My impression is that your problem isn't actually with the Shield Master benefits per se. Though if I've understood you correctly, I can also clearly see your reasons for viewing the feat as the culprit making sense from your perspective. (I'll dive into the details of that feat in my next post).
Instead, I'm suspecting the true issue here is a combination of the following:
Stuff about PC balance issues:
1. PF's many and varied PC build options allow for tremendous power differences between same level PCs, as does potentially your players' available time for, interest in and talent for things like character optimization or tactics/solutions to get the most out of the of their PC's mechanics in play. And while you can of course reduce PC power differences to a certain extent after the fact, for example by adapting adventure rewards and/or introducing minor changes to a few options if they turn out to be poorly balanced for your game, it's often not enough to address more serious and/or persistent balance issues. (And proactively changing things to ensure every PC option and possible build combination matches with your game's expected power level is most likely not a viable solution.)
2. The player of the new shield-bashing Viking puts more effort into (or has more talent for or experience of) optimizing his PC's mechanical combat effectiveness than the other players do.
3. None of the people you play with have run into serious PC balance issues in past PF games. Most of them likely also assume such issues are typically caused by one PC having one or a few combat statistics significantly higher or lower than those of the other PCs, maybe especially if the statistic directly affects hp damage output (average damage per hit, number of attacks in a full attack, crit range etc) or durability against attacks/effects dealing hp damage (AC, hp, DR, energy resistance, self-healing etc).
4. Likely neither you or any of your players had reasons to believe there was any need for you to discuss your thoughts, preferences and expectations regarding PC power and PC balance before your first session. And consequently you didn't define and agree on a suitable approximate power balance point for the PCs before the players started making them. And if the Viking player is new in this group, he also didn't see a reason to ask about the power level of the other PCs before building his.
If the above seems to fit reasonably well with reality and your own impressions, I believe it's highly likely that nerfing Shield Master won't solve the real problem, which will instead come up again and again in other build options the Viking player chooses. Because there are several potentially significantly more powerful options and combos available to that archetype to be found in the sources allowed per default in your game.
I therefore suggest you first try to better define the PC power levels you yourself actually prefer and expect at the relevant level ranges. And try do your best to question and adjust your preferences and expectations if it turns out they differ depending on which general kind of PC you're thinking of (such as main class, caster, martial or "gish" category, combat focus/role etc). Then talk to your players to reach a "gentlemen's agreement" as per point #4 in the spoiler above.
Hopefully, that will make the players actively try to balance their PCs' to your game, instead of the Viking player just looking for the most powerful options or the player of the weakest PC not paying enough attention to the mechanical viability of the options they chose. Once your players start to get the hang of whether an option or combo will fit with the agreed upon power level for your game, there's also little need for you to limit which PC options are allowed per default, which definitely increases the possible mechanical variety and balance of the PCs.
If we want to say Pathfinder goblins are iconic, yet to make them a playable core race we literally have to get rid of EVERYTHING that makes them iconic, then whats the point?
At this point you've got two separate races in everything but name. Either they are the goblins we have now, or they aren't. And if they aren't the iconic goblins we have now (who are intentionally made to be as unfit for PCs as humanly possible), why are we pretending they are?
Yep. Another aspect of the problem I mentioned earlier. The main things that make goblins popular as PCs is the same things that make them unsuitable as a core race.
And again, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the popularity of goblins falling if the race is described as not consisting of 99.999% crazy baby-eating homicidal pyromaniacs. I mean, if that stops being the case, I believe a lot of people who currently finds the goblin a really attractive option would simply lose interest. I mean, a big reason for playing a goblin is because of how extremely unlikely it is as an adventuring hero, and because of how many and radically different RP challenges a goblin PC presents because of the race's "default" behavior.
*quickly turns away and stirs kettle frenetically*
Sneaky Gobbo wrote:
*quietly dabbing eyes with a handkerchief*
Bigwort always cry this part. So beautiful.
Oh not again, Bigwort! Always the slobbering romantic.. You ever gonna fix those holes in that bucket o' yours?
*sobs*
Just... Just look what happens; the onions always turn out bad when you sing like that and Bigwort starts leaking! And... And the juice just always gets in my eyes!
*wipes eyes with shaking hands and loudly blows nose into kitchen apron*
And don't you dare complain 'bout your burned baby stew bein' too salty now!
....
On topic, I've never had any issues with goblin PCs, or with any of the far more exotic creatures rather frequently seen at my table. And I kinda like gobbos, as villains as well as unlikely PC heroes. So personally I certainly don't mind putting them in the CRB.
But I don't think it jams well with the Golarion setting as a whole, and even less with how goblins have been portrayed in Paizo APs (We Be Goblins included). Which unfortunately makes the decision to make them core seem hasty, short-sighted and ultimately also self-defeating to me.
IME, a major part of the reason why goblins in general and goblin PCs in particular are popular, is precisely because 99.999% of the ones PCs encounter or hear about in the setting are crazy little ugly baby-eating and trash-collecting homicidal pyromaniacs singing happy tunes about bloody murder in raspy smurf voices. Or in other words, they're popular precisely because they're practically never encountered or heard of as anything even remotely resembling heroes in the setting, and precisely because they're not primarily presented or supported as a PC race in player rules and setting material.
So the more recognized non-stereotypical goblins become in the setting, and the more support such goblins receive in player fluff material, the less unique and interesting goblins become as a PC race.
This wouldn't be an issue if goblins had as rich and diverse history and as many famous and varied heroes and villains as say elves in the setting (and in famous similar standard fantasy fiction). They could've been the eternal underdogs who constantly struggles against prejudice because of their small stature, funny "monster-cute" looks and odd quirks. But since such a background hasn't been properly established, while their villainous background certainly has, I suspect they'll quickly lose much of their attraction and soon fade into the background as just another drow. All while another similarly "edgy" and colorful monster race assumes the goblins' former role in the hearts and minds of players.
Let's hope I'm wrong, 'cause I wouldn't mind seeing gobbos grow beyond the stereotype while their attraction and popularity is kept intact.
Nice work! Makes me wanna bash myself for somehow consistently failing my Perception checks to notice this guide before now.
Although the fighter class rarely sees much use beyond the occasional 1-4 levels dip in my games, quite a lot of the higher rated stuff in your guide can also be of interest to other martials. (Which in my games primarily means Path of War initiators, and notably the Myrmidon fighter archetype which thankfully doesn't replace AWT or AAT.)
And because I'm a snarky nerdy nit-picky guy who cannot bear people being wrong on the internet, I'm really happy to finally have a place to which I can refer posters who still believe fighters are crap at fighting in comparison to other Paizo martials. Instead of having to post my own hopelessly inadequate descriptions of the fighter's many relatively recently published options and possibilities for the hundredth time... ;)
Judging from the ratings, I'm guessing this guide was primarily put together in order to help players make fighters able to, at the very least, carry their weight in typical lower op games (ie Paizo APs run as written), and to better keep up with the generally stronger Paizo martials (like the barb, bloodrager or pally). Meaning considerations mainly applicable to fighters in more demanding games are of less importance. Is this correct?
