Be interesting if Pathfinder 2.0 found a GOOD way of replacing iterative attacks. I say good because 4e was NOT a good way of removing iterative attacks , I think later books put them back in in some form...but mmmm ugly.
Personally, I don't think Vital Strike is a feat that was intended to be the centerpiece of a character. Rather, I saw Vital Strike as a way to A) do a good chunk of damage while still take a move action (say, drawing a weapon). and B) have a better shot at bypassing things like Damage Reduction. The way I see it, if all your attacks land, you're never going to do more damage with a vital strike than a full attack; for one, you miss out on all of the modifier bonuses for cumulative hits. Damage done by Vital Strike, however, is counted together when you're attempting to overcome damage reduction.
For example, let's say Bob the Barbarian uses a Greatsword (2d6) and with all of his modifiers together, it becomes 2d6+6. Now, we'll say that Bob has two attacks and Vital Strike, and he's going up against something with DR 5. Bob takes three swings and all three hit (which is generous, considering each attack has a smaller and small chance to land; especially on something armored). Bob's average damage per swing is 13 (3.5 + 3.5 + 6). Again, assuming all three hit the damage looks like this: 2 attacks x (13 dps - DR 5 = 8) = 16 damage.
Now, let's see what happens if Bob uses his Vital Strike. Assuming average damage again, Bob's attack round looks like this: (13 dps x 2 from vital strike = 26) + (+6 bonus - DR 5 = 1) = 27 damage.
Now granted, this is a perfect scenario where all three attacks hit in the full-attack perspecting. Bob only slightly comes out on top in this perfect world, but again, our friend iterative attack penalty makes it fairly certain that there's a sizable chance that Bob's attacks will miss. You need to get to a fairly high level with a fairly high chance to hit on at least four attacks before there's even a chance that a full attack can outshine Vital Strike; especially on an opponent with DR.
I believe that one of the Pathfinder system's principal ideals is that of choice; the Developers don't want ANYONE to feel like they're forced to take something or do something or build their character a certain way. Even if a choice isn't always the best one, its still a choice, and someone want to try it out because it makes for a fun roleplaying experience. One of the saddest things that can happen to any gamer is when their number-crunching blinds them to the fun factor. Being a "metagamer min-maxer" isn't a bad thing; neither is being aware of what an option can do. What IS a bad thing is letting your choices completely rule your character concepts.
Personally, I don't think Vital Strike is a feat that was intended to be the centerpiece of a character.
nothing against your theory but as a backup/supplemental damage option its pretty heavy requiring 3 feats.
seems it would be a more reasonable option if vital strike was instead 1 feat that improved at BAB 11 and BAB 16. Then it really would be thought of as a nice feat to have for the times you can only single attack
When my group's fighter staggered the Titan they were fighting I was happy the Titan had mega vital strike so he could smack the fighter back for 160 damage. It certainly has its uses.
Now, let's see what happens if Bob uses his Vital Strike. Assuming average damage again, Bob's attack round looks like this: (13 dps x 2 from vital strike = 26) + (+6 bonus - DR 5 = 1) = 27 damage.
Wouldn't that be 13(3,5+3,5+6 Base)+7(3,5+3,5 VS)-5(DR)=15? since you don't double the bonus damage with vital strike, just the weapon die/dice.
I think I might house-rule vital strike to work on any single attack action, if you only attack once during a round, and maybe also use the scaling used in Kirth's house-rules. I have never seen the feat in play to be honest.
heh now that would be nice if vital strike doubled not only your base dice damage but also doubled your base threat range
I'd like too note that RD was not being rude to James, James is just silly and forgets this is the rule forum sometimes and likes to throw his house rules in here. :P
General discussion, Advice, and homebrew are probably better places to spend your time James, responses will be less (sometimes slightly less) irritating. (If you ever even come back and read this.)
Here are my problems:
In Rob McCreary's Kingmaker in Iobaria game, I'm playing a cleric of Desna
In Erik Mona's just-started Kings of Absalom game, I'm playing a bard t
First off, your two main examples are casters.
Secondly;
Being too obsessed with those iterative attacks is part of the problem; let them go and the rules will treat you well.
