It is my hope that the good Sir Samuel Leming and all the rest of the gang will drop in this thread with numerically crunched goodness to compliment (or shoot down, as necessary ^_^) the estimations I put together for this trio of "core combat machine" character classes.
To summarize:
Lenny the 16th level Barbarian using Vital Strike, Haste, etc. (from the pertinent thread) in a full attack sequence of 4 melee attacks could reasonably be expected to average roughly 188 points of damage in a single round. Against a CR 18 (AC 35, 300 hp) foe, said foe is dogmeat in one round against a 16th level party - or two rounds if Lenny gets to have his way with that foe in consecutive full attacks.
Lenny the 16th level Fighter (from the pertinent thread) in a full attack sequence of 5 melee attacks could reasonably be expected to average roughly 204 points of damage in a single full-round attack. Again, we have one character that can fell a foe with a CR rating two higher than his character level all by his lonesome in two rounds, and probably only ONE round with the 'standard' trio 16th level buddies.
Lenny the 16th level Archery Ranger (from the pertinent thread) firing off a volley of 5 arrows could reasonably be expected to average roughly 115 points of damage not counting any Favored Enemy damage bonuses. By himself he would need 3 rounds to fell the same critter either the Barbarian or the Fighter can drop in 2. Against his "first" favored enemy critter type he can keep up with the Barbarian and Fighter, dispatching one such CR 18 foe in two rounds.
Lenny the 16th level Two-Weapon Ranger (from the pertinent thread) wielding rapier and kukri dealing out a tally of 7 combined weapon attacks could reasonably expected to average roughly 104 points of damage per round, not counting Favored Enemy damage bonuses. Much like the Archery Ranger, the Two-Weapon Ranger is heavily dependant upon this class ability/feature to reliably act as the primary weapon-based damage dealer of a party. Again, this is against a CR 18 foe with a 35 AC and 300 hp.
As far as generalized class comparisons go...
The Barbarian is really all about get mad at the drop of a hat and smashing things, living or otherwise. In the latter regard they are quite good, moreso than a Fighter due specifically to Rage, especially against stubborn obstacles (doors, walls...), animated objects, critical-hit-immune creatures and constructs. In this role they excel very nicely. However, asides from being able wilderness types due to skills, they lack the non-skill based flexibility the other two classes enjoy. In spite of the d12 Hit Die, Barbarians must accept that they will have a lower combat-effective AC than either the Fighter or the Ranger due to Rage. This leaves them more susceptible to touch-AC attacks forms.
Due to how Uncanny Dodge works, they are also virtually impervious to being sneak attacked, making them popular and effective alternatives to rogues as "point" characters combined with having Perception as a trainable class skill. Thier Will saving throw bonuses ramp up faster as a general measure as compared to both Fighters and Rangers.
The Fighter is the "multi-purpose" tool of combat, able to use almost every weapon with lethal accuracy. The class bonus feats permit massively effective focus on a single "primary" means of killing things and taking their stuff, while their general feats permit a greater degree of either further refining the character's carnage-dealing ability or picking up the slack on defensive concerns.
While they do not suffer the AC woes of a raging barbarian, fighters are a bit squisher (smaller HD) and only enjoy the Will save bonus of the Barbarian against fear effects. They do benefit from a steadily increasing armor bonus to AC as well as from being generally more accurate with their attacks. This latter accuracy doesn't do much more than keep pace with the Barbarian's Rage however - although it is not subject to disruption other than by having their armaments sundered or otherwise destroyed.
Thier greatest weakness as a class rests in thier paltry few skill points. I do believe that the 2 base skill points does the class a disservice as compared to Barbarians (4 base) and Rangers (6 base).
The Ranger, while demonstrably the weakest generalized damage dealer as compared to the Barbarian and Fighter, gains a great deal the other two classes do not. An enormous pool of skill points matched only by the Bard and exceeded solely by the Rogue is a tremendous asset to character survival, especially considering their trainable class skills roster. Over time they gain considerable prowess at stealth, culminating in the 17th level class ability/feature Hide in Plain Sight. In favored terrain against favored enemies, odds are that the Ranger characters will get to soften up flat-footed foes with hopefully lower-than-normal ACs to gain the most benefit out of his abilities.
It is my opinion that the animal companion and spellcasting class features of the Ranger can be done away with, permitting refining of the class' combat style options. They are not nearly as significant a boon as improving the combat styles could prove to be, imo.
|
It is my opinion that the animal companion and spellcasting class features of the Ranger can be done away with, permitting refining of the class' combat style options. They are not nearly as significant a boon as improving the combat styles could prove to be, imo.
In my opinion - based on game play I've seen in 3e over the past 7 or 8 years - animal companions, familiars, cohorts, followers, and summoned/conjured critters are much more of a drawback than a benefit to game play. With a large player group these matters can REALLY bog things down...
With the new animal companion rules trailed by Jason, the Ranger Animal Companion should be more useful (Ranger level -3, rather than half Ranger level).
|
|
Thier greatest weakness as a class rests in thier paltry few skill points. I do believe that the 2 base skill points does the class a disservice as compared to Barbarians (4 base) and Rangers (6 base).
Surely "the inability to do serious damage to higher-level threats whilst being mostly ignored by any sane enemy on their way to attacking the caster?" That situation has arguably gotten a little worse with the Power Attack and Improved Trip nerfs. Although I never found Spiked Chain Tripper very exciting from the flavour point of view (so I'd like the 'reach plus adjacent attack' feature it offers to be featable), the fact that it isn't any use now is somewhat disappointing; I wanted to see more workable fighter builds.
Thank you for running through this.
