Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.I STRONGLY disgaree with this recommendation. Like most feats that give a bonus, they do so with a penalty to something else. The trade off with vital strike is that if you choose go for the extra damage you do so by sacraficing additional attack/movement options. If you take this away it simply becomes free damge potential with no penalty, greatly unbalancing a feat that IMHO already tilters onto the unbalanced side.No because right now the vital strike feat chain is a very very bad choice for players unless their weapon is of the size of deathstar, and by using this house rule the feat(s) become less useless (still bad but not as before).
Now if you are talking about monsters with a single BIG attack then yes you might be right.
Once again I strongly disagree. It is a choice, perhaps not the most optimized (hate that term), but a choice. A choice that is better than the "norm", so therefore I wouldn't call it a bad choice. RAW is the feat the best choice for every PC concept, maybe not. But, to allow its use willy-nilly would most likely through it into the "it's so good no one can live without it" buket and that would unbalence it IMHO.
In what specific situation can the vital strike chain make for an unbalanced PC?
In what specific situation can the vital strike chain make for an unbalanced PC?The super monk hitting for 6d8 unarmed strikes gets +6d8 damage anytime an attack standard action is made...?
That's as big as I've seen a PCs damage as posted on these boards.
(I'm not implying that is unbalanced or not, I'll leave that up to you)
I will confess tho. I'm of the minority camp that thinks a level 6 fighter wielding a Great Sword hitting for +2d6 (+7 damage) on every standard action attack is pretty awesome.
What level is this monk. 6d8 is not impressive for one attack. It is only about 27 points of damage before any modifiers of course.
PS:2d8 are gained at level 16 so the 6d8 would come from improved vital strike. At that level a rogue is doing 8d6 sneak attack+weapon damage+random other things on one hit. I really don't think that there are too many classes that can't do equal damage at that level.
2d6+7 is not impressive at all though even in standard games.
str +4x1.5= +6
weapon +1
fighter weapon training= +1
weapon spec = +2
power attack =6
without power attack you can do 2d6+10
with PA you can do 2d6+16
That is not optimized. That is just stuff from the core book that most people pick up anyway.
|
In what specific situation can the vital strike chain make for an unbalanced PC?Regardless of the "official" clarifications, I'd STRONGLY recommend allowing Vital Strike to be used in conjunction with Spring Attack, with charge attacks, and with the Cleave feat. Otherwise, just get rid of it.I STRONGLY disgaree with this recommendation. Like most feats that give a bonus, they do so with a penalty to something else. The trade off with vital strike is that if you choose go for the extra damage you do so by sacraficing additional attack/movement options. If you take this away it simply becomes free damge potential with no penalty, greatly unbalancing a feat that IMHO already tilters onto the unbalanced side.No because right now the vital strike feat chain is a very very bad choice for players unless their weapon is of the size of deathstar, and by using this house rule the feat(s) become less useless (still bad but not as before).
Now if you are talking about monsters with a single BIG attack then yes you might be right.
Once again I strongly disagree. It is a choice, perhaps not the most optimized (hate that term), but a choice. A choice that is better than the "norm", so therefore I wouldn't call it a bad choice. RAW is the feat the best choice for every PC concept, maybe not. But, to allow its use willy-nilly would most likely through it into the "it's so good no one can live without it" buket and that would unbalence it IMHO.
Uhmm... a Ranger with a Wolf companion doing a ride-by attack for 24D6 +free Trip and overrun ?
I would find that a bit unbalanced to deal with every round.(large wolf = 1D8 -> imp. Natural attack = 2d6 -> Strong Jaw 4D6 +Animal Growth = 6D6 -> Greater Vital Strike = 24D6 (6D6 * 4).
All of this before dealing with the Rangers own attacks .
Ot worse yet a druid Wild shaped into a T-Rex doing 94D6 on spring attack every round.
(4D6 -> imp natural attack 6D6 -> LockJaw 12D6 -> Animal Growth 24D6 -> greater V. Strike 94D6 (24D6 * 4) + swallow Whole.
Ouch...
(large wolf = 1D8 -> imp. Natural attack = 2d6 -> Strong Jaw 4D6 +Animal Growth = 6D6 -> Greater Vital Strike = 24D6 (6D6 * 4).
All of this before dealing with the Rangers own attacks .
Ot worse yet a druid Wild shaped into a T-Rex doing...
