Why should it be a full round action?Because it's a double move (full round action), with an attack tacked onto the end.
The other rules you gripe about stand as balances to that.
And? Just move it to a standard action that moves only up to your speed.
Frankly, charging is terribly sup par past level 6 when iterative come into play and scales horribly into late play.
Let's look at the negatives of charging.
-Even if you go less than your speed, you still don't get your move action because you had to Full Round Action to charge
-You take an AC penalty
-You can't charge if there is ANYTHING in the way, so charge focused builds are seriously situational without lots of shenanigans, meta gaming, and possibly game breaking feat/magic item combos (so you REALLY need to game the rules to get the most out of it)
-Charge based builds have serious damage fall off late game
-Charging removes the ability of the player to position himself as he desires, not even with penalties or skill checks
-Feats which multiply damage stack in a sub par manner with crits (meaning a fighter who gets 3 attacks with 3 crits gets x6 damage with a x2 weapon, and x9 damage with a x3 weapon, but if you have a lance and spirited charge, you're doing x5 damage)
-Critical hits are less common for you
What are the positives?
-You get +2 to attack
-You can move double your speed and attack if you really need to
-You can take advantage of some situational feats or items that boost charging specifically.
-Your crits are more dangerous than normal and can potentially deck a BBEG in one round, but this requires serious amounts of luck.
Why should it be a full round action?Because it's a double move (full round action), with an attack tacked onto the end.
The other rules you gripe about stand as balances to that.
And? Just move it to a standard action that moves only up to your speed.
Frankly, charging is terribly sup par past level 6 when iterative come into play and scales horribly into late play.
Let's look at the negatives of charging.
-Even if you go less than your speed, you still don't get your move action because you had to Full Round Action to charge
-You take an AC penalty
-You can't charge if there is ANYTHING in the way, so charge focused builds are seriously situational without lots of shenanigans, meta gaming, and possibly game breaking feat/magic item combos (so you REALLY need to game the rules to get the most out of it)
-Charge based builds have serious damage fall off late game
-Charging removes the ability of the player to position himself as he desires, not even with penalties or skill checksWhat are the positives?
-You get +2 to attack
-You can move double your speed and attack if you really need to
-You can take advantage of some situational feats or items that boost charging specifically.
except when the target is more than 30 ft away...
After playing 4e, I also don't see the upsides of charging to be worth all the hassle.
Out of curiosity, what do you do when a target isn't within 5-foot-step distance of you? Assuming you're playing a melee character, of course. Even if you moved and attacked, that'd use the same actions a charge did, give you half the mobility, and miss out on a +2 bonus. It's not all that hard to ignore difficult terrain with a few cheap items.
Yes, yes, if there are obstacles or difficult terrain that shuts down charging. They're not great for normal movement, either, and difficult terrain isn't so common as to completely make charging worthless in my experience.
except when the target is more than 30 ft away...Why should it be a full round action?Because it's a double move (full round action), with an attack tacked onto the end.
The other rules you gripe about stand as balances to that.
And? Just move it to a standard action that moves only up to your speed.
Frankly, charging is terribly sup par past level 6 when iterative come into play and scales horribly into late play.
Let's look at the negatives of charging.
-Even if you go less than your speed, you still don't get your move action because you had to Full Round Action to charge
-You take an AC penalty
-You can't charge if there is ANYTHING in the way, so charge focused builds are seriously situational without lots of shenanigans, meta gaming, and possibly game breaking feat/magic item combos (so you REALLY need to game the rules to get the most out of it)
-Charge based builds have serious damage fall off late game
-Charging removes the ability of the player to position himself as he desires, not even with penalties or skill checksWhat are the positives?
-You get +2 to attack
-You can move double your speed and attack if you really need to
-You can take advantage of some situational feats or items that boost charging specifically.
Bolded for your convenience. And I mean, really - is charging something that should be relegated to THAT situational?
After playing 4e, I also don't see the upsides of charging to be worth all the hassle.Out of curiosity, what do you do when a target isn't within 5-foot-step distance of you? Assuming you're playing a melee character, of course. Even if you moved and attacked, that'd use the same actions a charge did, give you half the mobility, and miss out on a +2 bonus. It's not all that hard to ignore difficult terrain with a few cheap items.
