Volsung's page

Just a quick thought. If you liked the quantity of skills in Alpha 1 and the granularity of skill points in Alpha 3 you could create a hybrid like this:

Use the Alpha 3 skill system and give bonus skill points equal to character level.
1.) You end up with roughly the same number of possible maxed-out skills at a given level as Alpha 1.
2.) Class levels still matter after 1st.
3.) You get to keep the granularity of skill points.
4.) As a DM you can still quickly eyeball the number of maxed-out skills when creating NPCs, even using the Alpha 1 rules if you like (though with the simple class/cross-class mechanic of Alpha 3).

I was just wondering, would the bonus damage from arcane strike multiply if you confirm on a critical hit?

Did I miss this or is it something that needs to be added?

By RAW the bonus point of damage would be multiplied. Only extra dice aren't (such as sneak attack).

Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.

If Arcane Strike remains in the Beta as a general feat, that it's fine as written. But as a combat feat it falls short of being a worthwhile option.

I liked combat feats, and it's a bummer to see them go. Mechanically they ended up (from Alpha 1.1 on)similar to stances from the Bo9S, a book we use at our table; so, in the long run it doesn't affect us much.

Volsung wrote:

I think the limit at low level should be there. Otherwise a bard could dish out more damage at low levels then it should.

*shrug*

I don't think he'd be able to best a fighter unless he had a high Strength too. And if that's the case, he was built as a melee character from the get go, and I say let him have it, 'cause the barbarian with Overhand Chop is still gonna hand him his butt.

Given the prevalence of laptops at our table, I don't think anyone in our group will be buying the Beta (though I could be wrong).

I think a couple of us will buy the final.

What do you think about Arcane Strike like this:

Arcane Strike (Combat Feat)
You add your spellcasting ability score modifier (or your base attack bonus, whichever is lower, with a minimum of +1) to melee weapon damage for one round. Your weapons are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

That's not bad either. Though, caster level may be a more appropriate limiter than BAB for the maximum bonus.

Then again, maybe the limit isn't necessary at all (assuming the arcane spellcasting prereq is still in place). A warrior type has to dip into a spellcaster class to get it, lower his BAB by at least a point, which is worth about two points of damage. A full arcane spellcaster is suboptimal at best in combat, so removing the limit might increase the melee survivability of the bard at low levels by giving him his full charisma bonus to damage.

Has anyone used Arcane Strike in play yet? It seemd a little underwhelming for a combat feat. I'm thinking that a damage bonus equal to the highest level spell you have available to cast may be more appropriate.

Are there plans to add additional combat feats in the Beta that have Arcane Strike as a prereq?

Volsung wrote:

Pneumonica wrote:

Isn't Devastating Blow a Combat Feat? I don't have my stuff in front of me now, so I can't say for sure, but if it is then the Combat Feat mechanics already limit it. You can't, for instance, use Devastating Blow with Mobility.

The problem is that it's a standard action that you can use every single round to do more damage than if you used a full round action (such as Backswing), not that it can be combined with another feat. So, no, being a combat feat does not put a meaningful limit on its use.

Yes it does if you can't use any of your other combat abilities in the round. Although I dislike the mechanic, it limits exactly how much bonus you can get in a single round. For a Fighter especially, it's a very meaningful limitation. Also, while you do more damage per hit, you do no damage if you miss. With an attack sequence, you have a higher probability of doing at least some damage.

I don't think you understand the problem I'm describing.

A fighter's at will standard action attack should not be able to outperform the the same fighter's at will full round attack.

The combat feat aspect, that only one can be used at a time, doesn't even come into play. Heck, I even compared two combat feats (Devastating Blow and Backswing).

If that's not working for you, then try this:
The Tome of Battle introduces two types of abilities for warriors: maneuvers and stances.

Stances provide useful benefits, sometimes pair with a penalty. They are usually a little more powerful than a feat available at their level. The work almost exactly like combat feats.

Maneuvers allow, among other things, powerful attacks as standard actions, in line with the kind of damage Devasting Blow can do in the hands of a greataxe or scythe wielder. However maneuvers are abilities that can per used once per encounter.

So, is it a good idea to have feats that powerful that can be used every single round if the player so desires?

There are plenty of complaints about power creep in the Tome of Battle. Should we have an ability that exceeds what that book can produce at that character level in damage output in PFRPG? I don't mind it being competetive with the Tome of Battle, but it's current form is too readily abused.

Isn't Devastating Blow a Combat Feat? I don't have my stuff in front of me now, so I can't say for sure, but if it is then the Combat Feat mechanics already limit it. You can't, for instance, use Devastating Blow with Mobility.

The problem is that it's a standard action that you can use every single round to do more damage than if you used a full round action (such as Backswing), not that it can be combined with another feat. So, no, being a combat feat does not put a meaningful limit on its use.

With the current wording of Devastating it allows a warrior with a weapon with a x3 or x4 critical hit multiplier to do more damage with a single standard action than they could with a full round action (Backswing). The warrior can use this feat every round.

It's an expensive, high-level feat, and it should be awesome. But not quite this awesome.

The feat needs some type of limiting factor. So here are three thoughts on going about it:

1.) Instead of a critical the feat just does double damage (extra damage dice not multiplied, per usual). In case of a critical add multipiers normally.