If it is, I think it still might be worth mentioning a few of the strongest and typically less obvious martial options and mechanical details mostly of interest to fighters in higher op games. Especially such options/details which fighters get at a discount and/or can get a lot of use out of, in comparison to most other martials.
A few examples:
Intimidate/demoralization: Soulless Gaze (plus another damnation feat, like Fiendskin) Combined with action-efficient demoralization (Cornugon Smash/Enforcer/Performance Combat Dazzling Display), this is easily one of the strongest feats for martials in the game, affording you to view Signature Skill (Intimidate) like a joke instead of an insult. A fighter has no problems paying for the feats to turn this into a game-changer, to the point of potentially making damage focused martials seem like complete losers. It does also come with potentially important mechanical drawbacks, but its unusually awesome fluff is its main weakness, as the very specific character story/background related requirements and consequences may severely limit access. (Fun fact: a Gladiator fighter/barb (or bloodrager) can build a quite broken higher level combo on Soulless Gaze and performance combat, able to reliably make all non-immune enemies within 30 panicked and one cowering in one combat turn. In every turn, in every fight, all day long, every day...) Worth mentioning that this feat can make the game boring unless accompanied by some minor house rulings on how demoralization works, since per RAW it's easy to get your Intimidate bonus high enough to scare the proverbial pants off of any non-immune creature ever published.
Style Feats: Ascetic Style This allows for combining reach with options otherwise limited to unarmed strikes, opening up for some fun and effective control shenanigans and damage boosts. Not to mention some conceptually hilarious stuff together with the Versatile Design weapon mod. At its most basic level, it gives you at least two additional slots for magic weapon special abilities with the chosen weapon, significantly reducing weapon enhancements costs in higher levels. And it makes your weapon attacks a valid target of some great buff spells as well, such as strong jaw. Often best combined with a monk dip though.
Combat Maneuvers: Dirty Trick Master + Fox Trickery/Kitsune Vengeance Note that Dirty Trick Master allows you to impose the dazed or nauseated conditions, which prevents the affected enemy from taking standard actions and in turn from removing the condition. So if you can reliably make two dirty tricks against the same enemy during your turn, you'll be able to effectively remove the enemy from combat. And with Fox Trickery or Kitsune Vengeance added to an AoO combo, a fighter can potentially do this against several enemies on his turn, and even outside of his turn. The many feats and high CMB required to make this really shine also means it's exceptionally well suited for fighters. Don't forget your Dueling (PSFG) weapon! As with Soulless Gaze, this can make the game boring without some minor house rules to prevent the hardcore lock down. (It's actually the only combat feat which I've nerfed slightly in my games, allowing the target to remove the worse condition as a full round action, if said condition would otherwise prevent the target from removing it as a standard action.)
Speaking of:
Magic Weapon: Dueling (PSFG) (NOT the 14k ability for Finesse weapons also called dueling for some stupid reason) +1 magic weapon ability which adds twice the weapon's enhancement bonus as a luck bonus to combat maneuvers performed/defended against with the weapon, on top of the weapon's enhancement bonus. AFAIK, nothing in the game besides several levels in the Lore Warden will provide as big a numerical boost to CMB.
Magic Weapon: Leveraging Note that this stacks with the above dueling for trip and reposition, granting a total bonus ranging from +4 to up to +42 (with furious and rage). Beating the tarrasque's CMD is easy, too bad that's not enough to trip it, and that it's typically a LOT harder or impossible to work around the many flat immunities to trip CR 10+ monsters often have...
Magic Shield: Maelstrom Shield Free action trip whenever you make a shield bash attack, at discount price. RAW, your shield bash doesn't even have to hit for the free action trip, and as per Paizo's FAQ you gain it even on attacks made outside your own turn. Allows for some fantastic AoO combos for incredible control or damage, although trip comes with a big slew of issues later in the game.
Magic Shield: Tempest Shield As the Maelstrom, but free bull rush. Unlike the often useless Shield Slam bull rush, this gives you an actual proper CMB check, allowing for significantly more reliable AoO combos than trip based ones in higher levels.
Re: Exotic Weapon Profiency and Weapon Focus Note that you can get both for a mere 2k or less by taking a COWPIS (cracked opalescent white pyramid ioun stone) in a wayfinder. Just mind what you're drinking before you do, you may have to live with the smell for a long time... :P
Sorry for the wall of text. Hope you find something useful in there.
I think Leandro gave very good suggestions, I would only like to add a potentially important detail: the Swallow Whole rules. Many large and big-mouthed opponents which you'd typically try to "tummy-ball" have this ability, and it's ruined if their tummy takes enough damage to allow a creature to cut itself out. Which seems like a reasonable effect of having a fireball go off in the innards...
Meaning I think the fireball damage should also be counted against the creature's stomach HP if it has the Swallow Whole ability, and that the ability should no longer function if the stomach takes enough damage (as detailed in the rules).
The problem is that EWP must be taken at early levels to be worth it (There isn't much point in taking EWP: Falcata at 13th level when you already ahve a bunch of weapon-based feats)), but at early level, we have much more useful feats to take.
The thing about Falcata is that it scales the best with other increases to damage. By itself without any modifiers, the falcata actually does marginally less damage than a bastard sword. But start adding bonuses from all other sources, such as strength, feats and magic weapon; and it quickly becomes the most powerful weapon.
Yeaaah... Kinda... But not really...
There is a problem with how the math of DPR calculations work... It's as if the target had infinite (or at least, incredibly vast) health and every single attack hit, but only dealt a percentage of its damage (between 5 and 95%). This makes critical multipliers and stuff like Weapon Focus look better than they actually are, IMHO.
Sure, that x3 multiplier is nice... But I'd much rather have Cornugon Smash or Lunge. Maybe Combat Reflexes or Hurtful... Not to mention feats that are obligatory for certain builds to work (TWF, IUS, etc).
This.
Though I believe math is often the most useful tool for proving and/or gaining useful insight into an option's real game value in many respects, the actual values of qualities such as reliability are much harder to express in numbers. That doesn't make the very high value of reliability or the problems with unreliable builds such as crit fishermen any less real.
OT Along Critical Tangent:
Personally, I'm highly sceptical to how crits work in general, as they're often the main cause of early level rocket tag issues, and the unpredictable swingy-ness of crit builds can make late level games less fun as well, for players as well as DMs. And for optimization purposes, with the possible exception of builds that rely on crits for fueling other abilities (certain magus and stalker builds), I have yet to see a crit fisher as effective and tactically useful as the far less swingy DPR build alternatives for more high-op games with seriously challenging combat, and so far I've been unable to find a convincing argument for spending any resources on boosting crits in such games.
And especially for builds in games with more demanding combat, I think the math would have to prove a crit reliability per round above say 75% against the most dangerous BBEGs you can expect to face (which is when a crit typically has the most value). Without such a high level of reliability, I believe it's much more likely crit related investments will turn out to be sub-par, and the great theoretical DPR numbers will be highly misleading. (But if your primary aim is to be your table's "3MO" (Master of Maximum Minion Overkill)... No?)
So far, all options/combos that have allowed for such a high crit reliability before very high levels have also proven to be ridiculously OP in comparison to any comparable (non-caster) options. And they have therefore also been Pummelled (see what I did there?) with the nerf bat.
