Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In fact, the PDT has pretty much said your interpretation is wrong.
And can you show me an ability that simultaneously fires multiple rays but does not allow you to target the same creature with more than one?
It could also mean "hey we thought this was clear but it wasn't, so we are spelling out that you can't hit the same target twice now so it is clear."
Chain Lightning
---
Anyway, can we jump to the core issue? How we can hash out a good ability that doesn't violate or deviate too much from the original ability as rewritten by PDT in this thread?
|
Anyway, can we jump to the core issue? How we can hash out a good ability that doesn't violate or deviate too much from the original ability as rewritten by PDT in this thread?
Without removing the restriction on one ray per target or significantly increasing the power of the rays, the ability as stated by the PDT will never be worth the action cost.
In an effort to reach consensus with Mr. Risner, have we thought about reducing the action type to a swift action?
---Proposed Ability---
"At 4th level, a sound striker can continue his current performance with a violent solo. As a move action, the sound striker can lash out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting different targets within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d6 points of sonic damage plus the bard’s Charisma bonus. These weird words are considered rays for the purposes of feats, spells and abilities. This performance does not interrupt other performances, but the damage from the ability is an obvious threat."
At 7th level, a sound striker may now activate this ability as a swift action, in addition to a move action."
---Proposed Ability---
---PDT's Desires for Weird Words---
"The role of the sound striker archetype is a bard who can supplement his spellcasting, support, and weapon damage roles with a direct-damage use of his bardic performance currency (rounds of bardic performance). It is not intended to make the bard as ranged-effective as an archer. In other words, it is intended to augment the bard's melee abilities (just as its 3rd-level ability replaces inspire competence with a more martial use of performance rounds), but not replace them. If you're a bard who never uses inspire competence or suggestion, and at the end of the adventuring day you still have many rounds of performance left over, you could consider the sound striker archetype as an option that lets you use those "wasted" (meaning they went unused during the day) performance rounds to deal direct damage to opponents."
---PDT's Desires for Weird Words---
This would 1) keep the damage low to supplement spellcasting, support and weapon damage, 2) keeps the ability from being as effective as an archer, 3) does not replace melee actions, 4) allows you to use those "wasted" performance rounds, 5) reduces strain on action economy and most importantly 6) reduces the number of dice rolls.
I don’t think that getting the other side to admit that they were “wrong” is an important part of compromise. A “consensus” doesn't mean that everybody has to agree though. It just means that there is a general agreement. How PDT would judge when that has happened is not something I have a lot of insight into. I'm guessing that if nothing else they'd want to get an idea of what power level folks seem to be comfortable with for this ability.
@Ace of the Flesh Puppets - I think your version allows multiple uses of Weird Words per round which can happen in conjunction with other bardic performances. If so you're already about 2/3 of the way to my proposed single target damage of 3 attacks for 1d8+Cha.
Being able to combine the ability with other bardic performances might help make up for that lost damage. By the time the 3rd word would be gained you'd get +3 per word from Inspire Courage, for instance, resulting in 2d6+22~29 instead of 3d8+24~37. I won't deny that there's a difference there, but I'd think that being able to give your party +3 to attacks and damage in the meantime would make up for the lost 8 average damage.
If meeting PDT's goal of using "wasted" performance rounds is important I'd suggest that simply charging 1 round per word is a a simpler way of getting rid of rounds faster than combining Weird Words with other performances. Combining performances usually requires something like Virtuoso Performance.
|
|
Looking back, I realize that you could use multiple Weird Words in a round as I wrote it, but that was not the intent. The intent was to allow the Weird Words to be cast as either a move or swift action once per round, allowing the Bard to Arcane Strike/Inspire/WW or Move/Inspire/WW or Inspire/WW/Standard Attack or Full Attack/WW, etc. A simple clause adding that WW can only be used once per round would fix that loophole. By being able to be used multiple times per round, then the damage per round gets too high without needing to add in Archery or Melee feats/itemization.
Also, with more focus on melee and archery, Charisma will likely be lower then the max of 28. I would suspect 20-22 in order to have a decent to hit and damage ratio on your main attacks. This limits the Weird Words to ~1d6+14/15 with most buffs and several feats (Arcane Strike, PBS, Good Hope, Inspire). 17 damage on a single target is much more palatable, in my opinion and well in line with where I think the PDT would like to see the damage. Additionally, the increased action economy would allow you to fire off a Vital Strike, some other standard action attack or cast a spell (due to Arcane Striking).
@Ace - The one use per round clause really helped me understand what you're trying to do with your version. I can see how something like that could fill a viable role in the game by letting you spend an "extra" round of bardic performance to do a little damage as a move or swift action.
