Why not let melee make full attacks after moving?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I'll have to personally disagree with big weapons vs death of a thousand cuts.

A shield fighter with a keen rapier and all the appriopriate twf w/ shield feats will equate to a hefty number of attacks, with the shield suffering none of the attack penalties of twf.

However, if it's single attack damage you need, I have you covered - you just need to be mounted.

Horse + Improved Sidestep + Spirited Charge + Lance + Power Attack + Improved Vital Strike + Rhino Armor

(1d8+Enh + 1.5 x Str.Mod + 3*Bab/4+) x 3 + 2d8 + 2d6


For the fighter TWF with shield is optimal at high level, no attack penalty with TWF, TWF does more damage (because of double slice and the per attack bonus damage the fighter has now) and makes crit feats more likely to trigger.


CoDzilla wrote:
nathan blackmer wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
nathan blackmer wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:

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).

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.
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
...

I could see the argument if the monk was invisible, silenced etc. and sneaking up on the wizard, but in reality a fighter or rogue would still deal with the caster more effectively in such a situation.

Or, y'know. Another wizard.

Also: Grappling: When you don't realize that dimension door is a spell with no somatic components.


nathan blackmer wrote:

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.

My post from another thread recently wrote:


The problem is that arcanist(wizard and sorcerer as examples) survive by not letting anyone get close to them. A monk has no special talents to overcome that. Most DM's like myself have barriers(monsters or terrain) to make sure you don't get to the caster in round 1. We also use miss chance, and other spells that increase the ability to play "keep away" faster than the monk can find a solution. If running up to a caster was solved by speed then fighters with potions of haste would be very common.

I am not in the "caster always has the solution" school of thought, but neither do I give open paths to my bad guys, the important ones anyway. Mirror Image, and Displacement are annoying when combined.

Now how exactly is your monk just running up to a caster? As for stock monsters shutting melee types down I don't know if that is true. I have yet to play pure Pathfinder only.

edit: wrong post copied initially


wraithstrike wrote:

My post from another thread recently wrote:


The problem is that arcanist(wizard and sorcerer as examples) survive by not letting anyone get close to them. A monk has no special talents to overcome that. Most DM's like myself have barriers(monsters or terrain) to make sure you don't get to the caster in round 1. We also use miss chance, and other spells that increase the ability to play "keep away" faster than the monk can find a solution. If running up to a caster was solved by speed then fighters with potions of haste would be very common.

I am not in the "caster always has the solution" school of thought, but neither do I give open paths to my bad guys, the important ones anyway. Mirror Image, and Displacement are annoying when combined.

One Dimension door, it is a move action it says like dimension door in the ability to move to the wizard so it means he gets his standard in my opinion and I believe that is what it entails. The spell says differently I understand but in the understanding of how I read the ability as it is meant to be used I would interepret it as just the move action that it states is the only penalty.

That makes things more difficult for the wizard.

Monks get tumble, not to difficult with decent check to bolt through a few badies even if Abundant Step was on auto fail.

The barriers? Jump over them, there is a reason monks get bonuses to jump and walls usually arent amazing high (still might be near impossible I understand).

lastly, Monks get higher dex than wizards, what does that mean? Roll initiative.

Monk goes first. Abundant Step, grapple.

As for the Fighters always carrying haste potions....

really... you dont think fighters would carry a bunch of haste potions?

just my PO obviously :)


Abundant Step ends your turn immediately after using it. Dex is not the primary source of initiative. Your argument is invalid.

But hey, as long as we're allowed to blatantly ignore the rules...

The Wizard hits you for 585,183 anti Monk damage. No save. How? Screw the rules, he has money.


CoDzilla wrote:

Abundant Step ends your turn immediately after using it. Dex is not the primary source of initiative. Your argument is invalid.

But hey, as long as we're allowed to blatantly ignore the rules...

The Wizard hits you for 585,183 anti Monk damage. No save. How? Screw the rules, he has money.

No dex is not the primary form of initiative.. but where is the wizard getting his then? from his feat on improved initiative and better dex?

maybe on the II but def not higher dex than a monk.. not to mention for a stealthy monk.

as I said above A S is not written under the monk ability like that. It specifically says move action to use... why would it say a move action if it took your whole turn anyways?

High Saves.

Nice snarkyness. Mom take away the internet privileges?


Abundant Step (Su)

At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dimension-door

It's as if using Dimension Door, except as noted there. Dimension Door ends your turn.

Anything else?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
CoDzilla wrote:

Abundant Step (Su)

At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dimension-door

It's as if using Dimension Door, except as noted there. Dimension Door ends your turn.

Anything else?

Please explain why it makes logical sense for it to end your turn if it says under the ability that it takes a move action?

"AS IF USING THE SPELL DIMENSION DOOR" it does not say using the spell dimension door, which therefore implies it is defferent.

The flavor of the ability as interepreted by me is that this ability (because it is so limited with its point cost, creature take with restriction) implies that he can make his action after in my opinion.

That is my logical interepretation.

Get a paizo member to say I am wrong and I will but until then my point stands and your point is no more right than mine. as if means not the same, action specifics are detailed to obviously state a difference, implies there is not a penalty on your action. You use your standard and then dimension door? most wouldnt find that useful most would find that cowardly, also doesnt reflect a monks behavior IMO.

Get someone with actual ability to make a ruling and I will admit I am wrong.


