RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
Power Attack gives 2x a BAB or level based penalty as bonus damage to primary, 1x to off-hand, and probably 3x to two-handed. [Not sure if I like this - Double Slice and the new PA finally made offhand damage bonus = primary for easy calculation.]
Majuba, it could be x1 for light weapons, not specifically off-hand ones.
No one wonders why Valeros gets +7 Will Save vs. Fear when his Bravery only gives him +4?
Maybe the other three come from his base Will Save.
He is +3 vs. all Will Saves and +7 (total) vs. Fear.
|
...
In the Beta, VS required BAB+11 and IVS required VS and BAB+16. Since Valeros has BAB+14, the requirement on IVS has changed. I would hazard a guess that IVS has been lowered to BAB+11 (and VS to BAB+6). If the VS chain can be used as standard actions, these requirements would put them in line with iterative attacks.
I'm intrigued because those were the playtest recommendations I made for VS: make it a standard action, and lower the reqs to BAB+6 and +11. Now hopefully there's also a Greater Vital Strike requiring VS, IVS, and BAB+16.
-Skeld
|
It looks like Agile Maneuvers is gone, too. That or it's been changed to an offense - only feat, since we get the dex bonus in the CMD now. That used to be a feat I gave to nimble but weak spellcasters in the beta just to give them some extra survivability - now that feat can be better used elsewhere.
We're yet to see how CMB ties in with Weapon Finesse, and if it still will require 2 feats like Beta. I really hope Weapon Finesse modifies your attack roll and your CMB, which would put it more in line with how 3.5 worked.
If they do, it seems VERY close to "Maneuver AC", though apparently Deflection Bonuses were added in. Weapon Training was called out as applying to Maneuver Attacks/ against Disarm & Sunder, but I wonder how the remainder of Attack Bonuses (Flanking, Enhancement, etc) will be handled... If it otherwise matches the "Maneuver AC" concept, there doesn't really seem a need for a separate "CMB" stat, since Maneuver Attacks would just use normal Attack stats...???
Close enough for me.
Now we can keep on using Maneuver AC (might need a new name now) without people looking at us funny!
I am very pleased that they closed the vulnerable high-dex character hole opened by the beta method. Woot! Very happy me.
|
Fair enough. I was conscious of a lot of chatter in the playtest era about how fighters are lame because despite all their bag of tricks, extra AC, extra damage etc etc they are lame because they cant resist will attacks (I dont agree) so I was interested to see if anything addressed this. I guess not. So be it. ( I still giggle at the 14th level character with a will save of +3)
Get him a Vest of Resistance +3 and Iron Will and his Will save is ok.
|
The new power attack seems to allow you to go beyond mere STR restrictions. Here's my guess:
Hint: weapon training (heavy blades +3, light blades +2)
So, longsword: power attack 3 STR, 3 weapon training, 1 weapon focus, 1 greater focus = 8?
Shortsword: power attack 1 STR (1/2 STR on off-hand), 2 weapon training, 1 weapon focus = 4?
:)
Get him a Vest of Resistance +3 and Iron Will and his Will save is ok.
Sadly, I double-checked his equipment and his gold (for a 14th level character) is already over...
(actually, he has some small debts, from the masterwork value of his weapons and a couple of potions)
Do we have a description of how the ring of the ram works with the new Bull Rush rules?
No, and this is a small, niche need. In that our Savage Tide group found a ring of the ram and, as we are using the Beta rules, have no idea how to use it. :)
If it otherwise matches the "Maneuver AC" concept, there doesn't really seem a need for a separate "CMB" stat, since Maneuver Attacks would just use normal Attack stats...???
Not exactly — the most widely cited variant mAC during the playtest involved "flipping" the size modifier to be a bonus rather than a penalty. All other attack modifiers remained.
This means that although medium creatures will almost always have the same Standard attack bonus and Combat Maneuver Bonus, it is worth having a space in the stat block for creatures of size other than medium.
I'm crossing my fingers that this is how it works, because I love the idea of a unified maneuver rule that can be explained in two sentences. ("Flip the size mod for offense. Add the touch AC to that for Defense.")
I'm crossing my fingers that this is how it works, because I love the idea of a unified maneuver rule that can be explained in two sentences. ("Flip the size mod for offense. Add the touch AC to that for Defense.")
