|
Hmm. How does one know if an SLA is arcane or divine? Do you just have to guess?Nope. :)
Oh good.
Are there any spells unique to the newer spellcasting classes?
Of those, are there any that are shared only between newer classes?
I ask because I notice the list doesn't mention what to do if something for some reason is only on some combination of Magus, Witch, Inquisitor, and Shaman lists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're having a discussion about Power Attack and martials, not rogues. Sneak Attack is a source of raw, unmodified damage per hit that dramatically alters the focus of the character when sneak attacks are available- you want a hit at all costs, and trading to-hit for extra damage will likely only give you extra damage if you're extremely accurate to begin with- something rogues are not good at.
Also, you got your numbers wrong. Power Attack with a BAB of +7 is a modifier of -2/+4 or -2/+2, and you reduced the accuracy on the Power Attack calculation by 5 points rather than 2. I don't know if that was intentional or not, just pointing it out.
+2 Keen Rapier +15/+10 (1d6+9/15-20)
+2 Mithral Cestus +15/+10 (1d4+9/19-20)
Target AC: 24
Standard Routine: 25.02
Power Attack Routine: 24.28 (Loss of 3%)
Standard Routine w/ Sneak Attack: 58.26
Power Attack Routine w/ Sneak Attack: 50.52 (Loss of 13.3%)
Standard Routine w/ Sneak Attack via Flanking: 71.09
Power Attack Routine w/ Sneak Attack via Flanking: 64.59 (Loss of 9.2%)
Rapier
.6+.35 = .95 (confirmation .475)
12.5 Damage
30% crit
Cestus
.6+.35 = .95 (confirmation .475)
11.5 Damage
10% crit
[(.95*12.5)+(.95*12.5*.475*.3)]+[(.95*11.5)+(.95*11.5*.475*.1)]
[11.88 + 1.69] + [10.93 + .52] = 25.02
W/ Power Attack
+2 Keen Rapier +13/+8 (1d6+13/15-20)
+2 Mithral Cestus +13/+8(1d4+11/19-20)
Target AC: 24
Rapier
.5+.25 = .75 (confirmation .375)
16.5 Damage
30% crit
Cestus
.5+.25 = .75 (confirmation .375)
13.5 Damage
10% crit
[(.75*16.5)+(.75*16.5*.375*.3)]+[(.75*13.5)+(.75*13.5*.375*.1)]
[12.38 + 1.39] + [10.13 + .38] = 24.28
With Sneak Attack included you see:
W/out Power Attack
[(.95*30)+(.95*12.5*.475*.3)]+[(.95*29)+(.95*11.5*.475*.1)]
[28.5 + 1.69] + [27.55 + .52] = 58.26
W/ Power Attack
[(.75*34)+(.75*16.5*.375*.3)]+[(.75*31)+(.75*13.5*.375*.1)]
[25.5 + 1.39] + [23.25 + .38] = 50.52
Loss of 13.3%
Sneak Attack provided via flanking:
W/out Power Attack
[(1.15*30)+(1.15*12.5*.575*.3)]+[(1.15*29)+(1.15*11.5*.575*.1)]
[34.5 + 2.48] + [33.35 + .76] = 71.09
W/ Power Attack
[(.95*34)+(.95*16.5*.475*.3)]+[(.95*31)+(.95*13.5*.475*.1)]
[32.3 + 2.23] + [29.45 + .61] = 64.59
Loss of 9.2%
A less dramatic loss than you predicted. When sneak attacking you are correct that it's a much more significant loss of damage output, for the reasons mentioned above. Though... I'd be interested in seeing it under the conditions that would allow for a sneak attack aside from flanking. Those conditions improve accuracy (+2 for flanking, flat-footed, blind), which improves the returns (above, you just see a reduction in the loss, but it's a relevant trend). I suspect it would still be a poor choice for a TWF sneak attacker, but not quite as bad, and would shine in rare situations vs targets with very bad flat-footed AC or with large attack bonuses on their side.
However, since this is a discussion about martial characters, and not rogues (which don't really fit any character category- they're not exceptionally good at fighting, skills, or spellcasting), you'd be better off comparing Power Attack on an a slayer, which improves on the 'rogue' concept but retains the focus on Sneak Attack you chose the comparison for. I have to head out soon (classes and work in the morning), but I might put together an example for a non-sneak attack class using two weapon fighting later (TWF tends to devalue Power Attack when included in a character, as I suspect I'll see when I finish the calculations).
