/spitballing
How about a feat (prereq: Mobility, BAB +11) that lets you, in place of the optional 5' step, move up to half your normal move in conjunction with any Full Attack Action? Call it "Improved Mobility" or something.
I don't know, guys...
I currently play in a campaign that includes the Belt of Battle from Magic Item Compendium, which lets you 3/day burn a swift action to take a move action, among other things.
In other words, I'm currently experiencing the ability to move then full-attack, and it's pretty busted. It was fun... the first two fights...
No one is safe from taking a full-attack this way, especially when the bad guys also have Belts of Battle to keep up (which they essentially would if Pathfinder allowed move->full-attack). Martial characters regularly fly 70' as their swift (Fly speed + Boots of Speed) then launch a fatal amount of damage before the badguy gets to act.
Initiative becomes even more important than it was before, as everything can die on round one. At least in the pre-Belt days, the wizard had to teleport the fighter into position, or saving throws could get you out of turn-one death. Having a pre-loaded miss chance, like a Contingent Greater Blink, or a really really high initiative score, is key. Though we're not quite at that level, Foresight, to avoid being surprised, will be very important too.
Put simply, move->full-attack gets really old really fast. I had presented a solution already, revolving around spreading out the actions, instead.
-Matt
This issue would put a major FIX into the game.
1) increase casting time for more powerful spells.
2) allow fighters (and other combat types) to trade an attack for 5' of movement.
IVe been doing this forever in house rules (almost without really thinking about it) probably because this is how it ran in 1e and I never really read all the changed rules over the years. SO I never realized it was a problem until lately.
This will fix a few things.
1) the gap between high level melee and caster characters.
2) the spell casters NEED to have fighters to provide them tactial support (at all levels).
3) lower level monsters still being threatening ( I tiger coul partial move and still bite for example)
4) give high level casters need for their low level spells, for tactical reasons (because they are now useful because of their faster casting times)
5) with the high level casters needing ALL their spell leves for MANY reasons, the limit of the spells they have per day again becomes more relevant.
For the reasons Matt outlined, a prefer a trade-iteratives-for-movement option. And to prevent boots of striding from becoming mandatory, I'd make a set amount.
Thus: trade one or more iterative attacks for 10 ft. of movement each (not 5 ft., because if it's 10 ft. then an 11th level fighter can move 20 ft. and make 1 attack, by either taking a move action and then attacking, or by taking a full attack and trading 2 iteratives for movement).
Whether that's a basic option or a feat is open for discussion. (Mobility prereq. might be OK; I'd make sure that fighters and monks could get it, though, and I might give the monk 15 ft. of movement per iterative given up.) Then again, many of us have presented writeups for similar feats throughout the playtest, and Mr. Bulmahn responded with Step Up (which has drastic limitations, and requires you to "borrow" that movement from the next round, IIRC).
Thus: trade one or more iterative attacks for 10 ft. of movement each (not 5 ft., because if it's 10 ft. then an 11th level fighter can move 20 ft. and make 1 attack, by either taking a move action and then attacking, or by taking a full attack and trading 2 iteratives for movement).
Don't forget the problem with the monsters, Kirth, as I posted before. A monster doesn't have iteratives to trade... but if he picks up a weapon, even an improvised one, he does... then if he drops the weapon, he loses his iteratives, and can take a full sequence with his natural weapons, because he didn't spend his natural weapon attacks, he spent his iteratives...
See what I mean?
-Matt
Thus: trade one or more iterative attacks for 10 ft. of movement each (not 5 ft., because if it's 10 ft. then an 11th level fighter can move 20 ft. and make 1 attack, by either taking a move action and then attacking, or by taking a full attack and trading 2 iteratives for movement).Don't forget the problem with the monsters, Kirth, as I posted before. A monster doesn't have iteratives to trade... but if he picks up a weapon, even an improvised one, he does... then if he drops the weapon, he loses his iteratives, and can take a full sequence with his natural weapons, because he didn't spend his natural weapon attacks, he spent his iteratives...
See what I mean?
-Matt
Matt what's to stop a monster... say a dire tiger... from taking taking a full attack routine with just one of his claws so he would have iterative attacks?
Would that work? I've always seen it as an either/or situation, where taking a full attack action with all your natural weapons was simply better than standing there and taking normal swings with just one claw at a progressively lessing bonus... with the sacrifice to move, the dire tiger could take a full attack with just one claw but still have something to give up so he could move (his second and third swipes with his claw)... it makes a "normal" full attack more attractive for monsters in some circumstances than it is now.
A monster doesn't have iteratives to trade... but if he picks up a weapon, even an improvised one, he does... then if he drops the weapon, he loses his iteratives, and can take a full sequence with his natural weapons, because he didn't spend his natural weapon attacks, he spent his iteratives... See what I mean?
