Stephan Essex's page

I think that's generally covered by this line:

"Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class."

At least they don't refer to "caster level" like they did in the Beta version.

Thats a relief. Thanks a lot.

The cleric domain powers seem to advance with "level" which is not clearly defined as character level or cleric level. I know that they probably intended it to be cleric level, but is there somewhere in the book that explicitly states this? Strictly as written, character level seems to me a more reasonable interpretation of "level."

Sean FitzSimon wrote:

This is awesome stuff, guys. I'm in love with y'all.

Disregarding domain spells, what are the abilities that the following domains get? Is it still 1st/8th, or is it a bit beefed up?

• Air
• Animal
• Charm
• Plant
• Travel
• Trickery
• Weather

Quite a few, I know. Thanks in advance!

All clerics get a 1st level ability usable a number of times per day equal to 3 + wisdom modifier.

Air: 1st: Lightning Arc. 6th: Electricity Resistance.
Animal: 1st: Speak with Animals. 4th: Animal Companion.
Charm: 1st: Dazing Touch. 8th: Charming Smile.
Plant: 1st: Wooden Fist. 6th: Bramble Armor.
Travel: 1st: Agile Feet. 8th: Dimensional Hop.
Trickery: 1st: Copycat. 8th: Master's Illusion.
Weather: 1st: Storm Burst. 8th: Lightning Lord.

In addition, Trickery clerics get Bluff, Disguise, and Stealth as class skills. Travel clerics get +10 base speed.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

Don't suppose you could give a brief description of the 1st level Travel domain ability Agile Feet?

Stephan Essex wrote:

Are the improved and greater vital strikes 3x and 4x damage, respectively? And can they be used during a charge, or do they require their own actions?

Yes. They can be used anytime as part of an Attack action to make a single attack at your highest base attack bonus. Only the weapon dice are multiplied. Bonuses from Strength, enchantments such as Flaming, or other abilities like Sneak Attack are not multiplied.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

What about power attack bonus damage?

Misery wrote:

Coridan wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Oh, I have another question:

What about the Overhand Chop/Backswing/Devastating Blow chain of feats? Do they still exist? Or have they changed?

They went poof.

A deciphering wizard will know as many languages as he puts ranks into linguistics.

Thats a shame about overhand chop. A player of mine loved that line ... oh well. Anything in it's place?

Also I did want to tell everyone answering thank you as well ... you guys don't have to do this but you're awesome for it.

Vital Strike is now BAB +6 requirement and deals double damage if you make just one attack, it has improved and greater at +11 and +16 BABs

Penetrating Strike: Wpn Focus and 12th level fighter, attacks ignore 5 points of DR (Greater at 16th fighter ignores 10)

I miss 3.5 Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave and will probably house rule them back.

Are the improved and greater vital strikes 3x and 4x damage, respectively? And can they be used during a charge, or do they require their own actions?

My understanding is that power attack goes up to -6 at BAB 20.

BAB | Penalty | Primary | Off-Hand | Two-Handed
1 | -1 | +2 | +1 | +3
4 | -2 | +4 | +2 | +6
8 | -3 | +6 | +3 | +9
12 | -4 | +8 | +4 | +12
16 | -5 | +10 | +5 | +15
20 | -6 | +12 | +6 | +18

I can't quite figure out the statement about greater vital strike and power attack during a critical.

"If she were to score a critical hit, while using Greater Vital Strike and Power Attack, her damage would jump to 10d6+68"

Is that supposed to say (5d6 + 34)x2? Or is it (10d6 + 68)x2? Or is it supposed to say (10d6 + 34)x2?

Stephan Essex wrote:

It seems to me that they got a little too ambitious in thinking they could fix deeply rooted 3.5 balance issues by only reworking the core material. They've tried to swap out the foundation of the game in hopes of stabilizing everything thats built on top of it, but all they've done is made it tilt more to one side.

To be honest, I don't really see why the 'tilting' that you mention is Paizo's problem. Paizo aren't responsible for all the 3.5 splatbooks and the nutty combinations that you can pull with feats and spells taken from them. All the splatbooks are optional material, that you may use in your game if you wish. Let me say that again: everything 'built on the foundation of the core rules' is optional. The core rules, however, are the game, and you can't play without them. By trying to fix core rules, Paizo are trying to improve the game for everybody. The fact that you can still break the game with splatbooks isn't their fault and isn't their problem, and I don't believe that it's relevant to balancing fighting styles. They've done their best to balance combat styles using core rules, the only rules that 100% of players use. To suggest they should balance against splatbook rules is asinine, as then the game wouldn't be balanced for players that didn't use those rules.