Midnightoker wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:

Abundant Step (Su)

At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dimension-door

It's as if using Dimension Door, except as noted there. Dimension Door ends your turn.

Anything else?

Please explain why it makes logical sense for it to end your turn if it says under the ability that it takes a move action?

"AS IF USING THE SPELL DIMENSION DOOR" it does not say using the spell dimension door, which therefore implies it is defferent.

The flavor of the ability as interepreted by me is that this ability (because it is so limited with its point cost, creature take with restriction) implies that he can make his action after in my opinion.

That is my logical interepretation.

Get a paizo member to say I am wrong and I will but until then my point stands and your point is no more right than mine. as if means not the same, action specifics are detailed to obviously state a difference, implies there is not a penalty on your action. You use your standard and then dimension door? most wouldnt find that useful most would find that cowardly, also doesnt reflect a monks behavior IMO.

Get someone with actual ability to make a ruling and I will admit I am wrong.

Did you intend to post that three times Toker?

(Incidentally, I'm ninety-percent sure the staff has ruled that abundant step functions just like DD, including no actions taken after it. I'm headed off to try to find that ruling right now. I know for a fact that's how it was officially in 3.5)

EDIT: Here's one such post.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Did you intend to post that three times Toker?

(Incidentally, I'm ninety-percent sure the staff has ruled that abundant step functions just like DD, including no actions taken after it. I'm headed off to try to find that ruling right now. I know for a fact that's how it was officially in 3.5)

EDIT: Here's one such post.

How very unfortunate for my arguement.

You were right CoDZilla Abundant Step step is exactly the same as dimension door then in that respect.

With that said.

I just made a new house rule. That is hardly fair to the monk in my opinion to limit his actions to being a coward instead of brave. What if I wanted to dimension door to the head of the dragon to hit him in the eye? I cant because my ki power restricts me from attacking?

not a good view to have IMO.

I am sorry I argued with you on this point CoD, the rest of my statement I will stand by, respectfully adding fast movement.


Midnightoker wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:

Abundant Step (Su)

At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dimension-door

It's as if using Dimension Door, except as noted there. Dimension Door ends your turn.

Anything else?

Please explain why it makes logical sense for it to end your turn if it says under the ability that it takes a move action?

"AS IF USING THE SPELL DIMENSION DOOR" it does not say using the spell dimension door, which therefore implies it is defferent.

The flavor of the ability as interepreted by me is that this ability (because it is so limited with its point cost, creature take with restriction) implies that he can make his action after in my opinion.

That is my logical interepretation.

Get a paizo member to say I am wrong and I will but until then my point stands and your point is no more right than mine. as if means not the same, action specifics are detailed to obviously state a difference, implies there is not a penalty on your action. You use your standard and then dimension door? most wouldnt find that useful most would find that cowardly, also doesnt reflect a monks behavior IMO.

Get someone with actual ability to make a ruling and I will admit I am wrong.

Normal Dimension Door ends your turn even if you haven't taken a Move action yet, because it specifically says it does. And it still ends your turn if you Quicken it and do it first, because it specifically says it does.

Which means unless Abundant Step specifically says you are still able to take actions this round, you don't.

It's easy to think Monks are any good when you actively ignore the rules.

As for its use as to being a coward, fast movement is intended to get you away from fights, not towards them, where you run ahead of the party and then get squished. And unlike you, I'm not being sarcastic. In that respect, being able to only use it to run away actually makes sense. The thing is, most people are under the false perception that fast movement is meant to make you close to the enemy. That has been the cause of 45 Monk deaths that I've seen.


Midnightoker wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Did you intend to post that three times Toker?

(Incidentally, I'm ninety-percent sure the staff has ruled that abundant step functions just like DD, including no actions taken after it. I'm headed off to try to find that ruling right now. I know for a fact that's how it was officially in 3.5)

EDIT: Here's one such post.

How very unfortunate for my arguement.

You were right CoDZilla Abundant Step step is exactly the same as dimension door then in that respect.

With that said.

I just made a new house rule. That is hardly fair to the monk in my opinion to limit his actions to being a coward instead of brave. What if I wanted to dimension door to the head of the dragon to hit him in the eye? I cant because my ki power restricts me from attacking?

not a good view to have IMO.

We're in agreement there Toker. At the cost of TWO ki points, Abundant Step should deffinitely be a swift action that lets you take actions after it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
CoDzilla wrote:

Normal Dimension Door ends your turn even if you haven't taken a Move action yet, because it specifically says it does. And it still ends your turn if you Quicken it and do it first, because it specifically says it does.

Which means unless Abundant Step specifically says you are still able to take actions this round, you don't.

It's easy to think Monks are any good when you actively ignore the rules.

As for its use as to being a coward, fast movement is intended to get you...

Its easy to win arguements when actively ignore good points too.

I dont believe that action conservation should be the reason you cant perform an action.

Example:

I dont use my standard action this turn and use Abundant step. I dont get to do anything for the rest of my turn.

Where as Johnny Rainbow monk Punches and then runs...

We both get our same actions next turn.

He got an extra action and I got absolutely nothing just because I used the abundant step first?

What logical reason is there for that? dont show me splat books from 3.5? what logical time conversion can you show that that makes sense?

to me it just doesnt, My action took longer because I AS first.

I was not being sarcastic, you were right. I acknowledge that, I think the ruling is a little farfectched bun nonetheless I disagree with alot of government laws, but those are still laws aswell.

You were right.

