Haste, and why I have come to particularly dislike it


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

We have never played haste as effecting 1 person per caster level but have made it 1 per 3 caster levels so that when you first get it it doesnt immediately effect the whole party, even then it is too good.

In 1e & 2e the penalty was so onerous it was a spell largely ignored except on dire occasions for the pcs or a particularly climactic battle. It was 3e that started the haste as a superbuff issue

I recall reading about the change from 3.0 to 3.5 when some designer commented in a dragon magazine article that they hadnt playtested the 3.0 version ( the one that gave you an extra standard action and a +4 haste bonus - omg )and it was so good that arcane casters were writing it in in pen as their first third level spell choice.

When they changed to 3.5 they weakened it considerably but it was coming off such a high base it remained a king of spells.

The thing is that it is fun to have in the game - if it is the ultimate temporary boost. So my suggestions are to keep it in the game but make it not used at every encounter (just my thoughts)

Remove the ac & attack bonus ( you move real quick but it isnt something you are particularly used to so you are not especially good at using it to you advantage in an intentional way & they are superfluous and just result in stacking mayhem)
Reflex bonus can stay ( this is a more reactive, leap out of the way ability)
Make it effect 1 per 3 levels ( no brainer really )
Make recipients fatigued for 1-3 minutes after it expires - haven't playtested this but I like the suggestion.
Maybe make recipients exhausted instead if they have it cast on them twice in one day or worse if 3/day etc or whatever ( boots of speed still rule maybe they should be only able to be used in 5 round bursts?) - this is taking up someone's suggestion that it only be useable 1/day.

And for everyone who keeps saying you can have the enemy use x or y tactic to deal with this spell the op recognized that in his post. He still thought haste was too good and having a deleterious effect on his game. I appreciated the post and the discussion of this problem spell.


Haste is decent only as long as the melee characters get to make full round attacks. Otherwise it becomes only a little better than Prayer.

How to prevent characters from making full round attacks?
1. Lots of mobs, 10 feet from each other, with reach weapons.
2. Narrow tunnels with weak opponents retreating.
3. Area control spells like Darkness, Stinking Cloud, Solid Fog, etc
4. High AC opponents. A warrior with good armor, shield and fighting defensively does wonders for slowing down hasted attackers.

Regards,
Ruemere


In my experience, you can just make it harder. Our play group across multiple different campaigns and GMs (some of whom roll dice unmasked) typically has encounters at APL +3 or +4 as the minimum.

You'll never know what the PCs can or cannot handle without pushing the limits. If you don't fancy the idea of an arms race (make no mistake, without banning LOTS of things, it always becomes an arms race), then pay close attention to monster abilities and use them creatively. Or just use more Fly/Ride-by attack.


Just wanted to mention an unrelated rule that is new to Pathfinder so it is often overlooked and is important when trying to get that full attack in.

You can take your 5' step before, during, or after a full attack action. The before is the nice part that lets those pesky guys standing 10' away from each other they need to be standing 15' away.


I agree with OP. Haste is far too good for a level 3 spell. I'd wish for a separation of the spell into two spells at level 3, one grants Extra Attack and the other grants all the other benefits of haste (movement, AC, attack, etc). Or alternatively make haste a single-target spell; and add mass haste at spell level 6.


Irulesmost wrote:

In my experience, you can just make it harder. Our play group across multiple different campaigns and GMs (some of whom roll dice unmasked) typically has encounters at APL +3 or +4 as the minimum.

You'll never know what the PCs can or cannot handle without pushing the limits. If you don't fancy the idea of an arms race (make no mistake, without banning LOTS of things, it always becomes an arms race), then pay close attention to monster abilities and use them creatively. Or just use more Fly/Ride-by attack.

That actually makes a lot of sense to me since, given that the players have class levels each of their CRs is equal to their lvl.

When you put 4 CR4 creatures (PC's or otherwise) in any sort of combat generator which will calculate encounter CR (or if you are willing to do this by hand) the result is consistently around 8, 4 lvls higher than the CR of the individual creatures. This trend also holds with a group of 4 CR8 creatures making an encounter that is CR 12, etc.

Perhaps this will help put things in perspective. You must match the CR of the encounter to your party's CR as a group, not just to their average lvl.


