|
Charging requires you to move directly towards the target and Ride-By Attack is somewhat pointless unless you move to the side of your target.Charge and Ride-By Attack. Lame.How does this not work?
Nope. Still doable.
You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.
That is often, perhaps even mostly, also a space where you can keep moving in a straight line from.
This configuration for example, assuming that one of the Xs was moving on the straight:
OOOO
OXOO
OOXO
OOOO
Or this if they're moving on the diagnol:
OOOO
OXOO
OXOO
OOOO
Only if you are in direct line with the target (less common than being in line with a square you can attack them from...much less common with a Reach weapon, like a lance) does the Feat fail to be useful, and (knowing this) you can maneuver somewhat to set this sort of thing up.
It's admittedly a bit more of a hassle with Large or bigger creatures, but by no means impossible.
Nope. Still doable.Charging requires you to move directly towards the target and Ride-By Attack is somewhat pointless unless you move to the side of your target.Charge and Ride-By Attack. Lame.How does this not work?
I didn't say it was impossible.
To be honest though, I was thinking of 3.5 rules where it says that you have to move "directly toward the designated opponent"; Pathfinder removed that wording, apparently. So I concede the point.
How so? +2 to hit affects only your attacks, -2 to AC is equivalent to a +2 attack bonus for all your opponents; as soon as your opponents have more attacks than you, it's a net loss.When you just walk up and hit them? I.e. when they are more than a 5' step away. Charging loses as much as it gains.+2 to hit is generally worth more than 2 ACThat would be the case if your AC and the enemies AC are the same, which isn't necessarily the case.
Obviously a +2 hit is great to have against high AC enemies. If you only hitting them on an 18+, then a +2 basicly doubles your hit chance.
If you already hit them on pretty much everything but a nat 1, then a +2 is rather useless.
Inbetween it's still good, but the lower the target AC gets the less in relation to what you already have you get from it.The same goes for your AC. If you have very high AC, then a -2 is actually bad. If you have low AC, then a -2 might not make much difference. Seems paradox, but yes.
I think this is an error, and one that I see quite often. Sure, if the enemy has a high AC that you can only hit on a 19+, you effectively double your chance to hit him. But you still raise your to-hit-chance by 10%; you still miss on a 1-16. If you would have hit him with a 7, and now only need a 5, you also raised the probability by 10%. It only makes a difference if, as you said, you already hit them on pretty much everything but a nat 1 (or 2).
So, it's 2 sides on your d20 that hit now, which didn't before, and the same goes for your enemy.To add to Quatar's statement, first strike can be quite important. It may be worthwhile to get that first hit in and the +2 may be extremely beneficial in that regard.
Also: even if the BBEG has more attacks than you do it is still not necessarily a net loss. It depends on DPR. IF the BBEG has more DPR than you do it MIGHT be a net loss (see Qatar's statement regarding paradoxical AC penalties/bonuses).
Example: BBEG has a higher DPR than you do. If you lose -2AC it's DPR may not improve (a 2 to hit is still a 2 to hit).
However, if you gain +2attack bonus you may have just increased your DPR significantly (provided you did not also need a 2 to hit).
Yeah, true. But, well, the charge is usually the first attack, when you should not yet know your opponent's DPR...:-)
Empower Spell+Maximize Spell to get 150% of the most damage possible without rolling any dice.
Why? Is it because after Maximise Spell the damage is no longer a variable?
Cpt. Caboodle: I was not stating who knew what. I was stating whether or not it is a net loss or not. That is mechanics, not knowledge. Of course, not knowing means you have to take a chance. Oh well. :)
- Gauss
Empower Spell+Maximize Spell to get 150% of the most damage possible without rolling any dice.Why? Is it because after Maximise Spell the damage is no longer a variable?
metamagic only applies to the base dice, doesn't stack
empowered maximised 5d6 = 30+2d6 not 42
Stunning Fist + Cockatrice Strike; your stun doesn't last long enough.