I'll agree that if the power of the ability can't go up then the action economy cost should go down. One word as a swift action doesn't appeal to me as much as 3 as a standard action does, but at least it wouldn't be pointless. In fact, the average damage you've claimed would put your ability roughly on par with Magic Missile from a damage perspective. I think you've taken quite a lot of buffs to get there though. Good Hope is a standard action, for instance, and using Arcane Strike as a swift action means you'd have to use Weird Words as a move action, leaving no time for Inspire Courage.
I also suspect there could be harsh comparisons with the Thunder Caller assuming folks can ever agree on whether Thunder Call should work 1 or 3 times per round. Perhaps ironically, I'd be in favor of Thunder Call only working once per round. All things considered I think that would be relatively well balanced with what I've proposed for the Sound Striker though still stronger than what you've proposed.
|
|
Glad to see some consensus, Devilkiller! ;)
First, it would be one word per target up to your level, so you would retain the AoE nature of the ability. I can't tell from your response if that came through on my rewrite. Also, I believe with the reduced power that it should only cost 1 bardic performance round total.
Second, yes, you could not one round yourself into that full buff zone. I would imagine the first round of combat would be Good Hope(Standard) / Inspire(Move) / Weird Words(Swift), followed by Full Attack / WW (Swift). I honestly don't think that archery or melee bards will sacrifice a full attack to Arcane Strike and WW(Move) on a single target, unless there are a significant amount of low health mooks. The damage increase is only +4, so it would take a few mooks and provides for an interesting trade-off. This assumes that the bad guys are within 30 feet. Needing to move to get within range would definitely reduce action economy.
This gets the two major buffs rolling for the whole party and allows the Bard to expend 4 rounds of Bardic Performance, which I don't think is a small number at 7th level (20-24ish). Spending a fifth or a sixth of your bardic performance rounds in two rounds of combat is a pretty good price, in my opinion.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
---Proposed Ability---
"At 4th level, a sound striker can continue his current performance with a violent solo. As a move action, the sound striker can lash out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting different targets within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d6 points of sonic damage plus the bard’s Charisma bonus. These weird words are considered rays for the purposes of feats, spells and abilities. This performance does not interrupt other performances, but the damage from the ability is an obvious threat."At 7th level, a sound striker may now activate this ability as a swift action, in addition to a move action."
---Proposed Ability---
This drops the 1 round per target penalty, the DR issue, and makes it a move action that doesn't stop Inspire Courage in exchange for scaling damage. It is especially troubling when combined with a Full Attack, as there wouldn't be much to be in competition with an Archery focused Bard with Weird Words as a Swift action that stacks with Inspire Courage. Kinda being all things to all people.
Personally I think that is far too much of an improvement over the PDT version.
Looking back at monsters from CR 8 to 12 and ignoring all DR/Magic that can be bypassed, we find 33 DR/5, 167 DR/10, and 7 DR/15 from 534 monsters. Of the sonic resist variety, we find 7 Sonic/10, 1 Sonic/20 and 1 Sonic/30. Clearly Sonic is rare and is a nice thing to have when one wishes to bypass reductions.
I'd recommend this version:
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can lashing out, as a move action, with up to 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet.
No target can be struck more than once.
Each potent sound expends 1 round of bardic performance.
These are ranged touch attacks.
Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus.
This performance replaces suggestion.
Demoted to Move (that doesn't stop other performances) and Sonic in exchange for higher damage maximum at higher level.
I think the DR to Sonic is a fair trade with the reduction in damage maximum. The action economy (move action) blocks Full Attack, as we never allow it as a Swift or even a Standard.
---Proposed Ability---
"At 4th level, a sound striker can continue his current performance with a violent solo. As a move action, the sound striker can lash out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting different targets within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d6 points of sonic damage plus the bard’s Charisma bonus. These weird words are considered rays for the purposes of feats, spells and abilities. This performance does not interrupt other performances, but the damage from the ability is an obvious threat."At 7th level, a sound striker may now activate this ability as a swift action, in addition to a move action."
---Proposed Ability---This drops the 1 round per target penalty, the DR issue, and makes it a move action that doesn't stop Inspire Courage in exchange for scaling damage. It is especially troubling when combined with a Full Attack, as there wouldn't be much to be in competition with an Archery focused Bard with Weird Words as a Swift action that stacks with Inspire Courage. Kinda being all things to all people.
Personally I think that is far too much of an improvement over the PDT version.
Looking back at monsters from CR 8 to 12 and ignoring all DR/Magic that can be bypassed, we find 33 DR/5, 167 DR/10, and 7 DR/15 from 534 monsters. Of the sonic resist variety, we find 7 Sonic/10, 1 Sonic/20 and 1 Sonic/30. Clearly Sonic is rare and is a nice thing to have when one wishes to bypass reductions.
I'd recommend this version:
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can lashing out, as a move action, with up to 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet.
No target can be struck more than once.
Each potent sound expends 1 round of bardic performance.
These are ranged touch attacks.
Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus.