LoreKeeper wrote:
I agree with OP. Haste is far too good for a level 3 spell. I'd wish for a separation of the spell into two spells at level 3, one grants Extra Attack and the other grants all the other benefits of haste (movement, AC, attack, etc). Or alternatively make haste a single-target spell; and add mass haste at spell level 6.

This kind of design choice always screws the spontaneous casters.

Silver Crusade

I disagree with the need to change haste. But if you feel you need to change it so it is not used so much then here are my suggestions (use one or more):

1) Have haste give the fatigued condition for a number of minutes equal to the rounds hasted. For each additional time per day you are hasted then you get an additional condition: fatigued, sickened, nauseated, staggered etc. Then if you are hasted and it gets dispelled you get a condition. It makes haste much less desireable similar to 1st and 2nd edition.

2) You age 20 months- caster level every time you are subject to this spell. Same effect as 1. If you change age categories then only physical stats are affected.

3) After every haste make a will and fort save DC 12. If you fail the fort you lose one point of con. If you fail the will you lose one point of wisdom.

4) You can use only one effect of haste per round. This is chosen as a free action at the beginning of your turn. You can choose the extra speed, the AC and save bonuses, or the extra attack. This gives it some versatility.

5) Make the extra attack as if you had gained an extra iterative attack. So instead of being your highest bonus it is your lowest bonus.

6) Instead of an extra attack you get an untyped bonus of +2 for all your attacks.

That should be enough. You can combine some of these if you want but I think any one of these will fix your issues.


This talk of aging ignores one fairly large point. Every race ages at different rates. Elves and Dwarves aren't going to care about an aging penalty that doesn't very very quickly screw humans.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:
This talk of aging ignores one fairly large point. Every race ages at different rates. Elves and Dwarves aren't going to care about an aging penalty that doesn't very very quickly screw humans.

Yes, well that can be changed to 20% of current age (round up)- 1% per caster level. Keeps it even across races.


If it's really a problem--and I do not for a second believe it's a problem--haste is incredibly simple to counter.

Just cast slow. It's the same level spell (which already favors the bad guys because they're usually higher level), affects the same number of targets at the same radius as haste, dispels haste, and then has its own effect on top of that. Slow is a hard counter to haste.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I don't think that it is over powered.

There are many ways of countering it, and the enemies should know them, as they have been around for centuries.

If there is more than one enemy caster (or a caster with a familiar that can use a wand), cast slow, then sleet storm. This will take away the haste, block line of sight and hamper movement - meaning that the PC casters cannot recast haste on everyone. Stinking Cloud is another spell that can break line of sight and cause other problems.

Or if the enemy is higher level, slow and quickened obscuring mist.

Or terrain modifying spells like spike growth or spike stones.

Or separate the PCs with various walls, pit spells, etc..

Or use mundane terrain items like tanglefoot bags or caltrops or traps.

Or have the enemy cast a vision blocking spell and then withdraw while the buffs (haste included) run down and expire. Then have them return. Vision blocking, invisibility and fly are also another combination.

Mix up how the enemies handle haste, having some with no prepared counter, and the players will never know how it will play out. This will keep fights interesting and not feel like the GM is using his fiat or nerf hammer.


Actually, a spell combination like Hunter's Eye and Obscuring Mist (or better yet Solid Fog) could easily kill the mobility benefits of Haste, make anything but melee attacks all but moot, eliminate line of sight for casters (except those with Hunter's Eye cast on them) and keep the BBEGs in the action, almost completely unhindered. All with 2 spells.

And while the fog could be negated by a Gust of Wind spell, not many PC's will prepare that while chances are the baddies will if only to clean up when they're done, which means that if the PC's try to use that as a counter their attempt is easily counterspelled.

Same thing with Dispel Magic. Any BBEG worth his salt with access to that line of spells (or a minion with access) would be a fool not to have at least one of each in reserve.


The failure with the current Haste is simple, it makes melee way too good.

A good change, full attack, first attack at the players best bonus, the additional attacks at +2, with a final additional attack at +2 from haste, with strength , and other attacks mods tacked on at the end. Even then I question the 3rd level spell slot.