Sure, I guess I'm just anxious to see how attack mods are dealt with now :-)
*IF* all attack mods are in (the simplest solution), having just a Maneuver Size Modifier (which counters/reverses the normal Size Modifier to Attacks and Touch AC) seems simpler to explain and use than introducing a superfluous CMB stat (BAB+STR, already include in melee attack stats) and re-calculating attack modifiers on top of that - If people's melee numbers already include things like Weapon Training & Enhancements, it's simpler to just add a single modifier (if they're non-Medium) than recalculating the whole mess. Of course, if all attack mods ARE in, there's nothing stopping you from running it this way! ()
It does seem SO similar to Maneuver AC (adding Deflection, which makes sense), that I do have a strong belief the attack side of things will work out just like this... The utter simplicity from re-using Melee Attack and Touch AC with just a simple Modifier, seems so attainable and immediately graspable by anybody who can handle regular Melee, that it seems nuts not to go for it.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Slightly off topic, but I Dugg (digged?) this to try and drive people to the blog. Help me divert traffic to Paizo by also digging it if you do that sort of thing (here)
|
Although I will triple check in the morning, I am 99.9% sure that Valeros' Hp and AC are accurate (taking rules changes into account). Not that I am going to spell out those changes just yet.
:-P
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Going to hazard a guess on his armor bonus: Armor +10 (Breastplate 5, Enhancement 4, Armor Training 1)
Although his armor training is at level 3, only one of those grants an AC bonus. The other two levels increase his base speed in medium or heavy armor.
I've seen the effects of armor training granting both an AC bonus and an increase to base speed in medium or heavy armor at my table. It REALLY helps fighters. This could be a balancing factor.
|
|
In regard to skill points, Valeros has 70 ranks total, implying 5 per level (2 base, 1 int, 1 human, 1 unknown)
The unknown could come from a few sources:
1. Favored class. The mechanic could still be in existence, granting a bonus skill point only.
2. A Second Human bonus point. Unlikely, as the race was balanced as is.
3. Fighter base is now THREE. There has been numerous instances on this board where Mr. Bulmahn has stated his resistance to raising the base fighter skill point amount to four (if at all). Maybe three is a compromise with many people who have asked for four.
Please continue with wild speculation.
Slightly off topic, but I Dugg (digged?) this to try and drive people to the blog. Help me divert traffic to Paizo by also digging it if you do that sort of thing (here)
Consider it dugg by me too! C'mon everyone! Digg it up :)
The new power attack seems to allow you to go beyond mere STR restrictions. Here's my guess:
So, longsword: power attack 3 STR, 3 weapon training, 1 weapon focus, 1 greater focus = 8?
Shortsword: power attack 1 STR (1/2 STR on off-hand), 2 weapon training, 1 weapon focus = 4?
I think it more likely that there is some calculation that comes up with +4, and is used for Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Applied as a penalty to attacks, and a bonus to AC or some multiple of it to damage.
Agreed it goes beyond STR restrictions.
After a quick confirmation, the hp and AC in the Valeros stat block are 100% correct.Going to hazard a guess on his armor bonus: Armor +10 (Breastplate 5, Enhancement 4, Armor Training 1)
I'm betting on Breastplate = +3 Armor Bonus. Possibly using Armor as DR? But then he'd be missing a DR/- entry. Hmmm. Very strange.
So how does this example Fighter compare to the monster guidelines in Beta?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking Kobajagrande. Are you asking what Valeros's CR would be if his stat block was for a monster instead of a PC?
I think CMD/Maneuver AC will be one of PRPG's 'calling cards', one of those 'big noticeable things' that help define it and show off it's continuity with, but evolution of, the 3.x system.
Woo Hoo!
|
|
I think CMD/Maneuver AC will be one of PRPG's 'calling cards', one of those 'big noticeable things' that help define it and show off it's continuity with, but evolution of, the 3.x system.
Woo Hoo!
I'm still trying to figure out how often CMD will have to be recalculated even within one encounter depending on whether your character is flatfooted and so on (see DigitalMage's post). Not sure how much this will speed up gameplay.
Besides, the idea itself isn't entirely new. It's a 4Eism that people take 10 on their defense rolls (in particular, save rolls), so that's where the +10 comes in in CMD. 4E also uses it for passive skill scores (Passive Insight and Passive Perception), an idea that was originally suggested for 3.5 in the Rules Compendium (page 31, sidebar) and which I have used ever since.