And again, the feat is only problematic when applied to giant monsters with single attacks. Scaling the bonus damage as a flat +2d6/+4d6/+6d6 (depending on BAB) makes the feat useful for sword-and-shield fighters and also prevents the sort of giant monster abuse you're talking about, all in one shot.
The monk had Enlarge Person, Monk Robes, some weapon spells, etc. (it was posted on the forums here a while back). added abilities).
In other words, he was a giant monster. Which is what I've been saying. The problem with the feat is that it's written so that bigger = better. Make it actually worthwhile for normal characters, instead of being abusable by Godzilla, and it could be a pretty good feat.
Uhmm... a Ranger with a Wolf companion doing a ride-by attack for 24D6 +free Trip and overrun ?
I would find that a bit unbalanced to deal with every round.(large wolf = 1D8 -> imp. Natural attack = 2d6 -> Strong Jaw 4D6 +Animal Growth = 6D6 -> Greater Vital Strike = 24D6 (6D6 * 4).
All of this before dealing with the Rangers own attacks .Ouch...
Ranger companions never qualify for Greater Vital Strike since it requires a BAB of 16. The best they can do is 12d6 which is not available until level 18 since rangers are -3 for the purpose of animal companions. At level 18 that is not impressive. They are also not likely to trip or overrun any monster at that level either.
The ranger is charging so he only gets one attack, not multiple attacks.Your tactic also assumes your mount gets to attack and continue after a charge. Just because you have ride-by attack that does not confer it to your companion. I would have to check the rules for his attack.
What level is this monk. 6d8 is not impressive for one attack. It is only about 27 points of damage before any modifiers of course.
PS:2d8 are gained at level 16 so the 6d8 would come from improved vital strike. At that level a rogue is doing 8d6 sneak attack+weapon damage+random other things on one hit. I really don't think that there are too many classes that can't do equal damage at that level.
The 6d8 was for a single monk attack, before Vital Strike.
The monk had Enlarge Person, Monk Robes, some weapon spells, etc. (it was posted on the forums here a while back).
Greater Vital Strike would yield a 24d8 standard action punch (before strength and other added abilities).
The monk never gets 16 BAB so that is not an option. He can get 12d8, and if he stacks all of that he should do something decent, but decent is the best he is going to do, which is not overpowered.
PRD=Greater Vital Strike (Combat)
You can make a single attack that deals incredible damage.
Prerequisites: Improved Vital Strike, Vital Strike, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack four times and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
|
|
Uhmm... a Ranger with a Wolf companion doing a ride-by attack for 24D6 +free Trip and overrun ?
I would find that a bit unbalanced to deal with every round.(large wolf = 1D8 -> imp. Natural attack = 2d6 -> Strong Jaw 4D6 +Animal Growth = 6D6 -> Greater Vital Strike = 24D6 (6D6 * 4).
All of this before dealing with the Rangers own attacks .Ouch...
Ranger companions never qualify for Greater Vital Strike since it requires a BAB of 16. The best they can do is 12d6 which is not available until level 18 since rangers are -3 for the purpose of animal companions. At level 18 that is not impressive. They are also not likely to trip or overrun any monster at that level either.
The ranger is charging so he only gets one attack, not multiple attacks.
Your tactic also assumes your mount gets to attack and continue after a charge. Just because you have ride-by attack that does not confer it to your companion. I would have to check the rules for his attack.
A. At no point did I ever declare a charge, just a move for the Spring Attack (50' of it for the wolf) so the Ranger does get his full attacks.
B. As a Huge sized creature they do have an acceptable chance to trip/overrun anything that's not flying.C. You are correct, no greater so it would be 18D6 instead. My Bad, still most respectable. (and Boon companion makes it equal to ranger level).
D. A move + attack (V. Strike) is a standard use and as mounted combat works the rider CAN make a full attack as long as the mount doesn't charge. t's in the errata/faq.
@Kirth, the challenge was to show how letting it stack with Cleave, Spring Attack, etc would make for an unbalanced PC, that's what was done. If you want to completely re-write the feat that's a completely different topic.
@Kirth, the challenge was to show how letting it stack with Cleave, Spring Attack, etc would make for an unbalanced PC, that's what was done. If you want to completely re-write the feat that's a completely different topic.
