mekka2000's page

3PP class : The Architect from Gonzo 2 (Little Red Goblin Games).
Tower defense-like character, can build towers and floating platforms shooting things and pillars for hiding behind.
He must scavenge resources to build.

I understand but I think there's for some people (including me) a psychological barrier. I can't buy a 30€ PDF but I can buy a 60€ physical book.

All these "POD please" comments are from people like me... I think there's a lot to money to earn here, a big (or not, what do I know..) part of the market.

Anyway, love your work and may still buy pdf :p

Great !!
Hope bard and druid are on the to-do list !

RAW a 'weapon' means a manufactured weapon. For a spell which does work on natural weapons, compare versatile weapon.

Sorry, can't agree. "manufactured weapons" means "manufactured weapons".

Manufactured weapon is a weapon.
Natural weapon is a weapon.

See Sean K. Reynolds' answer here :
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n16t?Ugh-Crane-wing#11

Hello,

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/heart-of-the-metal/

Target : one weapon per level

RAW, a weapon is a weapon, natural or manufactured.
So, it seems it's ok to cast it on a natural weapon.

BUT

In the magic rules :
"Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. "

A claw is not a creature neither an object.

I still think that, RAW, you can cast the spell on a natural weapon, but a friend doesn't agree and I think his point seems valid too.

What do you think about ?

Just for fun, let's try to replace classes with the "better 3pp version of class and archetypes".

Fighter --> Legendary Fighter
Barbarian --> Unchained Barbarian & Everyman Unchained Rage (Alternative : Legendary Barbarian)
Bard --> Everyman Unchained Bard & Everyman options : Unchained Bard Masterpieces
Monk --> Legendary Monk + Unchained Monk + Everyman Unchained Monk I & II
Ranger --> Legendary Ranger
Rogue --> Legendary Rogue
Cleric
Wizard
Sorcerer
Paladin --> Legendary Paladin
Druid

Any Ideas ?
You can suggest base classe, occult classes and hybrid classes too !

I own all the alternate paths pdf books and English is not even my first language.
But PLEASE, what I'm waiting for since years is physical books !!
Don't do a 1000 pages PDF but three 350 pages hardcover. PLEASE PLEASE. I'M BEGGING YOU.

Sure but...they are supposed to ALL come to the material plane to eat and grow and come back when they are turned into greater barghests.

"ALL", so I suppose there's a reliable way to come and go back.

It seems they all come here as young barghest and can go back as greater barghests, but... how ? They have no abilities for doing that themselves.

Try "A good idea for a rpg campaign setting" as many times as necessary

Hello, first sorry for my poor english, it's not my native language, I hope I'll be understandable !

In PF2, there's 3 actions per turn. My player liked it a lot.
In PF Unchained, there was a similar system, but there was problems with swift actions and, for example, the action economy of the magus or warpriest.

WHAT IF, in PF1, we play with : free actions + 1 Swift Action + 3 standard or move actions ?

It'll change some things that seems to be balanced for me (as adversaries also have 3 actions) even if everyone has more power than with 2 actions (because of action economy).
Natural attacks could be 2 actions for all natural attacks (or 3, maybe ?).

Rocket tag may be worst, maybe a boost in HP for PC and foes should be necessary. I'm not even sure as, 3 attacks at level 1 with 0/-5/-10 for example, 2 attacks are almost guarantee to fail (except critical..).

What do you think about ?

Sphères of power/might ! :)

Actually, having one or more trying to build a minmaxed Linnorm killer is the goal, and setting up a plan is another. You'll have to either kill another Linnorm and convince (or trap) Estrid to fight solo,or set up these fight not just coming to Estrid's castle and as for a duel and fight both in a row.

Moreover it'll be a short campaign, player would know their final goal (one of them beat a Linnorm and Estrid), and that they could fail. They'll have the right to know linnorms stats and build their characters accordingly and moreover, there's a +3 dragon-bane longsword somewhere on these isles...

Thanks for the replies. I talked about Ice Linnorm because of White Estrid's Ice Linnorm.

If you want to be the king of the ironbound isles, you'll need to kill this Linnorm and then, defy White Estrid and kill her (and find a way not to have to fight both solo together).

Hello, I may start a small campaign in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings as an E8 campaign but... is it realistic, taking into account that a character, in order to become a king, as to defeat a linnorm alone ?

It's a great accomplishment and isn't doable by everyone, sure, but it is possible at 8th level ?

Tell me your strategy to defeat an ice linnorm (CR 17) at level 8, solo :p

Hello, I like a lot multiclass archetypes ( Here ), but I'd like to know which ones you'll recommend ?
I guess some are better than others, but what did you play and what are the best for you ?

I had 2 players using Shadow Fury and Beast Hunter, shadow fury was nice but the "silent rage" was never used and Beast Hunter was good but "replaced" by Paizo's Hunter...

