Hate to get all mathy here but the proper calculation is:
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%Since both need to occur they are multiplied together:
50% * 12.5% = 6.25%Closest equivalent: 1 on a D20 with the ranger surprising a drow with a 5% chance.
Now it is the weekend and I can go drink a beer and forget this math stuff I have to do at work. :)
I call high. 1d20
Crap. This game is unplayable!
LOL!
We need an errata!
I can't believe they didn't fix the wording of Vital Strike. Not switching out "attack action" for "standard action to make an attack" is such a missed opportunity.
I also hate that they neutered the Arcane Strike feat. It no longer adds to attack rolls!? WTF!? Who the hell is going to play a gish now?
I can't believe they didn't fix the wording of Vital Strike. Not switching out "attack action" for "standard action to make an attack" is such a missed opportunity.
I also hate that they neutered the Arcane Strike feat. It no longer adds to attack rolls!? WTF!? Who the hell is going to play a gish now?
Not sure if this is irony or not (guessing not), but the Vital Strike feat would be nerfed a bit by changing it to say that. As it stands, it is useable for a few things by being an attack action (which is a *type* of standard action), and not it's own special kind of standard action.
As for Arcane Strike, it hasn't added to attack since at least Alpha 1.1 (if it ever did).
I can't believe they didn't fix the wording of Vital Strike. Not switching out "attack action" for "standard action to make an attack" is such a missed opportunity.
I think that's more an FAQ thing than an errata thing.
|
Exactly what I meant by matured. A group with at best a 15 or 16 year old DMing in 1st edition would read, at times get confused, and then just go with what makes sense to him at that time.
I don't think that means what you think it means. At least being less tolerant of vague and uncertain rules isn't part of any definition of the word maturity I've seen.
Gulp, those are big numbers, but... some of us do. The rules and resources, yes they are much better 'produced' now, but we never let them get in the way of the game.
Pitch a d20 and make some stuff up.
A lot of folks still roll like that, even into their 40s.
I can't believe they didn't fix the wording of Vital Strike. Not switching out "attack action" for "standard action to make an attack" is such a missed opportunity.
I also hate that they neutered the Arcane Strike feat. It no longer adds to attack rolls!? WTF!? Who the hell is going to play a gish now?
Not sure if this is irony or not (guessing not), but the Vital Strike feat would be nerfed a bit by changing it to say that. As it stands, it is useable for a few things by being an attack action (which is a *type* of standard action), and not it's own special kind of standard action.
As for Arcane Strike, it hasn't added to attack since at least Alpha 1.1 (if it ever did).
I was also expecting a clarification on this though (esp. given the response from Jason on it)
I don´t at all expect ¨attack action¨ to go, but simply for a slightly better explanation of it. It´s also definitely FAQ material, but if it´s the kind of thing that 99% or readers are going to need a FAQ to understand properly, the rules text itself needs to be clarified, i.e. pointing out that attack action is a specific action, and/or mentioning the compatability with vital strike in attack action´s entry in the combat action chapter.
Nothing technically changed about attack actino from 3.5 to PRPG, but AFAIK there simply wasn´t any such crucial distinction made about it in 3.5, and any newcomers to the game are probably going to defer to the standard english definition, especially since it isn´t capitalized or anything.
...I´m likewise baffled on RD´s issue with Arcane Strike, I can´t remember to Alpha, but bringing up design changes from Alpha really just distracts from the main issue that there is a boatload of REAL Errata that has been reported on this board in the correct threads for FOREVER without action.
It appears I have been misreading Arcane Strike for well over 6 characters now... *cries*
Was it really always so worthless?
|
It appears I have been misreading Arcane Strike for well over 6 characters now... *cries*
Was it really always so worthless?
Worthless ? It's a great feat. The damage bonus is untyped. Weapon Spec deals a flat +2, with one specific weapon, and it doesn't scale. ArcStrike works on anything and scales.
Worthless ? It's a great feat. The damage bonus is untyped. Weapon Spec deals a flat +2, with one specific weapon, and it doesn't scale. ArcStrike works on anything and scales.It appears I have been misreading Arcane Strike for well over 6 characters now... *cries*
Was it really always so worthless?
What good is the damage bonus if my spellcaster or gish can't hit anything in the first place? I think it would have been much more balanced if it added to attack AND damage. That's a subject for another thread though.
Creative Director
|
What good is the damage bonus if my spellcaster or gish can't hit anything in the first place? I think it would have been much more balanced if it added to attack AND damage. That's a subject for another thread though.Worthless ? It's a great feat. The damage bonus is untyped. Weapon Spec deals a flat +2, with one specific weapon, and it doesn't scale. ArcStrike works on anything and scales.It appears I have been misreading Arcane Strike for well over 6 characters now... *cries*
Was it really always so worthless?