This performance replaces suggestion.Demoted...
Except the damage becomes absolutely pitiful, and you didn't specify the damage as Sonic (though you did later on in your post).
1d8+Cha is only ever going to cause any noticeable damage to ~6th level characters and lower. Once you hit 10th level, you will probably never see a Sound Striker using the ability, because it:
A) Deals negligible damage.
B) Costs 1 round of performance per sound
C) Can't attack the same target multiple times
These are not 'potent sounds'; rather, they are 'potent sneezes' and will make the class ability completely irrelevant.
Frankly, if the PDT cause with the 'strong breeze' attacks I keep seeing proposed, I'm just going to have to house rule the entire Archetype into something better, because it will just be trash.
There is no incentive to use that ability over something else. An archer would never forgo his full-attack, unless he were surrounded by a bunch of trash mobs that he needs to clear quickly. That is the only time the ability would see use. Like say, you're 15th level and for some reason the GM just threw you up against 30-40 2nd level Goblins.
Also, why would I take Sound Striker when the Thundercaller is clearly better?
Perhaps I'm the only one willing to ask these questions, but they are questions that have to be answered.
What incentive is there to take this Archetype over the Thundercaller based off your proposal?
What reason would I have to sacrifice my Archery full attack for the Move action blast that blows hugs and kisses and chews up my rounds of performance?
If the cost is 1 round per word, then the damage on the words needs to be worth the cost.
If the damage doesn't out-perform the Thundercaller dealing decent damage in an AoE, with a possible life ending condition, along with progressively faster activation, then the Sound Striker isn't up to snuff.
If the ability doesn't deal enough damage or inflicts a noticeable penalty on the enemy, in comparison to a full attack, then it isn't worth the action to activate it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This drops the 1 round per target penalty, the DR issue, and makes it a move action that doesn't stop Inspire Courage in exchange for scaling damage. It is especially troubling when combined with a Full Attack, as there wouldn't be much to be in competition with an Archery focused Bard with Weird Words as a Swift action that stacks with Inspire Courage. Kinda being all things to all people.
...
I'd recommend this version:
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can lashing out, as a move action, with up to 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet.
No target can be struck more than once.
Each potent sound expends 1 round of bardic performance.
These are ranged touch attacks.
Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus.
This performance replaces suggestion.
First, the 1 round per target penalty is unnecessary as explained in my post. If you are charging 1 round for 1d6+Cha+buffs, then no one will use the ability. At that point, you are not using up excess rounds (per the PDT's statement) but wasting valuable IC rounds. If you target 5 creatures in a single round at level 7 with 22 CHA, you would spend 6 rounds of bardic performance (1(IC) and 5(WW)) in a single round, which would be more than a quarter of your rounds to do a pitiful ~16 damage (after spending one round to Good Hope and Inspire Courage and using your current swift action to Arcane Strike).
Second, under this same scenario, the Bard would still never use Weird Words as it would preclude his Full Attack. If left as a move action past level 7, then the Bard will never use Weird Words. Doing minimal damage to several monsters is patently worse than doing good damage to one or two monsters, due to the removal of a damage dealer being better than spreading damage around.
Third, by being able to be used as a move or swift, then Weird Words can have a low damage to supplement the bard's full attack. This is exactly the same as the Thundercaller. There is precedent for this and it should be taken into account.
Fourth, by allowing it as a swift action, it actually promotes not taking and using Arcane Strike, which also lowers the damage of the ability overall. The ideal usage of the ability as a swift action is Full Attack+WW. Very rarely is Arcane Strike going to be used if WW is can be used as a swift action.
All in all, your recommended proposal would likely never see use in play. The high cost of the ability coupled with the low damage and the high action economy would lead the ability to be ignored except in the most random of circumstances.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If the cost is 1 round per word, then the damage on the words needs to be worth the cost.
If the damage doesn't out-perform the Thundercaller dealing decent damage in an AoE, with a possible life ending condition, along with progressively faster activation, then the Sound Striker isn't up to snuff.
If the ability doesn't deal enough damage or inflicts a noticeable penalty on the enemy, in comparison to a full attack, then it isn't worth the action to activate it.
I crafted that trying to keep some of the desired abilities (accelerated activation, not stopping Inspire Courage, Ignoring DR.) You can't have the ability be all things. It isn't going to be the mechanically best way to deal damage to one or a group of people, have an accelerated activation, with no limitations, etc.
There needs to be a trade off. If you need more damage (to non-single target) then it is better than Thundercaller because it deals similar or more damage and is larger range.
I recommended earlier in this thread that something other than damage may be a great way to move this ability.
Maybe:
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can lashing out, as a standard action, with up to 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet.
No target can be struck more than once.
Each potent sound expends 1 round of bardic performance.
Each word nauseates the target for 1 round with a save to negate.
The bard may choose the type of save for each word from Fortitude, Will, or Reflex.