Dont make claims for how fast movement is intended to be used, if it doesnt say under the ability then that is all your interpretation. Put in your opinion and dont declare extremes.

I play a brave monk and I run into battle.

Please list all forty five monk deaths mister hyperbole and explain what happened, because I dont believe you.


Midnightoker wrote:


Example:

I dont use my standard action this turn and use Abundant step. I dont get to do anything for the rest of my turn.

Where as Johnny Rainbow monk Punches and then runs...

We both get our same actions next turn.

He got an extra action and I got absolutely nothing just because I used the abundant step first?

What logical reason is there for that? dont show me splat books from 3.5? what logical time conversion can you show that that makes sense?

to me it just doesnt, My action took longer because I AS first.

There is no logical reason. It's an arbitrary decision that was made during 3.0 (or 3.5, I don't know all the changes between them) that doesn't make much sense.

I suppose the big reason it prevented any actions afterwards is it was a big wizardly escape trick (no somatic components so it would get them out of a grapple) and the designers didn't want them getting away and adding a move action on-top of the long range travel (although really... at that point an extra 30-60 feet isn't going to make a difference...)

Regardless, it's just an artifact that many people I know freely houserule away for Abundant Step.

Contributor

Posts removed. Let's keep this thread on-topic and civil.

Shadow Lodge

I'd imagine the reason for dimension door ending your action is because it is primarily an escape spell (less so if you take friends...) Teleport is one level higher and doesn't stop you acting afterwards.

From a game play perspective, you might reason it was due to orientation. You have just jumped in space and it's not unreasonable to assume you feel a little disorientated.

Going back to 3.5 splat books the Tomb of Battle Sword Sage had a similar ability that scaled as you leveled. It started as a standard action, so you couldn't port in and attack, later it dropped to a move action, then a free action.

The monk ability is still better than the spell. You can attack then move, but not port in and tie someone up without them having a chance to react.

Back to the original question, I found the full attack option being limited to a full round action was not that limiting. It makes choices in combat more tactical. Sorry if thats repeating what has already been said :)


I always interpreted it as "as per the spell Dimension Door, becasue this is how you resolve the distance moved with abundant step. Screw all the other spell description stuff, becasue, well you're not casting a spell, your activating Ki for a burst of speed effect."

YMMV.


If I missed this in this thread my apologies:

I am OK wiht the idea of full attacks after moving IF we make iterative attacks depend on weapon size catgory/speed regardless of movement.

In the way that big honking weapons went slower in 1ed

The EQ d20 game did this but had an iterative factor for each weapon (a bad call IMO)

I would likely do it based on the light (-4), one handed (-5), two handed(-6) categories already in use so light weapon wielders get iteratives at 5/10/15 BAB one handers are what the system uses now 6/11/16 and two handers get 7/14/21(so no 4th attack, non epic). TWF's with mixed weapon sizes use the worst progression.
Yes this means 3/4 BAB classes with light weapons get 4 attacks at 20th level(without haste). I am ok with that

I think it makes a strong case for a furious focus, PA, vital strike chain 2hd melee combatant. You may be a feast or famine hitter with one attack but with the capstone VS you can probably hit for more than you would with the three attacks.

I would have to do a ton of math but it seems like it would create a more evenly distributed DPR among melee types.

I am unsure at this point how to work ranged weapons (bows x-bows etc not thrown) my gut says make them use the 2hd iteration but again a lot of math to do with this heavy of a change.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


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

Well, let's break it down:

Color Spray: Sure, that's a good spell, although after you're about level 3 you aren't going to get more than a 1 round stun of it ever again unless you're a Heavens Oracle.

Blindness: Yep, that's a good one. Granted, mostly you want to hit things with Fort as by far their highest save with it. (Note that Glitterdust, in practical terms a generally similar and superior spell in 3E, got hit with the nerf stick.)

Stinking Cloud: Same as Blindness. You're not defenseless but it definitely does shut you down for a few rounds if you blow the save.

Hold Person: A 1st level spell makes you immune; several types of monsters are immune; also now gives a new save every round. I'm not saying it's not a good spell but it's certainly nerfed.

Phantasmal Killer: You need to fail a Will save AND a Fort save? That's a big gamble.

Cloudkill: A little con damage, save for half is hardly SoD.

Dominate Person/Monster, Power Words, Charm, Insanity: A 1st level spell makes you immune; several types of monsters are always immune. Not bad when you can use them.

Baleful Polymorph, Flesh to Stone: Yep, those are still pretty solid.


Dragonsong wrote:

If I missed this in this thread my apologies:

I am OK wiht the idea of full attacks after moving IF we make iterative attacks depend on weapon size catgory/speed regardless of movement.

In the way that big honking weapons went slower in 1ed

The EQ d20 game did this but had an iterative factor for each weapon (a bad call IMO)

I would likely do it based on the light (-4), one handed (-5), two handed(-6) categories already in use so light weapon wielders get iteratives at 5/10/15 BAB one handers are what the system uses now 6/11/16 and two handers get 7/14/21(so no 4th attack, non epic). TWF's with mixed weapon sizes use the worst progression.
Yes this means 3/4 BAB classes with light weapons get 4 attacks at 20th level(without haste). I am ok with that

I think it makes a strong case for a furious focus, PA, vital strike chain 2hd melee combatant. You may be a feast or famine hitter with one attack but with the capstone VS you can probably hit for more than you would with the three attacks.

I would have to do a ton of math but it seems like it would create a more evenly distributed DPR among melee types.

