Point, you do have to choose. But most players should be able to make the proper choice and if so the reduction in damage is only 5%. This is why it is all but bypassed.You're reading comprehension has failed you.
damage reduction is not bypassed. It is always a problem.
DR is not "all but bypassed" that is the point you seem to be incapable of understanding.
If an attack deals bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage, then it deals physical weapon damage, not energy damage.
Physical damage (the type weapons deal) is subject to DR. If you have a Silver Longsword, you over come DR/silver and DR/slashing, but you don't overcome DR/cold iron, DR/adamantine, DR/lawful, DR/chaotic, DR/good, DR/evil, DR/bludgeoning, or DR/piercing.
Why does the Silver Longsword overcome DR/silver and DR/slashing? Because the Silver Longsword is made of silver, and it deals slashing damage.
The proposed Weird Words deals bludgeoning, or piercing, or slashing damage. That means if you choose the right damage type, you can overcome DR/bludgeoning, DR/piercing, or DR/slashing. No other types.
So if you go up against a monster with DR 5/silver, then Weird Words has the first 5 points of it's damage negated. As you get higher level, you start seeing DR 10/cold iron, or DR 10/adamantine, or DR 15/piercing and good etc.
In each of those cases, the damage of the words can be nearly negated. For example, the rakshasa, the most common version, is a CR 10 creature. That means in a group of 4 players, the earliest they should encounter a Rakshasa is ~APL 6, but is more likely to be present at ~APL 8. At 8th level, the Bard is dealing 1d8+cha mod points of bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage. Now, the Bard overcome DR/piercing, but his attacks aren't good aligned, so they're useless.
The maximum Cha bonus possible, before items, is 22, and if they spent a lot of their cash (or crafted) a headband of +4 charisma, they have a +8 modifier. This means they deal 1d8+8 damage on their Weird Words ability. The Bard is limited to a single Weird Word on that Rakshasa, and deals an average of 4.5+8 or 12.5 points of damage. All of which is completely negated by the Rakshasa's DR. Even if you rolled maximum damage (which is 16), you'd still only be dealing 1 measly point of damage.
A Scorching Ray, at that level, is firing 2 rays, for 4d6 damage each. Now, granted, it has to get through SR, but if it does, each ray deals an average of 12 points of fire damage, meaning a total average damage of 24 points of damage. This is, again, assuming they pierce SR, and that they hit, but it's still more damage than the Weird Words ability does.
A Thundercaller, at the same level, deals 3d8 points of sonic damage, average 13.5. Because it's sonic damage, it's not subject to DR, and because it's a SU ability, it's not subject to SR. Also, the Bard can do this as a move action.
So a Thundercaller could caste a spell and Thunder Call all in the same round. The Thundercaller is able to buff/debuff/control while also dealing damage at the same time.
Point, you do have to choose. But most players should be able to make the proper choice and if so the reduction in damage is only 5%. This is why it is all but bypassed.You're reading comprehension has failed you.
damage reduction is not bypassed. It is always a problem.DR is not "all but bypassed" that is the point you seem to be incapable of understanding.
If an attack deals bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage, then it deals physical weapon damage, not energy damage.
Physical damage (the type weapons deal) is subject to DR. If you have a Silver Longsword, you over come DR/silver and DR/slashing, but you don't overcome DR/cold iron, DR/adamantine, DR/lawful, DR/chaotic, DR/good, DR/evil, DR/bludgeoning, or DR/piercing.
Why does the Silver Longsword overcome DR/silver and DR/slashing? Because the Silver Longsword is made of silver, and it deals slashing damage.
The proposed Weird Words deals bludgeoning, or piercing, or slashing damage. That means if you choose the right damage type, you can overcome DR/bludgeoning, DR/piercing, or DR/slashing. No other types.
So if you go up against a monster with DR 5/silver, then Weird Words has the first 5 points of it's damage negated. As you get higher level, you start seeing DR 10/cold iron, or DR 10/adamantine, or DR 15/piercing and good etc.
In each of those cases, the damage of the words can be nearly negated. For example, the rakshasa, the most common version, is a CR 10 creature. That means in a group of 4 players, the earliest they should encounter a Rakshasa is ~APL 6, but is more likely to be present at ~APL 8. At 8th level, the Bard is dealing 1d8+cha mod points of bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage. Now, the Bard overcome DR/piercing, but his attacks aren't good aligned, so they're useless.