Honestly, no, because say the critter gets 3 iteratives, spends one on movement, then drops the weapon. OK, fine, he loses those two weapon attacks... and he now has moved, and is using natural attacks with no iteratives -- so he gets one (1) natural attack, because he's moved (even if it's only 10 ft.). The DM can't let him eat his cake and have it, too.
But that won't apply too often, because monsters mostly have the Pounce ability anyway, except dragons...
Matt what's to stop a monster... say a dire tiger... from taking taking a full attack routine with just one of his claws so he would have iterative attacks?
Good question, actually.
The long version is on page 299 of the Monster Manual, but the short version is:
-A creature does not gain multiple attacks with the same natural weapon due to BAB.
-A creature must wield a manufactured weapon to gain multiple attacks with the same due to BAB.
No manufactured weapon, no iteratives.
If a creature picks up a manufactured weapon, suddenly it has iteratives.
-Matt
The DM can't let him eat his cake and have it, too.
Huh??
See what I mean? The "very simple" trade iteratives-for-movement idea becomes overly complicated when you apply it to creatures who use natural weapons.
Another issue to consider...
A heavily armored fighter with BAB +16. He can move 20', then take a single attack, or he can his three iteratives to move 30', then make a single attack.
So he gets faster by trading iteratives instead of just moving?
And, if he weren't wielding a manufactured weapon at the start of his turn, he'd be unable to trade his iteratives, barring Quick Draw, because unless he's wielding a manufactured weapon, he has no iteratives to trade.
So the fighter is faster when he's wielding a weapon than when he's not wielding a weapon.
I haven't even gotten into multi-manufactured-weapon-fighting yet.
See what I mean? It's a can of worms.
-Matt
It may be that needs tweaking in the combat rules section. Such as a creature can use either its natural attacks or its iterative attacks in a round, not both.
Except you would then have to adjust every statblock containing a creature that both has natural attacks and wields manufactured weapon(s). It wouldn't be a matter of adjusting the combat rules section; you'd have to adjust the Monster Manual.
Quick examples: Marilith, Troll Hunter, Troglodyte.
-Matt
|
That's a backwards compatibility complaint, and I think it is valid. Compared to the question of other BC arguements.
However, I think that determining what is a iterative attack and what is a natural attack would not be difficult on the fly. Slam/claw/bite are natural, +X Squeakytoy is iterative.
Edit: To be clear, my definition of BC is not 'I have to go back to all my 3.5 stuff and put sticky notes with the changes', it is 'when I use this stat block in PRPG I don't need to worry about the numbers being out of whack with the expected power level'.
Another fly in the ointment of sacrificing to move:
Two weapon fighting, and multi-weapon fighting. How do these play in?
I like the idea I'm just not seeing it work cleanly.
Maybe movement, actions and squence of combat need to be totally rewritten?
This could change the problem without altering anything in any of the previous books, just how theirs stats play out in the new system?
Maybe movement, actions and squence of combat need to be totally rewritten?
This could change the problem without altering anything in any of the previous books, just how theirs stats play out in the new system?
which I think is what Jason B had when he offered up a second attack on the standard action attack after BAB + 11.
|
I'm going to repost the rule I originally wrote for this thread as it addresses a number of the issues being brought up again.
[ooc] This one's straight from the addendum I typed for my players. We haven't run into issues with it yet.
It only allows iterative attacks, not natural attacks. If a monster is smart enough to pick up a weapon and use it, why shouldn't it get the option. It may also get pounce.
A fighter in heavy armour should be able to sacrifice some of their attacks to get extra movement, thats the point.
However, this is not the rule Jason want's to implement. The one where he recommends a critter with a BAB of +11 or more gets an additional attack after a move action (at -5) comes closest to the feel of the game my players are after.
Cheers
I think all these discussions about the confusion and long reaching effects of allowing iteratives to be given up for movement leads to the other solution Jason B offered: Make a standard attack better. I think this is the route to go to offer up the most 3.5 compatible solution.
Jason suggested making Vital Strike a standard action and having it cause triple base weapon damage. While I like the idea of the standard action being better, having it be based on something which causes characters to want to be enlarged and carry about two handed swords all the time just doesn't sit well with me. Also, the feat (if a feat is to be the solution) has to scale well.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, I'd like to see Vital Strike be a standard action which adds the attackers BAB to damage. So for a fighter at 6th level I can either perform a Vital Strike which is a normal attack plus 6 extra damage or I can do a full attack(at +6/+1) at normal damage. At 20th level I'd do a Vital Strike at normal damage +20 or a full attack (+20/+15/+10/+5) at normal damage.