Yes, yes, if there are obstacles or difficult terrain that shuts down charging. They're not great for normal movement, either, and difficult terrain isn't so common as to completely make charging worthless in my experience.
Things that completely shut down charging builds.
-Difficult Terrain
-ANY obstructive items, even an overturned tavern chair (or worse if the DM is super stingy)
-Enclosed Areas
-Allied Players (particularly bad if you're on Horse, since your maneuvering is pigish)
-Any kind of wall or support beam of a structure (so basically anything which doesn't occur outside, and not even that limited)
The fact is, even if you have to sacrifice one round of not getting a FRA to use a move to get next to someone, you have SO much flexibility in how you want to do it. Trying to charge is an exercise in fighting the rules just to do it. And you take -2 AC for a whole turn!
Bolded for your convenience. And I mean, really - is charging something that should be relegated to THAT situational?except when the target is more than 30 ft away...Why should it be a full round action?Because it's a double move (full round action), with an attack tacked onto the end.
The other rules you gripe about stand as balances to that.
And? Just move it to a standard action that moves only up to your speed.
Frankly, charging is terribly sup par past level 6 when iterative come into play and scales horribly into late play.
Let's look at the negatives of charging.
-Even if you go less than your speed, you still don't get your move action because you had to Full Round Action to charge
-You take an AC penalty
-You can't charge if there is ANYTHING in the way, so charge focused builds are seriously situational without lots of shenanigans, meta gaming, and possibly game breaking feat/magic item combos (so you REALLY need to game the rules to get the most out of it)
-Charge based builds have serious damage fall off late game
-Charging removes the ability of the player to position himself as he desires, not even with penalties or skill checksWhat are the positives?
-You get +2 to attack
-You can move double your speed and attack if you really need to
-You can take advantage of some situational feats or items that boost charging specifically.
Except that it is not situational... Many creatures have movement speeds in excess of 60 ft (dragons being the big one). And what if you have multiple enemeies? If it is such a "circumstantial situation" then why is the barbarian's pounce so highly coveted.
You are literally saying "it's the best option you have, so it's good!", telling the guy stranded on a desolate island that he should be enjoying eating his own foot and then washing it down with l'eau d'urine. The fact that you can't do anything if you are more than your reach away is a problem with martials, and that charge in comparison looks good just shows how big of a problem it is.After playing 4e, I also don't see the upsides of charging to be worth all the hassle.Out of curiosity, what do you do when a target isn't within 5-foot-step distance of you? Assuming you're playing a melee character, of course. Even if you moved and attacked, that'd use the same actions a charge did, give you half the mobility, and miss out on a +2 bonus. It's not all that hard to ignore difficult terrain with a few cheap items.
Yes, yes, if there are obstacles or difficult terrain that shuts down charging. They're not great for normal movement, either, and difficult terrain isn't so common as to completely make charging worthless in my experience.
Cavalier laughs are your idea of charge being a poor decision...
Except that it is not situational... Many creatures have movement speeds in excess of 60 ft (dragons being the big one). And what if you have multiple enemeies? If it is such a "circumstantial situation" then why is the barbarian's pounce so highly coveted.Because he can freaking full attack at the end of it?
It is coveted because it happens more times than you seem to be caring to acknowledge. If having to charge/move was not an obnoxiously common thing to do, Pouce would become less useful because it becomes more circumstantial.
Not so much.Things that completely shut down charging builds.
-Difficult Terrain
-Allied Players (particularly bad if you're on Horse, since your maneuvering is pigish)
So you need to sink 2 feats just to do something which should already be a given. Plus, depending on your character, the prerequisites for that feat might be completely useless.
And let's not even get started on "Well how does that interact with mounts?" because Paizo is hopelessly incompetent when it comes to mounted combat.
Except that it is not situational... Many creatures have movement speeds in excess of 60 ft (dragons being the big one). And what if you have multiple enemeies? If it is such a "circumstantial situation" then why is the barbarian's pounce so highly coveted.
Huge movement speeds coming into play is extremely situational. For instance, in an ENTIRE campaign, my friend's Archer Ranger only fired beyond his bow's first range increment ONCE (and that was on an "open world" campaign setting like Kingmaker).
