I think there's a general consensus that spellcasters do almost everything better, and large honking two handed weapons blow dual wielding out of the water.
At my tables anyway, a lot of this seems to come from the fact that full attacks don't seem to happen all that often. A fighters high bab , weapon focus, and weapon specialization are suppose to scale if not geometrically at least at a rate better than linear, but all too often most of the bab is wasted overkill on the first hit and the fighters and rogues simply can't keep up with the damage output of spellcasters or even their class features (i'm looking at YOU pouncing tiger)
Why was this done? Did it go too far in nerfing the fighting classes? Has anyone tried letting full attacks come after move?
Most casters don't do a lot of damage. They have I win buttons if they are built on SoD's though. You paralyze the monster and then coup de grace it, or have a summoned monster do it.
I really don't see how fighter types are on auto-lose unless the DM only uses casters, but that is a lot of work, and I would get bored fighting the same thing over and over again.
It would be more fair if casting most of the spells would require a full round action instead of a standard action. Weak, sub-optimal, spells, like Acid Arrow, could require only a standard action to cast.
It would be more fair if casting most of the spells would require a full round action instead of a standard action. Weak, sub-optimal, spells, like Acid Arrow, could require only a standard action to cast.
I don't think the difference shows up much in actual games because each player normally tries to do certain things. The issue is when someone ends up doing your job better than you, which is why the 3.5 fighter got so much flack.
Are you sure you want every monster being able to move and then full attack you :D?
Are you sure you want every monster being able to move and then full attack you :D?
Giants and Golems don't hit all that hard. :)
I'm with wraithstrike on his first point.
I've noticed that when it comes to direct damage the non-casters are far outperforming the casters.
Casters only really outdo the others when overusing the same SoDs or "You Lose" combos, which no player (that I have had) ever does as it eventually leads to boredom.
It's particularily funny, when 2 combatants with multiple attacks stare down eachother at 10ft apart. If you close in, the worst case is you receive a readied attack, make one attack and then the other guy gets a full attack at you.
I think 2wep fighting is so inferior to 2hander that getting a full attack with a standard might balance it. Utill weapon magical bonuses begin to dominate. But still 2wep fighting burns feats just to keep up.
However it would have some implications in protecting the party 'clothies'. When a big baddie with multiple attacks can just fly up to any party member and tear in with a full attack...
I think instead of giving everyone full attacks after a move, what would balance TWF and 2handed weapon users would be to just let the TWF use both their main hand and off hand after a move.
|
Crying over having to make a ruling on what happens when a creature is larger than the AMF it just cast on itself?Ancient Red Dragon with AMF up and full attack after moving.
Or, Rune Giant with Fighter levels and 2h weapon.
There will be grown men crying.
This would be a whole new debate, but 10 foot radius emanation centered on you is 10 feet from the body, not center of mass.
In my experience it not the spellcasters doing the most damage, but rather the Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians etc. So no, I don't think the OP's suggestion is a good one.
In my experience it not the spellcasters doing the most damage, but rather the Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians etc. So no, I don't think the OP's suggestion is a good one.
Are you taking in to account that AoE spells damage multiple targets simultaneously thus multiplying the amount of damage, or do you mean damage inflicted on a single creature?
In my experience it not the spellcasters doing the most damage, but rather the Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians etc. So no, I don't think the OP's suggestion is a good one.Are you taking in to account that AoE spells damage multiple targets simultaneously thus multiplying the amount of damage, or do you mean damage inflicted on a single creature?
Well yes, since the situation don't always allow for aoe's and they tend to run out quite fast when u can use them.
|
This would be a whole new debate, but 10 foot radius emanation centered on you is 10 feet from the body, not center of mass.Crying over having to make a ruling on what happens when a creature is larger than the AMF it just cast on itself?Ancient Red Dragon with AMF up and full attack after moving.
Or, Rune Giant with Fighter levels and 2h weapon.
There will be grown men crying.
Citation needed.
I generally only use two weapons types in crit based builds because I always assumed(envisioned) the damage was more finessed based.
I guess the lower damage is balanced out by more chances to actually hit, or at least that is the design philosophy anyway. I do think that TWF'ing uses too many feats though. It also requires a high dex unless you are a ranger.
In my experience it not the spellcasters doing the most damage, but rather the Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians etc. So no, I don't think the OP's suggestion is a good one.
+1
What makes a caster dangerous is his ability to be unpredictable and how that will affect the battle. A dude with a sword or bow pretty much is predictable....and usually does the most damage. A spell caster can upset the balance of a fight quickly and hence has the bad rep of being an auto win PC. ….but when it comes to pure damage…..the Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians never run out of sword swings and usually win the day.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
CoDzilla
:D :D :D
Monk can fly at their land speed. 2 Feats.
If they move, that can hit generally with one attack.
- If the attack is a maneuver, is made at full level CMB. Some monk can reroll it twice, or even more.
- if is a single attack, it's mediaum BAB but is the first. it's likely to be a charge, or is performed in flanking position. Likely to land anyway.