@OP: What exactly do you mean by "worth a feat"? Do you mean "worth a feat slot" or "worth the minimum cost for proficiency"?
If it's the former, I'd say "not for 99.99% of builds in games with access to any of the (much) cheaper alternatives that grant the same benefit", but if it's the latter I'd instead say "quite often, most notably because 1.5k isn't much of a cost after the earliest levels".
I think especially the weapons that enable fun, different and maybe even unique tactics/tricks are the most interesting, at least for builds/players able to really take advantage of the related shenanigans. I think a lot of players seem to seriously underestimate the power of weapons such as the whip, certain double weapons with reach, reach weapons which can be used to threaten both 5' and 10' during the same round, and of course the throwing shield.
Shameless Throwing Shield Advertising:
Here you can find out why throwing shields are awesome. I think the "Black Hole Control Combo" and the related example build "Newton" are pretty good examples of the extremely powerful tactics unique weapon qualities can enable.
(Teaser: The black hole control combo allows for attacking several enemies more than 300' away and bringing them flat on their bellies next to you to receive additional butt-kicking, stomping and tossing around, all in the same turn! And if you add the "Soulless Seraph Smash Combo", your relentless pounding and general BFC and debuffing badass-ness will leave any survivors panicked or cowering, lying prone and robbed of their movement speed and teleportation magic.)
I dig this idea and I think the first two levels of that new fighter archetype sounds really interesting. I do have a few questions/comments/recommendations (just keep in mind that I don't play PFS and therefore know very little about the specific limitations):
Alex Mack wrote:
STR 18 DEX 14 CON 12 INT 12 WIS 14 CHA 7
Since you don't get Toughness without having to pay a feat/bonus feat slot better used for other options, I'd recommend increasing Con to 14 and decreasing Int to 9. Even with the decent AC this build has, I believe the additional HP/level, Fort and rage round the +2 Con grants is worth more for a frontliner than two additional skill points/level and a few higher Int-based skill bonuses. The human skill bonus and having the majority of levels in slayer should grant enough skill points for out of combat usefulness even with a lower Int, especially as this build does not rely on maximizing any skills and the Cha-based ones aren't worth investing in anyways.
That said, I believe I've heard that the DM must run modules/adventures as written in PFS, and that a PC cannot be of a level below the recommended by Paizo. If this is true, I think it's highly unlikely a decently built and played PC will go down even if it's a Con 12 frontliner (unless perhaps if the other party members happen to be really bad at what they do), which in turn probably means the additional skill points are more valuable.
Alex Mack wrote:
Slayer 7
Swashbuckler 1 Lunge
It appears to me that while the damage bonuses on successful combat maneuvers are nice, they'll soon become a pretty unreliable source of DPR and they don't grant this build any additional control/debuff power. Instead, the power of your "pounce" is primarily dependent on the size of the related CMB bonuses plus the number and strength of the AoOs you can reliably trigger by moving and making a standard attack shield bash. Therefore, I think you should at least consider changing the 10th and 11th level options (or 10th and 12th) as follows:
Slayer 7 MoMS Monk 1 IUS, Wolf Style
Swashbuckler 1 Lunge MoMS Monk 2 Wolf Trip/Vicious Stomp
Combine the above changes with replacing the "+X Spiked Shield of Bashing" with arguably one of the greater advantages of shield fighting, the dirt cheap Maelstrom Shield. This has an absolutely fantastic ability:
Maelstrom Shield wrote:
When used to make a shield bash attack, the shield's wielder can make a trip attack as a free action against the same target without provoking an attack of opportunity from the creature being tripped.
Bobo's Pounce In Detail:
The following details the events typically included in Bobo Bisonstep's new "pounce" combat turn if the above changes are made:
1 Move - Bobo moves up to enemy.
2 Standard - Bobo makes a shield bash attack roll.
3 Automatic - If Bobo's initial shield bash hits it deals damage as normal.
4 Free - If the shield bash hits, Bobo makes a bull rush CMB check (Shield Slam).
5 Automatic - If Bobo makes a bull rush CMB check, he deals Breaker Rush damage (regardless of whether the CMB check succeeds or not).
6 Free - Bobo makes a trip CMB check (Maelstrom Shield).
7 Automatic - If Bobo's bull rush CMB check succeeds, the enemy is moved as normal.
8 Free - If Bobo knocks the enemy prone, it falls prone in a free adjacent space of Bobo's choice (Wolf Trip).
9 AoO - If the enemy falls prone adjacent to Bobo, he makes an unarmed strike AoO (Vicious Stomp).
10 Automatic - If Bobo's AoO hits, it deals damage as normal. If the target takes at least 10 points of damage, it also reduces the target's movement speed with a number of feet equal to the points of damage dealt -5 for 1 round (Wolf Style).
11 Swift - If his bull rush CMB check succeeds, Bobo makes an AoO using his armor spikes (Spiked Destroyer).
12 Automatic - If Bobo's AoO hits, it deals damage as normal. If the target takes at least 10 points of damage, it also reduces the target's movement speed with a number of feet equal to the points of damage dealt -5 for 1 round (Wolf Style).
13 Free - If his bull rush CMB check succeeds, Bobo makes an overrun CMB check (Breaker Momentum).
14 Automatic - If Bobo makes an overrun CMB check, he deals Breaker Rush damage (regardless of whether the CMB check succeeds or not).
15 Automatic - If Bobo's overrun CMB check succeeds by +5 or more and the target isn't already prone, the target is knocked prone. The applicable events and actions starting with point #8 are repeated.
16 AoO - If Bobo's overrun CMB check succeeds by +5 or more, he makes a shield bash as an AoO (Greater Overrun).
17 Automatic - If Bobo's AoO hits, it deals damage as normal. If the target takes at least 10 points of damage, it also reduces the target's movement speed with a number of feet equal to the points of damage dealt -5 for 1 round (Wolf Style). The applicable events and actions starting with point #4 are repeated.
18 Free - If the target's movement speed is reduced to 0 or less and the target isn't already prone, Bobo makes a trip attempt. The applicable events and actions starting with point #8 are repeated.
Now that's what I call a fantastic action economy! I've probably missed a few details and made a few errors, but it should include most of the events, listed in one of the (many) orders possible according to the mostly silent RAW.
claudekennilol wrote:
Alex Mack wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
I don't see Merciless Rush stacking with the lvl 1 siege breaker ability. You can't add your str bonus more than once.
Hmm that thought hadn't occured to me as I always saw the two as seperate abilities especially as they have seperate triggers.
The siege breaker ability triggers "when you perform a Bull Rush" and Maerciless Rush triggers "when you bull rush a creature and exceed the CMD by 5 or more".
Yeah, but the result is "when you successfully hit them with a bull rush you add your strength." You can't on top of that add your strength again just because "you even more successfully hit them". You're right that they do have different triggers, but the result is adding your strength mod to the same single attack.
The emphasized part above is incorrect. Breaker Rush damage is not triggered by a successful bull rush or overrun CMB check, but by a bull rush or overrun CMB check being made (see source or spoiler in OP). Breaker Rush damage is dealt in it's own damage instance, separate from any effects triggered by the CMB result, and it should therefore stack just fine with Merciless Rush and any other +Str damage bonuses triggered by a CMB check result.