While I label "replace a d20 roll by take 10, make the result a static score (when rolling against)" a 4Eism, the idea itself is as old as 3.5 DMG which suggests a rule variant whereby you recalculate AC by removing the base number (10) and factor in a d20 roll instead (defense score = 1d20 + DEX modifier + armor bonus + ...). As the sidebar in the 3.5 DMG says, it doesn't (much) change the underlying math, but it affects the number of die rolls (and hence, the speed of gameplay) at the table.
|
|
I actually think the 10 in the CMD comes from the fact that in the beta, there was a huge majority of people complaining that 15 was too high and made checks too difficult. I know the 4e and Saga both use 10+ as defenses(but really 3x does too for your AC), but I think for this it could just as easily have been 12+ because that seemed to be the other number people were throwing out as a different possibility to lower things down from 15.
10 is a nice round number and when you have two equally skilled people facing each other, it gives each about a 50/50 shot of coming out on top so that works for me.
14th level and he has a +3 total will save (snicker).
I am a little surprised with everyone banging on about how the fighter has this phenomenol achilles heel it wasnt attended too, even a bit.
I should note that the star blocks in these previews are built to show off specific themes and new rules bits, not to create a super optimized character. That, and I think that a fun weakness can really help to define a character. For Valeros, having a poor Will save sort of fits.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Forget "super-optimized", a Will save that low verges on unplayable. Or at least very frustrating almost every single time Will saves are rolled. I could understand a poor Will save relative to someone in his same league of power, but seriously, a typical 1st-level human sorcerer has a better than even chance of mind controlling this 14th-level iconic. I find it unlikely a proper adventurer could live to be that level with such a glaring weakness, considering any NPC or monster of a comparable level with a decent Will-resisted ability doesn't even need to try hard to disable or control him 90-95% of the time (except fear abilities). I think that this crosses the line from "fun weakness" to "pathetic" (and doesn't give a very favorable impression of what the system offers in terms of balanced gameplay). It seems to me, instead of showing off what a character can do physically at the expense of sanity, you should be showing what a player, in playing a fighter, can reasonably pull off without being horribly vulnerable to a relatively common tactic.
|
|
The new power attack seems to allow you to go beyond mere STR restrictions. Here's my guess:
So, longsword: power attack 3 STR, 3 weapon training, 1 weapon focus, 1 greater focus = 8?
Shortsword: power attack 1 STR (1/2 STR on off-hand), 2 weapon training, 1 weapon focus = 4?
I think it more likely that there is some calculation that comes up with +4, and is used for Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Applied as a penalty to attacks, and a bonus to AC or some multiple of it to damage.
Agreed it goes beyond STR restrictions.
I think it's based and capped on your character levels now, i.e. Combat Expertise would be something like -1/+1 for every 3 levels, and Power Attack -1/+2 for every 3 levels (-1/+3 for two-handed weapons? Or maybe it's -1/+2 for all Heavy Blades now?).
|
|
I could understand a poor Will save relative to someone in his same league of power, but seriously, a typical 1st-level human sorcerer has a better than even chance of mind controlling this 14th-level iconic. I find it unlikely a proper adventurer could live to be that level with such a glaring weakness, considering any NPC or monster of a comparable level with a decent Will-resisted ability doesn't even need to try hard to disable or control him 90-95% of the time. I think that this easily crosses the line from "fun weakness" to "pathetic" (and doesn't give a very favorable impression of what the system offers in terms of balanced gameplay). Instead of showing off what a character can do physically at the expense of sanity, you should be showing what a player, in playing a fighter, can reasonably pull off without being a glass cannon.14th level and he has a +3 total will save (snicker).
I am a little surprised with everyone banging on about how the fighter has this phenomenol achilles heel it wasnt attended too, even a bit.
I should note that the star blocks in these previews are built to show off specific themes and new rules bits, not to create a super optimized character. That, and I think that a fun weakness can really help to define a character. For Valeros, having a poor Will save sort of fits.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yeah, it's a "feature" for some, but having played so many mid-to-high level fighters (read: spent whole sessions reading the DM's comic books) it's not fun to role-play being stunned/dominated/paralyzed/etcetera anymore. These days I simply ask the guys if someone can dispel the effect in the next three hours or so (assuming a long combat or no chance to rest); if not, I'll just leave. Sometimes the spellcasters can take care of the issue with spells ("buffs" before every combat), but I've rarely played in groups in which they actually select spells to keep the "melee" types in play (IME it's most often SoS/SoD-spells, "buffs" on themselves, and flashy evocations).
