediction... zapping in and exploding everything in one round...or being exploded.... its all just a big mexican stand-off waiting to see who blinks first.
Sounds fun... I would start with water breathing actually, which is 3rd level. It is also communal (before communal spells existed) and those tend to be 1 level higher. Water Breathing is 3rd, so that would jump it down to 2nd level, and probably 1hr/level. So, I think you are right on target with a 2nd level spell.
However, water breathing is considerably more useful than being able to breathe in smoke considering that you are not avoiding any specific magical effects like cloud spells.
CASTING Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of ash)
EFFECT
Range: personal
Target: you
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
DESCRIPTION
While this spell is in effect, your eyes glow like smoldering embers. You do not suffer any ill effects for breathing in smoke. In addition, you can see through fire and smoke without penalty, ignoring any cover or concealment bonuses from fire and smoke. This does not allow you to see anything you could not otherwise see (for example, invisible creatures are still invisible).
Chaotic Neutral... as befits a lunatic's nightmare.
really, though, that is the only alignment you can have. You start as lawful neutral and then just descend into the madness of monktopus.
Either way, you do not lose any monk abilities... you just can't take more monk levels. By level 17, the Monktopus should have Pounce as well via beast totem powers, and probably planar wild shape.... so you can be a Fiendish Giant Lake Octopus, which grants DR 10/Good, Resist 15 to fire, acid and something else...... electricity? and SR 22.
If you go mythic and can start getting followers as though you were a deity... then you are really just playing Cthulu in "the early years".
The Monktopus!!! Alternately, Monkthulu as suggested by BadBird
Half elf, human, half orc, whatever... just something with a str bonus. Level 12 (20 pt)
Druid 4, Monk (Master of many styles) 3, Barbarian 5
(seems weird, but follow me here. Take Monk first.)
Feats:
Monk:
1: Dragon Style, Imp. Unarmed Strike
2: Dragon Ferocity
3: Weapon Focus (Tentacle)
Druid
5: Feral Combat Training
7: Shaping Focus
Barbarian:
9: Monastic Legacy
11: Power Attack or extra rage
Gear:
+1 impact amulet of mighty fists
+2 ring of protection
+1 Brawling leather armor
+2 belt of physical perfection
+3 cloak of resistance
+4 headband of wisdom
+3 bracers of armor
Monk's Robes
everything else is butter.
Features:
Fast Movement +20 (barb and monk stack)
Rage
Rage Powers: Superstition +3, Reckless Abandon +2 to hit, -2 AC
Uncanny Dodge
Trap Sense +1
Improved Uncanny Dodge
AC Bonus +3/+4 wisdom
Unarmed Strike
Stunning Fist
Evasion
Maneuver Training
Still Mind
Spontaneous Casting
Nature Bond
Nature Sense
Wild Empathy
Woodland Stride
Trackless Step
Resist Nature's Lure
Wild Shape, as level 8 druid, 3/day
So here is the schtick... your form of choice is a Giant Lake Octopus... it still has a 20ft. land speed, so you can move around just fine.
With monastic legacy you count as a level 7 monk for unarmed strike damage, and with monks robes, you count as +5 more for total of level 12. So your unarmed strike damage is 2d6. When you shape, you are huge, so it becomes 4d6. With your impact amulet, it becomes 6d6.
You are also getting +3 ac from monk levels and +4 from wisdom, so that is bonus. The extra weirdness here is that brawling armor property still functions while you are shaped, but you are technically not wearing armor because it merges, so you get the best of both worlds.
So, the idea is this... the Octopus gets 8 tentacle attacks, but their damage is generally pretty low...since you are able to sub in monk damage, you can make it fairly high, and these are all at full bab.
OFFENSES:
So wild shape bonuses: +6 str, -4 dex, +6 nat armor
Rage bonuses: +4 str, +4 con, -2 AC
Attack bonus is then: +21 (+9 BAB, +11 str, +1 amulet, +1 focus, +2 armor, +2 reckless abandon, -3 power attack, -2 size)
Damage for each tentacle is: 6d6+20 (+11 str, +2 armor, +1 amulet, +6 power attack)
Your bite is still only +19 since it doesn't benefit from FCT, and hits for 3d6+16
Your full attack looks like this:
Tentacles: +21/+21/+21/+21/+21/+21/+21/+21, 6d6+19
Bite: +19, 3d6+15
If everything hits, you can slap a target for a total of 51d6+176, That is 354.5 average damage if they all hit, with a maximum of 482. you can rage for 15 rounds, which should get you through a lot. Take extra rage at 13th and you will be up to 23 per day which should be more than enough.
