Ultimate Combat


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So I have my copy of the Ultimate Magic book and I have not read it cover to cover...but reading the posts and the reviews it seems to be a mixed bag from the customer base.

I know this is a strictly opinion based thread, but does everyone have high hopes for Ultimate Combat to be a more well received book?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I have such high hopes that I'm canceling my subscription after it ships! :D

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DGRM44 wrote:

So I have my copy of the Ultimate Magic book and I have not read it cover to cover...but reading the posts and the reviews it seems to be a mixed bag from the customer base.

I know this is a strictly opinion based thread, but does everyone have high hopes for Ultimate Combat to be a more well received book?

Considering that we will have guns and katanas drama with this one: no, it's going to be a festival of raging nerds.

Which of course means that I'm looking forward to it filled with joyous anticipation.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Is it my turn on popcorn duty?

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Is it my turn on popcorn duty?

You always burn the popcorn... >:(

Edit: Must be all the flames... :P

Dark Archive

Just consider what a single feat with a taunting mechanism caused.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

OMG you said katana not nihonto...you will be flamed like an asmodean bbq... lol

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Is it my turn on popcorn duty?

Yep. I'd love some caramel corn, we don't have that over here.


Jadeite wrote:
Just consider what a single feat with a taunting mechanism caused.

Point being, if i buy a book and find stuff like that, why just don't homebrew?

I'm sorry, but there are standards of quality IMHO. This does not mean a whole book is not worthy the price because of one feat, of course.

This is worsened by the fact that Paizo not always fixes stuff blatantly non functional, so if book space is wasted, reconsidering future purchasings is an option.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Studpuffin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Is it my turn on popcorn duty?

You always burn the popcorn... >:(

Edit: Must be all the flames... :P

It was one time, and I was sick that day!


Kaiyanwang wrote:


This is worsened by the fact that Paizo not always fixes stuff blatantly non functional, so if book space is wasted, reconsidering future purchasings is an option.

Do you have an example of this?

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Is it my turn on popcorn duty?

You always burn the popcorn... >:(

Edit: Must be all the flames... :P

It was one time, and I was sick that day!

That's your excuse? Apology accepted, Captain Needa.


Pieces o' eight! Pieces o' eight!

Liberty's Edge

I. R. Bird wrote:
Pieces o' eight! Pieces o' eight!

Yar!


DGRM44 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:


This is worsened by the fact that Paizo not always fixes stuff blatantly non functional, so if book space is wasted, reconsidering future purchasings is an option.
Do you have an example of this?

Post errata cockatrice strike? Only BAB requirement has been changed.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kaiyanwang wrote:
DGRM44 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:


This is worsened by the fact that Paizo not always fixes stuff blatantly non functional, so if book space is wasted, reconsidering future purchasings is an option.
Do you have an example of this?
Post errata cockatrice strike? Only BAB requirement has been changed.

I'd take it over Skill Focus (basketweaving), you know.

Also, please don't confuse "suboptimal" with "nonfunctional".


I bought Ultimate Magic one week ago and I have read most of it. While I find that this is a great book, the part of the book that got me the more excited, ironically, is the last paragraph of page 5, where you can read:

"Ultimate Comat focuses on nonmagical matters, and includes ninja and samurai alternate classes (I guess that's ok for asian lovers), firearms (I don't think that I'll ever use those, but it's great that the rules will be there, just in case), gladiators (huh?), vehicle combat (very circumstantial, but ok), finishing moves (OMG what's that!?), siege weapons (again, very circumstantial but nice), armor as damage reduction (hell yes!), called shots (it can be good, as long as PCs don't end up always shooting in the head of their opponents), more feats (who doesn't want more feats?) and new option and archetypes for martial characters (that's always good)."

So, buying Ultimate Magic strengthened my anticipation of Ultimate Combat. :)


Profession (basketweaver) is OP. I had to house-rule it out.


Gorbacz wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
DGRM44 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:


This is worsened by the fact that Paizo not always fixes stuff blatantly non functional, so if book space is wasted, reconsidering future purchasings is an option.
Do you have an example of this?
Post errata cockatrice strike? Only BAB requirement has been changed.
Nobody cares, monk "make one attack as a full action" feats suck anyway.

