Thus, if it is ruled that pounce only works with natural weapons, Beast Totem rage powers go from being the best Barbarian build to something of a curiosity. And the Barbarian goes back to being the red-headed stepchild of warrior classes.Except it's really easy to build a barbarian with at least 4 natural attacks (and even an option to include a nasty poison) on a pounce before any haste involved. A half-orc can attain the four attacks with Toothy or Razortusk, and one more rage powers in addition to the three required to gain pounces ; others could also take Eldritch Heritage for the poisonous bite of serpentine bloodline, or the rage power giving a bite attack. Bite x2 + Gore + 2 claws is nothing to sneeze at if you use power attack when hasted, since you probably invested in a nifty amulet of mighty fists before. Additional fun for invulnerable Dex-based barbarians with an agile amulet.Two points:
1- Can't have two bites with the same head.
2- There's nothing official allowing an extra natural attack from Haste (despite how intuitive that house ruling option is.)
Also, while all that stuff is nifteroo and all, it's still inferior to someone with bite+gore+whatever else+3 weapon attacks with a better damage bonus.
Part of the point I was getting at is that without pounce the weapon is clearly the winner in situations where you only get a single attack. In other words the first round of every 3 round combat. If you are using what is a superior tactic, why would you ALSO invest in a more expensive inferior one, in this case amulet of mighty fist. Then, when you get to level 10 and the game changes based on pounce, you have two scenarios. 1)Pounce works with all weapons and WOO you just get to pounce with your sword you've been enhancing this whole while or 2)you have to COMPLETELY switch streams, sell your sword for half price, buy an amulet at double the price, and hope you have money left over for food at that point.
Wow, now Maddigan is complaining that barbarians are too powerful!
You know, as GM if you don't like someone using a set of abilities you see as broken, you can simply not allow it. Everyone should be having fun, including the GM, and if anything is onstructing that, it must be rectified.
Part of the DMs job is saying no to your players when they step out of line. And if they refuse to be flexible, well say hello to RAGELANCEPOUNCE!
When I engage in threads like this or the AM BARBARIAN thread, I'm thinking both as a player and a DM. As a player, I'm confident a wizard can find a spell strategy to win. Doesn't mean he'll have that strategy while wandering around, but given time he'll figure out a strategy. But as a DM I want builds like the barbarian toned down and I want some spells toned down. So I'm not targeting only barbarians. I think certain spells, barbarian powers, feats, and archery should be toned down. Character damage output should not double monsters like dragons or ancient demons or they have no chance of being a threat. Spells should not work for a long duration with no saving throw, especially spells that completely eliminate a target from combat or reduce a save by -4.
When you have characters that turn encounters trivial, it's not much fun as a DM. The game designers should vet these things before they make it into use rather than leave us DMs to argue with players because we can't see every single combination coming.
Predition of Failure came out of the clear blue. The player cast it with a smirk and then I read it. I could not believe the game designers put a spell in the game that gave a -4 to save DCs with no saving throw for what would be the duration of 99.9% of battles. I'm utterly flabbergasted the game designers did this.
I'm also utterly flabbergasted when the barbarian player with the 10/- DR and the ring of evasion has a better reflex save against breath weapons and spells than the dex-based ranger archer or the monk. He also has a better will save than the cleric and a fortitude save he misses against a deity level creature on a 1. And he can charge a creature and get a full attack. And then they add in Raging Brutality to basically give them an ability that matches a Smite Evil and Challenge when they are raging at high level. It's like they're making these feats and powers as if they were being used by themselves rather than in conjunction with a build.
Why make the barbarian so much better than other physical damage dealers? They already have the most hit points and general survivability amongst the physical damage dealers in the game. Why make it so easy for them to match the damage of two-hander fighters or smiting paladins or the saves of paladins and monks. I don't get it I guess. I'm not a big balance guy, but when the balance divide reaches a point where even I have to slap my head and say "What the heck?" things have gotten pretty unbalanced, like the scale is tipping over on its side unbalanced.
I would think that Pathfinder had a vested interest in ensuring DMs were able to run the game up to at least the level of an adventure path (around 17) without certain character builds or spells trivializing encounters with supposedly epic villains. Right now this barbarian build makes it very hard to do. Fickle Winds helped me deal with archers, but prior to fickle winds archers are a destructive nightmare as well. Still are for the most part, but the availability of fickle winds makes it easier on me. But it angers my archer player though, which creates another headache as a DM as well as a headache for the player. Both of our headaches could have been avoided if the game designers would do a better job designing the character capabilities to begin with.
the only problem is that pounce (AFAIK) is only defined in the Bestiary and whoever wrote it was thinking about its use by monster, not about what player characters should and would do with it.
