A mechanic I'm interested in sharing (and I have no idea if it would work), is one wherein any attack gained via BAB is tacked on to the first instead. Natural weapon routines and two weapon fighting would be an exception.
Example: A 6th level fighter with an 18 STR, weapon specialization and a +1 longsword wielded in one hand would attack once as astandard action for 2D8+14.
Wielded in two hands while power attacking, would attack once as a standard action for 2D8+30.
A 6th level Ranger with improved two weapon fighting, double slice, 18 STR, a +1 longsword and a +1 shortsword would attack twice as a full round action at a -2 penalty, once for 2D8+10, once for 2D6+10.
I don't really like what happens with power attack under this system, And I would probably nerf it with a heavier penalty than it currently gets. Anyway I submit this for review ;p. Is this mechanic worth refining and possibly implementing in games? Obviously this would be a power boost to "martial" characters, but a double edged one. Any observations? Would this entail unforeseen (by me) consequences?
Almost certainly too good, since at higher levels your first attack at full bonus is almost certain to hit so it's a no-brainer to give up your iteratives for such massive damage. You'd probably need to tone this down considerably, given they also get a move action when they do this.
A simpler approach would be to give the vital strike feat chain for free to anyone who meets its prerequisites.
Almost certainly too good, since at higher levels your first attack at full bonus is almost certain to hit so it's a no-brainer to give up your iteratives for such massive damage. You'd probably need to tone this down considerably, given they also get a move action when they do this.
A simpler approach would be to give the vital strike feat chain for free to anyone who meets its prerequisites.
I don't really see how it is "too good", It goes for npcs and monsters too. Still getting your move action is partly the point, lots of people complain about the lack of mobility in PF combat. I also don't really have a problem with 12th level Fighters hitting everything they attack.
Vital strike is terrible.
This is not double edged at all. You're basically allowing them to make all of their attacks in one roll at highest BAB, effectively nerfing every kind of AC.
It would also destroy any semblances of damage reduction, as damage reduction requires multiple attacks to be effective.
Also i don't really like the idea of nerfing power attack. Back in the day it was good for much other than hitting the really low AC creeps or sundering items. Paizo's moved away from that concept and more towards the idea that anything you take can be used 90% + of the time and it runs as a benefit to characters. There aren't many things you'll find that your character is worse for using them every time its an opportune moment (i.e. Rapid shotting every full attack, if you have them, vital striking every move and attack)
DR can be adjusted. I get that it is a boost, I don't think it is as outrageous as it seems though. Good BAB classes already have great accuracy and medium BAB could arguably use the boost.
|
What you are suggesting is basically what Vital Strike is, minus getting the extra strength damage. Vital Strike is meant so that, as a standard action, you can swing with your weapon, roll the damage twice, add them together, and then add your strength. Improved Vital Strike lets you roll the damage a third time. All of these if you hadn't noticed require you to be able to make more than one attack.
I think a good house feat would be something like "Full Vital Strike" PREREQ: BAB +6, Vital Strike: As a full round action, you may make a single attack at your highest BAB -2, and roll for damage twice, including any modifiers. At BAB +11, and every +5 after, you may roll for damage again after taking a cumlative -2 penalty. If confirm a critical hit with this attack, only apply the critical hit damage to the first roll.
I think this would offer an improved version of Vital Strike, and at the same time, tone down the chance for your fighter to hit. For instance, at +15 BAB, they would take a -6 penalty to hit, but be able deal 3X the damage.
What you are suggesting is basically what Vital Strike is, minus getting the extra strength damage. Vital Strike is meant so that, as a standard action, you can swing with your weapon, roll the damage twice, add them together, and then add your strength. Improved Vital Strike lets you roll the damage a third time. All of these if you hadn't noticed require you to be able to make more than one attack.
I think a good house feat would be something like "Full Vital Strike" PREREQ: BAB +6, Vital Strike: As a full round action, you may make a single attack at your highest BAB -2, and roll for damage twice, including any modifiers. At BAB +11, and every +5 after, you may roll for damage again after taking a cumlative -2 penalty. If confirm a critical hit with this attack, only apply the critical hit damage to the first roll.