YAAAARRGH

that's the point. The feat seems rushed, sort of a fusion of two ideas.

It could be fine as a full round or standard SoD, or as an attack (part of a flurry or after a move) versus a dazed stunned and so on opponent.

Being both, suck. Ok can happen.

BUT FIX IT! Is a part of the book not usable - but which I paid for.

APG is great, but there are several things too strong or too weak who needed just 5 minutes more of thought.

Now I see that it's a big book soo things can slip editing. But if a game is CURRENTLY SUPPORTED, I expect the company fixes errors. Otherwise I will stuck with the material already have and start to heavily houserule.


Kaiyanwang wrote:


Post errata cockatrice strike? Only BAB requirement has been changed.

Whats wrong with this feat? You think it is too powerful?


DGRM44 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:


Post errata cockatrice strike? Only BAB requirement has been changed.
Whats wrong with this feat? You think it is too powerful?

Dear God.

Are you serious?


I'm interested in it, and I will be buying. I very much liked Ultimate Magic, but I would have liked to see Alternate class specializations for the various races for the Magus Class (Note: I am not talking about Archetypes), as well as a few more magus-based class feats.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
DGRM44 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:


This is worsened by the fact that Paizo not always fixes stuff blatantly non functional, so if book space is wasted, reconsidering future purchasings is an option.
Do you have an example of this?
Post errata cockatrice strike? Only BAB requirement has been changed.
Nobody cares, monk "make one attack as a full action" feats suck anyway.

YAAAARRGH

that's the point. The feat seems rushed, sort of a fusion of two ideas.

It could be fine as a full round or standard SoD, or as an attack (part of a flurry or after a move) versus a dazed stunned and so on opponent.

Being both, suck. Ok can happen.

BUT FIX IT! Is a part of the book not usable - but which I paid for.

APG is great, but there are several things too strong or too weak who needed just 5 minutes more of thought.

Now I see that it's a big book soo things can slip editing. But if a game is CURRENTLY SUPPORTED, I expect the company fixes errors. Otherwise i will stuck with the materia already have and start to heavily houserule.

It's not "nonfunctional", as you claim. It's a sub-optimal feat, at worst. The game is full of suboptimal options. If I pick Power Attack as a feat for a Wizard, I've just gimped my party more than a Monk with Cockatrice Strike.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
DGRM44 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:


Post errata cockatrice strike? Only BAB requirement has been changed.
Whats wrong with this feat? You think it is too powerful?

Dear God.

Are you serious?

Yes I am serious, I am trying to understand what you believe is broken with the feat and how you would fix it. It seems very powerful to me as written and as a Monk I would love to have this feat.

Dark Archive

[SARCASM]It's obviously far to easy to petrify someone with Cockatrice Strike. And it doesn't even have a CL minimum. Why should a 14th level Fighter be able to petrify a wizard with his bare hands?[/SARCASM]

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kaiyanwang wrote:
DGRM44 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:


Post errata cockatrice strike? Only BAB requirement has been changed.
Whats wrong with this feat? You think it is too powerful?

Dear God.

Are you serious?

Keep it in perspective. This poster used the phrase 'Hi Welcome' in another thread.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Have fun, Kaiyanwang! Me and TOZ will watch this one while munching caramel corn. Anybody got some Cola? (yes, Cola, not "soda" or "coke".)


TriOmegaZero wrote:


Keep it in perspective. This poster used the phrase 'Hi Welcome' in another thread.

Sometimes I have no idea what you guys are talking about...it is almost like you know each other and have some 'inside jokes' going on that the rest of us are not privy to.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DGRM44 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


Keep it in perspective. This poster used the phrase 'Hi Welcome' in another thread.
Sometimes I have no idea what you guys are talking about...it is almost like you know each other and have some 'inside jokes' going on that the rest of us are not privy to.

4 years on this forum and you'll be doing the same :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
DGRM44 wrote:
Sometimes I have no idea what you guys are talking about...it is almost like you know each other and have some 'inside jokes' going on that the rest of us are not privy to.

Oh, we certainly do, my friend. Welcome to the forums.


Quote:


Cockatrice Strike (Combat)

With a single strike, you transmute flesh to stone.

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Gorgon's Fist, Medusa's Wrath, base attack bonus +14.

