A full attack is not only roll + damage.
A player could attempt more weird thing during a full attack, like quickdraw bolas to trip a distant enemy or mix attacks and maneuvers.
Is not always so simple to speed up... and BTW, I enjoy actions like the one just described.
This is normally where I pop on under the alias of a Ancient Dragon and point out that I can fly 200+ and attack a half dozen times.
But what is the point of allowing this sort of thing? To allow fighters to be as effective as a Super-Jacked-Up-Save-Or-Suck-It-Spell? Is the idea to make the person who wins initiative win the fight, and combats to take 1 or 2 rounds at most?
I personally find that style of play... unexciting. At that point, why not just hand out M-60's or laser guns or just play a different game.
The universal theme of these types of threads is that casters are able to use "I-win" spells that blow away anything a fighter can do. Rather then re-write the movement and attacking rules, why not just start by limiting casters prime stats in some way. Lower prime stat means fewer spells, less chance of overcoming saves, less chance of overcoming SR, less chance of casting defensively, etc. All of the things that are already supposed to keep casters in check.
PS Every time someone actually does the math, the conclusion is that the new power attack generally results in similar or often MORE damage then the older version. There are some exceptions, such as held opponents, but it is usually within a few points otherwise. Why do people claim the PA change makes fighter types unplayable?
I'm actually considering allowing everyone to be able to make full attacks + full move actions. I think that you'd need to factor in some sort of to hit penalty (maybe -2 to hit with each attack or some function of distance moved such as -1 per 10ft moved).
Yes big fast creatures with a ton of attacks such as dragons would be lethal under this system but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Dragons with their tons of natural attacks would be very impressive as they should be.
I think it would definitely make the average combat much more dynamic than it currently is and would go a long way towards restoring the balance between martial and casters. If the casters have to worry about being within a 30'-60' kill zone of the melee brutes then in many ways the balance of power is redressed to a degree.
As I see it the full casters already get a full move + full attack equivalent (spell casting) which can often be optimized into being a SoS nuke (Save DCs are a topic for another conversation). Plus they have reliable access to swift action spells which can effectively double their casting output.
Giving martial characters the ability to move and spam attacks would force the casters to stay on their toes. That means using control spells and minions rather than going for the one-hit kill because if the caster is in range of a full attack from a CR appropriate monster they are often going to be hurting.
If you want to prevent insta-death charging the opposition casters then you'd probably want to buff up AoOs so that they stop movement. That fighters couldn't just move and slash but rogues and monks with high acrobatics checks could.
My main problem with the multiple attacks higher level melee types get isn't that it's hard to make them with a full move—it's that rolling 4+ attacks slows the game down pretty significantly. One thing I want to try someday is a house rule that essentially makes Vital Strike a free feet to everyone and does away with those iterative attacks entirely. I'd make Vital Strike in this case be something you could use with any combination of tactics, such as charge or Spring Attack (not attacks of opportunity, though). The only way you'd get more than 1 attack per round is if you dual wield or flurry of blows (which would limit you to 2 attacks per round), have a haste effect, or have lots of natural attacks. Since the lots of natural attacks bit only really usually happens for monsters, and monsters are usually the province of the GM whose turns during a combat session already take up MUCH less time than the players' turns, should work out pretty well.
I *THINK* I did something similar to this for my homebrewed campaign setting- but it's based in 3.5, not pathfinder, and it's an option(not necessarily a feat) for fighters or rangers only. I have to check my rules compendium thingie.
This is normally where I pop on under the alias of a Ancient Dragon and point out that I can fly 200+ and attack a half dozen times.
But what is the point of allowing this sort of thing? To allow fighters to be as effective as a Super-Jacked-Up-Save-Or-Suck-It-Spell? Is the idea to make the person who wins initiative win the fight, and combats to take 1 or 2 rounds at most?
I personally find that style of play... unexciting. At that point, why not just hand out M-60's or laser guns or just play a different game.
The universal theme of these types of threads is that casters are able to use "I-win" spells that blow away anything a fighter can do. Rather then re-write the movement and attacking rules, why not just start by limiting casters prime stats in some way. Lower prime stat means fewer spells, less chance of overcoming saves, less chance of overcoming SR, less chance of casting defensively, etc. All of the things that are already supposed to keep casters in check.
I think that it would be good to hammer the caster's ability to jack their Save DCs up so high or we should make base saves better (I'm personally in favor of everything having 1/2 HD + stat for their base saves with a +2 for good saves or 2+1/2 HD + stat, i.e. all good saves). This would make single target SoD/SoS less viable as a strategy especially against CR +2 or CR+3 monsters.
That being said the caster already has full attack equivalents + movement or rather their full attack potential isn't limited to a 5' range. 1e-2e martial characters could move and do iteratives (granted lower DPR). I'm not sure that it would be such a bad idea to allow martial PCs and melee monsters to return to their former glory.