I am unsure at this point how to work ranged weapons (bows x-bows etc not thrown) my gut says make them use the 2hd iteration but again a lot of math to do with this heavy of a change.

OK, here's something that can actually be discussed instead of having two posters turn into two floating heads screaming the same words at each other for 100+ posts.

Why should two weapon fighters use the worst progression in this instance? They still take penalties. If they use the light weapon progression, shouldn't they reap the benefits as well?


For clarity I am only talking about TWF's who mix a one hand and a light weapon combo. I can see where you are coming from, and if the TWF feat write up didnt imply that the off hand is the major factor I would say sure use the "fast weapon" for iteratives but then your "off hand" is a one hand weapon so you are at what -6 to attack rather than -2?


Svipdag wrote:

I'd imagine the reason for dimension door ending your action is because it is primarily an escape spell (less so if you take friends...) Teleport is one level higher and doesn't stop you acting afterwards.

From a game play perspective, you might reason it was due to orientation. You have just jumped in space and it's not unreasonable to assume you feel a little disorientated.

Going back to 3.5 splat books the Tomb of Battle Sword Sage had a similar ability that scaled as you leveled. It started as a standard action, so you couldn't port in and attack, later it dropped to a move action, then a free action.

The monk ability is still better than the spell. You can attack then move, but not port in and tie someone up without them having a chance to react.

Back to the original question, I found the full attack option being limited to a full round action was not that limiting. It makes choices in combat more tactical. Sorry if thats repeating what has already been said :)

A monk cant take anyone else though.

It also doesnt account for the time discrepancy that I stated above.

"It is primarily used for escape" is a pont of view to be honest, it doesnt say under the spell discription.

secondly all it would allow a monk to do is perfom his normal standard action that you dont get just because you used it at the start of your turn instead of the end. That isnt broken, thats just apparently reverse order. It would also make it possible to be effective in combat as a monk, if you cant use your mobility to help and you cant use it to bring anyone with you to safety why have it all??? to be a run away coward?? great now my brave monk has a useless ability that at 12th level I can only use (with 22 wisdom which could vary) six times a day, and I give up all the other sweet abilities that are tied in with Ki like getting an extra attack or boosting my ac and so on and so forth.

It is not fair to the monk to do that, it also doesnt make sense to have extra time just vanish, and it doesnt even really fit with the monks value system if you are playing a monk with some valor.

That is my point, I dont care what the wizards use it for. To a wizard his own, it says "as dimension door" not Dimension Door the escape spell.

It is not better than the spell, the spell was a get out of jail free card for wizards in 3.5 because they could use it while grappling as it had a verbal component and no somatic.

Also I think this would move more along the lines of full attacking and moving if you incorporated it as a swift action (maybe with a reduced distance) and let him act. Then he could flurry.

That would hardly be overpowerful considering they still have to make attack rolls and Combat Manuever Checks againsts the enemy anyways, a double penalty for an ability that has little use anyways seems really unfair.

My PO^


Kryzbyn wrote:

I always interpreted it as "as per the spell Dimension Door, becasue this is how you resolve the distance moved with abundant step. Screw all the other spell description stuff, becasue, well you're not casting a spell, your activating Ki for a burst of speed effect."

YMMV.

I agree.


-4 actually. There, yes I can see where you're coming from, but I would still insist that they use the one-handed weapon progression instead of the heavy weapon progression. Because in that case, your attack progression looks like the normal one instead of not having as many attacks and thus no reason to take greater two-weapon fighting. While I think it's a terrible feat, the system would only make it more terrible by causing it to not work.


Madcap Storm King wrote:
-4 actually. There, yes I can see where you're coming from, but I would still insist that they use the one-handed weapon progression instead of the heavy weapon progression. Because in that case, your attack progression looks like the normal one instead of not having as many attacks and thus no reason to take greater two-weapon fighting. While I think it's a terrible feat, the system would only make it more terrible by causing it to not work.

Crap thats what I meant the worst of the two (one hand or light) Im sorry that was not clear

I want a 2 dagger (or 2 short sword etc) to use the -4

A long sword /short sword or similar to use the -5


Oh OK then. My argument no longer exists with those words.

My only question is what purpose vital strike serves in this new scary system of running and swinging more than once in six seconds.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I would be okay with speed factors on weapons if we ditch the static initiative order.

Basically, everyone takes their turns based on their actions, not a static initiative. The round is over when everyone has taken all the actions they are going to. Combat starts at initiative count 0 and progresses through each count. So if your fighter goes on 0, and attacks with his light weapon, his next action comes on 4, when his attack is complete.

This is incredibly complex, but it is the only way I see weapon speeds working.

Liberty's Edge

Midnightoker wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:

Abundant Step ends your turn immediately after using it. Dex is not the primary source of initiative. Your argument is invalid.

But hey, as long as we're allowed to blatantly ignore the rules...

The Wizard hits you for 585,183 anti Monk damage. No save. How? Screw the rules, he has money.

No dex is not the primary form of initiative.. but where is the wizard getting his then? from his feat on improved initiative and better dex?

maybe on the II but def not higher dex than a monk.. not to mention for a stealthy monk.

as I said above A S is not written under the monk ability like that. It specifically says move action to use... why would it say a move action if it took your whole turn anyways?

High Saves.

Nice snarkyness. Mom take away the internet privileges?