The maximum Cha bonus possible, before items, is 22, and if they spent a lot of...
The problem with this entire damage argument is that it's trying to munchkin a bard into a sorcerer, rather than keeping the class to its traditional role. If you want that, you have thundercaller. It's obvious from the suggested language that the ability is going to get nerfed until it keeps a bard in their traditional role for the most part, perhaps with an interesting but not overwhelming power. Now, I like the new proposal except for the number of rounds of bardic music cost, which I think needs to fiddled with in its present incarnation.
I'd rather it be useful but not more so than inspire courage - keeping in mind you're just giving up a few out of combat abilities for it (i.e. suggestion chain), but keeping your spells, your ability to wear armor and cast/sing, and most of your best class abilities. In that case, it should probably not do more damage then the amount inspire courage gives you by boosting your companions - maintaining the same power level but giving you an option to do that same damage. How to calculate that is a tough one, especially since it varies widely.
My point is only that it's not a very useful thing to spend time arguing to bump the power level of an ability that's not a bards 'schtick', and was obviously never intended to be their primary offense universally.
The PDT is not always correct in what they think is too strong or too powerful. Monks were, at one point, FAQ'd into not being able to make all their flurry attacks with a single weapon (which invalidates two archetypes) because it was felt to be too powerful. After much outcry from the boards, and proof it wasn't too powerful, the PDT changed their decision.
PDT may, in the course of this thread, decide that their initial proposal to be 'too weak' to be worth the trade off. Sometimes, it takes the board members to do some real number crunching for people to see how strong/weak/balanced an ability may really be.
For instance, the original ability, wasn't even all that powerful against anyone who has DR. 1d8+cha, that's it. With a Fortitude save for half to boot.
Even if you focused all words on a single target, for 10d8+(10*cha) you're still not really doing that much damage if they have even DR.
Take a Large Earth Elemental for example. It's a CR 5 creature with DR 5/- so nothing overcomes it (even Smite as the Elemental is neutral).
A Bard at 10th level (when the original ability caps out) is dealing 1d8+cha, and using the oft used Charisma of 26 (for a +8 modifier), the Bard is averaging 12.5 damage. At this level, the save on the Weird Words is a DC 18 fortitude save. The Earth Elemental (a CR 5 creature, mind you) has a +9 on it's Fortitude save, meaning it has over a 50% chance of saving against the ability. So 50% of all the Words are reduced by half. So half the Words only deal 6.25 points of damage, which are then reduced to 1.25 points of damage. This adds up to 6.25 points of damage. The other half are reduced from 12.5 points of damage, to just 7.5 points of damage. All 5 words hitting deals 37.5 points of damage, and in addition to the other 5, we get a grand total of 43.75 (lets round up to 44) points of damage.
So against a creature that is quite literally half the Bards level, the Bard is capable of dealing only 44 points of damage (on average) against an Earth Elemental. He can't even kill the damned thing.
An Archer Bard would be capable of dropping the creature with a single full-attack, so too could a Melee bard. Quite possibly any Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, or Cavalier could kill the Earth Elemental in a full attack as well.
Keep in mind, this is just a CR 5 Elemental with DR 5. At higher levels, you find things like DR 10, DR 15, or DR 20. Sure, by the time the Bard reaches 20th level, he could potentially have a 36 Charisma, and deal 1d8+13 points of damage per hit. Again, this damage is reduced by Fortitude saves, and even then, it averages only 17.5 damage per hit, most of which will be negated by DR, and if the monster makes it's save, all of it is likely to be negated by DR.
Take a Horned Devil as an example (randomly selected this). It has a +18 on it's fortitude save, and DR 10. The Save DC for a 20th level Bard with 36 Charisma is DC 33, which the Devil makes on a 15 (25% chance of success, not good odds). Lets just say he only makes his save on 2 of the Words (20%), this means he's taken 8 words at full damage, and 2 words at half damage. Half of 17.5 is 8.75 (call it 9) which is completely negated by the Devil's DR. The other 8 words are all reduced to 7.5 damage by the DR. This makes a grand total of 60 points of damage to that Horned Devil. Which is roughly 25% of his max hit points. At 20th level, most martials can do a similar amount of damage with a single attack, and outright kill the creature will a full attack.
The big problem with the original ability wasn't the damage it dealt, it's the colossal number of rolls required to use it. The only time Weird Words dealt good damage, was against a creature with no DR. At higher levels, this basically meant only Humanoids with class levels.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we clarify whether these are weapons and affected by things like point blank shot, cluster shot, etc?