Buddah668 wrote:

The failure with the current Haste is simple, it makes melee way too good.

A good change, full attack, first attack at the players best bonus, the additional attacks at +2, with a final additional attack at +2 from haste, with strength , and other attacks mods tacked on at the end. Even then I question the 3rd level spell slot.

Melee too good? Melee is by far the weakest combat role in the game. By far.


I've never seen haste as a problem. It's far more effective in the hands of a DM making lower level mooks backed by a caster more powerful. Most average parties have 2 or 3 physical damage dealers that benefit from the spell. While the DM can send a gang of Hill Giants or Demons against a party and use one haste spell to make them far more dangerous. I haven't had problems with hsate.

All I can say is you must have, or would have, really hated the 3.0 version of haste. That helped casters too.


Fozbek wrote:
Buddah668 wrote:

The failure with the current Haste is simple, it makes melee way too good.

A good change, full attack, first attack at the players best bonus, the additional attacks at +2, with a final additional attack at +2 from haste, with strength , and other attacks mods tacked on at the end. Even then I question the 3rd level spell slot.

Melee too good? Melee is by far the weakest combat role in the game. By far.

At what level? At low level melees are rather powerful. They don't really fall behind casters until very high level, which most people don't play to.

You wouldn't know melees are weak with my group. It's all the majority of them play. They can't stand waiting to be powerful and melees are consistently strong against all enemies up to level 15 or so when casters start to get enough spells and their feat chains start to kick in.

Melees also have something to do almost every round, whereas casters have to preserve their spell resources. They can't stand not doing something for a round.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.

To paraphrased the top post:
"Haste sucks because its an amazingly powerful spell that makes spellcasters pointless."

As far as I'm concerned, haste is one of those rare class abilities that lets everyone else in the party awesome, for me that's a big winner.


Dennis Baker wrote:

To paraphrased the top post:

"Haste sucks because its an amazingly powerful spell that makes spellcasters pointless."

As far as I'm concerned, haste is one of those rare class abilities that lets everyone else in the party awesome, for me that's a big winner.

All haste really does is enhance the already awesome ammounts of damage melee/warrior types can dish out, it makes damage dealers overspecialized in dealing damage.

A single round Battle of Fervor effect would be kinda cool, depending on the situation anyone can make an extra move, stand up from prone, have an extra attack, increase dodge/AC, increase concentration checks or cast a spell with still or silent spell applied. It could still easily qualify as a 3rd level spell and I'd extend it as a 4th level spell too.

Liberty's Edge

So what?

If you don't like the extra attack, then don't let your PCs get into position to make Full Attacks - problem solved. This is not exactly rocket science.

Sounds to me like the problem isn't Haste, it
s that your PCs are better tacticians than you are...
-Kle.


Maddigan wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
Buddah668 wrote:

The failure with the current Haste is simple, it makes melee way too good.

A good change, full attack, first attack at the players best bonus, the additional attacks at +2, with a final additional attack at +2 from haste, with strength , and other attacks mods tacked on at the end. Even then I question the 3rd level spell slot.

Melee too good? Melee is by far the weakest combat role in the game. By far.
At what level? At low level melees are rather powerful.

At level 1, mages can incapacitate 4+ opponents per spell (sleep, color spray). Melee can incapacitate one opponent. Maybe.

Shadow Lodge

Here comes the C-MD argument again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Here comes the C-MD argument again.

There is no Caster-Martial Disparity, there is only AM BARBARIAN-not AM BARBARIAN disparity. ;)

If you're not over-the-top optimized, generally speaking melee is the weakest thing you can do.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

POSTER AM MEAN 'DESTRUCITY', NOT 'DISPARITY'.


As a player, I have to say this. Haste is the coolest buff there is. You do not mess with my haste. It's fun and enjoyable.
And I think your players would agree, since they use it regularly. If you're going to nerf the fun right out of the game, why would they continue playing with you? Think on that.

Silver Crusade

Fozbek wrote:


At level 1, mages can incapacitate 4+ opponents per spell (sleep, color spray). Melee can incapacitate one opponent. Maybe.