Here is, I think the main problem: No, the rules will not treat you well. Let me use someone else here as an example:
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?
Namely, the advice honestly comes down to "have the DM not use the CR system."
That isn't to say I like iterative attacks. I don't. I abhor them. But right now, the system mandates them.
To put it another way, let's set up four levels of playing for a martial character, and we're going to assume things stay consistant from level 1 - 20.
At LEVEL 1, you are super uber captain optimize, your attacks are all incredible and fights last almost no time at all. At this level, the DM has to work overtime to challenge you. My 3e example: The Ubercharger.
At LEVEL 2, you are fairly optimized to be able to do your job as it fits within the CR system. You probably won't be one-shotting anything, but you can take them out before they take you out, and you contribute well to your group. The DM doesn't need to alter much if anything. My 3e example: Standard warblade.
At LEVEL 3, you aren't very optimized, but you aren't terrible. You likely struggle against same-CR fight, which are meant to use up a 4th of your resources. The DM has to lowball things a bit. My 3e example: somewhat unoptimized Barbarian
At LEVEL 4, you are very unoptimized and frequently have trouble with even lower-CR fights. The DM has to work overtime to not throw you into unwinnable situations. My 3e example: Standard core 3e Fighter.
At LEVEL CW SAMURAI, you lose.
A character that does not use iterative attacks is most likely at LEVEL 4, borderline LEVEL 3 at times. In your rogue example, who only attacks once with spring attack, he's barely scratching enemies of same-CR for a fourth of their life, while they're regularly destroying his HP by far more. That's easily LEVEL 4 type stuff. At this point, the DM would have to intentionally ignore the CR system or dramatically lower levels for the group.
At the end of the day, and I want to stress this, there isn't some elite group of mobility haters that think iterative attacks own and everything else is garbage. On the contrary, most of the people who clamer for this kind of thing are people who hate Iterative attacks and want way, way more options for mobility. Our problem is that the system doesn't really support it.
Oh yes, as for the claim that developers hate obvious decision:
People already are mandated down one line. It's called "full attack." You're worried that making Vital Strike "too good" would be too much of a no brainer, but heck, at least then people could choose between Vital Strike and full attack!
|
I'd like too note that RD was not being rude to James, James is just silly and forgets this is the rule forum sometimes and likes to throw his house rules in here. :P
Much of what James mentioned was reasonable under the rules as written but RD chose to criticize it for failing to meet his minimum standards for character power level.
For example:
...They are strictly inferior to other non-mobility builds.
That might be fun for roleplay, but not if it leads to a TPK.
The fact that James is being criticized for something that would be fun to roleplay is typical of where this board has gone lately.
Maybe they should rename this forum from "Rules Forum" to "Power Gamer and Rules Lawyers Only!".
To be honest I kind of preferred Wizard's original forum breakdown of "What's a GM to do", "What's a Player to Do", and "Character Optimization" which clearly spells out where folks should go for relevant questions and gives power gamers their own home where they can be judgmental of each other in private.
Shrug. A mobile character not dealing as much damage as other characters doesn't seem that bad to be, since it gains so much in defense. And if enemies begin Readying Vital Strikes against it, great -- move on to the next enemy instead of closing in. Or, if the only enemy is the one in the combat, sit back and grin knowing that you've neutralized his round while the rest of your party can act.
It's the difference between a fighter with a sword and shield versus a two-hander. More defense, less attack, just in other ways than numbers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Amateurs. Good powergamers can take bards and monks and make their GM cry like a little girl.
You can't? And you call yourself powergamer? Go home and train. :P
|
|
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.
Amateurs. Good powergamers can take bards and monks and make their GM cry like a little girl.
You can't? And you call yourself powergamer? Go home and train. :P
You forgot "Using the elite array".
The fact that James is being criticized for something that would be fun to roleplay is typical of where this board has gone lately.
Maybe they should rename this forum from "Rules Forum" to "Power Gamer and Rules Lawyers Only!".
Don't be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the board and everything to do with the system. I never see people whining about how wizards are "too good at roleplaying."