Update: Yes, these should be rays, and therefore are subject to feats like PBS, Weapon Focus (ray), and so on.
Also can we clarify if these are magical?
Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we clarify whether these are weapons and affected by things like point blank shot, cluster shot, etc?Update: Yes, these should be rays, and therefore are subject to feats like PBS, Weapon Focus (ray), and so on.
Also can we clarify if these are magical?Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).
So does this mean that Weird Words is considered to be a weapon, and therefore it is correct that you can add the following sources of damage onto each ray:
• Point blank shot (damage rolls within 30 feet)• Inspire Courage (weapon damage rolls)
• Good Hope (weapon damage rolls)
• Arcane Strike (weapon damage rolls)
I was under the impression that the PDT had indicated that the ability would be reduced in power, but the ruling given by Sean has the opposite effect. Also, most (all?) calculations done in this thread have been based off the assumption that the sources of damage just mentioned would NOT function with this ability. The above would provide +9 damage per ray at 11th level for each of the 10 rays. (Note, getting inspire courage in conjunction with Weird Words requires expenditure of some resources, or a second bard, but can be done. Also, I've probably missed some damage boosting abilities.)
With that said, ability just got even more powerful and needs to be addressed more quickly, IMO.
EDIT: Also, if clustered shots works, then the major downside to the ability as currently written goes away and that's huge. It now has the potential to deal ( 1d8 + Cha Mod (a modest 7) + 9 ) x 10 and only has DR applied a single time. That's an average of 205 damage at 11th level before taking into consideration missed touch attack rolls and made fort saves... Even if you cut the damage in half (all fort saves made, all attacks hit), it STILL significantly outpaces a standard bard's archery capability at level 11, with the disadvantage of range 30, but the advantage of it only requiring a standard action. Hell, 100 damage is probably more than an archer fighter would do on a regular basis at 11th level... This is really a game changer for this ability, and not in the direction that the PDT had indicated previously.
Like I said, they should be rays.
I think that is in reference to the new weird word proposal? Regardless, its being changed in the near future, so any weaponlike aspect is only powerful if you can actually focus fire, which I believe has been taken off the table. Clustered shot is irrelevent in this case.
I agree, letting the Weird Words feats, spells etc. that enhance weapons is not where this ability should go.
The Proposed PDT change forces the Bard to spend 1 round of performance for each word, but it also removes the Fortitude save for half, and gives a scaling damage dice. With the application of weapon damage buffs, nearly any ability we come up with is going to be very powerful.
Can we clarify whether these are weapons and affected by things like point blank shot, cluster shot, etc?Update: Yes, these should be rays, and therefore are subject to feats like PBS, Weapon Focus (ray), and so on.
Also can we clarify if these are magical?Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).
This Changes a lot.
Like I said, they should be rays.
Thank you for clarifying that. It would be wonderful if there were guidelines for what is and isnt a Ray for things like snowball or fiery shurikens, weird words that don't mention ray in the title or text but are ranged touch attacks that do hit point damage and certainly seem weapon like.
I'll continue to promote, 1 ray every 3 levels (6,9,12,15). Ray is subject to DR (P, S or B). Can all hit the same target or multiple. No fort save. 2d8+cha. I still think this ability is suboptimal to Inspire Courage but useful in the correct circumstances.
If the PDT do not want multiple rays on a single target at all. Then the proposed change isn't bad. It is rather underwhelming and I would prefer it to be bonus damage = to bard level instead of +cha. It then would fall more solidly into an appropriate level AOE like damage power. It will not be an optimal choice but it would not be a terrible choice in the right situation. It would benefit the power to be 1 round of performance per 2 targets. It is still suboptimal to inspire courage and, this ability as an aoe competes for niche space with the thundercaller.
I feel that the discussion isn't really coming together and I'm not sure it will. The difference between "aoe" or "single target" intent or purpose of this ability is not flowing like a dialogue but rather competing monologues. I'm not sure what more can be said. While I would prefer the option of single targeting I don't think the archetype is ruined if it doesn't work that way.
Golo
If we're adding bonuses to table, I'm mixed.
That will well boost the damage output making the issue of DR irrelevant when combined with scaling damage dice, so that's good. On the other hand, makes it even sillier that you can't hit a target with multiple words in a single go especially when you still have to burn "ammo" to hit multiple targets. So again, mixed.