(Cockatrice Strike is actually pretty crappy, so it probably doesn't belong under "best rule combos".)
Not just that, it doesn't activate unless you crit and they have a certain condition. Does it really need 4 balancing requirements: full rd action, Crit, Condition, Sav?
I'd lower the BAB requirement, feat requirement, and let it work on any attack not just full attack action (it already only activates on a crit, certain condition, and a save).
Empower Spell+Maximize Spell to get 150% of the most damage possible without rolling any dice.Why? Is it because after Maximise Spell the damage is no longer a variable?metamagic only applies to the base dice, doesn't stack
empowered maximised 5d6 = 30+2d6 not 42
The correct formula is actually 30 + (5d6)/2 = damage.
Developers have been quite clear that you don't roll half again as many dice with Empower Spell. You roll your normal amount, then add 50% to the total result.
Empower Spell+Maximize Spell to get 150% of the most damage possible without rolling any dice.Why? Is it because after Maximise Spell the damage is no longer a variable?metamagic only applies to the base dice, doesn't stack
empowered maximised 5d6 = 30+2d6 not 42
The correct formula is actually 30 + (5d6)/2 = damage.
Developers have been quite clear that you don't roll half again as many dice with Empower Spell. You roll your normal amount, then add 50% to the total result.
Which of course makes much more sense, because who wants to roll two and a half d6's?
:)
Empower Spell+Maximize Spell to get 150% of the most damage possible without rolling any dice.Why? Is it because after Maximise Spell the damage is no longer a variable?metamagic only applies to the base dice, doesn't stack
empowered maximised 5d6 = 30+2d6 not 42
The correct formula is actually 30 + (5d6)/2 = damage.
Developers have been quite clear that you don't roll half again as many dice with Empower Spell. You roll your normal amount, then add 50% to the total result.
I see, so you could use the feats together, and the result would be anywhere between 32 and 45, and not a maximised 45 hp damage.
I think this is an error, and one that I see quite often. Sure, if the enemy has a high AC that you can only hit on a 19+, you effectively double your chance to hit him. But you still raise your to-hit-chance by 10%; you still miss on a 1-16. If you would have hit him with a 7, and now only need a 5, you also raised the probability by 10%. It only makes a difference if, as you said, you already hit them on pretty much everything but a nat 1 (or 2).
So, it's 2 sides on your d20 that hit now, which didn't before, and the same goes for your enemy.
As a mathematician, I've got to chime in here. What you see isn't an error. The way you calculate DPR is (Average Damage) times (Chance to Hit). This means that if you need an 18 to hit (15% hit chance), and you do an average of 20 damage: DPR = 20 * 0.15 = 3
If the enemy had 30 hp, you'd estimate that it'd take you 10 rounds to kill it. A +2 to hit would then give you 16 to hit (25%) and raise your DPR to 5 (20 * 0.25). That means the fight should take 6 rounds now. A big improvement.
On the other hand, if you started with a 4 to hit (85%), your DPR would start at 17 (20 * 0.85). Meaning you'd need only 2 rounds to finish the fight on average. A +2 to hit would raise your DPR to 19 (20 * 0.95), which would still be 2 rounds on average, so very little improvement. (It does still lower the probability of it taking 3 rounds.)
So yes, a +2 to hit is a constant +10% hit chance (if it's somewhere in the middle), and that translates into a constant +X DPR, but +2 DPR when you only had 2 or 3 to begin with is much more important than +2 DPR when you already had 17 or 18.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add onto what MagiMaster is saying, the entire DPR equation is:
[(Chance to hit)*(Average damage+precision damage)]+[(chance to hit)*(chance to crit)*(critical modifier-1)*(average damage)]
Note: chance to hit cannot exceed chance to crit in the second portion of the equation.
