been many a post on does vital + XXX work etc etc and the FAQ's for the most part are no no no and umm no.
So silly question but is there anything Vital Strike does work with ? or is this truly a stand alone set of feats that don't combine with anything else in the game ?
been many a post on does vital + XXX work etc etc and the FAQ's for the most part are no no no and umm no.
So silly question but is there anything Vital Strike does work with ? or is this truly a stand alone set of feats that don't combine with anything else in the game ?
It works with Power Attack and anything else that modifies attacks that doesn't require a standard or full round action.
That actually leaves in quite a lot if you look for them, just not the obvious things people WANT it to work with (like mobility spring attack builds).
Paizo absolutely hates mobility builds, monks, multi-classing, and prestige-classing.
Paizo absolutely hates mobility builds, monks, multi-classing, and prestige-classing.Not true.
Because I'm part of Paizo, and I quite like mobility builds, monks, multiclassing and prestige classing.
In that case, will we be seeing more support for each of these in Ultimate Combat and future books?
If not, than it's just meaningless words on the internet. Game designer or not, Paizo's practices evidence an observable trend that shows my statement to be true (though it is somewhat facetious I admit). That means a lot more to people than words.
In other words, back it up or no one will believe you anyways.
|
Paizo absolutely hates mobility builds, monks, multi-classing, and prestige-classing.Not true.
Because I'm part of Paizo, and I quite like mobility builds, monks, multiclassing and prestige classing.
Paizo hates any (choose one or more) class, trait, ability, feat, spell, item, etc. that is much better than others (in terms of raw power), forcing powergamers down one path.
Seriously, I'm a powergamer, though I try not to be, and I love the fact that Pathfinder makes it so I don't have bad choices, just difficult choices. The number of times I have struggled with "ooh, that class would dovetail nicely with my existing class! But then I'd be giving up ability X... hmmm." I'm constantly amazed by how layered Pathfinder is for those who like to explore myriad possibilities while keeping casual "I'm a healer" players close enough not to feel overpowered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pouncing Barbarians, Mobility Fighters, a host of Monk archetypes, no xp-penalties for multiclassing, and Prestige Classes built to match setting concepts, rather than to 'beat' base classes, would all seem to indicate Paizo's support of all those things, off the top of my head... YMMV I guess...
Pouncing barbarians was a fix, not support. Mobility Fighters are a step in the right direction, but are somewhat underwhelming without Spring Attack/Vital Strike combo to pull it off. Prestige classes seem to have died off with the APG. Paizo seems to want to focus on Archetypes now (which is fine with me, but not with many others).
Staying single classed is better than multiclassing 75% of the time. Shouldn't it be roughly 50% of the time?
I guess, you're right. My mileage does vary, though I find it funny how a vast number of people seem to agree with me.
I didn't invent this idea. It's a trend that a LOT of people have observed.
In 3.5, prestige-classing was almost a no-brainer for most characters, and in my group noone ever stuck to a single class for more than 5-7 levels. In PF, there are good reasons to stick to a single class for your character's entire lifetime.
Instead of a near-100% reason to multiclass, you now might rather want to stay in a single class most of the time but not always. It's a nice pendulum-swing, in my opinion.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that case, will we be seeing more support for each of these in Ultimate Combat and future books?
If not, than it's just meaningless words on the internet. Game designer or not, Paizo's practices evidence an observable trend that shows my statement to be true (though it is somewhat facetious I admit). That means a lot more to people than words.
In other words, back it up or no one will believe you anyways.
I'd hope so... I've been asking for more swashbuckler options for over a year now, though, for what that's worth...
And don't forget that we do more than those three hardcover rulebooks!
And on top of that... you CAN do mobility builds using Pathfinder. I know, because I've got characters that do just that.
In Rob McCreary's Kingmaker in Iobaria game, I'm playing a cleric of Desna who's a dual-starknife wielding melee type who is VERY good at being mobile. The Travel domain is just the start for her (not only does it grant a speed increase, but it also helps her ignore difficult terrain)—taking ranks in Acrobatics helps to avoid Attacks of Opportunity, and I'll eventually be delving into feats that help further with that type of build, like Fleet or a few others. And all that's JUST from the Core.