Personally I don't like the image of a guy "pouncing" and using multiple iterative attacks, while I haven't problems with him pouncing and using two weapon fighting, but RAW he is fully entitled in doing that.
This may be true. But it is not how the rule is written. I can see that conceptually a beast totem guy was supposed to be a raging animal. But as written a guy can pounce and swing his sword for as many attacks as he has. I'm not willing to argue with my players to change it.
I really see a conflict of RAI vs. RAW here. While the designers probably intended Greater Beast Totem to allow the barbarian to full attack after a charge, with all iterative attacks, they again probably did not intent him to do that with a lance charge and double damage.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I really see a conflict of RAI vs. RAW here. While the designers probably intended Greater Beast Totem to allow the barbarian to full attack after a charge, with all iterative attacks, they again probably did not intent him to do that with a lance charge and double damage.
I personally hope James Jacobs and the rule guys at Paizo make the no iterative attacks with pounce official eratta. That would do two things:
1. Get rid of a real cheesy ability that outclasses lvl 20 fighter and bard dervish dancer abilities. Or abilities that takes four feats to obtain at much higher level than 12.
2. Put Beast Totem back on par with other totems. At the moment beast totem gives natural attacks, a +6 natural armor bonus, and pounce with iterative attacks. This is much better than any other totem gives.
I hope they get around to making James Jacobs view the FAQ view. That will go a long way to eliminating the major headache with the barbarian. Now if they would make Come and Get Me a little less powerful, that would make the barbarian on par with other melee classes.
I hit the FAQ. I hope more people do until this gets official.
I personally hope James Jacobs and the rule guys at Paizo make the no iterative attacks with pounce official eratta. That would do two things:
I'm with you on this.
I really see a conflict of RAI vs. RAW here. While the designers probably intended Greater Beast Totem to allow the barbarian to full attack after a charge, with all iterative attacks, they again probably did not intent him to do that with a lance charge and double damage.
Considering the beast totem line grants natural attacks, I'd wager the developers did not intend this pounce to get iterative attacks. I bet they were thinking this pounce would use the claws the barbarian was granted. See the text:
Beast Totem, Greater (Su): While raging, the barbarian gains the pounce special ability, allowing her to make a full attack at the end of a charge. In addition, the damage from her claws increases to 1d8 (1d6 if Small) and the claws deal ×3 damage on a critical hit. A barbarian must have the beast totem rage power to select this rage power. A barbarian must be at least 10th level to select this rage power.
Why would they give pounce alongside an upgrade to claws if the intention was for a barbarian to do full attacks with a manufactured weapon? Maybe the claw part is flavor text...
The larger problem is that Beastmorph Alchemists have the option to get pounce with no natural attacks at all.
Considering the beast totem line grants natural attacks, I'd wager the developers did not intend this pounce to get iterative attacks. I bet they were thinking this pounce would use the claws the barbarian was granted.
Yes I agree. Forget my original statement.
Do note that JJ's statement is from July 2011.
The errata for the Bestiary, where this would have been changed, came out in August 2011.
Yes I agree. Forget my original statement.
What original statement? ;)
Do note that JJ's statement is from July 2011.
The errata for the Bestiary, where this would have been changed, came out in August 2011.
JJ doesn't write errata. I'm guessing he doesn't consult with the developers every time he makes a rules post on his thread. It's quite possible the people writing the errata have no idea there is any potential issue with pounce.
The larger problem is that Beastmorph Alchemists have the option to get pounce with no natural attacks at all.
It also allows him to gain a fly speed with no changes to his anatomy except gaining a furry muzzle and pointed ears. Note that the recommended discoveries grant the alchemist natural attacks. The intention is clear. But if you mean there is a larger problem in that you can totally cheese build an alchemist, but not quite as bad as you can cheese build a barbarian, then I agree :P
The larger problem is that Beastmorph Alchemists have the option to get pounce with no natural attacks at all.
Not really a problem at all. Just means pounce won't be the only thing he always takes with his mutagen. Right now it is so much better than everything else with iterative attacks, the entire builds are built around it.