I'm seeing this not as a "challenge" to "win teh interwebz," but as an exercise to make the feat worthwhile without it being stupid. If you'd rather have an abuse contest, go ahead, I'm not stopping you -- but our end goals are radically different.
Uhmm... a Ranger with a Wolf companion doing a ride-by attack for 24D6 +free Trip and overrun ?
I would find that a bit unbalanced to deal with every round.(large wolf = 1D8 -> imp. Natural attack = 2d6 -> Strong Jaw 4D6 +Animal Growth = 6D6 -> Greater Vital Strike = 24D6 (6D6 * 4).
All of this before dealing with the Rangers own attacks .Ouch...
Ranger companions never qualify for Greater Vital Strike since it requires a BAB of 16. The best they can do is 12d6 which is not available until level 18 since rangers are -3 for the purpose of animal companions. At level 18 that is not impressive. They are also not likely to trip or overrun any monster at that level either.
The ranger is charging so he only gets one attack, not multiple attacks.
Your tactic also assumes your mount gets to attack and continue after a charge. Just because you have ride-by attack that does not confer it to your companion. I would have to check the rules for his attack.A. At no point did I ever declare a charge, just a move for the Spring Attack (50' of it for the wolf) so the Ranger does get his full attacks.
B. As a Huge sized creature they do have an acceptable chance to trip/overrun anything that's not flying.
C. You are correct, no greater so it would be 18D6 instead. My Bad, still most respectable. (and Boon companion makes it equal to ranger level).
D. A move + attack (V. Strike) is a standard use and as mounted combat works the rider CAN make a full attack as long as the mount doesn't charge. t's in the errata/faq.@Kirth, the challenge was to show how letting it stack with Cleave, Spring Attack, etc would make for an unbalanced PC, that's what was done. If you want to completely re-write the feat that's a completely different topic.
I have to go after this response for a few hours:
1.You used ride by attack which requires a charge in the post I responded to.2.Being huge does not equal acceptable chance. Size modifiers are not the only ones that matter.
3.18d6 is not overpowered. It is about 63 points of damage assuming the attack hits, and if you are burning feats, and several spells to make it work then you are paying for it with resources that are appropriate in this case. If I spend 3 feat and 2 spells just for one tactic I don't think 60+ points of damage is to much to ask for.
4.Refer to 1.
The monk never gets 16 BAB so that is not an option.Monk 16, Fighter 4 = +16 BAB
Someone posted a higher damage attack than me, so my example is meager anyways.
Nice, but still not overpowered
The monk had Enlarge Person, Monk Robes, some weapon spells, etc. (it was posted on the forums here a while back).
Per the last post-->That is a lot to make one trick work. All it takes is one dispel magic......
PS:I will also say broken is relative to the particular group. This is one feat chain that as written is generally not that good.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is a major bummer. Any light on their rationale for this?
I assume their rationale is that they didn't change anything, it was just interpreted incorrectly.
The problem is there really is two camps here. The camp (I'm in this one) that this was clearly written originally as a standard action and the camp of (you can AoO vital strike man!)As for power punch:
Shaping Focus feat + 4th Druid (Arsinotherium) and 3rd Ranger (Natural Weapon Combat Style) + Improved Natural Attack Gore + Vital Strike
8d8 on one attack at 7th level which is 36 damage plus bonus damage from str/etc.
PFS legal even
At 20th level, a ranger is considered a 17th level druid for purposes of his animal companion. This means he only ever gets +10 BAB. So the pet wouldn't even qualify for Improved Vital Strike.
A Beastmaster Ranger (or just a druid, note: Boon Companion isn't Pathfinder) can get Improved Vital Strike by 18th level.
I have to agree with concerro. At 18th level, you are spending three feats, and two spells to get this one nice attack per round.
Note that you could have made two attacks (animal companions get multiattack, even the single attack guys), with two trip attempts and two times your ridiculous strength bonus/elemental damage/whatever.
It's good when you need to move and attack, but not game-breaking. Also, 11 BAB means a really poor starting place for the attack bonus.
If we stat out a real build, I suspect the DPR wouldn't be quite that bad for it's level.
|
|
Uhmm... a Ranger with a Wolf companion doing a ride-by attack for 24D6 +free Trip and overrun ?
I would find that a bit unbalanced to deal with every round.(large wolf = 1D8 -> imp. Natural attack = 2d6 -> Strong Jaw 4D6 +Animal Growth = 6D6 -> Greater Vital Strike = 24D6 (6D6 * 4).