- Gauss
He is ugly isn't he? ;P
It's an old one, but enlarge person, chain whip, combat reflexes. 3 or 4 attacks of opportunity before they ever got to you, but no, movement only ever provokes once. It took our group a good while to notice that one. Until then melee was owned by my friend the CHAIN GUY.
Where in the RAW does it say this?
Movement provokes if you move 2 squares or 10 feet from 1 threatened square into another, whichever is smaller (in the cases of rough terrain, where the cost of movement is doubled, moving from a threatened square to another costs 10 feet, triggering an attack of opportunity. In normal terrain, a 5 foot follow-up from a threatened square does not provoke [marking 1 square], but moving again [another 5 feet, AKA 2 squares] will provoke).
A fine example for a Mobile Fighter: Spring Attack + Whirlwind Blitz = Rapid Slash, cutting down 4-5 baddies (or making 4-5 attacks) while being able to move 40 feet, all the while not provoking attacks of opportunity.
He is ugly isn't he? ;P
Hmmm... yes. But he's right, dammit.
Factoring the to-hit-bonus into the dpr was a... brilliant idea. Who would have thunk?[(Chance to hit)*(Average damage+precision damage)]+[(chance to hit)*(chance to crit)*(critical modifier-1)*(average damage)]
I believe you. I'm not in the mood to verify that...
|
It's an old one, but enlarge person, chain whip, combat reflexes. 3 or 4 attacks of opportunity before they ever got to you, but no, movement only ever provokes once. It took our group a good while to notice that one. Until then melee was owned by my friend the CHAIN GUY.Where in the RAW does it say this?
Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent.
Under 'Combat' look for 'Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity'.
...I think this is an error, and one that I see quite often. Sure, if the enemy has a high AC that you can only hit on a 19+, you effectively double your chance to hit him. But you still raise your to-hit-chance by 10%; you still miss on a 1-16. If you would have hit him with a 7, and now only need a 5, you also raised the probability by 10%. It only makes a difference if, as you said, you already hit them on pretty much everything but a nat 1 (or 2)...
First example: You were hitting only on a 19 or 20. That is a 10% chance to hit. Now with a +2 to hit, you are hitting on 17-20. You now have a 20% chance to hit. That is a 100% increase in your number of hits.
Second example: You were hitting on a 7-20. That is a 70% chance to hit. Now with a +2 to hit, you are hitting on 5-20. That is an 80% chance to hit. That is only 14% increase in the number of hits you score.
He is ugly isn't he? ;PHmmm... yes. But he's right, dammit.
Factoring the to-hit-bonus into the dpr was a... brilliant idea. Who would have thunk?
[(Chance to hit)*(Average damage+precision damage)]+[(chance to hit)*(chance to crit)*(critical modifier-1)*(average damage)]I believe you. I'm not in the mood to verify that...
That's a mis-post meant for another thread. I caught it too late to be able to remove it. I flagged it, but it doesn't look like they are going to do anything.
I don't I was ever quite as sad about a spell not working the way I thought it should :PSetting fire to a grease spell
Me too.
I suspect we were all thrown by Web, which IS flammable. But it's still disappointing, to the point where I'd almost be willing to research Grease, Greater or somesuch.
Cpt. Caboodle: The DPR equation is not mine. It has been used around here for awhile I think. I was mainly adding the section on criticals to the equation that MagiMaster was pointing out.
- Gauss
The basic formula I posted is just simple probability. (The bigger formula is also simple probability but it's been rearranged for easier use.) I did skip a step in the explanation by just jumping straight to average damage, but unless someone actually wants a probability lesson, I don't think it's too important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would this ever have worked? It's material component is butter. When was the last time you saw butter burst into flame.
Burst into flames? No. Burn? Oh, yes.
Madison Butter Fire Remembers 20 Years Later
DPR equations always amuse me since even in a level 1-20 campaign the dice rolls can easily fall well outside the expected averages because the sample size just isn't that big.