I think this would offer an improved version of Vital Strike, and at the same time, tone down the chance for your fighter to hit. For instance, at +15 BAB, they would take a -6 penalty to hit, but be able deal 3X the damage.
I'm looking to make a system wide change to the entire combat dynamic. not something for just some characters.
It was in 3.5, I gave it to a boss swordsman. It isn't very op, but it almost guarantees 1 hit per round.
One alternative to full attack I've done in 3.5, is use the powerful charge feat and reach weapons, in hard, take aoo, withdraw, repeat.
I don't really see how it is "too good", It goes for npcs and monsters too. Still getting your move action is partly the point, lots of people complain about the lack of mobility in PF combat.
The point is that the expected DPS is higher than a full attack plus you get to take a move action. We're talking about a consider damage boost for martials while at the same time giving them added mobility.
This greatly reduces the effectiveness of AC against martial characters and as a result improves their expected damage output. This in turn makes other forms of defenses - such as concealment and DR - relatively more powerful and influential. It also makes combat maneuvers less effective, since they haven't improved while regular attacks have.
Vital strike is terrible.
I'd agree that it's not worth sinking a feat, but it's definitely worth using if you have it. If you've got enlarge person cast on you and are wielding a greatsword, that's +3d6 damage (average +10) which isn't shabby.
I'm looking to make a system wide change to the entire combat dynamic. not something for just some characters.
Fair enough, though what you've proposed will cause a significant increase in the amount of damage caused by higher-level martials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's already been said, but worth reiterating, and a couple new ideas here too:
1. DR becomes worthless. A monster with DR 5 against someone attacking it 3 times will subtract 15 HP from the damage if the guy hits every time. Now it will only subtract 5. A good rule to fix DR with your system is to multiply the DR by the number of attacks that the attacker is combining - if he's combining two attacks into a single roll, then double the DR, if it's three attacks in a single roll, triple the DR, etc.
2. AC becomes worthless, certainly against any full-BAB class. Currently, a 16th level fighter gets +16,/+11/+6/+1 (and then adds all his modifiers). That final attack will almost certainly miss everything and the one before it will usually miss most enemies. So he would hit twice, maybe a 3rd time, averaging something like 2.5x his usual damage output. With your rule, he will be averaging 4x his usual damage output. Not quite, but nearly double.
3. Distance/positioning tactics become nearly useless. Moving and doing huge damage is nearly impossible in the current rules. In yours, it will be automatic. One current way some enemies stay alive is being very mobile, staying out of full-attack range of the heavy hitters, forcing them to get only 1x their usual damage because they're moving every round. In your system, those heavy hitters will be doing 4x their usual damage every round (still using the level 16 example).
4. Movement speed becomes a battlefield necessity. Monks and barbarians, spring attack, spells that increase speed (Expeditious Retreat, Haste, etc.) will be battlefield necessities. Heavy armor will be suicide (moving 20 when your enemies have movement 30 and Spring Attack means you'll do little or no damage and they'll do 4x damage every round).
5. Miss Chance will become the king of the battlefield. It kinda already is, but if your enemy makes 4 separate attacks against your 50% miss chance, likely you'll take about half of his damage output (and if you have decent AC about half of his attacks will miss, so you will take about 1/4 of his total damage possible output). With this system, half the time you'll take all of it, half the time you'll take none of it, if you roll badly a few times you're dead, if you roll well a few times, your enemy is dead. But if you don't have miss chance, you're definitely dead most of the times against someone who does.
6. Ranged attacks will be severely weakened by this. They're already weak (comparing a ranged weapon like a bow vs. a melee weapon, given similar skill, feats, and ability scores), but their advantage is that it's much easier to full attack with them, but this rule equalizes that advantage, making melee weapons far superior to ranged weapons.