It looks like the maintained the status quo from 3.5 for the full BAB classes:
Barbarians are the best due to their enhanced scores in rage
Fighters second becase feats just don't quite compensate for lower stats (even more true now that improved manuvers only grant +2 instead of +4)
Rangers third because they are light weights (archery which works better on a larger scale than tiny skirmishes, and two weapon fighting)
In the skill area of course Rangers shine, and Barbarians aren't too shabby...
You are welcome Eric, thanks for posting!
Barbarians actually are not statistically the best at raw damage output in generalized terms other than in matters where brute Strength is necessary, such as Bursting things, bashing down barricades and so on, where they maintain a 2, 3 or 4 modifier edge over their non-Raging brethren. Otherwise, they are a solid "#2" choice as primary melee damage dealer.
In terms of combat only, I would postulate that Fighters remain King of the Mountain, because (a) as nothing they have as a class feature can be 'shut down' by a spell effect such as Calm Emotions or the like; and (b) they have enough feats to acquire flexibility in that arena.
Rangers are more specialized - but within those realms that they receive their class features for, they pull much closer in damage output. The Ranger especially enjoys excellent flexibility in and out of combat - and Archery should translate into a deadly foe that can (with enough ammunition) result in harrowing death from attrition. If Rangers were to acquire a reliable way to deliver Bleeding injuries with thier arrows ... yeah, let's not think about that overmuch (6 arrow wounds, per round, adds up mighty quick). In terms of 'generic general purpose damage' they are very much light weights as compared to the Barbarian and Fighter. The Archery Ranger (or, worse, the Archery Fighter) has one big big advantage: they force the enemy to come to them, perforating all the while. And for most of thier career, Archery characters' worst nightmare (at-will quickened teleporting melee bad guys) is a non-issue.
With the new animal companion rules trailed by Jason, the Ranger Animal Companion should be more useful (Ranger level -3, rather than half Ranger level).It is my opinion that the animal companion and spellcasting class features of the Ranger can be done away with, permitting refining of the class' combat style options. They are not nearly as significant a boon as improving the combat styles could prove to be, imo.
In my opinion - based on game play I've seen in 3e over the past 7 or 8 years - animal companions, familiars, cohorts, followers, and summoned/conjured critters are much more of a drawback than a benefit to game play. With a large player group these matters can REALLY bog things down...
I am in agreement Bagpuss, that the new companion rules will presumably have a greater benefit on the Ranger's damage output. How much so I have not yet attempted to calculate, as doing so would be a fairly lengthly endeavor. The biggest factor is simply "accuracy" (attack bonus) - does the companion's accuracy match up at 16th level with the master's accuracy? If it does, then the damage calculations are worth it. If not ...
Their greatest weakness as a class rests in thier paltry few skill points. I do believe that the 2 base skill points does the class a disservice as compared to Barbarians (4 base) and Rangers (6 base).Surely "the inability to do serious damage to higher-level threats whilst being mostly ignored by any sane enemy on their way to attacking the caster?" That situation has arguably gotten a little worse with the Power Attack and Improved Trip nerfs. Although I never found Spiked Chain Tripper very exciting from the flavour point of view (so I'd like the 'reach plus adjacent attack' feature it offers to be featable), the fact that it isn't any use now is somewhat disappointing; I wanted to see more workable fighter builds.
I do not see Power Attack as having been nerfed - I think it makes more sense with the Beta revision. Of course, Feats await the time for discussion when the Paizo staff unlocks that section of the forum.
Spiked Chain's biggest advantage is its flexible reach - the abusive trip-provoke-be tripped again cycle was a Bad Thing in my opinion.
I would like to see less emphasis on two-handed weapon damage output, but how to do so without 'nerfing' is something I have yet to satisfactorily answer...
Perhaps a "Lenny the Archer Fighter" could be in the near future, if the desire for one is there.
I am not sure of the Fighter's "inability to do serious damage to higher level threats" however. Even with Damage Reduction (barring changes I am unaware of, which is probable) the Fighter can carve almost anything into brisket in short order.
|
|
I am not sure of the Fighter's "inability to do serious damage to higher level threats" however. Even with Damage Reduction (barring changes I am unaware of, which is probable) the Fighter can carve almost anything into brisket in short order.
It seems to me that the high-CR melee opposition just has too many hitpoints to be worried by fighters, especially given that the fighter won't generally be making full attacks if the thing's ignoring him and making a move to the casters (which would be the logical thing for them to do). The fighter's ability to stop something getting at the caster (one of the traditional fighter roles in AD&D) is limited even more with the Improved Trip nerf (not to mention that executing combat manoeuvres is now harder anyhow, in general) and all a monster has to do unless the fighter has a reach weapon is not to pass within 5 feet even if the opponent was worried about a single attack from the fighter (which it probably isn't).
I'd like to see the fighter/melee, through feats, able to threaten more squares without a spiked chain whilst still threatening their adjacent squares, the ability to do extra damage on AoOs that scales with BAB, maybe the ability to stop a moving opponent from moving in some way (or at least slow them down), I'd like to see Improved Trip back to what it was and I just preferred the flexibility of the old Power Attack (I don't have a problem with the new version as an option to DMs if players take too long deciding, but that's never been a problem with my groups and I don't see why Power Attackers in those groups should lose out because some others can't make decisions quickly and their DM won't enforce a time limit).
It's inevitable, I think, that the fighter and feats discussion overlap to a great extent (and Jason has said that fighter-fixing will come through the feats section), but I don't think that it's a bad thing for us to try to work out what we'd like, feat-wise, to fix the fighter before that section opens.
As mentioned by Bagpuss (?), the AC is beefed up to Druid-3, which would definitely contribute Combat-wise...