I want to find the best MCA to suggest it to my players :)

Thanks for your new replies in all topics !

I'm not sure if this helps or not. It sets a precedent for the new player that "this is the way things are done". Which could lead to an argument down the road when they are tasked to create a character the "normal" way.

If you're just trying to save time, let the players pick from a bunch of pre-generated characters with the bits you want them to choose not selected yet. In general, a new player isn't going to be offended by playing a pre-generated character and it allows you (the DM) to control min-maxing, hp levels, etc.

The new player is still learning the system and pre-gens give them a chance to see what a "properly built" character looks like.

Thanks for your answer but please review it from a mechanical point of view, not the intent.

The players that play with me only play with me, there is nom other PF gm here, and they are very casual and we only play once in a while, one shots with pregen, but I'd like them being able to create characters quickly and easily.
Please don't reply to this, just the mechanical side of things :)

Would this mean a first level character cannot take a rank in a nonclass skill?

Either the answer is "yes" or it is "Int ranks to choose in nonclass skills", or it is " if you choose +1 rank fav. class bonus, or any trait that add ranks, you can add nonclass skills ranks".

One critical can kill you... Hard when you discover rpg and are a beginner.

Inspired by PF2 playtest.

Add a "racial hp bonus" to your character at level 1 :

Base is 8
If the race is small, -2
If the race is large, +2
If the race has a bonus to CON, +2
If the race has a malus to CON, -2
I think I reverse engineered how pf2 calculate it :)

So :
Dwarves : 10 hp
Elves : 6 hp
Halfling : 6 hp
Humans : 8 hp
Half-elf : 8 hp
Half-orc : 8hp
Gnomes : 6 hp

What do you think about ?

Inspired by pf2 playtest

1) Start with all abilities at 10
2) Add your racial modifiers
3) Add a background. A background is
- Choose between two +2 ability modifier
- Gain automatically 1 rank per level to a background skill (pf unchained) that you choose between the 2 of your background. (Example background : "Rural : +2 WIS or +2 CON, 1 rank/level in Handle Animal or Knowledge(Geography)"). I have 8 default background + you could make some for each campaign (like campaign traits).
4) Choose 4 different ability scores. Add +2 to them.
5) Choose 2 different ability scores. Add +2 to them.

Example :

Elf Ranger :

1) STR 10, DEX 10, CON 10, INT 10, WIS 10, CHA 10
2) STR 10, DEX 12, CON 8, INT 12, WIS 10, CHA 10
3) Rural Background : +2 CON; STR 10, DEX 12, CON 10, INT 12, WIS 10, CHA 10
4) +2 to DEX, CON, WIS; STR 10, DEX 14, CON 12, INT 12, WIS 12, CHA 10
5) +2 to DEX, WIS; STR 10, DEX 16, CON 12, INT 12, WIS 14, CHA 10

It's quicker to explain than how to calculate point-buy, for a beginner, it limits minmaxing (as minimal score is 8 and maximum is 18, but only one).

What do you think about ?

Hello, I think character creation is slow and long to explain to beginners.
Here's the problematic points for me :
- Calculate Abilities Scores
- Choice of feat without knowing the game
- Too few HP at level 1
- Skills to choose without knowing the game
- Equipment to buy

This post is about skills.
At level 1 you have to choose X+int ranks.

What if, at level 1 you gain 1 rank in all your class skills and then, after that, you gain X+int at each level ?

Would something be broken ?
It's faster, makes more competent characters but int is still important at further levels.
"Balance" between classes is the same, Rogue is still the king with 23 class skills.

What do you think about ?

Thank you, I understand better !

Have anyone tried to play with spheres of might with removing iterative attacks as an houserule ?

It's strange that the talent doesn't give the functionality of the feat.

Is there other talents like this ?

I just read somewhere else that Barrage is not associated to rapid shot and should be errataed (post by Adam Meyer), so, it was a mistake.

Hello, I have a question...

The barrage sphere give you this :

Barrage: As a special attack action, you may make two ranged attacks at your full base attack bonus -2. Associated Feat: Rapid Shot.

But Rapid Shot is :

When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round at your highest bonus. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot.

1st question. Do you gain the associated feat and can do both ?

2nd question. If "Barrage" replaces Rapid Shot, isn't it more limited ?
You can't do 5 attacks at (for example) +18/+18/+13/+8/+3 (full attack) but only +18/+18 as a "special attack action" ?

Is Barrage a nerfed and simplified Rapid Shot ?

Thanks I get it, in fact the flavor is great, the alchemist is doing alchemy while in combat and not just throwing extracts !
So the portable alchemist lab could be an apron with a lot of pockets on the front, with a lot of alchemist stuff in it.. and the alchemist mixes things, shakes things up, and boom :D

I don't get the Archaic Alchemist from Geomancer's Handbook...