I would agree with you completely except for the fact that the designers have stated explicitly that one of their goals for PFRPG is to balance core material with splat book material.

"Judging from your responses, particularly the one above, I think we're playing very different types of D&D."

Agreed. My group plays basically with only the Pathfinder beta and no splat books at all. Characters are fairly optimized, but it sounds like on a much smaller scale then you. At around 15th/16th level fighters types are doing about 100 - 150 damage, not including criticals against fairly hit-able opponents. I can say that a core Pathfinder Fighter or Paladin is very comparable to a caster of similar level, which wasn't the case in 3.5. As for how splat books affect things, I have no idea.

I would love to sit in on one of your games and learn a few tricks!

EDIT:
Oh yeah, I'm surprised there hasn't been more mention, but it looks like Power Attack in beta and final works for light weapons - at -X/+X. That seems to be a little boost for two weapon fighting.

I think its interesting how the context of the material changes the opinions of those playing with it. I can certainly see how the PFRPG would seem fantastic if you were using it by itself.

It seems to me that they got a little too ambitious in thinking they could fix deeply rooted 3.5 balance issues by only reworking the core material. They've tried to swap out the foundation of the game in hopes of stabilizing everything thats built on top of it, but all they've done is made it tilt more to one side.

Would you all like some cheese with that whine? :)

I tend to play the character that fits my concept. In one campaign, I play an Elven Ranger who can fight with a sword if need be. I'm not going to carry a great sword just because it gives me the most damage. He's an elf. He's going to carry a long sword and use it two-handed. He'd look stupid carrying a great sword on his back.

And I get accused by my group of being a power gamer when my Spirit Shaman is the freakin' bomb. It doesn't take a maxed out build to be good. It takes creativity. I've played just about every class that 3.5 has thrown out there. I haven't run into any class that I couldn't turn into, not only a viable character, but many times the centerpiece of the group. It's what you do with your character, not your build. People aren't going to remember the couple of extra damage you dished out each swing. It's all the other stuff you do.

This isn't intended to offend anyone in particular. Just poking fun at those that would never play anything but a two-hander, sword and board or two weapon just because they feel that it is optimal.

None of this has anything to do with the discussion here. The idea is to evaluate the rules of the game assuming equally creative players.

As to your "its what you do with you character, not your build" and being "the freakin' bomb" and the "centerpiece of the group," it sounds like your reign as king of the idiots has been a fruitful one. I'm not intending to offend you, just poking fun...

"So now the rogue "is much greater" then the fighter? At dealing damage? How does that work again?"

Judging from your responses, particularly the one above, I think we're playing very different types of D&D. I wouldn't pick either the rogue or the fighter for dealing damage - both are terrible. I'm thinking in terms of developed and somewhat optimized martial builds that deal hundreds of damage in a single round.

It was my understanding that PFRPG was supposed to balance core material with the subsequent splat book material. Unfortunately, it appears that it is going to end up having a much broader effect that upsets the balance of the game when you actually incorporate those splat books.

"How is that balanced?"

It is balanced by half a dozen other factors in the game that you are ignoring.

Without going into too much detail:
A two handed attacker is at full attack bonus, vs -2, -2 (with at least one feat)
A two handed weapon has larger damage dice (1d8) vs (2d6) (see Enlarged)
A two handed attacker adds STR X 1.5 vs X 1 (or X .5 for offhand) (see Enlarged)
A two handed attacker can move and do his most powerful attack vs requiring a full attack action.
A two handed attacker gets maximum benefit out of any type of weapon focus, specialization, weapons training, improved critical, etc.
A two handed attacker has an edge at overcoming DR, and only requires a single weapon of the appropriate type.
A two handed attacker benefits greatly from a high strength, vs a dual wielder REQUIRING a very high DEX, and also benefiting from a high strength.
A two handed attacker requires few feats to reach near- maximum, vs many, many feats required for getting max benefit from other styles.
A two handed attacker generally recievs a greater benefit from spells like magic weapon, holy sword, haste, etc.

Sure they take an attack penalty, but you get up to three extra attacks.

Exavian wrote:

Is this going to make Two-Handed fighting sub-optimal now?

If something has 18 Str and Power Attacks for 4 using a Longsword the damage would be 1d8+12.