On the other hand, Jason, Erik and James have noted that many issues with high-level play have been fixed, so maybe SoD/SoS-effects were "nerfed" a bit?
On the other hand, Jason, Erik and James have noted that many issues with high-level play have been fixed, so maybe SoD/SoS-effects were "nerfed" a bit?
Yeah, well, maybe.
But these spells are already dodgy as it is.
I've seen them nerfed in 3.5. I've seen them nerfed again in DDO. Nerfed in 4e. And a few were nerfed a bit in Pathfinder.
Nerfing them just makes them unplayable.
Remember, nerfing these spells so the PC fighter can make his saves means they are equally nerfed when the PC wizard tries them on the bad guys.
Already as it is, when I play a wizard, it's a crapshoot. Do I go for the SOS spell, or just load up a fireball?
I never SOS the DM's BBEG - I can guarantee that almost every DM I've ever seen will make sure that these guys make their saves, behind the screen, and will always roll a success.
I hardly dare to try SOS on the challenging "sub-boss" fights either, knowing the DM put them there to deplete our resources, and knowing a quick win with a big SOS/SOD won't deplete our resources the way he had in mind, I can pretty much guarantee nearly total failure of the SOS family in these fights, too.
Which leaves the SOS spells for the garbage fights. This is where they shine, if the DM has any decency at all. He knows he robs me in the key fights, so he gives me a little karma and makes the SOS spells really peachy keen in the garbage fights. Unfortunately, since these fights are garbage, they are the fights where I least need clever tactics and powerful spells. Half the time, I could just whip out the crossbow...
So many DMs react this way to the SOS/SOD spells that hardly ever dare to use them as it is.
Now along comes a game system and they nerf these spells, and I find even less reason to rely on them.
Back to buffs I go.
And yes, I play fighters too. And yes, I hate being doinked out of the fight with nothing to do for an hour or two while my friends finish the fight without me. And yes, I want an answer for that.
But the answer lies in fixing the fighter, not nerfing the spells.
So I will hope, right along with you, that there is a solution for this problem.
I will just hope for a better solution.
|
|
On the other hand, Jason, Erik and James have noted that many issues with high-level play have been fixed, so maybe SoD/SoS-effects were "nerfed" a bit?
Yeah, well, maybe.
But these spells are already dodgy as it is.
I've seen them nerfed in 3.5. I've seen them nerfed again in DDO. Nerfed in 4e. And a few were nerfed a bit in Pathfinder.
Nerfing them just makes them unplayable.
Remember, nerfing these spells so the PC fighter can make his saves means they are equally nerfed when the PC wizard tries them on the bad guys.
Already as it is, when I play a wizard, it's a crapshoot. Do I go for the SOS spell, or just load up a fireball?
I never SOS the DM's BBEG - I can guarantee that almost every DM I've ever seen will make sure that these guys make their saves, behind the screen, and will always roll a success.
I hardly dare to try SOS on the challenging "sub-boss" fights either, knowing the DM put them there to deplete our resources, and knowing a quick win with a big SOS/SOD won't deplete our resources the way he had in mind, I can pretty much guarantee nearly total failure of the SOS family in these fights, too.
Which leaves the SOS spells for the garbage fights. This is where they shine, if the DM has any decency at all. He knows he robs me in the key fights, so he gives me a little karma and makes the SOS spells really peachy keen in the garbage fights. Unfortunately, since these fights are garbage, they are the fights where I least need clever tactics and powerful spells. Half the time, I could just whip out the crossbow...
So many DMs react this way to the SOS/SOD spells that hardly ever dare to use them as it is.
Now along comes a game system and they nerf these spells, and I find even less reason to rely on them.
Back to buffs I go.
And yes, I play fighters too. And yes, I hate being doinked out of the fight with nothing to do for an hour or two while my friends finish the fight without me. And yes, I want an answer for that.
But the...