Does it replace Alchemy (extracts..) with normal Sphere Casting, losing all the "alchemist" flavor (extracts, again...) ?

And I can't understand the casting tradition...
Focus Casting drawback is "alchemy lab", so... alchemist can only cast with an alchemy lab in front of him ? What's the point ?
Only logical explanation could be that Skilled Casting drawback (craft alchemy) is that you use a sphere ability in front of an alchemist lab in order to imbue a potion with power but... it's not written...

So, please, explain it to me :)

First, thanks to Omnious to have taken the time to develop his answer and not keeping me with a "poor plan, poor logic, goodbye" answer :)

I think I'm sold on giving up on DEX as default stat to hit and armor as DR but...I'll do the devil's advocate one last time in order to learn and understand...
In the context of E6, is armor-as-DR so much broken ? I see the problem with a rogue with a knive vs a knight in armor... What about called shots or a more accessible rule for called shots in order to balance it ?

About the other things...
I didn't told all the context. I want to do a variation of Pathfinder easier to start (less feats, simpler choices about equipment...), with simpler rules, inspired by the beginner box.
There's no CMB, CMD, maneuvers are handled with "raising the stakes" rules ( [url]http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=30011&stc=1[/url] )

About abilities we have :
STR : 1 consolidated skill, damage, encumbrance
DEX : 3 consolidated skills, AC, 1 save
CON : HP, 1 save
INT : 4 consolidated skills, skills points
WIS : 2 consolidated skills (including Perception)
CHA : 2 consolidated skills, 1 save

Stupid idea (maybe), why not letting the choice for the ability for the "to-hit" ? or adding it to class features (rogue : dex, fighter : str, and so on...).

doomman47 : thanks for the suggestion but I want to do a simpler houseruled pathfinder but compatible with most material without conversion.

@Bardarok, thanks, I plan to use pop corn initiative with PC always attacking first except when surprised.

@Omnius, "realism" was not a very good term to explain, maybe verisimilitude and also just to test new thing. Anyway, the question is more on the result than the intent. Thanks for pointing out power attack and feats for others abilities to damage (that should be removed). What about Cha to will and armor as DR un E6 ?

I plan to run an E6 game, what would imply these changes :

STR will still be used for Damage, but DEX would be used for attack rolls instead of STR, to emulate precision needed to hit.

In order to counter the point that "attack roll is not only precision but also strength to pass through armor", Armor as DR rules are used.
This alternate rule is known to be unbalanced at higher levels, but at level 6 it should be fine. Shield still stay AC tough, as you need dex to avoid the shield.

Also, CHA is used to calculate Will Save, instead of WIS, so, it cannot be a dump stat.

These changes seems "realistic" to me, and can allow archetypal characters clumsy and brutish for example, that don't hit often (low dex) but hit hard (high str), or nimble but weak characters hitting a lot but doing low damage.

It'll remove Finesse feat, and some other things like that, maybe invalidate many builds..
But as a small private game, where not every build that ever existed is in game...

Didn't I see something else, and important things could be broken ?

Hello, I'm DMing a campaign since 2013 and characters died and were replaced, or were redone because players wanted to try something else.

Now we have a wizard, a medic (path of war), and two characters with spheres of power magic and they are all level 10.

The medic can heal a lot during combat, the two spheres of power characters have unlimited at will "a-lot-of-d6" damage from destruction sphere...

And the wizard... now is bored in combat. He delays his turns almost every time because he can avoid to waste his spells by letting the spheres of power characters playing before him...

Nobody is afraid of dying because of the almost unlimited healing of the medic...

This is no more a game of attrition, sphere PCs have good things to do every round, even with 0 spell points, and health is full every other round...

That's good in a way, because no 15 minute adventuring day, and the rythm of the game is more based on the story than the resource management game but... there is almost no challenge (even fights with CR a lot higher than theirs) and the wizard is still playing the attrition game and he's bored...

I've always seen people saying you could play sphere characters alongside vancian characters and never saw a problem until my player with the wizard PC told me he feel useless in combat and he's saying to himself each round "why waste a spell if they'll kill it without wasting resources if I delay my turn ?"...

Now with the medic it's worst !

Is there a solution that is not : "play with all sphere characters" or "redo all characters in the same system" ?

Thanks for your replies

Thunder, the particular reason is only that I want that my player have the choice between spheres or not.

Valandil, you're right, I should read how it's handled in 5e.

First, low-magic, for me, is LOTR magic, in opposition to Dragon Ball Z gods 9th lvl spellcasters, not "no magic".

Here are my design goals :
- Speed-up combat
- Less "problematic spells" while thinking about "classic fantasy" and not "demi-god destroying reality, forging demi-planes and so on..". And using Spheres of Power.
- Trying not to remove any class from the game.
- Avoiding too many small bonus to calculate.
- Too many magical stuff, nothing is exceptional when everything is just a +1 to attack, +2 to saves, +1 to int and so on...

