How does that input changes anything. We are discussing the book they are releasing. If they had good or bad reason to do a poor/good job is irrelevant. We discuss what we have and the direct cause of it. Since we don't work for paizo we can neither be favorable or hostile to them.
Wait wait wait... you're saying that the statements made on the forums are non-biased judgements based on evidence, and that all the posters are in fact neutral rather than having their own personal biases?
You, sir, have made my day. I haven't laughed that hard in a very long time.
Someone mentioned canny tumble as a problem, I was curious why. I mean other than it's a weaker reprint from Disorienting Maneuver in ultimate combat.
I think it's the requirements, actually. Canny Tumble lists Mobility as a prerequisite, but the Acrobatics skill and Canny Tumble in particular are all about avoiding AoOs, while mobility gives you a benefit while provoking AoOs. Thematically Mobility might make sense as a prerequisite, but it's an incredibly annoying feat tax for what's already a fairly underwhelming combat style.
I don't really think it should have a requirement at all apart from 5 ranks in acrobatics.
That said, I think there are worse feats than that in the ACG - I really, really struggle to envision a character who gets excited for Anticipate Dodge. Surprisingly harsh prerequisites (Dodge, Mobility, +7 BAB/lvl 4 monk or brawler) for a +1/+2 bonus on attack rolls against enemies who have dodge bonuses? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems really niche.
|
I think it's the requirements, actually. Canny Tumble lists Mobility as a prerequisite, but the Acrobatics skill and Canny Tumble in particular are all about avoiding AoOs, while mobility gives you a benefit while provoking AoOs. Thematically Mobility might make sense as a prerequisite, but it's an incredibly annoying feat tax for what's already a fairly underwhelming combat style.
This is why my House Rules include switching Mobility's effect to a +5 bonus on Acrobatics checks to avoid AoO (+10 if you have 10 or more ranks of Acrobatics). Seems more sensible and workable in many ways.
Some people like to acrobatic a lot, and at low lvl +2 is nothing to scoff at. Of course there already was a feat that did the exact same thing for less requirement(Disorienting Maneuver) so...
Actually Disorienting Maneuver requires you to acrobatic your way through the opponent's space while Canny Tumble requires you to acrobatic your way through the opponent's space or his threatened area. Granted, they're still extremely similar and I find both feats kind of underwhelming. Though I suppose you could take both of them and wear daredevil boots to get a +6 bonus to attacks whenever you tumble through an enemy's space?
This is why my House Rules include switching Mobility's effect to a +5 bonus on Acrobatics checks to avoid AoO (+10 if you have 10 or more ranks of Acrobatics). Seems more sensible and workable in many ways.
I think that's a very reasonable change, I just cut Mobility as a prerequisite. God, my house-rule document is getting so long. :(
|
|
This is why my House Rules include switching Mobility's effect to a +5 bonus on Acrobatics checks to avoid AoO (+10 if you have 10 or more ranks of Acrobatics). Seems more sensible and workable in many ways.I think that's a very reasonable change, I just cut Mobility as a prerequisite. God, my house-rule document is getting so long. :(
My logic had to do with the math of tumbling through opponent's threatened squares getting harder as you went up in level unless you took Skill Focus. I preferred to make there a useful Feat to take instead...and one useful in a lot of prerequisites seemed to qualify.
My logic had to do with the math of tumbling through opponent's threatened squares getting harder as you went up in level unless you took Skill Focus. I preferred to make there a useful Feat to take instead...and one useful in a lot of prerequisites seemed to qualify.This is why my House Rules include switching Mobility's effect to a +5 bonus on Acrobatics checks to avoid AoO (+10 if you have 10 or more ranks of Acrobatics). Seems more sensible and workable in many ways.I think that's a very reasonable change, I just cut Mobility as a prerequisite. God, my house-rule document is getting so long. :(
Ah, yes - I see what you mean. We solved that by tweaking the acrobatics DC for tumbling through threatened areas - the base DC is still based on the monster, but it ignores some of the CMD modifiers.
so, when will we get a stabbing grace feat for light weapons like, you know, daggers? shortwords? lots of those wonderful DEX-y weapons?
fencing grace works with *A* weapon.
slashing grace works with... 3 i think (dueling sword and a few others)?
and it's still better to just go with dervish dance and call it a day. you've accomplished nothing, paizo.
It won't be legal until PFS Origins is released. They announced it as an attempt to quiet the protests over how poorly they handled Slashing Grace.
Giving us a feat we can't use isn't going to quiet anything. I wish they'd think this kind of thing through beforehand.PFS isn't remotely the whole of those who use Pathfinder.
Still... Slashing Grace really wasn't very well thought.
|
|
Still... Slashing Grace really wasn't very well thought.Giving us a feat we can't use isn't going to quiet anything. I wish they'd think this kind of thing through beforehand.PFS isn't remotely the whole of those who use Pathfinder.
Wasn't really saying otherwise. Just disputing Casabrova's seeming assumption that everyone was involved with PFS.
Giving us a feat we can't use isn't going to quiet anything. I wish they'd think this kind of thing through beforehand.
