Hello,
I would like to submit here a little house rule that I have being using to "fix" the multiple attacks progression for Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin etc. and other "BAB +20 classes", being this rule inspired in the 2e rule. Let's take a look:
.
.
.
.
.
Level BAB
1st +1
2nd +2
3rd +3
4th +4
5th +5
6th +6
7th +7/+1
8th +8/+3
9th +9/+5
10th +10/+7
11th +11/+9
12th +12/+11
13th +13/+13/+7
14th +14/+14/+9
15th +15/+15/+11
16th +16/+16/+13
17th +17/+17/+15
18th +18/+18/+17
19th +19/+19/+19
20th +20/+20/+20
Other non-warrior classes, such as Rogue, Cleric, Wizard etc., would lose the multiple attacks, making it a feature exclusive to warrior classes (BAB +20).
Advantages:
1. All multiple attacks remain useful along the warrior`s carrier (even at 16th+ level), while by the standard rule, the 3rd and 4th attacks by 16th+ level are normally waste of time.
2. Maximum of 3 attacks, instead of 4, making the full attack faster to resolve, as it was in 2e.
That's my suggestion, I hope you like.
Cheers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Rogue and Monk go from bad to useless, and all the half-caster combat based classes get gimped, in exchange for those classes getting a slight boost.
'Kay.
So Rogue and Monk go from bad to useless, and all the half-caster combat based classes get gimped, in exchange for those classes getting a slight boost.
'Kay.
Rogues would keep the BAB progression up to +15, and being able to make 2 attacks/rd. with two-weapon fighting, each one with sneak attack damge bonus. I dont think they will get useless.
Monks should receive the same of warrior attacks progression while using furry of blows.
Thx for your comment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two-Weapon Fighting is already a terrible option for Rogues. A TWFing Rogue MIGHT achieve somewhere in the ballpark of the damage a Barbarian can put out...at a much lower to-hit, with much more circumstantial damage modifiers.
But even ignoring that, I'm trying to figure out what purpose this change serves in the first place? Who does it help?
Not the full BaB characters, who already get these attacks. The little bit of extra to-hit (+1 at most levels you have listed) is hardly worthwhile. Might as well give them all free Weapon Focus if that was your goal.
Not the 3/4 BaB characters, who have now lost these attacks.
And it doesn't affect 1/2 BaB characters at all because seriously when are they going to get in melee?
So what's the purpose?
Nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed, for the sake of nerfing things?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let us not forget that it makes all martial classes weaker compared to wizards who dont give a f+!* about attacking more than once to begin with.
Two-Weapon Fighting is already a terrible option for Rogues. A TWFing Rogue MIGHT achieve somewhere in the ballpark of the damage a Barbarian can put out...at a much lower to-hit, with much more circumstantial damage modifiers.
But even ignoring that, I'm trying to figure out what purpose this change serves in the first place? Who does it help?
Not the full BaB characters, who already get these attacks. The little bit of extra to-hit (+1 at most levels you have listed) is hardly worthwhile. Might as well give them all free Weapon Focus if that was your goal.
Not the 3/4 BaB characters, who have now lost these attacks.
And it doesn't affect 1/2 BaB characters at all because seriously when are they going to get in melee?
So what's the purpose?
Nerfing things that don't need to be nerfed, for the sake of nerfing things?
The full BAB characters would have a more balanced BAB and all multiple attacks would be useful for then as in 2e, since instead of, for eg., at 16 lvl BAB +16/+11/+6/+1 they would get +16/+16/+13, or instead of at 11th lvl BAB +11/+6/+1, they would get +11/+9.
For the Rogue, I insist that 2-weapon fighting is the right way to go if you want damage. Indeed, in my game I house ruled that for each +2d6 sneak attack damage bonus, the rogue get a +1 attack bonus for sneak attack purposes. So a rogue at 3rd lvl get Sneak Attack +1 attack bonus, +2d6 dmg bonus, while at 19h lvl he gets + 5 attack bonus, +10d6 dmg bonus. The attack bonus represents the rogue's ability to be opportunistic and get better advantage from the situation.
Let us not forget that it makes all martial classes weaker compared to wizards who dont give a f**~ about attacking more than once to begin with.
Weaker? Why? They would get a better, more balanced BAB. For the sake of making it comparable to 2e, I also allow warrior to make a full attack using a standart action (only charge remains the same, a standard action to combine a move with a single attack).
With that and a stricter rule for keeping concentration and casting spell in the same round after being hit, caster would still powerful but their lives would start to get a little bit more dificult.
Indeed, my purpose here is not to fix the role system, but just point a feature that in my view can be made superior by backing to the old 2e feature.
Cheers.
just feel like bringing math in here
let's pretend that 20 BAB means 100% chance to hit an enemy, and that each attack has an average damage of 10(don't feel like altering damage based on BAB so mileage may vary).
20/15/10/5 = average damage of 25
20/20/20 = average damage of 30
for 3/4 BAB (if it remained the same end as here)
15/10/5 = 15
15/15/11 = 22.5
for 1/2 BAB (if it remained the same as here)
10/5 = 7.5
10/7 = 8.5
just feel like bringing math in here
let's pretend that 20 BAB means 100% chance to hit an enemy, and that each attack has an average damage of 10(don't feel like altering damage based on BAB so mileage may vary).
20/15/10/5 = average damage of 25
20/20/20 = average damage of 30for 3/4 BAB (if it remained the same end as here)
15/10/5 = 15
15/15/11 = 22.5for 1/2 BAB (if it remained the same as here)
10/5 = 7.5
10/7 = 8.5
Math really makes things easier and clearer. Thx for the support. ;-)
I don't think that's supporting you at all.
It shows where 3/4 BaB classes would be IF they used your progression and got extra attacks.
Which they don't.
So you increase full BaB DPS by around 5, while lowering 3/4 BaB DPS IMMENSELY (one attack at +15 vs 3 attacks at +15/10/5 which is ALREADY exactly half as effective as your 20/20/20.).
I see a contradiction here. You said in the first post: Other non-warrior classes, such as Rogue, Cleric, Wizard etc., would lose the multiple attacks, making it a feature exclusive to warrior classes (BAB +20)
Now you agree to Bandw2 maths, where he includes 3/4 & 1/2 bab to the rule.