All of this before dealing with the Rangers own attacks .Ouch...
Ranger companions never qualify for Greater Vital Strike since it requires a BAB of 16. The best they can do is 12d6 which is not available until level 18 since rangers are -3 for the purpose of animal companions. At level 18 that is not impressive. They are also not likely to trip or overrun any monster at that level either.
The ranger is charging so he only gets one attack, not multiple attacks.
Your tactic also assumes your mount gets to attack and continue after a charge. Just because you have ride-by attack that does not confer it to your companion. I would have to check the rules for his attack.A. At no point did I ever declare a charge, just a move for the Spring Attack (50' of it for the wolf) so the Ranger does get his full attacks.
B. As a Huge sized creature they do have an acceptable chance to trip/overrun anything that's not flying.
C. You are correct, no greater so it would be 18D6 instead. My Bad, still most respectable. (and Boon companion makes it equal to ranger level).
D. A move + attack (V. Strike) is a standard use and as mounted combat works the rider CAN make a full attack as long as the mount doesn't charge. t's in the errata/faq.@Kirth, the challenge was to show how letting it stack with Cleave, Spring Attack, etc would make for an unbalanced PC, that's what was done. If you want to completely re-write the feat that's a completely different topic.
I have to go after this response for a few hours:
1.You used ride by attack which requires a charge in the post I responded to.
2.Being huge does not equal acceptable chance. Size modifiers are not the only ones that matter.
3.18d6 is not overpowered. It is about 63 points of damage assuming the attack hits, and if you are burning feats, and several spells to make it work then you are paying for it with resources that are appropriate in this case. If I spend 3 feat and 2 spells just for one tactic I don't think 60+ points of damage is to much to ask for.
4.Refer to 1.
I'll leave this here for you if you return.
1. Ride-by attack should have been spring attack, my bad.2. No but it makes it a possibility and in most cases it'll be 50% or better chance and it's free so why not admit it.
3. 18D6 +15(minimum from str) for 70+ damage a round plus a trip + whatever the ranger does is not what I'd call nothing.
Is it overpowered, debatable but would you as a PC want to be on the receiving end of it or not is really the big question.
So, as stated, could I use Vital Strike with the level 19 Fighter ability Unstoppable Strike?
"At 19th level, a weapon master can take a standard action to make one attack with his chosen weapon as a touch attack that ignores damage reduction (or hardness, if attacking an object)."
Is there a feat that adds more damage to a standard action attack at level 6 than Vital Strike? Exclude Power Attack since a damage character would take that at an earlier level. (that's an honest question)
It's a very good question, which I'd answer as follows: Specifically barring giant monsters and long chains of spells, Vital Strike is a pretty lousy feat, damage-wise. Let's look at a more "normal" PC, with a longsword and shield. Vital Strike at level 6 gives him +1d8 damage, not multiplied on a crit. Weapon Specialization gives him +2 damage for each of his 2 attacks, which is multiplied in the case of a crit. Same max, higher minimum -- and Weapon Specialization is a REALLY lackluster feat.
Another example? The savings in attack bonus from Furious Focus more than pays you back, if you convert the hit bonus into additional average damage -- compared to Vital Strike, it's a must-have. Overhand Chop is in the running, too, if your Strength is high enough.
The Vital Strike feat, as written and errata'd, essentially works only for dinosaurs, not people. That runs directly counter to the stated design goal for the feat, which was to give martial characters a reasonable boost when making a standard attack rather than a full attack.
The way to salvage it is to rewrite the feat so that it works the way it was supposedly intended to -- not to re-interpret it (as Paizo did) so as to directly exacerbate the problems it already has.
Because is situational and does not scale with level.
weapon specialization does not work with standard actions only. Works with full attacks, works with AOOs too. Is multiplied by crits.
Vital strike is a specific standard actions and bars you to do some other stuff. Moreover, to adjust the damage with level, you must buy it 2-3 times depending from your BAB. This is terribad.
This is a major bummer. Any light on their rationale for this?I assume their rationale is that they didn't change anything, it was just interpreted incorrectly.
I'm not really a paizo fan or anything, but I think they've been going at it more intelligently than that.