In Erik Mona's just-started Kings of Absalom game, I'm playing a bard that's all about being a melee swashbuckler type fighter... with a Strength of 9. Despite that, she's doing 1d6+4 points of damage on a hit and has a +4 attack with her scimitar... at 1st level. That goes up to 1d6+6 and +6 to hit when she's using her bardic performance ability. All of this via a new archetype (the Dawnflower Dervish) from the upcoming "Inner Sea Magic"—a bard that's more focused not on spreading out the bonuses to allies but focusing them very strongly on herself. Feather step, a spell from the APG, helps her stay mobile in difficult terrain as well.
Another great idea for a mobility build would be to build a rogue who's all about running around foes, getting into flank, and then hitting with a single sneak attack each round. Spring attack works GREAT here, since you can zip in, stab, and zip out. Combined with the Fleet feat and some other movement enhancement (using rogue tricks to get expeditious retreat, perhaps?), running in and doing sneak attacks each round would be pretty cool. The loss of your iterative attacks is kinda fine, since you're not as likely to hit with those anyway, and if you're not there to take full-attack responses in melee, you'll be around for a lot longer anyway. Being too obsessed with those iterative attacks is part of the problem; let them go and the rules will treat you well.
So yeah. There's plenty of mobility-based options out there. Got a meeting now, so I can't really go into some cool prestige class and multiclass stuff, but I could if I wanted to.
Whether or not those options satisfy you? Only you can say. They certainly satisfy my need and urge to play a mobile character.
I'm favouriting your last post RD.
The idea that Barbarians need pounce to be viable... :D. Best laugh i've had all day. Thanks :).
I was only being half way serious with that comment anyways. It would be more accurate to say the APG's release fixed barbarians, rather than pounce specifically.
Can't wait to see what Ultimate Combat has in store.
I'd hope so... I've been asking for more swashbuckler options for over a year now, though, for what that's worth...
And don't forget that we do more than those three hardcover rulebooks!
And on top of that... you CAN do mobility builds using Pathfinder. I know, because I've got characters that do just that.
In Rob McCreary's Kingmaker in Iobaria game, I'm playing a cleric of Desna who's a dual-starknife wielding melee type who is VERY good at being mobile. The Travel domain is just the start for her (not only does it grant a speed increase, but it also helps her ignore difficult terrain)—taking ranks in Acrobatics helps to avoid Attacks of Opportunity, and I'll eventually be delving into feats that help further with that type of build, like Fleet or a few others. And all that's JUST from the Core.
In Erik Mona's just-started Kings of Absalom game, I'm playing a bard that's all about being a melee swashbuckler type fighter... with a Strength of 9. Despite that, she's doing 1d6+4 points of damage on a hit and has a +4 attack with her scimitar... at 1st level. That goes up to 1d6+6 and +6 to hit when she's using her bardic performance ability. All of this via a new archetype (the Dawnflower Dervish) from the upcoming "Inner Sea Magic"—a bard that's more focused not on spreading out the bonuses to allies but focusing them very strongly on herself. Feather step, a spell from the APG, helps her stay mobile in difficult terrain as well.
Another great idea for a mobility build would be to build a rogue who's all about running around foes, getting into flank, and then hitting with a single sneak attack each round. Spring attack works GREAT here, since you can zip in, stab, and zip out. Combined with the Fleet feat and some other movement enhancement (using rogue tricks to get expeditious retreat, perhaps?), running in and doing sneak attacks each round would be pretty cool. The loss of your iterative attacks is kinda fine, since you're not as likely to hit with those anyway, and if you're not there to take full-attack responses in melee, you'll be around for a lot longer anyway. Being too obsessed with those iterative attacks is part of the problem; let them go and the rules will treat you well.
So yeah. There's plenty of mobility-based options out there. Got a meeting now, so I can't really go into some cool prestige class and multiclass stuff, but I could if I wanted to.
Whether or not those options satisfy you? Only you can say. They certainly satisfy my need and urge to play a mobile character.
Why was it decided that vital strike would not stack with Spring Attack, and why was it decided that Spring Attack was a full round action? Both these decisions ruined existing mobility builds everywhere.
They weren't even all that powerful before the official nerf bat came along!
Why the push for duel-wielders, two-handers, and sword and board to be on top? Why is mobility the red-headed step child?
Your characters sound like fun, but mobility builds they are not (or at least not competitive ones). They are strictly inferior to other non-mobility builds.