This brings the damage under the average damage for a Backswing. It also opens the door for powers activated on a critical.

This is my favorite option.

2.) A combat feat cannot be used in the round proceeding a Devastating Blow.

This adds a small risk/reward to using the feat, since it hampers your next turn. That scythe is still awfully impressive.

3.) Devasting Blow switched to a full round action.

It would still a worthwhile feat, because you'll do better damagge with a greataxe or way better with a scythe. Greatsword wielders may waver, because the damage is about the same or less than Backswing, and it really only gives an advantage when facing DR that you can't bypass, or if you have an advantage on your next attack roll, but not the ones after it (invisibility). On the downside, one of the aspects I liked best about this feat was that it was a standard action.

And before anyone posts that Devasting Blow can't possibly be as potent as I'm suggesting, here's an example using an 11th level barbarian (base strength 22, greater rage bringing it to 28) and the average damage he deals each round against a target with the given AC.

Scythe regular full attack
AC20 47.61
AC25 34.155
AC30 18.63

Scythe with Devastating Blow
AC20 68.4
AC25 57.6
AC30 39.6

Scythe with Backswing
AC20 56.951
AC25 40.779
AC30 21.761

Greataxe full attack
AC20 49.335
AC25 35.393
AC30 19.305

Greataxe with Devastating Blow
AC20 55.575
AC25 46.8
AC30 32.175

Greataxe with Backswing
AC20 59.759
AC25 42.785
AC30 22.799

Greatsword full attack
AC20 50.6
AC25 36.3
AC30 19.8

Greatsword with Devastating Blow
AC20 38
AC25 32
AC30 22

Greatsword with Backswing
AC20 61.52
AC25 44.044
AC30 23.46

The trick gives the rogue a "combat maneuver feat." However no feats have been defined as combat maneuver feats, so this trick, technically, provides no benefit.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

10 might work too, but I found in my calculations that it meant that a high level rogue could basically auto make these checks quite frequently.

I kinda think a high-level rogue should be able to make those checks every time. That's what rogues do (or at least, should be). I think the real test is if a mid-level fighter can do it reliably enough that the average player will take the risk and not be sure if she'll make it or not.

I have to agree. We've been using 10+BAB in our game for a while and it's worked well.

This is an interesting idea.

Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike do something similar to what your Combined Attack does (that is, reduce the number of attack rolls). Though, they're really only useful with high level monsters. If the BAB requirements reduced it would certainly be a boon for the GM (though, usually a bad idea for PC's before you have three iterative attacks).

Maybe simplifying Combined Attack to just an attack bonus increase equal to the natural attacks given up would probably be sufficient, since attack bonuses are usually about twice as valuable as damage bonuses, and harder to get. In most cases this would outshine multiattack, and since you are only modifying the attack roll it will be easier to add the feat on the fly to published non-Pathfinder adventures.

That way you could use Vital Strike/Improved Vital Strike for monsters with lots of attacks and a good attack bonus, and Combined Attack for mosters with lots of attacks and poor attack bonuses.

Perhaps for your teamwork feat we could allow a number of attackers to make a full round action so that they act like a swarm. The target takes automatic damage equal to the weakest attacker's primary attack plus one point per two attackers, and faces becoming distracted, similar to the swarm mechanic (DC = 10 + numer of attackers + lowest Con modifier of attackers). Or something like that.

Unless pathfinder choose to alter this. Actions that require a 'move action' are not considered movement (and thus would provoke still). That's the WotC stance on it, and they address standing as a free action directly its in the official FAQ. I tend to doubt that Paizo will make an exception.

The standing from prone rules don't really spell out that that action is not movement. Can you give me an example that shows a "move action" that actually involves movement (such as standing from prone) that WotC calls out as not being actual movement?

Otherwise the wording seems to support BERTG's assessment.

Sebastian wrote:

This.

F33b wrote:

I do not feel the proposed change is warranted. Having a medium BAB does enough to limit the effectiveness of Sneak Attack.

Plus, the means for gaining additional attacks (two weapon fighting, multi-shot, etc) only makes the low BAB that much more of a problem.

Anyone who hasn't had a problem with a rogue inflicting massive damage in 1 round hasn't had a crafty enough rogue player.

Medium BAB = only a -5 at 20th level compared to the fighter.
The rogue is usually flanking that's a +2.
Using 2 weapons at max efficiency -2. it evens out.
Rogue takes weapon finesse...no need to worry about strength. Rogue typically have a +4 or +5 to hit now...even at level 2. (can't be level 1 as you need a +1 BAB to take finesse)

Medium BAB = no problem.

The Fighter, with his full BAB bonus, while not taking advantage of flanking can consistently out-damage the rogue in Pathfinder. The fighter will generally have a better armor class (because of Armor Training) and more hit points on top of that, putting it in a better position to make full attacks than the rogue.

Also, the fighter gets the same attack bonus benefit from flanking, so it's not necessarily relevent.

So, no, we haven't had a problem with a melee rogue doing a lot of sneak attack damage as compared to other melee classes, since he does less damage on a round-by-round basis.

If you want to see a break down of how this works go up to post 101 of this thread.

I definitely agree with this -- IMO 'Sneak Attack' should be a standard action.

Why, in your particular case? Is there something wrong thematically?