Nobody is criticizing him for something that would be fun to roleplay. They are criticizing the system that makes the "fun to roleplay" option also the "mechanically bad" option.
The Truenamer had some awesome fluff behind it but it was utter garbage.
mobile fighter might be good as secondary but not front line defense, for that you need a shield and feats for dodge shield focus and Natural Armor if you are a dwarf, mobile fighters/rogue/squishy person is good if they are gettting + damage from other sources like sneak attack or soemthing.
a Fighter who's front lining really shouldn't be moving.
See, I disagree.
The idea of an unmoving front line works in a widescale army style fight. But in small group skirmishes, it should be the opposite - the baddies and the fighter should both be constantly moving to try to one-up each other. We aren't playing 300 here. There are no big phalanx shield walls.
It's also a million times more exciting then Rock'em Sock'em Robots.
Shrug. A mobile character not dealing as much damage as other characters doesn't seem that bad to be, since it gains so much in defense.
They usually don't have more defense, though. Even if they did, offense beats non-magical based defense almost every single time in the 3.x system.
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.
Amateurs. Good powergamers can take bards and monks and make their GM cry like a little girl.
You can't? And you call yourself powergamer? Go home and train. :P
Believe it or not, this is to some degree both correct and our point:
You shouldn't need to be a powergamer to play a class.
You forgot "Using the elite array".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.
Amateurs. Good powergamers can take bards and monks and make their GM cry like a little girl.
You can't? And you call yourself powergamer? Go home and train. :P
I used the flatline array. (All 10s)
And the guy was hysterical. They had to give him something so he could sleep.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the board and everything to do with the system. I never see people whining about how wizards are "too good at roleplaying."
Nobody is criticizing him for something that would be fun to roleplay. They are criticizing the system that makes the "fun to roleplay" option also the "mechanically bad" option.
James Jacobs says "My Characters are fine, they are fun".
You disagree.
Forgive me if I choose to respect the opinion of the person with a history of writing and developing some of the most awesome adventures I've ever played more than yours. It helps that James' comments match my own observations of the game and the way most people play the game.
Don't be ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the board and everything to do with the system. I never see people whining about how wizards are "too good at roleplaying."
Nobody is criticizing him for something that would be fun to roleplay. They are criticizing the system that makes the "fun to roleplay" option also the "mechanically bad" option.
James Jacobs says "My Characters are fine, they are fun".
You disagree.
Forgive me if I choose to respect the opinion of the person with a history of writing and developing some of the most awesome adventures I've ever played more than yours. It helps that James' comments match my own observations of the game and the way most people play the game.
You are either ignoring or misinterpreting what I am saying.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Nobody is criticizing him for something that would be fun to roleplay. They are criticizing the system that makes the "fun to roleplay" option also the "mechanically bad" option.
I don't see that they have to joined in that way.
I also don't agree that Vital Strike (standard action) is all that "bad".
Are you looking for barbarian pounce type stuff so that everyone can full attack after a move? Because I'm certainly not looking for that. I consider that a flaw in the system when that type of mechanics is beyond a minority.
|
|
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.
Amateurs. Good powergamers can take bards and monks and make their GM cry like a little girl.
You can't? And you call yourself powergamer? Go home and train. :P
I think you may have missed the twofold point in my post. One was that I CAN make a bard or monk or battle herald way more powerful than any "out of the book" NPC, but I've got many choices of paths to take, not just one "ideal" build I have to take to be the best.
The other point is that if I'm in a party with a rogue, fighter, cleric, and wizard who've never opened anything but the core rulebook while I took two levels of a prestige class out of the "Outer Sea World Guide" (that's deliberate), found three feats from three different books that interact with a particular spell to quintuple it's power, and made my own custom weapon using properties unearthed on a year-old blog post, I STILL wouldn't be the best of the party at AC, damage dealing, survival in the wilderness, avoiding spells cast at me, putting on a diplomatic face, disarming traps, researching the curse cast on the princess, and all the many other things that take place in a full campaign. I'll probably be best at a few and second best at a lot, but I won't be so powerful that the rest of the players feel underutilized and frustrated.