Maybe Action Points would do the trick? Or "Save Ends"-type of mechanic (I don't care if it's 18 I need to roll -- if I get to roll each round, there's at least the *chance*, however marginal, that I might get back into action). I know that there are Improved X-feats posted by Jason, but "burning" two feats to get a static +2 to one save and a single re-roll per day? I wonder which ones would Valeros "ditch" from that list to get Iron Will and Improved Iron Will?
But we will see -- I'm pretty confident that this is one of the issues that has been dealt with one way or the other. :)
|
|
I hardly dare to try SOS on the challenging "sub-boss" fights either, knowing the DM put them there to deplete our resources, and knowing a quick win with a big SOS/SOD won't deplete our resources the way he had in mind, I can pretty much guarantee nearly total failure of the SOS family in these fights, too.
Personally, I've had more than a few SoD's kill one of my Bosses before. And I've had what were supposed to be "mook" combats turn out lucky and be some of the deadliest.
It happens. And makes for fun stories. Mooks being mooks and bosses being bosses do not every good story make. Sometimes it's fun to have the tables reversed.
(See? I made my point in two short paragraphs!) :D
|
|
So, if AC is "100% correct", we have more than one change to armor training.
1st the change to allow you to move normal speed in (medium) armor.
2nd, the reduction or elimination of the AC bonus from armor training. In Beta, a 14th level fighter would get a +3 armor bonus from armor training. Now, he either gets a flat +1 armor bonus, or the base AC of Breastplate Armor has increased by 1.
Edit: The max Dex and ACP seem to still be scaling with armor training. The climb, ride, and swim skills have acps, and the breastplate starts with a -4 acp +1 for masterwork/magic +3 for armor training = 0 acp. Max Dex starts at +3 now at least +5 (probably +6: +3 base +3 armor training)
I think it's based and capped on your character levels now, i.e. Combat Expertise would be something like -1/+1 for every 3 levels, and Power Attack -1/+2 for every 3 levels (-1/+3 for two-handed weapons? Or maybe it's -1/+2 for all Heavy Blades now?).new power attacksome calculation that comes up with +4
Could be character level, could be base attack bonus, or could be reflex save (mostly kidding).
We'll find out I suppose :)
Save or Die/Suck stuff
It really is a DM/group-based question. I also have had some pretty darn huge BBEG's fall to save or die/disabled effects. Those are the rolls I'm actually *more* likely to make in the open, since so much depends on them.
Nerfing the spells a bit can make them *more* useful, by reducing the need for players and DMs alike to specifically counter effects or naughtily fudge results. But if a DM (or not-so-trustworthy player) is far enough at one end of the spectrum, you're right, it wouldn't help, and would just make the spells worse/useless for players. There's a point you don't want to nerf past, so that this doesn't happen (much).
On the other hand, DMs like me *relish* nerfed effects, so we can use them more without fearing a horrible run of bad luck wiping out our players. In 1st edition I used poison all of about two times, out of years and years of running games, because I simply couldn't stand the idea of a player dying like that.
AC stuff
Nice summary.
|
|
I never SOS the DM's BBEG - I can guarantee that almost every DM I've ever seen will make sure that these guys make their saves, behind the screen, and will always roll a success.I hardly dare to try SOS on the challenging "sub-boss" fights either, knowing the DM put them there to deplete our resources, and knowing a quick win with a big SOS/SOD won't deplete our resources the way he had in mind, I can pretty much guarantee nearly total failure of the SOS family in these fights, too.
When did D&D turn into a formulaic video game, linearly progressing from Goons to sub-boss to "the boss." I realize we live in a genre of cliche's but this is getting almost silly.
|
|
I'll jus' deviate from the statistical norm a bit gov'nor, 'an say that this Valeros fella is tough enough to put a snickersnak in any creature's rathole 'an put 'em in an early earth bath, if ya know what I mean!
I know 'twas church work gittin' the game done, but our incredible capp, Mr Bulmahn, deserves a round of praise, 'an a better ale than that rotgut he was a drinkin' in that photo at the finish line. Give that man a fine sideshow quickwife, 'cause he done right by us! 'An that Valeros chum looks new & Pathfindery, but all the while still keepin' in with 30+ years 'o game history.
Well done, Jason.
When did D&D turn into a formulaic video game, linearly progressing from Goons to sub-boss to "the boss." I realize we live in a genre of cliche's but this is getting almost silly.