The ability to improve the standard attack doesn't really have to scale by BAB, but it should scale. And I'd rather not have it encourage people to walk around enlarged and monkey gripping huge two handed swords.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, I'd like to see Vital Strike be a standard action which adds the attackers BAB to damage. So for a fighter at 6th level I can either perform a Vital Strike which is a normal attack plus 6 extra damage or I can do a full attack(at +6/+1) at normal damage. At 20th level I'd do a Vital Strike at normal damage +20 or a full attack (+20/+15/+10/+5) at normal damage.
The ability to improve the standard attack doesn't really have to scale by BAB, but it should scale. And I'd rather not have it encourage people to walk around enlarged and monkey gripping huge two handed swords.
I'm 100% in favor of this type of solution, for exactly the reasons you outline -- scaling with BAB ensures that melee guys' options are level-appropriate, and eliminates the "my sword is bigger than your sword" syndrome. How would Improved Vital Strike work?
How would Improved Vital Strike work?
I don't think I'd add more damage. Too much more than adding BAB to damage and Improved Vital Strike might get better than a full attack (depending on your opponents armor class). In fact you could probably just remove the feat. However, if I were to do an 'Improved' version I'd like to see 1 of 2 things for it:
Improved Vital Strike
Benefit: If an opponent you hit using Vital Strike during your turn attacks someone other than you or attempts to move away from you, you gain an Attack of Opportunity and if you hit your opponent is staggered for 1 round (thus limiting him to 1 attack or 1 move).
OR
Improved Vital Strike
Benefit: If you hit an opponent using Vital Strike during your turn you gain a trip, disarm, or sunder attempt as a free action which does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Both of these options have the potential to allow a melee character to do their job. I'm not sure the feats name portrays what I'd like to see it do, but that can be changed.
|
|
I've posted this before, so apologies for the repost. Here's the way I would like to see it work (emphasis on text I changed from the Beta version of the feats).
Vital Strike (Combat)
By taking one less attack, you can focus your remaining attacks to deal more damage.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: As a standard action, you may sacrifice one iterative attack in order to make a single standard attack. If this standard attack hits, roll the damage dice for all such attacks twice, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities, such as flaming, 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.
If you are able to take more than two iterative attacks with the same weapon as part of a full-round action, you must forgo any additional iterative attacks in favor of the standard attack, or you may take those additional attacks, but only as a full-round action.
Improved Vital Strike (Combat)
By taking two less attacks, you can deal a great deal of additional damage.
Prerequisites: Vital Strike, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: As a standard action, you may sacrifice two iterative attacks in order to make a single standard attack. If this standard attack hits, roll the damage dice for all such attacks three times, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities, such as flaming, 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.
If you are able to take more than three iterative attacks with the same weapon as part of a full-round action, you must forgo any additional iterative attacks in favor of the standard attack, or you may take those additional attacks, but only as a full-round action.
Greater Vital Strike (Combat)
By taking three less attacks, you can deal a great deal of additional damage.
Prerequisites: Improved Vital Strike, Vital Strike, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: As a standard action, you may sacrifice three iterative attacks in order to make a single standard attack. If this standard attack hits, roll the damage dice for all such attacks four times, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities, such as flaming, 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.
I understand the argument that this favors larger weapons (4d4 for Greater Vital Strike and a dagger, versus 8d6 with a greatsword). Part of me thinks, "yeah, higher damage weapons should cause more damage." Then again, I'm not hung up on it and can see it going some other ways as well.
Replace:
If this standard attack hits, roll the damage dice for all such attacks twice...
With whichever of these does it for you:
If this standard attack hits, add +2d6 to the damage roll...
For VS, +4d6 for IVS, and +6d6 for GVS. That change would put nearly all weapons' damages on par with a greatsword. The aforementioned GVS & dagger combo would have an expected value of 23.5 (2.5 for 1d4 + 21 for 6d6) and the greatsword would have an expected value of 28 (for 8d6) before strength and other bonuses. The drawback i see here is "my toothpick does 6d6+1 damage."
If this standard attack hits, add bonus damage equal to the character's BAB...
Which would give 6-10 damage for VS, 11-15 damage for IVS, and 16-20+ damage for GVS. This methods scales with BAB and gives you a little something to look forward to at every level (that you gain BAB, that is), but doesn't pack the punch of the bonus damage dice above.
Of the three bonus damage methods, I personally like the second (+2d6, +4d6, or +6d6) best. I think it's easy to remember, scales in power with the character, and offers some "punch" for taking 3 feats (not to mention I prefer dice rolling to flat bonuses).
-Skeld
Of the three bonus damage methods, I personally like the second (+2d6, +4d6, or +6d6) best. I think it's easy to remember, scales in power with the character, and offers some "punch" for taking 3 feats (not to mention I prefer dice rolling to flat bonuses).
I prefer adding BAB, but I'll take your solution over base 3.5 rules or the current version of Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike.
