James, can you direct me to the proposal? My search-fu has failed me.
While there may be no consensus on what it should be, there seems to be a pretty clear consensus on what is shouldn't be, and which is that the proposal is not what it should be.
It's simply not cost effective. The damage it deals is not worth the cost of 1 bp per word.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
While there may be no consensus on what it should be, there seems to be a pretty clear consensus on what is shouldn't be
What we thing it shouldn't be has no effect on what it will be.
We either get onboard and think of something in the same power level without considering things that are way too good (as SKR said here) or we get a change that no one liked.I don't see why everyone has dug their heels in with "no I won't accept it" instead of trying to work toward something useful.
I've removed an unhelpful post. There's no need to be confrontational and insulting. Observe the message board rules.
I've removed another unhelpful post.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
ridding the ability of one of the drawbacks should increase public acceptance of said ability.
I'm very certain that you are right.
But public acceptance doesn't mean it will happen.
I think the problem is that the public won't accept that we are stuck with those two drawbacks. At least until SKR or some other dev comes along to so "haha, just kidding, we are going to do what you want and make it the same power as Thunderstriker".
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
it won't be as strong as the Thunderstriker unless we rid it of both the drawbacks.
Comparing it to Thunderstriker in any way other than "it is miserable compared to Thunderstriker" is a trap.
thundercaller's thunder call is WAY too good
Look, please understand. I don't like the proposed change. Any of these would be better:
- I think it could be better if it didn't deal damage, but a status instead save negate
- No attack roll, no save, deal less damage (half) always but as sonic
- One attack roll but applied to all targets individually (cuts down on rolls when 10 targets)
None of us can rally around a change that doesn't involve the two drawbacks removed. So we are in quicksand.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the downside of the thundercaller is "this archetype needs to be errata'd."
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
...Actually, Sean, can we have your honest opinion of the ability
1st camp: the errata already given is the be all and end all to the abilities strength, and it won't/can't get stronger than that.
His last restating of the ability happened just before he locked the thread for "bickering". So I think it is very fair to say the power of the ability needs to be similar to the ability as he has posted multiple times in this thread.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If thundercaller is way too good then how good is a wizard? Stratospheric?
Let's try to consider the focus. Bards have not been designed as a damage dealing focus.
beneath both the Thunderstriker and overpowered in general.
Think of it this way. If Thunderstriker should be say 50% as powerful as it is. Then this ability needs to be below Thunderstriker's 50% power rating (mathmatically.)
firm answer rather than a firm assumption
That would be useful, because I believe until we are inform "talk about the ability that is similar in power to the one we proposed only" we will continually consider it a "low water mark" and naturally build things more powerful to push the envelope.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
cruel to the class itself.
it needs to stop being compared to Thunderstriker?
Cruel or not, this game isn't a MMORPG where every class only deals damage and "all DPR must be equal."
Sure, I'll stop comparing it to TS despite the fact that it is hard to do. TS is something that according to devs needs errata, and it doesn't do anywhere remotely as much as the original sound striker did. How about we just compare it to the proposed version. Trying to stay close to it in terms of power.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
did you even read my first post?
I did, but I utterly failed to get my point across.
I'm trying to get us focused on a solution and away from continually pushing for removing the two major drawbacks that everyone wants removed.
Why? Because I'm fundamentally convinced they are not going to be removed. I'm trying to help us all. To get us focused on the right path.
Off topic from last ten-or-so posts but on-topic for thread:
We ran with the proposed changes last Monday and will again be playing with them tonight. I am running "Wake of the Watcher" from Carrion Crown and the Soundstriker is in fact 10th level. She seemed to like the trade off for a higher damage potential (especially by not bogging it down with saves) for the expenditure of an often untapped resource. Really, its given her a lot more versatility without overshadowing the Nova capabilities of the Magus player. Overall (and I may be in the minority, I can't really tell from the back and forth above) I like the changes.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I like the changes.
Each of these are different questions? Pick the one you like best.
Would you have liked it better if the attack roll was rolled once and applied individually to each target's AC? (less dice rolled)
Would you have liked it better if it dealt 1d4 plus half CHA modifier, but didn't apply DR, didn't have an attack roll, and didn't have a save. But is sonic damage?
Would you have liked it better if it didn't deal damage at all but rather save negates to apply a harmful effect (mind-affecting) such as Nausea, Daze, or similar for 1 round?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Well, I'm not exactly impartial to this discussion, but I wouldn't be against being a beta-tester for the ability. Which version would be used?