At a minimum it would probably increase the number of spears used in the game ;)
But as I said in my other post, you'd probably want to incorporate a penalty for movement (either static or distance traveled) and maybe incorporate a rule where a successful AoO stops to slows movement.
PS Every time someone actually does the math, the conclusion is that the new power attack generally results in similar or often MORE damage then the older version. There are some exceptions, such as held opponents, but it is usually within a few points otherwise. Why do people claim the PA change makes fighter types unplayable?
Generally, they're making assumptions such that someone who is 3.5-power-attacking for their full base attack isn't still hitting with most attacks.
Which holds up, up to a point, if you drop just 3.5 PA and nothing else into Pathfinder, but with full or even just core 3.5 in play wasn't the case. In 3.5 there were probably a dozen different ways to get your attack rolls up enough; in PF I think I still could swing it but it might be something that happens within a party playing as a team rather than something that a solo character does.
The DM in my current Savage Tide campaign house ruled that you get a (single) iterative on a standard attack once you hit BAB +11. I like how the rule has worked out a lot, although given we're 12th level currently it hasn't been in play super long and I don't know how well it will continue to patch things up at really high levels. For now, though, it has made being limited to standard action attacks a bit less of a screw you but kept the full attack still noticeably better.
PS Every time someone actually does the math, the conclusion is that the new power attack generally results in similar or often MORE damage then the older version. There are some exceptions, such as held opponents, but it is usually within a few points otherwise. Why do people claim the PA change makes fighter types unplayable?
This is because some people feel that the only way for martial characters to be viable is for them to be able to do HP-damage in excess of the HP of a CR appropriate encounter every round.
Generally this means pounce from a lion totem + shock trooper + leap attack unless you are using ToB (which has other solutions).
This is based upon the assumption that in fully optimized play the caster can always dictate the battlefield and can spam multiple SoS/SoD spells every round (regular cast + quickened cast). Even if the success rate per spell is only 50% then the caster can achieve a 75% chance of successfully casting every round. A successful cast means that any retinue creatures (typically summoned creatures, called creatures or animated dead) can then CDG the victim.
In some cases this is done with a level reducing body blow like enervation before the SoS/SoD.
Multiply this by the 2-4 full casters and you can understand why they feel like the fighter must be equivalent to SoD to be a viable contributor to the game.
The only solution they see is to make the martial types as powerful/flexible as the casters. Nerfing the casters isn't a viable solution because it means the party dies.
Of course the monsters could also be nerfed or shock you could quit using APL+4 encounters all the freaking time but hyperbole rules.
My main problem with the multiple attacks higher level melee types get isn't that it's hard to make them with a full move—it's that rolling 4+ attacks slows the game down pretty significantly. One thing I want to try someday is a house rule that essentially makes Vital Strike a free feet to everyone and does away with those iterative attacks entirely. I'd make Vital Strike in this case be something you could use with any combination of tactics, such as charge or Spring Attack (not attacks of opportunity, though). The only way you'd get more than 1 attack per round is if you dual wield or flurry of blows (which would limit you to 2 attacks per round), have a haste effect, or have lots of natural attacks. Since the lots of natural attacks bit only really usually happens for monsters, and monsters are usually the province of the GM whose turns during a combat session already take up MUCH less time than the players' turns, should work out pretty well.
I think it should be different from Vital Strike, though, since that scales a lot less nicely than several attacks (because bonuses from weapons, strength, feats etc. aren't multiplied, only the basic weapon damage).
If I were to do this, I'd start with something like this:
Primary Attack
The regular attack you make during your turn is the so-called primary attack (working title). You only ever get one of those per round, but it gains lots of nice bonuses.
You can gain extra attacks in a number of ways, but they only do a basic amount of damage (I'd go as far as using a low, fixed damage rating instead of damage dice here - either a fixed formula like average rounded down or something that is specified per weapon). Extra attacks are things like attacks of opportunity, cleave attacks, maybe even whirlwind attacks (if that's not changed somehow), extra attacks from stuff like haste.
Fighting styles
There's a number of basic fighting styles in the game: sword and board, fencing (i.e. a weapon in one hand, the other is free) heavy weapon fighting (fighting two-handed) double weapon fighting (i.e. fighting with two weapons or a weapon with two ands, like a staff) and ranged attacks (maybe even go with throwing weapons, archery and crossbow shooting).
Each of these styles would influence the bonuses you get for your primary attack differently, but would work quite differently for secondary attacks (secondary attacks would probably always have a basic damage bonus, not 1.5x strength for big weapons and so on)
Sword and Board
You generally don't get a substantial offensive bonus here, since you have a better defence. With the right abilities and/or feats, you might be able to lessen the defensive bonuses to get a bashing attack, which would do stuff like push people back, smash them off their feet, or even stun/stagger them.
