Here is the promised spreadsheet.
Here is a DPR sheet I built.
Some facts.
1.) The Vital strike build will have a 1 higher will save and a 1 higher fort save.
2.) The Second chance build will have 3-4 skills per level, and the vital strike build will have 1-2.
3.) The Second Chance build will have the same HP as the Vital strike build if it selects HP for its favored class and the Vital strike build selects Skills.
4.) The Bestiary assumed AC's mean that Vital strike will almost always be better on your first strike due to a fighter hitting them on a 2-4 usually.
5.) The Second chance build is better on average against any opponent which the Iuijutsu master would need a 5 or more to hit.
6.) It takes until level 8 for an Armed Monk to out DPR a Single strike fighter.
7.) I still believe that past levels 6-7 this build will be vastly frustrating, and past level 10-11 will be very much dead weight.
This makes me sad as I like the concept.
I personally would prefer the Second Chance build, however I could see the argument made for the vital strike build.
A tree's CMD is only really important if it's attending objects you want to smash.
Even then, if the tree is Helpless, you automatically succeed on combat maneuvers against it.
I have a feeling some good jokes lie in this direction ...
Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter.
Sunder only really applies for attended objects. I don't see how one would make use of it against a tree.
(What is the tree's CMD pray tell? It doesn't have one.)
Smashing an ObjectSmashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
I gave it a read-through and I've ended up with the same interpretation: That attended objects require a sunder attempt versus the bearer's CMD, smashing objects require a sunder attempt versus the object's AC.
Including the opinion that the 'magic items gain the wearer's bonus to Dex' is a edition crossover flub. Technically, magic items do gain the bearer's Dexterity bonus -- because you sunder against the owner's CMD instead of the object's AC : )
I switched my interpretation a couple of times mid-read though. Not sure if because the wording is a little wonky or if I was just looking too hard for mistakes.
The rusting grasp comment is interesting. Rusting grasp works unusually now that we've standardized rules for damaging objects and gaining the Broken condition. I should think that if I had some ability or effect that repairs hit points to objects, it should reduce the penalties of rust. It's not even necessarily clear if the penalty to AC is permanent, or if the penalty disappears when the spell is over; the duration line at the end of the spell description could just be describing how long you may continue making the touch attacks. But if this were a permanent effect, then I'd expect instead to see something like "the item automatically loses half its hit points and gains the Broken condition", even if it's a modified Broken condition, so you know how to reverse it.
It's a spell druids will gain at 7th level and doesn't work on anything but nonmagical metal, so maybe players don't take it that often and it hasn't seen enough confusion to require a fix. Really, if we standardized it as per the suggestion above and allowed it to affect magical metal, I think it would work better and see more play.
Note that if you use 3.5 stuff it's not all that hard to really ramp up damage.
Heavy weapons are exotic and strike as if a size larger.
Impact strikes as if it were a size larger. I wouldn't let it stack with Lead Blades...
But technically it would.
Giant FOrm gets you to size H.
So, 2-12 greatsword, would be 3-18 for Heavy, 4-24 for Impact, 6-36 for Lead Blades, and 8-48 for size L, then 12-72 for being size H. If you can use Shapechange to get to Colossal, you're at 16-96.
And if you get Greater Mighty Wallop from 3.5, you get 3 size increases. Ahem. 48-288.
==Aelryinth
If you allow free mixing of 3.5 and Pathfinder, you are going to have an 'interesting' and 'non-standard' experience.
I guess that's alright for players that want to fight Treerazer without exceeding level 20, but if you're optimizing then his stats might be too low.
Edit: Anyway, in Pathfinder you can be affected by one Polymorph at a time, and spells that change your size don't stack with a Polymorph. So I'm betting that some of these tricks require some willful ignorance.
No tricks in the above. Enlarge to get to L. Giant form to instead get to H. Shapechange to instead get to C.
Then it's just stacking other size mods.
==Aelryinth
Alright, I'm with you when you say greatsword, heavy, impact, lead blades, large/huge.
But if we're talking about combining the effects of a giant form spell with shapechange, both of which are Polymorph subschool, then we run into this little stumbling gap:
You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at
a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you
activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can
decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the
place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change
your size have no effect on you while you are under the
effects of a polymorph spell
It seems that adding Pathfinder onto 3.5 mechanics in this case is a hindrance to an optimizer unless you're just opening up feats and ignoring limitations. I've been told that getting Colossal weaponry with just 3.5 material wasn't thaaaat hard. Heck, I remember a wu jen spell that made you Gargantuan.
My method is either Powerful Build or Lightened Weapon Training/Lighten Weapon (3.5/3PP Feat), Impact, and one of multiple spells.
Getting to Colossal is kind of ridiculous when you have an Impact Weapon... Getting to Gargantuan is usually the uppermost you can go to get the benefits of your investment.
@Troubleshooter: The key word is instead.
Use Shapechange instead of Giant Form to increase size. Jsut pick a Colossal or bigger humanoid form. Rune Giant or Storm Giant, likely.