I could prep 5 hrs worth of combat, say 3 different combats per 3 different build (9 combats ~ 30 mins a combat assuming experience players to help with speed.).
We would need 3 other people to play Fighter/Cleric/Wizard roles.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Sounds fine by me. What would be the level, and should we randomly generate how much bardic performance is left for the day? Also, should I build my character?
10th level, optimized build if possible (fighter - I have several optimized fighters / Cleric - I know much of nothing / Wizard - I never played this)
The purpose of 3 combats is to simulate "a day's work" so start all resources.
Actually, the downside of the thundercaller is "this archetype needs to be errata'd."
Agreed.
The Thundercaller and Dawnflower Dervish bard archetypes are the reason I don't list any campaign setting books in my list of allowable source books anymore. Instead, I allow material from these books on a case by case basis if the player can justify that their concept cannot be met any other way with core rulebook sources. Even then, if I were to allow material from these sources, I would feel free to modify it if it seemed necessary, as would be the case for both the Thundercaller and Dawnflower Dervish bard archetypes.
I’m not sure if I’d mentioned it before, but I’ve actually been playing with the PDT proposal since it was introduced. We’ve played about 9 sessions in that time period. Unfortunately I haven’t yet run across a situation where I've decided to use Weird Words despite the fact that I've been actively looking to use it. I would have liked to use Weird Words in one battle where we faced a bunch of archers who had already been hurt with an Empowered Fireball, but the 30 foot range wasn’t quite long enough. I also thought about using it in a battle with a bunch of elementals, but I didn’t have a way to beat their DR with Weird Words, so it seemed kind of weak. In most other battles I didn't have enough foes in range to make using my standard action to do 1d8+7+1d6 damage worthwhile (+1d6 from discordant voice)
As far as comparisons go, I can understand people’s desire to compare the Sound Striker to the Thundercaller due to the thematic similarity and was even doing so myself. Sean has made it pretty clear that Thundercaller shouldn’t be used as a baseline though. For what it’s worth, I’ve always thought it would be overpowered if Thunder Call could be used more than once per round. In light of Sean's comments I think the Arcane Duelist might be a more appropriate archetype for comparison though. I'll probably post some math and facts contrasting the two archetypes later on, but for now I'll just say that in addition to getting a bunch of useful feats and powers the AD gives up Suggestion to get Bladethirst, which is a potentially quite useful combat performance (great for beating various types of DR, good for hurting incorporeal creatures, decent for damage dealing in general after around levels 10-13).
Anyhow, if a 3 word power kind of like a short range Scorching Ray isn't in the cards then I think that spicing up the PDT proposal with a perk or two might make it a little more palatable. For instance, if I could use Weird Words with a reduced action cost like other bardic performances I'd probably use it a lot more often when I have a spare move action. If it did sonic damage I also might use it to beat tough to avoid DR (kind of like Bladethirst can be used). If it had a rider effect like staggered that could also make it fairly attractive (I think dazed and stunned are probably too strong). I think the idea of killing foes with deadly words is fun, but in a campaign with 3 PCs I can't often afford to spend a round showboating when I could be doing something more effective.
Most of all I'd just like to see a final ruling on the power though. That way I can plan appropriately for how I want to use (or not use) it in the coming levels.
Would changing the range of Weird Words (as per the proposed change by the Paizo Design Team) to 25 feet + 5 feet/every 2 sound striker levels make the archetype viable for most players? This would give it the same range as the suggestion spell.
Alternatively, the ability could be written to function as a bardic performance that can be activated as a swift action AND only used during another bardic performance (an exception to the normal rules), assuming everything else about the proposed change is kept the same. That way, while the damage may not be extraordinarily high (which I do not believe it ever should be that way), at least the sound striker can still continue performing the other traditional bardic performances, albeit at a high cost of bardic performance rounds.
How feasible/reasonable do people think of my suggestions? (pun intended)
CB out.
EDIT: a glaring grammatical error in the second paragraph
@RAuer2 - I think the idea of bardic performance being limited to one type per round barring special circumstances like Virtuoso Performance seems sensible, but a lot of other folks don’t agree. I don’t have strong feelings on the issue either way except that spamming Thunder Call seems excessive to me.
@Canadian Bakka - Longer range might be a nice perk and would have resulted in my PC using Weird Words at least once in the past 9 sessions, maybe more. If nothing else it might make Weird Words more convenient than whipping out a bow or javelin for ranged attacks, and the easier it is to get lots of foes in range the better the damage potential becomes.