Heavy Weapon
You'd get quite nice damage bonus potential for your primary attack here. Can only be used strength-based (or maybe have some special cases where you can gain Dex instead of Str for the attack)
Fencing (or free-hand or whatever you want to call it)
More precise than other styles, resulting in attack bonuses (you still get damage bonuses, of course, but not nearly as much as a heavy weapon warrior). Can be used with Str or Dex (even for damage)
Two Weapons
I have several ideas. One is that you do a double slice, where you make two attack rolls. Depending on how many hit, you'll do a different amount of damage (No hit, no damage; one hit, some damage, no more than sword and board, maybe even less; two hits, full damage, which is close to heavy weapon). Alternately, you could have several options for your second weapon: Parry (for some defence - but less than sword&board), Bladebind (get the guy's weapon out of the way for some attack bonus - but less than fencing), Double Slice (more damage, but less than heavy weapon), two attacks (get one extra attack, but it's not a Primary Attack)
Ranged stuff
The big bonus is still the ranged thing. There might be options like rapid shot, where you get another (non-primary) attack.
Class abilities, Feats, and the like
Things like sneak attack, smite, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, weapon training, power attack, etc. would mostly apply to your primary attack only. General attack bonuses like Weapon Focus (not the precision extra from fencing or favoured enemy bonuses, though) might still apply.
Replacing Iterative attacks and scaling damage
Since a lot of the force multiplier for warriors is iterative attacks now, the BAB should probably factor into damage for the Primary Attacks rule. Since we're not tied to a small variation here (an extra attack is a big thing and only granted every 5 levels right now), it would not necessarily have to be a certain boost for BAB 6/11/16, but something more gradual.
I suggest something for every +2 BAB (i.e. whenever you gain an odd BAB: +1/+3/+5). That is quite close to how magic works, after all: Full spellcasting classes get something extra every 2 levels (wizards gain spell levels at 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th etc), average spellcasters like bards gain spell levels every 3 levels or so, and the dabblers (paladins, rangers) wait quite a bit.
In the same vein, warriors would get a boost on 1st and then every 2 levels, experts and priests would have to wait until 2nd level and then get something every 2 or 3 levels (2, 4, 7, 10, 12...), and arcanists every 4 levels, starting on 2nd.
The general bonuses would be tied to BAB (and to fighting style, though I'd say these bonuses should be similar to how fighting with two weapons gives you 1.5x your strength and 50% extra damage for power attack, i.e. some simple multiplier or something like that, not specific abilities), not to class. Multiclassing would work as usual (a fighter 5/rogue 5 has BAB +8 and gains bonuses accordingly).
Of course, stuff like smite and so on would now be tied to primary attacks, and we might have some extra class abilities and/or feats that expand on this, increasing bonuses specifically for primary attacks, or granting new abilities depending on BAB and style (stuff like Shield Bash for s&b warriors).
Monsters and natural attacks
I'd say that monsters would usually get one attack that is considered primary and thus gains bonuses according to BAB (and racial abilities that work with primary attacks or modify them would not be out of the question, either).
They could be considered to be using one of the general styles (a rhino would probably emulate heavy weapon style with its horn, for example).
Special cases could have no primary attacks at all (especially weak critters or monsters depending mostly on magic and other special abilities), or there might be really tough critters with more than one real primary attack (Apsu just called and told me that his children definitely belong into this category, and since you don't argue with dragon gods, I'd say the wyrmies get his even if they're the only ones!). Since monsters often face whole parties alone, it should not be too bad.
Advantages with this system
Faster play
There would be no such thing as an "iterative attack bonus". You'd have your one primary attack. Maybe you get some extra attacks (an archer who has rapid shot and is hasted getting two extra attacks!), but since the ruling would be that all secondary attacks are basically equal and aren't modified by conditional stuff like sneak attack or smite, you could just roll all the attack rolls for secondary attacks at once (they all have the same attack bonus, and do the same damage), and then just roll damage for every hit, again as one big roll. Maybe do something to damage reduction so you don't even have to bother with taking those rolls apart.
Monsters do often have special abilities riding on certain body parts, but this system is abstract, anyway, so we could all put them into the primary attack (which might represent 2 claws + 1 sting!) and have the "rider effects" kick in depending on how well the monster rolled, or maybe do something similar to two-weapon fighting's double slice or sword & board's bash.
Different fighting styles are more diverse
The different fighting styles would get some different strengths and weaknesses and different bonuses, making them more different mechanically to go along with the diverse flavour.
stuff about a 70 to hit
What are you fighting that requires a 70 to hit?