Please, clarify this.
It's just not the fix that warrior classes need. And it actually makes Haste stronger.
I see a contradiction here. You said in the first post: Other non-warrior classes, such as Rogue, Cleric, Wizard etc., would lose the multiple attacks, making it a feature exclusive to warrior classes (BAB +20)
Now you agree to Bandw2 maths, where he includes 3/4 & 1/2 bab to the rule.Please, clarify this.
I think Bandw2 is not comparing the suggestion with other classes, but indeed comparing the BAB+20 progression following the suggestion in this tread versus the standard progression.
So his maths compares damage of a fighter with a BAB +20/+20/+20 versus a standard fighter with +20/+15/+10/+5 and do the same with a fighter at 15th and 10th level to prove that with this suggestion I am not nerfing warriors, but indeed making then stronger.
I think this post also answer Rynjin complaint that Bandw2's mathweren't supporting me at all. But indeed it is just a matter of interpretation.
Hope that helps to make it clearer.
So you increase full BaB DPS by around 5, while lowering 3/4 BaB DPS IMMENSELY (one attack at +15 vs 3 attacks at +15/10/5 which is ALREADY exactly half as effective as your 20/20/20.).
If you are concerned with the 3/4 BAB classes, you can keep their standard multiple attacks if you want (+15/+10/+5), I have just 2 comments about that:
- Multiple attacks, for me, must be a feature exclusive to "warrior classes"(BAB +20 classes, or exceptionally, Monks with flurry of blows etc.); yes, it is not just a matter of increasing "power balance", but also "flavour".
- 3/4 BAB classes, except for the rogue, do not really need multiple attacks. Clerics, Druids, wizards etc... they can beef up with spells and special abilities.
Hope that helps to clarify my point of view.
If you only want full BAB classes getting iterative attacks then I'd suggest playing P6 or P7, otherwise you're significantly nerfing martial oriented 3/4 BAB classes/builds like the Rogue, Magus, Bard, and Inquisitor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- 3/4 BAB classes, except for the rogue, do not really need multiple attacks. Clerics, Druids, wizards etc... they can beef up with spells and special abilities.
Yeah, they do. In Pathfinder, if your plan during a fight is to hit people with sticks or shoot them with arrows, you *need* those extra attacks in order to not be completely useless.
EDIT: Ninja'd by a Ninja
Best 'fix' I ever saw for that sort of thing ...
At BAB+6, you can make two attacks at a -2 penalty as a standard action.
At BAB+11, the penalty drops to -1.
At BAB+16, the penalty drops to 0.
Note that there are no third or fourth attacks (just as well, since those are usually easy misses).
If you only want full BAB classes getting iterative attacks then I'd suggest playing P6 or P7, otherwise you're significantly nerfing martial oriented 3/4 BAB classes/builds like the Rogue, Magus, Bard, and Inquisitor.
I am proposing the solution thinking on the PHB classes first.
Dont see Rogue and Ninja being signifcantly nerfed by this fix. They already have a +10d6 bonus dmg for each sneak attack, if you keep then with 3 iterative attacks (or 6 with 2-weapon fighting), they can easy surpass the fighter in damage output.
Instead of iterative attacks, I suggest to give rogue and ninjas a circunstancial attack bonus scaling with the sneak attack ability (for example, +1 att bonus for each +2d6 sneak attack dmg bonus, up to +5 att bonus at 19th lvl, restricting the application of this attack bonus only to sneak attacks).
For other classes, like the bard, Inquisitor and Magus, I think you can redesign spells to keep then efective in combat without the need of iterative attacks.
Iterative attacks must be reserved to classes really specialized in combat (BAB +20), like it was in 2e (but not restricting it to the fighter only).
Just my few cents.
Thx for your comments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dont see Rogue and Ninja being signifcantly nerfed by this fix. They already have a +10d6 bonus dmg for each sneak attack, if you keep then with 3 iterative attacks (or 6 with 2-weapon fighting), they can easy surpass the fighter in damage output.
The problem is that sneak attack is not a reliable damage boost.
Some monsters are outright immune to sneak attacks. Many others are immune to flanking, which eliminates the easiest way to get sneak attack. And even monsters that can be flanked can use a simple smokestick to get concealment, which in turn makes them immune to sneak attacks.
Dont see Rogue and Ninja being signifcantly nerfed by this fix. They already have a +10d6 bonus dmg for each sneak attack, if you keep then with 3 iterative attacks (or 6 with 2-weapon fighting), they can easy surpass the fighter in damage output.
The problem is that sneak attack is not a reliable damage boost.
Some monsters are outright immune to sneak attacks. Many others are immune to flanking, which eliminates the easiest way to get sneak attack. And even monsters that can be flanked can use a simple smokestick to get concealment, which in turn makes them immune to sneak attacks.
Some monsters also have high magic resistance, others can fly making hard for fighters to hit then with their specialist melee attacks. Rogues, as the other classses, cannot be always good against everything, they have their strengths and weeknesses, thats the way it is.
|
I'd like to point out that as this thread has progressed, you have revealed additional house rules you use which are far more important to what you're going for:
Indeed, in my game I house ruled that for each +2d6 sneak attack damage bonus, the rogue get a +1 attack bonus for sneak attack purposes.
This (almost) gives rogues the to-hit bonus they need to keep up. However, when you state that, "They already have a +10d6 bonus dmg for each attack, if you keep the(m) with 3 iterative attacks (or 6 with 2-weapon fighting), they can easy surpass the fighter in damage output." that is clearly wrong. 1) The rogue's bonus damage is situational on having the right positioning with the right ally against the right enemy, or using other means of sneak attack (feint) that don't work well. 2) Even with that extra 10d6 damage, their damage is low due to missed attacks. The -2 penalty for TWF is unwelcome on a 3/4 BAB class, and they probably aren't maxing out their to-hit stat like the fighter is. They also don't have weapon training, and the fighter has the option of taking Greater Weapon Focus. Also, the fighter has the BAB to use power attack to full effectiveness, and that damage multiplies on a crit, unlike sneak attack.
I also allow warrior to make a full attack using a standar(d) action.