Tentacles have 20 ft reach... so just sit back and Kung-fu octopus your way to victory
Also, don't forget that Brawling Armor can work when you have FCT, its a nice bonus. Belt of thunderous charging can also be a decent choice and also fits that flavor pretty darn well.
If you dip into Monk, you can do some hilarious things with monastic legacy, flurry of blows, Monks Robes and shaping focus. If wildshape fighting is your jam, you can do very well with just a few druid levels (though elemental shaping takes quite a few more).
Take a three level dip into Master of Many Styles monk, and you can grab dragon style and dragon ferocity plus IUS which you need for FCT.
There has finally been a FAQ addressing FCT and a monk's improved unarmed strike damage progression... so lets say you get up to level 13... you can grab monastic legacy so that you count as a level 8 monk, and with monks robes you are up to level 12.
So, I present to you....
The Monktopus!!!
Half elf, half orc, whatever... just something with a str bonus. Level 12 (20 pt)
Druid 4, Monk (Master of many styles) 3, Barbarian 5
(seems weird, but follow me here. Take Monk first.)
Gear:
+1 impact amulet of mighty fists
+2 ring of protection
+1 Brawling leather armor
+2 belt of physical perfection
+3 cloak of resistance
+4 headband of wisdom
+3 bracers of armor
Monk's Robes
everything else is butter.
Features:
Fast Movement +20 (barb and monk stack)
Rage
Rage Powers: Superstition +3, Reckless Abandon +2 to hit, -2 AC
Uncanny Dodge
Trap Sense +1
Improved Uncanny Dodge
AC Bonus +3/+4 wisdom
Unarmed Strike
Stunning Fist
Evasion
Maneuver Training
Still Mind
Spontaneous Casting
Nature Bond
Nature Sense
Wild Empathy
Woodland Stride
Trackless Step
Resist Nature's Lure
Wild Shape, as level 8 druid, 3/day
So here is the schtick... your form of choice is a Giant Octopus... it still has a 20ft. land speed, so you can move around just fine.
With monastic legacy you count as a level 7 monk for unarmed strike damage, and with monks robes, you count as +5 more for total of level 12. So your unarmed strike damage is 2d6. When you shape, you are large, so it becomes 3d6. With your impact amulet, it becomes 4d6.
You are also getting +3 ac from monk levels and +4 from wisdom, so that is bonus. The extra weirdness here is that brawling armor property still functions while you are shaped, but you are technically not wearing armor because it merges, so you get the best of both worlds.
So, the idea is this... the Octopus gets 8 tentacle attacks, but their damage is generally pretty low...since you are able to sub in monk damage, you can make it fairly high, and these are all at full bab.
OFFENSES
So wild shape bonuses: +4 str, -2 dex, +4 nat armor
Rage bonuses: +4 str, +4 con, -2 AC
Attack bonus is then: +21 (+9 BAB, +10 str, +1 amulet, +1 focus, +2 armor, +2 reckless abandon, -3 power attack, -1 size)
Damage for each tentacle is: 4d6+19 (+10 str, +2 armor, +1 amulet, +6 power attack)
Your bite is still only +19 since it doesn't benefit from FCT, and hits for 2d6+15
Your full attack looks like this:
Tentacles: +20/+20/+20/+20/+20/+20/+20/+20, 4d6+19
Bite: +18, 2d6+15
If everything hits, you can slap a target for a total of 34d6+167, or 286 damage on average. You can shape for 24 hours a day total, you can rage for 15 rounds, which should get you through a lot. Take extra rage at 13th and you will be up to 23 per day which should be more than enough.
And you are doing all of this at 20ft reach with your tentacles...
well, assuming that the wall is a continuous piece of stone... he can form a single hairline crack that runs 50 ft down the wall and barely uses any of his alloted cubic feet, then have stone rods spring out like a cage door to block the opponent off.
I think this is a pretty cool use of the spell TBH. When I first read your post I thought that he was attempting to impale a hallway full of enemies on a giant stone spear... and that just doesn't fly.
I will always rule for cool when possible, and this does not seem outside the purview of the spell. It wouldn't actually be that hard for a target to climb over or break through the stone he shaped, but at least he would get the desired effect.
As far as the bandit archetype goes, was there a faq on that? I've heard arguments from both sides, with people contending the RAI, and RAW. Some GM might allow full attacks, others, not so much.
Generally adding actions together does not make a full-attack, but the ability states that the bandit no longer has the limitation of just a move or standard action in the surprise round. But for that to be justification you have to assume that the surprise round is like a normal round with a restriction on actions. But the additional flat-footed mechanics would suggest otherwise.
To conclude, someone should have been arsed to add a line clarifying whether or not you can full-attack. I would lean on the side of yes you can full attack.