That said this is a step in the right direction even if I have issues with it. I think that while still sub optimal compared to basic archery, you'd at least contribute damage once you factor in your bonuses from buffs so it'd be playable if left as is. Still would like being able to hit a target multiple times tho.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think you dodged the question.
80% of archery, for example, is 80% of an option all Bards have access to.
I don't think it should be something you build to take it, as it is very consistent damage (using the "players interpretation".) Why would you take it if it is 80% of the archery? Because it is consistent damage, you don't have the top end of damage as Archery.
Also remember it is 80% of Archery (Full Attack) as a Standard.
If you don't think the current Weird Words can have more than one word hit a single target
I don't think, I know. There is no other example of an ability that allows a target multiple times and doesn't have a line stating as much.
What about making it an effect that functions in conjunction with weapons?
Interesting. Kinda like a "30 ft range - Ally weapons gain a Stun effect on damage Fort negates.
if you go up against a monster with DR 5/silver
The thing is I don't agree that the few monsters that have DR really effect the value of the ability. The reduction in damage is only 5% across all monsters.
if you go up against a monster with DR 5/silverThe thing is I don't agree that the few monsters that have DR really effect the value of the ability. The reduction in damage is only 5% across all monsters.
The... few...?
Wow, I don't even know how to respond to that. It's like you've never played beyond 5th level or something. Once you hit around 10th level, DR becomes the standard not the exception.
You may not be noticing it because your weapons are overcoming it, especially if you've got a high + bonus. A lot of creatures (like dragons or gargoyles) that are meaningless to parties of even 5th or 6th level. However, up until the recent clarification by SKR, this DR all but negated the Weird Words ability.
There are far more than 'just a few' monsters that have DR, I'd hazard a good 40 - 50 percent of all creatures in the bestiaries have DR. That number rapidly approaches 100% the higher the level you go.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Wow, I don't even know how to respond to that.
I'd hazard a good 40 - 50 percent of all creatures in the bestiaries have DR.
You may want to look at my previous posts.
I based my stats and real actual legitimate information of CR 8 to CR 12 monsters in all Paizo sources.
That is 534 monsters.
I don't like guesses, I like facts.
It seems to me that the developers intent was never to have Weird Words be a main source of damage for the bard.
However, with the new proposal, the costs seem too steep for it to be of any value on the battlefield. It eats a valuable resource for a minor area splash of damage ending your even more valuable buff for other PC's.
If the idea is to have it supplement the bards damage but not outright replace it, the focus should be on accomplishing that goal.
My 2 cents (using the existing proposal) would be to change the standard action requirement to a move action requirement, and drop the "ends all performances" part.
Therefore, a bard can still take a single attack or cast a spell, supplementing it with a small bit of damage.
Central issue at this point seems to be AoE vs. Single Target.
If someone from the PDT would push this conversation one way or another, that might help move things forward.
How the ability can be effective, make the archtype appealing, fit the requirements already laid out, and stay balanced is completely different based on whether or not the damage is AoE or single Target. Scorching ray would not be nearly as popular if you couldn't hit the same target with all of the rays.
To that end, I am not sure what I can contribute here. I have already said my piece. I think that many people are on the right track looking at similar spell effects, and archery damage as comparables.
I like the scorching ray model. I also think that a scaling sound burst (with no daze) would model well. An area of effect spell drops rapidly in its usefulness if it is centered on the caster.
I actually like the visual of the effect being a cone... but then I would also like it to be called "Guitar Solo", so that is probably just me :-)
(Pictures scott pilgrim vs. the world bass battle scene)
TBH, what I think would be really fun would be:
Targets 1 creature per 3 levels (2 at 6th, 3 at 9th etc.)
Hits Touch AC
No Save
Deals damage equal to the result of your Perform Check
Costs 1 rounds of performance, but doesn't interrupt performance
Can we clarify whether these are weapons and affected by things like point blank shot, cluster shot, etc?Update: Yes, these should be rays, and therefore are subject to feats like PBS, Weapon Focus (ray), and so on.
Also can we clarify if these are magical?Yes, these count as magic weapons (such as for overcoming DR, affecting incorporeal creatures, and so on).I 100% understand it taking far too long to resolve the attacks.
How about being able to target one or more creatures with multiple words, but making only a single attack per creature...applying cha damage only once per creature (thereby optimizing spreading the damage as you get to add cha more to more targets), single fort save per creature, and keeping it affected by DR.I think not too many people would even be upset by it costing 2rds of performance per full attack. 1 round of performance per word seems ridiculous.