==Aelryinth
Again with an Impact Weapon Colossal is redundant. But other than that you are correct.
Weapon damages scale up past Colossal, so it's not redundant. Damage doubles every two steps. Realistic and feasible....meh.
Ouch, Impact is a +2 enhancement because of the CMB bonuses. Didn't see that. Heh. Well, it's also the only enhancement that scales with size, I suppose it fits.
==Aelryinth
Shapechange functions (with minor modifications) as alter self, beast shape IV, elemental body IV, form of the dragon III, giant form II, and plant shape III.
You can use this choice of effect to turn into creatures as large as a Medium humanoid, Huge animal, Large magical beast, Huge elemental, Huge dragon, Huge giant, or Huge plant. It looks like you'd have to use 3.5's shapechange, or your best option is going to be turning into a Huge elemental with a form capable of wielding weapons. Or a dragon, assuming their claws can wield weaponry instead (James Jacobs prefers that they can't).
Ohh, very nice power balance. Good to see that. And they haven't put in a way to hit C or G size, have they?
==Aelryinth
Were is the increase in damage found? or is it 3.5?
There's multiple references to the scale in multiple places. Basically look at how natural attacks scale. You'll note an immediate progression once you get above the 1-10 and 2-12 damage ranges.
Basically, every two steps damage doubles. The spell, um, Strong Jaws? references this directly, since it takes an attack up two sizes, and notes that if an attack gets above the scale it simply doubles in power.
PF uses the same scales as 3.5. They just made it harder to access the higher sizes by restricting magic.
==Aelryinth
I see it now... I knew it scaled like 3.5 but didn't know it actually referenced the limit breaking beyond Colossal as 3.5 that was handled via Colossal+ Rules.
There's a few different tables defining what damage you deal. Table 6-5 on CRB, page 145 deals with Tiny and Large weapon damage; Improved Natural Attack in the Bestiary, page 315 has a similar list.
I seem to recall there may have been a second source in the Core Rulebook, but I forget where. If I recall correctly, the noteworthy part was that the tables didn't agree with all the details. Still, I'm not noticing anything amiss right now.
I was surprised that they wrote strong jaw the way they did. It's worded almost like it affects just one natural attack, the way that greater magic fang gives a big bonus to one natural attack or a +1 enhancement to all of them. Our pouncing druid and his pouncing animal companion loved it.
Improved Natural Attack only goes for Natural Attack. Last I checked The Tiny and Large Weapon Damage is the only such table in the CRB. Heck, it might be the only table for manufactured weapons in any PFRPG Books.
The one that allows a full-attack with a single bullet.
|
I assume you mean this one:
Dead Shot (Ex): At 7th level, as a full-round action, the gunslinger can take careful aim and pool all of her attack potential into a single, deadly shot. When she does this, she shoots the firearm at a single target, but makes as many attack rolls as she can, based on her base attack bonus. She makes the attack rolls in order from highest bonus to lowest, as if she were making a full attack. If any of the attack rolls hit the target, the gunslinger's single attack is considered to have hit. For each additional successful attack roll beyond the first, the gunslinger increases the damage of the shot by the base damage dice of the firearm. For instance, if a 7th-level gunslinger firing a musket hits with both attacks, she does 2d12 points of damage with the shot, instead of 1d12 points of damage, before adding any damage modifiers. Precision damage and extra damage from weapon special abilities (such as flaming) are added with damage modifiers and are not increased by this deed. If one or more rolls are critical threats, she confirms the critical once using her highest base attack bonus –5. For each critical threat beyond the first, she reduces this penalty by 1 (to a maximum of 0). The gunslinger only misfires on a dead shot if all the attack rolls are misfires. She cannot perform this deed with a blunderbuss or other scatter weapon when attacking creatures in a cone. The gunslinger must spend 1 grit point to perform this deed.
Yeah. It allows for a Critical. Though Vital Strike might be better if you want to remain mobile and can spare the feats.
That is basically a Vital Strike feat with a weird chance to hit and miss. Potentially you can get all iteratives to hit, and potentially you could miss some.
In short, it's kind of an auto-scaling Vital Strike that uses a full attack action.
Because it doesn't increase modifiers, it's going to do less damage then a full attack...you're right, all it does is conserve ammo. And the only reason it would really work is because firearms use touch attacks.
==Aelryinth
It also decreases Misfire Chances.
Actually, it has the exact same frequency of misfire chances...they just don't occur as often for the same reason you're conserving ammo...you aren't firing as much.
It doesn't say there's no misfire chance, after all.
==Aelryinth
I should have phrased it as: "They have less Misfire Risk."
As the shot only truly misfires if all the attacks misfire. So a Level 16 Gunslinger would only misfire with a standard Pistol on a Natural 1 on all 4 Rolls.
|
|
there is one additional advantage... if you have Rapid Shot, and/or are hasted, you'd get more potential hits. So, at level 7 you could potentially hit for 4d12+12 assuming a 17 dex.... or am I mistaken?