Here I go :)

1 :
Suggested solution : Trailblazer (a d20 variant, like pathfinder) showed the maths behind its reasoning and it seems good to me.
So, at BAB+6 you do -2/-2 instead of 0/-5, at BAB+11 you do -1/-1 and at BAB+16 you do 0/0. Maths proves that it's more damage on average, except when fighting monsters with much higher or lower AC than you (harder in both cases, so, good to me :) ).

2 :
Limited magic from Pathfinder Unchained, Heighten Spell metamagic feat for free, limiting spells to 4th levels (but keep the higher slots for metamagic).
Power should be in line with what Spheres of Power offers, so, Vancian and Spheres should be useable.

3 :
With these two modifications, nothing need to be banned from a "low magic" setting except maybe non-unchained summoner.

4 :
Limit magic buffs to 1 per 5 levels. (For example a 16th level character could have 3). Inspired by 5e.

5 : Automatic Bonus Progression.

As it's a home game in a homebrewed world, I'm not concerned about balance against AP, for example. So if a 20th level wizard is less powerful and cannot handle the same challenges than a 20th level wizard, this is by design and not a problem.

What I want is more speed, more simplicity, more "classical fantasy" (I like high level play too, but not in this world), and less superpowers and magical "+2"s, and maybe more balance between spellcasters and martials.

What do you think about ?

I plan to gm a E6/E8 game with mythic tier 3, higher tiers seems too powerful to be compatible with an E8 game (in my opinion)

Rory, I'm almost convinced...
It's a track I'm more and more interested to follow...
Maybe speeding up combat by doing average damage from enemies.

Halek, as the first time, your objections are right and interesting, but your solution is not appropriate. I don't want a few archetypes or feats mandatory to resolve the "problem", I want a solution for everyone.
As Wultram, you have good points now against my system (this time, it's your point about true strike and the fact that reach builds lose a lot that convince me...).

So, let's say we keep iterative attacks, monster damage are average and no dice rolled. Players roll first attack and average the others.

Now, what about to renounce to your first iterative attack (or your first primary natural attack if you have only natural attacks) to gain a move at 1/3 speed, PROVOKING as normal ?
Why not ? does it break something ?
And renouncing to 2 attacks for 2/3 speed ?

Rory, interesting idea, don't like the loss of randomness tough :)

Wultram, some issues you evoke are really important.

1) Overkill, I saw it the other side, with only one foe in melee, your attacks are wasted, but by giving up on the multiplier, you can move a little and attack someone else with a off-hand attack. So, not sure which case is prevalent.. but...

2) Totally right. I didn't think about it. Full attack could kill easily a player.

3) Archery, 1 arrow at x4 damage, same rules as it's an iterative attack.
4) Don't understand why, to-hit is still the same... Maybe I didn't understood.
5) Totally right. AC can help avoid 1,2 or 3 (or 4) iteratives attacks and mitigate damage. With this system, it's all or nothing as you said. Either you invested a lot in it, either don't even bother to wear an armor...
6) Some feats should be broken, either banned or modified, right.

2) et 5) are killing my system !

The raider (human barbarian 6 from gamemastery guide) doing a critical and using his anima fury rage power, can hit on average for 48,5 dmg, and max 64 dmg.
Two raiders, one just hitting and the other doing a critical can kill another raider in one round if they do 12 points more than the average only, else they kill him next round without being dying before..
And let's not talk about the optional rules for massive damage...

Thanks Cheburn, I know it, don't really like it but it's nonetheless an interesting read. :)

Applying all hits as one, but still as a full attack. So, compared to iterative, it's the same damage as all iterative hitting.

It's more damage each round (because not sure you'll land all 4 blows each rounds with normal iterative attacks), sure, but less chance to crit.
And it's still a full attack, you have to sacrifice damage if you want to move.

Haste give only one standard attack, not a full attack. So you have 1 attack 4x damage and 1 attack standard damage.

You hit once, you make 4x damage but 1 chance to crit only.
You hit 4 times, you make 1x damage 4 times but 4 chances to crit.

Mythic Vital Strike with improved vital strike at level 11 is damage x3 and 1 move action on a round.
Mobile Fighter archetype at level 11 is doing 3 attacks and 1 move action on a round.
My iterative variant, at level 11, is doing damage x2 and 1/3 move action on a round or damage x3 and not moving.
It seems in line... Both Mythic Vital Strike or Mobile fighter are better, even.
Am I really breaking the game here ?

Sorry can't understand, what is doMt ?

You don't really cut damage 95% of the time.
1 attack with damage x4 (all damage, even precision damage etc..)
with 1 full BAB roll
instead of 4 attacks with normal damage with rolls at 0/-5/-10/-15.

You do the 4x damage each time is very important to the balance.