Pounce is great because it scales into late game. You can full attack with a charge? Well never mind, that is pretty powerful (but note since its a monster ability access to it is extremely limited!)
Cavalier laughs are your idea of charge being a poor decision...
I played a Cavalier (again, in a setting touted as an "open world" campaign setting, Kingmaker) and the amount of gimmicky powergaming I had to do to reliably get my charges (huge feat investment, lots of specific magic items needed to help smooth out charges and handling my mount, getting a free flying mount that shouldn't be possible for regular cavalier, etc) enabled me to only BARELY outdamage our party Archer, and even then, only on wide open ground (so about half the time) meanwhile after the first few levels, his DMG output only skyrocketed as he got more attacks, more damage, fewer attack penalties for archery, etc.
I snatched a cavalier out of his saddle on an AoO when he started a charge. It was delicious.
Oh right, and there's that kind of stuff.
Spent a ridiculous amount on the expensive Ring of Freedom of Movement to stop that from ever happening again.
I did nothing but quote you. Perhaps you seem to be unaware that that usage of the term "fluff" was invented by gamists as a derisive term for what they consider to be nonessential non-mechanic gaming material?Who said I'm dismissing it?
I'm stating the way it is written now makes it absurd due to the fact mechanics depend on it, but so much of it depends entirely on the opinions of the GM and players as to what each alignment actually deals with and what is a point that causes an alignment change.
I think there's a better way to handle it than this. Especially since there's arguments in some groups over whether or not murdering children just because they happen to be of an evil race is an alignment violation between some people (with some arguing that letting the children live is a violation).
And, LasarX, I didn't ignore it's a major part of mechanics; I outright stated it. Thanks for backing up my point before trying to put words in my mouth.
The term "fluff" had always been explained to me as being things such as setting details, character race descriptions, nation names and such, etc.; basically, the elements that are not purely mechanical. How the term was invented does not matter to me; I use it as I have always seen it used, even on here.
Also, your statement that you merely quote me is disingenuous. Here's an exact copy of your reply, unedited:
Alignment is more than just "fluff" theorycrafters love to dismiss. it is a major part of the game mechanics, as much as you'd like to ignore that fact.The item creation rules for mundane items. Some of the time requirements are nonsensical.
The way alignment is handled; alignment is 100% fluff as written, yet even Pathfinder is hardcoded for it. It creates unnecessary arguments.
You did, at the very least, include an exact copy of my post in what you said. As everyone can see, I did not state I would like to ignore that alignment is part of the rules mechanics or even that it's not part of the rules mechanics; I stated the way it is written combined with it being part of the mechanics is creating a problem and causing unnecessary arguments. Which your post so aptly demonstrates in how you merely saw the words "alignment is 100% fluff" and went on to ignore everything else about the post.
I was at no point calling for a removal of alignment from the mechanics.
Take my advice on this: Take a small break from alignment talk for awhile. You're attacking someone for something they didn't even say using a definition of a term they have no reasonable expectation of ever being aware of and making statements about what was said by both parties that is not backed up by evidence at hand. That's typically a sign of someone who has been in one-too-many arguments over the subject. I know a lot of what people say can raise blood pressure, even with the often-hamhanded way I word things, but trust me... it's not in your best interest to let yourself get too worked up over things like this constantly. Plus, it tends to get your posts reported a lot and you moved down the path towards a ban; I know that from personal experience on forums like this in the past.
So, if you need to, put myself and everyone else who brings up the idea of alignment being fluff on ignore for awhile. I know I won't be offended; from you're end, I'm just some random idiot with a name stolen from an SNES game who talks too much about what he often is not fully educated on. And, yes, I am being overly generous to myself there. Then, come back to it later... I guarantee I won't have gotten any smarter anytime between now and the end of time, and I doubt many of the others you would add would change either.
The above is not meant to be patronizing. It's meant to be friendly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are literally saying "it's the best option you have, so it's good!", telling the guy stranded on a desolate island that he should be enjoying eating his own foot and then washing it down with l'eau d'urine. The fact that you can't do anything if you are more than your reach away is a problem with martials, and that charge in comparison looks good just shows how big of a problem it is.After playing 4e, I also don't see the upsides of charging to be worth all the hassle.Out of curiosity, what do you do when a target isn't within 5-foot-step distance of you? Assuming you're playing a melee character, of course. Even if you moved and attacked, that'd use the same actions a charge did, give you half the mobility, and miss out on a +2 bonus. It's not all that hard to ignore difficult terrain with a few cheap items.