For a dawnflower dervish bard this gives a nice ranged ability alternative while still being able to focus on your scimitar.
I recently played a one off game at 11th level and built one of these. I used weird words a total of 4 times the entire game. That's 4 shots total for an 8hr game.
I had a blast and in one shot (9 words) did a total of 22 damage.
At most I did a total of 56 damage and that's with adding my cha to each word.
I get offended when people start talking about taking roles away from people because of what you built. If you want to play a blaster wiz/sorc then play it...you will definitely out damage this build. Why can a bard not be a damage dealer? whether it be with sword, bow, or weird words? I've seen diplomatic fighters, combat rogues, combat clerics, support druids, etc... Play what you want to play and anyone that tells you you're playing your character wrong is stupid and shouldn't be playing the game. NO class should be pigeon-holed in to a particular role. Sorry...that is a totally...
The issue with that... is that this bard is simultaneously a hard hitting damage focused build AND whatever else you want it to be, because the cost is next to nothing.
You still have skills for days. You still have full bard casting. You still have most of the other performances. AND you DESTROY stuff with damage.
(1d8+cha) times 10 isn't a minor sum.
No one is saying a Bard should be able to build for being heavily offensive, they should. BUT, they shouldn't be able to do it with no feat investment, while giving up so very little from the standard Bard. The only thing they need to invest in is Cha... which is already their favored stat, and has the effect of improving everything else they do anyway.
Now, if they had to give up bardic performance entirely? Maybe that would be a comparable amount of loss for an ability this potentially powerful. But as is, the Sound Striker gives up next to nothing for pure offensive gains of a whole different scale.
With this archetype available as written, there is NO reason to play a standard Bard over a Sound Striker.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Central issue at this point seems to be AoE vs. Single Target.
If someone from the PDT would push this conversation one way or another, that might help move things forward.
The original post by the PDT in this thread said that depending on this interpretation the damage was either "very poor ability or a very powerful ability".
If multiple hits onto one, it would be unique in the rules set as the only ability that allows multiple hits on the same target and doesn't have a line in the ability saying it can do that.
PDT picked a middle ground, siding with the "only one hit per target" side and boosting the damage a small bit at higher level (really only for 12th level and up.)
The issue with that... is that this bard is simultaneously a hard hitting damage focused build AND whatever else you want it to be, because the cost is next to nothing.
That is kinda the problem. The damage is way too high if "multiple on one" for there to ever be any chance of any balance between Sound Striker and the best optimized Archers or Casters. The loss of a practically never used bard class ability (Suggestion) for significant damage output that could have been used 20+ times a day.
--------
Getting it reigned in as something that can do AoE damage at a significant cost that it no longer sits as the "go to" ability for every combat is what needs to happen. It also seems to be the goal of the PDT based on the original posted suggestion.
|
First off, I'm jmerriex from above. I have no idea why my name keeps changing on the forms (and it doesn't show my GM stars or Venture Lieutenant status - these boards hate me...)
OK bbt, I've been thinking about this and after talking with several other players who play Sound Strikers here is a major concern agreed upon.
We feel, right or wrong, the choice to play a sound striker was made because unlike the Thundercaller, the sound striker had great potential to deal direct, single-target damage OR target multiple targets. The current proposed change to the Weird Words ability changes that key feature - versatility - that many of us liked and really makes the archetype less desirable (and powerful) than the Thundercaller, which calls into question the point of the archetype anyway.
I think Weird Words should be a two-fold ability, like it was. Either you can deal adequate damage to a single target or you soften up a group within 30 feet of each other. The problem is it needs to be balanced. I have two ideas about this.
The other thought I had was, maybe not making so much of a change to the ability. Below is the original text with my changes in bold.
Personally I like the second one better, but ultimately both get the same effect. They tone down the damage (now at level 10 single target damage averages about 25 damage) and d20 rolls (from 20 to 10), clarify the ability, account for longer progression and are still versatile and differentiated from Thundercaller and many other abilities.
I also want to note, that since this can only be done as a standard action, it does limit what actions the Bard can take. So it is not like the bard can cast this and then fire a bow in the same round. Potentially a high level bard can cast a level 1 or 2 quickened spell and this, but really there isn't a lot of other things the bard can do in a round they choose to use this ability.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
right or wrong, the choice to play a sound striker was ... deal direct, single-target damage OR target multiple targets.
deal adequate damage to a single target
Weird Words per 2 bard levels ... all sounds hit one target ... 12th, and 18th level, the damage increases by 1d8 per sound and expends 1 additional round of bardic performance.