AT MINIMUM only for Utility (Tripping/ Grappling, etc)
As well, if the Ranger forgoes the AC to gain the Bonus to "Hunting Companions", that damage bonus (which doesn't run into stacking problems with buffs) is due to to the Ranger, so should count towards their damage contribution somehow (at least, given enough other melee/range combatants to take advantage.) - though less sexy
how did Vital Strike/ Imp. V.S. work out with 2WF/ Rapid Fire builds (Ranger and others)?
Have you looked at low (or moderate) DEX 2WF Rangers? (with max STR since they don't need to meet 2WF DEX Req's?)
Once the Feat Chapter comes up, I'm going to ask for clarification on the 2Wpn Defense Feat,
whether Shield AC Enchants should be allowed on an offhand/double weapon.
Since it grants a Shield AC bonus, I would think so, and otherwise the Feat isn't really worth much.
I also disagree that Trip builds are useless. It's just been made REASONABLE now.
As is (Beta), almost anything a Tripped opponent would do would provoke an AoO (certainly @ reach+),
at least if you're smart and 5' step AWAY from them afterwards.
You can definitely interrupt movement if you Trip as AoO/ Readied, keeping the melees off the casters,
so reach/ spiked chain is still very good at that role.
For the Combat Chapter, I'd actually really just like to Ready Action given the flexibility of Delay Action, instead of forcing a specific trigger on it - you would still just be limited to a standard action as opposed to Delay's Full Action. That, or if your trigger doesn't occur, you can take a standard action before the first initiative of the next round, so you don't completely lose out.
I'm happy enough with the new Trip, and plan on using it effectively with my Beta rules Barbarian (Whirling Frenzy is still better than Suicide HPs) using a Double Reach Weapon. Check out my Yalka profile for her 1st level incarnation (She's higher base DEX than STR to milk Combat Reflexes & Reach, and AC. Also going Wolf Totem which gives Imp. Trip instead of Trap Sense.)
I also disagree that Trip builds are useless. It's just been made REASONABLE now.
As is (Beta), almost anything a Tripped opponent would do would provoke an AoO (certainly @ reach+),
at least if you're smart and 5' step AWAY from them afterwards.
You can definitely interrupt movement if you Trip as AoO/ Readied, keeping the melees off the casters,
so reach/ spiked chain is still very good at that role.I'm happy enough with the new Trip, and plan on using it effectively with my Beta rules Barbarian (Whirling Frenzy still is better than Suicide HPs) using a Double Reach Weapon. Check out my Yalka profile for her 1st level incarnation (She's higher DEX than STR to milk Combat Reflexes & Reach once I get it.)
Let me know how that goes, because DC15 base seems like a death knell for all maneuvers against anything with 3/4 BAB and more HD than you. I'm very interested in seeing if this becomes a serious impediment to effectiveness for any maneuver based build, once HD start to split from CR.
Let me know how that goes, because DC15 base seems like a death knell for all maneuvers against anything with 3/4 BAB and more HD than you. I'm very interested in seeing if this becomes a serious impediment to effectiveness for any maneuver based build, once HD start to split from CR.
Yeah... I guess I'm OK with it not being viable against EVERY opponent.
Certainly, signifigantly greater HD, higher STR/ quadrupeds are NOT viable. At least Size bonuses were reduced. :-)But that leaves alot of opponents, and especially with reach & combat reflexes,
I can keep "swarms" (not literally) at bay more easily. (Besides, it's funner than having some minor bonus vs. traps...)
But I seriously expect CMB to modified somewhat, since the whole question of what attack bonuses apply is open...
It could be read to allow all attack bonuses now (which really help against that DC),
but then why don't Fighting Defensively/Full Defense have any effect?
If Dodge bonuses, including DEX, go back in, I would think the base DC should drop somewhat.
I personally would be happy if it went back to Touch & Strength Check, maybe taking away the opposed roll,
and saying the target takes 10 or 11 for their STR Check...?
I am not sure of the Fighter's "inability to do serious damage to higher level threats" however. Even with Damage Reduction (barring changes I am unaware of, which is probable) the Fighter can carve almost anything into brisket in short order.It seems to me that the high-CR melee opposition just has too many hitpoints to be worried by fighters, especially given that the fighter won't generally be making full attacks if the thing's ignoring him and making a move to the casters (which would be the logical thing for them to do). The fighter's ability to stop something getting at the caster (one of the traditional fighter roles in AD&D) is limited even more with the Improved Trip nerf (not to mention that executing combat manoeuvres is now harder anyhow, in general) and all a monster has to do unless the fighter has a reach weapon is not to pass within 5 feet even if the opponent was worried about a single attack from the fighter (which it probably isn't).
I'd like to see the fighter/melee, through feats, able to threaten more squares without a spiked chain whilst still threatening their adjacent squares, the ability to do extra damage on AoOs that scales with BAB, maybe the ability to stop a moving opponent from moving in some way (or at least slow them down), I'd like to see Improved Trip back to what it was and I just preferred the flexibility of the old Power Attack (I don't have a problem with the new version as an option to DMs if players take too long deciding, but that's never been a problem with my groups and I don't see why Power Attackers in those groups should lose out because some others can't make decisions quickly and their DM won't enforce a time limit).
It's inevitable, I think, that the fighter and feats discussion overlap to a great extent (and Jason has said that fighter-fixing will come through the feats section), but I don't think that it's a bad thing for us to try to work out what we'd like, feat-wise, to fix the fighter before that section opens.