That might be fun for roleplay, but not if it leads to a TPK.
Isn't it a design goal to make all options fun and at least roughly on par with one another power wise?
Cause' mobility is not on par with anything after THOSE nerfs.
|
I'm favouriting your last post RD.
The idea that Barbarians need pounce to be viable... :D. Best laugh i've had all day. Thanks :).
I was only being half way serious with that comment anyways. It would be more accurate to say the APG's release fixed barbarians, rather than pounce specifically.
Aye, I agree wholeheartedly there.
Isn't being mobile another kind of advantage in itself ?
No more than running away is an advantage.
It used to be a Spring Attack/Vital Strike build didn't lag TOO far behind other combat builds in terms of damage, but since those errata, FAQ, and other nerfs came out...
...it's just no longer viable, not even against on par CR creatures. They just do way too much damage compared to what you can do to them while moving. In the end, you will be wasting everyone's time with such a build.
You spring attack in, the monster's readied action goes off and he uses greater vital strike. How long do you think it will be before you're dead? Worse, he might jsut ignore you and your pidly 1dx+x damage and full attack the real fighters who are doing 100+ damage per round.
The rules just don't support good mobility builds.
|
James, could you get the Rules developer to make a post on why he thinks Vital strike should not work with Spring attack and Shoot on the Run. It seems to me that for at least a 3 feat chanin more if shoot on the run that the Vital strike chain should work with them.
Could he explain why he thinks it is unbalancing because I can't see why it is.
Melee characters cannot give up their iteratives, either. THe reason they have a high BAB is to GET those iteratives, and the reason they have more bonuses to hit is so the iterative hits.
A Fighter/20's 3rd iterative is likely going off at the same bonus at the Rogue's FIRST. Iteratives are VERY important for melees, and that means full attacks are important.
==
To the OP: Vital Strike works best with builds using very large weapons or Monk UA damage, in which case the damage scales very quickly. However, you need base damage of 4-24 and higher to really pull this off equitably.
Which reminds me, Mr. Jacobs...I've had a one strike fighter archetype I wanted to submit for inclusion in your Oriental Stuff. Is there a place to send submissions now? I couldn't find any on the site.
==Aelryinth
@James Jacobs: in this case the viability RavingDork is referring to is having a spring-attacker at level 16 with one attack deal on-par damage compared to a two-hander specialist fighter that performs a full-round attack.
Personally I think mobility works pretty well in combat; if it is purely about survival and helping the rest of the party - and the rest of the party can do the effective damage needed to take the beast(s) down.
There are many things at play here: for the sake of expedience (say in Pathfinder Society scenarios) an encounter should resolve in fewer rather than more rounds. Where a mobility concept relies on more rounds to do its thing.
In a way, I think, this is a symptom of historic power-gaming: a mobility based hero is sufficiently effective in a equal-CR encounter to be viable. But damage-orientated builds have shifted the "norm" encounter upwards; so now the party faces a challenge one or two CRs higher to even out the high damage builds. This in turn reduces the impact of a mobility warrior.
...
If I could ask for one thing: a follow-up feat after Spring Attack that allows non-magical standard-actions as part of the spring-attack. (In other words, any combat maneuver, Cleave, Vital Strike, etc.) This could allow for epic "drop-kick" style bullrushes, stealing-on-the-fly, a too-fast-for-the-eye-to-see-great-cleave, and so forth.
The Spring Attack/Vital Strike build lagged behind the "stand still and Full Attack" build so badly in the first place, that no amount of nerfs makes any difference.
Actually, the nerf discourages you from even considering such build, which is a Good Thing, because it doesn't compare.
They were bad, and are worthless now, but I still think you're exaggerating a fair bit.
As bad as they used to be, they WERE viable.
Now they are not.
And that's why I'm a sad panda.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I could ask for one thing: a follow-up feat after Spring Attack that allows non-magical standard-actions as part of the spring-attack. (In other words, any combat maneuver, Cleave, Vital Strike, etc.) This could allow for epic "drop-kick" style bullrushes, stealing-on-the-fly, a too-fast-for-the-eye-to-see-great-cleave, and so forth.
A new feat in the spring attack chain that allows such combos would be a great fix.
I really liked the Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz feats for the spring attack chain in WotC's PHB2, which allowed you to get additional attacks during a spring attack.