These are ranged touch attacks and considered rays
The ability never allowed you to hit multiple words on one target, just like Vital Strike couldn't be used with Charge and Attacks of Opportunities.
I also don't agree it is adequate damage, as it is 80% as good as a Full Attack archer in a standard. Far more than active.
You improve the PDT version significantly (uses 1/3rd less rounds, allows multiple on one) while only limiting it slightly (half as many attacks.) It isn't balanced to the PDT version.
You also add "and considered rays" when those rules already factor. So this line isn't required. At least not how a line saying "may strike same or different targets" is required.
|
|
The ability never allowed you to hit multiple words on one target, just like Vital Strike couldn't be used with Charge and Attacks of Opportunities.right or wrong, the choice to play a sound striker was ... deal direct, single-target damage OR target multiple targets.
deal adequate damage to a single target
Weird Words per 2 bard levels ... all sounds hit one target ... 12th, and 18th level, the damage increases by 1d8 per sound and expends 1 additional round of bardic performance.
These are ranged touch attacks and considered rays
This is untrue. Until this very thread, that is commonly how this ability was used. The PDT even said that was one reason for the change they proposed in this thread. Additionally, prior to this, several members of the PDT said reading it as multiple sounds hitting one target was a logical.
Currently, every bard who has taken this archetype that I've spoken with has done so under the impression that they can use all the sounds on one target. There are dozens of threads theory-crafting the best DPR builds and they all assume that the ability works that way.
I've ran over 100 different events where every GM who has encountered this has agreed the ability reads like it can target one target or multiple targets. So questioning that now seems illogical because that is exactly how this ability had been used up to this thread.
I also don't agree it is adequate damage, as it is 80% as good as a Full Attack archer in a standard. Far more than active.
I brought this up before, when using this ability the bard can only take a move and swift action that turn. Comparing this damage to archer damage seems like folly to me when they are not exactly similar abilities. Magic Missile or Scorching Ray are much more similar to this ability in my humble opinion since both of those can be done as standard actions and still leave the player with a move and swift action on their turn.
Regardless, even comparing full round archer damage, it is not like the Bard will be able to deal more damage during their turn - with the obvious caveat of a quickened spell - though that could be done with a full round action anyway. There are few move actions that deal damage to increase DPR here. Now, potentially the bard can heal but that is one of the reasons for balancing.
You improve the PDT version significantly (uses 1/3rd less rounds, allows multiple on one) while only limiting it slightly (half as many attacks.) It isn't balanced to the PDT version.
The PDT version seems extreme. A level 10 human Bard with a 30 charisma, the Maestro of the Society trait and Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot and then ONLY Extra Performance feats for all their other feats could only use this ability 5 times a day. The 6th time they could only use 9 rays.
I may be coming from a PFS perceptive a lot here, but as a VL I see things that way. The PDT version is exhaustive. An average bard could only use the ability 2 maybe 3 times a day.
Again, the PDT said they wanted to address the following:
Problems include:
* text isn't clear whether you can shoot one target multiple times
* two rolls needed to resolve the effect (ranged touch attack and saving throw)
* damage is low if you can't shoot a particular target more than once, but high if you can
* ability starts with 6 shots when you first gain it, but caps out at 10 shots only 4 levels later
My suggestions address those concerns. 5d8 at level 10 for a bard is not an extreme amount of damage in any sense. Adding the versatility to be single target or AOE gives it a clear niche in the bard universe.
As a counterpoint, a 7th level bard gains access to the spell Thundering Drums which does (wait for it...) 5d8 points of damage to all targets in a 15ft cone - AND it adds a knockdown effect. With the PDT's suggested version the bard at level 10 (3 levels after getting Thundering Drums) does 2d8 points of damage to 10 targets at the cost of 10 rounds of performance. Which by the way is far and away the most expensive bardic performance to date.
You also add "and considered rays" when those rules already factor. So this line isn't required.
Flat out, you're wrong, this has never been clear until Monday when SKR clarified for us. Adding it to the ability text seems prudent at the least.