Whoa there! That's the sort of game change that really makes an impact! Now a full attack isn't just, "if the enemy is stupid enough to stand there while I hit them, they die." It is now, "every additional attack is 90% of the time usable, and a pure damage increase." It makes TWF and haste MUCH more useful. Most combats only last a few rounds anyway, making all of them 100% DPR rounds is a major shift.
...a stricter rule for keeping concentration and casting spell in the same round after being hit...
Sounds like you're also fixing the casters-always-pass-concentration issue as well. Without further details, my only comment is that this might make it harder for casters occasionally, but most of their casting time is not spent threatened or attacked.
- 3/4 BAB classes, except for the rogue, do not really need multiple attacks. Clerics, Druids, wizards etc... they can beef up with spells and special abilities.
Had to point out, wizards aren't 3/4 BAB. May have just been a bad segway between those sentences.
For other classes, like the bard, Inquisitor and Magus, I think you can design spell to keep then efective in combat without the need of iterative attacks. For example, make Haste a 2nd level spell (instead of 3rd lvl spell), for Bard and Magus. Other spells designed for combat could be adjusted too.
Haste applies to everyone, not just the caster. To balance them you would need something like a 2 hours/level self only spell that gives the target an additional attack every 8 levels. You may as well give them their iterative attacks. Unless you make their 1 attack hit like a pile of iteratives. They are still martial characters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some monsters also have high magic resistance, others can fly making hard for fighters to hit then with their specialist melee attacks. Rogues, as the other classses, cannot be always good against everything, they have their strengths and weeknesses, thats the way it is.
Dont see Rogue and Ninja being signifcantly nerfed by this fix. They already have a +10d6 bonus dmg for each sneak attack, if you keep then with 3 iterative attacks (or 6 with 2-weapon fighting), they can easy surpass the fighter in damage output.
The problem is that sneak attack is not a reliable damage boost.
Some monsters are outright immune to sneak attacks. Many others are immune to flanking, which eliminates the easiest way to get sneak attack. And even monsters that can be flanked can use a simple smokestick to get concealment, which in turn makes them immune to sneak attacks.
Any circumstance that makes the fighter less effective at damage also makes the rogue less effective at damage. The opposite is not true.
I also allow warrior to make a full attack using a standar(d) action.Whoa there! That's the sort of game change that really makes an impact! Now a full attack isn't just, "if the enemy is stupid enough to stand there while I hit them, they die." It is now, "every additional attack is 90% of the time usable, and a pure damage increase." It makes TWF and haste MUCH more useful. Most combats only last a few rounds anyway, making all of them 100% DPR rounds is a major shift.
Finally, we have agreed with something. That's nice. So you like this suggestion of making full attack a standard action?
...a stricter rule for keeping concentration and casting spell in the same round after being hit...Sounds like you're also fixing the casters-always-pass-concentration issue as well. Without further details, my only comment is that this might make it harder for casters occasionally, but most of their casting time is not spent threatened or attacked.
The stricter rule I use for spellcasting concentration works like this:
If you take damage: (1) in the time between the end of your last turn of action and the start of your current turn of action; or (2) while casting a spell (from an opportunitty attack, for example); you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken in the period + the level of the spell being cast in order to cast a spell. If you fail the check, you lose the spell.
Combat Casting(FEAT): A spellcaster gains a +4 bonus on his Concentration skill checks to cast spells without losing his concentration, if he has taken damage or suffered any other distraction in the last round or at the moment he attempts to cast the spell.
With this you make much more harder for spellcaster to keep casting spells just after being hit by attacks or spells. They would seek to stay better protected in combat. However, that doesnt make then helpless too, since they still can use magic itens (like arcane bond, from wizar class) in the round they suffer damage, to cast spells without concentration checks.
For other classes, like the bard, Inquisitor and Magus, I think you can design spell to keep then efective in combat without the need of iterative attacks. For example, make Haste a 2nd level spell (instead of 3rd lvl spell), for Bard and Magus. Other spells designed for combat could be adjusted too.Haste applies to everyone, not just the caster. To balance them you would need something like a 2 hours/level self only spell that gives the target an additional attack every 8 levels. You may as well give them their iterative attacks. Unless you make their 1 attack hit like a pile of iteratives. They are still martial characters.
Agreed. Its too dificult to balance group spells. Leave haste as it is a 3rd level spell.
just feel like bringing math in here
let's pretend that 20 BAB means 100% chance to hit an enemy, and that each attack has an average damage of 10(don't feel like altering damage based on BAB so mileage may vary).
20/15/10/5 = average damage of 25
20/20/20 = average damage of 30for 3/4 BAB (if it remained the same end as here)
15/10/5 = 15
15/15/11 = 22.5for 1/2 BAB (if it remained the same as here)
10/5 = 7.5
10/7 = 8.5
The core assumption (that rogues can compensate for lost iteratives via sneak attack) is incorrect. Sneak attack is most useful when there are multiple iteratives as it is a fixed amount per die.
Using bandw2's maths, we can see the huge disparity created between the rogue and the fighter if we don't give them multiple attacks. Let's assume sneak attack is worth an additional +5 damage when it hits, or roughly a 50% increase in damage at any particular level (this seems about right at average 3.5 per 2 levels). TWF drops to hit by -2 but also reduces total damage output sans sneak attack considerably, so I'm going to count it as attacking at the next lowest BAB. This is still massively overestimating total damage (as we know TWF is suboptimal in fighters and this gives a big boost), but as you'll see it doesn't save the rogue.
BAB20:
20/15/10/5 = average damage 25
20/20/20 = average damage of 30
BAB15, no sneak attack:
15/10/5 = 15
15 = 7.5
BAB15, sneak attack:
15/10/5 = 22.5
15 = 11.25
BAB15, sneak attack, TWF:
10/10/5/5/0/0 = 27.5
10/10 = 15
BAB15, sneak attack, TWF, extra +5 to hit rogue bonus you mentioned
15/15/10/10/5/5 = 44
15/15 = 22.5
Assuming everything is going 100% swimmingly, the rogue has half the damage output of the fighter instead of comparable damage. If he doesn't get that sneak and TWF attack.... he is doing less than a third. The extra 'to-hit' bonus helps a little, but not enough. It also means that if he can't get a sneak attack for whatever reason, he is completely worthless (22.5 --- > 7.5). All-or-nothing mechanics are bad design.