It's actually a feat that's more or less custom built for bards, to be honest. Or eldritch knights. I've actually used the feat quite a lot in games and it's FAR from useless. It's actually a pretty nifty feet.
And it lost its bonus to hit back during the original playtest when it became bluntly obvious that letting it add to hit AND damage was way too good. Believe it or not.
It's still a great feat for the right character. Not so good for a single-classed dwizard or sorcerer, but if you're a single classed wizard or sorcerer who's relying on weapons, something went wrong.
Not sure if this is irony or not (guessing not), but the Vital Strike feat would be nerfed a bit by changing it to say that. As it stands, it is useable for a few things by being an attack action (which is a *type* of standard action), and not it's own special kind of standard action.
How is that? An attack action is a standrad action.
I'm not sure what you or Ravingdork mean.As for Arcane strike. It seems to be a nice feat. Perhaps not always at level 13 when the bard get bardic music as a swift action, but from level 1 to 12 it seems to be a great feat.
@Zark
Unless something has changed again, James Jacobs said that Vital Strike can be used in conjunction with Spring Attack.
Unfortunately I have not heard if that means that you can use Cleave on Spring Attack as well - or if there is some weird special case going on here. Perhaps the easiest fix would be if they just errata'd Spring Attack to state that you may "move - do a standard action to attack - move", then a whole lot of things would fall into place nicely... :)
@Zark: remember that bardic music is only *initiated* as a swift action at level 13 - you still maintain it for free. So Arcane Strike is still great at those levels.
@Zark
Unless something has changed again, James Jacobs said that Vital Strike can be used in conjunction with Spring Attack.
Unfortunately I have not heard if that means that you can use Cleave on Spring Attack as well - or if there is some weird special case going on here. Perhaps the easiest fix would be if they just errata'd Spring Attack to state that you may "move - do a standard action to attack - move", then a whole lot of things would fall into place nicely... :)
Let me quote Dabbler from another tread.
"A Spring Attack is a single move action combined with a standard action (an 'attack action') sandwiched somewhere in the move. It's the same as taking a move action and then a standard action, except you can move again afterwards if you haven't moved your full normal move rate for the round."
Let me quote Dabbler from another tread.
"A Spring Attack is a single move action combined with a standard action (an 'attack action') sandwiched somewhere in the move. It's the same as taking a move action and then a standard action, except you can move again afterwards if you haven't moved your full normal move rate for the round."
Dabbler gives a good sense of the feat, but is mistaken. Spring Attack specifically requires "a single melee attack", not any standard action. Thus, Vital Strike being an "attack action" qualifies (if just barely). Cleave does not.
Nothing wrong with house-ruling it of course, but I stick with the way it is personally.
Ahhh, you poor land bound humanoids, though tasty, you lack the mighty Fly-by Attack. Nothing beats a good flying great cleave... Oh, good times!
Ahhh, you poor land bound humanoids, though tasty, you lack the mighty Fly-by Attack. Nothing beats a good flying great cleave... Oh, good times!
Except that, unlike Spring Attack, Flyby Attack provokes attacks of opportunity if you leave a threatened square. :P
|
I didn't normally remember having problems with initiative...it was the AC modifiers for each weapon vs. specific AC's, and the fact that you didn't get to pick which guy you were actually attacking in melee plus the weird rule regarding not wearing a helm resulted in getting whacked in the head if hit on a result of a 1 on a d10 (or d6...can't remember) :)
On topic in regards to errata - I have extremely good players who don't exploit rules holes (or at least never tell me about them). When errata comes out I reprint the offending pages of the PDF and insert into the book or binder.
Later,
Greg Volz
Ahhh, you poor land bound humanoids, though tasty, you lack the mighty Fly-by Attack. Nothing beats a good flying great cleave... Oh, good times!Except that, unlike Spring Attack, Flyby Attack provokes attacks of opportunity if you leave a threatened square. :PIf you get into their reach as a flying dragon something is already wrong.
-James
Flyby attack doesn't do much for dragons using ranged attacks. If a dragon is above and to the right of me, I am going to shoot him with my ranged attacks. If he flies overhead and breathes fire, then continues flying to the left of me, not much has changed tactically. Assuming I am not dead, I am simply going to continue firing ranged attacks at it.
It's not like it can pop in and out of cover easily with its crappy maneuverability.
|
Flyby attack doesn't do much for dragons using ranged attacks. If a dragon is above and to the right of me, I am going to shoot him with my ranged attacks. If he flies overhead and breathes fire, then continues flying to the left of me, not much has changed tactically. Assuming I am not dead, I am simply going to continue firing ranged attacks at it.