- If full attacks (after a charge or not) has full BAB.
What you said can be true for 3.5 monk but does not work for pathfinder.
Moreover, why complain with us if your gaming group is able to play with few classes only? You advocate a style of game that is less fun. I really can get it.
@James Jacobs: IMHO, if not "free", the vital strike line of feats should be.. well, NOT a chain. The feat should scale with BAB.
I'm perfectly fine with the fact that the feat works mainly with high dices of damage weapons (monk, exspecially four winds for the 3 standard actions, greatsword) but is not worth 2- 3 feats at high level.
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.
... Is that a possible alternate rule sidebar for Ultimate Combat I see?
EDIT: Actually screw sidebar, it could be interesting to see a proper discussion/ruling debating on how the attacks should be changed to be a single one that doesn't lose the potency of a full attack.
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.
Wait what? DM's seriously take less time at your table them GM's? Either you have some magical DM's or some super inefficient players. I mean other then single enemy encounters, the dm is probably controlling a number of different enemies often with different abilities to be worked out that the dm is hopefully familiar with but not to the same degree that a player is with their own character. I have never seen an instance where the DM regularly takes less time then players for their 'turn'.
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.
How exactly is vital strike going to keep up the damage curve? I mean its a great addition to the game, but damage numbers are no where near that of a normal full attack. Particularly at mid to high levels, damage becomes far less about the damage dice and more about all the other stuff you add in, which doesnt get multiplied with Vital Strike. Also unless you modified vital strike to work with haste, two weapon fighting and flury of blows, those abilities would be pointless at high levels (assuming you did modify vital strike to keep up the damage curve). Those abilities are completely keyed into iterative attacks, remove it and you need to rewrite a whole lot more then just vital strike.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I guess another option would be to allow a standard move, then 'lop off' the highest BAB.
So our 20th Greatsword weilder wth his BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5 can move and do +15/+10/+5. Haste or speed would be +15/+15/+10/+5
Not sure how the numbers crunch though. I don't do the DPR.
I would point out that he says "essentially makes Vital strike a free feat for everyone."
Which has me under the impression that it wouldn't quite be Vital strike but something in the same mindset that it increases overall damage of the first attack, making it near as powerful as a full attack.
Possibly an iterative attacks rule that multiplies the damage done on your attack based on however many you'd have under normal rules?
This would also mean that haste/speed and such would really just add a second normal attack, and TWF would still be a lot higher damage potential, but it seems like a good basis to start from to me.
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.
In this case James, damage resistance becomes fairly pointless at its current values. Most monsters don't get beyond DR 15/something, but Vital Strike and its associated feat chain would continue to increase the damage dealt without corresponding improvements in DR, making it easier to just blast past the DR. The next step might then be to raise the DR, but this in turn just made things more difficult for your remaining multiattackers. Your thoughts on this?
I would point out that he says "essentially makes Vital strike a free feat for everyone."
Which has me under the impression that it wouldn't quite be Vital strike but something in the same mindset that it increases overall damage of the first attack, making it near as powerful as a full attack.
Possibly an iterative attacks rule that multiplies the damage done on your attack based on however many you'd have under normal rules?
This would also mean that haste/speed and such would really just add a second normal attack, and TWF would still be a lot higher damage potential, but it seems like a good basis to start from to me.
That is similar to what 4E does by having its 1W, 2W, and so on damage as you level up. I like the idea, but I am not sure of how to make it work with the current system.
That is similar to what 4E does by having its 1W, 2W, and so on damage as you level up. I like the idea, but I am not sure of how to make it work with the current system.I would point out that he says "essentially makes Vital strike a free feat for everyone."
Which has me under the impression that it wouldn't quite be Vital strike but something in the same mindset that it increases overall damage of the first attack, making it near as powerful as a full attack.
Possibly an iterative attacks rule that multiplies the damage done on your attack based on however many you'd have under normal rules?
This would also mean that haste/speed and such would really just add a second normal attack, and TWF would still be a lot higher damage potential, but it seems like a good basis to start from to me.
Hmm...
I need to do some number crunching on this but perhaps:BAB: 1-5 attacks are normal as they are now.
BAB: 6-10, this is where things get changed up a bit. Suddenly your longsword is doing an extra d8 of damage, you're adding 1.5x your strength modifier (or 2x when wielding two handed), your weapon's enhancement bonus is multiplied by 1.5x as well, as are weapon specialization/training bonuses.
BAB: 11-15, your skill enhances further when you attack your series of rapid swings and strikes (which still take only one roll) are finding more weak spots, cutting more into the foe, you're dealing 3x dice of damage as the normal weapon now, adding 2x your strength modifier (or 3x with two-handed weapons), your weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon specialization, weapon training bonuses multiply by 2 as well.
BAB: 16+, you reach the pinnacle of fighting prowess, when bounding through the battlefield your attacks come in with an unmatched ferocity, when they find undefended points your opponent quickly learns that the fight is serious, now your attack is dealing 4x dice of damage, 3x your strength modifier (or 5x with a two-handed weapon), your weapon's enhancement bonus, weapon specialization, and weapon training are also multiplied by 3.