The problem is with criticals.
You avoid a lot of critical and fumbles, so for x2 criticals, on average, it's balanced.
But x3, X4 and so on, makes less damage, sure.
And again, not really sure because if you do 1 critical x3 you do 5x damage with this system.
With iterative attacks, if 1 attack is a critical x3, 2 are hit and 1 is miss, you do 5x damage too...

It's a choice, I think on average, it's not such a big loss, considering you can, for example, attack with triple damage and kill a foe, move 2 squares without provoking and be ready to full-attack another enemy next round, as a full attack, instead of having to move and attack once next round.

New options open to martials, for example with an off-hand weapon and haste and zero feat investment, you have 3 attacks doing respectively x4 damage, x3 damage and 1x damage with a possibility to reduce the multiplier of one attack to move without provoking. Imagine the number of times you full attack an enemy to death and waste your last attacks without being able to hit someone else because the enemies are set up to make you use a move action to reach them next round. Here you can even kill one foe with double damage, moving 4 squares without provoking and hitting another foe twice, once at triple damage and once normally.

I don't really see it as an obvious buff to casters !

You can already move and full attack. It is called pounce. There are numerous ways to get it. Also mounted archery. Being a spellcaster and not caring.

This is trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist.

It's not a "problem" it's a preference, an alternative to "go into melee, full attack, full attack again".

For playing faster you can use digital dice rollers. I know of several that let you put in preset dice sets.

Not a satisfying solution to enforce it, we all know it's more fun to roll the dice :)

Your system with natural attacks makes them the best in you modified game.

Example half orc natural weapon ranger
Toothy and rasortusk
Get claws from bonus feat.

We now have a character with 4 natural attacks at level two. This isnt even min maxing. We can go metamorph alchemist the rest of the game. Thatll get you pounce and youll be a caster.

I don't touch to natural attack damage, so this is as it has always been...

Also any half orc or various other races can give up garbage natural attacks to shift 10 feet for free. Our second level example can five foot step and give up our natural attacks to effectivly teloport 45 feet. And then full attack with our actual manufactured weapons.

Interesting case, manufactured weapons + bad natural attacks to trade against a move, for full damage to weapon hit...

I dont intend to be hostile. Its just that this would actively make mobile fighting harder and martials in general weaker.

I don't understand why... Martials can do damage almost worth of 4 attacks damage with a full BAB roll.. Or have the choice to move and still do worth of 2 ou 3 attacks without investing in a feat...

Lets take a look at a dervish dancer bard who like to get up in mellee. Lets say like anyone in this class they get dervish dance and arcane strike. If human they pick up rivening strike. Now dervish dancer bards are effectively permanentlty hasted when making a full attack.

If you pick up some traits you can load up bonus damage on crits and be a fast attacking crit fishing build that debuffs with every hit so you can follow up with some save or suck bard spells.

But your "fix" kills any damage it gets from its crits on flaming burst and make the debuff from rivening strike completely inconsistent. There are various others builds that your fix ruins. This is a straight debuff to mellee martial classes in both constiency and damage.

Ok, so the dervish dancer hit once with 4x damage + 1 attack from haste

Instead of houseruling why not show your players the more mobile options avaible to them that...

Because I want any martial with an alternative to "go into melee, full attack full attack full attack" without investing in feats, and I want to reduce the number of dices rolled at higher levels !

OK, let's redo it from scratch, after this interesting conversation.
First, the original design goal :
- Don't roll too much d20 and resolve too many attacks, it takes too much time.
- Allow more freedom to melee combatants.

Now.
We talked about natural attacks, about TWF.
We gave Vital strike for free, after modifying it, to exclude these things.
It became unclear and too complicated, and giving as much damage as a full iterative attack as a standard action is basically giving pounce to everyone and is invalidating builds based on mobility.

Here's the solution I plan to actually playstest :

We can replace iterative attacks (and only iterative attacks, not natural or everything else) with this :

Iterative attacks
Iterative attacks are still a full-round action and are replaced by a single attack with :

BAB +6 : damage x2
BAB +11 : damage x3
BAB +16 : damage x4

The damage are not rolled twice, or thrice or four times, the total damage is multiplied per 2, 3 or 4 (you don't roll 8d6+80, you roll 2d6+20 and then multiply per 4).
Max damage and min damage appear more often, the more we launch dice,
the more we approach from the average... Results are more monotonous,no good or bad surprises (0.000059% to have 8 or 48 with 8d6....) and a lot more dice to launch and to add, more dice on the floor too...

Note : Not multiplying all damage (sneak attack,...) and only dice + STR bonus makes some class useless (around 30 dmg vs 100 dmg for the rogue 18 on npc codex, with one dagger). Moreover, this way, there's a smaller gap in damage (for paladin 11, 31.5 vs 29, for barbarian 18, 92 vs 83) comparing with what we discussed earlier

Critical hits: You add [crit multiplier -1] to the damage multiplier for all damage except precision damage (such as from a rogue’s sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon qualities (such as flaming).