If something has 18 Str and Power Attacks for 4 using a Greatsword the damage would be 2d6+14. An average of 3.5 more damage, only 2 of which comes from the actual Two-Handed mechanic. Seems pretty minimal.

does that make it sub-optimal?

No, it makes it balanced. It would be a darn shame if everyone only played a two-handed fighter. No one would ever want to play a cleric then!

Making something balanced doesn't make it sub-optimal, but does make the character itself more versatile (in other words he now has more options).

How is it balanced if they do almost the same damage and the longsword user can hold a shield, or even another longsword? Two handed weapons should be balanced in terms of damage with two weapon fighting, not one handed one weapon fighting. Think of it this way, if power attack gives the same damage bonus to two handed weapons as one handed primary weapons, the two weapon fighter gets more of a benefit than the two handed weapon user:

Fighter A, wielding a great sword power attacks for -4 = +8 bonus damage

Fighter B, wielding a longsword primary, short sword off-hand power attacks for -4 = +8 bonus damage primary and +4 bonus damage off-hand for a total of +12 damage

How is that balanced?

Damage "not being a priority" as a shield user is painful to contemplate. What else are you going to do? If you're not an actual threat to a monster, it's going to ignore you, and all the AC in the world isn't going to stop it from eating your teammates.

You use feats, class abilities, and combat maneuvers (of you or your party members) to deny your opponent movement and apply status effects to make it so that you are the only one for your opponent to attack. Hopefully that isn't too painful to you...

Stephan Essex wrote:

Because it was important for balancing the different styles of melee combat. Compared to using a two handed weapon, two weapon fighting is made substantially more powerful by precision based damage. Power attack was the the opposite, providing a greater benefit for wielding a two handed weapon compared to two weapon fighting.

Not to mention the number of 3.5 feats and class features that used the same principle wherein an effect is doubled when wielding a two handed weapon.

I see. I counter with: no. There are two viable methods of melee combat in D&D (outside of Tome of Battle): one is using a two-handed sword and Power Attack. The other is by having lots of bonus damage dice and using Two-Weapon Fighting. (Actually, there are three, but the action-negating fighter isn't what we're talking about here.)

One-handed fighters get nothing. I mean, they get a boost to AC, but that's...well, the two-handed fighters can just use an animated shield.

You essentially repeated exactly what I said and then added a comment about one handed one weapon fighters. Now I'll reiterate what Krome said. If you are using a shield, damage isn't a priority for you. If it is, you're doing it wrong.

In terms of damage output, two handed weapons and two weapon fighting should each be viable. Precision damage bonuses and power attack with a bonus for two handed weapons were effective ways to maintain balance. It doesn't look like anything has been done to affect precision damage, so power attack should not be the same for one and two handed weapons.

Stephan Essex wrote:

I would be terribly disappointed if power attack was the same for one and two handed weapons.

Why?

Because it was important for balancing the different styles of melee combat. Compared to using a two handed weapon, two weapon fighting is made substantially more powerful by precision based damage. Power attack was the the opposite, providing a greater benefit for wielding a two handed weapon compared to two weapon fighting.

Not to mention the number of 3.5 feats and class features that used the same principle wherein an effect is doubled when wielding a two handed weapon.

I would be terribly disappointed if power attack was the same for one and two handed weapons.

Those theories are just the sort of thing I was looking for, thank you! I'm glad to see that its more effective than it was in the beta.

Valero has a BAB of 14, a strength modifier of 3 and he is power attacking with two weapons, with the primary weapon receiving 8 bonus damage, and the off-hand weapon receiving 4 bonus damage at a cost of -4 to attack rolls. Has anyone determined how power attack functions in the final release?

Improved Vital Strike was likely changed between the Beta and the Final rules to become part of an Attack action, or possibly a Standard Action. Not entirely sure on the 30 ft. thing, I know you are restricted to just your normal move speed when you charge as a partial action. It could be they were just referencing his new speed with the Breastplate, and he can in fact still charge up to 60 feet.

This is all speculation, a lot changed between the Beta and the Final.

I see. Speaking of changes for the final release, were people able to figure out how the finished power attack will work based on that preview?

These might have been addressed already, but I couldn't find any definitive answers.

How is Valero able to use improved vital strike during a charge? Charging is a full-round action and improved vital strike requires its own full-attack action.

Why is Valero only able to move his move speed during the charge? Shouldn't he be able to move twice his speed?

Thanks guys!