How is your monk getting such a high Dex? Items? Because if he has a high Dex, his Wis and Str aren't that great in most cases, and Con is probably pretty low as well. Int and Cha are the only stats a monk don't need.

Monks are way too MAD to be effective in most cases. Anything you do to improve one facet of his or her arsenal necessarily takes away from something else, if you use point buy. The wizard, on the other hand, only really needs to pump Int. Which sets the DCs for his or her spells. And, since the Monk is so MAD, one or two of his saves aren't going to be awesome. And the monk SR isn't so wonderful that taking spell penetration won't make it irrelevant anyway.


houstonderek wrote:

How is your monk getting such a high Dex? Items? Because if he has a high Dex, his Wis and Str aren't that great in most cases, and Con is probably pretty low as well. Int and Cha are the only stats a monk don't need.

Monks are way too MAD to be effective in most cases. Anything you do to improve one facet of his or her arsenal necessarily takes away from something else, if you use point buy. The wizard, on the other hand, only really needs to pump Int. Which sets the DCs for his or her spells. And, since the Monk is so MAD, one or two of his saves aren't going to be awesome. And the monk SR isn't so wonderful that taking spell penetration won't make it irrelevant anyway.

Saying his SR isnt wonderful doesnt mean it doesnt count.

He gets great saves for all DCs. Yeah he might have low one or two saves, but wizards dont get to know which one, that would be metagaming. Monks also gets improved evasion so most reflex saves are irrelavant.

Most fortitude saves are either something a monk gets a resistance to (poison and disease), or can avoid with a high touch AC.

Will save? really. he gets sick sick sick will saves.

His dex isnt abnormally high and his strength doesnt need to be, he needs the grapple to make you not good, the damage comes from his high dice and bonuses from feats. As for Con, Wizards dont exactly have a good way to chop at those hit points (since most damage spells are reflew which they are good at and get IE) or make him roll a fortitude save to fail which is alot of eggs in one basket, save fails you drop.

If we are talking 10th level with none of his ability bonuses we are talking +7 to all saves. the highest level spell a wizard can cast at tenth level is a 5th level spell. If he has 24 intelligence (18 int to start, +2 ability race, +2 for levels +2 magic item) then his saves for his HIGHEST LEVEL SPELL is at a DC 22... (yes the magic Item is a little low but truly is arbitray because a monk will have those to boost his aswell IMO which I will point out below)

You think a 22 is impossible for a monk to save at 10th level? with a plus seven to start? and have improved evasion? and Still mind? Not to mention that fact that his TOUCH AC is his standing AC, and the fact that at any time as a swift action he can boost his ac by +4 with a dodge bonus.

A monk with 16 Dex and 22 Wisdom (definitely within the realm of reason at 10th level) he would have an Touch AC of 19, without the +4 as a swift and with no enhancements to AC, which he would most likely have. (Doesnt matter what the Wizard has for AC because it doesnt effect CMD) That means mister wizard on average with a +5 base attack and +3 dex has a 50% chance to hit. Not high at all chances, and if the monk boosts his AC with the +4 that makes it increasingly more difficult (magic items aside because both could have items to improve both, this is straight abiltiy scores and class skill)

Lets see with a 12 Con Monk is sitting at a +8 to saves with no other bonuses from anything other than his ability score and his base save.

A standard Monk can charge 120ft and stunning fist a wizard (with a base save of +4 and his con bonus of a generous +3 for 16 without magical enhancements, which I didnt give because the monk didnt get a boosted Dex, his Fort save is sitting at a whopping +7) with a DC of 21. 33% of the time you are succesful at saving against this attack based on these parameters, not high chance, and if you go down your not still in the fight, you are as good as dead.

If you chose to be more deadly and just initiated a grapple (much easier with almost no room for error besides preparing freedom of movement which they may or may not get off in time depending on initiative) your CMB is sitting probably at a +12 (without improved grapple or any said feats to improve grapple check) with the CMD of the wizard around 18 (I assume the wizard has 10 strength with the 16 Dex from prior along with his 16 Con and 24 Int, my monk is on the lower side) the said monk would beat them by rolling a 6, 75% of the time you would win. After the check is succesful you gain a +5 to the role being the Controller, which gives you a +17 versus the 18 CMD.

Once grappled the wizard has few options except concentration to cast spells, or trying to release himself from the grapple (not likely). The concentration check to cast his a level 1 spell in this situation is DC 29. That means he is only successful on a 19 unless he has bonuses to concentration (most likely). Boosting himself +9 on top of his caster level brings him within a 50% chance of casting a 1st level spell... the weakest, least effective spells that a monk has a great chance of saving against or stopping.

After a few rounds of cat and mouse either with stunning fist or grapple the wizard doesnt stand much of a chance.

Putting barriers, Big guys or some such nonesense in the way only lets the monk get through them using an ability (fast movement, Ki movement, Abundant step, tumble, ect.)

Your reflex spells do half damage, your will saves have no chance, and your fortitude saves aren't a likely pass either, especially if the monk boosts Con instead of Strength (I would).

The above is just a few things I notice that make the arguement Wizard is KING against Monk not always the case. I was very generous to the wizard with ability scores and having his highest level spells available at the assault (he could be spent) and having the monk not be sneaking up on him or whatever tactics they may take to get the jump on the wizard.

Just some thoughts, definitely not saying the monk would mop the floor with the wizard but it isnt that black and white. If a monk can get close to you (plethora of ways to do so using abilities) he can make you pay, alot.