Well, given that the fighter in your example must take an attack bonus penalty in order to do extra damage (power attack) while the rogue does not...and that the difference in attack bonus at 15th level is only 4... I think you already proved that point.

Since the fighter was able to out damage the rogue in this instance I most certainly did not.

It's easy enough to show that if the fighter takes off the same amount to hit as the difference in bab in order to add dmg, then they will both hit the same number of times on average. So a rogue using only one wpn would get an extra 8d6 per attack (avg dmg +28) which is more than the +8 the fighter gains using power attack. Admittedly the rogue cannot always sneak attack, but in reality it is not at all difficult unless a mojority of battles are fought against people with blur potions, rogues, oozes, in the middle of forest fires, on foggy hills, etc.... In order to make the rogue not out damage the fighter you have to take special measures which quickly become irritating as they begin to make less and less sense when you have you 23rd battle on a foggy morning...

No, you are incorrect, in my example the 15th level fighter generally out-did the 15th rogue using the rules presented in Pathfinder. I'll reprint the pertinent parts of that post:

15th Level Rogue
Full Attack (Double Slice)
AC 25 122.22 (133.68)
AC 30 66.668 (78.128)
AC 35 29.63 (37.27)
AC 40 11.111 (14.931)

15th Level Fighter
Full Attack with Backswing (w/Power Attack)
AC 25 103.33 (127.06)
AC 30 89.826 (84.6)
AC 35 59.85 (43.2)
AC 40 30.6 (17.1)

Keep in mind that I chose 15th level because it put the rogue at an advantage in iterative attacks and the fighter at a disadvantage. The rogue is just getting his 3rd and the fighter will get his 4th next level.

What you'll need to come up with is a situation that positively affects the rogue's attack bonus without giving the same edge to the fighter, and still allows the rogue a full attack. Otherwise the damage levels stay the same.

Moondarq wrote:

And what is the benefit of these revisions? More realism? Or is it just to benefit non-OGL classes at the expense of the Pathfinder core classes?

Don't get me wrong. I like Duskblades. I just don't see the point in nerfing my wizard to make things easier for a class that is already pretty badass.

Actually my goal to try and put wizards and sorcerers on par with duskblades and beguilers. As I stated earlier, as written I feel that the Arcane Armor feats puts the core arcane casters behind the eight ball compared to the other mentioned classes. The idea behind my suggestion was to give core arcane spellcasters on the same level power wise as a duckblade or beguiler. I want to boost the wizard and sorcerer, not the duskblade and beguiler.

The duskblade and beguiler wouldn't gain much benefit anyway, since if you're using those classes, chances are you're allowed the Battle Caster feat. If you institute these feats and ditch Battle Caster the duskblade who wants to wear heavy still has the same feat cost, and can't use combat feats in the same round. And since the beguiler generally benefits from stealth and can already wear light armor this feat chain is undesirable for them.

I agree that this is all about being able to play the fighter-mage out of the box, without having to leave the core Pathfinder book. This is an important archetype of the fantasy genre, and deserves some attention.

Don't check back on me on the next hours. I will wait until the long weekend is over before posting anything else. Maybe you will be more open minded then.

Anyway, I have better things to do with my holiday than reading post about how stupid I might be, thinking that the Rogue class is not perfect.

I'll be back.

If, when you come back, you (or anyone else) could show a way within the Pathfinder rules that a rogue could consistently equal or exceed the attack bonus of a same level fighter and still perform a full attack action then it would lend a great deal of credibility to your argument that sneak attack needs to be fixed.

And yes, it is a big loss. Because the solution you propose of downscaling sneak attack damage on iterative attacks adds needless complication to an already complex game in an attempt to address a problem that does not, in my estimation, exist.

Average damage per round -- where attack rolls, a range of level appropriate target ACs, and the potential for critical hits are all factored in -- is the only way I can see to get a reasonable picture of the rogue's sneak attack ability as compared to other melee oriented classes. And by that measure, there is no iterative sneak attack problem.

You can't take out critical hits, because, mathematically, they're more likely to occur than outrageous sneak attack damage.

Volsung wrote:

The percentage chance of a 13th rogue rolling maximum sneak attack damage on four consecutive hits:

0.00000000000000456%

The percentage chance of the 13th half-orc barbarian rolling 6 consecutive 20's, in order to automatically hit and critical 3 times in one round, doing a minimum of 492 points of damage with a scythe:
0.00000000390625000%

Still flawed. You forgot to include the chances of the Rogue also scoring critical hits on all 4 attacks.

No, I intentionally left those out, and gave the rogue the ability to automatically hit every time, as a means to demonstrate the statistical meaninglessness of being concerned about someone actually rolling maximum damage on a sneak attack four times in a row.

The percentage chance of a 13th rogue rolling maximum sneak attack damage on four consecutive hits:
0.00000000000000456%

The percentage chance of the 13th half-orc barbarian rolling 6 consecutive 20's, in order to automatically hit and critical 3 times in one round, doing a minimum of 492 points of damage with a scythe:
0.00000000390625000%

I don't understand why I should care about an incredibly unlikely occurrence, like a two-weapon rogue hitting with all attacks, rolling a critical threat with all attacks, confirming the critical with all attacks, and then rolling maximum damage on all weapon and sneak attack dice. The odds against this actually occurring at the table are staggering.