7. This is NOT a double-edged sword. Sure, NPCs can do this to the PCs, but the rest of the monsters in the Bestiary cannot since they don't have iterative attacks. So this change massively favors the PCs and might trivialize encounters, especially against monsters that have high AC, high DR, or lots of smaller natural attacks. If you don't plan on fighting that kind of stuff, then yes, this is mostly a double-edged sword.
8. This is, truly, just for some characters. Unless you're planning other changes to make low-BAB classes keep up and mid-BAB classes get a little boost too. Otherwise, this turns the full-BAB classes into Damage Gods.
9. You had better consider nerfing this for the monk. I mentioned a 16th level fighter doing 4x his usual damage and moving, but the monk will Flurry for 7x his usual damage and be able to move 80' each round while he does it. (then again, the monk has been really weak for over a decade now, so maybe he's due).
All HAIL the monk, the King of the Battlefield. Long live the king... :)
Just to clarify, This idea was inspired by older D&D editions that allowed fighters and whatnot to get their attacks even when they moved.
I also have always felt that weapons sometimes become "nerf-like" at higher levels, and I wanted to maintain a sense of lethality between characters with a lot of class levels. Although I understand this would need tweaking. I especially dislike how much this favours the already outrageously over-supported two handed builds.
I really think that this would essentially just allow Martial characters to maintain the paradigm they have going for them at very low levels. The old linear fighters quadratic wizards thing would get shaken up, as it should. Martial characters actually get relatively weaker and less lethal as they level compared to the HP totals of they creatures they are fighting.
I'm comfortable with extremely high accuracy simply being an element of being a high level warrior.
PS, @DM blake the monk wouldn't work that way because flurry would fall under the two weapon fighting mechanic.
My group tried something similar to this. We gave an extra 50% damage for each extra attack. A character with 2 attacks would get rolled damage plus bonuses times 1.5, 3 attacks would double damage, 4 attacks would be 2.5, etc. For damage reduction I simply multiplied it by the number of attacks the character would have had so an attacker with 3 attacks against DR 5 would lost 15 off the attack.
It did have the advantage of speeding up combat, but there were still flaws. The biggest was with the kensai maximizing his damage which resulted in some huge hits. I'm fairly good with math on the fly so the multiplication was not an issue for me, but I can see it being a problem for some people. Creatures with high DR were also a small problem. One bad roll by the attacker could result in almost no damage being done whereas multiple attacks would have averaged out more in the long run. In the end we decided to drop the system, but it was an interesting variation and I am glad we tried it.
Actually I'm kind of laughing right now because you're buffing the one area that martials don't need it... combat. Most martials are already the best source of damage in the game. What they need is out of combat stuff not more combat stuff.
Martials are fine out of combat. It is the fighter specifically that needs a boost in that regard. It is really easy fix though. Give him Perception, a couple more knowledge skills, heal, acrobatics and slap 4+ int skill points on him and you're done.
|
Iteratives also give you a lot more combat options. This takes a lot of tactics out of play.Iteratives also take options away. The concept of the full attack probably does more harm than good.
Feel free to support that assertion, or expect it to be ignored. Fighters get their best damage out of a full attack action, and it's possible to attack and trip or disarm...options are a good thing. Explain how not having those options gives you more options.
PS, @DM blake the monk wouldn't work that way because flurry would fall under the two weapon fighting mechanic.
Are you saying that this is how you would nerf it? Force the monk to use TWF rules as part of your houserule?
Fair enough, but the RAW allows monks to do their entire flurry with a single weapon - a level 16 monk could make 7 headbutts, or swing a temple sword with his right hand 7 times, or whatever he wants. Yes, it mimics the TWF rules by giving the -2 to all attacks, and that same 16th level monk could attack with a headbutt, right hand, left hand, right kick, left kick, right knee, left elbow if he wants to - or he could just jab his enemy 7 times with his right hand if he wants to - there's no restriction on which limbs/appendages/weapons a monk uses with Flurry of Blows.
I'm not suggesting that you can't use your houserule, I'm just trying to point out areas of concern that could make it unbalancing, and monks seem to reach the top of the list for unbalanced with this houserule.