10th Level Slayer
Our Slayer: 22 Str (16 base, +2 Racial, +2 Levels, +2 Item), +10 BAB, Power Attack, Studied Target +3 (as Swift), TWF + Improved TWF, Double Slice, Critical Focus, +2 rapier and +2 kukri (a +3 equivalent and +2 weapon would be 26,600 gp, which is far too much gear expended on offense at this level and would leave the character defensively fragile)
Note: Slayers have significantly more access to bonus feats than rogues do, being able to take a combat style and Combat Trick. All the feats presented above were provided purely by class features, no character feats were spent.
CR 10 Average AC: 24
Standard Routine: +2 rapier +19/+19/+14/+14 (1d6+11/18-20)
+2 kukri +19/+19/+14/+14 (1d4+11/18-20)
Power Attack Routine: +2 rapier +16/+16/+11/+11 (1d6+17/18-20)
+2 kukri +16/+16/+11/+11 (1d4+14/18-20)
Standard Routine: 41.17
Standard Routine + Sneak Attack: 66.4
Standard + SA via Flanking: 79.49
Power Attack Routine: 43.09 (Gain of 4.7%)
Power Attack Routine + Sneak Attack: 65.13 (Loss of 1.9%)
Power + SA via Flanking: 78.22 (Loss of 1.6%)
Standard Routine
.8+.8+.55+.55 = 1.3/1.3 -> 2.7 (confirmation .875)
14.5/13.5 Damage
15%/10% Crit
[(1.3*14.5)+(1.3*14.5*.875*.15)]+[(1.3*13.5)+(1.3*13.5*.875*.15)]
[18.85 + 2.47] + [17.55 + 2.3] = 41.17
Plus Sneak Attack (+10.5)
[(1.3*25)+(1.3*14.5*.875*.15)]+[(1.3*24)+(1.3*13.5*.875*.15)]
[32.5 + 2.47] + [31.2 + 2.3] = 66.4
Plus Sneak Attack via Flanking (+2/+10.5)
[(1.5*25)+(1.5*14.5*.95*.15)]+[(1.5*24)+(1.5*13.5*.95*.15)]
[37.5 + 3.10] + [36 + 2.89] = 79.49
======
Power Attack Routine
.65+.65+.40+.40 = 1.05/1.05 -> 2.2 (confirmation .725)
20.5/16.5 Damage
15%/10% Crit
[(1.05*20.5)+(1.05*20.5*.725*.15)]+[(1.05*16.5)+(1.05*16.5*.725*.15)]
[21.53 + 2.34] + [17.33 + 1.89] = 43.09
Plus Sneak Attack (+10.05)
[(1.05*31)+(1.05*20.5*.725*.15)]+[(1.05*27)+(1.05*16.5*.725*.15)]
[32.55 + 2.34] + [28.35 + 1.89] = 65.13
Plus Sneak Attack via Flanking (+2/+10.05)
[(1.25*31)+(1.25*20.5*.825*.15)]+[(1.25*27)+(1.25*16.5*.825*.15)]
[38.75 + 3.17] + [33.75 + 2.55] = 78.22
Seems to match my hypothesis from earlier, though to a higher degree of devaluation.
I didn't present any statistics for two weapon fighters, since they're a lot less common, but I suspect they'd receive slightly worse benefits from Power Attack than the other two styles (deriving more of their power from the effects of Double Slice and Two Weapon Rend).
The returns from Power Attack in this case are a lot less significant than they are for traditional attackers. And, as stated above, it doesn't play nice with the conditional damage of abilities like Sneak Attack (and probably an inquisitor's Bane, as another example). I can't really confirm it without having more data points and information from non-sneak attack based classes, but I suspect you'll see Power Attack being less relevant at lower levels for TWF characters, scaling into a level of effectiveness that is still somewhat worse than it is for traditional attackers.
|
You said it like it was important, and not just a fiddly detail. If it wasn't important, why say it at all?I never said that it wasn't a good idea. I would have run the damage numbers if I had been making the attempt. I said that it's benefit was reduced with a full attack.
You're straw-manning me!
Because it is important. As I proved, power attack is of less benefit when full-attacking. I never said it was NO benefit, merely less. You put words in my mouth. Hence - straw-manning.
(And your math is bad. Adjust the pre-accuracy damage for crit % - not the accuracy. Or if you do - it's just a modifier. After that mistake - I stopped reading.)The crit percentage can be built into either part - multiplication doesn't care what order you do it in. There is actually a small mistake in the number for the third iterative for PA - it should be slightly larger. That doesn't change the final result of 21.