Let's assume sneak attack is worth an additional +5 damage when it hits, or roughly a 50% increase in damage at any particular level.
Your assumption is not correct. +5 damage or +50% damage do not reflect correctly the damage boost represented by the sneak attack.
Lets make a fair comparison:
FIGHTER lvl 20, Str 22 (+6 dmg or +9 dmg for 2-handed), Great Sword +5, weapon training +4, Weapon Specializan +2, Greater Weapon Specialization +2
Total DMG per attack = 9 (str bonus) + 7 (from 2d6 greatsword) + 5 (magic bonus) + 4 (weapon training) + 2 weapon speacilization + 2 Greater weapon specialization = 29
Keeping that average damage of 29, and Bandw2's math were a +20 BAB means 100% chance to hit an enemy, we have a damage output of:
for a BAB +20/+15/+10/+5 = 65 dmg per rd.
for a BAB +20/+20/+20 = 87 dmg per rd.
Now a ROGUE lvl 20, with Str 14, two short swords +5, Sneack Attack (+5 att bonus, +10d6 dmg)
Total DMG for 2 weapons attack(2 short swords): 3 (+2 str bonus for primary weapon, +1 Str Bonus for secondary weapon) + 7 (from 2x 1d6 short swords) + 10 (magic bonus from 2 short swords) + 70 (from 2x 10d6 sneak attack, being 3.5 dmg per dice) = 90
Keeping that average damage of 90, and Bandw2's math were a +20 BAB means 100% chance to hit an enemy, we have a damage output for the rogue of:
For a BAB +15, with 2 weapons(-2 att penalty), with Sneak Attack house ruled att bonus of +5 = BAB +18 = 90 x 90% = 81 dmg per rd.
As a result, we have a 20th level fighter applying 65 dmg per rd by the standard rules, while a rogue without itterative attacks (but with a sneak attack bonus to attack of +5) still dealing 81 dmg avarage per round.
Conclusion: even without itterative attack a rogue can deal more damage than the fighter (As long as you give the rogue an attakc bonus with sneak attack to compensate the loss of itterative attacks).
But, if you give the fighter a BAB of +20/+20/+20 he will score 87 dmg per rd, wich is in par with the rogue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like a rather pointless nerf to a bunch classes that don't need it, including Bard and Inquisitor, which are the best balanced classes in the game.
It also doesn't affect full arcane casters, which are already more powerful than most other classes.
Sneak Attack is not good enough to make Rogues good at combat even when they have iterative attacks, without it, they are even more useless.
So, all in all... A pointless nerf that will just annoy the players of 3/4 BAB classes, not add anything to game's flavor and make the game less balanced.
Martials won't be more fun to play just because all 3/4 BAB classes can't make full attacks.
Seems like a rather pointless nerf to a bunch classes that don't need it, including Bard and Inquisitor, which are the best balanced classes in the game.
It also doesn't affect full arcane casters, which are already more powerful than most other classes.
Sneak Attack is not good enough to make Rogues good at combat even when they have iterative attacks, without it, they are even more useless.
So, all in all... A pointless nerf that will just annoy the players of 3/4 BAB classes, not add anything to game's flavor and make the game less balanced.
Martials won't be more fun to play just because all 3/4 BAB classes can't make full attacks.
Ok, I give up.
Let's assume sneak attack is worth an additional +5 damage when it hits, or roughly a 50% increase in damage at any particular level.Your assumption is not correct. +5 damage or +50% damage do not reflect correctly the damage boost represented by the sneak attack.
Lets make a fair comparison:
FIGHTER lvl 20, Str 22 (+6 dmg or +9 dmg for 2-handed), Great Sword +5, weapon training +4, Weapon Specializan +2, Greater Weapon Specialization +2
Total DMG per attack = 9 (str bonus) + 7 (from 2d6 greatsword) + 5 (magic bonus) + 4 (weapon training) + 2 weapon speacilization + 2 Greater weapon specialization = 29
You've massively underestimated average damage output here because your fighter doesn't have power attack. That alone boosts the damage up to +18 -> +47 per hit.
Now we are looking at the fighter doing BAB +20/+20/+20 = 141 dpr compared to your rogue of 81 dpr.
Except, because with the handy -2 you've used for TWF (which grossly overestimates its power), we can add that on to our fighter as well!
Assuming TWF only:
BAB +18/+18/+18/+18 = 151.1 DPR vs the rogue's 81 DPR
The rogue is now barely doing more than 50% the fighter's damage per round. I'm assuming you will also houserule TWF iteratives away as well, because otherwise with ITWF and GTWF:
BAB +18/+18/+18/+18/+18/+18 = 226.8 vs the 81, but this is getting a bit farcical.
*edit*
I appreciate what you're doing (trying to give some full BAB love), but full attacks really are the only reliable way to damage as a martial in this game. If you want to maintain iteratives for fighter types only, you're probably better off sticking with 2e than trying a whole rewrite: there's just too much invested in the idea of iteratives in PF to change things that simply.
*double edit*
actually, I hear 5e has similar mechanics to 2e in this regard? Might be worth checking out.
*triple edit*
oops, power attack is +18, not +13. Not as high for twf though.
i feel the rogues sneak attack dice should get bigger over time, like bigger dice as in d8s and d10s
You've massively underestimated average damage output here because your fighter doesn't have power attack. That alone boosts the damage up to +13 -> +42 per hit.
I have already gave up, but just 2 comments here:
1. I doesn't understand your math. The most Power attack can make is give a 18 dmg bonus per 2 haded attack at 20th lvl, but at a expense of -6 att penalty. So fighter damage per attack rises from 29 to 47, but since I lose -30% (-6) from the attack penalty, I end with an average dmg per attack of 33. Not great deal. If the target has a high AC it can be even worst.
2. We are not using Power Attack in our games.
And, anyway, I just trying to share with you an alternative itterative attack bonus progression wich we are using in our games, since we feel that gaing an extra attack with a bonus of +1 at 16th level is dumb and pointless game design.
Other, the purporse of the tread is to fix warrior classes BAB+20 progression, not to spoil the other 3/4 BAB classes. You can just keep then as they are.