Regarding your other suggestion, combining Weird Words with other bardic performances would certainly make it appealing, but it seems kind of strong to me since instead of trading your buff/debuff potential for direct damage you’d just pile the damage on top. Combining performances also usually requires a 4th level spell.
@Devilkiller, I concur that perhaps simulanteously serving damage (however modest) and buffing/debuffing is probably a bit too good. I suppose it helps that a higher level bard eventually can start a bardic performance (which is what Weird Words functions as) as a swift action. Luckily, I think it is o.k. to start one bardic performance as a swift action (such as Weird Words) and then follow it up with inspire courage as a standard or move action. Doing so does not violate the rules about only having one bardic performance in effect, or so I gather, if I am reading the description of bardic performances accurately.
Granted, Weird Words does consume a hefty proportion of rounds available for a bard (even a high level bard), but you do not have to use all available 10 rays (for a 10th level or higher sound striker). You pick and choose.
I think I will houserule in the distance to be close (25 feet +5 feet/every 2 sound striker levels). At least the sound striker can then make long range attacks to help determine what weapon damage type bypasses the DR, if any, of the target(s), since I think the sound striker can choose what damage type for each ray individually (this reminds me heavily of the Kung Fu Hustle film, where the blind musicians are attacking with sound attacks that mimics weapon attacks).
Hopefully a final decision by the Paizo Design Team on Weird Word (and the sound striker archetype itself) sometime this year. I would like to see it sooner than later because I am using the archetype for the Sisters of Lamentation in the Savage Tide adventure path I am running for my players, ;)
CB out.
|
@Devilkiller and @Canadian Bakka - I've always understood that bards can only do 1 Bardic Performance per round as described in the Core Rulebook. So that's already a thing. Also, @Canadian Bakka, the PDT proposal doesn't seem to change the clause in Sound Striker making it impossible to use Word Strike or Weird Words faster than a Standard Action.
That being said, if my understanding of the Bard's ability to use one performance a round is wrong (and it seems I'm not the only person on these boards that read it that way), that changes my perception of this ability altogether. Meaning, if a Bard can use this AND Inspire as 2 separate actions in one round, than I'm not sure there is a problem with the power of PDT's proposal. The cost may be slightly high, but that is less of an issue, if this is the 2nd time in one round you're using BPR.
So maybe the PDT can clarify that for us as well? Can a Bard use more than one performance per round as separate action? Example: Weird Words as a Standard and Inspire Courage as a Move action.
@Neume, according to page 35 of the Core Rulebook (6th Edition), it states that "Starting a bardic performance is a standard action, but it can be maintained each round as a free action. Changing a bardic performance from one effect to another requires the bard to stop the previous performance and start a new one as a standard action. A bardic performance cannot be disrupted, but it ends immediately if the bard is killed, paralyzed, stunned, knocked unconscious, or otherwise prevented from taking a free action to maintain it each round. A bard cannot have more than one bardic performance in effect at one time."
Emphasis mine on the two relevant sentences. Furthermore, it continues to state that by 13th level, a bard can start a performance as a swift action.
What this tells me is that a bard cannot have two simulanteous performances going on - if he tries to start a 2nd performance, he must end the first and start the second performance as a standard action. So it is perfectly reasonable that a 13th level sound striker can initiate weird words as a swift action (which ends once he finishes making his attack rolls) and then initiate a 2nd performance as a standard action (since you can only use 1 swift action per round). Because the 1st bardic performance has been completed, and thus not in effect at the time you start the 2nd performance, the bard is not violating any of the restrictions of bardic performance. Weird Words substitutes/replaces the suggestion bardic performance but it does not change how bardic performances overall are started/maintained and its relevant upgrades and restrictions.
Granted, I could be mistaken on this, but strictly speaking in terms of RAW, I think I'm correct. Also, in terms of RAI, I fail to see how using Weird Words like I described above is somehow over-powering (considering the damage output is low and the cost of rounds of bardic performances is high), especially when you compare to what the 5th bard spells are capable of (bards get access to them at 13th level).
Naturally, these are my opinions, but until the Paizo Design Team indicates otherwise, that is pretty much how I intend to run Weird Words at my gaming table. If I was participating in the PF Society, I would abide by whatever the GM at the table believes is the correct interpretation. To be honest, the specifics of Weird Words isn't going to ruin the game for me. :)
CB out.