What are you fighting that requires a 70 to hit?
stuff about a 70 to hit
It's not that he needs a 70 to hit it's that he needs to be able to use the old power attack dump the difference between his to hit and the opposition AC and hopefully multiply that damage in various ways (typically leap attack).
Pounce is also generally a requirement, generally done through dipping Lion Totem Barbarian but you can do this with a charger build as well. Some way of maximizing movement also helps
The entire purpose is to be able to do enough damage with a full attack or single charge that you can kill a CR+2 to CR+4 monster in one round.
Basically the supposition is that since casters can circumvent the damage track with SoD/SoS the martial characters need to be able to overkill to remain effective, i.e. they become SoD equivalents.
This style of play basically means that encounters are basically 100% about who wins initiative in the first round. The opposition is either dead or functionally out of play.
Personally I don't care for this style of encounter and think that it's one of the core problems with 3.x in general but at the extreme levels of optimization that some people play it's the only way to roll.
The problem is that I'd say 90-95% of games don't play at this level of optimization and thus are okay with the baseline martial character killing a CR appropriate foe in 2-3 rounds (which was the design goal for Pathfinder). The problem is that it becomes hard to create a game that scales across all levels of optimization.
What are you fighting that requires a 70 to hit?
stuff about a 70 to hitIf you're trying to do enough damage to matter, but don't have Wraithstrike or Shock Trooper? Anything, because it's +50 to hit in practice.
Hint: Wraithstrike or Shock Trooper make it a lot easier.
Or emerald razor. But if you MUST use touch attacks or ST to hit, things are going really weird.
AND +1 to Vuron.
One thing I think would be neat about James Jacobs's Vital Strike replacing iterative attacks rule - the multiple attacks can become an abstraction of your attack and damage roll, instead of each attack roll representing one attack.
That way, I could say my nimble fencer character attacks with a blinding flurry of swift strikes, instead of having to roll for each attack individually.
My main problem with the multiple attacks higher level melee types get isn't that it's hard to make them with a full move—it's that rolling 4+ attacks slows the game down pretty significantly. One thing I want to try someday is a house rule that essentially makes Vital Strike a free feet to everyone and does away with those iterative attacks entirely. I'd make Vital Strike in this case be something you could use with any combination of tactics, such as charge or Spring Attack (not attacks of opportunity, though). The only way you'd get more than 1 attack per round is if you dual wield or flurry of blows (which would limit you to 2 attacks per round), have a haste effect, or have lots of natural attacks. Since the lots of natural attacks bit only really usually happens for monsters, and monsters are usually the province of the GM whose turns during a combat session already take up MUCH less time than the players' turns, should work out pretty well.
I suspect that the damage curve for all this would work out pretty well—the only difference being that you're putting all your damage into one attack rather than splitting it up over several. So if you miss, you lose out on all the damage, but really that's not all that different than a spellcaster using a spell only to have it bounce off of a successful save or spell resistance.
dear james, this is amazing.
I never thought of it like that and its rather refreshing to hear that combat would be moving more quickly.
in the future I suppose..
incorporate a mechanic that allows you to divide up the damage between multiple targets along a movement path as a feat or standard thing and you got no complaints from me and I would hope most.
Dang man bravo...
I'd like to point you to this thread where I suggest a system to improve warriors and non-caster's versatility in respect to full attacks and the like. Might be too complicated for you, depending on what level you play at, but might be worth checking out.
Allow me to reply a bit more...diplomatically as to the problems with Vital Strike and how it's a large nerf ;p
By and large in 3.5, your weapon damage is miniscule in importance. Greatsword vs greataxe? It's, like, .5 on average. Noooot a whole lot. Greatsword is roughly 7, greataxe is roughly 6.5.
So, the greatsword does 7 damage on average. Now let's add strength modifier. We've got a 6 BAB, so a strength of 18 should be lowballing it, giving us +6 damage. We'll also have a +1 sword, so that's essentially an extra greatsword's worth of damage.
here's the flaw with Vital Strike - we've hit pretty much the lowest standard we can hit for modifier damage, and we've already doubled the weapon damage. Now, normally, you swing twice, so that's four greatswords worth of damage. You Vital Strike instead, and it's three greatswords worth of damage.
Again, this is lowballing it to the extreme. Ignoring smite, or favored enemy, or fighter feats that add to damage, or power attack. This is just the FIRST in the vital strike chain, and it's already drastically behind.
That's why Vital Strike is such a bad move - because it dramatically lowers your damage.
An easier "variant" if we're not afraid of making something objectively more powerful is to simply double damage when you get the extra attack...
...But even this has a flaw. Let's say you aren't using a greatsword. You're a fighter...so you're using crit feats.