Now you still give up scout, which means the rogue is back to having no viable ranges options in exchange for situational surprise round damage.
Just want to point out that you can, in fact, use Shatter Defenses with ranged weapons.
If you grab Performing Combatant and Hero's Display, and play a small character, you can get a swift action Dazzling Display any time you crit or max out your damage die (only a d4 on a small shortbow). You need to be in 30ft for sneak attack anyway, so this is not a big deal.
To add to that, you can use sap master feats with a bow by using blunt arrows. So there is at least that option.
That's all fine and well. But if that really is the only way to play a rogue then you might as well not play a rogue. The class itself is a handicap. You might as well play a ranger or a bard or a magus with traits. Freebooter trapper ranger even fills the "I don't like spells" niche.
Well... that is one way to think about it, but why?
I mean, what defines a rogue? The only thing this build does that may seem off-theme is wear heavy armor. A high strength brigand/skulking slayer etc. should be okay.
So its the full plate? Well I can see how that may not fit, but its not exactly casting out any other class features. The build still has 8 skill points per level, still has trapfinding, still has sneak attack and makes liberal use of it. It can still disable traps and pick locks and even sneak around.
It only has a -2 ACP (corrected by Khrysaor, sorry about that) which is really not a big deal. I didn't dump any stats (the 8 charisma came from race). So what is the problem? If I had done this with no fighter dip and just grabbed two proficiencies, would that be okay?
Because the issue at hand is that there is absolutely no incentive for using light armor.
Again, you can do this as a light armored build... just go full on rogue and erase 5 points of armor class.
If it needs to be Dex based as well, then you can change over to dex based weapon finesse build that uses a Fist/Gauntlet and a Mithral Heavy steel shield.... being mithral, the shield has no ACP, so you do not need proficiency and the Weapon Finesse penalty does not apply. That covers the AC gap from armor, plus some for having a high dex. No need to dip in to fighter at all.
Dwarf still covers the saving throws up pretty well.
Then you probably shouldn't bother with vital strike, since your damage die is so low, but you are still going to get 12d6+24 out of sap master, and you will have a higher AC and Reflex save.
So here is the revised build. No fighter dip, no heavy armor, fully dex focused. Still works.... just not nearly as well at lower levels.
Feats/Talents:
Fighter:
1 - Improved Unarmed Strike
2 - Finesse Rogue
3 - Sap Adept
4 - Weapon Training: Unarmed Strike
5 - Sap Master
6 - Offensive Defense
7 - Knockout Artist
8 - Combat Trick (Sap Master)
9 - Power Attack
10 - Slippery Mind
11 - Steel Soul
12 - fill something in, whatever you like
Gear:
+2 Agile Brass Knuckle
+2 belt of physical perfection
Headband of Ninjitsu
+2 Brawling Mithral Chain Shirt
+3 Mithral Heavy Steel Shield
Featherstep Slippers
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier
+3 cloak of resistance
+2 ring of protection
+2 amulet of natural armor
Deliquescent Gloves
Cracked Pale Green Prism
Other fun stuff... chimes of opening, MW thieves tools, Rope of Knots, potions of fly, etc. etc.
STILL just move and vital strike... sap master kicks in due to skirmisher from the scout archetype, only now we can add some more damage from knockout artist.
Simple build, works at all levels, good saves, decent AC, good damage.... not sure what else needs to be said.
Rogue in Full-plate. Yep only way to play a rogue is to be a fighter that trades BAB for sneak attack damage.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
This is just how the system was built. You can work around it, or you can steer right into it. Mithral full plate has an ACP of -3. Masterwork makes it -2. And Armor Expert puts it down to -1. So its not like its weighing you down much.
It often feels like Dex should be the best option for a rogue... but that really isn't the case. The system is what the system is. Armor is much easier than Dex for AC. Strength is much easier for hit and damage. And hey, that build still has tons of skills, trapfinding etc.... all it really loses is uncanny dodge.
You could do it other ways. You could do it with light armor. You could do it with weapon finesse. But every step in that direction weakens the build.
But it is wrong to see that as a problem with the Rogue. It isn't. It is a systemic problem in Pathfinder. I would also like for the mechanics to fit the supposed theme, but they don't.... and in any case, this build still fills the Rogue's role just as well as any other. Limited proficiencies do not reward a class for high dexterity... it is a common design misstep. All those limited proficiencies do is weaken the class as a martial combatant. Luckily a one-level dip solves that issue quite nicely.
Anyway, this thread is about making the rogue work. And the build I presented does just that. If you want to land some other requirements on that, then things might change, but it is a fine line. If you mandate light armor and a dexterity focus then you are hamstringing the class just like most people who discount the rogue as "bad".