I'm mainly worried that fighters will become too powerful. In my opinion, outside of the technical issues, the casters can move so they can get the heck outta dodge after they cast, keeping them alive. Even with the pathfinder hit die changes, many casters are still a bit weak, so if that fighter can just catch up and make a full attack with no problems, that caster is potential toast. As far as I am concerned, higher armor class and better hit points are the trade off the fighter gets over the caster.
If you turn Vital Strike (and its followons) into standard actions, then the character isn't sacrificing anything, since he doesn't currently get iteratives on a standard action. Isn't it just a bigger Devastating Blow then?
Yes, the entire point is to allow fighters to move and still be effective in combat...it doesn't matter if the changes are made to full attack or to standard actions. Devastating Blow is really a poorly written feat which serves a niche for two handed weapons relying on criticals. Which can be crazy overpowered if the fighter is using a x4 critical weapon and pretty much suck if whatever you're attacking is immune to criticals.
I'd like to see the improvement come in the form of a feat that melee types using all types of weapons can take advantage of and not just a small subset. A feat with appropriate benefits when you meet the minimum requirements and one that scales as you go up levels.
If it doesn't do all of that, then it doesn't fix the problem.
I'm going to repost the rule I originally wrote for this thread as it addresses a number of the issues being brought up again.
[ooc] This one's straight from the addendum I typed for my players. We haven't run into issues with it yet.
It only allows iterative attacks, not natural attacks. If a monster is smart enough to pick up a weapon and use it, why shouldn't it get the option. It may also get pounce.
A fighter in heavy armour should be able to sacrifice some of their attacks to get extra movement, thats the point.
However, this is not the rule Jason want's to implement. The one where he recommends a critter with a BAB of +11 or more gets an additional attack after a move action (at -5) comes closest to the feel of the game my players are after.
... [/QUOTE
Ok let me say first off, a monster picking up a weapon to create a loop hole in the rules is ridiculous.
We are talking about trying to fix an anomoly of time management, i.e what can reasonably happen in a given round by different combatants involved.
I have two real world examples to give:
I have had the misfortune to be involved in real world combat as a soldier in the US Army, you would be suprised how much you can do in a little amount of time.
Second, I have been playing live action roleplaying for over 10 years (yes dressing up like an elf wrapping sticks in foam insulation and beating people over the head with it)
I run around all over the place and get in a gazillion hits fighting with two swords.
Wizards that dont have combatants blocking for them will get run down by two weapon fighters unless a) that caster is REALLY good and fast or b) that caster is REALLY lucking and gets off the right spell quick (usually a sanre feet or a drop weapon spell)
Can casters run around a throw spells? Yes they almost always do (unless there are fighters infront of them in which case they plant their feet and become spell machine guns)
But in a fight between a meeler and a caster, the odds are not in the casters favor. (although caster DO win, it is rarer than it is in 3.x)
All I am saying is if casters can run around and cast, fighters can run around and fight. The comabt rules are unequal, break the laws of any kind of logic and have been time tested in real life, real time fanatsy combat (with foam weapons) and dont match what is on paper in 3.x
Sooo if caster can full mow and cast, fighters can full move and full attack.
Ooooor fix the casting time issues with the casters.
I also think the concentration skill is TOO powerful, there should need to be the expenditure of at least one feat to do what that skill does.
If you have a Feat for "shot on the run" you should need a feat for "cast on the run" and it should need some prerequisite feats to get it, just like shot on the run.
|
|
What if, instead of dealing additional dice of damage (ala a pseudo critical) Vital Strike mearly increased the die-type, and one was availiable at each increased iterative attack level.
You mean increase a d6 to a d8? If that's what you're talking about, I don't think that's enough of an increase and/or worth a feat (much less the entire chain as I've proposed it).
Going from a d6 to a d8, you buy 1 point of damage over a large sample size (with the expected value of a d6 being 3.5 and a d8 being 4.5). That's less beneficial than just taking Weapon Specialization (for a Fighter anyway). Stacking that over the course of 3 feats takes you from a d6 to 3d6 with GVS, a change in expected value from 3.5 to 10.5 (compared to 7d6, which averages to 24.5, for the +2d6 at each feat that I'd proposed as an option up-thread).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing it.
-Skeld
For Casters, they could Cast their HIGHEST Spell Level as a Full Round Action, and (Highest Spell Level -X) as a Standard Action. So in one example, a 3rd Level Spell might be a Full Round Action (allowing only 5' Step, basically the same as 2nd Ed), but 1st Level Spells would just be Standard Actions.There's an elegance here. Enough people have spoken that, they want magic to continue to be powerful and flashy. In a way, this suggests a learning curve. Sure, you learned this amazing new power, but it's going to take a little while to get used to it and use it to full effect. But it does, eventually, allow the full effect, and the effect we're talking about here is just movement-based, an attempt to equal out actions.
Perhaps at level 20, the full-round for those last uber-level spells goes away...as a cap.