Yes, yes, if there are obstacles or difficult terrain that shuts down charging. They're not great for normal movement, either, and difficult terrain isn't so common as to completely make charging worthless in my experience.
Enjoy your strawman. I never said it was good that martials get sucky mobility and lose iteratives. I said that, out of the options a melee character currently has, charge isn't terrible. Now, since you aren't willing to make an argument in good faith, I'm out.
Personally i think the usage of feats to get profs in weapons is kind of uneeded or a garanteed waste, personally our group did it as a trait thing that you spend time and money to learn how to use a weapon.
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space. If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and the target is knocked prone. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has.
If you are playing a mounted character, you can have the mount choose to charge and attempt an overrun of the people in front of him. The party members can opt to just avoid the overrun, allowing the mounted character to charge past them for free.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What then, pray tell, of Charge Through?
Charge Through (Combat)
You can overrun enemies when charging.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Improved Overrun, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: When making a charge, you can attempt to overrun one creature in the path of the charge as a free action.
If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge.
If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.
Normal: You must have a clear path toward the target of your charge.
If you could Overrun a creature other than the target of your charge when charging, why would this feat exist?
Even more interesting, thanks to the requirement of Improved Overrun, Lem would NOT have the option to step aside!
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.
It seems you failed to bold the correct line of text.
Disclaimer: I in no way endorse this as an intelligent and fun rule. I only point this out as what the rules actually say, stupid as it is.
Because not all feats are created equal. Some just suck.
...As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space. If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move
Ha, nice try, all that means is that the horse can Overrun the halfling. You can't initiate an overrun against the crab because, by the rules, an ally is in the way. And if you overrun the halfling, well, what's the point? You don't get the attack against the crab. If you take a feat that lets you overrun multiple targets this works, but that's a feat to do something that should just be common sense anyways.
Try reading Overrun again. You can attempt to overrun as a standard action during a move action, or as apart of a charge. So if you charge, you get to overrun someone as a part of it.
So the horse charges the crab, and overruns Lem.
Lem has the option to simply avoid it (because the horse doesn't have Improved Overrun). Doing this, we get to this little line:
When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack.
If Lem avoids the charge, the Horse (and Alain) can pass through his square without requiring an attack; which is all well and good because Lem and the Horse are really only concerned with the Giant Enemy Crab.
As for the Charge Through feat? It's basically worthless, not unlike Prone Shooter was until the errata.
Try reading Overrun again. You can attempt to overrun as a standard action during a move action, or as apart of a charge. So if you charge, you get to overrun someone as a part of it.
No, you overrun instead of getting a melee attack.
So the horse charges the crab, and overruns Lem.
Doesn't work. You can't even declare the charge in the first place because the rules say you can't charge if there's an obstacle in the way, and allies count as obstacles.
You need a specific feat to negate that rule.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You're right, the general charge rules state you can't do that.
However, Overrun is more specific. You can attempt a charge and overrun someone.
Under the 'Moving Through a Square', also part of the Combat Section, it mentions:
Overrun
During your movement, you can attempt to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see Overrun).
See, the horse isn't charging Lem, the horse is charging the GEC, and Lem happens to be in the way. Per the Overrun rules, you can attempt to overrun someone as a part of the charge (a charge involves moving, then attacking). So per the Overrun rules, you could move and overrun Lem, and then continue moving on (if Lem allows you to pass) and finish the charge (including the attack).
That is how I'm interpreting it because of the line in Overrun 'or as a part of a charge' which separates it from the 'standard action during a move action' clause that precedes it.
I'm more than willing to FAQ and let the design team handle it (though I do expect to be waiting awhile). Up until that point that they tell me differently, I will continue with the claim that Overrun can be done for free during the charge (and will run it that way regardless of their ruling).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule where magic items are damaged if you roll a nat 1 on an AoE spell.
Sorcerers needing a full round to use a meta-magic feat.
I just did a game using level up by progression instead of XP.. The days of XP may be numbered.