This is why, up above, I focused on the likely average damage per round against a range of ACs that characters of the level would face. It seems a lot more useful to judge the efficacy of the two melee damage builds, and how they actually balance against one another.

But since the maximum damage of a combat routine, however unlikely, seems to be the concern I’ll give you the 13th level SRD half-orc barbarian:

Weapon: Scythe
Strength: 23 (29 while raging)
Relevant feat: Power Attack

Minimum damage if all three attacks hit: 123
Maximum damage if all three attacks hit: 564

By the logic above the barbarian should only be able to attack with a scythe as a standard action.

Mechanically I don't see a reason to shift sneak attack to a standard action. And thematically I'm just fine with how it works now.

Here's are a couple examples of damage-deal melee builds and how they break down mechanically. Note that I've also factored in the chance of a critical hit, and that the fighter is not being given the benefit of flanking:

15th level fighter. Strength 21, Weapon Training (heavy blades) at 5th level, Weapon Focus (greatsword), Weapon Specialization (greatsword), Greater Weapon Focus (greatsword), Greater Weapon Specialization (greatsword), Power Attack, Overhand Chop, Backswing, Devastating Blow, Improved Critical (greatsword). Wields a +4 greatsword.

Greatsword attack bonus: +29 (+15 BAB, +5 strength, +3 weapon training, +2 feats, +4 enhancement)
Greatsword average damage: 25 (2d6 base, +7 strength, +3 weapon training, +4 feats, +4 enhancement)
Greatsword critical: 17-20/x2 (improved critical feat)
Power Attack: Atk. +24, Avg. Dmg. 35

Average damage against an opponent per round by AC and attack type:

Standard attack (w/Power Attack)
AC 25 28.5 (42)
AC 30 30 (31.5)
AC 35 22.5 (21)
AC 40 15 (10.5)

Devastating Blow (w/Power Attack)
AC 25 47.5 (66.5)
AC 30 47.5 (52.5)
AC 35 37.5 (35)
AC 40 25 (17.5)

Standard Full Attack (w/Power Attack)
AC 25 79.5 (92.4)
AC 30 66 (63)
AC 35 45 (33.6)
AC 40 24 (14.7)

Full Attack with Backswing (w/Power Attack)
AC 25 103.33 (127.06)
AC 30 89.826 (84.6)
AC 35 59.85 (43.2)
AC 40 30.6 (17.1)

15th level rogue. Dexterity of 21, Strength of 14. Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (short sword), Weapon Finesse, Improved Critical (short sword), Double Slice. Wields a pair of +3 short swords (he's been pocketing treasure behind the fighters back).

Short sword attack bonus: +20 (+11 BAB, +5 dexterity, +1 feat, +3 enhancement)
Primary short sword average damage: 36.5 (1d6 base, +2 strength, +3 enhancement +8d6 sneak attack)
Secondary short sword average damage: 35.5 (1d6 base, +1 strength, +3 enhancement, +8d6 sneak attack)
Short sword critical: 17-20/x2 (improved critical feat)

Average damage against an opponent per round by AC and attack type (assumes flanking and sneak attack):

Standard attack
AC 25 34.38
AC 30 24.83
AC 35 15.28
AC 40 5.73

Full Attack (Double Slice)
AC 25 122.22 (133.68)
AC 30 66.668 (78.128)
AC 35 29.63 (37.27)
AC 40 11.111 (14.931)

Two-Weapon Rend in place of Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
AC 25 128.36
AC 30 74.599
AC 35 31.386
AC 40 10.297

Vital Strike in place of Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
AC 25 121.96
AC 30 70.999
AC 35 30.461
AC 40 10.193

Matthew Morris wrote:

Not quite sure if I agree with the weapon focus. I would like it to extend to exotic weapons. my bastard sword weilding legionary would thank you.

How about this suggestion?

I like it.

Making an exotic weapon of your choice a martial weapon lines up pretty well will how weapon familiarity works for other races.

Though moving back to how the Alpha 1.1 treated Weapon Training works fine, too. It allowed the Varisian rogue in our party to pick up proficiency with bladed scarf and try to hinder some mooks (though not very well given the high CMB DCs).

I thought about the Armoured Mage idea as well from the Beguiler, etc. However, those classes have restricted spell lists and I wanted a universal feat for wizards and sorcerers. So, I found a variant of sorts (PHBII? Complete Mage?) for fighters where you can ditch heavy and medium armour proficiencies so that you can cast spells in light armour with zero arcane spell failure - and here's the important part - of a spell level no higher than half your fighter level, rounded down. I adapted this into...

Armoured Mage (Light)
You can freely cast some spells while wearing light armour.
Prerequisites: Armour Proficiency (Light), able to cast 1st level arcane spells.
Benefits: You can cast spells while wearing light armour with zero arcane spell failure so long as the spell being cast is of a level no higher than one-half your base attack bonus round down.

There would be similar feats for medium and heavy armour. Maybe for shields, but I don't think it matters that much - you only need one free hand to cast a spell.

Thoughts?

Your feat is pretty close to the PHBII options. Though I'm not sure if letting a wizard or sorcerer wear armor is as huge of a problem as it's made out to be. Thematically it's weird for the traditional point-hat types, but mechanically light armor is almost a non-issue (mage armor).