Now if the concern is the ability is against touch AC, then maybe that is what we should fix. I get the logic of the ability using a RTA but maybe that is just too powerful and it is better to use a fort save. As a player, GM and Event Co-ordinator, I'm am more than fine with that. Just one or the other, not both.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
they weren't rays at all
Well, I don't agree as I've always seen them as functioning like rays. So all my DPR calcs above used Point Blank Shot bonus.
doesnt allow multiple words to target a single target is only your interpretation, not hard and fast facts.
commonly how this ability was used. So questioning that now seems illogical because that is exactly how this ability had been used up to this thread.
This isn't the first time someone has said you can't hit the same guy twice. That started the day the ability hit paper in 2011. I know because I've been telling people with the archetype they can't do that for years.
If you can show me an ability phrased that way that does allow multiple on one and doesn't have the "same or different target" language, I may start agreeing with you. But for now the only fact is the language wasn't as clear as it apparently needed to be.
The interpretation of flinging all sounds at the same target, wrong or not (and I think it is a misinterpretation), is still obviously a game balance issue that the developers are trying to address. The analogy would be giving your cleric this neat new archetype where you give up almost nothing (would 1d6 channel be comparable?), but instead your first level domain power from your e.g. air domain (electrical arc) becomes shootable your level times per round at 6th level (topping out at 10), but the target gets a fort save for half. Oh, and instead of using it 3+wis times per day, you can instead use it 2xlevel+wis times per day, and a multishot round counts as 1. BTW, this number of uses is probably more than the total number of spells you get granted at 6th level (14) at all spell levels, but you get to keep those. Does that seem balanced?
The interpretation of flinging all sounds at the same target, wrong or not (and I think it is a misinterpretation), is still obviously a game balance issue that the developers are trying to address. The analogy would be giving your cleric this neat new archetype where you give up almost nothing (would 1d6 channel be comparable?), but instead your first level domain power from your e.g. air domain (electrical arc) becomes shootable your level times per round at 6th level (topping out at 10), but the target gets a fort save for half. Oh, and instead of using it 3+wis times per day, you can instead use it 2xlevel+wis times per day, and a multishot round counts as 1. BTW, this number of uses is probably more than the total number of spells you get granted at 6th level (14) at all spell levels, but you get to keep those. Does that seem balanced?
Yes.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist the above comment.
Honestly, with the 'Sounds are Rays' clarification from SKR and that they benefit from all the feats and spells that Rays do, I'm honestly at a loss of where to take this ability.
If you make the sounds good enough on their own, the inclusion of the feats and buffs makes them extremely powerful. But, if you design them with the feats in mind, you force the player to take the feats and cast those spells or the ability is all but worthless.
Personally, I still like my 'pseudo-Scorching Ray' ability I posted awhile back. However, I like it as long as the Sounds are not considered rays, and don't benefit from spells or feats that add to damage.
I'm glad to see that the "something like Scorching Rays" theory seems to be gaining a little momentum. Any solution which involves the ability to make up to 3 touch attacks against the same or different foes for somewhere in the 10-14 average damage range (before buffs) will basically have my support.
@SKR - Thanks for clarifying that the attacks are magical. That’s actually quite helpful since it allows the ability to overcome a common form of DR.
@Tels - I always felt that the ranged touch attack solutions we were tossing around before would have included the capability to be enhanced by buffs which enhance weapon attacks (at least based on the FAQ linked by SKR). This is one reason why I’ve been so hot on limiting the number of words/rays/attacks to 3 to ensure that scaling issues don’t get any more out of hand than they already might with the more ubiquitous Scorching Ray (which is already available to Bards in wand form)
I’d then modify the 6th level power to be basically an AoE which does minor damage such as 1d8+Cha to all enemies within 30 feet. I don’t think it honestly makes much difference if you’ve got 3 enemies or 10 within that range, hitting them all for 1d8+Cha probably isn’t a big deal. I wouldn’t include any saving throw on the ranged touch attack power, and I wouldn’t include any attack roll on the AoE power. Whether to scale up the AoE damage and offer a save for half on that seems like a matter of taste. I guess it would make folks with Stalwart happy.
I fear that these changes might be too much of a departure from the original archetype for PDT to seriously consider them, but it would fix the pointless 3rd level ability as well as the potentially problematic 6th level ability. The archetype would have a pair of distinct and useful powers. I’d be happy to play the resulting archetype and suspect that after some initial shock at losing their overpowered “big gun” most existing Sound Striker players in PFS and elsewhere might grudgingly admit that the archetype was still useful and fun. At least I’m pretty sure they’d like it better than the first PDT revision, which makes the AoE aspect very expensive and the single target aspect frustratingly weak.