Ughhh, agreed!
They could0d I guess just faq the feat to mean any weapon held in one hand, but that might be going too far the other way.The correct way is to FAQ/errata the feat, I have no idea how anyone could think differently. The "we will publish the fix in that other book", is a bad idea, seems to me that is very bad for the business.
actually it is by definition good for (their) business, since they're forcing you to buy another product.
actually it is by definition good for (their) business, since they're forcing you to buy another product.They could0d I guess just faq the feat to mean any weapon held in one hand, but that might be going too far the other way.The correct way is to FAQ/errata the feat, I have no idea how anyone could think differently. The "we will publish the fix in that other book", is a bad idea, seems to me that is very bad for the business.
Well, unless the new policy of "pay us for errata" ends up damaging the brand enough to offset additional profits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
true, but they'd need to really bear down on it to get enough folks to notice. everyone here knows this'll be but an unpleasant memory in a few months before the next book comes out (that we will excitedly shell out money for) and the process repeats itself when we notice the flaws in THAT. the problems of now will be forgotten in lieu of arguing and debating and pleading with paizo for a fix on the new material, and they'll throw us a bone or two and the arguments and debates and begging of right now will be completely forgotten. when we DO realize it's been ignored, they'll say it's been to long and to change it would invalidate the purchases of everyone earlier. it's how things in the CRB (those three classes we're not allowed to talk about) still haven't managed to be fixed.
neither we nor them will learn, and once the powercreep and bloat reach critical mass piazo (or another company) will consider a reboot, leaving all this to be ignored entirely as they make the same mistakes in the next version, which will in turn be met with this same process.
.
TL;DR:
problem -> complaints from userbase -> bone thrown to appease us until the next book release -> book release causes new problem -> complaints from userbase -> bone thrown to appease us etc. -> 'what about those other problems?' -> 'too late can't break pagecount and hurt the buyers'
repeat until too large to support itself, then reboot the series and begin again.
and while all of us might go 'oh there's no way that could happen to me, my input matters to paizo!', it really doesn't.
yes i'm bitter about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Path of War has Deadly Agility. Not that I am saying that I don't care about PFS players, but I have always been of the opinion that PFS is too restrictive and restricting the game the way PFS does defeats the purpose of an open ended game like table top gaming provides.
|
I almost never take Weapon Focus unless I have to. Homebrew-wise I've been thinking of non disruptive ways to merge it with another feat because locking yourself into one weapon has to have way more benefits than just a +1 bonus.I dunno, I consider "Here, take this Feat to gain a +1 to hit with a single type of weapon" fairly underwhelming.It's not only underwhelming (Hit stuff 5% more often... With a single type of weapon... Yay?), but also incredibly boring.
The only reason to take this feat is if it's a prerequisite for something else... And that is a horrible reason to take a feat.
Even if Weapon Focus just added +1 to CMD when using that weapon, it would be much better. +1 with one weapon is pretty boring and limited to spend a whole feat on, it's more of a trait.
Even better would be if it scaled a bit... say an additional +1 at 5/10/15/20. Or perhaps do that for fighters and +1 at 10/20 for others.
actually it IS a trait for a few weapons (there's trait bonuses to hit with things like improv weapons, aldori dueling swords and longswords, etc.), for the improv weapons one weapon focus is actually WORSE than the trait.
If they think Dex to damage is so powerful that it must be restricted to a single weapon and require 3 feats to work, I wish they would at least create a generic Int-to-damage feat that affected all weapons. And/or a Wis-to-damage feat that affected unarmed strikes, natural attacks and monk weapons. That would be good enough for me.
Personally I think Monks and possibly brawlers should treat their unarmed strikes and flurry of blows as having the guided special weapon ability. But Guided is not in PF and no one would be ok with a free +1 cost ability.
it's only an additional -2/-2 compared to a light weapon in the OH. Weapon Finesse is a tax so think of it as a -1/-1. A cursory glance at stackable to hit bonus' make me feel like -4/-4 isn't that rough. Way overblown reactions hehe
Personally, and please don't hate me, I'd have to say that I *like* the fact that dex-to-damage isn't available with light weapons for a few conceptual and mechanical reasons. I have no idea why that decision was made, but as for my own reasons...
Mechanically, I've always hated how Two-Weapon Fighting with a proper sword - to say nothing of two - was simply substandard; you made a flavor choice and dealt with it. To add insult to injury (well, for my sensibilities anyhow), you also wanted to dump strength completely (on a character whose M/O was to hit things after all) since Piranha Strike made strength obsolete.
Now the mechanics work out in two distinct 'styles', each valid:
A) You can be a classic 'knives' dex dual wielder who dumps Strength and uses Piranha Strike with two small weapons, or
B) You can be a 'swords' dex dual wielder who has to take enough strength to Power Attack and takes an attack penalty, but in exchange gets to stab and slice considerably harder.