Questions/Concerns: I still need to test out the actual math behind all of this.
Flaming (and other) weapon properties need to be figured into how they affect this.
Two-Weapon Fighting, Flurry Of Blows, Haste, Speed and other such abilities need to find their way into this style.
And probably more I'm not thinking of right now.
EDIT:
Critical hits need to be figured out as well.
As well as mounted charges...
And Sneak attack, and Favored Enemy bonuses
Blargh: In Short, there is a LOT that needs to be figured out for this to work, and I don't think it's a one-man job.
Damage Reduction would also need an overhaul for this to work, mostly because suddenly that DR 10/Magic is meaningless to the one mighty attack that is doing upwards to 60 damage at its barest minimum.
It depends. Barring criticals, deal 35 damage instead of 50 matters, exspecially in a full attack.
Criticals are related with effects (stuns and the like) and/or just with gianormous multipliers, so the 15 couldn't matter.
BUT consider the DR totally not relevant is preposterous. It does not makes the monster invulnerable but can delay the death.
Moreover, this assume PCs always equipped and prepared at best. not every adventure starts with the fighter completely equipped and the wizard completely prepared ;)
|
Creative Director
|
... Is that a possible alternate rule sidebar for Ultimate Combat I see?
EDIT: Actually screw sidebar, it could be interesting to see a proper discussion/ruling debating on how the attacks should be changed to be a single one that doesn't lose the potency of a full attack.
Doubtful. The game as it stands now is what it is; dramatic changes like the one I mentioned above do not belong in the game until we turn our attention to a 2nd edition. Which, as I am fond of reminding folks, is still many, many years away. Given Pathfinder's outstanding and incredible success, I'm confident it's going to be around for a long time—certainly long enough to evolve into a new edition, say, 8 years or so down the road.
It's never too early to start tinkering in home games with ideas, though! While a "proper discussion/ruling" about this won't be something you'll see coming from us here at Paizo for several years, that shouldn't prevent anyone else from having a stab at it in their home games. And if you report your findings here... that can only be good for the game 8 years or so down the road.
|
Creative Director
|
What you describe is a large net nerf for martial characters. I am very curious to hear directly from the source why you would deem such a thing necessary.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 don't think its necessary. I think that reducing the number of die rolls the game expects is one way to speed game play, and reducing attacks is one way to reduce die rolls. I certainly haven't done much "playtesting" of such a system.
It's kind of frustrating, actually, that it's difficult for me to post "what if" bits to these boards, since it's easy for folks to get worked up under the mistaken assumption that if a Paizo person says so, it must be right.
Not everything I post here should be taken as "This is the way it should be." I'm a gamer too, remember, and just as prone to tinkering as the next GM.
|
Creative Director
|
In this case James, damage resistance becomes fairly pointless at its current values. Most monsters don't get beyond DR 15/something, but Vital Strike and its associated feat chain would continue to increase the damage dealt without corresponding improvements in DR, making it easier to just blast past the DR. The next step might then be to raise the DR, but this in turn just made things more difficult for your remaining multiattackers. Your thoughts on this?
Good point... but at the same time, making DR less of a huge barrier at higher levels is probably a better solution than allowing higher enhancement bonuses from weapons to replace DR categories. It's certainly something to keep in mind, and it'd probably require a significant reworking of DR rules if we went with a change like this.
And by the way; this is a GREAT example of how and why we can't just arbitrarily change something as fundamental as iterative attacks. There's a HUGE amount of butterfly effect type things going on when you start tinkering with the underlying rules system.
Which is one big reason why we didn't make a change like that to the rules with Pathfinder.
At my tables anyway, a lot of this seems to come from the fact that full attacks don't seem to happen all that often. A fighters high bab , weapon focus, and weapon specialization are suppose to scale if not geometrically at least at a rate better than linear, but all too often most of the bab is wasted overkill on the first hit and the fighters and rogues simply can't keep up with the damage output of spellcasters or even their class features (i'm looking at YOU pouncing tiger)Why was this done? Did it go too far in nerfing the fighting classes? Has anyone tried letting full attacks come after move?
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?
It's kind of frustrating, actually, that it's difficult for me to post "what if" bits to these boards, since it's easy for folks to get worked up under the mistaken assumption that if a Paizo person says so, it must be right.
Have you considered using something like the posting alias system to differentiate positions taken with your Paizo hat on vs. positions taken with your unofficial gamer hat on?
I'm sure that some people will still run off with things posted in the second vein but...
I am curious as to what all the "DPR and whatnot" experts think of the 'Trailblazer' system of iterative attacks.
You know, the one that says instead of multiple attacks at a progressively lower BAB, you start with 1 attack, then 2 at -2 each then 2 at -1 then 2 at no penalty.
Advocates for this system say you hit more (except for strange corner cases) and if definitely makes combat faster.
What say you?