Example : With a x3 critical, and BAB +6, your damage modifier becomes x4 (2+2) for damage dice and STR bonus and magic weapon bonus, but still x2 for your 4d6 sneak attack and your 1d6 flaming dagger (doing already 8d6 and 2d6 damage respectively).

Any feature that would remove an iterative attack decrease these multipliers by one. (for example, Rapid Attack from Mobile Fighter)

You can decrease the multipliers by one or more, in exchange for a move at 1/3 your speed per point substracted. This movement doesn't provoke an AoO. The move can be done before, after the attack or between attacks (if you have an off-hand weapon for example) but must be done at once.
Example : at BAB +16 with a longsword and a bite attack and a 30 ft. speed, you can make a x2 attack with your sword, move 4 squares and bite (but cannot move 2 squares, x2 attack with your sword, move 2 squares and bite).

This enable more mobility, without invalidating Mobile Fighter archetype (for example) and without giving pounce to everyone.

Natural Attacks
Natural attacks don't change with this system, same number of attacks, same damage, but you can give up a natural attack in exchange for a move at 1/3 your speed.

Two-Weapon Fighting
You have only one bonus attack and the feats work differently, completely modified and don't allow more attacks.
Two-Weapon Fighting : This feat don't change.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting : x2 damage dice to the off-hand attack (and still -2, not -5 to hit).
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting : x3 damage dice to the off-hand attack (and still -2, not -10 to hit)

An off-hand attack cannot be traded for moving at 1/3 speed.

You can still take vital strike in order to do more damage as a standard action.

In short :
- Only the iterative attack is replaced, no free feat, no invalidated feats, no feet needed to make damage similar to what was with 4 iterative attacks. Free for all, and no big changes in rules or definitions of things, it doesn't become a standard action. (Good)
- Only one attack at full BAB to do all the damage. (A lot better)
- Less damage but not a lot in most cases. (Slightly worst)
- Only one chance to make a critical hit. (Worst)
- Only one chance to make a fumble. (Better, no more ridiculous "the more I'm competent, the more I fumble")
- More choice, more mobility possible at the cost of damage without being too powerful like full-attack+move action for everyone which would invalidate a lot of alternate actions from PoW or SoM.(Better)
- A lot less attack to resolve, quicker game (BETTER).

The only modified thing is the full-attack, so if there was a problem with natural attacks or crazy minmaxing, it's still there.
In my opinion, the only type of build losing something are crit fishers. Good for me, as rolling 4 attacks, confirming 4 criticals and rolling 72d6 sneak attack is exactly what I want to avoid.

Comments and critics welcome :)

So, the remaining problem is with "hitting with 1 natural attack once, but with vital strike" ?

Written this way, is the problem resolved ?

Vital Strike
When you use the attack action without using an off-hand weapon at the same time, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.

- Attack action is a standard action, so it's valid for "natural weapon, 1 hit" but not valid for a "full attack with natural weapons".

- TWF is excluded, but I'm not sure my way of saying it "without using an off-hand weapon at the same time" is elegant.

Sorry, I mixed what I say in this topic and my evernote document in the other window :D

Actually I rewrote vital strike to exclude natural weapons and off-hand weapons. Sorry !

EDIT : Your mistake in fact :p First post : "These 3 feats are modified to exclude natural attacks and off-hand weapons."

Comparing NPCs from NPC codex :

Elf Paladin 11
Iterative attacks : 31,5 dmg (but first attack 10,5) [3 attacks rolled]
Vitalstriked attack with new feat : 26,5 dmg all the time [1 attack rolled]

Gnome Ranger (TWF) 11
Iterative attacks : 24 dmg (but first attack 11) [3 attacks rolled]
New-Imp. TWF : 17 dmg all the time [1 attack rolled]

Half-Orc Barbarian (TWF+bite) 11
Iterative attacks : 74,5 dmg (but first attack 28,5)[7 attacks rolled]
New-Imp. TWF + bite : 69,5 [3 attacks rolled]

It seems to be roughly equivalent (less than 10 dmg each time, a lot more damage using a standard action -first attack after moving to an enemy still useful, less crit chances, but less fumble chances too). In fact, you do more damage during the first rounds (example paladin : 10,5+31,5+31,5 = 73,5 dmg on 3 rounds vs 26,5*3 = 79,5 on 3 rounds).

Until higher levels....
Human barbarian 18 (two handed weapon)
Iterative attacks : 92 dmg (1st attack 23) [4 attacks rolled]
Powerful blow : 53 dmg ! [1 attack rolled]
Big difference !