Benefit: As a full-round action, you can make a single unarmed strike against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe. If that attack is a critical hit, the target is petrified unless it succeeds on a Fortitude saving throw with a DC of 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier. This is a supernatural polymorph effect.

Bolded is errataed part. Formerly was +16 BAB.

Perhaps most of you are missingg the "If that attack is a critical hit", and what does this mean in the actual game.

This, or I miss an errata - in this case, I would never be happier of being blatantly wrong.

@Gorbacz: there is a minimum for "sub-optimal". This is below. This is nonfunctional.

And there is no excuse for bad design. Error happens, but I want them fixed. Errors are not fixed? Good riddance.

Fullstop.


Jadeite wrote:
[SARCASM]It's obviously far to easy to petrify someone with Cockatrice Strike. And it doesn't even have a CL minimum. Why should a 14th level Fighter be able to petrify a wizard with his bare hands?[/SARCASM]

I was about to reply to this with something snarky but my brain failed to register the [SARCASM] tag. : D

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
DGRM44 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:


Keep it in perspective. This poster used the phrase 'Hi Welcome' in another thread.
Sometimes I have no idea what you guys are talking about...it is almost like you know each other and have some 'inside jokes' going on that the rest of us are not privy to.
4 years on this forum and you'll be doing the same :)

Just have to pay attention and you start getting the jokes pretty quick, actually. 4 years and you can be absolutely arcane and someone will get it.


Gorbacz wrote:


It's not "nonfunctional", as you claim. It's a sub-optimal feat, at worst. The game is full of suboptimal options. If I pick Power Attack as a feat for a Wizard, I've just gimped my party more than a Monk with Cockatrice Strike.

So I am guessing by sub-optimal you don't think the feat is very good/powerful for use in your game. You also think that Power Attack for a wizard weakens (gimps) your team. You think there are a lot of sub-optimal feats that need to be improved and made more powerful to be inline with the rest of the feats. Is this correct?

Dark Archive

Power Attack is a pretty good feat for a lot of characters. I really doubt the same could be said about Cockatrice Strike. In fact, I doubt that Cockatrice Strike would be a good choice for any character.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DGRM44 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


It's not "nonfunctional", as you claim. It's a sub-optimal feat, at worst. The game is full of suboptimal options. If I pick Power Attack as a feat for a Wizard, I've just gimped my party more than a Monk with Cockatrice Strike.
So I am guessing by sub-optimal you don't think the feat is very good/powerful for use in your game. You also think that Power Attack for a wizard weakens (gimps) your team. You think there are a lot of sub-optimal feats that need to be improved and made more powerful to be inline with the rest of the feats. Is this correct?

I'm fine with them. If I wanted to play a game where every choice is balanced, I would play 4E. I don't. There are very few mechanical aspects of PF that irk me. Perhaps the way how counter-spelling works is the only that one sometimes grows on me.


All books have stuff I like and stuff I don't like (for instance, the core rulebook has dwarfs -which I like- and elves -which I don't like-). So as long as I get more likes than dislikes in a book, I'm content enough.

This has been the case with all Paizo products so far, including Ultimate Magic, so I guess it will also be the case with Ultimate Combat.

After all, I've never used a book from cover to cover; at most I add one chapter or two to a campaign. So in that regard I really can't get angry a book which has fantasy gunslingers -which I like- and fantasy katanaslingers -which I don't like-.

I mean, really, does anyone ever use 100% of any supplement?


Kaiyanwang wrote:


Cockatrice Strike (Combat)

With a single strike, you transmute flesh to stone.

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Gorgon's Fist, Medusa's Wrath, base attack bonus +14.

Benefit: As a full-round action, you can make a single unarmed strike against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe. If that attack is a critical hit, the target is petrified unless it succeeds on a Fortitude saving throw with a DC of 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier. This is a supernatural polymorph effect.

How should this read to you? I still don't understand your beef with this feat???

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:

All books have stuff I like and stuff I don't like (for instance, the core rulebook has dwarfs -which I like- and elves -which I don't like-). So as long as I get more likes than dislikes in a book, I'm content enough.

This has been the case with all Paizo products so far, including Ultimate Magic, so I guess it will also be the case with Ultimate Combat.