It can be - but you gave the full 10% crit chance as a boost to accuracy. That proves your math is bad. As I said (and you quoted) - it'd need to be a modifier, upping the 80% chance to 88% chance etc.
Doing it that way is much more work as you need to modify each number seperately as opposed to the damage on a hit once. The fact that you don't recognize that... so I ignored the rest of your 'calculations' since they'd already been corrupted.
|
Again with the dishonesty. A Rogue is not a martial character. It's a 3/4 BAB that does not have the accuracy to invest into Power Attack. It barely has the accuracy of a 1/2 BAB class because other classes (including 1/2 BAB classes) have methods of raising their to-hit rolls.
You have literally and I believe intentionally chosen the worst melee-build to use Power Attack on, with a class that is not a "martial", to use as evidence that Power Attack doesn't give big returns to "martials".
Lolwut?
If rogue is not pure martial combatant, what is he? A caster? Gish?
I've built a legal, and even semi-optimized, martial character using a core rulebook class. Given an example that disagrees with your preconceptions, you take your usual stance and dismiss anything that contradicts your world view.
I have provided my proof. Your response: change the definition of martial.
If the definition is made narrow enough, nearly any claim can be shown to be true. In the general sense, however, you are wrong and know it. There are many melee focused builds that are better off not using Power Attack.
|
|
That's fair. I'm not certain what you'd take instead trying to get a damage output boost like Power Attack provides, though.
An alternate was provided for TWF builds (assuming double slice is used by both builds): Arcane Strike. The off-hand damage bonus is identical to Power Attack. The main-hand damage bonus is 1/2 Power Attack. With only a marginal difference is damage, accuracy become more important.
Again with the dishonesty. A Rogue is not a martial character. It's a 3/4 BAB that does not have the accuracy to invest into Power Attack. It barely has the accuracy of a 1/2 BAB class because other classes (including 1/2 BAB classes) have methods of raising their to-hit rolls.
You have literally and I believe intentionally chosen the worst melee-build to use Power Attack on, with a class that is not a "martial", to use as evidence that Power Attack doesn't give big returns to "martials".
Lolwut?
If rogue is not pure martial combatant, what is he? A caster? Gish?
I've built a legal, and even semi-optimized, martial character using a core rulebook class. Given an example that disagrees with your preconceptions, you take your usual stance and dismiss anything that contradicts your world view.
I have provided my proof. Your response: change the definition of martial.
Actually no. She defined what she refers to as martials A LONG TIME AGO. IN RESPONSE TO YOU. You just chose to ignore it.
A martial is:
D10 HD (or greater)
Full BAB
Primary Focus of Class abilities toward combat.
This would make the Martial classes:
Slayer
Fighter
Barbarian
Cavaliar
Samurai
Swashbuckler
Gunslinger
Ranger
Paladin
Bloodrager
Brawler
Now this is not to be confused with MARTIAL FOCUSED classes which are non-martial classes that pretend to be. This catagory would be things like:
Rogues
Monks
magus
Cleric
Druid
Alchemist
Bard
Skald
If rogue is not pure martial combatant, what is he? A caster? Gish?Again with the dishonesty. A Rogue is not a martial character. It's a 3/4 BAB that does not have the accuracy to invest into Power Attack. It barely has the accuracy of a 1/2 BAB class because other classes (including 1/2 BAB classes) have methods of raising their to-hit rolls.
You have literally and I believe intentionally chosen the worst melee-build to use Power Attack on, with a class that is not a "martial", to use as evidence that Power Attack doesn't give big returns to "martials".
Lolwut?
An NPC
Or better known in PF as a pure skill monkey.
|
|
In theory the martials are just as dangerous.
Having your monsters reinforce martial vs caster disparity with their opinion of martials is bound to ruffle some feathers.
And if you don't want monsters' to display a low opinion of martial PCs, such that it reinforces a perception of martial vs caster disparity, then you should ask Paizo writers to cease baking martial vs caster disparity into the official written rules.
As long as it is more advantageous for monsters to ignore the line defence and sack the quarterback, then that is what they should do.
If the martial PCs are not capable of preventing or discouraging enemies from rushing past them, then they are explicitly not 'just as dangerous'.
Damn Forgot the Hunter, Inquisitor, investigator, and Warpriest in my post :P
If the martial PCs are not capable of preventing or discouraging enemies from rushing past them, then they are explicitly not 'just as dangerous'.
Well, "discouraging" is strictly in the GM's perogative, and that's part of the issue. In actual gridiron football, there are limits on what the linebackers can and will do to get to the quarterback (or when they get there), limits that if violated can result in significant problems. (That's why linebackers don't carry brass knuckles openly; the idea of being ejected from the game is a deterrent.)