With a superpowerful blow (STR x3) it's better, 68 dmg.
With 3 rounds starting by a standard action because of moving to the enemy :
23+92+92 = 207
68+68+68 = 204

And let's not forget it's 23 vs. 68 each time you move !
And if only 3 iterative attacks connect (usually last don't) it's 69 damage (vs the 68 with the superpowerful blow).

I think it's fair, you won't full attack an immobile dragon at 18th level...

Lot more mobile, lot less dice rolled, damage similar until mid-levels, loss of damage compensated by the possibility to move more and still doing "full attack" damage when going into melee.
And let's not forget that with 4 iterative attacks, your are not guaranteed that all 4 hits will blow, but usually your full bab attack will, for almost full damage.

J4RH34D I don't understand the example with the druid... It's natural attack right ? So, not affected by me revision of vital strike.

Lady-J it's not nerfing, it's "freeing" you from "going into melee, full attack full attack full attack" and launching 1d20+dmg per turn instead of 4, with no useless roll because BAB-15 is too low, and "almost" full attack damage on 1 standard action.
Sometimes you'll hit more, sometimes less, it becomes almost situational (if you need to move to the enemy, you can't full attack, but here, you still do at least as damage as if you hit 3 iterative attacks out of 4).

The goal is not nerfing but doing almost as damage, considering you can still have a move action and only 1 full-bab roll and not 0/-5/-10/-15 rolls with a possibility to miss and lose 1/4 dmg each time you miss.
You have to judge if the "almost" is worth it :)
Remember that if you need to go to the enemy, you do :
"1 attack dmg, full attack dmg, full attack dmg" during the 3 first rounds.
Here you do "almost full attack dmg, almost full attack dmg,almost full attack dmg" and until higher levels it's in fact, more damage !
The loss at higher level is worth it in my opinion because you are more mobile, do "almost full attack dmg" on standard action and with iterative attacks most of the time you don't land 4 blows out of 4, so damage are more consistent.

EDIT : Oh, and the mythic part of vital strike is done via a new feat, in order to balance with TWF that need the modified Improved TWF feat to stay balanced.

Powerful Blow, good :)
If you are doing a single attack as a standard action on your turn, double your ability modifier for calculating damage. This does not work for natural attacks.
("Ability modifier" and same feat for dex and str or should be better to do 2 feats ?)

As we have seen, the problem is with non-natural, non-TWF damage, so limiting the feat to "single attack" and "not natural attacks" is logical.

If the hippo cannot use the feat (because natural attack), do you see something that could break ?

Thanks for the time taken to do this !

Let's add that a normal barbarian with a greatsword does on average 69 with 3 iterative attacks at lvl 11.
( 2*3,5 + 13 + 3) * 3 = 69

So, right, 37 is a lot less than 69 !

A TWF has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting to take in order to "vital strike" his second attack.
Let's use a feat slot for the 2-handed weapon user too.. Let's say a feat (we'll find a name later) that double your STR bonus to damage.

So :
greatsword 2d6, vitalstriked = 6d6
str + rage = + 9, doubled because of feat *1,5 because of two handed = 18 * 1,5 = 27
+3 weapon = +3

total = 6d6 + 27 +3 = 61

61 vs 69... damage are more in line with the iterative barbarian.

vs the buffed druid octopus :
165.5 vs 69 on a side
165.5 vs 61 on the other side...
as broken as ever :)

This system don't change anything else except, 1d20 thrown, 8 dmg less but 1 move action more.
Let's not forget that at first round you can go to melee and still do 61 dmg vs the standard action of the iterative barbarian doing 21 !

so, for example, for killing alone a monster with 100hp.
iterative barbarian going to melee : 21+69+69, 3 rounds.
non-iterative-vitalstriked-poweredupbyunnamedfeat : 61+61, 2 rounds.

seems balanced with this new feat (how to name it ? :p)

That's the type of reply I appreciate, thanks.

Let's try to adjust before renouncing...

You lose a lot of damage, but enemies too, the reduced effectiveness is the same for enemies..
Not sure about martial-caster disparity for damage.. at level 11 a fighter will do 6d6 with a greatsword... same as destructive blast for the destruction sphere from spheres of power (and with str bonus !).

Vital strike can be used with ranged attacks as far as I know... I just rechecked in forum questions and in the "Practical Guide to Vital Strike, http://rpgbot.net/pathfinder/characters/vital_strike.php ).

For TWF, let's stay at lvl 11 :
Greatsword : 6d6 + STR*1.5 + MISC
2 Longswords : 5d8 + STR*2 + MISC*2
You are right, more damage, not sure how to balance that. Note you need the Improved TWF feat, so maybe a feat that give STR*3 instead of STR*1.5 to two-handed weapons could work...

Invalidating iterative based fighting style is not a problem, it's normal if we remove iterative attacks so, it's not a problem for me.