I never SOS the DM's BBEG - I can guarantee that almost every DM I've ever seen will make sure that these guys make their saves, behind the screen, and will always roll a success.I hardly dare to try SOS on the challenging "sub-boss" fights either, knowing the DM put them there to deplete our resources, and knowing a quick win with a big SOS/SOD won't deplete our resources the way he had in mind, I can pretty much guarantee nearly total failure of the SOS family in these fights, too.
It doesn't, necessarily. And it likely shouldn't - at least not all the time.
But if you look at any AP, you will see this progression in them, more often than not, IME.
And the terms "boss" and "sub-boss" are simple and well-understood, so they make handy terms of reference for discussion.
|
|
When did D&D turn into a formulaic video game, linearly progressing from Goons to sub-boss to "the boss." I realize we live in a genre of cliche's but this is getting almost silly.
I never SOS the DM's BBEG - I can guarantee that almost every DM I've ever seen will make sure that these guys make their saves, behind the screen, and will always roll a success.I hardly dare to try SOS on the challenging "sub-boss" fights either, knowing the DM put them there to deplete our resources, and knowing a quick win with a big SOS/SOD won't deplete our resources the way he had in mind, I can pretty much guarantee nearly total failure of the SOS family in these fights, too.
If it was a video game he would have called them, Orange, Red, Purple....
LOL. No wonder the DMG took pains to warn people away from meta-game thinking.
Apparently that should have been in a larger font. :)
You are absolutely 100% right.
In my defense, the DMs started it.
They metagamed a reason to make all of their (dare I say it?) bosses invulnerable to all my SOS/SOD spells because they reasoned, in a metagame sense, that dropping the big bad end guy to a lucky Hold Person is anticlmactic, or un-cinematic, or just uninteresting. Maybe all the DM is trying to do is keep the fight fun and challenging. Maybe his heart is in the right place - a fun, challenging, interesting, scary boss fight.
So the rolls are hidden, and the saves are made, and weeks and months go by with none of my SOS/SOD spells landing in any critical fight, unless it's right at the end anyway, when they are the least valuable (holding a big boss for 8 rounds is way more useful than holding him for 1 round).
Over time, my character learns not to trust these spells. They seem powerful, on the surface. Yet when the chips are down, the scariest, most dangerous bad guys always seem to shrug them off, every time. Inexplicable really, but that's what happens.
So my character doesn't trust the spells.
That's not metagaming; it's a totally in-character reaction to what that character perceives happening time after time.
New DM, new character. Same story.
I'm often guilty of it myself - though being aware of it, I plan accordingly. I make sure that some mini-bosses are there to be wiped out with a single spell. I make sure that even in some boss fights, SOS spells are effective, to a point (they rarely wipe out the boss entirely, but they may keep him out of the fight for a while). I've been known to make a guaranteed TPK fight with a boss the PCs just cannot touch, then roll a few hidden failed saves to bring the fight down to winnable levels.
So when I'm guilty of it, it is for story reasons. And I balance that by making sure the spells work often enough that the casters still get good use of them.
Most DMs I have played with over 30 years have been far less kind to my casters.
My description of it was metagamey since I described it from a player perspective.
Either way, it happens. It ruins the spells.
I say don't nerf the spells; buff the fighter instead.
|
|
I'd say you need to find better DMs. :) I can count the number of times I've fudged rolls on both hands, and it's always been in favor of the players to avoid a messy TPK. Not that TPKs haven't happened, but sometimes you can just tell the group is really bumming out over horrible luck.
It's best for DMs to get away from worrying about an epic boss fight or a non-epic mook fight. In CotCT, I remember how fast one of the bosses went down, but a couple of his minions, so much lower than the party, just seemed unhittable and would get hit after hit (with the occasional crit). That kind of thing is hilarious and makes for a good story, something unexpected. :)
After a quick confirmation, the hp and AC in the Valeros stat block are 100% correct.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This means that Toughness has become '+1 hp per HD', losing the extra +3 hp.
Well, this is faster to calculate.Regarding AC, either the base AC of Breastplate has been lowered or (more likely) Armor Training now allows for different abilities for every +1 you gain (like, faster movement in heavier Armors and so on).
And this is good, too.
Just my 2c (and speculations).
I guess it's possible that favoured class doesn't allow you to improve your AC. Which I wouldn't mind, because it doesn't make sense.