That said, some of the more powerful level spells should probably be adjusted to being full-round, but that can wait for spells. Remember Turns, anyone?
I think that idea seems very cool. What about this: Spells of 1st to 3rd level (and level 0) are always 1 standard action (except for special spells). Spells of 4th to 6th level are a full round action if they are your higest (or second highest?) spell level, or a standard action if they are not. Spells of 7th to 9th level are always full round actions.
Yeah, see how often you get a heal spell with that...
"Shoot! Sorry fighter! You shouldn't have moved more than five feet from me, I can't move up to you and heal you, that's my highest level spell."
But that's ok the fighter didn't need HP anyways.
Using lower level magical healing typically isn't even a stop gap measure. They just don't hold up to the damage that is taken.
Using the Channel positive energy could be a good solution but even then you still get into the same problem as lower level healing spells: it just isn't really going to compare to say a hit from CR 10~14 monsters (generally in the 20+ damage a hit range). The main thing Channel positive energy is good for is not having to spend multiple spells to heal everyone in the group: You can hit them all for some healing at the same time with a secondary resource.
Are you sure the fighter can afford to just "drop out of combat for a minute?" Does he have a path to withdraw on? Will he provoke AoO's? Is his moving going to open up the wizard death? Will he leave the rogue he is flanking with hanging?
Playing a cleric (living band aid) can be bad enough as it is, I'm not going to play lackey to the fighter and stay within five foot of him in case he drops just becuase the only healing spell I got that can handle the damage he's taking is a full round action. Now granted not all clerics are played this way (which could open problems if the cleric doesn't have channel positive energy too) but most people do assume a cleric will try and keep them from dropping, this just makes that harder to do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Over all I just don't see how nerfing the spell chuckers helps the fighter be more efficient.
Want to give the fighter types more iterative attacks on a standard action? Ok I'm good with that. Want to make spell easier to disrupt, well you know maybe that's not a bad thing. Want to reduce some of the effect of spells... are we sure it's not all about beating up on the wizard now? Then to say, "Oh by the way, those spells you are relying on, that you get so few of, that we are going to need you to cast in order to get past this challenge? Yeah those are going to take you even longer now." Is just silly and flat out doesn't help the fighters at all. In fact it can and will hurt them. Magical healling will be slower in coming, buffing will be slower, and that extra round could be death.
One last reason I see this as not being needed: Spells are ranked by level. The higher the level, the harder the spell, the longer you wait until you get it. That's already taken into account when the spells are developed. Now you're saying that even though the spell chucker waited to learn the spell at the appropriate level, he still doesn't really know it so he has to spend longer casting it.
That would be like me saying, "Yes I know you took the improved trip feat at this level, but you still don't really know how to do it so until you take another feat it's still going to provoke AoO's."
In D&D either you know something or you don't: As yoda would say, "Do or Do Not, there is no try."
Edit:
Remember lower level spells have lower DC and much weaker effects. They aren't going to do squat against CR equivlent or higher challenges. That's ok, if you can still get off you big guns, but if you can't get out of harms way and still get that spell off you are dead. Most of the higher CR monsters have means to auto move onto the caster, teleport, earthglide, flight speeds, you name it. If the caster can't move, and get off a decent spell, he's just going to move, then the monster moves, then the wizard moves, then the monster moves... I don't want to see in a year everyone going the exact opposite and saying, "wizards are gimp because they can't get their spells off."
Here is my question: Is it as good as you suggest? Does it actually add to the game? Does it bring more fun?
Or does it just nerf a full half of the classes?
1. Use the following two attack options:
- Standard Attack: standard action, make one attack at your full BAB. If you BAB is 11+, you may take a second attack at your BAB -5. (alternatively, this might be at a –10, but that seems counterintuitive to me)
- Full Attack: Full round action, make all of your attacks, as normal.2. Stuff...
3. Change spellcasting as follows
- Whenever a spellcaster casts a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action and that spell is of the highest level the spellcaster is capable of casting, the spell instead takes 1 full round action to cast (not 1 round, 1 full round action). All other spells are unaffected.
- Possibly expand this to include the two highest levels the spellcaster can cast.I would love to hear some in game feedback on these options, even if it is from play solely for the purpose of testing out these options.
Ok, I like #1 above. I haven't play-tested it yet, but based on this discussion, it is seeming more and more like a good way to go. It increases a high level martial character's effectiveness, and keeps things very simple on the PC side of things.
However, there are still issues on the monster side of things. One way to go is to apply the BAB 11+ rule to the monsters as well, but how do we resolve it?
First, it is surprising how many monsters don't have at least a +11 BAB, so often it isn't a problem.
It is also not a problem for those with at least a +11 BAB and iterative attacks.
But what about monsters that have a BAB of +11 or more, but no iteratives? Let's take the Dragon Turtle for instance. Its BAB is +12, and its full attack is bite +18, and 2 claws +13.