Maybe I'm over-thinking the combat feat aspect. Maybe something like this is balanced enough:

Armored Mage
Prerequisites: Proficiency with light armor, arcane caster level 1st.
Benefit: When wearing light armor you do not suffer from spell failure.

My logic hear is that mage armor takes up a first level spell slot. You're spending two feats for what amounts to one first level spell slot if you don't multiclass. If you multiclass the price in spell progression is more painful.

Then do this:

Arcane Armor Training (Combat)
Prerequisites: Ability to ignore acane spell failure in light armor, proficiency with medium armor, arcane caster level 3rd.
Benefit: When wearing medium armor, a light shield, and/or a buckler you do not suffer from spell failure.

Arcane Armor Mastery (Combat)
Prerequisites: Ability to ignore acane spell failure in light armor, proficiency with all armor and shields, arcane caster level 7th.
Benefit: You do not suffer from spell failure when wearing armor or using a shield.

I have not seen these feats in play yet, but I did play a shield-bash fighter in 3.5. I'm a optimizer by nature, and the build still couldn't compete with a two-weapon fighter.

I would really like to see Improved Shield Bash brought back, and the Dex requirement gone, at the least.

I'd also like to see one-hand weapon users not interested in shield bashing get some combat feat trees. Really, I think Backswing and Devastating Blow could have Overhand Chop replaced with Cleave as a prereq and the two-handed weapon requirement taken out of Backswing. (you could even add an Improved Overhand Chop to replace them that allows Overhand Chop as a standard action and as the attack at the end of a charge with e prereq of BAB+6).

Volsung wrote:

You cannot, at present, trade in a move or standard action to get another swift action in the round. This rule is used as a balancing factor for a number of spells and abilities (particularly stuff out of the Tome of Battle).

Backswing, maybe not without metamagic, but you could certainly use Improved Vital Strike, Cleave, or any other full round action combat feat that you can use with a one-handed...

You're right. I was getting it confused with Star Wars Saga Edition. However, I was under the impression the the point of feats like Arcane Armor Training is to make wizards and sorcerers as attractive as other basic classes like warmage, duskblade and the like. My point is that as written I am still going to play a duskblade or warmage over a wizard or sorcerer, because I get to wear light armor for free and with the expenditure of one feat I get medium armor as well, and I never suffer a penalty at all. Even with Bloodlines and Arcane Schools, the classes with Armored Mage as a class feat are simply too attractive to pass up, especially when you earn enough gold to buy Mithral full plate.

I'll buy that. And though we disagree a little on whether or not they should be combat feats, I definitely agree that a fighter/wizard should be a viable class choice, with more feat support.

I think that multiclass spellcasting needs a tweak. Like a claster level boost and a few 1st and 2nd level spells with warrior-arcanists as their target audience. The choice to multiclass this way should be interesting and viable at lower levels.

I'm okay with a prestige class taking up the slack at mid to high levels. But there need to be some high-level feats, maybe chained off of Arcane Strike or Arcane Armor Training, for those who stick it out to 20th level after their PrC runs out.

Volsung wrote:

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery being Combat Feats. It prevents a warrior-mage type character from combining some swift action spells (e.g. the infamous wraithstrike) with some of the more potent Combat Feats (Backswing, Two-Weapon Rend, Devastating Blow), if you still want the benefit of wearing armor.

The thing is though, that unless you give them something like the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling ability, they still have to choose between casting a spell OR using a weapon. Spells like wraithstrike which are not OGL are not a factor in core Pathfinder. Also such Combat Feats as Backswing require a full round action to use so even wraithstrike doesn't come into play when using it. Besides you can always trade in your move action for a second swift action and still use Arcane Armor Training and wraithstrike on the same turn as the rules are written now.

I'd disagree that just because something isn't OGL it isn't a concern in the design of Pathfinder. One of the goals of Pathfinder is to let you use all of the books you've purchased for 3.x over the last several years, and the Spell Compendium is in a lot of our libraries along with many of the Complete books.

And Paizo could be planning on adding a few new spells similar to the numerous swift action spells being used at some of our tables.

An arcane channeling combat feat is a cool idea for mid to high level warrior-mages though. Maybe using Arcane Strike and Arcane Armor Training as prerequisites.

You cannot, at present, trade in a move or standard action to get another swift action in the round. This rule is used as a balancing factor for a number of spells and abilities (particularly stuff out of the Tome of Battle).

Backswing, maybe not without metamagic, but you could certainly use Improved Vital Strike, Cleave, or any other full round action combat feat that you can use with a one-handed weapon after casting a swift action spell.

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery being Combat Feats. It prevents a warrior-mage type character from combining some swift action spells (e.g. the infamous wraithstrike) with some of the more potent Combat Feats (Backswing, Two-Weapon Rend, Devastating Blow), if you still want the benefit of wearing armor.

I'm not sure if the feat requirements really need to be that steep, since most arcanists who suffer from ASF already have access to mage armor. And those who don't have the spell can wear light armor without ASF.

I agree that getting rid of the percentage reduction of ASF and just allowing casting in a certain armor type is a good idea. It's just plain easier to implement.

We went the Martial Lore route, too.

I'm hoping that the Paizo rules make the fighter a viable class in comparison to the Bo9S classes.

Which says a lot about both the 3.x fighter and the Bo9S classes.