A specialist wizard with an 18 INT at 1st level can cast a maximum of 3 of those spells assuming an average of 4 incapacitations per spell that means 12 maximum. Usually wizards at that level try to use one spell per combat. Those two spells are mind affecting. If you run into some mindless undead those spells are useless.

A Fighter with 18 STR power attack and cleave can take out 2/round. He can do that all day. They have several avenues to do this. Archer. Two weapon fighting. Keep in mind that the monsters you see at 1st level have fairly low hp. Goblins have 6. Using a 2h weapon our fighter will automatically kill them (incapacitate) with minimum weapon damage. Mindless undead...no problem. Just keep swinging.


karkon wrote:

A Fighter with 18 STR power attack and cleave can take out 2/round. He can do that all day. They have several avenues to do this. Archer. Two weapon fighting. Keep in mind that the monsters you see at 1st level have fairly low hp. Goblins have 6. Using a 2h weapon our fighter will automatically kill them (incapacitate) with minimum weapon damage. Mindless undead...no problem. Just keep swinging.

Does your GM really set up cleave opportunities for you every round?

Shadow Lodge

Nope. But those poor hapless NPCs tend to. :)

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
I don't care for long battles. Short and deadly suits me just fine.

Yeah, still trying to figure out how speeding up combat is a bad thing...

Silver Crusade

Atarlost wrote:
karkon wrote:

A Fighter with 18 STR power attack and cleave can take out 2/round. He can do that all day. They have several avenues to do this. Archer. Two weapon fighting. Keep in mind that the monsters you see at 1st level have fairly low hp. Goblins have 6. Using a 2h weapon our fighter will automatically kill them (incapacitate) with minimum weapon damage. Mindless undead...no problem. Just keep swinging.

Does your GM really set up cleave opportunities for you every round?

Does your GM group enemies up tightly so you can cast sleep and color spray every round. Wait...you can only do that for three rounds so who cares.

If I really want to cleave every round I can just carry a reach weapon. Then I might get to kill 3 dudes a round with cleave and an AOO somewhere.


houstonderek wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I don't care for long battles. Short and deadly suits me just fine.
Yeah, still trying to figure out how speeding up combat is a bad thing...

It isn't about speeding up combat per say.

It about haste being the central element around speeding up combat.

This creates two type of combats: those where haste has been cast, and those where it hasn't (or has been successfully countered/dispelled).

When success as an adventurer relies so much around a single spell, that single spell might be out of line IMO.

'findel

Shadow Lodge

Yes, there are two types of combats. Ones with casters, and ones without. :)


TOZ wrote:
Yes, there are two types of combats. Ones with casters, and ones without. :)

There are combat without caster!?!!?

:)

Shadow Lodge

It's more likely than you think.


Fozbek wrote:

If it's really a problem--and I do not for a second believe it's a problem--haste is incredibly simple to counter.

Just cast slow. It's the same level spell (which already favors the bad guys because they're usually higher level), affects the same number of targets at the same radius as haste, dispels haste, and then has its own effect on top of that. Slow is a hard counter to haste.

Slow does not have an additional effect if it is used to dispel a haste spell. The spell descriptions state that they dispel each other.

Liberty's Edge

Laurefindel wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I don't care for long battles. Short and deadly suits me just fine.
Yeah, still trying to figure out how speeding up combat is a bad thing...

It isn't about speeding up combat per say.

It about haste being the central element around speeding up combat.

This creates two type of combats: those where haste has been cast, and those where it hasn't (or has been successfully countered/dispelled).

When success as an adventurer relies so much around a single spell, that single spell might be out of line IMO.

'findel

How many times is the caster taking Haste in their third level slots? It comes up maybe once or twice a day, unless someone has a wand, and eve then, who cares?

Personally, if combats all turn into multi-round slogfests, I get terribly bored. One of my biggest problems with 4e, actually. I don't want to spend an hour + resolving combats.


houstonderek wrote:

How many times is the caster taking Haste in their third level slots? It comes up maybe once or twice a day, unless someone has a wand, and eve then, who cares?

Personally, if combats all turn into multi-round slogfests, I get terribly bored. One of my biggest problems with 4e, actually. I don't want to spend an hour + resolving combats.