Should the dragon turtle as a standard action bite once and use one claw? It doesn't seem bad to me.
Now let's take the nightcrawler. It's BAB is +12, and its full attack is bite +29 and sting +24.
Should the night crawler bite and sting as a standard action? It's the same as it's full attack action.
Another idea I had is the following. Regardless of BAB, monsters can always use all of their primary attacks as a standard action or follow the BAB rule as PCs do as befits them. This idea changes some monsters not at all, but others significantly.
Examples:
Nightmare
full attack: 2 hooves and bite
standard attack: 2 hooves
Kraken
full attack: 2 tentacles, 6 arms, and 1 bite
standard attack: 2 tentacles
Stone Golem
full attack: 2 slams
standard attack: 2 slams
Girallon
full attack: 4 claws and 1 bite
standard attack: 4 claws
Dragon Turtle
full attack: 1 bite and 2 claws
standard attack: 1 bite
Marilith
full attack: 1 sword +25/+20/+15/+10 and 5 swords +25
standard attack: 6 swords +25
What do you think?
in 1e there were actually spells that took MORE than one round to cast.
When you met an enemy wizard protected by a group of hobgoblins and he was in the back chanting and dancing and nothing was comming out of him, you knew he was cooking up a doozie (and had a chance to try to disrupt it)
That certainly went away with 3e.
Personally I think some of what weare talking about here, is why the different classes had different exp requirements to level up in older versions, and I would like to see a return of that system.
a party that started at level 1 together could look like this (in the old way)
Fighter level 8, theif level 9, cleric level 7, magic-user level 6, paladin level 7.
As the party got higher in level the spread got farther.
Figher Level 13, Theif level 12, Cleric level 10, Magic-user level 9, paladin level 10 and so on.
Theives and fighters always levled faster, taking that away nerfed the fighter.
Everyone complains about meleers not being as good but doesn what their favorite character class to be nerfed.
The fighter gets nerfed ALL the time.
Wizards with d6 nerfs the fighter.
Why not just give everyone a d8 like monster hit dice?
Nerf the fighter.
Wonder why the fighter isnt a class that people choose to play over 4th?
Basically because every expanision and addition and improvement the game has ever had, has nerfed the fighter.
The thing is, I don't think this is as big of a detriment to Casters as you think.
Why is it so necessary for them to also have a Move Action to be effective with their Spells? (compared to Melee)
The only thing I've seen here relavent to that is Cure X Touch Spells, but perhaps that's an opportunity to add a Divine Feat allowing Touch Spells-at-Limited Range to (CHA bonus) # of Allies, or a Feat allowing you to burn a Channel Energy usage to affect one target, but at higher effectiveness (or just max amount on one target).
Um, for "Backwards Compatability", I think it's specified to apply to ITERATIVE Attacks, not Natural MultiAttacks.
I think Jason would like to retain the distinction between Pounce Monsters and those without.I suppose Demons or others w/ Manufactured Weapons could benefit possibly, but it will be fewer cases.
I think once the Core Rules are done, then Pathfinder's Monster Manual can come out, fully "Pathfinderized"
Until then, Monsters honestly will NOT have the exact same power-balance vs. PCs as 3.5.
When they ARE re-done, they're obviously going to be somewhat different, whether in abilities/stats or CR.
|
|
Theives and fighters always levled faster, taking that away nerfed the fighter.
Everyone complains about meleers not being as good but doesn what their favorite character class to be nerfed.
The fighter gets nerfed ALL the time.
Wizards with d6 nerfs the fighter.
Why not just give everyone a d8 like monster hit dice?
Nerf the fighter.Wonder why the fighter isnt a class that people choose to play over 4th?
Basically because every expanision and addition and improvement the game has ever had, has nerfed the fighter.
First of all, I'm glad you care enough about these issues to post in this thread.
That said, I'm afraid that you're wrong. Buffing the d4 and d6 classes up to d6 and d8s respectively is not a fighter nerf. An advantage in hit dice over other classes is an indirect advantage, not a class feature, unless there's something in the Fighter chapter saying "Fighters will always have +3 average hit points per die than wizards."
Considering the stack of cool new martial feats rolling out in Pathfinder RPG (like Vital Strike & Devastating Blow), I'd hazard to say that Pathfinder fighters are going to be quite a bit buffer than their d20 predecessors.
My party is going up against the Kreeg half-ogres soon, and I'm looking forward to pumping the Kreegs up with some nifty high-damage feats.
As far as what classes people choose, you (and I) have only anecdotal evidence. Anecdotally, in my group, the most challenged class is the Bard, not the Fighter.
Ok, so how does nerfing casting improve the fighter?