The problem was that if vital strike was to be allowed in conjunction with other feats, then it wouldn't have been used on its own - making it essentially a feat tax, and paizo designers don't like that. So they chose to make this errata.Personally I would have gone the other way completely. Feat taxes are bad, so I'd give combat feats that are not overly complicated (vital strike, power attack, lunge...) automatically to characters that meet the prerequisites.
Actually I think that this houserule (at least concerning vital strike, the others are just there for it not to be an exception) is necessary for any DM that allows vital strike to be used with spring attack.
|
Grick, Thanks for responding to my post and doing a nice break down as an example for us to look at.
I think some of the Devs have a bias againist movement type fighters.
If you are spend at least 4 feats to use spring attack combined with
vital strike they should work together in no way is it unbalancing
to let these feat chains work together.
I'm sorry James Jacobs was right and the other Devs were wrong and James should have prevailed in the Errata.
On of the posters above could not find Boon Companion and said it was not a Pazio feat he is in correct it is in Seeker of Secrects. I will paraphrase the body of the Feat your boon companion use your Hit dice not your hit dice-3 as per regular animal companion. Great feat for a ranger or druid. Does not work for Elidons.
|
|
Grick, Thanks for responding to my post and doing a nice break down as an example for us to look at.
I think some of the Devs have a bias againist movement type fighters.
If you are spend at least 4 feats to use spring attack combined with
vital strike they should work together in no way is it unbalancing
to let these feat chains work together.I'm sorry James Jacobs was right and the other Devs were wrong and James should have prevailed in the Errata.
On of the posters above could not find Boon Companion and said it was not a Pazio feat he is in correct it is in Seeker of Secrects. I will paraphrase the body of the Feat your boon companion use your Hit dice not your hit dice-3 as per regular animal companion. Great feat for a ranger or druid. Does not work for Elidons.
Seekers of Secrets is an Official Paizo supplement and Boon companion is valid in any legal build.
Also, that is an incorrect explanation. Boon companion treats your animal companion as if it where 4 levels higher with a maximum of your Character Level.
As for Vital Strike it's a feat that is bad for fighters and great for Animal Companions and characters with Natural Attacks.
This is perfectly fine, not every feat in the game should be great for every character.
As for Vital Strike it's a feat that is bad for fighters and great for Animal Companions and characters with Natural Attacks.
This is perfectly fine, not every feat in the game should be great for every character.
I have been kinda watching but not saying anything but the issue is, The Vital Strike feat chain was made for fighters. As such it should not be a bad choice for the fighter.
While I like the idea behind the feat chain, at the very lest it should have been one feat that scaled like Power attack, but that is a bit off topic.
I'll leave this here for you if you return.
1. Ride-by attack should have been spring attack, my bad.
2. No but it makes it a possibility and in most cases it'll be 50% or better chance and it's free so why not admit it.
3. 18D6 +15(minimum from str) for 70+ damage a round plus a trip + whatever the ranger does is not what I'd call nothing.Is it overpowered, debatable but would you as a PC want to be on the receiving end of it or not is really the big question.
1.Darn it now I have to go back and read stuff. :). So the high level ranger has to cast all these spells. They only last one minute per level which means they are mostly cast in combat so you have to waste 2 rounds for the set up. That is a lot of potential damage that could have already had been done. Now you can try the blitz attack*
This is when you cast a spell that is minutes per level and try to clear the dungeon as fast as possible before the spell wears off. I don't consider that a good idea, and it may get you killed since you are most likely not being as tactical with movement or just using tactics in general.
2.Huge does not equal 50% which is why I won't admit it. At the level you trying to pull this off at many monsters are large or bigger, unless the GM is running a strictly humanoid game. The monsters are just as strong if not stronger and more dexterous than the oversized wolf, they have better BAB, and have good size on them. Thinking you can throw the word huge out there is not how it works.
Since I am bored though I will do the math so we can both quit assuming we are correct. IIRC the the ranger has boon companion and is level 18 for the purpose of this experiment.
Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 50 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6 plus trip); Ability Scores Str 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities scent.
7th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8 plus trip); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4.
BAB +11
STR 13+8(level 7)+5(for being an animal companion per the chart), +3(4th level ability score, I am assuming you would have gone with strength)=29 I am surprised, not bad at allAnimal Growth=+8 strength so now we are up to 37(+13 modifier)
Attack bonus is +24-2(size modifier for being huge)=22, The trip modifier is 26 because you get a +2 size modifer for being bigger.