Well, I'd say they're just about there. With the weapon and armor training class features the Pathfinder fighter can now consistantly out-damage the 3.5 barbarian (and probably the warblade), and resist a bit more punishment than the 3.5 fighter. Various combat feats allow interest Bo9S-like abilities (without the wuxia names).

Heck, I've been debating restating up my warblade as a fighter in our playtest.

KnightErrantJR wrote:

Actually, I'd keep Martial Lore, and add the concentration checks to that skill, because that's consistent with the logic of Spellcraft enveloping concentration for spellcasters. This would give the skill a bit more reason for being as well.

I like this idea a lot.

This is what we did, and for the same reasons. And it's working fine so far.

They've added quite a few neat new feats for shield users, and two weapon fighters. Personally I like the the idea of there being feats targeted at Two-handed weapon users. There hasn't been many before, and it adds more variety between the fighting styles.

They've added a three feats for and removed one for shield users that like shield-bashing, but nothing for those who want to use a weapon and buckler, don't want to use the shield offensively, or just use a one-handed weapon without a shield.

Two-handed weapon wielders already some nice stuff, so I don't see a problem with sharing.

Volsung wrote:

Actually the lower the chance of hitting the bigger the boost in average damage a bonus to attack gives you over a bonus to damage.

Let's say we have a cleric who does 6.5 damage with his morningstar (4.5 base + 2 for Str) with a 55% chance of hitting with attack #1, a 30% chance of hitting with attack #2, and a 5% chance of hitting with attack #3. The average damage is 5.85.

Vital Strike would improve that to 9.35.

Weapon Focus would improve that to 6.825.

Instead, let's suppose that the first attack only hits on a 19 or 20 (10% of the time):

Normal average is .975.

Vital Strike would improve that to 1.65.

Weapon Focus would improve that to 1.625.

So even in an extreme case, Vital Strike is better than Weapon Focus. But if we increase the amount of damage the cleric does per strike significantly, then Weapon Focus starts to look better. That's what I was trying to get at.

For completeness I will calculate in critical hit chance, since Vital Strike gets a reduced benefit.

In the first instance average damage would be 6.143 for a full attack with the morningstar. Weapon Focus bumps it up to 7.166. Alternately Vital Strike bring its to 9.626.

In the second the base average is 1.365, Weapon Focus gets 1.706, and Vital Strike comes in at 1.699.

Keep in mind that you specifically picked the "sweet spot" of Vital Strike for your first example. Also, it might be nice for there to be a bigger benefit for a third string melee character, being that this cleric is at least 15th level and doing damage on par with a 1st level fighter with his full attack isn't necessarily helpful. And Weapon Focus will work out better when he brings down the Turning Smite on the Lich/Death Knight/Archfiend while under the influence of righteous might.

Usually, spellcasters who want to enter melee seem to get a bigger bang out of spells and feats tied to single attacks. Though there are a few swift action 1 round buffs that might pair well with Vital Strike. It's definitely something to think about if you're playing a multiclass fighter/spellcaster.

I really like this feat for the DMs

Like the above post said with Dragons its great its also great with Giants

Actually, giants are much better off with Backswing, since they're weapon users with high Strength scores.

Here's the cloud giant (CR 11) from the SRD with each feat:

Backswing
AC 20 102.95
AC 25 82.53
AC 30 49.193
AC 35 23.52

Vital Strike
AC 20 88.06
AC 25 73.78
AC 30 49.98
AC 35 26.18

Regular Full Attack
AC 20 84
AC 25 65.52
AC 30 40.32
AC 35 20.16

Volsung wrote:

As a feat for the feat starved, there are better ways to boost your characters combat ability with a single feat. Weapon Focus, which can be taken as early as first level, has a similar pay out, isn't a combat feat, and works with every attack, though it is limited to one weapon (generally not an issue).

I was thinking more along the lines of a medium-BAB class (like a cleric, druid, or monk). For those classes, their lowest iterative attack is unlikely to hit CR-appropriate foes but their highest iterative attack(s) might. Weapon Focus wouldn't make much of a difference at that point -- increasing average damage by 5% (the benefit of Weapon Focus) will be less useful than increasing your average damage by (4.5 morningstar damage) * (50% chance of hitting with best attack) = 2.25 unless you're doing 45 damage per round. I could be wrong, though.

Actually the lower the chance of hitting the bigger the boost in average damage a bonus to attack gives you over a bonus to damage.

Vital Strike, because it gives your lowest attack ends up on a bell curve instead of a sliding scale, where it usually peaks against things you can hit about half the time on your first attack but becomes weaker if you go in either direction from there.

And finally a 16th level fighter, stats as above, except Dex 22 and with Greater Weapon Specialization, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Vital Strike

Improved Vital Strike [+3 short swords]
AC 25 61.238 [94.53]
AC 30 43.125 [83.228]
AC 35 24.15 [61.650]
AC 40 12.075 [35.963]

Two-Wepon Rend [+3 short swords]
AC 25 63.078 [109.922]
AC 30 41.203 [91.922]
AC 35 21.969 [64.365]
AC 40 11.427 [35.623]

In general it appears that Two-Weapon Rend is the better choice.