Phasics, it is worse than that. Dice are lopsided. Ever test them with a micrometer? I have, and I have also used a ratio of 1:1 (approx) saltwater to float some of my dice. Not balanced that way either.
Some of the members of my gaming group decided to see just how out of whack our dice were. Standard Chessex (sp?) dice...soo not balanced. Mostly though they tended to balance to the 10-11 axis which is as it should be if the dice are going to be imbalanced. Any that balanced to the 20-1axis are tossed.
Unfortunately for the players: my D20's were too heavy for the float test even at 1:1 saltwater. Micrometer showed they were still short on the 10-11 axis.
However, I still use DPR equations because that is the only metric by which to judge things. It is a metric, not an expectation of real game results.
- Gauss
Phasics, it is worse than that. Dice are lopsided. Ever test them with a micrometer? I have, and I have also used a ratio of 1:1 (approx) saltwater to float some of my dice. Not balanced that way either.
Some of the members of my gaming group decided to see just how out of whack our dice were. Standard Chessex (sp?) dice...soo not balanced. Mostly though they tended to balance to the 10-11 axis which is as it should be if the dice are going to be imbalanced. Any that balanced to the 20-1axis are tossed.
Unfortunately for the players: my D20's were too heavy for the float test even at 1:1 saltwater. Micrometer showed they were still short on the 10-11 axis.
However, I still use DPR equations because that is the only metric by which to judge things. It is a metric, not an expectation of real game results.
- Gauss
of course then you factor in someone bringing a d20 with 2 20's and no 2 :P
I am not that big a nerd trust me. The truth...I was a jock. Ok, smart jock but still. And my degrees arent even in engineering, only electronics and semiconductor manufacturing (two separate degrees). I was pursuing my Electro/Mechanical (merged) degree but I burned out.
Thanks for the compliment though.
The trick with the saltwater, itll take a lot of time to get the mix right. Just keep adding salt, mixing it, and waiting for it to absorb it. Eventually itll reach a saturation point where youll have to give it more time to absorb the salt properly. I used Epsom Salt.
Some of Chessex's dice will never float. They are just too heavy. Still, if the short axis is the 10-11 axis that is as good as a bad die will get. Long axis should be 1-20.
I say bad die because all dice are screwed up. Even so called precision dice. It is just a matter of how good do you want the bad dice?
- Gauss
|
|
Why would this ever have worked? It's material component is butter. When was the last time you saw butter burst into flame.
Burst into flames? No. Burn? Oh, yes.
Madison Butter Fire Remembers 20 Years Later
Any oily stuff will burn, just need the right conditions.
Axl: I played Basketball, Football, ran cross country 5 and 10k, and was into weight training. And now...apparently, I am a nerd. The contradiction may cause the universe to implode. *chuckles* Thanks for the compliment.
And yes, heavy = too dense. Hey, its past 5am here. I dont think my head would float right now either. :P
- Gauss
... The trick with the saltwater, itll take a lot of time to get the mix right. Just keep adding salt, mixing it, and waiting for it to absorb it. Eventually itll reach a saturation point where youll have to give it more time to absorb the salt properly. I used Epsom Salt...
Heat clean tap water until boiling.
Remove from stove or micro wave.Put in way too much salt.
Any extra that can't be disolved will just settle to the bottom and not affect anything.
You can get an even higher fluid density by mixing in one of the common kitchen syrups. Molasus, caro, etc... Which ever one doesn't float and can be mixed with warm salt water. But I don't remember which one off the top of my head. Chemistry class was about 20 years ago.
That might be enough to get your other dice to float. Of course it might also make it too viscous for the dice to freely roll.
Of course the real ultimate would be a shallow dish of mercury. Your dice will hardly sink into that at all and should rotate very easily.
... The trick with the saltwater, itll take a lot of time to get the mix right. Just keep adding salt, mixing it, and waiting for it to absorb it. Eventually itll reach a saturation point where youll have to give it more time to absorb the salt properly. I used Epsom Salt...Heat clean tap water until boiling.