Nobody is criticizing him for something that would be fun to roleplay. They are criticizing the system that makes the "fun to roleplay" option also the "mechanically bad" option.I don't see that they have to joined in that way.
I also don't agree that Vital Strike (standard action) is all that "bad".
Are you looking for barbarian pounce type stuff so that everyone can full attack after a move? Because I'm certainly not looking for that. I consider that a flaw in the system when that type of mechanics is beyond a minority.
Again, it was claimed that "The developers hate it when any option is so good it becomes a 'must have'"
That exists.
It is the full attack.
People who do not want to stand in place and play rock'em sock'em robots are very badly hindered due to the nature of full attack and iterative attacks.
Wanna know the hilarious thing, though? This is a 3e-ism only. You could move and attack in editions before 3e. You can move in attack in 4e. 3e is the only one where you can't move and attack.
You claim that it's a flaw in the system when that's a minority. Why? Why is it so awful to make combat more dynamic by adding in movement?
|
Nobody is criticizing him for something that would be fun to roleplay. They are criticizing the system that makes the "fun to roleplay" option also the "mechanically bad" option.I don't see that they have to joined in that way.
I also don't agree that Vital Strike (standard action) is all that "bad".
Are you looking for barbarian pounce type stuff so that everyone can full attack after a move? Because I'm certainly not looking for that. I consider that a flaw in the system when that type of mechanics is beyond a minority.
Again, it was claimed that "The developers hate it when any option is so good it becomes a 'must have'"
That exists.
It is the full attack.
People who do not want to stand in place and play rock'em sock'em robots are very badly hindered due to the nature of full attack and iterative attacks.
Wanna know the hilarious thing, though? This is a 3e-ism only. You could move and attack in editions before 3e. You can move in attack in 4e. 3e is the only one where you can't move and attack.
You claim that it's a flaw in the system when that's a minority. Why? Why is it so awful to make combat more dynamic by adding in movement?
Because you would have to rewrite the entire system to make that work.
Wait wut?
You want mobile characters that are also hard hitters....
Isn't that kind of a cake and eat it too situation?
Well, while we're at letting people spring attack and vital strike, why not let rogues not have to flank to use their precision attacks, or let monks FoB all the time, or let paladins smite non-evil targets at will?
There are supposed to be trade offs.
Again, it was claimed that "The developers hate it when any option is so good it becomes a 'must have'"That exists.
It is the full attack.
People who do not want to stand in place and play rock'em sock'em robots are very badly hindered due to the nature of full attack and iterative attacks.
Wanna know the hilarious thing, though? This is a 3e-ism only. You could move and attack in editions before 3e. You can move in attack in 4e. 3e is the only one where you can't move and attack.
You claim that it's a flaw in the system when that's a minority. Why? Why is it so awful to make combat more dynamic by adding in movement?
Wah. There are other RPGs that allow you to run around taking advantage of mobility based defensive bonuses AND make numerous melee attacks with best in that game offensive bonuses, with no kind of trade off or penalty? Which one?
Is it fun? Can casters in that system keep up with the melee quisinarts?And you can move and attack in 3e. You just can't move and full attack.
Which makes sense.
Again, it was claimed that "The developers hate it when any option is so good it becomes a 'must have'"
That exists.
It is the full attack.
That's not an option. It's an opportunity. You don't pick when you can make a full attack. You are given the opportunity to make a full attack.
Sometimes you're not granted the opportunity. Or maybe the opportunity is so dangerous, it's not worth taking.
James, I highly value your input on rules issues. While I've learned to not necessarily take everything the Paizo people say on this board as absolute rules gospel, I still like to hear perspectives from someone with much more input on the game than I have.
To be honest I kind of preferred Wizard's original forum breakdown of "What's a GM to do", "What's a Player to Do", and "Character Optimization" which clearly spells out where folks should go for relevant questions and gives power gamers their own home where they can be judgmental of each other in private.
The 1st two were my favorite parts of their forum, and the last one I liked because if I wanted mechanical only advice I knew where to go.
Wait wut?
You want mobile characters that are also hard hitters....