You're level 8. Your weapon is a Falchion, and you've got Keen and/or Improved Critical. That means you have 15-20/x2 - better then a 1 in 4 chances each attack to get a critical strike. With two attacks, your odds are roughly that, half the time your turn is up, you're going to crit, slightly better (seriously I ain't doing this math). Using Vital Strike, however, dramatically lowers this chance - even when you go to the easier "double/triple/quadruple damage" variant.
But hey, Vital Strike isn't there to replace the full attack, it's there to give you an extra greatsword of damage when you can't make a full attack for some reason.
I found a good use for distrupt spellcasters with prepared actions. that + 2d8 on the bow damage could be useful.
Again, is not a bad feat if used properly (tactics like this, or big dice weapons) but I find annoying you must take it up to 3 times when should simply scale.
But hey, Vital Strike isn't there to replace the full attack, it's there to give you an extra greatsword of damage when you can't make a full attack for some reason.
It's a band-aid where a tourniquet is needed.
|
But hey, Vital Strike isn't there to replace the full attack, it's there to give you an extra greatsword of damage when you can't make a full attack for some reason.It's a band-aid where a tourniquet is needed.
Which would be the revision of combat rules. Which is not going to happen (at least before Pathfinder 2.0) because if it would happen today we would have a Trailblazer. Or Fantasycraft. Or Henry Hobgoblinman's 292-page PDF. Or 4E. I'm not exactly seeing neither of those as a viable business (OK, apart from 4E but ... we're not going to talk about that, right ?).
I'm fine with VS. Having a feat for occasional extra +7 damage isn't bad. It's a great feat for monsters, especially the one-attack ones (T-Rex should have a full VS tree, really), or the ones with huge+ weapons.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Did it go too far in nerfing the fighting classes? Has anyone tried letting full attacks come after move?
Fighters were not nerfed, casters were nerfed (SoD are now a little less Die-y)
I liked the boost to fighters in PF and I disliked the nerf to SoD but they are not connected (I'd been happy with the boost to fighters and leave SoD alone.)
Either way, there is no justification to fighters getting Full Attack after a move. Unless you want to double or triple HP on all monsters in response.
My main problem with the multiple attacks higher level melee types get isn't that it's hard to make them with a full move—it's that rolling 4+ attacks slows the game down pretty significantly. One thing I want to try someday is a house rule that essentially makes Vital Strike a free feet to everyone and does away with those iterative attacks entirely. I'd make Vital Strike in this case be something you could use with any combination of tactics, such as charge or Spring Attack (not attacks of opportunity, though). The only way you'd get more than 1 attack per round is if you dual wield or flurry of blows (which would limit you to 2 attacks per round), have a haste effect, or have lots of natural attacks. Since the lots of natural attacks bit only really usually happens for monsters, and monsters are usually the province of the GM whose turns during a combat session already take up MUCH less time than the players' turns, should work out pretty well.
I suspect that the damage curve for all this would work out pretty well—the only difference being that you're putting all your damage into one attack rather than splitting it up over several. So if you miss, you lose out on all the damage, but really that's not all that different than a spellcaster using a spell only to have it bounce off of a successful save or spell resistance.
I've thought about that as well. But after much profound brain things going on inside my head, I feel iteratives is a better concept. If I recall, one of the main reasons behind the concept was to keep the d20 relevant as level increased. That was the problem with high level fighters in 1E/2E. They rolled rolled to not roll a one after a certain point. By going back to one attack, you risk going back to that problem again. By problem, I mean not having the d20 be relevant.
With iteratives, as you go up in level, you have the primary attacks become more automatic, and the "excitement" shifts more and more to the latter attacks on a full-attack. So I rather like that concept a bit more.
So I think the trick to speed up higher level play mechanics is: how do you keep iteratives, but still cut down on the number of dice rolled?
Did it go too far in nerfing the fighting classes? Has anyone tried letting full attacks come after move?Fighters were not nerfed, casters were nerfed (SoD are now a little less Die-y)
I liked the boost to fighters in PF and I disliked the nerf to SoD but they are not connected (I'd been happy with the boost to fighters and leave SoD alone.)
Either way, there is no justification to fighters getting Full Attack after a move. Unless you want to double or triple HP on all monsters in response.
At the high, high end of play where martial types have pounce, can do touch attacks, can transfer to hit penalties to AC and can power big multiples to damage then the change in 3.x pathfinder can be seen as a nerf.
However very few people are playing CharOp 3.x (although they seem to dominate online discussions) so the "nerf" to power attack is not really seen. Indeed at low levels of optimization pathfinder power attack is superior.
SoD/SoS is still very viable at the high end of optimization due to bad Save DC math and how the action economy tends to break in favor of casters. With the ability to spam multiple SoS/SoD every round the margin of success is typically fairly high against most targets. Factor in the ability to CDG with summoned and called creatures and you can see why the high end metagame often revolves around one round and done encounters.