I've actually been considering this for a while myself. I like the idea of single attacks betting better as the character levels, but I also agree that your proposed idea is a bit much. Here are a few thoughts I've had:
Check out the Kirthfinder fighter, if you haven't already. I don't love everything that Kirth did, but his fighter is heroic like the fighter has never been before, and I'll definitely be taking a few pages out of his book.
Vital Strike is problematic. The build that (according to most players I've discussed with) ought to get the most benefit out of it is the mobile combatant (i.e. Chargers and Spring Attackers), but they get absolutely nothing out of it. On the other hand, certain builds (kensai with Perfect Strike has been mentioned, though there is some debate as to whether Perfect Strike works with Vital Strike since Vital Strike could be read as extra damage dice . . .) and many monsters get GREAT benefits from the feat. But most of them require some shenanigans, like the dwarven waraxe-wielding dwarf ranger with a potion of Enlarge in one hand and Lead Blades ready to go. I can't speak for everyone, but I really hate getting shoe-horned into a build as a player, and I hate shoe-horning my players as a DM.
The Star Wars Saga d20 rules had a mechanic which might appeal to some. You didn't make iterative attacks, but you added 1/2 your level as damage. I've thought more than once that it would be interesting if there was a mechanic like this:
On any action that includes a single attack (Charge, Spring Attack, Attacks of Opportunity), characters and creatures add 1/2 their HD to damage. This bonus damage is never added to a full-attack, and it is not multiplied on a critical hit.
Obviously, this is completely off-the-cuff. It doesn't address a great many things, like whether or not this idea should interact with Cleave, or how much improving the single attack action de-values options like combat maneuvers, and a great many things that I haven't thought of because it's just the start of an idea.
Realistically, the full-attack mechanic is a massive part of the game, and any ideas altering it need to be tested VERY extensively before they are held up as a "fix".
|
|
Feel free to support that assertion, or expect it to be ignored. Fighters get their best damage out of a full attack action, and it's possible to attack and trip or disarm...options are a good thing. Explain how not having those options gives you more options.Iteratives also give you a lot more combat options. This takes a lot of tactics out of play.Iteratives also take options away. The concept of the full attack probably does more harm than good.Combat maneuvers generally don't work well and the reliance on iteratives renders every single mobile combat build that doesn't have pounce, mounted skirmisher, or mounted lance charges ineffectual.
Most characters need to move more frequently than they want to perform combat maneuvers, and combat maneuvers tend to do things that are worth the loss of your turn, after all people use them before they get iteratives. Dirty Trick might suffer, but trip and disarm are worth your only attack, sunder lets you deal damage anyways at the level you would have had a second attack, and grapple doesn't function in a full attack anyways.
So you still have yet to show me how it's actually a bad thing, instead explaining that mobile fighters get all jealous because they don't get to do it? You somehow think it's better to not have the extra attack on the guy you just tripped? Dirty Trick, of course, just got gutted, but that's not important...
Let me tell you...pounce is definitely not ineffectual just because some don't have the option...and mobility in combat can still be a winning style...but you've just penalized the hell out of the stand and hold defender type just because you think everybody has to run around.
Nope, sorry, you're killing viable options.
|
|
Static combat is a WotC invention. It was dramatically enhanced with iteratives at the same time mobile combat was heavily nerfed by losing what multiple attacks were available in the TSR editions. In older editions movement did not impair your attacks.
Real world static combat is about polearms and/or shield walls, and is represented by things like movement AoOs, readied actions with brace weapons, and tower shield cover, none of which benefit from the standard attack nerf.
Pounce is effective; too effective. Pounce is the next best thing to mandatory. When one option is mandatory everything else is a non-option. All barbarians that expect to play past level 10 are beast totem. All unmounted martial melee characters that aren't paladins are better off as barbarians. The existence of pounce ruins nearly every non-casting melee build that isn't a beast totem barbarian. Only smite and lay on hands can offer an offsetting advantage.