Remove from stove or micro wave.
Put in way too much salt.
Any extra that can't be disolved will just settle to the bottom and not affect anything.You can get an even higher fluid density by mixing in one of the common kitchen syrups. Molasus, caro, etc... Which ever one doesn't float and can be mixed with warm salt water. But I don't remember which one off the top of my head. Chemistry class was about 20 years ago.
That might be enough to get your other dice to float. Of course it might also make it too viscous for the dice to freely roll.
Of course the real ultimate would be a shallow dish of mercury. Your dice will hardly sink into that at all and should rotate very easily.
Just don't get it on your skin.
Actually mercury is pretty safe on your skin as long as you don't have any open sores or wounds. It is a relatively large, inert, dense molecule that does not easily absorb through the skin.
Don't heat it up without supervision by a knowledgeable person though. Breathing mercury vapors is really nasty.
scout archetype, sap master and pounce.
However that damn archetype knew such combos existed and wrote that only the first attack is considered flat-footed.
Actually mercury is pretty safe on your skin as long as you don't have any open sores or wounds. It is a relatively large, inert, dense molecule that does not easily absorb through the skin.
Don't heat it up without supervision by a knowledgeable person though. Breathing mercury vapors is really nasty.
I'm not a chemist. My knowledge on mercury poisoning is limited to "it's bad."
My contributions:
Combining Greater Magic Weapon and +1 weapon with +9 of Special Abilities does not work in PF anymore. Yay!
Someone posted the Demon Domain 'Enhancement to the Cleric' that they thought would stack with Magic weapons...ignoring the fact that Amulets of Mighty Fists have been around forever, and don't stack with magic weapons, either.
Unfortunately, combining +10 bow and +10 arrows DOES still work.
=========================
The benefits of Charge over a Standard Action are:
+2 to hit can be converted into AC (via Expertise/Defender) to neutralize the penalty, or into +4/+6 damage (via Power Attack). With a crit, the extra damage with 'no penalty' can be a game changer.
the -2 to AC doesn't matter if the enemy is dead.
This, incidentally, is why Power Attack> Vital Strike. The extra damage from PA is almost always more then a Vital Strike, you hit at the same chance, AND it multiplies on a crit, which Vital Strike does not.
And you can Charge for twice the distance you can move as an SA, remember. That's the biggest benefit.
Someone posted thinking Vital Strike would work with Charge.
No, it doesn't, because Charge is not an Attack Action...I believe it's a special full attack action (reference?). Yes, groans all around.
==Aelryinth
I'm not a chemist. My knowledge on mercury poisoning is limited to "it's bad."Actually mercury is pretty safe on your skin as long as you don't have any open sores or wounds. It is a relatively large, inert, dense molecule that does not easily absorb through the skin.
Don't heat it up without supervision by a knowledgeable person though. Breathing mercury vapors is really nasty.
The phrase 'Mad as a Hatter' comes from the fact mercury was used to tan and shape the pelts made into hats by hatmakers. It's quite bad.
It's also used in the process of seperating gold from ore as the cheapest means to do so. With the glut of gold mining going on in the world, the sale of mercury to poor people digging up nuggets and not having access to better means of seperating out their gold is having a major health effect on gold miners in those areas.
==Aelryinth
Charging requires you to move directly towards the target and Ride-By Attack is somewhat pointless unless you move to the side of your target.Charge and Ride-By Attack. Lame.How does this not work?
Technically speaking, you Charge in a straight line to your target...but Ride-By then allows you to move away in any direction or manner that you require after you make the attack. You don't have to go straight through them.
Of course, this presupposes that you are allowed to move after making a charge. You can't use a Charge with Spring Attack, so I'm guessing that a Charge has to end at making an attack., and this won't work.
But the mounted rules could be different.