Isn't that kind of a cake and eat it too situation?Well, while we're at letting people spring attack and vital strike, why not let rogues not have to flank to use their precision attacks, or let monks FoB all the time, or let paladins smite non-evil targets at will?
There are supposed to be trade offs.
I don't think moving, and doing full attack damage is what is asked for. I think doing decent damage is what is asked for.
The problem is that I don't know how much damage is needed in order for it to be considered "decent". I figure 50% of a full round attack's damage to be a good number to shoot for.|
|
Much of what James mentioned was reasonable under the rules as written but RD chose to criticize it for failing to meet his minimum standards for character power level.
The fact that James is being criticized for something that would be fun to roleplay is typical of where this board has gone lately.
Maybe they should rename this forum from "Rules Forum" to "Power Gamer and Rules Lawyers Only!".
+1. I cannot agree more with this. I liked reading the rules forum for interesting quirks people come up with in game and how other folks would handle them. But it seems that more and more folks seek to use these boards as a way to figure out the latest way to twink your power-gamed character even more. And after the Developers take their time out of their hectic days to give their thoughts on how something should work, folks still lambast them and say "well, I don't think that's how it should work because it says this and can be interpreted like this." I find it hilarious when people say that to the EXACT folks who wrote the wording in question and still disavow what they say.
This section of the forums have been overrun with people too concerned with roll playing and need to focus on role playing. Who cares about maximizing every bit of damage? If you role play it right, your GM can give you boons that are worth more than anything written in a book.
James Jacobs, I greatly value your input on these discussions and I hope you do not stop. Design philosophy is exactly what people in these boards need to be thinking of, not about how the word 'fragile' is supposed to be pronounced 'fra-gee-lay' just because it can be interpreted that way. I listened to the podcast from PaizoCon about game design (from feats to spells and so forth) with you, Jason, and Stephen and realized that most of the issues here would not need discussion if folks focused on the logic behind how the game works. It pains me to see that you might post here anymore and hope it really does not come down to that.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Wait wut?
You want mobile characters that are also hard hitters....
Isn't that kind of a cake and eat it too situation?Well, while we're at letting people spring attack and vital strike, why not let rogues not have to flank to use their precision attacks, or let monks FoB all the time, or let paladins smite non-evil targets at will?
There are supposed to be trade offs.
I don't think moving, and doing full attack damage is what is asked for. I think doing decent damage is what is asked for.
The problem is that I don't know how much damage is needed in order for it to be considered "decent". I figure 50% of a full round attack's damage to be a good number to shoot for.
I think you've identified the true problem. What happens when a single attack can generate damage high enough that it's a viable (by which I mean an optimizers version of viable) alternative to making a full attack. Does my sword and board, "stand still and face what comes" Paladin become the party's new liability? Will the next rule post be "Why can't I apply Vital Strike to my iterative attacks?"
You are either ignoring or misinterpreting what I am saying.
Welcome to my world. :P
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 ?
I find vital stike to be a welcome addition. For me it is very simple. In most cases will use our iterative attacks when we can.
But sometimes we don't have that option. Sometimes we are forced to move in combat. It is part of the combat strategy to make your opponent move and attack - so you don't face the iterative attacks.
Only now there is vital strike to imporve your damage potential. It is not there to build your character around, it is there as an option for when you are forced to move.
Again, it was claimed that "The developers hate it when any option is so good it becomes a 'must have'"
That exists.
It is the full attack.
The full attack option is not as useful as the move next to something and hit it with a standard action. The full attack option is not as useful as a draw a weapon and standard attack it. Full attack actually isnt a must have option, I'm not sure where you got that.
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 ?
I find vital stike to be a welcome addition. For me it is very simple. In most cases will use our iterative attacks when we can.
But sometimes we don't have that option. Sometimes we are forced to move in combat. It is part of the combat strategy to make your opponent move and attack - so you don't face the iterative attacks.
Only now there is vital strike to imporve your damage potential. It is not there to build your character around, it is there as an option for when you are forced to move.
Anything three feats deep is a pretty significant piece of character mechanics, even to the fighter.