This performance replaces suggestion.
All in all, your recommended proposal would likely never see use in play. The high cost of the ability coupled with the low damage and the high action economy would lead the ability to be ignored except in the most random of circumstances.
Then I recommend coming up with a balanced proposal to the PDT redesign, instead of just wholesale making it better in every category.
I think it clearly allows you to strike the same target with every word if you wanted to.
We clearly have a different definition of the English word clearly.
I guess that 1d8+Cha as a swift action might be better than Arcane Strike depending on how many attacks you have. For an archer with Manyshot it might require some other buffs. I suppose it could be nice for a caster Bard who wants to squeeze out a little bit of extra damage. One weird solution would be to allow a 2nd word as a move action and a 3rd word as a standard action. I find that a little confusing compared to just allowing 3 shots as a standard action though.
@Bigdaddyjug - It seems like PDT does think the current version of Weird Words is overpowered. The days of 10 words on a single target are gone, and they aren’t coming back. If you want better single target damage than the PDT version then I think the Scorching Ray based solution will be about as good as that could possibly get (and honestly it might not even get that good)
@James Risner - I think the nauseate effect is potentially way stronger than the PDT version, especially if you allow the Bard to pick the type of save! Being able to target the foe's weak save with a crippling effect is why Dazing Spell is somewhat frowned upon by several DMs I know. Anyhow, one thing you've said which I actually agree with is that the Weird Words ability can't be all things. A page or so ago I posted a spoiler with the idea to split Weird Words up into two abilities, a ranged attack with 3 words, and an AoE. I don’t think that anybody has ever argued that the AoE-like use of Weird Words was overpowered or even particularly strong. Doing 1d8+Cha to all enemies within 30 feet seems reasonable to me. This could work just like the PDT power for all I care. If they wanted to give Sound Striker a big boost it could even be a clone of the Thunder Call ability.
As for the ranged touch attack power, maybe it would be better as a rewrite of the not very useful Wordstrike ability. It would become just a ranged touch attack which does 1d8+Cha with attacks added at 7th and 11th levels.I think it would be tough to argue that this volley of 3 ranged touch attacks could be “overpowered” since we know that Scorching Ray is a common spell from the Core Rulebook. 1d8+Cha should rarely be more than 4d6, which averages 14. Sure, other buffs could be applied, but almost all of them could be applied to Scorching Ray too. Even a Bard without the Sound Striker archetype can buy a wand of Scorching Ray.
|
|
Then I recommend coming up with a balanced proposal to the PDT redesign, instead of just wholesale making it better in every category.
I actually did post a balanced proposal that fit every criteria of the PDT's design.
I also did not "wholesale [make] it better in every category." My proposal makes the words weaker from 1d8 to 1d6 as well as lessens the ability to focus on Charisma to the exclusion of other stats by showing how you would need Dex and/or Str to make a viable build. Additionally, as I explained before, it also effectively removes Arcane Strike from adding damage to the ability except under extreme circumstances.
|
|
Our definition of balanced is wildly out of sync.
Agreed. You apparently would love to see the ability and the archetype nerfed into nothingness and I would like to see meaningful change that still leaves the archetype relevant and comparable to other classes and other Bard archetypes (most notably Thundercaller).
Also, I enjoy how I prove you wrong and yet you ignore it and decide to infer that I am in the wrong.
Our definition of balanced is wildly out of sync.Agreed. You apparently would love to see the ability and the archetype nerfed into nothingness and I would like to see meaningful change that still leaves the archetype relevant and comparable to other classes and other Bard archetypes (most notably Thundercaller).
Also, I enjoy how I prove you wrong and yet you ignore it and decide to infer that I am in the wrong.
Why do you think I stopped arguing with him?
Most folks have stopped posting by this point. I can’t be sure who might still be reading. I think we’re pretty close to a consensus of some sort though even if James strongly dissents. I think I see a few options taking shape...
Option #1 - Improve Action Economy - This might be Ace’s proposal or something similar, perhaps even the original PDT rewrite. The key component is that Weird Words would no longer require a standard action. The simplest way to achieve that might be to let the Bard start it as a move action or swift action at the appropriate levels like most other performances. A few other methods have been proposed.
Option #2 - Improve Power - This would be vaguely modeled on Scorching Ray with words at levels 3/7/11, 6/8/12, 6/9/12, or whatever seems reasonable. Each word would cost 1 round of bardic performance, have a range of 30 feet, and do either 1d8+Cha or 4d6 damage.