As to your third point of course there is justification. Fighters in 1e-2e had full moves with their iteratives, further other character types enjoy the ability to do various actions (or even standard + swift) while having full moves. Finally various classes including the quite notable druid get full attacks + moves at low levels (via pounce) and many of the most popular builds are built around pounce being a virtual necessity.
My reasoning for allowing everyone a pounce equivalent (albeit with a penalty to hit) is that if non-martial classes can get it why shouldn't everyone be able to get it at a point where it is mechanically viable?
By making it a default assumption that you can combine full attack + full move you actually reduce the value of abilities like pounce to a level more in keeping with other abilities. Pounce would still be a good ability because you can rend with it and you get charge bonuses but now other martial builds aren't hopelessly behind or contingent on doing vital strike first rounds and full attacks on the subsequent rounds.
Yes combat is more lethal but the game is already designed around 2-3 round encounters, this change mainly eliminates the subpar initial encounter distance charge action round and any subsequent "oh crap no targets are in 5', I need to waste a turn charging :("
There's one main reason I can think of that multiple attacks are usually not given after also taking a move action: the AD&D line of games had never included them. In 1e and 2e, fighters with multiple attacks had to have already closed to melee range to start using their multiple attacks. And even then, they had to take them alternating with other creatures that had multiple attacks with the same weapon rather than all at once as in 3e. 3e's and PF's use of the difference between single attack and mulitple attack actions is just an extension of that principle with somewhat more strict rules.
Plus, the rules make less sense if moving takes no time in the combat round. Why should the PC moving his full movement rate get the same number of attacks as the PC who is standing his ground? Is that fair to the PC who isn't moving?
This is very true. In 1E, if you were more than 1" (10 feet in modern terms) from your opponent and each of you were going to duke it out, you had two options:
1) charge: and you could do this only once per turn (10 rounds in modern terms)
2) close to melee range: if one or the other melee party chose to do this on their action, then the round ended for them both and they couldn't act until the next round.
Once both parties were within melee range (i.e. 10 feet), multiple attacks started flying.
So in essence, the full-attack, 5-foot step is really just an evolution of that concept.
|
|
I've thought about that as well. But after much profound brain things going on inside my head, I feel iteratives is a better concept. If I recall, one of the main reasons behind the concept was to keep the d20 relevant as level increased. That was the problem with high level fighters in 1E/2E. They rolled rolled to not roll a one after a certain point. By going back to one attack, you risk going back to that problem again. By problem, I mean not having the d20 be relevant.With iteratives, as you go up in level, you have the primary attacks become more automatic, and the "excitement" shifts more and more to the latter attacks on a full-attack. So...
In my experience, high level fighters are still fighting things where the first blow is risky. If you're fighting something that you can hit at an effective -10 for the third blow, the first two have already put it down.
|
Monsters HP has already been doubled or tripled compared to all the references to pre-3rd edition D&D I read all the time.Did it go too far in nerfing the fighting classes? Has anyone tried letting full attacks come after move?Fighters were not nerfed, casters were nerfed (SoD are now a little less Die-y)
I liked the boost to fighters in PF and I disliked the nerf to SoD but they are not connected (I'd been happy with the boost to fighters and leave SoD alone.)
Either way, there is no justification to fighters getting Full Attack after a move. Unless you want to double or triple HP on all monsters in response.
No, not always. They do have more hp than their earlier edition versions due to stat modifiers and changed HD range, but monsters got screwed over the most in 3rd edition.
A bugbear for example looks very similar to its earlier edition version, while all the PC classes got a huge inflation in power and hp. Another reason why you can't really run solo encounters in 3rd edition.One fix is to eliminate this average hp for monsters mentality. Give them 75% max or just full max. If PCs are rolling hp and get max at first you know they are not in the average hp range - just give the monsters max hp. Also some creatures in PF have crappy design considerations - lower SR or bad saves (see devils using Fort and Reflex instead of Fort and Will as their good saves). Change it.
Fighters did get nerfed in 3rd. Why is it more difficult to get a few swings in vs. say casting an incantation which releases a fireball. Fighters and melee in general got nerfed hard in 3rd edition.
That being said - fighters should get a standard move after full attack and casters should treat most spell casting (not touch) as full actions with only a 5ft step.
Fighters were not nerfed, casters were nerfed (SoD are now a little less Die-y)
Fighters and rogues and monks are nerfed by the full attack OR move policy. at higher levels it reduces their effectiveness in half.
I liked the boost to fighters in PF and I disliked the nerf to SoD but they are not connected (I'd been happy with the boost to fighters and leave SoD alone.)