A revision to make Vital Strike a scaling feat that is based on BaB (see: Power Attack, Deadly Aim) would be nice.
If I could ask for one thing: a follow-up feat after Spring Attack that allows non-magical standard-actions as part of the spring-attack. (In other words, any combat maneuver, Cleave, Vital Strike, etc.) This could allow for epic "drop-kick" style bullrushes, stealing-on-the-fly, a too-fast-for-the-eye-to-see-great-cleave, and so forth.
This sounds like Ultimate Combat Material to me.
Actually, another way that mobility could be made more relevant is if there are more ways to disable an enemy. If Ultimate Combat has a "called shots" system, that could potentially work well with a mobility concept: any way to defeat an enemy that does not involve making his HP drop below 0 could work.
Actually, another way that mobility could be made more relevant is if there are more ways to disable an enemy. If Ultimate Combat has a "called shots" system, that could potentially work well with a mobility concept: any way to defeat an enemy that does not involve making his HP drop below 0 could work.
Would this be mechanically different than performing a Dirty Trick?
Would this be mechanically different than performing a Dirty Trick?Actually, another way that mobility could be made more relevant is if there are more ways to disable an enemy. If Ultimate Combat has a "called shots" system, that could potentially work well with a mobility concept: any way to defeat an enemy that does not involve making his HP drop below 0 could work.
Possibly, I don't know if/what the system would be in Ultimate Combat. What could work is a form of stacking incapacity system that could (if successful each round) defeat certain types of enemies that are vulnerable to that form of disabling. Kinda like the Scorpion, Gorgon, Medusa, Cockatrice chain - just not as crippled.
As a side-note, I just realized that the text for Spring Attack and Medusa's Wrath almost allows them to work together. That would be pretty cool.
Although its getting into future rules or even House rule territory a bunch of feats would solve the issue.
Vital Cleave, lets you vital and cleave
Vital Whirlwind, vital with whirlwind
the more powerful the combo the heavier the prereqs to compensate
and then everyone can have their pie
|
Creative Director
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why was it decided that vital strike would not stack with Spring Attack, and why was it decided that Spring Attack was a full round action? Both these decisions ruined existing mobility builds everywhere.
That's a question you need to ask Jason. In my home games, I let Vital Strike work with things like charge or Spring Attack.
Your characters sound like fun, but mobility builds they are not (or at least not competitive ones). They are strictly inferior to other non-mobility builds.
That might be fun for roleplay, but not if it leads to a TPK.
That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. I've been playing my cleric in Rob's game for several months now and no TPK. I've only played my other character in Erik's game 1 session so far, but we had NO deaths in that one—and that was with everyone in the group starting with no equipment at all.
My experience says that those characters do not lead to TPKs at all.
In any case, you obviously are more interested in arguing rules and not in what I find to be the more interesting part of the game (and apparently play a different kind of Pathfinder than I enjoy writing and designing and playing), so I'll bow out of the thread and recommend you contact Jason for answers.
And thanks for helping me come to the realization that I should just avoid all the threads in the Rules part of the messageboards—it's something that's slowly but surely been dawning on me over the past few months. My play style and game design philosophy just aren't appropriate for this part of our boards.
I'm part of Paizo, and I quite like mobility builds, monks, multiclassing and prestige classing.
The game so far seems to encourage single classes a lot. One could argue it does so to the point of dissuading multiclassing.
Why was it decided that vital strike would not stack with Spring Attack, and why was it decided that Spring Attack was a full round action? Both these decisions ruined existing mobility builds everywhere.That's a question you need to ask Jason. In my home games, I let Vital Strike work with things like charge or Spring Attack.
Your characters sound like fun, but mobility builds they are not (or at least not competitive ones). They are strictly inferior to other non-mobility builds.
That might be fun for roleplay, but not if it leads to a TPK.
That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. I've been playing my cleric in Rob's game for several months now and no TPK. I've only played my other character in Erik's game 1 session so far, but we had NO deaths in that one—and that was with everyone in the group starting with no equipment at all.
My experience says that those characters do not lead to TPKs at all.
In any case, you obviously are more interested in arguing rules and not in what I find to be the more interesting part of the game (and apparently play a different kind of Pathfinder than I enjoy writing and designing and playing), so I'll bow out of the thread and recommend you contact Jason for answers.