After all, I've never used a book from cover to cover; at most I add one chapter or two to a campaign. So in that regard I really can't get angry a book which has fantasy gunslingers -which I like- and fantasy katanaslingers -which I don't like-.

I mean, really, does anyone ever use 100% of any supplement?

I am slightly irked by inclusion of Words of Power in UM. It's not that I think that they are a bad idea (they're cool) or that Paizo shouldn't print them, but they are *purely* optional and I will likely *never* use them, as opposed to anything else in UM that may some day see use at my table. Therefore, I am Not a Fan of material of no objective use for me.

As a tangent, that's the very same reason why I am/was against Set Pieces, Pregens and Fiction in APs.

I would be fine with WoP in some "alternate rules" book. Seeing that UC will likely include also some optional rules subsystems (armor as DR?), I will likely raise this argument against. APG was far better in this regard.


Jadeite wrote:
Power Attack is a pretty good feat for a lot of characters. I really doubt the same could be said about Cockatrice Strike. In fact, I doubt that Cockatrice Strike would be a good choice for any character.

This.

And Gorbacz, again:

I criticized a lot the balance of 4th edition. Why? because making everything flat and dull for the sake of balance is wrong. It kills diversity.

Why I'm against stuff like the one I posted above? Because has de facto the same effect. If something is blatantly too bad, is put outside the "pool" of choice and diversity suffers.

I like things work differently,say, this wepon being better for a task, another for being finessable, this one better for ambushes because can be hidden, and so on.

If one weapon is better, fullstop, since I see game mechanics and the gameworld connected each other (again, a reason for which I stuck with 3.5) i see no reason for poeple inside that world to not use that weapon only. So either diversity or suspension of disbelief suffer.

BAD. Really, really BAD.


I know I'm going to say all sorts of negative things about UC and express how broken or suboptimal options I feel the options in it are without bothering to read it. You know...tradition.


Kaiyanwang wrote:


I criticized a lot the balance of 4th edition. Why? because making everything flat and dull for the sake of balance is wrong. It kills diversity.

Why I'm against stuff like the one I posted above? Because has de facto the same effect. If something is blatantly too bad, is put outside the "pool" of choice and diversity suffers.

I like things work differently,say, this wepon being better for a task, another for being finessable, this one better for ambushes because can be hidden, and so on.

If one weapon is better, fullstop, since I see game mechanics and the gameworld connected each other (again, a reason for which I stuck with 3.5) i see no reason for poeple inside that world to not use that weapon only. So either diversity or suspension of disbelief suffer.

BAD. Really, really BAD.

Dude, I still have no idea what IN THE WORLD you are talking about. What is your issue with the Cockatrice Strike feat? Or do you even HAVE A SPECIFIC ISSUE WITH IT????


DGRM44 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:


Cockatrice Strike (Combat)

With a single strike, you transmute flesh to stone.

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Gorgon's Fist, Medusa's Wrath, base attack bonus +14.

Benefit: As a full-round action, you can make a single unarmed strike against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe. If that attack is a critical hit, the target is petrified unless it succeeds on a Fortitude saving throw with a DC of 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier. This is a supernatural polymorph effect.

How should this read to you? I still don't understand your beef with this feat???

To use this feat, you need to succeed a critical hit (unarmed strike can only do a critical hit on a natural 20, or 19-20 if you have improved critcal) on an opponent that is already affected by a harmful condition (so he's not really a threat to your party) AND your opponent must fail his saving throw (if he succeed, nothing happens). Futhermore, you have to give up your flurry ob blows to use this feat, because it's a full round action, to MAYBE (natural 20 or 19-20 with improved critical) force and already crippled opponent to make a saving throw against a "death" effect.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
Power Attack is a pretty good feat for a lot of characters. I really doubt the same could be said about Cockatrice Strike. In fact, I doubt that Cockatrice Strike would be a good choice for any character.

This.

And Gorbacz, again:

I criticized a lot the balance of 4th edition. Why? because making everything flat and dull for the sake of balance is wrong. It kills diversity.

Why I'm against stuff like the one I posted above? Because has de facto the same effect. If something is blatantly too bad, is put outside the "pool" of choice and diversity suffers.

I like things work differently,say, this wepon being better for a task, another for being finessable, this one better for ambushes because can be hidden, and so on.