(Sidenote: the "+X Spiked Shield of Bashing" isn't working. The bashing shield ability makes a shield spike completely redundant as the "virtual damage die size" increases don't stack.)
There's also the Lute of the Battle Ready. Start shredding on your axe, then transform it into an actual axe and go to town. You can make it 20% more metal by casting continual flame on it and using weaponwand to embed a wand of fireballs.
My girlfriend's PC in Kingmaker not only bought a mithral waffle iron (they stick less) but used it in RP as part of her diplomatic efforts. It turned out that pixies and other fey really like waffles. I'd imagine you could get one which makes pizzelles instead if you were so inclined.
Awesome. Did she serve them with pesh-jam to really get the party going? :p
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one.
First off, I'm sorry for the late reply. RL distractions means I've completely missed checking up on this thread.
Anyhow, I think especially Jiggy and Ssalarn posted very eloquent replies which questions your views on this matter in the same way that I do, and also describe pretty much exactly how I see it.
Mykull wrote:
When I said “in order to win” I was referencing the OP's question. Clearly, one cannot win a game that doesn't have set criteria in order to accomplish that. However, there are often players who place themselves in an adversarial role against the DM. These individuals feel that by defeating the monsters they are beating the DM, hence, “winning the game.” Again, I thought that this was understood. I apologize that you “don't get this either.” I made an assumption I shouldn't have.
Well, of course I suspected this was what you meant. The reason I asked anyway was to make sure we were talking about the same thing and to highlight the irrelevance and futility of it. Now that you clarified what you meant, and since it appears you believe min-maxing and char-op is something only done by "power gamer" type of players who want to "win", you are actually saying that a player that optimizes his/her character is not only stupid (not understanding they cannot ever "win"), but also don't even know what an rpg is.
That is one of your assumptions I would've found insulting if your post hadn't been so obviously emotionally charged. More importantly, you are obviously ignorant of what min-maxing and practical char-op actually is and especially what the most common purposes of it are, at least in groups with reasonably mature people that aren't out to ruin anyone else's fun.
Mykull wrote:
What bothers me are players who are clearly power-gaming in order to “win” but don't admit it. These are the people who pore over all the material they can to come up with the most optimized build and then hem and haw about their back story because they haven't really thought about it. But people who are honest with themselves and with me about their play style really are okay. True, it may not be mine, but I still welcome them at my table in the same way that even though I prefer cats, I still enjoy the company of dog-lovers.
Again, I can understand being bothered by a lack of honesty. What I don't understand is why you assume that "power-gaming in order to “win”" is somehow an inherent trait or the only purpose of using options from several sources, or of character optimization in general for that matter.
Mykull wrote:
Honest, not horrible. For all your love of acting, you admit that you wouldn't be playing this rpg if not for the mechanics aspect of it (ROLL-playing).
Ooops! My sentence should've said "I wouldn't even be into PF in the first place if not for the ROLE-playing". My bad. Anyhow, my point was that despite being a player that grew up with, and have basically only played in, "story and character first"-games, not to mention a lot of free-form and semi-impro-acting games, I spend quite a lot of time on optimizing the mechanics of my characters in games like PF. I even find it an absolute necessity to do so in many cases. Which according to you, if I'm understanding you correctly, is an impossibility.
In other words, I optimize a lot, but never to "win".
Mykull wrote:
Your group plays the same way (“bring it in line with other[s]”), so you min/max first and come up with back story second.
You misunderstand. First, the "bring in line with others" is about me having to do my part in minimizing the mechanical balance problems of the 3.5/PF rules system. That means for example that if I want to play a martial character in a new game and my friends have already created a full casters, I better be prepared and able to optimize my character's mechanical effectiveness and versatility beyond what is normally expected of a martial character, whereas the opposite (reining in effectiveness and versatility) is true for my friends and their full caster characters. Both are examples of practical character optimization.
Second, it seems you assume the end result must somehow be different depending on whether I "min/max first and come up with back story second" or vice versa. But that's simply not the case. There is no common source of inspiration for my characters, and neither can I ever recall a source of inspiration actually conspiring to diminish the quality of my PC's backstory or that of my characterization/ROLE-play.
For example, some characters have come alive only because I've stumbled upon mechanical combos, and others have instead required that I write a lot of home brew mechanics in order to be able to represent the character's abilities in the system. Likewise, as a DM I'll do everything I can in order to help my players' realize their character ideas, both in terms of pure story fluff and in terms of pure game mechanics crunch. Which may for example include writing up and play testing new feats, races, archetypes, PrCs, etc. Here's a pretty recent example - a bloodrager archetype made primarily so one of my players could realize his character idea in a way fitting with the mechanical demands of that game.
Mykull wrote:
For these “most memorable characters” did you already have a concept in mind and then had to scrutinize multiple sources to find the pieces that would make this idea a reality? Or were you min/maxing, found the bits that powered up your character, played it a few times, and then it became memorable?
First, I find it wrong to assume character optimization is always about making the most mechanically effective character possible according to the rules and options available. If that were true, a PC would have to be a wizard to be called optimized. Char-op is not even always about making a certain character concept or class as mechanically effective as possible, though I can see why it's easy to get that impression from looking at class guides and example builds, since the creators cannot make any assumptions about the requirements or preferences of specific games or players. In reality, I think char-op is just as often about realizing a concept and simply making it viable. And sometimes, as in the case of my last character (a summoner), it may even be about nerfing mechanical power without losing flavor in the process or making the character too mechanically weak.
To answer your questions, I can't remember ever having played without having a clear idea of my character, regardless of any mechanics. This does not in any way exclude that the character concept was born out of a purely mechanical combo, as was the case of some of my "most memorable" PCs. I think a major reason those were memorable is precisely because the mechanics they were created from both allowed for and inspired a distinct and different character concept.
Mykull wrote:
Actually, I've seen through it, and weathered the storm. I've cultivated a group of gamers that enjoy my DM style and regularly come back for more. I've been playing with one group for over thirty years, and entirely different group for twenty years, a third group of experience gamers that I've been running for a year and a half, and a fourth group that is brand new to rpg's that has been playing for about two years.
Regardless of the popularity and quality of your games (which may very well be high), I don't think you have seen through the Stormwind at all.
And think of it this way: your games may actually become even better if you do. I'd even go as far as saying it's unavoidable.
Are martial characters barred from focusing on something other than damage if they want to remain at least somewhat useful in combat beyond 10th level? Can for example a 20th level fighter or barbarian gain control/buff/debuff/tanking/defender abilities powerful enough to make their ability to lower enemy hp largely irrelevant? Or at least powerful enough allow them to be as effective as their DPR-optimized counterparts, despite a much lower damage output capacity?
If you know of any such Paizo and/or DSP options/combos/builds or have one of your own, please post a link or summary here and describe what it does!
In my experience, the answer is "yes" to the first question and "no" to the other two, particularly in games limited to Paizo sources, and even more so in games limited to only the "core" CRB options. In games including Path of War (or adapted ToB) options, I think such non-DPR focused martials generally do a lot better, but it seems to me that is also mostly because of the high actual baseline DPR being built into the martial maneuver system, not mostly because the non-damage related options are powerful enough to make the build's damage output capacity largely irrelevant.