If you've decided as the game master that the orc band will suicidally charge the front lines, eating all of the AoOs and dying in droves, so that a single orc can survive the gauntlet and inflict a relatively minor injury on the mage, that violates any sort of reasonable behavior on the part of the orcs. And of course if you decide that they can't be discouraged, then they can't be discouraged. But that's YOU deciding to reinforce the martial v. caster disparity, not the official written rules.
If the martial PCs are not capable of preventing or discouraging enemies from rushing past them, then they are explicitly not 'just as dangerous'.Well, "discouraging" is strictly in the GM's perogative, and that's part of the issue. In actual gridiron football, there are limits on what the linebackers can and will do to get to the quarterback (or when they get there), limits that if violated can result in significant problems. (That's why linebackers don't carry brass knuckles openly; the idea of being ejected from the game is a deterrent.)
If you've decided as the game master that the orc band will suicidally charge the front lines, eating all of the AoOs and dying in droves, so that a single orc can survive the gauntlet and inflict a relatively minor injury on the mage, that violates any sort of reasonable behavior on the part of the orcs. And of course if you decide that they can't be discouraged, then they can't be discouraged. But that's YOU deciding to reinforce the martial v. caster disparity, not the official written rules.
But at the same what if the creature has high DR? He knows full well he can walk rightby the martial and only suffer the most minor of injuries....
But at the same what if the creature has high DR? He knows full well he can walk rightby the martial and only suffer the most minor of injuries....
If you've decided as the game master that the orc band will suicidally charge the front lines, eating all of the AoOs and dying in droves, so that a single orc can survive the gauntlet and inflict a relatively minor injury on the mage, that violates any sort of reasonable behavior on the part of the orcs. And of course if you decide that they can't be discouraged, then they can't be discouraged. But that's YOU deciding to reinforce the martial v. caster disparity, not the official written rules.
Well, in that case the charge isn't suicidal, although it still might be tactically inadvisable from the creature's perspective for various reasons.
Even "the most minor of injuries" is still, realistically, unpleasant -- and there's no reason that Gorbag should want to take a hit for Snagrat, all else being equal. The Dark Lord may not care whether or not any of his orc minions survive, or which ones are the ones to die, but Gorbag should care very deeply that he himself not be among the casualties.
|
|
Although is is true that caster can be stronger thatn martials, it is also true that a good builded martial can kill almost any CR apromiated enemy in one full attack. Ignoring that is not very smart.
Good job then, that running past the martial character prevents them from taking a full attack.
Standing toe-to-toe = incur multiple attacks (dependent on level, build and haste).
Running past = one AoO, followed by one attack in the martial's subsequent turn.
And while movement also prevents the monster from taking a full attack, that isn't always a disadvantage.
Any creature with one, large natural attack will only be making one attack per round anyway, therefore they lose nothing.
|
|
Actually no. She defined what she refers to as martials A LONG TIME AGO. IN RESPONSE TO YOU. You just chose to ignore it.
Except when the to-hit penalties decrease your DPR by an amount equal to or greater than your gain. A common occurrence with TWF builds. With TWF rogues, it's not even a close call, Power Attack is a strict decrease in damage against all but the lowest AC opponents. Monks also encounter this issue. Arcane Strike, on the other hand, is a strict DPR increase for TWF builds. Even with full BAB TWF builds, Arcane Strike is the better choice at many levels when facing a +2 APL or higher encounter.Wrath, I recommend to go look at the breakdown I posted purely for your benefit earlier, and you are now completely ignoring. Power Attack is a straight up damage buff for all martials, one and two handed, throughout the entire game. And a significant one.
If Power Attack is not standard in your "neck of the woods", it's not a matter of playstyle difference. It's a matter of people failing to understand the math behind why it's always a good choice to include on a melee focused character.
Cool. Share them. I did. Claiming the numbers exist without being willing to prove it is not in the least bit helpful.
Lets review what was said earlier in the thread. I emphasized the relevant parts for you.
Build and numbers were provided proving my statement. The response: change the conditions to a much narrower range of builds.
|
|
Although is is true that caster can be stronger thatn martials, it is also true that a good builded martial can kill almost any CR apromiated enemy in one full attack. Ignoring that is not very smart.Good job then, that running past the martial character prevents them from taking a full attack.
Only if the martial permits you to run past and is unable to move + attack. A lot of maritals, especially fighters, are going to have feats that make running pasts them either expensive or impossible. Other classes, barbarian, cavalier, magus and monk, have options that allow them to move and full attack.