Edit: cleaned it up

Liberty's Edge

Midnightoker wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

How is your monk getting such a high Dex? Items? Because if he has a high Dex, his Wis and Str aren't that great in most cases, and Con is probably pretty low as well. Int and Cha are the only stats a monk don't need.

Monks are way too MAD to be effective in most cases. Anything you do to improve one facet of his or her arsenal necessarily takes away from something else, if you use point buy. The wizard, on the other hand, only really needs to pump Int. Which sets the DCs for his or her spells. And, since the Monk is so MAD, one or two of his saves aren't going to be awesome. And the monk SR isn't so wonderful that taking spell penetration won't make it irrelevant anyway.

Saying his SR isnt wonderful doesnt mean it doesnt count.

He gets great saves for all DCs. Yeah he might have low one or two saves, but wizards dont get to know which one, that would be metagaming. Monks also gets improved evasion so most reflex saves are irrelavant.

Most fortitude saves are either something a monk gets a resistance to (poison and disease), or can avoid with a high touch AC.

Will save? really. he gets sick sick sick will saves.

His dex isnt abnormally high and his strength doesnt need to be, he needs the grapple to make you not good, the damage comes from his high dice and bonuses from feats. As for Con, Wizards dont exactly have a good way to chop at those hit points (since most damage spells are reflew which they are good at and get IE) or make him roll a fortitude save to fail which is alot of eggs in one basket, save fails you drop.

If we are talking 10th level with none of his ability bonuses we are talking +7 to all saves. the highest level spell a wizard can cast at tenth level is a 5th level spell. If he has 24 intelligence (18 int to start, +2 ability race, +2 for levels +2 magic item) then his saves for his HIGHEST LEVEL SPELL is at a DC 22... (yes the magic Item is a little low but truly is arbitray because a monk will have those to boost his aswell IMO which...

How do you get that 16 dex and the 22 wisdom? Are you using a 25 point buy? Which stat boost items are you using? Do you have any magic for AC, magic weapons? How much money does he have to spend? Are your strength and con 12s? I need more info here.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I would be okay with speed factors on weapons if we ditch the static initiative order.

Basically, everyone takes their turns based on their actions, not a static initiative. The round is over when everyone has taken all the actions they are going to. Combat starts at initiative count 0 and progresses through each count. So if your fighter goes on 0, and attacks with his light weapon, his next action comes on 4, when his attack is complete.

This is incredibly complex, but it is the only way I see weapon speeds working.

Exalted 2e uses this form of init. As long as you don't allow ways to speed actions beyond a certain threshold it works okay. Exalted has numerous other problems which make it a bad source of solutions but a return to 2e weapon speed and iteratives probably wouldn't be that bad of a solution.

By incorporating casting times we'd also see a return of noncasters being able to spoil spells.

The core problem is that it basically forces a wholesale rewrite of the combat system.


houstonderek wrote:
How do you get that 16 dex and the 22 wisdom? Are you using a 25 point buy? Which stat boost items are you using? Do you have any magic for AC, magic weapons? How much money does he have to spend? Are your strength and con 12s? I need more info here.

Monk

14 STR
16 Dex
12 Con
10 Int
16 Wis
8 Cha

Wizard

10 Str
16 Dex
16 Con
18 Int
12 Wis
8 Cha

Starting ability scores I used.

I assumed both classes would find a way to boost the main stat. Monk take either Half elf, Human, or Half Orc.

Wizard Take either Human, Elf, Half elf, or Half orc.

assuming the wizard took Elf that wouldnt help him with his saves but it would require a little reworking with little effect over all.

So lets assume both human for the sake of my not having to rework every number, besides thats not a bad choice for either class.

we can argue Magic Items all day so I gave them both +2 main stat magic Item and said sans alot of everything else because both could have magic items to counter act each others weaknesses, so for the sake of no metagaming in the sense that everyone could just select the best magic items for this given situation and counter over and over and over again, lets just look at the crunch here (YMMV on this opinion I suppose).

I assume each boost their main stat +2 for the levels 4th and 8th.

Now show me where I am off?


Is that 39 point buy? Or is my math off? (or is that after racial bonuses?)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I came out at 25 for the monk, the wizard was higher.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I came out at 25 for the monk, the wizard was higher.

I see what happened. I only did the math on the wizard and assumed they'd be the same.


Wizard is very high (like 37 point buy).

Monk is fairly reasonable for a high point value build.

Monks have very good saves, especially if they act smart and have resistance items.

I'd say most mid-level SoD casters will probably have an enervation prepped though for the various encounters where they have to debuff before spamming SoS spells.


Anyway the monk vs caster is an interesting diversion but we already have a monks suck thread so let's get back to discussing the potential rules modification.

One of the things that I typically do when I look at houserules is determine who benefits and who loses.

For the proposed change of Full Attack + Full Movement I come up with the following.

Fighting man (Melee)-Definitely benefits, within a full move radius he's pretty much a meatgrinder. However he's probably taking more damage as well because he can't kite tougher opponents.

Fighting man (Archer)-He was already spamming full attacks so he really doesn't gain much and is vulnerable to more attacks. Being able to full attack move and shoot is pretty nice though especially if the archer uses his movement to continually retreat from a superior foe.

Skirmishers (Rogues and Monks)- They actually can use their superior movement capabilities (acrobatics and/or fast movement) to attack from the shadows. They are more vulnerable to counterattack but moving from a hidden status doing a full attack and then moving away would be a pretty decent attack vector.