Option #3 - Split the Ability - As the 3/7/11 variant of Option #2 but with an AoE at 6th level, whether that’s PDT’s version of the ability, something strange and unique, or maybe a clone of Thunder Call (if that wouldn’t be too much power for one archetype). Basically, Wordstrike would be replaced by the ranged touch attack ability while Weird Words becomes an AoE type effect (targets within 30 feet)
If this were an election rather than a discussion I’d vote for #3. I wouldn’t like #1 that much, but I could live with it. I didn’t detail physical vs sonic damage in any of the options since there are some advantages to both and PDT might have some feelings on the matter. Sticking with the original damage type would keep the changes less drastic and hopefully have a less dramatic effect on existing PCs. I guess there's also Option #3, just leave it as PDT ruled it. I think that's pretty unappealing though. Obviously there could be many and minute variations on each of these "options". I'm just trying to organize them a little bit.
So before this thread completely dies, I have a quick question as to whether undead have to make to fort save against weird words. My DM believes that since it does not say that undead can be affected then they are immune to the fort save, but it also only specifies target, so I think it might affect objects. One of my fellow players is playing a sound striker right now and I just thought it would be nice to have that part of the aspect of the ability clarified for me.
|
|
I think you've hit the three major proposals on the head, Devilkiller.
Obviously, I would vote for #1 as my primary choice, but options #2 and #3 are acceptable in my book. As to option #2, I prefer the Charisma based solution because I think that it provides a better average damage per use as compared to 4d6. Additionally, I think that it would mean that higher Cha builds could get more mileage out of the archetype.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think we’re pretty close to a consensus of some sort though even if James strongly dissents
Three people isn't concensus, and I honestly don't believe you will get what is being requested. It is better in multiple ways than the PDT proposal and nothing is paid for the upgrade.
Can you honestly tell me that you believe they would change it to being better in every way? A straight up major DPR upgrade to any Archer Bard who takes Sound Striker? If you think they would do that even if everyone here wanted it and no one disagreed, then there isn't much point in continuing to talk. It would be a waste of your time and mine, as they will likely just ignore your proposal. I'm trying to get something that we could all like that they might implement.
nerfed into nothingness and I would like to see meaningful change that still leaves the archetype relevant
I prove you wrong
The interpretation of the original ability as single target wasn't how it was written and the PDT proposal was an upgrade already from the original ability.
If you proved me wrong, you didn't do it in this thread. But let's not continue to waste posts hashing it out? Let's talk about a fix. Do you like my proposed fix above with nausea?
undead ... the fort save
The PDT proposal got rid of the Fort save. My proposal above would work if you choose Reflex save. Someone mentioned the choice of saves would be too powerful. If my proposal had the choice removed, then it would revert to Fortitude and an Undead would be immune to any Fort save.
|
|
Let's talk about a fix. Do you like my proposed fix above with nausea?
I don't care for your fix. If the ability only nauseates for a single round at one BPR per sound with a save as a standard action, then I would likely never use the ability.
I would consider the ability under several different combinations of changes:
1. Reduced cost to one BPR to activate as many sounds as you like + move action or swift action
or
2. Removal of save + lasts until the end of your next round
or
3. Nauseates for 1 + 1/2 Charisma modifier
Your version seems a bit underpowered. If I am to spend a standard action and not smack something with my bow, axe or spell, then I would want a bit more oomph, especially at one BPR per sound.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
there's nothing in the text of the ability that says multiple words cannot strike the same target.
Do we really need to go back and forth on this? Can we just schedule it for next Tuesday and you and I put up 1000 posts saying "Yes" and "No" so we can get it out of your system?
There is nothing that says you can't take actions while dead and I could come up with a few hundred other "It doesn't say I can't" things. None of them are things you can do.
You can not target multiple on one with any ability if it doesn't say you can. Magic Missile says you can. Scorching Ray says you can. Every other ability says you can. In most games that use the word "target" you can't target the same target multiple times.
1. Reduced cost to one BPR to activate as many sounds as you like + move action or swift action
2. Removal of save + lasts until the end of your next round
3. Nauseates for 1 + 1/2 Charisma modifier
1) Makes the ability way too good for action economy reasons.
2) This would make it obscenely powerful, so much that I'd beg for it deal 10d6 days to a single target instead as that would be much weaker.3) If it still has a save this would be very powerful. No save and it is the best ability in the game, full stop.
|
You know, it seems amazing to me that I am the only one who both would prefer that it be unhooked entirely from Bardic Performance, and sees a way to do it while keeping it fairly well balanced.
Turn it into an ability, in some ways, similar to the arcane school abilities that Wizards get at first level.
A Sound Striker Bard would get 3 + Charisma Mod uses per day
It would do 1d4 + level or level/2 Sonic damage, with a Fort save for half, to any single target, including objects.
Range would start at 30', and increment, like the Arcane School targeted abilities, at the same rate.
Remove the Fort save, and make it a ranged touch attack, but make it a ray for purposes of feats and spells.
Very similar, in many ways, to the Force Missile ability. A useful go-to, when needed, but not a primary attack by any means.