Perhaps Improved Vital Strike should just be rolled into Vital Strike so that it scales better. For each attack you give up you add 1d6 to the damage of your remaining attacks. And limit the number of attacks that can be given by character level or BAB (though, mechanically, I'm not sure the limit would be necessary as you'd quickly hit a point of diminishing returns).

Sorry guys, pls count a little.

Improved Vital Strike. High level feat, high level monsters. Many attacks, high ACs, DR.

A 16th level 2wp fighter with two shortswords gets much better off with two less attacks for extra 2d6 damage, because:
- the last two of his attacks have not much chance to hit anyway if the opponent has high AC
- all his other attacks bite more over DR (with less attacks more gets through)

This is a power feat guys, in the right hands. Do not underestimate pls.

Cheers

If the rogue in my example switched out the rapier for a pair of short swords, and picked up TWF and ITWF:

Regular Full Attack
AC 25 48.038
AC 30 24.553
AC 35 9.6075

Vital Strike
AC 25 52.185
AC 30 27.335
AC 35 9.94

The rogue can't get Improved Vital Strike until epic levels if he continues to play a rogue.

Now an 11th level fighter, with a Dex of 20, and a Str of 14 wielding a pair of shortswords (assumed that light blades as first choice for weapon training), Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Double Slice, otherwise same feats as above:

Regular Full Attack [+2 short swords]
AC 20 33.962 [47.438]
AC 25 20.9 [31.625]
AC 30 9.928 [17.078]

Vital Strike [+2 short swords]
AC 20 36.505 [53.295]
AC 25 26.505 [37.145]
AC 30 12.555 [20.995]

Double Slice [+2 short swords]
AC 20 37.098 [49.968]
AC 25 24.035 [35.42]
AC 30 12.018 [19.608]

Two-Weapon Rend [+2 short swords]
AC 20 41.641 [55.741]
AC 25 25.718 [37.786]
AC 30 11.495 [19.848]

Note, an 11th level fighter will generally face opponents with a lower AC range.

*I'm not 100% sure I calculated the chance of a rend occurring correct, though it tracks as expected. If someone more familiar with this type of math check my work I would be grateful. Here's my formula for chance of a successful rend:

a = % chance of an unsuccessful first attack with the primary weapon
b = % chance of an unsuccessful second attack with the primary weapon
c = % chance of an unsuccessful third attack with the primary weapon
d = % chance of an unsuccessful first attack with the secondary weapon
e = % chance of an unsuccessful second attack with the secondary weapon

Rend Chance = (1-abc)*(1-de)

Someone who's really big (and thus has a high weapon base damage)?

Someone who wants to pick up a single feat instead of a feat chain?

It seems pretty harmless to have them in there, at any rate.

Interesting ideas.

A juvenile red dragon is 16HD and could pick up both feats. He's size large and gets lots of attacks. Being in a situation were a dragon can full attack wouldn't be highly desirable, so he wouldn't want to spend a lot of feats in that direction, but a few, just in case, would be good. Since he's CR 10, the ACs of the adventures he'll be dining on should be roughly between 20 and 35. So here's the average damage per round for the beast:

Regular Full Attack (1 bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, 1 tail slap)
AC 20 57.54
AC 25 42.026
AC 30 24.833
AC 35 7.639

Improved Vital Strike (as above, except the 2 wing buffets are sacrificed)
AC 20 79.349
AC 25 59.414
AC 30 35.9075
AC 35 12.401

Full Attack with Multiattack
AC 20 65.336
AC 25 49.823
AC 30 32.629
AC 35 15.435

Improved Vital Strike and Multiattack
AC 20 79.349
AC 25 61.548
AC 30 40.666
AC 35 19.785

Well, looks like we have a winner as a dragon feat. So, if your a monster and you've got one or two big natural attacks and a lot of littles ones, this is the feat for you.

As a feat for the feat starved, there are better ways to boost your characters combat ability with a single feat. Weapon Focus, which can be taken as early as first level, has a similar pay out, isn't a combat feat, and works with every attack, though it is limited to one weapon (generally not an issue).

Characters that rely on "extra" damage, such as the rogue, will occasionally be punished for using these feats. Here's the average damage per round for a 15th level rogue with Weapon Finesse and a Dex of 22 and Str of 10 flanking an enemy (sneak attack +5d6), weilding a rapier:

Regular Full Attack [+3 rapier]
AC 25 32.288 [48.701]
AC 30 17.22 [29.97]
AC 35 7.534 [14.985]

Vital Strike [+3 rapier]
AC 25 31.281 [44.136]
AC 30 18.769 [29.899]
AC 35 7.508 [15.661]

Weapon Focus (Rapier) [+3 rapier]
AC 25 35.516 [52.448]
AC 30 19.373 [33.716]
AC 35 8.61 [17.483]

As the feats stand now I think they should allow earlier entry, BAB +6 for Vital Strike, and BAB +11 for Improved Vital Strike. They just don't give a big enough boost to justify their Combat feat status at high levels. Either that, or they should have a standard damage bonus instead of multiplying damage dice (say +2d6 on each attack for VS and +4d6 on each attack for IVS), making them a useful option for high Dex, low Str warriors that aren't rogues, and maybe the occasional sword and board type, who's spend his feats elsewhere (as a paladin might).

I'm not sure who this feat is intended for.