I don't think SOD was all that nerfed. It seems like they kept one spell per level that leaves you dead or at least useless... you can and should still use that spell.
level 1 color spray
level 2 blindness/deafness
Level 3 Stinking cloud, Hold Person,
Level 4 Phantasmal killer
Level 5 Cloudkill, Dominate person, Baleful polymorph,
Level 6 Flesh to stone
Level 7 Insanity, power word blind, prismatic spray,
Level 8 Mass charm monster, Polymorph any object
Level 9 Dominate monster
Either way, there is no justification to fighters getting Full Attack after a move. Unless you want to double or triple HP on all monsters in response.
No, because the monsters will be helped by it as well.
interesting pointsThe problem, Anthony, is that most monsters are launching large natural attack routines that already ignore the d20. It's one of the reasons a monster of comperable CR (I don't remember whether it's equal to level, level -1, or what anymore, haven't checked that aspect in a while) beats the melee guy every time, barring lucky crits and misses in the melee's favor.
I know all the inherent problems. I said that it is a great concept. It's implementation wasn't done well. :)
In other words, they came up with a great concept and then threw all the potential it had out the window.
And your example is the main reason why, I've toyed with the idea of allowing full attacks on a standard action, but haven't gone that route yet, because it has a terrible affect on the other side of the screen.
Monsters HP has already been doubled or tripled compared to all the references to pre-3rd edition D&D I read all the time.Why was that? Seems that PC hp's bloated out, monster hp's bloated out, damage bloated out. Why was everything scaled up?
S.
More granularity maybe? That's not how it actually plays out, but that's my off-the-cuff guess.
|
|
Pretty interesting post in general, but I have to point out (I'm relatively sure you meant 75% of the dice rolls instead, but I have to be specific here) that in many cases monsters already have approximately 75% of their potential max HP, due to con bonuses, Toughness, etc.
One fix is to eliminate this average hp for monsters mentality. Give them 75% max or just full max.
75% of CR appropriate but not of actual potential.
If you assume (as I do) that the CR system does not reflect the major changes in power experienced by the PC classes in PF then yeah, it makes sense.Many classes got an increase of hp or just power and abilities while creatures in PF really didn't get any of the boons from the new edition. Unless they have class levels they were largely ignored and in some cases got weaker than their previous edition. Unless they have built in class levels they didn't reap the changes of the new edition.
I think the CR suggested range of hp, stats, etc are way off. I've play tested 75% and Max hp against my players an they said they liked it (though not for every encounter, lol) and thought it was an improvement.
In short, monsters at CR expected hp, stats, etc are not scaled properly to to the changes in PFRPG.
I see that people are still positing the absurd argument that because PF doesn't nerf casual melee characters, that said characters are viable casually.
No. The monsters are still there. They are still the same. In some cases they are buffed, but only in ways that matter to martial characters. And that's before these creatures actually take any actions at all. Once they do so, they demonstrate that shutting down martial characters - even good martial characters, is trivial. It would actively have to try not to. Whereas spells are considerably more difficult, and in many cases impossible to counter.
You still need the damage output of a CO build to get anywhere. You simply are not permitted to have one. And that is a nerf, for anyone who would like their melees to not don a red shirt.
So what you're saying is that melee characters can't keep pace? I disagree. I'm on my second campaign of Pathfinder (1st level - 17th level for the first and 1st-6th for the second currently, going to 20 I hope) and I've found that melee damage FAR outpaces spell damage. I've also not seen melee characters "shut down" by high CR monsters. Spells aren't that hard to counter, either for that matter.... Dispel Magic??? SR? Monks? High Saves?
Can you give some specific situations/monsters to support your point? I'd really like to see what you're saying (definately not telling you you're wrong or being snarky, I'm sincerely intersted in seeing what makes you think this stuff).
My main problem with the multiple attacks higher level melee types get isn't that it's hard to make them with a full move—it's that rolling 4+ attacks slows the game down pretty significantly. One thing I want to try someday is a house rule that essentially makes Vital Strike a free feet to everyone and does away with those iterative attacks entirely. I'd make Vital Strike in this case be something you could use with any combination of tactics, such as charge or Spring Attack (not attacks of opportunity, though). The only way you'd get more than 1 attack per round is if you dual wield or flurry of blows (which would limit you to 2 attacks per round), have a haste effect, or have lots of natural attacks. Since the lots of natural attacks bit only really usually happens for monsters, and monsters are usually the province of the GM whose turns during a combat session already take up MUCH less time than the players' turns, should work out pretty well.
I suspect that the damage curve for all this would work out pretty well—the only difference being that you're putting all your damage into one attack rather than splitting it up over several. So if you miss, you lose out on all the damage, but really that's not all that different than a spellcaster using a spell only to have it bounce off of a successful save or spell resistance.
I've thought about that as well. But after much profound brain things going on inside my head, I feel iteratives is a better concept. If I recall, one of the main reasons behind the concept was to keep the d20 relevant as level increased. That was the problem with high level fighters in 1E/2E. They rolled rolled to not roll a one after a certain point. By going back to one attack, you risk going back to that problem again. By problem, I mean not having the d20 be relevant.