And thanks for helping me come to the realization that I should just avoid all the threads in the Rules part of the messageboards—it's something that's slowly but surely been dawning on me over the past few months. My play style and game design philosophy just aren't appropriate for this part of our boards.
I'm not sure it is fair to assign to the entire rules board and the it's users the views of a single individual and as a result deny the those users, your point of view. I love the rules section and I feel i play the same game as you. it seems to me, the proper course would simply be to give your welcome advice and depart if the advice is not welcome, or give clarfication if a relevant point is asked.
For instance, you would be big help for something that came up in curse of crimson throne.
We have a ranger, and we were trying to figure out if lychanthorpes belong in the human subtype for favored enemies.
And thanks for helping me come to the realization that I should just avoid all the threads in the Rules part of the messageboards—it's something that's slowly but surely been dawning on me over the past few months. My play style and game design philosophy just aren't appropriate for this part of our boards.
James,
While there is a clamor for heavy rules consistency, I appreciate developers such as yourself and Sean who get involved in these discussions. You're showing your passion and deep love for the game (and world) you're creating.
I think that sometimes it is hard for people to differentiate between your posts as opinion or views on nebulous subjects vs posts as a god of the very Pathfinder system decreeing for all the law that we should abide by.
I hope you'll stop by from time to time and continue to chime in, though sometimes its probably best to give your view and be done with the thread as people will always want more from the known Paizo posters.
And thanks for helping me come to the realization that I should just avoid all the threads in the Rules part of the messageboards—it's something that's slowly but surely been dawning on me over the past few months. My play style and game design philosophy just aren't appropriate for this part of our boards.
At weddings I always ask the bride and groom, "What is the best piece of marriage advice you have heard so far?"
They answer and then ask me for my favorite marriage advice, which is always "When you need to pick between being loving and being right, be loving."
The Rules part of the messageboard flunks that advice. Folks here want to know what is right, not what is harmonious, cooperative, or kind.
(If Ravingdork disappeared I would too. I only visit the Rules part for humorous nitpicks and oddball combinations.)
Why was it decided that vital strike would not stack with Spring Attack, and why was it decided that Spring Attack was a full round action? Both these decisions ruined existing mobility builds everywhere.That's a question you need to ask Jason. In my home games, I let Vital Strike work with things like charge or Spring Attack.
So if it is that is acknowledged by devs, then what is their reason for having vital strike not work with anything?
And thanks for helping me come to the realization that I should just avoid all the threads in the Rules part of the messageboards—it's something that's slowly but surely been dawning on me over the past few months. My play style and game design philosophy just aren't appropriate for this part of our boards.
*Adds another strike mark to the chalkboard next to two others*
Seriously though, don't blame me. I am one of many who looked at these nerfs and went "huh?"
It upset a lot of people and it continues to be an issue long after it became official and set in stone.
I'm sorry that these "heavy handed opinions" are enough to drive you away. That certainly wasn't my intent. I like having you throw in with your own opinions.
Now, if you could just get me Jason's contact information... :P
And thanks for helping me come to the realization that I should just avoid all the threads in the Rules part of the messageboards—it's something that's slowly but surely been dawning on me over the past few months. My play style and game design philosophy just aren't appropriate for this part of our boards.Now, if you could just get me Jason's contact information... :P
....and still expect them to have enough time to turn out products ;)
And thanks for helping me come to the realization that I should just avoid all the threads in the Rules part of the messageboards—it's something that's slowly but surely been dawning on me over the past few months. My play style and game design philosophy just aren't appropriate for this part of our boards.
Wait, where did this quote come from? I don't see it anywhere in James' posts. It started with a post ikarinokami made, and it simply looks like she screwed up the the BBCode tags, and this quotation should be ascribed to her.
That said, you can put me firmly in the "why does Vital Strike not work with anything (especially Spring Attack)?" camp. And to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen anyone speak against the combo- but I've seen countless people who wish it was legal. So what gives?
|
I feel pretty bad for James, I mean he's trying to answer your questions, and you are being rude. Don't drive him away, direct responses from the development teams a very good thing, and showing them disrespect is a quick way of losing that very good thing.
Mobile combat is viable, it doesn't lead to as many kills, but you are significantly more survivable against other melee classes, because so many of them are based around the iterative attacks.
