Njall's page

The thing with Crane Stance is that it's the only stance that let you reach Champion AC with heavy armor and with the Crane reaction you reach Champion AC with the shield raised.

Basically a defensive stance that let you do cool jump stuff as bonus.

Uh, how so? The highest AC you can get with Crane Stance is:

+5 Dex (as both explorer's clothing and Bracers of Armor cap Dex at +5)
+3 Item
+3 Circumstance (reaction)
Legendary Proficiency

Total: 10+level+5+3+3+8=29+level

While a fully upgraded Mountain Stance, unless I'm getting something wrong, grants:

+4 Status
+2 Dex
+3 Item
+2 Circumstance (Mountain Stronghold, 1 action),
+ Prof
so: 10+level+4+2+3+2+8=29+level.

So Mountain Stance should net you the same AC as Crane Stance, with a couple notable drawbacks (namely, it won't stack with status bonuses and it will cost 1 action instead of a reaction), but it will work against every attack instead of just one.
Am I missing something?

Njall wrote:

Some stuff

Hunh??

NotMousse never mentions a thing about western-style or sword wielding or any of that...Where are you getting this? From the brief mention of "Fighter has only X pages!!@!@!@QRFA$E!!"
??

I don't see it..

Yeah, got him mixed up with HeHateMe ( and you did as well, it seems :P)

NotMousse wrote:

I'm sorry, I thought that when Paizo brought up the idea of a martial book and a magic book that one of them wouldn't be all about giving casters more toys.

You thought correctly. I think that's why your complaints seem so baffling.

Ultimate Combat *IS* a book that is not "all about giving casters more toys." I'm puzzled why you would think otherwise, unless you haven't seen it nor availed yourself of the 600+ post spoiler thread about it that gives out quite a bit of information about its contents.

NotMousse wrote:

Casters got Ultimate Broken, and non-casters are left with Ultimate Disappointment.

?

A statement such as this suggests you are trolling rather than voicing a concern based on actual evidence. What specifically is disappointing to you about Ultimate Combat, other than the fact that it includes spellcasters as characters that engage in combat?

BTW, I should also point out that "Combat" includes large sections on issues around combat that transcend any kind of caster/martial divide. Things like siege weapons and fortifications or vehicular combat or wounds and vigor or armor as DR or piecemeal armor or reworking armor and weapons lists based on campaign setting (giving examples of primitive weapons, gladiator weapons, and yes, the dreaded "eastern" weapon list as well).

I wonder: Are sections like that disappointing for a fan of martial characters, because they don't seem like something your character would use?

I wonder how that would compare to the sections in Ultimate Magic on constructs, spell creation, words of power, sample spellbooks, and other items that a given player's magical character might likewise not feel are something they would ever use.

Some of the contents of a rulebook will be direct-application adventurer material. Other stuff, though, is going to be organic-world-level material that adventurers may not use all that much, but is there to round out how to play the game in those kinds of peripheral zones....

Ahem, as much as I don't like his posting style, I must point out that you're not addressing his point at all, here.

His problem is not that there are some sections in the book he won't use, his point is that he expected to be able to find something for his western-styled, regular sword-wielding fighter ( a class that's pretty much all about fighting ) in a book called "ultimate combat"( a somewhat reasonable expectation, I'd say ) and he found nothing.

(Archetypes don't cut it for existing characters, since you probably have one already and the fighter archetypes are quite restrictive in nature, so he's left with feats and PrCs.
There aren't any PrCs in the book, so he's left with feats, that seem to be aimed mostly at monks, and stuff like siege vehicles, armor as DR and Vitality/Wounds that are variant rules rather than new options ).

While the statement you quoted is quite hyperbolic in nature, he probably feels that, had you guys devoted less space to casters ( who got "their" book two months ago )and more space to noncasters, who got close to nothing in UM, he might have found something to use with his fighter rather than his friend's magus/bard/monk whatever ( all classes whose main focus in not just "beat people up with a pointy stick").

How would you feel had you cracked Ultimate Magic open and found that there's not a single thing (be it a feat, class or spell) your Wizard/Cleric/whatever could/would take?

IMO, just make it +1/4 BAB as a dodge bonus when fighting defensively or using the total defense action.
Combat Expertise is just a better way to fight defensively, after all.
This way, it effectively caps at -4/+8 at BAB +20 (+11 using total defense), and keeps total defense worthwile even for someone that's invested in CE.

I'd probably houserule the feats this way:

Power Attack
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to take a -4 penalty to all melee attack rolls and add a bonus to all melee damage rolls.
This bonus is 2+1/4 your BAB, rounding down.
Double this bonus if you're using a two handed weapon.

Combat Expertise
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: When using the Fight Defensively or Total Defense maneuver, you gain an additional dodge bonus to your AC.
This bonus is equal to 1/4 your BAB, rounding down, minimum 1.

Both are useful to characters with 13 strength or intelligence, both scale with level and are better for martial characters, the players don't have to spend half a session deciding how high a penalty they should take to take the most out of the feats.
What do you think?

Likes:

-Races section.
-Favored Class bonus: very nice
-Fighter Revamp: long overdue, and I like this a lot.
-How the game handles combat maneuvers.

Dislikes:

-Some specific feats:
Power Attack: I understand the change, but in some cases the feat can become worse the higher your strength is. Frankly, this doesn't make much sense.
Why not keep the bonus damage ( based on your Strength modifier ) while keeping a fixed penalty to the hit roll?

Combat Expertise: as a melee fighter I'd never take this feat.
It seems more aimed at rogues and spellcasters than smart fighters.
Why not something like "you gain +1/4 BAB when fighting defensively"?

-Combat feats:
Don't like these, at all...
First, the fact that you have to use certain feats in a given round to "unlock" the use of another feat makes high level combat feats predictable, and in some cases the progression doesn't even make sense.
Second, they're bad for backwards compatibility: feats like dodge or spring attack are quite hard coded in the rules; there are a lot of feats out there that use dodge as a gateway feat, and that rely on the use of dodge ( elusive target, for example ).
Changing how these feats work makes the transition far less smoother, IMO.
Third: Tactical feats. Tactical feats work exactly like Combat Feats: you do something in a round to gain some kind of bonus in a subsequent round. However, they're far less restrictive and each feat has at least 3 uses.
This either makes combat feats weak, or Tactical Feats overpowered.
Again, this doesn't mesh well with existing rules, and from what I've gathered, that's something you're trying to avoid.

Just my 2 cents, anyway, and keep up the good work :)

[Edit: Oh, something I'd love to see...weapon finesse that works with 1H weapons wielded with two hands.]