I am also confused by the number of haste spells a mage would memorize. I don't think I ever have more than one memorized plus a couple of scrolls for emergencies.

Also adding fatigue as a penalty just gets the party to stop and rest for a few minutes after every combat. How many fights each 24hr period do groups get into? My parties usually only have 2 or 3 fights a day before they find some place to rest for the night.


Interesting thread.

Personally I think the 1/3 levels seems the most sensible solution [assuming you feel one is required], it levels as you do which makes sense and is easy to implement.


DeathQuaker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
Dosgamer wrote:
+1 to #4. This was what I personally envisioned, too. I used to enforce the old 1e age 1 year rule for casting haste and hardly anyone ever did it, but I don't care for that mechanic these days. I also like the fatigued idea if it is kept where it is an aoe. Personally, though, I like just making it a single target, touch spell.
haste is a touch spell, so unless the party is in fireball formation, they need to waste some actions getting next to the spellcaster.
Nope, sorry, it's a close range spell. Not to mention, only the first target needs to be in range, and the rest of the targets affected need to be within 30 feet of him. (ninjaed!)

Actually, all the targets need to be within range of you and each other.

Haste isn't a burst centered at some spot, it's any target within it's range. Even if it was a burst, and part of a spell that extends beyond it's range is wasted.


Quantum Steve wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
Dosgamer wrote:
+1 to #4. This was what I personally envisioned, too. I used to enforce the old 1e age 1 year rule for casting haste and hardly anyone ever did it, but I don't care for that mechanic these days. I also like the fatigued idea if it is kept where it is an aoe. Personally, though, I like just making it a single target, touch spell.
haste is a touch spell, so unless the party is in fireball formation, they need to waste some actions getting next to the spellcaster.
Nope, sorry, it's a close range spell. Not to mention, only the first target needs to be in range, and the rest of the targets affected need to be within 30 feet of him. (ninjaed!)

Actually, all the targets need to be within range of you and each other.

Haste isn't a burst centered at some spot, it's any target within it's range. Even if it was a burst, and part of a spell that extends beyond it's range is wasted.

Yep, Quantum Steve is correct. Spell ranges are absolute.


Fozbek wrote:
Maddigan wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
Buddah668 wrote:

The failure with the current Haste is simple, it makes melee way too good.

A good change, full attack, first attack at the players best bonus, the additional attacks at +2, with a final additional attack at +2 from haste, with strength , and other attacks mods tacked on at the end. Even then I question the 3rd level spell slot.

Melee too good? Melee is by far the weakest combat role in the game. By far.
At what level? At low level melees are rather powerful.
At level 1, mages can incapacitate 4+ opponents per spell (sleep, color spray). Melee can incapacitate one opponent. Maybe.

More exaggeration.

The mage can do this if the creature isn't immune to mind-effecting effects, has a low will save, and are spaced closely together. They can do this at most three times per day if they have no other spell memorized.

While the melee can kill enemy after enemy after enemy as long as they have hit points.

What are you going to tell me next? They mage blows off his spells,then your party rests for the night every fight? And then blame that one class design rather than poor DMing?

Would you stop with the exaggertations. They don't help your case at all. Probably because the case isn't there to be made. If we were to actually study games including the amount casters kill to the amount melees kill and we would probably have something like a 7 to 3 ratio in favor of the melees until high level.

Even just last weak I had to sit there while the magus, fighter, and rogue killed the main BBEG because he was immune to the majority of my attacks due to SR. While the melee beat the guy down motoring through his mirror images. The enemy was a caster. He tried dominate person, but the person he targeted made his save. A completely useless round spent by the enemy. That is life as a caster.


TOZ wrote:
Here comes the C-MD argument again.

If we weren't having a C-MD argument, this wouldn't be a fantasy game.

Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials in a fantasy game. It is a trope of fantasy. Probably 80 to 90% of fantasy books are built on the caster-martial disparity with a caster BBEG.

This is one of the reasons that games that don't have a C-MD won't be successful as those that do. Fantasy fans know that is how it is supposed to be including the game designers at Paizo, who base more of what they do on books than gamist ideas.

All you need to do is take some of the greatest fantasy books of all time and ask yourself who is the villain? Most of the time it is some powerful caster that a group of martials with their own powerful caster have to deal with.