Since it has been a very long time since I posted it, I think it is time to reintroduce the very potent Dwarven Knockout Hammer build.
It takes advantage of the three greatest things available to rogues:
1. Sap Master fo rthat oh-so-sexy damage boost
2. Scout archtype for the easiest setup you can get
3. Dwarf for the Longhammer, the increased armored mobility, and most importantly the saving throws.
Feats/Talents:
Fighter:
1 - Bludgeoner, Power Attack
Rogue:
3 - Furious Focus, Weapon Training: Weapon Focus (Dwarven Longhammer)
5 - Sap Adept, Offensive Defense
7 - Iron Will, Combat Trick (Sap Master)
9 - Vital Strike, Fast Getaway
11 - Steel Soul, Slippery Mind
Gear:
+2 Impact Dwarven Longhammer
+2 belt of physical perfection
Headband of Ninjitsu
+3 Mithral Full-Plate
Featherstep Slippers
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier
+3 cloak of resistance
+2 ring of protection
+2 amulet of natural armor
Deliquescent Gloves
Cracked Pale Green Prism
Other fun stuff... chimes of opening, MW thieves tools, Rope of Knots, potions of fly, etc. etc.
So, the big knockout blow, non-lethal sneak attack after moving:
+21 to hit, for 18d6+44+1d6 acid, average: 110.5 damage
(Max Damage: 158, Max of 196 on a crit)
If that isn't an option (non-living target) then that same attack is:
+21 to hit, for 12d6+20+1d6 acid, average 65.5 damage.
Simple build, works at all levels, good saves, decent AC, good damage.... not sure what else needs to be said.
Again I want to jump in and say that Full-BAB + sneak attack raises some weird issues.
Not that either of these two are bad things to have on any level... I am not saying that.
But having a full BAB with reduced sneak attack dice doubly reduces the efficacy of sneak attack.
What I mean is this. Take a level 11 slayer that has grabbed TWF, Imp TWF and Two Weapon Rend as combat style feats. They have double slice, 18 str, power attack favored target etc. Now put them in a position that says that they can choose one of two options:
1. They can take a 5ft step/stay still and make a full attack.
2. They can move into a flanking position and make one attack.
Pretty obvious choice right? You could get 3d6 sneak attack on one attack, or make an extra four attacks with a shot at two-weapon rend. Clear choice here that the full-attack is better than moving in to flank.
Now that may seem like an edge case but it REALLY isn't. That situation will come up in nearly every combat as a possibility (assuming you have at least one other melee class around). What is interesting, to me, is that given that same choice, the rogue is almost always better off choosing option #2. At 11th level, even with TWF feats, they are missing out on 3 attacks... but with all the access to sneak attack riders (like offensive defense) and the fact that they are dealing 6d6 sneak attack damage makes this a real option.
Often it is actually the better option. Their first attack has theh best chance of hitting (especially without the -2 for TWF, and with the +2 from flanking +2 more with a headband of ninjitsu) and the question becomes... is a higher hit chance single attack that deals 21 extra damage on average going to make up for the damage lost by their last three iteratives.... and the answer is usually: yeah.
So, sneak attack is simply less valuable for a class with a full-bab and good static damage increases. Particularly when that sneak attack progression is cut in half.
Since sneak attack isn't really tied in to any of the slayer's other abilities, it ends up feeling a bit out of place.... like a Rogue-Shaped bumper sticker being slapped on to a ranger archtype. It isn't a bad thing to have... it is a nice ability, and can be very useful in some situations... but it doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the design.
For a rogue, it works because that is their thing. That is, actually, their only thing. Rogues live or die with sneak attack and their builds are made with a laser focus on supporting it. Without sneak attack, or when they can't set it up, rogues are pretty much useless. Slayer's are quite the opposite. Sneak attack for a slayer is an odd little conditional bonus. For the most part, a Slayer is played just like a ranger without spells or a companion. Sneak attack is not the main focus of the class, and if you try to make it one, you will be disappointed.
The example of full-attack versus moving to flank is a good example of that. The rogue knows that without sneak attack, his full-attacks aren't worth much. The slayer knows that without a full-attack his effectiveness is massively reduced.
I am not sure what the exact solution here is... but something like a limited use per day Bane seems like it would be more thematically appropriate and functionally better. The damage added would be less, but the conditions would disappear.... and then we could actually have a ranged slayer that didn't feel like they were giving up on a supposedly major class feature.
Yeah, fighter combat style with a bonus to will save would be a nice patch.