I am not entirely sure of the inability of a Fighter/Barbarian/other "tank/meat shield" to effectively stop cold simple physical movement past him. Last I was aware, it is not possible to 'sidestep' such a Fighter without a nominally substantial Acrobatics check (starting at a DC 31 to avoid threatened area or DC 36 to actually go through their space at a BAB of 16) or more esoteric methods. At even 1 rank per HD and no other bonuses whatsoever, that gives a 50/50 chance of avoiding threatened space. It is highly probable that foes of that CR that have an Acrobatics bonus will have much higher than the +20 to +26 range just from HD at the CR 18 range. So, foes with Acrobatics at high-level play are going to get past the meat shields and into the rear ranks. Prudent high-level spellcasters are subsequently advised to use certain abjurations to ward off direct physical attack without compromising their own ability to project power into the situation.
Looking at Acrobatics as the method of most common avoidance leaves out of consideration terrain, specifically flyers, burrowers and incorporeal critters. Quickened [Teleportation] effects are harder to come by at present, although they are certainly quite viable at the high levels of play.
However, tactical discussions aside, I believe that due to the much-harder-to-ignore physical damage of the barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins and rogues most high-CR intelligent critters will act to block, isolate, incapacitate or outright kill those characters as rapidly as possible.
Saving throw bonuses at that CR range are almost stupidly high for most critters & SR is the rule of thumb. Lacking SR is more the exception than the rule at the high-end CR range. For the most part, high-CR foes can reliably ignore spellcasters as far as taking direct damage and all but a very small number of indirect effects. The greater concern is going to be the Cleric and any others in the party capable of firing off 150 point Heal spells. Similarly, at that CR range, Mass Heal is the true nightmare for foes to deal with. I do not believe this latter spell will come into playtesting with the Pathfinder Adventure Paths under expected level advancements.
I concur with your point regarding the discussion of feats now to address widening the Fighter's flexibility in the role of Meat Shield. Presently the focus seems to be more on said Fighter's offensive prowess. "The best defense is a good offense" and all of that.
Let me know how that goes, because DC15 base seems like a death knell for all maneuvers against anything with 3/4 BAB and more HD than you. I'm very interested in seeing if this becomes a serious impediment to effectiveness for any maneuver based build, once HD start to split from CR.Yeah... I guess I'm OK with it not being viable against EVERY opponent.
Certainly, signifigantly greater HD, higher STR/ quadrupeds are NOT viable. At least Size bonuses were reduced. :-)
But that leaves alot of opponents, and especially with reach & combat reflexes,
I can keep "swarms" (not literally) at bay more easily. (Besides, it's funner than having some minor bonus vs. traps...)But I seriously expect CMB to modified somewhat, since the whole question of what attack bonuses apply is open...
It could be read to allow all attack bonuses now (which really help against that DC),
but then why don't Fighting Defensively/Full Defense have any effect?
If Dodge bonuses, including DEX, go back in, I would think the base DC should drop somewhat.
I personally would be happy if it went back to Touch & Strength Check, maybe taking away the opposed roll,
and saying the target takes 10 or 11 for their STR Check...?
I have not undertaken any elaborate study beyond the rather simplistic one for 'Lenny the Ranger' as a two-weapon fighter. What I take from your example here is a mixture of non-Pathfinder materials with Pathfinder materials , which has not been anything I've factored into the examples.
Perhaps an idea could be built off the Acrobatics DC being based upon the threatening foes' carry-over best attack bonus (instead of base attack bonus) for determining the likelyhood of the "meat shield" efficaciously performing that task. This would give reason for said meat shields to use more than an eating dagger and a greatsword and pack a small variety of weaponry to ascertain tactical command of the area they threaten. High-agility fighters (two-weapons/weapon finesse) are not hosed with this I think - and it could potentially be used with lethal damaging whips, spiked chains etc without bogging down the game in an endless series of attacks of opportunity.
Carry-over is basically the attack bonus after modifications for self-penalizing stuff like Power Attack, Devastating Strike, Combat Expertise and other stuff like that. If Lenny went in with a -15 from Power Attack and Devastating Strike, leaving him with a +26 attack bonus, he'd set a DC of 41. If he had not taken that -15 penalty, that DC would be a much harsher 56.
A DC 41 Acrobatics check from a foe of the caliber my Lenny examples have been facing is possible but not really guaranteed, varying required natural die roll estimated to range from 11 to 15. But, the Lenny threatening a DC 56 is almost unassailable to that same foe and thus a threat that must be dealt with before plowing through to the softer spell-lobbers behind him.
This could merit a healthy discussion in its own right. ^_^
As mentioned by Bagpuss (?), the AC is beefed up to Druid-3, which would definitely contribute Combat-wise...
AT MINIMUM only for Utility (Tripping/ Grappling, etc)As well, if the Ranger forgoes the AC to gain the Bonus to "Hunting Companions", that damage bonus (which doesn't run into stacking problems with buffs) is due to to the Ranger, so should count towards their damage contribution somehow (at least, given enough other melee/range combatants to take advantage.) - though less sexy
how did Vital Strike/ Imp. V.S. work out with 2WF/ Rapid Fire builds (Ranger and others)?
Have you looked at low (or moderate) DEX 2WF Rangers? (with max STR since they don't need to meet 2WF DEX Req's?)
Once the Feat Chapter comes up, I'm going to ask for clarification on the 2Wpn Defense Feat,
whether Shield AC Enchants should be allowed on an offhand/double weapon.
Since it grants a Shield AC bonus, I would think so, and otherwise the Feat isn't really worth much.
Quandry, I think I get your point about 'contributive' bonuses from the Ranger to his buddies/companions/minions. I deliberately left off statistical estimations of the various Lenny's potential cohorts, companions, etc. primarily due to having not been aware of the suggestion revision of ranger's companion to the (ranger level-3) grade. As they were when I did the comparisons, the companion was (half ranger level) and thus worth nothing as a factor in the character's damage output. The 'generic damage' for the Ranger in comparison to the 'generic damage' deliberately did not include favored enemy, Quarry and Hunter's Bond. Since the Bond to companions applies to his allies, the Ranger actually further distances himself from his allies' damage output (increases theirs without so doing his own). This is not a bad thing, but seems unnecessary for a single-character-calculation.