I'm imagine you would be unhappy if they changed it. It would utterly decimate your one trick pony build wouldn't it?
Do note that JJ's statement is from July 2011.
The errata for the Bestiary, where this would have been changed, came out in August 2011.
There is a lot of stuff that needs eratta and clarification that takes Paizo a long time to fix. If we keep posting it, they'll get around to it.
|
Two points:1- Can't have two bites with the same head.
2- There's nothing official allowing an extra natural attack from Haste (despite how intuitive that house ruling option is.)
Two other points :
1- Haste for an additional natural attack of your choice, here, the bite.
2- Before asserting something, it's sometimes best to search on the topic.
I'm imagine you would be unhappy if they changed it. It would utterly decimate your one trick pony build wouldn't it?
No need to make it personal :P
The larger problem is that Beastmorph Alchemists have the option to get pounce with no natural attacks at all.Not really a problem at all. Just means pounce won't be the only thing he always takes with his mutagen. Right now it is so much better than everything else with iterative attacks, the entire builds are built around it.
I'm imagine you would be unhappy if they changed it. It would utterly decimate your one trick pony build wouldn't it?
Naah, I'd just have to move from LANCE LANCE LANCE LANCE to BITE CLAW CLAW.
I appreciate the random snipe though. Stay classy. ;D
The larger problem is that Beastmorph Alchemists have the option to get pounce with no natural attacks at all.To be honest, they have extracts to change shape and gain natural attacks.
They do, but it's not required to get pounce. It is entirely possible to get it without having a single natural attack.
Naah, I'd just have to move from LANCE LANCE LANCE LANCE to BITE CLAW CLAW.I appreciate the random snipe though. Stay classy. ;D
With a little work it could become KICK CLAW CLAW CLAW BITE
They do, but it's not required to get pounce. It is entirely possible to get it without having a single natural attack.
Thus making it imperative to use multiple weapons else lose the benefit of pounce
They do, but it's not required to get pounce. It is entirely possible to get it without having a single natural attack.
What's possible doesn't mean it makes sense. The archetype is not meant to be a shortcut to getting pounce so you can use it with your manufactured weapons. Besides, if we want to look at the silly things a Beastmorph Alchemist can do, they can also get rake, web, trample, trip, poison, jet, breath weapon, grab, roar, spikes, and possibly others that do nothing without GM fiat to make it work. Since a Beastmorph gains abilities a la carte instead of actually using Beast Shape to turn into a specific animal, none of those abilities work.
They do, but it's not required to get pounce. It is entirely possible to get it without having a single natural attack.What's possible doesn't mean it makes sense. The archetype is not meant to be a shortcut to getting pounce so you can use it with your manufactured weapons. Besides, if we want to look at the silly things a Beastmorph Alchemist can do, they can also get rake, web, trample, trip, poison, jet, breath weapon, grab, roar, spikes, and possibly others that do nothing without GM fiat to make it work. Since a Beastmorph gains abilities a la carte instead of actually using Beast Shape to turn into a specific animal, none of those abilities work.
WHY AM PEOPLE KEEPING USING 'GM FIAT' TO MAKE RULES WORK HOW RULES SAY RULES WORK.
FULL ATTACK AM FULL ATTACK, NOT FULL ATTACK AM 'FULL ATTACK BUT ONLY IF DONE CERTAIN WAY.' BARBARIAN AM UNSURE WHY AM SO HARD TO FOLLOW.
WHY AM PEOPLE KEEPING USING 'GM FIAT' TO MAKE RULES WORK HOW RULES SAY RULES WORK.FULL ATTACK AM FULL ATTACK, NOT FULL ATTACK AM 'FULL ATTACK BUT ONLY IF DONE CERTAIN WAY.' BARBARIAN AM UNSURE WHY AM SO HARD TO FOLLOW.
And that's why barbarians hit things and GMs make the rules ;)
edit: removed an outdated reference
They do, but it's not required to get pounce. It is entirely possible to get it without having a single natural attack.What's possible doesn't mean it makes sense. The archetype is not meant to be a shortcut to getting pounce so you can use it with your manufactured weapons. Besides, if we want to look at the silly things a Beastmorph Alchemist can do, they can also get rake, web, trample, trip, poison, jet, breath weapon, grab, roar, spikes, and possibly others that do nothing without GM fiat to make it work. Since a Beastmorph gains abilities a la carte instead of actually using Beast Shape to turn into a specific animal, none of those abilities work.