Slightly better than Vital Strike in this case, since it would be 2d12+3, but would leave you a nove action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That falls on GM Fiat. Some say it is only the basic Full-Attack. Others allow Rapid Shot.
But it is only a 4d12+3 in your example. The Static Damage isn't multiplied IIRC.
It's a Vital Strike that auto-scales. And people wonder why feats as class features is idiotic? Look at what class features grant...this one basically grants 3 feats!
==Aelryinth
|
|
That falls on GM Fiat. Some say it is only the basic Full-Attack. Others allow Rapid Shot.
But it is only a 4d12+3 in your example. The Static Damage isn't multiplied IIRC.
Ah, you are right there... the extra dice are all before damage bonuses of any type.
However, there are 2 costs involved with this ability...
1) It is a full round action... so you can only get your 5' step... no move. Also, you cannot reload (unless you are using paper cartridges, rapid reload, and if 2-handed weapon, are a Musket Master).
2) It takes a grit point. These are in rather short supply, from what I have seen.
Rapid Shot (Combat)
You can make an additional ranged attack.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot.Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot.
...as a full-round action, the gunslinger can ...
Ok, from these I can kind of see why that it wouldn't stack with Rapid Shot... since it is effectively a different type of full-round action (much like why you cannot use Vital Strike and Cleave)
So, it would be:
2d12+3 - one attack roll, standard action(Vital Strike]
vs
2d12+3 - full-round, costs a grit, only if you hit both times.
Honestly, I do see Vital Strike being better in this case. As a gunslinger, you'll be able to use Vital Strike every round... no way will you be able to do it with the deed.
It depends on the Feats you need to take. The Archery Feats can eat up a lot of your Feats. And you can easily get ways of regaining Grit or reducing Grit Costs.
Vital Strike fits my Crusader of Gorum Cleric surprisingly well. As he is described of moving into combat and swinging his Greatsword to strike his Foe to take them down As fast as possible.
That said it will be taken AFTER Power Attack & Furious Focus(?).
It also fits that he is trained on a Battlefield which means always being ready to bounce to a new foe.
That said is he optimized? No. Is he Functional? Yes. Heck, he is more potent than our Fighter. That said his spells are only Support. He never has needed his foe to save against a spell.
& now I will wait to be called a fool for using Vital Strike on a 3/4 B.A.B. Character.
I think 3/4 melee attackers is where VS really shines. The feat is not nearly as good as a full attack for a full bab class but a 3/4 bab gets gets less attacks, gets them later, has a harder time connecting on them, and generally does far less damage per hit. If they use power attack and furious focus on a full attack they get less of a benefit since the reduced bab lessens the damage and the penalty really hurts. Add all that up and you can make a good argument for focusing on one hit that hits harder than several weaker hits. A cleric of gorum is even better since you can use spells like enlarge person from the strength domain to add more dice.
I think VS also is a good feat for secondary attackers. If your main fighter is focused on standing and tanking you can have your secondary attacker use the move action to get flanking and then use PA,FF and VS to finish opponents.
Finally I think one thing lost in the DPR comparisons is the fact that sometimes higher numbers are not any better than lower numbers. If I'm fighting an orc with 25 hp and i can take a VS that does 30 damage or a full attack that does 50 than the VS is the better option since i still have my move action to set up my attack on a new enemy next round.
If I'm fighting an orc with 25 hp and i can take a VS that does 30 damage or a full attack that does 50 than the VS is the better option since i still have my move action to set up my attack on a new enemy next round.To nitpick here.. I'd rather do the full attack action so that the Orc is dropped, rather than leave him standing. Stubborn beasts don't know when to stop fighting.
-James
Touche. Sub in a monster without orc ferocity :)
That is still Applicable if you have someone striking them as well.
I think 3/4 melee attackers is where VS really shines. The feat is not nearly as good as a full attack for a full bab class but a 3/4 bab gets gets less attacks, gets them later, has a harder time connecting on them, and generally does far less damage per hit. If they use power attack and furious focus on a full attack they get less of a benefit since the reduced bab lessens the damage and the penalty really hurts. Add all that up and you can make a good argument for focusing on one hit that hits harder than several weaker hits. A cleric of gorum is even better since you can use spells like enlarge person from the strength domain to add more dice.
I think VS also is a good feat for secondary attackers. If your main fighter is focused on standing and tanking you can have your secondary attacker use the move action to get flanking and then use PA,FF and VS to finish opponents.
Finally I think one thing lost in the DPR comparisons is the fact that sometimes higher numbers are not any better than lower numbers. If I'm fighting an orc with 25 hp and i can take a VS that does 30 damage or a full attack that does 50 than the VS is the better option since i still have my move action to set up my attack on a new enemy next round.
If you check my spread sheet above you will see that even when limited to only one attack there are better options, unless you hit on a 5 already, which is more difficult for the 3/4 BaB classes, not less.
In short Vital Strike is a trap, because their is almost always a feat that would have fit the concept aimed for and also worked better mechanically.
Please see my post in this thread for numbers and proof.