I think I might have proven myself wrong with my most recent build experiment, although as far as I know, I've just stumbled upon a few odd combos allowing for an extremely rare exception. As its effectiveness is also dependent on tons of very specific options from wildly different sources, it also an annoyingly complex build which has very little room for variations.
But I'm certain there are loads of nifty combos and much more efficient builds than mine that proves martials really can be effective in higher level combat without having to deal much damage at all. Please enlighten me!
As a rough definition of "effective", think of what a reasonably optimized DPR-focused martial of equal level is capable of, for example how powerful and/or how many enemies it's typically able to remove from combat on an average round. If you know of an option or a combo of options that could help a non-damage focused martial match that level of usefulness in higher levels, or maybe a complete build that can, it fits here!
Pretty much anything that sits too long at the top of the list for Martial based DPR builds, will get nerf stomped into oblivion, and anyone who used the build will be mercilessly persecuted.
True dat. Though in contrast to most of the martial stuff hit by the nerf-bat in the past, I think at least three of the recent targets mentioned in this thread actually needed to be reined in:
1. Especially PS being easily turned into a crazy Dead Shot crit-nuke from hell was, like I said before, incredibly stupid (regardless of whether it was used with UAS or FCT:ed natural attacks). It should've worked like Clustered Shots from the start. I wonder just what the devs were on when they first wrote and approved of that...
2. Was anyone here actually upset when the party-wide and stockpiling abuses of Contingent Scroll was prevented? Regardless, it's not on the list of any martials. Nerfing Contingent Action to prevent the extremely high-level and build-specific trick used by Avaron's hilarious monk would be rather pointless, like he said.
3. Courageous wasn't broken IMO, but it was damn OP as a +1 ability. Meaning outside of some builds needing to prioritize other stuff, it was pretty much a no-brainer choice.
That said, I think the actual solutions shows the devs went on yet another of their signature anti-martial stampedes, trampling their targets into uselessness and their wildly swung nerf-bats causing collateral damage to innocent bystanders. In this case, they turned the no-brainer Courageous into the opposite - a no-brainer non-choice - and caused collateral damage by preventing PS from being used with FCT:ed natural attacks, which was completely uncalled for considering the high costs involved. For the same reason, I think the FCT nerf went too far, if a nerf even was needed to begin with.
SiuoL wrote:
Wow! Pazio is following Wizard's footstep, trying to ruin Pathfinder from the core. Wow... I'm speechless.
If you're referring to the old martial-caster disparity, Paizo has in many ways stayed more true to that 3e dogma than WotC did. (Case in point: ToB was a Wizard product while Paizo has refrained from doing anything similar and stated they pretty much never will. Thankfully, DSP and PoW saved PF from being completely devoid of versatile effective martial classes.)
Due to a discussion over at GitPG about Paizo options for a (non-synthesist) natural attack DPR build, I got curious enough about the potential in the combined suggestions to put together a build.
Though I think the result actually came out free from any major flaws stopping it from being able to do its thing in a real game, it's still a rather silly one-trick pony that prioritizes DPR far beyond what is reasonable instead of improving other areas. But it also turned out to be pretty damn good at its DPR trick, better than what I would've thought possible after Pummeling Style got a well-deserved beating by the nerf-bat, and it can for example easily one-shot the tarrasque at 20th (probably earlier).
Which got me wondering - what are the alternative combinations to achieve the same type of overkill silliness? And what do those alternative martial class builds with equal or better DPR numbers look like?
In short, I'm primarily looking for builds that, say:
uses only Paizo options
does not include Leadership
have at least 16 of 20 levels in martial classes (= classes with max 4th level casting)
in one turn can deal an average of at least 600 points of damage to an AC 40, DR 15/- enemy starting more than 80 ft away
can do the above reliably and repeatedly during several turns per day
I haven't been able to find any such builds here (which either means my search-fu simply isn't up to the task, or hopefully that people here use their brains for more productive things than over-optimizing DPR). So I'm asking you for help:
Do you know of or remember any builds (posted here on the Paizo boards, someplace else, or that are still only in your head) that you think might fit the above criteria?
If so, I would be very grateful if you could post a link or a build outline!
Weapon wielders are of special interest, but any build that fits is welcome.
Comments on the subject are of course also welcome!
A diviner targeting fort saves with disintegrate or flesh to stone would give casters a nasty surprise.
Fixed that for you. Going first is essential.
Why is it all the theorycrafted wizards are diviner's when rolling initiative and teleportation sub-school when grappled.
It's one or the other, you can't be both.
Of course they can, because they're all actually Schrödinger wizards, duh! Sure would be nice to see a less quantum kind of pointy-hatter for once...
Re: a mage killer, I'm afraid I also think the "another full caster"-crowd is correct, at least if you're limited to Paizo material and expect to be any good at it after say level 12.
If Path of War stuff is allowed, I'd recommend something like a stalker 5 / mage hunter 10. At least as good as the full casters at mage-killing, but without being OP or necessarily turning combat into one die roll (initiative) affairs.
The wrathblood archetype was made with the following mechanical objectives:
Full BAB melee focus
Tier 3 versatility/power (comparable to for example inquisitor or magus)
Easy to play (especially in combat)
Versatile and effective utility/non-combat abilities
Enables several effective mechanically different character builds
Retain relative effectiveness/usefulness in higher level games
In terms of fluff/flavor, the wrathblood is intended to fill a "monster-PC" niche and to provide a PC option focusing on natural attacks, without suffering from the problem of "early-level OP - late-level UP" associated with other natural attack class/archetype options.
In short, the wrathblood archetype replaces 17 of the 35 bloodrage features, most notably:
Uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge and spell casting are replaced by the ability to gain eidolon evolutions while bloodraging, starting with 2 evolution points at 2nd level and increasing to a maximum of 8 points at 20th level.
Blood casting and eschew materials are replaced by the ability to trade rounds of bloodrage to gain the effects of the beast shape spell for 1 hour/day at 4th level, similar to the druid's wild shape ability but not useable in combat and limited to a maximum of 5 uses/day of beast shape IV at 20th level.
Bloodline bonus feats are replaced by bonus style feats and the ability to use two styles simultaneously at 10th level (prerequisites and fuse ability near identical to the master of many styles monk archetype).
Bloodline bonus spells are replaced by the ability to trade rounds of bloodrage to gain the effects of each evolution surge spell 1/day during a bloodrage (starting with the lesser spell at 7th level and ending with the greater spell at 16th level) or the displacement or stoneskin spell for one round while bloodraging (at 13th level).
I would especially appreciate your help, input and views with regards to five questions:
Q1:
Is the wrathblood on about the right power level for tier 3? (Note that the archetype is intended to be more capable than the bloodrager and other full BAB classes designed by Paizo.)
Q2:
Does the wrathblood meet the other mechanical objectives?
Q3:
Does the wrathblood live up to its intended flavor and is that flavor sufficiently unique, interesting and fun in your view?
Q4:
Do the wrathblood abilities have the potential to cause any new obviously OP/broken combinations (by themselves or combined with a certain bloodline/feat/race or other PC option)?