Not sure if serious.
Kinda hoping you're not.
Not sure if serious.
Kinda hoping you're not.
Not sure if condescension is intended.
Kinda hoping it isn't.
Everyone complaining about pouncing on a mounted charge are aware of Mounted Skirmisher. It allows you to take iteritive attacks while mounted, and is easier to get then pounce.
But you can't charge :)
But you can't charge :)
Where does it say you can't charge?
|
Everyone complaining about pouncing on a mounted charge are aware of Mounted Skirmisher. It allows you to take iteritive attacks while mounted, and is easier to get then pounce.
Yep, and it's also ambiguous as to whether you could full-attack on a charge. Another example of two special special rules that modify when and how you can attack, but make no reference to each other. Now, if the wording of Mounted Skirmisher had said something to the effect of 'this (works)/(doesn't work) with the full-round action charge' then there'd be no need for all this discussion. I'm of the opinion that if the rules don't specifically say two abilities/feats/powers that modify an action can synergize, then they can't. But, of course, YMMV.
Not sure if serious.
Kinda hoping you're not.
Not sure if condescension is intended.
Kinda hoping it isn't.
Ok, yes. Sorry.
But do you seriously believe those abilities won't work?
Despite the fact that the very description of the archetype says they study the anatomy of monsters, learning how to duplicate those abilities?
Despite the intent of the archetype clearly being they get those abilities and can use them?
Despite Beastform Mutagen clearly showing that you don't follow the spell it's emulating, just choosing the ability you want?
You seem to be arguing that the archetype can give those abilities, but doesn't give the means to use them. That's ridiculous.
In the original language is not stated but seems that mount has to move so it can't take a full round action.
You seem to be arguing that the archetype can give those abilities, but doesn't give the means to use them. That's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous, I agree :P
I think I know the intent of the Beastmorph. You're supposed to pick a specific animal, just like in the spell. And then pick however many of the abilities you would get from that animal as specified in the archetype. It just doesn't read that way to me. It reads more like a la carte of all the abilities listed in the spell.
Here's the problem with that. Let's say you pick "breath weapon". What do you get? I can see two interpretations, both of which require a bit of GM fiat:
1) You pick options first. Any time you pick an option, you pick an eligible animal based on the spell's description that you can take that option from.
2) You pick an animal first. Then you pick options by cross referencing the list of options in the spell with abilities the animal has.
To be honest, I'm not sure which interpretation is the one most people are using because I haven't paid a lot of attention to it. Maybe you know. I just don't think the rules specify either of those interpretations, instead making it more like "I think I'll pick fly and darkvision" which requires neither 1) nor 2). But if you pick breath weapon it's unclear what, if any, benefit you get. This is all just one guy's opinion though.
edit: I think this is a bit too tangential though, so if we want to keep discussing, a new thread is probably in order.
WHY AM PEOPLE KEEPING USING 'GM FIAT' TO MAKE RULES WORK HOW RULES SAY RULES WORK.
To not break the game? Too keep obvious cheesiness like a full attack with the lance charge damage multiplicator out of the game?
A HUGE, EXPANDING ruleset like PF is bound to have a few combinations of abilities / special rules that were just not intended by the author as he wrote an additional rule snippet. Stuff like this will continue to rear its head as more rules are released.
Thank god we all have human gamemasters, who can disallow the more cheesy combinations and make possible a game everyone can enjoy.
As even with Grand Beastform you only get stuff off of the Beast shape III menu, you cant get a breath weapon.
WHY AM PEOPLE KEEPING USING 'GM FIAT' TO MAKE RULES WORK HOW RULES SAY RULES WORK.
To not break the game? Too keep obvious cheesiness like a full attack with the lance charge damage multiplicator out of the game?
A HUGE, EXPANDING ruleset like PF is bound to have a few combinations of abilities / special rules that were just not intended by the author as he wrote an additional rile snippet. Stuff like this will continue to rear is head as more rules are released.
Thank god we have a human gamemaster, who can diasallow the more cheesy combinations and make possible game everyone can enjoy.
AND SO, GM FIAT AM REQUIRED SO CASTYS CAN KEEP UP WITH MARTIALS.
BARBARIAN AM OK WITH OUTCOME.