I've played D&D since the white box. Stand and hold fighters existed back then. Pounce is incredibly powerful...I agreed with you...but that does not negate non-pounce builds, no matter how much people cry that it does. If you don't have one of the more optimal ways to make attacks on the move, you will be sub-optimal doing it. And?
None of that makes it wrongbadfun for a player to play the fighter that stands and holds the portal. None of that makes the full attack action too powerful to exist, or so weak that it must be sneered at.
What removing iteratives DOES do...is nerf the fighter...because he's obviously too scary to the flying invisible time-stopping wizard.
PS, @DM blake the monk wouldn't work that way because flurry would fall under the two weapon fighting mechanic.Are you saying that this is how you would nerf it? Force the monk to use TWF rules as part of your houserule?
Fair enough, but the RAW allows monks to do their entire flurry with a single weapon - a level 16 monk could make 7 headbutts, or swing a temple sword with his right hand 7 times, or whatever he wants. Yes, it mimics the TWF rules by giving the -2 to all attacks, and that same 16th level monk could attack with a headbutt, right hand, left hand, right kick, left kick, right knee, left elbow if he wants to - or he could just jab his enemy 7 times with his right hand if he wants to - there's no restriction on which limbs/appendages/weapons a monk uses with Flurry of Blows.
I'm not suggesting that you can't use your houserule, I'm just trying to point out areas of concern that could make it unbalancing, and monks seem to reach the top of the list for unbalanced with this houserule.
First off the Paizo Monk is a supreme mess. He uses two weapon fighting with one weapon. So the way it would work under the alternative system would be that he would get two attacks as if two weapon fighting, but with one weapon.
I would simply run a kick down the door plotless combat-fest if I wanted to playtest it. I wouldn't risk inserting it into a campaign with players already invested, so it is not as though there is any risk of it ruining anything.
Static combat is a WotC invention. It was dramatically enhanced with iteratives at the same time mobile combat was heavily nerfed by losing what multiple attacks were available in the TSR editions. In older editions movement did not impair your attacks.
Real world static combat is about polearms and/or shield walls, and is represented by things like movement AoOs, readied actions with brace weapons, and tower shield cover, none of which benefit from the standard attack nerf.
Pounce is effective; too effective. Pounce is the next best thing to mandatory. When one option is mandatory everything else is a non-option. All barbarians that expect to play past level 10 are beast totem. All unmounted martial melee characters that aren't paladins are better off as barbarians. The existence of pounce ruins nearly every non-casting melee build that isn't a beast totem barbarian. Only smite and lay on hands can offer an offsetting advantage.
I've played D&D since the white box. Stand and hold fighters existed back then. Pounce is incredibly powerful...I agreed with you...but that does not negate non-pounce builds, no matter how much people cry that it does. If you don't have one of the more optimal ways to make attacks on the move, you will be sub-optimal doing it. And?
None of that makes it wrongbadfun for a player to play the fighter that stands and holds the portal. None of that makes the full attack action too powerful to exist, or so weak that it must be sneered at.
What removing iteratives DOES do...is nerf the fighter...because he's obviously too scary to the flying invisible time-stopping wizard.
I have no idea what you're talking about. What are you even trying to say?
Nerf the fighter? wha...? Did you read the original post?
|
|
Static combat is a WotC invention. It was dramatically enhanced with iteratives at the same time mobile combat was heavily nerfed by losing what multiple attacks were available in the TSR editions. In older editions movement did not impair your attacks.
Real world static combat is about polearms and/or shield walls, and is represented by things like movement AoOs, readied actions with brace weapons, and tower shield cover, none of which benefit from the standard attack nerf.
Pounce is effective; too effective. Pounce is the next best thing to mandatory. When one option is mandatory everything else is a non-option. All barbarians that expect to play past level 10 are beast totem. All unmounted martial melee characters that aren't paladins are better off as barbarians. The existence of pounce ruins nearly every non-casting melee build that isn't a beast totem barbarian. Only smite and lay on hands can offer an offsetting advantage.