Heck, one of the most lethal characters I've seen to date was a mounted fighter, he never used his iterative attacks, and hit for some 50 points on a bad roll, though I don't really recall how he did it, it's been awhile since I've seen that character. He was level 7, because he just got leadership for his mount, that's about all I remember.
The most lethal character I ever saw was only that lethal when using smite, otherwise was kind of lackluster, but heaven forbid you were an evil dragon, outsider, or undead. That character did use iterative attacks, but it was a paladin, that had literally done everything possible to get more +hit, making those iterative attacks viable. Keep in mind I (it was my character) still spent the first round of every combat getting off the ground, because I imagine flying spent more energy than walking, because it usually does.
I think the game rewards both single-classes and multiclassing. The difference is when you get those rewards, multiclassing rewards you now (which in many ways is more important than later) staying with a class rewards you later. Really it depends on how long you expect the game to last.
Heck, one of the most lethal characters I've seen to date was a mounted fighter, he never used his iterative attacks, and hit for some 50 points on a bad roll, though I don't really recall how he did it, it's been awhile since I've seen that character. He was level 7, because he just got leadership for his mount, that's about all I remember.
-Lance deals double damage on a charge
-Spirited charge deals double damage on a charge.
By D&D math, 2 doublings is a triple. So with a +5 from strength and a +2 weapon +2 specilization he would deal
1d8+9 or 3d8+27.
50 seems high for a bad roll, so i don't know if he was well geared, critted alot, pumped strength or someone didn't check the math on doubling. He could hold the lance in two hands for a bit more damage.
A mounted fighter needs leadership to get a survivable mount (yes. i have seen the apg's mounted fighter.) Charging is good but it exists entirely at the DM's discretion.
|
The loss of your iterative attacks is kinda fine, since you're not as likely to hit with those anyway, and if you're not there to take full-attack responses in melee, you'll be around for a lot longer anyway. Being too obsessed with those iterative attacks is part of the problem; let them go and the rules will treat you well.
I've been saying this for a while. Give up the full attack. Vital Strike is fine. Not every feat is going to be char op fodder.
The loss of your iterative attacks is kinda fine, since you're not as likely to hit with those anyway, and if you're not there to take full-attack responses in melee, you'll be around for a lot longer anyway. Being too obsessed with those iterative attacks is part of the problem; let them go and the rules will treat you well.I've been saying this for a while. Give up the full attack. Vital Strike is fine. Not every feat is going to be char op fodder.
Sure as long as 4-6PC agree to forgo their full attacks and the GM downscales the encounters to balance
I feel pretty bad for James, I mean he's trying to answer your questions, and you are being rude.
At what point was I being rude? He has his opinions and I have mine. At no point did I say his characters sucked or anything confrontational or negative like that.
I was speaking generally when I said that mobility builds, in a standard game (which his clearly aren't) are more likely to lead to TPKs than other builds (at least for everyone but the mobility guy who might actually escape).
If anything, I think that his builds doing well in a house ruled game is evidence that Spring Attack/Vital Strike/etc. work well together and should not have been nerfed.
Barring pouncing enemies and archers, if you're not full attacking the enemy isn't full attacking. Of course there is going to be situations where the full attack is the best answer.
More accurately, the enemy won't be full attacking YOU.
When you spring in, hit for piddly damage, and spring out, then your rogue friend in flanking position doing his fair share of damage gets torn apart by the monster's full attack, don't blame the monster.
Like it or not, Pathfinder's rules (as currently written) want you to play a two-handed tank that can dish out the damage and absorb the blows in place of that poor rogue.
Sure you could have a perfectly fine game with a mobility build, but I think it's obvious to everyone that it isn't as efficient or group friendly within the current system.
I feel pretty bad for James, I mean he's trying to answer your questions, and you are being rude.At what point was I being rude? He has his opinions and I have mine. At no point did I say his characters sucked or anything confrontational or negative like that.
I was speaking generally when I said that mobility builds, in a standard game (which his clearly aren't) are more likely to lead to TPKs than other builds (at least for everyone but the mobility guy who might actually escape).