That means a monster needs a 36 CMD to make your trip attack not work.
Remember you have to hit the target AC before you even get the trip.
CR 15(3 level below APL)
Ancient White Dragon, unbuffed CR 15; AC 37, CMD 44 (48 vs. trip)
You now need a 13 to even hit the dragon, and a nat 20 to trip it, if it is to stupid to not be caught off-guard and/or buff.
Your ranger buddy also needs a high acrobatic check if he plans to do anything other than archery to get close enough to fight it in melee.
Neothelid CR 15; AC 30, CMD 37 (can't be tripped)
So you can hit this guy, but you can't trip him. You have just made him angry though. The wolf has a base will save of +5. Lets say you give him a cloak of resistance +5, and iron will. He now has a +12
Psychic Crush (Su) As a standard action up to three times a day, a neothelid can attempt to crush the mind of a single creature within 60 feet. The target must make a DC 25 Will save or collapse, becoming unconscious and dying at –1 hit points. If the target succeeds on the save, it takes 6d6 points of damage and is sickened for 1 round. This is a mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.
I think this round goes to the CR 15 monsters.
I think I will just stop here. If you this tactic is struggling to beat up CR 15 monsters then it really is not an issue.
Yeah I know you have a party behind you, but this vital strike feat chain is falling hard considering all the investments put into it. Note that I did not even open bestiary 2 or any of the AP monsters this might have to work against. The AP monsters don't normally stay within the CR guidelines nearly as much as the bestiary does.
As for Vital Strike it's a feat that is bad for fighters and great for Animal Companions and characters with Natural Attacks.
This is perfectly fine, not every feat in the game should be great for every character.
I have been kinda watching but not saying anything but the issue is, The Vital Strike feat chain was made for fighters. As such it should not be a bad choice for the fighter.
While I like the idea behind the feat chain, at the very lest it should have been one feat that scaled like Power attack, but that is a bit off topic.
I agree that it should have scaled or been a two feat chain that does more than what it does now.
The current version could have been a monster feat.
I agree that it should have scaled or been a two feat chain that does more than what it does now.
The current version could have been a monster feat.
Yeah I always made it a single feat myself. But kirth might be right and having it do a set about of d6 might be the better way to go really, It would cut down on some of the abuse and make it once more a fighter feat not a monster feat.
|
|
I'll leave this here for you if you return.
1. Ride-by attack should have been spring attack, my bad.
2. No but it makes it a possibility and in most cases it'll be 50% or better chance and it's free so why not admit it.
3. 18D6 +15(minimum from str) for 70+ damage a round plus a trip + whatever the ranger does is not what I'd call nothing.Is it overpowered, debatable but would you as a PC want to be on the receiving end of it or not is really the big question.
1.Darn it now I have to go back and read stuff. :). So the high level ranger has to cast all these spells. They only last one minute per level which means they are mostly cast in combat so you have to waste 2 rounds for the set up. That is a lot of potential damage that could have already had been done. Now you can try the blitz attack*
This is when you cast a spell that is minutes per level and try to clear the dungeon as fast as possible before the spell wears off. I don't consider that a good idea, and it may get you killed since you are most likely not being as tactical with movement or just using tactics in general.
2.Huge does not equal 50% which is why I won't admit it. At the level you trying to pull this off at many monsters are large or bigger, unless the GM is running a strictly humanoid game. The monsters are just as strong if not stronger and more dexterous than the oversized wolf, they have better BAB, and have good size on them. Thinking you can throw the word huge out there is not how it works.
Since I am bored though I will do the math so we can both quit assuming we are correct. IIRC the the ranger has boon companion and is level 18 for the purpose of this experiment.
...Starting Statistics: Size Medium; Speed 50 ft.; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d6 plus trip); Ability Scores Str 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities scent.
7th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8 plus trip); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2,
Nice but you forgot the +8 Hit and Damage for Favored enemy on top of that.
So it hits the dragon on a 6and the Neolithid on a 2 or better and it's CMB goes up to 34. A 40% chance on the dragon and a 85% on tripping the Neothelid is pretty good. This is before adding in any magical items or party buffs on the wolf.Is it a fight ender, of course not. It's not even really that big a deal just an exercise but it's fun to play with.
Nice but you forgot the +8 Hit and Damage for Favored enemy on top of that.