Im brief, a good fix for the warrior classes in my humble opinion would be:
1. Let then make a full attack using a standard action;
2. Give then a more balanced BAB itterative attack progression (+20/+20/+20).
Cheers.
i feel the rogues sneak attack dice should get bigger over time, like bigger dice as in d8s and d10s
Agreed.
I think your game is so different to core PF it is difficult for us to really comment on your houserules.
As for warrior classes: they do damage just fine when optimised. Martials have never had trouble with damage. A better idea for fixing is +skills and other utility class features (and damage for the rogue).
I agree with you on 1) but not on 2). The scaling iterative design is delibrate: it gives a gradient of AC damage mitigation where the high BABs almost always get through and the lower BABs only on soft targets. By combining these two you risk creating 'rocket tag' where the first martial to act unhindered blitzes his opponent in one turn (To be fair, this already happens at level 20).
I think your game is so different to core PF it is difficult for us to really comment on your houserules.
As for warrior classes: they do damage just fine when optimised. Martials have never had trouble with damage. A better idea for fixing is +skills and other utility class features (and damage for the rogue).
I agree with you on 1) but not on 2). The scaling iterative design is delibrate: it gives a gradient of AC damage mitigation where the high BABs almost always get through and the lower BABs only on soft targets. By combining these two you risk creating 'rocket tag' where the first martial to act unhindered blitzes his opponent in one turn (To be fair, this already happens at level 20).
Ok, understood. At least we agree on 1).
About 1), looks like 5e will allow a fullattack using just a standard action, as we are already doing in our games. My only complain about this new 5e mechanic is that a fighter will gain a full BAB extra attack at 5th lvl, making huge the difference between a 4th levl fighter and a 5th level fighter.
The advantage with the mechanic we use in our games, is that the extra itteractive attacks scales softly, as if the fighter were learing how to use his "new" extra (faster) attack in the level he gains it. But as he progress in levels the BAB for the extra attacks rapidly catches the BAB of his others original attacks, making all of then useful for him. Just my 2 cents.
*edit*
Anyway, 5e will suck, not as bad as 4e, but will still fail.
This completely defeats the purpose of iterative attacks.
Iterative attacks exist to make AC less than 2 over your attack roll relevant. With this change armor does not matter at all to anyone past low levels.
In our games, each character class (and monsters too) gains a Base Defense Bonus (BDB) equal to one-half its BAB as they progress in levels.
But this house rule (Base Defense Bonus) is not the object of the topic.
Cheers.
I think your game is so different to core PF it is difficult for us to really comment on your houserules.So much this. You should really just play 2e if that's the game feel you're going for. there's nothing wrong with it.
Agreed in part. It is not that I want play 2e, I just think 3e must keep improving. Paizo already did a great job redesinging many things (including broken spells like polymorph etc), but the progress should not stop, and the message boards are here for this, for us to exchange information and experiences about our own house rules, so the system can get even better than it already is.
From this topic, the conclusion for Paizo is: making full attack a standard action (instead of a full round action) would have a good reception between player audience.
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to have a houserule for every single post that disagrees with your concept, and it will save us some time if we know those rules.
Try to get as comprehensive a list as you can manage and post it here for clarity.
You seem to have a houserule for every single post that disagrees with your concept, and it will save us some time if we know those rules.
Try to get as comprehensive a list as you can manage and post it here for clarity.
Ok. Here is a sneak peek about FIGHTING STYLES:
Fighting Styles (Feats):
Two-weapon fighting style – reduces by 2 penalty from attacking with two weapons (normal -4/-4), thus takes -0/-0 with light off-hand weapon and -2/-2 with two one handed weapons. Alternatively, you may forgo your off-hand attacks to gain a +1 shield bonus to AC (or +2 shield bonus to AC if off-hand weapon is one-handed) for 1 round.
Weapon’n’shield fighting style – gains +1 shield bonus with small shield (total +2 shield bonus), and +2 shield bonus with large shields (total +4 shield bonus). Alternatively, you may forgo your shield bonus to AC to make off-hand attacks with your shield at -0/-0, if using a small shield, or -2/-2, if using large shield.
Two-handed fighting style – reduces penalty for fighting with oversized two-handed weapon from -4 to -2 (e.g. oversized bastard sword 2d8 damage, -2 attack).
One-handed fighting style – gain +2 dodge bonus to AC while using a light or single handed weapon and nothing in your other hand. Alternatively, you may forgo your dodge bonus to AC to make off-hand unarmed attacks at -0/-0.
Archery fighting style – reduces by 2 penalty for making rapid shot, thus takes -0/-0, if making a rapidshot with short bow, and -2/-2, if making a rapid shot with longbows. (House Rule Clarification: Rapid Shot damage is treated here like a Two Weapon Attack, it doesnt cost a Feat, its a maneuver, but if you choose to make a "rapid shot", you suffer a -2 penalty to attack (-4 if using a longbow), but gain a secondary attack and apply 1/2 your Str bonus to the damage of that secondary attack.)
Mounted Fighting Style – while mounted, you gain a +1 competence bonus to AC against medium or small dismounted opponents (stacks with +1 circumstance bonus to AC for being mounted).
Polearm fighting style – reduces by 2 penalty for attacking through an occupied space (normal -4), and for attacking adjacent opponents with a weapon that normally cannot be used against adjacent opponents (normal -4), but in this last case you still have to spend a move action to shorten the grip (or a free action if you have Quick Draw Feat).
If you still interested in hearing more let me know, otherwise I will stop here. Thx for your interest.
Cheers.
Let us not forget that it makes all martial classes weaker compared to wizards who dont give a f**~ about attacking more than once to begin with.Weaker? Why? They would get a better, more balanced BAB. For the sake of making it comparable to 2e, I also allow warrior to make a full attack using a standart action (only charge remains the same, a standard action to combine a move with a single attack).
With that and a stricter rule for keeping concentration and casting spell in the same round after being hit, caster would still powerful but their lives would start to get a little bit more dificult.
Indeed, my purpose here is not to fix the role system, but just point a feature that in my view can be made superior by backing to the old 2e feature.
Cheers.
Haha. Oh man. I was not paying close enough attention. I do think three attacks at full BAB are better than 4 at reduced BAB. I think this is maybe a good idea.