Well it seems like there was a big power shift when barbarians got Totem powers. These are really fun, and flavorful, and powerful. I like them a lot. But fighters have been left out in the cold for quite a long time. Their archtypes are generally not very good, and I can see why... the fighter doesn't have a lot to give up except for Bravery. Weapon and Armor training are way too good to let go.
So, what a fighter does have are feats... and that would be the place to put Weapon Styles... there are already a few supported themes like Shield Bashing... and other weapon styles wouldn't need to deviate too far from that line of thought.
The three step style format of martial artist style feats works really well. The built in prerequisites means that the top level feat can be pretty powerful without being overpowering. (For all the bluster about Crane style, it takes Dex 13, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike and Three Crane feats to get it all going, which is a serious investment for anyone who doesn't play or dip Monk)
Unfortunately, a lot of the cool sounding feats like Net and Trident, Whip Mastery, Quarterstaff Master, Sword and Pistol etc. end up being needlessly weak. Setting up styles that actually work would be a welcome change.
Class Skill - Unaltered
Skill Points 4 + Int
Proficiencies - Unaltered
Base Attack Bonus - FULL
Saves:
Fort: Strong
Reflex: Weak
Will: Strong
NO SPELLS
CLASS FEATURE LIST
1 - Skald's Knowledge, Skald Rage (+2 str/+2 con), Bibliophile
2 - Spell Kenning 1/day
3 - Skald Rage Power
4 - Savvy Scribe
5 - Spell Kenning 2/day
6 - Skald Rage Power
7 - Lore Master 1/day
8 - Skald Rage (+4 str/+4 con), Spell Kenning 3/day
9 - DR 1/-, Skald Rage Power
10 - Keeper of Tales
11 - Spell Kenning 4/day
12 - Skald Rage Power
13 - Lore Master 1/day
14 - DR 2/-, Spell Kenning 5/day
15 - Skald Rage Power, Keeper of Tales 3/day
16 - Skald Rage (+6 str/+6 con)
17 - Spell Kenning 6/day
18 - Skald Rage Power
19 - DR 3/-, Lore Master 3/day
20 - Living Legend, Spell Kenning 7/day
Skald's Knowledge (Ex): A skald adds half his class level (minimum 1) on all Knowledge skill checks, and may make all Knowledge skill checks untrained.
Bibliophile (Ex): A skald can read magical writing as if using the Read Magic cantrip. In addition, the Skald adds half his class level on all Linguistics checks made to decipher writing.
Skald's Rage (Ex): A Skald in battle can enter a trance of bloodmisted valorous fury. Skalds are often seen at the center of a battlefield singing their warchants as they slay their foes. Starting at 1st level, a Skald can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, he can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a Skald can rage per day. A Skald can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.
While in rage, a Skald gains a +2 morale bonus to his Strength and Constitution, as well as a +1 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, he takes a –1 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the Skald 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a Skald cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, Performance and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration including Spell Kenning.
A Skald can end his rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A Skald cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a Skald falls unconscious, his rage immediately ends, placing him in peril of death.
At 8th and 16th levels, the Skald's rage bonuses to Strength and Constitution increase by +2, and the Skald's bonus to Will saves increases by +1. The penalty to Armor Class does not change.
Spell Kenning (Sp):
At 2nd level, the Skald can use his mastery of language to use written magic as if he were a spellcaster. Once per day, the Skald can cast any 1st level spell from a scroll or a spellbook that he can read. To cast a spell using spell kenning, the Skald must have a charisma score of at least 10+the level of the spell being cast. Casting a spell using spell kenning does not consume a scroll. Any spell cast in this way uses the Skald's class level as his caster level and the DC of any spell cast using spell kenning is equal to 10 + the level of the spell + the Skald's charisma modifier.
At 4th level and every three levels thereafter, the level of spell that a Skald can cast using Spell Kenning increases by 1, to a maximum of 6th level spells at 16th level.
At 5th level and every three levels thereafter, a Skald can use Spell Kenning on additional time per day up to a maximum of 7 times per day at level 20.
Skald Rage Powers
At 3rd level and every three levels thereafter, the Skald gains a Skald Rage Power chosen from the Skald Rage power list. A Skald gains the benefits of rage powers only while raging, and some of these powers require the Skald to take an action first. Unless otherwise noted, a Skald cannot select an individual power more than once.
War Chants represent the Skald's singing and the various emboldening war cries that the Skald makes use of during a rage. When the Skald begins a rage he can select one War Chant that he has chosen as a Skald Rage Power to aid his allies. Unless otherwise noted, War Chants grant their benefits to allies within 30ft who can hear the skald, but these benefits do not extend to the Skald himself. A War Chant remains in effect until the Skald ends his rage.