Q5:
A (DM) - Do you think any of your players would be interested in playing a wrathblood character and would you like to make the archetype available to them?
B (Player) - Would you be interested in playing a wrathblood character if the archetype was available?
Naturally, I would also be grateful for any improvement ideas/suggestions/tips and critique/praise/comments you may have!
I've made several portable steam powered items intended for any setting with a technological level comparable to that of Golarion (emerging guns, clockwork constructs exist).
In short, the rules system for these items are based on a Pool of "pressure points" (PrP), generated by a portable steam boiler, a certain Pool value (or threshold) required for the continuous benefits provided by steam engines (powered armor, weapons etc), and a certain number of the Pool's PrP spent when activating special functions of the engines. The system and the items were designed with an aim to be player-friendly in combat, provide non-caster characters with additional versatility, and to include a large number of meaningful and varied options and combinations.
Currently, the maximum Pool value and the number of PrP the Pool regains per round is set and only dependent on the type of boiler used and its accessories. Though this has been briefly tested in play and seem to work fine, I would prefer a system which also allowed the user to take actions in order to temporarily affect the max Pool and regain values. I experimented a bit with various actions (swift, move, standard etc.) to disable engines for additional PrP regain and "pressure Pool overloading", but found it to be too complicated for practical use, at least with the current design of the steam engines. I've been trying to come up with other mechanics for partially action-dependent PrP regain and max Pool, which:
1. Rewards clever combat tactics
2. Demands a minimum of book-keeping in combat
3. Is at least somewhat believable as non-magic
So far, I haven't been successful and would greatly appreciate any suggestions, advice, tips or other relevant input you may have.
Here's an excerpt from the document I'm working on, describing the current system and a a few of the more complex items. Apologies for the wall of text... (You're of course welcome to also comment the content from other perspectives if something seems totally out of place, but this thread is primarily intended to focus on the above.)
After having read (too) many posts in the threads about this errata, there's one thing I think almost every poster forgets to mention when stating their opinion: perspective.
Of course a person who believes PF has no major caster/mundane class disparity problems is much more likely to approve of the errata than a person who does. Or a person who only rarely play in levels beyond 10 in comparison to one who often does. Or someone who believes non-magic abilities, in general, simply should be less effective than magic ones (for reasons of "verisimilitude" or whatever), in comparison to someone who wishes for increased class balance. Or someone who often sees highly optimized melee PCs but has never seen an equally highly optimized caster in play, compared to someone who has. Or someone who mostly plays PFS in comparison to someone who mostly plays home games.
For example:
Cheapy wrote:
I can't speak to the masses out there, but as far as professional game designers for Pathfinder go, I've seen only very few who find the old version to be anything even approaching balanced. And I've talked about the feat with a lot of professional game designers.
Yes, of course most professional PF designers will say this, because they tend to have a similar perspective (being PF designers). That means they're highly likely to take certain parameters for granted, for example that potentially game breaking caster combos aren't as problematic as potentially game breaking mundane combos and that the imbalances between different types of player options are simply a part of the game. In short, what I believe most developers actually say is that Crane Wing is unbalanced in comparison to other melee related player options in PF, especially at early levels. If we were to ask specifically for their opinion on how balanced mundane PC's with Crane Wing are to, say, conjuration wizards at level 10, I guess the answer would be quite different.
Also, I'd bet that the developers that actually have a different perspective to begin with (such as most people working with DSP) would call this nerf both unnecessary and way too extreme.
Personally, I'd probably vote for option #5 (6?):
5. Crane Wing was OK, but perhaps not at level 2. They should've changed MoMS or the prerequisites to prevent early level access instead.
And my perspective is that martial classes (especially the monk) need more options on the power level of Crane Wing in order to help with party balance problems. And especially that martial classes need strong options not directly related to DPR, but rather options for making martial combat roles other than striker viable and effective throughout all levels. How about some true tank/defender mechanics to make their typically high durability mean something for their party, for example?
Alchemist? Buff and bash
Eldritch Knight? Buff and bash
Warpriest? Buff and bash
Bard? Buff and bash
Druid? Possible Buff and bash
Ranger? Sometimes Buff and bash
Paladin? Sometimes Buff, always selfheal and bash
Inquisitor? Buff and bash
Magus? Buff use spell damage and bash
Summoner? The ultimate expression of Buff'n'bash
Fixed that for you... ;-)
Abraham spalding wrote:
Just think it would be nice to for once have a 'partial' caster that isn't simply another form of buff and bash.
I was thinking perhaps we would actually get something new.
While the theme of the ACG is hybrids of existing classes - supposedly meaning we should never had been hoping for any new inventive combat roles/specializations in the first place - I also actually believed the BR would turn out to be something truly new. In contrast to all of the other classes in the play test, I think the BR had all the potential to break away from the old concepts like buff'n'bash and explore something that hadn't already been done to death (literally) by existing classes. I mean the "barcerer" class combo and bloodrage are conceptually both different and awesome ideas, and the fluff is great, making the BR feel like a class of its own that creates something new and unique by meshing old well-known components. Personally, I also really hoped for a full BAB class in tier 3, filling that rather huge balance void created by the current classes.
But sadly, I have to agree the great qualities of the concept and fluff aren't reflected in the mechanics, which so far also refuse to secure a place for the BR in tier 3. Instead, we get yet another fighter - a class mechanically defined by its melee striker combat role, a focus often not applicable to the situation and its power lacking the flexibility to not be easily circumvented by opponents in higher levels. Just as every other full BAB class in PF so far, unfortunately.
On the bright side, seems there are a few possible tier 3 builds of the current BR which offers both more flexibility and more interesting tactics. Some of the bloodlines allow for quite hilarious niche builds with combat tactics and tricks that simply wouldn't be viable for any other melee class, at least not in higher levels.
In short: Magus list =/= paladin or ranger spell list. The latter two were designed to survive a significant loss of caster level.
This.
Anyhow, I would really like to see the BR have more casting, especially combined with a better action economy for casting in melee, more like a true barb gish but leaning rather heavily towards the melee side. So I say:
Improve the BR's maximum spell level, slots/day and casting mechanic, and keep the full BAB.
And no, this would not be OP, as it wouldn't even get the BR beyond tier 3, much less giving it powers anyway near comparable to the tier 1 classes. But it would hopefully make the BR the most powerful full BAB class (the only one from Paizo in tier 3).
Naturally, this shouldn't be translated into making the BR a 6th level caster. Rather, I suggest the BR continues to cast like any 4th level caster (-3CL), choosing form a limited spell list (primarily composed of self buffs plus a few debuffs and utility spells), but also gains one single bonus spell slot/day per spell level as if a 6th level caster (one 1st level slot @ level 1, one 2nd level slot @ level 4 a s o). These bonus spell slots would be reserved for spells from a very short list of (primarily) direct damage spells, known for free with each bloodline. The BR would only be able to cast these bloodline spells while raging, but they are cast at full CL and receive a bonus to DC equal to the BR's con mod.