I think monks, inquisitors, bards, maguses, and skalds (3/4 attack progression classes that ostensibly rely on martial combat) maybe end up looking like chumps still. Like rouge though, that may be remedied by yet more house rules.
You seem to have a houserule for every single post that disagrees with your concept, and it will save us some time if we know those rules.
Try to get as comprehensive a list as you can manage and post it here for clarity.
Ok. Here is a sneak peek about FIGHTING STYLES:
Fighting Styles (Feats):
Two-weapon fighting style – reduces by 2 penalty from attacking with two weapons (normal -4/-4), thus takes -0/-0 with light off-hand weapon and -2/-2 with two one handed weapons. Alternatively, you may forgo your off-hand attacks to gain a +1 shield bonus to AC (or +2 shield bonus to AC if off-hand weapon is one-handed) for 1 round.
Weapon’n’shield fighting style – gains +1 shield bonus with small shield (total +2 shield bonus), and +2 shield bonus with large shields (total +4 shield bonus). Alternatively, you may forgo your shield bonus to AC to make off-hand attacks with your shield at -0/-0, if using a small shield, or -2/-2, if using large shield.
Two-handed fighting style – reduces penalty for fighting with oversized two-handed weapon from -4 to -2 (e.g. oversized bastard sword 2d8 damage, -2 attack).
One-handed fighting style – gain +2 dodge bonus to AC while using a light or single handed weapon and nothing in your other hand. Alternatively, you may forgo your dodge bonus to AC to make off-hand unarmed attacks at -0/-0.
Archery fighting style – reduces by 2 penalty for making rapid shot, thus takes -0/-0, if making a rapidshot with short bow, and -2/-2, if making a rapid shot with longbows. (House Rule Clarification: Rapid Shot damage is treated here like a Two Weapon Attack, it doesnt cost a Feat, its a maneuver, but if you choose to make a "rapid shot", you suffer a -2 penalty to attack (-4 if using a longbow), but gain a secondary attack and apply 1/2 your Str bonus to the damage of that secondary attack.)
Mounted Fighting Style – while mounted, you gain a +1 competence bonus to AC against...
On the Two-handed fighting style:
That ability really sucks compared to other bonuses. The bastard sword is the only one-handed oversized weapon that can outperform at two-handed medium sized weapon and that is in no way worth the -2 you take to attack to use it (the damage only increases by 2 points while your chance of success drops by 10 percentage points). Even if the penalty was reduced to -0, I would not like this class feature because there is only one or two weapons that it is useful for (the bastard sword and the falcata) which would force every two weapon build into a very strange niche.On Archery fighting: do you automatically add strength to bow damage in your home rules? Or do you only add 1/2 strength to the rapid shot maneuver with composite bows?
On two weapon fighting:
Though blackmane's math was wonky, this is going to be by far the most deadly build in the game under your brutal full attack regime.
Are there ways to get more iterative off-hand attacks with the shield and one-handed styles? Are improved two-weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting even a thing in your rule set?
You sure do have a lot of house rules, man.
On the Two-handed fighting style:
That ability really sucks compared to other bonuses. The bastard sword is the only one-handed oversized weapon that can outperform at two-handed medium sized weapon and that is in no way worth the -2 you take to attack to use it (the damage only increases by 2 points while your chance of success drops by 10 percentage points). Even if the penalty was reduced to -0, I would not like this class feature because there is only one or two weapons that it is useful for (the bastard sword and the falcata) which would force every two weapon build into a very strange niche.
On Archery fighting: do you automatically add strength to bow damage in your home rules? Or do you only add 1/2 strength to the rapid shot maneuver with composite bows?On two weapon fighting:
Though blackmane's math was wonky, this is going to be by far the most deadly build in the game under your brutal full attack regime.Are there ways to get more iterative off-hand attacks with the shield and one-handed styles? Are improved two-weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting even a thing in your rule set?
You sure do have a lot of house rules, man.
Wow... too many questions. Here are the answers:
1. Two-handed Fighting Style:
Take a look at Core Rule Book Equipment Chapter, there is a table there for converting Medium Weapon DMG in Large Weapon DMG, 1d10 (Medium) ---> 2d8 (Large). You can convert any medium one-handed weapon, such as Bastard Sword (1d10/19-20x2), or WarAxe (1d10/x3), Warflail (1d10/x2), or Maul (1d10/x2) to Large Weapon with 2d8 DMG.
Why this style doesnt suck? For 2 reasons:
A. 2d8 + 1.5xStr DMG is equivalent to the damage you deal while wielding 2 long sowrds, also with a -2 attack penalty for each attack (1d8+ Str DMG primary hand / 1d8 + 1/2 Str DMG secondary hand). In addition, against opponents with Damage Reduction a Two Handed attack is better than a Two Weapon attack, since against 2-handed attacks DR apply only once.
B. We have house ruled to not allow power attacks in our games (sorry powergamers and optimizers, thats the way it is...;-)).
2. Archery Fighting Style
You reduce the penalty to use the maneuver rapid shot (or rapid fire). But rapid shot doesnt work as descrided in the standard rule. It works much like a two weapon ranged attack. You gain an additional ranged attack, that works as an off-hand attack, that is, same weapon dmg, but applying 1/2 Str mod. If using a long bow (1d8/1d8), you suffer -2 attack penalty on each attack, when making rapid shots, wich is in par with the penalty you suffer when you make two weapon ttacks using one-handed weappons (long swords) in each hand. If you use a showbow (1d6/1d6) you do not suffer any penalty when making rapid shots, wich is in par with the -0 penalty you suffer when making a two weapon attack wielding two light weapons (short swords).
I do not use the rule that you need a composite bow to get strength bonus, composite bows just give extra range increment, but you can use the standard rule for composite bows if you want, since it is totaly irrelevant for the archery style houserule.
3. Two-weapon Style
Its is not the most brutal, it is in par with 2 handed style as shown above, or even worst against foes with high Damage Reduction.
Since I do not allow power attack, and also house ruled class features like weapon training (in our games it scales from +1 to +5, but its dmg bonus, as well magic item damge bonus, adds 1.5x to 2-handed attacks, 1x to one-haned attacks, and 0.5x to off-hand attacks). There is no weapon specialization, or greater weapon specialization too. Feats are more interesting in our game, not like just dumb plain bonuses.