Skald Rage Power list:
WAR CHANTS:
War Chant of Courage, Lesser
Benefit: Allies within 30ft of the Skald gain a +1 morale bonus to weapon attack and weapon damage rolls. This bonus increases by 1 for each Courage War Chant power the Skald has, not including this one.
War Chant of Courage
Requirements: War Chant of Courage, lesser
Benefit: Allies within 30ft. of the Skald gain a +1 morale bonus on Will saves. This bonus increases by 1 for each War Chant of Couraage power the Skald has selceted, including this one.
War Chant of Courage, Greater
Requirements: level 12, War Chant of Courage
Benefit: Allies within 30ft. of the Skald gain immunity to fear effects.
War Chant of Glory, Lesser
Any time the Skald confirms a critical hit against an enemy, allies within 30ft gain temporary hitpoints equal to the Skald's level. These temporary hit points last until they are lost or until the Skald ends his rage. Temporary hit points gained in this way stack.
War Chant of Glory
Allies within 30ft. of the Skald gain a +4 competence bonus on attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.
War Chant of Glory, Greater
Allies within 30ft of the skald increase the critical threat range of any attacks they make by 1. This effect stacks with other effects like Improved Critical or the Keen weapon property.
War Chant of Defiance, lesser
Allies within 30ft. of the Skald gain DR 1/-. This DR is increased by 1 for each additional War chant of Defiance that the Skald possesses.
War Chant of Defiance
When the Skald enters a rage, he must choose one energy type from the following: Fire, Cold, or Electricity. Allies within 30ft of the Skald gain energy resistance to that energy type equal to the Skald's level.
War Chant of Defiance, Greater
Allies within 30ft of the Skald gain a +2 morale bonus on all saving throws. In addition, once per Rage, each ally affected by War Chant of defiance can reroll any one saving throw. They must accept the second result.
War Chant of the Immortals, lesser
Allies within 30ft of the Skald gain a +2 morale bonus to saving throws made to resist negative energy effects. This bonus increases by 1 for each additional War Chant of the Immortals power the Skald possesses.
War Chant of the Immortals
Allies within 30ft of the Skald gain Fast Healing equal to the number of War Chant of the Immortals powers that the Skald possesses, including this one.
War Chant of the Immortals, Greater
Allies within 30ft. of the Skald gain immunity to Death effects and Level Drain.
POWERS:
In addition to the Skald Rage Powers, a Skald may select the following Barbarian Rage powers, using his Skald level as his Barbarian level: Auspicious Mark, Bleeding Blow, Boasting Taunt, Body Bludgeon, Brawler, Brawler(Greater), Clear Mind, Come and Get Me, Crippling Blow, Deadly Accuracy, Energy Resistance, Energy Resistance (Greater), Fearless Rage, Flesh Wound, Fueled by Vengeance, Good for What Ails Ya, Guarded Life, Guarded Life (Greater), Guarded Stance, Increased Damage Reduction, Internal Fortitude, Intimidating Glare, Knockback, Knockdown, Lethal Accuracy, Liquid Courage, Mighty Swing, No Escape, Powerful Blow, Quick Reflexes, Reckless Abandon, Savage Intuition, Sharpened Accuracy, Surprise Accuracy, Strength Surge, Swift Foot, Unexpected Strike
Through the Breech
Once per Rage, when the Skald charges an enemy, each Ally within 30ft may also charge that same enemy as an immediate action. The Skald must declare that he is using this ability before making a charge.
Shared Glory
When the Skald confirms a critical hit against an enemy. Allies adjacent to that enemy may make an attack of opportunity against it.
Blood of Heroes
Requirements: Level 9
Once per day, when the Skald rages, he may gain the effects the Heroism spell in addition to the normal benefits of rage. The effects last for as long as the Skald is raging. At 12th level, the Skald can use blood of heroes one additional time per day.
Greater Blood of Heroes
Requirements: Blood of Heroes, Level 15
When using Blood of Heroes, the Skald gains the effects of greater heroism instead of heroism. The Skald may use Blood of Heroes one additional time per day.
Unravel Words
When raging, if an enemy caster attempts to cast a spell that has verbal components within 5ft of the Skald that spell is subject to a 20% arcane spell failure chance as if the target were deaf. At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, the range of this power increases by 5 ft.
Inspired Might
When the Skald begins his rage, he may choose one ally within 30ft. That ally gains a +2 morale bonus to both Strength and Constitution. This effect lasts as long as the Skald is raging or until the target moves further than 30ft from the Skald. At 10th level, these bonuses increase by 2.
Legends do not Fall
Requirements: level 11
Benefit: Once per day when raging, when an ally is reduced to 0 hitpoints or fewer, the Skald can attempt to prevent their death. The targeted ally gains the effects of a breath of life spell. The skald can use this power on himself in response to being knocked uncoscious.
