So...
Power attack is much improved, according to the Fighter Preview.
A few of my players have it, but my Rogue player took Deadly Aim.
Power attack has the +50% for two-handers. Deadly Aim doesn't.
So tell me Paizo and Paizoforumites, in the interest of fairness, do I adjust Deadly Aim to grant +2 damage per point of strike penalty?
I'd apply, per -1 attack penalty, the following damage bonuses:
That way, you mirror the way Power Attack works, and provide some incentive for using crossbows. In the event gunpowder is permitted, this also makes guns dangerous, instead of simply being overprised curiosities of no military value.
|
I'd apply, per -1 attack penalty, the following damage bonuses:
+1 for thrown weapons (axes, javelins)
+2 for projectiles (slings, arrows)
+3 for mechanical projectiles (bullets, crossbow bolts). That way, you mirror the way Power Attack works, and provide some incentive for using crossbows. In the event gunpowder is permitted, this also makes guns dangerous, instead of simply being overprised curiosities of no military value.
Sounds like what I was thinking. I'd apply something similar for Combat Expertise: Per -1, +1/+2 with Shield/+3 with Tower Shield. Give the Sword and Board some love.
I'd apply something similar for Combat Expertise: Per -1, +1/+2 with Shield/+3 with Tower Shield. Give the Sword and Board some love.
More or less what I proposed in the Beta for CE as well. Great minds... Only difference is, I REALLY would like to see fighting defensively merged with combat expertise, since they more or less do the same thing. Maybe, per -1 penalty:
The +3 would also apply for duelists using 1-handed weapons, to supercede the Elaborate Parry class feature.
That way, you mirror the way Power Attack works, and provide some incentive for using crossbows.
You mean, beyond the fact that they have more base damage, a wider crit range, and ignore strength penalties?
In the event gunpowder is permitted, this also makes guns dangerous, instead of simply being overprised curiosities of no military value.
If you want to change that, change the weapon stats.
|
I'd apply, per -1 attack penalty, the following damage bonuses:
+1 for thrown weapons (axes, javelins)
+2 for projectile weapons (slings, bows)
+3 for mechanical projectile weapons (crossbows, guns). That way, you mirror the way Power Attack works, and provide some incentive for using crossbows. In the event gunpowder is permitted, this also makes guns dangerous, instead of simply being overprised curiosities of no military value.
According to the Hask preview a -3 nets a +6 bonus with a light crossbow
According to the Hask preview a -3 nets a +6 bonus with a light crossbow
Just posting how I'd personally make it work, not what I believe the "official" rules to be.
You mean, beyond the fact that they have more base damage, a wider crit range, and ignore strength penalties?
I mean, because of the fact they provide no strength bonuses (and thus lower actual damage), have a smaller crit multiplier, and burn extra feats to fire as often (light crossbow) or even cannot be fired as rapidly at all (heavy crossbow). I'd like the line between "simple" and "martial" to be a bit smaller than the gulf between bows and crossbows -- in the preview, Harsk would be better off in all ways using a composite longbow.
|
|
According to the Hask preview a -3 nets a +6 bonus with a light crossbowJust posting how I'd personally make it work, not what I believe the "official" rules to be.
I liked your take and was already considering using something like it myself as a house rule. I just mentioned Hask because with all the previews it is easy to miss a rules nugget.
I just mentioned Hask because with all the previews it is easy to miss a rules nugget.
That's very true... and I agree it's also never a bad idea to give a "heads-up" to the actual Pathfinder rules when discussing them. Thanks!
I did in fact miss that rules nugget!
And a delicious nugget it was.
I shall make the changes to my Maptool Campaign, post haste. (actually, pre-haste, since I haven't coded haste yet)
In the event gunpowder is permitted, this also makes guns dangerous, instead of simply being overprised curiosities of no military value.
I'm okay with this. Until you get up past single-shot muzzle loaders, a longbow probably is a better weapon for an individual warrior than a firearm.
I'm okay with this. Until you get up past single-shot muzzle loaders, a longbow probably is a better weapon for an individual warrior than a firearm.
Personally, I'd like a Glock to be better than a short bow -- although that by no means implies that everyone should. See, if everyone restricts themselves to a medieval setting, the rules as they are are fine. But as soon as the DM tries to introduce a trip to a more modern world, system begins to model a "reality" in which guns are toys, because an Exotic Weapon Proficiency to deal 1d10/x3 damage isn't a really dangerous weapon.
That boils down to a matter of taste, though: some people might like an "A-Team" world, in which a hail of automatic gunfire at point-blank range can be shrugged off by a mid-level character. Those people should stick with weak firearms, and should reject the change to Deadly Aim I proposed.