No I didn't. You must have missed it due to the length of the post.
Animal Growth=+8 strength so now we are up to 37(+13 modifier)
Nice but you forgot the +8 Hit and Damage for Favored enemy on top of that.
No I didn't. You must have missed it due to the length of the post.
Animal Growth=+8 strength so now we are up to 37(+13 modifier)
He said favored enemy not animal growth, remember the ranger's animal companion shares the ranger's favored enemy bonuses, and there is the very nice spell instant enemy.
and if the player doesn't manage his judgements/bane/spells well, his character will not be at his best during mulitple encounters within the same day. (we found this out the hard way when the PCs were doing dungeon crawl, with no place to rest)
He should be managing his resources better, but yes i can unedrstand what you saying. I wish some people could understand that the classes from the APG aren't for anyone.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
making it essentially a feat tax, and paizo designers don't like that.
I'm not sure I follow, so you believe they originally designed it to be used with Spring Attack and had a change of heart?
boon companion use your Hit dice not your hit dice-3 as per regular animal companion. Great feat for a ranger or druid. Does not work for Elidons.
That was how the author wrote it, but it was changed from how he wrote it for the book and the official stance now is that it doesn't help a single classed druid or ranger. Only a multi-classed character. For example, a 10th Ranger has a 7th level A.C., with Boon Companion he is limited to his HD (10) so he gets +0 levels from the Boon Companion feat. If you are a 6th Ranger 4th Fighter, boon companion would improve your A.C. beyond 3rd level it is because you have 4 additional Fighter HD to be used by Boon to pretend like Ranger HD.
I just recently heard another interpretation of how this feat works (from a player at PaizoCon) and I think maybe it is what some are using to believe the single classed Ranger gains a benefit? That the feet improves the A.C.'s HD directly and limits it's HD to your HD. That isn't how it is intended to work, according to Paizo staff (from forum posts in the past.)
I wish some people could understand that the classes from the APG aren't for anyone.
Ahem. Perhaps you meant "aren't for everyone"?
I wish some people could understand that the classes from the APG aren't for anyone.Ahem. Perhaps you meant "aren't for everyone"?
Yes that's what i meant.
I am sorry but enlgish isn't my first language.
boon companion use your Hit dice not your hit dice-3 as per regular animal companion. Great feat for a ranger or druid. Does not work for Elidons.That was how the author wrote it, but it was changed from how he wrote it for the book and the official stance now is that it doesn't help a single classed druid or ranger. Only a multi-classed character. For example, a 10th Ranger has a 7th level A.C., with Boon Companion he is limited to his HD (10) so he gets +0 levels from the Boon Companion feat. If you are a 6th Ranger 4th Fighter, boon companion would improve your A.C. beyond 3rd level it is because you have 4 additional Fighter HD to be used by Boon to pretend like Ranger HD.
I just recently heard another interpretation of how this feat works (from a player at PaizoCon) and I think maybe it is what some are using to believe the single classed Ranger gains a benefit? That the feet improves the A.C.'s HD directly and limits it's HD to your HD. That isn't how it is intended to work, according to Paizo staff (from forum posts in the past.)
Do you have a link to such a forum post?
I really hadn't thought or read that much into the feat, but yes with a very strick reading you are correct. I also don't think that it can help single class druids but it can help a single class ranger, because the way i read it ups your effective druid levels and not your effective ranger levels.
making it essentially a feat tax, and paizo designers don't like that.I'm not sure I follow, so you believe they originally designed it to be used with Spring Attack and had a change of heart?
I don't think they thought about spring attack at the time. Faced with the question they took the decision they took.
He said favored enemy not animal growth, remember the ranger's animal companion shares the ranger's favored enemy bonuses, and there is the very nice spell instant enemy.
Nice but you forgot the +8 Hit and Damage for Favored enemy on top of that.
No I didn't. You must have missed it due to the length of the post.
Animal Growth=+8 strength so now we are up to 37(+13 modifier)
Favored enemy is not guaranteed to be applicable. He won't have it for every enemy.
If he wants to cast the spell he is now up to 3 spells, which is not actually helping him out, and it is still a CR 15 monster.I am pretty much convinced the idea is reaching the point of diminishing returns.
Thanks for the catch though. I have not idea how I read that like I did.