Then again, I think that all feats with Improved/Greater/Superior versions should be condensed into one feat for each such chain which scales with level.
Then again, I think that all feats with Improved/Greater/Superior versions should be condensed into one feat for each such chain which scales with level.
It is only 3 feats deep if you want it to be. Just take it once and get double dice damage if you have to move. Seems like a decent trade-off to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are either ignoring or misinterpreting what I am saying.Welcome to my world. :P
When 50 people read something and get the same impression the problem isn't the readers. The emotionless and expressionless nature of text does not easily transmit the the subtle things like sarcasm and tone that you may mean when you type. Combine this with a relative lack of context because most of the communication here is so brief (compared with a book or even an article) and you leave the reader with little or no means to detect a subtle distinction that you think you're conveying. This has to be taken into account when writing.
Also, when you're asking about the very specific wording on a ruling, it would help if you would just cut to the chase and explain how you plan on exploiting it in the beginning rather than starting the semantics discussion first.
|
I know James means his statement a certain way, but it's ridiculous to go "ignore the iterative attacks, they will miss anyways". Doesn't that mean that full BAB classes lose one of their primarily advantages that the designers place such a premium on? Isn't that one of the reasons why magus couldn't be full BAB? Isn't that sort of saying that the action system is really hurting melee classes that need full attacks to deal damage?
This is not a good stance to take.
|
|
Then again, I think that all feats with Improved/Greater/Superior versions should be condensed into one feat for each such chain which scales with level.It is only 3 feats deep if you want it to be. Just take it once and get double dice damage if you have to move. Seems like a decent trade-off to me.
A lot of the problem is that Power Attack auto-scales, but most other feats do not. That puts Power Attack in a very powerful tier of feats.
Plus Vital Strike adds to number of dice, and those are very variable. 10d6 for Fireball seems a lot, but it's only a little bit above 30 damage. And at level 10, 30 damage to everybody in the area just isn't a lot. Vital Strike suffers from much of the same issues.
A lot of the problem is that Power Attack auto-scales, but most other feats do not. That puts Power Attack in a very powerful tier of feats.Plus Vital Strike adds to number of dice, and those are very variable. 10d6 for Fireball seems a lot, but it's only a little bit above 30 damage. And at level 10, 30 damage to everybody in the area just isn't a lot. Vital Strike suffers from much of the same issues.
It is true, vital strike is not that useful if your weapons has a small damage die. I would probably not take it with anything less than a d8. But the bottom line is extra dice is extra dice, and a feat seems worth extra dice to me.
I don't see vital strike as a 3 feat chain. Each time you take it, it gives you more of the same help. So I take only as much of it as I need.
Also I agree that a mobile fighter should not have as much damage potential as the stand and swing iterative fighter. You pay for the mobility by giving up some damage. Game balance 101.
|
|
A lot of the problem is that Power Attack auto-scales, but most other feats do not. That puts Power Attack in a very powerful tier of feats.Plus Vital Strike adds to number of dice, and those are very variable. 10d6 for Fireball seems a lot, but it's only a little bit above 30 damage. And at level 10, 30 damage to everybody in the area just isn't a lot. Vital Strike suffers from much of the same issues.
It is true, vital strike is not that useful if your weapons has a small damage die. I would probably not take it with anything less than a d8. But the bottom line is extra dice is extra dice, and a feat seems worth extra dice to me.
I don't see vital strike as a 3 feat chain. Each time you take it, it gives you more of the same help. So I take only as much of it as I need.
Also I agree that a mobile fighter should not have as much damage potential as the stand and swing iterative fighter. You pay for the mobility by giving up some damage. Game balance 101.
Another problem with Vital Strike is that big dice has big ranges to make the rolls even more variable. 2d12 from a Vital Strike great axe is great until you roll 2 1's. Average without STR and other modifiers is 13 damage.
Balancing is difficult, I agree. Some of us on these boards are frustrated by how it seems obvious to us that certain feats, abilities, features, and such are clearly below par, but others do not care, do not see it as a problem, are told to "play another game", or worse, when it seems like James says "just ignore the iterative attacks". I don't want to ignore iterative attacks. They are one of my class' prime features that Paizo supposedly give great weight to, and now one of the staff says to ignore it? WTF?