In addition, the bloodline spells would be combined with some kind of scaling combat casting mechanic that feels "raging" and different than the magus' spell combat and spellstrike. Preferably, this mechanic also improves the BR's melee flexibility regardless of casting. Perhaps:
@ 1st level: a full round action to cast and charge
@ 10th level cast and charge with half the number of attacks the BR makes in a full attack, or pounce without casting
@ 20th level cast and pounce
(This is just a simple outline not including versions at levels in between.)
Or something that differs depending on bloodline (though some version of pounce should be a minimum, regardless of combat casting mechanic).
I also think the bloodlines' powers should, at least to some extent, focus on increasing combat flexibility (mobility, adaptable resistances, action economy etc). Finally, I also suggest the BR gains 4 skill points/level and a few more bloodline-dependent class skills to increase the class' flexibility out of combat.
Anyhow, I think this suggestion might solve several issues at once, for example, it:
Gives the BR stronger casting while keeping to the 4th level caster structure (on paper, at least) and without stepping on the magus' toes
Connects casting in combat and damage spells with bloodrage
Enables effective casting of damage spells in combat without causing additional MAD or action economy issues
Gives the bloodlines more tools to differentiate and balance power
Gives PF a much needed full BAB melee class more balanced to the the primary caster classes
Speaking of being late to the discussion... This is what I get for deciding to not check BR threads before I finished play testing: 20 pages of arguments, counterarguments and suggestions to read up on... :(
Anyways, first a disclaimer, since I'm afraid this might come out sounding arrogant and provocative to some people, and I'd rather be taken seriously than be flamed to the proverbial non-regen status as the troll du jour:
DISCLAMER: Everything I post here is according to my opinion unless specifically stated otherwise. If you think anything sounds demeaning to your views, opinions or feelings, it is most likely a most unintentional side effect of a me lacking the eloquence required to express myself in a less abrasive manner, combined with my desire to get my point across. And for these shortcomings, I sincerely apologize and promise that I'll do my best to improve.
Abraham spalding wrote:
when your whole argument is a logic fallacy based on a plead to tradition you do not get to simply declare other arguments invalid due to your fallacy.
Unfortunately, this single sentence about sums up most of the thread IMO. With a few rare exceptions, it seems the suggestions proposed and the discussion surrounding them are based on a collection of pleads to tradition, or old beliefs and parameters taken for granted as valid and unquestionable truths, even though they may not be relevant to this case or ceased to be or never even were verified or objectively valid truths. So I'm gonna have to go all Nietzsche ranting about the three myths I find the most prevalent and disruptive to the discussion on this thread:
Nietzsche Rant:
1 The Myth of the UCPU - Universal Class Power Unit
This is the strange preconception that certain groups of mechanics that happen to exist in all current classes are therefore somehow comparable units measurable across classes, despite the mechanics typically being dependent on tons of other, not so easily comparable things. An example of this myth is the belief that a balanced class cannot have 1/2 BAB (à la wizard) and 6th level casting (à la bard) without being UP, or full BAB and 6th level casting without being OP. Or the belief that a class' weapon and armor proficiencies, number of skill points/level, bonus feats, HD size or whatever are translatable into some kind of valid cross-class unit of power - the UCPU (Universal Class Power Unit).
The UCPU as an even remotely accurate measure doesn't exist, and using it to, for example, make suggestions for a new class is at best a waste of time or at worst grossly misleading and counter productive. BAB and casting represent two very separate groups of mechanics that aren't equal or even meaningfully comparable by themselves in a vacuum in terms of power and have never been, in PF or any edition of D&D. For example, according to all existing classes, the average level of any class with access to 9th level spells is inherently significantly more powerful than the average level of any full BAB class, but this does not mean a new class with access to 9th level spells is inherently more powerful than any full BAB class (though it would unfortunately most likely be so). Likewise, one class' power may be largely a product of its HD size, while another class' power has very little to do with its HD.
There simply are no easy shortcuts, simplifications or UCPUs to help compare classes or balance a new class. A class is an inherently complex whole which cannot be accurately evaluated by comparing its separate parts to other classes' separate parts. At least not if those doing the comparisons doesn't have a very high level of system mastery and understand and agree on all the differences hidden in the seemingly identical game terms.
The most common expressions of the UCPU myth in the BR discussion seem to be along the lines of:
"The BR should have 6th level casting, it can easily keep up melee with less BAB anyway."
"The BR doesn't rely on its casting since it only gets 4th level spells like the ranger or paladin."
"The BR should get more skill points, the barb has both rage powers and full BAB and still gets 4."
2 The Myth of the Absolute Class Structures
Related to UCPUs is the belief that a new class must adhere to the structure of an existing class, despite several of those existing classes having unique structures. As an example, there's little to gain from, and no rule against, a new 6th level spontaneous caster class not having the same number or progression of spell slots/level/day or spells known/level as the summoner and the inquisitor.
A good example of this is the suggestion that the BR should get level -3 CL based on the argument that the two existing 4th level casters get that.
3 The Myth of the Need for Balance Based on Class Type
Also related to UCPUs, this is the myth that a new class must never be more powerful than existing classes of its type to prevent power creep. Which is absolutely relevant when discussing full casters, but quite irrelevant when discussing full BAB classes such as the BR. I'd even say it's actually inversely relevant for a new full BAB melee class - as long as it doesn't outclass the wizard or cleric, the more powerful it is compared to existing full BAB melee classes, the better. I'm going to argue why in a little FAQ:
Q: But if the BR gets more powerful than the barb/paladin/whatever, won't that result in nobody wanting to play those classes anymore?
A: I still think the fighter is one of the most popular PF classes, statistically speaking. And it's also one of the least powerful. People will generally play whatever class they find cool, at least unless/until they run into party balance issues which makes that choice less viable. Which is precisely where a more powerful full BAB melee class comes in handy, capable of remaining relevant in higher levels despite hanging out with tier 2-3 classes, something PF currently sorely lacks (with the possible exception of certain pouncing/spell-sundering/invulnerable barb builds).
Q: But how can a melee focused class be that powerful, wouldn't that be unrealistic?
A: Well, the BR is a product of explicitly supernatural and magic powers, so I guess it wouldn't be any less realistic if it could slay epic monsters by flailing its limbs in their faces than if it could, say, alter the flow of time like its arcane parent class can.
/Nietzsche rant
I'll get to my detailed suggestions for the BR in a later post.
There's also issues like the Warpriest where it having like 4-5 per-day pools to track (spells, sacred armor, sacred weapon, blessings, channel energy) makes things a little less fun regardless of whether or not it works. Theorycrafting would account for whether or not it works but you don't realize how much of a pain in the ass it is until someone is trying to find room on their character sheet for all these pools in addition to any non class feature pools they have and having trouble remembering what they can do. I have players with short enough attention spans where this becomes a huge problem.
Huh? I've seen plenty of theoretical analyses of classes taking fiddly bookkeeping into account. Not in order to judge the class' power level of course, since that would be irrelevant, but certainly when judging its playability and "fun potential" for various types of players. I do this kind of analysis myself when looking at a class I've never played and so far I don't think I've ever been proven wrong when I see the class played in practice.
mplindustries wrote:
Those are exactly the sorts of classes that need theorycrafting to show why they're weak.