Maybe offer the Sound Striker the ability to spend BPR to either turn it into a small AoE, 1 rd = 5', 4 rds = 10', 9 rds = 20'; or hit multiple targets with it for BPR = # targets/2. One or the other as the option, not both.
Whether it should get faster than a Standard would be related to how the similar Arcane School abilities work, which means that it probably shouldn't.
Then again, that is my personal take on it, both making it useful, without making it the primary go-to.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is a nice rule you made up
Do we really have to keep doing this? Can we not just drop it and discuss the change? Because obviously I don't agree with you about the rules, the meaning of the original rule. There is fundamentally no purpose in them stating that you can target the same target multiple times and waste those 10+ words if what you say is true. So that makes your position obviously false.
|
|
1) Makes the ability way too good for action economy reasons.
2) This would make it obscenely powerful, so much that I'd beg for it deal 10d6 days to a single target instead as that would be much weaker.
3) If it still has a save this would be very powerful. No save and it is the best ability in the game, full stop.
Every time you say something you seem to wish to invoke anger or spitefulness in everyone else. I would recommend you just stop posting if you can't talk about people's suggestions civilly and without hyperbole.
First, all of those proposals are separate. Any combination of them would be overpowered. Individually, they would be strong, but nothing I haven't seen at the table before.
Stunning Fist has a limited use pool, similar to BPR, stuns the target for a round on a save, activates as a free action, does all the damage of the attack and can be incorporated into a full attack.
Your proposal has the first two, excludes the any damage or a full attack and the Sound Striker gets it five levels after the monk. Your proposal is too weak and would never see usage.
Instead of bashing people's proposals with hyperbole and outright condescension, try offering tweaks if you think your proposal is better. It's clear that almost no one agrees with you in this thread, but I seem to be the only one trying to reach out and incorporate your ideas into the mix. Maybe think about that next time before you post.
Oops, I listed “Leave it as PDT ruled it” as Option #3 too. I can’t seem to edit the post for some reason, so let’s just call that Option #4.
@kinevon - That sounds more like the 3rd level Wordstrike ability. I don't think that adding a couple of extra words to it would really overshadow everything else the Bard can do though, especially if the cost were significant and he still had to choose between that and other performances.
@Ace - Using 1d8+Cha damage instead of 4d6 will actually be a control on damage rather than a bonus for any Cha under 30. I like the investment into Charisma that this requires as a gentle balancing factor.
@Bigdaddyjug - Regardless of what the original ability actually said, PDT officially clarified that the multiple sound per target use was not intended. I just happen to think that should be reconsidered. Even PDT said the limit made the ability very weak.
Three people isn't concensus, and I honestly don't believe you will get what is being requested.
Three of four people actually would be a consensus. I also recall seeing several people post a while back that they kind of like the “Scorching Ray” model. Even if Paizo doesn’t like any of our proposals the discussion should give them some ideas as to what players and DMs might find appealing.
I expect that the PDT is extremely busy with the Advanced Class Guide playtest right now. Thus I expect that the Weird Words ability will not receive a definitive rewrite until sometime next year. As such, I've added the following to my list of house rules:
If you are considering playing a Sound Striker archetype Bard, please don't. It does not work the way you want it to.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Your proposal is too weak and would never see usage.
try offering tweaks if you think your proposal is better
I'm not sold on my proposal, but to be fair you are saying it is too weak and someone else above said it was overpowered. I thought it was in the middle. /shrug
I offered tweaks, in the form of toning it down because your proposals were way more powerful than the PDT version.
Three of four people actually would be a consensus.
3 of 4 is still way too few people to predict any sort of "real world" feeling. I've had several people want to play a Sound Striker bard for DPR reasons before this thread. Not all people are comfortable with the Bard potentially out damaging every other person at the table. Most of that went away once I explained how the rules worked (and that single target wasn't allowed or acceptable.) If single target was allowed, many players would have been unhappy. Obviously this is not the experience of some of the people in this thread who did use the old ability in single target interpretation.
Most of the recent proposals have been of the two forms:
1) Swift action additional damage in a round
2) Standard action damage that challenges or surpasses Full Attack or spell damage and has few limitations.
None of them are balanced with the PDT proposal. I think we can all honestly say that (and have said that), I just think we should try to be closer to their original redesign if we want to be part of the process.
In the original beta, a lot of people wanted Monks to have Full BAB and many other things. The general consensus was for more power. The resulting version of the Monk was better than the 3.5 but didn't look anything like what the general consensus requested.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
treated like a ray (PBS, Precise Shot, Inspire Courage applying), but previously said it would not be treated like a ray in that multiple words could not strike the same target.
It was always allowed to use PBS etc (look at my DPR builds before it was clarified.)
There is no ray rule that states it can hit the target multiple times, those rules are in each individual ability. Something this original ability did not have.