I also like using the average die roll for hit points per PFS now.
Some of the exotic weapons should be based on your race or where you grew up. Most of them don't deserve a feat.
The rule where magic items are damaged if you roll a nat 1 on an AoE spell.
Sorcerers needing a full round to use a meta-magic feat.
I just did a game using level up by progression instead of XP.. The days of XP may be numbered.
I also like using the average die roll for hit points per PFS now.
Some of the exotic weapons should be based on your race or where you grew up. Most of them don't deserve a feat.
Agreed on all except the first one. Do you mean that they should never be damaged in an AoE for playability's sake or that they should have to make saves as normal?
That is how I'm interpreting it because of the line in Overrun 'or as a part of a charge' which separates it from the 'standard action during a move action' clause that precedes it.
You're reading into text fluff. If you were allowed to make an attack after an overrun, that piece of text would tell you.
Fact is, you can't take a standard action AND a full round action together. The text is vague in this regard, but you're not actually taking a standard action during a charge, you're just replacing the attack. As in "As part of a charge you overrun"
How is this conclusion so finite? Look at the text for Bull Rush
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack
You might make the argument that "Hey the text is different, therefor it must mean something different!" but I would more likely chalk this up to oversight mistake. Keep in mind, this is the CRB, the first rulebook Paizo published. Why would Paizo then publish the Charge Through feat in the APG when you could apparently ALREADY charge with an attack AND overrun at the same time?
Keep in mind, the useless feat Prone Shooter was later errated in Ultimate Combat. So Paizo would be aware if Charge Through was a "useless" feat. Especially since it's been FAQ'd for 2 years and has no response (I guess Paizo must figure "There's no need to clarify this the rules are clear enough" as per usual).
That is how I'm interpreting it because of the line in Overrun 'or as a part of a charge' which separates it from the 'standard action during a move action' clause that precedes it.You're reading into text fluff. If you were allowed to make an attack after an overrun, that piece of text would tell you.
Fact is, you can't take a standard action AND a full round action together. The text is vague in this regard, but you're not actually taking a standard action during a charge, you're just replacing the attack. As in "As part of a charge you overrun"
How is this conclusion so finite? Look at the text for Bull Rush
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attackYou might make the argument that "Hey the text is different, therefor it must mean something different!" but I would more likely chalk this up to oversight mistake. Keep in mind, this is the CRB, the first rulebook Paizo published. Why would Paizo then publish the Charge Through feat in the APG when you could apparently ALREADY charge with an attack AND overrun at the same time?
Keep in mind, the useless feat Prone Shooter was later errated in Ultimate Combat. So Paizo would be aware if Charge Through was a "useless" feat. Especially since it's been FAQ'd for 2 years and has no response (I guess Paizo must figure "There's no need to clarify this the rules are clear enough" as per usual).
Please take this argument to the Overrun during a charge thread.
The rule where magic items are damaged if you roll a nat 1 on an AoE spell.
That's a nasty one.
Agreed on all except the first one. Do you mean that they should never be damaged in an AoE for playability's sake or that they should have to make saves as normal?The rule where magic items are damaged if you roll a nat 1 on an AoE spell.
Sorcerers needing a full round to use a meta-magic feat.
I just did a game using level up by progression instead of XP.. The days of XP may be numbered.
I also like using the average die roll for hit points per PFS now.
Some of the exotic weapons should be based on your race or where you grew up. Most of them don't deserve a feat.
I think they should not take damage. It does not add to the game IMO.
That's a nasty one.The rule where magic items are damaged if you roll a nat 1 on an AoE spell.
Can be, yeah. It's a complete crapshoot. If your armor or weapon takes the damage, it's no big deal. It takes 1/2 damage at max, and is probably fine.
If it hits one of your neat little 1 HP cloth Headbands or a Belt though...
Detrimental, and slows the game down while you recalculate EVERYTHING related to that stat. Which can range from the simple (Dex) to the moderately annoying (Con) to the downright frustrating (where do my extra spell slots go if it hits my casting stat? Lemme drop my save DCs while I'm at it! Number of skills per level for Int, GONE!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Item damage on a natural 1 is one of the most-ignored rules. An attempt at 'realism' that can bring the game to a crashing halt. I know it would take me several minutes just to find the table that tells you which item was damaged.