==Aelryinth
... The phrase 'Mad as a Hatter' comes from the fact mercury was used to tan and shape the pelts made into hats by hatmakers. It's quite bad...
I believe that is an excellent example. IIRC, Historians believe they warmed the solutions used so they would work better. If they occasionally warmed them too much and started geting vapors they would be breathing it where it is easily absorbed. Alternatively they could be getting it on their hands either absorbing into open cuts and sores or cleaning up and consuming it with their food.
Kydeem de'Morcaine:
Thanks, if I ever feel like redoing it I will consider that. As for hot water, yes I used it. The salt that settled to the bottom did eventually get absorbed with stirring and time. I am sure there is a point of saturation where the salt will simply not be absorbed any further but, the first time the salt settles on the bottom is not necessarily that point. Stirring and time will show whether or not it is. :)
- Gauss
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
You need to reread Ride-By Attack:Technically speaking, you Charge in a straight line to your target...but Ride-By then allows you to move away in any direction or manner that you require after you make the attack. You don't have to go straight through them.
Of course, this presupposes that you are allowed to move after making a charge. You can't use a Charge with Spring Attack, so I'm guessing that a Charge has to end at making an attack., and this won't work.
But the mounted rules could be different.==Aelryinth
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.
Ride-By rerquires you to keep the same straight line as your charge, and can only be used during a charge action so it modifies the charge rules themselves. It has problems working unless you can approach your target at some sort of diagonal.
Technically speaking, you Charge in a straight line to your target...but Ride-By then allows you to move away in any direction or manner that you require after you make the attack. You don't have to go straight through them.
Of course, this presupposes that you are allowed to move after making a charge. You can't use a Charge with Spring Attack, so I'm guessing that a Charge has to end at making an attack., and this won't work.
But the mounted rules could be different.==Aelryinth
You need to reread Ride-By Attack:** spoiler omitted **
Ride-By rerquires you to keep the same straight line as your charge, and can only be used during a charge action so it modifies the charge rules themselves. It has problems working unless you can approach your target at some sort of diagonal.
Or just have the mount use the Overrun maneuver and then use your Ride skill to negate the AoO your mount provokes for not having Improved Overrun. Yes, overrun can be combined with a charge.
Since I didn't read Ride-by, but did remember the Mounted rules were different, thanks for posting the vague recollection that it is possible!
==Aelryinth
Sythesist Summoner - who cares about action economy - what would a party or intellegent enemies do against a summoner and his eidolon? - Kill the caster.
Now as syntesist you just gave yourself AC so high that only a natural 20 will hit you. AND you still a caster, but you don't need to buff since you already have more attacks than anybody else and your damage is silly.
Playing with Sythesist just doesn't work after lvl 8.
Honestly, I had the same reaction to Vital Strike: cool idea, poor execution...
- Gauss
This is my basic impression of Pathfinder in general; great ideas, so-so execution. For every part of 3.5 that PF fixed, something else got broke.
Where is this? Do you mean how GMW doesn't contribute to the bypassing special material bonus or is there some rule that +1 flaming thundering ice wounding sword doesn't gain 4 to hit and damage if boosted by GMW.
Combining Greater Magic Weapon and +1 weapon with +9 of Special Abilities does not work in PF anymore. Yay!
No.
I mean that if you cast GMW on a +1 w +9 sword, you don't get a potentially +5 w +9 Sword.
The rules specifically limit a weapon to +10 total enhancements, whether those come from the weapon, spells, innate abilities, or other sources.
So, you'd have your choice of a +5 sword, w +5 others, some of the 'extras' getting overriden, or the spell would be useless.
This would also work against super-juicing by paladins with Weapon Bond, magus blade bonds, etc.
Also, since an arrow is a weapon, a viable interpretation is that you can only have +10 of effects on any arrow. So the +10 bow stacking with the +1/+9 arrow isn't going to happen, either.
==Aelryinth