It isn't going to affect spell like abilities so those will still kill the fighter. It doesn't make the fighter the uber sword swinger. It doesn't keep him in the fight longer. It doesn't make him more able to compete.
What does it do?
It will slow down spells everyone is relying on (can't move and heal you). This could be a bigger problem than you realise, for example: The fighter took his turn in good health, the monster attacks back gets in a critical and two other hits taking the fighter down lets say 2/3 his HP (60~70ish points of damage) and hell it did some ability damage too, that's fairly common at all levels. The Fighter needs healed, but the cleric is ten feet away, he was helping flank lets say (not doing anything amazing, just being a team player and flanking) He can't get over to the fighter and heal him... he could burst heal (channel positive energy) if he has it, but that's not going to provide much and uses up more resources than the single spell that could actually do some good and take care of everything.
It absolutely kills counterspelling. Not that counterspelling was a great option before but now you can't even do it, as you can't take a full round action as part of a readied action.
It defies the conventions of the game (once you can do something you can do it). Is the fighter going to still provoke AoO's for a level after he takes Improved trip becuase of your "learning curve" theory?
Or are we going to say "Everything must be equal" and now make full attacks provoke AoO's because spell casting does? We could just go play 4th edition, everything is equal there.
Nerfing doesn't improve anything. That's why it's nerfing. IF you want to improve the fighter, by all means I'm happy for that go for it, but don't Nerf half of the classes and say it makes the other half better, because it doesn't.
Again, fighters start off really great. The gap doesn't start to appear until mid-levels, but it widens thereafter, until at high levels (15+) melee classes are unable to hold their own without coddling. I'm not saying we need to nerf casters; instead, I'd much rather we revamped the combat system a bit to give them back some of what they lost. Given the opposition, though, I'll attempt one last recap/summary of why, yes, melee classes (especially fighters and monks) really and truly could stand to get a little bit back:
As pointed out, the very core 3.0 rules really crippled higher-level fighters and monks.
Going forward from 3.5 to Pathfinder, casters got some really nice buffs: bonus spells and bonded items and at-will cantrips and metamagic mastery and d6 HD (and +1 hp/level for favored class) for wizards (think about it -- they now have the same average hp as clerics!). Clerics, in turn, got the awesome new channel energy, and get 2 domain spells/level (instead of one) -- or they can trade those domains for d10 HD and full BAB, making them fighters with full spellcasting! And at 19th level, they all have 11 feats now instead of 7.
Melee guys other than rogues got minor buffs (armor training), but look at what they lose:
It's one thing to massively "power up" the casters (even though they were already way better off in 3.0), but beating down the melee guys even more, on top of that, is just crazy. It's intentionally creating a casters-and-rogues-only game, in which, above 11th level or so, fighters and monks have no place at all unless they are catered to.
Again, fighters start off really great. The gap doesn't start to appear until mid-levels, but it widens thereafter, until at high levels (15+) melee classes are unable to hold their own without coddling. I'm not saying we need to nerf casters; instead, I'd much rather we revamped the combat system a bit to give them back some of what they lost. Given the opposition, though, I'll attempt one last recap/summary of why, yes, melee classes (especially fighters and monks) really and truly could stand to get a little bit back:
As pointed out, the very core 3.0 rules really crippled higher-level fighters and monks.
Discrete turns = no interception/interruption;
Introduction of move actions = no movement and full attack;
New "cast defensively," and ability to cast after a full move = melees no longer useful as "mage killers;"
New save progressions = fighters no longer have superlative saves, their main 1e class feature;
Monster hp roughly tripled, but damage output didn't unless you took a 2-handed weapon and Power Attack;
Iterative attacks now at escalating penalties, making Power Attack less of a fix.
Add that to the loss of staggered level progression, and melee classes took a REALLY BIG hit going from 2.0 to 3.0 (your 13th level fighter is now 9th, lost his movement, lost his ability to intercept and to disrupt spellcasting, lost his good saves, and we upped monsters' hp by roughly triple. So sorry!). Going forward from 3.5 to Pathfinder, casters got some really nice buffs: bonus spells and bonded items and at-will cantrips and metamagic mastery and d6 HD (and +1 hp/level for favored class) for wizards (think about it -- they now have the same average hp as clerics!). Clerics, in turn, got the awesome new channel energy, and get 2 domain spells/level (instead of one) -- or they can trade those domains for d10 HD and full BAB, making them fighters with full spellcasting! And at 19th level, they all have 11 feats now instead of 7.
Melee guys other than rogues got minor...
I think this sai it nicely, the main problem is combat in general, but things that were lost from 1e and 2e when the game went to 3e is what we are talking about.
Fix combat and bring back the old exp staggered system and leave hit dice alone,and the fighter doesnt need an artificial bump, it was always a good class.Also with 3e came all these wacky charactes with 10 different classes and it always made a better character than those that chose one class.
That should be fixed too.