I've played D&D since the white box. Stand and hold fighters existed back then. Pounce is incredibly powerful...I agreed with you...but that does not negate non-pounce builds, no matter how much people cry that it does. If you don't have one of the more optimal ways to make attacks on the move, you will be sub-optimal doing it. And?
None of that makes it wrongbadfun for a player to play the fighter that stands and holds the portal. None of that makes the full attack action too powerful to exist, or so weak that it must be sneered at.
What removing iteratives DOES do...is nerf the fighter...because he's obviously too scary to the flying invisible time-stopping wizard.
I have no idea what you're talking about. What are you even trying to say?
Nerf the fighter? wha...? Did you read the original post?
Did you read my original post in the thread? Iteratives are powerful...for those of us that use feat powered tactics...and have characters that would get them.
|
|
Eldon he's not nerfing the fighters, he's buffing them. He's effectively not removing iteratives, he's adding them all together and making them all at highest BAB.I've played D&D since the white box. Stand and hold fighters existed back then. Pounce is incredibly powerful...I agreed with you...but that does not negate non-pounce builds, no matter how much people cry that it does. If you don't have one of the more optimal ways to make attacks on the move, you will be sub-optimal doing it. And?
None of that makes it wrongbadfun for a player to play the fighter that stands and holds the portal. None of that makes the full attack action too powerful to exist, or so weak that it must be sneered at.
What removing iteratives DOES do...is nerf the fighter...because he's obviously too scary to the flying invisible time-stopping wizard.
Yes, and removing my ability to trip on my first iterative, and pound on him...so that he has to get up on his next move, or get pounded while he's down...no option to hit him, and then disarm him, so that he he spends his next round retrieving his sword (and giving me an AOO)...dirty trick is an auto-fail...etc, etc....
|
|
Did you read my original post in the thread? Iteratives are powerful...for those of us that use feat powered tactics...and have characters that would get them.Its not the removal of the extra attacks that make it weaker. You're basically still making the same attacks. You're just making all of them at full BAB. So TWF now gives you 2 attacks instead of 7, one at 4x normal damage, one at 3x.
Rapid shot will still work. All of the TWF feats will still work. The only thing that comes to mind is the hammer the gap ability. Maybe that and sneak attack based on how he implements it. Pretty much its just all your attacks at full BAB.
Yeah...and reducing my odds on a crit...this has ramifications that have not been considered. Do you get my point?
|
|
Yes, and removing my ability to trip on my first iterative, and pound on him...so that he has to get up on his next move, or get pounded while he's down...no option to hit him, and then disarm him, so that he he spends his next round retrieving his sword (and giving me an AOO)...dirty trick is an auto-fail...etc, etc....Why wouldn't you just use the ability to trip for free on a power attack? Then you'd get the AOO along with all of your attacks and a trip attack.
Maybe I would. Maybe I would prefer not to, because I feel the *need* to make sure I hit...but why does that matter?
|
|
Let me go about this in a different way...I'm a magus guy...and I've been considering going Mag10/ElK10 so I can get the iteratives quicker and have a higher BAB...stuff like that...I'm looking at a wyroot weapon with a base 18-20 crit...keen for 15-20. I can spend 4k, and the wyroot will store 3 arcane points. I get 1 per crit...
See where I'm going here? If I get 3 attacks...my odds of a crit in any given 6 seconds in a combat is excellent...
|
|
Maybe I would. Maybe I would prefer not to, because I feel the *need* to make sure I hit...but why does that matter?The attack is at full BAB and takes no penalty... If you can't hit it on that you certainly can't make yourself that much better at it.
You just said power attack. That's a hit penalty. Either you or I missed something.
|
|
Ok now I get your point. Yes it will change the dynamic of the game. However that means its a nerf to certain specific builds, not fighters in general. The overall DPR of nearly every martial will increase significantly because of this, because at higher levels your first iterative for the martials (full BAB) is almost always an autohit.Let me go about this in a different way...I'm a magus guy...and I've been considering going Mag10/ElK10 so I can get the iteratives quicker and have a higher BAB...stuff like that...I'm looking at a wyroot weapon with a base 18-20 crit...keen for 15-20. I can spend 4k, and the wyroot will store 3 arcane points. I get 1 per crit...