Obviously 95% assured damage from a ranged touch attack will always be useful on some practical level, but it is tough making the decision to shoot somebody for about 12 "assured" damage when you could be firing your bow 3-4 times while giving your entire party +2 to attacks and damage. Increasing the single target damage to an effective but not broken level would give the Sound Striker an interesting decision to make each round instead of just making his or her allies groan when the piddly word based ranged touch attack power is deployed.
Keep in mind, that any change to the Sound Striker needs to also ask this question, "Why would I choose Sound Striker over that of the Thundercaller?"
If the Sound Striker is stuck to using it's abilities as a Standard action, while the Thundercaller can perform it's actions faster and faster as it levels up, then the damage from the Sound Strikers abilities needs to be significantly higher than that of the Thundercaller, especially since his ability only uses 1 round of performance, is an AoE and has a chance for stun.
I also understand that this is speaking more about the power of the Thundercaller than the power of the Sound Striker, but unless the Thundercaller gets nerfed, it's something that always needs to be kept in mind.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
but that doesn't make it true and it doesn't convince me.
So tell my why you think they bothered to put "same or different" in Scorching Ray, Magic Missile, and all the other same or different effects? They just felt frisky and wanted to waste some words?
I can't stop someone from reading a line and thinking of ways to read it in a way that is far more powerful than the default way?
The PDT has said before if there are two ways to read something, it is generally better to read it the weaker way ("if it looks too good to be true, pick the other way")
but that doesn't make it true and it doesn't convince me.So tell my why you think they bothered to put "same or different" in Scorching Ray, Magic Missile, and all the other same or different effects? They just felt frisky and wanted to waste some words?
I can't stop someone from reading a line and thinking of ways to read it in a way that is far more powerful than the default way?
The PDT has said before if there are two ways to read something, it is generally better to read it the weaker way ("if it looks too good to be true, pick the other way")
The PDT isn't always correct on their rulings either.
Haste & Pounce
Single Weapon Flurry
Spell Combat & Haste
Invisibility Purge & Will-o-Wisps
Also, if the PDT meant for Vital Strikes to be a standard action in-and-of itself, why didn't they just say 'standard action' instead of attack action? Despite the old ruling on Vital Strike being a standard, they still published NPCs that had used Spring Attack with Vital Strike in their tactics, despite that not being a legal combination.
I kind of wish we could stop debating the grammar of the original rules text. I think PDT has pretty much stated that the rule was unclear. It doesn't seem helpful to attribute malicious intent to people who read it one way or the other. Even if we enlisted an army of English teachers to clarify what the rule really said we'd still be left with a discussion of how the power "should" work.
I doubt that the teachers would all agree anyhow. We'd probably just be forced to make sentence diagrams as they scolded us about dangling participles. If I fell asleep in class perhaps they'd attack me with Vocabulary Words(Su), a ranged touch attack ability which lets them do 1d8+Cha damage up to 3 times against the same or different targets. On the other hand, maybe they'd do a little damage against all of us with Iambic Pentameter(Su), an AoE ability which lets them do 1d8+Cha damage to all enemies within 30 feet.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
For mine, I just have to read the text and realize that single does not mean different, something I've known since I was about 6.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, since Weird Words doesn't contain the word 'single' in the ability.
Spring Attack with Vital Strike in their tactics, despite that not being a legal combination.
Just like this ability has been interpreted differently, I'm sure writers for modules interpret differently. The core PDT team can't audit every line of text to make sure people write a tactic using correct rules.
I kind of wish we could stop debating the grammar of the original rules text.
I can't agree more. But some people just can't accept that the ability may not have been written or intended to work they way they want. So they seem to be derail the debate on what to do in an effort to get their interpretation back.
The fact is their interpretation is gone. It isn't coming back. If everyone could agree to that thought, we could come to consensus. Not before.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Nobody needs to adopt a unified point of view
try to let the point go
PDT asked for this thread to come to a consensus before they go forward. I'm trying to help with that.
I'm fine with letting the point go, since how the original thing worked (or didn't) isn't important. But most of the suggestions take the form of "let us have awesome sauce back" and the proposed change is very far from the "awesome sauce" version. So I don't think it is productive to keep asking for something that isn't got much of a chance in happening.