That was how the author wrote it, but it was changed from how he wrote it for the book and the official stance now is that it doesn't help a single classed druid or ranger. Only a multi-classed character. For example, a 10th Ranger has a 7th level A.C., with Boon Companion he is limited to his HD (10) so he gets +0 levels from the Boon Companion feat. If you are a 6th Ranger 4th Fighter, boon companion would improve your A.C. beyond 3rd level it is because you have 4 additional Fighter HD to be used by Boon to pretend like Ranger HD.
You have a quote for that? It certainly does not read that way, and I could not find a supporting post for this interpretation.
He said favored enemy not animal growth, remember the ranger's animal companion shares the ranger's favored enemy bonuses, and there is the very nice spell instant enemy.
Nice but you forgot the +8 Hit and Damage for Favored enemy on top of that.
No I didn't. You must have missed it due to the length of the post.
Animal Growth=+8 strength so now we are up to 37(+13 modifier)Favored enemy is not guaranteed to be applicable. He won't have it for every enemy.
If he wants to cast the spell he is now up to 3 spells, which is not actually helping him out, and it is still a CR 15 monster.
I am pretty much convinced the idea is reaching the point of diminishing returns.
Thanks for the catch though. I have not idea how I read that like I did.
I agree with you but keep in mind that instant enemy is a swift action spell but has a close range.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Do you have a link to such a forum post?
yes with a very strick reading you are correct.
ups your effective druid levels and not your effective ranger levels.
There is another thread that comments on the author (Russ) view and has a dev saying it doesn't help single classed rangers. I couldn't find it, but I did find this one where James Jacobs recommends against allowing it to work with single classed rangers.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/campaignSet ting/products/seekersOfSecretsFeats&page=1#22
It certainly does not read that way, and I could not find a supporting post for this interpretation.
I see three valid interpretations for the feat (your interpretation is one of them.)
Boon Companion: "as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level"
To demonstrate my interpretation, here is a sample 5th level Ranger:
Class has 5 levels of Ranger
Character level is 5
"as though your class (ranger 5) were four levels higher (ranger 9), to a maximum bonus equal to your character level (5)"
So in excel:
min(5;5+9) = 5
Since your character level is 5, your class (ranger) can not gain any effective levels over a ranger without the feat.
Do you have a link to such a forum post?
yes with a very strick reading you are correct.
ups your effective druid levels and not your effective ranger levels.There is another thread that comments on the author (Russ) view and has a dev saying it doesn't help single classed rangers. I couldn't find it, but I did find this one where James Jacobs recommends against allowing it to work with single classed rangers.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/campaignSet ting/products/seekersOfSecretsFeats&page=1#22
It certainly does not read that way, and I could not find a supporting post for this interpretation.I see three valid interpretations for the feat (your interpretation is one of them.)
Boon Companion: "as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level"
To demonstrate my interpretation, here is a sample 5th level Ranger:
Class has 5 levels of Ranger
Character level is 5"as though your class (ranger 5) were four levels higher (ranger 9), to a maximum bonus equal to your character level (5)"
So in excel:
min(5;5+9) = 5Since your character level is 5, your class (ranger) can not gain any effective levels over a ranger without the feat.
The thing is that animal companions go off of druid levels, which I thought boon companion affected, but the word "druid" is never mentioned. I now see the other interpretation. I guess if you are a druid it raised your druid levels for the purpose of an animal companion, and if you are a ranger then it raises your ranger levels. I think it needs to be written more clearly.
A 12th level Beastmaster (APG Ranger Archetype) gains "Strong Bond", which treats him as full levels for Animal Companion purposes (giving up Camouflage).
Whether or not Boon Companion works, a Ranger (or even a druid if you want to get down to it) can pull off the Improved Vital Strike situation.
Greater Vital Strike will always be out of reach though.
iirc, there are a number of situations in the APs and paizo blogs that this combination is used. Especially in a charge attack. (Ferinstance, the Valeros "meettheiconics" writeup, or the instance in CoT that's been linked already.
I say allow it, at least on a charge. The dev response is shaky at best and it's clearly designed to allow for more combat options (a good thing!), so try not to make it a non-option (a not-so-good thing!).
Just my two cents, guys.
I think this is the best answer - Jason (or other devs) wrote the errata, but folks like James agree that it should work, so House Rule is the way to go for home games. Won't work for PFS games, but at home we can let SA and VS work together as always, no matter what the errata says (YMMV based on your GM).