See where I'm going here? If I get 3 attacks...my odds of a crit in any given 6 seconds in a combat is excellent...
If all you do is swing...swing...swing...it's likely too much. Not in comparison to the casters...but what about the people that would actually prefer a tactical game?
|
|
The attack is at full BAB and takes no penalty... If you can't hit it on that you certainly can't make yourself that much better at it.You just said power attack. That's a hit penalty. Either you or I missed something.
lol sorry I always incorporate power attack into both my to hit and my damage. I don't consider it a to hit penalty, I consider it a basic part of the attack because without one of those feats (power attack, pihrana strike, or deadly shot) you mostly just tickle. For a full BAB it increases your effective dpr in well over 90% of cases. Frankly if you want the best damage you shouldn't almost ever be turning it off.
Btw martials generally refers to the full BABs + maybe monk (though he's kinda bad at it). Magus isn't generally considered a martial, anymore than a druid, rogue, or bard is a martial.
If you're getting rid of iteratives for the 1:1 classes, I assume it's true for everyone else...or you are going to have an even bigger can of worms.
It's impossible to argue this would make fighters and their ilk weaker Eldon. It might not work in practice generally speaking but certainly wouldn't nerf fighters. sneak attack would have to be fixed, but it already needs to be fixed anyway.
As for combat maneuvers, I didn't really factor them in. I have never seen anyone use them to better effect than just full attacking since I switched from 3.5. combat maneuvers are a trap as far as I'm concerned. Paizo completely destroyed that whole deal. At levels 7+ combat maneuvers are basically useless.
I think people just use them to break up the monotony of saying "I swing my sword at him" for every round in every combat in the whole campaign. That doesn't mean they are actually worth investing feats into though. it's just a flaw of the system.
|
|
If you're getting rid of iteratives for the 1:1 classes, I assume it's true for everyone else...or you are going to have an even bigger can of worms.No I assume its for everyone. The argument is that its a significant buff to martials. I'm telling you that generally a magus isn't considered a martial which means that regardless of whether it buffs him or not, he isn't even a part of my original statement.
Well, they're a part of the system, so they need to be considered.
|
|
It's impossible to argue this would make fighters and their ilk weaker Eldon. It might not work in practice generally speaking but certainly wouldn't nerf fighters. sneak attack would have to be fixed, but it already needs to be fixed anyway.
As for combat maneuvers, I didn't really factor them in. I have never seen anyone use them to better effect than just full attacking since I switched from 3.5. combat maneuvers are a trap as far as I'm concerned. Paizo completely destroyed that whole deal. At levels 7+ combat maneuvers are basically useless.
I think people just use them to break up the monotony of saying "I swing my sword at him" for every round in every combat in the whole campaign. That doesn't mean they are actually worth investing feats into though. it's just a flaw of the system.
If you want to bump them up in power level and just make them all the same...so they rank on maximum homogeneity...feel free...I'm just explaining why it won't work for me...and might not work for you.
GURPS has an interesting mechanic for firearms firing on automatic or burst. They have degrees of success (of attack roll) over a target number (target AC), and for each full degree (let's say 5), your attack gets another hit, up to your maximum number of attacks.
Example: Attack roll with a +13 modifier against AC 21 by a character that has 2 attacks:
d20 = 11 + 13 = 24, one attack hits. Target applies 1xDR.
d20 = 13 + 13 = 26, 26 - 21 = 5, one full degree of success, two attacks hit. Target applies 2xDR.
d20 = 19 + 13 = 32, 32 - 21 = 11, two full degrees of success, two attacks hit because two is the maximum.
For critical hits, it could use the confirmation roll to see how many attacks get the critical multiplier. Long-term, the math works out, but it might allow for some staggering one-round damage results.