If one weapon is better, fullstop, since I see game mechanics and the gameworld connected each other (again, a reason for which I stuck with 3.5) i see no reason for poeple inside that world to not use that weapon only. So either diversity or suspension of disbelief suffer.

BAD. Really, really BAD.

Kai, stop trying to convince me about this, I'm like Cartigan, except perhaps somewhat less abrasive at times.

You have a far more demanding job in this thread :))))))


DGRM44 wrote:

How should this read to you? I still don't understand your beef with this feat???

Man. (Or woman).

Just read it. It's a full round action, the longest of the round. Needs a target already stunned, flat footed or similar stuff (very likely to already have failed a save). And gets worse.

IF THE STRIKE, YOUR ONLY STRIKE OF THE TURN BECASUE IS A FULL ROUND is a critical strike (and the threat is very likely to be 19-20, 17-20 at best), force a fortitude save and MAYBE the target will be pietrified. In the meanwhile, the wizard is spamming persistent flesh to stone.

More specific could only be "if the attack is a critical hit and the target is a Gynecologist named Frank, and it's the 22 of may.."

What could have been:

Spoiler:

Cockatrice Strike (Combat)

With a single strike, you transmute flesh to stone.

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Gorgon's Fist, Medusa's Wrath, base attack bonus +14.

Benefit: As a Standard Action, you can make a single unarmed strike against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe. The target is petrified unless it succeeds on a Fortitude saving throw with a DC of 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier. This is a supernatural polymorph effect.

Spoiler:

Cockatrice Strike (Combat)

With a single strike, you transmute flesh to stone.

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Gorgon's Fist, Medusa's Wrath, base attack bonus +14.

Benefit: A flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe stuck by your unarmed attacks is petrified unless it succeeds on a Fortitude saving throw with a DC of 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wisdom modifier. This is a supernatural polymorph effect. You cannot force an enemy to save vs this effect more than once per turn.


Gorbacz wrote:


Kai, stop trying to convince me about this, I'm like Cartigan, except perhaps somewhat less abrasive at times.

You have a far more demanding job in this thread :))))))

I can take care of you both.

And more seriously, this is a critical part for the quality of the books, at least for me.

Maybe UC* will be my last PF book. I could be wrong, or could be valid just for me - in this case, no problems for Paizo.

If several people consider this a problem, well.

Please note that is not a matter of a feat. Several small and big things suggested me a lack of care wich I can stand no more.

*ironically, I love a lot of stuff people heavily criticized like gunslingers, samurai and ninja and I love the fact that paizo does not fear of "dare" new stuff.


Kaiyanwang wrote:

Just read it. It's a full round action, the longest of the round. Needs a target already stunned, flat footed or similar stuff (very likely to already have failed a save). And gets worse.

if you make this a standard action I think it becomes WAY TOO powerful.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Kai, stop trying to convince me about this, I'm like Cartigan, except perhaps somewhat less abrasive at times.

You have a far more demanding job in this thread :))))))

I can take care of you both.

And more seriously, this is a critical part for the quality of the books, at least for me.

Maybe UC will be my last PF book. I could be wrong, or could be valid just for me - in this case, no problems for Paizo.

If several people consider this a problem, well.

Please note that is not a matter of a feat. Several small and big things suggested me a lack of care wich I cannot stand no more.

I'll rephrase something that was posted by Hogarth someday somewhere.

An average WotC 3.5 splatbook was:

20-30% stuff that never should be printed (too bad or too OP)
40-50% stuff that's around the "useful" level
30-40% stuff that's at "meh" level

With Paizo books, I consider the ratio to be around 10-60-30. I did buy WotC books, if I'd stop buying Paizo books because of Cockatrice Strike, I couldn't live with my hypocrisy. :)))

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
DGRM44 wrote:
if you make this a standard action I think it becomes WAY TOO powerful.

I knew this thread was going to be hilarious. :) So 11th level Wizards are too powerful?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DGRM44 wrote:
if you make this a standard action I think it becomes WAY TOO powerful.
I knew this thread was going to be hilarious. :) So 11th level Wizards are too powerful?

As a standard action, he could attempt this feat multiple times on the same foe in the same round? And isn't petrification game over?

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Ultimate Combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.