Casters- Martial casters can take advantage of full attack actions but for the most part casters take a big hit in terms of their resistance to getting smacked.

Melee Monsters-They generally benefit, they can't use positioning to limit DPR taken but generally will get a full attack every round.

Casting Monsters-they generally take a hit because they are vulnerable to full attacks early on in the encounter. They become very dependent on having mooks that shield them from melee opposition.

Overall the increases to martial classes in terms of flexibility and effectiveness counteracts the decreases in caster survival rate. I think that's actually a pretty desirable outcome.

Liberty's Edge

A 25 point buy can make anything look pretty I guess. I'm used to 15 point buys when I play in a point buy game, so monks never even get a look. 4d6 drop the lowest in the game I'm in now (and any game I run) - usually works out to about a 20 point buy I guess.

And, unless I'm mistaken, unless the Monk springs for Improved Initiative, he will be acting second most of the time. The wizard sure as hell is going to have it.

And, for argument's sake, what's the monk's "main stat"? Unless it's Dex, I'm not certain how you expect to go before the wizard most of the time.

And, sure, if you beat my Baleful Polymorph, I'll have to be disappointed I don't get a new bunny.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I would be okay with speed factors on weapons if we ditch the static initiative order.

Basically, everyone takes their turns based on their actions, not a static initiative. The round is over when everyone has taken all the actions they are going to. Combat starts at initiative count 0 and progresses through each count. So if your fighter goes on 0, and attacks with his light weapon, his next action comes on 4, when his attack is complete.

This is incredibly complex, but it is the only way I see weapon speeds working.

Honestly I could see going that way and I do think it has been a design flaw that 3.X removed some sort of differentiation in how quickly someone can perform actions not taking into account what they are wielding or casting. I don't think speed factors would make a come back so this way I could come up with something mechanically without a total trash of the initiative system.

I do agree with Vuron that my suggestion doesn't take into account spell casting which conventional wisdom has said is stronger than melee and only something like your count system or even 1-2eds d10 plus mod (low is better) system does increase the risk in casting. What I am concerned about is if you are reducing what people are calling the most damaging builds (2hd) would you have to make full attacks plus movement the only way to fly for weapon users to "match" casters?

I guess increasing the number of spells that require attack rolls might also serve to close the gap between melee and spell.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I'll make a note that 1e and 2e concentrated on mages casting damage spells because damage spells were viable out of the box. No limitations on damage, and monsters had far fewer hit points. A Meteor Swarm was a scary thing to eat!

3e what happened is con bonuses, and unlimited hit dice. This was done to make monsters a challenge at level 5, 10 and 20. The prior poster was correct, level 10ish you were supposed to be a viable threat to Orcus and Huge Ancient Red Dragons!

Basically, Monster hit points are d8+Con, and spells are d6+Nothing.

To kill a monster with your hit dice (lets use 10) and a 16 con, you basically need to be doing 2x its hit dice in dmg. And it usually has to fail a save, or you have to roll a touch attack with crappy mage BAB.

Empower basically turns your d6 into a d9. It still won't kill most monsters of your hit dice, and never of your CR.

To actually have a usable direct damage, you basically need to do a minimum of triple your level in d6's to have any chance against something of your CR, and more reasonably you should have 5x to take care of stuff with high Con. Dragons, you need 6 to 8x dmg.

Is this possible? Certainly. But you have to build to it with incredible focus. You need the damage boosting feats, and you need metamagic efficiency devoted to a single usable spell. Once you can start doing 8x your level in damage, DD starts becoming a 'fix all problems' button. Until that point, DD has major problems, especially at the lower levels where people want to use it most.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

vuron wrote:

Anyway the monk vs caster is an interesting diversion but we already have a monks suck thread so let's get back to discussing the potential rules modification.

One of the things that I typically do when I look at houserules is determine who benefits and who loses.

For the proposed change of Full Attack + Full Movement I come up with the following.

Fighting man (Melee)-Definitely benefits, within a full move radius he's pretty much a meatgrinder. However he's probably taking more damage as well because he can't kite tougher opponents.

Fighting man (Archer)-He was already spamming full attacks so he really doesn't gain much and is vulnerable to more attacks. Being able to full attack move and shoot is pretty nice though especially if the archer uses his movement to continually retreat from a superior foe.

Skirmishers (Rogues and Monks)- They actually can use their superior movement capabilities (acrobatics and/or fast movement) to attack from the shadows. They are more vulnerable to counterattack but moving from a hidden status doing a full attack and then moving away would be a pretty decent attack vector.

Casters- Martial casters can take advantage of full attack actions but for the most part casters take a big hit in terms of their resistance to getting smacked.

Melee Monsters-They generally benefit, they can't use positioning to limit DPR taken but generally will get a full attack every round.

Casting Monsters-they generally take a hit because they are vulnerable to full attacks early on in the encounter. They become very dependent on having mooks that shield them from melee opposition.

Overall the increases to martial classes in terms of flexibility and effectiveness counteracts the decreases in caster survival rate. I think that's actually a pretty desirable outcome.

And pretty much how it went down in earlier editions.


vuron wrote:

Anyway the monk vs caster is an interesting diversion but we already have a monks suck thread so let's get back to discussing the potential rules modification.

One of the things that I typically do when I look at houserules is determine who benefits and who loses.

For the proposed change of Full Attack + Full Movement I come up with the following.