*snip*
Mystic Theurge is another good example. That's just thinking, "Oh no! They have both kinds of spellcasting! That's better than one kind!" If anyone had really thought about it, they'd immediately see why it's problematic (action economy, quadratic rise in magical power, etc.
This. The MT was actually proven to be much less powerful than many people thought just by using theorycraft. Quoting from the Giant in the Playground forums:
Quote:
NO! It did not show everyone otherwise because I and many others got it right from theorycraft. I had a prolonged internet argument with a guy who thought theurge was good based on having "so many spells", I kept pointing out that a single classed cleric was better by ANY reasonable standard. I finally had to point out that the single classed character could simply PREPARE level 2 spells in his level 6 slots if the other guy really thought more level 2 slots were all that.
He still didn't really concede, claiming that "no one would do that" so the theurge would still have more of the VITAL low level buffs.
I agreed that no one would do that, because nerfing yourself down to MT power was a stupid self nerf, and pointed to the existence of MASS versions of those buffs which is what you'd actually do. At which point he more or less conceded.
Note that my argument was theory craft, so was his, but one of us had actually looked at the classes and done the math based on what was available when 3.5 came out and got the later consensus analysis without serious difficulty.
I'll wager that pretty much ANYTHING you claim is only learned by practical experience about 3.x was spotted by SOMEONE prior to such experience based on theorycraft. This includes things that are wrong, but it's perfectly possible to come to correct conclusions from theorycraft and YOUR CHOSEN EXAMPLE of something missed by theorycraft is in fact something I personally spotted based on theorycraft.
So no.
I also think this poster is spot on in the last paragraph and I agree totally:
"I'll wager that pretty much ANYTHING you claim is only learned by practical experience about 3.x was spotted by SOMEONE prior to such experience based on theorycraft."
I think a few areas of the grappling RAW are annoyingly vague or produce weird results, so this is an attempt to clarify and correct these areas. I would very much appreciate your help and input on making this "house errata", ensuring it’s as close to both RAW and what we believe to be RAI as possible (or correct me if I’ve missed something in the current rules).
In addition, I believe the numbers in the grappling rules have rather counter-intuitive effects, so I also have a more typical house rule suggestion that could need some polishing from you.
First, the vague or weird parts of the current RAW and my “errata” so far:
1. Grapple + Reach:
1. Initiating grapple with reach:
Grapple wrote:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space...
This means that if, for example, an enlarged PC successfully grapples a non-adjacent BBEG, the PC can also immediately drop the BBEG into whatever burning pit/acid pool/horrible black void the PC might be adjacent to, and the BBEG isn't even allowed a save. The lack of a small and simple addition makes this inconsistent with the grapple “Move” action and allows for some ridiculously devastating combos. Makes me believe this obvious error is just an editing mistake, not a rules design flaw and certainly not intentional.
Errata: Copy and paste the following line to the section above:
Grapple “Move” action wrote:
If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
2. The 2H Myopia:
2. The "two hands" and "a" in the grapple and grappled condition texts (my emphasis):
“If You Are Grappled” wrote:
...you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon...
If following these insufficient rules to the letter, you’ll often get very large, (mostly) unjustified and sometimes plain silly differences between how affected even similar creatures’ offense are by being grappled, for example:
A. A creature with six hands cannot attack with any of the three falchions it wields as those attacks require two hands.
B. If the same creature instead wields six battleaxes, it may attack with one of these - ”a light or one-handed weapon”.
C. If the creature instead has six claw attacks, it can make all six in a full attack since claw attacks don’t require hands at all, and neither are claws ”a light or one-handed weapon”.
D. If the creature instead has three slam attacks it can make all of them, except those using arms ending in hands (as in the case of an eidolon’s arms, for example).
Did the devs suddenly forget they’ve designed plenty of creatures other than humanoids with one pair of hands? Maybe those creatures weren’t supposed to be involved in grappling…
The FAQ does give us a few hints on the RAI, but also confuses things by being even more focused on creatures with two hands (my emphasis):
FAQ wrote:
The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand.
The RAW states that the action cannot require two hands, which I believe is far from the same as saying only attacks that can be taken ”with only one hand” are possible. Is a grappled creature’s full attack limited to attacks using only a single hand? Or is it limited to attacks that don’t require two hands?
FAQ wrote:
You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction) .
So the intent of the “no-2H-actions”-rule, AFAICT, is to reflect that an opponent has got hold of one of the grappled creature’s limbs – ”typically an arm” – which thus cannot be used to take actions. Is it RAI that grappled creatures without the hands or weapon/attack types mentioned in the RAW should also have their actions limited by having one less important limb at their disposal? If so, how do you find out which limb has been taken hold of?
Errata:
House Errata Grapple wrote:
...attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, [choose one of the foe’s limbs (arm, leg, head, tail, tentacle, wing etc.). Until the grapple ends, the foe cannot take actions requiring the use of the chosen limb. For example, choosing an arm prevents the foe from taking actions using a handheld item (such as a weapon attack) with that arm, choosing the head prevents the foe from making bite and gore attacks etc. Constant abilities or properties bound to the limb, such as speech, sight or worn items, are unaffected. In addition,] both you and the target...
Errata:
House Errata Grapple “If You Are Grappled” wrote:
...you can take any action that doesn’t require [the use of the limb the foe has chosen when initiating the grapple. Typically, this means] you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such...
3. Grappled vs. Pinned:
1. Easier to escape Pinned than Grappled:
Pinned wrote:
Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack....
Grapple “Pin” action wrote:
…you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.
Let’s say a lvl 8 barb PC is being grappled by a villain with approximately similar stats. The barb has a CMB of 16 (8 bab, 8 str) and the villain a CMD of 27 (8 bab, 7 str, 4 dex, -2 dex grappled), meaning each escape attempt made by the barb has a 50% chance of succeeding. If the villain pins the barb, the barb’s CMB remains unaffected while the villain’s CMD loses the Dex bonus, and suddenly the barb has a 60% chance of succeeding on an escape attempt. This seems to run counter to the description and RAI of pinned being a more serious and physically restraining condition than grappled.
Errata:
House Errata Grapple “Pin” action wrote:
…you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC, [but your CMD receives no penalty versus the pinned enemy’s combat maneuver checks to escape].
What do you think? Are there any less complex or otherwise better ways to handle these issues, without deviating further from RAW and RAI?
And second, the house rule suggestion:
Changed CMB/CMD bonuses:
1. Easier to initiate grapple than to prevent escape from grapple:
The grappled condition gives dex penalties while Greater Grapple, Grab and the inherent +5 bonus to maintain only give bonuses to CMB on grapple checks, not to CMD. This means most creatures, especially those focusing on grapple, usually have a very good chance of succeeding on their initial grapple attempt, but have a relatively poor chance of preventing the grappled enemy from escaping on the enemy’s turn. This is very counter-intuitive, IMO, since it means it’s easy to establish a hold, but difficult to keep it. In addition, the inherent +5 bonus to CMB checks to maintain a grapple suggests the RAI is that it should indeed be easier to keep the hold than to establish it.
House Rule:
House Ruled Grappled condition said wrote:
Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity, , [but the CMD of the creature initiating the grapple instead gains a +1 bonus versus the grappled enemy’s combat maneuver checks made to escape or reverse the grapple].