With iteratives, as you go up in level, you have the primary attacks become more automatic, and the "excitement" shifts more and more to the latter attacks on a full-attack. So...
What if you just added a certain minus for trying to do your full damage
normal weapon damage with normal weapon bonuses = no minus, then make slapping on the "iterative damages" would bring minuses to your attacks.
Speeds up the game, gets rid of the 1e problem of not having to roll, puts the game in the hands of the player for tactical choice, eliminates game time extraneousness and you can move and attack..
ftw?
To my mind, the simplest, best, and most direct answer to all questions of "is this attack form better," "is this class nerfed," "is this class more powerful than another," etc., is, has been, and will always be another question: "What is your GM doing wrong?"
I'm not saying we haven't found ourselves in a predicament where a given situation went to one player/character best in an unforeseen manner. It happens. Sometimes it's dumb luck, sometimes it's the build.
The important thing is that the GM learns to challenge all the characters. That's his job, and if you are finding yourself in a situation - other than a hypothetical - where somebody is dominating encounter after encounter, it's really on the GM, not the game.
He should be working out if the build is wrong, and adjusting in any case.
Monsters HP has already been doubled or tripled compared to all the references to pre-3rd edition D&D I read all the time.Why was that? Seems that PC hp's bloated out, monster hp's bloated out, damage bloated out. Why was everything scaled up?
S.
The math is pretty easy to detect.
Con bonuses to base hit points were smaller (maximum of +4 if fighter equivalent, +2 if other). The ability to boost stats was much smaller (other than strength boosting it's largely limited to wish based inherent increases which were incredibly costly).
The shift towards a unified code base for PCs and monsters so that monsters have a full stat array and bonus HPs, etc.
Monsters are built over a much larger number of levels of play. In 1e you could reasonably expect a party to challenge most listed monsters in the MM, MMII or FF by name level (9-12). By increasing the expected end game point outward to 20+ you've dramatically increased the range of HDs.
Finally the shift from encounters vs a lot of foes to PCs vs 1 or 4 foes was a dramatic change in DM style. In order for a monster to withstand 4+ PCs whaling on it the monster needs great defenses or great HPs or preferably both.
Basically it's the sum of a bunch of enhancements over a large number of areas resulting in a quadratic expansion of monster HPs.
|
|
To my mind, the simplest, best, and most direct answer to all questions of "is this attack form better," "is this class nerfed," "is this class more powerful than another," etc., is, has been, and will always be another question: "What is your GM doing wrong?"
I'm not saying we haven't found ourselves in a predicament where a given situation went to one player/character best in an unforeseen manner. It happens. Sometimes it's dumb luck, sometimes it's the build.
The important thing is that the GM learns to challenge all the characters. That's his job, and if you are finding yourself in a situation - other than a hypothetical - where somebody is dominating encounter after encounter, it's really on the GM, not the game.
He should be working out if the build is wrong, and adjusting in any case.
No, actually not the case.
If there is a bias in play style or uneven design is it the DMs fault or part of the system?
I can give you list of system bias and broken features if you ask. Let me know, its a long one.
I hate to be a troll (really, this isn't my usual style as many posters can attest...) but uh... you kind of invalidated your whole post when you brought up core monks as a viable anti-caster strategy lol.I see that people are still positing the absurd argument that because PF doesn't nerf casual melee characters, that said characters are viable casually.
No. The monsters are still there. They are still the same. In some cases they are buffed, but only in ways that matter to martial characters. And that's before these creatures actually take any actions at all. Once they do so, they demonstrate that shutting down martial characters - even good martial characters, is trivial. It would actively have to try not to. Whereas spells are considerably more difficult, and in many cases impossible to counter.
You still need the damage output of a CO build to get anywhere. You simply are not permitted to have one. And that is a nerf, for anyone who would like their melees to not don a red shirt.
So what you're saying is that melee characters can't keep pace? I disagree. I'm on my second campaign of Pathfinder (1st level - 17th level for the first and 1st-6th for the second currently, going to 20 I hope) and I've found that melee damage FAR outpaces spell damage. I've also not seen melee characters "shut down" by high CR monsters. Spells aren't that hard to counter, either for that matter.... Dispel Magic??? SR? Monks? High Saves?
Can you give some specific situations/monsters to support your point? I'd really like to see what you're saying (definately not telling you you're wrong or being snarky, I'm sincerely intersted in seeing what makes you think this stuff).
High level monk vs high level caster? 9 times out of 10 a monk can reach and grapple a caster in the first round of combat (with level equivalent gear) or knock them prone, etc....etc... Monks have the highest saves in the game, and the highest touch ac.
I stand by what I said, you're welcome to disagree.