Fighting man (Melee)-Definitely benefits, within a full move radius he's pretty much a meatgrinder. However he's probably taking more damage as well because he can't kite tougher opponents.

Fighting man (Archer)-He was already spamming full attacks so he really doesn't gain much and is vulnerable to more attacks. Being able to full attack move and shoot is pretty nice though especially if the archer uses his movement to continually retreat from a superior foe.

Skirmishers (Rogues and Monks)- They actually can use their superior movement capabilities (acrobatics and/or fast movement) to attack from the shadows. They are more vulnerable to counterattack but moving from a hidden status doing a full attack and then moving away would be a pretty decent attack vector.

Casters- Martial casters can take advantage of full attack actions but for the most part casters take a big hit in terms of their resistance to getting smacked.

Melee Monsters-They generally benefit, they can't use positioning to limit DPR taken but generally will get a full attack every round.

Casting Monsters-they generally take a hit because they are vulnerable to full attacks early on in the encounter. They become very dependent on having mooks that shield them from melee opposition.

Overall the increases to martial classes in terms of flexibility and effectiveness counteracts the decreases in caster survival rate. I think that's actually a pretty desirable outcome.

I'm seriously considering amending my house rules to include this, although with one stipulation. If you do a melee full attack, you MUST end your turn in melee range with whoever you attacked. In the case where you used a missile weapon, you're still limited to a 5' step---although I might give you more movement if you sacrifice an attack. In the case where you used a melee weapon, you could only continue moving (beyond a 5' step, which you always get) if you dropped the opponent you attacked. Basically I want to give melees a little love but I don't want to give anyone more kiting power than they presently have, and archers are already fine.


houstonderek wrote:

And pretty much how it went down in earlier editions.

There are definitely things that I think 1e/2e got right. The relative balance between casters and noncasters was one of those things that I think 1e/2e did better than 3.x did.

Part of that balance in previous editions was knowing that if you were a caster within attack range of a martial character you were likely going to get hurt and/or lose your spell unless it's a low level battle spell like magic missile.

Liberty's Edge

vuron wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

And pretty much how it went down in earlier editions.

There are definitely things that I think 1e/2e got right. The relative balance between casters and noncasters was one of those things that I think 1e/2e did better than 3.x did.

Part of that balance in previous editions was knowing that if you were a caster within attack range of a martial character you were likely going to get hurt and/or lose your spell unless it's a low level battle spell like magic missile.

Yep, spells were more powerful in 1e, but only if you got them off. And casting times made getting them off impossible quite a bit of the time.

Heck, a kobold yelling "boo" really loud could disrupt a spell.

Unless you had your meat shields. Who were actually relevant back then. Damn, now I'm getting all nostalgic. I remember the days wistfully:

"RUN!!!! It's an evoker!"

Now that statement is a punch line ;-)


I honestly would incorporate some sort of penalty for movement over 5' step in order to incorporate the difficulty of combining rapid movement and a ton of iterative attacks. A penalty of -2 to all attacks is probably fair but you might do something like half movement -1 penalty/full movement -2 penalty or something like that.

That way there is a cost/benefit to moving and fighting which I think makes the decision more interesting.

Personally I'd be interested in a system that allows the following type of action.

Human TWF Sword & Board vs a Orc Sorceror and several Orc Warrior Minions. The Figher starts in contact with a orc warrior but he wants to hurt the orc sorceror who's tossing around spells that could hurt him and his friends.

He uses an attack vs one orc minion and kills him, he moves forward in a straight line towards the caster but another orc minion is in the way, he uses another attack to shield bash/bullrush the minion out of the way, he step up with the remainder of his movement and uses his final attack to smack the caster.

I think in order to accomplish this you need to be able to split attacks (although iteratives should still proceed in order either lowest to hit up or highest to hit down (PC choice). I think it would also be good to force the PCs to use charge line rules.

Liberty's Edge

vuron wrote:
I honestly would incorporate some sort of penalty for movement over 5' step in order to incorporate the difficulty of combining rapid movement and a ton of iterative attacks.

As opposed to the difficulty of changing the universe and then moving 30'?

;-)

Kirth made multi-attack available to us in our game. Flat -2 to iterative attacks after the first. Coupled with the half move/full attack rule, I'm looking forward to playing my rogue/fighter at higher levels.


vuron wrote:

I honestly would incorporate some sort of penalty for movement over 5' step in order to incorporate the difficulty of combining rapid movement and a ton of iterative attacks. A penalty of -2 to all attacks is probably fair but you might do something like half movement -1 penalty/full movement -2 penalty or something like that.

That way there is a cost/benefit to moving and fighting which I think makes the decision more interesting.

Personally I'd be interested in a system that allows the following type of action.

Human TWF Sword & Board vs a Orc Sorceror and several Orc Warrior Minions. The Figher starts in contact with a orc warrior but he wants to hurt the orc sorceror who's tossing around spells that could hurt him and his friends.

He uses an attack vs one orc minion and kills him, he moves forward in a straight line towards the caster but another orc minion is in the way, he uses another attack to shield bash/bullrush the minion out of the way, he step up with the remainder of his movement and uses his final attack to smack the caster.

I think in order to accomplish this you need to be able to split attacks (although iteratives should still proceed in order either lowest to hit up or highest to hit down (PC choice). I think it would also be good to force the PCs to use charge line rules.

I'm actually working on a system that allows that.

101 to 150 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why not let melee make full attacks after moving? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.