Only if the martial permits you to run past and is unable to move + attack. A lot of maritals, especially fighters, are going to have feats that make running pasts them either expensive or impossible. Other classes, barbarian, cavalier, magus and monk, have options that allow them to move and full attack.Although is is true that caster can be stronger thatn martials, it is also true that a good builded martial can kill almost any CR apromiated enemy in one full attack. Ignoring that is not very smart.Good job then, that running past the martial character prevents them from taking a full attack.
Um, unless you are a combat patrol+standstill build it is no less impossible to get past you than any one else...
|
|
Um, unless you are a combat patrol+standstill build it is no less impossible to get past you than any one else...Only if the martial permits you to run past and is unable to move + attack. A lot of maritals, especially fighters, are going to have feats that make running pasts them either expensive or impossible. Other classes, barbarian, cavalier, magus and monk, have options that allow them to move and full attack.Although is is true that caster can be stronger thatn martials, it is also true that a good builded martial can kill almost any CR apromiated enemy in one full attack. Ignoring that is not very smart.Good job then, that running past the martial character prevents them from taking a full attack.
I believe Stand Still makes it more than just a little difficult.
Or I could trip you.
Or I could have Following Step + Step Up & Strike
All of those were put forward much earlier in the thread.
Um, unless you are a combat patrol+standstill build it is no less impossible to get past you than any one else...Only if the martial permits you to run past and is unable to move + attack. A lot of maritals, especially fighters, are going to have feats that make running pasts them either expensive or impossible. Other classes, barbarian, cavalier, magus and monk, have options that allow them to move and full attack.Although is is true that caster can be stronger thatn martials, it is also true that a good builded martial can kill almost any CR apromiated enemy in one full attack. Ignoring that is not very smart.Good job then, that running past the martial character prevents them from taking a full attack.I believe Stand Still makes it more than just a little difficult.
Or I could trip you.
Or I could have Following Step + Step Up & Strike
You are aware that Trip pretty much fails to be very good beyond like level 7 right?
|
|
You are aware that Trip pretty much fails to be very good beyond like level 7 right?Um, unless you are a combat patrol+standstill build it is no less impossible to get past you than any one else...Only if the martial permits you to run past and is unable to move + attack. A lot of maritals, especially fighters, are going to have feats that make running pasts them either expensive or impossible. Other classes, barbarian, cavalier, magus and monk, have options that allow them to move and full attack.Although is is true that caster can be stronger thatn martials, it is also true that a good builded martial can kill almost any CR apromiated enemy in one full attack. Ignoring that is not very smart.Good job then, that running past the martial character prevents them from taking a full attack.I believe Stand Still makes it more than just a little difficult.
Or I could trip you.
Or I could have Following Step + Step Up & Strike
I'm aware that certain classes, when built for it, can trip damn near anything not completely immune to trip. At any level of play.
And you have no response to the other options, which tend to come online at higher level.
You are aware that Trip pretty much fails to be very good beyond like level 7 right?Um, unless you are a combat patrol+standstill build it is no less impossible to get past you than any one else...Only if the martial permits you to run past and is unable to move + attack. A lot of maritals, especially fighters, are going to have feats that make running pasts them either expensive or impossible. Other classes, barbarian, cavalier, magus and monk, have options that allow them to move and full attack.Although is is true that caster can be stronger thatn martials, it is also true that a good builded martial can kill almost any CR apromiated enemy in one full attack. Ignoring that is not very smart.Good job then, that running past the martial character prevents them from taking a full attack.I believe Stand Still makes it more than just a little difficult.
Or I could trip you.
Or I could have Following Step + Step Up & Strike
I'm aware that certain classes, when built for it, can trip damn near anything not completely immune to trip. At any level of play.
And you have no response to the other options, which tend to come online at higher level.
So every martial is a Lore Warden Trip Master or Human (Racial heritage Halfling) Underfoot Adept... Cool...
Barbarian is no better at stopping a guy walking right by him. If the enemy walks right by him, he ain't stopping him. Sure he can kill, ON HIS TURN, but for that monster's turn he ain't doing anything other than hittin him for an AoO... This is pretty much true of all the classes... The only ways you are actively stopping a guy from walking right by you is if:
You have the Standstill Feat
Youa re grappling them
you trip them
You have grab on an attack (so you get a free grapple check on yoru AoO)
They failed a save vs your stunning fist
They are dead (like... dead dead. not mostly dead... not undead... just dead)
You are a flowing monk and performed a reposition check on your AoO and moved them somwhere else xD
The conditions didn't change, Artanthos. You presented a rogue calculation as if it were a martial calculation, which wasn't appropriate to the discussion. I helped you out and made some slayer calculations, which should have (and did) provide a more accurate comparison.