Can we stop arguing over the original ability? Please
None of them are balanced with the PDT proposal. I think we can all honestly say that (and have said that), I just think we should try to be closer to their original redesign if we want to be part of the process.
I think this is the root of the problem. You're trying to create something on the level of the PDT redesign. Everyone else took one look at the redesign, said "That is a horrible, horrible idea on par with dropping rogues to 1/2 BAB because they can get sneak attack on every hit. Lets ignore it and build something that might actually be worth using."
So long as you're trying to create something on par with what everyone else considers a worthless ability, your suggested modifications will be considered worthless abilities and you'll think everything else is overpowered.
I'm in the camp of "Make something that people will want to use." If an archetype as a whole is not stronger in some way than the base class, then there's no point to taking it. "In some way" can be very narrowly defined ("I'm better at shields.", "I'm a barbarian with an animal companion"), but it has to exist. No one uses the Two Weapon Warrior archetype if they plan on being a greatsword fighter - they'd be giving up abilities which help them in exchange for ones they'd never use. Likewise the Sound Striker Bard has to do something that will make people consider taking it, or no one will. If that something is "higher damage with limited usage", that's valid. If that something is "useful effects", that's valid. If that something is "I can be less effective using my powers than if I don't", then that's not.
James, I've done the math for you before, you just refuse to believe it. Even if you allowed all 10 words of the original ability to hit monsters, it's only powerful against creatures without any form of DR. I showed that a 10th level Sound Striker couldn't even kill a CR 5 earth elemental with all of his attacks hitting the elemental. At least, not in 1 round. Conversely, any decently designed archer could have ripped that Elemental to shreds.
At 10th level, when the original ability achieves full power, creatures with DR become the norm, not the exception. So unless your game has a lot of humanoids with class levels as the enemies, the original Sound Striker isn't going to be OP at all. Truthfully, the original Sound Striker functions better as a villain, than a PC because PCs almost never have DR.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
you just refuse to believe it ... CR 5 earth elemental with all of his attacks hitting the elemental ... creatures with DR become the norm, not the exception.
The root disagreement is that I don't consider 35% of creatures "the norm" and you must.
When 65 % of all creatures that a 10th level Bard should be facing has no DR or the ability will bypass that DR then you can't say it is a useless ability. It is only "useless" on 35 % of creatures.
I have to say, James Risner seems to be the biggest obstacle to resolving this issue in a reasonable fashion.
The English language plainly shows that the old version of Weird Words allowed you to target the same guy with every word, however, the RAI was also pretty obvious that you weren't supposed to be able to, so it was a case of failed wording.
And almost all important and common enemies post level 10 have DR, not 35%.
Further, everyone else agrees the ability needs to be, you know, actually useful to be worth it.
Frankly, if Weird Words ends up anywhere in the (extremely weak) power range the PDT suggested, I would have preferred they left the ability in limbo or just removed the archetype entirely.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
And almost all important and common enemies post level 10 have DR, not 35%.
James Risner seems to be the biggest obstacle to resolving this issue in a reasonable fashion.
I got that 35 % number from raw monster data off d20pfsrd. I'd recommend you do the same before making claims that don't match up with the actual data. Please understand I removed all DR Magic monsters (since Weird Words cuts through DR Magic) and I removed all slashing/bludgeoning/piercing for the same reason.
As for the other, while I may be one of the few people opposed to making the ability extremely high powered, I'm not the only one of that opinion.
And almost all important and common enemies post level 10 have DR, not 35%.
James Risner seems to be the biggest obstacle to resolving this issue in a reasonable fashion.I got that 35 % number from raw monster data off d20pfsrd. I'd recommend you do the same before making claims that don't match up with the actual data. Please understand I removed all DR Magic monsters (since Weird Words cuts through DR Magic) and I removed all slashing/bludgeoning/piercing for the same reason.
As for the other, while I may be one of the few people opposed to making the ability extremely high powered, I'm not the only one of that opinion.
The original ability did not cut through DR magic. SKR clarified* that the PDT's proposed changes were to be counted as rays, and they over come DR/Magic.
The original ability were not rays, did not overcome DR/Magic. So any creature that you nixed for having DR/Magic are added back to the list.
The original ability only had a high DPR against humanoid classed enemies, because, at high levels, those are about the only enemies to not have DR. Which basically means the Sound Striker is a good villain, not a good PC. In fact, a small group of 10th level Sound Striker mooks would actually be a very good threat against a party, simply because of the number of words flying about if nothing else. Four (1 for each PC), 10th level Sound Strikers would be a CR 13 encounter, and their only real method of being a threat would be the original Weird Words ability. Even then, they would only have ~65 HP per Bard and be easily wipeable by many spells, or even a couple of full-attacks from the martials.