Vital Strike stacks with 2WF/Manyshot at the high-level builds I put together for the examples done thusfar - it is not explicity limited to melee attacks, nor should it be in my opinion as it is the only thing that permits ranged attackers to keep somewhat close to the damage output of the two-handed weapon melee characters.
Of course, "party" comparisons could be done ... but they would take a LOT of time to put together...
|
|
I am not entirely sure of the inability of a Fighter/Barbarian/other "tank/meat shield" to effectively stop cold simple physical movement past him. Last I was aware, it is not possible to 'sidestep' such a Fighter without a nominally substantial Acrobatics check (starting at a DC 31 to avoid threatened area or DC 36 to actually go through their space at a BAB of 16) or more esoteric methods. At even 1 rank per HD and no other bonuses whatsoever, that gives a 50/50 chance of avoiding threatened space. It is highly probable that foes of that CR that have an Acrobatics bonus will have much higher than the +20 to +26 range just from HD at the CR 18 range. So, foes with Acrobatics at high-level play are going to get past the meat shields and into the rear ranks. Prudent high-level spellcasters are subsequently advised to use certain abjurations to ward off direct physical attack without compromising their own ability to project power into the situation.
I meant that at higher levels, they'll just take the hit if they can't just stay more than five feet away (if it hits, but remember that I'm talking about melee opponents, not casters -- they'll be after the casters) and carry on, without bothering to try and avoid them. It's the same problem that fighters have with mobility, that they need to be making iterative attacks to do worthwhile damage (which they can't do if they move more than five feet).
I checked out your Lenny the Ranger thread, and was correct...
I'll have to look at it closer to see how he would fare with STR>DEX and NOT Wpn. Finesse.
(an advantage of 2WF Ranger > Fighter, is they can ignore the DEX pre-req's)
I don't think AC is THAT hard to deal with by 16th level,
especially if you can get a big Shield Enchant on your weapon with 2WpnDefense.
I was only mentioning the Whirling Frenzy & Totem as an example of my character who seems pretty decent to me (& those are both SRD), but the Whirling Frenzy actually follows that "carry over" concept:
ALL attacks (incl. AoO's) for the Round suffer a -2 penalty if you use the Frenzy...
Though since it seems pretty "Solid" that AoO's get to use your full BAB (barring things like Whirling Frenzy which penalize ALL attacks for full round) I don't know how much sense it makes to penalize the BAB like that for purposes of Tumbling DCs (since it's basically a Skill-Based Combat Maneuver vs. BAB, failure meaning an AoO = normally at Full BAB) Such a change would make me think Combat Maneuvers would also be resolved against the "carry over" effective BAB.
...I don't think that's so viable :-/
In your Ranger mock-up, it seems you're multiplying Vital Strike damage on the crits, when that's specifically disallowed :-(
I really hope that Max STR 2WF Ranger can catch up with that... :-/
Though I think between the Ranger's Bonuses to AC/ Allies (making whole party potent vs. Enemies), Skills, & Spellcasting,
they're pretty good as a class over-all, even if not "to par" with Fighter/Barbarian (and Pally vs. Evil).
BTW, if you want to mock-up a (16-3=13th Druid level equivalent) Animal Companion for comparison's sake for the Ranger, I'd be interested what sort of Feat build you'd think to be optimal... Obviously dependent on AC type, but I wonder how good an Imp/Greater2WF+VStrike/Imp.VStrike build would work (I don't even know if that's legal with Multi-attack vs. 2WF...?)
I would think a half-way decent AC, say with Pounce, or High-Speed/ Flight would be useful at least as an interrupt vs. casters. Having an extra melee ally on it's own Initiative available for Interrupt tactics seems like a decent bonus...?
...like Bagpuss says, there's not much you can do if Melee NPCs are going after your caster, unless you're in a 5' corridor. Pretty much then you have to Ready, and move to intercept them, Tripping being the best bet (and a good reason to have True Strike charged weapons at that level). 2WF (and Whirling Frenzy, SRD) really helps in these scenarios when you only get a Standard Attack, giving you more than one hit.
I could see high level Feats that gave Pounce like ability coming off of the Mobility chain... And perhaps one which allowed more than one AoO to be triggered from movement, off of Combat Reflexes... Feats will be interesting.
|
It is my hope that the good Sir Samuel Leming and all the rest of the gang will drop in this thread with numerically crunched goodness to compliment (or shoot down, as necessary ^_^) the estimations I put together for this trio of "core combat machine" character classes.
Um... sure. I'm not a prolific poster here, but I'll post the results of my number crunching as I progress with them.
What I'm trying to find right now is a situation where Improved Vital Strike is actually an improvement on Vital Strike without using an extremely contrived example like a hasted epic level fighter with Perfect TWF that doesn't have any Str bonus or use magic weapons. Not much to do with your topic, but that's why I'm crunching numbers right now.
If I may be so bold, I'd also suggest you try to steer away from discussing whether melee characters are relevant or not. There's already been numerous threads, many of them already sent down the toilet, on this very topic. Since you want to keep the comparisons between the warrior type characters, arguing if such characters are worthwhile at all will only send you hopping down the bunny trail.
Sam
It is my hope that the good Sir Samuel Leming and all the rest of the gang will drop in this thread with numerically crunched goodness to compliment (or shoot down, as necessary ^_^) the estimations I put together for this trio of "core combat machine" character classes.Um... sure. I'm not a prolific poster here, but I'll post the results of my number crunching as I progress with them.