Two weapon and two-handed wielders get the most punch out of it. However a two weapon wielder will will do better with Two-Weapon Rend and a two-handed wepon wielder will do way better with Backswing.

For a sword and shield warrior or archer this feat boosts average damage per round about the same as Weapon Specialization. However, it requires a full round action, and is a combat feat. Cleave/Great Cleave will often be a better choice for the melee guy, and Rapid Shot more useful for the archer.

So, who would gain an advantage taking this feat?

To the original post, it probably was intended for use with a two-handed weapon, as you had to use Overhand Chop and then Backswing in the rounds immediately prior to using Devastating Blow in Alpha 1.0.

That said, I'd rather see the two-handed weapon requirementss go away for Overhand Chop and Backswing than have them added to Devastating Blow. All three are interesting options for the sword'n'boarders. Note that Overhand Chop would probably need its word changed to accomodate one-handed weapons if this was to be done (double Str for 2-handed, 1.5 Str for one-handed).

I don't think limiting the damage to double is fair for a single round attack considering vital strike has a fair amount of damage potential which can be spread over different opponents with just a +11 BAB prerequisite.

a scythe doing base 2d4 x4 (8d4 = 32) vs a greatsword doing 4d6 x2 (8d6 = 48) with the potential to increase that to 12d6 on two successful crits is not too different considering the increased chance to miss on the greatsword.

Given a base strength score of 20 (+5) and a +1 flaming burst weapon the damage potential for each if every attack hits would be 32 for the scythe and 16 (32+2d6 on two successful crits) with the greatsword.

just because a feat favors one group of weapon doesn't make other weapons pointless, by that definition surely all fighters with improved crit should wield rapiers, scimitars or falchions no?

Vital Strike, like Backswing, requires a full round action. Devastating Blow does not, making it significantly more valuable, even doing less damage, and is a cool choice for a high level fighter-type.

This has nothing to do with a feat favoring a weapon, it has to do with a feat allowing you to sustainably do more significantly damage than a full attack with a standard action.

And since you brought up Vital Strike, I think it could use a boost. The feat is not particularly impressive, Only a little better than Weapon Specialization when using a geatsword, and about equal with a long or shortsword. It's similar to sneak attack at +1d6 or +2d6. Given the minimum level of entry is 11 I'd like to see it do a little more than that. If it did more it might be a good choice for two-weapon fighters.

And for completeness' sake I'll compare our barbarian weilding the flaming burst scythe with the with Devastating Blow and Vital Strike:

Vital Strike
AC 20 56.61
AC 25 45.602
AC 30 29.878

Davastating Blow
AC 20 75.525
AC 25 67.575
AC 30 47.7

You convinced me. :-)

Another fix would be to change "standard action" to "full round action" just like for Overhand Chop.
That would make Devastating Blow useful against high AC targets but it wouldn't be (ab)used to score a crit every round and make scythes the weapon of choice for the discerning barbarian.

Actually, that Devastating Blow is a standard action is one of the things I really like about the feat. It gives an interesting high level option warriors. And it has a similar mechanical feel to the stuff in the Tome of Battle.

I just wanted to suggest a small way to tighten up the balance of the feat so we don't find all high-level Shoanti barbarians ditching their ancestral earth breakers and picking up scythes at 11th level.

As a player the idea of a feat every level has definite appeal. Particularly, in a game with a low instance of magical items/treasure.

As a DM wanting to run a relatively unmodified purchased adventure it makes me cringe just a little.

I think it may be going too far for ease of backwards compatibility, and therefore out of scope for Pathfinder.

By the way the feat is written I would say "no". However, given how positive/negative enery channeling works I think it would be thematically appropriate to allow it. I also don't think that allowing would create any real mechanical imbalance.

Volsung wrote:

The illustrations above don't take into account miss chance, and the chance of score a critical.[

The four Backswing attacks per round create an even higher damage potential thanks to the higher chance of landing a critical.

Except the numbers don't show that to always be the case. Particularly, with weapons that have a high critical hit multiplier and a small threat range Devasting Blow has the greater damage potential. And yet you get to keep your move action. And you can do it again the next round.

If you cap the multiplier on the feat to x2, then it's still a little better than Backswing some of the time, but Backswing will usually be superior. And Devasting Blow would still always be better than Backswing in a round that you need to move more than 5' (mostly because Backswing can't be used in that situation).

My thinking is that a standard action attack that you could use every round shouldn't net you significantly more damage than a regular full attack could.

Limiting it to double damage seemed like a fair solution to me.

Originally it was limited so that it could only be used every third round, at best. So, maybe noting in the feat that it can't be used two rounds in a row would work just as well. Heck, if you limit how often it can be used I don't think allowing the benefit of a critical hit would be an issue.

Backswing, on the other hand, requires a full attack to gain its benefit.

Volsung wrote:

I noticed it right after posting. You posted too quickly :)

With backswing you only get the extra attack if your first attack hits. So if you only hit with your first attack 50% of the time, then you'll only hit on the backswing 25% of the time. As such it contributes less damage.

Right, but against AC 20 the chance of hitting with the first attack (and subsequently hitting with the Backswing) should be close to 100%. So why is the damage difference only 0.031 instead of ~9?

Very true. I'm going to have to examine the formula in the excel spreadsheet I built to calculate this. I'll have the correct numbers up in a few.

EDIT: All better now.