It even merited its own Gamestoppers column back in the day.
Things that completely shut down charging builds.
-Difficult Terrain
-ANY obstructive items, even an overturned tavern chair (or worse if the DM is super stingy)
"and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). "
There are feats, magic items, and skills (just Jump over the chair, jump is part of movement, it's a DC 4), so a Charger will invest in those things, much like a Two-handed weapon build will invest in a decent two handed weapon.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like XP for killing monsters. It implies the whole point of the game is to line up combats one after the other, with no actual storyline. I'd rather see levels gained for successfully achieving party goals.
Of course that does leave the GM as sole arbiter of advancement
I disagree. If you set guidelines, there can be a clear rubric to follow instead. Imagine a matrix that lists how many sessions on one axis, vs. success of attaining goals ("total success/partial success/failure/unmitigated disaster") on the other, with each box containing a guidline (e.g., "Gain a level," "gain half a level," etc.).
I should point out that the difference between "gain half a level" and the XP system is merely semantic, not systemic.
Totally agree, but you're getting those XP for attaining party goals, not just for killing mooks. It can be used to equally reqard rescuing the princess or killing the BBEG or looting the tomb, depending on what the party decides its goals actually are.
I'd imagine a lot of the problem stems from all of the myriad evocations that got intentionally filed under Conjuration with an "SR: No" tag. Which I disagree with, but if the designers are hell-bent on doing that, if SR were a + to saves they'd have to specify for each spell whether it gets the bonus (again, I'd give it to all of them, but, meh).
As for actual rules that I don't much care for, I'm not really a fan of the extra rolls that the Spell Resistance mechanic adds. Don't get me wrong, I understand the balance reasons for its existence, but I always wondered why they didn't just handle it the way they did for dwarves (+X to saves vs. spells and spell-like abilities.)
Yeah, never liked it either. But too many spells have no save.
We also mostly use fiat leveling, where we all level when the story sez it's the right time, generally based upon the number of encounters. Works.
Things that completely shut down charging builds.
-Difficult Terrain
-ANY obstructive items, even an overturned tavern chair (or worse if the DM is super stingy)
"and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). "
There are feats, magic items, and skills (just Jump over the chair, jump is part of movement, it's a DC 4), so a Charger will invest in those things, much like a Two-handed weapon build will invest in a decent two handed weapon.
You can't use skills to avoid obstacles but that's aside from the point.
The point is, a Two handed weapon build will invest a lot LESS to make themselves viable, and they will not have to worry about being made useless in combat (even flying creatures can be reached with a fly spell).
Charging classes, aside from having to invest a TON so that they can actually charge around and keep up their damage into late game, will constantly have to worry about the map, wondering whether they're going to actually be able to use their build at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back on that sidetrack for a little while.
I completely understand many groups preferring story-driven advancement over XP, but I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of the reason stems from not entirely understanding how non-combat encounters award XP by the rules.
Example:
A group of 4th level characters meets an ogre guarding a rickety bridge over the chasm they must cross. They can choose to fight him (and will probably win), earning XP for a CR 3 encounter. Or they can choose to use social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate) to wheedle their way past him, earning XP for a CR 3 encounter. Or they can sneak past him, earning XP for a CR 3 encounter. Or they can set the dice aside and just talk to him in-character, hopefully persuade him with their words, not the dice, and earn XP for a CR 4 encounter. And do the same thing on the way back.
Likewise, the same party, on finding the CR 12 dragon that can squish them without thinking, can just talk to it (unless the GM is a total jerk), and if making it past the dragon is an encounter (because it serves the plot), they will again earn XP for a CR 4 encounter. Sounds like a darn sight better option than trying to fight it!
That's 3 encounters, and not one of them has to be a combat, and if accomplished by "pure roleplaying" as opposed to rolling dice on the table, the party can earn 3,600 XP as opposed to 800 XP and a swift death by choosing to fight.
My players, who have traditionally been pretty combat focused, have started behaving really differently since I pointed this out.
You can't use skills to avoid obstacles but that's aside from the point..
Jumping is part of movement. Thus using acrobatics to jump over a 1' chair just continues your movement, does it not?