Why are you still being aggro? A conceded a point in my post, did you read it?
When sneak attacking you are correct that it's a much more significant loss of damage output, for the reasons mentioned above. Though... I'd be interested in seeing it under the conditions that would allow for a sneak attack aside from flanking. Those conditions improve accuracy (+2 for flanking, flat-footed, blind), which improves the returns (above, you just see a reduction in the loss, but it's a relevant trend). I suspect it would still be a poor choice for a TWF sneak attacker, but not quite as bad, and would shine in rare situations vs targets with very bad flat-footed AC or with large attack bonuses on their side.(TWF tends to devalue Power Attack when included in a character, as I suspect I'll see when I finish the calculations)
It might not have been your intent, but you revealed that Sneak Attack and other abilities that provide large, flat bonuses to damage and not accuracy devalue Power Attack. And gave some evidence to further my hypothesis that TWF devalues it as well.
Now, we'll need to see some numbers on what Power Attack look like for TWF without one of those abilities.
Aside, I think we might have two fundamentally different reasons for having this conversation. What I'm trying to do here is share the knowledge I have about how the game works, and learn what I can from what other people have presented. I could be wrong (please tell me if I am, I don't want to misrepresent you!), but it seems like you're trying to convince people that you're right. That's not fundamentally a bad thing, depending on your circle, just seems different from what I'm doing.
Oh... and flight is a thing...
|
|
So every martial is a Lore Warden Trip Master or Human (Racial heritage Halfling) Underfoot Adept... Cool...
No, which is why I listed a range of options.
And barbarians won't care if opponents choose to take the AoO and walk past. I've already covered the barbarian response: pounce.
By the time trip become less viable, other options are already opening up.
|
|
The conditions didn't change, Artanthos. You presented a rogue calculation as if it were a martial calculation, which wasn't appropriate to the discussion. I helped you out and made some slayer calculations, which should have (and did) provide a more accurate comparison.
When I stated I had numbers, I explicitly included the TWF rogue as an example. You challenged me for those numbers, I provided them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even know what Varisian Tattoo is. It's not in any of the books I own. A trait? A feat? An item? Although it sounds like it would be banned as cheese in any game I play in so I don't really care.Really? Wow. I thought that was the standard for blasty wizards.Spell Specialization + Varisian Tattoo with Empowered Spell and Admixture is standard for blast wizards.I've seen lots of blast casters (sorcerer and wizard) and I've never seen that combo in gameUm... what? Its a feat....
For your information the standard blaster has:
Magical Lineage-Fireball
Spell Hunter-Fireball
Dazing Spell
Empower Spell
Intensify Spell
Varisian Spell Tattoo
Spell Focus (evocation)
G.Spell Focus (evocation)
Spell Perfection (fireball)Rod of Quickening/maximize.
Of Course if you really feel like ramping things up you can always grab things like:
Goblin fire Drum
or
Blood mage Initiate.Just speaking for me, I wouldn't be able to look my fellow players in the eye if I showed up with this cheesy cookie-cutter video-game munchkin build.
Just because something can be done doesn't always mean it should be.
What is wrong with it?
If you pick evocation as your PRIMARY SCHOOL, how is it cheesy to take Spell focus/G.Spell focus IN YOUR CHOSEN SCHOOL?
If you are an evoker, chances are you want to enjoy blowing things up. Otherwise, WHY THE HECK DID YOU PICK EVOCATION AS YOUR SCHOOL??? So empower, maximize, and intensify are very obvious choices because they only really deal with damage spells (sure empower can affect more than damage but the spells that are an OBVIOUS fit are the blast spells).
Dazing Spell is just a good meta-magic that just about any caster short of a buffer/transmuter should pick up.
So the only real feats that ramp up yoru evocation beyond what would normally make sense to pick are Varisian Spell Tattoo (evocation), the two traits, and Spell Perfection. Beyond that there is nothing special about the feats beyond workong on improving YOUR SPECIALIZATION YOU PICKED AT LEVEL 1.
Unless you are saying it is cheesy and cookie cutter for archers to grab point blank shot, precise shot, and rapid shot?
Or it is cheesy for people who want to TWF to grab TWF/ITWF/GTWF?
I mean, it is VERY BASIC right here... hence why I said if you WANT to get cheesy then you add things like the Goblin Fire Drums, Blood Mage Initiate, and Maybe even go into bloatmage and add a level dip into Crossblooded Sorcerer with Dragon/Orc beign your bloodlines.