10th level NPCs Sound Strikers could have a Cha of ~23 (15 +2 racial +2 level +4 item) and deal 1d8+6 damage per hit and a DC 21 Fortitude save for half. If a PC absolutely failed all 10 saving throws, and was hit by all 10 words, they would take 105 points of damage. So maybe the Wizard would die, but even the Wizard is probably sporting a ~+10 fortitude save at this point.
The original ability's problem wasn't a high DPR, it was simply the number of rolls.
*The clarifications SKR posted were in response to jmerriex's post, which itself was in reference to the PDT proposal.
Jmerriex's post.
SKR's clarification.
Most folks have stopped posting by this point. I can’t be sure who might still be reading.
I'm still following it, just haven't been posting. It actually didn't deteriorate too badly all things considered;0 Just haven't had much to say, I've seen several good options that I think are viable, just need to see what the Devs decide now.
Most folks have stopped posting by this point. I can’t be sure who might still be reading.I'm still following it, just haven't been posting. It actually didn't deteriorate too badly all things considered;0 Just haven't had much to say, I've seen several good options that I think are viable, just need to see what the Devs decide now.
Likewise with me. I'm following, but I think that without another dev post to give some direction, we're just spinning our wheels.
I got that 35 % number from raw monster data off d20pfsrd. I'd recommend you do the same before making claims that don't match up with the actual data. Please understand I removed all DR Magic monsters (since Weird Words cuts through DR Magic) and I removed all slashing/bludgeoning/piercing for the same reason.
First, the ability did not use to cut through DR X/Magic. It was only a recent post by the devs that allowed that.
Second, I never said most of all monsters have DR, I said almost all of the most important and common enemies have DR. I'm not going to count some obscure ooze from an AP or buttalopes or whatever weird monsters are out there--I'm talking about the enemies you know you're going to face in numbers in almost every campaign (though admittedly, not my own). Stuff like demons/devils, dragons, golems, undead, etc.
As for the other, while I may be one of the few people opposed to making the ability extremely high powered, I'm not the only one of that opinion.
The obstacle is that your definition of "extremely high powered" is so extremely different from almost everyone else's that your comments lack common ground with the rest of us. If you think Scorching Ray is too powerful for the ability, for example, I just don't even know how to have a conversation about this with you, and it seems that others are in the same boat.
The ability has to be better than options the Bard has available at base. There is no choice in this matter. If it is not better, there is no justification for its existence.
Because I'd rather not deal with this sort of bickering over the Thanksgiving holiday, and I think people need a little time to cool off and refresh their ideas about this topic, I'm closing it for now and will reopen it on Monday. Have a good weekend!
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
bickering
Can we get some direction from Paizo?
Can we know if making the ability single target for significant damage that you could build a damage dealing Bard using the archetype is something we should continue discussing?
Or should we confine our discussions to abilities similar in power to the PDT proposed redesign?
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the bard's role should be "stacking huge amounts of magical damage on a single target." The bard barely sticks its toe into the "does a moderate amount of damage to multiple targets" pool (bards get shout at caster level 10, 5d6... woo... compared to a wizard's lower-level fireball or just-learned-at-that-class-level cone of cold which deals 10d6 at caster level 10).
To repeat what I said earlier through the PDT account:
So people don't have to scroll back through multiple pages, here's the original PDT post about this ability (updated in bold with more info about rays and such):
=====
The design team and the developers have talked about this ability, and we agree that it is problematic, in that it isn't clear, and (depending on how it's interpreted) is either a very poor ability or a very powerful ability.
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
There's no easy or obvious fix for the ability as written.
Rather than quickly putting together an official FAQ or errata with a fix, having people find problems with it, and post revisions to that fix, what we're going to do is present a rough idea of what we think the ability should do, let people pick at it for a while, and revise the wording based on this feedback.
Here is the proposed new wording, parsed over several lines for easier reading:
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with up to 1 ray of potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet.
No target can be struck more than once.
Each ray expends 1 round of bardic performance.
These are ranged touch attacks.
Each ray deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus. At 10th, 14th, and 18th level, the damage increases by 1d8.
The bard chooses what type of damage each ray deals (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing). These rays count as magical weapons.
This performance replaces suggestion.
=====
Keep in mind that weird words is replacing the suggestion bardic performance, which is a weak ability of the base class and not something you could normally use in combat (as fascinate requires the target to be fascinated, and that effect doesn't work if there is combat nearby to distract them). So this archetype replaces a non-combat ability (suggestion) with a combat ability (weird words), so weird words can't be a strong combat ability because that would be a significant powerup for this archetype (replacing a non-combat ability with a combat ability, and replacing a weak ability with a strong ability).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
another dev post to give some direction, we're just spinning our wheels.
We now have some direction!
not only would he no longer be a sound striker, he would no longer be a bard.
Did you take Sound Striker for the ability to deal significant damage? Worth taking the class with this Archetype?
I think it is clear, that the direction we should discuss is far away from being a "go to" ability to be able to deal damage.