In alot of ways the old 1e and 2e were better games because they didnt need "fixing"
Also combat guys need their saves back, too easy to take over the mind of a fighter these days.
Only if you are playing some weird "fighters versus everybody" game.
How are fighters gimped at higher levels? What are you expecting out of them? I'll agree some more could be done to make melee better, but I'll let everyone in on a little secret... melee stinks. It should stink. It stinks in the real world, it stinks in fantasy, and it stinks in D&D.
The whole reason we keep inventing new weapons is so we can get farther from the killing. The farther you are the less likely you are to get hurt while killing. This is why the bow is better than the sword and always will be. It is also why a ranged spell like Orb of fire is better than a melee spell like shocking grasp, it's why wings evolved (to stay out of reach) and why the melee fighter has so many problems. Yes he can do massive damage, take massive damage, and ignore plenty of hits (Which is all AC is supposed to do anyways, if your foe decides to use something other than his weapons to attack you becuase he can't hit your AC, the armor is doing what it should!), but he has to get to the target. That's what he gives up for unlimited swinging action. Until recently everyone else has ammo of some sort: Spells, Daggers, Arrows, bullets, Et al. The meleeist didn't and that's why fights tended to end in melee, it was the only thing everyone had to fall back on when they ran out of ammo.
The stuff that the casters get is typically not worth it. I will make an exception for the Spontaenous metamagic for universilist (I imagine that will go away too). But come on, a d6 ray? + caster level to one roll a day? These are red herrings, they aren't anything important. The HP is a nice boost but you know everyone got tired of the wizard falling over when a cat said boo to him, not just the wizard's player.
Again if you want to boost the fighter I'm all for that... nerfing everyone else isn't going to make him better though.
Before we wax too much about the greatness of first and second edition I would point out they where just as easy to break and abuse as anything that has come out since then.
Heck I had a first level Dwarf straight out of the book that had a THac0 in the single digits. I could also mention my level 1 minotaur Shaman/witch doctor, and blah blah blah.
I'll agree some more could be done to make melee better, but I'll let everyone in on a little secret... melee stinks. It should stink. It stinks in the real world, it stinks in fantasy, and it stinks in D&D.
That's what it comes down to, then. Some of us want a fantasy game in which Conan or Beowulf or Siegfried can hack through enemies and remain viable up into legendary levels, along with their caster friends. Others (including, I think, the 3e and Pathfinder designers) see this as an affront to "realism," and want melee combat obsolete by 11th level. The two views are incompatible; indeed, they're diametrically opposed.
And it's pretty clear that the anti-melee crowd has won this debate: at least, unless some strong, robust, viable higher-level melee options are introduced. Whether 1e was a better game (I don't think it was, in most ways) is moot; the point is, it very specifically catered to a high-level-melee should be viable mind-set. 3e and Pathfinder do not. So I'll stop trying to make the point, and go make houserules instead. Anti-melee guys, you can gloat to your hearts' content.
|
I'll agree some more could be done to make melee better, but I'll let everyone in on a little secret... melee stinks. It should stink. It stinks in the real world, it stinks in fantasy, and it stinks in D&D.That's what it comes down to, then. Some of us want a fantasy game in which Conan or Beowulf or Siegfried can hack through enemies and remain viable up into legendary levels, along with their caster friends. Others (including, I think, the 3e and Pathfinder designers) see this as an affront to "realism," and want melee combat obsolete by 11th level. The two views are incompatible; indeed, they're diametrically opposed.
And it's pretty clear that the anti-melee crowd has won this debate: at least, unless some strong, robust, viable higher-level melee options are introduced. Whether 1e was a better game (I don't think it was, in most ways) is moot; the point is, it very specifically catered to a high-level-melee should be viable mind-set. 3e and Pathfinder do not. So I'll stop trying to make the point, and go make houserules instead. Anti-melee guys, you can gloat to your hearts' content.
What he said (except the blasphemous stuff about 1e AD&D, of course).
Heck I had a first level Dwarf straight out of the book that had a THac0 in the single digits.Maybe in later 2nd, definitely not in core 1st...
Right that dwarf was not core 1st, he was second edition, heck at his best he was player's options... now that was some unbalanced stuff right there.
|
|
Right that dwarf was not core 1st, he was second edition, heck at his best he was player's options... now that was some unbalanced stuff right there.Heck I had a first level Dwarf straight out of the book that had a THac0 in the single digits.Maybe in later 2nd, definitely not in core 1st...
I agree, later 2e got funky (kinda like later 3.5, come to think of it...). I skipped 2e, though, and jumped right into 3e after a 20 year AD&D stint (with a bunch of old school Traveller, Shadowrun and Warhammer FRPG thrown in for spice).
Had I played mid/late '90s 2e, I probably wouldn't have been as suprised by end of the run 3x stuff...