What I'm trying to find right now is a situation where Improved Vital Strike is actually an improvement on Vital Strike without using an extremely contrived example like a hasted epic level fighter with Perfect TWF that doesn't have any Str bonus or use magic weapons. Not much to do with your topic, but that's why I'm crunching numbers right now.
If I may be so bold, I'd also suggest you try to steer away from discussing whether melee characters are relevant or not. There's already been numerous threads, many of them already sent down the toilet, on this very topic. Since you want to keep the comparisons between the warrior type characters, arguing if such characters are worthwhile at all will only send you hopping down the bunny trail.
Sam
That wasn't the objective for this thread (although that may unintentionally be the end result). Melee characters are always relevant imo. I did not believe that I had steered in the direction of whether any character is relevant... that was certainly NOT the intent.
I am not entirely sure of the inability of a Fighter/Barbarian/other "tank/meat shield" to effectively stop cold simple physical movement past him. Last I was aware, it is not possible to 'sidestep' such a Fighter without a nominally substantial Acrobatics check (starting at a DC 31 to avoid threatened area or DC 36 to actually go through their space at a BAB of 16) or more esoteric methods. At even 1 rank per HD and no other bonuses whatsoever, that gives a 50/50 chance of avoiding threatened space. It is highly probable that foes of that CR that have an Acrobatics bonus will have much higher than the +20 to +26 range just from HD at the CR 18 range. So, foes with Acrobatics at high-level play are going to get past the meat shields and into the rear ranks. Prudent high-level spellcasters are subsequently advised to use certain abjurations to ward off direct physical attack without compromising their own ability to project power into the situation.I meant that at higher levels, they'll just take the hit if they can't just stay more than five feet away (if it hits, but remember that I'm talking about melee opponents, not casters -- they'll be after the casters) and carry on, without bothering to try and avoid them. It's the same problem that fighters have with mobility, that they need to be making iterative attacks to do worthwhile damage (which they can't do if they move more than five feet).
Ah, I get it. Actually, the thwacking the meat shields can inflict upon a provoked AoO ends up being about 10% or so of the enemy's hp total - which is a dangerous move indeed since there is a good chance of being within step-and-thwack range.
I suspect that Deadly Blow and Devastating Strike are expected to permit melee types to "answer" such spellcaster-focussed movements by the bad guys in short, messy order. ^_^
Quandry, you are probably correct in that I multiplied the Vital Strike damage due to being lazy and not seperating the added damage dice out from the critical hit equations... although the extra damage DICE from Vital Strike is multiplied, the bonus damage from STR etc etc is not added to those dice & therefor cannot be multiplied by a critical hit. In that regard I do believe my critical hit math remains correct.
Obviously, if I've misread this, then I do not really see the point in Vital Strike/Improved Vital Strike as feats, as the loss of an admittedly unreliable worst attack(s) is almost not worthwhile if the only thing one gains from it is about 2d6 or so of bonus damage per hit. I'd rather as a player take the extra, albiet unreliable attack roll, than tack on an average of 7 points per hit that cannot benefit from a critical hit.
Acrobatics' "pass around/pass through" DC as I set it up is the only thing I am aware of that is set at the threatening creature's BAB rather than by their CMB. As far as I am aware, AoO are made at the same 'best' attack bonus your character was packing when his round concluded. That's why I listed Lenny's +26 AB (tacking to the base DC 15) as opposed to just his BAB in the scenario of 'threatened area control' as well as the +41 AB to counterpoint the extremes that particular Lenny could achieve. A LOT of critters have massive Jump bonuses translating into pretty darn good Acrobatics bonuses under the Pathfinder rules. This translates into a number of beasties rather routinely bypassing the static DCs of said Fighter/threatened area provider.
OUCH. I hope you speak up for this issue when Feats run around.
I wasn't aware of that usage of effective BAB/AoO's (I've always played with full BAB AoO's).
That usage almost makes me think that each AoO should suffer -5 or -6 like each Iterative attack does...?
And I'm not sure what the Beta says on it, but for any Creature with a Jump bonus, I would apply that as a SPECIFIC sub-bonus to Acrobatics (like Scent as a bonus to Perception), rather than a GENERIC Acrobatics bonus. That said, a big enough Jump bonus means they can bypass you anyways, unless there's a low cieling :-)
And I agree with having flexible characters rather than one-trick ponies. I like the new Barbarian because their Powers give them something more interesting to do at 16th level than just "more, harder Rage!". Incidentally, that Barbarian character I mentioned (Yalka), I went with the Wolf totem not that it seemed so uber-combat effective (the Dragon totem's power was SO over-powered, it WOULD have been the uber-one trick pony) but it added a half-Barb Level bonus to Tracking, (which I DON'T treat as Survival overall, like Jump/Acrobatics) and gave me Imp. Trip without needing the pre-req. I don't even need to use Trip ALL THE TIME, but it's not bad to have, and I just gave up Trap Sense and some other passive bonus I forgot...
When performing a full-attack action, you get one fewer attack (usually the one at your lowest bonus). Any other attacks that hit as part of this full-attack action deal additional damage. Roll the damage dice for all such attacks twice, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities, such as f laming, or precision based damage, such as sneak attack. This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit. You must choose to use this ability before rolling any of your attacks.
OUCH. I hope you speak up for this issue when Feats run around.I wasn't aware of that usage of effective BAB/AoO's (I've always played with full BAB AoO's).