Oh... and flight is a thing...Yes.
For everyone, of any class, who chooses to invest.
Unless your implying it is casters trying to blitz past the front line.
Do your parties never fight monsters?
You are aware that Trip pretty much fails to be very good beyond like level 7 right?
I don't believe this for a moment. I've seen people (successfully) tripping up a storm well past 15th-level.
|
|
Do your parties never fight monsters?Oh... and flight is a thing...Yes.
For everyone, of any class, who chooses to invest.
Unless your implying it is casters trying to blitz past the front line.
Yes.
We also spend a lot of time indoors, where you would need an overrun maneuver to get past the front line.
Not to mention, a lot of monsters won't have the intelligence to differentiate between martial and caster.
Well, the reason is that high value targets usually have a means of flight (a large portion of high level monsters, especially outsiders, and PC classed foes who can sometimes afford means of flight), which makes them immune to tripping, at higher levels. You can still totally trip landbound brutes and the like... but they weren't generally a threat to begin with since you could just take to the skies and shoot them to death.
Mind you, this doesn't apply to everyone's game, but in the game's default considerations it does.
No tactic will work always, specially the "i eat the AoO in order to charge the unarmored guy"Do your parties never fight monsters?Oh... and flight is a thing...Yes.
For everyone, of any class, who chooses to invest.
Unless your implying it is casters trying to blitz past the front line.
I didn't mean to imply that it would, but it seemed to me he was implying that getting flight would always be an investment for an opponent. I don't agree with the "always kill the spellcasters", but the fans of martials as area control characters should acknowledge that they might be dealing with a cleric who wants to buff themselves for combat and enter melee with air walk, as an example. I don't really have the play experience to comment on the particulars of strategy/success beyond that.
What is wrong with it?The double dipping of traits is a bit cheesy, especially given how niche spell hunter is. Dazing Spell is blatant cheese and a terrible feat for the game. The only reason Spell Perfection is not a major problem is that it only turns up after most campaigns have finished.
Personally I would dump Intensify and Varisian Tattoo for Greater Spell Penetration and, depending on what level you were starting with, switch to a higher level spell like Chain Lightning.
Dazing Spell is not "cheesy"... Now putting Dazing Spell with Spell Perfection may be but other wise it is just a good meta-magic. The spell slot increase is nothing to sneeze at either... that is a HUGE jump in spell level just to put daze on a spell.
I mentioned that the Traits are kind of on the Niche side. And really, only Spell hunter is very niche. Magical Lineage is a very common trait.
Intensify and Varisian Spell Tattoo are much better because they allow you to utilize your spells for longer and increase CL, which for blasters is their primary goal. The higher your caster level, the more damage you can do.
|
|
But at the same what if the creature has high DR?
If the martial PCs are not capable of preventing or discouraging enemies from rushing past them, then they are explicitly not 'just as dangerous'.Well, "discouraging" is strictly in the GM's perogative, and that's part of the issue. In actual gridiron football, there are limits on what the linebackers can and will do to get to the quarterback (or when they get there), limits that if violated can result in significant problems. (That's why linebackers don't carry brass knuckles openly; the idea of being ejected from the game is a deterrent.)
If you've decided as the game master that the orc band will suicidally charge the front lines, eating all of the AoOs and dying in droves, so that a single orc can survive the gauntlet and inflict a relatively minor injury on the mage, that violates any sort of reasonable behavior on the part of the orcs. And of course if you decide that they can't be discouraged, then they can't be discouraged. But that's YOU deciding to reinforce the martial v. caster disparity, not the official written rules.
Why are your humanoid enemies in question trying to scoot past the front line to melee the mage? If they have an int higher than like, 6, wouldn't they be smart enough to have their warriors (who are proficient in martial weapons) start with bows, and just target the mage or cleric?
In my experience (and games I'm GMing) that's what happens. I suppose I did once play with that group where none of them took any ranged weapons. It was both baffling and hilarious.
If the enemy group has warriors, and they weren't just hanging out in the barracks or training with swords (they're geared up for raiding or whatever), then I don't see any reason why at least 1/3 of them aren't at least carrying shortbows as a backup in case they need to do ranged attacks.
perhaps a spell storing weapon with the right spell (no idea what spell at the moment though)
A Spell Storing weapon charged with unadulterated loathing, force punch (given the right positioning), or slow would be excellent ways to restrict people's movement, probably through a spiked gauntlet rather than your primary weapon.
|
|
TWF Rogue as a Martial
Wasn't it just earlier in this thread that it was spelled out (possibly even by pixie dust) that if you have 3/4 BAB and a d8, you're not a martial, even if you're doing your best to fake it?