AND SO, GM FIAT AM REQUIRED SO CASTYS CAN KEEP UP WITH MARTIALS.
BARBARIAN AM OK WITH OUTCOME.
AM forgets that GM fiat is all that keeps users of wish and miracle from simply reshaping the multiverse.
AM forgets that GM fiat is all that keeps users of wish and miracle from simply reshaping the multiverse.
AND SO, GM FIAT AM REQUIRED SO CASTYS CAN KEEP UP WITH MARTIALS.BARBARIAN AM OK WITH OUTCOME.
SPELL DESCRIPTION DO THAT FINE. IF WISH AM TOO MUCH, AM FAIL.
SPELL DESCRIPTION DO THAT FINE. IF WISH AM TOO MUCH, AM FAIL.
And who decides what is too much my good barbarian?
As even with Grand Beastform you only get stuff off of the Beast shape III menu, you cant get a breath weapon.
Touche, but the point still stands for the other abilities that need the text from an actual monster entry to work.
AND SO, GM FIAT AM REQUIRED SO CASTYS CAN KEEP UP WITH MARTIALS.
BARBARIAN AM OK WITH OUTCOME.
This has nothing to do with casters at all.
It is all about barbarians vs. fighters, paladins, rangers, cavaliers etc.
Who would enjoy playing a cavalier in a group with a RAGEPOUNCELANCE barbarian??
You seem to be arguing that the archetype can give those abilities, but doesn't give the means to use them. That's ridiculous.*ATCHITANMAULERGUNTANKOOM*
*snirffle*
*sneeze*
Yes, that's ridiculous. I'm still going to assume the archetype was written in good faith.
Wait, re-reading that, were people really up in arms about not being able to use large greatswords?
SPELL DESCRIPTION DO THAT FINE. IF WISH AM TOO MUCH, AM FAIL.And who decides what is too much my good barbarian?
DEMOCRACY.
UNLESS AM SAYING YOU AM COMMIE.
DEMOCRACY.
UNLESS AM SAYING YOU AM COMMIE.
Actually, a totalitarian regime decides. Namely, the GM. Players can have input, but they don't get to make the rules.
AND SO, GM FIAT AM REQUIRED SO CASTYS CAN KEEP UP WITH MARTIALS.
BARBARIAN AM OK WITH OUTCOME.
This has nothing to do with casters at all.
It is all about barbarians vs. fighters, paladins, rangers, cavaliers etc.
Who would enjoy playing a cavalier in a group with a RAGEPOUNCELANCE barbarian??
BARBARIAN WOULD LOVE PLAYING CAVALIER IN GROUP OF FIVE RAGELANCEPOUNCE BARBARIANS. TAKE ORDER OF DRAGON, ORDER CHARGE IN UNISON, DEAL BAZILLION DAMAGE.
BARBARIAN WOULD LOVE PLAYING CAVALIER IN GROUP OF FIVE RAGELANCEPOUNCE BARBARIANS. TAKE ORDER OF DRAGON, ORDER CHARGE IN UNISON, DEAL BAZILLION DAMAGE.
Yeah, that would be fun exactly one time.
PS
The RLP Bbn don't get a charge with "act as one".
Actually, a totalitarian regime decides. Namely, the GM. Players can have input, but they don't get to make the rules.DEMOCRACY.
UNLESS AM SAYING YOU AM COMMIE.
AMERICA AM DISAPPROVAL.
AMERICA AM DISAPPROVAL.
Would you mind using proper grammar? And please release the caps lock key?
Your shtick is funny in small doses at the right place, but over a longer discussion it is frankly just annoying and makes your posts hard to read.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
AMERICA AM DISAPPROVAL.Would you mind using proper grammar? And please release the caps lock key?
Your shtick is funny in small doses at the right place, but over a longer discussion it is frankly just annoying and makes your posts hard to read.
CASTY AM FREE TO NOT ARGUE WITH BARBARIAN. BARBARIAN HAVE CASTY KNOW BARBARIAN AM WRITING MANY MIGHTYFINE PAPERS FOR ENGINEERING DEGREE, AM GETTING ALL A'S. AM TALKING FINE FOR DELIVERING POINTS TO CASTY SKULL.
P.S. BARBARIAN NOT USE CAPS. BARBARIAN HOLD SHIFT LIKE REAL MAN. PINKIE FINGER ALONE AM STRONGER THAN MOST CASTYS.