That usage almost makes me think that each AoO should suffer -5 or -6 like each Iterative attack does...?And I'm not sure what the Beta says on it, but for any Creature with a Jump bonus, I would apply that as a SPECIFIC sub-bonus to Acrobatics (like Scent as a bonus to Perception), rather than a GENERIC Acrobatics bonus. That said, a big enough Jump bonus means they can bypass you anyways, unless there's a low cieling :-)
And I agree with having flexible characters rather than one-trick ponies. I like the new Barbarian because their Powers give them something more interesting to do at 16th level than just "more, harder Rage!". Incidentally, that Barbarian character I mentioned (Yalka), I went with the Wolf totem not that it seemed so uber-combat effective (the Dragon totem's power was SO over-powered, it WOULD have been the uber-one trick pony) but it added a half-Barb Level bonus to Tracking, (which I DON'T treat as Survival overall, like Jump/Acrobatics) and gave me Imp. Trip without needing the pre-req. I don't even need to use Trip ALL THE TIME, but it's not bad to have, and I just gave up Trap Sense and some other passive bonus I forgot...
Blecch, yeah, the Vital Strike / Improved Vital Strike feats need to be re-touched. I don't mind giving up the bonus damage if I get the base damage dice, it gives me the satisfaction of rolling wads of dice for damage while simultaneously making game play faster. I DO mind losing those damage dice on critical hits though...
I think we may not quite be clicking on 'BAB' as it relates to AoO's. As I see it, the 'best swing' bonus you were packing at the end of your round after all modifiers had been applied that round was used for each AoO. Those do not change your BAB (which is a fixed numeric value), just your Attack Bonus (AB) until your round 'refreshes' & starts anew at your next initiative.
Thus, if Lenny didn't do anything fancy - say, he merely double-moved into 'blocking position' with his trusty greatsword and set up shop to establish a 15' "control zone" (his square plus the entire set of squares he threatens) he has that +41 AB for any AoO's anything provokes from him. If, however, he had hacked down something with a Power Attack/Devastating Blow combination, he lost 15 points of that AB, reducing it to a +26 until his initiative once more comes 'round.
As far as I know, skill ranks from Jump roll into Acrobatics as the govorning skill for making jumps horizontal and vertical. Thus, critters with Jump have (HD in ranks) typically plus/minus their DEX modifier. At the various Lenny incarnations, with a static DC to avoid the Lenny's threatened area is 31, any creature with a typical range of 22 or more HD and a reasonable +3 DEX bonus bypasses Lenny's "control zone" on a measly natural d20 roll of a 6 or better.
Naturally, Lennys are dangerous and deadly, so it is often best to frag the Lenny closest to you after removing yourself from the blast radius... ^_^
The Barbarian variant I HATED with a passion was the one that granted Pounce (!) for the paltry loss of the class' Fast Movement. In live testing that turned out to be a REALLY great trade for the player. "Kewl, I can charge 60'+ and get a full attack - schwing!!"
Refresh my memory on the dragon totem please ?
I do like the point about Trap Sense - I mean, it doesn't come up THAT often in game play thus far. As in, in the past 8 years, it's come up all of - oh, maybe a dozen times, or about 1% of the game sessions I've attended. Not exactly a worthwhile use of ink from that experience...
Yeah, I think I understood your AoO usage, I just said "effective BAB" since "AB" isn't a usual acronym I use :-)
The Combat Chapter seems to be a big one for Pathfinder, in any case...
...But the range in power of the Totems in UA was kind of a joke.
And there were MUCH worse ones than the Wolf!
The Pounce one (Lion?) was pretty over-powered, I can't remember the Dragon precisely, but you pretty much got some Area "Fear effect" that didn't even require you to invest in Intimidate...(Save vs. BAB/STR or something)
It was SO over-powered that even though my character was basically half-Hermean (Eugenic Island of Dragon God) I wouldn't take it, because it would just be so friggin boring if every fight I just "roared" and made most of the enemies run away or be shaken... Why play a melee class if that's all you do?
I was also aiming for as close to "Core" as possible, since we're testing Beta, and the Wolf Totem didn't seem at all overpowered to Core. I just wasn't interested in passive Trap bonuses. There's no fun in passing a Trap's Save DC. And interestingly, in the Campaign Setting, they give an "Alternate Ability" to Trap Sense... What is it? The same bonus #'s, but as Cold Resistance. :-)
(Though I'd prefer that to Trap Sense, esp. given a "Northern Barbarian"...)
|
|
Actually, the thwacking the meat shields can inflict upon a provoked AoO ends up being about 10% or so of the enemy's hp total - which is a dangerous move indeed since there is a good chance of being within step-and-thwack range.
But on the face of it, your figures suggest to me that the fighter's ability to deliver damage scales pretty badly with monster hit points (as alluded to here in a Kirth Gerson post). 10% is ignorable if the aim is to get at the caster who's going to maybe end the thing quick-smart; at lower levels, a fighter's AoO can do significantly more than 10% of the enemy's hp total, so the fighters themselves become more ignorable as the game goes on (which is not really what we want).
|
|
That wasn't the objective for this thread (although that may unintentionally be the end result). Melee characters are always relevant imo. I did not believe that I had steered in the direction of whether any character is relevant... that was certainly NOT the intent.
It's not you, it's this Bagpuss guy.
Hey Bagpuss. We heard you the first twenty times. What more do you want?
Sam
I mathed out the improved vital strike once and you ended up doing less damage over all than if you just used vital strike. Now that only applies if all the attacks hit though.
|
|
I mathed out the improved vital strike once and you ended up doing less damage over all than if you just used vital strike. Now that only applies if all the attacks hit though.
If you account for probability to hit and critical hits you still can usually expect to do less damage. The exceptions are when attacking very high armor classes and when you have very low or no damage bonus.
Sam
|
|
we'd like you to recognize the problem that there is still a serious problem with the melee character and their ability to perform their described role.
Since I have no ability to change the course of this game, it doesn't matter if I agree with your opinion or not. ;) Now we know that the designers have heard this issue, but they've given every indication that they'll take no action but to include a few more feats. Bringing this up in unrelated topics does nothing to help you.