Another problem with Vital Strike is that big dice has big ranges to make the rolls even more variable. 2d12 from a Vital Strike great axe is great until you roll 2 1's. Average without STR and other modifiers is 13 damage.
Balancing is difficult, I agree. Some of us on these boards are frustrated by how it seems obvious to us that certain feats, abilities, features, and such are clearly below par, but others do not care, do not see it as a problem, are told to "play another game", or worse, when it seems like James says "just ignore the iterative attacks". I don't want to ignore iterative attacks. They are one of my class' prime features that Paizo supposedly give great weight to, and now one of the staff says to ignore it? WTF?
Yes, you are right about the variable damage potential. No way to make that better. But I don't think it is that bad. I'll take my chances - I feel lucky... :-)
I don't think James meant the "ignore iterative attacks" comment to be taken so literally. I think he meant that vital strike now gives more damage potential those who don't want, don't have, or can't get iterative attacks.
It gives us a different option so we are not so locked into iterative attacks as the best, only choice.
I will just about always take this feat. Maybe not all three, all the time, but at least once. I can't tell you how many times (as DM or player) I was frustrated by my inability to get my iterative attacks going because of some slippery mobile opponent.
But now it's - so you wannt move around huh. Bam!! Vital strike.
You are either ignoring or misinterpreting what I am saying.Welcome to my world. :PWhen 50 people read something and get the same impression the problem isn't the readers. The emotionless and expressionless nature of text does not easily transmit the the subtle things like sarcasm and tone that you may mean when you type. Combine this with a relative lack of context because most of the communication here is so brief (compared with a book or even an article) and you leave the reader with little or no means to detect a subtle distinction that you think you're conveying. This has to be taken into account when writing.
Also, when you're asking about the very specific wording on a ruling, it would help if you would just cut to the chase and explain how you plan on exploiting it in the beginning rather than starting the semantics discussion first.
I've been a professional writer for nearly ten years. I know all about tone in text (or the lack there of).
It's not me that's the problem. It's the internet. People just love to bicker, fight, and pick on others when they are effectively immune to real retaliation.
I get targeted a lot, not because I am doing anything wrong (most of the time), but because it makes others feel superior, better about themselves.
Sadly, I have made mistakes in the past. As such I developed a reputation early on. It's like in high school. You don't want to be the guy with the reputation. Makes for an easy target.
|
|
The 1st two were my favorite parts of their forum, and the last one I liked because if I wanted mechanical only advice I knew where to go.
To be honest I kind of preferred Wizard's original forum breakdown of "What's a GM to do", "What's a Player to Do", and "Character Optimization" which clearly spells out where folks should go for relevant questions and gives power gamers their own home where they can be judgmental of each other in private.
I just liked it because it game GMs and players a place where you could have sane conversations about the way people actually deal with the rules. For some reason calling it the "Rules Forum" brings out the worst of the pedants.
Professional writers don't use the word "hate" lightly.
True. I spent some time considering alternate words (it did seem a little strong to say the least), but my hour ran out on me.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been a professional writer for nearly ten years. I know all about tone in text (or the lack there of).
It's not me that's the problem. It's the internet. People just love to bicker, fight, and pick on others when they are effectively immune to real retaliation.
I get targeted a lot, not because I am doing anything wrong (most of the time), but because it makes others feel superior, better about themselves.
Sadly, I have made mistakes in the past. As such I developed a reputation early on. It's like in high school. You don't want to be the guy with the reputation. Makes for an easy target.
No... it is not YOU it is the quality and nature of your posts.
It is the ridiculously pedantic nature of the vast majority of your posts. It is also the fact that you are often condescending, in this case even to one of the developers.
The fact that you don't see your posts as being pedantic and condescending, or that you don't intend them to be does not change that that is how they are perceived.
That you choose to see it as people picking on you is almost laughable as you yourself are far more likely to attack other people's posts in my experience. As you attacked James' comments here, and as you launched an obnoxious anti-monk post in a similar thread.
If you want people to not 'picking on you' then stop insulting them.