[b]Savvy Scribe (Su)
At 4th level, the Skald can copy spells from a spellbook, scroll or other written sources to be used with Spell Kenning. This ability functions like the Scribe Scroll feat, but the Skald can only copy spells that he could cast with Spell Kenning, and he automatically passes any skill checks made as part of the creation process. The skald must still pay the necessary resource costs as if he were making a scroll. Once completed, a scroll made with Savvy Scribe cannot be used as a spell completetion item like a normal scroll, but it can be used to activate the Skald's Spell Kenning ability.
Keeper of Tales (Sp)
At 10th level the Skald has begun his Magnum Opus, his great epic tale. Contained with a Skald's book of tales are many stories and odes as well as various notes and useful passages. The Skald's Book of Tales can be used to store spells just like a Wizard's spell book. When using the Savvy Scribe feat, the Skald can transcribe spells into his Book of Tales instead of onto scrolls.
In addition, once per day, the Skald can read a passage from his work to his allies. This is a type of performance that takes 1 hour as the Skald tells an epic tale or a great mythic legend. After listening to the Skald's tale, allies within 30ft. are effected as if the Skald had cast Heroes' Feast with a caster level equal to his Skald level, except that reading from the Book of Tales does not provide sustenance.
Inigo: You are using Bonetti's defense against me, uh?
Man In Black: I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain.
Inigo: Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro.
Man In Black: Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro, don't you?
Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa,which I have!
+1 gold for this comment.
Yeah... I think there is a big hole missing where weapon group fighting style feats should be. This sort of thing should 100% be added as a new set of "Fighter-Only" feats.
Fighter could use a boost, and it would spill on to the swashbuckler. There are a ton of possibilities and they could work just like Monk styles, with a limitation on using just one at a time. Sadly, I think that a lot of the better ideas that would have been fighting styles got taken up by fighter archetypes...
I think an elegant solution to mobility would be a nice level 7-9 deed.
Footwork: At level 9, as long as the Swashbuckler has at least 1 panache point, they may move up to half their speed before or after making a full-attack. If the swashbuckler spends 1 panache point, they may move up to their full speed. A Swashbuckler cannot make a 5ft step in a round during which they use Footwork, but this movement may be made using the Acrobatics skill to jump, move through enemies or avoid attacks of opportunity.
The numbers of performance should be fine (3+cha + 1/level). It's more than manageable. So guess we are going to see many CaGM Raging songs from level 12 and up with the Skald, this could be pretty beasty on a melee party but then again, haven't really seen many full on melee party.
Aaaaand that is still the big problem with the Skald.
Inspire Courage = Good for everyone in some way
Rage Song = Good for fighters.
Rangers lose spell access and the ability to use Handle Animal (if they have a companion)
Pretty much all 6 level and 9 level casters are going to say no thanks so they can cast spells.
Any feint based rogues are out.
Ranged builds are getting a small benefit as long as they don't cast spells... none of the really attractive rage powers work with ranged attacks.
So really, it just helps fighters.
Letting the Barbarian take his own rage bonuses but not rage powers is a trap. Rage powers are what rage is all about... the only change from the last iteration of the skald is to basically let the barbarian get a +2 higher str/con (and a deeper AC penalty)
So... yeah... great class for a group with two or more fighters in it.
Which also brings up that the Skald, as written, is an archetype. This really isn't a new class that brings anything good to the table. It is ill-defined in its role, and it fails to play well with others.
Some version of controlled rage instead of regular rage would have been a better option, but really.... inspire courage is a great performance. Play a regular bard and you will get discordant voice and be granting a better accuracy/damage boost to your allies without locking out their abilities with this "buff".
Rage powers are reeeaaally good, but the number of other classes.... scratch that, the number of other players AT THE SAME TABLE, who will be benefiting is always going to be extremely limited. I do not like that this class is only effective with certain weird edge case group compositions... and unlike the core bard can't just be plugged in as the best 5th man in the classic Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue party. Seriously, go play through a test with those four Iconics and your Skald.... its sad.
I think with a dex to damage option if they opened up Charmed life out of the swift action choke point and added some chandelier swinging it would be set.
Yep, and the list of precedent abilities is pretty vast.
Move and Full Attack by sacrificing your highest BAB attack (see mobile fighter)
Turn once up to 90 degrees along the path of a charge
Full speed acrobatics with no penalty
Moving through an enemy on the charge (I would use the charge through wording but replace overrun with an acrobatics attempt)
Ignoring Difficult terrain
Moving up to your speed as a swift action (see battle oracle surprise charge or quick runner's shirt)
Bonus to jump checks made as part of a charge and altered charge bonuses for doing so(swing from that chandelier!)