Until the problem is corrected people will continue to make noise.
Well, continuing to discuss the topic is one thing. Derailing other threads with it is quite another and is just noise.
[Edit]Given that I don't feel like being noisy, that's the last I've got to say on this subtopic.
Sam
|
|
It's not you, it's this Bagpuss guy.
Hey Bagpuss. We heard you the first twenty times. What more do you want?
Sam
I'm just talking about stuff that interests me, in response to a comment in his post. In any case, the thread isn't just about comparisons between the three but there are implicit statements about the strength of the classes in general (the summaries in the OP contain objective statements such as "...they are quite good...", "...they excel very nicely...", etc, amidst the comparisons). What I'm here for is discussion, in any case. Which, in answer to your question, I'm getting (and enjoying).
Ya know the fighter could stay as is. They just need to add some rules that allow him more movement and maneuverability.
Ya know the fighter could stay as is. They just need to add some rules that allow him more movement and maneuverability.That's a fair part of it, I think. Maybe make damage scale better, too.
Correct gentlecritters, a bit of fine tweaking and Fighters are set to roll. Currently, at least, the mechanism of choice may well be settled upon with Feats, general or otherwise.
As seems to be a consensus, Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike seem to have been worded to achieve a goal that has fallen a smidge short.
I do not know if new rules are the answer per se, although a possibility may be along the lines of the Fighter being the one core class entitled as part of Armor Mastery to ignoring the armor check penalty rules mechanic whilst all other classes must abide by them. I would rather see this facet of armor mastery tweaked a bit to reflect that, or perhaps a Combat (fighter list) Feat can be implemented so as to, in combination with high-level Armor Mastery, ignore an armor check penalty as high as the highest Heavy Armor in the game can go.
Ya know the fighter could stay as is. They just need to add some rules that allow him more movement and maneuverability.
I agree and in addition they really need more battlefield control type feats.
The reason that Spiked Chain + Trip based builds are so desirable is that they make it hard to ignore the fighter. With a 10' reach (15' in most optimized builds) and the ability to knock down (ie STOP) critters who try to get around them to the crunchy casters, they suddenly became a force to be reckoned with instead of bypassed/ignored.
More feats like Hold the Line are needed. In addition, the Improved XYZ feats (Trip, Bull Rush, etc) need to be changed so that they provide scaling bonuses along the lines of 4 + x/level
TWF is a full-round action, surely?
Hm, I guess I just discovered an unconscious house-rule I've been using... :-)
Ya know the fighter could stay as is. They just need to add some rules that allow him more movement and maneuverability.I agree and in addition they really need more battlefield control type feats.
The reason that Spiked Chain + Trip based builds are so desirable is that they make it hard to ignore the fighter. With a 10' reach (15' in most optimized builds) and the ability to knock down (ie STOP) critters who try to get around them to the crunchy casters, they suddenly became a force to be reckoned with instead of bypassed/ignored.
More feats like Hold the Line are needed. In addition, the Improved XYZ feats (Trip, Bull Rush, etc) need to be changed so that they provide scaling bonuses along the lines of 4 + x/level
Making a character hard to ignore due to being able to exert a zone of control, for me, does not need to equate to rendering one's foes into helpless toe jam as was commonly the case with the spiked chain/trip combination.
I believe that characters with reach weapons should inherently exert such a zone of control. Anyone with real-world experience in wielding weapons - and I am comfortable with presuming that more than a few peruse these boards - I believe can assure that weapons effectively permit one to do so.
Obviously, Paizo wants simple game mechanisms with which to reflect this principle. Thus, the refinement to the Acrobatics DCs I proposed earlier as a possible method of doing so without requiring some exotic combination effectively 'eating' 3 feats to reflect the principle.
Hold the Line and feats like it are excellent for the game. I believe many of those will rightly fall under the Combat Expertise umbrella as a reflection of a well-trained Fighter's capabilities. The scaling bonuses are also an excellent concept - one which needs to reflect for critters (perhaps the scaling matches to Base Attack Bonus instead of level) as well as the characters.
TWF is a full-round action, surely?Hm, I guess I just discovered an unconscious house-rule I've been using... :-)
One needs to peruse page 138 of the Beta book, wherein it explicity states "you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks" whether by a iterative or two-weapon means. If memory serves, this has not changed in any incarnation of 3e.
So, no, you're not using a House Rule after all Quandry...
|
|
So, no, you're not using a House Rule after all Quandry...
I believe he was saying that he's been allowing TWF as a standard action (or, at least, that's what I took from his comment that " 2WF (and Whirling Frenzy, SRD) really helps in these scenarios when you only get a Standard Attack, giving you more than one hit."). The fact that multiple attacks take a full-round action are part of the problem with meleers, of course...
|
|
Ya know the fighter could stay as is. They just need to add some rules that allow him more movement and maneuverability.That's a fair part of it, I think. Maybe make damage scale better, too.
All this is stuff I can agree with. Throw in more skill points too. As I've said before, I'm on board for a fighter upgrade as long as the changes stay within theme for the class.
I guess it's really just the acrimony I'm tired of.
Sam
I believe he was saying that he's been allowing TWF as a standard action (or, at least, that's what I took from his comment that " 2WF (and Whirling Frenzy, SRD) really helps in these scenarios when you only get a Standard Attack, giving you more than one hit."). The fact that multiple attacks take a full-round action are part of the problem with meleers, of course...So, no, you're not using a House Rule after all Quandry...
Urm ... oops.
Yeah, the Feats section I am sure will open up vast oil fields of threads...
;-)
Yeah, Feats defintely, but also the Combat Section (which I assume includes Concentration)
Here's some thoughts on that I put up in another thread, BTW...