4. Combat Styles and Itterative Attacks
You gain addition off-hand itterative attacks to use with shield, secondary weapon or unarmed off-hand in one-handed style, just normally as you progress in levels, it is automatic and doesnt cost an additional Feat. We dont use any kind of improved or greter two-weapon fighting feats in our rule set, since it isnt needed.
Cheers.
Your rules are too different to comment on, apparently.
It is still not worth it to use a large sized bastard sword, though. You need to take a -2 to hit to use it and your damage only increases by 2 (going from 2d6 with the own-sized greatsword to 2d8 with the large bastard sword). That is a chump's game. I wish people would read all my responses. I have done breakdowns of similar rules like 5 times now (fun fact: power attack is really pretty unimpressive).
And even if it did make sense to wield a 2d8 weapon (vs. a 2d6 weapon) at -2, you still need to take exotic weapon proficiency to use most of those weapons (falcata really is actually the best with 2d6/19/x3, btw) and have limited yourself to a very small list of semi-viable (i.e. bad but not the worst) option. What if my zweihander guy wants a scythe? Where is my fighting style?
If you want something everyone can use, then I would suggest a scaling damage or defense bonus (from the "shield of swings" idea). Or maybe you could give this fighting style the 3.5 style cleave rules or something.
Your rules are too different to comment on, apparently.
It is still not worth it to use a large sized bastard sword, though. You need to take a -2 to hit to use it and your damage only increases by 2 (going from 2d6 with the own-sized greatsword to 2d8 with the large bastard sword). That is a chump's game. I wish people would read all my responses. I have done breakdowns of similar rules like 5 times now (fun fact: power attack is really pretty unimpressive).
And even if it did make sense to wield a 2d8 weapon (vs. a 2d6 weapon) at -2, you still need to take exotic weapon proficiency to use most of those weapons (falcata really is actually the best with 2d6/19/x3, btw) and have limited yourself to a very small list of semi-viable (i.e. bad but not the worst) option. What if my zweihander guy wants a scythe? Where is my fighting style?
If you want something everyone can use, then I would suggest a scaling damage or defense bonus (from the "shield of swings" idea). Or maybe you could give this fighting style the 3.5 style cleave rules or something.
Not everything is about damage.
Since a character with 2-haded fighting style will be using a large sized weapon, he should receive a special size bonus to perform disarm and sunder maneuvers (Since in our game he is treated as being one size larger for purposes of these maneuvers. By Pathfinder Rules System, a Large size creature gains +1 to perform special maneuvers; By standard 3.5 rules a large size creature gains +4. We adopt something in the middle :+2 bonus for each size category difference, so Large vs. Medium gains +2, Large vs. Small gains +4, in sunder disarm and other special maneuvers).
But damage is not everything too. There is flavouer too. Some players just want to wield a very very large sword. To come to a tavern and make others see that no one can wield a sword bigger than then. Like Gatsu Blackswordsman. So its for the fun too.
Cheers.
|
|
I don't think you'll be finding useful advice here, since the expectation is to give advice on the pathfinder role playing game, and you're playing "My Homebrew d20 Game". You can either write out your entire game system, or accept that no one can give you useful insight except the other people you play this game with.
I don't think you'll be finding useful advice here, since the expectation is to give advice on the pathfinder role playing game, and you're playing "My Homebrew d20 Game". You can either write out your entire game system, or accept that no one can give you useful insight except the other people you play this game with.
Considering the amount of house rules already revealed and the fact that from the way the flow of conversation is going it seems like there are even more, I have to agree with Riuken.
Your game seems to be so far from Pathfinder as to be a completely different system, using only the basic D20 engine. This means that unless you have a collated and written document for all rule changes which you can provide any advice given will always be largely irrelevant.
Now I am not trying to get on your case, but it seems like perhaps this is only one small part of a much larger set of changes, and without all of them this change just looks like a substantial nerf to all martials.
If we include the standard action full attack mentioned later it begins to look better for the full BaB classes but hurts rogue badly and if monk is still forced to full round for flurry hurts monk as well.
Just in case I will provide math! I will leave out power attack/piranha strike due to your statement of not using them.
LVL 1:
Target AC:12
Items: None
Str:16 + 2 racial
Dex:13
Con:14
Wis:12
Int:10
Chr:10
Str:16 + 2 Racial
Dex:15
Con:12
Wis:12
Int:10
Chr:9
DPR= (.5(Chance to hit)* [7 (greatsword) + 6 (strength)])+(.5(Chance to hit) * [7 (greatsword) + 6 (strength)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.1 (Crit chance)) = 6.5 + 0.65
DPR= (.4(Chance to hit)* [7 (greatsword) + 6 (strength) + 3.5 (Sneak attack)])+(.4(Chance to hit) * [7 (greatsword) + 6 (strength)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.1 (Crit chance)) = 6.6 + 0.52
DPR= (.4(Chance to hit)* [7 (greatsword) + 6 (strength) + 3.5 (Sneak attack)])+(.4(Chance to hit) * [7 (greatsword) + 6 (strength)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.1 (Crit chance)) = 6.6 + 0.52
DPR= (.4(Chance to hit)* [3.5 (light mace) + 4 (strength) + 3.5 (Sneak attack)])+(.4(Chance to hit) * [3.5 (light mace) + 4 (strength)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.05 (Crit chance)) = (4.4 + 0.15) x 2
DPR= (.4(Chance to hit)* [3.5 (light mace) + 4 (strength) + 3.5 (Sneak attack)])+(.4(Chance to hit) * [3.5 (light mace) + 4 (strength)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.05 (Crit chance)) = (4.4 + 0.15) x 2
LVL 10:
Target AC: 24
Items: +3 Weapon (+2 TWF) + 4 Str item Generic +2 to hit to represent Weapon training/rage/favored enemy both level ups spent in Str
DPR= (.95(Chance to hit)* [7 (greatsword) + 10 (strength) + 3 (weapon) + 2 (generic)])+(.95(Chance to hit) * [7 (greatsword) + 10 (strength) + 3 (weapon) + 2 (generic)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.2 (Crit chance with improved crit)) = 20.9 + 4.18 = 25.08 DPR first attack