The martials get to be the underdog heroes in general, while the casters get to be their sidekicks or their villains. The martials usually get the girl too. They should be happy with that.

It's a trade off.


Laurefindel wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I don't care for long battles. Short and deadly suits me just fine.
Yeah, still trying to figure out how speeding up combat is a bad thing...

It isn't about speeding up combat per say.

It about haste being the central element around speeding up combat.

This creates two type of combats: those where haste has been cast, and those where it hasn't (or has been successfully countered/dispelled).

When success as an adventurer relies so much around a single spell, that single spell might be out of line IMO.

'findel

Yeah we need to ban Summon Monster spells wall spells and Cure spells they get used way to much by every party especially those dang cures.


Maddigan wrote:


More exaggeration.

The mage can do this if the creature isn't immune to mind-effecting effects, has a low will save, and are spaced closely together. They can do this at most three times per day if they have no other spell memorized.

To be fair to the exaggeration of things:

A Wizard with such desire, and allowed mechanics, could prepare sleep 4 times as a normal Enchanter Wizard with a 20 intelligence - and one additional time for a total of 5 if they are allowed to be a Thassilonian Specialist.

A Sorcerer with a 20 charisma can also manage 5 sleep spells in a single day.

But yes, your point is still solid even though you were undershooting the actual numbers.


Maddigan wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
Maddigan wrote:
Fozbek wrote:
Buddah668 wrote:

The failure with the current Haste is simple, it makes melee way too good.

A good change, full attack, first attack at the players best bonus, the additional attacks at +2, with a final additional attack at +2 from haste, with strength , and other attacks mods tacked on at the end. Even then I question the 3rd level spell slot.

Melee too good? Melee is by far the weakest combat role in the game. By far.
At what level? At low level melees are rather powerful.
At level 1, mages can incapacitate 4+ opponents per spell (sleep, color spray). Melee can incapacitate one opponent. Maybe.

More exaggeration.

The mage can do this if the creature isn't immune to mind-effecting effects, has a low will save, and are spaced closely together. They can do this at most three times per day if they have no other spell memorized.

Erm, a level 1 Witch can slumber till their face melts off once per enemy per day. With accursed hex (also available at level 1) they can do this twice per enemy per day if the enemy failed their save and can also try ANY (except those that state they can only be used a certain number of times per day but the general rule is unlimited daily uses) hex twice per enemy per day. The Witch is the spellcaster who is most equal to melee types since their core power doesn't have limitations (outside the save mechanic, which a melees enemy also have this in the form of having to meet minimum DC = enemy AC). A typical spellcaster on a particularly exhausting day is going to be next to useless by the end of the day if they don't have magical gear such as scrolls/wands. The Witch, though, can keep on trucking with their core talents all day every day. Casting spells is an aside bonus and the fact they can acquire spells at the same spells-per-day rate of a Wizard is a bit unbalancing, tbh. It's no wonder baba yaga conquered a nation in a day.


Talonhawke wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

When success as an adventurer relies so much around a single spell, that single spell might be out of line IMO.

'findel

Yeah we need to ban Summon Monster spells wall spells and Cure spells they get used way to much by every party especially those dang cures.

Who's talking of banning anything?

But still, I think there would be a similar issue if there was one healing spell a single summoning spell which could summon that one single powerful monster.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Laurefindel, it's per se, not per say;). For the future.

===Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

Maddigan wrote:

If we weren't having a C-MD argument, this wouldn't be a fantasy game.

To you. Some of us believe martials can be just as fantastic as casters.


Aelryinth wrote:

Laurefindel, it's per se, not per say;). For the future.

===Aelryinth

... I knew that... I was, hum, making sure you were paying attention...

*whistles away*

Liberty's Edge

Not even including the many spell defenses versus Haste that have already been mentioned, there's the art of simply moving. If the party is sixth level or higher, I accept an AoO for moving and still reduce the melee-focused PCs efficiency from three attacks a round to two. If I am, myself, a melee-focused bad guy, then I'm using trip and overrun to make speedy get up off his backside.

Don't stand and slug it out with the Flash.

51 to 100 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Haste, and why I have come to particularly dislike it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.