Granted, its possibly to simply use an Agile weapon. But that brings me to the conceptual side of things: I can conceptualize dex-to-damage much more easily with a full-sized weapon than a light one. I can see using speed and momentum to slash or stab harder when your weapon has some real mass to it - Force = Mass x Acceleration, so bring some mass. The idea that you can use speed or agility to build up a heavy blow with a light little weapon sounds silly to me... without magic.
Dual Wield Axes because screw you :P
A Dwarven Swashbuckler with Fencing Grace and dual wield axes... it could be funny :P
"Screw yer and your big manly muscles!!! I Figh'!!! Wi' GRACE!!!!"
Personally I think Monks and possibly brawlers should treat their unarmed strikes and flurry of blows as having the guided special weapon ability. But Guided is not in PF and no one would be ok with a free +1 cost ability.
This is essentially what the Dawnflower Dervish Bard gets with the free Dervish Dance at level 1...
I can conceptualize dex-to-damage much more easily with a full-sized weapon than a light one. I can see using speed and momentum to slash or stab harder when your weapon has some real mass to it - Force = Mass x Acceleration, so bring some mass. The idea that you can use speed or agility to build up a heavy blow with a light little weapon sounds silly to me... without magic.
First thing first, realism doesn't get far in arguments about game mechanics.
Anyways, I actually look at it the opposite way. To hit and deal damage with a sword's cut or thrust (as opposed to straight bludgeoning force), you have to apply your weapon to the right spot on the enemy, and bring it in from the correct angle. Having some strength is important IRL precisely because it makes you faster. Dexterity is important in-game, because it is the attribute that governs speed and "aim".
I can conceptualize dex-to-damage much more easily with a full-sized weapon than a light one. I can see using speed and momentum to slash or stab harder when your weapon has some real mass to it - Force = Mass x Acceleration, so bring some mass. The idea that you can use speed or agility to build up a heavy blow with a light little weapon sounds silly to me... without magic.
Actually the true equation is
E(kinetic)=(1/2)mv^2
E=Kinetic Energy
m= mass of the object
v= velocity
This is teh guiding principle behind the M-16 and the 5.56 mm rifle. With this equation you would find that, technically, the M-16's 5.56 round actually possesses more KE than the AK-47's 7.62 round because the M-16's 948 m/s muzzle velocity is significantly faster than the AK47's 715 m/s muzzle velocity. With Velocity being squared, the increased weight of the 7.62 does not make up for the difference in velocity...
YAY physics xD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BUT!!! This is the kicker in this!
Due to the 5.56 round being so fast and light, and due to the aerodynamics of the round, despite it's higher KE, it actually has less stopping power than the 7.62.
This is because the round goes so fast and is so narrow that it will actually just shoot right through a person cleanly, having very little time to transfer its very KE into the target. There for, most kills from the 5.56 are more due to accuracy than the power of the bullet itself.
The 7.62, being a larger, slower round, has more area to tranfer it's KE with and more time to trasfer said KE.
This is why soldier's down range have noted that, they can shoot a guy multiple times with a M-16 and he can keep charging on, so long as he is not dead of immobalized, but a shot from an AK-47 round will put you on your rear very quick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(1/2(m1)(v1)^2)+(1/2(m2)(v2)^2)=(1/2(m1)(v1)t^2)+(1/2(m2)(v2)t^2)
Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy
(m1)(v1)+(m2)(v2)=(m1)(v1)t+(m2)(v2)t
Law of Conservation of Momentum
With these two you can more or less find the effects of KE from an Elastic Collision (which most Bullet to person collisions are xD)
But of course this also does not take into account things such as location of hit, general density of the area, balance points for a person(getting hit low is less likely to knock you down vs getting hit up high due to humans being top heavy), ect xD.
|
BUT!!! This is the kicker in this!
Due to the 5.56 round being so fast and light, and due to the aerodynamics of the round, despite it's higher KE, it actually has less stopping power than the 7.62.
This is because the round goes so fast and is so narrow that it will actually just shoot right through a person cleanly, having very little time to transfer its very KE into the target. There for, most kills from the 5.56 are more due to accuracy than the power of the bullet itself.
The 7.62, being a larger, slower round, has more area to tranfer it's KE with and more time to trasfer said KE.
This is why soldier's down range have noted that, they can shoot a guy multiple times with a M-16 and he can keep charging on, so long as he is not dead of immobalized, but a shot from an AK-47 round will put you on your rear very quick.
My understanding is that the design choice behind the new round is that it is LESS likely to kill.
The idea is that one dead soldier is one less enemy firing at you, but one injured soldier takes up two medical personell, taking three enemy soldiers out of the equation instead of just one if he's dead.
Do note that in inelastical collisions the Mechanical energy is not conserved.(1/2(m1)(v1)^2)+(1/2(m2)(v2)^2)=(1/2(m1)(v1)t^2)+(1/2(m2)(v2)t^2)
Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy
(m1)(v1)+(m2)(v2)=(m1)(v1)t+(m2)(v2)t
Law of Conservation of Momentum
With these two you can more or less find the effects of KE from an Elastic Collision (which most Bullet to person collisions are xD)
True true xD
I am a little rusty on my physics :P