Martials have to-hit bonuses to spare for something like power attack, most 3/4 BAB classes don't (unless you've somehow given yourself massive strength buffs or some such.
I think we all just kindof missed your claim that a Rogue counted as a martial (it's not. - see below); I missed that even after you posted your build. I thought you were just showing an example of where Power Attack hurts more than it helps.
That said, your rogue build did seem to do a pretty good job faking it, considering that it isn't a martial.
3/4 Classes that aren't martials:
Cleric, Druid, Magus, Summoner, Monk, Rogue.
Clerics do okay for AC, and can be built to do melee alright, but they don't have the to-hit bonuses to spare that a martial would.
Druid might, depending on the size of the strength buff from whatever he's turned into, but he might not have sufficient damage.
Magus doesn't have the to-hit bonuses to spare. Yes he can keep up with monster AC if built for it.
Monks could serve as martials if you could buff their AC to survivable levels without crippling their offense, but they can only serve as martials while flurrying. and their to-hit bonuses are quite low for a martial, even then.
A summoner is can't serve as a martial (though the pet might some close), but a Synthesist Summoner CAN be. The massive strength bonuses can close the DPR gap for only having medium BAB, Natural Armor and HP are easy to keep pace with the fighter, and the number of attacks can be made up for by giving your Synthesist a natural attack that doesn't take the use of his hands.
As for rogues, well, they can't keep up in combat unless you optimize them for it, and their out of combat abilities don't do enough to make up for that. All of their skill points (over a ranger, and where the common consensus says a fighter should start to be reasonable) are worth 4 feats (favored class = toughness) - and I would not call those the best choices of feats (I don't think you really need 8/level, 6/level should be fine for most skilled builds, and I certainly wouldn't want to give up the in combat utility to have it), the drop in HD is worth a feat (toughness) so 3 feats, and the drop in BAB is worth significantly more than 1 feat (weapon focus) - probably AT LEAST 3 feats; and the rogue talents are nice but most are weaker than an actual feat. The way I see it is that the rogue (maybe not the ninja, but the rogue) is mostly a weakened nonmartial fighter that gets some interesting but underpowered options which a fighter does not. They get a good number of options, but the options they get don't have sufficient power.
If rogue is not pure martial combatant, what is he? A caster? Gish?A failure.
This is the most entertaining statement I've read on these boards.
But honestly, I would say the Rogue (sans archetypes or ninja) is the best of the NPC classes, but not as good as a Fighter, the worst of the PC classes. I'd put a stock Monk in the same category as a Rogue. Archetypes and Alternate classes of course can shore up this disparity, at least somewhat.
But generally, if I want a Rogue, I typically say "okay, this is Pathfinder" and then build some kind of a Ranger (Martial) or Bard (Utility) that does the rogue things I want.
It's an okay 1-3 level dip to put sneak attack and some extra skill points on your Martial class Though, if you really want it, you're trading +1 to hit (*and delayed full attack) for +3.5 damage, and you can do it twice. It may be better to go Rogue 1/(Assassin or Master Spy) 1; to give up the same amount of BAB, but miss less levels of your actual class. Rogue 1/Assassin 1/ Fighter X.
|
|
Do your parties never fight monsters?Oh... and flight is a thing...Yes.
For everyone, of any class, who chooses to invest.
Unless your implying it is casters trying to blitz past the front line.
Is it weird if the party isn't mostly fighting monsters?
At least 50% of what my parties face (probably more) are NPCs or the sort of Intelligent Monsters (Goblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Lizardfolk, Minotaurs, Orcs, etc) which are inclined to also have class levels.
They don't run into that many dumb beasts, and I continue to make use of monstrous races all the way up. Minotaurs with levels in Barbarian or Fighter are fairly common occurrences, as are Hobgoblin Fighters or Lizardfolk Druids, or what have you.
Do your parties never fight monsters?Oh... and flight is a thing...Yes.
For everyone, of any class, who chooses to invest.
Unless your implying it is casters trying to blitz past the front line.
Is it weird if the party isn't mostly fighting monsters?
At least 50% of what my parties face (probably more) are NPCs or the sort of Intelligent Monsters (Goblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Lizardfolk, Minotaurs, Orcs, etc) which are inclined to also have class levels.
Not weird at all. The vast majority of what my players have faced in Skull and Shackles have been humanoids.