(7 [BaB] + 7 [Str] + 1 [Weapon Focus] + 3 [Weapon] + 2 [Generic]= 23)+20 to hit (+10 damage [two hand str] + 2d6 [greatsword] + 3 [weapon] + 2 [generic]) 2d6 (7 average) + 10 + 3 + 2 =22 damage at +20 to hit
DPR= (.90(Chance to hit)* [7 (greatsword) + 10 (strength) + 3 (weapon) + 2 (generic)])+(.90(Chance to hit) * [7 (greatsword) + 10 (strength) + 3 (weapon) + 2 (generic)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.2 (Crit chance with improved crit)) = 19.8 + 3.96 = 23.76 DPR second attack
DPR= (.75(Chance to hit)* [7 (greatsword) + 10 (strength) + 17.5 (Sneak attack) + 3 (weapon)])+(.75(Chance to hit) * [7 (greatsword) + 10 (strength) + 3 (Weapon)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.1 (Crit chance)) = 28.125 + 1.5
DPR= (.85(Chance to hit)* [7 (greatsword) + 10 (strength) + 17.5 (Sneak attack) + 3 (weapon)])+(.85(Chance to hit) * [7 (greatsword) + 10 (strength) + 3 (Weapon)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.1 (Crit chance)) = 31.875 + 1.7
DPR= (.7(Chance to hit)* [3.5 (light mace) + 7 (strength) + 17.5 (Sneak attack) + 2 (weapon)])+(.7(Chance to hit) * [3.5 (light mace) + 7 (strength) + 2 (Weapon)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.05 (Crit chance)) = (21 + 0.4375)x2
DPR= (.8(Chance to hit)* [3.5 (light mace) + 7 (strength) + 17.5 (Sneak attack) + 2 (weapon)])+(.8(Chance to hit) * [3.5 (light mace) + 7 (strength) + 2 (Weapon)] * 1 (critical modifier) * 0.05 (Crit chance)) = (24 + 0.48)x2
So by houseruling as follows you do make TWF superior for the rogue and let the fighter basically bootstrap himself up by giving him fewer attacks at higher attack bonuses.
1.) Ban Power attack and I assume Piranha attack and deadly aim.
2.) Eliminate the TWF to hit penalty.
3.) Give rogue a to hit bonus when SA'ing.
These DPR totals are also rather low.
Anything below 10 at level one is low, and anything below 55-60 at level 10 I would call low.
Now it seems like this modified BaB may work numerically for your heavily house ruled game, however I suspect you have quite a few rogue players that these changes have been made to appease.
In short you have brought TWF Up and all other martials down so as to allow TWF rogue to stay roughly even.
You have also eliminated choice. It is TWF or GTFO for all martials.
Hmm, looking at above I suspect the full BaB characters will just go TWF as well and wield Kukri's just some napkin math puts them at 70-75ish DPR when TWF.
No amount of "Bigger SWORDZ" will make up that difference.
Basically you have rewritten all of combat and Said "TWF only please".
Your rules are too different to comment on, apparently.
It is still not worth it to use a large sized bastard sword, though. You need to take a -2 to hit to use it and your damage only increases by 2 (going from 2d6 with the own-sized greatsword to 2d8 with the large bastard sword). That is a chump's game. I wish people would read all my responses. I have done breakdowns of similar rules like 5 times now (fun fact: power attack is really pretty unimpressive).
And even if it did make sense to wield a 2d8 weapon (vs. a 2d6 weapon) at -2, you still need to take exotic weapon proficiency to use most of those weapons (falcata really is actually the best with 2d6/19/x3, btw) and have limited yourself to a very small list of semi-viable (i.e. bad but not the worst) option. What if my zweihander guy wants a scythe? Where is my fighting style?
If you want something everyone can use, then I would suggest a scaling damage or defense bonus (from the "shield of swings" idea). Or maybe you could give this fighting style the 3.5 style cleave rules or something.
Not everything is about damage.
Since a character with 2-haded fighting style will be using a large sized weapon, he should receive a special size bonus to perform disarm and sunder maneuvers (Since in our game he is treated as being one size larger for purposes of these maneuvers. By Pathfinder Rules System, a Large size creature gains +1 to perform special maneuvers; By standard 3.5 rules a large size creature gains +4. We adopt something in the middle :+2 bonus for each size category difference, so Large vs. Medium gains +2, Large vs. Small gains +4, in sunder disarm and other special maneuvers).
But damage is not everything too. There is flavouer too. Some players just want to wield a very very large sword. To come to a tavern and make others see that no one can wield a sword bigger than then. Like...
Two of the things I just suggested had nothing to do with damage, man.
And I should hope that all flavors of characters are balanced well against each-other. Unless you are implying that cooler styles should be weaker to make up for other builds not being as sick-nasty badass? I am not sure what you are telling me.
On a related note, if Power Attack is not allowed in your games, how does one qualify for Improved Bull Rush, Cleave or any of the other 20+ feats that have it as a prerequisite?
Dont take it personal guys. I am not trying to show that Im better than you or that my system is better when I bring my house rules as side coments to this discussion.
Im here just to share with you some ideas an check if you think that they are ok, balanced and/or cool.
There are some people here taking my posts as personal ofense wich is very strange for me. This board is about house rules and homebrew, so I cant agree with Riuken that I wont have any relevant advice here, since I'm already having (not from him off course).
Will try to get some time to answer the other posts. Thats it for now.
Cheers.
|
|
I guess what I'm saying is that any advice we can give will be based on the assumption that everything about the base rules, other than what is specifically being discussed, is the same. As has been shown repeated times, that assumption is not true. Based on that, there are three outcomes of any insight into a houserule you present:
1) The advice given manages to address the houserule in a way that (coincidentally) doesn't interact with any other houserule you have not explained.
2) You present, in their entirety, all the houserules you use, and we can evaluate any specific houserule you want within the context of the game you play.
3) We give advice for houserules assuming there are no other unrevealed houserules, then that advice is invalidated by a response that cites a previously unrevealed houserule.
So far, this thread has mostly been #3. I really do want to hear about your houserules and evaluate them. I enjoy making, discussing, and testing my own houserules as well. I believe I've made a few attempts to discuss your houserules in a constructive manner. If I've come across in any way but helpful, it is unintentional. I want to help you, but without knowing the parameters of the system I can't make an accurate analysis of any components.