Maintaining Dex to AC when climbing
Standing up from Prone as a free/swift action
Moving around a target without provoking after a check (see murderer's circle)
All of these could fit the theme. (Standing from prone is already in there, I know but it still belongs on this list)
Lord Malkov how do you calculate DPR? I've found some simple formulas but more complex stuff is kinda confusing heh.
Its not hard. You need to find an average CR appropriate AC (I was using 28 for CR 12, which you can find is fairly accurate) first.
Then you calculate hit chances. So, for example, I'll do Taldrin the Terrifying's Main Hand.
TtT's MH: +24/+19/+14 1d8+13 (19-20/x2)
Vs AC 28: Hit chances are: 85%, 60%, 35%
1 - (AC - Hit Bonus - 1)*0.05
These can add together in their decimal form to give you an average number of hits per full attack, so the main hand will hit: 0.85 + 0.6 + 0.35 = 1.8 hits per full attack.
This number gets multiplied by the average damage per hit. 1d8 averages to 4.5 (Max roll + Min roll)/2 so 4.5+13 = 17.5 avg damage per hit.
DPR, then (before crits) is 1.8 x 17.5 = 31.5
To factor in crits we need to determine the odds of a confirmed crit or crits per full attack. Since the crit has an equal chance of coming on any attack, we use the average hit chance as out confirmation roll so (85% + 60% + 35%)/3 = 60%
Then we have to find the odds of 1 confirmed crit, 2 confirmed crits and 3 confirmed crits, and add the possible bonus damage from the crit on.
When dealing with probabilities, we need to find the thing that is reducing so we can multiply. A mistake I see a lot is people adding probabilities together (e.g, I have 6 attacks with keen kukris therefore I must have a 30% x 6 = 180% chance to get a crit... probabilities don't work this way).
SO, sawtooth sabres have a 10% chance to crit. Chance of failure is reducing so we need the chance to NOT crit, which is 90% then we use this formula: Chance to get One crit with three attacks: 1 - (0.9)^3 = 27.1%(so, 1 - (1-Crit Chance)^(# of attacks))
Next we multiply by our average chance to hit (aka to confirm the crit) of 60%. IE there is a 60% chance that this critical threat will actually be a crit. So 27.1% x 60% = 16.26% this is the overall chance to get 1 confirmed crit per full attack with the mainhand.
Then we factor in the possibility of two crits. Now we have to reduce chance of failure and then success once. Basically, we take the odds that two attacks might crit once and reduce that by another attack critting. That looks like this: (1 - (1-Crit Chance)^(#of attacks - 1))x(Crit Chance). So (1 - (.9)^(2))x(.1)= 1.9% chance that you will threaten 2 crits per three attacks.
Once again we reduce this by our average confirmation chance of 60% to get 1.14%
When this number gets small enough like this, I stop. The DPR added from your chance to get three crits is going to be so small that we can ignore it.
The added damage is pretty easy here. Each crit will add the same damage as a regular hit (17.5 avg). We only use the bonus damage because the regular hit part was already calculated above. Adding our probabilities, we have 0.1626 + 0.0114 = 0.174 bonus damage additions from crits per full attack. That number, just like avg number of hits, gets multiplied by the damage to get 0.174 x 17.5 = 3.045 DPR added
So, we have 31.5 and 3.045 for a total DPR of 34.545
To do sneak attack, flank etc. you need to go back and modify the variables for hit chances and damage per hit. Each sneak attack die adds an average of 3.5 damage to a regular hit (the first calculation) and does not effect crits (though the hit bonus from flanking or a headband of ninjitsu would).
For something odd like Two- Weapon Rend, we need to get the chance that the MH will hit at least once, and that the Offhand will hit at least oce, and then reduce (aka multiply them) to get the chance that both will occur at least once. Then we multiply by the average rend damage.
To in you case, hit chances of MH: 85% + 60% + 35% OH: 80% + 55% + 30%.
We get MH chance to hit at least once: 1 - ((1-.85)x(1-.6)x(1-.35) = 96.1%
OH chance to hit at least once: 1 - ((1-.80)x(1-.55)x(1-.30) = 93.7%
Chance that both will hit at least once: (0.961 x 0.937) = 90%
So we reduce the Average dmg of a two weapon rend (1d10 averages to 5.5, plus 1.5x +7str = 5.5+10 = 15.5) by this number. SO two weapon rend is adding, in this case: 0.9 x 15.5 = 13.95 DPR
And so on and so on, for the Offhand... but you can see the method. Its pretty easy if a bit tedious to calculate.