Reach builds and natural attack builds ? As natural attacks don't benefit from vital strike (my modified version), I think it's not so terrible for natural attacks builds... As always it'll be good at first levels then decrease in power... right ?
About reach build... not sure to understand what it'll gain.. they lose iterative attacks too, so, the balance is the same, reach+iterative vs not_reach+iterative and now reach vs. not_reach..
I may miss something I think...

You're right also about "to do more damage than your single attack, the more viable thing is to do a lot of AoO", but I'm not sure "AoO is king in damage output" is worst than "iterative melee is king in damage output"... The problem I see here is for ranged builds that cannot AoO. Still a problem needed to balance.

In short, and thanks to your comments, my conclusion is (sorry it will not be "bad idea let's forged it", I want to try :) )
- Maybe a feat is needed to do more damage for "not-TWF" melee and ranged weapons, as Improved TWF add more damage to TWF builds (via STR+misc dmg from 2nd attack).
- Need to identify what is the problem with reach build (help me !)
- Need to identify if I underestimate the balance with natural weapons unvitalstrikeable (help me !)
- Find a solution to the issue "No iterative ? Let's invest in doing a lot of AoO !" / "Good for you, but I can't, I can't AoO with my bow, you'll always hit more than me".

Thanks !

Hello, here's a little system I'm thinking about...
I would like to test what happen if you remove full attack action with all iterative attacks and limit a lot of dice throwing, so characters can move more and players can play quickly...

Removing iterative attacks
At BAB+6 you automatically gain Vital Strike
At BAB+11 you automatically gain Improved Vital Strike
At BAB+16 you automatically gain Greater Vital Strike

These 3 feats are modified to exclude natural attacks and off-hand weapons.

Natural Weapons
Same rules as before, so you can have multiple attacks but cannot benefit of Vital Strike.

Two-Weapon Fighting
You have only one bonus attack and the feats work differently, completely modified and don't allow more attacks.
Two-Weapon Fighting : This feat don't change.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting : This feat allow the benefit of Vital Strike to the off-hand attack (and still -2, not -5).
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting : This feat allow the benefit of Improved Vital Strike with the off-hand weapon (and still -2, not -10)

For example, at BAB+17, with Greater TWF, you have a primary weapon attack at full BAB that deals (4x damage dice)+str+misc and an off-hand attack at full BAB-2 that deals (3x damage dice)+str+misc

You lose a little damage you can do, but as you can do Vital Strike and TWF as a standard action, you are more free to do something else with your move action, you are not locked to "go into melee, full attack full attack full attack".

These modifications can be done quickly while playing for monsters, so monsters and PCs will be equal, so no balance problems about it.
The balance problem could be between casters and non-casters but the problem is already here and I plan to use Spheres of Power/Might, so...

What do you think about it ?

Hello, I'm looking for small races, 1st or 3rd party.

Earth, Fire, Air and Water themed small races (like Oread, Ifrit, Sylph and Undine). Don't have to be as thematically charged... For example if Dwarves were small, it would be ok for a "small earth-themed race).

Evil, Good, Shadow, Chaos and Lawful small races (Gnome is already a fey-themed small race, don't need another).

So :
------- Medium ------ Small
Earth----- Oread----- ?
Fire----- Ifrit----- ?
Air----- Sylph----- ?
Water----- Undine----- ?
Evil----- Tiefling----- ?
Good----- Aasimar----- ?
Shadow----- Fetchling----- Wayang
Fey----- Naiad----- Gnomes
Chaos----- Ganzi----- ?
Law----- Android----- ?

Hello, I'm GMing a game with 1 player in Belkzen.
The pc woke up in a cave in the ghostlight marshes, suffering amnesia, she escaped the savage degenerate humans (grimlocks from ToH4) that planned to eat her.
[Fast Forward >>>>] :)
[...]
Now she is in Freedom Town, working for Marotis, because she needs a tribal token and he'll give her one if she works for him.
She don't know he's a cleric of Mammon, and he's like the kingpin of the town. Everyone told her "go talk to Marotis" everytime she asked for a job or for a way to buy a tribal token to the black market.

Now, before she get a tribal token and continue her travel to Urgir, I want something happening with Marotis.
The PC discovering he's not really a good guy, and having to take a side...
The "quest" given by Marotis was to hunt a human/orc family because they ran away because they owe money to Marotis. He said they are in danger and he want them alive to pay him back but in reality, he want to sell them as slaves to reimburse himself.
So she'll probably help the family escape and try to steal the token from Marotis. But after that ?

I have no idea.. who could be Marotis' adversaries with wich the PC could take a side.
She could just steal it and run away from Freedom Town, but I'd like this to be more "subtle" and make her discover NPC against Marotis and helping her (and her helping them).
Could the council, in a hidden way, try to destabilize Marotis because of his influence in town ? Or maybe there's opposition against a Mammon Cult (but who ?).

Some ideas ? :D (and sorry for my bad english.. it's not my native language)