It's not like it can pop in and out of cover easily with its crappy maneuverability.
This is why all the smart dragons fill their lairs with tubes of acid/lava/liquid nitrogen/<insert energy damage liquid here> that they can pop in and out of while their breath weapon recharges!
Specifically, a ranger (3 in 6 chance of surprising) encounters a drow (1 in 8 chance of being surprised). Please show all your work. ;-)D&D 1st ed was much much simpler.Cool, explain the initiative system to me then... :)Sure ;)
Converting to %
3 in 6 = 50%
1 in 8 = 12.5%Add together: 50% + 12.5% = 62.5%
Divide by two: 31.25%
Closest die equivalent: roll a d6, with the ranger surprising a drow on a 2 in 6 chance (33.3%)
Just having some fun Hogarth ;)
I call high: d6
Yay! In your face, drow!
That standard chance of being surprised is 2 in 6. A ranger increases that chance by 1 in 6 (which is 4 in 24).
A drow's chance of being surprised is 1 in 8 (which is 3 in 24). Therefore, a drow's chance of being surprised by a ranger is 7 in 24.
7 in 24 is pretty close to 2 in 6, so you could opt for that if you liked, but it would erase the drow's slight advantage over creatures surprised 1 in 6. To maintain that tiny edge, why not roll a d12 and a d6? The drow is surprised if you roll 7 or less on the d12 and 1-3 on the d6. :-)
Unfortunately, you can't call high in this system, Vic. :-P
But that's surprise, and the original request was about initiative. Fortunately, that's even easier: each party rolls a d6, and the group that gets the higher number has initiative, meaning they get to act first that round.
|
|
We're going to do it in a more organic way, so you'll have complete visibility to it as it grows. Which will also hopefully quell some worries that we're ignoring folks about building a FAQ. Better to start small in a way that everyone can watch and contribute to than to try to do the entire thing behind closed doors. The end result (a full and complete FAQ) would likely end up looking the same after a year... but if we took that second route, there'd be no public PROOF that we were working on a FAQ for that entire year.
I just hope it doesn't end up like the FAQ that WOTC put out for 3.x I hated their PDFs faqs because they were indexs or organized properly. Hopefully you guys do a web based faq (sounds like it) and that it uses meta tags so when I want to look at questions about say.. monks.. I don't have to look in 10 different "sections" for monks.
We're going to do it in a more organic way, so you'll have complete visibility to it as it grows. Which will also hopefully quell some worries that we're ignoring folks about building a FAQ. Better to start small in a way that everyone can watch and contribute to than to try to do the entire thing behind closed doors. The end result (a full and complete FAQ) would likely end up looking the same after a year... but if we took that second route, there'd be no public PROOF that we were working on a FAQ for that entire year.I just hope it doesn't end up like the FAQ that WOTC put out for 3.x I hated their PDFs faqs because they were indexs or organized properly. Hopefully you guys do a web based faq (sounds like it) and that it uses meta tags so when I want to look at questions about say.. monks.. I don't have to look in 10 different "sections" for monks.
I still hope they provide printable PDFs. I dug the PDF FAQs and Errata, because it made it simple to print and put in the book, not requiring online access.
Let me quote Dabbler from another tread.
"A Spring Attack is a single move action combined with a standard action (an 'attack action') sandwiched somewhere in the move. It's the same as taking a move action and then a standard action, except you can move again afterwards if you haven't moved your full normal move rate for the round."Dabbler gives a good sense of the feat, but is mistaken. Spring Attack specifically requires "a single melee attack", not any standard action. Thus, Vital Strike being an "attack action" qualifies (if just barely). Cleave does not.
Nothing wrong with house-ruling it of course, but I stick with the way it is personally.
"a single move action combined with a standard action (an 'attack action') sandwiched somewhere in the move" Restriction: the standard action ( 'attack action') must be a "a single melee attack".
So you can not:move + fire Cross bow + move
can you move + cast spell + move
move + drink potion + move
move + cleave + movel, since cleave is two attacks.
but move + VS + move it probably OK.
FAQ will tell us.
At this point, it's looking like the FAQ will be messageboard-based and a couple times a year we'll compile it into a no-frills PDF.
Good enough for me.
|
|
At this point, it's looking like the FAQ will be messageboard-based and a couple times a year we'll compile it into a no-frills PDF.
As long as I don't have to search 3 different chapters for FAQ on Fighters I'm fine with that. A question about Fighters and Attack of Opportunity. How do you categorize it? In the fighter section? The AoO section? Duplicate entry? Web metatags will make it so that it doesn't matter which section it's actually in, someone looking at EITHER tag will see it. :)