Am clearly going mad/blind! :)
Can't help you with he blind thing, but I'll wait for you at mad, and when you've gona and arrived here, I'll give you a nice welcome gift. Some refreshments. I'm not good with cookies, but I'll have a soda. Cream-Steak and Chilli Chocolate flavour!
After a quick confirmation, the hp and AC in the Valeros stat block are 100% correct.
Sucks.
I liked the old Armour Training. (I'm guessing the +3 AC bonus is gone, as I suspect that medium armour got bumped up)
The fighter doesn't have anything besides his fighting prowess (offense and defense), which is as it should be (as much as I like crouching tiger hidden dragon like classes like the stuff from tome of battle, the fighter needs to stay easy, and mundane. No spells for fighters. Not in my D&D), but he should be really, really good at what he does. The old armour training did that. Now, it's not as good any more.
Well, I'll see if the other changes favour the fighter, but considering that others got boosts (sounds like paladins get a lot more out of their smite now, the new change meaning that they can often use it for pretty much every important evil enemy, so they close the gap between them and fighters in terms of pure fighting prowess)
As for the rest:
Toughness seems to have lost the initial +3 - which I think is good, since this makes things a little easier. Just calculate HP as if the Con bonus were one higher.
The character really isn't created very effectively, but that's beside the point. The stat blocks aren't supposed to showcase how to min/max, after all.
CMD is the rigth way to go, and I if I read things right, it was done just the way I like it: 10+ to make it not too hard, Use dex if you want (makes sense), get some extra bonuses like deflection (which really helps against people wanting to grab you and stuff like that)
I guess Weapon Finesse is still a feat instead of an option everyone can choose (or his off-hand attacks would be better), but that's not a big deal - I've been houseruling this for years, and it's easy to keep house ruling this.
Combat Expertise: My guess: +2/-2 and another +1 at 5/10/15/20. I'd still make it scaleable, but that's another of those easy house rules.
Power Attack: Generally the same formula as Combat Expertise (which makes perfect sense), but you get double for one-handed and normal for light (instead of nothing for light which was the way it was in 3.5) and normal for one-handed? Two-handed even more? Could be excessive, but maybe it's a fighter and/or TWF thing?
Vital Strike: Instead of requiring a full-round action (which didn't make sense), this seems to be something you can use when you can make only one attack, which is a very good thing. There still seems to be some mystery about the attack bonus (charge gives you +2, but power attack is at -4, which means he gets another +2 from somewhere - unless charge has changed, or maybe vital strike). Finally, the requirements seem to have gone down, which is very good. No need to reserve stuff like this for the highest-level characters, when the problems are there a lot earlier.
Dex 20
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Belt of physical perfection +2
So now you can select the feats without the base requisite thanks magic items, or Jason lowered the requisite of TWF (14, 16, 18).
So now you can select the feats without the base requisite thanks magic items, or Jason lowered the requisite of TWF (14, 16, 18).Dex 20
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Belt of physical perfection +2
I thought you always could select feats with the aid of magic items...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
Vital Strike: Instead of requiring a full-round action (which didn't make sense), this seems to be something you can use when you can make only one attack, which is a very good thing. There still seems to be some mystery about the attack bonus (charge gives you +2, but power attack is at -4, which means he gets another +2 from somewhere - unless charge has changed, or maybe vital strike). Finally, the requirements seem to have gone down, which is very good. No need to reserve stuff like this for the highest-level characters, when the problems are there a lot earlier.
KaeYoss, I suspect it's just the +2 being returned from TWF:
BAB +14,
STR +3,
Weapon Training +3,
Focus/GreaterFocus +2,
Enhancement +3
Charge +2
Power Attack -4
Total +23
I thought you always could select feats with the aid of magic items...So now you can select the feats without the base requisite thanks magic items, or Jason lowered the requisite of TWF (14, 16, 18).Dex 20
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Belt of physical perfection +2
You could.
You did lose access to the feat if you lost the prerequisite of course.
Combat Expertise: My guess: +2/-2 and another +1 at 5/10/15/20. I'd still make it scaleable, but that's another of those easy house rules.
I think you're right - this makes complete sense.
I'm seeing quite a few changes from the Beta taking into account playtest suggestions. Everything is not like I'd prefer, but from the first couple of previews I think it'll be much improved over 3.5.
Good job Jason.