If anything, I think that his builds doing well in a house ruled game is evidence that Spring Attack/Vital Strike/etc. work well together and should not have been nerfed.
the fun of text forums and the inability of two people to agree on the tone and inflection of various passages of text.
offhand jabs taken as serious affronts, jests taken as literal truth.
what appears perfectly reasonable to the writer is vile abhorent and FLAG worthy to another.
meh humans, ya fricken pack of insane flighty jittery creatures , I gave up trying to make sense of yall long time ago ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules do not want anything. They can't. Rules do not have a mind, desire, or will.
I think part of the reason this comes across as rude is that you're confusing result and intent. When you don't get the result you expect you assume that there is no intent to get it.
The folks at Paizo may WANT there to be a large variety of builds including mobility builds. What they think is that the builds work well enough to be played.
What you see is that these builds are not optimal enough to be viable at your tables. Paizo may plan for easy going monsters that attack attack attack and attack and may not be considering your games of precisely calibrated death traps, devious dm's and deadly encounters where its optimize or die. Paizo offers a smart car, but you drive on the autobahn.
|
|
Two nights ago in my game, I watched the party gunslinger single handedly take down a village of lizardfolk without taking a single full attack. It was all fire, move, fire, move. I calculated it as approximately a CR 10 encounter and he's a level 6 character. (5 CR 2 Lizardfolk Braves, 4 CR 1 Lizardfolk, 4 CR 2 reskinned crocodiles)
Meanwhile inside the main building the rest of the party was fighting a CR 9 Lizarfolk Tribal Leader and his advanced crocodile minions. While the War Oracle went toe to toe with him, the mobile rogue was ducking in and out to deal the most damage with her sneak attacks. It was a decisive victory for the PCs.
James' suggestion for a stick and move rogue build is also hella viable. While the heavily armored fighter goes mano-a-mano with the monster, the rogue who ducks in gets his sneak attack and ducks out is an excellent choice. That monster is going to focus on the fighter who isn't going to let him get away, while the rogue stays out of reach. Negating the weakness of his lower hit points.
Will the fighter do more damage? Yes. But he's taking more damage in return, thus using up resources from the cleric in the party. While the rogue is dealing a good but not stellar amount of damage.
I think house-ruling Vital Strike to work with Spring Attack is fine, but it's not strictly necessary.
I think if you run games with only CR equivalent monsters or monsters who are CRs higher than PCs then you are doing a disservice to your players and the game. If you think that mobile characters are not viable, you're playing a game that is nothing like the Pathfinder I play.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure it is fair to assign to the entire rules board and the it's users the views of a single individual and as a result deny the those users, your point of view.
James gives advice about how he personally runs the game. I think it's pretty cool of him to take the time to do that and really appreciate it.
Unfortunately way too often instead of just taking that advice for what it is people choose to dog him to turn his comments into some sort of official "Paizo Blessed" call on the rules or to go chase Jason or Sean down in the hallways to get some official blessing or explanation on every little issue. Other times they glomp on his answers and want to argue minutia about his replies or tell him his choices are sub-optimal at which point he winds up in a frustrating debate about rules or the nature of the game.
None of this is fun and none of it is part of James' job so he has no incentive to be here.
RavingDork isn't the only one who does this but he is one of the loudest voices in the choir.
I agree that having the Paizo folks jump in on the boards is of great value. And as in all things on the Internet just try and avoid getting into a pointless debate. Put your two bits out there and clarify if needed based upon follow up questions then move on.
Do not try and argue with the Internet. It has no soul and it tries to suck the common sense out of most folks who use it.
(I know this is tough as I find myself breaking that rule all too often. But the thoughts and comments of James and the other Paizo staff is appreciated even if you feel your soul getting sucked out every now and then when posting late at night when you should be off duty at work.)
Sure as long as 4-6PC agree to forgo their full attacks and the GM downscales the encounters to balanceThe loss of your iterative attacks is kinda fine, since you're not as likely to hit with those anyway, and if you're not there to take full-attack responses in melee, you'll be around for a lot longer anyway. Being too obsessed with those iterative attacks is part of the problem; let them go and the rules will treat you well.I've been saying this for a while. Give up the full attack. Vital Strike is fine. Not every feat is going to be char op fodder.
Who's to say he wouldn't? Not every game is a power gamer's paradise. Not every game must have the tank dealing out 100+ points of damage per round.
A fun game is simply that: a fun game. If it's a fun game played like that, why must some people want to ruin it?